Under Defeat for DC

[joeblade]

Here's my list of things I hate about Under Defeat: The stupid slanted perspective makes dodging frustrating.

There's no reason this should present a problem for this reason, since every firing pattern in UD is linear. There are no curved projectile patterns except for an occasional missle and those are easily dispensed with. So if you can follow a straight line, you can follow a straight line. Persepective shouldn't affect this.

It's more that your ship doesn't move in at a solid pace, and the fact that you don't have the whole screen to move about in.

I don't like how items don't come down past the halfway point on the screen, or how they keep changing what type they are.

Then don't pick them up so eagerly. It's not like you need them to power up. They're mostly just for bonus points so they should present some slight challenge. Besides, this is an old, old convention.

It's a stupid convention. It was retarded in Twin-Bee and it's retarded here. I can cope with this, but the changing is dumb.

The rotating isn't nearly as natural as it was in Zero Gunner 1 or 2.

Well rotating was automatic in ZG1, but if anything, UD's is simpler than ZG2. And in reverse mode, decidedly similar in execution.

Except for that whole "letting off the fire button" thing. And being able to make fine adjustments to your trajectory easier.

I hate how you have to charge the options by letting off of the fire button.

Then why wouldn't you find every charge shot in every shooter frustrating. They all force you to stop firing for a moment to save up a more powerful blast. What a stupid thing to be bothered by.

I do hate charge shots in shooters. What a stupid thing to like.

Im with Alske on this one...give me zero gunner2 any day of the week.

Nothing more than a pretty, average, shmup...no more ....no less!!

[BBH]

Heh, of course not everyone's going to be satisfied by every shmup that comes out. Here's the thing though, I was really digging the game at first, then I started to get frustrated by the hit box, since dodging bullets in this game just didn't feel as natural as other shmups. Took a break for a while, then picked it up again a couple days ago, and now I was enjoying it a lot more. I still don't think it's anywhere close to perfection, but it is a very enjoyable game. It's been said many times before, but I love the fact that it doesn't use a scoring system that puts all its scoring emphasis on silly combos. Really, the only thing you can do to screw over your score is to kill a boss (or another large enemy) with a bomb. So even if you die your game isn't completely screwed. (although dying with 6 bombs in reserve makes you feel like shit)

Here's my list of things I hate about Under Defeat: The stupid slanted perspective makes dodging frustrating.

This is a very valid complaint. Especially when you've rotated your chopper, that makes it even more difficult to dodge bullets. It takes so much getting used to, and I still die when I misjudge my ship in relation to a bullet... and it is indeed frustrating.

I don't like how items don't come down past the halfway point on the screen, or how they keep changing what type they are.

The only thing that annoys me about the items are the way that the item pickup will start at a random type. It makes things a little more unexpected. If it travelled farther down the screen, there'd be a greater chance of being pinned down by bullets elsewhere on the screen, and having it run into you and giving you the weapon you DIDN'T want...

The rotating isn't nearly as natural as it was in Zero Gunner 1 or 2.

I liked Zero Gunner 1's lock-on firing mechanism, it was excellent. Zero Gunner 2's rotation never ever felt natural to me no matter how many times I tried, so I sort of gave up on the game. Under Defeat on the other hand, I had the hang of the control down within my first game.

I hate how you have to charge the options by letting off of the fire button.

A bit annoying at times, especially if you stop firing before the red bar has diminished entirely, meaning that you stopped firing to accomplish absolutely nothing for a second or two and that could screw you over. But it's just a manner of getting into the groove of figuring out the exact charge time needed for each weapon.

I find the copious amounts of bombs in the game to be indicative of an amazingly uneven difficulty curve.

I don't think the difficulty curve is too bad, as I've been able to get progressively farther than I thought I would be able to. If anything, I'm more annoyed at the lack of extends in this game. One or two extra lives would be very nice, as having just three lives doesn't give you the opportunity of making many mistakes (and, as mentioned before, if you die with a full bomb stock, it's a huge waste).

Oh well, I'm just saying that the game is well worth a second chance if you're not enjoying it too much immediately. It's a lot of fun once things start to click.


Oh, and while I'm making this post, quick question about that got-next review:

In practice, the most substantial unlockable goodie is a stand-alone version of the second loop. In normal play, the second loop is reserved only for the few who can complete its 5 stages without continuing, and earn a 95% kill ratio in every level; an elite cross-section of players.

Whoa. I take it that the 95% kill ratio is only a requirement on the arcade version? Because I finally managed to 1-credit the first loop and I went to the 2nd loop, and I didn't get above 95% kill ratio on any stage other than the first.

[llabnip]

The rotating isn't nearly as natural as it was in Zero Gunner 1 or 2.

Well rotating was automatic in ZG1, but if anything, UD's is simpler than ZG2. And in reverse mode, decidedly similar in execution.

Maybe that's why I like reverse mode - it feels very much like ZG2 (one of my all-time favs). I realize the normal mode may be a little faster to get into position to point-blank enemies, but it just doesn't feel natural. I've got too much ZG2 running through my blood!

Anyway, the shine on this one simply hasn't diminished at all for me. I've already gotten more than my money's worth from it and expect that this will be solidly planted in my all-time top 25 next year. No game will please everyone - but it's pretty clear from the majority of posts here and the few reviews out there that G-Rev has a phenomenal shooter on their hands. Fortunately, we get to own this little gem for a song - don't hesitate to pick it up since if you're one of the few that it doesn't gel with, you should be able to sell it for the same or more once the last remaining copies are gone.

I'm sure this was already posted, but just in case... there are some nice little blurbs on UD on this page (including an interview with the president of G-Rev in French and English where he talks a bit about ZG2 as an influence and the possibility of future Dreamcast titles):

http://www.dreamcast-scene.com/index.ph ... nderDefeat

[chtimi-CLA]

Whoa. I take it that the 95% kill ratio is only a requirement on the arcade version? Because I finally managed to 1-credit the first loop and I went to the 2nd loop, and I didn't get above 95% kill ratio on any stage other than the first.

the requiment isn't 95% kill ratio but 95% contribution as defined in the strat thread. since it is possible to get 100% without perfecting, this is more like a norm clear requirement like in border down.

[CIT]

I hate how you have to charge the options by letting off of the fire button.

A bit annoying at times, especially if you stop firing before the red bar has diminished entirely, meaning that you stopped firing to accomplish absolutely nothing for a second or two and that could screw you over. But it's just a manner of getting into the groove of figuring out the exact charge time needed for each weapon.

Theres a "beep!" sound when the red bar has diminished and a reload sound plus flash when the option is ready to be dropped off. Once I got used to listening to those signals it came natural.

[postman]

One of the most frustrating things of this game, for me, is the last boss.....

(SLIGHT SPOLIERS)





I can handle the first form no problem.
Second section with the "back end" of the large turret, lots of dodging, but still not bad.

Then the final part sucks. My main complaint is the fact that the rocket option doesn't always auto-aim down the turret when it should. I'll send off a perfectly lined up option, then at the last second it will move 1/4 of an inch and miss going down the barrel. This works my nerves. And the blanket diagonial fire comes up too fast for you to dodge.

I can see what others are saying about the perspective fire also. It takes about 1 second to rise up to your level, then it takes off on a straight line towards your heli. I have learned to adjust to it.......but it's tricky at first..

[it290]

If you think about it, the rotational firing mechanism (in normal mode) really isn't too different from games like Mercs or Shock Troopers, only without 360 degrees of rotation. To me it's much more intuitive than ZG2's scheme since you don't have to worry about holding down an extra button and the rate of rotation is always the same.

I don't really find the hitbox to be problematic, either -- just make your ship parallel with the incoming shots and everything is pretty easy to dodge. I will admit that I have difficulty gauging it when required to move laterally through shots though -- on the 3rd stage midboss and boss, for example.

As for the powerup thing, it is a bit annoying (especially the randomness), but keep in mind those powerups keep floating around for a good minute or so. Chances are you'll have plenty of chances to grab what you want within that window - just be patient.

[Alske]

It's not that I find any of my complaints gamebreakers. I just don't really see any "greatness" in this game. Most of the positive impressions of this game tend to focus on the graphics/the detail in the game world, and how retro it feels. I don't think it's a bad game, but I can't fathom what elevates it above other mediocre shooters like Raystorm, Zero Gunner 1, etc.

I don't feel the gameplay is as refined as ESP Galuda, DOJ, Zero Gunner 2, or Mars Matrix. It certainly doesn't have the intensity of a GigaWing game or Rajirugi.

I can't help but think that Under Defeat is just the flavor of the month. It's getting glowing reviews because it's new, it's pretty, and it's on Dreamcast.

[CIT]

I don't know, I think it's pretty intense. You're mainly comparing it to highly score-focussed shooters, which Under Defeat was never meant to be. To that extent it's probably just a matter of your own preference.

[CMoon]

Then the final part sucks. My main complaint is the fact that the rocket option doesn't always auto-aim...

This may seem weird, but use the vulcan (or even the cannon). It happened to me by accident, and I was amazed how much damage the vulcan did.

[Frogacuda]

It's not that I find any of my complaints gamebreakers. I just don't really see any "greatness" in this game. Most of the positive impressions of this game tend to focus on the graphics/the detail in the game world, and how retro it feels. I don't think it's a bad game, but I can't fathom what elevates it above other mediocre shooters like Raystorm, Zero Gunner 1, etc.

I don't feel the gameplay is as refined as ESP Galuda, DOJ, Zero Gunner 2, or Mars Matrix. It certainly doesn't have the intensity of a GigaWing game or Rajirugi.

I can't help but think that Under Defeat is just the flavor of the month. It's getting glowing reviews because it's new, it's pretty, and it's on Dreamcast.

I kinda resent that, as I'm actually a pretty harsh reviewer in general. I acknowledge fully that UD is not a revolutionary game and it doesn't do anything wildly new. I do, however, really enjoy the firing patterns, the level designs, and find the game to be generally polished and well executed, and thus holds up well to scrutiny. That's the main reason I like it. It's rewarding to play, it isn't so heavily patterned that it's all memorization, and yet I get steadily better at it, and that's the balance all arcade games should try to achieve.

I hear what you're saying about it being very simplistic. That said it's a much better game than say, Rajirugi, which wasn't received nearly as warmly, so clearly there's something about Under Defeat that gets it right.

[louisg]

It's not that I find any of my complaints gamebreakers. I just don't really see any "greatness" in this game. Most of the positive impressions of this game tend to focus on the graphics/the detail in the game world, and how retro it feels. I don't think it's a bad game, but I can't fathom what elevates it above other mediocre shooters like Raystorm, Zero Gunner 1, etc.

I don't feel the gameplay is as refined as ESP Galuda, DOJ, Zero Gunner 2, or Mars Matrix. It certainly doesn't have the intensity of a GigaWing game or Rajirugi.

I can't help but think that Under Defeat is just the flavor of the month. It's getting glowing reviews because it's new, it's pretty, and it's on Dreamcast.

Well, here are some positive things about UD that I feel put it above many other shmups:
- The enemies actually aim at you
- It makes good use of 3d in the *gameplay*-- that is, height matters, and enemies take up strategic positions behind barriers which you can only hit from certain angles.
- The options all behave differently, with some locking on more, some following you, some being single shot, etc. You can place them in strategic formations.
- Enemy fire takes a little time to reach your height, and you actually aim at ground targets (where in many games the next shot automatically hits the next target)-- this opens up some different strategies than in other games.
- Unlike a lot of otherwise solid shooters, the rank never seems to go totally berzerk.
- The bosses do some neat things, like attack from behind, kick up clouds of dust, and blind you with the spotlight at certain angles. Some levels have you protecting allies. Overall, there really is a bit of variety in this one.

I would argue that, even though I really like ZG2, this may be more refined because:
- Enemies never ignore you-- ZG2 has quite a few parts where enemies turn their backs on you for some reason, mostly on the mech battles and some of the formations.
- No bummer levels. What is that sky level doing in there?

So, it's got some neat gameplay elements. I hope this sheds some light on why perhaps some people like this game.

[BBH]

Theres a "beep!" sound when the red bar has diminished and a reload sound plus flash when the option is ready to be dropped off. Once I got used to listening to those signals it came natural.

I know sometimes I still just anticipate the bar emptying ahead of time and timing it wrong.

Whoa. I take it that the 95% kill ratio is only a requirement on the arcade version? Because I finally managed to 1-credit the first loop and I went to the 2nd loop, and I didn't get above 95% kill ratio on any stage other than the first.

the requiment isn't 95% kill ratio but 95% contribution as defined in the strat thread. since it is possible to get 100% without perfecting, this is more like a norm clear requirement like in border down.

I'm still a little confused by this. This is the percentage on the bonus screen (and shown on the VMU), right?

Then the final part sucks. My main complaint is the fact that the rocket option doesn't always auto-aim down the turret when it should. I'll send off a perfectly lined up option, then at the last second it will move 1/4 of an inch and miss going down the barrel. This works my nerves. And the blanket diagonial fire comes up too fast for you to dodge.

I haven't had a problem with the rocket going off to the side on the last boss, the problem is that sometimes I wouldn't move all the way down before launching it and the option ends up crashing into the boss instead. Once I managed to remember that the option always ends up going down the barrel. Just make sure you stay there before the rocket hits so the barrel doesn't start moving and makes it explode early.

As for the parallel lines of bullets that it fires, I'd love it if there was an exact safe spot on the screen, but there obviously isn't because the bullet lines get sent out in the same angle the gun barrel was facing when it fires. Try to keep it as straight as possible when it fires (I know, that can be rather risky when you're waiting to get the barrel to fire), then move to the top of the screen and hope you can dodge it. If not, use a bomb. Unfortunately, using a bomb on this part will not get rid of the bullets it sends when it fills the screen with smoke... for this part it's obviously important to start firing so you can tell where your ship is in the smoke.

[Alske]

I kinda resent that, as I'm actually a pretty harsh reviewer in general. I acknowledge fully that UD is not a revolutionary game and it doesn't do anything wildly new. I do, however, really enjoy the firing patterns, the level designs, and find the game to be generally polished and well executed, and thus holds up well to scrutiny. That's the main reason I like it. It's rewarding to play, it isn't so heavily patterned that it's all memorization, and yet I get steadily better at it, and that's the balance all arcade games should try to achieve.

I hear what you're saying about it being very simplistic. That said it's a much better game than say, Rajirugi, which wasn't received nearly as warmly, so clearly there's something about Under Defeat that gets it right.

I actually think Raji is brilliant. It kept me from playing Ibara and then it pulled me away from Under Defeat.

I find that while the levels are pretty and do some neat things, the lack of variety in the gameplay had me bored very quickly. I got 100% in the first level the second time I tried it, then the first level became nothing more then what I had to endure to make it to the second. Similar thing happened with the second level as I got better at it...

I also vehemently disagree with you about the shot patterns. I got through the challenging parts by memorization, not through skill or a deeper understanding of the game system. Like the ships in level two, nothing but memorizing when to fire a rocket and executing it perfectly.

[it290]

Formulating a strategy and executing it -- the same gameplay element found in every other shooter ever made.

I really doubt that you're getting 100% on level 2 consistently after only playing the game for 2-3 hours, as well.

[Alske]

Formulating a strategy and executing it -- the same gameplay element found in every other shooter ever made.

I really doubt that you're getting 100% on level 2 consistently after only playing the game for 2-3 hours, as well.

My point was that the viable strategies seem to be significantly less in this game then in others.

Every time I beat the level I had over 95%, so not 100% consistently. My point was that I figured out how to do the level from a strategic point and all that was left was rote memorization to execute it without fail.

It's the formulation part that I find interesting, and there seems to be far to little of that in this game.

[louisg]

It's the formulation part that I find interesting, and there seems to be far to little of that in this game.

I dunno, there's much more survival formulation than score though, that's for sure. I know I seem to play the stages all a little differently each time. The scoring mostly depends on grouping enemies together, holding fire, and things like that. It's totally the wrong game to look for complex and obscure scoring formulas in though, it's all pretty up-front about it.

[CMoon]

...stuff...

Are you sure this isn't more 'old school' versus 'new school' stuff? I feel that UD takes the Taito tradition it rests upon and fixes all the complaints most people had with the Ray stuff, while also making nods to older shmups like Twin cobras and Raiden. You give a blah 'so what' response to this game, but UD is actually very refined. In reality, I feel your comments criticize the game for being old school but also criticizes all the new things they try as being faults. Maybe it is more about the style of game not being to your liking than criticisims of the game itself.

I really have problems buying into this game as anything short of 'finely crafted'.

[BBH]

Every time I beat the level I had over 95%, so not 100% consistently. My point was that I figured out how to do the level from a strategic point and all that was left was rote memorization to execute it without fail.

It's the formulation part that I find interesting, and there seems to be far to little of that in this game.

Well it's not as if there is only one viable "solution" for every level. You can always find new ways to squeeze points out of the levels (I've managed 282k on 1-1 but it can obviously still be done better). Compare the in-game replays, you'll see different strategies being used for certain parts of the levels on the two of them. Some people might prefer to use the Cannon on a boss, others might prefer Rocket. There is quite a bit of variety and you're not stuck playing the game the exact same way every time for optimal scores.

As I've said before, I love the fact that I don't have to worry about keeping some silly combo going throughout the entire level and then groan once I screw it up and want to restart since I know my score will suffer for the rest of the game. After playing so many shmups with gimmicky scoring systems, it's nice to play a simple one that focuses more on just letting you blow shit up without much worry.

[Alske]

...stuff...

Are you sure this isn't more 'old school' versus 'new school' stuff?

I agree. The fact remains that people are trumpeting this game as one of the greatest shooters ever. That everyone should play it. I think that's true if you're a fan of Raystorm/Crisis, but anyone not in love with those "golden years" will be left wondering what the big deal is. That would be me.

In reality, I feel your comments criticize the game for being old school but also criticizes all the new things they try as being faults.

Yes. Yes they do.

I really have problems buying into this game as anything short of 'finely crafted'.

I really have problems buying into this game being any more 'finely crafted' then dozens of others. Still not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's mediocre.

[dave4shmups]

I need to say this is the first game where I've really enjoyed the 'into-the-screen' perspective and felt it worked very well.

Obvsiouly this means as you travel up the screen you seem to slow slightly, but also bullets speed up as they travel down the screen (brilliant!)

What I love about this is you can see the patterns coming and often plant your attack before the wave has actually hit instead of of forced-panic!

Anyway @ Dave4shmups--if you like old school shmups (IE Toaplan, Raiden, etc.) you should't hesitate to buy this, especially since it will be gone soon.

Well, it's a no-go. I got what I thought was my IRS tax return in the mail today, only to be informed by them that I am not getting any money back at all. So, unless I want to almost drain my checking account, this will have to wait.

The game does look good to me, but as far as "depth" goes, I could really give a rip when it comes to shmups. If I want depth, I'll go play Elder Scrolls III on my XBOX. There's nothing wrong with shmups like Flying Shark, Galaga, Raiden I-III, that are just straight up blast fests. I dislike Border Down as well, except for the presentation, because of the dumb suicide gimmick, and the fact that it has about as many rules as your average old-school RPG.

This is why, OT, I was annoyed with the last issue of EGM; the reviewers complained that BLACK isn't deep enough...IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE "DEEP", IT'S MEANT TO BE A MINDLESS SHOOTER!! . Honestly, is there something wrong with that anymore??

[it290]

UD will throw different firing patterns and enemies at you depending on rank and destruction time as well. There's also randomness in the form of the powerups cycling. I've been playing the game a lot, and although I'm quite consistent on the first two stages and fairly so on the third, the computer tries to kill me a little differently on each run. You really need machine-like precision if you want to see the same enemies and patterns each time. If you want a game that really plays exactly the same way each time, try DDP -- yes, awesome game, I love it too, but it really has less variation between runs than UD does.

[CMoon]

I really have problems buying into this game as anything short of 'finely crafted'.

I really have problems buying into this game being any more 'finely crafted' then dozens of others. Still not saying it's bad, I'm saying it's mediocre.

The problem is, with so many shmups, it is easy to call a lot of them mediocre. With so many 'developers' being little more than 3 or 4 guys, most of the shmups coming out now are 'under developed'. I don't feel that's the case with UD, and feel it is far superior to Raycrisis and Raystorm (which may not sound like I'm saying much, but...) while teasing back to a 16 bit heritage that your either not into, or don't see the connection.

Perhaps it is fair to say (and you'll find this applies for several others here too), that my favorite period of shmups ended by the early 90's. I'm not into complex scoring mechanics, chains, or the whole hit-box game. In this respect, UD is a breath of fresh air with bullet patterns that are fair, with a couple levels I can actually do without enormous amounts of practice, and aimed bullets.

The technical problems you mentioned are problems FOR YOU. I can't see them as faults of the game anymore than I can see large hit boxes or fast bullets being a fault. Those are personal preferences.

I guess that's what I'd like to hear. What is supposedly broken with the game? Why is it mediocre? Where are the other shmups that this is just a really weak version of? I can point out a million Raiden clones or how Cave keeps making the same game over and over, but what is UD a mediocre version of?

[louisg]

How is RayStorm older school than Strikers or Donpachi or something? That doesn't make sense to me.

[roker]

some will like it

some won't

with my preferences (save for my love for Raizing games)

I think this game suits the old schooler in all of us, while adding a "twist" (trust me bitches, that pun was purely intended) to the gameplay

I think even if the graphics weren't so badass, I'd still love this game


really though, the graphics are just icing on the cake

[Vincere]

Got my copy today, too bad I don't own any DC system...

[Neon]

IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE "DEEP", IT'S MEANT TO BE A MINDLESS SHOOTER!! Evil or Very Mad . Honestly, is there something wrong with that anymore?

Yes. If you guys don't like thinking in your games, then abandon shmups entirely and play Call of Duty or something. The graphics and story will be way better.

I actually share Alske's frustration of having the first and second levels pretty much perfect already. The third level too, but I usually make some minor fuckup which results in a death, meaning I have to go ALL the way back to the start...and be bored until 1-4 again. Garegga I have the first level perfected even beyond the superplay but that at least takes some mental effort, especially at the tanks bit which I still don't get perfect around 10% of the time. Garegga/Ibara's 'looseness' I miss as well...if you die accidentally in those it's actually not a huge worry, and if you fuck up too severely there's always the stage restart option under the pause menu.

UD's a decent enough old school shooter, but like so many others, it doesn't top Raiden DX. The 'I play for fun, not score' crowd will disagree, but that only makes me think I'm more right ^_~

[llabnip]

Yes. If you guys don't like thinking in your games, then abandon shmups entirely and play Call of Duty or something. The graphics and story will be way better.

I play shmups because I want to have fun blowing crap up. I don't care much to strategize before, during or after I play a shooter - I want to play and enjoy the ride -- and for me a game like Under Defeat is sitting really nicely. If you're finding the game a little too simplistic for your tastes, that's fine - but not everyone plays shmups for the same reasons.

Anyway, there was a time when I felt that I should study shmups more and try to really get into one of these supposedly "deep" ones. In the end I found myself not enjoying things as much. So I went back to the games that I had the most fun with - and for the most part these were straight up blasters (though Radiant Silvergun still remains my all-time favoraite game even though the chain scoring is vital to long-term survival). Anyway, very few games have that raw simple fun factor of Under Defeat that makes me want to restart at the end of every run.

UD's a decent enough old school shooter, but like so many others, it doesn't top Raiden DX.

Nor does it have to. I could say that nothing has topped Radiant Silverugn - ever. For me, RS is the best of the best - both in terms of presentation, music and gameplay. No other game has come close for me. But I wouldn't want to live on Radiant Silvergun alone. There is plenty of room for other shooters in my collection. Sometimes I feel like playing Radiant Silvergun. Sometimes Raiden DX (I agree, great game). And sometimes Under Defeat. I know where I'd rank them in terms of being favoriates (and UD is rising steadily), but they are each enjoyable in different ways.

some will like it
some won't

Well said. After years of trying I simply can't find much that I enjoy in Battle Garegga. But others love it to bits and thats cool - always play what you enjoy. Although I'm definitely in the Under Defeat is amazing must-play-more category, others may not feel the same. If you're looking for a little more meat in your game, Under Defeat may not fit the bill. To each, their own.

[it290]

I actually share Alske's frustration of having the first and second levels pretty much perfect already. The third level too, but I usually make some minor fuckup which results in a death, meaning I have to go ALL the way back to the start...and be bored until 1-4 again.

A minor fuckup resulting in a death is still a death... and dying in shooters used to be something you weren't supposed to do. Granted, you can get more points in UD that way. I agree with everyone who's said the game would be better with an extend or two and perhaps could do without the 'fewer lives = more score' mechanic, but I am glad it doesn't had out extends like candy. I don't mind that (getting extends is exhilirating, like getting a free credit on a pinball machine, and it can help to minimize frustration), but it wouldn't suit this game.

[Neon]

Well, that's the problem with the world, nobody likes thinking. An english teacher I had once put it nicely...there's the 'Visigoth' style of art/entertainment where works are praised for having a broad appeal (Radiant Silvergun, anyone?). The broader the appeal, the less thought provoking/controversy over it, since it's something everyone can agree with. The comic strip Garfield would be another example...Garfield never challenges us, and we're indeed comforted by the fact that he's always eating or sleeping. Then the 'Athenian' style...stuff that makes people think. Battle Garegga, or to continue the comics analogy, Calvin and Hobbes.

If you choose to be a 'Visigoth,' it means you're just sitting in front of the TV, randomly moving the joystick, never improving yourself or the way you think. Maybe you're even drooling a little? I choose the Athenian style so I'm not just wasting my time playing these games (as logical thinking/problem solving can be applied to everyday life), and because I think Garfield is a fat, lazy fuck . That's why I view DX as so superior to Raiden 2, the medalling makes it that much more intense, but I'm digressing from a digression of a digression, sorry.

Somebody more intelligent could phrase it better, I'm gonna google around for that article...