Is there a right or wrong way to play shmups?

[Never_Scurred]

Just curious..I was playing Ikaruga with a friend of mine and he asked me why haven't I been able to beat this game if its so short. He is more of the FPS/GTA type of gamer which I don't knock him for but he pretty much credit fed the whole game withouot any real skill. I told him that the purpose of this like most shmups and certain games in particular is not to just "beat" the game-thats easy- but to play at max skill under extreme circumstances. Like playing a game with one life on the hardest difficulty all the way through while killing every enemy and earning massive points. Thats why it takes me multiple tries just reach the first boss, whereas somebody else would pretty much credit feed all the way through. I've never liked easy games at all.I guess I just love making simple things challenging.

What do you all think?

[rolins]

Matter of preference I think. If I find shooter I like playing, I try my best to get a 1cc. Other games that I consider so-so I won't bother commiting to, so I don't mind credit feeding because I just want to finish the game, see the ending, and sell it off to buy other games.

[Arznei]

Your friend is an idiot ;_;

A game isn't about it's length, but replayability. I am not THAT big on shmups, but once you complete a RPG how many of them urge you to play it over? Barely any unless they have a New Game+ mode.

[bpe]

I think the credit feeding crowd just plays games instead of watching a movie, but they expect the same kind of mental activity. Ie just enough of it to follow along, but no serious "dammit this is hard work" investment.
Well I dunno, maybe games like GTA are designed so well that the learning curve is perfect and you're not even aware that you're picking up some serious skillz. Whereas shmups pretty much force you to know what you're doing within about 10 minutes or so, because at stage3 the fun usually starts.

[GaijinPunch]

Playing while standing on your head = wrong way.

All sillyness set aside, you're friend does sound like he's missing the point. Nothing wrong with that at all though. Most people do. Just explain to him that arcade games (which Ikaruga is) are meant to be mastered, not credit-fed.

[SAM]

The point of playing game is to enjoy.

As long as your friend is enjoy playing shmups in his way, that's okay.

[Iori Branford]

Right way? Wrong way? To play a SINGLE-PLAYER game? Give me a second to just...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now, you don't QUITE sound like my cousin who wanted to break his game discs upon seeing my friend play them with cheats...but when will people learn to play and let play?

[sjewkestheloon]

there is no right and wrong way, but my prefered way is generally to play with 1 or very occasionally 2 credits, working to improve my score until i unlock free play. once unlocked i then credit feed through the game once or twice to see the ending and seriously get a plan formulated as of what to do where and then i can start working on score and 1cc attempts.

this way the games never become stale.

in games with infinate credits i usually just credit feed to the end after about 7-8 hours of game play and work in the same way as above fromt here.

for me the ultimate guide of improvement in a shmup is score so to play on any more than one credit for a long period of time seems pointless as my score will never get higher.

[Ganelon]

That's the annoying thing about quick-restart shooters. Give him a short oldschool checkpoint shooter (like, say, R-Type II) and ask him to try credit feeding that baby.

But really, since you care about your friend's opinions (or else you wouldn't have made this topic), you might want to consider beating Ikaruga before mastering the first stage (if you haven't already). That way, you can accentuate your point about game mastery to your friend rather than him just thinking it's just an excuse.

Still, I don't like making simple things harder myself (probably why I don't put much weight on score). I'd rather move on to other things. A 1CC is good enough for me. I avoid messing with the default options unless there's new stuff there. Same thing with other genres; artificial "you can only use X to beat the game" challenges don't appeal to me whatsoever in sidescrollers and RPGs.

[99pence]

I hate it when people say a game is too easy when they are just credit feeding.

The sad thing is when arcade conversions came out on the SS/PSX back in the day with infinite credits the magazines would slate them for being too easy. It probably still happens now.

It's a sorry state of affairs.

[~Kid Icarus~]

Do you find playing shmups fun? Then you are playing it the correct way.

[mulletgeezer]

I think an important difference between shmups and more "modern" types of game is that shmups are about skill and the modern game style is more about the "spectacle" of the game, where the player sits through hours of funky 3d graphics and silly cut scenes and often no real skill is required. A casual player of these modern games would get nothing at all from a game like Garegga (which, if truth be told, does have some rather dull level design) but could have a great time credit-feeding Radiant Silvergun or Contra Spirits which have a great deal of imagination put into them - back in the day me and a friend credit-fed all the way through CS a few times and really enjoyed it without developing any real skill at the game.

Shmups are from an earlier age of gaming - one where arcades were dominant over the home market, and arcade games of course were about skill. As arcade shmupping has been somewhat dead in the west for some time now, this makes me wonder how many old gits we have on this forum. Does anyone know anything about the average age of shmups forum members?

[Twiddle]

A game isn't about it's length, but replayability.

when you've been weaned on games that have mostly dull and uninteresting gameplay that each last 60 hours long with the exception of puzzle games for about 10 years, what are you going to think of a 20 minute game that gives you the option to press start for three extra lives as many times as you want

nixing free play would be a good solution to this, fuck the preschooler egos of most gamers today

[Eps]

Do you find playing shmups fun? Then you are playing it the correct way.

I know what you meant by that, but I would like to turn it on its head a little: people should be encouraged to try and not use credit feeding (ie. the 'correct' way), because for most people the real fun would then come from that gradual process of working for the 1cc, and then for higher scores or the 1-life, that we all know and love.

[Frederik]

When I play DDP in MAME, I have savestates for each level (and a few states with my favourite parts of the levels, especially in level 4 and 5). Sometimes I start it, just play single segments in random order, then go back to my work again.

I used the cheat.dat to see the final boss (and realized that there is no FUCKING WAY IN HELL I would ever seen him the usual way). When playing it the normal way, I usually leave the "max shot power" cheat on because I hate starting with a pee shooter. Give me max power right out of the box.

I don`t give a shit about chaining most of the time. I love dodging the same patterns over and over again.

I used to feel a bit bad about this in the beginning, since other players play a lot more strictly than I do. In the way of how the designers wanted the game to be played, I don`t play it right. But it is so much fun for me this way (well, cheating my way to the true final boss wasn`t that much fun, I am talking about that savestate thing here). I love a quick test of reflexes, and I got better in the later stages a lot more faster than back then when started at level 1 after my lives ran out.

Playing Ikaruga not trying to chain feels a bit dull to me, since the game is so chaining-based. It depends on the game. Playing Gunbird 2 not caring for coin chains is something hugely different then playing Psyvariar for 1cc (which simply doesn`t make sense).

I hope your question isn`t as self-concious as it sounds. Just try to have fun. Life is already short enough, don`t spoil it with thinking about the moral of how to play video games RIGHT (of all things).

[99pence]

I hate chaining in Ikaruga and I love playing it just to try to 1CC it, I wouldn't say it was a walk in the park.

I must be really s**t at shooter-em-ups.

[Icarus]

A casual player of these modern games would get nothing at all from a game like Garegga (which, if truth be told, does have some rather dull level design)...

Go and ALL Clear the game with a 10mil+ score, then come back and tell me again if the level design is dull.

As arcade shmupping has been somewhat dead in the west for some time now, this makes me wonder how many old gits we have on this forum. Does anyone know anything about the average age of shmups forum members?

Dunno. 'Old gits' around here fall into the mid-20s age bracket, probably (myself included).
Shudder to think what the 'really old gits' age group is. ^_-

[Arznei]

Go and ALL Clear the game with a 10mil+ score, then come back and tell me again if the level design is dull.

It's a very dull process achieving that, and I think that was his point. As interesting as you make the game, the game doesn't make it interesting for you.

[Icarus]

It's a very dull process achieving that, and I think that was his point. As interesting as you make the game, the game doesn't make it interesting for you.

I definitely have more fun scoring 10mil+ in (the apparently dull) Garegga than I do blasting through the same stages in [insert other game name here] purely because the level design in Garegga allows for more freeform movement and strategy creation; there's a far greater risk involved playing on the knife-edge in Garegga than being loaded with bombs in [insert game name here]; and Garegga's pace is perfectly crafted.

Its a dull process achieving a high score in any game, if you are not a dedicated, competitive player. If you don't make your game interesting, the game won't be interesting to you.

[Arznei]

Is that why there are interesting games out there which require you to do nothing in order for it to be entertaining?

[Icarus]

Is that why there are interesting games out there which require you to do nothing in order for it to be entertaining?

Of course.
Whatever floats your boat.

[professor ganson]

I think there is some point to speaking of right and wrong here. Shmups are designed on the assumption that players will, e.g., try to maximize score. To ignore this aspect of gameplay is to miss out on what the game is all about. You aren't playing the game as it was intended to be played. You aren't breaking rules, like playing chess with different rules for bishop movement, or something like that. It's like playing chess just for the carnage, just to get as many pieces as you can. You can do the latter and still adhere to the rules of chess. It's just that you're missing out on what the game is all about. You're missing the point of the game. You aren't playing it how you're supposed to (even if you haven't strictly violated any rules of the game).

[Neon]

OT, but mulletgeezer: I'd be interested to hear why you think the level design is dull...I always thought Garegga was one of the best in this aspect, the level 1 opening tanks being a good example of cleverly-thought out enemy placement.

[mulletgeezer]

I should know better than to say a word against garegga, eh? For what it's worth, i'm not saying Garegga is a dull game. Although not my favourite i like it enough to have bought the PCB, and i'm a huge fan of Batrider so i have an appreciation of the Raizing style. I really think that Garegga's quality comes from the system rather than the level design, which is well crafted but not having much of the excitement that shines through in a Treasure title, or something like Guwange which i feel has some extraordinary level design later in the game. Garegga relies too much on the old trick of enemies coming from each side of the screen alternately, followed by a large enemy or two in the middle. And the floating platform part the Raizing have repeated since is very boring. As i said, i'm not saying the game itself is dull, there's much fun to be had from dodging a shitload of bullets while collecting every medal and thinking about rank control, but if we can move back to the original topic slightly, what i'm saying here is that i imagine Garegga holds little joy to play for a credit-feeding fan, compared to something like Gradius V which has all sorts of exciting stuff in it.

[professor ganson]

what i'm saying here is that i imagine Garegga holds little joy to play for a credit-feeding fan, compared to something like Gradius V which has all sorts of exciting stuff in it.

I owned Garegga and Gradius V before I knew what the "right" way to play shmups is, and what you say here is exactly right, in my experience.

[Shatterhand]

I think there is some point to speaking of right and wrong here. Shmups are designed on the assumption that players will, e.g., try to maximize score. To ignore this aspect of gameplay is to miss out on what the game is all about. You aren't playing the game as it was intended to be played. You aren't breaking rules, like playing chess with different rules for bishop movement, or something like that. It's like playing chess just for the carnage, just to get as many pieces as you can. You can do the latter and still adhere to the rules of chess. It's just that you're missing out on what the game is all about. You're missing the point of the game. You aren't playing it how you're supposed to (even if you haven't strictly violated any rules of the game).

Pretty much like if you play Battlefield trying to kill everyone instead of conquering the "objectives", play Call of Duty in "Search and Destroy" mode without any team strategy and go try to kill everyone like Rambo, or play Quake 3 hiding in a corner.

Or play Pro Evolution Soccer without passing the ball.

If modern players can understand this, they can understand shmups. Someone just has to explain to them (Though be sure, there are people who indeed play the above mentioned games in every wrong way )

[landshark]

Right way: have fun
Wrong way: do not have fun

[Triple Lei]

Wrong way: credit feeding and / or playing on non-defaults!

Seriously... if you play, die, and continue until you reach the end of the game (I don't call that "beating" the game), why even bother playing at all? You might as well just hit start every other minute or so... it'll be easier and you'll get the same result. Going for the 1CC actually requires learning and commitment, and that way of playing is the way to have fun. It's the only way to have fun, dammit!

I'm not afraid to admit that I've only beaten less than a handful of shmups... but I wouldn't have it any other way. How else would DOJ make my heart race and my palms sweat three years after I bought the game?

[Michaelm]

Wrong way: credit feeding and / or playing on non-defaults!

Yesterday I played Fire Shark on the Megadrive and I had to go to options to change the difficulty from easy to normal

[Rastan78]

I've gotta take the elitist high ground here. If you're credit-feeding and not playing for completion or score, you're missing the point and the enjoyment with any given title will be very short lived.

I'm all for a "to each his own" attitude, but in this case I've never heard of an example of someone who actually gets a great deal of enjoyment out of credit-feeding and comes back to the genre again and again. Why waste money on games like that?

Maybe I'm wrong and there are these rabid credit feeding shmup fans out there blissfuly enjoying each and every title. Who am I to say that they should stop loving what they do. In fact, I'll be the first to start a strategy discussion for them. This will be the first strategy section that applies to almost every game in your collection: DIE-BOMB-BOMB-BOMB-DIE-BOMB-BOMB-BOMB-DIE-BOMB-BOMB-BOMB-CONTINUE-DIE-BOMB-BOMB-BOMB-DIE . . .

Are we having fun yet?