Incentive / mercy in scoring systems

[j^aws]

low <----------------------- Incentive ---------------------------> high

bragging rights only . . . . . . . . . . . extends, weapon power, etc
under defeat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . radiant silvergun


low <----------------------- Mercy ------------------------------> high

single mistake ends score run. . . . . . . small mistakes, small effect
*DonPachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESP*


I tend to like scoring systems that are merciful & provide incentives, otherwise I'm likely to ignore scoring and just play the game for survival. Anyone else's taste in scoring systems run along identifiable lines?

I've been thinking about this lately and I never really thought about it much until now...

I habitually play for survival first: This is because in the late 70's and early 80's when I first started to play the genre, the scoring systems were basic... but when a game 'forces' you to progress by 'scoring': I find that the most satisfying because you're constantly improving yourself; your score AND your progress...

E.g. I first noticed this with Defender and then Stargate in the early 80's: Playing for survival was fun until you realise all the humanoids are getting abducted by Landers which subsequently mutate to annoying-you're-going-to-die-bitch Mutants... hmmm...

You're then 'forced' to prevent these mutants being 'formed' by killing them as quickly as possible... you realise your scores are improving because you're catching humanoids after killing Landers; then chaining humanoids (catching and carrying multiple humanoids; sorta like medals)... thus making progress in survival AND score; which are natural "incentives" (with the added moral incentive of protecting the.. ahem, superior 'humanoid' race!).

The scoring system is also "merciful" because you won't be knocked back significantly if your 'humanoid chain' is broken (still a high risk/ reward)... I find this type of integrated, survival/ scoring package the most satisfying...

[-Bridget-]

low <----------------------- Incentive ---------------------------> high

bragging rights only . . . . . . . . . . . extends, weapon power, etc
under defeat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . radiant silvergun


low <----------------------- Mercy ------------------------------> high

single mistake ends score run. . . . . . . small mistakes, small effect
*DonPachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESP*


I tend to like scoring systems that are merciful & provide incentives, otherwise I'm likely to ignore scoring and just play the game for survival. Anyone else's taste in scoring systems run along identifiable lines?

I've been thinking about this lately and I never really thought about it much until now...

I habitually play for survival first: This is because in the late 70's and early 80's when I first started to play the genre, the scoring systems were basic... but when a game 'forces' you to progress by 'scoring': I find that the most satisfying because you're constantly improving yourself; your score AND your progress...

E.g. I first noticed this with Defender and then Stargate in the early 80's: Playing for survival was fun until you realise all the humanoids are getting abducted by Landers which subsequently mutate to annoying-you're-going-to-die-bitch Mutants... hmmm...

You're then 'forced' to prevent these mutants being 'formed' by killing them as quickly as possible... you realise your scores are improving because you're catching humanoids after killing Landers; then chaining humanoids (catching and carrying multiple humanoids; sorta like medals)... thus making progress in survival AND score; which are natural "incentives" (with the added moral incentive of protecting the.. ahem, superior 'humanoid' race!).

The scoring system is also "merciful" because you won't be knocked back significantly if your 'humanoid chain' is broken (still a high risk/ reward)... I find this type of integrated, survival/ scoring package the most satisfying...

And even worse is the "you lost all the humanoids so now you get to fight nothing BUT mutants" waves.

Which is an odd thing for that game's "risk/reward" system, if you think about it, cause if you DONT take the risk, the game will get alot WORSE....

[tada]

Incentive: About 25% of the way from the left. I don't mind Extend values, but anything much more kind of turns me off.

Mercy: About 75% from the left. This kind of ties into why I hate too much incentive: That usually implies a low mercy scoring system. However, a 100% mercy scoring system is a little boring for my tastes, so I went to the left a bit. If ESP is the extreme right side though, maybe I'm thinking over 100%.

[cody]

Oh, sorry, I wasn't trying to imply that ddp was the most unmerciful ever, or that espgaluda was the most merciful, just those are what came to mind as pretty opposite on the spectrum.

Anyone think of a scoring system more incentive-based than Silvergun?

[Ko.oS]

mars matrix - the DC rev lets you unlock plenty of useless shit . . .

[cody]

Yeah, but as far as in-game incentive goes, it seems less than silvergun. It's been a while since I've played MM, but as I recall, the score-based powerup system only affects your normal shot, which is the least useful. Silvergun you pretty much have to understand & use the scoring system if you want to kill some of the later bosses.

[Twiddle]

Incentive: Complete low. In fact, it should be negative. The game should be harder the higher you score, ala Raiden Fighters Jet.

Forgiveness: In the middle.

[cody]

I'm not sure that incentive necessarily means making the game easier the higher you score. You can always have incentives like 'true last bosses' based on score alongside score-based rank increases.

[Rob]

Silvergun you pretty much have to understand & use the scoring system if you want to kill some of the later bosses.

Being forced to do something is not the same as incentive. Being forced to enemy chain = maybe I should be playing something else.

[sfried]

I think a good use of medal collection were implemented in games where you get to buy power-ups with it a la Magical Chase/Trouble Witches, with better power-ups costing more. Either way, you end up with an incentive to score big to get better weaponry.

I hate it, though, when chain-scoring is tied too closely with the "all-or-nothing" ideal, and it makes it worse when bombs "disqualify" you from your chain. (They should make it so that your bomb would be your great chain ender, not chain killer.)

[cody]

Being forced to do something is not the same as incentive. Being forced to enemy chain = maybe I should be playing something else.

Wow, i'm surpriseed this thread made it a whole 2 pages without an anti-silvergun comment. Offering a reward or punishment (enough weapon power to kill bosses) in order to induce an activity (playing for score) is pretty much the dictionary definition of incentive. Killing bosses is optional in silvergun, (as is chaining); no one's "forcing" you to do anything.

Not likiing chaining is one thing, but your comment makes about as much sense as saying
"Being forced to dodge bullets = maybe I shouldn't be playing shmups"

[Twiddle]

Considering there are a number of spots where you will be killed if you don't kill the boss on time in Radiant Silvergun you are basically forced to chain.

This wouldn't be a problem if chaining wasn't like controlling traffic at all.

[Rob]

Offering a reward or punishment (enough weapon power to kill bosses) in order to induce an activity (playing for score) is pretty much the dictionary definition of incentive. Killing bosses is optional in silvergun, (as is chaining); no one's "forcing" you to do anything.

My thought on that is there is a big difference between "real world incentive" in which fear of punishment might actually mean something and then "video game incentive." Video games are entertainment and there is only so much "punishment" a person (in this instance, me!) will take before opting for one of thousands of other games that are more enjoyable... or something else entirely.

So I don't enjoy enemy chaining. Making the bosses impossible to destroy is supposed to make me WANT to do something that is also not fun. No.

I stick to the opinion I had in my first post. Either the process required for scoring is something you enjoy/tolerate, or you dislike it and there is no incentive that will get you to bother.

"Being forced to dodge bullets = maybe I shouldn't be playing shmups"

If you don't like dodging bullets then you shouldn't be playing games which require you to dodge bullets, yes.

[Icarus]

This wouldn't be a problem if chaining wasn't like controlling traffic at all.

It'd be funnier if the enemy colours in Silvergun were RED, ORANGE and GREEN.

[cody]

Considering there are a number of spots where you will be killed if you don't kill the boss on time

Examples? Considering someone has supposedly 1LC'ed garegga, i'd be willing to believe a no-boss-kill silvergun 1cc run is entirely possible.

So I don't enjoy enemy chaining.

'Nuff said. This has little to do with whether incentives attached to said chaining scoring system are, in fact, incentives.

If you don't like dodging bullets then you shouldn't be playing games which require you to dodge bullets, yes.

Shmups don't require you to dodge bullets. Plenty of (most?) people's approach to shmups involves credit feeding first, blowing the hell out of stuff second, and dodging only as a distant afterthought. What sufficiently interesting incentives have shmup designers come up with to make you want to dodge bullets?

[Rob]

'Nuff said. This has little to do with whether incentives attached to said chaining scoring system are, in fact, incentives.

Incentives are supposed to motivate a person to do something, not turn them off of it completely. You can interpret it as an incentive if you want, I don't. I only play games for reward, always. Not if you don't do this then the game is going to turn into a contest of who gets bored and leaves first (the boss or the player in RS's case). A game turning to shit is no incentive for me.

Shmups don't require you to dodge bullets. Plenty of (most?) people's approach to shmups involves credit feeding first, blowing the hell out of stuff second, and dodging only as a distant afterthought. What sufficiently interesting incentives have shmup designers come up with to make you want to dodge bullets?

It doesn't matter if they credit feed or not, any person will realize immediately that you are required to dodge bullets to survive, the primary goal of the game. "Dodging only as a distant afterthought"??? I hope you know that's ridiculous. Or I hope that doesn't happen. That is just retarded!

The reward for dodging bullets is in the thrill and/or sense of accomplishment. Giving them a reason to play and then in maximizing the amount of time that they can play per money spent. If they don't think it is thrilling etc. then they would rightly pass the game by.

[Pirate1019]

What sufficiently interesting incentives have shmup designers come up with to make you want to dodge bullets?

Not getting killed, resulting in not losing your credit, resulting in you not pumping another quarter into the machine.

[cody]

Incentives are supposed to motivate a person to do something, not turn them off of it completely.

You don't like chaining. Chaining is the action the game designers apparently intended to motivate you towards. Chaining is NOT the incentive; big ass guns are the incentive. I'd assume if you like shmups, big ass guns are okay with you, theyre just not interesting enough to make you want to chain. Or do you actively dislike big ass guns?

you are required to dodge bullets to survive, the primary goal of the game.

No, the primary goal of video games is to get to the end, and / or level up. Haven't you ever played final fantasy?

Not getting killed, resulting in not losing your credit, resulting in you not pumping another quarter into the machine.

Exactly. Now when the financial incentive is removed, as in console games, what can developers do?

[stanski]

No continues ala NES games.

[Rob]

Chaining is NOT the incentive; big ass guns are the incentive.

That seems like a closer description to Mars Matrix than Radiant Silvergun.

Radiant Silvergun: If you wanted to be enemy chaining you would be playing DoDonPachi, so here's some "incentive." You pretty much have to understand & use the scoring system if you want to kill some of the later bosses.

Chaining is the action the game designers apparently intended to motivate you towards.

Failing grade.

Now when the financial incentive is removed, as in console games, what can developers do?

Design a fun game.

[Pirate1019]

Not getting killed, resulting in not losing your credit, resulting in you not pumping another quarter into the machine.

Exactly. Now when the financial incentive is removed, as in console games, what can developers do?

Not getting killed, resulting in not losing your credit, resulting in a higher score.

[Arvandor]

I have to agree with Rob. There's something about being forced to do things that turn me away from games. I LOVE Ikaruga, 1cc'ed it, played the hell out of it, got fairly good at chaining the first three stages. I also love Dodonpachi, am sort of getting the first two stages down, but still can't make it to stage 6 even on a great run.

However, Radiant Silvergun turned me right off. I didn't like the thought of being forced to learn how to chain so I could get my weapons decently powered. I spent a fair amount of time getting the first stage (chapter 3) down fairly well, and then couldn't do jack on the next stage. It wasn't enjoyable at all.

Notice the difference? In both Ikaruga and Dodonpachi you can completely ignore chaining, and the only adverse affect is losing out on some score-based extra lives (which makes sense to me to begin with). Radiant Silvergun shoves chaining straight down your mouth. It's my biggest problem with Battle Garegga also. You're forced to play for score if you want to have a prayer of clearing the game.

This of course comes right down to personal preferance. A lot of people hate Dodonpachi because of it's chaining (even though it can be ignored), and love Battle Garegga simply BECAUSE scoring and survival are so intertwined. Arguing over it is pointless. It's like getting a football fan and a baseball fan into a room, one trying to convince the other why the other is wrong. It's just arbitrary and pointless all around.

[Icarus]

It's my biggest problem with Battle Garegga also. You're forced to play for score if you want to have a prayer of clearing the game.

While most players will play for score, it is also possible to play for survival, scoring very low and still pick up an ALL. In both cases, the only things that need to be truly understood are stage layouts, bosses and the rank system.

An example of this is KET's low-scoring No Option ALL Clear with the Wild Snail. You can get the version of GareggaMAME for this input here.

It is entirely doable. When I was still playing it regularly, I could make it to Black Heart2 with a stupidly low score.

[-Bridget-]

Silvergun you pretty much have to understand & use the scoring system if you want to kill some of the later bosses.

Being forced to do something is not the same as incentive. Being forced to enemy chain = maybe I should be playing something else.

I agree with this whole idea, definitely.

Personally, I think that playing for score, and playing for survival, should be able to always be two different things. I play for survival at the start, and once I get good enough, THEN I can start concerning myself with scoring.


Being forced to score FOR survival, is...... blah.


And I also just dont care too much for any of them "chaining" systems.

[cody]

Hey, icarus, thanks for that link, i'll have to check that out.

Rob, as for failing grade ( I assume that's for treasure, not a failing grade in english for my passive voice ), sure, the incentive here isn't enough to outweigh your dislike of the actual scoring mechanics. What would be a sufficient incentive? Would arvandor & the others who feel that strongly incentive-based scoring systems "force" you to do something still feel that way if the incentive were, say, goth loli hentai | money hats? Or is tying scoring to (survival | power | whatever ) always bad?

Yeah, clearly the point is make a fun game, question is how to do that. I happen to think that, all else being equal, scoring incentives make for a more fun game (would under defeat be better with a less linear scoring system and, say, score based extends?). Otherwise, I see scoring as pointless. Some people apparently see incentives as a form of S&M; for those folks, what other scoring systems do you really hate ( since apparently I'd like them )

[Pirate1019]

Except when those scoring based incentives aren't incentives, but instead are necessities.

[Rob]

What would be a sufficient incentive? Would arvandor & the others who feel that strongly incentive-based scoring systems "force" you to do something ...

There is no sufficient incentive. That's what I've been trying to say.

If you enjoy enemy chaining it will be seen as a reward (more powerful weapons). If you dislike enemy chaining it will be seen as a further aggravation, limiting the enjoyment of the rest of the game. Basically all or nothing. That is a pretty cocky or just flawed design choice for something like enemy chaining.

Designing a good game (one I would love ): take an interesting (novel?) gimmick and build a demanding, but flexible scoring system around it. I think Treasure got halfway there on their second attempt. I await their third (hi, louisg).

Otherwise, I see scoring as pointless.

I like it for its own sake. Extra lives are neat though. I'll take them.

[j^aws]

low <----------------------- Incentive ---------------------------> high

bragging rights only . . . . . . . . . . . extends, weapon power, etc
under defeat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . radiant silvergun


low <----------------------- Mercy ------------------------------> high

single mistake ends score run. . . . . . . small mistakes, small effect
*DonPachi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ESP*


I tend to like scoring systems that are merciful & provide incentives, otherwise I'm likely to ignore scoring and just play the game for survival. Anyone else's taste in scoring systems run along identifiable lines?

I've been thinking about this lately and I never really thought about it much until now...

I habitually play for survival first: This is because in the late 70's and early 80's when I first started to play the genre, the scoring systems were basic... but when a game 'forces' you to progress by 'scoring': I find that the most satisfying because you're constantly improving yourself; your score AND your progress...

E.g. I first noticed this with Defender and then Stargate in the early 80's: Playing for survival was fun until you realise all the humanoids are getting abducted by Landers which subsequently mutate to annoying-you're-going-to-die-bitch Mutants... hmmm...

You're then 'forced' to prevent these mutants being 'formed' by killing them as quickly as possible... you realise your scores are improving because you're catching humanoids after killing Landers; then chaining humanoids (catching and carrying multiple humanoids; sorta like medals)... thus making progress in survival AND score; which are natural "incentives" (with the added moral incentive of protecting the.. ahem, superior 'humanoid' race!).

The scoring system is also "merciful" because you won't be knocked back significantly if your 'humanoid chain' is broken (still a high risk/ reward)... I find this type of integrated, survival/ scoring package the most satisfying...

And even worse is the "you lost all the humanoids so now you get to fight nothing BUT mutants" waves.

Which is an odd thing for that game's "risk/reward" system, if you think about it, cause if you DONT take the risk, the game will get alot WORSE....

Thinking about it being "an odd thing": In the context of the games scenario being played out, i.e. an alien invasion; the aliens abducting the humanoids... if all the humanoids die*; then things should naturally get "worse" because you've failed your mission... then it's just 'you' vs 'them'...

The actual odd thing I'm thinking about is that you can increase rank by actually committing GENOCIDE; by killing all the humanoids yourself! ...Pfft, 'suicide' for controlling rank is for the weak!... Though I'm not sure if all the Mutant levels would yield a higher scoring opportunity; but if they do, then the designers were pure-evil, making no distinction between good and bad!

* - All the humanoids re-appear after every stage 5 and 10; these are 2 different special stages and the game loops after that. In essence: You have 10 'medals' (humanoids) and the game gives you 5 levels to maximise your scoring with them, before the 'counter' resets itself every 5 levels. Stargate has more scoring variations than Defender with these humanoids; in addtion to other secrets and scoring with the 'stargate' itself... Actually it's extremely deep and complex for a game from 1981...

[gavin19]

You can get the version of GareggaMAME for this input here.

It is entirely doable. When I was still playing it regularly, I could make it to Black Heart2 with a stupidly low score.

I grabbed the inp file and GareMame32Plus!0.90.03 from that site. Now how do I play back the inp file? When I select Playback and choose the inp file the game just loads as normal, no replay. Did I get the right Mame version or am I missing something else?

[Pirate1019]

Doesn't an inp replay everything the player did? You might have to sit through the startup that the player sat through before he inserted his credit and took off.