How come no one has done a write up on CAVE at HG101?

[evil_ash_xero]

Seriously guys, someone needs to do this. I mean, it seems really weird that no one has already.

And while you're at it...Raizing!

[Kollision]

well, I always wondered about that myself.
it seems the site is going through harsh times though. it's been in maintenance fo a couple of weeks now.

[Ed Oscuro]

it's been in maintenance fo a couple of weeks now.

Are you still going to the Classicgaming site? That will never return, IGN cut all hosted sites.

http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/ seems to be the new location.

[Kollision]

thanks for that
Guess I need to update the links section in my website!

[elvis]

HG101 seem to do cover older/complete series.

Cave are still pumping out shooters, so I don't think they'll bother for a while. With that said, companies like Psikyo, Raizing and Toaplan would all make interesting reads.

[Herr Schatten]

HG101 seem to do cover older/complete series.

Cave are still pumping out shooters, so I don't think they'll bother for a while. With that said, companies like Psikyo, Raizing and Toaplan would all make interesting reads.

I agree, and I very much hope Rob makes the Psikyo writeup. PLEASE!

[cj iwakura]

I think it's one of those things that everyone wants to do, and no one's committed to yet. If all else fails, take up the mantle! That's what me and Atma are doing for Touhou.
(God help us)

[Ganelon]

First off, few have access to every Cave game, revision, and port. Second, for the few who do, many are collectors who aren't qualified to discuss the exacting details. So if anybody is left and willing to write an article (where somebody here will probably complain isn't detailed enough), that would be great.

[cj iwakura]

Personally, I think it's one of those cases more deserving of individual articles for each game. The only CAVE game I've ever played is SMT Imagine, so I sure wouldn't be qualified.
(Blasphemy, I know)

[TrevHead (TVR)]

Or get several ppl write about the titles they know inside and out with someone overseeing everything and putting it all together.

that might be the best way to do it considering all the different versions/ labels Caves makes for certain games

[Voxbox]

Personally, I think it's one of those cases more deserving of individual articles for each game. The only CAVE game I've ever played is SMT Imagine, so I sure wouldn't be qualified.
(Blasphemy, I know)

You know they don't only have articles of series/single games right? I hope you haven't missed the articles on Compile Shooters, Konami Shooters, and Post-Mortem Dreamcast Shooters.

Though job to do a Cave one though, as it's 13+ games now. Perhaps you could do a DDP and ESP series entries, and then a "Cave misc shooters".

Anyhow, I'd love more Shmup articles on HG101.

[Jugiatsu]

I think it also has to do with more of opinionated write-ups and fear of criticism as well. For example take a look at the Breath of Fire series article. The author clearly states he hated 4 and 5 but loved 1-3. While that is just an opinion I personally think his review of 4 and 5 is completely off basis and is terrible.

Now imagine what would happen if someone were to write up an article about Cave, its shooters, their scoring systems, and difficulty curve. While it may be an interesting article, it would be full of that author's opinions and we all know what happens when you post opinions on the Internet.

That being said it would still be good to see them up there.

[Dragoforce]

I'd love for someone to rewrite certain parts of the Twinbee article ...Nah, it's ok. Just kidding

I broke your Yahoo! record btw...

[evil_ash_xero]

I was hoping some of the more literate types here would write up on these games. As one mentioned earlier, perhaps to make it easier, different people could do write up on the series'(DDP, ESP, Mushi), and then someone else can do a "Other CAVE Shooter" write up. I think that would take the burden off of one person. I would love to do one, but I don't feel qualified, and I can't write well enough.

Come one guys, someone can at least get the ball rolling and do a DDP one. Right?

Yes we can.

[Jugiatsu]

I would be more then happy to contribute but while I have played Cave games before the only ones I own and have played LOTS are Mushihimesama and soon to be Futari. For the longest time I played their other shooters but never enough to be considered good at them or understand how their scoring mechanics worked. Therefore I would not feel comfortable writing the article on any of the games except for the two mentioned above. I am sure there are more Cave fans out there that could kick some butt.

[Enhasa]

I think it also has to do with more of opinionated write-ups and fear of criticism as well. For example take a look at the Breath of Fire series article. The author clearly states he hated 4 and 5 but loved 1-3. While that is just an opinion I personally think his review of 4 and 5 is completely off basis and is terrible.

Now imagine what would happen if someone were to write up an article about Cave, its shooters, their scoring systems, and difficulty curve. While it may be an interesting article, it would be full of that author's opinions and we all know what happens when you post opinions on the Internet.

I can't believe I remember this, especially since I don't read hg101 generally, but I did read the BOF (because I stumbled on it and was surprised such a well-known series had a writeup) and the guy says that 5 is a top PS2 RPG and a great game, just not a real BOF game. He didn't hate it. He did hate 4 though, and his hate for it was way over the top. (For the record, I think the first 4 games are decent and 5 is one of the best games ever.) Overall, he came off like a teenager.

I don't know if the writeup got a lot of angry response, but I could imagine it. Although in my experience, BOF fans tend to like 3 more than 4, and non fans tend to like 4 more than 3. I saw a series writeup on toastyfrog (again, don't know how, it's another site I never visit), and the guy didn't like any of the games really besides 5 and kinda 1, and he thought 4 was a lot better than 3. Don't know why you'd write about a series you don't really care about unless you're just desperate to write about games, but I notice this problem a lot on hg101 too. It's like, they'll only want to write about one game in a 5-game series, but fill it out to make the article more substantial. So they'll just give a cursory touch to the other games (ironically, overlooking them) before lavishing the praise on the one game they really care about.

I do think the hg101 articles that stick to the stock formula are fundamentally flawed. The best thing about them by far, is how comprehensive they are. It's funny because Wikipedia is supposed to be strong on facts but weak on analysis, but I find myself looking at hg101 articles when I want real facts about release dates, ports, etc. Wikipedia is way wrong all the fucking time. So the problem is they cloud the good facts they do have with strange, unqualified opinions I usually disagree with. You can sometimes learn what a typical fan thinks, but most of the reviews are by people trying to be unique who don't even do that. By design I imagine, there is an absolute ton of opinion in every article, written in a style as if it's fact. I can't stand this attitude anywhere, but it's a particular problem when I don't feel like the person writing it is qualified to talk that way. More on that later.

The comprehensiveness is even a curse. Instead of writing what they know about, in order to be complete they have to play ports and spinoffs they don't care about. It's just like when you're forced to "complete" a game just to review it, you won't do as good of a job. The strangest thing though, is how little the actual games are talked about though. Game mechanics will usually feel like 5-10%. Instead it's all version differences, all the characters with art, screenshots, music, and opinions on the story or whatever. They always feel like they're being written not by a player, but by a collector, or a fan, or a historian, if that makes any sense. I almost always disagree with any opinions they give, and I rarely feel like I'm reading anything written by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

To be cynical, this explains the games and series that are covered, and the gaps in the coverage. I know it's a volunteer fan effort, and it only takes one person to write an article, but still, the games that are picked reflect the slant of a new games journalist or a fan who prides himself on liking games he thinks are obscure. I can't really describe it better but just look at the list. Stuff like SMT, Nippon Ichi, Sting. To be even more cynical though, this means a Cave writeup would be perfect and fitting for the site. Collectors and historians rejoice! By the way, I haven't read most hg101 articles, only a few, so if someone reading this wrote some great article, I'm probably not talking about you. The Senko article by daijoubu is rather good (although perhaps way too long), but a lot of that is because it's about one game only. The same way their other articles should be, honestly. You know, to avoid the stuff people are bringing up in this thread.

Anyway, I'm really glad the site exists, even though I only use it for reference. I just think it could be better if the articles weren't based on what I'd say is a flawed template.

[Voxbox]

Enhasa, I've probably read half of all the articles on HG101, and the quality can really differ from author to author, and I while I see the point of your criticism, I think you go too far with judging the whole site.

Though I'm probably the bulls-eye of the target audience, as I don't really have to be so critical of opinions since I'm a "historian/completionist" kind of gamer, and don't really care if a game is (or comes of as) good or bad - as long as it's in the least way interresting, I'll play it and enjoy experiencing it.

Oh, and I mustn't forget to throw the old "if you complain about it, then do it better yourself" comeback at you
Seriously, put up some Shmup write ups for us.

[Dragoforce]

The comprehensiveness is even a curse. Instead of writing what they know about, in order to be complete they have to play ports and spinoffs they don't care about. It's just like when you're forced to "complete" a game just to review it, you won't do as good of a job. The strangest thing though, is how little the actual games are talked about though. Game mechanics will usually feel like 5-10%. Instead it's all version differences, all the characters with art, screenshots, music, and opinions on the story or whatever. They always feel like they're being written not by a player, but by a collector, or a fan, or a historian, if that makes any sense. I almost always disagree with any opinions they give, and I rarely feel like I'm reading anything written by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

I totally agree with you on this point. I actually feel that game mechanics is the part that gets the least attention in most game reviews today, no idea as to why though.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

The comprehensiveness is even a curse. Instead of writing what they know about, in order to be complete they have to play ports and spinoffs they don't care about. It's just like when you're forced to "complete" a game just to review it, you won't do as good of a job. The strangest thing though, is how little the actual games are talked about though. Game mechanics will usually feel like 5-10%. Instead it's all version differences, all the characters with art, screenshots, music, and opinions on the story or whatever. They always feel like they're being written not by a player, but by a collector, or a fan, or a historian, if that makes any sense. I almost always disagree with any opinions they give, and I rarely feel like I'm reading anything written by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

I totally agree with on this point. I actually feel that game mechanics is the part that gets the least attention in most game reviews today, no idea as to why though.

I totally agree aswell nowadays its mostly opions, minimal facts and a whole lot of hype and going with popular view. Imo the best way is wait until other gamers have played it to get another opion, But this can be a double edged sword since gamers can make the worst fanboys in the world.

A even better way would be to build a time machine and go forward in time 10 -15 years and see if the game is still liked and played.
I often think what ppl in the future will think of this generation of mainstream games like modern warfare 2 and the halo games plus other hyped up games from other genres

edit And remembering how ppl on this forum jumped on that guy who needed help with his futari review arnt too keen on reviews / reviewers aswell

[Jugiatsu]

The comprehensiveness is even a curse. Instead of writing what they know about, in order to be complete they have to play ports and spinoffs they don't care about. It's just like when you're forced to "complete" a game just to review it, you won't do as good of a job. The strangest thing though, is how little the actual games are talked about though. Game mechanics will usually feel like 5-10%. Instead it's all version differences, all the characters with art, screenshots, music, and opinions on the story or whatever. They always feel like they're being written not by a player, but by a collector, or a fan, or a historian, if that makes any sense. I almost always disagree with any opinions they give, and I rarely feel like I'm reading anything written by someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

I totally agree with on this point. I actually feel that game mechanics is the part that gets the least attention in most game reviews today, no idea as to why though.

I totally agree aswell nowadays its mostly opions, minimal facts and a whole lot of hype and going with popular view. Imo the best way is wait until other gamers have played it to get another opion, But this can be a double edged sword since gamers can make the worst fanboys in the world.

A even better way would be to build a time machine and go forward in time 10 -15 years and see if the game is still liked and played.
I often think what ppl in the future will think of this generation of mainstream games like modern warfare 2 and the halo games plus other hyped up games from other genres

edit And remembering how ppl on this forum jumped on that guy who needed help with his futari review arnt too keen on reviews / reviewers aswell

People on this forum jumped on a guy for a review on Futari? Why so? Was it a good review? Bad? Lots of complaints without proof? Of all the sites and forums I have been a member of this seems to be a very community-based/laid-back environment so I have been enjoying myself for the small amount of time I have been here. I can definitely see people disagreeing with a review but I certainly don't see anyone willing to go overboard and straight out insult a guy for it. Although what you are referring to as "jumping on" may be something just as small as nit-picking and critiquing.

Now that I think about it. Is there a review for Futari on the main Shmup site? I don't think I saw one when I was browsing through there the other day. That being said, I would still like to see a Cave collection write-up over on HG101. I may not be the biggest Cave fan, but I have played enough of their games enough times to at least give some opinions and constructive critique on what they have done over the years.

I just wish I had found this forum sooner. Hard to believe I've been playing Shmups for almost 20 years and never found this place sooner.

[Taylor]

HG101 seem to do cover older/complete series.

Cave are still pumping out shooters, so I don't think they'll bother for a while. With that said, companies like Psikyo, Raizing and Toaplan would all make interesting reads.

If Trouble Witches is there any Cave game can be.

[doctorx0079]

edit And remembering how ppl on this forum jumped on that guy who needed help with his futari review arnt too keen on reviews / reviewers aswell

People on this forum jumped on a guy for a review on Futari? Why so? Was it a good review? Bad? Lots of complaints without proof? Of all the sites and forums I have been a member of this seems to be a very community-based/laid-back environment so I have been enjoying myself for the small amount of time I have been here. I can definitely see people disagreeing with a review but I certainly don't see anyone willing to go overboard and straight out insult a guy for it. Although what you are referring to as "jumping on" may be something just as small as nit-picking and critiquing.

Please tell me the reviewer wasn't Icyclam.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

i cant remember who the reviewer was but the guy who was planning on writing a review on futari when he could play the game when he got hold of a copy after release day and was asking for help so he didnt get anything wrong. Some of the ppl who posted 1st told him that he shouldnt be even writing a review because he wasnt an all knowing master of everything shmuppery. Or with others telling him how they thought he should write a review. Later on in the tread ppl did jump to his defence.

It was like any other thread ppl voicing their own opions and me saying jumping on may of been a misleading word to use i did feel abit sorry for the chap as all he was asking for help.

For some gamers (and i mean not just here) reviews are a hot button topic with everybody having their own opion on how it should be done and who qualifies to write a review for their favorite genres.

[doctorx0079]

Nah, that's not Icy, trust me.

[Square King]

BulletMagnet to thread, please.

[discoalucardx]

Hey, I still have an account here!

As Ganelon mentioned, the problem with Cave games is getting access to them. MAME and home ports, OK, but even with the upcoming stuff, there are still several that are hard to actually play unless you collect PCBs or live in Japan. The other major problem is that the site is also big on media, and getting good screengrabs of them is practically impossible. Japanese websites are really awful about releasing properly sized images, and about the only way to capture them properly is by hooking the board to a capture card. If anyone can take on all of that, then I'd be all for it, because it's a series I'd love to see covered, too. I don't think I'm really qualified to write about them myself - I like Cave games but I'm not much of a 1cc/score gamer, and anytime I write anything about Cave games criticizing this, people get all in a tizzy, so I'd rather have someone that fits that mindset to be a better judge.

To address other issues - even the guy that wrote the Breath of Fire article admitted in retrospect that he was way too harsh on BoF IV, and wanted to rewrite it, but never got around to it. The version on the site is even toned down from what was originally submitted.

I don't really get the complaint about not addressing mechanics and certainly not facts, but I've seen it crop up on several occasions. There are plenty of facts in every review, and to say otherwise is kind of silly. Personally I find writing on an in-depth level about mechanics boring and reading them even more boring. The site is meant to be an overview of a subject (hence the 101) and if the reader wants to learn more, there are (hopefully) other places they can read up about it in depth. The site was initially conceived to just be single paragraph capsule reviews, and the summaries we currently do are much, much longer, but even those are rarely the length of a "full" review.

I also don't see how you can call people "unqualified" because you seem to be doing that based on you not agreeing with a review. The fact that there is some criticism is one of the greatest strengths it has over Wikipedia, because it never gives you any idea if it's, you know, good. At the same time you have to realize it's just one guy's opinion and it's cool if you don't agree with it but to dismiss it as "well, they just don't know what they're talking about!" is pretty wrong. I admit the quality of the articles varies from writer to writer, as does any fan site that takes public submissions, but any of the guys/gals that write in definitely know their stuff enough to form a reasonable opinion.

I actually have no idea what you're talking about when you say writing an article for a single game and then padding it out with the rest of the games. I do agree with the site sounding like it's written by a historian. That's the point.

[Taylor]

I like Cave games but I'm not much of a 1cc/score gamer, and anytime I write anything about Cave games criticizing this, people get all in a tizzy, so I'd rather have someone that fits that mindset to be a better judge.

Yeah, I saw that. Maybe if you wrote negatively after you played it people would react a bit differently? Especially when the port addresses your concerns with six easier game modes.

[Enhasa]

I can't believe I'm being roped into talking about this, since it's not an issue I care about much at all. My fault though for posting in the first place, I know. I kinda want to just ignore this but I have a weakness that I can't stand my words being misunderstood. I think discoalucardx is used to responding to typical complaints and so it's easy to see everything in that light.


Since I assume that's addressed to me:

First thing I want to reiterate is that I am no expert on HG101 and anything I say is only based on the limited set of articles I have read. Since they're done by different people, it wouldn't be fair to extrapolate out aspects such as writing quality. I'd never do that. But systemic matters should be fair game.

I know HG101 is not targeted to me. I wouldn't be nearly presumptuous enough to ask them to change anyway. What I'm going to say is only how I would handle things, as just some random guy who doesn't matter. The three biggest things I would do differently are:

1) One article per game.
2) Ditch the current template with the focus on character art, and talk more about how the game actually plays. I know this isn't the point of the site, but this isn't a petition for change, just what I would want in my own ideal world.
3) I don't like opinions presented as facts, but this is my own personal beef and everyone is even taught to do this.


I don't mind anything the BOF writer said; I don't hold anyone's opinions against them. It doesn't bother me what other people think about anything, especially online people I don't know. But this does get into the opinions as facts thing. Any BOF newb reading the BOF4 article will get the impression that most people think it's an awful game. That's what happens when you write your opinions decisively and present them as truths. It would be more accurate, even if less like traditional critique or journalism, to say "4 is a well-received game, but I personally couldn't stand it." BOF4 is an easy target because a lot of people disagreed with this article. But I disagree with many or even most of the opinions I've ever read there, so instead of scapegoating this one writer, that's why I think presenting opinions as facts is a systemic issue. It's no better to me if they're opinions that most people agree with, or even opinions that I agree with.

I would never say HG101 is weak on facts. As far as I know, HG101 is the strongest non-specialized site out there for facts on video games (stuff like all the different versions). "Personally I find writing on an in-depth level about mechanics boring and reading them even more boring." This is a key area where I understand what the site audience is, but would prefer if it was different. Most readers will either be reading something they've already played for nostalgia, or likely reading the article to learn about some games, usually in lieu of actually playing those games. So in other words, reading for pleasure. To be fair, I'm off the deep end, because I'm not just reading for utilitarian purposes, I don't even care about the review. I'm just there for facts. I guess I'm putting on my review reader hat for this post.

I also don't see how you can call people "unqualified" because you seem to be doing that based on you not agreeing with a review. The fact that there is some criticism is one of the greatest strengths it has over Wikipedia, because it never gives you any idea if it's, you know, good. At the same time you have to realize it's just one guy's opinion and it's cool if you don't agree with it but to dismiss it as "well, they just don't know what they're talking about!" is pretty wrong.

This is not at all what I am saying. I don't believe in objective quality of games, so I would never say "well, your opinion is wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about." I've already established it doesn't bother me what someone's review or verdict of a game is; I never even talked about that at all. I don't say someone doesn't know what they're talking about lightly. It's based on stuff like seeing inaccuracies and misrepresentations about the game itself, i.e. mechanics. (I have no concern about knowledgability with the parts about characters, plot, music, etc because I'm not interested in that, sorry if it was implied that I did.) Now, I bet your response might be something like "don't be a dick, if you see something wrong, kindly point it out" but it's really not important to me. I see mistakes all the time on Wikipedia, and I don't correct those either, and that's already easier.

Back to opinions, if an author isn't as much into mechanics in games as I am, or the genre in question, of course I will get the feeling like he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to mechanics. I don't care about plot in games, so if for some reason I ever wrote a literary analysis of some game, I would be glad if an English Lit major felt like I didn't know what I was doing. Maybe relative to an average person, I would know what I was talking about, but I wouldn't relative to someone who genuinely did. And when it comes to mechanics, that's someone like me. Maybe I implied that the frame of reference was the average reader. I didn't mean that, sorry. HG101's worst article is better than almost any mainstream review.

I do think that someone will understand a game better, and be better equipped to talk about its mechanics, if they play for score, while someone else credit feeds to see the assets. I don't think that's too controversial. I hesitate because I like the guy in question, but let me give you this concrete example because I remember it. In some thread, I saw the guy who did the Shikigami no Shiro article said he has never played any Cave game, ever. You'd still be qualified to talk about the series history and characters and art and all that, but when it comes down to how the game actually plays as a shmup, building on the history of shmups, I would count that as a severe liability. I saw a brief review of an Ikaruga clone before, by someone who clearly had never heard of Ikaruga. Well, I probably don't need to say how the rest of this goes, but my point is that context matters, and games don't exist in vacuums.

Finally, about the greatest strength thing: if a review gives someone an idea that a game is bad, and so they never play it, but they would have loved the game if they had, is this a strength? The problem with indicating which games are good is that the author doesn't know each individual reader. (I only give personal recommendations to people I know well, I'd never give a blanket recommendation, but that's what a review is.) Most people are cool with the opinions they agree with, and less the ones they disagree with. That's messed up. I think it would be far better to stay with facts if the goal is to get people interested about certain games you're highlighting. The reason is: if they're reading something, they're already interested. Their interest can mostly only go down.


Oh yeah, the single game thing. You wouldn't say that when someone writes about an entire series or set of games, that they care about each of those games equally? Of course not, and this almost always carries through to the article. Let's use MegaTen as an example. I'd be willing to bet my house that the author's first MT game was not MT1. I'd be willing to bet my life that the author doesn't care as much about MT1 as he does about certain later games in the series, say Nocturne. So this means that MT1 is getting a relatively poor treatment compared to Nocturne. And yes, I can't recall exactly what now, but I have seen instances where it was pretty clear (from enthusiasm, conclusion, word count) that the author was writing about the series because of one game in particular even. The point is, by writing about more than one game at once, people are writing about games they don't care about as much and don't know as much about. It's not fair to the game to have some person dismiss it who only played the game in order to write the article. It's only compounded with all the different platform releases. By sticking to one game per article, a lot less games are covered, but at least when you read about a game, you know it's because the author really wanted to write about it.


Anyway, I really appreciate HG101 for doing what it does. And even if it's not written by or for people like me, that's not its fault or anything. I hope you didn't get that impression. Feel free to ignore everything I wrote, I just didn't want you to think that someone here was criticizing the site because he disagreed with some of the opinions expressed in it. That would just be silly.

[Enhasa]

Man, I really wish I'd seen Taylor's post first. I can't really believe I bothered responding to someone who

1) is a proud games historian and thinks reading or writing about mechanics is boring
2) thinks games have objective quality
3) writes opinion pieces about these games' objective qualities without having even played them


Not to judge or say who is better, just that it's a waste of time to talk to someone who lives in a totally different universe and who will never understand where you're coming from. Eggs on me, I guess. My post should have been like Hardcore Gaming more like DOWNY SOFT GAMING hur hur.

[Acid King]

The problem with not discussing mechanics in a piece on shooting games is the fact that the mechanics and scoring system are 90% of the game. It's what the game is built around. It's what makes the games substantially different from one another. You don't have to be an expert player to do so, but you should know how the game works.