The WORST Shooter you have ever played...

[renardqueenston]

http://www.pcengine.co.uk/HTML_Games/Rock_On.htm

by worst you mean best, right

personally i can enjoy a really terrible shooter because it's just so bad. i think a mediocre or bland shooter is the worst kind there is. on that note, i haven't played it in a while, but i remember Raiden 3 being a total yawner. felt sluggish, was just bland overall.

[Illyrian]

Also I 1CC'd radiant silvergun and it was a painful experience in tedium

And I'm sure you have a picture and a score to back this up. Because RS isn't something you casually pick up and 1CC, it takes a good bit of practice and dedication to pull that off.

Personally, I wouldn't spend much time trying to 1CC a game I did not like. My 1CCs of things like Planet Joker only took a couple of runs, but there's a reason I haven't 1CC'd many Cave games (maybe one or two).

Sure, and while I'm at it why don't I post the screen shots of the other shmups I've finished!? Oh right, because I don't go around with screenshots of everything I do.

Let me bottom line this for you guys.

1. A shmup that takes over 1 hour and 10 minutes to finish is too long.
2. The graphical style is horrible and blocky.
3. The difficulty level fluctuates hugely over the course of the game.
4. The final karate kicking boss is a joke who uses pathetically easy patterns.

If anyone actually has any logical response to these points then go for it, otherwise I'm done with this thread.

[jp]

Sure, and while I'm at it why don't I post the screen shots of the other shmups I've finished!? Oh right, because I don't go around with screenshots of everything I do.

Ah, well if that's the case, then I hereby declare the 'Pachi series too easy and drab, and I assure everyone that I 1CC'd every single entry in the series. Even clearing both loops is absolutely nothing. Simple!

Let me bottom line this for you guys.

1. A shmup that takes over 1 hour and 10 minutes to finish is too long.

Relative to what? Other 2D shooters? Do you only play 2D shooters and nothing else ever? Most games would be declared too short if they were an hour and 30 minutes long. So why is RS too long? It's not like there are long stretches of nothing happening in the game.

2. The graphical style is horrible and blocky.

It's a late 90s shooter with 3D graphics. Obviously, it's going to be blocky. Is the game going to be magically better for you when it hits XBLA and the graphics are improved?

3. The difficulty level fluctuates hugely over the course of the game.

As someone who actually has 1CC'd RS (and I have the screenshot to prove it), I disagree. RS has a fairly steady rise in difficulty, though if you take Path 2 the jump from 2 to 5 is a bit higher.

4. The final karate kicking boss is a joke who uses pathetically easy patterns.

A. That isn't the final boss.
B. Easy compared to what? DOOM? Hibachi? Off the top of my head I could list 20 shooters for you, GOOD shooters mind, that have easier final bosses than Xiga.

If anyone actually has any logical response to these points then go for it, otherwise I'm done with this thread.

I haven't seen any logic in any statement you have made quite frankly. Truth be told, you declaring RS as the worst shooter you have ever played is as absurd as me calling one of the 'Pachis the worst shooters ever made (which I would never do, I just don't care for them myself).

[dieKatze88]

MSX Parodius.

Sorry, as much as I love all things Gradius, I just can't bring myself to deal with the limitations of that platform.

[Skykid]

Aye, this is like when precious wee Ocarina of Time fans call The Wind Waker "the worst game ever". There's no sense of historical perspective.

All the Zelda games are awful (I'll explain why in a second), but Wind Waker remains to this day the one with the most sublime aesthetics.

As for why it's a stinker to everyone who isn't a child (and it is enjoyable to children, only because we were easily impressed back then), they added a feature that makes traveling with Epona seem like a luxury. I am of course speaking of the mundane sailing. Though they correct this later in the game with the Ballad of Wind (island warp), it's a huge drag getting there thanks to bosses that only take like five powerful jumping sword attacks or ten regular sword attacks to destroy, and enemies which pose very little challenge. Satisfaction-wise, it's like popping a mini muffin back when you could be having a succulent beef fajita meal. Plus, as with any Zelda game, the freakin' hearts and fairies nullify most of the challenge. Of course you could ignore the hearts and attempt to play without them, but the game is still boring as fuck compared to Ninja Gaiden on Xbox (think about it: Link can't slice from above, or have an obliteration technique, or jump on an enemy's head whimsically throwing a shuriken at it with grace. In other words, Zelda is restricting to what you can and cannot do in comparison. A greater variety of moves, so long as there are plenty of situations in the game which call for each one in a meaningful way, mean greater depth.). So why would you?

Anyone who has had prolonged exposure to the best games ever (especially those belonging to the genre this forum was made for!) should spit on games of this nature. I played Ocarina of Time a couple nights ago, just to see if that fight with Gannondorf/Gannon was still as difficult as I remember. LOL was the result. And the game looks like shit, too.

/Off topic rant.

Ha ha, man you don't know what you're talking about.

Sometimes I'm bewildered at what drives people to rag on titles that are universally accepted as benchmark achievements in gaming, like everyone who gave it due credit somehow completely missed the point.

I'm not even sure an argument based around the difficulty of a Zelda game is valid at all. They're not meant to be Ninja Gaiden difficult, nor would they benefit from being so. Not everyone enjoys pad bitingly frustrating pockets of borderline unfair gameplay. Zelda at its best is an exercise in pitch perfect challenge in a role playing format, something that's designed to be enjoyed equally by all-comers. Its brilliance is in its design work - it's not easy to create action-puzzle challenge that exists so cohesively in terms of overworld, dungeon and plot progression. In fact, no-one has even managed to better what was achieved in Zelda from Super Famicom through to Nintendo 64, they still remain defining examples of design expertise. Even Nintendo aren't up to the job anymore, rolling out an Ocarina remake because they just can't meet their original standards.

But it's not like they're a total walk in the park either. All this babble about 'children's games' is utter bandwagon baloney. I'd like to fire up the Stone Temple on Majora's Mask and give the pad to a seven year old to see how long it takes for them to have a brain haemorrhage.

Wind Waker is rightly criticised because it's full of flaws. The sailing is the most obvious broken aspect, and there's never an upgrade to the ship speed to balance out the sheer boredom of its aimless water based exploration. Sea combat is totally ill-concieved, requiring you to switch from sail to cannon over and over as you try to get positioning in the middle of a cannonball exchange. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea I don't know. On top of that, the wind changes direction all the time, so it's like a comedy of errors while you put the sail up to avoid an incoming cannonball, navigate away, put the sail down, wrestle with the wind to get position, try to get a shot off, and then realise you need to move again before you even get a chance. It's easier just to sit there and lick shots and hope you sink him first. It's a frankly embarrassing design error.
The fact it's unfinished is something it wears on its sleeve, packed with obtuse tasks that beg for an FAQ to get any kind of direction on. Bar the first dungeon, the rest lack flair - and some, like the fire and ice temples, turn out to be one room big because the game had to meet deadline.
It's stuffed with pointless filler too, side quests that have no bearing on the game at all and are devoid of any quality. Who wants to collect 500 statues for a figurine collection, when it involves having to get on that boat and search? Forget it.

Its graphics are its only saving grace, but they certainly don't maketh the game. Wind Waker is the first point when the Zelda series slipped, and it never recovered.

Prior to that the series deserved every perfect score it received, with good reason. I'm not one to rely on the general public for taste, but on some rare ocassions, the overwhelming positivity for something isn't baseless. Zelda is one such example.

[Illyrian]

Sure, and while I'm at it why don't I post the screen shots of the other shmups I've finished!? Oh right, because I don't go around with screenshots of everything I do.

Ah, well if that's the case, then I hereby declare the 'Pachi series too easy and drab, and I assure everyone that I 1CC'd every single entry in the series. Even clearing both loops is absolutely nothing. Simple!

Let me bottom line this for you guys.

1. A shmup that takes over 1 hour and 10 minutes to finish is too long.

Relative to what? Other 2D shooters? Do you only play 2D shooters and nothing else ever? Most games would be declared too short if they were an hour and 30 minutes long. So why is RS too long? It's not like there are long stretches of nothing happening in the game.

2. The graphical style is horrible and blocky.

It's a late 90s shooter with 3D graphics. Obviously, it's going to be blocky. Is the game going to be magically better for you when it hits XBLA and the graphics are improved?

3. The difficulty level fluctuates hugely over the course of the game.

As someone who actually has 1CC'd RS (and I have the screenshot to prove it), I disagree. RS has a fairly steady rise in difficulty, though if you take Path 2 the jump from 2 to 5 is a bit higher.

4. The final karate kicking boss is a joke who uses pathetically easy patterns.

A. That isn't the final boss.
B. Easy compared to what? DOOM? Hibachi? Off the top of my head I could list 20 shooters for you, GOOD shooters mind, that have easier final bosses than Xiga.

If anyone actually has any logical response to these points then go for it, otherwise I'm done with this thread.

I haven't seen any logic in any statement you have made quite frankly. Truth be told, you declaring RS as the worst shooter you have ever played is as absurd as me calling one of the 'Pachis the worst shooters ever made (which I would never do, I just don't care for them myself).

I'm not gonna get into one of these silly arguments where you quote everything I say then I do the same to you, as honestly I reckon we both have better things to do

I accept that you think RSG is awesome, that's your opinion and fine. I disagree. Also fine.

Let's leave it at that okay?

[jp]

The argument isn't whether or not so-and-so likes RS, the argument is the absurdity of proclaiming it the worst shooter one has ever played.

There are tons of shooters I don't like (i.e. the 'Pachi games) that are well made games, but I would never in my right mind try to quantatively state that they are the worst shooters I've ever played. To do so woud logically imply that my sample space is ridiculously small.

'Tis all I'm saying.

[Siren2011]

Sea combat is totally ill-concieved, requiring you to switch from sail to cannon over and over as you try to get positioning in the middle of a cannonball exchange. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea I don't know. On top of that, the wind changes direction all the time, so it's like a comedy of errors while you put the sail up to avoid an incoming cannonball, navigate away, put the sail down, wrestle with the wind to get position, try to get a shot off, and then realise you need to move again before you even get a chance.

lolz. You just condemned the only positive aspect of sea travel in that game (another negative would be the stupid, boring treasure hunting minigame, which WAS mandatory later in the game to collect pieces of the Triforce). Most of the fun was working with the wind, and setting the right direction for it to blow so you can better prepare your cannon onslaught accordingly and sink the bastard who dares to confront you in battle. It's videogame physics at its best. It gets you to think, at least on some level. However, sailing in one direction for like, 20 minutes is absolutely unacceptable. Plus, getting hit in any Zelda game, whether it be on land or sea, is no threat to the player at all if they are moderately skilled (not to mention if they have 10 container hearts.).

Sometimes I'm bewildered at what drives people to rag on titles that are universally accepted as benchmark achievements in gaming, like everyone who gave it due credit somehow completely missed the point.

Now, I am not one of those hipsters who dislike something purely on the grounds of its popularity. I have a distaste for Zelda games because, however great their stories may be, they do not provide the challenge I'm looking for. This is why I can't take pure adventure games seriously anymore, either. I put in Grim Fandango the other day and it bored me to near death --and I used to LOVE that game! On rare occasions, something can prove itself to be so pathetically boring that it gives me a headache. That was one of those times. The basic idea is that, the less brainpower demanded from the player, the worse the game. An adventure game basically strips games down to their bare bones and leaves out everything exciting. And it's not hard to imagine Zelda: OOT with many sword combos/techniques and souped up, more threatening enemies. So I definitely think there was room for improvement.

As for your comments on Windwaker being worse, well...truth be told, the difficulty of WW's dungeons and those of OOT are about equal. They both made me spend around the same amount of time in them. The hardest of the former was either Gannondorf's castle or the Forest Temple (because of that damn wind! Curse you, Makar!), while the hardest of the latter was either the water temple, Garudo temple (the one with those witch sister bosses), or the spirit temple, for their intricacies and mildly challenging rooms. I'm not saying that it wasn't fun back then, but coming back to the game years later makes the games both appear as farces. But if we are to cast aside all of our nostalgia for one moment and look at the game in a technical manner, Windwaker wins by a hair thanks to it's superior audiovisuals. I am in total agreement with you about graphics not meaning everything, though.

Is all of that praise justified? Some of it is, but people are ignoring the negative aspects and using bloated statements such as this one to keep the game on a golden pedestal:

Zelda at its best is an exercise in pitch perfect challenge in a role playing format (IDK why anyone would think this is a "role playing game." It is clearly a 3D action adventure), something that's designed to be enjoyed equally by all-comers(then I guess I don't count as an "all-comer"). Its brilliance is in its design work - it's not easy to create action-puzzle challenge that exists so cohesively in terms of overworld, dungeon and plot progression (I've heard the exact opposite about Metroidvanias such as this one, in that its "quest item opens a new area" formula is easy to make from a design standpoint.). In fact, no-one has even managed to better what was achieved in Zelda from Super Famicom through to Nintendo 64, they still remain defining examples of design expertise.

Not everyone enjoys pad bitingly frustrating pockets of borderline unfair gameplay.

There is nothing unfair about Ninja Gaiden. I can see some similar, rational argument passing for the sequel, but the first game is true gaming craftsmanship. Every situation can be handled effectively with the tools that the designers give you. Only bad players try to find the spirit crushing difficulty as a fault. As for difficulty being an issue for games like Zelda: OOT, I'd like to think so. They could have at least done without the hearts and heart container bullshit and given you lives and 3 hits of vitality. Maybe then the once simple bosses will appear as colossal exercises in hand/eye coordination. Games are all about overcoming hardship, so a game of Zelda's scale being reduced to "collect this to stay alive" degenerates the experience altogether. Think of what could have been, man!

[TransatlanticFoe]

If anyone actually has any logical response to these points then go for it, otherwise I'm done with this thread.

We get that you don't like Radiant Silvergun. It's not like you need to justify that, but this is about the worst you've played. If that's the worst you've played then how on Earth have you avoided some downright broken original games and ports? Never mind the sea of mediocrity which plagues every genre.

See:

The argument isn't whether or not so-and-so likes RS, the argument is the absurdity of proclaiming it the worst shooter one has ever played.

I wanted to like Battle Garegga because I loved its art style and enjoyed the first level. But the rank system makes it impossible for me to have fun with the game much past that point. It's a design choice and plenty of people like it. Doesn't make it the worst shooter I've played, because I've played some godawful shite like Strike Force Hydra on GBA - the only game I've bought to have gone back to the shop on their no-questions 7 days return policy. I quite want to play Planet Joker just once to see how terrible it is, because it looks like a truly dire game.

[Skykid]

Sea combat is totally ill-concieved, requiring you to switch from sail to cannon over and over as you try to get positioning in the middle of a cannonball exchange. Who the fuck thought that was a good idea I don't know. On top of that, the wind changes direction all the time, so it's like a comedy of errors while you put the sail up to avoid an incoming cannonball, navigate away, put the sail down, wrestle with the wind to get position, try to get a shot off, and then realise you need to move again before you even get a chance.

lolz. You just condemned the only positive aspect of sea travel in that game (another negative would be the stupid, boring treasure hunting minigame, which WAS mandatory later in the game to collect pieces of the Triforce). Most of the fun was working with the wind, and setting the right direction for it to blow so you can better prepare your cannon onslaught accordingly and sink the bastard who dares to confront you in battle. It's videogame physics at its best. It gets you to think, at least on some level. However, sailing in one direction for like, 20 minutes is absolutely unacceptable. Plus, getting hit in any Zelda game, whether it be on land or sea, is no threat to the player at all if they are moderately skilled (not to mention if they have 10 container hearts.).

Disagree. All the sea faring in Wind Waker is totally fucked. Combat just as much.

Sometimes I'm bewildered at what drives people to rag on titles that are universally accepted as benchmark achievements in gaming, like everyone who gave it due credit somehow completely missed the point.

Now, I am not one of those hipsters who dislike something purely on the grounds of its popularity. I have a distaste for Zelda games because, however great their stories may be, they do not provide the challenge I'm looking for. This is why I can't take pure adventure games seriously anymore, either. I put in Grim Fandango the other day and it bored me to near death --and I used to LOVE that game! On rare occasions, something can prove itself to be so pathetically boring that it gives me a headache. That was one of those times. The basic idea is that, the less brainpower demanded from the player, the worse the game. An adventure game basically strips games down to their bare bones and leaves out everything exciting. And it's not hard to imagine Zelda: OOT with many sword combos/techniques and souped up, more threatening enemies. So I definitely think there was room for improvement.

It doesn't matter if you're bored retrospectively. I can't read a novel twice, it's a chore. Same could be said of an RPG. Does that make the initial experience any less of an achievement? Absolutely not.

As for your comments on Windwaker being worse, well...truth be told, the difficulty of WW's dungeons and those of OOT are about equal. They both made me spend around the same amount of time in them. The hardest of the former was either Gannondorf's castle or the Forest Temple (because of that damn wind! Curse you, Makar!), while the hardest of the latter was either the water temple, Garudo temple (the one with those witch sister bosses), or the spirit temple, for their intricacies and mildly challenging rooms. I'm not saying that it wasn't fun back then, but coming back to the game years later makes the games both appear as farces. But if we are to cast aside all of our nostalgia for one moment and look at the game in a technical manner, Windwaker wins by a hair thanks to it's superior audiovisuals. I am in total agreement with you about graphics not meaning everything, though.

Wind Waker wins nothing by an anything. It's an inferior entry in a superior series.

Is all of that praise justified? Some of it is, but people are ignoring the negative aspects and using bloated statements such as this one to keep the game on a golden pedestal:

Zelda at its best is an exercise in pitch perfect challenge in a role playing format (IDK why anyone would think this is a "role playing game." It is clearly a 3D action adventure), something that's designed to be enjoyed equally by all-comers(then I guess I don't count as an "all-comer"). Its brilliance is in its design work - it's not easy to create action-puzzle challenge that exists so cohesively in terms of overworld, dungeon and plot progression (I've heard the exact opposite about Metroidvanias such as this one, in that its "quest item opens a new area" formula is easy to make from a design standpoint.). In fact, no-one has even managed to better what was achieved in Zelda from Super Famicom through to Nintendo 64, they still remain defining examples of design expertise.

It's a deserved pedestal. It earned it. It's a damn fine piece of work. You're ignoring its intricacies and taking an overly negative approach to its individual elements. That's unfair.
It's an ARPG, or at least that's how it's known, so I put it in the role playing pocket.

I'll give you one thing: my Ninja Gaiden comment was with the sequel in mind, so I apologise for the lack of specification. The original is certainly better balanced.

The challenge you seek is available in many games, as is the depth of combat and techniques. OOT isn't that game and doesn't need to be. Its combat is just one component of many, and it's an element that has been exactingly executed to be uniform with everything else.
Dissecting the game it in such a manner is doing it an injustice because you're ignoring the fact that it's a rather brilliant whole.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

It's indeed tougher than other versions.
But IMO it's not broken, horrible or *bad* in any way.

The Genesis/MegaDrive port of Twin Cobra? Still one of my favorite games but I have to admit it is broken in three areas.

1. The green weapon. In the arcade version it would fire up to its maximum length if the button was held down, but I recall letting up on the button early didn't keep firing to the maximum shot length. But in the Genesis version it always fires up to its maximum shot length per shot, up to four shots at a time. That makes the green weapon very slow, with a gap in between each fired shot.

2. Stage 5 boss. Requires memorization to early bomb the circles that pop open and shoot while also shooting them. Miss any of the circles near the very bottom and--due to the compressed vertical screen size--the cannot be shot without having the yellow weapon and also sufficiently powered to shoot them with the back shot part of the yellow weapon.

3. Stage 8 boss. I've just had to go the top of the screen, drop three bombs before the first of the two armored tanks firing the spread shots (the same as the one in stage 2 but there are two of them) and drop one more bomb after dodging the first spread shots. There is absolutely zero room to fight the bottom armored tank straight ahead.

I do very much like the extra wide blue weapon. The music is mostly true to the arcade except for the actual melody notes are more slurred and they added remixed drums.

[Siren2011]

All the sea faring in Wind Waker is totally fucked. Combat just as much.

Yup, you're totally wearing rose tinted glasses for this, and your latest post is great evidence of this. Let's look at the italic part. Do you not realize that the combat in WW is an improvement over the combat in OOT? (Assuming you're not just talking about the on sea combat.) The powerful parry move is added. In the fight with a darknut (the knight in heavily fortified armor), you are encouraged to move closer to him and at a strategic angle to initiate the "A!" button prompt onscreen-- thus, risking the danger of being hit if you miss the timing. This is a meaningful improvement in combat complexity from Link's previous three-dimensional outing, because it increases the different and necessary ways of taking down certain foes (successful use of this move results in sweeping behind the darknut and cutting his armor off, rendering him finally vulnerable to your attacks. The complexity increases as you fight multiple darknuts at a time later on, making it riskier to pull it off because of every enemy attacking you at a different time-- which allows for an assortment of satisfying battles.). If there were not powerful enemies in this game, then the parry move would be unnecessary and superfluous because only normal moves would suffice. The game would be somewhat less interesting then. But thankfully that isn't the case, so we are left with a game that provides greater interactivity in a particular area than the last one. I.e. an improvement.

It doesn't matter if you're bored retrospectively. I can't read a novel twice, it's a chore. Same could be said of an RPG. Does that make the initial experience any less of an achievement? Absolutely not.

Really great point you have. But at the same time, our memories of what we thought of the game in the past --when we enjoyed playing through it in 1998, or whatever-- would be nothing short of hazy, thus completely skewing our judgement of the game. Thus, how we review a game should depend on a recent impression of it. We can say "it was great when I was younger", sure, but we can't bring those same feelings to surface when we feel differently about it now. After all, would you rather read an experienced gamer's review of a game, or a review that their younger, less experienced self wrote? You are not alone in this mentality. I made the same mistake for a while, and my reviews of Jet Set Radio Future and Shenmue suffered from it. "I loved the feeling of Shenmue and the Christmas part too. This game is undeniably special, and brought me great joy. Best game ever." is a very different criticism from "Shenmue does many things right and implements a few original ideas (such as the in-game arcade and the successful marriage of free roaming and fighting game mechanics), but the chore of talking to people for clues is a huge problem for a gamer like myself who loves instant gratification.".

Wind Waker wins nothing by an anything. It's an inferior entry in a superior series.

Where is your reasoning behind this? Is your body of text like a Magic Eye puzzle, that I can cross my eyes and gaze at to reveal the reasoning? And just to be anal, a series can't be superior or inferior to one of it's installments, just another series. That's like saying "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club band is NOTHING compared to The Beatles...NOTHING.".
But I know what you meant.

You're ignoring its intricacies and taking an overly negative approach to its individual elements. That's unfair.
It's an ARPG, or at least that's how it's known, so I put it in the role playing pocket.

What intricacies? Do you mean that no 3D action title up to that point had such a grand scale of locations to discover? That would make sense if true (I haven't played enough 3D action games from that period to accurately say). But that is just one element. And then again, Kingdom Hearts II was epic in this same sense, but with all of that mindless grinding involved to increase your power, it nullified most of the excitement this brought. Aaaand we are right back to talking about the bland combat and excess of health power-ups which degrade the game because they allow the player to rely not on their skill to progress, but on superficial "help me" cards which come in excess. The Zelda hearts are to action games what continues are to shoot-em-ups.

These "individual elements" you speak of must all be analyzed in depth if one's review is to have any worth, and in order to see the game as a whole. That is precisely what I'm doing. You're a cool guy, Skykid, but your post amounts to "I don't like all of these negative criticisms you have toward a game that I hold in high regard!". You are certainly entitled to think that the game has challenging temples, puzzles, and bosses. No one is stopping you from believing Ocarina of Time to be one of the best games the genre has to offer. But then again, so am I entitled to my opinion, which I believe to be of superior taste (who doesn't believe this about their own opinions?). The fact of the matter is, no matter how great you think this game is, it doesn't come close to how greatly Ninja Gaiden is designed. The latter has harder and more satisfying boss battles, a better and more complex fighting system, cooler moves, and better graphics and character design (it only lacks the musical genius that Zelda has.). This is only natural for primitive works to be...well...primitive in comparison with their evolved descendants, which is why I love the latter so much more than the former. This is what I'm trying to drive home, here. It is an obsolete and boring game. I'm sure many people around here would say the same thing about Space Invaders (which I also despise). Would you play Chutes and Ladders instead of videogames? Would you walk when you can drive a sports car to work? Would you rather watch silent films than those with color and sound? Why spend time praising what is no longer important? If you can answer yes and why they are important to any of these (and I believe it's possible in some cases to defend older things for valid reasons, such as the CRT VS LCD argument for shoot-em-ups.), then I'd love to hear it.

Dissecting the game it in such a manner is doing it an injustice because you're ignoring the fact that it's a rather brilliant whole.

Once again, I was completely fair in my assessment. Not only did I not ignore what I felt was positive about the game, but I explained why I didn't like the things I found wrong with it. That is justice as far as I'm concerned.

[ancestral-knowledge]

What the heck guys...why don't you just join IRC and chat there about zelda versus ninja gaiden. It's stupid.
I could not care less about zelda in a shmup forum.

Worst game i've ever played: A boy and his blob for game boy. The NES game was very nice but the Game Boy version was just a dissapointment. As i kid i was shocked how bad it really was.

Worst shmup: R-Type Final i think.... i don't have games like cho aniki and that but r-type final is really the worst shmup i have played i think.

[cvaniafan]

i don't have games like cho aniki and that but r-type final is really the worst shmup i have played i think.

Cho Aniki is epic !

The worst shooters, I would say : Toilet Kids (Nec PCE) and Zed Blade (Arcade MVS), but Zed Blade is an awful shooter I love.

[Skykid]

(Assuming you're not just talking about the on sea combat.)

I was.

I can't be bothered to talk this up any more. If you think OOT is an overrated pile of rubbish you carry on.

[Robert steel]

Aviation warrior series relatively poor.This is not the worst.

[abaxas]

Skull fang - what a long of.

Hated it.

[BryanM]

This is the nicest thing I'll ever say about Gunbird 1: it is slightly better than Chimera Beast.

It's just douchey all around. Your little guy moves sooooo slow, you have to know where the fuck bullets are going to go before they appear. Power up capsules? They're glued to the top of the screen. Invincibility after death time? Insufficient to slowly crawl up the screen and recover a powerup capsule.

Perhaps The Worst design decision ever: reaching maximum power is temporary even should you survive long. Keep going to the top of the screen and die and give us all your quarters! Remember if you don't use your quarters you can't win so remember to quarter often!

Now I will say something nice about it: Bumping into enemies = power down is a small, if irrelevant, kindness. Like a douche that pees in your white russian but lets you have the rest of his 1/10th a glass of Dr.Pepper as an apology.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

Only temporary maximum power also occurred in both Aero Fighters and Turbo Force--both V-System/Mc O'River Games. Turbo Force was a bit more unforgiving in that the shot power kept powering down the longer the fire button was held down. Aero Fighters only powered down one level.

[Despatche]

for me, it must be darius force; there are so many options but they all apparently mean nothing!

[BPzeBanshee]

Only temporary maximum power also occurred in both Aero Fighters and Turbo Force--both V-System/Mc O'River Games. Turbo Force was a bit more unforgiving in that the shot power kept powering down the longer the fire button was held down. Aero Fighters only powered down one level.

Turbo Force is pretty bad, but I thought it powered down regardless. I did buggerall shooting on a run through a stage and it powered down just as often as when I did use it.

Personally, I think most of the flash shmups (ignoring Raiden X) that are around are generally worse than Turbo Force with some exceptions that have made it to this forum and then been laughed at to oblivion anyway due to flaws in convention.

[richter3456]

I'd have to say BlaZeon was pretty bad... it's just way too damn slow and nothing really stands out. It doesn't have it's own personality. I just found it extremely boring and painful to play.

[TenshiP]

1942 (Nes) - It's not the music that does it, but the fact I rewarded for smashing my plane into a larger plane and gain like 10K, but shooting doen gets me 2k-5k. Also, repeating background the entire game.

[AuraDRGN]

Nanostray 1&2
Gunbirds
lastly r-rootage
NO ONE can say radiant silvergun and ikaruga is a bad game!

[Sumez]

Siren2011 if you can't appreciate the Zelda games for what they are, I feel sorry for you.

Anyway, go play Zelda 2. That game is god damn challenging, and in this game Link can do most of the things you mention (slice from above, etc.)

[cools]

(Assuming you're not just talking about the on sea combat.)

I was.

I can't be bothered to talk this up any more. If you think OOT is an overrated pile of rubbish you carry on.

OOT is overrated. Rubbish, definitely not.

[Sumez]

Also, Grim Fandango is one of the best adventure games ever made.
It's amazing in so many ways, its methods of storytelling still outdoes most if not all games created today.

And I used to really dislike it because of the 3D graphics working like crap on the PC I had then, as well as random bugs and game crashes happening all the time, and the missing point'n'click interface. But getting used to or overcoming all that, I'd now say it's a game everyone has to play through at least once.

[Vetus]

Nanostray 1&2
Gunbirds
lastly r-rootage
NO ONE can say radiant silvergun and ikaruga is a bad game!

But they can say that Gunbirds and Nanostray are bad games, huh? Good grief...

[Zeron]

Gunbirds

When you think of a shit shooter Gunbird series is one the first that pops up in your head?

Oh come on..

[Emuser]

1944.