Name The Games That Were Better Than Arcade Versions

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by sparhawk

Actually I find this REALLY annoying when a game does that.

I really hate games that hold back just to make you "happy" or point out every single item that you may have overlooked or similar mechanics.
As long as game is fair, I don't mind it being hard. And AFAIK many arcades are exactly that. They want your coins, so they ramp up the level, but usually they are fair, so that you can beat them when you pay attention.

To be fair though, some of us aren't olympic-level gamers and just want to progress so they can experience the story. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for anyone else, and it's entirely possible that their goals are different to yours. You need to prove your mastery of the game to yourself in order to gain any satisfaction; I want to see the story unfold.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by sparhawk

I died a lot in Dark Souls. So what? I was really happy when I beat my first boss, and when I beat the game, I knew how the mechanics worked and didn't find it so hard anymore. No need for holding hands.

Imagine that Dark Souls was an arcade game. "You died. Insert coin to respawn".

I died... maybe like a 120 times the first time I managed to complete it? Yikes.

[Misclegend]

rolling thunder is better than the arcade

[sparhawk]

Originally Posted by gimbal

Imagine that Dark Souls was an arcade game. "You died. Insert coin to respawn".

I died... maybe like a 120 times the first time I managed to complete it? Yikes.

Yes. That's exactly how the arcades went. And not only arcades, but a lot of earlier games were similar to that. You had to learn the game, to beat it, which IMO is the point of playing it.

Of course, I can see that there is a difference to the kind of game. For story driven games, it doesn't have to be like this, but at least I should be able to disable any helps when I select a higher level. It's IMO ok, if you choose something like "Story mode" or "Easy" or such and you can get all the help you want, but it should be the players decision.

[jotd]

In arcade games, it happened that the game adapted to the player skill. For instance, in Mortal Kombat and Pang (2 games I completed in one credit, that's why I know), when you lose your life/lives and use a continue, the game becomes easier.

In MK the next round is easier to beat. And if you lose again, it's even easier.
In Pang, the balls are slower.

That's why beating such games with 1 credit is much much harder than with several ones (note: I can't beat either of the games with 1 credit now )

[d4rk3lf]

Originally Posted by jotd

In MK the next round is easier to beat. And if you lose again, it's even easier.

Not when you play against Baraka.
That moth%$&&ucker beats the crap out of me.
You wanna punch him with uppercut - he throws you, you go jump/leg on him, and he chop you to pieces with his blades.

You probably talk about MK1 and not MK2, but I had to share my frustration, and childhood trauma.

[S0ulA55a551n]

Originally Posted by roondar

Some small points to end this up here (and again, interesting subject - we could open a thread about it if you like?).

In my neck of the woods the "end after a single round" thing was pretty common for racing/sport games and two player games.

No, that's not what I meant at all. I did not mean that games ought to be (only) easy. There's many shades between "very hard" and "very easy"

Reading this and other posts by you makes it clear to me you're just rather good at this whole gaming stuff.

Good on you! And while I personally agree - I don't think Agony is that hard, other people disagree and do find it to be quite hard. It's all relative and IMHO arcade games don't offer much for those that are, well, significantly below your "level".
---
Now, a small question for you: would you say there's any Amiga games that are better than their arcade versions?

I agree most racing games did this, after you win its game over. Virtual racing off the top of my head is one .