Why do westerners not play trad shooters?

[abigsmurf]

Personally, I don't think shooters have grown in the right direction. I don't like Bullet Hell games, I always preferred shooters that gave you an energy bar rather than 1 hit kills.

I look at most Japanese shooters and you see all these great character designs, only for the game itself to not feature them except in eyecatcher images when killing a boss or doing a special.

I look at some of the 16 and 32 bit shooters that I enjoyed. Parodius, Keio flying Squadron, Pop'n'twinbee, robo aleste. All of these featured great designs, fun gameplay and were a bit more forgiving than most modern shooters.

There needs to be a shift away from getting high scores and more on creating a fun, immersive shooter. Modern graphics are incomparable to 16bit yet this increase in horsepower was only used, first to make sprites 3D, then to fill the screen with bullets and fancy lasers. It just seems a horrible waste trying to simply replicate older shooters (but making them more 'hardcore') than really moving the genre on.

[saif]

Conversely the Japanese don't seem too keen on FPSs for reasons that mainly seem to revolve around xenophobia (i.e. they don't make them) which is a fine example of the sort of navel gazing conservatism that really isn't doing them any favours at the moment, but that's another topic.

Ady, I am interested in this point. What makes you think it is xenophobia? I would like to see what reasons people think there is for this? Do people think that shooters are not popular in the west due to xenophobia?

[averybluemonkey]

I remember the original trailer for MGS 3 where they took the mic out of FPS games, seemed an odd way to promote your own release.

[Super Monkey Balls]

"Why do westerners not play trad shooters? " Because our arcade scene is dead.

The shooting game scene isn't what it once was in Japan (Deathsmiles topping 40,000 sales is seen as a big success) but figures like that are good enough to warrant a relatively cheap port from arcade code. If the games weren't in arcades, they wouldn't be on 360. The people buying them are the people who have already pumped the ?100.

The "Why isn't their arcade scene dead" question is a whole other argument but location/convenience and a taste for practicing in public play their part.

More fundamentally though, I think the reason the Japanese still play these games is a cultural thing. They're simply more committed to learning a video game and not fickle enough to be put off by outdated graphics or seemingly simple gameplay.

[Legendary Wolf]

Because they're not in 3D, require skill to master, do not have a discernible "plot" are not "realsitc" and cannot be dissected for tiresome tech spec discussions about frame rates, poly counts and lighting effects on internet forums.

That said, there are still some westerners (us) that like them. Conversely the Japanese don't seem too keen on FPSs for reasons that mainly seem to revolve around xenophobia (i.e. they don't make them) which is a fine example of the sort of navel gazing conservatism that really isn't doing them any favours at the moment, but that's another topic.

I see your point. I have noticed that most people today seem to want to bitch about this and that, dissecting every minute detail rather than just appreciating the game in front of them. What I like about traditional shooters is how simple they are. No lengthy intros, having to learn the control system or getting stuck in a mundane plot. It's gaming at it most simple really.

Although I would not call myself a hardcore fan, I do like a good 2d shooter. Darius Gaiden on the Saturn is great and I have Ikaruga, Zero Gunner 2, Border Down and Psyvariar 2 on the DC.

A real bug-bear of mine is the explosion of FPS games that occurred when the original xbox was launched. Don't get me wrong I do like FPS games but I feel that since Microsoft entered the arena, they brought with them the format best suited to PCs at the expense of other types of games that I enjoyed. It does seem like every other game is an FPS. Really, how many modern war or WWII based games do we need?

[monel]

Personally, I don't think shooters have grown in the right direction. I don't like Bullet Hell games, I always preferred shooters that gave you an energy bar rather than 1 hit kills.


I look at some of the 16 and 32 bit shooters that I enjoyed. Parodius, Keio flying Squadron, Pop'n'twinbee, robo aleste. All of these featured great designs, fun gameplay and were a bit more forgiving than most modern shooters.

.

I'm not a fan of bullet hell games either. Playing Einhander, Gunhed or Area 88/UN Squadron takes me back to when shootemups were one of my favourite genres after fighters. Modern shooters, I will play when possible but they lack a certain something that makes them not appeal as much to me as those old shootemups.

[DeathAdder]

I rarely play them because I'm **** at them

[SharkSkin-Man]

They're simply more committed to learning a video game and not fickle enough to be put off by outdated graphics or seemingly simple gameplay.

Is right imo.
I don't know too many people who can be arsed to play a game for 10 hours just to get a decent grasp of the scoring system.

[saif]

But, presumably, you do know people willing to expend hours doing the same thing again and again when it comes to playing multiplayer FPS or racing around a circuit.

It is not really game mechanics that people have problems with - it is presentation.

[SharkSkin-Man]

I'm not sure.
If there was a FPS game with only 5 levels, each about 2-8 minutes long, that took 40+ hours of play to learn how to clear it, I don't think it'd be too popular.

[endo]

That's exactly the point Saif's making though isn't it? It's presentation that turns people off, not learning game mechanics per se?

[SharkSkin-Man]

If you took something like Espgaluda II, which has a pretty complicated scoring mechanic, and changed the way is was presented, 3D Graphics, added more levels, cutscenes, story etc etc. I still don't think it'd make people play it. The initial hurdle of learning the scoring system would still be too much for most people to bother with imo.

[endo]

I think the point is about presentation as in the way the game mechanic is presented, rather than the graphics/look of the game. To take Street Fighter 4 as an example, the player is required to learn at least the basics of the system in order to get anything out of it (though I suppose there must be some people who somehow get satisfaction from haphazardly button-bashing with no skill). Someone who's completely new to Street Fighter can play the game, get whipped by their opponent, but still go 2 rounds and eventually get a grip on what's happening and gradually improve.

A total newcomer to Espgaluda 2 is going to get shot and die over and over again before they get even remotely close to working the system out, and lots of people are turned off before they get to that point. You could credit-feed your way through, but that's no fun either.

[endo]

And thinking about it a bit more (I'm just writing stuff down as it pops into my head, so it's not the most coherent...) it's exactly that presentation of shooters that is a major factor in why they're not massively popular anymore, and changing the presentation like you mentioned (i.e. adding cutscenes, 3D graphics etc.) wouldn't change the situation. If you tried to retool a trad shooter to appeal to a wider market, either you would end up with something that wasn't a trad shooter anymore or you would still have a trad shooter but with extra bells and whistles that ultimately don't change anything (and therefore don't increase its appeal).

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, tastes change. People are still prepared to learn game mechanics, as evidenced by the popularity of Street Fighter 4 (most games that are any good require the player to learn and exploit the mechanics of the game to some degree. The best games generally allow the player a large amount of freedom to exploit the mechanics how they want). Even something like Halo 3 or any popular generic online FPS you could mention shows that people are still willing to learn game mechanics to at least a basic level.

Dunno, maybe the more abstract concept of a traditional shooter holds less appeal these days than a game you can learn, improve at and play online against human opponents.

[Soundwave]

You could credit-feed your way through, but that's no fun either.

You see this is something I do in the beginning to understand the level layout & actually see what the whole game has to offer.
Once I've crdit fed my way through I then go back & try to get better at it & use less credits as I go, but without playing though credit feeding I never fully appreciate the game because I never ever see more than level 2

I think if people went into them & credit fed to learn the scoring & hook it would make the experience more enjoyable to begin with & then go back & replay for the elusive 1cc

I do feel these are some of the best games ever made & all of them have that "1 more go" appeal to me & that is something no other game today has (apart from maybe SFIV) & is also what to me gaming is all about...wanting to get that little bit further everytime not play through some story for 20-40hrs.
Quick simple fun is where it's at for me.

Neil