MAMEWorld Forums - EmuChat - Re: Yours for only $20K

> >While I wouldn't go so far as to say that the game sucks, it's definitely
> > a triumph of feel over actual gameplay - and what I mean by this is that while it
> > plays like a classic arcade game, it plays like one that was always just ever so
> > slightly a B-list game.
>
> How different is the arcade game from the Flash/iOS/Android versions?

It's been close to a couple of months since I played the arcade game, and I just looked at the Flash version again to refresh my memory on that so my recollection may be a bit off - but I'd have to say that the arcade game could be described as similar to but a somewhat more polished version of the Flash variant. Haven't played either the iOS or Android versions, though, so can't really comment on them.

That said, I would not be surprised to find a low-powered (Atom-class) board in the arcade unit basically running a fuller Flash version of the game on XP Embedded or similar. This is strictly supposition on my behalf, however, as I did not see inside the game or get to power-cycle it and check for a boot/POST screen, etc.

> Based on
> playing those I'd say they did better at nailing the technical limitations of the
> time and working around them in a period-accurate way than any of the current plague
> of "I can't afford an artist so I'm going to front like my shitty programmer art is
> retro" games that infest Steam/XBLA/PSN.

Agreed. Disney did a pretty good job with the look and feel of the game on both the Flash and arcade platforms.

> Further, I'd agree (again, from those versions) that if it were actually a 1982 game
> it'd likely be well known and have some big fans but still definitely be B-list.

Yep. About the best parallel I can draw is with Nintendo's Ice Climber (which has some gameplay similarities) - not a bad game and with a definite following, but lacking what it takes to be a major title.