Remember when I promised to post features on this blog every Tuesday and Thursday. That's not quite working out as I expected it to. This is for a few reasons, many of which have been largely invisible to the reader.
One reason is sometimes I'm left waiting to hear back from some sources so I can't post a planned feature on the Thursday I planned to (and scrounging together a backup usually results in a rushed, messy post). Another reason some weeks is that I'd rather post a feature Tuesday and Wednesday. And finally, sometimes I have other plans Thursday night.
All three of these apply this week.
So, new plan: Still keeping with the regular posting, I will strive to get at least one post up every Monday through Thursday. Sometimes these will be long, featurey posts, other times they'll simply be quick links with a bit of comment. Sometimes there'll be right in the middle. Sometimes there will be more than one post on a given day, but there will always be at least one every Monday through Thursday.
So, in that spirit, here's a quick link to an article by Ombudsman reader Joshua Fishburn about problems in recent reviews of Midway Arcade Treasures, Volume 2. Joshua argues that the game's apparent glitches were neglected by some outlets, including ones that described the game as "arcade perfect":
Any review that does not detail the triumphs as well as the pitfalls of such a collection is not useful to the reader. Reviews that loosely toss around the phrase "arcade perfect" are similarly useless, as they cripple its meaning. It should only be used to describe games that are frame-for-frame and note-for-note identical to their arcade counterparts.
If you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, it's not "arcade perfect" unless you have the arcade joystick and button setup too, I suppose.
But outside of that, I think part of the problem here is two different meanings of "arcade perfect." Where Joshua sees this as meaning "frame-for-frame and note-for-note identical," it could be argued that any home version that uses emulated code instead of reverse-engineered code could be considered "arcade perfect" in the sense that it is running off the same inherent base (if I lost you in the last sentence, then you need to probably learn a little more about the technical side of game conversion. Or I need to start writing better).
Then again, the overuse of the term could just be lazy use of a cliche to signify something as a relatively authentic home conversion. I'm not sure which I'd say is more likely right now, but I'm sure you readers have some thoughts on the subject. Leave 'em using the "comments" link below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Controllers fall into the hardware/accessories/peripherals category. If people want that kind of arcade perfection they can seek out those devices. However, what I was hoping for was an experience from the software indistinguishable from the software in the arcade (I was purchasing software, after all). I understand that emulation is complex. But I also know that down speed adjustments are not (no excuse for Pit-Fighter), especially when they aren't variable. After thinking about it more, I realized that they should have just disabled the shadows in MK 2 and MK 3. The next conclusion is that this would be difficult, since the original game code is being emulated. The solution would have been to disable the layer (for shadows) in the original game source, and produce a new MK2 and MK3 build for the Arcade Treasures 2.
ReplyDeleteHow bad is the shadow problem, honestly? I've yet to play the game so I don't really know. But this is a sticky subject, because people can be so uber-picky about this sort of thing.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I don't believe it's realistic to call Midway Collection 2 "arcade perfect" based solely on the fact that Pit Fighter is apparently unplayable because of the increased speed. That's a major issue, though not something that renders the collection useless.
By the same token, I'm fine with a reviewer not telling me about the odd shadow flicker in the MK games, simply because it doesn't seem to affect gameplay in any way.
-Sewart
How bad are the shadows? Let me paint a picture. If you were playing on the original arcade machine, and someone came along and put a pulsing strobe light on top of the cabinet -- well, it's kind of like that. Also, there would be a kid behind you trying to light your ears on fire with a lighter. It's kind of like that, plus mashed potatoes.
ReplyDeleteI pretty much ignore the phrase "arcade perfect" in a review. Reviewers too often have only casual experience with the games they review, and I seriously doubt the majority even consider going back to play an original version, if they've ever played it at all. Instead, I look to see if a review avoids "arcade perfect," as that likely means something stood out so much that even the reviewer noticed. (Though at times the reviewer is wrong there, particularly in the case of glitches or slowdown present in the arcade version.)
ReplyDeleteI particularly dislike when companies call their games arcade perfect when they aren't. The MK1 port in Deception is an example. On the other hand, I don't think Nintendo ever claimed that the GC emulated Ocarina of time was "perfect," and actually points out in the manual that Majora's Mask has emulation related issues. And whether or not Sega ever claimed the DC Smash Pack was perfect is irrelevant, as they should feel shame for releasing that lousy disc. (Bad slowdown in Sonic, sometimes painful sound issues affecting several games, etc.)
Fighting game fans are very particular about an arcade perfect label, because even minor differences can have a major impact on play, changing balances or taking the version out of contention for "serious" training. Or just changing the experience to something "less" than the original. But reviews are generally written by people who have only a passing familiarity with perhaps even the entire series, and basically look to see if the game visually looks like the original (no cut animation) or has visible glitches.
Shooter fans can also be very particular, but shooters generally seem to come through a bit better.
I agree that the phrase "arcade perfect" is ambiguous to start with. I also agree that, in the case of Mortal Kombat 1, 2, and 3, the hardware emulation was likely buggy, not the game code. As a consumer, I have no choice as to the emulator that runs the game. As an idealist consumer, I think the best collection would be legal ROMS that you could run on either the included emulator or on some other emulator (e.g. MAME). Instead, the ROMS are hidden and presented on an inadequate emulator to make more cash.
ReplyDelete