mlai
I think he thinks Castle Crashers wins points on innovation while SP does not, or something. It's like saying Warhammer 40K is ripping off Starcraft. It invalidates his opinions even more.

Honestly mlai, stop trying to rehash some debate that was driven into the ground a while ago. I never questioned or brought up innovation. I don't really care if we're comparing it to Kung-Fu Master, RCR, or Final Fight, all of which can be argued as "innovative" predecessors of the beat-em-up genre. I'm just saying that games evolve and set a bar: for me, Castle Crashers did that. Why? There wasn't nearly enough button mashing, the abilities were unique, and it has this quirky nature to it which I find appealing.

isukun
If you're seeing characters with pallet swaps in Scott Pilgrim you're not looking very hard. There are no pallet swapped enemies in the game.

Well, I just dug up a random screenshot that illustrates my experience: you can tell all of the skinny guys are of the same skin, just mixed in with glasses or a hat or no glasses and no hat or just a hat and no glasses, and then look at the fat guy, they just swapped shirt colors for difficulty.

Thinking about this some more, I feel my main issue derives not just from missing the bar in beat-em-ups for me, but just movie studios and how they approach games in general. There's a separate bar for that, mostly established by Warner Bros. Before we had games like Spiderman, that essentially gave you a walk-through of the movie. Then we have an amazing game like Batman: Arkham Asylum, which bases the game just off of the IP. SP just gives us a walk-through like dozens of other movie-based games. I could say the same for Iron Man, I could say the same for Despicable Me, and so on...

As I'm playing this game, that deadline Ubisoft was given to release this with the movie is just a glaring issue, especially when looking at the gameplay. That's not to say they don't know how people like us work that are in love with the content it's based off of. They throw in the retro feel to it as well as some pretty decent music, and they just have us fill in the rest. Often times we'll look over the gameplay and pass it off as enjoyable. Personally, when I approach a game, I throw away all of those pre-conceived notions (like how much I loved the comic and movie), and treat it as a separate entity. And because of that, I can't fairly justify that this is a game worth buying. Much of what you're saying is probably true, isukun, and I'd love to get to those parts. But about two, maybe a little more, hours into the game and I haven't seen any of that...well, I'm just not the type to wait for the awesome gameplay to come to me. It's why I never actually bought FF13 even though my friend kept telling me that in five more hours, the game opens up completely.

mlai
BTW, is this game 2-player (offline)? It saves your progress? How long is it?

Also, to quickly answer at least part of this, the game looked to actually be four player co-op, but offline only.

you can tell all of the skinny guys are of the same skin, just mixed in with glasses or a hat or no glasses and no hat or just a hat and no glasses, and then look at the fat guy, they just swapped shirt colors for difficulty.

First off, the two fat guys in that shot are of the same type. They only appear different because one has a lighting effect applied to him. They don't come in different difficulties or have color variations. The generics they may have taken some shortcuts with, but they still all have different AI routines. Like the guys wearing the sunglasses are the easy enemies that block and attack the least. The guys with the brown jackets have a dash attack that they use to start a longer combo and when close they try to jump in. They block more frequently and counter running attacks. The guys with the swirly glasses like to use weapons at close range and the blonde haired enemies will look for weapons to pick up and throw at the player to counter attacks and break combos. The purple haired enemies are faster and use completely different attacks from the other enemies.

There is no change in tactics in Castle Crashers. All of the enemies are designed to play the same and just have minor variations on their spells. Most enemies in the game are basically just minor variations on the four starter characters. The four playable character ARE pallet swaps of each other and your unlockable characters are either straight up pallet swaps or they just swap out the head and recolor the bodies. 90% of the enemies in the game are just the unlockable characters. You're complaining about something every game in this genre does and Castle Crashers, the game you seem to think sets the bar, does it more than anybody else.

Thinking about this some more, I feel my main issue derives not just from missing the bar in beat-em-ups for me, but just movie studios and how they approach games in general.

Universal didn't make this game. Sure, it is meant to come out at the same time as the movie for the sake of sales, but Universal had no real say in how the game was developed. The game may have been rushed to meet the deadline, but they weren't skimping on the gameplay or the design elements and certainly not to the degree that Castle Crashers did. All of the characters are fully fleshed out in terms of move sets and control and even with the cuts they had to make, the game still takes a few hours to beat. They invested in well known artists like Paul Robertson and Anamanaguchi, so they were willing to get the talent behind it to give the game a solid look and feel.

SP just gives us a walk-through like dozens of other movie-based games.

It's based more on the comics than the movie, borrowing more from the comic's story and style and it's full of references to the comic's storyline. Scott Pilgrim isn't Batman, it has a set story with set characters and a set beginning and ending. Batman has a lot more to draw from and is more open to alternative interpretations. Scott Pilgrim the game strays from the storyline in a few ways. It tries to stick to the basic concepts of fighting the evil exes, but it plays out differently from the movie and the comics in places, plus you have different endings for each playable character and most don't reflect the ending for the comic or the movie. Besides, who would play this if it didn't focus on Scott beating the seven evil exes? The comic is supposed to set up a typical video game scenario, so why wouldn't you use that? This just seems like a really weak reason to hate on a game to me.

I don't really care if we're comparing it to Kung-Fu Master, RCR, or Final Fight, all of which can be argued as "innovative" predecessors of the beat-em-up genre. I'm just saying that games evolve and set a bar: for me, Castle Crashers did that. Why? There wasn't nearly enough button mashing, the abilities were unique, and it has this quirky nature to it which I find appealing.

Final Fight isn't innovative. It's a better Double Dragon.

If you're talking about setting the bar, then Guardian Heroes set the bar a decade ago, and from what I hear Castle Crashers certainly doesn't beat that game. Except the Flash graphics, but GH would look 10x better with Flash also; its cel art style is practically made for that technology.

If you want to see the true meaning of "unlockable characters" play GH.

Guardian Heroes is still my favorite game of all time. You want a fully fleshed out story mode, that game had it. Branching paths, secret arenas, multiple endings (each with different end bosses), fully orchestrated music, an actual storyline, and characters that actually had variety in how they played. The unlockable characters were pretty much limited to the vs. mode, though, well apart from Serena, but she unlocked just by starting the game (and she was arguably the least interesting character). The game also had five stats to put points into when you leveled up and the combat system was more like a full fledged fighting game than a beat'em up. Mlai is right on that one, Guardian Heroes really set the bar on what the genre could do and no game has really touched it since.

The closest I've seen since then is probably Ragnarok Battle Offline. It's limited to a 2D plane, but is still insanely fun and despite being a doujin game, it still has better production values than Castle Crashers and 10 times the depth.

Let me set the record straight: yes, I said that as far as I'm concerned, Castle Crashers set the bar for beat-em-ups. But in no way am I placing this game on a golden pedestal, serving as the pinnacle of amazing game design. In the end, Castle Crashers was a forgettable game. I played through it with my friends once, and that was that.

All of these other games you guys are mentioning were great, too (I guess). Unfortunately I never got a chance to play Guardian Heroes, so that very well may be setting the bar instead.

Castle Crashers does recycle sprites quite often, yes. Perhaps it is unfair that I judge SP more harshly in this respect, but between you and a personal friend going on about the artists and art (keep in mind, the art was the initial draw for me), I was a bit miffed when the same character skins starting appearing on my screen.

Another thing I need to address - I guess you misinterpreted what I meant when I mentioned that movie studios have evolved a bit when they approach games. Time Warner and Disney seem to have hired their own personal team to create games that utilize their IP, but don't necessarily recreate a story that's been done before. Universal should have a say in SP, don't they own some of the rights? So you know they were the ones that oversaw the game's production.

But in the end, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt isukun, and say that the depth you speak of is probably found eventually within the game. With the amount of games these days I have to cycle through though, I generally will stop if it doesn't grab me at least in the first hour or so. SP failed to do so for me.

I can easily see why there is a dissonance here in opinion on the game though. You seem to be extremely interested in this type of genre as it is, whereas I'm just an outsider to beat-em-ups picking and choosing titles from it that catch my attention and happen to sustain it.

So you know they were the ones that oversaw the game's production.

Most studios, Time Warner and Disney included, contract out these projects to other studios and typically have very little input on the game's production. Warner and Disney are simply publishers. If you look at Disney's games, you'll see that most of their kid's movie licenses go through Avalance Software who also developed a number of original titles and have done licensed games for Nickelodeon and Funimation. Live action films get passed off to Propaganda Games who also developed the 2008 version of Turok. For the larger titles, they turn to developers like Square/Enix or Junction Point. Only the really basic titles get handled in house, like the interactive storybooks or web-based applications. Time Warner does the same thing. All of the Harry Potter games are developed by EA. Clash of the Titans was developed by Namco Bandai. Even crap like the Sex & the City apps for the iPhone were outsourced to Phoenix Venture, LLC.

Back in the 90's when 3D was becoming the standard and consoles were becoming more popular, companies like Disney and Lucas Arts started to realize they needed to rely on the talents of companies with an established track record or solid gaming ideas if they wanted to get their games to sell.

Universal in this case isn't even a publisher, the game is developed and published by Ubisoft. Just because they hold the movie license, that doesn't mean they call the shots or have any input on the design or development. Judging from the developer blogs I've read, the only real input Universal had on this was setting a deadline for completion. Beyond that, all design and production decisions came from Ubisoft Montreal.

isukun
Universal in this case isn't even a publisher, the game is developed and published by Ubisoft. Just because they hold the movie license, that doesn't mean they call the shots or have any input on the design or development. Judging from the developer blogs I've read, the only real input Universal had on this was setting a deadline for completion. Beyond that, all design and production decisions came from Ubisoft Montreal.

And that's my complaint, I think Universal should get a little more involved. Because so many times I'll see a film company just hand it over to a company like Ubisoft or Sega or what have you, and the company ends up basing it off of some media adaption. Especially something like Ubisoft, they're not going to throw their "A team" at a game like this - they have more important sellers like Assassin's Creed and Prince of Persia to worry about.

In the case of Time Warner, they've pulled together not just a respectable developer, but also a legitimate writer familiar with the series, and so on for Batman. Recently, Disney jumped into this line of thinking with a few upcoming titles.

Yes, I'm very aware that Time Warner and Disney serve as just the publishers. But they're calling the overall shots of the production: who writes for it, who does the music, what platform will it be on. My hopes is that we don't simply get an adaption of the movie, but instead a story that is inspired by the IP. With the aforementioned methods, it already seems to facilitate this from what I've observed.

First off Arkham Asylum was not made by Time Warner. It is developed by Rocksteady and they were contracted out by Eidos who currently owns the licensing rights for Batman video games. The game was not developed as a movie tie in and did not release alongside either of the recent films. The game isn't based on any particular story or version of the Batman, so they are free to pretty much do what they want with it. Time Warner had no input in the game's production.

Rocksteady chose the setting, came up with the basic story and scenario, chose to hire Paul Dini and the old TAS voice cast, came up with all the artistic design and gameplay elements, hired Ron Fish and Nick Arundel to compose the soundtrack (both of which are exclusively video game composers), and decided how best to stretch the budget they were offered.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, though. Why would you contract out another company and then not allow them creative freedom on a project? That defeats the whole purpose of outsourcing the project to gain the expertise of another company. Time Warner had nothing to do with the success of that game, that was all Rocksteady and their ability to read and cater to their audience.

isukun
First off Arkham Asylum was not made by Time Warner. It is developed by Rocksteady and they were contracted out by Eidos who currently owns the licensing rights for Batman video games. The game was not developed as a movie tie in and did not release alongside either of the recent films. The game isn't based on any particular story or version of the Batman, so they are free to pretty much do what they want with it. Time Warner had no input in the game's production.

Rocksteady chose the setting, came up with the basic story and scenario, chose to hire Paul Dini and the old TAS voice cast, came up with all the artistic design and gameplay elements, hired Ron Fish and Nick Arundel to compose the soundtrack (both of which are exclusively video game composers), and decided how best to stretch the budget they were offered.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about, though. Why would you contract out another company and then not allow them creative freedom on a project? That defeats the whole purpose of outsourcing the project to gain the expertise of another company. Time Warner had nothing to do with the success of that game, that was all Rocksteady and their ability to read and cater to their audience.

Yep, that's just repeating exactly what I said.

Um, that's exactly what you said, except you reached the exact opposite conclusion as Isukun, and then painted it as a negative that Time Warner wasn't more hands-on with Arkham Asylum.

Why would you want TW to be hands-on? If that happened the game would have sucked. The less interference from idiots in suits, the better.

You're going on about the budget for SP game but... it's a $10 game y'know?

Anyways, I'll have to wait a bit to get my hands on this game. LOL it'll be cheaper than the rip-off that is the Super SF4 costumes pack dlc, which I will certainly not buy. F--- you Capcom.

mlai
Um, that's exactly what you said, except you reached the exact opposite conclusion as Isukun, and then painted it as a negative that Time Warner wasn't more hands-on with Arkham Asylum.

Sorry...

Interchange "negative" with "positive" and "wasn't" with "was" and you've reached my point I've been trying to make.

Which is the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say. Time Warner WASN'T hands on with Arkham Asylum. They didn't even pick Rocksteady, Eidos did and Eidos paid for the video game rights to Batman so they don't answer to Time Warner when it comes to their production decisions.

I apologize for the mix-up, somewhere along the line I started mixing up Warner Bros. with TW (not sure why or how that happened, but I muse the "Warner" has something to do with it). I originally started with WB but somehow that gravitated towards TW...

Just exchange anytime you see TW with WB and my points will make a lot more sense now.

It's the same story. Warner Brothers, Time Warner, neither had any hand in making Arkham Asylum.

isukun
It's the same story. Warner Brothers, Time Warner, neither had any hand in making Arkham Asylum.

Huh, that's funny. I could've sworn when I bought the game that they had this giant "WB" logo at the bottom. I suppose the other one inscribing "DC" was just for show, too.

You do realize that Batman is owned by DC Comics and DC Comics is owned by Warner, right? All products involving the DC characters are licensed through Warner Brothers and DC Comics. That doesn't mean they have creative control on every project.

Alright, you're either giving me the runaround here, or my explanation wasn't good enough. So I'll just reiterate my point much more simply.

WB and Disney (or call it Disney Interactive, if you want to be pedantic), aren't afraid to get their hands dirty. What do I mean by "getting their hands dirty?" They've turned from a studio most noted for their presence in film, to a publisher in the gaming industry. That means they're acting like Activision, Vivendi, EA (though not as hands-on), or Microsoft. Take your pick for comparisons.

My conclusion is that these two companies are clued in to what gamers actually want. We're tired of video game counterparts turning into media adaptions. WB and Disney aren't stuck in the late 90's/early 2000's mindset of "let's just give players a walkthrough of the movie." Iron Man (the game) is a poor media adaption. Perfect example of what I don't like to see.

So, I hope that gives better light to my point here. I can't stress this enough: I do not believe WB and Disney are sitting there making the game all on their own. I do realize that they have developers that they hire out. They have writers that they hire out. They have animators that they hire out. All they act as are the managers. So before you make the assumption that I don't know that (again), please do rule it out.

So now we come to SP. Where do I think it lies? Game inspired by the media (good) or another typical walkthrough (bad)? To be fair, it's somewhere in the middle for me. I do know that Universal sort of tossed the desire for the game in the wind, and Ubisoft snatched it up (before you start picking apart that sentence, yes, I know it doesn't work exactly like that). All they really set is a deadline. That's it. Again, Ubisoft probably saw that and said, "Well, let's put maybe five guys on this project, as well as an awesome artist and musician (the music is good)." But the gameplay is where it lacks! So my assumption here was that Ubisoft asked themselves, "hey, what would someone that reads SP actually want?" "Oh! Retro and Chiptunes!" "Hey, what about the gameplay?" "Eh...let's mix in some RCR, Final Fight, and Castle Crashers." "Woohoo, brilliant! Let's party!" See where I'm going with this? Universal should get their act together.

Lastly, one point I didn't address is how the lack of inspiration in the gameplay is further reinforced by aspects you just come to expect in games these days. Seriously, no online co-op? Do they realize this is 2010? And this is Ubisoft we're talking about. They're not ones to shy away from online multiplayer. Speaking of co-op, there's no drop-in offline co-op. If it wants to be 90's styled, it could at least port in a feature from 90's games.

I'm sorry if this shatters your perfect perception of SP, but everything I've stated above just screams "cash-in" with the lack of effort put into it. I almost feel bad for the artist and the group that composed the music - they deserved more than this. But that concludes my thoughts on the matter. Feel free to pick it apart to your heart's content.

I perfectly understand your explanation, I'm saying you are wrong. Companies like Warner Brothers and Disney DON'T know what gamers want. That's why they don't make the games in house, anymore. When companies like Warner Brothers do get more involved, you end up with train wrecks like the Dark Knight.

WB and Disney aren't stuck in the late 90's/early 2000's mindset of "let's just give players a walkthrough of the movie." Iron Man (the game) is a poor media adaption. Perfect example of what I don't like to see.

Try actually playing Ironman. The game sucked, but not because it was a walkthrough of the movie storyline. Of the 13 stages in the game, only 2 related to the movie and the story was completely different. Also, basing a licensed game on the movie it takes the license from is not an outdated design decision. Most movie-based games still follow the storyline from the movie. Pulling a story out of your ass doesn't make the game better, Ironman is a perfect example of that.

Seriously, no online co-op? Do they realize this is 2010?

I guess the majority of multiplayer games on the Wii are also stuck in the 90's, including New Super Mario Brothers Wii, or all the Pixel Junk games, or Shank, or the numerous other games that don't support online co-op. Drop-in drop-out wasn't possible with the way the game works and it wasn't available in Castle Crashers, either.

1. Arkham Asylum being good/bad has as much to do with WB, as SP being good/bad has to do with Universal. You can argue that Universal should have been more creatively involved IYHO (although that probably would not have made the game better), but you can't say AA was good because WB was creatively involved and therefore Universal should look to WB as a role model.

Isukun had already covered the above.

2. You judge SP to have rehashed tired gameplay, rushed development that cut corners, and doesn't bring anything new to the plot/franchise. According to Isukun, SP has complex gameplay better/deeper than what you consider to be a gold standard (Castle Crashers), and he elaborated on why... its game contents are better/more than your gold standard, and he elaborated on why... and that the SP vs Batman franchises was an unfair comparison, and he elaborated on why.

3. Lack of online co-op is a valid complaint. But it is your only valid complaint, and it's not enough to judge the entire $10 game as a "cash-in." From what I've heard, it sounds like a "bargain."

isukun
I perfectly understand your explanation, I'm saying you are wrong.

No, you don't understand it. Please reread:

I can't stress this enough: I do not believe WB and Disney are sitting there making the game all on their own. I do realize that they have developers that they hire out. They have writers that they hire out. They have animators that they hire out. All they act as are the managers.

isukun
When companies like Warner Brothers do get more involved, you end up with train wrecks like the Dark Knight.

You really talking about the movie? I assume you're not talking about the game that was eventually canceled. Because if it was the game, it would further reinforce my argument. And if it's the movie...well, by this point I can really tell we have different tastes in what we think is "good stuff."

mlai
Arkham Asylum being good/bad has as much to do with WB, as SP being good/bad has to do with Universal.

Actually yes, it might have made all the difference. Contrary to isukun says, WB and Disney know what they're doing. They'll green light production of something they know will have lasting impressions on the gaming industry, not some cheap knock-off of a movie. Which is exactly what SP is. WB and Disney are paving the way for other movie studios to get their act together.

Listen, SP may do Castle Crashers better than Castle Crashers. But to me, that's not enough for me to buy a game that does a slightly upgraded version of an already well-rounded production. It's like re-releasing Dark Knight in theaters with 3D. Some people may love that stuff. I think it lacks in material to be worth another movie ticket.

But one more thing: come on guys, seriously, how many times do I have to repeat that I am aware that WB and Disney aren't the ones designing, writing, and doing all the animation work for the games? Making a game is a collaborative effort. Believe it or not, many game developing studios have their own publishers that they work with. Did you know that Activision is the company that's handing down the directives to the current Call of Duty franchise? Did you know that Activision has all of the final decisions on which studio will be developing which game, what it will be based on, and so on? Did you know that Activision's decisions caused the studio working for them, Infinity Ward, to dissolve? You see, publishers have a lot more power than you give them credit for. I hope this little lesson on publisher-game developer relationships has been an enlightening experience for you.

In all of my previous posts, I had actually deleted paragraphs because I felt they had demeaning words, and I felt you are owed the benefit of civility.

But now I realize that your drivel should be called for what it is, since obviously you think you are entitled to your own sanctimonious patronizing ignorance.

You really talking about the movie? I assume you're not talking about the game that was eventually canceled. Because if it was the game, it would further reinforce my argument. And if it's the movie...well, by this point I can really tell we have different tastes in what we think is "good stuff."

Ofc he's talking about the game. How does this even make sense? He just said it's better WB not get involved creatively, but you keep pushing that it'd be good WB gets more involved creatively because "it knows what it's doing"... and the game getting cancelled supports your point how? Were you a playtester? Are you friends with the dev team?

not some cheap knock-off of a movie. Which is exactly what SP is.

Everything Isukun explained about the fallacy of comparing the SP background material to the Batman background material seems to have went in your ear and then out that hole in your head.

I still can't figure out how SP (the game) is supposed to be a cheap knock-off when it's based on a small franchise with limited available bg material. And exactly what new plot do you want? It's a brawler game, not a RPG.

Listen, SP may do Castle Crashers better than Castle Crashers. But to me, that's not enough for me to buy a game that does a slightly upgraded version of an already well-rounded production.

But it's okay for you to put CC as a gold standard, when it does a much worse version of an already well-rounded genre already established by games like what we've mentioned?

You played CC first, so it doesn't occur to you that others may look at CC and give it a pass by using the exact same reason you're using now? Actually, their reason would be more valid because CC doesn't do better. It does worse.

Please cool it down guys.

It isn't ignorance I'm speaking from, it's just putting two and two together. I knew voicing my opinion would stir up a hornets nest of "but's" and I'm prepared to defend it.

Dark Knight the game? I spoke of that in jest, if you couldn't have seen that. Perhaps I should've put in the ol' sarcasm tag.

Why does it further reinforce my point? Because the Dark Knight game was loosely based on the movie. But somewhere along the lines they realized, you know what? The Batman genre deserves more than this, so let's work on something different. The publishers switched gears and Batman: Arkham Asylum came to be.

I thought using Batman was a fair comparison, because it's my idea what I want to see from the industry these days.

My "credentials" in this matter is that I have several friends that work for EA and Valve. I was an intern myself before I switched careers. All of my knowledge comes from these two things, just mere observation from what my friends say and what my old higher ups have mused as well. You can take that as translating into some hack spewing out garbage of information if you like. I assure you though, I wouldn't mention something if I didn't know what I was talking about.

I love the DD community and don't have anything against any of the members here. The only thing I regret at this point is voicing my opinion on this game, bringing out a flurry of passionate opinion against it. I've decided that I'll just respectively bow out of the conversation.

Please reread:

And I have already responded to this:

Rocksteady chose the setting, came up with the basic story and scenario, chose to hire Paul Dini and the old TAS voice cast, came up with all the artistic design and gameplay elements, hired Ron Fish and Nick Arundel to compose the soundtrack (both of which are exclusively video game composers), and decided how best to stretch the budget they were offered.

They didn't even pick Rocksteady, Eidos did and Eidos paid for the video game rights to Batman so they don't answer to Time Warner when it comes to their production decisions.

They'll green light production of something they know will have lasting impressions on the gaming industry, not some cheap knock-off of a movie.

They've green lit a lot of projects which have sucked. Batman Begins, Superman Returns, Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe, the games based on Cars, Wall-E and Up, Disney Sing It, and any game based on the Disney Prncesses.

Listen, SP may do Castle Crashers better than Castle Crashers. But to me, that's not enough for me to buy a game that does a slightly upgraded version of an already well-rounded production

Starcraft 2

Did you know that Activision has all of the final decisions on which studio will be developing which game, what it will be based on, and so on?

Activision develops Call of Duty in house. Both Treyarch and Infinity Ward, the two studios who make the Call of Duty games are divisions of Activision. That's like saying Square Enix has the final say in what they do with a Final Fantasy game. Of course they do, they're the developer.

The Batman genre deserves more than this, so let's work on something different.

That's not why the game was cancelled. EA had the rights to make licensed games based on the Batman franchise. They already had a Batman game in production. Warner jumped in and pushed them into changing every aspect of the game to fit the upcoming movie release. They had to totally change the engine, all the graphics and sound, and even the gameplay to fit Warner's specifications on how to make the game. In the end, the projet was too big and couldn't be finished in the time they were given. These are the kinds of problems that pop up when movie studios get too involved in making games based on their franchises.