Worst Amiga games that look great, Best Amiga games that look terrible

[CCCP alert]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

You keep repeating this argument, but it's a classic case of false equivalency and the only thing it points to is that you don't understand what makes good game design.

Yes, Ghost'n Goblins (or Contra et al) is a very hard game, but it's also designed to be fair and exciting. In contrast, in SotB I never feel truly in control and it seems full of cheap kill-you gimmicks. Plus, its run-right-and-punch-things gameplay style is really dull.

That's your opinion, on the other hand the majority of people who spent their youth in video arcade games playing brutal 16bit arcade games and 50/60hz games on their VCS, Atari 800 or C64 etc etc had no problem with it at the time, they respected the challenge.

Many people are not going to like Beast 1, it's a massive challenge but then so was something like completing NES Contra/Ninja Gaiden relatively speaking, same sort of investment in time and effort is required to beat the game.

Just because it's too much of a challenge for some doesn't mean it is a bad game and has nothing to do with bad code design, the game was designed for people like me and others who spent most of the 80s in the arcades, that was the goal of the developer and they hit 10/10 in every aspect of their goal I think, and the gameplay is usually where the '...but' comes in for those who don't like it.

Not sure why people get so wound up that Beast1 is fair and is do-able and you just have to have 1982 Porsche 911 driven in the torrential rain levels of reactions to beat it, which obviously is not every persons idea of a good game.

The notion that there is one single set of criteria for a great playing game for ALL Amiga owners is bullshit though, your opinion is not a fact, and mine was not a universal statement of fact I was just pointing out which type of Amiga owners don't like it, the same kind that would throw the NES joypads at the wall after 10 minutes with Ninja Gaiden etc.

I just said the kind of people who give up on Beast1 are mostly the kind of people who give up on similar arcade games after putting in a coin once or twice. Just pointing out Beast1 isn't a bad game, it's just not for every Amiga A500 owner, probably not even half. You don't know me so don't assume you do. We all like different games for different reasons, we are all better/worse at different genres of Amiga games. The way some people react you would think I am claiming they have small willys lol

Difficult/massive challenge is not the same as a bad game, Hercules on C64 IS a bad game, it is also difficult, but that's not why it is bad. Green Beret C64 is as hard as the arcade game which was one of the biggest coin guzzlers of 84/85 etc but it's not considered a shit game because it's hard.

Bad game = Buggy Boy on Amiga [vs C64]. On the Amiga port sometimes pushing the joystick left/right for 1 second will move you a few pixels, other times there will be a delay and you will then rocket across the screen 20 pixels due to poor load balancing in the game engine code. Amiga version should have been like the C64 port, x seconds pushing joystick = y pixels moved regardless of how many things have to be updated on screen.

Beast1 is a balls hard game, that is the downside, but the controls are fluid and the challenge is not impossible like on some games. Can't promise everyone will like it, or Turrican 3 or Lionheart etc but none of them are badly designed/badly coded games with nice graphics/sound. They are just a hell of a challenge. The biggest selling console for most of the product life of the A500 was the NES, their top rated games arcade conversions are difficult. People have different expectations/tolerances based on what they had before an Amiga.

Sword of Sodan however has laggy inconsistent controls due to use of the Kickstart standard routines to shift the pixels around and on top of that it has those stupid floor traps that are impossible to remember because the backgrounds are so samey on that level. There is a world of difference between Sodan and Beast from an arcade game player's point of view. Most of the time it's OK and it shits all over anything Ocean/Domark/Elite/US Gold did from and audio visual point of view and is not as laggy or low FPS as Operation Wolf IMO. Perhaps if before an Amiga you had a ZX81/Spectrum/VIC-20/CPC/Acorn/Dragon computer this sort of laggy game engine is something you accept but it's not something you ignore if you grew up on arcade games in the actual arcade or even if you played C64 games like Uridium or Green Beret etc I guess. Like I said we all have different likes/experiences with gaming expectations/skillsets.

Beast 1 being a bad game is not a fact, beast 1 being great for everyone is not a fact either, people who loved rock hard arcade games with 60hz perfect game engine responsiveness do not baulk at the challenge of Beast 1 though, that is a historic part of my past life. I knew many people who completed it

It's not a simple case of good/bad that's the point, never said Beast1 was brilliant or for everyone, I did say it's not a bad game. It's no less possible to complete than other 10/10 games like Mario N64 or PS1 Tomb Raider or even Rage Racer. YMMV.

Doesn't mean you have a small willy with E.D. if you can't complete even half of Shadow of the Beast, sheesh some people are too delicate lol

[AestheticDebris]

Beast is indeed a hard game. But, more importantly, it's a spectacularly dull game. There are Atari 2600 games with more depth to them. When even the creators think so, maybe you need to re-evaluate it?

Even the graphical panache it has really only applys for the first few minutes (and notably the rolling attract mode). Once you get underground, it is barely distinguishable from an other Amiga title.

[Megalomaniac]

This myth that people don't like Shadow of the Beast because it's difficult really needs to be smashed. It is raised as an issue today, but not at the time. The less positive reviews it got (especially on reissue) barely mention the difficulty, they talk about the unoriginal and repetitive gameplay, the high price, and sometimes the high amount of disk accessing. Frankly it's summed up by the manual - seven pages of largely-irrelevant plot, two pages of gameplay and three pages of how great Reflections are. Style over substance for me.

Still, I don't think spikes appearing out of the ground from nowhere is a good way to get difficulty, and its a shame you can't store the potions for when you need them. I'd add that starting with a well to enter, wait, go down, not be able to do anything, go back up, be sarcastically told you need a key, swap disk and wait before being able to resume the game isn't good design either.

[sokolovic]

Yep Beast 1 is a great game for the time it was released.

EDIT : And I'll add that Ghost N Goblins or Contra are also almost unplayable for people born in early 21st century.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Predseda

Rise of the Robots is obvious candidate.

If you include the pre-launch hype, it should be the clear winner ;-)

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by CCCP alert

8><——
Green Beret C64 is as hard as the arcade game which was one of the biggest coin guzzlers of 84/85 etc but it's not considered a shit game because it's hard.

I didn’t swear much as a kid, but that changed when I started playing Green Beret on my C64/128…

[Bren McGuire]

yes you are quite correct this turns it from a fighting game into a TERRIBLE GAME not worth playing for more than one minute

Originally Posted by sokolovic

(the jump mechanics and the coin retrieval make it almost a different kind of game).

[Bren McGuire]

actually no it is the kind of people that know for a fact Shadow Of The Beast was, is and will always be a very pretty terrible game comparing it to arcade greats like Ghosts n Goblins is disrespectful to actual good games you need to get your Amiga glasses off it's 2024 it doesn't matter anymore how pretty the Amiga was made to look back then when running SotB you seem highly affected by nostalgoa

yes i remember myself playing some absolute turds for hours on end but you know what i grew up and i matured and i can now say "how did i ever spend so much time in such bad games" there's plenty of Amiga examples of this because there's a lot of really bad Amiga games but that's all i had so i loved the games

Originally Posted by CCCP alert

I just said the kind of people who give up on Beast1 are mostly the kind of people who give up on similar arcade games after putting in a coin once or twice.

[sokolovic]

Originally Posted by Bren McGuire

actually no it is the kind of people that know for a fact Shadow Of The Beast was, is and will always be a very pretty terrible game comparing it to arcade greats like Ghosts n Goblins is disrespectful to actual good games you need to get your Amiga glasses off it's 2024 it doesn't matter anymore how pretty the Amiga was made to look back then when running SotB you seem highly affected by nostalgoa

yes i remember myself playing some absolute turds for hours on end but you know what i grew up and i matured and i can now say "how did i ever spend so much time in such bad games" there's plenty of Amiga examples of this because there's a lot of really bad Amiga games but that's all i had so i loved the games

Ahaha.
I love that spirit. Let's not care at all about the time line and the context. You're probably thinks that 1933 King Kong isn't a great movie because "Hey we are in 2024," .

Shadow of the Beast was a milestone not only for the Amiga but also for the European videogame industry because it shows that a game made in Europe could be a worldwide hit.

(And Sony bought Psygnosis, not Capcom).

[Bren McGuire]

another victim of heavy nostalgia! mate at the time and context of Shadow Of The Beast there were many, many very good games even before it. Shadow Of The Beast is just bad. it looked great only. why can't people like you get over this? it's really bizarre even someone in this thread posted a quote from the game creator!! saying there was not much thought put into the actual game

it's like you made this fictitious image of the past in your brain and anything that challenges becomes a threat it's sad to see

it seems to me like you are the one who doesn't get time and context here is a helper for you because i feel like you don't remember what 1989 was about at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_in_video_games

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Ahaha.
I love that spirit. Let's not care at all about the time line and the context.

[Amiga1992]

I think this is quite personal, but even though this game isn't a looker, I always thought it was really fun to play:
https://amiga.abime.net/games/view/wira%C5%BC

I wish it had more tracks though! Or a track-maker.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by sokolovic

Shadow of the Beast was a milestone not only for the Amiga but also for the European videogame industry because it shows that a game made in Europe could be a worldwide hit.

That still doesn't make it a good game, as in gameplay game.

There are plenty of games that got a lot of rave reviews and were hits, mostly because of gfx/sfx, but are now considered less-than-stellar. Just ask people around here on their thoughts about Xenon II

(...or Superfrog. Even though I don't think these two were as bad as SotB when it comes to gameplay).

[cloverskull]

For the record, I really like Rick Dangerous, Superfrog, and SOTB And Contra and Ghosts n Goblins for that matter.

Like others here, I agree Civilization is one of the best games ever made and replayability is huge. I've never actually tried Colonization, suppose I should give that one a shot.

ROTR is almost universally disliked, but I bet someone here enjoys it :P

[Tigerskunk]

I think the "truth" lies somewhere in between.
Beast is not as bad as people make it out to be, imho, and some of those much touted Japanese classics aren't as good as people want to make you believe.

Ghost'n Goblins while generally being quite good has some very bad passages. And don't get me started on the gameplay of Ninja Gaiden.

What's the difference in gameplay here to Beast?
[ Show youtube player ]

It's just run. stop. hit button for killing enemy.
All that while some too fast moving enemies get cheap shots at you all the fucking time. And don't get me started on the EAGLES... lol...

[CCCP alert]

Originally Posted by Tigerskunk

I think the "truth" lies somewhere in between.
Beast is not as bad as people make it out to be, imho, and some of those much touted Japanese classics aren't as good as people want to make you believe.

Ghost'n Goblins while generally being quite good has some very bad passages. And don't get me started on the gameplay of Ninja Gaiden.

What's the difference in gameplay here to Beast?
[ Show youtube player ]

It's just run. stop. hit button for killing enemy.
All that while some too fast moving enemies get cheap shots at you all the fucking time. And don't get me started on the EAGLES... lol...

That was really my point. if you are used to arcade games AND love them regardless how tough and unfair they seem to some, like the zombies instantly spawning under your feet without warning from the second you start playing Ghosts n Goblins, then you probably will be fine with Beast1 and an arcade quality joystick to play it with, not that colourful dildo-tastic rubbish bundled with so many Amiga computers I bought lol bonfire methinks for them. In Ninja Gaiden when you get hit you get thrown backwards and fall off a ledge half the time too lol, this doesn't happen in Beast 1 at all (or Rastan Saga IIRC which is a massive influence on the design).

It's a bit arrogant to say Beast 1 is a bad game because some people can't handle it and try to palm it off as some sort of 'fact' when the reality is the game actually won some sort of award or something didn't it. Yeah and you can stop typing a reply with 'yeah shit game of the year' too lol

Like I said, some people cut their teeth on brutal 60hz arcade games in the arcade or 60hz console/computer games on custom silicon rich systems, some people grew up with CPU only driven 8bits and slow paced 10-15fps slowdown heavy 'arcade' games, before getting an Amiga and something like Beast 1. It's not the games fault if you can't handle true arcade gaming, certainly no bad thing that there are a few arcade quality games in the time of KS 1.3 A500. Some people can only handle Colecovision Zaxxon, some will play nothing less than the arcade version. Enjoy what you like, don't try and make facts out of your own personal taste in games though.

The only circular argument is that a game is bad because somebody can't finish it, that doesn't fly with me when I have completed them. Games that can't be completed without hacks/cheats like Jet Set Willy fair enough, this is more of a Manic Miner type situation, weeks of trial and error and pixel perfect jumping at the right time. Great games require great skill and great sacrifice [of spare time].

Perhaps Psygnosis should have accepted returns of Beast 1 and sent those people a knitting simulator. Maybe it should have come with a t-shirt that says "Mummy, help!" lol this is as obnoxious as coming on a forum and quoting my post and saying "nah beast 1 is shit coz I can't do it man, and WTF do you know about good games mate?" I know you needed a Zipstik and a spare week or 2 for Beast 1, possibly some sort of blood pressure medication too for all the excitement it's going to bring

[xc8]

Brataccas for me, I like the hi-res gfx but awful and PITA controls...

[Megalomaniac]

Once again, almost none of the criticism of Shadow of the Beast on here is about the difficulty. A couple of people have raised that it gets its difficulty in unfair ways, but also that they find it badly designed, repetitive, tedious, and beset by horrendous loading delays. Why are you still misrepresenting people's issues with the game? Graphics and sound were 99% of the reason for its awards and sales. Even the programmer admits this, do you know more about the game than he does?

Anyway, Amiga owners weren't put off by difficult games per se - a lot of people got through Cannon Fodder which has some brutal levels, Rainbow Islands is one of my favourites and I never got halfway through it, not to mention Kick Off 2 which almost nobody found intuitive. Arguably none of these are above average for graphics or sound either, as it happens.

Even Rick Dangerous, while not to everyone's gameplay tastes (and certainly less rewarding of great reflexes than most action games) does have some internal logic to most of its puzzles think of it as if you're making an action movie, work out what would look the most exciting. If there's an obvious way of getting somewhere try to think about whether there's a less obvious way, as that's more likely to be the right one.

[Jope]

Obliterator and Xenon II looked great but were no fun at all.

[Megalomaniac]

Xenon II's popularity has always confused me. Large sprites and vaguely inventive enemies aside, the murky washed-out visuals aren't that special, and the gameplay feels slow, dull and unfair to me. It's not even amazing for its time - Hybris was a year earlier and better in almost every way. The Bitmap Brothers hype machine (in contrast to the relatively obscure Amiga-only guys who made Hybris and Battle Squadron) and trendy musician tie-ups seemed to blind people to the mediocrity of what they were actually offering in this case.

[A500]

Originally Posted by Jope

Obliterator and Xenon II looked great but were no fun at all.

I second this and would like to add Psygnosis' Barbarian as well. It and Obliterator would (possibly) benefit from proper joystick controls. Adding a few more FPS wouldn't hurt either