next »

[EdgeOfProphecy]

hmm, yeah -- racing games are sort of evidence that this system can work in a different context. i wonder if it's been done in shmups before?

If ever there were a time attack mode wherein you had to hit score milestones to add bonus time, then yes.

[Udderdude]

The recently released Sine Mora has a very strict timer on Arcade mode, Insane skill.

If you aren't killing everything on the screen, you run out of time and lose immediatley.

I don't think there was more than a handful of people that actually enjoyed that aspect of the game, on shmups forum anyway.  It's like the game has OCD restart-syndrome built in to it. That's another hilariously wrong thing about Icyclam's ranting about "aspies" and autism - the term he's really looking for is OCD!

If you're looking for a real shooter/racing hybrid, check out Kingdom Grand Prix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Grand_Prix

[Manuel Magalhães]

i just had an idea that would reconcile icycalm and everyone else: make a game where, if you do not reach a sufficient score by the end of a stage, you die

that way, score means something

e.g. let's say level 2 has 30,000 possible points if played perfectly. if you beat level 2 and didn't at least get 20,000 points, you'd explode, and have to start at the beginning of level 2 again

i don't even mean this in a joking way, on paper i think it'd be a good system, with a good balance between skill and survival. of course we'd have to see how it works out in practice to be sure of that

While it could be a fun concept if well executed I doubt icycalm would like it. Even if the score is relevant for proceeding the game, there's a big problem for him: It's anti-immersive. What's a score in the game world, after all? Nothing, therefore it detracts immersion from the player. Also regardless of that I don't think that dying after you got through the stage because of a score counter is pleasant.

I would like it if well done, though. (although I don't like the "die if you didn't get X points in the stage's end" rule, I think that a "if you don't get X points in each Y time, you lose a life" rule would be better)
   

[Noah!]

i just had an idea that would reconcile icycalm and everyone else: make a game where, if you do not reach a sufficient score by the end of a stage, you die

that way, score means something

e.g. let's say level 2 has 30,000 possible points if played perfectly. if you beat level 2 and didn't at least get 20,000 points, you'd explode, and have to start at the beginning of level 2 again

i don't even mean this in a joking way, on paper i think it'd be a good system, with a good balance between skill and survival. of course we'd have to see how it works out in practice to be sure of that

Funnily enough, within the shmups thread Caruso linked, this idea was eventually brought up. Turns out your idea was done, to the letter, in Macross II.

The problem with this idea is that, in the shmups realm, the scoring systems are pretty crazy. They're based on a lot of "fuzzy" systems like multipliers and stuff, which are often disjointed from survival/intuitive play. And occasionally, scoring oversights are even found (like in Cave's latest game, which features both a hyper-recharging exploit and an overflow bug!). This all means that a "perfect score" is usually significantly higher than what most people would achieve when playing for survival.

For example, playing the first level of Armed Police Batrider for shootin' game gets me around 320,000 points. Playing for score, I can usually net a good 700,000. However, the record score for that level is I think around 1.4M, which is a significant step up. So where do you set the bar? Macross II gets around this problem by having a very strict scoring system. However, this sorta takes away from the fun of scoring, which is the open-ended "unlimited possibilies" nature of the goal.

[Udderdude]

The problem with this idea is that, in the shmups realm, the scoring systems are pretty crazy. They're based on a lot of "fuzzy" systems like multipliers and stuff, which are often disjointed from survival/intuitive play.

Yeah, a shmup with advanced mechanics and no score would have most of those mechanics reduced to survival tools, ex. bombs, escape mechanisms, whatever.  Not the kind of stuff we see in mechanics used in scoring systems.

this sorta takes away from the fun of scoring, which is the open-ended "unlimited possibilies" nature of the goal.

Yeah, I mentioned this earlier in the thread.

Bottom line is that score versus survival is a balance.  Go too far towards either extreme, and you just end up with an imbalanced game.

[C.A. Sinner]

While it could be a fun concept if well executed I doubt icycalm would like it. Even if the score is relevant for proceeding the game, there's a big problem for him: It's anti-immersive. What's a score in the game world, after all? Nothing, therefore it detracts immersion from the player. Also regardless of that I don't think that dying after you got through the stage because of a score counter is pleasant.

just make every shump about a fictional sport where people compete at shooting down shit with spaceships. problem solved.
 

[Manuel Magalhães]