Why shmups are such a niche genre
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Speaking of arcades, i've come up with something else that might have hurt shmups: bullet hell shmups require very precise controls. Most US arcades do NOT know how to properly maintain their machines, so an error of some type is reasonably likely. While a small error won't kill most other genres, it will render a shmup unplayable. So while all the other games in the arcade are still at least mostly playable, the shmups are not, so they get played less, and the arcades refuse to buy more shmups. Then people forget about them.
-
The Expanding Man
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 11:59 pm
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Although some of the very first popular video games in the arcades were the early shmups, the appeal was restricted mainly to young and young at heart males. I suppose compared to playing physical contact sports and cruising chicks, they were nerdy.ZacharyB wrote: This is quoted from the Guwange thread. It implied an interesting point. If all most people want is a quick/easy game now, what changed in society to create this preference? Did video-gaming attract a new type of person that doesn't like difficulty? Or did something change the way that even nerds approach video games now?
Doubtless, games cost more to make than they used to, so appealing to the new mainstream of video games will allow them to survive. But why the obsession with difficulty... low or high?
Are shmups an inherently nerdy genre?
Video games are now mainstream entertainment. For a few years now, the gaming industry has generated more revenue than Hollywood movies. The market craves 3-d hi-rez games, not old style 2d sprite games. Few people have the patience and the dedication to improve their skills to play a shmup to any level of personal satisfaction. Having said that, my few attempts at multiplayer fps suggest there are many highly skilled gamers out there, but for whatever reason, 2-d bullet hell is not grabbing them.
And who really cares? I find fps to be generic, boring, and can often give me motion sickness. I get poor value for money from them - very little in the way of long term play. I can see myself playing my shmup collection for the rest of my life.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Showing DoDonpachi Ressurection (iPhone) to someone:
At least he didn't complain that it looked impossible. He also could see that it was much more modern than Raiden, even though he couldn't name it.Hey, that looks like Raven [Raiden]
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
One of my classmates was showing League of Legends to a new friend of ours. Said friend was watching, but she wasn't really passionate about it.
Then I felt like doing a round of RayForce, and next thing you know she's watching me play with rapt attention (she hadn't played shmups since she was a child), all the way from when she first saw me play (about halfway through stage 1) until the end of my session (halfway through stage 4).
That's perhaps the main draw for people who don't play a lot of video games--how to play most shmups can be described in a few sentences, while explaining how to play LoL or Starcraft takes some time, and you run the risk of losing the person you're talking to. also lol nostalgia
Then I felt like doing a round of RayForce, and next thing you know she's watching me play with rapt attention (she hadn't played shmups since she was a child), all the way from when she first saw me play (about halfway through stage 1) until the end of my session (halfway through stage 4).
That's perhaps the main draw for people who don't play a lot of video games--how to play most shmups can be described in a few sentences, while explaining how to play LoL or Starcraft takes some time, and you run the risk of losing the person you're talking to. also lol nostalgia
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Hey, somebody made a walkthrough for Guwange. Too bad it has a rather long list of things wrong with it. Guwange also seems to be getting positive reviews, though this one proves that you can still give the game a good score while being a bad review. Whle looking through the reviews, I noticed that there are some people who are getting the "play the game more than once" idea, and that there are also people who are getting the idea of playing for score rather than just playing to see the end credits. Looks like Guwange is doing well.
Last edited by Exarion on Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
"And who really cares? I find shmups to be generic, boring, and can often give me motion sickness. I get poor value for money from them - very little in the way of long term play. I can see myself playing my fps collection for the rest of my life."The Expanding Man wrote:And who really cares? I find fps to be generic, boring, and can often give me motion sickness. I get poor value for money from them - very little in the way of long term play. I can see myself playing my shmup collection for the rest of my life.
Rage Pro, Rage Fury, Rage MAXX!
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
That was his point.
Opinions are opinions.
Opinions are opinions.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
As an outsider, whose only interest in the genre is due to music and beautiful aesthetics of hand drawn 2D sprite art, I think I can weigh in on why this, for me, is a genre of such a limited appeal.
I think the root of the problem harkens back to the early to mid 80's where the entire industry, as well as the entire game design philosophy that carried it, underwent a metamorphosis. This was the metamorphosis from arcade style game design philosophy to a pure console game design philosophy. At casual glance it might seem like console or arcade, they are all games, but this is not true.
Around the time when Nintendo resurrected the post crash rotten carcass of the industry you could still see plenty of evidence of games for 8bit consoles designed with the arcade philosophy intact. I would argue the developers of those games were missing the point of consoles entirely, for in the early days, that is in the 8bit era, some developers were under the impression that the raison d’être of a console was to emulate the arcade experience only at the leisure of one’s home.
In reality though, as was cemented beyond the shadow of any doubt at around the time when 16bit consoles reigned supreme, it was made apparent that to treat consoles as a vehicle for home arcade experiences were doing their potential a great disservice. Consoles were by far best utilized as a vehicle for a new and in the 80's still emergent new type of game design philosophy, namely the console game design. It was more than anything Nintendo themselves that paved the way by their creations, spearheaded by their launch title Super Mario Bros.
Looking at the typical motivations and driving force for most arcade games, and arcade game players, in contrast to the console equivalents you will see that they are very, very different. Arcade shooters, as they were in the 80's, and as well as they largely are unchanged today, plainly demonstrate the crux of arcade style design aesthetics. They favor repeated play, which hearkens back to their original purpose, which was to make money by way of arcade tokens. They favor short levels where level progression and enemy pattern memorization by way of repeated attempts are imperative to successful progression rather than of one’s mastery of the core gameplay mechanics.
Much of the fun that hopeful players could hope to derive from arcade style games was by way of clearing an, at first glance, insurmountable challenge, which at first was the mere feat of clearing the game, and upon having managed that became a matter of trying to go for a better high score.
Looking at the roster of 8bit console games from the 80's we see that there certainly were many games that tried to emulate these arcade aesthetics. Many games forced limited continues and harsh difficulty to encourage repeated play in order to master them. Plenty of games also featured arbitrary scoring systems when they did not even make sense for the type of game that they were.
Take for an example the very first Mega Man title to see an 8bit console game made with one foot still stuck in the arcade design philosophy. The first Mega Man, as the only one in the series, had a scoring system, as well did it have a very punishing difficulty. As such most gamers agree that the best iteration of the long running series of 8bit games was the sequel that did away with those relics in favour of a more balanced pure console design.
The first Mega Man, and indeed many early 8bit era consoles were the result of the arcade game design philosophy slowly being shed by the designers who, mostly coming off of having made arcade games, were still coming to terms with how to best utilize the strengths of the new platform that was the home console.
In essence both console and arcades were just pieces of hardware with main processors, graphic and sound capabilities. Alas in reality looking more closely at how each is used the gulf that separates them into very different entities become clear.
Consoles were home systems that one could play at leisure; as such they had potential for completely different styled games from what was feasible in an arcade setting. Playing games at the leisure of one's home, on a private system, on a cartridge that once paid for were one's own to play in sessions unlimited meant that consoles were better suited for much lengthier, more immersive type of games. In essence it could be boiled down to arcade games usually being about the destination, the final score, or the feat of completion, when console games were more focused on the journey, the pure experience of having played through the game once instead of the achievement of having finally completed it.
Game types that would not lend themselves well to an arcade setting such as Super Mario Bros., Metroid, Legend of Zelda and Dragon Quest were suddenly not only possible, but also a much better fit for the tastes of the crowd who owned their hosting systems. Take the Super Mario Bros, series for an example, Mario was an icon who got his start in the arcades as Jumpman in Donkey Kong, and just Mario in the arcade game Mario Bros. But when Miyamoto sought to bring him over to their home console he took the best parts of those games, the core platforming mechanics, and applied them to a setting of much grander scope, more fitting for a home console creation.
Whereas the previous Mario games were single screen focused games with simple mechanics Super Mario Bros. was by comparison a epic adventure, spanning many lengthy sideways scrolling levels across many worlds featuring challenging and varied level designs.
It is here I think that the culprit of the insignificance of the maintained presence for arcade shooters over the years can be found. Because when the developers of these type of games sought to transition them from arcade to home console they, unlike most other developers, who either threw away everything and created something new, or merely just borrowed the parts from their arcade creations that made sense to bring on consoles and then built the required grander scope around them, arcade shooter developers by and large instead opted for a straight faced port of what was already available in the arcades.
This worked somewhat well enough in the early to late 80's were there certainly were many console gamers who in coming to own a home system craved that arcade experience, sans the need for tokens. But as of the early 90's the arcade shooter's complete disregard for the need for different philosophy on the home console universe saw their presence diminish into the infinitesimal.
As a pure console gamer, such as I see myself, I certainly have an interest in quite a few arcade shooter series such as R-type and Darius. But my interest is borne purely from what attracted me to them originally, that being their music, amazing 2D sprite aesthetics and general superior showmanship.
Whereas most 8 bit home console games are today visually intolerable to those who are not aided by nostalgia of remembrance, 80's arcade games still for the most part look stellar, particularly when viewed on their intended displays. This is owing to the very best older arcade shooters benefiting from the beefy specs of arcade hardware that supported their amazing graphics. What more one of the eternal strengths of the arcade shooters, for me, has been the aesthetics of their imaginative thematic settings.
Even in the 16 bit era I'd put games such as Super R-Type, and even most of the better PCEngine arcade shooters on the same level as games like Super Metroid, Legend of Zelda: A link to the Past and even the incredible Gunstar Heroes, but then only graphically, not in terms of gameplay.
In terms of gameplay there are only so much endless chains of continues I can stomach in arcade style games such as Super R-type or Ghouls 'N Ghosts before I get bored and crave a meatier experience. I can certainly see how some see appeal in a type of game designed to punish you until you find, and memorize the perfect way through a level, at which point you can almost play the game blindfolded.
But I personally find this sort of design philosophy to be obtuse on the console platform. There I find the best approach to punishing game design is the sort favoring the player's skillful utilization of the complicated set of core gameplay mechanics to enable them to clear any obstacle. Think something like the God of War series as an example of console pure punishing gameplay design. Once you master the game mechanics there you can clear any challenge thrown you by the game in one or two tries. This instead of the default arcade philosophy of the marriage of very simple game mechanics such as, say, jumping and shooting, or flying and shooting, with level and enemy layout memorization to clear obstacles.
That is of course not to say that this style of game should be snuffed altogether, I am above all a proponent of the existence of as many game types as possible. Especially today where most styles of games are being folded back into the dreaded online shooter black hole. The big problem here of course, in my eyes, is that what arcade shooters are concerned I see absolutely no signs of even a single one of them being interested in making attempts at breaking that arcade barrier and answer the old ethereal question, what would an arcade shooter become if were allowed to metamorphosis into a pure console game?
I certainly feel that there is ample room for pure arcade style arcade shooters existing alongside ones made, as they should have been back in the 80's, with console design philosophies firmly set in mind.
I imagine one way to do it would have been, say we take a space shooter like R-Type, do away with the scoring system, and the single bullet deaths, and the linear one screen wide level progression and make something more akin to a space shooting adventure game.
This with levels that span many screens up and down, with player choice as to the paths to take. Think something like Turrican, only with a ship, which would allow much more varied and interesting level designs. Turrican is a good example because it in itself is sort of an answer to what Contra style arcade games become if imbued with console aesthetics. Add all of that to a more open world design, and plenty of lengthy boss battles with huge, visually interestingly bosses that utilize modern boss encounter designs, so forth and you might have a very interesting premise for a modern space shooter.
This could have been but one take on the arcade shooter as a console game which would have widened the gamut of such games. But arcade shooters shunned such developments, and instead held onto their ancient arcade roots en-mass. Thus the console gaming crowd by and large came to ignore them because as the significance of arcade diminished, to finally vanish altogether, most gamers did not see the point of the continued existence of such purely arcade style games.
I think the root of the problem harkens back to the early to mid 80's where the entire industry, as well as the entire game design philosophy that carried it, underwent a metamorphosis. This was the metamorphosis from arcade style game design philosophy to a pure console game design philosophy. At casual glance it might seem like console or arcade, they are all games, but this is not true.
Around the time when Nintendo resurrected the post crash rotten carcass of the industry you could still see plenty of evidence of games for 8bit consoles designed with the arcade philosophy intact. I would argue the developers of those games were missing the point of consoles entirely, for in the early days, that is in the 8bit era, some developers were under the impression that the raison d’être of a console was to emulate the arcade experience only at the leisure of one’s home.
In reality though, as was cemented beyond the shadow of any doubt at around the time when 16bit consoles reigned supreme, it was made apparent that to treat consoles as a vehicle for home arcade experiences were doing their potential a great disservice. Consoles were by far best utilized as a vehicle for a new and in the 80's still emergent new type of game design philosophy, namely the console game design. It was more than anything Nintendo themselves that paved the way by their creations, spearheaded by their launch title Super Mario Bros.
Looking at the typical motivations and driving force for most arcade games, and arcade game players, in contrast to the console equivalents you will see that they are very, very different. Arcade shooters, as they were in the 80's, and as well as they largely are unchanged today, plainly demonstrate the crux of arcade style design aesthetics. They favor repeated play, which hearkens back to their original purpose, which was to make money by way of arcade tokens. They favor short levels where level progression and enemy pattern memorization by way of repeated attempts are imperative to successful progression rather than of one’s mastery of the core gameplay mechanics.
Much of the fun that hopeful players could hope to derive from arcade style games was by way of clearing an, at first glance, insurmountable challenge, which at first was the mere feat of clearing the game, and upon having managed that became a matter of trying to go for a better high score.
Looking at the roster of 8bit console games from the 80's we see that there certainly were many games that tried to emulate these arcade aesthetics. Many games forced limited continues and harsh difficulty to encourage repeated play in order to master them. Plenty of games also featured arbitrary scoring systems when they did not even make sense for the type of game that they were.
Take for an example the very first Mega Man title to see an 8bit console game made with one foot still stuck in the arcade design philosophy. The first Mega Man, as the only one in the series, had a scoring system, as well did it have a very punishing difficulty. As such most gamers agree that the best iteration of the long running series of 8bit games was the sequel that did away with those relics in favour of a more balanced pure console design.
The first Mega Man, and indeed many early 8bit era consoles were the result of the arcade game design philosophy slowly being shed by the designers who, mostly coming off of having made arcade games, were still coming to terms with how to best utilize the strengths of the new platform that was the home console.
In essence both console and arcades were just pieces of hardware with main processors, graphic and sound capabilities. Alas in reality looking more closely at how each is used the gulf that separates them into very different entities become clear.
Consoles were home systems that one could play at leisure; as such they had potential for completely different styled games from what was feasible in an arcade setting. Playing games at the leisure of one's home, on a private system, on a cartridge that once paid for were one's own to play in sessions unlimited meant that consoles were better suited for much lengthier, more immersive type of games. In essence it could be boiled down to arcade games usually being about the destination, the final score, or the feat of completion, when console games were more focused on the journey, the pure experience of having played through the game once instead of the achievement of having finally completed it.
Game types that would not lend themselves well to an arcade setting such as Super Mario Bros., Metroid, Legend of Zelda and Dragon Quest were suddenly not only possible, but also a much better fit for the tastes of the crowd who owned their hosting systems. Take the Super Mario Bros, series for an example, Mario was an icon who got his start in the arcades as Jumpman in Donkey Kong, and just Mario in the arcade game Mario Bros. But when Miyamoto sought to bring him over to their home console he took the best parts of those games, the core platforming mechanics, and applied them to a setting of much grander scope, more fitting for a home console creation.
Whereas the previous Mario games were single screen focused games with simple mechanics Super Mario Bros. was by comparison a epic adventure, spanning many lengthy sideways scrolling levels across many worlds featuring challenging and varied level designs.
It is here I think that the culprit of the insignificance of the maintained presence for arcade shooters over the years can be found. Because when the developers of these type of games sought to transition them from arcade to home console they, unlike most other developers, who either threw away everything and created something new, or merely just borrowed the parts from their arcade creations that made sense to bring on consoles and then built the required grander scope around them, arcade shooter developers by and large instead opted for a straight faced port of what was already available in the arcades.
This worked somewhat well enough in the early to late 80's were there certainly were many console gamers who in coming to own a home system craved that arcade experience, sans the need for tokens. But as of the early 90's the arcade shooter's complete disregard for the need for different philosophy on the home console universe saw their presence diminish into the infinitesimal.
As a pure console gamer, such as I see myself, I certainly have an interest in quite a few arcade shooter series such as R-type and Darius. But my interest is borne purely from what attracted me to them originally, that being their music, amazing 2D sprite aesthetics and general superior showmanship.
Whereas most 8 bit home console games are today visually intolerable to those who are not aided by nostalgia of remembrance, 80's arcade games still for the most part look stellar, particularly when viewed on their intended displays. This is owing to the very best older arcade shooters benefiting from the beefy specs of arcade hardware that supported their amazing graphics. What more one of the eternal strengths of the arcade shooters, for me, has been the aesthetics of their imaginative thematic settings.
Even in the 16 bit era I'd put games such as Super R-Type, and even most of the better PCEngine arcade shooters on the same level as games like Super Metroid, Legend of Zelda: A link to the Past and even the incredible Gunstar Heroes, but then only graphically, not in terms of gameplay.
In terms of gameplay there are only so much endless chains of continues I can stomach in arcade style games such as Super R-type or Ghouls 'N Ghosts before I get bored and crave a meatier experience. I can certainly see how some see appeal in a type of game designed to punish you until you find, and memorize the perfect way through a level, at which point you can almost play the game blindfolded.
But I personally find this sort of design philosophy to be obtuse on the console platform. There I find the best approach to punishing game design is the sort favoring the player's skillful utilization of the complicated set of core gameplay mechanics to enable them to clear any obstacle. Think something like the God of War series as an example of console pure punishing gameplay design. Once you master the game mechanics there you can clear any challenge thrown you by the game in one or two tries. This instead of the default arcade philosophy of the marriage of very simple game mechanics such as, say, jumping and shooting, or flying and shooting, with level and enemy layout memorization to clear obstacles.
That is of course not to say that this style of game should be snuffed altogether, I am above all a proponent of the existence of as many game types as possible. Especially today where most styles of games are being folded back into the dreaded online shooter black hole. The big problem here of course, in my eyes, is that what arcade shooters are concerned I see absolutely no signs of even a single one of them being interested in making attempts at breaking that arcade barrier and answer the old ethereal question, what would an arcade shooter become if were allowed to metamorphosis into a pure console game?
I certainly feel that there is ample room for pure arcade style arcade shooters existing alongside ones made, as they should have been back in the 80's, with console design philosophies firmly set in mind.
I imagine one way to do it would have been, say we take a space shooter like R-Type, do away with the scoring system, and the single bullet deaths, and the linear one screen wide level progression and make something more akin to a space shooting adventure game.
This with levels that span many screens up and down, with player choice as to the paths to take. Think something like Turrican, only with a ship, which would allow much more varied and interesting level designs. Turrican is a good example because it in itself is sort of an answer to what Contra style arcade games become if imbued with console aesthetics. Add all of that to a more open world design, and plenty of lengthy boss battles with huge, visually interestingly bosses that utilize modern boss encounter designs, so forth and you might have a very interesting premise for a modern space shooter.
This could have been but one take on the arcade shooter as a console game which would have widened the gamut of such games. But arcade shooters shunned such developments, and instead held onto their ancient arcade roots en-mass. Thus the console gaming crowd by and large came to ignore them because as the significance of arcade diminished, to finally vanish altogether, most gamers did not see the point of the continued existence of such purely arcade style games.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Modern shooters, from the mid-90s to present, are all about mastery of their game mechanics. "Progression" became secondary to long-term scoring competition years ago. The mainstream may be ignorant of (bad), in denial of (worse) or just not into (completely understandable) that sort of mastery, but it's there in spades for those of us who appreciate it.kamiboy wrote:They favor short levels where level progression and enemy pattern memorization by way of repeated attempts are imperative to successful progression rather than of one’s mastery of the core gameplay mechanics.
Once again we're at that point of divergence... I'm going to go out on a limb and say hardcore fans of the genre don't want that sort of experience, just like non-fans are turned off by the current trend of tightly-designed score attack games, sometimes referred to in the press as "short and easy games you beat in an afternoon." It's a total dead end topic, as long as nobody with the expertise and resources is willing to risk developing such an STG.Add all of that to a more open world design, and plenty of lengthy boss battles with huge, visually interestingly bosses that utilize modern boss encounter designs, so forth and you might have a very interesting premise for a modern space shooter.
光あふれる 未来もとめて, whoa~oh ♫
[THE MIRAGE OF MIND] Metal Black ST [THE JUSTICE MASSACRE] Gun.Smoke ST [STAB & STOMP]
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
No scoring goes against the commandments, so no.kamiboy wrote:I imagine one way to do it would have been, say we take a space shooter like R-Type, do away with the scoring system, and the single bullet deaths, and the linear one screen wide level progression and make something more akin to a space shooting adventure game.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Scoring is one of the fundamentals that need to stay in arcade games. Simple reason, people love to compete! How would they compete if there was no scoring? By trophy/achievement whoring?Kollision wrote:No scoring goes against the commandments, so no.kamiboy wrote:I imagine one way to do it would have been, say we take a space shooter like R-Type, do away with the scoring system, and the single bullet deaths, and the linear one screen wide level progression and make something more akin to a space shooting adventure game.
That would be bullshit. Funnily even a non-arcade game like littlebigplanet has scoring for each level and leaderboards.
Zenodyne R - My 2nd Steam Shmup
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Super Mario Bros. is incredibly arcade, which is why it was released for the VS. System and the PlayChoice-10, and also why Castlevania had such an entry (Haunted Castle) in that style for the arcades, in addition to the original Castlevania also getting such VS/PC treatment. The original The Legend of Zelda was itself an arcade game to start with.kamiboy wrote:Game types that would not lend themselves well to an arcade setting such as Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda
Rage Pro, Rage Fury, Rage MAXX!
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Well there is the core of the issue right there. If there is not even room for one title that does away with competitive scoring in favour of something more mainstream, like just focusing on adding depth to the core mechanic of steering and shooting then you have a genre that panders only to the tastes of its limited hard core audience.Kollision wrote:No scoring goes against the commandments, so no.
Nothing wrong with that mind you, but such practices corners a genre into a shrinking niche.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Unfortunately, the idea of "achievements" and "gamerscore" is very much so mainstream, and "competition" is an important part of human nature. Competitive scoring is not the problem; it's just that typical arcade games cannot "abuse" such like MMOs can, or the people simply cannot be "abused" by the arcade style as much as the MMO style.kamiboy wrote:If there is not even room for one title that does away with competitive scoring in favour of something more mainstream
I think that this thread's existence is disliked by many for this reason.Nothing wrong with that mind you, but such practices corners a genre into a shrinking niche
Rage Pro, Rage Fury, Rage MAXX!
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Mars Matrix, Psyvariar Revision, Shikigami no Shiro II, ESPGaluda II, Battle Garegga, Cotton Boomerang, Ikaruga, Rayforce, Border Down, Raiden Fighters Jet, Radirgy and Dragon Blaze are a few of the shooters I can name off the top of my head whose mechanics involve a lot more than vanilla "steering and shooting," and whose score competition is extremely deep as a result. If "depth" means Metroidvania design ethics, etc, my preferred term would be "dilution." Which leads us yet again to:kamiboy wrote:If there is not even room for one title that does away with competitive scoring in favour of something more mainstream, like just focusing on adding depth to the core mechanic of steering and shooting then you have a genre that panders only to the tastes of its limited hard core audience.
Yeah. One gamer's focus and refinement is several thousand more's hopelessly outdated narrow-mindedness. Shit happens! Personally I just keep enjoying what I enjoy.Despatche wrote:I think that this thread's existence is disliked by many for this reason.kamiboy wrote:Nothing wrong with that mind you, but such practices corners a genre into a shrinking niche
New shooters that could bridge the gap without alienating either side are nice in theory, but this topic won't bring them about.
光あふれる 未来もとめて, whoa~oh ♫
[THE MIRAGE OF MIND] Metal Black ST [THE JUSTICE MASSACRE] Gun.Smoke ST [STAB & STOMP]
-
doctorx0079
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:16 pm
- Location: Dayton, OH
- Contact:
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
I like shumps the most that have audiovisual razzle-dazzle as well as challenge. I think this is why Gunbird 2 is one of my favorite shmups right now, and I'm looking forward to Fast Striker. Games like Battle Garegga feel too "dry" for my taste. Going in the other direction, though, is even worse. I like games where I can try to beat my old score and continuously improve. Making shmups like Lego Batman is not the answer. In fact, a good shmup should not have significant stretches with nothing to do. You should be on edge all the time and shooting or dodging at least 95% of the time. Scoring should be based primarily on your skill, your ability to ride the razor's edge, including a certain amount of memorization. That's the core shmup experience, I think. If that's too hard for most players then include a hand-holding easy mode which encourages them to graduate to the normal mode. But don't water down the game itself, don't lower the bar.
This is all strictly my opinion of course.
This is all strictly my opinion of course.
SWY: Games are just for fun
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
I just stumbled into this thread at racketboy that offers a curious insight into the minds of people who do not see shmups as we all do:
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... =9&t=25212
A few interesting posts and at times painfully annoying to read
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewtopi ... =9&t=25212
A few interesting posts and at times painfully annoying to read
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Here's my point of view on why the genre is niche in west. You may disagree as i'm gonna tell it from a casual point of view, not ours.
I believe the main reason why shmups became niche in west is because the trends that west loved, suddenly went missing for most part. Rather the shmups genre shifted it's attention to bullet hells and animu-related games. Why do I say that?
Think about it, people up until early 00s loved the shmups for their awesome takes on sci-fi genre. Huge bosses and creative attacks that didn't rely on bullets alone. Also well-designed stages which had more than popcorn waves going for them like R-type Delta, add memorable music to go with it.
However when the genre shifted main focus towards bullet hell, people started liking shmups less and less because they preferred the oldies which had more going for them than bullets alone. There's a reason why older gamers like Tyrian, R-type Delta or Gradius over anything modern.
No matter what you think, mainstream is NOT INTO lolis and anime-related crap when it to comes. They are INTO sci-fi like Gradius, with aliens and other stuff to blow up! What one group likes, another doesn't. Simple as that.
That is the reason why Gradius V is loved by many, or any other sci-fi shmups that are not about anime or loli.
Remember, i'm talking about the mainstream, not us. We're an entirely different group of gamers who can straw modern stuff... sure we've got some older casuals who are not into modern stuff but love to play old ones and post their scores here.
I have nothing to add. And this is only an opinion that was made over time by observing how the genre evolved since late 90s.
I believe the main reason why shmups became niche in west is because the trends that west loved, suddenly went missing for most part. Rather the shmups genre shifted it's attention to bullet hells and animu-related games. Why do I say that?
Think about it, people up until early 00s loved the shmups for their awesome takes on sci-fi genre. Huge bosses and creative attacks that didn't rely on bullets alone. Also well-designed stages which had more than popcorn waves going for them like R-type Delta, add memorable music to go with it.
However when the genre shifted main focus towards bullet hell, people started liking shmups less and less because they preferred the oldies which had more going for them than bullets alone. There's a reason why older gamers like Tyrian, R-type Delta or Gradius over anything modern.
No matter what you think, mainstream is NOT INTO lolis and anime-related crap when it to comes. They are INTO sci-fi like Gradius, with aliens and other stuff to blow up! What one group likes, another doesn't. Simple as that.
That is the reason why Gradius V is loved by many, or any other sci-fi shmups that are not about anime or loli.
Remember, i'm talking about the mainstream, not us. We're an entirely different group of gamers who can straw modern stuff... sure we've got some older casuals who are not into modern stuff but love to play old ones and post their scores here.
I have nothing to add. And this is only an opinion that was made over time by observing how the genre evolved since late 90s.
Zenodyne R - My 2nd Steam Shmup
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Shmups need to start innovating again, mainly in terms of mechanics that the mainstream gamer will give two shots about (in other words, mechanics that don't only matter if you're playing for score). Some of my friends complain that all Cave games (particularly the Yagawa ones) look the same, and I'm assuming they haven't bothered with playing for score.
Heck, I'm sure there exist gamers who think that there's absolutely no gameplay difference between, say, Touhou, Cave games, and Shikigami no Shiro, that all you need to know is that they're bullet hell shooters. Kinda like the same people who think Tetris on Game Boy and Tetris Friends are exactly the same.
Heck, I'm sure there exist gamers who think that there's absolutely no gameplay difference between, say, Touhou, Cave games, and Shikigami no Shiro, that all you need to know is that they're bullet hell shooters. Kinda like the same people who think Tetris on Game Boy and Tetris Friends are exactly the same.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
there's a lot of innovative ideas on xbox indie games or dojin circs or whatever, the only thing is that the developers do not seem to understand what makes b.hell so enjoyable (could mebz say this for retro arcade-style 16-megabit cart games like Ikaruga too)
innovation is great, but i'll take good core gameplay over it any day.
innovation is great, but i'll take good core gameplay over it any day.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
ketsui and to a slightly lesser extent ddpdoj are modern games which would be perfect in this way, but what gets brought to america? fucking deathsmilesKaiser wrote:Here's my point of view on why the genre is niche in west. You may disagree as i'm gonna tell it from a casual point of view, not ours.
I believe the main reason why shmups became niche in west is because the trends that west loved, suddenly went missing for most part. Rather the shmups genre shifted it's attention to bullet hells and animu-related games. Why do I say that?
i dont think that shifting towards b.hell turned off people though, it's not like the games got that much harder, it just makes the player feel better about theirself + its a fairer, more visceral challenge
-
Lance Boyle
- Posts: 243
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:30 pm
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Shmups are so dumb I mean all you do is move around geometric shapes over a visualizer. I tried playing Touhou and I didn't like it, so bullet hell games suck.
These games are too hard, unfair, cheap, and they all are the exact same thing.
etcetera, etcetera
The only way to get people to play them right and enjoy them is by explaining how they work. Or just getting them to play DoDonPachi.
These games are too hard, unfair, cheap, and they all are the exact same thing.
etcetera, etcetera
The only way to get people to play them right and enjoy them is by explaining how they work. Or just getting them to play DoDonPachi.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Savages, infidels, heathens, blasphemers!!
How could no one have mentioned until now, the most obvious and clear reasons of why shmups are such a niche genre?!...
Obviously because of the Cho Aniki series!!
These games go down in the annals of gaming history as the gayest shooting games ever!
Not many games can take that title. So enjoy.
Then fire up Dead or Alive 2, don't worry you'll be ok.
Oh wait...
There is also the more recent Choaniki: Sei Naru Protein Densetsu on the PS-2,
a Remake of Maisya / NCS's classic shooter from the PC-Engine, funny parody shooter, featuring two naked muscle men Adon and Samson as the main characters, and a bunch of muscle men as bosses.
The player's objective is to guide a legendary glob of protein to holy lands through groups of enemies that are aiming for the protein in order to get the ultimate physique.
I mean, the Cho Aniki / Super Big Brother guys would get so strong their clothes would literally evaporate
I bought this game. Reason why I bought it: cuz the two guys on the cover told me to...
Do I regret it?
NOWAY..its a shmup!!!!
How could no one have mentioned until now, the most obvious and clear reasons of why shmups are such a niche genre?!...
Obviously because of the Cho Aniki series!!
These games go down in the annals of gaming history as the gayest shooting games ever!
Not many games can take that title. So enjoy.
Then fire up Dead or Alive 2, don't worry you'll be ok.
Oh wait...
There is also the more recent Choaniki: Sei Naru Protein Densetsu on the PS-2,
a Remake of Maisya / NCS's classic shooter from the PC-Engine, funny parody shooter, featuring two naked muscle men Adon and Samson as the main characters, and a bunch of muscle men as bosses.
The player's objective is to guide a legendary glob of protein to holy lands through groups of enemies that are aiming for the protein in order to get the ultimate physique.
I mean, the Cho Aniki / Super Big Brother guys would get so strong their clothes would literally evaporate
I bought this game. Reason why I bought it: cuz the two guys on the cover told me to...
Do I regret it?
NOWAY..its a shmup!!!!
Saint Dragon - AMIGA - Jaleco 1989
"In the first battle against the Guardian's weapons, created with Vasteel Technology, humanity suffered a crushing defeat."
Thunder Force V
"In the first battle against the Guardian's weapons, created with Vasteel Technology, humanity suffered a crushing defeat."
Thunder Force V
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
One thing I've noticed so far, in my admitted limited exposure to the sizable populace of this genre is that these games generally come in two flavours.
Let us call them the Super R-Type and DoDonPachi flavours because these two, among the few I have had exposure to best exemplifies their differing approaches. I may well be mistaken, so experts, feel free to correct me with examples of games that break the mold please.
The matter of distinction is how each type treats failure, which is to say player death. Super R-type, for an example, will shun away almost everyone but the most hard core due to its draconian lack of checkpoints, meaning that a single mistake anywhere in the level, even at the level boss fight, will mean you go back to the very beginning of that level to try again. Combine this with a diabolic rise in difficulty and there goes your game appeal to anyone but the hardest of core. Not many games these days demand of you such a level of perfection in order to complete a level, gamers are used to plenty of leeway, even on hard difficulties.
The breathtakingly beautiful looking 2D arcade shooter by Cave, DoDonPachi, on the other hand has no immediately recognizable repercussions for failure to present to any hopeful newcomers. Thus the act of finishing the game becomes so trivial that even a monkey could be trained to do it, all the critter will need is to be taught to hold down the fire button, and regularly feeding the machine tokens and the game will essentially finish itself eventually.
In such games if you die the game does not stop as long as you can replenish your pool of extra lives. So in effect, especially if you are playing the title via emulation, cutting away the need for spending any money, these very challenging games come to feel like a walk in the park. Sure you die every single time the screen is aswarm with pink bullets, but the game allows you to continues never missing a beat, as if nothing ever happened.
There is no tangible punishment in place for failure, so the onus for the creation of the much needed a sense of failure and fatality falls upon the player. They can feel bad about using a basket full of tokens to complete a play through, or they might feel bad about having a particular bad score when all is said and done, it is up to themselves though, the game does not beat you over the head with it.
Alas in the former case, though players who stuck with the game till the end might first try a second play through and notice that they have gotten better, the nature of constant uninterrupted progression means that in order to create strategies for especially difficult sections of the game they need to play through the game once more to reach that place. This is because the game never stops, so you are never forced to continually retry that difficult section until you get it right, such as Super R-type forced you to do. Of course most will likely bore of this constant repetition, or feel that they do not have a chance when forced through yet another play through only to consistently fumble in any of the multitudes of particularly impossible to do perfect sections of most danmaku titles.
In the case of the latter, well, going for a better score is a goal that only appeals to so many people, and before you get to that point you have to have had enough perseverance to approach a one credit run, and most gamers these days cannot even be arsed to finish a game once, let alone multiple times, even if it is a short game.
This an important point to be made for why arcade games do not dance in harmony with modern gamer sensibilities. Outside of puzzle games or casual throwaway titles people are used to long games that only require a single play through. Arcade shooters are titles where most of the meat is to be found in repeated play through. Giving a arcade shooter to a modern gamer they will complete the first play through with mixed feelings. For one they feel that the game was too short, and secondly the fact that the difficulty ramped so rapidly after the first two levels means that they will not feel very enthusiastic about trying again.
ames that rely of repetition and practice for fun have by and large been out of vogue since the 80's. Gamers these days are exposed to repetition, to be sure, most games, especially first person shooters, are a 10 hour repeat of the first ten seconds, but then this repetition is concealed in a veil of ever changing scenery. So even though the player is just shooting third world denizens in the face with a machine gun in this military shooter as they did in about a dozen others the change of scenery is enough to trick them into making the experience feel unique. Arcade shooters on the other hand only had about 20 minutes of unique content, which is presented in the exact same pattern at each play though.
Another factor in the case of danmaku title is that without a tangible sense of punishment for failure, in the form of, as is most traditional, lost progress, few gamers will stick with the game long enough for its true source of appeal to reveal itself because they get bored or are confused by the strange lack of consequence for death, which is what they are used to from almost every other game type.
To get back to the Super R-Type style shooters, and I may well be mistaken here, but I get the feeling that such games which punish you by way of large chunks of lost progress, that might get you stuck, have long been going out of style. Being forced back to a checkpoint or the start of a level, or even the start of the game, as a consequence for failure is certainly more in keeping with what gamers are used to. But then games these days favour fun over challenge, and do their utmost to prevent players from getting stuck, which goes back to their meatier length, and arcade shooters, well, need I say more? Doggedness is pretty much a prerequisite from the start.
And to go back to my previous comments, even when arcade shooters punish you with lost progress the way things play out is different from other types of games. To get back to Super R-type once more, you usually get by difficult parts by retrying until you've come to memorize that part and can navigate its dangers easily by memory. So progress comes by means of memorization, but most modern difficult games do not require much memorization from the player other than, for an example, a rough recollection of a difficult boss's patterns. They instead demand better reaction time combined with improving player familiarization with the core game mechanics to progress.
Taking the God of War series for an example, by playing on hard you are forced to better familiarize yourself with the controls, especially the block and dodge mechanics in combination with the combo system in order to complete the game successfully. In Super R-type the game mechanics are very simple, you shoot and avoid projectiles, so the game uses often unfair design to trigger deaths, such as something suddenly coming from behind when you did not expect it to, or overwhelming the player by putting them in a complicated maze of suffocating bullets as in danmaku titles. Such challenges, for the most part, unless you have almost inhuman reflexes, can only be conquered by aid of accurate pattern memorization and people generally do not like such approaches to challenge. On the other hand the rising genre of Guitar Hero type music games rely heavily on repetition, memorization and motor reflexes for fun on the higher difficulties, and they are popular enough among casual gamers.
I've noticed in the danmaku titles that I've played when a boss starts to spray you with bullet patterns you often find yourself being stuck in a closing trap of bullets with no way out because at that point in the pattern you stood in the wrong place on the screen. Such practices encourage memorization of best location to stand, but this will frustrate most players because they are not used to games putting them in an impossible situation though no fault of their own.
I wonder what an arcade shooter would play like if, upon death, instead of having to go back to a checkpoint, or continuing without interruption the game would instead rewind time a few seconds to give you a chance to correct your mistake, and if you fail there again then time would be wound back even further, etc. The same mechanics were used in Prince of Persia: Sands of time.
An arcade shooter like that could be made to be very challenging but would only rely on your ability to remember back a short interval in order to progress. Of course it would then have to be a lot longer than your typical arcade shooter, in terms of unique content and I think it could potentially appeal to more than a niche sized crowd. Most people here would of course have nothing to do with such a travesty, but at the very least I would be very intrigued to try out such a game.
Let us call them the Super R-Type and DoDonPachi flavours because these two, among the few I have had exposure to best exemplifies their differing approaches. I may well be mistaken, so experts, feel free to correct me with examples of games that break the mold please.
The matter of distinction is how each type treats failure, which is to say player death. Super R-type, for an example, will shun away almost everyone but the most hard core due to its draconian lack of checkpoints, meaning that a single mistake anywhere in the level, even at the level boss fight, will mean you go back to the very beginning of that level to try again. Combine this with a diabolic rise in difficulty and there goes your game appeal to anyone but the hardest of core. Not many games these days demand of you such a level of perfection in order to complete a level, gamers are used to plenty of leeway, even on hard difficulties.
The breathtakingly beautiful looking 2D arcade shooter by Cave, DoDonPachi, on the other hand has no immediately recognizable repercussions for failure to present to any hopeful newcomers. Thus the act of finishing the game becomes so trivial that even a monkey could be trained to do it, all the critter will need is to be taught to hold down the fire button, and regularly feeding the machine tokens and the game will essentially finish itself eventually.
In such games if you die the game does not stop as long as you can replenish your pool of extra lives. So in effect, especially if you are playing the title via emulation, cutting away the need for spending any money, these very challenging games come to feel like a walk in the park. Sure you die every single time the screen is aswarm with pink bullets, but the game allows you to continues never missing a beat, as if nothing ever happened.
There is no tangible punishment in place for failure, so the onus for the creation of the much needed a sense of failure and fatality falls upon the player. They can feel bad about using a basket full of tokens to complete a play through, or they might feel bad about having a particular bad score when all is said and done, it is up to themselves though, the game does not beat you over the head with it.
Alas in the former case, though players who stuck with the game till the end might first try a second play through and notice that they have gotten better, the nature of constant uninterrupted progression means that in order to create strategies for especially difficult sections of the game they need to play through the game once more to reach that place. This is because the game never stops, so you are never forced to continually retry that difficult section until you get it right, such as Super R-type forced you to do. Of course most will likely bore of this constant repetition, or feel that they do not have a chance when forced through yet another play through only to consistently fumble in any of the multitudes of particularly impossible to do perfect sections of most danmaku titles.
In the case of the latter, well, going for a better score is a goal that only appeals to so many people, and before you get to that point you have to have had enough perseverance to approach a one credit run, and most gamers these days cannot even be arsed to finish a game once, let alone multiple times, even if it is a short game.
This an important point to be made for why arcade games do not dance in harmony with modern gamer sensibilities. Outside of puzzle games or casual throwaway titles people are used to long games that only require a single play through. Arcade shooters are titles where most of the meat is to be found in repeated play through. Giving a arcade shooter to a modern gamer they will complete the first play through with mixed feelings. For one they feel that the game was too short, and secondly the fact that the difficulty ramped so rapidly after the first two levels means that they will not feel very enthusiastic about trying again.
ames that rely of repetition and practice for fun have by and large been out of vogue since the 80's. Gamers these days are exposed to repetition, to be sure, most games, especially first person shooters, are a 10 hour repeat of the first ten seconds, but then this repetition is concealed in a veil of ever changing scenery. So even though the player is just shooting third world denizens in the face with a machine gun in this military shooter as they did in about a dozen others the change of scenery is enough to trick them into making the experience feel unique. Arcade shooters on the other hand only had about 20 minutes of unique content, which is presented in the exact same pattern at each play though.
Another factor in the case of danmaku title is that without a tangible sense of punishment for failure, in the form of, as is most traditional, lost progress, few gamers will stick with the game long enough for its true source of appeal to reveal itself because they get bored or are confused by the strange lack of consequence for death, which is what they are used to from almost every other game type.
To get back to the Super R-Type style shooters, and I may well be mistaken here, but I get the feeling that such games which punish you by way of large chunks of lost progress, that might get you stuck, have long been going out of style. Being forced back to a checkpoint or the start of a level, or even the start of the game, as a consequence for failure is certainly more in keeping with what gamers are used to. But then games these days favour fun over challenge, and do their utmost to prevent players from getting stuck, which goes back to their meatier length, and arcade shooters, well, need I say more? Doggedness is pretty much a prerequisite from the start.
And to go back to my previous comments, even when arcade shooters punish you with lost progress the way things play out is different from other types of games. To get back to Super R-type once more, you usually get by difficult parts by retrying until you've come to memorize that part and can navigate its dangers easily by memory. So progress comes by means of memorization, but most modern difficult games do not require much memorization from the player other than, for an example, a rough recollection of a difficult boss's patterns. They instead demand better reaction time combined with improving player familiarization with the core game mechanics to progress.
Taking the God of War series for an example, by playing on hard you are forced to better familiarize yourself with the controls, especially the block and dodge mechanics in combination with the combo system in order to complete the game successfully. In Super R-type the game mechanics are very simple, you shoot and avoid projectiles, so the game uses often unfair design to trigger deaths, such as something suddenly coming from behind when you did not expect it to, or overwhelming the player by putting them in a complicated maze of suffocating bullets as in danmaku titles. Such challenges, for the most part, unless you have almost inhuman reflexes, can only be conquered by aid of accurate pattern memorization and people generally do not like such approaches to challenge. On the other hand the rising genre of Guitar Hero type music games rely heavily on repetition, memorization and motor reflexes for fun on the higher difficulties, and they are popular enough among casual gamers.
I've noticed in the danmaku titles that I've played when a boss starts to spray you with bullet patterns you often find yourself being stuck in a closing trap of bullets with no way out because at that point in the pattern you stood in the wrong place on the screen. Such practices encourage memorization of best location to stand, but this will frustrate most players because they are not used to games putting them in an impossible situation though no fault of their own.
I wonder what an arcade shooter would play like if, upon death, instead of having to go back to a checkpoint, or continuing without interruption the game would instead rewind time a few seconds to give you a chance to correct your mistake, and if you fail there again then time would be wound back even further, etc. The same mechanics were used in Prince of Persia: Sands of time.
An arcade shooter like that could be made to be very challenging but would only rely on your ability to remember back a short interval in order to progress. Of course it would then have to be a lot longer than your typical arcade shooter, in terms of unique content and I think it could potentially appeal to more than a niche sized crowd. Most people here would of course have nothing to do with such a travesty, but at the very least I would be very intrigued to try out such a game.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
This genre isn't primitive and neatly divisible into "R-Type" / "DoDonPachi," although that is a perception which limits its appeal. Try substituting the former with Border Down and the latter with Battle Garegga, then aim for respectable scores in all four. Despite the checkpoints / lack of, you won't be playing them very similarly at all, beyond the sense Halo and COD are generic games with different guns or SFIV and VF5 likewise with different ethnic stereotypes.
If the genre's output circa 1993 to the present was as interchangeable as Sengoku Ace and Gunbird, none of us would be discussing these games. I don't call my shooters of choice "diverse" lightly, by the way - there are plenty of others I consider generic or outmoded, just like in any other genre.
Where not playing for score is concerned: I've mentioned my interest in a revival of The Guardian Legend's approach, ages ago and before then. SOTN plus Zanac Neo could be very cool (and address shortcomings of both genres).
But I don't believe free-roaming or time-rewinding would get anyone distinterested in playing these games skillfully to accept them, after the last boss is "beaten." DDP, Homura, Under Defeat, Psyvariar 2 among others don't let apathetic credit-feeders finish the game, and I doubt they'd even care to know. I don't blame them either, really, with shooters lacking either modern 3D flash or instant head-to-head fighting, despite all the depth they offer those who'll accept them.
I'd rather continue refuting the old IGN et al "short, shallow, generic" fallacy on arcade gaming. I know it actually gets some results. I remember learning I hadn't beaten Strider 2 in an evening, despite what EGM claimed (thanks Eric C. Mylonas), and I'm still going for score runs in it ten years later. Not that I don't still enjoy racing, FPS and other more "mainstream" genres, just like I did before, but I was no longer ignorantly judging a wealth of arcade games by console standards.
If the genre's output circa 1993 to the present was as interchangeable as Sengoku Ace and Gunbird, none of us would be discussing these games. I don't call my shooters of choice "diverse" lightly, by the way - there are plenty of others I consider generic or outmoded, just like in any other genre.
Where not playing for score is concerned: I've mentioned my interest in a revival of The Guardian Legend's approach, ages ago and before then. SOTN plus Zanac Neo could be very cool (and address shortcomings of both genres).
But I don't believe free-roaming or time-rewinding would get anyone distinterested in playing these games skillfully to accept them, after the last boss is "beaten." DDP, Homura, Under Defeat, Psyvariar 2 among others don't let apathetic credit-feeders finish the game, and I doubt they'd even care to know. I don't blame them either, really, with shooters lacking either modern 3D flash or instant head-to-head fighting, despite all the depth they offer those who'll accept them.
I'd rather continue refuting the old IGN et al "short, shallow, generic" fallacy on arcade gaming. I know it actually gets some results. I remember learning I hadn't beaten Strider 2 in an evening, despite what EGM claimed (thanks Eric C. Mylonas), and I'm still going for score runs in it ten years later. Not that I don't still enjoy racing, FPS and other more "mainstream" genres, just like I did before, but I was no longer ignorantly judging a wealth of arcade games by console standards.
光あふれる 未来もとめて, whoa~oh ♫
[THE MIRAGE OF MIND] Metal Black ST [THE JUSTICE MASSACRE] Gun.Smoke ST [STAB & STOMP]
-
R-Gray 1
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2010 11:02 pm
- Location: Juda Central System - Secilia(ok im from Perú xD)
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
great music
great enemies
lots of enemies
lots of lasers, missiles
screen is full of enemies xD
great challenge
sometimes you can play it with a friend
since Atari and Nintendo i play shmups ( 6 years old - 1989 i guess)
but just this year i noticed that im a real shmup gamer lol
great enemies
lots of enemies
lots of lasers, missiles
screen is full of enemies xD
great challenge
sometimes you can play it with a friend
since Atari and Nintendo i play shmups ( 6 years old - 1989 i guess)
but just this year i noticed that im a real shmup gamer lol
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
I think longer games with a level based structure are needed for this genre. The level themselves can be anything from 4-8min long. But really, the important point is that you are given a fixed number of lives, otherwise you begin from the start. Score itself can be transferred to levels or perhaps a smaller set of levels.I wonder what an arcade shooter would play like if, upon death, instead of having to go back to a checkpoint, or continuing without interruption the game would instead rewind time a few seconds to give you a chance to correct your mistake, and if you fail there again then time would be wound back even further, etc. The same mechanics were used in Prince of Persia: Sands of time.
An arcade shooter like that could be made to be very challenging but would only rely on your ability to remember back a short interval in order to progress. Of course it would then have to be a lot longer than your typical arcade shooter, in terms of unique content and I think it could potentially appeal to more than a niche sized crowd.
We can talk about 1CC all we want here, but that simply doesn't strike a chord with mainstream gamers at large. A mainstream gamer won't repeat unless he is forced to repeat a game in smaller chunks. So many times you hear modestly difficult games being praised as extremely hard, in a positive sense. The simple reason is that those games have a restart and save system that forces you back to previous check point, when you aren't doing well - nothing else.
Really we can talk about diversity, or the lack of it, as much as we want to - that discussion is related to players who have atleast a modest level of experience with the genre. The problem at hand is not related to that. Yes, an average mainstream player views these games as extremely similar, but that's not based on any firm understanding of the genre. When an experienced player talks about lack of diversity or stagnation, what he has in mind is completely different from an outsider.
Ideally, the genre should atleast be big enough to the point where commercial releases can afford to take some creative risks. That doesn't seem to be happening.
-
toaplan_shmupfan
- Posts: 289
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 6:15 am
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Selected quotes and my comments on them:
Don't forget about some of Toaplan's games, while awesome to play once learned, where losing a turn too soon after just having lost a turn meant getting set back one more checkpoint (Truxton immediately comes to mind and in the Sega Genesis port of Twin Cobra this also occurs). But in many cases, the checkpoint does allow some opportunity to regain firepower and tends to allow learning a section vs. instant respawn where one can just lose a turn or two through the difficult section without having to really learn it. So there needs to be a balance between forcing the player to play good enough and forcing them to play absolutely perfect or not make progress at all. I did an experiment with these checkpoints and it was possible to work all the way back to about one screen before the start of the level when immediately losing a turn and getting sent back another checkpoint.
The scoring system in Mega Man is also IMHO broken because the same bosses can be repeated. Mega Man 2, while not nearly as hard, had its share of challenges and required memorization parts but along with the password system, that was a game that could actually be finished without excessive frustration. Mega Man 2 seemed to have the best overall soundtrack of all the 8-bit Mega Man games, I think.Take for an example the very first Mega Man title to see an 8bit console game made with one foot still stuck in the arcade design philosophy. The first Mega Man, as the only one in the series, had a scoring system, as well did it have a very punishing difficulty. As such most gamers agree that the best iteration of the long running series of 8bit games was the sequel that did away with those relics in favour of a more balanced pure console design.
Yeah, the Super R-type punishment would drive me away from a game like that for sure. I like a challenge, but not that much of one. But, I don't mind checkpoints that are not all the way back to start. Even though some of them in like Gaiares or Gradius V with revival start (checkpoints) enabled can often mean a struggle to regain firepower. So I do admit that when I lose a turn at the Gaiares stage 5 boss and have to refight another midboss before getting to the boss again, if I lose a turn again I usually power off the game and play something else. I also only play Gradius V with revival start disabled from now on.To get back to the Super R-Type style shooters, and I may well be mistaken here, but I get the feeling that such games which punish you by way of large chunks of lost progress, that might get you stuck, have long been going out of style. Being forced back to a checkpoint or the start of a level, or even the start of the game, as a consequence for failure is certainly more in keeping with what gamers are used to. But then games these days favour fun over challenge, and do their utmost to prevent players from getting stuck, which goes back to their meatier length, and arcade shooters, well, need I say more? Doggedness is pretty much a prerequisite from the start.
Don't forget about some of Toaplan's games, while awesome to play once learned, where losing a turn too soon after just having lost a turn meant getting set back one more checkpoint (Truxton immediately comes to mind and in the Sega Genesis port of Twin Cobra this also occurs). But in many cases, the checkpoint does allow some opportunity to regain firepower and tends to allow learning a section vs. instant respawn where one can just lose a turn or two through the difficult section without having to really learn it. So there needs to be a balance between forcing the player to play good enough and forcing them to play absolutely perfect or not make progress at all. I did an experiment with these checkpoints and it was possible to work all the way back to about one screen before the start of the level when immediately losing a turn and getting sent back another checkpoint.
It would be IMHO a poor game design because someone could use the technique for score milking or even just extending their gameplay on a single credit. For example, during a boss battle intentionally collide with a bullet, make the correction, fight the boss some more, intentionally collide with another bullet... and for that matter what would be the limit of time rewinds before the player actually loses a turn?I wonder what an arcade shooter would play like if, upon death, instead of having to go back to a checkpoint, or continuing without interruption the game would instead rewind time a few seconds to give you a chance to correct your mistake, and if you fail there again then time would be wound back even further, etc. The same mechanics were used in Prince of Persia: Sands of time.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
Well as for the time mechanic, I was envisioning it in a game devoid of any scoring system, because I also mentioned it would have to be a lengthy game, more in keeping with expected game lenghts. It worked in Sands of Time which was a game where you could easily make a fatal mistake, so it might work in other types of challenging games as well. The rest can be sorted out at the balancing phase of game design, which is usually late in development. If you insist on a scoring system why not have the rewinding bound to your score. So if you die and time rewinds you do it by spending your score, only it costs you a lot more to use that you could possibly make back, that would be trivial enough to implement.
But nevermind my ramblings, as usual some game already exists with a better answer than I could ever exert my creativity to produce. The Guardian Legend completely slipped my mind, how shameful of me. I could certainly go for more games thinking outside of the box like that one, because that was one amazing ride. Too bad it didn't catch on.
Also the comments made about people who are already moderately into a genre being easily capable of seeing plenty of variety present when to those of casual interest it all looks and feels the same hits the nail.
But nevermind my ramblings, as usual some game already exists with a better answer than I could ever exert my creativity to produce. The Guardian Legend completely slipped my mind, how shameful of me. I could certainly go for more games thinking outside of the box like that one, because that was one amazing ride. Too bad it didn't catch on.
Also the comments made about people who are already moderately into a genre being easily capable of seeing plenty of variety present when to those of casual interest it all looks and feels the same hits the nail.
Re: Why shmups are such a niche genre
You could probably put in some vector graphics, ambient music, and deep message about something or other and sell it to a certain crowd if you want to go that route. Otherwise, as an actual shmup, it's perfectly reasonable that rewinding time could also rewind your score. Alternatively, it could even be a big part of scoring: allowing newbies to rewind mistakes and advanced players to rewind difficult score heavy sections. A recharging gauge, ideally with a risk element to charge it at a decent rate, would prevent abuse.