Help from the shmup.com for Mushihimesama Futari 1.5 review

[Jedah Doma]

So with the upcoming release of Mushihimesama Futari Ver 1.5 on the Xbox 360, I want to do a review of the game for a future episode of Substance TV. As much as I love Cave and Mushihimesama, I am in no way an expert at the game. I really want to make this a quality review not only in production but content as well. I also want to get all the facts straight and makes sure I cover all the important points and not screw it up. If anyone is interested in providing information or tips, please post here or send me a private message or e-mail me at:

brian@substance-tv.com

We will credit any and all people who help at the end of the episode by listing their name and thank the shumps the community in general. Thanks in advance for your help!

[Skykid]

Are you going to be reviewing the port or PCB? Is the review going to be aired before the port comes out?

[jonny5]

So with the upcoming release of Mushihimesama Futari Ver 1.5 on the Xbox 360, I want to do a review of the game for a future episode of Substance TV. As much as I love Cave and Mushihimesama, I am in no way an expert at the game. I really want to make this a quality review not only in production but content as well. I also want to get all the facts straight and makes sure I cover all the important points and not screw it up. If anyone is interested in providing information or tips, please post here or send me a private message or e-mail me at:

brian@substance-tv.com

We will credit any and all people who help at the end of the episode by listing their name and thank the shumps the community in general. Thanks in advance for your help!

have you played the game?

[Jedah Doma]

Are you going to be reviewing the port or PCB? Is the review going to be aired before the port comes out?

I will only have the ability to review the port itself as I don't own the PCB.

have you played the game?

Sadly I have not gotten the chance to at the moment. I am anxiously awaiting my copy from Play Asia. Though I will be doing an extensive play through once I get it in. My plan is to get some serious hours into the game with my knowledge of Cave and the series in general, then post possible points and or topics of conversation here in the forums to test their relevance. Also to see what other key points need to be covered.

[Doctor Fugue]

Writing a professional review requires that you understand the game more than anyone else. If you need help finding key points for discussion, you should not be reviewing the game. Extensive knowledge of all STGs would negate the need to ask for help.

[jonny5]

writing a review for a game you have never played sounds kinda foolish....

[neist]

Writing a professional review requires that you understand the game more than anyone else. If you need help finding key points for discussion, you should not be reviewing the game. Extensive knowledge of all STGs would negate the need to ask for help.

While that'd work in an ideal world, that's not how game reviews typically happen. It depends to whom your review is aimed. If the review isn't aimed at hardcore fans of the genre (namely the people who visit this forum), it should be fine. If we held such standards to game reviews, no website or publication would exist. Game writers can by no means be experts of every genre they cover.

Besides, professionalism in writing for something on the internet isn't as necessary as you'd imagine. If you can write well, you can review games. A lot of full-time, paid game journalists can't even write well, and they get paid. All it takes is hard work and a lot of self-motivation and dedication.

writing a review for a game you have never played sounds kinda foolish....

I don't think he said he was going to. I think hes preparing in anticipation of the release of the port. Though, I admit, and I'm not in any way being sarcastic, my reading skills aren't so hot, so if I'm missing this tidbit from what he posted, please correct me.

As far as key points, I can't help you too much, as I haven't played the game yet either. I just have the normal suggestion of getting some good play-time in before doing the review. Maybe not hundreds of hours, but many hours so you can get a solid grasp of the game's systems? Sure. Everyone is different, but I'd at least try to put a good 20 hours in the game or so. I know I can't get a reasonable grasp on why a shmup is good or not until that many hours into it. But like I said, that's just me. People more knowledgeable than I can probably feel out a game much more quickly.

Also, be sure to post the video here once you finish it.

Edit: Oh yeah, what ever happened to Pixel Pill?

[linko9]

Honestly, I think the best thing to do would be to get around 100 hours into the game, and then if any questions remain, you could ask them at that point. In the meantime, it may be useful to read through this topic on cave-stg.

[Jedah Doma]

Writing a professional review requires that you understand the game more than anyone else. If you need help finding key points for discussion, you should not be reviewing the game. Extensive knowledge of all STGs would negate the need to ask for help.

I think maybe my point isn't properly coming across. I have a full appreciation and understanding of Cave as I've played and owned most every game since the release of the original Donpachi. It's not for a lack of understanding, but I want to make sure I'm on point with my review. There are also some scoring details and intricacies that are sometimes difficult to fully understand even by shmup gods.

writing a review for a game you have never played sounds kinda foolish....

I will be playing the game, then and only then will I do a review. This is only meant as a barometer to make sure I cover all points well and properly and go over the fine details. Please don't mistake this as someone who is ignorant of Cave games hap hazradly doing a Cave review out of the blue. I've already covered games like ESP Galuda and have extensively played a boatload of Cave games.

This is pretty much a shmup fan asking his fellow shmup fans for their honest evaluation of my thoughts and put in their two cents. I want to make a review that will stand the test of time and be seen as a proper and educated source on the game.

[Necronopticous]

Honestly, I think the best thing to do would be to get around 100 hours into the game, and then if any questions remain, you could ask them at that point. In the meantime, it may be useful to read through this topic on cave-stg.

Reading the strategy thread and investing time into the game is all you need to do to write a good review. 100 hours is completely ridiculous. My score is in the top 5 on both Original Mode and Maniac Mode (Reco & Palm) on the scoreboard here and I certainly do not have 100 hours of play. It's hilarious how people blow up over the bad shmup reviews in the states, but have such unreasonable expectations. No professional game reviewer has that kind of time to spend with any game. Give this guy a break.

There are also some scoring details and intricacies that are sometimes difficult to fully understand even by shmup gods.

That strategy thread linko9 linked to is basically all you need. Watch some superplays if you're stuck. I hope you'll come leave some scores once the game arrives. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions on scoring intricacies that you have having trouble understanding once you start playing.

[linko9]

Many professional reviewers do in fact spend 100 hours with a game. Case in point; many Fallout 3 reviewers. And what about games like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, which takes about 80 hours to truly complete? Certainly a reviewer should finish the game he's reviewing. And in this case, I assume he doesn't have as strict a deadline as most professional reviewers, so he'll have plenty of time to invest into the game. Now, of course for most shmups, you don't really need to put that much time into the game to be able to fairly review it. However, as it seems he's a Cave superfan, and wants to truly get the most out of this game, I don't think it's an unreasonable number.

[captpain]

Many professional reviewers do in fact spend 100 hours with a game. Case in point; many Fallout 3 reviewers. And what about games like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, which takes about 80 hours to truly complete? Certainly a reviewer should finish the game he's reviewing. And in this case, I assume he doesn't have as strict a deadline as most professional reviewers, so he'll have plenty of time to invest into the game. Now, of course for most shmups, you don't really need to put that much time into the game to be able to fairly review it. However, as it seems he's a Cave superfan, and wants to truly get the most out of this game, I don't think it's an unreasonable number.

Well, you should, because it is.

[BulletMagnet]

My suggestion is to wait till the game comes in, play it awhile, make notes of the general points you plan to discuss, post them here before recording the segment, and we'll tell you if you've missed anything major. I don't think you should need to do too much more than that to make for a worthy few minutes on the title.

[Necronopticous]

Certainly a reviewer should finish the game he's reviewing.

Not true at all.

[Skykid]

Certainly a reviewer should finish the game he's reviewing.

Not true at all.

I agree - even in professional circumstances such luxuries aren't always possible.

100 hours to fully get an understanding of Futari is ridiculous, especially when each credit is about 10 minutes early on. You'll be ready to smash your head into a wall after listening to Reco's death cry after the third time, let alone the three hundredth.

[DMC]

Certainly a reviewer should finish the game he's reviewing.

Honestly, I think the best thing to do would be to get around 100 hours into the game, and then if any questions remain, you could ask them at that point. In the meantime, it may be useful to read through this topic on cave-stg

It's a review, not a dissertation - take it for what it is. The guy seems to have good intentions, wants to learn the game, and hopefully it will promote the game to more western players.

[gray117]

... well if nothing else he can put in his review that some awkward stg oddballs suggest he spend 100 hours on the game k thx bi ...

...*sigh*

... fortunately I don't need to be as polite as Jedah Doma... if your weeks work is 100 hours in a single game then you're a tester not a writer.

This guy has his job because he's a good writer and researcher, and clearly keen to represent this game in as accurate, and an informed light as possible. Furthermore, to do so in a timely fashion he's clearly seeking some help.

Anyone who spent 100 hours in fallout for review was not paid to do so. They did it because they wanted to. I also suspect a large portion of that 100 hours would have been done with a review build either before a retail/review embargo or after the actual review. Clearly this opportunity is not available in this case.

I'm sure some pcb owners/players will be happy to help out.

[Enhasa]

Many professional reviewers do in fact spend 100 hours with a game. Case in point; many Fallout 3 reviewers. And what about games like Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, which takes about 80 hours to truly complete?

Who would want to spend 80-100 hours on such shitty games? More time spent somewhere is less time spent somewhere else. No wonder professional reviews tend to be so terrible. Get some more man-hours on staff so you can do more with your other reviews than playing through it once while credit feeding.

[Depth Charge]

Don't even think of posting a review unless you can clear both loops and get 3.2 jillion points

[evil_ash_xero]

Certainly a reviewer should finish the game he's reviewing.

Not true at all.

I agree. I think the reviewer should *gasp* credit feed at least a few times to see if the game is still good in the later stages, or builds properly, or becomes unfair etc., but I really don't think they have to 1CC the game to be able to review it. We wouldn't have many reviews if that was the case.

[Momijitsuki]

As long as you don't harp on about how shooting games are short and boring because you can credit feed through them, all the more power to you, Jedah.

[linko9]

Well, it's clear that I'm in a one-man minority here, so I guess I should explain myself. With any game that I truly enjoy, I usually spend about 100 hours with the game at least. I guess that habit was formed because when I was a kid, I only had enough money to buy a new game once every few months at best, and to this day, I always squeeze as much time as I can out of a good game. It usually takes me about a month to get that much time into a game (case in point, I just started DoDonPachi three weeks back, and I have 80 hours at this point), so for someone who's job it is to play and review videogames, I'd assume this time would be cut down even more. It's also worth noting that I only ever play one game at a time (I suppose another holdover from my youth). So anyway, what this means is that putting 100 hours into a game is not really a big deal for me, so I often forget that it is for normal people . The intent of my original post was to say "play this game until you've got a good understanding of it, and then review it," not to suggest that he spend some ridiculous amount of time with the game. It's just that because of my play style, 100 hours doesn't seem like a ridiculous amount of time. I was in no way trying to suggest that he would be unable to properly review the game without putting that much time into the game. It's probably also worth noting that I suck at videogames (great way to extend the replay value), so going back the DoDonPachi example, I still haven't reached the second loop of the game, and even today, as I continue to play, I realize more things about the game that would affect my review of the game (if I were reviewing it). Obviously, for someone who is more skilled, less time would be needed.

Finally, in regards to what professional reviewers actually do, all of my knowledge is based off of reading IGN, and listening to podcasts on that site and such. IGN reviewers are required to complete any game that they review (This was explicitly mentioned by one of the Nintendo editors in a podcast, and they often complain about having to complete shitty games), and when necessary, they do put around 100 hours into a game. Obviously, they would never put this much time into a shmup, but none of them are really shmup fans. I would personally feel uncomfortable reviewing most shmups without having a pretty good understanding of all aspects of the game, and for me, that takes a while. Obviously, it takes less time for most people.

And best of luck with your review Jedah, I'm sure it'll turn out great.

[jonny5]

Well, it's clear that I'm in a one-man minority here, so I guess I should explain myself. With any game that I truly enjoy, I usually spend about 100 hours with the game at least. I guess that habit was formed because when I was a kid, I only had enough money to buy a new game once every few months at best, and to this day, I always squeeze as much time as I can out of a good game. It usually takes me about a month to get that much time into a game (case in point, I just started DoDonPachi three weeks back, and I have 80 hours at this point), so for someone who's job it is to play and review videogames, I'd assume this time would be cut down even more. It's also worth noting that I only ever play one game at a time (I suppose another holdover from my youth). So anyway, what this means is that putting 100 hours into a game is not really a big deal for me, so I often forget that it is for normal people . The intent of my original post was to say "play this game until you've got a good understanding of it, and then review it," not to suggest that he spend some ridiculous amount of time with the game. It's just that because of my play style, 100 hours doesn't seem like a ridiculous amount of time. I was in no way trying to suggest that he would be unable to properly review the game without putting that much time into the game. It's probably also worth noting that I suck at videogames (great way to extend the replay value), so going back the DoDonPachi example, I still haven't reached the second loop of the game, and even today, as I continue to play, I realize more things about the game that would affect my review of the game (if I were reviewing it). Obviously, for someone who is more skilled, less time would be needed.

Finally, in regards to what professional reviewers actually do, all of my knowledge is based off of reading IGN, and listening to podcasts on that site and such. IGN reviewers are required to complete any game that they review (This was explicitly mentioned by one of the Nintendo editors in a podcast, and they often complain about having to complete shitty games), and when necessary, they do put around 100 hours into a game. Obviously, they would never put this much time into a shmup, but none of them are really shmup fans. I would personally feel uncomfortable reviewing most shmups without having a pretty good understanding of all aspects of the game, and for me, that takes a while. Obviously, it takes less time for most people.

And best of luck with your review Jedah, I'm sure it'll turn out great.

not everybody has 25 hours a week to dedicate to gaming.....most of us are lucky to get even half or a 1/4 of that....do you work?

[neist]

I thought I'd just clarify a few tidbits of this discussion as I'm not sure many people understand how games writing works.

As I'm sure other people on these boards have done so in the past (it honestly isn't all that special if you have), I work as an editor at a gaming website, and while our website isn't on the level of say Gamespot or IGN, we do get tens of thousand of individual visitors a day. That being said, though I don't work at one of the big guys, I do have enough perspective on the issue to comment on it.

Probably 99% of everyone who writes about games online do not get paid full-time salaries. This is no way an exaggeration. I'd go as far as to state that there's probably less than 100 full-time, paid jobs available in the US to people who want to write about games. It's an impossible industry to break into. Because of this, there's basically two groups of games writers that people usually have to refer to: the professional press and the enthusiast press.

In many instances the enthusiast press works just as hard, if not harder in some instances, than the professional press. The quality of work on both sides vary greatly, so just because one gets a full salary means quite little. The enthusiast genuinely cares about what they are doing, and this often leads to more specific and detailed information on particular subjects that they are interested in. From an enthusiasts perspective, and granted the publication you work for allows for it, you could in fact spend as much time as you'd like on a game; however, most enthusiast run sites function the same as professionally run sites, albeit with less income. Most of the time your bosses want you to move on to review another game or write on another topic. It's understandable, really. If you do not write to a broad enough audience you will eventually lose readers.

If you are in fact a full-time paid staff member, you tend to be horribly over-worked, your hours are long, and you tend to get paid little for the effort. These people honestly do not have the time to spend 100 hours on a game. Heck, I've played Fallout 3 to completion, taking my time, and after every single side mission in the game, I'm only at around 65 hours. Unless you're a person who writes guides for a living (and this is actually a really, really terrible job), it's just not necessary. You're going to have so many games coming in that you cannot spend the extra time on a game unless its required. And since there are so overworked to begin with, they typically don't have much free time to spend on the game as well. Besides, if you just worked a 60 hour week playing video games and writing about them constantly, would you really want to come home and do it some more? These people need breaks.

All I'm saying is cut people some slack. If you are paid or not paid (and my points completely avoid freelancers entirely), you probably cannot justify spending that much time on a game. Without saying where I work, the games we review are very, very, very long, and we rarely spend 100 hours on them. We do in fact play them absolutely to completion, as it's our policy not to a review a game unless we have, and that amount of time is never necessary.

[linko9]

not everybody has 25 hours a week to dedicate to gaming.....most of us are lucky to get even half or a 1/4 of that....do you work?

Yup, 40 hours a week when I'm not in college. When I am, I have even less free time. Anyway, I was laboring under the assumption that as a professional game reviewer, he would indeed have 25 hours a weeks to dedicate to gaming. Also, as he stated that he was a big Cave fan, I figured he would want to put as much time into the game as possible in the first place. Anyway, as it seems that people are somehow getting the idea that I was trying to insult Jedah and everything he believes in; I was simply offering my opinion on what I would do were I reviewing this game, and provided him with the most helpful source that I knew of. I'm not one to complain about reviews, and understand that everyone has his own style for reviewing and playing games.

[Doctor Fugue]

Writing a professional review requires that you understand the game more than anyone else. If you need help finding key points for discussion, you should not be reviewing the game. Extensive knowledge of all STGs would negate the need to ask for help.

While that'd work in an ideal world, that's not how game reviews typically happen. It depends to whom your review is aimed. If the review isn't aimed at hardcore fans of the genre (namely the people who visit this forum), it should be fine. If we held such standards to game reviews, no website or publication would exist.

This is why nearly all game reviews are terrible. Purposely writing for a wide audience is nothing more than pandering. Writing should always be done at the highest possible level of quality, and it should serve the smallest possible community -- not the lowest common denominator.

Game writers can by no means be experts of every genre they cover.

Game writers (by extension, all writers) should only be writing on subjects in which they are experts. I would never think of writing a JRPG review any more than I would consider writing a treatise on black holes. If someone is hired to write in a field in which they are less capable, it is their responsibility to become an expert.

Besides, professionalism in writing for something on the internet isn't as necessary as you'd imagine. If you can write well, you can review games. A lot of full-time, paid game journalists can't even write well, and they get paid. All it takes is hard work and a lot of self-motivation and dedication.

The vast majority of games writing is merely for money, clicks, self-aggrandizement and generally making the writer feel better about himself, which has led to the proliferation of filler-filled, bloated, meaningless drivel along with the misconception that anyone can be a writer.

I'm not trying to pick on you here, I just wanted to make some general points in opposition to your views.

[neist]

I'm not trying to pick on you here, I just wanted to make some general points in opposition to your views.

They aren't my opinions, they are general facts about how the gaming industry is ran. Now, we could argue whether the way its ran is right or wrong, but frankly, I don't care all that much. I mean, writing about games on a website isn't the Wall Street Journal. It'll probably be a long time before it hits that point, if ever. You could argue that film writing hasn't even hit that point, and it's been around for ages.

There's this giant perception that people who write on games should be experts. Really, they aren't. Maybe they should be, but they aren't. Dedicated enthusiasts will always know more. This is true of any game genre. This is due to a lot of reasons, but in a nutshell, their job's responsibilities take time away from actually researching and playing games. I kid you not when I say I spend around 3 hours a day just making sure I stay up to date with industry news. I could easily spend another hour or two if I heavily followed NeoGaf and Twitter. That doesn't leave a lot of time for playing games. This is one reason that the hours of industry professionals are so long. It may be one of the most time-consuming forms of journalism due to the fact that games themselves take a good long while to play. Now, I could talk to someone about over-arching industry trends all day, because I'm nearly completely certain I catch 90% of all news that pops up. In that extent, I am an expert in what I know. But unless you work at a highly specialized website or publication, that's not a luxury that you have.

I mean, you don't expect a sports journalist to be an expert on every single sport that happens, right? They have beats. They can have beats because the sports industry is large enough that publications can have specialists in specific fields. Now, while it is true that video games make a LOT of money as an industry as a whole, the writing about them makes very little. I'm not enough of an insider to know why it doesn't make enough money, but it's not as if there's dedicated segments on local news stations about video games.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be more professional, it's just that it isn't, not at least right now. I think the only thing that I disagree with somewhat with your response is that writing should be aimed at smallest possible community. I'd love for it to work that way, but since the games writing industry is entirely ran off of advertisements, you could never make money doing that. It'd make good writing, but you couldn't do it for a living, and if you can't do it for a living, you have to try to cram all the research that I mentioned above into a day as well as work a full-time job. It's hard, really hard, so not many people can keep up the pace.

Again, not my opinions so much as just general facts on how things occur. Writing about games is incredibly inglorious and the tedium gets to most people within a year or two, and it is in fact true that a lot of writers do it for their own self-worth, but talking of what gaming journalism should be seems moot, unless we intend to do anything to change the way it's currently practiced.

Really, I'm not very opinionated, but when there's a misunderstanding about something that I know a reasonable portion about, I will speak up. It's not because I think your opinions are invalid, but a lot what has stated in this thread is simply incorrect. The best I can do is inform of the misconceptions. What you draw from them is entirely up to you.

[Doctor Fugue]

How the industry works is exactly the reason why nearly every magazine and website should stop publishing their worthless reviews. But that is not the issue I am discussing, as I could not care less about games journalists, and the goal of great writing lies outside any imagined impedance of "the industry."

My intended point was that all writers (whether they write ten reviews a week for a living or just one review a year without receiving payment) need to have comprehension that exceeds the audience and infallible skill in critical reasoning.

In a concerted effort to bring myself back on topic, my suggestion for help with your review is to read this:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/casual_re ... or_no_one/
Of course, here is one website that should not close up shop.

[Skykid]

Well, it's clear that I'm in a one-man minority here, so I guess I should explain myself. With any game that I truly enjoy, I usually spend about 100 hours with the game at least. I guess that habit was formed because when I was a kid, I only had enough money to buy a new game once every few months at best, and to this day, I always squeeze as much time as I can out of a good game. It usually takes me about a month to get that much time into a game (case in point, I just started DoDonPachi three weeks back, and I have 80 hours at this point), so for someone who's job it is to play and review videogames, I'd assume this time would be cut down even more. It's also worth noting that I only ever play one game at a time (I suppose another holdover from my youth). So anyway, what this means is that putting 100 hours into a game is not really a big deal for me, so I often forget that it is for normal people . The intent of my original post was to say "play this game until you've got a good understanding of it, and then review it," not to suggest that he spend some ridiculous amount of time with the game. It's just that because of my play style, 100 hours doesn't seem like a ridiculous amount of time. I was in no way trying to suggest that he would be unable to properly review the game without putting that much time into the game. It's probably also worth noting that I suck at videogames (great way to extend the replay value), so going back the DoDonPachi example, I still haven't reached the second loop of the game, and even today, as I continue to play, I realize more things about the game that would affect my review of the game (if I were reviewing it). Obviously, for someone who is more skilled, less time would be needed.

Finally, in regards to what professional reviewers actually do, all of my knowledge is based off of reading IGN, and listening to podcasts on that site and such. IGN reviewers are required to complete any game that they review (This was explicitly mentioned by one of the Nintendo editors in a podcast, and they often complain about having to complete shitty games), and when necessary, they do put around 100 hours into a game. Obviously, they would never put this much time into a shmup, but none of them are really shmup fans. I would personally feel uncomfortable reviewing most shmups without having a pretty good understanding of all aspects of the game, and for me, that takes a while. Obviously, it takes less time for most people.

And best of luck with your review Jedah, I'm sure it'll turn out great.

You're missing the point though - if you're writing a Bradygames walkthrough then your methodology is fine. Games reviews should be about essence, key facts and whether or not its any good at what it does. You don't need 100 hours to determine this criteria, just a little dedication, a decent knowledge of games and a way with words.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

IMHO, this is how I think a review should be done.

Turn on the game--don't play it yet. Watch the attract modes a few times first. Rationale: this allows seeing of details in the game that may not be able to be seen or appreciated when actually playing the game for survival.

Now, go to the options menu, if there is a sound test, listen to the soundtracks individually to fully appreciate them, since a lot of in-game action and sound effects may prevent fully appreciating the music. If the game does not have a sound test, then it will be necessary just to hear the soundtrack while also playing the game.

Now, play the game the first time through, default difficulty, no continues no matter what, how far did one get? What is that player's skill level compared to other games of the same genre? This may be a good way to accurately measure whether the game is too easy or too hard from the start, and whether other players will like the game vs. for dedicated fans of the genre only.

Play again, and for the purposes of reviewing, sure go ahead and credit feed to the end. Or, it might be better to just turn down the difficulty (but then say so in the review that it was necessary to turn down the difficulty in order not to credit feed to the end). That said, don't judge the overall game experience on how "short" it may be due to credit feeding or an easier difficulty, but do that to be able to see the later levels without having to start over each time so that the overall game experience has been reviewed.

Before finalizing the review, give the game one more playthrough, no credit feeding, at the default difficulty once again. Doesn't matter if the game is finished or not, just give it an honest one-credit playthrough.

For multimode games, do the same for any other game modes. IIRC Mushihimesama Futari has an Original mode, a Manic mode, and an Ultra mode. This way each mode got a fair playthrough.

IMHO, this is a good balance between not playing the game enough, and not spending 80 to 100 hours on the same game.