Paprium: The Official Thread Mk 2

[stika]

People who don't actually play beat 'em ups love to make cross-genre comparisons for some reason.

Citation needed

[pepodmc]

Also you can tell me which game has a better gameplay? SFA3 or SFIII:3rdS?

Yes, a deeper gameplay can be bad. Also not every human player wants to practice.

The difference is that, in that comparisson, those two games have great gameplay with their differences.
But with Paprium is not the same, its has an average gameplay and i told you why. If you want to ignore the reasons i gave you i cant do anything more.


About if a deeper gameplay can be bad...

No. I would say that, THAT would be an opinion. Because if the deeper gameplay is well implemented, it never can be worse. In any case , you have a preference for simpler games. But i will put what i said in context.

Its more a thing of you being lazy at playing videogames more than anything. Because talking about beat em ups of the 90s , its not like games of this era that adds to much things becoming a chore to play.
In any case, a deeper 90s beat em up gameplay wise adds more tools to play with to defeat enemies and make the gameplay more dinamic/faster. (being games that try to replicate arcade games, the gameplay is direct even if the gameplay is depper)

[paulojr_mam]

So you would say Tetris has no replayability?

Very little. Its replayability comes from the randomness of the cube configurations that come. But because there is so little content, it gets really repetitive fast. I think it's actually hard to judge replayability if you're not tying it to something quantifiable like content. Another quantifiable thing to look for is time. But time has a lot of nuances too. You pick up a game and play it for days repeatedly, that's something and the game will probably tire you less if each playthrough offers different content. Now you can speak about a longer time span, where you stop playing for some time because you were fatigued, then come back, then stop, then come back... at that point I think the variations the gameplay offers are as important as the content, because both you'll forget over time and will feel fresh again and will help you not feel the fatigue that made you stop in the first place. Deeper gameplay makes for more complexity which makes it easier to forget and more content is also easier to forget. Now on the long run, years playing the same game, I do agree that content doesn't matter anymore, because at this point you'll know the game anyways. So in the end I agree that SoR does have more longevity than Paprium. I don't consider that replayability, though, sorry.

[Vludi]

In my case, I love Capcom's D&D series and I consider that series better than either Streets of Rage or Paprium, would I introduce that game to a casual beat'em up fan whose only experience with the genre is stuff like Double Dragon for the NES or Final Fight for the SNES?
Absolutely not, chances are they'll get crushed and become easily frustrated. It's a great series, but it's not for everyone.

Why not? If you wanted to learn how to play the games I'd say Shadow over mystara is actually easier than Final Fight, either way casual players will still enjoy a good beat 'em up on a surface level so I don't see the problem, most of those Capcom games have ports with infinite credits too.

Very little. Its replayability comes from the randomness of the cube configurations that come. But because there is so little content, it gets really repetitive fast.

jesus christ stopped reading there lol

[stika]

Why not? If you wanted to learn how to play the games I'd say Shadow over mystara is actually easier than Final Fight, either way casual players will still enjoy a good beat 'em up on a surface level so I don't see the problem, most of those Capcom games have ports with infinite credits too.

You're not seriously arguing Final Fight on the SNES is more difficult than Shadow over Mystara, are you?

[Vludi]

You're not seriously arguing Final Fight on the SNES is more difficult than Shadow over Mystara, are you?

The arcade one, the SNES one is still decently challenging though.

[stika]

The arcade one, the SNES one is still decently challenging though probably not as much as Capcom's arcade games.

But that's my point, most people who played Final Fight did at their homes.

Different games will require different skill levels and offer different depth levels.

I stated this before, but it was an edit to my post, so it's possible you might have missed it:

As a general rule, there's a sweet spot to depth for just about every genre. Make it too simple and it'll only appeal to casual fans of the genre. Make it too deep and the game becomes niche. Finding that sweet spot can be tricky though as people's tastes are constantly shifting.

Now, am I going to try and defend Paprium's combat? Heh... not really, I mean, I loved the game, but anyone can see the combat is inferior to Streets of Rage 2.

On other hand, Paprium's weak AI really isn't as much of a weakness as many seem to think imo. For one thing, considering how many enemies are on screen, I'd argue it's preferable to keep the enemies a little on the dumb side.

Additionally, I'd argue dumb AI can be fun in its own way. I believe many Sega-16 users love the Mega Drive port of Golden Axe, but let's be honest here, the AI is dumb as rocks and the gameplay is super basic. With that said, it's still a well-beloved game.

[pepodmc]

Anyway, I'm really happy so many people are playing and talking about this game, but I wish there was this much discussion about mechanics, game play, design, etc. about all the other games I try to break down. We should spend this kind of time on some of the other titles in the library.

Where are you breaking down other games?

[Vludi]

But that's my point, most people who played Final Fight did at their homes.

Finishing Final Fight SNES is still much harder than the Capcom D&D ports that allow infinite credits, for the simple reason that you can lose in SNES FF lol.

As a general rule, there's a sweet spot to depth for just about every genre. Make it too simple and it'll only appeal to casual fans of the genre. Make it too deep and the game becomes niche. Finding that sweet spot can be tricky though as people's tastes are constantly shifting.

Already replied to this: it doesn't really matter, casual players will still enjoy a well done beat 'em up on a surface level, as long as it has options like infinite continues or easy difficulty setting. From what I've seen casual players are the ones that love stuff like RPG elements or juggle combos the most actually.

[SEGA-Jorge]

Where are you breaking down other games?

All over the goddamn place. Look around. I mostly dabble in Genesis arcade stuff, but I've done breakdowns and stuff all over the forum.

[stika]

Finishing Final Fight SNES is still much harder than the Capcom D&D ports that allow infinite credits, for the simple reason that you can lose in SNES FF lol.

Well I mean, yeah, but if you have to rely on infinite credits... then you're kind of making me my point for me lol

Already replied to this: it doesn't really matter, casual players will still enjoy a well done beat 'em up on a surface level, as long as it has options like infinite continues or easy difficulty setting. From what I've seen casual players are the ones that love stuff like RPG elements or juggle combos the most actually.

I dunno, I know some people will get frustrated if they keep dying even with infinite credits. Regardless, I'd sooner introduce a casual player to SOR as it's much more acessible. In fact, I believe SOR 1 and SOR 2's biggest strength is the fact they hit that perfect sweet spot beetween depth and ease of use.

[Vludi]

On other hand, Paprium's weak AI really isn't as much of a weakness as many seem to think imo. For one thing, considering how many enemies are on screen, I'd argue it's preferable to keep the enemies a little on the dumb side.

Or maybe Fonzie should've played good games with that amount of enemies for reference? A game with ~8 enemies on screen shouldn't have enemy behavior/movement that's dumb, messy and exploitable, it should be tidy, well rounded and require different approaches to repel them, that's why Final Fight and its derivatives were a success.

Well I mean, yeah, but if you have to rely on infinite credits... then you're kind of making me my point for me lol

Nah, you are talking about a game being accessible to casual players, and most casual players don't really care how much credits they use.

[stika]

Or maybe Fonzie should've played good games with that amount of enemies for reference? A game with ~8 enemies on screen shouldn't have enemy behavior/movement that's dumb, messy and exploitable, it should be tidy, well rounded and require all your moveset to repel the enemies, that's why Final Fight and its derivates were a success.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Fonzie did it intentionally, I'm certain he just couldn't find a way to implement them better (I'd say maybe he didn't have the time for it, but I think people might not get the joke :P ).

I'm just saying, in this case, it didn't bother me as much as it would have if an AI this dumb were implemented in something like Final Fight for the SNES where you never see more than 2-3 enemies at a time.

Nah, you are talking about a game being accessible to casual players, and most casual players don't really care how much credits they use.

Mmmm... I mean, it's definitely possible they may just not care. So you may be right.

[pepodmc]

As a general rule, there's a sweet spot to depth for just about every genre. Make it too simple and it'll only appeal to casual fans of the genre. Make it too deep and the game becomes niche. Finding that sweet spot can be tricky though as people's tastes are constantly shifting.

We all started as casuals and then, "X" game appeared in our lives that made us practise for hours/days/weeks/months until our skills got really good. A casual can convert himself/herself into a great player, they only need a game that causes such an inpact on himself/herself that makes them want to practise that game.

Instead of making a game for casuals, would be better to make a game so great that make casuals want to practise it to become a pro in it.

If you have the chance of make a game, what would you put as the priority?

1- Make the best gameplay you can make, even if its not casual friendly.
2- Make a game to be played by the biggest ammount of people, even if that means a simpler gameplay.

I choose the first.

All over the goddamn place. Look around. I mostly dabble in Genesis arcade stuff, but I've done breakdowns and stuff all over the forum.

Sorry

I asked so i can know where to start searching

[stika]

We all started as casuals and then, "X" game appeared in our lives that made us practise for hours/days/weeks/months until our skills got really good. A casual can convert himself/herself into a great player, they only need a game that causes such an inpact on himself/herself that makes them want to practise that game.

Instead of making a game for casuals, would be better to make a game so great that make casuals want to practise it to become a pro in it.

If you have the chance of make a game, what would you put as the priority?

1- Make the best gameplay you can make, even if its not casual friendly.
2- Make a game to be played by the biggest ammount of people, even if that means a simpler gameplay.

I mean my priority might shift depending on whether or not I believe one or the other might sell better. At the end of the day, a game is a product and it needs to pay for your expenses.

Of course, Fonzie thought he was making a hardcore niche beat'em up, or at the very least, that's the idea he sold us all on. What we got is in my opinion an amazing beat'em up whose combat leans more on the casual side. So I can understand why so many people are frustrated.