Easy shmups being frowned upon (Blast Wind rant)

[CMoon]

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.

Don't worry, you don't sound like Rando. Rando has said quite ferverently that this whole 'old school/new school' dinstinction and the accompanying mentality are BS.

[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.

Don't worry, you don't sound like Rando. Rando has said quite ferverently that this whole 'old school/new school' dinstinction and the accompanying mentality are BS.

I meant sound like Rando in terms of thinking I'm superior in skill and that makes me the divine authority on the subject of shooters. Still, I can't figure out if your gripe with my analysis is that you believe there really is no fundamental difference in manic/modern shooters and old school shooters or if you think I'm somehow trivializing old-school shooters. In terms of the former, this isn't a radical idea, these aren't labels I created myself, I'm merely only reaffirming universal principles. A lot of which, was established by the game developers themselves. Take, for instance, many old-school shooters like Thunder Force IV which have manic/maniac settings, these settings were established by the developers, and what do they signify? More bullets, more enemies, harder bosses, less lives, so what's the underlying result? A greater challenge.

[CMoon]

My gripe is that I 1) believe your hypothesis is too simple. To stick to evolutionary examples, it is like you said that humans evolved from apes--the essence is correct but the statement is both wrong and completely misleading. 2) Your arguments you use to defend your ideas aren't the stuff of discussions but the stuff of heated political debates. You don't have to use straw man arguments here to discuss ideas 3) Using your skill at shmups as some indicator of the 'rightness' of your arguments is a bad move. If that were true, my posts should be more 'right' than llanip's since he claims I am slightly better than him (ha!).

Now to the average skilled shmup fan (in that I mean the level that most shooters are at on this forum), I think you will find that most of them do not see evidence that old school games are easier than new school games. Indeed, the change in hit box size alone actually makes many newer games easier.

My contention is that I play a wide range of shmups; some are easy, some are hard, and I find little correlation between the year they were made and their difficulty. I disagree with the idea of two distinct groups because an outstanding # of games share characteristics from what is defined as 'manic' and what is defined as 'classic'--not a few, obscure borderliners but I'd say at least half the shmups out there are neither pure 'classic' nor pure 'manic'. It isn't so much that this detracts from the essence of your point, but it undermines both the details and what you give as 'causation' for the evolution of shmups.

That's why I said from the very start that your hypothesis was too simple, and more so, there is nothing to really support it. Have shmups changed? Absolutely! Did programmers start making manic shmups because they were bored of classic shmups? Do you see how much you have oversimplified the problem? You might as well say that human developed tools and language because they were bored of swinging around in trees.

[Nemo]

My gripe is that I 1) believe your hypothesis is too simple. To stick to evolutionary examples, it is like you said that humans evolved from apes--the essence is correct but the statement is both wrong and completely misleading. 2) Your arguments you use to defend your ideas aren't the stuff of discussions but the stuff of heated political debates. You don't have to use straw man arguments here to discuss ideas 3) Using your skill at shmups as some indicator of the 'rightness' of your arguments is a bad move. If that were true, my posts should be more 'right' than llanip's since he claims I am slightly better than him (ha!).

I think I recall you saying you were a teacher, I'm not sure what you teach, but I imagine you went to school for it and have spent a lot of time accumulating knowledge in the field. Now if I, an average person with some interest in the study, were to argue with you about some fine points of your field, I'd imagine you would feel your experience gives you greater authority on the subject. You clearly don't have the same amount of experience in shmups as other people, which is evident with comments like:

Now to the average skilled shmup fan (in that I mean the level that most shooters are at on this forum), I think you will find that most of them do not see evidence that old school games are easier than new school games. Indeed, the change in hit box size alone actually makes many newer games easier.

Huh? You act like I'm oversimplifying, yet you make a statement like this?

Let's try this mathematical equation:

Hit box\2 + enemies/bullets x10 = Modern shooters being 5x harder

The sheer amount of activity going on in a modern shooter at given time completely revamps the whole shooter context and is the reason why hit boxes had to decrease in size. This certainly doesn't make them any easier, quite the contrary, the player is now expected to jam through tiny spots instead of avoiding attacks completely. The whole reason why manic shooters are more difficult stems from them being as much about memorization as they are about reaction.

My contention is that I play a wide range of shmups; some are easy, some are hard, and I find little correlation between the year they were made and their difficulty. I disagree with the idea of two distinct groups because an outstanding # of games share characteristics from what is defined as 'manic' and what is defined as 'classic'--not a few, obscure borderliners but I'd say at least half the shmups out there are neither pure 'classic' nor pure 'manic'. It isn't so much that this detracts from the essence of your point, but it undermines both the details and what you give as 'causation' for the evolution of shmups.

That then is the result of your own devised definitions failing because I personally haven't disclosed the exact formula for either a classic or modern shooter. Reason being, the sub-genres are flexible, as is the genre itself. Is a game like Cotton with Rpg elements an Rpg? Of course not, a game is ultimately defined by where a majority of its charactersitics exist. Thus then, a modern and old-school shooter is defined in the same manner.

That's why I said from the very start that your hypothesis was too simple, and more so, there is nothing to really support it. Have shmups changed? Absolutely! Did programmers start making manic shmups because they were bored of classic shmups? Do you see how much you have oversimplified the problem? You might as well say that human developed tools and language because they were bored of swinging around in trees.

You're not even making sense anymore, you're just throwing out random blurbs as if they are somehow applicable. Developers have tried new things since the dawn of shooters, people are ambitious by nature and remaining content in the status quo leads to failure. A game like R-type is significantly different than a game like Defender, both classic shooters. As things progress, however, some changes end up being greater than others, thus the eventual divide between modern and classic shooters. Developers likely weren't aware of the last-effects that making "manic" shooters would have, for all they knew it could have went the way of competitive shooters like Twinkle Star Sprites, where it was eventually just a gaiden to the genre's lineage. But going back to the ThunderForce example, once developers' ambition had them making "manic" settings the norm rather than an optional exception and the way the experience drastically changed for the player, the long-term effect, as we can see now, led to the advent of modern shooters.

[Shatterhand]

Man, some people need to get some new hobbies. Or maybe a girlfriend...

[Cthulhu]

Man, some people need to get some new hobbies. Or maybe a girlfriend...

Agreed. Less hate, more love.

[CMoon]

You're not even making sense anymore

You don't know what post hoc and straw man arguments are?

I'm sorry, I have no problem with you personally, but I don't like being told that I can't discuss these ideas with you because I don't have your high score. You know, I've been playing video games since freakin' Gun Fight, and I think that gives me a LITTLE credit in watching how games have evolved and suggesting that it is just a bit more complex than you have shouldn't earn me the big 'shit on' award.

Take it with a grain of salt if you want, but saying we all like old school games coz were wussies just isn't cool.

And jumping into teacher mode (since you brought it up) for just a second your equation you made is just pure foolishness. Area is the square of length, not doubling. When the hitbox is the size of your cockpit, the actual hitbox is probably only 1/16th the size of old hitboxes or even less, justifying at least 16 times the number of bullets. But since the bullets are slower, you probably need at least 30 times or more the number of bullets.

[Nemo]

Man, some people need to get some new hobbies. Or maybe a girlfriend...

Oh grief. Excuse me/us for having a discussion about something that isn't "what is your favorite ship selection sound effect in a shooter" or "do you prefer horis or verts".

You're not even making sense anymore

You don't know what post hoc and straw man arguments are?

Funny you say that since you accuse me of making straw man arguments when your whole position thus far has been composed of them.

I'm sorry, I have no problem with you personally, but I don't like being told that I can't discuss these ideas with you because I don't have your high score. You know, I've been playing video games since freakin' Gun Fight, and I think that gives me a LITTLE credit in watching how games have evolved and suggesting that it is just a bit more complex than you have shouldn't earn me the big 'shit on' award.

It's not about scores friend, it's about experience and knowledge, and you've proved time and time again in this thread you don't have it by your posts. I'm not making assumptions, you're the one shooting yourself in the foot.

Take it with a grain of salt if you want, but saying we all like old school games coz were wussies just isn't cool.

LOL, if you believe that's my attitude you haven't really read even a single one of my posts.

And jumping into teacher mode (since you brought it up) for just a second your equation you made is just pure foolishness. Area is the square of length, not doubling. When the hitbox is the size of your cockpit, the actual hitbox is probably only 1/16th the size of old hitboxes or even less, justifying at least 16 times the number of bullets. But since the bullets are slower, you probably need at least 30 times or more the number of bullets.

Clearly my equation was just an example of how your argument about hit-boxes was completely ludicrous. The point was while one variable (hit-box sized) changed, other variables didn't remain constant, they changed with it. And now your spew about bullets being slower is ridiculous as well, but whatever.

I've now realized you never entered this discussion with the intent to reach any greater understanding. You, like JP in starting this thread, already had your mind made up about your stance and no matter what anyone said nothing was going to change this, you simply were looking for sympathizers to your agenda.

[cfalcon]

Nemo: "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. "

This one line really stands out as being, uh, intolerant. I guess that's the right word. Older shmups may be easier for you (I would claim that they are easier in general: less sprites means that they often had to be pretty cheap to get the same kind of difficulty that you see today, so usually they were just simpler), but that doesn't make them "not challenges". They *absolutely* are exercises in both hand-eye coordination AND skill.

Would your statement make any sense if it was 1988 right now? Would you go to the arcade and say that ALL shooters (because you would only have "old school" as a reference) are "experiences", not exercises in hand-eye coordination?

Anyway, don't mean to offend. This statement had just sort of really turned me off.

[Nemo]

Nemo: "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. "

Would your statement make any sense if it was 1988 right now? Would you go to the arcade and say that ALL shooters (because you would only have "old school" as a reference) are "experiences", not exercises in hand-eye coordination?

Yes, I am speaking from a present point of view. Back in 1988 I had no concept of manic shooters, so I was ignorant to them and my ignorance had me believing that the current shooters were challenging because they were the only litmus test that existed. We as players constantly adjust and play up to the competition, and it's through training that we succeed. Memorization (which is what I argue is the only thing necessary to be success in classic shooters) can be considered a skill and can be trained. Shooters now, however, not only require memorization but precise execution and reflex, so for this they make the challenge presented in classic shooters seem obsolete. But who's to say in another 15 years, shooters like DOJ won't seem like a walk in the park. Basically the bottom line is that developers didn't intentionally make old shooters easy, they very much tried to make them difficult, but as player who is no longer ignorant to progress, I can't pretend like I don't see the flaws and simplicity in classic shooters.

[cfalcon]

Well, ok. But in light of what you just said, I'm guessing you mean that classic shooters are less challenging than modern. That's a very different thing that "not a challenge", and something I'd agree completely with.

After all, if experience and better hardware couldn't make for a more challenging game, that would really suck.

Another question for you: you seem to not think that bullet speeds have, on average, decreased. It was my impression that they had, though I don't have any proof positive of that. Certainly, there have always been enemies who gradually lob dots at you, but don't you think the guys would would shoot a couple fast shots as soon as they entered the screen used to be a lot more common?

I could be wrong on this issue, but playing a shooter like Darius Twin on the SNES, all I seem to die from is fast shots at close range, whereas in modern shooters it's some pattern moving at speeds ranging from glacial to fast- but often going slow or average.

I guess there are still guys that shoot real fast at you, but in the past it simply wasn't possible to give you three divergent bursts of slow bullets to weave through, and now it is, so now we see them. Shikigama No Shiro II features some really, really, slow bullets doing things that wouldn't have been possible in the past. I'd argue that because part of your time can be spent in these virtual minefields, time that would otherwise have been spent dealing with a guy who pops on screen and shoots real quick, you could say that bullets have "slowed down" (even if there are still plenty of fast shooters in your game).

Does that sound right, or am I coming from too small a sample size?



"Area is the square of length, not doubling. When the hitbox is the size of your cockpit, the actual hitbox is probably only 1/16th the size of old hitboxes or even less"

Area might scale as the square of side length, but area really isn't the whole story. In a vertical shooter, with most bullets having a downward velocity to some degree, the most important variable is going to be how wide you are. Halve the length, and you haven't helped yourself out much: halve the width, and you have most of the benefit of halving both.

If I had to choose, I'd probably say that linear is closer than quadratic if you were describing difficulty that way.

Of course, if someone shoots a bunch of extra bullets where they can't concievably hit you or even herd you away from, they aren't reallly relevant either.

[Nemo]

Well, ok. But in light of what you just said, I'm guessing you mean that classic shooters are less challenging than modern. That's a very different thing that "not a challenge", and something I'd agree completely with.

It all depends on how you define "challenge". My opinion of the word has changed in relation to shooters over the years. For me now, a challenging shooter is one that can theoretically be cleared the first time you play it as long as you have enough skill. This is true of modern shooters because you have a chance to dodge everything before it kills you where in classic shooters, so much of their difficulty came from the element of surprise where unless you were psychic you had no chance to clear the game the first or second time you played it. So it's my opinion that classic shooters aren't a challenge, but I have no issue if someone does find them challenging.

Another question for you: you seem to not think that bullet speeds have, on average, decreased. It was my impression that they had, though I don't have any proof positive of that. Certainly, there have always been enemies who gradually lob dots at you, but don't you think the guys would would shoot a couple fast shots as soon as they entered the screen used to be a lot more common?

First of all it depends on the game, most psikyo games and Dangun Feveron are examples of modern shooters with clearly faster bullets. At the sametime, however, there are games like Shiki and Psyvariar where the bullets are a bit slower, but in these games the object is to milk bullets so it's necessary. Then in games like GigaWing or Mars Matrix, you actually have a combination of fast and slow bullets. The real source of why it would seem like bullets are slower is the shift in gameplay. Current shooters very seldom rely on the element of surprise for difficulty, so now that the player is in a situation where he always has the ability to react before he's hit, it creates the perception that bullets are slower, when in reality you're just not surprised when you get hit.

The second issue is "dead space" in classic shooters, which is the empty time between action which causes the player to relax. Since modern shooters are constant action, you're in a unwavering state of alertness, so you're no longer susceptible to being surprised by something. It's like if you're standing still and all of the sudden a guy on a bike speeds past you, it will seem like he was moving really fast. If you're running towards the guy on the bike however, it won't seem like he's moving quite as quickly. Also related to this is the tempo of the games, modern shooters have a much faster pace to them, which can distort the perception of how fast bullets are actually moving relative to classic shooters. So more than anything, it's about perspective.