Is playing for fun != playing for score?

[Neon]

I myself would disagree, but I find a lot of people here don't.

Every once in awhile a thread pops up about 'how much do you suck?' and everybody posts their...ahem...accomplishments. Speaking as one who is regularly beaten at Samurai Shodown 3, Puyo Puyo Sun, etc. by his girlfriend, I am just not very naturally good at videogames. However, I still have a small but growing amount of 1cc's/1 lifes under my belt...I would ask these people who suck:

How much time have you put into the game?

and over what period of time?

I sincerely believe that if anyone plays a game enough, they will eventually be able to 1cc it. If I can, you can too.

But then of course there's the question of whether that's any fun. It seems everyone assumes that it isn't, and that score players are just playing for bragging rights. Up until I actually tried it myself I probably would have agreed. But once I stopped pirating games and buying them, I realized how much utter crap there was in my hundreds of burnz...and I imagine real collections are the same. I'd rather have a small amount of games that I love than a collection with hundreds of games, you know? Getting rid of the chaff leaves you with just quality, ensuring a good experience for each play.

At the same time, when the Ketsui port for PS2 was hinted at, everyone said 'hooray, the PCB will get cheaper!' which is kinda cold I thought...if you like the game, wouldn't you want to 'thank' the company by giving them direct profits?

I don't really think playing for score is more fun in every case. Metal Slug 1 is boring as hell to play for score due to the many leech points...case in point, the 30 second or so timeframe you have on level 3 to jump over the snowballs and knife the soldiers pushing them before you fight the mid boss. That's just plain boring and repetitive, as is the point in level 4 when you have to shoot into the cave for several seconds to get the extra hostages.

Then there's (here comes the can of worms) Garegga. I don't mind the rank and medalling at all, I think it'd be a fine game if those were the only score elements. But then there's shit like 'you have to remember to miss every 5th X to get option formation Y' or which parts of the bosses you have to destroy with what to get how many points. Plus a bunch of crap I read from the ST and forgot . Maybe if you're more intelligent than I am that'd appeal to you, but I don't really play shmups to think...things like that just seem like un-fun work to me. And of course with that going on you can't play for survival so much since you NEED extends in order to survive.

On the flip side there are games like Strikers 1945 1+2 and Dodonpachi where there's chaining/medalling, respectively. These make the first few levels, which are eventually easy and boring to live through, interesting since the medalling and chaining still take perfect timing.

Yeah, I'm bored tonight...thoughts?

[Ganelon]

Well, looks like I have some more time to kill as well.

On the time factor, yeah, it definitely matters more than anything else. It's just like studying for a test or becoming good at anything else. Invest time and you reap the rewards. Some people are naturally gifted due to natural physique or mind (hence why Joe Shmoe can't become Michael Jordan nor Einstein) but time is otherwise the most important factor.

I still have lots of RPGs I want to get through (since many offer me very little replay value) and although I still buy plenty of new fighters, I only play a few that I enjoy. That means no 3D games, no SNK titles, none of that. Only some old games like ST and 3S that suit my fancy. Same thing for shooters. I may get a lot of them to try them out but in the end, only a few games like Gaiares get my repeated attention.

The examples you mention also seem to correlate to your own preferences. I find managing rank intelligent but find chaining very boring. On the other hand, I don't mind practicing the same Genei Jin combos for 2 hours in 3S.

[llaoyllakcuf]

I just think playing for score/time can be pretty fun in its own way for certain types of games.


for instance, I was really addicted to getting 200K on 'The Mercenaries' in RE4 a while ago
(I eventually succeeded btw )

[Davey]

Why do I have a feeling this thread will eventually get 3 pages long and get locked? On that note...

There are a lot of variables at play here. It all relies on the player's temperament and the game itself.

What is the point of playing the game in the first place? Is it a time killer? A stress reliever? A source of intellectual challenge? Something pretty to look at? A way to escape reality? Background entertainment for a social gathering?

How is playing this game for survival different from playing for score? Does it totally change the game, or does it naturally extend the core gameplay? Is the scoring system intuitive? Is there room for error, or does it demand perfection? How much fun is the game when NOT playing for score?

I'll use myself as an example. As I've mentioned far too many times, I don't like rote memorization. I don't want to practice a chain 700 times to perfect it, especially if I know how to do it, but just can't master the timing down to the microsecond. I like learning basic skills and applying them to events as they come. No game is random, but some are better than others at giving you the impression that you're reacting to your environment and not just engraining an ultra-precise series of inputs in your brain.

I've played a lot of Puyo Puyo, and you could argue it's the same thing every time. Blob falls, you place it, repeat. As you play, you start doing the same things over and over. However, as time goes by, you refine your strategies. As you get more confident, you experiment more. In any particular match you might need to change your strategy as the situation dictates. Even though you keep playing the game over and over, it's a little different every time, which makes it more bearable to play over and over. It's mastery without the drudgery.

However, other people enjoy the sense of accomplishment that comes with practicing a game over and over, And if they like it, who am I to say it's wrong? Their scores will always be better than mine, too. But as I've said before, I want to have fun the entire time, not torture myself for hundreds of hours to feel a sense of redemption at the end.

Unfortunately, one thing that gets annoying is the elitism displayed by some who play for score. While the 700 million DDP players surely enjoy the game on a deeper level than those who can't reach 20 million, as long as everybody's having fun, it shouldn't matter. Admittedly, though, I probably would look down on somebody who claimed to be a fan of the game but just credit fed it every time (but that's a pretty extreme example).

The perfect game would have a learning curve such that the game is fun at every level, from the instant gratification of the first play to the mastery at the end (and everything inbetween). It would constantly offer you more goals which would always be just out of reach, maybe overwhelming, but not to the point of senseless frustration. You'd continuously improve, but since you'd be having so much fun with it, you'd hardly notice until you take a periodic look back and see the progress you've made. You would gradually memorize the game, but in a very passive way. But then again, what game is actually like that?

Shit that was long. Sorry.

[mannerbot]

It doesn't matter how good you are at a game. Playing for score gives you a goal to work towards, which is infinitely better than just playing games to kill time as I expect most people do (not visitors of this forum, people in general). I'm pretty sure that everyone would agree with me that credit-feeding through a game is pointless, and in that same way, not playing for score takes the charm out of a lot of games. For example, all of the thought that went into the level design of Dodonpachi is wasted on a guy that doesn't chain. Yes, the game can still be great fun if you only play for survival, but you're missing the whole point of the game. Not playing for score reduces fine art to doodles.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not too great at video games myself, but how much motivation I have to get better is what ultimately determines how much enjoyment I get out of a game. It's just not fun driving on an almost-empty tank, just trying to get to the nearest gas station.

[Marc]

How much time have you put into the game?

and over what period of time?

I sincerely believe that if anyone plays a game enough, they will eventually be able to 1cc it. If I can, you can too.

I wish, but after hitting a brock wall around halfway through level 4 on DoDonPachi - and that's playing pretty regularily over the last ix months or so - I don't seems to be getting any further. My chaining one the first two rounds is getting better, but I think I may have hit the limit of my skills on DDP, no matter how I might try.

For example, all of the thought that went into the level design of Dodonpachi is wasted on a guy that doesn't chain.

And again, I can sort of see your point, but by the time I hit level 3 survival is my only priority, and I don't enjoy the rest of the game any less that the first two levels, which are the only two I can chain with any degree of success.

[mannerbot]

Definitely, I can certainly understand that. Again, I'm not talented in shooters at the least, and I do just start blasting random enemies and panic bombing in DDP at stage three. However, just knowing that it is possible to chain the stage properly gives me a goal to work towards. I don't of any aspiring artist that wants to draw stick figures; at the same time though, I can't paint like WIZ or TAC... yet.

Personally, I find it natural to describe an impressive superplay as poetry in motion. I'll fumble over words until I can create that poetry, but some would rather stick to piglatin.

[Ghegs]

I'll use myself as an example. As I've mentioned far too many times, I don't like rote memorization. I don't want to practice a chain 700 times to perfect it, especially if I know how to do it, but just can't master the timing down to the microsecond. I like learning basic skills and applying them to events as they come. No game is random, but some are better than others at giving you the impression that you're reacting to your environment and not just engraining an ultra-precise series of inputs in your brain.

This is me as well.

I'd love to play for score, but more often than not I just can't get interested in the scoring mechanics. Something like Ikaruga or DDP-like chaining doesn't click with me, though I love finding and hitting all the bees in DDP. Though after 1CCing a game I usually don't feel any desire to get a higher score, I'd much rather crank up the difficulty so I can deal with faster, deadlier enemies, badder bosses, new bullet patterns...if clearing a game on a higher difficulty gives you a respectably higher score (like in Phalanx, Thunder Force V...) that's just my cup of tea.

But that gives a clue as to what kind of scoring systems I like. DDP's bees, coins in Strikers series/Gunbird 2, score attacks in PCE games, those I like because the player has much more control and freedom over the score, as opposed to chaining which requires you to do a very specific task at a very specific moment. When somebody on the forums mentioned Ikaruga's "shoot 3 enemies of same color"-system coupled with stages of randomly colored enemies I got excited over the idea.

I also loathe milking with a passion. Last weekend I was playing Salamander 2, and it's possible to finish the first stage with either ~50k or ~70k, depending whether or not you purposely avoid the boss' weak spot and concentrate on the purple worms he's spewing out. It's just not fun, and goes against my natural shmupping instincts.

That's actually something I've been thinking about for a while. As stupid as this sounds, I take the initial setting in shmups semi-seriously. I am the planet's last, best hope for peace. I'm there to save humanity and all that. The mission is to destroy the opposing force. So when I find I have to selectively destroy enemies (Ikaruga) or even let them attack me freely (Psyvariars) in order to score well...it just doesn't work with me. If I really was out there fighting for my life, I'd sure as hell destroy enemies as fast as possible without giving them a chance to retaliate, to increase my chances of survival and completition of the mission.

Like I said, it's stupid. But that's one reason I like scoring systems that work toward or alongside my natural shmupping instincts, not against them. Sadly, the latter type seem to be the most popular when it comes to playing for score. Actually, it's only natural, since that's the only way to create some of the more complex scoring systems out there.

All that said, I kinda envy people who get hard-ons when dealing with intricate scoring systems. They have potential to get much, much more enjoyment and gametime out of those types of games. I'd be perfectly happy if I ever 1CCed DOJ (or even DDP), but some people dedicate years to get a mind-boggling score and have fun doing it. Bastards.

Playing for fun is a different thing for different people, and at this moment survival = fun for me personally. But recommendations for games with deep scoring systems that match my above musings are welcomed, I'm certain I will eventually find a game I will love to bits and dedicate myself to mastering it completely.

[mannerbot]

That's actually something I've been thinking about for a while. As stupid as this sounds, I take the initial setting in shmups semi-seriously. I am the planet's last, best hope for peace. I'm there to save humanity and all that. The mission is to destroy the opposing force. So when I find I have to selectively destroy enemies (Ikaruga) or even let them attack me freely (Psyvariars) in order to score well...it just doesn't work with me. If I really was out there fighting for my life, I'd sure as hell destroy enemies as fast as possible without giving them a chance to retaliate, to increase my chances of survival and completition of the mission.

I'd like to watch you play. Would you happen to have a suit prepared for this mission?

[sethsez]

I don't play for score per se, I play for maximum possible destruction. Sometimes these things go hand in hand, and sometimes they don't, but it's not really a concern of mine. I set my own goals when I play a shmup, which sometimes don't mesh with the goals the developer had in mind ("fuck you, I don't feel like chaining medals by collecting them when they shine a certain way").

[black mariah]

I go through phases. Sometimes I just want to blow shit up, sometimes I want that added element to make things interesting. Right now I'm having a lot of fun trying to get better scores in Giga Wing 2. A month from now it might be simply trying to get through stage 3 of DoDonPachi. You never know.

[system11]

I like to destroy things, it gives me a sense or order, almost like tidying the levels. I play for enjoyment, sometimes I'll play for score /if/ it's enjoyable to do so. I don't play for score or necessarily play to better my skills, but I always shoot for survival. Survival for me, will always outweigh any desire for numbers - which is why I detest games making the player suicide.

I'll also mirror what someone said above - memorisation leaves me cold, I like there to be some random or apparently random elements. Reacting quickly to things is fun. This is why I sink the vast majority of my time into online games - humans as opponents can be unpredictable. Races in Midnight Club games can be so high speed and madcap that something as simple as being slightly off your line can mean having to re-evaluate the next few corners in half a second, but sometimes it's a risk worth taking to pass someone. In Rainbow Six games, while some people are fairly predictable, some aren't, some will change - you think on your feet!

[CMoon]

Realistically, not everyone has time to practice this games the amount that it takes for the 1cc. I seem to have somewhere around 5 hours a week to blow on video games, tops. IF it really is 5 hours, I can certainly see how put into one game, it has helped me improve a bit--but as others have put it, sometimes you hit a wall, and other times it just isn't fun anymore. I'm slowly working my way through ESPgaluda and aiming toward beating level 4 on 1cc. To be honest, getting much farther from that probably isn't going to be possible. Not with the amount of time I have AND the degree of frustration that level 5 has to offer.

I think we're just overlooking the fact here that many people have pretty busy lives and can't give the level of commitment to games that others here can.

[neorichieb1971]

I don't care about score, just about survival. My aim is to complete the game on one credit... Not to jump through hoops on the way there.

[Cthulhu]

I do whatever I feel makes the game fun. If it's a game I'm good at, I'll aim for a 1CC and then getting as high of a score as possible - if I can do it. If it's a game I'm not good at, or unable to 1CC *cough R-Type cough*, I'll continue as many times as I feel is acceptable. Garegga I don't mind credit feeding to the end. Not one bit. Nor do I mind credit feeding DDP:DOJ. I have a ton of fun just trying to beat those games on as few credits as possible.

[Marc]

Realistically, not everyone has time to practice this games the amount that it takes for the 1cc. I seem to have somewhere around 5 hours a week to blow on video games, tops. IF it really is 5 hours, I can certainly see how put into one game, it has helped me improve a bit--but as others have put it, sometimes you hit a wall, and other times it just isn't fun anymore. I'm slowly working my way through ESPgaluda and aiming toward beating level 4 on 1cc. To be honest, getting much farther from that probably isn't going to be possible. Not with the amount of time I have AND the degree of frustration that level 5 has to offer.

I think we're just overlooking the fact here that many people have pretty busy lives and can't give the level of commitment to games that others here can.

An excellent point. Last year, I might have played games for anything from 2-6 hours a night. My life has been somewhat complecated in the last six months, and at the minute, around 4-5 hours a week is my average. I got lots to play, I like to keep my gaming diet veried, and don't have the mentality that will allow me to concentrate on any one title to the exclusion of everything else. Taken me nearly three damn months to get halfway through Burnout 3 for god's sake.

[raiden]

Then there's (here comes the can of worms) Garegga. I don't mind the rank and medalling at all, I think it'd be a fine game if those were the only score elements. But then there's shit like 'you have to remember to miss every 5th X to get option formation Y' or which parts of the bosses you have to destroy with what to get how many points. Plus a bunch of crap I read from the ST and forgot . Maybe if you're more intelligent than I am that'd appeal to you, but I don't really play shmups to think...things like that just seem like un-fun work to me. And of course with that going on you can't play for survival so much since you NEED extends in order to survive.

I´ve said before people pay too much attention for Garegga´s rank system, but it´s time to say it again. It´s because of the rank system that you don´t have to care for score to survive. A higher score will give you more extends, but the methods to get this score will higher your rank enough to make the game that much harder, so you will also need more lives to get further. Imo, Garegga lends itself very well to being played without caring for score at first. When you are really familiar with the game, when survival becomes too easy, that´s a good point to start playing for score. Trying to do all the rank tricks when starting out with the game will get you nowhere.

In reply to the original thread topic, which I find pretty interesting and will reflect on a little more, my basic stance is that I have all the time in the world, because I don´t need to get the top score tomorrow. So many people are anxious whether there will be enough new shmups in the future - it doesn´t bother me at all. I´m playing my nice little selection on and on, most of the time just for fun, sometimes trying out a few score tricks, but I don´t have to care about getting better, as that happens automatically over time. I used to be concerned that reflexes get worse with old age, and that may even be true, but with a genre of predetermined level design, experience can balance the loss of reflexes very well.

I also loathe milking with a passion. Last weekend I was playing Salamander 2, and it's possible to finish the first stage with either ~50k or ~70k, depending whether or not you purposely avoid the boss' weak spot and concentrate on the purple worms he's spewing out. It's just not fun, and goes against my natural shmupping instincts.

In general, I also hate milking. It´s the one reason Esprade left my wishlist after seeing a replay, although I like the patterns, I´d hate to hit a wall score-wise and having the option to improve my score by a small degree by doing the boring milkjob.
But there are cases where I don´t mind milking that much, I found out. That´s when milking has a really large influence on score. In Gigawing, milking the first boss raises your medal value which raises the score you will get for every further medal you pick up throughout the game. Knowing this makes me feel I´m not wasting my time when milking the boss. Blazing Star is similar. Milking some bosses for blue items raises their value earlier, which can easily make a difference of a few millions even at the low skill level I´m playing the game currently.

I've played a lot of Puyo Puyo, and you could argue it's the same thing every time. Blob falls, you place it, repeat. As you play, you start doing the same things over and over. However, as time goes by, you refine your strategies. As you get more confident, you experiment more. In any particular match you might need to change your strategy as the situation dictates. Even though you keep playing the game over and over, it's a little different every time, which makes it more bearable to play over and over. It's mastery without the drudgery.

I see your point, but as you take Puyo Puyo as an example while having a Mr. Driller avatar, I want to digress a little: Puyo Puyo is a very intelligent, maybe intellectual puzzle game. But I don´t like it particularly for one simple reason: it´s too slow for my taste. I DON´T LIKE SLOW GAMES. Slow games always make me feel I´m wasting my time. Now, I´m aware that once things get complicated in Puyo Puyo, it also becomes rather hectic because you have to think very quickly at that point. But before, when the screen is slowly filling up with the first blobs, that´s when I always get impatient. As much as I hate loading times, I hate every "filler" material in a game keeping me from the midst of the action. When the spaceship takes off in Raiden, I can´t wait for the first enemy. Every long stage bonus screen gets on my nerves. That´s why I´m into games with no stage structure at all, among shmups in the strict sense of the word I only know Vulgus and the Practice stage of Raiden DX by now. So my favorite puzzle games are Mr. Driller, Magical Drop III and Puzzloop. Sorry for the rant.

[Randorama]

Fun when playing for score, for when playing for score...

It all boils to one point: simple or complex, if you like an engine (how the game plays and how you get points) you will enjoy your interaction with it.If you don't like some aspects, you will ignore them (you don't like milking in MS, fine, don't do it). If the game, at least from my point of view, is well-designed, you can interact with the parts of the engine you like, choosing if you want to deal with other aspects at will. If you really love the game in all of its aspects, playing it for score is the consequence of your appreciation. Getting good results will also depend on you really understanding all the aspects, or being able to manipulate them. In some cases, you can also enjoy having fierce competition for score and the engine may become secondary.

One thing is, if you completely dislike thinking (very WASPish, i'd add), you're not supposed to even play games. By definition, in any kind of game, you need to interact with rules, and those imply thinking. Of course, some games have more rules, some less, and there's the complexity of rules themselves: bottom thing is, if you find a game that you completely like in all of its aspects, playing to undersand it properly (for score, for competition, etc) will be the natural consequence.

So yes, i like to play for score when i have a specific kind of shmup (or game), else i'd rather get tortured by nazi midget gerbils from hell.

ehr, Nazi vertically-challenged gerbils from hell!

[ED-057]

When I play shmups I have either one of two mindsets. Less commonly, I will have survival as my only priority. I will try to get as far as possible, or in the case of games with infinite continues sometimes I will try to finish the game with as few credits as I can (IMO credit feeding isn't such a bad thing because there is still a goal to work toward besides the end of the game).

When playing games that I have finished before I usually have a different approach. I will try to make the game more interesting by using different difficulty settings and different ships/weapons or I'll try to maximize my score.

Of course my favorite shmups are the ones that are fun to play either way.

With shmups that have a more complex (or just plain bizarre) scoring system though I have never put in that much time and effort into exploiting it (or even learning what it is). My default strategy is to just destroy absolutely everything

[FatCobra]

My default strategy is to just destroy absolutely everything

Same here, I shoot to kill. Those aliens/nazis/terrorists/whatevers are trying to shoot me down first, and I'm not going to make it easier for them by having to chain certain enemies, or wait for a bar to flash white, or stop shooting if there isn't anything on the screen.

As for Garegga's ranking system. Sure, standard shmup tatics may increase the rank, but so does collecting P icons in Strikers 1945, and when you die, the rank gets reset anyway.

[sven666]

i play for score.. high scores make me feel skilled.. which i like i also lke the feeling you get when you overcome an obstacle and progress both game and score wise..

i usualy just play one game at a time and get totally immersed in it, coming up with strategies and such.. right now its 1ccing garegga..

[Davey]

Puyo Puyo slow? I think it depends on the player's style. You can be slow and deliberate or fast and sloppy like Nohoho (or fast and deliberate if you're really good ). Unlike Tetris, the intensity comes from the player's desire to go faster, not from the pressure of the environment (in Tetris's case, ever-increasing gravity). Puyo won't force you into making a move, but there's always a voice inside your head telling you you need to go faster, even though you'd like more time to think out your move. Then again, your opponent's style will largely influence the pace as well, which isn't under your control.

I agree about how lulls in the action can kill a game (loading time, stories, etc). Starting over can be a drag, too. I'm pretty lame at Mr. Driller and still haven't finished 5000 ft, but after getting squashed at 4,800 ft, going back to 0 feet feels like I'm playing the game in slow motion. It's quite annoying. I remember a comment from a Tetris Attack player about how real-life things start becoming irritatingly slow when you've played the game a lot (such as not being able to pour a glass of water fast enough), He also said that's a warning sign that you need to take a break from the game.

I also agree with Rando's post. The game is there to appease the player; that's why it was made in the first place. It's the game's job to make you want to improve, and if you're questioning whether or not it's worth it to invest the time to get better, the game isn't doing it's job, IMHO.

That's one thing I like about video games: they can adapt to the player. For example, if you want to learn to play an instrument, you have to practice your scales or perform some other kind of drills before you can even become competent enough to enjoy yourself. The instrument is just an inanimate object, it can't cater itself to your skill level or change as you progress. A game, on the other hand, can provide you with just the right amount of challenge and reward as you go if it's designed well. Maybe that's a bad example though, as mastering an instrument opens up more and more possibilities as you improve (which justifies the hard work that goes into it), whereas mastering a game just brings you closer and closer to an optimal solution. But IMHO, it's more fun along the way.

[freddiebamboo]

It doesn't matter how good you are at a game. Playing for score gives you a goal to work towards

The nature of shooters is score, and while you could bomb your way to a 1cc in a DDP 1st loop, you don't because the lure of a high score is far more rewarding than opting out of the tougher elements of the game through panic bombing.

I find it far more satisfying to achieve a good score at, for example Bakraid (a relatively easy game to 1cc), as opposed to purely playing for survival.

The competitive edge that scoring gives you, only makes the games more addictive.

EDIT: On Topic, I find that this makes it fun

[thesuperkillerxxx]

Sometimes I just want to blow crap up. I will credit feed to see the pretty graphics, or hear the rest of a song.

Very few of the games make me want to play for score, but the ones that do will never bore me. Yeah starting over sucks, but that just forces you to get better at the game.

I love to milk, but only if I get something besides points. I want extra patterns or destruction for doing it. I will also agree that the supermilk esprade superplay was boring. It is just not my style of milking. Garegga and Batrider will "reward" your milking perseverence with absolutly worn the hell out bosses that just get harder and harder. That is what I want to see.

Take the first boss on batrider. you can kill him in no time at all and finish with a crap score. Or you can nibble it to death, getting the missle launchers and the Yellow bullet firing cannons on the side of the "head". Once the head has its shell knocked off, the fan spread is insane, whereas if you don't nibble it is pretty slow and weak.. Navigating it proves to yourself and anyone happening to watch that you are the fucking shit at the game, and that is what I strive for.

The game is fun the longer I can drag out tha animation and the music. If raising my score to achieve this is a side product of this playing style, so be it. But I am a firm believer in perfect practice, So I must strive for perfection!

/insane rant

Edit: I didn't make the incendiary comments this time!!!!

[BulletMagnet]

I´ve said before people pay too much attention for Garegga´s rank system, but it´s time to say it again. It´s because of the rank system that you don´t have to care for score to survive.

Not to take this too far off topic, but I've never gotten so many mixed signals pertaining to rank management as I have with Garegga...some, as above, say that unless you're going for score you'll barely notice the rank, while others insist that you MUST learn to manipulate it in order to finish the game, regardless of score. In all honesty, from what I know of the game I have no idea how you could beat it while ignoring rank altogether...if you grab all the items, blast all the enemies, etc. with impunity, the game punishes you, regardless of score. And since you're not earning as many points (or extends), can you really count on dying newbie-style (at non-predetermined spots) to "save" you? It just plain doesn't make sense to me...

[Randorama]

The same old cow dung

Uhm, like the cartoons, we need the usual episode done every once in a while, so:

No, the game is done in a way such that casual play isn't really different than aimed play, pre-determined deaths are meaningful only in key spots and done in a given way, are you really that stupid to repeat the same old lies every time? I enjoy abusing your stubborness, but at this point i clearly accuse you of provoking my sadist side

[BulletMagnet]

I don't know, I hear opinions counter to yours coming from others around here (but they're all complete newbie morons who don't deserve to play shmups at all, right? )...but seriously, score doesn't affect rank in this game, specific actions do...I just don't see how doing all the things that increase rank (namely, playing "traditionally") won't affect you so long as you don't play "for score." That one you've never explained to me.

And seriously, do you even have a non-sadist side?

[Randorama]

I don't know, I hear opinions counter to yours coming from others around here (but they're all complete newbie morons who don't deserve to play shmups at all, right? )

Yes, or: should i retrieve a post my old scores? So you can compare to the World Records and maybe you can get a grasp of my grasp of game mechanics.Also, opinions are bullshit: if you don't get results, it's pointless that you go around with a belief and pretend that it can affect reality. Magic doesn't work, time to wake up...

...but seriously, score doesn't affect rank in this game, specific actions do...I just don't see how doing all the things that increase rank (namely, playing "traditionally") won't affect you so long as you don't play "for score." That one you've never explained to me.

If you don't want to understand, it's not my fault! Rank works in a specific way (see guide), the outcome of playing "traditionally" doesn't divert significantly than playing for score if you also die. Yes, i can also give you a more accurate explanation, but would you do the effort of understanding it, little arts student? No, because it would involve thinking, math, ack...changing and improving! Isn't that what you hate, as it would wither your nature (on which i refuse to make comments)?

Seriously, if you pay me i can waste time to explain you what you don't want to understand (else you couldn't cultivate your obtuseness), else...

And seriously, do you even have a non-sadist side?

No pain, no gain, as you obviously enjoy it...

[Dylan1CC]

It depends on the game. Experimentation is key. As I get closer to 1 crediting Batsugun I'm amazed I am not as sick of the game considering it's the only shooter I've been playing for a month. It has actually gotten progressively more enjoyable as I have played it and sharpened my tactics.

[raiden]

but seriously, score doesn't affect rank in this game, specific actions do...

missing a max medal value item lowers rank. If you play for score, you don´t want to miss them. Ok, there is the technique of missing some on purpose while one is still on screen to keep the value high, but even then you lose a few 10.000 points.
Let´s talk about weapon-strength based rank: Shouldn´t it be obvious that this is actually fair? It´s a method to level the old Gradius problem of losing your weapons in key spots and not being able to go on without them. Now, back to Battle Garegga: once you know picking up surplus power-ups increases rank, you will try to evade them. But doing so makes these power-ups another form of bullet: an object you try to evade. Of course, if you decide to raise the number of objects you consider as "bullets", this raises the difficulty bar, even if the thing called rank stays low in the process.
Dying in KEY SPOTS is also something only necessary for scoring high. If you want to survive, you don´t have to plan your deaths, just play to the best of your ability until you die, after which you enjoy the lowered rank and play on. You know the phenomenon of losing concentration when you´re hit, causing you to lose several lives consecutively? This is remedied by a rank that gets lowered when you die. People abusing that to achieve extreme results in the game shouldn´t be your norm when you are still in the process of getting familar with it.
And the whole buzz around counting which icons to skip picking up to achieve certain option formations is especially exaggerated. If the counting challenges your concentration in a way you forget to dodge bullets, what good can an option formation do to make the effort worth it?

I have to thank Randorama and others who wrote those extremely elusive details of information about this and other games in the ST section - things I´d probably not have found out by myself even when playing the game for my whole lifetime, BUT it´s not like these details should be your focus of interest while you are still learning level design and how to dodge certain patterns. The game works very well without knowing any of this: I know because I played Battle Garegga for years and had a LOT of fun without knowing them. Sometimes, ignorance is truly bliss.