Why shmups are such a niche genre

[Sobek]

The difference between shmups and "mainstream" genres seems to be that many mainstream games are really interactive fiction, and people play through them to see the sights and follow the story. I competed and enjoyed Red Dead Redemption recently, but was it challenging? Is that what people are even looking for when they bought it?

shmups have essentially no story and are only challenge. This isn't what the mainstream game audience is looking for. The exception here being online multiplayer FPS/RTS gaming.


Just my two cents.

[Obiwanshinobi]

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?

Er... if you don't make mistakes, you tend to play a shmup the same way every time, don't you? Which other way than recovering after mistakes could you experience different consequences of your choices?
If you power up fully in the first level, then don't die even once, your firepower is a consequence of what you did in the first level, isn't it?

[Ravid]

Er... if you don't make mistakes, you tend to play a shmup the same way every time, don't you?

No.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Er... if you don't make mistakes, you tend to play a shmup the same way every time, don't you?

No.

Why?

[Ravid]

Er... if you don't make mistakes, you tend to play a shmup the same way every time, don't you?

No.

Why?

Because when playing shmups, I'm usually interested in improving my game.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Because when playing shmups, I'm usually interested in improving my game.

What's to improve if you don't make mistakes?

[Ravid]

Perhaps you and I are operating on different definitions of 'mistake.' For me, a mistake is when I do something that I didn't intend. On the other hand, if I play through a game and fail to achieve a world record, I don't necessarily consider it a mistake or even due to mistakes.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I thought you improve things you're not satisfied with. Personally I never intend to screw up, but it happens to me quite a lot.

[Ravid]

Right. Anyway, in an attempt to save this exchange from triviality I'll reiterate my original point (which I believe was actually Mulletron's point but never mind): most shmups do not possess the property that player actions can siginificantly affect the gameplay more than a few minutes further into the game. I think that this may be a property that can lend games mainstream appeal, and that it wouldn't hurt the shmup genre to have more games with a bit more strategy (as opposed to tactics) involved. Also, I would personally like to see some more shmups like this. Agree or disagree?

[Obiwanshinobi]

Right. Anyway, in an attempt to save this exchange from triviality I'll reiterate my original point (which I believe was actually Mulletron's point but never mind): most shmups do not possess the property that player actions can siginificantly affect the gameplay more than a few minutes further into the game. I think that this may be a property that can lend games mainstream appeal, and that it wouldn't hurt the shmup genre to have more games with a bit more strategy (as opposed to tactics) involved. Also, I would personally like to see some more shmups like this. Agree or disagree?

I think the example I gave earlier (firepower gained in the first level stays with you for the rest of the game if you don't die) is a trivial, yet potent counter-argument. This kind of long-term consequences (powering up your weapons of choice) is a common feature in shmups. In aforementioned Raiden III I tend to switch weapons before and after the bossfights, which is my own way of tweaking the gameplay to my liking with my actions. Moreover, 0 score crowning someone's GigaWing (or was it GW2?) 1CC run looks like a thing of strategy to me.
With that said, I don't believe this kind of your own game shaping is what most people want from they mainstream games. You think those who don't care about the score in shmups would prefer some other kind of depth instead? There are puzzler type shmups (R-Type, Image Fight) out there. Apparently some Touhou games require some extra brainwork if you want to score high, but I'm still not convinced if that's got much mainstream appeal. As I see it, the most mainstream thing about shmups is "blowing stuff up".
I just don't see much more place for game-long consequences in games this short. If I screw up, I want to be able to recover by sheer bravery and manual skill rather than wisdom. Shmups are about being bold rather than cunning. You're on the edge, you're out of options, you are the last one of the entire fleet etc. To quote Area 88/U.N. Squadron:

The fighting in this area is ferocious. Only fate will determine if we live or die. Only a madman would take on this mission... Lucky they found me!

That's the premise and in R-Types it's even more hopeless. Too much thinking won't do you any good in this situation. I don't want too much strategy from shmups. For this I've got my turn-based strategies.

[shadowbringer]

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.

like Obiwanshinobi mentioned, the people I referred to (those who leave gameplay as a secondary factor) aren't inclined to take as much of a challenge (read: "being told by the game or the opponents that they're not good enough"). On the other hand, presentation (graphics, musics) and/or immersiveness (for example, if you can identify yourself with the character you're playing) may be more appealing to them.

There are other genres (such as fighting games, like I mentioned earlier) which require dedication for one to improve, and have depth, competition potential, before one gets bored of the game for a long time (assuming that the player has honestly explored the game's possibilities well enough). I personally don't see a casual player agreeing to spend a lot of time in order to improve in said games beforehand (though it's possible that the transition from casual to competitive may occur), because that would require an attitude of self-critique, and being able to deal with defeat. (and eventually learning that defeat, as part of a learning process, isn't as meaningful/permanent as one may think initially)

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.

thanks for clarifying about FPS's and RTS's, I've forgotten those and didn't mean to include them (nor did I want to include fighting games, which offer a vast amount of possibilities, and exercise an equally vast amount of virtues as well) in the mainstream list. Competition, by nature, isn't a casual player's interest, though, is it? (like I said before, it involves an increased possibility of defeat and an increased learning effort, which a casual player can avoid by avoiding the game or mode)

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.

rather, people are oblivious that they can plan ahead while playing shmups, not just reacting to what they see on the screen (though the ability to react is demanded, and rewarded as well). I myself used to think that dying a lot was unavoidable in shmups, until I've seen (from other people playing the same games) that, with intelligence, you can minimize risks, plan ahead on what you should do, while still reacting to unforeseen threats. Like I said before, there's a lot of virtues that are exercised depending on what shmup you're playing (to be more specific: willingness to risk yourself more to receive higher rewards, good execution for precise positioning, mental toughness when under pressure, timing when destroying enemies/bosses, good reading/reaction against fast attacks, foresight for using enemies to cancel bullets or to herd bullets so you can collect medals easier, planning on what to do before you start playing the game, so you can change your playthroughs depending on your current abilities, or think of a way by which you think is the safest against a certain enemy or boss attack. Or, your choice between optimizing your playthroughs so that you can reach the same stage you're used to get to, to score better, or score better by getting farther in the game, or both, depending on which takes less effort for you. There are more, but there's a lot of virtues that you can exercise and improve, and other virtues -- or lack of them, read: player's weakpoints -- that you can either improve or compensate with your other virtues). Personally, since I like planning ahead (and like when things go my way), and I'm a greedy player (though not a good one, but I don't need to be good, to be greedy ) when it comes to collecting a lot of points at once (and/or enjoy certain scoring mechanics), I don't get bored of playing shmups, even if/when I don't see the ending. Different players, different motivations.

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.

when I said that, I thought of fighting games as examples. I made the mistake of assuming that it was common knowledge, that fighting games require an understanding about your opponent, a lot of understanding about yourself, and a lot of knowledge (quick example: http://sonichurricane.com/?page_id=1702 ), among other things (virtues, remember?). The learning process required to play shmups or fighting games better (emphasis on better, because there are games in these genres which seem to want to bring in new players with more "friendly" modes/difficulties, tutorials, etc.) usually turns casual players off, there are other games which appeal to them for different reasons.

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.

it seems that you like interactivity, ability to change the events in the games you play, perhaps you wouldn't like if a game looked the same the next time you played it (quick example: WarCraft III's campaigns). Part of my enjoyment from shmups come from being in control of the situation and being responsible for the decisions I make, decisions which are constantly required and make me think about what is likely going to happen next. Can you imagine the excitement from playing, for example, fast-paced games such as Dangun Feveron or Raiden Fighters Jet? (not that you have to agree with me, I'm just giving my view)

[BryanM]

Last year I played Dangun Feveron for almost an hour a day for about two months. Here are some of the factors that lead to giving up before mastering it:

1) Having to go through level 1 and 2 over and over again. They're nice as a warm up when you begin a session, but completely useless filler when I was trying to train the next levels. I should really, really be able to consistently get pass the regenerating turrets in level 3 without the Chain Bomb, but it's still about 50/50 chance for me.

Difficulty is subjective - There is only "trivial", "challenging", and "impossible". There was a time in Ketsui Death Label where "Very Hard" was a bit challenging to me, but it is now dumped in the land of trivialness, barely any different then the easy mode bosses who only shoot three bullets at a time.

Five level long games might actually be Too Long in the grand scheme of things.

2) Playing the same exact levels. Over and over again. The enemy spawn patterns are burned into my brain deeper than the overworld in Zelda 1.

3) I suck.

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).

This self-correcting difficulty mechanism is a neat mechanic. Learn to play, or grind like a psychopath. If you don't recognize that Sap, Increase, and Bikill makes your party 8 times stronger, you deserve to live in slime-slaying purgatory.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Once you discover the most effective tacitcs in a jRPG, though, you just keep applying them and that's it. Usually the system is easy to learn if you have some experience with other jRPGs under your belt. Some of them spread aura of impenetrablity, but it wears thin in a few hours.

Last year I played Dangun Feveron for almost an hour a day for about two months. Here are some of the factors that lead to giving up before mastering it:

1) Having to go through level 1 and 2 over and over again. They're nice as a warm up when you begin a session, but completely useless filler when I was trying to train the next levels. I should really, really be able to consistently get pass the regenerating turrets in level 3 without the Chain Bomb, but it's still about 50/50 chance for me.

Stage select option would deal with it.

[Ravid]

words

So in other words, for you the shmup genre is all about balls-to-the-walls action and split-second decisions and bugger the consequences? Fair enough, but it's different for me and I think many others. As for the mainstream argument, a lot of mainstream games sell on the claim that your decisions can affect the game world, e.g. Fable, BG series, Spore etc..

Getting a score of 0 in Gigawing is, afaik, all about tactics (which are important in all shmups) and none about strategy.

[Obiwanshinobi]

So in other words, for you the shmup genre is all about balls-to-the-walls action and split-second decisions and bugger the consequences?

It's arcade gaming; you eat the consequences of your actions immediately. The entire game lasts less than one hour for goodness' sake. Long-term consequences would boil down to making a decision early on, then regretting it for the rest of the run if it was wrong decision. I don't see Garegga as an exception. To me it's just another shooter with a rank. Admittedly, I havent played it much but I doubt someone who isn't into shmups will see it as more than just another shmup either.

Fair enough, but it's different for me and I think many others. As for the mainstream argument, a lot of mainstream games sell on the claim that your decisions can affect the game world, e.g. Fable, BG series, Spore etc..

What exactly arcade gaming can derive from these games? There are 2D shooters responding to your actions in unusual way (Warning Forever, Zanac), but most designers prefer strict control over level design for a reason. I'd rather have more shmups along the lines of Raiden and Image Fight, where you can tell the enemy has some kind of "AI". That's more entertaining way of messing with game design if you ask me. The design is still transparent, you can tell what's going on, but even minor departure from your usual way of doing things can have funny consequences. I think another Image Fight (where almost everything clearly responds to your actions) style game would be a perfect remedy for this recent bullet hell supremacy.
Besides, there is still demand for "cinematic" linear adventures. God of War and Uncharted are mainstream. I'd say shmups have what it takes to make for "cinematic" experience.

Getting a score of 0 in Gigawing is, afaik, all about tactics (which are important in all shmups) and none about strategy.

How many games are about strategy rather than tactics? Is StarCraft really a strategy game, while we're at it? The word "strategy" is vastly overused with regard to games.

[Ravid]

It's arcade gaming; you eat the consequences of your actions immediately. The entire game lasts less than one hour for goodness' sake. Long-term consequences would boil down to making a decision early on, then regretting it for the rest of the run if it was wrong decision.

You seem to be under the impression that player behaviour should be categorised into perfect play and mistakes. Decisions which are not so cut-and-dry are part of what gives a game depth.

I don't see Garegga as an exception. To me it's just another shooter with a rank. Admittedly, I havent played it much but I doubt someone who isn't into shmups will see it as more than just another shmup either.

How often do you suicide to control rank? How much do you power up your weapons, and when? When do you stop rank controlling and just play for pure survival? Which character do you play with? These are strategic questions for which different players will have different answers, depending on skill and, to a certain extent, personal preference. The last one, of course, appears in many shmups, but is particularly pertinent in Garegga (and even more in APB) where the ships really are rather different and in particular have different bombs.

Of course, something like Garegga isn't going to be a good candidate for mainstream success because of its a) completely opaque system and b) rock-hard difficulty.

What exactly arcade gaming can derive from these games? There are 2D shooters responding to your actions in unusual way (Warning Forever, Zanac), but most designers prefer strict control over level design for a reason. I'd rather have more shmups along the lines of Raiden and Image Fight, where you can tell the enemy has some kind of "AI". That's more entertaining way of messing with game design if you ask me. The design is still transparent, you can tell what's going on, but even minor departure from your usual way of doing things can have funny consequences. I think another Image Fight (where almost everything clearly responds to your actions) style game would be a perfect remedy for this recent bullet hell supremacy.

Yes, Raiden and Image Fight are good games. It doesn't mean every game has to be like them, and it doesn't constitute an argument against my thesis.

Besides, there is still demand for "cinematic" linear adventures. God of War and Uncharted are mainstream. I'd say shmups have what it takes to make for "cinematic" experience.

Yeah, that's another possible route which I think Gradius V explores quite well (though I've never actually played it, just seen videos).

How many games are about strategy rather than tactics? Is StarCraft really a strategy game, while we're at it? The word "strategy" is vastly overused with regard to games.

I don't really know what to say here. Have you ever played StarCraft? It's a strategy game.

[Obiwanshinobi]

You seem to be under the impression that player behaviour should be categorised into perfect play and mistakes. Decisions which are not so cut-and-dry are part of what gives a game depth.

Every decision or act making your score lower or leading to losing a life (apart from games where you can't score high without dying) can be classified as wrong decision/act in shoot 'em ups.

How often do you suicide to control rank? How much do you power up your weapons, and when? When do you stop rank controlling and just play for pure survival? Which character do you play with? These are strategic questions for which different players will have different answers, depending on skill and, to a certain extent, personal preference.

What makes them strategic rather than tactical?

Yes, Raiden and Image Fight are good games. It doesn't mean every game has to be like them, and it doesn't constitute an argument against my thesis.

You fail to adress my question, which was: "what exactly arcade gaming can derive from games selling on the claim that your decisions can affect the game world, e.g. Fable, BG series, Spore etc.?"

I don't really know what to say here. Have you ever played StarCraft? It's a strategy game.

I played StarCraft and a couple of other RTS-es, and I don't see what makes them more strategic than, say, cRPGs powered by that god-awful Infinity Engine. In StarCraft you don't even operate on the strategic level in military meaning of the word as I understand it.

[Ravid]

Every decision or act making your score lower or leading to losing a life (apart from games where you can't score high without dying) can be classified as wrong decision/act in shoot 'em ups.

Yes, and that's a great classification system if you hate fun.

What makes them strategic rather than tactical?

They are overall game-plan decisions rather than specific sets of actions tailored to achieve goals. The line isn't completely well-defined, but the distinction is usually easy to make; for example: "I'm going to try to keep one life in stock for the first 5 levels" is a strategy decision, and "I'm going to ram into the first bullet the stage 3 boss fires" is tactical.

You fail to adress my question, which was: "what exactly arcade gaming can derive from games selling on the claim that your decisions can affect the game world, e.g. Fable, BG series, Spore etc.?"

I didn't address that question because I don't want to repeat myself.

I played StarCraft and a couple of other RTS-es, and I don't see what makes them more strategic than, say, cRPGs powered by that god-awful Infinity Engine. In StarCraft you don't even operate on the strategic level in military meaning of the word as I understand it.

I don't know what a cRPG powered by that god-awful Infinity Engine is. StarCraft is a strategy game because you need a strategy to win (unless your opponent is a complete idiot).

[Obiwanshinobi]

Every decision or act making your score lower or leading to losing a life (apart from games where you can't score high without dying) can be classified as wrong decision/act in shoot 'em ups.

Yes, and that's a great classification system if you hate fun.

If you can't have fun despite your imperfect performance, I'd say shmups aren't your kind of game.

They are overall game-plan decisions rather than specific sets of actions tailored to achieve goals. The line isn't completely well-defined, but the distinction is usually easy to make; for example: "I'm going to try to keep one life in stock for the first 5 levels" is a strategy decision, and "I'm going to ram into the first bullet the stage 3 boss fires" is tactical.

In this meaning every shmup demands some strategic thinking. Your tactical decisions are usually affected by your knowledge of given game gathered during multiple runs. When you hit the wall notoriously, you start to wonder what's wrong with your tactics rather than just restart and hope you'll "enter the zone" this time around.

You fail to adress my question, which was: "what exactly arcade gaming can derive from games selling on the claim that your decisions can affect the game world, e.g. Fable, BG series, Spore etc.?"

I didn't address that question because I don't want to repeat myself.

If you believe you explained it before, use quote option. I don't see many similarities between Garegga and games selling on the claim that your decisions can affect the game world, e.g. Fable, BG series, Spore etc. at this point.

StarCraft is a strategy game because you need a strategy to win (unless your opponent is a complete idiot).

In StarCraft you do the combat. You are supposed to achieve victory on the battlefield by tactical decisions and manual efficiency with mouse and hotkeys. There is some resource management to it, but when Dawn of War and the likes came along, I wouldn't say the omission of StarCraft-like mining etc. made them more shallow.
Strategy in military context is about winnig wars, whereas tactics are about winning battles. In StarCraft winning battles is enough, isn't it? You don't have to worry about many things important in quite a few strategy games I could name (mainly turn-based ones, but I believe there are games with RTS combat and strategy layer out there too).

[Ravid]

If you can't have fun despite your imperfect performance, I'd say shmups aren't your kind of game.

I have no idea why you think this is an appropriate response, but it's clear we don't really understand one another. My interest in debating semantics has waned; I think I've made my thoughts quite clear, and if you seriously expect that you would be unhappy to see shmups released with what I call more strategic gameplay, then even though I cannot empathise I must accept that this is how you feel.
On the subject of the definition of strategy, I'll allow myself a parting shot: strategy can apply to contexts other than war, and in such contexts the definition requires modification. StarCraft is not a war, it is a game whose theme happens to be war. Do you think chess is a strategic game?

[Obiwanshinobi]

If you can't have fun despite your imperfect performance, I'd say shmups aren't your kind of game.

I have no idea why you think this is an appropriate response, but it's clear we don't really understand one another. My interest in debating semantics has waned; I think I've made my thoughts quite clear, and if you seriously expect that you would be unhappy to see shmups released with what I call more strategic gameplay, then even though I cannot empathise I must accept that this is how you feel.

I do not comprehend what kind of substance Fable, Baldur's Gate and Spore possess that would make shmups better games, or games with more mainstream appeal. If you believe you have already explained it, quoting yourself to prove the point should be a trivial and not too laborious task. For now I fail to see wich part of your argumentation adresses the subject. Moreover, I do not comprehend what seeing your errors as errors has to do with "hating fun".

On the subject of the definition of strategy, I'll allow myself a parting shot: strategy can apply to contexts other than war, and in such contexts the definition requires modification. StarCraft is not a war, it is a game whose theme happens to be war. Do you think chess is a strategic game?

I do not think chess is a strategic game. StarCraft, although labelled as RTS, bears only superficial resemblance to computer games I would call strategic. It's more of a point & click action game in the vein of Cannon Fodder (more complex, nuanced and refined perhaps, but not to the point of becoming a strategy game). Just like Space Invaders and DoDonPachi belong to the shoot 'em up genre.

[Ravid]

Fable, Baldur's Gate and Spore are games in which player actions can have lasting (proportional to game length) repercussions, and which sell partly on this feature. I say that it would be nice if some more shmups contained possible actions that can have lasting (proportional to game length) repercussions. I have given examples of existing shmups that I think possess this property to a non-trivial extent. Examples where there is an obvious 'best' solution that can be seen with a few seconds thought are trivial. This is, in fact, the entire substance of my argument, and I do not know how I can be more clear.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Fable, Baldur's Gate and Spore are games in which player actions can have lasting (proportional to game length) repercussions, and which sell partly on this feature. I say that it would be nice if some more shmups contained possible actions that can have lasting (proportional to game length) repercussions. I have given examples of existing shmups that I think possess this property to a non-trivial extent. This is, in fact, the entire substance of my argument, and I do not know how I can be more clear.

Many shmups have rank, maybe not as aggressive as Garegga, but you can ignore the rank in Garegga, play as well as you can until you rank down anyway killed against your will. How's that substantially different from playing any other shmup with difficulty level auto-adjusting to your performance? Say, Zanac Neo and other Compile shmups, where you not only have rank, but you also have to constantly tweak and power up your weaponry, thinking ahead all the time. Ordyne where for the money earned during the game you can mid-level buy funky weapons changing the gameplay greatly (it's more of a sandbox feature and you probably can ignore the shops, but it gives you the opportunity to express yourself in your own style). To play through any difficult shmup and to score high you need to develop deeper understanding of its design and think ahead. (Which is not to say Zanac Neo and Ordyne are all that difficult, but each playthrough can be different if you want it to be.)

[Exarion]

At least we can stop waiting for Ilvelo to come out in the US now. It's been canceled. This is not a good sign for shmup localizations.

[toaplan_shmupfan]

Playing the same exact levels. Over and over again. The enemy spawn patterns are burned into my brain deeper than the overworld in Zelda 1.

Not only specific to shmups. See also the platform game genre. Levels are the same, enemy spawn spots are the same, jump spots are the same, even the secret zones are the same.

[The Expanding Man]

I just like blowing shit up.

With kick-ass lasers.

[Lok]

Not to add much to this argument but I attended a con today and pulled out my copy of Mushi Futari to play in the game room. I did manage to get a couple onlookers as they found the game very interesting but the vast majority had no idea what the hell I was playing and passed it off as too hard to play. The few that did know the genre at least, asked me if it was a new Touhou game. And the ones that did know what it was, just knew it as "the game with the hardest boss ever" (thank u youtube). Shouldn't expect much considering it was an anime convention where the the games that were popular were GH, Halo, CoD and Smash, but even in that niche community, shumps's are even more niche.

[gs68]

Fanime's console gaming areahad a handful of shmups going last year, thanks in no small part to Kenchan: Radiant Silvergun, Mushihime-sama, Thunder Forve IV through VI, Gradius ReBirth, Gradius Gaiden, the list goes on...

But this year? All I saw was Mushihime-sama Futari, Espgaluda II, Soukyuugurentai, Border Down, Trizeal, and Ikaruga, and unless it was called Ikaruga, it was available only at night; during the day console gaming was dominated by fighters and a few FPSes.

Though Skyline (from Fanime Forums; dunno if he's on here), Kitaru, and Fogelmir were there, which sort of made up for the decreased shmup variety, and Kenchan (who I roomed with by coincidence thanks to a mutual friend) and I talked about DFK and other things in our room.

Other than that it appears the shmup genre is becoming less present at Fanime, a con that I'd think averts the "90% fighters, 10% music games" trend I've seen at every other con gaming room along with Sakura-Con (which had a segregated "retro" room, which kinda curbed the trend). Fanime's console gaming is turning into that of yet another con gaming room's: if you're not into fighters or Guitar Hero, you might as well be banned from it.

Although I will admit I could've done my part to make shmups more well-known. But I wasn't really in the mood for going through the check-out system for games since they involved systems that were in use at the time.

[The Mulletron]

Wow, alot has happened since I last spoke. It seems as though this argument has come more or less full circle, (or more like lapped it self several times), with diehard supporters defending the shmup genre, and will bear no ill word said against it (or so that's my impression), countering with statements along the lines of mainstream gaming going "Hollywood" and otherwise selling itself out, or saying that other games don't offer the same challenge (even going so far as to say chess isn't even a strategy game! The cheek!), whereas more conservative players state arguments like shmups don't offer the kind of gameplay other people are looking for (or something to that effect), all the while not answering the original question of this topic, which is "Why shmups are such a niche genre".

Well to give this topic some kind of closure (or at least give debators another point to chew on), I will try to sum up this argument. To my knowledge, the shmup genre is mostly filled with games that are frentic and fast paced, but with a high difficulty level, with the main objective being to have the highest score possible. So it is more or less (and don't be offended when I say this) casual gameplay with hardcore difficulty levels. So the reason that shmups are such a niche genre is because that most casual players, although they may like the gameplay side, are put off the steep difficulty level, whereas many hardcore gamers like the challenge aspect, but are put off by the lack of gameplay. This means that shmup communily isn't big enough to support a market for this genre, and that is why I believe there hasn't been a market for this genre outside Japan to this day. That is why I believe shmups are such a niche genre.

And unless someone points out a valid flaw in my argument (and that also means a point that hasn't already been covered in this topic), that is all I have to say on it for now.

[BIL]

frentic

"Frenetic." Or maybe you were going for "frantic" idk lol

So it is more or less (and don't be offended when I say this) casual gameplay with hardcore difficulty levels.

Wrong. The shooter medium is simple and superficially "casual," the deeper content isn't.

There's no mystery here, regarding the topic title. Shooters are uncompromisingly old-fashioned and unforgiving. They're unattractive and inhospitable to the modern mainstream for the same reasons their niche audience love them.