"Wahhh, this shmup is too short, it's only 1 hr"

[Demetori]

Hahaha, I mean. Even if developers DID decide to make a shmup with an insane level count. Aren't shmups hard enough as it is with their 3 - 7 intricately designed levels made to test your stamina and skills in various difficulties and ship arrangements. Patterns and what not. All with the intention of having the player perfect not rush.

Wouldn't there be some insane development cost? And if not, I'm sure the game would just wouldn't be balanced score wise.

That's my opinion on it anyway. And there's also nothing wrong with people who are okay with spending the money for these games only to play them once and be satisfied.

[Taylor]

I often can't bring myself to play something like Deathsmiles MBL or a game with a loop because it's far too long.

[brentsg]

I often can't bring myself to play something like Deathsmiles MBL or a game with a loop because it's far too long.

DFK 1.5 does this to me sometimes.

[Taylor]

Yeah, I was thinking of that specifically. Black Label putting the loop in Strong style was the best change tbh.

[xris]

Honestly, I would rather have a game be around 30-40 minutes long so I can replay the hell out of it and try to get good at it. I really want to put the time into Espgaluda 2 BL, but it isn't something I can play every day, it just feels too long. Some times I like to play a couple times back to back also, a few of the recent games it just feels like too much of an affair to do this. I think this is why I got pretty good at Triggerheart, it's a quick 25 minute play through (provided you aren't going for all of the boss forms) It was because of this I was able to play everyday untill I was able to 1CC Hard difficulty.

[ShmupSamurai]

These idiots complaining about short shmups should play rRootage.

[burgerkingdiamond]

The only person who would make such a stupid comment is the kind of person who isn't even into the genre at all in the first place. They don't understand what the gameplay is about, or the mindset of someone who enjoys these games. Of course you can credit feed your way through the game, but the point is to practice until you can do it in one (I know I'm preaching to the choir here..) It is equivalent to putting in a cheat code to get to the final level of a game and then complaining that it was over too soon! How can you be so ignorant! I guess it's better to just ignore them, because they are talking out of their asses anyway (btw, I saw some wannabe video game reviewer on youtube talking about one of CAVE's new "shooter's" coming out, and he somehow compared it to Modern Warfare 2 or something. He obviously had no idea what he was talking about).

I don't even bother to read reviews from IGN anymore on the rare occasion that a shmup is released, because they rate the games based on a scoring system that is irrelevant to the genre. "Games" today are not really "Games" in the true sense of the word. There is no score, no challenge, no skill. Nothing that a "game" would have. They are simulations. As more people grow up in the current state of the video games, they will continue to view them through a lense that doesn't apply to my definition of a "real" video game.

Not that I don't like modern games at all. I really like fallout 3, and Ninja Gaiden, God of War, and some others. But unfortunately, FPS's have hijacked everything.

[njiska]

I often can't bring myself to play something like Deathsmiles MBL or a game with a loop because it's far too long.

This is how I felt about the Xbox 360 mode of Raiden IV. 7 Stages looped. Takes like an hour and forty minutes to get through the blasted thing. Completely ridiculous.

The only person who would make such a stupid comment is the kind of person who isn't even into the genre at all in the first place. They don't understand what the gameplay is about, or the mindset of someone who enjoys these games. Of course you can credit feed your way through the game, but the point is to practice until you can do it in one (I know I'm preaching to the choir here..) It is equivalent to putting in a cheat code to get to the final level of a game and then complaining that it was over too soon! How can you be so ignorant!

This is why I like the approach taken by Omega Five and the 5PB ports. Start with one credit. 30 minutes to an hour of gameplay later you get another credit. Repeat until you're stocking 9 credits and then it finally unlocks Free Play. Forces players to put in a good 5-10 hours of gameplay and learn the system before they can just credit feed to the end.

[esreveR]

I almost never complete second loops. I used to, but it's much less common nowadays unless I use savestates or something.

In fact, I think it's worth saying that shmups already stretch how long I can play a game. I simply cannot stand anything more than an hour's worth of gameplay.

Anyway, "what's the optimal number of levels in a shmup" is the next question I'll attempt to answer, just because...

-Minimum number of stages should be six. Metal Slug typically has six missions (Though there's been a bit of controversy over it since the "100 POWs" thing doesn't fit together perfectly) so if they can do that with a run-n-gun, known for having very complex missions, a shmup should do fine as well.
-Typical number of stages should probably be about eight. A ninth and tenth stage could be added as extras, much like Raiden DX did.
-There should not be a second loop, but I like having a Boss Rush mode.
-The Console port should have a Stage Select option, or something similar, an Art Gallery, and the same options (if not more) as in the Arcade version. If it's on superior hardware compared to the Arcade version, it should probably also have an Arrange mode.
-Now for exceptions. 1944 was actually very enjoyable for me with its sixteen stages in all. The stages were short but still felt enjoyable, and it meant there were plenty of very cool bosses to show. It was also nice because there were three 'major' bosses in the game: Kyouh, Kaijin, and Apparetoride. Very cool.
-Raiden Fighters, both in its original variants and in the Jet version, were actually very enjoyable, and I don't really have a preference of one over the other. RF2's "Boss, Boss, Major boss, Boss, Boss, Major boss, Enemy base, Final boss" layout was nice for the big boss fight setpieces, but Jet also had LOTS of levels that you couldn't all play in one run, which upped replay value.
-Speaking of RF2, the idea of having randomized lead-up level order (Also done in Psikyo games) feels nice, but there has to be a ranking system involved, and the levels have to be roughly equal in difficulty.
-Choosing stage order (Like Raizing games) also works, but it should also have an option for randomized stages, since naturally people will try choosing the same paths for scoring/ease.
-Darius-style level branching can work, but oftentimes it leads to rehashes and that, "Am I really missing anything?" feeling, which undermines the whole replay value agenda in the first place. So basically, if this is done, effort has to be taken to make stages next to each other on the branches feel distinctly different.
-I have mixed feelings on multiple endings. Since Game Over is basically a bad ending in itself, I'm not too fond of good/bad endings. Endings should generally be sort of bittersweet, nothing is a complete success or failure.
-Level design where all the levels are linked together look impressive, but it's not necessary.
-Was anyone else fond of Space Bombers sort of return to gallery shmups? It seems like an interesting idea, what with the separate areas per stage and all.
-Like I said, I'm not fond of second loops, but Fire Barrel is special in that they actually reworked enemy placement for the extra loops, instead of making the enemies themselves more difficult (With ranking today that actually could work even better). Cool idea.

I think that's it for now...