1942: Joint Strike Review (XBLA/PSN)

[PacoDG]

I'm copying and pasting the review I did for my site (this link), I honestly think a retro gamer would like this game, so here is my review in full:

1942 was a classic overhead view shoot ‘em arcade game by Capcom in 1984, it was ported to numerous systems and loved by many. Today, it is brought to us via XBLA and PSN with a complete graphical rehaul and a few new touches not found in the original. The game takes place during World War II but offers no real storyline other than that, but that is okay, as this game is the definition of a shoot ‘em up and a story would just get in the way of that fact.

Keeping with its roots, the game uses the same overhead view (now with a wider view area) and puts you right into battle to shoot everything on the screen that you can without dying. You are given the choice between three different ships (varied by speed / power / health). With only four levels to complete, Capcom ensures you will have to replay over and over to memorize enemy positions to get through such few amount of levels.

Enemies range from having your basic small annoying planes that are easily shot down, to medium sized tanks and larger sized planes that will annoy the hell out of you with their maneuvering or highly powerful and hard to dodge arsenal. Each level brings something new to challenge you and bosses are ‘take up the whole screen’ huge with many parts you have to hit to win.

Co-op play is offered both on the same system or online. I was able to play through three levels with a random person with no headset, he couldn’t keep up with my awesomeness, but still the game offered much enjoyment having a second person there (lag free as well). I have read about some glitch issues on the Xbox 360 version, but I did not run into this problem (solution just in case: If the sync messes up, just keep playing until the level is through, sync will restore on the next level).



Visually, Joint Strike is awesome. I wish all older titles were given the reworking shown here. Everything is 3D but the game plays completely in 2D. Colors are fitting for the time period and theme of the game. I do want to make a note that at one point there was so many enemy planes and bullets flying that I did get some slow down, only once though and just for a second, still it was noticeable. Gameplaywise, the game offers very little difference from what was offered in the original arcade classic. This may be the games only weak point. I started playing at 2:40am and by about 3:10 I was already hitting up the last boss. Length is not Joint Strike’s strong point. In fact, I does make me ponder about the cost of the game being $10, and if I would have spent that much in quarters beating it in the arcade.

This game will make a man out of you as far as having to earn everything, from power ups to health to extra lives. Also you will find by the end your right thumb will be huge because you will have hit the ‘A’ button non-stop for a half hour straight (I envy you people with the Hori Arcade Sticks). No other XBLA game has given me the feeling that I am playing an old school game like Joint Strike has, which I have mixed emotions on. However for any retro gamers, this game calls out for you to buy it right away. If you are into games like Triggerheart Exelica or Omega Five, this should definitely be something you pick up if you would like to see the roots to this genre.




----

I want to make note, since I had put up this review... I have become mildly addicted to the game. I cannot for the life of me beat the game on "Wing King" (hard). I can make it past the first three levels, then I loose it... then the cursing and the throwing of controllers starts.

[ZenLogikos]

There are actually five levels.

[PacoDG]

There are actually five levels.

Oh jeez

(Seriously, thanks for that correction!)

[Doctor Fugue]

Thanks for posting your review.

I don't know if you want feedback...but I'll give you some. Two warnings...I've only played the demo and watched videos of the other levels...and my comments may appear harsh; no offense intended.

This is a nice review, but honestly it reads like a Gamespot or IGN review (in a bad way). I personally think reviews of games should only be written when the reviewer has intimate knowledge of the genre. I, for example, would never write a review about a Zelda game.

You imply the game is an update of the original "with a complete graphical rehaul and a few new touches not found in the original," and "Gameplaywise, the game offers very little difference from what was offered in the original arcade classic." This may mislead people. From a general-public sort of view, yes they might look the same. But for shooter fans, they know there is a huge difference. Almost all of the game mechanics are different, especially and most importantly the scoring mechanic. There should at least be a mention of the risk/reward element.

Another small but important distinction should be mentioned in your review. You imply it is made by Capcom, when in fact they only published it. The game was developed by Backbone, who are of course not Japanese. Now, before everyone says I'm racist, all I'm saying is that there remains an incredibly huge difference between shooters made in Japan and those made everywhere else. Some people prefer Japanese, some do not, and some don't care. But most shooter fans know exactly which they prefer, and the game's origin should be noted. If Gears of War 3 was suddenly switched over to a German developer without much original experience, shouldn't we all be informed of this in the review? Some may argue that the origin doesn't matter as long as the game is good, but finding out the origin may help to explain the difference in game design (Contra 4, for example).

I find it strange that Joint Strike gives you the feeling that you are playing an "old school" game more than any other on XBLA. How about actual faithful ports of 20-year old games? Don't they feel more "old school"?

Also, you suggest this game for anyone who likes things like Trigger Heart Exelica or Omega Five. Again, this may be fine for people who just started playing video games last year. But if you want to post something for shooter fans (who are a generally dedicated bunch), this is a crazy suggestion. 1942, THE and O5 are just about the most completely different shooters you can find. That's like suggesting Virtua Fighter 5 to a Mortal Kombat 2 fan.

One more thing, and the original reason for me posting this. There is one thing that bothers me more than any other when it comes to shooter reviews. LENGTH. Almost all shooters take 30-40 minutes (or less) to go from beginning to end. Radiant Silvergun is a good counter-example. The point is, shooters are not meant to just be played from beginning to end by eating credits. And anyone can tell you that a perfect run in a good shooter takes so much concentration that 30 minutes is plenty long enough. Now, if it only takes you a few tries before you beat the game on one credit, it is not the length of the game that is at fault, it is the difficulty. From what I have seen, this game is indeed easier than most shooters (yet another difference from nearly any 194x game).

A good shooter need only be 30 minutes long since that is certainly long enough to be a test of skill and endurance. And it is a testament to the greatness of a game when it can be replayed over and over and over. A huge amount of people still play DoDonPachi all the time, probably logging in thousands of credits. I can play Ikaruga's first level 100 times in a few days and still not be tired, even after playing it a million times before. I played Joint Strike's first level and was really bored of it after 10 plays.

It is obvious that you like the game, and that is great. Playing games we like is the reason we do it. However, reviewing a game requires more in-depth knowledge of similar games. And I don't think general gamers would be put off by such a technical review. Honestly, they could get basic information anywhere; dedicated gamers are reading reviews because they really want a detailed opinion. That doesn't mean it has to be a long review, just direct and efficient; and from someone who can show they understand the game completely.

[PacoDG]

Thanks for the feedback, completely love the honesty (and especially the depth of your reply).

This is a nice review, but honestly it reads like a Gamespot or IGN review (in a bad way). I personally think reviews of games should only be written when the reviewer has intimate knowledge of the genre. I, for example, would never write a review about a Zelda game.

In my defense (not that you are attacking me), my site only has three people, and out of us three, I am the only one who enjoys shooters (note: not my favorite genre though, but Life Force was one of the first games I ever beat all the way through)

You imply the game is an update of the original "with a complete graphical rehaul and a few new touches not found in the original," and "Gameplaywise, the game offers very little difference from what was offered in the original arcade classic." This may mislead people. From a general-public sort of view, yes they might look the same. But for shooter fans, they know there is a huge difference. Almost all of the game mechanics are different, especially and most importantly the scoring mechanic. There should at least be a mention of the risk/reward element.

I'm not sure I understand the risk/reward element you are talking about in this game. Other than score multipliers, it really did feel the same to me (to refresh my memory, I had found this version I could play in my browser).

Another small but important distinction should be mentioned in your review. You imply it is made by Capcom, when in fact they only published it. The game was developed by Backbone, who are of course not Japanese. Now, before everyone says I'm racist, all I'm saying is that there remains an incredibly huge difference between shooters made in Japan and those made everywhere else. Some people prefer Japanese, some do not, and some don't care. But most shooter fans know exactly which they prefer, and the game's origin should be noted. If Gears of War 3 was suddenly switched over to a German developer without much original experience, shouldn't we all be informed of this in the review? Some may argue that the origin doesn't matter as long as the game is good, but finding out the origin may help to explain the difference in game design (Contra 4, for example).

In some cases I would definitely agree this is an important distinction, but Backbone didn't really have to start this game from scratch. At its heart, it is the same game imo.

I find it strange that Joint Strike gives you the feeling that you are playing an "old school" game more than any other on XBLA. How about actual faithful ports of 20-year old games? Don't they feel more "old school"?

I hope so, they are supposed to feel more old school

Newer games based on older titles don't always do that though (example: Super Mario All Stars version of Super Mario Bros doesn't give the same old school feel that actually playing Super Mario Bros does. Now I know this is an odd example, but I can't think of many games that are "updated" rather than a straight port. I guess maybe Commando 3.. but I haven't got to play that yet)

Also, you suggest this game for anyone who likes things like Trigger Heart Exelica or Omega Five. Again, this may be fine for people who just started playing video games last year. But if you want to post something for shooter fans (who are a generally dedicated bunch), this is a crazy suggestion. 1942, THE and O5 are just about the most completely different shooters you can find. That's like suggesting Virtua Fighter 5 to a Mortal Kombat 2 fan.

I just went with other shooters that are also found on Xbox Live Arcade. I agree with your point here though.

One more thing, and the original reason for me posting this. There is one thing that bothers me more than any other when it comes to shooter reviews. LENGTH. Almost all shooters take 30-40 minutes (or less) to go from beginning to end.

I should have added something about the replayability then in the game. Omega Five is a game I beat *somewhat* recently, so I will use that an example about length. The game in one sitting, not that long. But there are reasons to go back, unlockable characters that vary more than just speed/strenth, they have a whole different feel. Once you beat 1942 on the hardest mode (something I haven't done yet btw), there is little reason to go back unless you are an achievement whore.



Again though, thank you for your thoughts, I definitely would have had to change up a lot about the review I was writing it with someone dedicated to the genre in mind.

[ZenLogikos]

There are actually five levels.

Oh jeez

(Seriously, thanks for that correction!)

You're welcome.

I don't know if you want feedback...but I'll give you some.

Based on our recent conversation about 'icycalm', and your opinion of this game, I knew a response was forthcoming, hence my short post. I saw the contradictions in the review, but I wanted to sit back and watch...

[Doctor Fugue]

Again though, thank you for your thoughts, I definitely would have had to change up a lot about the review I was writing it with someone dedicated to the genre in mind.

No problem, thanks for taking it so well. After spending most of my life being super-critical of my own writing about music, I tend to be too critical of everyone's writing.

And is ZenLogikos comparing me to Icycalm? He wouldn't like that! I am a mere human, while he is a demigod.

[ZenLogikos]

I wasn't necessarily comparing you two, just stating that I knew of your appreciation for the reviewer to have a critical eye, and to be an expert on the genre for the review to be useful.

[Doctor Fugue]

I wasn't necessarily comparing you two, just stating that I knew of your appreciation for the reviewer to have a critical eye, and to be an expert on the genre for the review to be useful.

Well said. Very true. I know you weren't comparing us, but would you be surprised if I were him in disguise?

Ugh, that's not even remotely funny...sorry for mentioning it.

[ZenLogikos]

In my defense (not that you are attacking me), my site only has three people, and out of us three, I am the only one who enjoys shooters (note: not my favorite genre though, but Life Force was one of the first games I ever beat all the way through)

I believe Doc's point was that if you were intending to publish a professional review rather than just a personal opinion, and you're not an expert in the genre, then "Is the review even valid?". Are you providing a useful service by offering the review, or just filling space on your site?

I'm not sure I understand the risk/reward element you are talking about in this game. Other than score multipliers, it really did feel the same to me (to refresh my memory, I had found this version I could play in my browser).

The risk/reward element IS the score multiplier system. Do you sit back and fire constantly at enemies as soon as they are seen(gaining minimal points) or do you dare to shadow the enemies and destroy them when you are only millimeters away...for more points? Risk/reward.

In some cases I would definitely agree this is an important distinction, but Backbone didn't really have to start this game from scratch. At its heart, it is the same game imo.

Simply because it borrowed the "1942 era" setting?

I hope so, they are supposed to feel more old school

How can an old-school remake be more old-school than an actual 'old school' game?

I should have added something about the replayability then in the game. Omega Five is a game I beat *somewhat* recently, so I will use that an example about length. The game in one sitting, not that long. But there are reasons to go back, unlockable characters that vary more than just speed/strenth, they have a whole different feel. Once you beat 1942 on the hardest mode (something I haven't done yet btw), there is little reason to go back unless you are an achievement whore.

This is where you miss the point the most. The shoot 'em up genre is ALL ABOUT SCORE and scoring systems. It's about achieving a high score, preferably without dying. Length is therefore irrelevant. Score can always be improved upon, therefore the game has infinite replayability.