|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 26, 2008 12:15:36 GMT -5
Hey Fletch, you speak of a Japanese PSN title. Is there a way to acquire that on a US PS3? I know the physical games are region free, so I'm also wondering about the virtual games. recap: I in no way support credit feeding, but if a game is impossible to beat on one credit, and the only way you legitemately beat it is to use one credit what's the use? I want a game that pays with it's story, or intensity or just pure enlightenment in one way or another after beating it. I'll use a Cave game as an example (which seems contradictory): At the beginning of Esprade as the main guy with the shorts, when you jump off the building and fly it feels good. Then you reach the second level and are obliterated. That's when I realised I didn't like the game. So really, if I can beat a game on one credit I will but only if I love the game, and have played the game enough to actually feel satisfaction. Entering a game with the idea of dying over and over again is next to pointless for me. |
|
recap
Full Member
Posts: 134
|
Post by recap on Jun 26, 2008 12:56:56 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be highlighting exactly what's wrong with shump design today, or more specifically with Japanese shump design. Rather then try and change up the mechanics to make them more accessible to modern audience most new shumps have been increasingly designed for the hardcore faithful. So to you, what determines good game design is how "accessible to modern audience (that which makes stuff like Wiifit or Grand Theft Auto the top sellers)" the mechanics are. ... ... Oh, well. Anyhow, you somehow got a point. I'm indeed "highlighting what's wrong with shump (?) design today" -- the continue feature. But it's nothing of a "today" thingie and not part of the actual game "design", as I pointed, so. Entering a game with the idea of dying over and over again is next to pointless for me. "Modern audience", right? |
|
|
|
Post by sixfortyfive on Jun 26, 2008 15:36:40 GMT -5
Wait, Rakugaki Showtime was actually re-released?
Isn't this big news? I thought it and Mischief Makers were doomed to be confined in legal limbo forever due to some kind of falling out between Enix and Treasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 26, 2008 16:37:18 GMT -5
"Modern shooters" are exactly like "old shooters" regarding "rewards" -- they have a determined number of stages and an ending you can only reach if you're good enough. Yeah that's not entirely true, although it depends on how you define "old shooter". Most games pre-1985 were played for score, but around then came not only R-Type and Gradius, but home consoles like the NES. R-Type and Gradius are not played for score, but for survival - to win. This is the type of mechanics that translate well to home consoles, because you cannot credit feed through them - you learn to do better to see the ending, or you fail. Scoring mechanics, however, don't. It's no big deal if you've invested a quarter into a game, but very few people will plunk $50+ on a short game that emphasizes score. "Modern" shooters are alienating because (A) they assume you're playing in an arcade environment, and thus credit feeding means you're out several 100 yen coins, or (B) they are played for score. If you're playing at home, and you're not the competitive type, then it barely gives you any incentive to get better. The games themselves are not designed for home consoles, and suffer for it. This is why Radiant Silvergun is a much better compromise, as detailed before. I agree with Sixfortyfive that some of the scoring mechanics are annoying in an arcade setting, but it's very specifically designed for a console experience, which very few developers seem to acknowledge. This is why I call Cave (and similar ports) lazy. I fully understand how arcade games work. "Not understanding" and "not liking" are two completely different things. Please read up on the difference! |
|
|
|
Post by necromaniac on Jun 26, 2008 17:07:38 GMT -5
And speaking of the anti credit feeders mentality. Every one of those superplay hotshots (the real ones, not the save state abusers) tell you to spam the hell out of it! It's how they practice; you learn quicker by feeding to see what's ahead of you than constantly dying and starting over.
|
|
recap
Full Member
Posts: 134
|
Post by recap on Jun 26, 2008 19:17:28 GMT -5
Yeah that's not entirely true, although it depends on how you define "old shooter". Most games pre-1985 were played for score, but around then came not only R-Type and Gradius, but home consoles like the NES. R-Type and Gradius are not played for score, but for survival - to win. Man, how far do your misconceptions reach? Firstly, way before Gradius itself, there already were many arcade / action games with a determined number of stages and a clear ending. Secondly, what exactly makes you state once and again that nonsense about R-Type and Gradius not intended "to be played for score"? So let me ask just a simple question here -- if say, Layer Section, Ikaruga or Espgaluda (home versions) didn't have a continue feature, would they be better "home console" games? So "home consoles" are not made for "competitive-type" games, just for movie-wannabe "games", how could I be missing that... Read: Pure "Modern Audience" Shit, no offense. Anyway, you failed to get my point despite how clear I made it. "Scoring mechanics", saving some very exceptional cases like Radiant Silvergun, are an ADDENDUM. Before that, you should be "playing for survival". ANY "modern shooter" puts there a challenge for you -- "finish me without ever using more than one credit per play". If you fail to get that, the problem is YOURS, especially if you are not a newbie to video-games. Yeah. "Read up". Laughs. |
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 26, 2008 19:39:42 GMT -5
Man, how far do your misconceptions reach? Firstly, way before Gradius itself, there already were many arcade / action games with a determined number of stages and a clear ending. Secondly, what exactly makes you state once and again that nonsense about R-Type and Gradius not intended "to be played for score"? Except we're not talking about games in general, we're talking very specifically about these types of shoot-em-ups. Technically I guess even Scramble qualifies though, I guess...You can play Gradius or R-Type for score if you wanted to, but it's not really the crux of the experience. Not necessarily - if they offered a checkpoint system, upon dying or running out of lives, that'd be much preferable, yes. Even giving you limited continues is better than nothing. The way Ikaruga (and other G.Rev games like Border Down and Under Defeat) is also pretty good - start off with limited credits, and add more as you play. A game needs to define its boundaries in some manner. Games with infinite credits and immediate respawns is like putting the game in God Mode, just suggesting that you don't use it. How well would this work in Cave games, which aren't really balanced towards checkpoint systems? I have no idea - perhaps not terribly well, I'd imagine. I'm almost entirely sure of the reason - these are all released in Japan, where they assume the gamers would have access to the actual arcade machines, and are just getting the home version either to practice, or unwillingness to go the arcade. Outside of the country, it's removed from that context, and it doesn't feel right. No, I totally understand - at no point was I even refuting that. (You seem to like straw men very much, BTW.) Playing for a score is a nice incentive and definitely adds depth, but in games like these, it shouldn't be the focus. As someone else mentioned, playing for score generally lends itself better to games without much structure. (See: most classic arcade games.) The problem with one crediting games, these in particular - again, as someone else brought up in the thread - is that they're MONSTROUSLY difficult. You're either a super expert, or you fail, and there's no inbetween. To use a vague parallel, it's the difference between beating the original Castlevania, and beating it without getting hit. Just getting to the end even with unlimited continues is tough. Getting a perfect run is something only a hugely devoted expert can do, and is really far too demanding for those without Aspergers. To reiterate - you have a $60 shooter you can theoretically credit feed through. It's way too tough to even think about one crediting, and you don't like playing for score. What then? On the other hand, when you have a game that starts off with limited credits, but gives you extra chances as you go along, along with a scoring system that's relevant to more than just your self esteem, then that's a triumph. Which was precisely my point with Radiant Silvergun. |
|
|
|
Post by ahnslaught on Jun 26, 2008 19:40:10 GMT -5
Anyway, you failed to get my point despite how clear I made it. "Scoring mechanics", saving some very exceptional cases like Radiant Silvergun, are an ADDENDUM. Before that, you should be "playing for survival". ANY "modern shooter" puts there a challenge for you -- "finish me without ever using more than one credit per play". If you fail to get that, the problem is YOURS, especially if you are not a newbie to video-games. Geez, lighten up, first of all. I don't think anyone here's out to offend you or your tastes, but you're taking it out on others like they are. I think the point's been well made by a lot of people, though, that while you yourself may enjoy the one credit clear challenge of shooters, it may be a style of game that's not appealing to a lot of people out there. In fact, I can't even believe that this is an argument nowadays. There is literally an entire generation of people who have never had to deal with these types of games (very short, very repetitive, and impossibly difficult), and to them, playing it with any serious goal of beating it will be as painful as doing homework. You may hate "modern" conventions or whatever, but the fact of the matter is that that's what's popular and making the money, as seen by the success of stuff like CoD4, GTA4, etc, which reward you for every little thing, and is designed for you to get through it and experience the game. Contrast that to the large unavailability of even new shooters like Shiki 3 on Wii, for example, as an indication of how successful that genre may be to the general public. And as for good game design, again, it may be great for an arcade game, but like discoalucard said, it's for a different environment - one that's designed to take your money over and over again, where you're there for an hour or two, and spend a bit of money. Not like the home at all where you can sit in front of the TV all day. And yeah, when it's converted to home consoles, stuff like infinite continues does sour the experience because it makes it too tempting to rush through. Again, I don't think anything posted here was a personal attack on you, man. Calm down - it's just someone's opinion; you don't have to make snarky responses just because you don't agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 26, 2008 19:50:41 GMT -5
And as for good game design, again, it may be great for an arcade game, but like discoalucard said, it's for a different environment - one that's designed to take your money over and over again, where you're there for an hour or two, and spend a bit of money. Well, I wouldn't say that exactly. These games in particular are very tough, and perhaps unfair, but can potentially be beaten by an expert - they don't solely exist just to pummel you for more change. What it does add is a lot of tension, because if you die, that's another coin you need to spend to continue. That's totally lost when you can just hit the start button to pick up where you left off. In the home version, you can technically turn off continues and get the same tension from having to start the game from scratch...but then you have to start the game from scratch, going back to the game just being tremendously difficult. I actually really love playing Cave shooters in the arcade. Too bad that's impossible here in the States.  It's just Recap, business as usual. |
|
|
|
Post by Discoalucard on Jun 26, 2008 20:48:23 GMT -5
Back on topic.. There's also another strange change between the US and JPN version though. On Black's board their one square where you fight the Gel boss in the bathroom. I remember seeing a screen shot where the poster in the background says "man of men" or something weird like that, but is absent in the Us version. Unfortunately, I can't find a screen shot that affirms that and my copy of the game is nowhere near me, so I can only offer my shaky recollections as proof. I have a shot of the Japanese version in the article, but wasn't sure of the difference. I checked it out, and The Japanese one says "Man of the Men's" while the English one says "Man Among Men". I'll give it another shot. I didn't write this particular one and barely spent any time with it to be honest, but if there's anything else worth mentioning like above, I'll add it in. Thanks! EDIT: I see the Dynamite Headdy bit on Wikipedia about the Japanese version, but I think that's incorrect. Here's the NA one from VG Museum:  Now here's the same shot from the Japanese version, courtesy of this web site nitta.u-me.jp/nanido/headdy/headdy.index.html Looks the same to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jun 26, 2008 22:38:06 GMT -5
Let me say it.
You, Recap, are exactly why I don't like the mentality. You just bash everyone who doesn't play your way, or knows something you don't. If you can beat a game on one credit, so be it and kudos to you, but for the most part I don't give a damn whether or not I can.
[And I'll admit Superplays can be REALLY cool.]
ON TOPIC: Is it worth getting Bleach DS now, or should I be waiting 'til the sequel's released in America?
|
|
|
|
Post by Haz on Jun 26, 2008 23:01:25 GMT -5
Wait until Dark Souls gets released (on 8/26.) Mucho better game.
Has more characters, existing ones are rebalanced, the story mode's actually fun, online's been improved (by a fucking longshot), and a bunch of other improvements that make it the ultimate fighting game on a handheld console.
|
|
Blake Casimir
Full Member
Space meditations from Alpha Centauri.
Posts: 105
|
Post by Blake Casimir on Jun 27, 2008 4:13:32 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be highlighting exactly what's wrong with shump design today, or more specifically with Japanese shump design. Rather then try and change up the mechanics to make them more accessible to modern audience most new shumps have been increasingly designed for the hardcore faithful. Possibly, however I simply think it's down to lazy design. Every shmup I see nowadays has no level design. It's just flying over pretty backdrops, shooting enemies. There is no LEVEL DESIGN. Only "enemy patterns". Some may enjoy this. Some may find this simplicity to be enough for them. And please don't get me wrong - I won't disagree with the basic idea, especially if the raw gameplay is good - but what happened to flying through tight corridors? The inner depths of gigantic space stations, weaving through oh-so-tight walls to reach the inevitable core boss and kicking its ass? Flying across planets, avoiding volcanos / trees / icy peaks etc etc etc Yes, I am a Thunder Force fan. Does it show?  I'm not particularly fond of Ikaruga. Nor Radiant Silvergun. As shmups go, they're utterly solid to play but both a little too punishing for casual play. However, they both have EXCELLENT level design, especially Ikaruga. Contending with the opposing colours is fun, but doing so whilst having to dodge walls makes it that much more interesting. I'm simplifying to put the point across. Cave shooters bore me senseless because there's none of that. Anyway, all the Treasure articles are totally excellent. I'm glad to be able to show my friends that there IS some good critical gaming writeups out there and 90% comes from HG101. These new articles only further prove the point. I am a little disappointed to see Sin & Punishment's astonishing soundtrack get tossed off the way it does in the article. It's a short ST, however nearly every track is synth-game-rock jamming par excellence. Some great, memorable synth-guitar solos: Toshiya Yamanaba must have used a MIDI guitar setup to compose them... otherwise  |
|
|
|
Post by vgninja on Jun 27, 2008 4:29:11 GMT -5
Every shmup I see nowadays has no level design. It's just flying over pretty backdrops, shooting enemies. There is no LEVEL DESIGN. Only "enemy patterns". Most vertical shmups have always been about enemy patterns, even back in the 80s. It's not lazy design. The good ones are focused on well placed enemies and bullets. I don't agree with the infinite continues breaking the games. It's possible to set your own limit and not abuse them. Abusing them often removes the fun of the games and allows you to beat the game without learning the mechanics. Using continues is not the same as lives. The challenge should be based on the difficulty of the game, IMO, not how hard the game is with credit feeding. I feel it's off putting how games that are well balanced and are hard in a good way are often called "impossible" around here. People aren't insane just because they play for score or can play a game well. |
|
|
|
Post by Ganelon on Jun 27, 2008 5:40:02 GMT -5
Cave shooters bore me senseless because there's none of that. Guwange and Deathsmiles have obstacles that affect your movement. But otherwise, yes, that's a legitimate complaint about modern shooters and how background obstacles no longer play a role in most modern shooters. That said, I'm also a Thunder Force fan (well, III-V) and although Cave shooters feel a bit artificial to me because of the lack of obstacles, I still find them quite enjoyable (though still not as much as the methodical memory-based shooters of bygone years). |
|
