Do shmups age better than other game types?

[Bydobasher]

Good post, Davey.

Claiming that Galaga looks good is just silly. Once you put the nostalgia aside, it fails to be a work of fine art.

I would definitely point someone towards a Metal Slug before Galaga if I wanted to impress them with the graphics, that's for sure. But I really do find the sprites in Galaga very attractive. There's some nostalgia, you're right; but it's not just that -- I love Time Pilot just as much, but the sprites in that one I find unremarkable. Anyway, it hardly matters; if others find Galaga unattractive, that's fine with me.

[fog]

Shmups tend to be more gameplay orientated and less graphics reliant so yes they probably do age better.

The graphics were never the original reason for their appeal so you don't care that they have dated. Although you could argue that some gameplay dates badly as well.

[Davey]

The graphics were never the original reason for their appeal so you don't care that they have dated. Although you could argue that some gameplay dates badly as well.

As we've well established in this thread, graphics that are artistically good will age better than those that just try to wow you with new technology. Technology will constantly improve, human creativity won't.

The same holds true for gameplay. A well-designed game can age very nicely (Galaga), but games with poor design that succeed because of other factors (graphics, movie/cartoon licenses, leeching off a successful predecessor, developer reputation, hype) won't get much (if any) play 5 years down the road. A fun game will stay fun for a long time, a disposable piece of filler material will show its flaws after it has outlived its intentionally short lifespan.

[Tony Gradius]

Imo it has nothing to do with the genre. It`s all a matter of any single game`s quality wether I like to play it hardware generations after it`s original release or not. I still play Red Alert 2, Age of Mythology and Warcraft 3 and have completed them several times. It`s all about the good campaigns of those games. I will play R-Type ten years in the future, as I`m used to do since the Eighties. Because the leveldesign is great. Oh, but X2 (those Project X ancestor) will probably newer see the PSX drive again, because it`s rubbish. I still like the first Unreal. Oh, and Gradius Gaiden.....and....

[tizerist]

i think a core difference is , the 3d games keep on getting updated and improved, whereas 2d ones dont.
we're left with our memories for the most part.
while pro evolution 3 is a better game than wonderboy 3, i cant go back to pro evo 3. theres a better example of it every year.
so id rather have wonderboy 3.
2d doesnt really improve with technology (although it can)
so hence the classic 2d games dont tend to get improved upon, and we look upon them fondly because of that.
honestly, who will remember gran turismo 2 or fifa 97 in a few years? no-one.

[Zweihander]

Do shmups age better than other game types?

_ __ ___ ____ _____ ________________________ Yes. ________________________ _____ ____ ___ __ _

[Edge]

I don't think that 3D games age worse than 2D ones.

To come back to Bydobasher's statement with the Ocarina of Time "block" hands. I can say exactly the same to all 2D games, which I think would be looking better with a higher resolution and more animation frames. In Zelda (1) link's hand's are not really more than squares. But I can imagine how it would look with a reso like 800x600, 16,7 mil colours and lots of animation frames.

I always had the feeling and still have the feeling that the game industry was never close to get the maximum out of 2D graphics. Like Tizerist wrote, the 2d graphics could look LOTS better. Looking at one of the newest Guilty Gear parts is only a prelude to what would be possible.

Still I have to say that many poly games from the ps1 era are no fun now. But I don't think this is because they are in 3d. I guess it's because the games where made in 3d just to show the new technology and the creators wasn't so concerned about the gameplay or didn't get it their game to work properly in this rather unknown territory.

Another important point for the lack of gameplay quality of many 3d games is: Since the use of 3D polys and FMV the companies could sell much easier their games to the mainstream market just by improving the graphics. The need for a strong gameplay to sell a game is lost and I think this is the main problem of the way the games became. There are still companies who make great classics 2d as well as 3d, shmups as well as fighting games racers or RPGs.

I think it only depends on the gameplay, I still play games like Asteroids, Super Mario 64, Zelda 1, Zelda OoT, Star Fox or Tekken 3...

At least for me there are no special criterias which make one kind of games more likely to be a classic. Though I have to admit that too many alike games of one series, or too many clones and ripp off can harm the originals. For example I don't like FPS games so much anymore, because there are way too many which all look alike, play alike and have really similiar setting.

[Fenrir]

Well, of course, since SHMUPs don't depend on graphics like most of the other genres. When a SHMUP is genial in its schemes and tactics, it stays genial for eons to come.
And of course 3d games age worse than 2d games. There's style even in 2d games with ridiculous resolutions and a handful of colours (earthbound?), but 3D games tend to get older and older with time, as they mostly try to reproduce reality, unlike 2D games that can be seen as an artist interpretation of reality or fiction.
When I saw Virtua Racing for the first time I thought "games can't come much better than this". Now, well, it's a bit ridiculous isn't it, for today's standards.
While, when I saw earthbound, I said "well, it sucks, but it's meant to be like this, it's the game artist that decided so". You can say it for most of the 2D games, but not for 3D games. In 3D games you say "well, it's like that because it can't be better (now)".

[Zweihander]

Claiming that Galaga looks good is just silly. Once you put the nostalgia aside, it fails to be a work of fine art.

Well... isn't Galaga the father of the "swirly enemy" formation? i.e., when the waves come in they go down, spin in a circle, then take to the formation overhead. I can name 10 games off the top of my head which borrowed from Galaga, including Ikaruga and ESPGaluda.

[Rob]

There's style even in 2d games with ridiculous resolutions and a handful of colours (earthbound?), but 3D games tend to get older and older with time, as they mostly try to reproduce reality, unlike 2D games that can be seen as an artist interpretation of reality or fiction.

It's like the first 2 pages of discussion never happened.

[Zweihander]

There's style even in 2d games with ridiculous resolutions and a handful of colours (earthbound?), but 3D games tend to get older and older with time, as they mostly try to reproduce reality, unlike 2D games that can be seen as an artist interpretation of reality or fiction.

It's like the first 2 pages of discussion never happened.

The reply to end all replies...
FOR THE WIN!

[Fenrir]

GO ME!
I wanted to express my deep and, like, meaningful n stuff thoughts even though they reflect those of other people. But well, I could sit and wait for the next OMG THE BEST 10 SHMUPS OF SUMMER 1992 thread then :P

[Marc]

Well, of course, since SHMUPs don't depend on graphics like most of the other genres. ".

Maybe they don't depend on them, but bad visuals can disrupt a 2D shooter just as well as they can an PFS say. Case in point, I can't play Giga Wing seriously for one reason - I can't make out the bullet patterns the boss on the lava stage spits out - those blue bullets against the red/orange backdrop play hell with my eyes and mean I literally have not got a chance. Poor graphical design is poor design, whatever the dimension.

It's all about expectations. 2D games are never expected to really immerse you in another world.

Course they were/are. Out Run in particular seems to have been designed with the sole aim (at the time obviously) of being the most immersive racing game there was. As was the follow-up. I don't really know where I'm going with this I guess in my opinion, the way a game ages has less to do with the available technology or it's age, and more to do with the artistic vision that went into it's design.

I still find Out Run stunningly beautiful to look at even today. The colour, vibrancy and sheer style of the graphics combine to form something that, in my mind, still looks like an attractive, cohesive whole (which even the yucky PS2 update couldn't quite ruin). Same goes for Out Run 2, and the bold, flat poly's of VR actually. PGR2's visuals on the other hand, I find nothing more than a crushingly dull, ultra-detailed 3D guide book.

I think games that chase reality are the ones that will date more quickly, but I think some people are unable to comprehend that there are games of both dimensions that attempt that (Pit-Fighter, MK, Gran Tourismo), and games that don't even try (Wizkid, JSR, Out Run 2). 3D does not=attempted realism.

I dunno, I think I've lost even myself here but I'll post anyway in case any grumpy shite's out there want to flame me


[/quote]

[FRO]

But the point BiQ made was a 2D game "isn't trying to recreate 'reality' " which is what a 3D game attempts to do (to a point of course)." Any way you cut it, Metroid Zero/NES present visuals that leave more to the imagination than a 3D game like Tomb Raider or Mario 64 does. So that's why it fits in with reading a really good novel. A 2D game yes, is visual. But like a novel, it gives you bare essentials for your mind/imagination to use. If I read the novel Jurrasic Park and it had full illustrations (boy would that increase the page count, ha) it would still be far more immersive to my imagination than the movie.

The problem with that kind of thinking is that comparing the realism of 2D & 3D games is apples & oranges. It's only as real as the creators wanted it to be. Track and Field for NES is more realistic than, say, Katamari Damacy for PS2. It's the environment that lends the game's design toward realism.

I remember the first time I played the NES track game that used the floor pad. My best friend had it, & we gave it a go one morning after spending the night at his place. Running on that pad & seeing the character on the screen move at the same time was amazing (as a 6th grader). That was realism to me - not how real the pixelated runners looked. It's more about the feeling that you get. As another example, the Syphon Filter games haven't aged well graphically, but in terms of the realism & the fact that they "put you there" they have aged quite well IMHO. I still love to pull out SP or SP2 & have a go. SP3 hasn't aged as well by comparison because of it's "flashback" storyline nature.

What I'm saying is, the graphics don't make the realism. The sound plays a part & can enhance the "realism" aspect, but again, that's not the kicker. It's all about the gameplay & the ambience it creates. Super Mario 64 has great graphics for it's time & for that system, but it's no more or less real than Super Mario Bros. 3 - the only difference is the world seems a bit more expansive due to the 3D nature of it.

[tizerist]

another reason why 2d games age better is simplicity.
that does that, this does this, off we go.

with 3d you can quite often expect to have to learn what 10-12 buttons/ commands do........and then play.

not ideal for a half hour session

or maybe its MODERN games that are the latter.
theres alot of grey areas here. for example,
driving games , for the most part go against this theory.

[sven666]

i dont think they do, i know of lots of old games that are not shmups that have aged like wine, some that i enjoymore than most shmups.

but yeah, salamander, axelay, rtype delta have all aged well... but tiger heli, gradius 3 and airgrave have not...

same as every other genre i guess, the great games age well while the drab ones only go downhill...