Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
1 
Report this post
While the parallels to Hinduism are pretty clear, if the savefile erasure was supposed to represent the loss of attachment required to reach Nirvana (and I know is supposed to be so), then the game has implemented it in the worst way possible.
If you want a game that does it right just look at Nier Automata.
In that game you TRADE your savefile for the good ending and be actually rewarded for getting rid of your attachment to it...
...In Zeroranger you instead GAMBLE your savefile for A CHANCE to end the game, and I don't know you but last time I checked, the Hinduism and Buddhism religions are not a casino.
I can see very well what they were trying to do, but as somebody else mentioned in another post: "This ain't the way to do it, chief"
Yeah how about no? I read something similar recently and the guy went off about how if a game is done correctly you shouldn't need to mod or backup save files. You aren't being stopped from adapting to circumstances beyond your control. By this logic backing up Save Files is only smart, that way people don't come online moaning about how it is unfair they lost their saved game files (Been There Done That, I have had this very thing happen in more than one game). Or in this case as part of the game play itself.
@Otakuwolf, could you explain please? Does Zero Rangers actually make the save file part of the game by asking you if you want to move forward you must Delete the save file first?
If so, have you thought of backing the files up so you can experiment with that a bit? I have found no matter the circumstances backing those files up is a good choice sometimes removing the need to lose progress or to simply start over should you want to - that way if something goes either wrong or right you can try it over again, check what happens if you press No instead etcetera. If so check your main drive (C) and go to Users then click on the middle option and check Saved Games - information and files for the Save States can sometimes be found here directly. I wouldn't delete these but copy them instead if the files you need are indexed in this location.
I like having options and it is surprising what backing up your save files can accomplish. Interesting idea about deleting your save if you fail the game. I like your review. Loads of good information. Thank you.
If you need an inherent reward to have to give up your attachment, then what is the point? You just trade in old attachments for new ones. While giving up attachments is required to reach enlightenment, I honestly think that the pain and shock you get after totally boning up that area for the first time is more meant to illustrate the suffering caused by attachment more than anything else. From then on it's sorta your decision about whether you think it's a good way to do it, but I think at the very least it's very powerful in conveying that message. Definitely made me think about a lot of stuff while mad.
IMO, it's less like gambling, and more like you're playing something rigged. Like playing a carnival game and expecting to win, knowing you'll lose. The game is very liberal in trying to tell you that its unwinnable and that everything you do is pointless. I will say though, even if I think it's very powerful in it's commitment to the theme- I do agree that there's a few parts in that area that could've really been more clear. It's pretty despair inducing to die because you don't realise that you're not in a cutscene, or because you don't know that the life system works entirely differently, not even really getting to the juicy bit.
Anyway, as far as that bit being a commentary on samsara, like, obviously being sent back to beginning of the game is analogous to rebirth. No matter what you do in the game, even if you ultimately win- the characters themselves are never able to escape the cycle so long as you keep playing. It could be argued that the only way to free the characters from the cycle is to simply stop playing the game when Erasure takes away your existence/self AKA your save file. However, playing through a second time after beating the whole thing and actually saving Earth at the end makes a case that if you want it: there is a point to existence that is more than just suffering, even if it's an endless cycle rife with a potential for great despair and suffering.
This is more of a philosophical question to us as players, than it is meant to be something with an absolute truth- and frankly it's perfectly valid if you don't wanna engage with the game in this way. But like, I will say it's is an undeniably effective tool as far delivering the intended response from players goes.
Here is a better question: if I'm not being rewarded for my efforts, then why should I bother to begin with ?
Do you really think hinduists put effort into relieving themselves from the sense of attachment just for being nice ? Or is there a purpouse in what they do ? And if the purpouse is turned into a chance and/or removed, then what is left of it's point in the end ?
Forgetting the "being nice because we are in a civilized society" and "Because being nice feels good" for a moment, Isn't that kinda the point of every religion ? Put effort into doing something" good" for a greater purpouse ?
But if said purpouse is just a game of "chance", then what is the point of it to begin with ? Why should I be nice if just MAYBE I get something good out of it ?
To me is like the equivalent of "Oh, you traded all and given up your attachment... good, now go F yourself !", and that's a HORRIBLE message to give.
Again, if that was the point of the savefile deletion, the game does a terrible job conveying it in such a manner.
You say "it's less like gambling, and more like you're playing something rigged. Like playing a carnival game and expecting to win, knowing you'll lose.", but to that I respond... isn't that kinda like entering a Casino ? Ever heard the phrase "the house always wins ?", or since you like philosophycal arguments, ever heard "the best way to win a small fortune at a Casino is start with a large fortune" ?
In your opinion might not be gambling, but from how you put it, to me it still sounds like a gamble, and there is a reason why religions are not based on "chances": because otherwise there would be no point following them... kinda like this game: if I only get a CHANCE, then why should I or anyone else bother other than "bragging rights" for beating a game with a terrible mechanic (which seems to be a common trend in modern days shooters) ?
And considering "even if you ultimately win- the characters themselves are never able to escape the cycle so long as you keep playing", the savefile erasure mechanic is still pointless because the characters STILL keep coming back as long as I play.
Even worse, the final boss is the pilot from the previous cycle, so the possibility of failure in erasing your savefile in such manner STILL gives a terrible message of "You can try to do the right thing but is more likely you will become a worse person with more problems".
I don't think I can change your mind on the matter, but from how I see it, no matter how those who defend it keep spinning it to me, there are better ways to implement such a mechanic and convey such a message, and this game does a terrible job at it, both on the tecnical and narrative aspect.
Yes, I actually did that the first time I finished the game, then later I replayed the first part again and finished "legit"... but I still think the game does a terrible job both at implementing such a mechanic and conveying it's philosophycal/narrative message.
Also, I backup the savefiles of ALL the games I play and finish ^^
To me, the only excuse for doing so drastic is to create that strong feeling. Even if the feeling is a super ♥♥♥♥♥♥ one, I can appreciate it the tool they used to demonstrate their point, and legitimately am unsure what else they could have done to try and make the game have its themes matter more than just as a pretty frame for shooting things.
It's subjective though, and there's honestly nothing wrong with wanting the game to be straightforward, and feeling like the artistic/philosophical angle was handled wrong if it didn't engage with you.
So, as far as the next stuff goes, it mostly only refers how the game made me feel, and what it made me think about for your consideration. It's not intended to be how you HAVE to see things, but I like that the game made me think about all this stuff, and I put a lot of value personally in things that make me feel strongly, and think hard. Even if it's a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ feeling.
I can tell you it's an artistic choice and how I interpret it, but I can't expect you to think it's a GOOD one, or even to be able to interpret it in the same way.
So to start off, I'm pretty sure ZeroRanger takes WAY more from Buddhist philosophy than Hindu philosophy. Like, looking at the iconography, while a lot of it is shared between the two due to Buddhism's origin as an offshoot from Hinduism, it more clearly uses symbols specifically from Buddhist icons. Like, you find Primeval Fighter sitting under a bodhi tree, literally the place under which Siddartha Gautama reached enlightenment.
With that out of the way, you might wonder what that matters, but one of the LARGEST differences between the two beliefs [or at least, most commonly held in Buddhism anyway] is that there is no soul, there is no self. Literally, existence of the idea of self being the ultimate cause of suffering is a belief held by many major groups. This is why the idea of doing nice things for the betterment of your own life goes against the path to enlightenment.
Historically, many people have sought good karma in order to be reborn as a 'deva', or in the plane of godly existence. It's better than living a life hurting people and ♥♥♥♥ to get instant gratification, but it's not a path to enlightenment because you do it to serve your 'self'. A 'self' that must be denied, if you want to reach enlightenment.
Nirvana and enlightenment are states of non existence, entirely removed from everything life entails. This includes ridding yourself of thinking things are owed to you, because there is no you. It means divesting yourself of caring about bragging rights, this includes leaving behind everything you find good about living life. None of it can hold any weight to you, if nirvana is the goal. Realistically, of course, you can't expect someone to eat a ♥♥♥♥ sandwich and be about as phased as they would if it were beef- but that would essentially be the very extreme end of the goal you have strive to with nirvana in mind.
Is that a good thing? I dunno. That's up to you, but that's what escaping from the endless cycle of rebirth means.
As far as samsara goes and whether the characters themselves being trapped in it is inherently awful... I do think there's a legitimate case to be made that staying in that endless cycle of death and rebirth isn't an inherently 'bad' thing, even if it's painful and endless.
Obviously this is a pretty big departure from the buddhist influence, but I think this section takes more from their other large influence: anime. TTGL especially, a story about life existing to its fullest potential, damn the consequences. That is a story where the ability to live to your fullest and to keep building to something bigger, even at the cost of everything, is heralded over asceticism and keeping yourself down in order to preserve it all.
So that's where I draw the idea that- if you find enjoyment in your existence enough to keep playing even after finishing the game, after the horrible pain, after having the start over from the beginning- and you still love playing the game? Then you've found yourself at peace with the endless cycle, joy in simply existing. Knowing that the ability to be determined, to accomplish something, and to have passion- as well as the ability to be horribly terribly disappointed and betrayed- it is what existing is worth.
These are all a bunch of thoughts this game made me have! I think that's really cool! But at the same time, I don't think my view is any more valid than someone who refunded the game because that last bit really cut them up, or who views the theming as just window dressing on top of a cool SHMUP, or because they simply disagree with the game's attitude toward the players by making them go through that. Those aren't bad things to do, or want, and to expect, and it's not like people thinking different is the end of the world.
I think I've pretty much explained my philosophy about it to it's fullest, and there's not really much more I can add on so this is probably the last I have to say about my interpretation. It's all frankly pretty esoteric, so I understand if it all sounds like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and nonsense, but this is somewhat better than throwing all my thoughts at a wall alone. :p
Actually this has helped me solidify some things I've felt and thought, and put them into actual words! So, overall, this has been a good experience for me, even if it's been through disagreement.
So I'll just leave you with this: I do legitimately enjoy how divisive this game is, because I totally CAN understand why people hate the mechanic at the end and think it isn't worth the message- even if I do like it! I like that people have all these different opinions and feelings about what went down, and different ways of handling it. Some people just quit, some people refunded, others kept their save games to start from 2-4 again, and others insisted on completing the game 'how it was meant to be played'. Even among the people who actually finished the game, there really isn't a consensus, and to me, none of those reactions is the 'wrong' one.
Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate you took your time to put your thoughts on the matter, and I admittedly went a bit defensive.
Tbh I also thought the same things WAY BEFORE to reach the end of the game, to a point where I actually had the thought that "not getting any powerup at all would have given me a different result entirely" as a symbolization of relief from the sense of self, which wasn't the case...
...but again supporting my case in which the progress erasure mechanic is badly implemented, this could have been a much better way to get the "good ending". You reach the end with your powerups ? You lose. But if you free yourself from the sense of self and empowerment refusing to pickup anything, then you reach the good ending.
Yes, erasing the player savefile gives a strong response, and I might be overdoing it, but so it does also smashing someone's car, and all it leaves with one question: Is it worth ? To me, not really, because as I said, there are better ways to do it, and to me it should have been either more consistent or not been there at all.
Failing the final segment of the game and replaying the first intro after that without a gameover screen would already "hit" the smart ones to realize Green Orange/Great Oppressor is actually the pilot from the previous cycle, and that already conveys enough sorrow.
This whole matter kinda reminds me of the "dead dog principle" used in narrative, make something cute, have the spectator liking it, and then kill it to have an emotive response... and here is the problem with it: The "dog" is not there to be an actual part of the story, seems like it, but all is there for is emotive cannon fodder, and that's both a bad and lazy way for conveying emotions, to the point people joke about it and for good reason.
The savefile erasure to me feels kinda like that, except at least is "original" on itself, but if the sole purpouse was to convey a strong emotion on the player, then is ultimately as useful as a cork filling a hole on a boat, it doesen't complete it, only fills a hole until it pops out.
Now this is goin on and on, and I understand what you mean, but I still stand for the fact that imo the matter hasn't been handled well and didn't deliver the message as it should, moreso when it already had the elements to "do it better" at hand.
Also, even having achievements for the 1cc and for beating each boss/stage without taking damage is actually very nice for games like this because the completion percentage on steam gives you a rough idea how hard the game is compared to other shmups you have played. Also, if you know that beating all of the bosses except for the final boss without taking damage is more common than getting the 2-all, then you know it is probably better to shoot for those goals first in preparation of the full clear, but that maybe you should save the no damage run of the final boss until after you get your 2-all for example.
Sorry but... maybe is just me but it sounds more as if you are looking for bragging rights more than actual achievements, at least from the way you wrote your comment ^^;
You never said anything about "not comparing yourself to others", instead you talked about comparison in a way that does suggest you wanting to compare yourself to others with clearances and all, which is something people do if they want, indeed, bragging rights, hence why I said that... Still, english is not my main language so I might been confused.
I'm an old coot and I'm into shooters since I was a child (even if I tend to avoid the Danmaku category) and even without achievements I can tell you there aren't many people into 1cc runs at all anyway, even with games that "supposely" are relatively "easy" to clear in such a way.
Usually it is the super hardcores to be the ones going for the superplay, which, again, there aren't many (if not at all).
Not only that, but the general achievements percentage in games makes me wonder if people even know they exist sometime, so they are not too reliable as a source of data anyway.
From what I see in these times, shooters have two kind of audiences: the old schoolers / retro gamers playing like in the 80's-90's (buy and play the game casually until you clear it or you get tired of it), and the hardcores who play the game until they never take damage or control two players at once.
Usually the latter stay clear from more "casual" shooters like ZeroRanger (although I did see somebody played the game controlling both player ships) and instead gravitate thorward games that can give people headaches to most of the people with the screenshots alone (Mushihimesama anyone ?).
Still, general suggestion if you don't want to run into hardcore shooters is: check gameplay trailers and longplays on YT, those always give you an idea on what to expect from the games.
If you want some more specific advice, I can give you a few other titles here (at least about the games I personally played on steam and gog)...
Some games you could try out:
R-Type
Stardust Galaxy Warriors
Super Galaxy Squadron
Galacide
Ether Vapor
Astebreed
Satazius
Some games you should avoid:
Mushihimesama Futari
Touhou
Ikaruga
Enemy mind
Crimzon Clover
Jamestown
Monolith
I wouldn't recommend people against playing those two if they're new or lousy at shmups, I'd say I'm part of the latter. Crimzon Clover has rather tame beginner modes + adaptive difficulty, and it costs peanuts on sale. It's the most inexpensive sensory overload simulator money can buy. Monolith gives a good amount of leeway in initial levels and RNG can help even further, or not, but that's where a big part of the replayability comes in.
I think you can get a decent mileage out of both casually, and playing either might help people prepare for or even get into the danmaku madness that ensues when you delve into them. That's just my hot take though.