Treasure

[Ganelon]

As for the current argument, I can empathize with both sides. Kurt is just trying to provide some background on what the modern gamer should expect. After all, if you know all about these games, you'll just skim these articles and nod in remembrance. But for these new folks who've been spoiled with (arguably pointless) achievements/unlockables/awards, they'll find themselves lost in the DIY style of play where there are no direct milestones to reach. So the warning is fine.

On the other hand, I can empathize with Recap, since it almost seems an insult to the game itself to provide a warning to fools who don't know what they're getting into. After all, the game's developers intended on this style of play and its target audience appreciates the game allowing them to spend full capacity on achieving a high score or 1CC without any extraneous effects to be locked up with. Ultimately, the game has done its job and the player should expect this set of specific genre circumstances when he first lays eyes on the game.

So ultimately, it's ironic: even in an age where game worlds have become more and more all-expansive, player objectives are shrunk to the point where they must be constantly patted on the back to know that they're still on the right path towards the goal. Stick them in a zoo with the exit just ahead and the side paths covered by leave,s and rather than push through the leaves to explore the rich underbelly of the zoo, they'd just walk straight to the exit and claim the zoo was a bore.

Anyway, I like the status quo; in time, this attitude towards "playing the games as games" may dwindle to obscurity and that statement will remind people that the port, which may seem lazy at that time for not using unlockables, was once respected by its fans for offering a sense of uninhibited free will to play.

[recap]

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...

Of course we're talking about "games in general". Traditional arcade games and derivatives, that is. Can't see how's relevant the type of action involved for a discussion on "credit-feeding".

You can play Gradius or R-Type for score if you wanted to, but it's not really the crux of the experience.

That's just because YOU decided so. Much like it was YOU the one who decided that Cave games' one and only "crux of the experience" is scoring. You could be playing them exactly with the same motivation and reward you played R-Type or Gradius -- for survival and to see the ending. Got it now?

Stop the dogma-style lines about this subject, fella. For your own good.

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.

Newsflash: Arcade-type games with checkpoint systems aren't designed for "credit-feeding" either. You have been playing them unproperly all this time. And "the boundaries" have always been perfectly defined -- they put there a thing called "credit", which happens to imply a predetermined number of lives or "HP". If they wanted you to make use of unlimited (or more than one) credit(s), they'd simply have featured unlimited lives or say, 36 lives per play, with no credit system at all. Only the uneducated or the dumbass could be missing that. Serious business.

Tha way Ikaruga and others adopt is the silliest workaround ever invented to mask the continue issue. What's the fucking point of forcing you to use less credits when you're still bad at the game and letting you use more and more as you supposedly get better. The time-based unlocking system is indeed nonsense by definition; I thought it was quite obvious.

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.

'Cept that your premise is wrong, I'm afraid. Saving some very particular cases like Guilty Gear X series, home ports aren't released for "practicing" at all. Firstly because they usually get released too late for that; the arcade versions are no longer available at ordinary game centers. Secondly, because the ports are so different, unaccurate, that actual practice becomes impossible.

Learn that too.

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.)

I think I need you to explain to me both -- what the hell does what you wrote there supposedly mean (starting with "structure", if you care) and what has it to do with what you're quoting (that the focus of a Cave game could very well be "survival" much like in R-Type, that is).

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?

My answer? "Stop reading shitty interweb sites and forums. Generally, most games considered "MONSTROUSLY difficult" by the usual interweb clown are possible to be finished with one credit. TRY IT before thinking you're not skilled enough. Skill usually goes along with experience. And don't fool yourself; don't think about the ending more than about the next stage you're still to see". Either that or "stick to Grand Theft Auto and Wii Fit".

And yeah; the parallel was indeed quite "vague".

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.

See above.

I don't agree with the infinite continues breaking the games. It's possible to set your own limit and not abuse them.

The player shouldn't be "setting the limits" -- he's not the game designer after all. That's why I can't agree there. "Limits", on the other hand, have always been quite well set, as I said; it's called "credit".

[Discoalucard]

Ugh what a waste of time.

My points are, as iterated over and over:

-Games developed for the arcade environment don't do well in the console environment without SOME kind of balance.

-Games with scoring mechanics integrated into the game are better than ones that don't.

The latter is a matter of preference. The former is an incontrovertible fact.

Please take your elitist attitude, ad hominem attacks and poorly rationalized arguments elsewhere. They aren't appreciated here.

[recap]

Jun 27, 2008 7:03:40 GMT -5 Discoalucard said:

poorly rationalized arguments

Laughs!

[sixfortyfive]

Jun 27, 2008 4:13:32 GMT -5 Blake Casimir said:

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.

Now that is just crazy talk.

[Deleted]

Recap, this is worthless. Really, re-read what you're saying. Now I may be missing the point (if there even is one), but the way I see it, you perceive games to be a measure of skill. Now there's nothing wrong with a valid opinion, but you're invalidating other opinions and dismissing the skills of gamers who don't want to be bothered with pressures forced by the uber-elite. Really, I think this is the fact of the matter here:

Jun 26, 2008 19:17:28 GMT -5 recap said:

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.

The problem is ours. Seriously. That's how you see it if gamers cannot complete a task that's honestly incredibly difficult for any type of shmup, be they designated for the arcade or console? And how is it such a problem that most gamers cannot complete most shmups in one credit? Now one time, I beat Gradius IV on one credit, and it felt good, but the practice I underwent to finally do that was aggravating. I looked back on it, and I recognized that I mostly did it out of boredom and a lack of work to do.

That's the thing: Gamers play games for whatever reasons they want to, not because there's any "right" way to play. Is it really any great penalty in the long run if we can't finish a shmup without continuing, modern or classic? Are we unworthy as gamers if we finish it by using a few credits? If so, in whose eyes are we unworthy? Some great deity above that judges us based solely on how we view and play games? Or... just you?

Now if you honestly think you're making some sort of argument here that actually matters, then by all means, continue this tirade. I see no need myself, but then again, that's just MY OPINION.

[recap]

Jun 27, 2008 8:55:45 GMT -5 sotenga said:

I may be missing the point.

Bingo. But don't worry; you're not alone. Nobody said here "it's a great penalty in the long run if you can't finish a shmup (?) without continuing". I myself only did that with Giga Wing, as far as I remember. What I said though is that it's a great penalty if you do finish a shooting game with continuing. Not to mention that if, in addition, you believe you're doing it properly and diminish it for "being too short" and having "lazy design".

So yeah; "re-read what I'm saying", fella.

[Deleted]

I've played more than half of Treasure's library, and safe to say, I think they're all awesome games. Believe it or not, Mischief Makers was the very first of theirs I've enjoyed, and I thought it was wildly awesome. Once I got a Genesis (a privilege I missed out on during my childhood, sadly), Gunstar Heroes was one of the first three games I got for the thing. It was sheer awesome from there on out.

[DojoCasino]

Jun 27, 2008 6:07:11 GMT -5 recap said:

My answer? "Stop reading shitty interweb sites and forums. Generally, most games considered "MONSTROUSLY difficult" by the usual interweb clown are possible to be finished with one credit. TRY IT before thinking you're not skilled enough. Skill usually goes along with experience. And don't fool yourself; don't think about the ending more than about the next stage you're still to see". Either that or "stick to Grand Theft Auto and Wii Fit".

No one said that cave games are impossible to beat on one credit. It just requires a lot of time and patience. Personally, I find playing the same levels over and over again trying to perfect them rather dull, hence why I do not like modern shoot em ups in general, cause they pretty much expect you to do that. However, I know some people love that kind of thing, and good for them I guess. But that group of people is relatively small, and we could really do with more shmups that aren't aimed at that particular group.

You can't honestly be suggesting that modern shoot em ups aren't hard. That's rediculous.

[vysethebold]

He's not saying that modern shmups aren't hard, he's saying that you're a baby for giving up. And for some reason he thinks that if you don't like the game, then you've given up and therefore are a baby. Basically, if you give up at difficult things that only he and like 200 other people in the world like and you become a loser and you shouldn't talk about it because losers are wrong. Only people who like it know what they're talking about. While you are a loser you shouldn't complain about it and accept your fate as a loser. And you only like GTAIV if you are a loser. No one cool likes that game because weak people are not gamers. Not one single person who likes shmups like GTAIV. In fact, they had no idea it came out. They had special filters put on their browsers to block out all of the letters G, T, A, I, and V and F,H,B,J,U, and W just in case.

Look, dude, we all know your stance on shmups and all you do is come to these forums to rant about how we don't see shmups the same way you do. It seems like you only read our articles here to get mad and start an argument about how we don't get things. You fail to see that we also think you are the one who doesn't get it. So why bother to read our articles in the first place if you know that we feel this way?

Perhaps you like the fight or the sound of your own voice. Perhaps you think you are running a crusade to help the powerless little noobs that would otherwise become shmup gods, but we soiled your favorite game's image so they won't even try. Whatever, get over yourself and stop treating games like they are perfect just because they were released that way. Hell, all games have imperfections and I'm not talking about sloppy ports here. I mean every game that was released as it was intended is inherently imperfect simply because of taste, preference, point of view, experience with the game, age of the game, the fact the humans created it, etc.

Please, you can say your opinions all you want and start a discussion about how you feel, but do not pass your opinions off as facts. You seem to have trouble differentiating which things you say are facts and opinions. Perhaps you live in an isolated shmup chamber (aka forum) and fail to notice that a consented opinion there has grown as a fact in your mind.

And, lastly, if you are going express your opinion, be nice about it. All you're doing here is turning off people that might agree with you but don't want to be involved with the atmosphere you've created.

[Smithee]

So this has been an ongoing problem? I'm fairly new, so I don't know the whole history.

[onoff456]

Hey Kurt nice work there! I liked how you segwayed your way from Astro Boy to that obscure Tiny Toons game. Brilliant! That's the kind of stuff that makes most HG101 articles a great read. About Sin & Punishment:

It only gets more complicated from there. The shoulder buttons will make your character jump, which are really only used for a handful of sections with pits. You can also counter most enemy projectiles with your sword by highlighting an enemy with your crosshairs, waiting until the projectile is about to hit, then press Z to reflect it back.

In my experience with the game (played on a real N64) I was repeatedly hitting the Z button on my N64 pad almost constantly (specially during the latter stages). It was an easy way to pull blocks. When I discovered this technique I tried to perfectly block everything with a single Z hit, but eventually found it was way easier to just hit Z like mad.

The Classic Controller makes it a bit easier to control, and the enhanced resolution makes this the definitive version of the game.

The game's moves didn't map well to the N64 controller. I remember getting hand cramps from my repeated Z turbo pressings. The shoulder buttons also felt sort of awkward and in the game's context the controls does take some getting used to. I don't know about the Wii having the "definite version" but overall I do agree the N64 controls were not the best for this game. I guess you meant as a whole (not just controls) and also because this will probably be the only port this game will ever see.

[Smithee]

It's one of the few games I would recommend playing through emulation. One reason is that you can creatively map the controls however you wish, but also because there are so many different pads to choose from you can find the one just right. Plus it's free, and I don't have a Wii.

[Warchief Onyx]

Jun 27, 2008 23:46:48 GMT -5 Smithee said:

So this has been an ongoing problem? I'm fairly new, so I don't know the whole history.

Recap is a holier-than-thou asshole whose only contributions to these forums and this site is to occasionally come out of his troll cave to tell us just how much better he is than the rest of us.

It's honestly just best to ignore him. He has his head stuck way too far up his ass to have any sort of meaningful dialog or argument with him.

Also, GTAIV > your favorite shmup. Oh, I went there.

[Smithee]

Oh shit, you definitely did go there! That's gotta hurt.

This article has me pumped to preorder Bleach Second (although I can't remember the english subtitle). The game just looks good on so many levels, especially single cart multiplayer.