Review praising Ikaruga, slamming Cave, not Ibara...

[JoshF]

I can have a good laugh at anyone who takes fashion seriously, which as a concept is almost as hilarious as religion or post-modernism.

[Udderdude]

Just when I thought the review drama was dead ..

[WarpZone]

Guys, it's Tim Rogers. Relax. You're not supposed to take it seriously.

I figured that'd be obvious when he mentioned Ibara was one of the best action games of the decade, but apparently not. Nevertheless, for all their irrelevance and long-windedness, I often find one really good point buried in a Tim Rogers review. As I saw it, the point here wasn't that Cave sucks and Treasure rocks, but that Ikaruga fits into the ethos of that top 25 list in a way a Cave game never would. While you might not want to always shoot in a Cave game to get a high score, the point is that you don't need to shoot at any point in Ikaruga and might even want to use that as a starting point; the game uses its ideas more universally. It is an 'alternative' modern shooter that has lots of bullets without being bullet hell, that has R-Type's terrestrial intricacy without the trial and error, that has a tangible and mind-grabbing core concept that lends itself to deep scoring without that being a prerequisite to appreciation. Some people find merit in that itself as good design without having to dissect the scoring and mechanical nuance of higher level play.

[captpain]

Guys, it's Tim Rogers. Relax. You're not supposed to take it seriously.

I figured that'd be obvious when he mentioned Ibara was one of the best action games of the decade, but apparently not. Nevertheless, for all their irrelevance and long-windedness, I often find one really good point buried in a Tim Rogers review. As I saw it, the point here wasn't that Cave sucks and Treasure rocks, but that Ikaruga fits into the ethos of that top 25 list in a way a Cave game never would. While you might not want to always shoot in a Cave game to get a high score, the point is that you don't need to shoot at any point in Ikaruga and might even want to use that as a starting point; the game uses its ideas more universally. It is an 'alternative' modern shooter that has lots of bullets without being bullet hell, that has R-Type's terrestrial intricacy without the trial and error, that has a tangible and mind-grabbing core concept that lends itself to deep scoring without that being a prerequisite to appreciation. Some people find merit in that itself as good design without having to dissect the scoring and mechanical nuance of higher level play.

No, it's really just another shooter, only it got released everywhere so people know about it.

edit: I don't mean that in a disparaging way, either. I just think you're giving him way too much credit.

[SockPuppetHyren]

Just when I thought the review drama was dead ..

It never dies. It just take the occasional vacation. Drama needs a breaks once in a while too, y'know.

[JoshF]

I like his review of Tekken 5 where he evaluates the fighting system based on win ratios at a tournament he passed by.

Terrestrial intricacy.

[Taylor]

[[The] point here wasn't that Cave sucks and Treasure rocks, but that Ikaruga fits into the ethos of that top 25 list in a way a Cave game never would. While you might not want to always shoot in a Cave game to get a high score, the point is that you don't need to shoot at any point in Ikaruga and might even want to use that as a starting point; the game uses its ideas more universally.

Well, he mentioned that the shot in Cave games didn’t matter just before mentioning DDP where you switch fire mode every few seconds. If you boiled away the filler from this article it would read "you can change polarity, play it different ways, people like it" despite being a good 3,000+ words in length.

This is many things, but it certainly isn't a review. Not because I disagree with it, as such, but it contains so few points and at no point critiques the game, so there's little to agree or disagree with.

[Rob]

Having Cave as a reference point is not a bad start.

... the point is that you don't need to shoot at any point in Ikaruga and might even want to use that as a starting point;

I think this is the most flattering description of the game I wouldn't disagree with entirely, but what does this prove? That there aren't enough obstacles? This is also something you would want to try in a game like Progear or Guwange to see every possible pattern (for its scoring potential and not just because you can). Being able to survive stages without shooting and timeout bosses is not a fresh or original concept either.

the game uses its ideas more universally. It is an 'alternative' modern shooter that has lots of bullets without being bullet hell,

More universally than what? An alternative to what? Minimal score-based shooting design was happening before Ikaruga. It fits in perfectly with the trends of the time, alongside games like Psyvariar and Mars Matrix.

[Daedalus]

Play without shooting? Why?

Nobody is waiting on Halo 4: Pacifist Wars. The thrill of most games, especially SHOOTERS, is taking some kind of action... if you just wanna run around and eat dots, why not play Pac-Man?



As for terrible reviews... I always thought the 360 reviews of Ikaruga and Triggerheart Exelica at IGN were the worst. They're both written by the same guy, and he blasts Exelica for the exactly same reasons he praises Ikaruga. Oy...

[Ed Oscuro]

I also noticed that phrase "terrestrial intricacy."

Let's say it together.

I think I like WarpZone's post, but sheesh, that Tim fellow shure is a noisome windbag