Something went wrong. Try again later
    Follow

    Speakeasy

    Game » consists of 1 releases. Released Nov 25, 2014

    A fast paced 1920s themed fighting game with 10 second rounds and a three button control scheme.

    2 Player Local Only? WTF?!

    Avatar image for ninjatard
    NinjaTard

    177

    Forum Posts

    99

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 2

    User Lists: 5

    I bought this during the big indie sale a couple weeks ago and finally hopped on to give it a whirl and unless I'm missing something it's local vs. only? No online mode? Not even a trainer against the game itself?

    I may have totally missed the point of this game and it kind of bums me out. Anyone else got anything to say about being able to play this game if I don't have someone on the couch next to me?

    Avatar image for mosespippy
    mosespippy

    4751

    Forum Posts

    2163

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 8

    I can't help but feel this is a buyer beware situation. Indie devs don't always have the budget to hire a net code programmer. They don't advertise it as being an online multiplayer game. You just assumed it was and didn't check. Can't fault the game for that. It probably should have a vs. CPU mode though.

    Avatar image for geraltitude
    GERALTITUDE

    5991

    Forum Posts

    8980

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 17

    User Lists: 2

    #3  Edited By GERALTITUDE

    Damn.

    It's actually pretty fun. Takes 5-10 minutes to get it, and then it is a surprisingly good party game. Definitely play Tag mode.

    @mosespippy speaks the truth here. Definitely these guys did not have the budget to pull off online multiplayer. AND TAKE NOTE. In this game .1 of a second makes a legit difference. That type of timing window is no joke for online play. The entire game hinges on extremely small differences in timing. Even a vs. CPU mode seems very difficult to me to code. Again, not for seasoned vets, but for amateur developers, that would actually be really hard to build. The game works on a 1 shot, 1 kill design. You can block, fake and you can punch. You can only do each action once per round. The trick though is that you cannot hit your input immediately when the round starts. There is ~ 1 second zone where if you try anything it is "too early". After that point anything goes. Note that all actions happen near instantaneously. If I press Punch and you do not press Block within .5 seconds, you are dead. So I can see a vs. CPU match going similarly to Samurai Gunn, where it swings between easy and so, so cartoonishly impossibly hard.

    I think a vs CPU mode makes sense but yeah I ain't surprised it's absent.

    Sorry @ninjatard, but you're kinda hosed without someone else to play with. I do think this is a "buyer beware" situation but by the same token I do wish there was a GB style "Features" list when you pulled up a game on PSN: Single-Player, Couch Co-Op, Online Multiplayer, etc.

    Avatar image for bisonhero
    BisonHero

    12796

    Forum Posts

    625

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    I mean, this whole game is "Reaction Time: The Video Game", so even if they had someone who could do the netcode for online multiplayer, I'm not sure they would've. Like, at least Dive Kick matches can potentially go 20 seconds because there is positioning and footsies to consider. Speakeasy kinda needs as little input as lag for what it's trying to do.

    Speakeasy is literally just "somebody makes the first move, and the other guy has to judge whether it's a real attack and they should block or it's a fakeout", so if you're not someone in the 15-25-year-old range with peak physical reflexes, I don't see the appeal of this game.

    Avatar image for geraltitude
    GERALTITUDE

    5991

    Forum Posts

    8980

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 17

    User Lists: 2

    Speakeasy is literally just "somebody makes the first move, and the other guy has to judge whether it's a real attack and they should block or it's a fakeout", so if you're not someone in the 15-25-year-old range with peak physical reflexes, I don't see the appeal of this game.

    Having four fat friends who are not in the 15-25 range and no where near peak physical reflexes, I can tell you that criteria is not required. It's moreso that the competitors are on the same playing field.

    It's a fun inbetween games game.

    Avatar image for mosespippy
    mosespippy

    4751

    Forum Posts

    2163

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 8

    I mean, this whole game is "Reaction Time: The Video Game", so even if they had someone who could do the netcode for online multiplayer, I'm not sure they would've. Like, at least Dive Kick matches can potentially go 20 seconds because there is positioning and footsies to consider. Speakeasy kinda needs as little input as lag for what it's trying to do.

    Speakeasy is literally just "somebody makes the first move, and the other guy has to judge whether it's a real attack and they should block or it's a fakeout", so if you're not someone in the 15-25-year-old range with peak physical reflexes, I don't see the appeal of this game.

    No it can't. The timer in Divekick doesn't actually count down 1 tick per second, it's faster than that. The exception is the final tick, which actually is a second long. It's just a mind game to throw off the timing of your positioning in the tie breaker.

    Avatar image for bisonhero
    BisonHero

    12796

    Forum Posts

    625

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    @geraltitude said:

    @bisonhero said:

    Speakeasy is literally just "somebody makes the first move, and the other guy has to judge whether it's a real attack and they should block or it's a fakeout", so if you're not someone in the 15-25-year-old range with peak physical reflexes, I don't see the appeal of this game.

    Having four fat friends who are not in the 15-25 range and no where near peak physical reflexes, I can tell you that criteria is not required. It's moreso that the competitors are on the same playing field.

    It's a fun inbetween games game.

    Fair point. I guess to me, I don't see the appeal unless you pride yourself on your reaction time, which to me mostly brings to mind people who play a lot of fighting games at a reasonably high level. Or people who play Mario Party at a high level?

    Avatar image for geraltitude
    GERALTITUDE

    5991

    Forum Posts

    8980

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 17

    User Lists: 2

    Fair point. I guess to me, I don't see the appeal unless you pride yourself on your reaction time, which to me mostly brings to mind people who play a lot of fighting games at a reasonably high level. Or people who play Mario Party at a high level?

    This hurt my brain a lot! haha.

    Totally know what you mean though. And you're probably right in a sense. For me and my friends it definitely doesn't come across as a competitive game in the sense of how uh, "fair/balanced" it is. Just a little bit of controlled chaos and a little bit of poker in the sense of "Who will attack first?" and "Can I fool this fool?"

    I think if you are going to seriously play this game you are probably exactly the kind of person you described. Even in our small group the difference between Fighting Game Scrubs and Sub-Scrubs significantly impacted the outcomes of our matches.

    Would be an interesting game to see high level fighting game players get into, but even to me the depth is dubious at best.

    Avatar image for bisonhero
    BisonHero

    12796

    Forum Posts

    625

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    @geraltitude: Seriously though, every Mario Party has like 3-5 minigames that are just a reaction time test in some form or another. It's ridiculous.

    Avatar image for geraltitude
    GERALTITUDE

    5991

    Forum Posts

    8980

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 17

    User Lists: 2

    @geraltitude: Seriously though, every Mario Party has like 3-5 minigames that are just a reaction time test in some form or another. It's ridiculous.

    You mean those games where like a ghost holds up a sign with a button on it and then you have to press that button? I hate that shit. Doesn't help that so many of those games feel like the characters are dunked in molasses and the controller is communicating with them via carrier pigeon .

    Aren't Quick Time events basically the ultimate "here's a reaction test, do it" game crutch anyways?

    I started wondering to myself, what's the difference between "lame reaction time tests" and fun reaction time tests? For example, couldn't we reduce most games (say Skyrim and Dark Souls) to be reaction time tests (Block Before You Get Hit ; Hit When They Are Not Blocking)? There's clearly much more to them than that. But by the same token, an integral part of most video games is really just reaction time. Maybe the problem happens when the reaction time required is very specific, and the game is 1 dimensional in its challenges. I dunno, I'm just thinking aloud here.

    Avatar image for bisonhero
    BisonHero

    12796

    Forum Posts

    625

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    @geraltitude said:

    @bisonhero said:

    @geraltitude: Seriously though, every Mario Party has like 3-5 minigames that are just a reaction time test in some form or another. It's ridiculous.

    You mean those games where like a ghost holds up a sign with a button on it and then you have to press that button? I hate that shit. Doesn't help that so many of those games feel like the characters are dunked in molasses and the controller is communicating with them via carrier pigeon .

    Aren't Quick Time events basically the ultimate "here's a reaction test, do it" game crutch anyways?

    I started wondering to myself, what's the difference between "lame reaction time tests" and fun reaction time tests? For example, couldn't we reduce most games (say Skyrim and Dark Souls) to be reaction time tests (Block Before You Get Hit ; Hit When They Are Not Blocking)? There's clearly much more to them than that. But by the same token, an integral part of most video games is really just reaction time. Maybe the problem happens when the reaction time required is very specific, and the game is 1 dimensional in its challenges. I dunno, I'm just thinking aloud here.

    It's true, but I think if the quick button inputs are part of a greater set of game mechanics, it's not really a lame reaction time test. But in Mario Party or a QTE, where you are literally waiting for "A button" or "B button" to flash on screen and then you bash that button as quick as your brain can register it, you're not putting any thought into what the appropriate tactical response is to the situation, because the game is literally instructing you to hit a single button.

    Avatar image for geraltitude
    GERALTITUDE

    5991

    Forum Posts

    8980

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 17

    User Lists: 2

    @geraltitude said:

    @bisonhero said:

    @geraltitude: Seriously though, every Mario Party has like 3-5 minigames that are just a reaction time test in some form or another. It's ridiculous.

    You mean those games where like a ghost holds up a sign with a button on it and then you have to press that button? I hate that shit. Doesn't help that so many of those games feel like the characters are dunked in molasses and the controller is communicating with them via carrier pigeon .

    Aren't Quick Time events basically the ultimate "here's a reaction test, do it" game crutch anyways?

    I started wondering to myself, what's the difference between "lame reaction time tests" and fun reaction time tests? For example, couldn't we reduce most games (say Skyrim and Dark Souls) to be reaction time tests (Block Before You Get Hit ; Hit When They Are Not Blocking)? There's clearly much more to them than that. But by the same token, an integral part of most video games is really just reaction time. Maybe the problem happens when the reaction time required is very specific, and the game is 1 dimensional in its challenges. I dunno, I'm just thinking aloud here.

    It's true, but I think if the quick button inputs are part of a greater set of game mechanics, it's not really a lame reaction time test. But in Mario Party or a QTE, where you are literally waiting for "A button" or "B button" to flash on screen and then you bash that button as quick as your brain can register it, you're not putting any thought into what the appropriate tactical response is to the situation, because the game is literally instructing you to hit a single button.

    Yeah that makes sense - simple, but true. Hadn't thought to divide it like that. I could think about many games as having two elements: tactical and timing. The tactical end of Dark Souls is knowing what to do and deciding to do it, based on circumstance. Timing is the execution. I think as timing takes on a bigger and bigger role, I start to fall out from the game. A good example being fighting games. I love them to death but at some point Tactics and Timing are nearly equivalent, and I find myself wanting to do things I just can't pull of mechanically. First Person Shooters are a lesser, but similar situation for me. My physical timing simply cannot do what my brain tactics want to.

    Then there's Mario Party.

    lol, thanks. I feel a needless weight has been lifted from my brain.

    Avatar image for bisonhero
    BisonHero

    12796

    Forum Posts

    625

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    @bisonhero said:

    @geraltitude said:

    @bisonhero said:

    @geraltitude: Seriously though, every Mario Party has like 3-5 minigames that are just a reaction time test in some form or another. It's ridiculous.

    You mean those games where like a ghost holds up a sign with a button on it and then you have to press that button? I hate that shit. Doesn't help that so many of those games feel like the characters are dunked in molasses and the controller is communicating with them via carrier pigeon .

    Aren't Quick Time events basically the ultimate "here's a reaction test, do it" game crutch anyways?

    I started wondering to myself, what's the difference between "lame reaction time tests" and fun reaction time tests? For example, couldn't we reduce most games (say Skyrim and Dark Souls) to be reaction time tests (Block Before You Get Hit ; Hit When They Are Not Blocking)? There's clearly much more to them than that. But by the same token, an integral part of most video games is really just reaction time. Maybe the problem happens when the reaction time required is very specific, and the game is 1 dimensional in its challenges. I dunno, I'm just thinking aloud here.

    It's true, but I think if the quick button inputs are part of a greater set of game mechanics, it's not really a lame reaction time test. But in Mario Party or a QTE, where you are literally waiting for "A button" or "B button" to flash on screen and then you bash that button as quick as your brain can register it, you're not putting any thought into what the appropriate tactical response is to the situation, because the game is literally instructing you to hit a single button.

    Yeah that makes sense - simple, but true. Hadn't thought to divide it like that. I could think about many games as having two elements: tactical and timing. The tactical end of Dark Souls is knowing what to do and deciding to do it, based on circumstance. Timing is the execution. I think as timing takes on a bigger and bigger role, I start to fall out from the game. A good example being fighting games. I love them to death but at some point Tactics and Timing are nearly equivalent, and I find myself wanting to do things I just can't pull of mechanically. First Person Shooters are a lesser, but similar situation for me. My physical timing simply cannot do what my brain tactics want to.

    Then there's Mario Party.

    lol, thanks. I feel a needless weight has been lifted from my brain.

    I still wonder if there is a way to do a turn-based fighting game (with menus that include "light punch" "low kick" "edge forward") that would be any fun at all to play, or if taking out the timing and reaction time from the equation would make that a fundamentally not very fun concept.

    Avatar image for geraltitude
    GERALTITUDE

    5991

    Forum Posts

    8980

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 17

    User Lists: 2

    @geraltitude said:

    @bisonhero said:

    @geraltitude said:

    @bisonhero said:

    @geraltitude: Seriously though, every Mario Party has like 3-5 minigames that are just a reaction time test in some form or another. It's ridiculous.

    You mean those games where like a ghost holds up a sign with a button on it and then you have to press that button? I hate that shit. Doesn't help that so many of those games feel like the characters are dunked in molasses and the controller is communicating with them via carrier pigeon .

    Aren't Quick Time events basically the ultimate "here's a reaction test, do it" game crutch anyways?

    I started wondering to myself, what's the difference between "lame reaction time tests" and fun reaction time tests? For example, couldn't we reduce most games (say Skyrim and Dark Souls) to be reaction time tests (Block Before You Get Hit ; Hit When They Are Not Blocking)? There's clearly much more to them than that. But by the same token, an integral part of most video games is really just reaction time. Maybe the problem happens when the reaction time required is very specific, and the game is 1 dimensional in its challenges. I dunno, I'm just thinking aloud here.

    It's true, but I think if the quick button inputs are part of a greater set of game mechanics, it's not really a lame reaction time test. But in Mario Party or a QTE, where you are literally waiting for "A button" or "B button" to flash on screen and then you bash that button as quick as your brain can register it, you're not putting any thought into what the appropriate tactical response is to the situation, because the game is literally instructing you to hit a single button.

    Yeah that makes sense - simple, but true. Hadn't thought to divide it like that. I could think about many games as having two elements: tactical and timing. The tactical end of Dark Souls is knowing what to do and deciding to do it, based on circumstance. Timing is the execution. I think as timing takes on a bigger and bigger role, I start to fall out from the game. A good example being fighting games. I love them to death but at some point Tactics and Timing are nearly equivalent, and I find myself wanting to do things I just can't pull of mechanically. First Person Shooters are a lesser, but similar situation for me. My physical timing simply cannot do what my brain tactics want to.

    Then there's Mario Party.

    lol, thanks. I feel a needless weight has been lifted from my brain.

    I still wonder if there is a way to do a turn-based fighting game (with menus that include "light punch" "low kick" "edge forward") that would be any fun at all to play, or if taking out the timing and reaction time from the equation would make that a fundamentally not very fun concept.

    That's actually kind of awesome! I love tactics. You could imagine something points based working for something like that I think. You can move, attack and defend. Many varieties of each move. Each move costs points. Based on Character Speed for example a character has 5 Points/Turn. Moves could be combos, so some only lead in to and out of other moves. Once you introduce these "Exclusive Move Combos" I think there is a ton of potential for fun tactics. For example imagine a combo called "TIGER UPPERCUT". It costs 5 points to enter TIGER CHARGE. End Turn. Your opponent executes two PUNCH (2 pts each) and does damage while you are charging. End Turn. From your stance you can choose three attacks, you choose UPPERCUT (5 points), and hit your opponent. End Turn.

    By breaking a single move into multiple turns and also forcing some level of chaining into combos, you'd have to think ahead a lot and consider when you accept to take damage, defend, etc.

    Could be neat! Becomes like any good strategy game. Instead of second-to-second timing, it's about short and long term bets. Hell of mind game fuckery too! Different crowd than the fighting game folk for sure, but could be sweet.

    Avatar image for mosespippy
    mosespippy

    4751

    Forum Posts

    2163

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 4

    User Lists: 8

    #15  Edited By mosespippy

    @bisonhero: Isn't Toribash essentially a turn based fighting game? You animate your own moves at like .05 seconds per turn, bending each joint and rotating limb part to form some sort of action. Once each player has done their fraction of a second of moves then you move onto the next fraction of a second until the game determines a winner based on the force of each hit landed. Normally it's the one who still has their head or hasn't fallen over.

    Avatar image for bisonhero
    BisonHero

    12796

    Forum Posts

    625

    Wiki Points

    0

    Followers

    Reviews: 1

    User Lists: 2

    @mosespippy: I mean, Toribash is kinda that, but it's also QWOP, which is a little much. I'd be interested to see someone apply that to a more standard Street Fighter type of game.

    This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

    Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

    Comment and Save

    Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.