Shmups and Fighters

[CKR]

I've become interested in shmups and fighting games almost to the exclusion of everything else. I'm really interested in Mushihimesama Futari, Akai Katana, and Espgaluda II; as well as, the Skullgirls fighting game. I was wondering if anybody has experienced any overlap in the required skills and merit of playing well between the two genres, such as:

Execution Requirements (Combos vs. Intricate Dodging)
Nerve Control (Online Match Play vs. Getting New High Score)
Value of Watching Replays (Evo Tournament vs. WR Shmup Play)
Training (Practice Mode vs Training Room)
Dedication (Effort Level Required to Be a High Level Player)
Satisfaction (New High Score vs. Defeating a High Level Player)

These are a few things that I've heard from people who follow both genres. I'm just wanting to know what people think about these or any other overlaps that they found.

Are there any examples of top level players in both genres?

[KAI]

I would change (Combos vs. Intricate Dodging) to (Combos vs. Intricate Scoring Techniques)
IFAIK, one of the top players of ST holds the WR on Hyper Duel.

BTW, Under Night In-Birth confirmed for PS3. YAY!

[Doctor Butler]

There are almost no similarities between the two in regards to execution, but they require players to have a similar mentality, which is why it's unsurprising to see such overlap.

[DMC]

A bit of psychological guessing here:

I would speculate that fighter players need to keep track of only one threat (the other player), whereas stg players need to keep track of many simultaneous threats that vary in degree (such as close vs. distant enemies/bullets). Thus STG players constantly need to be able to exclude visual distractions from their awareness and focus on the relevant threats at the same time as preparing for upcoming ones. They need to be able to create order out of apparent chaos. This should load highly on working memory and require superior control of attention so I suspect good stg players would score highly on tests such as these: Eriksen Flanker Test, http://cognitivefun.net/test/6, N-back (2-back, 3-back, etc) http://cognitivefun.net/test/4 and another test called Task-switching which tests the ability to efficiently switch back and forth between two interferring tasks, such as http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... pogue&_r=0

Fighter players (I am not one, so I'm just guessing) have really no visual distractions to deal with, as far as I can tell. There is just one opponent on the screen (thus, I'm not so sure they would score particularly well on the Eriksen Flanker test). Instead, their challenge is to mentally read that opponent and anticipate every opponent move and instantly come up with an efficient reply. I dont know a particular test for that but it may be some kind of decision-making/reasoning/analytic ability as well as a really easy-accessible long term memory effect.

Well, this got me curious to see what fighters players exceed at.

[Squire Grooktook]

The difference is probably that fighter players enjoy the social aspect the genre brings, whereas shmup players are disaffected loners alienated from society and the rest of humanity.

On a more serious note:

I would change (Combos vs. Intricate Dodging) to (Combos vs. Intricate Scoring Techniques)

I think it depends on the type of dodging. Random reaction dodging is probably more akin to blocking an unexpected mix up, whereas executing a static route through a static pattern could be comparable to executing a combo.

[CKR]

A bit of psychological guessing here:

I would speculate that fighter players need to keep track of only one threat (the other player), whereas stg players need to keep track of many simultaneous threats that vary in degree (such as close vs. distant enemies/bullets). Thus STG players constantly need to be able to exclude visual distractions from their awareness and focus on the relevant threats at the same time as preparing for upcoming ones. They need to be able to create order out of apparent chaos. This should load highly on working memory and require superior control of attention so I suspect good stg players would score highly on tests such as these: Eriksen Flanker Test, http://cognitivefun.net/test/6, N-back (2-back, 3-back, etc) http://cognitivefun.net/test/4 and another test called Task-switching which tests the ability to efficiently switch back and forth between two interferring tasks, such as http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010 ... pogue&_r=0

Fighter players (I am not one, so I'm just guessing) have really no visual distractions to deal with, as far as I can tell. There is just one opponent on the screen (thus, I'm not so sure they would score particularly well on the Eriksen Flanker test). Instead, their challenge is to mentally read that opponent and anticipate every opponent move and instantly come up with an efficient reply. I dont know a particular test for that but it may be some kind of decision-making/reasoning/analytic ability as well as a really easy-accessible long term memory effect.

Well, this got me curious to see what fighters players exceed at.

Thanks for the cognitive test links. I will try them later tonight. As far as visual distractions, Skullgirls (the fighting game I'm interested in) has quite a bit of visual chaos. I've watched high level videos of both shmups and fighting games and they both can be difficult to discern what is going on. The More Than Mashing video series at Gatheryourparty.com has helped me to understand fighting game high level play, while STG Weekly has helped for shmups.

[Squire Grooktook]

As far as visual distractions, Skullgirls (the fighting game I'm interested in) has quite a bit of visual chaos.

Skullgirls Hit me up on Steam if you ever looking for someone to play it with.

But yeah, that game and its predecessor (mvc2) do have quite a bit of visual chaos.

I'd also note that I personally feel that a lot of people underestimate the role of reflexes and sight reading in fighting games. While it's true that reading the opponents mind is the most important factor, it is very necessary imo to have good reactions and sight reading skills in order to keep up with the complex footsies/spacing games.

[mastermx]

I second the reflexes in fighting games. One of the most basic aspects of fighting games such as consistently anti airing, means you gotta have good reflexes. Add the fact that hitting combos is not merely memory, but you have to always hitconfirm, and depending on spacing adjust the combo to reach your opponents hit box. There's just so much depth to fighting games it's insane. The people who make it to top 8 consistently at evo are not getting there by luck.

There are many similarities when it comes to fighting games and shmups, but the main thing is mentality, and the fact that they are both skill based. They are the only games I really enjoy, because they truly test skill. Their replaybility is unparallelled, as I can spend hundreds of hours on either and always have fun.

EDIT: though I do every now and again enjoy the chilled out narrative based game. I blame playing monkey island as a kid for that.

[Zaarock]

There are almost no similarities between the two in regards to execution, but they require players to have a similar mentality, which is why it's unsurprising to see such overlap.

These aren't pure fighting games, but in the Virtual-On and Senko no Ronde series having to dodge intricate projectile patterns has a lot of overlap with shmups, including execution. You still have a lot tricky inputs to do attack combinations in addition to the dodging. Sort of obvious for Senko since it's basically a pvp shmup, but high level play in virtual-on becomes very similar.

As an active player of Virtual-On OT I always notice my dodging and pattern recognition skills improve after having played shmups, not the other way around though. One of the characters in the game can create some very danmaku-like patterns using 'puppet' drones set around the map, etc. Unsurprisingly that's my favorite matchup in the game :p

[Obiwanshinobi]

From my philistine point of view, likening shmups to 1vs1 fighters doesn't make any more sense than likening the latter to chess.
One game that wasn't a shmup but I felt it required similar skills would be Kuru Kuru Kururin. Structured more like a racer (time-attacking), but effectively the movement controls like in Cave shmups, except there are 3 levels of speed rather than 2.

[DMC]

Yeah, no surprise though given the number of stg programmers involved in triple-K, including Toaplan programmer Yuge, who came up with the concept, and Raizing programmers Toyama and Watanabe.

[chempop]

shmup players are disaffected loners alienated from society and the rest of humanity.

Sigworthy!

[Squire Grooktook]

doesn't make any more sense than likening the latter to chess.

But many high level fighting game players have actually done that. "Fighters are games of strategy and planning, like Chess, but with the addition of manual execution." - Mike Z

Also Seth Killian is constantly comparing them to poker, and David Sirlin has wrote a number of articles comparing the strategy in fighters to other genres.

I'd say the addition of strategy is the main different between stg's and fighters. One could attempt to liken pattern memorization and puzzle solving in shmups as akin to strategy, but really reading a dynamic human opponent is an entirely different ball game.

[Obiwanshinobi]

doesn't make any more sense than likening the latter to chess.

But many high level fighting game players have actually done that. "Fighters are games of strategy and planning, like Chess, but with the addition of manual execution." - Mike Z

The question is, how many high level chess players would agree.
I don't really have much of an opinion on the subject. It's just that in those fighters I sometimes win seemingly by luck, which doesn't seem to ever happen with shmups.

[Squire Grooktook]

doesn't make any more sense than likening the latter to chess.

But many high level fighting game players have actually done that. "Fighters are games of strategy and planning, like Chess, but with the addition of manual execution." - Mike Z

The question is, how many high level chess players would agree.
I don't really have much of an opinion on the subject. It's just that in those fighters I sometimes win seemingly by luck, which doesn't seem to ever happen with shmups.

I don't know, but I do think the premise is sound that they (along with other games, electronic or board based, and genres) are united by the fundamental concept of predicting an opponents actions (rock paper scissors etc.). They are definitely different kinds of games, but the strategic quality is still there in some form IMO. It's not the same but I'd say it's comparable on at least a few fundamental or conceptual levels.

Also luck dodging happens in shmups all the time

[Moniker]

The only thing really binding these two genres is that *skill* is the main success determinant.

I had a similar thought w/r/t roguelikes and shmups, but despite superficial similarities, they're very different animals. Even if they all appeal to the same subset of gamers.

[opt2not]

Pattern recognition.
Many fighting game players tend to have pattern habits that can be either figured out, or sometimes they just use it as a set-up to lure you into false senses of opportunity.

Either way, I believe recognizing fighting style patterns is akin to recognizing enemy/bullet patterns in shmups.

[mastermx]

I think all arcade style games are similar. Well, most of them anyway. Run and guns, beat em ups, fighters, stgs, if it was in an arcade, then you can bet it required some skill to beat.

[KAI]

And Racers:
Time Attack=Scoring=Combo
Steering Techniques=Dodging=Blocking

[Squire Grooktook]

The only thing really binding these two genres is that *skill* is the main success determinant.

That and:

-Competitive factor/motivation

-Require in depth practice of each game to reach a competitive level for it

-"Short bursts" of playtime

-Very close skill sets (reflexes, timing, precision, multitasking + strategy for fighters)

-Fighters are mostly 2d, or at least 2d fighters are more wide spread and dominant to the point that I'd call 3d fighters more of a subgenre (not to say they are any less important)

As I said before, fighters have true strategy which shmups don't (IMO). However, one advantage of shmups (for me) is that they always (or at least most of them often do) offer a saving throw if you screw up. For example, if your opponent dragon punches as you hit a button in fighter, ther'es nothing you can really do, you just get hit/lose. In a shmup however, there's always (or most of the time) is a feeling that no matter how badly you screw up, you can make it out of any bad situation if your reflexes/sight reading skills are up to snuff.

[Doctor Butler]

Thus STG players constantly need to be able to exclude visual distractions

You could make the argument that footsies, whiff-gambits, fake-outs and other mind-games are similar in practice to visual distractions.

As I said before, fighters have true strategy which shmups don't (IMO). However, one advantage of shmups (for me) is that they always (or at least most of them often do) offer a saving throw if you screw up. For example, if your opponent dragon punches as you hit a button in fighter, ther'es nothing you can really do, you just get hit/lose.

NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuA5we0RZU

[KAI]

Poor Justin.

[Squire Grooktook]

Thus STG players constantly need to be able to exclude visual distractions

You could make the argument that footsies, whiff-gambits, fake-outs and other mind-games are similar in practice to visual distractions.

As I said before, fighters have true strategy which shmups don't (IMO). However, one advantage of shmups (for me) is that they always (or at least most of them often do) offer a saving throw if you screw up. For example, if your opponent dragon punches as you hit a button in fighter, ther'es nothing you can really do, you just get hit/lose.

NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER SURRENDER!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtuA5we0RZU

Ha ha, yeah I know, comebacks in fighters are great. What I meant is that it's more like rock paper scissors in that you both make your gambit at the same time based on predictions, and you get hit if you predicted wrong no questions about it. Whereas in shmups the onus is more on players to respond to things that are thrown out by the cpu.

[ACSeraph]

Thus STG players constantly need to be able to exclude visual distractions

You could make the argument that footsies, whiff-gambits, fake-outs and other mind-games are similar in practice to visual distractions.

^I was just about to post this.

I play both genres heavily, and there definitely is some overlap in the skills.

The big ones are planning and instant problem solving reflexes.

Just like shmups require strategy and route planning for success, fighters require you to create a gameplan for your character; you aren't just spamming your moves randomly. Basically "matchups" aren't so different from "routes".

On the spot problem solving is also a major aspect of both genres though probably complex in fighters due to the presence of "yomi". In a fighter you are constantly encountering challenges to your gameplan that you need to overcome via adjustments on the spot, and you are also watching and reacting to various mistakes made by your opponent. Similarly in shmups, particularly ones with some random elements to the patterns, you are having to quickly recognize dangers and openings and form split second solutions to avoid death.

Id say the main difference between the two is that shmups emphasize planning a little more while fighters emphasize problem solving reflex.

[CKR]

Skullgirls Hit me up on Steam if you ever looking for someone to play it with.

I will after I get some more practice. I saw a video of you playing it (I can't remember where), but you are above my level at this point. As soon as I get the fundamentals down, I'll hit you up.

[Ganelon]

I'm a fan of both genres. A closer comparison would be between shooters and 1P fighters. Although arcade mode in fighters has been completely overshadowed by versus mode (Skullgirls doesn't even have a scoring system), the level of consistency required for the former isn't trivial at all. Arcadia and Gamest have high scores that—just as with their shooting high scores—won't be beaten with only a few hundred hours of practice.

Neither genre is visually chaotic when you're good enough at the games to filter out the noise. There's a lot of graphical clutter but most of it is fluff or not directly relevant (e.g. bullets not near your ideal route or special effects that don't actually have hitboxes).

Luck is more involved in fighting games in that there are guessing games involved but there are enough non-guessing aspects in tourney-quality fighters that an average player wouldn't win 1 game out of 100 against a top player.

Another thing to note is the difference in competitive lifespans for the 2 genres. In shooters, you're defined by your best high score, which is a monument that challenges others to surpass you. Even if you stop practicing and your skills atrophy, you can still be the champ with the world record. Competing in fighters is more ephemeral. If you quit or start losing, then you become history (albeit with good memories!).

In any case, I like that you thought about the connections between the genres enough to list potential shared skills. My thoughts about them:

Execution Requirements (Combos vs. Intricate Dodging): Low overlap. Shooters usually have simple execution requirements. Dodging bullet patterns in shooters becomes muscle memory a lot faster than executing difficult combos. The main exceptions are shooter without autofire and other gimmicks like in XII Stag, where dexterity is essential. Fighters normally require a lot more consistency in execution with frame linking and since you need to know different combos for different situations. You always have to compromise damage with execution because combos found in combo videos are so impractically inconsistent for competition.

Nerve Control (Online Match Play vs. Getting New High Score): Moderate overlap. First off, nobody in the competitive fighting game scene cares much for online play at this time. If you're serious about fighters, then you're going to have to show up to offline events. For any game, stakes are higher when playing in public than alone. That only increases the more spectators there are. Stakes are higher still when it's an actual event/tournament/competition instead of a casual session. Not only that but misplaying a shooter can cost you an hour or 2 (or a lot longer depending on loops) whereas losing a tourney means you won't even get another attempt for a week/month/year. Money on the line makes fighters more nerve-wracking. And the fact that you're competing against another person instead of yourself doesn't help.

Value of Watching Replays (Evo Tournament vs. WR Shmup Play): High overlap. It's valuable in both genres to learn from the best. Watching replays is more helpful in shooters because there are more obvious decisions that can be learned. Fighters have intuition, execution, and tricks involved that make them more difficult to copy through observation. Nevertheless, a perceptive fighting game player can pick up a lot through videos. Unfortunately, the vast majority of video watchers seem to miss out on all but the most obvious on-screen actions.

Training (Practice Mode vs Training Room): High overlap. Training mode is how you'll be playing every shooter (if you want to be efficient and don't care to start a new game every time). Training mode for fighters is necessary for execution although the majority of time will be spent playing against other people (which is certainly training as well) to improve more quickly. In short, both genres will require significant amounts of training.

Dedication (Effort Level Required to Be a High Level Player): High overlap. You're looking at several thousand hours of dedication to become high level at a tourney-quality fighter, not only in playing but also in actively trying to figure out how to improve. From my observation, >99% of new players don't have the perseverance required to win a major tourney. I'd reckon it's a pretty similar climb for a Cave STG player to approach the Arcadia scoreboards. You might need even more dedication for shooters without the forced social interaction present.

Satisfaction (New High Score vs. Defeating a High Level Player): Subjective overlap. This is a personal thing. I've never gained any satisfaction getting high scores and low times. I'm more satisfied winning a match in a fighter, even against the AI. However, I respect people who score and even those who just play for the atmosphere, characters, story, graphics, music, etc.

[Squire Grooktook]

Skullgirls Hit me up on Steam if you ever looking for someone to play it with.

I will after I get some more practice. I saw a video of you playing it (I can't remember where), but you are above my level at this point. As soon as I get the fundamentals down, I'll hit you up.

I don't think there are many videos out there of me (there would be, but I need to buy some better recording software, ha ha). Maybe if you're subscribed to AmyOfAiur's channel, since I think she has the only one of me on Youtube.

[ACSeraph]

Arcadia and Gamest have high scores that—just as with their shooting high scores—won't be beaten with only a few hundred hours of practice.

This is quite interesting actually. For all the years I've played them I've never once considered pursuing high single player scores in fighters. I'm guessing it requires a very different mindset than versus play.

Are there any that are actually worth learning this way in your opinion? It might give some new life to otherwise dead games.

[Squire Grooktook]

Nerve Control (Online Match Play vs. Getting New High Score): Moderate overlap. First off, nobody in the competitive fighting game scene cares much for online play at this time. If you're serious about fighters, then you're going to have to show up to offline events. For any game, stakes are higher when playing in public than alone. That only increases the more spectators there are. Stakes are higher still when it's an actual event/tournament/competition instead of a casual session. Not only that but misplaying a shooter can cost you an hour or 2 (or a lot longer depending on loops) whereas losing a tourney means you won't even get another attempt for a week/month/year. Money on the line makes fighters more nerve-wracking. And the fact that you're competing against another person instead of yourself doesn't help.

I personally think this one more falls in line at least partially with "subjective overlap". In theory fighters definitely have higher stakes, but in practice I personally suspect the nerve issue would be about equal. While a shmup might only set you back 2 hours, there certainly is a psychological impact of coming oh so close to a world record or achievement you've been chasing for years. I'd say that shmups have the same potential for nervousness as fighters, however it's not as consistent a factor. Fighters can be consistently exciting like that on almost every close match, depending on your personality, but shmups imo it's more of a rare treat.

[CKR]

Value of Watching Replays (Evo Tournament vs. WR Shmup Play): High overlap. It's valuable in both genres to learn from the best. Watching replays is more helpful in shooters because there are more obvious decisions that can be learned. Fighters have intuition, execution, and tricks involved that make them more difficult to copy through observation. Nevertheless, a perceptive fighting game player can pick up a lot through videos. Unfortunately, the vast majority of video watchers seem to miss out on all but the most obvious on-screen actions.

It is hard to learn off videos without commentary. This particular video of a match between Daigo and Infiltration provides an excellent breakdown of the fight. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FUxenOGJwO4 Chris Wagar does excellent work at Gatheryourparty.com providing these videos.