Tried out Under Defeat on DC today for 1st time...

[PC Engine Fan X!]

I've never watched any of the Superplay videos of Under Defeat on the Naomi arcade hardware setup and was curious as to how the gameplay of it was...reminds me of Psikyo's arcade shmup title of Zero Gunner 2 for the Naomi & DC platforms. At first, I thought that UD's screen orientation would like that of Takumi's arcade shmup titles like Gigawing, Gigawing2 or Night Raid but was pleasantly surprised that it was a true "Tate" oriented shmup title from the moment the Main Title screen appears.

---------------
And now for some questions regarding Under Defeat shmup title:
---------------

Who are the female pilots of this Under Defeat game and what is the background story?

What are the specific requirements to unlock all the Gallery options in this Under Defeat game for the DC platform?

Are there any subtle differences between the original Naomi and latter DC versions of Under Defeat?

And what is the current "World Record" score for Under Defeat by an ace Japanese shmup master?

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Rob]

At first, I thought that UD's screen orientation would like that of Takumi's arcade shmup titles

It's a real shame.

I'm playing this one currently, too. As I said in another recent topic, the rotation seems underused as I feared. Tate as it is. There's really not much use tilting left and right when the enemies can all basically be attacked head on.

[CIT]

Who are the female pilots of this Under Defeat game and what is the background story?

Wilhelmine Müller and Adele Friedrich

The story is that there's a huge war between two rivalling empires, modelled after WW2. There's a cease fire but the enemy broke it so it's time for you to strike back!

What are the specific requirements to unlock all the Gallery options in this Under Defeat game for the DC platform?

Don't remember if there are any requirements. I think it's all unlocked from the start, no?

Are there any subtle differences between the original Naomi and latter DC versions of Under Defeat?

I've played both versions and there really is no difference at all, besides miniscule slowdown in yoko-mode DC version.

And what is the current "World Record" score for Under Defeat by an ace Japanese shmup master?

7.1 mio

[CIT]

There's really not much use tilting left and right when the enemies can all basically be attacked head on.

I don't know how extensively you've played this so far, but the game is pretty much impossible to play effectively without the ability to tilt your shot.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

For CIT,

Thanks for the Under Defeat background info...will have to play it some more to fully understand how to unlock all the various Gallery sections.

Playing UD for a few times the very first time does indeed unlock the "Other" gallery section but all the remaining art gallery sections above it remain "locked".

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[CIT]

Okay, then I think you probably just have to beat the first loop once. With continues is okay.

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Okay, then I think you probably just have to beat the first loop once. With continues is okay.

For CIT,

That sounds pretty reasonable to me...I noticed a built-in clock timer that registers how much game time play one plays -- could more game play time unlock more credits (like how it is possible to "earn more credits" on the DC version of Ikaruga through more game play time until "Free Play" option is reached)?

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[CIT]

Yes, each hour you will get you an extra credit. After 8 hours you should have free play enabled.

[Rob]

I don't know how extensively you've played this so far, but the game is pretty much impossible to play effectively without the ability to tilt your shot.

Not much. But it seems even when it's encouraging the tilting, it would've been unnecessary in a game without a pitiful main shot.

It really is embarrassingly weak, having to rely on constant charge shots. Seems more like Cannon Spike that way.

[Damocles]

I don't know how extensively you've played this so far, but the game is pretty much impossible to play effectively without the ability to tilt your shot.

Not much. But it seems even when it's encouraging the tilting, it would've been unnecessary in a game without a pitiful main shot.

It really is embarrassingly weak, having to rely on constant charge shots. Seems more like Cannon Spike that way.

Hrm...of all people, I figured you'd be the one to jump on the scoring element. Pretty simple, but still...

As for the rotating...yeah, it's damn necessary, especially when herding fire from one edge of the screen to the other. Take for instance the stage 2 boss. The first real attack is an aimed vulcan that you have to herd. Now, you could sit in the middle of the screen at the beginning and fire away, then dodge when it came out...or you could camp in the corner, jink toward the center, eventually briefly releasing the fire button to switch to the shallow angle then releasing it again to go straight ahead, all the while concentrating fire on the ship. Not to mention that if you don't follow the same angle as enemy fire you present a larger hitbox due to the oblong shape.

[Rob]

Hrm...of all people, I figured you'd be the one to jump on the scoring element. Pretty simple, but still...

Spent some more quality time with UD, pushing the game clock to an hour (ha, yes, I'm that quick to judge). The scoring system is just really boring.

Rule 1 to a good scoring system: it has to look cool. I kind of like launching the rocket into a group of targets, but that's about it. It doesn't look or feel demanding to pull off. Not much room to experiment. Am I wrong to think the vulcan and rocket even out as far as power and time it takes to recharge?

Rule 2: give out some extends.

I really like its start from 2-1 mode (which I haven't unlocked, just always wanted to see in Psikyo ports).

[BulletMagnet]

I sort of wondered how you'd react to this one, Rob, seeing as it's got a bit more of an "old-school" thing going, and you're more of a modern shmup fan...as I've said before, I wasn't expecting much of it, but I was pleasantly surprised by it, because although it's relatively simple compared to, say, Radirgy or something like that, it doesn't feel nearly as "clunky" as a lot of old-school shmups do to me (the very edges of my helicopter's rotors aren't part of the hitbox? Score!), and of course the graphics are great too (I wasn't impressed by the screenshots when I first saw them, but seeing the thing in motion's a whole new ballgame). The scoring system isn't nearly as flashy as the sort of stuff you play, especially when there are no extends to be had, but I still have fun with it, since I wasn't exactly expecting anything groundbreaking to begin with...your tastes tend to be a bit narrower than mine, though, so I guess only time will tell...

[Rob]

your tastes tend to be a bit narrower than mine, though, so I guess only time will tell...

;_;

I definitely like the idea of an older simple shooter, which is nice after a game of Guwange. The major problem is the main shot. I hate it. I hate having it fixed on a little tank for a few seconds before it blows up. Old style shooters really need lots of explosions and quickly, like Air Gallet. The explosion graphics are well done, it's just watching the plastic-looking tanks shake around all of the time (and crates! stationary vehicles! boring!). More action, more firepower.

The second level seems to last forever.

[BulletMagnet]

I hate having it fixed on a little tank for a few seconds before it blows up.

I understand what you're saying, but that never struck me as an issue...some of the larger tanks can take a pounding before finally blowing up, but most enemies, at least off the top of my head, didn't take more than a moment to go down. Though methinks just the fact that you referred to Air Gallet in a positive sense is enough to highlight the differences in our perceptions and tastes rather well.

[Icarus]

;_;

I definitely like the idea of an older simple shooter, which is nice after a game of Guwange. The major problem is the main shot. I hate it. I hate having it fixed on a little tank for a few seconds before it blows up. Old style shooters really need lots of explosions and quickly, like Air Gallet. The explosion graphics are well done, it's just watching the plastic-looking tanks shake around all of the time (and crates! stationary vehicles! boring!). More action, more firepower.

The second level seems to last forever.

Kind of a surprising reaction from you Rob. From my jaunts on Under Defeat, the one thing that really struck me was that it felt like a jumped up Psikyo game in 3D. No bells and whistles besides the graphics.

[Neon]

Though methinks just the fact that you referred to Air Gallet in a positive sense is enough to highlight the differences in our perceptions and tastes rather well.

He didn't, he just said that you destroyed enemies quickly in that game.

Air Gallet was made by antiamerican communist perverts

[Rob]

Kind of a surprising reaction from you Rob. From my jaunts on Under Defeat, the one thing that really struck me was that it felt like a jumped up Psikyo game in 3D. No bells and whistles besides the graphics.

It's the small things. I can't avoid the ZG2 comparisons.

So far it seems to have the same difficulty issue. Very easy to start. The difference is ZG2 does this in 3 ~2 minute stages instead of 2 that feel reaally long. In a ZG2 sequel one of my wishes was for exclusively long levels (as 5-7 were), but not this way. No. It's starting to get better by 3. I like the ravine when the boss appears and an actual stage midboss.

[Twiddle]

I love how bombing affects rank more positively than dying in this game

[Herr Schatten]

... it's got a bit more of an "old-school" thing going...

Hardly. I'm usually a big fan of the oldschool style of shmups, but Under Defeat and Raiden III both don't appeal to me, despite the fact that everyone keeps telling that "old-schoolers will love it" about either game.

I think people equal "fewer bullets than your average Cave game" automatically with "old school" for no apparent reason.

I dislike Under Defeat for the gameplay reasons Rob mentioned above. It feels tiresome and sort of "stretched", if you know what I mean. I don't think the game is bad, but after I played a round of UD I never feel the urge to start another one rightaway. It just leaves me cold.

[Necronom]

I guess most people say UD is oldschool because to them it just feels like an oldschool shooter. It's not only that it has fewer bullets but it's actually much more about shooting stuff down as fast as you can without the need to learn some ridiculously deep scoring system. Of course after investing enough playtime you realize that UD is not as oldschool as it seems at the beginning. Tilting the chopper left and right makes long distance "sniper shots" possible that I wouldn't actually call oldschool at all because it significantly changes the old gameplayformula. Sure, it does have that Raiden Fighters military style and it has also bullets aimed directly at you but at the end of the day it's quite different.
Sometimes it seems to me that many of the so called oldschoolers have expectations that are very high on the one hand but also extremely vague on the other. If you make a game that is more on the oldschool side, it won't be oldschool enough to some and way too oldschool to others.
What UD is extremely good at is the accessibility. I could imagine it would go down pretty well with the XBLA crowd on the 360.

[RoninBuddha]

i play UD for the graphics. no really.
im no gfx whore, hey im this forum lol!
but it really showcases the DC's power and G.Rev's attention to details.

sure i try to go for score/1CC etc. but the main draw of the game (for me personally), is how well everything looks and feels.

music aint too shabby either.

[Icarus]

Border Down > Under Defeat.

[chtimi-CLA]

Border Down > Under Defeat.

I've really tried to like border down. It has worked but only halfway, as i now appreciate the cold graphics much more and even the music except for stage 2. I can see the appeal of its gameplay, but i'm too horrible at it to really love it. I don't think there is a shooter i'm worse at than bd..
on the other hand UD is immediately appealing, i didn't think it was possible to have such good explosions in 3D, and in the see of 3D shooters that look like shit g-rev is really doing a good job at it. If it wasn't for the weapon system it would certainly be an old-school shooter (there are even tiger heli throwbacks), except for a few patterns. The music is pretty good. I play it not caring about the score and it is very enjoyable that way (like radiant).

[Icarus]

I've really tried to like border down. It has worked but only halfway, as i now appreciate the cold graphics much more and even the music except for stage 2. I can see the appeal of its gameplay, but i'm too horrible at it to really love it. I don't think there is a shooter i'm worse at than bd..
on the other hand UD is immediately appealing, i didn't think it was possible to have such good explosions in 3D, and in the see of 3D shooters that look like shit g-rev is really doing a good job at it. If it wasn't for the weapon system it would certainly be an old-school shooter (there are even tiger heli throwbacks), except for a few patterns. The music is pretty good. I play it not caring about the score and it is very enjoyable that way (like radiant).

If you sort of replace all instances of "UD" in your quote with "Border Down" and vice versa, you get my opinion on both games. I love Border Down to death, I find the gameplay fresh, fast-paced and extremely challenging, and the graphics are still very nice looking (even though I don't pay much attention to the glitz).

Under Defeat on the other hand is just so... boring. It plays slow, it feels clunky, it looks like shit (seriously), there's nothing "old-school" about it even though people classify it as old-school (and really, people should stop using "old-school" like a catch-all term, like "mainstream"). There's no excitement in the game at all. Compared to all the other DC shootemups available, I'd say that for me, Under Defeat ranks in the middle of the pack - Border Down, Radirgy, Mars Matrix, Ika all exceed it in both style and flawless gameplay.

[Ceph]

it looks like shit (seriously)

[...]

for me, Under Defeat ranks in the middle of the pack - Border Down, Radirgy, Mars Matrix, Ika all exceed it in both style and flawless gameplay.

You think Mars Matrix and Radirgy look more stylish while Under Defeat looks "like shit"? Ugh.

[Icarus]

Y'know, not everyone buys games for w00t PRETTY GFX.

I'd rather have some ugly-looking graphics with at least a bit of variety or a bit of style than generic tanks, choppers and ships with FANCY FIREWORKS. I get enough of the generic looking crap playing Raiden, kthx. Raiden > Under Defeat, too.

Oh, I forgot. People here spend more time arguing over upscaling, video signals and pretty explosions than actually playing the games. LOL.

Did I mention UD is very boring to play?

[Damocles]

To me, Under Defeat is possibly the epitome of the shooter genre. I found it and Radirgy at the same time. The first time I played UD, I didn't even reach the first boss before getting my ass blown out of the sky. Right then and there I put it down and started playing Radirgy heavily. However, I hit a wall with Radirgy and decided to pick up UD again and see if it was any more forgiving. It wasn't, but after a few tries I was able to grasp how important the rotating mechanism was, and made it to level 3...at which point the game kicked my ass. It also hooked me. The thing that I never realized was that UD requires a shitload of practice just to survive. Hell, look at the high-score chart. Five people have cleared the first loop out of 41 places. The game took up 12 hours of my life just to get a 1-loop clear...with most of that being in practice mode for stages 4 and 5. No other game has forced that on me merely for survival.

Now, I say it is the epitome of the genre because of how it does things. First off, and this is where the old-school part comes in, you have to know how to deal with everything firing directly at you. Much like in the shooters of old, your ass will get trapped in a corner if you're not expecting fire. It's also, at the heart, very simple. Shoot, dodge. No tactical suicides (well, I guess you can...though I never saw the point), no ass-saving reflect device (though I love the Gigas to death), and no extends. Your ass is grass because you ain't getting any more than you started with. Finally, the scoring. Call it simple...that's fine. The thing is, it's a balancing act. The secondary weapons are there to deal with large threats just as much as for scoring. Cluster of tanks giving you grief? Lob a rocket that way and score some bonus points in the process.

I'm not saying it's perfect. Hell...the forced lateral scrolling pissed me off royally until I exploted it, and the angle leads to some frustrating deaths early on, and the music is kinda meh, but overall...................hey, wait, why am I defending a game that recieves damn good praise more often than not?

*shrug*

Random rant is over.

Oh, and I do hate the stupid loop requirements.

[BulletMagnet]

Did I mention UD is very boring to play?

"Simple," maybe, perhaps even "generic," but "boring?" I'd say it keeps you pretty busy, although perhaps not doing the wacky "juggling of several meters at once" kind of gameplay that Radirgy does...as for the "people talk more about upscaling than playing" bit, come on, that's an unfairly low view of your fellow forumgoers, don't you think?

[Icarus]

"Simple," maybe, perhaps even "generic," but "boring?" I'd say it keeps you pretty busy, although perhaps not doing the wacky "juggling of several meters at once" kind of gameplay that Radirgy does...

Seriously, I have to force myself to not fall asleep playing the first three levels in UD. Drab, boring and snore-inducing. In Border Down, Radirgy and the rest I'm flying all over the place destroying things, squeezing out more points and generally being constantly tested. If I want old-schoolish gameplay I'll go back to the old-school. Guess I just prefer my new stuff to be more exciting than this.

... as for the "people talk more about upscaling than playing" bit, come on, that's an unfairly low view of your fellow forumgoers, don't you think?

The anal-retention vis-a-vis video signals and graphic quality has lessened lately, but still prevalent. I can understand the appeal in good visual design and a setup that emphasises that, but when general game discussions of both old and new games degenerate into "graphics this and graphics that"... well... you get the idea.

And I play on an LCD flatpanel through SCART. Graphics aren't exactly as crisp as most people's setups, but I don't care.

[Rob]

I AGRE WITH ICARUS ABOUT THE GRAPHICS. For the most part. On this forum it seems 3D is either hated without question or given too much credit. OK, a few levels are basically great to look at. Especially the last level. The explosions are nice. When scenery planes zip by it looks nice. But then there's everything else, like the trees. Those trees look very bad, the way they have those cone layers and slink back and forth. If I shoot them they should blow apart so I don't have to look at them anymore.

I don't have too much of a problem with this game. I feel it is average-above average, placing it with Raiden 3 and maybe Trizeal.

Oh, a few more complaints :

-Tossing out/aiming a charge shot while attempting to have the plane not wobble into danger.
-Too many reused enemy attack patterns.

The game took up 12 hours of my life just to get a 1-loop clear...with most of that being in practice mode for stages 4 and 5. No other game has forced that on me merely for survival.

Wow, really? It takes me this amount of time or more to clear most games.