"The shadows of the super moves are a little different from the PS version (which emulates the arcade perfectly). Perhaps the Saturn lacks transparencies and Capcom had to settle for less than perfect shadows."

First of all, the reaction of most people is, "who cares?', right? Well yeah, shouldn't the game still score 100 even if the shadows aren't arcade perfect and/or they were inferior? Especially with faster load times and better gameplay? But although on default setting the shadows are different than the arcade and Playstation versions, they're actually superior. K. Lee actually touched on this, only in the exact opposite of reality.

Now we all know how bogus the "Saturn lacks transparencies" comment is, since the system already had lots of (mainly 2D) games with nice transparencies at that point.

But the thing is, if transparencies were used to generate blue versions of the character sprites, they'd look exactly like the Saturn's "snapped" shadows. Not the other way around. Putting a single colored transparency over a multi-colored image produces a blue tinted multi-colored image, not an image made up of blue shades.

The fact of the matter though, is that it's actually the mighty arcade hardware, that these two ports are trying to emulate, which lacks the ability to render 'real' transparencies. This, plus the facts that blue shaded shadows save a ton of memory and the developers might've wanted simple blue shaded shadows anyway is why they look the way they do in the arcade.

Why they decided to add optional higher color shadows in the Saturn version is a mystery, but a couple possible reasons are the fact that it makes for a nicer looking game and that maybe the Saturn really does use transparencies by default, to save the massive amount of memory needed for multiple version of every frame of animation. This would lead more credibility to the claims by hardcore SF fans, that the Saturn version has more animation than the PSX game. That plus the fact that the Saturn already has more ram to begin with.

So not only was the Saturn version trashed as being inferior graphically because of it's graphic superiority, but it's hardware was also trashed for lacking the ability to display what it was actually displaying (possibly using the ability it was being trashed for lacking)... all because it was displaying what the ability it was trashed for lacking would in reality appear as, instead of displaying what such an inability to display would in reality look like.

And this is why this site's section for crazy gaming journalist's quotes is named 'Blue Shadows'.

All this fuss over a visual upgrade and in the end, the original arcade-style blue shaded shadows are selectable simply by setting the arranged music back to original in the options menu. The Gamefan reviewers may not have known about this during the initial review, but they sure did by the time they decided to do a re-review for Night Warriors but not for Saturn Alpha.

"...the samples are tinny and far-away sounding. The Saturn version loads faster than the PS, but the purist like myself must have arcade exactness."

Here's another classic (see the Blue Shadows section for more) Nick Rox oxymoron. You see, the Saturn version does have tinny sound effects by default. But the reason is, they're arcade accurate('exactful'). The arcade had lower quality sound effects, for whatever reasons, than the Playstation version. By perfectly reproducing the arcade's lower quality sound effects, the Saturn version really is inferior in this aspect to the Playstation version then right?

Wrong! You see, Nick Rox and buddy K. Lee trashed the Saturn version, not because the graphics weren't as good as the Playstation version, but because they weren't purely arcade exactness. But when it comes to the sound effects, all of a sudden the Saturn version isn't as good because of the tinny (arcade exactful) sfx.

Now, you could argue that poor Nick Rox is simply ignorant and misguidedly believes that the arcade and PSX versions both share crisp clean sound effects. But he does know better. In his 2 page article in the same issue as the 3 x 100% PSX Alpha review, he says:

"While on the subject of sound, let me mention that Capcom seems to have re-recorded the samples directly off the original tape rather than lifting them off the arcade board, and the difference in quality definately shows."

But I thought that Nick Rox is a "purist" who must have "arcade exactness"? He even goes on to say:

"Just know that this is PERFECT. Other magazines are quick to use that word for extremely imperfect ports, like 3DO Super Turbo, for instance, but I can be trusted. I'm an Alpha freak who's literally played the arcade game every day since its release... until now, of course."

You can read the entire Review article by clicking the image below.

So the Playstation's arcade imporovement/imperfectness keeps it at 100, but the Saturn's arcade improvement/imperfectness + it's arcade perfectness drag it down to a 95.

Now, you could argue that we shouldn't hold Nick Rox to his arcade exactness'ness when it comes to the sound effects, because that would be slightly fanatical. But he's the one making the arguement for arcade faithfulness over quality, to the extent that he's giving the Saturn version a lower score for un-arcade exactness, while still knocking it specifically for arcade exactness.

And as for Nick Rox's "Just know that this is PERFECT. Other magazines are quick to use that word for extremely imperfect ports, like 3DO Super Turbo, for instance, but I can be trusted." comment, I know that you're asking yourself, what did the man who be trusted have to say about SSFII Turbo 3DO?

"Everything you'll find on this CD is perfect, from the completely arranged-for-this-game-only CD soundtrack to the control and carbon-copy graphics."

Wait a minute. What was that word that Nick Rox was quick to use for his 3DO Super Turbo preview? "PERFECT"?

Don't believe it? You can read the entire Preview by clicking the image below.

Nick Rox makes the rules as fast as he breaks them and regularly called out other magazines for commiting mistakes that he is either guilty of in general, or is specifically commiting within the same article or sentence as his accusations.

This is the kind of stuff that the Blue Shadows section was made for.

Again all this fuss over the arcade faithful sound effects and in the end, perfect/Playstation quality sound effects are selectable simply by setting the arranged music back to original in the options menu.

"The painful loading time has been cut down, however, and the great SS controller only accentuates your enjoyment of this godly game."

"The Saturn version loads faster than the PS, but the purist like myself must have arcade exactness. Still, it plays the same (if not better with a Saturn pad) and, well... it's Alpha."

Alright, less load time and better gameplay. But this is still more than countered by improved but non-arcade-exact super shadows and lower quality, but arcade-exact sound effects? And these guys are supposed to be diehard enthusiast game fans?

Lets imagine for a second, what if the Saturn version actually had longer load times. Wouldn't better gameplay in a street fighting game STILL automatically earn the Saturn version a score of 110 or a Playstation re-review of 90?

Again, it wouldn't be so contradictive if the magazine in general wasn't representing itself as made by and for hardcore gamers and if Nick Rox in particular didn't regularly remind us of how much of an expert he is in so many things, particularly street fighting games.

Just the fact that this section of Gamefan reported Saturn Alpha faults can be titled "The Better Gameplay" is so effing crazy, it alone is enough to make this whole incident infamous. And instead of "Blue Shadows", we should all be using the term "Better Gameplay".

It doesn't make sense for a magazine like Gamefan, which touts itself as true hardcore gamers and which always compares different versions of games for the same generation... to not use the same three reviewers for the same game on the other system, a mere one month later. Especially when it's such a high profile title so early on in the life span of a new generation and will be used as the benchmark to gauge each console's 2D ability. Especially, when the magazine gave Game Of The Month honors to the Playstation version the issue before.

And given his obvious unenthusiasm for the game in general, E. Storm shouldn't have been reviewing it in the first place.

There are still further angles to this story that could be played up, but I've probably already covered everything more than anyone else has before. The main purpose of this page was simply to explain the meaning of the title of the Blue Shadows section anyway.

I understand how this feature, along with the Blue Shadows section could lead you to believe that I have a beef with Gamefan, Nick Rox or gaming journalists in general. But nothing could be further from the truth.

I love game mags and have bought them monthly ever since EGM and Gamepro first came out. And Gamefan is definately my favorite U.S. gaming magazine of all time. At least up until Dave Halverson, Nick Des Barres and crew left. And those two guys, are two of my few favorite gaming journalists. Part of why I enjoy reading their work is their personalities and the fact that they even have them in the first place. Even if someone consistantly expressed tastes which were the polar opposite of my own, I'd still love hearing their opinions if they are able to express them in an interesting manor. Lets face it, nobody's still talking about EGM's Street Fighter Alpha reviews.

Once you get a feel for someone's tastes and attitudes, you can understand where they're coming from with each new review. Most professional game reviewers are faceless drones, spewing out the same lame catch phrases and hip gamer references as the rest and I couldn't even name a few of them. Again, I'm sure that this makes it sound like I hate most of them, but it's simply that I don't identify with many reviewers specifically anymore, just as I don't keep up with current gen gaming like I used to.

Dave Halverson has actually become the more opionated aesthetically concerned of the two over the years and you can rely on him to give a good review to most of the games which get bad ones everywhere else. And each time, I understand where he's coming from and actually gain real insight into the game being reviewed. Where as the only insight I usually have with an EGM review is that if they like it, I probably won't, or at least not for the same reasons.

As mentioned earlier, it was noble of Halverson to not only admit that they'd made a mistake with the Saturn Alpha review, but actually devised and followed through on a plan to correct such oversights in the future. But I'd like to point out, that as often as Nick Rox has put his foot in his mouth over the years, he's also owned up to as much on a regular basis. He even refers to himself as Nick "Blue Shadows" Rox to this day.