Why shmups are such a niche genre

[Exarion]

Someone was saying that the genre is becoming too homogenized. Maybe if someone made an abnormal-looking shmup that isn't garbage things would improve? It's also intergalactic shmupprecciation month, so spread the word about the genre.

[AraraSPAMWitch]

Futari Ultra mode does push the limits of the system, just not in the normal sense. Remember that the slowdown was removed in the 360 ports. That is because a large amount of the slowdown was due to the arcade hardware being unable to keep up with the amount of onscreen bullets. Anything that remains is where even the 360 can't keep up. Extra graphics, etc. would slow down the game even more, and make it much worse.

lol, did you even play the game? Remember that the slowdown was removed in the 360 ports? There's slowdown in stage 2 of Original, and it's there because it's supposed to be there.

derp

[Taylor]

The 360 could probably run Futari 10 times at once and not break into a sweat.

Someone was saying that the genre is becoming too homogenized. Maybe if someone made an abnormal-looking shmup that isn't garbage things would improve? It's also intergalactic shmupprecciation month, so spread the word about the genre.

And who is someone?

I don’t think the genre is homogeneous, but I could see how they appear that way to the layman. It’s not because of setting or theme, but because a lot of the uniqueness in a shmup is often through abstract score mechanics with no real effect on the game itself that casual players don’t care about. For example, the foundations of Ikaruga come from two mechanics: polarity and chaining. If you run around the internet looking for people talking about Ikaruga, anything from forum posts to reviews, you will find a lot more information on the former and almost nothing on the latter. Because except for additional extends the latter is abstract and easily ignorable (and boring, but it would be the same even if Ikaruga had a fun score system).

A friend at work asked me what was different between Futari 1.5 and Black Label. I replied that there are more enemies, the bullets are faster, your ship is stronger but only has one configuration, there is more slowdown, and God Mode replaces Ultra. Then I went on to explain that the main difference is in the scoring: if you keep your option inside enemies you can make them ‘bleed’ point items and the key to this is taking advantage of enemy entrance invulnerablah blah blah. He likes Gradius because of the upgrade system mechanic, he likes R-type for the pod mechanic, he likes DOJ for the hyper mechanic, but he doesn't care how many ships he has hit within a 1 second period for 5 million points and never will.

[EPS21]

The 360 could probably run Futari 10 times at once and not break into a sweat.

Someone was saying that the genre is becoming too homogenized. Maybe if someone made an abnormal-looking shmup that isn't garbage things would improve? It's also intergalactic shmupprecciation month, so spread the word about the genre.

And who is someone?

I don’t think the genre is homogeneous, but I could see how they appear that way to the layman. It’s not because of setting or theme, but because a lot of the uniqueness in a shmup is often through abstract score mechanics with no real effect on the game itself that casual players don’t care about. For example, the foundations of Ikaruga come from two mechanics: polarity and chaining. If you run around the internet looking for people talking about Ikaruga, anything from forum posts to reviews, you will find a lot more information on the former and almost nothing on the latter. Because except for additional extends the latter is abstract and easily ignorable (and boring, but it would be the same even if Ikaruga had a fun score system).

A friend at work asked me what was different between Futari 1.5 and Black Label. I replied that there are more enemies, the bullets are faster, your ship is stronger but only has one configuration, there is more slowdown, and God Mode replaces Ultra. Then I went on to explain that the main difference is in the scoring: if you keep your option inside enemies you can make them ‘bleed’ point items and the key to this is taking advantage of enemy entrance invulnerablah blah blah. He likes Gradius because of the upgrade system mechanic, he likes R-type for the pod mechanic, he likes DOJ for the hyper mechanic, but he doesn't care how many ships he has hit within a 1 second period for 5 million points and never will.

I get your point, but even you errored in explaining the scoring to him. BL scoring has nothing to do with your options' position, its just how well you're point blanking and staying as far up the screen as possible where the good milking occurs. Palm, not actually having any options would be a bit difficult
to score with with that explanation

[Taylor]

Heh, that post kind of confuses me because it goes against all I know for BL scoring. I assume we're not both talking about Original mode? I'm also sure Palm does have options in the form of blue orbs below him.
Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUQC5VB5WEk#t=0m28s

[xris]

I'm probably going to regret this,
What if instead of a big action game for IronMan2, they made a decent shmup for a $10 download? It might be fun, and it would bring alot of attention.

[EPS21]

Heh, that post kind of confuses me because it goes against all I know for BL scoring. I assume we're not both talking about Original mode? I'm also sure Palm does have options in the form of blue orbs below him.
Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUQC5VB5WEk#t=0m28s

Thats a video of reco btw . But I suppose it boils down to what ones definition of an option is. Palm, when he's not shooting, doesn't have anything with him but when he does shoot, little orbs pop out and behind him and shoot with him. Whereas Reco's little beetle options follow her around all the time, shooting or not. Now that I think about it for BL original, with Reco if you hold down A, your options can trigger gem milking if your counter is blue even if you're clear at the bottom of the screen, but if they're point blanking a non-popcorn enemy by being locked up there. I think besides this case however, the general strategy for BL original scoring is basically living at the top of the screen (like those crazy replay dudes).

[Taylor]

I never meant to imply it was a video of Reco. It's clear the options that are making the enemies bleed items. And, whether you want to call them options or not, Palms orbs leak the same way as Reco's beetles do but are confined around him so he plays differently (bigger/easier bonus out of point blanking but can't place his options down ahead of time). If you watch super-plays of Reco you will notice option placement is a lot more important than you seem to suggest, mid bosses (2 and 5 especially) and the large green bugs and centipedes in stage 4 are easy examples that spring to mind.

And while obviously being near the top of the screen is more important (or, rather, proximity) I never said anything to the contrary. I said one of the differences in scoring was option placement, and having to point blank is not unique to BL. It obviously wasn't supposed to be a concise deconstruction of a scoring but a single part of it to show my friend doesn't care about changes to abstract score systems, that's all.

I'm probably going to regret this,
What if instead of a big action game for IronMan2, they made a decent shmup for a $10 download? It might be fun, and it would bring alot of attention.

Heh, they actually did make a flash shmup on the Iron Man website. No idea if it's still there.

[roker]

Shmups are a niche genre because they are JUST 4 FUN.

speak for yourself!

shmups are pain and agony characterized by suffering and masochism.

[Kollision]

Shmups are a niche genre because they are JUST 4 FUN.

speak for yourself!

shmups are pain and agony characterized by suffering and masochism.

Yes, but the final reward is far beyond what any other gaming genre can provide.

[Lynx Winters]

Shmups are a niche genre because they are JUST 4 FUN.

speak for yourself!

shmups are pain and agony characterized by suffering and masochism.

Yes, but the final reward is far beyond what any other gaming genre can provide.

The final reward is basically exactly the same as any other video game. Personal satisfaction is relative.

[EPS21]

Yes, but the final reward is far beyond what any other gaming genre can provide.

The final reward is basically exactly the same as any other video game. Personal satisfaction is relative.[/quote]

When a game is actually challenging to beat, unlike most of todays modern games, the final reward is much more satisfying.
Sure personal satisfaction is relative, but games have come to the point of trivial "achievements" and nearly guaranteed success at beating the thing that it such satisfaction is practically no different than feeling like you've accomplished something by sitting through a tv show or movie.

That's why shmups are a niche genre, they don't cater to the appeals of satisfaction to the lowest common denominator. And it should stay that way.

[DEL]

EPS21 wrote;

That's why shmups are a niche genre, they don't cater to the appeals of satisfaction to the lowest common denominator. And it should stay that way.

Perfect .

There are other factors contributing to the nichness, like the fact that the genre has been buried by 99% of developers, but otherwise a perfect post Mr EPS21.

[Kollision]

speak for yourself!

shmups are pain and agony characterized by suffering and masochism.

Yes, but the final reward is far beyond what any other gaming genre can provide.

The final reward is basically exactly the same as any other video game. Personal satisfaction is relative.

He took the words right outta my mouth:

When a game is actually challenging to beat, unlike most of todays modern games, the final reward is much more satisfying.

[Lynx Winters]

People tend to throw around the bullshit line that "modern mainstream games are too easy" around here, but I don't see anyone talking about how they 1cc'd Halo or anything. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that people say shmups are harder games because you aren't "supposed to" continue, then deride other genres as being too easy because you can just continue all day long until you get it right. If you are going to insist that having to start over from scratch every time you lose a game is a part of difficulty, then why not apply it to all games instead of the maybe two genres that actually work that way (here's a hint, most shmups are not one of those two genres). Starting a new WoW character every time you die and don't get revived by a friend is a completely unrealistic expectation. We all know this. What many people here fail to realize is that for the average person, 1ccing any but the very easiest shmup is equally as unrealistic.

Then again this is a forum with many people who don't understand that not everyone wants the same thing in a video game, and are more than happy to shit on other people's tastes in electronic time-wasters through the anonymity of the internet. I'd say this thread itself is a damn good example of the reason shmups are a niche genre.

[captpain]

People tend to throw around the bullshit line that "modern mainstream games are too easy" around here, but I don't see anyone talking about how they 1cc'd Halo or anything. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that people say shmups are harder games because you aren't "supposed to" continue, then deride other genres as being too easy because you can just continue all day long until you get it right. If you are going to insist that having to start over from scratch every time you lose a game is a part of difficulty, then why not apply it to all games instead of the maybe two genres that actually work that way (here's a hint, most shmups are not one of those two genres). Starting a new WoW character every time you die and don't get revived by a friend is a completely unrealistic expectation. We all know this. What many people here fail to realize is that for the average person, 1ccing any but the very easiest shmup is equally as unrealistic.

Then again this is a forum with many people who don't understand that not everyone wants the same thing in a video game, and are more than happy to shit on other people's tastes in electronic time-wasters through the anonymity of the internet. I'd say this thread itself is a damn good example of the reason shmups are a niche genre.

shmups are designed for you not to continue, you god damn retard

[Lynx Winters]

Then why do they even give you the option?

[NR777]

Then why do they even give you the option?

They are designed for Arcades. Continues cost money. Arcade owners want to make money. Dur.

[Lynx Winters]

Then why do they even give you the option?

They are designed for Arcades. Continues cost money. Arcade owners want to make money. Dur.

They make money from people playing the game. They don't care how they play it. If a game is making money in an arcade it's either because it's a popular game and lots of people want to play it, or because there's a small group of people constantly popping money in. If it's the former it doesn't matter if you can't continue because there's other people waiting to toss their credits in so the arcade owner still has constant income. If it's the latter then you probably have a dedicated group of folks who, in the case of a shmup, aren't going to use continues anyway.

Not sure if you've ever met people who work for arcade distributors in the US, but a good portion of them do not give two shits about the games themselves. If you told them they could increase their income by turning off continues most of them would do it in a heartbeat. They don't because it doesn't matter one way or the other, if someone walks in and gets $5 in quarters or tokens (especially tokens) they're going to spend most of it. Most operators don't care if all of it spent on one game or a group of them. They still get the money.

[AraraSPAMWitch]

If you told them they could increase their income by turning off continues most of them would do it in a heartbeat.

Except continues allow them to make more money by shortening the player's session.

[Lynx Winters]

If you told them they could increase their income by turning off continues most of them would do it in a heartbeat.

Except continues allow them to make more money by shortening the player's session.

I don't follow. How does the option to play longer mean someone doesn't play as long? Do you mean that they're more likely to just play that game instead of wandering around looking for a different game?

[AraraSPAMWitch]

If you told them they could increase their income by turning off continues most of them would do it in a heartbeat.

Except continues allow them to make more money by shortening the player's session.

I don't follow. How does the option to play longer mean someone doesn't play as long? Do you mean that they're more likely to just play that game instead of wandering around looking for a different game?

When you continue, you are basically starting the game from a harder area than you would from from letting the game go back to the beginning. If you lose all your lives in the middle of stage 3 in Raiden, if you continue you are probably going to die even faster since, presumably, if you're not good enough to get past stage 3 without losing all your lives you won't be able to make it much further. I have seen people go through whole bags of quarters credit-feeding through a shooter -- the further they get, the more quickly they will continue. It's expensive.

The way to get the longest play time for your money -- and to improve -- is to start every credit from the game's beginning.

[Lynx Winters]

When you continue, you are basically starting the game from a harder area than you would from from letting the game go back to the beginning. If you lose all your lives in the middle of stage 3 in Raiden, if you continue you are probably going to die even faster since, presumably, if you're not good enough to get past stage 3 without losing all your lives you won't be able to make it much further. I have seen people go through whole bags of quarters credit-feeding through a shooter -- the further they get, the more quickly they will continue. It's expensive.

The way to get the longest play time for your money -- and to improve -- is to start every credit from the game's beginning.

Alright, I can get behind that. I think I drove things off-topic with arcade economics anyway. To get back to my original point, what people want out of video games is different from person to person. Personally, I enjoy games that are crazy-hard and I think that to get the most out of shmups you should try to do your best on one credit. That's fine for me, that's fine for most people here. It's not fine for most people who play video games, though. Saying things like "beating a shmup is way more satisfying than beating a different kind of game" is only true to some people. While some people might think "wow I just finished this incredibly difficult game thanks to all the effort I put in" and be happy about it, there are other people who think "wow I just put in a shitload of effort just to beat a damn video game." Satisfaction is relative.

[captpain]

When you continue, you are basically starting the game from a harder area than you would from from letting the game go back to the beginning. If you lose all your lives in the middle of stage 3 in Raiden, if you continue you are probably going to die even faster since, presumably, if you're not good enough to get past stage 3 without losing all your lives you won't be able to make it much further. I have seen people go through whole bags of quarters credit-feeding through a shooter -- the further they get, the more quickly they will continue. It's expensive.

The way to get the longest play time for your money -- and to improve -- is to start every credit from the game's beginning.

Alright, I can get behind that. I think I drove things off-topic with arcade economics anyway. To get back to my original point, what people want out of video games is different from person to person. Personally, I enjoy games that are crazy-hard and I think that to get the most out of shmups you should try to do your best on one credit. That's fine for me, that's fine for most people here. It's not fine for most people who play video games, though. Saying things like "beating a shmup is way more satisfying than beating a different kind of game" is only true to some people. While some people might think "wow I just finished this incredibly difficult game thanks to all the effort I put in" and be happy about it, there are other people who think "wow I just put in a shitload of effort just to beat a damn video game." Satisfaction is relative.

Well I'm not really sure if anyone has or would ever argue that satisfaction isn't achieved in different ways from person to person. I think you're setting up a bit of a straw man here.

[Taylor]

The arcade economics are completely on-topic because they are arcade games designed to be played a certain way. You can continue when you lose in a shmup, you can remake your character when you die in an MMO, you can play racing games by driving backwards, and you can play fighting games just to look at the female characters pantsu. But “fun is relative” doesn’t change the fact that none of these games were made for that play style. If you get your jollies doing it then fine, nobody is hurt by it, but don't sneer at people for playing them as intended.

[gs68]

I wonder, if someone made a shmup with absolutely no scoring, would it still sell hotly to casual shmup players? Seeing as "people care more about the next fruit in Pac-Man than their score"?

[captpain]

I wonder, if someone made a shmup with absolutely no scoring, would it still sell hotly to casual shmup players? Seeing as "people care more about the next fruit in Pac-Man than their score"?

who cares?

[Udderdude]

I wonder, if someone made a shmup with absolutely no scoring, would it still sell hotly to casual shmup players? Seeing as "people care more about the next fruit in Pac-Man than their score"?

Score: YOU GET A GOLD STAR

... and it never changes.

[Moleculoman]

Most of the earlier posts have to some measure shed some light on the state of the shmup genre. When you think about about shooters, what comes to mind to me is pure, raw gaming at its core. When one thinks back to the very earlier days of computing and the advent of pong, it was inherently simplistic.

Then comes along Space Invaders and Galaga, pushing the genre and popularizing it. They were simple yet addictive, challenging games. Move....shoot, move shoot. This formula at its core is still the same for shooters today.

Obviously, they've benefited from hardware advancements and human ingenuity, but the landscape for gaming has changed. Games are made for all types of people, who want more than anything to enjoy an interactive experience that are in many cases beyond the scope of most shmups that exist.

They'll always be there for those of us who are nostalgic and/or grew up playing these games. Its as I said earlier, as close to RAW gaming as one can get.

[lgb]

The arcade economics are completely on-topic because they are arcade games designed to be played a certain way.

only half on-topic, shmups are not arcade-only

let's try this again: the reason why this genre is niche is because no one wants these games like they did back in the '70s and '80s; this genre, like so many other genres, is taking a backseat to some newer genres (for example, FPSes). also, commercial games are still made for most of these "out-of-style" genres anyhow