It's about playing the parts of the game that need to be played. With all of the experimentation that entails.
You're arguing from a position that suggests some (all?) parts of the game "need" to be played. But who decides which parts those are and why is anything needed? Those who have the higher score, you, me, developers? Why?
For instance, every single non-medal item can be picked up for score. Buildings in stage 1 can be bombed for medals. Do you do any of that? No. Why? Because that's not efficient for reaching your goals. It will make you lose more than you will gain from doing so. It's what efficiency is about. Does it take a superplayer to understand that? No, that's just basic math.
With an attitude like yours a player will never, ever, get good at a game.
A goal as abstract as "getting good at a game" doesn't make much sense to me, unless the process of getting better
is the goal in itself (which is absolutely fine). How do I decide the point where I'm "good"? By setting a quantifiable target and reaching it. 1st place on a scoreboard is a target. A letter score is a target. 1CC is a target. "Getting good" is not
—because it's unquantifiable. This is a game, you can formulate your goals however you like, and it's not like the paths to those goals are somehow set in stone or at all identical for everyone. But they still have priorities regardless.
You gotta see the game for what it is, what can be done and experiment.
Maybe this has somehow been lost in communication, but I don't see how I've ever pushed a point contrary to this?.. Experimentation is good; it needs to be done, and the results must be incorporated into your knowledge and experience. That's common sense and I don't argue with that.
What I questioned was the priorities you were suggesting for players who aren't yet at your level of play (like myself). Priorities are determined by goals and available resources—both external (time, skill) and internal (bombs, lives). The time required to reach those goals is determined by efficiency in sorting those priorities and managing available resources. If you try to "bomb everything" (like you were suggesting) without a gradual ramp-up, it will take more time to reach the same result—you'd constantly find yourself out of bombs when you need them. If you experiment without making sense of long-term scoring consequences, it will take more time to reach the same result—you'd just be brute-forcing solutions instead of developing them from the basis of knowledge and calculation. If you use up your resources on small gains and force yourself to forgo larger ones in return, it will take more time to reach the same result—you'd just grind a lot, risking a burnout. Do we disagree on this? Because that's what I've been trying to address. Yet the agitation in your responses makes me think you have misconstrued my suggestions as an attack on your system of values with regards to goal-setting, attitudes, deciding on "proper" ways of playing games, and who knows what else. In fact I don't even care about your system of values, I just accept it as is without judgment, which is what I expect you to do in return.
If you were to separate the scoring system into distinct parts, some would inevitably be more efficient and should thus receive higher priority if your real-life resources are limited. For instance, if a player can't yet clear the game because it becomes too hard for them, why would they consider, say, milking bosses in st1, st3, st4, st6, etc.? This would only serve to compromise higher-priority scoring opportunities for no net gain over the course of the run—because they don't have the resources to counteract the increase in difficulty. Why would anyone aiming for a decent score want that? How long would they have to "experiment" to come to a conclusion that it's not worth it at this point? Why not attack this problem from the standpoint of "I need this and this to safely get through this part. I can spare resources here and there to improve score, and potentially in this other place if everything goes well. This thing should be avoided until I handle such and such better"? It has certainly worked for me in the past—much better than winging it and/or setting goals unrealistic at the time—which is why I'm suggesting it. Other things have worked for you. Cool, I don't mind.
Bombing stuff, collecting medals and trying to destroy stuff with the right shot is the basic game.
Like 101 course A.
So you destroy those st1 rail buildings with bombs on your runs, right? And you probably make sure to destroy every single destructible background with bombs in other stages, with every ship, too? Oh no, of course you don't, and neither does anyone else with a good score. I wonder why is that. I guess it's explained somewhere in 101 course B, under "inexplicable exceptions", and certainly not anywhere near the "math and probability" section. :v
Ignoring that is ignoring scoring entirely and utterly retarded if you want anything else than a cheap clear.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this statement sure sounds suspiciously close to "I get to choose what's right and wrong because reasons" (which is not retarded at all
), and even goes contrary to the suggestion to experiment
, made earlier in the same post. So what's up with that? Is resource management—a concept where you forgo something to gain something better—completely lost on you, or are you confused about the points both of us are making? Why is it, for example, "retarded" to avoid bombing any background objects unless necessary, but not
at all retarded to bomb every single one in every stage—just because you can? Could it be—bear with me for a second—that some things that can be done
and are even immediately lucrative
can be counterproductive to scoring over the entire course
of the game? That's such a wild suggestion, but on the off-chance that I'm correct, why, again, do you get to judge those looking to maximize their
efficiency with regards to goals they
have set in the ways they
have chosen, when it's something you're already employing on a near-subconscious level when playing the game yourself?
Again, I'm not suggesting to ignore everything other than the select few
aspects, which you seem to be arguing against. I'm suggesting to prioritize the aspects
with efficiency in mind, and ramp things up gradually. If you have the resources, incorporate harder things into your route. If you don't, focus on the more efficient ones and figure out how to proceed from there. Is that clear? Is this approach at least worth considering? (Validate me, senpai.)
Out of curiosity, have you even cleared the game?
If you want a binary answer, no, I haven't (not in a continuous 1CC, anyway). Be sure to make full use of the privilege to judge my choices and opinions due to having spent more time with the game compared to myself.