Is Raiden the only major shmup series still alive today?

[Oniros]

I have never played a Contra game. I'll show myself out...

[Despatche]

Thunder Force had an entry too many and where is it now? It took until III to hit gold and only held onto it for IV before declining. It's an example of not giving up on something after the first couple of entries but it still went on to lose the magic of the series' highlights.

Series and franchises get stretched out when they should have been left after a given point. It's more noticable in other genres and indeed media outside video games, because there aren't that many series of shmups that went past 3 entries.

you only say that because you dislike the overhead stages in ii and because you hate v for some odd reason. even vi doesn't really deserve the kind of hate people put on it. never mind that my point was that tf doesn't really have any "magic" because nearly all the games are completely different.

series and franchises get stretched out because the creators are idiots, and sometimes because it was never stretched out and the consumers just have bad opinions (see above). it's got absolutely nothing to do with the work itself, nothing; most good works have more than enough material or a good enough concept for many good sequels. and, once again, you have to keep in mind just how many series in general don't use numbers and how vague the idea of a "series" is in general. aleste, all those psikyo games, all these not-really-spinoffs like salamander, actual spinoffs like elemental master, so on and so forth.

(fun fact: there aren't that many series of shmups that have exactly three legitimately numbered entries. there are actually way way way more series that go beyond that number than series that use that specific number. seriously... rayxanber (never mind that the third game is COMPLETELY different), shikigami no shiro, strikers 1945 (technically this shouldn't be here)... i'm trying as hard as i can over here)

[TransatlanticFoe]

At what point did I say I hate the overhead stages in II or the entirety of V? II does neither gameplay style brilliantly, just both adequately. V is just massively unbalanced with free range being so powerful then everything else too weak if you ever lose it. Plus the polygon graphics can make it difficult to see what's going on sometimes. Both pale in comparison to III and IV.

Developers putting in common gameplay/graphical elements (Psikyo, Raizing, Compile) doesn't make them part of a series. Or does it? Aleste is a successor to Zanac, for example, but Aleste defined itself a series in its own right. Raizing's bosses/characters crossover do make for an argument of Garegga/Batrider/Mahou Daisakusen being part of the same series though.

Bad opinions? Safe to say this isn't going to be conducive to a reasonable discussion then, if my opinion is "bad". I spoke out at keeping a series going for the sake of it and, at least in shmup terms, the fact that few are actually still going is a testament to leaving quality things be.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I saw a River Raid cel phone game advertised lately.

[Squire Grooktook]

Most of the stages are based on ones from the original Contra, with a few from Super Contra, Operation C and Contra III. They're reuses of the theme and not copy-pasted, sure, but there's too much homage relative to originality.

Maybe this is just a personal thing, but I don't care if the general theme is homaged, so long as the design is good, which it is. The waterfall stage in C4 is better than the waterfall stages in Contra or Super C (outside maybe the screen gap, because that's really the only stage in the entire game where it's an issue). The First stage is better than the first stage in Contra or Super C in terms of platforming and enemy placement. The harbor stage has no equivalent for the rest of the franchise, except for maybe the short missile riding sequence at the end, and likewise it's an excellent stage.

In terms of strategic variety, difficulty balance, enemy placement and design, polish, etc. Contra 4 tops every other entry in the franchise (and most other run and gun shooters) except 3.

But like I said, that's just me. I'm the kind of person who vastly prefers Mega Man X2 over X1 because it IMO has superior level design, even though X1 is more original and atmospheric.

I get that the boss rush nature of the later Contra games wont appeal to everyone. The tiny stages of HC only exist to move you from one setpiece to another, and SS isn't much different. That's just one reason why I think HCU is the best of the bunch. It has lengthy stages full of various secrets, enemy setups, platforming sections, and loads of boss fights. It's the best of both worlds. I found Contra 4 dull and uninspired in comparison, and when I cleared it I felt like I never needed to touch it again.

Honestly, I can't for the life of me tell what feels "dull and uninspired". Contra 4 is basically Contra 1 and Super C's playstyle (more emphasis on constantly pushing forward and platforming) with a more balanced difficulty curve (not to mention a hard mode that puts it on par with anything in the series, challenge wise), a great mix of platforming and random dodging (dodging shit from those little randomized gunmen that spawn from both sides of the screen is easily my favorite part of the franchise), smart enemy placement, and varied enemy and level design (every section requires a different strategy).

If it just didn't "gel" with you, I can understand that. I feel the same way about genesis Hard Corps: I can't find anything wrong with it, but every time I play it it just feels incredibly boring and not fun. I could blame that it's too much of a static memorizer based on boss gimmicks, but the same could be said of Shattered Soldier which I enjoy considerably more. It's not to my taste, but I still recognize it as a good game. I don't see how you "couldn't call Contra 4 a good game" when you can't find anything legitimately wrong with it besides a vague and nebulous "it felt dull". That's just personal taste, not anything the game did design wise.

What knocks Contra 3 down a peg for me are the overhead stages. If they replaced those with two regular stages, I'd put it right up there with HC/HCU/SS.

Those stages are short, and the thing is that they are actually quite fun. It's part of what's interesting about Contra 3, it's so varied but it constantly leaves you wanting more (in a good way).

[BIL]

As a latecomer to III/Spirits I'm surprised at how much I enjoy the overhead stages. As SG says they're over in no time (love drive-bying the targets with double C), they control just as sharply as the sidescrollers, and their bosses make smart use of rotation that's fun to counteract for a quick, clean kill. I particularly love wrecking the hovertank's face in zero seconds flat, and locking onto and ruining the carousel's shit when it tries to go all spin cycle flamejet.

[iconoclast]

I wouldn't say Contra 4 was bad either, it's pretty much sitting right on the line of mediocrity. It's been a while since I've played it, so I just watched a video to try and be more specific about the things I disliked:

The stages are long and repetitive, but unlike HCU, there's nothing you can do to make them more interesting (and I hate to compare them since HCU's stages are inherently more interesting). Unique hazards and set pieces are strung together by long stretches of dull walking and shooting, as there are only a few enemy setups that need to be approached with any kind of strategy - the rest are killed as they spawn. Then there are the corridor stages. They weren't good in the original game and they're even worse here, since there are now three of them and they're about twice as long as they should be. Most of the boss fights also fail to impress. They each have two or three simplistic attacks that they repeat over and over, making each fight dull unless you're holding a weapon that can quickly dispose of them (I did like the final boss, tho). The blind spot created by the screen gap can also be incredibly annoying at times.

But again, I'm only talking about the things I disliked here. I don't want to make it sound like the game is completely awful since it does have its moments. They're just too few and far between to make up for the rest of its shortcomings.

I don't think Contra 3's overhead stages are bad, either. I appreciate that they're short and painless, but I don't find them fun to play through. I'd much rather have one or two more regular stages instead.

Not at all, that's what discussion is about - discussing! I'm interested in giving it another try at some point, so I'll try and approach it with that in mind. Maybe I was expecting something a bit more bombastic and dynamic like the PS2 Contras. Though really, I think you can just chalk it up to me being old-fashioned. :B

I recommend downloading Sayuri. She plays like Strider and she doesn't lose her weapon when she gets hit, so it makes the game easier to learn when you're starting out. Or just play Rising mode, unlock all of the weapons and abilities, and treat it like a training mode you'd see in a STG. As for the bosses, the best thing you can do is find a powerful weapon and keep it in reserve. Play through the stage with the peashooter if you have to, just make you reach each boss with a suitable weapon.

The game does have several vertical sections, btw. One of my favorite bits is in stage 7, where you have to jump and air-dash between exploding rockets in an elevator shaft. It's awesome.

[Squire Grooktook]

as there are only a few enemy setups that need to be approached with any kind of strategy - the rest are killed as they spawn.

This is why trying to judge a game based on high level gameplay footage is some times a bad idea. I could say the same about every other action platformer, run and gun shooter, and many shmups ever made. High level routing is of course going to be based around knowing when to pause, where to shoot, etc. in order to minimalize all threats. That doesn't mean it's easy to do it, when actual execution and reaction come into play when you're actually playing, things get a lot different.

I wouldn't say Contra 4 was bad either, it's pretty much sitting right on the line of mediocrity. It's been a while since I've played it, so I just watched a video to try and be more specific about the things I disliked:

Well, for a counter argument, let me analyze one specific stage as an example:

Stage 2: Waterfall.

You start out in the lab. The dropping down crawlers and the bloated mutants both form a unique change of pace from the zako runners of the first stage.

The crawlers fulfill the same function as the aforementioned zakos: they spawn randomly and force you to shoot or jump to dodge them if they get too close. However they require a different strategy. They come from several unique angles when merely crawling along the floor or ceiling, forcing you to often jump and shoot or aim diagonally which you don't have to do against most other zakos in the game. The ones crawling in the pipes on the ceiling force you to visually sight read the path they'll take through through the maze in order to react to them properly. You have to pay attention to both the bottomless pits, the crawlers immediately in front of you, and the ones you have a heads up on going through the maze. In short: Reaction and multitasking distinct from the previous stage.

The bloated mutants supplement the crawles, in forming a meat shield. They also force spacing, since getting too close or attempting to skip them causes detonation, further cluttering the screen with projectiles. You are forced to walk a tight rope between multitasking the crawlers and deciding how aggressive you want to be with the mutants.

As for the layout of the map itself, it mixes
-simple straight forward platforms, ideal for just running and gunning
-short gaps, forcing platforming
-long gaps, forcing you to use your grappling hook. This adds two new factors to the level design, as you have to watch the crawlers and wait for the right window of opportunity to latch onto the ceilling, as well as focus more on shooting once you get up there since jumping out of the way of crawlers is no longer an option.

All three of these environmental set ups are used until there is no new way to arrange them. No repetition, it's just over. Perfect.

Next we get to the waterfall itself. This stage is distinct from both the lab and stage 1 in two ways:

-First, it has more of an emphasis on pure platforming than the lab, with moving blocks, environmental hazards like falling rocks, and lots of pits too fall into.
-Second, while the first stage had some platforming, this one of the few vertically scrolling segments in the game, thus forcing you to take more time sight reading attacks from above.

The level design forces you to stop start more than the other stages, as it's one of the most pure platforming segments in the game. You have to wait for both the moving platformers to move in and for the falling rocks to give you an opening. This makes the area distinct from other sections, but it knows that you still want to shoot and dodge stuff so it places enemies above you to shoot upward at as well as dodge away from (this also gives you something to do while you wait for platforms to come within reach). It gives you just enough blasting to make it clear that it's still a shooter even as it segways briefly into a more platforming heavy segment.

Lastly we get to the auto scroll elevator. This section is pure combat, which makes it distinct from either section. Not much more to say about it, as it's pretty short.

Than we come to the boss. Honestly, I agree with you on this front. Most of the bosses in this game rely too heavily on the "giant mofo on the top screen throwing shit onto you at the bottom". It's a minor complaint though as the bosses are incredibly short, much like the first Contra and Super C. In fact it's almost hypocritical to fault the game on that front and than praise the first two since they often had the same issue (the only bosses in the original Contra that even had distinct music were the super computers, who were fought in the same exact way).

So there you have it, a well paced level with tons of variety, reaction, and multitasking, which ends each of its segments just as it runs out of ideas. I call that a shining example of top tier level design.

I was going to do a similar write up on the Harbor stage, but I'm a bit tired out from all that typing.



In short, it's not mediocre. It's fantastic. And regardless of whether it gelled for you or not, calling it mediocre is currently causing several universes to implode from paradox.

[MR_Soren]

I'm wondering, aside from Galaga, is Raiden the only well known shmup series that is still alive today? I mean, look at the fact that there will be a Raiden 25th anniversary project for Xbox One next year, I can't think of any other shmup series that has survived that long, besides Galaga of course. What do you all think?

I guess it depends on how you define "major" and "still alive".

Space Invaders Extreme 2 came out in 2009, 31 years after the original Space Invaders. That gives it a longer lifespan than Raiden, and I doubt it's the last we've seen of the franchise.

R-Type is feared dead after Irem closed it's video game division. However, R-Type Dimensions for PS3 came out after this happened, so who knows what else might happen with R-Type. If a studio wants to give Irem money to use the name, there could be more R-Types. As it stands right now. R-Type started in 1987 and had it's newest release in 2014. That's 27 years. 18 years if you don't count remakes and non-shmups.

19xx series started in 1984 and 1942 Joint Strike came out in 2008. That's 24 years from oldest to newest release. Could always be another.

People have already mentioned Gradius and other 'dius games.

DoDonPachi had a new arcade game 2 years ago. That is 15/17 years after the first release, depending on whether or not you count DonPachi. Not as old as Raiden, but I wouldn't call it dead just yet. CAVE has closed their console/arcade division, but you never know what will happen.

Regardless, the genre isn't about big franchises. If good games are still coming out, that's all that really matters. If you spend all of your time looking for franchises, you miss out on cool games like Eschatos and Crimzon Clover.

[Mortificator]

let me analyze one specific stage as an example

That's thorough, but how is the stage different from the NES Contra?

4 has the lab section at the beginning (which is pretty dull) and a different fight at the top (more attack phases here). 4 loses the the hidden gun platforms & flame floors and sticks in Super C's lobbers & elevator. You need to latch onto ropes and walls a fair amount in 4's version, and while doing so you can't duck, can't move and shoot. I think the NES version's more fun, even before taking the screen gap into account.

That gap's detriment shouldn't be understated. It's an dead zone that you're constantly moving through, shooting through, being attacked through. Imagine Contra III: WayForward Edition...



I'm not trying to make you dislike Contra 4, but it's not nuts that some people aren't impressed.

The harbor stage has no equivalent for the rest of the franchise

It's from Operation C.

[Pretas]

DoDonPachi had a new arcade game 2 years ago. That is 15/17 years after the first release, depending on whether or not you count DonPachi. Not as old as Raiden, but I wouldn't call it dead just yet. CAVE has closed their console/arcade division, but you never know what will happen.

I wouldn't be completely surprised to see a Cave Shooting Collection: Super Final Edition for Xbox One ported by their alumni at M2.

[Squire Grooktook]

That's thorough, but how is the stage different from the NES Contra?

Well, I could compare stage 1 from C1 to C4, and I think C4's first stage has a slight edge in terms of challenging platforming and varied setpieces. It's not a big gap, they're both excellent games. But ultimately I don't go back to C1 as much due to the first loop being considerably easier than later games. C4's difficulty balance is much superior imo.

*edit*

Sorry, I misread. I wouldn't say C4's waterfall is a great deal better than Nes Contra's waterfall, but imo it's superior in terms of both challenge and variety (what with the lab).

4 has the lab section at the beginning (which is pretty dull) and a different fight at the top (more attack phases here). 4 loses the the hidden gun platforms & flame floors and sticks in Super C's lobbers & elevator. You need to latch onto ropes and walls a fair amount in 4's version, and while doing so you can't duck, can't move and shoot. I think the NES version's more fun, even before taking the screen gap into account.

Gotta disagree on the lab. The lab is incredibly intense and one of the funnest examples of multitasking in the series. The only thing I can think of is maybe that you are playing on normal, but like C3, C4 is pretty much meant to be played on hard and the normal mode ending says about as much IIRC.

I actually kind of like the grapple mechanic. Because of the slight delay on it, you have to carefully watch for an opening. And I find having the brief moment of vulnerability while grappling makes things feel pretty exciting. Not being able to jump or anything while climbing walls/ceilings is not something new the franchise (c3 had several areas and they were fun) not to mention these are brief moments, and I find it adds further to the variety of the stages.

Also I do believe that C4 does in fact have the hidden guns on the walls, it does lack the flame platforms.

I can totally understand personally preferring C1 or Super C's waterfall over this one, but to say it's mediocre or poorly designed is imo not something I can agree with.

That gap's detriment shouldn't be understated. It's an dead zone that you're constantly moving through, shooting through, being attacked through. Imagine Contra III: WayForward Edition...

I'm not trying to make you dislike Contra 4, but it's not nuts that some people aren't impressed.

It's strange, I just never had an issue with the gap. It's maybe a slight problem on the elevator section on the aforementioned waterfall stage, but outside of that I simply never had too much trouble with bullets hiding there or anything that was really threatening. Whatever.

I'm not trying to make you dislike Contra 4, but it's not nuts that some people aren't impressed.

Yo, it's cool. I just think the level design is something worth arguing about. Obviously subjective taste and whatnot.