Thanks a lot for your ceaseless enthusiasm and work, Nifty!
Herr Schatten wrote:
I must say that this is a surprisingly well-rounded list, probably one of the best we ever had when it comes to representing different facets of the genre.
Almost one third of the games are from Cave, modern games are disproportionally represented considering their quantity, some prestigious developers such as Capcom or Namco are not even close to having a single game in either the top 25 or the HM, several platforms are completely out of the picture... You might like the results as they are, but stating that the list is well-rounded - in a "statistical" manner, as it were - is just wrong. It's extremely lopsided and everyone knows it.
I will say that I'm glad for the increase in Touhou games: I don't know anything about them but it always struck me as weird that they, too, were almost not present at all. That is indeed one step in the right direction.
maybe because they're disproportionally less garbage
...accept that people love their cave/raizing/whatever is popular/.. games
I believe there's a bit of a misunderstanding here: I'm not arguing whether or not there should be that many Cave games or what have you on the list. My reply was geared towards Herr Schatten's statement that the list is "well-rounded" and represents "different facets of the genre" which is objectively questionable. You can say that the list contains those games that are important for the genre, or those games that are best-suited for the list, or flat-out the best games. But considering the imbalanced tendency, you cannot really say this list is a good representation of the entire genre. That would be like creating a canon of literature where 90% of the books on it are from the 20th century and onwards.
You have to put in numerical perspective, however.
How many Cave games are there in total? 25 or so? 18 of those made it either into the top 25 or the HM. That's significantly more than half of the output of this one developer.
Compare that to a few other examples:
- There are well above 100 games pre-1984. You know, those fixed verticals and embryonic games. 0 of those are on either list.
- There are well above 100 games on 8-bit consoles. 0 of those are on either list.
- Between the PCE, MD and SFC (with all the add-ons), there are some 200 games. 1 of those made it on the HM.
- I don't even know how many classic games there are for all sorts of computers. If you add all of them together you'd certainly end up with a few hundred I'd imagine. 1 of those made it on the HM.
- There are innumerable phalanges of arcade shmups from '84 to, say, '94 or '95. A handful of those made it on the top 25 and the HM.
- Several developers with a respectable quantity of games are not represented anywhere.
To reiterate my point from the last post: I'm not saying there's any necessity to include each and all of these items or even one of them. I personally don't care about ancient single-screen shooters, Amiga shmups or developers such as Dooyong, either. And I also have no problem accepting that most people here deem Cave's efforts to be particularly worthwhile games that deserve high rankings on the list. However, I find it odd to postulate that there's an inherent balance to that list when several hundreds of games have not a single ambassador or one at the absolute best while the vast majority of Cave titles is somewhere to be found. Seems like a curious definition of "well-rounded". It's simply a fact that particular types of games are overrepresented while others are underrepresented. Whether or not that's a good thing is a completely different question altogether.
It is a well rounded list because overall quality is being considered.
We could have equal outrage that thousands of indie and doujin games from '00 to today are being ignored. But if a reason for ignoring them quickly comes to mind, apply it to the 100s of games you bulletpointed above.
It's cool you can find charm in the vast library of old stuff. But I'm not sure you recognize charm comes from enjoying one or two traits of forgotten games. Namco's Galaga has one neat gimmick in an otherwise very lacking game. Capcom's Eco Fighters has great art, but has little worth doing after playing once or even watching a longplay. Capcom and Namco have successful STGs, but they are not prestigious STG developers. You need to assess games in their whole packages; other qualities you have to consider such as: pattern design, tight control, balanced hitbox, enemy placement, interesting stage backgrounds, game-feel, single enemy phases, catchy themes, target variety, boss memorability, artistic design, bullet art, rallyable characters, scoring systems, restart syndrome, noteworthy artistic landmarks, powerup structure, depth of tools, difficulty balancing, cutting the fat, the feeling of always having something to do amidst replaying something you have seen before. Most games in the entire library of STGs feel more like proto-shmups than finalized works. I could eliminate most of the overall industry library from top 25 consideration by observing a player ship's large hitbox, forcing slow stage designs to minutes of largely bland and pedestrian strings of simple, direct enemy attacks.
Finding the good in so many things does not mean the STGs consistently voted do not have better overall mechanics, art, and sound packages.
So few players on the form vote because I believe this to be more carefully considered than you predict.
Thank you Nifty for hardest work.