STGT08 Week 3: Thoughts
I like this game although the ship speed is too slow for my taste. It made the popcorns very threatening. The lock-on/chaining wasn't bad though. What's the most you could miss out on by screwing up any given chain? like 50K? I thought all the choices for week 3 would be fun so I abstained from voting.
This is the inherent problem in all chaining systems. Of course, some might not see it as a problem. I'm willing to accept that people might like chaining. Hell, when I'm in the right mood, I have been known to enjoy a good chain.Ed Oscuro wrote:
It are fun and excitement but shit when I restart over and over because FUUUCK I FUCKED UP THE CHAIN FUUUUUUUUCK
The big, BIG problem with Layerforce is that the chaining is completely removed from the shooting action. Consider DoDonpachi, which contains perhaps the purest and most widely recognized example of chaining in a shooting game. In it, you advance the chain by SHOOTAN BAD GUYS. In Ikaruga, things are mixed up slightly: you have to kill baddies in sets of three. However, the chain is still advanced by SHOOTAN BAD GUYS. Finally, in Mars Matrix, the chaining system is even more removed from this initial system outlined in DoDonpachi. In this game, you have to chain not the enemies, but golden cubes they drop when you shoot them. You have to take into consideration the total amount of cubes you have collected since the start of the game, as well as a potentially stage long tally that can be reset a la DoDonpachi. Despite the slightly more complex system, it is still advanced by SHOOTAN BAD GUYS (or reflecting bullets back at bad guys).
In Raysection, there are two fields of play. One can be interacted with by SHOOTAN. This is the top 'layer'. Unfortunately, there are no scoring embellishments here other than simple, systematic milking and killing everything. The chaining itself is done on a completely different layer, and cannot be achieved merely by SHOOTAN, but by hovering a target cross-hair above the lower layer, somewhat like Twinbee or Xevious. This means that, for the most part, the actual SHOOTAN aspect of this SHOOTAN GAEM serves comparatively next to no purpose other than slight incremental score increases.
Simply put, the scoring system in Gunforce seems to exist in a complete vacuum to the rest of the game. It is not a dynamic system, and it is not affected by your prowess at SHOOTAN GAEMS. It's needlessly clunky, and feels entirely unnecessary.
I have to disagree. You're not just shooting abstract targets in the background layer; You're shooting enemies that are either shooting at you, or will eventually fly into the main layer and potentially collide with you, or at the very least throw you off your game. You are still shooting enemies.
I have to agree however the top layer is pretty much devoid of any kind of tactical gameplay. I think anything more complex than "shoot and dodge" on the top layer while having to manage the bottom layer's chaining system would make the game too complicated.
I have to agree however the top layer is pretty much devoid of any kind of tactical gameplay. I think anything more complex than "shoot and dodge" on the top layer while having to manage the bottom layer's chaining system would make the game too complicated.
Psyvariar sucks because you level up and your ship flips over when you turn around.
Think about what chaining means. It's a set of events that all build on the previous events. This means when you mess up, you fuck up all the previous events in the chain, whether it's stage-based or game-based. Rayforce doesn't have anything I would call chaining. It's just a bunch of independent scoring tricks in sequence. OTOH I haven't heard anyone call 100%'s like Viper Phase or 19xx chaining, but semantically they are. You can hate anything for any arbitrary reason you want, but at least for me, the problem with chaining isn't memorization -- I mean, every stage-based shmup is a memorizer anyway. I just think it's too punishing, since dropping the chain usually means instant reset.
When it comes down to it, it's easy most of the time to keep chains going in most games, but when you mess up, it's devastating. Easy and punishing is opposite of what I would prefer, which is difficult and forgiving. It's hard to score optimally much of the time in Rayforce, but when you mess up a formation, whatever, it's time for the next one.
re SHOOTAN AXION: Shmups aren't about holding a button down and shooting straight forward, they're about dodging. When it comes to progressing and scoring, I'd prefer some variety any day. Oh and if you ever encounter a game called Soukyugurentai, just walk away slowly and don't anger it.
As far as I can tell, you're just like Tim Rogers. You subconsciously pick games by observing others and seeing what seems cool to like. Then you construct rationale around why you like those games, rather than using that rationale to determine what you like in the first place. I'm getting this from your DDP/Ika/MM mini-lecture because you have to do some serious non-mechanics related gerrymandering to put them all on the same side (defending DDP and Ikaruga chaining fails your anal argument, while defending Mars Matrix fails your DDP "purity" argument). Also the idea that having a lower layer renders the upper layer unimportant (rather than being determined by number balancing), and the idea that locking on to targets isn't affected by your prowess at shooting games.
Lots of other people in this thread have the humility to recognize when something is a design decision that they don't prefer rather than "the biggest faux pas one can make in a 2D shooter." I mean, with your relative level of self-confidence, you should be able to produce some good scores instead of just talking about game design, no?
Think about what chaining means. It's a set of events that all build on the previous events. This means when you mess up, you fuck up all the previous events in the chain, whether it's stage-based or game-based. Rayforce doesn't have anything I would call chaining. It's just a bunch of independent scoring tricks in sequence. OTOH I haven't heard anyone call 100%'s like Viper Phase or 19xx chaining, but semantically they are. You can hate anything for any arbitrary reason you want, but at least for me, the problem with chaining isn't memorization -- I mean, every stage-based shmup is a memorizer anyway. I just think it's too punishing, since dropping the chain usually means instant reset.
When it comes down to it, it's easy most of the time to keep chains going in most games, but when you mess up, it's devastating. Easy and punishing is opposite of what I would prefer, which is difficult and forgiving. It's hard to score optimally much of the time in Rayforce, but when you mess up a formation, whatever, it's time for the next one.
re SHOOTAN AXION: Shmups aren't about holding a button down and shooting straight forward, they're about dodging. When it comes to progressing and scoring, I'd prefer some variety any day. Oh and if you ever encounter a game called Soukyugurentai, just walk away slowly and don't anger it.
As far as I can tell, you're just like Tim Rogers. You subconsciously pick games by observing others and seeing what seems cool to like. Then you construct rationale around why you like those games, rather than using that rationale to determine what you like in the first place. I'm getting this from your DDP/Ika/MM mini-lecture because you have to do some serious non-mechanics related gerrymandering to put them all on the same side (defending DDP and Ikaruga chaining fails your anal argument, while defending Mars Matrix fails your DDP "purity" argument). Also the idea that having a lower layer renders the upper layer unimportant (rather than being determined by number balancing), and the idea that locking on to targets isn't affected by your prowess at shooting games.
Lots of other people in this thread have the humility to recognize when something is a design decision that they don't prefer rather than "the biggest faux pas one can make in a 2D shooter." I mean, with your relative level of self-confidence, you should be able to produce some good scores instead of just talking about game design, no?
Dude, don't be so hostile, yeah? It's not like I'm kicking your dog or somethingEnhasa wrote:Psyvariar sucks because you level up and your ship flips over when you turn around.
Think about what chaining means. It's a set of events that all build on the previous events. This means when you mess up, you fuck up all the previous events in the chain, whether it's stage-based or game-based. Rayforce doesn't have anything I would call chaining. It's just a bunch of independent scoring tricks in sequence. OTOH I haven't heard anyone call 100%'s like Viper Phase or 19xx chaining, but semantically they are. You can hate anything for any arbitrary reason you want, but at least for me, the problem with chaining isn't memorization -- I mean, every stage-based shmup is a memorizer anyway. I just think it's too punishing, since dropping the chain usually means instant reset.
When it comes down to it, it's easy most of the time to keep chains going in most games, but when you mess up, it's devastating. Easy and punishing is opposite of what I would prefer, which is difficult and forgiving. It's hard to score optimally much of the time in Rayforce, but when you mess up a formation, whatever, it's time for the next one.
re SHOOTAN AXION: Shmups aren't about holding a button down and shooting straight forward, they're about dodging. When it comes to progressing and scoring, I'd prefer some variety any day. Oh and if you ever encounter a game called Soukyugurentai, just walk away slowly and don't anger it.
As far as I can tell, you're just like Tim Rogers. You subconsciously pick games by observing others and seeing what seems cool to like. Then you construct rationale around why you like those games, rather than using that rationale to determine what you like in the first place. I'm getting this from your DDP/Ika/MM mini-lecture because you have to do some serious non-mechanics related gerrymandering to put them all on the same side (defending DDP and Ikaruga chaining fails your anal argument, while defending Mars Matrix fails your DDP "purity" argument). Also the idea that having a lower layer renders the upper layer unimportant (rather than being determined by number balancing), and the idea that locking on to targets isn't affected by your prowess at shooting games.
Lots of other people in this thread have the humility to recognize when something is a design decision that they don't prefer rather than "the biggest faux pas one can make in a 2D shooter." I mean, with your relative level of self-confidence, you should be able to produce some good scores instead of just talking about game design, no?
I didn't ever defend MM, DDP, and IKA. In fact I dislike the scoring systems in all three of them. This was more just complementing Ed's statement that chaining sucks: I just wanted to discuss the implementation of chaining in Raycake compared to some other games.
My 'argument' wasn't regarding the validity of chaining, nor indeed was it about the 'purity' of the STG genre in general. All I was saying was that grafting together two ill-fitting play styles. One, a fairly good shootemup with little to no baring on scoring. The other, a completely different system that requires you to pretty much ignore the 'main layer' if you will, and accounts for a lion's share of the points. My conclusion was this was somewhat clumsy at best. You might choose to think of this as a design decision, and I agree. I just don't think it was a very good one
Not exactly the most controversial statement, but I'm sure people have been killed over less.I appreciate the time you took to disagree with me, but I really do not appreciate being lectured that I'm 'Tim Rogers' because I happen to dislike a game you like. OK?
The thing is, Rayforce was made in 1993 which is ancient by today's standards, and was basically a test concept that was further refined by the two sequels. Rayforce's game speed and lock-on system was further improved and made considerably more manic by Raystorm and Raycrisis.
If you think Rayforce is too leisurely (which it is in some places eg: halfway point of st2, end of st4, some parts of st6), I suggest playing R-Gray2 in Raystorm, and WR-02R in Raycrisis - you have to actively chase lock-on opportunities for the big 16x chains while dodging hostiles, and it isn't easy.
Which is what I feel is holding back a lot of potentially good players - personally, I've played a few hideous games the past three or four tournaments, but I've always been compelled to try my best in the face of adversity.
PS: Rayforce. <3
If you think Rayforce is too leisurely (which it is in some places eg: halfway point of st2, end of st4, some parts of st6), I suggest playing R-Gray2 in Raystorm, and WR-02R in Raycrisis - you have to actively chase lock-on opportunities for the big 16x chains while dodging hostiles, and it isn't easy.
It's easy to complain, and harder to put aside your complaints and knuckle down.Enhasa wrote:Lots of other people in this thread have the humility to recognize when something is a design decision that they don't prefer rather than "the biggest faux pas one can make in a 2D shooter." I mean, with your relative level of self-confidence, you should be able to produce some good scores instead of just talking about game design, no?
Which is what I feel is holding back a lot of potentially good players - personally, I've played a few hideous games the past three or four tournaments, but I've always been compelled to try my best in the face of adversity.
PS: Rayforce. <3
-
BulletMagnet
- Posts: 14193
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am
- Location: Wherever.
- Contact:
"Adversity" is an interesting way to relabel "bad game design," heh heh.Icarus wrote:I've played a few hideous games the past three or four tournaments, but I've always been compelled to try my best in the face of adversity.
Anyways, as some others have said, there are some things about Rayfore that I thought were really great, and others that made me want to find some random programmer and smack him.
I should have left out the last half of the post because it's natural that you would focus on that, plus it didn't add anything to the topic.
Look on the bright side though, could have been Stuart Campbell.
Edit: BTW, lots of people in this thread think this game sucks ass but I didn't respond to them. It's up to you to figure out why someone would respond to you. There's more than one reason.
Ok that was a low blow, I take that back.MX7 wrote:I appreciate the time you took to disagree with me, but I really do not appreciate being lectured that I'm 'Tim Rogers' because I happen to dislike a game you like. OK?
Look on the bright side though, could have been Stuart Campbell.
Edit: BTW, lots of people in this thread think this game sucks ass but I didn't respond to them. It's up to you to figure out why someone would respond to you. There's more than one reason.
