What Makes A Great Shmup, well...Great?

[professor ganson]

It's initially intimidating; but actually becomes intuitive with practice...

The same is likely true of Steel Battalion-- wouldn't know-- but that's still no excuse.

Excuse for what?

For being ridiculous.

[j^aws]

Controls do not 'become' intuitive, they either are or they are not.

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Learning to drive a 5-speed manual transmission car (you control the car) isn't intuitive. But after "practice", it "becomes" intuitive, because you learn to drive the car...

Lets not get into semantics here.

[FIL]

This is going to turn into a big silly internet fight, so lets just leave it hanging. However, there is a reason the regular stick and buttons became the norm instead of the defender/stargate explosion in an arcade controller factory type layout.

[j^aws]

The same is likely true of Steel Battalion-- wouldn't know-- but that's still no excuse.

Excuse for what?

For being ridiculous.

See page one for the start of the discussion with Robs entry with "Retarded" comment...

@FIL: Yep; it's pretty obvious what these reasons are...

[Rob]

it's pretty obvious what these reasons are...

Simple, efficient control is one thing that makes a great shooter, well...great.

[Twiddle]

Nethack's control scheme is the reason why it's not popular outside a group of people with long flowing hocks of hair under their chin

[j^aws]

it's pretty obvious what these reasons are...

Simple, efficient control is one thing that makes a great shooter, well...great.

Not disagreeing with this: Love Mars Matrix one button + 8-way... Also 'inversely' love Stargates 2-way + 6 buttons. My tastes are wider than mosts...

[Zebra Airforce]

Nethack's control scheme is the reason why it's not popular outside a group of people with long flowing hocks of hair under their chin

Those people of course being hermits who went into the mountains for 15+ years to study the control scheme.

[worstplayer]

Serious question:
Wouldn't Stargate work better with simple 8-way stick + shoot left + shoot right?

[j^aws]

Serious question:
Wouldn't Stargate work better with simple 8-way stick + shoot left + shoot right?

Side Arms uses this control but it has no variable speed and no inertia, which would need further inputs. It was mentioned earlier in the thread:

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 677#307677

Movement along the y-axis (up/ down) has no inertia (no 'thrusters'); movement along the x-axis has inertia (thrusters along that axis)... controlling with 2-way vertical up/ down, thrust and reverse button setup gives your ship a unique movement characteristic... And because you have "reverse" (left/ right directional change): You don't need a "shoot left" button and a "shoot right" button...

The whole game is based around this movement characteristic (it's challenging and rewarding). A specific example would be chaining falling humanoids (catching and carrying more than 1, to build a 'medal' multiplier). This would be far easier to do with a 'dumbed' down 8-way scheme with no inertia along the x-axis... The game has many layers and mastering its controls are part of unlocking this depth...

EDIT:

A subtle but important element with dedicated "shoot left" and "shoot right" buttons: You can move independently of your firing direction, i.e. move left and fire right etc... You still have a limited window do this with reverse + fire (you can move/ drift in one direction and fire in the opposite with articulate use of those buttons and inertia)...

EDIT 2: Swapped x/y-axis typo.

[doctorx0079]

IMHO the controls of Stargate were deliberately made unnecessarily complicated to make the game harder to play, and also give you an artificial sense of accomplishment when you get the hang of them. It's probably a great game, certainly influential, but I have never had free access to a real arcade machine so I never got used to the controls.

On my PS2 I enjoy Robotron more.

[Arvandor]

Controls do not 'become' intuitive, they either are or they are not.

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

Learning to drive a 5-speed manual transmission car (you control the car) isn't intuitive. But after "practice", it "becomes" intuitive, because you learn to drive the car...

Lets not get into semantics here.

No, after "practice" it "becomes" second nature. Intuitive means it feels natural and is easy to learn. Once you've passed the learning process and know what you're doing, "intuition" has nothing to do with it anymore. I don't think driving a standard transmission is intuitive at all. Yes, I can do it with my eyes closed, while drinking soda and eating pretzels, but that doesn't change how intuitive it is.

And I have to agree with, well, everyone else; the controls for that Stargate game look atrocious. Sure, you could get used to them, but that doesn't make it suck less.

[j^aws]

IMHO the controls of Stargate were deliberately made unnecessarily complicated to make the game harder to play, and also give you an artificial sense of accomplishment when you get the hang of them. It's probably a great game, certainly influential, but I have never had free access to a real arcade machine so I never got used to the controls.

Yep, I can pretty much agree on most of that, except the "unnecessarily" part which I've been defending throughout the thread. You definitely get a sense of accomplishment though... I get the same sense of accomplishment when controlling 2 ships with one controller in Raiden 3s Double Mode...

You're spot on with the real arcade machine sentiment. It's difficult to get the same 'feeling' on a home setup...

FWIW, on a pad (Dual-shock), I use the left analogue stick for up/down (with any left/ right motions disabled); L1 for reverse; R1 for fire; R2 for thrust... those are the most common inputs to get proficient at. Then I have X mapped to invisio (so I can use both fire and invisio simultaneously); [] mapped to smart bomb and the rarely used hypersapce mapped to L2.

On a home arcade stick; I use a Guilty Gear custom Fightingstick:



... My left thumb drops on to the lower left, red button, for reverse (like the arcade setup but Ideally needs to be closer); I use the far right yellow button for thrust and the others with my right hand etc...

On my PS2 I enjoy Robotron more.

This is another favourite of mine from Eugene Jarvis... and definitely easier to map the arcades dual stick setup to a pads thumbsticks.

No, after "practice" it "becomes" second nature. Intuitive means it feels natural and is easy to learn. Once you've passed the learning process and know what you're doing, "intuition" has nothing to do with it anymore. I don't think driving a standard transmission is intuitive at all. Yes, I can do it with my eyes closed, while drinking soda and eating pretzels, but that doesn't change how intuitive it is.

I intentionally used "intuitive" with your above definition. Let me make that clearer because that analogy still doesn't seem to be understood: It (control) "becomes" after "practice", something that's "intuitive" because you "learn" to use them. You "learn" the *basics* to explore the game without the controls being "intimidating" anymore. You don't *stop* learning; there are advanced techniques you can learn *after* learning the basics... The point being: After practice, "it feels natural and is easy to learn" to play the game... This practice period obviously depends on the individual. There will also be cases where people can't learn to drive manual transmission cars etc. for whatever reason...

Sticking with the same car analogy: After "learning" to drive the car, you can learn advanced techniques to "explore" its performance limits e.g. "learning" advanced techniques like controlling oversteer, understeer, racing lines etc. on a racetrack...

As mentioned previously, lets not turn this into some "semantics" debate... I hope that's clearer to what my thoughts are.

And I have to agree with, well, everyone else; the controls for that Stargate game look atrocious. Sure, you could get used to them, but that doesn't make it suck less.

Learn-to-play is a commonly used phrase around here and it applies more to this game more than any that I've come across. I've discussed why it doesn't "suck" with counter-points throughout the thread. It sounds more like the player "sucks" at the game. You don't have to like the game; it's a matter of taste... just see my sig...

Just for a FYI, there are some tips around the net:

http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Stargate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_%28video_game%29
http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/file/584174/25454

[Ghegs]

I intentionally used "intuitive" with your above definition.

It just doesn't work when people use their own definitions for words. This is why dictionaries exist.

in·tu·i·tive
–adjective
1. perceiving by intuition, as a person or the mind.
2. perceived by, resulting from, or involving intuition: intuitive knowledge.
3. having or possessing intuition: an intuitive person.
4. capable of being perceived or known by intuition.

That's not terribly useful in this case, so let's follow that up with...

in·tu·i·tion
–noun
1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
2. a fact, truth, etc., perceived in this way.
3. a keen and quick insight.
4. the quality or ability of having such direct perception or quick insight.

So if you have to put effort into learning something, it's no longer intuitive and it doesn't become intuitive after you've learned it. You just know it, and that's all.

"Learn to play" applies here perfectly, though.

[j^aws]

I intentionally used "intuitive" with your above definition.

It just doesn't work when people use their own definitions for words. This is why dictionaries exist.

Absolutely. I recall consciously not using the word "Instinctive"; though in my mind that word also applies; but it implied no practice was required... hence "after practice" etc...

So if you have to put effort into learning something, it's no longer intuitive and it doesn't become intuitive after you've learned it. You just know it, and that's all.

That's the key part I was trying to get across: You just "know it" but after "practice". I just "know it"; but that's after practice, after the initial 'learning curve'...

"Learn to play" applies here perfectly, though.

I should've just posted that from the very beginning!

[Rob]

I know how to play. It's crap.

[j^aws]

Insightful opinion. Thanks for the discussion.

[320x240]

This is going to turn into a big silly internet fight, so lets just leave it hanging. However, there is a reason the regular stick and buttons became the norm instead of the defender/stargate explosion in an arcade controller factory type layout.

A big part of that decision (like in everything else that have to do with arcades) was economic. It was simply a way of streamlining controls so that generic cabinets could play most games. This happened around the same time that the games themselves (especially the japanese ones) also became streamlined and generic.

Most popular shmups was part of this streamlining process. You could say that the traditional gameplay mechanics and presentation of scrolling shmups where born out of it. The game would scroll horizontally or vertically, present a few levels sufficiently different from each other to hold the players attention but no more, offer the player the chance to continue from where the last game ended etc. Video game consoles largely copied this way of making games.

At the time this streamlining was loated by "veterans" and "hardcore players" who where used to cabinets (and to some extent gameplay mechanics) being individual for each game. This streamlining also meant that scrolling shmups where soon considered passé. Inovation happened elsewhere and scrolling shmups where looked upon as second class games that where no longer cutting edge. They fell by the wayside.

The thing is, though, that this afforded shmups to quietly and patiently acquire the subtleness of gameplay they have today, whilst still retaining the good old, streamlined presentation and mechanics. What was once considered a weakness have grown to become a strenght.

[Shatterhand]

I played a lot of Defender on the Atari 2600, and then later played a bit of Stargate again on the Atari 2600.

I like it. I spent lots of my childhood time playing Defender... with Moon Patrol it was probably my 2 most played games on the 2600.


After playing the arcade version of Defender for the 1st time, I got really shocked how the game was EONS better.... but it also controlled a lot worse, heh

[Dave_K.]

Not that this thread isn't off topic enough, but since you all are discussing some of my favorite classics, I thought I'd chime in.

There is a reason why I own both Stargate and Robotron cabinets. They are not only early influences to modern manic shmups, they are also a great example of the innovation (at that time) in both game play mechanics and user interface design. Strangely enough both these games were developed by the same guy (Eugene Jarvis) and both are a harsh contrast of overly complicated controls to overly simplistic controls. Controls were tied directly to game play mechanics, and as 320x240 brilliantly pointed out in his post, the future separation and standardization of controls were needed so game play mechanics could evolve beyond this.

So I wouldn't label Stargate as the ultimate in shmup control, but for the time is was definitely a plateau of sorts, to see just how far hardcore gamers would go to enjoy some deeply complicated (at that time) game play. To those who have never played on a real Stargate control panel, you are missing out on half the experience.

BTW: I also own a Joust cabinet, which is another marvel in inertial type game play and simplistic control schemes, but since its not a shmup, I will just leave it as that.