Playing for survival VS. Playing for score- Question!

[evil_ash_xero]

I for one, don't play a game for score(I know!). I just...don't care. To me, it's all about trying to stay alive, and just having a good time. Appreciating the gameplay, level design, graphics, and music. To me, that's what playing Shmups is all about.

However, I see MANY folks on here are into the score. So, i'm in the minority. That's fine, and that makes sense, considering score has always been a big factor in Shmups.

Now, my question is: How much does a game's score system affect your opinion of the game? Can the game be fun as hell, but the score system ruin it for you? I can't relate to this way of thinking at all, so I would really like some opinions.

I mainly have pointed this out, since I have seen a couple of games which I consider to be pretty darn good(Battle Bakraid/Dimahoo) be sorta left behind, because of their "poor" score system. I'm not going to lie, I have no idea about their score system whatsoever! However, I do find these games to be stylish(especially Dimahoo), and very fun and challenging. I think they're both very good represenatives of shmupping.

Some games that are in the top 25 list, kind of just leave me scratching my head. To me, Battle Bakraid is a much funner game than Batrider, but Batrider is WAY up there. Is this because of it's score system, and the tournaments that go on here? I'm new, so humor me.

Honestly, i'm just really curious. I have no problem with why people play games for score. I would just like some insight to your reasoning. Let it out!

s/m

[Sonic R]

…

[Macaw]

I have learn that Raizing games are fun to play to survive and are not have complicated score systems.

Actually they have the most complicated scoring systems.

[Sonic R]

[Frederik]

Some games might change drastically when you play more for either score or survival, others don´t. Going for some sweet bombing spots in Batrider for instance will give you some extends you will need for survival. Same with DDP - even pretty basic chaining will get you an extend somewhere during the 3rd stage. So it´s not like scoring doesn´t help survival in most games.

Games like Psyvariar or Shikigami lose their entire point if not played for score, obviously. Older games or more survival-focused games like Psykio ones do have the survival in their focus.

So I think it´s pretty pointless to say "I play EITHER for score OR survival", because each shmup is played differently.

As for myself, I am trying to 1cc Battle Bakraid right now in Advance mode, ignoring the very complex chaining mechanism, but I plan to learn it as soon as I can survive better, so the game will get a whole new layer of gameplay once I finished it by simply surviving it. You can perfectly play this game on both survival or with added scoring, this is what makes this game so good IMHO. The same is the case for DDP.

And lets not forget that if you play for getting high scores, survival is a must anyways (if we exclude suiciding as a tactic).

And for evil_ash_zero, watch this replay of Bakraid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYee-hXXBFw

Wait for the first boss, watch the milking, then the chaining via bombs and suiciding, and count the SIX EXTENDS the player gets right at the beginning of stage two. If this doesn´t make a huge question mark appearing over you head, nothing will. As I said, I´ll stick to 1ccing this one first

[Ghegs]

Games like Psyvariar or Shikigami lose their entire point if not played for score, obviously.

I'd have to disagree on the Shikigami part of this statement. In Psyvariars the scoring system is inseparably tied to the game (to the point that a true 1CC is impossible without scoring well, as the True Last Boss is only reachable with high enough buzz level) where in Shiki-games someone disregarding scoring still deals with the same levels and bullet patterns as someone playing it for score. I cleared the game with minimal regard to scoring (=didn't go out of my way to increase score, but did it when it was easy enough) and the game definitely didn't lose its point. Unless we have a different view on the point on the game.

Anyhoo.

I like medals with increasing values like in Blazing Star but I strongly dislike chaining enemies like in Ikaruga and DOJ. Go figure. evil_ash_xero, maybe you just haven't found the scoring system that entices you. Not saying that you HAVE to find one, but it's a possibility. I know I'm still looking for the one that'll cost me sleepless nights.

[Pirate1019]

Now, my question is: How much does a game's score system affect your opinion of the game?

It almost always defines my opinion of the game. Exceptions include games without a scoring system (Gradius/oldschool) or games where scoring isn't really first priority (Psikyo).

As for myself, I am trying to 1cc Battle Bakraid right now in Advance mode, ignoring the very complex chaining mechanism, but I plan to learn it as soon as I can survive better,

That's why Raizing games tend to rub me the wrong way. I can never properly play them for score because I'm not good enough to have extra lives to throw away in the name of score.

[captain ahar]

Now, my question is: How much does a game's score system affect your opinion of the game? Can the game be fun as hell, but the score system ruin it for you? I can't relate to this way of thinking at all, so I would really like some opinions.

i love all kinds of shooters, so i can honestly say i enjoy both types equally. just kind of depends on the frame of mind i'm in.

as concerning your question, it kind of depends. if the game is fun as hell, and it has a scoring system that i don't understand i refuse to let it ruin the game. i will stick with it until i can begin to understand what is going on. ESPrade follows neatly with this category. i'm kind of irritated with it when i play out of the blue, but when i am "in the zone," so to speak, i find it quite fantastic.

on the other hand, if i find the scoring system to be fundamentally broken, that is a different matter entirely. this is sort of a soft example, but as much as i tend to love cave games for their playability, it is hard for me to get behind the stage long hit chaining of enemies. it just seems like such an asinine mechanic to throw into a game. that's not saying i don't ever do it, or that it "ruins it for me," but it is something of a nuisance.

edit: sorry about the constant cave mentions, they seem appropriate, and i am a cave whore (to use a phrase i've heard pop up every now and again).

[ROBOTRON]

I almost never play for score...SURVIVAL.

[TKGB_Mental_Gear]

I like to play for survival. It makes me feel like I am truly roleplaying. Such as Battle Garrega, fighting off an invasion that you helped create and now you must stop them. OI! That makes me feel like I'm in the game. That's why I play games and shmups is no exception.

[Shatterhand]

Now, my question is: How much does a game's score system affect your opinion of the game?

It almost always defines my opinion of the game. Exceptions include games without a scoring system (Gradius/oldschool) or games where scoring isn't really first priority (Psikyo).

As for myself, I am trying to 1cc Battle Bakraid right now in Advance mode, ignoring the very complex chaining mechanism, but I plan to learn it as soon as I can survive better,

That's why Raizing games tend to rub me the wrong way. I can never properly play them for score because I'm not good enough to have extra lives to throw away in the name of score.

No. You actually it's not good enough to get a good score to have extra lives to throw away to get an even better score.

At first I also thought suicide tactics were stupid. Up until I actually understood them. People saying this is "counter-intuitive" probably don't understand how it works.

And I know, because I've once said this was "counter-intuitive", up until last year's STGT and we played Batrider on Advance. My score still sucked, but suiciding didn't seem so counter-intuitive anymore.

[shoe-sama]

I liek to score.

And laugh at everyone who has a lower score than me.

I score if the extra points are worth the extra playtime and risk involved. Spending 5 hours and failing the stage 2 chain in DDP every time = omg chaining in DDP isn't worth it for me.

[Dave_K.]

I have learn that Raizing games are fun to play to survive and are not have complicated score systems.

Actually they have the most complicated scoring systems.

But playing them for survival is most fun and do not detract from the game. Cave game (ie ESPGaluda) is lose the enchantment when playing for survival.

Raizing is collect medals and blow stuff up. Yes there are many secret to discover but game playing is much enjoy when I am play Battle Garegga or Souky.

Funny but if you ignore score/rank in Battle Garegga or Souky, you will not survive very long. You need to understand the game even to play it this way. I think these are bad example games for a play for fun type of attitude.

Like most here, I'd play for survival at first, until I hit a wall, then I'd come back to work on score, learning the depth of the game, and usually find it much more enjoyable.

[DJ Incompetent]

More interested in 1LCs. Will switch to scoring if my competition is close and unspoiled by questionable issues.

Hard to argue against 1LC being a perfect game. That and its accomplishment is so much more definite, concrete, and absolute. No shmups.com essay fight can drive the merit of the award down beside the game selection.

[PROMETHEUS]

To me, the score element is important because it gives the player new goals to achieve that make the game harder and deeper. Dodonpachi chaining make the stages a lot harder to go through, you have to take more risks and let the enemies survive longer, and dodge more things. That's what a good scoring system should be to me : force the player to play the game in a way that takes more skill, and reward him for achieving that.

To me, the scoring system in Cyvern for example is not good enough, because even when playing for the best score you can pretty much figure a path that will leave you with almost nothing to dodge. You don't need much skill.

When you do play for score, you'll be kind of searching the optimized path that will lead you to the best possible score. At this point, the score system acts simply as a modifier of this optimized path : it determines the exact paths you should take if you want points (there are often more than 1 possible that lead to the same score, at least in DDP). And if the scoring system is good, that path will take a lot more skill to execute than a survival-oriented path. A scoring system is better than another to me if it takes more skill to execute the path it makes.

There is a second thing though : the scoring system can force the player to play in a way that is "beautiful". In Dodonpachi, chaining is great because it makes the game more skilled, but also because it forces the player to play kind of "esthetically", carefully annihilating the enemies one after the other without a second of rest between each, like a preprogrammed, meticulous killing machine. It adds to the heavy industrial theme the game has.

I think this is the most important "flaw" of shmups : the scoring system is kind of needed because the games are so preprogrammed and always the same everytime you play them, that it wouldn't quite be possible to make a game that is interestingly hard even when you know it really really well and yet not unplayable the first times you play it. But making up a scoring system means forcing the player to learn that strict path that will lead him to good points, and the act of memorizing this path is long and tedious. It's kind of like a chore you have to do before being able to play just to hone your skills up, which is what's ultimately interesting.

[Twiddle]

Hard to argue against 1LC being a perfect game.

Battle Garegga.

[Acid King]

No. You actually it's not good enough to get a good score to have extra lives to throw away to get an even better score.

At first I also thought suicide tactics were stupid. Up until I actually understood them. People saying this is "counter-intuitive" probably don't understand how it works.

And I know, because I've once said this was "counter-intuitive", up until last year's STGT and we played Batrider on Advance. My score still sucked, but suiciding didn't seem so counter-intuitive anymore.

It's minimal in Batrider though and you have to be careful not to toss away certain characters so as not to ruin your chances of triggering a boss. Of course, you can suicide to avoid triggering bosses... that works too. The Raizing suicide issue seems to come up most in Garegga and Ibara. I haven't put much time in Garegga, and I've never played Ibara, but judging from replays it looks like it works much in the same way in both games.

Bakraid is just a strange game because suiciding is an active part of the chaining system as opposed to just rank control and bomb replenishment. You can't chain a whole level, or even a boss, without suiciding.

[MathU]

Why choose one or the other? Play for both!

[Dandy J]

Scoring system goes a long way towards my opinion/enjoyment of a game. If I don't like a game's scoring system, 99% of the time I won't stick with the game for long. The only exception is DDPDOJ, because that game is just so goddamn good that it doesn't matter. And frankly, I kind of enjoy the chaining a little, it just requires too much skill/dedication/practice than I'm willing to put into it. I usually like build-up -> milking systems like ESPraDe or ESPGaluda. Medal chaining/Raizing super secrets has grown on me too.

Usually the way I play is score and survival at the same time. My normal strategy through a game is to learn the scoring system well enough to give me all the extends I need, and then go from there. This is especailly applicable in Cave games, since there are usually just 3 extends (2 score, 1 collectable). Like for example, I still can't get near the 2nd score extend in DOJ, and the furthest I got when I last played it was almost to the collectable extend (died in the enemy that dropped it). So when I go back to that game, I could really go for either learning to chain better or try to survive better so that I can collect that extend and thus make it to the 2nd score extend, or vice-versa.

[landshark]

Dimahoo is a very VERY good game. However, it has a super steep learning curve for dealing with set completions (this is the main scoring mechanism).

But the bosses have tons and tons of parts you can destroy for extra points (some worth 1 million once you have alot of sets). WIth this, you can choose to make the bosses as difficult as you want them to be by picking them apart.

I've played Dimahoo alot and I still cannot competely pick apart the level 1 boss consistently because it gets too difficult. It just gets more difficult from there on.

Plus, it's alot of fun to destory the entire screen with a level 8 charge shot and watch all the jewels and emblems fly down.

[DJ Incompetent]

Hard to argue against 1LC being a perfect game.

Battle Garegga.

somebody 1LC'd?

Score is usually better in the end. No Miss is almost as commendable, or rarely even better than score depending on title. Not many games can really merge the two into non-conflicting accomplishments.

[Rob]

There is a second thing though : the scoring system can force the player to play in a way that is "beautiful". In Dodonpachi, chaining is great because it makes the game more skilled, but also because it forces the player to play kind of "esthetically", carefully annihilating the enemies one after the other without a second of rest between each, like a preprogrammed, meticulous killing machine. It adds to the heavy industrial theme the game has.

Nice post. It almost makes DDP chaining seem appealing.

Survival is preferred by me in older arcade games where there are graphics and music to actually appreciate. Newer games seem to be poor in that regard and especially in the most recent games (like Naomi games). Plain shooting seems so thin and shallow. There is something very unsatisfying about shooting enemies in Shikigami.

Kind of like Prometheus said, scoring adds life to moments in a stage that you might not really notice while just playing for survival. It makes you hyperaware of everything going on. And you can get moments of triumph for the smallest things (like breaking your own halfway through stage one score - wow! seriously, I enjoy every little improvement). When playing for survival the only goal is getting farther than you did before. One goal. Much less satisfying, and after a while just dodging bullet patterns all feels the same. Like repeating the same challenge over and over again. Unique scoring systems are their own challenge and you still get that extra bullet dodging.

[Icarus]

somebody 1LC'd?

Japanese player KET has. I've seen the MAME input.

RE. Raizing:
Raizing is unusual when discussing score over survival as in a select few games, it takes both and mashes them together in such a way that to score well, you have to learn not to survive (Bakraid is the most extreme example of this). Once you get used to suicide tactics they become incredibly intuitive. Whether or not someone is able to get to grips with it is another matter, and dependent on the player.

RE. OP's question:
Score systems do affect my opinion of a game, but not completely. Aesthetics, sound design, gameplay and control are just as important.
I do like seeing big numbers next to my high score initials, however.

[Twiddle]

playing for score does have its pitfalls

but playing for survival in a genre that borrows its technical aspects from puzzle games just seems like outdated thinking to me. Playing games just to beat them is great for things like Killer7 where you're given a payoff in story, but I'd rather maximize the fun out of the little time games that want you gone in half an hour or less give you.

[Rob]

playing for score does have its pitfalls.

OK, when I post my Mars Matrix review I did not copy this. (great minds and all)

[Twiddle]

playing for score does have its pitfalls.

OK, when I post my Mars Matrix review I did not copy this. (great minds and all)

I'm having a hilariously bad day for gaming, both Counter-Strike Source and shmups.

I think I'm going to play Sispri Gauntlet for the rest of the day. At least in that game I have actual consistency.

edit: On second thought I think I'm just going to watch more terrible anime

[Arvandor]

But playing them for survival is most fun and do not detract from the game. Cave game (ie ESPGaluda) is lose the enchantment when playing for survival.

You're kidding me right? ESPgaluda is one of the more fun games to just play for survival, since you can save up your green gems to slow through nastier patterns. It was part my initial attraction to the game. And then the somewhat free scoring system was another big plus once I started to pick it up a bit.

Anyways, I generall play for survival, but once I have a stage down pat (like the first two or three stages of a game I'm trying to clear) I'll start trying to score on those, and then survive later. So... I guess I sorta do both =/

[Sonic R]

But playing them for survival is most fun and do not detract from the game. Cave game (ie ESPGaluda) is lose the enchantment when playing for survival.

You're kidding me right? ESPgaluda is one of the more fun games to just play for survival, since you can save up your green gems to slow through nastier patterns. It was part my initial attraction to the game. And then the somewhat free scoring system was another big plus once I started to pick it up a bit.

Anyways, I generall play for survival, but once I have a stage down pat (like the first two or three stages of a game I'm trying to clear) I'll start trying to score on those, and then survive later. So... I guess I sorta do both =/

It was fun to play to survive until I watch the DVD. Then I try to play for score and my feeling are change. I am suck so bad I cannot enjoy it no more (I don't watch super play anymore) I don't know it was bad experience for me - I almost stop playing shoot them up.

[Arvandor]

It was fun to play to survive until I watch the DVD. Then I try to play for score and my feeling are change. I am suck so bad I cannot enjoy it no more (I don't watch super play anymore) I don't know it was bad experience for me - I almost stop playing shoot them up.

Yeah, watching super-plays can be very disheartening =) They've never detracted from the fun for me though. I understand how inexperienced I am, and that if I devoted enough time to it, I too could get that good. So whatever. Play games, have fun.

I am too fucking stupid I guess I don't understand anything Why do I even bother playing anything or do anything I am just worthless piece of shit I cant wait til I die my life sucks. I suck at everything life games job…

just shit on me everyone treat me like shit my whole life sorry I am different - I fail.

Wow man... What brought this on? o_O Cheer up, eh?

Why do I even bother playing anything

Because it's fun?

or do anything

Because it's fun or is required to purchase conduits thereof? =)

[VorpalEdge]

Playing for survival is nice (and often necessary), but playing for score adds a lot of depth and replay value to the game, so I try to do it whenever possible.

Even if I don't do it particularly well.