Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
-
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:12 pm
Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
It's got a girl constantly yelling "boner". That's gotta count for something...?
^^That's actually Blazing Star. Haha.
^^That's actually Blazing Star. Haha.
-
Squire Grooktook
- Posts: 5997
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:39 am
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
I haven't played Pulstar, but topping R-Type would be quite a difficult undertaking imo. Especially 1 and Delta.
Aeon Zenith - My STG.RegalSin wrote:Japan an almost perfect society always threatened by outsiders....................
Instead I am stuck in the America's where women rule with an iron crotch, and a man could get arrested for sitting behind a computer too long.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Why does no one love the second R-Type? I think it is just as good as the first one, I personally prefer it, even. It's got an even more grim atmosphere, outstanding visuals, exquisite level design (the final stage in R-Type II is hands-down my favorite level in any R-Type!) and the difficulty is about the same (first loop only, that is, the second one is a completely different story altogether). Granted, R-Type II is not as big of a step forwards as Gradius II is to Gradius, but you really can't expect that with a game as refined as R-Type. It seems to me that a lot of people simply ignore R-Type II, and I'm a little bit confused as to why that is.Squire Grooktook wrote:I haven't played Pulstar, but topping R-Type would be quite a difficult undertaking imo. Especially 1 and Delta.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Pulstar is very good times and it's probably my favorite shmup on the Neo Geo, but the prerendered graphics haven't aged as gracefully as R-Type's sprites. The pod being undetachable in Pulstar also makes it feel a bit less open as it limits your tactical choices. Still a fantastic game.
I'd say it's partly because the first game was ported to many different systems at the time but the sequel has only a few, so people are more familiar with the original, and partly because the first game was so hugely popular and influential that it overshadows its sequels. I'd say II is considerably harder than the first one though, even on the first loop. But admittedly I haven't actually 1CCed the game or the first loop, despite my love for the subgenre. It's been on my To-Do list for years now...Perikles wrote:Why does no one love the second R-Type?
No matter how good a game is, somebody will always hate it. No matter how bad a game is, somebody will always love it.
My videos
My videos
-
HardcoreOtaku
- Posts: 151
- Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:08 pm
- Location: 北 デヴォン 英国
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Pulstar is excellent but no it's not better.
Another R-Type inspired Neo Geo shmup is Last Resort and I think that game is better than R-Type.
Another R-Type inspired Neo Geo shmup is Last Resort and I think that game is better than R-Type.
-
Squire Grooktook
- Posts: 5997
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:39 am
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
The thing that always sticks out for me when I think of R-Type 1 compared to the rest of the series is the boss fights. Just the right balance of simplicity, variety, and some twitchy/random elements here and there.Perikles wrote:Why does no one love the second R-Type? I think it is just as good as the first one, I personally prefer it, even. It's got an even more grim atmosphere, outstanding visuals, exquisite level design (the final stage in R-Type II is hands-down my favorite level in any R-Type!) and the difficulty is about the same (first loop only, that is, the second one is a completely different story altogether). Granted, R-Type II is not as big of a step forwards as Gradius II is to Gradius, but you really can't expect that with a game as refined as R-Type. It seems to me that a lot of people simply ignore R-Type II, and I'm a little bit confused as to why that is.Squire Grooktook wrote:I haven't played Pulstar, but topping R-Type would be quite a difficult undertaking imo. Especially 1 and Delta.
That being said, I agree R-Type II has some really nice level designs. Game probably deserves a lot more love. I think I prefer Super R-Type a bit better though (but I've had that one since childhood so I might be biased).
Aeon Zenith - My STG.RegalSin wrote:Japan an almost perfect society always threatened by outsiders....................
Instead I am stuck in the America's where women rule with an iron crotch, and a man could get arrested for sitting behind a computer too long.
-
ChurchOfSolipsism
- Posts: 1224
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:12 am
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
For me it is. I love R-Type (the sequel as well, both are great games obviously) but I absolutely adore Pulstar; I'd say it's my favourite old school shmup of all times. I seem to be one of the few people who doesn't mind the non-detachable satellite at all, and the option to fire it at an end boss is a great risk-reward mechanic - if you don't kill the fucker shit is on. Also, I think the prerendered graphics are tastefully done and mix well with the awesome pixel graphics, but I admit that's a matter of taste; I certainly think there are games where the prerendered graphics look a lot worse (Mars Matrix, for example, is one ugly but still awesome game).
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Just the first R-Type for me, I like II too though.
R-Type II brings some flash and cool new stuff (I love the new dispersion cannon and how the first two zako waves are tailor-made for it) but it also amplifies some of R-Type's flaws, it's even more frustrating and difficult to play (think of the average player) and there's more useless powerups than ever, this wouldn't be so bad if the stage design didn't force you to acknowledge it, like you barely get the game started and you need to worry about hoarding the red DNA shot from stage 1 until the end of stage 3 for the boss, never picking up or bumping into other weapons or you're in trouble, R-Type did this trick too with leaving an essential weapon out of the stage where you needed it most but it wasn't this bad since you are at least free to experiment with random guns in the first couple of stages and the weapon is usually just one stage away.
Also the the music situation in II is just sad, so many tracks are just a few seconds looped forever, the musician admitted in interview that he was pressed for time.
Check out the music tracks from Gallop to see how much music could be squeezed into the arcade systems they had at the time, there's over a minute and a half before it loops at times.
R-Type II brings some flash and cool new stuff (I love the new dispersion cannon and how the first two zako waves are tailor-made for it) but it also amplifies some of R-Type's flaws, it's even more frustrating and difficult to play (think of the average player) and there's more useless powerups than ever, this wouldn't be so bad if the stage design didn't force you to acknowledge it, like you barely get the game started and you need to worry about hoarding the red DNA shot from stage 1 until the end of stage 3 for the boss, never picking up or bumping into other weapons or you're in trouble, R-Type did this trick too with leaving an essential weapon out of the stage where you needed it most but it wasn't this bad since you are at least free to experiment with random guns in the first couple of stages and the weapon is usually just one stage away.
Also the the music situation in II is just sad, so many tracks are just a few seconds looped forever, the musician admitted in interview that he was pressed for time.
Check out the music tracks from Gallop to see how much music could be squeezed into the arcade systems they had at the time, there's over a minute and a half before it loops at times.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
I think R-Type is a classic- and its a tough gig to beat that, IMO, Pulstar comes pretty close to beating R-Type, but R-Type is just R-Type and simply better.
that all probably doesn't make much sense, but for me, R-Type is part of my childhood, played in in the Arcades of the 80's the way it was meant to be played- then played R-Type II- both classics.
I have the same fondness for X-Multiply too- a game very much overlooked IMO.
that all probably doesn't make much sense, but for me, R-Type is part of my childhood, played in in the Arcades of the 80's the way it was meant to be played- then played R-Type II- both classics.
I have the same fondness for X-Multiply too- a game very much overlooked IMO.
hoots mon- crivvens, help ma boab
-
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:12 pm
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
So do a lot of you guys think Last Resort is better than Pulstar?
-
arcadehero
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2015 7:38 pm
- Location: Utah
- Contact:
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Given that R-Type has the classic status attached to it plus it is the measuring stick for most sidescrolling shmups, I would say that aside from the personal preferences of a few, Pulstar would be lose out in a general election sense.
Personally I have to look up Pulstar but I can remember R-type without a problem. But I favor Blazing Star more since that is a game I've owned for 8+ years and spent more time playing. I really want to find an R-Type Leo arcade board but that is a tall order given the rarity.
Personally I have to look up Pulstar but I can remember R-type without a problem. But I favor Blazing Star more since that is a game I've owned for 8+ years and spent more time playing. I really want to find an R-Type Leo arcade board but that is a tall order given the rarity.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
I doubt most people would say this - but I certainly would. I absolutely love Last Resort. But I'm pretty sure in the minority there.MrOldSchoolCool wrote:So do a lot of you guys think Last Resort is better than Pulstar?
Also, controversially, I actually do prefer to Pulstar to R-Type/II. I know... I know it's derivative, I know it probably wouldn't exist if R-Type hadn't come first, and I know R-Type is without a doubt much more historically important and influential. However, the fact is I simply enjoy playing Pulstar (and even more so - Last Resort) much more.
But as I say, I'm in the minority here, I'm pretty sure.
-
professor ganson
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:59 am
- Location: OHIO
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
OT: Is there anything special or different about the PC Engine versions (the two hucards or one CD) of R-Type? I've already got arcade-perfect versions of the game, but sometimes the PC Engine versions of shmups have a nice presentation (even if a bit simplified) that's a bit different from the arcade version. I don't think there are any extra modes or levels, but I've been surprised by how often PC Engine versions do have something extra over the arcade version. In any case I'll probably get the R-Type hucards just because it's fun to play games on a PC Engine. Awesome system.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Both versions add another boss to the sixth stage, the PCE CD version also has an arranged soundtrack if that counts. Ironically it does not contain the second loop despite the name R-Type Complete CD, however.
The HuCard port on the other hand does have the second loop.

-
professor ganson
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:59 am
- Location: OHIO
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Thanks for the knowledge. Good to hear about yet more interesting PC Engine variation on arcade titles.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
From a game mechanics stand point, I'm not a fan of button mashing to raise a gauge.
Typos caused by cat on keyboard.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Not even close - Pulstar basically rips off R-Type, loses some of the mechanics, gives you an engine that slows down constantly, and doesn't look as nice although it looked impressive on release.
System11's random blog, with things - and stuff!
http://blog.system11.org
http://blog.system11.org
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
+1 here.LSU wrote:I doubt most people would say this - but I certainly would. I absolutely love Last Resort. But I'm pretty sure in the minority there.MrOldSchoolCool wrote:So do a lot of you guys think Last Resort is better than Pulstar?
I absolutely love all the atmosphere towards Last Resort.
I have R-Type for the PCE, it's an excellent port, the Arcade one is where the true actions goes but...
It's an incredible game for it's time and often the "Benchmark".
So, obviously, Pulstar is leagues ahead in terms of visuals, but it's just about it.
It's a beautiful game, but way too hard. It's its biggest flaw.
Last Resort > R-Type > Pulstar < Blazing Star > R-Type II


-
To Far Away Times
- Posts: 2068
- Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:42 am
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
R-Type II is really good. But the first game was really innovative and so much better than the competition at the time that it really stood out. R-Type II is more iterative and plays it safe. It's well made and a lot of fun, but at times it just feels like a 6 level expansion pack for the original. It's missing that extra something that would put it over the top.
I would rank the games like this:
1. R-Type
2 R-Type Delta
3 R-Type II
4. R-Type Leo
5. R-Type III
6. R-Type Final
7. Super R-Type
I would rank the games like this:
1. R-Type
2 R-Type Delta
3 R-Type II
4. R-Type Leo
5. R-Type III
6. R-Type Final
7. Super R-Type
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
I've been getting into R-Type a lot lately and have been playing the 3 arcade ones.
I really like them all, probably I > Leo > II. Though Leo is very different as far as mechanics and even feel goes, so it feels only kinda semi-canon imo.
Have not played III much and Final I almost cleared when it was new, but kinda got bored with it. Never really played Delta, much.
As far as Pulstar goes, I think it is good, but not as deep as R-Type and it partly feels like they took bits of the R-Type games and reused them very overtly. Not a lot of originality going on.
Last Resort looks very nice, but I always felt as though the game was cheaper than the Irem games, cheap as in more cheap death and less tightly designed levels. But then again I have not played it that much, so maybe I have not gotten used to the mechanics well enough.
EDIT: Just played some Last Resort and I have to revise my statement a bit. It certainly is not cheap (apart from some really hard to recover from checkpoints, but all these games are ideally 1LCs anyway) Need to give it a solid go at some point when I am done with R-Type 1 and Leo.
I really like them all, probably I > Leo > II. Though Leo is very different as far as mechanics and even feel goes, so it feels only kinda semi-canon imo.
Have not played III much and Final I almost cleared when it was new, but kinda got bored with it. Never really played Delta, much.
As far as Pulstar goes, I think it is good, but not as deep as R-Type and it partly feels like they took bits of the R-Type games and reused them very overtly. Not a lot of originality going on.
Last Resort looks very nice, but I always felt as though the game was cheaper than the Irem games, cheap as in more cheap death and less tightly designed levels. But then again I have not played it that much, so maybe I have not gotten used to the mechanics well enough.
EDIT: Just played some Last Resort and I have to revise my statement a bit. It certainly is not cheap (apart from some really hard to recover from checkpoints, but all these games are ideally 1LCs anyway) Need to give it a solid go at some point when I am done with R-Type 1 and Leo.
Last edited by ptoing on Wed Apr 15, 2015 6:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
While R-Type is obviously far more impressive the first time through, not to mention iconic and genre-defining, it's also rather easy and simplistic. Understandable since it was the first game of its kind, and players were expected to be completely unfamiliar with Force control. Pulstar holds up much better on repeat plays.

-
professor ganson
- Posts: 5163
- Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 3:59 am
- Location: OHIO
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Really?! I've never heard that complaint before. Interesting. It's certainly not too easy for me.Pretas wrote: it's also rather easy
-
julencin2000
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 11:55 am
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
R-Type is 1987, Pulstar is 1995. Different decades, different gaming generations; I don't think they can be comparable.
They deserve to be fairly compared, i.e. R-Type vs rest of Irem shmups, or Pulstar vs Blazing Star.
It would be like comparing Out Run vs Sega Rally.
They deserve to be fairly compared, i.e. R-Type vs rest of Irem shmups, or Pulstar vs Blazing Star.
It would be like comparing Out Run vs Sega Rally.
Neither for me.professor ganson wrote:Really?! I've never heard that complaint before. Interesting. It's certainly not too easy for me.Pretas wrote: it's also rather easy
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
The first three stages of R-Type can practically be cleared in your sleep after becoming familiar with the game. Stages 4 and 5 demand more concentration and planning, but they're positively wimpy compared to the later stages of R-Types II, III, and Delta. I even find II's second stage significantly harder than I's fourth, since the hazardous "bubbles" found in the latter can easily be cleared with some proactive Force use.

Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
I definitely agree with you that the original R-Type starts out fairly mild, but I personally had tons of problems with the sixth stage. Even once I was familiar with the level layout and the spawning points of all those crates it was taxing to get through there unscathed. Since the final stage is very tough without both of the bits dying was completely out of the question. On the other hand, there was not a single spot in II, III or Delta where I had the feeling that such precision was required. Sure, II's sixth stage or III's fourth stage (just pars pro toto) keep you on your toes, as well, but it's not nearly as claustrophobic as those sections with the merciless crates in my opinion. I certainly had the most problems with the first game.Pretas wrote:The first three stages of R-Type can practically be cleared in your sleep after becoming familiar with the game. Stages 4 and 5 demand more concentration and planning, but they're positively wimpy compared to the later stages of R-Types II, III, and Delta. I even find II's second stage significantly harder than I's fourth, since the hazardous "bubbles" found in the latter can easily be cleared with some proactive Force use.
-
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:31 pm
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
R-Type > Last Resort.
While Last Resort is a great game, there really is just one optimal route per stage which makes it more of a puzzle shooter imo. I really enjoy it, but the game is either really easy or really hard depending on if you know what to do or not. R-Type I on the other hand, you can play offensively or defensively. It's only really a memorizer if you die and have to recover.
While Last Resort is a great game, there really is just one optimal route per stage which makes it more of a puzzle shooter imo. I really enjoy it, but the game is either really easy or really hard depending on if you know what to do or not. R-Type I on the other hand, you can play offensively or defensively. It's only really a memorizer if you die and have to recover.
Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
I can't forgive Last Resort for so brazenly swiping two iconic backdrops from Akira in its opening stage. Not to mention that the first boss is a floating Terminator torso.
Good game, but the enemy designs and stage layouts are dull and grating compared to the R-Type series, and its Force equivalent is only slightly less unwieldy than Rezon's. SNK was never able to top the original Prehistoric Isle in their STG offerings, which I feel has been denied the recognition it deserves simply because it predated the Neo. Yumekobo's Prehistoric Isle 2 was a decent follow-up, but it's bogged down by its incredibly slow pace and uninteresting weapon system.
Good game, but the enemy designs and stage layouts are dull and grating compared to the R-Type series, and its Force equivalent is only slightly less unwieldy than Rezon's. SNK was never able to top the original Prehistoric Isle in their STG offerings, which I feel has been denied the recognition it deserves simply because it predated the Neo. Yumekobo's Prehistoric Isle 2 was a decent follow-up, but it's bogged down by its incredibly slow pace and uninteresting weapon system.

Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
I love Prehistoric Isle ( first one ) but I can't place it above Last Resort.
My only complain is that it should have had 2 more stages instead of a 2nd Loop.
The whole game is fantastic. The atmosphere is brilliant.
The 1st stage is a tribute to Akira, yes. They were big fans of the Manga.
Also the 2nd stage is paying homage to Hokkuto no Ken if you look close enough
I just can't love enough Last Resort. Love it
My only complain is that it should have had 2 more stages instead of a 2nd Loop.
The whole game is fantastic. The atmosphere is brilliant.
The 1st stage is a tribute to Akira, yes. They were big fans of the Manga.
Also the 2nd stage is paying homage to Hokkuto no Ken if you look close enough

I just can't love enough Last Resort. Love it



Re: Is Pulstar considered better than R-Type?
Not that Irem would ever dream of such a thing, of course...Pretas wrote:I can't forgive Last Resort for so brazenly swiping two iconic backdrops from Akira in its opening stage.
That one's just clumsy, though.Not to mention that the first boss is a floating Terminator torso.