The Warriors

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Nov 15, 2005 10:48 pm

I picked it up for Xbox yesterday. The wal mart near me had to match a price so it was only $37 so I figured, what the hell. I wish all movie to game adaptations were done this well. They did a great job capturing the environment and the atmosphere of the movie. I'd recommend the non-Rockstar haters and fans of beat-em-ups (bemups?) out there to check it out.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 3:11 am

I always wished the Grand Theft Auto series didn't get so popular, because I love every non-GTA game Rockstar has made to death.

This one, the beat'em up gameplay is great for a 3D game. It's beautiful to see in motion most of the time. The graphics look "bad" from a technical standpoint but the animation is outstanding. It's great to see your gang and another gang brawling with each other.

They got like, every surviving cast member to do new voice overs, plus I swear, like the ENTIRE MOVIE'S dialogue is sampled. It's outsanding what they've done with this game.

Plus I beat the game and unlocked a Warriors arcade machine for the hideout area. You go to play it and it's a Double Dragon clone! It even has an intro where Mercy gets punched and dragged away by the bad guys, then Ajax and Swan walk out of the garage looking pissed. You just walk from left to right with a friend beating the crap out of everything like old times, wonderful.

Brian · Post by **Brian** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:43 am

What does the popularity of GTA have to do with other Rockstar games? If GTA were not the juggernaut it turned out to be, do you think Rockstar would be able to afford to make the games you now love?

Post by **system11** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:16 am

I got this on release, speaking from a Euro viewpoint, I wish they hadn't taken the quick method of PAL conversion - it makes the camera jumpy.

Aside from that gripe, it's a pretty good game I agree! Seems like someone cared about getting the atmosphere right, you can slip into the game quite easily and block out the real world for a bit.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 4:38 pm

Brian wrote:What does the popularity of GTA have to do with other Rockstar games? If GTA were not the juggernaut it turned out to be, do you think Rockstar would be able to afford to make the games you now love?

Rockstar actually loses quite a bit of money on each GTA game due to how rediculously high the budgets are for them. They make it back, but very, very slowly. Sales numbers are high for them which keeps their stock circulating and people talking about them but overally the post huge losses for quite a period after any GTA game.

They've also painted themselves into a corner with it like Square intentionally did to itself with Final Fantasy in 1999 ~ 2001. Any game they release that isn't GTA sells horribly and gets bad reviews because it isn't GTA, The Warriors (and to a lesser extent Manhunt) are the only ones that broke that trend.

Plus DMA, man, even before "Rockstar" existed per se they gave us Uniracers.

Post by **Shatterhand** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:18 pm

What Rockstar did made besides GTA?

I do know DMA Design games... they not only did Uniracers.. they created LEMMINGS goddamn! They also made Walker on Amiga, which was a very entertaining game.

And Hired Guns was also excellent stuff.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 6:45 pm

Heh, what Rockstar made is a tough question to answer. They're a big publisher, but their developers are broken up into a dozen different teams like when Sega has Amuze, AM2, etc. as almost independant companies. There's Rockstar North, Rockstar Toronto, etc.

Overall though, games that were published by Rockstar that were made by a Rockstar-based developer:

Body Harvest (N64)
Grand Theft Auto (PC/PSX)
Grand Theft Auto: London 1969 (PC/PSX)
Grand Theft Auto II (PC/PSX/DC)
Grand Theft Auto III (PS2/XBox/PC)
Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories (PSP)
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/Second Edition (PS2/XBox/PC)
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (PS2/Xbox/PC)
Manhunt (PS2/XBox/PC)
Midnight Club: Street Racing (PS2/XBox)
Midnight Club II (PS2/XBox/PC)
Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition (PS2/XBox)
Red Dead Revolver (PS2/XBox)
Smuggler's Run (PS2)
Smuggler's Run: Warzones (GC)
Smuggler's Run 2: Hostile Territory (PS2)
Space Station Silicon Valley (N64)
State of Emergency (PS2/XBox/PC)
Tanktics (PC)
Uniracers (SNES)
Warriors (PS2/XBox)
Wild Metal (DC)
Wild Metal Country (PC)

The last thing "DMA Design" ever did was a GBC version of Space Station Silicon Valley that IIRC only came out in Europe. I believe several of the DMA Design people were part of Rockstar North since at least Uniracers.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:59 pm

Neo Rasa wrote:I always wished the Grand Theft Auto series didn't get so popular, because I love every non-GTA game Rockstar has made to death.

This one, the beat'em up gameplay is great for a 3D game. It's beautiful to see in motion most of the time. The graphics look "bad" from a technical standpoint but the animation is outstanding. It's great to see your gang and another gang brawling with each other.

They got like, every surviving cast member to do new voice overs, plus I swear, like the ENTIRE MOVIE'S dialogue is sampled. It's outsanding what they've done with this game.

Plus I beat the game and unlocked a Warriors arcade machine for the hideout area. You go to play it and it's a Double Dragon clone! It even has an intro where Mercy gets punched and dragged away by the bad guys, then Ajax and Swan walk out of the garage looking pissed. You just walk from left to right with a friend beating the crap out of everything like old times, wonderful.

I like how dynamic the fights are. You can double team people and it's just utter mayhem with a lot of people fighting at once. I love the recreations of sequences from the movie, like the intro movie with the guy pumping tokens into the turnstile, and the various characters talking about the meeting and the Riffs. Also, the warriors arcade sounds bad ass. Can't wait to unlock that.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Wed Nov 16, 2005 10:01 pm

Brian wrote:What does the popularity of GTA have to do with other Rockstar games? If GTA were not the juggernaut it turned out to be, do you think Rockstar would be able to afford to make the games you now love?

I think one of the problems is that a lot of their games get lumped in as GTA clones. Personally, I love State of Emergency, but when it came out, everyone and his sister wanted it and was pissed it wasn't a GTA clone. It's like they either get derided for being so called GTA clones by people who hate Rockstar, or bitched about by people who do like GTA because they aren't GTA.

Moogs · Post by **Moogs** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:27 am

Acid King wrote:I think one of the problems is that a lot of their games get lumped in as GTA clones. Personally, I love State of Emergency, but when it came out, everyone and his sister wanted it and was pissed it wasn't a GTA clone. It's like they either get derided for being so called GTA clones by people who hate Rockstar, or bitched about by people who do like GTA because they aren't GTA.

I hated State of Emergency cos it was a boring and repetitive pile of shit, not cos it wasn't a GTA clone. There were only so many times I could destroy a store front or escort that guy in the red shirt before realising I was wasting my time.

I just curse GTA for making missions the norm in games nowadays instead of actual levels. I like the feeling of making progress, not wandering around.

TWITCHDOCTOR · Post by **TWITCHDOCTOR** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 1:00 am

I love Rockstars style, but I really dislike State Of Emergency.
I guess my faves would be Manhunt and Vice City.
From what I hear about "The Warriors", I'm sure I'd love that one as well.
Man, I can't wait to play it now...

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:28 am

Man Brian Cox's voice acting carries Manhunt from start to finish. That game has a really effective atmosphere and it's a shame so many people dismiss it as a pure shock value game. Nice difficulty level too.

I agree about "mission" based gameplay. Games like the original Legend of Zelda set the standard for this the RIGHT way where the major "missions" would make clear and immediate progress towards an overall goal.

The Warriors is cool about it too because there's levels to go through to beat the game, and then inbetween levels you can go to your hideout and from there you run around Coney Island doing GTA-like crap, they kept these optional missions optional instead of building a game around them.

freddiebamboo · Post by **freddiebamboo** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:35 am

Neo Rasa wrote: Rockstar actually loses quite a bit of money on each GTA game

How the hell do they manage that?

It's always like the top selling game every year

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 3:40 am

The voice talent alone costs a huge amount of money to get. It's like what happened with Square, they blow so much money on making the games. The difference is that Rockstar was smart enough to build up a lot of money first, I mean they're an efficiently enough run company that they do turn a profit overall, but raw GTA sales aren't the main reason why.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:35 am

Everyone knows, of course, that this game is based on a movie, but did you know that the movie is based (somewhat loosely) on an ancient Greek text, Xenophon's Anabasis? (It was the first thing I read in Greek when I was in college.)

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 6:02 am

professor ganson wrote:Everyone knows, of course, that this game is based on a movie, but did you know that the movie is based (somewhat loosely) on an ancient Greek text, Xenophon's Anabasis? (It was the first thing I read in Greek when I was in college.)

Supposedly this knowledge was a big deal when the movie was new, but not a lot of people I talk to that have seen the movie are aware of it (though more specifically it's an "adaptation" of the Sol Yorick novel).

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 5:01 pm

Moogs wrote:
I hated State of Emergency cos it was a boring and repetitive pile of shit, not cos it wasn't a GTA clone. There were only so many times I could destroy a store front or escort that guy in the red shirt before realising I was wasting my time.

I always have a chuckle when I see a fan of 2d shooters complaining about a game being repetitive, but I digress...

I just curse GTA for making missions the norm in games nowadays instead of actual levels. I like the feeling of making progress, not wandering around.

Eh, I guess, if you prefer linear games that could be a problem, personally, I like open ended structures. It makes the game less repetitive. If you're having trouble with one mission, you can just say screw it and try another instead of playing the same thing over and over again.

judesalmon · Post by **judesalmon** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:08 pm

I didn't think The Warriors was that great. Entertaining in parts, but with some issues.

Moogs · Post by **Moogs** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:31 pm

Acid King wrote:
Moogs wrote:
I hated State of Emergency cos it was a boring and repetitive pile of shit, not cos it wasn't a GTA clone. There were only so many times I could destroy a store front or escort that guy in the red shirt before realising I was wasting my time.

I always have a chuckle when I see a fan of 2d shooters complaining about a game being repetitive, but I digress...

State of Emergency had, what, 50-some-odd missions that didn't vary much from one to the next over the span of several hours? And you're comparing that to shooters that typically have 6 to 8 levels that end after a half hour or so?

Moogs wrote:I just curse GTA for making missions the norm in games nowadays instead of actual levels. I like the feeling of making progress, not wandering around.

Acid King wrote:Eh, I guess, if you prefer linear games that could be a problem, personally, I like open ended structures. It makes the game less repetitive. If you're having trouble with one mission, you can just say screw it and try another instead of playing the same thing over and over again.

Mission-based gameplay doesn't allow for much freedom, either. Sure, you've got a set of missions to choose from and try, but you're still not going to make any progress until you complete them. Being able to wander around in between missions just gives the illusion of freedom as far as I'm concerned.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 11:52 pm

Moogs wrote:
State of Emergency had, what, 50-some-odd missions that didn't vary much from one to the next over the span of several hours? And you're comparing that to shooters that typically have 6 to 8 levels that end after a half hour or so?

It's an arcade game. They tried to hide the fact that it was an arcade game by giving you "missions" to do, but it's an arcade game and needs to be seen as that. It can't be faulted for being repetitive. Even though those 50+ missions take hours to play and are basically the same thing over and over, how many times do you play a shooting games 5-8 levels over and over and over again?

Moogs · Post by **Moogs** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:25 am

Acid King wrote:
Moogs wrote:
State of Emergency had, what, 50-some-odd missions that didn't vary much from one to the next over the span of several hours? And you're comparing that to shooters that typically have 6 to 8 levels that end after a half hour or so?

It's an arcade game. They tried to hide the fact that it was an arcade game by giving you "missions" to do, but it's an arcade game and needs to be seen as that. It can't be faulted for being repetitive. Even though those 50+ missions take hours to play and are basically the same thing over and over, how many times do you play a shooting games 5-8 levels over and over and over again?

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. A shooter lends itself to repeated playthroughs more than something like State of Emergency. However, I'd sooner play thru the first Streets of Rage or Final Fight before even playing one mission of State of Emergency again. I have nothing against repetition (hell, I still play games like Tempest and Dig Dug), but State of Emergency just seemed a bit excessive.

TWITCHDOCTOR · Post by **TWITCHDOCTOR** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:38 am

Moogs wrote:
Acid King wrote:
Moogs wrote:
State of Emergency had, what, 50-some-odd missions that didn't vary much from one to the next over the span of several hours? And you're comparing that to shooters that typically have 6 to 8 levels that end after a half hour or so?

It's an arcade game. They tried to hide the fact that it was an arcade game by giving you "missions" to do, but it's an arcade game and needs to be seen as that. It can't be faulted for being repetitive. Even though those 50+ missions take hours to play and are basically the same thing over and over, how many times do you play a shooting games 5-8 levels over and over and over again?
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. A shooter lends itself to repeated playthroughs more than something like State of Emergency. However, I'd sooner play thru the first Streets of Rage or Final Fight before even playing one mission of State of Emergency again. I have nothing against repetition (hell, I still play games like Tempest and Dig Dug), but State of Emergency just seemed a bit excessive.

Guys,guys...guys.
The difference between most shmups and State of Emergency is that most shmups are actually fun to play!

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:34 pm

Moogs wrote: I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's a fair comparison. A shooter lends itself to repeated playthroughs more than something like State of Emergency. However, I'd sooner play thru the first Streets of Rage or Final Fight before even playing one mission of State of Emergency again. I have nothing against repetition (hell, I still play games like Tempest and Dig Dug), but State of Emergency just seemed a bit excessive.

I agree completely. I just think the game gets unfairly judged because of the entirely too long single player missions. The games real strength is in the timed score sequences and the Xbox's multiplayer modes. It's like if Smash TV was turned in to 60 hour + single player game. You'd get sick of it after awhile, but that doesn't stop the game being fun in short bursts... unless you just plain don't like the gameplay, of course.

TWITCHDOCTOR · Post by **TWITCHDOCTOR** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:54 am

Just borrowed the Xbox version a few days ago(The Warriors). Well... now, I've played the game all the way through, and I loved it. It became quite an addiction.
In fact, I even played for an entire night!!!

I'm thinking that I would prefer the PS2 version though, because the Xbox controller seems a little "clunky" for me with this game. (Too many accidental commands when running etc,etc)

Anybody have any thougts/preferances with either console version?

BTW: How does The Warriors stack up to other games of this type?(modern day 3-D beat em ups)

Also, I cannot unlock the Warriors arcade machine because the challenge "King of the Hill" sucks ass!

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:03 am

TWITCHDOCTOR wrote:Just borrowed the Xbox version a few days ago(The Warriors). Well... now, I've played the game all the way through, and I loved it. It became quite an addiction.
In fact, I even played for an entire night!!!

I'm thinking that I would prefer the PS2 version though, because the Xbox controller seems a little "clunky" for me with this game. (Too many accidental commands when running etc,etc)

Anybody have any thougts/preferances with either console version?

BTW: How does The Warriors stack up to other games of this type?(modern day 3-D beat em ups)

Also, I cannot unlock the Warriors arcade machine because the challenge "King of the Hill" sucks ass!

I think they're both pretty similar, or atleast the review I read didn't mention any differences. The biggest problem I'm having with the Xbox controls is issuing "war chief" commands. On the PS2 it's mapped to R2 but on the Xbox, you have to click in the left thumbstick, which is pretty annoying and hard to use in the middle of a fight.

TWITCHDOCTOR · Post by **TWITCHDOCTOR** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:39 am

Ok thanks. Yea, pressing down too far on the stick will do that(Xbox version). It can get REALLY annoying when you don't want to issue out commands, or you accidentally change a command.

So, can you describe to me the button layout for the PS2, or at least a link to the review you read?
I'm kinda thinking almost all Rockstar games are better when played on the PS2. Well, most were made with the PS2 hardware in mind.
Although, I did notice better graphics and faster loading times with Grand Theft Auto Collection Pack (Xbox).

All in all, The Warriors is a great game, and its even more suprising that it actually goes with the movie quite well. Its too bad that there are a couple of times the game feels "cheap". Then again, lots of good games can be "cheap" at times.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:14 am

I actually despise almost all 3D beat'em ups, and yet the ones I like are some of my favorite games ever. Here's the short short list:

Die Hard Arcade/Dynamite Deka
Dynamite Cop/Dynamite Deka 2
Sword of the Berserk: Guts' Rage
Warriors

Speaking of which that PS2 Berserk game is supposedly incredible, how the hell did that NOT come out outside of Japan?!

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:25 am

TWITCHDOCTOR wrote:Ok thanks. Yea, pressing down too far on the stick will do that(Xbox version). It can get REALLY annoying when you don't want to issue out commands, or you accidentally change a command.

So, can you describe to me the button layout for the PS2, or at least a link to the review you read?
I'm kinda thinking almost all Rockstar games are better when played on the PS2. Well, most were made with the PS2 hardware in mind.
Although, I did notice better graphics and faster loading times with Grand Theft Auto Collection Pack (Xbox).

All in all, The Warriors is a great game, and its even more suprising that it actually goes with the movie quite well. Its too bad that there are a couple of times the game feels "cheap". Then again, lots of good games can be "cheap" at times.

http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/warriors/review.html

It doesn't have the full button configuration, just mentions the problem with the warchief commands on the Xbox. Also says that the visuals are pretty much identical in both versions.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:27 am

Neo Rasa wrote:I actually despise almost all 3D beat'em ups, and yet the ones I like are some of my favorite games ever. Here's the short short list:

Die Hard Arcade/Dynamite Deka
Dynamite Cop/Dynamite Deka 2
Sword of the Berserk: Guts' Rage
Warriors

Speaking of which that PS2 Berserk game is supposedly incredible, how the hell did that NOT come out outside of Japan?!

Probably because the huge amount of voice acting means a translation would not be cheap. I would love to see Jack Thompsons reaction to that game.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:43 pm

But didn't the US DC Guts' Rage use the cast eventually used for the US release of the anime anyway?

I think it's more just because Sammy sucks and wants to bombard us with Spy Fiction and Sevan Samurai 20XX instead.