Easy shmups being frowned upon (Blast Wind rant)

[professor ganson]

Classic shooters aren't hard and people didn't expect them to be so, they're fun for the experience in of themselves. But once fans and developers grew weary of this era due to the fact that it had been taken to its limits, the dawn of manic shooters arose.

This is an interesting historical thesis, but it has to be wrong. I was a young teen when the first shooters hit the arcades, and I'll tell you: those games were not easy. Shooters like Defender were designed to keep the quarters flowing. I was intending to say more here but I see that Ilabnip has covered much of it.

[Nemo]

Classic shooters aren't hard and people didn't expect them to be so

Oh my! Where to begin... Image Fight? Gradius II? Pretty much any early game with aimed shots!

There are many classic shooters that would peel your eyelids back compared to more modern stuff... and I'm not just talking about cheap shooters - there are many fair classic shooters that are just downright amazingly hard to master. Modern manics can actually be easier... once you identify the patterns. There are enough examples out there that nobody can make a sweeping claim a manic is more difficult than a classic shooter. Sometimes that's true... often times it's not.

Sorry, but no. If you can give concrete examples, I'm all ears, but the only challenging classic shooters really aren't challenging at all because they incorporate "crap challenge". Take Image Fight for example, the only reason this game is hard has due to with the fact that when you die you lose all your power and you're restarted in a horrible situation. So the only way practical way to beat it, is to 1-life it, which is still 10x easier than 1CCing 99% of modern shooters. Gradius II, which you also mentioned, is a stroll in the park.

Since classic shooters usually depend on the element of surprise for challenge, once the attack is experienced, it's easily avoided the next time through. This makes them far more memorization-based than manic shooters. Add to this the fact that no skill is required in this process like there is with manic shooters. Even if you know what will happen next or how an enemy will attack it's still super-easy for someone to get annihilated in a modern shooter. There's a reason why so many people (this board included) enjoy and can beat classic shooters yet dislike and can't progress in modern shooters.

Classic shooters aren't hard and people didn't expect them to be so, they're fun for the experience in of themselves. But once fans and developers grew weary of this era due to the fact that it had been taken to its limits, the dawn of manic shooters arose.

This is an interesting historical thesis, but it has to be wrong. I was a young teen when the first shooters hit the arcades, and I'll tell you: those games were not easy. Shooters like Defender were designed to keep the quarters flowing. I was intending to say more here but I see that Ilabnip has covered much of it.

This has to do with evolution. Twenty years ago games like Defender did seem hard because the genre was relatively new and I imagine you were relatively new to it. Looking back now though, the game isn't very hard and can't compare to modern shooters. So imagine being a teen in this day and age and your first shooter experiences being the manic shooters that are out now, this would be a much harder reality than what you experienced with Defender.

[professor ganson]

You make some good points, Nemo. At this point I'm inclined to withhold judgment. I see what you're saying and yet in my own experience shooters of the NES era are just as difficult for me as manic shmups.

But perhaps you are right. Perhaps what makes these games difficult isn't so much that they require tremendous skill. Often I just don't have the patience for memorization, so games that require it seem too hard.

On the other side, sometimes I feel that those early shooters are difficult in part because the controls are imprecise compared to games today that allow for analog control, etc. To do well in spite of imprecise control takes a good bit of skill, don't you think?

And one more point: aren't there manic shmups that are relatively slow-paced and memorization based? The modern games that really kick my ass are games like Gunbird 2 and Dragon Blaze, which require such unbelievably fast reaction time. I would have to agree that memorization is largely irrelevant here, whereas memorization is typically quite helpful in classic shooters.

[raiden]

On the other side, sometimes I feel that those early shooters are difficult in part because the controls are imprecise compared to games today that allow for analog control, etc. To do well in spite of imprecise control takes a good bit of skill, don't you think?

you´re actually playing shmups with analog control?

And one more point: aren't there manic shmups that are relatively slow-paced and memorization based? The modern games that really kick my ass are games like Gunbird 2 and Dragon Blaze, which require such unbelievably fast reaction time. I would have to agree that memorization is largely irrelevant here, whereas memorization is typically quite helpful in classic shooters.

the key to getting good in both games is threat elimination. Most of the really dangerous enemies can be killed with a shortrange weapon/dragon shot before they fire even a single bullet, but to do so, you need to know when they appear where, be there, and don´t get caught in the popcorn attacks from the sides while doing so. So, like in the old games, memorization is required, it´s just that you still need good reflexes, very precise control and concentration after learning the game. You don´t get to stand still at a point with a fully powered-up weapon, blasting everything in sight without the need to dodge, or caught in a safespot while a boss fires thousands of bullets at a completely different direction.

[CMoon]

Classic shooters are appealing for their creativity and modern shooters for their challenge and design. Classic shooters aren't hard and people didn't expect them to be so, they're fun for the experience in of themselves. But once fans and developers grew weary of this era due to the fact that it had been taken to its limits, the dawn of manic shooters arose.

Yeah, I'm as perplexed as you llabnip.

I think this is what we call a post hoc hypothesis.

Am I the only one completely sick of 'old school' and 'new school' distinctions? I was playing Musha earlier this evening. It got pretty 'manic' in a few spots, and actually felt pretty modern.

I don't get it.

[LoneSage]

My complaint with Blast Wind isn't as much its difficulty as it is...plain. Anyone else know what I'm saying? It's hard to describe, but Blast Wind just feels so plain to me.

[llabnip]

On the other side, sometimes I feel that those early shooters are difficult in part because the controls are imprecise compared to games today that allow for analog control, etc. To do well in spite of imprecise control takes a good bit of skill, don't you think?

I think you've got this backwards. Analog control is not precise, it is smooth. Digital control is not smooth, it is precise. There are reasons why you need and want both... but for tap-dodging and proper control, only a solid 8-way digital pad/stick gives you that precision. I was totally floored when I found out that any shooter fan would use an analog stick for movement. I'm a big fan of "to each, their own..." but that's just plain wierd

[llabnip]

Sorry, but no. If you can give concrete examples, I'm all ears, but the only challenging classic shooters really aren't challenging at all because they incorporate "crap challenge". Take Image Fight for example, the only reason this game is hard has due to with the fact that when you die you lose all your power and you're restarted in a horrible situation. So the only way practical way to beat it, is to 1-life it, which is still 10x easier than 1CCing 99% of modern shooters. Gradius II, which you also mentioned, is a stroll in the park.

So have you've 1LC Image Fight?! Image Fight does require you to not lose a life... they effectively give you 1 life and that is part of the challenge. Cheap or not, it's difficult, but it can be tamed and mastered with enough skill. That's not the same thing as a cheap death where there is virtually no chance to avoid an attack. I can't agree that the arcade rev of Image Fight is 10x easier than 99% of modern shooters. Maybe the pattern based manics just click with you less easily and so you find them more challenging... or maybe the patterns are more difficult for you to spot due to the intense number of bullets... However, I don't think a blanket statement can be made about relative difficulties between manics and classics.

What about Radiant Silvergun - one of the most fair and balanced shooters in existance and one of the most difficult to clear... but nowhere near manic? The original Zanac on the NES is a great challenge as well - at least as challenging as a handful of manics. And your point on Defender is just plain strange... the game still kicks as much ass today as it ever did. When I was a kid, I used to just throw my first quarter into the trash - that's how much it dominated me. With time, it can be mastered, but that mastery is no less challenging today than it was in 1982. Manic shooters are different - but challenge is not a good criteria for measuring the delta.

Since classic shooters usually depend on the element of surprise for challenge, once the attack is experienced, it's easily avoided the next time through. This makes them far more memorization-based than manic shooters. Add to this the fact that no skill is required in this process like there is with manic shooters.

Aimed shots are nasty... you can know where an enemy will be, but aimed shots are still difficult to avoid. This makes classic shooters more reflex-based than pattern based (R-Type is obviously a big exception). With games like GigaWing2 (which I enjoy), I know the patterns and the safe spots... games like Raiden DX are challenging because you need to always be on the move and adjust to the bullets which are being thrown right at you.

I have no problem with either classic shooters, or manic shooters or anything in-between. I'm not even sure how to define manic properly - some classic shooters have manic elements and some manic shooters have classic elements... and there are a host of games in the middle ground that blend both. There has definitely been a shift in the "typical" shooter and while I enjoy both, I find classic shooters more to my liking. When you attack them as being "easy" or suggest that they evolved because of a lack of challenge, that's perplexing to me.

[professor ganson]

On the other side, sometimes I feel that those early shooters are difficult in part because the controls are imprecise compared to games today that allow for analog control, etc. To do well in spite of imprecise control takes a good bit of skill, don't you think?

I think you've got this backwards. Analog control is not precise, it is smooth. Digital control is not smooth, it is precise. There are reasons why you need and want both... but for tap-dodging and proper control, only a solid 8-way digital pad/stick gives you that precision. I was totally floored when I found out that any shooter fan would use an analog stick for movement. I'm a big fan of "to each, their own..." but that's just plain wierd

First, I'm obviously a shooter fan, but admittedly an ignorant one. I thought that games like Souky, Garegga, SnS II, ESPGaluda, etc. included analog control because it was helpful. It seemed to me that I was playing better because of it. But I am fully willing to admit that I may have been deeply mistaken on this issue.

I learn something new here nearly everyday. With some luck and a lot of help, in a few years time perhaps I will count as a knowledgeable shooter fan.

[cfalcon]

Analog versus digital is actually a bit more complex.

Our current systems have digital pads consisting of four buttons, one for each direction on each of our two favorite axes. From this, we extrapolate eight directions. In almost all shmups, you can move in exactly eight directions. When you draw out a 30 degree line with your ship, you'll find that you've approximated it with some zero degree lines and mostly some 45 degree lines.

This makes it take longer to go in directions that are far away from angles you can order the computer to go in. If you go around the compass in 45 degree increments and add 22.5 degrees to each of those numbers, you get the directions that are hardest to approximate (you are splitting time between the angles you can describe).

This time lost is negligible- if it "should" take you one second to transverse a distance, the maximum it will take you with the current setup is 1.31 seconds. And that's for the eight "bad" angles, anything off of those gets much closer to the goal.

The advantage is that our analog hands are made capable of drawing digitally perfect lines: you can move your craft directly forward or backwards, even if you are holding six degrees off of true. This equalizes things for all but the massively fat-fingered of us, as well.


The other advantage is that you come to have a close expectation of exactly what your ship will do if you tap for a quarter second into the NW direction.



Analog, as we have them, can point in one of many directions (usually you have two axes reporting in 256 increments or so), and can do so with different intensity.

This makes two things different:

(1) Intensity. A half tilted stick, in a true analog game, will give you something close to half the movement. Current games are designed to be played full-tilt or nothing at all: a game where intensity would matter is if your ship is really, really fast- in that case, you might want to control it at a more reasonable pace in some cases.

(2) Direction. Analog sticks can point in any direction correctly.
A digital stick could actually do this as well: picture a circle you press on, NES-MAX style, with 32 contacts underneath. This gives you, at least, 64 directions, but still has the same "intensity" properties (full-on, full-off) as digital. You can simulate this with todays digital pads: you basically define a small circle of no movement in the center. If the stick is inside that, you don't move the craft. Anywhere outside of that circle takes that angle and gives you max velocity in that direction.


Two reasons why digital is generally "better" than analog for shmups:
(1) Shmups are designed for precision play, generally based around an eight way controller. Throwing an analog controller onto this doesn't use what it's good at.
(2) Tradition. Shmup players are used to the eight way bang-bang control method. Changing it won't make everyone hate your game, but it will be a bigger difference than just a minor tweak.

[Acid King]

On the other side, sometimes I feel that those early shooters are difficult in part because the controls are imprecise compared to games today that allow for analog control, etc. To do well in spite of imprecise control takes a good bit of skill, don't you think?

I think you've got this backwards. Analog control is not precise, it is smooth. Digital control is not smooth, it is precise. There are reasons why you need and want both... but for tap-dodging and proper control, only a solid 8-way digital pad/stick gives you that precision. I was totally floored when I found out that any shooter fan would use an analog stick for movement. I'm a big fan of "to each, their own..." but that's just plain wierd

I for one prefer the analog stick for the gamecube version of Ikaruga. The gamecube stick is tight and responsive enough that I haven't had a problem with it being imprecise... the saturn pad would still be better though.

[raiden]

I can see the theoretical advantages of analog control very clearly, especially being able to move at different speeds and in more directions. But practically, a few problems occur, the most important one involved with reproducing a learned movement precisely and quickly, something that needs to be done often in shmups. If you have all the time in the world, analog controls are more intuitive and precise. But if you need quick, twitchy movement, the analog becomes jerky. It´s not a failure of the controllers, but of our hands (or thumbs), which simply lose precision when acting fast. So the reduction to 8 possible directions actually helps in being able to move reliably, precisely and quickly at the same time.

Let´s compare this with racing games where analog controls are the norm: while handling a curve, you spend a few seconds with one curve, so you have plenty of time to correct your input when you realize you over- or understeered. But if a racing game would try to simulate the input needed in shmups, it would need, you would race so fast that you went through a few curves and overtook a few cars within a second. Of course, there would be no physics holding you back. But analog control would be simply too slow.

[professor ganson]

BTW, well before I found shmups.com, I was convinced by the following review of Souky to buy an analog controller to play Souky on the Saturn:

http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/s ... eview.html

And in the following review of Radiant Silvergun a different reviewer praises Souky's analog control and laments that RSG doesn't have analog control:

http://www.gamespot.com/saturn/action/r ... eview.html

Now, I don't know the first reviewer at all, but James Mielke did the review of RSG and he knows his shooters quite well. He's not as hardcore into shmups as many here, but I've learned a lot from what he's written about shmups.

So there's a little evidence that I'm not the only one who enjoys analog control in his shmups.

[sjewkestheloon]

well it's digital all the way for me due to the fact that i'm a stick player. there's no way i'd be able to play stuff by psikyo with an analogue controller due to the jerky movements needed to dodge certain bullet patterns. continual fast taps in one direction to confuse aimed shots would end up mess and imprecise on analogue i would imagine.

however in a more sedate shmup i bet analogue could be good to use, if only for the pure pleasure of messing about on screen with different speeds and waggle patterns... i'm easily ammused somethimes

[Nemo]

Am I the only one completely sick of 'old school' and 'new school' distinctions? I was playing Musha earlier this evening. It got pretty 'manic' in a few spots, and actually felt pretty modern.

I don't get it.

It really isn't that confusing. The company you bring up, Compile, is the perfect example of "old school" because they subscribe the notion of "challenge non-existence". In their games, they allow the player a rediculous amount of fire power and extends that cripple any sort of resistance. Even when there's more than a few bullets and enemies on the screen at one time you're never challenged because you can obliterate them with your arsenal in seconds or if you somehow manage to die, you have another 12 lives left.

My complaint with Blast Wind isn't as much its difficulty as it is...plain. Anyone else know what I'm saying? It's hard to describe, but Blast Wind just feels so plain to me.

I believe the word I used was "vanilla".

So have you've 1LC Image Fight?! Image Fight does require you to not lose a life... they effectively give you 1 life and that is part of the challenge. Cheap or not, it's difficult, but it can be tamed and mastered with enough skill. That's not the same thing as a cheap death where there is virtually no chance to avoid an attack. I can't agree that the arcade rev of Image Fight is 10x easier than 99% of modern shooters. Maybe the pattern based manics just click with you less easily and so you find them more challenging... or maybe the patterns are more difficult for you to spot due to the intense number of bullets... However, I don't think a blanket statement can be made about relative difficulties between manics and classics.

I reached the final level in Image fight after playing for about 20 mins., I stopped playing at that point because it wasn't fun or challenging. And I do believe a blanket statement can be made about old school shooters due to the fact that not one of them is any different than the rest in terms of basic design.

What about Radiant Silvergun - one of the most fair and balanced shooters in existance and one of the most difficult to clear... but nowhere near manic? The original Zanac on the NES is a great challenge as well - at least as challenging as a handful of manics. And your point on Defender is just plain strange... the game still kicks as much ass today as it ever did. When I was a kid, I used to just throw my first quarter into the trash - that's how much it dominated me. With time, it can be mastered, but that mastery is no less challenging today than it was in 1982. Manic shooters are different - but challenge is not a good criteria for measuring the delta.

RS is definitely more manic than it is old school. And the original Zanac gives you 4,000 lives and it's still easy to 1-life, that game is easier than most old-school games. And I don't think you're going to try and compare Defender to Dragon Blaze or Mars Matrix. In the most superficial sense, challenge is the great divide between old and new shooters, but the real heart of the matter is the parameters of the games (limitation of lives, number and speed of bullets, actually having to dodge bullets, your power relative to the enemies', etc.). Take Psikyo for instance, at first glance most of their games are very old-school in style, but due to the games' parameters, they are certainly manic shooters. Then take a game like Zanac Neo, if it were more bullet/challenge intense and if you were limited to 3 lives and 1 extend instead of 80 extends (seriously beat the game with 76 lives in stock before) it could very well be considered a modern shooter.

[shiftace]

Any of you ever try playing Zanac with 6+ Red Landers? That's hard.

[raiden]

I reached the final level in Image fight after playing for about 20 mins., I stopped playing at that point because it wasn't fun or challenging. And I do believe a blanket statement can be made about old school shooters due to the fact that not one of them is any different than the rest in terms of basic design.

this must be a joke, right? How many old school shooters have you played? If you actually believe the above, try Vulgus for starters.

RS is definitely more manic than it is old school. And the original Zanac gives you 4,000 lives and it's still easy to 1-life, that game is easier than most old-school games. And I don't think you're going to try and compare Defender to Dragon Blaze or Mars Matrix. In the most superficial sense, challenge is the great divide between old and new shooters, but the real heart of the matter is the parameters of the games (limitation of lives, number and speed of bullets, actually having to dodge bullets, your power relative to the enemies', etc.). Take Psikyo for instance, at first glance most of their games are very old-school in style, but due to the games' parameters, they are certainly manic shooters.

and which parameters would that be? Bullet speed and enemy/weapon strength varies extremely between games like R-Type, Flying Shark and Exed Exes.

I think there are certainly enough differences between "oldschool" and "modern" shmups to distinguish between them in general, but in detail, the boundaries can get pretty unclear. A few things can be said for purely technical reasons, you won´t find a pre-1990 game with DDP3´s bullet count in it. But when it comes to design principles, game developers weren´t as boring as to all follow the same formula.

[CMoon]

Again, this is all post-hoc, it isn't like programmers were saying 'let's make a modern shmup now'.

Nemo--the reason I brought up Musha wasn't because of the ease (I'd never bring up a compile game to point out a hard shmup), but to point out some of the bullet patterns and enemy arrangements that are at times extremely modern.

And no, making blanket statements about old school shooters all being the same and not being fun or challenging is going to win you no awards here. Have you ever seen that picture of Malc on the home page of shmups.com?

[professor ganson]

Again, this is all post-hoc, it isn't like programmers were saying 'let's make a modern shmup now'.

Yeah, it's a common fallacy, called "post hoc, propter hoc". People sometimes wrongly infer that X happened BECAUSE of Y just because X was AFTER Y.

But, to be fair to Nemo, he is suggesting that modern shmup designers were compelled to go in a certain direction because of how things had gone before.

But, against Nemo, it seems to me that there were in fact any number of directions developers could have gone. As it turned out, they tended to target the hardcore arcade crowd with intense, manic gameplay. But look, things could have gone in a very different direction. 2D shoot 'em ups could have abandoned their arcade roots and become more like your typical console game with 12 to 20 hour adventures, infinite continues, more collecting, involved storylines, RPG elements, etc. Yeah, that mostly would have sucked. My point is just that there were any number of directions shmups might have evolved (and still counted as shmups).

[CMoon]

Actually I say it is post hoc because the stylistic shift in shmups could be explained away far more easily by the emergence of better (and more affordable) hardware.

But I have a far more fundamental problem with 1) the wide distinction being made between 'old' and 'new' school, and 2) the notion that there was a cognizant decision by programmers to leave 'old school' shmupping behind them is just too far fetched and not supported by the actual history at all.

Let's remember: Fireshark and Twin Cobras are both worshipped by Seibu and hence they make Raiden. Raiden is acknowledged and praised by Cave and hence they make Donpachi. The traits shared between all these games is pretty high (and the second loop of fireshark is pretty manic!)

But Fireshark is an 80's game. Where did programmers suddenly decide to make manic shmups?

In fact, where did the first manic shmup emerge? I believe we have created this notion in our mind and it is completely false.

[cfalcon]

I'm pretty sure there wasn't some memo going around:

Re: Manicism
pls make shmups w/ more bullets than grains of sand on beach and make different strategy required thx
PS: continue to have giant spider boss


That said, I don't think it's "completely in our heads". When someone first said "manic shooter" on this board, I knew what he was talking about, and what he wasn't, and I didn't need an explanation. If you can use one word to describe a phenomena, then it's at least kinda there. Sure, there are plenty of games in the middle, but I think it does represent a shift in play style.

But if you try pin it down, I think it is a pretty natural shift. I think the developers saw the possibility of more bullets (but they would obviously have to be slower) once their hardware hit levels that allowed them to have few restrictions on the 2D plane, tried it, and it was both fun and well recieved.

We have names for different types of clouds, but they're all really the same. The categories still make sense, just don't put too much weight on them.

[llabnip]

I reached the final level in Image fight after playing for about 20 mins.

That is simply amazing! I've never gotten close in years of trying. I can make the final level on GigaWing 2 and 1CC games like Psyvariar 2... but nowhere close in old-school games like Image fight.

I do believe a blanket statement can be made about old school shooters due to the fact that not one of them is any different than the rest in terms of basic design.

I couldn't disagree more. If anything, I've found many of the manics to have a "sameness" quality while classic shooters have a pretty wide variety in terms of design.

In any event, you are free to believe what you want... and if you can breeze classic shooters that's great - and the pattern-based manics seem more to your liking. In my experience I've found tons of challenge in classic shooters and I enjoy the older design more than I enjoy manics... though both co-exist fine on the shelf (once I got the PSX and Saturn games to behave on the same shelf, the classic-manic border skirmish died quickly). I can't and won't subscribe to the notion that classics are sweepingly considered easier than manics. They may be for you, they are not for me.

[jp]

Personally I find old school shmups more difficult since they rely more on twitch reflexes and great hand-eye coordination whereas most of the manics I've played have focused on safe spots and just knowing patterns.

[professor ganson]

That said, I don't think it's "completely in our heads". When someone first said "manic shooter" on this board, I knew what he was talking about, and what he wasn't, and I didn't need an explanation. If you can use one word to describe a phenomena, then it's at least kinda there. Sure, there are plenty of games in the middle, but I think it does represent a shift in play style.

I understand the word "manic" as well as the next person, but I'm still not sure I've played a shmup that is truly manic. When people here bother to offer an example of a manic shmup they typically refer to Batsugun, DDP DOJ, or some game or other exclusive to the arcade--- none of which I have played. I wish that someone would offer more examples. If there is genuinely a manic-trend among developers in recent years, then surely I've played one.

[raiden]

(and the second loop of fireshark is pretty manic!)

in which way? Maybe we have different conceptions of what is manic.

Personally I find old school shmups more difficult since they rely more on twitch reflexes and great hand-eye coordination whereas most of the manics I've played have focused on safe spots and just knowing patterns.

you can´t play many manics without a Playstation 2. A safe spot in a manic shmup is almost a bug, while R-Type is all about safe spots.

But, against Nemo, it seems to me that there were in fact any number of directions developers could have gone. As it turned out, they tended to target the hardcore arcade crowd with intense, manic gameplay. But look, things could have gone in a very different direction. 2D shoot 'em ups could have abandoned their arcade roots and become more like your typical console game with 12 to 20 hour adventures, infinite continues, more collecting, involved storylines, RPG elements, etc. Yeah, that mostly would have sucked. My point is just that there were any number of directions shmups might have evolved (and still counted as shmups).

that´s interesting, and I´d like to continue the issue with the question: why was this path chosen? I have to agree with CMoon that the development was a continuous one, but it´s clear some of the formulas used earlier were not as successful as those leading to the manic "genre". Ít´s also related to the arcade origin of shmups in general, where you don´t want people spending hours on one game, so RPG elements weren´t called for. On PC the genre developed quite differently, but also less successful.

[Nemo]

I reached the final level in Image fight after playing for about 20 mins., I stopped playing at that point because it wasn't fun or challenging. And I do believe a blanket statement can be made about old school shooters due to the fact that not one of them is any different than the rest in terms of basic design.

this must be a joke, right? How many old school shooters have you played? If you actually believe the above, try Vulgus for starters.

I've played Vulgus, it didn't strike me as different. In fact, I've played jus about every worthwhile old school shooter period, and contrary to popular belief, I love many of them. At the same time, I accept them for what they are, experiences, not challenges or exercises in hand-eye coordination and skill.

and which parameters would that be? Bullet speed and enemy/weapon strength varies extremely between games like R-Type, Flying Shark and Exed Exes.

Exactly, that's why it's a combination of parameters that define the final product rather than one charactersitic.

But I have a far more fundamental problem with 1) the wide distinction being made between 'old' and 'new' school, and 2) the notion that there was a cognizant decision by programmers to leave 'old school' shmupping behind them is just too far fetched and not supported by the actual history at all.

Progression is inevitable, even today shmups are still evolving, look at bullet-absorbers and bullet-grazers. I never acted like one day developers just went, "I'm bored with old-school shooters, let's make manic shooters now." It was about progression, games like Batsugun, Kyuyoku Tiger II, and Sonic Wings were a bridge between the eras.

Personally I find old school shmups more difficult since they rely more on twitch reflexes and great hand-eye coordination whereas most of the manics I've played have focused on safe spots and just knowing patterns.

Well said from somone who has shown disdain towards most manic shooters. Sorry, but if you believe that you have seriously know idea what you're talking about.

[Nemo]

And not to sound like Rando, but I find it a bit odd when people who have said they suck at modern shooters and people who show a disinterest in modern shooters are telling me, someone who has cleared shooters old and new and studied the dymanics of both, about the subject of shooter classification. Unless you have put the effort into "old" and "new" shooters to know enough about their fundamentals and design to be successful at either, you really have no position to make an informed analysis. Most of this topic has been a defense of old schools shooters by people who sorely favor them for their accessibility, yet refuse to knowledge the fact that they are essentially more accessible due to do a significantly lesser degree of difficulty and skill.

[BrianC]

And not to sound like Rando, but I find it a bit odd when people who have said they suck at modern shooters and people who show a disinterest in modern shooters are telling me, someone who has cleared shooters old and new and studied the dymanics of both, about the subject of shooter classification. Unless you have put the effort into "old" and "new" shooters to know enough about their fundamentals and design to be successful at either, you really have no position to make an informed analysis. Most of this topic has been a defense of old schools shooters by people who sorely favor them for their accessibility, yet refuse to knowledge the fact that they are essentially more accessible due to do a significantly lesser degree of difficulty and skill.

Wow. Another blanket statment! llabnip's posts are clearly well informed. He even talked about beating some manics. Also, he clearly plays both old and new school games. However, you have the nerve to imply that he is full of crap? Quite honestly, Nemo, I have a hard time believing that you are an expert and you offered no proof of you being one, just random blanket statments saying that all classic games are the same. No offense, but it's very hard to take someone seriously when they put down a whole group of people over something only that someone said.

BTW, Kiken, who has the videos to prove how good he is, has had a hard time with Truxton. There is no way having a hard time in that game is from a lack of skill.

[Nemo]

And not to sound like Rando, but I find it a bit odd when people who have said they suck at modern shooters and people who show a disinterest in modern shooters are telling me, someone who has cleared shooters old and new and studied the dymanics of both, about the subject of shooter classification. Unless you have put the effort into "old" and "new" shooters to know enough about their fundamentals and design to be successful at either, you really have no position to make an informed analysis. Most of this topic has been a defense of old schools shooters by people who sorely favor them for their accessibility, yet refuse to knowledge the fact that they are essentially more accessible due to do a significantly lesser degree of difficulty and skill.

Wow. Another blanket statment! llabnip's posts are clearly well informed. He even talked about beating some manics. Also, he clearly plays both old and new school games. However, you have the nerve to imply that he is full of crap? Quite honestly, Nemo, I have a hard time believing that you are an expert and you offered no proof of you being one, just random blanket statments saying that all classic games are the same. No offense, but it's very hard to take someone seriously when they put down a whole group of people over something only that someone said.

Uh, where did I mention llabnip's name? You're the one making assumptions friend. And the only way I lumped classic shooters together is in the type of challenge they present. In terms of creativity and design they are very diverse, which is exactly what I said in my first post in this topic.

BTW, Kiken, who has the videos to prove how good he is, has had a hard time with Truxton. There is no way having a hard time in that game is from a lack of skill.

LMAO! Exactly.

[BrianC]

And not to sound like Rando, but I find it a bit odd when people who have said they suck at modern shooters and people who show a disinterest in modern shooters are telling me, someone who has cleared shooters old and new and studied the dymanics of both, about the subject of shooter classification. Unless you have put the effort into "old" and "new" shooters to know enough about their fundamentals and design to be successful at either, you really have no position to make an informed analysis. Most of this topic has been a defense of old schools shooters by people who sorely favor them for their accessibility, yet refuse to knowledge the fact that they are essentially more accessible due to do a significantly lesser degree of difficulty and skill.

Wow. Another blanket statment! llabnip's posts are clearly well informed. He even talked about beating some manics. Also, he clearly plays both old and new school games. However, you have the nerve to imply that he is full of crap? Quite honestly, Nemo, I have a hard time believing that you are an expert and you offered no proof of you being one, just random blanket statments saying that all classic games are the same. No offense, but it's very hard to take someone seriously when they put down a whole group of people over something only that someone said.

Uh, where did I mention llabnip's name? You're the one making assumptions friend. And the only way I lumped classic shooters together is in the type of challenge they present. In terms of creativity and design they are very diverse, which is exactly what I said in my first post in this topic.

BTW, Kiken, who has the videos to prove how good he is, has had a hard time with Truxton. There is no way having a hard time in that game is from a lack of skill.

LMAO! Exactly.

Oh sorry, I guess I misunderstood what you said. Shutting up now.