Wenchang wrote:Those impacts being just presenting another level of memorization driven gameplay. Which is fine, if it wasn't already in every single Cave game or that conceptually the system is just a reworking of previous Treasure games. Anyhow, what bothers me about it, is that people acted like it was yet another unique thing about this game(just like the polarity system), when a more knowledgable reviewer would have known chaining was already arguably the norm by that time.
I was discussing this from the viewpoint in North America. I cannot agree that chaining was the standard over here at the time by any stretch of the imagination. Ikaruga has had no competition in this regard, in North America, outside emulation, importing, and private arcade board ownership. All the same, it still doesn't change the fact that some reviews understood the chaining aspect and while not in-depth do stress it's important with respect to scoring well.
Wenchang wrote:Not having a 2nd loop is a serious criticism. And how much of that 24 minutes is spent watching the beginning of the game animation, or the animations in the middle of each stage, or boss destruction animations, or warning messages before the boss comes out, or the score screen, or the end of game animations and text? Take that out and you have about 19 minutes of actual game maybe. That's probably why Ikaruga is so frustrating, the thing that stands out to me most in my play sessions is how the game felt like i was constantly waiting for something to happen. From the slow, obstacle based gameplay to the fact that the game can't go 2 minutes without interrupting itself, it's just miserable.
If you want to count difficulty levels as ways of extending game time, fine, problem is, there's nothing particularly unusual about console shmup ports having difficultly modes, and many had them along with 2nd loops and a long regular game time. Still too short imo.
I personally don't count the difficulty levels as ways of extending the game or acting as substitute loops. I simply offer that analysis as something to consider if you aren't satisfied with the length each given run on a specific difficulty may take. It's all about preference and speaking for myself, some games don't need 1 hour+ run times for a given play. The longer the game, the greater the initial investment requirements are, especially if the game demands a high level of attention. The memorable Treasure games have put great emphasis on assaulting the senses, as I would see it, and Ikaruga when I first tried it has this characteristic. Having said that, one really needs spend time memorizing and practicing the game and I believe this is all that matters. If you're a expert, dot eater, or credit feeder, I can see how 24 minutes total time spent can be insufficient.
Ikaruga like some Treasure games has the tendancy for cinematics that cannot be skipped. Comparing to Gradius 5, Gunstar Heroes, GSH, etc.. Ikaruga's cinematics aren't as distracting or displacing. They've never bothered me, not on the same level as G5 or GSH at least.
Ikaruga really kinda is today's Raiden, as far as vertical shmup name-dropping goes. I see it like if some casual gamer asked "Hey, what's a good shooter to check out?" any other casual gamer would probably recommend Ikaruga because it looks great, plays solid, and is easily accessible via download. Sure there are plenty of other great shooters from previous gens, but folks can't be bothered to dig out their old systems or go out and buy one for a specific title recommended to them.
)?
