From: mjbrown@lonestar.utsa.edu (Marc J. Brown)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Will Street Fighter II kill Genesis?
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:20:39 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1469@ecgcurly.UUCP> roy@ecgcurly.UUCP (Roy Kern) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.191802.8295@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, mjbrown@lonestar.utsa.edu (Marc J. Brown) writes:
>> In article <1468@ecgcurly.UUCP> roy@ecgcurly.UUCP (Roy Kern) writes:
>
>>>What (EGM) facts?
>
>>Facts, such as the fact that the pics provided in their 15-page review were
>>from the not-yet-completed (but nearly so) SNES SF2.  Another fact: The
>
>Like their April Fools pic?  Was that a fact?  Like their pics from Shining
>Force?  Where those facts as well?

Irrelevant.  The other magazines and even some game-company ads all have
some of the pictures presented in EGM's reviews.  You're saying they all
got together and decided to whip up 80+ false pics?

>>gameplay is so acute so as to allow complex combos (truly one of the easiest
>>ways of expressing how identical the gameplay is... better than saying "Well,
>
>Are your complex combos the same as theirs?  They said they could do a complex
>combo and now you conclude the gameplay is identical?  Did they try all the
>possible combos on the final version of SFII to be released?  They're just
>giving you their preliminary hype and you take these as  "facts" about the
>final version?  There was a preliminary "fact" that Checkered Flag for the
>Lynx was going to have a track editor, but yet it was taken out of the final
>version.  So I guess anything is possible.

You really think that ANY mag would go into such detail?  The details they
provided are more than enough for anyone's personal confirmation, and I have
tried to provide second opinions from others who have seen the game in
action.

>>version instead.").  No, it was not a finished version... now you're probably
>>going to suggest that Capcom will turn around and re-install the flicker
>>and slowdown, because the version EGM played wasn't the completed one, right?
>
>Wow.  I was just going to suggest Capcom will turn around (a full 360) and
>re-install the flicker and slowdown, because the version EGM played wasn't the
>completed one.  And then I was going to suggest that with every Capcom version
>you buy, they will include a free super gun.....  Incredible.....
>We are one....

The point was that it didn't matter that EGM's cart was unfinished; it was
NEARLY so.   There are only spot details to stick in.

>>>You repeatedly say you've seen the pics in EGM and that is a fact that the
>>>graphics are near identical.  Have you seen all the pics possible?
>
>>Yes, I've seen every pic available to me (not just in EGM, but in GamePro
>>as well [as if that's of consequence]).  Even some in a "Die Hard" ad which
>>EGM did not show.
>
>No, not every pic available, but every pic *possible*.  Try being a bit more
>attentive.

I've seen every pic available.  It is POSSIBLE that EGM took more than two
hundred pics, but there's no way I could have seen them all (because they
weren't published).  I assumed you meant the pics AVAILABLE to me... but
every pic POSSIBLE!?  Try being a bit more realistic.

>>>Let me use a quote of yours:
>>>"I can say it's near-verbatim because I've seen the pics"
>>>And you weren't talking about near-verbatim graphics.
>
>>Don't cut out material for the sake of your argument.
>
>I'll cut out material and you'll like it.

>>I also made mention
>>of the other sources of information I have (like personal friends who saw
>>it for themselves.  I know they wouldn't hype it up because they despise
>>Nintendo with a passion).
>
>So they've seen the final version as well?  Man, everyone's seen it but me.

Stop resorting to the "final version."  I've already explained how they told
me that the gameplay was the same when it didn't slow down.

>>>How do you know how painful this was for Capcom?  Do you work for them?  Maybe
>>>they secretly contracted out and it didn't hurt them a bit?  Maybe it was
>>>pretty easy?
>
>>It was difficult, on a comparative basis.  Capcom has spent a long time
>>(longer than normal) developing the technology for the 16-meg + soundchip
>>cart, and then porting over the various aspects of the game (graphics
>>being the hardest, as they have to modify backgrounds and such quite
>>extensively).  You always resort to "You worked for them."  No, I did not,
>>but I'm more in a position to know what I'm talking about because audio/
>>graphical/coding-related subjects are fun to me and because I have information
>>and second opinions to back me up.  I didn't jump in and try to force any
>>opinions on people (much less via insulting mockery).
>
>Comparative to what?  How can you say they are or are not struggling with
>something if you aren't involved, or know people who are on the actual
>conversion team?  You're just speculating based on some info you've obtained.
>Which is fine, but you're telling everyone as if it were gospel.  Maybe
>it wasn't difficult at all and they're just letting the hype develop?

Maybe it wasn't difficult... but it was, on a comparative basis.  Which is
easier... making a 4-meg cart based on already-available technology, or
inventing the tech needed for a brand-new 16-meg+soundchip cart?  I guess
the "info I've obtained" is common sense.

>You didn't force your opinions?  You're drawing conclusions from suspect
>sources and you're "guaranteeing" the SNES version will be nearly identical
>to the arcade version?

Have I or have I not told everyone all the information I could, and offered
every technical detail I could dig up?  I say the gameplay will be identical
because there is absolutely NO reason why it shouldn't be.  If people don't
believe me, fine, they should ignore me.  But SOME people just can't live
with that option.  I never said the graphics or audio would be the exact
same... in fact, I pointed out differences which are already present in the
not-yet-completed cart.

>This will always be speculation until the final
>version comes out.  Insulting mockery?  I ask some questions and you throw a
>name-calling tantrum?  Where was my head?

Your questions were along the lines of "Oh, so you were on the programming
team, then?  How's the game coming along?"  "So you're NOT on the programming
team?  Then where'd you get your info?  Some inside-source?"  Is this being
a JERK or not?  If you think not, then you probably don't have any friends.
But I'm not going to suggest you're that dim... so you were fully aware that
your comments were insulting and were meant to provoke a mean-spirited
retaliation.  In short, you flamed me.  I responded, and now you and I are
carrying on a conversation which is more an argument than critic vs.
reviewer, because *I'm* the only one providing facts.

>Oh, and you are more in a position to know because these subjects are fun to
>you?  Man, how can I argue with such scientific foundations as "fun to me".

That was to imply that I know more in those areas than most.  Again,
insulting mockery... but then, that's all the comeback you could think up, eh?

>>I'll go into a little detail, if that's okay... I have seen more than 80 pics
>   (edited)
>>Much of the rest I've already said in my original review.
>
>Fine, you've seen 80 still shots.  There are far more than 80 possible still
>shots, but this is decent enough to enough to warrant hope that the graphics
>will be similar.  This still does not "guarantee" "nearly identical graphics".

Never guaranteed identical graphics.  I did say that the graphics are REAL
CLOSE.  As far as pixel-for-pixel goes, they ARE "nearly identical," but
the colors aren't all there.

>>No, I haven't.  And I have given a review.  I'm afraid that if I give
>>ANOTHER review I'll end up in another argument with another anti-Chop-Socky
>>fanatic (deny it if you will; you're either that or merely like to annoy
>>people).
>
>How can you give a review of a game that to date doesn't exist?  If this were
>for Atari, Rauser would go ballistic on you.

I already said it was a review based on what magazines had to offer and what
other people saw of the game at the CES.

>How can you say I'm
>anti-chop-socky?  Have you seen my cart collection?  Have you seen what games
>I play at the arcade?  I'll tell you what, I'll give you $100 for every
>anti-chop-socky post of mine you dig up.  Feel free to peruse the archives
>and grep on my name.  Please show me some of my anti-chop-socky posts.

Fine... so you merely like to annoy people, then.

>>>Yeah, that's me.  Ruthlessly mugging every single pro-chop-socky post out
>>>there.  I'm such a bully.
>
>>WHY did you do it in the first place?  There was NO reason to do it!  You
>>didn't prove a point, you didn't offer any useful information.  You must have
>>just been in a bad mood that day and now you're carrying it on for the fun
>>of it.
>
>Sigh...  My only problem with you, Marc, is you came out in all your glory
>guaranteeing that the SNES version of SFII would be virtually identical.

I said certain aspects would be nearly identical, and the rest AT LEAST
real close, because the hardware is there and Capcom isn't a company of fools.

>Sure you had some background info, but what you did is no different than
>what EGM does and that is to "hype".

So what's your excuse?  You got annoyed by someone's post and decided to
start what coud have (and did) led to an argument that went nowhere?  Truly,
where was your head?

>Until you play the final released
>version, you can only speculate how close the conversion will be.

Fine.  To you, I was speculating.  Is this grounds for stepping in and
carrying on?

>Does this
>not make sense to you?  If you would have said you "think" it will be
>identical, or you "predict" it will be identical, I never would have said
>anything.  No.  You "guaranteed" it.

What it comes down to is that if I had changed one little word in my review,
everything would come up roses?  People don't have to believe me.  Instead,
they can and they should IGNORE ME!!

>>>Hmmmmm.  Strange.  It sure looks like my sentence is in English.  Are there
>>>certain words you're having trouble with?
>
>>Nope, I gave the translation perfectly... of course, after you carried on
>>for so many messages, I guess there was no good reason to translate your
>>quote; NOBODY out there is naive enough to believe that you really do hope
>>it turns out well.
>
>You gave a perfect translation of my words?  No.  You gave your paranoid
>whimperings for whatever reasons.

Nothing in your argument suggests that you hope for the best with this port.
When you said you DID hope for the best, it was utterly contrary to everything
you argued for in your previous lines.

>There are enough wretched games out there;
>why would I want to add another to the list?

You tell us.  Your standpoint on the subject is quite pessimism.

>There are a lot of people who
>are really looking forward to this release.  Why would I want them to get
>screwed?  I've been disappointed by many conversions in the past, yet by hoping
>this is another failure, I'm only voting for continued incompetence.

Perhaps you should have made it clearer that you hoped it would turn out
okay... but then, that would have ended the conversation, right? :)

>Grow
>up will you?

Get a life (for lack of a better quote).  Surely you have better things to
do than repeatedly argue with someone who was foolish enough to type the
word "guarantee"...?

>I do, even, hope the version is identical for your sake,
>especially since you've put so much effort into researching it.

Thanks.  So do I :), but "identical" is out of the question.

>If the SFII conversion is a success, hopefully it will lead to better (and
>more) conversions in the future.
>
>Roy "call me skeptical for waiting until the final product before I believe"
>
>------------
>
>On a different note, for you fellow Lynxers out there, I saw my first Lynx
>TV commercial yesterday during prime time.  It was during Married With
>Children on Fox last night.  Hopefully this will continue.

I saw two in a row on MTV, several months ago.  They should have shown
Klax when they talked about the sound...instead, they showed ElectroCop.
Let us know the next time you see one; I hope to see how they're doing these
days... (Babbage's says the Lynx is selling better than the LameGear :).

-- 
| "Happy, happy - Joy joy!"  "I always use your steenky old leetter!"       ///|
| "Optimism begets disappointment."  "MODs are 100% Amiga!!  So there."    /// |
| "Which do you want?  Fast graphics & sound... or fast spreadsheets?" \\\///  |
| -Maruku Buranu   (Marc Brown)   mjbrown@lonestar.utsa.edu             \XX/   |