Thanks for actually going through with this and doing such a thorough job. I've been hesitant to ask you about it from time to time, since it could very well draw negative attention to LaZer Dorks. It was a good idea beginning with a disclaimer. I'd keep the disclaimer at the beginning of each volume.
Thanks for the comments! You'll of course always be my most respected opponent in Capcom debates! I wasn't planning on keeping the disclaimer for future chapters, but that might be a good idea actually since a lot of people might jump right into the Mega Man or whatever chapter first.
So far it's not too damning as an argument, but is very entertaining as a point of view and general Capcom profile. I can't wait until you get to the good/bad stuff like Mega Man. 
Yes I too can't wait until I get to the much meatier topics
! This introduction, as I've posted, turned out to be a ton of fun though because of all the old arcade shooters I've played. I wish I could remember the name of this one game I came across, but basically it was a an arcade game from the 70's that was in black and white and used the same kind of stretching effect Axelay did and had you dropping bombs on houses and stuff. Really fascintaing for it's time.
The size of the Crapcom logo reminds me more of crappy Mode 7 effects than Capcom though. 
Which also reminds me of a point you may or may not want to consider when you reach the SNES era. Capcom's SNES games didn't abuse Mode 7 effects the way most developers did. Most of their original console games and SNES ports were heavy on hand drawn artwork and clean touched up pixel art and they weren't afraid to use real animation in place of cheap fx. Just compare the battle scenes between FFIV - FFVI and Breath of Fire I & II.
If you can guess where I ripped that Capcom logo from, I'll give you a virtual cookie
.
But yes I won't argue with you; Capcom had excellent pixel artists, from any period of their life span really. I think that's probably one of the reasons why they are so successful because they put out, clean, attractived stylized art. Of course that won't stop them from using the same graphics for another sequel, or two, or three
.
From what I understand, when they use a date with "XX" (19XX), it means that it's an alternate reality.
What about the even more technlogically impressive 1944
? Ah well, lazers are more fun than bullets anyways.
Let's see Code Name: Viper/ Dead Fox ripped off Rolling Thunder and got away with it....
Hey anymore information like this is appreciated and could be used for future reference
! Speaking of which, does anyone know anything about a Japanese dude(s) vandalizing one of Capcom's buildings with spray paint or something like that? My brother mentioned this to me (said it was on the Capcom wiki, but I didn't see it) and would love to know more about this if it happened.
I did not like this article.
Your main criticism seems to be that Capcom's games are derivative. You admit at the beginning of the article that Capcom is not the only company that does this, but I submit to you that every game developer does and that the vast majority of all releases are derived from other games. Nolan Bushnell stole pong; Space Invaders is a rip off of Breakout; every Japanese RPG ever is derivative of early US RPGs; and the list goes on.
There is a very small list of games that I would consider to be wholly "original", and they were all made in the 80's.
I think Black_Tiger's interpretations on my article pretty much summed up everything.
I agree with you that there are very few games that could be considered wholly original, but that's not my point with this article. My purpose of the article is exactly what Black_Tiger said:
"The reason he's taking Capcom to task, is because he feels that they are the highest regarded of the worst offenders.". I could make this article about any company, but I chose Capcom because I feel that they aren't criticized nearly as much as other companies like Nintendo or Sony.
I wouldn't take my introduction chapter so seriously, it's just there to give a brief history on Capcom and as I sarcastically said in my article, it builds on the "evil" foundations of Capcom's future. I really don't have anything against the games I mentioned in the first chapter, they are just used as a placement for future volumns. I even somewhat acknowledged this in the article when I said
"Considering Vulgus was Capcom's first game, I shouldn't be hitting it so hard and overall it is a fun game.".
Furthermore, your disparaging comment about 1943 kai as an "update" made be pause. (Apparently a game can't be rated on its own merits? Perhaps you think that a sequel/update has to have a certain number of original elements to qualify as a new experience?) It leads me to believe that a future article will criticize the Street Fighter series, although I hope I am incorrect. People who are not fighting game fans can laugh, but each one of the five versions of SF2 is drastically different. The subtle differences between moves changes the dynamic of the games.
If I were to review 1943 Kai, I would pretty much give it the same score as 1943: Battle of Midway since it's basically the same game (and again, I like 1943). I just questioned why Capcom would bother with such a small update. I will of course be going indepth on the Street Fighter series and I am (or was) a HUGE fighting game fan. As stated in the disclaimer, I considered SF2 to be a "legendary revolution" and I feel that it's not only Capcom's most important game, but one of the most important video games ever made period. I appreciate what was included in the updates (and again, I would rate each game by it's own merits), but I think it was just a little excessive by being too little too many times. You can read some of my thoughts on the updates in this thread for the time being.
I do not disagree with your sentiment, but in my opinion the fact that you focus on Capcom instead of the industry as a whole undermines your argument.
I've already acknowledged the fact that the whole industry likes to do sleezy things. Again, I chose Capcom specifically because I think
"they are the highest regarded of the worst offenders.".
Wow, talk about irrelevant. His "article" isn't a review of anything -- it's a retrospective of the practices of one game company. Like it or not, despite his disclaimer, the implications are that Capcom is and has always been particularly bad about this sort of thing -- which is completely ridiculous, because they're simply engaging in the same practices every other game company has since the beginning of video games
As said above, the introduction chapter is a set up and not to be taken so literally. You're right, every company essentially derives elements of their games from another, but as the series moves on I'll be able to focus more on other things.
I hope this is just a joke and you really don't hate Capcom.
I don't necessarily hate Capcom. As the disclaimer says, I felt they were a solid developer in the late 80's and that I felt hate is too strong of a word to use for anything. I may say "I hate Capcom" in a sentence, but I don't completely mean I hate anything with Capcom's name on it. If I play a Capcom game that I haven't played before, I try to keep an open mind with it.
Keranu, this article was worth it just for priceless comments like this. 
Haha yeah
.
