Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Spouting Thomas's avatar

One general question I have: when someone like Sega creates a port of a game made by someone else for their own hardware, what level of assistance are they offered, if any? Whether in the form of access to personnel involved in the original game, code, art assets, etc.?

Or another way to ask it: what advantages did Sega have when porting their OWN arcade games, compared to someone else's?

My general sense is that a remarkable amount of stuff had to be reverse-engineered and rebuilt from scratch. I can easily see how that focus on reverse-engineering can lead to a development process where the entire emphasis is on the best possible fidelity to the previous product and no one steps back and asks, "Did we make something fun?" Instead, they expect the fun to come automatically from the fidelity. Or they let the fidelity consume all their time so in the end they're rushed and never have time to think about fun.

Double Dragon on NES is more like a "re-imagining" of the arcade game than a port of it. It's still a flawed game, but during the design process they clearly decided to de-emphasize fidelity and instead emphasize fun. And also someone decided to make that 1v1 mode which was my favorite part of the thing anyway.

Expand full comment
Pixel Fix's avatar

Loved the arcade game so much back in the day but damn the ports of Double Dragon were all lousy. I had the C64 game and rented out the Master System version and they were both awful. Just terrible.

Double Dragon was one of the first major gaming heartbreakers. Great read resurfacing all this buried pain.

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts