Beat-Em-Ups, the dudebro games of the pre-3D world?
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:59 pm
Now, I didn't join the gaming scene until the N64, so I don't exactly know exactly what crowd/ how many people played these games, but judging by their overall similarities and sheer number, I think I can make a few assumptions.
1) They both come/ came in excessive numbers
I wouldn't say that most of the Genesis games I look at are beat-em-ups (shortened to bumps for the rest of this post), but there's definitely more bumps than other genre games. The same applies to this generation and dudebro shooters. If there's so many of them, they *must* be selling, regardless of...
2) Overall quality, or rather lack thereof
Don't get me wrong, there's good shooters out there- look at Mass Effect (sure, only half-shooter and didn't even have the multiplayer requirement for being a dudebro game until the third entry, but it's way better than Halo Mars 16 or COD Modern Black Ops 42). There's also good bumps, such as Battletoads. But seriously, look back on the average bump, take off your nostalgia glasses, and see just how repetitive they are, as well as how little effort was put into it overall. Both modern and (if I'm right) retro dudebro games do nothing to stick out from eachother.
3) Co-op emphasis
Yeah, can't really be a duebro game without this. You may share lives, but covering twice as much ground without any other penalty is priceless, especially when you can ram a boss from both ends. Bumps and shooters both get extremely easy in co-op.
4) Clones
If you sprite hacked Streets of Rage to look exactly like Golden Axe, would they *really* look that different? If COD and Halo were textureless, wouldn't multiplayer be axactly the same?
Any thoughts on this/ memories of this era so that I can find out whether or not this is true? Because the more I play the Genesis, the more this is starting to stick out.
1) They both come/ came in excessive numbers
I wouldn't say that most of the Genesis games I look at are beat-em-ups (shortened to bumps for the rest of this post), but there's definitely more bumps than other genre games. The same applies to this generation and dudebro shooters. If there's so many of them, they *must* be selling, regardless of...
2) Overall quality, or rather lack thereof
Don't get me wrong, there's good shooters out there- look at Mass Effect (sure, only half-shooter and didn't even have the multiplayer requirement for being a dudebro game until the third entry, but it's way better than Halo Mars 16 or COD Modern Black Ops 42). There's also good bumps, such as Battletoads. But seriously, look back on the average bump, take off your nostalgia glasses, and see just how repetitive they are, as well as how little effort was put into it overall. Both modern and (if I'm right) retro dudebro games do nothing to stick out from eachother.
3) Co-op emphasis
Yeah, can't really be a duebro game without this. You may share lives, but covering twice as much ground without any other penalty is priceless, especially when you can ram a boss from both ends. Bumps and shooters both get extremely easy in co-op.
4) Clones
If you sprite hacked Streets of Rage to look exactly like Golden Axe, would they *really* look that different? If COD and Halo were textureless, wouldn't multiplayer be axactly the same?
Any thoughts on this/ memories of this era so that I can find out whether or not this is true? Because the more I play the Genesis, the more this is starting to stick out.