New Ghostbusters game

[Andrew NDB]

We don't know much about it other than it's happening, voice recording sessions are already happening, and at LEAST Aykroyd and Hudson are both doing voices.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/gh...-ernie-hudson/

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

We don't know much about it other than it's happening, voice recording sessions are already happening, and at LEAST Aykroyd and Hudson are both doing voices.

https://comicbook.com/gaming/news/gh...-ernie-hudson/

I wonder if it will take place after Afterlife, I could see those characters continuing on with Ray and Winston helping out.

[Leo656]

Well, whatever it is hopefully it's good. The 2009 one still holds up. "Sanctum of Slime" was "fine" for what it was but not the kind of game I want. I never heard a single good thing about the game that came out alongside the movie reboot a few years ago. Obviously I never played it, but I've heard it was godawful.

The fact that there's been so few Ghostbusters games in general - and furthermore, that so few of them are really any good - has always bothered me. It shouldn't be so hard.

[Wildcat]

Saw this yesterday. By illfonic. Have not played their other games but just noticed they worked on Sonic Boom’s multiplayer.

It’d be cool if it’s set current day and took place after Afterlife.

I hope it plays better/differently from GB: The Video Game. I know I mentioned it before but the difficulty was off imo. It just spammed you until you happen to get by. Having to wear down the enemies so much was frustrating.

Never tried Sanctum of Slime or the 2016 one.

There’s actually quite a few GB games but they’re more obscure. Some based on Extreme GB. I have not played them but I briefly tried the Extreme one on Gameboy Advance.

It was through an emulator on my old computer. I don’t really remember it. I got stuck on something but I’d like to give it a legitimate play through. At the time I was just sampling stuff.

[Coola Yagami]

To be honest, I thought someone bumped an old thread, like maybe when that game came out years ago that was essentially Ghostbusters 3.

They don't seem to make many movie cash in games anymore, or at least not as often as they used to.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Coola Yagami

To be honest, I thought someone bumped an old thread, like maybe when that game came out years ago that was essentially Ghostbusters 3.

People say that but I don't really agree. I mean, it's as close as we'll ever get... but the "mute rookie" that never talks route they went sort of makes that not a thing.

Just me, but I think a somewhat better choice might have been no rookie (or an NPC rookie that tags along that DOES talk) and just giving gamers the option to toggle between the 4 OG Ghostbusters at any time, like in GTA5. Alternately, in different "chapters" you control a different OG Ghostbuster.

They don't seem to make many movie cash in games anymore, or at least not as often as they used to.

It's because development time at the level games are now graphically and otherwise is so long, it's just not feasible the way it used to be. Look at, like, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" for SNES from like 1992. That looks like they slapped it together in 2 months and they probably did, because they could back then.

[Leo656]

There's been a few. I wouldn't say "quite a few".

- The original game was ported to the Atari 2600, the NES, the Sega Master System and several PC systems back in the 80s, but aside from a few superficial and graphical differences they were all technically the same game. I would personally count them all as "the same game" because they're far more alike than not.

- Likewise, the Xbox 360 and Wii versions of the 2009 game are about 98% the same game. The graphics and controls are obviously different but they have the same script and play out almost exactly the same way.

- "Ghostbusters" for the original Game Boy and "New Ghostbusters II" for the NES were, once again, the exact same game except one was in color and one was in black and white.

- "The Real Ghostbusters" on Game Boy wasn't even a Ghostbusters game, it was a re-skin of some kind of "Crazy Castle"-type maze game. So I don't even really count it as a Ghostbusters game no matter what it's called. It was literally a completely unrelated European game FIRST and then they just stuck the RGB tag on it to sell more copies in America. Thus making the title of "The Real Ghostbusters" incredibly ironic, seeing as how it is 100% a FAKE Ghostbusters game.

Aside from those, there's the "Real Ghostbusters" arcade game (itself a reskin of another unrelated game, but definitely a lot more like an actual Ghostbusters game), American NES "Ghostbusters II", the Genesis "Ghostbusters" side-scrolling shooter, the "Extreme Ghostbusters" game for GBC and GBA, "Sanctum of Slime", and the reboot cash-in game.

So that's not a BAD run of games, necessarily, but most people haven't played or heard of almost all of them. Ten-ish games sounds like a lot until you realize that...
- Most of them were on handhelds and thus only played by very young children
- Most of the rest are also pretty obscure
- At least a couple of them aren't even actually Ghostbusters games, or at least were not in their original form

It's kinda like how to this day, you'll hear people say "Man, why didn't they ever do a He-Man game back in the 80s?" Except they did do a couple, one for the Atari 2600 and a couple for some of the contemporary PCs of the day. But what people actually mean when they ask the question is, "Why didn't they do one for the NES?", since that was the only thing that matters as far as 1980s video games are concerned (in America, at least). Likewise, when I and others speak to the fact that there weren't more Ghostbusters games, we mean "real" ones. Console games built from the ground up to provide a "real" Ghostbusters experience. Not handheld shovelware or reskin trash. Actual, well-produced main console Ghostbusters games. Not a lot of those exist, and even fewer good ones.
-------------------

I almost feel the point about the difficulty of the 2009 game, but I ultimately don't. It's a game, there needs to be SOME challenge to it. Some of the enemies definitely feel like they take too many hits to defeat, and there are like two spots in the game where it feels like survival is mostly luck (the Candle Ghost section in the first Hotel level where they swarm you in the narrow hallway, and the part in the cemetery where you have to smash the flying ghosts into the gate while trying to avoid their one-hit kills). But altogether it's fine. Once you're fully powered-up even the Boss ghosts are mostly minor annoyances.

I mean, for better or worse it's not a very long game. If every enemy went down in two hits the game would be like two hours long. They could maybe tweak it a LITTLE but after just playing it again two weeks ago I really don't have any problems at all with the default difficulty, outside of those two "cheap death" trap spots I mentioned.

Not to mention, there is an adjustable difficulty setting. But I thought that was a little TOO easy. It's useful for getting that one Achievement where you beat the game with minimal property damage, but otherwise I'm fine playing on Normal. Even Hard isn't really THAT hard after you beat it on Normal a few times and learn to anticipate all the "cheap" spots.

I'unno. I've heard a few people swear it's a "hard" game but I really don't think so. I just think there's a couple spots that are a bit cheap but otherwise it's fine. It was honestly a lot easier than I remembered it being; I think the brightness on the Remaster being turned way up helped a bit. The original game was quite dark but this one felt much more properly lit.
------------------

Sanctum of Slime is an okay top-down twin-stick shooter if you like those kinds of games. But if someone felt like the 2009 Ghostbusters game was hard, then I don't think they'd like SoS, because that is not a very easy game and SOME parts of it are quite hard. Quite a few spots where the entire screen is swarmed with enemies; just like the 2009 game, you have to switch weapons on the fly to attack the different color-coded ghosts, AND you have to revive your allies while staying alive yourself, except there's about three times as many enemies onscreen compared to the 2009 game AND they're incredibly aggressive. It can be pretty taxing.

I don't play too many twin-stick shooters, so I don't know if SoS is a "hard" game by most standards of the genre, but it definitely wasn't a breeze. Part of why it took me a decade to finish it was that I originally got stuck on a spot I just couldn't get past, then "took a break" and never went back to it until a few months ago. If it wasn't a Ghostbusters game, I don't know if I would have bothered going back to it. But, I did, and I finally beat it, and I'm glad that I did. I definitely liked it, it just was pretty difficult in spots, so I can only cautiously recommend it.

There's also a kind of "low-budget" feel to it, since most of the story is told through static, comic book-style "cutscenes". But for a budget download game I guess it's fine. I think the people who did the IDW comics worked on it and that it ties in with them, and Janosz plays a part, so that's nice. It just sort of feels a little bit "low rent", presentation-wise. But it looks and plays fine, for what it is.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

People say that but I don't really agree. I mean, it's as close as we'll ever get... but the "mute rookie" that never talks route they went sort of makes that not a thing.

Just me, but I think a somewhat better choice might have been no rookie (or an NPC rookie that tags along that DOES talk) and just giving gamers the option to toggle between the 4 OG Ghostbusters at any time, like in GTA5. Alternately, in different "chapters" you control a different OG Ghostbuster.

I honestly care less that the player character never talks. But playing it again it's downright aggravating how few lines of dialog the characters have outside of cutscenes. Like, you go off to look for one of the Cursed Artifacts down a side hallway, while Ray is waiting for you at the scripted rendezvous point. The whole time you're away from him, it's just "Let's get moving, cadet... Let's get moving, cadet... Let's get moving, cadet... Let's get moving, cadet... Let's get moving, cadet... Let's get moving, cadet... Let's get moving, cadet... Let's get moving, cadet... LET'S GET MOVING, CADET! LET'S GET MOVING, CADET! LET'S GET MOVING, CADET!"

That's bad, and also bad is how they're all literally just statues if you're at the firehouse. They don't talk, they don't even MOVE unless it's part of a scripted event.

All of THAT takes me out of the game a lot more than my player-character being mute. I'm fine with that part, but that OTHER stuff definitely needed some more work put in.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

It's because development time at the level games are now graphically and otherwise is so long, it's just not feasible the way it used to be. Look at, like, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" for SNES from like 1992. That looks like they slapped it together in 2 months and they probably did, because they could back then.

Also, licensing fees being astronomical, to the point where there's no money left over to make a competent game. It was bad "back in the day", but it's gotten far worse, alongside those other issues you've mentioned.

Like, everyone in the business says that nobody makes Superman games anymore because "It's just too hard, he's just too powerful." Bullsh*t, there's plenty of video games with characters as-powerful or more powerful. What it IS, is that the Superman license costs an exorbitant amount of money, no GOOD developer wants to pay it, and whoever ends up paying for it has nothing left to do anything but the bare minimum as far as actually making the game.

Same thing with most licensed games, especially movie licenses. For what it costs to secure the license you could almost budget an entire new IP. I miss the days when every movie had its own game (even though most of them were junk), but it just doesn't make sense to make them anymore.

Which is a shame, since a ton of the most recent super-hero movies over the last decade would potentially have been excellent springboards for various games. Too bad.

[Wildcat]

Leo656,

I count the NES, Master System, Atari as the same game too. It was multi platform.

I know most people mean mainstream stuff when they’re talking about it but I personally consider them legitimate GB games (not the old reskins) even though only a few are good. They were developed with the intention to be actual GB games but I’ve only played the 2 for NES, Genesis and 2009 Remaster.

I agree with those 2 cheap sections in the 2009 game. You can just run past the candles and the gate can be glitched through by standing in front of it and looking up or down. I beat it properly but I saw someone mention it so I tried it.

I still think the difficulty feels like a chore. Challenge is not the problem. Enemies are too strong and there’s too many waves but you’re right about Easy mode. It’s way too easy.

[Leo656]

I feel like as long as you keep moving and don't hover around near the other Ghostbusters, it's not very hard for most of the game. The worst is when you get KO'ed and then THEY get knocked out when they come to rescue you. But I find that for much of the game, the enemies go after your AI allies a lot more than they go after you, allowing you to stay back and pick them off at your leisure. When applying that strategy, the game becomes much easier. Bust smarter, not harder!

They could have MAYBE knocked a few hit points off some of the enemies, I guess. A couple do seem stronger than they ought to be, but again, the game constantly upgrades your equipment and by the end of the game you can pretty much just walk backwards and kill everything in 3-4 hits with barely a scratch.

I realized on this most recent playthrough that most of the "difficulty" I'd ever encountered on all the various times I'd played the game, was simply not playing very smart and just running around like a dumbass. Hang back, take advantage of the environment (you can sneak up on them during chaotic fights just as easily as they can sneak up on you), attack from a distance, don't crowd your AI allies so you all get killed at once, mind your surroundings, and mash the hell out of that Run/Hop button, that's what it's there for... and honestly, the game gets REALLY easy.

Like, it's chaotic on purpose. But once you realize that MOST of the ghosts don't even attack you as long as your partners are around, until you attack them, and that the Run/Hop button really is incredibly huge insofar as survival strategy, it sinks in that most of the times you die are really your own fault. Like I almost never used the Run/Hop button during battles, most times. But I made it a point to, this time, and I died SO much less than ever, just from that.

It's not a hard game, it just kind of "tricks" you into thinking it is. Even the fact some enemies have too many hit points stops being a factor once you figure out some of the little "tricks".

I mean, not for nothing but if it was honestly a hard game I wouldn't have ever beaten it on Hard. I'm no wizard or anything. I don't even bother with Hard on most games, because my gaming time is limited nowadays and I don't have time for needless frustration. BUT, I really wanted that Achievement, so I said "Eh, I'll TRY." Didn't think I'd do it, since at one point I did think even Normal was a bit tough. But I did it! And that's where I first started being "forced" to actually play the game strategically, which in turn negates nearly all of the difficulty, at least when those strategies are applied on lower difficulties ("Hard Mode" is obviously still cheap on purpose).

But yeah, it can't be THAT hard if my dumb ass can beat it on the hardest setting.

[Turo602]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Also, licensing fees being astronomical, to the point where there's no money left over to make a competent game. It was bad "back in the day", but it's gotten far worse, alongside those other issues you've mentioned.

Like, everyone in the business says that nobody makes Superman games anymore because "It's just too hard, he's just too powerful." Bullsh*t, there's plenty of video games with characters as-powerful or more powerful. What it IS, is that the Superman license costs an exorbitant amount of money, no GOOD developer wants to pay it, and whoever ends up paying for it has nothing left to do anything but the bare minimum as far as actually making the game.

Same thing with most licensed games, especially movie licenses. For what it costs to secure the license you could almost budget an entire new IP. I miss the days when every movie had its own game (even though most of them were junk), but it just doesn't make sense to make them anymore.

Which is a shame, since a ton of the most recent super-hero movies over the last decade would potentially have been excellent springboards for various games. Too bad.

I think Superman is a bad example because WB has their own game studios who could make such a game and are more than capable of making it good. It's just that right now, Harley Quinn and Wonder Woman seem to be where the money is for them and to be fair, that Suicide Squad game looks amazing. Especially for being a 4 player co-op game which just further shows how much the ball was dropped with Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy. Though, GotG to a lesser extent as I hear it actually turned out really good.

But it's not like licensed games don't exist anymore. They're just not based on films. Though films are definitely the reason they're being made in the first place. They're just a lot more selective about who gets what license as they now see huge potential in triple A games.

[Leo656]

BvS and Justice League both kinda feel like the video game spin-off was the entire point of the exercise. And that's strange because neither of those movies had games. But don't they kinda feel structurally like they were put together in service of a tie-in game? Many of the "scenes" feel like they were designed as "levels". It can't be just me!

I know that no game was ever in the cards for either movie, I'm just saying how it oddly feels like they were "supposed" to have tie-in games based on the way they present themselves. And honestly, those games would've almost certainly been pretty awesome.

I think "There's more heat on Harley and Wonder Woman right now" is A factor, sure. But it doesn't explain why WB never just did a Superman game "in-house" at some other point in the last decade-plus. On SOME level it's about Money Spent vs. Money Earned and Superman games have always been notoriously expensive to make while never selling a lot of copies.

We're now at the longest EVER point without a Superman game, since the day they first made a Superman game in 1978. It's been over 15 years and I can easily see it passing 20. From the Atari game through Superman Returns, there'd never been a gap of more than a few years in between Superman titles. Pretty soon it'll be two whole decades and I don't see one getting made anytime in the near (or far) future.

I don't think "Other characters are presently more popular" accounts for that. Batman was more popular than Superman during the 90s and early-00s, but we still never went more than three or four years without a Superman game (even if some of them were lackluster).

It's definitely more a combination of "It would cost too much to make since Superman isn't actually popular anymore" and "We don't want to work so hard on figuring out the mechanics." I mean, they've said as much out loud at least a few times.

[Wildcat]

Ya the 2009 game gets easier once you know what expect. You do get better the more you do it, as with anything, but being hounded is not fun.

I guess they were going for a chaotic feel but it hurts the experience imo. Either tone down enemy strength or tone down how many you have to deal with at once.

[Andrew NDB]

The 2009 game goes from either pretty easy when it's just basic busting or running away from something or sometimes ridiculously hard when they have every crawly thing in the room suddenly charging you.

I also played the crap out of the Sega Master System version of Ghostbusters. That was a good game. Not an easy game, but I got good at it after a long time. I guess the NES version is about the same?

[Leo656]

I'd love to be able to tell you, but the Master System I bought doesn't work and I'm too hard-up to replace it at present. Kind of a bummer, since Ghostbusters is one of the games I bought it for. Once I know, you'll know.

I've heard mixed things about it - supposedly while "better" than the NES version it has a few of its own unique problems. But it HAS to be better than the NES one.

I mean, I've seen enough to know that it's miles ahead graphically than the NES version. But the final stages of the NES game are completely broken. You CAN NOT beat the staircase level on NES without cheating, end of story. You HAVE to either use a Turbo controller OR, more favorably, the Door Glitch where you get infinite lives. Otherwise you'll never even make it to Gozer. And as for Gozer, that final Boss fight SUUUUUUCKS. It's nearly impossible to dodge her shots without accidentally moving backwards to the Stay-Puft screen, and if you do that too many times it's Game Over automatically. The playing field is just WAY too small considering how it scrolls down whenever you get anywhere near the bottom of the screen. I've gotten to where I only needed to land one more hit to beat the game, but I've never beaten it. I kinda don't care anymore if I do or don't, it's a fun game to screw around with for a few minutes but trying to actually finish it is a giant pain in the ass.

I've heard that the staircase level on the Master System version is "easier" in a sense because you can actually shoot the ghosts attacking you, which you can't do on the NES version; all you can do on the NES is try and avoid them, which is 100% IMPOSSIBLE which is why the infinite lives glitch is mandatory. But I've also heard that the ghosts still swarm you in the stairs on the SMS version and that there's no Infinite Lives glitch, so it's actually not that much "easier" after all.

But I wouldn't actually know. Otherwise, yeah, NES version is the same game but with worse graphics.

I actually cut my teeth on the Atari 2600 version. I was 4, so I had no idea the game even HAD an ending. I just went around catching ghosts until Stay-Puft showed up on the map screen signaling Game Over. Games didn't have endings back then, I figured that was supposed to happen. Y'know, like I'd hit the score cap or something, that's what I thought as a kid. So I've never seen the ending of that version for myself, either, even though I played it a LOT back then. I imagine it's like the final stage of the NES one, but more crappy-looking (although to be fair, the graphics were "great" for the 2600's standard, can't lie about that).

Like, even compared to the NES version the 2600 one is a blocky mess. But compared to just about ANY other 2600 game? It's actually pretty spectacular looking, through that lens.

[Turo602]

@Leo It's funny you say that because ever since Man of Steel, I've always kind of looked at certain movies through video game lens. Like, I see what's going on in the movie and I immediately imagine how that could be a video game mechanic. I think it was the shot of Superman flying from over the shoulder where I instantly thought this looks like it could be a video game. Lots of ground work definitely felt laid out with those movies for video games to take inspiration from and we even saw some of that with Injustice 2.

But as far as Superman not having a game in the last decade, I mean it makes sense. Just look at what was going on a decade ago. The Arkham games were taking off, Mortal Kombat was being whipped into shape, and Injustice came from it. They were getting their sh*t together and only now are we seeing them branch out with games like Gotham Knights, Suicide Squad, and Wonder Woman, the latter 2 taking priority because of their films.

It's not like they haven't been trying either because a Superman game was being made after Arkham Knight and I honestly believe it was just turned into Suicide Squad after WB lost faith in the character. Now they're just glad they can milk something that isn't just Batman and Superman, especially since Superman has never really been proven to work for them the way Batman has.

[Leo656]

Good business sense, maybe. Still not the RIGHT thing to do.

There's never been a "definitive" Superman game, still. Closest would be a toss-up between "Superman Returns" and "Shadow of Apokolips" and each of those are pretty flawed. The "best" Superman game ever made is inarguably "Death and Return of Superman", but that's a 25+-year old side-scrolling beat-'em-up and the fact that THAT game - much as I love it - is still the highest bar the character's ever had in video game form is horrible.

Like I'm glad Wonder Woman is finally getting a game, and it'll probably be pretty good. Long overdue. But it's like, we finally got "the definitive Batman game", and then that game's SEQUEL raised the bar even higher still. Spider-Man's got like three or four games in the conversation as far as which one is "the best" and they're all very good, too. Good for them. But it would be nice if the "First and Greatest" super-hero had at least ONE GAME by now that was anywhere close to that. It isn't right that they don't even want to TRY anymore.

I mean, I get it. "Nobody cares about Superman anymore." FINE. The Rolling Stones shouldn't be onstage sh*tting in their diapers at 100 years old either but they're still getting paid millions of dollars to do so from time to time, based on reputation and nothing else. So can a motherf*cker just get ONE really awesome current-day Superman game, for f*ck's f*cking sake? COME ON, NIKKI!

There are reasons. There are no GOOD reasons.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Good business sense, maybe. Still not the RIGHT thing to do.

There's never been a "definitive" Superman game, still. Closest would be a toss-up between "Superman Returns" and "Shadow of Apokolips" and each of those are pretty flawed. The "best" Superman game ever made is inarguably "Death and Return of Superman", but that's a 25+-year old side-scrolling beat-'em-up and the fact that THAT game - much as I love it - is still the highest bar the character's ever had in video game form is horrible.

Like I'm glad Wonder Woman is finally getting a game, and it'll probably be pretty good. Long overdue. But it's like, we finally got "the definitive Batman game", and then that game's SEQUEL raised the bar even higher still. Spider-Man's got like three or four games in the conversation as far as which one is "the best" and they're all very good, too. Good for them. But it would be nice if the "First and Greatest" super-hero had at least ONE GAME by now that was anywhere close to that. It isn't right that they don't even want to TRY anymore.

I mean, I get it. "Nobody cares about Superman anymore." FINE. The Rolling Stones shouldn't be onstage sh*tting in their diapers at 100 years old either but they're still getting paid millions of dollars to do so from time to time, based on reputation and nothing else. So can a motherf*cker just get ONE really awesome current-day Superman game, for f*ck's f*cking sake? COME ON, NIKKI!

There are reasons. There are no GOOD reasons.

I think the Sega Genesis Superman game is a solid action title... maybe not quite a great use of the Superman license (you only get to fly and use heat vision when the game lets you), but I found it addictive for games of that era. I read that it started out as an 8-bit NES project then got moved to Sega, and I think it shows in spots.

Never played the Master System version but it actually gives you more freedom to use his powers in all stages, even if it has many similarities to the 16-bit version.

[Leo656]

The Genesis Superman game is crippled to nearly being unplayable by the absolutely ridiculous difficulty.

You're Superman; finishing the first stage shouldn't be such a hassle. I *think* I've gotten as far as the third stage but I just have never had any fun with that game at all, it's an absolute chore to play.

Graphics are great. It's got some great ideas. Plays like sh*t. Can't recommend. Bought it, really really WANTED to like it. But it's not good, the difficulty balance is absolutely pathetic and it ruins what should have been a great experience.

Real bummer, too; as a kid I was very intrigued by it, and since I didn't own a Genesis it was like some mythical thing. Couldn't understand why it didn't get a SNES port, nor why it seemed to get such lousy scores from everyone. Then when I finally got a Genesis that was one of the first games I bought used for it, and... ouch. "NOW it all makes sense."

The arcade game from back then wasn't bad though.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Real bummer, too; as a kid I was very intrigued by it, and since I didn't own a Genesis it was like some mythical thing. Couldn't understand why it didn't get a SNES port, nor why it seemed to get such lousy scores from everyone. Then when I finally got a Genesis that was one of the first games I bought used for it, and... ouch. "NOW it all makes sense."

The arcade game from back then wasn't bad though.

That probably is the best Superman game ever made.

But if you want to talk difficult Superman games... the SNES "Death and Return of Superman" is high on my list. Even for beat 'em ups... it is merciless. I don't know if I've ever "beat" Doomsday. I read somewhere the beginning of the game is actually supposed to be harder than the later stages for some reason.