...because we needed this one, didn't we? Let's compare the greatest beat'em up series ever to Final Fight!
Note: we're only talking SNES Final Fight games. By them I mean Final Fight SNES, Final Fight Guy, Final Fight 2-3.
Printable View
...because we needed this one, didn't we? Let's compare the greatest beat'em up series ever to Final Fight!
Note: we're only talking SNES Final Fight games. By them I mean Final Fight SNES, Final Fight Guy, Final Fight 2-3.
Streets of Rage is by far the better series with three VERY different games. Final Fight 2 + 3 however are fantastic games as well.
I think the Final fight 1,2 & 3 on SNES sucks donkey balls!
they're boring as sin to play...I was trying them again yesterday and got bored after 5 minutes, even Co-op couldn't save it.
The Haggar design is absolute shite, levels are bland as are the baddies...blurgh.
However I love Final Fight CD and the SNES sequels are a far cry from that quality.
Streets of rage however has interesting stages, great music, vertical scrolling (be it plays a very small part) and as a whole just looks better I think which is an excellent concidering the palette limitations and just seems to work better and Bare Knuckle 3 is gaming bliss!
I do love Final Fight for its interesting boss fights, mid level gimmicks and large sprites and weapons blah blah which is sequels just seem to loose.
The Streets of Rage games have more of everything that make beat-em ups great. More enemies on screen with more animation, more moves that actually add to the strategy, multiplayer, diverse level designs with music accompaniment that adds to the experience, and the hardest difficulties cause some people to go insane from all of the enemies on screen as opposed to just longer enemy energy bars.
If the Streets of Rage games didn't exist, I would be inclined to believe the modern popular opinion that beat-em ups were all shallow button mashers.
Hey guess what? I voted for Streets of Rage. It is clearly the better series. Honestly this poll is just pointless. You're comparing a sub-par series on one system to another that dominated. If you're trying to match the controversy from the other poll, you won't see me being a hypocrite with my stance here. I know what is and is not the better game, unlike some of the Sega fanboys on the other poll.
Agreed. This is almost like having a Mario vs. Sonic debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrandx
These "something Genesis" vs "something similar, but SNES" threads look like new old trend here, so why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Firebrandx
I don't think the "popularity" of the Final Fight SNES series on more mainstream forums can be understated.
Streets of Rage, no contest. Streets of Rage 2 was the best
Final Fight is boring and slow. It has nothing going for it. The music is bland, the graphics are bland, the characters are bland, and so on.
Okay, SoR is also kind of boring (same genre after all) but at least it's fast (SoR 3), has kick ass music and awesome characters. Yeah, subjective, I know.
As far as I'm concerned the first Final Fight was crippled on SNES (a sentiment that often throws me into long winded arguments in general gaming forums) I haven't played enough of the other SNES Final Fights to gather an opinion about them.
I've run into this sort of poll many times in the past on other gaming forums, Final Fight (SNES) pretty much always wins it by a decent margin.
I feel that Final Fight 3 was a pretty good game, but it pales in comparison with the more heavy hitting SOR2.
SoR by a long shot. Everything about it is more interesting than FF. I got FF on Sega CD a few months ago (can't speak for the SNES version) and it has got to be one of the cheapest, most frustrating beat em ups I've played. I can normally get to stage 5 on SoR 1 and 2 without dying once on normal mode, but I can't get through stage 2 on FFCD on easy mode without using a continue. A lot of the enemies are cheap and have attacks that are really hard to avoid. It's less enjoyable.
I loved the arcade Final Fight, and the SNES port was decent for the time (we often didn't get 1:1 arcade ports at the time). But SOR was just so much more fun (and new) when it came out. If the SNES port was near identical of the arcade version, this might have been a tougher decision. But it's not. And SOR1 (being my favorite one in the series) is a blast to play. SOR got my vote.
Neither, they both serve their purpose well.
I have all three Streets of Rage games and they all kick ass. Haven't played any SNES Final Fight, but I've heard some really muffled music and seen some videos with screens less crowded than pork shops in Mecka, so it gets my vote out of pity.
Streets of Rage games are all great. Final Fight 1 and 2 are slow and boring.
I have to go with Streets of Rage. While Final Fight 2 and 3 are awesome and fun, they just don't have the ferocity that Streets of Rage 2 and 3 have to offer.
Streets Of Rage (Specially the first part) in 17 times more awesome than any Final. End!
Streets of Rage is definitely better than Final Fight though the Final Fight games are still pretty good they just pale in comparison to the Streets of Rage games.
Final Fight on the SNES is garbage.
Final Fight CD and in the arcades however is definitely on par with Streets of Rage 2. Both are excellent games, but when it comes to home ports, SOR wins hands-down.
FF1 (Arcade) and SoR2 are amongst my Top 5 favorite beat-em-ups.
I preferred FF1 over SoR1 in everything except music.
SoR2 completely blew the bland, uninspired FF2 out of the water.
FF3 and BK3 (SoR3? What? It actually came out in the U.S?).......it's a toss up in my book. While they both brought lots of gameplay enhancements to their respective series and played great, they each have their pet peeves (FF3: Short, kinda uninspired level and character design, still 3 enemies on-screen, major slowdown in some portions of the game, BK3: the soundtrack, Zan, the soundtrack, some sections were too long, no Max, the soundtrack). I give the edge to BK3, just slightly.
SORs are still among my top MD games. Have only played Final Fight on Mega CD / GBA, they're quite fun too but I've not wanted to replay them often.
Series is a tie for me.
FF1 > SOR1 (Slight win for FF1 Snes vs SOR1. Absolute one sided FF1 arcade or Sega CD version. FF1's atmosphere, characters, smooth controls are so memorable and ground breaking I will always rank this as my #1 Beat Em Up. SOR 1 great game especially considering 4-Meg cart! still hit detection feels choppy and graphics really dated (8-Meg would have been kick ass).
SOR 2 absolutely destroys FF2 (man FF 2 is a major disappointment in retrospect a good game that could have been great, replace Carlos with Guy, and at least add some moves I mean it does not have to be FF3's variety but more then FF1's!) SOR2 what is there to say, perfect graphics and sprite size. Awesome range of difficulty, tons of moves and strategies for each fighter. Best Music in a video game, Perfection.
FF3/SOR 3 Tie (SOR 3 should have been the winner here yet the graphics and music piss me off so much(24-Meg WTF 8 extra Megs where the F are they). Best thing about SOR is the game speed, the few new moves don't add much. FF3 on the other hand went all out and is a beautiful game, if they would of made the sprites smaller and got 4 enemies on screen I think it is a walk away win for FF3. Guy's running combo get's me hard every time I do it. Cody should of been in FF3 not Dean what a joke, and who cares about Lucia?
Streets of Rage for me! Final Fight SNES and Final Fight Guy suck big time because of one main reason. No, not the SNES port not having all 3 characters, which it should've had anyway. It's the lack of two-player mode!!!!! WTF???
I'm just glad we got a great port of Final Fight on Sega CD because it kicks ass!:cool:
I never liked Final Fight at all, it just seemed kinda bland and uninteresting. Double Dragon, Streets of Rage, and River City Ransom all fall into the urban beat em up style of FF and feel a million times better.
The butchered (censored) SNES port or the original SFC conversion?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
^^^
They're both identical , save for the censoring.
I'm a big fan of both.
Final fight 1 beats SOR 1 hands down. the characters are just so small on SOR and well, i just prefer FF1 over it. Now SOR sequels kick the shit out of SOR. Hands down. The FF sequels arent very good and feel cheap.
The arcade Final Fight had a great soul, something that was like a classic 80's arcade game. All the the best fun and originality was there... Maybe a bit too simple controls, but with all that feeling it was nothing to complain about...
The SNES port was a crime. Guy or not, it was crime.
The second one had no soul and was poorly done. The third one has no soul too, but is beautifully done. That's it.
SOR1 is ugly, but is good. SOR2 is a so damn good perfect brawling gem... SOR3 is a quality step behind SOR2 and loose some of its originality, but has a very good story.
I really can't decide which series I like better, I grew up playing both sets of games so I like both about the same. final fight 3 is my favorite out of the final fight games but then again streets of rage 2 is my favorite streets of rage game, their both great.
but I do have to say this, the snes port of final fight was pure crap compared to the arcade version and sega cd version. for me both series of games are very nostalgic and I can't really choose just one of the two.
Streets of Rage 2 and 3 kill any Final Fight in the series. With that said, I like Final Fight 2 and 3. They have better graphics than the SOR games but are quite repetitive and boring by comparison. Final Fight 3 is better than 2 with it's super moves.
Streets of Rage 1, 2 and 3 FTW, beat' em up games are not suited for the SNES hardware so is nothing to wonder that the three FF games sucked when compared to the SOR games, and fuck Capcom for choosing the SNES as the main platform for their Final Fight sequels, they could have done much better games for the Sega CD...
That no one would of bought! (In hindsight I agree though 4+ enemies at a time should be the minimum for beat em ups, unless they have really good ways of adding them quickly as one is defeated)Quote:
Originally Posted by chinitosoccer
Um I think it has a lot more to do with the size sprites of the Snes beat em ups more so then hardware. How many enemy sprites could the Genny have done for FF? I know Sega CD did 4 I am not sure if the Genny could do that as well.
someone with some nouse!!!!! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloo
totally agree....
....altho
these sorts of threads are funny, simply cos we're comparing vastly different things, within the same field...and i think a lot of this is to do with YOUR particular experience with the actual games - as they were released.
im DEFINITELY not going to whinge and complain as to the threads subject, im just going to give me opinion....i usually refrain from saying things like this, but i will this time regardless ;)
...
i played FF in the arcades and loved that muthafucka, PROPER BIG TIME!!
SOR was THE alternative for home gaming, and i seriously DOGGED that game for YEARS....but really when you look at it...youre comparing two totally different things, especially on the home systems
FF was originally done at a point when there wasnt anything that rivalled it, at home....(89?)
SOR was done years later (91?), at least - years, when you place regard to the limitations / benefits of the hardware used in both instances
FF snes is a lame PORT of a fuckin ARCADE game.....(firstly, hows is the snes EVER going to compete with what FF did at the arcade, back then!?!? ....im sure theres many arcaders on this forum who will all remember the impact FF had when it first hit...translating that experience to home gaming is NEVER going to fully work)
so already....comparing SNES FF (...a port done in 1990?...) against SOR (developed for that particular hardware, with lessons learnt, too!) isnt fair.....SOR took FF as a concept and built on its weaknessess to make soemthing more refined for the home gamer...a more "rewarding experience" allround....
(. . . but FF arcade & MEGACD is better than SOR on MD :D :D)
Yeah, cause you know the hardware pretty intimately right? Has absolutely nothing to do with game/software design or anything :roll:Quote:
Originally Posted by chinitosoccer
SOR2 is a little bit of a let down. SOR1 was so much fun, SOR2 was hit and miss in areas for me. I couldn't stand the music for SOR3, so I didn't play it much. But from what I have played, it was kinda of meh. SOR1 > all SNES FF games though. FF2 and 3 have some really nice graphics, but are boring as shit to play IMO.
I don't know and I don't care to know the hardware "intimately", and I have no interest in having sex with my SNES, the only thing I know well are the beat'em ups that were released on the system, most of them are no better than Final Fight and it's sequels, the only one that comes closer is "Denjin Makai" and even that game pales in comparison to SOR2.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
The two SOR sequels are about moving the genre forward, creating a standard and, in some instances daring to move beyond what was already perfected into something less audience-friendly (minimalist techno, as one example). SOR2 almost had to be, as it always appeared to be a cross-genre response from Sega to a certain SNES-exclusive Capcom one on on fighter.
'Final Fight 2' appears to be a mea culpa for the first game more than anything. Unfortunately, that amounts to little more than 2-player co-op and 3 selectable characters, while the game's overall look and tone is much less than its conceptual argument; instead, the character sanitation of the first SNES game seems to have spread throughout the sequel, robbing FF2 of its predecessor's style in both character design and now level tone. Where's the grit?
FF3 has the same general problem to one side, but is a massive step forward on the other. Real thought went into not only improving the 'Final Fight' formula but also that of beat 'em ups in general. It's the 11th hour for the genre, but here is a game that was attempting to make that genre interesting and forward-thinking just as its time was up.
Taking ideas from not only previous beat 'em ups but also other genres, such as one on one fighters, to make character interaction and playability more unique; d-pad standardized super moves, weapons that are better-served depending on character selection, and a conflation of faster gameplay leading to (from?) a simplistic but effective combo system.
Level design is complicated with the ability to switch path mid-level, but I wouldn't necessarily say that it was improved; it's better than FF2's design, but feels lacking compared to the linear-but-well-paced 'Final Fight', which was helped immensely in simply having a heavier hand so far as the city-as-slum motif, which again seems largely MIA to FF3's side.
As far as score-as-narration, the game takes a big step forward. Tracks such as 'Law and Disorder' or 'Smeared Graffiti' (portions of which has a soundscope and backbeat that sonically mirrors the later-Chili Peppers' track 'Get On Top') are almost dynamic enough to create the tone this game needs, despite the lacking help in enemy/background/foreground design on the graphical end.
I still prefer the two SOR sequels -- I think they're not only overall better efforts, but also are a more striking mix of gameplay and tonality -- but FF3 is a very strong, respectable and fresh take on the series, if not the genre.
Nice rundown.Quote:
Originally Posted by cowboyscowboys
You can see that, for whatever reason, character design was pretty lacking in both FF sequels, from the new protagonists to the antagonists. However, I thought the redesigns of Guy and Haggar were decent; Andore not so much.
Have you played 'Bare Knuckle III'?