5th Annual Top 25 Shmups of All Time! - Discussion thread

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:03 pm

Acid King wrote:Anyone else think Gradius V shouldn't be as high as it is (or was last year)? It's a great game and all but I think it's placing the last two years is due more to it getting a wide release in the states and being responsible (like Ikaruga perhaps) for bringing new players to the genre. I think it could slide more and more as time goes on.

Even though I think it is better than DDP, I wouldn't want to see it top the chart, but hovering around the top 5 seems fair. I think it's easily one of the best side-scrolling shooters released. At least the best in the series.

Then Rob replied, saying it wasn't eligible... I disagreed...<rest of thread>

This is all my fault.

BTW, is Contra Hard Corps playing as Browny a shcmup?

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:13 am

FWIW here is my old thread where ppl talk about what's so great about DDP.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?t=9032

I STILL don't have DDP but it's next on my list.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:58 am

ahnslaught wrote:I am not really bothered if games from each period (be it decade, general tech generations, etc.) do not appear on the list. I personally see my list as being games I have the most fun with right now over all shooters; as a result, a lot of the historically important stuff gets left out of my list simply because their formula has been refined over the years into deeper, more satisfying games. As great as games like Space Invaders may have been, I just can't see myself playing it for very long in this day and age when there's a thousand other games which have experimented, and in many cases, improved on, the formula.

Yeah, my hope is that our top 25 project can simultaneously accomplish two very different things:

(1) Give people a chance to express/share their personal preferences.
(2) Capture a consensus of experts that's useful for newbies.

I think the latter goal will best be met if our list is in line with my (i)-(iii) above.

Krooze L-Roy · Post by **Krooze L-Roy** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:42 am

Any of the older games on my list aren't there simply because I respect them, they're there because I'd honestly rather play them than most newer games (that aren't above them on the list, of course).

I just really can't understand how Galaga in particular has never made any of the lists (maybe it made the honorable mentions; I didn't check that). To me it's just so much more fun than some of the other games that do make the list. Not as deep as some, sure, but every bit as fun to this day.

Maybe Namco drove it into the ground having it appear on 273 compilations a year.

Damocles · Post by **Damocles** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:13 am

My votes reflect the games I've had the most fun with. I have the original Gradius and R-Type on there because I enjoyed them...not because they need to be. Hell...I have Undead Line ranked third from the top, outranking many "classics". I enjoy the game...hell, I love the game. ...and the games that are on there reflect my tastes, not what I consider "classics".

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:11 am

Rob wrote:
At least the best in the series.

Blasphemy! The Moai heads say otherwise.

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:17 am

Rob wrote:...
Then Rob replied, saying it wasn't eligible... I disagreed...<rest of thread>
This is all my fault.

Maybe... maybe not... borderline case I'd say!

Rob wrote:BTW, is Contra Hard Corps playing as Browny a shcmup?

Not familiar with this game. Also can't tell if it's sarcasm. But if it's sincere, do you mean something like Silkworm... with a Jeep and Helicopter type-thing going on?

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:49 am

And thanks to the new rules you could now vote for:

The Coop · Post by **The Coop** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:05 am

j^aws wrote:
Rob wrote:...
Then Rob replied, saying it wasn't eligible... I disagreed...<rest of thread>
This is all my fault.
Maybe... maybe not... borderline case I'd say!

Possibly my fault, since I asked about the rules, and commented on Galaxy Force II.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:17 pm

Krooze L-Roy wrote:Any of the older games on my list aren't there simply because I respect them, they're there because I'd honestly rather play them than most newer games (that aren't above them on the list, of course).

Same here. I honestly enjoyed Gun.Smoke and Xevious as much as anything over the past year.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:34 pm

I think the poll would have very different results and we would see a lot more older games on it if the title was something like "Most Influential" or was split into different eras of shooters. Concurrent poll next year, maybe.

j^aws wrote: ...BUT I strongly disagree with the above. Because...

I'll just say this and end it. Games are art, not chemicals. If Ikaruga had no shooting would it still be a shooter? Or if Vasara only had a melee attack? Is a short story made up completely of footnotes a story at all? A novel with not plot or narrative a novel? Humans make them and humans interpret them. They have no natural properties to look at that arrange them in a neat system of categories, no genetic code or molecular structure or electron configuration to use to classify them. We give them their properties, we compare them to their closest relatives and group them as best we can. It's inexact and interpretive and will always be up for debate. Now back to games...

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:24 pm

The Coop wrote:
j^aws wrote:
Rob wrote:... This is all my fault.
Maybe... maybe not... borderline case I'd say!
Possibly my fault, since I asked about the rules, and commented on Galaxy Force II.

No one's really at fault here, if anything, fault the internet... 'coz it's not exactly the best medium for technical discussion, which I did note a few times... I bet the discussion would be different if we we're having it in person or in a more controlled environment...

--------

Acid King wrote:..Games are art, not chemicals...

Sorry, you wouldn't be saying that if you read/ understood the links for Venn diagrams and Set Theory...

Wiki wrote:...At the beginning of his work Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre, Georg Cantor, the principal creator of set theory, made the following definition of a set:[1]

“ By a set we understand any collection M of definite, distinct objects m of our perception or of our thought (which will be called the elements of M) into a whole."

AND

Wiki wrote:...A Venn diagram is a diagram used to divide up two or more objects to view similarities and differences.

...because,

Acid King wrote:...Humans make them and humans interpret them. They have no natural properties to look at that arrange them in a neat system of categories, no genetic code or molecular structure or electron configuration to use to classify them. We give them their properties, we compare them to their closest relatives and group them as best we can. It's inexact and interpretive and will always be up for debate.

... what you say above is actually why it's used as a "tool". If you read the examples in Wiki, they talk about definitive things that can be agreed on, like '2 legged creatures' OR 'creatures that fly', etc...

Your above statement tells me that you failed to grasp the concepts of Set Theory and Venn diagrams...

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:28 pm

Acid King wrote: Is a short story made up completely of footnotes a story at all? A novel with not plot or narrative a novel? Humans make them and humans interpret them. They have no natural properties to look at that arrange them in a neat system of categories, no genetic code or molecular structure or electron configuration to use to classify them. We give them their properties, we compare them to their closest relatives and group them as best we can. It's inexact and interpretive and will always be up for debate. Now back to games...

Beautifully stated, Acid King. I think of natural kinds-- the kinds investigated by the natural science-- as kinds whose instances have the same causal powers. Water (H2O), heat (mean kinetic energy), and light (electromagnetic energy within a certain range wavelength-wise) are all good examples of natural kinds in this sense. Because all samples of H20 (impurities aside) will behave similarly (have the same causal powers) scientists can formulate laws that will project to future cases. Kinds like shmup are not natural kinds. Our categorizations of games may be useful to us, but they do not pick out causally deep similarities. Attempting with great rigor to classify kinds of videogames will not yield the sort of satisfying results we get in chemistry and other natural sciences. And the reason is just this: videogames do not fall into natural kinds, understood as kinds instances of which all have the same causal powers. Now back to games...

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:36 pm

professor ganson wrote:
Acid King wrote: Is a short story made up completely of footnotes a story at all? A novel with not plot or narrative a novel? Humans make them and humans interpret them. They have no natural properties to look at that arrange them in a neat system of categories, no genetic code or molecular structure or electron configuration to use to classify them. We give them their properties, we compare them to their closest relatives and group them as best we can. It's inexact and interpretive and will always be up for debate. Now back to games...
Beautifully stated, Acid King. I think of natural kinds-- the kinds investigated by the natural science-- as kinds whose instances have the same causal powers. Water (H2O), heat (mean kinetic energy), and light (electromagnetic energy within a certain range wavelength-wise) are all good examples of natural kinds in this sense. Because all samples of H20 (impurities aside) will behave similarly (have the same causal powers) scientists can formulate laws that will project to future cases. Kinds like shmup are not natural kinds. Our categorizations of games may be useful to us, but they do not pick out causally deep similarities. Attempting with great rigor to classify kinds of videogames will not yield the sort of satisfying results we get in chemistry and other natural sciences. And the reason is just this: videogames do not fall into natural kinds, understood as kinds instances of which all have the same causal powers. Now back to games...

See my reply to Acid King. You also fail to grasp the concept of Set Theory and Venn diagrams. It doesn't make any distinction between natural world or synthesized. The examples in Wiki and the definitions explain this clearly.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:03 pm

Have I posted this already? I'm not sure, one page of this thread seems like the other...

Turrican · Post by **Turrican** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:03 pm

I once knew a guy around these boards. 1/3 of his replies were of the "go back and read carefully" kind. Another 1/3 were disguised insults in the line of "you clearly lack comprehension", "if only you understood this".
Then one day, moderators did notice how he was annoying and totally incapable of keeping a discussion civil. And he was banned.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:35 pm

j^aws wrote: See my reply to Acid King. You also fail to grasp the concept of Set Theory and Venn diagrams. It doesn't make any distinction between natural world or synthesized. The examples in Wiki and the definitions explain this clearly.

Did you just say that I fail to understand Set Theory and Venn diagrams? Dude, I am Chair and Professor of Philosophy at a very good institution. Logic is not the area I publish on, but I know a lot more on the topic than you'll find in some Wikipedia article. You may be able to tell me something I don't already know about videogames, but you are not in a position to teach me anything about kinds and classification. I've been thinking seriously about that topic for almost 20 years. Acid King has a valid point to make, and you seem to be missing it.

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:36 pm

Again, I'll re-iterate, the internet isn't the best medium for technical discussion. There was no malice intended in my last posts.

I was replying to posts that clearly didn't understand Set Theory nor Venn diagrams. And I'm entitled to clarify why.

j^aws · Post by **j^aws** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 2:42 pm

professor ganson wrote:...Acid King has a valid point to make, and you seem to be missing it.

I'd like you to explain please? I think I know his point but for clarification?

ahnslaught · Post by **ahnslaught** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:10 pm

Oh God, please give it a rest. This isn't even anywhere near a shooter discussion now, much less a top 25 discussion. Start a new thread or something if you want explanations of periodic tables or whatever the hell diagrams already.

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:26 pm

professor ganson wrote: And the reason is just this: videogames do not fall into natural kinds, understood as kinds instances of which all have the same causal powers. Now back to games...

This is because developers make games, and they do not ask themselves "Gee, is this really a shmup?" when they are making them. They are just trying to make good games, or failing that, games which will sell. They sure don't know or care about some guys having some vote on some internet forum which incidentally is in (in most cases) a foreign language.

ahnslaught wrote:Start a new thread or something if you want explanations of periodic tables or whatever the hell diagrams already.

Although I'm not voting, I think the periodic table, Venn diagrams, taxonomy etc. should be discussed in Off Topic.

ahnslaught · Post by **ahnslaught** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:46 pm

Bringing it back, I played Nexzr for a while last night. I really do like the game save for a few cheap spots and certain times where I think the creators almost don't want you to pick up certain powerups. I think it has one of the better soundtracks, and it's way harder than most 16 bit consoles, that's for sure.

Question: Do you guys play in arcade or normal view mode? For some reason, I prefer the arcade mode in this as well as Soldier Blade - it just feels too confining for some reason when I switch back to normal.

Still on the fence, but kinda not leaning towards it; I will weigh this one vs. some lower picks, though. Maybe a play of UN Squadron is required now.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:56 pm

I play it in normal mode; with the screen simply being squashed instead of properly resized (or tated) the arcade mode feels more like a gimmick.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:48 pm

j^aws wrote:
professor ganson wrote:...Acid King has a valid point to make, and you seem to be missing it.
I'd like you to explain please? I think I know his point but for clarification?

I don't want to put words in Acid King's mouth and I'm feeling a bit foggy from having a cold and grading papers all day long, but here are some last thoughts.

I assume what we are interested in here is classification (and possibly definition). When we classify things or properties, we do so on the basis of similarities. Now similarity comes in degrees. Some things/properties are exactly alike or at any rate very similar in their causal powers. These are natural kinds, and are suitable for scientific investigation: we can discover laws about them that project to future cases. These divisions in nature are "out there" independent of our interests, and they can be cleanly distinguished from one another on the basis of their very different causal powers.

Differences among videogames, by contrast, are not so neatly distinguished. Take the category of 'shooters' and the many, many subdivisions we devise. The similarities and differences here are not exact similarities; they are very rough and messy. We do not seem to be dealing with natural kinds in the sense I defined earlier (sameness of causal powers). Accordingly, we shouldn't expect that the same sorts of rigorous classifications we have in, say, chemistry will be possible here.

Set theory (and Venn diagrams) are entirely irrelevant here. The members of a set need have no interesting similarities whatsoever.

Let me conclude with a quote from one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, David Lewis. He has some interesting things to say about the natural/unnatural distinction:
"This world, or any possible world, consists of things which instantiate fundamental properties... Few properties are fundamental: the property of being a club or a tub or a pub [a disjunctive kind], for instance, is an UNNATURAL gerrymander, a condition satisfied by miscellaneous things in miscellaneous ways. A fundamental, or “perfectly NATURAL,” property is the extreme opposite. Its instances share exactly some aspect of their intrinsic nature... I hold, as an a priori principle, that every contingent truth must be made true, somehow, by the pattern of coinstantiation of fundamental properties and relations. The whole truth about the world, including the mental part of the world, supervenes on this pattern. If two possible worlds were exactly isomorphic in their patters of coinstantiation of fundamental properties and relations, they would be exactly alike simpliciter.
It is the task of physics to provide an inventory of all the fundamental properties and relations that occur in the world. (That’s because it is also a task of physics to discover the fundamental laws of nature, and only the fundamental properties and relations may appear in the fundamental laws.)"

doctorx0079 · Post by **doctorx0079** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:26 am

I REPEAT, the theory of taxonomy/classification/definition/whatever is OFF TOPIC. J^AWS DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS.

Krooze L-Roy · Post by **Krooze L-Roy** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:28 am

Next thing you know somebody's gonna say that Pluto isn't a planet and all hell's gonna break loose.

Damocles · Post by **Damocles** » Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:37 am

I'm still pissed about that.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:22 am

24 games on my list. Must find one last shmup that is worthy. Hmmm...

So did the project of agreeing on a cute-em-up fall to pieces? I've noticed that Air Zonk is gaining some momentum. Perhaps that's a good choice.

ahnslaught · Post by **ahnslaught** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:48 am

Twinkle Star Sprites! The more I play this game, I'm convinced it's one of the best things I've ever played. It's just so damn fun and easy to pick up and play with people who aren't even into shooters. And a great soundtrack, too!

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:21 am

ahnslaught wrote:Twinkle Star Sprites! The more I play this game, I'm convinced it's one of the best things I've ever played. It's just so damn fun and easy to pick up and play with people who aren't even into shooters. And a great soundtrack, too!

Are you playing the DC version? I have that one and the PS2 follow-up. I have spent very little time with either, but I fully intend to at some point.