A new edition of Retro Arena is up and the battle for the Arcades rages on between two classic fighting games. Warner Brothers released Mortal Kombat: Scorpion’s Revenge several days ago marking the first time since the mid-90s of another animated series. We should feel grateful the game industry no longer has to suffer from terribly produced shows based on our media. It’s true that we have come a long way from DIC’s horrid standards during the 80s and 90s for gaming in TV and film. I believe that has to do with my generation growing up on this hobby compared to the Boomers. I mean the majority never had a firm grasp on our hobby, but presumptions based on other works. It’s the reason directors like Jeffrey Scott who acted as if he didn’t care (that’s based on his 2001 interview) and as a result we got awful shows. Now, in 2020 we got works like the Castlevania anime and Detective Pikachu that was surprisingly good. It’s because the directors and producers grew up on this and knew what they had to put in. At the end of the day this is all about proper understanding of the license. However, if you go in with an “I don’t care” attitude it reflects in your work then.
That leads us to the topic as during the 90s MK did have competition from more than the Street Fighter series. As always clones do follow after as throughout that decade you couldn’t enter an arcade without seeing something like Fighter's History. In a sea of MK and SF clones was one that stood out and it was Killer Instinct from Rare. The thing that separated Rare's coin op from the familiar was how stylish the presentation in the gameplay and visuals were. It really reflected the trends and personalities of the 90s between its “EXTREME” and crude gimmicks. Check out my Mortal Kombat II and Killer Instinct reviews in these links to have a clearer picture of this comparison. Will KI’s stylish presentation have an Awesome Victory? Or will the elite’s old style of fighting games continue to dominate with Brutality? Killer Instinct vs Mortal Kombat II
0 Comments
A new edition of Retro Arena is live, and we have a battle between B quality JRPGs. The Super NES, unlike the Sega Genesis, had the best RPG lineup during the Fourth Gen. Square Soft was clearly the JRPG king and would produce other original games. I don’t need to tell you how fantastic the Final Fantasies, Chrono Trigger and Secret of Mana on the Super NES are in many ways. Of course, the PS1 is where they were able to spread their wings with original classics of Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story and Xenogear. Usually, when a company leads in its preferred genre others are sure to follow by creating clones off their popularity. Capcom, Altus and Taito were the publishers to follow suit which wasn’t the first time for them either. Capcom already dipped their hands into the adventure genre with producing a Zelda clone called Willow on the NES. However, for the others it was a first time they ever stepped into the RPG realm. As we covered in my reviews, Lufia and BoF had many issues the major releases didn’t have. However, these games managed to still be enjoyable and Final Fantasy VI alone isn’t the only way to experience RPGs. Lufia was a game published by Taito who manages the Double Dragon series. It wasn’t an area they threaded in as brawlers and arcade shoot’em ups was their usual thing. Capcom has always been infamous for Street Fighter and Mega Man as well as a handful of platformers and brawlers. Stepping into JRPGs was something we never imagined this company would ever compete within. Both publishers would go on to continue these series and improve the format for each game. Now, with their faults which one is really the best B title in the genre. Does this make Lufia’s tradition Dragon Quest style triumph? Or will Capcom’s Final Fantasy style defeat its foe harnessing the power of the dragon? Retro Arena: Lufia vs Breath of Fire A new edition of Friday’s Retro Arena is up, and we have a fight between two versions of Aladdin. Happy New Years to everyone and a decade has gone by once again as we look forward to the next. I would like to thank you all for making Retro Gamer Junction have a successful 2019. The site’s Facebook page reached 100 followers and I truly appreciate the likes and your time into reading my articles. For this edition of Retro Arena, it’s the second time we are comparing the same license between two systems. Just like Jurassic Park, both versions play different from the other and don't have similar gameplay. That was often common to find license titles that didn’t play the same and you would have to pick one or the other. It’s not like today where if you buy a license game then the gameplay will be exactly identical across all platforms. Aside Batman or Injustice (the only exceptions), developers don’t take these seriously and they see it as another way to make a quick buck.
Unlike the Lion King, Mickey Mania and Toy Story, Aladdin was the only series to see it developmental from two studios. The Disney games mentioned were the same across several platforms, and the difference was a slight tweak in the visuals. The Overall presentation and gameplay style were vastly different since two studios produced these titles. That’s why the Aladdin titles are such noteworthy Disney games from this era and none of them were the same. Of course, with Capcom, you knew what to expect from the gameplay to the sound effects and music. While for Virgin Interactive they were an unknown to most gamers who probably never heard of them. Aladdin: Super NES vs Sega Genesis A new edition of Retro Arena is up as we have another battle of the Doom games. Unlike the last time where it was between two ports of the same game, we pair the PS1 version of PC Doom to the original Doom 64. During the 90s, this series for several years dominated the genre in many ways. It made an impact in such a way that studios purchased the Doom Engine to develop their own FPSs. That’s how influential this series had become, and even Lucas Arts wanted to make one with a Star Wars theme. It lead to the creation of the Jedi Engine for Dark Forces and the Build Engine for Duke Nukem 3D. Unfortunately, Id eventually lost their power through licensing their engines when Epic Games came out with Unreal. Even though it has been since February that I posted the last edition, I will try uploading every month. The point of these articles is to give prospective between two similar games. Meaning, what difference could both studios have done to make their version better and what is lacking. It’s the same thing for this edition between a PS1 port and an original N64 title. Id tried to port these PC titles over to the N64 and PlayStation One when the genre was still new. The PS1 might’ve gotten many but how many of those were truly great additions or Game of the Year worthy. With the N64 it often received quality ports like from Quake and original games that took advantage of the tech such as Turok and Perfect Dark. With both coming out early into the consoles’ life cycles, how much of an impact did they make? Which game is the true Slayer of Doom? Doom (PS1) vs Doom 64 (N64) A new edition of Retro Arena just went live as the fight gets heated between two Doom ports. Like many have said for nearly three decades, Doom revolutionized the industry and created a new genre. So what happens when something gets popular? It gets milked and ported to death by the third parties wishing to cash in on the success. Just as it happened to Mortal Kombat, Doom was no stranger to porting either during the 90s. The game would appear on PS1, Saturn, 3DO and even Atari's Jaguar and on the GBA later in 2001. However, we will focus instead on the 16-bit ports as I am still surprised for them to appear on those systems, despite the limited tech. When designers set their minds to something they sure can get the desired results as seen from Randy Linden and John Carmack.
The first game saw its development get handled by Randy Linden and his team for the Super NES. As mentioned many times, he would develop the Reality Engine solely to make the game work on the system. With the help of the Super FX2 Chip would make the impossible a reality (no pun intended). On the 32X, Carmack handled the port's direction with Sega's team to help bring the game to the Genesis' new add-on. The new technology as many of us have said was the Genesis on life support because the console was on its last two legs. Many still question the dumb move on Sega's part months before they would release the Saturn. The 32X version did push out better graphics but we all know it takes more than great visuals to make a good game. However, will Doom Slayer thrive on the Super NES with its custom engine? Or is the 32X's extra power for Sega enough to become the true slayer? Let's find out... Doom: Super NES vs. Genesis 32X Happy New Years to everyone and it's been a good year for Retro Gamer Junction. Thanks for supporting this site as all of you helped us reach a new area. I will admit the content has slowed down a little by the end of this year. With studying for the exam in IT and trying to put together my sister site called Sacred Realm Tower has made this hard for me to keep up. However, in 2019 I will try making Retro Gamer Junction even better. I do have some ideas to bring in for Modern Gaming like a section for Indy games. Even a section dedicated to video games in media such as movies, cartoons, live action shows and comics is being considered. Maybe an area for reviewing old game magazines like Nintendo Power isn't such a bad idea.
For our last article of the year, I have a new edition of Retro Arena. It has been nearly four months since posting my last one. For this edition, I'm putting Capcom's Super Ghouls N Ghosts against Konami's Super Castlevania IV for the Super NES. Both GNG and Castlevania are ordinarily the front-runners for 2D side scrolling platformers back then. In fact, both entries came out during the Super NES' launch window. That apparently was the only time I ever saw a console get so many quality titles during the first six months. On top of that both games had tremendous development placed into each one. Konami was really smart to make SCIV one of their first to release on the new console. I wouldn't be surprised if SCIV along with Final Fantasy IV and Super Mario World encouraged kids to buy a Super NES. While SGNG has Capcom return to the old arcade style for its ghoul busting platformer. So, which one will be slayed before the night is over? Super Ghouls N Ghosts vs. Super Castlevania IV A new edition of Retro Arena is up and once again we have the battle of the Zelda clones. As you already know I am a avid fan of the adventure genre judging by my reviews from Zelda and others of its kind. That brings us to this face off between Capcom’s Willow for the NES and Hudson’s Neutopia for the TurboGrafx. As the saying goes imitation is a form of flattery as Capcom and Hudson shows this in spades towards Nintendo. Both companies are never known for their Zelda clones but mostly for other established titles. Capcom has its Mega Mans, Street Fighters and Resident Evils that's based off the action genres. Hudson, on the other hand, had their Bombermans and Adventure Islands as part of their little niche they always targeted. However, the 80s were a time when Capcom produce many action platformers akin to Mega Man II and Bionic Commando. Willow was the sole exception from them during the 80s and the only license game they ever took part from Lucas Films. Now some of you are wondering why I am comparing an 8-bit game to a “16-bit” adventure title. It's because one, both technically came out in 1989 and two, they represent part of the same genre. Of course, Willow pushed the NES’s graphics while Neutopia gave us Golden Age Gamers the 16-bit version of the Original Zelda. I think it makes sense to compare two games from different eras in this instant. The reason for such a thought is because Willow’s broad graphics nearly matched Neutopia's own due to Hudson’s clone having launch window visuals. We all know when a new console gets released on the market no game in the first two years never showcases what the system could do. So, which of these clones will stand tall when the dust settles? Willow (NES) vs Neutopia (TurboGrafx) A new edition of Retro Arena is up and two Zelda clones’ steps into the battlefield for this round. The first game is Hudson’s Neutopia II which saw a release on the TurboGrafx in 1992. While Sega’s Crusader of Centy on the Genesis would attempt to cash in on the Zelda popularity. The idea of using established concepts has been around since the start of gaming. Even today, its hard to not see a clone of another popular series like Elder Scrolls on store shelves. During the Golden Age the market was mostly filled with clones of games from Zelda to sports to fighting, there was always something using a similar concept. Of course, that’s not to say there weren’t games that even though they were in the same genre didn’t come off as a rip off. Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct come to mind as both series are in the fighting genre but were not the same thing.
Both games follow this trend of a true and tried formula of using an overhead style with dungeons as levels. Neutopia II is in fact among the few RPG and adventure titles on the TurboGrafx. Most of this console's games included platformers like Bonk or shootem’ups such as R-Type and Magical Chase. Aside Dungeon Explorer, most of these types of games were on the Turbo CD with titles like Y’s Book I and II. On Genesis, Sega managed to produce some of their own in-house RPG titles which included the Phantasy Star and Shining Force series. It was a response in failing to get JRPGs that mostly landed on the Super NES (obviously due to Nintendo's cut throat policy for third parties). Crusader of Centy is mostly considered a clone because of using similar mechanics. However, the console it was on had a handful of both genres which is a lot more compared to what its competitor received. Neutopia II (TurboGrafx) vs Crusader of Centy (Genesis) A new edition of Retro Arena is up and since it's still Jurassic World month I have two new contenders. The Jurassic Park game we went over did receive other versions as mentioned in the review. In one corner we have the Ocean Studios Super NES title and in the other Sega's Genesis version. Back then not every license game played the same across several consoles. When you bought a license game whether this was on Super NES or Genesis, gamers would get a different experience. It wasn't like this all the time but in most cases this never was the same game. Today, you won't find most licenses different between any of them from the PS4 to the XBone to even the Switch and PC. These companies would rather push a cheap product then produce quality games from these top brands.
Just as I stated, both license games were vastly different with the Super NES version combining two genres of adventure and FPS. While the Genesis version was a straight up 2D action platformer akin to Prince of Persia. The gameplay not only wasn't the same but even the graphics went another route. On Super NES, the graphics used an overhead view with a lighter use of colors to create lush environments. When in the building sections, it switches to gritty 3D graphics emulating that of Doom. Sega decided to develop and simulate realistic detail by using a gritty art style. The Genesis version doesn't use digitizes software as it's still rendered in 2D. Honestly, this is how game companies need to do it and that's by giving freedom to these studios. That is why most license titles just sucks nowadays and if it isn't Batman or Injustice then the game will not be good. Retro Arena: Jurassic Park Super NES vs. Sega Genesis The console wars are often a competition between two or at times three console providers. For decades gamers of their preferred system and the companies have compared themselves with these features each system offered, so they could claim superiority. Of course, the generation that best exhibits this was from the 16-bit wars between Nintendo and Sega. I'm sure you have heard the same mantra from us Golden Age Gamers numerous times regarding this time. That era of gaming always stood out to me the most unlike today when 2/3s of the console providers are not actual game companies. Its true that Sony has dished out stronger first and second party IPs lately especially against Microsoft. However, it doesn't come close to the magic I felt when Nintendo and Sega faced off in a legendary match. That brings us to a new segment I wanted to bring to Retro Corner. It's called Retro Arena and in these editorials I compare two games of the same kind to find out who's the better game. In this first edition, we compare Capcom's Super NES port of Final Fight to Sega's Streets of Rage on the Genesis. I already reviewed both games on this site about two years ago when I started writing. Unlike today where the consoles are trying to emulate PC gaming. The home systems in the 80s and 90s tried emulating the arcade experience as a selling point. It's among the reasons both the Super NES, and Genesis had arcade ports and if not games built around their concepts on these consoles. The games both come from the brawler genre or beat 'em ups as another way to call them. Technōs Japan might have made brawlers popular with Double Dragon, but I believe it was Capcom and Sega who left a greater impression on the genre. Final Fight and Streets get paired up for a reason, so who will prevail in this retro match up? Retro Arena: Final Fight (Super NES) vs Streets of Rage (Genesis) |
Welcome to the ArenaHere at Retro Arena we take two games of either the same genre or different versions and compared them to find out which game is superior. Archives
April 2020
CategoriesThe social media icon images and Vector Designs by Vecteezy, Medium and Onextrapixel
For More Please Click Below |