Idiot at EGM sez vertical shooters are as disliked as text adventure games.

[kedawa]

I'm actually somewhat interested in Nanostray, but only because of the lack of decent games on that system.

If Nanostray was released on PS2, it wouldn't get a second look.

[Fe 26]

Which is unfortunate. Nanostray is a good game, even if it's not an innovative or important one.

Relevance does not equal being innovative or importance. Shooters are not relevant but they are sometimes innovative for their own style of gaming and are important to the history of gaming.

[sethsez]

This does not matter. Games should not be rated for their innovation, but for their ability to be fun for people who like the kind of genra that said game falls into.

I agree with this. Although EGM was correct when they said shooters (I refuse to call them shmups) aren't popular in a piece that wasn't even a review, I don't think they should rate them based on this. No other form of media is rated based on popular appeal, and we should stop doing the same with games.

Edit: IP, Nanostray isn't really innovative for its own genre, either. It's just a very solid shooter with an interesting scoring system and the nicest graphics on the DS.

Kedawa, if you like the genre I recommend picking it up.

[Fe 26]

Edit: IP, Nanostray isn't really innovative for its own genre, either. It's just a very solid shooter with an interesting scoring system and the nicest graphics on the DS.

I know, I was just commenting.

[1CCOSA]

V shooters were important ten or fifteen years ago, but not anymore.

It's not exactly a genre at the forefront of innovation.

It's 2005, and people expect more out of a game then dodging arbitrary bullet patterns fired by braindead enemies.

OK, then. Since SMB is 20 years old it is also "no longer important/innovative."

"Braindead" enemies? You obviously have never played a Cave or Raizing shooter let alone Radiant. It's all in the enemy placement. And yes, like all genres, some devs are sloppy but then some are brilliantly meticulous with how they create the enemies and bullet patterns.

[kedawa]

This does not matter. Games should not be rated for their innovation, but for their ability to be fun for people who like the kind of genra that said game falls into.

No, it totally matters.

What's the point of making a game if it doesn't do anything new or different, or at least do the same things but better?

I'm not saying that the genre is inherently outdated, but the fact that very few of its games do anything even remotely new makes it seem that way.

Why should I spend money on a gaming experience that I already played to death years ago?

I'd rather go play the vert shooters that I already own.

[Punky Skunk]

So they're in a meticulously placed spot to exhibit being braindead, for chaining probably.

[kedawa]

Kedawa, if you like the genre I recommend picking it up.

If I can find it, I probably will.

[1CCOSA]

No, it totally matters.

What's the point of making a game if it doesn't do anything new or different, or at least do the same things but better?

I'm not saying that the genre is inherently outdated, but the fact that very few of its games do anything even remotely new makes it seem that way.

Why should I spend money on a gaming experience that I already played to death a years ago?

I'd rather go play the vert shooters that I already own.

As long as new shooters such as Mushihime utilize the power of the PS2 well enough to spew faster and much more complicated bullet patterns, more speed and bigger bosses then are found in my older vert shmups, then that is "new enough" for me.

[sethsez]

OK, then. Since SMB is 20 years old it is also "no longer important/innovative."

Well, if someone released a SMB clone today, guess what? It wouldn't be important or innovative. That well has been dry for ages, and that's what kedawa is saying.

Super Mario Bros. was innovative because of what it did when it came out. If the same exact game had been released ten years later, it would be forgotten today.

Shmups are no longer innovative for gaming as a whole. Cave games might innovate within the genre, but it never breaks any barriers. It's like a nature documentary that tries a different style of narrative. It might innovate within the nature documentary boundaries, but chances are it's not going to budge cinema as a whole.

This doesn't mean they can't still be fun, of course. But trying to argue that they're innovative is futile. They're not. They have very strict parameters and tweak systems and such within those. The last game to even attempt to break out of this was Ikaruga. Which was the most successful and critically acclaimed shooter in years, coincidentally.