Where did the concept of 1cc as a game philosophy originate?

[Cata]

So I've been thinking a lot about 1ccs recently and how anyone who plays shmups seriously attains for this goal, even though there really isn't anything other than people on an online message board telling me that these are what the games were designed for. Now I know that since these games originated from the arcade so the whole point was to be able to beat the game with the least amount of credits possible, but I've never actually seen some developer say that the 1cc is truly the way to play a game

To me, the 1cc definitely is an awesome goal to attain but couldn't you challenge yourself to do other difficult things in other games as well with one life? I guess the argument would come back around to "The games were designed for 1cc to be the goal" but I'm just curious as to what the origin of this idea was

[Squire Grooktook]

It's because of score being erased if you continue.

To keep an action game exciting, there needs to be a penalty for failure (in most cases) creating tension. And if it's going to be a skill based game, you have to differentiate the people who can consistently demonstrate skills from those who just grind the same stage 100,001 times till they beat it once on luck.

Developers probably put in continues as an after thought because they knew that people would want to practice and see more of the game (thus getting arcade operators more money from the addition of credit feeders as well as dedicated players). But they set score to be reset on game over to keep the objective they originally designed and balanced the game around as the "true" one.

In an arcade setting you knew no continues = the real deal since it was the only way to get on the score board.

[Cata]

Yea it just seems like unfortunately having continues totally creates this mindset of unlimited continues when someone new is introduced to the genre and gives off the wrong idea of how to play the game.

[CIT]

In most arcade games the score will reset after continue, so I think the concept originates in score play.

Of course people can play whichever way they want, but by credit-feeding an arcade (style) game a lot of the gameplay intricacies and tactical aspects get lost.

[Squire Grooktook]

And tension, don't forget tension.

No penalty for failure = no tension

no tension = no excitement

[trap15]

Don't forget that older games often had no continues at all. So it was 1CC or bust.

[KAI]

Cause it's the only way(?)

[broken harbour]

I always figured it was a way to show off in the arcades.

[ACSeraph]

Don't forget that older games often had no continues at all. So it was 1CC or bust.

Yep, Life Force is like this too, and it came out after continues were a pretty standard thing.

It seems pretty easy to understand to me. Beyond the basic concept of wanting to get the most possible playtime out of your hundred yen, popular arcade games in Japan often have a que, so when you die your turn is up and the next guy takes his shot.

[Doctor Butler]

Japan is a densely populated country, so it became customary to play one-credit, and move on, so as not to hog the machine.

This evolved into people trying to maimize their playtime per credit, and eventually finish the game in one go.

At least that's what I've heard...

[DestroyTheCore]

To spend less money on each playthrough.

[Jeneki]

It's just happens when you find a game you really like and keep playing it and getting better.

[Blackbird]

It's also a practical style of play if you're playing in a real arcade. When you're dropping coins into the machine to keep playing, it makes sense to get the most value/playing time out of every coin.

[Pretas]

Capcom's 1941 can be credited with starting the tradition of adding a single digit to your score for each continue instead of resetting it to zero every time.

[ACSeraph]

About that though, couldn't you cheat by dying exactly ten times?

[EmperorIng]

About that though, couldn't you cheat by dying exactly ten times?

A few games stop the counter at 9 if I recall. I don't know if Capcom's 1941 does in this case.

[Cata]

Don't forget that older games often had no continues at all. So it was 1CC or bust.

So i'm curious why they were added then? I mean I get that the developer wanted the player to be able to continue further to see parts of the game but it seems like the continue really messed with the perception of these games to people who didn't take a closer look.

For instance, me and a friend got super into Geometry Wars one summer and we played non-stop trying to one-up each others score. I think since this game doesn't let you continue it immediately drives this sense of finality to your score that anyone can understand.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking here but it seems to me like this one major reason for the misconception of the genre at large. The question is, though, is it wrong to blame the developers for not foreseeing this misconception pitfall? Or is it just easier for us to look at it in hindsight ala Hindsight is 20/20

[nasty_wolverine]

Don't forget that older games often had no continues at all. So it was 1CC or bust.

So i'm curious why they were added then? I mean I get that the developer wanted the player to be able to continue further to see parts of the game but it seems like the continue really messed with the perception of these games to people who didn't take a closer look.

For instance, me and a friend got super into Geometry Wars one summer and we played non-stop trying to one-up each others score. I think since this game doesn't let you continue it immediately drives this sense of finality to your score that anyone can understand.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking here but it seems to me like this one major reason for the misconception of the genre at large. The question is, though, is it wrong to blame the developers for not foreseeing this misconception pitfall? Or is it just easier for us to look at it in hindsight ala Hindsight is 20/20

In a arcade seen, continues == more profit. Continues exist for that first, then secondly letting good players see and practice the rest of the game (while paying for it).

I ll try to summarize why 1CC:
- playing in the arcades costs money. you would ideally want to get more out of fewer coins. completing the game in one coin is the pinnacle.

- most of arcade games will wipe your score once you continue. So going the farthest and scoring the most requires a 1 credit play through even if you dont complete the game. ofcourse, most arcade games have end-game bonuses, so doing a 1CC will get the highest possible score. And then you get on the score board. its like putting your flag at the top of the mountain. its a matter of pride in your skill.

- lastly, arcade were social hangouts. if someones playing good, they will get a gallery behind watching them. it was showing off your skill. the gallery will cheer the skillful play ("thats awesome!!!"), will boo the credit feeders ("he cant play for shit. just dying and continuing all the time."). 1CC back then was a social pressure too.

- on a sidenote, good arcade games are designed such that it is completely possible to finish the game in a credit.

[Cata]

Maybe I should have worded this thread then as "do you think continues were a bad idea for shmups" haha

I think I'm conveying my thoughts poorly haha

[nasty_wolverine]

Maybe I should have worded this thread then as "do you think continues were a bad idea for shmups" haha

I think I'm conveying my thoughts poorly haha

no, continues are a good idea for shmups, and all arcade style games. how many credits it takes to finish the game is a good progress meter.

What is bad is how the proper use of continue is lost on mainstream gamers. No one had any clue on how to explain it, so they didnt. So now, mainstream gamers continue through things and say game is too short, arcade gamers crib thats not how you play it.

[MR_Soren]

1 credit was simply the most practical way to play in an arcade. In a busy arcade, it was the only way to play.

When unlimited continues come to a console and you don't have to drop money into the machine, the penalty for failure is gone as is one of the incentives to become a better player. Gamers aren't likely to ever truly understand this if they didn't come from an arcade background. Console gaming is so focused on completion rather than improving one's skill that it's all foreign to them.

I think offering achievements for a 1CC and/or specific scoring goals is the one of the few ways to motivate console players enough that they'll try.

[Doctor Butler]

1 credit was simply the most practical way to play in an arcade. In a busy arcade, it was the only way to play.

When unlimited continues come to a console and you don't have to drop money into the machine, the penalty for failure is gone as is one of the incentives to become a better player. Gamers aren't likely to ever truly understand this if they didn't come from an arcade background. Console gaming is so focused on completion rather than improving one's skill that it's all foreign to them.

I think offering achievements for a 1CC and/or specific scoring goals is the one of the few ways to motivate console players enough that they'll try.

This.

Though I'd extend "Console Gaming" to "home gaming in general". There's even less incentive to develop skill in PC games.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I must say the first console shmup I found so easily credit-feedable it left bad taste was no other than Ibara port. Home shmups of yesteryear weren't typically that "easy". I think Konami changed that with 32-bit Salamander collection (or was it some 32-bit Parodius port?)

[neorichieb1971]

Should say "Contine and set score to zero, Y/N"

Then people would get it.

Unfortunately no game has ever stated this and let the masses believe credit feeding is the only way. It also gives the impression that more credit feeding is about money, where as the right angle would have been to promote competition in order to get more money.

Games like Street fighter use the last digit in the score to represent credit feeding. This masks the whole situation even more.

[Special World]

Most people don't care about score either way, and I doubt trying to drill the point home would do anything besides make your game look even more archaic.

[Mischief Maker]

Most people don't care about score either way, and I doubt trying to drill the point home would do anything besides make your game look even more archaic.

Just call it the "beat the high score" achievement, instead, and they'll go nuts over it.

[Xyga]

1CC was cool among 20th century teens, way before Hi-Score became a 21st century hipster thing (internetssss!!!)

[DrVenom]

1 credit was simply the most practical way to play in an arcade. In a busy arcade, it was the only way to play.

When unlimited continues come to a console and you don't have to drop money into the machine, the penalty for failure is gone as is one of the incentives to become a better player. Gamers aren't likely to ever truly understand this if they didn't come from an arcade background. Console gaming is so focused on completion rather than improving one's skill that it's all foreign to them.

I think offering achievements for a 1CC and/or specific scoring goals is the one of the few ways to motivate console players enough that they'll try.

I only ever played anything in arcades a few times and only casually.
But playing console games I don't remember ever thinking that using continues really counted as beating the game. A console game might give you 3 lives and 5 continues and to me there was always a clear distinction between using continues or not.
Otherwise that game could have just given you 15 lives. There are instances of course where you get penalized harder for using continues (like sending you further back) but that is still how I always saw it. And that is before I ever heard the term 1CC.
But sure I am probably an exception. That is why you should always take reviews of these types of games with a grain of salt. They almost always complain that they are too short or easy.

[Zahaele]

I don't see how playing with continues even counts as beating a game in the first place. By the time you run out of lives, it's game over and you've already lost. The continues are just there if you want to see what you didn't get to. Beating the entire game on a single coin/run-through just seems like a natural thing to do.

[Jeneki]

how many credits it takes to finish the game is a good progress meter.

Yeah, I'll admit that I totally played that way back in the 90s. At first it took me a couple bucks to finish Air Buster. Then a dollar. Then a couple coins. Finally, just one.

... and then I finally get a chance to play it again over 20 years later, and holy crap I suck now. Haha