Sega to unveil loads of new games

[mtxblau]

Originally posted by it290@Mar 26, 2004 @ 09:44 PM

Streets of Rage.. well, Fighting Force was originally going to be SoR4. A lot of people hated that game, but I didn't think it was that bad. Not SoR quality though, for sure. Sega has a lot of experience with 3d beat 'em ups, and although none of them have been stellar (well, Die Hard Arcade was above average), I think it could be done. I believe Yuzo Koshiro has expressed some interest. At this point I'd almost rather see it on the GBA though, but that wouldn't really work without multiplayer. I know it won't happen, but SoR4 should stick to 2d.

From what I've read, and seen of the videos floating around the web, there was a demo of Streets of Rage, but was nixed by SoA (for their lack of understanding the popularity of the Streets of Rage series). Instead they produced... :: zombie revenge.

I don't know if Fighting Force was supposed to be the next SoR - it is by Eidos/Core, but I could be wrong.

Die Hard Arcade wasn't really a 3D game, but it would work well with the streets of rage series. Dynamite Cop 2 was a lot of fun, but also very VERY short.

If only they used the Zombie Revenge engine, the game would fine. Change the zombies to Y. Signals and Galsias, change it so that the focus is on hand combat and not guns, and the game would be perfectly fine. But that's just me.

 

[CrazyGoon]

Originally posted by MTXBlau@Mar 29, 2004 @ 08:16 AM

Die Hard Arcade wasn't really a 3D game

Heh, yeah - it's pretty hard to classify this type of game. 2D beat-em-ups still allowed you to travel up and down since they were created in a 2D isometric view. We all know the difference between 2D and 3D, though isometric views sorta complex things.

Double Dragon - a 2D beat-em-up (in an isometric view) - is quite noticeably different when compared to Die Hard Arcade. They are both beat-em-ups, and the gameplay is the same, but the thing which stands out as the main difference between the two, is that one is 2D and the other is 3D. You can't ignore the fact that Die Hard Arcade was still created and rendered in 3D -- it's just since the isometric view 'restricted' the 3D, the gameplay was the same as a normal 2D beat-em-up (in an isometric view).

Give me an example of a 3D beat-em-up with no isometric view restrictions, you say? Onimusha 😉 And now the low down:

Double Dragon: 2D beat-em-up (isometric view) [2D gameplay]

Die Hard Arcade: 3D beat-em-up (isometric view) [2D gameplay]

Onimusha: 3D beat-em-up [3D gameplay]

Ya see why I said it was pretty hard to classify that type of game?

/going off on a tangent.

 

[it290]

If only they used the Zombie Revenge engine, the game would fine. Change the zombies to Y. Signals and Galsias, change it so that the focus is on hand combat and not guns, and the game would be perfectly fine. But that's just me.

Ach! No! I like Zombie Revenge and all, but the control in that game just felt way too stiff. I'm sure this was partly due to poor animation, but if they're going to make SoR4, it needs to have all of the play mechanics of 3, and then some. Zombie Revenge doesn't allow you to do half of the things you can do in SoR, like jumping, throwing, etc.

 

[cherok]

IMO, a streets of rage sequel would require a complex fighting engine. I know I rant about fighter style gameplay alot, but in all honesty, I, personally, would get real bored with only 3 or 4 types of moves to use for the entire game.

Its all about the learing curve, baby! It makes or breaks a games replayability