Memorization Versus Instinct

This gem of a sentence is courtesy of Erik Brudvig for his reivew of Raiden Fighters Aces for IGN:

Quote:

---

Like all top-down shooters, the game is more about memorizing enemy patterns than any other skill set.

---

We've seen statements like this a million times before when it comes to game discussion - this notion that certain games have aspects which are only meant to be memorized in order for the player to succeed. The use of the word "memorization" is usually intended to carry a negative connotation as well, in that it is a wasteful and simplistic task to undertake in order to play and enjoy a game. The implication is that games which seem impossible really aren't, and that there is no real challenge to the game, because it merely has to be memorized in order to be played correctly.

Likewise, most people tend to describe a game as being intuitive in respect of highlighting its quality. In lavishing praise on a game, there will be a point to note how the game's control or systems don't require a struggle to use and otherwise lead to the notion that the game responds to what you do instead of demanding you to change how you play a game.

You could have the view that all videogaming is memorization in that there is no real world equivalent to specifically using a joystick or a controller to manipulate the actions of another human being or move a ship in space and so forth. Therefore, all videogaming is an abstract exercise.

I suppose its possible to have the view that all videogaming is instinctive, and that the process of learning or adapting to its intended interaction to the point of making the play instinctive is the purpose behind playing the game.

Maybe it's more correct to say that the only thing a game should require a player to memorize are its rules; there's nothing terribly instinctive about the way certain chess pieces move on a chessboard. However, chess experts tend to know certain openings and move sequences as the game plays out - this is memorization as well, I would think.

My opinion -

The parts in games which require memorization are those in which there is no distinct clue or warning given as far as how you are intended to progress or what the obstacles are. R-Type is usually lambasted as being a shooter of pure memorization, and I only partially agree. There are parts of R-Type in which you simply have to learn where to be or not be through rote repetition - but the same can be said of nearly every other shooter in existence as well. Meanwhile there are other parts of an R-Type game which I feel are just as instinctive as any other given shooter.

Memorization is something which comes naturally with any task in which you do multiple times, and unless you play every videogame only one time there are going to be parts of it which you remember to do with subsequent replays. I don't think most games are designed with the sole intent for the player to fully memorize how to play them, and I think memorization comes natrually with each replay of a game. I don't consider music games to require memorization, as there is no way to memorize the physical dexterity required to play them. I don't consider most shooters to require memorization, as a majority of them feature enemies and bullet patterns which change depending on how you play them. I don't consider most fighting games to require memorization, as long as the move sets and character attacks aren't too outlandish or abstract in that I have to actively remember what motions to input or how an attack animates in order to use a character in them.

What I do consider to require memorization are parts of games in which the same process yields two different results - you can't run into the background in this part of a shooter, but you can fly safely over this other part of the background of the same shooter even though both parts look similar. This attack which used to defeat the boss the first time you encountered him now doesn't work in subsequent battles with the same boss.

Ultimately most answers will probably be summarized as to resemble Justice Potter Stewart's famous quote in regards to porn: "I know it when I see it."

So what do you see when you see memorization?

Pattern memorization is hated by modern gamers because you die, die, die until you learn the patterns. Look at the way they savaged UGnG. I always loved those kinds of games.

I really like this and agree with the idea. That memorization breeds a higher level of instinctive gameplay. No one seems to claim Street Fighter 4 is a game about memorization even though it is. There's remembering what normals, specials, and supers a character can do. There's memorizing what strengths and weaknesses those have, either inherently or because of the opponent. What is sublime about it is the payoff - when memorization becomes muscle memory and then, instinct.

So why isn't there a review that says, "like all fighting games, SF4 is a game of memorization?" Or any game for that matter? They all require that aspect of thinking and storing information, it's just a matter of to what degree.

Which might be why reviews are unkind to shooters. Most games can be finished with a shallow level of memorization and active effort. This way someone keen on the experience and not mastery can still get a kick or two. It's only in scrolling shooters where repetition, failure, memorization, and reflex are all in the forefront. Although that's a necessity of the genre itself - if you could finish Raiden in 20 minutes the first time it'd be a very underwhelming sense of achievement.

Interesting topic. I guess it's natural to want to label games more "memorization-based" when the actions are memorized very consciously or involve blatant trial and error (like Punch-Out!!, Dragon's Lair, or Out of this World) but that doesn't mean other games aren't heavily memorization focused.

Right now I'm replaying Pikmin 2 which doesn't initially strike me as a memorization heavy game but the fact that I'm playing through it at a faster rate this time makes me think I have memorized various parts of it at some level.

The arguments against rote memorization tend to ignore that certain games are hard as fuck even with memorization. Ikaruga and DoDonPachi come to mind. Even if you know what to do it is sometimes hard as hell to do it.

Besides, pretty much all games that aren't random as hell (i.e. 2p fighting games, Counterstrike etc.) are all memorization to a large degree. Few games achieve pure randomness that require instinctive and reactionary skills. Even many of these can still be "gamed" by setting up good strategies after enough practice.

Essentially, if you hate memorizing shit video games are probably not the hobby for you. All games, even random ones still take lots of memory.

this is the best thread to appear on tnl for a while.

I mean, there are games where you learn a moveset/ruleset and are then allowed to explore the world using your own creativity/instinct/reaction/response to an environment which is different on repeat plays, and there are games where you need to use memorization and precision gameplay to get through carefully constructed levels.

They're both very different gaming experiences but they're both fun in their own way.

Bojack is right though. The truly great shooters are ones that are challenging even AFTER memorization, and also shooters that challenge you to improve upon your patterns creatively to improve your score. I mean, most of the R-Type games aren't really about that. They're more about just failing and failing until you memorize the whole game, and then once you're through the game is a boring cakewalk forever after that. Kinda shitty.

I really like games that play out differently on new playthroughs. FPS's with loose/dynamic spawn rules (like Left 4 Dead, though Left 4 Dead just doesn't have enough challenge with its severely limited enemy types imo. The only challenge is when the enemies get super beefed up) so that you really ARE playing on purely instinct most of the time. Sure, you're remembering your moveset and enemy attacks, but those are basically just RULES, and you have to make on-the-fly decisions with those rules based on new situations every time you play.

This is probably also why I enjoy multiplayer games to such a large degree: the unpredictably makes you act on instinct, reflexes, and on the fly decision-making.

Even Left 4 Dead has memorization. Tanks always spawn in certain areas, etc etc. Fighting games are a cool hybrid. I like the chess analogy. You are not only memorizing your moves, but also the enemies' moves, and which tactics you have that are effective against enemy tactics. Basically you are memorizing a bunch of strategies and then implementing them on the fly against a living opponent who you cannot predict. That's what makes the genre worthy.

Whatever the point is that if a game is going to rely so heavily on memorization (like say, Mega Man) it still has to be challenging in that it must require precise gameplay to navigate properly even though you know what's coming. If a game is easy once you memorize it it gets pretty boring pretty fast.

And that's what makes the original sentence worthwhile.

Quote:

---

Like all top-down shooters, the game is more about memorizing enemy patterns than any other skill set.

---

If you read it to mean that once you memorize the patterns the game becomes stupid easy, then it's a legitimate complaint. I guess it's a valuable warning to other people who don't like the genre, anyway.

In sum: games that place emphasis on memorization and instinct are both worthwhile as long as they are both have sufficiently challenging gameplay to be interesting.

I've always liked shooters but in general I lack the patience to learn the levels. RFA is great 'cuz you can get your shooting fix in short bursts and I enjoy the feeling of gradually improving. I did spend an hour trying to beat the last level of Raiden Fighters on Expert to get that damn achievement. Megaman 9 was the last game were I obsessed about learning the levels 'til I beat it. Damn Wily's castle. The games of our youth are steeped in memorization. Look at the King of Kong guys. They know practically every board and every barrel movement and yet they can still improve their scores. As we've grown older our tastes have changed. I definitely enjoy modern games with procedural and emergent gameplay aspects and multiplayer of course. Left 4 Dead's AI director is a prime example of this.

tldr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icarusfall

tldr

---

then gtfo