Muchi Muchi Spork wrote:
Hmm nope, that's a load of crap. Raiden was my favorite game period for a while, when it came out it blew me away. And Raiden 2 was a worthy sequel, though not particularly groundbreaking. Raiden 3 is a steaming pile of shit. It's hard to think back of a time I've been more disappointed in a game. I have no opinion of 4. I will give it a chance when I can, but I won't buy a console to do it. I don't know anything about Moss, if they have any x-Seibu staff or whatnot, but my god Raiden 3 is so infinitely boring. I cannot imagine it holding your attention past the first boss, what a piece of shit "game". Absolutely terrible.
Raiden IV is an improvement on Raiden III in virtually every imaginable way. It is the opposite of III: fast, challenging, frenetic.
it's pretty clear that neither of you have actually played any of the games listed in your life. you have to be insane to think that raiden iii is particularly different from previous games.
point 1: it's a little easier, and it doesn't loop normally... that's it. the game is still fundamentally the same; same pacing, same types of enemies and patterns, same everything.
point 2: the original raiden itself is the antithesis of groundbreaking. it's nothing more than a toaplan clone, and not one that can be said to be "better". it's a fun game, but a total ripoff.
there is no magical quality that somehow makes iii worse, and there is no place for "innovation" in any discussion about raiden. raiden iii is considered the low point of the series through sheer randomness/lying, and raiden is considered to be groundbreaking because people magically forgot about all those toaplan games when it hit the floors (read: sheer randomness/lying).(raiden fighters exists anyway simply because it can, never mind that it was never meant to be a raiden game to begin with)