I HATE shmups with Infinite continues, you can't turn off...

[Neon]

I 1 lifed metalslug by making savestates at the beginning of each level, then mastering each one individually. Since bombs/weapons/etc reset at the beginning of each level, and the console ports have level selects, I thought I might as well spare myself the frustration of endlessly replaying the first 5 levels only to die in the same spots on level 6's bridge. Even having 1 lifed each level individually several times, it was difficult to do a run straight from beginning to end...always made some tiny mistakes. But I got it eventually

Is that fake? Not that it matters

[sffan]

Now I'm wondering, on a side note:

What was the last arcade scrolling shooter to NOT offer continues? There must have been a few after Xevious but I can't think of any.

[Nei First]

SheSaidDutch: I must have missed that post you made man, anyway glad you also see where I'm coming from.

- it's a coin-ops' legacy, a feature to make the player put more money, but not the true way to play an arcade-style game.

It's not the true way to play an arcade style game, says who?

This is going slightly off topic, I don't want to go deep into what is classed as the "true way" of playing arcade games. I just don't think that matters really. But since you brought it up I want to ask.....

What could be more "true", than playing games the way they were "made" to be played, i.e. playing arcade games like arcade games?
Again this isn't the basis of my opinion, I'm just asking.

[sjewkestheloon]

the concept of a fake 1cc made me laugh a bit. playing a lot of psikyo shmups at the min, i've come to the realisation that i have no chance at my current shmup skill to 1cc on the normal setting. therefore, suitable for the specific game, i've been slowely practising on 1 cred on the lowest difficulty until i can get a consistent 1cc. then, moving on to the next difficulty, i've done the same thing. i'm nowhere near a 1cc on normal yet but by learning the less complex bullet patterns on the lower difficulties has allowed me to apprehend the more complex ones thrown out by the same boss on a higher difficulty, and i am making progress. therefore, by the definition my eventual 1cc will be fake.

as far as i'm concerned that's bullshit. in fact i've been applying a lot of time to playing the game, enjoying it, and offering myself the possibility of improvement without credit feeding and becoming bored to death with stages 1-4.

however credit feeding on very easy games like steel dragon evo on the ps2 would detract from the achievment as it's easy as pie to do in the first place. i think such sweeping statements of fake 1ccs is a bit small minded and excludes the possibility that different skill level players will have different abilities, and the definition given doesn't apply to every shmup around.

somewhat playing devil's advocate here but i'm interested in responces to this

[TVG]

Absolutely. In fact, this discussion is lame. Arcade-style games are not RPG's. Is that simple. The problem is that people use to forget why the several/infinite credits option is there - it's a coin-ops' legacy, a feature to make the player put more money, but not the true way to play an arcade-style game. Any, if you ask me. And self-disciplining is not really hard once you understand it.

But since I'm feeling as if I was repeating again, I'm just going to ask - how many of the people here NEVER use more than one credit per player? I'm curious about all those 1-credit-complete players; does it come only after lots of credit-feed "just-to-learn-that-pattern" plays? 'Cause you know, it's NOT the same...

Indeed, shouldn't we be speaking about two types of 1CC's, the straight 1CC's and the fake ones? Just wondering.

i use multiple credits often to practice, most of the time its "one more credit to learn that stage/pattern" but occasionaly i creditfeed to the end.
i dont see how "fake" it is, in fact its an elitist fucker mentality, whats up with self made rules as what is "true" and "fake"?
when i play on the arcade, i can put another coin to learn that pattern or stage or whatever, if i have 5 coins, i can use them to see the end of the game, i wont really have beaten the game til i beat it by the default number of lives the developpers game me, but who gives a fuck about the rest?
someone that has never played in an arcade with free play on throws me the first stone (either because of broken coin slot or agreement with the workers)

on topic, if you really dont want the epic feel of shmups not be ruined, play on 1 credit like everyone is telling you, having 3 lives or having 15 just isnt the same.

in fact i hate when freeplay is off, but thats just me.

the casual gamers will not like shmups no matter what, unless they're hyped up enough to make them look cool for playing it (ikaruga(not like theyll play it for real tho)

[TVG]

the concept of a fake 1cc made me laugh a bit. playing a lot of psikyo shmups at the min, i've come to the realisation that i have no chance at my current shmup skill to 1cc on the normal setting. therefore, suitable for the specific game, i've been slowely practising on 1 cred on the lowest difficulty until i can get a consistent 1cc. then, moving on to the next difficulty, i've done the same thing. i'm nowhere near a 1cc on normal yet but by learning the less complex bullet patterns on the lower difficulties has allowed me to apprehend the more complex ones thrown out by the same boss on a higher difficulty, and i am making progress. therefore, by the definition my eventual 1cc will be fake.

as far as i'm concerned that's bullshit. in fact i've been applying a lot of time to playing the game, enjoying it, and offering myself the possibility of improvement without credit feeding and becoming bored to death with stages 1-4.

however credit feeding on very easy games like steel dragon evo on the ps2 would detract from the achievment as it's easy as pie to do in the first place. i think such sweeping statements of fake 1ccs is a bit small minded and excludes the possibility that different skill level players will have different abilities, and the definition given doesn't apply to every shmup around.

somewhat playing devil's advocate here but i'm interested in responces to this

its not "fake" to turn the difficulty down, it is however, a complete waste of time.
as in, you wont 1CC normal like that, or you will in an insane amount of time.

[Recap]

I 1 lifed metalslug by making savestates at the beginning of each level, then mastering each one individually. Since bombs/weapons/etc reset at the beginning of each level, and the console ports have level selects, I thought I might as well spare myself the frustration of endlessly replaying the first 5 levels only to die in the same spots on level 6's bridge. Even having 1 lifed each level individually several times, it was difficult to do a run straight from beginning to end...always made some tiny mistakes. But I got it eventually

Is that fake? Not that it matters

Funny you mention Metal Slug, 'cause it's one of the games I'm close to 1CC. I have ("had", since I sold it recently) the game since 1997 (SS version) and it still gives me fun. The SS version is harder than the MVS one in default settings, but I never used more than one credit, nor the select screen feature. My problem is that I'm not constant enough. I now want to move to MS2 or X. MS will remain uncompleted for now, but also "unfaked". 'Cause yep, that it matters.

It's not the true way to play an arcade style game, says who?

This is going slightly off topic, I don't want to go deep into what is classed as the "true way" of playing arcade games. I just don't think that matters really. But since you brought it up I want to ask.....

What could be more "true", than playing games the way they were "made" to be played, i.e. playing arcade games like arcade games?
Again this isn't the basis of my opinion, I'm just asking.

Says Recap, of course. And notice I was also refering to coin-op games. But if that isn't enough to you (how couldn't it?), have a look at how the old arcade games started and how the immediate continue was implemented in them. It was more a marketing answer than the designers' choice. So nope, arcade games are not intended to be credit-fed, even if this may sound nonsensical.

the concept of a fake 1cc made me laugh a bit. playing a lot of psikyo shmups at the min, i've come to the realisation that i have no chance at my current shmup skill to 1cc on the normal setting. therefore, suitable for the specific game, i've been slowely practising on 1 cred on the lowest difficulty until i can get a consistent 1cc. then, moving on to the next difficulty, i've done the same thing. i'm nowhere near a 1cc on normal yet but by learning the less complex bullet patterns on the lower difficulties has allowed me to apprehend the more complex ones thrown out by the same boss on a higher difficulty, and i am making progress. therefore, by the definition my eventual 1cc will be fake.

Not really. You played the game at different diff settings, which is like playing different games. So it wouldn't be a fake 1CC. Indeed, I see what you're doing as an added handicap - you have to learn the patterns several times and readapt yourself with every settings change. Not to mention you already know what the game has to offer audiovisually, so the interest in persisting will dilute more easily (totally, of you ask me).

i dont see how "fake" it is, in fact its an elitist fucker mentality, whats up with self made rules as what is "true" and "fake"?

Not "self-made" if you think about it, actually. We're speaking about "1CC". If you used more than 1 credit at any moment you broke the rule and you're taking advantage of that for your next 1CC. So you "faked". It's not "elitism", it's a proper use of the language to distinguish two different situations.

when i play on the arcade, i can put another coin to learn that pattern or stage or whatever, if i have 5 coins, i can use them to see the end of the game, i wont really have beaten the game til i beat it by the default number of lives the developpers game me, but who gives a fuck about the rest?

Coin-op's and arcade-style console games are not different. You can use as many credits as you want, either to see the ending or to learn patterns. But what's the point?

[D]

Infinite continues suck.

This is probably what killed the appeal of shmups.

Reviewers just played through it in 30 minutes. $60,00 gone!!!!
This is what is written alot.
Manufacterers even to this day do not seem to care about these comments.

Even variable credits is bad, and variable lives and bombs too.

perhaps one day we'll be able to easilly mod our games and change these shortcomings ourselves, can't wait!

[raiden]

Says Recap, of course. And notice I was also refering to coin-op games. But if that isn't enough to you (how couldn't it?), have a look at how the old arcade games started and how the immediate continue was implemented in them. It was more a marketing answer than the designers' choice. So nope, arcade games are not intended to be credit-fed, even if this may sound nonsensical.

Well, taking that perspective you could also argue that the whole concept of scrolling games was brought up together with the concept of continues. What sense does it make to use continues in a game like Pong which doesn´t change over time? The whole structure of a scrolling shooter that gets more difficult in later stages is essentially following a business concept on how to get more money from the players by tempting them to creditfeed. Creditfeeding is exactly what these games are designed for. People who aim for a 1cc and dedicate themselves to a game enough to achieve this are the exception from the norm and THE main reason the genre has declined in arcades, because having someone sitting at a cab for hours with one credit doesn´t make sense for arcade owners. Racing games where you can´t play longer than 5 minutes no matter how good you are pay off much better.

Not "self-made" if you think about it, actually. We're speaking about "1CC". If you used more than 1 credit at any moment you broke the rule and you're taking advantage of that for your next 1CC. So you "faked". It's not "elitism", it's a proper use of the language to distinguish two different situations.

no, it´s not. The ONLY valid use of the term "single credit clear" by that definition would be clearing the game on the first credit you ever used. If you played several times from the beginning, you used more than one credit to clear it. It really doesn´t make sense. Fake 1CCs would be things like slowing the game down artificially, using savestates. As long as the run that counts is done legitimately, it doesn´t matter the slightest what methods you used to practice.
This reminds me of the Ketsui incident between Arika and Cave. The player used a customized board with invincibilty set on. For the real run, he played on the regular board, though. The reason this was considered a scandal was not the point that he managed to 1CC the game using his experience with the invincible board, but the point that this knowledge gave him an advantage on how to score higher, and that he used that knowledge to enter a score for Arcadia magazine. In a hardcore community like there is in Japan, having an information advantage is mostly a matter of time. Since the DVD was published, everybody had access to all the tricks this player learned with the invincibilty board, but it took people time to put that knowledge into practice, so for a score challenge where everybody enters simultaneously, he had an unfair advantage. It´s the time difference to his competitors which made the act unfair, not the fact that he practiced with an invincibilty board.

[Moogs]

My favourite complaint about games with unlimted credits:

"That game was SO easy; I just kept continuing until I beat it."

Obviously, if you had kept dying and had to pound on the continue button to pick up where you left off, the game wasn't that easy. Unlimited continues are at fault for allowing people to finish a game in one sitting, but even then, the developers of the game shouldn't have to babysit people who want someone else to limit their credits for them.

Again, it's a misconception to think a game is easy just cos it has unlimited continues. If you keep dying and continuing, the game is obviously kicking your ass.

[professor ganson]

Infinite continues suck.

This is probably what killed the appeal of shmups.

Reviewers just played through it in 30 minutes. $60,00 gone!!!!
This is what is written alot.
Manufacterers even to this day do not seem to care about these comments.

Even variable credits is bad, and variable lives and bombs too.

perhaps one day we'll be able to easilly mod our games and change these shortcomings ourselves, can't wait!

This is a very good point. Metalslug 3 for XBox has only 3 credits or so. And for very good reason. Metalslug 3 is a different kind of game from, say, Halo, where having infinite continues at specified checkpoints makes sense. Giving kids today infinite continues in their shmups causes a very predictable reaction: "Damn, you can play through this thing in less than an hour. I've already seen everything there is to see here, so why go back to it. This game is not a good value."

I'm not sure, though, that this is "what killed the appeal of shmups." It seems to me that most casual gamers just find 3D gaming more immersive, more like being part of a movie or tv show. But I think that there is an aspect of immersion that such people overlook. One central aspect of immersion is control: the more you are in perfect control of movement, etc. the more you are immersed in the game, and there can be little doubt that the best 2D shmups allow for much tighter control than do the best 3D action games or shooters.

Let me elaborate (that is, allow me to bullshit some more). One of the great things about video games is that they allow for new forms of agency, new ways of acting or doing. This is an obvious point: unlike watching/attending to something on a tv, you are doing something on a tv. Now in real life, sometimes the world doesn't cooperate: there are impediments or constraints that keep us from doing/acting as we would like, and in those cases our agency is limited in ways that WE DO NOT LIKE (think of being tied up-- though there are exceptional cases where this might be pleasurable). Similarly, in most 3D games I have played there is a significant lack of precision involved with the result that I really feel the limits of my agency, I notice the impediments, and I am unhappy. In the best of shmups I feel that the limitations are purely internal, they are limits in my skill, and not failures of game design or controls.

So much for my partial defense of SHMUPS AS THE GREATEST GAMES IN THE WORLD!!! (apologies for that nerdish outburst)

[Recap]

Well, taking that perspective you could also argue that the whole concept of scrolling games was brought up together with the concept of continues. What sense does it make to use continues in a game like Pong which doesn´t change over time? The whole structure of a scrolling shooter that gets more difficult in later stages is essentially following a business concept on how to get more money from the players by tempting them to creditfeed. Creditfeeding is exactly what these games are designed for. People who aim for a 1cc and dedicate themselves to a game enough to achieve this are the exception from the norm and THE main reason the genre has declined in arcades, because having someone sitting at a cab for hours with one credit doesn´t make sense for arcade owners.

The truth is that "scrolling games" weren't born with an immediate continue option. And they still got harder in later stages. And still got money from the players, even if they were forced to restart. Keep in mind that to "have someone sitting at a cab for hours with one credit" he previously had to put lots of coins to learn and to make progress.

The continue feature is actually pretty antinatural for what a game is supposed to be. A game's not a movie, as I said once. I don't know if the usual (Japanese) arcade player credit-feed the coin-op games, but I don't think that's the norm. They have cheaper anime movies, you know.

no, it´s not. The ONLY valid use of the term "single credit clear" by that definition would be clearing the game on the first credit you ever used. If you played several times from the beginning, you used more than one credit to clear it. It really doesn´t make sense. Fake 1CCs would be things like slowing the game down artificially, using savestates.

What's the difference, at the end, between using savestates and credit-feeding or using stage select features?

[Galaxius]

On the topic of FAKE and TRUE 1CC's-

I 1CCed Vulcan Venture arcade without ever continuing in the game. Ever. And the sense of satisfaction was much greater in this game than it was in other games that I have 1CCed, by using practice continues.

The games I have one-credded by practicing levels, bosses, patterns, etc., well, I wouldn't go so far as to call them fake, but I'd say they were a little less rewarding.

Either way, play for your own enjoyment, not the standards others have set.

[captain ahar]

The only reason I could see for limiting credits is to forego lengthy continue countdowns. I do hate having to pound a button 20 times to get on with it.

That gives me time for a profanity-laced tirade.

funny.

anyway, extra credits do not get in my way at all. its as easy as not continuing. sometimes the continues have helped me decide how or who as i want to play. so whatever.

[Rob]

The ONLY valid use of the term "single credit clear" by that definition would be clearing the game on the first credit you ever used.

Hah.

Recap, you wasted your time for nothing. You're still "practicing" the stages multiple times with multiple credits every time you restart the game. It's just a much slower process. There's no special reward in that. I have a problem with save states or other emulated features, but if a game has stage select in a port or I just feel like using another credit, fair game. It's time efficient.

[Recap]

The ONLY valid use of the term "single credit clear" by that definition would be clearing the game on the first credit you ever used.

Hah.

Recap, you wasted your time for nothing.

That was a nice sophism, but not much else.

[raiden]

The truth is that "scrolling games" weren't born with an immediate continue option. And they still got harder in later stages. And still got money from the players, even if they were forced to restart. Keep in mind that to "have someone sitting at a cab for hours with one credit" he previously had to put lots of coins to learn and to make progress.

yes, of course, but once he achieved that skill, the game isn´t worth the cab it occupies to the arcade owner any more. And having a phenomenon of a whole group of people with such a skill could even ruin the business. Same thing goes for puzzle games. You just don´t have that risk with racing or lightgun games, and so they´re much more common nowadays.

The continue feature is actually pretty antinatural for what a game is supposed to be. A game's not a movie, as I said once. I don't know if the usual (Japanese) arcade player credit-feed the coin-op games

even in Japan, the usual arcade player is NOT hardcore, but going there for a quick blast. You don´t have to convince me that games aren´t movies, that watching them is not what they´re about. But when it comes to marketability, there´s no arguing that it´s possible to handle games in such a way, and that it´s very profitable to do so.

What's the difference, at the end, between using savestates and credit-feeding or using stage select features?

Using savestates to practice is legitimate, using them to "copy&paste" a 1cc (like it´s done for some replay videos) isn´t.

I 1CCed Vulcan Venture arcade without ever continuing in the game. Ever. And the sense of satisfaction was much greater in this game than it was in other games that I have 1CCed, by using practice continues.
The games I have one-credded by practicing levels, bosses, patterns, etc., well, I wouldn't go so far as to call them fake, but I'd say they were a little less rewarding.

I don´t want to argue this in the least. My usual practice is not using any of these tools, neither stage select nor lower difficulty or continues. But I wouldn´t want to devalue other people´s 1CC achievements by calling them fake just because they used other methods of practice.

[cigsthecat]

I think it's important to remember here that although Recap speaks as if he were the absolute authority on all things videogame related, he is in fact not.

His arbitrary rules and bylaws are not standard for all players.

[Recap]

yes, of course, but once he achieved that skill, the game isn´t worth the cab it occupies to the arcade owner any more. And having a phenomenon of a whole group of people with such a skill could even ruin the business. Same thing goes for puzzle games. You just don´t have that risk with racing or lightgun games, and so they´re much more common nowadays.

I don't think so. If there's a group of people with such a skill is because all of them used lots of coins before. That's more money for the operator than the one he gets via casual credit-feeding players. Racing or lightgun games are "much more common nowadays" (I suppose you mean in Western countries, since in Asia and even latin America is the opposite) because you can't recreate the experience at home, unlike with non-dedicated games.

even in Japan, the usual arcade player is NOT hardcore, but going there for a quick blast. You don´t have to convince me that games aren´t movies, that watching them is not what they´re about. But when it comes to marketability, there´s no arguing that it´s possible to handle games in such a way, and that it´s very profitable to do so.

But there are more of those you're calling "hardcore" in Japan than in Western countries. Many more. Anyways, you're implying what I said - that the instant continue feature is more a marketability wayout than the actual game designers' choice.

Using savestates to practice is legitimate,

"Legitimate"? Because an emu programmer decided to include it? C'mon.

I don´t want to argue this in the least. My usual practice is not using any of these tools, neither stage select nor lower difficulty or continues. But I wouldn´t want to devalue other people´s 1CC achievements by calling them fake just because they used other methods of practice.

The truth is that there are two ways of 1CC'ing a game and there are people here of either side. The truth is that both ways are noticeably different; one requires much more time and patience and never leaves the prerrogative. And the truth is that I don't find better words to distinguish them than "straight" and "fake". But since English is not my first, I'm pretty sure you'll find better, non-devaluing terms for the phenomenon. Do it.

[TWITCHDOCTOR]

So, by your philosophy, a doctor or lawer who went to school for 8 years is really only a "fake/ illegitamite" one.
Thats fucking retarded any way you look at it.
Whats even more fucking retarded is your use of the term "Fake 1CC".

A 1CC is a 1CC !! The only thing I frown upon are those people who memorize replays to get a 1CC. I prefer to master the game on my own...and if that includes the use of continues for later levels, to form patterns, so be it!

I guess one could say that the use of "Savestates" is like a level select/score attack, but even then, savestates can be abused if used every 5 seconds.
BTW: I don't use savestates or "score attacks". I just play the game and enjoy it.

[shiftace]

1CC means to complete a game using one credit. To complete a game means to play it from the start to the end. To play the game means to connect oneself to provided input/output devices and interact with the game. I just cannot see how anybody could think that practice should affect such a definition.

You could make any distinction you like between, say, a 1CC on the first time playing a game and a 1CC after 500 tries without continuing, but neither is any less a 1CC than the other, because both of them involve playing the game from start to finish on one credit.

Complaining about savestates, autofire hacks, or whatever else belongs under the definition of "playing," not "1CC," IMO.

[Recap]

Thats fucking retarded any way you look at it.

Whats even more fucking retarded is your use of the term "Fake 1CC".

A 1CC is a 1CC !!

Come on... Can't you do it a bit better?

[BulletMagnet]

Infinite continues suck.

This is probably what killed the appeal of shmups.

Reviewers just played through it in 30 minutes. $60,00 gone!!!!

I'd argue that the "appeal of shmups" hasn't been "killed" by the presence of infinite continues, but rather the current mentality of the gaming public at large, which seems to think that "finishing" a game is only a matter of reaching the end credits, and that unless there are unlockables or some such thing to be gotten there's no reason to play through anything again once you're "good enough" to reach the end. The entire concept of improving one's skills through practice or playing for score is all but lost on the modern gamer...and the modern reviewer. Infinite credits haven't stopped shmuppers from enjoying games in which they're present; it's not the option, it's the mentality.

[Recap]

1CC means to complete a game using one credit. To complete a game means to play it from the start to the end.

Well, OK if you just want to stay there. I was trying to go any further and speak about the different ways to reach the 1CC play, thoe.

[shiftace]

1CC means to complete a game using one credit. To complete a game means to play it from the start to the end.

Well, OK if you just want to stay there. I was trying to go any further and speak about the different ways to reach the 1CC play, thoe.

Yeah, and I don't think there's much benefit to making those distinctions. They achieve the same end product, so the end product should be called the same thing. What might be more interesting is to judge the skill shown in different 1CCs and see if skill level is affected by the method of practice.

[TWITCHDOCTOR]

Thats fucking retarded any way you look at it.

Whats even more fucking retarded is your use of the term "Fake 1CC".

A 1CC is a 1CC !!

Come on... Can't you do it a bit better?

I can! Why don't you re-quote my entire post so that it makes sense, like its supposed to.
Then again, I doubt anything will make sense to you at this point.

So, according to you, "practicing" is now a form of cheating?
Before you snap back at me like some hot shot know-it-all, I'll repeat myself here...
I don't watch "replay's", I don't use "Savestates", and I don't use "score attacks".
I'll only continue at later levels to get some practice at em. Plain and simple...why are you being so dense here!?

[Nei First]

Infinite continues suck.

This is probably what killed the appeal of shmups.

Reviewers just played through it in 30 minutes. $60,00 gone!!!!

I'd argue that the "appeal of shmups" hasn't been "killed" by the presence of infinite continues, but rather the current mentality of the gaming public at large, which seems to think that "finishing" a game is only a matter of reaching the end credits, and that unless there are unlockables or some such thing to be gotten there's no reason to play through anything again once you're "good enough" to reach the end. The entire concept of improving one's skills through practice or playing for score is all but lost on the modern gamer...and the modern reviewer. Infinite credits haven't stopped shmuppers from enjoying games in which they're present; it's not the option, it's the mentality.

It might not have killed the appeal of shmups, but the presence of infinite continues has certainly affected the appeal though. Look at the older shmups e.g megadrive and SNES, you couldn't get infinite continues unless you used game genie type codes or through another way, which was regarded as cheating.
Now shmups and games like metal slug 4 have them right from the start.

[BulletMagnet]

Well, back in those days more shmups were console-exclusive...in more recent times a greater and greater percentage of them have been ported from the arcades. In any case, the mentality is still the deciding factor: some of those old games more or less forced you to have it (like Firepower 2000...it doesn't let you continue at all, you HAVE to 1CC the thing to finish it), while these days shmups just give you the option, in order to make the games more accessible. I don't think that's a bad thing in itself; what needs to change is the general gaming attitude, so that even if one credit feeds to see the end of a game or practice at first, the lure of a 1CC is still there afterwards.

[Recap]

Yeah, and I don't think there's much benefit to making those distinctions.

Well, since the 1CC concept involves skill and comparing different player's performance, I think those distinctions are indeed important. There are several shortcuts to "achieve the product" and only one to achieve it "straightly". It's also a matter of standardization - you some times credit-feed, some others, single-credit, some others use 10 lives per credit... and more importantly, what's the point to keep playing a game once you've seen all it has to offer?

[shiftace]

Well, since the 1CC concept involves skill and comparing different player's performance, I think those distinctions are indeed important.

Maybe we can just agree to disagree here. I noted later in my previous post that seeing if practice methods affect the resultant skill in whatever 1CC would be interesting, but I don't think it should make any difference to calling something a 1CC or not.

There are several shortcuts to "achieve the product" and only one to achieve it "straightly".

But does the product differ in any way? And if the product does differ, shouldn't you judge by evident skill rather than by some preconception about the method?

It's also a matter of standardization - you some times credit-feed, some others, single-credit, some others use 10 lives per credit...

I don't see how this relates to defining 1CCs, or much of anything else. It is still my opinion that practice has no bearing on whether or not something qualifies as a 1CC. Is there some other point to this discussion than what constitutes a 1CC?

and more importantly, what's the point to keep playing a game once you've seen all it has to offer?

To get a better score, to find a more daring route, to play with a sense of humor, to develop more repeatable approaches...to have fun, maybe?