What CAVE did.

[Drum]

Okay, but even in extreme cases like DOJ, it's not as if the game suddenly becomes a soulless regurgitation of button inputs once you've mastered the chaining of a level. There's still a tremendous level of pressure and risk on the player in high-level shooter play. It doesn't evaporate as skill improves.

I could see someone missing this if they were watching someone else's mastery of a game at work, which is why I asked how many of these games you've actually played.

I'm not saying they're not tense at high level play. Going back to random instadeaths: obviously those create tension. But you can have tension and improvisation, and you can have tension without the threat of random insta-death. Cave games don't have mprovisation at high levels of play (in the games I've played - to non-high-levels, needless to say). That is pretty well established, and you don't need to play them to high levels to figure that out (or watch youtube playthroughs, which is something else I don't waste my time doing).
I've never played DOJ at all, just Progear, Guwange, DDP, Ketsui and a couple others.

Paradigm: You're a retard.

[DocHauser]

When you are making decisions about whether to play it safe or go for more points, the game is actually interesting ... it's actually a game. That is when the risk vs reward mechanics are actually risk vs reward mechanics.

To go back to Raiden Fighters Jet, I'd have thought it was one of the better examples of this. You can control the rank to some extent by choosing whether or not to chain and go for the secrets/high scores, giving you either a low rank or high rank path through the game. It sends you to different levels depending on your performance on the previous level, meaning there are several routes through the game, each with a different ending. Off the top of my head, I can't think of too many games that have a level-progression based on rank. Psyvariar, maybe, but there aren't many others.

[Drum]

I said memorization is the foundation, not the end. Of course a lot more goes into execution. Of course higher-order thinking is necessary as you get deeper into any task or game. However, these things are still built on a foundation of memorization much like anything else. Even basic math equations are worthless to someone who hasn't memorized what those little plus and minus signs mean. Just because you were so young and you've been doing it so long that it SEEMS instinctual doesn't mean that at some point in your life you had no fucking clue what that little + sign meant.

If you don't memorize some fingerings and at least basic music theory, you ain't improvising shit that won't sound like garbage. If you don't memorize enemy positions, you ain't chaining shit or point-blanking shit for a score that isn't garbage.

Scoring systems have fundamentals. You learn them. You work out basic routes. You memorize them. Then you reflect and refine them to make them better.

Or you just don't give a shit about scoring and you flail on your stick through the first few stages forever. Whatevs.

Scoring in Cave games, and shmups in general, would be better if the games improvised more and in return demand that you improvise, in order that you properly master their mechanics and not their specifics, or they are leading you around by the ring in your nose. That is my point in a nutshell. If you want an argument, argue with that and not some nonsense about fingerings and plus signs. I don't think you understand what I'm saying on a fundamental level - certainly not as well as I understand these games, or you wouldn't still be talking about fucking memorising enemy positions as if it was some noble fucking endeavour requiring brilliant insight.

[Evilmaxwar]

Drum, you need a nice avatar.

Edit : Makes me think of another interesting topic : What are the most random games? Ghouls'n Ghosts was quite random in its own right.

[BIL]

I'm not saying they're not tense at high level play.

Well, despite your claim that mastering Cave etc's shooters defeats their point, the point of these games is intense scoring competition on a consistent playing field. If you're not into that, you're wasting your time with these games and their players.

You say we're being led around by the nose, we call you a casual bumbler, etc etc.

Scoring in Cave games, and shmups in general, would be better if the games improvised more and in return demand that you improvise, in order that you properly master their mechanics and not their specifics

Provided you're not playing a crap game, scoring is always a measure of properly mastering the mechanics. If the level design is worth anything it'll demand it.

[Blackbird]

Scoring in Cave games, and shmups in general, would be better if the games improvised more and in return demand that you improvise, in order that you properly master their mechanics and not their specifics, or they are leading you around by the ring in your nose. I don't think you understand what I'm saying on a fundamental level - certainly not as well as I understand these games, or you wouldn't still be talking about fucking memorising enemy positions as if it was some noble fucking endeavor requiring brilliant insight.

I understand your reasoning, but what you are asking for appears to defeat the purpose of game design. Drawing an analogy, you may as well tell a novelist that it is pointless to write a book, because the sequence of events in his story will be predictable once read. The entire point is that you are experiencing a unique set of challenges and impressions that the developer wanted you to see - not a sequence of thoughtless enemy spawning nodes. You will either overcome the intended challenge presented by the developer, or fail. It's fair and predictable. The developer can control to a very fine degree how challenging any portion of the game is. A game based on random generation must either inherently limit it's randomness to make difficulty predictable, or be entirely erratic.

[DMC]

Blackbird: Well said.

[Drum]

I'm not saying they're not tense at high level play.

Well, despite your claim that mastering Cave etc's shooters defeats their point, the point of these games is intense scoring competition on a consistent playing field. If you're not into that, you're wasting your time with these games and their players.

You say we're being led around by the nose, we call you a casual bumbler, etc etc.

You aren't talking about a consistent playing field, you are talking about a pre-defined obstacle course that superficially resembles a playing field. Playing fields are where games take place. Cave shooters - most shooters - are only games as long as you don't understand them. When you do, they become courses. Are rigidly defined obstacle courses valid? Of course. Lot of people like to run steeplechases, swim lengths, go bowling, eat hot dogs competitively. See how good they can get.
But I don't see the point of having all these mechanics specifically designed to emphasise decision-making when, ultimately, your decision-making ability isn't what's being challenged after you've analysed what the 'correct' decisions are - it's your memory, your twitch skills and your obsession. Shmup mechanics so often just seem wasted on shmups the way they're so often designed.

Scoring in Cave games, and shmups in general, would be better if the games improvised more and in return demand that you improvise, in order that you properly master their mechanics and not their specifics

Provided you're not playing a crap game, scoring is always a measure of properly mastering the mechanics. If the level design is worth anything it'll demand it.

Mastering the mechanics ... but only as much as you need them to deal with the specifics. The pre-defined patterns mean a determined player can muddle through provided they have the right obsessive tendencies. It's this aspect that pollutes the gameplay in rigid, pattern-based games - you aren't ever gonna know how much of your success can be attributed to understanding/skill and how much is memorisation and dedication. Demanding memorisation of specific obstacles induces vomit in me. Is memorisation a skill? Yeah - for babies. I mean that disparagingly, but also seriously: it's something you pick up when you're young and cling to as long as you can. Once you've picked it up, you then learn what the things are that are worth commiting to memory and what you can extrapolate or interpolate. In every modern shooter I know, interpolation, extrapolation and improvisation are only things you do when you are either discovering how to play (which is when they are fun for me) or when it doesn't matter if you do it or not (which makes them pointless). I am asking: How can you say you've mastered the mechanics if you can't consistently apply them to unknowns, or new situations? If you don't care and just want to go bowling/run steeplechases/eat hot dogs, that's fine and valid. But don't try and tell me this is somehow necessarily the way they ought to be, or that this is above criticism (I can't remember if anybody did do that - just let me act indignant for a while, I'll get tired and fizzle out eventually).

[Drum]

Scoring in Cave games, and shmups in general, would be better if the games improvised more and in return demand that you improvise, in order that you properly master their mechanics and not their specifics, or they are leading you around by the ring in your nose. I don't think you understand what I'm saying on a fundamental level - certainly not as well as I understand these games, or you wouldn't still be talking about fucking memorising enemy positions as if it was some noble fucking endeavor requiring brilliant insight.

I understand your reasoning, but what you are asking for appears to defeat the purpose of game design. Drawing an analogy, you may as well tell a novelist that it is pointless to write a book, because the sequence of events in his story will be predictable once read. The entire point is that you are experiencing a unique set of challenges and impressions that the developer wanted you to see - not a sequence of thoughtless enemy spawning nodes. You will either overcome the intended challenge presented by the developer, or fail. It's fair and predictable. The developer can control to a very fine degree how challenging any portion of the game is. A game based on random generation must either inherently limit it's randomness to make difficulty predictable, or be entirely erratic.

As far as the novel analogy goes: That doesn't fly. Novels are the way an author steers characters through situations, and depicts what happens. They're more like a particular playthrough of a game that you analyse (this is a tortured analogy, but it's less tortured than what you are offering here). Novels are frequently criticised for unlikely resolutions and stuff, and there is a fair amount of criticism of the problems of narrative itself and how artificial it can be. Also, 'sequence of thoughtless enemy spawning nodes' is a pretty shameful strawman. It's not like I'm defending or aggrandizing some specific implementation of variability, or every implementation - just criticising specific weaknesses in some implementations of pre-baked game design, and offering solutions via variables.
I probably shouldn't have been so shrill about the decision-making aspect being so much better as if I thought it was a general rule - like I was just saying, obstacle courses are valid (ignoring the catty hot dog/bowling comparisons). But they could be a lot more with a little effort, and it bothers me that shortfalls and sloppy design are being defended. Not all of the problems I have been talking about need randomised gameplay - 'cheap' deaths can be avoided with a little more care.

[Evilmaxwar]

I dont have a very good memory, i tend to forget things easily so i like the memorization part of shmups as its at the same time a challenge and a way to work on a weakness. I really had a good time with my raiden IV 1cc and you hardly have a more "fixed obstacle course"' game. If i had a photographic fail-proof automatic memory, i would probably have found it more boring.


What is your favorite shmup drum ? Im sure its an interesting one.

[Paradigm]

I used to think shmups were fun...

Now I'm just depressed

[ptoing]

I really, really badly want a shmup designed by Drum.

[BIL]

You aren't talking about a consistent playing field, you are talking about a pre-defined obstacle course that superficially resembles a playing field. Playing fields are where games take place. Cave shooters - most shooters - are only games as long as you don't understand them. When you do, they become courses. Are rigidly defined obstacle courses valid? Of course. Lot of people like to run steeplechases, swim lengths, go bowling, eat hot dogs competitively. See how good they can get.

No, I'm talking about a consistent playing field. If a player understands competitive shooters, and most competitive single-player games period, he knows the game itself is a "course" from the word go. The objective is to optimise your performance given the tools available, and beat other players' efforts to do the same.

But I don't see the point of having all these mechanics specifically designed to emphasise decision-making when, ultimately, your decision-making ability isn't what's being challenged after you've analysed what the 'correct' decisions are - it's your memory, your twitch skills and your obsession. Shmup mechanics so often just seem wasted on shmups the way they're so often designed.

You don't see the point because you're not looking at the big picture. The decision-making challenge and "analysis" you're so flippant about here is the foundation of a world-class performance - it's not the end in itself, and it doesn't suddenly become a waste of time once it's allowed a good strategy to be formulated. A game's mechanics aren't subsequently "wasted" when they're exploited to the limits of the player's skill in order to turn all that analysis into a result.

Mastering the mechanics ... but only as much as you need them to deal with the specifics. The pre-defined patterns mean a determined player can muddle through provided they have the right obsessive tendencies. It's this aspect that pollutes the gameplay in rigid, pattern-based games - you aren't ever gonna know how much of your success can be attributed to understanding/skill and how much is memorisation and dedication.

I've never heard of a player "muddling through" a shooter for high-level results. I have seen a few burn themselves out trying to brute-force their way through a game in this manner. This sounds like pure speculation on your end - which of these games have you "muddled through," as opposed to honing your skill until you could play at a high level and authoritatively deal with everything the game threw at you? What games have you mastered and found their "specifics" didn't push you to your limits? Chances are they're badly designed.

Dedication is always part of any worthwhile success. Likewise, we've already been over memorisation's fundamental role in things.

Demanding memorisation of specific obstacles induces vomit in me. Is memorisation a skill? Yeah - for babies. I mean that disparagingly, but also seriously: it's something you pick up when you're young and cling to as long as you can. Once you've picked it up, you then learn what the things are that are worth commiting to memory and what you can extrapolate or interpolate. In every modern shooter I know, interpolation, extrapolation and improvisation are only things you do when you are either discovering how to play (which is when they are fun for me) or when it doesn't matter if you do it or not (which makes them pointless). I am asking: How can you say you've mastered the mechanics if you can't consistently apply them to unknowns, or new situations? If you don't care and just want to go bowling/run steeplechases/eat hot dogs, that's fine and valid. But don't try and tell me this is somehow necessarily the way they ought to be, or that this is above criticism (I can't remember if anybody did do that - just let me act indignant for a while, I'll get tired and fizzle out eventually).

You're not criticising the way competitive shooters work, so much as you're complaining they don't meet a personal demand they are simply not designed for. What you're asking for would be like demanding racing games have debris randomly strewn about the track during world-class lap attempts. Yes, it'll be "entertaining" and force mechanical improvisation in the short term, but games of this nature are only designed with long term mastery and competition in mind.

edit: typo

[Hair]

I do have more fun improvising a shmup I am not very familiar with than memorizing enemy patterns in order to 1cc and maximize points. But I think Cave's scoring tends to make a game more fun while trying to master it. It depends on the game and scoring system, but in general they force you to take a risk in order to get a reward (more points and extends). You can ignore this and just improvise the game for fun, or take on the added challenge of scoring.

I tend to focus on dodging skills, reflexes, and bullet herding strategy, but having a proximity or chaining scoring system doesn't make the rest of the game less fun to play. I don't have to try and get a high score to have fun with a Cave game, so there really isn't anything forcing you to try to memorize it.

If I am starting to memorize a game and that is making it less fun, I just stop playing that game for a while. I'm not trying to get a 1cc when I do this.

So I see what drum is saying since I prefer the challenge of dodging in a less-familar game than the challenge of trying to get a good score through practicing a single game. But I don't think Cave games are any less fun to improv that anything else; they are some of my favorites actually, and when I fall in love with a game and do try to get into the scoring system, Cave's are pretty fun and really transform the game from the way I *was* playing it.

[Sumez]

The music composition itself in most of them is better than most other companies' shooters' entire game. In my opinion.

Only since they got Namiki after Raizing went under, the older soundtracks don't do much for me.

I prefer ESP Ra.De and Guwange soundtracks to the newer ones. Sure they aren't as bombastic and epic sounding, but they have way more depth and atmosphere to them IMO. What ever happened to the guy who did those two? I think he did Dodonpachi as well.

[Aisha]

The music composition itself in most of them is better than most other companies' shooters' entire game. In my opinion.

Only since they got Namiki after Raizing went under, the older soundtracks don't do much for me.

I prefer ESP Ra.De and Guwange soundtracks to the newer ones. Sure they aren't as bombastic and epic sounding, but they have way more depth and atmosphere to them IMO. What ever happened to the guy who did those two? I think he did Dodonpachi as well.

Eddie You and Andrew Parsons Lin did DoDonPachi. As for Masahiro Kusunoki, who composed the other two, he hasn't done much. He contributed to a few doujin albums over the last decade, but hasn't put out anything entirely his own. Unless VGMdb's data on him is incomplete, it seems to me like he changed professions.

[Sumez]

Chaining isn't inherently bad, the implementation of it is just really unforgiving in a lot of games. I think the more recent DoDonPachi games/modes have done a lot to improve this. One of the modes simply decreases the value of your chain while it's broken (at roughly the same rate it would increase while chaining), then resumes the chain at that point as soon as you start a new chain. It's a lot more lenient. I like this a lot more than an all or nothing model.

This doesn't make sense to me. Every game with chaining DOES give you points for lots of smaller chains; they just don't give you as many points as larger chains, and rightfully so. It's a hell of a lot more work to memorize and execute one stage-long or game-long chain than it is to make three or four smaller ones. You still get points for the smaller chains; you're just not going to be setting records with them. How is that unforgiving or "all or nothing"? Unforgiving would be losing all your points every time you break chain instead of just getting a smaller reward. You aren't punished for breaking your chain, you're just not rewarded.

I think this is true for the DDP games, but take a title like Guwange. I think it's way too easy to screw up, and once you do, it doesn't just "reward you less", it basically makes your score totally pointless because you need to hit a multiplyer of 1000 before it really does anything. The fact that you need to carry your combo between stages rather than build up a new one on each stage only makes it more unforgiving, too. I'd prefer the counter to build up faster and let me focus on each stage individually.
Doesn't keep me from loving the game though.

Personally I agree with CaptainRansom, I don't like to be brutally punished for breaking a combo, but of course a perfect combo should still offer a noticable reward compared to one that breaks in the middle of a stage. Something inbetween DDP and Futari Maniac would be good for me.

[Sumez]

-gave players a feeling of accomplishment for doing nothing (200 bullets drift harmlessly off screen)

I think this really sums it up the best. The feeling of accomplishment.
This is not just a question of flooding the screen with bullets, but also ties in with the flooding of visible score items and numbers. Cave games are often extremely good at making you feel really good at what you're doing. And when you are playing the super challenging levels, the sense of accomplishment for surviving these ordeals is only so much bigger.
Cave games are far from the only ones doing this, but they have been pretty consistent in their quality, and I'm not really sure Cave ever made a bad game.

Scoring in Cave games, and shmups in general, would be better if the games improvised more and in return demand that you improvise, (...)

I understand your reasoning, but what you are asking for appears to defeat the purpose of game design. Drawing an analogy, you may as well tell a novelist that it is pointless to write a book, because the sequence of events in his story will be predictable once read. The entire point is that you are experiencing a unique set of challenges and impressions that the developer wanted you to see - not a sequence of thoughtless enemy spawning nodes. You will either overcome the intended challenge presented by the developer, or fail. It's fair and predictable. The developer can control to a very fine degree how challenging any portion of the game is. A game based on random generation must either inherently limit it's randomness to make difficulty predictable, or be entirely erratic.

Cave games do a lot of stuff that react to how you play (your position on the play field, aimed shots, the order in which you kill enemies, attack patterns related to boss milking, etc.). I think this is the one sort of "improvision" that does fit Drum's "requirements" for a good game, while not ruining the game design like completely random elements would. And like I said, Cave already does this.
Ie. a dynamic game that still manages to be predictable for someone who has mastered the system and game design.

[dunpeal2064]

I dont have a very good memory, i tend to forget things easily so i like the memorization part of shmups as its at the same time a challenge and a way to work on a weakness. I really had a good time with my raiden IV 1cc and you hardly have a more "fixed obstacle course"' game. If i had a photographic fail-proof automatic memory, i would probably have found it more boring.


What is your favorite shmup drum ? Im sure its an interesting one.

Probably a psikyo game. Woohoo, different levels everytime

I do not see the point in criticizing a genre for being "an obstacle course". Any 1p game will give you the same challanges over and over, and that is especially true for shorter,.classic_-based games.

Its like your sports analogy. What makes it a playing field are the other unpridictable humans. what it sounds like you want is a shmup where another human can determain, for each individual play, what will happen (like a better senko no ronde)

Shmups have tried to mix it up, with things like hard to understand rank, but players will eventually learn the game mechanics, no matter how ludicrous, if the enjoy the game

[Naut]

ITT people not understanding Drum at all but still trying to argue with him

Agreed with him completely. I hate memorizable obstacle courses. Most Cave games -- particularly the chaining for score ones -- are obstacle courses. It's a difficult equilibrium to get in a shmup: the perfect amount of randomization coupled with memorization, and unfortunately Cave doesn't come close to it imo. Some people enjoy memorizing the whole game and testing only their precision and muscle memory, but I much prefer testing my improvised dodging skills (of which memorization is only a small part of, with much more emphasis on bullet reading, reflexes and precision), and I'd like a shmup to reward that, but still maintain a level playing field for all players. Most Cave games don't. Again, it's fine if you enjoy precision and memory tests, but it's not what I (and by the looks of things, Drum) am/are looking for in a shmup [scoring system].

Hopefully I didn't take him the wrong way either :V

[dunpeal2064]

ITT people not understanding Drum at all but still trying to argue with him

Agreed with him completely. I hate memorizable obstacle courses. Most Cave games -- particularly the chaining for score ones -- are obstacle courses. It's a difficult equilibrium to get in a shmup: the perfect amount of randomization coupled with memorization, and unfortunately Cave doesn't come close to it imo. Some people enjoy memorizing the whole game and testing only their precision and muscle memory, but I much prefer testing my improvised dodging skills (of which memorization is only a small part of, with much more emphasis on bullet reading, reflexes and precision), and I'd like a shmup to reward that, but still maintain a level playing field for all players. Most Cave games don't. Again, it's fine if you enjoy precision and memory tests, but it's not what I (and by the looks of things, Drum) am/are looking for in a shmup [scoring system].

Hopefully I didn't take him the wrong way either :V

It sounds great, and i would love to see a shmup done in the way drum describes.

However, i do not fond that to be a negative point to cave games. I still do not find them to be the same kind of repetitiveness as a "memorizer" like... Ikaruga, where all superplays look the same

What happened to this topic? Went totally south

[Bananamatic]

I much prefer testing my improvised dodging skills (of which memorization is only a small part of, with much more emphasis on bullet reading, reflexes and precision), and I'd like a shmup to reward that

laughingwhores.jpg

[BIL]

ITT people not understanding Drum at all but still trying to argue with him

Oh, I understand him. Hint: he's not just blathering on about Cave games, or memorisation.

[RNGmaster]

Some people enjoy memorizing the whole game and testing only their precision and muscle memory, but I much prefer testing my improvised dodging skills (of which memorization is only a small part of, with much more emphasis on bullet reading, reflexes and precision), and I'd like a shmup to reward that, but still maintain a level playing field for all players.

Show me a CAVE game where you don't use any reflexes or dodging skills, even on your first 1cc, and I'll eat my hat. Yes, memorizing a route is total bull, but the great beauty of these games is that there are multiple possible routes through each level. Memorization only comes in when you're developing a scoring route - it's not a necessary factor for survival like it is in R-Type (name me one memorize-or-die moment in any CAVE game) and you don't need to use it exhaustively just to 1cc.

You seem to be saying that CAVE games don't let you dodge in improvised situations, don't require bullet reading, and don't let you play unless you memorize everything by rote. To which I can only respond: Get better.

[NzzpNzzp]

(name me one memorize-or-die moment in any CAVE game)

The honeycomb in DOJ stage 5 is pretty bad, with those dudes coming in real low from the sides that you need to intercept before they're able to shoot much or they totally screw you.

Man does that honeycomb suck.

[Jeneki]

Pink Sweets has a few "have your shield / rose cracker charged or die" moments, especially later boss fights. Charging it up takes a couple seconds, so if you're shooting non-stop by the time you think to yourself "I should rose cracker now" it's too late to do anything about it.

[Kollision]

"charge or die" is also a very strong aspect of Takumi and Psikyo

[Naut]

Some people enjoy memorizing the whole game and testing only their precision and muscle memory, but I much prefer testing my improvised dodging skills (of which memorization is only a small part of, with much more emphasis on bullet reading, reflexes and precision), and I'd like a shmup to reward that, but still maintain a level playing field for all players.

Show me a CAVE game where you don't use any reflexes or dodging skills, even on your first 1cc, and I'll eat my hat. Yes, memorizing a route is total bull, but the great beauty of these games is that there are multiple possible routes through each level. Memorization only comes in when you're developing a scoring route - it's not a necessary factor for survival like it is in R-Type (name me one memorize-or-die moment in any CAVE game) and you don't need to use it exhaustively just to 1cc.

You seem to be saying that CAVE games don't let you dodge in improvised situations, don't require bullet reading, and don't let you play unless you memorize everything by rote. To which I can only respond: Get better.

Ah, I see I wasn't specific enough. I meant in regards to scoring, particularly at non-casual or even high level play (not necessarily the highest, which always involves heavy memorization, regardless of game). I don't think Cave games require memorization to 1cc at all, and it's like you said, if somebody thinks they do, then "get better" is most definitely the response. However, any decent level of score-play, particularly in chain-based scoring systems, requires heavy memorization and has little room for improvision or actual bullet dodging, because pretty much everything is aimed or static and you end up playing the exact same route everytime, even in regards to bullet formations. I don't like it, I prefer to always get my dodging skills tested rather than my memory/precision, and get rewarded for being better at dodging/improvising rather than be rewarded because I memorized more enemy spawn locations. Like I said in my earlier post, getting an equilibrium where there is enough randomness to always keep you on your toes and enough static-ness/memorizability to keep a level scoring field is quite hard to get. In my opinion, Cave games don't even come close to it. Well, the ones I've played anyway.

edit: clarification, typo

[Drum]

You aren't talking about a consistent playing field, you are talking about a pre-defined obstacle course that superficially resembles a playing field. Playing fields are where games take place. Cave shooters - most shooters - are only games as long as you don't understand them. When you do, they become courses. Are rigidly defined obstacle courses valid? Of course. Lot of people like to run steeplechases, swim lengths, go bowling, eat hot dogs competitively. See how good they can get.

No, I'm talking about a consistent playing field. If a player understands competitive shooters, and most competitive single-player games period, he knows the game itself is a "course" from the word go. The objective is to optimise your performance given the tools available, and beat other players' efforts to do the same.

What I'm saying is that more rigid games are inferior tests of player skill, that test the player on fewer and lower levels. They are still valid - just worse.

You don't see the point because you're not looking at the big picture. The decision-making challenge and "analysis" you're so flippant about here is the foundation of a world-class performance - it's not the end in itself, and it doesn't suddenly become a waste of time once it's allowed a good strategy to be formulated. A game's mechanics aren't subsequently "wasted" when they're exploited to the limits of the player's skill in order to turn all that analysis into a result.

The game mechanics aren't wasted on the players - who will get something out of them for a while - they're wasted on the games. Without variables, the mechanics are squandered (though I am not sure I'd want to play games with Cave-style scoring systems that have variables, not without heavy modifications). The game part of the game becomes a rigmarole people have to go through to get to the hotdog eating, and this lack of variation pollutes the 'meaning' of the result. A player who's really good at the 'high end' part of these games isn't necessarily one who understands the gameplay the best. They may be, but there's no way to find out. What I am saying is that the gameplay could exist at the upper levels too, with some adjustments, instead of all the thinking having been done in advance.

I've never heard of a player "muddling through" a shooter for high-level results. I have seen a few burn themselves out trying to brute-force their way through a game in this manner. This sounds like pure speculation on your end - which of these games have you "muddled through," as opposed to honing your skill until you could play at a high level and authoritatively deal with everything the game threw at you? What games have you mastered and found their "specifics" didn't push you to your limits? Chances are they're badly designed.

I generally stop playing these games when I understand the scoring mechanics well enough and look up and see the oncoming wave of memorisation which makes them no longer engaging or challenging to me in a way that I consider worthwhile. Nowadays I am a little bit smarter and play even less then that - that way I can fool myself into thinking that they might be fun forever.
You are right in that it is speculation, but it's also not that far out - and 'muddle through' is a vague enough expression that I gave myself plenty of wiggle room. By muddling through I mean you can get the best scores while not necessarily having the best understanding of the gameplay, and the champion rankings might look a little different if variables were introduced.

Dedication is always part of any worthwhile success. Likewise, we've already been over memorisation's fundamental role in things.

Fundamental is where it belongs - not absolute. Playing through strongly pattern-based games at a high level is as lame as quicksaving your way through a FPS (a FPS without variations, that is), it just takes a lot of mental endurance. You can be the best quicksaver in the world, but you're still just a quicksaver. The difference is definitely endurance and dedication, and I guess those are good things, but not necessarily skill and understanding. No real way to tell.

You're not criticising the way competitive shooters work, so much as you're complaining they don't meet a personal demand they are simply not designed for.

Completely wrong. Chaining/point-blanking/grazing game mechanics are very clearly designed to be risk vs reward. Which makes them redundant when the risk becomes a triviality - which is what memorisation will do to a game. My 'personal demand' is that they be better - or at least there be better games that are made (I don't want to take your stuff away from you, you are welcome to it - tho I ask you to reconsider its value, and it bothers me that its dominance is basically absolute).

What you're asking for would be like demanding racing games have debris randomly strewn about the track during world-class lap attempts. Yes, it'll be "entertaining" and force mechanical improvisation in the short term, but games of this nature are only designed with long term mastery and competition in mind.

What you are describing here is what I have been railing against. Improvisation ... in the short term. I am saying you haven't 'mastered' the game until you are doing it even when you are good at it. How well you can improvise is the very best measure of skill and understanding.

[Drum]

"charge or die" is also a very strong aspect of Takumi and Psikyo

Never felt dying was anybody's fault but mine in Mars Matrix of Giga Wing, I hold the shield responsible for this respectable phenomenon.