Discussing shooter elitism with Vintagevideogamegeek

[Formless God]

Some people genuinely like the narrative in Final Fantasy games or the convoluted plot explained through 45-minute cutscenes in Metal Gear Solid. These aren't idiot, ignorant people being tricked by some media conspiracy into playing some shitty games, they are just playing

But that's wrong.

[trap15]

A game is a series of interesting decisions. Despite what anyone here thinks, if there is decision making involved, it is a game. Maybe not an engaging game, maybe not an exciting one. Maybe it doesn't even require any semblance of skill. If there are decisions, it is a game. A "pick-your-own-adventure" book is a game.

[Sinful]

This place has always seemed ok to me. The DTP sagas are proof we at least suffer fools very lightly indeed.

Why, cause some here play their games enough to pull off 1cc, no miss, or even play for score? What's wrong with enjoying games enough to replay them enough if they do have enough depth for plenty of replay? Isn't that a #1 quality of what a great game is?

... I remember back in the day when I first bought Aladin for Game Gear. Man, was I upset that I beat it in one go. But retro sites lists that cockie cutter as a top must own/play/buy top of the line Game Gear game?!!!


Even back in the day most never beat Contra without the Konami code? What hope is there for todays gamers?

[Randorama]

Time for a longer post, in which I try to put together some ideas I am mulling over. It contains disparaging, elitist remarks against them n00bs distributed along, so you will need to read it wholly to see when I insulted everyone of you*.

A game is a series of interesting decisions. Despite what anyone here thinks, if there is decision making involved, it is a game. Maybe not an engaging game, maybe not an exciting one. Maybe it doesn't even require any semblance of skill. If there are decisions, it is a game. A "pick-your-own-adventure" book is a game.

True, but whose decisions are we talking about, then? Standard definitions of games involve agents that are free to choose their moves (Meyer's definition is really too naive, sorry). In fact, much of the debate about what counts as a game can be reduced to how much freedom players have, in a game.

An example:

In emergentist games the programmers decide the basic rules, and the gamers explore the logical space that the rules define via their combination. In shmups, the programmers decide how ships move, shoot, etc., and how stages are structured: the rest is up to the players. The programmers decide only one special outcome: "death", the failure state. One can do anything in-game, except a certain set of moves that cause the ship to explode.

In linear progression games, this choice is drastically reduced: the players are left to find out which specific combinations of rules the programmers consider good for progression, to the extent that players may simply act randomly until they stumble onto the pre-determined key decision.

In other words, games are not programmed equal, with respect to the degree of freedom that players have in the system. So, "pick-your-own-adventure" might be a game, but one with such a low degree of freedom that it borders on a pre-determined program, in which the "player" because a passive executor of the program itself. A good amount of complaints that people have about shmups or other arcade games is that programmers leave players to decide for themselves...a lot, to the point that being overwhelmed by freedom is a standard problem.

An example:

The average shmup involves deciding which moves to do next at least once per second, with the further complication that a player must foresee whether each move will not corner the player's choices later on. An individual who is used to being guided except for a few points along a "game" will find this task simply too challenging, for obvious reasons.

The 1CC mentality seems to emerge when a player adds an extra aim in a gaming session: retain the ability to choose moves AND avoid the failure state (death, or more accurately the last possible death) for as long as possible, possibly exceeding the logical sub-space of stages' layout. Please keep in mind that I am not even mentioning that death can be an integral part of this strategy, since rank-based games allow players to exploit partial failures, to effectively extend the ability to choose moves.

So, anyone who paid each single credit, in arcades, they played knowing that this is a very sensible goal, but not a goal that programmers impose on players. Pace a few simpletons' arguments, the "continue?" screen gives the freedom to players to find other means to obtain this result: resetting the failure state, and getting another chance (1 credit at a time).

Console games in part work on a different basis: the player pays all the relevant experiences beforehand, and will not need to avoid failure state outcomes, to avoid paying. Progress is granted, since the player had already paid to begin with, and is more or less entitled to ignore the worst outcome, no matter what he does. Players can still follow the goal of 1CC-ing a game, but the "payment/final death" constraint will not be there, to give players an extra incentive on playing with methods.

So, DJI's reasons as for why shmups are discriminated can be straightforwardly connected to a more general discussion of what counts as a game (difficult, easy or even illusory).

Let me repeat them:

The reasons STGs are discriminated against like this are twofold:
1. A lifetime of psychological conditioning that rules in computer software are only acknowledged by people from the limits enforced by the program itself, not by the discipline of the user.
2. A lifetime of total failure by developers to communicate the basic objective of any particular STG to the players.

What seems to be the case for shmups is that one can do more or less what he wants, but not all choices will result in progression, barring continues. So, the player must figure out the optimal choices by himself. An individual not being used to make choices will suddenly be faced with a remarkably though challenge, and players who are used to these challenges may be rather short-tempered when such individuals complain about this sudden challenge.

The latter case could be branded as "shooter elitism". The amount of "elitism" we get on this forum is, well, low. I pushed for a strategy section also to avoid this kind of divide between the ones who know and the ones who don't, section that was implemented thanks to the previous administrative staff.

The fact that said section enjoyed an ever-lasting success suggests that the local users lack precisely the attitude that the OP was desperately trying to find, for a cheap story (cf. tens of guides, tens of people vastly improving their skills and scores, friendly and cooperativeattitude, unlike shoruyken.com and its share of socio-paths).

My hunch is that anyone who joined this forum, bothered to practice and learn the basics, stopped whining about them elitists and shmups' difficulty. The plankster is the statistically non-significant datum (p<.0001). Everyone else seems to play, enjoy the learning experience, and appreciate the growth of balls and lack of whining that comes with said experience.







*Well, no real insults, but I can invoke eugenics for the sake of continuity.

[Sinful]

That was all nice and dandy what you said there (and yeah, you right & all), but it's much simpler then that. Anyone can become good at any game, it just requires replay & practice (well, outside of some really bad players, maybe?). Something most don't care for or haven't gotten into that mind frame (it can be hard to get into it, from personal experience). And those who do enjoy practicing & replaying, are branded elite.

[louisg]

That was all nice and dandy what you said there (and yeah, you right & all), but it's much simpler then that. Anyone can become good at any game, it just requires replay & practice (well, outside of some really bad players, maybe?). Something most don't care for or haven't gotten into that mind frame (it can be hard to get into it, from personal experience). And those who do enjoy practicing & replaying, are branded elite.

I think anyone can play shmups to a satisfying degree with enough time. 1ccing an arcade-level game on defaults may not always be in the cards (I've only 1cc'd Darius Gaiden with autofire, though I've come close on others). And there are also made-for-console shmups which are balanced more towards less-obsessive players.

Shmups are like an RPG, but the player levels up instead of the character What's not to like?

[Randorama]

That was all nice and dandy what you said there (and yeah, you right & all), but it's much simpler then that.

Well, it's more like: part of my message can be roughly summarised as:

Anyone can become good at any game, it just requires replay & practice (well, outside of some really bad players, maybe?). Something most don't care for or haven't gotten into that mind frame (it can be hard to get into it, from personal experience). And those who do enjoy practicing & replaying, are branded elite..

I'd say "can be branded elite", or even "elitist", by some more casual consumers of games (the OP, apparently). The other point I make, roughly, can be summarized as: shmups actually offer so much freedom that it is hard to figure out where to start from, to get an enjoyable experience without getting tons of punishment. Aside asking for tips & tricks, of course.

[ZacharyB]

Evolutionarily speaking, our species is hard-wired to form groups and acknowledge small differences between them. If people consider themselves "gamers" and then find a game that they don't like (for any reason), they'll be prompted by their own status to rationalize a reason why.

Shmups require a lot of work in order to earn the credit associated with becoming good at them. People here have extolled shmups for giving a great rush on completion and skillful play, but I don't think everyone has the protocol needed to feel this. As a result, shmups may provide too little reward for some people to bother with. But, being a part of the "gamer" group, they will need to find a way to explain this disparity while retaining their status.

"Shmup-players are elitist" isn't very careful in its concept, but it gets the job done quickly enough, while at the same time offering a bare-bones indentifier for why: an elemental difference in the way different people process the reward of these games.

[Sinful]

I think anyone can play shmups to a satisfying degree with enough time. 1ccing an arcade-level game on defaults may not always be in the cards (I've only 1cc'd Darius Gaiden with autofire, though I've come close on others). And there are also made-for-console shmups which are balanced more towards less-obsessive players.

Shmups are like an RPG, but the player levels up instead of the character What's not to like?

Ahh!!! That so reminded me of all the shmup articles on HG101 by Kurt Kalata. The guy who writes off all Arcade shmups as way too hard to be enjoyed by all but the most dedicated or... er, elite? ... Could someone here confirm my suspecion that he is; a) either to muich of a casual gamer; or b) forced casual becuase he's got not enough time to play in order to write many reviews well before he learns how to play a game?

Yep, best type of leveling up. ... Sad thing is most RPG players level up well past needed levels, hence why they never make progress even with easy games. And you want them to all of a sudden start shmups?!




@Randorama; well I guess that flew over my head there. >_>;; .... Stop being so elitest!

shmups actually offer so much freedom that it is hard to figure out where to start from, to get an enjoyable experience without getting tons of punishment. Aside asking for tips & tricks, of course.

... too much freedom? You mean more spontanious gameplay? Yes, the best quality of any game, as it helps keeps games the freshest the longest (longer replay value). And actually the true measure of skill too, as anyone can memorize patterns, but.... .It's why I think the Arcade games of Gradius are vastly superior to the home ports (even Gaiden... though Gaiden got this newb to shmups into the series at least, but the AC games are keeping me into them ). And why that Kurt Kalata is got it all wrong. As in, if you really like a game/series, wouldn't you want it's replay to be very high instead of over ASAP?

As a result, shmups may provide too little reward for some people to bother with. But, being a part of the "gamer" group, they will need to find a way to explain this disparity while retaining their status.

This is not exclusive to shmups only. The keyword is still "well enough time spent with a game/genre" to know for sure if you like it or not? I know I played a SRPG once and hated it big time all the way through (even took forever to beat as I was kicking myself through it via forced play from time to time). Even bashed it afterwards, but... I decided to give it another chance at a later time. It's now one of my fave SRPGs. Period. Ever since I will always keep an open mind about what may or may not be for me (like I did with giving the shmup genre a chance last year, and before that the RPG genre). So if you don't play games enough to get pretty good at them so you can truely understand, you may never know if said game or genre is truely for you? So if you don't take the so called "elitest" route, you don't know much then. Sorry. ... Plus you mean to tell me you can't find a game you can't stop replaying from time to time cause it's so fun? If not, then guess you're not a gamer either then?

[Bonus!]

Anyone can become good at any game, it just requires replay & practice (well, outside of some really bad players, maybe?).

This is a position I find, in any context, infuriating.Made it through multivariate calculus? No biggie, anyone could do it given enough time and practice. 1CC'ed DOJ? So what? Give a man enough time and a controller, and he'll do it.

Frankly, statements like the above ridicule any kind of achievement. No, it's not true that anyone can do anything. In many fields I've seen people busting their ass and achieving very little, while others were working smart, were gifted or just much more intelligent, and completely outclassed them. Of course, then you've got guys who are not only incredibly bright but obsessed and disciplined, and they eclipse absolutely anyone. Think John Carmack or Dennis Ritchie. No, Virginia, if you spent all your time coding, you wouldn't reach the level of Carmack, and if you spent years practicing Mushi Futari Ultra --- because it's all memorization, right? --- you wouldn't 1CC it either.

Sure, in most games "beating" it is merely a function of time. Put in enough hours and you'll make it through some JRPG. However, "hardcore" games don't work like that because they are skill-based. Nobody cares if you put in 1,000 hours but still can't clear a game. Mere effort doesn't mean that you deserve to beat a game. I can understand why such games are hard to accept by people who went though an educational system that made everyone feel special, and failed to teach the lesson that you sometimes have to put in some effort to succeed. This applies as much to, say, mathematics as shmups, and it's quite possibly why our genre is seen as "elitist" by some, such as the aforementioned owner of HG101.

[Bananamatic]

Sure, in most games "beating" it is merely a function of time. Put in enough hours and you'll make it through some JRPG. However, "hardcore" games don't work like that because they are skill-based. Nobody cares if you put in 1,000 hours but still can't clear a game. Mere effort doesn't mean that you deserve to beat a game. I can understand why such games are hard to accept by people who went though an educational system that made everyone feel special, and failed to teach the lesson that you sometimes have to put in some effort to succeed. This applies as much to, say, mathematics as shmups, and it's quite possibly why our genre is seen as "elitist" by some, such as the aforementioned owner of HG101.

Skill is earned by spending time too, most people underestimate the amount of time and effort that goes into high scoring runs and difficult clears - it's hundreds of attempts for a successful run and thousands of hours in shmups overall plus the effort that goes into learning the routes

merely clearing a game doesn't require talent, you can sacrifice score for safe routes so you don't even have to dodge and still do a ton of mistakes in the progress

most of the "bad players" just don't have enough playtime or patience(I can't do more than 1 run at a time either once I get a run going, yet some people just suck it up after dying at the TLB and try again right away)

[Ed Oscuro]

At one moment Bonus! is telling us that it takes some skill to succeed, but at the other saying something like skill can't be taught.

This is not a clean contradiction, but clearly there is a lot that kind of statement ignores completely.

There is undoubtedly quite a bit of twitch reflex involvement, but that's about the only thing that appears difficult to overcome. What many people overlook is that the quality of your practice plan matters. If you just approach something slapdash without careful analysis and elimination of failing approaches, or don't pay attention to your physiological state (are you feeling burnout on stage one? use savestates when possible) then you are quite simply not doing what you could.

And these are pretty much all things that can be taught. In fact, for many games, you don't even have to think at all because good routes have already been mapped out by overachievers!

Basically, I am a bit more optimistic about how effective the application of careful skills can be for small problems like this.

Shmups are also quite different from many other fields of endeavor. There isn't any time pressure to be the first to publish or face a human opponent head-on. Armed Police Batrider is still pretty much the same game it always was.

[Bonus!]

Sure, people can improve. I don't doubt that. However, it takes a lot of determination and ability to get really good, and the same is true in any field. It's more than just about the number of hours you put in.

There is something else that's relevant in the context of this discussion: only a very small number of people who play STGs manage to get 1CCs. For instance, my first 1CC was Death Smiles. Sure, it's an easy game. It took me about ten hours to clear it, and I thought it was quite an achievement. If you routinely clear DDP DOJ then you probably laugh at Death Smiles. However, I got the impression that there are quite a few people on here who don't clear the easier Cave games like DS or the first Galuda and make statement such as that it's an easy game "except the last boss" (Galuda) or "the last level" (Death Smiles). However, this is also part of the game.

Out of curiosity, I checked out True Achievements. On that site you can see how many percent of people managed to "unlock" certain achievements. It turned out that only about 2% of gamers 1CC'ed Death Smiles, and if you look into the really tough achievements like reaching and beating the TLB, then you don't even have to bother about the percentages. I think there were about FIVE people who got those achievements. So, even the easier games are a significant hurdle, and without a modicum of determination you won't clear those games. On the other hand, even the easier games can push you to the edge. If that weren't the case, then many more people would have unlocked both easier achievements like merely clearing the game, harder ones like getting a score of x million points, or truly difficult ones like beating the TLB.

Among single player experiences, I think that STGs are pretty unique in the way they challenge you. It's you vs. the computer. The other hardcore genres (puzzle and FTGs) are distinctly focussed on multiplayer, and the barrier of entry is to a large degree not just due to mastering basic game concepts but having to go up against people who play those games competitively, and they will wipe the floor with you for a long time. Merely mastering the single player game is by no means a guarantee that you'll stand a chance against a human opponent. However, this seemingly insurmountable wall you'll only encounter if you decide to actually challenge other human players. STGs on the other hand put that seemingly unsurmountable wall in front of you right at the beginning. Well, Ketsui certainly does, and so does DDP SDOJ. Other games are a bit more accessible, but eventually you'll reach a point where you'll have to systematically practice. I think this is alienating to a gamer who is used to blockbuster entertainment and pressing X to win.

In short, STGs tell you to man up. If you can't deal with that, you won't get anywhere. More recently Cave has made great strides in making their games more accessible to beginners. It's still an enormous hurdle, though.

[BIL]

This place has always seemed ok to me. The DTP sagas are proof we at least suffer fools very lightly indeed.

Why, cause some here play their games enough to pull off 1cc, no miss, or even play for score? What's wrong with enjoying games enough to replay them enough if they do have enough depth for plenty of replay? Isn't that a #1 quality of what a great game is?

I'm honestly not sure what you're responding to. Mastering games is both a good thing, and not what I was referring to at all. My point is simply that this place has never been overly hostile or dismissive to newcomers. That even someone responsible for priceless quotes like the one below (DTP) is regarded as more of a loveable dumbass than a despicable blasphemer to be nuked from orbit says at least something. If he can survive here anybody can.

I don't see how I can get any better. The reason I am not improving is because I am as good as it is possible to be.

^ GOLD I tells ya. Gonna try it on my prof next week, that'll shut him up about exams!

[Muchi Muchi Spork]

Bullet hell games are designed to make you feel like a badass when you play them. It's like the guy said in the decade old "history of shooting games" video, when you see them at first you think to yourself "I could never play that" but then when you really try, you can. The real problem with the genre is trap15's haircut, or rather lack thereof.

[Sinful]

I can no longer chit chat in this topic. For yeturday I 1cc'ed without death gotchamantheshooting... on my very first attempt at this game! Thus, I have graduated from stupid noob to elitest douche. All that is left of me it to go joining some RPG forum and telling these geeks how real men play. ... Then host shmups meets where the name is "RPG meet." And when all the RPG fanboys arrive... lol.

[Stevas]

What if, you know, you just ARE better than everyone else - generally speaking - but you also happen to occasionally suck at the odd shmup?

[Sinful]

Sorry, never read anything here yesterday, cause I read other posts first, hence why I left that quicky...

@Bonus!

Hey, good point. ... I get the feeling you're just kinda still getting into shmups, and well ahead off me too. Here is the thing how I still see it & assume it. A lot of folks should still beat DOJ. Just don't hand em this game as their first shmup, and don't expect them to put the in insane amount of hours like say Edward from 1cc just to get that 1cc for that one particular shmup that may give them too much trouble (I don't think these are insane hours, but to the more casual...), especially when most are satisfied with credit feeding till credit roil only once. ("Secret ending/boss? I said I'm done!"

Here is another interesting pattern I read on that 1cc Blog, something along the lines of "now that I'm more experienced with the genre after some time passing, I had an easier time with it and can't believe this game scared me so much?" ... But.. Dodonpachi was a game that gave him quite some trouble for some time... and DOJ is harder.... >_> ... Of course I have faith in him! No pressure Edward!


So play some more easier Cave games first or in between, and see if you make any progress after some time? If yes, then what I say has to be true, no?



But, there is something else that should be mentioned & known... some games require much more skill then pattern memorization. Which is much harder to learn & requires way more time & patience & enough love for the game to keep at it.



EDIT - and I'm not talking extra loops/final bosses. Them are just extra fans service for true fans of particular game so that they can keep playing for longer to further satify their hunger.

[Pteriforever]

Although this forum has nice people in general, I believe that this "shmup elitism" does exist in some form.

Just check out random shmup videos on Youtube sometime. I quite frequently see comments to the effect of

--"I beat game A effortlessly~ All you people who are having trouble with it are noobs!"
--"I could beat game A effortlessly if I wanted to, but I can't be bothered."
--"Game A is harder than Game B, therefore, people who play Game A are inherently better than those who play Game B."
--"Game A has autobombs, so if you play it you fail at life."

I personally believe it's a non-issue though. This forum is free from that kind of rubbish, so what does it matter that a few idiots on other sites obsess over being "hardcore"?

[Hagane]

It's bloody awful.

It's awfully written, but his points are mostly correct, even if they are buried under all that shit writing.

Not playing an arcade game for at least an 1CC is missing the point. It's not elitism, it's the way you will get the most out of the game. If instead of trying to figure out how to beat a certain part of the game with strategy and execution you just mash the credit button, you are missing most of the fun and all the care that went in designing these games.

And anyone, anyone can get at least a basic 1CC at these games with some practice. As silly as it sounds, I believe that the main issue for people getting into arcade games is that they don't think or strategize much. I know because I was that way as a beginner, and I see people playing on auto-pilot or without even a basic plan all the time. Once you stop playing automatically and try to see what you are doing and think, you will improve a lot. That's much more important than manual dexterity or reactions.

[ACSeraph]

I see people playing on auto-pilot or without even a basic plan all the time. Once you stop playing automatically and try to see what you are doing and think, you will improve a lot. That's much more important than manual dexterity or reactions.

Very very true. I played shmups for years in this manner, but once I sat down with serious determination to clear a game (Triggerheart) and started creating a specific plan to survive the difficult points that I adhered to through every run my shmup abilities improved drastically in every game that I played. In fact I feel like I've even gotten better at other genre's of arcade games over the past year because of that mindset change. It's the same in fighting games really, where you have a lot of bad players who just sort of fight however they feel like with no thought about effective matchup strategies. Planning and taking advantage of every situation is what separates good players and casuals, not raw physical/mental dexterity.

[trap15]

Youtube [...] comments

There's your problem.

[Astraea FGA Mk. I]

One thing I like about the shmup community is the lack of elitism in comparison to other gaming genres. People here seem to genuinely want to help eachother out regardless of skill level.

[Ed Oscuro]

Not playing an arcade game for at least an 1CC is missing the point. It's not elitism, it's the way you will get the most out of the game.

Remember Gun & Frontier? You don't have to be a shameless scrub to notice that game gets less fun when you try to maximize the score. There's quite a few games which offer complete, but different, experience in going for just a survival clear or scoring. That's clearly an intentional element in the design of many of the better-designed recent games out there. Just getting the 1CC will be a significant time investment for many people, and you can't fault somebody if their motivation peters out after reaching that point - it's just the building block to build a high-scoring game run off of.

The "missing the point" stuff is empty rhetoric. Nobody gets a vote on how somebody else enjoys a game.

[Astraea FGA Mk. I]

I see people playing on auto-pilot or without even a basic plan all the time. Once you stop playing automatically and try to see what you are doing and think, you will improve a lot. That's much more important than manual dexterity or reactions.

I inadvertently do this as well sometimes. I am used to daydreaming during whatever I do, for practically everything and I always get by. Learning how to try is really hard!