What is best in shmup

[Obscura]

The numbers next to your ship when you absorb amber change color from green to blue along with the counter, so this would be totally doable.

Using laser vs big enemies and shot vs popcorn isn't what makes ddp arbitrary. It's the timing of the chain counter. There's no reason to keep chaining enemies other than the designers decided to add a "meta" element to the game that increases your score if you follow it. Same with Ketsui. Point blanking is powerful, but not a great deal moreso than ddp or any other shmup, and the difference isn't huge enough to justify most of the things you do in score play. To an extent, most of the level design would be more fitted to pure macro dodging in my experience, but scoring forces you to do a lot of unneeded micro. It's a totally arbitrary system that just happens to be really fun. Same as Futari.

The difference between DDP and Futari is that you could chain DDP with no GP gauge, no hit counter, etc. You couldn't play Futari without having a blue/green counter visible somewhere (whether it's the counter on the side or the one next to your ship). To score a DP/DDP/DOJ, you do what the placement of things on the playfield tells you to do for score; with Futari, what you're doing for score is based on some random counter that's only a part of the HUD.

(Oh, and it's not true that chaining doesn't do anything for you but make your score counter go up; in DDP it helps unlock the loop, and in DOJ the amount of hyper meter that you get from bees is based on current chain value.)

Except for the part where the patterns are still challenging and exciting even when slowed down, and you only get to use slowdown for a few seconds at a time.

Galuda II is great.

Difficult and exciting/fun are not the same thing. Galuda II's boss patterns and Dragon Blaze's tech bonuses (for the first 4 stages, at least; the later ones are actually pretty tough) are both the perfect examples, on opposite ends of the spectrum.

[emphatic]

EDIT: Espgaluda really is an awful game, though. It seems like a conscious attempt to make a shmup that isn't fun by adding a mechanic with the sole express purpose of removing excitement from the game.

Do you have a +40 million score?

[Obscura]

Who cares?

Or is this some attempt to pull the dumb "if you haven't played it for 100 hours you can't judge it! And if you did play it that much, you must have liked it!" card to shut down any negative opinion of a game you like?

[emphatic]

It matters because it's a much better/harder game when played for score. I love Flying Shark to death, but I would never try to play it for score, as it's ridiculous. I'm just trying to make the point at a game should be judged fairly - on what type of game it is. Would you say that Bubble Bobble is an awful run n' gun as well?

[Lilium]

What a stupid and pointless discussion. You can chain DDP without hit counter and gauge what? How do you know if you break the chain then? Sure you can pull off the moves but that is the case for Futari Original too. The whole argument about whether a score system is slapped on or meta-game or whatever is also stupid to have. In order to give the game some life beyond the 1cc, they implement an extra challenge for the player to pursue. Might as well call all scoring slapped on eh?

[Obscura]

I've never played Bubble Bobble, so I have no opinion on whether or not it's good.

As I said above, "good" and "hard" aren't the same thing. 1CCing Haunted Castle (the arcade Castlevania) is really hard, but that doesn't mean that the game isn't complete trash.

I don't see anything terribly appealing in Galuda's score system. Bomb out about half of the midbosses, and tediously milk as many bullets as possible at the correct points, while the game is running in slow motion. Oh, and for the few bosses that open with a random pattern, hope that they open with the one that scores the most points.

@Lilium: Pray tell, how the hell are you "going to pull off the moves" in Futari original if you don't know which shot you're supposed to be using? In DOJ, if you die or bomb in stage 3, you still chain stage 4 the same way, because the score system is based on what's happening on the playfield; in Futari, you'd have literally no idea what to do at any point without being able to see what color the counter (which isn't an actual "on the playfield" element) is. Oh, and if you think all scoring is slapped on, play Garegga or Radiant Silvergun (sucky game, but scoring certainly isn't superfluous in it) or Border Down (the latter of which probably has the best mechanical design of any "system-based" shmup ever, and would be at least top 5 every year if this poll actually represented what people care about) and get back to me.

[Lilium]

Just stick to your pattern with no deviation I don't know, I'm not a player of that game but I would guess that most players would go according to a route rather than looking at the counter for the information. That you essentially gain a feel for how many gems you gain by doing things and when to switch. Of course, it would be impossible to develop this pattern if you didn't have the counter (well not really but close) but again how would you know if your chains in DOJ work if you didn't have the gauge and the hit counter?

I don't want to play Garegga or Radiant Silvergun so I'll just have to take your word for that. However, what I did mean by making that statement wasn't as much a desire to make an absolute statement that all scoring is arbitrary but rather illustrate how pointless this whole argument is.

The game dictates the rules. Take it or leave it. And no btw. Dying or bombing in DOJ stage 3 doesn't mean you chain stage 4 the same way, it means you restart. It may also offset your hyper route that would also be pretty hard to keep track of when your playing field don't tell you how close you are to a new hyper.

[emphatic]

Oh, and for the few bosses that open with a random pattern, hope that they open with the one that scores the most points.

I agree, this is true and it sucks.

[Obscura]

Just stick to your pattern with no deviation I don't know, I'm not a player of that game but I would guess that most players would go according to a route rather than looking at the counter for the information. That you essentially gain a feel for how many gems you gain by doing things and when to switch. Of course, it would be impossible to develop this pattern if you didn't have the counter (well not really but close) but again how would you know if your chains in DOJ work if you didn't have the gauge and the hit counter?

In theory, you'd be able to tell roughly where a chain break happened by hyper-gauge increase on bee pickup if you were playing black label (and sometimes in white label, although the lack of rollover would make it uncertain sometimes). At the very least, it's also pretty easy to get a feel for how long you have in between kills (and you'd get that very naturally on the silver ships just past the midboss in stage 1).

I mean, people chain DonPachi despite the fact that there's no GP gauge and if you don't do at least somewhat OK with the chaining, the hit count is never even shown.

I don't want to play Garegga or Radiant Silvergun so I'll just have to take your word for that. However, what I did mean by making that statement wasn't as much a desire to make an absolute statement that all scoring is arbitrary but rather illustrate how pointless this whole argument is.

You should at least play Border Down, since it's amazing and doesn't get enough love.

How is this argument pointless, though? The game that just got voted "best shmup EVAR!" totally doesn't fit with the most voted on option in this poll, which means that either people have a very different idea of "not slapped on" than I do, or, if this argument truly is meaningless, then they're voting on a phrase that is literally meaningless, which itself is probably worth talking about.

The game dictates the rules. Take it or leave it.

I did -- I choose "leave it", because Futari sucks

And no btw. Dying or bombing in DOJ stage 3 doesn't mean you chain stage 4 the same way, it means you restart. It may also offset your hyper route that would also be pretty hard to keep track of when your playing field don't tell you how close you are to a new hyper.

If you're good enough that you'd consider a restart after dying on DOJ stage 3, it means that your "normal" route hypers at the start of stage 4, but that section is dead easy to chain without a hyper, and you'll definitely get a hyper in time to use at the spot where you'd use the second one.

[royalfan84]

When you guys start talking in-depth about score mechanics I get VERY BORED. If it doesn't pertain to surviving or beating the game( I cc), I really have only minimal interest. And I LOVE shmups. This is the problem.

[CloudyMusic]

I don't understand why people seem to care so much about the results of a popularity poll.

In the Best Shmups poll, people pick whatever games they "like" the most, by whatever metric matters to them. Likewise, this thread's poll is basically just asking you "what sort of stuff do the games you like have in common?"

I think everyone wants a game that contains "mechanics that fit well together and don't feel tacked on," again, whatever that means to them. That phrase is too similar to just saying "the game is well-designed" to get anything meaningful out of these results. Trying to come up with some neutral dictionary definition of what "tacked-on" means as a way to, what -- show that the popular Best Shmups picks were "wrong"? (who cares?) -- seems like it accomplishes nothing but creating a debate for its own sake.

At the very least, I don't agree with your argument that well-designed scoring systems should just reward you for doing the stuff that you would normally be doing anyway to be the most effective (the shot/laser DDP example). There's something to be said for scoring systems that encourage you to play differently than normal, or in a more difficult/dangerous way.

If nothing else, this topic has surprised me with how many players don't care whatsoever about score.

[ACSeraph]

If nothing else, this topic has surprised me with how many players don't care whatsoever about score.

I think people don't care because there are so many fun games that don't have fun scoring systems. I play for score only when I find the scoring compelling. Most recently those games were Bullet Soul Infinite Burst and Caladrius. I hate chaining, because when I play a shmup it's because I want to rain down utter destruction on my enemies, as brutally as possible. Chaining forces you to hold back a bit, and I don't play this genre to hold back. But despite that, I still think DDP is a good game and fun to play. So I think that's where it comes from. Scoring is nice, but a deep system doesn't necessarily make a game good, and a complete lack of scoring mechanics doesn't make a game bad either (see Darius).

[LordHypnos]

I actually think that the main issue with Border Down is that IIRC Naomi is not well supported in MAME (almost certainly no savestates), and the only console port is a $100+ Japan region Dreamcast game. Seems like there would be quite a few more people into the game otherwise... I think it was on the top 25 back when Dreamcasts were still one of the major shmup platforms and the games weren't all ridiculously high priced.

[CloudyMusic]

Scoring is nice, but a deep system doesn't necessarily make a game good, and a complete lack of scoring mechanics doesn't make a game bad either (see Darius).

I agree, but I generally don't like to assume I'm knowledgeable enough about a given game to call it universally "bad" unless there's something obviously broken about it. I'm more likely to say "X game isn't my thing" rather than "this game sucks" if I don't like it.

I just found it interesting how many people so far have said that they more or less completely disregard score, and play solely to dodge patterns or NMNB stuff. That's totally valid and every bit as rewarding, I'm sure, it's just not something I realized was so prevalent. Personally, I'm cool with never clearing a game if I can keep working on little scoring optimizations and see steady progress that way.

[Mortificator]

I think playing "for score" gets held up as a goal in its own right, when it isn't, and shouldn't be.

The main purpose of playing a video game is to have fun. Games are usually more fun if you kick ass at them, so in service of that purpose is the secondary purpose of getting good. Score is simply one way of measuring how good you got.

[Lilium]

How is this argument pointless, though? The game that just got voted "best shmup EVAR!" totally doesn't fit with the most voted on option in this poll, which means that either people have a very different idea of "not slapped on" than I do, or, if this argument truly is meaningless, then they're voting on a phrase that is literally meaningless, which itself is probably worth talking about.

Heh, yes. We could do that. What you were doing was to point out that people apparently want a game where the mechanics aren't slapped on yet still vote a game with meta-game scoring systems as the top one. Then I basically jumped in and claimed that at that point you might as well call everything a slapped on system as you were apparently, from my point of view anyhow, justifying one set of mechanics that you like while calling mechanics you don't like out as being meta-gamey and slapped on.

I thought that this thing was pointless to discuss because everyone would inherently have their own ideas about what this whole slapped on business mean. Its certainly way more vague than things like the presence of difficulty modes or the game having secrets. When I saw the numerous amounts of votes for this particular category, i was asking myself "yeah, but how many interesting shmups actually do have that? Basically all shmups I play have scoring different from what you'd be doing anyway. is the point that the game must be designed with its mechanics in mind? well shouldn't that be obvious?" so yeah. Arguing over definitions here. Not really helpful for any of us

If nothing else, this topic has surprised me with how many players don't care whatsoever about score.

A quick drop by the high scoring section should reveal that

[Shepardus]

If nothing else, this topic has surprised me with how many players don't care whatsoever about score.

A quick drop by the high scoring section should reveal that

I like complex scoring systems so I can watch other people score, not to play for score myself.

[Squire Grooktook]

Except for the part where the patterns are still challenging and exciting even when slowed down, and you only get to use slowdown for a few seconds at a time.

Galuda II is great.

Difficult and exciting/fun are not the same thing.

I know that, that's why I said Galuda II's patterns are both difficult and fun. Which they are.

(Oh, and it's not true that chaining doesn't do anything for you but make your score counter go up; in DDP it helps unlock the loop, and in DOJ the amount of hyper meter that you get from bees is based on current chain value.)

It's still a completely arbitrary "meta-gamey" facet that the player would never ever approach if it didn't give them extra score. It's an artificial system of timings imposed on kills. There is no reason anyone would do it or think of doing it if it didn't give you score.

[Obscura]

I actually think that the main issue with Border Down is that IIRC Naomi is not well supported in MAME (almost certainly no savestates), and the only console port is a $100+ Japan region Dreamcast game. Seems like there would be quite a few more people into the game otherwise... I think it was on the top 25 back when Dreamcasts were still one of the major shmup platforms and the games weren't all ridiculously high priced.

Dreamcast emulation is quite good these days, though.

Heh, yes. We could do that. What you were doing was to point out that people apparently want a game where the mechanics aren't slapped on yet still vote a game with meta-game scoring systems as the top one. Then I basically jumped in and claimed that at that point you might as well call everything a slapped on system as you were apparently, from my point of view anyhow, justifying one set of mechanics that you like while calling mechanics you don't like out as being meta-gamey and slapped on.

I wouldn't say that everything is a slapped on system. There's two axes at work here:

Axis 1: On one end, games with a lot of "outside the game" scoring mechanics (Mushihimesama Maniac and Futari Original would be the extreme of this end, RSG, Ketsui and the Pachis also pretty far over here); on the other end, simple "shoot d00ds 4 points" games. In between, a lot of games with item collection mechanics (most Psikyo and Raizing), cancel-heavy score systems (Border Down, maybe DFKBL? [haven't played it, but from what I've read it would fit here]) and games with resources that are used for both score and survival (Galudas, Deathsmiles).

Axis 2: On one end, games where scoring well actively harms survival somehow (Futari Original, Crimzon Clover Simple/Boost); on the other end, games where making at least some effort to score is a crucial part of survival play (RSG, Garegga, Border Down).

I'd say that most people will take "slapped on" to imply the first mentioned end on at least one of Axis 1 or Axis 2 -- that is, either Cave-ish games where scoreplay is very "outside the game", or games where scoreplay isn't tied into survivalplay in any way. Given that Futari is pretty much at the extreme end of both of these axes, it's pretty much a total "WTF" to see those results on the same forum.

Oh, and:

"yeah, but how many interesting shmups actually do have that? Basically all shmups I play have scoring different from what you'd be doing anyway. is the point that the game must be designed with its mechanics in mind? well shouldn't that be obvious?"

Given that the Mushis have the same levels/enemy placements for two different sets of score mechanics, they fail this test too -- the stages aren't designed around the mechanics

It's still a completely arbitrary "meta-gamey" facet that the player would never ever approach if it didn't give them extra score. It's an artificial system of timings imposed on kills. There is no reason anyone would do it or think of doing it if it didn't give you score.

Actually, the reason I initially started learning some basic chaining in DOJ was to guarantee myself a hyper for a troublesome bit in stage 3

[Squire Grooktook]

^^^ I'm mostly thinking of DDP, but hypers are a bit better. That being said, hypers are only half the system in DOJ, just like point blanking in Futari (which is really fun and works well).

[LordHypnos]

Dreamcast emulation is quite good these days, though.

True enough, though the compatibility is nowhere near 16 bit emulators, still, it seems. Although, I'm sure that I'm not the only person here with too weak a graphics card to quite handle full speed nulldc, much less Demul. Additionally, I feel like there are a lot of people around here who feel that arcade emulation is okay, wheras console emulation / piracy is not (at least Dreamcast or later). Maybe I'm totally wrong though. It does seem like most Naomi games (excepting Ikaruga and Under Defeat which have easily accessible 360 ports, also Steam in the case of Ika) are a bit underplayed compared to earlier shmups (MAMEable on any shitty computer) or shmups on 360 and PC, just observing things like the shmup ticker, shmup 1ccs, scoreboards, etc. Or maybe it's just in kind of a weird purgatory now where it's too new too be "classic" but too old to be new and exciting.

Then again, Border Down might just scare people off due to how hardcore it is.

On topic, I interpreted the integration as just being kind of about how games should be designed around the mechanics in them (which is honestly kind of a "no duh!" type thing, but doesn't make it unimportant!). I would include weapon mechanics as well as scoring mechanics in this, though, and sometimes scoring mechanics are a bit tacked on in the sense that the game might be designed all the way through, then the designers are like "what should we do for scoring?" "Oh, IDK, lets just throw in a grazing mechanic. Can't go wrong with that." or maybe have a chaining mechanic that doesn't have the levels designed with chaining in mind, if you get me. For example if you took, IDK, Fire Shark, and gave it Do Don Pachi's enemy chaining. Probably it wouldn't work that well. IDK how common this really is, honestly, and it seems like CAVE usually puts a lot of effort into avoiding it, though I have not played Futari.

As far as weapon mechanics though, I would probably that a game where you're actually supposed to use the bomb offensively in certain areas rather than it just being kind of a "get out of jail free" type thing would be more "designed around" it. With a little creativity it could be both! Or maybe you could have something novel instead of a bomb, like a shield. Mars Matrix is definitely designed with the shield in mind (though probably can be technically no missed w/o it), as well as the scoring, for that matter (though I sort of wonder if the levels were really intended to be as chainable as they are. The scoring system does seem to benefit from the amount the player is really in control of it). If you think about Gunbird 2, it's super designed around using the close attack regularly (it also has a bomb that it's not especially designed around, though it's probably for the better considering the difficulty, and a medalling system that is probably sort of tacked on). Some of the patterns are really not intended to be dodged (though almost certainly technically dodgeable), but rather nipped off at the bud by killing the source before it's a threat with a close attack. A lot of time being at the top of the screen, or at point blank range is significantly safer than the bottom, which is cool, though that's only sort of related to the point at hand.

While I think some of the stage hazards are really interesting and cool, as well as just how they're implemented, I think Fast Striker original mode is a good example of what not to do vis-a-vis weapon mechanics in the context of level design. There are a few places where you need to use backshot (mostly bosses), and a few places where it helps, but I feel like overall you really don't need to use backshot enough. In Elemental Master, on the other hand, it seems a lot more necessary. It does click pretty well with the scoring in maniac mode, though, at least in theory. I think that enemy chaining + bidirectional firing has a lot of untapped potential, really. IDK how much the enemy placement is designed around enemy chaining in maniac, though, because I haven't really played maniac mode much. AVE got some pretty long chains, for sure.

Anyway, I'm really rambling here. Obscura: I think you might enjoy Mars Matrix based on the particular gripes you have with CAVE scoring systems. chaining gives you experience, which powers up your normal shot (Don't worry, it doesn't demand as much chaining as RSG to power up enough) as well as acting as a multiplier for everything for scoring. The chaining is medal chaining, so it's pretty "in-game" as well. Moreso, I'd say, than enemy chaining is, and a lot more than Futari shot switching is. Most people struggle getting the hang of the shield, but it is a super slick mechanic once you do.

[Oniros]

1, 5, 6, 8

Basically Mushihimesama Futari with more epicness.

[Zaarock]

Voted 5, 6, 7, 8. would have been okay with three options though.

I really should play Border Down properly someday. Emulation seems decently accurate in nulldc and the input lag isn't too bad. The director of G.Rev was saying in some interview (about Under Defeat HD iirc?) that they wanted to make a remake of the game rather than straight up port it. I hope at least one of the two happens.

You spelled Hellsinker wrong.

Yeah, the no-miss bonuses in hellsinker get massive. If you no-miss the whole game and kill most enemies I think that's already 1/3 of WR. I think that game sets a nice balance with the need to survive well (with default autobomb setting). Scoring doesn't affect survival much but since you trigger bonus waves and milk bosses a fair amount the game gets harder. I want to play caladrius someday, should get the PS3 version..

Must be fun (manageable) without you knowing about scoring but become extremely fun (much harder) when you know about scoring. A survival 1CC with a week's play and a WR with 2 year's play.

Seconding this, if a game has average difficulty I'm usually happy if the game gets much more difficult with scoring play in some fun way (like triggering harder patterns). If the game has a variety of difficulty options or is very difficult already I'm ok with that too.

Anyway, I'm really rambling here. Obscura: I think you might enjoy Mars Matrix based on the particular gripes you have with CAVE scoring systems. chaining gives you experience, which powers up your normal shot (Don't worry, it doesn't demand as much chaining as RSG to power up enough) as well as acting as a multiplier for everything for scoring. The chaining is medal chaining, so it's pretty "in-game" as well. Moreso, I'd say, than enemy chaining is, and a lot more than Futari shot switching is. Most people struggle getting the hang of the shield, but it is a super slick mechanic once you do.

I wonder why most people say that you need to chain a whole lot in RSG to survive. If I remember right all you need to do is chain Stage 4-A and you probably have enough power to clear (that's a 2 minute stage or such). Most chains in the game are also very easy compared to Ikaruga or DDP-series so I would imagine most players here could straight up copy chain routes from superplays and be overpowered in the endgame (serious, and I don't think I'm a good player).

Of course if you don't want to chain at all or practice stages a bit then that's another thing. I can understand that it's a turnoff that the game expects you to play for score before survival. Personally I don't think the experience system adds much to silvergun apart from being a gimmick to force scoring. I've barely played Mars Matrix so can't comment on that. Thats another game I should give another go.

Would love to see more STG with multi-weapon systems like RSG, Caladrius, Thunderforce, Hellsinker, Akashicverse, Final Boss etc. Not that many exist and I think there's a lot of potential left. Mars Matrix seems similar in that there are mechanics that make the game unique and form a big part of the learning curve. Gimmicks, I guess. That term seems to get a negative connotation on here but if you think about it, if a gimmick becomes more commonly used over time it won't be referred to as such anymore (super small hitboxes & autobomb mechanics in bullet hell STG, adaptive difficulty & enemy patterns in Zanac, etc.).

I don't think a mechanic being uncommon means it's a bad thing, and it might just be new and be used in future games. Garegga-style rank didn't catch on to that many games but it sure gets a lot of love here. Brutal rank systems seem to be catching on more now than in the 90s (CCWI Boost, DDP SDOJ)

Perhaps there are players who like to learn/figure out systems and those who prefer to manage difficult bullet patterns & routes with a system they already know. Though if someone is going for WR-level scores both are probably required in any game.

[Captain]

The difference between tacked-on mechanics and integrated mechanics is easily explained with two examples.

Tacked on: You have a variety of weapons that are never really needed. You have to kill stuff in certain order to maximise score.

Integrated: All parts of your arsenal prove useful in different parts of the game, or against different enemies. You have to destroy enemy parts for bonus points, which puts you in hard situations.

[ciox]

The difference between tacked-on mechanics and integrated mechanics is easily explained with two examples.

Tacked on: You have a variety of weapons that are never really needed. You have to kill stuff in certain order to maximise score.

Integrated: All parts of your arsenal prove useful in different parts of the game, or against different enemies. You have to destroy enemy parts for bonus points, which puts you in hard situations.

I don't think so, good chaining games take a lot of work to make and the stages are designed with the mechanics in mind, there may be bad chaining games but you make it sound like you could swap Ikaruga's color-chaining with Dodonpachi's hit combos and no one would notice. A mechanic that is explored in every stage is not tacked on, since a normal shmup wouldn't have levels adapted to a special mechanic, so it's not a normal shmup in the first place that you can ruin by tacking on gimmick mechanics to it.

I tried to keep it to just a few so I voted scoring, mechanics and epicness, though to be honest epicness might the most important, wouldn't have been drawn back to shmups if they didn't have a certain visceral appeal, the music is so much more aggressive than in most games for one, and you just feel more in the thick of it when playing.
Secrets got left out but that's only because a lot of my faves have 0 real secrets and to be honest scoring is like one big secret too, maybe I would vote for a "content" option if there was one, I love branching paths and a big game world.

[ACSeraph]

you make it sound like you could swap Ikaruga's color-chaining with Dodonpachi's hit combos and no one would notice.

I won't knock the depth of the systems even if I don't like chaining myself, but you wouldn't notice any difference if you didn't pay any attention to the numbers in the corner of your screen.

[Obscura]

I'd probably be a bit confused when I wasn't getting my extends when I expected...

[Skykid]

EDIT: Espgaluda really is an awful game, though.

lol

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I don't see anything terribly appealing in Galuda's score system. Bomb out about half of the midbosses, and tediously milk as many bullets as possible at the correct points

Complete fucking nonsense. I can't even find a single High Score submission from Espgaluda from you, so clearly you have no idea how to play. "Tediously milk"? This isn't a game where you chip off boss parts during a long fight; the longest milking against a boss you have to do is the Stage 3 midboss, and that doesn't last terribly long by milking standards (not to mention the stage 3 midboss is super easy). Against bosses, there's occasionally an ideal phase to cancel on for scoring purposes, but it's a quick switch into kakusei, kill, and switch out. You don't sit in kakusei for minutes at a time unless you're focusing on survival!

Even taking waiting for ideal phases, or charging the overmode meter in stage 1, the 'milking' in Espgaluda really doesn't take up that much time by comparison to other shmups with way longer milk fights.

Complaining about Futari's sucking because of how it feels arbitrary is no less silly than complaining about something like Ketsui's or DDP's. They're all abstract systems on top of the core mechanics. Futari combines a use X shot type with a close range bonus. The weapons in Futari are actually balanced quite well so that both the shot and laser both function very well not to mention for stronger enemies/bosses, all that matters is the killing blow, so it really isn't a major concern what color your meter is at any given point. Your shot types can manage regardless of what your counter currently displays.

There's a few points where having a green or a blue meter makes it a bit easier to score mid-stage, generally because killing large popcorn swarms and scoring on them is easier with a green counter but this isn't a concern unless you're aiming for world-record scoring (see: the world record 1.5 Original score purposefully waiting for the meter to lower before finishing off the stage 4 boss so that they have the counter they want in stage 5; this is the sort of thing you'll only see in a superplay and isn't necessary for good scores).

Pray tell, how the hell are you "going to pull off the moves" in Futari original if you don't know which shot you're supposed to be using?

If you reach a spot where you need laser's extra power or shot's extra spread but the counter isn't the right colour, it's not a huge loss of points - you still get gems for the kill. You're not forced to use the shot type that matches the counter at every single point in the game! The major score comes from building up the counter and keeping it as high as possible by not dying or bombing too often. The mechanics allow for quite a bit of freedom; killing a few enemies with the wrong shot colour isn't going to suddenly trash your score for that stage the way a chain drop mid-stage would in DDP or DOJ.

Given that the Mushis have the same levels/enemy placements for two different sets of score mechanics, they fail this test too -- the stages aren't designed around the mechanics

The enemies do not behave the same across modes. In higher difficulty modes, enemies change characteristics, which affects how you treat that section, and in several spots the changes to the enemy attack patterns are clearly done with the game mechanic for that mode in mind. See in Futari: the small lobster enemies in stage 2 that gain helper drones and fullscreen cancel properties, the large beetles in stage 3 that shoot extra drones in higher difficulty modes, making it especially easier to build your gem meter before the laser cancel in Maniac, the beetle nests that spawn tiny killable beetles that serve the same purpose to quickly raise your meter so you can choose to get more gems or cash-in, etc.

It's not that the stages aren't designed around the mechanics, it's that you don't notice the design changes applied to the stages.

I'd like to note that you have zero score submissions for Espgaluda or Futari, and of the two, you only list a 1CC for Futari Original BL with Reco (which I will safely assume was done with keeping the score counter as low as possible).

[Squire Grooktook]

Honestly the change in speed effects the way you play switching shot types in Futari more than damage. Both shot types kill stuff just fine throughout stages. Original is more about getting into the rhythm.