Theory

[icycalm]

Fighters and shooters are the only 2D action genres to remain very much alive and popular (relatively speaking) to this day, because they offer much greater scope for increasing complexity than the platform, run 'n gun and beat 'em up formats.

I really don't see any way around this hypothesis -- this seems to me the only way to account for the state of things today.

[A.Wrench]

Not too sure I agree. I think fighters do have that kind of complexity few other genres have, but a lot of that comes from how they're designed (primarily) as competitive multiplayer games. But shooters are basically one-player, man-against game experiences, so I think a lot of their potential for complexity can be just as easily applied to platforms, run 'n guns and beat em ups.

In fact, I don't think platform games stopped being popular at all. For one thing plenty of games with interesting gimmicks and physics are being produced from the indie scene on PCs (though some are failures, others like Cave Story, La Mulana, and the recently released Spelunky do stand out). Many commercial games are being released as well, for instance Drill Dozer and recent Metroid games on the GBA, DS Castlevania games, and Megaman 9.
There's tons of potential in platform games, I'd even go so far as to say they have some of the highest potential among one-player games. They have been staying away from complex combat and scoring methods as of late, but that's probably more due to the public's view of platformers than it is to their supposed "lack of potential". Subspace Emissary, the "story mode" portion of Smash Bros. Brawl, was very close to being a platformer with complex combat and scoring (though a few crippling game design choices made it more frustrating than invigorating).

And unrelated to my argument...but if the continued progression of complexity in games was really the deciding factor in a genre's survival, then how have JRPGs stayed around so long?

[icycalm]

Not too sure I agree. I think fighters do have that kind of complexity few other genres have, but a lot of that comes from how they're designed (primarily) as competitive multiplayer games.

This says nothing. Pong was designed as an exclusively competitive multiplayer game, and it is as shallow as a rain puddle.

But shooters are basically one-player, man-against game experiences, so I think a lot of their potential for complexity can be just as easily applied to platforms, run 'n guns and beat em ups.

The above tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about. Nada. Not a clue. And if I wanted to give you a clue I would be totally lost -- I would have no idea where to begin. :(

You just do not seem to realize how complex modern shooting games have become, and I don't think it is possible for anyone to explain this to you without you investing any serious amount of time in an attempt to master some of them.

In fact, I don't think platform games stopped being popular at all.

You did not pay attention to the parenthesis. I said "relatively speaking". I meant popular with the experienced players, not with casual retards. Of course platformers are still popular with casual retards. But 3D platformers, which, with their save-point shenanigans and pointless trinket collecting, have of course retained exactly zero of the challenge of their 2D arcade and early-console predecessors.

For one thing plenty of games with interesting gimmicks and physics are being produced from the indie scene on PCs (though some are failures, others like Cave Story, La Mulana, and the recently released Spelunky do stand out). Many commercial games are being released as well, for instance Drill Dozer and recent Metroid games on the GBA, DS Castlevania games, and Megaman 9.

Again, if I were to pick apart the above paragraph I wouldn't even know where to begin. The "indie scene"? Metroid? Castlevania? Megaman 9? Have you confused the word 'complexity' with the word 'simplicity'? There is nothing complex about all these games you mentioned -- they in fact more or less define simplicity in the platforming genre.

There's tons of potential in platform games, I'd even go so far as to say they have some of the highest potential among one-player games.

This is not even lol-worthy. It's STFU-you-are-giving-me-a-migraine-worthy.

They have been staying away from complex combat and scoring methods as of late

More random statements pulled straight out of someone's ass. I bet if I asked you to point me to a platformer "of the past" with "complex combat and scoring methods" you'd probably bring up a Sonic game or some shit.

And unrelated to my argument...but if the continued progression of complexity in games was really the deciding factor in a genre's survival, then how have JRPGs stayed around so long?

I am of course referring primarily to the ARCADES for fuck's sakes, something which you should have cottoned on to after my mentioning of shooters and fighters, which now are, and have always been, pretty much exclusively arcade genres.

Just do me a favor and stay away from this thread, dude.

[JoshF]

I don't see run and guns or beat 'em ups being confined to a lesser degree of complexity. They're being confined because no one is making those games and there aren't any specialized developers like a Cave to take them to the next level.

[icycalm]

So it's just a matter of waiting until a developer comes along to do this?

When I say confined, I don't mean literally. Sure, you could make those types of games more complex if you wanted to. I just don't think it would feel as "natural" as it does in fighters and shooters -- though I doubt I could explain to you with words what I mean by natural.

So there's no one in Japan who loves beat 'em ups or platformers or run 'n guns enough to try and create one with a very complex scoring system and release it in the arcades? Or is it possible that this thought never entered anyone's mind?

[Oils]

Icy, have you played Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins for the PSP? Elements of the top-down shooter and of a platformer combine to make this one of the best games in years. By around level 3, for example, while you are running through fierce winds altering your direction and thunder strikes causing the floor to collapse, lines of bats come flying at you in a very similar manner to enemies at the starting point of a level in Gradius. You're rewarded with a scrumptiously colored 1000 points if you kill these lines of bats all at once. It's best to have a rapid-fire weapon like the knife or splash damage weapons like the bomb and the flare to accomplish this.

You've a "bomb" in the form of flare magic that you can use for split-second invulnerability and, if you have the strongest armor level, to wipe out all the enemies on screen for higher scoring. UG&G is usually loathed or ignored for how challenging it is. Even a subtly insecure person will probably become aggravated with this game, because even if you've memorized an entire level, the treasure chests which grant you weapons and powerups are randomized, as are some enemy spawning locations. It's possibly the most entertaining game to come out in the past two years unless you're able to buy arcade boards or live in Japan with access to arcades.

Unbeknownst to most people, PSP is the system of this generation to go to for modern platformers. I'm probably going to pass on Prinny, but I hope developers like Capcom and Konami keep them coming.

UG&G is a platformer that's exceptionally complex, challenging, and rewarding. It's challenging as a game of jumping and of shooting, and unlike MegaMan and Castlevania, there are tangible opportunities for scoring. If the platforming genre, as small as it already is, looked to UG&G more to influence its priorities in craft, your theory could fortuitously be proved incorrect (because I love platformers so much and find this unfortunate to hear). In the end, one game cannot disprove your theory, I suppose, even if you unequivocally agreed with everything I've written above.

[icycalm]

I've played the arcade mode of Goku for a couple of hours. I really liked what I saw. But the things you mentioned are details, and details moreover that to some extent have been tried before. If Goku was released in the arcades I believe it would not get anywhere near the amount of credits a typical modern shooter or fighter gets -- and that's why I believe that it, and other games like it, are not released in the arcades.

A few scoring bonuses here or there do not make a game considerably more complex. What makes a game more complex is a scoring/fighting system that permeates THE ENTIRE GAME. How many words would it take to describe Goku's fighting/scoring system? "Keep moving and kill everything in your way," more or less does it. With games like Dodonpachi Daifukkatsu or Hokuto no Ken you need ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS (and then again these will be enough only if the person reading them is already familiar with how these games generally work -- otherwise you need to explain even more).

In the arcades, completion difficulty does not seem to be a selling point, since you can easily design a platformer or beat 'em up or run 'n gun that is very difficult to clear, and yet no one does that. It seems that, in the arcades, the only things that matter are scoring complexity and versus play. So, for games like platformers, beat 'em ups and run 'n guns, which cannot have versus modes, the only way to go to appeal to the arcade crowd is complex scoring systems. And it doesn't seem that anyone, whether in the arcades, or on consoles, or in the indie/doujin scene, has yet figured out how to implement complex scoring systems in those kinds of games.

I believe this is not a coincidence.

[icycalm]

Rereading your post and my reply, it seems to me that, much like A.Wrench above, you do not seem to realize how complex modern shooters and fighters have got. You don't really play such games do you? At least not beyond the button-mashing, score-neglecting level. That's why most people will have a hard time understanding what I am saying here. Anyway, I'll try to point out to you why all the scoring elements of Goku you brought up are details:

Icy, have you played Ultimate Ghosts n Goblins for the PSP? Elements of the top-down shooter and of a platformer combine to make this one of the best games in years.

Here, for example, you are making it clear that you do not play shooters seriously, because if you did you would know that no one calls them "top-down shooters". So the "elements" you say that combine with the platforming one are either irrelevant, or exist only in your imagination.

By around level 3, for example, while you are running through fierce winds altering your direction and thunder strikes causing the floor to collapse, lines of bats come flying at you in a very similar manner to enemies at the starting point of a level in Gradius.

Gradius, for example, is not a "top-down shooter", and moreover, even as a horizontal shooter, it is well-known for its lack of any significant scoring system. So even if Goku had borrowed something from Gradius's scoring system, all it would have borrowed from it is simplicity -- not complexity. But since you know next to nothing about shooters, you cannot realize this.

You're rewarded with a scrumptiously colored 1000 points if you kill these lines of bats all at once.

*Yawn*

Welcome to 1987.

It's best to have a rapid-fire weapon like the knife or splash damage weapons like the bomb and the flare to accomplish this.

Ditto.

You've a "bomb" in the form of flare magic that you can use for split-second invulnerability and, if you have the strongest armor level, to wipe out all the enemies on screen for higher scoring.

Ditto.

UG&G is usually loathed or ignored for how challenging it is. Even a subtly insecure person will probably become aggravated with this game, because even if you've memorized an entire level, the treasure chests which grant you weapons and powerups are randomized, as are some enemy spawning locations.

Welcome to Makaimura (1985).

It's possibly the most entertaining game to come out in the past two years unless you're able to buy arcade boards or live in Japan with access to arcades.

Ludicrous fanboy comment that has no place in this forum.

Unbeknownst to most people, PSP is the system of this generation to go to for modern platformers. I'm probably going to pass on Prinny, but I hope developers like Capcom and Konami keep them coming.

Entirely off-topic comment. (Besides, apart from ports and compilations, what original platformers have Capcom and Konami released for the PSP? I'd say the DS has way more new games in this genre (though I couldn't care either way, since I am under the impression most of them suck). If you want to play good platformers download MAME and a bunch of 16- and 32-bit console emulators and ask Recap, Macaw, Josh and/or Gaijin Punch to tell you what to play.)

UG&G is a platformer that's exceptionally complex, challenging, and rewarding.

As I have explained, by modern standards, Goku is not exceptionally complex. Only if you are still thinking in terms of the late-80s, early-90s can Goku seem "exceptionally complex".

It's challenging as a game of jumping and of shooting

lol at vacuous sentence.

and unlike MegaMan and Castlevania, there are tangible opportunities for scoring.

Like A.Wrench, you are comparing your game of choice with the SIMPLEST games imaginable. But of course by your standards they are not simple...

If the platforming genre, as small as it already is, looked to UG&G more to influence its priorities in craft, your theory could fortuitously be proved incorrect (because I love platformers so much and find this unfortunate to hear).

This is a naive attitude. One of the reasons you "love" the genre so much could very well be that all the examples of it you've played up till now have been relatively shallow. There are numerous STG fans, for example, who hate the modern complex games, and judging by your post, and by how ignorant you are on how modern, complex games work, I am willing to bet that if a genuinely complex platformer were released you'd hate it.

In the end, one game cannot disprove your theory, I suppose

Oh, it very well can. Even a single valid example would do. If it existed, however, I'd probably already know about it, and it would have made so many waves in the hardcore gaming community that, at least some people, would be making a huge fuss about "this awesome platformer that has a system as complex as a modern shooting or fighting game".

[icycalm]

Raphael posted some stuff which was completely unrelated to the topic of this thread, so I deleted it. I will try one more time to explain what I mean.

All I am talking about is intuitiveness of control. If you wanted to add a DDP DFK-style scoring system to Contra or Final Fight or Super Mario Bros., I am sure someone could figure out how to do it, but the games would play incredibly clunky, because in DDP DFK your avatar is free to move across the entire screen, whereas in those sidescrollers it is constrained by gravity to a certain limited part of the screen. You therefore have additional movement/control limitations (and in beat 'em ups you have more than in any other 2D genre), which, when coupled with those involved in a scoring system with the depth of something like DDP: DFK, would make the game feel incredibly unnatural and clunky. Someone like Macaw would still probably get a kick out of playing it, but that's not saying much because people like Macaw get a kick out of playing everything -- and more power to them! Commercially, however, such games, I think, would be a disaster (much like Raizing-style games are a disaster commercially, and have only managed to survive to this day through the help of more popular approaches, such as those of Cave, Psikyo, Takumi, et al. -- but Raizing-style games, on their own, would never be able to support the genre for any length of time).

I find it very hard to express what I mean in this particular instance, but I hope some people will be able to get an idea by the above... I think that the best way to show what I mean would be to write a demo of a platformer, for example, with a Cave-like scoring system, and let people play it and see for themselves. Unfortunately, I am not a programmer, so I have no way of doing this even if I wanted to. Conceptually though, I can see it in my mind, and that's what I am trying to explain in this thread (perhaps very unsuccessfully).

[raphael]

I think I get it for the shooter/platformer comparison. Thanks for the clarification attempt.

What's your theory on the fighter genre ?

[BlackerOmegalon]

So there's no one in Japan who loves beat 'em ups or platformers or run 'n guns enough to try and create one with a very complex scoring system and release it in the arcades? Or is it possible that this thought never entered anyone's mind?

I think that consoles hijacked these genres by having them be more profitable on consoles rather than arcades. Why develop an arcade platform game when you can make loads of money on a Mario or Sonic clone?

Though it might sound strange, I think that shooters have benefited from not appealing to the mainstream console crowd, as their only audience are the hardcore gamers, add to this the fact that genre had great developers behind it's most successful releases, could you ever imagine, for example, Rare or Naughty Dog making a great platform game for the arcades? They can barely get away with making decent console games, meanwhile, the likes of Capcom, Sega and Konami just aren't interested in making those types of games.

Fighting games don't seem to be entirely safe from "console influence" as shooter are though, just look at the debacle of Street Fighter IV, a game the producer of has said himself is designed to be less complex! And look at the joke the Soul Calibur series has become with it's last two releases being console-only. Another thing, look at the number of shitty fighting games that appeared back when they sold well on consoles, and look at how the genre performed when console gamers lost interest.

[icycalm]

I think I get it for the shooter/platformer comparison. Thanks for the clarification attempt.

What's your theory on the fighter genre?

Consider the late Capcom beat 'em ups, or some of IGS's games. Those games incorporate some fighting game-style command moves, which of course end up being relatively cumbersome to pull off. It's not that they are IMPOSSIBLE to pull off, not very difficult either -- it just feels very unnatural and unintuitive. Clunky, if you will. Because in beat 'em ups the UP and DOWN directions are reserved for moving up and down, whereas in fighting games they are used for jumping and crouching ( -- since in fighters up and down movement is impossible). So if you tried to introduce some of the really complex command moves in a beat 'em up, the kind of moves that require the player to rotate the stick through 6 or 10 or 12 directions (something, which, as I understand, no one has yet tried), you would end up making it extremely difficult and frustrating to pull off those moves with any degree of consistency. Not to mention that if you gave the opponents similar moves the game would become nearly unplayable. Just the mere thought of trying to implement, say, Arcana Heart's system in a beat 'em up would be enough to give a game designer recurring nightmares, I think.

And the same thing goes for platformers and side-scrollers generally. You could take Guilty Gear and add plaforming sections and several opponents on the screen at once, but the platforming would feel tacked on, and we saw how well the multiple opponents idea worked out in Isuka.

[icycalm]

meanwhile, the likes of Capcom, Sega and Konami just aren't interested in making those types of games.

Yes, we know. The point of this thread is to explain why. Because Capcom, Sega and Konami still make, or publish, fighters and/or shooters for the arcades. The question is why not platformers, beat 'em ups and run 'n guns. And the answer to this question is not, I believe, because "those genres were unlucky". I believe there is a very good reason behind their fate, and this is what I am trying to explain in this thread.

[Recap]

The same applies for trying to implement the systems of a fighter in one of those genres.

The core mechanics of a "fighter" were already implemented in 2D scrolling action games (Fill-in-Café iterations, Guardian Heroes...) and even Final Fight-type games (Shadow over Mystara, Battle Circuit, that Guilty Gear X spin-off?...), though obviously without the level of depth and complexity a good taisen kakutou game offers since the genre stopped evolving. It's quite natural the people preferred these over scrolling (non-versus) formulas (hence, leaving them die) since they give potentially unlimited possibilities for the player -- beating unlimited rivals, which, in addition, they happen to be human. That's pretty much the key, I believe.

And as I foresee the next question ("why Puyo-Puyo clones didn't succeed as much as those then?") I'll respond right now: Because they aren't visually as attractive and, especially, because they require much more thinking. It's a fact that dexterity-based formulas have more appeal than strategy-based ones.

--

Edit: Too late, but whatever.

[Recap]

Consider the late Capcom beat 'em ups, or some of IGS's games. Those games incorporate some fighting game-style command moves, which of course end up being relatively cumbersome to pull off. It's not that they are IMPOSSIBLE to pull off, not very difficult either -- it just feels very unnatural and unintuitive. Clunky, if you will. Because in beat 'em ups the UP and DOWN directions are reserved for moving up and down, whereas in fighting games they are used for jumping and crouching ( -- since in fighters up and down movement is impossible).

I wouldn't call it "cumbersome", but I agree in essence there. But try the "2D scrolling action games" I mentioned in the previous post. They're truly "2D" and the special moves work as well as in taisen kakutou games.

[icycalm]

Recap's explanation is quite different from mine. Take this, for example:

The core mechanics of a "fighter" were already implemented in 2D scrolling action games (Fill-in-Café iterations, Guardian Heroes...) and even Final Fight-type games (Shadow over Mystara, Battle Circuit, that Guilty Gear X spin-off?...), though obviously without the level of depth and complexity a good taisen kakutou game offers since the genre stopped evolving.

The question again is, *why* did the genre stop evolving? And my answer is that it stopped evolving because further evolution, though possible, would not have led to very enjoyable games.

I think that, in time, my theories here will be demostrated through the use of techniques described in the "Pressing buttons" thread:

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?t=2528

Basically, platformers, beat 'em ups and run 'n guns, by their very nature, restrict the possible stick/button presses to a limited set. By trying to ADD the restrictions of a complex scoring system a la Cave, and/or the complex restrictions of a complex fighting system a la 2D fighters, the resulting set of possible stick/button presses becomes extremely limited, to the point of unplaybility -- whatever that word is supposed to mean.

It's quite natural the people preferred these over scrolling non-versus formulas (hence, leaving them die) since they give potentially unlimited possibilities for the player -- beating unlimited rivals, which they happen to be human. That's pretty much the key, I believe.

And as I foresee the next question ("why Puyo-Puyo clones didn't succeeded as much them?") I'll be answering right now: Because they aren visually as attractive and, especially, because they require much more thinking. It's a fact that dexterity-based formulas have more appeal than strategy-based ones.

The above two paragraphs seem to me correct, and they nicely complement my own theory, giving us a more complete idea of how and why these classic genres simply had to stop evolving at some point.

[icycalm]

I wouldn't call it "cumbersome", but I agree in essence there. But try the "2D scrolling action games" I mentioned in the previous post. They're truly "2D" and the special moves work as well as in taisen kakutou games.

I am sure they do, but that's only because these moves are far fewer and far simpler than the more complex moves of games like HnK or Arcana Heart. (And this is WITHOUT mentioning cancels, kara-cancels, reversals, parrying, etc. etc., which would be a nightmare if implemented in such games.)

[icycalm]

Another way to see things is this: the beat 'em up format is by its very nature so restrictive, that even the simple addition of PROJECTILE WEAPONS entirely fucks up the game. You have to be extremely careful when adding guns and the like, in order not to mess the game entirely. In games like Alien vs. Predator and The Punisher, for example, the player has a very limited, usually time-based use of firearms, and the enemies almost NEVER shoot at you, because if they did it would be insanely difficult to dodge their fire with any degree of consistency.

So, if, in these games, adding something as simple as firearms can be so difficult, one can imagine how difficult it would be to add Cave-like scoring systems or versus game-like fighting mechanics, and how awkward they would play if anyone did.

[Recap]

I am sure they do, but that's only because these moves are far fewer and far simpler than the more complex moves of games like HnK or Arcana Heart. (And this is WITHOUT mentioning cancels, kara-cancels, reversals, parrying, etc. etc., which would be a nightmare if implemented in such games.)

Well, seems logical to think that the evolution in those genres wouldn't have taken the very same path as 2D taisen kakutou. Think of games like Guardian Heroes (where you have enemies in both of your sides) and how they handle, for instance, the guard feature -- nothing to do with how you do the guard move in 2D taisen kakutou games (no, Mortal Kombat doesn't count). Hence, everything derived of or related to guarding (in case there should be something) would be different.

Another way to see things is this: the beat 'em up format is by its very nature so restrictive

I've always agreed with that. If we think a bit and go further from that, we'll find out that 3D movement/conception [not just Final Fight-type, take stuff like Märchen Maze, Landstalker or Viewpoint] (we should be calling it "fake 2D") is indeed less natural than 2D (it can't even work without shadows).

So now think about it when you add camera-dependant graphics (that is, "polygons") and analog controls. Oh, well.

Note that 3D racing games are another completely different story.

[ganheddo]

Thx for this topic, I've never took a deeper look at what really caused shmups to outlast the other single-player genre.

There really seems to be some fundamental property, that benefits the kind of complexity we see in their intricate scoring systems nowadays, and I think it's exactly as you pointed out, in that the platformers and beat'em ups are all inherently confined by their stricter rulesets.


I mean, could you restrict a (modern) shmup any less?

* free movement of your ship within the playfield i.e. move everywhere on the screen with ease (probably why environmental hazards disappeared over time)

* same goes for other stuff (usually your enemies, but also power ups, plus they can even fly in and out of the screen)

* huge amount of bullets & enemies leads to a multitude of different enemy/bullet configurations on screen

* it really seems as if there are only the most rudimentary restrictions e.g. you can move your ship at a certain speed in 8 directions, you and your enemies disappear when they're hit and maybe the most striking one: the player is given direction (e.g. your ship is forced to move forward through scrolling, faces and shoots in that direction and cannot leave the screen's borders)


This relative unrestricted environment and especially the nearly unlimited amount of enemy/bullet patterns and the possible scoring relationships that may arise out of it, are a perfect environment for such intricate rulesystems we see in modern shmups.