I wish modern bullet hell had more focused weapon spreads.

[Xyga]

Ya I see what Special means, haven't even kissed yet and bitches already spread like the Nile Delta.

I like it better when it's optional and the big wide shot comes at a price (not-so-easy powerups/levelup or something)

[ardiel]

Also note that Hurricane of the Varstray has a pencil thin laser weapon, and a lobbed bomb weapon.

Witchbot Meglilo has a single bullet stream and a choice of options, some of which are even melee options.

[Special World]

Grooktook is hitting on something that's very important to me. There are extra layers to some games which require players to think about the moment to moment feel of shooting. To me, this is exemplified by Ginga Force's (initially very irritating) secondary/limited ammo shot system, Mars Matrix's gravity hole bomb and shotgun blast, and other similar systems. Another is Caladrius, though I don't care for the game much otherwise. Pink Sweets, while the shooting is not particularly defined, achieves something similar with its shield system, the volume of enemies, and the force with which they are destroyed.

To me, it's important that there's some sense of constraint, or a counterbalance to the shooting. That's what makes it the shooting itself meaningful.

[Xyga]

So you mean something physical where timing's involved in the interaction between you and the game's world, so you don't have to just hold A for 25 minutes while sometimes pressing B ?
It's better yes but easily annoying if not perfectly implemented.

You mention MM, well it's a good example of a game I never got to love because the shotgun is a tiny fraction of time too slow for me to feel a real trigger/kill cadence I could enjoy.
As for the shield/bomb I'd say I have the same problem with it as in GW: too often ready a fraction of time too late, so in the end it's not something you use efficiently on instinct but rather by learning a route.
The time constraints here demand the player be strict/stern or it's useless even trying to play the game, which is too bad because MM is a great game...but it's not fun to play.

You know somehow many games feature gauges to fill or multipliers to get around what must be one of the greatest game designer's fears: balancing between 'physical interactions' and physical constraints (to avoid making the game a brainless button masher).

[Squire Grooktook]

~MARS MATRIX DEFENCE FORCE ASSEMBLE~

A lot of people like to blame the mechanics in Mars Matrix for frustration, but IMO they are barking up the wrong tree. The fact of the matter is, MM is deliberately a brutal, nasty, sadistic game that gives few resources and throws tons of crap at you from stage 2 onward. If you took the same mechanics and put them in a slightly more forgiving game, they'd be pretty improvisational and easy to use. But MM's bullet patterns and level layouts are nasty by any standards and designed to push your mastery of those mechanics to their limit.

As for the mechanics themselves. I don't quite feel you on the charge attack: it charges in about 5-10 frames or so. That's so fast that you don't even really need to have a pause in your regular shot stream. You can very easily whip it out on reaction. The real issue imo is that as I understand it, at decent play you want to be doing nothing but the charge attack. Which is a whole other issue.

As for the Mosquito, yes it's something you deliberately have to choose to do rather then make a twitch reaction. I wouldn't say that contributes to a memorizaiton emphasis (how much memorization is needed always comes down to how the level layouts and bullet patterns are designed), but rather makes it into more of a true "offensive" bomb. Choosing to destroy enemies with it is a risk/reward gambit that transcends the usual defensive nature of bombs that Toaplan complained about way back.

~MARS MATRIX DEFENCE FORCE DISASSEMBLE~

It's better yes but easily annoying if not perfectly implemented.

The same could be said about all game development. Even the simplest things can be godawful if not done with care.

Really, there's two ways of designing a game like this:
1: Make something formulaic
2: Make something creative

With option 1, you have a much lower chance of failure. Millions of games have come before you, and if you don't know what to do or get hung up, you can just play them for reference!

The downside is that those games that came before you will probably still be better at doing the same thing, invalidating the purpose of your game.

Option 2 is risky. You're swimming in uncharted waters. No one's going to help you but you. You might fail. You might make ten crappy games before you figure out how to make your game work. But that's art. If you really want to be creative, that's the struggle you have to face. It's the same struggle all the aspiring creators before you faced.

[Shepardus]

Option 2 is risky. You're swimming in uncharted waters. No one's going to help you but you. You might fail. You might make ten crappy games before you figure out how to make your game work. But that's art. If you really want to be creative, that's the struggle you have to face. It's the same struggle all the aspiring creators before you faced.

That's what Early Access and games as a service is for. Or whatever you call what Hurricane of the Varstray did. Get your game in front of people's eyes quickly and fail early so you can rework things before you've invested too much time barking up the wrong tree.

If you're really aiming for something different I think it would be helpful to not even think of and promote your game as a shmup - that word comes with a lot of baggage that may or may not be suited for your game. Also, if you want players to put more attention in how they shoot, it makes sense to deemphasize the dodging.

[Squire Grooktook]

That's what Early Access and games as a service is for.

It's nothing new: This has always been what playtesting and feedback is for.

But playtesting only goes so far, and that's not even getting into problems like deadlines and limited budgets that some creators have to deal with. The fact is, creative exercise in any medium is almost universally founded on trial and error. This is as true in art and writing as it is game design.

If you're really aiming for something different I think it would be helpful to not even think of and promote your game as a shmup... it makes sense to deemphasize the dodging.

Thousands of existing and well regarded shmups would beg to differ. Depending on what system or mechanic you use, there is no reason for dodging to be de-emphasized compared to shooting. Hell, I would probably say Cave counts: Shot/Laser is an example of a system that makes shooting more thoughtful, and Cave is also a textbook example of what people think of when "dodging" comes to mind.

There are really no absolutes when it comes to these sorts of things: you can really make a game with any kind of playstyle or combination of playstyles you can think of, and make it work. You may just have to sacrifice other aspects and appeals along the way.

Also when I say "unique" or "creative", I'm not necessarily talking about making something outside the bounds of whatever genre is being discussed. You could do that also, but creativity doesn't exist on a black and white level of "make another clone" vs "make a funky weirdo art game for casuals". It could be as simple as a slightly different type of medal chaining, or could be much more radical. The close you are to an existing playstyle however, the easier it will be. If that playstyle is particularly explored already, even easier.

[Jeneki]

You mention MM, well it's a good example of a game I never got to love because the shotgun is a tiny fraction of time too slow for me to feel a real trigger/kill cadence I could enjoy.
As for the shield/bomb I'd say I have the same problem with it as in GW: too often ready a fraction of time too late, so in the end it's not something you use efficiently on instinct but rather by learning a route.
The time constraints here demand the player be strict/stern or it's useless even trying to play the game, which is too bad because MM is a great game...but it's not fun to play.

If you'd like to try a rhythmic charge-up game that's more forgiving, you may be interested in Vasara 1. You can recharge the bullet cancel shot almost immediately if you start charging while the first one is still going off. And the scoring system revolves around using it to setup combos, so there's no reason not to use it.

[Xyga]

@Squire: Note that I'm not really talking about difficulty but the feeling/appreciation of what you 'are' within the game space: some high tech aircraft, an ESP...or a 40tons tank with rusty guns?
It's also a common misunderstanding that an overall snappier response of the ship and its weaponry would make a game easier anyway.

(And no sorry I really find the shotgun in MM slightly behind from the response I'd want to blast things one after another and enjoy doing so, maybe if it was one or two frames faster, dunno, I'd have to experience it to tell you. It's nothing as dramatic as how annoying calling back your dragon in Dragon Blaze is though, but in games that hard and tight the tiniest thing can be incredibly irritating)

So rather when it's a slightly recessed (movement or weapons, or both), well, in a way that retenue and the fact you need to master it to its limits becomes everything about the game, even more so than the level/threat design, and I find that annoying.
The latest game I've dropped precisely because of its intended - rather extreme - restrictiveness was Gun & Frontier (fuck that game, seriously).
One big strenght of many of the Cave shooters is that they give you a natural response feeling from your hands back to your brain, the ship and the trigger are frigging extensions of your body, and although they often push this a bit too far with the weaponry you have to admit it is kind of heady and arcade~ey.
God YGW games that are configurable ingame (speed, rate, field, ship type) kind of solve all issues, but not always in the most convenient ways I have to admit the controls are sometimes all over the place, adding to the impression of convoluted.

The same could be said about all game development. Even the simplest things can be godawful if not done with care.

Yes but in some areas like what we're talking about now, I feel a rather clear line exists between the choice to make a game where the player will have to adapt to the ship rather than the threat and vice-versa. It quickly falls heavily on one side or the other of the line, finding balance walking on that line is super hard and it sometimes hangs to timing things to a quasi-magic mix of speed, moment and place. And this is how I see it but: IMHO many games are what they are because there's a deliberate choice from the devs to go one side in particular, maybe because of a predefinite idea whatever, but also maybe because of the fear of the tediousness of having to look for that balance all the time.
Though picking a side is also a risk. Heh.

Maybe you've noticed that I have a rather personal definition of shmups, that there are fundamental 'rules' that define the genre and whether you go formulaic or original, you shouldn't deviate too much at all, and never violate any (or if you have to violate one it musn't be without proper compensation, which is typically costly)
I'm glad to read some people are tired of the instant or superlarge screen-swipe shots, this has certainly gone too far and for too long and somehow violates the 'shooting' in 'shmup', but careful that this type of play in line with 'instant response' ships and weapons happened for a reason: because - assuming there's no abuse - it feels good.

I am certainly no game designer and this is just one of the many complicated topics... although I've never bothered writing down practical examples of what I think is good or bad with a list of games (damn I've played too many and I feel like I'm getting old, I value pleasure/joy in gaming more than anything now) I'm sure there are golden standards, or very close, that exist, and the games that have them are not too hard too find at least, checking the history of the Top 25 and extended charts: the things that make good shmups are all there, scattered, rarely concentrated but still.

@Jeneki: I've barely touched Vasara, maybe I should give that try yes.

[Shepardus]

but careful that this type of play in line with 'instant response' ships and weapons happened for a reason: because - assuming there's no abuse - it feels good.

I feel similarly about shmup movement, which rarely deviates from "move in the direction you press at a constant rate, maybe faster or slower if you're holding another button." As much as I want to like something like Sora, it's too much to get used to for me and I end up bouncing around everywhere and feeling like I have no control, even if I theoretically do have all the control I need.

[Squire Grooktook]

@Squire: Note that I'm not really talking about difficulty but the feeling/appreciation of what you 'are' within the game space: some high tech aircraft, an ESP...or a 40tons tank with rusty guns?
...
So rather when it's a slightly recessed (movement or weapons, or both), well, in a way that retenue and the fact you need to master it to its limits becomes everything about the game, even more so than the level/threat design, and I find that annoying.
...
One big strenght of many of the Cave shooters is that they give you a natural response feeling from your hands back to your brain, the ship and the trigger are frigging extensions of your body, and although they often push this a bit too far with the weaponry you have to admit it is kind of heady and arcade~ey.

I fear that this may sound like a cop out, but what we may have hear is a simple difference of taste. As evidenced by the fact that you just called Dragon Blaze "annoying" which is to me one of the greatest shmups ever made on a mechanical basis.

But it does need to be said. A game that puts emphasis on mastering a character rather than stages isn't inherently better or worse, and "feeling" or response is not necessarily better if it's instantaneous (I don't know if you play fighting games but sometimes the slowest attacks are the most brutally satisfying). This is not a personal opinion on my part: just looking at the history of the genre and all the extremely popular and succesfull shooters that have made use of charge mechanics, delayed bombs, or other similar mechanics and gimmmicks to great effect is proof that something like Mars Matrix or Dragon Blaze aren't party to some kind of "wrong" school of game design. Instant response may have "happened for a reason" but other styles happened for a reason too.

Myself, I actually prefer when mastering a character and learning to make them an extention of yourself is the core challenge. I feel it's a more "characterful" style of gameplay that emphasizes the characters and world more (along with whatever makes them unique). But that's just me. There are many tastes and styles in this genre, and they exist precisely because individual tastes and need vary so greatly.

Maybe you've noticed that I have a rather personal definition of shmups, that there are fundamental 'rules' that define the genre and whether you go formulaic or original, you shouldn't deviate too much at all, and never violate any

Regardless, there are multitudes of styles that exist well within those "rules", that have been acknowleged by the community from the beginning. Konami, Irem, Psikyo, Raizing, Cave, etc. etc. all have very tangibly different play styles that are not all drawn from the same rule book. Many of the design philosophies behind these games are outright contradictory: I have a feeling "I think of STG's as combat simulators...I prefer random elements and reflexes over pattern memorization" Sotoyama Yuuichi of Raizing would ever abide by Psikyo's dance-like choreography, for example.

Myself, my feelings on the "rules" are that they are not inviolate but simply determinants on what genre a game ultimately falls into. Euroshmups aren't inherently bad, for instance, they just do not qualify as arcade STG's and thus are powerless to reach out to or speak to fans of that genre. Even in that example, there is wiggle room: Ginga Force is essentially a Euroshmup but has been near universally well received here.

[Shepardus]

There are really no absolutes when it comes to these sorts of things: you can really make a game with any kind of playstyle or combination of playstyles you can think of, and make it work. You may just have to sacrifice other aspects and appeals along the way.

That's what I mean - if you're going to add more emphasis to the shooting, then something's going to need to give way to make up for it. Even if your dodging isn't less involved on an absolute scale, it becomes relatively less of a focus, which would be unwelcome to dodging purists. CAVE-style shot/laser makes shooting more thoughtful, yes, but it also means that it's less "pure dodging" than it would be if there were simply no shooting. If you wanted to expand on the shot mechanics it would push the game further in that direction. It gets muddled by the fact that the shot/laser system is also unfocused/focused movement so it plays into both shooting and dodging, which either makes the game more demanding overall (since it adds nuance to both shooting and dodging) or less so (since you're already giving some heed to shooting simply by focusing/unfocusing your movement), I'm not sure which.

Basically if you make more unique shooting/ship mechanics and make them actually important to gameplay, it's going to conflict with the interests of those who came to the genre because they wanted to dodge stuff and nothing else. Such people exist (see any pacifism attempt or demands to not use shield mechanics in a game built around a shield mechanic) and I don't know the exact numbers but I suspect it's significant. That shouldn't stop you from trying it out, of course, but it's something you should be mindful of.

[Squire Grooktook]

That's what I mean - if you're going to add more emphasis to the shooting, then something's going to need to give way to make up for it...

This is true. The mistake here is assuming that dodging is the thing that needs to give. Which is not nessicarily true. Another aspect of the formula could be the thing that is de-emphasized.

That being said...

absolute vs relative perception of dodging

uhhhh...this is getting a bit too complicated. Let's reel it back.

Lasering something or charging the roll shot just isn't complex enough of an action to overcomplicate and thus detract from the dodging. At most, these element might add an extra element of finesse to the action, but neither are in a position to diminish the other. They would need to actively interfere with eachother in order to do that.

For an example of something that does change the dodging playbook, Guwange's familiar does make you move and dodge completely differently due to the way it affects both player movement, input, and bullet physics. Even then, dodging whilst chaining is still the meat of the game like any other Cave game, it's just populated by more finesse driven cancels of a different style.

It gets muddled by the fact that the shot/laser system is also unfocused/focused movement

Just add a touhou focus button for slow movement and detach shot/laser from speed if you want.

But you don't need to do that: because cave games are designed in a way where "something else gives". That is to say: the way Ikeda likes his patterns, you don't do macro dodging much vs big targets who need to be laser'd, and you do much of your speedy macro dodging vs swarms. As Xyga correctly points out, Cave's basic controls were masterful in terms of being intuitive, almost to the point of subconscious action. Even if shooting had deeper elements to it.

Something gives, but it's not dodging or shooting. It's an aspect of level design that conforms to the needs of both.




***



Anyway, sorry if I went overboard there. I don't mean to sound pretentious or forceful in motor-mouthing responses. These are just my feelings on the matter. I don't want to sound like I'm trying to diminish anyone else's.

[Xyga]

@Squire: Lol I think I wasn't able to tell my thoughts clearly because you read too much in my post.

Actually I'm completely talking about very specific details, not judging the whole games, really.
I've never condemned MM system nor said DB is annoying, I'm taking precise exemple of gameplay and behavioural bits of those.

As for the 'rules' I'm talking about they're things like avoiding floaty controls, bad visibility, enemies with too much HP, too speedy backrougnd, scrolling, etc...
(I've mentioned that in other threads, I should have repeated here)
If you look at all the popular shmups, they're all pretty tightly made, not free from the little flaws I've mentioned though because perfect games don't really exist.

Games I really judge badly are those that go too far in one particular area or more, I said Gun & Frontier, well, there's no freaking way this game is about anything else other than fighting the excruciatingly sluggish and underpowered thing you're flying, whatever time you'll spend on it to beat the game I wouldn't call learning or mastering, it's overcoming a bad balance choice the devs have made period.

PS: you're right taste matters, but we can be objective also, some design choices simply suck...

[Squire Grooktook]

Fair enough, fair enough ^_^

I do have a tendency to over-analyze things people say. My apologies.

[Xyga]

hey do you know what i've nicknamed dragon blaze ?

Spoiler

dragon whack-a-mole

[Squire Grooktook]

Triggered

[trap15]

I said Gun & Frontier, well, there's no freaking way this game is about anything else other than fighting the excruciatingly sluggish and underpowered thing you're flying, whatever time you'll spend on it to beat the game I wouldn't call learning or mastering, it's overcoming a bad balance choice the devs have made period.

Wrong, learn to play scrub. Get good.

[Jeneki]

I rate this thread jack 10 Trousers out of 10 Planks.

[Xyga]

I said Gun & Frontier, well, there's no freaking way this game is about anything else other than fighting the excruciatingly sluggish and underpowered thing you're flying, whatever time you'll spend on it to beat the game I wouldn't call learning or mastering, it's overcoming a bad balance choice the devs have made period.

Wrong, learn to play scrub. Get good.

Nope, wrong you. I know you have a masochistic penchant for irritating, frugal, even ascetic games like that, but because you enjoy the excruciating kind of challenge doesn't mean the game's good.
I'll say it again G&F's challenge massively amounts to one thing: slow ship with weak gun period. Aaaaaand as a result high-HP enemies are a thing too, all that may work in better-balanced games of the era like Raiden but not there, it's leaning too far on the ballsbreaking formula side.

[Sumez]

Option 2 is risky. You're swimming in uncharted waters. No one's going to help you but you. You might fail. You might make ten crappy games before you figure out how to make your game work. But that's art. If you really want to be creative, that's the struggle you have to face. It's the same struggle all the aspiring creators before you faced.

I guess this is going pretty heavily off-topic (but I think we are already?), but while I agree about your two points, there's one thing I find interesting. How often have we seen games with unique and original mechanics that "didn't get it right" the first time, but managed to perfect it in later incarnations?
Curiously, most examples I can think of with memorable games that did something different, even going back to the earliest arcade games, those games typically got it right the first time. Conversely, original games that just didn't work, would usually be cursed to repeat the same mistakes or at least fail to really correct their issues in eventual sequels or revisions.

Every once in a while though, you do see games that take up failed concepts from completely different titles and developers, tweak them, and "do it right". One of the more effective examples I've seen in recent times is the whole sword-and-shield style combat with a stamina bar, that was attempted by a million different action RPGs and beat'em up games until Demon's Souls suddenly showed the world that this COULD be done without resorting to horrible hack'n'slash and repetitive stab/retreat gameplay, balanced only by a plethora of healing potions and quicksaves...

That's what Early Access and games as a service is for.

The only thing Early Access is for, is generating revenue for developers without the need to finish making anything. People are paying to beta test your product, or even alpha. It's a horrible concept.

[Zen]

I guess this is going pretty heavily off-topic (but I think we are already?), but while I agree about your two points, there's one thing I find interesting. How often have we seen games with unique and original mechanics that "didn't get it right" the first time, but managed to perfect it in later incarnations?
Curiously, most examples I can think of with memorable games that did something different, even going back to the earliest arcade games, those games typically got it right the first time. Conversely, original games that just didn't work, would usually be cursed to repeat the same mistakes or at least fail to really correct their issues in eventual sequels or revisions.

Now were talking. When the design/idea/feel is good, its a winner from the get go. When its not . . . fucking dump it. Anyone who has spent any degree of time "creating" knows this brutal truth.

Fair enough, fair enough ^_^

I do have a tendency to over-analyze things people say. My apologies.

Fuck that! Cant have too much analysis or new ideas. However its always worth keeping an eye on whether one is trying to reinvent the wheel. There is a reason this design has changed little since the 18th century;

Spoiler

Which brings us to the central point as far as I see it;

One big strenght of many of the Cave shooters is that they give you a natural response feeling from your hands back to your brain, the ship and the trigger are frigging extensions of your body, and although they often push this a bit too far with the weaponry you have to admit it is kind of heady and arcade~ey.

I think Xyga's point about feel can not be overstated. I would add to this that the overall design and play dynamic must also "feel right". When it works, it works. When it does not, it should be obvious.
Then again, there is no accounting for taste

[Shepardus]

The first Touhou shooter (Story of Eastern Wonderland) was pretty terrible if you ask me, but I'm glad ZUN didn't just dump the series there. Same goes for Monster Hunter. And numerous other series that have improved with their sequels.

[Zen]

The first Touhou shooter (Story of Eastern Wonderland) was pretty terrible if you ask me, but I'm glad ZUN didn't just dump the series there. Same goes for Monster Hunter. And numerous other series that have improved with their sequels.

Have not played the game but improvements ZUN made in design and the enormous jump in available tech between 1996 and say decade later, is not really what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lies of Sine Mora.
Monster Hunter, I cant comment on as I have not played it.
Anything can be improved on. Even a bad idea. My point is why waste time bettering a dud, when you could be working on a winner. If every games designer that is currently working on an ill conceived game, put hope and faith in your ZUN example they have got a fucking rude awakening coming

[Special World]

Not to distract you all from your in-depth threadjack but I would just like to state for posterity that I play Mars Matrix on Dreamcast and I am not sure I could enjoy one-button arcade controls and also I do not enjoy Giga Wing 2 on really any level.

I'm going to disagree with the "if you re-emphasize shooting then something's gonna have to give." I don't see why that has to be the case at all. Yes, there will be different aspects of the game vying for player attention, but depending on how simple or complex the game is, that may not actually lessen the impact of one aspect. For example, if I have a rhythm game where you just press A, well, that's probably quite boring. But if I make it so you also need to press B, that is maybe detracting from the amount of time I press A, but it actually is giving *meaning* to pressing A (and also B).

So if we have "dodging purists" who only like dodging, we have to wonder why they're even playing shooting games at all. Why hasn't there evolved a whole genre of dodge-em-ups? Surely these people would think, "wow, this market is really saturated with shooting! Just let me dodge!" I think dodging games would be a perfectly viable genre, personally.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is TKKN, which is fun in its own right. And you can also play Ikaruga this way if you really want. But it would be pretty cool to have a structured shmup that *only* focused on dodging and de-emphasized player power in a very stylized pacifist way, or maybe a competitive and semi-randomized 4-player survival dodge-em-up, or something of that sort. And then maybe if that worked out, the subgenre could develop its own dodging systems that took the place of shooting. I really think that's something to explore. I really thing there's something in that.

[CloudyMusic]

So if we have "dodging purists" who only like dodging, we have to wonder why they're even playing shooting games at all. Why hasn't there evolved a whole genre of dodge-em-ups? Surely these people would think, "wow, this market is really saturated with shooting! Just let me dodge!" I think dodging games would be a perfectly viable genre, personally.

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is TKKN, which is fun in its own right. And you can also play Ikaruga this way if you really want. But it would be pretty cool to have a structured shmup that *only* focused on dodging and de-emphasized player power in a very stylized pacifist way, or maybe a competitive and semi-randomized 4-player survival dodge-em-up, or something of that sort. And then maybe if that worked out, the subgenre could develop its own dodging systems that took the place of shooting. I really think that's something to explore. I really thing there's something in that.

There are at least the Touhou photo games, which are cool.

[Jeneki]

So if we have "dodging purists" who only like dodging, we have to wonder why they're even playing shooting games at all. Why hasn't there evolved a whole genre of dodge-em-ups? Surely these people would think, "wow, this market is really saturated with shooting! Just let me dodge!" I think dodging games would be a perfectly viable genre, personally.

I browse the full new games section almost every day on Steam (mostly for laughs). The genre you described is not all that uncommon in indie games.

[Zen]

Why hasn't there evolved a whole genre of dodge-em-ups?

There has been said evolution. Goddamnit, I already told you! Its called a Driving Game

[Squire Grooktook]

Perfect World I'll read your post later, just wanted to respond to two points real quick:

I guess this is going pretty heavily off-topic (but I think we are already?), but while I agree about your two points, there's one thing I find interesting. How often have we seen games with unique and original mechanics that "didn't get it right" the first time, but managed to perfect it in later incarnations?
Curiously, most examples I can think of with memorable games that did something different, even going back to the earliest arcade games, those games typically got it right the first time. Conversely, original games that just didn't work, would usually be cursed to repeat the same mistakes or at least fail to really correct their issues in eventual sequels or revisions.

Now were talking. When the design/idea/feel is good, its a winner from the get go. When its not . . . fucking dump it. Anyone who has spent any degree of time "creating" knows this brutal truth.

True, but there's more to the make up and structure of a good game then simply what "feels" good on a base level. You also have to build a game around that base with levels, scoring mechanics, bosses, etc. Things which work on a moment to moment basis can still crash and burn on other fronts. Which brings me to my rebuttal:

I guess this is going pretty heavily off-topic (but I think we are already?), but while I agree about your two points, there's one thing I find interesting. How often have we seen games with unique and original mechanics that "didn't get it right" the first time, but managed to perfect it in later incarnations?

The most obvious and consistent example are fighting games. That genre is plagued with numerous well respected franchises for which early installments would ultimately be crippled by character imbalances, infinites, glitches, and exploits discovered after release, prompting sequels and revisions to amend these issues.

And these are not even games that were rushed: I've seen titles that took excruciatingly long in the feedback/testing department and still had lots of problems post-release. Inevitably, the designers would always admit that no matter how much they thought they knew when they started, they had to learn so much more to complete the original vision.


Also Donpachi sucked. Look no further than the codifier of the danmaku genre~

[trap15]

Fuck you DonPachi is great. If you think it sucks, you really don't know what a sucky shooter is.