Name The Games That Were Better Than Arcade Versions

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by van_dammesque

I think you answered your own question, that is sometimes in a conversion the essence of the game is there but it is not a coin muncher, effectively by making it slightly easier it becomes more enjoyable.

Okay but all arcade games are coin munchers, that's their purpose in life If that would be an argument then all home ports are better.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by gimbal

Okay but all arcade games are coin munchers, that's their purpose in life If that would be an argument then all home ports are better.

In all honesty, I think that is actually a very reasonable argument to make.

Arcade games are designed to take as much money as possible from the player. This causes a lot of them to be either really, really short games or to simply have unfairly difficult levels. Many arcade games could be improved quite a bit in the gameplay department by redesigning them without the limit of trying to get as many coins as possible in as short a time as possible.

However, most home ports don't actually do this. Some are actually even harder than the arcade. Many home ports also remove the option for unlimited continues, which is arguable even worse than simply asking for more money to continue. On the other hand, some home ports do tune the difficulty to more reasonable levels so it does happen on occasion.

I find this an interesting subject, but perhaps not fully on topic for this thread

[sneckburger]

NewZealand story was better on Amiga.
Graphics were the same IMO but you'd play it different at home than you would in the arcade, due to lives costing money.

[lilalurl]

Originally Posted by ZEUSDAZ

What about Operation Thunderbolt?! That was a pretty damn good conversion from Ocean considering the power of the arcade original.

Was this post really intended for this thread? In case it was not, point me to the correct thread and I'll move it there (+ take care of the related posts).

[DamienD]

Originally Posted by lilalurl

Was this post really intended for this thread? In case it was not, point me to the correct thread and I'll move it there (+ take care of the related posts).

I'm sure it was meant for this thread (moved accordingly) and not this thread: Casual Retro Gamer - my new youtube channel

[d4rk3lf]

Better?

hmm... many people loved Amiga Silkworm, Rainbow Island..
I'd say Pong is perfectly equal to the arcade... probably Bubble Bubble, and some other games...

Hey.. maybe Rise of the robots Aga is better the the arcade version?

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by roondar

Arcade games are designed to take as much money as possible from the player. This causes a lot of them to be either really, really short games or to simply have unfairly difficult levels.

I wouldn't say this is exactly true, at least not in the sense your post seems to imply. Obviously arcade games were commercial ventures but saying they were all designed unfairly is rather unfair itself

Sure, they were difficult, but not only because of the money making angle - that's how games should be designed in general. What fun is it to beat a game which is too easy? As for "unfair" difficulty spikes, these varied from game to game, and this is kinda relative too. Many times I was nearly drawn to despair by some crazy boss or gameplay segment, only later to discover it was actually not so bad, if you only did this or that.

Short games? You were playing for high score, so usually you could continue from the start with higher difficulty level.

tl,dr; git gud

[roondar]

I'm sure you and I actually agree on many things, maybe we'll find some of those things one of these days

Originally Posted by dreadnought

I wouldn't say this is exactly true, at least not in the sense your post seems to imply. Obviously arcade games were commercial ventures but saying they were all designed unfairly is rather unfair itself
...
Sure, they were difficult, but not only because of the money making angle - that's how games should be designed in general.
...

I didn't say all arcade games are like that. Some are quite fair but limit playtime in other ways. For instance by ending play after a single round, or limiting play by time. There's even a rare few that are fair all round.

Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but after seeing some adverts for arcade cabinet owners (to be), I can't help but note that they pretty much all stress how big the ROI is. Which simply can't be done unless average play time is really low and maximum game length is still quite short.

Anyway, I disagree with the notion games should be designed to be rock hard. That's a silly thing to say - games can be designed to be hard, sure. But primarily they ought to be designed to be fun. Which normally involves challenge, but does not need to involve massive challenge

tl,dr; git gud

tl, dr; git gud is just an excuse, games can be fun and challenging without being so hard as to empty your pockets while learning to play

Oh, a final thought (which I didn't get across in my first post): don't mistake me saying arcade games were unfair with me saying they were no fun to play. Example: I really love R-Type. And yet, it's objectively unfair as heck in places. Clearly designed to make you lose lives the first time you reach certain points.

Edit: should we want to continue this discussion, it may be better to create a new thread so as to not clutter this one.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by roondar

Some are quite fair but limit playtime in other ways. For instance by ending play after a single round, or limiting play by time.

I can't recall any arcade game which would end after a single round, perhaps really ancient ones. Time limits can be annoying but can also bring element of intensity and make things more exciting.

Originally Posted by roondar

Anyway, I disagree with the notion games should be designed to be rock hard. That's a silly thing to say - games can be designed to be hard, sure. But primarily they ought to be designed to be fun. Which normally involves challenge, but does not need to involve massive challenge

Well, "massive", "rock-hard" etc are all relative terms. And you can have difficulty levels in a non-arcade game, sure, but if the only level is Easy then the game is pointless, to me at least. You will perhaps have "fun" by cruising to the end in few attempts but was it really fun? Who's to say, but I don't really think so.

Eg: I have recently played Agony for the first time ever and got really, really far on my first life. It was ridiculous.

Originally Posted by roondar

tl, dr; git gud is just an excuse, games can be fun and challenging without being so hard as to empty your pockets while learning to play

It's a joke but not actually such a silly joke. Once you make an effort games actually come to life. And arcade days were different: most of us learned not by spending all the dosh (which I've never had anyway) but by watching others play.

Originally Posted by roondar

should we want to continue this discussion, it may be better to create a new thread so as to not clutter this one

I think it's kinda relevant but fair enough, I won't drag this further on

[roondar]

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

Originally Posted by dreadnought

I can't recall any arcade game which would end after a single round, perhaps really ancient ones. Time limits can be annoying but can also bring element of intensity and make things more exciting.

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

but if the only level is Easy then the game is pointless, to me at least.

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"

Eg: I have recently played Agony for the first time ever and got really, really far on my first life. It was ridiculous.

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?

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by roondar

I really love R-Type. And yet, it's objectively unfair as heck in places. Clearly designed to make you lose lives the first time you reach certain points.

R-Type was one of the first games, though, that's super fair in its first three levels. You can learn those very fast.
After the warship level it's immediately getting insane with those green ball seeders and attackers from all angles.

Mortal Kombat and even Yie Ar Kung fu does this as well. The first two enemies are extremely beatable if you know a bit what you are doing. So it rewards playing the game again by enjoying mastering the start, instead of people saying "fuck this shit is impossible" afterwards.

So, that's what a good arcade game does, imo. It gives you an easy first level, a second level with a bit of a challenge, and soon afterwards it gets difficult.

[zero]

Originally Posted by Retro-Nerd

Midnight Resistance! This 2-rotary stick on the arcade cabinet never worded. On computers it was finally playable.

I have rotary sticks for my supergun to play this. First had it on the Amiga where it was one of my favourite games.

Comparing the two the arcade version has more colours and better sound overall, but the Amiga version has a lot less slowdown! The arcade system slows down constantly from about level 2 onwards, you play half the game in slow motion.

The Amiga music is pretty decent but the limitation of only 4 channels for music and sound effects is an issue.

[roondar]

Originally Posted by Steril707

So, that's what a good arcade game does, imo. It gives you an easy first level, a second level with a bit of a challenge, and soon afterwards it gets difficult.

There's obviously quite a few arcade games that do things better than what I was talking about. But for every R-Type or Mortal Kombat, there's a Ghouls 'n' Ghosts or Sinistar.

Anyway, I think I made my point

[Dunny]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Well, "massive", "rock-hard" etc are all relative terms. And you can have difficulty levels in a non-arcade game, sure, but if the only level is Easy then the game is pointless, to me at least. You will perhaps have "fun" by cruising to the end in few attempts but was it really fun? Who's to say, but I don't really think so.

For games that are simply shooters or run+gun platformers with little story I would agree - difficulty would extend the life of the game especially if it's user-selectable.

However, a lot of single-player AAA games these days have very strong and long narratives such that a difficulty level too hard for the player would prevent them from ever seeing the story through. Hence, I play all those games on easiest so I get to experience the whole story like an interactive movie.

My favourite is the recently released Horace platformer which has a 25 hour storyline to follow and difficulty that ramps up significantly as you progress to the point where it's insane. But the game starts dropping shields for you if you keep dying in certain places to help you out. That's a lovely mechanic.

Originally Posted by roondar

Arcade games are designed to take as much money as possible from the player. This causes a lot of them to be either really, really short games or to simply have unfairly difficult levels. Many arcade games could be improved quite a bit in the gameplay department by redesigning them without the limit of trying to get as many coins as possible in as short a time as possible.

Back in the 70s and very early 80s Arcades would take coins purely due to their addictiveness, but after a while some companies realised that ramping up the difficulty would increase revenue - especially as more arcade owners were renting their cabinets rather than owning them outright. Sega were assholes at this - Afterburner's guzzling of 50ps was legendary.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Marble Madness - I prefer the Amiga version over the arcade. Great conversion, music and graphics - I just think it plays better - I sucked at the trackball on the arcade and found the joystick easier.

Whilst there are plenty of good conversions (plenty more bad) in the whole the arcade originals excel in nearly every instance

[Minuous]

Originally Posted by d4rk3lf

I'd say Pong is perfectly equal to the arcade... probably Bubble Bubble, and some other games...

Unfortunately the Amiga version of Bubble Bobble is far too slow compared to the coin-op, even if you run it in NTSC mode.

[PatmanQC]

Originally Posted by Fiery Phoenix

Marble Madness - I prefer the Amiga version over the arcade. Great conversion, music and graphics - I just think it plays better - I sucked at the trackball on the arcade and found the joystick easier.

Whilst there are plenty of good conversions (plenty more bad) in the whole the arcade originals excel in nearly every instance

I agree 100%

I had never seen a marble madness arcade game But would repeatedly Beat the 64 and Amiga versions. Ran across an arcade cabinet and could not do anything with that trackball

[jotd]

sorry, to disagree about Marble Madness trackball gives very fine movement. Last time I went to an arcade, I noticed an emulated multi-game arcade with a TRACKBALL. I tried it (after 30 years not playing the arcade) and it was GREAT. And the arcade music is just awesome (you can have amiga gameplay and arcade music using my CD32 version )

But the visuals are very close & the gameplay too. I heard that the arcade game was coded in C. I'm pretty sure that the amiga version is coded in C too, and that the amiga dev got access to the arcade source code.

[sparhawk]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

I can't recall any arcade game which would end after a single round, perhaps really ancient ones.

There are some of them. Marble Madness comes to mind. Ony play through and you are done.

[sparhawk]

Originally Posted by Dunny

But the game starts dropping shields for you if you keep dying in certain places to help you out. That's a lovely mechanic.

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


I played GTA 4 and there was a scene where I had to fight a rocker gang. After dying tow or three times in a row, the game suddenly asked me if I want to lower the level! Really! I wold have done that, if I wanted to, so the game doesn't need to ask me something like that.
Even worse, after dying again two or three times, the next round suddenly the enemies were halfed! I was so pissed off that I stopped playing.


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.
In Doom I played a custom map with a single room whith 30 Daemons or so. I don't know how often I died, but I knew I could beat it, and finally I did.


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.