3D Shmups- Will they be accepted as 'true' shmups in 2009?

[Pulsewidth]

All the action in Wolfenstein 3D takes place in a single plane. Is it a "shmup"? How about if you modify it for an over-the-shoulder 3rd person perspective?

IMO a "shmup" has:
1. All action on a single plane or tube.
2. Player movement relative to the screen, not rotational.
3. Player has no control over position of stationary obstacles except for simple panning along the axises of the play surface.
4. There is no gravity or other forced movement of the player beyond limited temporary special effects.


Shmups:
Space Invaders
Viewpoint
In The Hunt
Tempest
Defender
Robotron
Bangai-O

Not Shmups:
Asteroids
Space War
Space Harrier
Zaxxon
Iridion 3D
Wolfenstein 3D
Metal Slug
Turrican

[The Coop]

All the action in Tempest and Gyruss takes place on a single plane - if you take a paper sheet and fold it in a cylinder shape you basically have done the perspective transition from Galaga to Gyruss.

You've also created two end planes, and thus a tunnel for things to travel through from one plane to another. While I do see what you're describing, and it doesn't strike me as outlandish or anything, I personally don't feel that the Y-axis ceases to be a factor in the space you're ship is moving in on the closest plane. Even though you're locked into moving in a circle (or whatever odd shapes Tempest likes to throw at you), you have X and Y values at both ends of that tunnel. By this I mean your position needs both an X and Y variable to calculate exactly where you are on that plane. And because of that, you have the Z-axis being where a lot of action takes place.

I think it's safe to say this isn't something we're going to see eye to eye on. I do understand where you're coming from with your explanation, and to a point, a agree with it. But when the two ends of the X-axis touch, I feel something new is created that the X and Y-axis can't account for on their own.

Space Harrier's gameplace is indeed a solid. I would need a solid space, like an empty shoebox, to simulate it. In fact, that's a neat idea and I'll probably do that in a matter of hours.

I did that once when I was a kid with Asteroids. I took a shoebox and hung little cardboard cutouts of the asteroids and ship from the inside of the lid with thread. A few extra holes to let in some light, and presto... Asteroids in a box

[Pulsewidth]

But when the two ends of the X-axis touch, I feel something new is created that the X and Y-axis can't account for on their own.

In Subterranean Animism, when playing as Reimu/Yukari you can wrap around the sides, making the playing area a tube. The only difference is a tube makes streaming cutbacks unnecessary.

[The Coop]

But when the two ends of the X-axis touch, I feel something new is created that the X and Y-axis can't account for on their own.

In Subterranean Animism, when playing as Reimu/Yukari you can wrap around the sides, making the playing area a tube. The only difference is a tube makes streaming cutbacks unnecessary.

That would fall under the Defender type of "tube", where you just loop over and over again (though suddenly appearing on the other side of the screen like some games do wrecks the visual flow of the concept). That part of Turrican's explanation I can agree with. But with games like Gyruss and Tempest, I feel you're on one plane that you can't leave, the enemies are on another plane that they can leave, and you're connected by space (Z-axis). That's where I find Turrican's explanation to not mesh with me as much.



By the way Turrican, I realized right after I posted last time why your explanation made perfect sense up to a point for me. In Tempest, not all the levels are connected at both ends of the X-axis. Some are flat, and for them, I can see your drawing working as an explanation. It's when the X-axis ends touch, and you get a circle, or a funky square, that I feel the Z-axis becomes a factor. The ones that are V-shaped and whatnot are strange, as they kind of work with both reasonings to me.


Edit: A little touch up.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

All the action in Wolfenstein 3D takes place in a single plane. Is it a "shmup"? How about if you modify it for an over-the-shoulder 3rd person perspective?

Xybots (Atari) immediately stands out as one game that is exactly like that, with the avatar shooting down a variety of robot type enemies, collecting items, and buying enhanced powerups.

[Herr Schatten]

Personally I would leave out anything That's not 100% shmup. Which would mean: If there's any doubt that a game might not be a shmup, then it's not.

This is pretty much how I feel about the matter. For example, I'd rather have all arena shooters out than using them as an excuse to get stuff like Outzone or Total Carnage in, because, indeed, the next logical step would be the inclusion of Gautlet and The Chaos Engine.

Generally, I'm not a big fan of the broadening of terms and definitions, because if you broaden them too much, they inevitably become meaningless.

[spadgy]

[ the next logical step would be the inclusion of Gautlet and The Chaos Engine.

Exactly - this is just a recipe for disaster.

Whatever definition of what isn't a shmup one of us comes up with, another of us will come up with a game that clearly is a shmup, despite conflicting the definition. Frankly we could argue forever and just complicate things, when really it's something you can't rationalise beyond a point. We can use our common sence to a point as in reality we all know the strict definition of a shmup even if we can't put it into words so it covers everything we know is a shmup. But then that approach to defining a shmup gets troublesome too, so generally narrow definitions is probably the best approach.

[Turrican]

This is pretty much how I feel about the matter. For example, I'd rather have all arena shooters out than using them as an excuse to get stuff like Outzone or Total Carnage in, because, indeed, the next logical step would be the inclusion of Gautlet and The Chaos Engine.

You sir are my hero, and I hope you'll be vocal about this next year.

Also, shamelessly plug to a similar post of mine: Granada it's in, I can't honestly tell it much apart from Gauntlet, keys or not keys.

@ Coop: sorry I had a busy sunday, but rest sure that the Shoebox Harrier is coming

I do see that, say, a circular web in Tempest does create two circular planes at both ends. But if both the player and the enemies make absolutely no use of these circles, (using instead only the circumference lines) can we really talk of "planes" from a gameplay point of view? Sounds more like an optical illusion to me.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

So after reading a bit more, let me indicate more specifically how I classify shoot-em-up games, which is probably different than some in the forums do.

If the primary action is shooting, then to me it is a shoot-em-up, since the word "shmup" is simply a shortening of the phrase shoot-em-up. But then I also specifically call out the subgenre as well.

I'll elaborate with some examples now:

Space Invaders, Galaga are clearly fixed shoot-em-ups in that the player ship is fixed along a line in the plane and can only move along that line.

Robotron, Smash TV, Alien Syndrome are arena shoot-em-ups. (The primary action is clearly shooting, even if in an arena.)

Games such as Contra, Ghosts N Goblins, Pyros, and I'll place Metal Slug there too, those are IMHO platform shoot-em-ups. There is a constant gameplay mechanic of shooting in addition to a constant gameplay mechanic of jumping.

Games such as Tempest and Gyruss are tube shoot-em-ups. The primary action is still shooting regardless of the geometric twists in the game. If anything, the player's weapon is simply along the outside of a tube arena while the enemies emerge from the middle, but I also don't think including those games as arena shooters would be appropriate.

Granada, Gauntlet, Xybots I'd consider those maze shoot-em-ups.

Asteroids, Sinistar, Time Pilot are omnidirectional shoot-em-ups. The lack of being able to scroll the screen in Asteroids does not, to me, disqualify it from being omnidirectional, but I wouldn't put Asteroids as an arena shooter because of being able to go from one side of the screen to the other side.

Twin Cobra, Strikers 1945, Varth are vertical shoot-em-ups.

Run and guns, that's sort of tricky, and games such as Commando, Heavy Barrel, Outzone, Front Line and even Total Carnage are some examples.

Zaxxon, Viewpoint, those are isometric shoot-em-ups. To me, the rotation of the X/Y plane and the Z-axis in Zaxxon does not change that the primary goal is shooting.

First person shooters, that's really the only tricky one since there are so many of them (Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Rise of the Triad, Unreal Tournament, Descent) that I suppose they should be left to their own genre for now. I think the one main difference is that in the first person shooter genre, one significant game mechanic is perspective control/camera control that does not really occur with shoot-em-up games played where the avatar is visible.

So my suggestion would be to consider the game mechanics in adding or disqualifying the game, to make sure the initial list is a fair list and not that Game A is included but Game B is not included due to some technicality even though the primary objective in both Game A and Game B is shooting.

[The Coop]

@ Coop: sorry I had a busy sunday, but rest sure that the Shoebox Harrier is coming

It better be

Hell, if I had a digital camera of some kind, I'd probably join you in the game box building and share the end result

I do see that, say, a circular web in Tempest does create two circular planes at both ends. But if both the player and the enemies make absolutely no use of these circles, (using instead only the circumference lines) can we really talk of "planes" from a gameplay point of view? Sounds more like an optical illusion to me.

If all you do is walk around the edge of a hole in the ground, does the rest of the plane around you cease to exist? I know that sounds like some bullshit "If a tree falls in the woods" mental masturbation question (and I don't mean for it to), but I think it applies here. I personally believe when talking about Tempest and its kin, the answer is, "No, it doesn't".

That entire plane may not be accessible, but I think it's still there.

[WarBovine]

If all you do is walk around the edge of a hole in the ground, does the rest of the plane around you cease to exist? I know that sounds like some bullshit "If a tree falls in the woods" mental masturbation question (and I don't mean for it to), but I think it applies here. I personally believe when talking about Tempest and its kin, the answer is, "No, it doesn't".

That entire plane may not be accessible, but I think it's still there.

Does it really apply? If you built a train around the edge of the hole, the plane around it still exists but the train is stuck with 1-d movement. In the same manner Tempest is mechanically still 2-d, just projected into a 3-d perspective.

If you don't see it from a mathmatical perspective, look at the controls. Movement in Tempest is done with a spinner (not that I've ever seen a Tempest cab) which gives you one dimensional movement. The in-and-out motion of firing, scrolling, and enemies attacking gives a second dimension. This is why you can do a coordinate transformation and have entire game represented in-plane on a piece of paper.

In Space Harrier, on the other hand, the scrolling is perpendicular to the controllable movement-plane, giving a full 3-d experience. As Turrican pointed out, it wouldn't be possible to draw the gameplay of Harrier on a piece of paper without loosing game information.

As a side note, I too want to see shoebox Harrier.

[The Coop]

If all you do is walk around the edge of a hole in the ground, does the rest of the plane around you cease to exist? I know that sounds like some bullshit "If a tree falls in the woods" mental masturbation question (and I don't mean for it to), but I think it applies here. I personally believe when talking about Tempest and its kin, the answer is, "No, it doesn't".

That entire plane may not be accessible, but I think it's still there.

Does it really apply? If you built a train around the edge of the hole, the plane around it still exists but the train is stuck with 1-d movement. In the same manner Tempest is mechanically still 2-d, just projected into a 3-d perspective.

If you don't see it from a mathmatical perspective, look at the controls. Movement in Tempest is done with a spinner (not that I've ever seen a Tempest cab) which gives you one dimensional movement. The in-and-out motion of firing, scrolling, and enemies attacking gives a second dimension. This is why you can do a coordinate transformation and have entire game represented in-plane on a piece of paper.

Yes, I feel it does apply. If you're stuck in a circle, or on a U, or in a stepped square, it's going to be pretty tough to measure where you are in the shape without both an X and a Y coordinate. If you only use one or the other, you get a long line that the one point can rest on somewhere. You need the other to clarify where you are, and when you're already using the X and Y axis to define where you are on that plane, it's the Z-axis that defines where the incoming enemies and bullets are in the hole below (above?) you that goes from your plane to the other one.

It may be a fixed path, but that fixed path has coordinates to define it. And while I know there are all sorts of mathematical ways to define a point's location, I just don't think it's as complicated as all that. I see it as an X/Y/Z setup.


...

I have a feeling some people are looking at Turrican and I like were arguing whether the glass is half empty, or half full

[Shatterhand]

I just wanna say that I also always found damn weird to not call Zaxxon a shmup. But I could see the logic behind it.

I never saw Space Harrier or Afterburner or Zoom 909 or Galaxy Force II as true shmups since... I don't feel their gameplay is at all related to the rest of the genre.

And if you go anal about it, if you put the Zaxxon's camera behind the ship, you'll get something like Space Harrier.

(Weird, all the games I mentioned are from Sega!)

Here's where I start not seeing eye to eye with this site. Who said it should only be on the X/Y axis? What official rule was passed that decides bullets and ship movement can only exist on two of the three planes? I don't ask this with frustration or anger, but with puzzlement.

I dunno, but I personally feel I am playing something different when you get more than 2 axis. I feel like shooting and dodging bullets in a way when I play Viewpoint, and it's a completely different thing when I play Afterburner or even Zaxxon. (I am not even get into the Star Fox territory). I do feel the gameplay is different enough to make them a different genre.

But I do see how someone can put them all on the same genre. The fact is that I always enjoyed the shmup genre for the DODGING BULLET action, and not exactly because I wanted to shoot stuff. And shooting is what both "genres" (2d shmups and 3d shmups) have more alike, while the way to dodge bullets is very different. (Do I make sense? I feel like staying out of this forum for a few months made my engish skills a lot worse!)