And yeah... this subject steams me. Hardcore. A bunch of privileged middle-class white chicks running around spewing nonsense, and their equally privileged middle-class white dudes hoping to get a piece of ass pretending to be "sensitive to the needs of women". Hypocrites, cowards, liars, and professional victims are they. How about they go preach their nonsense in countries where it would actually be useful? Oh wait, because they can't... they can only do it here, where everything is already in their favor... in countries where such a cause is actually needed, they wouldn't last a f*cking day because they'd be gunned down for running their yaps to the wrong steroid-amped nutcase.
In short... quit yer bitchin'. Women in the USA have it better than in most other countries of the world. Men have it worse in the USA than in most countries of the world. Wanna save the world? Start with yourself, and leave the rest of us the f*ck alone. And stop dividing people... we are all HUMANS. I think it's clear who *really* needs to grow the f*ck up...
Rover, I love you, but I hope you are ranting with your "raging drama queen setting" turned all the way up to "11"—sexism, racism, classism, nativism, etc. are thriving in America. By any standard measure of inequality, American society has shamefully not reached a point where women can be complacent. Women still have brutal battles before them—one of which is the very mindset you shared in your post:
(1) To deny/minimize/rationalize the sexism that exists in the world today, even if we limit ourselves to the USA, boggles my mind. The evidence is overwhelming.
(2) "Men have it worse in the US?" — WTF?! Tell me I am misinterpreting your words, but it seems like you see gender politics as a zero-sum game. Call me crazy, but everyone wins when we eliminate oppression. Only pathetic racists are threatened by a reduction of racism; only insecure men are threatened by a reduction of sexism.
(3) I find it particularly hilarious/insulting that you negate the struggle of all women (regardless of class, race/ethnicity, sexuality, etc.) because you paint women's struggle/feminism as something that only privileged women engage in. This is insidious—to negate the damage wrought by sexism simply because some women are more privileged than others. By this "logic" we can pretend that racism, homophobia, classism, nativism,etc. aren't "really" problems in America.
(4) I am happy to discuss any inequality with you. Please note: inequalities do not exist in a vacuum, they compound one another. It's tough enough to be a woman in a sexist culture, but compound that with racism/homophobia/classism/ageism/etc. and you get a much better idea of the complex nature of the beast.
BOTTOM LINE: We clearly have very different views.
IN PRACTICE: The video game industry, and the products it produces, reflect the sexist society we live in. Period. I don't deny this. This doesn't mean we can't have tits and asses and penises in our video games—it simply means we are honest about how sexism pervades our lives, our culture, our entertainment.
DISCLAIMER: I know better, but, damn, I couldn't resist.
FIGHTING STREET (aka, "drama queen turned up to 11"): The tits and asses, Rover. I'm not trying to take them away from you. I just want you to man-up about the actual state of things, instead of being a pussy who tries to deny that sexism exists (and that it is a legitimate societal problem, and that it injures/hurts/damages like any other form of oppression). Don't wuss out on me, Rover. I know you like your entertainment dipped in a soft-porn candy shell. I'm not trying to take that away from you—just be a man and acknowledge the state of our society, our culture, our entertainment.
BACK ON TOPIC: I really like beat 'em ups, despite the relative lack of depth to most of them, but I think lots of blood and gore doesn't do them any favors, necessarily.
In truth, I prefer beat 'em ups when there's a little depth to the gameplay, though not too much. Double Dragon Advance, for example, was just a little too complex for me to use all the moves well. Streets of Rage 3 had a very good gameplay balance between multiple moves and abilities and ease of play. River City Ransom (all platforms) was also pretty awesome at making sure there's a lot you can do with only two action buttons. The NES version of Double Dragon 3 (but not the arcade, goodness no) and the PCE version of Double Dragon 2 were fantastic as well.
One aspect of the original NES Double Dragon I'd like to see revisited more often is the idea of experience and gaining more and better moves. I like the idea that you start out a simple brawler with just some punches and kicks but as you beat up more mooks you get access to advanced techniques.
Good stuff!
sweet spot = a bit-of-depth woven into the brainless fun.
To build on what you said: it's not enough to simply offer a wide range/variety of offensive/defensive moves (to counter tedium, and provide a bit more depth), it is equally important to create situations/problems/puzzles in the game where a player appreciates and purposefully uses the arsenal of techniques at his/her disposal. BALANCE is key: you don't want the game to become overly technical (and sterile)...there should be some "brainless" fun...however, long stretches of brainless button-mashing gets old quick.
I agree 100% with spenoza about the implementation of an "experience" system where you acquire advanced moves...it can coincide with challenge/depth/complexity as they ramp up in a game. It remains one of the most endearing elements of the NES Double Dragon formula (to me, anyway—some folks naysay this experience system, but I love it).
Now, this doesn't mean a new game would have to implement a carbon-copy of the experience system from NES Double Dragon: to make replays fresh(er) and less monotonous, upon "leveling up", the system could (1) allow players to choose a technique from 2+ choices (stages/challenges would have to be designed with this in mind), (2) player is randomly assigned a new move, (3) player is occasionally "handicapped" and loses ability to spam certain moves
Ha! This might be more amusing if there was a rationale for the loss of a move...for example, a sequence where only legs can be used (no arms/head butts/tossing) because your avatar is carrying a basket of flan (to be delivered to sick children in a hospital) and your hands are literally inaccessible...or a sequence where you can't pull hair and toss opponent because, upon attempting said move, your opponent's toupee/wig/weave is all that can be tossed...or... RELATED: I like the experience system, and it may or may not be combined with an anti-spamming "special move" system. PERSONALLY, I WOULD LOVE FOR SOMEONE TO DEVISE AN ANTI-SPAMMING SYSTEM THAT ISN'T ANNOYING. For example, I have never been a big fan of "power up a gauge to activate special move" (I hate that!). A counter is slightly (maybe?) better (especially if opportunities to earn extra moves are paced properly), but counters start feeling even more contrived, arbitrary than powering-up a gauge. Counters for special moves removes the organic (desirable) feeling of a beat-em-up and make it seem more technical (like the limited number of smart bombs a craft can carry in a shoot-em-up).
THAT'S WHY LIMITED-USE/TIME-LIMITED WEAPONS in beat-em-ups exist. Awesomely, they allow limited spamming of special moves.
It's funny, I never realized how all of these elements are crucial to the feeling of satisfaction in a beat-em-up...
