Explain to me the allure of 2D shooters?

[Wavelflack]

I've noticed that any time a "new" 2D shooter makes it's way down the pike, a large contingent seems to ready and waiting to proclaim this as a Good Thing, something worthy of unqualified purchase plans. This could be applied to 2D beat 'em ups as well, though they seem to come less frequently.

At any rate, it seems unusual to me that the genres gaming "grew out of" could have such appeal to some that they will turn away the critical eye and (essentially) blindly embrace the new offerings.

I may be slightly biased in my view. I will freely admit that my primary motivation for playing ANY 2D shooter has always been the graphics. Oh.

When Defender first came out, what I really found stimulating was the explosions. I don't think I am alone in this. Nevertheless, making lots and lots of particles expand was my purpose in playing. It also made me feel elite that I was playing a game via so many buttons (I rejoiced when Defender Stargate came out.) The score was okay, but the onscreen visuals was the point.

Later on, when the cool looking Romstar shooters came out, I played those. Why? To see what the next area looked like. The play mechanics were only a tool to get me to the visuals I yearned for.

R-Type (in the arcade) looked really cool. Thunderforce 3 and 4 had me playing not only to see what the next stage looked like, but what it sounded like!

I could go on for some time. I've played many, many shooters. But I never played them for the mechanics of the gameplay. The fact that the pretty stages cost me quarters probably gave them an increased value in my eyes, but I don't recall ever thinking "What an intricate enemy pattern!" or such.

I'm not sluggish or uncoordinated. I understand being in "the zone". It's just that shooters don't seem to offer me much exhiliration for being in "the zone", and now that fantastic graphics (and art) are commonplace, I don't see the allure of the 2D shooter.


So explain it to me. Is it nostalgia? Is it more than that?

[bangtango]

I've noticed that any time a "new" 2D shooter makes it's way down the pike, a large contingent seems to ready and waiting to proclaim this as a Good Thing, something worthy of unqualified purchase plans. This could be applied to 2D beat 'em ups as well, though they seem to come less frequently.

At any rate, it seems unusual to me that the genres gaming "grew out of" could have such appeal to some that they will turn away the critical eye and (essentially) blindly embrace the new offerings.

I may be slightly biased in my view. I will freely admit that my primary motivation for playing ANY 2D shooter has always been the graphics. Oh.

When Defender first came out, what I really found stimulating was the explosions. I don't think I am alone in this. Nevertheless, making lots and lots of particles expand was my purpose in playing. It also made me feel elite that I was playing a game via so many buttons (I rejoiced when Defender Stargate came out.) The score was okay, but the onscreen visuals was the point.

Later on, when the cool looking Romstar shooters came out, I played those. Why? To see what the next area looked like. The play mechanics were only a tool to get me to the visuals I yearned for.

R-Type (in the arcade) looked really cool. Thunderforce 3 and 4 had me playing not only to see what the next stage looked like, but what it sounded like!

I could go on for some time. I've played many, many shooters. But I never played them for the mechanics of the gameplay. The fact that the pretty stages cost me quarters probably gave them an increased value in my eyes, but I don't recall ever thinking "What an intricate enemy pattern!" or such.

I'm not sluggish or uncoordinated. I understand being in "the zone". It's just that shooters don't seem to offer me much exhiliration for being in "the zone", and now that fantastic graphics (and art) are commonplace, I don't see the allure of the 2D shooter.


So explain it to me. Is it nostalgia? Is it more than that?

For me, shooters give off the feeling of "me against the world." There is a great sense of accomplishment for me, shooting my way through wave after wave of enemies with a single ship. It is a completely different experience than going one on one with an opponent in a fighting game or competing against another team in a sports game. Not saying it is better but the feeling you get from a 2D shooter is one you can't find in a lot of modern games.

These kind of games are also great fun with a friend. Put a couple of novice gamers in front of something as elementary as Life Force on the NES, with the code for 30-lives. Try and convince me that those two people won't have a blast shooting their way through outer space. Somebody would have a blast doing it alone. I use Life Force for an example because it was the first 2D shooter I ever played. I know your post is about new 2D shooters, but the experience I am describing is an experience that for me will never grow old.

[RadiantSvgun]

It's the gameplay. I enjoy how the genre calls for skill, perfection, and a bit of luck. And its got the arcade feel, which many old school gamers enjoy. I don't have a real reason, I just like them.

[whoisKeel]

Shooters require a precision unmatched by any other genre. The challenge takes on a life of its own where mistakes are simply not allowed. Palms sweat as bullets race inches away from the hitbox. Points are squeezed out of areas never dreamed of by the programmers. Gimmicks are abused, and lives are lost.


…Besides, what other genres are still alive that you can die in?

[RadiantSvgun]

That "contingent" isn't that large, or shooters would be more common place. They rarely see a US release, and that may be another reason why we jump on them.

[lordnikon]

Since previous posters have already expressed reasons why they like shooters, and mine are very similar, I will touch on another point brought up by Wavelflack.

We do not blindly purchase games. Often times we know the developer. Their past track record runs deep and it is easy to assume that we will enjoy their new game based on past offerings. On top of this, serious shooter players research games to death. Scouring for gameplay information, screenshots, location text videos, etc etc. We know a lot about the game before it arrives in the mail.

I love shooters. My collection of shmups totals over 91 titles. These games are my passion, and I do not purchase them for superficial reasons.

Those who revel in nostalgia are people who buy virtual console games on the "Wii" for a quick play through. They boot up a genesis game and ponder "oh I remember this game", and proceed to spend 5 minutes with the title before they power off their system to play a new release.

I turn on my Sega Genesis to play M.U.S.H.A., Truxton, the ThunderForce series, just like I would any other game. Sometimes all I am playing is shooters on older consoles, with all of my newer consoles laying dormant.

This is done out of a passion for shmup games. It is the staple of my gaming. True, honest interest with serious intent.

[roushimsx]

It's the gameplay. I enjoy how the genre calls for skill, perfection, and a bit of luck. And its got the arcade feel, which many old school gamers enjoy. I don't have a real reason, I just like them.

I'm pretty much in this boat. Also, I think of shmups are the predecessor to the modern day first person shooter, which I also love. Really, deep down I just love blowing shit the fuck up.

Shmups are unique in that I love a well balanced one that makes me work towards getting the elusive single credit clear by working on my memory and my reflexes. Every one in a while, one like Gigawing or Mars Matrix will roll out that starts off as a shmup but gradually shifts into something like a rhythm game, where you're trying to get your reflect shield tempo down so that you don't wind up eating a shit load of bullets that are flying all over the screen at any point in time.

Oh, and I don't much care for fighting games and like to try to get as much use out of my arcade sticks as I can :(

[rcgamer]

If you guys love the shmup games then it would be worth your while to purchase a dreamcast cheap. Hard to believe they are still making games for it. There are at least 2 more shoot em ups to be released for it this year. Under defeat wich was released last year is just awesome, if you love the explosions then this game will rock your socks.

I think a reason why it SEEMS like there are so many people who get into them now is because its kind of rate to see them these days. So when they are released there is a little commotion about it. Plus they are fun as heck and are a great example of what game companies have forgotten, that gameplay is better than graphics.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Shmups... It's all in the reflexes. I call it twitch factor. The experience is not like that of most games where you have time to plan your moves. Shmups tap into the reptilian part of the brain, which is more primal. Plus, Ugg like big boom booms. :D

Zone or Zen has been touched on already and that is a big draw for me as well. It's part of the reptilian thing but on a ascended level. Memory Lane may have something to do with it as well. I defy you to dig up an arcade rat that has never plopped a quarter in a shooter... it just isn't gonna happen.

[Ed Oscuro]

I don't care much for doujin shooters or most of the budget/hobby shooter releases, and I don't like "bullet hell" shooters where you spend your time weaving your ship between very tight shot patterns (although I survived in Siroi Danmakun for 80+ seconds recently).

Anyway, I like shooters that have passable enough artwork and design that you're interested to see the next stage (yes, I count Fire Shark) and where a bit of memorization plus decent reflexes will let you get through stages.

Also, you're blowing stuff up! That's always awesome.

Some of my favorite shooters:

Most anything Toaplan (Fire Shark, Batsugun, Grind Stormer, Tatsujin 1 & 2, Flying Shark, Twin Cobra, Dogyun, etc.)
R-Type 1 & Leo, and R-Type 1 & 2 on GameBoy
Terra Cresta (1 & 2, don't really like Moon Cresta and Terra Force as much)
Air Buster (thanks to Bloodreign; this one grew on me real quick)
Metal Black
Thunder Force III (aka Thunderforce AC)
Samurai Aces games
Anything by Compile
Vasara (to a degree)
Many Capcom shooters (Forgotten Worlds, Area 88/U.N. Squadron, Varth)

To a slightly lesser degree I like a large number of other shooters, and the Konami classics Scramble, Time Pilot '84, and especially Juno First.

Devestators (not considered a SHMUP, but it's much like a vertical shooter viewed from a different perspective and with short range gunfire)
Ninja Emaki (only a few areas have the traditional shooter style gameplay; it generally plays like Commando with more interesting areas)
Rendering Ranger also has nifty shooter levels.

[cyberfluxor]

What's a list of games that it appeared as though the programers just threw a bunch of random crap in all over the place to make it impossible? I'm not talking about wave after wave of similar enemies that look coordinated, rather unpredictable entrances or even the ability of the units to change their attack algorithm. Just a little currious.

There's a game I have on my SNES that's very generic with you in a basic jet from the airforce. The levels feel like they go on for a long time and the exact same attack formations come after you over and over. It's not sloppy just really repetative without character to the patterns of the units. Forget the name of it but it also has multiple difficulties that escentially increase the amout of rounds fired by the enemies.

[lordnikon]

If you guys love the shmup games then it would be worth your while to purchase a dreamcast cheap. Hard to believe they are still making games for it. There are at least 2 more shoot em ups to be released for it this year. Under defeat wich was released last year is just awesome, if you love the explosions then this game will rock your socks.
Yea :] I own every shooter on the DC except for one. I still need Twinkle Star Sprites though I may score that this weekend. Then my collection will be complete. I own every other DC shooter though, including both the original and LE version of Under Defeat.

I have pre-orders in on Karous and Trigger Heart already as well.

[Xexyz]

<b>Edit:</b> Reply to cyberfluxor's question:

Was it Firepower 2000, aka Super SWIV? I personally never cared for the SWIV games. Some people praise them, but I find that their powerup system is just too unforgivable if you make a mistake and die. They also have a very bland graphical style and stupid hard difficulty.

[goemon]

I'm into the DonPachi series and other "bullet hell" shooters. It's awesome to look at the screen full of colored bullets and think, "I survived that!"

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

2D shooters today are designed with a certain type of gamer in mind. It's not just someone who likes a challenge, though that's part of it. It's not just someone who wants to rack up a high score rather than simply beating the game, though that's part of it, too. It's not just someone who will play through a single level over and over again, though that's definitely part of it as well. The real target market for shooters is perfectionist gamers. A gamer who has a compulsive desire to play a section, a level or even a whole game absolutely perfectly. Flawlessly. Beautifully.

That's what the bullet hell shooters all about. You don't just have to avoid all those bullets, you have to avoid them all with grace and coolness. And still pick up all the medals.

That's what gimmick shooters are all about. Can you use the gimmicks in the right place at the right time to not just take out all the enemies and avoid their shots, but also make everything look easy?

Of course, ultimately ultimate perfection can never be achieved, you can always do something better or more smoothly and it's that never-ending quest that makes shooters so much fun for gamers that have this particular compulsion.

For me, the hopeless hope of attaining perfection is what all video games are about--not just shooters. In a platormer it means moving through the level non-stop, getting all the items, bopping all the badies and making it all look easy. Beating the game doesn't matter, though it'll happen eventually. In a racer it means hitting the perfect line or flawless drift on every corner and always cleanly passing the other cars. Winning the race doesn't matter, though I probably will. In a puzzle game it means always knowing where to put your pieces so that it looks like you're three steps head of the game and are not even trying. The score doesn't even matter, though it'll be high.

However, most genres of games also offer something for people who aren't seeking perfection of gameplay that way, maybe shooters don't, especially modern shooters. Someone who didn't think of gameplay in terms of perfection would probably see shooters as sort of shallow or all the same since it's only when you start trying to perfect your gameplay that you find the truly infinite depth in shooters and see that there's a whole world of difference even between the bullet paterns of two bosses in the same game, let alone between different games.


...word is bondage...

[Aswald]

Vanguard, Cosmic Avenger, and Sky Jaguar are just plain good.

[calthaer]

I'm with goemon. Massive explosions and massive amounts of bullets FTW!

[Haoie]

I personally collect PS1 shumps, and boy there are a lot of them, a lot J only, naturally.

I use them to kill time, play something that doesn't require intense thinking about storylines and what not, to focus out the world.

Escapism. Now where's me G-Darius?

[extrarice]

2D shooters today are designed with a certain type of gamer in mind. It's not just someone who likes a challenge, though that's part of it. It's not just someone who wants to rack up a high score rather than simply beating the game, though that's part of it, too. It's not just someone who will play through a single level over and over again, though that's definitely part of it as well. The real target market for shooters is perfectionist gamers. A gamer who has a compulsive desire to play a section, a level or even a whole game absolutely perfectly. Flawlessly. Beautifully.

That's what the bullet hell shooters all about. You don't just have to avoid all those bullets, you have to avoid them all with grace and coolness. And still pick up all the medals.
Hit the nail on the head there. These games are for perfectionists. There's very little story or depth to these games. Just a relentless struggle to be flawless.

[Ed Oscuro]

There's very little story or depth to these games.
Why is it that people feel the need to say these things every time shooters are mentioned? Some of the newer shooters have scoring systems as deep as anything you'll find in a 3D platform/action game (and considerably tougher to figure out, at that).

If you ask me, a game isn't really that deep if all its secrets are fed to you via tutorials.

As far as "little story" goes, well, Mid Garts (Wolfteam shooter on X68000) has a manual with 94 numbered pages that says otherwise... :P

I also disagree with the Sweaty Fish - non-bullet hell shooters demand perfection as well, or invite players to play in a perfectionist way. That's not something just the B&H fans can claim for themselves, there.

[Snapple]

Shmups aren't my favorite genre, but I appreciate that your ship in any good shmup responds and turns on a dime. Shmups remove a lot of the luck factor, and it's as close as video games have come to a pure test of reflexes, aside from FPSes.

My favorite shmup series is without a doubt Twinbee. I love how colorful it is. I love the quirky enemies and levels. I think the "bell" powerup system puts more strategy into the game, because it gives you something to juggle while you try to get the powerup you want. Parodius also goes in the same vein of quirkiness that I like.

A lot of shmups bore me to tears with their lack of originality, especially space shooters. I enjoyed Gradius when it was pretty new, and I enjoyed Thunderforce III when it was a graphical treat, but oh my God they need to stop with the space shooters now.

[dracula]

I've noticed that any time a "new" 2D shooter makes it's way down the pike, a large contingent seems to ready and waiting to proclaim this as a Good Thing, something worthy of unqualified purchase plans. This could be applied to 2D beat 'em ups as well, though they seem to come less frequently.

At any rate, it seems unusual to me that the genres gaming "grew out of" could have such appeal to some that they will turn away the critical eye and (essentially) blindly embrace the new offerings.

I may be slightly biased in my view. I will freely admit that my primary motivation for playing ANY 2D shooter has always been the graphics. Oh.

When Defender first came out, what I really found stimulating was the explosions. I don't think I am alone in this. Nevertheless, making lots and lots of particles expand was my purpose in playing. It also made me feel elite that I was playing a game via so many buttons (I rejoiced when Defender Stargate came out.) The score was okay, but the onscreen visuals was the point.

Later on, when the cool looking Romstar shooters came out, I played those. Why? To see what the next area looked like. The play mechanics were only a tool to get me to the visuals I yearned for.

R-Type (in the arcade) looked really cool. Thunderforce 3 and 4 had me playing not only to see what the next stage looked like, but what it sounded like!

I could go on for some time. I've played many, many shooters. But I never played them for the mechanics of the gameplay. The fact that the pretty stages cost me quarters probably gave them an increased value in my eyes, but I don't recall ever thinking "What an intricate enemy pattern!" or such.

I'm not sluggish or uncoordinated. I understand being in "the zone". It's just that shooters don't seem to offer me much exhiliration for being in "the zone", and now that fantastic graphics (and art) are commonplace, I don't see the allure of the 2D shooter.


So explain it to me. Is it nostalgia? Is it more than that?

no it isnt just nostalgia for me anyways. I like the metal slug games, the old contra games, and yes, the newer games like the gameboy gunstar heroes. The older systems like the turbo grafx were shump heaven.

I do like the newer shooters like battlefront 1 and 2, but also the new 2d shooters like gradius v for ps2. I guess it does have 3d backrounds.

I think the 2d shooters offered insane challenge and eye hand coordination, even moreso than today's 3d shooters(halo and doom and the rest)

[Ed Oscuro]

I enjoyed Thunderforce III when it was a graphical treat, but oh my God they need to stop with the space shooters now.
They did. Now everything's a 3D brawler or action platform game. There, happy?

(Dreamcast doesn't count because those are niche developers.)

[BydoEmpire]

I think the appeal is in the game being a test of reflexes and pure physical dexterity and skill. Shmups are games in the traditional sense like basketball, chess, or horseshoes are games. You play for score and to improve your skill. As opposed to a story or adventure based game, where the fun is as much completing the game as the actual actions of playing the game.

I like shmups, though they're not my favorite genre. I really don't enjoy the "bullet swarm" shooters (Mars Matrix excepted) which are more of a war of attrition of how many quarters you have. My favorites are shooters in the R-Type/Darius/1943 vein - they're more about cool artwork, fast-but-human reflexes, and somewhat in memorizing the levels. The sense of accomplishment in beating a new level or getting a new high score (for something like 1943) is great. Getting to a new level in a modern "bullet swarm" shooter makes me feel "oh great, I only used six continues, instead of eight!" But that's just because I suck. I like knowing that it's reasonably possible for me to beat a shooter on one life. I watched the "perfect" videos in Mars Matrix, and even though I love the game, there's no way I can do that even after watching someone else's recorded play through. Whereas you pretty much HAVE to do each level perfectly in R-Type.

[Hwj_Chim]

Why do people still like them? It is something different than a grand theft auto clone or yet another WW2 shooter. I will take an R-type game or Metal slug game any day over the 3D crap that is being released nowadays.

http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q197/hwj_chim/SNK.jpg

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

I also disagree with the Sweaty Fish - non-bullet hell shooters demand perfection as well, or invite players to play in a perfectionist way. That's not something just the B&H fans can claim for themselves, there.
You must have misunderstood me. I was definitely talking about all types of shooters in my post. Everything from Space Invaders to Under Defeat. Of course, in the early '80s and even into the late '80s and early '90s, that kind of perfectionist gameplay as a goal wasn't anything that set shooters apart from other genres, it was just the way video games were for the most part. Today, though, storylines and collecting and unlockables seem to be what games are about, so shooters by not changing much in their essentials, have become different.


...word is bondage...

[Kid Ice]

I'm very dissatisfied with the proliferation of "cinematic" games that tell a "story". There are so many games of this kind that continue to be released that I am pretty much out of the modern gaming scene for the first time in almost twenty years. Even the games that are primarily action oriented have too much of this nonsense (I'm specifically thinking of Black). BTW the actual movies at the theater aren't very good either.

The other factor is challenge. Yes I know I can make games harder on the "hard" setting, but that usually doesn't make the game more challenging, just arbitrary and unfair (like limiting the number of weapons and ammo you can find...gee that's fun). A game that you can just continue until its over isn't much of a game. Or how about these games where you can simply hide in a corner and regenerate?

Factor three: time. When I was a teenager I liked nothing better than staying up all night assembling parties, talking to townspeople, upgrading weapons, searching dungeons and all that stuff. These days I get about an hour of gaming a day, so it'd better be good. For a typical current gen title an hour isn't long enough to set up a profile, view the opening cinematic, and complete the first level.

[Wavelflack]

Why do people still like them? It is something different than a grand theft auto clone or yet another WW2 shooter. I will take an R-type game or Metal slug game any day over the 3D crap that is being released nowadays.

...and yet a decade and a half ago, there were plenty of gamers (and reviewers) taking note of the flood of "yet another" 2D shooters and responding with a yawn. The games didn't go out of vogue because they were selling so well. The game players had the same attitude toward them as you have toward WW2 shooters. A decade before that, we had endless maze games (ala Pac Man clones), although I don't remember anyone wishing for more.

I suppose it's reasonable to assume that in 15 years, a homebrew WW2 shooter will be met with acclaim by the "hardcore" community. Hard to imagine now, but back in 1992 I would have never guessed that people would be eagerly awaiting another 2D shooter.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

...and yet a decade and a half ago, there were plenty of gamers (and reviewers) taking note of the flood of "yet another" 2D shooters and responding with a yawn. The games didn't go out of vogue because they were selling so well. The game players had the same attitude toward them as you have toward WW2 shooters. A decade before that, we had endless maze games (ala Pac Man clones), although I don't remember anyone wishing for more.

I suppose it's reasonable to assume that in 15 years, a homebrew WW2 shooter will be met with acclaim by the "hardcore" community. Hard to imagine now, but back in 1992 I would have never guessed that people would be eagerly awaiting another 2D shooter.
I guarantee that there's not more people looking forward to each new shooter released today than there was in 1991. Shooters are way way way more of niche today. Keep in mind that the pool of perspectives here or at Gaming-Age or something like that is heavily skewed. Try going somewhere like dcemulation (which is a skewed population as well, but not as much and in a different way) and see how they respond each time a new shooter is announced for the Dreamcast. Sure some of them are all for it, but there's always a lot of people who complain about it say how stupid shooters are and why can't we have a game like GTA or something.

However, I do think that a lot of people are too quick to jump on new shooters just because the genre has such a hardcore reputation, which is what I think you're implying. I love Psyvariar and Shikigami 2 and Under Defeat, but plenty of the other shooters on the Dreamcast and most of them on the Gameboy Advance are totally shit.


...word is bondage...

[roushimsx]

What's a list of games that it appeared as though the programers just threw a bunch of random crap in all over the place to make it impossible? I'm not talking about wave after wave of similar enemies that look coordinated, rather unpredictable entrances or even the ability of the units to change their attack algorithm. Just a little currious.


Most shmups use a ranking system now a days that adjusts the bullet patterns and difficulty based on how well you're playing. When Raizing did Battle Garega, they kinda went a little overboard with it and I don't believe it's possible to 1LC the game as a result. The 1CC videos for it are funny if you're not familiar with the rank system because you're watching someone who obviously knows how to play very well continually eating bullets to keep their reserve lives zero.

Battle Bakraid was so much better balanced, but I still love to play Garega anyway. :)

[josekortez]

I think 2D shooters really put your reflexes to work more than other types of games. I prefer vertical to horizontal, however I have been playing the Gradiuses, Thunderforce III, and Arrow Flash in order to convince myself that horizontal games are worth playing...

[Ed Oscuro]

You must have misunderstood me. I was definitely talking about all types of shooters in my post. Everything from Space Invaders to Under Defeat. Of course, in the early '80s and even into the late '80s and early '90s, that kind of perfectionist gameplay as a goal wasn't anything that set shooters apart from other genres, it was just the way video games were for the most part. Today, though, storylines and collecting and unlockables seem to be what games are about, so shooters by not changing much in their essentials, have become different.
My apologies...I just assumed the worst :)

Anyhow, a couple other great shooters I started playing, all available on the Genesis or Mega Drive:

Air Busters (Air Buster in arcades, very little difference between that and the superb Genny port), Gleylancer (or Gley Lancer), and Eliminate Down. All awesome games.

[scaleworm]

Since previous posters have already expressed reasons why they like shooters, and mine are very similar, I will touch on another point brought up by Wavelflack.

We do not blindly purchase games. Often times we know the developer. Their past track record runs deep and it is easy to assume that we will enjoy their new game based on past offerings. On top of this, serious shooter players research games to death. Scouring for gameplay information, screenshots, location text videos, etc etc. We know a lot about the game before it arrives in the mail.

I love shooters. My collection of shmups totals over 91 titles. These games are my passion, and I do not purchase them for superficial reasons.

Those who revel in nostalgia are people who buy virtual console games on the "Wii" for a quick play through. They boot up a genesis game and ponder "oh I remember this game", and proceed to spend 5 minutes with the title before they power off their system to play a new release.

I turn on my Sega Genesis to play M.U.S.H.A., Truxton, the ThunderForce series, just like I would any other game. Sometimes all I am playing is shooters on older consoles, with all of my newer consoles laying dormant.

This is done out of a passion for shmup games. It is the staple of my gaming. True, honest interest with serious intent.

I could not agree more with you. It is difficult to me to describe to folks (like my Bro in law) why i collect old systems and games specifically Shumps (he is interested in only the newest latest best...and passes on anything "old)...He laughs at me playing my nes DC snes and gennie for hours (on a 32" LCD) when the 360 sits idle... it is the shumps that always pulls ME back to these great old systems...... and if the 360 gets RS3 as posted yesterday on racketboy/retro...then the 360 may joing the DC and others in play time again...

http://www.racketboy.com/retro/2007/01/treasure-sets-record-straight-on-xbox.html#links

[TurboGenesis]

I can agree with all the folks in this thread that posted their reasons and pleasures in playing shooties. I'll add this:

I like shooties because of my lifestyle that sometimes I need something I can play and enjoy quick and not have to rely on save points and such. Every game today pretty much has you save from your last spot and never start from the beginning and just play to the end of a game 30-90 hours later. I start every shootie at level one and depending on the day get further or have a higher score. Its something I can do fast and quick and gain a good level of enjoyment.

[Bloodreign]

What keeps me playing shooters is the fact they can help sharpen reflexes to a nice degree, something happens to fall off a counter a matter of feet away and I can usually snag it before it hits the ground.

Another reason is the fun factor, sure dying quickly in a shmup only teaches you to do better next round, nothing like taking one small plane or ship and blowing the living hell out of an army of air/spacecraft knowing the odds are against you ever winning, but proving in the end if you get good enough at a shmup, that you can win and save the world.

A game that gives me headaches, yet I enjoy the living hell out of it is Twin Cobra/Kyukyoku Tiger, sure I'll play TC a bit, but I play the Japanese version because the respawn where death part is removed and you're forced back to a checkpoint, frustrating for some, a teaching tool for me to do better next run. Hence why I bought the Genesis version of Twin Cobra, it shares the US name for the shmup, but the checkpoint system of it's Japanese cousin Kyukyoku Tiger.

And Ed you're welcome about Air Buster, I had played it spotty from time to time never seriously getting into it till recently, once I saw exactly how fun it was, and how it kept drawing me back, same as Twin Cobra.

Shmups are one of the last bastions of good 2-D, it's just ashame that all the really modern ones stay in Japan, as companies are afraid to lose cash if they try and release them here (though I thank XS Games for the wonderful Castle Shikigami 2 port, minus the voice acting of course), not all are good, but there are plenty of interesting ones to keep your attention for a long time.

[RCM]

There's no other genre that forces me to be perfect. There's no specific type of shooter I enjoy, I judge them on a case by case basis. I'd take an average shooter over a great FPS almost any day.

[Cinder6]

Well, to me, shooters are perhaps the one genre that doesn't lose anything in the transition from 2D->2.5D. Improved graphics don't take away the feel of them, like they do for other games (like the Mega Man X re-release on the PSP, for example). Also, shooters are still fun--they don't seem to have lost their edge, even after all these years. And each shooter is pretty unique. Sure, they all have the same basic premise, but you can be an expert at one, and suck at another, which makes for interesting challenge.

[RegSNES]

For me, the appeal of shooters comes from a number of things.

1.) These games are old-school. One ship (or two ships if the game is co-op) against a huge armada. Shoot, dodge, grab the power-ups, hit the bosses in the weak point, etc. Simple yes, but I love it.

2.) SHMUPs are primarily skill-based games. Sure you get power-ups to aid you, but your own reflexes play a large part on whether or not the universe gets saved or destoryed.

3.) Love the types of power-ups we get in these games. Single lasers, double lasers, spread guns, charge beams, and many of the countless other power-ups I'm not going to name.

[Wavelflack]

Wouldn't a better test of reflexes, etc., be a "fair" shooter? In other words, one where the enemies' shots traveled at the same speed as yours (or your shots were as slow as the enemies'), where enemies tried to gobble up and use power ups, with the same results as if you picked one up?

I know it would be just about impossible, but I personally feel that it would really help with the sensation of "you vs. armada". Flying along and seeing a wave of slow moving enemies firing slow moving shots and missiles...just doesn't evoke a sense of exhiliration for me.

[Captain Wrong]

I'm very dissatisfied with the proliferation of "cinematic" games that tell a "story". There are so many games of this kind that continue to be released that I am pretty much out of the modern gaming scene for the first time in almost twenty years. Even the games that are primarily action oriented have too much of this nonsense (I'm specifically thinking of Black). BTW the actual movies at the theater aren't very good either.

The other factor is challenge. Yes I know I can make games harder on the "hard" setting, but that usually doesn't make the game more challenging, just arbitrary and unfair (like limiting the number of weapons and ammo you can find...gee that's fun). A game that you can just continue until its over isn't much of a game. Or how about these games where you can simply hide in a corner and regenerate?

Factor three: time. When I was a teenager I liked nothing better than staying up all night assembling parties, talking to townspeople, upgrading weapons, searching dungeons and all that stuff. These days I get about an hour of gaming a day, so it'd better be good. For a typical current gen title an hour isn't long enough to set up a profile, view the opening cinematic, and complete the first level.

WINNAR!

At the end of the day, I think shmups are either something you get, or something you don't. To me, they're the opposite side of the coin from RPGs which is a genre I totally fail to see the appeal of, but that's another topic. ;)