Contra: Shattered Soldier

[Johnny Undaunted]

I have nothing agaisnt ports, remakes and rereleases in general. I own a few compilations and remakes and I wouldn't mind having a Super Mario All-Stars-style compilation of all the previous Zelda titles in one GameCube disc, nor do I mind rereleases of Japanese-only games.


But charging full price for what is basically a port of a single SNES game with lower resolution and worse sound is robbery. Especially when some of those games can be found at GameStop's bargain bin for a very small fraction of the price (minus the neat manual and box).

With the technological leap from the GBC to the GBA, I just don't see why we should settle for a mere port of A Link to the Past after the release of three original Zelda games for the Game Boy/GBC (Link's Awakening, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons).

[wEEman33]

Originally posted by Johnny Undaunted
With the technological leap from the GBC to the GBA, I just don't see why we should settle for a mere port of A Link to the Past after the release of three original Zelda games for the Game Boy/GBC (Link's Awakening, Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons).

You make a good point but until the GBA has some competition, Nintendo can get away with milking their old games.

[Clash!]

I don't think they are trying to get a way with something, its not like they are saying its an all new game, nothing like any other completly original. And then when you play the game you find out its a port. They are telling us its a port, with some new stuff. People will still buy it knowing its a port, its just a cheap way to make some money, to fund the production of other games. For all you know they could be thinking "Hey lets put out a port of Contra III, see how that sells to see if people still like Contra, and then make a new Contra for GBA." I swear lots of you people think that these companys are out to trick you. Its not like they are saying "Oh you did'nt know it was a port?! BUWAHAHAHAHHAAHHA! FOOL!" Its a buisness strategy, to see if people are still intrested in old style Contra, makes sense to me. I want a new 2D Contra with 2D sprites as well, but I know its only going to come to the GBA. And if I were Konami I would want to test the waters of 2D Contra as well, it has been several years after all. They are taking a big chance with Shatter Soldier as well, but less of a chance because its 3D, but same gameplay. Its just like the whole Metroid Prime/Metroid Fusion thing, some of you just can't be happy with 2 seqauls at the same time (looks at Chibi).

[Johnny Undaunted]

Originally posted by Clash_Master
I don't think they are trying to get a way with something, its not like they are saying its an all new game, nothing like any other completly original. And then when you play the game you find out its a port. They are telling us its a port, with some new stuff. People will still buy it knowing its a port, its just a cheap way to make some money, to fund the production of other games. For all you know they could be thinking "Hey lets put out a port of Contra III, see how that sells to see if people still like Contra, and then make a new Contra for GBA." I swear lots of you people think that these companys are out to trick you. Its not like they are saying "Oh you did'nt know it was a port?! BUWAHAHAHAHHAAHHA! FOOL!" Its a buisness strategy, to see if people are still intrested in old style Contra, makes sense to me. I want a new 2D Contra with 2D sprites as well, but I know its only going to come to the GBA. And if I were Konami I would want to test the waters of 2D Contra as well, it has been several years after all. They are taking a big chance with Shatter Soldier as well, but less of a chance because its 3D, but same gameplay. Its just like the whole Metroid Prime/Metroid Fusion thing, some of you just can't be happy with 2 seqauls at the same time (looks at Chibi).

It's not about game companies trying pass SNES-to-GBA as new games, but rather how almost every GBC/GBA game are suddenly ports of existing NES/SNES one. Like I said, rereleases of old games aren't really bad a thing, but we like new stuff as well. While I may have enjoyed Breath of Fire 2 when it was released for the SNES years ago, I much rather spent my money on Mega Man Battle Network over either of the BOF ports. And if game developers have the resources to recode an already existing just to add bonus levels, then they have the resources to develop a new game from scratch as well. For God's sake, Flagship made both Oracle games, so why all of the sudden they're churning out ports.

[NeoZeedeater]

I'm not too worried about the overdose of ports on GBA because eventually companies will have ported all the big name older games they want. Something tells me more obscure 16-bit games like say Alien Storm or Firepower 2000 will never see GBA ports.

[Stone]

Come on, we all knew it wasn't going to be 2d. I'm giddy that it's 2.5D and not some 3d aberration.

Plus, it doesn't look like they're trying to SOTN it and turn it into some sort of terrible, perverted take on Metroid - even better.

On top of that, getting rid of power-ups is a good idea. Power-ups don't help gameplay - by giving the player a set number of weapons, they'll be able to create game situations that require the use of all 3 together: more complicated, harder to beat bosses/enemies/whatever. Gameplay has to be simplified when you don't know which weapons the player is carrying (the obstacles have to be able to be overcome by any of the weapons.)

Great news... reason #2 to buy a PS2, it looks like.

[Ranji]

I don't even know why these 2D debates occur anymore. 2D is dead, or if you like, it's living on borrowed time on the GBA. It's like asking for a return to silent films. Yeah, some of the best motion pictures were in fact made in the first thirty years or so of the form. Similarly alot of the best video games were made in the 2D sprite era. Well that primitive yet creative period is over. Don't expect many franchises to be done justice in this day and age. When rock bands get old they get stale and they try to conform to modern sensibilities and it's a rotten mongrel mess; that's where we are right now, in the lifetime of such series as Contra.

[Glass Joe]

Originally posted by Ranji
I don't even know why these 2D debates occur anymore. 2D is dead, or if you like, it's living on borrowed time on the GBA. It's like asking for a return to silent films. Yeah, some of the best motion pictures were in fact made in the first thirty years or so of the form. Similarly alot of the best video games were made in the 2D sprite era. Well that primitive yet creative period is over. Don't expect many franchises to be done justice in this day and age. When rock bands get old they get stale and they try to conform to modern sensibilities and it's a rotten mongrel mess; that's where we are right now, in the lifetime of such series as Contra.

You cut me Shrek, you cut me deep.

I don't agree. I think 3D will continue to be dominant but 2D games will never go the way of silent films. If they do then I will become just a casual gamer. I love the great 3D games but they are few and far between. Much more so then 2D games to this day, even thought they are only on the GBA.

[gameoverDude]

There's still the ability to do some things with 2D. Unfortunately, most companies don't seem to keep that in mind and it's become nichey. I wouldn't want to see Street Fighter IV or Guilty Gear XXX go 3D. High-res 640x480 2D with some 3D effects would be nice.

Konami's ACM (Advanced Computer Modeling) 320x240 Salamander 2 looks pretty good. With the PS2's RAM, it'd be possible to put together some rather mindblowing ACM sprites that would make this look like an ASCII text game in comparison. An ACM Contra done in a res of 640x480 would be great.

Even if it's in polygons, Contra on PS2 doesn't look too bad. There's maybe a hint of blockiness, but much less than you'd see on a PSone title. If I can't have 2D, I'll take 2.5D anyday.

[GameHED]

I'm glad it's using 3d models. With that, we can now fight bosses from many interesting angles (from the side, in front etc) without the 2d flatness of the last games limiting what the bosses can do in terms of maneuvers onscreen. You'll notice with games like metal slug the bosses sort of stand around letting you hit them repeatedly because they seem stuck in a 1 general area. Thier attack patterns are classic but thier movment is stunted to X-Y) With 3d models a mech boss or whatever can move away from the screen and attack at different angles giving a greater sense of realism in the battles.

Anyone here play a ps1 shooter called Raystorm? (I don't hang out here much but I know you are all shmup whores) Well a good instance of this is when mechs which are modeled in true 3d polygons, kind of have more functionality and attacking styles to them in this game by nature of existing in real 3d because they can hide weapons in certain compartments on thier body, arms and legs for example. If you blow off a piece of armour and the mech rotates in the distance to use its left arm to shoot at you, there are parts hidden from view. The mech can dance all it wants and the details of the mech's gradually destruction are still faithfully represented because it is a 3d object with individual parts to it. Again I don't see this so easily done in 2d and to such great effect that it would warrant not having 3d mechs which fly around into, and out of, the distance to attack at you from using many different parts of itself and many hidden layers of hidden detail underneath that object.

Anyway Look at past contra games:
-the arcade contra allowed you to walk and shoot into the screen as well as run sideways to avoid shots, nam-75 style.
-Snes Contra allowed top down views to shoot 360 degrees

and you'll see that Contra imo is screaming for a 2.5d style arcade game with 3d environments and backgrounds. You can see more detail, the camera can switch to many angles as you move to new areas to give a sense of level continuity (for example I emerge from a cave that winds into different directions instead of just sideways. Think about strider 2 and how it felt like you were really moving around in 3d environments but the controls were spot on all the time regardless of what the camera was doing. The structure of the levels looked very convincing and you didn't stick out like a sore thumb in how you would walking from left to right, thanks to the way the camera would track you. You could see everything onscreen at once and still avoid enemy attacks while benefiting from the zooming in and out of the camera to reveal the area in front and behind of you and any hazards up ahead. (that Tank chase scene in one of the levels where the whole screen is zoomed out is a classic example. It allowed me full speed running without hiding the obstacles infront of me that would noramlly would have caused me to fuck up my timing ala a standard 2d games.) Also we get to see more detail on bosses by getting to look at them from other angles (like a mech which is flying around the screen and allows me to see it's back and sides) An exmaple: Think about tanks that can shoot at you away into the 'scenary' in the background and whose turrets are constantly rotating left and right to get a nail on you. In 2d, this animation would be choppy and the graphics memory-hungry and less convincing than if they just used 3d polygon models of the turret rotating in the distance to shoot at you. Another example in strider 2, is where you are negotiating your way through a 3d castle to sneak up to a boss who is hiding underground: there were many opportunities to see into the background, into the far and medium distance, where you were going to go next. These locations were actual places you could and would be going. (you could even go inside places and they weren't just cheap effects but real levels with real 3d structure that made it seem natural. You don't get that thrill with just 2d graphics. Standing up high on one of the towers and seeing the enemies (from other locations) shooting from afar on other sides of the castle. (that you were soon going to be walking though.)

I think people's main phobia is more with chance that the 3d modelers and level designers may be poor at thier job and inexperienced at it than with '3d graphics' tendancy to look more ugly than 2d' itself.
I like 2d graphics too but like I've already pointed out it is limited in that you can only see things as flat objects which spoils the feeling of moving around in a huge environment that creates the level's atmoshpere. It all depends on the creativity of the people behind the whole game. If the graphics are implemented well into the levels and creates interesting situations, then it enhances my experience of the game too. (remmember the first time you played contra 3 and saw that huge plane zooming in from afar to blow up the level you were standing on? Those created moments of excitingment for me as much as the standard gameplay did. Or how about those situations of desperately clinging onto the sides of buildings and from poles and parts of enemies, at great heights just to fight the enemy? Those were just more moments of excitement where the 'graphical implementation' can enhance the excitment of the levels again. Anyone who doubts a good 2.5 d game can be as exciting as a normal 2d game should go and play strider 2 and fight the multiheaded dragon boss to see where I am coming from. The 3d graphics were implemented very well for that fight, because you could see the sides of the boss in all directions, which were crucual to gameplay, because seeing which parts on the other sides of the boss were going to attack; and at whichever moments they were about to attack, that allowed you to make decisions of where to jump to and run. (some heads would attack simulataneously cutting you off from doing certain things at certain times. Anyway that 3d-ness enhances the game experience for me by implementing its benefits into the gameplay itself.

During the 16 bit days, everyone thought cds were going to destroy the gameplay that was prsent in cartridge games because of the non-instant loading times, and the fact that many early cd games were crappy and didn't take advantage of the media and utilise it in proper ways. They were scared. These days we all take advantage of the capacity and benefits of the media because people have gotten used to thier advantages. Same with the 3d implementations of traditional 2d gameplay. The polygonal levels with 3d structure can only add to the gameplay imo. People are just running scared again because the majority of thier classic action games started out in 2d.
And therefore they are just biased towards the look of the games without considering the benefits. (because sprites are just prettier, right? As though that's the only reason that makes them care) I love the sprites, but it is time to move on. Contra unlike castlevania was always meant to be 2.5 just by looking back at the past games in the series:

From the way the bosses would rotate your character in mode 7 while you were despereately clinging on (because there was no other dimension to attack from this seemed to make sense) to the 'shooting-inscreen' levels of contra 1 and the top-down levels in the games, to the effects like the plane zooming in from the distance to attack from the background, and finally how you could climb onto and around buldings and objects instead of only walking from left to right like in metal slug.
Casltevania had none of this. Contra did, so imo it is more suitable for this seires to go into the '2.5d, strider2-like' format of gameplay. It can work but it depends on the creativity of the developers.