next »

[moi]

is this the new icycalm thread?

[s0]

i'd suggest against openly linking to pirated material on this forum, because forums that do that tend to be taken down due to complaints to the server that hosts the website. all icycalm now has to do is to report this site to the company that owns its server, and no more tigsource

edited miro's post

don't post pirated material here, folks

[st33d]

To be fair, I read one page. Didn't really see why his opinion merited such an exposition.

I mean I get it. I'm forced to put high scores in the behest of clients and even I don't see the point of them. Social scoring is pretty fun though.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

is there a place to buy his book? i'd be interested if it is reasonably priced (e.g., if it's 50$ then no, but 20$ sure)

[s0]

btw: do people actually play stuff like cave shooters for "atmosphere?" because idk, i cant really see 99% of the shmups i've played as anything but almost completely abstract.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i haven't played a cave game (besides deathsmiles i think), but i played gradius v and einhander partly/mostly for atmosphere (both of those are shmups and have really nice atmospheres)

i definitely did *not* play those games for score though. survival, mostly

[Manuel Magalhães]

is there a place to buy his book? i'd be interested if it is reasonably priced (e.g., if it's 50$ then no, but 20$ sure)

It's 25 euros. (including international shipping)
http://culture.vg/online-store.html

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

hmm -- that's a bit expensive but i'll probably get it eventually. i do enjoy his writing style quite a bit (his substance isn't entirely bad either, but it also isn't uniformly good)

it's weird tho that he's selling the geneology of art games there; wasn't that previously free to view online? or still free to view? but some people prefer reading stuff on paper than on screen, i guess

[Manuel Magalhães]

I've heard somewhere that he made changes to the chapters he already published on the internet, but I can't say for sure.
I might buy the book when I get a debit card.

[moi]

Score-tables are at the core of the first commercial exploitations of videogames (as arcade machines). With time, and the increasigly solitary development of videogames they became more and more futile, but they're coming back with online games and rankings.
Even arcade games themselves become increasingly focused on game-completion (shmups, beatem ups, platformers,etc...), but they kept score, because it was a requisite of their commercial exploitation.
So score will be either very important or totally futile, depending on the type of game you're creating.
Basically you have to chose between develloping your game around the score competition(generally a repetitive, twitch game) OR the story completion.
The existence of score can appear awkward in a game with a completion incentive (like arcade shmups) but I don't see the need of having such a big debate about it.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

haha, moi, your english is really improving; i think that's the first time you've written more than 3 sentences in a post

[JWK5]

Don't jinx it, Paul!

[noah!]

"On Why Scoring Sucks And Those Who Defend It Are Aspies".

Eeh, this time my main man Icy ain't doin' i' fo' m' ''r'.

The thing is, he convinced me of one thing, and that is that scoring, as a goal, is pointless. However, pointless doesn't necessarily equal bad. Sometimes when I'm bored I'll break out the Picross, solve a puzzle, and move on. Pointless, but fun. I derive loads of (guilty) pleasure from The Shamen, but I'll admit their stuff is pretty pointless. Most of my posts here are pointless. Hell, you could say that life itself is inherently pointless, if you wanted to be cynical about it.

What detriment is there in pursuing a system that, while pointless, leads to mechanics that are buckets of fun? While it sounds simple enough to just make those essential to survival, you really can't. The two goals (survival/scoring) are so inherently different that mechanics that work in one just don't work in the other. Does that mean that they are just inherently bad mechanics? Even though they are still enjoyable to experience?

So I just don't know. Scoring has been "destroyed" for me but I don't care. I'm still gonna enjoy ring^-27 even though its scoring mechanics impose on its survival value. I'm still proud of the letter score I pulled out of Batrider. And, unless the design documents undergo catastrophic revision, my next game is most definitely have a score system in place. Pointless? Totally. But I love it, and I'm gonna keep on doing what I love.

(also the giga wing example doesn't hold water. things spontaneously becoming medals is the coolest idea ever and anyone who disagrees has sticks up their ass)

[Derek]

Oh man, I knew that article would be mentioned eventually. I have some time to kill right now and not much else besides a web browser, so let's talk about it then!

Thanks. I'll think about it and maybe write more later, but for now...

I think mechanics are interesting by themselves, and let's say you did replace the planes, tanks, and buildings of Ketsui with abstract shapes or, as zinger suggested in another thread, with random Google images... the game would certainly be a lot worse but it would still be immersive. But really, you just have to look at how icycalm praised the scoring system (inc. loops and true final boss) in and of itself in his 2007 review. Whether he's now changed his mind or not (aspie miracle cure?), there's obviously some palpable joy in unraveling and mastering that arbitrary system, aesthetics aside.

And the cake and crumb analogy doesn't really make sense in the context of games designed around scoring, since no chef would leave important parts of his/her cake in the crumbs. In a game like Ketsui, the scoring is obviously a big part of the cake, like a layer of chocolate ice cream in the middle of it - you can taste it all together from the very beginning (and, in fact, it would be hard not to).

The "aspie" who only cares about scoring is practically mythical... just like his cake/crumb analogy, it's a very extreme example. Ironically, the people it most easily convinces are guys like zinger, who seem more interested in getting approval from others ("Thank you, icy, for showing me my aspie ways!") than simply enjoying games for themselves.

But anyway, it's not a black and white thing, right? It's most natural to play a game for both personal score and also to see the later stages of the game... at the same time. At any given point in your progression, one goal might be closer than the other, or more interesting than the other. It really just gives you more stuff to be interested in.

And the fact that you can discuss score (OR survival strategy, mind you!) doesn't show that score breaks immersion - it really just shows you that games can be so interesting that when we're forced to return to our normal lives we want to share them with others.

[Derek]

BTW:

While we're posting Shmups links, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to austere's topic "Scoreless shooting mode: 'Scoring' for survival", which essentially serves as an application of the theory mentioned in icy's essay.

So here's what people of like-mind will do, we're going to suggest ways we can modify existing masterpieces to make them scoreless.

Therefore, from a THEORY perspective, which is not really concerned with Halo but with A HALO SEQUEL

So no, even though it's a fun discussion, I wouldn't say it serves as an application at all, at least not from icycalm's perspective. For his theories to be applicable, I agree that they have to extend beyond the theory nerds discussing retroactive "what ifs" and the self-loathing, self-described "amateur" developers that make up a good part of his most ardent fanbase.

[EdgeOfProphecy]

While we're posting Shmups links, I'd like to draw everyone's attention to austere's topic "Scoreless shooting mode: 'Scoring' for survival", which essentially serves as an application of the theory mentioned in icy's essay.

Huh.  I don't get it.  Whether or not you make the point cheesing play style the default play style, you're still playing the game in a specific way.  Score comparison would simply be replaced with "how long did you live" which is precisely interchangeable under the proposed system.  Like, literally, you could write a formula to convert between the two.  Dudes would still gather around and try to break records of how long you've played, which is the same as how high your score is.  So what's the real difference?

The only thing I can think of is that score does not tickle his pickle.  He simply cannot be bothered to care about score.  Instead, he wants a different feedback mechanic, just a cosmetic swap.  Replace that score counter with a health bar and he's pleased as punch.  Sounds to me like the dude has a weird complex about score, and the people who like to pursue a high score.

My gut tells me that cheesing a high score originated as an emergent behavior that designers took note of and started deliberately designing into games.  It's not always obvious, but it's certainly a part of the game.  Much like how competitive fighting games revolve around esoteric maneuvers that do not very well align with the player's natural assumptions, some scoring systems require you to play the game in a way that's different.  I think that's pretty cool, though, because it gives you a game within a game.  Speedruns are really similar, and I love seeing the crazy tricks people come up with to shave off a few seconds, things I would have never thought of.

[s0]

and the self-loathing, self-described "amateur" developers that make up a good part of his most ardent fanbase.

hey im a self described amateur developer. i dont hate myself and i dont like zirbas. also i dont have aspergers.

[mirosurabu]

The only thing I can think of is that score does not tickle his pickle.  He simply cannot be bothered to care about score.  Instead, he wants a different feedback mechanic, just a cosmetic swap.  Replace that score counter with a health bar and he's pleased as punch.  Sounds to me like the dude has a weird complex about score, and the people who like to pursue a high score.

He has nothing against score. He just dislikes the style of play in which one is obsessing over displaying "skills" and, consequently, ignoring whether what they are playing is fun on its own or not.

edit: derp, that's austere being quoted. i confused it with noah's quote, but oh well.

[JWK5]

It disturbs me slightly how eager some people seem to be about essentially being a proxy for someone else.

[Cerebros]

I had read the discussion on Shmups and I wanted response there. I'll respond here.

I think that the crux of the discussion is the difference between an experience-oriented (art) and competition-oriented (sport) game. Once the game attaches a number or symbol score to the experience and the player values that number or symbol, the game stops being an experience and starts being a competition and if the player devalues that, vice-versa. If the player scores 500k in Deathsmiles or ranks 'Ghost' in Hitman: Blood Money, the player can only understand the significance of that score and rank in relation and comparison to other scores and ranks. So, the second time, the player scores 1 million; if the player recognizes that he, in the present, played twice as good as he had in the past, he is now optimizing to compete with his own score and others'. Everything non-optimal to optimizing his score is redundant and ignored (id est the experience, the art). That is a truism and isn't controversial and I agree with Icycalm.


I think that Icycalm's claim of 'Aspiesm' for 'playing for score' is wrong and his application of it, inconsistent. To participate and compete in any competition or sport is pleasurable. I play Soccer (predominately), Hurling, and Chess, and there is no discernible difference in the endogenous pleasure derived from playing those sports and that of those games 'played for score' like Deathsmiles or games like Starcraft II, Counter-Strike or FIFA. Great competitors of sports give spectators a fraction of the pleasure of performing high-level moves just by watching them, and I derive the same pleasure watching an Ikaruga superplay as I do watching Phelps swim or Bolt sprint.

In the essay, Michael Phelps and competitive swimming is used as an example of the opposite of 'Aspiesm' and it is inconsistent. Games have two main components: strategy (decision-making) and execution (executing decision). If you compare 'playing for score' games (the bad examples), competitive swimming and competitive sprinting, you find that there is no difference except the redundant obvious: same content, different language. All three games optimize a number (score, time). All three games require extremely high execution. All three games have low strategy; the optimal mechanics for 'playing for score', swimming and sprinting disseminate throughout competitors uniformly because it's easy to empirically prove that a mechanic optimizes a score or time and competitors put themselves at a disadvantage not adopting the optimal mechanic and thus, negligible divergence. As a result of uniform strategy, there is a low variance in style in all three types: there is no discernible difference between the styles of playing of one player to another, swimming of one swimmer to another's, sprinting of one sprinter et cetera. All three games are 'non-contact': the competitors do not engage with each other. So, if the players on a leaderboard for a 'playing for score' game are 'aspies', then Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt are 'aspies', too, for swimming and sprinting, respectively.

However, there is a hierarchy of competitive games. I think that the most interesting competitive games are those that have high execution, high strategy, and divergent styles, and have the competitors engage each other and co-operate (team sports) or compensate the absence of one with the exponential increase in another. Soccer and American Football are examples of games with all those attributes; Starcraft II and Street Fighter IV are good "cyber athletics" examples sans co-operation; Chess compensates its low execution with astronomical strategy. I think that the least interesting competitive games are those that have high execution, no strategy, and uniform style, and are 'non-contact'.


He is also has an addendum at the end of the essay which is very important in correcting the error, "cyber athletics" serve no function, he made earlier in the essay.

It disturbs me slightly how eager some people seem to be about essentially being a proxy for someone else.

Celldweller appreciates your eagerness.