|
 So you're playing Raiden III, and you're just beasting it. You haven't lost a life, your bombs are out the wazoo, and that upcoming boss doesn't stand a chance against your maxed-out Crest toothpaste shooter. You're on top of the world, and then BAM-- You lost a life from some side-swiping peashooter, whose mere existence was dwarfed by your perfect run and blinding onslaught of explosions, medals, and hidden fairies.
Was that really the way you thought it would all go down? You know you can't possibly continue this run knowing that you just let that happen to you. Your whole mindzone was destroyed by that one blind shot that snuck up from the rear, just when you thought the world was your bonus point.
I've come across very few shmups out there that result in both me seeing the pitiful end of a beautiful run and also have me blaming myself for the problem. I suppose there are people out there who, in all scenarios, will take a deep breath and say to themselves, "I will do better next time." For the rest of us, I think we've heard the phrase "Oh come on! That's just bullsh--" etc. time and time again.
Let's look at Raiden III. There's enemy ships designed specifically to shoot only horizontal bullets at you. In a game that's a vertical scroller, those familiar can attest that such a move is sneaky and grounds for punishment (to the game, controller, television, etc). It's hard for the eyes to judge whether collisions are going to happen horizontally (maybe one of the reasons the vertical line test in mathematics triumphs largely over any such horizontal equivalents).
That's also why horizontal shmups have a pace that is slowed down, for more intricate observations that are much-needed in order to survive. This is also probably why Defender is so difficult. For anyone. And then there are those slow vertical shmups that suffer the opposite: unchallenging patterns in bullets and enemies that make you wish you had a reason to input your initials prematurely. I'm looking at you, Truxton II (but still, ♥).
So let's get to the games where I oftentimes keep blaming myself for a death. We have Ikaruga and R-Type. Both games are largely based upon memorization. Both of them definitely have unfair enemies that shoot horizontally. It's not like I'm warned any better about them coming. It's more about how predictable those enemies are.
In Raiden (the series), I have a good grasp over how an enemy will shoot. The variable here is when that shot will be fired. That's really the key. Let's get Ikaruga out of the way and mention that everything is set to a rhythm that never disappoints, allowing you to know exactly when and why a bullet is coming your way.
And even if you accidentally use your homing lasers, switch polarities, absorb all of the wrong color, die, and input your initials, whose fault was that? Well, you (okay, me. And it's always during Chapter 2-3). I've died hundreds (probably thousands) of times in that game, and not once have I blamed the game for a death.
R-Type follows loosely along the same lines. Scenarios are predictable enough such that you'll have a steady handle on what's going on around you. I suppose Gradius does some of the same, though sometimes the screen can become hectic enough for me to feel overwhelmed (dev's note: That was the point).
I know these are supposed to vaguely simulate futuristic intergalactic space-travel against evil legions of badly-armored spacecraft, where randomness is the norm and dirty tricks are in. But seriously, twitch-based gameplay can really only go so far. If you've 1CC'd any of these unfair shmups, give yourself a pat on the back and go back to acing Death Smiles. I'll continue getting more than enough twitches with a game I have memorized from start to finish, but which I have yet to beat.
Perhaps it's personal preference, or maybe that I'm not fast enough for what those games demand. Whatever the case, I can only take so many doses of it until I've OD'd on failure. But then again, Michael Jordan missed over 9000 shots in his life. Which is why I get back on those horses, once enough time has passed to the point where I forget whose fault it was, of course.
[cross-posted from SHMUPtheory]
|
I don't blame the game. I question the game as to whether it was legitimate or not, and always have to give it the benefit of the doubt because lapses in concentration in such a game are highly likely... but I believe that's part of why we play them.
That beastly run you were having in Raiden wouldn't be anywhere near as special if it were a game like... say... Flying Tigers, which was terrible by comparison and incredibly easy. The only reason it's special is because you know how much you had to dominate fast and early to get there, and that you're reaping the rewards, but that it's limited. One bullet and you've lost everything, but a lucky pickup and you're straight back to being a power beast. The games simply wouldn't be as fun if there weren't those elements in there.
I have no desire to memorize the game. I don't enjoy losing lives in R-Type (series) games because I didn't know what region of the screen to avoid--at any given time. That's cheap. I can't agree with you on R-Type. The game has many occasions that require you to know what's coming beforehand. I blame the game for that, always.
Being forced to memorize levels just to survive is horrible game design. Knowing that certain failure awaits in the next level makes me want to walk away. Trial and error isn't fun. I don't want to learn to salivate when the bell rings. I'm a person, forchrissake.
I just want to play. I want a tuned challenge that gives me every opportunity to react properly--or die trying. Even if I forget something, I should still be able to make up the difference with skill.
Truly great shmups offer something fresh in every play and rarely (if ever) demand gamers to have prior knowledge of the next challenge. When you feel that you are in control of your own destiny all the time (even the very first time you play the game), that's where the real reward of great run--and that crushing feeling when you screw it all up--is thrown into relief.
I'm totally cool with a stray bullet hitting me after I just proved I had what it took to get that far. My problem is when the bullet provides no warning and is really a matter of bad placement. There's a point where there are battleships off screen that still fire at you, whether you knew they were there or not. Those are unfair. When a boss is spewing out new patterns I've never seen before despite having beaten him before, that's awesome. I enjoy seeing a challenge and then either triumphing or failing. I don't enjoy realizing that there was a challenge behind me from something that was too cowardly to come on screen and greet me before stealing my life away.
@Aaron,
Thanks for your input. I suppose the only time a death in a memorization-based shmup can be considered the game's fault is during the first time encountering something. After that, it'll always be the same, so it's up to you to be ready for everything coming your way. And speaking for myself, I also enjoy those first playthroughs of areas, but I don't blame myself even then. I don't know why. It's just the way I am with them. But that's just coming from me. You are certainly entitled to label this kind of gameplay as horrible game design.
When a new machine came in, you would get the dedicated players who learned all the attack patterns and memorised where everything came from. They would pour huge amounts of 10p pieces into those machines and gather small crowds of on-lookers. Crucially though, very few of the on-lookers actually played the the games after these guys came off. It was generally accepted that the games were simply unfair or too hard to play by anyone with even a passing social life.
Now that we have FPS and action adventures etc. etc. I still see the cheap shots that developers put into these games to artificially increase the difficulty or bump up the amount of time it takes to complete a game. I still also see people simply walk away after a few of those cheap incidents, never to return (or at least not without being armed with a cheat or two).
I don't think this kind of gameplay should ever have been used no matter the game genre. It simply isn't fun for the player. A game like ikaruga is exactly how shoot-em ups should be. There is a rhythm to the game that is easy to learn but hard to master. You will never be killed by a cheap shot because you always have a way to counter anything thrown at you. When you do die, it's down to your misreading a pattern of shots or simply failing to select the right counter. The key point in such a game, is that death is never down to something that you couldn't have know or avoided.
Crucially I don't know a single enduring game that was full of cheap deaths and unavoidable booby traps. Any game that is remembered fondly is also always a game that was completable by using skill. Very few people fondly remember any games where your only way through the game was to be psychic or play 50000 times in order to memorise where everything would be in advance.
Thanks for sharing! I'd have to agree with most of that, but your mention of a game that you have to play "50,000 times in order" to beat it reminded me of Syobon Action, which I embarrassingly admit to finding pleasure in completing. However, in this rare case, the whole point of the game is to be as cheap and unfair as possible. And even in this niche area of platform gaming, I've played some purposely cheap and unfair games that were no fun. There was a charm in Syobon that kept me interested in getting just one inch further each time. It might have been the ingenious parody of Mario Bros., but it was very well executed. It's not easy to maximize frustration and enjoyability at the same time.
1) Deterministic: events happen regardless of player activity
2) Semi-Deterministic: some events are affected by player activity
3) Non-deterministic: events are affected by player activity and/or are randomly generated
Ikaruga falls into category 1: it doesn't matter what the player does.
Games like R-Type and Raiden fall into category 2: enemy appearances and movement patterns are fixed but bullets target the player
Finally, games like Geometry Wars are category 3: there's no way for a player to predict or anticipate the gameplay.
The key for cat.1 and cat.2 games is for the developer to either hide their deterministic nature or to allow sufficient flexibility in the gameplay model.
Pac-man is a good example of hiding determinism: for all that it's possible to follow a fixed pattern to complete all levels, the player's activities add enough psuedo-random input to the AI model to make it appear to be a game of skill.
Shoot-em-ups generally go the other way: R-Type is a good example of a game which gives the player freedom to move through the levels as they prefer: there isn't a single pixel-perfect fixed path which must be followed. Issues generally arise when developers target a hardcore audience or get caught in a self-reinforcing loop (i.e. increasing difficultly because the developer/testers are too familiar with the game)
Regardless of how the deterministic nature of the game is presented, one thing remains true for all of Cat.1 and Cat.2. games (and cat.3, when correctly designed): surviving the game is entirely down to the player's actions. The only question is how much flexibility the game gives the player - and it's worth bearing in mind that some people actually enjoy the challenge of high-precision memorisation!
(admittedly, not myself - for all that I love R-Type, I'm much happier in a game where my skill and past activities have some bearing on future activities)