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/ghostbusters-new-video-game-in-development-ernie-hudson/

[TigerClaw]

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/ghostbusters-new-video-game-in-development-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]

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]

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.


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]

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. :lol: 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. :lol: 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. :lol: 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]

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]

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.

[Leo656]

Ah, that is a decently tough game but the Doomsday fight is all just timing. He's actually really easy if you remember to save all of your Super Punches for him and not waste them earlier against the grunt enemies. Hit him with a couple of those as soon as the fight starts and he's a breeze. The last two stages are by far the hardest; f*cking Kryptonite EVERYWHERE.

I do confess that I've never actually finished that one without using a cheat that refills your Life bar. BUT, I've only ever needed it for the final Boss Fight against Cyborg Superman. As a kid - not knowing there even was a cheat - I could consistently get to the final Boss fight but couldn't beat it. Cyborg Superman is MERCILESS, you can barely even get close to him let alone land a hit. I'm assuming the developers knew that, too, thus why they included the Life Refill cheat. I've never seen ANYONE, fan or reviewer, say they managed to beat it without using the cheat; most people will flat-out admit that last Boss fight is impossible to beat fairly. I agree the game is pretty much impossible to finish without the cheat, but I swear it's only because of that one fight.

Still the best Superman console game, though. Even though that mostly has to do with Superman Returns needing a bit more work. Seriously, THAT game had a lot of good things going for it and it's a shame it got rushed out half-finished because otherwise it really could've been something special. It does more Right than Wrong, especially for a movie-based game - oddly enough, it has like nothing at all to do with the movie and has a lot more to do with the comics than anything - but the combat is clunky and there are some game-breaking glitches that kind of ruin it. Like sometimes it refuses to Save, and that's pretty f*cking important.

It ain't "bad", though. Soup-to-nuts, SR might actually be the "best" Superman game sort of by default. But it's still far from what it could've/should've been.

[IMJ]

Seriously, THAT game had a lot of good things going for it and it's a shame it got rushed out half-finished because otherwise it really could've been something special.

I picked that one up for the PS2 through some kind of super cheap, used Blockbuster game sort of buy. I never got into to it to actually play much of the campaign, but man I spent a few hours just flying around and having fun.

Seriously the flight mechanics in that were awesome and when he'd reach that super sonic speed that air burst and boom with the blurry camera was awesome. Thinking about it now, I want to go turn it on and just fly around.

[shredder orokusaki]

I saw the Afterlife movie 2 days ago it was fun! And with lot of action. If the rumors are true then the next game must be based on this movie becuase all previous games were based on the first 3 movies.

[Leo656]

I picked that one up for the PS2 through some kind of super cheap, used Blockbuster game sort of buy. I never got into to it to actually play much of the campaign, but man I spent a few hours just flying around and having fun.

Seriously the flight mechanics in that were awesome and when he'd reach that super sonic speed that air burst and boom with the blurry camera was awesome. Thinking about it now, I want to go turn it on and just fly around.

Oh, for sure. I ripped the "Superman Returns" Soundtrack to my 360 (since EA was too cheap to pay for the music and thus the game used some generic knockoff stuff) and there's times when it's fun to just sort of crank up the music and fly around at top speed.

It's not a bad game at all, just pretty thin, content-wise. It had the biggest open-world of any sandbox game ever made up to that point, but there's a surprising dearth of stuff to actually do and the post-game content repeats the same few missions a lot. It actually had the exact same mechanics as the Ghostbusters game, insofar as switching "weapons" on the fly to battle various color-coded enemies in groups. "Heat Vision on the Red enemies, Freeze Breath on the Blue ones, etc." and it worked pretty well. I liked the mix of different stuff, like sometimes you have to stop a small army of robots or aliens tearing up downtown and sometimes you have to go put out a burning skyscraper. Sometimes you have to do both at once. Sometimes you have the choice of putting out the fire with your Freeze Breath, OR just throwing a fire truck or water tower at the problem and calling it a day. That was neat, too.

Really, my only big problems with the game as a whole are that it's glitchy (as stated, some copies have a glitch where the game simply refuses to save data at some random point in time, and that's pretty damning), but also that the hand-to-hand combat mechanics are clunky. Brawling and trying to pick things up are more difficult than they ought to be, and you have to do both quite a lot. But flying around and zapping stuff with heat vision, all that is golden.

It's not a "bad" game at all but it's got some problems and definitely needed more time in the oven. As can be said about almost all movie-based games. Problem was that one was already delayed by quite a bit by the time it had actually come out, and by the time it did the movie's tepid performance pretty much killed any enthusiasm or interest in the game, despite its early pre-release hype. Game Informer, for example, did a gigantic multi-page cover story on the game months before its release, and then when the game finally shipped many months later the whole world was like "Oh, I forgot that game was even a thing" because the movie did mediocre AND the game was late.

But on the whole it's worth playing through at least once. It's pretty short, not too difficult, and it does give you a pretty good feeling of "Being Superman", more than any other games have managed to at any rate. It just lacks polish, that's really the main thing "wrong" with it. It's fine.

[IMJ]

Oh, for sure. I ripped the "Superman Returns" Soundtrack to my 360 (since EA was too cheap to pay for the music and thus the game used some generic knockoff stuff) and there's times when it's fun to just sort of crank up the music and fly around at top speed.

It's not a bad game at all, just pretty thin, content-wise. It had the biggest open-world of any sandbox game ever made up to that point, but there's a surprising dearth of stuff to actually do and the post-game content repeats the same few missions a lot. It actually had the exact same mechanics as the Ghostbusters game, insofar as switching "weapons" on the fly to battle various color-coded enemies in groups. "Heat Vision on the Red enemies, Freeze Breath on the Blue ones, etc." and it worked pretty well. I liked the mix of different stuff, like sometimes you have to stop a small army of robots or aliens tearing up downtown and sometimes you have to go put out a burning skyscraper. Sometimes you have to do both at once. Sometimes you have the choice of putting out the fire with your Freeze Breath, OR just throwing a fire truck or water tower at the problem and calling it a day. That was neat, too.

Really, my only big problems with the game as a whole are that it's glitchy (as stated, some copies have a glitch where the game simply refuses to save data at some random point in time, and that's pretty damning), but also that the hand-to-hand combat mechanics are clunky. Brawling and trying to pick things up are more difficult than they ought to be, and you have to do both quite a lot. But flying around and zapping stuff with heat vision, all that is golden.

It's not a "bad" game at all but it's got some problems and definitely needed more time in the oven. As can be said about almost all movie-based games. Problem was that one was already delayed by quite a bit by the time it had actually come out, and by the time it did the movie's tepid performance pretty much killed any enthusiasm or interest in the game, despite its early pre-release hype. Game Informer, for example, did a gigantic multi-page cover story on the game months before its release, and then when the game finally shipped many months later the whole world was like "Oh, I forgot that game was even a thing" because the movie did mediocre AND the game was late.

But on the whole it's worth playing through at least once. It's pretty short, not too difficult, and it does give you a pretty good feeling of "Being Superman", more than any other games have managed to at any rate. It just lacks polish, that's really the main thing "wrong" with it. It's fine.

That's awesome. I literally spent 95% of my time with it just flying around. I played enough of it that I think there was a level where you fought Mongul on a domed spaceship or something like that, which unless I'm wildly misremembering, was awesome that they put Mongul in the "movie's Universe". After that, like you said I remember a burning building and some robots in the streets and somewhere there I stopped playing the campaign and spent all sorts of time just flying places. :lol:

I've got a pretty cool PS2 setup with a pound cable in my "man cave" and I'm sure I still have the game. I have had some thing in my head for several years now about gaming and I have a hard time rationalizing any gaming time anymore but I should plow through some PS2 games for an evening soon. Even if only to fly around. Actually, I bought several DC PS2 games when I picked up that pound cable a while back and one of them was (I think) Superman Shadow of Apokolips. I haven't even booted it up yet. It's been sitting here for at least a year.

[Andrew NDB]

SvU0NnTCxXM

https://www.darkhorizons.com/hudson-aykroyd-voice-ghostbusters-game/

[Wildcat]

Internet has been having problems but I was able to see the trailer.

Looks really good. I like that it’s loosely in continuity with Afterlife. I say loosely because games typically aren’t connected and the new recruits are us.

I really hope they do not try to introduce a new team in the next movie. It makes sense to have it match that setup though.

I want the movies to relocate Ray’s Occult next to the firehouse now. I like that idea. Ray looks like Jim Belushi to me. :lol: This model does not look like Dan Aykroyd. Hope they fix that.

Also it’s been confirmed apparently there’s no driving stages. That’s disappointing. There should have been one in the 2009 game too. How do you skip such an obvious thing to include?

[Andrew NDB]

We can look at Predator: Hunting Grounds (which I personally enjoy a lot, play quite a bit when I just want a fun experience for 10-15 minutes, less if the Predator wins) for almost exactly what to expect in this.

The way it works in Predator: first of all this is a multiplayer-only game. There was talk about maybe a single-player bots mode, but it never happened and I don't think it's coming by this point. There are about 5 or 6 maps. It's set in different spots in the jungle. Decent sized maps. With buildings and such in them, caves here and there, cliffs. You join the game either as a Fire Team member (which you can customize about 10 different templates of, including Arnold 1987 and Arnold present day, the chick from Predators, and Marshawn Lynch for some reason) or the Predator (which you can also customize, including almost all the Predators in all the movies, even the AVP ones). Usually you can "find" a game within about a minute as a Fire team member, or after about 7 minutes if you really want to play as the Predator. If you're playing as a Fire Team member, as you wait for the game to load you and the 3 other Fire Team members (real players, this is a multiplayer-ONLY game) are given a mission. Stuff like, "You and collect the stolen data from some pirates and make it to the Ex-Fil point" where the chopper comes and gets you. Meanwhile the Predator (also played by a player) is trying to kill you. As long as at least one player completes the mission and makes it to the Ex-Fil point, you win and the Predator loses. Also, killing the Predator is risky because if you don't quickly disable his self-destruct, he can blow all/most of you up. The missions are all self-contained and do not amount to an overall story of any kind, though the more you do the more "Dutch tapes" you get, which lets you listen to Arnold basically narrate his life story since the first movie and now. Every month or so they add new DLC for $5-10 a pop that's usually either a new playable Predator or a new Fire Team skin.

So this game. It'll be the same thing, almost. Join up as a Ghostbuster or a Ghost. If you're a Ghostbuster (and I'm guessing you can customize your Ghostbuster and eventually they'll offer DLC templates to play as 1984 Ghostbusters as well as 2021 Ghostbusters... and probably even 2016 Ghostbusters because they don't want to piss off those fine people), then you wait in a loading lobby and are given some kind of ghost-busting mission. Like in a haunted mansion, or a ship or something. Bust those ghosts and clear the area! That kind of stuff. Or you can play as the Ghost (clearly there must be some kind of "Main Ghost" in every map, unless they'd allow 4 Ghostbusters and 4 playable Ghosts... but surely there'd be more than 4 Ghosts in a map because that'd be pretty weak) and basically... harass the players? It'd be a little weird if they allow you to kill the Ghostbusters as a Ghost. But yeah, just like Hunting Grounds. 5 or 6 main maps with maybe 12 random Ghostbusting missions you and 3 other players and in you go. Anyone expecting some kind of over-arching story is gonna be disappointed. Maybe like Hunting Grounds, you can collect the "Venkman Tapes" if you do enough missions, with Bill Murray filling us in on what Venkman did between 1991 and Afterlife).

[Leo656]

Also it’s been confirmed apparently there’s no driving stages. That’s disappointing. There should have been one in the 2009 game too. How do you skip such an obvious thing to include?

For the same reason it took until the fourth Arkham game to have a drivable Batmobile.

Because development is hard and resources are limited. You can focus everything you have on one mechanic and making that mechanic as tight as it can possibly be, OR you can split the difference and end up with two separate game mechanics and have neither one ultimately feel as satisfying as it should.

I guess an example would be the "Batman Begins" game that EA did. It was 99% a stealth/action game, except for two levels where they had a Batmobile driving sequence. Now, I loved it, and I thought that it was a nice deviation from the main game, but most people did not appreciate it. They said it was tacked-on and unnecessary, and also apparently they ripped off the mechanic from another driving game and people whined about that, too. So to ME, I thought it was fine, but most people said it was a waste of time and resources and that they shouldn't have bothered.

I mean, I would have loved to actually be able to control the Ecto-1 in the 2009 game but not at the expense of everything else (and many have argued that the actual base mechanics of that game were in need of some tweaking as it is). I completely understand why it didn't happen. A lot of things sound easy on paper until you actually have to try and make it work.

[Andrew NDB]

For the same reason it took until the fourth Arkham game to have a drivable Batmobile.

Because development is hard and resources are limited. You can focus everything you have on one mechanic and making that mechanic as tight as it can possibly be, OR you can split the difference and end up with two separate game mechanics and have neither one ultimately feel as satisfying as it should.

I guess an example would be the "Batman Begins" game that EA did. It was 99% a stealth/action game, except for two levels where they had a Batmobile driving sequence. Now, I loved it, and I thought that it was a nice deviation from the main game, but most people did not appreciate it. They said it was tacked-on and unnecessary, and also apparently they ripped off the mechanic from another driving game and people whined about that, too. So to ME, I thought it was fine, but most people said it was a waste of time and resources and that they shouldn't have bothered.

I mean, I would have loved to actually be able to control the Ecto-1 in the 2009 game but not at the expense of everything else (and many have argued that the actual base mechanics of that game were in need of some tweaking as it is). I completely understand why it didn't happen. A lot of things sound easy on paper until you actually have to try and make it work.

Ecto-1 wouldn't really make sense in a multiplayer-only game like this. These will be probably largely indoor maps with 4 people playing multiplayer (5 including the Ghost). One guy hauling around in the Ecto-1 (doing what, exactly?) wouldn't really work. Maybe they can figure something out for a special outdoor map (1 guy drives it while the other 3 players flank it from outside?), but I doubt it.

[Leo656]

Oh for sure, but he mentioned the 2009 game not having it either and so I just wanted to address that specifically. You're right, it wouldn't even make sense for this kinda thing.

That game, I could kinda see how it would make sense but it would've certainly been more trouble than it was worth to even attempt.

[Wildcat]

I understand creating driving gameplay is another task in itself but there only needed to be 1 driving stage in the 2009 game. That outdoor portion leading to Stay Puft or a couple of shorter ones to-and-from locations. Nothing super complex just something like a mini game to break it up.

This could definitely have had co-op Ecto1 stages. 3 people at least.

1 person drives
1 person in the Gunner Seat
1 person controlling the Trap

[Andrew NDB]

I wonder if they'll pull anything from the 2009 game. Like the different proton pack modes and all that, which were pretty cool. They even made slime blower mode cool. And will the little rods come out of the pack when it overheats and needs to cool down? I hope they keep all those touches.

I'm actually fairly excited about this, if this is the same quality as Hunting Grounds. It's not the GB game I want, but I KNOW this model works wonderfully in Predator so I don't mind the same game with a Ghostbusters skin one bit.

Little comparison: Remember Aliens: Fire Team Elite, which just released like 4 months ago for PS5, PS4, XB1, XBSX, and so on? When it first came out you could find players within maybe 3 or 4 minutes (and you only need TWO other players in that game) You can wait for 20-30 minutes, longer and nobody will join your game because nobody is playing the game anymore. They released data that only like a thousand people in the whole US are actively playing it anymore.

Predator: Hunting Grounds? Came out two years ago. Still lively. Can always find a game quick, doesn't matter what time of day or night.

I understand creating driving gameplay is another task in itself but there only needed to be 1 driving stage in the 2009 game.

Needed? Naw. While earlier Arkham games I definitely was like, "I wanna fly the Batwing, I wanna drive the Batmobile!"... until the games actually let you. Then I kind of wished they didn't. GB 2009 I never had that thought about the Ecto-1B.

Speaking of the Ecto-1B. Will they even get into it?

Hopefully they'll take a page from Aliens: Fire Team Elite and treat the firehouse like the Sulaco-type ship. As like a "base of operations" you can hang around in when you're not doing Ghostbusting missions. It'd be cool if the Vigo picture is still there.

1 person drives
1 person in the Gunner Seat
1 person controlling the Trap

What does the fourth guy do? And unless you have 3 other players who are good at the Ecto-1 and not a bad egg among them, that could be a very not fun experience.

[Leo656]

I heard a TON of that sh*t about Arkham Knight. "Man, I wish I kept my mouth shut about the goddamn Batmobile." :lol: We'll see, still haven't gotten to it yet. Before I got sick I'd just started my New Game + run on Arkham City and I gotta finish that first before I move on. I'll probably like the Batmobile stuff more than most people did but I can't ignore all those complaints.

Sometimes it's better to just keep ONE central focus and make that the best it can be.

[Wildcat]

If the game really has no storyline having at least 3 player Ecto1 stages could still work as standalone stages since either side can win.

If you absolutely need 4 people maybe they control another car upgrade or you can swap at a “pit stop” to unload traps. You can come up with something.

How good the actual people are is just a risk. You (I) might be just as bad at first anyway.

[Andrew NDB]

If the game really has no storyline having at least 3 player Ecto1 stages could still work as standalone stages since either side can win.

I guess. Like you go to the menu and it's, 4 player "Ghostbust," 1 player "Ghost," or 3 player "Ecto-1 Romp" (or something?) modes you can select?

Wouldn't be the worst thing ever. Maybe down the line as an add-on.

[Wildcat]

I’ve been playing and finished Luigi’s Mansion 3. It’s definitely an unofficial ghostbusters game. Besides the proton pack (I just can’t call it the Poltergust) and other similarities there’s literally a red containment unit.

I know I’m late to this. I never played the original. I have a GameCube but didn’t get it at launch and don’t have a 3DS.

GB: The Video Game should have been like this. It’s the exact same core gameplay. Zap the ghosts and wrangle them in before they get away. Keep the upgrades and different enemies for variety and it would have been perfect.

Unless the PS2/Wii versions were closer to this. They seemed a little different besides the graphics. I’ll have to try it.

[Powder]

The Wii one was definitely similar.

[Andrew NDB]

It comes out in less than a month? Is this right?

https://www.gamestop.com/video-games/products/ghostbusters-spirits-unleashed---playstation-5/351197.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paidsocial&utm_campaign=FY22_Both_Evergreen-Customer+Segments+DABA+Prospecting_Catalog+Sales_0 9.13.22&utm_content=RET_CRM-WCA_Current+Customers%3A+PLAYER+%2B+Recent+Purchas ers_A18%2B_LC_09.13.22_23851099201430108_Facebook_ Desktop_Feed&utm_term=C56_T4_All+Products_Catalog-Carousel_09.13.22_23851099884040108&utm_id=23851099201380108

[IMJ]

It comes out in less than a month? Is this right?

https://www.gamestop.com/video-games/products/ghostbusters-spirits-unleashed---playstation-5/351197.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paidsocial&utm_campaign=FY22_Both_Evergreen-Customer+Segments+DABA+Prospecting_Catalog+Sales_0 9.13.22&utm_content=RET_CRM-WCA_Current+Customers%3A+PLAYER+%2B+Recent+Purchas ers_A18%2B_LC_09.13.22_23851099201430108_Facebook_ Desktop_Feed&utm_term=C56_T4_All+Products_Catalog-Carousel_09.13.22_23851099884040108&utm_id=23851099201380108

I would like to get into this, but I can't even tell if it has a single player campaign and I think full-on multiplayer only games are the worst buys on Earth - at the whims of the community and the server to ever go back to it.

I know they remastered that amazing PS3 game some time back. I'd like to play through that again someday.

[Andrew NDB]

Downloading it now. It must be a fairly small game, at least for now -- it's only 10 gigs.

[Andrew NDB]

Played it for about an hour. I dunno... I'm not sure about it. The proton pack overheats way faster than it should, now you have to worry about battery life on the traps and it's not really super fun running all around the large maps hunting for 1 ghost. The match I just played, the player-controlled ghost was just hiding inside the bars of a jail cell and there's no way to pull him out of there so the clock just runs out and you lose.

It picks up pretty much right after Afterlife with the firehouse reopening and Winston presiding over it. So it is just Ray (whose bookstore is now RIGHT next to the firehouse, separated by an alley) and Winston, and random Asian dude upstairs and Zendaya downstairs who is like the new Janine. You'd think they could've at least bothered to get Janine involved.

One thing, talking to Winston it does confirm the Ecto-1A is a separate vehicle. He talks glowingly about the Ecto-1 which he's semi-restored since Afterlife, how it was "the first we had."

[Leo656]

Thanks for the update, I was curious about this.

[Andrew NDB]

Also, it's pretty buggy. It's annoying to chase 1 PC ghost around the large map for long periods of time only for it to continuously glitch out and kick you out of the game.

Beyond the little bits with talking to Winston and Ray the game feels like a pretty hollow affair. Very simplistic gameplay. Maybe they can adjust it as time goes on. If they'd just reduce the overheating on proton streams (you can only do like 8 seconds maybe before it completely overheats) and maybe let you slam the ghosts around like in the 2009 game, that'd be a lot better. 3rd person mode too.

[Leo656]

That's a bummer.

Much as I liked the one that came out in 2000-whatever it was, I was kinda hoping that it might be the beginning of something, maybe not more games with The Real Cast, I knew that wasn't gonna happen, but maybe more Ghostbusters games that were THAT good, even if they were like, all rando made-up characters working out of the McGhostbusters franchise locations, y'know? Like the gameplay was good enough to build off of even if you didn't have the movie cast, I felt.

Instead it's like "Yeah, we did ONE really good game to resurrect the brand name in the public consciousness... NOW let's go and do a bunch of crap forever, since the audience is so niche we don't have to put in any effort."

I hate it when that f*cking happens.

I mean "Sanctum Of Slime" was a good (if probably too difficult) twin stick shooter, but 1. It was a budget DLC game and it shows, and 2. Who the f*ck wanted THAT? Who actually plays twin stick shooters in the first place? Like it was "fine" but it was also a pretty transparent attempt to pump something out to keep the license out there.

[Andrew NDB]

That's a bummer.

Much as I liked the one that came out in 2000-whatever it was, I was kinda hoping that it might be the beginning of something, maybe not more games with The Real Cast, I knew that wasn't gonna happen, but maybe more Ghostbusters games that were THAT good, even if they were like, all rando made-up characters working out of the McGhostbusters franchise locations, y'know? Like the gameplay was good enough to build off of even if you didn't have the movie cast, I felt.

Instead it's like "Yeah, we did ONE really good game to resurrect the brand name in the public consciousness... NOW let's go and do a bunch of crap forever, since the audience is so niche we don't have to put in any effort."

I hate it when that f*cking happens.

Now, the 2009 wasn't perfect and there was plenty of opportunity to improve and grow and learn from what worked/didn't, but yeah, I thought exactly the same. I thought for sure 2 years later we'd get a semi-sequel to that game, with rando Ghostbusters somewhere, with some combination of Ray, Winston, and Egon at least involved peripherally. Maybe it did OK, but not great, money-wise?

Between this game and the Scarface game (which picked up right after the end of the movie), there was like a renaissance of movies getting almost proper sequels in game form. A Dirty Harry game with Eastwood at the time, too, was being developed but fell apart, sadly. The Mad Max game, too, though sans Gibson (I can't remember if this was pre or post drunken pullover but I think post).

I mean "Sanctum Of Slime" was a good (if probably too difficult) twin stick shooter, but 1. It was a budget DLC game and it shows, and 2. Who the f*ck wanted THAT? Who actually plays twin stick shooters in the first place? Like it was "fine" but it was also a pretty transparent attempt to pump something out to keep the license out there.

Funnily enough, I just tried it while I was waiting for Spirits Unleashed to finish downloading because it's available on the PS Streaming. Eh. I couldn't quite figure out the controls in the time I was playing and apparently there's no traps, you just explode all the ghosts?

[Leo656]

Maybe it did OK, but not great, money-wise?


Funnily enough, I just tried it while I was waiting for Spirits Unleashed to finish downloading because it's available on the PS Streaming. Eh. I couldn't quite figure out the controls in the time I was playing and apparently there's no traps, you just explode all the ghosts?


1. I'm guessing that must have been the case.

I notice that unlike movies, it has become VERY hard to find the actual numbers on video game sales, post PS2 era. For example, Wikipedia is very transparent about movie budgets vs. box office, so if you wanna know at least a ballpark of whether a movie made money or lost money, it's very easy if not exact. But with games, no transparency at all. "How much did the game cost to develop? What was the marketing budget? How much revenue, total, did the project bring in? Sh*t, can you at least tell me how many COPIES it sold, even?"

No, no, all of that information is apparently more Top Secret than what the government knows about aliens, because you can't even find out how many copies a game sold anymore, let alone cost of dev vs. actual revenue or anything like that. You can find SOME info on This Game or That Game but actual hard data is pretty much impossible to find.

I'm guessing it's because after the PS2 era, development costs skyrocketed SO much that most games probably lose money after dev and advertising, even popular ones, and the profits are razor-thin to the point where even "success" isn't worth bragging about. Look at TellTale, they went under after ONE game underperformed despite having one of the most popular non-Call of Duty series in years with Walking Dead. Everyone assumed they must have been doing great, when in truth it was all smoke and mirrors.

So yeah, the only reason I can think of for no Ghostbusters follow-up was, "It did okay, but it cost a fortune and they couldn't justify the cost in a sequel." They most likely figured that even without the budget costs of having the movie actors, nobody would buy the game without them in it and so the whole exercise would break even at best and therefore be pointless to even attempt.

- Uh, yes, it's a twin stick shooter. :lol: You shoot things and they explode, that's it. It's fun but it's nothing substantial, just arcade stuff, not much more in-depth than stuff that came out in arcades 40 years ago, just shinier.

You'd honestly be grateful that's all it was and that there's no trapping of ghosts because in the later levels the entire screen fills up with swarms to the point where if trapping ghosts were even a mechanic it'd be impossible to do, you can barely move and shoot fast enough to even stay alive let alone anything else. I like the game but it is HARD near the end. That's why after I started it, I got stuck and never played it again for like 5 years or more, just figured I couldn't beat it. Then I did, and I was happy.

I think that hurt it, honestly. Very few people even care about twin stick shooters - which is why almost all of them are just budget DLC games, which makes sense anyway, they're not very deep as a rule - but it's just too hard for most of the people who'd wanna play it. First few levels are a breeze but towards the end it's like "F*cking CHRIST, man!"

- Also, please don't be a "Funnily Enough" person. Please please don't do that, man. You don't wanna know what I fantasize about doing to those people but it is all VERY "Hannibal".

[Andrew NDB]

So I gave Spirits Unleashed another shot last night. Nope! This game sucks. Not fun. You can only blast a ghost with a proton pack for like 5 seconds before you're overheating, leaving you to just keep chasing the same ghost around hoping you can somehow trap it before you overheat. The two games I played last night were both only me and bots, so it doesn't even seem like people are playing the game.