How do you like your difficulty distributed?

[captpain]

And to actually respond to you...

I fail to see how it's broken. Not every single element has to be at the surface of the game, telling you exactly what's going on.

What's wrong with having to dodge medals? I'm sure nobody has an emotional attachment to them. They won't be missed. It's another way of interacting with the game, albeit an unorthodox one.

If the game showed you your rank, would it be alright then? I'm perfectly fine with just accepting it as another element of the game and working with it, getting lots of pleasure from playing the game, rather than being upset with something that is completely within my power to understand and manipulate.

Also nice job with the ad hominem jab there. Real mature. Obviously I must be terrible at it since I don't like it. Your logic is just flawless. Clearly I'm too dumb to avoid power-ups and medals once I know that doing so raises the rank to impossible-to-survive levels. Or maybe I don't like it FOR THE REASONS I STATED - It's a broken, hidden mechanic that doesn't make the game any more enjoyable once you figure it out. Maybe you like dodging medals instead of grabbing them .. I think having to do so is just ridiculous. I guess maxing your score while avoiding the rank climb to ludicrous levels is interesting if you like playing "Guess the number", since the game doesn't actually show you your rank.

First, rank existed well before Raizing took a hold of it, and even back then it was just as invisible, and controlled by external and often unusual factors.
Second, the information on the system was distributed by Raizing themselves during the arcade game's release, and again on the Saturn disc. This information was further disseminated via the internet to players around the world on various websites including ours. Sure, the game itself doesn't tell you how to control the system via an in-game tutorial, but where would the fun in strategy development be if the game itself told you how to control the system? I like a little mystery in my games, it's more rewarding when you make the discoveries.
Third, rank management isn't exactly difficult in any Raizing, not by a long shot. Perhaps you just don't like complexity or challenge in your games.
Finally, a game's design isn't broken if a great majority of players here and around the world have figured out and have gotten to grips with the system, and with less complaining to boot. Perhaps 'thinking out of the box' doesn't suit your playstyle, but it doesn't make the game broken if that is the case. Taste is subjective.

Exactly.

[Limbrooke]

Perhaps you just don't like complexity or challenge in your games.

That'd be a burn.

Well done

[captpain]

Perhaps you just don't like complexity or challenge in your games.

That'd be a burn. Well played.

Well it'll also probably get a rise out of the guy and cause him to discard the rest of the post, which is 100% correct and explains well why the rank system is not broken or "bad".

[Icarus]

It wasn't a burn or slight at all, but an honest comment. Quite a lot of people dislike any form of complexity or unorthodox design in games, and Raizing is one of the most unorthodox developers going.

[jpj]

one of the most intimidating games I’ve played.

THIS GAME DISTRESSED MOST OF THE PLAYERS



on a side note, i've started hypering the first midboss of 1-5 in the middle of his attacks, rather than at the end, and something interesting happened...

[Udderdude]

First, rank existed well before Raizing took a hold of it, and even back then it was just as invisible, and controlled by external and often unusual factors.

You can say this, but no other company has made rank such a huge part of the gameplay as Raizing. CAVE's games have rank that makes things more challenging .. not almost impossible. (Talking about Ikeda designed ones .. )

Second, the information on the system was distributed by Raizing themselves during the arcade game's release, and again on the Saturn disc. This information was further disseminated via the internet to players around the world on various websites including ours.

That's nice, but it still won't help anyone completely new to the game. As stated before, leading the player to certian doom by playing like you would expect, and not giving them any indication otherwise, is bad design.

Sure, the game itself doesn't tell you how to control the system via an in-game tutorial, but where would the fun in strategy development be if the game itself told you how to control the system?

Saying in-game tutorials are bad? Uh huh. Like I said earlier, it would be pretty hilarious if the game told you to avoid medals, power-ups and ram yourself into bosses to keep the rank down. Maybe they were too afraid people would walk away from the machine?

I like a little mystery in my games, it's more rewarding when you make the discoveries.

Yes, it's great to have some mystery. While we're at it, why don't we make the player's ship invisible? Obviously players will figure it out eventually, so it's a great idea, right? You can read a guide on how to tell where it is. How about making the enemy bullets invisible? Hell, in Raizing games they almost are allready, so might as well take it all the way.

Third, rank management isn't exactly difficult in any Raizing, not by a long shot. Perhaps you just don't like complexity or challenge in your games.

I allready stated it's not difficult, just badly designed. Rank management bores me to tears. Suiciding into bosses to drop rank makes me feel like I'm playing the rank game instead of the shmup part of the game.

Saying I don't like difficulty or challenge? Uhh. Yeah. Thanks for more ad hominem. Figuring out how to control the rank in most games is just trial-and-error, not anything to do with skill or reflexes, and it's certianly not that complex (Action A leads to boost in rank, Action B leads to drop in rank, apply as needed). Not to mention you just stated it's not difficult, but then in the next sentence .. maybe you don't like challenge (aka difficulty)? Wut?

Finally, a game's design isn't broken if a great majority of players here and around the world have figured out and have gotten to grips with the system, and with less complaining to boot. Perhaps 'thinking out of the box' doesn't suit your playstyle, but it doesn't make the game broken if that is the case. Taste is subjective.

Popularity means nothing. No game is sacred enough that it can hide behind a wall of fans.

You think I've been complaining? Please try and keep this as a discussion, not a flamefest. You've allready got one ad hominem in here, I don't really want to count this as #2

[captpain]

You're creating more tension by actually taking offense at meaningless ad hominem attacks in a goofy discussion about video games than by just letting them slide... chill out. If you honestly are bothered by someone on an internet forum then you have more pressing issues to worry about than Batrider's rank

Anyway, you need to consider that these games are not made to be played just like blast everything shmups. They're designed for "hardcore" players. The games are deliberately unconventional.

Despite what you imply, controlling the rank really does take skill and reflexes. Sure, figuring it out doesn't, but that information is already available to anyone paying enough attention to care (read: the people who are trying to get good at these games will find this out, and they're the real target audience).

The point of the games is not to play like you'd expect and win, it's to get good at the game as it actually exists. It doesn't cater to you so much... you have to actually make an effort to understand it. You don't do well at a game by playing it like you want it to be. Enjoy figuring out how to exploit the game to win, don't just play and get frustrated because it's not like you want it to be.

It's really a snap acceptance thing. "OK, so the rank is like this? Fine, I'll work with that" rather than "Blaugh what a bad system well the game should just etc etc"

[KindGrind]

While DOJ is indeed intimidating with the difficulty ramping up quickly and the scoring system requiring lots of control -and, I feel, memorization-, no game has intimidated me more than Garegga. I played it a lot, by myself first, then using strategies and vids from people on here and the rank control/amount of shrapnel felt very "unnatural" to me. I am currently playing Ibara and like it better than Garegga, although I can't say why. I think I get a better feel for things, and know when it feels right to dodge a powerup or suicide to control the furious rank. I see bullets better, too, so maybe that helps.

Different games, "for different......needs." -(D. Brent)

[Udderdude]

Anyway, you need to consider that these games are not made to be played just like blast everything shmups. They're designed for "hardcore" players. The games are deliberately unconventional.

You say that like other non-Raizing shmups with scoring systems can just be blasted through with no thought put into it. Go ahead and hold down the fire button the entire game in Dodonpachi, and tell me what your score looks like. Or do you mean that Dodonpachi should also get impossibly difficult if the player chains well enough? Quick, break your chain here or you'll never survive the next part of the level! zzzz ..

The point of the games is not to play like you'd expect and win, it's to get good at the game as it actually exists. It doesn't cater to you so much... you have to actually make an effort to understand it. You don't do well at a game by playing it like you want it to be. Enjoy figuring out how to exploit the game to win, don't just play and get frustrated because it's not like you want it to be.

Or I could just play any other number of games that don't revolve around balancing invisible numbers. It's interesting that you describe it as "exploiting" the game to win. It implies the designer wanted the player to get destroyed by the insane rank, and didn't want there to be any way around it. But for what reason? Hmm, I think I hear the sound of quarters dropping into a coin slot from somewhere ..

[Icarus]

First, rank existed well before Raizing took a hold of it, and even back then it was just as invisible, and controlled by external and often unusual factors.

You can say this, but no other company has made rank such a huge part of the gameplay as Raizing.

Didn't I just say that?

That's nice, but it still won't help anyone completely new to the game. As stated before, leading the player to certian doom by playing like you would expect, and not giving them any indication otherwise, is bad design.

And you would know what good design is?

Saying in-game tutorials are bad? Uh huh. Like I said earlier, it would be pretty hilarious if the game told you to avoid medals, power-ups and ram yourself into bosses to keep the rank down. Maybe they were too afraid people would walk away from the machine?

You'd be surprised at how many people do.

Yes, it's great to have some mystery. While we're at it, why don't we make the player's ship invisible? Obviously players will figure it out eventually, so it's a great idea, right? You can read a guide on how to tell where it is. How about making the enemy bullets invisible? Hell, in Raizing games they almost are allready, so might as well take it all the way.

Hmmm, sure, champ, way to argue your point with meaningless comments instead of presenting a proper, consturcted argument. I recall you argued like this in IRC too. But wait! I can do that too.

Not everything requires complete transparency. Games are meant to be explored, game systems deconstructed. Rank in games like Rayforce and Gradius is just as hidden and controlled by various factors - would you like them to have in-game tutorials explaining the system as well? If that's the case, we should hope that someone out there is actively rereleasing every shooting game ever made with new in-game tutorials explaining every facet of the game, from rank, to scoring, to the optimal stage route for score play, so that people too lazy to pay attention can get down to the nitty-gritty straight away.

Let's take the thinking process out of shooting games.

I allready stated it's not difficult, just badly designed. Rank management bores me to tears. Suiciding into bosses to drop rank makes me feel like I'm playing the rank game instead of the shmup part of the game.

Once again, just because you don't like it doesn't make it badly designed. I hate Psikyo, but I don't consider them badly designed, just not for my tastes. I can't stand any of the games you make, yet I don't consider them badly designed either. Although I suspect that as a developer, you think you're better placed to comment on systems over an experienced player.

Taste is subjective.

Saying I don't like difficulty or challenge? Uhh. Yeah. Thanks for more ad hominem. Figuring out how to control the rank in most games is just trial-and-error, not anything to do with skill or reflexes, and it's certianly not that complex (Action A leads to boost in rank, Action B leads to drop in rank, apply as needed). Not to mention you just stated it's not difficult, but then in the next sentence .. maybe you don't like challenge (aka difficulty)? Wut?

"Wut" indeed.

Controlling rank in any game requires a great deal of skill and reflexes, depending on how involved it is. Simplistic linear rank in something like Gradius can be controlled by limiting firepower (three Options works best), while a more complexly calculated system like Blazing Star requires more a careful balance of strategies in order to give the player a better chance of scoring and clearing (missing LUCKY Panels and powerups works best in basic).

In your view, however, rank management is based on simple brute force rather than subtle alteration of personal techniques. If brute force were really required to control rank to a high level in any game, we'd be seeing a lot more all clears on this forum for these games.

You think I've been complaining? Please try and keep this as a discussion, not a flamefest. You've allready got one ad hominem in here, I don't really want to count this as #2

I saw and continue to see what you did there.
Keep trolling with comedy flamebait and you'll get a lot more than two. At least I've argued my side objectively.

PS: Bored are we? I see you're trolling in the Psikyo thread, as well. Bit of a change of pace from you, I might add.

[captpain]

You say that like other non-Raizing shmups with scoring systems can just be blasted through with no thought put into it. Go ahead and hold down the fire button the entire game in Dodonpachi, and tell me what your score looks like. Or do you mean that Dodonpachi should also get impossibly difficult if the player chains well enough? Quick, break your chain here or you'll never survive the next part of the level! zzzz ..

No, no I don't. You don't make the game impossibly difficult by doing well. Normal course in Batrider and Bakraid, for instance, are very readily beatable with no attention payed to rank at all. You can also score really well by the obvious methods without bringing the rank up.

I very easily could be wrong, but it seems like you don't have a lot of first hand experience with these games because the rank system is not difficult at all to manage or understand, and it's anything but game breaking. Doing well in the game is still doing well in the game, regardless of if you have to lose lives to do it (in the Advanced courses, which are just that, courses for advanced players, or in Garegga which is of course a 'hardcore' game). It's just another element to the game and it's clearly not really a hindrance to the myriad players of the games.

Or I could just play any other number of games that don't revolve around balancing invisible numbers. It's interesting that you describe it as "exploiting" the game to win. It implies the designer wanted the player to get destroyed by the insane rank, and didn't want there to be any way around it. But for what reason? Hmm, I think I hear the sound of quarters dropping into a coin slot from somewhere ..

I think you are really overestimating the role that rank plays. They don't revolve around that element any more than anything else, it's just an unconventional characteristic of the game. Just don't pick up every single powerup you see and learn that you sometimes have to suicide (which you'll have to do anyway in Batrider and Bakraid just to score, and will not be a problem to get good at if you can actually 1cc a game as tough as Garegga), voila you're a rank expert.

Exploit doesn't just mean to force towards one own use, it can also just mean 'to make use of'. It doesn't imply what you said unless you somehow have convinced yourself that the Raizing rank is a game breaking thing when it clearly is not at all, black and white clear. Otherwise the games wouldn't be so much fun to so many people and have people actively playing for score more than a decade after their release.

[moozooh]

C'mon guys you're so ad hominem, stop being ad hominem! You know rank just makes things more challenging in Ikeda designed games like DOJ BL or DFK, not almost impossible!

[lgb]

What the hell is "ad hominem"? Get off your high horses and actually play the games before calling them difficult.

[sven666]

i like a game to hit me square in the face, if i get up it should hit me again!

if i can figure the score system out and start devising strategies in the first 10 credits there is something wrong with it cause im not that clever...

[Gwyrgyn Blood]

Wait wait, since when the hell has ANY Raizing game encouraged you to not pick up medals?

Anyway, rank control in Raizing games is awesome for a few reasons. For one, it actually gives you some room to make mistakes because it makes dieing an OKAY thing to happen. Second awesome part is that suiciding gives you more bombs. And more bombs equals more BOOMAAAAH which is just the best.

[henry dark]

The worst thing about Raizing rank is that it is counter intuative.

Oh wait, that must be Raizing "thinking outside the box" again