|
Post by Smithee on Sept 12, 2009 15:54:36 GMT -5
This is where your opinion became entirely irrelevant. I'd have to disagree, seeing as I was speaking as a general rule.
|
|
|
Post by Justinzero on Sept 12, 2009 16:37:02 GMT -5
As for Raizing/8ing shooters the one to try out is Soukyugurentai but since you don't have a saturn it seems from your list you probably won't get a chance to play it. It was released on Playstation too.
|
|
|
Post by Warchief Onyx on Sept 12, 2009 17:01:57 GMT -5
This is where your opinion became entirely irrelevant. I'd have to disagree, seeing as I was speaking as a general rule. Considering you've never seen The Godfather and know nothing about it or its sequels, my statement stands. You're just talking completely out of your ass here, as you usually do.
|
|
|
Post by retr0gamer on Sept 12, 2009 18:13:01 GMT -5
retro: Although you may have a valid point in including something like Ikaruga on a list of games that are important to a certain genre (I really honestly don't know, since I've never played Ikaruga), it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be on a list of "My Favorite Games". Using your example of The Godfather, although I would definitely say that I respect it for what it did and still does, if I were to write a list of favorite movies, I'm afraid it wouldn't be on there. Why? Again, not because I don't respect it, but because I really just don't like it. I forget what Kitten said about Ikaruga in her stuff, but she may indeed be able to respect the game, but it doesn't mean she LIKES the game. Respect and like are two totally different words. You took me up wrong there. I repect that you don't like it and thatyou wouldn't include it in a top 100. It's just that calling it a bullethell shooter is wrong I believe since once you understand the mechanics it really isn't a bullet hell shooter. I was just saying that so people who don't like bullet hell shooters aren't put off by how it looks.
|
|
|
Post by ryochan on Sept 12, 2009 18:35:28 GMT -5
You took me up wrong there. I repect that you don't like it and thatyou wouldn't include it in a top 100. It's just that calling it a bullethell shooter is wrong I believe since once you understand the mechanics it really isn't a bullet hell shooter. I was just saying that so people who don't like bullet hell shooters aren't put off by how it looks. Okay, now I follow. You're correcting the sub-genre it's in then. Sadly, I know very VERY little about SHMUPs.
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Sept 12, 2009 20:55:55 GMT -5
Concerning Ikaruga, maybe it's the best shooter ever if you like red tape and haven't played very many, but those who have better taste probably won't like it so much. For starters-- and this is its smallest offense-- it's worse compared to Radiant Silvergun! RS has three colors to chain, six interchangeable weapons on the fly (not including the awesome sword), myriad level combinations, secret bosses and strategies; colorful, readable design and a slick soundtrack by Sakimoto. Now, people argue that "Ikaruga cut the fat. It's more elegant and focused; simple but deep." Blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but it's just simplistic period. Radiant Silvergun and Ikaruga share the same "best path" design (which I dislike), but Ikaruga drives that further, limiting creativity and flexibility. Score and survival are entirely disconnected-- going for a high score simply makes your numbers increase while countless others reward the player in other ways as well (see every single Cave game, Mars Matrix, every pre-danmaku shooter every conceived, etc.). Play for survival and you get a nice letter C at the end of the level slapping you on the wrist for not doing it right. In Ikaruga, it's better to flawlessly play through the first level and lose all your lives on the second than it is to play through the whole game just trying to survive... and that is just. fucked. up. There is a massive amount of disparity between survival and score which it makes for a boring, frustrating, elementary game. The critics love it, obviously because they have no idea what the hell a shooter is and are uncultured in the genre. Ikaruga is not a bad game for people who are generally disinterested in shooters, but it is a poor game for people who have already played a hundred of them. So, I tip my hat to Ikaruga for being quite possibly the one shooter which distinguishes itself from the genre more than any other, but it's still sucks. At best, it's a turd that deserves a little blue ribbon.
|
|
|
Post by Sturat on Sept 12, 2009 21:09:33 GMT -5
Ikaruga drives that further, limiting creativity and flexibility. Score and survival are entirely disconnected-- going for a high score simply makes your numbers increase while countless others reward the player in other ways as well (see every single Cave game, Mars Matrix, every pre-danmaku shooter every conceived, etc.). There is a massive amount of disparity between survival and score which it makes for a boring, frustrating, elementary game. Yes! Yes! Exactly! Also, whether I'm playing for score or survival, I get depressed thinking that the enemies would be doing the exact same thing regardless of whether I was there.
|
|
|
Post by sunwoo on Sept 12, 2009 21:13:19 GMT -5
I played a hundred of games in the genre and Ikaruga is still one of my all time favorites. Also, all that stuff about scores and survival...maybe i'm just crazy, but when i play a shmup i never, maybe rarely, care about the scores at all. I enjoy the ride, plain and simple. Also, i found a bit silly to criticize Ikaruga for being accesible or something that appeals to the "mainstream". Sure, it's a genre that attracts mostly hardcore fans and what not, but a it's core any programmer wants to have their game played by as many people as possible. Judge the game, not the fanbase.
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Sept 12, 2009 21:52:54 GMT -5
Also, all that stuff about scores and survival...maybe i'm just crazy, but when i play a shmup i never, maybe rarely, care about the scores at all. I enjoy the ride, plain and simple. You are crazy ;D. Really, though, score is a massive part of shooters-- entire games built around it. I used to not care about score either, and I of course enjoyed a lot of the shooters I played. However, in order to criticize a shooter or claiming it MUST be included on a "best of list" without understanding the significance of score and how it relates to the entire structure of a shooter is, indeed, pretty nuts. Also, I have no clue where you got the idea I said the game was accessible or I talked about its fanbase. I directly compared it to Radiant Silvergun and then relegated one measly sentence to illustrate the mainstream critics' failure to understand the genre when giving Ikaruga high marks. The mainstream critics being those who do not play shooters... thus people who don't really play shmups seriously tend to immensely enjoy Ikaruga because, as you say, they're just in it for the ride and do not notice the problems it suffers from. Similarly, Final Fantasy is my favorite RPG series. Any RPG aficionado's head would explode at the thought of Final Fantasy being the greatest series compared to all the other RPGs out there. But for me, I just enjoy the ride when I play RPGs. I don't care about backstories or character relations or any of that junk. I don't bother to plan out and build specific kinds of characters or anything, because it just feels like work. I realize I'm missing a big chunk of the enjoyment so I hardly ever criticize RPGs; I just don't have the interest or passion others have for the genre to knowledgeably critique one. I still like RPGs somewhat, I have fun when I play them, but I still don't "get" them like many do.
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Sept 12, 2009 22:27:43 GMT -5
Justin pretty much summed my opinion of Ikaruga up (perhaps even better than I could have). I do like some of Ikaruga's music, though, but I find the presentation a bit pretentious.
|
|
|
Post by sunwoo on Sept 13, 2009 0:25:22 GMT -5
Also, all that stuff about scores and survival...maybe i'm just crazy, but when i play a shmup i never, maybe rarely, care about the scores at all. I enjoy the ride, plain and simple. You are crazy ;D. Really, though, score is a massive part of shooters-- entire games built around it. I used to not care about score either, and I of course enjoyed a lot of the shooters I played. However, in order to criticize a shooter or claiming it MUST be included on a "best of list" without understanding the significance of score and how it relates to the entire structure of a shooter is, indeed, pretty nuts. is that so? Not only is that new to me, it sounds hardly like "the ultimate" criteria to judge a shmup. Sure, scores can show you how much you improved in the game, it can unlock special features, among other things. Unless we are talking about a shooter were the only way to progress is by getting an specific score, and even so that would hardly apply to other shooters out there. As nice as a big score can be at the end seems to be mainly for ego-stroke exercises with fellow game aficionados. Your criticism of "mainstream" media giving high marks to the game gives a strong sense that, because the game did well with them, it makes it somehow like a superficial/tailor made product released just to please them. Another stadistic falacy/generalization that you seem to be throwing here is that "serious" shooter fans don't care about Ikaruga, which is obviously not true. The game has plenty of fans, shooter fans. In other words, what seems to be a "problem" for you and others is not a problem in the game per se, something that keeps it for working properly, is just something that you don't happen to like. If you want to ellaborate more about this feel free to do so, i just can't see myself judging a shooter by such a trivial thing. Well, we do seem to agree with the core idea i'm aiming here. Everyone enjoys something in different ways. The same stuff you don't care about in an RPG others salivate and enjoy greatly. Just in the same way others don't care about scores in a shmup. That doesn't mean that one group is getting "less" of the game, just a different experience. Justin pretty much summed my opinion of Ikaruga up (perhaps even better than I could have). I do like some of Ikaruga's music, though, but I find the presentation a bit pretentious. Pretentious would be, at least for me, something that tries too hard to do something, and fails to delivers whatever it was trying to do. In that sense, Ikaruga would be the last game i would fit in that description. Maybe i'm just getting old, but a game that is fun and creative all at the same time is "pretentious"? To each of it's own indeed.
|
|
|
Post by justjustin on Sept 13, 2009 1:08:22 GMT -5
That doesn't mean that one group is getting "less" of the game, just a different experience. It seems to me this kind of thought is the basis of all your previous statements in your post, and is precisely what I am arguing against. People who do not play for score in score-built shooters are not playing the entire game. It's not a different experience, it's less of an experience; ignoring an entire facet of the game because one is disinterested. No matter how much they love the game, they're less knowledgeable than the person who does play for score. I don't do all the sidequest, skill builds and read every sidestory about an RPG. Therefore I am playing less of the game, I know less about it, and I like it less than the person who does all the above. I don't do sidequests because to me they're a waste of time and boring. People don't play for score in shooters because it seems pointless and they're already having fun anyway. I want every human being who plays video games to understand that people who play for score in shooters do so because it is self-fulfilling, they love the game and it's FUN. It's not work, or some sort of wankfest, or right to troll message boards or some shit-- those activities have nothing to do with the game. Just as the person who does every godawful sidequest in an RPG do so because they like the game, not because they want to work or brag on the internet. Both examples are done out of dedication and appreciation. I argue that Ikaruga is often not liked by people who enjoy shooters because it's a special case. It's obviously a shooter made by a team of people who have different ideas on what a shooter should be. Treasure's only previous one was Radiant Silvergun and that was quite different from the rest, too. Playing the entire game (not just for survival) allows one to discriminate what makes them unique. By playing the whole game I see Ikaruga's faults that many do not see when they only play half the game, which accounts for all the high scores from professional media critics. A quote like "Our frothing demand for the game increases" (courtesy IGN) reflects a lack of understanding and shows disinterest. I argue that the only people who love Ikaruga either don't play shooters seriously, or play them all the same. It's absolutely possible for people to love R-Type and Ikaruga without their brain melting because of some logical conflict-- I never said otherwise. But I think someone who does enjoy both like them for other reasons; ones that don't adhere entirely to how each shooter is specifically played. Just as someone who thinks all classical music sounds the same, or all video games are violent, those who think Ikaruga fits in line with all the other shooters or dare to think it improves upon anything previously made simply haven't had a full experience with the genre they liken it too.
|
|
|
Post by sunwoo on Sept 13, 2009 2:30:04 GMT -5
That doesn't mean that one group is getting "less" of the game, just a different experience. It seems to me this kind of thought is the basis of all your previous statements in your post, and is precisely what I am arguing against. People who do not play for score in score-built shooters are not playing the entire game. It's not a different experience, it's less of an experience; ignoring an entire facet of the game because one is disinterested. No matter how much they love the game, they're less knowledgeable than the person who does play for score. I don't do all the sidequest, skill builds and read every sidestory about an RPG. Therefore I am playing less of the game, I know less about it, and I like it less than the person who does all the above. I don't do sidequests because to me they're a waste of time and boring. People don't play for score in shooters because it seems pointless and they're already having fun anyway. But things like sidequests in an RPG have an specific purpose, a specific reward in-game. They either give you a special weapon, or let you know more about the story. A score in a shooter that doesn't really affect anything regarding the gameplay, extras or anything in the game has no other purpose besides showing the range of your skils, or heck, just how much stuff you blow. As you said yourself, is self-fulfilling. Someone skiping a side-quest in an rpg is certainly missing a part of the game, someone playing a shooter and not caring about the score is not missing any segment of said game at all. Hey, that's perfectly cool and good. No argument there. Sorry to say this but, that's a seriously pedantic, snobish and close-minded attitude. Nobody is actually enjoying a shooter unless they're playing using an specific mind-set? Once more, if you enjoy the genre in a certain way that's perfectly ok, but saying that others who don't follow the same shooter-101-guide are not in the club is just silly. I have met Ikaruga fans who play lots of shooters too, just because they don't fit on the profile your'e setting doesn't mean that they don't exist. If you think the're having "less" fun than you that's ok, but that sure is a high horse you're riding there. Also, seems that any shooter that dares to think outside this frame is doing things wrong. Which just limits the things you can do in the genre. Just like saying that every RPG must have turn-based battles, because otherwise is not really a "serious" rpg. I see where are you coming from, but i just can't sympathize with this view at all. Of course, someone who knows how to chain in Ikaruga is clearly a more skilled player than someone who just blasts everything equal, but that doesn't mean that one is having more "fun" than the other. Also, taking a game so "seriously" doesn't sound like my kind of fun, then again, everyone has their own definition of fun, and that's the point i've been trying to make so far. Very well, let's agree to disagree then, because otherwise we'll keep going on circles with this.
|
|
|
Post by Dais on Sept 13, 2009 2:48:08 GMT -5
timeron boss is the best shooter
|
|
|
Post by Bobinator on Sept 13, 2009 3:08:50 GMT -5
Wild Guns: Impressive translation of arcade-style to console, but there are already others like it on the arcade and are much more fun. Yeah, hold up. Tell me about these so called better games, I love Wild Guns! Good list, Dual. although one thing I'd argue with is your thing about Melee. I'm one of the very few people who enjoyed the Adventure mode in Brawl, and I can't tell why people hate it so much. I didn't even like the Adventure mode in Melee, because after the Zelda levels, it quit with the platforming levels and just turned into normal fights for the rest of the mode.
|
|