What Makes a Beat em Up "Good" or "Bad?"

[Konchadunga]

This is hardly irrelevant to the Turtles, because this franchise, more than any other, has prompted me to ponder this. Most people are aware of how beloved the 2-D beat-em-up games based on the Fred Wolf cartoon were, and most critics and some fans slammed the 3-D games based on the 4Kids cartoon. Some critics even allege that the unlockable original arcade game in the second 4Kids-based beat-em-up is better than the core game. Most recently, even the Reshelled version of Turtles in Time has been widely considered worse than the original. I haven't played any of the recent beat-em-up games except for the GBA game based on the 2007 movie (which incidentally, was 2-D and highly-lauded), but for those who have, and know more about them, I ask, why?

More specifically, what is it about the new games that makes them "worse" than the old ones? Are those allegations just crap? Is it just that the old ones have nostalgia on their side, and on top of that, the Fred Wolf cartoon is more beloved, or is there a more objective reason? Does a 2-dimensional plane of movement contract fights into a more on-your-toes challenge? Do the new games actually have less depth and more monotony, despite better technology and more buttons? Is catchy techno music an essential part of the essence of beat-em-ups that many modern ones don't have?

I'd like people to weigh in with their opinions on this, because it's a pretty big part of the TMNT franchise, or at least used to be. When a series has this much clout, there will inevitably be more games, so what lessons from the past, if any, can they use to do them right?

[oldmanwinters]

One word:
Pacing

And when in doubt, just make everything "over the top."

[CyberCubed]

Nowadays, nothing.

That kind of gameplay was only acceptable back in the 80's and early 90's. Nowadays gaming frowns upon new games like that.

[Xav]

I don't know games like God of War and Devil May Cry are pretty popular.

[Cure]

Originally Posted by Xav

I don't know games like God of War and Devil May Cry are pretty popular.

Those aren't beat em ups. They both have platforming and puzzle sections, so they're more action games.

CyberCubed is both right and wrong. Beat em ups can still fly, but only as downloadable titles.

[mgambino]

I think the best way to make a good beat em up is to copy Guardian Heroes. Have a cool combat system, insane amounts of action going on at once, branching paths, and tons of playable characters.

[Gokhan]

People hate on reshelled I personally found it great it played exactly the same as original...besides being able to move around more than just back and forth

[shihe]

In today's age, I expect several additional things to keep me interested in a beat-em-up.


1.- A level up system (and learning abilities) It's the only way it can guarantee that I'll keep playing. To master every character.

2.- Loads of characters to choose from. It's not essential, but it keeps ME interested by providing me with more variety.

3.- Customization: Wether weapons, shields, pets, abilities.. Customization is the formula of love in a beat-em-up in this day and age.

4.- Offline/Online multiplayer/co-op/competitive.
Might seem like the obvious, but there are still single-player beat-em-ups, and to be honest... I don't really like them. I'd play them once and never again.

5.- Different characters = Different properties/attributes/abilities/combos. Again, variety = bliss.



A final note:
A good combo system. (Applies to all eras, actually). If a combo system doesn't work (Tmnt 3: Manhattan Project for example) then it's not good. Opponents should flinch and be stunned with each hit. If they can hit you between your combos, it's no good.



btw, favorite beat'em up ever is Castle Crashers, followed by Scott Pilgrim, TMNT:IV, Streets of Rage 2, and now Double Dragon Neon.

[CyberCubed]

Short levels is a must. A lot of people don't realize how short each level in the old turtle games are.

You can literally play through each level in about 3-4 minutes depending on how long it takes you to beat the boss.

[oldmanwinters]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Nowadays, nothing.

That kind of gameplay was only acceptable back in the 80's and early 90's. Nowadays gaming frowns upon new games like that.

Lots of people did enjoy Double Dragon: Neon, which didn't shy away from poking fun at itself and its era.

And lots of people wanted to like Turtles in Time Reshelled, but they felt the "updates" just ended up watering down the product.

All that to say, I don't think the genre is dead. The industry just hasn't perfected the right way to evolve it to meet the modern day gaming expectations.

In today's gaming culture, "game over" has given way to "game save," thus eliminating much of the challenge and tension that came with trying to survive the game with limited numbers of lives and continues. And since nobody fails, they always end up completing the game in their few one or two attempts. Ergo, the second dilemma... either (A) the game is over too quickly (one hour or less) and gamers don't feel like they got their money's worth or else (B) the game developers add in superfluous content to try and artificially extend a game's length longer than it really should last and gamers end up burned out and bored by the tedious and repetitive gameplay, assuming that the entire genre must be as simple as "mindless button mashing."

Clearly, you can't charge $30-60 dollars for a well paced beat em' up these days and expect to satisfy your customers. However, the $10-ish price range is a very good goal for downloadable games, ala Double Dragon Neon.

Hopefully, we'll get to see a Battletoads "Neon" before too long.

[Konchadunga]

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

One word:
Pacing

And when in doubt, just make everything "over the top."

Please clarify. More specifically, why do the old games have these qualities, and not the new ones?

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

Nowadays, nothing.

That kind of gameplay was only acceptable back in the 80's and early 90's. Nowadays gaming frowns upon new games like that.

So in your opinion, there really is nothing objectively better about the old Turtles games?

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

In today's gaming culture, "game over" has given way to "game save," thus eliminating much of the challenge and tension that came with trying to survive the game with limited numbers of lives and continues. And since nobody fails, they always end up completing the game in their few one or two attempts.

The problem is beyond that. Many Beat-em-ups weren't designed to be beaten with limited continues, they were designed to be impossible without purchased continues, or nearly so. Ironically, this bit about the arcade-style games that were quickly becoming obsolete actually has come back in the form of micro-transactions, and for a while, I thought maybe the casual game market could be a place to bring back the coin-op beat em up. Yet most of the new games making their money from micro-transactions are so terrible that they've burnt people out on this again. Zynga is on its way out, and no disrespect to the TMNT, but I won't trade this universe in which I get to watch Zynga crash and burn for an alternate where I see a treasured game genre revived.

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

Ergo, the second dilemma... either (A) the game is over too quickly (one hour or less) and gamers don't feel like they got their money's worth or else (B) the game developers add in superfluous content to try and artificially extend a game's length longer than it really should last and gamers end up burned out and bored by the tedious and repetitive gameplay, assuming that the entire genre must be as simple as "mindless button mashing."

I don't think it must; in fact it must not. Those games that truly are that are the ones that can't be beaten without purchased continues, so outside the arcade there's no way you can make your beat-em-ups that shallow. Giving people a variety of moves and tactics, different enemies that require different moves and different tactics to increase depth, is a great way to improve the genre, and in fact the SNES port of Turtles in Time actually did that. Even today, I still find that game a lot of fun. It's still shallow at times; drop kicks are way too spammable, but it's a step in the right direction as to how to evolve beat-em-ups.

Originally Posted by oldmanwinters

Clearly, you can't charge $30-60 dollars for a well paced beat em' up these days and expect to satisfy your customers. However, the $10-ish price range is a very good goal for downloadable games, ala Double Dragon Neon.

Hopefully, we'll get to see a Battletoads "Neon" before too long.

You say that, but that GBA TMNT2007 game was $30, and still got much better reviews than the 3-D games made in the 2000s, so once again, why? What do 2-D beat-em-ups have that 3-D ones don't, besides nostalgia?

[oldmanwinters]

I spent way to much time articulating my thoughts on this. I really don't have anything left to add.

Originally Posted by Konchadunga

You say that, but that GBA TMNT2007 game was $30, and still got much better reviews than the 3-D games made in the 2000s, so once again, why? What do 2-D beat-em-ups have that 3-D ones don't, besides nostalgia?

To borrow an analogy:
"Best looking girl in the room?"

[MikeandRaph87]

For me its three things. In exact order:

1.Bosses-I would rather have Rat King,Slash,and Leatherhead opposed to a rock solider other than General Traag,a made for game villian Tora,or an ally in Metalhead. Better choices in each example.
2.The scenary. Are we fighting the Foot in a landmark or on location somewhere? Those make for some great backgrounds! Somethi g to add to the traditional sewer and Technodrome levels.
3. How hard or easy the game is. I never beat the original game because is so frakin' hard.While I beat Smash Up in an hour. Beatable but not a breeze.