Poll: Win or Score?

[Kpiering]

I am currently working to develop a new form of competitive multi-player shmup. My team and I have come to stand still on how to fix one problem and we decided to ask the community. Not sure if this is where this belongs but it seemed like the best place. Thanks for the input in advance, it will be extremely helpful.

What is more important winning or score?

[MrPopo]

I think it depends on where your skill level is. Right now I'm still trying in the "play to win" mode, as I've only recently gotten into the vertical shmups. However, winning is a strict goal, and even though it can be refined (no continues, no life lost) at some point you reach a plateau where you cannot get any "better" at your goal of winning. Once you can regularly do a 1cc run of a game I imagine then you would transition to playing for score, as you can always do a little bit better if you work at it (constant self-improvement).

[bkk]

Scoring is winning.

[Dragoforce]

Scoring is winning.

Indeed.

[agustusx]

I think a good shmup has a both a good scoring system(s) as well as a survival challenge. It gives a game two chances at appealing to a player. The more reasons to play the better.

With most shmups you'll notice you need to have some scoring ability if you want to get extends. So even survival players can learn scoring to help them succeed.

Additionally playing to improve your score extends the games replay value after you can clear.

Of course if your trying to make a 100 level shmup that requires many play sessions and saving to complete than you can through scoring out completely and go for the WIN.

[Kpiering]

I didn't really go over this is going to be a competitive multi-player game. Think of it as a fighting game but shmup style with two very distinctive forms of play for each player (ie. they are not just tossing bullets at one another). We are trying to come up with ways to dissuade griefing. One of the problems that has come up is that maybe what we consider griefing is a legitimate way of playing when trying to win and is dissuading it with score good enough or is winning all that matters.

[kengou]

So it's like Twinkle Star Sprites? If it's a competitive multiplayer game then I suppose you'd be having each player trying to score better than the other, and scoring well would result in a harder time for the other player somehow. That's pretty much how these things work. I don't really understand how it could be possible to grief in a game like this...

[TodayIsForgotten]

Maybe I don't follow the question. Winning to me is beating someone or something. Scoring is playing to the best of your abilities. You can score to win but you can play to win by taking the easiest routes or measures that are barely satisfactory but enough to get the end result.

[Plasmo]

Scoring is winning.

This subforum is not called post your 1ccs lol, it's called High scores!

[Kron]

I didn't really go over this is going to be a competitive multi-player game. Think of it as a fighting game but shmup style with two very distinctive forms of play for each player (ie. they are not just tossing bullets at one another). We are trying to come up with ways to dissuade griefing. One of the problems that has come up is that maybe what we consider griefing is a legitimate way of playing when trying to win and is dissuading it with score good enough or is winning all that matters.

Have you seen Senko no Ronde/Wartech?

[Damocles]

Personally, it depends on the game. Mostly I play for the clear then score unless I really like the system. I would imagine, however, that beating your opponent and scoring well should be one and the same. In a competetive game, at least.

This subforum is not called post your 1ccs lol, it's called High scores!

Nope, that's what this is for.

[ncp]

In a multiplayer game, winning is all that matters. You don't see street fighter tournaments based on SCORE, do you?

edit: The only way people are going to care about score in a multiplayer game is if the winner is decided by score.

[RHE]

In a multiplayer game, winning is all that matters. You don't see street fighter tournaments based on SCORE, do you?

edit: The only way people are going to care about score in a multiplayer game is if the winner is decided by score.

Everytime you hit your opponent, you do score. So in fact the scoring system decides the winner, it's just that you don't get visible numbers for it. That's why scoring is winning.

[Battletoad]

Scoring is winning.

Indeed.

Scoring is winning.

This subforum is not called post your 1ccs lol, it's called High scores!

Nothing more to add.
Almost never do I play (primarily) for survival if there´s a possibility to score.

[Estebang]

R-Type is a survival shmup.

Dodonpachi is a score shmup.

In most cases, there's a fine line between the two.

[EinhanderZwei]

I stress again: whatever the kind of a shmup is (single/multiplayer), there is one more thing that matters aside from score/winning, and I'm talking about the exploration effect. Actually that's what I'm playing the majority of the shmups for. No challenge makes the good game good if it consists of repetitive levels filled with repetitive enemies and ending with repetitive bosses

So, you may consider that I'm voting for winning, not score (said the person with DoDonPachi guy on the avatar )

[shadowbringer]

for a player vs. player situation, I think that winning is more important, from a fighting game perspective, at least.

That doesn't mean that scoring can't be an important part of survival, though.. think about risk and reward

[TodayIsForgotten]

In a multiplayer game, winning is all that matters. You don't see street fighter tournaments based on SCORE, do you?

edit: The only way people are going to care about score in a multiplayer game is if the winner is decided by score.

Everytime you hit your opponent, you do score. So in fact the scoring system decides the winner, it's just that you don't get visible numbers for it. That's why scoring is winning.

What?!!?!? Last time i played street fighter and time ran out the winner went to the person who had the most health, not the highest score. Therefor, scoring is not winning unless the situation calls for it. IE., first to score x points wins or highest score at the end of time.

In vs multiplayer games, winning is all that matters. In a coop game where you are scoring together I don't really think you say haha i beat you. You're playing coop. But, you could do that i suppose.

[ncp]

He's trying to pull some stupid metaphorical crap, possibly not realizing Street Fighter actually has a SCORE NUMBER at the top of the screen that nobody gives two shits about.

[RHE]

In a multiplayer game, winning is all that matters. You don't see street fighter tournaments based on SCORE, do you?

edit: The only way people are going to care about score in a multiplayer game is if the winner is decided by score.

Everytime you hit your opponent, you do score. So in fact the scoring system decides the winner, it's just that you don't get visible numbers for it. That's why scoring is winning.

What?!!?!? Last time i played street fighter and time ran out the winner went to the person who had the most health, not the highest score. Therefor, scoring is not winning unless the situation calls for it. IE., first to score x points wins or highest score at the end of time.

In vs multiplayer games, winning is all that matters. In a coop game where you are scoring together I don't really think you say haha i beat you. You're playing coop. But, you could do that i suppose.

All I'm trying to say is, that scoring doesn't necessarily involves visible numbers. Hit you opponent and you set a score, and the energy bar of the opponent decreases. Lower energy bar of the enemy, means to have a higher score. Win the fight and you have the highscore (like a counterstop with a shmup). But obviously most poeple have a traditional sense for scoring, like with shmups where you get numbers.

And I don't see how you can separate winning and scoring from each other. To win w/o to score at all (by all means), is like getting the Nobel prize for doing nothing.

In regards of Street Fighter, I admit I have less knowledge about it then with shmups, but as it looks it basically has 2 scoring systems. The one that's visible as numbers for bonus stuff or whatever (feel free to tell why its there), and the other one visible as a energy bar for directly defeating the opponent. It's a quite simple scoring system though.

To say it in other terms: You can have the highest hit count/score, but probably not the highest bonus score to the same time to defeat your opponent. Now it's up to the player what feels more like winning - a direct scoring system where you can prevent the opponent for getting a higher score than you or the indirect scoring system where you only need to get a higher score then the opponent(s).

[TodayIsForgotten]

OK.

Scoring to Win
Any sport, in order to win, you have to have score. (sports like boxing and karate have a backup system if there is no clear winner: score)
Any FPS the winner is the one with the most kills (or score)

Winning to Win
Any fighting game you win by having the most health or beating the opponent outright.
Games like Lumines, E4, Twinkle Star Sprites, Yosumin, tetris and most any puzzle game or game that has this setup, you win by killing the opponent, not with score.
Any regular racing game (not circuit racing or rally), the winner is the one who crosses the finish line. Not with score.

I think its rather easy to separate the two.

If you want to get SUPER technical yes in order to hit someone in a Fighting game that is scoring and sending a shitload of blocks or whatever in a puzzle game, you could say that is a score and in racing winning the race could be scoring the victory. But that is ridiculous.

[captpain]

Nobody cares in the slightest what the score fields say in competitive fighting games.

[Elixir]

R-Type is a survival shmup.

Dodonpachi is a score shmup.

In most cases, there's a fine line between the two.

Is there a list of survival shmups somewhere?

Concerning this thread, play for whatever reasons you want, using whatever controller you want, with your preferred key configuration, tv, resolution, and to your own personal liking. That's all there really is to it, just enjoy yourself.

[Jeneki]

These days, it seems the average gamer is moving towards "get all achievements = win".

[Dragoforce]

These days, it seems the average gamer is moving towards "get all achievements = win".

I got an achievment for starting up Mushi Futaris maniac mode. Does that make me a winner?

[Jeneki]

I got an achievment for starting up Mushi Futaris maniac mode. Does that make me a winner?

Not until you get the Raiden Fighters Aces achievement for getting shot down 99 times.

[RHE]

OK.

Scoring to Win
Any sport, in order to win, you have to have score. (sports like boxing and karate have a backup system if there is no clear winner: score)
Any FPS the winner is the one with the most kills (or score)

Winning to Win
Any fighting game you win by having the most health or beating the opponent outright.
Games like Lumines, E4, Twinkle Star Sprites, Yosumin, tetris and most any puzzle game or game that has this setup, you win by killing the opponent, not with score.
Any regular racing game (not circuit racing or rally), the winner is the one who crosses the finish line. Not with score.

I think its rather easy to separate the two.

If you want to get SUPER technical yes in order to hit someone in a Fighting game that is scoring and sending a shitload of blocks or whatever in a puzzle game, you could say that is a score and in racing winning the race could be scoring the victory. But that is ridiculous.

I can see where you're coming from, but my point is that: with a racing game or what ever, you have do it right to win. Right speed in the the curves etc. Everytime you break right in the curve you set a score, you dont get a number for it, you just loose less time and get further to reach the goal position - that's what scoring is about. Calling this a scoring system doesn't make much sense normally, I agree with you on that. But the only reason why I find this subject debatable is, because a dev here wants to make a game that is mixing 2 genres, and 2 different scoring systems. Fighting game players prefer a simple scoring system, with a counter stop, that says: YOU WIN. With shmups a counter stop is terrible, it means there are more first players then their should be, it's like YOU LOOSE.

With a shmup, you can maximize the score semi-endless (unless the game has a counter stop) to be better and better than the other player. The only border is your own skill. And this doen't work with fighters, because there has to be a winner for how long the rounds hold.

The difference is that in most competitive genres besides the shmup, the opponent is in the stage to the same time. With a shmup the opponent isn't in the same stage and probably plays the game to another time. The only way to make both players compete is to display a number, and then compare it with the other player. So the questions here is, how such a game that mixes different genres, can make scoring or win systems or whatever work, w/o making too much losses on BOTH sides. I mean what's great for shooters is necessarily great for fighters.

It's the same with people telling that R-Type is a survival shmup and DoDonPachi a scoring shooter, but in DDP you have to survive first to score well. You also have to hit the enemies right in R-Type to survive, which means to score too, just w/o numbers. For a player that's quite irrelevant but for a dev it's very important, I find.

Winning to me is beating someone or something. Scoring is playing to the best of your abilities. You can score to win but you can play to win by taking the easiest routes or measures that are barely satisfactory but enough to get the end result.

Isn't this just depending on the skill of your opponent? I mean how can you win by taking the easy but slow route against a player that takes the hard and fast route?

[Plasmo]

I kinda get your point, but:

Fighting game players prefer a simple scoring system, with a counter stop, that says: YOU WIN.

This makes no sense at all...

[RHE]

By defeating the opponent, you stop his counter, so he's not able to increase his score anymore (or rather lowering yours). He can't encounter your attacks anymore (counter stop). Same goes for you but you got the higher score and the battle is over. You make more points within a certain time frame, so you win.

However, it's rather that you lower the score of the opponent, then increasing your own, but the result is the same. And I don't see how some combine this two systems to get both shmup and fighting player to play the game. That's probably not the intention of the original poster though.

[captpain]

By defeating the opponent, you stop his counter, so he's not able to increase his score anymore (or rather lowering yours). He can't encounter your attacks anymore (counter stop). Same goes for you but you got the higher score and the battle is over. You make more points within a certain time frame, so you win.

However, it's rather that you lower the score of the opponent, then increasing your own, but the result is the same. And I don't see how some combine this two systems to get both shmup and fighting player to play the game. That's probably not the intention of the original poster though.

That's not what counter stop means.