A lot of shooters lately have hit PC. Some I want, some I'm not sure about so I'm looking into. That can be pretty annoying as this genre is niche so many people misrepresent it. The problem is they think they're right
. Naturally, I have some issues with certain criticisms casually tossed around. The main ones typically are they're "too hard" or "need more story". Let's not even get into those because I'd rather not punch a hole in my wall. So we'll go with the third most annoying thing I see when talking about modern arcade shooters. Reviewers especially spout the line:
“The game pretends to be hard, but it’s unlimited continues means you can die your way to the end killing replay value and challenge.”
You just proved in one statement that you know nothing about the genre! It's one thing to spread an uninformed authoritative opinion, but spreading false information missing the point of your subject? I have an issue.
I died my way through a game and “beat” it.
Sounds like everyone who brags that they “beat” Dark Souls on their first blind playthrough.
In Sonic games, the satisfaction came from earning your speed and maintaining it to the end of the level without losing your rings. The flow was intoxicating when you mastered a level. How did you achieve that? Replaying the game.
In fighters, the satisfaction comes from reading opponent's, learning your mains, and punishing openings. How? Replaying the game. The replay value of any difficult game comes from the time spent learning it’s mechanics, understanding it’s patterns, and remedying bad habits that cause you to lose. In other words, replaying the game.
Every game/genre handles this differently.
The game, of course, needs to be fun in the first place to want to come back, of course, but good game design and fun are subjective so we won't touch what makes a good shooter.
The satisfaction comes from knowing you mastered an entry in one of gaming’s most brutal genres. This particular satisfaction is one that is earned. There's a massive difference between beating a game and seeing the end, the latter means nothing. You don’t “win” these games by dying your way through them. Credit feeding is not beating the game. That’s the game beating you, hogtying you, and dragging your defeated ass to the vanilla ending. It’s ok if that happens, so don’t feel bad. You’re supposed to get bodied. It’s learning through failing and as long as you pay attention to where you failed the hardest, your next run will be improved dramatically, guaranteed. You don't have to know how to "dodge rain" as the tired joke implies. But spamming continue is not how the genre is intended to be played. Or rather that’s not the goal. It's daunting, but the boss in this game (Mushihimesama Futari) shown in this sensationalized video CAN be defeated on one life. I've done it. After a week of practice.
On a side note, certain titles like Ketsui even reward skilled players with a harder special difficulty and extremely difficult secret bosses for getting to the end unscathed. Something to work for as opposed to handing you everything which one could debate too many modern games do.
That is the genre’s nature. It’s not for everyone and it is niche but that doesn’t mean it needs to change. I’m sick of seeing the concept of replay value watered down to how many hours it takes to finish a game. That might be for certain games, but not these.
Just wanted to get that off my chest.