introducing Duality ZF

[emphatic]

We want something like an enhanced Raiden.

What are your thoughts on Raiden III? It's 3D, so it also have a bit of that immersion feeling. And did you try Raiden Fighters? Glad to see that you've kept yourself updated.

Emph

[Lordstar]

any cool multiplayer modes other than just co op? For a while playing two player has always been a bit odd as it effects your score (and thats what most people who play a lot of shmups play shmups for)

It would be really cool to see this. Best two player shmup would have to be Twinkle star sprites. it plays like nothing else

Looks great by the way I will be keeping an eye on it for sure.

[Zebra Airforce]

We want something like an enhanced Raiden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qL50i6A9pI

[bkk]

Cons:
- nobody has done it before

It has been done in console ports as wobble mode. It is generally despised

[MX7]

We want something like an enhanced Raiden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qL50i6A9pI

Raiden Fighters Jet would be a game you would do well to examine for inspiration. It has this old skool HxCx asthetic that you like so much, but it also has modern features, like a plethora of ships to choose from (and therefore many different playing styles), bullet scraping, chaining etc.

[Jason]

What are your thoughts on Raiden III? It's 3D, so it also have a bit of that immersion feeling. And did you try Raiden Fighters? Glad to see that you've kept yourself updated.

I have played Raiden III. Here's my thoughts:

• - The camera doesn't respond to player motion, so some immersion is lost.
  - Adding 3D elements outside of the 2D plane you're fighting in is a bad idea. Especially when these elements are part of the background, and your brain dismisses them as such, and then they become part of the foreground. Grr. Bad.
  - It enforces a delay between every 4th fire, to emulate the old school arcades where you had limited bullets. I believe they do this so that the motion of the bullets can be seen; so they aren't just a flicker. This is good, but removes the ideal "get in your face so you can shoot even faster" trick of the old school shooters. We made sure to keep this in our game. The closer you are, the faster you shoot. I love that concept -- it rewards good players.
  - Some enemy bullets can be hidden by the laser blast . We are very aware to ensure enemy bullets can ALWAYS be seen, even if they are the same color as a super-thick laser you're shooting, even at the expense of graphic quality, since gameplay is more important.
  - The hit box is too small. It approaches bullet hell shooters. I found myself thinking "I should have died there". Our game sometimes does the same thing, so this is tricky. I think our hit box being slightly larger is optimal.
  - I LOVE the crazy spreads of the final bosses. I want this.
  - All in all, it's a good game. My gut told me they based it off of Raiden I, not Raiden II (they are a new team, keep in mind). Raiden II fixed many flaws in Raiden I, so it was a mistake to base it off of Raiden I instead of Raiden II. This is why I desperately want to see Raiden DX, since it's the true next-in-line in the series. In other words, there's room for improvement.

I have not played Raiden IV, yet.

[Jason]

any cool multiplayer modes other than just co op? For a while playing two player has always been a bit odd as it effects your score (and that's what most people who play a lot of shmups play shmups for)

It would be really cool to see this. Best two player shmup would have to be Twinkle star sprites. it plays like nothing else

Looks great by the way I will be keeping an eye on it for sure.

Thanks for the compliments!

Ah, I see that Twinkle Star Sprites is a competitive shooter, where, presumably, you each play your own game and compete. I always wondered why the arcade ports of vertically aligned shooters don't offer this on all the wide-screens that everyone has. They could fit THREE screens side-by-side, if they wanted to. In any case, competitive shooters are an interesting concept.

Personally, I've always love co-op. I always played Doom in co-op rather than death match. Why? Because it wasn't about my ego trying to prove I'm the best of my buddies, but it was more to the fact that I knew my buddies were great, too, and we wanted to take on a challenge that a single person alone couldn't handle. This is the benefit of our game allowing Dual Play for each of the 4 players playing simultaneously. That's 8 fighters on-screen at once. (Of course, the down side being a 2D game all on the same screen means you can't see anything that's happening, so you're all bound to die, where as in Doom, you could mount an attack from different angles each with your own PC.)

Other than this, we have no plans for further multiplayer play. I have ideas on how such a hectic shooter could be multi-player via the Internet, but it won't be implemented in time for this release. Our next game will have that.

P.S. It's also interesting that you mention people play for the score. I've often wondered how important score is. It's important for some games, and other games not so much, and absolutely critical for a select few. It's a funny thing.

[Jason]

Cons:
- nobody has done it before

It has been done in console ports as wobble mode. It is generally despised

Thanks for the information. Right now, our implementation isn't perfect, and we're aware of that. It's something we're going to make sure is right before release. Do you know any games that have implemented it, so I can check them out? Thanks!

[Jason]

We want something like an enhanced Raiden.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qL50i6A9pI

Raiden Fighters Jet would be a game you would do well to examine for inspiration. It has this old skool HxCx aesthetic that you like so much, but it also has modern features, like a plethora of ships to choose from (and therefore many different playing styles), bullet scraping, chaining etc.

Ok, thanks! We've ran through a Raiden Fighters game, not sure which one, at an arcade once. I didn't like the choice of jets, since being a newcomer, I had no idea which was best. I'd prefer the game to be as simple as possible. But, I understand that it allows for different weapon systems, so it adds to the longevity, which is nice. It's a trade off. For our first game, we want simplicity. We'll get more complex afterwards for our next game.

What does HxCx mean, btw?

[MX7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qL50i6A9pI

Raiden Fighters Jet would be a game you would do well to examine for inspiration. It has this old skool HxCx aesthetic that you like so much, but it also has modern features, like a plethora of ships to choose from (and therefore many different playing styles), bullet scraping, chaining etc.

Ok, thanks! We've ran through a Raiden Fighters game, not sure which one, at an arcade once. I didn't like the choice of jets, since being a newcomer, I had no idea which was best. I'd prefer the game to be as simple as possible. But, I understand that it allows for different weapon systems, so it adds to the longevity, which is nice. It's a trade off. For our first game, we want simplicity. We'll get more complex afterwards for our next game.

What does HxCx mean, btw?

Yeah, it probably has a few too many ships, but I imagine the game was aimed at shooting fans who were already familliar with some of the ships through the Raiden series. In general I prefer a more simple selection of ships. If you want to compare both ends of the spectrum, Treasure's Ikaruga features only one ship and one shot type (discounting the 2 colour play mechanic of course), while Raizing's Armed Police Batrider features literaly about 100+ different ship combinations, alowing for some crazy flexibility.

[Lordstar]

P.S. It's also interesting that you mention people play for the score. I've often wondered how important score is. It's important for some games, and other games not so much, and absolutely critical for a select few. It's a funny thing.

With little or no story to hold players I guess next to playablity the scores are really important. you mention online play and if there was any kind of leader board it will mean the score is a lot more important.

For me when I play shmups Im not very good but i do aim to get better so i play them with one credit and see how far i can get.

[emphatic]

A good way of attracting casual players as well as the more hard core ones is to reward risks with points. For example: If you are closer to the enemies, you get more points. If you kill them fast and without pause/gaps you can "chain" and get more points. Casual gamers can play it and get a kick out of the design etc, and when they play it long enough they can evolve their strategies to excel in scoring.

A good example of that is CAVE's ESPGaluda. If you play it like a regular shooter it's fun and really want's you to play it again. If you play for points, it get's much harder. The scoring mechanic is very much relying on timing, and you have to train for a long time. First couple of times I played it I reached stage 3 or so and got about 3-4 million pts. Now I can get almost 4 million on stage 1. And it's much more fun to play.

The trick is to get both of these ways of playing the game fun and rewarding.
Emph

[bkk]

Cons:
- nobody has done it before

It has been done in console ports as wobble mode. It is generally despised

Thanks for the information. Right now, our implementation isn't perfect, and we're aware of that. It's something we're going to make sure is right before release. Do you know any games that have implemented it, so I can check them out? Thanks!

Strikers 1945 II for Playstation and Battle Garegga for Saturn both have this. Great games, get them.

[Jason]

With little or no story to hold players I guess next to playability the scores are really important. you mention online play and if there was any kind of leader board it will mean the score is a lot more important.

For me when I play shmups I'm not very good but i do aim to get better so i play them with one credit and see how far i can get.

There will be no achievements or leaderboards in XBLCG (Xbox Live Community Games). This could really hurt us. We can store local high scores, but that's not as much fun as seeing your scores next to your friends.

We have plans for implementing a mode where you have just one ship -- not just one credit -- to see how far you can go.

[Jason]

A good way of attracting casual players as well as the more hard core ones is to reward risks with points. For example: If you are closer to the enemies, you get more points. If you kill them fast and without pause/gaps you can "chain" and get more points. Casual gamers can play it and get a kick out of the design etc, and when they play it long enough they can evolve their strategies to excel in scoring.

A good example of that is CAVE's ESPGaluda. If you play it like a regular shooter it's fun and really wants you to play it again. If you play for points, it gets much harder. The scoring mechanic is very much relying on timing, and you have to train for a long time. First couple of times I played it I reached stage 3 or so and got about 3-4 million pts. Now I can get almost 4 million on stage 1. And it's much more fun to play.

The trick is to get both of these ways of playing the game fun and rewarding.

Thanks for the ideas.

I've disliked chaining for points, or getting points for proximity. Why? Because the causal gamers see that they are being rated by this, and feel stressed that they should be doing better. I believe no stress should be applied. A great example is Raptor: Call of the Shadows, which would leave tons of icons all over the screen, which you would collect because they are glowing and look nice and must be great to have, so you actually miss enemies because you are collecting them, only to find out that they do nothing but increase your score by 50 pts.

What I prefer is that the score reflects your skill level in playing the actual game...... You get further, you get more points. You kill the boss faster, you get more points. If you dominate the game, you get more points. If you kill all enemies, you get more points. If play godlike (don't die and kill all enemies and do everything that you possibly can do), you get more points.

The flaw with this, is where does the longevity come in with this style of scoring? How do I keep your attention afterwards, as you do in the game you mentioned? I'm not so sure...

[Zebra Airforce]

It enforces a delay between every 4th fire, to emulate the old school arcades where you had limited bullets.

Incorrect. The bullets are capped at a certain number of instances, so they shoot faster as you approach the top of the screen or an enemy.

Why? Because the causal gamers see that they are being rated by this, and feel stressed that they should be doing better. I believe no stress should be applied.

a) Who cares abour casual gamers? You should make games for people who play games.
b) I've never felt pressured by a scoring system. If you feel that way you might as well take out points or difficulties, because those are also ways of ranking players.

Chaining and proximity bonuses are not the only ways of influencing score. If you are really afraid of scaring away players then use something more covert. For instance, in Armed Police Batrider some enemies are worth more points depepnding on what attack destroys them. Often a bomb or aura attack will be worth considerably more than the regular shot or options. Or take Battle Garrega, where bombing in a certain area will release birds that can be shot for points. None of these things is obvious to a player until they have spent alot of time with the game.

I also agree that verticle scrolling based on player movement is a very bad idea. It's disorienting and nobody likes it.

[Taylor]

I've disliked chaining for points, or getting points for proximity. Why? Because the causal gamers see that they are being rated by this, and feel stressed that they should be doing better. I believe no stress should be applied. A great example is Raptor: Call of the Shadows, which would leave tons of icons all over the screen, which you would collect because they are glowing and look nice and must be great to have, so you actually miss enemies because you are collecting them, only to find out that they do nothing but increase your score by 50 pts. :roll:

I think Raptor: Call of the Shadows is actually a bad example! I completely agree that stage chaining is a hardcore only approach to scoring but there is middle ground to be had here. I think a good scoring system is one that brings about a reward a player will like in addition to a number increasing. Progear has a nice scoring system (until you realise how important survival and max bombs are) because it revolves around cancelling bullets - naturally something the player wants to do, and the various scoring tricks (such as letting the screen fill with bullets before cancelling) are immediately apparent from that.

Depth
A good, rewarding scoring system adds depth, to some players this may be intimidating but it depends on how you present your scoring system. DoDonPachi has bars showing your current chain life, a giant number showing your current chain count and a record of the best chains you have done. This will scare people away. Ikaruga has an extremely hardcore-orientated chaining system as well, but because it is presently subtlety it gets away with it better.

Your casual player doesn’t know it exists or, at best, see it as another layer to the game. A positive feature. This is ultimately a hardcore genre and one with only a few mechanics, it's not uncommon for a deep and occasionally punishing scoring system for this reason. Don't alienate your casual players, but for God's sake don't alienate your hardcore audience either! Because, face it, they're far more likely to play your game!

Lasting Appeal
Because a good scoring system is a layer of depth and one hard to master, suddenly you have two divides to how your game can be played: For survival or for score. If a player really likes your game, the second option will quickly become more attractive. If you get the same score each time, or it's determined entirely by survival you don't have this divide because scores are so similar. Watching a good player destroy a shmup and get extends hillariously early in the game is awe-inspiring and something you want to capture.

Evolution
If a player is going for a 1cc or playing your game several times they will go though the same stages again and the exact same sequence of events. This is, no matter how good your level designs are, going to get boring as the player is confident and versed with this stage of the game.

Adding a complex scoring system completely changes this. The player will approach these sections not as boring stuff they've done before, but potential scoring zones. And this will be an itterative process, adding much more life to your game.

In fact, because score is usually tied to extra lives, players will often learn how to score in the earlier sections to have a better chance at getting past the bit the bit they are currently having trouble with when going for the 1cc.

There are other reasons, but I’m typing this in Word and just hit the bottom of an A4 page, which is my cue to stop. However the above are the most significant.

Could I also get a screenshot of the game at its native resolution so I can give feedback on the way the game looks (from a gameplay perspective as well as aesthetically).

And can the two topics on this be clobbered together?

[Jason]

Yeah, it probably has a few too many ships, but I imagine the game was aimed at shooting fans who were already familliar with some of the ships through the Raiden series. In general I prefer a more simple selection of ships. If you want to compare both ends of the spectrum, Treasure's Ikaruga features only one ship and one shot type (discounting the 2 colour play mechanic of course), while Raizing's Armed Police Batrider features literaly about 100+ different ship combinations, alowing for some crazy flexibility.

Armed Police Batrider looks pretty nice.

I'd like to have my game require as little thinking as possible. This means you just collect all power up icons, without thinking what they are, or waiting for them to be proper. By not having any ship selection, you just play, and not think. I want our game to be totally about arcade skill and reaction. No thought allowed. hehe

[Aru-san]

Armed Police Batrider looks pretty nice.

I'd like to have my game require as little thinking as possible. This means you just collect all power up icons, without thinking what they are, or waiting for them to be proper. By not having any ship selection, you just play, and not think. I want our game to be totally about arcade skill and reaction. No thought allowed. hehe

What you just described is pretty much the polar opposite of Armed Police Batrider (or pretty much any post-Garegga Raizing games released) in a sense that a whole lot of memorizing even the SMALLEST details in the game is essential for acceptable score runs.

Your idea, while being minimal (and somewhat mistaken as 'boring' by mainstreamers), would probably do good for most players.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

It is a collective dream to wipe the casual "gaymrz" off the face of the Earth. Their lower member should be fodder for a meat grinder-just after it is slammed between a solid core door and the door frame.

[emphatic]

It is a collective dream to wipe the casual "gaymrz" off the face of the Earth. Their lower member should be fodder for a meat grinder-just after it is slammed between a solid core door and the door frame.

Amen brother.
Emph

[Jason]

It enforces a delay between every 4th fire, to emulate the old school arcades where you had limited bullets.

Incorrect. The bullets are capped at a certain number of instances, so they shoot faster as you approach the top of the screen or an enemy.

No, the bullets aren't capped. Watch 1:08 onward in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaTIhEvC968
The player is at the top of the screen, and all four sets of bullets are off-screen before it fires again. If it was capped, as soon as the first set disappeared, it would fire again.

But, I was wrong to say there was an invariable delay between each 4th fire. After further analysis, I think it allows you to fire again immediately only when there's no bullets on the screen at all, which is visible at 0:12, where he's right at the top of the screen, and it is indeed firing continuously.

This means you will fire more quickly if you get into the face of a boss, as you said, but not nearly as much as if there was a simple cap, like the original Raiden series had.

a) Who cares about casual gamers? You should make games for people who play games.

Everyone is a newbie / casual gamer when playing your game for the first time. They only become experts after getting hooked. I want to make sure I hook as many people as I can, so I don't want to pressure them with anything. So, it's not about casual vs. expert. It's about not overwhelming newcomers. I think it's far better to simply reward the players for good play without showing it in their face, in real-time, as a constant reminder that they are being judged. I don't want the game to feel like a test. It should be pure pleasure.

b) I've never felt pressured by a scoring system. If you feel that way you might as well take out points or difficulties, because those are also ways of ranking players.

Ranking players by difficulty and points scored for how quickly they finish off bosses is completely different than giving bonus points because you timed the death of two enemies in a row to get a chain scoring. I want the player who kicks the most ass to have the highest score. I don't want puzzle game aspects in the game, where you score more points if you know how to get the multiplier. I want the guy who dominates the game, kills the most enemies, kills the bosses the fastest -- the guy who does best what the game is primarily all about -- to have the highest score. And that's how you can rank your play. I've never agreed with score multipliers, since the people who get the highest scores are the people who know how to manipulate the system best.

Chaining and proximity bonuses are not the only ways of influencing score. If you are really afraid of scaring away players then use something more covert. For instance, in Armed Police Batrider some enemies are worth more points depending on what attack destroys them. Often a bomb or aura attack will be worth considerably more than the regular shot or options. Or take Battle Garrega, where bombing in a certain area will release birds that can be shot for points. None of these things is obvious to a player until they have spent a lot of time with the game.

Thanks for the input. Right, I see that there's even more ways to influence the score. And the guy who discovers all of this will get higher scores. But, again, this is not what I want. I want the guy who is best at killing bosses fast to have the highest score. However he finds out the best way to do that, regardless of what weapon he chooses, or attack pattern, or anything else, if he achieves the end goal best, then he deserves the highest score. That's my perspective.

I've heard that people, once they master a game, enjoy collecting icons as an extra bonus challenge, so I'm conflicted, since I don't want those elements in the game, but I want the longevity to be there for the guys who really love it, and want something new. My idea was to provide this via challenge modes, and higher difficulty settings, and with the Dual Play (simultaneous control of 2 fighters), and perhaps other modes of play I haven't thought of yet. Any ideas? Thoughts?

Thanks for your feedback, it is appreciated.

[Jason]

Taylor, thanks for the in-depth post. I appreciate your thoughts.

There's something about manipulating Progear to allow many bullets before cancelling to get more score that I don't like. I know it make the game more challenging, on purpose, and then you get a higher score for it. I remember I used to do this in Super-C, I wanted a real challenge, so I'd invent ways to make the game harder. That is fine. Us hardcore gamers will do this. But, I don't like the game enforcing this on you. I think you summed this perfectly with the DoDonPachi and Ikaruga comparison. One throws it in your face. The other is unnoticeable unless you are a hardcore gamer. So, Ikaruga pulls it off best, since the challenge is there, if you want it, but isn't harassing you when you're the first time player. I think this is where the balance is decent.

Good point regarding you could get the same score each time you play if we don't avoid this. I don't want that. I wanted to at least add bonuses for how quickly you kill the bosses. But, perhaps this could be added for every single enemy, so the guys that can kick ass the best will get the highest scores? I don't want score multipliers -- it makes the score meaningless, because someone who is 10% better can get a score that is 1,000x larger, and it makes no sense after that point (although, one of these days, I'd like to make a game like Giga Wing that just blows the score out of the water to show how crazy a multiplier system could be ).

Keep in mind, this is our first game. And we have less than 1 month left. So, we're just trying to get the damn thing done. But, I like to talk about it, so we can add all these ideas into the next shmup that we make. Please don't be too disappointed that they won't all be implemented in the first version. Time is limited.

One idea is to randomize the enemy positions and placements to make the game have more longevity, so everything is always somewhat of a surprise. Maybe this could be another game mode, since some people love the consistency of the same game over and over, it can be relaxing.

I'll look to getting a screenshot somewhere you can check out.

P.S. Is it possible to combine two threads within this forum?

[Jason]

What you just described is pretty much the polar opposite of Armed Police Batrider (or pretty much any post-Garegga Raizing games released) in a sense that a whole lot of memorizing even the SMALLEST details in the game is essential for acceptable score runs.

Your idea, while being minimal (and somewhat mistaken as 'boring' by mainstreamers), would probably do good for most players.

The most important thing is that our game will allow the player to kick ass. That's #1 priority. To me, that's what the definition of game play is.

[lilmanjs]

if any of the people making this game have a hd-dvd burner they should make some cd versions and sell it online.

[Xonatron]

Your idea, while being minimal (and somewhat mistaken as 'boring' by mainstreamers), would probably do good for most players.

Thanks. The point of minimality is to not require energy to do certain tasks, and free up that energy for the primary tasks in a shooter: avoiding bullet streams and shooting down enemies quickly.

It reminds me of a debate with F1 drivers, on whether or not they should be allowed to warm up their tires with tire warming machines. I do not konw the answer, but I understand the concept: if you allow the drivers to not have to worry (not have to waste energy) on warming up their tires, and judging to what degree they are warmed up, they can expend that energy on driver better and faster. A similar debate arose with automatic shifting; same concept.

With us, we want to fully emphasize the core gameplay. And be innovative. And be friendly to newcomers. And have longevity. And satisfy experts. And satisfy passionate shooter fans that visit and post to boards, make their own shooters, and buy Japanese Xbox's just to play Raiden Fighters Aces. And I want a three or four year olds to be able beat the first level on the easiest mode. It's really a balancing act, and we'll do our very best. And we appreciate everything you all are writing to us, even if we end up going in another direction.

[Xonatron]

if any of the people making this game have a hd-dvd burner they should make some cd versions and sell it online.

We have thought about this, and have looked into it. Since the game is developed using Micrsoft's XNA Game Studio, this is not (yet) an option. In fact, we are having problems letting our beta testers test it on their systems. XNA is still under vast development, and nobody knows what features we are going to have. It was sad for us to learn we cannot yet have leaderboards. Can you imagine how awesome leaderboards would have been once we develop a proper scoring system?

We do know we can sell PC games with it, but I want the PC version to be after the Xbox surge. As an Xbox user, I have little to no 2d shooters to play (first thing I looked for on Xbox LIVE), and I want to fill that void, first.

[Pixel_Outlaw]

The game looks good from the video but the graphics are sub par looking. Looks like somebody just went nuts with the Photoshop bevel edge layer style. Really you need some very good tiles or a better background image. There is no texture and everything is one of 2 possible heights. Also you are going to need animated enemies. Everything looks pretty rough right now. I hope these are just placeholder graphics. I'm not trying to offend you if they aren't but these look like somebody went crazy with a Photoshop filter instead of learning to create different impressions of detail and height. If you are not good at making background maps you could always go the procedural route. I;'ve been able to procedurally generate terrain very easily using Perlin noise then binding a height map gradient to it.

I would never want to discourage a fellow developer though.

This is a procedural generation for a backdrop using Perlin noise. This style may not be what you want. I'm just offering this if you don't have a good artist:

[lilmanjs]

if any of the people making this game have a hd-dvd burner they should make some cd versions and sell it online.

We have thought about this, and have looked into it. Since the game is developed using Micrsoft's XNA Game Studio, this is not (yet) an option. In fact, we are having problems letting our beta testers test it on their systems. XNA is still under vast development, and nobody knows what features we are going to have. It was sad for us to learn we cannot yet have leaderboards. Can you imagine how awesome leaderboards would have been once we develop a proper scoring system?

We do know we can sell PC games with it, but I want the PC version to be after the Xbox surge. As an Xbox user, I have little to no 2d shooters to play (first thing I looked for on Xbox LIVE), and I want to fill that void, first.

I understand this very much so. when I can I will be getting an xbox360(cheapest model) and will get a harddrive seperate. I really like the look of the game and can't wait for it to be finished.

[Xonatron]

...I will be getting an xbox360(cheapest model) and will get a harddrive seperate.

Then you should check out this deal, and see if it is legit:
http://www.xboxstorageupgrade.com/hh/we ... cation.jsp

I believe it lets you upgrade your Core/Arcade Xbox 360 to a 20GB HD for $20... in preperation for the release of NXE (and Community Games )

I really like the look of the game and can't wait for it to be finished.

Thank you!