How the hell could Sega get so big

[Rolf N]

Rant coming.

After pondering a long while with Virtual Console purchases, I have received my Sega Mega Drive Collection (30 games plus assorted cruft, for the PS2) yesterday and played many of the ... things.

Including of course Sonic The Hedgehog, Golden Axe (1+3 for prosperity), Kid Chameleon, a hasty glance at Phantasy Star IV (argh!), Ecco the Dolphin, Ristar, Columns, Altered Beast, Gain Ground and some of the other stuff.

I remembered some of the stuff, but it was a while ago. I want to try and be a little more diligent, giving perhaps a little more time to Alex Kidd, Virtua Fighter, Shinobi, Vector Man (I hear that's good) and the Phantasy Stars before ripping them new 'uns.
But oh my is this a freak-show of non-gaming and bad design so far. It destroys the will.

First off, yes, I know where they are coming from. Arcade machines don't need to be great games, they just need to appear inviting for whoever strolls past. But only a portion of these are arcade games, and even those that are (Golden Axe) run pretty far out with that point. What a freakin' bunch of arbitrary button mashers ffs.

The tentative verdict as of right now is that Sega never got on board with the "game" concept. These are all just "entertainment experiences", they don't even try to have sensical gameplay rules. That's the foundation of the company right there, folks. Disgusting.

/rant

Just finished downloading something else, a game with mechanics that gives incentives for playing well and advancing, That should sooth me back to normal.

 

[TheChefO]

How did Sega get so Big? Must I sing it for you?...

Genesis Does! You can't do that on Nintendo! Genesis Does! /Commercial





Seriously - go back and play MOST of the games in that era and I think you'll find they're pretty much crap 9 times out of 10.

Sega had a great reputation in the arcade and for good reason. They made great arcade games. Guess what was popular at the time? Arcades. Big Draw? Bring the arcade home:

Genesis Does! You can't do that on Nintendo! Genesis Does! /Commercial

 

[inefficient]

Genesis does what Ninten-don't!

I wish some one would put that AD up on youtube.

 

[Fu3lFr3nzy]

Genesis does what Ninten-don't!

I wish some one would put that AD up on youtube.

I remembered that ad on my old magazines

Dont quite remember the commercial though

 

[Crayon]

How Did Sega Get Big!?!? Aye Carumba!!!!

Rant coming.

After pondering a long while with Virtual Console purchases, I have received my Sega Mega Drive Collection (30 games plus assorted cruft, for the PS2) yesterday and played many of the ... things.

Including of course Sonic The Hedgehog, Golden Axe (1+3 for prosperity), Kid Chameleon, a hasty glance at Phantasy Star IV (argh!), Ecco the Dolphin, Ristar, Columns, Altered Beast, Gain Ground and some of the other stuff.

I remembered some of the stuff, but it was a while ago. I want to try and be a little more diligent, giving perhaps a little more time to Alex Kidd, Virtua Fighter, Shinobi, Vector Man (I hear that's good) and the Phantasy Stars before ripping them new 'uns.
But oh my is this a freak-show of non-gaming and bad design so far. It destroys the will.

First off, yes, I know where they are coming from. Arcade machines don't need to be great games, they just need to appear inviting for whoever strolls past. But only a portion of these are arcade games, and even those that are (Golden Axe) run pretty far out with that point. What a freakin' bunch of arbitrary button mashers ffs.

The tentative verdict as of right now is that Sega never got the "game" concept. These are all just "entertainment experiences", they don't even try to have sensical gameplay rules. That's the foundation of the company right there, folks. Disgusting.

/rant

Just finished downloading Adventure Of Link, a game with mechanics that gives incentives for playing well and advancing, That should sooth me back to normal.

Oh my f***ing god you just exploded my head!!!!!!!!!!

Zackenstack destroyed my head!!! HE EXPLODED IT!!!1

Mother Mary Whorehouse, I don't know where to start. I'll start with this.

Acrade games, (actually arcade games, not arcade game-structures) do need to be great games. It is absolutly neccessary! An arcade game has to attract a player, then teach them how to play, then suprise and challenge and reward them all in the space of about one minute!!

And that does not mean that arcade games have any less depth or entertainment value than modern progressive gamestyles. Arcade games just have less content. Take for example The best game in the whole big stupid universe, sometimes reffered to as Daytona USA; Daytona only has three tracks, 2 cars, two modes, and a scoreboard. That's a very limited amount of content. In those three tracks, they manage to pack in a huge.... HUGE variety of driving challenges. No one corner is the same in that game and every single one is critical for a good performance. Every bit of content in this game is condusive to it's flawless gameplay and you can be sure that as much or more resources went into creating it's 3 tracks as went into creating any vast adventure or rpg world of the time.

Daytona stands as a playbook in good game design. Proven by the fact that you can still sit down and play it today, and it's every bit as good as it ever was.

Sega has a long string of hits and sleepers that all hail directly from their pick up and play arcade lineage. Shinobi, Afterburner, Radmobile, Space Harrier, Crazy Taxi, Vitual On, Virtua Cop, Super GT, Dynamite Cop.

Crazy Taxi is a good example as well. It seems like they made the game on a lunchbreak.... but by sticking to their meat and potatoes principles they hammer out an instant classic. How can they make a skeletal game idea so timeless?

EXECUTION

Sega game tend to be punctuated evolutions of standards set by themselves. Once a main franchise establishes a series of standards (Virtua Fighter 2) then other similar franchises spin off to explore new gameplay evolutions (Fighting Vipers, Last Bronx) and the lessons learned are refined so they can be folded into a new standard-bearer (Virtua Fighter 3) and the cycle continues (Fighting Vipers 2, Fighters Megamix). Seeds of ideas are carefully nurtutred and groomed until they are utterly playable and balanced to the point where they can be made integral to good gameplay.

Put in your Genesis collection ad go play Sonic for a bit. Then go play Flicky. Flicky seems a far cry from Sonic's diamond-like form and sparkle. In comparison, Flicky seems like a filthy lump of coal. The graphics are gaudy, the saound grating, and that aweful control. Why does Flicky have so much inertia? Why does he take so long to get going? Take so long to turn around or stop? He can get running pretty fast, but there's not really any point to that. If only flicky could run somewhere more fun, like over a loop or something...... And bam. The young creator of Flicky (Naka) had the seeds of what would become the core of Sonic the Hedgehog. The concept that the character could have alot of inertia that could work for or against him.

Later, he would get a little carried away with how it should feel to glide Knucles around while making Sonic 3 and bring forth NiGHTS. Another magnificent masterpiece game that has nothing much of a narrative of real goal. Just a time limit, simple controls, fast paced skill-shot gameplay and a hi-scoreboard.....

 

[Rolf N]

Seriously - go back and play MOST of the games in that era and I think you'll find they're pretty much crap 9 times out of 10.

I don't think most games of the era are crap in that specific way that these Sega games are crap.
Soldier Blade is a pretty smooth and polished gaming experience. Liking that is a question of whether you can accept the graphics quality, but it's definitely a game. If you evade the bullets and shoot at the right stuff, the game will progress, otherwise it will not. That's not a concept Sega could implement. I mean ... I don't even know which game I should mention for comparison. Ecco The Dolphin ... it's indefensible as a game; it's like stealing candy from a baby. Altered Beast ... everyone agrees it's garbage. I pretty much have to trot out Sonic, one of the two franchises that have survived, to have any contest. But that's not working either. You just jump into stuff, you make 90% of the kills by accident, the level rushes past, then you play it again. Twice. Then you are killed by a boss.
If the game had a learning curve (cf the first ten seconds of Super Mario Bros world 1:1), or if there was any relevance to anything you do (hello, rings?), I'd be more inclined to accept that as my own fault. But the game really only works if you come in with knowledge from other games. It's for high-score whores who don't need anything else to drive them, and that's pretty much the polar opposite of me.

Sega had a great reputation in the arcade and for good reason. They made great arcade games. Guess what was popular at the time? Arcades. Big Draw? Bring the arcade home:

Genesis Does! You can't do that on Nintendo! Genesis Does! /Commercial

Oh wow. I didn't know that one. It's good to have working comms channels to the US
It's pretty sad though. I figure they referred to graphics or whatever, not realizing the categories in which Nintendo ran rings around them even existed.

 

[inefficient]

I remembered that ad on my old magazines

Dont quite remember the commercial though

I found it!!
This is a must watch people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8

 

[Rolf N]

Oh my f***ing god you just exploded my head!!!!!!!!!!

Zackenstack destroyed my head!!! HE EXPLODED IT!!!1

Mother Mary Whorehouse, I don't know where to start. I'll start with this.

Acrade games, (actually arcade games, not arcade game-structures) do need to be great games. It is absolutly neccessary! An arcade game has to attract a player, then teach them how to play, then suprise and challenge and reward them all in the space of about one minute!!

Your upcoming example would work against me, so I cut the quote here to disagree

It's not the first minute. The machine wants your second and third and nth coin as well. I.e. even a doofus must have a realistic chance of getting "good enough" at a game to believe he can go on, from which follows that the game must be highly unreliable and chaotic. You die often, because that's what brings in the coins, but not from lack of skill but from lack of luck. Rewarding high skill with reliable progress is dangerous for an arcade machine because it means the player will not pay much money per amount of time. Hence they stay arbitrary.
There, that's basically the high concept for the Golden Axe machine.
*takes a cookie*

And that does not mean that arcade games have any less depth or entertainment value than modern progressive gamestyles. Arcade games just have less content. Take for example The best game in the whole big stupid universe, sometimes reffered to as Daytona USA; Daytona only has three tracks, 2 cars, two modes, and a scoreboard. That's a very limited amount of content. In those three tracks, they manage to pack in a huge.... HUGE variety of driving challenges. No one corner is the same in that game and every single one is critical for a good performance. Every bit of content in this game is condusive to it's flawless gameplay and you can be sure that as much or more resources went into creating it's 3 tracks as went into creating any vast adventure or rpg world of the time.

Daytona stands as a playbook in good game design. Proven by the fact that you can still sit down and play it today, and it's every bit as good as it ever was.

I won't argue with the quality of Daytona, I'd just like to point out that it can do that because of the genre it's in. If you race for lap or track times, and the player's coin will be consumed after the minutes that takes, no matter how good he or she did, it takes away the need to kill the player regularly with obscure, unreliable mechanics. The money flows for other reasons (you know, competing with real-world people).

Sega has a long string of hits and sleepers that all hail directly from their pick up and play arcade lineage. Shinobi, Afterburner, Radmobile, Space Harrier, Crazy Taxi, Vitual On, Virtua Cop, Super GT, Dynamite Cop.

Crazy Taxi is a good example as well. It seems like they made the game on a lunchbreak.... but by sticking to their meat and potatoes principles they hammer out an instant classic. How can they make a skeletal game idea so timeless?

Oooh, I like Crazy Taxi. Farkin' shame I don't have any version of that.

I already yielded Virtua Fighter, here it's the 1-on-1 multiplayer and timed-rounds aspects, again, that allow the game to have actual gameplay.
Don't know about most of the other games you mentioned, except for Space Harrier which was pretty nice I think, but also aeons ago.
(my version of the collection doesn't include Space Harrier, because I seem to be living in the wrong place basically)

EXECUTION

Sega game tend to be punctuated evolutions of standards set by themselves. Once a main franchise establishes a series of standards (Virtua Fighter 2) then other similar franchises spin off to explore new gameplay evolutions (Fighting Vipers, Last Bronx) and the lessons learned are refined so they can be folded into a new standard-bearer (Virtua Fighter 3) and the cycle continues (Fighting Vipers 2, Fighters Megamix). Seeds of ideas are carefully nurtutred and groomed until they are utterly playable and balanced to the point where they can be made integral to good gameplay.

I rather recognize the Inquirer formula.
Generate as many random things as you can, with as little effort as humanly possible. Throw everything at the wall. Watch what slides down the slowest, add a second playable character and throw it at the wall again.

Put in your Genesis collection ad go play Sonic for a bit. Then go play Flicky. Flicky seems a far cry from Sonic's diamond-like form and sparkle. In comparison, Flicky seems like a filthy lump of coal. The graphics are gaudy, the saound grating, and that aweful control. Why does Flicky have so much inertia? Why does he take so long to get going? Take so long to turn around or stop? He can get running pretty fast, but there's not really any point to that. If only flicky could run somewhere more fun, like over a loop or something...... And bam. The young creator of Flicky (Naka) had the seeds of what would become the core of Sonic the Hedgehog. The concept that the character could have alot of inertia that could work for or against him.

But there is nothing around that core. It's just a proof of concept, a tech demo. It doesn't want to be played, it just wants to look interesting, and they stopped there.
What are the levels in STH good for, besides soaking up time? You could almost limit the game to the boss fight arenas and lose nothing. You need to collect one ring to not die instantly, beyond that there really is no apparent motivation for playing through a level, and the difficulty level is just non-existant.

Later, he would get a little carried away with how it should feel to glide Knucles around while making Sonic 3 and bring forth NiGHTS. Another magnificent masterpiece game that has nothing much of a narrative of real goal. Just a time limit, simple controls, fast paced skill-shot gameplay and a hi-scoreboard.....

I like games that reward skill, I really do, but you'll have to forgive me that I will look towards this man's creations with skepticism.
IOW I don't know NIGHTS, but might get myself informed.

 

[Rolf N]

I found it!!
This is a must watch people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nsBoqJ6s8

Holy mother of all whales and dolphins! That's brilliant!

 

[V3]

If you like skill base games, you'll love Nights.

 

[Crayon]

Zackenstack you seem a little overly cynical of the arcade game. Specifically with the quarter-eating aspect of their design.

But I can't go on right now. I have to go to bed. And I'm still busy picking up bits of skull and brains from my poor head which YOU EXPLODEDED!!

I'll be back when I tape my head togeter!

 

[inefficient]

I remeber I could not enjoy home console games or early 3D PC games like Quake1 for a long time because of arcade games like Virtua Cop. And there was Daytona USA, Sega Rally and VF. When 3D first hit the arcades, Sega was at the top of their game.

 

[Rolf N]

Zackenstack you seem a little overly cynical of the arcade game. Specifically with the quarter-eating aspect of their design.

But I can't go on right now. I have to go to bed. And I'm still busy picking up bits of skull and brains from my poor head which YOU EXPLODEDED!!

I'll be back when I tape my head togeter!

I'm sorry I caused such a mess. If you want it, I'd be willing to lend you a broom
It's interesting that you'd call it cynical, because cyncical is how I believe some of these games act toward the player. Rest assured that I hate non-Sega games for the very same reasons -- the EA LotR: RotK game most recently. Or does anyone remember Cauldron (1 and especially 2) for the C64 or Amstrad CPC? I hated that very much. With Kid Icarus there exists even a Nintendo game that I hate, but only half of it. The game's practically two games in one, that's how it works. The "Zelda dungeon gameplay clone" portions of the game are hate-inducing garbage. Faxanadu starts well-mannered enough, but really starts bending over backwards to piss off players after a few hours. So add that, too.

Sega may have made nicer games, ones that I would hate less than the aforementioned. I can't know every game after all. This thread started off the disgust I developed on my first day with that specific games collection

In any case i hope that my hate being more universal is something that'll help you with your brain recollection

 

[archangelmorph]

I'm sorry I caused such a mess. If you want it, I'd be willing to lend you a broom
It's interesting that you'd call it cynical, because cyncical is how I believe some of these games act toward the player. Rest assured that I hate non-Sega games for the very same reasons -- the EA LotR: RotK game most recently. Or does anyone remember Cauldron (1 and especially 2) for the C64 or Amstrad CPC? I hated that very much. With Kid Icarus there exists even a Nintendo game that I hate, but only half of it. The game's practically two games in one, that's how it works. The "Zelda dungeon gameplay clone" portions of the game are hate-inducing garbage. Faxanadu starts well-mannered enough, but really starts bending over backwards to piss off players after a few hours. So add that, too.

Sega may have made nicer games, ones that I would hate less than the aforementioned. I can't know every game after all. This thread started off the disgust I developed on my first day with that specific games collection

In any case i hope that my hate being more universal is something that'll help you with your brain recollection

Alot of hate going on today..

 

[Mordecaii]

I happened to love the sonic games. I can remember playing through Sonic over and over and over again (Sonic 3 I believe) just because it was addicting. I played co-op with a buddy, and the challenge of beating a stage faster, or beating one without getting hit, was a blast.

It seems to me like a lot of older Sega games are just games in the purest sense of the word. By this I mean that the experience is what you're supposed to enjoy, not necessarily individual parts of the game. Many times the game didn't make sense, and you weren't quite sure why you were doing something, but you did it anyway and it was an enjoyable challenge.

One of my favorite Sega games was Panzer Dragoon. I don't really remember much about that game other than flying around and shooting at other things that were flying at me. It was simple, little or no story, but it was just fun to play. I think that's what Sega used to do very well, create games that may not have been very in-depth or complex, but were enjoyable to sit down and play.

 

[Rolf N]

Yeah, that's basically the observation. My problem is that I can't appreciate a video game that tries to offer a "nice experience". If that's what I'm after I rather watch a movie or *gasp* read a book. When games go there that's okay too, but they need to do something else to work for me. I take niceness merely as a welcome bonus.

I'm done with the round of first inspections, and from the collection I think Flicky is an okay little game, Comix Zone works well, Bonanza Bros might be good (stealth gameplay just isn't for me) and Shinobi III is good. Virtua Fighter II is only of limited hotness in solo play, even though it has a solid system. All the other stuff in that collection, for what I'm looking for, not so good.

I'm especially shocked by the RPG/adventury games (three Phantasy Stars and Sword of Vermilion). Nothing fancy-shmancy is required for such old games, but these are borderline unplayable. FF1 managed to have a user interface that was approximately five million times more useable, probably because it was designed by someone who cared. Whatever finer points these games may have, they are such a PITA to even get started with, I probably won't touch any of them ever again.

 

[Mordecaii]

I don't know if Phantasy Star 4 came with your collection, but as far as I know it was the best by far and perhaps the only one really worth playing.

 

[RollingBalls]

Outrun, Afterburner, Space Harrier, Hang On, Shinobi, Shadow Dancer, Virtua Fighter's 1/2/3, Virtua Racing, & Daytona USA. I spent a crap load of quarters on these games from a youth through highschool. That was around the time the Playstation came out and killed the arcades. Namco is very much like Sega, and they would have been in a similar position had they not supported Sony from the beginning. Nintendo was never one to break expectations. A few years back I purchased a GBA so I would have something to play on flights. I bought Zelda Link to the Past because everyone raved about it. I stopped approximately two hours in and never finished. There are a few Nintendo games here and there that caught my attention Metroid, Golden Sun, but for the most part they are bland and overrated. I sometimes wonder if this is what gave birth to such companies like Squaresoft (Final Fantasy) and Enix (Dragon Warrior).

 

[Rolf N]

I don't know if Phantasy Star 4 came with your collection, but as far as I know it was the best by far and perhaps the only one really worth playing.

That was actually the first one i played (before I opened this thread) but I admit I didn't put enough time into it. I accepted the quest to solve the inevitable trouble in the basement, but was called away.

I know it didn't annoy me as much as parts 2 and 3. Having to open a menu and selecting "open", while your gamepad has at least two unused buttons, doesn't strike me as a sensible approach to opening a door. What's really annoying though are the text messages you get when you can't open the door, or when you look for stuff on the ground. In an FF game you can just mash a button while running around and when something's there, you'll grab it. When there's a door, you'll open it. When there's someone to talk to, you'll talk etc. Why should you even open a menu for such basic interaction?

In Phantasy Star you get that elaborately written "Terribly sorry but it appears that the tile you examined just now might be empty, devoid of content, lacking even the merest hint of an interesting thing" message that slowly fills a text box, which you can't abort. It's infuriatingly stupid. It's also the sure-fire way to teach players of your game to never examine anything again. Combat controls are a morbid joke. The movement speed is a morbid joke. Everything in Phantasy Star 2 and 3 seems to be.
*twitch*

Anyway, I'll give part #4 another shot sometime soon.

 

[Cryect]

Heh, in the case of Phantasy Star IV just sounds like are bothered by what we expect to be standard in a console RPG UI. The story itself and the actual gameplay were quite good for the time.

If you think the UI of old RPG's is bad don't try to play old RTS games. A while back tried to played WC2 and TA just couldn't due to all the missing UI features I just expect to be standard now.