Discussing shooter elitism with Vintagevideogamegeek

[OdiousTrident]

Isn't there much more general elitism in the JRPG and certain MMO / PC scenes? I might be dating myself here.

[KAI]

elitism in the JRPG scene

You kidding?

[chempop]

If you aren't inserting one of these

before pressing one of these

then you probably shouldn't even be playing these games.

[DMC]

Nice, chempop! That should show 'em!

[BIL]

elitism in the JRPG scene

You kidding?

I can imagine. The most imperious asshole I ever encountered online was from the survival horror community, of all things. Great theorist and writer, but about as likeable as AIDS. People will make pedestals for themselves out of absolutely anything.

This place has always seemed ok to me. The DTP sagas are proof we at least suffer fools very lightly indeed.

FINAL JUDGEMENT

Preach it.

[gabe]

Relevant to this discussion: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

Icy Calm is a polarizing figure. Some would even call him an elitist. I don't give a shit about his standing in the community, but I think the above is a thought provoking piece.

[OdiousTrident]

elitism in the JRPG scene

You kidding?

A few years ago this was a widely discussed issue. There is an abnormally high jerk-ratio in pretty much any RPG fan circle compared to "simpler" genres. I thought this was common opinion? I'm talking about a few years ago here... seems like things have changed for the better.

A lot of RTS and survival horror enthusiasts are pretty maladjusted too. One might say that the wider video games "scene" was brimming with assholes online until recently. I thought shmup fans were some of the least elitist.

One broad group that always saw themselves as better were PC users that never touched consoles. Those guys are the worst.

[Kollision]

Relevant to this discussion: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

Icy Calm is a polarizing figure. Some would even call him an elitist. I don't give a shit about his standing in the community, but I think the above is a thought provoking piece.

Very good article, tks for sharing.

[futurematt5]

Relevant to this discussion: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

Icy Calm is a polarizing figure. Some would even call him an elitist. I don't give a shit about his standing in the community, but I think the above is a thought provoking piece.

Like Kollision said, excellent article, and thanks for sharing. Shouldn't that be pegged with other awesome links somewhere?

[PedroMD]

Relevant to this discussion: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

Icy Calm is a polarizing figure. Some would even call him an elitist. I don't give a shit about his standing in the community, but I think the above is a thought provoking piece.

This was an interesting read, but I would say this is an elitist attitude, yeah.
He makes a lot of fair points for why he thinks arcade games are superior and why he enjoys them, but the way he words it is juts wrong. For example:

Because an arcade is a magical place that can transform ignorant, whiny kids into fucking ninjas. It's just how it works: you walk in a trash-talking, limp-wristed, Final Fantasy-playing, useless idiot, and you walk out finally humble and respectful towards skill-based games and the players who take them on.

Not everyone who plays videogames plays for the thrill of a relentless test of skill. Some people genuinely enjoy the underlying number-crunching system in RPGs. Some people genuinely like the narrative in Final Fantasy games or the convoluted plot explained through 45-minute cutscenes in Metal Gear Solid. These aren't idiot, ignorant people being tricked by some media conspiracy into playing some shitty games, they are just playing what they like, and that's fine.
There is a lot of bullshit in the games industry nowadays, and his arguments are sound, but this attitude of "if you aren't playing the games I'm playing the way I'm playing, YOU ARE IGNORANT AND YOU ARE PLAYING WRONG" is the definition of elitism and doesn't help anyone.

[Jeneki]

its me i was the elitist all along ha ha ha

You showed me the right places to bomb in Battle Garegga a few years back. joo phail at elitism.

On topic, I don't see how "shooter elitism" is any different from entertainment as a whole. Try making a new account on a music forum to discuss your favorite metal band, or a firm forum to express your love for your favorite action movie.

[pestro87]

The greatest post ever

LOL, I want a t-shirt that has your post on it

I would better define an Shooter Elitist as someone who looks down on a Shooter Noob, such as myself, who "credit feeds" for the sheer fun of playing a shooter to the end (as I did with Cyvern).

The whole point of video games is to have fun imo. Glad to see that you joined the forum! Based on my experience, I'd say that most people on here are just guys who are passionate about the genre.

[DJ Incompetent]

In plain English, shooter elitism is the belief or attitude that people who play shooting games look down on everyone else because they believe their views or actions to be more constructive to society as a whole.

This is Sasuke / Ninja Warrior. This is one of the hardest known obstacle courses of all the obstacle courses.



Contenders get one attempt. Once they touch the water or run out of time, the attempt is over.
Sasuke is feared by contenders who understand and respect the rules.


This is Mushihimesama Futari Ultra Mode. This is one of the hardest known videogames of all the videogames.


Contenders get one credit. Once they lose all of their lives, the attempt is over.
Mushihimisama Futari Ultra is feared by contenders who understand and respect the (Ultra/God) rules.

-----------------------------------

Every single contender in Sasuke who falls in the water doesn't crawl through the water, climbs out, and continues the course. Why? There is an understanding of the rules.
No contender has snuck off without the cameras running, climbed a maintenance ladder to the top of Stage 4 tower of Madoriyama, and boasted to the public that they have cleared Sasuke. Why? There is respect for the rules.

Most players of Mushihimisama Futari Ultra use a Continue after they lose all their lives. Why? There is little understanding of the rules.
Most players credit feed to the end then write scathing reviews about how short or easy the challenge is or boast to have beaten the game. Why? There is no respect for the rules.

The perceived stigma of elitism amongst STG players is the ongoing result of clashing perspectives between players who understand and respect the rules of STGs and the players who do not understand or respect the rules.



The reasons STGs are discriminated against like this are twofold:
1. A lifetime of psychological conditioning that rules in computer software are only acknowledged by people from the limits enforced by the program itself, not by the discipline of the user.
2. A lifetime of total failure by developers to communicate the basic objective of any particular STG to the players.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

As a further to the above post, see this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_g4ATbJB2o

Essentially, he posted 3 full runs of the game (one for each character), but they're all listed as 'Walkthroughs' when the only skill displayed... is in pressing the start button to continue. Seriously.

There's nothing wrong with being a beginner, but there's a lot of very good, rewarding shmups out there. It's unfortunate to see so many credit feeding runs of arcade games that are actually quite fair and balanced when you put some effort into learning the game. This is probably due to a negative stigma surrounding shmups and arcade games in general as expecting you to credit feed to see the ending, which is only true of bad arcade games or arcade games that had their mechanics unfairly changed when they were ported for North America's arcades (usually by changing the health bar into a drains over time thing, or removing any extra lives).

2. A lifetime of total failure by developers to communicate the basic objective of any particular STG to the players.

Some developers did try to make it clear that beating the game on a single credit was the way to see the 'true ending', but unfortunately even those games weren't well received and the point was missed by reviewers. I remember seeing a review of Giga Wing complain about how easy it was to beat the game with infinite continues and how it only had 6 stages. It has 7 stages; to fight the TLB and get the good ending you need to 1CC the game up to that point. All the bad endings imply your character's dead.

Touhou tends to avoid this problem by making it quite clear in its bad endings that to see the good ending, you have to use no continues.

[Skykid]

Relevant to this discussion: http://insomnia.ac/commentary/arcade_culture/

Icy Calm is a polarizing figure. Some would even call him an elitist. I don't give a shit about his standing in the community, but I think the above is a thought provoking piece.

Like Kollision said, excellent article, and thanks for sharing. Shouldn't that be pegged with other awesome links somewhere?

It's bloody awful.

Quoting Baudrillard as a preface to an article on arcade games, stating arcade games are of a higher quality to console games as though it's fact, overusing the first person to the nth degree, swearing needlessly and throwing all objectionability out the window in favour of impressing a de-facto opinion; and all this in an 'essay' that lacks form, balance, editing, structure and any particular point amongst a mish-mash of self-important waffle.


Other than that it's not bad. :awe:

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Somehow I can't help but think icy was wearing a fedora and a scarf while writing that.

[blackoak]

Most players of Mushihimisama Futari Ultra use a Continue after they lose all their lives. Why? There is little understanding of the rules.
Most players credit feed to the end then write scathing reviews about how short or easy the challenge is or boast to have beaten the game. Why? There is no respect for the rules.

I think there's also a lot of general ignorance of those "rules", too. It might seem odd, but I had never heard of a 1cc before finding this forum (at the age of 29 no less). I thought beating Life Force with 29 lives was how you played the game, and no one ever told me otherwise. Obviously I was quickly disabused of this notion by coming here, but I suspect there's lots of people coming from a console background who are in that boat. Sadly they often write "reviews" too.

[Kollision]

It's a well writen article that gets the ideas through - if only veering into elitism yeah
Btw i have no clue about the guy's past quarrels here, nor want to

[HydrogLox]

Btw i have no clue about the guy's past quarrels here, nor want to

Commendable attitude but in the face of responses like this:

Like Kollision said, excellent article, and thanks for sharing. Shouldn't that be pegged with other awesome links somewhere?

it may be useful for those interested to get some background on why that article is a bit of a "hot potato" around here.

icycalm preaches to the choir (2007-Jul-08)

[Iori Branford]

The policing of each others' play, enforcing unprogrammed competition rules on everyone all the time, is a curious phenomenon for a usually single-player game type (where other players don't affect your play in any way), and especially in the face of DJI's two points:

1. A lifetime of psychological conditioning that rules in computer software are only acknowledged by people from the limits enforced by the program itself, not by the discipline of the user.

I sympathize, as a one-creditor myself, but this is more than conditioning; it is incontrovertible truth of nature. No matter your faith in humanity, or in your persuasive power, whatever's physically allowed will be done. Therefore I'm puzzled at how rarely the next point is acknowledged:

2. A lifetime of total failure by developers to communicate the basic objective of any particular STG to the players.

Developers being the very ones responsible for guiding players towards the most fun way to play. Players who wish to pick up the slack shall succeed only by physically disabling continues on the games they have, with in-game options if available, or with hacks if not.

[trap15]

Except it is communicated... in the arcades. A console STG doesn't communicate it, since you're not losing money with each credit.

[PedroMD]

Like blackoak, until I came here and learned from the community, I really thought beating Gradius V with 12 credits was a valid way to beat it. I "earned" the credits after some 9 hours of playtime, after all.
So I can see this communication failure. This issue would probably be non-existent if from the very beginning developers limited the games to one credit per run in console games. Lost all lives, game over, why don't you try hard? and back to the title screen. No miscommunication this way. On the other hand, I think this would have only made the genre even more unpopular then it already is. I believe I'm not the only one here that kept playing and credit feeding shmups because really liked the games, but found this forum, learned from other people, and since then have been making a conscious effort to get better and play the games how they are meant to be played. Community helps wonders. Not everyone had the chance to grow inside arcades, and, frankly, arcade rules only really work there.

I think developers should make it clear in their games that there is a better and more satisfying way to play than by credit feeding to the end, since the message is obviously not clear enough. But I think absolutely limiting credits would hurt more than help. Neo Contra did something interesting, if I remember correctly. It had something to do with the grades you got on the stages, but generally playing on Easy or continuing even once on Normal ended the game prematurely after 4 stages, with a screen telling the player the conditions to proceed. Even then, continuing in the later stages also ended the game This compartmentalized the challenge. You don't have to beat the whole game in one credit, initially, just that small portion; there is a clear wall and the conditions to surmount it. If the player won't create a ladder of progressing goals, the games should do it. Every other genre does it in one way or another, only shmups seem to be too attached to the arcade mentality. There are plenty of ways to present the unchanged game experience to veterans, while making it more friendly to, well, everybody else. Nor getting destroyed on stage 2 of a game and having it end on you with no more words than "game over", neither credit feeding to a hollow victory are the best ways to get started on a genre you could probably enjoy otherwise. Some people just need a little advice.

[casualcoder]

Elitism in and of itself is not a problem. I would like knowing that my cardiac surgeon came from an educational background that held them to the most elite standards. And so on down the line...

Games not being so important, however, still benefit from a certain degree of elitism. The opposite of elitism is appealing to the lowest common denominator. And we all know what those games look like, and there are far too many as it is.

What IS a problem is when gamers in a broad community insulate themselves and exclude others from joining. This, unfortunately, is a problem with most if not all classical genres. I wouldn't say STG's carry any great distinction of having especially exclusive players. I tend to find that the 'bro-friendly' genres of FPS and fighting games veer more towards exclusion.

[shadowbringer]

Most players of Mushihimisama Futari Ultra use a Continue after they lose all their lives. Why? There is little understanding of the rules.
Most players credit feed to the end then write scathing reviews about how short or easy the challenge is or boast to have beaten the game. Why? There is no respect for the rules.

The perceived stigma of elitism amongst STG players is the ongoing result of clashing perspectives between players who understand and respect the rules of STGs and the players who do not understand or respect the rules.



The reasons STGs are discriminated against like this are twofold:
1. A lifetime of psychological conditioning that rules in computer software are only acknowledged by people from the limits enforced by the program itself, not by the discipline of the user.
2. A lifetime of total failure by developers to communicate the basic objective of any particular STG to the players.

agree with the two points right above, but I should mention that 1cc-ing isn't an actual rule (or it is a rule that should be better enforced by the developers), meaning that the games allow players to not 1-cc; by rules I mean something like the 6th section of this article (tl;dr: rules that are broken because they weren't properly enforced are a developer's fault, like in the example below): http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1 ... php?page=2

While I wouldn't call the "1cc rule" a nonsensical one (comparing it against "in-house rules" in fighting games, far in the past, such as "not hitting your opponent when he/she is dizzied", "giving your opponent enough time to get up instead of maintaining your advantage over him/her", "not being overly defensive and punishing your opponent too much"), I (once again) agree that it should be better communicated to the players, somehow, for example, rewarding the player gradually, the closer he/she is to an 1cc (shmups, afaik, have rewarded the players with either a "1cc or no 1cc", with nothing in between -- I remember one close exception, which is one of Imperishable Night's unlockable features, which was to "clear Lunatic mode, number of continues don't matter"). Iirc I haven't seen a shmup try this approach before.

To end this post, I remembered (!) that the notion of 1cc discussed above can also be applied to the notion of scoreplay, which is also not obvious (most of the time) for people who're new to the genre. I've noticed that most people I know don't care about scoring, or know it exists prefer survival-play.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think maybe there is something to be said for shmups having had (especially in the Cave variety) a focus on sometimes-mysterious subgoals. Yet the concept of "playing for survival" - which is often easier when you don't play at the leading edge of skill (due to lower rank changes compared to a high-scoring run) - seems pretty hard to seriously call mysterious or obfuscated. If anything developers have done a good job making sure that the at-a-glance readability of the average modern-era spaceship shootan is much better than that of many other games, and generally the other fundamentals of control couldn't be much easier, either.

Generally, being a newcomer to some endeavor does give you a window of opportunity to see it with a fresh view, unjaded by conventions. At the same time, the community can be presumed to have seen most of the arguments already; even if they don't have a rigorous answer to those questions or potential problems, they may well have settled on a better relationship to the problem as a result of time, long study, and reasoned consideration - resources a newcomer doesn't have. On top of this, little of the argument here seems new or specific to spaceship shooting games, but rather a general statement on human nature - one I don't find convincing at all.

I don't see how we can avoid reaching the minor conclusion that there is often a feeling amongst non-experts (using the term extremely loosely, to mean "people who don't know the material / literature / whatever") that experts don't have any knowledge that can be regained through quick consideration. Mathematics might be one of the few areas relatively immune to this effect; people expect that there are right and wrong ways to do things. This is a good thing. Yet even in areas that are closely aligned with mathematics, i.e. statistics of populations, people are very quick to say "I don't believe that" and try to escape the conclusions of evidence because it doesn't suit their beliefs.

There is more to understanding something than using pure reason or experiments, of course. You must have an opinion - a motivation or sentiment provoking you to agree with a path or thought. Consequently, if your belief is that pressing the start button repeatedly to credit in makes you competent enough to provide reviews or walkthroughs - then we can look at that in terms of a faulty understanding of the rational component (i.e. "there are obviously people who do it better than this; there are obvious reasons to consider what I've done an abject failure, so I can try to do better, or leave the pontificating to experts"), or just a failure to share the motivation. An example of a failure to share the motivation is in thinking "these games are old, ugly, and don't have an engaging design; they don't appeal to me;" these opinions aren't universally held and should gain no attention from people who obviously disagree, so we can ignore them from here out; but keep in mind that "this game is too difficult" is also an example of such an opinion.

[Aside: Shooting games tend to trade total complexity (a relatively small number of branching paths you can follow when making choices) against temporal pacing of the complexity it does have (making a large number of small and fine choices and corrections over time; the system must still be engaging enough to make this worthwhile). If I can get away with generalizing about a genre I don't know exceptionally well, it seems to me that RTS (real-time strategy) titles try to offset their complexity by spreading decisions through time and across space more than a STG does. Therefore, I think that in most cases it is also an error in understanding the facts to assert, as above, that "shooting games don't have an engaging design," an error that is easy to make when you are approaching a game and expecting it to reward whatever skill level a player approaches it with, rather than it expecting you to alter your skills to suit its presentation.]

If you think that a game is good or bad despite playing poorly (according to the game designers' standards and expectations), you can base that off your feelings and observations and that may be fine. Just because a game designer expects you to be able to play well doesn't mean their game should be played - and we also can't say that not being able to play well is a sign the game shouldn't be played. These two things aren't immediately connected; rather, they are connected by the efforts of the player and the designer, which are more involved than "I put a coin in and wiggled around" (for the player) and "didn't we make the tough challenge people wanted?" for the designer. There is responsibility for having an enjoyable experience on both sides.

There is naturally a potential for differing opinions about whether a really difficult game is helped or harmed by its difficulty, but one should have the humility to recognize that a difficult design is immediately a sign that the game is not primarily meant to have populist appeal. The game designer doesn't have to care. This is very easy to understand in the case of mathematics: How many people feel ashamed to admit that they don't understand certain famous equations from science? How many make the even stranger argument that an equation is a failure if it is not easily understood? Few would agree with the sentiment that failing to understand Hawking, or Einstein, or failing to understand Hamilton's Rule C < Br, was a source of particular shame, or that Hawking, Einstein, or Hamilton failed. Only those who were strongly motivated to learn a formula would meet one of the conditions for admitting their efforts were inadequate - wanting to do better. How strange it is, then, that people who try to associate themselves with those who are strongly motivated to learn obscure systems (the "geek" in "Vintagevideogamegeek" suggests this) do not admit feeling shame that they did not feel motivated to rise to the challenge - and stranger still that this then is turned into a criticism of the industry or the culture!

Being a "geek" (or "Hardcore," in a famous example that many people on this site are very familiar with) is meaningless if it just means that one can claim the right to wear the term like a badge. I'm the President, but nobody believes me.

Why is it reasonable to want difficult games? It is easier to be motivated to do something when it is constantly challenging than when it is not. Hence the natural tendency of good (or motivated) players (who don't mind spending a considerable amount of time with a good game) to be more accepting of a game that is hard than one that is easy (relative to their skills).

Personally, I think that something that was mentioned recently - that people sometimes say contradictory things at once about a game's goodness in light of its difficulty - show that shooting games are often thin enough that they aren't very rewarding to play if they are too easy. There's a real chicken-and-egg question: Which came first in motivating players to do well - the simplicity or the difficulty? Even the ancient ancestors of the genre (and of video gaming in general) made efforts to get the balance right. At the same time, it's natural to be frustrated when the difficulty is far beyond one's abilities (either at that moment or as surpassing the prospects of the player for improvement). I sometimes find myself stuck in a rut replaying the first three/four stages in a game, and the lack of motivation to grind that "old" content again often can couple with the difficulty of making progress to reduce my motivation to go further. But I can separate my feelings about my lack of progress from making a statement about how the game would feel if I was doing better: If I feel that I must cede the day to the fiendish nature of the murder machines, that comes with the recognition that is likely just a temporary, not permanent, setback.

[trap15]

tl;dr version for sane people?

[Drake]

Generally, being a newcomer to some endeavor does give you a window of opportunity to see it with a fresh view, unjaded by conventions. At the same time, the community can be presumed to have seen most of the arguments already; even if they don't have a rigorous answer to those questions or potential problems, they may well have settled on a better relationship to the problem as a result of time, long study, and reasoned consideration - resources a newcomer doesn't have.

If your belief is that pressing the start button repeatedly to credit in makes you competent enough to provide reviews or walkthroughs - then we can look at that in terms of a faulty understanding of the rational component (i.e. "there are obviously people who do it better than this; there are obvious reasons to consider what I've done an abject failure, so I can try to do better, or leave the pontificating to experts"), or just a failure to share the motivation. An example of a failure to share the motivation is in thinking "these games are old, ugly, and don't have an engaging design; they don't appeal to me;" these opinions aren't universally held and should gain no attention from people who obviously disagree, so we can ignore them from here out; but keep in mind that "this game is too difficult" is also an example of such an opinion.

If you think that a game is good or bad despite playing poorly (according to the game designers' standards and expectations), you can base that off your feelings and observations and that may be fine. Just because a game designer expects you to be able to play well doesn't mean their game should be played - and we also can't say that not being able to play well is a sign the game shouldn't be played.

There is naturally a potential for differing opinions about whether a really difficult game is helped or harmed by its difficulty, but one should have the humility to recognize that a difficult design is immediately a sign that the game is not primarily meant to have populist appeal. The game designer doesn't have to care. Only those who were strongly motivated to learn [thing] would meet one of the conditions for admitting their efforts were inadequate - wanting to do better. How strange it is, then, that people who try to associate themselves with those who are strongly motivated to learn obscure systems (the "geek" in "Vintagevideogamegeek" suggests this) do not admit feeling shame that they did not feel motivated to rise to the challenge - and stranger still that this then is turned into a criticism of the industry or the culture!

the more important parts

[neorichieb1971]

Just because I like a genre doesn't mean I have to hang around pricks who also like that genre.

Forum culture is a harder thing to navigate, but you can still separate the nice ones from the shitty ones. The only problem is wording your posts in such a way that it doesn't invite the pricks.

[Ed Oscuro]

Indeed, culture is a thing that can help or hurt people getting past the hurdles. It's very hard to learn when you're being actively dissuaded from doing so, right?

the more important parts

Thanks. I was making some broader points, and was having trouble trying to excise the stuff that was less topical.

[Sinful]

This word is only for folks who don't want to spend enough time with a game to learn it properly. Why most game reviews are flawed, with mentions of "it sucks cause it's too hard and/or unfair." Which is not true for most of these mentioned games in so many of these flawed game reviews (ie. Gradius III SNES/Graidus II NES) cause with just very little practice, these games are very easy to 1cc or no miss (in fact these were my first two no miss shmups... er, still are >_>;;).

Just yesterday I seen comments for a YouTube vid on hardest SNES games, where buddy went "where is Gradius III SNES? It's way harder then blah, blah." Sigh. But yeah, just cause it's a game that can't be plowed through on you first try, it's for the "elite" only. Gamers today are too causal or far more of a game collector then a game players. This last part is quite sad as these guys host most retro game sites. Like Racketboy, Kurt Kalata of HG101, Sega 16 guy, etc..