Playing for score sucks

[zinger]

I was reluctant at first, but finally came to agree with this statement after I read icycalm's article "On Why Scoring Sucks And Those Who Defend It Are Aspies". The thing to consider here is: although we've all enjoyed playing for score (it's by milking the Garegga bosses, for instance, that you get to see their full potential, all of their coolest attacks, and experience some of the game's best action sequences. And there's at least a tiny bit of enjoyment to be had from climbing high score charts), wouldn't it be better if the game presented these action scenes by default? I do want all the frantic action, but I want to play for the reward of being able to get through those perils as well as the beautiful explosion and the next awesome stage that follows, rather than a reward in freaking numbers!

The aesthetic reward and the sense of progression in (and finally the completion of) an adventure has so much more value to me than a mere increase in numbers (especially since games usually reward you for things that don't even make sense, like scraping off the paint from your enemies' vessels or some shit), or the reputation of a good spot on the high score list, even if I managed to top every one of them on this forum. I've had so much more fun with my shooting games since I gave up "playing for score".

The title of the article by the way is rather harsh, but comically accurate when you think about it. I've worked with dozens of children with disorders within the autism spectrum and basically all of them had obscenely focused interests. There was this one little dude for instance who sat all day long memorizing entire phone directories. But hey, if you like numbers a lot, knock yourself out! :)

Here's my favourite quote from the piece:

Consider, for example ... what would have happened to the Metriod games if, instead of hunting for mechanics-altering and progress-enabling items, you were hunting for boxes with random numbers on them — boxes whose only function would be to increase your score, so that by finding more of them than other players WHO ARE NOT EVEN PRESENT IN THE GAMEWORLD you'd manage to beat their high scores. The entire series' atmosphere would have been instantly wrecked this way — which is the exact opposite to what would happen if pure scoring mechanics in scoring games were replaced with mechanics-altering and progress-enabling mechanics, i.e. with natural mechanics.

But please do try to track down the article for yourselves (just do a Google search) to get the full story. There are a lot of subtleties I might get wrong if I were to try to summarize it, and it's an enjoyable read anway. I think a lot of you will find it interesting, if not mind-blowing.

[ryu]

why would super metroid need scoring? its got the timer already.

[Paradigm]

Gus is gonna have a field day with this one...

Oh and I don't mind Icycalm so much, but that paragraph you quoted (and I would imagine the rest of that article too) is just pure bullshit.

[adversity1]

[Erppo]

Last time I played Super Metroid I spent most of the time hunting boxes with a missile picture on them (that I never needed to use for anything) just to see the number in the end get bigger.

[Gus]

Gus is gonna have a field day with this one...

Not even gonna bother. Anyone with a brain should be able to see why the article is bullshit.

[DMC]

Play for score is a good way for the player to adjust the difficulty level. The more risks you take, the higher reward you get, and because of this, you can often make early parts of the game more exciting.

Last time I played Super Metroid I spent most of the time hunting boxes with a missile picture on them (that I never needed to use for anything) just to see the number in the end get bigger.

That ends the silly Super Metroid analogy, right there.

[MrChiggins]

I found it interesting and worth reading up until the part where he went completely off the rails about cybersports vs. "real" physical sports. I didn't necessarily agree with everything he said up to that point but some of his observations were insightful and it was worded well enough.

But when I got to the cybersports bullshit I couldn't take it anymore. Just... so many holes in what he's saying. Get back on point, icycalm!

I'll finish it later.

Thanks for the post!

[Bananamatic]

haven't read it but scoring does suck

[Imhotep]

A score system reflects the player's performance without hindering his progression. The player is at liberty to decide what obstacles to take on, and has incentives to choose the more difficult ways.

The alternative and classic way is let you loosing lives and have you do it over again. If you want to skip the "do it over again" part and still want the game to judge the player (to give him feelings of accomplishment), you are thinking about a score system.

One could argue that games don't need to judge the player's performance at all and just let him move in /experience a fascinating and changing world with interesting ways of interaction. But short, long lasting and intense games won't work this way.

The only other way to have games short, long lasting and intense is to have a human player as an opponent.

And I love numbers btw., if they have a meaning.

[daliscar]

Isn't it obvious that the games we discuss on this forum were designed to be played for score since the game designers have included high score boards within the games.
If an individual chooses to play only for survival that's obviously up to them (and clearly the OP is just trolling) but that's missing out a whole dimension to these games which the game designers deliberately included.
Anyone who plays for score will neccesarily also need to play for survival and therefore enjoy the game as it was intended to be played, not in some nerdy non-competitive ambient experience.
If you don't want to play for score then why not just go for a walk instead and lose some weight.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I'd never heard of Icycalm. Holy shit, this idiot apparently wrote a book.

A really, really shit book. It's the most fucking horrible writing I've seen in a while, and that's not even talking about the content itself. What kind of an idiot has long, ALLCAPS sentences regularly polluting the pages? Link provided since TC was too lazy to.

Ironic to accuse score players of being aspies when his 'writing' (if it can be called that) is reminiscient of a certain autistic manchild...

This reads like a butthurt loser's tirade against people who can get high scores because he can't manage it himself. Survival play is fun, and scoring play can be fun too (in games where it isn't simply tacked-on, obviously).

I like this bit: "What the fuck difference does it make [in DoDonpachi] what order I shoot the enemies in, as long as I get rid of them? If they are dead they are dead, and as far as the gameworld's concerned that's all that matters!" He can't stand the puzzle element of finding optimal scoring methods but he apparently sees nothing wrong with the puzzle element of finding the way to survive through tricky areas.

Apparently this isn't the first time Zinger did the literary equivalent of wanking furiously to icycalm's idiotic Metroid comparison. Also, LOL, just look at what he thinks of EspGaluda II's scoring (bottom right of page). Basically it's "I don't get it, therefore it must be stupid".

Edit: what the shit, this idiot expects people to pay for a subscription to his site's forum, is he fucking high? Talk about unwarranted self-importance.

Edit: Apparently there's an article on Icycalm's forum about this, but since it's locked to paid-users, this means that Zinger probably gave this idiot money. If that's true and that's the 'article' Zinger is referring to, then giving Icycalm money to listen to his verbal tripe is almost as stupid, if not moreso, than his writing is.

[CptRansom]

Not too terrible of an essay (referring to content, not necessarily his writing style... ugh; books != the internet, please stop using "lol" and making gratuitous use of the caps lock key in print - it isn't funny and it does nothing but detract from the message) until I read this:

...whilst regarding as weaklings mediocre scorers, like me for instance, regardless of the fact that I regularly surf 10-foot slabs and drop 20-foot cliffs on snowboards and mountain bikes, and could probably smash the faces of an entire fucking scoreboard of aspies at the same time.

It makes the rest of the essay sound more like angst-driven "WELL I CAN'T SCORE WELL ENOUGH SO I'M JUST GOING TO DENOUNCE THE WHOLE FUCKING THING" than any kind of rational argument. It's the kind of emotional outcry and internet-tough-guy-ness I'd expect from a high schooler.

As far as playing for score sucking goes... I agree - FOR ME. In the last few weeks, I've just given up on it. I had a lot more fun just aiming for clears and enjoying the games. In the last year and a half or so, any time I've tried to push my scores any higher in any game whether it's Galuda or Raiden III or even fucking lolDFKBL NOVICE, I just get frustrated and end up hating a game I used to like, and then I never want to play it again. Recently it got to the point that I almost deleted every STG and sold every 360 port I owned just because I was THAT fed up with it. I always wanted to beat some ridiculously hard games and stand at the top of a couple of high score tables, but lately I've discovered that the process of getting there just isn't fun FOR ME, so I've quit trying to force myself to get better and just stop caring about anything except just playing without any real goal in mind besides getting farther with less lives/bombs spent. Maybe I just don't love these games enough? Maybe I love them too much to just focus on one at a time for months on end? Who knows/who cares?

I think enjoying playing games for score is something that certain people are going to enjoy, and certain people aren't. If you enjoy playing for score, then by all means have at it. I'm just saying that I've come to despise it. If that makes me a shitty gamer or whatever you want to call me, then honestly, I'm okay with that. Some people are perfectly happy with lights-off missionary sex, and some people need to take a staple gun to their balls to achieve orgasm. Whatever floats your boat. I still have a fair amount of respect for the people who are capable and dedicated enough to pull off some great shit in these games, but I've really come to hate the "if you're not striving for a WR/western record, then why the fuck even bother playing these games" attitude. Why does it bother anyone here how other people on this forum play these games?

blah blah blah stapled scrotum etc etc

inb4IgettoldmyopinionsarewrongandthatIshouldkillmyself

If you don't want to play for score then why not just go for a walk instead and lose some weight.

Already on it. 253 -> 222 since March 19th. =)

[AntiFritz]

I'm not sure if calling people who defend score "aspies" is a good way to make book sales..

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I've really come to hate the "if you're not striving for a WR/western record, then why the fuck even bother playing these games" attitude.

Ignore those posts; at the end of the day they're just videogames, and if you don't enjoy or feel satisfied by going for high scores, just enjoy playing for survival. Videogames are supposed to be a form of leisure after all. Shmups like Cave's modern offerings are not exactly 'easy' to beat, especially not on 2nd loop or higher difficulties. And who knows, when you improve or get more comfortable with survival, you may end up enjoying scoring. It adds another element to the game to try for people to get into for those who can get through the game easily without worrying about score.

[DMC]

I'm not sure if calling people who defend score "aspies" is a good way to make book sales..

Yes, but having the name Kierkegaard might as well do!

Such use of capital letters - well, this book would have benefited from having a decent editor.

[Dave_K.]

Zinger is not trolling, he's just made a choice. I've always advocated playing for survival/1CC first, and then going back to improve on your score if you want a harder challenge (Imhotep said it best). Doing it the other way around can frustrate players sooner in the experience rather than later, but is completely their choice for sake of comparing skill/scores with other players. This is why most games have a very large 1CC bonus.

There is really no controversy here...other than the reference to icycalm.

[jepjepjep]

I think you're right on the money there, Dave_K. I personally play for survival first in all on my games and view the high-score challenge as what gives the game some life after you've mastered survival. If there was no score at all, you could master a game and then you'd be done with it. Of course the games like Garegga are an exception because score and survival are so closely tied into each other.

In one of the interviews with a Japanese superplayer (I forget which one), he pretty much comes out and says the same thing. You have to be able to beat the game before worrying about score.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

In one of the interviews with a Japanese superplayer (I forget which one), he pretty much comes out and says the same thing. You have to be able to beat the game before worrying about score.

You're thinking of SWY.

[Paradigm]

If we're talking about a modern STG with a proper scoring system rather than just 'survive as long as possible'; i.e a CAVE game or Ikaruga/RS - then by ignoring scoring completely, you're missing out on about 80% of the experience. The very reason why the developers spent hour after hour fine tuning and balancing the game.

Maybe you're misunderstanding things. It's not like people get a boner from seeing those digits on the scoreboard, it's the shit you pull off on a run when it all comes together and goes as smoothly as you hope for, when all the practice pays off, that's where the satisfaction comes from. I don't get anything close to that from just flailing around on a random 1CC attempt, but maybe that's just me.

I'm not trying to say there's a right way or a wrong way to play these games - play however you wish and have fun. But don't make out that anyone who plays these games seriously for score is some kind of OCD, autistic freak with a fetish for numbers. That's not only complete nonsense but also downright offensive.

[BIL]

...whilst regarding as weaklings mediocre scorers, like me for instance, regardless of the fact that I regularly surf 10-foot slabs and drop 20-foot cliffs on snowboards and mountain bikes, and could probably smash the faces of an entire fucking scoreboard of aspies at the same time.

lol

edit: by the way zinger, ruining enemy craft's paint = higher enemy air force maintenance costs = angry enemy leadership = more rank = more difficulty = more performance = more points = better player than casual survivalist who's careful to not upset the enemy leader too much.

If it helps to illustrate, you may regard 20mil+ Garegga scorers as the kind of pilots who were fucking the enemy leader's wife and daughter in regular threesomes on the side in addition to ruining all his expensive military shit and stealing all his medals.

edit 2: go for that Metal Black clear first.

[Gus]

Zinger is not trolling, he's just made a choice. I've always advocated playing for survival/1CC first, and then going back to improve on your score if you want a harder challenge (Imhotep said it best). Doing it the other way around can frustrate players sooner in the experience rather than later, but is completely their choice for sake of comparing skill/scores with other players. This is why most games have a very large 1CC bonus.

There is really no controversy here...other than the reference to icycalm.

I think you missed the point. If I read the article right icy is arguing that intricate scoring systems are inherently bad and that playing for score is pointless when you can compete in real sports, which is clearly ridiculous. Still, even your idiotic point is far more worthwhile to discuss than icy's insanity so I'll bite.

For me I've gotten to the point where I get absolutely no satisfaction and really more of a feeling of emptiness when I survive in a game without trying to score at least decently. I won't deny that when I was getting into the genre and following that shitty advice it was somewhat satisfying to cheese those first few clears but when I would come back and try to play for score as it was very discouraging to find out how much harder it is to clear with a good score. It felt like I had wasted my time spending those hours cheesing my way to a clear while ignoring all the scoring details the devs worked hard to put in. This is all also forgetting about things like Ultra modes where clearing is harder than just getting a decent score. I also have no idea what you mean with most games having a huge clear bonus. The only ones I can think of are Cave's Esp games, where the bonus actually seems to have the opposite effect of making just go for the 1cc without putting much effort into the proper way of scoring.

[100BilWarrior]

you should enjoy the aesthetics outside of the game and the gaeplay while playing it

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 69#p796569

[Skykid]

I'd never heard of Icycalm. Holy shit, this idiot apparently wrote a book.

And that's the end of the thread.

Thanks all, go home.

[jepjepjep]

In one of the interviews with a Japanese superplayer (I forget which one), he pretty much comes out and says the same thing. You have to be able to beat the game before worrying about score.

You're thinking of SWY.

Yeah, that's it. I couldn't remember if it was from that or from some of the interviews on gamengai.

I think you missed the point. If I read the article right icy is arguing that intricate scoring systems are inherently bad and that playing for score is pointless when you can compete in real sports, which is clearly ridiculous. Still, even your idiotic point is far more worthwhile to discuss than icy's insanity so I'll bite.

If that's the case, I'm glad i didn't read the article. What a douchebag . Why compete in real sports when you can compete in hand-to-hand combat to the death?

For me I've gotten to the point where I get absolutely no satisfaction and really more of a feeling of emptiness when I survive in a game without trying to score at least decently. I won't deny that when I was getting into the genre and following that shitty advice it was somewhat satisfying to cheese those first few clears but when I would come back and try to play for score as it was very discouraging to find out how much harder it is to clear with a good score. It felt like I had wasted my time spending those hours cheesing my way to a clear while ignoring all the scoring details the devs worked hard to put in. This is all also forgetting about things like Ultra modes where clearing is harder than just getting a decent score. I also have no idea what you mean with most games having a huge clear bonus. The only ones I can think of are Cave's Esp games, where the bonus actually seems to have the opposite effect of making just go for the 1cc without putting much effort into the proper way of scoring.

I think you have to look at a game-by-game basis. Modern Cave shmups are heavily designed around score. Tatsujin Oh, for example has a survival-based scoring system, yet it's extremely difficult. I read that after a year in Japanese arcades, only about three players were able to get a 2-All.

[Ed Oscuro]

Scoring systems are inherently bad because you can't smash them in the face and beat them that way.

(icy was sad to discover this doesn't work in relationships with females either, so he denounces that as well)

[Deca]

Shumps Farm: The Thread



Also Gus said pretty much exactly what I had to say. I got my feel good cheese clears, now it just feels like learning a game twice.

[malchitos]

you should enjoy the aesthetics outside of the game and the gaeplay while playing it

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.ph ... 69#p796569

<off topic...forgive me>

But for Gods' sakes...get that dreamcast off that speaker...

[CloudyMusic]

I'd never heard of Icycalm. Holy shit, this idiot apparently wrote a book.

A really, really shit book. It's the most fucking horrible writing I've seen in a while, and that's not even talking about the content itself. What kind of an idiot has long, ALLCAPS sentences regularly polluting the pages? Link provided since TC was too lazy to.

Holy shit, that sort of writing was put into a real printed book? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha I'm assuming it's just vanity press but still

The irony is that it's almost more "aspie-like" to have such an intensely burning hatred for a certain method of playing a video game that you write a massive diatribe and have it put onto a printed page than the people he's accusing in the first place. I also like how he cherry-picks fighting games as a proof of why "arcade games can never be about score," ignoring entire genres that are entirely about score.

To the OP: no. I'm a fucking casual/scrub/newcomer and even I can see the excitement and gratification that comes with playing for score. If you want to play solely for "content" and "seeing all the cool setpieces," that's your choice. That doesn't mean that you have any reason to claim any sort of mental superiority over others who choose to improve their skills in more tangible ways than just "oh, I beat the game finally."

[DMC]

Man, that intro is indeed mind-blowing!



I love that all the focus is on himself, and the subhumans' perception of him.
...and I noted that it is p.342. I got to have this book! The title is?

Does JAPJAC have any book in press, by any chance?