It's foolish to not include the scoring system in a judgment of a game.

[Halo Fanboy]

I think we need to re-adress this misconception.

What if the game had no score keeping whatsoever? Would you give two shits about optimum combos and perfect runs? Or would you just enjoy the simple pleasure of leashing a guy 20 feet away and kicking him into a bed of spikes?

I understand that people enjoy score keeping in video games, but it saddens me when interesting new play mechanics are relegated to nothing more than meaningless circuitry between the player and an ultimately arbitrary number.

In some games the scoring is so interwoven with the system (Dangun Feveron) that it practically is the main part of the mechanics. If you don't play those for score then your missing out on the experience. Scoring is merely playing with an extra set of rules and often they are the best rules to play with. And the score number that you get is as arbitrary as the health points you have left, your extends, ammo, money and ect. Which is to say that it is not arbitrary in the slightest.

I've already adressed his usage of the word arbitrary but there is a lot more things wrong about FieryTrainwrek's post. First their is his question: "What if the game had no score...?" The answer to this question is simple, It would be a different game. It's like asking "what if this game had no single-player/multiplayer/ was a different genre ect." What is being judged is the game, not a make believe version of the game that excludes various things that are in the actual game. We don't review Ikaruga and pretend that the dot eater mode doesn't exist as an available secondary scoring mode and the same is true for all games. Certain mechanics should not be excluded from commentary, period.

What needs to be understood here is that the scoring system is part of the game's mechanics. Sometimes the scoring system can even be "interesting new play mechanics." For some games score is a more vital than in others but it is part of the game mechanics nonetheless. FT manages disregard both the primary and secondary purpose of score by dismissing them as an element seperate from "play mechanics." The primary purpose of score being determing a winner in a competition and the secondary purpose of score which is to provide reward people for doing well in game. The secondary purpose of score is often over looked by people who attempt to show that score is an inessential part of the game. In arcade games good scores are rewarded with extends and in games like Bulletstorm and Devil May Cry 4 they are rewarded with in-game currency so that even from a survivalist/ 1cc perspective scoring adds depth to the game. But lets take a moment to look at how score mechanics that are purely competetive influence the rest of the play mechanics.

In basketball you got an area where making a basket is worth two points, and in the rest of the court making a basket is worth three points. The goal is to make as many points as possible so the added rule makes the game more depthful and adds an element of risk and reward to the game. For some reason most gamers have failed to put together how the even more complex score mechanics in modern scoring games have added to the depth of the game's system. How Ikaruga's system forces you to know ahead of time where to shoot and Mars Matrix forces you to franticallly collect every drop while trying to survive and Shikigami no Shiro III forces you to kill yourself and play as riskily as possible. Understanding the scoring system is vital to being able pass a proper judgment on a game you are discussing otherwise you are playing tennis without a net.

Again, a player who truly appreciates these games wouldn't be seeking those types of people for any legitimate criticism. You're just setting artificial goals. The designers are telling you what to do, and you are ignoring it. If someone thinks winning in Chess is making a neat pattern on the board, and he has fun doing it, that's okay but I would never consult him to educate me on the many intricacies of Chess. So you're entitled to your opinion but you must concede that it is an inferior opinion, or at least know who the designers of these games would back up.

http://forum.insomnia.ac/viewtopic.php?p=4526

 

[Lost In The Void]

Or they just don't care either way

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

So if I'm to understand this right, you think that the way in which you acquire points in a game should be a factor by which you criticize or praise a game on?

I mean, it seems kind or irrelevant for the most part unless it's some weird thing that affects the way you play the game, for example, bulletstorm, but I don't think your standard "kill a guy, get 1 kill first to 50 wins" requires much bias, nor is score really a factor in most single player games. To be honest I'm kind of confused at what you yourself are trying to get at. Are you trying to say that you think scoring mechanics should be tinkered with more, or implemented into more games, or what?

 

[Halo Fanboy]

So if I'm to understand this right, you think that the way in which you acquire points in a game should be a factor by which you criticize or praise a game on?

I mean, it seems kind or irrelevant for the most part unless it's some weird thing that affects the way you play the game, for example, bulletstorm, but I don't think your standard "kill a guy, get 1 kill first to 50 wins" requires much bias, nor is score really a factor in most single player games. To be honest I'm kind of confused at what you yourself are trying to get at. Are you trying to say that you think scoring mechanics should be tinkered with more, or implemented into more games, or what?

The systems which modern score based games are much more complex than kill a bunch of guys type of systems.

What I'm trying to say is that scoring systems are a part of the games mechanics and ignoring them is similar to ignoring any other part of the game.

Edit: if they don't care then it isn't a disagreement.

 

[random_bars]

What scoring system? What games? What are you talking about?

 

[Halo Fanboy]

What scoring system? What games? What are you talking about?

The original post quoted is about Bulletstorm. You can click the names of the quoted to see that whole thread.

The topic is about how scoring systems are an aspect of the games mechanics and not something that exist outside the mechanics as is sometimes misconcieved.

 

[CronosYamato]

Alas, I stand as the lone voice of dissent.

TO be honest, Many people don't care about their scores in games. Yes, they may miss out on some of the things you enjoy, but this does not mean they enjoy trying to get everything perfect. But on to the point that they are integral to the games mechanics. This is a silly notion if you look carefully. To say that a score affects how you play may be true, but is a psychological part of the experience, NOT part of how the game plays. Mechanics are the controls, moves, combos, and everything that the player can do, or is done to the player. The scoring is not completely separate from this, but is only influenced second-hand by the player. It is more akin to gamer-score. People strive to get achievements, but what can they really do with them? Nothing.

Perhaps I'm looking at this too much through the lens of a software engineer, but i don't see how you can make the claim that a scoring is truly part of the mechanics.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Alas, I stand as the lone voice of dissent.

TO be honest, Many people don't care about their scores in games. Yes, they may miss out on some of the things you enjoy, but this does not mean they enjoy trying to get everything perfect. But on to the point that they are integral to the games mechanics. This is a silly notion if you look carefully. To say that a score affects how you play may be true, but is a psychological part of the experience, NOT part of how the game plays. Mechanics are the controls, moves, combos, and everything that the player can do, or is done to the player. The scoring is not completely separate from this, but is only influenced second-hand by the player. It is more akin to gamer-score. People strive to get achievements, but what can they really do with them? Nothing.

Perhaps I'm looking at this too much through the lens of a software engineer, but i don't see how you can make the claim that a scoring is truly part of the mechanics.

Isn't the basic rule for scoring in basketball the primary mechanic of that game? Score a basket, get a certain amount of points. The scoring system is the most integral aspect of that game. It is most certainly a mechanic.

 

[voetballeeuw]

Was it necessary to show Fiery Trainwreck's name?

OT: Alright, you made some interesting points.. Not much else to say though.

 

[TerranReaper]

We talking in terms of multiplayer or singleplayer? I think a lot of people associate score keeping with all of the negative stereotypes such as people showing off their K/D in FPS games. It depends on the game though, I remember some games rewarding you for doing really well but gave you a lesser yield of rewards if you did terrible.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

What scoring system? What games? What are you talking about?

The original post quoted is about Bulletstorm. You can click the names of the quoted to see that whole thread.

The topic is about how scoring systems are an aspect of the games mechanics and not something that exist outside the mechanics as is sometimes misconcieved.

It would have functioned identically without my name and comment being dragged from another thread for absolutely no reason.

Was it necessary to show Fiery Trainwreck's name?

It was for relevatory purposes. Some people might have been under the impression that the OP wasn't a jerk.

If I get suspended or banned for defending myself in a thread that someone created to basically attack me in my absence, so be it.

I think Bullestorm represents an attempt to create a unique scoring system for the FPS genre, but the validity of the system hinges on whether or not your score impacts the actual play mechanics of the game. If a certain "score" unlocks additional attack options or combos, then that score actually means something in the flow of gameplay. If high scores exist solely for the sake of high scores, it's a secondary value at best - and I don't think it's unreasonable to declare such things arbitrary.

An example I like to use: show your "score" to someone who doesn't play the game. If your point-gathering prowess translates into a new and interesting play mechanic, a third party observer will instantly recognize the addition as something different, interesting, and worthwhile. If your scoring only amounts to a number, and that is all you show to an observer, he or she will place no actual value on it beyond the number itself.

The sports analogy is actually a good one. If you watch pro basketball to see talented athletes performing relatively amazing feats, you'll enjoy any competitive game regardless of who is playing or what the scoreboard says. If, on the other hand, the score is far and away the primary motivating force that compels you to watch the game, I think you're kind of a simpleton. Or you're in it for reasons more akin to school/city/state/national pride than genuine interest in the sport. Which is absolutely FINE, by the way. I don't begrudge people their focus on high scores. I'm only saddened when that seems to be the entire focus.

Different strokes and so forth.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

This isn't an attack on you. I would have posted a link to thread anyway to show that I'm not making things up. Most things I talk about here are a reaction to what I see being said in this forum so don't take this personally.

I think Bullestorm represents an attempt to create a unique scoring system for the FPS genre, but the validity of the system hinges on whether or not your score impacts the actual play mechanics of the game. If a certain "score" unlocks additional attack options or combos, then that score actually means something in the flow of gameplay. If high scores exist solely for the sake of high scores, it's a secondary value at best - and I don't think it's unreasonable to declare such things arbitrary.

The scoring in Bulletstorm does have an impact in your amount of in game currency in some modes as far I know. However I don't see how you can say scores can exist for the sake of scores. Might as well say win states and lose states only exist for their own sake. The points in TF CTF exist for the sake of showing who wins and who loses each game, the're there to show you how you're doing and show you how to improve. You can play TF ignoring the points and there by ignoring goal of the game you might as well be as JoshF said using a chessboard to create a neat pattern.

An example I like to use: show your "score" to someone who doesn't play the game. If your point-gathering prowess translates into a new and interesting play mechanic, a third party observer will instantly recognize the addition as something different, interesting, and worthwhile. If your scoring only amounts to a number, and that is all you show to an observer, he or she will place no actual value on it beyond the number itself.

I agree that a scoring system that forces you to do things that you wouldn't do otherwise becomes much more notable then one where you just do what you would have done anyway. But I would hardly say that simply because a world record track runner didn't use any special mechanics his acheivment is diminished. While a depthful score system is good for some games sometimes it's good to simply measure the prowess of people in one single activity.

The sports analogy is actually a good one. If you watch pro basketball to see talented athletes performing relatively amazing feats, you'll enjoy any competitive game regardless of who is playing or what the scoreboard says. If, on the other hand, the score is far and away the primary motivating force that compels you to watch the game, I think you're kind of a simpleton. Or you're in it for reasons more akin to school/city/state/national pride than genuine interest in the sport. Which is absolutely FINE, by the way. I don't begrudge people their focus on high scores. I'm only saddened when that seems to be the entire focus.

Different strokes and so forth.

The score is a motivation to play the game, watching the game is a really different matter. For the players score is everything so they certainly don't see it as invalid or arbitrary. And the observers want to watch these people because they can score well and keep others from scoring. They also want to see a nearly even score so that anyone can gain a lead at anytime keeping tension up to the very end. Regardless it hardly matters in my opinion how entertaining a game is to watch. Watching a superplay for Dangun Feveron isn't much but playing it yourself is just insane.

Anyway as has been said before by me and JoshF: you are free to ignore scoring in games just lke Yahtzee ignores all competetive aspects of games, but you must admit it is an inferior and less complete judgement. It's the reason that there is not one mainstream review of a score based game that is any good.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

snip

I think you're absolutely right, If it doesn't add anything gameplay wise, there isn't much point to it other than "Ooooh, look at the pretty numbers." It could be fun when playing with friends, sort of like how you can have a scoring mode in Halo, but it would add to the game it it contributed to unlocks.

I also think it was a bit uncalled for referencing you and your post without at least asking/ informing you.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Ha! Only a foolish looking fool would believe such a foolish fools foolish dream!

It had to be done...

Sorry what were we talking about?

 

[More Fun To Compute]

A score is a pure sort of reward or goal in a game. If people said that choices you have to make in an RPG only affecting the ending was a total irrelevance and doesn't effect the game at all then they would be shouted down. Scores and time records are the same thing only they appeal more to people who value more complicated gameplay since a score is better at keeping track of such things.

In a game like Out Run you have different types of end goals. The route you take affects difficulty which alters which ending you get but also how well you drive affects the time it takes to complete the game. If the game wasn't timed then you could take as long as you want and just play to see the different routes which I suppose might appeal to some people. But it's the combination of being timed and taking different paths that gives the other gameplay elements purpose. If you can slowly drive through all the different coarses then they are all the same and the game just becomes a gallery of different scenery.

 

[GiantRaven]

The only thing wrong with scoring in videogames is this [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PinballScoring]. I don't think there is anything wrong with the concept though, it adds a basic level of re-playability to a game and can also be used as a bonus-giving system.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Mod Edit: Deleted external link
Linking to a different forum is against the rules now?

 

[Savagezion]

-snip-

Perhaps I'm looking at this too much through the lens of a software engineer, but i don't see how you can make the claim that a scoring is truly part of the mechanics.

Isn't the basic rule for scoring in basketball the primary mechanic of that game? Score a basket, get a certain amount of points. The scoring system is the most integral aspect of that game. It is most certainly a mechanic.

It is an objective in basketball, yes but not necessarily the primary objective if ou don't want it to be. You can't win the game without scoring the most points, true. However, your primary objective could then instead be to stop the other team from scoring and play a strong defensive game. The primary objective in basketball is to win the championship. To do so you don't have to have the highest collective score than all the other teams for that season. It is entirely possible for the team with the least amount of scored points a season to win the championship. If this happened, nobody would would feel that the champions didn't earn their trophy and take it from them.

Technically speaking in a game that has a scoring system it is a mechanic of that game. But it may not be an important mechanic. Difficulty level is a mechanic of a game too. But you wouldn't discredit someone who never beat a game on "easy" or "hard". SOme people do but that is kinda douchey as it would be if the Lakers demanded they should get the trophy instead of the champs that year because they scored more overall points.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Your trying to compare apples and oranges. In basketball you get the exact same amount of points if you dunk it or shoot it in from 5 ft away.

What does different things having the same score value have to do with the fact that scoring is the primary mechanic of the game?

Does your team not get the same amount of points if you just shoot somebody in the face or do some insane combo to kill them. The amount of points that your team gets for killing somebody is intergral, the amount that you get for killing somebody is in a way meaningless. Its has no effect at all on the outcome of the game. So in this way the personal scoring system is almost seperate from the rest of the game. There are two completely different scoring systems in fps shooter games including bulletstorm.

You and your partners get a certain amount of points based on how you kill the enemy, with a minimal amount of points for a kill that doesn't fufill any special requirments and extra points for those who do. Bulletstorm doesn't have more than one score system in the demo as far as I'm aware.

Lets take the game mode capture the flag since you mentioned it in your post. The points you get for killing the enemy team are worthless when talking about winning the game. They are arbitrary when deciding the winner of the game. Take them away and the game doesnt actually change at all.

You might get experience points for killing enemy team members but for most objective based games the only points that matter for winning the game are the points from the objective. Score is a number used to determine a winner, XP is something entirely different. I don't really understand your point, I'm not talking about XP I'm talking the points used to place in leaderboards and win competitions.