MJR wrote:Making a shmup with modern product values - shiny 3D graphics and effects and enough content, will be too expensive to cater for the hardcore enthusiasts.
Lethe wrote:Frankly, I see this as a hopelessly outdated view: shiny 3D graphics are cheap and easy. They're also generic and bad at conveying information. Pseudo-low resolutions, limited color palettes, and distinctive art styles have been huge in the indie scene for years, and other genres have seen massive success with such games. Repetitive "roguelites" and quasi-arcade games have likewise been popular despite often lacking assets. Watering down a genre for the sake of a hypothetical wider audience has always been a losing move - but sometimes someone has the presence of mind to isolate the really appealing stuff from the restrictions or mistakes of the past, and that's how popularity increases.
.
I dont' disagree with everything you say, however; your definition of "massive success" is hardly that when looking at it from the game industry angle. Most of the indie scene is using 2D pixel art with low resolution simply because it's low hanging fruit, easier to learn, execute, does not require massive skill or technical abilities, and the style is easy to copy as long as you understand basics and have at least an average drawing and rendering ability. Personally, I think they are simply playing on a "hip" trend, but they have never brought anything new to the table at all.
Also, yes, it's very true that 3D can be "cheap and easy", and also "bad at conveying information" if you don't know what you are doing, and most people don't know how to employ it well - it takes years of experience to understand and do well. Just as well as it is very difficult to make 2D art look brilliant.
And most of the so-called indie devs definitely don't make the 2D art look so good that you could jump on a top of soap box and state that 3D is defunct and outdated. It's more like, getting to do 3D well in these days is simply out of reach for indie studios, so they are doing the only thing that is financially sensible - which is to employ faux retro look.
Please bear in mind that I also like 2D art - well made 2D art - in shmups generally better than 3D. Because 2D is better for conveying personal style and expression (though it is not the case anywhere really, except maybe in cuphead, game which graphics and animation I admire very much). In my opinion, no one has simply employed 3D in shmups very well. Either the art style has been lacking or technical skills have been lacking because it is very difficult to gain sufficient knowledge of both, as making them can require different skill and mindset. I have also seen Zeroranger, but personally, I was not a fan of the art style. If you people like it and see it as the "future of shmups" that will bring more people to the genre, that's ok, but do not get disappointed if the rest of the world disagrees with you. I think Cuphead is the most succesful on bringing shmups and platforming for modern audiences, and they did that by doing something unique as trying to advance the presentation, not by looking back (though as a game, Cuphead is not my favourite). As for any 3D shmups that would look better than Zeroranger however, I don't think that there are any. But I think it could be done.
Furthermore, I would not try to tell any indie shmup dev how to make their games or do their graphics. There should be room for everything in this world, but in the context in this discussion, I am not sure I agree your definitions of "success", "outdated" or "popular", as I think they are highly biased and looked only from one viewpoint. I might have come off bit snarky in my post but I hope I did not sound antagonistic.. at least I tried to bring an example as what I define as success in terms of an 2D art style. And I say it is Cuphead.