Points: What Purpose Do They Serve?

[Ascending Wordsmith]

This is something I've been thinking about for awhile.

If it isn't a sports game, points really don't matter.

Agree? Disagree?

Think about all the other genres and what's required to accomplish the game:

RPG's- The object is to advance through the game.
FPS's- More advancing.
Beat'em Ups- Yep, advance.
SHMUPS- Again, advance.
Platformers- Ditto
Fighters- Beat the crap out of your opponent.
Puzzle games- Solve the puzzle.
Racing games- Finish before everyone else.

The first time any of us played Super Mario Bros. it was all about the points. Grab the flagpole, collect coins, jump on Koopa Turtle's shell for 40 seconds straight, and set off fireworks at the castle. Nowadays, just about everyone playing that same game can beat it without losing no more than two lives. So what good is collecting points if we don't need them?

Somebody stated that they could beat Gradius III without losing a life. Although I remain skeptical of such a claim, it just goes to show you that scoring points is nothing more than extra work for the CPU.

"Well points earn extra lives!"

Good point (no pun intended), but extra lives also come in other forms. What does an extra life in Bionic Commando look like? A doll dressed like the hero. So, scoring points is once again redundant.

You know the initals of the legendary gamer that gets the highest score in just about every game? He/she goes by the name of AAA. Obviously people understand the futility in high scores so, they just rapidly mash the button, putting AAA in scorer's list.

Your thoughts on scoring points?

[Arcade Antics]

I am a big fan of point-scoring games. Call me a Greedy Point Master™ if you must.

Points are what the old games are all about. Inscribing your initials in the #1 spot gives you bragging rights AND is a great way to impress the chicks.

I'd rather win Smash TV with 200,000,000 points than with a mere 180,000,000 points.

My two points.

[MankeyMan]

What Arcade Antics said. Where is the joy of knowing that you've completely beaten your closest friend into the ground with double his points score, if there were no points?

[Ascending Wordsmith]

What Arcade Antics said. Where is the joy of knowing that you've completely beaten your closest friend into the ground with double his points score, if there were no points?

What game (other than a sports game) is there that requires two competitors to score more points more than the other?

[Arcade Antics]

What game (other than a sports game) is there that requires two competitors to score more points more than the other?

Do you mean two-player simultaneous play? If not, then pretty much ANY game.

If so, then...

Joust
Smash TV
Total Carnage
Wizard of Wor
Narc
Double Dragon
Final Fight
Gauntlet

and many, many more...

[Ascending Wordsmith]

Nice list, but competing in those games comes down to who can stay alive longer. If two people were playing Double Dragon for example, the better of the players is the one stays alive longest. The other games are like that too.

[Arcade Antics]

Nice list, but competing in those games comes down to who can stay alive longer. If two people were playing Double Dragon for example, the better of the players is the one stays alive longest. The other games are like that too.

I disagree. I've played many rounds of Joust where the other player stayed alive longer than I did.

BUT, I had more points, so I WON. :D

[IGotTheDot]

Just about any time you can incorporate points into a game, it makes it more fun. If you don't like points, then you can just ignore them. I loved the points in SSX Tricky.

My2Cents

[Nature Boy]

I'm definitely pro-points.

You *could* sit down with me and declare victory in Ms. Pac-Man, say, just because you went through more screens. But, if I spent my time eating four ghosts per power pellet (and I always *try* to), and I have a higher score at the end, well, I'd still argue that I played the game *better* than you did.

Anybody can ignore the point scoring prizes and worry only about using power pellets for cleaning up dots. But the truly good player nails it all. IMO of course.

Of course that's classic gaming at it's finest. In todays games you don't see scores as often but they're still used. In Monkey Fight you get more points for knocking out someone with more power ups. So I could knock off less monkeys than you but still win because of points because my knock offs were tougher.

[bargora]

Sure, it's great to say that you can finish <fill in the blank shmup>. But in primitive shmups there was no ending, and often no or very few progress indicators to use for comparing your advancement to other players'. Hence, score was a good way to rank players. I suppose you could try to advance without shooting any enemies, which would yield close to a zero score, but you're not likely to get far.

In the middle period shmups, the addition of bonus score items added another dimension to gameplay, forcing the player to choose between risky maneuvering or chickening out.

In the modern shmups, more innovative scoring systems, typically based on item collection or chaining, make a huge difference, gameplay-wise, between playing (just) to finish and playing for score. But then, maybe only "hardcore" players play for score these days.

To some degree, these same factors may apply to beat 'em ups as well. So I disagree with you on shmups, and maybe beat 'em ups. As for the rest, I can't say I disagree with you. And AAA dominating the high score boards? I'm not sure you can equate failure to enter initials with "score is worthless".

Oh, and do let me know when you solve Tetris. ;)

[stonecutter]

For the most part I like points, one exception for me. In Tengen Tetris its about the lines cleared in my opinion. If there were a tie in the lines cleared then I would consider score. Although that usually won't happen, I also happen to be a player who likes to " go big or go home " so I am going for as many Tetris's as possible.

[Ascending Wordsmith]

Oh, okay. I see your points LOL

I just wanted to get a few responses about points.

So, to sum it all up... it's a measure of skill, not accomplishment?

Thoughts please.

[Gunstarhero]

I feel the opposite on this one. I feel a game without a 'points' system makes the act of replaying insignificant. Points are a guage of the persons' Prowess of a game, and Points inspire competition, which is the most important factor of a person's desire to replay a video game.

If a person challenged me to finish a game that he had recently beaten, and I went ahead and also finished the same game to prove to him I could do it, but the game had no way to gauge my ability to win, what would have been the point? With the addition of a scoring system, I could have strived to score more points to prove that my technique of winning the game was better than his, much like Nature Boy points out.

I used to make frequent trips to the local arcade to see if I still held fast lap times on San Fransisco Rush, and if I didn't have the top times, then I put my money in the machine to try and beat the current times. Without this unique scoring system(in this case a timer), I would not have even bothered replaying Rush at the arcades and the arcade operator would have been out some money.

My view is that Points offer unlimited replay value to a game thru competition. And the question that I ask is "what is the purpose of a game without points?"

[Arcade Antics]

Oh, okay. I see your points LOL

I just wanted to get a few responses about points.

So, to sum it all up... it's a measure of skill, not accomplishment?

Thoughts please.

I'd say that it's a measure of BOTH skill AND accomplishment. 8-)

[Captain Wrong]

I disagree with you 100%. (I'm talking mostly about shmups in my rant, but you can change it to most kind of games and still get the point.)

With unlimited continues anyone can advance to the end of a Shmup. However, only the skilled can get the mega points. This is why every mainstream review of any shmup that comes out bitches about "it's too short." No one left in the mainstream gaming media understands how to play shmups anymore.

I've never seen shmups as a race to the end sort of thing. In fact, I'd say I haven't "beaten" 75% of my shmups because I play for points. Sure, the end bosses are fun and all that, but it's more fun to me to rack up an outrageous score than just whack the continue button to get to the end.

That's just it. Points are a measure of skill, something which just isn't that importaint in modern gaming. Points are the true measure of progress in a game. Anyone with time on their hands, cheat codes, guides, Gane Shark, etc. can "beat" a game, meaning get to the ending. Only through tracking your score can you gauge your master of the game. Reaching the end is not the same as mastery.

Modern games, however, seem to equate reaching the end with mastery. Why is that? Have gamers gotten lazy? (Perhaps.) Is it a plot to get you to buy more games? (Could be, after all, games with points have infinite play value, you can always try to beat your old score. If the end is the goal, once you've reached it, what's the point in doing it again?) Is this a byproduct of the death of the arcade? (Probably.) Or is it just that we've gotten so concerned with everyone feeling good about them selves that we need to have games where skill isn't a factor so anyone who wants to win can? (Hmm...)

Maybe I'm a dinosaur. That would explain why I have little to no interest in current consoles or games. Maybe my way of thinking about points and skill as being a vital factor in games is more about me being a product of the 80's and hanging out in arcades. Maybe I'm just out of touch.

All I know is this, I'd rather spend hours trying to beat my high score at Robotron or Battle Garegga than see the ending of any Final Fantasy or Mario Sunshine.

[YoshiM]

I think points are a measurement of skill. I mean I can probably last pretty long in say After Burner by just dodging bullets, but that's not being skillfull. Flying into the fray and racking up points AND staying alive through many missions is showing both skill (the racking up of points) and accomplishment (getting through X number of missions).

I think the "points" of today are measured more in percentages than anything. If you look at FPS games (like I'm playing Jedi Outcast on XBox) some have a tally of how well you did: accuracy, body part shots, etc. But on the whole, yeah, it's all about finishing the game ever since the NES. However modern games do give some extras to try and strive for like multiple characters, secret areas, game modes, videos, etc. that players need to unlock by being especially good at playing the game, either with accuracy or being able to finish a level in X amount or time or what have you. Or be patient and play the game through.

[bargora]

Cap'n Pringles raises a huge f'n point there, that "advancement" doesn't mean jack in a game with free continues (if you're a low-down sumbitch that would take advantage of them). So what I meant earlier is that it's great if you can beat the final boss of a shmup or a beat 'em up in 3 credits, or 1 credit, or one life (and then maybe do it again on the second loop).

But anybody who "finishes" a game by credit-feeding and then declares it to be too short or easy needs to be set up the bomb.

[GENESISNES]

yeah im pro points. it shows how better you are than the other person. but seeing points in a newer game is just plain scary

[gamingguy]

SELF-COMPETITION. That's what the point of points was for me in old games. First I'd get 1000 in Space Invaders. Then 2000. Then 2200. And so on. Each time I tried to improve my previous score and improve my skills. I even created a logbook to record my all-time best scores.

And also during the holidays, it was always fun to gather the family around and compete against one another... just like a game of Monopoly except we were playing Pac-Man instead.

[CrazyImpmon]

I am a big fan of point-scoring games. Call me a Greedy Point Master™ if you must.

I have a Point Master joystick but I've never heard of Greedy Point Master. Is that by the same company Dishwasher? LOL LOL LOL

I'm also pro points as well. It's a measure of achievement in any games.

[ventrra]

I'd say that much of this CAN be applied to RPG's as well. It seems to me to be a bigger accomplishment to, say. beat Final Fantasy for the NES with level 50 characters after accumulating all of those Experience Points than to simply get through the game. It takes a lot more patients to do so.

(I will admit, however, that those people who can beat the game with very low XP / level charactors are doing some impressive stuff as well.)

[Britboy]

If it weren't for points, we wouldn't be able to render arcade games offensive with initials such as FUK, TIT, PUS, SHT, and the ever-popular CLT. And don't forget the Narconyms such as POT, LSD, BUD, CIG, and 7&7!

[NE146]

I just wanted to get a few responses about points.

So, to sum it all up... it's a measure of skill, not accomplishment?

Thoughts please.

Put it this way.. it was my on/off goal for YEARS to score a million points in Robotron at default difficulty (which really doesn't take long at all, but since it's ROBOTRON, is pretty difficult to say the least). When I finally did it a couple of years ago (1999?) man that was an event and a definite feeling of "accomplishment". But of course I had to have the skills after all those years of playing to do it.

So it was a measure of both :)

[Dji]

I do think points are mostly useless in modern games, but not always. Before I get into that, though, allow me to rant about something point-related.

Why is it that in most games, the minimum amount of points you can score is either 10 or 100? It should always be below 10 (whether it be 1, 2, 5... whatever). Yay, I got a million points for destroying the boss... even though the minimum is a thousand points for the lowliest of enemies. :roll:

Classic games could not have been based on anything but points, for the most part, so it was a necessary measure to ensure some form of gameplay. I like simple VCS games for the pure skills they require. However, more recent games have begun ditching the point system in favor of "reaching the end". Super Mario Bros., Contra and Mega Man all had point systems, yet they are pretty much always ignored. Yes, I could go back and forth in Mega Man, and score endless points, but that would be both extremely easy and pointless. Capcom understood this, and scrapped the point system from later installments in the series. When I play fighting games such as Capcom VS. SNK 2, I simply do not care about the so-called "rating" I get when I beat an opponent. Winning is the only goal I seek. I fail to see how winning by poking is worse than winning by a super move. That would be like giving an "A" to a chess player who uses his queen to checkmate his opponent, and giving a "C" to someone who uses a knight. Thus, I don't see the point of points/rankings in platformers and fighting games. I could see the same logic applied to racing games, but being truly skillful, as in Project Gotham Racing, is the only way to rack in the big points and win the numerous challenges, and is extremely rewarding and fun. Moreso than actually winning the race (which is also necessary), in my opinion. Same goes for shooters, as was already pointed out. PGR is the best racing game I've ever played, by the way. But avoid the sequel, which is quite inferior (the framerate, which is a must in racing games, completely killed it for me). Anyway, aside from that, puzzle games in the endless-falling-blocks category need points, because they do not end until you lose. Other puzzle games, such as Adventures of Lolo, Sokoban, etc. do not require a point system.

However, some modern games do use points effectively. I'm talking about Dance Dance Revolution and the other Bemani games. Just passing a song is not enough, you can get a better ranking and score more points by getting closer to perfection. Replay value right there, when you get good enough to pass all the songs anyway. That's it with any game, really. Once you can reach the end, you should strive to do it again while earning the most points you can (except if the point system is broken, i.e. Mega Man). If it doesn't have an end, then, the only thing you can do is score more points, so you might as well do it.

[Jumpman Jr.]

Meh, I've never been a huge fan of arcade style games (which are usually based on getting a high number of points). I'm the type of guy who beats a game for beating it, and doens't worry about what my score is.

[sharp]

As I mainly play arcade games. I love to try to break me highscore. Ok for some games it works better then for other, but especially these days there are a lot of good new scoresystems in games. I love the score systems from games like Ikaruga or Gigawing, but even R-Type or Raiden wouldn't be as much fun without points.

I think for a casual gamer it's only about how far you come, but for the die-hard the score is more important.

Another point about scoreing, I prefer games which reset the score when you use a continue above those which add 1 point to the gamescore which makes it hard to beat someone who therw in a lot of coins.

[johnthehero]

I am generally a "finish the game" kind of gamer, but I also love beating my old scores. In general, I think that if you have the capability to beat a game (like everyone does in a game with infinite continues) then score is what matters most.

I plan on keeping track of high scores that I have for all my games on a big board on the wall of my game room eventually. . . Stuff like that adds to competition and replay value and just makes games more fun.

I do not know if you could really say that points are always a measure of skill, however. Take Super Mario World: if you have a fire flower and Caped Mario, jump up in the air to your item box and hit select repeatedly, your score goes up by 1000 every time you get the feather again.

There is also this great TI-83+ shmup that was great until I managed to beat it really easily on one life and found out that the scoring system was pretty much random. You could get powerups from enemies randomly and some of the powerups were +5 or +10 to score, and if you got through the game on one life, whoever had the most +point powerups wins. All random, not exact a good gauge of skill.

In a real competition, if I was outright challenged to get the highest score, I would certainly abuse something like the Super Mario World thing (I usually try to win as ruthlessly as possible) but if you forget about things like this, or if you talk specifically about games that do not have exploits like that, I suppose points could be used as a gauge of skill.