I’ll tell you what the high score table is good for- my mom (age 58) is addicted to playing Titan Attacks, a space invaders clone, on steam. Every time she gets on the high score list for the day she uses the name field to send me a message like “hello daughter!” Or “moved in to the new house!” She sends me the message by taking a pic of her screen with her cell phone and texting me the pic. :) Her lifetime high scores table have become a little record of the positive events of her life the past couple years. It’s not the intended use of the system but it’s better than I’d ever hoped for when I bought her the game years ago, can’t believe we are still bonding over it. Anyway, thanks for the great video,can’t wait for the next one!
Honestly I'm more worried about this KAI dude. He only uses online-connected arcade machines, and somehow he's a beast at all of them! His name's all over Japan thanks to that...
One thing I would like to mention is that Score systems should not be present in a game where you can power up/level up/grow stronger. If Im rated B+ at the third level only to have to repeat the level 5 power ups later to even be able to get an S+ I feel very infuriated.
What do you think of games like Sonic Adventure? I guess that's different from your example, because you can A rank an objective on your first go, but you still get powerups and have to come back with them to get everything in the levels and they help you get the highest possible score.
When I was little, I would spend like 10 minutes trying to get those special collectibles in Lego star wars. But the only way to get most of them was to beat the level, then rebeat it, to use specific characters.
Something I don't think got covered with this video is how you have to be careful with scoring systems (particularly in multiplayer games) that you don't accidentally encourage the player to play sub-optimally to get a higher score. For example, League of Legends gives each player a grade at the end of a match based on how well they did that game (amount of farm, damage dealt, KDA, etc). For the most part, increasing that grade is simply a matter of playing better, and things like kill hunting instead of getting objectives isn't encouraged since getting high grades includes performance such as damage dealt to objectives, and just getting kills isn't enough for the highest grades. However, it does have a tendency to make some players feel like they're being punished for doing things that help them win the game, or makes players do things that lower their chance of winning because they want to get that high grade. Not getting an S rank (which are required to earn certain cosmetic rewards in the champion mastery system) because you sacrificed yourself to steal an important objective from the enemy team or to setup a fight that wins the game, or because you gave farm to an ally that needed the gold more than you instead of just taking all the farm for yourself just feels bad. This isn't to say that scoring systems can't be used in multiplayer or team-based games, just that you need to be careful when looking at adding a scoring system to a game that doesn't have a linear correlation between player success and whatever the scoring criteria are.
Wow, that's horrible. Makes me glad I play dota where all I have is a giant mess of statistics that leaves me to figure it out myself. Kinda like the rest of the game actually.
I mean, like I said for the most part it actually just encourages good play, and you don't need to regularly be getting those S ranks, just around 5 per champion that you want at maximum mastery level. Also since it only grants cosmetic stuff it's entirely optional, and if you don't care about it too much it'll happen organically over time when you have good games. So it's not as bad as it might sound.
It might be optional, but it's very discouraging. I've actually been playing League less and less since they introduced scores. When you have a great game, great KDA, everyone is complimenting you, and then you get a C score for some obscure reason... It just kills the excitement right there. And there's always that one guy on your team that won't take any risks ever because he doesn't want to ruin his score - and if he's the jungler, you're fucked.
Ever heard of Pokemon Unite? When your entire team heads into enemy territory in a desperate attempt to earn points and you are the only one playing defense, it's kind of annoying having the scoring system favor those players with no real strategy, to say the least.
Something that often discourages me off score runs is that the score is just some abstract number. It'd be nice if more games had tangible ways to tell how well you're doing comparatively. In racing games there are things like ghosts to compete against, where you can visibly see your progress and challenge yourself to perform better.
In Hitman they at least don't just give you your points and tell you were they came from, but also show how they were calculated, so that you can logically think about how to get a better score instead of just trying harder to do what the developers want you to do
@@captaincrash9002 Hitman has one of the best scoring system although I don't care about leaderboards but it's a nice way to measure your mastery of levels
Yeah, and I also hate how it’s always some MASSIVE number that basically hyper-inflates the value of a point to where it just loses all meaning, and you lose sense of how close your score really is to others.
Ssgmd4 (a flash guitar playing rhythm game) does a really good job of making it feel grounded. There is a set maximum score for getting a perfect run of a song so they just plot a bar showing you how close you are to bronze, silver, gold, and finally platinum (their perfect rank) if you're insane like me😂 Having a bar like a progress meter showing me how much I was improving made all the failed runs where I lost a combo during an easy section so much more palatable. It also helps that their songs are like 2-3 minutes average and 5 minutes max. Losing 1:30 to stormfield destroying your life again feels way better than making a wrong move 25 minutes into a turn based tactics battle and tanking your score.
I think it would be pretty hilarious to have a score tacked on at the end of, like, Firewatch or Tacoma or something. "Oh, no, you didn't find that one Richard Sturgeon book that was under a bush, you only get a B rank. Try again next time!"
@@apotsmokinjedi That comment was from 3 weeks ago, now that I think about it, it could be a funny joke, like mario bros 3's meta joke when you complete it
I feel like scores are less relevant today because gaming is more than what it was at it’s inception, a challenge to see how good we were, and if we were better than our friends. A ton of games now are less about winning, and more about the experience. Less about the destination, and more about the journey. But I totally agree that scores give you incentive to really dig deeper into the games mechanics and really allow you to the play the game the way you want to. Awesome work as always.
Great video :) ! I love how SPELUNKY makes gold your score AND currency ! That's a great, tough decision making element, since buying good loot means you'll lose out on a better high score (which adds that tough, risky question : do I steal from the shopkeeper ?)! Cheers Mark !
I like the notion of being able to "cash in" your score. On the one hand, it means that players are rewarded for scoring well by getting boosters and upgrades and the like. On the other hand it means that a high score carries more weight, since it implies that the high-scoring player earned that score without needing to buy upgrades or pop boosters.
The ghost is vital for the scoring system. The ideal for a game like Spelunky is that scoring more points is usually a risk reward situation. Without a time limit, collecting extra gold would never be a risk unless there's a trap or you gotta spend bombs/ropes. Ideal play would be to pick every level bare every time, even if it means spending 30 seconds platforming to one gold bar. Unless you meant the thing about the ghost turning gems into diamonds. I admit I've never messed with that mechanic so I don't know how fun it is to use, but I'd hesitate to condemn any mechanic that increases the skill ceiling and rewards risky behavior with more points.
The ghost turning gems into diamonds is the issue. Score runs are 5% play as intended and 95% slowly lead the ghost around the level covering every single tile. It's incredibly tedious and a typical score run is over four hours of obviously degenerate play. The time before the ghost shows up mostly consists of waiting for the ghost, it simply doesn't work as intended. And yes, you could just "not play that way", but that's suboptimal, and the job of a scoring system isn't to make suboptimal play fun.
Making the new and veteran player experience closer is SO. KEY. And I feel so many HARDCORE GAMERR types don't get that. It's such an important element of design for any game less niche than Spreadsheet Organization Simulator. It brings more people joy while usually tightening the core design, too, by making sure you're always encouraging the most engaging player behaviors within your system. Makes the learning experience more fun and, in the case of Assault Android Cactus, it discourages boring entry level strategies like turtling that fight the fun.
The problem is when they mistake an actual niche genre for a casual one and complain about them all being hardcore by nature (character action, rogues-like, whatever Hollow Knight is)
@@notproductiveproductions3504 I dunno, even character action games (pretty hardcore score-chasers, usually) have very forgiving retry features and on-board the player via incremental difficulty unlocks. Arguably, they're just as much about spectacle as combat. Yet it's rare to hear complaints about them catering to casuals or withholding the real game or something; the goal post for dedicated players is placed much further than mere completion, and retries bruise their ego, essentially creating a hidden, nested difficulty toggle. Idk if I connected all those observations well, but the point is that it's not a zero-sum game.
@@notproductiveproductions3504 Yeah, but you get to retry as much as you want from the start of the boss! Platinum games sometimes let you retry from the second or third phase of longer boss fights, too. It's very convenient. Many games make you reload a save before a boss or walk to the boss through a segment of level... Look, I'm not going to get in a Xeno's Paradox over this. Take my points charitably if you can. I don't know how much a novice player is gonna be like, "oh no, my bonuses! now I can't buy another advanced technique I'll forget to use :C"
I’ve always felt that the most important quality of a scoring system is clarity and simplicity: it needs to be clear to players what is worth points and there can’t be too many things to keep track of in your score. This is the fundamental reason why scoring systems like Bayonetta’s can be frustrating, you did a cool thing worth a lot of points, but that isn’t the only way the game as scored - you lost points in other areas you weren’t keeping track of. The Tony Hawk scoring system is so effective because what’s worth points? Doing tricks consecutively. Your score is clearly shown to you as you build it, you can see exactly what adds to it each time and its easy to see when scoring stops.
This, so much this. It's also bizzarely enough sonic game improved on. In sonic adventure 1&2, screaming through the levels to do a speedrun got you a C because it wanted you to kill enemies, faff about getting rings and do some stunts. That just felt bad. In Unleashed and Generations, It's just speed and a tiiiiiny bonus from rings that matter. Much better.
Bayo's score is super-simple though. It's the combination of combo points accrued, time and damage taken. All graded separately for each battle and then averaged.
What's "Combo points" Though? The game never really demonstrates what that sort of thing means. Or explains *why* that should matter. Surely a quick kill is a quick kill.
..... the Stylish Action genre is about being stylish and not just defeating your enemies. It goes a step further than that. You're meant to learn how to make full use of your abilities and string them together. The entire scoring and grading system is designed to push you toward that intended ideal playstyle. If you feel the urge to just spam Punch-Kick-Punch to get battles over with, the genre is not for you. And as for the "why", the game's purpose is very "game-y", but even within the story it makes sense. The player characters (Dante, Bayo etc.) are typically extremely powerful and make it a point to toy with their enemies, to look cool for their own satisfaction. They're not soldiers, they're not stealth operatives, they command near-godly powers and they know it.
That's all very well, but if the game is always vague as hell about what you should use and what counts, then it's just a lesson in frustration and will be utterly opaque to most players. I'm not saying I want the game to be just spamming moves for speed, I want to have a combat system where there's a reason to have all of these different moves to evade attacks, counter certain moves and generally deal with different threats. I found Platinum did a much better job of this, and scoring as a result, in Metal Gear Rising. It had a much more compressed moveset, but still had a lot of style and it was clear when you went into blade mode what the goal was, as well as the extra BP for dismembering properly.
Kinda surprised that you didn't talk about games that want you to beat them in the shortest amount of time, seeing as how the concepts are similar, the time duration just acts as a different scoring mechanism.
I never really understood the point of the score system in Mega Man, it never saved or anything (I don't think). Smash Hit for Android and iOS was _so_ fun, and the scores kinda mattered cos you got more balls and it made things easier later on in the hard stages.
SMB3 still has score, Even Mario World had score, Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island is the first game in that series that took the concept of score and started to alter it
The crazy part of the MGSV points system for me was that you can get a massive bonus for leaving no traces behind. No witnesses, no cartridges, not a change to the area of operations other than your main objective.
An issue with online high scores is the tremendous potential for abuse. Regularly seen games that feature this sort of thing just absolutely filled with players that have obviously cheated / hacked their way to the top. Personal bests are a much better metric than comparing against those who exploit the system or are inhumanly skilled.
Bummed you didn't talk about infinite runners. Those games are built on the high score model of arcades, and saw popularity in modern smartphones. Also, I can see music/rhythm games fitting into this discussion as well.
Hemang Chauhan The Hitman franchise also emphasises high scores and gameplay variation by giving the player a score (the cash for upgrades) and a title (for fluff)
Infinite runners are designed around an extremely manipulative core. Due to the general lack of skill involved there's very little player improvement, so they present the illusion of skill by varying how far into the game they present the "kill" obstacle. A kill obstacle is an obstacle that's intentionally generated to be impossible to pass with your current position in the screen. It's carefully crafted to look dodgable, but it's not. They then vary the placement of this obstacle in a way that resembles natural skill progression (and of course plateaus out at intervals that on-staff psychologists deemed is optimal for extracting as much money as possible from paid boosts), but is completely artificial. It's a clever trick, I'll give it that, but it's not good-faith game design. Canabalt, on the other hand, is an interesting example of scoring gone wrong. The way the game is intended to be played is presumably avoiding obstacles to go faster and faster, but the optimal way to play for score is to hit as many obstacles as you can to slow yourself down as the distances between buildings scale to your current speed, and the game is easier if you're slower.
Hemang Chauhan I agree with you that there are some mobile games that also deserves a spotlight in the world of gaming. For one the rhythm games of Rayark are absolutely amazing, especially their newly released rhythm game, Cytus 2.
Vespula is one of the best bosses I've ever played in my life. Would def recommend. Go for S (or just no-deaths) score in all levels and the game is just magicall
That's basically what they were going for, they disliked how in other games, running low on lives made you play more cautiously and boringly. They wanted you to play *more* aggressively to play the game the fun way.
There's a difference between rank and score though, or at least for me. When i play a character action game, i don't care about how many points i get or if i get a higher score than anyone else, but i want that S rank. Also, i pretty much ignore arcade style games that are all about leaderboards, because of that. That's why i think scores and rankings are not really the same thing.
10:50 I'm gonna stop ya right there on Opus magnum, it's not just the components the center takes up, it's every tile that is occupied at any given time, so the space those arms cover is also included in the area
Great video! My favorite part about this is it inspired me to make a connection to TTRPGs; as EXP is just a score system utilized differently. And exploring how experience rewarded encourages how your players interact with your game is something I will be thinking about for awhile. Thank you!
Bad ranks at the end of game sections don't bother me because I think I should've done better. They bother me because they _imply that I played the game wrong._ That's why I never played a _Mega Man Zero_ game beyond the first one. Between the ranking system and Cyber Elf system (the latter of which having the in-game explanation that you were killing innocent living creatures to power-up), that game made me feel crappy all the way through, whether I struggled with a level or not. That game really soured me on games with rankings. To this day I'm still too intimidated to give the DMC or Bayonetta series a go, despite owning entries in each. I did play _The Wonderful 101,_ but thankfully that game's atmosphere helped me forget about rankings.
Ok i have a question, arent games the enbodiment of "You should play how we (devs) say"? No matter how many options you have, you cant go outside the boundries of the game, meaning you have to play as the game says. Scores are just the less punishing way of saying that. So what i am getting from the comment is that you felt bad that someone pointed out that in an obvious fashion. Also, and i am noticing this patern, people are very scared of challenge or more to the point when someone says anything middly discouraging, if that is the case you should not play games that challenge your mastery in obvious ways, but games that are silent about it. In that way your selfsteem and self worth are not wounded. Basically you should stay of games that tell you the truth bluntly and play games that "lie" to you about it.
Assault Android Cactus is such a superb game. I own, like 3 copies of it now. If I had an Xbox One I'd buy a 4th. It's honestly the pinnacle of twin stick shooters and you can feel the love and influences the dev team put into it. Was only made by 3 guys too which still boggles my mind grapes. I've been singing its praises for so long. it deserves a nice big boost in interest and sales. Thanks for covering it cos, man, next to no big UA-camrs really have.
Great video as always, Mark. One thing I wanted to note (although I'm sure this was done intentionally for ease of visualisation): the "surface area" of your machine in Opus Magnum (3:04) isn't just the silhouette of the components when the machine is "off", but also the space that they travel through when it is working. So, for example, that long "groove" that the piston arm travels through near the bottom of your machine would be counted against you.
Slay the Spire has made me think about the way I'm playing due the the scoring system, too. You unlock special score achievements for playing in a special way, even if you didn't realize it. For example, if you visit a lot of '?' rooms in your run, you'll be rewarded with bonus points for reaching that threshold. When I discovered the game was looking for and would acknowledge specific behaviors, I started playing in sub-optimal ways to see what else the game might be looking for or encouraging players to try.
Maybe another approach for Opus Magnum, instead of giving mandatory requirements as you say, they could be optional challenges. So you can still complete the game, go to another level, but there's a marking for "all challenges completed in this level". There could be multiple challenges for replayability and different approaches (less cycles, less resources, less surface) and still used the scoring system that it already uses, but with that layer on top that pushes the players that need that push. Maybe seeing the challenges would diminish the creativity of other type of players though, so I guess it's something to weigh when designing.
This is definitely one of my favorite videos you've done. Really made me take a step back and think about ways to integrate different difficulty settings within gameplay. Thanks for your hard work!
Tadpole Treble does something cool with its scoring system. Not only are there rewards for getting S ranks, but there are also rewards for getting F ranks, or deliberately keeping your score down by playing just good enough to not die.
You might be interested in Errant Signal's video on Tony Hawk, where he talks about how the gameplay mechanics and level design have significantly evolved over time
Yeah, same; probably the best twin stick I've ever played, it was so good. And it also worked surprisingly well if you unlocked the first person view...
A game I really love has a cool scoring system. It's called Copy Kitty. You can copy powers from enemies, hold up to 3, and combine them into a super shot! The score system can mostly be ignored, but there's an endless mode. There's a standard combo meter... but the twist is that you get a higher multiplier *the more different weapons you've used in your current combo.* So not only are you encouraged to kill lots of enemies without dropping your combo, if you want the highest scores you need to also switch weapons as often as possible instead of just finding a single weapon combination you like and sticking with it forever. It encourages the player to play in the flashiest way possible if they're going for high scores... the game is extremely flashy!
Besides being a niche interest for completionists and leaderboard hunters, I think points could easily be replaced with badges or achievements, because that's their main function in modern games. Letter grades push you to try new things and generally create the same effect you explored in your hitman topic: replaying a level until you can perfectly clear it in the most interesting way possible, by giving you mentally the feeling of failure regardless of whether or not you passed. I feel badges and achievements encourage interesting and fun playstyles much more effectively than points can, even in games where points are the main focus.
The thing is: badges and achievements are finite, you get them and that's it; whereas points push infinite replayability, since there's pretty much no limit to how many you can get. It's kinda like speedrunning, in a way: you could always find a way to get a better score, but never a way to get more than 100% of achievements.
I'd have mentioned The Wonderful 101 and musou games on this video. W101 is another platinum game with a lot of similarities to bayonetta, but it's scoring system is balanced a bit differently; while bayonetta will give first-timers a string of really bad grades and only start giving encouraging grades to players who already understand how to chase grades, W101 calculates it's score in a way that, as long as you're somewhat competent, you'll be getting mid-to-high ranks most of the time, even if platinum ranks will still only be on reach of expert players, since bullheaded approaches to combat will typically result in a composite score of two very good results and one bad result, being calculated in a gold or silver. As for musou; the "win" conditions for it's maps are quite generous; you have plenty of time and can take a lot of damage. getting high ranks, however, is relatively simple, but requires you to play a certain way; efficiently. kill a certain amount of enemies, within a somewhat strict time limit, without going past a treshold of damage. Not that this in itself is anything special, but not only is the "correct way to play" easy to grasp and start applying, the musou games give you immediate, tangible rewards for getting S ranks, such as new weapon or character skin unlocks, turning those S ranks into more of a gateway into playing the game as intended rather than presenting an actual challenge.
I like arcade style shmups a lot and while I don't strictly do score runs eventually I did start playing with trying to get as high a score as possible, be this through forgoing safe play in order to get point items, reducing starting lives to not get hit with a negative multiplier or whatever else. What's neat about that genre in particular (though it is something other games do too, recently Bloodstained comes to mind) is that they often tie your score either directly to your extra lives, giving you one every X points or indirectly by nudging you into basically playing in a way that gives you a higher score to get bonus resources in some way.
Devs do have to be very careful when making scoring systems to not incentivize unfun and tedious play. For example, the way scoring works in Spelunky is interesting in theory, but absolutely ruined by one minor thing that's irrelevant to casual play: the fact that the ghost turns gold into much higher-scoring gems. This means the optimal way to play is on each stage, clear out all the enemies, making sure to avoid gold, and wait for the ghost. Slowly and tediously manipulate the ghost to cover every bit of gold on the level and basically strip-mine the entire level, then proceed to the next level and repeat. A score run ends up being about 5% gameplay as intended and 95% ghost bullshit, so this seemingly small design decision completely ruins the game at a high level. The solution, of course, is to get rid of that and have time bonuses instead, making it so you have to balance clearing levels quickly to maximize your time bonus and getting as much gold on top of that as possible. It creates much more interesting decisions (should I spend gold on this jetpack in hopes that it pays for itself in time bonuses, or should I leave it?) and keeps the game moving at a brisk pace.
THANK YOU for making this. I love good scoring systems, so this video was a treat. One thing you failed to mention is the importance of making the system learnable. Space Invaders Extreme 2 is a great scoring game, but there's no in-game explanation of the scoring at all, so you can't really play it for score until you read the manual and figure out how many points enemies and bonuses are worth, etc.
When I played through Astral Chain, I noticed an interesting feature in its scoring system -- pretty standard for a Platinum title, but if you set the difficulty mode to "casual" (which additionally unlocks a variety of assist options) then while the game will report your stats after each particular sequence, it _won't actually grade them._
I think an understandable omission from the video are time trials, and by extension speedruns. They're functionally no different to a score, and many games include an element of them in their scoring system, but they can encourage players to play in certain ways, just as more complex scoring systems can. A great example is with Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, where the best times for a given level feature jumps and tricks that a casual player would never attempt while just trying to beat said level.
Unless it's one of those endless arcade games like Pac-Man, the only game I can really think of that benefits from having a score mechanic is Devil May Cry.
I actually don't agree that DMC needs a scoring system. The whole idea of trying to objectively compute your "style" doesn't make any sense. It's all a subjective reaction to others watching you play.
Came back here after learning about P-ranks in Pizza Tower. It's a ridiculously amazing example of how scoring can trick players into playing levels in the most fun way possible.
Depends how those score system are implemented. Devil May Cry for example would be nothing without it's scoring/style system, especially Devil May Cry 3.
Marius Urucu I wouldn't say "nothing" but there is something so damn satisfying about seeing "super stylish" pop up mid combo. What I love is the scoring you get for your combos is being ranked mid combat and you can see the affect of your attacks in real time so when you repeat yourself, the combo counter falls faster than you can maintain it which encourages players to change weapons and mix combos often for the best score creating a more dynamic experience for hardcore players and an ultimately more fun one as you experiment with different weapon set ups.
Raymond V.M. Have you noticed how many gamers prefer the "dominant strategy? Well, Devil May Cry says "Fuck that" and that's thanks to its style system. Yes, some people might not care for it, but that scoring system, especially in Devil May Cry 3, is as iconic as Dante himself IMO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the game give you more red orbs after a fight based on how well you rank? So that is another reason to use more difficult combos and try out different things in every fight.
You're absolutely correct; Red Orb payout increases with your rank. This is largely true in any Capcom/Clover/Platinum game that has both a currency system and a ranking system.
I feel like racing games that focus on time trials/setting the fastest time fit into this as well. For example, in Trackmania, you can get a bronze, silver, or gold medal, and the gold medal is pretty easy on the early tracks. But there's a fourth green medal, the author's medal, where you're literally racing against the developer's time. It's a hidden medal, so players who don't know about it won't feel discouraged, but it encourages you to play every track to perfection to get to the top of the total medal leaderboard. (And this leaderboard is split into local region, country, and world - it's pretty neat to see you're ranked 10th in the region even though that means 1000th in the world.)
Man you are incredible at making videos, I always feel like im on some sort of trip every time i watch your content, bouncing from topic to topic. Love your stuff man!
Wow, the scoring system for Opus Magnum is exactly how my computer architecture class graded students on their microprocessor building project. fascinating
I have a love-hate relationship with scoring systems in Point and Click adventure games. On the one hand they reward you when you go out of your way to try silly stuff and find interesting things, but on the other hand it sucks when you noticed you've missed something but don't know if it's something really cool like extra clues or dialog or just something stupid like putting something in a fire.
Most impactfull for me is the feeling i get from a histogram being very different from my reaction to a normal leaderboard. Being one bar less efficient then average gets me motivated to try and make a better machine, seeing i'm ranked thousands away from the top doesn't make me feel or do anything.
Una de las funciones típicas que tenía el sistema de puntuación en los juegos de arcade era que al llegar a cierta cantidad de puntos, el jugador recibía una vida extra, en algunos existía la posibilidad de usar trucos para conseguir puntos infinitos, es decir, vidas infinitas.
It's interesting to compare high scores with speedruns. As you mentioned, the typical game changed from an endless challenge to a finite story, most dropping scores in the process. In this environment, speedrunning filled the gap for people who wanted a replayable singleplayer challenge. It works with nearly any non-endless singleplayer game, even if the developers didn't build in any support.
That was a good exposition, but I'm also a little bit sad on how little has been done with the concept of scoring. Like, I'm not sure what that would be, but you could probably pivot a narrative around scoring in a very interesting way.
I agree; that would be cool: let’s brainstorm!... A certain level of high scores to get the best ending? The actual difficulty of a combat game increases or decreases based on the score? You’re assigned to different leagues in multiplayer shooters based on single-player combat as well?
@@CurtisJensenGames >A certain level of high score to get the best ending? DoDonPachi SaiDaiOuJou, pretty much any game with a 1 Credit Clear requirement for the True Last Boss. >The actual difficulty increases or decreases based on your score? Psikyo games, pretty much any old shmup with adaptive difficulty. People ought to play more shmups in general, they have much better game design than most think.
Online leaderboards rarely motivate me in the same way arcade high scores do. When you enter your initials at the local arcade, that's an intimate prize- a reward for being the best among your peers, which is an awesome feeling. Online leaderboards pit you against complete strangers who are way better than you could ever hope to be (or in some cases, blatant cheaters.)
I really look forward a video about the strategy genre. Maybe an RTS o a 4X. It's a shame that they have such a huge fandom but are often ignored around for having so different mechanics. Anyway, awesome video, as always!
Please everybody play Tormentor X Punisher, is an arcade videogame so well designed and ridiculously simple that I can't stop recomending it. It's from the sound designer from Nuclear Throne.
A game I want to mention here is Nocturne: Rebirth's style of "scoring". It's a jrpg, but exp does not level you up until you "spend" it learning or powering up the various skills and passives. This is important because each boss of the dungeons have a certain Brave Clear requirement, where you get additional rewards for beating them at or under a certain level. This level is made known to you from the very start of the dungeon so you know when you'd overshoot, and it actively discourages grinding your way to victory.
Yeah I've found my self missing scores a bit lately. I think they're also good for roguelikes where you're not expected to win the majority of games. There's also a type of score you forgot; daily leader boards...as long as they're not full of cheaters which happens a lot. I disagree on MGSV's score helping it though. It really clashes with a game that preaches about open ended gameplay. The only thing that matters is that you do a mission as fast as possible, and you'll get the S Rank. That really locks you into maybe two play styles at most.
I agree that MGS V’s scoring system is pretty poorly implemented. The factors that count towards score aren’t very well balanced. Like, one of the easiest S ranks in the game is also supposed to be one of the hardest missions: Infiltrating a heavily guarded enemy fortress. But you can drive straight through it in a jeep for an S rank. The bonuses for ghosting a mission (nonlethally) are usually so large that they alone guarantee an S. But you get points for every enemy killed, so if you lose the undetected and non-lethal bonuses, you can still earn an S by scoring lots and lots of headshots. An S rank in an MGS game for killing lots of people... WTF?
Great video :) I found out some of this first hand when I was implimentation highscores in Phase Drift. First time players where noticing the scoring system, but we're more focused on surviving. People who played for longer had highscores as a major motivation to get better. The highscores fit really well too, since Phase Drift is an arcade style game they felt natural. It could keep the competitive aspect because of online leaderboards
I had just finished S Ranking all of the Play+ levels on Thumper, and I thought I might have been wasting my time, given that it's been over a year since there were still people playing the game. Days later, this video uses Thumper as an example of using score systems, and now I feel motivated to keep playing. Thanks, Mark!
2:31 Opus Magnum has a near-idenitcal scoring system as Infinifactory. it also looks like a similar game, albeit on a 2d plain. think I'll be picking this game up! loved Infinifactory!
I think Mark should check out Vampyr and talk about the importance of good actor performance, and why so many games struggle to get a good flow of conversation and a good delivery of dialogue. I really makes or breaks a game in some instances.
Trackmania has bronze, silver and gold medals on each track amd are relatively easy to acquire (although gold is harder, its still something achievable yo new players) but they hide a special green authors medal for the veterans and have the regional, national, continental leaderboards for the persistent, and a global lraderboard gor the gifted
I liked how assassin's creed brotherhood implemented the extra optional objectives in the main missions. While it's not required to do the optional objectives, doing so unlocks secret memories of Ezio's life in back in Venice.
The first game that pop into my mind is Hitman with its scoring system. It is so rewarding yet so subtle. Some people can ignore it completely without affecting game progression. Yet, we always strive for perfection every time we play.
Personally I don't care about scores in games at all. They just don't motivate me to replay games. I'm more motivated by exploration, adventure, and discovery.
Zerarch77 I'm actually actively unmotivated by scoring systems because I feel like the game is telling me that what should be a win state is really only a partial win. I don't see earning an S rank as a new challenge to overcome, I see it as a barrier to enjoyment.
It might just be a matter of perspective. I always view score as A) an optional extra challenge (yay!) or B) a non-optional challenge that just happens to be very hard (yay!).
Some games make you feel like you're at Work(endless grind, fetch) some games put you back in School. The score/points/achievements system feels like having a grade school teacher standing over your shoulder.
Infinifactory does scores the same way Magnum Opus does and it kept me coming back to old levels to see if how I could save just a bit more time or electricity for my machine. It really made me think about what conveyers I really needed and watching the best players make contraptions to complete levels without barely any moving parts is just mesmerizing.
Could you speak about the Azure striker gunvolt series? That game's kudos system (wich is its score system) is making me aproach the game cautiously but at the same time with the more spectacular kills, in the other side we have Mighty gunvolt burst from the same devs in wich you need to finish the enemies in close combat
As much as I love playing Gunvolt, gv1 does have really boring levels unless you actually already care about score, and in general the Kudos system is overcomplicated and brutal, and yet the game lets you use luck-based equipment in runs. It does do something interesting to try to push you towards scoring though: the crafting system is supposed to get you to grind stages to get helpful equipment, at which point why not try to do better to get more stuff? But not everyone falls for that like I did.
I think MGS 5 is a perfect example where the scoring system is harming the experience by encouraging you to always have the same playstyle instead of adapting to the situation. And since scoring is supposed to replace difficulty setting (that was present in Ground Zero), the game is too easy if you don't care about it. Scoring is definitely not for everyone, and not for every game. For example, could you imagine Dark Souls with a scoring system ?
He actually explained it kinda poorly in this video, you can totally get S ranks on missions using most play styles. The score mostly depends on time, so if you charge in super fast and get it done quickly, the score bonuses you lost from getting spotted, etc are made up for by your massive time score.
I’m also a huge fan of Hotline Miami’s scoring system (particularly the 2nd, I know it better). The mad dash for combos really changes the whole way the levels work, because at its heart Hotline is just a puzzle game with guns and reflexes.
While you did touch on Thumper, I'd like to expand upon it by saying that there are other rhythm games with online leaderboards to compare your scores to other people such as Lunatic Rave 2, so in addition to it helping in some games and not being useful in some other, it is still relevant in the rhythm game genre.
The chain system reminds me a lot of Resident Evil's Mercenaries mode where chains as well as getting melee kills are important for getting the highest possible scores, which is an interesting way to approach the concept of high scores because it uses the same mechanics as the normal games but puts it in a separate, score-based mode.
My favorite game of late which uses a scoring system is Graceful Explosion Machine. It also uses a chaining mechanic which encourages the frantic on the edge style of play which the devs were going for. And it is reinforced by the mechanics, as you are encouraged to charge through enemy lines to collect the power which fuels your special weapons, which you are encouraged to use because your basic weapon overheats after a few seconds and because the middle of enemy lines is a great place to use them. Getting a S+ rank is very rewarding because in earning it you really feel like a "graceful explosion machine" having used your arsenal to its fullest potential.
MOBAs are like online hack and slash games, they are very far from what RTS represents. The only connections I can draw are that they came into existance through Warcraft 3 mod. Where in MOBA do you build structures, manage resource, command large amount of units? Just look at games such as Supreme Commander or Age of Empires, MOBAs are nothing like that.
There was a long period where it felt like many RTS devs were trying to switch to 3D, but most of those were more interested in showing off their unit models than being interesting.
One of the things that makes opus magnum really great for me is that you're usually chuffed when you complete a stage, even if your machine isn't optimal. One of the reasons might be because you see this crazy machine you've spent time building and thinking about finally work. Seeing the score just makes you think about more possibilities on how you can improve upon what you made. You might bot even care about the score, but a couple levels later you get an a-ha moment where you suddenly understand how to do vetter at an previous stage. Player driven scores is quite brilliant in a way, since the developer don't really have to think much about the scoring system. The players do all the work.
Yes, but it really depends on what kind of game and how the system is implemented Like, DMC is really gewd and I love the scoring system, but DMC4 is a bit too easy, I prefer DMC3 tho there is a room for improvement
I feel you should've mentioned the upgrade heavy games. Roguelikes and upgrade based ones where you're trying to launch yourself further every run. They're all about improving your score, but most of them do feature an ultimate goal admittedly.
I generally find myself completely turn off by any scoring system that doesn't somewhat fit into the context of the game or immediately adds to the gameplay. Being ranked better and paid better for a hit in which your presence went completely unnoticed in Hitman ? Sure. It makes sense that your reputation matters and that your contracts would be closely observed, it's basically your portfolio as an assassin. So I like it, it's rewarding. Being ranked in Devil May Cry ? ... Why ? By who ? It merely seem like a completely arbitrary rating system that only exists to justify the depth of the combat system (that you don't need to indulge into to finish the game). So reaching the rating screen and being rated feels completely out of place and I don't like it at all. I'd legitimately enjoy the game more if it didn't feel like it was so obviously observing me like a professor going down the aisle during a school test. In that regard, the DmC reboot was much more enjoyable for me, while you were still being graded at the end and that sucked, at least the moment to moment gameplay made the grading system feel more fun thanks to these "savage ! Sensational !" scream which punctuated the action so well that it made the game more fun (even if it still doesn't make any sense context-wise). Unreal Tournament still does it better tho, scoring some special kills triggered the announcer to shout your exploit out loud and that's just satisfying to hear, more fitting to the setting as well. It really makes the action come alive. And on the other hand you had Metal Gear Rising with its infuriating impassable barrier until the game graded your combat prowess in the most monotone way possible before letting you move on. Reeeeeal glad that one had a scoring system, running frustrated against an artificial barrier added much to the game...
Peggle and Peggle Nights. They may look simple, but those games have a VERY high skill curve. There is a maximum score you can get in each level, but it's nearly impossible to reach and there are so many different trickshot score bonuses.
Agreed. I believe it's the only game where I actually tried to get the best rank on each level. It gave the game a lot more staying power as a result, which I'm all for considering how much I enjoyed the game off the bat.
reNINTENDO Yeah! After beating the second game, the first game didn’t seem as hard to simply beat, but getting all the a+ ranks has given it staying power like you said, to still be fun and challenging
Mantafirefly Yeah, what each of the score categories mean isn’t specified in game, but if you look it up, you can see that you can pretty consistently get high ranks if you either constantly execute enemies for high points, or keep moving for the wgole stage in one massive combo
Assault Android Cactus actually cleverly combines a subtle competitive aspect to its scoring as well. In multiplayer, whoever gets the best INDIVIDUAL score is the android that gets to close out the stage proudly stating "I"m the best!". After only two stages, my friends and I quickly devolved in madmen trying to frantically take out opponents as efficiently as possible, quickly learning tactics about prioritizing enemies and clearing large waves as soon as possible all because we each wanted that sweet winning victory line. It's a small factor that changes almost nothing about the game and doesn't even show up in single-player, but it's a nice motivator for mastering the game's mechanics quickly if you play with friends.
True, though getting Slayer on Nightmare is a complete pain as glory killing an enemy locks you in position for a fraction of a second after the animation finishes and leaves you vulnerable to being hit. If the invulnerability lasted a hair longer it would shift the difficultly away from chance and towards player skill.
(As someone who's beaten the campaign on Ultra Nightmare and has a slayer rank on every level in arcade mode) Stop doing glory kills lmao. They aren't safe to do.
You mean "Equip savagery rune". I've done slayer on ultra nightmare across the board too. Medals generally aren't as important as just keeping up the multiplier and then milking the everloving balls out of the powerups using the BFG.
Glory Kills isn't the most optimal way to get high scores, at least in my experience, also like you said, it's pretty risky. I got pretty high places last time I played I was in top 10 on PC for first 3-4 levels I think The most efficient way to get alot of points from killing an enemy is to get multiple medals, so you want to something like stun with Plasma Rifle and do a Headshot kill by using Triple Shot from the Shotgun, so you get Headshot, Triple Hit and Stunned medals by killing just one enemy, if you can keep medal streak going for a long time, you get alot of points. At least this is the strat I found and used. There is also things like using Chainsaw or damaging the enemy without actually killing it to get max multiplier really fast and keep it up as much as possible and other fancy tricks. And it requires quite a bit of skill, you have to plan on how you gonna kill your enemies, in which succession you gonna do it, how to get around the level fast enough to keep the multiplier and medal streak up. I usually hate games or game modes with score systems, because there is very often a lot of RNG involved that always ruins perfect run, but in my experience DOOM 2016 arcade mode was almost purely skill based, because even enemy placement spawns and their movement are very scripted or very easily exploited, so it's pretty much all about player's skill in the end.
Been binge watching old GMTK videos and came across this one. Reminded me of the original PS1 Tenchu Stealth Assassins game, that had a neat feature to the scoring system. Since you had two styles of play: killing, or not killing, other than the mandatory target(s). To prevent the scoring of stealth kills from hurting you, you could get a "never spotted once" bonus that let you have just enough points to Grand Master a level without needing to kill anyone. Ghosting a level, like you were never there. This was often much harder than normal as well, since you weren't eliminating possible vectors of detection throughout the map. It also left an amazing feeling in a roleplay sense, in that you could feel like a vengeful shadow, killing only the deserving. Would be a cool concept to combine with a Dishonored style of "deaths influence later missions", too.
So the question I have is "Why would I want S+ rank in Assault Android Cactus?" I do certain things in games that are completely unnecessary (hunting down every unidentified location in Witcher 3, for instance, or grinding out max job levels for all characters in a Dragon Quest game). But if I have to play "perfectly," within a certain margin for error, just to get a certain rank and no particular benefit, what's my motivation? I remember going through a lot of the various time trial challenges in Diddy Kong Racing because it unlocked a new character that was just slightly overpowered. Getting gold medals in Blast Corps opened up some post-game levels. Those are motivation, but in my current old age, I'm firmly on the side of accessibility in games. I shouldn't need to devote unholy amounts of time to get the experience. Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 is actually a really good example of balancing that: you can unlock a bunch of various things by playing the game as intended, or you can punch in cheat codes. And maybe someone will feel guilty to use a cheat code to get all the decks, but plenty of people don't because it's a video game and the purpose is to have fun. If you have fun getting a high score, that's great. Online leaderboards or maybe a bonus post-credits cutscene (that is plot irrelevant!) are great for people who like them. On the other hand, though, I hate playing a game where I'm told that I'm rank 11,000,000,000. Maybe there should be an option to turn scoring off, that way you're not feeling constantly shamed for getting B ranks in Bayonetta? The online leaderboards in Super Mario Odyssey are also a good example of why they're a problem: someone finds a glitch, completely breaks the leaderboard, and what's the fun of even trying now?
This is honestly a matter of "developer intention" vs. "player enjoyment/desire." I feel what you're arguing is akin to the "Dark Souls should have an easy mode" debacle. Both sides of the coin have their good points. On one hand, you're discouraging people who may not have the time/skill/patience to put into the game while on the other the developers designed the game that way to be something that feels like an accomplishment to surmount. Scoring systems can be looked at in a similar way. I adore the Bayonetta games, and the scoring system helped to push me to really master timing my dodging and always being aware of when and where enemies are attacking. It's the way Platinum designed the game to be played, getting so good at dodging and twirling around your enemies while kicking their asses with giant fists made out of hair that you never once get hit. Of course, one could argue disabling the scoring system to make it more enjoyable for those people who can't get that skilled at the game for one reason or another, but in a similar vein you could also argue that by including the option to disable it, you lose that desire and drive to push yourself to get better. Even if the scoring system is still there if you disable it at the start or before you've had the time to adjust to the feel of the game, how likely would you be to enable it again just so you can push yourself to nab that pure platinum trophy? Or the satisfaction of watching those bronzes and silvers turning into golds and platinums as your skill naturally improves? Getting a stone trophy the first time I picked up the game felt shitty, but ending it with golds was fantastic. If I could've disabled the scoring system at the beginning, I wouldn't have seen how I've progressed with my skill. Sometimes it's just that satisfaction of being able to accomplish what they once thought was impossible that drives people to get that S+ rank or that pure platinum trophy, something they wouldn't feel if they got discouraged at the start and disabled the scoring system cause they didn't think they were good enough. All in all, both sides have fair arguments. Having games be more fun for more people by giving more options is a great thing, but also by limiting those options and encouraging the playstyle you feel best suits the game, you can push those persistent enough to get through it to improve themselves and give a real sense of accomplishment at the end of the game.
The question I have, though, is why do I want to get better at Bayonetta (or any other game, not just picking on Platinum here)? A scoring system is a great way to improve, at least inasmuch as one improves according to the devs' intentions, but what if I'm not here to improve but just to enjoy myself? It's like speedrunning. Some people really get a kick out of playing a game over and over and over again to the point that they know every trick and glitch and shortcut that they can beat Megaman 2 in 15 minutes. I'm personally not worried about that. I'm not sure I've ever been worried about that. I suppose I must've been when I was a teenager 'cause I did unlock T.T. in Diddy Kong Racing, but now I'm in my 30s and have that whole "full-time job" problem and I don't find it enjoyable to have a game point and laugh because I button-mashed my way through. I recently played Tales of Berseria and after something like 80 hours of regular gameplay in which I kept amping up the difficulty and tweaking my battle styles, I finally decided to take on the final boss and realized, "I have no reason to beat this guy on Hard difficulty, especially because it's going to take a bunch of attempts and probably a couple hours." So I turned difficulty down to Baby's First Button Masher so that I could finally see the ending. And, yes, actually, I'm exactly arguing that Dark Souls should have an easy mode. Dark Souls is kind of a low-hanging fruit on that particular argument, though, because it has almost no narrative to speak of, so cripplingly hard difficulty is a bit more justifiable. Not every game needs to be for every player, 'tis true, but if you, as a developer, craft a game with a narrative that you want people to see and enjoy, it behooves you to temper the difficulty. I've made all these same arguments about locking lore content behind raid bosses in MMOs, which is why WoW decided to make its cinematics accessible even if you've never entered the dungeon. And they made that decision almost a decade ago.
Because I paid money for a product. Does a movie demand that I pass a tightly tuned dexterity test before I'm "allowed" to see the climax and denouement? Game developers complain about people going on UA-cam to watch Let's Plays and cinematic rips instead of buying their game. The whole "I don't have 100 hours to sink into perfecting your game for a 2 minute cutscene" thing goes right over their heads. Lock irrelevant things behind skill tests and taxing grinds. Hearthstone, for instance, won't let you have a golden hero portrait until you've won a lot of games playing as that class (I think it's 500 ranked wins). That's completely valid. If you're asking why there should be a reward at all, it's the fact of motivation. What's my motivation to S+ rank something if I get literally nothing for my trouble? Whenever I start a new game and I see that there's some ridiculous challenge, I immediately pull up a wiki or FAQ to see if the reward is worth my effort. Gwent in Witcher 3, for instance, is something I find tedious and unengaging. Thankfully, it also has no rewards that I care about, so I'm not pressured to play it, but if I choose to play it, the rewards are that I get a better Gwent deck.
Patrick Lewis Ok, why should you get and s+ rank? The fact that is completely optional make the whole argument moot. Enjoy the game as you want, since you do not care about scores, why bring up something that is completely optional? I mean in most of the examples you made, you COULD change the dificulty...so absurd. Its contradictory, why do you feel bad about something you dont care, unlike your example of WoW, very few games actually lock anything behind a score now days (such a shame), since you dont care about scores, why do you care that you have a B grade in bayonetta? So its the fact that you are being told that you "suck" that bugs you? You want to be pampered or that the grade actually means somenthing, i.e locking content? That seems to be against your argument. And here is the even weirder part about your "argument" the game, that is difficult in your example, has no scoring system. And games like bayonetta care not about the grade, so even with a bad one you can still finish the game. The "problem" that you are proposing is a bit strange. If the whole point of the game is to tell a story then its better, for you to read a book or watch a movie. Let me ask you this, what is a game? Not what YOU think it is, but what is a game? It seems that you are mixing expectations and reality. So in the end let me get this straight, its because you are "old" and have no time, that you go on and "rant" about how games should not judge your performance or challenge you. I know this may sound crazy but have you considered not playing said games but games that fit you current life style? a simple style with a lack of challenge.
I’ll tell you what the high score table is good for- my mom (age 58) is addicted to playing Titan Attacks, a space invaders clone, on steam. Every time she gets on the high score list for the day she uses the name field to send me a message like “hello daughter!” Or “moved in to the new house!” She sends me the message by taking a pic of her screen with her cell phone and texting me the pic. :) Her lifetime high scores table have become a little record of the positive events of her life the past couple years. It’s not the intended use of the system but it’s better than I’d ever hoped for when I bought her the game years ago, can’t believe we are still bonding over it.
Anyway, thanks for the great video,can’t wait for the next one!
This is super adorable! I love it! :D
this is so wonderful.
Pog
she's a true gamer
Oh wow that's awesome
There is this one guy I see everywhere all over the world called "AAA". I see his scores everywhere on almost all arcades. HOW CAN HE DO IT?
He doesn't play any Capcom games though ,I guess he couldn't beat this CAP person
He, along with ASS, have managed to take up spots on almost any arcade game I've touched. They need to be stopped.
LOL
Honestly I'm more worried about this KAI dude. He only uses online-connected arcade machines, and somehow he's a beast at all of them! His name's all over Japan thanks to that...
On pinball machines, you often see MOO or BAO.
One thing I would like to mention is that Score systems should not be present in a game where you can power up/level up/grow stronger. If Im rated B+ at the third level only to have to repeat the level 5 power ups later to even be able to get an S+ I feel very infuriated.
What do you think of games like Sonic Adventure? I guess that's different from your example, because you can A rank an objective on your first go, but you still get powerups and have to come back with them to get everything in the levels and they help you get the highest possible score.
This
tThis is what ruined Hover for me. Run speed upgrades are not a fun feature for a time trial driven game, much less one with multiplayer.
When I was little, I would spend like 10 minutes trying to get those special collectibles in Lego star wars. But the only way to get most of them was to beat the level, then rebeat it, to use specific characters.
this is really dumb
Something I don't think got covered with this video is how you have to be careful with scoring systems (particularly in multiplayer games) that you don't accidentally encourage the player to play sub-optimally to get a higher score. For example, League of Legends gives each player a grade at the end of a match based on how well they did that game (amount of farm, damage dealt, KDA, etc). For the most part, increasing that grade is simply a matter of playing better, and things like kill hunting instead of getting objectives isn't encouraged since getting high grades includes performance such as damage dealt to objectives, and just getting kills isn't enough for the highest grades. However, it does have a tendency to make some players feel like they're being punished for doing things that help them win the game, or makes players do things that lower their chance of winning because they want to get that high grade. Not getting an S rank (which are required to earn certain cosmetic rewards in the champion mastery system) because you sacrificed yourself to steal an important objective from the enemy team or to setup a fight that wins the game, or because you gave farm to an ally that needed the gold more than you instead of just taking all the farm for yourself just feels bad. This isn't to say that scoring systems can't be used in multiplayer or team-based games, just that you need to be careful when looking at adding a scoring system to a game that doesn't have a linear correlation between player success and whatever the scoring criteria are.
Wow, that's horrible. Makes me glad I play dota where all I have is a giant mess of statistics that leaves me to figure it out myself. Kinda like the rest of the game actually.
I mean, like I said for the most part it actually just encourages good play, and you don't need to regularly be getting those S ranks, just around 5 per champion that you want at maximum mastery level. Also since it only grants cosmetic stuff it's entirely optional, and if you don't care about it too much it'll happen organically over time when you have good games. So it's not as bad as it might sound.
It might be optional, but it's very discouraging. I've actually been playing League less and less since they introduced scores. When you have a great game, great KDA, everyone is complimenting you, and then you get a C score for some obscure reason... It just kills the excitement right there. And there's always that one guy on your team that won't take any risks ever because he doesn't want to ruin his score - and if he's the jungler, you're fucked.
Ever heard of Pokemon Unite? When your entire team heads into enemy territory in a desperate attempt to earn points and you are the only one playing defense, it's kind of annoying having the scoring system favor those players with no real strategy, to say the least.
Something that often discourages me off score runs is that the score is just some abstract number. It'd be nice if more games had tangible ways to tell how well you're doing comparatively. In racing games there are things like ghosts to compete against, where you can visibly see your progress and challenge yourself to perform better.
In Hitman they at least don't just give you your points and tell you were they came from, but also show how they were calculated, so that you can logically think about how to get a better score instead of just trying harder to do what the developers want you to do
@@captaincrash9002 Hitman has one of the best scoring system although I don't care about leaderboards but it's a nice way to measure your mastery of levels
Yeah, and I also hate how it’s always some MASSIVE number that basically hyper-inflates the value of a point to where it just loses all meaning, and you lose sense of how close your score really is to others.
in mario maker speedruns, the game shows you ghosts of other players
Ssgmd4 (a flash guitar playing rhythm game) does a really good job of making it feel grounded. There is a set maximum score for getting a perfect run of a song so they just plot a bar showing you how close you are to bronze, silver, gold, and finally platinum (their perfect rank) if you're insane like me😂
Having a bar like a progress meter showing me how much I was improving made all the failed runs where I lost a combo during an easy section so much more palatable. It also helps that their songs are like 2-3 minutes average and 5 minutes max. Losing 1:30 to stormfield destroying your life again feels way better than making a wrong move 25 minutes into a turn based tactics battle and tanking your score.
"Swing combo coming up!" Nooooooo Mark why D:
Massive combo multiplier for the 360 swing but unfortunately doesn't stick the landing.
Man, that cracked me up!
it just says "swing combo up" nothing about coming
I think it would be pretty hilarious to have a score tacked on at the end of, like, Firewatch or Tacoma or something. "Oh, no, you didn't find that one Richard Sturgeon book that was under a bush, you only get a B rank. Try again next time!"
i will totally do thay in a game I make at some point
I don't think that would be good design, even as a joke :/
@@Yolwoocle no one asked you bro
@@apotsmokinjedi That comment was from 3 weeks ago, now that I think about it, it could be a funny joke, like mario bros 3's meta joke when you complete it
@@Yolwoocle Am I seeing character development in a comment section?
I feel like scores are less relevant today because gaming is more than what it was at it’s inception, a challenge to see how good we were, and if we were better than our friends. A ton of games now are less about winning, and more about the experience. Less about the destination, and more about the journey. But I totally agree that scores give you incentive to really dig deeper into the games mechanics and really allow you to the play the game the way you want to. Awesome work as always.
Essentially, they're turning into movie-games
Little gameplay & too much cutscenes
They forget about gameplay density and turning every game into movie, 80% cutscene BS and only 20% you actually play the game
@@Aripuni1 >gameplay density
I see someone here watches The Electric Underground. :)
Great video :) ! I love how SPELUNKY makes gold your score AND currency ! That's a great, tough decision making element, since buying good loot means you'll lose out on a better high score (which adds that tough, risky question : do I steal from the shopkeeper ?)! Cheers Mark !
Mark made a great video on the level design of Spelunky, though you probably already knew that.
I like the notion of being able to "cash in" your score. On the one hand, it means that players are rewarded for scoring well by getting boosters and upgrades and the like. On the other hand it means that a high score carries more weight, since it implies that the high-scoring player earned that score without needing to buy upgrades or pop boosters.
Spelunky has some interesting ideas but the ghost mechanic is deeply flawed and ruins the whole scoring system.
The ghost is vital for the scoring system. The ideal for a game like Spelunky is that scoring more points is usually a risk reward situation. Without a time limit, collecting extra gold would never be a risk unless there's a trap or you gotta spend bombs/ropes. Ideal play would be to pick every level bare every time, even if it means spending 30 seconds platforming to one gold bar.
Unless you meant the thing about the ghost turning gems into diamonds. I admit I've never messed with that mechanic so I don't know how fun it is to use, but I'd hesitate to condemn any mechanic that increases the skill ceiling and rewards risky behavior with more points.
The ghost turning gems into diamonds is the issue. Score runs are 5% play as intended and 95% slowly lead the ghost around the level covering every single tile. It's incredibly tedious and a typical score run is over four hours of obviously degenerate play. The time before the ghost shows up mostly consists of waiting for the ghost, it simply doesn't work as intended.
And yes, you could just "not play that way", but that's suboptimal, and the job of a scoring system isn't to make suboptimal play fun.
Oh hey, thanks for the shout out at the end of this!
and now you are here
I've never cared about scores in games unless there was some reward for obtaining it.
Same
Making the new and veteran player experience closer is SO. KEY. And I feel so many HARDCORE GAMERR types don't get that. It's such an important element of design for any game less niche than Spreadsheet Organization Simulator. It brings more people joy while usually tightening the core design, too, by making sure you're always encouraging the most engaging player behaviors within your system. Makes the learning experience more fun and, in the case of Assault Android Cactus, it discourages boring entry level strategies like turtling that fight the fun.
The problem is when they mistake an actual niche genre for a casual one and complain about them all being hardcore by nature (character action, rogues-like, whatever Hollow Knight is)
@@notproductiveproductions3504 I dunno, even character action games (pretty hardcore score-chasers, usually) have very forgiving retry features and on-board the player via incremental difficulty unlocks. Arguably, they're just as much about spectacle as combat. Yet it's rare to hear complaints about them catering to casuals or withholding the real game or something; the goal post for dedicated players is placed much further than mere completion, and retries bruise their ego, essentially creating a hidden, nested difficulty toggle.
Idk if I connected all those observations well, but the point is that it's not a zero-sum game.
@@cantrip7 forgiving retry feature? Devil May Cry 5 takes away more and more end level bonuses for each continue
@@notproductiveproductions3504 Yeah, but you get to retry as much as you want from the start of the boss! Platinum games sometimes let you retry from the second or third phase of longer boss fights, too. It's very convenient. Many games make you reload a save before a boss or walk to the boss through a segment of level...
Look, I'm not going to get in a Xeno's Paradox over this. Take my points charitably if you can. I don't know how much a novice player is gonna be like, "oh no, my bonuses! now I can't buy another advanced technique I'll forget to use :C"
i want a game that's called Spreadsheet Organization Simulator now
I’ve always felt that the most important quality of a scoring system is clarity and simplicity: it needs to be clear to players what is worth points and there can’t be too many things to keep track of in your score. This is the fundamental reason why scoring systems like Bayonetta’s can be frustrating, you did a cool thing worth a lot of points, but that isn’t the only way the game as scored - you lost points in other areas you weren’t keeping track of. The Tony Hawk scoring system is so effective because what’s worth points? Doing tricks consecutively. Your score is clearly shown to you as you build it, you can see exactly what adds to it each time and its easy to see when scoring stops.
This, so much this. It's also bizzarely enough sonic game improved on. In sonic adventure 1&2, screaming through the levels to do a speedrun got you a C because it wanted you to kill enemies, faff about getting rings and do some stunts. That just felt bad. In Unleashed and Generations, It's just speed and a tiiiiiny bonus from rings that matter. Much better.
Bayo's score is super-simple though. It's the combination of combo points accrued, time and damage taken. All graded separately for each battle and then averaged.
What's "Combo points" Though? The game never really demonstrates what that sort of thing means. Or explains *why* that should matter. Surely a quick kill is a quick kill.
..... the Stylish Action genre is about being stylish and not just defeating your enemies. It goes a step further than that. You're meant to learn how to make full use of your abilities and string them together. The entire scoring and grading system is designed to push you toward that intended ideal playstyle. If you feel the urge to just spam Punch-Kick-Punch to get battles over with, the genre is not for you.
And as for the "why", the game's purpose is very "game-y", but even within the story it makes sense. The player characters (Dante, Bayo etc.) are typically extremely powerful and make it a point to toy with their enemies, to look cool for their own satisfaction. They're not soldiers, they're not stealth operatives, they command near-godly powers and they know it.
That's all very well, but if the game is always vague as hell about what you should use and what counts, then it's just a lesson in frustration and will be utterly opaque to most players. I'm not saying I want the game to be just spamming moves for speed, I want to have a combat system where there's a reason to have all of these different moves to evade attacks, counter certain moves and generally deal with different threats. I found Platinum did a much better job of this, and scoring as a result, in Metal Gear Rising. It had a much more compressed moveset, but still had a lot of style and it was clear when you went into blade mode what the goal was, as well as the extra BP for dismembering properly.
Kinda surprised that you didn't talk about games that want you to beat them in the shortest amount of time, seeing as how the concepts are similar, the time duration just acts as a different scoring mechanism.
Mirror’s Edge with all the timed side quests some of which you should put off til you have mid game gear
risk of rain, both parts
more of difficulty grows with time but still
I never really understood the point of the score system in Mega Man, it never saved or anything (I don't think).
Smash Hit for Android and iOS was _so_ fun, and the scores kinda mattered cos you got more balls and it made things easier later on in the hard stages.
How is this comment 10 hours old but the video is 1 minute old
Patreon
niu oh
niu cool
SMB3 still has score, Even Mario World had score, Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island is the first game in that series that took the concept of score and started to alter it
The crazy part of the MGSV points system for me was that you can get a massive bonus for leaving no traces behind. No witnesses, no cartridges, not a change to the area of operations other than your main objective.
An issue with online high scores is the tremendous potential for abuse. Regularly seen games that feature this sort of thing just absolutely filled with players that have obviously cheated / hacked their way to the top. Personal bests are a much better metric than comparing against those who exploit the system or are inhumanly skilled.
Like races in Gta online people finish those in seconds even tho it should take at least 5 minutes at full speed
I love how Overwatch basically lampshades this lol
Bummed you didn't talk about infinite runners.
Those games are built on the high score model of arcades, and saw popularity in modern smartphones.
Also, I can see music/rhythm games fitting into this discussion as well.
Hemang Chauhan The Hitman franchise also emphasises high scores and gameplay variation by giving the player a score (the cash for upgrades) and a title (for fluff)
no one cares about mobile
those aren't good games.
Infinite runners are designed around an extremely manipulative core. Due to the general lack of skill involved there's very little player improvement, so they present the illusion of skill by varying how far into the game they present the "kill" obstacle. A kill obstacle is an obstacle that's intentionally generated to be impossible to pass with your current position in the screen. It's carefully crafted to look dodgable, but it's not. They then vary the placement of this obstacle in a way that resembles natural skill progression (and of course plateaus out at intervals that on-staff psychologists deemed is optimal for extracting as much money as possible from paid boosts), but is completely artificial. It's a clever trick, I'll give it that, but it's not good-faith game design.
Canabalt, on the other hand, is an interesting example of scoring gone wrong. The way the game is intended to be played is presumably avoiding obstacles to go faster and faster, but the optimal way to play for score is to hit as many obstacles as you can to slow yourself down as the distances between buildings scale to your current speed, and the game is easier if you're slower.
Hemang Chauhan I agree with you that there are some mobile games that also deserves a spotlight in the world of gaming. For one the rhythm games of Rayark are absolutely amazing, especially their newly released rhythm game, Cytus 2.
8:00 This mechanic has actually been around for a very long time; DonPachi was the first game to use it.
4:50 as soon as that music kicked in I knew what game. Had a grin on my face, so hearing THPS music makes me nostalgic.
Assault Android Cactus sounds super cool, I really like seeing games change up mechanics like that, even if it's only a minor tweak with big effects.
Vespula is one of the best bosses I've ever played in my life. Would def recommend. Go for S (or just no-deaths) score in all levels and the game is just magicall
That's basically what they were going for, they disliked how in other games, running low on lives made you play more cautiously and boringly. They wanted you to play *more* aggressively to play the game the fun way.
It's pretty damn hard, be warned.
Watched a guy play it in early beta and bought it immediately. Best pre order i ever did
Its brilliantly fun, especially in co-op. Its pretty damn hard though, but that adds to the replay value.
There's a difference between rank and score though, or at least for me. When i play a character action game, i don't care about how many points i get or if i get a higher score than anyone else, but i want that S rank. Also, i pretty much ignore arcade style games that are all about leaderboards, because of that.
That's why i think scores and rankings are not really the same thing.
10:50 I'm gonna stop ya right there on Opus magnum, it's not just the components the center takes up, it's every tile that is occupied at any given time, so the space those arms cover is also included in the area
Great video! My favorite part about this is it inspired me to make a connection to TTRPGs; as EXP is just a score system utilized differently. And exploring how experience rewarded encourages how your players interact with your game is something I will be thinking about for awhile. Thank you!
Bad ranks at the end of game sections don't bother me because I think I should've done better. They bother me because they _imply that I played the game wrong._ That's why I never played a _Mega Man Zero_ game beyond the first one. Between the ranking system and Cyber Elf system (the latter of which having the in-game explanation that you were killing innocent living creatures to power-up), that game made me feel crappy all the way through, whether I struggled with a level or not.
That game really soured me on games with rankings. To this day I'm still too intimidated to give the DMC or Bayonetta series a go, despite owning entries in each. I did play _The Wonderful 101,_ but thankfully that game's atmosphere helped me forget about rankings.
To be fair, MMZ is suppose to be replayed after you're familiar with the level layout. Gotta Walk before you run.
Samir Malik showing up to say you were playing a game wrong...
Ok i have a question, arent games the enbodiment of "You should play how we (devs) say"?
No matter how many options you have, you cant go outside the boundries of the game, meaning you have to play as the game says. Scores are just the less punishing way of saying that.
So what i am getting from the comment is that you felt bad that someone pointed out that in an obvious fashion.
Also, and i am noticing this patern, people are very scared of challenge or more to the point when someone says anything middly discouraging, if that is the case you should not play games that challenge your mastery in obvious ways, but games that are silent about it. In that way your selfsteem and self worth are not wounded. Basically you should stay of games that tell you the truth bluntly and play games that "lie" to you about it.
This has become one of my favorite channels in all of youtube. I love high quality content like this.
Assault Android Cactus is such a superb game. I own, like 3 copies of it now. If I had an Xbox One I'd buy a 4th. It's honestly the pinnacle of twin stick shooters and you can feel the love and influences the dev team put into it. Was only made by 3 guys too which still boggles my mind grapes. I've been singing its praises for so long. it deserves a nice big boost in interest and sales. Thanks for covering it cos, man, next to no big UA-camrs really have.
SeaJay Really? That's pretty awesome. Don't think anyone's ever told me they saw one of my recommends vids, other than people I know. Thanks dude.
After looking into AAC, I have decided that I Want It.
In the meantime, I myself recommend the Bangai-O series.
Great video as always, Mark. One thing I wanted to note (although I'm sure this was done intentionally for ease of visualisation): the "surface area" of your machine in Opus Magnum (3:04) isn't just the silhouette of the components when the machine is "off", but also the space that they travel through when it is working. So, for example, that long "groove" that the piston arm travels through near the bottom of your machine would be counted against you.
That Android Assault Cactus design is genius!
Slay the Spire has made me think about the way I'm playing due the the scoring system, too. You unlock special score achievements for playing in a special way, even if you didn't realize it. For example, if you visit a lot of '?' rooms in your run, you'll be rewarded with bonus points for reaching that threshold. When I discovered the game was looking for and would acknowledge specific behaviors, I started playing in sub-optimal ways to see what else the game might be looking for or encouraging players to try.
Maybe another approach for Opus Magnum, instead of giving mandatory requirements as you say, they could be optional challenges. So you can still complete the game, go to another level, but there's a marking for "all challenges completed in this level". There could be multiple challenges for replayability and different approaches (less cycles, less resources, less surface) and still used the scoring system that it already uses, but with that layer on top that pushes the players that need that push. Maybe seeing the challenges would diminish the creativity of other type of players though, so I guess it's something to weigh when designing.
This is definitely one of my favorite videos you've done. Really made me take a step back and think about ways to integrate different difficulty settings within gameplay. Thanks for your hard work!
Also gave me a few new games to try and one to revisit!
Tadpole Treble does something cool with its scoring system. Not only are there rewards for getting S ranks, but there are also rewards for getting F ranks, or deliberately keeping your score down by playing just good enough to not die.
More Tony Hawk analysis please.
Yes, whole video please
You might be interested in Errant Signal's video on Tony Hawk, where he talks about how the gameplay mechanics and level design have significantly evolved over time
Anything with Assault Android Cactus in the thumbnail is an instant click from me. That game is incredible.
Yeah, same; probably the best twin stick I've ever played, it was so good.
And it also worked surprisingly well if you unlocked the first person view...
All of these videos are like mini dissertations that you communicate fantastically. Thanks for these.
A game I really love has a cool scoring system. It's called Copy Kitty. You can copy powers from enemies, hold up to 3, and combine them into a super shot!
The score system can mostly be ignored, but there's an endless mode. There's a standard combo meter... but the twist is that you get a higher multiplier *the more different weapons you've used in your current combo.* So not only are you encouraged to kill lots of enemies without dropping your combo, if you want the highest scores you need to also switch weapons as often as possible instead of just finding a single weapon combination you like and sticking with it forever. It encourages the player to play in the flashiest way possible if they're going for high scores... the game is extremely flashy!
Besides being a niche interest for completionists and leaderboard hunters, I think points could easily be replaced with badges or achievements, because that's their main function in modern games. Letter grades push you to try new things and generally create the same effect you explored in your hitman topic: replaying a level until you can perfectly clear it in the most interesting way possible, by giving you mentally the feeling of failure regardless of whether or not you passed. I feel badges and achievements encourage interesting and fun playstyles much more effectively than points can, even in games where points are the main focus.
The thing is: badges and achievements are finite, you get them and that's it; whereas points push infinite replayability, since there's pretty much no limit to how many you can get. It's kinda like speedrunning, in a way: you could always find a way to get a better score, but never a way to get more than 100% of achievements.
@@quadpad_music Took the words right out of my mouth!
I'd have mentioned The Wonderful 101 and musou games on this video.
W101 is another platinum game with a lot of similarities to bayonetta, but it's scoring system is balanced a bit differently; while bayonetta will give first-timers a string of really bad grades and only start giving encouraging grades to players who already understand how to chase grades, W101 calculates it's score in a way that, as long as you're somewhat competent, you'll be getting mid-to-high ranks most of the time, even if platinum ranks will still only be on reach of expert players, since bullheaded approaches to combat will typically result in a composite score of two very good results and one bad result, being calculated in a gold or silver.
As for musou; the "win" conditions for it's maps are quite generous; you have plenty of time and can take a lot of damage. getting high ranks, however, is relatively simple, but requires you to play a certain way; efficiently. kill a certain amount of enemies, within a somewhat strict time limit, without going past a treshold of damage.
Not that this in itself is anything special, but not only is the "correct way to play" easy to grasp and start applying, the musou games give you immediate, tangible rewards for getting S ranks, such as new weapon or character skin unlocks, turning those S ranks into more of a gateway into playing the game as intended rather than presenting an actual challenge.
I like arcade style shmups a lot and while I don't strictly do score runs eventually I did start playing with trying to get as high a score as possible, be this through forgoing safe play in order to get point items, reducing starting lives to not get hit with a negative multiplier or whatever else.
What's neat about that genre in particular (though it is something other games do too, recently Bloodstained comes to mind) is that they often tie your score either directly to your extra lives, giving you one every X points or indirectly by nudging you into basically playing in a way that gives you a higher score to get bonus resources in some way.
Devs do have to be very careful when making scoring systems to not incentivize unfun and tedious play. For example, the way scoring works in Spelunky is interesting in theory, but absolutely ruined by one minor thing that's irrelevant to casual play: the fact that the ghost turns gold into much higher-scoring gems. This means the optimal way to play is on each stage, clear out all the enemies, making sure to avoid gold, and wait for the ghost. Slowly and tediously manipulate the ghost to cover every bit of gold on the level and basically strip-mine the entire level, then proceed to the next level and repeat. A score run ends up being about 5% gameplay as intended and 95% ghost bullshit, so this seemingly small design decision completely ruins the game at a high level.
The solution, of course, is to get rid of that and have time bonuses instead, making it so you have to balance clearing levels quickly to maximize your time bonus and getting as much gold on top of that as possible. It creates much more interesting decisions (should I spend gold on this jetpack in hopes that it pays for itself in time bonuses, or should I leave it?) and keeps the game moving at a brisk pace.
THANK YOU for making this. I love good scoring systems, so this video was a treat.
One thing you failed to mention is the importance of making the system learnable. Space Invaders Extreme 2 is a great scoring game, but there's no in-game explanation of the scoring at all, so you can't really play it for score until you read the manual and figure out how many points enemies and bonuses are worth, etc.
When I played through Astral Chain, I noticed an interesting feature in its scoring system -- pretty standard for a Platinum title, but if you set the difficulty mode to "casual" (which additionally unlocks a variety of assist options) then while the game will report your stats after each particular sequence, it _won't actually grade them._
I think an understandable omission from the video are time trials, and by extension speedruns. They're functionally no different to a score, and many games include an element of them in their scoring system, but they can encourage players to play in certain ways, just as more complex scoring systems can. A great example is with Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, where the best times for a given level feature jumps and tricks that a casual player would never attempt while just trying to beat said level.
Unless it's one of those endless arcade games like Pac-Man, the only game I can really think of that benefits from having a score mechanic is Devil May Cry.
Guess you've never played the Tony Hawk games....
I actually don't agree that DMC needs a scoring system. The whole idea of trying to objectively compute your "style" doesn't make any sense. It's all a subjective reaction to others watching you play.
Came back here after learning about P-ranks in Pizza Tower. It's a ridiculously amazing example of how scoring can trick players into playing levels in the most fun way possible.
Depends how those score system are implemented. Devil May Cry for example would be nothing without it's scoring/style system, especially Devil May Cry 3.
Marius Urucu I wouldn't say "nothing" but there is something so damn satisfying about seeing "super stylish" pop up mid combo. What I love is the scoring you get for your combos is being ranked mid combat and you can see the affect of your attacks in real time so when you repeat yourself, the combo counter falls faster than you can maintain it which encourages players to change weapons and mix combos often for the best score creating a more dynamic experience for hardcore players and an ultimately more fun one as you experiment with different weapon set ups.
Would it? I don't know, I played those games, suck at them, so never cared for the scoring. But I like the stories.
Raymond V.M. Have you noticed how many gamers prefer the "dominant strategy? Well, Devil May Cry says "Fuck that" and that's thanks to its style system. Yes, some people might not care for it, but that scoring system, especially in Devil May Cry 3, is as iconic as Dante himself IMO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the game give you more red orbs after a fight based on how well you rank? So that is another reason to use more difficult combos and try out different things in every fight.
You're absolutely correct; Red Orb payout increases with your rank. This is largely true in any Capcom/Clover/Platinum game that has both a currency system and a ranking system.
I feel like racing games that focus on time trials/setting the fastest time fit into this as well. For example, in Trackmania, you can get a bronze, silver, or gold medal, and the gold medal is pretty easy on the early tracks. But there's a fourth green medal, the author's medal, where you're literally racing against the developer's time. It's a hidden medal, so players who don't know about it won't feel discouraged, but it encourages you to play every track to perfection to get to the top of the total medal leaderboard. (And this leaderboard is split into local region, country, and world - it's pretty neat to see you're ranked 10th in the region even though that means 1000th in the world.)
I used to think I wouldn’t care about scoring systems but I found it just really depends on execution and certain games do it well for me
Personally I haven’t played a game that shows score averages opposed to just a leaderboard but I love the idea
Man you are incredible at making videos, I always feel like im on some sort of trip every time i watch your content, bouncing from topic to topic. Love your stuff man!
Wow, the scoring system for Opus Magnum is exactly how my computer architecture class graded students on their microprocessor building project. fascinating
I sincerely love these! Thank you for all the time and work you put into such videos!
That Opus Magnum looks like the kind of game I could sink hundreds of hours into.
I have a love-hate relationship with scoring systems in Point and Click adventure games. On the one hand they reward you when you go out of your way to try silly stuff and find interesting things, but on the other hand it sucks when you noticed you've missed something but don't know if it's something really cool like extra clues or dialog or just something stupid like putting something in a fire.
Wild coincidence--I just redownloaded Assault Android Cactus today.
Most impactfull for me is the feeling i get from a histogram being very different from my reaction to a normal leaderboard. Being one bar less efficient then average gets me motivated to try and make a better machine, seeing i'm ranked thousands away from the top doesn't make me feel or do anything.
Una de las funciones típicas que tenía el sistema de puntuación en los juegos de arcade era que al llegar a cierta cantidad de puntos, el jugador recibía una vida extra, en algunos existía la posibilidad de usar trucos para conseguir puntos infinitos, es decir, vidas infinitas.
It's interesting to compare high scores with speedruns. As you mentioned, the typical game changed from an endless challenge to a finite story, most dropping scores in the process. In this environment, speedrunning filled the gap for people who wanted a replayable singleplayer challenge. It works with nearly any non-endless singleplayer game, even if the developers didn't build in any support.
I’m glad Thumper got a shout out on this video. I’d love a full video on it alone
4:51
Was thinking thegamingbritshow was going to come crashing in.
That was a good exposition, but I'm also a little bit sad on how little has been done with the concept of scoring. Like, I'm not sure what that would be, but you could probably pivot a narrative around scoring in a very interesting way.
I agree; that would be cool: let’s brainstorm!...
A certain level of high scores to get the best ending? The actual difficulty of a combat game increases or decreases based on the score? You’re assigned to different leagues in multiplayer shooters based on single-player combat as well?
All good ideas! Now make it so! :)
Undertale already did that.
@@CurtisJensenGames >A certain level of high score to get the best ending?
DoDonPachi SaiDaiOuJou, pretty much any game with a 1 Credit Clear requirement for the True Last Boss.
>The actual difficulty increases or decreases based on your score?
Psikyo games, pretty much any old shmup with adaptive difficulty.
People ought to play more shmups in general, they have much better game design than most think.
love that you cover such a variety of games on here with equal respect and attention and bring attention to lesser-known titles.
Online leaderboards rarely motivate me in the same way arcade high scores do. When you enter your initials at the local arcade, that's an intimate prize- a reward for being the best among your peers, which is an awesome feeling. Online leaderboards pit you against complete strangers who are way better than you could ever hope to be (or in some cases, blatant cheaters.)
I really look forward a video about the strategy genre. Maybe an RTS o a 4X. It's a shame that they have such a huge fandom but are often ignored around for having so different mechanics.
Anyway, awesome video, as always!
Please everybody play Tormentor X Punisher, is an arcade videogame so well designed and ridiculously simple that I can't stop recomending it. It's from the sound designer from Nuclear Throne.
A game I want to mention here is Nocturne: Rebirth's style of "scoring".
It's a jrpg, but exp does not level you up until you "spend" it learning or powering up the various skills and passives. This is important because each boss of the dungeons have a certain Brave Clear requirement, where you get additional rewards for beating them at or under a certain level. This level is made known to you from the very start of the dungeon so you know when you'd overshoot, and it actively discourages grinding your way to victory.
Yeah I've found my self missing scores a bit lately. I think they're also good for roguelikes where you're not expected to win the majority of games. There's also a type of score you forgot; daily leader boards...as long as they're not full of cheaters which happens a lot.
I disagree on MGSV's score helping it though. It really clashes with a game that preaches about open ended gameplay. The only thing that matters is that you do a mission as fast as possible, and you'll get the S Rank. That really locks you into maybe two play styles at most.
I agree that MGS V’s scoring system is pretty poorly implemented. The factors that count towards score aren’t very well balanced. Like, one of the easiest S ranks in the game is also supposed to be one of the hardest missions: Infiltrating a heavily guarded enemy fortress. But you can drive straight through it in a jeep for an S rank. The bonuses for ghosting a mission (nonlethally) are usually so large that they alone guarantee an S. But you get points for every enemy killed, so if you lose the undetected and non-lethal bonuses, you can still earn an S by scoring lots and lots of headshots. An S rank in an MGS game for killing lots of people... WTF?
Indeed. I hate being judged for something I was free to do.
Great video :) I found out some of this first hand when I was implimentation highscores in Phase Drift. First time players where noticing the scoring system, but we're more focused on surviving. People who played for longer had highscores as a major motivation to get better. The highscores fit really well too, since Phase Drift is an arcade style game they felt natural. It could keep the competitive aspect because of online leaderboards
I had just finished S Ranking all of the Play+ levels on Thumper, and I thought I might have been wasting my time, given that it's been over a year since there were still people playing the game. Days later, this video uses Thumper as an example of using score systems, and now I feel motivated to keep playing. Thanks, Mark!
2:31 Opus Magnum has a near-idenitcal scoring system as Infinifactory. it also looks like a similar game, albeit on a 2d plain.
think I'll be picking this game up! loved Infinifactory!
mwalsher I'll be checking these out then as well! thanks!
I just realized that both these games are by the same people! guess that explains that! ha ha
Same developer as well.
I think Mark should check out Vampyr and talk about the importance of good actor performance, and why so many games struggle to get a good flow of conversation and a good delivery of dialogue. I really makes or breaks a game in some instances.
Trackmania has bronze, silver and gold medals on each track amd are relatively easy to acquire (although gold is harder, its still something achievable yo new players) but they hide a special green authors medal for the veterans and have the regional, national, continental leaderboards for the persistent, and a global lraderboard gor the gifted
I liked how assassin's creed brotherhood implemented the extra optional objectives in the main missions. While it's not required to do the optional objectives, doing so unlocks secret memories of Ezio's life in back in Venice.
I think you're addicted to the word ''cheeky'', mate
Internet Boy But we need cheeky uses of the word cheeky, right? :P
The first game that pop into my mind is Hitman with its scoring system. It is so rewarding yet so subtle. Some people can ignore it completely without affecting game progression. Yet, we always strive for perfection every time we play.
Personally I don't care about scores in games at all. They just don't motivate me to replay games. I'm more motivated by exploration, adventure, and discovery.
Scoring systems can be Good or Bad, so don't ignore them entirely. A good scoring system can let you appreciate gameplay on a deeper level.
I dunno what games you play, but I recommend Sin & Punishment 2. That game has a very good scoring system. And the basic game is fun, that's a plus.
Zerarch77 I'm actually actively unmotivated by scoring systems because I feel like the game is telling me that what should be a win state is really only a partial win. I don't see earning an S rank as a new challenge to overcome, I see it as a barrier to enjoyment.
It might just be a matter of perspective. I always view score as A) an optional extra challenge (yay!) or B) a non-optional challenge that just happens to be very hard (yay!).
Some games make you feel like you're at Work(endless grind, fetch) some games put you back in School.
The score/points/achievements system feels like having a grade school teacher standing over your shoulder.
Infinifactory does scores the same way Magnum Opus does and it kept me coming back to old levels to see if how I could save just a bit more time or electricity for my machine. It really made me think about what conveyers I really needed and watching the best players make contraptions to complete levels without barely any moving parts is just mesmerizing.
Could you speak about the Azure striker gunvolt series? That game's kudos system (wich is its score system) is making me aproach the game cautiously but at the same time with the more spectacular kills, in the other side we have Mighty gunvolt burst from the same devs in wich you need to finish the enemies in close combat
As much as I love playing Gunvolt, gv1 does have really boring levels unless you actually already care about score, and in general the Kudos system is overcomplicated and brutal, and yet the game lets you use luck-based equipment in runs.
It does do something interesting to try to push you towards scoring though: the crafting system is supposed to get you to grind stages to get helpful equipment, at which point why not try to do better to get more stuff? But not everyone falls for that like I did.
DoubleATam the stage I grind the most is first tsumeragi
Speedrunning definitely helps keep a lot of that feeling alive even in games that don't really have or can't really have a scoring system.
I think MGS 5 is a perfect example where the scoring system is harming the experience by encouraging you to always have the same playstyle instead of adapting to the situation.
And since scoring is supposed to replace difficulty setting (that was present in Ground Zero), the game is too easy if you don't care about it.
Scoring is definitely not for everyone, and not for every game.
For example, could you imagine Dark Souls with a scoring system ?
I agree it's problematic in MGSV. Snake is way too tanky.
For me, the thing that hinders player freedom the most in MGSV is motherbase. Because it forces the player to fulton enemies constantly.
He actually explained it kinda poorly in this video, you can totally get S ranks on missions using most play styles. The score mostly depends on time, so if you charge in super fast and get it done quickly, the score bonuses you lost from getting spotted, etc are made up for by your massive time score.
The problem about mgs is that it isnt a stealth game but reward your for playing in a strange stealthy way, which is a broken mess from mgs3 onward
I’m also a huge fan of Hotline Miami’s scoring system (particularly the 2nd, I know it better). The mad dash for combos really changes the whole way the levels work, because at its heart Hotline is just a puzzle game with guns and reflexes.
I'm glad to see a great game such as Assault Android Cactus get it's due. I've known about it for a while, and it's so undervalued as a game. Love it!
+Mark Brown so many UA-cam channels go down in quality with time. I'm glad your bar is still set pretty high!
While you did touch on Thumper, I'd like to expand upon it by saying that there are other rhythm games with online leaderboards to compare your scores to other people such as Lunatic Rave 2, so in addition to it helping in some games and not being useful in some other, it is still relevant in the rhythm game genre.
The chain system reminds me a lot of Resident Evil's Mercenaries mode where chains as well as getting melee kills are important for getting the highest possible scores, which is an interesting way to approach the concept of high scores because it uses the same mechanics as the normal games but puts it in a separate, score-based mode.
Video from Ahoy and Mark Brown in the same day? Nice.
Glampkoo First!!!
My favorite game of late which uses a scoring system is Graceful Explosion Machine.
It also uses a chaining mechanic which encourages the frantic on the edge style of play which the devs were going for. And it is reinforced by the mechanics, as you are encouraged to charge through enemy lines to collect the power which fuels your special weapons, which you are encouraged to use because your basic weapon overheats after a few seconds and because the middle of enemy lines is a great place to use them. Getting a S+ rank is very rewarding because in earning it you really feel like a "graceful explosion machine" having used your arsenal to its fullest potential.
I love Assault Android Cactus and I had no idea about the S+ thing.
...guess I didn't love it enough to get there.
Different kind of love. Sometimes full completion isn't worth it.
That mechanic from AAC oddly relates to the new Ahoy chicken life bar video!
I would love to see your insight on the topic of RTS games somehow. It feels like the genre is basically dead with some indie exceptions...
sad times for us RTS fans (as casual as i might be). MOBAs took large part of population, and short attention spans ruined us.
RTS just got turned into "mobas" even tho i hate that term their technically RTS with some mechanics smoothed out
MOBAs are like online hack and slash games, they are very far from what RTS represents. The only connections I can draw are that they came into existance through Warcraft 3 mod. Where in MOBA do you build structures, manage resource, command large amount of units? Just look at games such as Supreme Commander or Age of Empires, MOBAs are nothing like that.
There was a long period where it felt like many RTS devs were trying to switch to 3D, but most of those were more interested in showing off their unit models than being interesting.
Adam S. If you’ve played Total Annihilation’s commander mode you’d see where some of the beginnings of mobas came from
One of the things that makes opus magnum really great for me is that you're usually chuffed when you complete a stage, even if your machine isn't optimal. One of the reasons might be because you see this crazy machine you've spent time building and thinking about finally work. Seeing the score just makes you think about more possibilities on how you can improve upon what you made. You might bot even care about the score, but a couple levels later you get an a-ha moment where you suddenly understand how to do vetter at an previous stage.
Player driven scores is quite brilliant in a way, since the developer don't really have to think much about the scoring system. The players do all the work.
Yes, but it really depends on what kind of game and how the system is implemented
Like, DMC is really gewd and I love the scoring system, but DMC4 is a bit too easy, I prefer DMC3 tho there is a room for improvement
I feel you should've mentioned the upgrade heavy games. Roguelikes and upgrade based ones where you're trying to launch yourself further every run. They're all about improving your score, but most of them do feature an ultimate goal admittedly.
I generally find myself completely turn off by any scoring system that doesn't somewhat fit into the context of the game or immediately adds to the gameplay. Being ranked better and paid better for a hit in which your presence went completely unnoticed in Hitman ? Sure. It makes sense that your reputation matters and that your contracts would be closely observed, it's basically your portfolio as an assassin. So I like it, it's rewarding.
Being ranked in Devil May Cry ? ... Why ? By who ? It merely seem like a completely arbitrary rating system that only exists to justify the depth of the combat system (that you don't need to indulge into to finish the game). So reaching the rating screen and being rated feels completely out of place and I don't like it at all. I'd legitimately enjoy the game more if it didn't feel like it was so obviously observing me like a professor going down the aisle during a school test.
In that regard, the DmC reboot was much more enjoyable for me, while you were still being graded at the end and that sucked, at least the moment to moment gameplay made the grading system feel more fun thanks to these "savage ! Sensational !" scream which punctuated the action so well that it made the game more fun (even if it still doesn't make any sense context-wise). Unreal Tournament still does it better tho, scoring some special kills triggered the announcer to shout your exploit out loud and that's just satisfying to hear, more fitting to the setting as well. It really makes the action come alive.
And on the other hand you had Metal Gear Rising with its infuriating impassable barrier until the game graded your combat prowess in the most monotone way possible before letting you move on. Reeeeeal glad that one had a scoring system, running frustrated against an artificial barrier added much to the game...
Those barriers are loading screens.
Peggle and Peggle Nights. They may look simple, but those games have a VERY high skill curve. There is a maximum score you can get in each level, but it's nearly impossible to reach and there are so many different trickshot score bonuses.
I love these videos and I've also just gotta say your voice is super soothing and relaxing
Hotline miami does the ranking system really well in my opinion
Agreed. I believe it's the only game where I actually tried to get the best rank on each level. It gave the game a lot more staying power as a result, which I'm all for considering how much I enjoyed the game off the bat.
reNINTENDO Yeah! After beating the second game, the first game didn’t seem as hard to simply beat, but getting all the a+ ranks has given it staying power like you said, to still be fun and challenging
I disagree, too much of the scoring system was opaque and only hinted at after beating a level. It needed to be streamlined a lot more.
Mantafirefly Yeah, what each of the score categories mean isn’t specified in game, but if you look it up, you can see that you can pretty consistently get high ranks if you either constantly execute enemies for high points, or keep moving for the wgole stage in one massive combo
Assault Android Cactus actually cleverly combines a subtle competitive aspect to its scoring as well. In multiplayer, whoever gets the best INDIVIDUAL score is the android that gets to close out the stage proudly stating "I"m the best!". After only two stages, my friends and I quickly devolved in madmen trying to frantically take out opponents as efficiently as possible, quickly learning tactics about prioritizing enemies and clearing large waves as soon as possible all because we each wanted that sweet winning victory line. It's a small factor that changes almost nothing about the game and doesn't even show up in single-player, but it's a nice motivator for mastering the game's mechanics quickly if you play with friends.
Doom 2016's arcade mode breathed new life into the main singleplayer game purely due to a fun scoring system.
True, though getting Slayer on Nightmare is a complete pain as glory killing an enemy locks you in position for a fraction of a second after the animation finishes and leaves you vulnerable to being hit. If the invulnerability lasted a hair longer it would shift the difficultly away from chance and towards player skill.
(As someone who's beaten the campaign on Ultra Nightmare and has a slayer rank on every level in arcade mode) Stop doing glory kills lmao. They aren't safe to do.
You mean "Equip savagery rune". I've done slayer on ultra nightmare across the board too. Medals generally aren't as important as just keeping up the multiplier and then milking the everloving balls out of the powerups using the BFG.
Glory Kills isn't the most optimal way to get high scores, at least in my experience, also like you said, it's pretty risky.
I got pretty high places last time I played I was in top 10 on PC for first 3-4 levels I think
The most efficient way to get alot of points from killing an enemy is to get multiple medals, so you want to something like stun with Plasma Rifle and do a Headshot kill by using Triple Shot from the Shotgun, so you get Headshot, Triple Hit and Stunned medals by killing just one enemy, if you can keep medal streak going for a long time, you get alot of points. At least this is the strat I found and used. There is also things like using Chainsaw or damaging the enemy without actually killing it to get max multiplier really fast and keep it up as much as possible and other fancy tricks.
And it requires quite a bit of skill, you have to plan on how you gonna kill your enemies, in which succession you gonna do it, how to get around the level fast enough to keep the multiplier and medal streak up.
I usually hate games or game modes with score systems, because there is very often a lot of RNG involved that always ruins perfect run, but in my experience DOOM 2016 arcade mode was almost purely skill based, because even enemy placement spawns and their movement are very scripted or very easily exploited, so it's pretty much all about player's skill in the end.
Get armoured offense, so enemies drop armour shards, then glory kill them. The dropped shards add to your multiplier and max it out much more quickly.
Been binge watching old GMTK videos and came across this one.
Reminded me of the original PS1 Tenchu Stealth Assassins game, that had a neat feature to the scoring system.
Since you had two styles of play: killing, or not killing, other than the mandatory target(s).
To prevent the scoring of stealth kills from hurting you, you could get a "never spotted once" bonus that let you have just enough points to Grand Master a level without needing to kill anyone.
Ghosting a level, like you were never there.
This was often much harder than normal as well, since you weren't eliminating possible vectors of detection throughout the map.
It also left an amazing feeling in a roleplay sense, in that you could feel like a vengeful shadow, killing only the deserving. Would be a cool concept to combine with a Dishonored style of "deaths influence later missions", too.
So the question I have is "Why would I want S+ rank in Assault Android Cactus?" I do certain things in games that are completely unnecessary (hunting down every unidentified location in Witcher 3, for instance, or grinding out max job levels for all characters in a Dragon Quest game). But if I have to play "perfectly," within a certain margin for error, just to get a certain rank and no particular benefit, what's my motivation?
I remember going through a lot of the various time trial challenges in Diddy Kong Racing because it unlocked a new character that was just slightly overpowered. Getting gold medals in Blast Corps opened up some post-game levels. Those are motivation, but in my current old age, I'm firmly on the side of accessibility in games. I shouldn't need to devote unholy amounts of time to get the experience. Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 is actually a really good example of balancing that: you can unlock a bunch of various things by playing the game as intended, or you can punch in cheat codes. And maybe someone will feel guilty to use a cheat code to get all the decks, but plenty of people don't because it's a video game and the purpose is to have fun.
If you have fun getting a high score, that's great. Online leaderboards or maybe a bonus post-credits cutscene (that is plot irrelevant!) are great for people who like them. On the other hand, though, I hate playing a game where I'm told that I'm rank 11,000,000,000. Maybe there should be an option to turn scoring off, that way you're not feeling constantly shamed for getting B ranks in Bayonetta? The online leaderboards in Super Mario Odyssey are also a good example of why they're a problem: someone finds a glitch, completely breaks the leaderboard, and what's the fun of even trying now?
This is honestly a matter of "developer intention" vs. "player enjoyment/desire." I feel what you're arguing is akin to the "Dark Souls should have an easy mode" debacle. Both sides of the coin have their good points. On one hand, you're discouraging people who may not have the time/skill/patience to put into the game while on the other the developers designed the game that way to be something that feels like an accomplishment to surmount.
Scoring systems can be looked at in a similar way. I adore the Bayonetta games, and the scoring system helped to push me to really master timing my dodging and always being aware of when and where enemies are attacking. It's the way Platinum designed the game to be played, getting so good at dodging and twirling around your enemies while kicking their asses with giant fists made out of hair that you never once get hit. Of course, one could argue disabling the scoring system to make it more enjoyable for those people who can't get that skilled at the game for one reason or another, but in a similar vein you could also argue that by including the option to disable it, you lose that desire and drive to push yourself to get better. Even if the scoring system is still there if you disable it at the start or before you've had the time to adjust to the feel of the game, how likely would you be to enable it again just so you can push yourself to nab that pure platinum trophy? Or the satisfaction of watching those bronzes and silvers turning into golds and platinums as your skill naturally improves? Getting a stone trophy the first time I picked up the game felt shitty, but ending it with golds was fantastic. If I could've disabled the scoring system at the beginning, I wouldn't have seen how I've progressed with my skill. Sometimes it's just that satisfaction of being able to accomplish what they once thought was impossible that drives people to get that S+ rank or that pure platinum trophy, something they wouldn't feel if they got discouraged at the start and disabled the scoring system cause they didn't think they were good enough.
All in all, both sides have fair arguments. Having games be more fun for more people by giving more options is a great thing, but also by limiting those options and encouraging the playstyle you feel best suits the game, you can push those persistent enough to get through it to improve themselves and give a real sense of accomplishment at the end of the game.
The question I have, though, is why do I want to get better at Bayonetta (or any other game, not just picking on Platinum here)? A scoring system is a great way to improve, at least inasmuch as one improves according to the devs' intentions, but what if I'm not here to improve but just to enjoy myself?
It's like speedrunning. Some people really get a kick out of playing a game over and over and over again to the point that they know every trick and glitch and shortcut that they can beat Megaman 2 in 15 minutes. I'm personally not worried about that. I'm not sure I've ever been worried about that. I suppose I must've been when I was a teenager 'cause I did unlock T.T. in Diddy Kong Racing, but now I'm in my 30s and have that whole "full-time job" problem and I don't find it enjoyable to have a game point and laugh because I button-mashed my way through. I recently played Tales of Berseria and after something like 80 hours of regular gameplay in which I kept amping up the difficulty and tweaking my battle styles, I finally decided to take on the final boss and realized, "I have no reason to beat this guy on Hard difficulty, especially because it's going to take a bunch of attempts and probably a couple hours." So I turned difficulty down to Baby's First Button Masher so that I could finally see the ending.
And, yes, actually, I'm exactly arguing that Dark Souls should have an easy mode. Dark Souls is kind of a low-hanging fruit on that particular argument, though, because it has almost no narrative to speak of, so cripplingly hard difficulty is a bit more justifiable. Not every game needs to be for every player, 'tis true, but if you, as a developer, craft a game with a narrative that you want people to see and enjoy, it behooves you to temper the difficulty. I've made all these same arguments about locking lore content behind raid bosses in MMOs, which is why WoW decided to make its cinematics accessible even if you've never entered the dungeon. And they made that decision almost a decade ago.
Because I paid money for a product. Does a movie demand that I pass a tightly tuned dexterity test before I'm "allowed" to see the climax and denouement?
Game developers complain about people going on UA-cam to watch Let's Plays and cinematic rips instead of buying their game. The whole "I don't have 100 hours to sink into perfecting your game for a 2 minute cutscene" thing goes right over their heads.
Lock irrelevant things behind skill tests and taxing grinds. Hearthstone, for instance, won't let you have a golden hero portrait until you've won a lot of games playing as that class (I think it's 500 ranked wins). That's completely valid.
If you're asking why there should be a reward at all, it's the fact of motivation. What's my motivation to S+ rank something if I get literally nothing for my trouble? Whenever I start a new game and I see that there's some ridiculous challenge, I immediately pull up a wiki or FAQ to see if the reward is worth my effort. Gwent in Witcher 3, for instance, is something I find tedious and unengaging. Thankfully, it also has no rewards that I care about, so I'm not pressured to play it, but if I choose to play it, the rewards are that I get a better Gwent deck.
Patrick Lewis
Ok, why should you get and s+ rank?
The fact that is completely optional make the whole argument moot. Enjoy the game as you want, since you do not care about scores, why bring up something that is completely optional? I mean in most of the examples you made, you COULD change the dificulty...so absurd.
Its contradictory, why do you feel bad about something you dont care, unlike your example of WoW, very few games actually lock anything behind a score now days (such a shame), since you dont care about scores, why do you care that you have a B grade in bayonetta? So its the fact that you are being told that you "suck" that bugs you? You want to be pampered or that the grade actually means somenthing, i.e locking content?
That seems to be against your argument.
And here is the even weirder part about your "argument" the game, that is difficult in your example, has no scoring system. And games like bayonetta care not about the grade, so even with a bad one you can still finish the game.
The "problem" that you are proposing is a bit strange. If the whole point of the game is to tell a story then its better, for you to read a book or watch a movie. Let me ask you this, what is a game? Not what YOU think it is, but what is a game?
It seems that you are mixing expectations and reality.
So in the end let me get this straight, its because you are "old" and have no time, that you go on and "rant" about how games should not judge your performance or challenge you. I know this may sound crazy but have you considered not playing said games but games that fit you current life style? a simple style with a lack of challenge.
eduardo diaz you literally asked my question and didn't answer it. Why should there be scores?