32 replies to this topic

[BrianC]

figgler, on Tue May 17, 2011 8:01 AM, said:

BrianC, on Mon May 16, 2011 2:17 PM, said:

Double Dragon is also different from the NES version, though. I don't see how it's less different from Bionic Commando, which still has some similar level designs and gameplay despite the differences.

The way I see it, Bionic Commmando GB is a standalone game and not a different version of the NES title. Everything is redone, the setting is different, etc. It' similar but not intended to be the same game.

I see Double Dragon as being the GB version of the arcade game. The levels, bosses, story etc are all the same(ish), just re-interpreted for the Game Boy's limitations. Much like Mortal Kombat, DuckTales, or Battletoads & Double Dragon: The Ultimate Team - the game is intended to be as close to the it's bigger brother title as Game Boy will allow for, not a total re-imagining of the game like Batman and Bionic Commando are.

but Bionic Commando isn't a total re-imagining level design or gameplay wise (and I never said it was or was intended to be the same game, but if you compared level designs, you would notice some are very similar to the NES version. I'm talking about the gb b/w game here not the very different Elite Forces GBC). I don't know what you are talking about with Double Dragon. It's like a different game. Levels are different (especially level 2), gameplay is different (no heart system and attacks work differently), and strategies are different too. Mortal Kombat is also a poor example. As close as GB would allow for? MK2 and other games like Killer Instinct proved that wrong. MK1 is nothing like the original, has slowed down inputs, and non existant AI. Duck Tales is similar to NES, but has remixed level designs (which is similar, but not the same game). Batman is a different game from the NES, not a re-imagining. Why not compare side by side instead of arguing?

Edited by BrianC, Tue May 17, 2011 7:48 PM.

[fdurso224]

Hi guys,

Any TMNT from the NES to the GB is usually better and very challenging! The same goes to Tetris on NES to GB. Its that gameplay feel that makes it great!

Anthony....

[bomberpunk]

fdurso224, on Tue May 17, 2011 11:16 PM, said:

Any TMNT from the NES to the GB is usually better and very challenging!

no.

there is no TMNT game is more challenging than the original NES release.
TMNT2(GB) Back From The Sewers has nothing on TMNT2(NES) The Arcade Game.

[BrianC]

While it's different, I feel the GB Lock 'n Chase is good stuff and better than the original. The GB Burgertime is also very well done.

Edited by BrianC, Wed May 18, 2011 2:25 AM.

[figgler]

BrianC, on Tue May 17, 2011 7:24 PM, said:

figgler, on Tue May 17, 2011 8:01 AM, said:

BrianC, on Mon May 16, 2011 2:17 PM, said:

Double Dragon is also different from the NES version, though. I don't see how it's less different from Bionic Commando, which still has some similar level designs and gameplay despite the differences.

The way I see it, Bionic Commmando GB is a standalone game and not a different version of the NES title. Everything is redone, the setting is different, etc. It' similar but not intended to be the same game.

I see Double Dragon as being the GB version of the arcade game. The levels, bosses, story etc are all the same(ish), just re-interpreted for the Game Boy's limitations. Much like Mortal Kombat, DuckTales, or Battletoads & Double Dragon: The Ultimate Team - the game is intended to be as close to the it's bigger brother title as Game Boy will allow for, not a total re-imagining of the game like Batman and Bionic Commando are.

but Bionic Commando isn't a total re-imagining level design or gameplay wise (and I never said it was or was intended to be the same game, but if you compared level designs, you would notice some are very similar to the NES version. I'm talking about the gb b/w game here not the very different Elite Forces GBC). I don't know what you are talking about with Double Dragon. It's like a different game. Levels are different (especially level 2), gameplay is different (no heart system and attacks work differently), and strategies are different too. Mortal Kombat is also a poor example. As close as GB would allow for? MK2 and other games like Killer Instinct proved that wrong. MK1 is nothing like the original, has slowed down inputs, and non existant AI. Duck Tales is similar to NES, but has remixed level designs (which is similar, but not the same game). Batman is a different game from the NES, not a re-imagining. Why not compare side by side instead of arguing?

It is very clear that the developers had made attempts to make Double Dragon, MK and DuckTales as close to the arcade or NES version as possible, but yes diferences remain. Mortal Kombt is clearly meant to be MK arcade brought to GameBoy. Double Dragon is obviously intended to be DD arcade made portable. The quality of the games has nothing to do with it and neither does MK2 or KI or anything that came after.
Bionic Commando is a completely different game. It's similar, sure, but it is quite obvious that the developers did not attempt to re-create the NES game on GB - instead they've made a pseudo-sequel with similar gameplay and ideas.
If you can't understand this then, whatever man. It doesn't really matter to me so go ahead and "argue" or compare side by side all you want.

[raskar42]

however they did it, bionic commando for GB is the best game with the title "bionic commando"

[BrianC]

figgler, on Wed May 18, 2011 7:36 AM, said:

BrianC, on Tue May 17, 2011 7:24 PM, said:

figgler, on Tue May 17, 2011 8:01 AM, said:

BrianC, on Mon May 16, 2011 2:17 PM, said:

Double Dragon is also different from the NES version, though. I don't see how it's less different from Bionic Commando, which still has some similar level designs and gameplay despite the differences.

The way I see it, Bionic Commmando GB is a standalone game and not a different version of the NES title. Everything is redone, the setting is different, etc. It' similar but not intended to be the same game.

I see Double Dragon as being the GB version of the arcade game. The levels, bosses, story etc are all the same(ish), just re-interpreted for the Game Boy's limitations. Much like Mortal Kombat, DuckTales, or Battletoads & Double Dragon: The Ultimate Team - the game is intended to be as close to the it's bigger brother title as Game Boy will allow for, not a total re-imagining of the game like Batman and Bionic Commando are.

but Bionic Commando isn't a total re-imagining level design or gameplay wise (and I never said it was or was intended to be the same game, but if you compared level designs, you would notice some are very similar to the NES version. I'm talking about the gb b/w game here not the very different Elite Forces GBC). I don't know what you are talking about with Double Dragon. It's like a different game. Levels are different (especially level 2), gameplay is different (no heart system and attacks work differently), and strategies are different too. Mortal Kombat is also a poor example. As close as GB would allow for? MK2 and other games like Killer Instinct proved that wrong. MK1 is nothing like the original, has slowed down inputs, and non existant AI. Duck Tales is similar to NES, but has remixed level designs (which is similar, but not the same game). Batman is a different game from the NES, not a re-imagining. Why not compare side by side instead of arguing?

It is very clear that the developers had made attempts to make Double Dragon, MK and DuckTales as close to the arcade or NES version as possible, but yes diferences remain. Mortal Kombt is clearly meant to be MK arcade brought to GameBoy. Double Dragon is obviously intended to be DD arcade made portable. The quality of the games has nothing to do with it and neither does MK2 or KI or anything that came after.
Bionic Commando is a completely different game. It's similar, sure, but it is quite obvious that the developers did not attempt to re-create the NES game on GB - instead they've made a pseudo-sequel with similar gameplay and ideas.
If you can't understand this then, whatever man. It doesn't really matter to me so go ahead and "argue" or compare side by side all you want.

If you assume that I don't understand, that is your problem. I'm not going by just the quality of the games, but by how close the levels and gameplay are to other versions. I'm just pointing out what I know about the games from experience and I get "you are full of crap and I'll just restate what I said before without listening" in reply.

Here are some breakdowns:

Bionic Commando:
-changed graphics and setting
-very similar plot
-level maps very similar to NES
-gameplay mechanics similar to NES
-some similar bosses
-clearly based on NES, but remixed

Double Dragon:
-some parts of levels are similar, but different level maps from both arcade and NES
-different enemy placement
-very different enemy behavior from arcade and NES (most enemies don't counter as often and Abobo is especially aggressive)
-all moves available with a different move set from arcade and NES (punch puch kick etc combos easier to pull off)
-while it takes things from NES and arcade, quite a bit was changed, so it's not likely the changes were only due to hardware.

Mortal Kombat:
-port from arcade
-gameplay very different due to poor port job, hardly something making full use of GB
-very slow gameplay and inputs slowed down, giving the game a different feel
-no endings
-extremely poor AI
-though based on arcade, poor port job makes gameplay feel different and bad
-other games have proven that the GB can do much better ports

Duck Tales:
-clearly based on NES
-same bosses and enemies as NES
-level maps are similar, but different. Some changes in placement due to GB limitations, but level maps mostly different, despite having same themes.

Edited by BrianC, Wed May 18, 2011 1:09 PM.

[BrianC]

BTW, I'm not saying that any of these are meant to be the same game, but I don't see your logic. Double Dragon is almost completely different from the arcade and NES when it comes to feel and gameplay (DD GB also has side scrolling areas ala DD2 NES), but it's not a different game because of similar themes and GB limitations (which have nothing to do with level changes or changes in gameplay mechanics)? You tell me that it's clear developers tried to make it as close to nes as possible, but it's not very close at all, with or without the GB limitations in mind.

Edited by BrianC, Wed May 18, 2011 3:45 PM.