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

[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.

Preventing others from scoring well is still a mechanic that wouldn't exist without scoring. If we removed all score from that game what would be left?

And even bad players who play on easy have score to deal with, people who ignore score are more people who play Monopoly without any Monopoly money. They can hardly be said to be playing the game at all.

You're still missing the point. Some players play easy not because they can't beat the game on higher difficulties but because it is easier to play through the campaign faster that way. As well, I mentioned the difficulty mechanic to how that just because a mechanic is present doesn't mean its there to rank you or mean anything except for preference.

When I play Mario, I play to beat the princess and don't give a damn about the score. Many people do this. Halo, removes the score because it is arbitrary. You are playing to save humanity from the covenant not to have the highest score. Your argument holds true on games like bejeweled, brickbreaker, tetris, etc. The primary objective is to get the highest score. But if the primary objective is NOT to get the highest score, then the score is arbitrary in the game as something else is obviously the main focus. If it is arbitrary, it is safe to remove it based on how arbitrary you have made it.

The objective in basketball is to win the championship (Similar to beating the campaign in video games) not to score the most points in a season. If basketball was meant to focus on who scored the most points, basketball seasons and strategies would be completely different.
Making a game without a scoring system is not the same thing as playing Monopoly without money. You could also say that adding a scoring system to Halo is like playing Candy Land with Monopoly money. If the game is designed with other mechanics in mind, then scoring is obviously arbitrary at best. Maybe you think being a score leader means something but ultimately it doesn't to most people if the game focuses on something else.

 

[Nutcase]

The thread has sprouted in like 20 different directions, but Halo Fanboy's original point is spot on: mainstream reviewers are utterly incompetent when dealing with single-player games where scoring is a key element.

Concrete example. Deathsmiles is a game very much designed for scoring. Metacritic links to 9 reviews of Deathsmiles, 2 of which are broken links. Out of the remaining 7:

- 1 correctly identifies scoring as the point of the game, but doesn't expand on how the scoring system works. This is understandable because the review is a short one and the scoring system is complicated. But even in a short review, the reviewer would have room to put in his impressions of the scoring, such as "the score system is overly complicated and it is too easy to mess up your whole run by one mistake, but scoring still manages to be very fun". This is the only review of the 7 where the reviewer was not clueless, but he still was not a good enough player to give real insight into the game.

- 1 touches on some of the scoring mechanics but is badly erroneous; it is obvious that the reviewer never fully understood the basic mechanics of the game, much less played the game for score.

The rest of the reviews are completely oblivious to what the game is about.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The thread has sprouted in like 20 different directions, but Halo Fanboy's original point is spot on: mainstream reviewers are utterly incompetent when dealing with single-player games where scoring is a key element.

Then, the initial post of the topic is not clear at all. The first post does not even have the word "reviewer" in it. Secondly, there aren't many games where scoring is a key element of the game like, I guess, Deathsmiles (I never played it). Bulletstorm and DMC4 was mentioned in the initial post. I played the Bulletstorm demo and I couldn't care less about what I scored, and I'm almost positive that if I play the full game, I still won't care what my score is. If DMC4 is anything like Bayonetta's scoring system, then score really isn't important at all. I don't think Bayonetta or Vanquish need to have mention of their scoring systems in a review; Bayonetta was my favorite game of 2010 and Vanquish was my 2nd favorite game of 2010, and I never even looked at my score in Bayonetta, and in Vanquish, I don't even know how the game scores you and I played it twice. Very few games have a scoring system that adds significantly to the game's mechanics and the scoring systems are just usually there for the extreme hardcore players.

 

[Nutcase]

The thread has sprouted in like 20 different directions, but Halo Fanboy's original point is spot on: mainstream reviewers are utterly incompetent when dealing with single-player games where scoring is a key element.

Then, the initial post of the topic is not clear at all. The first post does not even have the word "reviewer" in it.

I meant reviewer in a general sense. OP doesn't contain the word reviewer, but it is clearly about how games are appreciated and evaluated, which is what reviewers (are supposed to) do.

"Certain mechanics should not be excluded from commentary, period."
"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."

The example I used to demonstrate the problem used professional (or rather, "professional") reviewers because when they make the same mistakes than amateurs, it shows the ignorance is well and truly widespread.

I agree that OP could be clearer.

Secondly, there aren't many games where scoring is a key element of the game like, I guess, Deathsmiles (I never played it). Bulletstorm and DMC4 was mentioned in the initial post. I played the Bulletstorm demo and I couldn't care less about what I scored, and I'm almost positive that if I play the full game, I still won't care what my score is. If DMC4 is anything like Bayonetta's scoring system, then score really isn't important at all. I don't think Bayonetta or Vanquish need to have mention of their scoring systems in a review; Bayonetta was my favorite game of 2010 and Vanquish was my 2nd favorite game of 2010, and I never even looked at my score in Bayonetta, and in Vanquish, I don't even know how the game scores you and I played it twice. Very few games have a scoring system that adds significantly to the game's mechanics and the scoring systems are just usually there for the extreme hardcore players.

I have yet to play these particular games. It is true that score systems can be more integral or tacked-on, and in the latter case there is frequently no point in addressing them. Games that have a maximum/perfect score which can be humanly reached are of a quite different constitution than games where you can always do a bit better.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

Let me get this straight. You disagreed with someone, so you decided to make a thread about it? Geez.

 

[Nutcase]

Let me get this straight. You disagreed with someone, so you decided to make a thread about it? Geez.

That's not how I see it. Taking off topic discussion to new thread, so the posts on both threads can then be on-topic, furthers the overall quality of discussion.

What would you do instead and how is it better?

BTW, I checked with the community manager who restored the link in the OP and confirmed that its removal was not according to forum policy. Apparently someone needs lessons in being a moderator.

 

[Alakaizer]

No, all gamers are competetive and in fact all game play is competetive.

Sweet Zombie Jesus, that's so wrong. I never play games to be competitive. Most games I play are single player, and the ones that have a scoring system, that system is pretty much always ignored. When I do play multiplayer games, it's to have fun with my friends/family. I had tons of fun with co-op mode in Ratchet: Deadlocked, and it was simply the experience that was fun.

Oh, and scoring isn't a mechanic. It's a measurement, and the point values are always arbitrary [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary]. In video games the values are chosen by the programmers/developers/what have you. In sports, the values are chosen by the original creators of the sport, a team of judges, an overseeing committee, etc.

And for the love of Flux, use a spell-check/grammar-check, please!

 

[Soviet Heavy]

To add to the Arguments of Basketball verus Bulletstorm.

To win at basketball, you need to score more points than the other team.

To win at Bulletstorm, you don't need to get X-many points. You just play the game.

Points only really matter for bragging rights.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

If there wasn't a scoring system it would be exactly the same, but you wouldn't be able to compare how well you did to past performances and other people's, so it seems annoying and pointless.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

Pheonixmgs: is your idea that score systems are irrelevant based only on how many people you think care about such a system? I think you are greatly underestimating the amount of people interested in scoring systems. Also regardless of what many people might feel about such a system it is still a part of the game that was added for a reason.

Oh, and scoring isn't a mechanic. It's a measurement, and the point values are always arbitrary [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary]. In video games the values are chosen by the programmers/developers/what have you. In sports, the values are chosen by the original creators of the sport, a team of judges, an overseeing committee, etc.

All game mechanics are arbitrary. If a person singles out a single mechanic as arbitrary then they usually mean it in as a decision which is baseless or thoughtless, a description that in general fits any other mechanics as well as scoring mechanics.

Scoring is a mechanic. For example; In Super Mario Bros you get a certain amount of points for breaking a brick. The score itself is a measurment but the method of attaining the score is a game mechanic.

 

[Amphoteric]

Why is the 4th comment put on probation but the third one not?

The scoring system makes no difference to me. I don't care.

 

[Snowalker]

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.

Heres a thought.... if the post was in a thread about Bullet Storm, that we have to go read to fully comprehend. Why the hell make it its own thread? it would have made a hell of a lot more sense in that thread, no?

 

[Chicago Ted]

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.

Yes, this is an off topic post, but I must make it. How DARE you place a link to TV Tropes on here... I just wasted the past hour and a half because of it! Think of what harm you have done now to me, and likely a couple others! It's like the equivilent of internet meth, once you read one page, you must read another!

Now, if you excuse me, I'll be getting back to my page on Halo Reach WMG.

 

[boholikeu]

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

Depends on the game.

I would agree with you for a game based on competition like many of those you listed above.

Unfortunately, not all games are based on competition. A score system in a story-based game like Mass Effect would be silly and superfluous. It would also run contrary to the rest of the game's design.

 

[Robbersarb]

You appear to have entirely missed the point as to why people play games. I do not play games to be better than others I play to enjoy myself. This will sound narcissistic and self centered but I do not care about the others playing unless i'm putting a round through the squishiest of their nether regions.
If you removed the score from my CoD avatar i wouldn't care I can still have some fun shooting at the guy yelling obscenities into his headset.
The firefight example is a good one firefight could simply be considered an endless attack mode, I played it once i'd finished the campaign (no scores on, if the story can't motivate you, why are you playing it?) Judged as an endless attack yes you would not be able to show off to your friends but i doubt it would make the game much different or any less enjoyable.
As i said above the biggest problem with scores is if you require a number telling you how good/bad you are doing to make you play a game then why are you playing it? If the plot cannot motivate you or the game-play isn't enjoyable the score is not a reason to play.
I will acknowledge if your score offers a significant benefit in game like as in the old arcade game where a better score meant more play time they are a good mechanic also in many online modes such as capture the flag the fun is not derived from the victory but from the working towards it I will use an example from Scott Adam's Dilbert if you do not know the rules to solitaire and instead simply pile the cards up and declare myself the winner is that satisfying, no it isn't despite having achieved in my mind a high score
In many games however I can happily ignore the score and still enjoy the game. If I can do this in what way is it a vital mechanic?
I apologise for this vichyssoise of verbiage.

 

[Artemicion]

Smurfberries totally sounds like an in-game drug.

 

[Dexiro]

The importance of scoring depends on the game.

For competitive multiplayer games the score is important since it practically makes the competition. And it's important in games where the score is used as a winning condition of course.

But in singleplayer games most people don't really care, unless the score equates to additional rewards it's just a pointless number in the corner of the screen.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

-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.

Along the line of playing for defense instead of offense, do you recall a few years back when the Detroit Pistons are NBA champs? They had only middle of the road offense, but the best defense in the league by a long shot, something like not even 90 points per game allowed, and they steamrolled everyone that year.