20th Annual Top 25 Shmups of All Time - Discussion Thread

[To Far Away Times]

Spoiler

I like how there was consideration for which of the Action 52 versions should be ranked above the other. Truly a connoisseur of the fine arts.

[Acid]

I'm surprised Trouble Witches isn't getting selected with EU and Mudprints both recommending the game late last year. It's so much fun.

I had to extend my list from 15 to 25. Some of those Hamster games I recently bought are too cool.

[Nifty]

That seemed to work out well enough, good info for the future I s'pose in terms of extensions

Still a few days remaining, keep an eye out for the usual final 24hr notice

[Acid]

Everybody who voted for a Platine Dispositif game is my homie.

[samspot]

I think there's still too few voters even with bi-yearly format, which is sad. Maybe make an extra weeks or 1 month extension?

The requirements to vote are astronomical. I feel i could play nothing but shmups for years and still not qualify. Especially with the standard advice to focus on one game at a time.

I do understand wanting the enthusiast viewpoint and can’t say it’s wrong. But the number of people qualified to vote will continue to shrink unless gaming trends change.

[Steven]

I've only been playing seriously since mid-2021 and I've played all but four games in the previous top 25 (ZeroRanger, Gunbird 2, Deathsmiles, Dragon Blaze) with about half of them played on PCB when applicable, and all but nine of the honorable mentions (Espgaluda, Espgaluda II, Giga Wing, Guwange, Ibara, Muchi Muchi Pork!, Raiden Fighters Jet, Strikers II, Under Defeat). I've played a total of 71 of all of the historical top 25 and honorable mentions, as well. It didn't really even take that long, but all I really do is work, sleep, watch Star Trek, and play games at this point.

[Fingolfin]

The requirements to vote are astronomical. I feel i could play nothing but shmups for years and still not qualify.

What?

Voting for Top 25 Shmups of All Time’s not just for expert to super players, unless I missed something?

If that’s the case you’d be correct — and I wouldn’t qualify — but the only requirement is that you have played the STGs you vote for (and that the STGs you vote for qualify/meet established criteria).

Let’s not put the genre on a high white ivory tower (i.e. any more removed than it already is) — gotta keep it real, accessible as possible!

Let’s keep STGs the joy of the people — relatively few as they may be in comparison to the larger “gaming population” as a whole.

Vote ‘em if ya got ‘em!
Vote ‘em as you see ‘em!
(or something like that)

[Lethe]

I'm at 112 out of 131 and haven't branched out in the past year or more (maybe it's time for some Platine Dispositif games). Willingness to emulate helps with convenience, even with the dramatic availability improvements as of late.

It's not like reaching an arbitrary benchmark guarantees some kind of enlightened perspective anyway. You could play all 131 and still have no taste.
I wouldn't worry about it. Since we've established the results don't matter, the important part is that you're conscious of where your own limitations are, and what you could be missing out on.

[samspot]

The requirements to vote are astronomical. I feel i could play nothing but shmups for years and still not qualify.

If that’s the case you’d be correct — and I wouldn’t qualify — but the only requirement is that you have played the STGs you vote for (and that the STGs you vote for qualify/meet established criteria).

It’s been a bit but I read the requirements carefully before voting began. You need decent familiarity with more than 60 of the games including some knowledge of how to score. I’d say that’s probably 10 hours experience each with 60 different games and likely more. Meanwhile after 100 hours of Mushihimesama I still don’t understand scoring very well.

If I set a goal to play each for 10h I could probably get there in a few years but there’s no way I will get there naturally.

You also have to rank a lot of games and I wouldn’t feel comfortable trying to include something I only played for 30 minutes.

This is what I read that makes me think this:

Take note of any that you've played enough that you think you have a reasonable understanding of their general style of design, how they control, how the scoring might work, or even the factors that contribute(d) to them being clasically well-regarded; you don't need to have cleared them all. If you can say that of half the games or more (that is, at least 65), you'll be considered as having a solid baseline from which to draw as a participant

[Fingolfin]

It’s been a bit but I read the requirements carefully before voting began. You need decent familiarity with more than 60 of the games including some knowledge of how to score. I’d say that’s probably 10 hours experience each with 60 different games and likely more. Meanwhile after 100 hours of Mushihimesama I still don’t understand scoring very well.

If I set a goal to play each for 10h I could probably get there in a few years but there’s no way I will get there naturally.

You also have to rank a lot of games and I wouldn’t feel comfortable trying to include something I only played for 30 minutes.

Take note of any that you've played enough that you think you have a reasonable understanding of their general style of design, how they control, how the scoring might work, or even the factors that contribute(d) to them being clasically well-regarded; you don't need to have cleared them all. If you can say that of half the games or more (that is, at least 65), you'll be considered as having a solid baseline from which to draw as a participant

Fair enough!
Thank you for explaining: absolutely understandable; I appreciate the dialectic/dialogue very much samspot.

I have been playing STGs…very badly … for most of my life — since 1979/at 10 years old at least: I’m old!

In addition to hundreds of hours playing/attempting to play thru my 25 plus honorable mentions, have easily put a double dozen hours on each and every game on my full STG disclosure list posted earlier in this thread.

A good number I have gotten at least 1/2 way to 2/3s through (i.e. first loop) on single credit and all I’ve credit fed to at least experience all bosses, etc.

I have gotten better focusing undivided on one game only for days/weeks but this is inconsistent with how I have played STGs for my whole life; not an issue at all with other genres even arcade games but have always played shooters a credit or two and then switch. This is, of course, the antithesis of sage advice offered here by all the experts and super players here.

Very slowly changing my approach to practicing but old habits die hard!


But back to voting and just thinking about the games (not practice or play styles, etc), playing shmups is about having fun right?

[m.sniffles.esq]

Man, if you been playing since 1979, you've probably played at least 60 whether you realized or not.

I always thought the 'rules' were more just chucklehead deterrent to keep the voting to people that have a reasonable working knowledge of the genre, and the:

"yeah, I know shmups. I played Ikaruga a bunch... And a whole shit-load on retroarch one night. I know what I'm talking about"

crew at bay.

[Steven]

I was always under the impression that those aren't actually rules anyway because there is no practical way to enforce them or even to prove that you have or have not played stuff.

I regret not voting for the Mega Drive version of Darius now. It's really good. It wouldn't have mattered, though. It's not a CAVE game so nobody cares about it.

[Angry Hina]

I did of course (even above some cave games ). Its awesome^^

Yeah, the "rules" are high but if I think about it, you shold keep in mind that your votes have nearly no meaning, if you have just played around 5 more than 10 hours and just did a quick look on others for around an hour to praise the graphics or something. Especially if you think about, that your vote has the same impact as the one from all the others. And many people often tend to vote for games they know but never actually played in a way where you really can tell about the gameplay and stage design and not just the graphics or music.

And I would as well feel better with my votes, if I had cleared some of the most often praised milestones of the genre (like a single Gradius, R-Type 1, DOJ, Garegga, Ketsui, Kyuukyoku Tiger, Raiden (or Mad Shark as easier substitution), Musha or any original PCE Shooter) or have a more clear view whats the style of some more prominent developers I till now (nearly) never played (like psikyo, Video System, 8ing, Raizing, Capcom).

[Steven]

I typed a post and pressed submit and it logged me out and I lost my post! What the hell...

Do people other than me actually study enemy placement outside of their role in games that have chaining? Obviously if the game has a chaining system all of the enemies are placed in a way that directly relates to the chaining system, but I want to know the intentions of the developers when they placed specific enemies in specific places in games that don't have chaining systems and how placement affects the player and the placement of other enemies. As far as I have seen Kyuukyoku Tiger has the best enemy placement in the entire genre. It's too bad that most players probably won't get to see its true brilliance because they'll game over on stage 5 (admittedly harder than most of the stages that come after it!) and never see the second half of the game, which is basically an evil arrange version of the first half that manages to never feel cheap or unfair. Except for recovering against the stage 10 boss, which is ridiculously hard but still possible

I've never really liked a lot of the PC Engine original STGs, though, with the exception of Aldynes. The graphics are pretty colorless but game itself is cool, although the last boss is super weird. I almost want to say the last boss is extremely poorly designed (to make it worse, don't even think about dying there. If you do, you might as well turn your SuperGrafx off because you are probably completely screwed), but I'd have to play it again now that I'm a much better player than I was the last time I played it. There is a trick to killing the boss safely and I should be more than skilled enough to do it now. It would be a nice excuse to dust off my beloved SuperGrafx for the first time in a long time.

1941 Counter Attack, while an arcade conversion, is the best STG on the PC Engine and/or SuperGrafx and is extremely highly recommended. It's WAY easier than the arcade version, but it is an excellent conversion given the aspect ratio difference and the music and sound are better on the SuperGrafx than they are on the PCB... which is yet another rare and expensive PCB that I would love to have but can't find or afford.

[EmperorIng]

Do people other than me actually study enemy placement outside of their role in games that have chaining?

After a cursory glance at the high score subforum, signs point to Yes

[Lemnear]

I think there's still too few voters even with bi-yearly format, which is sad. Maybe make an extra weeks or 1 month extension?

The requirements to vote are astronomical. I feel i could play nothing but shmups for years and still not qualify. Especially with the standard advice to focus on one game at a time.

I do understand wanting the enthusiast viewpoint and can’t say it’s wrong. But the number of people qualified to vote will continue to shrink unless gaming trends change.

This is why we can't only count the "super-pro-expert" votes, otherwise the votes would be...10-20? LoL (and they would probably be very specific)

This kind of elitism kills an already dying genre, so, please stop.

The only requirements is to finish the game, not to 1CC it and beat a world record

[Lemnear]

Do people other than me actually study enemy placement outside of their role in games that have chaining?

Study? no. Memorize? yes!
But there are games where this process is "more enjoyable" than others, same for enemy/bullet patterns.
Some of them feels "natural", while other feels "clunky/unnatural" in movements and patterns.

[Samildanach]

Do people other than me actually study enemy placement outside of their role in games that have chaining?

Study? no. Memorize? yes!
But there are games where this process is "more enjoyable" than others, same for enemy/bullet patterns.
Some of them feels "natural", while other feels "clunky/unnatural" in movements and patterns.

Yeah, I hope nobody ever tries to study the enemy placement in Ghost Pilots. That game feels like something an AI would develop if you had asked it to make a traditional vertical shmup.

[Angry Hina]

The only requirements is to finish the game, not to 1CC it and beat a world record

For many modern STGs and all Cave games this means nothing more tham owning the game. Watching a video has nearly the same quality.

This kind of elitism kills an already dying genre, so, please stop.

Bit its the elitism as well that attracts people. Like in 2008 when Street Fighter IV resurrected the genre, many people whated this Evo moment video and even casual players where thrilled and wanted to see more of it or be part of it... but yeah, you can exaggerate everthing.

[Some-Mist]

It’s a lot more interesting to go through the individual lists to get an idea of games that line up with the criteria that’s most important to you.

I place a lot of weight on scoring systems since I find it to be such an integral part of the experience and it's one of the most exciting aspects of a game for me. More often than not it changes the way the game is played, forcing you to take routes that don’t necessarily feel comfortable and then coming to the realization of why the enemy placement is setup the way it is and why it feels riskier to use a certain type of shot in a section that’s otherwise easier to blast an enemy with a stronger shot type. Prioritizing scoring over destruction can provide an opportunity to see enemy and bullet patterns that you may not have otherwise experienced and you get to see how those patterns interact with others on the screen as you continue to move into new positions. It's also an opportunity to be able to play a game competitively by yourself on your own time which is a very fascinating concept that isn't something very common in videogames outside of speed running.

It's exciting to go through the lists of the names you recognize from the hi score boards over the years to see how the lists have evolved and shifted, as well as giving an idea of the games I need to give another shot and pay more attention to that aren't in the aggregate list. It's pretty easy to gloss over the ones that you can tell don't meet the criteria that's important to you.