Stuart Campbell's GOTY is Raiden III

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:58 pm

Actually I was referering to Turrican II. Super Turrican 1, 2, or Super Contra III, can't even touch it.

Even Contra III? Now there's a point I'm sure many would be willing to argue.

Dandy J · Post by **Dandy J** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:37 pm

Honestly I never understood why all of you hate this game, other than that fact that it adds nothing new. I mean you were more receptive towards Trizeal, and this game is at least less boring than that game.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:45 pm

That's true. They should put that quote on the PAL box.

Kiken · Post by **Kiken** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:51 pm

Dandy J wrote:Honestly I never understood why all of you hate this game, other than that fact that it adds nothing new. I mean you were more receptive towards Trizeal, and this game is at least less boring than that game.

Trizeal doesn't move at the speed of wood.

ccovell · Post by **ccovell** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:51 pm

Randorama wrote:I wonder how people can take seriously the so called "game journalists". Especially when they're scrubs. I would add some witty comments, but i don't think they're really necessary. Oh, and please note, technically i'm a game journalist as well.

The thing that I liked about Stuart's writing when I came across his site just a few weeks ago was specifically his stance on the role of games journalists, and how some of them in the early 90s despicably became tools of the publishers, promising gushing reviews in exchange for an exclusive. THEN his lamentations as more and more games magazines (in the UK, at least) either adopted the gushing style or went under for keeping reviews honest (and possible scores truly between 0% and 100%.)

So, his comments on the games industry were much more entertaining (yet painful) than his simple games reviews. The black-and-white opinionatedness (and threats of violence to programmers

) I could do without reading, but he does seem indeed like an old fart (like I'm becoming) lamenting the infantile state of the industry today. Plus, reading his past articles is like seeing a document of how the industry changed.

Er, um... Star Parodier is great!

Post by **Icarus** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:22 pm

You guys actually READ games reviews?! o_O
And I thought people bought magazines for the pretty pictures. ^_-

dai jou bu · Post by **dai jou bu** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 3:40 pm

I didn't know Sensible Software made Cannon Fodder (hey, I was naive backe then). This fact alone makes Stuart instantly win as a game journalsit.

Although Cannon Fodder was ridiculously hard, and the AI squads you told to hold positon killed themselves occasionally when you let them hold grenades or rockets, but it was still fun.

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:38 pm

Infuriatingly random on occasion, but great fun.

landshark · Post by **landshark** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 4:59 pm

Icarus wrote:You guys actually READ games reviews?! o_O
And I thought people bought magazines for the pretty pictures. ^_-

Don't worry Icarus. I still buy magazines for pretty pictures.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:01 pm

Rob wrote:That's true. They should put that quote on the PAL box.

I can't wait to pick up a copy and see the praise slathered all over the cover.

"At least less boring than that game!"

"Our frothing lust for this game magnifies exponentially with production values! 12.5 out of 10!" ~IGN

Post by **Icarus** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:16 pm

landshark wrote:
Icarus wrote:You guys actually READ games reviews?! o_O
And I thought people bought magazines for the pretty pictures. ^_-
Don't worry Icarus. I still buy magazines for pretty pictures.

On a more serious note, I've never really trusted the words of the gaming press. If I was rich enough to buy every game the media recommended to me, I'd end up with a large pile of dross that had no resale worth and no replay worth. Not to say that all reviews/reviewers are bad, but when big corporations and lots of money are involved, opinions can get twisted.

Nothing beats word of mouth from trusted sources, and my own personal opinion after trying the game.

And yes, I do buy the magazines for the pretty pictures, too. ^_- (Mmmm... Zelda Twilight Princess...)

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:23 pm

As far as magazines go, Edge and Hardcore Gamer Monthly some of the only ones on the magazine racks right now that I'd say are woth a regular purchase (though you can access most of Hardcore Gamer Monthly online for free from their site).

Not so strangely I guess, Nintendo Power completely reformatted itself the month Killer 7 came out. It's surprisingly good now, and I never thought I'd say Nintendo Power give sixes and fives to GBA RPGs, major licensed GBA stuff, Nintendo published GC games, etc. The preview stuff is mostly fluff but they have these really well thought out features on Twilight Princess where they interview the music composer and each of the other designers in a series of five page articles. Most of the opening preview stuff is still fluff but they put some actual sales numbers in there too and the major improvement to the review section is what really matters to me in a game magazine anyway.

Worth flipping through next time you're at the book store or whatever, compare it to Nintendo "Pokémon Monthly" Power from a few years ago

It's all about Game Informer though for the super blatant instances of a mediocre game having like ten ads in a single issue and then getting a nine in the reviews. Almost tops the two instances EGM sold their cover to Microsoft to make it a foldout ad for Halo and later Halo 2 instead of just featuring the games on the cover normally.

LoneSage · Post by **LoneSage** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:33 pm

Stuart sounds like he likes bad, obscure games just for the sake of being hardcore.

And that, my friends, is being a tool.

Post by **system11** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 9:30 pm

Unfortunately I can't recall what it was specifically, but Stuart sticks in my mind as being a gimp for some reason. I suppose it's good that he wants to tell people a shmup is good, can't argue with the selection either - I found Raiden III to be a great change from the Cave and Psikyo deluge. Rob - feel free to create a video showing you moving left to right all the time and surviving. Not going to help much when you're smacked in the side.

Oh, and every time I see people saying Edge is a good magazine, it makes me feel sad inside. Innaccurate and biased reporting and reviewing. You can really see those advertising dollars at work.

Side note: bought a mag called '360' yesterday. It's a genuinely good read, shocking!

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:13 pm

bloodflowers wrote:Rob - feel free to create a video showing you moving left to right all the time and surviving. Not going to help much when you're smacked in the side.

But the strategy is mostly moving back and forth. The enemies placed for side-sniping don't seem to be as plentiful in past games and since they are placed just far enough from the bottom they're safe to clear sweeping at the bottom of the screen. The only way they're going to hit is if you let them stay on screen for 5 seconds and fire in a straight horizontal line, which is not hard to avoid with the fully powered weapons and the left/right strategy.

Boss strategy: fire up close, use 1 bomb.

Neo Rasa · Post by **Neo Rasa** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:08 pm

bloodflowers wrote: Oh, and every time I see people saying Edge is a good magazine, it makes me feel sad inside. Innaccurate and biased reporting and reviewing. You can really see those advertising dollars at work.

You gotta understand that I'm in the US though. Edge REALLY DOES blow away 99.9999999% of the magazines published here, warts and all.

Molloy · Post by **Molloy** » Wed Dec 21, 2005 11:56 pm

Edge reviews are wildly innacurate and factually incorrect but everything else about the mag rocks. News, previews, articles, columns, Making Of..'s, letters are all leagues ahead of he competition.

The graphic design is also some of the best in any commercial magazine gaming or otherwise.

FRO · Post by **FRO** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:08 am

Specineff wrote:That is almost sig-able.

Sig-able = word of the day

zimmy · Post by **zimmy** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:30 am

These guys might only fire a couple of bullets, but they fire them right at you, with an assassin's precision and a sniper's economy. And it's that smart, aware opposition that sets Raiden apart from pretty much every other shooting game on the market.

Raiden 3's bad guys killed you because they were smarter than you. With unfailing aim, they shot at where you were, and like an idiot you didn't get out of the way.

x1 = enemy x; y1 = enemy y; x2 = player x; y2 = player y
angle = arctan[(y1 - y2)/(x1 - x2)]

Apparently, because Raiden 3's programmers could type in those few statements, they have succeeeded in making brilliant AI. I have no comment on Stuart's actual analysis of Raiden 3 in general(I have never played the game), but it just pisses me off that he somehow thinks enemies that can shoot in your direction are somehow "smart." I've played way too many crappy Game Maker overhead shooters to know that truly good AI can do more than trig functions. Granted, Raiden 3 might still be good, but if it is, it is good in spite of its overly basic(from my observation)AI.

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:56 am

Maybe you're going a little too deep. I think the general point he was trying to make is that the feel of Raiden 3, with it's more sparsely but more accurately aimed fire is completely different than that of a 'spam' shmup, and one that we don't seem to have seen to much of in the last five years or so. In that respect it's closer to something like Flying Shark than DoDonPachi, both of which play with a completely different rhythm.

ccovell · Post by **ccovell** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:32 pm

After all, any game can kick your ass if it truly wanted to (ie: bullets moving at a screen-length per second), and if the programmers made it to do that. Whether through manic shooters' spam fire, or "oldskool" shooters' sniper fire, a good game is one that has a bullet speed that the average range of players can handle, after some learning.

zimmy · Post by **zimmy** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:08 pm

I would concur, bullet speed is a very important factor in shumps, whether they're "old-school" or bullet hells. And maybe I was a little hard by saying the game would be good in spite of being an "old-school" shump. I've played many games that use the same technique and have had plenty of fun, however, I don't think the ability of the computer to fire a bullet exactly in your direction constitutes good AI. Like I said, all it is is a simple trigonometric function, so his analysis that the computer was somehow "smarter" than the player because of this is flawed. That's like saying in a gym class playing football that the student on the football team is smarter than the student in the chess club because he can catch the ball better or can tackle better. The football player merely has more ability in the game of football, it has nothing todo with actual intelligence. Likewise, the computer merely has more ability in memorizing the outputs of trig. functions, but that doesn't make the computer smarter than the player does it?

Klatrymadon · Post by **Klatrymadon** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:12 pm

I agree his work isn't bad, in fact it's better than what I see at the big sites, but best in the world?

He knows what he likes and isn't afraid to rip a game to shreds if he thinks it's an overhyped load of bollocks. That's pretty much what people love (or hate) about him. Obviously, this is standard fare on internet forum, but I suppose it made him stand out as a magazine columnist.

I think the whole idea of having a world's best game journalist is stupid, either way.

ST Dragon · Post by **ST Dragon** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 4:58 pm

Any other good reviews of Raiden III with larger screen-shots?

Zigfried the Trizealot · Sat Dec 24, 2005 4:51 pm

Why does he keep saying "your correspondent", "your correspondent", "your correspondent"? Couldn't he just say "I" instead?

//Zig

cigsthecat · Post by **cigsthecat** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 5:33 pm

There's an interesting review of DOJ up now.

Randorama · Post by **Randorama** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 8:37 pm

Interesting if you throw in that he's clearly a scrub of the genre, perhaps. Sometimes he does his homework, sometimes not (Giga Wing the first ""bullet hell""? No). I think he would benefit from learning to play a few titles, honestly: i'm not surprised that he celebrated so much Raiden III, after this new review.

At any case, we're speaking of gaming journalism, so...

Valgar · Post by **Valgar** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:23 pm

His DOJ review isn't funny (and it gets bad when people TRY to be funny but fail), but let us NEVER forget.

http://www.insertcredit.com/reviews/ketsui/

Guardians Knight · Post by **Guardians Knight** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 9:58 pm

i normally only read him for the sarcasm, its by the by as to what he's reviewing or what he's saying, if he says something amusing then i think its good. Now amusing could be by saying something so blatantly wrong its funny or actual humour.....since he's scottish its usually the former.

CIT · Post by **CIT** » Sat Dec 24, 2005 10:49 pm

Valgar wrote:His DOJ review isn't funny (and it gets bad when people TRY to be funny but fail), but let us NEVER forget.

http://www.insertcredit.com/reviews/ketsui/

OMG!!!

OUCH!!!

I never read this before since I try my best to avoid insertcredit anyway, but this WAS worth reading. He obviously spent about 2 credits playing Ketsui.