The main flaws of Eternal Champions

Here are some of mine:

No qcf or qcb moves. I was so used to Street Fighter II that the lack of qcf/qcb back moves in EC really put me off and took me aback. I got tired of doing just charge moves and tapping moves and I think motion moves were sorely missed.

Sending you back rounds when you lose. This is unforgiveable. Again I was used to SF II and they didnt do this so why did EC do it ? Make it harder, ok I guess but I didnt like this at all.

The way the fatalities were implimented. Having your opponent land in a certain spot on the screen is about the dumbest way they could have done it. QCF + 3P or 3K buttons or F,B,F + 2P/2K, ANYTHING would be better than how it was actually done.

Can't Continue if you lose to the last boss. Another unforgiveable thing. Imagine being able to get only 1 shot at M.Bison and thats it. Makes it harder sure but why do that when you didnt need to.

Last boss is unplayable. I know there are a few fighters with unplayable last bosses but they arent common so people wanna play as this guy then you cant well then that is really unfair to the person who purchased it and spent their money.

Removal of a cool character. He was shown in an EGM issue but not in the final game. He shouldnt have been removed and that was another big disapointment.

No voice sample for the moves. I'm aware a lot of games didnt have this but when youre used to hearing "HA-DO-KEN" over and over again and EC gives you nothing, well its definately sorely missed.


-I havent played this game in so long so this is all I can remember off the top of my head but when I remember more things about this game I'll post it. Its a game that I always thought was average at best and I always noticed that it did have some flaws that stood out to me that kept it from being a great game.

I agree that Eternal Champions is hard and doesn't play like Street Fighter II, but that is why I appreciate it so much. I do wish that there were more samples during gameplay, that seemed to be standard after Street Fighter II. The larger sprites and good animation along with the unique fighting styles that stay much more down to earth than any of the popular fighters makes Eternal Champions stand out. We are talking about the summer of 1993, before Special Champion Edition launched on the Genesis, before Mortal Kombat on either the Genesis or SNES. These standards you speak of were hardly established by then.

I personally have always felt that games that do quarter circles for moves were just ripping off Street Fighter unless it was for a very unique technique. All in all I think Eternal Champions and Challenge from the Dark Side are extremely technical fighting games for their day in comparison to the Street Fighter games especially.

I find the game ugly. Poor palette usage and bad character designs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkDragon

No qcf or qcb moves. I was so used to Street Fighter II that the lack of qcf/qcb back moves in EC really put me off and took me aback. I got tired of doing just charge moves and tapping moves and I think motion moves were sorely missed.

---

I was used to SFII as well, played it every day I could get to a machine; another set of those moves would've bored me stiff. And SF has almost nothing that's not qcf qcb or charge.

Quote:

---

Sending you back rounds when you lose. This is unforgiveable.

---

This is the absolute best feature, it makes it feel as though the other characters are climbing the ranks, active, rather than just waiting for you to come along and beat them.

Quote:

---

The way the fatalities were implimented. Having your opponent land in a certain spot on the screen is about the dumbest way they could have done it.

---

This makes it a surprise and a bonus as well as keeping them from being performed every contest. 2nd best feature.

Quote:

---

Can't Continue if you lose to the last boss. Another unforgiveable thing. Imagine being able to get only 1 shot at M.Bison and thats it. Makes it harder sure but why do that when you didnt need to.

---

3rd best feature. It reinforces the game's setting and makes the final battle feel final. Actually however you do get 2 shots at him, ie you get the normal 2 rounds, and only have to beat him once.
M. Bison is the boss of an arcade game. Different.

Quote:

---

Last boss is unplayable.

---

Not sure there isn't a code for it. But he is too powerful for normal use.

Quote:

---

Removal of a cool character. He was shown in an EGM issue but not in the final game.

---

Never knew this. A pity.

Quote:

---

No voice sample for the moves. I'm aware a lot of games didnt have this

---

Never missed them and they can get annoying. Besides most games did have them.

from Sheath:

Quote:

---

I personally have always felt that games that do quarter circles for moves were just ripping off Street Fighter unless it was for a very unique technique.

---

Fighters' History Dynamite anyone?

EC is probably the most underwhelming "must play" title I've ever experienced.

The AI is cheap. It reached the point that in one round I didn't even manage to get any control of my character because of the ridiculous amount of hits it was taking.

The unused character (Chin Wo? the Bruce Lee knockoff with monkey kung fu) with was included in the SCD sequel.

GG/PAR code exists to play as the last boss, all the way to the point of the credits rolling. He's surprisingly glitch free but is boring once the initial thrill of playing as him as worn off.

As for the moves; the only complaint I had about them was they're pretty much impossible to use comfortably on a pad. With a stick it isn't as much as a problem, but those awkward button presses require you to constantly reposition your right hand and play the controller like a piano. How can you be expected to press X+Z or A+C with just your thumb?

The controls are awful. Nigh unplayable, if you asked me.

The Sega CD version is where its at!

Pretty much all of the above, minus StarMist's comments. Most of all it's the bad controls, ugly colors and cheap AI that ruin this game. It is blatantly obvious Sega was just going for a lame cash in on the success of Street Fighter II and needed a fighting game whipped up fast. They tried too hard to be different, adding stupid shit such as awkward to perform fatalities (they managed to make a gimmick OUT OF A GIMMICK, /applaud), ranking down (if they wanted to do this right, they should've went for a knock-out approach, in a tournament you NEVER fight the same guy twice so no, it does not make sense) and useless training modes.
Nice try Sega, but no dice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olls

ranking down (if they wanted to do this right, they should've went for a knock-out approach, in a tournament you NEVER fight the same guy twice so no, it does not make sense)

---

I suggested that knockout approach somewhere when this came up before; only, that's what the fatalities should accomplish. And you do sometimes fight the same foe twice, it's called round robin; besides "never" only goes so far in video games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olls

Pretty much all of the above, minus StarMist's comments. Most of all it's the bad controls, ugly colors and cheap AI that ruin this game. It is blatantly obvious Sega was just going for a lame cash in on the success of Street Fighter II and needed a fighting game whipped up fast. They tried too hard to be different, adding stupid shit such as awkward to perform fatalities (they managed to make a gimmick OUT OF A GIMMICK, /applaud), ranking down (if they wanted to do this right, they should've went for a knock-out approach, in a tournament you NEVER fight the same guy twice so no, it does not make sense) and useless training modes.
Nice try Sega, but no dice.

---

You also forgot one thing: they never provided a proper difficulty setting. Instead, they provided a speed setting, which of course doesn't affect the AI at all. Guess how it ends up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StarMist

I suggested that knockout approach somewhere when this came up before; only, that's what the fatalities should accomplish. And you do sometimes fight the same foe twice, it's called round robin; besides "never" only goes so far in video games.

---

This was directed at your comment about characters climbing ranks, which I read as the game trying to invoke a sense of realism. Only, in reality, you never fight the same guy twice.
As far as I know, performing a fatality does not "kill" your opponent, so you still have to fight him when you lose the following match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orchid87

I find the game ugly. Poor palette usage and bad character designs.

---

This. I really find the game hard to stomach. I know graphics don't necessarily make the game but I really can't get past them in Eternal Champions so I never bothered to learn how to play it properly and I get my ass kicked and then I put it back in its box.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olls

This was directed at your comment about characters climbing ranks, which I read as the game trying to invoke a sense of realism. Only, in reality, you never fight the same guy twice.

---

Yes, I'm aware, which is why I mentioned the round robin format (sports). You may also select any martial arts film centred on tournaments. Anyhow realism wasn't my gist so much as involvement of the other characters, their activity.

Quote:

---

As far as I know, performing a fatality does not "kill" your opponent, so you still have to fight him when you lose the following match.

---

Again I'd already made this clear: that's how it should have been. Missing which opportunity devalued the fatalities.

Should have beens aren't things you should bring up in defense of a game. There are a lot of things in EC that should have been.
It's almost as if you agree that the game is severely flawed and nigh unplayable. Could this be?

It's a beautiful game with sweet music, but ultimately unplayable unless you spend a lot of time mastering it,
definitely not a game to just jump in and have fun with.

Damn shame if you ask me, kinda reminds me of Fantasia, Looks like a game but doesn't have gameplay.

It has so many flaws that the graphcis are way down my list. I thought the character designs were one of the best things about it. Larcen was cool. The cyborg guy was cool. The vampire guy was cool. Heck, the character designs WERE the best thing about it. I wouldnt say its highly unplayable. It is kinda slow and stiff but I woulda forgave that if there were qcf qcb moves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoVamp

It's a beautiful game with sweet music, but ultimately unplayable unless you spend a lot of time mastering it,
definitely not a game to just jump in and have fun with.

---

Hence why a lot of people don't like it. "Pick up and play" is the very nature of the genre.

I don't think anybody can pick up and play Street Fighter and get very far without learning the specials at least. Mortal Kombat's combos are hardly intuitive. Weaponlord requires a ton of practice to get past the first patch. Virtua Fighter is somewhat pick up and play, but don't expect to beat somebody who has learned a combo or two by button mashing.

I really dislike the art style (not the dithering itself, though unfiltered it looks unattractive in areas). The palette choice isn't the greatest either (again, not talking about dithering or limited colors). But obviously the most important part is the gameplay. If I could actually connect with the gameplay, the other areas wouldn't matter as much. Maybe the gameplay isn't flawed per se, but it's definitely an acquired taste. Not my cup of tea. I did recently try this game out again on my Everdrive (hehe, even though I own the real cart... wtf) and I hate to say it but the game would have benefited more if it just had pretty much cloned what SF2 or MK was doing at the time. Then again, I don't take fighting games as serious as some others do.

I like Eternal Champions and the SegaCD version even better. I like it not just being the same moves as Street Fighter 2 and other than being in the same genre, it's a unique, fun game. I think it's a more challenging solo game than either Street Fighter 2 or a Mortal Kombat game, too. I like the characters and also like the "Danger Room" option. Sega may or may not have been trying to cash in on the fighting game craze but so what? They didn't just throw together a cheap knock-off, they put a lot into it; when they made the SegaCD version, they could have just put in a few extras but instead, they went to the extreme!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olls

This was directed at your comment about characters climbing ranks, which I read as the game trying to invoke a sense of realism. Only, in reality, you never fight the same guy twice.
As far as I know, performing a fatality does not "kill" your opponent, so you still have to fight him when you lose the following match.

---

Actually, fighting the same guys repeatedly even after a fatality makes sense in Eternal Champions. They are all time-travellers that were killed in different eras so when you lose, it's like getting sent back in time to try again. That kind of stuff happens in time-travel movies all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olls

Pretty much all of the above, minus StarMist's comments. Most of all it's the bad controls, ugly colors and cheap AI that ruin this game. It is blatantly obvious Sega was just going for a lame cash in on the success of Street Fighter II and needed a fighting game whipped up fast. They tried too hard to be different, adding stupid shit such as awkward to perform fatalities (they managed to make a gimmick OUT OF A GIMMICK, /applaud), ranking down (if they wanted to do this right, they should've went for a knock-out approach, in a tournament you NEVER fight the same guy twice so no, it does not make sense) and useless training modes.
Nice try Sega, but no dice.

---

It doesn't seem like that at all to me (as far as the rushed/knock-off at least). It was inspired by SFII, but it wasn't ever intended (at least by the developers) as a cheap knock-off cash-in.
However, the final results were admittedly far from what Latham had originally wanted. (the controls/fighting style had originally been intended to be much more like SFII and humor was supposed to be far more prominent -the Sega CD sequel got a bit closer to the original concept, but is still far off)

Melf has an interview on this:
http://www.sega-16.com/forum/showthr...w-Mike-Latham&
. . . but the old link doesn't work and I'm not sure where the new one is. (searching the main site didn't show anything)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoVamp

It's a beautiful game with sweet music, but ultimately unplayable unless you spend a lot of time mastering it,
definitely not a game to just jump in and have fun with.

---

Yes, it's very tough and unforgiving (also very technical in play, as Sheath mentioned). There's no difficulty selection to address that either.

I wouldn't say it's beautiful, but I do like the graphic-novel-esque art style (at least parts of it), though color could have been better optimized. Music is so so, a few OK tracks, but that's about it IMO. (not too bad compared to some other GEMS stuff though) The Sega CD game looked better and sounded awesome though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I don't think anybody can pick up and play Street Fighter and get very far without learning the specials at least. Mortal Kombat's combos are hardly intuitive. Weaponlord requires a ton of practice to get past the first patch. Virtua Fighter is somewhat pick up and play, but don't expect to beat somebody who has learned a combo or two by button mashing.

---

I used to think that about SFII (which was the main reason I didn't really care for it), but then I realized how easy/cheap Chun Li is to use. That's when I started having real fun with that game. Chun Li is very effective by just jumping around and kicking (and the lightning kick is the easiest "special" in the entire game -the spinning kick is pretty easy too, though I don't use it that often, and the fireball even less).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sheath

I don't think anybody can pick up and play Street Fighter and get very far without learning the specials at least. Mortal Kombat's combos are hardly intuitive. Weaponlord requires a ton of practice to get past the first patch. Virtua Fighter is somewhat pick up and play, but don't expect to beat somebody who has learned a combo or two by button mashing.

---

That is true; those games are challenging for the right reasons. Their single player modes might not be as challenging, but at least they're challenging for the right reasons.
In EC, there was no need to make special moves this difficult to perform or for the AI to be so ridiculously cheap, other than the developers thinking that different equates to better. There is no way they didn't do this on purpose. They couldn't have been this incompetent. If you're ripping off Street Fighter, at least try to keep the stuff that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bones Justice

I like Eternal Champions and the SegaCD version even better. I like it not just being the same moves as Street Fighter 2 and other than being in the same genre, it's a unique, fun game. I think it's a more challenging solo game than either Street Fighter 2 or a Mortal Kombat game, too. I like the characters and also like the "Danger Room" option. Sega may or may not have been trying to cash in on the fighting game craze but so what? They didn't just throw together a cheap knock-off, they put a lot into it; when they made the SegaCD version, they could have just put in a few extras but instead, they went to the extreme!

Actually, fighting the same guys repeatedly even after a fatality makes sense in Eternal Champions. They are all time-travellers that were killed in different eras so when you lose, it's like getting sent back in time to try again. That kind of stuff happens in time-travel movies all the time.

---

That's a good point, actually.

Virtua Fighter is pick and play.

Anyone who says Mortal Kombat is pick and play must have a special ability remembering the special moves

Eternal Champion is not pick and play. Very difficult to master. But it is still the best fighter on the genesis with SF2 a close second.

EC is only worth playing against a human player. Only then you get great tactical matches with bluffs and stuff. The mana is for not for 2 seconds attention captain america, look how my hair is so better than yours, Romney kind of guys.
All your button presses in EC are there for a purpose. QCF is so fucking lame. I hate those . I see pro SF video where the player keep trying/doing dragon punches. What? This is supposed to be entertaining?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mordan

Eternal Champion is not pick and play. Very difficult to master. But it is still the best fighter on the genesis with SF2 a close second.

---

Yuu Yuu Hakusho wants to have a word with you.

Also, any Mortal Kombat game is pick up and play. It's one of the most simplistic fighting game series ( although MK9 brought more technical fighting).
Any of your other points aren't worth replying to, since you're sporting that EC avatar. It's like the pope preaching christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olls

In EC, there was no need to make special moves this difficult to perform or for the AI to be so ridiculously cheap, other than the developers thinking that different equates to better. There is no way they didn't do this on purpose. They couldn't have been this incompetent. If you're ripping off Street Fighter, at least try to keep the stuff that works.

---

No way is EC a lame SF rip-off! EC was made to be better than SFII and also the MK series. So it didn't copy it badly! The special moves are hard bc they were making up so much of it.

Plus I thought there were plenty of moves similar to SFII, and I thought diff. characters had diff. move sets, so if you don't like one move set, the next guy prob. has totally diff. moves.

(I've spent more time playing the Sega CD game so I'm probably biased a bit by that one, which improved it in pretty much every way.)

I've been wondering how to word it, but EC was too much an effort to reinvent the wheel, the bottom line is that it lacks the mass appeal of SFII. For one thing, SFII offers fighters of diff. countries, which is much more appealing than EC's fighters of different weird sections of time...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mordan

Anyone who says Mortal Kombat is pick and play must have a special ability remembering the special moves

---

*raises hand*
Really pisses my friends off.

Personally, I love Eternal Champions. I wrote a Double Take about it on here if anyone wants to read my opinion on the game. Wrote an article or two about it on the website, even tried to get an e-mail interview with Steven Lashower about the game but unfortunately it fell through :( as I lost touch with him and he said he was really busy after a few questions were answered. Maybe one day it'll be completed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mordan

Virtua Fighter is pick and play.

Anyone who says Mortal Kombat is pick and play must have a special ability remembering the special moves

Eternal Champion is not pick and play. Very difficult to master. But it is still the best fighter on the genesis with SF2 a close second.

EC is only worth playing against a human player. Only then you get great tactical matches with bluffs and stuff. The mana is for not for 2 seconds attention captain america, look how my hair is so better than yours, Romney kind of guys.
All your button presses in EC are there for a purpose. QCF is so fucking lame. I hate those . I see pro SF video where the player keep trying/doing dragon punches. What? This is supposed to be entertaining?

---

Virtua Fighter is pick up and play and Mortal Kombat is not? Are you sure about that? Virtua Fighter is extremely complex, though very very fun. Over 1000 different movesets though...sheesh! Definitely not something you can grab and get ahold of.

Mortal Kombat on the other hand, every character plays the exact same way minus special moves. And specials are always Forward Forward Punch or Back Back Forward or Forward Back or Up Down whatever, it's all easy Stick movements. Mortal Kombat IMO is a joke of a fighting game, and it's only true appeal back in the day was the blood and gore. Aged horribly compared to Street Fighter and Co.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baloo

Virtua Fighter is pick up and play and Mortal Kombat is not? Are you sure about that? Virtua Fighter is extremely complex, though very very fun. Over 1000 different movesets though...sheesh! Definitely not something you can grab and get ahold of.

Mortal Kombat on the other hand, every character plays the exact same way minus special moves. And specials are always Forward Forward Punch or Back Back Forward or Forward Back or Up Down whatever, it's all easy Stick movements. Mortal Kombat IMO is a joke of a fighting game, and it's only true appeal back in the day was the blood and gore. Aged horribly compared to Street Fighter and Co.

---

That is true. VF (esp. 3 and up) is one of the more complex fighters, while MK is very simplistic.
I doubt he has played either long enough to form an opinion.

Virtua Fighter games are the most complex fighters I have ever played. They take a long time to master. They are the prime definition of a fighter thats NOT pick up and play.

It just proves how clueless EC fans are. They don't know about them fighting games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkDragon

Virtua Fighter games are the most complex fighters I have ever played. They take a long time to master.

---

But you can still put it on easy difficulty and play through to the end, might have to learn a handful of moves but its doable,
that's the problem with EC, even learning to master the game is made impossible by the way its all set up.

That's why SF2 is so great, you put it on easy and gradually learn the game, then if you want to get better at it the game allows you to do so by slowly upping the difficulty.

EC's difficulty setting is broken or just not coded in.

I'm nota Virtua Fighter fan because its not flashy enough for me and the characters have no personalities. I bought 1 VF game in my life and it was fustrating so I stopped playing it after a while. Growing up on SF II and MK is was hard to adjust to VF and I never could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoVamp

But you can still put it on easy difficulty and play through to the end, might have to learn a handful of moves but its doable,
that's the problem with EC, even learning to master the game is made impossible by the way its all set up.

That's why SF2 is so great, you put it on easy and gradually learn the game, then if you want to get better at it the game allows you to do so by slowly upping the difficulty.

EC's difficulty setting is broken or just not coded in.

---

To me, "pick up and play", does not exclusively mean the game's AI is easy to beat. It's more about how layered the game is.
EC is not deep at all (it's actually really simple), but it's painful to play due to stupid button combinations and no difficulty curve. I think people are confusing the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkDragon

Here are some of mine:

1. No qcf or qcb moves. I was so used to Street Fighter II that the lack of qcf/qcb back moves in EC really put me off and took me aback. I got tired of doing just charge moves and tapping moves and I think motion moves were sorely missed.

2. Sending you back rounds when you lose. This is unforgiveable. Again I was used to SF II and they didnt do this so why did EC do it ? Make it harder, ok I guess but I didnt like this at all.

3. The way the fatalities were implimented. Having your opponent land in a certain spot on the screen is about the dumbest way they could have done it. QCF + 3P or 3K buttons or F,B,F + 2P/2K, ANYTHING would be better than how it was actually done.

4. Can't Continue if you lose to the last boss. Another unforgiveable thing. Imagine being able to get only 1 shot at M.Bison and thats it. Makes it harder sure but why do that when you didnt need to.

5. Last boss is unplayable. I know there are a few fighters with unplayable last bosses but they arent common so people wanna play as this guy then you cant well then that is really unfair to the person who purchased it and spent their money.

6. Removal of a cool character. He was shown in an EGM issue but not in the final game. He shouldnt have been removed and that was another big disapointment.

7. No voice sample for the moves. I'm aware a lot of games didnt have this but when youre used to hearing "HA-DO-KEN" over and over again and EC gives you nothing, well its definately sorely missed.


-I havent played this game in so long so this is all I can remember off the top of my head but when I remember more things about this game I'll post it. Its a game that I always thought was average at best and I always noticed that it did have some flaws that stood out to me that kept it from being a great game.

---

1. No this isn't a street fighter clone. Button combo moves are easy to pull off, hard to time. That makes it great being easy to play, hard to master.

2. It adds more challenge and makes you try harder.

3. This isn't a Mortal Kombat clone. Your idea would make it a straight copy.

4. This will give you a better opportunity to get good at defeating the other fighters so you won't have to get knocked 2 back anymore.

5. The last boss has 5 forms and is one of the hardest fighting game bosses in history. No balance to let him in 2 player mode.

6. It's only a 24 meg cart. Only so much room. How can you miss him when you have never used him so before?

7. While I don't hate voice samples, I don't think they are needed. Again, this game is a unique fighting game and not a clone. When you really think about it having to say something to do it is retarded. Imagine watching a fight and people yelling out their moves while they do them. That's why live action movies of video games leave them out for the most part.

^This talk of EC not being deep makes me wonder what kind of depth people have in mind! It's quite simple, really? How so? I always had the impression of EC being mostly similar to SFII but with the characters having many more moves, and brutal AI and some other differences. So for move-sets EC is deep, more so than SFII. (If you dislike the moves themselves, it's different than just saying it's not deep.) EC is deep bc it has tons of moves for each fighter.

For button complaints, I guess Olls hates the moves with 3 button presses, but I don't have to use my fingertips for that; I can just use my thumb over the 3 buttons, lol

I wish we had the source code to EC, would be nice to make the game playable.

Could even add all the chars from the CD game to it, 10meg seems to be the limit but i think thats doable,
all the chars and stages, CD music recreated for the EC music driver, no CGI clips, all gameplay.

I actually hate the CD music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoVamp

I wish we had the source code to EC, would be nice to make the game playable.

Could even add all the chars from the CD game to it, 10meg seems to be the limit but i think thats doable,
all the chars and stages, CD music recreated for the EC music driver, no CGI clips, all gameplay.

---

Eternal Champions uses GEMS for sound . . .