Matthew Doucette:

Feep:

Brilliant-looking entry. My only qualm is that it's not a vertical shooter, but that's just a matter of personal preference. = D

Why do you like vertical shooters better?  And what vertical shooters do you like?  I am making a vertical shooter, but I think the ultimate shooter can only be done horizontally.

This doesn't make much sense. The only difference between a horizontal shooter and a vertical one is physical orientation; the game remains exactly the same. I could lie down on my side and play zeit as a vertical shooter (but then my neck would hurt). I suppose I just like the feeling of symmetry a vertical shooter gives, or maybe it stems from my nostalgia with old arcade vertical shooters, I don't know. I just like it better. However, I understand the desire to maximize your screen real estate on the 360 by making a horizontal shooter.

Ikaruga is my favorite shooter, BTW.

Feep:

The only difference between a horizontal shooter and a vertical one is physical orientation

That matters. In a vertical shooter, the ship is facing the same direction you are. In a horizontal shooter, it's facing a different direction. Some people find it more comfortable to view the ship in their game as something they are in the game world piloting, and they prefer the vertical shooter; some find it more comfortable to view the ship in their game as something in a remote location they are controlling remotely, and they prefer the horizontal shooter.

Or at least, that's my hypothesis. Games use differing methods of providing abstraction, and they provide different levels of it. Left-brain rational people like large amounts of abstraction. Right-brain emotional people, on the other hand, prefer minimal abstraction. We're all part left-brain and part right-brain, so games can usually strike a good balance. The first-person shooter left a lot of rational folks on the curb. The turn/move paradigm of the early nineties, like we see in Resident Evil and Silent Hill among other games, ruined the immersion for a lot of emotional folks. In general, the third-person over-the-shoulder perspective has struck the best balance between immersion and abstraction so far.

The vertical shooter is the closest approximation to that in shooting games, so I tend to agree - vertical shooters are the superior format, being less abstract than the horizontal shooter and less immersive than the flight simulator. But I wouldn't really dis the horizontal shooter (Lifeforce was an awesome game) or the flight simulator (ditto for Wing Commander), either. Given the same game in all three formats, I think most people would prefer either the horizontal shooter or the flight simulator - the vertical wouldn't be the most popular - but if you could only produce one format, everyone would be reasonably happy with the vertical shooter. I don't think it's so much that you win more players with vertical, as that you lose fewer players.

Sorry for getting all ivory-tower on you, but I'm a theory guy.

CDarklock:

vertical shooters are the superior format [...] Given the same game in all three formats, I think most people would prefer either the horizontal shooter or the flight simulator - the vertical wouldn't be the most popular - but if you could only produce one format, everyone would be reasonably happy with the vertical shooter. I don't think it's so much that you win more players with vertical, as that you lose fewer players.

 This conclusion completly leaves out the actual game, its mechanics and requirements. Immersion is just a little part of the whole experience and some games are even more fun respectivly working better without immersion. While you are right with the level of immersion being affected by the orientation there are more aspects to it like a story, human characters, identification, abstract vs realistic graphics and a lot more. Also the playability or usability is also affected by a lot of other things that are defined by the orientation. For example with modern 16:9 screen resolutions you can look much further "ahead" with horizontal shooters. So in this aspect it is the oposite way with 3D where you can look further the deeper your point of view is. Also the human field of view is a lot wider than it is high and there are a lot more things to consider. I'm not saying that this is the whole story and makes horizontal shooters the better format rather than saying every game is different some work better horizontal and some vertical for their very own reasons.

TCT:

This conclusion completly leaves out the actual game, its mechanics and requirements.

That's because it's the same game in three formats. There's no variable there.

TCT:

Immersion is just a little part of the whole experience and some games are even more fun respectivly working better without immersion.

When you start describing mechanics and the specific workings of the game, I think you'll certainly tip the scales toward immersion being more or less desirable - leaning toward the flight sim or the horizontal shooter respectively - but introducing a bias doesn't improve the scenario. It simply helps support the conclusion you already find politically desirable, whether because you like playing that sort of game, or you prefer building that kind of game, or you're just trying to make a point. But with the horizontal shooter and the flight simulator, you're sitting at the ends of the immersion scale, whereas with the vertical shooter you're sitting in the middle. It's relatively easy to come up with a game which is immersive (or not immersive) enough that either the horizontal shooter or the flight simulator would be a  Bad Idea, but it's rather difficult to come up with one that's unsuitable for a vertical shooter interface but still suitable for one of the others.

TCT:

you can look much further "ahead" with horizontal shooters

It's not the number of pixels away something is that matters, but the number of milliseconds away it is, and the ability of the human eye to track it... but the human eye is designed to track vertically, so a vertical space is easier to scan than a horizontal one. This becomes more pronounced with age, as the light response of the retina slows, but it's always a significant factor in vision. A horizontal space needs to be of reduced area (constraining walls or other environment) and/or move more slowly to achieve the same reflex character as a vertical space.

CDarklock:

Feep:

The only difference between a horizontal shooter and a vertical one is physical orientation

That matters. In a vertical shooter, the ship is facing the same direction you are. In a horizontal shooter, it's facing a different direction. Some people find it more comfortable to view the ship in their game as something they are in the game world piloting, and they prefer the vertical shooter; some find it more comfortable to view the ship in their game as something in a remote location they are controlling remotely, and they prefer the horizontal shooter.

Right. As you go on in your post, this is that matter of personal preference; if you want to break that down even further, sure, it might end up being due to abstract vs. concrete reasoning in the brain, whatever.

But you stated that "the ultimate shooter has to be horizontal", which makes no sense. The GAME itself is the same. There is nothing that makes a horizontal shooter superior except your own personal tastes, and that same game with a vertical orientation would be just as good for me as it is horizontal for you.

The ZMan:

Ikaruga looks great rotated 90 degrees and played as vertical shooters do ;-)

 Ikaragua is an awesome game and the screen rotation function only makes it more awesome haha

CDarklock:

That's because it's the same game in three formats. There's no variable there.

You can discuss it without the variable but you will never get down to what really matters for a certain game. Like I said I mostly agree with your explanation, I just don't think you can conclude to a superior format from that. Both have upsides and downsides.

CDarklock:

TCT:

you can look much further "ahead" with horizontal shooters

It's not the number of pixels away something is that matters, but the number of milliseconds away it is, and the ability of the human eye to track it... but the human eye is designed to track vertically, so a vertical space is easier to scan than a horizontal one. This becomes more pronounced with age, as the light response of the retina slows, but it's always a significant factor in vision. A horizontal space needs to be of reduced area (constraining walls or other environment) and/or move more slowly to achieve the same reflex character as a vertical space.

That is exactly why I put "ahead" in quotation marks. You are right that it is not the pixels b/c the amount of pixel just define the resolution and by that how detailed something is on a certian area. And you are right that the movement speed matters. Actualy size,speed and movement direction matter the most for visual tracking. But then again you have to differ between free field search and structured search where most of the time a shooter is a mix of both. Visual tracking also depends on how much of your field of view the target uses and how much information it displays. Also diagonal tracking is a lot more difficult than vertial or horizontal. So as soon as your target moves not according to screen direction, what you said does not apply. Moreover optical flow, textures and contrasts are important, missing or not missing features make a big difference.

What does make a big difference for the perception is the aspect ratio: And that is really what I was refering to when I said you can look further ahead. If you have the same variables for size and speed for objects and have a target point in the center of the screen, you will be able to see objects flying to that target sooner when they come from the direction with greater visual extension. If the area of application has a horizontal aspect ratio that means you can look further ahead on the horizontal axis. It does not directly lead to response time of course.

Feep:

But you stated that "the ultimate shooter has to be horizontal", which makes no sense. The GAME itself is the same. There is nothing that makes a horizontal shooter superior except your own personal tastes, and that same game with a vertical orientation would be just as good for me as it is horizontal for you.

That said I do neither agree to direction beeing superior in general nor to horizontal or vertical not changing a game. Of course it does change the game and of course it does depend on the game mechanics you use. For sure people can still have personal preferences for either format.

To stay on topic: For zeit² we made the decission to go horizontal b/c first of all there is the 16/9 aspect ratio of modern HD TVs. Then because we needed more of time for the player to react rather than amplitude of reaction (possible vertical movement compared to object sizes) it was the logic conclusion to make it horizontal. Of course that is just one aspect and we could have against all odds have decided to go vertical b/c of our personal preferences ;-)

After all that is what defines a game designer. Having some background knowledge but then make decissions on the actual game and push it in the direction you (and your testers) feel it works best.

Feep:

But you stated that "the ultimate shooter has to be horizontal"

That wasn't me. I am saying quite the opposite: that, all other things being equal, a vertical shooter is objectively superior to a horizontal shooter.

Feep:

There is nothing that makes a horizontal shooter superior except your own personal tastes

There are physiological reasons human beings are better suited to a vertical shooter than a horizontal one.

Feep:

But you stated that "the ultimate shooter has to be horizontal", which makes no sense. The GAME itself is the same. There is nothing that makes a horizontal shooter superior except your own personal tastes, and that same game with a vertical orientation would be just as good for me as it is horizontal for you.

I said that...

Matthew Doucette:

I am making a vertical shooter, but I think the ultimate shooter can only be done horizontally.

...and gave no reason as to why I think this. Right now it's more a feeling I have, but there must be some reasoning behind it.  I am learning a lot in this conversation.

Guessing why I think the ultimate shooter is a horizontal shooter, first depends on what I think an ultimate shooter is.  I think an ultimate shooter is a fast-paced reaction-based shooter.  That's pure opinion.  That's my idea of the ultimate shooter.  You will see that Duality: ZF approaches this type of gameplay.  Next, such a fast-paced shooter is best done horizontally because there is more screen real estate horizontally.  In other words, given the same widescreen TV, same resolution, I can "throw" an enemy bullet at you faster horizontally, and have you miss it, than I can vertically.

I might be completely wrong.  I have not posted this as fact.  I posted it to help you understand my standpoint, only!  I am still trying to figure it out myself.

spookyjon:

Here's a photo of the overscan on my HD CRT, as per your request.

Thanks! That really is a huge overscan but at least now I know it is only out of screen horizontally  Thanks again, I saved the picture for future reference.

@CDarklock: I like discussing things with you... any answer to my statement?  ;-)