Score Rush (Xbox LIVE Indie Games)

[Xonatron]

Nice work, DJI!

[Xonatron]

We just beat our own game in Normal mode at our GDC 2013 booth last week, for 603,627,965 points. I'd love to see more Score Rush multiplayer videos if you guys have any to share.

http://youtu.be/FQxNZTl4Li8

[SuperSoaker360]

Just did a solo clear on Score Rush MP on Crazy. Could you please explain on how the scoring works because I ended up with a smaller score on my Crazy Difficulty clear than my Expert difficulty clear for some reason.

I won't submit my score here because of possible version differences Score Rush MP may have over Score Rush.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Scoring works heavily based on speed kills. Killing faster = better multiplier on that enemy's base value for everyone, which is why the best scores are only obtainable in 4P matches (extra firepower=faster kills=better multiplier). I'm pretty sure the game's instructions are where I read this (or in those pre-match hints?).

It's also why solo runs score completely terrible, one person alone is too weak to kill stuff quickly at any of the worthwhile difficulties, so you always get a low multiplier bonus from enemies killed. No matter how solid your solo run is, you will never score as well as you would in the same match with more people. Presumably, an ideal run would involve no miss, no bombing up to the final boss with four players then bombspamming it to death for a speedkill while pointblanking to get as high a multiplier as possible (since the final boss is worth a ton of points).

(I would be up for a game if you are!)

[Xonatron]

Just did a solo clear on Score Rush MP on Crazy. Could you please explain on how the scoring works because I ended up with a smaller score on my Crazy Difficulty clear than my Expert difficulty clear for some reason.

I won't submit my score here because of possible version differences Score Rush MP may have over Score Rush.

I'll bold this point so everyone reads:

** Turbulenz versions of Score Rush is different than Xbox LIVE Indie Games, it is easier (more bombs). So those scores are not the same. So far the multiplayer and single player on Turbulenz is the same. ***

Now, the reason why you would have a smaller score in Expert would be that you killed less enemies or took too long to kill the enemies, likely from staying too far away from them due to more bullets coming at you. The scoring system works like this: Kill X times as fast, get X times the points. If the enemy as X times as many hit points, get X times the points. If the enemy shoots X times as many bullets (shoots X times faster), get X times the points. So if you get up close to an enemy, your spread hits it more and your bullets refresh faster thus killing the enemy faster thus getting more points. Even killing an enemy 1/60th of a second faster gives you more points, it's calculated per frame. It's not rounded off to 2.0 times as fast, 3.0 times as fast, etc. If you kill an enemy 1.001 times as fast, for example, you would get 1.001 times the points. Next, bumping up the difficulty mode changes the hits points of all enemies as well as how fast they shoot through their shot patterns (how many bullets they shoot), and these directly change the score of the enemy by the same amount. I believe that every two difficulty modes upwards is double. So from Normal past Hard to Expert would be double the hitpoints (double the points) and double the enemy bullets (double the points again). As you can imagine, this can only go so far in terms of maximizing a score even if you do survive. I've unlocked all the way to Insane mode myself (Normal, Hard, Expert, Crazy, Insane, Godlike) and I could not kill certain enemies so I did not get any points with them. I got to the final boss and died, but had I killed it I still would have surpassed my 800,000,000+ score from Crazy. Perhaps if I beat Godlike I would not do this. I find when players play in the hardest mode they sit so far back from the enemies that they are taking longer to kill them than the score multiplier is working for in the opposite direction. So if you are in Expert getting 4 times the points, but are taking longer than 4 times the time to kill the enemy, you get less score. All of that said, 4 players can likely play the harder modes and maximize the points out of the game even more than a single player.

The entire point of the scoring system was to finally have a shmup game that rewards domination. No game that we know of has this. I can play most shmup games and kill everything and get the same points whether I do so quickly and efficiently (kicking major ass) or just chilling out and holding back. When I kill a Thunder Force 3 boss before it scrolls onto the screen or kill a Super-C boss within seconds, I though it would be cool to have a scoring system recognize that.

Score Rush was ultimately an extreme shmup experiment for the expert players, like those found on these boards. It was hard to communicate all of our desires to the gamers when they pick up and play it.

The scoring system is based off Duality ZF's scoring system. They are basically the same. We found in Duality ZF's beta testing that better players would sometimes get lower scores because they would get the job done taking it easy where the worse players would kill the enemies faster. I found this odd, but we decided to leave it in, seeing that neither player could beat the game they both had more to learn and their scores would change as they did so.

Also, I should mention that the mid-bosses and bosses have multipliers attached to them, like 2x, or 5x, to their score (but it doesn't change their hit points or bullets shot) to make them more valuable. The scoring system doesn't "know" how hard a bullet pattern is, so we just put in those assumptions that the bosses were harder ourselves. So this single thing could have you getting a lower score in the harder mode, if you are taking way too long to kill the bosses because you are chilling out near the corners not dominating it whereas you did the opposite in a previous mode.

Hope this helps!

[SuperSoaker360]

Awesome, thanks for the in-depth explanation!

Yeah, my Expert score was higher than my Solo Crazy clear because my Expert score was a coop-clear with Roo and I so that's probably why. I guess I'll stick to playing Turbulenz Score Rush because I'm a total sucker for slow-movement.

[Xonatron]

Yeah, my Expert score was higher than my Solo Crazy clear because my Expert score was a coop-clear with Roo and I so that's probably why.

If it was a two-player game, then the score belongs only in 2-player scoreboards. It's why I put a separate section for multiplayer scores in the original post of this thread. In the game itself you have to click left and right on the dpad to get to multiplayer scoreboards. They do not count for single player games at all.

Whenever there are more players, the game's difficulty is raised a slight bit, affecting the scores again. So there is more "score" to extract from the game in multiplayer on top of the fact that there's two players or more playing. It was necessary for balance. A shmup can range from one fighter without any power ups to four (or 8 in Duality ZF) fully maximized and the range is a couple of orders of magnitude in size. That's 1:100 about. So a boss that takes 60 seconds to kill being underpowered, could take under a second. The wide range has to be balanced. It's one of the toughest things to do in a shmup that offers so much power.

[MaasBiolabs]

645m on Crazy, single-player. Now, on to Insane...

[Xonatron]

MaasBiolabs (MASAKARIO), great job! Was that an all clear? I am assuming so based on the score.

[MaasBiolabs]

MaasBiolabs (MASAKARIO), great job! Was that an all clear? I am assuming so based on the score.

Thanks! It was indeed an All Clear.

[Xonatron]

Sweet. Updated. Good job!

[Stevens]

Another amazing indie shmup! My eyes are crying and I only hit 90 million, but what fun!

[Xonatron]

Another amazing indie shmup! My eyes are crying and I only hit 90 million, but what fun!

Thank you. What would you all think about this game going to next gen consoles?

[Stevens]

Almost got an all clear on normal yesterday (360) - 122,000,000 ish

Edit - Normal all clear. 179,000,000 and some change.

[MaasBiolabs]

Cleared "Insane" on singleplayer! Just 8m off the world record.

[Xonatron]

MaasBiolabs, wow!!! That is amazing!

(Stevens, do you have a screenshot?)

[Weak Boson]

Congrats MaasBiolabs!

Hey, would you be up for joining me and bareknuckleroo in thrashing godlike on the turbulenz.com version? We want to get the highest score possible so we need a full team!

[MaasBiolabs]

MaasBiolabs, wow!!! That is amazing!

(Stevens, do you have a screenshot?)

Thanks! I actually just got 1,049,xxx,xxx as well, which is infuriating (another completion on Insane). I think I'm going to have to beat Godlike to get the WR - I can't take the emotional turmoil of clearing Insane singleplayer a third time and potentially not getting the record. I got to the final boss with all my lives, too, and then I died, and the reduced weapon strength cost me too much time . First ever singleplayer Godlike completion hopefully incoming (my best so far is beating Boss B then dying almost immediately after)...

Congrats MaasBiolabs!

Hey, would you be up for joining me and bareknuckleroo in thrashing godlike on the turbulenz.com version? We want to get the highest score possible so we need a full team!

Haha, thank you! I really appreciate the offer, but for now at least I will have to decline. I'm only just able to find in time in my life right now to squeeze in the original, but once I get the WR, maybe we can talk : ).

[Xonatron]

You are all seriously amazing at this game. You are playing modes that were never intended for single players to even have. We put them in to give the few people who would play 4-player multiplayer a chance to really test their skills.

I'm curious if it made sense to add these new modes?

I'm also curious if the scoring system should give a higher score (rather than the same score, as it's hard to match) when someone beats one mode and plays just as well but doesn't beat the next mode. Really, shouldn't skill = score? That was the initial intent of Score Rush, to be the most pure shmup game ever and to properly measure skill and domination of a gameplay.

[MaasBiolabs]

I was actually intending to post a long comment about the game's design when I get the record, but since you've posted that, I shall reply now!

Firstly, yes, absolutely - the reason I've played SR on the 360 for so long is for two reasons. Firstly, I think you've put it perfectly - the game is a "pure" shmup. I really dislike complex scoring systems that reward rote memorization and learning; Ikaruga, for example, is a beautiful game to watch, and I really enjoy it, but I would never go for a WR in that since I know it's nothing but memorizing an EXACT and incredibly long sequence of inputs, and then reproducing them. Bleh.

What I love so much about SR (and why I am still pursuing the record a few years after it came out, though I currently struggle to find the type to play) is precisely because so little has to be learned. I know the patterns of the bosses, yes, but I don't have to just repeat particular inputs for the high score. I just have to murder everything as quickly as possible, and that's (in my view) the best system. It's incredibly simple but works incredibly well, and that's why I've kept playing so long. It's not a test of memorization, it's a pure test of execution, reflex, and hand-eye coordination. It's honestly one of my favourite games of all time, I think. I could post a bunch of comments about minor critiques and small things I think could be improved, but I'll do that when I get the WR : ).

Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean about higher scores for beating one mode but not the next. Do you mean a higher multiplier for 1p vs 2/3/4p?

LASTLY, if/when you make a sequel, please change NOTHING in the core. Another amazing thing about the game is that the bullets and your hitbox are 100% obvious (I hate shmups where you have to guess where the hell your hitbox is); you can see the exact pixels that you'll take damage on. "More of the same" is exactly what I'd like. And on 360 or PC - I'll never be getting an XB1, but I'd hate to miss out on Xona's next title!

[Xonatron]

MaasBiolabs, thanks so much for the feedback.


Fundamentals of Score Rush (Repeating what I have probably already said years ago):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is great to hear that you enjoyed exactly what we set out to accomplish. And we avoided those exact mechanics that you do not enjoy, that I also relate to.

I have said it many times, while explaining the game at a conference or show, that Score Rush is the most fundamental shmup game ever -- and not be bragging, as that's exactly what we designed it to be. In other words, how good can players be at moving and shooting, in a shmup? Let's make a game to find out. That's Score Rush.

Jason and I would dominate shmup games like Thunder Force III (just beat it a few days ago again on my Retron 5!), killing bosses before they even scrolled onto te screen, and realize we were not rewarded for that domination. I am sure many of you on these forums did the same. Why not measure that domination?

Perfect risk vs. reward gameplay.

With that core mechanic, we were able to make many decisions about the game. Spread shot to award being closer to the boss. Even wiggling the snake of options after you in position helps. There would be no milking of the bosses, or bonus points of any kind for extra lives or bombs unused. No proximity scoring, a mechanic that measures how "close" you are to an enemy but usually only measures it on death so it can be manipulated. In Score Rush, all that matters is the kill speed, however you do it.

(Oddly this introduced one potential flaw in the Turbulenz version, which awards an extra bomb for each live lost: The best score is obtained by killing off all your lives immediately to have extra bombs and use them all on the final boss strategically to let yourself be as close as possible to it at all times.)

We also employed our "let the player kick as much ass as possible" philosophy. That's why, unlike far to many shmups out there, you never feel under-powered. (Well, maybe you do in INSANE or GODLIKE mode at times!) It is also where the multi-directional, twin-stick, mechanic came from. We needed it to cover the wide-screen, but it was a bonus that you kick far more ass with it. It was a perfect decision. (The comparisons to Geometry Wars was the only downfall of this. Anyone who thinks we copied Geometry Wars has no idea where this game was born from. And I love Geometry Wars too, this isn't a rip on it.)


New scoring system idea explained:
----------------------------------------

To explain what I meant about the scoring system being revamped:

Imagine that we kept the same mechanic that you are use to. In such a way you would never notice the difference in any single difficulty mode.

But, now picture a better matching of scores across difficulty modes. So, for you, MaasBiolabs, when "applying your skill" to the game you can beat 5-INSANE mode and score 1,000,000,000 points. However, when you "apply this same skill" to the game in 6-GODLIKE you do not score anywhere close to 1,000,000,000. I know this without you having to tell me. In fact, you can get to the final boss and come within a second of killing it, die off, and you will still not be close. I have done this exact thing from me beating 4-CRAZY and getting to the boss of 5-INSANE.

So, shouldn't you're scores in 6-GODLIKE be better or close to your scores in 5-INSANE, even if you don't beat the game? The logic being that your skill gives back a score that matches it, regardless of the difficulty mode that it is in. Of course lower difficulty modes this both applies to and does not apply to as you run out of game before your skill is properly tested and rewarded.

Hope this makes sense!

This change would do one huge thing: Your top scores, and everyone's top scores, would be in the highest mode they cannot beat. Is this ok?

P.S. We have already coded this mechanic for our next release of Score Rush.


Thank you all for your input.

[n0rtygames]

We just beat our own game in Normal mode at our GDC 2013 booth last week, for 603,627,965 points. I'd love to see more Score Rush multiplayer videos if you guys have any to share.

http://youtu.be/FQxNZTl4Li8

Agh! I totally forgot you guys were gonna be there when the time came. Where was this booth? I must've walked around the whole place several times and don't recall actually seeing the Xona games stand

[BareKnuckleRoo]

We also employed our "let the player kick as much ass as possible" philosophy. That's why, unlike far to many shmups out there, you never feel under-powered. (Well, maybe you do in INSANE or GODLIKE mode at times!)

You're actually severely underpowered in Insane/Godlike to the point where it can be a chore to deal with the little enemies in a timely fashion. Solo play vs having a second player makes an insane difference (I know these modes were made with multiplayer in mind, but to make them truly balanced and viable for solo, you really need more resources or firepower, as it is easy to get overwhelmed by stuff that fills the screen by virtue of having so much health).

I can't think of many shmups where being underpowered is a serious, regular issue, at least not in the bullet hell genre. Usually shot types are pretty well balanced for the stuff you face, and things that take forever to die are legitimately deserving of such (final bosses).

To explain what I meant about the scoring system being revamped:

Imagine that we kept the same mechanic that you are use to. In such a way you would never notice the difference in any single difficulty mode.

The issue with tying speedkilling to score and having more players = faster kills means not only does the game get more boring, it's not really a central mechanic you can seriously learn to manipulate as killing stuff quickly is already helpful for survival. Scoring well is basically down to being more aggressive with pointblanking and pulling off fancier stuff like purposefully suiciding before the final boss to have a bunch of bombs to speedkill for the gigantic multiplier, something Weak-Boson and I were purposefully doing in some of our lower difficulty runs and is something I do not see as a "flaw" like you refer to, but a fun advanced mechanic that was introduced unintentionally, something that gives the player a way of gaining score more than simply get close to the enemy to kill fast. That sort of thing is actually fun, it's nice to have some more esoteric tricks you can pull off for score sometimes, that might not be entirely obvious. What you're suggesting sounds like just tweaking the way scores are ranked so that games in solo or with fewer players end up ranked similarly to games with multiple players who perform similarly well.

Score Rush is a lot of fun with a full game because you can much more aggressively use your firepower to go for speedkills, but it's less fun to play for score if you're solo or with one other friend, because you inherently know you're going to be getting a lower score by virtue of firepower. I'd suggest that maybe look into tying score directly into other things that aren't affected by # players but rather by overall performance (have a constantly increasing multiplier so long as players stay alive, gets penalized for each death/bomb, etc). Or look into something like point items that can be collected: their value can be the same regardless of players, but it's still advantageous to have multiple players in the game if that makes it easier to collect them, etc.

I find Score Rush enjoyable, particularly the online version, because it works well to make multiplayer enjoyable (though some kind of respawn system for people who die after the extends, like being able to sacrifice all your gunpods to revive a player, etc, might make it more forgiving for people who are not used to bullet hell shmups). And while the "speedkills for score" IS fun when you're in a group and you can actively try to take advantage of it, the scoring system does not work so well for long-term enjoyment if you have trouble finding a group and you know you're limited by player #. For instance, when we were playing, we would have loved to have found two other players to tackle the top spots on Normal, Hard, Crazy, etc, because we figured with enough aggression we could top those scores, but without being able to find other people, we basically were stuck with playing just us two, and thus could never hope to top those scores.

Giga Wing 2 has a 4 player mode on the Dreamcast. Scoring is not about kill speed, but about reflecting bullets back at enemies as much as possible and collecting the medals. With fewer players, the bullets are aimed just at the few players onscreen, but you can still reflect most of the bullets, so scores between small or full groups are much more comparable versus Score Rush. It is still handy to have 4 players versus 1 or 2 because you have more bombs and resources, more screen coverage, etc, but the gap between scores is not nearly as wide either. I think that's the issue, Score Rush is fun, but the gaps between scores and the way scoring feels is way too different when comparing a solo/duo to a 4 man team. If your fixes address this, then bravo, really it's my only serious problem with the game.

killing bosses before they even scrolled onto te screen, and realize we were not rewarded for that domination. I am sure many of you on these forums did the same. Why not measure that domination?

A number of modern shmups now give enemies invulnerability as they enter the screen, particularly for some larger enemies so they cannot be killed before they at least get to attack, and a lot of shmups now reward you not for how many enemies you kill or for how fast you kill, but other elements like HOW you kill them. For instance, instead of a multiplier based on kill speed, a bonus that's based on proximity when the enemy explodes. The tactics could be about weakening the enemy as much as possible then, right before they die, get as close as possible when there is an opening and finish it off, etc. Of course, in an online game, speedkills for score I imagine are much easier to work with as less coordination is required...

[Weak Boson]

Mathew it's awesome that you're still trying to perfect this game - especially when you've already got so close! You guys are the real deal, much respect.

Personally the discrepancies in scores between different difficulties doesn't really bother me. I don't in general view scores achieved in different modes as being comparable - even when they can be to an extent, as in a game like this. For example, it seems you could optimize your play in a lower difficulty to beat all other scores in that mode, but still never touch even standard clears of the higher one, even if what you were doing was actually harder.

I think the fact that doing equivalent things in higher difficulties gets you more points is the main thing, and that seems fair enough. I'd even go so far as to say I like how the game challenges you to not just play the highest difficulty available but to clear it - kick all that ass. I suppose it would be a bit fairer if you could beat a Crazy clear score by reaching but not killing the final boss in Insane, for example, but I wouldn't have thought any drastic adjustments would be required.

As for being underpowered: in Insane it's tough, but proven to be doable and, hey, I brought this on myself. I find it's the large (but non-boss) enemies that give me the most trouble. In fact there's one which is a lot easier to get past by letting it time out on its easy first pattern than to try to kill it while it gets more aggressive and enemies from the side start outnumbering you. Of course you take a score penalty for not kicking its ass so it makes sense in the game - it's just an interesting moment where you have options aside from pure aggression.

Anyway it's definitely good to be able to tackle them solo. After all, facing down increasingly impossible odds is part of the joy of shmup. That being said I certainly couldn't face Godlike on my own now and maybe not ever. MaasBiolabs, if you do decide to go for it then I wish you a pleasant apotheosis. The thing is that, OK I don't know this, but I suspect that with 4 players there would be scope to make it harder - got to have something for the top teams to compete over! Or, at least, you would if such things existed, alas.

One last thing: I know screen shaking invincibility is necessary to stop the visual effect killing players unfairly, but did you also envisage players using it to help them score and survive?

[Xonatron]

I'll answer the three of you in turn:

...

n0rtygames,

Too bad we didn't meat up at GDC! Our booth was part of the "Nova Scotia, Canada" booth. It looked like the one we had in 2013: http://xona.com/2013/04/25.html

...

BareKnuckleRoo,

Highest difficulty modes: There is an issue that arises when you design the highest modes for single player, which is multiplayers can go further, so even more difficulty modes are added, and they end up being unfair to single players. Address those modes for single players and it is a repeating loop. So, what is the real solution? I know of only a few: 1) Add a "multiplayer suggested" notice, similar to Castle Crasher's hard mode, 2) Remove the higher modes, or 3) leave the modes as impossible impossible for single player. #1 is what we do in Score Rush now. I could do #3.

Score System Ideas: Your ideas are good but they are not Score Rush, which is a game about domination and scoring domination and nothing else. Extra scoring ideas create a new and different -- and maybe better -- game that we could perhaps develop someday. It would be another shmup. I do not mean to shrug off your ideas. We wish to maintain the fundamental, and even experimental, nature of Score Rush. There is truly nothing out there like Score Rush, and we should maintain this unique value.

Score System / Speedkilling: I, personally, have never found speedkilling to be boring. The contrary, I have found complicated scoring mechanics to be a nuisance and get in the way of the reason I play shmups in the first place. I want to dominate the game as if the game had no score and bystanders were judging my performance. My interests are quite fundamental in this way, and that's where Score Rush was born from. I never liked scoring systems such as proximity that made no sense within the universe of the game. Why does being closer help? It doesn't unless it means you kill the enemy faster. So why not just measure the kill speed instead? And if you like proximity why not implement mechanics that make being close kill the enemies faster, such as spread shots and limitations on the number of bullets shot. So, that's why we did those things in Score Rush. We do "true" proximity but doing speedkilling and mechanics that support it. An additional benefit is that our scoring system cannot be cheated. Consider blasting away 99% of a boss from a distance and then getting in close for the kill for a high proximity bonus. Cannot do this in Score Rush. As well, the game cannot cheat you if you happen to dodge far away right as the boss dies.

Flaws not being flaws: I appreciate that you appreciate the quirks in the game, isntead of seeing them as flaws. I will not repeat them here for anyone wondering what they are. Just read BareKnuckleRoo's post above. I like when there is emergence in a game like this too. It is a way that the players "give back" to the game. It how players like you contribute to this art form. A game is more than a developer's work. It is an experience and an interaction, and needs a player. (It is why I believe sharing gameplay footage is not the same as sharing movie footage on YouTube and whatnot, especially for skill based games like ours.)

Scoring System / Single player vs. Multiplayer: When you play Score Rush 1P vs. 2P vs. 3P vs 4P, you get bigger scores as you play with more players, but they are in their own scoreboards. I believe the game is more fun multiplayer and the scoring system does not reduce this fun, as they are segregated. When you cannot find more players, you are unfortunately stuck to 1P gameplay. --> To be clear, the scores were not supposed to be comparable. We did, however, place all lesser-player scores in the higher-player scoreboards. In other words, if you play solo, then your scores get put in 2P, 3P, and 4P scoreboards too, just in case an individual is better than an entire team. The same goes for 2P scores, they get placed in the 3P and 4P scoreboards too. Maybe this creates confusion that smaller teams should be comparable to bigger teams, which is not the case. (P.S. Perhaps I have missed your point, so please reiterate it for me if I have.)

Revival: We have coded revival (respawn) already in the next version!

...

Weak Boson,

Thank you much for the compliments! We are trying to improve the game, but in reality we cannot do everything, just our best given the circumstances. That's my disclaimer for all that is left undone. I want to release my game sooner than later.

It is interesting that you do not care about the discrepancies in scores between different difficulty modes. Given that, we should have recorded the difficulty mode used for each score.

The reason doing equivalent things in higher difficulties gets you more points is because you *are* doing more. You are dodging more bullets and shooting more shots to kill the same enemy.

The game is now coded that you do not need to clear the highest difficulty mode to get a higher score than the previous mode. Can you picture this? Is this a bad thing? Picture being "stuck" in a mode you cannot beat, but as you get further and further in it, you bump your score more and more. I think this would be more fun. What do you (all) think?

(P.S. This is the first I have heard about letting the bosses time out as a strategy! You guys give me so much to think about! Very interesting that you turned the game around on itself!)

And to answer your question, we knew it was possible to take advantage of the screen shake, and we thought of it as a small negative consequence to a strongly positive feature of removing unfair deaths. We knew gamers could exploit it and concluded we should let them. We design our games to work with expert players, not against them. The better you get at our games, the more they work for you. I have found concept to be a difficult concept to explain to gamers, to game developers, and to publishers. Nobody can recognize there is such a thing as a gaming mechanic that works against you as you get better. But they are everywhere. And they are the enemy!

[MaasBiolabs]

I'll post a longer reply later, but just re: screen-shake - there are some parts of the game that are near-impossible on Insane/Godlike on singleplayer WITHOUT using screenshake invincibility. I don't think this is a bad thing, as it has required a fair bit of skill/thought on my part to isolate those parts and make sure to kill enemies that cause the screen shake at the right times to survive, but if there was no screenshake invincibility, the part just before Boss C, and the part just before Boss A, would both be bordering on impossible for 1p on the highest difficulties. Anyway, longer comment later!

[MaasBiolabs]

First ever Godlike completion - done singleplayer, by me, Mark R Johnson (@UltimaRegum on Twitter), a few hours ago. Two spare lives and one spare bomb remaining at the end of Boss A. A near-flawless run, my only death was actually very early - I almost restarted! Will upload the video as soon as I have a spare moment. Otherwise, please add me at the top of that world record list



Now I've got the record: are you Xona guys regular games expo attendees? If by some chance you'll be at GDC Europe this year it would be awesome to meet up!

[Xonatron]

Wow, MaasBiolabs, congratulations!!! We have a new world champion! And, to our knowledge, the first ever Godlike completion! Can't wait to see the video. (We are usually at GDC San Francisco, PAX East, and PAX Prime, but not GDC Europe. Would be cool to meet up!)

[MaasBiolabs]

Thanks! Got it re: Expos - it's pretty likely I'll be attending one of those in NA next year but probably not this year, so I'll let you know. As for the video, I'll make sure to upload it before the end of February (have to make a Youtube account etc first) and I'll post here as soon as I've done so...

[Xonatron]

World Record video is up (see scoreboards in first post)!