What's your critera to tell a good shmup from a bad one?

[heisenbergman]

At the end of the day, the only thing important is that you have fun with it, right? And if it's fun, then it's good?

Well, in any case, fun and good means different things for different people.

What's your criteria for telling whether a shmup is a good one or a bad one?

How much does the mood and aesthetic matter? Does a shmup with poor graphics, art style and audio make it harder for you to appreciate it?

Does a shmup that tries to innovate the genre get points from you? Or do you find that games like these tend to fail more often that not? Is following the same basic formula a better approach to creating shmups than trying to innovate it?

Is variety critical? What about difficulty? Maybe anything related to bullet patterns or more specific areas?

Just trying to pick the forum's brain here. With the hundred of shmups out there and with a very specific core gameplay mechanic that tends to deviate very little from the norm, I was wondering how you decide whether a particular shmup stands out from the rest.

[Formless God]

- Whether or not you're playing for score, you have to deal with survival. Therefore it absolutely has to be fun survival-wise.

- Reasonable feedback. No inertia, for fuck's sake. Kamui's screen aligning is also very jarring. I'm really annoyed by the long ass death explosions in Ibara and DDC, and the 2-week time it takes for the options to get to position in PCB.

- Reasonable hitboxes. Too small is bad. Too big is also bad.

- Aggressiveness. I won't play a game where you shoot at asteroids and enemies don't even try to attack you.

- "Memorizability". I don't want to memorize things too easily. I don't know why, but this happened to Crimzon Clover; after 4 runs I practically remembered the entire thing. That is not good.

Graphics, art style and audio are for preschoolers.
- Visibility and color scheme, on the other hand, are extremely important, because you need to be able to tell objects apart from each other.

- So far very few of the "genre innovators" seemed to work. WELL, StB and DS are actually good, but I'm highly skeptical about them in general.

- Difficulty is necessary. If a game takes more than a week to leisurely beat, it's good enough.

[Squire Grooktook]

Well paced (no awkward breaks or moments where nothing happens)

Variety (the same strategy never works twice. Besides, this is a damn 30-60 minute game. Is it too much to ask you don't recycle shit in a game that short?)

No contradictory mechanics (see: everything in Sine Mora)

No inertia.

No input lag.

Not a muscle memory game. If a game is impossible to beat on the first attempt, that's a problem. If a game is impossible to lose once you learn the stage layouts and enemy patterns, that's even worse.

Exciting and fun to play.

[chum]

A good shmup gets harder the better you get at it.

[Formless God]

[boagman]

A good shmup gets harder the better you get at it.

I'm not in agreement with this much at all.

[Sakurei]

A good shmup gets harder the better you get at it.

I'm not in agreement with this much at all.

Would you care to explain why you don't agree with him?

A good shmup will be able to seperate scoring from survival quite well most of the time. That means you can go and get some scrubby 1ccs rather handily, but the better you get, the more you might want to score in it, which means it gets harder as you optimize your route. I don't see what is wrong with that.
Another possibility is having shmups like PoDD and PoFV (or perhaps TSS; though I don't know how similar it is to the Touhou ones), where playing it "right" makes it harder, but also nets you more points. PoDD in particular gets harder the more aggressive you get by using level 2 spells. They summon extra bullets and make the game more difficult to clear. It's fun. You should try it.

STG that don't get harder as you improve your route or similar are bad. It means the skill-ceiling is low enough for everyone to just rock the game. I don't want to be able to just rock the game. I want to be able to go for risky things for more points. Touhou scoring is mostly excellent due to that. having to graze in order to score means you have to perform risky movements to get extra points. Ketsui (1st loop - I don't know how scoring in the second loop works), also does this well. By performing riskier tasks, you get extra times, which means extra score. A good game. Batrider is the same as well. By performing risky tasks, and using your resources on things other than survival, the game becomes harder to clear than just survivalplay.

I fully agree with chum that a good game has to become harder the better you get at it. Though that's not all it needs to have. It also needs to have fun survival and a good scoring system that allows that "getting harder" thing. Art, graphics and such are only secondary. It's nice to have them, but in the end, the gameplay is what is important.

Not a muscle memory game. If a game is impossible to beat on the first attempt, that's a problem. If a game is impossible to lose once you learn the stage layouts and enemy patterns, that's even worse.

You have never scored a game extensively, have you? If a game is random all over the place, scoring in it would become a huge pain in the ass. I agree that to some degree, it needs to be random to not make things boring as hell for survival-players, but I'd much prefer a completely static game over one that is completely random - if it's a traditional shmup, anyway.
So that scoring doesn't turn into luckshit, it needs to have some staticity to it - meaning it needs to have parts that can be memorized and muscle memory'd through.

[SuperDeadite]

For me it's simple, does the game have "the pull?"

Ikaruga is a solid game, I can't really fault it for anything, however the game does not have the pull for me. When I play it, I feel like I'm just going through the motions. I have no real interest in the game, it just doesn't do it for me. When a play a shooter or any other game, if I feel the pull I enjoy every minute of it. If no pull after 30 mins, I usually just don't care about it any more.

Why games have the pull varies. It can be due to gameplay, fun scoring systems, graphics, sometimes music alone is enough. A game that is stupidly hard but in the right way can have it to.

In the end I suppose I judge games like I do women. After 30mins of talking if I feel a desire to fuck her, she will get my full undivided attention. If however I have no interest in fucking her, then I might have to "leave for work." Nothing wrong with her, just no real desire to rip her clothes off.

[Squire Grooktook]

Not a muscle memory game. If a game is impossible to beat on the first attempt, that's a problem. If a game is impossible to lose once you learn the stage layouts and enemy patterns, that's even worse.

You have never scored a game extensively, have you? If a game is random all over the place, scoring in it would become a huge pain in the ass. I agree that to some degree, it needs to be random to not make things boring as hell for survival-players, but I'd much prefer a completely static game over one that is completely random - if it's a traditional shmup, anyway.
So that scoring doesn't turn into luckshit, it needs to have some staticity to it - meaning it needs to have parts that can be memorized and muscle memory'd through.

I never said a game should be random all over the place, all I said that a game shouldn't be complete muscle memory, or defined by muscle memory alone (again read what I said "it shouldn't be impossible to lose once you memorize" there are many static shmups that are still difficult when memorized).

But I do think that a game shouldn't be able to be reduced down to one skill. "just memorization". "just reflexes". "just multitasking". Whatever. I think a game should do what it can to incorporate all of these skills into various parts of the game. At times that might require completely static challenges, and at times that might mean a little randomness.

Besides, nobody here wants a completely random shmup. If I wanted that, I could just find a danmakafu script that spews bullets randomly with no rhyme or reason. I believe part of the reason we play games like this is because we want design. We want pacing, we want strategy, we want a particular play style. We want different moments and set pieces. We want something that shows vision. A truly random game could not have any of those imo. Or at least not consistently.

[Sakurei]

Not a muscle memory game. If a game is impossible to beat on the first attempt, that's a problem. If a game is impossible to lose once you learn the stage layouts and enemy patterns, that's even worse.

You have never scored a game extensively, have you? If a game is random all over the place, scoring in it would become a huge pain in the ass. I agree that to some degree, it needs to be random to not make things boring as hell for survival-players, but I'd much prefer a completely static game over one that is completely random - if it's a traditional shmup, anyway.
So that scoring doesn't turn into luckshit, it needs to have some staticity to it - meaning it needs to have parts that can be memorized and muscle memory'd through.

I never said a game should be random all over the place, all I said that a game shouldn't be complete muscle memory, or defined by muscle memory alone (again read what I said "it shouldn't be impossible to lose once you memorize" there are many static shmups that are still difficult when memorized).

But I do think that a game shouldn't be able to be reduced down to one skill. "just memorization". "just reflexes". "just multitasking". Whatever. I think a game should do what it can to incorporate all of these skills into various parts of the game. At times that might require completely static challenges, and at times that might mean a little randomness.

Besides, nobody here wants a completely random shmup. If I wanted that, I could just find a danmakafu script that spews bullets randomly with no rhyme or reason. I believe part of the reason we play games like this is because we want design. We want pacing, we want strategy, we want a particular play style. We want different moments and set pieces. We want something that shows vision. A truly random game could not have any of those imo. Or at least not consistently.

PoDD and PoFV are commpletely random and among the greatest games I have ever played across every genre. Well okay, some spell attack are static.

But I get your overall point. My bad for misunderstanding.

[CIT]

In order of importance:

1. Has that motivation factor that has you coming back for more (this is difficult to pinpoint, but typically it will have an easy to learn hard to master game system and good balance between memorization and reaction/skill)

2. Has music that really builds the atmosphere or tension (bad music in a shooter is unforgiveable)

3. Has shorter beginning stages with interesting stuff to keep you challenged even if you've played them a bajillion times already

4. Has no major faults in game mechanics (such as hitboxes that make no sense or wobble)

5. Good feedback from the game (for example, damage rate and soundeffects that really make you feel like you are tearing shit up or that blinblingbling slot machine feeling from scoring well)

6. Detailed graphics that give the feeling of a real "world" inside the game

[SuperDeadite]

PoDD and PoFV are commpletely random and among the greatest games I have ever played across every genre. Well okay, some spell attack are static.

OMG, do you seriously mean that PoFV a ONE VS ONE TSS clone that's based entirely on attacking and countering a single opponent at a time doesn't have set patterns? HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

[cools]

Input from Yagawa.

[Zil]

fun = good

Neither are good looks any criterion; and vulgarity, or at least what a given community terms so, does not necessarily impair certain mysterious characteristics, the fey grace, the elusive, shifty, soul-shattering, insidious charm that separates the good shmup from such coevals of it as are incomparably more dependent on the spatial world of synchronous phenomena than on that intangible island of entranced time where PoDD plays with its likes.

[Xyga]

If you enjoy playing it then it's good.

[Squire Grooktook]

But I get your overall point. My bad for misunderstanding.

No problem bro.


Anyway, what I listed before was my criteria for what counts as a "good" shmup, that is to say not bad. Here are additional factors for what I think makes a "great" shmup (for me personally).


Mobility: Don't get me wrong, micro-dodging is fun. But I believe that a level design should encourage you to take full advantage of the entire screen. As opposed to just staying at the bottom and jittering right and left the whole time.

Pressure: Death shouldn't just come out of nowhere. There should be a sense of building tension as you make mistakes and things grow more and more hectic, finally climaxing in a moment of truth where the player either makes a skillfull and risky move that redeems his previous mistakes and sets things straight, or dies in a blaze of glory. In other words you should know you're in danger of dying before you actually die.

Bosses have personality: I don't mean from dialogue or aesthetic or anything. I think each boss shouldn't just feel like a different wave of bullets that you dodge, but should instead give the illusion of being an entity that you are actively trying to outfox and outplay. Traditional shmups did this by having more mobile, agressive bosses, but danmaku shmups can accomplish this too with clever bullet patterns. Ketsui is a good example of this for me.

Scoring: There seem to be too camps on scoring. Either that it should force you to play completely differently than you would for survival, or that it should encourage you to "do perfectly what you would be doing anyway". I personally fall in closer with the latter. I think the main goal of scoring mechanics should be to encourage you to do all the fun and stylish things that you would want to do but might not always have a reason for if you were playing purely for survival. It should have a risk/reward aspect, but it should also be dangerous to not attempt to utilize these mechanics at all. Rayforce and Eschatos are good examples for me.

High execution: I feel that even the parts of the game that aren't really "hard" in practice, should still make you wince and feel tense as you approach them. Squeezing through tight gaps and whatnot, the game should force you to put faith in your skills as you approach daunting looking (key word: looking) challenges.

Stage design has multiple routes: I think ideally there shouldn't be just a right way and a wrong way to route a stage, with the right way being a no brainer each time. I think each stage should have multiple ways of being played through (with some room for improvisation) for both scoring and survival, risk and reward. The player should graduate to more and more risky routes as his skills and game knowledge increase. I also feel that different routes should face you with different challenges, for example perhaps you could point blank enemies as they appear, which would force you to react faster when they attack. On the other hand, you could stay back which would focus more on micro dodging and reading dense patterns as enemies will live long enough to fill the screen with flak.

Good use of rng: A random element should be used wherever it won't effect scoring, in order to encourage improvisation and reflexes. At the same time, it shouldn't just be random shit being spewed everywhere. There should still be a strategy to the pattern which forces you to act in a certain way, even if there is also an element of randomness to it. Eschatos is a good example of this, with enemies who often have randomized spawn locations (or randomized firing periods) but for whom the same general strategies tend to work across playthroughs.

[WeirdRain]

^This

[KAI]

I try to avoid games whit shitty music and 2 loops.

[Acid King]

A bad shooter is one that is broken either by way of design (ludicrously under powered weapons, impossible bullet patterns) or by being untested/unrefined (bad controls or graphical issues like Viewpoint for the PSX, with its dropped frames and awful slowdown). As long as a game is functional in those regards I wouldn't say it's bad as much as it is mediocre or uninspired.

[littlenando]

Aside from obviously fun gameplay/mechanics, what I look for in a shmup is great climate and great "storytelling".
With Storytelling I don't mean loong tedious boring texts/dialogue (like Sine Mora), but some solid interesting conceptual story built-into it that pulls you in, WITH the gameplay. It can be purely visual/climatic.

I think Jamestown achieves this quite nicely, although most shmups don't have this at all.

[Spark]

Beautiful patterns with fair difficult.

[Jeneki]

Outside what's already been posted, level design. It's one thing to come up with interesting game mechanics for scoring and survival. It's another thing to build stages that really let you take advantage of those mechanics.

[matrigs]

A straight learning curve / Steady progress.

[nasty_wolverine]

either:
easy to learn, difficult to master
or:
difficult to learn, easy to master

What I mean is that there should be a difficulty spike when you play the game and put in some amount of time. But once you over surmount that wall, you feel bliss.

I mean, like how when playing chess, the wall is your opponent, and its your job to break him down, in a shmup the wall is the system (weapons, bullet patterns, bosses, RANK), its pointless if the system doesnt put up a fight.

Also, good music, but not that much, as long i can turn it off and blast something else, bad music is fine too.

[Special World]

1. Feels good to shoot things
2. The right difficulty and depth to be conducive to repeat plays

[Zengeku3]

Everything counts. You can't just come up with a checklist of things that you need to cover in order to have a good shmup. Simply does not work that way. You can't just be like "okay, it's gotta have fast paced stages where the player is constantly doing something, with a consistent level of soulcrushing difficulty right out of the gate with a rainbow coloured sign with flashy special effects that tells noobs to GTFO, all kept random enough to maintain interest but still with plenty of stuff to come back to by means of trying to do challenges where you restrict your gameplay to make things harder on yourself and/or go for a higher score.

For a higher score you can have the player engage in a variety of different actions such as politely holding out a few seconds before you blow little puppies to oblivion in an effort to keep your chain going because THIS is fucking stylish and it gives the commander back home such a huge boner that he instantenously presses x^2 on your paycheck, alternatively through snuggling up close to an unattractive cunt of an elephant-lady cosplaying as a nun while you somehow supergrazes her laserpattern even though it looks about as much like grazing the thing as it looks like taking a bath in it. You can even go all the way and sacrifice lives to get this graze. Because seriously, if you look at suicide bombings this way you'll notice that it is in fact just a man willing to legitimately Go. All. The. Way to raise the counter as much as possible. Everyone knows that you get the most graze at the center of the explosion.

All of this would of course be ruined if the game didn't have good solid controls. Oh and pretty graphics too because seriously, if i gotta explode myself i want to do it in a beautiful gallery of fire and smokes with appropriate sound effects to back it up, not in a 8 bit shit immitation of an explosion with bleeps and boops to accompany it.
--------------

So yeah, you can't really just make a checklist of things that makes things good. Everything will have flaws, DOJBL will always have the first loop, UFO will always have an amazingly bad Stage 2 and nunfixation, EspRaDe will always have neckboxes, Sakurei will keep fucking up SDOJ's Stage 4 midboss and DDC will still exist. Everything has flaws so the question is just, am I having fun? If yes then fine. It's a good shmup. If no, then it's a bad one. Simple as that!

[Erppo]

Are the things you're ideally supposed to do fun to perform or not.

This is probably the only thing there is to it.

[brentsg]

Was it designed in Europe?
Does your ship have a health bar?
Do you collide with environmentals that look like harmless background art?

I'm really not hard to please.

[To Far Away Times]

How similar is it to Mushi Futari?

[ACSeraph]

Aside from obviously fun gameplay/mechanics, what I look for in a shmup is great climate and great "storytelling".
With Storytelling I don't mean loong tedious boring texts/dialogue (like Sine Mora), but some solid interesting conceptual story built-into it that pulls you in, WITH the gameplay. It can be purely visual/climatic.

I think Jamestown achieves this quite nicely, although most shmups don't have this at all.

Among other things posted here this is actually a big one to me. This describes Metal Black perfectly actually.

I think straight gameplay isn't enough for me, it needs to have an epic feel, and I've got to feel like I'm a badass fighting badass things.

I can't really agree with this idea that graphics and artistic design don't matter in these games, for me at least they definitely do. They are not enough by themselves to make a game "good" though. And what constitutes good graphics also greatly depends on the person so lets just end it at cool artistic design.