Lionheart:the most wronged Amiga game ever

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Thank you. His point is that LH was "tailor made" for Amiga and that any conversion would have to compromise on that. It's an admirable attitude but not very pragmatic, I think. At the time Amiga was a besieged system, so if I was in charge of the studio I'd try to diversify and try to earn more coin on other platforms too (which in turn could allow them to survive longer and release more Amiga stuff).

The 16-bit generation was really the last one where individual machines were different enough hardware wise that it was possible to tailor a game around the specifics of a given machine. Trying to then move that title to any other platform of the same era almost inevitably led to a weaker end product as a result

That all died out with the 32-bit generation, where it really became just "how many textured polygons can you push" and the hardware differences were a lot less pronounced.

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by oscar_ates

This game looks and plays very good, I do not understand the friction against it?

There is none. Just read through the thread, even from the camp who do not like the game there is still quite some praise. Which speaks volumes about the quality of the game itself, it holds a certain reverence that keeps opinions grounded.

People not liking a good game is perfectly normal, it is this little thing called personal taste. I need my platformers to have puzzle elements, or be funny to hold my attention and hide the repetition that has been mentioned in this thread. That is the trick with games - they're all massively repetitive, the secret sauce is how good a game is at distracting you that really dictates how much fun you're going to be having with it.

So Gods and Aladdin are my jam, but Lionheart not really. I like the first level, and that's enough for me.

[Retro1234]

This is why I can't understand people who don't like Gods
Also a reason why I don't like Console versions of Gods. They went kind of Arcade?

[Megalomaniac]

Personal taste it may be, but from a few attempts, I don't like Gods. People call it 'methodical' or 'intelligent' but for me it just feels slow, with scrolling that can't keep up resulting in enemies appearing too late, and unresponsive controls. The allegedly genius puzzles are just experimenting with flicking switches. Not being able to shoot while crouching (seemingly due to a badly designed control system) results in cheap deaths when there are enemies on both sides at once, especially if there's an item to pick up in between them and you're desperately trying to get out of the slot-assignment menu. It feels like a battle against the control system, rather than against the puzzles.

It feels to me like they wanted to do an action game, couldn't program it well enough, so they sold it as 'methodical' and everyone fell for it (shades of Xenon II, which I don't like either - it seems like people either like every Bitmaps game, or like none of them except the Speedballs and maybe The Chaos Engine)

From a brief play, the Megadrive version's use of multiple buttons and less sluggish scrolling improve the playability without necessarily sacrificing any of the methodicalness.

[Retro1234]

Yeah I'm not gonna dispute Gods. I was more joking

[desiv]

I always thought Lionheart was a great looking game (not sure I ever really tried it tho... have to add it to my list to try...)...
That said, it seems like most of us agree that Lionheart is far from the most wronged game out there... It seems like most people think it's really good.

I would think really wronged would be a game that was slammed or totally ignored and it was really good...
But that too can all come down to personal preference...

Personally, SOTB is one of my favorite games. I know part of it is the WOW factor from when I saw it, but I really enjoyed (and still do) playing it...
That said, I am generally not great at games... ;-) So when people talk about playability issues, that doesn't hit me the same.
SO MANY GAMES are too hard for me and I make very little progress, so whether it is because the game is flawed or just really hard, I won't notice... ;-) ;-)

In fact, I think I like SOTB because you can do decent just based on memory. This thing always jumps out after this other thing, so I know it's coming...

Probably also why I also really like Dragon's Lair.

Most platform / run-gun type games, I generally do as badly whether they are flawed or not, so I can only base my appreciation of them on the first level or two. ;-)

I supposed it has worked out really well for me playing magazine demos. You only get one level, but I'd rarely get past that level anyway... ;-)

So I'll give Lionheart a shot, but my guess it I will rate it about the same as I rate most good looking games of that type.
(A tad less, just because I actually think it's a bit too colorful... I do tend to prefer the darker SOTB/Gods aesthetic (and even Gods loses me a bit with the purple/blue/pink sky gradient.)

It would be intersting (perhaps a different thread... Wonder if one exists) on what is really the most "wronged" Amiga game...
It seems to me it has to be a game the gets a lot of hate, like SOTB or Xenon II..

Note: (and also why you can't trust me for reviews) I also think Xenon II is wronged and I really like it... ;-)

[Retro1234]

I have to admit when I first tried it and a few others(Copper Effect) I found them a bit garish. But I really liked LionHeart. I'm not a huge fan of SOTB except 3 but this is the least impressive looking one of the three. Each to there own.

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

That all died out with the 32-bit generation, where it really became just "how many textured polygons can you push" and the hardware differences were a lot less pronounced.

Eh, I wouldn't say that. You had differences in the Playstation and Saturn for instance -- the Saturn was a 2D powerhouse and was better at higher precision math, but the Playstation could push 32-bit integer texture mapped polygons easily, and had hardware audio and video compression. Plus you had platforms like the NEC PC-FX and CD32 which had neither 3D triangle rendering nor affine sprites (how the Saturn could do 3D polygons) in hardware.

Even going into the PS3 era you had issues like the Cell processor making for amazing physics calculations (what today we'd use GPGPU code for) but weaker general purpose CPU capability.

[Tigerskunk]

The thing that is really interesting to me is, that I remembered SOTB to be nearly unplayable back in the day, but when trying it out a year ago again, I thought it played quite decent.

Difficult, yes, but not insurmountable.

[alexh]

Originally Posted by AmigaHope

the Playstation could push 32-bit integer texture mapped polygons easily

32-bit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlaySt...specifications

[AestheticDebris]

Originally Posted by AmigaHope

Eh, I wouldn't say that. You had differences in the Playstation and Saturn for instance -- the Saturn was a 2D powerhouse and was better at higher precision math, but the Playstation could push 32-bit integer texture mapped polygons easily, and had hardware audio and video compression. Plus you had platforms like the NEC PC-FX and CD32 which had neither 3D triangle rendering nor affine sprites (how the Saturn could do 3D polygons) in hardware.

Even going into the PS3 era you had issues like the Cell processor making for amazing physics calculations (what today we'd use GPGPU code for) but weaker general purpose CPU capability.

Sure the actual difference in hardware capability played into things, but only really to the extent of "downgrade the graphics till it worked" type of way. I appreciate that's a massive understatement of the technology at the time, but you definitely saw a lot less of "Game X has specifically been designed around the hardware specifications"

I don't really count the CD-32 or PC-FX as being in the "32-bit" generation. They were 32 bit hardware for sure, but the rest of the tech and their games means they sit more comfortably with the older 16-bit machines.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by AestheticDebris

I appreciate that's a massive understatement of the technology at the time, but you definitely saw a lot less of "Game X has specifically been designed around the hardware specifications"

This is something hard to measure and I'm not sure it's actually true. Most publishers liked to claim their biggest games (especially exclusives) were specifically designed for some particular hardware. Titles like Gran Turismo, Halo, or even Nights certainly were. You can still see it these days with the likes of CP2077 or Ratchet & Clank (even though parity clauses often forbid the devs mentioning the obvious).

Anyway, all that and the eventual downgrades have never stopped ports from appearing. One has only look at the likes of DotC, SotB, or Another World, which certainly were built to Amiga's strenghts and yet got succesful ports all around.

The attitude of "we only want our product to be the best out there hence it's an exclusive" is in reality only feasible for giants such as Sony or MS and the studios they pay megabucks to. And in the olden days you really had to diversify to not only grow but often just stay afloat.

[tarr]

Originally Posted by Tolismlf

I think that one of the most (if it is'nt the MOST) wronged Amiga games ever is Lionheart of Thalion software
http://www.cus.org.uk/~alexh/games/l...ionheart2.html
This one is surely the best (from technical point but also in gameplay)
platform/arcade adventure on the Amiga.
Surely even the Beast 1 doesn't have these graphics! NO console (16 bit) game has these graphics!
Not to mention the sound is INCREDIBLE and the game is very playable contrary to the Beast which is a graphic playable demo in my opinion!

You are totally right!

[BSzili]

What a bump

[CCCP alert]

Originally Posted by Retro1234

This is why I can't understand people who don't like Gods
Also a reason why I don't like Console versions of Gods. They went kind of Arcade?

Looks like a C compiled game, unlike Lionheart which looks like a 68000 based arcade motherboard is running it perhaps?

[Megalomaniac]

I prefer GODS on Megadrive to Amiga or ST personally. The faster motion and multi-button controls mean that its your reflexes and intellect against the enemies and the puzzles, rather than having to work around the sluggishness and control limitations.

[Tsak]

Is Lionheart one of the most, if not the MOST wronged Amiga game? By the time this thread came to be (i.e. 2004), this question was probably relevant and somewhat true. Because a large portion of the Amiga public (back then) was still unaware of most games in the Amiga catalogue, especially ones that came late and had no big commercial success. Many people left the platform before these games were released or they missed their publication altogether or had no means of getting them. Or because by the time Lionheart was released, 2D platform titles were seen as anachronistic and out of fashion. People had enough of these types of games and many were not particularly impressed by what seemed (at the time) as too little and too late. Should this game had been released 3-4 years prior, there's no doubt it would be considered an absolute classic!

Hopefully (and 20 years later), this is not the case anymore though. People have now easy access to most Amiga games, many who came back did (eventually) gave many of the games they missed a chance and pixel art and retro games are back in fashion. We can now appreciate good art and technical achievement with more impartiality and the community has made sure to celebrate and bring to the public spotlight titles that (otherwise) would have been forgotten. So nowadays Lionheart is no more an 'obscure' title (or at least, definitely much less than it used to be) and is rightfully considered by the majority as a classic and one of the better games in Amiga's catalogue.

To sum up was Lionheart one of the most wronged Amiga games in 2004? Probably yes. It is still now? Absolutely not!

[Cris1997XX]

Alright guys, we got the definitive answer to this. We can close the thread now

[mc68060]

Low sales of Lionheart were probably also related to silly marketing. I mean, come on, whoever had the idea to sell Lionheart in a black box without any screenshots, marketing text whatsoever on it should be tarred and feathered. It's like buying a pig in a poke. No wonder this sold very poorly and eventually caused Thalion's insolvency. This should have been marketed properly.

[CCCP alert]

Looks like it came out in Spring 93, thought it was later. The only people who didn't know about Lionheart were the filthy pirates who never bought any magazines to see it, even so the scumbag on the market stall would probably try pimping them a copy seeing as it was on 4 disks (more cashola for them).

What was the top selling arcade style/50fps type game on Amiga in 1993 then?