DOA series creator: "Hardcore players killed shmups"

[royalfan84]

I've only been really into shmups for about 2 and a half years now and I can say there are many many reasons and factors that contribute to shmups being a "niche" genre that is constantly on the brink of extinction and often irrelevant to the mainstream.

1. Region-lock. This is a Big One for me. I don't understand why so many great shmups are region-locked. This is a huge hurdle for getting into the genre as there is a solid catalogue of games throughout the system generations but from Saturn on up the majority of them are region-locked. Hopefully this is fixed for good going forward.

2. They're hard. They are supposed to be a challenge and this should never change; there are usually difficult settings and modes to choose from in most. But the fact that shmups are known for being punishing will always keep them out of the forefront of the popularity contest.

3. They're too short. This is often the case; 5-6 stages just doesn't cut it...games like Radiant Silvergun, Gradius V, and Einhander need to be the norm and not the exception. You can still have Arcade modes for short runs and scoring. I also like the idea that someone mentioned about the Darius' games and their branching pathways being an excellent idea for replayability that should be used more often.

4. The mainstream video game media largely ignores them; and the advertising for them in non-existent. Shame on the mainstream publishers for largely ignoring the genre (especially lately). This likely will never change nor will marketing until a developer or company really blow a hole into the industry with an amazing game or series of games that registers with gamers who don't play shmups routinely. It would likely take a series of sucessful shmup games to raise the status any significant amount.

5. Need more accessible ports and re-released versions of the classics. I'm talking Batrider, Bakraid, Garegga, DDP Border Down, etc. People may not anty up hundreds of dollars to import one game but they would be more willing to pay market price for re-released enhanced version of one or multiple titles if it's easily accessible for the system they have and can be tracked down relatively easily. Get the games out there. Dream a dream; I know.

6. The Loli stuff. I don't credit Cave for the mild revival nor scorn them for hindering the genre; but that stuff is simply not gonna sell enough to justify it....and really can cloak what in truth is a great game.

7. I really think there is a growing want for the shmup-type of gameplay to not only survive but even have a mild resurgence. Indie games such as Braid and Limbo have done well; more and more gamers are discovering that the titles that focus on actual "gameplay" can be much more rewarding than an interactive movie. I just think the developers both current and past need to get their act together and put forward some material and market it wisely. The majority of gamers I know loved Ikaruga when it can released on Live and psn; but admittedly most thought it was a new game...not a port. This can be done with games such as Batrider, Einhander, Garegga, etc...and with success....just need someone to do it.

I don't blame the hardcore players at all; if anything they have thrown shmups a lifeboat. Keeping it alive and staying faithful over the years. Shmups will never be mega-popular again imo; but there is a place for them. These games need to be played; and gamers deserve them (whether the majority realize it or not).

[Sinful]

I agree that the topic - well not the topic, but the quote on which the topic is based - is probably BS, but I don't appreciate someone answering a statement with "wrong" and then going off on a completely unrelated point.

Ok, so I'll take it back then.

I also didn't go in depth on that and went elsewhere because there are plenty of interviews with the Souls series creators out there that reveals this.

I was in journalism when Soul's first broke, and you better believe me when I say it could have easily gone the way of similar solid, niche games in unrepresented genres.

What?! You were in gaming journalism? But, but... you actually play videogames. 0_0

So yes, what you say is true (despite being part of your unrelated tangent): It is a good game, I'm sure it was made to 'please' its creator and designed around his personal preferences. But don't think for a moment that's the reason for its unlikely success: it's an exception to the rule under such circumstances. It could have just as easily been buried.

No, your right. More pieces fell into place as well. The other main culprit being the very great and strong theme/atmosphere. As well as folks actually craving a good recent RPG for then current gen consoles. It's just that I seen a lot of great games being really great because the team just wanted to make a game they thought was good and had total creative freedom to do so and without any fan input (fan input usually enters during sequels). And whenever I see devs listening to fans too much & they try to please everyone, things literally go downhill. You lose the game's soul, I guess you could say.

[Skykid]

It's just that I seen a lot of great games being really great because the team just wanted to make a game they thought was good and had total creative freedom to do so and without any fan input (fan input usually enters during sequels). And whenever I see devs listening to fans too much & they try to please everyone, things literally go downhill.

We're totally on the same page when it comes to labour of love work often being a hallmark of quality and creativity - sadly rarely equalling the commercial successes of cookie cutter template FPS or sandbox threequels. I consider the Soul's series success both wonderfully uplifting and equally bizarre at the same time, but that's definitely a good thing.

What?! You were in gaming journalism? But, but... you actually play videogames. 0_0

Weird eh?

To be fair I'm sure other journos play games, just not the sort I like. Thankfully my days of having to play whatever crap falls through the letter box are behind me; now I get to write about elements of gaming and culture of my own suggestion, which is far more creative and liberating. I'd do it for free, but they force me to take money.

[HydrogLox]

On Groundhog Day a Groundhog Day (film) thought on STG length and replayability (I'm not the first to make this type of connection):

Phil Connors is trapped against his will in the same day - similarly "casual gamers" probably can't fathom the mindset that would let them by choice play the "same game" over and over again without much of an intrinsic sense of progression. You may get a better score and you may get further on any particular run and some games feature unlockables other than that it's just more of the same. I would imagine that playing something mainstream like "The Sims" is in some way just as repetitive but the game has is own indication of "progression" through the continous development of the sim and the world it lives in.

An STG run is just like Phil Connors waking up at 6:00am - same run but with all the potential to be different if the player works at it - the only sense of progression can come from within the player, not the game. That "Groundhog Day aspect" is probably a fundamental hurdle for STGs towards mainstream accessibility that developers will continue to have a tough time with.

[BryanM]

Really Deathsmiles is a pretty decent template - add ~44 stages, weapon/armor upgrades, subtract the sexualized promotional art+splash screens, remove the awesome melting faces, and it's a pretty normalized experience. Sure it'll cost roughly 9 or 10 times to make, and, unless you're a company with an army of built in fan boys (Squeenix, Nintendo, Blizzard) it's only going to sell maybe 2 to 10% more, but, hey.

Writing off a generation until Nintendo decides to make "Mario and Friends Shoot The Fuck Out Of A Lot Of Things" is really where the genre sits right now. Remember that the #1 fighting game franchise is Smash Brothers.

Geh, this reminds me of how Apple products are sold at a premium to subsidize their marketing budget so you can be reminded that there are Apple products you haven't purchased yet. A cunning yet unsubtle scheme, these rich corporations have.

ie. Seinfeld & South Park shows both bombed with testing audiance/market research. Yet networks still follow it religiously... outside of HBO, of course).

A good example of "if everybody likes your thing, but nobody loves it, it will fail."

[Ed Oscuro]

The accusation is hardcore players killed shmups

No, the accusation is that developers ignored all markets but the hardcore players.

It doesn't make any difference.

It does if we want to move the topic out of the gate. Too many pages wasted on bashing Itagaki and "well I'm a hardcore player and I'M not doing anything wrong" knee-jerk drivel, when the real point is trying to find a way to grow the genre.

I'm kinda surprised that, as a journalist, you'd actively support such an inflammatory and incorrect reading of the quote. But maybe I shouldn't be.

[Skyknight]

Now that I think about, I've accomplished a 1CC of Sky Soldiers four times. Yet this doesn't diminish my like of the game at all (not with its boss theme, for starters). So the trick might be, how to have this mindset make sense to those who see little point in playing a game already mastered, and doesn't have a Darius-style branching system.

We'll probably have to start in WHY they see little interest in replaying something mastered. (Extra-cynical suspicion: They're more hungry for novelty in and of itself than any other experience.)

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't think that's it at all. People are really happy to keep playing Counter-Strike 1.6, and there's tons of games that are supposedly "easy to master but full of depth" that get casuals playing them over and over. Repetitiveness isn't a defining aspect of the core worth of STGs, I'd say.

[HydrogLox]

People are really happy to keep playing Counter-Strike 1.6.

I'm pretty sure that's because of the "social" aspect - as in you are playing against other human players that make each session play out in a different manner. A weak strategy may work on some opponents while not on others. Even fighting games have that going for them when played against human opponents. In STGs you are playing against the game design(er) layout and scripts. One interesting aspect of STGs was always that they could pose a legitimate challenge without having to resort to (weak attempts at) AI. In the end RTSs and FPSs gave up on "game AIs" and replaced them with multi-player implementations (notable exception: Platinum Games Vanquish seemed to follow the STG challenge design philosophy). STGs never needed "AI" to pose a challenge - a weak strategy will almost always play out the same way. In fact some STG superplays are based on "robotically executed" runs.

[Skykid]

It doesn't make any difference.

It does if we want to move the topic out of the gate. Too many pages wasted on bashing Itagaki and "well I'm a hardcore player and I'M not doing anything wrong" knee-jerk drivel, when the real point is trying to find a way to grow the genre.

I'm kinda surprised that, as a journalist, you'd actively support such an inflammatory and incorrect reading of the quote. But maybe I shouldn't be.

I meant your angle ("No, the accusation is that developers ignored all markets but the hardcore players.") doesn't make any difference to my personal theorising on the decline of shmup popularity in the mainstream (irregardless of Itagaki's meaning and whether or not it's been misinterpreted).

Thanks for the attack on my professional integrity though.

[HydrogLox]

my personal theorising on the decline of shmup popularity in the mainstream

... and maybe it's all a matter of perspective and there is no real "decline of shmup popularity" but there is simply the perception of a "decline of shmup popularity" because of how the market and industry have developed and changed. For all we know roughly the same absolute number of people have been supporting/consuming the genre over the years - there may even have been a slight increase in absolute numbers because there are now more avenues of availability/consumption. In the beginning video games were never part of the mainstream - only certain personality types gravitated towards them and that also included the "skill-based" gamer. At that time the "skill-based" gamer represented a relatively large portion of the customer demographic - so it made sense for the (then small) industry to target this group of gamers at large. Video games drifted only slowly into the mainstream consciousness and the growth of the market was largely due to the influx of the type of gamer who sought an interactive diversion and/or a low-threshold reward. With the growth of the market the relative size of the "skill-based" gamer group was shrinking and the focus of the industry started to drift away from them. Additionally the "portfolio" of available game (sub )genres has grown with the market and technology advances - and a lot of these genres are a lot more accessible than STGs; lets face it, STGs are an acquired taste - and everybody only has so much time "to waste". And the industry as a whole is always going to either target the low hanging fruit or the biggest piece of the pie.

What could you do to make crossword puzzles more mainstream? Are there changes that would make them appeal to more people and would they still be crossword puzzles? A certain personality type gravitates towards doing crossword puzzles. Certain types of people like STGs; most of them arrived early at the video game party but the party got bigger as more people with different tastes have arrived and then music changed to appeal to the (majority of )newcomers.

And non-mainstream developers catering to the "hardcore crowd" is simply a "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" thing.

[Skykid]

my personal theorising on the decline of shmup popularity in the mainstream

... and maybe it's all a matter of perspective and there is no real "decline of shmup popularity" but there is simply the perception of a "decline of shmup popularity" because of how the market and industry have developed and changed. For all we know roughly the same absolute number of people have been supporting/consuming the genre over the years - there may even have been a slight increase in absolute numbers because there are now more avenues of availability/consumption. In the beginning video games were never part of the mainstream - only certain personality types gravitated towards them and that also included the "skill-based" gamer. At that time the "skill-based" gamer represented a relatively large portion of the customer demographic - so it made sense for the (then small) industry to target this group of gamers at large. Video games drifted only slowly into the mainstream consciousness and the growth of the market was largely due to the influx of the type of gamer who sought an interactive diversion and/or a low-threshold reward. With the growth of the market the relative size of the "skill-based" gamer group was shrinking and the focus of the industry started to drift away from them. Additionally the "portfolio" of available game (sub )genres has grown with the market and technology advances - and a lot of these genres are a lot more accessible than STGs; lets face it, STGs are an acquired taste - and everybody only has so much time "to waste". And the industry as a whole is always going to either target the low hanging fruit or the biggest piece of the pie.

What could you do to make crossword puzzles more mainstream? Are there changes that would make them appeal to more people and would they still be crossword puzzles? A certain personality type gravitates towards doing crossword puzzles. Certain types of people like STGs; most of them arrived early at the video game party but the party got bigger as more people with different tastes have arrived and then music changed to appeal to the (majority of )newcomers.

And non-mainstream developers catering to the "hardcore crowd" is simply a "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" thing.

If common sense prevails, this makes no sense. During the decades where arcade gaming was the frontline, shmups were mainstream by default - as a genre they occupied a large proportion of the pie chart to serve a fanbase who wanted more of them.

As technology changed so did interests, reducing the demand and the prevalence of the genre. Which was my point in the first place. Hardcore players didn't 'kill' shmups, changing times killed shmups.

It's the same for most of what we consider 'old-school' arcade game genres: in the eyes of today's commercial spectrum, they're outdated relics. We're just a happy few who hold allegiance because we happen to know they never stopped being fucking awesome.

[pegboy]

The hardcore players didn't kill shmups, they kept them alive as long as possible.

Let's just be honest, casual "gamers" don't want to play games with the kind of challenge and difficulty presented by shmups, they just don't. They certainly don't want to play them for 1CC and the like. "No Continues or save points?, this game fucking sucks!"

They say they want challenging games, but what they deem to be challenging isn't really challenging. They want some bullshit where you can die 5000 consequence free deaths and then somehow still say you beat "the hardest game ever" and other such BS. All modern day games basically have the equivalent of "save-state" style cheating, so there can never be any consequences for failure.

Modern gamers don't want actual consequences for making mistakes, they just don't, and they never will. Shmups will never be popular because today's "gamers" don't want to get their ass kicked that badly and realize they aren't nearly as good as they think they are. They will just say the game sucks and is impossible, because they don't want to put any real working into trying to beat something.

[Doctor Butler]

Spoiler

my personal theorising on the decline of shmup popularity in the mainstream

... and maybe it's all a matter of perspective and there is no real "decline of shmup popularity" but there is simply the perception of a "decline of shmup popularity" because of how the market and industry have developed and changed. For all we know roughly the same absolute number of people have been supporting/consuming the genre over the years - there may even have been a slight increase in absolute numbers because there are now more avenues of availability/consumption. In the beginning video games were never part of the mainstream - only certain personality types gravitated towards them and that also included the "skill-based" gamer. At that time the "skill-based" gamer represented a relatively large portion of the customer demographic - so it made sense for the (then small) industry to target this group of gamers at large. Video games drifted only slowly into the mainstream consciousness and the growth of the market was largely due to the influx of the type of gamer who sought an interactive diversion and/or a low-threshold reward. With the growth of the market the relative size of the "skill-based" gamer group was shrinking and the focus of the industry started to drift away from them. Additionally the "portfolio" of available game (sáub )genres has grown with the market and technology advances - and a lot of these genres are a lot more accessible than STGs; lets face it, STGs are an acquired taste - and everybody only has so much time "to waste". And the industry as a whole is always going to either target the low hanging fruit or the biggest piece of the pie.

What could you do to make crossword puzzles more mainstream? Are there changes that would make them appeal to more people and would they still be crossword puzzles? A certain personality type gravitates towards doing crossword puzzles. Certain types of people like STGs; most of them arrived early at the video game party but the party got bigger as more people with different tastes have arrived and then music changed to appeal to the (majority of )newcomers.

And non-mainstream developers catering to the "hardcore crowd" is simply a "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" thing.

I'd actually never thought of that.

It's true that playing games was considered a bit of a faux-pas until fairly recently. The market has since expanded to include many more people who just want to watch cutscenes, which makes our audience seem smaller, proportionately.

Perhaps there's a similar number of competitive perfectionists - too fat and lazy to play sports - who have turned their attention to arcade games instead, just as there was back then?

[Shepardus]

<cut for length>

I don't think it's just that the audience for video games has grown so much that it dwarfs the shmup audience. If the audience for shmups and other arcade games remained constant then we wouldn't have seen arcades decline as much as they did in the late '90s. If you want to go back as far as stuff like Space Invaders, or slightly later games like Gradius, those sold far more than shmups sell nowadays, even in absolute number. I think it's most reasonable to believe that shmups declined in popularity, both absolute and relative to other games, along with arcades as a whole.

Though more recently (within the last 5-10 years?) the genre's probably been growing in popularity (thanks to doujin and downloadable titles, video sharing, and online leaderboards) and your point is very relevant to this - even if the shmup audience now is larger than it ever has been (though I kind of doubt that's the case), it's still going to look niche compared to the current video game market as a whole.

[Skykid]

The hardcore players didn't kill shmups, they kept them alive as long as possible.

Precisely.

End of topic.

[ACSeraph]

The majority of shmup players in the 80's and early nineties only played them because that was the best space/air combat "experience" the times could offer them. As the technology advanced they moved on with it. I doubt even back in the day the majority of players had the same core one credit values as shmupsfarm, that's why quarter muncher was such a common term.

Fact is there's no reason to cater to anyone other than the remaining hardcore, because the reason many players left the genre was a lot more basic than "its too hard" or "it's complex". They left because they wanted flashy 3D freedom that shmups cannot and will provide them, and they would have never been shmups players in the first place had the times not dictated it.

At this point targeting casuals would only further alienate the remaining player base and push the genre one more step closer to the grave.

[chempop]

pegboy pegged it.

[Doctor Butler]

Spoiler

The hardcore players didn't kill shmups, they kept them alive as long as possible.

Let's just be honest, casual "gamers" don't want to play games with the kind of challenge and difficulty presented by shmups, they just don't. They certainly don't want to play them for 1CC and the like. "No Continues or save points?, this game fucking sucks!"

They say they want challenging games, but what they deem to be challenging isn't really challenging. They want some bullshit where you can die 5000 consequence free deaths and then somehow still say you beat "the hardest game ever" and other such BS. All modern day games basically have the equivalent of "save-state" style cheating, so there can never be any consequences for failure.

Modern gamers don't want actual consequences for making mistakes, they just don't, and they never will. Shmups will never be popular because today's "gamers" don't want to get their ass kicked that badly and realize they aren't nearly as good as they think they are. They will just say the game sucks and is impossible, because they don't want to put any real working into trying to beat something.

This.

Market-trends shifted, the casual-crowd left the arcades in favor of console/PC story-based crap. The developers had no-one left to sell games to, but the hardcore audience. Without them supporting these games, they'd actually be dead, as opposed to merely "dead", as they are now.

[Squire Grooktook]

Just work to expand the minority, don't expect it to become the majority or for the majority to join in (they never will).

[trap15]

Just work to expand the minority, don't expect it to become the majority or for the majority to join in (they never will).

[DEL]

royalfan84 wrote:

4. The mainstream video game media largely ignores them; and the advertising for them in non-existent. Shame on the mainstream publishers for largely ignoring the genre (especially lately). This likely will never change nor will marketing until a developer or company really blow a hole into the industry with an amazing game or series of games that registers with gamers who don't play shmups routinely. It would likely take a series of sucessful shmup games to raise the status any significant amount.

There ya go. That's it. The mainstream video game media will never promote what they don't make themselves.
Like I've said before: "the Public can only consume what is served to them", and 2D shooters aren't on the shelves.

[NTSC-J]

Like I've said before: "the Public can only consume what is served to them", and 2D shooters aren't on the shelves.

During the Dreamcast era there was plenty up for offer, but few takers. I honestly think that even if these games were heavily advertised, well-reviewed, and visible on the shelves, they would do only marginally better. The bottom line is most people just don't like the style of gameplay that shmups offer.

As my grandfather always said, you can lead a cow to Yagawa, but you can't make him milk.

[Icarus]

As my grandfather always said, you can lead a cow to Yagawa, but you can't make him milk.

Well, the game isn't called Moo-chi Moo-chi Pork, you know. :3

[Shepardus]

Just work to expand the minority, don't expect it to become the majority or for the majority to join in (they never will).

I agree, I've said this before but I'm sure there are a good number of people out there who have the right mindset to enjoy shmups but haven't thought of this themselves. It's important not to generalize everybody who doesn't already play shmups as some stereotypical "mainstream gamer" - there are all sorts of games that are popular nowadays and all sorts of people playing them. Some of those games are closer than others to the characteristic shmup design, and if the genre's going to see any growth it's going to come from people who already enjoy such games. The question then becomes, of course, which reasonably popular games have fanbases likely to show compatibility with shmups?

[S_Fang]

The question then becomes, of course, which reasonably popular games have fanbases likely to show compatibility with shmups?

Hack and Slash games (Ninja Gaiden; Bayonetta; MGS: Rising; ecc.), platformers and beat'em ups (Street Fighter; KoF; Guilty Gear; ecc.) have their own share of seasoned players willing for an hard-but-duable challenge. In addition, many indie/doujin gamers would be interested, especially if they play hard games in general and not just the shmups.

Most of the fanbases have a clear mind about the core design of the challenge of their genre, so they only need to be convinced and stimulated enough to play shmups, if a proper strategy is taken.

[Sinful]

There are two types of the definition hardcore folks like to label it with. Both not what the word means too me; 1) too difficult; 2) too overly complicated. Of these two, the second one is the real issue. Also because you can't properly balance a game too complicated for it's own good (especially if the devs aren't skilled enough. Ahem, usually Western devs). This is the vibe I'm getting today's fighting games are heading (though I wouldn't know it since I haven't touched anything past the 90's in this genre). I know RPG players complain and whine like crazy when devs simplify leveling structure and other related overcomplexity in RPG/SRPGs and blame the dev as them just catering to the lowly casual gamers again. No, overcomplicating things with BS stats, after stats, after stats drownage is no way to properly design and balance a game. Not to mention the damage it does to the pacing. But RPGs player love to abuse breaking their games. Makes them feel "mighty."

And the way I see "hardcore" is gamers that just really love playing videogames. So no, it don't mean you have to be really good or only play the hardest games & love to drown in overcomplexity. Just the love of gaming alone. And if anyone finds a game they love enough, the will naturally push for stuff like the 1cc even thought they never heard of the word 1cc, or push for the next difficulty, or come up with some handicaps, or go even as far as creating hacks to make their fave games harder. Just because they love a particular game or genre so much. Just check out any dedicated game forum to see all these in action. I see it all the time. These are the hardcore gamers. And being hardcore shouldn't be a crime. Should be a reward.

[DanMagoo]

And being hardcore shouldn't be a crime. Should be a reward.

It’s a pretty empty reward if your insistence on keeping a genre just the way you like it actually leads to the total demise of that genre.

[HydrogLox]

During the decades where arcade gaming was the frontline, shmups were mainstream by default.

This is where I disagree. I don't think that arcades were ever mainstream. The mainstream (at least outside of Japan) viewed arcades as a place where you could dump your kids so that you can shop in peace (this doesn't conflict with any exceptional experiences to the contrary). Arcades were real and possibly even a "phenomenon" but they where never part of the mainstream. And even in the arcade age the average patron didn't have any game or genre loyalty - they simply wandered from one set of flashing lights and images to the next until their handful of quarters were gone. Each arcade may have had repeat patrons that were loyal to a game or genre but that could be an STG, fighting game, pinball etc. but in terms of numbers they were probably in the minority and they would have to be pretty obsessed to become the core income for the arcade. In the end the arcade operators only really cared that lots of people left lots of quarters in their establishments.

as a genre they occupied a large proportion of the pie chart to serve a fanbase who wanted more of them.

In the age of arcades the "video games" piece of the "entertainment market" pie was puny - a large proportion of puny is still puny. These days the "video games" piece of the "entertainment market" is much, much larger but the STG market simply hasn't kept pace with that growth.

Hardcore players didn't 'kill' shmups

Agreed.

changing times killed shmups.

Time definitely passed while the market was changing and the technology advanced but "killed" is a bit melodramatic - the market simply outgrew (without any implication of "maturing") STGs but it is still possible that the absolute number of STG devotees hasn't declined. The other issue is that companies that historically delivered STGs had to adapt to the ever changing market in terms of product delivery. In the arcade age they simply (I imagine it wasn't that simple) had to sell their kits to the arcade operators. With the rise of consoles some of them did their own ports (which is tricky for a small company if the hardware is different enough to require a new skill set), others simply licensed the IP (which probably wasn't that lucrative because the sales numbers were never that high). Despite the ever present delivery of shovelware, todays video game delivery infrastructure is primarily geared towards titles that sell 100,000 copies and more, making it difficult to remain commercially viable as a supplier of a low volume niche product (unless possibly if you move into the smart-device market which has its own challenges and constraints (e.g. controls)).

None of this makes the STG a less valid form of video game - it is just relatively speaking not as commercially successful as other forms.

It seems that in the current market STGs can only be developed "on the side" while other "real work" has to cover the day-to-day expense of the company - an approach that doesn't work very well when the hardware platform technology continues to advance and proliferate at a rapid pace.

If the audience for shmups and other arcade games remained constant then we wouldn't have seen arcades decline as much as they did in the late '90s.

A regular patron of arcades would notice the decline of arcades - the mainstream hardly noticed it. Arcades were simply an early delivery infrastructure for the product of "video games". STGs were a good fit for arcade games because they had a way of maximizing the bang-whiz factor with the available level of technology. Back then it made sense in the industry to put your best design/development talent on an STG project, squeezing every last ounce of capability out of the hardware platform. These days the "talent" in the entertainment industry is put on the projects that promise sales of 100,000-500,000+ licences. Arcades have declined and been replaced by other forms of delivery but STGs have made the jump to consoles (including handhelds), PCs and (however poorly) smart devices. So the form of "arcade games" doesn't have to die with arcades but they are definitely competing in a much bigger pond for people's time and money.

Just work to expand the minority, don't expect it to become the majority or for the majority to join in (they never will).

Yes. But for all we know the absolute numbers of the minority has been growing - it's the size of the relative minority which seems to put people in a doom-and-gloom mood.

I'm sure there are a good number of people out there who have the right mindset to enjoy shmups but haven't thought of this themselves.

Given the quantity of games and genres currently available it would be quite easy for a recent gamer to "avoid" STGs for a long time. However last year's release of Crimzon Clover WI on Steam seems to have managed to generate a good amount of awareness, so there is some hope, just don't expect an STG tsunami.

Most of the fanbases have a clear mind about the core design of the challenge of their genre, so they only need to be convinced and stimulated enough to play shmups.

Why? They have already found what they like - what do they need STGs for? I'm sure they are quite busy trying and mastering everything within their beloved genre.

And the way I see "hardcore" is gamers that just really love playing videogames.

There are casuals who "really love playing videogames" but they are often just not very discriminating and their choices are more guided by what is "new-and-shiny" and what is being played in their peer group. I'm reluctant to say that "hardcore" means "serious" (we are talking about games after all) but they are certainly more intense about their genres and games of choice. And ultimately it takes that intense dedication to get the most out of STGs.

[Cata]

Honestly I think it just has to do with the genre being/looking "old" to people from the outside looking in. We live in an accelerated society that wants everything to be new new new and unfortunately other genres have the benefit of 3D being able to flex their newness-muscle a whole hell of a lot more than shmups. Take for instance black-and-white movies. Sure movie buffs probably love them and could talk all day about how it was cinema done right but at the end of the day they will never be the norm anymore, just a casual one-off viewing for someone to watch. To them the experience is just as cursory as if they sat down and played a shmup. A fun distraction, sure, but nothing to critically sit down and analyze

One could say, "But hey, platformers these days look just as good as modern shmups!" but I think for some reason platformers have a much higher nostalgia factor these days for whatever reason.