Shmups suck according to mainstream reviewers

[neorichieb1971]

I am both a shmupper and a casual gamer. Just because people here build walls between the two doesn't mean I won't jump them from time to time.

Mind you, i'm not that casual. Ico team, God of war, MGS and the oddball game here and there is where I want 3D power to go. Thats another script though.

[-Bridget-]

I am quickly becoming fans of kengou & FrederikJurk due to this thread. You guys are on the mark.

Arent they though?

Kengou, I went and read that post you made in your blog, of course.

You already know MY stance on this particular subject, of course, from hearing me rant about it 20,000 times, but I'll say it again here in this topic anyway.

Of course I agree with the whole thing.

The problem as I see it?

Alot of gamers here in the states are a little lazy.

Now, first of all, let me get one thing straight:

I am not against casual gamers, and definitely not against casual games. There's some "casual" games out there that I really like.... like Switchball, an excellent.... if a bit short.... physics-based Marble-Madness style puzzle game (which, of course, hates me), or the absolute masterpiece that is Puzzle Quest. Actually, the "casual" tag on some of these games bugs the hell outta me, because it implies that what's in the game isnt gonna be so great, when some of them really can be.

And as for casual GAMERS, well..... Hmm, maybe they just arent into it as much as most of us here on this board obviously are.

And that's fine, really.

But I dont think it's the casual gamers that are the real problem here.....

It's the ones that really ARE full gamers...... that are usually the ones doing the whining about things being too hard.

And it's not that they dont have the POTENTIAL to play at a higher level.... it's almost moreso that they just refuse to learn how. They refuse to practice, they refuse to improve themselves.

Cause, lets face it.... NOT working hard, is easier than working hard, eh? Which seems to me to often be the mentality around here.

Someone I know is a great example..... Shares alot of the same interests in genre as I do, plays games even MORE than I do (which around here is an accomplishment), and unlike me, can usually take a new game, and fully play through it.... usually doing 100% of everything in it.... BEFORE moving to the next game (whereas I'll often start one, and then get distracted by a different, new shiny game that I see somewhere).

But while he always gets a kick outta watching me play shmups like Mushihime, and actually UNDERSTANDS the real point of the genre, and how it's meant to be played, he usually wont wanna try them......

.....because they're too hard.

They're so daunting, they tend to just push away new players like that.

Unfortunately, today's games are different than what they were back in the arcade or NES days. Back in the days of the NES, when you ran out of lives, sure, you could continue in most games if you wanted. BUT. Most games limited you to about 3 continues, and there was often a penalty for doing it (like being pushed back a bunch, and having to redo certain things from some checkpoint). And when you ran out of continues? That was it; you were screwed, total game over.

And of course there were those games that never offered the chance to continue, period.

Or arcade games, where you got one set of lives, and the difficulty would just keep going up.... and up.... and up..... until you finally lost, and that was the end of it. Or even examples like Robotron, which was designed to beat the tar outta players so fast, the average game for most lasted about 5 minutes, if that.

But we dont get those nowadays (as often). Players nowadays are used to stuff like infinite continues, endless chances, a bazillionty save points. Hell, look at the "Lego" series of games.... great games, yes, but YOU CANT ACTUALLY DIE IN THEM. That..... is just something that would never have happened in older games.

So these players, who are used to games that are sometimes a bit easy to start with, AND offer endless chances to undo what you just screwed up, well, they take one look at most shmups, and what do they see? Well, lets look at Mushihime. The average gamer, ones that I might show the game to, when explaining the types of games I like, they'll look at it, and the one line I hear MOST often is:

"I cant even tell what's going on".

They look at it, even like, the level 1 boss maybe, and what they basically see is a wall of purple crap. They wonder.... how the hell does anyone dodge that? And then.... there's no way I could do it.

And so they dont bother to try and learn.

That might actually be a problem with the genre, now that I think about it.... there really arent any good, like, stepping stones into it. You dont have some easier shmups that you might be able to learn on before getting into the tougher waters.... instead, it starts at "super hard", and jumps up to "totally insane".

Giga Wing was my first real introduction into the genre as it is today. And that game initially stomped my ass into the dirt so many times I've lost count. Nowadays, I can beat the whole thing possibly without dying once if I really tried, maybe without bombing, but it took a long time to get there.

So that's another problem they might see, that just makes them even LESS likely to TRY.

And so,

These reviewers take a game like this, and..... well, simply put, because they wanna make sure their magazine sells as well as it can, and appeals to as many customers as possible, what they're gonna do, is basicaly look at every game, from a "mainstream" point of view. They'll look at it in the way that your average Halo fan might look at it. They'll compare it to other games on the market...... that arent even similar..... and review it based on that. How many stages does it have? How many unlockables? How good are the graphics? Is it too much for a new player, that it might get frustrating?


We can blame reviewers all we want, but lets face it.... they hire people to review in that way because that style is what'll get to most "normal" gamers (not counting casual ones).

Not necessarily the reviewers fault..... in my view, it's moreso the fault of the generally whiny and lazy community over here.

As an MMO veteran, I can honestly say I've seen *rediculous* amounts of whining, on every idiotic and stupid topic imagineable. Ours is a gaming community that has MASTERED the art of complaining.

All of this is what makes up the reviews that we eventually get. This is why this kind of crap happens.

And this isnt the only genre.... I look over to Roguelikes, like Shiren, Baroque, and similar games.... as well. Those come out, and same damn thing usually: "ZOMG, too hard, bad graphics, TOO HARD, and why cant I dual-wield pistols?". Even if they are absolutely excellent games, like Baroque (which is one of my personal favorite games of all time PERIOD, yet it got BAD reviews, as that genre seems to tend to).

I get just as irritable as Kengou about this whole topic, which of course makes me ramble on and on like this.....

But I just thought I'd express my opinion and thoughts on this matter.

It'd be really, really nice to see more reviewers that understand these things.... and it's not that there ARENT any.... I know of a few in the EGM crew, for example, that actually DO understand (though they're still forced to point out when a game wont be liked by the mainstream). But they're few and far between.

Sadly though, I dont think this is an aspect that's changing anytime soon. Until gamers get less damn lazy, this is gonna be how things are.



One more thing though:

Maybe what the genre needs, is a slightly different approach than usual.

Two games I wanna point out: Geometry Wars Galaxies, and Blast Works. Both sell really well. Galaxies is every bit as hard as so many other shmups.... hell, that game, in many of it's levels, can reach a level of insanity that even Cave might have a hard time matching (while still being technically entirely fair). And Blast Works has difficulty too..... danged if I cant beat that freaking 4th campaign from hell on Ace difficulty (AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH).

So they're both games with some real difficulty, sometimes entering the "insane" levels that Cave often manages. Yet they sell well. They get good reviews.

Why is that?

Both of these games take a bit of a different approach. Galaxies has ALOT of levels to it.... and each one of them quite different. Not the usual 5 stages, it has some 60-ish levels, all of which are rather stand-alone and have their own seperate scoreboards.

Blast Works, not only is it's main mode longer than that of most shmups (if you count each seperate level of the 5 campaigns, that's 15 full sized shmup levels, complete with bosses and minibosses), and then also offers the ability to build your own games with it.

AKA, they give you additional content, in addition to already great gameplay.

Maybe this type of thing should happen more, in order to sell these to newer players? I mean, reviewers loooooooved BOTH of these games (and they're both very difficult.....), yet they hate most other shmups....

Just a thought I had.



....Sorry, that was all very ranty, I'll shut up now, really......

[lewisit]

for your pleasure (and also for backing the topic-title) i roughly translated some paragraphs from a german book about videogames (Spass auf der Mattscheibe = "joy on the tv-screen") from 1983!

so these are/were the bad games:

Indeed most of the games today still are so called "Ballerspiele" (=Shmups) in a space-setting in which the main goal is to constantly push the fire-button and to eliminate abstract green, red or yellow objects - admittedly a mostly unimaginative reaction-training that only in a few exceptional cases can fascinate over a longer period.

thankfully salvation was aproaching:

But a new trend is making it's way to finally enchant the screen with joy: adventuregames, puzzlegames, amazing sportsimulations and fantasygames are more-and-more on the rise.

see - it has always been that way

[spadgy]

As I read all these very interesting posts, I'm starting to think that perhaps the misunderstanding of our genre in the mainstream press is not just a sign of the health of shmups, but of video games as a whole.

I'm certainly not the only person ever (I hope) to have dreamed of games becoming much like modern music.

Music enjoys genres, scenes and coverage of all different kinds. Tiny garage punk bands, internet radio stations, international superstars, bedroom chiptunes guys, clubs, raves in fields, national radio stations, classical music, opera, DJ sets, grind core, tribal music played live at ceremonies. Diversity is fundemental to musics' universal appeal, and as a result there's no way one type of mainstream mag/paper/website could hope to cover it all and please everybody.

Maybe, just maybe, the fact that mainstream reviewers get it so wrong is something to be pleased with, and not just because it marks us out as some renegade niche. Rather, it's a sign gaming has grown, flourished and diversified beyond the view of its observers, and it's time that the press did the same.

Maybe soon we'll see informed genre-specific mags, and ultra-specialist but large scale websites....

[Jockel]

grind core

Love it.
Sry for being OT. ^^

[kengou]

As I read all these very interesting posts, I'm starting to think that perhaps the misunderstanding of our genre in the mainstream press is not just a sign of the health of shmups, but of video games as a whole.

I'm certainly not the only person ever (I hope) to have dreamed of games becoming much like modern music.

Music enjoys genres, scenes and coverage of all different kinds. Tiny garage punk bands, internet radio stations, international superstars, bedroom chiptunes guys, clubs, raves in fields, national radio stations, classical music, opera, DJ sets, grind core, tribal music played live at ceremonies. Diversity is fundemental to musics' universal appeal, and as a result there's no way one type of mainstream mag/paper/website could hope to cover it all and please everybody.

Maybe, just maybe, the fact that mainstream reviewers get it so wrong is something to be pleased with, and not just because it marks us out as some renegade niche. Rather, it's a sign gaming has grown, flourished and diversified beyond the view of its observers, and it's time that the press did the same.

Maybe soon we'll see informed genre-specific mags, and ultra-specialist but large scale websites....

Like... a forum that caters specifically to Shmups? Yeah, that would be pretty cool I guess. Let's make it happen, people! We can do it!

[spadgy]

Like... a forum that caters specifically to Shmups? Yeah, that would be pretty cool I guess. Let's make it happen, people! We can do it!

Alright, alright! I see where you're coming from - but you might notice that when it comes to music, and film, there are print mags on high street stores' shelves that cater for specific genres. And there are pretty big websites doing the same, not just niche forums...

To a certain extent, you rightly picked on one side of my argument, but the bit I want to emphasise more is that misunderstandings in the mainstream press about shmups might be an encourgaing sign that gaming is far outgrowing the constrained perspective of the said press...

Or maybe I'm just plain old-fashioned wrong!

[DEL]

kengou wrote;

In an arcade, where the games make money for each credit, continuing makes sense.

^Not quite true.
Its my opinion that paying for credits in an arcade actually helps force you to play them in the correct way.ie. No continuing.
When I started playing shoot'em ups in the arcades in the 80s I didn't have much money, so it was an absolute necessity to play for as long as I could on 1 credit.

----------------
People have also mentioned that most gamers get scared off by the difficulty of shooters. I find it amusing but it is true. I've had Ketsui and Ibara installed in our local arcade and they scare the local fighter players to pieces . So if recent shooters do this to seasoned fighter players, then I guess the general (western) public will run away screaming.

As for modern game magazine reviewers, hardly any have shown that they understand the concept of the genre. Except GamesTM. Edge just seem to cover up the fact with verbosity.

[kengou]

kengou wrote;

In an arcade, where the games make money for each credit, continuing makes sense.

^Not quite true.
Its my opinion that paying for credits in an arcade actually helps force you to play them in the correct way.ie. No continuing.
When I started playing shoot'em ups in the arcades in the 80s I didn't have much money, so it was an absolute necessity to play for as long as I could on 1 credit.

----------------
People have also mentioned that most gamers get scared off by the difficulty of shooters. I find it amusing but it is true. I've had Ketsui and Ibara installed in our local arcade and they scare the local fighter players to pieces . So if recent shooters do this to seasoned fighter players, then I guess the general (western) public will run away screaming.

As for modern game magazine reviewers, hardly any have shown that they understand the concept of the genre. Except GamesTM. Edge just seem to cover up the fact with verbosity.

Oh, I agree with you, so maybe I phrased it wrong. What I meant was that in arcades where each continue costs money, it is in the best interest of the arcade operators to allow gamers to continue if they want. Imagine how much less money they would have if arcade games didn't have continues? I know that often when I was playing in an arcade and I got a premature game over, I sometimes stuck in more credits and kept playing just because I was having fun. I haven't been to an arcade in a long while, though, and nowadays now that I'm more into shmups I doubt I would continue, but back then I did, and I'm sure I wasn't the only one. Average arcade goers would be likely, at least some of the time, to insert credits to continue. If they had to restart the game from the beginning for EACH credit, they would be more likely to get frustrated and move to another game.

I hope that's more clear?

[PROMETHEUS]

I don't think STGs are much more difficult to play well than other genres, they simply lack accessibility by nature : no game has an extremely easy stage 1 that a beginner will kill without trouble, they'll die there if they have no experience. They don't put that kind of stage into STGs because they would bore to death the better players.

Other genres however feature much more accessible gameplay when you first try them. If you're going to start playing some RTS, you can always play the campaigns against the computer, with various difficulty modes... But when you're more serious about it you can go online and compete against good players, and then the difficulty is absolutely huge.

Most people just don't want to be confronted with something too hard from the get-go, and that's understandable I think.

[PROMETHEUS]

Average arcade goers would be likely, at least some of the time, to insert credits to continue.

Even the best japanese players do, according to interviews, so I guess almost everyone does from time to time :]

[DEL]

PROMETHEUS wrote;

Even the best japanese players do, according to interviews, so I guess almost everyone does from time to time :]

Credit feeding to learn the later patterns in a new game is a decent way of arcade practice, where you don't have replays, stage selects and save states.
At all other times, 1 credit should suffice.

kengou wrote;

I hope that's more clear?

Yes of course .

[kengou]

I don't think STGs are much more difficult to play well than other genres, they simply lack accessibility by nature : no game has an extremely easy stage 1 that a beginner will kill without trouble, they'll die there if they have no experience. They don't put that kind of stage into STGs because they would bore to death the better players.

Other genres however feature much more accessible gameplay when you first try them. If you're going to start playing some RTS, you can always play the campaigns against the computer, with various difficulty modes... But when you're more serious about it you can go online and compete against good players, and then the difficulty is absolutely huge.

Most people just don't want to be confronted with something too hard from the get-go, and that's understandable I think.

This is actually a good point. I tried introducing a friend to shmups last year. He saw me playing them all the time and thought they looked fun so he asked me for all my MAME roms to try out. I told him to start with Donpachi because it has a seriously easy first level (although it can get friggin' impossible later!). I thought it was impossible to die on the first level of that game. Well guess what, he got a game over before even hitting the boss. I think that's when he gave up.

So, um, I guess the lesson is don't underestimate how crappy people are at shmups? The first time I played Donpachi I'm pretty sure I beat level 1, and that was one of the first bullet-hell shmups I played.

P.S. seriously though, DP's stage 1 has like 5 enemies who all slowly float on screen and shoot one slow bullet at you before you hit the boss. The boss's patterns consist of like a wide set of slow bullets with massive gaps that repeat until you kill it. You pretty much have to try to fly into a bullet to die in that stage.

[moonblood]

Of course the industry doesn't want people to like things like shmups, they are offline games meant to be played over and over and they can literally last you hundreds of hours

They want you to buy their latest fantastic Fps/sports/racing/whatever game, 'finish' it, and then buy another one

That's the way it is today unfortunately, all business, very little passion

[320x240]

In addition to what has already been said, I want to add that what are now being defined as shmups are as stale, old fashioned and limited as the reviewers say. That there is 'much' development within these limits doesn't change this. Us fans, by our very strict definition of what a shmup actually is, contributes greatly to this staleness. One might say that to be classified as a real shmup a game has to have this staleness. A little more experimentation by the heavyhitters in the genre would be nice, but I'm not sure if us fans would support such experimentation.

[BIL]

In addition to what has already been said, I want to add that what are now being defined as shmups are as stale, old fashioned and limited as the reviewers say. That there is 'much' development within these limits doesn't change this. Us fans, by our very strict definition of what a shmup actually is, contributes greatly to this staleness. One might say that to be classified as a real shmup a game has to have this staleness. A little more experimentation by the heavyhitters in the genre would be nice, but I'm not sure if us fans would support such experimentation.

Reviewers, like the ones quoted in the OP's blog, consistently demonstrate an understanding of shooters' gameplay that has all the depth of an oil slick. I don't think I'm exaggerating to say Twin Cobra and Psyvariar 2 would be considered only mildly different games by their standards. Shooters are an old-fashioned genre in one sense, and that's a double-edged sword.

But the difference between "classic" and "stale" game design isn't even considered in reviews like these. As they seem to prove again and again, these reviewers are in no position to judge this genre's progression or depth. After all, you can beat both Flying Shark and Ikaruga in 30 minutes of blowing stuff up and continuing, what's the difference? You'll be done with both in a weekend.

[FIL]

The problem is they compare them on their basic shooting mechanic. Left, Right, Up, Down, Fire, Bomb, all shooters are the same by that measure.

[iatneH]

Preaching the proper practice of shooters is like, to use a Chinese idiom, "playing piano to a cow". To go several steps further, trying to force one's own religion down someone else's throat.

We enjoy them, shouldn't that be good enough? The genuinely curious naifs will discover shooters on their own; nobody showed me, nobody told me how I was supposed to play. And isn't that better to have a fanbase who truly love the genre and appreciate its every nuance?

Personally I don't think I would mind if the genre dies and no more new shooters are made starting today, and I have to thank the old devs for creating such long-lasting games based on mastery of skill.

Even after selling over half my collection, I have dozens of shooters that I have yet to master. I could spend the rest of my life playing what I have already accumulated, and probably only master a small fraction of them.

[kengou]

And what if shmups became so popular that Cave began porting all their arcade games, and even original shmups, to consoles and releasing them all over the world? You wouldn't like to see that happen? (provided the shmups don't get dumbed down or made easier for the general audience)

[iatneH]

I don't think shooters will reach that level of popularity, not without the support of the mainstream gaming public. And I don't think the mainstream gaming public will enjoy shooters unless they are severely "dumbed down" as you put it. Shooters just don't possess the qualities that the majority of people these days enjoy, so if you want them to enjoy, you will have to put into the game the things that they like.

I'll return to my point (which I probably did not mention explicitly). I don't see how it is purely a good thing for the genre to have mainstream appeal.

[BIL]

I feel similarly. I don't think mainstream appeal is something shooters should pursue for its own sake. As Del said at the top of page 2, I would like the genre to survive, and for new shooters to keep being made (or at least, existing ones to continue receiving good ports). But if the genre can simply maintain that niche, subsistence level, I'll never complain. It's true, there are already more than enough shooters to last serious fans for years and years.

My only real issue with mainstream unpopularity of shooters is the often-accompanying ignorance towards them, which gets paraded as informed opinion (particularly in these reviews, but also seen among average gamers). It takes very little effort on my (or other shooter fans') part to point out, the old "short and easy" comments, et al, are garbage.

I don't want to force shooters or our conventions like 1CCs down anyone's throat, but I also think ignorance should be called for what it is. Within reasonable limits, of course... no point getting too worked up over what usually amounts to a demanding, unfashionable genre going over most peoples' heads.

[The Coop]

Regarding the idea of "mainstream" popularity, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, shmups were quite popular. The arcades and consoles of the time saw many releases, with plenty of classics coming from that influx. Then from 1993 to about 1998, the popularity began to wane considerably, and that's when we started seeing things like manic and bullet curtain shmups coming about (which seem to be far more popular in the genre around these parts). Since then, shmups have been sporadic in their appearance by comparison, and we've seen the occasional release (like Ikaruga) that really gave the genre a shot in the arm. Various companies have tried to keep the genre alive by spicing it up for the last 15 years, and look at what was spawned as they did so?

So what would happen if it did get popular again? Well, companies would likely start making games based off of what's popular out there now... namely, manic and bullet curtain. We'd see a big influx of varying quality titles within those areas, with more "old school" entries along the lines of Gradius V and R-Type Final as well. Traits would be borrowed, ideas would be tweaked, and concepts would be tried as companies fought for those gamer dollars. Eventually, the popularity would die off again, and... then what? The last time this happened, we saw the creation of a new breed of shmups... one that has brought various people to scoff at the shmups of old these days. Who's to say that this won't repeat itself, and result in yet another take on shmups? We went from "kill everything that moves", to "kill everything that moves and crank up your bonus/multiplier while dodging/scraping ungodly amounts of bullets". Who knows what the next step would be?

As such, I'd like to see shmups enter the realm of mainstream popularity again. I'd like to see the kind of regular release schedule that was around in the late 80s and early 90s, as companies continually pump out shmups. Some would be stale and dull, some would be interesting, and classics would be born on a more numerous scale as companies tried to be different from, or one up, their rivals... just like the old days. And then when the dust settles, and the best of what came to pass stands tall, where would the shmups world be? What would slowly follow for years to come? Frankly, I'm curious to find out.

[320x240]

But the difference between "classic" and "stale" game design isn't even considered in reviews like these. As they seem to prove again and again, these reviewers are in no position to judge this genre's progression or depth. After all, you can beat both Flying Shark and Ikaruga in 30 minutes of blowing stuff up and continuing, what's the difference? You'll be done with both in a weekend.

That's true of course. As a would be developer myself I know how easy it is to change the formula and fail and how hard it is to stay within the formula and succeed. Still, I can't help thinking that we, the fans, are part of the problem with mainstream reaction to shmups - by being as picky as we are. Just think of the scrutiny any new release are put under. Most people here don't even like shmups in general but only certain kinds.

Of course, if spadgy is right and the games industry are becoming like the music industry we only need to carry on as before and soon enough we will see a revival. I reckon shmups are the gaming equvivalent of 'unplugged'.

[320x240]

Regarding the idea of "mainstream" popularity, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, shmups were quite popular. The arcades and consoles of the time saw many releases, with plenty of classics coming from that influx. Then from 1993 to about 1998, the popularity began to wane considerably, and that's when we started seeing things like manic and bullet curtain shmups coming about (which seem to be far more popular in the genre around these parts).

It is a paradox that as popularity vained shmups as a whole became better. Better hardware where a part of that but also, I think, those few who still developed shmups did so as more of a labour of love than anything.

Looking back at the late 80's and early 90's, games where more daring in certain aspects (like presentation) but maybe not as recuringly good as they later became. What we have now is very formalistic but that is a sign of maturing I guess.

[DEL]

320x240 wrote;

Of course, if spadgy is right and the games industry are becoming like the music industry we only need to carry on as before and soon enough we will see a revival.

2D shoot'em ups are all but extinct.
They are not programmed by western companies and never were (a generalisation - some fairly unplayable ones have been).
Even in Japan there is only Cave with one guy from Raizing and less than a handful of other small teams of programmers.
A 'revival' like a music industry revival, would only be a brief retro look-back, then a return to 3D within a few months, and then it would only be of consequence if it were to happen in Japan.
Its not impossible, but I believe the general industry is conspiring against it. An inexorable move away from 2D.

I'll quote the programmer of Sim City; "I didn't want to make a stupid shooter".

[PC Engine Fan X!]

Regarding the idea of "mainstream" popularity, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, shmups were quite popular. The arcades and consoles of the time saw many releases, with plenty of classics coming from that influx. Then from 1993 to about 1998, the popularity began to wane considerably, and that's when we started seeing things like manic and bullet curtain shmups coming about (which seem to be far more popular in the genre around these parts). Since then, shmups have been sporadic in their appearance by comparison, and we've seen the occasional release (like Ikaruga) that really gave the genre a shot in the arm. Various companies have tried to keep the genre alive by spicing it up for the last 15 years, and look at what was spawned as they did so?

So what would happen if it did get popular again? Well, companies would likely start making games based off of what's popular out there now... namely, manic and bullet curtain. We'd see a big influx of varying quality titles within those areas, with more "old school" entries along the lines of Gradius V and R-Type Final as well. Traits would be borrowed, ideas would be tweaked, and concepts would be tried as companies fought for those gamer dollars. Eventually, the popularity would die off again, and... then what? The last time this happened, we saw the creation of a new breed of shmups... one that has brought various people to scoff at the shmups of old these days. Who's to say that this won't repeat itself, and result in yet another take on shmups? We went from "kill everything that moves", to "kill everything that moves and crank up your bonus/multiplier while dodging/scraping ungodly amounts of bullets". Who knows what the next step would be?

As such, I'd like to see shmups enter the realm of mainstream popularity again. I'd like to see the kind of regular release schedule that was around in the late 80s and early 90s, as companies continually pump out shmups. Some would be stale and dull, some would be interesting, and classics would be born on a more numerous scale as companies tried to be different from, or one up, their rivals... just like the old days. And then when the dust settles, and the best of what came to pass stands tall, where would the shmups world be? What would slowly follow for years to come? Frankly, I'm curious to find out.

For The Coop,

That is wishful thinking that such a resurrection of arcade shmups akin to the former glory days of the 1980s and 1990s would come back. It's better to appreciate with what is already out from a handful of arcade shmup game developers and will be coming out over the next few years considering that Cave still expresses a desire to keep making them (as long as they are profitable). When Cave makes it's final arcade shmup title, that will be the end of an era.

We all know that the "Golden Age" of shmups has come and gone never to be repeated ever again. If you feel like reliving it, take a time machine back to those eras (hint : Mame is great for such excursions) and you'll be just fine. ^_~

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[iatneH]

Regarding the idea of "mainstream" popularity, I don't see why that would be a bad thing. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, shmups were quite popular. The arcades and consoles of the time saw many releases, with plenty of classics coming from that influx. Then from 1993 to about 1998, the popularity began to wane considerably, and that's when we started seeing things like manic and bullet curtain shmups coming about (which seem to be far more popular in the genre around these parts). Since then, shmups have been sporadic in their appearance by comparison, and we've seen the occasional release (like Ikaruga) that really gave the genre a shot in the arm. Various companies have tried to keep the genre alive by spicing it up for the last 15 years, and look at what was spawned as they did so?

This is part of my argument. Just so you know I'm not trying to attack you, but I want to point out that you assume that the shooters as we know them today will be popular. Apologies if I have misinterpreted your words.

However, as we have already seen with mainstream gamers and reviews, the shooters as we know them today are not popular and will not reach mainstream popularity given the fancies of modern gamers.
So here is my opinionated prediction, that if "shooters" are to become popular again, the genre will in the process be so drastically altered from what we recognise and love today that it will be difficult for the purists to enjoy.

[RHE]

So here is my opinionated prediction, that if "shooters" are to become popular again, the genre will in the process be so drastically altered from what we recognise and love today that it will be difficult for the purists to enjoy.

How can a shooter change/alter drasticly? 2D shooters are mainly about shooting, dodging and optionally about scoring - that's puristic and nothing else. All that seems to be the main reasons why people play shooters and that didn't change with the beginng of this genre. A popular/mainstream shmup could of course differ from most Cave/Raizing/Treasure like shooters though, but I don't see how they can be that different to call them a completely different thing.

Personally think that a raise in popularity of Shoot' Em Up is a good thing because it allows the genre to be as it was, as it is and what it can be to the same time. Shooter aren't very unpopular anyway, it's just that they are too pricey, so they challenge with Halo 3 on the stores shelf.

Also, Ikaruga is a shmup as everybody here knows it and it is popular so that doesn't seem to be a problem.

[bitkid]

If you're hardcore enough to go into a nerd rage over shmup reviews

please see http://insomnia.ac

[kengou]

Ikaruga gets lip service. I always hear people saying how awesome it is. Then they sit down to play it, die on level 1, yell about how it's impossible but still awesome, and never play it again.

Or, they credit feed to the end (given enough time to unlock enough credits to do so) and say "there! I beat it!" and never play it again.

Don't get me wrong, I love Ikaruga, but it's one of those games that gamers love to praise to prove how hardcore they are even if they hardly ever play it or know how. I think everyone praised it primarily because it was one of the few major western shmup releases, with 3D graphics, outside of Gradius V and Raiden III. And those two aren't even that famous either. Ikaruga offered the fairly unique polarity mechanic which was very different from other shmups. I think Treasure did a great thing trying to innovate and I love that aspect of Ikaruga, but a lot of shmup fans didn't like the deviation from the norm.

Maybe this is what needs to happen, more shmups like Ikaruga that innovate more to be really noticed by mainstream gamers.