Different kinds of memorization in shmups

[320x240]

I know memorization has been debated extensively already, some might say it's been outdebated or can't really be debated at all, at least not in a civil way. I'd like to focus the discussion on the different degrees of memorization rather than the merit of such a game mechanic.

Some horizontals are accused of being strict memorizers. I take this to mean that you can only choose one route through a given level or indeed the whole game. Do these 'one route through a level'-games really exist?

Some games are said to have less strict memorization. I take this to mean that you can choose more than one route through a given level or indeed the whole game. Doesn't every shmup end up being a strict memorizer when you play for score? I can see that an elaborate score-system can postpone this effect taking place, compared to a game with a less elaborate score-system, but I can't see that it overcomes the need for strict memorization alltogether.

Isn't the difference between a strict memorizer and a less strict memorizer that the first type makes it clear from the very beginning that it is indeed a memorizer while the latter gives you the chance to give into the memorization more gradually?

[RHE]

Do these 'one route through a level'-games really exist?

No, they don't exist in the video game world. Nobody wants to play this I quess.

I take this to mean that you can choose more than one route through a given level or indeed the whole game. Doesn't every shmup end up being a strict memorizer when you play for score?

I say yes. Every games that's not based on randomnes is a memorizer in the end. I mean the more often you play such a game, the higher the chances are you can memorize it, even if you don't do this intentionally. As every not random game is always the same game, you're just playing in a different why unless you found the perfect surival/scoring route. And I think it depends the player if you play a game rather about reflexes or memorizing as both a valid styles to encounter a game - If a game it not random it would be stupid to don't memorize it at all.

The main difference between survival shooters like R-Type and scoring games like DoDoDonpachi are, that R-Type is way easier to memorize then DDP. Because its easier to memorize unique looking and slow scrolling environment than fast scrolling backgrounds and bullets patterns. So playing DDP rather on reflex then memorizing makes more sense then playing R-Type on reflexes while you can easily flip the positions. So there are different degrees of memorizing necessary from shmup to shmup but I'm note sure how heavy these dregrees are build into the game, so it also relies on the players abilities as the game is just suggesting a way to play it from the beginning.

Isn't the difference between a strict memorizer and a less strict memorizer that the first type makes it clear from the very beginning that it is indeed a memorizer while the latter gives you the chance to give into the memorization more gradually?

Yeah it looks like the makers of R-Type want the player to memorize the game to a certain extent to give it the strategic gameplay it has, so they build the game around it. While the makers of DDP want the player rather to play on reflexes so they made the game harder to memorize. That doesn't mean DDP is not strategical, it just has a different focus on strategic and memorizing than R-Type.

[Frederik]

I take this to mean that you can choose more than one route through a given level or indeed the whole game. Doesn't every shmup end up being a strict memorizer when you play for score?

I say yes, too.

I always thought Dangun Feveron would have a very flexible scoring system, but if you aim for a top score (not your "personal best" but really aiming for a world record) you need to take out enemies as fast as possible. That´s why the superplays from Clover-YMN on Super-Play.co.uk look so ridiculously weird - he just knows what comes when and most enemies don´t even appear on the screen while he stays at the top quarter of the screen pointblanking and bombing the shit out of everything.

And while there always is an ideal perfect path through a game scorewise, I think a good balance comes in when the game is actually hard enough to make you constantly deal with what risks to take. For instance, you might follow a ideal scoring path in Batrider stage one, but that would involve using all your bombs and even suiciding once (for bombs), which makes it A LOT harder to survive longer. So if you don´t use all these opportunities as a mediocre player, you might survive longer and score much better than if you went for the "pro" route and died after two stages.

Still considering Batrider, Icarus pointed out that in order to score well at this game, at first try to get consistent at survival and leave out all the extra bosses, and then slowly work your way up. A good scoring game leaves you the freedom to makes these scoring vs risk- decisions.

In games like R-Type, you need to memorize stuff to simply survive, often having attacks that completely catch you off guard the first time, but once you learn them you´ll never make this mistake again (I find that pretty cheap, Rick Dangerous is a perfect example of this "trap" idea). In well-made scoring games, you can fine-adjust your scoring to how safe you´re feeling survival-wise. Trying to play perfect right from the start is a certain method to drive away everybody but the most dedicated.

[Icarus]

Do these 'one route through a level'-games really exist?

I always thought Dangun Feveron would have a very flexible scoring system, but if you aim for a top score (not your "personal best" but really aiming for a world record) you need to take out enemies as fast as possible.

Hmmm... in terms of scoreplay there is usually one ideal route through any game, not exactly in terms of movement (but movement and position do play a huge part in its effects) but in terms of target attacks - what enemies to pick off, when, and how. In terms of survival your movement and attacking strategy will be a little bit more flexible, but many games still push "danger spots" on players, where threats have to be dealt with immediately or else it is certain death. Snipers in Raiden DX are a classic example of these kinds of threats. Score systems will have a great influence on these routes too, for example enemy chaining systems like in Dodonpachi, or contact chaining in Mushi.

What it all boils down to is the fact that if you desire to play to a certain level of skill, you're going to have to memorise things sooner or later. If you want to see the true horror of memorisation in scoreplay, download this pack of Feveron Time Attack replays I made during STGT. You'll see that as my score progresses, my strategies become more and more fixed. In the end it is less new tricks and more refinement that brings about minor increases in score.

http://www.thestudio-uk.com/namako_ftp/ ... wolf99.rar
Wolf 0.99 required.

And while there always is an ideal perfect path through a game scorewise, I think a good balance comes in when the game is actually hard enough to make you constantly deal with what risks to take. For instance, you might follow a ideal scoring path in Batrider stage one, but that would involve using all your bombs and even suiciding once (for bombs), which makes it A LOT harder to survive longer. So if you don´t use all these opportunities as a mediocre player, you might survive longer and score much better than if you went for the "pro" route and died after two stages.

The true "pro" route is a double suicide in stage one. ^_-

Still considering Batrider, Icarus pointed out that in order to score well at this game, at first try to get consistent at survival and leave out all the extra bosses, and then slowly work your way up. A good survival game leaves you the freedom to makes these scoring vs risk- decisions.

Fixed. And as discussed previously, it is not just in Batrider but in any game that this holds true: learn survival strategy before attempting scoreplay.

[PROMETHEUS]

I call memorizers game that are impossible to survive without memorization and then easy to complete when memorized. As opposed to that you have stuff like Cave games which are relatively playable without memorization, however in order to score well in them you have to memorize a LOT, way more than in most, if not all, so called "memorizers".

[gamingjustin]

Hm... I understand it not so much as "one route" or a best way, but rather one needing to know where everything (or most everything) is in order to succeed either in score or completion of all the levels. It's the difference between success though pure reflex and skills versus success through anticipation and knowledge ahead of time. Compile vs. Irem, for example.

If you can plow through R-Type based on simple reaction/reflex you should spend your time doing things besides playing video games, because you possess incredible talent! On the contrary I could see someone completing Zanac on one of their first few tries so long as they get the mechanics (what each weapons does) down.

[RHE]

In games like R-Type, you need to memorize stuff to simply survive, often having attacks that completely catch you off guard the first time, but once you learn them you´ll never make this mistake again (I find that pretty cheap, Rick Dangerous is a perfect example of this "trap" idea). In well-made scoring games, you can fine-adjust your scoring to how safe you´re feeling survival-wise. Trying to play perfect right from the start is a certain method to drive away everybody but the most dedicated.

I think this has something to do with the fact that most survival games are less forgivable unlike most scoring games. With a pure survival game, If you surive one enemy then in most cases your can easily go on without any probs. Next time you can do this again if you memorize it.

With scoring games this sometimes is different, because killing an enemy too early/late can punish you later on, depending on the scoring system of course. If destroying an enemy does not triggers more enemies to come into the screen for example. To do this with a survival games possible too, just rarely done. This is why scoring games look less strict, but once you know that you're getting punished for killing an enemy too early you can memorize it as well. It' just that most players hardly reach the position to memorize the perfect ways to play the game as its above their skill level.

If you can plow through R-Type based on simple reaction/reflex you should spend your time doing things besides playing video games, because you possess incredible talent! On the contrary I could see someone completing Zanac on one of their first few tries so long as they get the mechanics (what each weapons does) down.

It's possible as long there's no section where the player is getting instantly killed without any warning, and the only way to survive it is memorizing it. But in most games you get a warning sign befor this happens.

I call memorizers game that are impossible to survive without memorization...

What specific game do you have in mind?

[PROMETHEUS]

I call memorizers game that are impossible to survive without memorization...

What specific game do you have in mind?

Stuff like Pulstar, Blazing Star, Raiden...
Although Blazing Star doesn't get so hard at all until the latter stages, it does get ridiculously easy once memorized in my opinion. As soon as memorization makes the game much easier and just easy overall, I call the game a memorizer.

[RHE]

Raiden? Are you sure? I mean is it enterily impossible to complete the game without memorizing or ist it just hardly do-able? Maybe you can give me an example where the game has a impossible to clear at once situation or such a situationen with another game.

[PROMETHEUS]

Raiden is probably the most "impossible to survive without strict memorization" game I know, lots of snipers and very fast patterns being thrown at you that you can't avoid unless you know exactly what they look like or where you can place yourself to be safe / kill the enemies before they even shoot.

Like Psikyo's or Cave's 2nd loop stuff.

Actually, almost all STGs are impossible to clear with no knowledge of the game. But not all are easy once memorized.

[Mischief Maker]

I'd say one of the last levels in that GBA Gradius games fits the bill. It's this part where you're in some fort/factory/whatever and the screen starts scrolling really fast and hallways are formed and you need to quick choose the correct path. Then you learn that there was a dead end offscreen for the path you chose. Have fun re-earning those options!

[jpj]

Do these 'one route through a level'-games really exist?

one bugbear i have is people saying this about doj. i have five replays (six if i bother saving my runs) from: LAOS, TAC, ISO, HFD ... and NOA and they are all different.

i was playing some futari ultra last week. and it is by far the most memorisation-heavy stg i've played in a long while. if you don't know what's coming when and where, and how to deal with it, you're dead.

i think more old-school games like r-type II definitely feel this way.

[kengou]

There's games that take memorisation to survive, like R-Type, in other words unfair games, and then there's games that require memorisation to score well, like every game with a form of chaining (Most Cave/Treasure games). I really hate the survival-memorisers personally, R-Type is just not that fun for me, trial-and-error-ing my way through each level. I want to survive because of my own skill, not because I know the levels exactly.

I also think that random bullet/enemy patterns have a lot to do with making games less memorisation-heavy. In DDP for example you can take the same basic route through each level but there will be some enemies that fly toward you or shoot random smatterings of bullets at you and you'll have to move just a bit differently each time, and that itself might throw you off your basic route if you get caught in an awkward spot. Bullets that are aimed at you also help a lot (which is why I don't consider Raiden to be that memorisation-heavy to survive, with the exception of many bosses; just move side-to-side to dodge the zillions of fast aimed shots and you can survive).

[PROMETHEUS]

i was playing some futari ultra last week. and it is by far the most memorisation-heavy stg i've played in a long while. if you don't know what's coming when and where, and how to deal with it, you're dead.

Yeah, I think that's what it ought to be like for a STG to be really hard. If you're making the bullets really hard to dodge and bothering even for the player who knows the best possible path and method through a level, then naturally all those playing without knowledge and memorization are just going to face certain death. That's definitely how it works in dodonpachi, nearly anything that is still difficult to do once well memorized was impossible before being memorized. What was doable without memorization has become really easy with memorization.

[wiNteR]

Raiden is probably the most "impossible to survive without strict memorization" game I know, lots of snipers and very fast patterns being thrown at you that you can't avoid unless you know exactly what they look like or where you can place yourself to be safe / kill the enemies before they even shoot.

I agree with your definition of a memorizer but I can't think of Raiden as one. Atleast for Raiden-III I really don't think much memorization is required unless you plan to score very high. It's true though that some of the intimidating boss patterns become much easier when you know the right "tap patterns" for them; but that's about it. I always thought the best way to play stages is to just stay on a "look out" for fast directed bullets (particularly close ranged ones at selected places) that you would probably miss if you weren't paying much attention. Other than that, there isn't much to it except keeping a few mental queues (which every game does). I don't know much about other multi-loop raiden games though.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

My definition of a memorizer is game's level where an unescapable trap occurs, and that trap must be memorized in order to prevent an inevitible loss of ship. Examples from older horizontal shooters include...

Gaiares: there are several levels that offer branching, but taking the "wrong" branch after a midboss can result in a harder section with more traps (stage 1 lower branch is one example, stage 3 has several hard branches in the castle-like zone). Gaiares stage 2 just before the boss also has that closing door--pass by it before it closes and no problem... but if it closes and the ship is still back then it is a guaranteed collision.

Thunderforce II has a horizontal stage where closing columns attempt to trap the player ship. If the ship hasn't cleared past the closing column then it doesn't open back up in time and is a guaranteed collision. The later overhead stages are also definite memorizers.

Thunderforce III has traps in the Hydra, Gorgon, and Haides stages. The long row of missiles is the trap in Hydra. The columns of lava are the traps in Gorgon. The closing sections of land, and the backwards scroll section are traps in Haides.

Darius Gaiden also has a couple of zones where robotic things carve away at the rock structures, creating narrow escape paths for the ship. Not making it to the escape paths means a guaranteed collision, and it does require memorization to remember where all the escape routes will be.

[320x240]

My definition of a memorizer is game's level where an unescapable trap occurs, and that trap must be memorized in order to prevent an inevitible loss of ship.

This kind of trap is bound to occur in horizontals more than in verticals I guess. Even ground-based verticals seems to avoid this.

PROMETHEUS notion that some games still remain difficult when you have memorized them while others become easy is interesting. Most Euroshmups seem to fall in the latter category. It's a mechanic that works in the arcades only I think, and one that Euroshmups should avoid if they are to fulfill their promise of 'shmups as arcade-adventures', which is really what most of them want to be.

Hmmm... in terms of scoreplay there is usually one ideal route through any game, not exactly in terms of movement (but movement and position do play a huge part in its effects) but in terms of target attacks - what enemies to pick off, when, and how.

That is an important distinction. Some games give you more choices than others and may even force you to choose between different targets. Even so, isn't there an ideal route and choice of weapon etc. if you want to top everybody elses scores?

[moozooh]

one bugbear i have is people saying this about doj. i have five replays (six if i bother saving my runs) from: LAOS, TAC, ISO, HFD ... and NOA :P and they are all different.

This is very true: DOJ's scoring system is remarkably fluid for a chaining-based game. And the main reason for this is the combination of DDP's strict scoring with hyper mechanics. Letting the player choose where and when to activate hypers leads to different results in the end, allowing variation in strategies. This fluidity is even more pronounced in DFK, I'd say.

On topic of memorization in scoring systems, as well as survival, there's basically one major concern: is there anything else beside the stuff you have to memorize? The reason I respect Perfect Cherry Blossom's scoring system so much is that it does let you modify and variate the scoring paths through levels, as well as in-game/end tally scoring tradeoffs, very fluidly — and at the same time, requires thinking in advance a whole lot. This is the very same reason I came to enjoy some of Raizing games: even if there is one ideal path, you don't have to take it because there are also a dozen near-ideal ones alongside it. In strict memorizers, important steps spell larger blows in your end score, and there are no ways to recover from them either.

[kemical]

I dont think Raiden is totally a memorizer.. it lacks the awkward pacing of r-type and other games that I'd consider requiring memorization..

It has extremely good flow for it's age, when you are playing it well, all the joystick movements feel very good and coincide with very deliberate sweeping movements most of the time, the music tips you off to enemy introductions or helps break the levels up into sequences

Raiden is one of the most enjoyable shooters for me to play..

[Kaiser]

I dont think Raiden is totally a memorizer.. it lacks the awkward pacing of r-type and other games that I'd consider requiring memorization..

It has extremely good flow for it's age, when you are playing it well, all the joystick movements feel very good and coincide with very deliberate sweeping movements most of the time, the music tips you off to enemy introductions or helps break the levels up into sequences

Raiden is one of the most enjoyable shooters for me to play..

Oh man, i have much memories with 1cc'ing both raiden I and II, they are so awesome for their age and fast-paced that it's unbelievable, of course later levels require specific weapon combination/strategy to win but mostly the bosses are memorizers. I doubt i'll 1cc DX's expert course any soon or ever though, it's THAT hard

[Taylor]

Memorisation for survival is pretty lame in concept but it can be executed fairly well in moderation. Most final stages do have some psychic sections and honestly it’s quite nice to come back to them with a plan to get through. But, they need to give the illusion that there was a chance; being trapped in the corner by bullets may effectively be the same as going the wrong route and hitting a dead end, but the honesty of the latter is infuriating.

Strict memorisation for scoring is perfectly valid, I can’t think of a decent score system that doesn’t have some aspect of memorisation about it. Medalling perhaps, but all those games are usually full of scoring secrets and tricks serving the same purpose. However, it's not fun when a scoring system with heavy memorisation is mixed in with the design philosophy that one mistake should completely destroy your scoring potential.

[Icarus]

That is an important distinction. Some games give you more choices than others and may even force you to choose between different targets. Even so, isn't there an ideal route and choice of weapon etc. if you want to top everybody elses scores?

If we take Mushi as an example, some will argue that the chaining system is somewhat dynamic and allows for improvisation, which on the surface is the case. However, delve a little deeper into the system and you'll find that the perfect (or near-perfect) route for scoring requires a strict and aggressive route to be taken through the stages - particular enemies must be destroyed at the right time to maintain your chain increase, some enemies must always be point-blanked, and so on. The higher you push for score increases, the more fixed your ideal route becomes.

If we take Batrider Advanced as an example, you can theoretically play the game freely, scoring at will and not worrying about stock balance, which will probably get you a decent score. However, if you aim for anything over 12mil, you'll have no choice but to play as a team, creating a definite ship roster and fixed stage layout using the Stage Edit, and balancing your stock with suicides in order to generate enough bombs for bombing runs, and so that you have the right ships in stock to trigger special bosses. In essence you're playing with one life only, and any accidental death will either cause a credit end or will dent scoring potential greatly.

There are probably hundreds of other examples that will lead to the same conclusion - the higher you desire to score, the more fixed your routine will have to become.

[sikraiken]

There is ultimately one optimal path for every single game that has both score and an end. Even if the scoring potential is the same via different methods in a game (scoring systems vary, but lets say a max is possible, such as there are a limited number of enemies to kill), there are still optimal paths for best survival and best chance of success. What does it matter the type of memorization? Ultimately the best score will come from pure memorization. Execution is all that hinders us from seeing the light.

Randomness can throw things for a loop a little, but even random has to do with memorization.

What Icarus said, basically. : )

[RHE]

Randomness can throw things for a loop a little, but even random has to do with memorization.

How is this possible? How can you memorize something before you have seen it?

[moozooh]

Play nomltest.

[RHE]

I still don't get it. Maybe sikraiken isn't speaking of total randomness but hard too expect enemies/bullets or something like that? Then you can at least memorize the fact to pay more attention at those random bullets/enemies to make them a bit more predictable.

[moozooh]

Imagine a typical "random" pattern: bullets fly from the top of the screen with random moving speed, appearance interval, and angle. You still know they are flying from the top of the screen, and not from the sides, from the bottom, or just appearing anywhere on the screen chaotically. You can also see their trajectory, which remains straight. Etc.. There are no games that are completely random, you can always know something about them that is subject to memorization.

[RHE]

I see, that was my asseumption as well. What kind of degree of memorizing these kind of games have then? I'm asking this mainly because I'm not sure if there are different degrees of memorizing at all. Random stuff makes memorizing harder for sure, so someone can say that if features a mild degree of memorizing but normally shmups doesn't do this. I don't know much that do this at least.

So does R-Type and DoDonPachi feature different degrees of memorizing or do they just feature different degrees of punishment if you do a mistake/don't memorize a path well?

[sikraiken]

R-Type is really straightforward and doesn't involve a lot of risk. It's also pretty lenient. If you really sit down with it, you can have the entire thing memorized and approach a WR score in about a week. Good luck at breaking the WR, of course, in that amount of time; it won't happen. The 1-7 optimal point maximization consistency is tough to get down.

DDP is kind of straightforward (in the sense of the way chaining works) but there is plenty of risk involved, which is why you cannot just get a ridiculous high score in too short of a time. It can be learned quickly, but the real root of the problem is consistency with the game - it's easy to make a mistake, and the game is quick to punish you for that. That consistency takes time. There is a lot more to memorize in DDP than R-Type.

As for my comment about randomness - over time, randomness becomes a familiarity. You learn the randomness. If you've never played a game before, it doesn't matter if it's random or not to you; it's all new. However, if there are things that appear in the game that you've dealt with elsewhere (in another game), you're more likely to understand or have a better chance at approaching it than someone who hasn't.

[PROMETHEUS]

R-Type is really straightforward and doesn't involve a lot of risk. It's also pretty lenient. If you really sit down with it, you can have the entire thing memorized and approach a WR score in about a week. Good luck at breaking the WR, of course, in that amount of time; it won't happen. The 1-7 optimal point maximization consistency is tough to get down.

DDP is kind of straightforward (in the sense of the way chaining works) but there is plenty of risk involved, which is why you cannot just get a ridiculous high score in too short of a time. It can be learned quickly, but the real root of the problem is consistency with the game - it's easy to make a mistake, and the game is quick to punish you for that. That consistency takes time. There is a lot more to memorize in DDP than R-Type.

Yeah definitely, haven't played R-Type myself but Pulstar is definitely the same as compared to DDP.