New(ish) Rambo shooter

[Trebeck]

I would love to try this.  Looks like a fun time.

http://www.gametrailers.com/user-movie/new-rambo-arcade/222774


http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/10/rambo-shoots-up/

[Dartful Dodger]

I played it at Dave and Busters two weeks ago.  It's a two player shooting game for Rambo fans.

It jumps from scenes from the Rambo movies back to the game with a narrator explaining what's going on.  Most of it is cheezy and some of it is just dumb, like when he says "Rambo must enter the camp alone to save Col. What's His Name", it's a two player game and the second player is suppose to be Col. What's His Name, so if your player two you're saving yourself.

All and all it's a fun game and since I haven't been to an arcade-ish place in 10+ years and Rambo was the only game in D&B that they didn't have 10 years ago we played it until we solved it.



Off topic, D&B was packed which was nice to see, but it was sad to see that after 10+ years arcade games haven't advanced at all.

[Beretta]

Off topic, D&B was packed which was nice to see, but it was sad to see that after 10+ years arcade games haven't advanced at all.

ya arcade is dead, more money in pc and console now.

i remember when the graphics in teh arcade was to be lusted over compared to what you could get on your home console..

i'd say playstation was probably the turning point where you could get as good if not better then arcade at home and that was the nail in the coffin.

when i heard midway killed their coin op division it was truly over for me.

redemption games started taking over the place, pinball and skeeball are probably the only 2 games that can still hold up since how many people have those at home? and the cut down cheap home versions of those just plain suck.

[jasonbar]

I played Rambo last month.  I didn't think it was very fun.  Definitely cheesy.

Right next to it was Namco's new Razing Storm.

Oh.

Mah.

Gawd.

Razing Storm is unbelievably awesome.

-Jason

[DJ_Izumi]

I've seen two different versions of this cab.  The DX seems to use Uzis while the SD cab uses far more comfortable to hold Ghost Squad style MP5 like thingies.  I'd opt for the MP5.  My hand get tired holding pistol type weapons.

Now, this Namco Razing Storm interests me.  It runs on the 357 which is PS3 based arcade hardware.  Maybe we'll actually see this game on PS3 at home and there will FINALLY be a second Guncon 3 game. :/

[MaximRecoil]

i'd say playstation was probably the turning point where you could get as good if not better then arcade at home and that was the nail in the coffin.

PlayStation was weak compared to the typical arcade hardware of the time. The PS came out around the same time as Cruis'n USA and even though there was no PS port for it, it wouldn't have been able to handle the game any better than the Nintendo 64 did (the N64 version was pretty bad). The N64 was newer hardware than the PS and was more graphically capable (compare its version of Hydro Thunder to the PS's version of example), and even it couldn't match the arcade hardware of the time.

The first console with true arcade capabilities was the Neo Geo AES/MVS from 1990, because it was arcade hardware. However, it was never mainstream due to its prohibitively high price. The first mainstream console with true arcade capabilities was the Sega Dreamcast from 1998 which also was [essentially] built from actual arcade hardware (Sega NAOMI hardware).

[isucamper]

i'd say playstation was probably the turning point where you could get as good if not better then arcade at home and that was the nail in the coffin.

PlayStation was weak compared to the typical arcade hardware of the time. The PS came out around the same time as Cruis'n USA and even though there was no PS port for it, it wouldn't have been able to handle the game any better than the Nintendo 64 did (the N64 version was pretty bad). The N64 was newer hardware than the PS and was more graphically capable (compare its version of Hydro Thunder to the PS's version of example), and even it couldn't match the arcade hardware of the time.

The first console with true arcade capabilities was the Neo Geo MVS from 1990, because it was arcade hardware. However, it was never mainstream due to its prohibitively high price. The first mainstream console with true arcade capabilities was the Sega Dreamcast from 1998 which also was [essentially] built from actual arcade hardware (Sega NAOMI hardware).

You can't really count the Neo Geo.  That's like saying the NES was the first console with true arcade capabilities because it was arcade hardware (via the line of Nintendo VS games in the arcades).  That and you had Neo Geo carts being released well into the new millenia long after it had become obsolete.

I think you've got to look at which home console was able to port arcade games with accuracy.  The Super NES and Genesis were really the first home consoles with accurate arcade ports.  The Playstation had a bunch too.  Could they play the newest and best arcade games at the time?  No, but they played quite a few of them.  

[MaximRecoil]

You can't really count the Neo Geo.  That's like saying the NES was the first console with true arcade capabilities because it was arcade hardware (via the line of Nintendo VS games in the arcades).  That and you had Neo Geo carts being released well into the new millenia long after it had become obsolete.

No. The Vs. arcade hardware was essentially NES hardware that was well behind the typical arcade hardware of the day. The Vs./NES hardware wasn't even on par with the arcade hardware used in Mario Bros. from 1983, and definitely wasn't on par with their Punch-Out hardware from 1984. The Vs. system came out in 1985, two years after its hardware was created (Famicom hardware 1983); hardware which was designed as home console hardware that wasn't in the league of 1983 arcade hardware (it wasn't even in the league of 1981 arcade hardware; compare NES Donkey Kong to the real thing). 

The Neo Geo AES/MVS on the other hand, was true arcade hardware, given that it was designed as such. Its specs put it in the same league as Capcom's CPS1 hardware, which ran Street Fighter II (1991) and many other Capcom arcade games from that era. 

I think you've got to look at which home console was able to port arcade games with accuracy.  The Super NES and Genesis were really the first home consoles with accurate arcade ports.  The Playstation had a bunch too.  Could they play the newest and best arcade games at the time?  No, but they played quite a few of them.   

The SNES was not capable of matching the capabilities of the arcade hardware of the day (and the Genesis definitely wasn't). The SNES's port of SFII was amazing in terms of playability (essentially the same as the arcade), but it had numerous downgrades to the graphics and audio to allow it to run on the weaker hardware.

I still maintain that not counting the somewhat obscure Neo Geo console, the Dreamcast was the first system with true arcade capabilities for the time. It had less video RAM than the NAOMI arcade system, but not all NAOMI games used the additional RAM, and could therefore be directly run on the Dreamcast; and that is as perfect of an arcade port as you can get.

[RayB]

The downgrades of SNES SFII were mostly due to memory limitations. More data = higher cost cartridge, so they had to fit it into a limited size.

Arcade publishers had the luxury of using much more memory, and using faster CPUs.

[DJ_Izumi]

It's also worth noting that Arcades have long kept OLDER games where as home consoles typically had this 'shelf life' going on.  So you could see 10-15-20 year old games at an arcade.

Though the bonus is, some arcade games are way more timeless due to their being awesome.  I mean light guns and racing wheels with complete seats, hell, look at Prop Cycle's awesome control interface.  Arcade games in many ways from the 90s onwards became not just games but ATTRACTIONS. 

[Dartful Dodger]

First thing: Sorry, Trebeck for derailing your thread.

back to the off topic discussion...

Arcade games in many ways from the 90s onwards became not just games but ATTRACTIONS. 

That's what I thought, last time I was in an arcade they had VR helmets, driving games that would link a dozen players and would move left, right and vibrate when you crashed, flying games that would go left, right and rotate forward and back, and roller coaster simulations where you had to wear a harness because it would go completely upside down.  They even had a “vintage” section with games from the 80s. 

I was sort of hoping to see technology that was one generation away from a hologram room.  Instead, they removed the classics section to make room for prize winning games, and the wall that had the multiplayer racing game was replaced with some multiplayer horse racing game.  All the motion games/rides were gone.  I‘m assuming those games/rides eventually broke down and D&B didn’t bother getting them fixed.

All of the games in there now could have been created in the 90s.

[isucamper]

Meh.  I'm not going to get into a nerd fight here.  Underpowered or not, there were plenty of competant arcade ports before the Neo Geo and Dreamcast.  See Street Fighter series, Mortal Kombat series, Tekken, Smash TV, Total Carnage, Final Fight (Sega CD version was arcade perfect), Turtles in Time (SNES version was actually far superior to the Arcade version), NBA Jam, WWF Wrestlmania... those are just the ones I can pick off the top of my head.

But you can still think you're right if you want... it doesn't bother me

[MaximRecoil]

Meh.  I'm not going to get into a nerd fight here.

Then why are you replying?

Underpowered or not, there were plenty of competant arcade ports before the Neo Geo and Dreamcast.  See Street Fighter series, Mortal Kombat series, Tekken, Smash TV, Total Carnage, Final Fight (Sega CD version was arcade perfect), Turtles in Time (SNES version was actually far superior to the Arcade version), NBA Jam, WWF Wrestlmania... those are just the ones I can pick off the top of my head.

A few points:

1. Neo Geo (1990) came before all of the console ports of the games you listed.

2. My original reply in this thread was to Beretta who said: "i'd say playstation was probably the turning point where you could get as good if not better then arcade at home and that was the nail in the coffin." Note that the claim was not "competent", but "as good or better". There have been "competent" arcade ports since the ColecoVision and Atari 5200.

3. The Sega CD version of Final Fight looked good, but was not "arcade perfect" (the graphics and animations were not as good). Additionally, the Sega CD came out in 1992 while Final Fight ran on arcade hardware from 1988, so even if it was "arcade perfect" (which it wasn't), you are not comparing it to 1992 arcade hardware.

4. For Turtles in Time, the arcade version clearly had better graphics and audio than the SNES version, and those are the only objective points of comparison.

The Sega Dreamcast was the first mainstream system that could match the typical arcade hardware of its day. It was essentially NAOMI arcade hardware in a box, and NAOMI was strong arcade hardware for the time. It could also handle Capcom's CPS-3 hardware with ease (SFIII on the DC was about as close to "arcade perfect" as a port can get), and even did an excellent job handling Midway's Quicksilver II hardware (Hydro Thunder). And of course, it could run some NAOMI games directly, no porting required. 

But you can still think you're right if you want... it doesn't bother me

It has nothing to do with "thinking I'm right". Your Vs. hardware analogy was completely invalid. Vs. hardware was 2 year old console hardware ported to the arcade with only minor changes (none of which improved its performance). Neo Geo was designed as arcade hardware, and was on par with competing arcade hardware of the day.

[Beretta]

wow dude way to blow things outta proportion.

talking of aracde hardware was'nt tekken in the arcade based on playstation?

i know i have that on playstation and although i never put the two next to each other it looks same to me.. same with ridge racer, those was 1st generation games on playstation.

mortal kombat 3 looks as good as i remember in teh arcade when i had it on playstation.. maybe there are a few technical differences but to me at the time seemed as good.

my comment was how when nes and master system was main stream there was games in teh arcade that looked better then those systems.

snes also had a lot of good ports, the port of mortal kombat 2 and street fighter II was both very good not arcade perfect.

but there was still better to be had in the arcade at that time.. neo geo? jesus christ only people i know that had them back in the early 90's was game dealers the carts was like 1 or 200 bucks i think NO one i mean NO one i knew had one of those. but i was'nt a rich kid so maybe that was just me.

my comment was not to be taken as orange to oranges arcade ports on teh consoles..

there was a lot of games on playstation that had better graphics then you'ed find in the arcade at the time.. and those was'nt ports they was only on consoles or just playstatoin.

still i'd say that a much higher % of games was as close to arcade as to be considered equally good on the 32bit systems namely playstation as any console before it baring neo geo which is'nt exactly a fair comparison since it was arcade hardware in a pretty package no one could afford.

sure snes made a lot of inroads but not many ports was close enough to say "as good" i also agree TMNT was'nt as good as the arcade but it was also a good port.

genesis on the other hand imo sucked balls on ports.. it was a good system had some good games and you was'nt really a gamer back then unless you had both.. some versions of games on geneis was better also.. like beavis and butthead the genesis version is much better imo game play wise although the snes version had better graphics.

mortal kombat one rocked on genesis not because of the graphics as the snes version was VERY close but was crippled by it's lack of blood and fatalitys true to the arcade.

anyway im rambling it's my opinion that playstation was the true slayer of the arcades, before that the consoles while every once in a while having a perfect or near perfect port usually had decent or good ports.. always a 1 step behind..

if this was still the case arcade may still be alive, but that is not the case and we'll never know i suppose.

let us not also forget that not every game coming out ran on equally more powerful hardware, even in mid 90's most arcade games was 2d, while a large number of playstation games coming was 3d.

no offense to 2d as i love 2d games just the same, but i do remember playing games like twisted metal (1) and jumping flash (remember that game?) destruction derby, need for speed, warhawk, resident evil (1), all on playstation all 3d all 1st gen games.

if you can't see what i mean by my first statement i can't help you understand.
you dont have to agree with it, but it's how i remember things went down.

playstation killed the arcade.

[DJ_Izumi]

I think you guys are looking too far ahead.  The NES is what I believe brought on the end of the arcade area, it took a LONG TIME for that to happen and the NES was only the begining of the end.  The 'arcade' fell under hard times basicly from the Video Game Crash of 1983, while there was recovery, it was never the same for arcades as it was before.  Now you had the NES and later systems which, maybe they didn't have the same graphics, they were in your living room and didn't demand quarters.

At the same time, when the video game industry recovered in the 80s, that's when many of the machines in the arcade shifted towards looking like this:



Of course there were many revivals for the arcades.  Certian fighting games brought on good things.  More interesting machines and attractions in the 90s.  Not to mention the Pinball Revival of the early 90s.

The PlayStation didn't kill the arcade, it was just part of a long series of machines that put games in the living room without those games being 150 variations on Pong.  Ahe jump from the Atari 2600 to the NES, things changed RIGHT THERE.

[Rusty Shackelford]

I played this in Newquay (UK) a few months ago. It was ok, but not much different from anything else.

What I did spend some time on ( and some 50p's ) was a shooter called Big Buck Hunter. A go seemed to last forever, or maybe it was easy whatever I found it good fun. Im sure ive got a pic ill post later.....

[isucamper]

Then why are you replying?

I do so with my face in my palm.  

1. Neo Geo (1990) came before all of the console ports of the games you listed.

Yeah, and lets look at the Neo Geo games that were out in 1990.  

http://maws.mameworld.info/maws/index.php?src=srch.php%3Fpage%3D1%26driver%3D608%26by%3Dyear

Those are hardly cutting edge.  Neo geo games always trailed the best arcade games of their time... by years.  Final Fight came out in 89.  Neo Geo had Burning Fight in 1991.  In 91 SF2 came out and soon after that the Neo Geo ripped it off with Fatal Fury, but Fatal Fury had all of 3 selectable characters and wasn't anywhere near the class of SF2. Really great Neo Geo games didn't come until LONG after 1990 and by that point, the Neo Geo hardware was as behind the times as the Nintendo Vs stuff.  In the early 90s, Neo Geo games were the poor man's arcade games.  

What exactly are you trying to argue here?  That the Neo Geo was the first hardware used in both home games and arcade games?  Your wrong.  In 87, I played one of the greatest games ever made in a bowling alley near my house.  That game was called Super Mario Brothers.  That christmas, i was playing a near identical version of it at home.  Are you saying that Neo Geo was the first home console to offer a contemporary arcade game experience at home?  Your wrong.  Every step of the way, Neo geo games were ages behind the cutting edge arcade games of its time.

The Sega Dreamcast was the first mainstream system that could match the typical arcade hardware of its day. It was essentially NAOMI arcade hardware in a box, and NAOMI was strong arcade hardware for the time.

The100 some arcade games based on Playstation 1 hardware say "hi".  The home/arcade model that Sega used with Naomi was predated by the Playstation.  There's even an emulator to run these games.  It's called Zinc.  You should check it out.  http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/arcade/zinc.html.  You might remember such hits as the Tekken series, Soul Edge, Strider 2, Dead or Alive, etc...

4. For Turtles in Time, the arcade version clearly had better graphics and audio than the SNES version, and those are the only objective points of comparison.

Here's where you are just batty.  Graphics and audio are the only objective points of comparison???  How about extra (and better) stages, bosses, bonus rounds and play mechanics.  In fact, an updated version of the arcade game was just released on Xbox live and it's getting trounced because it's "missing" so much stuff.  The people saying this are remembering the SNES port which was packed to the gills with enhancements that the arcade didn't have.

I'm sorry for taking exception so passionatley to what your saying, but you act like you couldn't have an arcade experience at home until the Neo Geo, and that's just not true.  Early Neo Geo games were knock offs.  Later Neo Geo games were behind the times in terms of technology.  And Sega didn't invent the wheel with NAOMI.  

[Hoopz]

* Hoopz Grabs some popcorn and Mt Dew for some early morning fun.

And you're both wrong.  All those games were designed for LCDs not CRT monitors.  Nothing else matters.   

[Ed_McCarron]

* Hoopz Grabs some popcorn and Mt Dew for some early morning fun.

And you're both wrong.  All those games were designed for LCDs not CRT monitors.  Nothing else matters.   

Thats just wrong.

[Hoopz]

Well I figure that Isucamper will laugh at it since he went at it with genesim.  We'll get his take on maxim after this thread goes to hell too.   

[mwong168]

I think you guys are looking too far ahead.  The NES is what I believe brought on the end of the arcade area, it took a LONG TIME for that to happen and the NES was only the begining of the end.  The 'arcade' fell under hard times basicly from the Video Game Crash of 1983, while there was recovery, it was never the same for arcades as it was before.  Now you had the NES and later systems which, maybe they didn't have the same graphics, they were in your living room and didn't demand quarters.

I think everyone should have a look at this video called "The Death of Arcades"

http://www.onnetworks.com/videos/play-value/the-death-of-arcades

There are other interesting videos on the OnNetwork Play Value section such as the Fall of Atari, Rise of Nintendo and Failed Consoles #1, #2 were good ones.

[MaximRecoil]

I do so with my face in my palm.

Uh huh. 

1. Neo Geo (1990) came before all of the console ports of the games you listed.

Yeah, and lets look at the Neo Geo games that were out in 1990.

So I guess you're just going to skip the fact that I typed that to directly refute your claim:

"Underpowered or not, there were plenty of competant arcade ports before the Neo Geo and Dreamcast.  See Street Fighter series, Mortal Kombat series, Tekken, Smash TV, Total Carnage, Final Fight (Sega CD version was arcade perfect), Turtles in Time (SNES version was actually far superior to the Arcade version), NBA Jam, WWF Wrestlmania... those are just the ones I can pick off the top of my head." 

And simply head off into a red herring tangent?

http://maws.mameworld.info/maws/index.php?src=srch.php%3Fpage%3D1%26driver%3D608%26by%3Dyear

Those are hardly cutting edge.  Neo geo games always trailed the best arcade games of their time... by years.  Final Fight came out in 89.  Neo Geo had Burning Fight in 1991.  In 91 SF2 came out and soon after that the Neo Geo ripped it off with Fatal Fury, but Fatal Fury had all of 3 selectable characters and wasn't anywhere near the class of SF2. Really great Neo Geo games didn't come until LONG after 1990 and by that point, the Neo Geo hardware was as behind the times as the Nintendo Vs stuff.  In the early 90s, Neo Geo games were the poor man's arcade games.

In 1990, Neo Geo arcade hardware was as capable as any other arcade hardware out there. In terms of capability, it was between Capcom's CPS-1 and CPS-2 hardware; closer to CPS-2. CPS-1 came out in 1988, and CPS-2 came out in 1993. It doesn't matter at all that you didn't like the games. That is subjective and has nothing to do with the objective capabilities of the hardware. And those "great" Neo Geo games that you're talking about were still running on that same 1990 hardware.  

What exactly are you trying to argue here?  That the Neo Geo was the first hardware used in both home games and arcade games?  Your wrong.  In 87, I played one of the greatest games ever made in a bowling alley near my house.  That game was called Super Mario Brothers.  That christmas, i was playing a near identical version of it at home.

The Neo Geo was the first arcade hardware packaged for home use. The Vs. system was dated console hardware repackaged for arcade use. You don't see the difference there? Why do you think the Neo Geo cost ~$700 and the cartridges cost $200? Because high end (arcade level) custom hardware and that much memory wasn't cheap in the early 90's.

Are you saying that Neo Geo was the first home console to offer a contemporary arcade game experience at home?  Your wrong.  Every step of the way, Neo geo games were ages behind the cutting edge arcade games of its time.

You don't know what you're talking about; either that, or you are mistakenly talking about the gameplaying experience. I didn't like Neo Geo fighting games either, but that doesn't mean the hardware was weak in any way. Bad games can be (and usually are) created for any hardware system.

The100 some arcade games based on Playstation 1 hardware say "hi".  The home/arcade model that Sega used with Naomi was predated by the Playstation.  There's even an emulator to run these games.  It's called Zinc.  You should check it out.  http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/arcade/zinc.html.  You might remember such hits as the Tekken series, Soul Edge, Strider 2, Dead or Alive, etc...

The Playstation is another instance of hardware designed for a home console being repackaged for the arcade; and Tekken looked horrible. The Playstation was "not yet ready for prime time" when it came to 3D polygon games, though it gave it the old college try (it was a 2D powerhouse however, though rarely used as such). Compare the hideous and dated-looking Playstation 3D games with the still beautiful Cruis'n USA and Cruis'n World arcade games from the same era; for example.

Here's where you are just batty.  Graphics and audio are the only objective points of comparison???  How about extra (and better) stages, bosses, bonus rounds and play mechanics.  In fact, an updated version of the arcade game was just released on Xbox live and it's getting trounced because it's "missing" so much stuff.  The people saying this are remembering the SNES port which was packed to the gills with enhancements that the arcade didn't have.

That doesn't have anything to do with hardware capabilities; beyond additional ROM space for additional stages, etc. But you only need additional ROM space if all else is equal, which in this case, it is not. The SNES didn't use nearly as much ROM space because of the inferior graphics and audio, so it had room for some extra stuff compared to the arcade machine. The entire SNES cartridge was a "whopping" 8 Mb (1 MB) while the arcade version was 56 Mb (7 MB).

I'm sorry for taking exception so passionatley to what your saying, but you act like you couldn't have an arcade experience at home until the Neo Geo, and that's just not true.

Yes, it is true. There was no home console system prior to the Neo Geo that offered the same level of hardware as what currently was in the arcades. The reason? Cost. However, SNK decided to do it anyway, and charged accordingly.

Early Neo Geo games were knock offs.

Irrelevant. They had the same level of graphics and audio as competing arcade games, because they used then-current arcade-level hardware. For example, Fatal Fury (1991) has as good or better graphics and audio as Street Fighter II (1991). I think that SFII was a much better game, as do many (but not all) people, but that is irrelevant.

Later Neo Geo games were behind the times in terms of technology.  And Sega didn't invent the wheel with NAOMI.  

Also irrelevant. The later games are useful to show just how capable the hardware really was. Look at SVC Chaos: SNK Vs. Capcom (2003) sometime. That game has undoubtedly better graphics and audio than Street Fighter II: The World Warrior; and has Capcom-like playability too, at least when using the Capcom characters. It is amazing that 13 year old hardware (at the time), the same hardware you could buy in a home console in 1990, was capable of that.

[isucamper]

[ Look at SVC Chaos: SNK Vs. Capcom (2003) sometime. That game has undoubtedly better graphics and audio than Street Fighter II: The World Warrior; and has Capcom-like playability too, at least when using the Capcom characters.

Yeah.  Look at it.  It came out in 2003.  It is infinitely inferior to Capcom VS. SNK which came out 2 years earlier.

Look.  We're obviously hung up on symmantics here.  Your saying that when the Neo Geo came out in 1990, it was the most arcade like hardware you could get at home.  Fine.  I agree with you.

I'm saying that by the time it actually had any games that were memorable arcade games, it was not the most advanced arcade like hardware you could get at home. 

[isucamper]

Also, what your saying about the Playstation is completely false.  Tekken 1 and Tekken 2 were almost arcade perfect.  And ithe Playstation was NOT a 2D power house.  Your thinking of the Saturn.  Playstation struggled with anything 2D due to it's lack of video RAM.  It couldn't even handle the Street Fighter Alpha series without dropping a lot of frames.

Bact to the Neo:  The fact that developers were able to squeeze much more out of the Neo Geo later in it's life proves nothing.  The only thing that matters is what it provided at any one particular time in comparison to everything else at that time.

Developers do amazing things given enough time on a particular platform.  Look at the versions of Final Fight that came out on the NES towards it's end. 

[MaximRecoil]

Some people are fans of SNK fighting games, even preferring them to Capcom and others; and all of the big ones (Fatal Fury, Art of Fighting, King of Fighters, and Samurai Showdown) were released before the Playstation was, and they were on par with other 2D arcade fighting games at the time in terms of graphics and audio.  

Yeah.  Look at it.  It came out in 2003.  It is infinitely inferior to Capcom VS. SNK which came out 2 years earlier.

3 years earlier in fact; and yes, the graphics were superior; but that's beside the point (see my previous post). It is funny that you should mention that game, given that it ran on NAOMI hardware in the arcade; which is a good indicator of that platform's strength, in that Capcom chose to use it rather than their own CPS-3 hardware. It ran perfectly on the Dreamcast of course, for obvious reasons.

Also, what your saying about the Playstation is completely false.  Tekken 1 and Tekken 2 were almost arcade perfect.

I never said they weren't "arcade perfect". They were arcade perfect because the Tekken and Tekken 2 arcade hardware was simply a PlayStation with ROM chips rather than a CD drive, and a JAMMA connector. That doesn't change the fact that the Playstation was developed as home console hardware that got repackaged as arcade hardware. It also doesn't change the fact that Tekken was ugly as homemade shoes, as were all Playstation 3D games. With the PS, Sony didn't decide to wait until the technology was available at a reasonable price to create nice looking 3D graphics on a home console; they simply said "Screw it; good enough."

And ithe Playstation was NOT a 2D power house.  Your thinking of the Saturn.  Playstation struggled with anything 2D due to it's lack of video RAM.  It couldn't even handle the Street Fighter Alpha series without dropping a lot of frames.

Have you played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night? Also, I've played the Street Fighter Collection on a PlayStation and didn't notice any issues; aside from the PS controller's D-pad which is hard to hit diagonals with consistently; which is horrible for a fighting game. The SNES had the best D-pad for fighting games IMO.

Bact to the Neo:  The fact that developers were able to squeeze much more out of the Neo Geo later in it's life proves nothing.  The only thing that matters is what it provided at any one particular time in comparison to everything else at that time.

It proves that the hardware was capable of such performance all along. It doesn't matter either way, because the graphics and audio of the early '90s Neo Geo games were on par with anything else in the arcade at the time anyway; because it was a similar level of hardware to anything else in the arcade at the time.

Developers do amazing things given enough time on a particular platform.  Look at the versions of Final Fight that came out on the NES towards it's end.

That's a different scenario. A lot of the later cartridges for the NES had add-on hardware built into them; which is the same idea as adding something like the Starpath Supercharger to the Atari 2600, or the 32X to the Genesis. It results in a different overall hardware system. Nothing like that was done with later Neo Geo games.

[Hoopz]

USB is always better than PS/2.  PS/2 is dying and will be replaced soon.






































 

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

So, uh, wow... that RAMBO shooter game... it ...

... it sure looks, uh, interesting...

...

... kinda crappy, actually...

...

* RyoriNoTetsujin leaves.

[Ginsu Victim]

Have you played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night?

You mean the game that looks even better on Sega Saturn? Yeah, I have.

[isucamper]

I'm trying earnestly not to let this grow into what it was with genesim where our replies got humongeous. 

Playstation was hardly a 2d powerhouse (Castlevania is a perfect example, it was better on the Saturn).  The Playstation home/arcade distribution is closer to the NAOMI model than you think (of course it doesn't look as good as NAOMI, it's a full generation before it).  No, Tekken was not (and is not) ugly.   And by the time it had any relevant games, the Neo Geo was as far behind it's competitors as the Nintendo VS was when I played Super Mario in the arcades. 

I think I'm done here. 

[MaximRecoil]

Have you played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night?

You mean the game that looks even better on Sega Saturn? Yeah, I have.

What does that have to do with anything?

Do you prefer dithering to true transparency effects? Igarashi prefers the PS version BTW.

In any event, while the Sega Saturn was technically superior in most respects to the PlayStation for 2D, it doesn't change the fact that the PS was a 2D powerhouse.

Playstation was hardly a 2d powerhouse (Castlevania is a perfect example, it was better on the Saturn).

Would you care to explain your "logic" here? Is a 12 second car not fast because an 11 second car is faster? Oh wait, none of them are fast except sub-4 second top fuel dragsters, right? Is someone who bench presses 400 pounds not strong because someone who bench presses 500 pounds is stronger? Or are they all weaklings, save for the current world record holder?

SotN on the PS was one of the best looking 2D games ever released on a home console; which qualifies it as powerful 2D hardware in and of itself; by default.

The Playstation home/arcade distribution is closer to the NAOMI model than you think (of course it doesn't look as good as NAOMI, it's a full generation before it).

The PS was developed as home console hardware. NAOMI (New Arcade Operation Machine Idea) was developed as arcade hardware; particulary powerful arcade hardware at that. Therein lies the difference.

No, Tekken was not (and is not) ugly.

You've got to be joking:



What is that??? At least the 2D fighting games of the era looked like something an artist would actually draw to represent a human in e.g., a comic book or cartoon. Those Tekken things look like some unholy human/Gumby hybrid. If someone drew something that looked like that freehand and tried to pass it off as a human, they wouldn't be considered a very good artist, that's for sure. Someone might point out to them that lower legs are not supposed to look like truncated cones, for example.

On the other hand, here's a game released the same year on real arcade hardware:



If someone were to draw/paint a picture that looked exactly like that, they would be considered a good artist

And by the time it had any relevant games, the Neo Geo was as far behind it's competitors as the Nintendo VS was when I played Super Mario in the arcades.

Not that it's relevant to the hardware specs, but here is a tidbit for you:

In 1992, SNK's Art of Fighting marked the beginning of a series of 2-D fighting game innovations. This landmark game brought large character sprites in combination with zoom effects to intensify the action (Fig. 3). This zoom feature was also used in the following year's Samurai Shodown, whose even more elaborate graphics and gameplay won it Electronic Gaming Monthly's award as the 1993 Game of the Year and launched a successful franchise.

As I've already said, there are people that really like the SNK fighting games, including the early ones. They are not irrelevant simply because you consider them to be "knockoffs". And of course, the hardware was on par with other 2D arcade fighting game hardware of the time in terms of graphics and audio capabilities, which is the actual point.

[DJ_Izumi]

Uhh guys, if you can take out dated arcade hardware (Like the Vs System), modify it, jam it into a cab and it'll still make money even if other task specific hardware can do far better graphics, don't you think that suggests that gameplay is far more important than graphics?

[MaximRecoil]

Uhh guys, if you can take out dated arcade hardware (Like the Vs System), modify it, jam it into a cab and it'll still make money even if other task specific hardware can do far better graphics, don't you think that suggests that gameplay is far more important than graphics?

Yes, gameplay is more important than graphics, but that's not what the argument is about. It was claimed that with the PlayStation, you could have graphics as good or better than what was in the arcade. I disagree. For mainstream consoles, I say that the Dreamcast was the first one to provide graphics as good as anything in the arcade; because it was essentially NAOMI, and NAOMI was one of the best arcade hardware platforms going at the time.

Yes; with the PlayStation you could have Tekken's ghetto graphics at home, but if you wanted something that actually looked good, like Cruis'n USA, you were out of luck. The PS didn't have the berries for it, and neither did the newer N64. Of course, the PS never got a Cruis'n USA port, but the N64 did and it was not on par with the arcade version; and if it had've been ported to the PS, it would have undoubtedly looked worse than the N64's version; in the same manner that the PS's port of Hydro Thunder looked worse than the N64's version (which in turn couldn't compare to the arcade version).

[DJ_Izumi]

However, reguardless of that, I seriously doubt that was what lead to the arcade's death in the first place.  It was almost certianly the advent of good sprite based home consoles.  The NES was that.

Who cared about having 'arcade graphics at home'?  It was about having video games at home.

[Ginsu Victim]

Who cared about having 'arcade graphics at home'?  It was about having video games at home.

Yeah, but I remember going all the back to the 2600 port of Pac-man and thinking, "What the hell is this crap?!?"

[MaximRecoil]

However, reguardless of that, I seriously doubt that was what lead to the arcade's death in the first place.  It was almost certianly the advent of good sprite based home consoles.  The NES was that.

The NES dealt the first blow, but it was far from decisive. The arcade came back strong with the advent of SFII in the early 90's and remained strong for most of the decade despite excellent ports of those same fighting games being available at home. That's because the competition wasn't at home; it was at the arcade in the form of random strangers.

BTW, I think the internet in general, and online games (e.g. World of Warcraft) has as much or more to do with the death of arcades than consoles do.

Who cared about having 'arcade graphics at home'?  It was about having video games at home.

I did.

We've had video games at home for nearly as long as we've had them in arcades. Sometimes the games at home were as fun, or more fun, than their arcade counterparts (I like Atari 2600 Space Invaders better than the arcade SI for example, despite the arcade's better sound and graphics). But usually, the home version paled in comparison to the arcade version. Two notable examples from my childhood include Double Dragon (NES) and Mike Tyson's Punch-Out (NES). MTPO was the biggest video game disappointment for me ever (I was already a veteran arcade PO and SPO player when I first tried it). Double Dragon was a big disappointment for me too, but by that time I wasn't expecting so much from the 1983-vintage console hardware; you know, after MTPO had given me a reality check.

[Beretta]

Yes, gameplay is more important than graphics, but that's not what the argument is about. It was claimed that with the PlayStation, you could have graphics as good or better than what was in the arcade. I disagree. For mainstream consoles, I say that the Dreamcast was the first one to provide graphics as good as anything in the arcade; because it was essentially NAOMI, and NAOMI was one of the best arcade hardware platforms going at the time.

Yes; with the PlayStation you could have Tekken's ghetto graphics at home, but if you wanted something that actually looked good, like Cruis'n USA, you were out of luck. The PS didn't have the berries for it, and neither did the newer N64. Of course, the PS never got a Cruis'n USA port, but the N64 did and it was not on par with the arcade version; and if it had've been ported to the PS, it would have undoubtedly looked worse than the N64's version; in the same manner that the PS's port of Hydro Thunder looked worse than the N64's version (which in turn couldn't compare to the arcade version).

wow dude you are lost in the sauce.

it's already been stated the .vs system was as close as could be considered "as good".. or maybe you can nitpick that apart.. i can't tell the difference but im sure there is some minute difference in game play and graphics that you'll claim or maybe some minor hardware difference, oh wait you dont have to enter quarters at home and it does'nt say insert coin damn.. not as good.

you say you original respones started from me stating that playstation was the tipping point where you could get as good or better at home, this lead to the fall of the arcades, i never made a claim that consoles before it did'nt hurt arcade attendance, only i think PlayStation was the point of no return for the death of the arcade.

i guess i should very carefully and long windedly spell out exactly what i mean because then you get on this kick about neo geo which i personally knew no one that actually owned one besides dealers.. so im sure that the true arcade graphics.. after all it's extremely similar to the arcade hardware and extremely high price tag for it is what cause the death of the arcades not the PlayStation.. no no it was the nearly non existent neo geo.

then there is a rebuttal that the playstatoin was actually the basis for some games in teh arcade, but you come back that oh no those graphics suck.. well im not sure if you are claiming the playstation port sucks, or the graphics of the arcade also suck, at which i'd say it's really in the eye of the beholder and that they are in my opinion "as good" as what i played in the arcade, but again im sure you have found some tiny difference that is only noticeable to people such as your self to either goes over the hardware with a fine tooth comb which amounts to nothing, or one or two pixels are out of place.

i find it funny that you defend neo geo on the basis of hardware, not the basis of great games or great graphics way back in the way back that you claim is so important for it to trump the playstation.

yet the playstation which was also the platform for some arcade games has what you consider poor graphics so it does'tn get the same respet, wow man like to have you cake and eat to too dont you?

also i distinctly remember playing tekken before playing it on playstation.. it was a 1st generation game on playstation.. so i think your argument that playstation came before the arcade is wrong it was either developed for both uses in mind at the same time OR it was in the arcades first.

which does'nt really matter because rather it was used in teh arcade is of no consequence.
the games on playstation was as good or better then what was in teh arcade at the time..

this is a blanket statement, this does'nt mean oh you could play neo geo games, oh you could play vs games before it.. no i mean reguardless of platform a large % of the games ported to playstation was as good as what was in the arcade reguardless of their original hardware..

the or better part comes from playstation or home console born games, obviously it's hard to get better then what was in the arcade when it's being the baseline standard of what you're trying ot port in the first place.

one of the games i mentioned before was jumping flash.. i for one at the time thought the game was quite breath taking.

infact all those "ghetto" 3d games was considered good graphic wise back then.

of course game play is more important then graphics but if arcade games dont have good game play in the arcade they dont last very long, my originla point was playstation was the tipping point where nearly all of it's games was comparatively as good or better then what was typical in the arcade at the time, game play aside as every platform has crappy games.

as for playstation not being able to handle cruisin usa, we'll never know since rare ware was in exclusive agreement with Nintendo at the time.

[Namco]

Whoa, look how many Infrared LEDs there around the screen of that Rambo shooter!

[DJ_Izumi]

Yeah, but I remember going all the back to the 2600 port of Pac-man and thinking, "What the hell is this crap?!?"

This is why I put the NES as the real start of consoles leading to an arcade decline.  The Atari didn't come close to recreating a lot of the fun on the arcade.  Pac Mac is a good example with it's flickery crap.



On the other hand, the NES came far, FAR closer with Pac Man.  No, the home console hardware couldn't touch the arcade hardware from the same time period but consoles reached a 'good enough' point, you didn't have to leave home to play and you didn't need to shovel quarters into it.

The NES dealt the first blow, but it was far from decisive.

It was absolutely not decisive, it was the beginning of a long weigning death over the next 20 years.

I did.

Yes but your a hobbiest, it doesn't matter if YOU cared.  It's clear that the majority mainstream audience did and it was their quarters that the machines slowly stopped getting.  If you look at arcades across the last 20 years you can see them slowly closing (It getting far worse in 2000 and beyond).  The arcade sorta stopped sprouting up every where after the video game crash and while there were new locations, more closed than were opened.  Slowly, the arcades withered.

[MaximRecoil]

wow dude you are lost in the sauce.

Go practice your juvenile comments elsewhere.

it's already been stated the .vs system was as close as could be considered "as good".. or maybe you can nitpick that apart.. i can't tell the difference but im sure there is some minute difference in game play and graphics that you'll claim or maybe some minor hardware difference, oh wait you dont have to enter quarters at home and it does'nt say insert coin damn.. not as good.

The Vs. system and PlayChoice were both 1983 NES home console hardware stuck into arcade cabinets years later. It was not developed for the arcade. Nintendo was still developing arcade hardware during the time that they made the NES hardware, and it was far more powerful than their NES hardware (e.g., Punch-Out hardware); because it was intended to be arcade hardware, like nearly all other hardware platforms used in arcade machines.

So of course a NES version of a game was "as good" as the Vs. or PC-10 version; I obviously never claimed otherwise.  

you say you original respones started from me stating that playstation was the tipping point where you could get as good or better at home, this lead to the fall of the arcades, i never made a claim that consoles before it did'nt hurt arcade attendance, only i think PlayStation was the point of no return for the death of the arcade.

I never said that you did.

then there is a rebuttal that the playstatoin was actually the basis for some games in teh arcade, but you come back that oh no those graphics suck..

My rebuttal actually is that the PlayStation was developed as home console hardware; in fact, its development started out as a CD drive add-on for the SNES; and that's why arcade games which used this platform had bad graphics. If Namco had spent the time and money to develop custom hardware specifically for the arcade (where they wouldn't have had to worry about making it affordable for home consumers like console developers did), Tekken could have had far better graphics.

well im not sure if you are claiming the playstation port sucks, or the graphics of the arcade also suck,

They both suck. They're the same thing.

i find it funny that you defend neo geo on the basis of hardware, not the basis of great games or great graphics way back in the way back that you claim is so important for it to trump the playstation.

Neo Geo did have great graphics; equal or better than anything else in the arcades at the time. I've said this before, whether you realize it or not. The reason it had great graphics is because it was developed as an arcade platform; they used a 12 mHz processor; custom graphics chipset; its cartridges supported 330 Mb (41 MB) of ROM (about 6 times the size of arcade SFII); top-end expensive stuff at the time.

also i distinctly remember playing tekken before playing it on playstation.. it was a 1st generation game on playstation.. so i think your argument that playstation came before the arcade is wrong it was either developed for both uses in mind at the same time OR it was in the arcades first.

It was developed as home console hardware. Somewhere along the line, Namco saw it as a quick and dirty solution, and Namco System 11 was born. They both came out in '94.

which does'nt really matter because rather it was used in teh arcade is of no consequence.
the games on playstation was as good or better then what was in teh arcade at the time..

Show me a PlayStation game that can match arcade Cruis'n USA (1994). Given that the newer N64's port couldn't do it justice, the PlayStation wouldn't have stood a chance of doing it justice.

this is a blanket statement, this does'nt mean oh you could play neo geo games, oh you could play vs games before it.. no i mean reguardless of platform a large % of the games ported to playstation was as good as what was in the arcade reguardless of their original hardware..

All 3D PlayStation games looked like crap. Fortunately, only a handful of arcade games at the time looked like crap; namely the Namco System 11 games.

as for playstation not being able to handle cruisin usa, we'll never know since rare ware was in exclusive agreement with Nintendo at the time.

It is easy enough to figure out. The N64 had better looking graphics than the PlayStation, so if the N64 port didn't stack up to the arcade, a PlayStation port definitely wouldn't have. As I've said several times now, compare N64 Hydro Thunder to PlayStation Hydro Thunder to see how the two consoles compare to each other when porting the same game.

[MaximRecoil]

This is why I put the NES as the real start of consoles leading to an arcade decline.  The Atari didn't come close to recreating a lot of the fun on the arcade.  Pac Mac is a good example with it's flickery crap.

The ColecoVision (1982) and the Atari 5200 (1982) both had very respectable ports of somewhat recent and popular (at the time) arcade titles.

It was absolutely not decisive, it was the beginning of a long weigning death over the next 20 years.

Not exactly. In the 90's, arcades were huge again; the biggest they'd been since the Golden Era. Some of the bigger ones had rows of like a dozen SFII machines; bringing to mind the hysteria surrounding Space Invaders and Pac-Man years earlier.

What really happened was life support in the late '80s; rise to former glory in the '90s, and a rather abrupt death around the late '90s/early '00s. The '90s resurrection lasted longer than the Golden Era did (which most people place at '79-'83).

I think people's tastes in gaming have changed to a type of gaming that is inherently at odds with the arcade experience. People today seem to want a deep, engrossing odyssey that can last months or even years. You're only going to get that from a console, PC game, or especially from an online game (my little sister has been playing World of Warcraft for like 4 years straight, for example). I'll grant you that The Legend of Zelda (NES) was probably a significant spark for that fire.

[CheffoJeffo]

How come you guys let a battle with Mr Strongtanium(tm) go on without me ?

Nobody likes to fight Mr. Strongtanium(tm) more than I do!!!!

* CheffoJeffo reads the thread over ...

Oh, wait, he's right.

Damn!

Except that I think that video arcades killed video arcades. All of a sudden there were eleventy12 brazillion machines and the market couldn't support it. Arcades couldn't rotate in new games nearly as quickly as they were being produced (without taking a profound loss). It all collapsed under its own weight in the early 80s.

Sure enough, home technology came along later that was equal to or better than what we had in the arcades. The Dreamcast really was the first to do so overall and was the first console that I bought after my 2600.

[Namco]

I disagree with anyone saying that Cruisin USA looks better than Tekken. In one game you have a box with car textures on it driving past flat sprites. In the other you have two fullly rendered 3D characters with 10x the polygons; arms, legs & joints animated with extremely lifelike motion capture. Ask anyone at the time which is more impressive and they'll all say Tekken.

[Beretta]

wow dude you are lost in the sauce.

Go practice your juvenile comments elsewhere.

why?, this seems like the perfect thread for them.

it's already been stated the .vs system was as close as could be considered "as good".. or maybe you can nitpick that apart.. i can't tell the difference but im sure there is some minute difference in game play and graphics that you'll claim or maybe some minor hardware difference, oh wait you dont have to enter quarters at home and it does'nt say insert coin damn.. not as good.

The Vs. system and PlayChoice were both 1983 NES home console hardware stuck into arcade cabinets years later. It was not developed for the arcade. Nintendo was still developing arcade hardware during the time that they made the NES hardware, and it was far more powerful than their NES hardware (e.g., Punch-Out hardware); because it was intended to be arcade hardware, like nearly all other hardware platforms used in arcade machines.

So of course a NES version of a game was "as good" as the Vs. or PC-10 version; I obviously never claimed otherwise.  

interesting thought if they was good enough for home console then brought ot the arcade that might say something.

you say you original respones started from me stating that playstation was the tipping point where you could get as good or better at home, this lead to the fall of the arcades, i never made a claim that consoles before it did'nt hurt arcade attendance, only i think PlayStation was the point of no return for the death of the arcade.

I never said that you did.

your respones try to make a point that neo geo was as good as the arcade their for somehow im wrong about playstation.. seems to me it's exactly what you're saying, trying to use neo geo as a counter point.

when in fact VERY few people actually had neo geo's dare i say it had zero impact on the death of the arcade.

then there is a rebuttal that the playstatoin was actually the basis for some games in teh arcade, but you come back that oh no those graphics suck..

My rebuttal actually is that the PlayStation was developed as home console hardware; in fact, its development started out as a CD drive add-on for the SNES; and that's why arcade games which used this platform had bad graphics. If Namco had spent the time and money to develop custom hardware specifically for the arcade (where they wouldn't have had to worry about making it affordable for home consumers like console developers did), Tekken could have had far better graphics.

hmm like i said i remember playing tekken in the arcade before playstation was even released, either my memory is bad or your wrong, like i've also said regardless if this is true or not you seem hung up on having EXACT same "game" play on the consoles where my statement was more wider and took in games in general, we're not talking about just "system 11" im talking about games from any hardware platform in the arcade, take your pick if it was ported to playstation more often the not it was as good unless you wanna be a freak about it and find flaws that was'nt obvious.. to me there was'nt any so they was "as good"

i have a hard time beleving PlayStation was to be the ill fated snes cd.

well im not sure if you are claiming the playstation port sucks, or the graphics of the arcade also suck,

They both suck. They're the same thing.

well then the playstation version was "as good" then thank you for agreeing, rather you like tekken does'nt really matter now does it?, rather or not there could have been a better "tekken" is pretty moot cause there is'nt.

btw graphic wise it was better then virtua fighter which although what 6months earlier released? was pretty bad graphics wise.

this is'tn a chicken and the egg argument the point was you could get as games on par with the arcade at the time.

i find it funny that you defend neo geo on the basis of hardware, not the basis of great games or great graphics way back in the way back that you claim is so important for it to trump the playstation.

Neo Geo did have great graphics; equal or better than anything else in the arcades at the time. I've said this before, whether you realize it or not. The reason it had great graphics is because it was developed as an arcade platform; they used a 12 mHz processor; custom graphics chipset; its cartridges supported 330 Mb (41 MB) of ROM (about 6 times the size of arcade SFII); top-end expensive stuff at the time.

just going over mame roms i dont see any early games that used that full 330mega bit cartage space.

i do realize it used the same carts as arcade, do you honestly think neo geo had any impact on the fall of the arcades when very few people actually owned one?

also i distinctly remember playing tekken before playing it on playstation.. it was a 1st generation game on playstation.. so i think your argument that playstation came before the arcade is wrong it was either developed for both uses in mind at the same time OR it was in the arcades first.

It was developed as home console hardware. Somewhere along the line, Namco saw it as a quick and dirty solution, and Namco System 11 was born. They both came out in '94.

yes but what part of 94? and if they're both based on teh same hardware this is'nt unexpected, do you have any proof which came first? on second thought it does'nt matter because this is'nt about hardware it's about whats on the screen, playstation had a lot of "as good" ports regardless of what was originally ran in the arcade.

which does'nt really matter because rather it was used in teh arcade is of no consequence.
the games on playstation was as good or better then what was in teh arcade at the time..

Show me a PlayStation game that can match arcade Cruis'n USA (1994). Given that the newer N64's port couldn't do it justice, the PlayStation wouldn't have stood a chance of doing it justice.

im not gonna go dig up a game to pit it against, but lets say you're right crusin usa is better graphically then anything on playstation at the time, can you come up with more examples? i bet it would be a short list.

this is a blanket statement, this does'nt mean oh you could play neo geo games, oh you could play vs games before it.. no i mean reguardless of platform a large % of the games ported to playstation was as good as what was in the arcade reguardless of their original hardware..

All 3D PlayStation games looked like crap. Fortunately, only a handful of arcade games at the time looked like crap; namely the Namco System 11 games.

come up with some more, i suppose virtua cop, virtua figher, and daytona usa all blew tekken graphics away.. yup thats what they did. i honestly can't think of to many 3d games before playstation came out.

as for playstation not being able to handle cruisin usa, we'll never know since rare ware was in exclusive agreement with Nintendo at the time.

It is easy enough to figure out. The N64 had better looking graphics than the PlayStation, so if the N64 port didn't stack up to the arcade, a PlayStation port definitely wouldn't have. As I've said several times now, compare N64 Hydro Thunder to PlayStation Hydro Thunder to see how the two consoles compare to each other when porting the same game.

funny i had both systems and i only ever had about 12 games on n64, mario was great.. i originally bought the system thinking killer instinct (1) was gonna be on it, but they canceled that KI2 was'nt as good.. i always ended up going with play station for games is'nt that interesting that i would choose the vastly inferior playstation.

course thats a different thread i guess, playstation had better controls also, and squaresoft switching to sony sure hurt them.. i guess thats why sega and nintendo both got their ass stomped by sony.

if it was'nt for the WII Nintendo may not even be around anymore.

sega pretty much was dead by the time dreamcast came out. dont get me wrong i go ta dream cast i think it's a pretty good system.. but by then it was much to late for the arcades or sega.

dreamcast was never nearly as popular as playstation, hence why sega bailed out of the console business, their last hope failed, dreamcast had very little if any to do with killing to arcades far to late.

[MaximRecoil]

I disagree with anyone saying that Cruisin USA looks better than Tekken.

Cruis'n looks good. A screenshot from the game could be an oil painting and it would look good. A screenshot from Tekken as an oil painting would inspire comments such as, "What's that, 'abstract'?"

In one game you have a box with car textures on it driving past flat sprites. In the other you have two fullly rendered 3D characters with 10x the polygons; arms, legs & joints animated with extremely lifelike motion capture.

None of that makes it look good; and the motion is not part of the graphics; not to mention that they looked like they were moving under water.

Ask anyone at the time which is more impressive and they'll all say Tekken.

I don't think so, but either way, you have no basis for that claim. My initial reaction to that game was something like "ugh".

Plus, judging by your screen name, you may be biased.

[Namco]

I disagree with anyone saying that Cruisin USA looks better than Tekken.

Cruis'n looks good. A screenshot from the game could be an oil painting and it would look good. A screenshot from Tekken as an oil painting would inspire comments such as, "What's that, 'abstract'?"

In one game you have a box with car textures on it driving past flat sprites. In the other you have two fullly rendered 3D characters with 10x the polygons; arms, legs & joints animated with extremely lifelike motion capture.

None of that makes it look good; and the motion is not part of the graphics; not to mention that they looked like they were moving under water.

Ask anyone at the time which is more impressive and they'll all say Tekken.

I don't think so, but either way, you have no basis for that claim. My initial reaction to that game was something like "ugh".

Plus, judging by your screen name, you may be biased.

Yeah I'm biased. But my love for Namco games aside, I'm having a hard time understanding how nice looking screenshots equate to how good a platform is. By that definition, the Z-80 based PCB + Pioneer LD player combo is way better than Naomi just because screenshots of Dragon's Lair look good. Sure Killer Instinct looks great, but in my opinion, it doesn't compare to Tekken or Soul Edge as far as gameplay. Sprites vs Polys;apples & oranges, I say.

EDIT: Reading this over my argument is stupid. I said Cruisn'USA doesn't look good, but then go on to say that it looks good, but technically isn't as good. I am stoopid....

[CheffoJeffo]

i have a hard time beleving PlayStation was to be the ill fated snes cd.

Tell me that you are kidding ...  

[Namco]

i have a hard time beleving PlayStation was to be the ill fated snes cd.

Tell me that you are kidding ...  

I remember reading that in a Quartermann article in EGM decades ago. Plus, it's in wikipedia so it's TRUE!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation#History

[CheffoJeffo]

dreamcast was never nearly as popular as playstation, hence why sega bailed out of the console business, their last hope failed, dreamcast had very little if any to do with killing to arcades far to late.

I agree with this, but the implication that the PS killed the arcade is, to my mind, an idea born from somebody who didn't actually go to arcades before the real crash (e.g. 1979-1982).

You can argue about stuff that happened in the late 80s or 90s all you want. The Arcade crash happened in 1983.

There was a resurgence after SF2, but it doesn't compare to the widespread cultural permeation that ocurred prior to 1983. If anything, SF2 and the subsequent eleventy12 brazillion fighting games were nails in the coffin -- they appealed to a specific group of players and shut out most others.

G4 did a decent set of shows on this stuff and you can see the people involved with the industry at the time tell you what happened, instead of relying on Wikipedia and some random dude on the innertubes.

My $.02

EDIT: LOL at Namco and I both referring to wikipedia ... 

EDIT2: I just fired up Icons 208 and apparently I have appropriated much of what the folks in there said (including, specifically, "collapsed under its own weight", which was said in that episode by Tim Skelly).

[MaximRecoil]

why?, this seems like the perfect thread for them.

What made you think that? In any event, you thought wrong.

interesting thought if they was good enough for home console then brought ot the arcade that might say something.

Yes, it might say something. In fact, it might just say something completely irrelevant to this discussion.

your respones try to make a point that neo geo was as good as the arcade their for somehow im wrong about playstation.. seems to me it's exactly what you're saying, trying to use neo geo as a counter point.

Neo Geo was high-end, purpose-built arcade hardware that happened to end up in a console. PlayStation was lowly console hardware that happened to end up in the arcade.

when in fact VERY few people actually had neo geo's dare i say it had zero impact on the death of the arcade.

What does that have to do with anything? I've been saying the whole time, indeed, from the first time I mentioned Neo Geo, that it was not mainstream. I only mentioned it to avoid someone mentioning it in response to if I'd simply said that the Dreamcast was the first console to equal or better the arcade hardware of the time; period.

hmm like i said i remember playing tekken in the arcade before playstation was even released, either my memory is bad or your wrong,

That's great. Are you Japanese? The PlayStation was released there 9 months before it was released here.

i have a hard time beleving PlayStation was to be the ill fated snes cd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation#History

well then the playstation version was "as good" then thank you for agreeing, rather you like tekken does'nt really matter now does it?, rather or not there could have been a better "tekken" is pretty moot cause there is'nt.

Yes it was "as good", in the same way that Excitebike (NES) was "as good" as Vs. Excitebike. Here are a couple of words for you: console hardware.

btw graphic wise it was better then virtua fighter which although what 6months earlier released? was pretty bad graphics wise.

They both suck in terms of graphics. Virtua Fighter ran on Sega Model 1 hardware, which was from 1992 (2 years older than the PlayStation hardware; Virtua Fighter 2 was released the same year as Tekken). It was an experiment that they didn't originally plan to release, and should have stayed an experiment IMO. Trying to render something as visually complex as a 3D fighting game featuring human avatars with such weak 3D hardware as the PlayStation or Sega Model 1 is a recipe for nothing but bad; visually speaking. It is like trying to render a game like Double Dragon on the Atari 2600 hardware... oh wait, they tried that... it didn't rock.

[Namco]

Okay, I read this first half of the first page of this thread and I get what MaximumRecoil is saying. He's saying 1995 era PS hardware < Typical arcade hardware. Beretta said arcades died when people started playing Playstation rather than play arcade games.

I agree with them both. PS hardware wasn't quite as powerful as typical new arcade hardware at the time AND the PS contributed to the death of arcades in that people stayed home to play great games like Tekken 2. I know I did. The killer apps that made me run to the store to buy a Playstation were Tekken, Ridge Racer, Tekken 2, and NBA Jam. Although the PS was technically inferior to the arcade experience, it was good enough.

[DJ_Izumi]

I agree with them both. PS hardware wasn't quite as powerful as typical new arcade hardware at the time AND the PS contributed to the death of arcades in that people stayed home to play great games like Tekken 2. I know I did. The killer apps that made me run to the store to buy a Playstation were Tekken, Ridge Racer, Tekken 2, and NBA Jam. Although the PS was technically inferior to the arcade experience, it was good enough.

This would seem a lot less assinine if they were argueing over which platform, home or arcade of the same game was more FUN than championing graphics as the apparent only key issue to leading people away from the arcade.

All I can say is, I prefered to pay $20 for a copy of Time Crisis 3 for PS2, $15 each for a Guncon 2 and play at home rather than pay for 3 tokens for $1 only to have ---my bottom--- handed to me in the game in the arcades.

[daftspore]

I agree with the last post. I used to go to the arcades while at school and my daily school allowance used to cover at least 5-6 games on Ghost and Goblins (I think it was 20p a go at the time). I used to play for about an hour and a half for £1. It was about getting good at a game and not just getting to the end by any means.

AS things progressed games became more about continuing based so feeding coins in to carry on the game which meant the cost to go to the arcade spiralled.

I went to an arcade about a month ago with my wife and 2 year old daughter and I think we got through about £30 in an hour. This included playing the Rambo game that started this thread which is not bad and various other shooter games like time crisis.

So therefore I think taking the sheer skill away from the game has killed the arcade and it has become more about shoving coins into a machine to play.

The NES had super mario which was an easier version of the arcade version, SNES had SF2 and the PS1 had Tekken and they all contributed to this. If they brought back games people could actually get good at and achieve something from then the arcade could make a revival. Continue with the money grabbing games and it will not.

I have had all the consoles over the years as well as a mame cabinet at home and games are getting easier in my opinion because people nowadays do not like to get stumped by games.

[RandyT]

Obviously, this is going to be a debate that is based upon what any one individual thinks was ultimately responsible for the death of the arcades.

Personally, I believe the system responsible for the decline was the first one that was capable of keeping regular arcade customers home playing it, instead of seeking out new thrills at the game room.  My opinion is that the system was indeed the Playstation.  It raised the bar significantly enough on the home front to start making arcades redundant.  Could it always do everything that the latest shiniest arcade hardware could do?  Of course not.  One can't even say that about PC hardware from one year to the next.  But it was "good enough" for a very long time.  This is evidenced by the unprecedented length of time the system was considered viable in the marketplace.

It's all about the speed in which technology advances.  You can see now that it has, relative to the past, virtually stagnated.  This means that the arcades are very unlikely to provide any experience, in the traditional sense, which cannot be achieved by normal people at home.  The Playstation represented the beginning of that convergence, IMHO.

RandyT

[Aceldamor]

I checked out the video, then started reading the rest of the thread and lost interest. The game it's self looks OK, Are the moving pie charts above the enemies timers to when they are going to "hurt" you? If so, at least it's a nice visual queue as to who needs to be killed first.

Does it have any knife fighting stuff in it like Ghost Squad did? What about shooting the famous bow?


Sorry your thread got jacked dude....epeens are a swingin' on this one.

[Namco]

That Rambo license really grabs your attention, the gameplay seems like pure "arcade" fun, like a direct replacement for older House of the Dead or Time Crisis games.

Aliens vs Predator would have made a fine license for an arcade shooter, but Sega/Rebellion made the (probably wise) decision to make it console title instead of an arcade shooter. Looks great, I think I'll be picking this up when it comes out.


I took a look at that Razing Storm video and that sucker looks amazing as well. I think this one can safely replace some of Namco's older arcade titles and make a lot of money on its visuals and "Gears of War" like theme.


It's funny to see licensing creeping into the arcade gun shooter genre. I wonder if licensing will be as big a deal with these shooters as it was for pinball late in the game.

[Aceldamor]

AvP looks like a re-invent of the old Jaguar title...which was badass

[RandyT]

It's funny to see licensing creeping into the arcade gun shooter genre. I wonder if licensing will be as big a deal with these shooters as it was for pinball late in the game.

It wouldn't surprise me.  There's been a bit of it already, and considering shooters are one of the very few genres making money in game rooms full of redemption machines, it's bound to happen.  Of course, you won't see a "Shrek" shooter, but there are plenty of movies, comics, etc. to draw from.