Your definition of a shoot-em-up

[Turrican]

I find amazing how pointing out the method to the problem's solution has been dodged so far. Well not really, hilarious but not amazing.

I find utterly tasteless and pedantic when one has to show off all of his culture on the forums, redirecting others to read that author, that book, or that encyclopedia before being allowed to comprehend a debate. Incidentally, all your posts are like this.

[Randorama]

I find amazing how pointing out the method to the problem's solution has been dodged so far. Well not really, hilarious but not amazing.

I find utterly tasteless and pedantic when one has to show off all of his culture on the forums, redirecting others to read that author, that book, or that encyclopedia before being allowed to comprehend a debate. Incidentally, all your posts are like this.

Then again, you could do us a favour and read what I linked to, unless you fear to learn something new (damn culture, uh? I don't need to learn new things, I already know everything at once! So italian). If you would have read the links, you could have realized that I know exactly what the topic (the same old shit in ten years, I'd add) is about, and Formal Concept Analysis may be useful to put some order.

It's not really about showing off "culture", because anyone with a rather basic knoweldge of CS could see if the links I posted provide good tools to have a nice solution to the problem, instead of just making your usual attacks at personam. Alternatively the discussion could go on forever about the meaning of the universe, and get offensive and pointless posts like yours (as always).

If you can add something vaguely polite please do so, if not you are gently required not to answer, thanks. We know: "interpretation of the arts" is the last trick not to admit that one is wrong and cannot think straight. A little logic goes a long way. I teach it, I may know a thing or two. Since the forum lacks an ignore function and you can't be banned, would it be too much to mind your own business? The less I interact with Italians, the better.

[jpj]

...to be fair, i don't think ANYONE clicked your links. italian or otherwise.

[JoshF]

I love it how you sacrificed higher ground for a quick jab or two. Given your superior education, surely this can't be a mistake. It must be part of a grand plan I can't yet comprehend.

EDIT: I see, you're Italian. Do you teach your students to win arguments by putting prejudicial words in someone's mouth?

[Turrican]

Then again, you could do us a favour and read what I linked to, unless you fear to learn something new (damn culture, uh? I don't need to learn new things, I already know everything at once! So italian). If you would have read the links, you could have realized that I know exactly what the topic (the same old shit in ten years, I'd add) is about, and Formal Concept Analysis may be useful to put some order.

It's not really about showing off "culture", because anyone with a rather basic knoweldge of CS could see if the links I posted provide good tools to have a nice solution to the problem, instead of just making your usual attacks at personam. Alternatively the discussion could go on forever about the meaning of the universe, and get offensive and pointless posts like yours (as always).

If you can add something vaguely polite please do so, if not you are gently required not to answer, thanks. We know: "interpretation of the arts" is the last trick not to admit that one is wrong and cannot think straight. A little logic goes a long way. I teach it, I may know a thing or two. Since the forum lacks an ignore function and you can't be banned, would it be too much to mind your own business? The less I interact with Italians, the better.

Okay, I don't know if you'll find any politeness in it, but here's my reply.

You teach logic? Cool. You've been 10 years around here reading always the same old shit, and yet you didn't move an inch to settle things a bit. Logically, it would be easier for you to apply some of that concept analysis than for the rest of us... And this is not because we're stupid we just, you know, studied different courses. For being a logic teacher, you somehow seem to lack the basics: do you really think you can go on an internet forum and link to some documents and expect that everyone else is at your level?

You say I mock ad personam. This is true. I mean, at least I pick my targets, instead of getting in the middle of a thread saying "hilarious that no one has bowed to my superior solution". I may be offensive to you; you are to everyone else.

Now, let's quit this already - I have nothing against you. You studied this crap to some degree and managed to get a job out of it? Awesome. You think it can help to write down a good shmup definition? Perfect, take a week, read your own links again if you need and think over it. And then simply post the results of your research. It will be appreciated.

If you just want to be an asshole with comments like "hilarious, then not amazing at all", remember that no PhD can defend you online.

[system11]

Nobody can write a definition, it has been said before. Any that someone does come up with will be immediately contradicted with real examples and shot full of holes. This is why I've long thought it's best to just make judgement calls by 'feel'.

[Ceph]

Well, the kind of shmups we like here are basically 2D-gameplay auto-scroll shooters. So let's rename the forum to 2D-ASS and there'll be no more misunderstanding

[BulletMagnet]

Well, the kind of shmups we like here are basically 2D-gameplay auto-scroll shooters. So let's rename the forum to 2D-ASS and there'll be no more misunderstanding

To the glossary, posthaste!

[JoshF]

Meets the 5-digit requirement, let's do this thang.

[God]

Secondly, I think everyone is pretty well in agreement here (except for a very small minority) that if the game involves gravity, it isn't a shmup. That includes Bangai-O.

Depends on how we choose to word it.

- "No gravity" excludes bangai-o.

- "No jumping" includes it.

- "Can reach any point" includes it but I think this is a bad way to put it because it doesn't exclude run 'n gun games where you can jump all the way to the top.

The base assumption here (and the one I assume to be true) is that Ikaruga is closer to Xevious (or even proto-shmups like Space Invaders) than to Contra.

Comparing Space Invaders to Ikaruga, the main similarity I see is single direction shooting and similarities that come from that: enemies coming mostly from that one direction and your avatar generally staying on the opposite side of the screen.

This is why I think it's an important criterion and it effects scrolling too. Single direction shooting games seem to be either fixed or auto scroll. More shooting directions open up more scrolling possibilities and that's why I think scrolling isn't an important criterion for the "arena" or topdown Run 'N Gun or whatever we're calling it category.

The Arena category needs a little polish too. The glossary definition has so many qualifiers the only firm point is "confined area". The word arena suggests a confined area...but that's not how it's used in practice.

I Should compile a proper concept hierarchy of this and see what seems to cause so many headaches.

Go for it.

Nobody can write a definition

Plasmo and Turrican both came up with good ones.

[JoshF]

If you must go along with "no gravity", you're going to have to expand upon it. The bombs in Gradius must reach the ground somehow.

[Icarus]

If you must go along with "no gravity", you're going to have to expand upon it. The bombs in Gradius must reach the ground somehow.

How about "gravity restricting movement of the player avatar"?

No one mentioned anything about weapons. This is about the way a player's avatar is controlled and the restrictions that gravitational forces have on that control. If you haven't already noticed, traditional shmups have no gravity in effect against the player (read: flying, for the mentally impared), while Slug and Contra forces the player via gravity to be locked against a fixed path, the "ground". Even with jet-pack style additions, you're still forced via gravity to run along set paths.

Add to that the need for an extra button to control your player (in run-and-guns), and we have a primary and defining characteristic that seperates both classes of games.

Christ. Thought that would have been blatantly obvious.

[JoshF]

Interesting response. I decided to go along with this beast, and asking for a little nuance seemed reasonable. What is "blatantly obvious" to you might not be to something unfamiliar with "shmups" (i.e. someone who would bother to look at an encyclopedia.) Makes me wonder if people are genuinely interested in creating an educational tool or just the masturbatory satisfaction of being part of an elite cabal who gets to play ruler over the community.

[Turrican]

Then again, the whole "gravity" thing needs to be seen case for case. Usually, gravity does exclude a game from shmups, because it adds an unwanted complexity to the control system.
However, j^aws mentioned Datastorm, and I could very well add Project X... Two games which are undoubtedly* shmups and yet implement a certain inertia.

That's why I divided my criteria in two blocks... The first four points are mandatory, the following ones must be evaluated: they "add" or "subtract" points to the overall "shmuppiness" of a game.

Personally, I think the "gravity" category is vague, and it's real meaning is to exclude avatars who "jump" from platform to platform. Thus, in the end what separes a gravity-bound run 'n gun from a shump with inertia is the fact that the emphasis of the first is always to deal with scenery - jumping platforms and the likes - while the second focus on shooting and dodging.

As Icarus says, weapons are not a concern to us.

*

I've seen no "gravity" mentioned a few times... Bangai-0 and Datastrom have gravity and they are still Arena shmups...

Gravity is a control mechanic... it's a force that acts on your ship. It's a force in Asteroids and Defender when you use 'thrust'... Even flying under a waterfall, the water acts on your ship as a force a la R-type 2; or the force of gravity from the 'black hole' acting on your ship in Space Wars... They might not be to everyones 'tastes' though... I personally like the challenges they present...

Datastorm, like Defender, isn't an arena shmups. And About Space War (and Asteroids)... More than thrust, inertia or gravity, what disqualifies them in my eyes is the clockwise/counterclockwise control style.

Bangai-O is an at-no-time-anywhere-shmup. Gravity as a constant force effecting your control directly (and not superficially, like Elemental Master or something) is in instant disqualification for me.

We all might concur with this, or not. I'm pretty torn about it, I didn't put gravity along with mandatory criteria. I'm open to debate though.

[Asherdude]

Nobody can write a definition, it has been said before. Any that someone does come up with will be immediately contradicted with real examples and shot full of holes. This is why I've long thought it's best to just make judgement calls by 'feel'.

I think that "feel" would be the best determining factor for what is or isn't a shmup. And everyone will have their own view of what feels like a shmup and what doesn't. Like I've said, Metal Slug feels like a shmup to me, but Mega Man does not. And Asteroids feels like a shmup to me, but Space War does not.

[God]

How do I change my shot direction in R-Type? How do I stop scrolling? How I do stop enemies to come?

The games surely have some similarities, but their GAMEPLAY PROPERTIES certainly are different enough. The games play in a very different way. In gameing, I think that gameplay is what matter.

In R-Type, to change the shot direction, you move the pod to the back of the ship. In Bio-Hazard Battle, you can swing the pod all the way around the ship at any time.

Gray area games like Silvergun, R-Type and Image Fight aren't really gray area because you still have a main forward gun locked in the direction you're auto-scrolling. Also no turning. So, there's no danger of confusing them with overhead run 'n gun.

[roker]

anything that gainjinpunch approves of is a shmup

[HardcoreOtaku]

Your definition of a shoot-em-up

a beat-em-up

[doctorx0079]

Resurrecting this thread because I feel that I have finally arrived at my answer in a flash of insight.

I consider a shmup or shoot-em-up to be : a type of shooting game where you control two dimensions or less, you don't have to jump and you don't use a light gun.

This would include rail shooters like Starblade as shmups, and old games like Carnival where you hardly have to dodge, and exclude run-and-guns like Contra and Ghosts 'n' Goblins. Asteroids, Centipede, Defender and Space Invaders are in. Missile Command also counts but I'm okay with that. Commando, Mercs and Gun.Smoke are in, but Bionic Commando and Turrican are right out. And that feels about right to me.

[Zebra Airforce]

I've seen no "gravity" mentioned a few times... Bangai-0 and Datastrom have gravity and they are still Arena shmups...

Gravity is a control mechanic... it's a force that acts on your ship. It's a force in Asteroids and Defender when you use 'thrust'... Even flying under a waterfall, the water acts on your ship as a force a la R-type 2; or the force of gravity from the 'black hole' acting on your ship in Space Wars... They might not be to everyones 'tastes' though... I personally like the challenges they present...

Actually the force in Asteroids would be inertia.

Then again, you could do us a favour and read what I linked to, unless you fear to learn something new (damn culture, uh? I don't need to learn new things, I already know everything at once! So italian).

A master of logic, indeed.

Nobody can write a definition, it has been said before. Any that someone does come up with will be immediately contradicted with real examples and shot full of holes. This is why I've long thought it's best to just make judgement calls by 'feel'.

Exactly. It's pointless to even try to quantify what makes the games what they are, because no one will ever agree. For instance, I utterly disagree with doctorx0079 that rail shooters should be allowed.

anything that gainjinpunch approves of is a shmup

Nevermind. Just let GP make the call. Then no one can argue about it.

[doctorx0079]

It's pointless to even try to quantify what makes the games what they are, because no one will ever agree. For instance, I utterly disagree with doctorx0079 that rail shooters should be allowed.

Move your cursor around freely in 2D and shoot things. Feels like a shmup to me. But hey, whatever floats your boat. BTW I also consider Tailgunner, Red Baron and Star Wars to be shmups. Sea Wolf might be but I don't know enough about it to say for sure. On the other hand, games with 3D controls are not shmups, even simple ones like Wing Commander I.

[Twiddle]

pres butan

[God]

I consider a shmup or shoot-em-up to be : a type of shooting game where you control two dimensions or less, you don't have to jump and you don't use a light gun.

But a lightgun is just different method of input. Using it in a definition would lead to absurd situations where a game changes categories by switching controllers. For example Bayou Billy has an auto-scrolling gallery shooter level that can be played either with a lightgun or by moving a crosshair with the standard controller. Also I think some NES emulators let you play lightgun games with the mouse. Missile Command wouldn't be changed all that much if it was a lightgun game, quake too. (and that'd be fucking fun now that I think about it. Anyone know if its possible to play quake or another proper FPS with a lightgun? I guess there's probably something on the wii.)

Lightgun and crosshair games are probably too similar to split up cleanly, IMO.

Nobody can write a definition, it has been said before. Any that someone does come up with will be immediately contradicted with real examples and shot full of holes. This is why I've long thought it's best to just make judgement calls by 'feel'.

Going by feel is just making your subconscious do the work of coming up with the definition. The problem with this is you're completely unable to express it, the meme is stuck in one head only and can't reproduce. Someone who does this feels its more successful because it can't be criticized, so he's unaware of its flaws.

If you put a little thought into it you should be able to describe in words what causes the feeling.

[j^aws]

...Actually the force in Asteroids would be inertia.

The "force" in asteroids that acts on your ship, comes from your 'thrusters' using the 'thrust' button; which is the "control mechanic"... "Inertia" is a reluctance to change in motion...

BTW, not sure who you're quoting after the first 'named' quote block above; the 'nameless' quotes aren't from me...

[doctorx0079]

I consider a shmup or shoot-em-up to be : a type of shooting game where you control two dimensions or less, you don't have to jump and you don't use a light gun.

But a lightgun is just different method of input. Using it in a definition would lead to absurd situations where a game changes categories by switching controllers. For example Bayou Billy has an auto-scrolling gallery shooter level that can be played either with a lightgun or by moving a crosshair with the standard controller. Also I think some NES emulators let you play lightgun games with the mouse. Missile Command wouldn't be changed all that much if it was a lightgun game, quake too. (and that'd be fucking fun now that I think about it. Anyone know if its possible to play quake or another proper FPS with a lightgun? I guess there's probably something on the wii.)

Lightgun and crosshair games are probably too similar to split up cleanly, IMO.

It doesn't feel like a shump to me when I have to hold a gun. The gun is in the way. I don't have a problem with a Star Wars-style yoke because it isn't blocking the screen.

[Arvandor]

I think the big problem is that you're all trying to define a term that is generally very broad. Some people are trying to use the term shoot-em-up to describe what is truly just a subgenre; the 2d auto-scrollers.


In Metal Slug you shoot stuff up.... it's a shoot 'em up. Heck, you could make arguments for FPS games being shooters (though I always loathe the connection for some ... probably elitist... reason). What we need to do, is focus on defining the sub-genres.

[Zebra Airforce]

...Actually the force in Asteroids would be inertia.

The "force" in asteroids that acts on your ship, comes from your 'thrusters' using the 'thrust' button; which is the "control mechanic"... "Inertia" is a reluctance to change in motion...

I assumed you were speaking of the fact that your ship continues to move after using the thrust, forcing you to use the thrust again to alter your course. Either way it's not gravity =/

BTW, not sure who you're quoting after the first 'named' quote block above; the 'nameless' quotes aren't from me...

Want me to fix it? I don't want everyone to think you're a douchebag

[j^aws]

...Actually the force in Asteroids would be inertia.

The "force" in asteroids that acts on your ship, comes from your 'thrusters' using the 'thrust' button; which is the "control mechanic"... "Inertia" is a reluctance to change in motion...

BTW, not sure who you're quoting after the first 'named' quote block above; the 'nameless' quotes aren't from me...

I assumed the author of that comment was speaking of the fact that your ship continues to move after using the thrust, forcing you to use the thrust again to alter your course. Either way it's not gravity =/

Which "author" are you referring to; me?

The original context was that "gravity" is a force; like "thrust" is a force that acts on your ship/ avatar. E.g. Bangai-O has both gravity and thrust; Asteroids has only thrust etc... both thrust and gravity are forces.

[Zebra Airforce]

I assumed the author of that comment was speaking of the fact that your ship continues to move after using the thrust, forcing you to use the thrust again to alter your course. Either way it's not gravity =/

Which "author" are you referring to; me?

I thought I fixed that before I posted!

The original context was that "gravity" is a force; like "thrust" is a force that acts on your ship/ avatar. E.g. Bangai-O has both gravity and thrust; Asteroids has only thrust etc... both thrust and gravity are forces.

I see what you're saying. I just wanted to make that clear

EDIT: Weird. Might have something to do with my ninja edit.

[doctorx0079]

I think the big problem is that you're all trying to define a term that is generally very broad. Some people are trying to use the term shoot-em-up to describe what is truly just a subgenre; the 2d auto-scrollers.


In Metal Slug you shoot stuff up.... it's a shoot 'em up. Heck, you could make arguments for FPS games being shooters (though I always loathe the connection for some ... probably elitist... reason). What we need to do, is focus on defining the sub-genres.

Naah, Metal Slug is a shooting game but it's a run-and-gun, not a shmup. You have to worry about where you are jumping. If it were like Forgotten Worlds then it would be a shmup.