Support NeoGAF

[Rest]

I've found that any game made since 2000 that scores you for different things gives you more points for things that I don't care about doing, thus I have no incentive for worrying about the score. I'd like a game that gave be a bonus for killing all the enemies, since that's something that I challenge my self to do, not a game that punishes me because it doesn't like how I killed the ones I did, which is what games seem to score on.

That's one of the reasons I didn't finish any of the Devil May Cry games, I'd get a low grade at the end because they were grading on something I had no interest in doing. I shouldn't be getting a D because I enjoy taking my time, exploring the levels and killing all the enemies.

Bullet Storm was similar, it wanted to give you big bonuses for figuring out how the developers wanted you to use different guns, but if you went slow and shot all the limbs off a guy you'd get less and less points as you went on. If I remember correctly, getting points was how you unlocked stuff, so playing the way I wanted to meant I couldn't get the rewards in a timely fashion.

 

[Cipher Peon]

Go would be improved with a backstory and pretty game pieces? "Lower" expectations?
I'm going to assume all of the above is self-parody for the sake of conversation.

No self parody! I'm very sincere, especially when it comes to these conversations. No reason to be anything but sincere and understanding of different view points in these conversations from my experience

That's a fallacy, though. You say that you want all games made "to appeal to everyone", but that's at best a mistake and at worst a lie. Wanting all games to smile and hand out trophies to the most incompetent of players doesn't make them appeal to all players: it makes them appeal to players that don't want a challenge. In other words: you don't really want games to appeal to everyone: you want them to appeal to you, and you want to force everyone to like the games you like: watered down games that are only "for everyone" in the sense that Dora the Explorer is "rated E for Everyone".

Let's tackle your points down one by one.
Sure, I want games to appeal to me first and foremost. I am a human being and my life revolves around me, same as my taste. If I'm looking at it from the most closeminded selfish way possible, that makes sense.

However, what I described wasn't for me, even if you cynically believe it is. I've played and enjoyed many hardcore games that don't give a damn about whether or not they're accessible. Like Bloodborne, one of my favorite games of all time. However, that makes no difference to me when it comes to accessibility. Just because /I/ have a great time with it, doesn't mean that it can't do more to appeal to beginners. So yes, I'm describing what I want games to be, but not for myself, but for the greater purpose of sharing what I love with the people I care about. I am more amicable towards easier and accessible games because I understand how impenetrable this medium can be, and I strongly feel the need to fight to help those get on board with something I hold very dear to me.

Regarding the "lie" of appealing to everyone. I don't agree at all with that, naturally. As I stated, the best media can be enjoyed by players of all skill types, not those who are ultra beginners and not those who have mastered the art of the genre. One of the reasons why I adore Super Smash Bros over traditional fighting games is its accessible nature, yet it has a depth that allows players of all skill levels to enjoy. Chess is often described as "easy to learn, hard to master" and I think that's a great starting point for a game in terms of accessibility. Chess has its own problems, of course, but I think it's a great angle to approach what I think is best for games.

Regarding the handing out trophies, I never said such a thing. Granted, I think that's /a/ way to do it, but not quite the most elegant solution. I criticized Bayonetta and Wonderful 101, because they actively go out of their way to make you feel bad for playing poorly. Anyone who is playing poorly at the game knows it already. They don't need the game to comment "Hey, get good and we can stop making fun of you" because they already know that their skills aren't up to par. Additionally, given more depth and more difficulty options, players of higher difficulties can ignore the "trophies handed out to newbies", as you described. Again, not what I would do, but that's what you offered and I don't think it only appeals to the demographic you seem to want nothing to do with.

I also never said anything about watering down. I don't know where you're getting this. Being more accessible, giving more context towards content, and not actively berating a player for doing poorly doesn't sound like watering down to me. And again, in practice I give less of a damn about accessibility than when discussing it. Why? Because /I/ don't tend to need it. But that doesn't mean that I can't see that others might. Finally, I don't see how allowing others to enjoy themselves is "forcing down throats"

Pretty much every one of my favorite games (Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Spelunky, FTL, Platinum games) is made with hardcore gamers in mind and none of them are welcoming to newbie players, most of them notoriously so. This is not an accident, and yet many of them are hugely popular among hardcore gamers. Why? If your "for everyone" theory held any water, they would have to be the least popular games ever.

First things first, it's not a theory, it's a philosophy in regards to what I think makes for the best art. Transcends gaming and goes into movies, television, comics, etc. We can disagree when it comes to what makes good art, but I'm sure as hell not saying that there's only one way to do it or that it's the only way to be successful or popular (why would anyone ever say that, that's asinine). Besides, many "rules" are often broken in art to great effect.

In regards to your examples, I 1000% do believe that Bloodborne, the game I am most invested in in your list, has a long way to go in terms of accessibility. It is exactly not "welcoming to newbie players" and I think that's a significant problem. Not enough for me to not adore the game or think the game is extremely easy, but as someone who loves it and gives the controller off and seeing someone quit instantly, yeah it has work to do.

In regards to the Platinum Games, the three that I've played are significantly less forgiving and give less time to digest systems than Bloodborne ever did, which makes the games suffer significantly imo. Bayo 2 is the best out of the 3 I've played in regards to this aspect, but as mentioned before, I care so little about everything about Bayonetta and her adventures that even though TW101 is a giant accessibility disaster, it's my favorite of the three.

Haven't played Dark Souls, Spelunky, or FTL so can't comment on those.

You seem confident that this is such an easy task. Can you name examples of single player games that are as attractive to newcomers as to hardcore gamers?

First off, as a game dev heeeeeeeeeelllllllll no. There is no such thing as making a game an "easy task". The fact any game is made at all is a miracle.

However, to answer your question, my favorite example in gaming in terms of accessibility improving the franchise is Fire Emblem Awakening. Hardcore fans may have a problem with the simplicity in map/objective designs, art style, poor Lunatic balancing, and story, however the options that they included in the game as well as the tone allowed new players to feel right at home to Fire Emblem, one of the most impenetrable franchises around. Even with all of the problems I've listed, Awakening is an extraordinarily polished experience that has some of the best beats in the entire franchise. The jump from Fire Emblem New Mystery of the Emblem to Awakening is practically unbelievable, and hardcore fans, whether or not they prefer the new style, recognize that.

My favorite example, however, is Breaking Bad. While not a video game, there is plenty of things to learn from other mediums, which is why it's healthy consuming them. Let's not mince words, Breaking Bad is one of the greatest works of art in any artistic medium ever. Its writing, characterization, cinematography, symbolism, pacing, music, color theory, etc are all so brilliant that it's all the result of absolutely brilliant people who excelled at what they did. HOWEVER, you don't need to understand a single piece of anything that I just said to have a good time. Even at the most surface level, you can enjoy a story of two people cooking meth and getting themselves into shenanigans. However, the second you look deeper, there's an ocean of depth out there. It doesn't interfere with the story, it's not inaccessible, it doesn't make fun of you for not understanding, it's there if you look for it. You get out what you put in and anyone, regardless of cinematic literacy can enjoy it.

You are genuinely distraught by a piece of software awarding you a digital trophy? And you find this a normal reaction?

Nope! Considering I was so uninterested in Bayonetta and the majority of The Wonderful 101, having the games tell me I'm awful at them didn't necessarily do them any favors. "Why am I still playing?"

Beat them anyway, and I'm glad I did because for its massive faults, TW101 had a great ending.

Again, you are not everyone. Hardcore gamers don't appreciate the condescension and want to be told they suck when they suck. Denying that shows a very feeble grasp on what makes games engaging. There is a whole field of game theory deciding how punishing failures should be in a game. There is a reason why Dark Souls games are so popular, and even those pale in comparison with the also hugely popular roguelikes and permadeath.
There is no simple, universal answer to that question. Don't cheapen it by pretending you have one.

Of course I'm not everyone. I don't ever pretend to be everyone, I speak for myself and what I think makes for a best work of art.

However, I think it's very hypocritical to follow "you are not everyone" with "Hardcore gamers don't appreciate the condescension and want to be told they suck when they suck." I mean... even reading them outloud one right after the other is kind of amusing.

I consider myself very hardcore and I don't want games to tell me I suck. I have barely enough time to play games as it is, if I'm trying to have a good time I don't want to be insulted. But apparently you speak for the hardcore?

When it comes to your comment on condescension, I don't think I ever made a comment saying that I wanted to condescend people. I said that I wanted to "motivate people who are struggling". If someone who is hardcore finds that condescending then... I don't know what to tell you besides that there are other people in this medium that exist and that they should be conscious that they are not the only people playing video games.


I find it very amusing that you bring up roguelikes, which is a genre that has made accessibility more of a concern than ever before and has reaped the benefits. My favorite roguelike, The Binding of Isaac, has tangible progression systems that allow any progress, no matter how small, to move a player forward in their macro and micro goals, which helps dissuade the feeling of "losing everything" in a roguelike. Additionally, a Google search tells me that FTL does the same.

I love Extra Credits' video on this, which I am more than happy to share with you as I agree with practically all of it.

Again, I am not pretending that my philosophy is the only right one or that it's "the universal solution". I will stand by my philosophies on game design however, regardless of whether or not you believe that this "cheapens" anything.

You are grossly and disingenuously exaggerating what "huge deal" P* games make about getting lower ranks. I.e. they make none of it, you just get a goddamn trophy. Being offended by that is not having thin skin, it's having no skin whatsoever.

Perhaps I'm being disingenuous, however that doesn't change the fact that I've often spoken with people who feel discouraged by their inability to play those games well. Is it a big factor into that? Perhaps not the solely one, but it's one that I find egregious because of how absolutely unnecessary it is and how a single change can make a world's of difference (in DmC with the Dirty example). You're right, it's a very small thing to get caught up on, but it's so pointless and meanspirited and that's what gets to me.

Well, it being a non-entity is entirely my point. You are the one saying that instant appeal is more important than depth. And if Cypher Peon-2 wrote a post extolling the virtues of Snakes and Ladders versus Go, the least one would expect is some counterarguments (in fact I just had a mental image of Weltall Zero-2 using a videogame example to illustrate his point).

More important? I'm pretty sure I've emphasized that "the best games do both". Mostly because as someone who considers themselves hardcore, I can see the perspective of those who put their lives into these games. I can see why some might be dismayed by the decreased difficulties of these games. I care about having a good time myself, therefore I naturally want a game to cater to a hardcore player as myself.

But I know how it is to be new at something when it's impenetrable and fans are determined to keep it that way. I got into comics a few years ago and I knew the struggle of the mess it was to get into them. Now that I'm more invested in that medium, I have a constant reminder as to why accessibility is important in not only that medium, but all others.

Now I get invited to give panels regarding accessibility in comics! Pretty great stuff, I feel like I get to use my experiences for good and helping others while reminding those deeply entrenched that it's easy to forget the new reader.

What I'm saying is that, yes it may be a nonentity that means nothing to me, but if someone were to come up to me and say that they prefer it over, say Silent Hill 2, my favorite game of all time, that's totally fine. There's no reason to take that personally. Also are you saying I offered no counter arguments? I'm confused.

Yes, we do have reasons. Some of us are old enough and have been gaming for long enough to remember how the past two decades have been a massive slide from games that actually demanded something of the player, to autoplaying "press A for awesome" barely-games with progressively insulting (non)challenge levels. It's only relatively recently that some developers said "fuck it" and started releasing games that a braindead ape can't complete (when Demon's Souls released it was revolutionary precisely because it was so unusual among modern games). It's been quite a struggle to convince publishers that there is a market for hard games: having even that small counter effort threatened by people who aren't content that 90% of modern games can be completed playing with one's feet, it has to be 100% of them, on the highly hypocritical excuse that "that way they can be enjoyed by everyone", yeah, that pisses us off royally.

The gaming industry isn't only for those who are old enough to remember the 80s. Regardless of whether or not you personally enjoy the games or disagree with my philosophies, I think you've been extraordinarily rude this entire discussion.

People can have different opinions, you shouldn't take it personally. I thoroughly believe that art is of the utmost importance, but we're only discussing it. I'm not here to take away your video games or shove mind down your throat. Hell, it would be counter intuitive, since I think Bloodborne is one of the greatest games of all time. But that doesn't mean I won't fight the good fight to make a stand for those who want to partake in the greatest artistic medium on this planet and find it difficult to do so.


--alright different poster *breathes*--

All of these games have context and stories. I couldn't really explain even the most basic facets of the plots of many of these games, half because most of them don't get localized at all, half because I never cared, but the story is still there. That being said, games like Ketsui were designed for arcades. You put in 100 yen (or whatever) and play as long as your skill holds out. If you get a game over, you can continue from where you left off, but your score is reset. In this way, the game gives you control over how you play it. The incentive not to credit feed is the right to enter your name on the high score leaderboard.

It's basically impossible to get a high score after a game over, because you will have a strictly lower score than any player that beats the game on one credit.

Credit feeding through a shmup is kinda like pouring a beer wrong and drinking a glass full of mostly-foam.

I think that score resetting is a good way for players who simply want to get to the ending to be punished for their lack of skill, and yet still have an engaging time. I understand you disagree in the form that credit feeding is "missing the point" of the depth, but I think you also understand that there are other people who enjoy the games in a different way. Which is good! It's a rather basic technique, though, and I'm certain that you know more than I about cool examples in regards to games that incentivize "getting good" in ways that don't make the first experience a lackluster one.

I can't speak to DmC as its presentation turned me way off, but Undertale, IIRC, doesn't have a scoring system, so it's not really trying to challenge you that much. You kind of get through it and play for the story more than anything.

Those Stone awards are the game's way of telling you "fine, I guess you survived the encounter, so technically you pass even though you aren't playing the game in a fun way." These games aren't about that participation award life.

I understand 100% about your feelings on DmC. Truth be told, that game had a lot of good will from me because of its aesthetic approach, so even if it had Bayonetta's systems, I'd still be invested in trying to get into it. If you have a preference for the Bayo style, then all the power to you! That doesn't make Bayo's story any less of a convoluted mess imo

I brought up Undertale knowing it didn't have a scoring system. The reason I brought it up is the reason why I brought up Breaking Bad in my previous quotes. Because I believe there is merit in seeing how others approach problems and seeing what you can learn from them. Undertale may not grade your abilities, but the way that it approaches gameplay absolutely can be co-opted and learned from to make moment to moment gameplay more engaging for those who aren't about that score hunting life. That way everyone can win, and hell as Undertale focuses on blending its story with gameplay, I'm sure more hardcore audiences will get a kick out of a deeper story too.

Kamiya wants you to get good at Bayonetta so you can enjoy it as much as possible. He is doing his due diligence by designing the game such that it tells you how well you played at the end of each fight. What you do after finding that out is on you.

It's a pen and paper game. The rule about not repeating numbers across rows and columns is only enforced if you enforce it. That's the point I'm trying to make.

What you're saying is that you'd rather Bayonetta not allow you to play it badly, which I'm not sure can be implemented in a fun way at all. What you're suggesting would be like... having every fight that would end with a Stone rating instead trigger a Game Over.

Honestly, I can't tell you what I want out of Bayonetta, mostly because there's so little about it that appeals to me. Me being asked to have "my take" on the game would mean working it from the ground up, which I'm sure wouldn't please you. I guess I have a problem with the core philosophy that Kamiya brings into the game.

But that's okay! It's not a big deal (I mean games are a huge deal but not enough for me to take a different philosophy personally, the man didn't do anything to me). In fact, I welcome it because it brings up points that I think can be learned from, both on aspects that I agree on and those I don't.

 

[Mineshaft_Gap]

This sounds to me that this is the game's fault for not providing proper amounts of engagement when allowing this type of play to exist.

Not all games can or should try to appeal to all people.

A shoot em up game that doesn't engage people who don't embrace it's mechanics, when those mechanics are flawless, shouldn't be expected to cater to the tastes of people who don't appreciate the game on a fundamental level.

Developers have a right to make a game they want to be played in a certain way and these games often have FERVENT fan bases.

 

[UncleSporky]

I've never understood this approach unless the goal is to beat the game as quickly as possible with as little effort as possible. Like you buy the game thinking, "I just want to get this over with."

Everyone is always trying to beat all games as quickly and efficiently as possible, to "get them over with." The only difference is the amount of self-imposed challenge.

Sure, someone who finds one combo that works and does it over and over can be said to be just going through the motions to get through the game as easily as possible.

But someone who is playing for score and trying to vary their strategy is also trying to play smoothly, effectively, and quickly. They don't want to miss an attack and have to attack again - they want the enemy dead ASAP so they can get to the next enemy. They want to get to the end as fast as possible, "get it over with," using their own self-imposed honor system of not being able to do the same combo over and over.

You can say they end up with a more fulfilling experience, but you're also not those people just playing to win, those people on easy mode. You don't know how fulfilled they feel. Heck, maybe they play in order to get to feel fulfilled more often because their personal lax standards enable them to finish more games than the people who play for mastery.

People who play on hard mode aren't strictly playing to lengthen the amount of time spent playing. If they were, they would do nonsensical things like die on purpose just to be able to play longer. No, they're playing for the self-imposed challenge, the feeling that their play is a little more legitimate, but they're still hoping they can get through the game as fast as possible. They're still hoping they master the systems quickly and die a minimum of times.

I mean, everyone has limited time and generally doesn't want any one game to take up too much of it.

Even if you take your time exploring and stopping to smell the roses, you take it in as efficiently as possible, and don't linger more than necessary to absorb what you wanted to experience.

 

[Rest]

Everyone is always trying to beat all games as quickly and efficiently as possible, to "get them over with." The only difference is the amount of self-imposed challenge.

I've never played a game with the intent to beat it, much less the intent to beat it quickly or get it over with. I play games to have fun, if the fun lasts until the game is over that's great, if it doesn't that's fine, if it lasts into a second play through that's more than I can hope for.

 

[magnetic]

I've never played a game with the intent to beat it, much less the intent to beat it quickly or get it over with. I play games to have fun, if the fun lasts until the game is over that's great, if it doesn't that's fine, if it lasts into a second play through that's more than I can hope for.

You very succinctly described how I approach games. I'm always ready to stop playing immediately once I stop having fun, and I'm also ready for any game to blow me away so much that I want nothing more than to master every little design intricacy. The "end of the game" has absolutely zero influence on my game time.

I'm always aware of my level of involvement in any game. Once I notice I'm just playing the game out of a perverse sense of obligation (of "getting my money's worth") I stop playing, and other times I don't have even really know why I'm having a good time with a game (say, despite design flaws) but I'm just enjoying each moment with it.

The interesting thing is that this doesn't really favor a specific genre. From open world to racing, character action to pinball, there's always days where I love playing a specific part of a specific game - clearing an outpost in Far Cry 4, playing a good table in Pinball Arcade, doing a little run in Armed Police Batrider or Tetris - and there's very little rhyme or reason to my gaming moods and preferences.

I stopped trying to understand my taste in gaming and just roll with whatever I'm into. Once I try to analyze it ("oh, I must be an arcade type highscore gamer! Wait, no, I enjoy being lost in open worlds! No, I just like challenging games! ") it just falls apart. I'm enjoying gaming much more because of this, I've burned out on certain games quite often in the past because I've been playing them compulsively, not because of actual enjoyment.

I've found that any game made since 2000 that scores you for different things gives you more points for things that I don't care about doing, thus I have no incentive for worrying about the score. I'd like a game that gave be a bonus for killing all the enemies, since that's something that I challenge my self to do, not a game that punishes me because it doesn't like how I killed the ones I did, which is what games seem to score on.

That's one of the reasons I didn't finish any of the Devil May Cry games, I'd get a low grade at the end because they were grading on something I had no interest in doing. I shouldn't be getting a D because I enjoy taking my time, exploring the levels and killing all the enemies.

Bullet Storm was similar, it wanted to give you big bonuses for figuring out how the developers wanted you to use different guns, but if you went slow and shot all the limbs off a guy you'd get less and less points as you went on. If I remember correctly, getting points was how you unlocked stuff, so playing the way I wanted to meant I couldn't get the rewards in a timely fashion.

I have the same problem with Bayonetta at the moment - I adore the combat system by itself, but I hate being graded on time, and I also hate certain parts of the game, specifically the driving/flying sections, but also certain setups in general. On the other hand, I love going into any specific chapter and just learn the enemies there, because I'm enjoying certain encounters so much.

I love quick scoring challenges, but the chapters in Bayo go on for so long and me just accidentally falling off a cliff is so common that going for pure Platinum is just completely out of the question.

I really want to learn to the game more, but I'm not aiming for the way the game wants me to play it, which is ultimately discouraging.

If there was an option to quickly retry a verse (or directly select it) AND have each medal on a verse recorded separately so that you could master it in tiny chunks rather than having to do a perfect run of the the whole chapter would be ideal for me.

I always loved mastering fun parts in arcade games, but the idea of a full run, always starting with stage 1 until you mess up in stage 5, at which point your run is ruined yet again is very tedious to me. That's why I've always been drawn towards quick, self-contained challenge modes rather than runs that demand perfection for 15 minutes.

 

[heringer]

Some people are missing the point. The point is not to beat the game as quickly as possible to be done with it. Some people just don't like to self-impose challenge, they would rather have the game do that.

I personally think it's the game's responsibility to challenge me. Some people like to create their own challenge and that's fine, but it doesn't work for everybody.

 

[Taliban Stan]

Everyone is always trying to beat all games as quickly and efficiently as possible, to "get them over with." The only difference is the amount of self-imposed challenge.

Sure, someone who finds one combo that works and does it over and over can be said to be just going through the motions to get through the game as easily as possible.

But someone who is playing for score and trying to vary their strategy is also trying to play smoothly, effectively, and quickly. They don't want to miss an attack and have to attack again - they want the enemy dead ASAP so they can get to the next enemy. They want to get to the end as fast as possible, "get it over with," using their own self-imposed honor system of not being able to do the same combo over and over.

This is the exact, specific context that I mentioned it in though.

To me, there is a stark difference between efficiency as in I want to be good at the mechanics so I'm trying not making mistakes and thus am efficient and efficiency as in I'm efficient because I'm only willing to use the #1 most scientifically efficient weapon in the game and the #1 most scientifically efficient combo in the game.

To each their own and play games how you love them, but everyone doesn't play to only use the most efficient weapon and combo and engage with no o. You can boil it down to concept that nobody wants to be bad/I] (even then I doubt that's an accurate statement) but once you add nuance, everyone definitely does not play games to find like the #1 most efficient style/attack/interaction and to then do that exclusively and never use the other options. Some do, definitely not everyone, though.

Not all games can or should try to appeal to all people.

A shoot em up game that doesn't engage people who don't embrace it's mechanics, when those mechanics are flawless, shouldn't be expected to cater to the tastes of people who don't appreciate the game on a fundamental level.

Developers have a right to make a game they want to be played in a certain way and these games often have FERVENT fan bases.

This x 100. Sometimes I feel like we've moved to a place where the random gamer expects any random game to 100% appeal to them. Almost like the only thing that could make them dislike a game is a glitch or bug. No game could ever not be up their alley and if it is, that's a design flaw.

People generally don't feel like they should like literally every movie released, regardless of story and genre. It's a movie. I like movies. I must like this or the studio messed up obviously. I didn't really pay attention to the kissy hug hug parts and was mainly watching for car chases and I have to say, the director of Beauty and the Beast did not make an engaging movie. They need to think about the watcher who dislikes romance, tunes out all fantasy elements, and is generally opposed to any time period other than modern day. Movies need to be engaging. Why would the studio not want to engage the audience?

People don't usually say stuff like that about other mediums but when it comes to games...

 

[Situacao]

Ah, I see we're having a good game design discussion here! Love these, so here we go!

Like Bloodborne, one of my favorite games of all time. However, that makes no difference to me when it comes to accessibility.

I think you have a fallacy there. The purpose of art is not to be accessible to everyone. Rather, the purpose of art is to convey a clear message. Art is only wrong when it tries to convey a certain message and fails to do it properly. It is a means of comunication: I can either say "I love you" through words, an instrumental song, a painting or a videogame. Or I can say "I hate you" through a Death Metal song, not accessible in the slightest but good art nonetheles.

So all it boils down to is to whether said work of art conveys it message correctly. And, contrarily to your opinion, I think that Bloodborne would be way less coherent if it was more accessible. The game is all about intimidation and overcoming said intimidation, having a clear cut tutorial or something similar would render such intimidation impossible to be conveyed. The whole game is all about the feeling of putting in the effort and being rewarded for that. It's not arbitrary that the game gets way easier the more you play it, that's the whole point.

And regarding Devil May Cry and Platinum games, there is a clear incentive besides the score: looking stylish. Every game of these encourages you to look cool and feel like a real baddass while killing enemies. That's why all the animations are ridicously over the top, and why you can break physics' most basic laws in order to complete that awesome combo, because these games are all about that. There are some people that find this fun, there are some people that don't, but this is the message that the game wants to convey, and it doesn't have to be enjoyed by everyone.

 

[MikeyB]

The scoring system is enough to motivate me to do better and replay Platinum games. I don't understand how someone could get D rank in battles and not try to improve. Heck, even without a scoring system, the move list is enough to incentivize me to try new things.

I would not want their games to be longer than they are because of my time constraints. I absolutely hate game design that railroads me into using a specific moveset or strategy (to be fair, Platinum does this too with respect to say breaking shields in Transformers: Devastation). Gameplay that is a guided tour of the mechanics is so much shallower to me than one that gives me a deep system that I can choose to ignore.

Different strokes, I guess.

 

[Rest]

The scoring system is enough to motivate me to do better and replay Platinum games. I don't understand how someone could get D rank in battles and not try to improve. Heck, even without a scoring system, the move list is enough to incentivize me to try new things.

In my case because the things that get a low score are the things that are fun for me to do, so improving for me doesn't mean doing the things which get a higher score. Rushing through a level isn't fun for me, so if that's a major part of the score (which it often is) then raising my grade makes the game less fun.

 

[Adaren]

If I hadn't gotten Stones all the way through my first run through of Bayonetta, I probably wouldn't have replayed it to try and get better. I wouldn't have realized how deep the gameplay is, and how sublime, graceful, and satisfying it is to play when you really learn the game's mechanics. If the game hadn't given me Stone awards, then it probably wouldn't have become my favorite game of all time.

---

On point scoring systems specifically:

I adore scoring systems, so long as scoring high doesn't make it easier to clear the game. Scoring systems should be an incentive for good players to push themselves to their limit, not a requirement for new players to clear the game. I'm thinking mainly of bullet hell shmups that grant you extra lives for high scores; I like scoring systems in shmups, but hate when they're tied to resources.

Bayonetta is actually a great example of a scoring system. The scoring system has no direct impact on your survival; you can score Stone combo scores and still clear the game just fine. But once you replay the game and start learning the combo point system better, you'll realize that the point system is actually designed to make you a better player. It encourages mixing attacks in with your movement, using all of your attacks, and finishing your combos. As you try to learn the point system in Bayonetta, you'll find that you become a better player in all aspects of the game. The point system is, essentially, a guide for "okay" players to become amazing players.

Bayonetta's point system is also interesting to consider because you can draw a direct comparison with Bayonetta 2. Bayonetta 2, for the uninitiated, essentially has the most mind-numbingly basic point system imaginable. It's basically "Did you constantly punch stuff? Platinum combo score!" There's no depth, there are no mechanics, there's nothing to learn. It could be removed and the game would lose nothing.

The lack of any meaningful point system is just one of many reasons why Bayo1 continues to have significantly more dedicated fans and longevity than its sequel. It's easy to score high in Bayo2, but it's also devoid of anything remotely interesting, and that isn't good for keeping players' interest for an extended period of time.

 

[Neff]

In any game with a scoring system, it is often paramount that you play for score. It's the game's way of teaching you how to get the most enjoyment out of it.

Nah. My gaming tastes are extremely arcade-centric and there's only a very small pool of games I play for score/awards.

I'm more of a believer in not using continues than I am of racking up points. In fact there are a lot of games which won't reset your score for continuing, so score is often rarely an indicator of skill or optimal play/appreciation of mechanics.

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

I think that score resetting is a good way for players who simply want to get to the ending to be punished for their lack of skill, and yet still have an engaging time. I understand you disagree in the form that credit feeding is "missing the point" of the depth, but I think you also understand that there are other people who enjoy the games in a different way. Which is good! It's a rather basic technique, though, and I'm certain that you know more than I about cool examples in regards to games that incentivize "getting good" in ways that don't make the first experience a lackluster one.

I don't think you should play bullet hell shmups if you're the type of person to play through a game one time before moving on. My comment earlier about complaining about how quickly a credit-fed shmup can be finished wasn't something I made up; it's a complaint I've heard time and time again over the years. Some of the greatest shmups ever made get console/USA ports, and people go "huh? they're charging $30 for a game you can finish in 30 minutes?!"

I'm not saying you can't enjoy these games if you're credit feeding. Just that a lot of them don't necessarily hold up in the same way if you do. And it's not the game's fault you choose the most boring option available to you (ignoring the scoring system) when playing it.

I brought up Undertale knowing it didn't have a scoring system. The reason I brought it up is the reason why I brought up Breaking Bad in my previous quotes. Because I believe there is merit in seeing how others approach problems and seeing what you can learn from them. Undertale may not grade your abilities, but the way that it approaches gameplay absolutely can be co-opted and learned from to make moment to moment gameplay more engaging for those who aren't about that score hunting life. That way everyone can win, and hell as Undertale focuses on blending its story with gameplay, I'm sure more hardcore audiences will get a kick out of a deeper story too.

Engaging gameplay and scoring systems are not mutually exclusive. A lot of the games we've been discussing excel at both. But if you ignore a game's scoring system, it will very likely not remain entertaining enough to provide much in the way of replayability in the way it would if you attempted to master it. I dunno how many people only finished Bayonetta once before moving on, citing a strange story and fun, but repetitive combat. If the game gives you dozens of moves, and you only stick to 1 or 2 because you don't care about score, I think it's your fault that the game isn't as fun for you as it is for me.

Also, blending the story with the gameplay is compelling, but not in the same way as score attack games. For example, if I'm fighting an enemy that isn't fighting back very hard because they're being forced to fight me against their will, that fight will be compelling for story reasons the first time around, but extremely boring the second time around. Undertale can have things like that all over its campaign, but Bayonetta can't.

Jeanne is Bayonetta's friend, yet some of the best boss fights are with her, because her moveset is so similar to Bayonetta's. Those fights are unique in that they're duels against an ostensibly equally-dangerous opponent. The story is linked to the gameplay a little, like in those minigame sections where you go from point A to point B in some interesting way, or when you have to carry/protect Cereza, but the challenge still remains.

I gotta say, it's interesting that shmups and Undertale are being used as comparisons, as I've been in conversations on other forums about how shooting games are stagnating, and that if we want the shmup community to grow, more games like Undertale need to be released where there's some quest or story mechanic tying together all the bullet hell combat. IIRC, most people enjoyed shmups as they were, and didn't want the genre as a whole to move in a more casual/appealing to the mainstream direction.

Not all games can or should try to appeal to all people.

A shoot em up game that doesn't engage people who don't embrace it's mechanics, when those mechanics are flawless, shouldn't be expected to cater to the tastes of people who don't appreciate the game on a fundamental level.

Developers have a right to make a game they want to be played in a certain way and these games often have FERVENT fan bases.

Yep. Video games are a conversation between the developer and the player. Both sides have to bring something to the table. If I spend years tweaking the design of a game, and you ignore it because it's "hard" or I'm not spoon-feeding you all the details about it, that's not all on me.

Everyone is always trying to beat all games as quickly and efficiently as possible, to "get them over with." The only difference is the amount of self-imposed challenge.

Sure, someone who finds one combo that works and does it over and over can be said to be just going through the motions to get through the game as easily as possible.

But someone who is playing for score and trying to vary their strategy is also trying to play smoothly, effectively, and quickly. They don't want to miss an attack and have to attack again - they want the enemy dead ASAP so they can get to the next enemy. They want to get to the end as fast as possible, "get it over with," using their own self-imposed honor system of not being able to do the same combo over and over.

You can say they end up with a more fulfilling experience, but you're also not those people just playing to win, those people on easy mode. You don't know how fulfilled they feel. Heck, maybe they play in order to get to feel fulfilled more often because their personal lax standards enable them to finish more games than the people who play for mastery.

People who play on hard mode aren't strictly playing to lengthen the amount of time spent playing. If they were, they would do nonsensical things like die on purpose just to be able to play longer. No, they're playing for the self-imposed challenge, the feeling that their play is a little more legitimate, but they're still hoping they can get through the game as fast as possible. They're still hoping they master the systems quickly and die a minimum of times.

I mean, everyone has limited time and generally doesn't want any one game to take up too much of it.

Even if you take your time exploring and stopping to smell the roses, you take it in as efficiently as possible, and don't linger more than necessary to absorb what you wanted to experience.

This mostly goes back to what I was saying about 100 hours on one game or 10 hours on 10 games. I think the former is far superior to the latter, but people tend to have tons of games nowadays, so people prefer the latter.

You very succinctly described how I approach games. I'm always ready to stop playing immediately once I stop having fun, and I'm also ready for any game to blow me away so much that I want nothing more than to master every little design intricacy. The "end of the game" has absolutely zero influence on my game time.

I'm always aware of my level of involvement in any game. Once I notice I'm just playing the game out of a perverse sense of obligation (of "getting my money's worth") I stop playing, and other times I don't have even really know why I'm having a good time with a game (say, despite design flaws) but I'm just enjoying each moment with it.

The interesting thing is that this doesn't really favor a specific genre. From open world to racing, character action to pinball, there's always days where I love playing a specific part of a specific game - clearing an outpost in Far Cry 4, playing a good table in Pinball Arcade, doing a little run in Armed Police Batrider or Tetris - and there's very little rhyme or reason to my gaming moods and preferences.

I stopped trying to understand my taste in gaming and just roll with whatever I'm into. Once I try to analyze it ("oh, I must be an arcade type highscore gamer! Wait, no, I enjoy being lost in open worlds! No, I just like challenging games! ") it just falls apart. I'm enjoying gaming much more because of this, I've burned out on certain games quite often in the past because I've been playing them compulsively, not because of actual enjoyment.



I have the same problem with Bayonetta at the moment - I adore the combat system by itself, but I hate being graded on time, and I also hate certain parts of the game, specifically the driving/flying sections, but also certain setups in general. On the other hand, I love going into any specific chapter and just learn the enemies there, because I'm enjoying certain encounters so much.

I love quick scoring challenges, but the chapters in Bayo go on for so long and me just accidentally falling off a cliff is so common that going for pure Platinum is just completely out of the question.

I really want to learn to the game more, but I'm not aiming for the way the game wants me to play it, which is ultimately discouraging.

If there was an option to quickly retry a verse (or directly select it) AND have each medal on a verse recorded separately so that you could master it in tiny chunks rather than having to do a perfect run of the the whole chapter would be ideal for me.

I always loved mastering fun parts in arcade games, but the idea of a full run, always starting with stage 1 until you mess up in stage 5, at which point your run is ruined yet again is very tedious to me. That's why I've always been drawn towards quick, self-contained challenge modes rather than runs that demand perfection for 15 minutes.

I am largely the same way. This mastery thing I've started getting into began with fighting games for me, and is only relatively recently starting to branch out into other games.

After each verse, you're graded on time, combo score, and damage taken, from Bronze to Platinum (Stone if you can't get Bronze). The average rating is the trophy you get, so if you take a little damage, you can still get a Platinum (though not a Pure Platinum) trophy if you get Platinum time and combo medals. Similarly, you can still get a Platinum finish for a chapter if your average trophy level is above Gold, even if that means several Gold trophies.

So if you fall in a pit during a verse (this doesn't happen too often afaik, as they tend to be closed-off areas), you can probably still get a Platinum trophy at the end of it, as long as you didn't screw up otherwise. The only Platinum-related unlock in the game is for beating Normal mode with a Platinum rating on all chapters. There's a lot of wiggle room in a Platinum run.

But Pure Platinum is fully intended to be perfect play. It being a pain in the ass is part of the challenge. I should note that, even if the game acknowledges it, there's no reward for a Pure Platinum finish.

Either way, if you're playing for score in Bayonetta, because there's no "retry" option, if you think you're going to fail a verse, go back to the Title Screen from the pause menu. If you continue from your checkpoint after that, you'll start at the last checkpoint before that verse. You don't have to restart the whole chapter if you take damage once. And (IIRC) you aren't penalized for damage taken between verses (which is when you'd be most likely to fall off a cliff or something).

Sometimes I feel like we've moved to a place where the random gamer expects any random game to 100% appeal to them. Almost like the only thing that could make them dislike a game is a glitch or bug. No game could ever not be up their alley and if it is, that's a design flaw.

People generally don't feel like they should like literally every movie released, regardless of story and genre. It's a movie. I like movies. I must like this or the studio messed up obviously. I didn't really pay attention to the kissy hug hug parts and was mainly watching for car chases and I have to say, the director of Beauty and the Beast did not make an engaging movie. They need to think about the watcher who dislikes romance, tunes out all fantasy elements, and is generally opposed to any time period other than modern day. Movies need to be engaging. Why would the studio not want to engage the audience?

People don't usually say stuff like that about other mediums but when it comes to games...

This is why any time I see someone who is unsure of getting good at Bayonetta, much less buying and playing it, I show them this video and ask if it looks like fun. I know it's not for everyone. My mom has finished Paper Mario, Kingdom Hearts 1 and 2, and Dark Cloud 1 and 2. I would not even tell her about Bayonetta, or any similarly-hardcore game, much less try to get her to learn how to play it well.

If I hadn't gotten Stones all the way through my first run through of Bayonetta, I probably wouldn't have replayed it to try and get better. I wouldn't have realized how deep the gameplay is, and how sublime, graceful, and satisfying it is to play when you really learn the game's mechanics. If the game hadn't given me Stone awards, then it probably wouldn't have become my favorite game of all time.

---

On point scoring systems specifically:

I adore scoring systems, so long as scoring high doesn't make it easier to clear the game. Scoring systems should be an incentive for good players to push themselves to their limit, not a requirement for new players to clear the game. I'm thinking mainly of bullet hell shmups that grant you extra lives for high scores; I like scoring systems in shmups, but hate when they're tied to resources.

Bayonetta is actually a great example of a scoring system. The scoring system has no direct impact on your survival; you can score Stone combo scores and still clear the game just fine. But once you replay the game and start learning the combo point system better, you'll realize that the point system is actually designed to make you a better player. It encourages mixing attacks in with your movement, using all of your attacks, and finishing your combos. As you try to learn the point system in Bayonetta, you'll find that you become a better player in all aspects of the game. The point system is, essentially, a guide for "okay" players to become amazing players.

Bayonetta's point system is also interesting to consider because you can draw a direct comparison with Bayonetta 2. Bayonetta 2, for the uninitiated, essentially has the most mind-numbingly basic point system imaginable. It's basically "Did you constantly punch stuff? Platinum combo score!" There's no depth, there are no mechanics, there's nothing to learn. It could be removed and the game would lose nothing.

The lack of any meaningful point system is just one of many reasons why Bayo1 continues to have significantly more dedicated fans and longevity than its sequel. It's easy to score high in Bayo2, but it's also devoid of anything remotely interesting, and that isn't good for keeping players' interest for an extended period of time.

Well said. I think when I got Bayonetta 2, I played it until I finished it on Infinite Climax and unlocked everything, then stopped. Never bothered trying to actually master it. Partially because there was no decent strategy guide available, partially because I was still so enamored with Bayonetta's depth. I went back to it to find all the little things I missed (journals, etc.), and found myself enjoying some of the weapons, but that's about it. I recently looked into the point system and found what you said to be the case, which is pretty sad, even if it was changed to accommodate a few enemies that are difficult to sustain a combo against. A net loss, IMO.

Nah. My gaming tastes are extremely arcade-centric and there's only a very small pool of games I play for score/awards.

I'm more of a believer in not using continues than I am of racking up points. In fact there are a lot of games which won't reset your score for continuing, so score is often rarely an indicator of skill or optimal play/appreciation of mechanics.

Not using continues is basically step 1 of playing for score, so as far as I'm concerned, you're already on the right path.

Edit: Actually, I'll have to ask for some receipts on that claim about scores not being reset. Many Japanese shooting games actually go so far as to make the leaderboards for the console versions of their game use a different font specifically to illustrate that those aren't the same as high scores on an arcade machine.