Seth Killian's 'Rising Thunder' takes on FGC genre elitists

[ilitirit]

Oh, it does. As someone who has been following the fighting games scene for some years (i even have a Street Fighter website xD), the lack of new faces in most tournaments is disappointing.

USFIV at EVO 2015 had over double the amount of entrants than its debut. That is double the amount of faces you would have seen had you competed in these tournaments. There is certainly no lack of "new" faces.

If your argument is exclusive to the good players (ie. the winners), ignoring the fact that the execution gap between mid and high level players in a game like SF is virtually non-existent), try to apply it to any other competitive sport.
"Tennis should be simplified because I'm tired of seeing the same people win."

Besides several obvious problems with the argument, even if you completely remove execution from the picture and reduce the game down to spacing and reactions eg. Divekick, you are still going to find that, all things being equal, the same good players who beat everyone last week are most likely to do so again at the next tournament. To shorten the gap in a game like this, you need to remove the skill aspect and replace it with luck. To see the effects of something like that, just look at the difference between the Smash Melee and Brawl competitive scenes.

EDIT:
Anyway, in an effort to bring some shmup-related relevance to this thread, I'm interested in hearing ideas about how to make shmups more accessible to the masses, and if doing so will attract new players and keep them around. Attracting new players and keeping them are actually two different problems.

[hien]

In games like Marvel and Melty, for all intents and purposes, the execution barrier only exists higher levels of play. Even beside the combos, people admire good movement in MvC3 (and even 3D fighters like Tekken) because it's a hard skill to learn. Are they really thinking of dumbing down this aspect of the game as well? Imagine beating a guy and then him responding "the only reason you beat him is because you have finer control over your character. That's unfair because I outplayed you in my head". Is this really where we are headed? From the changes made to Tekken 7 (I urge you to read up on the rationale behind the changes to movement), it definitely seems like it. I for one cannot say I approve.

The movement in Tekken is both a really good and a really bad example. A really good one for having been gradually downgraded after Tekken 5, with the negative consequences being pretty obvious. The game basically loses a layer of depth with especially sidestepping getting weaker and weaker (was baffled to hear, that they weakened the side step even further with 7 now, though the tracing in the series has always been insane in my eyes).
It is also a really bad example though, since the movement (and especially side steps) in Tekken was not very well implemented to begin with, with Virtua Fighter always having been a prime example of how to do a better and simpler system without it lacking any depth in comparison. The problem for Tekken simply was (at least that's what I think, as I'm neither really into Tekken, nor Virtua Fighter), that the probably unintentional possibility of canceling the animations which came with Tekken 3 became somewhat interconnected with the identy and the distinctive feel of the serie's gameplay. And that's probably also the only reason, why it was never fixed or replaced by a better system and why they're still struggling with it.

Combos and inputs for special moves are a totally different story though. I don't think that most people on this board would agree, if someone claimed bullet patterns in shoot' em ups are pointless and a nuisance for they prevent beginners from getting into the genre. As it is with shoot'em ups when it comes to the required knowledge and skill to overcome certain patterns or to be able to chain and score more effciently, it's imo the same when it comes to the execution in fighting games. You can question certain concepts (like super tight link or cancel windows) and for example how big a buffer window should be etc. but execution is integral to fighting games. Getting consistent and being able to pull off certain inputs in the right moment is an important element of the genre which I wouldn't want to miss. At least in the series, that already have an established style of gameplay.
If they try something new and people like it, that's totally fine with me. When you read about cool down though, you can already imagine that it will be something different, which some people might like better and others don't.

[ilitirit]

Virtua Fighter always having been a prime example of how to do a better and simpler system without it lacking any depth in comparison.

This is debatable of course. Recall that VF3 had a sidestep button.

Combos and inputs for special moves are a totally different story though. I don't think that most people on this board would agree, if someone claimed bullet patterns in shoot' em ups are pointless and a nuisance for they prevent beginners from getting into the genre. As it is with shoot'em ups when it comes to the required knowledge and skill to overcome certain patterns or to be able to chain and score more effciently, it's imo the same when it comes to the execution in fighting games.

Well one of the main arguments about the fundamental skills required for shmupping is around the idea of pattern memorization. I've heard it from many players familiar with the genre that they don't like the idea of having to memorize bullet patterns in order to beat the game. We as players take it for granted that it's just part of the game, like FG players do with execution. But from a casual perspective it's worthy of discussion IMO. Will the genre become more accessible if there is less of an emphasis on pattern memorization?

[Faenrir]

Oh, it does. As someone who has been following the fighting games scene for some years (i even have a Street Fighter website xD), the lack of new faces in most tournaments is disappointing.

USFIV at EVO 2015 had over double the amount of entrants than its debut. That is double the amount of faces you would have seen had you competed in these tournaments. There is certainly no lack of "new" faces.

If your argument is exclusive to the good players (ie. the winners), ignoring the fact that the execution gap between mid and high level players in a game like SF is virtually non-existent), try to apply it to any other competitive sport.
"Tennis should be simplified because I'm tired of seeing the same people win."

Besides several obvious problems with the argument, even if you completely remove execution from the picture and reduce the game down to spacing and reactions eg. Divekick, you are still going to find that, all things being equal, the same good players who beat everyone last week are most likely to do so again at the next tournament. To shorten the gap in a game like this, you need to remove the skill aspect and replace it with luck. To see the effects of something like that, just look at the difference between the Smash Melee and Brawl competitive scenes.

Well i don't disagree with everything you said (and i haven't been following the scene lately so what you say is probably true, there ARE new faces). But let's be realistic: the more people play a game, the more chances there are that good players will be more varied. Of course, some of the current best players would still be there. But imagine there were like...say 10M more players. Obviously some of those 10M would be as good if not better. I think the competition level rises up if there are more players. And i don't just mean winners, i mean more players overall because to have more winners, you need more players, simple as that ^^
Your exemple about tennis is irrelevant because it's based on athleticism more than training. Sure, it does require an insane amount of training for players to be in the top 10...but if the players didn't have the athleticism, they wouldn't be able to do it. I think everyone can push buttons on a controller ^^ even though some players might have better reflexes or eye to hand coordination.
And i really disagree on replacing the skill aspect with luck. Luck has nothing to do with it.

The way i see it, bringing new players to the shmup scene is very hard for several reasons.
First, shmups haven't been mainstream for quite some time now, even if there were a few exceptions lately (like Jamestown that sold pretty well).
Second, there are too much danmakus and those are insanely hard, let's be honest. They require much more dedication than what the average gamer has to offer.
Third, it's a niche market which means developers that want to make big $$$ aren't interested in making shmups.

As i said, i think what is needed are games that allow players to define their own level of challenge. A game with different difficulty levels is good (Jamestown had quite a lot of these) but can be difficult to balance when there are too much. The graphic aspect of a shmup is important as well here. My game, for instance, won't attract younger players because they will think "oh my god, why is it so pixelated". But most recent 3D shmups i've seen have too generic designs. What's needed here is great presentation (great designs and textures, 3D models, etc.), accessibility but also some deeper systems (scoring, difficulty levels, etc.).
So basically it would need marketing, a bigger game than usual releases and a high level of polish. Sadly, all those things require quite some money, which would make the development of such a game a great risk as there are other genres that would simply have like a 3:1 or better ratio compared to shmups.

@ilitirit: That's true. But pattern memorization is, to me, a core gameplay mechanic of the shmup genre. If you remove it, it's not really a shmup anymore...
The issue is that players don't face these anymore...In older times, 16 bit era for instance, you had that kind of pattern recognition in RPGs and zelda likes too. And people still played games in arcades too.

[ilitirit]

Your exemple about tennis is irrelevant because it's based on athleticism more than training.

Replace Tennis with anything else. It's the same thing. Chess. Snooker. Archery. Whatever. It's the same thing. Asking for the game to be simplified because you're tired of seeing good players win is nonsensical.

And i really disagree on replacing the skill aspect with luck. Luck has nothing to do with it.

I'm saying that even if you remove all the aspects of execution that beginners find hard, you will still find that the same good players will win tournaments. You cannot change this by making the game simpler. Once you've removed everything else, then your only other option is to introduce randomness AKA luck. This is exactly what happened in Super Smash Bros Brawl, and in case you didn't know, it is not regarded as a serious competitive game by many players.

Let me put it like this:
The reason you see the same players winning at fighting game tournaments is NOT because the games are hard to play. Making fireballs a 1-button-push move is not going to enable you to beat Daigo Umehara or Justin Wong.

[Faenrir]

You don't get my point.
More players = more good players too.
I never said it would allow regular players to beat veteran players, in fact i even stated the contrary in my posts.
And i think the original idea is to simplify the game to have more players, not because Seth Killian is tired of seeing good players win.

[ilitirit]

You don't get my point.

It's because you are saying different things. You did say that the skill gap between veterans and new players should be shortened because you want to see more players win. What I was pointing out is that your specific argument does not make sense.

Yes, simply by virtue of numbers, having more players mean that you will theoretically have a more diverse population of tournament winners. But this doesn't mean that shortening the skill gap will:

1. Attract more players
2. Keep them around
3. Ensure the game will be around for very long

I don't want to go off on a long tangent, but if you visit the Newbie forum on SRK, you'll often see people complain that they lose 90% of the matches and they don't understand why. You don't see them say "I lost because I don't know how to throw a fireball". They don't even understand why they lose. If you are a game developer reading something like that, where would you focus your efforts? Easier inputs, or better tutorials and in-game guidance? I for one would LOVE a replay system in a fighting game where it pointed out where you lost health unnecessarily, eg. by freezing the action and saying "At this range, pressing HK will hit the opponent out of the air", and then maybe loading up a similar scenario for you in training mode to practice.

If we apply a similar approach to shmumps, we can perhaps devise a system where the game remembers where you died the last time, and maybe slows down the action a bit, or shows indicators to help you avoid making the same mistake the next time you get to the that point.

Again, I SUPPORT the idea of reducing the basic execution barriers, but I don't like the TREND of nerfing high level techniques in the name of accessibility simply because casual observation shows that the bigger problem beginners have is understanding strategy.

[Special World]

That's what this is. Simplifying inputs is not affecting veteran-level play even a little bit, it's streamlining things for newcomers and maybe even new/mid level players. That's Seth Killian's entire point. He wants to get new people caring about fighting games. The veterans are already in.

Rising Thunder makes the point that many FG veterans already know - ease-of-execution *does* affect strategy

His solution is to get rid of the traditional input for special moves. From now on, you'll simply press a button to get the special attack you want. That special attack will also include a brief cool down timer.

Why include a cooldown? In other words, suppose traditional inputs are left in the game. What purpose does the cooldown serve now? If it's simply a trade-off, then the implication is that beginners AND veterans are affected by the decision to make the game more accessible. To put it bluntly, veterans will no longer be able to throw two fireballs in quick succession because beginners don't know how to perform a QCF.

For the record, I'm a big proponent of lowering the barrier to entry in terms of fundamental execution.

But I'm not convinced that:
1. The gap between beginner and veteran needs to be shortened
2. Higher level strategy should change to cater for easier execution

Except you don't *need* a cooldown for this to work, unless we're talking about a cooldown so small that it's essentially the exact frame count that would be needed to execute the move anyways. Special moves aren't super moves, and they shouldn't be treated like supers. There's no reason why they couldn't just have "alright forward+C is hadouken now." There is zero need for a cooldown timer, and I'm not sure why Killian has gone with this design (unless he really just means cooldown for supers, which I think he would have clearly specified)

[Special World]

As far as shmups go, I think we really need developers to start experimenting with highly adaptive rank systems. Yagawa is the place to look, imo, but then scale that so it's *not* meant to brutally eat all your pocket change. I think he really shit the bed on DFK 1.5's rank, because it's totally player controlled and any player who understands it is either going to always push it to red or never push it to red (this is my experience with it anyhow, I dunno if this contradicts anything w/r/t scoring).

But I think it might be great to give players adaptive rank AND player-controlled rank. Maybe accommodate the idea that "these are the hardest games ever" and give players 99 lives, and then have them wager their lives on various feats of bravery to earn massive points. So maybe a total newbie could hoard all their lives and try and get to the end, while a novice could wager 4 or 5 lives at the start on "I can defeat every enemy in level 1" for a score bonus at the end of the stage. And then masters could say "I'll wager all my stock for a perfect end bonus."

Either way the adaptive rank would keep players in line, but it'd also be able to push the difficulty because hey, players have a ton of lives, so if it gets too aggressive it'll constantly kill them and rank down like hell. And once they've gained confidence, they can challenge themselves for extra points, and try to complete a book of in-game medals for street cred or extra unlocks.

I dunno, I just absolutely do not think that you need to sacrifice difficulty, scoring, balance, whatever to attract a new audience. You just need to be able to think differently and program smart systems while pushing the genre's strengths. The strength of shooters is that they're fast-paced, intuitive on a surface level, and provide a blistering difficulty. For a new player, there needs to be a lower threshold for that blistering difficulty—just not one that totally neuters the speed of the shots, or the density of the bullet patterns, etc. If you do that, you've just made a game that's boring for everyone.

[ilitirit]

There is zero need for a cooldown timer, and I'm not sure why Killian has gone with this design (unless he really just means cooldown for supers, which I think he would have clearly specified)

It was specifically added as a compromise for the ease-of-use.

GamesBeat: Instead of that whole barrier, you have cooldowns, which is a different thing to see in a fighting game. How did you come to that idea?

Killian: There’s a few directions. We wanted the moves to feel good and powerful, but there can be downsides. If you can react to any move with another move, and then you’re injecting core fighting stuff like invulnerability, you don’t want to just boil it down to a reflex test. The game can go wrong in many ways.

http://venturebeat.com/2015/07/20/seth- ... /view-all/

[Special World]

Right, and what I'm saying is that he didn't need to do that, and I'm not sure why he did. There's no reason why you should need to cooldown a hadouken, even if it's just a one-button press. If your game is well-designed, you should be able to adapt in the time it takes to press that button. Unless the cooldown timer is literally the amount of time it takes for the first move to complete (maybe even allowing for input of the follow-up move a few frames before it completes to combat me-first reflexes), then I think it's a baffling design decision. I don't suspect it takes pro players an appreciable time at all to input a hadouken; it's the spacing and timing and relevance of the move that matters.

[ilitirit]

Right, and what I'm saying is that he didn't need to do that, and I'm not sure why he did.

Well, he says so right there in the article why it was done like that.

Consider Cody's Zonk knuckle in USFIV. You do it by charging the move, then releasing the button. It has fireball invincibility. Now obviously this move will have much greater utility if they changed it to something like DP motion because you don't need to charge it. However, most Cody players don't want that change. Why not? It makes it harder to react to fireballs. You don't need to do any fancy inputs, you just release the button when you see the fireball. The charge time in USFIV acts like the cooldown in RT. Without it, Cody's Zonk would be broken.

So like I said (and Seth Killian reiterates in other interviews), execution does have an influence on strategy. If you give characters moves like these without a cooldown or charge requirement, you're bound to get an extremely boring game, where both players are just looking to punish mistakes by tapping a button.

Here's another example of how simplifying inputs changes the strategic aspect:
In Street Fighter, a common tactic is to use low attacks in the middle of pressure strings to catch people who are trying to perform a reversal, or maybe jump away. This is because to perform most reversal moves you have to let go of down-back (blocking). However, if your reversal is simply a button-tap, you don't have to worry about getting hit by a low move any more. You simply press the button while holding down back.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying Rising Thunder is making the wrong design decisions or is going to end up being a bad game. I'm merely saying that I'm not convinced that simplifying the game to the point where fundamental strategy is affected in the name of accessibility is a good thing.

[Special World]

You make some strong points, and I'ma try and break your posts into chunks so that I can address them. I'm not specifically a fighting game player, but I play a ton of stuff, so bear with me here if anything I say is factually incorrect about SFIV or any other game:

1. He says why cooldowns were implemented like that. But that doesn't mean they NEEDED to be done like that, or that that was the best way to do things. I can say "a piano falls from the sky randomly and kills the player because that's a fun and goofy mechanic," but that does not mean that shmups forum or the rest of the world will agree with me.

2. Charge moves are a very different case. The idea behind a charge move is that they naturally take time. There is a built-in timer that designates when a charge is completed. You might say "hey, how is this different from a move wherein the QCF motion is the designated timer? After all, completing the motion takes a few milliseconds, right?" Well, completing the motion can be done so quickly by veteran players as to be nearly inconsequential. Complete the first move and you've already had ample time to prime the followup. New players will fumble with this motion, but for veterans it's irrelevant. They might as well not have the QCF motion at all. The frames of the moves in the game data are the timing, moreso than the QCF motion. With a charge move, that time is actually the design of the move. It's like an RPG move where your character defends for one turn, absorbs damage, and attacks the next.

3. And what about this: Why are QCF moves even "special" moves? Why can't they just be "moves"? Is there something inherently more powerful about the hadouken or shoryuken than any other moves? If so, couldn't we redistribute this balance of power when making a game designed around the fact that fireballs and uppercuts are "just moves?"

4. Furthermore, the existing hadoukens are specifically created for games with a QCF motion. Why can't hadoukens just take more time? If we're allowing that "it is humanly impossible for this move to be completed any less than .0003 milliseconds," why not just make the move .0003 milliseconds longer? Seth Killian seems to be saying "well without the cooldown timer it's whoever can mash the button first will have the advantage," but isn't that already the case to a much greater degree?

5. For reversals, why not just have the input be forward+button instead of QCF+button? Or have reversal moves require the player to let go of block? Or am I misunderstanding you here?

I think Rising Thunder looks like a fun game with a massive case of the blands. I can't say yet whether these changes have affected the strategic depth to where the game is hampered, or if they've opened things up so that players can more easily get to the actual meat of the game, which is pure mental. But I am arguing that removing QCF motions does not *necessarily* reduce the strategic value of the game. I think, by necessity, the most strategic game is going to be the one where players can do exactly what they want to do the exact moment they decide to do it.

[Erppo]

Second, there are too much danmakus and those are insanely hard, let's be honest. They require much more dedication than what the average gamer has to offer.

This is a silly argument. If you ask people to name some shooting games, Raiden 2 will come up, and as a survival game Raiden 2 is easily harder than the grand majority of danmaku today. While there are some exceptionally difficult games, the average clear difficulty of an arcade shmup hasn't really changed at all. It might have even become easier.

[szycag]

Is this in Shmups Chat because something could potentially be done about the same "problem" in our genre, or admitting it couldn't, or something else?

Because I think you could potentially. Mars Matrix for Dreamcast had the right idea with all the unlockable stuff the more you play. What if you went for a Dark Souls/Roguelike style model, where the game was very risky but balanced out with reward that you could take with you to your next playthrough? Or is that basically the same thing as "why don't you try hard?" until you unlock free play? I don't know. People in general seem to like "gotta catch em all", breaking things down into bite-sized achievement style portions, but there would still have to be a side of it where scoring still mattered. It's not like there's anything to simplify about dodge and shoot, and tacking on an involved story to a shmup is clearly ridiculous, so the gap to get over seems to be getting people to not mind getting their asses handed to them and only a baseline amount of memorization.

[ilitirit]

1. He says why cooldowns were implemented like that. But that doesn't mean they NEEDED to be done like that, or that that was the best way to do things. I can say "a piano falls from the sky randomly and kills the player because that's a fun and goofy mechanic," but that does not mean that shmups forum or the rest of the world will agree with me.

True, but then you can't have these moves be strong and damaging, which is ALSO what he wants. There is always going to be a trade off. Look at Persona 4 Arena. You can do combos by simply mashing a button. The trade-off? They are pretty much useless at higher levels of play because traditional combos are better in nearly every way.

2. Charge moves are a very different case. The idea behind a charge move is that they naturally take time. There is a built-in timer that designates when a charge is completed. You might say "hey, how is this different from a move wherein the QCF motion is the designated timer? After all, completing the motion takes a few milliseconds, right?" Well, completing the motion can be done so quickly by veteran players as to be nearly inconsequential.

Most of the time, yes you are right. But when it comes to situations where are you specifically trying to react to a move it's not the case. It's exactly why Cody players prefer that the Zonk input is hold-and-release. For something like a QCF, remember that while you're playing you're not going to be standing still all the time. You're moving back and forth, sticking out buttons etc. It's not uncommon to get an accidental DP when trying to twitch react with something that requires a QCF motion.

3. And what about this: Why are QCF moves even "special" moves? Why can't they just be "moves"? Is there something inherently more powerful about the hadouken or shoryuken than any other moves? If so, couldn't we redistribute this balance of power when making a game designed around the fact that fireballs and uppercuts are "just moves?"

There are games where projectiles are "just moves". eg. In the Marvel games Cyclops' projectile is simply a button push. The trade-off? It's not very strong at all. In Gundam W ED, every character has a full screen projectile-style move at the touch of a button. Again, it's not all that useful. Then you get fighting games where there's only one attack button, like Evil Zone on the PSX. It's a decent if not monotonous game, but the input style again imposes limitations on strategy. For example, there's no such thing as poke based footsies. If you try to walk back and forth and then whiff punish on reaction, chances are you'll get a special move instead of what you were going for. So most of the combat takes place from further away.

[hadoukens]

While fireball zoning is a complex issue to break down, in this case it's not even the fireballs that are the issue. The problematic ones are the moves that beat fireballs. Close-range fireball zoning is effective because they are hard to react to. If you can react simply by pressing a button, then the tactic becomes useless.

But I am arguing that removing QCF motions does not *necessarily* reduce the strategic value of the game. I think, by necessity, the most strategic game is going to be the one where players can do exactly what they want to do the exact moment they decide to do it.

At some level, yes. But you have to remember that the execution barriers do have an effect on strategy. For example, while Balrog is charging TAP, he can't tech throws. In fact he can't use any of the buttons he is using to charge with. Against a charge character, you'll want to cross them up often to break their charge so that they can't perform their special moves. Charge characters also have the general property of being stronger while playing defensively. Also, look at grapplers. If you could perform SPDs at just the tap of a button, Zangief would be top tier without rebalancing the move in some way, and the rebalance generally involves making the move weaker, or in this case adding a cool down. In general, the moves that are harder to perform are generally stronger. If you want to make them easier to perform, you have to weaken them to maintain balance, or impose some other artificial restriction.

I personally think that the traditional SFII motions are all fine for beginners and veterans alike. I understand that many people only value the strategic nature of FGs (I don't - there are different styles of fighting games, many of which cater to differing tastes), so I'm not going to say much more on this and will agree to disagree with anyone who feels differently to me.

[Bananamatic]

fuck casuals

[Icarus]

Is this in Shmups Chat because something could potentially be done about the same "problem" in our genre, or admitting it couldn't, or something else?

The conversation is currently centered around:
1. nerfing/simplifying games to attract a wider audience
2. the execution barrier between mid- and high-level play
And at the moment, both STG and FTG are being discussed equally in this context, so I see no need to move the topic anywhere at present.

Also, it's a pretty interesting read.

[pixelcorps]

In other news, the international olympic committee agreed to lower the high level of competition in all track and field running races by allowing the use of motorcycles.

Skilled purists used to using the "one foot in front of the other" technique at high speeds are said to be deeply upset.

[Shepardus]

Well the use of autofire controllers seems to be pretty widely accepted among shmup players, especially when going for the top scores as opposed to a simple 1cc...

[MoreorLess]

Generally I would say that "3D Fever" of the late 90's and early 00's has dropped off now to the degree people will accept more 2D based gaming.

The real problem with the elist focus in games is IMHO that its ment that any innovation has largely been limited to areas that cater to them. In terms of the mechanics that might appeal to a more casual gamer really has much changed since the late 80's?

Beat em ups might not be the most forward looking games either but they have changed with the times a bit more than shoot em ups.

[Special World]

tbh people who play shmups largely want them to stay exactly the same, so when we get fresh ideas they end up being in ill-conceived games that don't really get the core mechanics right

Beat em ups might not be the most forward looking games either but they have changed with the times a bit more than shoot em ups.

How so? I feel like beat-em-ups are one of the stalest genres around.

[Doctor Butler]

People are more upset about the League of Legends-style meter-management built into the game.

Each specials has it's own gauge, and can only be performed when that gauge is full. After performing a special, you must wait for the gauge to refill - and it's not like an EX attack, where the special receives a damage-buff/extra-hits, at the cost of meter - that particular attack is simply disabled until the gauge refills.

I've never played a game that deactivates standard attacks, it's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.

And ironically, it's going to make it harder for newcomers, since you have to keep track of like, five meters, instead of one or two.

[ZacharyB]

Could be interesting. It seems like this would switch up the kinds of skills used in fighting games, making the gameplay more psychological. Psyching out the opponent to get him to waste a move, like an anti-air move, then pummeling him with a combo that starts from the air.

This might also end up putting some kind of special emphasis on normal attacks.

[Squire Grooktook]

And ironically, it's going to make it harder for newcomers, since you have to keep track of like, five meters, instead of one or two.

Yup.

I mean, trying something new isn't bad, but I feel like timer based moves have nothing to do with making the game appeal to casuals whatsoever.

Which makes me think he doesn't have any idea what he's doing.

Which makes me think the game will be a mess.


On topic of "making shmups appeal to newcomers" a few personal viewpoints:

-Online co op. Have an alternate game mode specifically designed and balanced around co op. Make it online. It must be online. You have no idea how much more casual players care about this or how hard it can rope people into a game.

-Telegraph the 1cc goal better, or make it the only way to play. Call me crazy but Arcade mode should not have continues at all in my honest opinion. It should be arcade or training, and training should only allow you to play one stage at a time. I know people will say "but then people will think it's too hard!" maybe so...but that's better then them not understanding the game and thinking it's too easy.

-More variety in the genre as a whole. IMO there's too many danmaku games that are differentiated from eachother soley by their scoring mechanics. I think danmaku has genuinely moved the genre forward to an incredible degree, but at the cost of developing a bit of tunnel vision. I think we need more games with environmental hazards, unique irem styled weapon gimmicks, and unique playstyles in general. It's not that X-Multiply is better then Mushihime, it's just that people shouldn't look at the genre and think it's a one trick pony.

-As mentioned before, more in depth tutorials would be nice.

[Icarus]

-Telegraph the 1cc goal better, or make it the only way to play. Call me crazy but Arcade mode should not have continues at all in my honest opinion. It should be arcade or training, and training should only allow you to play one stage at a time. I know people will say "but then people will think it's too hard!" maybe so...but that's better then them not understanding the game and thinking it's too easy.

-More variety in the genre as a whole. IMO there's too many danmaku games that are differentiated from eachother soley by their scoring mechanics. I think danmaku has genuinely moved the genre forward to an incredible degree, but at the cost of developing a bit of tunnel vision. I think we need more games with environmental hazards, unique irem styled weapon gimmicks, and unique playstyles in general. It's not that X-Multiply is better then Mushihime, it's just that people shouldn't look at the genre and think it's a one trick pony.

I've been playing Geometry Wars 3 on iOS the past few days, and I really like how it handles progression in Adventure Mode - all unlocks are tied to score-based targets, stages are played one at a time and have a lot of variety between them, and the player can choose to augment themselves with special power-ups to make things easier without hugely watering down the challenge. And of course, if the player wants a more purist style of play, there's the Classic Modes like Retro Evolved, where they can play solely for a huge score. Adventure Mode I find is a great way to teach a player about typical systems, and about scoring targets, without being incredibly obtuse or overwhelming.

Dodonpachi Saidaioujou I felt took a step in that direction by incorporating the Challenge Mode into Arcade HD, to teach players about scoring tricks etc, but it didn't feel that fleshed out, more like an after-thought or a glorified Tutorial Mode. A modern STG which has a challenge mode first and foremost with a wide variety of stages and targets, along with a standard score-attack mode that has the traditional full STG end-to-end like we know and love as an additional mode, might be a better way to bring new players into the genre than heavily watering down a game, or incorporating Novice Modes which don't clearly hint at gradually progressing up to Normal Modes once mastered.

[Shepardus]

I've heard that Jamestown does something like that, right?

[CWM]

-Telegraph the 1cc goal better, or make it the only way to play. Call me crazy but Arcade mode should not have continues at all in my honest opinion. It should be arcade or training, and training should only allow you to play one stage at a time. I know people will say "but then people will think it's too hard!" maybe so...but that's better then them not understanding the game and thinking it's too easy.

I actually disagree somewhat. I think part of the problem with getting people into shmups is how binary the "win-state" is - it's either 1CC or bust, and usually a significant amount of effort separating the two. Shmups should track and acknowledge the player's progress as they work towards a clear, and reward them for clearing certain milestones. I don't think you need gameplay-altering upgrades for that, even something cosmetic like a cooler look for your ship, or even the silly little medals Crimzon Clover awards for clearing stuff with particular ship types, should work.

For example, let's say we're releasing DOJ 2015, Ultimate Edition. We can have achievements/trophies/whatever for: reaching particular scores, chaining a full stage, getting a combo of over 1000 hits, clearing a particular boss (in a real run, not in practice) without dying, for perfecting stages or stage segments, and so forth. Anything that bridges the gap between a player picking up the game and earning their clear is good.

This is also why I'm in favor of limited continues. These let the player see parts of the game they can't yet access on a single credit, and also, again, allow them to track their progress by being able to 3cc, then 2cc, and finally 1cc the game. That a "real" clear shouldn't involve continues can be made obvious in a variety of ways, I don't think it's a major issue.

[Squire Grooktook]

-Telegraph the 1cc goal better, or make it the only way to play. Call me crazy but Arcade mode should not have continues at all in my honest opinion. It should be arcade or training, and training should only allow you to play one stage at a time. I know people will say "but then people will think it's too hard!" maybe so...but that's better then them not understanding the game and thinking it's too easy.

I actually disagree somewhat. I think part of the problem with getting people into shmups is how binary the "win-state" is - it's either 1CC or bust, and usually a significant amount of effort separating the two. .

Every non-shmupper I've talked to finds the 1cc idea a complete shock. Like, even ones who own and have played a fair amount of shmups, it never occurred to them that an unlimited continue run doesn't count as a complete and honest "win". So I seriously think this is a problem.

Otherwise I agree with some of the other things you mentioned. 2cc and 3cc's being rewarded. Limited continues (Alien Soldier did this very well). Secret endings and stages. Maybe stage based rankings like Ikaruga, etc.

[BIL]

I heartily endorse Gradius V's approach: INSULT POOR PLAYERS. Tell them they need practice. Still not good enough. Close but no cigar, loser. A merciless wall of disdain until that credit feeding cookie dough ass is carved outta wood and nailing the loop. Only when respect is earned will it be given. I wouldn't have gotten into arcade/ac-style gaming if GV Announcer hadn't made me question my credentials!

Granted this says as much about the player as it does the game. But it definitely brings out the latent arcade fan!