Have you watched the interview with Dion Dakis on RacketBoy where he claimed that backend deals were made by certain game companies to intentionally make games worse on one system vs another. I think Samurai Shodown is a pretty good example.
Have you watched the interview with Dion Dakis on RacketBoy where he claimed that backend deals were made by certain game companies to intentionally make games worse on one system vs another. I think Samurai Shodown is a pretty good example.
He has no proof and is not reliable, so I wouldn't put too much faith in it. What he's saying is an assumption that goes back many years to explain why some ports were better than others, but it is just a baseless assumption and ignores a lot of things. Of course it's possible, but it's equally possible that a developer would have their A team handle the port on the system that is expected to sell more, and their C team handle the less popular system (or just outsource it). His logic is "Well, if some homebrew developers can make a better port 20 years later than the company that developed the game, isn't that suspicious?" Not really when you take into consideration time and staff constraints.Quote:
Originally Posted by VirtuaRicky
I would be more interested in general about how SNK handled their 16-bit ports. Did they outsource the work to different developers for each platform?
Not to mention no memory limits, better tools and increased knowledge of the technology. He comes off as kind of condescending to homebrew developers there.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingRyle