Difficulty tiers for PC Engine/TG-16 shoot-'em-ups

[Bardoly]

I would like to classify the PC Engine/TurboGrafx-16 shoot-'em-ups into tiers of difficulty as follows:

(I will go ahead and rate a few myself, but if anyone wishes to contest my ratings, please do so.)

Easy - almost any gamer can beat this game if he just gives it some time

God Panic-Shijyou Saikyu Gundan
Sapphire, Ginga Fukei Densetsu


Moderate - average level of difficulty for shoot-'em-ups - most gamers can beat this game if they really want to

Blazing Lazers
Hellfire S
Steam Heart's


Hard - most average gamers will only be able to beat this level if they dedicate themselves to beating it, and it will be very difficult for them to beat

Aero Blasters
Final Soldier
Nexzr
Nexzr Special - Summer Carnival '92


Extreme - only hardcore shoot-'em-up fans will be able do defeat games at this level

Image Fight
Raiden
Tatsujin


Using this thread about differences between TG-16 & PCE shoot-'em-ups as a guide, this tiers list will only include as separate entries TurboGrafx-16 games which are gameplay-wise different enough to classify them separately.  I'm also using this thread as a guide to the complete list of PC Engine/Turbo Grafx-16 shoot-'em-ups.

So, here is the list of PC Engine shoot-'em-ups which needs to be categorized:

HuCard Horizontal Shoot–'Em–Ups (includes SuperGrafx)

Aero Blasters
Air Zonk (TG-16)
Aldynes: The Mission Code for Rage Crisis (SuperGrafx)
Atomic Robo-Kid Special (multi-directional)
Barunba (multi-directional)
Bouken Danshaken Don San-Heart Hen / Lost Sunheart, The
Coryoon
Darius Alpha (enhanced for the SuperGrafx)
Darius Plus (enhanced for the SuperGrafx)
Dead Moon-Gessekai No Akumu
Dead Moon (TG-16)
Deep Blue-Kaitei Shinwa
Deep Blue (TG-16)
Download
Fantasy Zone (non-forced-scrolling)
Fantasy Zone (TG-16) (non-forced-scrolling)
Gokuraku Chuka Taisen
Gradius
Hana taakadaka!?
Heavy Unit
Magical Chase (regular and PCE fan release)
Magical Chase (TG-16)
Mr. Heli no Daibôken (multi-directional)
Ordyne
Ordyne (TG-16)
P 47-The Freedom Fighter
Paranoia
Parodius da!!
PC-Denjin-Punkic Cyborgs
Power Gate
Psychosis (TG-16)
Rabio Lepus Special
Rock On
R-Type (TG-16)
R-Type I
R-Type II
*Salamander (also has vertical stages)
Side Arms, Hyper Dyne
Side Arms, Hyper Dyne (TG-16)
Sinistron (TG-16)
Tenseiryû / Saint Dragon
Violent Soldier
W-Ring / Double Ring


CD Horizontal Shoot–'Em–Ups (includes Super CD and Arcade CD)

Ai Chôaniki
CD-Denjin-Rockabilly Tengoku
Chôaniki
Cotton, Fantastic Night Dreams
Cotton, Fantastic Night Dreams (TG-16)
Download 2
Forgotten Worlds
Forgotten Worlds (TG-16)
Gate of Thunder
Gate of Thunder (TG-16)
Gradius II-Gofer no Yabô
Hawk F-123
Hellfire-S
Kiaiden 00
L-Dis
Legion
Lords of Thunder (TG-16)
Macross 2036
Metamor Jupiter
Rayxanber II
Rayxanber III
R-Type Complete CD
Side Arms Special, Hyper Dyne
Spriggan Mark II - the Terraforming Project
Super Air Zonk (TG-16)
Super Darius
Super Darius 2
Syd Mead's Terraforming (TG-16)
Terraforming
Winds of Thunder
Wonderboy III-Monster Lair (platformer hybrid)
Zero Wing


HuCard Vertical Shoot–'Em–Ups (includes SuperGrafx)

1941 Counter Attack (SuperGrafx)
1943 Kai
Blazing Lazers (TG-16)
Burning Angels
Cyber Core
Cyber-Core (TG-16)
Daisenpu
Dragon Saber
Dragon Spirit
Dragon Spirit (TG-16)
Final Blaster
Final Soldier
Final Soldier Special Version
Formation Armed F / Armed Formation F
Galaga '88
Galaga '90 (TG-16)
Gunhed
Gunhed Special Version
Hany in the Sky
Image Fight
Kyûkyoku Tiger / Ultimate Tiger
Metal Stoker (multi-directional)
Override
Psycho Chaser
Raiden
Raiden  (TG-16)
*Salamander (also has horizontal stages)
Soldier Blade
Soldier Blade (TG-16)
Soldier Blade Special Version
Space Invaders-Fukkatsu No Hi
Super Star Soldier
Super Star Soldier (TG-16)
Tatsujin
Terra Cresta II
**Thunder Blade (also has into-the-screen stages)
Toilet Kids
Toy Shop Boys
Twin Bee-deta na!!


CD Vertical Shoot–'Em–Ups (includes Super CD and Arcade CD)

Alzadick - Summer Carnival '93
Avenger
Buster Bros. (TG-16) (static screen)
Daisenpû Custom
Ginga Fukei Densetsu-Sapphire
God Panic-Shijyou Saikyu Gundan
Image Fight II
Nexzr
Nexzr Special - Summer Carnival '92
Pomping World (static screen)
Psychic Storm
Seirei Senshi Spriggan - Summer Carnival '91
Space Invaders - The Original Game
Star Parodier / Fantasy Star Soldier
Steam Hearts
Super Raiden
Sylphia


HuCard Into-the-screen Shoot–'Em–Ups (includes SuperGrafx)

After Burner II
Battle Ace (SuperGrafx)
Space Harrier
Space Harrier (TG-16)
**Thunder Blade (also includes vertical stages)


CD Into-the-screen Shoot–'Em–Ups

Space Fantasy Zone (unreleased-but-available-in-CDR-form)



*Note: Salamander is included in both the Vertical and Horizontal lists
**Note: Thunder Blade is included in both the Vertical and Into-the-screen lists

[jperryss]

I'll offer a few.

Easy
Star Parodier
Ordyne
Sylphia

Moderate
Lords/Winds of Thunder
Air Zonk
Super Air Zonk
Magical Chase
Download
Blazing Lazers

Hard
R-Type (all of them I guess)
Deep Blue
Syd Mead's Terraforming

[spenoza]

Gate of Thunder is probably easy by this scale.

I always found Blazing Lazers on the hard side. It starts off nice and casual, but starting with the desert level it really picks up. The final level and final boss are actually pretty challenging. I think it straddles the line between moderate and hard.

[Otaking]

Hard - most average gamers will only be able to beat this level if they dedicate themselves to beating it, and it will be very difficult for them to beat
Final Soldier

Personally my main problem with Final Soldier is I find it's too easy, I wish it was a similar difficulty to Soldier Blade or Super Star Soldier.

[Bardoly]

Hard - most average gamers will only be able to beat this level if they dedicate themselves to beating it, and it will be very difficult for them to beat
Final Soldier

Personally my main problem with Final Soldier is I find it's too easy, I wish it was a similar difficulty to Soldier Blade or Super Star Soldier.

You may be right.  I haven't beaten Super Star Soldier or Soldier Blade yet, so I can't really rate them right now.  I found the first 5 levels of Final Soldier to be rather easy, with the difficulty slowly ramping up, but from level 6 on, it was quite difficult, and the final level was difficult enough to bump the game up a difficulty tier.  I'm wanting to categorize the shoot-'em-ups in difficulty tiers according to being able to beat the game, so some games which may be rather easy for most of the game, but which have very difficult ending levels/bosses will end up being categorized in harder tiers.

[shubibiman]

Sapphire is easy provided you choose the max number of lives and credits. This should be based on the default settings. Final Soldier is easy.

[CrackTiger]

I think that difficulty should be based on 1cc'ing on normal settings. Spamming continues with the lives jacked up has nothing to do with a game's actual difficulty.

[EvilEvoIX]

Image fight I'm actually getting good at, it's a beast for sure.

[roflmao]

Final Soldier, imo, should be in the Easy category along with Star Parodier and Sapphire (on Easy Mode).  I was able to beat all of them the first day I owned them (though they continue to be favorites and I play through them constantly!).  From what I've played, the others seem to be in their proper categories.

[A Black Falcon]

Sapphire on the default settings really should be in Moderate, I think... and R-Type shouldn't be in a lower category than Image Fight or Raiden.  If those two are in Extreme, R-Type should be there too.  As for Image Fight and Raiden, I presume they're a lot harder on TG16 than those two games were on NES and SNES... I know I've heard that, but I haven't played the TG16 versions much myself, only those other ones.  While they were tough, the NES and SNES games were not nearly "Extreme" in challenge.

I think that difficulty should be based on 1cc'ing on normal settings. Spamming continues with the lives jacked up has nothing to do with a game's actual difficulty.

If you're talking about only 1ccs, then you leave out the opinions of anyone who isn't a hardcore (and good) shmup player, I think, and that's not good.

I mean, the continue system in a game is definitely a factor in its difficulty -- for instance, TG16 R-Type is far, FAR harder than Game Boy Color R-Type DX in large part because DX has saved level select and infinite continues while the TG16 game has limited continues, or for another example Blazing Lazers is a massive challenge in comparison to otherwise similar Space Megaforce in large part because the latter game has a much more forgiving continue system and I don't think it limits your continues either -- but how hard it is to 1cc a game is definitely not the only element to its difficulty, no.  That's a different list from an overall "how hard is it" list.

Gate of Thunder is probably easy by this scale.

I always found Blazing Lazers on the hard side. It starts off nice and casual, but starting with the desert level it really picks up. The final level and final boss are actually pretty challenging. I think it straddles the line between moderate and hard.

Yeah, Blazing Lazers is a really tough game.  It seems easy enough at first, but at the desert level it gets harder, and then in the final level... GAH!  If you die too much and run out of continue-where-you-are lives, you're done, just give up and start the whole game over from the beginning, continues are useless (unless you're really good at this game).  I got stuck at Blazing Lazer's final level for years after buying the game in '09... only finally beat the game last week.  It's a really great game, but it's DEFINITELY quite a bit harder than the other 4th gen Compile shmups I've beaten, Robo Aleste and Space Megaforce, both of which are on the easy side.

[EvilEvoIX]

Blazing lasers is tough but fair, no cheapness and when you die it's your fault.

[CrackTiger]

Sapphire on the default settings really should be in Moderate, I think... and R-Type shouldn't be in a lower category than Image Fight or Raiden.  If those two are in Extreme, R-Type should be there too.  As for Image Fight and Raiden, I presume they're a lot harder on TG16 than those two games were on NES and SNES... I know I've heard that, but I haven't played the TG16 versions much myself, only those other ones.  While they were tough, the NES and SNES games were not nearly "Extreme" in challenge.

I think that difficulty should be based on 1cc'ing on normal settings. Spamming continues with the lives jacked up has nothing to do with a game's actual difficulty.

If you're talking about only 1ccs, then you leave out the opinions of anyone who isn't a hardcore (and good) shmup player, I think, and that's not good.

I mean, the continue system in a game is definitely a factor in its difficulty -- for instance, TG16 R-Type is far, FAR harder than Game Boy Color R-Type DX in large part because DX has saved level select and infinite continues while the TG16 game has limited continues, or for another example Blazing Lazers is a massive challenge in comparison to otherwise similar Space Megaforce in large part because the latter game has a much more forgiving continue system and I don't think it limits your continues either -- but how hard it is to 1cc a game is definitely not the only element to its difficulty, no.  That's a different list from an overall "how hard is it" list.

Gate of Thunder is probably easy by this scale.

I always found Blazing Lazers on the hard side. It starts off nice and casual, but starting with the desert level it really picks up. The final level and final boss are actually pretty challenging. I think it straddles the line between moderate and hard.

Yeah, Blazing Lazers is a really tough game.  It seems easy enough at first, but at the desert level it gets harder, and then in the final level... GAH!  If you die too much and run out of continue-where-you-are lives, you're done, just give up and start the whole game over from the beginning, continues are useless (unless you're really good at this game).  I got stuck at Blazing Lazer's final level for years after buying the game in '09... only finally beat the game last week.  It's a really great game, but it's DEFINITELY quite a bit harder than the other 4th gen Compile shmups I've beaten, Robo Aleste and Space Megaforce, both of which are on the easy side.

If you're not going to rank games by their genuine difficulty (factoring in play style), then this kind of list is pointless and should be replaced by a gathering of available options and cheats for each game (a "How easy you can make a game" ranking). 3 stages of Magical Chase does not define its difficulty.

[spenoza]

If you're not going to rank games by their genuine difficulty (factoring in play style), then this kind of list is pointless and should be replaced by a gathering of available options and cheats for each game (a "How easy you can make a game" ranking). 3 stages of Magical Chase does not define its difficulty.

I think the list should be done by default difficulty and settings (lives, continues, bonus lives score), unless the default difficulty is not the full game. In that case, the lowest difficulty level above default that includes all the levels should be ranked.

I do not think this list should cater to the 1cc. I wouldn't be opposed to having a 1cc difficulty ranking, but that would be a different beast from what is being proposed, here.

Hell, if you're going ranking/list crazy, you could also make one that compares various games hardest challenge settings to see which ones are truly the most evil.

[CrackTiger]

If you're not going to rank games by their genuine difficulty (factoring in play style), then this kind of list is pointless and should be replaced by a gathering of available options and cheats for each game (a "How easy you can make a game" ranking). 3 stages of Magical Chase does not define its difficulty.

I think the list should be done by default difficulty and settings (lives, continues, bonus lives score), unless the default difficulty is not the full game. In that case, the lowest difficulty level above default that includes all the levels should be ranked.

I do not think this list should cater to the 1cc. I wouldn't be opposed to having a 1cc difficulty ranking, but that would be a different beast from what is being proposed, here.

Hell, if you're going ranking/list crazy, you could also make one that compares various games hardest challenge settings to see which ones are truly the most evil.

By "1cc'ing", I don't mean how hard it is to finish the game on a single credit, I mean how challenging is the actual game overall. Instead of thinking about all the ways to alter the game to make it easier, we should be thinking about it from the perspective of 1cc'ing, which is essentially playing through a game under normal settings. Arcade ports will often be cheap or unreasonably difficult in places in order to eat quarters. It is not unreasonable to use continues in those games, but doing so is admitting that the game is difficult for you.

Too many people spam bombs and continue like crazy in Sapphire and then call the game easy, when in fact they are sidestepping most of the game altogether. To this day too many people parrot EGM in saying that Strider 2 is too easy and over too quick, simply because they button mash while not paying full attention and just use infinite continues. It's not far off from watching a longplay on youtube and saying a game is too easy.

[A Black Falcon]

Blazing lasers is tough but fair, no cheapness and when you die it's your fault.

I don't know, I love the game, but the shield system can be confusing... I mean, telling when bullets will kill you, versus just level-down your weapons (or bounce off the shield) is not exactly intuitive.

Sapphire on the default settings really should be in Moderate, I think... and R-Type shouldn't be in a lower category than Image Fight or Raiden.  If those two are in Extreme, R-Type should be there too.  As for Image Fight and Raiden, I presume they're a lot harder on TG16 than those two games were on NES and SNES... I know I've heard that, but I haven't played the TG16 versions much myself, only those other ones.  While they were tough, the NES and SNES games were not nearly "Extreme" in challenge.

I think that difficulty should be based on 1cc'ing on normal settings. Spamming continues with the lives jacked up has nothing to do with a game's actual difficulty.

If you're talking about only 1ccs, then you leave out the opinions of anyone who isn't a hardcore (and good) shmup player, I think, and that's not good.

I mean, the continue system in a game is definitely a factor in its difficulty -- for instance, TG16 R-Type is far, FAR harder than Game Boy Color R-Type DX in large part because DX has saved level select and infinite continues while the TG16 game has limited continues, or for another example Blazing Lazers is a massive challenge in comparison to otherwise similar Space Megaforce in large part because the latter game has a much more forgiving continue system and I don't think it limits your continues either -- but how hard it is to 1cc a game is definitely not the only element to its difficulty, no.  That's a different list from an overall "how hard is it" list.

Gate of Thunder is probably easy by this scale.

I always found Blazing Lazers on the hard side. It starts off nice and casual, but starting with the desert level it really picks up. The final level and final boss are actually pretty challenging. I think it straddles the line between moderate and hard.

Yeah, Blazing Lazers is a really tough game.  It seems easy enough at first, but at the desert level it gets harder, and then in the final level... GAH!  If you die too much and run out of continue-where-you-are lives, you're done, just give up and start the whole game over from the beginning, continues are useless (unless you're really good at this game).  I got stuck at Blazing Lazer's final level for years after buying the game in '09... only finally beat the game last week.  It's a really great game, but it's DEFINITELY quite a bit harder than the other 4th gen Compile shmups I've beaten, Robo Aleste and Space Megaforce, both of which are on the easy side.

If you're not going to rank games by their genuine difficulty (factoring in play style), then this kind of list is pointless and should be replaced by a gathering of available options and cheats for each game (a "How easy you can make a game" ranking). 3 stages of Magical Chase does not define its difficulty.

Looking only at 1ccs and not anything else is not "their genuine difficulty", though.  That's something only for the hardcore, unless it's a game so hard that you MUST 1cc it if you want to actually win, such as Blazing Lazers.  And that's one of the major reasons why that game's so tough, continues are useless.  So yeah, no.

If you're not going to rank games by their genuine difficulty (factoring in play style), then this kind of list is pointless and should be replaced by a gathering of available options and cheats for each game (a "How easy you can make a game" ranking). 3 stages of Magical Chase does not define its difficulty.

I think the list should be done by default difficulty and settings (lives, continues, bonus lives score), unless the default difficulty is not the full game. In that case, the lowest difficulty level above default that includes all the levels should be ranked.

I do not think this list should cater to the 1cc. I wouldn't be opposed to having a 1cc difficulty ranking, but that would be a different beast from what is being proposed, here.

Hell, if you're going ranking/list crazy, you could also make one that compares various games hardest challenge settings to see which ones are truly the most evil.

I agree entirely.

If you're not going to rank games by their genuine difficulty (factoring in play style), then this kind of list is pointless and should be replaced by a gathering of available options and cheats for each game (a "How easy you can make a game" ranking). 3 stages of Magical Chase does not define its difficulty.

I think the list should be done by default difficulty and settings (lives, continues, bonus lives score), unless the default difficulty is not the full game. In that case, the lowest difficulty level above default that includes all the levels should be ranked.

I do not think this list should cater to the 1cc. I wouldn't be opposed to having a 1cc difficulty ranking, but that would be a different beast from what is being proposed, here.

Hell, if you're going ranking/list crazy, you could also make one that compares various games hardest challenge settings to see which ones are truly the most evil.

By "1cc'ing", I don't mean how hard it is to finish the game on a single credit, I mean how challenging is the actual game overall. Instead of thinking about all the ways to alter the game to make it easier, we should be thinking about it from the perspective of 1cc'ing, which is essentially playing through a game under normal settings. Arcade ports will often be cheap or unreasonably difficult in places in order to eat quarters. It is not unreasonable to use continues in those games, but doing so is admitting that the game is difficult for you.

Too many people spam bombs and continue like crazy in Sapphire and then call the game easy, when in fact they are sidestepping most of the game altogether. To this day too many people parrot EGM in saying that Strider 2 is too easy and over too quick, simply because they button mash while not paying full attention and just use infinite continues. It's not far off from watching a longplay on youtube and saying a game is too easy.

I'm sorry, but if the game allows you to play another way, playing the game "right" is not the only thing you should consider.

As for difficulty levels though I do agree that it should mostly be based off of playing games on their default difficulty, but if one game has no difficulty settings and another one lets you play it in an easier setting, that IS something worth considering, perhaps...

[Aggie Tsubi]

Nice topic. This should prove useful to gamers like me, as I'm admittedly not that great at shmups and should probably stick with the "Easy" and "Moderate" ones, haha.

I agree that it should be based on a game's default settings. To me at least, it's valuable to know how difficult it is based on the number of continues it offers. I don't really care if one game is easier to 1cc than another, if said "harder" game is actually easier than the other if you use a continue or two. That said, another list centered around the difficulty to 1cc would be nice for hardcore shmup players. It's also worth noting if a game has adjustable settings to make it easier or harder than the default settings.

As for what to do about faithful arcade ports in which you're offered unlimited continues and continue right where you die, that's tricky. In concept, that's zero difficulty at all. With patience anybody can clear a game like that. Maybe base the difficulty around a moderate number of continues? Like 3-5? Or maybe around the average number of times a player would die in the course of playing through the game? If you're dying every other minute, I'd say that's a pretty tough, cheap game, even if you can spam continues to work your way through it.

[fsa]

Here is how I rate the following SHMUP I have.

Easy - almost any gamer can beat this game if he just gives it some time

Cyber Core
Sinistron
Ordyne

Moderate - average level of difficulty for shoot-'em-ups - most gamers can beat this game if they really want to

Side Arms
Super Star Soldier
Air Zonk
Dragon Spirit

Hard - most average gamers will only be able to beat this level if they dedicate themselves to beating it, and it will be very difficult for them to beat

Aero Blasters
Blazing Lazers
R-Type (took me a number or years to beat this one)
Space Harrier (One of the 2 SHMUP if haven't finished, made it to the end boss)


Extreme - only hardcore shoot-'em-up fans will be able do defeat games at this level

Raiden (One of the 2 SHMUP if haven't finished, made it to the last level)

[herr-g]

Extreme as hell: Rayxanber II

[A Black Falcon]

I found Sidearms almost as hard as Blazing Lazers... sure, you continue where you died, but you only get two continues, and the invincibility after you die is so short that you often lose four or five lives in seconds, if you die once.  That makes it difficult.  Blazing Lazers is harder, but Sidearms is a challenging game too. 

Also, BC mode in Sidearms Special sends you back when you die and is even harder, so that game is Hard at minimum.

Extreme as hell: Rayxanber II

Yeah, that's for sure!

[wildfruit]

shmups are not my expertise the only one i own for tg or pce is blazing lazers
i find it dsmn difficult but very satisfying all the same

[NecroPhile]

I think that difficulty should be based on 1cc'ing on normal settings. Spamming continues with the lives jacked up has nothing to do with a game's actual difficulty.

Agreed; if one has to use 38 continues to beat a game, they can't logically claim it's easy.  Continues only make it easier to beat a game - they don't make it easier to play the game.

For those arguing that continues makes a difference on difficulty: let's say Raiden allows unlimited continues and Air Zonk doesn't allow continues at all.  Using your logic, that'd mean that Raiden is the easier game, and that's just preposterous.

[spenoza]

Agreed; if one has to use 38 continues to beat a game, they can't logically claim it's easy.  Continues only make it easier to beat a game - they don't make it easier to play the game.

For those arguing that continues makes a difference on difficulty: let's say Raiden allows unlimited continues and Air Zonk doesn't allow continues at all.  Using your logic, that'd mean that Raiden is the easier game, and that's just preposterous.

I don't think you can rule out continues. 1cc isn't an appropriate measure of difficulty because very few people will invest the time to become skilled enough to 1cc a game. We have to look at how the average player will approach a game. If a game allows unlimited continues and restarts you right where you died, that was a decision on the part of the developer or publisher to make the game more accessible and EASIER TO BEAT. If a game has 3 continues and uses checkpoints, then they clearly intend you to play the game differently.

In the former example, the developer is OK with you spamming continues to get to the end of the game. That's perfectly OK with them and is a valid play style. In the latter example, the developers clearly want you to have to get better at the game in order to reap the reward of forward progress.

While the former play style may allow someone to beat a game without technically getting very good at it, it still does, ultimately, render the game easier to beat.

You can't rate the challenge level of a game in an artificial bubble, which is what the 1cc proposal effectively does. Are we also going to tack on that you can't use turbo on the controller? I mean, the earliest PCE pads didn't have turbo switches!

[NecroPhile]

I don't think you can rule out continues. 1cc isn't an appropriate measure of difficulty because very few people will invest the time to become skilled enough to 1cc a game. We have to look at how the average player will approach a game. If a game allows unlimited continues and restarts you right where you died, that was a decision on the part of the developer or publisher to make the game more accessible and EASIER TO BEAT. If a game has 3 continues and uses checkpoints, then they clearly intend you to play the game differently.

In the former example, the developer is OK with you spamming continues to get to the end of the game. That's perfectly OK with them and is a valid play style. In the latter example, the developers clearly want you to have to get better at the game in order to reap the reward of forward progress.

Twaddle.  Many games allow you to change the difficulty to an easier setting (Magical Chase even defaults to 'breezy'), so why not use the easy setting to measure difficulty?  The option wouldn't exist if the dev didn't want you to use it! 

While the former play style may allow someone to beat a game without technically getting very good at it, it still does, ultimately, render the game easier to beat.

Isn't that what I said?  I've little interest in ranking games solely on how easy they are to clear by any means necessary (credit spam, slow-mo, etc.) but would rather see them ranked on how they play.

You can't rate the challenge level of a game in an artificial bubble, which is what the 1cc proposal effectively does.

My reasoning is no more arbitrary than your own.

[Bardoly]

Agreed; if one has to use 38 continues to beat a game, they can't logically claim it's easy.  Continues only make it easier to beat a game - they don't make it easier to play the game.

For those arguing that continues makes a difference on difficulty: let's say Raiden allows unlimited continues and Air Zonk doesn't allow continues at all.  Using your logic, that'd mean that Raiden is the easier game, and that's just preposterous.

I don't think you can rule out continues. 1cc isn't an appropriate measure of difficulty because very few people will invest the time to become skilled enough to 1cc a game. We have to look at how the average player will approach a game. If a game allows unlimited continues and restarts you right where you died, that was a decision on the part of the developer or publisher to make the game more accessible and EASIER TO BEAT. If a game has 3 continues and uses checkpoints, then they clearly intend you to play the game differently.

In the former example, the developer is OK with you spamming continues to get to the end of the game. That's perfectly OK with them and is a valid play style. In the latter example, the developers clearly want you to have to get better at the game in order to reap the reward of forward progress.

While the former play style may allow someone to beat a game without technically getting very good at it, it still does, ultimately, render the game easier to beat.

You can't rate the challenge level of a game in an artificial bubble, which is what the 1cc proposal effectively does. Are we also going to tack on that you can't use turbo on the controller? I mean, the earliest PCE pads didn't have turbo switches!

I think that this is really what I am looking for with this thread.  I am actually looking for difficulty tiers for beginners just getting into Turbo and shoot-'em-ups in general, and I would like to be able to present beginners with a list of shoot-'em-ups which are easy to beat and build their confidence with, then they can move on to more difficult ones before moving on to the hard ones and then finally they can tackle the extremely difficult ones.  This is taking into consideration actually beating the game at the easiest difficult setting with maximum lives and/or continues, giving this beginner the maximum benefit and ease of beating the game.  (Of course, Magical Chase on Easy Mode doesn't really allow one to beat the game, because you don't get to play the other levels, so medium difficulty would be considered the 'base' difficulty for considerations of beating the game.

Now, this is not to say that someone shouldn't start a different thread with difficulty tiers for 1 CC's.  If anyone wishes to do so, then please be my guest, or I may create such a thread later on.

[Bardoly]

While the former play style may allow someone to beat a game without technically getting very good at it, it still does, ultimately, render the game easier to beat.

Isn't that what I said?  I've little interest in ranking games solely on how easy they are to clear by any means necessary (credit spam, slow-mo, etc.) but would rather see them ranked on how they play.

I understand, but I am actually wishing to rank the games by how easy they are to clear, so perhaps another thread would work, or I could add 1 CC into this thread as a separate list.

[NecroPhile]

Don't forget to mark your syscard clears and collect your achievement/badge/trophy.

[Bardoly]

Don't forget to mark your syscard clears and collect your achievement/badge/trophy.

 


That would go to Tatsujin, since he has hundreds of system cards, right?





...
I see what you're saying, and I do want to try to clear as many games as possible, but I'm hoping that this list (once finished) could help beginners get into shoot-'em-ups.  (i.e. I know people who don't play video games much who would be totally put off by the difficulty of a Rayzanber II or such, but would be willing to play an easier shoot-'em-up.)

[CrackTiger]

I don't know if beginners with poor skills would have fun failing at genuinely difficult games until they run out of continues. Certainly not as much fun as a genuinely easier to play game in the same "how-hard-to-clear-at-any-cost" ranking level.

The 1cc reference doesn't literally mean, "rank them on how difficult they are to 1cc". It's just the kind of frame of mind to have while judging these games. Basically, judge the overall gameplay difficulty. If a game is moderately difficult right up to the final boss, who is impossible, then that game is of moderate difficulty.

If another game is so hard that n00bs constantly spawn and die, but has unlimited continues which start you exactly where you died... it is a disservice to tell them beforehand that the game is "Beginner" difficulty, just because they can leave the d-pad untouched and turbo switch bombs using one of their toes (without even looking at the screen), die and repeat.

If a beginner doesn't have an exploitive frame of mind (and these rankings don't provide game by game cheap-out notes), then they will just genuinely attempt to play some of the hardest PCE shooters for real. When they crash and burn so fast on stage 1 again and again, they will come to the conclusion that the difficulty rankings are either bunk or all PCE shooters are no fun to play and give up on them altogether.


If the intention is to put together a list for beginners, then it shouldn't list every shooter. It should only include the easier to play and/or clear games, ideally grouped in lists of "overall" and "bang for your buck" (depending on whether they are buying or "stealing" games). Much more importantly, a beginners' list should also rank shooters by how overall enjoyable they are. If two games of the same difficulty and price have radically different levels of aesthetics, content and style, it would be better to let them know that one is of much higher quality than the other. Otherwise they might end up with a game like Ordyne instead of Lords of Thunder, just because most people find them to be of similar difficulty. A few bad picks early on would turn them off more than difficulty.

[A Black Falcon]

I don't think you can rule out continues. 1cc isn't an appropriate measure of difficulty because very few people will invest the time to become skilled enough to 1cc a game. We have to look at how the average player will approach a game. If a game allows unlimited continues and restarts you right where you died, that was a decision on the part of the developer or publisher to make the game more accessible and EASIER TO BEAT. If a game has 3 continues and uses checkpoints, then they clearly intend you to play the game differently.

In the former example, the developer is OK with you spamming continues to get to the end of the game. That's perfectly OK with them and is a valid play style. In the latter example, the developers clearly want you to have to get better at the game in order to reap the reward of forward progress.

Twaddle.  Many games allow you to change the difficulty to an easier setting (Magical Chase even defaults to 'breezy'), so why not use the easy setting to measure difficulty?  The option wouldn't exist if the dev didn't want you to use it!

The question then becomes, how different are the difficulty options?  I mean, if "Easy" is just Normal but with more credits, it could still be very hard... it depends entirely on the game.

While the former play style may allow someone to beat a game without technically getting very good at it, it still does, ultimately, render the game easier to beat.

Isn't that what I said?  I've little interest in ranking games solely on how easy they are to clear by any means necessary (credit spam, slow-mo, etc.) but would rather see them ranked on how they play.

But how hard a game is to finish is, for most people, the most important and relevant question about a games' difficulty.  How hard a game is to master is something else entirely, only for the hardcore.  This list is not intended to be only for the hardcore, I believe, so how hard a game is to finish is the most important question.

You can't rate the challenge level of a game in an artificial bubble, which is what the 1cc proposal effectively does.

My reasoning is no more arbitrary than your own.

No, that's not true at all.  Judging games by how they are makes sense.  You, however, are saying that games should be judged (in difficulty) not by how they are, but by how you feel they ideally should be played.  That's quite arbitrary compared to simply judging them by how they were designed, and looking at how hard it is to complete each game.  Now, having notes saying "this game lets you continue where you died infinitely so it'll be quite easy to beat but is hard to master" is quite reasonable.  In a list of "how hard is each game to beat?", listing stuff like that would be a good idea.  But "how hard is it to finish" should be the primary question, I think.


Really, the problem is that there are multiple elements to difficulty.  Is what matters the most how hard a game is to finish, or is it how hard the game is to master?  Clearly the two are very different things, and result in very different lists.  Maybe just make two lists, one for each of those two variants?

The 1cc reference doesn't literally mean, "rank them on how difficult they are to 1cc". It's just the kind of frame of mind to have while judging these games. Basically, judge the overall gameplay difficulty. If a game is moderately difficult right up to the final boss, who is impossible, then that game is of moderate difficulty.

I don't understand... if the final boss is really hard, how could that not make the game overall quite difficult?  If you're looking at the whole game, you're including the final boss fight too...

[spenoza]

Twaddle.  Many games allow you to change the difficulty to an easier setting (Magical Chase even defaults to 'breezy'), so why not use the easy setting to measure difficulty?  The option wouldn't exist if the dev didn't want you to use it!

Yeah, but the continue and checkpoint details are typically set to a default when you start the game. You're not changing anything. You're turning it on and playing it the way the devs set up as your default starting condition. That's my particular preference to work from. What is the unaltered starting point?

You can't rate the challenge level of a game in an artificial bubble, which is what the 1cc proposal effectively does.

My reasoning is no more arbitrary than your own.

Were this discussion without context, I agree, we each took fairly arbitrary stands that match our individual preferences, but I think mine is more consistent with what the OP intended with the thread (though we apparently disagree about changing options).

No reason we can't have several different conditions for ranking. Not like one of these approaches magically invalidates any other.

The 1cc reference doesn't literally mean, "rank them on how difficult they are to 1cc". It's just the kind of frame of mind to have while judging these games. Basically, judge the overall gameplay difficulty. If a game is moderately difficult right up to the final boss, who is impossible, then that game is of moderate difficulty.

If another game is so hard that n00bs constantly spawn and die, but has unlimited continues which start you exactly where you died... it is a disservice to tell them beforehand that the game is "Beginner" difficulty, just because they can leave the d-pad untouched and turbo switch bombs using one of their toes (without even looking at the screen), die and repeat.

You have a good point. The actual play style of the game should indeed make a difference. That said, shouldn't the continue settings play a role in the difficulty? I agree that giving R-Type unlimited continues right from the point you die wouldn't magically make the game an easy game, but wouldn't it make it just a hair easier? Some people would argue that checkpoints and limited continues force you to replay large portions of the game you are actually pretty good at to get back to the parts you are bad at, and remove you from the context so that it's actually harder to get good at the hard parts.

I think continue style/number should be able to shift a game from one category to another, but no more than one spot. A game with brutal play difficulty with unlimited continues will never be easy, but it might be a little more tolerable and accessible by virtue of that concession. Whereas if Blazing Lazers/Gunhed had you do down in a single hit, respawned you at a checkpoint, and stripped all your weapons, that would make it probably a step harder.

[shubibiman]

In the case of Sapphire, everyone who says the game is one of the easiest shmups on the PCE CHOOSE the number of lives/credits and the difficulty level in the option so it's not the way the developpers intended it to be. Have the guies who said Sapphire was easy cleared it in default settings?

I bet NOT.

[turboswimbz]

In the case of Sapphire, everyone who says the game is one of the easiest shmups on the PCE CHOOSE the number of lives/credits and the difficulty level in the option so it's not the way the developpers intended it to be. Have the guies who said Sapphire was easy cleared it in default settings?

I bet NOT.

I actually did beat this on the defualt, but I had to play through it on an easier setting first and build my way up.  So yes I think the developers intended easy to be to played and completed, but also wanted you to have a way to keep ramping up the challenge and see how good you could really could get. IMO this is great programming and makes the game easier to see the ending even at the defualt. 

I'd rather see the games ranked by how well the Game makes you want to finish it on the defualt or harder settings.  To be honest, I never see myself beating the likes of image fight (I generally feel like the effort isn't worth the payoff), or even orydyne (i just can't get into it) but games like Blazing lazers, SSS, and raiden have me coming back for more, and I'm close to finishing all these games, and want to finish them. 

I'm just saying I understand that what Bard is trying to do here is Group the games by your chances of finishing the game and seeing the credits.  Hopefully Even on easy this means it'll bring you back for more.  I'm just suggesting in order to that, perhaps a better way of saying this would be what games are going to grab you in and get you to finish.

then again maybe I'm just crazy.

[A Black Falcon]

Looking earlier in the thread again, Cyber-Core was putin the "Easy" group.  If you use the cheatcodes, for infinite continues, the password cheats to go straight to any level, the Easy mode password cheat, etc., yeah, the game is quite doable.  The last level is hard and frustrating, but with infinite continues you'll get through it eventually.

But if you want to play the game straight, with only the limited continues you get by default? Then, thanks to how annoying the last stage is, I don't know that the game should be in the "Easy" group...

[CrackTiger]

Looking at the OP again, Cyber-Core is in the "Easy" group.  If you use the cheatcodes, for infinite continues, the password cheats to go straight to any level, the Easy mode password cheat, etc., yeah, the game is quite doable.  The last level is hard and frustrating, but with infinite continues you'll get through it eventually.

But if you want to play the game straight, with only the limited continues you get by default? Then, thanks to how annoying the last stage is, I don't know that the game should be in the "Easy" group...

This is why I don't think that a game's overall difficulty and value should be based around technically clearing it. If the final boss preceeding a non-ending/credit roll is much harder than the rest of the game, then 99% of the game can be enjoyed at the difficulty the rest of the game is at and the game should be judged as such.

Some games may be average difficulty for six stages and then very hard for another six. But you still get six stages of average difficulty to play through while another game may be comprised of five stages total, all of which are only average difficulty. Should a longer game loaded with content be written off as too hard because of the later sections?

[esteban]

THIS IS AN AWESOME THREAD I MISSED! Forgive my random thoughts vomited below.

I just want to say that CyberCore and Sinistron are not "easy" games...they are moderate. It takes time and practice and you'll beat them, but they have many challenging elements to them.

I know we are all different, but I consider Gates of Thunder and Lords of Thunder to be on the "easy" side.

I should copy-and-paste my comments from the other thread here to continue discussion (thank goodness my comments corroborate some of the comments in this thread, I was worried that folks didn't find Raiden challenging!)

ALSO, and I'll have to find one of my old posts and paste it here, but the last stage of Blazing Lazers is NOT impossible to recover from with a GODDAMN PEASHOOTER. You can beat the last stage with STRATEGY (you don't need full power ups).

I've explained what you do in the past, but, basically, you MAXIMIZE your speed at key moments to eliminate waves of enemies with your pea shooter. The ensuing gels (the game throws a few at you) will enhance your pea shooter (weapon "I" is quite versatile in last stage, actually). Bosses are pretty easy, but staying alive between bosses is the real challenge, IMHO.

CyberCore and Sinistron, believe it or not, are also "fair" like Blazing Lazers in that you can actually survive with just a pea shooter (but you need at least one speed up, usually, to make things easier—Blazing Lazers and Soldier series are "generous" in that they allow you to adjust speed at any time...)



You want an TRULY EASY GAME?

Psychic Storm is truly easy. I wish there was a "Brutal Mode" because this game actually has a lot going for it....but it's too easy and, unlike Star Parodia (another easy game) it doesn't have the CHARM and fun to make you want to REPLAY IT OVER and over. PSYCHIC STORM...I wish I could go back and tweak a few things to make it more engaging/alluring.

YOU WANT A GAME NOBODY TALKS ABOUT AND ACTUALLY IS CHALLENGING?

Hawk F-123. I brought up this game on other forums before I even posted here frequently because it surprised me. It was kicking my butt and I couldn't master it in an afternoon. I'm not saying it is an amazing game, but I appreciated its challenge.



Finally, not that we will ever reach consensus, but I would love to at least ATTEMPT to categorize TG-16/PCE shootemups for folks who are (1) new to TG-16 (skilled shootemup fans might be in this category) and/or (2) novices (weak shootemup skills, looking to enjoy some games!)

Surely we could help out both the NEWBIE and the HARDCORE populations.

I would love to add a column/note about "newbie appeal" and "hardcore appeal" to this list:

https://archives.tg-16.com/complete_list_of_tg16_pce_shooters.htm

(Obligatory)

[Gentlegamer]

Reading through the thread, I agree with using the "1CC" standard. Not as something literal, but as away of judging the core game play difficulty independent of the existence of infinite/plentiful continues to "bully" your way to completion.

If a game is hard enough, even infinite continues will result in a figurative "game over" if you can't advance.

[CrackTiger]

I just want to say that CyberCore and Sinistron are not "easy" games...they are moderate. It takes time and practice and you'll beat them, but they have many challenging elements to them.

It really depends on each person's play style. Games in general may be easier for me than for many people, but I believe that the reason I beat CyberCore in a single sitting on my TurboExpress the first time I played it is because it just happens to suit the kind of gameplay I am comfortable with.

[FraGMarE]

Look, there are two types of people in this world.  People who reset or stop playing the shmup after losing a credit, and people who are doing it wrong.

[PukeSter]

Look, there are two types of people in this world.  People who reset or stop playing the shmup after losing a credit, and people who are doing it wrong.

And what is wrong with using the default number of continues? Or even a shooter with unlimited continues but you have to restart the stage?

Developers put standards in their games for a reason, as the actual level of difficulty.

I mean, 3 continues seems pretty fair for a shooter in which one bullet or one mistake can kill you.

Unless it's a game like Gradius, which has no continues but is still beatable.

[FraGMarE]

And what is wrong with using the default number of continues? Or even a shooter with unlimited continues but you have to restart the stage?

Because any shmup worth a bag of dildos resets the score to 0 after you continue.  Believe me... I too was once a bottom feeder (aka credit feeder), but I have seen the err of my ways.  Nearly all shmups, even console exclusive shmups, are designed to be arcade styled.  And as an arcade styled shooter, the entire foundation of the game is built around the concept of playing for score.  Even if you're not playing the game *for* score, you're still playing a game that's designed, from the ground up, around scoring... but in that case, the game is more or less playing you.  Taunting you.  Laughing at you.  Play the game, don't let the game play you.  ;)

[esteban]

I just want to say that CyberCore and Sinistron are not "easy" games...they are moderate. It takes time and practice and you'll beat them, but they have many challenging elements to them.

It really depends on each person's play style. Games in general may be easier for me than for many people, but I believe that the reason I beat CyberCore in a single sitting on my TurboExpress the first time I played it is because it just happens to suit the kind of gameplay I am comfortable with.

Sure, but do you think the average newbie (looking to have fun) is going to find CyberCore easy or moderate?

I don't know myself. Maybe this is too subjective. Maybe you're right—it comes down to the mechanics that a person is comfortable with.

Even if we put CyberCore in "easy" column, I wouldn't put Sinistron in the easy column.

And what is wrong with using the default number of continues? Or even a shooter with unlimited continues but you have to restart the stage?

Because any shmup worth a bag of dildos resets the score to 0 after you continue.  Believe me... I too was once a bottom feeder (aka credit feeder), but I have seen the err of my ways.  Nearly all shmups, even console exclusive shmups, are designed to be arcade styled.  And as an arcade styled shooter, the entire foundation of the game is built around the concept of playing for score.  Even if you're not playing the game *for* score, you're still playing a game that's designed, from the ground up, around scoring... but in that case, the game is more or less playing you.  Taunting you.  Laughing at you.  Play the game, don't let the game play you.  ;)

I am familiar with this point of view, but it is misguided.

First, I don't enjoy or engage in no-skill credit-feeding. I think it is silly.

However, there is a way to intelligently use the continues that a game provides.

Let me explain why: while I, too, enjoy 1CC'ing games, I do not think that REAL MEN hit RESET after dying.

Why?

Because only through sheer creativity, tenacity and SKILL can a player tackle the seemingly impossible task (in some games) of recovering after you lose power-ups.

The true test of a real shootemup fan: Armed with only a peashooter, how far can you make it? What strategies are you going to use? What combination of speed/power-ups are most effective when you are STARVED for them?

This is a different mentality than credit-feeding, and, honestly, I don't enjoy credit feeding.

If a designer included continues, I think it is perfectly acceptable to use them when you are still learning a game (with moderation, of course). Starting a stage again, but with a mere Pea-shooter, is a great challenge in many games. Don't hit reset.

I personally think it makes games EASYGOING if you are always powered-up with full weapons...I have thought about this over the years...

Of course, I am referring exclusively to old-skool shoot-me-ups...which usually limited lives/continues and dictated re-spawn locations (current location, checkpoint, back-a-few-screens,  beginning of stage). Sure, in the arcade some games allowed you to credit feed to the end...

Bullet-hell and what I consider "new wave" sub-genres have a different formula, credit-feeding in these games is still problematic because you are usually re-spawning without being sent back to check-points/beginning of stage...I think this is where the "hit reset" philosophy gains credibility.

Ultimately, used in moderation, I think it is ok to use a few continues, especially when you are truly testing your skills. SPAMMING BOMBS is lame and not the sort of thing I condone. As long as a player is thinking "this is my last life, how far can I make it on skill alone?" then everything is OK.

IF YOU ARE SPAMMING BOMBS, hit reset, you fool.

[PukeSter]

I've been playing Tatsujin recently on Normal Mode. I can get up to the 3rd Stage boss.

Looking at a longplay, the 4th and 5th stages seem a lot harder. Am I correct?

I have been able to beat level 1 and half of level 2 on one continue, but somethings can give me trouble.

[jtucci31]

I've been playing Tatsujin recently on Normal Mode. I can get up to the 3rd Stage boss.

Looking at a longplay, the 4th and 5th stages seem a lot harder. Am I correct?

I have been able to beat level 1 and half of level 2 on one continue, but somethings can give me trouble.

Farthest I've made it at all is around the exploding light bulb things. That i always forget about the first time. I spent a few weeks on and off on it. It kicks my ass, but always has me coming back for whatever reason. I think it's the tunes.

[PukeSter]

I've been playing Tatsujin recently on Normal Mode. I can get up to the 3rd Stage boss.

Looking at a longplay, the 4th and 5th stages seem a lot harder. Am I correct?

I have been able to beat level 1 and half of level 2 on one continue, but somethings can give me trouble.

Farthest I've made it at all is around the exploding light bulb things. That i always forget about the first time. I spent a few weeks on and off on it. It kicks my ass, but always has me coming back for whatever reason. I think it's the tunes.

Trick with the lightbulbs is not to shoot all of them, but only some of them. So if there are right and left columns, only pick one side at once.

I've briefly played the Genesis version, but it is much easier with very slow bullets and 6 continues instead of 4.

[jtucci31]

I've been playing Tatsujin recently on Normal Mode. I can get up to the 3rd Stage boss.

Looking at a longplay, the 4th and 5th stages seem a lot harder. Am I correct?

I have been able to beat level 1 and half of level 2 on one continue, but somethings can give me trouble.

Farthest I've made it at all is around the exploding light bulb things. That i always forget about the first time. I spent a few weeks on and off on it. It kicks my ass, but always has me coming back for whatever reason. I think it's the tunes.

Trick with the lightbulbs is not to shoot all of them, but only some of them. So if there are right and left columns, only pick one side at once.

I've briefly played the Genesis version, but it is much easier with very slow bullets and 6 continues instead of 4.

I typically do something to that extent where i shoot only a few. But it'll always catch me off guard and then I'll forget later as well, haha. I still really want to try the Genesis version.

[PukeSter]

I've been playing Tatsujin recently on Normal Mode. I can get up to the 3rd Stage boss.

Looking at a longplay, the 4th and 5th stages seem a lot harder. Am I correct?

I have been able to beat level 1 and half of level 2 on one continue, but somethings can give me trouble.

Farthest I've made it at all is around the exploding light bulb things. That i always forget about the first time. I spent a few weeks on and off on it. It kicks my ass, but always has me coming back for whatever reason. I think it's the tunes.

Trick with the lightbulbs is not to shoot all of them, but only some of them. So if there are right and left columns, only pick one side at once.

I've briefly played the Genesis version, but it is much easier with very slow bullets and 6 continues instead of 4.

I typically do something to that extent where i shoot only a few. But it'll always catch me off guard and then I'll forget later as well, haha. I still really want to try the Genesis version.

Yeah Genny version is good, but the colors are worse, and I hate the sound.

[nosorrow]

Robo Aleste and Space Megaforce, both of which are on the easy side.

I agree with your take on Blazing Lazers but you must be a shmup god as Robo Aleste is hard as hell - at least for me. I play the game on easy and it's still pretty hard: enemies take too long to kill/weapons are underpowered. I still love the game though (Compile).

[tggodfrey]

Magical Chase, Air Zonk and SAZ are easy.  I disagree with Moderate.