sorry for the resurected topic,I thought I'd add some more
Too much anime in game either design or artwork etc
Character shooters - I just cant take them seriously for some reason
CG Shooters - I just dont like the medium at all *It worked for donkey in my eyes, but not for shooters* IMO
I rather the traditional settings e.g space/sci fi than medievil etc era's
What you dont particualy like in shooters
The main issue I have with rank systems as in a Raizing game isn’t really an issue with the system itself but rather how it is implemented and introduced to the player. I really don’t care if a shmup goes against some silly traditional notion of “shmupping instinct” (the idea of using “lives” not just as a tally for survival but dynamically as a way to “gamble” with the game is possibly fascinating and opens up other opportunities), but it’s going to have to be introduced to me in an intuitive, logical way if I’m to appreciate it and not get confused. Instead of having to learn the ranking system from a fan manual, friend, or some other secondary source, the learning itself should be built into the game intrinsically, in a non-arbitrary fashion. As people that enjoy Raizing shmups have said, a lot of it comes down to heavy experimentation on the player’s part. But what kind of experimentation? To me, it seems arbitrary- you just toil away at it until it clicks or you make some realization of what’s going on. That or you read up about it in some guide. Even if it is a theoretically well-designed system, it is positioned on a level that does not make it feel initially accessible. This is probably one of the reasons it can feel overly complex and arcane to some players.
I don’t think it has to be this way. By changing and adjusting various elements of the game, I think the rank systems could become more initially understandable, built more immediately into the logic of the game world. In a sense, it really comes down to rules. A game shouldn’t just know its rules, but it needs to have a way to intuitively convey those rules to the player. Ikaruga is a perfect example. Within the first 25 or so seconds, virtually every key component of the game is introduced. Now, as said, there’s going to be a lot of experimentation involved to become successful at its system. But what’s key is it works as an extrapolation of those initial rules. The player is shown what is possible right away. And then everything beyond that- no matter how demanding or nightmarish it may seem- is built off of those basic building blocks. This justifies the system, making it appear fair and approachable- even elegant.
I don’t see this mentality in a Raizing rank system. To a point, once you figure out the system, you’ll be able to exploit and develop it, and then things might begin to take on a more logical, natural flow. But the “jump” to that level simply seems too abstracted. I can’t say I’ve understood any Raizing system within its first stage, and because the rank might not be that noticeable for a few levels, the division is just widened. You could argue there’s a certain flexibility here in playing the game “normally”, though I’d say that’s too unfocused for a game where learning the system is so important for high scoring or a reasonable 1CC.
What a future game trying to implement a Raizing system (such as possibly Ibara) could do is just take the basic rules to the system and bring it down to a more accessible level that is understood very early in the proceedings of the game. If an aspect to the system revolves around suicides, then the game should have some way of encouraging or showing the player that this is what should be done. It shouldn’t have to be figured out by pure trial and error or looking it up in a guide. Other aspects of such a game could also compliment its system. Perhaps “lives” should be called something else by the game, or given a different counter or display- something to further suggest their real intention. The game’s theme and characterizations could also promote this. Perhaps it could revolve around a gambling/casino motif, maybe a daring and suicidal pilot. Something to further give the system some context and overall meaning, rather than just crashing war planes into bullets because “that’s how you make it easier”.
With all that in mind, then, I suppose you could guess what I don't particularly like in shooters.
I don’t think it has to be this way. By changing and adjusting various elements of the game, I think the rank systems could become more initially understandable, built more immediately into the logic of the game world. In a sense, it really comes down to rules. A game shouldn’t just know its rules, but it needs to have a way to intuitively convey those rules to the player. Ikaruga is a perfect example. Within the first 25 or so seconds, virtually every key component of the game is introduced. Now, as said, there’s going to be a lot of experimentation involved to become successful at its system. But what’s key is it works as an extrapolation of those initial rules. The player is shown what is possible right away. And then everything beyond that- no matter how demanding or nightmarish it may seem- is built off of those basic building blocks. This justifies the system, making it appear fair and approachable- even elegant.
I don’t see this mentality in a Raizing rank system. To a point, once you figure out the system, you’ll be able to exploit and develop it, and then things might begin to take on a more logical, natural flow. But the “jump” to that level simply seems too abstracted. I can’t say I’ve understood any Raizing system within its first stage, and because the rank might not be that noticeable for a few levels, the division is just widened. You could argue there’s a certain flexibility here in playing the game “normally”, though I’d say that’s too unfocused for a game where learning the system is so important for high scoring or a reasonable 1CC.
What a future game trying to implement a Raizing system (such as possibly Ibara) could do is just take the basic rules to the system and bring it down to a more accessible level that is understood very early in the proceedings of the game. If an aspect to the system revolves around suicides, then the game should have some way of encouraging or showing the player that this is what should be done. It shouldn’t have to be figured out by pure trial and error or looking it up in a guide. Other aspects of such a game could also compliment its system. Perhaps “lives” should be called something else by the game, or given a different counter or display- something to further suggest their real intention. The game’s theme and characterizations could also promote this. Perhaps it could revolve around a gambling/casino motif, maybe a daring and suicidal pilot. Something to further give the system some context and overall meaning, rather than just crashing war planes into bullets because “that’s how you make it easier”.
With all that in mind, then, I suppose you could guess what I don't particularly like in shooters.