EGM vs. GI on R-Type

[professor ganson]

EGM has always beat out GameInformer with respect to sense of humor. Another respect in which EGM is superior: it's attitude toward R-Type.

This month in GI's Retro section, we find the following review of the PS1 R-Types:
"6.5 out of 10. There is a definite appeal to the side-scrolling shooter genre, but like with many games, it's often hard to revisit their history. R-Types, the PS1 title that collects the first two games in the series, should be a shooter fan's dream, but mostly serves to remind the player of far better games. Lacking the finesse of later releases like R-Type III or R-Type Final, these two games feel sluggish and frustrating in comparison. In both games, your ship moves like it is flying through a sea of molasses, and the lack of analog control is hard to adjust to. The blistering difficulty that the series and genre is known for is definitely present, but if feels more due to handicapped controls than fair challenge. The two-player modes merely switches off between two players, which seems completely antiquated in today's co-op game climate. R-Types does have a history feature, and the two games do make a nice package for completists, but they should be warned that these games may not be as fun as they remember."

Oh, the ignorance.

By contrast, EGM places R-Type at 42 on their top 200 games of their time and writes:
"Finally, a shooter that wasn't just reflexes-- you had to think about what power-ups to get and which to pass by, where to position your ship, and how to use the awesome force pod. And that third level-- a gigantic ship, multiple screens long, that doubles as the boss? Brilliant. Tough as nails and fun as hell."

[Middlemoor]

I've always liked EGM, even when they got a bit caught up in the flavour-of-the-month games.

...these games may not be as fun as they remember.

I wish people wouldn't say that. If I remember a game as being fun, it probably was!

[icycalm]

EGM used to have some knowledgable people working for them. I wonder what they are doing now.

[Middlemoor]

I used to like Dan "Shoe", although he seemed conceited working for 1up.com.

[icycalm]

Most everyone starts seeming conceited when they get into the "blogging" business.

In any case, even EGM's write-up on R-Type is not that accurate.

"Finally, a shooter that wasn't just reflexes-- you had to think about what power-ups to get and which to pass by, where to position your ship, and how to use the awesome force pod."

Gradius came out two years before R-Type and it arguably requires even more thinking. No one cares enough to do their homework, unfortunately.

[Xexyz]

I like this quote from the GI article:

<i>In both games, your ship moves like it is flying through a sea of molasses, <b>and the lack of analog control is hard to adjust to.</b></i>

Yeah, okay GI. Who the hell want's to play a 2D shooter with analog? Analog just makes most 2D games frustrating. I remember when I first got my import PS2 and DoDonPachi: Dai-Oujou. Using the DualShock 2 (which I later switched to a standard pre-analog PS1 pad) was a nightmare, because every single face button is pressure sensetive analog. I had to jam the fire buttons and direction pad, causing my hads to cramp...

[JBC]

What Game Informer claims about the controls in R-Type is bullshit. It's not that sluggish at all... although i have found thier magazine to have new information not available in other mags quite a few times, even if it's just little snippets.

... but any magazine that has Seanbaby working for it has to be awesomness. Plus EGM has been there - they've been around for a good chunk of the video game industries life.

It's just too bad Gamefan isn't still around. I settle for a mix of Play and HCG every month, reading everything else off the rack. I'd like to start buying RETRO but it's too damn expensive in North America. 12 bucks an issue!?!

[icycalm]

Print is dying a slow death. I haven't bought a game magazine in almost two years.

Once you realize that their writers know much less than you do, it's hard to keep giving them your money and reading their stuff. I feel like a schoolteacher looking over my students' papers, only no matter how hard I shout they never listen to me and never improve.

[ahnslaught]

Gotta agree with most of the sentiments here - I saw a headline on Digg giving away free 1 year EGM subscriptions, so I signed up. I haven't bought this or any magazine in years, so I thought why not, since I used to love EGM in the early 90's. After receiving a couple of issues now, I say it's basically shiny fish wrapper. Their features aren't any more in-depth than online sites, and reviews are irrelevant, since you can get them online from a hundred places, or even see videos and stuff to make up your own mind. Lastly, I personally miss the ghetto cheap style of the old EGM, especially compared to the cool look that they are going for nowadays.

Magazines used to be great back in the day because they were a great place to get information that you otherwise couldn't get. Nowadays, though, that's not the case.

Back on topic, I'll bet the only reason EGM's article was more superior was because it was shorter, so there was less chance to screw up!

[Ganelon]

Once you realize that their writers know much less than you do, it's hard to keep giving them your money and reading their stuff. I feel like a schoolteacher looking over my students' papers, only no matter how hard I shout they never listen to me and never improve.

Well, to be fair, I'm pretty sure they know quite a good deal about all modern games. It's just that their classic and import knowledge isn't there at all. Back when EGM had Che and John Ricciardi, they had them but now...nothing really appeals to me.

It's too bad; I really liked back when I was clueless in the early 90s when EGM was really informative and was as thick as a woman's magazine.

[iatneH]

It's too bad; I really liked back when I was clueless in the early 90s when EGM was really informative and was as thick as a woman's magazine.

But I bet EGM doesn't teach you how to give your man multiple orgasms.

[Stormwatch]

You know what? They're right. R-Type is sluggish, outdated, and frustrating. Just like Pulstar, I could never enjoy it past the first level - probably because of the spawning points, I hate that, they just kick me off the zone. And it gets visually confusing too, it gets hard to see the bullets. I'll take Sol Deace, Eliminate Down, and Blazing Star over R-Type any time!

*ducks*

[JBC]

*throws a shoe at Stormwatch*

[Specineff]

*throws an anvil at SW*

[The Coop]

Most everyone starts seeming conceited when they get into the "blogging" business.

In any case, even EGM's write-up on R-Type is not that accurate.

"Finally, a shooter that wasn't just reflexes-- you had to think about what power-ups to get and which to pass by, where to position your ship, and how to use the awesome force pod."

Gradius came out two years before R-Type and it arguably requires even more thinking. No one cares enough to do their homework, unfortunately.

I've always found the Gradius series to less of a thinking series, due to the weapons being useful in nearly equal levels on all stages. Normal shot, laser, ripple... if you grab one with enough options, you're going to do quite well unless you're a beginner. The only time thought came into it for me, was deciding if I should get the options first, or a better weapon first. After that, it was shoot and dodge. All the weapons fire forward (with the exception of the, IMHO, useless double shot), so really which one you have doesn't make much difference with 2-4 options following you.

With R-Type, having the wrong weapon at the wrong time can be disastrous, so you need to switch it from time to time depending on where you are and what you're facing. Though the ring laser makes for a killer weapon load once you get the small orbs to help, the reflecting laser comes in pretty handy in spots. Plus, the three very different weapons allow more ways to go at a given level.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on what you brought up, icycalm.


As for EGM and other magazines, I tried reading Game Informer, only to find myself disagreeing with a good number of their reviews. After months of this, getting that magazine seemed pointless. I've not read Hardcore Gamer yet, and I avoid GamePro like a kick to the nut sack. I still read EGM, not because I agree with everything they say in their reviews, but partially out of habit (I've been reading it for many years now), and partially because I do enjoy reading it.

I still wish GameFan would make a comeback.

[Ghegs]

You know what? They're right. R-Type is sluggish, outdated, and frustrating. Just like Pulstar, I could never enjoy it past the first level - probably because of the spawning points, I hate that, they just kick me off the zone. And it gets visually confusing too, it gets hard to see the bullets. I'll take Sol Deace, Eliminate Down, and Blazing Star over R-Type any time!

*ducks*

Heh, you're not alone. I could never get into R-Type. It just feels boring to me. I like to have my shooters based on roughly 70% reflexes and 30% on knowing what's ahead, instead of the other way around.

[icycalm]

See, that's one point I try to get across to people, but fail miserably.

You have to like a genre (or a sub-genre) to be able to provide useful criticism.

R-Type belongs to the "horizontal memorizer without instant respawns" sub-genre of shooting games. If you don't like this sub-genre, let alone the whole goddamn genre, then your views on the games that fall within it are irrelevant.

Now if you do like the sub-genre, but not the specific game, then you should base your criticisms on comparisons with other similar titles. You have to cite specific similarities and differences, and try to make valid, well-supported points. Otherwise, if your comments are arbitrary ("This game is boring", "This game sucks"), your criticisms are again worthless.

This, for example, is good criticism:

I've always found the Gradius series to less of a thinking series, due to the weapons being useful in nearly equal levels on all stages. Normal shot, laser, ripple... if you grab one with enough options, you're going to do quite well unless you're a beginner. The only time thought came into it for me, was deciding if I should get the options first, or a better weapon first. After that, it was shoot and dodge. All the weapons fire forward (with the exception of the, IMHO, useless double shot), so really which one you have doesn't make much difference with 2-4 options following you.

With R-Type, having the wrong weapon at the wrong time can be disastrous, so you need to switch it from time to time depending on where you are and what you're facing. Though the ring laser makes for a killer weapon load once you get the small orbs to help, the reflecting laser comes in pretty handy in spots. Plus, the three very different weapons allow more ways to go at a given level.

[Shatterhand]

Double shot is a lot useful in Gradius. I believed for many years that Laser was the way to go and that Double indeed was worthless. But one day I saw someone mentioning here HOW OBVIOUS it was that everyone should use double in a certain level of Gradius Gaiden, I just went "What the fuck?"... and then I tested it, and I found out that the weapon is indeed more useful than laser in many spots.


And I agree that R-Type is a LOT MORE about "thinking" than Gradius. You can play Gradius by basically adlib dodging all the way through (With a little bit of luck too).. this is impossible with R-Type.


My fav R-Type game nowadays is R-Type Leo anyway, which is more gradius-ish than R-Type

[Stormwatch]

Now if you do like the sub-genre, but not the specific game, then you should base your criticisms on comparisons with other similar titles.

How about: it lacks the pacing and ambiance that make Border Down fun.

[icycalm]

Now if you do like the sub-genre, but not the specific game, then you should base your criticisms on comparisons with other similar titles.

How about: it lacks the pacing and ambiance that make Border Down fun.

That's definitely an opinion, but you'd have to elaborate more and provide concrete examples to support it. (Also, ambiance in this context doesn't mean anything. It's just a word you decided to throw in. Except if you try to qualify it--explain what you mean by it.)

I haven't played Border Down so I can't comment on this.

However, you are ignoring the fact that the two games are separated by two decades, and also that Border Down quite possibly wouldn't exist without R-Type.

Games are not created in a vacuum, and if one title is better because it stood on the shoulders of giants, that's no reason to trash the older games which, in their time, were considered classics.

You either have an appreciation for a genre's past or you don't. Or you play and read and try to acquire it.

[Kiken]

Now if you do like the sub-genre, but not the specific game, then you should base your criticisms on comparisons with other similar titles.

How about: it lacks the pacing and ambiance that make Border Down fun.

I don't know if you can really compare R-Type and Border Down in that manner. R-Type's ambiance is very sinister due to direct organic alien involvement while Border Down's is more traditional with the emphasis on technology and machina.

Border Down's power-up system is quite different from R-Type. If you didn't grab any power-ups in Border Down, you'd still be able to reach max power regardless, since your weapon powers up through use. In R-Type, the only way to increase rapid-fire output it to pick up power-ups.

Also, I could argue that Border Down's pacing is awkward since it uses check-points but promotes suicidal play in order to rack up score. Plus, BD's difficulty works in reverse to R-Type's (and Gradius' for that matter): as the auto-rank makes the game more difficult the more you die, instead of easing up (well, maybe except for the second portion of stage 7 in R-Type).

I suppose one could compare the hyper-laser in BD to R-Type's charge shot, however, once again, the two work in reverse to one another:
The BD laser requires weapon gauge to use (which is raised during shooting), but can be done instantaneously, and held for the duration of the gauge. It leaves the player vulnerable after its use.
R-Type's charge shot must be powered-up through pause of fire, but is unlimited in use. It leaves the player vulnerable before its use.

These games really are complete opposites in the way they are executed and play.

[professor ganson]

And I agree that R-Type is a LOT MORE about "thinking" than Gradius. You can play Gradius by basically adlib dodging all the way through (With a little bit of luck too).. this is impossible with R-Type.

Nicely put. Many shooters require careful strategizing for improving score, but here we are talking chiefly about survival. I think the EGM writer is clearly right to emphasize how significant a role careful reflection-- as opposed to mere reflexes-- plays in R-Type. For this reason I think of the original R-Type as a beautiful puzzle, and I would agree in placing it among the top 50 games ever made (or "for their time").

[zaphod]

I've foud double to be worthless in many areas of Gradius. This is mainly because it doesn't increase your firepower over the standard shot at all.it just divides your available bullets between the two directions. FOr many parts, yo NEED the extra firepower of the laser. In a gradius game that actaulyl doubles your allowed bullets oncreen when you get double, it woudl be very useful all around a lot more.

That said, even in gradius 1, it is useful on four and 5 (if you are trying to take out arms on the Amoeboids), and also probably on seven (but not six)

[GunSpike]

Heh, you're not alone. I could never get into R-Type. It just feels boring to me. I like to have my shooters based on roughly 70% reflexes and 30% on knowing what's ahead, instead of the other way around.

Yeah, gotta agree. R-Type just doesn't quite do it for me either.

[Shatterhand]

I've foud double to be worthless in many areas of Gradius. This is mainly because it doesn't increase your firepower over the standard shot at all.it just divides your available bullets between the two directions. FOr many parts, yo NEED the extra firepower of the laser. In a gradius game that actaulyl doubles your allowed bullets oncreen when you get double, it woudl be very useful all around a lot more.

That said, even in gradius 1, it is useful on four and 5 (if you are trying to take out arms on the Amoeboids), and also probably on seven (but not six)

That's the point I can't see myself trying level 4 without double anymore. It's also useful in level 7, but if you have 4 options, you should go for laser and position then in spots where the enemies won't have time to shoot.

Double is very useful in many spots in Gradius Gaiden too (Gradius 1 and Gaiden are the only Gradius game that I spent some good time with)



Now it's time for another R-Type vs Gradius thread?

[Bloodreign]

This thread comes at a time when I've just picked up R-Type 3 SNES and R-Types for Playstation. I've learned to survive better in the first two over time due to practicing a lot on the first two games, not so on the third game. As for Gradiu, the only ones I see myself gradually getting better at were Gradius 2 and 4, but since I haven't put time into either one lately, I feel I may have regressed.

R-Type and Gradius were my introductions to shmups many years ago, chances are if I hadn't weaned myself on these two, I'd have likely never gotten into playing the genre. Both are extremely nice in their presentations, R-Type the slower thinking man's shmup, and Gradius the more twitchier cousin (Gradius 3 SNES definitely for awhile had sharpened my reflexes).

[Dylan1CC]

I've always liked EGM, even when they got a bit caught up in the flavour-of-the-month games.

...these games may not be as fun as they remember.

I wish people wouldn't say that. If I remember a game as being fun, it probably was!

Agreed, that is an overused gaming journalist cliche I really hate. "Yeah, such and such was a good game for its time, but it's mostly nostalgia now." Lame. Not saying it isn't true in select cases.

[Alske]

You have to like a genre (or a sub-genre) to be able to provide useful criticism.

I can't agree with this statement at all. Just because someone is predisposed against a certain style doesn't make their opinion useless. In fact, it can be just as useful as someone who is fanaticly in favor of it. The cavaet is that all criticism needs to be expressed in an intelligent manner to be useful. This is where GI fails.

If I was a developer of modern shooters I pay a hell of a lot of attention to what people that hate the genre where saying. For example, I hate all checkpoint-based shooters, and just because checkpoints are a staple of R-Type doesn't make my criticism any less valid. To a developer (or consumer) considering checkpoints in a shooter, my opinion that checkpoints force obtuse memorization, and thus frustration, on the player can be used as useful criticism.

If wanted my game to be fun for the type of people that get frustrated easily I wouldn't put checkpoints in it for this reason. However, if I was interested in pleasing the so-called perfectionist, who loves trying for the perfect play-through (irregardless of the challenge) then I'd seriously consider checkpoints. Similarly, if I was reader of such a review, I could base my purchasing decision on how closely I felt that I agreed with the statements made early.

The GI review fails because it does no more then analyze the surface of R-Type. There is no elaboration on why you'd need analog control, or why the games feel sluggish (which to me implies bad/unresponsive controls) as opposed to slow (deliberate yet precise controls). The uselessness of GI's statements is the result of bad writers (and potentially space limitations), not some predisposition against shooters.

[icycalm]

A reviewer's job is to help his readers appreciate the game that he is reviewing.

Now, withing a genre, there will be games the reviewer likes and games he dislikes. His job is to place the specific title he is are reviewing in some sort of context, in order to make his criticisms.

But, if he doesn't even like the genre, then he won't be knowledgable enough about it to make those connections. If I hate FPS games, it goes without saying that I don't know much about them. It also goes without saying that I will trash any and all FPS games, so my critique will be worthless to all those people who like FPSes and who want to find out which ones work, which don't, and why.

Someone who hates the genre will not be able to answer those questions, so his "reviews" of games belonging to that genre will be worthless.

He might very well write an essay, explain the reasons he dislikes the genre. His essay might very well have value as a criticism of the whole genre.

But reviewing specific games belonging to a genre you don't even like is plain silly. Like, 9-year-old silly, that kind of silly.

[Alske]

He might very well write an essay, explain the reasons he dislikes the genre. His essay might very well have value as a criticism of the whole genre.

I fail to see much difference between writing an essay on a genre and including some game-specific information and calling it a review.

I see this view as being akin to people that insist that only artists should critique other artists, or that you should only say that something is bad if you can personally do better.