Is keeping weapon upgrades between levels in a SHMUP bad game design?

[Tigerskunk]

I read a discussion about the silliness of RPGs levelling systems on a rather huge games message board lately, and that had me thinking, that weapon upgrades in SHMUPs (or any other game) are kind of falling into the same trap.

I am designing levels right now for my little game ("Inviyya"), and it's literally impossible to create a level that is challenging when you have a full set of extra weapons without being completely impossible when you don't have them..

My original idea was to simply start each level stripping all weapon upgrades from the players ship, and design the level to accommodate that you need to get through it in one row, with all 4 possible weapon upgrades happening in each level, so you get to the end boss fully equipped.

I got some people who tested the game whining about this as not being "old school" and them feeling robbed when they started the new level with their advanced weaponry gone..

So, I would like to hear your stance on this.

Please discuss...

[DanScott]

Player should keep power ups... they had to "fight" to get them... It is unfair to take them away. Players should never be penalised for being good.

[robinsonb5]

If you're going to take power-ups away then there needs to be a *very* good justification for it, story-wise, otherwise it does feel like you're being cheated.

On the other hand, there's nothign wrong with lulling the player into a false sense of security before introducing a new type of enemy that can shrug off the particular type of power-up collected so far, and now needs something new to defeat it.

[Glen M]

The player should keep those power ups already earned.

Most shmups are a lot easier once you get the power ups, that's just the name of the game so maybe make the power ups themselves harder to get or restrict what power ups are available per level with better guns as you progress. Enemy types should get harder to kill as levels progress and yes it does make it impossible if you loose your weapons but again that just shmups.

Darius II is one of my all time favourites. When you are powered up you can get through easily enough but when you loose everything, especially on later levels, its essentially game over. The challenge comes from the stage layout and enemy placement that forces you directly into their line of fire. That and the mid and end of level boss fights that can be very difficult.

The balance of a great shmup is not making it impossible but making it feel like the players fault when they die, like "if I had only dodged up there I would have made it".

[DamienD]

Originally Posted by Glen M

Darius II is one of my all time favourites. When you are powered up you can get through easily enough but when you loose everything, especially on later levels, its essentially game over.

That's Slap Fight all over i.e. start the game, build up your weapons, die and then you might as well restart.

[roondar]

Wall of text incoming. Sorry

I really dislike the idea of removing weapon upgrades. It does kind of feel like "stealing".

And kinda-but-not-really off-topic: I also really dislike the idea of RPG's without options for character progression. Character progression is not at all a silly idea. And don't let anyone tell you differently. I mean, you could have an interesting discussion about the mechanisms used to express such progression, but having such a mechanism is not in any way silly. When I hear such statements about RPG's/gaming in general, I sometimes feel people have forgotten that we're not trying to accurately model reality* in games. We're trying to make a game - a fun distraction from the real world that does not have to be realistic. In fact, games often benefit hugely from purposefully not being realistic.

*) there are some exceptions, but most games are not realistic simulations.

Why is this not fully off-topic? Because I'm guessing it's the kind of arguments used to defend the idea of non-levelling RPG's, that you are possibly thinking of when talking about shooter weapon upgrade progression (though I could be wrong here). Well, that and it underlines my core point: (most) successful games are not about realism, but rather fun.

Fun can (but does not have to) include getting stronger, or getting rewarded for doing well. Somewhat ironically, that does IMHO include the reward of "the game is easier now that you're doing well", which many games offer. Fun can also be overcoming nigh-impossible odds after an error on your part and still managing to overcome them and succeed.

As an example of the latter: I barely remember the times I "breezed" through R-Type level 4 with my fully upgraded ship, but I do remember that time I died on one of the first enemies in that level and managed to get through a tough part of the game without power ups.

The point that I think is the real issue is this:

Originally Posted by Steril707

I am designing levels right now for my little game ("Inviyya"), and it's literally impossible to create a level that is challenging when you have a full set of extra weapons without being completely impossible when you don't have them..

This is a challenge. But it's not impossible.

The way I see it, there's a bunch of options (and all have been used by SHMUPS):

• Don't have weapon power ups - every player has the same ship
• Only have quantity based power ups - every player starts with 3 bombs per life and can collect more
• Only have timed power ups - all power ups are finite in length
• Combine quantity/timed
• Don't lose weapon power when dying. Alternatively, only lose weapon power once per section/level no matter how often you die.
• Have enough weapon power ups near the re-spawn points to keep the next section doable.
• Tune your power-ups so that they don't make the ship "unbeatable" compared to a ship without power ups. Many Japanese shoot em ups don't actually give you more powerful bullets when you get a power up, they only increase the number or speed of the bullets. Or they do give you more powerful shots, but they have some other limitation (consider R-Type: the most powerful weapon has a much lower rate of fire than the weakest weapon)
• Balance your game primarily around a non-powered up ship and accept it'll get easier and easier as you power up.

In all things, remember that it's OK if dying causes people to struggle, this is kind of the "arcade game" way and generally is a "hook". Players might be frustrated, but at the same might also think "what if I could get there with my weapons in-tact, I'd surely beat that section then...". I know this is true because I've done that myself.

It's also OK if dying on a later level is difficult to recover from, as long as it's not impossible. This can actually be fun for the player if they manage to succeed.

Anyway, I'll this here - it's already very long

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by roondar

Wall of text incoming. Sorry
Well, that and it underlines my core point: (most) successful games are not about realism, but rather fun.

Fun can (but does not have to) include getting stronger, or getting rewarded for doing well. Somewhat ironically, that does IMHO include the reward of "the game is easier now that you're doing well", which many games offer. Fun can also be overcoming nigh-impossible odds after an error on your part and still managing to overcome them and succeed.

On the topic of RPGs, the point here is, that you are just in a game loop of ever increasing difficulty, and the developers need to take into account and halfway guessing at what point of power your character is.
So, you are not good enough for the area, you need to go grinding for hours.
The debate was about if your skill as a player shouldn't be the deciding factor.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Steril707

My original idea was to simply start each level stripping all weapon upgrades from the players ship, and design the level to accommodate that you need to get through it in one row, with all 4 possible weapon upgrades happening in each level, so you get to the end boss fully equipped.

I got some people who tested the game whining about this as not being "old school" and them feeling robbed when they started the new level with their advanced weaponry gone..

Arghh..please, don't!

I'm not sure, if it's "old school" or bad design, to me it seems rather logical that you get to keep the upgrades. It's not only some sort of progression/achievement but also makes sense on the role-play level. Of course you could also invent some narrative reason for why the weapons are taken away, but I feel it'd be just cruel...

This dilemma is present in the overwhelming majority of arcade games, and occasionally can ba a PITA but it also creates high tension and some nice gameplay dynamics. It's also not entirely impossible to solve, because a lot of games manage to deal with it, I guess via combination of sensible checkpoint placement and power up distribution (some games give you a lot of them and then convert into points once you max out the firepower).

EDIT: RPGs are a different beast, and grinding is much demonised - it's only a grind if a combat system sucks and you can't move an inch without a random encounter. But it's a topic for another thread I guess.

[Tigerskunk]

First off, me personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a game where people simply breeze through...
It's just that you have players that are casual which need to be tended to, and those who want a real challenge.
It's almost impossible to accomodate to both of these types in just one level, like I noticed with my demo.

Originally Posted by roondar

Wall of text incoming. Sorry
The way I see it, there's a bunch of options (and all have been used by SHMUPS):

• Don't have weapon power ups - every player has the same ship
• Only have quantity based power ups - every player starts with 3 bombs per life and can collect more
• Only have timed power ups - all power ups are finite in length
• Combine quantity/timed
• Don't lose weapon power when dying. Alternatively, only lose weapon power once per section/level no matter how often you die.
• Have enough weapon power ups near the re-spawn points to keep the next section doable.
• Tune your power-ups so that they don't make the ship "unbeatable" compared to a ship without power ups. Many Japanese shoot em ups don't actually give you more powerful bullets when you get a power up, they only increase the number or speed of the bullets. Or they do give you more powerful shots, but they have some other limitation (consider R-Type: the most powerful weapon has a much lower rate of fire than the weakest weapon)
• Balance your game primarily around a non-powered up ship and accept it'll get easier and easier as you power up.

With Inviyya, you complained that the double helix shot did not more damage than the double shot that comes before it (which comes from being slower), although it has the advantage of covering more space in front of you..

It's really hard to have a meaningful progression with upgrades that don't skew the balance.

On one side you want those upgrades to become more powerful, on the other side as a level designer you don't have any idea which upgrade the player has at that point of time.

Originally Posted by roondar

In all things, remember that it's OK if dying causes people to struggle, this is kind of the "arcade game" way and generally is a "hook". Players might be frustrated, but at the same might also think "what if I could get there with my weapons in-tact, I'd surely beat that section then...". I know this is true because I've done that myself.

It's also OK if dying on a later level is difficult to recover from, as long as it's not impossible. This can actually be fun for the player if they manage to succeed.

Anyway, I'll this here - it's already very long

Thanks for your detailed insight, Roondar (and to everybody else as well)...

@Dan and the rest: I am aware that people feel being stolen from when taking away their hard earned upgrades. In my opinion, though, this mechanic makes for a far worse game.

You could design much better levels without weapon upgrades at all. Or then with taking away upgrades at the beginning, so you would know what kind of weaponry the player has at a certain point in the game.

But I guess I have to go with the flow here, even if I don't like it from my designers perspective.

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by dreadnought

Arghh..please, don't!
This dilemma is present in the overwhelming majority of arcade games, and occasionally can ba a PITA but it also creates high tension and some nice gameplay dynamics. It's also not entirely impossible to solve, because a lot of games manage to deal with it, I guess via combination of sensible checkpoint placement and power up distribution (some games give you a lot of them and then convert into points once you max out the firepower).

Do they really, though?

I am not so sure. I mean, most oldschool arcade games are not even trying to be "fair" or accomodate casual gamers.
It's basically get through the game with one life and keep your weaponry, or get fucked.

add/edit: What I wanna say here is what's in the title. Is this really still "good game design" or are we doing these things because they are what we are being used to in those oldschoolish games.

Let's give you an example.
Most modern Jump and Runs don't use lifes anymore. You just restart the level as many times as you need, therefore getting better without the need to go to another level where you know you can get many extra lifes and then returning.
Thinking through it, this makes perfect sense and the game more enjoyable.

[dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Steril707

Do they really, though?

I am not so sure. I mean, most oldschool arcade games are not even trying to be "fair" or accomodate casual gamers.
It's basically get through the game with one life and keep your weaponry, or get fucked.

The "so unfair" argument about arcades is huge and old as the hills. It's also different from "accomodating casual gamers" - why should they do that? It was business after all. It is possible with commercial games of course, where you can put in an Easy Mode, but this raises the question of spoiling the game (see the Souls series Easy Mode debacle) and the whole git gud paradigm. Now, it's tricky one, but I tend to lean towards the latter attitude. Introduction of an easy level (or making Normal too easy) will most likely result in players (not only casuals) breezing through and just ticking it off as "completed". One famous example is Halo, which played on Normal is just another fps, but going for Legendary makes it absolutely genius and literally another game altogether.

I also feel that the alleged "unfairness" of arcade games is much exaggerated. I think it's often confused with difficulty. Sure, that one was high, but that's also relative. I'm saying that as somebody who has been playing mostly rpgs/strategy/adventure games for a few decades and only got into arcades recently. I always though I sucked in these games but taking part in some competitions has proven otherwise. Even an old dog can learn some new tricks and git gud - you just have to make a bit of an effort and learn how to play. It's extremely rewarding in the end. And most of good arcade games were designed with skill, not unfairness, in mind.

EDIT to your EDIT No, I don't think modern game design is more enjoyable. It's different and perhaps makes sense in certain styles, say metroidvanias with huge exploratory levels. But it can also be ruinous, in a way Quicksave ability can spoil some PC games (not Skyrim et al though). Like I said the sense of accomplishment when you 1CC (or at least get further than last time) a game is immense. I think the opposite ways of design have a lot to do with people's intrinsic need -and external pressure - to "complete" games. But personally I seldom do that and yet still get huge pleasure from playing, say, Metal Slug over and over again.

PS: I also got converted to roguelike design template some years ago, so it may explain a lot of my thinking here

[roondar]

First the more off-topic bit

Originally Posted by Steril707

On the topic of RPGs, the point here is, that you are just in a game loop of ever increasing difficulty, and the developers need to take into account and halfway guessing at what point of power your character is.
So, you are not good enough for the area, you need to go grinding for hours.
The debate was about if your skill as a player shouldn't be the deciding factor.

Interesting point. I find myself not fully agreeing here, for two reasons. One is that the level of grinding required to be powerful enough to progress definitely can be tuned. Most well designed RPG's have a main story/path that requires little in the way of grinding (well, IMHO of course).

The second is that player skill is a nebulous term that is often misused to mean "player is good at action games". Many modern RPG's try to incorporate player skill exactly in that way and end up turning into vapid action games with some minor stat based stuff. The "skill" of an RPG player IMHO ought to be in figuring out the best way through the story or how to best set up/design/use characters - not in twitch style game play. IMHO, such "RPG" skills can in fact offset lower levels.

As an example of what I mean: there are a bunch of WRPGS that offer routes through them that have very little in the way of combat, but still offer most of the "levelling" you otherwise get for when you do choose/need to fight eventually.

Now the more on-topic bit

Originally Posted by Steril707

First off, me personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a game where people simply breeze through...
It's just that you have players that are casual which need to be tended to, and those who want a real challenge.
It's almost impossible to accomodate to both of these types in just one level, like I noticed with my demo.

This is indeed really hard. The only realistic way I can see is to offer choices of difficulty. Then again, some games are harder and some games are easier. So choosing which audience you find most appealing/important might be part of this.

Not every player has to be able to finish every game. That might sound harsh, but I do believe it - I certainly can't finish all games out there (not by a long shot). And you know what, I can still enjoy a game even if it ends up being too hard for me to finish. And alternatively, I can also still enjoy a game even if it's not quite hard enough for me.

With Inviyya, you complained that the double helix shot did not more damage than the double shot that comes before it (which comes from being slower), although it has the advantage of covering more space in front of you..

It's really hard to have a meaningful progression with upgrades that don't skew the balance.

It wasn't really meant as a complaint, more as hopefully useful feedback

Anyway, to answer why I felt this way: I didn't actually notice the advantage you just mentioned much (the double shot and helix have similar enough coverage for that to not be that a big difference), but I did note the difference in power level. To be 100% fair here: this all was because of a bug which you have since fixed. This bug caused the double helix to feel like a downgrade (lower rate of fire, same damage) to me instead of an upgrade, which is why I pointed it out.

On a side note, perhaps the underlying issue is that to me the shot/helix feel like they're separate weapons instead of feeling like they're the same weapon upgraded.

BTW, you are obviously right: designing power ups and game balance in general is not easy

On one side you want those upgrades to become more powerful, on the other side as a level designer you don't have any idea which upgrade the player has at that point of time.

True, but doesn't that point towards balancing around not having power ups?

I mean, I'm not saying I have the "correct" answer here, but it seems to me that this is what the designers of classic shooters have done: balance around no power ups (with progressively higher difficulty up to the point of being almost impossible) and limit power up effectiveness such that they can't end up overpowering the player. Alternatively, I feel they might have balanced around the set of "known" power ups (for instance if a speed up drops almost immediately after a check point, or if the game limits weapon loss on death).

Balancing this way is definitely something I'd qualify as difficult to do, but I do think this is how it was done.

Thanks for your detailed insight, Roondar (and to everybody else as well)...

No problem, I love me some game design discussion

[meynaf]

Easiest solution is to never remove power ups. Then the player is expected to have them when starting a new level.

If really you need to remove them between levels, convert them into something else (score bonuses, or other ingame resource like money if there is some).

If losing a life has to remove some weaponry, just decrease it a single step, don't remove the upgrades completely.

If levels are small enough, losing a life could mean starting over (at start of the level, with weaponry he had at that point). This way, reaching the end means the player will have the upgrades.

[DanScott]

Make your awarding of power ups dynamic ?

Award pickups quicker in later levels IF the player is not particularly powered up at that point (ie.. has just lost a life and starting back from nothing).

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by meynaf

If losing a life has to remove some weaponry, just decrease it a single step, don't remove the upgrades completely.

Thats already handled in the game that way.

Originally Posted by DanScott

Make your awarding of power ups dynamic ?

Award pickups quicker in later levels IF the player is not particularly powered up at that point (ie.. has just lost a life and starting back from nothing).

That's an interesting idea..
Need to find a good logic to adhere to for this, though..

[AmigaHope]

My favorite game mechanic in shmups is that you lose your powerups if destroyed, but your dead ship spits out the powerups across the screen and gives you a chance to collect them again. You invariably lose a little but not too much, and how much you get back is based on your skill level in retrieving what you lost.

[Konrad]

Alot has been written here, sorry I didn't read it all. But a few points, from which some got already mentioned.

Originally Posted by Steril707

I am designing levels right now for my little game ("Inviyya"), and it's literally impossible to create a level that is challenging when you have a full set of extra weapons without being completely impossible when you don't have them..

I don't think so. In fact I think R-Type does it fairly well.
Of course the game was made to make money in the Arcades, so difficulty a tad on the high side .
But in general you have an constant difficulty for each level.
You lose all powerups when you die. But:
a) You have spawn points, so you don't always start from the beginning of the level
b) Powerups are placed regularly. So even in a difficult level, when you lose all weapons, you just have to keep up a short time until you reach the powerups.
This way you don't have to adjust each level for full and no weaponry - which is an impossible task imo anyway.
-> I think this would be most suitable for your game, too.

Decreasing weaponry is an alternative. But I rather like that for games without spawn points, i.e. where the level plays/rolls continuously. For example Battle Squadron.

As for lives: I do prefer those in special genres. SHMUPS is one of them. You could include continues. Using them would throw you back to a certain point, i.e. beginning of a group of levels (or at least beginning of level). At least to the beginning of the level.

3 levels, 3 continues f.ex. should be possible and still be an enjoyable challenge.
(Of course you could also add unlimited continues, if you wish, but please include lives)

[saimon69]

The power up syndrome was one of those things we did thought when doing Powder; our approach was to have all weapons sets available from start but with a limited number of changes that could be reloaded by simply destroying enemies

[Hewitson]

Originally Posted by AmigaHope

My favorite game mechanic in shmups is that you lose your powerups if destroyed, but your dead ship spits out the powerups across the screen and gives you a chance to collect them again. You invariably lose a little but not too much, and how much you get back is based on your skill level in retrieving what you lost.

Yep, this is a brilliant idea. Definitely recommend considering this system.

[Tigerskunk]

Originally Posted by Konrad

Alot has been written here, sorry I didn't read it all. But a few points, from which some got already mentioned.


I don't think so. In fact I think R-Type does it fairly well.
Of course the game was made to make money in the Arcades, so difficulty a tad on the high side .
But in general you have an constant difficulty for each level.
You lose all powerups when you die. But:
a) You have spawn points, so you don't always start from the beginning of the level
b) Powerups are placed regularly. So even in a difficult level, when you lose all weapons, you just have to keep up a short time until you reach the powerups.
This way you don't have to adjust each level for full and no weaponry - which is an impossible task imo anyway.
-> I think this would be most suitable for your game, too.

After some "research", I think what R-type does is a bit different.
You already start with a very strong ship there in a way, and with the first upgrade you already get the force pod, shielding you on the front from popcorn enemies and weak shots.
Also, you got the beam/wave cannon in the beginning, which can destroy waves of enemies in one shot and even larger ones. So R-type never has the problem of a too weak weapon in the beginning. It's just a lot more cumbersome without the stronger upgrades.

The upgraded shots (blue diagonal laser, Double Helix and that yellow ground wormy thingy) don't really make more damage, they just "handle space" differently, giving you more strategic options depending on the situation.

R-Type is all about strategically creating spaces for your ship to stay safe in.