What CAVE did.

[ptoing]

I don't think Cave games require memorization to 1cc at all

That would mean a really good player would just 1CC all Cave games on their first go. If you play more than one go you will have automatically memorised stuff already.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I've been thinking about this a lot. I think the thing that CAVE was able to do to set them apart from most other companies was they simply visualized the scoring.

UPL did that in 1989 with Omega Fighter Special.

[BIL]

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.

A player who knows a game inside-out, possible variables (rank, random patterns, random enemy placements) included, is an educated one. That doesn't degrade their run into a rote memory test as you've been implying. A relatively stable performance routine? Sure - that's what these games are intended for. A "lower-level" form of game? Try reproducing a superplay of a game you've not developed comparable skills at sometime, have fun getting massacred by the same "specifics" you've just seen handled flawlessly.

Still, I can respect the above viewpoint, particularly as I've never been one to claim this genre is superior over other type of competitive single-player gaming. I just think it's among the better ones. It helps that this is a much less pig-ignorant viewpoint than some of the stuff you were posting initially, and a bit of what you've posted below.

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'm going to disagree with your armchair theory and suggest that yes, if you're able to authoritatively control these games the way the best of the best can, not only clearing them flawlessly but producing scores the rest of the game's competitive base will struggle to beat, you will understand them very well. I'm not talking about a novice managing a 1CC with a mediocre score before calling it a day, I'm talking about absolutely superior play of the level discussed here.

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.

So, none and none.

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.

More armchair theory, see my response above. Not necessarily bad theory, when it at least avoids the sort of shit talking immediately below:

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.

And we're back to slurs again. I'd fully expect someone sitting on their hands with zero experience of competitive shooters to compare them to quicksaving through some FPS, by the way. Or grinding in an MMO.

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).

A player's success is at risk every step of the way through an attempt to beat their personal best, never mind beating everyone else's, even when they know the game inside-out. What do you suppose will happen 75% of the way through a potentially great run when the player decides to stick their neck out and makes an error of judgement wiping out the rest of their score? A save-state reload?

I'm not against the sort of shooter you're proposing in principle, although I'm sure it'd need to be very carefully designed to avoid a total mess. But even if I was, I wouldn't care - it wouldn't supplant or "take away" the type I and others like anyway.

As for "reconsidering value," thanks for the concern, but I doubt anyone who competes in these games fails to notice they're built around optimising a performance routine. You do realise "patterning" and "working on patterns" is standard lingo around here?

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.

Again, I don't mind if you think a more free-form type of shooter would be better. It's the ignorance you posted about the current competitive standard that deserves deflating.

[Subterranean Sun]

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.

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.

you guys are mad

[Sumez]

I've been thinking about this a lot. I think the thing that CAVE was able to do to set them apart from most other companies was they simply visualized the scoring.

UPL did that in 1989 with Omega Fighter Special.

That doesn't mean Cave doesn't do it. No one claims they invented it.

[Obiwanshinobi]

That doesn't mean Cave doesn't do it. No one claims they invented it.

RayForce did that, GigaWing did that, Silent Bomber did... If aything, GigaWing is THE shmup that turned it in into some kind of fetish (first one with so many collectible trinkets at once and such big numbers on screen as far as I can tell).

[Sumez]

Giga Wing is a pretty memorable game for the very same reason though, so I think it only enforces the "theory".

[Acid King]

One thing I think Cave did was improve control. Were there any games before Donpachi that had allowed you to change you speed instantly like the hold-down-and-slow-down mechanic? Or used one button for both strong and weak attacks and didn't require you to mash the shit out of the shot button? I think those two things are what allowed them to make the changes they've been credited with. It let them play with both bullet pattern density and scoring systems.

But it's not just scoring. If you don't already know what's coming, like half the bosses have attacks that are nearly unavoidable, unless you have insanely good reflexes.

The game is pretty liberal with the bombs though and they're powerful enough that using one on an "oh shit" pattern may kill the boss or atleast get you to a more manageable pattern or an extra bomb if done on the stages. I don't think it's as bad as it's being made out to be.

[R-Gray 1]

I've been thinking about this a lot. I think the thing that CAVE was able to do to set them apart from most other companies was they simply visualized the scoring.

I know that one thing I enjoy about Cave games is flooding the screen with bullets and then turning those bullets into points. Rather it be stars, or gems, or simply number counters, it's always fun and makes you feel sort of accomplished.

I dunno, I want to expand but don't know what else to say. What does everyone else think Cave did to set them from the rest of shmup companies?

well, They attracted people with its graphics and numerous bullets and enemies on the screen. the video of the most difficult game appear on youtube xD, I really liked that video the first time i saw it ( mushihimesama)


btw

Scoring= memorizing

if u play many many many times classics shmups, sure u will notice memorizing, but in cave games, the times that i played them, i saw memoriing would help much more than the classic shmups. ( the exact position to prevent hail of bullets.)


im not an expert or i dont have experience in cave games, but i was wonder why in ps2 mushihimesama have infinite lives ?
first time u will finish the game...so next time u will have to play for improve score?
I played again Mushihimesama just for the 3rd stage music , and to have a little fun....but not anymore.

The cave games that i played looks very similar. Being honest doesnt make me feel good as i played. games like Gradius, axelay, Darius, Image fight, even Raystorm, RadiantSG,ikaruga,Border down, ....they have much more things.

but thanks Cave shmups still in the last years.

[BIL]

im not an expert or i dont have experience in cave games, but i was wonder why in ps2 mushihimesama have infinite lives ?

You get infinite continues, like in many other console ports of arcade games, but not infinite lives - every time you run out of lives it'll be Game Over, and score reset to zero (or marked in some way - depends on the port).

How many times you continue is up to you - it sounds like you should personally limit yourself to two or three.

Some ports either limit continues or don't allow them at all, which is considered the worse option by some, since you can't see the rest of the game even if you want to (for scoring practice or just curiosity). In between is stuff like Ikaruga (DC) which gives them out over time.

[Sumez]

I love the way Ikaruga does it, because it forces players to play sensibly instead of just mashing their way forward while spamming credits into the wazoo, but at the same time allows them to play through the entire game once they've spent enough time fighting the early levels. Limiting the numbers of continues makes "completing" the game a realistic goal for more casual gamers, without requiring a 1cc, where doing the same thing with an unlimited number of credits could hardly be considered "completion".

Crimzon Clover is another great example.

[R-Gray 1]

I love the way Ikaruga does it, because it forces players to play sensibly instead of just mashing their way forward while spamming credits into the wazoo, but at the same time allows them to play through the entire game once they've spent enough time fighting the early levels. Limiting the numbers of continues makes "completing" the game a realistic goal for more casual gamers, without requiring a 1cc, where doing the same thing with an unlimited number of credits could hardly be considered "completion".

Crimzon Clover is another great example.

Yep im agree, I never like the " mashing their way" that u said.
i like a lot Ikaruga, when i noticed that they give 1 credit after an hour i didnt want receive many credits to finish the game. So the challenge for me was finish the game in the less time to dont receive lots of credits.
I finished the game with 6 credits enableded that means 5 continues,( I know, its not a good record) and with some lives left.

when u start with few lives, its gr8, i enjoyed specially Ikaruga and Gradius V....in Gradius V watch again the "Option thief" in the 2nd stage final boss...or in the 3rd stage.....I reach the 10 credits option in Gradius V but cmon its a though game ( i lost the 1st continue in the 4th stage final boss for a silly mistake and i think in last stages i lost too much lives yep thats the future challenge, improve that thing)

It's great because every time you play you go forward and you will see new levels, new enemies. Every time that u play it is a new challenge.

thats why i like more other kind of games, some weeks ago i played Border Down, and is the kind of game that i really enjoy.

I forgot to mention a good game in the other post...Einhänder
for example Einhänder and Raystorm, the first few times that you play them u will notice default many continues are not enough.

[Udderdude]

Well this thread has taken a U-turn directly into "random vs. static game/level design". Obviously Drum is in the wrong genre if he wants random elements all over the place. There's always other more random-friendly genres for that. Proper game-long scoring is close to impossible once you've got random elements influencing it.

Sure, you've got games like geometry wars which add random elements, but they're quite weak otherwise.

I actually used to think static shmups were boring, of course I was completely wrong. The original XOP had tons of random elements and when I revised the game in 2008, I removed them all.

As for the original topic, every time I see it, I can't help but think of what Cave did .. on the rug. Bad Cave! Bad! >_>

[austere]

Obviously Drum is in the wrong genre if he wants random elements all over the place. There's always other more random-friendly genres for that

To be honest, no one in the industry is smart enough to pull it off nicely in any genre besides puzzle games. In a necessarily difficult/memory oriented (for people who aren't good enough to wing it) sub-genre like STGs, random element should be minimised or eliminated like you said.

[Obiwanshinobi]

One thing I think Cave did was improve control. Were there any games before Donpachi that had allowed you to change you speed instantly like the hold-down-and-slow-down mechanic? Or used one button for both strong and weak attacks and didn't require you to mash the shit out of the shot button?

Changing speed instantly and switching between atack modes wasn't uncommon in console shmups from the nineties. Hyper Duel (1993) brought that to the arcades.

[Drum]

Well this thread has taken a U-turn directly into "random vs. static game/level design". Obviously Drum is in the wrong genre if he wants random elements all over the place. There's always other more random-friendly genres for that. Proper game-long scoring is close to impossible once you've got random elements influencing it.

Sure, you've got games like geometry wars which add random elements, but they're quite weak otherwise.

I actually used to think static shmups were boring, of course I was completely wrong. The original XOP had tons of random elements and when I revised the game in 2008, I removed them all.

I am sick as a dog and I'm not gonna read this thread over to remind myself what I was pushing for, but to my best recollection I was just arguing in favour of variables in general - not necessarily random variables. A game that reacts to the player's actions like AI - something similar to Zanac or Left 4 Dead - would be better than just random elements, though controlled randomness would improve any AI.
Nobody - so far - has been retarded enough to argue that multiplayer games don't have a level playing field or aren't a good measure of a player's skill . I am hoping somebody does though!
http://youtu.be/jwC544Z37qo
Or doesn't that count because it has been arbitrarily decided that puzzle games are a 'random-friendly' game and therefore are unlike most shmups? The random component is what makes Tetris a game at all - if it didn't have it it would just be a puzzle (like Cave's stuff).

[Udderdude]

The randomness in TGM Tetris is actually reduced to avoid the "Sequence of death", a random combination of pieces from which it's impossible to recover. http://tetris.wikia.com/wiki/TGM_randomizer

Enemies that react to the player have been done before in some of Yagawa's games, I'm pretty sure. I'm also sure I added enemies that react to the player's movements in XOP/XOP Black. It's harder to add this to shmups since outside of bosses, most enemies are on and off the screen in a matter of seconds.

Also, Left4dead's AI is dumb as a rock and everything else in it is intentionally random as all fuck, so I don't know what you're going for there. Same for Zanac on most levels.

In any case, if the enemy AI in shmups is still deterministic and not random, it's entirely possible to manipulate it the same way each game. Which probably means players will find a way to make it do something retarded each time, etc.

[Skykid]

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.

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.

you guys are mad

That's putting it nicely.

I'm not sure how many videogames actually exist where memory isn't the key factor for progress.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I don't know when the term "AI" came into discussion about games, but (just like "immersion" these days) it's being overused to the point where it's hardly self-explanatory.
I don't need a single player arcade-style action game's "AI" (I prefer the word "behaviour") to be any equivalent of bots in multiplayer games or games where you deal with supposedly human enemies.
Somewhere between Space Invaders and Galaxian lies the point at which shooters started to BEHAVE. Numerous Namco games from that era (Baraduke, Bosconian, Pac-Man) are fleshed out by this exact feature. Baraduke's empty rooms hardly make for outstanding level design, but what brings them to life is the variety of creatures roaming down there, each one sporting its distincitve behaviour. That blob respawning once the gate's open doesn't need to be smart. It's just the game's way of telling me it knows I'm there (and the coin-op machine's manner of speaking "move on, go get yourself killed, I need another guy's coin just as bad as yours" politely).
Among auto-scrolling shmups, Raiden is the poster child of games pointing their guns at YOU. Another pure example would be Image Fight. This feature is lacking in most bullet hell games I can think of, at least on early stages as I'm not good at any of them. Maybe Ibara is different, but it just humiliates me with its rank to the point where I don't enjoy it. Sure, they also have some aimed shots, but I don't feel they care about me so to speak. Perhaps that's why they need character development, dialogues and commentator's voice to help me develop some kind of attachment.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

I used to think shmups were fun...

Now I'm just depressed

I know how you feel.

Drum puts an very thoughtfull point across and while there is no such thing as a shmup that is challenging to play and whist not requiring rote memorisation to play well. All he or anyone of us can do is try as many games as possible and find the best compomise to what our holy grail of gaming is.

In my mind Drums best way to compromise would be to not play scrolling arcade shmups but instead turn twin stick shooters or early pre Xevious proto shmups like Space Invaders as these almost completly cut out the stages and memorisation. If you want something alittle more shmup like check out the freeware indie scene and play games like Nomltest (which has a randomised the order of the enemy waves) and Warning Forever (or that new XBLA clone). Plus maybe games by Kento Cho and Omega as Ive heard that they use randomisation aswell but unlike in most arcade shmups in a good way

[R-Gray 1]

reading this..

Limiting the numbers of continues makes "completing" the game a realistic goal for more casual gamers, without requiring a 1cc, where doing the same thing with an unlimited number of credits could hardly be considered "completion".

.
you guys means people who dont like the 1cc ( I suppose this means 1 credit coin or credit continue? im wrong? ) or people who don't like after beat the game try to play again and again and again...watching the same everytime............. and again and again....just to improve, just for the scoring !!.....that kind of gamers are casual???
I think people who like many shmups since a longgg time shouldn't be considered casual gamers.

[Drum]

The randomness in TGM Tetris is actually reduced to avoid the "Sequence of death", a random combination of pieces from which it's impossible to recover. http://tetris.wikia.com/wiki/TGM_randomizer

Enemies that react to the player have been done before in some of Yagawa's games, I'm pretty sure. I'm also sure I added enemies that react to the player's movements in XOP/XOP Black. It's harder to add this to shmups since outside of bosses, most enemies are on and off the screen in a matter of seconds.

Also, Left4dead's AI is dumb as a rock and everything else in it is intentionally random as all fuck, so I don't know what you're going for there. Same for Zanac on most levels.

In any case, if the enemy AI in shmups is still deterministic and not random, it's entirely possible to manipulate it the same way each game. Which probably means players will find a way to make it do something retarded each time, etc.

I am not talking about the individual enemy behavior but the artificial 'dungeon master' that spawns enemies. What else could I be talking about? Surely that's all Zanac and L4D have in common? And it doesn't need to be smart - my thoughts on this mirror ObiWanShinobi's above - it just needs to be variable and create interesting situations. Just a few simple algorithms can create a ton of interesting variables.
There is nothing about shmups that means a they can't emphasise judgement over memorisation. Preset patterns are fine in games like Zelda or whatever where players aren't expected to play the game over and over, but can as the game offers a lot of flexibility (say, if they skip heart pieces or go for a speed run). If you think shmups necessarily are about memorisation, I suggest that you picked the wrong genre and should just play rhythm games. Rhythm games may be the worst genre ever and only nominally games, but they do away with all that pesky judgement/decision-making you have to go through when you are just starting to play a Cave game and get straight to the chewy poo centre.
Also: I'm aware of the reduced randomness in TGM - that and the block-saving ability is what makes it the best version of tetris.

[Skykid]

I used to think shmups were fun...

Now I'm just depressed

I know how you feel.

Drum puts an very thoughtfull point across and while there is no such thing as a shmup that is challenging to play and whist not requiring rote memorisation to play well. All he or anyone of us can do is try as many games as possible and find the best compomise to what our holy grail of gaming is.

In my mind Drums best way to compromise would be to not play scrolling arcade shmups but instead turn twin stick shooters or early pre Xevious proto shmups like Space Invaders as these almost completly cut out the stages and memorisation. If you want something alittle more shmup like check out the freeware indie scene and play games like Nomltest (which has a randomised the order of the enemy waves) and Warning Forever (or that new XBLA clone). Plus maybe games by Kento Cho and Omega as Ive heard that they use randomisation aswell but unlike in most arcade shmups in a good way

Dudes, random elements in games doesn't mean they don't require memorisation. Muscle memory, memory of control dynamics, different patterns and attacks in later levels, how far to fire ahead to catch that blasted space invaders ufo etc etc.

[Udderdude]

I am not talking about the individual enemy behavior but the artificial 'dungeon master' that spawns enemies.

If you're doing that, then you might as well throw any notion of scoring out the window and have it entirely survival based.

The rest of your post is pretty obvious troll/flamebait (if it's not, it's still too stupid to even try to reply to and my head hurts even thinking about how wrong it is) so I'm not even going to bother.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

@ SkyKid: I hear yea but im on about rote memorisation in the way that gamers genrally mean when they use the word ie remembering the stage layout, enemy placement that sort of thing that seems to turn off so many western gamers. I for one love memorisation and dont even have that much of a problem with so called cheap deaths of the older STGs. As unlike when I first got into first got into shmups where I kept kidding myself that games like gradius were bad because they have cheap deaths. However I realised that every shooter requires memorisation and since I cant beat any hard danmaku shooter the first time I play ill be replaying the game anyway so it doenst really matter and enjoy all kinds of shooters

Drums idea might sound good on paper but is impratical to create. So now I follow my heart not my head, its more fun that way

[Drum]

I am not talking about the individual enemy behavior but the artificial 'dungeon master' that spawns enemies.

If you're doing that, then you might as well throw any notion of scoring out the window and have it entirely survival based.

Why? This is just a ridiculous assertion. Is score only supposed to be an indication of your Asperger's level?

[TrevHead (TVR)]

(General question: would games with a chain meter be more bearable if you died if it falls below some point, like the speedometer on the bus in speed? Or if you could discretion-ally 'lock' it in if you do particularly well, like Who Wants to be a Millionaire?)

I really like this idea.

Also, how about linking your shot to a buzz mechanic? Scrape bullets to be able to fire?

Shikigami no Shiro has grazing which increases your firepower (Note to Cools: My Touhou defiling of my Tiki avatar is only temp I promise )

BTW I wonder if a mod should split this thread as Ild guess that what we are discussing right now is a total killer for ppl who wanna be OT and talk about their love (or hate) of Cave.

[BIL]

I am not talking about the individual enemy behavior but the artificial 'dungeon master' that spawns enemies.

If you're doing that, then you might as well throw any notion of scoring out the window and have it entirely survival based.

Why? This is just a ridiculous assertion. Is score only supposed to be an indication of your Asperger's level?

Still chattering away from the armchair, I see. The one thing score is absolutely not supposed to indicate is good fortune. The difference between "aspergers" and blind luck in a competitive setting is that the former is a loser's euphemism for "dedication," the latter an unpolishable turd (to borrow your level of discourse on these games for a moment - classy coprophilia reference a few posts back).

In case we're headed for a regurgitation of "but what about mastering the mechanics?!", we covered that last time if you're not well enough to recall. Any well-designed shooter will force a mastery of its mechanics for the best scores.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

Thats why I genrally dont like randomisation in shmups. The randomisation of normal power up occationally giving a 1up (EDIT in Xexex ) was a game killer as it took the gameplay away from competative skill and into luck. Ive noticed that ZUN uses a little bit of randomisation in some of his bullet patterns in IN / TH08 and even that would slightly irk me as hard spell cards would be sometimes very easy or at time almost impossible.

Athough the randomisation in those shooters i posted earlier do a really good job due to how limited they are compared to traditional scrolling shmups. Many a time ive had just a quick go with Nomltest but found myself still playing hours later having totally lost track of the time

[Obiwanshinobi]

The one thing score is absolutely not supposed to indicate is good fortune.

Variable order of stages in Psikyo shmups and Sonic Wings series makes fortune quite a factor in those games, and yet nobody in their right mind says "your run was better than mine because you had a better luck". Mutable conditions are something you must take into account if you want to get better at those games.
Moreover, I'm not sure how much of Seirei Senshi Spriggan's Score Attack and Time Attack modes (does ANYBODY on here play those?) is randomised, but they seemed to me like the exact kind of shmup people who wish shmups were more like Puyo Puyo would enjoy.