PCEngineFans.com - The PC Engine and TurboGrafx-16 Community Forum
NEC PC-Engine/SuperGrafx => PC Engine/SuperGrafx Discussion => Topic started by: A Black Falcon on August 07, 2016, 08:37:05 PM
-
Platform: PC Engine (TurboGrafx-16)
Year: Released 9/27/1991
Developer/Publisher: NCS Masaya
Title: Dragon Egg!
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/box/6/9/3/51693_front.jpg)
Colors aside this is representative of the game.
Introduction
Dragon Egg! is a cartoony platformer NCS Masaya published in '91. This game is a tough one to review, because on the one hand it's a pretty good, fun game, but on the other hand it's also flawed, has an unbalanced difficulty level which is harder in the first half of this six-level game and easier in the second, is absurdly short, and feels unfinished. When this game released in Japan in fall '91 the PC Engine was still popular, but the smash-hit success of the Super Famicom (SNES) was taking over the market and NEC was moving towards a stronger focus on CD games over HuCard titles. NCS Masaya may have been a third party, but they noticed this, as Dragon Egg! was their last HuCard release. This all might be an explanation for why this game was rushed, but whatever the reason, it's unfortunate. Regardless, the game makes a great first impression with its good graphics and nice cartoony artwork, and it controls well as well, but the serious issues add up to some huge drawbacks. The story is that you play as a young girl, off to save the world from evil with a dragon's egg. The text is all in Japanese, but the basics of what's going on is clear enough: there is a demon troubling the land, and a young girl is the only hope to save the land from decay. An old man, maybe her grandfather or something, gives her some goggles which are apparently dragon-rider gear, and off you go to save the day! The intro cutscene is fairly long and looks great. Unfortunately, it's the only real cutscene in the game; the ending is extremely short. There is a nice credits sequence, but still, as with many things in this game, the ending feels unfinished.
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/d/c/1/gfs_4984_1_15_mid.jpg)
The intro looks great.
Graphics and Sound
Visually, the game is one of the better looking platformers on the system. The PC Engine or TurboGrafx, on both HuCard and CD, does not have the wealth of platformers that the Super Nintendo and Genesis do. Its platformer library is smaller, and many of the games are more NES-like in design than most of the games you see on those other two systems. The system had an earlier peak, and that shows. This game, though, is clearly 4th-gen in style. The background and character art is colorful and quite well-drawn. It shows off the consoles' ability to put lots of colors on screen nicely, and the art design would look good anywhere. Buildings do look a bit flat, I guess, but I don't mind. The sprite art is particularly nice, and well animated too. The heroine in her pink overalls puts those goggles on once you power up enough to ride on the dragon, for example, which is a nice touch once you notice it. Enemies raise their weapon as they approach you too, and do a 'swing' animation if you touch them. Nice stuff. There are not a huge number of different types of foes, but it's enough for a game as short as this. Those enemies are varied, and while the game has a cartoony anime look to it, there is some variety here, from the cute to the threatening. Your dragon is somewhat adorably cute, but monsters vary from the big-headed and not too scary skeletons to the creepier flying bug-men . Other enemies include giants, slimes, and later on several kinds of gun and laser turrets. Bosses similarly vary, from the barely threatening-looking first boss to the more serious later ones. They all look great. On an odd but then-common note though, the main character wears blue overalls and a yellow shirt in the manual art, but pink overalls with a white shirt in the game. It's odd how some older games have very different art between the manuals and games even in Japan... or sometimes, within the game itself; see Alisia Dragoon on the Genesis for an example of that.
I do need to say though, as in many anime fantasy settings, this world is historically incoherent. It appears medieval at first and enemies have armor, swords, and bows, but there is electricity in places, there are enemy laser turrets, and the heroine wears modern clothing. The setting makes little sense. Is this fantasy or modern? It's both, apparently. But beyond that all-too-common frustration, the game looks great. The visuals here have a more polished look to them than most platformers on the system do. Hudson's platformers often match or beat this, visually, but I do think the game is in the upper tier visually, at least for this system. The developers even pull off a limited parallax effect. The whole background does not have multiple layers in it, but there are clouds which quickly move across the sky in many stages, to give some of that feeling of parallax movement. It's a great effect and definitely helps. The music, however, is unfortunately strictly average stuff. It's mostly okay, but isn't exciting or too memorable. Some songs are too short, too, such as the five-second-loop that plays during the first half of the last boss fight. Still, the audio is alright, and after playing it for a while I guess a few tracks are somewhat catchy.
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/5/6/f/gfs_4984_2_1.jpg)
The first level. Health and lives are in the upper right, dragon egg counter in the upper left.
Controls and Game Design
One thing making Dragon Egg! game good are the great controls. The controls are precise and accurate. You do move a little fast, so you do need to look out or you'll bump into enemies, but it controls very well. This is a simple game, and all you'll is move around, jump, and attack. You start with two hearts for health, though each health heart can take two hits, and you can upgrade this to a maximum of four hearts during the game. Though you can't save your progress you do have infinite continues, but your goal should be to beat the game without dying, or without getting hit much at all if you're in Hard mode, so the continues aren't always needed. Levels are all straightforward as well. There is some depth in the upgrade system, however, though it's badly unbalanced, particularly in Normal difficulty. Whenever you kill an enemy they drop one of two different types of powerups: dragon eggs to upgrade your dragon's form, or coins you use to buy other powerups. Which one an enemy drops is entirely random, it is important to note; I kind of wish the powerups were predetermined, but which you get is purely a matter of chance.
Of the two upgrade systems, I will first cover the dragon mentioned in the title. Collecting dragon eggs upgrade your dragon between four forms. You start out carrying an egg in a backpack, and can attack only at melee range. You want to get out of this mode as soon as possible, because this attack is too close-range to avoid taking damage sometimes. All four forms do exactly the same amount of damage per hit, varying on whether you have weapon powerups of course, I should say; it is the range that varies, but those range expansions are vital! It is funny how hitting a badguy with an egg does the same amount of damage as shooting them with a fireball, though. Heh. :) So, the first upgrade requires two dragon eggs. Here, the dragon has poked its head out of the egg and breathes fire ahead of you. This short-range fire attack is pretty good and actually will collect items, something the later upgrades' attacks will not do. The third level takes three more eggs. Now you ride on the hatched dragon's back, and attack with fireballs that go across the screen. The last powerup takes four eggs, and makes the dragon larger and better. Now it's got a higher jump that has some float to it for slower descents, and it upgrades your weapon potential as well -- while the basic un-upgraded attack is the same as the level 3 dragon, with upgrades you will see the difference. The top-level dragon is pretty awesome, and overpowered, so long as you have it. It is a big target, though only your character is actually vulnerable and not the dragon. This is important to know for getting through the laser gates without taking a hit.
The money system similarly rewards staying alive, and is one more element making the first half of the game harder than the second -- if you can get fully powered up and avoid losing those powerups, you'll be nearly unstoppable. You use collected money to buy powerups from shops scattered around the game. There are six different items you can buy. For 3 coins, you can buy cure items which you can use in the select menu. These heal half a heart each, and you can carry up to four. There are three items that cost 10 coins. First there is a firepower upgrade which doubles the damage you do per hit. You can buy this again, for the same cost, to almost double damage again -- this reduces an 8-hit giant down to 3 hits, for example. Next, there is a range / multi-hit upgrade. This gives the level 1 or 2 dragon a slightly longer range attack, the level 3 dragon two fireballs for an attack, or the level 4 dragon three fireballs. You can also can purchase this a second time as well, to add homing to your level 3 or 4 dragon's shots or a little more range to a level 1 or 2 dragon. And last at 10 coins, you can buy additional health hearts, which, yes, you can buy up to two of, though you don't need to as unlike the attack upgrades you can also get these other ways. And last, two items are available for for 30 coins each: a barrier which gives you an extra hit which you don't lose anything for losing if you are hit, or a skull which is a bomb you can use by double-tapping attack, or something like that. You can only have one skull at a time in your inventory. It is important to note that five of these six powerups can be lost, but you won't lose the healthbar-expanding hearts. I wonder why they decided that health upgrades are permanent, while attack upgrades can be lost. It's kind of odd. As for the other upgrades, in Easy or Normal you won't lose any dragon or store-bought powerups unless you die, but if you do die you reset to the level-one egg-swing attack, and you lose all money and purchased items except for health expansions as well. It's painful stuff, if you were upgraded; the easiest way to beat the game is to not die. In Hard mode the game is significantly more punishing: you lose store-bought attack powerups, then dragon eggs, each time you are hit. More on this later.
There is no scoring system in this game, so the only pickups in levels are those items enemies drop, and a few scattered health bar-expansion heart, cure, and skull items. There is also a roulette after each level which spins between a health expansion heart, a cure, a skull, or a 1-up. Try to time your jump for the one you want the most. Oddly, while they look identical, the cure items you get from the end-level roulette or that are placed in levels are entirely different from the ones you can buy in the stores, as quite unlike the ones you buy, the cure pickups are instant-use only and cannot be stored, and heal a full heart instead of only a half like the ones you buy do. The two types probably should have used different graphics to signify that they are not the same. Still, I like that the full-heart heals exist, they are quite useful because there is no health recovery between levels; you'll start the next stage with the exact amount of health you finished the last one with. When you add those hearts to your health they start out empty, too, so even if you don't take damage you will need health at least to fill those. It all works fairly well.
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/8/b/2/gfs_4984_2_8_mid.jpg)
The shop and items.
Level Design and Layouts
The level designs are the core of any platformer, and thankfully stages in Dragon Egg! are nicely varied. There are horizontal, vertical, and maze-like levels, and you need to approach each enemy type differently. Enemy AI is extremely basic, as enemies mostly just move or shoot straight at you once they're on screen, but it works as other things differentiate them, such as size, whether they fly or not, and whether they can shoot at you. The six bosses are each entirely unique as well, so no two of those fights will be the same. All six boss fights have the exact same stage background as well, with the same platform layout on it. I don't mind this, but it does lack variety. More importantly, one of the major issues with Dragon Egg! is that the game is badly unbalanced and sort of backwards -- the second half of the game is significantly shorter and easier than the first half is. The first two levels each are broken up into three stages and then a boss. The difficulty ramps up just right here, as the game starts out quite easy but slowly gets trickier. Level three only has two stages before the boss, but the second is the games' one and only maze stage, so it may take a little while to get through. Level 3 feels as long as either before it, and it might be the hardest level in the game. But then you get to level four, and it all falls apart; while levels four through six are quite fun, they all have only ONE stage per level each! One linear stage and a boss each, that's it. There are also level design elements that only appear once, which can be fine for some original challenge, but why does is stage 1-2 the only one in the whole game with instant-death pits in it, for example? It's bizarre. The only explanation I can think of is that the game must have been badly rushed, shipped before it was really done because NCS needed it out NOW or something. These and other cutbacks are quite unfortunate, because a more complete and polished version of this game could have been great.
Now, I'd like to go into a little more detail about each of the stages. Skip this paragraph if you want to avoid any spoilers about the game. Level one has you traveling across some mountains. As mentioned previously, stage 1-2 is the only one in the game with bottomless pits. It's hard to avoid that enemy on the last jump, but you CAN do it without taking a hit if you jump at the last second. I mentioned the first boss earlier. Level two is harder, as you travel through giant-infested caverns. It's a fun level, though it can be tricky at points in Hard mode. The boss is a spawning creature which can be a pain to not take any damage against. Level three is the maze in an electric castle. It's a good, well-designed level, though it is quite challenging to get through in Hard mode without taking hits thanks to the flying bug enemies, the laser gates, and maybe worst of all the invincible gun turrets shooting at you. The boss is this cubic thing with tendrils you need to destroy before you take out the core; it's easy powered up, but a bit trickier if not. Level four is a river-rafting trip over water. You have to stay on the raft in the middle of the screen and enemies are only a minor threat, so the level is very easy. The graphics here are great though, as the level has some really nice-looking rippling water effects. The stage ending is a setup for another stage that doesn't exist though; again, this game must have been rushed. The boss is interesting, but again is easy at full power once you learn its pattern. The fifth level goes through an Egyptian desert. It's a fun level, though again it's too short and badly needs multiple areas. The level 5 boss is one of the easier ones regardless of your power level. And last, you go through the bosses' fortress. The level is only moderately challenging, though the boss is really hard if you aren't powered up. This boss has two forms, and without powerups it takes a lot of hits to kill and attacks with curving fireballs that are hard to avoid. It's hard to do even a few hits in a row against the guy without taking damage, so you want to be powerful enough to take him out as quickly as possible.
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/f/3/1/gfs_4984_2_15_mid.jpg)
With the level two dragon, shooting a fireball.
-
Hard Mode
There is a big elephant in the room that I have been sort of dodging around up to this point, however: the difference between the difficulty levels. Dragon Egg! has the usual three settings, Easy, Normal, and Hard. On Easy, the game is a complete and total cakewalk. Don't bother with it. On Normal, the game is still really easy. I beat the game on normal, without dying even one single time, the day after I got this game. So it may have been easy, but it was a lot of fun while it lasted. But to get a bit more out of this not-cheap game, I decided to try Hard mode... and it's a huge difference from the lower ones! Hard makes two major changes to the game: first, all enemies and bosses take twice as many hits to kill as they do on the lower difficulties. This makes everything a lot longer and slows down the game. And second, and even more importantly, you now are punished not only for dying, but for getting hit at all. If you have bought powerups from the store, you lose one level from BOTH of those powerups each time you take a hit. You also take damage, of course. And if you don't have powerups, each hit takes away one dragon egg. If there are no eggs in the meter at the moment you'll be downgraded to the next level down, down to the minimum of just having the egg with its way-too-close melee attack. And you REALLY need powerups, because the final boss is brutally, near-impossibly difficult without a significantly powered up dragon; I tried to beat him in Hard with no powerups once, but eventually had to give up, it's just crazy-hard.
Overall, Hard mode's changes make the game a LOT harder and much, much more frustrating. The main reason why this review isn't happening until now, instead of a week and a half ago when I first meant to write one, is because I just can't stop trying and failing to beat this game on Hard! I know I need to no-hit-clear it to win, and I keep messing up and dying somewhere in level three. It's really the "taking away powerups when you get hit" thing that makes it so hard; if you've gotten to the point where you're losing eggs, it's already over. You cannot grind to get more money in this game, there is a preset number of enemies and each one only drops one coin or egg. So if you take a hit and it steals 10 or 20 coins worth of powerups from you, that's a hard to impossible thing to recover from. It's frustrating, because if I could get past the first half of the game with full power I think I could beat the second half with a lot less difficulty, but that's easier said than done... argh. So yeah, I keep trying, and putting off this review that I was initially going to "write quickly because the game is easy and fun." Heh. But hey, as frustrating as that is, it also shows how addictive the game is; I'm still playing it, after all. Had the game only had the Normal difficulty setting and no others it'd have been another one of those fun but very short game, but thanks to Hard mode the game has some lasting play value.
(http://img.gamefaqs.net/screens/f/b/f/gfs_4984_2_2.jpg)
Archers shoot fire-arrows.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dragon Egg! is a good game I definitely like playing, but it is also a flawed title that could have been a lot better. This game has great graphics that are among the best on the platform in this genre, variety to the gameplay due to the different enemies and obstacles you run across, and something for everyone difficulty-wise as the normal mode is short and fun, if somewhat insubstantial because of how quickly you should beat it, while the hard mode is a serious challenge. On the other hand though, the game is far too short and was obviously shipped in a partially-finished state, as the mostly missing second half of the game and very short ending show. The unbalanced difficulty and too-easy gameplay if you get fully powered up are also issues; though Hard mode does alleviate that second one somewhat, it is still easier powered up. The decision to have you lose a full level of BOTH attack-enhancer powerups every time you get hit one single time in Hard mode is also perhaps inordinately cruel for a game like this; it'd have been better if you lost only one attack powerup each time, if that mechanic had to exist. These issues are significant, but still I do like Dragon Egg! overall. I give this game a B- score. This is the kind of game this system needed more of and I recommend it to platformer fans, it's good despite its issues.
Links
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2009/03/dragon-egg.html - The Brothers Duomazov's review has some nice screenshots from later in the game, read it!
http://www.videogameden.com/hucard/reviews/deg.htm - VGDen also has a areview, and a translation of the backstory -- the girl's name is Eran, and she is the descendant of the legendary Dragon Warriors and is the only one who can defeat the demon who has taken over the land. Also, more nice screenshots.
-
Hey now, a hefty Black Falcon review out of the blue! Thanks brother!
-
You had me at "just starting to fade"....
(http://junk.tg-16.com/images/bg_dragon_egg.png)
-
Thanks for the review.
@ A Black Falcon, you seem to have a talent for writing reviews, have you ever considered writing your own printed fanzine?
The guy's printed fanzine who I linked to in my signature has done really well and sent loads of them all round the world.
-
Great review! I had never even heard of this game, so I'll be sure to check it out.
-
Once again, I don't think that console war propaganda is a good idea to include in game reviews like this, especially when the thin context is incorrect.
I 1cc'd Dragon Egg! the first time I played it and then immediately played through the hardest difficulty without dying. It's more of an experience than a game, as it is so easy to casually walk through.
The graphics look and feel more 8-bit gen to me and I honestly thought to myself the first time through that it makes poor use of color and is poorly drawn.
Anyone considering buying the game should play through it first on a flash card or in emulation. I really can't recommend it.
-
Only in Black Falcon land are background elements scrolling at differing speeds between themselves and moving both vertically and horizontally independent of the foreground graphics that often overlap them, not considered parallax. :lol:
(https://j.gifs.com/v2Bm95.gif)
-
Thanks for the replies.
Only in Black Falcon land are background elements scrolling at differing speeds between themselves and moving both vertically and horizontally independent of the foreground graphics that often overlap them, not considered parallax. :lol:
... What are you talking about? I specifically mentioned the clouds as a nice effect that gives a parallax-like look. Of course they're actually sprites, not a parallax layer, but the idea was good and it works.
Thanks for the review.
@ A Black Falcon, you seem to have a talent for writing reviews, have you ever considered writing your own printed fanzine?
The guy's printed fanzine who I linked to in my signature has done really well and sent loads of them all round the world.
I have actually had someone mention this, but I don't understand, what would be the demand for an actual paper fanzine if that is what you mean when the internet exists? I do have that blog where most of my game writing stuff goes, after all...
Hey now, a hefty Black Falcom review out of the blue! Thanks brother!
Sure! I have written other stuff about games since my last TG16-related review, but I don't post everything here; posting everything on like 3-4 forums feels like enough, I can't post everything everywhere so I kind of hope anyone interested checks the site too. Unless there is demand for me to post more of it here?
Once again, I don't think that console war propaganda is a good idea to include in game reviews like this, especially when the thin context is incorrect.
Propaganda? It's just facts -- by later '91 the SNES was taking over the market. I guess I could have left that out, but I think it might provide some possible context for why the game was shipped so unfinished... perhaps I should add a few words into the review making that point clearer.
As for the thing about the number of platformers, there are fewer platformers on this system (HuCard and CD both) than the SNES or Genesis, something I do consider a negative because I like this genre a lot and it was an important genre then. The TG16 is a great console, but the slightly disappointing platformer library is a comparative weakness within its generation... even if compared to plenty of consoles from other generations it's a strength.
I 1cc'd Dragon Egg! the first time I played it and then immediately played through the hardest difficulty without dying. It's more of an experience than a game, as it is so easy to casually walk through.
Sure, on Normal the game is very easy. I didn't beat it my first try, but it didn't take many tries before I beat it without dying. You beat it almost immediately on Hard, though? That is impressive for sure, for the reasons I describe in the review Hard is really tough and I still haven't managed to beat that mode...
The graphics look and feel more 8-bit gen to me and I honestly thought to myself the first time through that it makes poor use of color and is poorly drawn.
Anyone considering buying the game should play through it first on a flash card or in emulation. I really can't recommend it.
I definitely disagree about the graphics, as the screenshots show they look quite good! The game is very bright and colorful, far beyond any 3rd-gen game, and the sprite details and general visula look are above NES levels for sure as well.
As for the game overall though, if the game was cheap I'd recommend it more definitely, but it is true that for the $20 or $30-plus this game will cost, you might want a longer game than Dragon Egg provides. That's a fair concern for sure. I like it enough that I don't mind having spent that much for it, but playing it first is fair, sure.
You had me at "just starting to fade"....
I'm trying to reword that part of the first paragraph to make that point better... like, in December '91 NEC released the Super CD addon, as they responded to the SNES's dominating success by focusing more on CD titles over HuCards, something the Super Nintendo couldn't do.
And on that note, consider this -- Dragon Egg! was the last HuCard game released by NCS Masaya for the system. All their titles after it are on CD. So yeah, I can see how the changing market could have led to them rushing this one out unfinished.
-
Thanks for the review.
@ A Black Falcon, you seem to have a talent for writing reviews, have you ever considered writing your own printed fanzine?
The guy's printed fanzine who I linked to in my signature has done really well and sent loads of them all round the world.
I have actually had someone mention this, but I don't understand, what would be the demand for an actual paper fanzine if that is what you mean when the internet exists? I do have that blog where most of my game writing stuff goes, after all...
doesn't sound like it's your thing.
-
Here's my current thought for a better version of that part of the first paragraph:
" When this game released in Japan in fall '91 the PC Engine was still popular, but the smash-hit success of the Super Famicom (SNES) was taking over the market and NEC was moving towards a stronger focus on CD games over HuCard titles. NCS Masaya may have been a third party, but they noticed this, as Dragon Egg! was their last HuCard release. This all might be an explanation for why this game was rushed, but whatever the reason, it's unfortunate. "
-
Great review, but let's not jump to conclusions. The game may feel rushed, but that doesn't mean it actually was. Sometimes game designers make bad judgments when designing games (just like movie directors). Nothing wrong with saying it feels rushed, but if you say outright that the game IS rushed, you should make sure you have a source for that information rather than just your own intuition.
-
Great review, but let's not jump to conclusions. The game may feel rushed, but that doesn't mean it actually was. Sometimes game designers make bad judgments when designing games (just like movie directors). Nothing wrong with saying it feels rushed, but if you say outright that the game IS rushed, you should make sure you have a source for that information rather than just your own intuition.
A review should try to list the objective facts about a game, but ultimately it's a subjective opinion. And that's what I give there, my opinion that the game feels incomplete. It's not just me who feels that way; the Brothers Duomazov's review says the same thing, and for the same core reason I do: " It makes you wonder if, at some point, the designers just decided to speed things up and get the project out the door. ", it says. I agree with that idea. The VGDen review doesn't say "rushed", but does comment on the oddest thing about this game: the shortness of the second "half" of the game, levels 4 through 6: " The game is also fairly short - the first level does feature several sub-stages, but later ones are incredibly short and you often reach the various bosses in no time." I don't think what I say is too different from either of those. Or at least, it wasn't meant to be.
Here are the stages in the game:
1-1
1-2
1-3
1 Boss
2-1
2-2
2-3
2 Boss
3-1
3-2 (maze level)
3 Boss
4-1 (short easy autoscroller stage)
4 Boss
5-1
5 Boss
6-1
6 Boss
See what I mean? I can't imagine this being the original intent. Yes, levels 5-1 and 6-1 are longer than any individual stage in world 1, but they aren't longer than the levels in worlds 2 or 3. And here's another thing -- level 4 ends with you going off the end of a waterfall... then you drop into the boss room against this slime monster thing? That doesn't flow at all.
-
It's short and feels rushed, sure, but you blaming it on the Super Famicom or Masaya wanting to distance themselves from hueys is just a guess.
Why is it that Runin's review is a fourth as wordy as your wall of text yet says four times as much? :lol:
... What are you talking about? I specifically mentioned the clouds as a nice effect that gives a parallax-like look. Of course they're actually sprites, not a parallax layer, but the idea was good and it works.
And you also said "there is no real parallax scrolling". I know you're too foolish to understand this, but either a game has parallax or it doesn't; only your bias and willful ignorance of dictionary definitions defines parallax solely as "two+ tile based background layers", a made up definition you can't even be bothered to apply consistently.
-
... What are you talking about? I specifically mentioned the clouds as a nice effect that gives a parallax-like look. Of course they're actually sprites, not a parallax layer, but the idea was good and it works.
And you also said "there is no real parallax scrolling". I know you're too foolish to understand this, but either a game has parallax or it doesn't; only your bias and willful ignorance of dictionary definitions defines parallax solely as "two+ tile based background layers", a made up definition you can't even be bothered to apply consistently.
As Necro and Falcon remember, we had a big discussion on parallax scrolling...ultimately, the intelligent person would recognize that the ultimate test should be the user experience. If the user sees the effect, then it exists, regardless of how it was achieved.
Now, if I were writing the review, I would discuss the overall effectiveness of the effect.
As I have pointed out in the past, many, many games use parallax in a manner I have found jarring/displeasing (Final Battle on Genesis), whilst other games, using the *same* ratio of character-movement:background-plane-movement produce a pleasing effect (name most horizontal/vertical shooters). Why? Because the speed of a spacecraft hurling through space is not the same as a big dude slowly walking across the screen...so parallax effects should be done to *enhance* the experience and not disorient/annoy the player.
It would be perfectly acceptable to say that the parallax effects in Dragon Egg are not particularly impressive and explain why.
Anyway, sorry for bringing up old debates, but I feel that your reviews would be even better if they focused on the user experience, first and foremost.
For example, does it matter if FMV is running full-screen @256 color @ 16 frames per second if the director chose boring angles/composition etc? The technical backend is not nearly as important as the user experience front end when it comes to these games.
:)
-
I really enjoy this game. Haven't played it in awhile, now i want to play it right now
-
I really enjoy this game. Haven't played it in awhile, now i want to play it right now
You can literally stumble through the entire game in about 15 minutes (even when looking over your shoulder and with the audio out of sync), so it should be easy to make time for.
-
Great review, but let's not jump to conclusions. The game may feel rushed, but that doesn't mean it actually was. Sometimes game designers make bad judgments when designing games (just like movie directors). Nothing wrong with saying it feels rushed, but if you say outright that the game IS rushed, you should make sure you have a source for that information rather than just your own intuition.
A review should try to list the objective facts about a game, but ultimately it's a subjective opinion. And that's what I give there, my opinion that the game feels incomplete. It's not just me who feels that way; the Brothers Duomazov's review says the same thing, and for the same core reason I do: " It makes you wonder if, at some point, the designers just decided to speed things up and get the project out the door. ", it says. I agree with that idea. The VGDen review doesn't say "rushed", but does comment on the oddest thing about this game: the shortness of the second "half" of the game, levels 4 through 6: " The game is also fairly short - the first level does feature several sub-stages, but later ones are incredibly short and you often reach the various bosses in no time." I don't think what I say is too different from either of those. Or at least, it wasn't meant to be.
Here are the stages in the game:
1-1
1-2
1-3
1 Boss
2-1
2-2
2-3
2 Boss
3-1
3-2 (maze level)
3 Boss
4-1 (short easy autoscroller stage)
4 Boss
5-1
5 Boss
6-1
6 Boss
See what I mean? I can't imagine this being the original intent. Yes, levels 5-1 and 6-1 are longer than any individual stage in world 1, but they aren't longer than the levels in worlds 2 or 3. And here's another thing -- level 4 ends with you going off the end of a waterfall... then you drop into the boss room against this slime monster thing? That doesn't flow at all.
I was going to mention it yesterday, but didn't want to bag on you about a review that obviously took quite a bit of time and effort - and I appreciate that effort. I do think you prove a point for me though when I was going to say it seems more designed into a corner than rushed.
Often games go underway with a specific schedule and budget, and that doesn't mean it was "rushed" it means they were given a timeline and budget to work within. From a business standpoint, getting these devs paid, it makes sense.
They easily could have squandered their resources on the first "half" of the game, and simply didn't have the money or memory on the hucard, to one up their earlier levels. Perhaps they used those first levels to greenlight the project and then found themselves in a position to finish the game and had not enough resources.
We are all speculating, and I don't think it's necessary to insert speculation into an objective review. Sticking to what you absolutely know about the game is probably the best idea when presenting a review of that game.
-
I was going to mention it yesterday, but didn't want to bag on you about a review that obviously took quite a bit of time and effort - and I appreciate that effort. I do think you prove a point for me though when I was going to say it seems more designed into a corner than rushed.
Often games go underway with a specific schedule and budget, and that doesn't mean it was "rushed" it means they were given a timeline and budget to work within. From a business standpoint, getting these devs paid, it makes sense.
They easily could have squandered their resources on the first "half" of the game, and simply didn't have the money or memory on the hucard, to one up their earlier levels. Perhaps they used those first levels to greenlight the project and then found themselves in a position to finish the game and had not enough resources.
Sure, those are all possible. What you describe here reads to me like several good examples of how games release in incomplete states, or, in other words, rushed. It could be that they had a set amount of time, and spent too long on the first half and they had to patch together what they had for the second to make the schedule, sure... but that's a rushed game! It's pretty much the definition of one. What you describe seems like just some more specific scenarios that result in a game shipping as I described, feeling incomplete and "rushed [out]".
We are all speculating, and I don't think it's necessary to insert speculation into an objective review. Sticking to what you absolutely know about the game is probably the best idea when presenting a review of that game.
Any review of this game is going to talk about the issue in some way though, because beyond the gameplay itself it's the #1 most glaring thing you notice. I don't think a review of the game which doesn't mention how weird the game feels because of the unbalanced levels and such would be as good of a review; as most things I write make obvious, I like writing to be detailed. (The Wheel of Time is one of the best fantasy book series ever!) Sure, it is speculation to guess at exactly why the game ended up as it did, but I don't mind some speculation, if you make it clear that that's what it is, which I do think I do. Why do you think it's harmful?
Beyond this question in particular, a review isn't only an attempt at objective truth, it is also a subjective opinion. There was a time when professional reviewers tried to make reviews entirely objective, but that has faded as people have recognized that it's impossible. You should try for objectivity when you can, yes, but ultimately a review is an opinion. I think a good review should present the reviewers' opinion, while also covering the game objectively enough to help anyone who reads it to know if the game might interest them, regardless of whether they agree with the reviewers' opinions or not.
... What are you talking about? I specifically mentioned the clouds as a nice effect that gives a parallax-like look. Of course they're actually sprites, not a parallax layer, but the idea was good and it works.
And you also said "there is no real parallax scrolling". I know you're too foolish to understand this, but either a game has parallax or it doesn't; only your bias and willful ignorance of dictionary definitions defines parallax solely as "two+ tile based background layers", a made up definition you can't even be bothered to apply consistently.
As Necro and Falcon remember, we had a big discussion on parallax scrolling...ultimately, the intelligent person would recognize that the ultimate test should be the user experience. If the user sees the effect, then it exists, regardless of how it was achieved.
Now, if I were writing the review, I would discuss the overall effectiveness of the effect.
As I have pointed out in the past, many, many games use parallax in a manner I have found jarring/displeasing (Final Battle on Genesis), whilst other games, using the *same* ratio of character-movement:background-plane-movement produce a pleasing effect (name most horizontal/vertical shooters). Why? Because the speed of a spacecraft hurling through space is not the same as a big dude slowly walking across the screen...so parallax effects should be done to *enhance* the experience and not disorient/annoy the player.
It would be perfectly acceptable to say that the parallax effects in Dragon Egg are not particularly impressive and explain why.
I think the "parallax" clouds were a good idea that gets some parallax in this game on this system that doesn't support it like the SNES and Genesis do. I like those moving clouds and they absolutely add to the game. But yes, it's not quite on par with a full parallax background -- it is only clouds, nothing else. Many stages do have moving clouds on them, but still, having all "parallax" objects be identical-looking clouds that can only appear in sky areas of levels, which not all levels have, does limit things versus the kinds of parallax you see in other games.
Anyway, sorry for bringing up old debates, but I feel that your reviews would be even better if they focused on the user experience, first and foremost.
I really do think that how something is done DOES matter, regardless of if it's identical to the user or not. We disagree on this, apparently.
However, despite that, if you have software parallax-style effects that look identical to hardware stuff? Yeah, I can see calling that the same. Since Neo-Geo game graphics are exclusively made up of sprites they don't have "real" backgrounds or parallax, but the difference doesn't matter much for the user, certainly. The effect in Dragon Egg! is not on that level, though.
For an example of something on the Turbo which gets closer, how about Super Darius? It looks like the parallax in that game probably is made up of sprites, but it's a pretty nice effect and looks great.
For example, does it matter if FMV is running full-screen @256 color @ 16 frames per second if the director chose boring angles/composition etc? The technical backend is not nearly as important as the user experience front end when it comes to these games.
:)
In this scenario both things matter, I'm not sure which one more than the other.
-
Here's another review of the game in English (thanks to BKK from Neogaf for finding this)
(http://i.imgur.com/8tWmyOv.jpg)
... and, like every review of the game I've seen, it mentions how the second half feels unfinished and, beyond that, speculates a bit about why.
-
I think when people hear the term rushed in the title of review it implies some sort of foundation of truth that it was rushed, when in fact it very well might not have been rushed but rather mismanaged to the point where the final project feels incomplete.
My point was that rushed and incomplete "feel" are completely separate issues, and that many incomplete feeling games are not rushed. Duke Nukem Forever felt rushed and incomplete, but took like 13 years of development. I don't imagine I'd see a review for Duke Nukem Forever that says "Rushed", but the gameplay reeks of mismanagement and incomplete ideas.
Edit: it's a weird thing go read speculation stated as fact in the title of a review, just saying.
-
I think when people hear the term rushed in the title of review it implies some sort of foundation of truth that it was rushed, when in fact it very well might not have been rushed but rather mismanaged to the point where the final project feels incomplete.
My point was that rushed and incomplete "feel" are completely separate issues, and that many incomplete feeling games are not rushed. Duke Nukem Forever felt rushed and incomplete, but took like 13 years of development. I don't imagine I'd see a review for Duke Nukem Forever that says "Rushed", but the gameplay reeks of mismanagement and incomplete ideas.
I don't think "rushed" and "incomplete" are very different terms. If a game released unfinished and incomplete, it was rushed for some reason. And there's no question that Dragon Egg released incomplete. I could have used "incomplete" or "unfinished" in the review title instead of "rushed" and the meaning wouldn't change. And I do think it's fair to mention; there's a reason why every review of the game I have seen discusses the issue.
As for Duke Nukem Forever, as a big Apogee (later known as 3D Realms) fan from the early '90s, I followed that games' development along the way. And yes, the final game we got on the shelves was incomplete and rushed to release. The problems started when George Broussard decide that he had to keep pace with the industry, so he kept trying to update the game to match the current trends in AAA development. Problem is, 3D Realms' team was small, so it took a lot longer for them to do an equivalent amount of work to the huge teams AAA games were being made by by in the '00s. So, development dragged on, as the game was repeatedly restarted and then developed slowly by a not-too-big team. But 3DR had plenty of money for years due to previous successes and the money they made for selling off the Max Payne rights, so it kept on... until, with the game finally heading towards completion, they ran low on funds. Eventually Gearbox stepped in to finish it, but what they basically did was just have some ex-3DR people patch together what had been finished of the game into something shippable. I think it would be fair to call the game "rushed" because 3DR wasn't able to actually finish the game, resulting in lots of cut content and a rushed feel. Of course, it's also accurate to call it really killed by too much money (since they could self-fund there was no publisher forcing them to stick to a schedule) and mismanagement, but the end result of all that was that when they were finally working on something Broussard considered shippable, they didn't have time to finish it.
As for the game itself, I do think DNF is okay, but it doesn't live up to the hype of things like the great trailers from the late '90s and early '00s, for sure.
Edit: it's a weird thing go read speculation stated as fact in the title of a review, just saying.
The idea is to have a title which, in a couple of words, encapsulates my opinion on a game.
-
It's short and feels rushed, sure, but you blaming it on the Super Famicom or Masaya wanting to distance themselves from hueys is just a guess.
Why is it that Runin's review is a fourth as wordy as your wall of text yet says four times as much? :lol:
... What are you talking about? I specifically mentioned the clouds as a nice effect that gives a parallax-like look. Of course they're actually sprites, not a parallax layer, but the idea was good and it works.
And you also said "there is no real parallax scrolling". I know you're too foolish to understand this, but either a game has parallax or it doesn't; only your bias and willful ignorance of dictionary definitions defines parallax solely as "two+ tile based background layers", a made up definition you can't even be bothered to apply consistently.
I know this has been a big discussion before, but "parallax" is a visual effect; how it's achieved in a video game doesn't really matter (unless it uses resources that screw up the rest of the game, for example).
ABF should praise PCE games that achieve a parallax effect despite the lack of dedicated "parallax" background layers.
-
There's no true parallax in any games on the TG-16, Neo Geo, etc. because none of 'em have two (or more) tiled background layers. Line scrolls, sprites, manipulating the far background color (like in Magical Chase) don't count; that's nothing but fake parallax!
Logic and common sense be damned. Black Falcon hath spoken!!! :lol:
-
I'm not sure why people are once again bitching about some stupid parallax comment, when they are ignoring the elephant in the room.
As Necro pointed out, TheBrothersDuomazov review says more with less.
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2009/03/dragon-egg.html
Black Falcon's review is long, verbose, convoluted and soulless. He is too focused on providing facts and facts and history, but he never gets to the point. The damn review is longer than my High School thesis.
I do not intend to be rude ABF, but you need to focus on writing material that grabs your audience, instead of boring them in a way that they won't even finish half of what you wrote. Professional gaming historian? Sure. Professional reviewer/writer? Absolutely not.
Maybe someone else can elaborate for me.
-
Lukester makes a good point (I've defended review length before, but they are getting even longer, my eyes glazed over these blocks of text).
While I don't think this is the end all of writing (like some), ABF would benefit from
https://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-William-Strunk-Jr/dp/1557427283
If he has a masters degree, I bet he's already encountered it. USE ITS ADVICE.
-
If he is defending Duke Nukem Forever as a game that was "rushed" and not simply mismanaged, I get the impression admitting mistakes or shortcomings is not going to happen with this guy. Once it's been written there is no revision, because revision would mean he was wrong and that is impossible.
Duke Nukem Forever: If it wasn't rushed it would have been good. The review no one will read because it's too long and needlessly verbose.
Edit: real question you think any amount of time or money would have made duke Nukem Forever good, or even bettter? 13 years and it was released rushed?
-
I'm not sure why people are once again bitching about some stupid parallax comment, when they are ignoring the elephant in the room.
As Necro pointed out, TheBrothersDuomazov review says more with less.
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2009/03/dragon-egg.html
Black Falcon's review is long, verbose, convoluted and soulless. He is too focused on providing facts and facts and history, but he never gets to the point. The damn review is longer than my High School thesis.
I do not intend to be rude ABF, but you need to focus on writing material that grabs your audience, instead of boring them in a way that they won't even finish half of what you wrote. Professional gaming historian? Sure. Professional reviewer/writer? Absolutely not.
Maybe someone else can elaborate for me.
IN DEFENSE OF LONG-FORM
The one thing I love about Black Falcon is that he takes the time to write long-form. It provides a unique experience that is sorely lacking :). Think of it as a "journey"... the purpose of writing can, and should, go beyond bullet points.
There are SO MANY "CAPSULE" (abbreviated) reviews (in all formats—written, podcast, video), I am so happy to read something that takes longer than 30 seconds.
Black Falcon *knows* that 99% of folks only want "very short summaries"... He is clearly *not* writing for this demographic (short attention span).
The pacing and scope of long-form writing is quite enjoyable to me—I want *more* of it—regardless of whether or not I agree with it. :) I feel that Black Falcon is a kindred spirit, in this regard. I feel like I can get to *know* an author through the choices he/she makes in how to present his/her ideas (long-form vs. short-form, formal vs. informal, etc.) and not just via an author's opinions on game ____.
In fact, I would argue that although a significant amount of my enjoyment is derived from "having a dialogue" with arguments/theses that I don't find compelling...I also enjoy critiquing the style/format an author uses (as folks here have done—critiquing BF's overly verbose style :) )
Anyway, bottom line: the world is catered to short-attention-spans...which is a tragedy.
I want more of this: http://www.2-dimensions.com (http://www.2-dimensions.com/)
(Click on any of his "Anatomy of..." projects.... I don't agree with every aspect of his analyses...but only a long-form allows for such a unique experience of exploring and grappling with game design and user experience).
NOTE: I know I am in the minority on this issue. :)
-
Esteban your post is too long, did not read.
(just joking, of course)
I like lengthy pieces too but only if it adds information to it, I hate texts full of empty padding style text. Didn't read it yet but I will as soon as I have time.
-
Esteban your post is too long, did not read.
(just joking, of course)
I like lengthy pieces too but only if it adds information to it, I hate texts full of empty padding style text. Didn't read it yet but I will as soon as I have time.
Yes. If a piece is chock'full'o'filler...then it is laborious to read.
We may not all agree on where to draw the line between prose and padding, but I certainly agree with you.
:)
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6FyHG5mNpWI/UFBLCacNPgI/AAAAAAAAC1k/dLltLbpl2Ns/s1600/gangnam-style-didn't-read-lol.gif)
-
That Game Zone review was 99% filler and what little was communicated about the game could have been based on screen shots alone. It reads like the dialogue in all these terrible youtube video perspnality videos that everyone loves today. Did many people actual read that mag bitd?
Is it the same one with the douche who bragged about how you can only unlock Sheng Long in WW if you are as super skilled as he was when he did it and snapped the photos (identical to EGM's) all without the ability to pause?
-
I'm not sure why people are once again bitching about some stupid parallax comment, when they are ignoring the elephant in the room.
Because this is a very common trend with Black Falcon. He really doesn't understand underlying hardware architecture, let alone more simplistic concepts like parallax. Once he makes this connection from one idea to another, there's no changing it. It is etched in stone in his brain.
Parallax means just what it is; different scroll speeds for parts of the display to give the illusion of depth. Whether they over lap, made up of sprites, backgrounds, straight pixel driven, or some other method or however complex it is... parallax is parallax. His statement could be reduced to "limited parallax" and that would be very accurate. Instead, he asserts his misunderstanding to go out of the way to point something that ends up being incorrect. It's not just PCE reviews; he does this for other systems as well.
There is no such thing as fake parallax. It's either parallax or not. And if it is, it falls somewhere between complex and simple, hardware assisted and software driven, etc. If it's parallax, then there only exists the attribute of how it was derived. "Fake" or pseudo is not a qualifier.
The other connection that this game was rushed because the SFC? There's no evidence to support that. It's just haphazard speculation, which should be stated as such and not passed off as self evident. Where I come from, we call that talking out your ass.
-
Parallax pre-dates video games and even film.
The idea that tile layers only count is so intentionally ignorant that it disqualifies most consoles since the almightly SNES.
Why doesn't ABF go to great length to point out in SNES reviews how most large sprites are fake?
-
I'm a huge SFC fanboy but I don't agree at all that the PC Engine was fading in 91.
-
IN DEFENSE OF LONG-FORM
The one thing I love about Black Falcon is that he takes the time to write long-form. It provides a unique experience that is sorely lacking :). Think of it as a "journey"... the purpose of writing can, and should, go beyond bullet points.
There are SO MANY "CAPSULE" (abbreviated) reviews (in all formats—written, podcast, video), I am so happy to read something that takes longer than 30 seconds.
Black Falcon *knows* that 99% of folks only want "very short summaries"... He is clearly *not* writing for this demographic (short attention span).
The pacing and scope of long-form writing is quite enjoyable to me—I want *more* of it—regardless of whether or not I agree with it. :) I feel that Black Falcon is a kindred spirit, in this regard. I feel like I can get to *know* an author through the choices he/she makes in how to present his/her ideas (long-form vs. short-form, formal vs. informal, etc.) and not just via an author's opinions on game ____.
In fact, I would argue that although a significant amount of my enjoyment is derived from "having a dialogue" with arguments/theses that I don't find compelling...I also enjoy critiquing the style/format an author uses (as folks here have done—critiquing BF's overly verbose style :) )
Anyway, bottom line: the world is catered to short-attention-spans...which is a tragedy.
I want more of this: http://www.2-dimensions.com (http://www.2-dimensions.com/)
(Click on any of his "Anatomy of..." projects.... I don't agree with every aspect of his analyses...but only a long-form allows for such a unique experience of exploring and grappling with game design and user experience).
NOTE: I know I am in the minority on this issue. :)
Well said, agreed. "Kindred spirit," I like that. ;) But yeah, I'm sure he knows people in general prefer short, pithy, etc. he's just not catering to that demographic. It's a tough catch-22, you wanna fully explore and detail as much aspects about the game, to fully capture your thoughts, but you risk that most people will see those large blocks of text and opt not to read it, I get that (I'm accused of verbosity here as well). You have to do a great job to make it VERY interesting (a mix of entertaining helps too) to overcome that default inclination.
I sort of just appreciate that there's someone still reviewing these old retro games regardless of length but it seems he catches heat every time he posts one here. I think we're used to the opposite extreme, people talk, but have very little to say which doesn't make for very compelling or interesting conversations/debates around here. Average posts are in the 1-2 sentence range, chatroom-style. Like you said, "Anyway, bottom line: the world is catered to short-attention-spans...which is a tragedy."
-
In the review, I said this about parallax: " The developers even pull off a 'parallax-like effect; there is no real parallax scrolling, of course, but the developers do make some clouds quickly move past in many stages to give some of that feeling of movement. It's great and definitely helps. "
I was trying to praise the game, but reading it again it can be improved. It's somewhat ironic that I always get complaints about my writing being too long from some, and too short from others... because if the issue here is saying "real" and "parallax-like", that's just shorthand for "the whole background does not move, only those clouds". That is what I meant there, though some here clearly misunderstand that. So, improved version:
" The developers even pull off a limited parallax effect. The whole background does not have multiple layers in it, but there are clouds which quickly move across the sky in many stages, to give some of that feeling of parallax movement. It's a great effect and definitely helps."
I imagine I'll still get complaints, but it's probably a more accurate summation of what I think of the clouds.
Because this is a very common trend with Black Falcon. He really doesn't understand underlying hardware architecture, let alone more simplistic concepts like parallax. Once he makes this connection from one idea to another, there's no changing it. It is etched in stone in his brain.
By making this quite insulting comment you ruin most value from the arguments in the rest of your post, you know. Insults are rude and unnecessary!
Parallax means just what it is; different scroll speeds for parts of the display to give the illusion of depth. Whether they over lap, made up of sprites, backgrounds, straight pixel driven, or some other method or however complex it is... parallax is parallax. His statement could be reduced to "limited parallax" and that would be very accurate. Instead, he asserts his misunderstanding to go out of the way to point something that ends up being incorrect. It's not just PCE reviews; he does this for other systems as well.
There is no such thing as fake parallax. It's either parallax or not. And if it is, it falls somewhere between complex and simple, hardware assisted and software driven, etc. If it's parallax, then there only exists the attribute of how it was derived. "Fake" or pseudo is not a qualifier.
I'm not "misunderstanding" anything, I'm just using terms in a way you disagree with. Let's look at what this actually should be about, this review. Had this game had full multi-layer backgrounds, as you see in some TG16 platformers (Bravoman, Rondo of Blood, Valis IV, and such), I'd call it parallax. However, Dragon Egg! does not do that; it just has clouds it moves by in the sky and nothing else. You're being too reductive by calling all parallax equal; no, the quality of the effect does matter. Something with a full parallax background (like Valis IV) has more and better parallax than something with only strip-parallax, for example. In my game opinion summary of Valis IV a couple of years ago, I said " Ingame graphics are great — this game has parallax-scrolling backgrounds in many levels!" with no qualifiers. And that's accurate. In this review I say something different because this games' clouds are not on that level.
The other connection that this game was rushed because the SFC? There's no evidence to support that. It's just haphazard speculation, which should be stated as such and not passed off as self evident. Where I come from, we call that talking out your ass.
A conclusion based on a significant amount of evidence is not just a guess that deserves such insulting language. The game released at a time when the system was still selling but was declining from its 1990 peak, and months before NEC released the Duo and refocused onto CDs as SNES sales skyrocketed. The game was NCS Masaya's last HuCard release; they entirely switched over to CDs after this game. It released with the second half of the game only maybe half-finished at best. So you have a better explanation than mine that considers all of these facts?
I'm a huge SFC fanboy but I don't agree at all that the PC Engine was fading in 91.
What would you say, just past peak? Because it was on the decline, though it was still successful that year.
A majority of the PCE's lifetime sales in Japan happened from launch through March 1991, according to NEC's numbers: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=981407 Note how in 3/91 the system was at 3.65 million sold (including the CD addon and HuCard systems combined). It finished at 5.84 million, well under double that number. We don't have good separate numbers for the PCE and CD addon before 1992, but we do know the (non-CD/Duo) PCE was at 3.65 million sold in March '92, and finished at 3.92 as of 1994. By '92 the base PCE was pretty much dead sales-wise. Of course, the system did keep selling in Duo form, but the Duo and CD addon combined sold 1.92 million, roughly half for each of them (so a bit under a million each), so the majority of people with a PCE did not buy a CD addon. And most games released in the Duo era were CD titles, not HuCard.
So, based on the numbers we have, the system sold better each year from 3/88 to 3/91, reaching a max of 1.3 million in the year that ended in March '91 (again, base system and CD addon sales combined). Then in the year after that it sold a million, still pretty good though a little bit down... but the year after that saw only 300k sold. So yeah, '91 was a good year, but just past peak.
As for Nintendo and the Super Famicom: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=701305 In Japan, the SFC sold 1.4 million in the year ending Mar. '91, 3 million in the year ending 3/'92, and 4 million in the year ending 3/'93. By March '92 the SFC had sold better in Japan than the non-CD PC Engine.
-
Black Falcon must be really fun at parties...such a boring individual
Also, this is the guy who thinks the Virtual Boy is better than the PS2.
-
By making this quite insulting comment you ruin most value from the arguments in the rest of your post, you know. Insults are rude and unnecessary!
It's not an insult, it's fact that your definition of 'parallax' contradicts the dictionary.
I'm not "misunderstanding" anything, I'm just using terms in a way you disagree with.
Only trolls, fools, and biased liars argue with the dictionary. Which one are you?
In any case, you've changed the line to say it's limited parallax instead of fake, which is exactly what Bonknuts suggested. He made no argument about 'all parallax being equal'; that's just you making things up to support your agenda.
A conclusion based on a significant amount of evidence is not just a guess that deserves such insulting language.
Again, it's not an insult when it's 100% true. You have zero proof that it being unfinished was due to the SFC; it's called conjecture, look it up.
Without something from Masaya themselves, we'll never know why it was unfinished. It could be a response to the SFC, sure, but it could just as easily be due to budget/time constraints, staff changes, corporate priority shifts, or any number of other factors.
-
I'm a huge SFC fanboy but I don't agree at all that the PC Engine was fading in 91.
What would you say, just past peak? Because it was on the decline, though it was still successful that year.
A majority of the PCE's lifetime sales in Japan happened from launch through March 1991, according to NEC's numbers: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=981407 Note how in 3/91 the system was at 3.65 million sold (including the CD addon and HuCard systems combined). It finished at 5.84 million, well under double that number. We don't have good separate numbers for the PCE and CD addon before 1992, but we do know the (non-CD/Duo) PCE was at 3.65 million sold in March '92, and finished at 3.92 as of 1994. By '92 the base PCE was pretty much dead sales-wise. Of course, the system did keep selling in Duo form, but the Duo and CD addon combined sold 1.92 million, roughly half for each of them (so a bit under a million each), so the majority of people with a PCE did not buy a CD addon. And most games released in the Duo era were CD titles, not HuCard.
So, based on the numbers we have, the system sold better each year from 3/88 to 3/91, reaching a max of 1.3 million in the year that ended in March '91 (again, base system and CD addon sales combined). Then in the year after that it sold a million, still pretty good though a little bit down... but the year after that saw only 300k sold. So yeah, '91 was a good year, but just past peak.
As for Nintendo and the Super Famicom: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=701305 In Japan, the SFC sold 1.4 million in the year ending Mar. '91, 3 million in the year ending 3/'92, and 4 million in the year ending 3/'93. By March '92 the SFC had sold better in Japan than the non-CD PC Engine.
I won't argue my point further as you've gone to the review and edited out and changed what you originally said.
-
For a PC Engine platform game I ike it. :?
It has Dragons. 8-[
That's one bottle of merlot inspiration. :dance:
-
Thanks for the review.
@ A Black Falcon, you seem to have a talent for writing reviews, have you ever considered writing your own printed fanzine?
The guy's printed fanzine who I linked to in my signature has done really well and sent loads of them all round the world.
I have actually had someone mention this, but I don't understand, what would be the demand for an actual paper fanzine if that is what you mean when the internet exists? I do have that blog where most of my game writing stuff goes, after all...
doesn't sound like it's your thing.
Sorry, I missed this one... but no, that's not what I meant. Of course the idea of printed versions of my stuff is an interesting idea, I just don't quite see where the market would be... it's hard enough getting people to read something on the internet! :p (Plus, it'd be a lot of work and I am not any kind of graphic artist; I mostly like the writing part, more so than finding screenshots even, much less making a magazine... but sure, despite that it's an interesting idea.)
It's not an insult
It's an insult.
it's fact that your definition of 'parallax' contradicts the dictionary.
Only trolls, fools, and biased liars argue with the dictionary. Which one are you?
I'm not arguing with the dictionary, so none of the above.
In any case, you've changed the line to say it's limited parallax instead of fake, which is exactly what Bonknuts suggested.
I never said "fake parallax"! I originally said "a parallax-like effect". I did change it, and I do think it's more accurate now, but I never said, or thought of saying, the word "fake". You're reading more into it than was there.
He made no argument about 'all parallax being equal'; that's just you making things up to support your agenda.
Uh, what? He spent a whole paragraph saying "all parallax is parallax".
Again, it's not an insult when it's 100% true.
When you meanly insult someone, you are insulting them and that's wrong. Debate based on facts and opinions, not personal attacks -- those get you nowhere.
You have zero proof that it being unfinished was due to the SFC; it's called conjecture, look it up.
Without something from Masaya themselves, we'll never know why it was unfinished. It could be a response to the SFC, sure, but it could just as easily be due to budget/time constraints, staff changes, corporate priority shifts, or any number of other factors.
If you want to write something more than just a recitation of facts, as I do, what you do is first you look at the evidence, then you try to come up with a theory that explains it. And while we certainly don't know the definite truth behind why the game released as it is, there's no harm in trying to figure it out.
-
Debate based on facts and opinions
Kinda like the fact this game was rushed; not mismanaged, poorly planned, or designed into a corner.
Duke Nukem Forever - if only they had a little more time and money.
-
If you had simply titled this "Dragon Egg — A Game that feels as if it was rushed out the door" you would have an easier time. Note the qualifier "As if" ...
:)
He made no argument about 'all parallax being equal'; that's just you making things up to support your agenda.
Uh, what? He spent a whole paragraph saying "all parallax is parallax".
Comrade!
Go back and re-read what he wrote!
His post was excellent and it was very clear:
(1) parallax is a visual effect (be it achieved via hardware, software or a combination of the two) and therefore there is no such category as "parallax-like"... the visual effect exists, even if it is "uninspired" or "a few clouds"
(2) that said, he *clearly* points out that *not* all examples of parallax are visually impressive... *not* all examples are as enjoyable for the viewer... He was simply explaining that you should judge the *aesthetics* of a parallax effect (how kool is it? How effective? Does it heighten the experience?) instead of rooting your criticism in the hardware/software responsible for the effect.
Point #2 is what you have been arguing (I thought)...that some PCE games do not have impressive parallax scrolling effects.
"Lame vs. Awesome" should be determined by aesthetics and user experience, not technical trivia.
:)
ASIDE:
Anyway, although it is exceedingly rare, sometimes even "lame" parallax, when used at precisely the right moment, can really heighten the experience of a game.
A few lame clouds scrolling past in Dragon Egg will never be as impressive, as say, the burnt-orange clouds that scroll violently around Darm Tower at the end of Ys I...just as the bell tolls...and the harsh, howling wind (via Red Book) collectively create one of the most dramatic, atmospheric moments in the game. Technically, Ys I's effects are CHOPPY! but, thankfully, they are *passable* because they *add to the greatness* of that emotional moment in the game. Normally, choppy scrolling clouds detracts from a game...
See? Even technically subpar parallax was used effectively to heighten the experience of the player.
Why do I bring this up?
To demonstrate that *context* + aesthetics + player's experience is the most productive way to critique a game. Ys I is a visually *static* experience...until a very brief SUNDOWN @Darm Tower.
-
I'm not arguing with the dictionary, so none of the above.
Liar. You argue continually that parallax items aren't really parallax because they don't look good enough and/or aren't made using two+ tile layers.
I never said "fake parallax"! I originally said "a parallax-like effect". I did change it, and I do think it's more accurate now, but I never said, or thought of saying, the word "fake". You're reading more into it than was there.
You may not have specifically said the word "fake", but you did say "there is no real parallax scrolling", and what's the opposite of real? Again, your pants are on fire.
Uh, what? He spent a whole paragraph saying "all parallax is parallax".
In a technical sense based on the dictionary definition of parallax, yes, but you're twisting that to claim he said they're all equal in terms of how good they look. If you weren't so wrapped up in your ego and unable to admit you're wrong, you'd understand there's a difference.
-
It's not an insult
It's an insult.
Actually, it's not. It's me being directly blunt with you. Because I've seen your arguments and responses over the years, on many forums, and being blunt-and-to-the-point is about the only way to get you to respond without being automatically dismissive (and even at that, it's a crap shoot). Being blunt isn't a personal insult directed at you, but addresses your points and statements directly without any bullshit. It has its usefulness.
it's fact that your definition of 'parallax' contradicts the dictionary.
Only trolls, fools, and biased liars argue with the dictionary. Which one are you?
I'm not arguing with the dictionary, so none of the above.
In any case, you've changed the line to say it's limited parallax instead of fake, which is exactly what Bonknuts suggested.
I never said "fake parallax"! I originally said "a parallax-like effect". I did change it, and I do think it's more accurate now, but I never said, or thought of saying, the word "fake". You're reading more into it than was there.
This is a part of a larger argument with how you define things; your perspective and view points which you frequently tend to assert against the grain (definition). I thought I made that clear in my opening statement. I didn't waste any words; everything I wrote was in particular context to the things I mentioned. If you're going to cherry pick, you're going to lose context of the meaning of what was being said.
He made no argument about 'all parallax being equal'; that's just you making things up to support your agenda.
Uh, what? He spent a whole paragraph saying "all parallax is parallax".
All parallax is parallax does not mean all parallax is equal. And no where did I even suggest it. Aren't you a college graduate (grad school)? How could you even connect that logic? All cars are cars, does not mean all cars are equal - it means all cars belong to the category of "cars".. is all. So I have to come to the conclusion that you either already understand this and are avoiding the issue by diversion, or your don't understand this and lack basic understand of logical concepts. I personally think it's the former.
Again, it's not an insult when it's 100% true.
When you meanly insult someone, you are insulting them and that's wrong. Debate based on facts and opinions, not personal attacks -- those get you nowhere.
Grow some thicker skin? Learn some witty retort? I dunno. But you have a reputation on many forums for being automatically dismissive of any statement or argument that runs counter to your perspective. And it's not just that, but you play the round-around redirection game (like a politician, I swear) avoiding points in context until people lose interests in having any sort of discussion with you. Sega-16 is a prime example (your other console contribution threads). That, to me, is worse than any sort of perceived insult.
You have zero proof that it being unfinished was due to the SFC; it's called conjecture, look it up.
Without something from Masaya themselves, we'll never know why it was unfinished. It could be a response to the SFC, sure, but it could just as easily be due to budget/time constraints, staff changes, corporate priority shifts, or any number of other factors.
If you want to write something more than just a recitation of facts, as I do, what you do is first you look at the evidence, then you try to come up with a theory that explains it. And while we certainly don't know the definite truth behind why the game released as it is, there's no harm in trying to figure it out.
It's still conjecture, no matter how many dots you try to connect. And that's fine - it completely has its place. We all speculate at some point, but don't dress it up for more than it is (fact), because people will read it and take at face value - and that's how misinformation spreads(the internet in relation to retro consoles is already rife with this stuff... ugh). Make it explicitly clear that this is your personal conjecture and speculation. That's all I'm saying.
PS: Don't you consider yourself a writer? I've participated in many different writing events/styles over the years, and a honest hard-critique is worth more than anything else in this world. Surely you know how to handle hard-critiques and the bluntness they're usually communicated with? I mean, you have an MA right? I think millennials have made everyone soft...
-
(http://chrismcovell.com/images/MichaelJ.gif)
-
Pixelated Popcorn MJ meme with parallax backdrop ? Clever. ;)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6FyHG5mNpWI/UFBLCacNPgI/AAAAAAAAC1k/dLltLbpl2Ns/s1600/gangnam-style-didn't-read-lol.gif)
This had me in stitches too. Haven't seen Gangnam-style guy in a while.
-
Pixelated Popcorn MJ meme with parallax backdrop ? Clever. ;)
That's not real parallax. [-X [-(
-
Man. I saw this review and didn't say anything at first because it's too f*cking long to do anything but quickly skim. It's full of that Wiki-educated Buddy Hacket seagul lecture shit so many YT people use. "Rushed", bringing up the SFC, trying to provide "context" when the author has none themselves, etc. and sure, that's really really played out but really it's the longness that struck me as insane. And a print version? Printed by whom? Funk and Wagnalls don't do that stuff anymore.
It was a natural for a multi page flame thread splitting hairs like atoms.
As for the fake-ness of the parallax. As someone who uses "fake transparencies" a lot to describe that flickery shit that had to make do on every pre-SNES machine, I still find this similar term stupid. All you need to see fake transparencies are fake is to record them and slow them down and see that it's really alternating %100 and %0 opacity every field. That's why fake transparencies induce seizures, real ones don't. Pretty stark. "Fake" parallax looks identical to "real" parallax though so...who f*cking cares? It's as real as anything.
You know what game always seemed "rushed"? Dracula X. Those huge stone guys in the first level look better than most of the game, and those hidden passages in the boat that only Maria can get to lead nowhere, WTF, right?
What happens is that you have to ship the game eventually. Someone will be working on the game right up to that very second. Some parts will be uneven. That's how everything is.
Also, the part about scifi fantasy as a genre being "that all-too-common frustration" seems to indicate...well, autism, honestly, but at the very least I would say they don't know much about art if that kind of thing throws them off. Seeing a sword and a laser gun being held by the same guy is...an idea older than lasers, I'm pretty sure. There is a LOT of stuff to "frustrate" anyone who can't handle that.
-
Where can I download this demo?
Cancelled. I tried to obtain permission for MJ's likeness, but you wouldn't believe the ridiculous rates that mediums charge.
-
(http://chrismcovell.com/images/MichaelJ.gif)
I love that you put in the clouds from the game xD
SignOfZeta: Completely agree on the transparencies thing.
-
(http://chrismcovell.com/images/MichaelJ.gif)
I find this aesthetically and thematically pleasing.
-
ABF, while there are some here who like to rag on you, some of us are trying to give you some constructive criticism . Maybe you disagree with some of it (the way you respond, you seem to disagree with ALL of it), but try incorporating it, anyway. You might find it gives your review new strength. Being concise makes writing more impactful. Applying community-accepted definitions (e.g. parallax scrolling) makes your review better received within the community. Clearly delineating your impressions and subjective content from objective content (feels rushed vs was rushed - clear evidence needed for the latter to be taken seriously) imparts greater respect for impartiality. I see the time you put into your review, but I want to see your review writing get better, rather than remaining a bit sloppy.
-
I look forward to ABF's next review, I just hope he is courageous enough to post it here when the time comes.
I agree with spenoza: please do not think that all of us are simply "hating on you".... for me, it is my genuine 2¢...as if I were your editor.
:)
Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.
:)
-
Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.
Please, nobody make a thread called "POST PICTURES OF YOUR BALLS" then.
-
Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.
Please, nobody make a thread called "POST PICTURES OF YOUR BALLS" then.
As long as you continue working on the Super Blodia Special (HuCARD) that I dreamed about, then you have a deal.
:)
-
ABF, while there are some here who like to rag on you, some of us are trying to give you some constructive criticism . Maybe you disagree with some of it (the way you respond, you seem to disagree with ALL of it),
"All of it"? Of course not, I made multiple edits to the review based on critiques from this thread.
but try incorporating it, anyway. You might find it gives your review new strength. Being concise makes writing more impactful. Applying community-accepted definitions (e.g. parallax scrolling) makes your review better received within the community.
The problem with "community-accepted definitions" is, which community? Different ones online may disagree. Or which part of the community? There are more than enough arguments about definitions of terms out there to know that there is hardly some monolith.
Clearly delineating your impressions and subjective content from objective content (feels rushed vs was rushed - clear evidence needed for the latter to be taken seriously) imparts greater respect for impartiality.
I always think I do this well and clearly -- differentiating opinion from fact is essential, and I pay attention to that! But for whatever reason other people complain a lot about this anyway. I'm sure part of it is just that it's often people disagreeing with me about something, but the general "you don't separate opinion from fact" complaint is not true and doesn't make sense, what is opinion clearly is opinion and what is fact clearly is fact...
I see the time you put into your review, but I want to see your review writing get better, rather than remaining a bit sloppy.
It's about as good as it'll get with just me writing it. To imrpove it I'd need an editor, which would mean some kind of professional position. I know editing passes improve writing, I've seen that before (comparing the earlier to later versions of my thesis...), but you need someone else to be that editor; you really can't edit your own work.
Man. I saw this review and didn't say anything at first because it's too f*cking long to do anything but quickly skim. It's full of that Wiki-educated Buddy Hacket seagul lecture shit so many YT people use. "Rushed", bringing up the SFC, trying to provide "context" when the author has none themselves, etc. and sure, that's really really played out but really it's the longness that struck me as insane. And a print version? Printed by whom? Funk and Wagnalls don't do that stuff anymore.
It was a natural for a multi page flame thread splitting hairs like atoms.
As for the fake-ness of the parallax. As someone who uses "fake transparencies" a lot to describe that flickery shit that had to make do on every pre-SNES machine, I still find this similar term stupid. All you need to see fake transparencies are fake is to record them and slow them down and see that it's really alternating %100 and %0 opacity every field. That's why fake transparencies induce seizures, real ones don't. Pretty stark. "Fake" parallax looks identical to "real" parallax though so...who f*cking cares? It's as real as anything.
There are two ways you can look at this -- either to say that how something is done matters regardless of whether that is visible to the player or not, or to say that the extent of the effect matters. You make an argument against that first interpretation here, sure, but just by the second one, this game still falls a bit short, considering that the parallax is exclusively (identical) clouds and nothing else.
I know this forum is defensive on the TG16/PCE's parallax weaknesses, but it IS the system's weakness, much like how colors on screen is the Genesis's, or the slow CPU is the SNES's.
You know what game always seemed "rushed"? Dracula X. Those huge stone guys in the first level look better than most of the game, and those hidden passages in the boat that only Maria can get to lead nowhere, WTF, right?
What happens is that you have to ship the game eventually. Someone will be working on the game right up to that very second. Some parts will be uneven. That's how everything is.
Indeed, that is true, games need to be shipped sometime and this often leads to cutting features and content from the final product. But most games, including Rondo of Blood, disguise this better than Dragon Egg! does.
For another example of a game I reviewed some time back that feels blatantly unfinished, and I commented on that at length in the review, see my review of Power Piggs of the Dark Age for the SNES: http://www.blackfalcongames.net/?p=47
Also, the part about scifi fantasy as a genre being "that all-too-common frustration" seems to indicate...well, autism, honestly, but at the very least I would say they don't know much about art if that kind of thing throws them off. Seeing a sword and a laser gun being held by the same guy is...an idea older than lasers, I'm pretty sure. There is a LOT of stuff to "frustrate" anyone who can't handle that.
Yes, there is "a lot of stuff" to frustrate me in this issue, that's for sure. But if I like other things about something, I can and will like it anyway, despite having some things I dislike about it. This game is good despite that, I like the Castlevania games even though they make NO SENSE AT ALL historically (seriously, random elements from Greece through modern day, all tossed together!), there are good fantasy animes with plenty of random too-modern elements (for a classic example, I really like The Slayers...), etc.
So, for me, the issue here is when writers decide that they'll just repeat common genre tropes, instead of trying to create an actual internally consistent world. I want to see the latter, but most writers, or game designers, just make the former... and anime, and anime-inspired games, have built up a set of tropes for what anime fantasy "should" be, and following those rules ensures a historical mishmash of random stuff that could never exist at one time, all together in one world. I love history and have degrees in the field, so of course historical accuracy is something I pay attention to!
I've got two theories for how all this happened -- first, that it's possible that because Japan is not a Western nation and does not have as much grounding in our cultural history they don't care as much for accuracy in Western historical settings as Western developers would, and vice versa for Western games and Asian settings. I do think you see this in both directions -- look at how Western Asian fantasy settings so often randomly mix together Japan and China (Ninjas and Chinese marital artists, etc.), for an example from our side. And second, that anime and Japanese game fantasy worlds took a huge amount of inspiration from the [Western] early '80s Wizardry and Ultima games... games which have some sci-fi elements in their otherwise mostly fantasy worlds. Most Western fantasy games are not like that, but those set a bad precedent which Japan fell in love with.
Returning to Dragon Egg!, you have medieval castles in a medieval kingdom, swords and bows as weapons but also floating robot guns and invincible gun turrets, electricity, both modern-style clothing (for the heroine) and fantasy medieval outfits (for enemies like the orc archers and giants), and more... what people are supposed to do is just say "okay whatever" and ignore or never notice this stuff, but I don't, it bothers me. But again, this kind of thing isn't going to ruin a game for me or something, it's just annoying.
I look forward to ABF's next review, I just hope he is courageous enough to post it here when the time comes.
Whenever I write something else for a game for this system, sure, I will. The question I have is, should I post anything for other systems here, something I haven't done before? Links, full text, not sure.
(For instance, I am currently working on a review of one of my favorite console games ever, San Francisco Rush 2049 (N64/Dreamcast, and a bit about the arcade version).)
I agree with spenoza: please do not think that all of us are simply "hating on you".... for me, it is my genuine 2¢...as if I were your editor.
:)
Also, any thread that inspires COVELL to post an image is a GOOD THING.
:)
Certainly, it's not everyone attacking me; indeed, you aren't, and are quite reasonable. Thanks for that. What I should do is respond to posts like this, not the insulting ones...
-
For instance, I am currently working on a review of one of my favorite console games ever, San Francisco Rush 2049 (N64/Dreamcast, and a bit about the arcade version)
Rush was rushed btw, heard that one from the horse's mouth, so you can safely label that as a rushed game because of the documented facts that its development cycle was rushed :)
-
There are two ways you can look at this -- either to say that how something is done matters regardless of whether that is visible to the player or not, or to say that the extent of the effect matters. You make an argument against that first interpretation here, sure, but just by the second one, this game still falls a bit short, considering that the parallax is exclusively (identical) clouds and nothing else.
Explaining how the effect is achieved and saying it's limited or doesn't look very good is fine; it's your insistence that it's fake that's the problem. Will you ever get this through your thick skull, or will you continue to twist people's words to fit your bias?
What I should do is respond to posts like this, not the insulting ones...
Or I'll just ban you outright for the lies, shifting arguments, and blatant trolling.
-
Lies, shifting arguments, and trolling are against the rules. For real, check the rules....
Not posting false and inaccurate material is in the rules, genius. I rescind my previous threat of banishment, though, as there's no specific rules against being biased, obstinate, and/or not very bright.
.... you'll find this right below the rule against being a douche nozzle and using a member's recently deceased parent to flame them....
It's only cool to joke about someone's dead dad when it's $torino.03's dad, right? Sorry, bro, my bad.
-
Big difference between storino and whats-his-name. You made the offensive comment after learning his dad was dead, not before.
And you continued after learning he's dead, so how is that better? Let me help you with your selective memory:
nullity: "I'll stop harassing you if you trade your mom to me for a $5 amazon gift card. And your dad. While you watch."
storino: "My dad's deceased, but thanks for bringing that into the equation YOU f*ck. End of story."
nullity: "Come kick my ass. It won't change what your dad and I had."
storino: "Thanks. What's next, guys?"
nullity: "How about you stop dishonoring your father's memory.... "
Delete your account.
You first, hypocrite.
-
Yeah, I'm the one that's worked up. I'm the one that keeps bringing it up, labeling you a horrible person, and rationalizing my tasteless jokes.
Keep grasping at straws, hypocrite.
-
I have a new title for this thread:
Dragon Egg — How a barely mediocre game revealed the underbelly of of pcefx.
-
I've been holding off until I have time to comment on some of the spectacular bs being tossed around, but it is now transcending to all new tiers of deluded fantasy.
The problem with "community-accepted definitions" is, which community? Different ones online may disagree. Or which part of the community? There are more than enough arguments about definitions of terms out there to know that there is hardly some monolith.
This is the crazy nonsense anti-science people always say.
In the case of parallax, the international community of the human race had a consensus from at least 1926 until recently, when historical revisionists like A Black Falcon became old enough to begin typing out random feelings as reality changing facts on the internet.
You can argue all you want that the Earth is only 1000 years old, it's flat and no one has ever visited the moon. But just because you've got North Korea and the Westboro Baptist Church on your side, it doesn't mean that facts are opinions and vice versa.
-
(http://junk.tg-16.com/images/bg_dragon_egg.png)
-
Remember folks, all parallax on the Neo Geo is fake because it's all sprites.
-
(http://junk.tg-16.com/images/bg_dragon_egg.png)
What're you going to do when you run out of girly disc pics?
Start playing Games Express games in an emulator?
-
well, there is always...
(http://dotsandloops.com/games/takin.jpg)
-
We need a new thread to submitt re-imagined TG16 cover art.
-
I have a new title for this thread:
Dragon Egg — How a barely mediocre game revealed the underbelly of of pcefx.
Oh man, I don't use lols lightly, but LOL!
That's exactly what I kept thinking while enjoying this thread.
"All this for Dragon Egg?!?"
To ABF, prior to me knowing that the Turbo did not support parallax, I always thought that the parallax in Rondo, LoT, etc. was pretty damn impressive. Who knew it wasn't real, but just some form of trickery. The nerve!!
Also, please pick a better game to review next time, as I thoroughly enjoy reading wordy reviews, but of worthy games. Dragon Egg can be easily summed up in a "meh".
$.02
-
I actually like reviews of such less well known games. Reviews of stuff like Dracula X, Sapphire, Gate of Thunder, etc. are fun to read too, but who here hasn't already played the hell out of 'em themselves?
-
I actually like reviews of such less well known games. Reviews of stuff like Dracula X, Sapphire, Gate of Thunder, etc. are fun to read too, but who here hasn't already played the hell out of 'em themselves?
Oh, me too.
But this game, while somewhat enjoyable, could be summed up like this:
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2010/09/falcon.html
I'm being hyperbolic, but you get my drift...
-
Aww, it's not that bad. :lol:
-
I never knew the PCE was the system that sucked at paralax. I've owned all four major 16-bit systems forever (actually, Neo only in the last 6 years or so, but played every MVS I could find BITD) and I never noticed this. I've played probably 1000 different titles from this era and it genuinly never occurred to me.
So if people accept that, what, in their opinions, is the best system at it?
-
So if people accept that, what, in their opinions, is the best system at it?
Genesis>Snes when it comes to parallax and screen resolution
I'll let the programmers correct me if I'm wrong
-
So if people accept that, what, in their opinions, is the best system at it?
Genesis>Snes when it comes to parallax and screen resolution
I'll let the programmers correct me if I'm wrong
You've been corrected. It's the snes. It can do all the parallax of the Genesis and more. It has more BG layers than the Genesis.
-
(http://junk.tg-16.com/images/bg_dragon_egg.png)
What're you going to do when you run out of girly disc pics?
Start playing Games Express games in an emulator?
Yes, I think that will be my only choice.
Oh, and the two ladies from MotoRoader.
:)
-
(http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/motoroadery.png)
-
I actually like reviews of such less well known games. Reviews of stuff like Dracula X, Sapphire, Gate of Thunder, etc. are fun to read too, but who here hasn't already played the hell out of 'em themselves?
I agree with you on this, at least -- I'd definitely rather review a game which is both interesting and not super-popular, than some very popular classic I also like but everyone interested probably knows about already. Those games don't really need the attention, but something lesser-known often does deserve it!
-
(http://superpcenginegrafx.net/misc/motoroadery.png)
I always liked the Moto Roader ladies!
-
Super A'Can was released well into the 32-bit generation.
-
I actually like reviews of such less well known games. Reviews of stuff like Dracula X, Sapphire, Gate of Thunder, etc. are fun to read too, but who here hasn't already played the hell out of 'em themselves?
I agree with you on this, at least -- I'd definitely rather review a game which is both interesting and not super-popular, than some very popular classic I also like but everyone interested probably knows about already. Those games don't really need the attention, but something lesser-known often does deserve it!
Yep, agreed. I had never heard of Dragon Egg before this review. So, despite all the...what-have-you...surrounding this review and thread, I appreciate it for bringing this game to my attention. I popped in the Everdrive and gave it a go the other day. It's definitely not a "great" game, but I liked the idea and the mechanics behind it. I also liked how it mixed the traditional fantasy elements with "tech" themes.
-
Super A'Can
Nothing from Taiwan ever counts..