Do shmups age better than other game types?

[sffan]

Do shmups age better? The consensus seems to be that 2D games in general age better, especially the earlier 2D games that didn't try to get too fancy or try to mimic reality. Gameplay is king, not simulation. Simulation will always suffer until it's perfect, which it will never be.

[The n00b]

Seriously, the game industry is messed up. Planned obsoletance seems to the new thing here. No-one values older games as classics anymore. (Sports games are notorious for this, also who wants to play the old 2-D GTA games when there's the 3-D ones). All of a sudden, Halo 2 is out now and no-one plays Halo anymore (not that I did anyway, just an example). .

Lot's of people still play Halo 1. Halo 2 plays like a completely different game because Bungie balanced all the weapons. Some people were actually pissed off by this so they kept playing Halo 1 through xlink and in lan parties.

They BALANCED them!?

Halo 2 online is all about the sword. Get the sword, kill endlessly. It's one of the least balanced weapons I have ever seen in a game.

Heh bloodflower that's kind of a n00b way of thinking of Halo 2. The sword is just a melee weapon that leaves you very vulnerable to ranged weapons. Snipers who prefer to shoot from the hip with the sniper rifle actually aim for guys like you. Why? Because you don't shoot back because you never switch from using the sword. You also spend all your time trying to get in range which just makes you an easier kill.

So yeah the Plasma sword is unbalanced...when you're standing like an inch away from the guy.

Addressing the main topic, I would think that shmups actually do age better than some game types. It has more to do with gameplay than the graphics though. Look at Radiant Silvergun(block land) and Battle Garegga(simple 32 bit era graphics) and the original Starfox. The graphics have not aged well in those games but the gameplay keeps people coming back for more.

Also liking classic games does not mean you are not subject to the same pitfalls that happen to most gamers. I can remember a time when the SNES and only the SNES was the classic system to collect for. People fell in love with the graphics and they forgot about the genesis, TG16, and Atari. Classic gamers who are supposed to hold gameplay above all else were becoming graphics whores. Thankfully the retro thing hit just in time and the Genesis and NES came back and people remembered why they liked those systems.

So basically what I'm saying is that you shouldn't hold a game's now dated 3d graphics against it. It should always be about the gameplay.

[FatCobra]

So basically what I'm saying is that you shouldn't hold a game's now dated 3d graphics against it. It should always be about the gameplay.

I know that outdated 3-D graphics mean nothing as long as the gameplay's there, but I still think N64/PS1 era games didn't age too gracefully (minus the shmups and 2-D games).

The graphics technology is getting so good that it may be hard to improve the graphics any further and that's when a rebirth of the good old days will come.

[Specineff]

To answer the question, there is a reason why Radiant Silvergun goes for about 100-150 bucks all these years.

[Neon]

^ hype and rarity.

[Rob]

The reason some games are so timeless is that they don't make that type of game anymore so nothing has superseded it.

Yeah, exactly and I think the only type of 2D games that are being made at a consistently higher quality now than then are shooting games. So yeah they've aged as much as anything 15 years old. I'd say only 5% of shooters around '90 are worth playing at any length these days.

[Dylan1CC]

About best 2D graphics being more beautiful and better-designed than best 3D graphics I think it's partly an immersion thing: In some sense, all games (well, most of them at least) try to create their own world where the player wants to jump in. Making this world coherent and believable from it's own principles is actually easier with 2D graphics, since being a 2D automatically forces the player's subconcious/imagination/whatever to fill some of the gaps for the game. In contrast, a 3D game basically tries to create everything for the player, and forget trying to really tap into the power of player's own imagination, or fail doing this as well as good 2D games.

In other words, when playing a 3D game, player unconciously "expects" the game to actually replicate a reality to the same level as the real reality. This effectively means that player is more forgiving for the "faults" of 2D game reality than 3D game reality.

About how the 3D games are going to age, well, I guess there will be hard-core FPS fans when they go underground like the shmups are now. And there probably still is going to be people who make them even when they are "underground" genre. I could care less though, since I'm not a big fan of them, partly because I can't play them without getting a headache. Something about spatial disorientation and stuff...

...and do not go dissin' the NES' 8-bit graphic power!
"Crystalis and Recca". I rest my case.

Wow, you made some very good points. I have been playing Metroid NES a lot coupled with collecting items in Metroid Zero MIssion. I feel so immersed the setting of Zebes in that little cartridge. Why? Because I think maybe to illustrate the excellent point you made, 2D graphics are like when you read a really good novel. Then you go and see the movie and even if it's well done, it's just not the same as when you were able to immerse your imagination in the details of the book.

[Rob]

Except video games present a visual image to process and novels do not, and 3D games present an image that doesn't require a need to imagine something that isn't there, which seems to me a more immersive one. Early 3D graphics are just as crude as early 2D graphics and nobody's defending those. Tomb Raider has just as much empty spaces to fill in as Metroid.

[Dylan1CC]

Another 3D game that I forgot to add which will still look amazing years down the road is Jet Grind Radio. But again, that's because it mimics 2D art. Played it before coming to work, darn shame Smilebit's various work didn't get the sales they deserved along with the praise.

I would tend to agree with that. Smilebit makes some awesome games. To add to that, even though i never liked 3d as much ... some of the Saturn game are still fun to play.. like Burning Rangers and Shining Force III I still play current consoles, but tend to shy away from the crap pop culture games that are blockbluster hits, sold to the masses and casual gamers.

2d as a videogame artform will always be loved more than passing technology such as 3d which changes drasticly each generation

That reminds me, I definitely gotta check out Burning Rangers...and Nights too.

[Dylan1CC]

Except video games present a visual image to process and novels do not, and 3D games present an image that doesn't require a need to imagine something that isn't there, which seems to me a more immersive one. Early 3D graphics are just as crude as early 2D graphics and nobody's defending those. Tomb Raider has just as much empty spaces to fill in as Metroid.

But the point BiQ made was a 2D game "isn't trying to recreate 'reality' " which is what a 3D game attempts to do (to a point of course)." Any way you cut it, Metroid Zero/NES present visuals that leave more to the imagination than a 3D game like Tomb Raider or Mario 64 does. So that's why it fits in with reading a really good novel. A 2D game yes, is visual. But like a novel, it gives you bare essentials for your mind/imagination to use. If I read the novel Jurrasic Park and it had full illustrations (boy would that increase the page count, ha) it would still be far more immersive to my imagination than the movie.

[Davey]

A few thoughts, I think 'glitchy-ness' for lack of better word plays a big role. Nes games that feature lots of flicker and slowdown don't hold up nearly as well as the games that don't. Same goes for psx/saturn with pop up, poor camera, and clipping.

Add framerate and animation quality to that. If a character has seven trillion polygons and life-like textures, but moves like a robot zombie in a flipbook, the realism is totally ruined. The same goes for 2D too... ever notice how a lot of 32-bit 2D games look a lot better in still shots than they do in motion? I think as the resolution and attention to detail go up, so does the expectation of good animation. Unfortunately, outside of a few exceptions (like Metal Slug), this usually isn't the case.

[Bydobasher]

Stormwatch wrote:

I guess, for each style, there is a threshold for aging well. ... It is a matter of reaching the "good enough" point.

As far as graphics are concerned, I agree with this in principle, but I don't think the threshold is a particularly demanding one in terms of the hardware. I think the sprites in games like Galaga and Joust are perfect just the way they are. For 2D artwork it will always come down to the creativity and skill of the artist, as pointed out by malc.

whoisKeel wrote:

Also, when designers try to make graphics realistic, they will always end up looking dated.

I told this little story on the old boards, but around 1990 I remember talking with my friends about the future of videogames, and although they were arguing that greater realism was a good thing, I felt then as I do now that it wasn't a good thing at all. The problem is that any attempt at realism must always fall short of reality; realistic (i.e. 3D) games are perpetually striving for something they can never achieve. They may look good when released, but ten years on and their graphical shortcomings become obvious. This doesn't always happen with a 2D game, which never tried to create anything other than its own peculiar game-world, one that (necessarily) has nothing to do with reality. In general, I think that if 2D artwork looked good when it was created, then it still looks good now, and will continue to look good in future.

Mind I am only speaking of the graphics. 3D games may still be fun to play in spite of aging visuals. For example, Twisted Metal 2 and Tenchu are two of my favourite games, even if graphically they fall very much short of what is now possible.

BiQ wrote:

2D automatically forces the player's subconcious/imagination/whatever to fill some of the gaps for the game. In contrast, a 3D game basically tries to create everything for the player

In counterpoint, Rob wrote:

3D games present an image that doesn't require a need to imagine something that isn't there, which seems to me a more immersive one. Early 3D graphics are just as crude as early 2D graphics and nobody's defending those. Tomb Raider has just as much empty spaces to fill in as Metroid

I'll side with BiQ on this one. I think the reason that no one is defending the graphics in early 3D games is precisely because they try to simulate reality on your television and fail. The experience of playing 3D games, new or old, isn't as immersive for me because I'm too aware of the shortcomings in the simulation. Whereas in a 2D game, the game-world has absolutely nothing to do with reality, and because of that it's much easier for me to lose myself in its artifice and invention.

[Rob]

But the point BiQ made was a 2D game "isn't trying to recreate 'reality' " which is what a 3D game attempts to do (to a point of course)." Any way you cut it, Metroid Zero/NES present visuals that leave more to the imagination than a 3D game like Tomb Raider or Mario 64 does. So that's why it fits in with reading a really good novel.

Mario 64 doesn't try to "recreate reality," it creates its own reality like any immersive game does. I think you guys are just trying to make a handicap out to be a strength. How is having to take the extra effort to fill in the gaps an aid to immersion? It seems like an unnecessary step, a wall between reality and the game's reality. It would be more immersive to take the game at face value and not think at all about the environments, but on playing the game. There isn't much time to dream up alternate visuals when playing an action game in real time.

[Rob]

I think the reason that no one is defending the graphics in early 3D games is precisely because they try to simulate reality on your television and fail. The experience of playing 3D games, new or old, isn't as immersive for me because I'm too aware of the shortcomings in the simulation. Whereas in a 2D game, the game-world has absolutely nothing to do with reality, and because of that it's much easier for me to lose myself in its artifice and invention.

3D games aren't simulating reality unless they are actual sims, so how could they fail at it.

[Dylan1CC]

Whatever, Rob. I guess some people just see games differently. We've detailed our position pretty well I think.

[straight]

I know that outdated 3-D graphics mean nothing as long as the gameplay's there, but I still think N64/PS1 era games didn't age too gracefully (minus the shmups and 2-D games).

Graphics schmaphics. A great game is a great game. Zelda 64, Windwaker, Link to the Past, and Minish Cap are all great games. I wouldn't be surprised if I go back and play Zelda 64 again 5 yrs from now.

Mario 64 is still one of the most fun 3D platformers. The graphics are pathetic now (whether you compare them to the latest 3D stuff or to SNES graphics like Yoshi's Island), but it's still a fun game. Compare that to Tomb Raider, which came out at about the same time, and seemed cool at the time, but now the controls and gameplay feel completely outdated.

[Shatterhand]

The reason some games are so timeless is that they don't make that type of game anymore so nothing has superseded it.

Yeah, exactly and I think the only type of 2D games that are being made at a consistently higher quality now than then are shooting games. So yeah they've aged as much as anything 15 years old. I'd say only 5% of shooters around '90 are worth playing at any length these days.

Speak by yourself, I completely disagree with you.

Aleste 2, Soldier Blade, Apidya, Space Manbow, Battle Squadron, Dodonpachi, Battle Garegga, Strikers 1945 1&2, Gaiares.... all those games were from the 90s (a few even from the 80s) and are still as great as they used to be back in the day.

[Rob]

I said 15 years old, which excludes games like DoDonPachi, Garegga and Strikers II. Hudson and Compile shooters, though. Yikes!

[Dylan1CC]

straight: Graphics schmaphics. A great game is a great game. Zelda 64, Windwaker, Link to the Past, and Minish Cap are all great games. I wouldn't be surprised if I go back and play Zelda 64 again 5 yrs from now.

Mario 64 is still one of the most fun 3D platformers. The graphics are pathetic now (whether you compare them to the latest 3D stuff or to SNES graphics like Yoshi's Island), but it's still a fun game.

I totally agree. I have had a total blast playing Mario 64 DS (cannot find the last 5 stars right now, bah). It all depends on the game. For me, Mario 64 did an awesome job of taking the Mushroom kingdom and expanding it into a fully explorable adventure. The thing I love about it is, whenever I played the older games I would think to myself "Hmmm. I wish I could go check out that hill/scenery in the background." With Mario 64 you could do just that.

So I guess a really good 2D game immerses you like a good painting, a fine work of art. A really good 3D game is like a window you can jump into/through (to borrow from the game) and walk around in. Bah. Whatever. A good game is a good game.

I will say this though, I tried one long night to get into Tomb Raider at a friend's house years ago. The controls just felt so stiff to me.

[BrianC]

There's a reason why I still play Atari 2600 games. The graphics are crappy, but the gameplay on many games still shines.

For me many older shooters have have aged extremely well, especially Zanac, which was pretty ahead of its time. I still play Scramble too.

[chtimi-CLA]

The reason some games are so timeless is that they don't make that type of game anymore so nothing has superseded it.

Yeah, exactly and I think the only type of 2D games that are being made at a consistently higher quality now than then are shooting games. So yeah they've aged as much as anything 15 years old. I'd say only 5% of shooters around '90 are worth playing at any length these days.

i don't think that's the reason: counter-examples, galaga doesn't look more dated because of galaga '88, nor does twin cobra since raiden2.
on the other hand, virtua fighter 2 looked like shit when 3 was released, that's because it was no longer the standard of graphical realism: you see all the flaws, the low poly count,...
for 2D games, the ones that age the least are those with the strongest design.

[Bydobasher]

3D games aren't simulating reality unless they are actual sims, so how could they fail at it.

"Simulate" was probably not the optimal choice of words on my part; I know as well as you do that Mario's Mushroom Kingdom isn't much like any neighbourhood I've ever visited.

What I was getting at -- and, I think, Dylan1CC as well -- is that whatever the particulars of the game in question, what all of these games (Mario 64, Tomb Raider etc.) have in common is that they are trying to create a coherent and (at least on their terms) believable game-world in three spatial dimensions. Unfortunately, that requires polygons; it cannot simply be drawn, like a 2D environment.

I've given it a bit more thought, and I think that Stormwatch really is on to something when he wrote that:

I guess, for each style, there is a threshold for aging well. ... It is a matter of reaching the "good enough" point.

As I said before, I think the hardware threshold for 2D is very low; a basic resolution, colour, and not much else is required for a skilled and inspired artist to create some great graphics. But for 3D, I don't think the "good enough" point has been reached yet.

To take Galaga as an example once again, when I look at the sprites in that game, I don't feel as though there's something the graphic artist would like to change. And indeed, when the game was remade in 1987, the sprites weren't so much improved as drawn in a different style; as Chtimi says:

galaga doesn't look more dated because of galaga '88

On the other hand, look at Zelda:OoT. Even when I played it in 1998, it was glaringly obvious that there are aspects of the character and creature models that would have been changed if the hardware would allow it. For example, look at some of the characters' hands -- they're simply blocks with lines to indicate fingers, and they are relatively crude. The whole game looks even more dated now.

Again, this is just about the graphics; I love lots of 3D games in spite of these kinds of shortcomings.

[Bydobasher]

More on topic, I think whether or not you think shmups have aged will depend somewhat on whether you feel that the evolution of the genre is synonymous with its improvement. If you think that scrolling shmups are necessarily better than non-scrolling shmups, or that manic shmups are better than non-manic shmups, then you will likely also feel that shmups age. If on the other hand you feel that all these evolutions are simply varying expressions of a core idea, then it's more likely that you will find something to enjoy in an older title.

For myself, in general I find that if I liked a shmup back in the '80s, then I'll still like it now, although there are exceptions. I think Galaga, Salamander, R-Type and others are as great as they ever were. And it's not just nostalgia; Gigandes, Aleste MSX, and Space Manbow are all games I played for the first time only last year, and I think each of them is excellent.

[Rob]

i don't think that's the reason: counter-examples, galaga doesn't look more dated because of galaga '88, nor does twin cobra since raiden2.
on the other hand, virtua fighter 2 looked like shit when 3 was released, that's because it was no longer the standard of graphical realism: you see all the flaws, the low poly count,...

And shooters have their own points people can pick at. Like instead of a low poly count, a low bullet count. I think Twin Cobra is probably to Virtua Fighter what Raiden 2 is to VF3. Galaga '88 is too much of a revision.

for 2D games, the ones that age the least are those with the strongest design.

I think this goes with any game. The games that do have the strong design account for the 5%.

On the other hand, look at Zelda:OoT.

Yeah, in Ocarina the hands are "blocks." In Legend of Zelda everything is in blocks. I think that is much more of a hardware limitation. I think Ocarina is easily at the "good enough" point, or else your standard for 2D games should be Symphony of the Night, DDP, Guilty Gear or something and not NES Baseball. To be fair.

[Bydobasher]

And shooters have their own points people can pick at. Like instead of a low poly count, a low bullet count.

The difference is that a higher polygon count will always serve to improve the appearance of a polygonal game, whereas it is debatable that a higher bullet count necessarily equates to a better shmup.

I think Ocarina is easily at the "good enough" point, or else your standard for 2D games should be Symphony of the Night, DDP, Guilty Gear or something and not NES Baseball. To be fair.

When I look at polygonal games from the latter 1990s, I can't help but think to myself that time has in some ways passed them by. I don't think they look awful or anything -- I think Zelda:OoT still looks pretty great, all considered -- but it's also obvious to me how the graphics could be improved in many small ways by being on a more powerful system, where the character models and environments would feature higher polygon counts and a more refined look as a result.

On the other hand, I feel that 2D graphics that appeal to me are timeless, in the same way that a drawing or a painting I appreciate is timeless. Obviously, there's much more to look at in something like Metal Slug 3 or Yoshi's Island than in Galaga or Joust, but to my eyes, the latter games are no less beautiful for being comparatively minimalist.

I imagine we'll simply have to agree to disagree on this point.

[Rob]

The difference is that a higher polygon count will always serve to improve the appearance of a polygonal game

But Ocarina of Time is perfect how it is, unless you can agree Samus in Metroid is an imperfect rendering of a human.

...the latter games are no less beautiful for being comparatively minimalist.

Like the hands in Ocarina of Time. Except when a 2D game has clunky sprites it has artistic merit, and when a 3D game falls short of photo-realism its outdated. The one-sidededness makes discussing it kind of pointless, I do agree.

[Davey]

For me, Mario 64 did an awesome job of taking the Mushroom kingdom and expanding it into a fully explorable adventure. The thing I love about it is, whenever I played the older games I would think to myself "Hmmm. I wish I could go check out that hill/scenery in the background." With Mario 64 you could do just that.

...which is exactly why I don't like Mario 64. It took the franchise from the Fun Platforming Action genre to the Wander Around and Find Stuff genre. Actually, even worse: it set that as the new standard.

Except when a 2D game has clunky sprites it has artistic merit, and when a 3D game falls short of photo-realism its outdated. The one-sidededness makes discussing it kind of pointless, I do agree.

It's all about expectations. 2D games are never expected to really immerse you in another world. Even if a 2D game had photographic sprites moving over a photographic background, it wouldn't feel like the real world. That's not so say a 2D game can't have a lush, detailed atmosphere, but I've never felt like I was actually in the world of Yoshi's Island.

3D games, though, try to submerge you into their own miniature universe. Because of that, they either have to be extremely realistic so that they simulate reality, or purposefully unrealistic to seem like an alternate reality (Jet Grind Radio, Rez, etc.) Anything in 3D that tries to look true-to-life and fails will stick out like the word SEX in this sentence, and that sense of escape will be lost. That's not to say the gameplay can't be good, but you won't "feel like you're there."

This goes back to that conversation on the old board about realism... it was said that as modern graphics come closer to reality, it is easier to see the little details of how they differ from reality. Since something like Intellevision Football is so far from reality, you don't bother with comments like "hey, that guy's head is a 3x3 red square... that ain't right" because nothing about the game looks real. On the other hand, a modern Madden game would be in that middle ground: it obviously isn't photo-realistic, but there's enough realism there that the unrealistic parts stick out. It's like comparing a shiny new Rolls Royce with a slight dent to a Pinto that was crushed into a cube... which gets nitpicked first?

The worst are the first-gen PSX games, since they obviously try to mimick reality but don't even come close, so they end up having neither artistry nor reality. They were stuck in conversion era where 3D was, like, whoa. Nobody mistook Ridge Racer or Tekken for reality even back then, but they were necessary technological stepping stones.

Anyway, back to the point, Rob is right: the 2D bias here is just a bit over-the-top. Claiming that Galaga looks good is just silly. Once you put the nostalgia aside, it fails to be a work of fine art. But that's beside the point, the graphics do what they need to do, and they were acceptable for their time. They're detailed enough so you can identify things, they move smoothly, etc. But they don't look the way they do because of stylish choice; I think, just maybe, that hardware limitations placed some restraints on the desigers' artistic vision.

Sorry that took so long.

[Blue Lander]

I remember reading a review of Symphony of the Night when it came out, complaining that the graphics were hand drawn rather than 3D. The 2D graphics in SOTN still look great today, but if they had used crappy Playstation 3D polygon graphics, it'd look like a joke. SOTN will probably still look great 20 years from now, too.

[Rob]

The worst are the first-gen PSX games, since they obviously try to mimick reality but don't even come close, so they end up having neither artistry nor reality. They were stuck in conversion era where 3D was, like, whoa. Nobody mistook Ridge Racer or Tekken for reality even back then, but they were necessary technological stepping stones.

Ridge Racer (and Time Crisis) has a nice mid 90s arcade look, which is a gigantic leap from the days of Hard Drivin'. Tekken is hideous, though.

[gameoverDude]

I guess, for each style, there is a threshold for aging well.

For example, when it comes to 2D... most/all NES games look old, even those that were nice back in the day. But all Genesis games that looked good back then still look pretty good now.

And when it comes to 3D... most/all Playstation games look old, even those that were nice back in the day. But all N64 games that looked good back then still look pretty good now.

It is a matter of reaching the "good enough" point.

Most of the PS' 3D games do look like kak today. RayStorm, RayCrisis, and G.Darius don't look too bad for that system. Side By Side Special has a look similar to Ridge Racer as well- not bad. Psychic Force does look a tad oldish- though fighting games with human characters seem to age worse.

You can't beat Zanac Neo and Gradius Gaiden on PS, Space Megaforce on SNES, or Gaiares on Genesis. Gaiares used the 8 Meg of cart space even better than Strider did- at the time, I thought it looked like arcade quality.