The Correct Way to Enjoy An Action Game

[Ed Oscuro]

Herein Shiggy and Iwata bitch about shooting games being tough. Gee, makes you wonder why Nintendo didn't make too many followups to their enduring shooting classics like...Helifire, Radarscope, and X: Game Known Primarily for First Appearance of Tokata's Song. (The two shooters on the Virtual Boy I know of were actually T&E Soft and Hudson-made, apparently.) Interesting take on the genre all the same. I still do get the feeling these guys need to be put out to pasture though

[MathU]

I respect them but there's really no defending New Super Mario Bros. Is this the philosophy that made those two retardedly easy New Super Mario Bros. games? How infuriating.

Also Solar Striker is fun and Star Fox 64 is fantastic.

[Ed Oscuro]

Also Solar Striker is fun

Gunpei Yokoi (producer)

As they say - the good die young.

Star Fox 64 is fantastic.

Good game indeed, fits in more with the mindset shown here though.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

Ok, let's see... I have a couple of issues with what's being said...

With platform games, only playing the difficult parts can really take it out of you. It feels good to play parts that you can breeze through as well.

What if there are no easy parts? Two action/platform games that I simply cannot do well playing are Capcom's Ghosts 'N' Goblins and Taito's Rastan, though there are several others, those are the most difficult for me. Go all the way back to the beginning, when those games already have a sufficiently difficult checkpoint system?

But what about platform games like in the Sonic the Hedgehog series that really did have easy sections? Well, then the issue was that wasting more time than necessary in those sections was losing points that could be awarded for the end of act time bonus, thus making even those easy sections part of the overall level challenge. So then speeding through the easy section also became a de facto hazard when rapidly approaching a harder section.

In the past, when arcade shooting games would keep getting more and more difficult, the "Continue" system was developed…But what it actually ended up doing is ensuring that the player would always be playing at the very limit of their abilities.

So they totally missed the point of continues.

If I continued on an older shmup, the score would reset to zero. The message easily received was that it was meant to be completed (or looped) on a single credit. So then if I continue it's because I want to extend my gameplay by trying to get further ahead, maybe practicing a difficult section of the game. But then for some games continuing does restart at the start of the current level, not from the last checkpoint or from where the last turn was lost. Either way, if I want the 1cc, well, then that means starting the game all over from the beginning. Isn't that more or less the same as playing those levels all over again from the start, except that losing a turn does not restart the level all the way from the beginning.

Then again, they might be talking about some newer shmups that just add one point for the continue, and for that, it's not much of a deterrent having extra ones digits otherwise added to a score that was kept when the game was continued. Especially in a console gaming context with infinite continues, one can simply credit feed all the way to the end, and call the game done if that is how they want to finish the game and actually consider themselves having finished the game.

[linko9]

Ok, these guys have probably not played too many shmups, but they certainly weren't insulting the genre; just arguing against using continues, which I completely agree with. It's a point that's been made countless times before, but the reason why most people can't get into shmups is that they use continues too much, and thus either think the game is way too hard, because they keep having to continue so much, or way too short, because they can just credit-feed to the end. What Shiggy was saying is that if you want to enjoy an action game or a shmup, you need to restart when you get a game over, instead of using a continue, which is a very wise point. They were in no way "bitching about shooting games being tough." Also, NSMBWii, despite having a stupid name, is just as hard if not harder than SMW or SMB3, and if anyone found it to be "retardedly easy," I would like to buy your gaming skills.

[louisg]

I don't see how even the New Super Mario Bros on DS is any easier than Super Mario World. I'm sure some of this has to do with a lot of people here being kids at the time the older Marios came out, and now have some actual gaming skills. Hell, I remember a time when Sonic 1 was really hard for me.

BTW, letting players save often makes for lazy and/or unfair level design

EDIT:
Re: the interview:
"But once someone makes the assumption that always playing in a high state of nervous excitement is more fun, and they then come to discussing how the gameplay should be balanced, they'll always be trying to ramp up that excitement. But the ideal is actually to make the player feel this kind of nervous excitement in moderation while being able to enjoy playing. However, it is not very easy for us to be able to realize that all the time. So, I think replaying the levels is the correct way to enjoy an action game. That's something that I'm quite particular about."

I think this is actually a good point. Players *should* be spending their game time in a heightened state, not lazily grinding or sort of vegetating their way through a game using quicksave. It's a tough thing to do, to make a game which is both exciting in a skill test way (as opposed to in an atmospheric or cinematic way), and not turn off most of your audience at the same time.

[Ed Oscuro]

Ok, these guys have probably not played too many shmups, but they certainly weren't insulting the genre

They argued against playing at the "limit of your abilities constantly" which is pretty loltastic.

The ways to fix continue abuse are simple: Rank if you want to get fancy, but just zeroing out the score works (for serious players). There's still lots of people who will report their 100,000 point final boss killed score as their final score without thinking that just maybe the continues make it worthless.

The point about playing through the easy parts makes little sense. Right now I started playing through Super GnG on the GBA again and the save means I just have to reset repeatedly. It's correct that you have to repeat the hard parts of any game to get better, but that's just practice. Playing easy parts over and over doesn't make me feel powerful; it annoys the hell outta me. Granted this is something that games have always struggled with: How to make the player able to play well, and realize it, versus making them play the whole damn stage over and over.

I would like to point out that while I think some of their points on platformers are just odd, they aren't so offensive that I'd have posted them if they didn't digress into topics which obviously they have nary a fucking clue about. I thought they were onto something on my first point, but when I re-read it I realized it was just casual shooting gamer baloney.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

MiyamotoIt might be exciting, but it doesn't feel good.
IwataSo it might be thrilling for the player, but it doesn't give them that sense that: "Hey, I'm really good at this game!"
MiyamotoPrecisely!
IwataAll the player experiences is that feeling that: "I'm still useless at this!"

I almost cried when i read thru the article at this point. Especially where Miyamoto says "it might be exciting but it doesnt feel good"
erm wtf. I know theyre talking primarilly about platformers but still it dont make no sense. And about the following part, its obvious to most gamers when they suck at a game, thats why we have games of differing difficulties so that every1 who plays games can be good at a game aslong as its in their skill level to beat.

So they wanna make games which fool crap gamers into thinking theyre really good at a hard game? Bah shmups have had it for years its infinative continues. Which imo is what i like but it can decieve the avg player into thinking hes good because there is nothing that will make a avg gamer think otherwise. Adding 1 to their scores or even having hidden bosses only works for imo gamers who play for score / 1cc or whatever. Most gamers will see the end screen with the credits and think to themselve 'ive beaten that game'

What they were talking about, making the player retread loads of the the boring easy crap after they die is one of the things i hate most in any videogame. Sure if i fuck up and die i should be punished in some way but i dont wanna be bored to death. If they wanna take an example from shmups why dont they just use the rank system in platformers

[RHE]

So they wanna make games which fool crap gamers into thinking theyre really good at a hard game?

But isn't this exactly what a 1-pixel hit zone does?

[Krondelo]

Ok, these guys have probably not played too many shmups, but they certainly weren't insulting the genre; just arguing against using continues, which I completely agree with. It's a point that's been made countless times before, but the reason why most people can't get into shmups is that they use continues too much, and thus either think the game is way too hard, because they keep having to continue so much, or way too short, because they can just credit-feed to the end. What Shiggy was saying is that if you want to enjoy an action game or a shmup, you need to restart when you get a game over, instead of using a continue, which is a very wise point. They were in no way "bitching about shooting games being tough." Also, NSMBWii, despite having a stupid name, is just as hard if not harder than SMW or SMB3, and if anyone found it to be "retardedly easy," I would like to buy your gaming skills.

I agree, I am one to always restart when I get a game over. The way I see it, if I can't make it to a certain level, I don't deserve to, so I earn it. Do you know how long it was before I saw Stage 5 of DoDonPachi! haha.

[MathU]

So they wanna make games which fool crap gamers into thinking theyre really good at a hard game?

But isn't this exactly what a 1-pixel hit zone does?

ZING!

[Slump]

Yeah unfortunately hard games == poor sales in most developers/producers eyes. I think it's obvious that the big wigs at Nintendo have to serve the role as money makers for their company and while I personally enjoy the more difficult, old-school games I recognize the mainstream section Nintendo has been trying (and succeeding) to break into don't feel the same way. By the same token though, as gaming grows and becomes more and more profitable by feeding the masses what they want maybe it will also increase the amount of chances producers are willing to take on more niche genres.

[WarpZone]

I agree with linko9. Miyamoto is supporting the very points this community espouses: credit-feeding is bad, replaying levels is good, and building up skills by replaying those levels is a more productive and enjoyable way to get better than credit-feeding.

They argued against playing at the "limit of your abilities constantly" which is pretty loltastic.

This was said in the context of credit-feeding, in that you are pushed into harder sections before you are ready for them. Miyamoto thinks it is better to play on one credit and work your way up, learning in a cyclic structure rather than ramming your head into the furthest wall.

I think in a good game, generally playing those easier parts should help you get better, because the game will be deep/dynamic enough to scale somewhat to your level, or allow you to make observations that will be useful later. Lots of shmups do this through scoring systems that make earlier stages harder, earn lives for later, etc.

[Ravid]

I'm confused by some of the responses in this thread. Where in the interview does he say anything about dumbing down or making games easy? Or bitch about shooting games being tough?
What they are talking about, apart from "the correct way to enjoy an action game," is pacing, which is of course an essential ingredient in good game design.

Also, what WarpZone said.

[lgb]

if this translation is worth any salt: wow, didn't think Miyamoto bothered so much with this to word it like so. certainly he has the right ideas.

also imo the Super Guide really is no worse than a superplay

[TrevHead (TVR)]

So they wanna make games which fool crap gamers into thinking theyre really good at a hard game?

But isn't this exactly what a 1-pixel hit zone does?

hehe good point.

Some1 (cant be arsed rereading to find out who) made a point which i agree on which is as long as everybody (mainstream and niche) gets games made that they like then im ok. For me personally i like all kinds of games including easy games like rpgs which ill play when im in a lazy mood (which is what ive been playing since im feeling rundown and a bit unwell atm.)

But then again im always a bit scared that many mainstream genres will go a bit tits up in the way they are designed. Mainstream games are a forever changing thing, who knows what games will be mainstream in say 10 years and what games will be thought of as niche like shmups are atm.

BTW im guessing Miyamoto applied many of these beliefs into his latest Mario game, I havent played it myself, Is the new stuff hes added any good? (eg the ai taking over and playing for u if u get stuck at a hard part)

[Ed Oscuro]

I agree with linko9. Miyamoto is supporting the very points this community espouses: credit-feeding is bad, replaying levels is good, and building up skills by replaying those levels is a more productive and enjoyable way to get better than credit-feeding.

They argued against playing at the "limit of your abilities constantly" which is pretty loltastic.

This was said in the context of credit-feeding, in that you are pushed into harder sections before you are ready for them. Miyamoto thinks it is better to play on one credit and work your way up, learning in a cyclic structure rather than ramming your head into the furthest wall.

I think in a good game, generally playing those easier parts should help you get better, because the game will be deep/dynamic enough to scale somewhat to your level, or allow you to make observations that will be useful later. Lots of shmups do this through scoring systems that make earlier stages harder, earn lives for later, etc.

Very reasonably put, but: Modern shooting games already have mechanisms built-in to ramp up the difficulty, and drop it back down when you continue - at best, this is just manageable. Of course, your point about cyclical learning is very valid, and the games this community tends to give the most attention to put less focus on sheer reflexes than on learning how to mitigate difficulty.

Your post mainly suggests to me that I should consider that when you've been in the business some thirty-odd years, the last half or third of that time is all recent history. More to the point, going into the topic of shooters would have been a digression. I have my suspicions that they simply don't know all the ways rank can be combated, but it may be outside their purview anyway.

I think it would have been a clearer argument if they had instead mentioned the lightgun shooters or the scrolling brawler (beat-em-ups), which as far as I know have always suffered this problem rather severely (though perhaps I may be suffering the same problem I accuse them of: myopia, or ignorance of current trends).

So they wanna make games which fool crap gamers into thinking theyre really good at a hard game?

But isn't this exactly what a 1-pixel hit zone does?

Zing denied! You don't see me playing any one-pixel hit zone games. Raiden Fighters Jet is the closest I get, and there you gotta pay attention to grazing

[ncp]

SHUMPS FORUM COMPLAIN BOUT EVRYTHANG

[lgb]

the games this community tends to give the most attention to put less focus on sheer reflexes than on learning how to mitigate difficulty

because they eventually realize that there aren't very many games that actually DO use "sheer reflexes" except for randomfests, and even those have a little bit of preplanning behind them at times

[Krondelo]

the games this community tends to give the most attention to put less focus on sheer reflexes than on learning how to mitigate difficulty

because they eventually realize that there aren't very many games that actually DO use "sheer reflexes" except for randomfests, and even those have a little bit of preplanning behind them at times

Games that use intense reflex.. hmm, can't think of any really of the top of my head but I played quite a few. N is one of them, Ikaruga kind of too, and then the rest are oldschool obviously. I remember this old DC game where you were this dude with a magnet on your head and you had to switch the polarity a lot, that game got quite difficult from what I remember.

[DJ Incompetent]

Also, NSMBWii, despite having a stupid name, is just as hard if not harder than SMW or SMB3, and if anyone found it to be "retardedly easy," I would like to buy your gaming skills.

NSMBWii is retardedly easy. If I had spent any money on it, I'd be embarrassed. SMW is also a joke outside of Special Stage. 3 was a little trouble if you don't use whistles. Splosion Man is much better.

How much?


Miya 'n Iwata's points are agreeable. Their hearts are in the right place, but their heads and execution methods are terrible if you're not looking at the best way to work people's wallets. They need to ditch the one size fits all difficulty. It never works. Add difficulty settings, BGM mixer sliders, speedrunner support, and leaderboards like the rest of the fucking globe. Both of them should retire, if not trade places with Yokoi.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

SHUMPS FORUM COMPLAIN BOUT EVRYTHANG

and ur complaining about us complaining

Seriously though it's a forum where ppl post their opions and on this forum even if a person disagrees he'll give a good reason as to why. Thats why i like it here, and there's no trolls or dicks usually found living at a forum (only me )

[linko9]

NSMBWii is retardedly easy. If I had spent any money on it, I'd be embarrassed. SMW is also a joke outside of Special Stage. 3 was a little trouble if you don't use whistles. Splosion Man is much better.

How much?

$2000. But essentially your experience is similar to mine; SMW is of comparable difficulty to NSMBWii, so all these people on the internet saying that Shiggy's gone soft and makes games much easier now than he used to are just mistaken. As stated by louisg, I think a major factor is that people are much better at games at age 20 than they were at age 10. When I played Galaxy and Twilight Princess, I was disappointed in the difficulty, but then I went back and played SM64 and Ocarina again, and found that the difficulty was actually pretty similar.

[WarpZone]

I have my suspicions that they simply don't know all the ways rank can be combated, but it may be outside their purview anyway.

I think it would have been a clearer argument if they had instead mentioned the lightgun shooters or the scrolling brawler (beat-em-ups)

Probably. I think he was just speaking very generally with the first example that popped into his head to contrast with Mario, thinking back to experiences in the arcade. May have even been a lightgun game ("in the past, when arcade shooting games..."). I doubt he's familiar with modern shmups, much less intricacies of rank.

[Zweihander]

Ah well. At least New Super Mario Bros. Wii was challenging. I was surprised.

[Krondelo]

Ah, I remember the special stages. Was stage 3 the one where you had to keep picking up P's and float across the level? Man those levels were great, if only all of SMB was like that, I wouldn't have beaten it in a day.

[doctorx0079]

What if there are no easy parts? Two action/platform games that I simply cannot do well playing are Capcom's Ghosts 'N' Goblins and Taito's Rastan, though there are several others, those are the most difficult for me. Go all the way back to the beginning, when those games already have a sufficiently difficult checkpoint system?

PROTIP: Keep going forward, don't get bogged down by the enemies. More will keep coming so you should just press on ahead.

Learn where the rocks fall and dodge them. Learn how to jump over the fireballs. With a little practice you will find Rastan to be a very easy game.

[boagman]

With a little practice you will find Rastan to be a very easy game.

Lies! The stages are quite long, the life-to-hit ratio is really wrong (as is the life-given-for-potions ratio), and don't even get me *started* on the bosses. I've credit-fed the stupid game and gotten fed up with it...and the credits were free!

[doctorx0079]

With a little practice you will find Rastan to be a very easy game.

Lies! The stages are quite long, the life-to-hit ratio is really wrong (as is the life-given-for-potions ratio), and don't even get me *started* on the bosses. I've credit-fed the stupid game and gotten fed up with it...and the credits were free!

You have to get to where the Golden Ram's Heads appear. They refill ALL your life. The first place is 1/3 of the way through Round 2. Also you get some life back after you beat a boss.

The stages are only long because Rastan and the enemies all move so slow.

Let's see if I can remember the bosses in order . . to beat the first boss just keep hitting him and you should beat him before he beats you. You can try to jump over the spear but I usually don't bother. To beat the second boss crouch down and hit him in the legs where he has no armor, he goes down pretty quick. To beat the wizard boss, jump at him and attack while you are in midair. Most of the time you destroy his fireballs before they hit you. To beat the big armored boss, jump at him and jump away again and keep hitting him. To beat the Hydra, jump over it and attack downwards. Also hit it from behind. Do not let the flames hit you. To beat the dragon, jump up and hit its head. Avoid the flames and try not to touch him.

The Ring is your friend. It's the only power-up that doesn't wear out and it lets you swing the sword as fast as you can hit the button. Once you get it near the end of Round 1 you can blaze through most of the enemies. If you die try to get another Ring ASAP.

If you get the Flame Sword, keep it until it runs out. Flame Sword + Ring is godly. You can shoot fireballs all over the place and crush everything.

Of course this is all coming from a guy who one-lifed both loops of GnG. (The World version, not the harder US version, alas.) I have one-lifed Rastan on Easy and Normal. Almost one-credited Hard but I finally got bored. I've been playing it again for old time's sake and I might be able to do it this time.

all these people on the internet saying that Shiggy's gone soft and makes games much easier now than he used to are just mistaken.

Easier than SMB3, yes. Easier than SMB1, definitely. Easier than Donkey Kong, hell yes. Donkey Kong is really damn hard.

[gameoverDude]

I've cleared the Japanese Rastan on the defaults. The red flask is called "poison", but it doesn't take away that much life - maybe about 1 tick on the bar. It does give you 20,000 points. If the lackey enemies (i.e. lizard men) get too close before you swing at them, they end up touching and damaging you right before you kill them. Swinging a little sooner with the sword helps that.

Jumping swings can be used to rape bosses, since they're as powerful as a regular axe hit (double damage). Connecting with four of them will spell the end of the 2nd boss.

Shame the Genesis sequel (also called Nastar Warrior in the arcade) can't touch the original. IMO, Rastan is a franchise that Taito needs to revisit provided it's done correctly - something more like a true sequel to the first game. I do like RS3 Warrior Blade, though that's not quite Rastan - it's more like Golden Axe.