9th Annual Top 25 Shmups of All Time - Results

[Rob]

I just checked out GunBird 2. Seems like a pretty good game, only it's way too cutesy for me to commit any extent of time defeating. Of course, that's just me though...

Gunbird 2 is a very manly shooter. It has Aine in it, for one.

[Herr Schatten]

Darius Gaiden...into the Top 25.

Other than this inexplicable stain on the festivities, not a bad list overall.

Thanks to incog for making this happen on rather short notice!

I agree. On all your points.

[Drum]

So, I just credit fed through Ketsui for the first time after having cleared the first loop of DDP (first clear for any shmup) and played some other games. Wow, this shmup is awesome. It's shockingly difficult, it's immensely gorgeous, and sonically crisp (even the soundtrack is highly intense)! I'll have to get my skills up before I truly attempt this one, but really, I'm kind of surprised that this didn't come in as number 1. Did a lot of people choose Garegga for old school cred or what?

Garrega is positively oceanic in depth, and this is something that can only increase appreciation over time. While it may seem initially simplistic, with a simple medaling system and slightly eccentric bombing system (ripped off Gun Frontier), the more you explore, the more ridiculously deep the game gets. To understand the rank system is to intentionally rip the game apart, and, indeed, to consider exactly how it was programmed. The cool mise en scene and music become largely irrelevant, as you're essentially playing against the programmer himself, playing the game in a deliberately counterintuitive manner. I personally see Garrega as a masterpiece of postmodern game design.

:'(

[louisg]

Garrega is positively oceanic in depth, and this is something that can only increase appreciation over time. While it may seem initially simplistic, with a simple medaling system and slightly eccentric bombing system (ripped off Gun Frontier), the more you explore, the more ridiculously deep the game gets. To understand the rank system is to intentionally rip the game apart, and, indeed, to consider exactly how it was programmed. The cool mise en scene and music become largely irrelevant, as you're essentially playing against the programmer himself, playing the game in a deliberately counterintuitive manner. I personally see Garrega as a masterpiece of postmodern game design.

Postmodern? "Mise en Scene"? Dude, you're talking about a clearly broken-ass game that people have managed to have fun exploiting, not writing a thesis on M Butterfly. For example, I *love* Soukyugurentai, but I won't claim that having to dodge powerups makes it a Faustian ballet of death, with the programmer as Raizing's very own Mephisto.

[Icarus]

Postmodern? "Mise en Scene"? Dude, you're talking about a clearly broken-ass game that people have managed to have fun exploiting, not writing a thesis on M Butterfly. For example, I *love* Soukyugurentai, but I won't claim that having to dodge powerups makes it a Faustian ballet of death, with the programmer as Raizing's very own Mephisto.

How is it "broken", exactly?

[louisg]

Postmodern? "Mise en Scene"? Dude, you're talking about a clearly broken-ass game that people have managed to have fun exploiting, not writing a thesis on M Butterfly. For example, I *love* Soukyugurentai, but I won't claim that having to dodge powerups makes it a Faustian ballet of death, with the programmer as Raizing's very own Mephisto.

How is it "broken", exactly?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think a requirement to being able to play a game should be a rom dump and a disassembler Seriously, rank increases because you fire? Is this explained in the game anywhere?

[Icarus]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think a requirement to being able to play a game should be a rom dump and a disassembler

Who said that you needed a rom dump and a disassembler to be able to play the game?

Seriously, rank increases because you fire? Is this explained in the game anywhere?

Is the "rank increases by powering up and getting 100% destrcution" factor explained anywhere in Soukyugurentai?
Is the "rank increases by item and multiplier collection" factor explained anywhere in Great Mahou?
Is the "rank increases by Extend and medal item collection" factor explained anywhere in Bakraid?
Is the "rank increases the higher the overall counter gets" factor explained anywhere in Mushi Futari 1.5 Original?
Is the "rank increases the more you power up" factor explained anywhere in Gradius?
Is the "rank increases the more shots you miss" factor explained anywhere in Gun Frontier?
I could go on.

[Twiddle]

I'm sure glad Under Defeat tells me exactly what I need to destroy to get arbitrary bonus points

[Twiddle]

hell that game has a much more broken rank system than anything yagawa save for pink sweets pcb

die with 0 bombs = rank increase from the 3 bombs that magically pop up in your next ship fuck yeah that's balanced and fun

[mjclark]

Garrega is positively oceanic in depth, and this is something that can only increase appreciation over time. While it may seem initially simplistic, with a simple medaling system and slightly eccentric bombing system (ripped off Gun Frontier), the more you explore, the more ridiculously deep the game gets. To understand the rank system is to intentionally rip the game apart, and, indeed, to consider exactly how it was programmed. The cool mise en scene and music become largely irrelevant, as you're essentially playing against the programmer himself, playing the game in a deliberately counterintuitive manner. I personally see Garrega as a masterpiece of postmodern game design.

Postmodern? "Mise en Scene"? Dude, you're talking about a clearly broken-ass game that people have managed to have fun exploiting, not writing a thesis on M Butterfly. For example, I *love* Soukyugurentai, but I won't claim that having to dodge powerups makes it a Faustian ballet of death, with the programmer as Raizing's very own Mephisto.

I'd love to see an "Arts Critics Review Shmups" thread- we could have a lot of fun with that

[louisg]

Seriously, rank increases because you fire? Is this explained in the game anywhere?

Is the "rank increases by powering up and getting 100% destrcution" factor explained anywhere in Soukyugurentai?
Is the "rank increases by item and multiplier collection" factor explained anywhere in Great Mahou?
Is the "rank increases by Extend and medal item collection" factor explained anywhere in Bakraid?
Is the "rank increases the higher the overall counter gets" factor explained anywhere in Mushi Futari 1.5 Original?
Is the "rank increases the more you power up" factor explained anywhere in Gradius?
Is the "rank increases the more shots you miss" factor explained anywhere in Gun Frontier?
I could go on.

You've listed a bunch of gameplay flaws, and games which are a lot of fun despite their problems. Let's take Soukyugurentai as a great example. If you don't power up, the powerup ship comes more often. Because the power up ship comes more often, you have an increased chance of getting bombs. Because you can easily collect bombs, the game becomes about 20 times easier. OK, this is clearly an oversight (akin to what Twiddle has pointed out in Under Defeat's bombs and rank). I'm not going to pretend that it's a stroke of genius any more than the void bugs in Sonic Adventure or numerous glitches in GTA are. If you enjoy playing that way, then that is cool. But, to act like it's a game mechanic which is well thought-out and something the designers expected players to figure out is far-fetched at best.

I'm sure glad Under Defeat tells me exactly what I need to destroy to get arbitrary bonus points

I thought the general idea in that one is to destroy as many targets at a time as possible with rockets, especially on larger enemies. I'm not aware of any Raiden Fighters Jet-like buried secrets, but I'm sure that it informs the player when it's achieved!

[Twiddle]

oh man this tank that's shootable in all of 2 seconds has no consequence OH MY GOD WHERE THE FUCK DID 30300 OF MY POINTS GO

[louisg]

oh man this tank that's shootable in all of 2 seconds has no consequence OH MY GOD WHERE THE FUCK DID 30300 OF MY POINTS GO

!! I'd like to know where that is! I could always stand to improve my Under Defeat score. Anyway, that is pretty standard fare-- in that example, you're rewarding the player for hitting a hard target. I think a player might experiment and say, "oh! there's an enemy that appears briefly, maybe I can get something if I hit it" just because it's challenging. It's not *invisible* in the way rank is. It might be an *irritating* challenge, but that's different

I don't think any normal person playing a shooter would think, "Wow, this game is hard. Maybe I'll crash and stop firing and then hop around on one leg and that'll make it easier."

Anyway, I think this is gonna end up being an "agree to disagree" thing because the topic is a total dead horse around these forums.

[Paradigm]

Seriously, rank increases because you fire? Is this explained in the game anywhere?

Who cares though? Fact is, you know how the rank system works now and that's all that matters.

Bakraid's good, Batrider's better, but Garegga is an absolute masterpiece and thoroughly deserves the #1 spot.

[Icarus]

You've listed a bunch of gameplay flaws, and games which are a lot of fun despite their problems.

So, rank increases to make a game more challenging is now considered a flaw of game design, is it? I'm getting the feeling you expect all games to have a constant, near-flat difficulty level with no method of increasing challenge to the player, and any form of dynamic adjustment is considered bad form and a fault of the programmer. The other thing is that you mention Soukyugurentai to try and prove a point, and then comment that Garegga's systems aren't explained away in-game, when in fact virtually every shooting game ever made fails to explain how the difficulty is adjusted mid-play. Games are meant to be explored and taken apart, and players have understood how to play these games through a combination of observation, problem-solving and hypothesizing. The fact that a great deal of players all over the world have understood the game enough to play it competently for over a decade speaks volumes, and the fact that you still seem incapable of understanding the game says a lot more about you as a player than the game design itself.

The only reason why this topic is a dead horse is because the same people continue to beat it.

[louisg]

You've listed a bunch of gameplay flaws, and games which are a lot of fun despite their problems.

So, rank increases to make a game more challenging is now considered a flaw of game design, is it? I'm getting the feeling you expect all games to have a constant, near-flat difficulty level with no method of increasing challenge to the player, and any form of dynamic adjustment is considered bad form and a fault of the programmer. The other thing is that you mention Soukyugurentai to try and prove a point, and then comment that Garegga's systems aren't explained away in-game, when in fact virtually every shooting game ever made fails to explain how the difficulty is adjusted mid-play. Games are meant to be explored and taken apart, and players have understood how to play these games through a combination of observation, problem-solving and hypothesizing. The fact that a great deal of players all over the world have understood the game enough to play it competently for over a decade speaks volumes, and the fact that you still seem incapable of understanding the game says a lot more about you as a player than the game design itself.

The only reason why this topic is a dead horse is because the same people continue to beat it.

Wow, I have no idea where you got any of that, but I don't think you seriously expect me to engage in an argument considering how you blew my statements up into a strawman. Yes, I obviously think making a game more challenging from level to level or smartly adjusting to the player's abilities is a flaw, and that's why I only play Tugboat

[Icarus]

Then perhaps the next time you try to make a point, avoid using the terms "broken" and "flaw", and back up your statements with proper comments rather than pathetic attempts at jokes. The fact is, every game has some form of dynamic adjustment, some more complicated than others, and no game I have come across explains how the dynamic adjustment works. Picking on one particular game because it isn't to your liking and calling it "broken" is pure ignorance, and tells me a lot. Is it the in-thing to call games you dislike "broken" now around here?
I'm still waiting on an answer as to how Garegga's nicely designed system is "broken" by the way - "broken" by my game-based definition is being "so poorly designed that it is unusable", which when applied to Garegga is anything but.

The other thing is that, while it is a small sample of users, the game was voted enough to place it at the top yet again. People must like it, and understand it for it to place so highly.

[louisg]

Then perhaps the next time you try to make a point, avoid using the terms "broken" and "flaw", and back up your statements with proper comments rather than pathetic attempts at jokes. The fact is, every game has some form of dynamic adjustment, some more complicated than others, and no game I have come across explains how the dynamic adjustment works. Picking on one particular game because it isn't to your liking and calling it "broken" is pure ignorance, and tells me a lot. Is it the in-thing to call games you dislike "broken" now around here?
I'm still waiting on an answer as to how Garegga's nicely designed system is "broken" by the way - "broken" by my game-based definition is being "so poorly designed that it is unusable", which when applied to Garegga is anything but.

The other thing is that, while it is a small sample of users, the game was voted enough to place it at the top yet again. People must like it, and understand it for it to place so highly.

Well, I think you kind of missed my point. I'm not trying to pick on Garegga. I'd consider some other games which I personally like a lot to have some issues too, which I have pointed out, and I did explain my reasoning, which seems to have been ignored. So, up until your last post, this was a pretty decent debate. Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the kind of guy who flies into an uncontrollable rage because someone on a forum dared criticize his favorite game.

[Bananamatic]

Great Mahou has been on this japanese kusoge list I found somewhere and I can't disagree(it's flawed, confusing, unfair and stupidly hard) but I still enjoy it - definitely more than Garegga.

The OST and everything else are cool, but the whole rank system makes me want to vomit.
Hell, I haven't seen a Raizing game which isn't somehow flawed or too complicated for its own good.

[Icarus]

So, what were your points, exactly?

- "Seriously, rank increases because you fire? Is this explained in the game anywhere?"

I think I already explained that no game will explain how their dynamic adjustment system works, because that is left for the player to learn. It's not a stretch to state that plenty of players in the past, and even more players in the future will have little to no problems understanding the games that are both out now, and in the pipeline. Just because a game doesn't explain its baked-in systems doesn't make it broken, otherwise shooting games will have simulation game (eg SimCity, Civilisation etc) style encyclopaedic manuals.
The beauty of virtually all shooting games is their pick-up-and-play nature. Having deeper systems to improve challenge adds to the flavor, otherwise we'll be stuck with a thousand Psikyo clones.

- "It's not *invisible* in the way rank is."

Difficulty adjustment is supposed to be invisible, otherwise it would make it trivial to manage. For me, the fun of playing modern shooters is understanding how the various systems work, and then using my own skills to manage them.
The only times rank should be visible is when it is tied into a game's other systems, like Ibara Kuro/PS2 Arrange, or in ports for home use and practice, like MMP!/PS.

- Let's take Soukyugurentai as a great example. If you don't power up, the powerup ship comes more often. Because the power up ship comes more often, you have an increased chance of getting bombs. Because you can easily collect bombs, the game becomes about 20 times easier. OK, this is clearly an oversight (akin to what Twiddle has pointed out in Under Defeat's bombs and rank).

Soukyugurentai is a (probably) poor example for your argument, considering it wasn't developed by Yagawa, and doesn't have his trademark fingerprints all over it. The only common link to other Raizing games it has is that rank management - in this case, avoiding powering up - is tied into scoring via collecting surplus bombs for the 655k bonus points per bomb. The unexpected benefit in Soukyugurentai's case is that those surplus bombs can help in survival (while reducing score potential).
Actually, if I remember correctly, surplus bombs increase rank as well. So there goes that argument.

Finally,

- Anyway, I'm glad I'm not the kind of guy who flies into an uncontrollable rage because someone on a forum dared criticize his favorite game.

I like to argue for the game, because I find it funny when people attempt (and fail miserably) to argue against.

[Twiddle]

Raiden DX's rank system in Training Mode is amazing and is the kind of thing louisg would complain about loudly if the game didn't block any player from engaging in it the moment they die or bomb

getting backed into a corner and then using ad-hominem attacks is also pretty funny too

[BulletMagnet]

Difficulty adjustment is supposed to be invisible, otherwise it would make it trivial to manage.

I dunno, I don't think the "rank-o-meter" in the home version of Pink Sweets makes that game much "easier to manage"...for that matter, the ST for Garegga doesn't make that game easier either, it just makes it clearer what it is you have to do (actually doing it is a whole different story).

That said, both Garegga and Pink Sweets (and Bakraid, if it counts) are in my Top 25 list this year, so I've got no problem with rank systems that encourage unusual styles of play, but I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that some of them were explained/displayed more clearly to players...heck, remember all the misconceptions about how Garegga worked (the "rollover" myth in particular) and how awful they made the game sound, versus how much more sense everything made once the ROM was hacked? I always wondered why the programmers and designers of games like these didn't put forth more effort in this area, considering the reputation it's frequently cost them...

Maybe this is more of a personal preference on your part, sort of like my own personal aversion to superplays when it comes to "figuring stuff out on my own".

[louisg]

See? You chilled out, stopped saying how much I sucked for not liking some game, and then you made some decent points.

I think I already explained that no game will explain how their dynamic adjustment system works, because that is left for the player to learn. It's not a stretch to state that plenty of players in the past, and even more players in the future will have little to no problems understanding the games that are both out now, and in the pipeline. Just because a game doesn't explain its baked-in systems doesn't make it broken, otherwise shooting games will have simulation game (eg SimCity, Civilisation etc) style encyclopaedic manuals.
The beauty of virtually all shooting games is their pick-up-and-play nature. Having deeper systems to improve challenge adds to the flavor, otherwise we'll be stuck with a thousand Psikyo clones.

Deeper systems are great, and that's great that a lot of people on the forum have figured so much out, but I think that was not the game design intent. A simulation's rules are intended to vaguely simulate realistic conditions. Because they do this, they are supposed to be intuitive. If they are not, then it is considered a poor design. This is more like if, in SimCity, you had to bulldoze a hospital every half hour of gameplay. Is is unlike in M.U.L.E. where you get a production boost from producing more of a certain thing-- this is made to simulate real rules of production.

What I'm saying is that the ranking rules are arbitrary, are unintuitive, have no basis in reality, and are likely just designed to keep games to a 3-minute sweet spot or to at least keep the pressure on so a good player doesn't get bored.

There is a lot more to shooters that would otherwise keep them from being Psikyo clones btw.

- "It's not *invisible* in the way rank is."

Difficulty adjustment is supposed to be invisible, otherwise it would make it trivial to manage. For me, the fun of playing modern shooters is understanding how the various systems work, and then using my own skills to manage them.
The only times rank should be visible is when it is tied into a game's other systems, like Ibara Kuro/PS2 Arrange, or in ports for home use and practice, like MMP!/PS.

Right, that's a subjective point: it is coming down to whether you have fun figuring out the internals of a game and exploiting the system. But to assume that because it's fun that this is the designer's intent all along, even though nobody figured it out until 15 years later and it's completely hidden, is kind of in la-la land.

- Let's take Soukyugurentai as a great example. If you don't power up, the powerup ship comes more often. Because the power up ship comes more often, you have an increased chance of getting bombs. Because you can easily collect bombs, the game becomes about 20 times easier. OK, this is clearly an oversight (akin to what Twiddle has pointed out in Under Defeat's bombs and rank).

Soukyugurentai is a (probably) poor example for your argument, considering it wasn't developed by Yagawa, and doesn't have his trademark fingerprints all over it. The only common link to other Raizing games it has is that rank management - in this case, avoiding powering up - is tied into scoring via collecting surplus bombs for the 655k bonus points per bomb. The unexpected benefit in Soukyugurentai's case is that those surplus bombs can help in survival (while reducing score potential).
Actually, if I remember correctly, surplus bombs increase rank as well. So there goes that argument.

It doesn't matter if it is developed by Yagawa since I'm not attempting to connect Souky to Garegga other than to point out what I perceive as similar problems. But it's also not a bad example because, AFAIK, the rank does not increase with more bombs unless you get close to maxing your stock. I think you can keep it at 5 bombs or so with no penalty (from experience at least, dunno what the code says). Yes, you do get creamed for score in Souky by bombing.

That said, both Garegga and Pink Sweets (and Bakraid, if it counts) are in my Top 25 list this year, so I've got no problem with rank systems that encourage unusual styles of play, but I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that some of them were explained/displayed more clearly to players...

EXACTLY.

[Icarus]

Deeper systems are great… </snip>

The first and most important question to ask is: how do you know that it wasn't the game design's intent? Unless you were working at Raizing back when Garegga was developed and released, you're probably the least qualified (as am I) to say that the game design was not deliberately calculated to make players sit down and study the game.

The second question is: how can you consider it to be "bad design"? Taste is subjective, there is no real universal quality (that I know) that can be considered good gameplay design (outside of ensuring that the player is not exposed to unavoidable attacks), because what one man considers perfect, another man considers terrible.

The issue here is that you're claiming that Garegga's design is terrible because you yourself consider it unintuitive, when in fact you should be looking to your own understanding of the game as the main problem. You could well argue that intuition in shooting games is the conventional way to play these games: shoot stuff, don't die accidentally, bomb on occasion to score and to protect yourself, but then you'll see that Garegga still fits standard shooting game conventions. Yes, Garegga's deeper systems are seen as counter-intuitive, in that you do have to kill yourself occasionally, you do have to curb your collecting instincts, you do have to micro-manage everything, but again, how is that different to other games? "Killing yourself" is still "dying" (albeit on purpose) and still equals a rank decrease, same as "dying by accident". How is suppressing power in Garegga any different to suppressing power in Gradius, for example? My argument is that these methods of playing can be intuitive, but they require that players throw away any inferences on how a game should be played, and instead learn to adapt themselves to the system at hand.

And herein lies my point: the best players I know are adaptable because they don't let past knowledge and experience restrict their learning of a new system. The people I hear moaning about how various games are unfair or unintuitive are usually the ones that are too restricted in their knowledge, and should probably learn2play.

Third: why should shooting games have some basis in reality? These are games we are playing, your comments infer that you're expecting them to be closer to the level of simulation. If that is the case, the player's ship should not be able to move forward or backward, because it is physically impossible to suddenly stop a vehicle moving at that speed and move it in the opposite direction at the same velocity. We've seen inertia in shooting games before, and it isn't pretty. Also, if a shooting game is supposed to have basis in reality, extends should not be allowed, and players should have just one life to play. Yes, rules are arbitrary, but so what? It's a game. A game is a game, you should probably stop expecting it to be anything but.
Actually there is an iOS game that plays like Canabalt (run left to right, jump buildings), but you only get one life. Once you're done, you can't play the game again.

Right, that's a subjective point: it is coming down to whether you have fun figuring out the internals of a game and exploiting the system. But to assume that because it's fun that this is the designer's intent all along, even though nobody figured it out until 15 years later and it's completely hidden, is kind of in la-la land.

Considering the information for the game was available not long after the PCB was released (1996/1997, in the form of a handbook, both printed and digitally on the later-released Saturn version's disc), I think you should get your facts in order. The basics for the game's system was well documented long before the hackers got their hands on it. It's only recently that players have had the opportunity to use emulation to dig deeper into the game's programming.
Just because you don't find it fun doesn't mean it is flawed or badly programmed, and you're trying to present your opinion as fact. There are a thousand games I don't find fun, but I don't consider them flawed unless they are so badly made that they are virtually unplayable.

That said, both Garegga and Pink Sweets (and Bakraid, if it counts) are in my Top 25 list this year, so I've got no problem with rank systems that encourage unusual styles of play, but I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that some of them were explained/displayed more clearly to players...

EXACTLY.

The only way you'll see a game display its information more clearly to players is if you go out and program the game yourself. Until that happens (and I won't hold my breath), we'll continue to see games with no visible rank system information, and we'll continue to see players use the standard tools of observation, hypothesis, and problem-solving to learn how these systems work.
I'm personally cringing at the thought of a World of Warcraft style HUD for a shooting game.

[Hagane]

Overall happy about the list. Dragon Blaze is finally in! Too bad Sengoku Blade didn't make it in.

As for Garegga and other Yagawa games, I used to be on the side that considered the way they handle rank to be stupid, unfair, lol you have to suicide to get points, rewards you for sucking, etc, but I finally understood that they are just a completely different breed of shooters, and what applies to a Cave or Psikyo game shouldn't necessarily have to apply for Raizing games.

The way they are built makes all the elements that sound stupid at first (rank management, suiciding, etc) click when put together. And as a result you get extremely complex and high quality games. For that reason I consider Batrider to be better than Garegga: the way you switch characters, the resulting strategies to get extra bosses, the extra bombs you need to destroy scenery, all complement the rank system so extremely well. Truly a masterfully designed game, even if it's such an unorthodox one.

[BulletMagnet]

I'm personally cringing at the thought of a World of Warcraft style HUD for a shooting game.

It doesn't necessarily even have to happen "onscreen", if you ask me (and even if meters and such were added in, an option to hide them is just as easy to implement) - something more akin to the aforementioned Garegga handbook would be fine by me, just so long as the pertinent information is openly and officially available SOMEplace. That said, I'd hope that future developers of this style would put more effort into making this stuff more widely known (again, remember how long so many of Garegga's misconceptions ran rampant even on this forum, though that can be partially blamed on the smaller scope of the internet at the time of release) - a "rank" section in a game's instruction booklet or a printable "information" section on a game's official website would be more ideal, methinks. Seriously, how much fan bellyaching (and lost sales, likely) would never happen thanks to such a simple solution?

[chempop]

What's so good about Darius Gaiden? Anyone care to help me understand the draw...

I'm disappointed Radiant, Rayforce, and Mushi didn't make the 25!

[Rob]

:'(

Drum only likes games that seem neat/quirky on one MAME credit.

[ebarrett]

The #1 spot on the Annual Top 25 Thread Derailments of All Time goes to Battle Garegga yet again - a bit of an "oldschool cred" choice with demul and Touhou having directly or indirectly caused the bulk of shitposting and gratuitous flaming this year, but most people will certainly agree that competing with the masses who have been butthurt at Garegga for years was a very tough order.

[Bananamatic]

You forgot scanlines