What's more important? Score or level of completion?

[Rastan78]

I was wondering what opinions are like on this. Is it true that Arcadia considers completion before the score? For example, an ALL with lower score will trump a higher score where the player ended their game on an earlier stage? If a player breaks the world record without getting the completion, their score won't be published as #1. On the flip side, a player could get the new record without beating the old score simply by reaching a higher stage. I'd heard there were games such as Raiden DX where this was the case.

All of our own high score tables are arranged according to highest score only, but would it be legit to arrange them according to completion as highest priority? Also, would this mentality change the way some of us play?

[LUNardei]

Where did you heard this?
In any case, a score table just makes way more sense to me

[zlk]

It is my understanding that this is the case with arcadia, they value stage reached over score.

[sven666]

It is my understanding that this is the case with arcadia, they value stage reached over score.

did they ever print a score that wasent an allclear?

[JoshF]

Yeah, I think it'd be hard to beat those scores without it.

[zinger]

That's why noone bothered to ask LAOS about his Batrider S-score, or record him play. that lamer didn't even beat the game!

[Rastan78]

Sorry LUN, I can't remember exact threads on this. I was hoping someone with more knowledge (thanks zlk) could confirm or disprove.

@sven666 Yes, definitely. There are looping games where you have players reaching some crazy levels like loop 15 or 16 on Gradius IV. Plus, in the case of a really tough game like Ketsui or Gunbird 2 it could even take the experts many months to crack the second loop, so there would first be record scores that were from 2-4, 2-5 etc.

[JoshF]

That's why noone bothered to ask LAOS about his Batrider S-score, or record him play. that lamer didn't even beat the game!

What's this now?

[LUNardei]

That's why noone bothered to ask LAOS about his Batrider S-score, or record him play. that lamer didn't even beat the game!

Lol, that lamer actually performed an all clear, Gemant confirmed this with the right Arcadia in his hands
Rastan: I was just curious, the thing still sounds weird to me. Certainly it makes sense with particular games with A LOT of loops and so and. And about other games: yes, it's difficult to beat certain scores without an ALL clear, so it's eventually the same, I guess!

[chtimi-CLA]

interesting question, if you has asked this to me a few years ago i would have said completion without any hesitation. but that's probably because i started playing shooters in the arcade and everybody wanted to last as long as they could on one coin.

i have only started to play for score because of this forum (and it is true it makes you better at survival), but back then even when i tried to get the 20000 no-shuriken bonus at shinobi it was because it was a harder survival challenge.

nowadays i would probably say score, but still, to be the real champion i would say you have to "go further" than other players. my gut instinct is that for 2D scrolling games the better player is the one who can survive the most "waves", just like back in the galaga years.

maybe the japanese arcade culture is different but that's what it was like in France, the player who got the farthest was the best player, no questions asked.

[benstylus]

I start by trying to complete the game.

Once I can do that, then I start playing for score.

[landshark]

Depends *if* I can complete the game. For example, I have no hopes of ever completing Dimahoo, so instead I keep trying to improve my score.

[Icarus]

It is my understanding that this is the case with arcadia, they value stage reached over score.

did they ever print a score that wasent an allclear?

Yes. Several past Mushi scores in Arcadia have been non-ALLs. Multiloopers are ranked by earliest stage achieved by the time a universal score limit is reached.

[Ganelon]

The real question is: has there ever been a JP listing that didn't put completion ahead of score?

[Rastan78]

And about other games: yes, it's difficult to beat certain scores without an ALL clear, so it's eventually the same, I guess!

In Arcadia, it all evens out over time due to the crazy skill levels, but for us, the high score forum would be shaken up quite a bit if our thinking was reversed.

The approach on gameplay would be changed too, since having a good bomb distribution plan to get you deep into the second loop of a game would be more important to getting a high ranking than perfecting first loop chaining etc.

[Arvandor]

Screw what everyone else thinks, I'm all about the 1cc, THEN going for score.

[LUNardei]

The approach on gameplay would be changed too, since having a good bomb distribution plan to get you deep into the second loop of a game would be more important to getting a high ranking than perfecting first loop chaining etc.

Yes but... I still think is way better to play a game as it was meant to be played. If you keep on playing, your level will raise in any case. Maybe not reaching a japanese (sorry, I said japanese!) level, but I really think that we need to play like that to improve our skills.

[DEL]

Yes I've also heard that Arcadia values distance and 1CC over score. Usually they would both go hand-in-hand anyway, but I would be perfectly happy if shmups.org re-arranged all high score listings to favour ALLs and distance over higher score without the distance. For example, I'd have no qualms whatsover if zlk's Brave Blade 1CC @ 20mil+ were to be placed above my 40mil+ non ALL.

Some ALLs are difficult and kudos should be granted to players who achieve them.
Many will say that this flies in the face of modern day scoring systems eg. Cave, but I guess the two factors can combine.

[LUNardei]

I think the "ALL" should be a good enough kudos for a player in the seond place, in example. If you reach the last stage of a game with 40 mil and another guy perform an ALL with 20... Well, that's a little difference between your performances distance-wise, but a huge distance score-wise. So I'd say the non-ALL score is way better in that case.
What about ULTRA mode?
There are 2 50/60 mil stage 5 scores in our board. And a stage 4 with 220 mil in stage 4. What's better?

Also, you should consider that a situation like:
1) LUN - 100.000.000 - stage 3
2) DEL - 60.000.000 - ALL
is the greatest motivation for player LUN to improve even is distance (and consequently his score again).

It would be not bad to see a saparate distance-tables though, but only in game where it's worth it, 2/multi loops games for example!

[sjewkestheloon]

Interesting topic. Personally it's distance for me every time, but i lack the dedication in most instances to actually 1cc a game in the first place. If i did 1cc a game with an interesting score mechanic (i have yet to) then i would proceed to playing for score. I would be more proud however of a high scoring non-all run than a low scoring all as they would be achieved in that order and scoring runs usually run to higher risks.

If i was placed higher for an old all score and lower for a much more accomplished run score wise achieved later, say death in the last stage, i wouldn't be impressed.

[jpj]

score.

[howmuchkeefe]

Score, barring obviously unintentional exploits. Getting an ALL in some games is a lot harder when you've scored well than it is when you haven't.

[Twiddle]

It depends on the difficulty of the game. In a game like Raiden, it's definitely distance. In a game like Radirgy, it is scoring.

[Nemo]

My first inclination was that ranking somone higher who has an ALL over someone with a better score and not an ALL is the dumbest thing I ever heard. But the more I think about it, the more it makes sense, that is with certain games. In a moderately easy, score-centric game like GigaWing Generations, it would be pointless, but with a game like Ibara, it would make more sense. It's all about a player's style though, whether you favor learning how to score efficiently and then how to survive, or vice-versa. What's more effective again depends on the game. Like Arcadia, I favor the latter because it's more sexy reaching an concrete end like an All as opposed to a transparent end like a score because the fact will always be it's possible to due better score-wise until you get an ALL.

[Rastan78]

Normally, I think polls are kind of lame, but I added one here. This might be interesting to see the outcome.

[SAM]

HAVE FUN is the most important. Otherwise what the point of playing video games? You think you could earn your living with that?

[PPA]

I start by trying to complete the game.

Once I can do that, then I start playing for score.

i second this

[Nuke]

I start by trying to complete the game.

Once I can do that, then I start playing for score.

i second this

I third!

[CMoon]

Fun > Survival > Score

I agree that once I can survive a game (or even a level) I'll try to exploit score.

Basically they are all important.

[Nuke]

There are Shmups, mainly horizontal were I don't give a damn' about scores and play them just for fun and survival. (G Daruis and Gradius V, I'm looking at you!)