Is it fair to rate old shmups with a modern casual mindset?

[fireflame]

Nowadays shmups are a niche, very niche genre.I tend to read reviews of old games, and old shmups are often rated with a modern mindset.Is it wrong to do so, to view old games with modern standards?

Basically we have all seen reviews mentioning the "grueling difficuty" of "an old days" game&, which will lead to a Star Soldier game getting a 6/10 on Gamespot for example.
Is it fair or not? I am myself amateur at shmups and ofte feel frustrated by shmups. I try and get better though it is not always easy.Whenever an old gae gets a re-release, this questions gets back on topic(some contra games were poorly rated when they were released on 360).
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/super- ... 0-6163533/

[MathU]

I prefer not to even give these kinds of reviews the credibility of "modern standards". The real distinction is between "hack reviewers" and players actually familiar with arcade game design principles. Professional game reviewers from the big publications (which essentially function as game access for clicks) spend large chunks of their time consuming modern games like movies. They get their early access to a game and try to munch through the content as fast as possible in order to get a review out. In the process, it's as if experiencing the content was the actual point of playing a game. How many times have you seen this before: in the process of reviewing an RPG, someone manages to conflate "extra content" with replayability?

The focus on content is so powerful that many reviewers can't even conceive of the idea of playing the same game over again. Content munching may be the whole point for cinematic AAA experiences, but those are weak games. In a game with "arcade" design principles (really, it's anything deriving from the traditional conception of a game), the point is to test one's skill for the purposes of entertainment. Many reviewers spend so much of their regular time dealing with content munchers that the idea of mastery over mechanics being the entire point of a game is completely alien to them.

[jedinat]

I think it's only honest/fair to rate things with your current mindset. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

[ShotOfSelf]

With some genres this makes sense but I don't see how Raiden, Galaga, R-Type, etc. could be improved with 'quality of life' changes that modern 'game journalists' appreciate in RPG's and 1st/3rd person shooters. How the hell do you review a shmup with a modern mindset anyway? Compare DonPachi's length to Dad of War? I agree with Mathu, to hell with those fake reviewers!

Another thing I've seen a lot on forums are problems with games being outdated, shmups being too short, fixed camera angles/tank controls in Resident Evil, turn-based combat in RPGs. But people love these games precisely because of that 'outdated' design and they can't understand it was intentional. One of my favorite quotes, from Shigeru Yokoyama:

—Finally, I have one more question: Galaga was developed on hardware with certain limitations. Were there things you wanted to add, if the hardware had had more power?

Yokoyama: In this particular game, no, there is nothing I would add.

—It sounds like you achieved all you wanted.

Yokoyama: With Galaga, I can say “this is perfect.” I feel the same way about Pac-Man.

My advice to you is only seek out user reviews on this forum and wherever else you can find them. Modern reviewers are not gamers and they barely play or finish their software assignments, just like the modern gaming community. I haven't read or watched a professional review in over a decade because there aren't any.

[40wattstudio]

My advice to you is only seek out user reviews on this forum and wherever else you can find them. Modern reviewers are not gamers and they barely play or finish their software assignments, just like the modern gaming community. I haven't read or watched a professional review in over a decade because there aren't any.

Well said!

[To Far Away Times]

Yes, you have to take modern times into context. You can't ignore what you know now. But that being said not everything should appeal to everyone.

I could easily slam something like Assassin's Creed for being largely automated and nearly impossible to lose. It just isn't targeted at someone like me who wants to overcome a challenge or go deep into the mechanics. Doesn't make it bad though.

[XtraSmiley]

No, if you're in the US or in the EU this is actually illegal and you are not allowed to do so.

Japan and Asian countries have very strict laws as well, but I'm not familiar enough to comment on them.

Seriously, wherever you are, please check the local laws, I don't want see anyone in trouble.

[heli]

You can rate all C64 bad.

[MJR]

You can rate all C64 bad.

OI!
C64 games may not had had the gameplay of their japanese counterparts, but they had originality and atmosphere unlike anything else since.

[Gamer707b]

Short answer is no. Like cars, computers etc. everything improves with time. Games were made with a lot of limitations back in the day. Now, developer have gobbles of power at their disposal and some still cant make a decent game. With that said, many retro games, including non shmups are timeless and still great to play today.

[WarpedByTheNHK]

Short answer is no. Like cars, computers etc. everything improves with time. Games were made with a lot of limitations back in the day. Now, developer have gobbles of power at their disposal and some still cant make a decent game. With that said, many retro games, including non shmups are timeless and still great to play today.

If you think older shmups are worse than more modern shmups because of the limitations they had back then, what is so bad about saying so? Standards may have been different back then, but I am still not going to rate Space Megaforce as well as I would a more modern game like ZeroRanger that actually has a functioning scoring system.

However, this doesn't change the fact that no big modern reviewer really understands arcade games anymore, so everyone should still ignore shmup reviews from the likes of IGN and Gamespot.

[Gamer707b]

Short answer is no. Like cars, computers etc. everything improves with time. Games were made with a lot of limitations back in the day. Now, developer have gobbles of power at their disposal and some still cant make a decent game. With that said, many retro games, including non shmups are timeless and still great to play today.

If you think older shmups are worse than more modern shmups because of the limitations they had back then, what is so bad about saying so? Standards may have been different back then, but I am still not going to rate Space Megaforce as well as I would a more modern game like ZeroRanger that actually has a functioning scoring system.

However, this doesn't change the fact that no big modern reviewer really understands arcade games anymore, so everyone should still ignore shmup reviews from the likes of IGN and Gamespot.

I think in the 16 bit days, they couldn't obviously do a bullet hell and have made it even remotely playable. So, in that sense you can say games weren't as good as they are now. BUT, for my money, I tend to enjoy classics like Space Megaforce, thunder Force 4, Axelay and so on. Not just with shmups, but games in general have become too complex for my liking in recent years. Love the simple pick up and play charm to the classics .So limitations to technology doesn't always make it "worse" or "better" for me. Give me Mario World , Zelda a Link To The Past, Darius Gaiden and I will take them over most new games any day. I know these aren't all shmups but Im making a point. So , some games are timeless and will be fun till the end of time. So back to the shmup topic, no I don't think old shmups are worse because of limitations. Just depends on the game.

You are right on modern day big reviewers. they really have no appreciation or understanding of arcade gaming and have no business reviewing such games.

[WarpedByTheNHK]

I

Short answer is no. Like cars, computers etc. everything improves with time. Games were made with a lot of limitations back in the day. Now, developer have gobbles of power at their disposal and some still cant make a decent game. With that said, many retro games, including non shmups are timeless and still great to play today.

If you think older shmups are worse than more modern shmups because of the limitations they had back then, what is so bad about saying so? Standards may have been different back then, but I am still not going to rate Space Megaforce as well as I would a more modern game like ZeroRanger that actually has a functioning scoring system.

However, this doesn't change the fact that no big modern reviewer really understands arcade games anymore, so everyone should still ignore shmup reviews from the likes of IGN and Gamespot.

I think in the 16 bit days, they couldn't obviously do a bullet hell and have made it even remotely playable. So, in that sense you can say games weren't as good as they are now. BUT, for my money, I tend to enjoy classics like Space Megaforce, thunder Force 4, Axelay and so on. Not just with shmups, but games in general have become too complex for my liking in recent years. Love the simple pick up and play charm to the classics .So limitations to technology doesn't always make it "worse" or "better" for me. Give me Mario World , Zelda a Link To The Past, Darius Gaiden and I will take them over most new games any day. I know these aren't all shmups but Im making a point. So , some games are timeless and will be fun till the end of time. So back to the shmup topic, no I don't think old shmups are worse because of limitations. Just depends on the game.

You are right on modern day big reviewers. they really have no appreciation or understanding of arcade gaming and have no business reviewing such games.

It seems I misunderstood what you were trying to say in your last post. You said that everything improves over time, so I thought you were including shmups. Why did you say "short answer is no" then? Why is it unfair to rate old shmups by modern standards if they are just as good in your opinion?

[FRO]

I think it's only honest/fair to rate things with your current mindset. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

Will have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I think it's impossible to exclude a current mindset, because tastes change over time, and we become used to quality of life features/improvements, etc. However, if you don't look at a game's objective qualities, as well as look at what it compared to at the time, it's hard to see past that. Gradius was groundbreaking for its time, and is still widely enjoyed by many today. If you looked at it only through a 2020 lens, you may miss out on how innovative it was, or what it did to advance the genre. This is just one example, but there are many games that would be looked upon very unfavorably, if not viewed through the lens of their time. Some of those games deserve scrutiny, because they're not very good, but others are still worth playing.

[WarpedByTheNHK]

I think it's only honest/fair to rate things with your current mindset. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

Will have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I think it's impossible to exclude a current mindset, because tastes change over time, and we become used to quality of life features/improvements, etc. However, if you don't look at a game's objective qualities, as well as look at what it compared to at the time, it's hard to see past that. Gradius was groundbreaking for its time, and is still widely enjoyed by many today. If you looked at it only through a 2020 lens, you may miss out on how innovative it was, or what it did to advance the genre. This is just one example, but there are many games that would be looked upon very unfavorably, if not viewed through the lens of their time. Some of those games deserve scrutiny, because they're not very good, but others are still worth playing.

While it is definitely good to try to appreciate the ways that Gradius advanced the genre, I find that it is impossible to force myself to enjoy it more just by knowing the historical context. While it is true that most of the games from the time period had similar flaws, that doesn't change the fact that losing all power and being sent back to a checkpoint upon death, having to fight the big core over and over, and the lack of an interesting scoring system all make the game less fun to play than many of the shmups that came later.

[Gamer707b]

It is not unfair to rate old shmups. you can if you want to. They were made with a different idea than the later shmups which were more focused on scoring.But, personally , I love to play a game like Thunder Force 4 and say to myself "wow, they were able to do this on a Genesis?' That's impressive to me more so than if I just say "yeah it was good then but sucks now". I tend to appreciate amazing feats on old tech. Like, how were they able to program a almost perfect arcade port of ghouls n Ghosts on a Genesis? But yea , as I said you can compare the old with the new. Just with me , they're apples and oranges.

[FRO]

I think it's only honest/fair to rate things with your current mindset. Otherwise you're just making shit up.

Will have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I think it's impossible to exclude a current mindset, because tastes change over time, and we become used to quality of life features/improvements, etc. However, if you don't look at a game's objective qualities, as well as look at what it compared to at the time, it's hard to see past that. Gradius was groundbreaking for its time, and is still widely enjoyed by many today. If you looked at it only through a 2020 lens, you may miss out on how innovative it was, or what it did to advance the genre. This is just one example, but there are many games that would be looked upon very unfavorably, if not viewed through the lens of their time. Some of those games deserve scrutiny, because they're not very good, but others are still worth playing.

While it is definitely good to try to appreciate the ways that Gradius advanced the genre, I find that it is impossible to force myself to enjoy it more just by knowing the historical context. While it is true that most of the games from the time period had similar flaws, that doesn't change the fact that losing all power and being sent back to a checkpoint upon death, having to fight the big core over and over, and the lack of an interesting scoring system all make the game less fun to play than many of the shmups that came later.

I'm not saying anyone has to enjoy old shmups now, though I think there's still plenty of enjoyment to be had in many of them. That's why I explore a different game each month, and go back and forth between older and newer shmups. That said, my point was, if you look at old games strictly through a modern lens, you miss out on what made them special or unique in their day, and may discount them, when they have importance for the genre, and may have influenced the quality of life kinds of things we take for granted now.

[MathU]

the fact that losing all power and being sent back to a checkpoint upon death, having to fight the big core over and over, and the lack of an interesting scoring system all make the game less fun to play than many of the shmups that came later.

Checkpoint recovery is one of the most exciting things in Gradius games. There really isn't anything else like the tension of solving the "puzzle" of recovery with only a limited number of chances. Games without checkpoints can't have that. Your Big Core criticism is fair, but not everything needs a convoluted scoring system. All it took for Gradius Rebirth to make score play really interesting was adding a point bonus for looping the power meter and setting up lots of situations for milking enemy spawners.

I do believe in such a thing as comparatively, objectively superior game experiences where you don't need to give free passes to old stuff just for being old. I never play Space Invaders or Galaxian when I have Galaga and Space Invaders Extreme, nor Centipede when I have Millipede. But you have to be careful comparing aspects of similar games in a vacuum. A game experience is more than the sum of its parts, it is a self-contained test of skill and all the rules and limitations and level design have to work together for that test of skill to be interesting and satisfying. Your ship in the original Darius doesn't need to rain down a torrent of death like in Darius Gaiden because enemies can't take much abuse and the major test of skill in the first game is precision shooting. Both games contain very different tests of skill that are interesting in their own right. Metal Slug 4 introduced this wonderful innovation of a dedicated vehicle-autodestruct button. Finally, players could stop blowing their tanks up by accidentally pressing the jump and shoot buttons at the same time. Because the level design is complete balls, however, it still relegates it to the worst in the series because the test of skill in Metal Slug 4 is completely infuriating.

[WarpedByTheNHK]

stuff.

Checkpoint recovery is one of the most exciting things in Gradius games. There really isn't anything else like the tension of solving the "puzzle" of recovery with only a limited number of chances. Games without checkpoints can't have that. Your Big Core criticism is fair, but not everything needs a convoluted scoring system. All it took for Gradius Rebirth to make score play really interesting was adding a point bonus for looping the power meter and setting up lots of situations for milking enemy spawners.

I do believe in such a thing as comparatively, objectively superior game experiences where you don't need to give free passes to old stuff just for being old. I never play Space Invaders or Galaxian when I have Galaga and Space Invaders Extreme, nor Centipede when I have Millipede. But you have to be careful comparing aspects of similar games in a vacuum. A game experience is more than the sum of its parts, it is a self-contained test of skill and all the rules and limitations and level design have to work together for that test of skill to be interesting and satisfying. Your ship in the original Darius doesn't need to rain down a torrent of death like in Darius Gaiden because enemies can't take much abuse and the major test of skill in the first game is precision shooting. Both games contain very different tests of skill that are interesting in their own right. Metal Slug 4 introduced this wonderful innovation of a dedicated vehicle-autodestruct button. Finally, players could stop blowing their tanks up by accidentally pressing the jump and shoot buttons at the same time. Because the level design is complete balls, however, it still relegates it to the worst in the series because the test of skill in Metal Slug 4 is completely infuriating.

Checkpoint recovery could be done well in theory, but I feel like Gradius 1 handles it poorly. Recovering from death at certain points is so hard that it is legitimately easier to just get consistent enough that you never die in the first place. When a game is almost as easy to 1 life clear as it is to 1 credit clear, it is a bit of an issue. I might have been a little silly with my score complaint though, since some games can be plenty fun just to survive in. I do think the very best shmups tend to have an interesting scoring system though.

I will say though that my previous post wasn't really intended to be about Gradius specifically. What I was really trying to say is that if a game has a flaw that makes it less fun to play, then thinking back on the original context isn't going to change that. I don't know exactly why I thought listing the specific flaws I find Gradius to have would help me make my point.

[Despatche]

What is a "modern casual mindset"? What do people even look for in this genre anymore? I doubt it's the usual "big explosions" stereotype.

In fact, what even is "modern gaming"? It has no solid definition, not really. There are stereotypes you can list, sure, but that's exactly the thing: there are multiple possible answers, not just one.

By the way, we need to stop framing an actual sense of replayability as "the arcade mindset". Weird framing like that is a large part of why people see this as "outdated".

I think in the 16 bit days, they couldn't obviously do a bullet hell and have made it even remotely playable.

The hardware CAVE used for their earlier games was not very different from the hardware used for later Toaplan games, and there were various comparable/better platforms in the early '90s. It's just the idea of bullet hell as we know it wasn't really a thing back then.

Checkpoint recovery could be done well in theory, but I feel like Gradius 1 handles it poorly. Recovering from death at certain points is so hard that it is legitimately easier to just get consistent enough that you never die in the first place.

This is funny to read because the first Gradius is one of the games where recovery is actually fair.

[WarpedByTheNHK]

This is funny to read because the first Gradius is one of the games where recovery is actually fair.

The only reason I specified Gradius 1 is because it is the only Gradius game I have played. While it is fair in the sense that a skilled player can recover from any point, it is also true that for a player who isn't skilled enough to have cleared it yet often won't recover if they die at certain points. In other words, I found a 1 life clear of the game to only be slightly harder than a 1 credit clear, and to me this demonstrates that the game punishes single mistakes too harshly.

[Despatche]

Don't ever play Gradius II, III, certain Parodius games, or IV then.

[WarpedByTheNHK]

Don't ever play Gradius II, III, certain Parodius games, or IV then.

Despite all my issues with it, Gradius was still a lot of fun so I have no doubt I will eventually play and enjoy at least some of those games

[Elixir]

Reviews are just meant to give you a gist of the game, not bombard people with info. To be honest I'm fairly certain people who read reviews on mainstream websites have no idea who the reviewer is, nor care if the reviewer is qualified to review the game. All gamers know how to do is google the name of a game, look at pretty picture, look for number, buy game, and press button.

OP's complaint of people being dismissive of games via reviewing reminds me of that absolutely atrocious hot take of Ketsui from 2002 on Insert Credit, where some guy claimed the game was "an easier DDP" for "casuals" and it's a "love letter" or "homage" or "tribute" or "paying respects to" the "days when shmups were great, in the 90's". That was 2002. Not everything is a reference, games can be treated as standalone products. Unless the game has fundamentally not aged well in some way, I think it's common sense to review ports of older games acknowledging the timeframe and limitations they had when they were originally released.

[ShotOfSelf]

That review is so infuriating I sent Brandon some hate mail. Please remove the link before anyone else is affected.

[WelshMegalodon]

Not just with shmups, but games in general have become too complex for my liking in recent years. Love the simple pick up and play charm to the classics .

Waiting a century for your C64 to load from tape and drawing squares on graph paper because in-game maps weren't a thing were pretty pick up and play, all right. I love having to look up what reagents I need to acquire and mix before I can cast any of the 26 spells in Ultima IV. Wizardry VII's 11 playable races 14 unique character classes truly epitomized charming simplicity in the retro days of 1992. Who could forget the golden days when all you had to do was edit config.sys and autoexec.bat to free up enough memory before some games even ran on your 386?

[davyK]

With shmups it's important to remember that the real difference isn't old and new. It's the fact that the genre is still very much embedded in its arcade roots. Even the most modern sophisticated examples are basically arcade games.

So modern gamers, who have no idea what a real arcade is like, simply don't get the joys of 1CC-ing, high scores, joystick control, scoring secrets etc. I still do not know how scoring tricks for arcade games got about in the 80s - but they did. It was part of the arcade culture.

To try and compare a 2D shooter to the prevalent narrative-led "won and done" style of game is invalid. And that's what happens because most modern gamers have been weaned on that type of thing. So having to - for example - repeat sections until you perfect them - will feel "old" to many.

Videogaming is now made up of a broad spectrum of content - and mainstream reviewing is simply not sophisticated enough to either recognise that or do anything about it. There's enough niche reviewing going on to the point where I don't care about mainstream any more.

I don't consider myself as a videogame player any more in the modern sense. What's left of high street videogame shopping is totally irrelevant to me. Walking into a videogame shop nowadays is a deeply depressing prospect - with the emphasis permanently on the latest release and the next one coming down the pipe. They have failed and deserve to do so.

I'm guessing a lot of people here don't remember 80s arcades. Being younger doesn't mean you won't get to enjoy a shmup. Lots of young gamers of discerning tastes around. Not surprised by that but very glad of that.

I remain amused by reviewers who think that a modern shooting game (or even 90s games - something like Garegga or DDP) is something that could have been done on a Megadrive.

[null1024]

Ultimately, newer stuff you've experienced is going to shape your opinion. The phrase that "a game has aged" basically deals with this fact.
Sometimes though, it's not that something is mechanically awkward or that newer games did something better or whatever, it's that there's a whole difference in design philosophy.
Looking at a game that was designed around testing the players skill in the same light as a game intended as an experience to be had doesn't really work.
Think about the difference between playing Crazy Taxi vs playing GTA.
Being really pick-up-and-play is one of the things that got me into shmups, and I often really can't be arsed to muck about for ages in a more "modern" game.

As an aside, professional game reviewers are basically useless. You can consistently get better information from random people on the internet -- people who generally can put more time into a game for their opinion, people who are actually interested in whatever kind of game they're playing, people who are just more skilled at playing, people who generally aren't getting paid to promote certain games above all [and certain styles of game to sell what's new and happening -- anyone remember the big push in media against 2D gaming when 3D games were making it big?].

[WelshMegalodon]

That's the great thing about video game magazines and sites these days, you don't necessarily have to be good at video games to get a position.

Or write well or, really, anything.

[BrainΦΠΦTemple]

gamespot reviews tiny ham sandwich:

you can eat it, and it is quite tasty, but it is also very small. sOme size adjustments wOuld have been nice, but if you are a veteran of sandwich appreciation whO wants a meal on the go, this sMall ham sandwich should scratCh taHt itch.

Pros:
- it is a tiny sandwich made out of ham

Cons:
- it is small

5.9/10