Super Hydlide

[108 Stars]

Okay, we are getting a bit more of a sensible tone now, and I appreciate that. I don't want to have fights and insults over such a silly matter.

 

First of all to be fair, you are correct that I was the one who first said 1984; you just mentioned Hydlide 1 (which did come out in 84), and here you should be fair and admit that should have nothing to do with Super Hydlide. They are different games, from different times and the big time difference between japanese and western release of Hydlide 1 was no concern for Super Hydlide; that one came to the west the year after the japanese release.

 

So, again about the whole deal of early development: Of course early in a systems lifespan devs can not push the hardware like in later years. What I am saying is that the way Hydlide looks was even below standards for early MD games. They did not even make the effort to do the best they could and keep up with many other less-than-spectacular games of the time.

 

Your issue with the colors I can not quite understand; there is no need to dither if you don't want to. It has nothing to do with the style trying to be realistic or cartoonish or anything. Dithering is simply a trick to make the impression of having more colors on screen than you actually do have. People dither when they feel there are not enough colors.

The MSX version of Hydlide III uses like 32 colors at once if even that. The MSX2 could actually do much more, but I'm no expert on that system, maybe it's an MSX1 game even. The Mega Drive can do 64 at once; with no tricks. With tricks you can get to 128 for games and beyond in theory (but those tricks would naturally be unknown to the devs back then). Basically, if there was a reason to dither, it was in the MSX version and they would have done it there ; on the MD you would dither to try and get it to look like an SNES game.

The MD version improves on that a bit, but not a lot. There's still lots of room for improvement, not by technical tricks but just by artistic use of palettes.

 

Also, the loon mentioned the visible screen is smaller than the tile buffer. Basically you could say that the game could have used a lot more variation in tiles (the repeating square elements the levels are made of)at once. More different patterns, more variations to break the monotony, more different trees to at least try to make this world feel more alive. Again the game uses the bare minimum in that regard; adding variety and details goes a long way. It was all there, and available to the devs, but they did not take the opportunity.

 

The general level of detail could have gained a lot more by the higher resolution; again, no tricks needed. I'm not talking parallax here, or Sonic-speed, but just an attention to detail in doing the game's pixel art. This also goes together with the use of color, because every additional shape helps in making things look better.

 

Gameplaywise I think that smoother ways of moving and improving the general clunky feel of the game would have helped a lot. Unlike MSX players on MD had a joypad, not a keyboard, so the game should have been better tweaked for that. Also getting console gamers who are not used to things like starving or a weight system learn this first in-game would have been a good idea, instead of throwing them into the lion's pit.

 

 

It's a really half-ass job with little care put into it.

It just reeks of a game from an earlier generation in every aspect. Now you say you play Akalabeth even; and seeing that I think that actually your view of the time might be the one that is mixed up here. You're into retro; you were not there at the time; it's all old stuff to you, and maybe not much of a difference. At the very least you can't feel the evolution like we did experiencing it over the years, only to be presented in a new gen with a game that wouldn't even win a price on the previous gen. But for people back then it was like that. People looked at the game and thought "wtf why does a Genesis game look like that? Why does it play more antiquated than even Zelda?". You might as well offer a COD-kiddy off today Medal of Honor on PS2, and it would probably say "what's that crap? Looks like ass, plays like ass!"

 

To answer my thoughts on MSX-Hydlide: I don't like it either. I don't like any Hydlide game, though I tried them all. But at least I can understand and appreciate that they were on a much more limited hardware, and pioneering. It is understandable that those games can not offer the same refinement in any department as later games. Hell, I like to play Ultima IV, but I do so on the SMS, and that that game been on MD I would have been pretty pissed. I wouldn't even complain about Super Hydlide had it been on SMS; it would still not be my cup of tea, but it would be adequate for the system.

Games are made based on the hardware they are on, and the evolution a genre has gone through; that's how it should be. Super Hydlide does not do that.

 

And hell, graphics are important to a degree; they can't make up for bad gameplay, but this is a case where the total disregard of the system's capabilities and obvious lack of even trying is like spitting in the players' face. I never, under no circumstances appreciate lack of effort, and Super Hydlide is a prime example of a game where I believe the devs did not even try.

Edited September 21, 2012 by 108 Stars

[+thegoldenband]

But for people back then it was like that. People looked at the game and thought "wtf why does a Genesis game look like that? Why does it play more antiquated than even Zelda?"

 

Some people thought that, but I personally didn't have that reaction to (for example) the original Hydlide, which I played after I'd already played and beaten Zelda. Why? Because it was so clearly a different kind of game, one that wasn't really trying to do what Zelda was doing, so it would've been an apples-to-oranges comparison. And my experience with early computer games made me more sympathetic to its aesthetic than would've been the case if I'd grown up strictly with consoles only.

 

I think this is one of those cases where you're committing the error of blaming the developers for not doing what they weren't trying to do in the first place. To me, it looks like they wanted to make a faithful port of the MSX2 game, adding a couple bells and whistles (like better music) but basically retaining most of the look and feel of the original -- and that's pretty much what they did. They fulfilled their own goals, and did so in 512K to boot (which might have been a requirement from management).

 

You might argue that it's inherently lazy and inappropriate to do that on newer-gen hardware, and that various aspects of the game should've been updated to take advantage of the Genesis's capabilities and to give the game a more modern look. But I don't think that's a done deal, and gaming history is littered with examples of poorly-considered "updates" that ruined the core charm of the original game by pasting in new assets.

 

BTW your argument about Ultima IV is a bit strange to me: why would you be "pissed" to see it on Genesis? If you don't want the game, don't buy it! I mean, sure, a collection of Ultima I-IV for the system would be even better, but Ultima IV is as long, and certainly as deep, as just about any other RPG on the system. I guess I just don't place that much value in presentation; there are always plenty of pretty games to look at, but there aren't so many that have much substance underneath it.

[108 Stars]

As I said, substance comes before presentation always, but laziness/lack of effort is unforgiveable for me. Be it Super Hydlide or Ultima IV; even if you don't change the core gameplay, if you just pull over the same thing from an inferior system and put minimum effort into it that is nothing I will support. I pay with my money for work put into making a great product, and aiming for the best possible is essential to that. This stuff is not made by

homebrewers, but by companies that need to deliver quality work to compete and earn the customers' money. As such I expect them to meet certain standards.

 

Ultima IV is acceptable on the SMS, because it is an 8-bit game to begin with and was only ported to a slightly better hardware; they could have improved it, but it was not mandatory because the game looked like that on similar tech too. The argument of it being just a port counts here. On the MD it's a different story; if they presented it like on SMS to me I'd be pissed because I think they should be ashamed to do the game I love and the console that offers new possibilities injustice by putting no effort in it. It's a system that was created long after Ultima IV, for a different generation of games. The only way I would have wanted an Ultima that looked like the SMS one on MD was if it was in a classics compilation. As a full price release this would have been another case of trying to make a quick buck with minimum effort.

 

I like my Ultima IV, but when I'm buying a 16-bit game I'm expecting corresponding overall quality. Just like I'd be pissed if Sony tried to sell ports of their old PS2 games for PS3 for 60 Euros a piece and didn't bother to upgrade the textures. Or like I'd be pissed if someone ported a GameBoy game to the Lynx and actually left the Lynx version in four shades of grey. That's just bad business. Everyone should try to reach the best possible quality; not a reality always in the business world, sadly, but how it should be.

 

And while it is true that sometimes games get a bad overhaul, that also is a sign of not really trying. If you want to do it well and understand and like the original you can't destroy a good game. Certainly not by redrawing the graphics to be up to current standards.

Edited September 22, 2012 by 108 Stars

[Torr]

I think Super Hydlide is a good game.

I also think think Tacos are a good food.

 

Not everyone likes tacos, and I'm not about to get into a heated debate explaining why I'm right that tacos are good and they're wrong for disliking tacos.

[Arkhan]

First of all to be fair, you are correct that I was the one who first said 1984; you just mentioned Hydlide 1 (which did come out in 84), and here you should be fair and admit that should have nothing to do with Super Hydlide. They are different games, from different times and the big time difference between japanese and western release of Hydlide 1 was no concern for Super Hydlide; that one came to the west the year after the japanese release.

It indeed should have nothing to do with SH. However, it suffers the same sort of fate here. We got it late and people compare it to what they have. Plus, people hear Hydlide and go OMG A HYDLIDE

 

THAT GAME SUCKS. ANGRY VIDEO GAME NERD SAID SO.

 

 

So, again about the whole deal of early development: Of course early in a systems lifespan devs can not push the hardware like in later years. What I am saying is that the way Hydlide looks was even below standards for early MD games. They did not even make the effort to do the best they could and keep up with many other less-than-spectacular games of the time.

Again, I would like to see a talented MD artist do something to the graphics. However, I like the way they look, especially in the later space-portions.

 

Your issue with the colors I can not quite understand; there is no need to dither if you don't want to. It has nothing to do with the style trying to be realistic or cartoonish or anything. Dithering is simply a trick to make the impression of having more colors on screen than you actually do have. People dither when they feel there are not enough colors.

The genesis is often a victim of "not enough colors", hence the dithering.

 

The MSX version of Hydlide III uses like 32 colors at once if even that. The MSX2 could actually do much more, but I'm no expert on that system, maybe it's an MSX1 game even.

It's 16 colors for both the MSX1 and MSX2 versions of Hydlide III.

 

The Mega Drive can do 64 at once; with no tricks. With tricks you can get to 128 for games and beyond in theory (but those tricks would naturally be unknown to the devs back then). Basically, if there was a reason to dither, it was in the MSX version and they would have done it there ; on the MD you would dither to try and get it to look like an SNES game.

The MD version improves on that a bit, but not a lot. There's still lots of room for improvement, not by technical tricks but just by artistic use of palettes.

4 palettes doesn't leave much room really anyways with sprites that tiny.

 

Also, the loon mentioned the visible screen is smaller than the tile buffer. Basically you could say that the game could have used a lot more variation in tiles (the repeating square elements the levels are made of)at once. More different patterns, more variations to break the monotony, more different trees to at least try to make this world feel more alive. Again the game uses the bare minimum in that regard; adding variety and details goes a long way. It was all there, and available to the devs, but they did not take the opportunity.

 

The general level of detail could have gained a lot more by the higher resolution; again, no tricks needed. I'm not talking parallax here, or Sonic-speed, but just an attention to detail in doing the game's pixel art. This also goes together with the use of color, because every additional shape helps in making things look better.

These sort of things reek of an actual remake, as opposed to a port. Think Lunar: The Silver Star vs. Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete. That's what you're asking for.

 

 

Gameplaywise I think that smoother ways of moving and improving the general clunky feel of the game would have helped a lot. Unlike MSX players on MD had a joypad, not a keyboard, so the game should have been better tweaked for that. Also getting console gamers who are not used to things like starving or a weight system learn this first in-game would have been a good idea, instead of throwing them into the lion's pit.

The smoothness again reeks of an actual remake. The clunkiness was by design. Everything moves in little increments like that for a reason. Some of the battles would be less-fun with pixel based movement.

 

Hydlide 3 is best played with a 2 button controller on MSX. MSX has two joystick ports.

 

As for the food/weight: Read the manual. That's expected of the player. If they don't have a manual, sorry. It's going to be a rough road for you. Thems the breaks on old consoles/computers. Try playing Ultima IV on DOS with no instructions. You'll be screwed when you go to cast spells.

 

It's a really half-ass job with little care put into it.

That's a little bit extreme. How do you know?

 

It just reeks of a game from an earlier generation in every aspect. Now you say you play Akalabeth even; and seeing that I think that actually your view of the time might be the one that is mixed up here. You're into retro; you were not there at the time; it's all old stuff to you, and maybe not much of a difference. At the very least you can't feel the evolution like we did experiencing it over the years, only to be presented in a new gen with a game that wouldn't even win a price on the previous gen. But for people back then it was like that. People looked at the game and thought "wtf why does a Genesis game look like that? Why does it play more antiquated than even Zelda?". You might as well offer a COD-kiddy off today Medal of Honor on PS2, and it would probably say "what's that crap? Looks like ass, plays like ass!"

Hydlide 3 offers more depth than Zelda. How far into Hydlide 3 did you actually get?

 

 

To answer my thoughts on MSX-Hydlide: I don't like it either. I don't like any Hydlide game, though I tried them all. But at least I can understand and appreciate that they were on a much more limited hardware, and pioneering. It is understandable that those games can not offer the same refinement in any department as later games. Hell, I like to play Ultima IV, but I do so on the SMS, and that that game been on MD I would have been pretty pissed. I wouldn't even complain about Super Hydlide had it been on SMS; it would still not be my cup of tea, but it would be adequate for the system.

Games are made based on the hardware they are on, and the evolution a genre has gone through; that's how it should be. Super Hydlide does not do that.

The game originated on MSX and other Japanese computers of the time. That's what they're based off of. The game was not made for the Genesis. It was simply ported there.

 

I play Ultima IV in DOS w/ the VGA upgrade and MIDI tunes.

 

 

And hell, graphics are important to a degree; they can't make up for bad gameplay, but this is a case where the total disregard of the system's capabilities and obvious lack of even trying is like spitting in the players' face. I never, under no circumstances appreciate lack of effort, and Super Hydlide is a prime example of a game where I believe the devs did not even try.

 

Again, I am waiting to see what someone can do to improve the graphics in their current resolutions/etc. With 4 palettes, I don't expect much of an improvement.

 

I think the devs did try. The music is excellent, the gameplay is perfectly intact, and I think the art looks fine.

 

 

As I said, substance comes before presentation always, but laziness/lack of effort is unforgiveable for me. Be it Super Hydlide or Ultima IV; even if you don't change the core gameplay, if you just pull over the same thing from an inferior system and put minimum effort into it that is nothing I will support. I pay with my money for work put into making a great product, and aiming for the best possible is essential to that. This stuff is not made by

homebrewers, but by companies that need to deliver quality work to compete and earn the customers' money. As such I expect them to meet certain standards.

To the Western world, at the time, noone knew about the other Hydlide games. It was a new thing. They should have released Hydlide 2 over here as well, and did it all in the right order. They didn't. They basically misrepresented the whole series.

 

Ultima IV is acceptable on the SMS, because it is an 8-bit game to begin with and was only ported to a slightly better hardware; they could have improved it, but it was not mandatory because the game looked like that on similar tech too. The argument of it being just a port counts here. On the MD it's a different story; if they presented it like on SMS to me I'd be pissed because I think they should be ashamed to do the game I love and the console that offers new possibilities injustice by putting no effort in it. It's a system that was created long after Ultima IV, for a different generation of games. The only way I would have wanted an Ultima that looked like the SMS one on MD was if it was in a classics compilation. As a full price release this would have been another case of trying to make a quick buck with minimum effort.

 

I like my Ultima IV, but when I'm buying a 16-bit game I'm expecting corresponding overall quality. Just like I'd be pissed if Sony tried to sell ports of their old PS2 games for PS3 for 60 Euros a piece and didn't bother to upgrade the textures. Or like I'd be pissed if someone ported a GameBoy game to the Lynx and actually left the Lynx version in four shades of grey. That's just bad business. Everyone should try to reach the best possible quality; not a reality always in the business world, sadly, but how it should be.

 

And while it is true that sometimes games get a bad overhaul, that also is a sign of not really trying. If you want to do it well and understand and like the original you can't destroy a good game. Certainly not by redrawing the graphics to be up to current standards.

 

Eh, you sound like you are really into only playing pretty games on your Sega because you're crippled by the fact that you know alot about the hardware. It bothers you when you see games that aren't doing things you know it could probably do.

 

Graphics are the last thing I give a damn about.

 

If the gameplay is good, the story/point is fun, and the music/sound doesn't annoy me, the graphics for a game could be a bunch of cocks and balls with lipstick and skirts on.

 

I'd still play it.

[108 Stars]

Sorry, I just disagree with your opinion.

 

Especially the definitions of porting and remaking; just look at home computer games. They were almost always ported to a range of systems over time, from 8 to 16-bit. And they most of the time looked very different and tried to make good use of the respective hardware; definitely not remakes, that's good porting. There's lots of room for improvement in Hydlide but I definitely won't do a mock up though as people who visit the Lynx section may know I have half a dozen games to do pixel art for there atm.

 

I think Hydlide is one of the ugliest MD games, and the port is half-assed because it is way below standard and there is no way to get that result if you put any amount of work in it. We did get it early in the west, within a year of the Japanese release, still it was not well-received which I think says something about how people usually found that kind of a port. I think the retro-dedicated players today are way more forgiving than the audience was back then.

 

If you don't see it that way, well, I can't really understand that but it's your opinion. Fine by me.

 

RPGs are my favorite genre by far, but the Hydlide series is pretty much at the bottom for me, with SH being a low point.

Edited September 22, 2012 by 108 Stars

[Arkhan]

I first played Super Hydlide in the 90s, around 1994 or 95, before this jackassed "retro gaming" fad showed up. That means I was like 6 or 7, and I thought it was a good game then. I still do now. I guess I look past any possible graphical dipshittery if the game is good.

 

It does look better than the original, and the gameplay is the same.

 

That's how the Goldbox games worked, for example.

 

Better graphics on Amiga, same gameplay as the C64 one. They didn't change the gameplay. If you change everything drastically, it's more of a remake than a port.

 

You just don't like the graphics and think they could have been better. Until someone mocks up art in the same dimensions, with better looking color choices that would work on a Genesis, I will be disagreeing.