General Games Discussion

Someone's got mommy issues

Hace falta entender la oscuridad para poder hacerle frente... #SamFisher pic.twitter.com/fTsRnCQa7d

— Ubisoft España (@Ubisoft_Spain) November 8, 2019

#22

Game: Burning Rangers.
Year: 1998.
Genre: Action, Third Person Shooter
Publisher: Sega.
Developer: Sega.



First things first, I am changing my rating system to a simpler 10 point system. Games that get above a 7 I fully recommend, and those that get below that are mostly a waste of time. That leaves the score of 7 to depend on your taste

Burning Rangers is the kind of game that is difficult to dislike, even if it gives you every reason to do so. With date 3D polygonal graphics, stiff 3D controls that demand an analog stick, and some cheesy writing; here is a game that I should normally severely criticize as an outdated relic that may have been good in the past. However, the game's solid core and innovative design combine to make sure that despite all of its age-related flaws, Burning Rangers remains a fun game to play.

"Sense a split second. Treasure the life. Have a Goddes on your wing"

This is very much a 90's game. You can figure out that much from seeing the opening anime scenes, which invoke much of the "cool" imagery that was common in the day from big-handed armor suits to wise-cracking long-haired protagonists. The unique twist in Burning Rangers is that this ragtag group of anime archetypes are firefighters.

Seeing much of the videogame space being dominated by games about shooting people, Sega decided to do something different with this 3rd person shooter game of theirs; opting to design a game about saving people instead of killing them. Ironically, this doesn't change the core shooting gameplay much as the targets are now balls of fire rather than ghouls and goblins.

I guess that the firefighting gimmick combined with the futuristic Anime style does provide a unique story that is was never told in videogames before. However, that doesn't make it a necessarily good story.

Although, if you are fan cheesy 90's anime, then the cheesy dialogue and voice acting has its charm.

"You must evacuate. It is too far from your location. We don't have enough time"

As I mentioned above, this is a 3rd person shooter with fireballs as targets. Yet, that simple description doesn't do the game justice since the focus is not actually on it being a shooter.

The focus is, like in many Yuji Naka games, is on movement. In this case, movement in 3D space. Burning Ranger main gameplay hook is in the speed you can get to from one place to another in the map to save people and extinguish fires. This speed is the result of the booster shoes the character wear, which allows them to dash forward and fly around in unprecedented fashion.

In fact, I am not sure any game at the time had the freedom of movement that was present in this title. With the ability to cross massive distances, both horizontally and vertically, you can virtually keep flying most of the level and rarely touch the ground.

All that movement is in the service of getting to fires and victims quickly in a maze-like map as the game challenges you for faster times and better performances as a firefighter. It is exhilarating most of the time, that is until the game's age-related issues start becoming more obvious.

"But if I don't give it a shot we can't save them all. I must save the others. It's my turn to help others. I will never give up"

There is no hiding the obvious age of Burning Ranger's graphics, which affect the visual variety of stages as well as put an obvious straing on the framerate. However, that's not the biggest flaw in the gameplay.

As usual in early 3D games, the camera controls are wanting and the lack of analog controls is an obvious issue. Due to the excellent movement mechanics of the game, both issues are not as big of a problem as they could otherwise have been, but they are issues nonetheless.

Honestly, the game's shortcomings are excusable mainly due to its short length. With only four short missions, the game can be completed in one sitting. True, this allows for repeated playthroughs to get better scores and master the system. However, I didn't find multiple playthroughs to be as rewarding as the first, and even then, the gameplay wears thin by the fifth hour.

"Say hello to Big Landman, he is our most skillful ranger"

Depending on your tolerance for early polygonal graphics, you will either be charmed bu this game's more than competent visuals or get a slight headache from all the flickering lights and the poor graphical detection.

It is not ugly nor is it unplayable. Still, it requires getting used to, especially when the background starts appearing in the foreground suddenly.

Musically, the game has some good tunes. However, due to the need to listen to the voice guidance system, the tracks are more muted than usual, which unfortunately doesn't give you enough chance to appreciate the game's soundtrack.

As for that voice guidance system, it is nothing if not innovative. With your commanding officer trying to guide you through the burning buildings, it helps that her voice acting is not bad even if it is weirdly inexpressive (unlike most of the cast who alternate between cliched to hammy voice acting).

In Conclusion:

Burning Rangers is an innovative game that hedged its bets on its unique setting and gameplay system carrying it beyond being a short game to be traded in at the first opportunity. I think that its reputation today proves Sega won that specific bet.

For the modern gamer, the short length is a blessing because it allows them to experience the best of the game without its shortcomings becoming too obvious.

Final: 7/10

Pros:

• Unique movement system
  
• Unique setting and style
  

Cons:

• Poor cameral controls and lack of analog movement.
  
• Aged 3D graphics.
  

"Tips"
1- Look around for victims off the main path.
2- You can dodge by hitting the jump button with a direction at the same time.
3- One hit loses all of your hard-earned crystals.

"Next Game"

I guess I enjoyed Burning Rangers despite initially being apprehensive regarding its graphics. This proves that a good game can shine even if it doesn't look its best.

Next, I will be writing a report about the games from #29 to #20 in the Retro Sanctuary list before I play Dragon Force at #16 in the same list.

Stay Tuned

Put 60 hours on TW Warhammer II and finally beat it with High Elves on easy, damn it's addictive and complex game. Offers probably 500 hours of playing easily if you want to try all races, although it also costs about 100€ with all DLC's. Anyone else played TW games?

Also got 3 months XBOX Game Pass for PC from buying Ryzen 3600, and I can actually play The Outer Worlds free through that.

Telling me son

Yeah I can see spending that much time on it. Do you use any mods, like Turn Time Destroyer? Turn times are damn long as it's single thread bound. Luckily alt-tabbing is easy. Hopefully they make Warhammer III multithreaded.

Jedi Fallen Order not looking so hot

Looked dogshit in that E3 reveal tbh, very shallow

Which is a shame i'm an advocate for single player games, but this seems like a half assed attempt, seems like they were banking on it being Star Wars to carry it

Kaladin wrote:Jedi Fallen Order not looking so hot

Looked dogshit in that E3 reveal tbh, very shallow

Which is a shame i'm an advocate for single player games, but this seems like a half assed attempt, seems like they were banking on it being Star Wars to carry it

Says who? Pretty much all the impressions have been incredibly positive since the previews.

If you're taking this position based on the E3 reveal you're stance is incredibly outdated.

Yeah i only found about this game last week, didnt think i would seriously consider it but the previews make it sound great.

rincon wrote:Yeah i only found about this game last week, didnt think i would seriously consider it but the previews make it sound great.

That's EA's doing, the marketing has been pretty shite.

But everyone who has played the game are praising it highly, pretty sure if EA weren't publishing it would be hyped pretty extensively.

Pokemon Sword and Shield honestly looks unacceptable wtf

bought a Switch to mostly try this, first pokemon game in 13+ years and of course it seems like the worst ever, never seen anything like it on the lead-in to a game, obviously pokemon is huge so it has a passionate fanbase and it'll come under more scrutiny than most, but it looks like an asolute mess in every facet and this is a series that regularly clears 10M copies a game

smh

still, don't think I'll end up dropping it since apparently it's a game that'll take 15 hours to finish ffs

gonna try to fit in Fire Emblem 3 Houses afterwards, if that's a write off for me too then I'll give my switch to someone for xmas and pretend it's brand new

Lol calm down it's just fanboys outraging because their bored in the mums basement because they'll not getting an exact clone of what they want.

It will blow over when the game actually releases, honestly sick of gamers who rage over nothing before they actually play a game because they have nothing else to do.

No it isn't. The game looks absolutely atrocious and unacceptable in 2019. You have games on the switch with a tenth of the budget that have more content and look and run far better. I haven't even been following it nor am I a Pokemon fanboy, always had the impression that Pokemon had a rabid fanbase and would defend it to death when the game looked meh, which is why this is so surprising. You have actual visual proof of how shitty it is technically. You can beat the game in like 15 hrs and the last 4 gyms and the pokemon league are within 15 minutes of each other. Plus the developers straight up lied about features and reasons for cuts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pokemon/comments/dv438w/complete_list_of_all_problems_known_so_far_in/

anyone getting SHenmue 3? tempted and I've never played the first 2. May watch a story recap on YT. Reckon it'll be fairly cheap after a month though tbh.

Most of the complaints seem related to things we knew about like a year ago. ( as in why isn't it Breath of the Wild)

Which we knew it wouldn't be.

Firenze wrote:No it isn't. The game looks absolutely atrocious and unacceptable in 2019. You have games on the switch with a tenth of the budget that have more content and look and run far better. I haven't even been following it nor am I a Pokemon fanboy, always had the impression that Pokemon had a rabid fanbase and would defend it to death when the game looked meh, which is why this is so surprising. You have actual visual proof of how shitty it is technically. You can beat the game in like 15 hrs and the last 4 gyms and the pokemon league are within 15 minutes of each other. Plus the developers straight up lied about features and reasons for cuts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pokemon/comments/dv438w/complete_list_of_all_problems_known_so_far_in/

Yeah, been reading up. Its looks really bad.

On the bright side, people who are playing Jedi says its great. Expect it to score like Outer Worlds did critically. Will round up a pretty solid gaming year.

It's been a meh year for me personally in gaming, loved BOTW mostly but that is a 2017 game. Just a collection of half finished games besides that. Never even finished Sekiro, got to the second to last boss, took a week off from the game and never had the urge to go back.

I expect RE2 Remake to get most GOTY awards, right? Still need to play it. 2020 looks insane though, very hyped.

FF7 Remake, Nioh 2 in March
Cyberpunk in April
Last of Us in May

WATTHBA

Most of the games M99 likes you haven't played though.

Like Control, Metro Exodus and Outer Worlds. All very good to great games.

There was too big a gap in between but by years end they'll be enough stuff to considered decent.

Most of these pokemon complaints are irrelevant to everyone but the most rabid fans. Can be bothered to care about not having 1000 pokemons, who cares? It's still too many.

I don't give a shit about that either since I haven't played in so long, I do give a shit about the bare bones world, story, pacing and rampant technical issues. Hope there's a day 1 patch that fixes a lot of it but I hear they don't really do that on Nintendo.

apparently they removed the feature to trade pokemon with randoms, you have to have someones friend code btw

so any of you playing day 1? and getting sword? I've got Shield coming and there are a few pokemon I want from Sword, but I won't worry about that until I finish the story.

Firenze wrote:I don't give a shit about that either since I haven't played in so long, I do give a shit about the bare bones world, story, pacing and rampant technical issues. Hope there's a day 1 patch that fixes a lot of it but I hear they don't really do that on Nintendo.

When has pokemon not had all those things? that's what is hilarious about some of these fans. Pokemon has been making the same game for 20 years. There are features added, but this is still basically the same game as the first pokemon. It's a staple for nintendo to keep doing the same thing. Not only do they do the same thing every generation, they release 2 or 3 games each time to rip everyone off even more. I don't get the illusion that previous pokemon games were better at these things, let's see when the game comes out.

If they were a proper developer they would have made a console pokemon game on a large scale a long time ago.

Which is why I don't really care about these, I know exactly what to expect.

Firenze wrote:apparently they removed the feature to trade pokemon with randoms, you have to have someones friend code btw

so any of you playing day 1? and getting sword? I've got Shield coming and there are a few pokemon I want from Sword, but I won't worry about that until I finish the story.

Yeah I'll get sword but not day 1, probably next week.

Thimmy wrote:

Firenze wrote:anyone getting SHenmue 3? tempted and I've never played the first 2. May watch a story recap on YT. Reckon it'll be fairly cheap after a month though tbh.

I bought the first two during a drought and played the first one for a few hours until I got bored. It’s one of those games where, considering the technical limitations during the time of it’s release, it’s really understandable that people thought it was amazing. It also had tons of charm at the time, and that’s easy to notice with it’s distinctive, cheesy, early 90s atmosphere and soundtrack - in a sense, it reminds me a bit of Mortal Kombat. It hasn’t stood the test of time, though. I grew bored of it quite fast, and some of the mechanics in the game were just frustratingly clunky and unpolished.

I’m sure people who feel sentimental and nostalgic about the original games will be a lot more forgiving towards Shenmue 3’s possible limitations and shortcomings, but it doesn’t look like a game that I’ll enjoy playing.

yeah I got that impression (and have read similar comments from people that like you, played the recent releases) I think I'm willing to check it out for cheap when I'm bored but not at release. Yakuza looks like it took the formula and is better in every way tbh.