Why shmups are such a niche genre

[Exarion]

A few months ago, someone saw me play iESPGaluda 2, and apparently was interested in it. Today they asked me what the game was called. In unrelated news, mainstream gamers get lost when someone says that DeathSmiles is on both Arcade and on the 360 with a disc release.

[gs68]

The next time someone tells me I should train for fighting games by playing only the best fighters and getting raped over and over with no chance of ever winning, I'm gonna turn it around and tell them that if they ever want to get into shmups, they should only play Futari on Ultra.

[Danza]

A few months ago, someone saw me play iESPGaluda 2, and apparently was interested in it. Today they asked me what the game was called. In unrelated news, mainstream gamers get lost when someone says that DeathSmiles is on both Arcade and on the 360 with a disc release.

A mate of mine checked out GaludaII on my iPhone and it intrigued him enough to get MAME set up. He's really getting into Blue Wish Resurrection at the moment.

I'm a noob myself. I guess I'm relatively young (23) so I don't have years of arcade playing under my belt. However when I was a youngin' my first experience with any type of game was with Raiden at a pub my dad used to frequent. Good times.

But yeah, I am new to shmups generally, but I haven't had so much fun with games in ages. I checked out Ketsui DL on DS by chance and really enjoyed. I was "score wats dat" for a while, though once I figured it out it made the game more challenging but also compelled me to play more and get better. I still suck but I'm working on it.

I really enjoy the challenge of these games and while the leaderboards are very intimidating, it does force you to get better. When you actually reach a goal you've set for yourself in a shmup it is much more satisfying than any other games coming out. Got MushiFutari a few days ago. Can no miss stage 1 & 2 but usually lose my credit on stage 3 I would say the intimidation as well as the general level of dedication you seem to need to put into each title is what puts people off.

[Matsunaga]

Everyone I know Gamefaqs their way through every game. They don't seem to get the concept of figuring out things themselves. Unfortunately for them, you can't gamefaqs your way through a shmup, so they don't try to play them.

[Udderdude]

Everyone I know Gamefaqs their way through every game. They don't seem to get the concept of figuring out things themselves. Unfortunately for them, you can't gamefaqs your way through a shmup, so they don't try to play them.

The "Gamefaqs way" for every shmup ever : Mash start on that continue screen until you see the ending.

[Obiwanshinobi]

GameFAQs are so 1995. Now people just ask on forums what they need to know to beat the game. Some of them even ask how it ends, so they can decide whether it's worth to see the ending or not.
While we're boasting about our noble endeavours, I managed to intoxicate one pal of mine with Raiden III. He seemed to be genuinely impressed by its presentation, but it was the co-op that finally broke the ice.
Sadly, he drinks rather a lot, which bodes ill for him as a shmupper (and, let's face it, a human being). Not that I don't go get myself stoned every now and then...

The "Gamefaqs way" for every shmup ever : Mash start on that continue screen until you see the ending.

"Every shmup", huh? Even R-Type?

[shadowbringer]

Everyone I know Gamefaqs their way through every game. They don't seem to get the concept of figuring out things themselves. Unfortunately for them, you can't gamefaqs your way through a shmup, so they don't try to play them.

I did read gamefaqs to learn how to play Twinkle Star Sprites :p
(however, I'll agree with you if you're talking about walkthroughs and not game mechanics)

[Aru-san]

The "Gamefaqs way" for every shmup ever : Mash start on that continue screen until you see the ending.

What about shmups that don't allow you to continue?

[gs68]

The "Gamefaqs way" for every shmup ever : Mash start on that continue screen until you see the ending.

What about shmups that don't allow you to continue?

Oh, that's simple. You lobby to have finite continues banned under international law.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

GameFAQs are so 1995. Now people just ask on forums what they need to know to beat the game. Some of them even ask how it ends, so they can decide whether it's worth to see the ending or not.

I think its more you tube then anything else, with there so many Lets Play and Cutscene videos on the site some ppl are too lazy to actually bother playing these games themselves would rather watch someone else do it, even better if the guy on the vid is a decent commentator.

[gs68]

I can think of one supergenre that is still played for score: casual games, most ironically enough. Think about it: a lot of Bejeweled and Peggle players do play for score; if not for world records, then to beat their personal bests.

It seems that in the Western gaming fanbase, the more "hardcore" a game gets, the less relevant scoring gets.

[The Mulletron]

First off, I must say that I hate the way most of the people in this thread write off the mainstream gaming audience as idiots who are only interested in completing the games they play just to see the ending. All people seek different things from the games they play, and I think the main reason why shmups are such a niche genre is because people just don't find playing the same 5 or so levels just to increase some number as entertainment, and I can see their point in that.

Now don't get me wrong, I like shoot 'em ups as much as the next person on this forum, but even I can get tired of grinding a game just for a higher score. Also, I tend towards games with a bit more meat on their bones, and see shmups as a bit on the side, rather than an actual source of mainstream gameplay, which is probably a more common sentiment among much of the wider gaming comunity.

So, yes. It may be about public perception, or about the difficulty of most of the genre, but I believe that the main reason is that people just aren't interested in the shoot 'em up genre.

[kernow]

It takes a lot of dedication to play the same level over and over and over and over again

when you tell someone you've just spent £2-300 on a game with 5 levels and want to complete it in 1 credit, despite maybe credit fed in the past and already seen the ending. They don't get it. Any time non-shmup peeps have played on my boards they just credit fed until the end, 2 player, which involved no skill at all. Whats the point? I guess they had fun though.

Different games for different people.

[Rob]

It seems that in the Western gaming fanbase, the more "hardcore" a game gets, the less relevant scoring gets.

No. Let me mention this again: any online third/first person shooter.

[shadowbringer]

I can think of one supergenre that is still played for score: casual games, most ironically enough. Think about it: a lot of Bejeweled and Peggle players do play for score; if not for world records, then to beat their personal bests.

It seems that in the Western gaming fanbase, the more "hardcore" a game gets, the less relevant scoring gets.

one thing people before me have realized, is the "status" appeal, the ability for one to show off their abilities in a popular game. In MMOs, FarmVille, NES games, for example, there are people motivated by the idea of being respected/praised by casual players (and some other not-so-casual but not as dedicated as high-level players)


@ The Mulletron

perhaps the people who're into gaming, but not into shmups, enjoy gaming experience through senses (visually or through musics), storytelling, and not as much through gameplay. Also, most people aren't used to the idea of trying to correct their own mistakes (an ability needed in, say, fighting games versus human opponents), rather than leaving their "comfort zone". About you not enjoying playing for score, I think that you're focusing too much on the score counter, rather than enjoying the scoring system for the game you're playing. There's a variety of virtues that are exercised when you play for score, depending on what game you're playing, and scoring mechanics help a game have a more unique gameplay, compared to trying to 1cc it (so, people can't say that all shmups are alike).

Just my opinion, though.

[The Mulletron]

perhaps the people who're into gaming, but not into shmups, enjoy gaming experience through senses (visually or through musics), storytelling, and not as much through gameplay.

Bullshit. The reason people buy games is to play them, not for the reasons you stated, since if that were the case, people would just buy movies instead.

People play FPS's because they want a tactical game where they have to think on their feet to stay alive, whilst still having frentic fast paced action. People play RTS's because they want a more strategic view of the battlefield (ie moving armies, managing bases, holding supply lines, etc) whilst still having the tactical situation of the battlefront. People play RPG's because they want to immerse themselves in the character they play and develop their character as the game progresses. People even play rougelikes because they feel that reloading a game after dying is a form of cheating, and that dead should mean dead. There are a plethora of reasons people play games, and they are not the gibbering idiots people here make them out to be.

Shmups don't give that extra layer of gameplay people nowadays want, and when I said I wanted to play games with more "meat on their bones" I meant just that, not better visuals, music, or storyline. They only add flavour to the game, helping the gamer to immerse themselves into the game, and to give the game some reason beyond just reaching the end.

Also, most people aren't used to the idea of trying to correct their own mistakes (an ability needed in, say, fighting games versus human opponents), rather than leaving their "comfort zone".

Again, complete bullshit. All games require people to learn from their mistakes. Thats the only way to make progress in any game, not just shmups.

About you not enjoying playing for score, I think that you're focusing too much on the score counter, rather than enjoying the scoring system for the game you're playing. There's a variety of virtues that are exercised when you play for score, depending on what game you're playing, and scoring mechanics help a game have a more unique gameplay, compared to trying to 1cc it (so, people can't say that all shmups are alike).

I understand what you're talking about. That its not about the score itself, but in the way that you attain that score. But, the reason I play other games is that I prefer it where your actions (or inactions) within the game end up having real concequences, and not just ending the game with a lower score. I do like to improve my game, but I'm not a perfectionist, which is why I don't gain the same level of excitement that you (and the others here for that matter) do when they beat their own personal best.

On a final note, don't take whatever I say personally. I'm very passionate about the gaming scene as a whole, and I believe its a scene which is getting better, not worse. Shmups have their place in this world, but its simply not as popular as it once was. (Although on the upside, its not as unpopular as people here may think.)

Different games for different people.

My point precisely.

[Obiwanshinobi]

The thing is, some people declare they don't really want a challenge from their games and when game does not let them win at their current skill level, they lose interest.
There is one big genre virtually devoid of obligatory challenge - jRPGs. Usually if you want them to be challenging, you need to seek challenge for yourself as they tend to be beatable with level grinding alone (and a handful of knowledge about the system, which isn't that hard to grasp). I believe some people seek interaction giving them illusion of challenge rather than challenge as such. Uncharted is the most mainstream example of games aimed at such audience I can think of at the moment.
"Playing a game" means different things for different people. Recently I "played" through Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure. Enjoyed it, but it wasn't a game in the sense shmups are games. Moreover, I'm jolly sure that for some people gaming means "playing" this kind of "games" first and foremost. Persona 3 is nothing short of being the first massively succesful (outside of Japan) visual novel/dating sim dressed up in jRPG's clothes. Such "games" really are not much more than books and films in terms of the challenge. I don't consider "playing" this sort of stuff "gaming" anymore.
Analogically some people are addicted to leveling up, looting etc. No matter how you look at it, shmups don't offer any of that, and MMORPG grindfests don't offer what shmups do.
You can be good at shmups. People who play shmups want to be good at shmups. That much I can understand. Being good at something feels... good. Can you be good at RPGs in the way you can be good at shmups (or turn-based strategies to leave the twitch factor out of it)? I don't think so. I believe many people just aren't interested in being good at their games. For those people games you can't really be good at are being made. It's alright, but these forms of entertainment are so unlike each other that at this point "gaming" is a buzzword.

[Ghegs]

perhaps the people who're into gaming, but not into shmups, enjoy gaming experience through senses (visually or through musics), storytelling, and not as much through gameplay.

Bullshit. The reason people buy games is to play them, not for the reasons you stated, since if that were the case, people would just buy movies instead.

All games require people to learn from their mistakes.

You've left out all the non-skill-based games out there. There's a gazillion players who are right this very moment making up their own stories, houses, cities and whatnot in Sims 3. They're not playing games for the challenge, they have an utterly and completely different viewpoint on what games are to them.

I also had a discussion with a co-worker about this a while back, a gamer of many years. He said he no longer has neither the time or the interest to invest himself in a game that forces him to get better at it in order to proceed. So now he just plays games where he can glide through the thing with relative ease. Said he really liked Heavy Rain.

[The Mulletron]

The thing is, some people declare they don't really want a challenge from their games and when game does not let them win at their current skill level, they lose interest.

The keyword there being some. You can't peg everyone that's not a shmupper, as a casual gamer.

There is one big genre virtually devoid of obligatory challenge - jRPGs. Usually if you want them to be challenging, you need to seek challenge for yourself as they tend to be beatable with level grinding alone (and a handful of knowledge about the system, which isn't that hard to grasp). I believe some people seek interaction giving them illusion of challenge rather than challenge as such. Uncharted is the most mainstream example of games aimed at such audience I can think of at the moment.

...what's your point?

"Playing a game" means different things for different people. Recently I "played" through Rhapsody: A Musical Adventure. Enjoyed it, but it wasn't a game in the sense shmups are games. Moreover, I'm jolly sure that for some people gaming means "playing" this kind of "games" first and foremost. Persona 3 is nothing short of being the first massively succesful (outside of Japan) visual novel/dating sim dressed up in jRPG's clothes. Such "games" really are not much more than books and films in terms of the challenge. I don't consider "playing" this sort of stuff "gaming" anymore.Analogically some people are addicted to leveling up, looting etc. No matter how you look at it, shmups don't offer any of that, and MMORPG grindfests don't offer what shmups do.

So what your saying is basically some people define the term "game" and "playing" differently, and you don't agree with them. I say again, what's your point?

You can be good at shmups. People who play shmups want to be good at shmups. That much I can understand. Being good at something feels... good. Can you be good at RPGs in the way you can be good at shmups (or turn-based strategies to leave the twitch factor out of it)? I don't think so. I believe many people just aren't interested in being good at their games. For those people games you can't really be good at are being made. It's alright, but these forms of entertainment are so unlike each other that at this point "gaming" is a buzzword.

The only thing I have to say to you is, have you ever played a rougelike? Now those are difficult to master.

You've done here what others have also done, and that is concentrate on a small subset of people and failed to answer the question "Why do shmups go generally unnoticed, whilst other genres hog the limelight?". (Which was the question I was originally trying to answer.)

You've left out all the non-skill-based games out there. There's a gazillion players who are right this very moment making up their own stories, houses, cities and whatnot in Sims 3. They're not playing games for the challenge, they have an utterly and completely different viewpoint on what games are to them.

Admittedly I have overlooked Sims 3, but then again I'm not making a comparison against the casual market, I'm comparing against the hardcore market. (Because, am I right in saying you're all hardcore players?)

I also had a discussion with a co-worker about this a while back, a gamer of many years. He said he no longer has neither the time or the interest to invest himself in a game that forces him to get better at it in order to proceed. So now he just plays games where he can glide through the thing with relative ease. Said he really liked Heavy Rain.

So? As long as he enjoys what he plays, then good for him. But then, does he speak for all gamers?

[BIL]

Shmups don't give that extra layer of gameplay people nowadays want, and when I said I wanted to play games with more "meat on their bones" I meant just that, not better visuals, music, or storyline. They only add flavour to the game, helping the gamer to immerse themselves into the game, and to give the game some reason beyond just reaching the end.

One gamer's "meat" is another's bland filler. Don't try to characterise shooters as inherently less substantial games, then play the "to each his own" card.

[Obiwanshinobi]

The keyword there being some.

It was not I who said:

First off, I must say that I hate the way most of the people in this thread write off the mainstream gaming audience as idiots who are only interested in completing the games they play just to see the ending.

May I ask where have you pulled this "most" from? Aren't you the one commiting somewhat hasty generalisation here?

You can't peg everyone that's not a shmupper, as a casual gamer.

Halo people call themselves "hardcore". I neither call myself "hardcore" nor call anyone else "casual". I'm not THAT much of an internet manbaby (or so I like to think).

...what's your point?

My point is that I don't believe that people who "don't like challenging games" get as much kick out of non-challenging games as they would get out of, say, shmups. Rather they forgot (or have yet to discover) how much kick they can get out of pure arcade challenge.
It has fuck all to do with not wanting to replay the same 5 levels over and over again (by the way, some shmups very much got rid of fixed order of levels: Psikyo games, Psyvariars, Thunder Force series...). If you can enjoy shmups, you can enjoy replaying the levels. If you can't, no amount of watering down with cut-scenes, shops, savepoints, drawn-out levels etc. will make you like them.
If a shmup had randomised order of levels, Psikyo way, but 40 levels rather than 4, would it make it more enjoyable?

The only thing I have to say to you is, have you ever played a rougelike? Now those are difficult to master.

Those are not what people usually mean whan they think "RPG".

But, the reason I play other games is that I prefer it where your actions (or inactions) within the game end up having real concequences, and not just ending the game with a lower score.

What are those "real consequences", or rather - to be precise - what makes them more "real" than score in a shmup? I could also mention that in some shmups not only sheer score, but also an ending depends on your performance. Quite often you need to play jolly well if you want to face the ultimate boss, or gain high rank to get the access to the very last levels.

[Ravid]

As usual, people post before discovering whether or not they have a point, and if so, what it is.

The Mulletron makes a valuable contribution to the thread:

But, the reason I play other games is that I prefer it where your actions (or inactions) within the game end up having real concequences, and not just ending the game with a lower score.

I'll do you the credit of assuming that by "real consequences" you mean that the player's actions can significantly affect the playing experience later in the game. This is not so much true of shmups as it is in, say, a multiplayer RTS or some RPGs. Off-hand, the only decent examples I can think of are Raizing games (rank), DOJ (hyper generation) and the Galudas; there are also strats like bullet herding which are really much more short-term and should be considered separately imo. Compare something like chess, where every single move permanently alters the playing field.

I'd like to hear of any other examples of shmups where your actions can have gameplay repercussions more than a few minutes down the line. edit: just thought of another one - APB with its team selection (and rank).

[Obiwanshinobi]

I'd like to hear of any other examples of shmups where your actions can have gameplay repercussions more than a few minutes down the line. edit: just thought of another one - APB with its team selection (and rank).

Dangun Feveron and every other shmup where one mistake fucks up your score. Besides, a few minutes is a whole lot in a shmup, isn't it? Easily an equivalent of quite a few hours in an RPG.

[Ravid]

I'd like to hear of any other examples of shmups where your actions can have gameplay repercussions more than a few minutes down the line. edit: just thought of another one - APB with its team selection (and rank).

Dangun Feveron and every other shmup where one mistake fucks up your score. Besides, a few minutes is a whole lot in a shmup, isn't it? Easily an equivalent of quite a few hours in an RPG.

The operative word here was 'gameplay.' A fucked up score hardly affects your actual interaction with the game (swearing and restarting aside).

[Obiwanshinobi]

The operative word here was 'gameplay.' A fucked up score hardly affects your actual interaction with the game (swearing and restarting aside).

And how exactly a grave mistake in an RTS or RPG affects your actual interaction with the game? Only the outcome differs; the interaction remains the same, doesn't it?

[Ravid]

Perhaps 'interaction' isn't the right word.

In a strategy game, for example, an early mistake puts you on the back foot, meaning that in the future some areas of the map might be inaccessible due to enemy dominance. Or a choice of tech tree route (see DoW) restricts you to using certain units for the rest of the game.

In Baldur's Gate the death of a team member means that you basically cannot use that character for the rest of the game. The behaviour of your character and the company you keep affects whether or not other characters want to hang out with you and also dialogue options.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Again, shmup is a kind of game you entirely consume in less than an hour. The whole drama and tension is cramped within this time frame. If you indeed restart after every mistake, you refuse to experience this whole drama. Even very straightforward shmup without frills (say, Raiden III) tells different story every time you make a mistake, because recovering after each mistake happens in slightly different, usually quite hazardous circumstances. It's like playing some more sedate, longer game in fast forward mode. Isn't Half-Minute Hero something along those lines?

[Ravid]

Again, shmup is a kind of game you entirely consume in less than an hour. The whole drama and tension is cramped within this time frame. If you indeed restart after every mistake, you refuse to experience this whole drama. Even very straightforward shmup without frills (say, Raiden III) tells different story every time you make a mistake, because recovering after each mistake happens in slightly different, usually quite hazardous circumstances. It's like playing some more sedate, longer game in fast forward mode. Isn't Half-Minute Hero something along those lines?

Recovering after a death can take between a couple of seconds and a couple of minutes; a typical recovery time may account for less than 1% of total play time. Scoring mistakes do not, for the most part, require recovering at all: if I break my chain in DDP I continue playing exactly as if I'd kept it.

I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make with this post, so I apologise if I've failed to address it.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Um... just how many minutes out of ~30 min's worth of game the consequences of a mistake should last to be a valid equivalent of a mistake in ~30 hours' worth of game?
I'm trying to find some objective criteria of judgement, because comparing tug-of-war style gameplay typical of RTS games to one-collision-one-life arcade style gameplay is dodgy to begin with.

Recovering after a death can take between a couple of seconds and a couple of minutes; a typical recovery time may account for less than 1% of total play time. Scoring mistakes do not, for the most part, require recovering at all: if I break my chain in DDP I continue playing exactly as if I'd kept it.

In Raiden III losing a ship when you don't have a fairy handy renders you severely underpowered and the rest of a level plays different after such a mistake. Recovering is also quite risky, especially if you refuse to bomb. That's more than 1% of total playtime, certainly.

[Ravid]

I don't know why you think I'm talking only about 'mistakes' here. Are you trying to claim that shmups shouldn't have actions with "real consequences" lasting longer than two minutes?