/vr/ - Retro Games

>>7234648
based australia-kun.
Virgin's Aladdin is nice for what it is, although yeah level design and controls are not very tight, as usual with Dave Perry's games (Cool Spot, EWJ, etc).
Capcom's game is a classic early 90s Capcom platformer so obviously it got the controls and level design right.
Also, regardless of what australia might say about "bouncing on enemies", it actually does make sense for Al since he's an acrobat, he doesn't use a sword in the movie except at the very end when he's wearing the Prince Ali outfit (which doesn't appear in the Virgin game anyway, on Capcom's game Al is wearing the Prince Ali outfit on the flying carpet bonus level with Jazmin).
The sword would be fun in theory but in practice, again, hitboxes being wonky don't really make using the sword fun, and most of the times, throwing apples is actually way more effective (apples only stunt enemies on Capcom's game). The fact enemies pop up like balloons also make the sword fighting feel sort of goofy/kiddy, ironically. It doesn't feel like hack n' slashing.
Anyway, both games are worth playing if you like the movie, and I think the Capcom game also stands on its own as a good platformer-action game, it has some unique traits like bouncing not only on enemies but also on other objects which in many later levels is required to get throw many parts, and also the fact that Al can grab ledges and also grab different ornaments where he can swing and jump like an acrobat, and also kick enemies while he's doing it (always feels pretty badass kicking enemies on the chin this way, and does remind of the opening scene of the movie where Al tricks all the dumb guards).
The graphics are good in both games but it's also evident that Virgin got some priorities, mainly sprite animation, sprites aren't very detailed (not a lot of color grading or shading), and backgrounds also tend to be more drab than the often baroque backgrounds on the SNES game, which include parallax effects and what not.

Capcom Aladdin is objectively better in terms of controls and level design. While Virgin Aladdin is perfectly playable, its controls and its level design aren't on the same level as expertise as Capcom, as expected, but still, Virgin Aladdin has so much effort put into its presentation that it's also worth playing, both games do justice to the movie in terms of presentation, but Capcom is the superior game.
The Lion King is arguably better on Genesis, but unlike the Aladdin games, this one is the same game on both consoles with minor differences. People will always instantly point out the resolution on Genesis being wider, and that's a reasonable reason to prefer it, but then the SNES version also does some things better (better voice samples, smoother stampede stage). If you've played one of the versions, you don't really need to play the other, virtually the same game.
Lion King on Game Gear was a different game though, same with Aladdin. GG got some nice exclusive alternate games for the famous Disney movies.

Sprite animation: Virgin
Art direction, gameplay, design: Capcom
Honorable mention to the Game Gear game.

>>6681809
Eh, Virgin's Aladdin's graphics aren't really that good looking. It's mostly the animation of the sprites that make it stand out, the actual art on the backgrounds is pretty sterile.

Only in terms of sprite animation. Gameplay and level design is, as expected, better in the Capcom game.
I wish the Virgin Aladdin was handled by Sega of Japan in terms of art direction, gameplay and level design, and Perry only doing the sprite animation tech, would be probably the definitive Aladdin game.

Virgin: More fluid sprite animations
Capcom: Better everything else
We've had this thread many times already. Dave Perry's games usually suffer from lack of polish when it comes to controls/level design and this game is not the exception. Capcom, on the other hand, are known for their tight quality games and good production values, and again, Aladdin isn't the exception.
Sadly most people won't really judge each game objectively because muh console wors

>>5727151
>So the dust has settled and we've all agreed that the Genesis version of Aladdin is the superior game
I know this is a troll, but /vr/ uninamously agrees that Virgin Aladdin is only better in sprite animation, while actual gameplay and level design is much better on Capcom's game.
Also, while the sprite animation on Virgin's game is pretty good, the overall graphics aren't really more impressive than the far more detailed Capcom game.

Can we just agree both were actually kino?

>>4638945
Yes, worse graphics.

>>4436115
>SNES looks like a blurry mess
If you're not kidding, it's because of the low quality of the video on Youtube.
>so much more detailed
Not really, the Capcom game has more attention to detail
>more fluid animations
That was Perry's forte, digitalizing actual cartoons, like with Earthworm Jim. Also, actual Disney animators provided some help during the development.

Snes Aladdin
>better graphics
>better colors
>better music
>better gameplay

Genesis Aladdin
>better animation

Why do people think the Genesis one is superior again? You'd have to be a delusional segafag to convince yourself otherwise.

>>3297441
>>3297556

Aladdin wasn't a multiplat, Sega/PC game was done by Virgin and SNES by Capcom.
I consider the Capcom game to be better, but that's not to say the Virgin game is bad though.

>>3274342

Only in sprite animation, everything else is better on the Capcom game unless you enjoy western maze-type platforming level design and wonky physics.
Still, I'd recommend playing both Capcom and Virgin games, Virgin's game is still enjoyable and looks really good despite somewhat bland backgrounds.
Just avoid all the other Virgin ports like the PC or NES versions.
Game Gear Aladdin is actually pretty fun, and a different game from Genesis and SNES. It actually has better platforming action than the Genesis title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH1gHd_Nniw

The Great Debate

>and a way better Aladdin

I actually prefer the Capcom game.

But basically, both Sega and Capcom made the best Disney games.
I never liked the Virgin or Disney Interactive Studio's own games that much. They might have some nice sprites animations with the aid of actual disney people, but the games themselves aren't as good or memorable as the games Sega or Capcom did (which also look fantastic even without Disney animators)

>>3088007
Boogerman was multiplat, and it's a forgettable game in both systems except for the lol gross humor.

Aladdin was not, the Genesis game was published by Virgin and made by a young Dave Perry and his team of amateur game designers (and actual Disney animators), and the Capcom game on SNES was made by Capcom by young Shinji Mikami produced by Fujiwara (Ghost n Ghoblins, Bionic Commando)

>>2877436

No, only the sprite animation is better, everything else better on the Capcom game.

>>2847037


Eh.

Nice sprite animations, but outside of that...

>>2840178

Why is it "not good at all"? Give me reasons, don't tell me "it sucks" or "it isn't like the movie" or shit like that.

As >>2840182 said, both are solid games. Virgin's Aladdin has great sprite animation (but kind of weak backgrounds), while the Capcom game has tighter controls as opposed to the Virgin game which has... well, typical Virgin/dave perry controls, not unplayable, but not great either, with some hit detection issues.

I consider the Capcom game to be the better one, but both games are decent, and as you said, different, so there's no reason to not play both.

But if you want to debate me and give me your arguments as to why you think the SNES one is "not good at all", I'm open for it, just don't come up with retarded arguments like "it's shit" or "aladdin doesn't use a sword".

>>2806185

People are still thinking Virgin's Aladdin is better than the Capcom game?

Sure, it had great sprite animations, but the gameplay was pretty sketchy (not a surprise, it being a Dave Perry/western platformer), and outside of the actual sprite animations, it doesn't really outdo the Capcom game in terms of graphics, look at these backgrounds.

I played both as a kid, but I found myself replaying the Capcom game often due to its pretty tight and satisfying controls and fun levels, the Virgin game just wasn't fun to play. It had a sword, but the hitboxes are so wonky that it doesn't make it any more fun, I'd rather jump and bounce on enemies while doing parkour on the Capcom game.

Daily reminder that Shinji Mikami (director of Capcom Aladdin) said he liked the Genesis game better and that Dave perry (director of Virgin Aladdin) said he liked the SNES one more.

sprite animation was amazing on Genesis, what with having actual Disney animators do it hand drawn and what not, but everything else was better on SNES; especially gameplay and level design. Also backgrounds were more detailed and beautiful on the SNES. Still both were good games, really.