(Topic ID: 313623)

earthshaker vs high speed

By pinballboy

2 years ago

Topic Heartbeat

Topic Stats


Linked Games

Topic poll

“earthshaker vs high speed”

  • high speed 13 votes
  • earthshaker 19 votes

(32 votes)

#1 2 years ago

which is better?

#2 2 years ago

Apples & Orangutans.

#3 2 years ago

Have you watched any gameplay videos? I really like Bowen Kerins tutorials, and he's made one for both of those games. I think you would be better off watching them and deciding which one appeals to you more, than depending on a poll.

Earth Shaker:

High Speed:

#4 2 years ago

I love both but earthshaker wins out

#5 2 years ago

Tacos or burritos?

#6 2 years ago
Quoted from Dr_Gonzo:

Tacos or burritos?


#7 2 years ago

High speed or earthshaker? Which one do you like best? It doesn't matter what anyone else likes, only you

#8 2 years ago

High Speed wins due to weaker rules on Earthshaker. It becomes a shoot the center ramp fest. I’ve owned an Earthshaker and I sold it within 3 months. This was a surprise to me since I have a Whirlwind and really thought having both disaster pins would be cool for my collection.

High Speed for me but if you are buying a system 11 why not get the best system 11 and buy a Whirlwind? That games is FANTASTIC.

#9 2 years ago

I took both in on trade deals where I could only keep them about a month, and I would say High Speed hands down. However, seeing as you already have a High Speed in your collection, I would encourage you to trade for the Earthshaker as it is always fun to have something different.

High Speed is better because:

If it is even a question as to which one is betterr and the games are this far apart in value, go with the cheaper game. There is about a 30% difference in price between the two games right now.

Ritchie and Lawlor are two of my favorite designers. Lawlor tends to be a bit more stop and go, and it shows in this Earthshaker. There is neat mechanical stuff going on in both games, but I think the ball lock sequence in High Speed gets the edge.

As to the art, Earthshaker is too cartoony for me and I much prefer the look of the playfield and backglass on High Speed. Also note that the backglass in High Speed is mirrored and includes a rear view mirror you can see yourself in if you are on the shorter side.

The gameplay in both games is among he easiest to explain in any game and both are huge pluses, but edge goes to High Speed on this one.

High Speed is more fault tolerant than Earthshaker. I played an Earthshaker at a show with a broken number target rendering it impbossible to complete the grid. You can spot targets on High Speed and it is possible to get multiball without hitting the ramp.

High Speed has 3 Spinners!

High Speed has a free topper!

The playfield angles on High Speed are a bit easier to hit, and the gameplay is just a bit smoother.

Both games have good "moments" with their multiball start, but without the sinking building High Speed gets the edge with its excellent speech and flasher animation.

Look at the images of Earthshaker and High Speed pinball machines in the pinside archives. Which title has more blown out playfields. These machines are from the same era, yet High Speeds show more wear and tear than a (insert inappropriate comment here). Few Earthshakers are as blown out. Players have picked High Speed for decades now.

They made a ton more high speeds than Earthshaker. High Speed is on my short list of great bang for the buck pins and I solidly recommend it to advanced players and beginner players alike.

High Speed for the win.

#10 2 years ago

ihave already played both and prefer high speed,i just wanted to know everyones opinion.


Wanna join the discussion? Please sign in to reply to this topic.

Hey there! Welcome to Pinside!

Donate to Pinside

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run without any 3rd-party banners or ads, thanks to the support from our visitors? Please consider a donation to Pinside and get anext to your username to show for it! Or better yet, subscribe to Pinside+!

This page was printed from and we tried optimising it for printing. Some page elements may have been deliberately hidden.

Scan the QR code on the left to jump to the URL this document was printed from.