/vr/ - Retro Games

1. games too long to play in one sitting blind (for most circumstances)
2. games with unlimited continues
3. combination of the two

>>4587894
As soon as home consoles were popular.

>>4587894
As soon as people realized playing for score in 99% of these games is broken as fuck and takes hours of play to max out the score counter (counterstop), or is broken in some other way.

Only some very late era shmups are worth playing for score seriously. And even that is highly debated.

>>4587894
Never, some of the latest /vr/-legal arcades are very scoring based, like the notorious DDP DOJ and Ketsui from 2002/2003, if anything scoring became more relevant and complex in arcade games over time in the 90's compared to most everything before it except the early age that was mostly based on scoring (though much simpler).
I guess you mean in home systems. Then the answer would be that, except for ports and some rare exceptions, scoring was there just to appeal to the then held up in high regard arcade games; however, it was tacked on as some of the previous posters have pointed out. As soon as arcades became less popular in the 5th gen on, home games not only stopped featuring score, but also arcade design philosophy (they became more cinematic, longer sittings, featured progress systems, etc.) and thus modern gaming started.

>>4587894
1995

>>4587901
Scores were still relevant in the 16bit era.

>>4587894
https://www.scribd.com/document/273249442/Scoring-essay-pdf

>>4588101
>progress systems
?

>>4588981
Hilariously, the guy who wrote this guy absolutely worshipped score players for years before his about-face.

>>4589064
Ignore him, it's the same autist that posts this in every thread. Basically he thinks that EVERY game should be a single-serve highscore oriented game where 1cc is the end all be all, and any game that you can save your progress is garbage. He literally posts this in every thread and can't accept that anyone could possibly even slightly disagree with him

>>4589070
Incorrect.
http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/aesthetics-and-mechanics-and-the-grand-unified-theory.html

>>4588981
>my 100m freestyle high score stands currently at 1:07, compared to Phelps's 47.51, so I know what I am talking about

Fuck Icycalm

>>4589359
Wrong, you're exaggerating. I'm against progress systems being a big factor in games. Games longer than one sitting and with saves can still be fine.
>>4589064
By this I mean a game featuring unlockables or permanent rewards you obtain, particularly by grinding or farming. This gets a lot of people addicted to games that they would otherwise dislike, and it fundamentally breaks game design since you can't really balance well a game heavy on these, and changes the fundamental "play to get good" to "play to waste enough time without needing to think so your character becomes good". It's the main force driving modern gaming's profits and people these days pretty much expect these, can't even think a game can exist without them. "What's the point of doing this if the game doesn't reward me with something for it? Such a pointless game with no content".
It's an issue of not intrinsically enjoying games anymore, but extrinsically.

>>4589497
I wonder how you would feel about systems like what the Mega Man Zero games have, though that's not strictly /vr/

>>4589497
What about accepting that you have different tastes and that's it okay when games do something that isn't to your tastes?

>>4589430
>>4588981
It's amazing that this guy refers to these as essays. They're at a ninth-grade level of writing, at best.

>>4589595
There are a few interesting insights desu, but his English is not native and mediocre, as he acknowledges it himself somewhere (basically saying how great he is in spite of writing in mediocre Internet English--I think it is in "Orgy").

Regarding icycalm, I'm still puzzled about how a guy who seems so passionate and even obsessive about arcade, "hardcore" video game philosophy ends up playing nothing but AAA western blockbusters by saying he's "over with" the games he used to like and he has "matured" his taste or whatever.
Seems like either trolling or genuine mental health issues.

>>4589686
I think it's the "so contrarian that he's contrarian toward contrarians" mindset. You end up validating the most normie garbage just for the sake of making the purists mad.

>>4589686
By the looks of it he does have some kind of health issues that contribute to his extreme, obsessive attitude towards the ideology he's been working out over the years. Things like his ranting about fgc and scoring show a complete lack of interest in understanding player psychology and game design. He decided that he disliked them and how they play from the outset, and then set out to rationalize that dislike.

>>4589697
this. it's the autistic contrarianism taking to it's logical conclusion. eventually the only way to stay a cool edgy internet guy is to play shitty AAA garbage that other your fellow internet peers hate.

>>4589514
They are more fine by me than usual. For me, I can ignore the progress systems. For the others, they don't automatically make you win the game by farming, you need some execution still. There are far worse examples.
>>4589497
I'd be fine if games I liked weren't disappearing due to those tastes you mention being so overwhelmingly popular they are just eating the whole market. And as I've said, I was fine when these were the norm but I still had my new stuff, nowadays it's pretty much dying.
>>4589686
Fuck Icycalm, he's an immersionfag.

>>4589990
>he's an immersionfag.
I know, I mean how did he went from one extreme to the other like it's nothing.

>>4589686
I recall he entered a tournament for some game (I think it was planetary annihilation?) and got so wrecked that he ended up denouncing competitive play entirely.

>>4589994
personally I'm both at the same time

>>4589497
>"play to get good"
You know that this gets people addicted to games that they don't really find fun too, right? And that it also requires a fuckload of mindless grinding?

High level score runners and speedrunners fucking hate themselves.

>>4589998
That's fine, you like video games.
I mean how someone who is so radically obsessed about his own extremisms goes from one to the other.

>>4589990
Since it seems like you don't think it's completely well done, what are the problems you have with how Zero and similar games do it?

>>4590032
Not him but randomized health/energy drops are cancer, rank systems are too simplistic for determining performance and abandoning a significant part of game mechanics to get a challenge always feels like crap. Cyber elves don't JUST increase health after all, they have other effects too and they're frequently used to reward exploration.

>>4590012
>You know that this gets people addicted to games that they don't really find fun too, right?
Fuck no it doesn't, the speedrunners started running the games because they loved them. High level play just always involves a lot of frustration no matter what, getting good does not mean getting the WR.

>>4590063
The first one is just a Mega Man thing in general, so I'll just chalk that up to preference. Never minded limiting the amount of Cyber Elves you can use, especially since 3 and 4 fixed that problem in my opinion, though I can see why you'd dislike it. Is that the only game mechanic you feel gets limited by the ranking system, and how would you prefer a ranking system done if you had to have one?

>>4590083
>speedrunning
>fun
lol??? they're always pissed off and smashing controllers and shit.

>>4589994
Who cares, fuck him.
>>4590012
Yes. However, there's a difference between "gameplayfags" and competitivefags. The first are the ones that inherently enjoy game mechanics and their challenge, regardless of their result. The later ones are the ones you're talking about, who are prone to playing stuff to a point they no longer enjoy just for the thrill of competitiveness.
HOWEVER!, there's a clear distinction. I can enjoy games made mostly with game mechanics in mind, just like the competitivefags. They don't bother anyone. However, progress systems are in opposition to game mechanics: if a game is made for progressfags it's no longer a game for us lovers of game mechanics.

If you want to see why, let's pick two popular games that are the full extreme of one spectrum.
Pure game mechanics: Tetris (sure, it has some graphics and a soundtrack, but it's easier to see this stuff in a single player game rather than in Pong). Something you play for the inherent fun of it, or to compete if you are a competitivefag.
Pure progress systems: Cookie Clicker. No game mechanics, just click without any thought needed nor a fail state to see numbers going up.
Mainstream games are more like Cookie Clicker than Tetris, maybe adding cinematic stuff or randomized rewards.

>>4590032
As this guy said >>4590063 , the rank system is not as deep as a scoring system, though that isn't my biggest issue.
It's just that the game features a lot of design choices that just bloat it, it isn't as tightly designed as it could have been if it didn't allow you to farm for crap so lesser skilled players had a bigger chance to succeed. Instead of making the game so that noobies are engaged to learn and improve their skills, it encourages them to waste time farming, or do stuff for rewards rather than the intrinsic enjoyment. In these games it's quite light, but this design philosophy just leads to crap in the long run as you've seen in later modern games.

>>4590102
That other guy wasn't me btw.

>>4590107
No they're not, your whole idea of speedrunners comes from infantile nintentoddlers and trannies, most are pretty chill. Anyway that's besides the point, speedrunning for WR is a style of play that you can engage with or not at your leisure, games don't funnel you into playing at that level while progression systems are there specifically to foster addiction

>>4587894
That's hard to answer because for a lot of people scoring is still relevant and they still compete for high scores but I'd say that by the time the NES hit the market people started playing games without the intention of keeping their scores but to beat them instead but even then a game like Super Mario Bros or Ninja Gaiden features high score records in guinness book.

I'm basing this assumption on someone's whose first console was the NES, because I imagine that somebody who used to play golden age arcade games and was keen on keeping his scores would play a game like SMB paying attention to how many points he'd earn by breaking blocks or killing enemies in a row and develop strategies to maximize it.

>>4590109
>Cookie Clicker. No game mechanics
cookie clicker does have game mechanics, though. there's an entire meta of min/maxing your cookie gains in the least amount of time.

>>4590118
Noone enjoys speedrunning, dude. The only reason it's even remotely popular now is because they can stream and talk to their chat while doing it, which masks their boredom.

>>4590118
>infantile nintentoddlers
Like it or not, Nintendo games are the best for speedrunning by a pretty huge margin. Noone puts the kind of offline work into their game that the SM64 and OOT runners do.

>>4590118
>your whole idea of speedrunners comes from infantile nintentoddlers
Well yeah, nintendo games are the most popular speedgames by far, so they're the most accurate representation of the community.

Only 2 of the top 10 most popular speedgames aren't on Nintendo consoles.

>>4590102
Truth be told, it's been a long time since I last played MMZ games, so going into the details about how I'd do the ranks/scoring would be sloppy. The thing with rank and simple scoring is that it tends to limit the a mount of possible variation. MMZ has 15-20 point maximum for each criteria which means there are essnetially only 15-20 levels of "good". Though anyone playing this knows that this is untrue, you can go way beyond S rank in skill, and even within S rank different players will perform differently. With higher number variation, you're allowing the games to judge the skills of players with more precision, and not having a hard (and low) cap like 20 points or S rank let's the games acknowledge improvements in player skill that go beyond what the developers intended (no dev is smart enough to see how far their games will be pushed). In regards to cyber elves, ideally with challenge you want to make the player use everything at their disposal to overcome the difficulty, instead of limiting their options. Cyber elves aren't that bad because most are purely about boosting your stats, though there are some neat ones that change your movement too. I like Castlevania Portrait of Ruin and Order of Ecclesia's level 1 hard modes. They only boost enemy damage and health but instead of making the games boring, that makes it more interesting since you have to use all the items, spells and moves you can find to overcome challenges, rather than doing minimalist runs like for SoTN.

>>4590109
>the game features a lot of design choices that just bloat it
What in particular, aside from the grinding option? Also, it sounds like you guys would probably have a higher opinion of the ZX games, since you can't grind to overpower them, at least from what I remember you can't.

>>4590112
I know, he said as much.

>>4590132
>Noone enjoys speedrunning
Blatantly false, maybe if you claimed no one enjoys speedrunning highly optimized games at WR level you'd have more of a point
>>4590142
That's like saying Nintendo fans are the most representative of gaming as a whole. For whatever reason Nintendo shit attracts the most obnoxious faggots imaginable.

>>4590136
SM64 actually has fun, in-depth character control. OoT's a good game but how on earth could you speedrun it without being bored?

>>4590147
ZX only had the boss weaknesses instead of stage ranking and scores, which is lame. The weakness idea itself is nice, but getting ranks during stages in Zero games was awesome. You can sort of grind them too though, they had no power elves but you could do sidequests for items which worked more or less the same.

>>4590151
>zfg
>darbian
>zoasty
>shaeden
>xiah
>vallu
>averagetrey
>obnoxious
think you need to branch out a bit, dude.

>OoT's a good game but how on earth could you speedrun it without being bored?
because it's an incredibly technical speedrun with a lot of depth and a very high skill ceiling.

>>4590154
forgot to tag: >>4590160

>>4590127
Sure, the mechanics of speeding the progress system. Of course, it has SOMETHING, or else it'd just be pressing a button and that's it.
But, if you think about it, you can't lose. You can't win. You just see numbers going up, and to raise them you don't need any skill whatsoever unless you are directly competing for a limited time with another from scratch. But if you go to that route, you can compete over anything, doesn't make it a true video game or having game mechanics.
>>4590143
> ideally with challenge you want to make the player use everything at their disposal to overcome the difficulty, instead of limiting their options
That's the issue, when the devs throw stuff at you that breaks the game, particularly if you have to farm for it, just makes it so it encourages people to beat the game by farming and then reduce the actual challenge the game has to offer. You make them waste their time and then make them not appreciate your game as much, since they are steamrolling through it.
Instead, all your options should be decently balanced, or at least don't promote the "farm = win" crap. Again, that has lead to games just becoming progress systems now. Mega Man Zero is a transitional title between arcade action and progress system fest, it's still quite on the former side but it sacrifices some core values an design to pander to progressfags (and storyfags, who would rather farm to read the story than to actually engage with the game proper).
And yes, SotN is one of the worst examples of an action game ruined by being too heavy on progress systems. This is my point, but some people get triggered when I mention this stuff and think I mean every game has to be an arcade or something. I still have fun with the MMZ games; however, for SotN I'd have to do some sort of self-imposed challenge, it's too far into the progressfag spectrum (and intentionally, the devs wanted the game to have a "wider appeal")
Cont.

>>4590151
Welcome to fanbases. Not going to deny that some are worse in some ways than others, but there's no good difference between green shit and brown shit.

>>4590160
>playing the whole game backdashing

>>4590170
>But, if you think about it, you can't lose. You can't win.
What does that have to do with anything? Recreational activities don't require winning or losing.

Cont. from >>4590170

>>4590147
Read what I told this anon here: >>4590170
I've played the ZX games, as well as most Mega Man games. They're fine, though I haven't replayed them since launch so I can't go deep into what I think about them. As you can figure out, I wasn't that much into them, otherwise I would've replayed them by now.

>>4590174
So you haven't actually watched a run and know literally nothing about it. Good to know you're just a disingenuous as everyone else who shits on it.

>>4590175
Recreational activity =/= (Video) Game
Which is my point: progress systems aren't a game mechanic. They're just there to grab some people into your game that get addicted to that kind of stuff, which turns out to be A LOT of people.

>>4590180
>Recreational activity =/= (Video) Game
Pedantry. An activity doesn't require a win or lose state to be a game. Moreover, the player is allowed to define the win or lose state on their own, the game doesn't need to define it for them. For example, if someone playing cookie clicker fucks up their build, they could consider that a loss.

>>4590170
>Mega Man Zero is a transitional title between arcade action and progress system fest
I think the reason is more due to it being in the shadow of the much more popular Battle Network series, so they felt the need to include some RPG elements.
Later Zero games even used the link cable to connect directly to Battle Network for in-game rewards. The Zero devs really wanted a piece of BN's fame.

>>4590179
>>4590160
oot is a good game, but speed running it isn't as good as you think, it's had alot of time for people to find things out because it's popular.

>>4590190
As someone who has run both SM64 and OOT and has spoken with many others who have done the same, the two are pretty on par with each other in speedgame quality. They just look very different when executed.

>>4590186
That definition is lousy, it can be applied to toys and software. Games need lose/win states or something similar like explicit goals by definition.What you are talking about is players creating a game out of something which isn't inherently a game, which is valid but it can be done for anything (and often is as psychological motivation, ever heard of gamification?) and does not make the original system a game.

I've got nothing against speedruns, although I admit I find it awkward why anybody would even give a fuck to watch a game they never played or anything besides the current world record. Unless it's a race, those are alright.

>>4590207
> it can be applied to toys and software
Video games are both, so yes, it can be.
>Games need lose/win states or something similar like explicit goals
No they don't. By that laughable defintion Minecraft isn't a game, except it clearly is, and almost nobody would disagree with that notion.

You do understand that language changes with popular use, right? Definitions are made to fit the way a word is used, not the other way around.

>>4590214
>Video games are both, so yes, it can be.
Video games are software and toys, but toys aren't video games, and software isn't video games.
>By that laughable defintion Minecraft isn't a game
You can die in Minecraft which guides your actions, and you can win in Minecraft. I said either lose/win states or explicit goals. The presence of lose/win states by default creates goals even if they are not made explicit, but in the absence of lose/win states the goals must be explicit or else it becomes a toy or a software. Not complicated is it?
>You do understand that language changes with popular use, right?
Would be fine if a proper new definition existed but it doesn't. You can't explain what "game" is when looking at how people use it these days because it's completely incoherent.

>>4590189
Nah, games in general were going in that direction. Observe how the Mega Man series evolved: the SNES titles (X series and, say, 7) already feature more upgrades. Zero just followed that direction even further while still being a relatively skill based action game.
>>4590186
>>4590214
I can watch paint dry and that be recreational to me, would you still call that a (video) game? I don't know, man. This guy gets it quite right >>4590207 ; again, you're not answering to the same guy.
Particularly this part:
>players creating a game out of something which isn't inherently a game
If you NEED to invent some rules (aka invent game mechanics) for it to resemble a game, then it's not a game.
So, if a "game" that's purely progress systems can't work as a game by itself, by definition progress systems aren't game mechanics.
Our definition of game is not just any recreational activity, that's too broad. It's this one:
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.
A different, more accurate acceptation of the word.

>>4590219
This is a stunning level of mental gymnastics.

>>4590223
>If you NEED to invent some rules (aka invent game mechanics) for it to resemble a game, then it's not a game.
Obviously this is nonsense, because all games consist of made up rules.

Soccer is literally just made up rules, and that's what makes it a game.

>>4590226
>made up rules.
That's the point, they are games because they have some rules made.
If something NEEDS rules made for it so it can work as a game to begin with, it's not a game.

>>4590143
So you'd say a wider range of points would make the ranking system better, like 1-50 with the letter rankings adjusted accordingly, for example? As for the Cyber Elves, that is a fair point, and I completely understand that mentality. Only thing I can say to it is the same thing I did before, where I feel that it limiting your use of them is a nice way to potentially give the player a different challenge of sorts and other things, though that loops into the whole preference thing a bit too much.

>>4590156
I remembered the healing items you can get from sidequests, but completely forgot about the chips. That's a good point.

>>4590170
>>4590178
I see where you're coming from on all this, and it makes sense. I just don't feel that having systems in place to potentially let casuals or storyfags or whatever you call them beat the game easier is a bad thing, though it seems like you don't necessarily hate it as long as it's just an option and isn't forced upon you and makes the game worse for you.

>>4590189
BN was stupid popular, wasn't it? Don't they still make up some of the best selling Mega Man games of all time, especially 4? Shame the link cable rewards weren't that notable on the Zero side, though I think 3 was the only one that had it anyway.

>>4590228
I'll explain:
Soccer is a game because it has well defined rules, a win and lose state, and is based on skill.

However, just having a ball isn't a game. You can have fun moving the ball, kicking it, whatever, but that isn't a game. When you decide to play a game with that ball (as in, you decide to play by some rules now), THEN you're playing a game

So
Soccer / Tetris: Game
Kicking the ball around with no rhyme or reason / Cookie Clicker: Not a game

>>4590224
Point out the problems in my reasoning then?
>>4590226
Think he meant that it's not innately a game. You can make anything into a game ofcourse, but video games are deliberately designed with those rules and goals built into them. That's what distinguishes them from software.

>>4589430
Nobody's clicking your site, icy.

>>4590223
>by definition
The way you're defining game isn't the popular definition. You seem to think that all other people on earth should give a shit about the way you've defined it, but that isn't the case. You're literally just arguing semantics.

>>4590230
Or a scoring system like in arcade games which is a similar concept but with no skill cap. They just wanted players to feel good for hitting a cap (S-Rank).

The progress system thing has proven to be a bad thing because it has made it so those players have become used to that and thus have never enjoyed games for their mechanics nor challenge, and thus over time games have become devoid of challenge and a focus in game mechanics at all. It was a slippery slope; seemingly tame at first, but a terrible direction that once you started to pander to it lead to classic style games to their death. Easier settings are a better solution, just to name something.

>>4590240
It's not my fault that people think video games are progress systems now and can't think how something could be enjoyable without playing for reward.

>>4590246
>people think video games are progress systems now
They don't, that's a strawman. Absolutely noone who likes Skyrim or Diablo would say Tetris isn't a video game.

>>4588962
Only in niche genres. Scores on general didn't matter. People generally don't care about your high score in Sonic or Mario, but their completion times.

>>4590230
The best is to just not cap it at all and decide rank based on the aggregate points. That way casuals can get their S ranks and move on, but speedrunners can get 40 points instead of 20 on clear time. This adds depth for players who only cares about ranks too, because they can focus on excelling in some categories like clear time/no damage more than others.

>>4590219
you can't win in tetris
is it not a game?

>>4590261
Yes you can (kill screens and endings in later games) but even if you couldn't it has the very explicit goal of not losing, scoring and competition

>>4590249
They'd say it's a lesser game because it doesn't feature nice graphics, or a plot, or progress systems, or whatever. I know, I've met plenty of people like that. They think pure "gameplay" is worthless without any context or reward, they don't find it inherently enjoyable. And even if they even admit Tetris is cool, they wouldn't bother to play stuff like that, lacking the motivation since it's not something they enjoy, they play video software for the other stuff.

>>4590243
>>4590256
These both make good sense, yeah. Sorry if I've been acting obnoxious or anything during all of this, the Zero and ZX series are ones I love and mean a lot to me, so any chance I have to get opinions on them is one I take, even if I do it ham-fistedly somewhere I'm not really supposed to, like this thread.

Score has always been shit. Either real pvp or bust

>>4590264
You see, I'm critical on them, but they're still games I enjoy. Hell, I couldn't criticize them properly if I hadn't played them multiple times. And even I decided to not judge ZX too much since I haven't played them since launch.

>>4590271
pvp is just a realtime scoring competition

>>4590264
Not that guy, but how do you feel about Gunvolt?

>>4590263
>They think pure "gameplay" is worthless without any context or reward
No, that's what you think. You're the one who is claiming there needs to be a win state.

>>4590271
Other than this >>4590276
There are different kinds of competition.
1. Indirect, skill-based competition. Arcade scoring is this, or speedrunning. Unless RNG is involved, only the player's execution matters.
2. Direct, skill-based competition. So, fighting games and the like. The different here is that "yomi" exists, which is the luck derived from mindgames. You're guessing what your opponent is going to do, which makes these a bit less constant to determine skill (you need several matches to determine a consistant victor / better player)
3. Indirect or direct chance-based games. Just that, games of luck for amusement. Sometimes there can exist hybrids.

>>4590273
As much as I love them, I know pretty much no game is perfect, and they aren't exceptions. I feel that they are good or great games, but with things that people can very understandably dislike.

>>4590280
Never really played one or seen gameplay of it, but they sound alright from what I've heard. More interested in that new game they're making that has the artist from the Zero series back and is really trying to sell itself on the fact that a lot of the staff from it are working on the game. The focus on the RPG aspect worries me though.

>>4590289
Eh, they say it openly.
"What's the point of doing this if the game doesn't reward me with something permanent?"
This is legit, I was playing DoDonPachi in a friend's house and one of his friends that was there asked: "What's the plot of the game?"
I see plenty of people addicted to stuff like HearthStone while hating playing the game. They get angry and not enjoy it at all, but keep coming back for the dailies since they are addicted to the reward structure.
Etc. This is the state of modern "games".

>>4590297
>some people I know think this, therefore it is the consensus.
Congratulations, you hang out with retards and use them as your sole example for a worldview.

>>4590297
>I see plenty of people addicted to stuff like HearthStone while hating playing the game. They get angry and not enjoy it at all, but keep coming back for the dailies since they are addicted to the reward structure.
I see speedrunners doing this every day on twitch. You can probably go find one now.

Score runners do this too.

Stop acting like your waste of life autism is better than anyone else's.

>>4590306
You're again confusing progressfags with competitivefags.
Progressfags: People that need extrinsic rewards coming from the game that don't need any skill to obtain, just time.
Competitivefags: People who need to get better and better and games or beat others at some score or time attack at all costs to enjoy games, while they may not enjoy the games intrinsically anymore.

They are addicted to different stuff. I'm neither, though. I just enjoy game mechanics intrinsically.

>>4590304
>some people
More like the whole fucking market, why do you think F2P / lootbox models are sustainable at all and the most popular garbage?

>>4590297
>gameplay is worthless without any context or reward
>gameplay needs an end goal or win state to be worthwhile
Pick one.

>>4590297
>This is legit, I was playing DoDonPachi in a friend's house and one of his friends that was there asked: "What's the plot of the game?"
To be fair, that's a good question. What IS the plot of DoDonPachi?

>>4590323
Something about jam

>>4590315
woops, meant to put "worthwhile" for the top option.

>>4590315
Dude, those are opposing points, that was the point. The first is the progressfags / storyfags I've met (and the industry in general), the second is more akin to my view. Reading comprehension, please.
>>4590323
The script for the movie Space Jam

>>4590337
You claimed that it's bad or wrong for people to think gameplay is worthless without context or reward.

And at the same time you're claiming that a game requires an end state to be worthwhile.

You're contradicting yourself.

>>4590330
To further expand my point:
Progressfags can't enjoy video software if the aren't progress systems, story, etc. They think game mechanics are worthless by themselves. And this is the modern market, instead of video GAMES.

>>4590342
By context I meant stuff like "ludonarrative"; the game mechanics making sense, plot, all that stuff.
Of course, a game needs rules (like being able to win or lose) to be one. No contradiction here.

>>4590343
there and not the*

When you lose in Tetris that's not a "narrative context", just in case.

>>4590347
You contradicted yourself.

You are claiming that it's bad or wrong for people to think gameplay is worthless without a reward, but at the same time you're claiming that the game must reward you for winning, or it's worthless.

>>4590352
Winning or losing is not a reward, dude. It's just the rules of the game.
"When you get hit by a bullet, you die." This is a game mechanic / rule of the game, not a permanent extrinsic reward or crap like that.
"When you hit an enemy, it dies." Again, not a reward, just a mechanic and the rules.
THIS is an extrinsic reward:
"When you kill enemies, you get experience points. After you've run out of lives and start a new session, you keep those experience points forever. If you grind enough, your ship will improve and thus if you play enough your ship will start out super overpowered!"

>>4587894
the 90's is where I'd say the transition away from scores started. The amount of games adding in scoring systems for the sake of it pretty much plummeted by the 5th gen.

were there any games where the counter went negative when it overflowed? just curious

>>4590361
>Winning or losing is not a reward, dude.
Yes it is. Score is a form of extrinsic reward. The end screen is a form of extrinsic reward. Both of these things are designed from the ground up to activate the reward center in your brain. They give you a goal to progress toward and accomplish. It's the same fucking thing.

The only difference between this and an RPG is the arbitrary distinction you're drawing and the undue weight you hang on the abstract concept of "ability".

>>4590362
I guess you mean in home games, since in the arcades from 94-97 stuff like RayForce, DonPachi, Garegga and DDP were coming out.
>>4590363
I don't remember any instance of that, most of the time the counter just stops.
>>4590372
I wasn't arguing for score not being extrinsic, just the survival base game mechanics. You're the one to bring up scoring.
Anyway, caring about score IS extrinsic; however, it's based around skill, and not just mindlessly wasting enough time. It's fundamentally a different thing.
Scoring systems lead to better games, even when you don't care for them. Progress systems lead to mindless grindfests with no challenge.
It's not arbitrary. It's absolutely not the same to achieve a high score than to reach level 100 in an RPG. And I'm not a high score player, just saying.

>>4590386
>it's based around skill
All video games are based around skill. The problem is that you think you have the authority to dictate the minimum amount of skill a video game "ought" to require before it can be considered a game. Of course this is immeasurable and meaningless, and is entirely subjective.
>It's not arbitrary.
Yes it is. It's based entirely on what you "feel" like a game is, and not on anything quantifiable.

>>4590417
You're twisting my words. I have fun with easier games, too, like Batsugun or Mega Man X4. I'm just saying progress systems aren't a game mechanic.
And yes, progress systems undermine skill. The more emphasis the game puts on them, the less emphasis there is to the game mechanics and the challenge, and it encourages players to play only to farm and for the rewards. To the point where some games are so unbalanced by them they become only engaging game mechanics-wise with self-imposed challenges, such as SotN.

And, again, you can't say "improving your own skill in a game to get a higher score" is the same as "press X to kill an enemy in a turn based game in one hit before it can do anything to you. Repeat for hundreds, thousands or millions of times. Now suddenly you've reached level 100 and your character is unstoppable."

>>4590435
>I'm just saying progress systems aren't a game mechanic.
Yes they are. They're even more of a mechanic than score is because they affect and change the base gameplay instead of just being horseshit meaningless numbers.
>progress systems undermine skill. The more emphasis the game puts on them, the less emphasis there is to the game mechanics
None of this shit means anything and you have yet to attempt to measure "skill" with anything quantifiable.
>And, again, you can't say "improving your own skill in a game to get a higher score" is the same as "press X to kill an enemy in a turn based game in one hit before it can do anything to you. Repeat for hundreds, thousands or millions of times. Now suddenly you've reached level 100 and your character is unstoppable."
They're fundamentally exactly the same. You value them differently in a subjective way, but you're still just pressing buttons to make lights flash on a screen. There's nothing intrinsically valuable about playing a video game, it's literally all in your head.

The way you describe RPGs is also laughably out of touch with reality.

>>4590223
>Observe how the Mega Man series evolved: the SNES titles (X series and, say, 7) already feature more upgrades. Zero just followed that direction even further while still being a relatively skill based action game.
How would you rank the various Mega Man series in regards to skill they require or are based around?

>>4590439
So addiction to competition / high skill and addiction to rewards not based on skill are the same. Yeah, sure.
No, they are not.
Again, look at Cookie Clicker: it's entirely progress systems, and it doesn't qualify as a game. Therefore, game mechanics aren't a game mechanic by themselves.
Furthermore, they undermine game mechanics, unbalancing them and making players focus on the rewards instead of enjoying the games intrinsically.
And yes, the RPG example is an over exaggeration, an extreme example to make it clear (I like them in low level runs myself). However, the scoring super player or world record speedrunner is also a minority. Again, I'm not defending them, I'm not on their side, I just think you're wrong.
And dude, killing an enemy with ATTACK in one hit before it gets to do anything to you, over and over is NOT even remotely skillful. A skill based game is a game that needs some execution or thought to beat, unlike say coin toss, which is a game based on chance.

>>4590439
Really, you're going to play the game of trying to act like there is no way to quantify skill? Ofcourse he won't be able to present you a clear way to do it because this would demand a lot of research but to act like such a feat is impossible is just counterintuitive nonsense.
>They're fundamentally exactly the same.
No they aren't, for a start pure skill based games don't reward pure time investment much, they reward smart time investment while games purely about progression systems will reward any kind of time investment. You progress in cookie clicker no matter what you do, while a game of pure skill can literally be impossible for you to progress in if your reaction times are too bad among other things. This is not the only difference but it's a very clear difference.

>>4590447
Mega Man right from the start is a series that works better with light self-imposed challenges, such as not abusing boss weaknesses and, after the first entry, not abusing e-tanks. 1CC doesn't work since the lack of a timer lets you infinitely farm for lives in safe spots.
They just became more upgrade-based overtime, but the platformers never became full progressfag like SotN IIRC.

>>4590452
So no particular set order then, since it would probably just be preference.

>>4590448
lmao at this fucking gibberish. You are impressively stupid.
>So addiction to competition / high skill and addiction to rewards not based on skill are the same. Yeah, sure.
>No, they are not.
If you're going to claim that a game requires an endgoal (aka a reward) to be worthwhile, you don't get to then claim that it's wrong to play a game for the sake of being rewarded. That is a contradiction. You cannot support the distinction with an arbitrary and immesurable threshold of skill that you defined yourself either, because you are not the authority who gets to dictate that.
>look at Cookie Clicker: it's entirely progress systems, and it doesn't qualify as a game.
The goal of the game is to increase your cookies. It does qualify as a game.
>killing an enemy with ATTACK in one hit before it gets to do anything to you, over and over is NOT even remotely skillful
It does require skill. You've subjectively defined it as not requiring enough to be a game, which is your prerogative, but noone is required to agree with your worldview.
>>4590450
>Really, you're going to play the game of trying to act like there is no way to quantify skill?
If you're going to claim that a minimum quantity of skill is required for something to be considered a game, then yes, you need to measure and quantify what that minimum quantity is. You then need to justify why you've chosen that specific threshold and not a lower or higher one.
>a start pure skill based games don't reward pure time investment much
Yes they do. A brainlet can put 5000 hours in a game and get good at it. Look at top speedrunners, for example, they're fucking mongoloids almost across the board. Even top esports players are frequently dumber than fuck.

>>4590472
>If you're going to claim that a minimum quantity of skill is required for something to be considered a game, then yes, you need to measure and quantify what that minimum quantity is. You then need to justify why you've chosen that specific threshold and not a lower or higher one.
To add to this, "skill" isn't linear either. It could be argued that there are hundreds of RPGs that require more brain power than Super Mario World, but by your own shitty definition, Super Mario World is the more skilled game.

>>4590472
>Yes they do. A brainlet can put 5000 hours in a game and get good at it. Look at top speedrunners, for example, they're fucking mongoloids almost across the board. Even top esports players are frequently dumber than fuck.
Idiotic baseless assumption. Have you seen their IQ scores? Have you seen how they would perform in fields that demand high intelligence if they put as much effort into them as speedrunning? Fuck no. More than likely you aren't even basing this off your estimation of their general intelligence but knowledge or social skills.
Intelligence isn't the only things game require either, as I've said if you don't have the reaction times there can be literally nothing you can do. All of this of course stems from the fact that they require high degrees of player agency to begin with while cookie clicker plays itself.

>>4590469
Basically. They're mostly fun, they just become too easy when fully upgraded / abusing weaknesses or health recovery. But when foregoing some of these elements, which is straightforward to do, they become arguably more fun since you actually get to see the boss patterns are instead of bruteforcing them or stunlocking them in later ones.
>>4590472
>If you're going to claim that a game requires an endgoal (aka a reward) to be worthwhile
No, a game needs to have an endgame to be a game. Stop twisting words / misinterpreting.
You can have fun moving a ball around at your pace, as well as playing a game of soccer. However, the former isn't a game, while the later is.
Being rewarded for your skill by a victory in a game =/= Being rewarded with an extrinsic trinket for only merely playing enough without actually having tried.
>The goal of the game is to increase your cookies. It does qualify as a game.
So, click to see numbers going up? With no way to win or to lose? Yeah, totally a game. I can do pretty much the same by counting how many times I click my pen. Is a pedometer a video game, too?
>It does require skill.
OK, you're just trolling now. I guess being able to hit a button is a skill to you, some people can't due to some disability LMAO.
>If you're going to claim that a minimum quantity of skill is required for something to be considered a game
NOT the point, stop with this garbage.
>A brainlet can put 5000 hours in a game and get good at it.
Yes, and THEY are becoming better at it, not their avatar.

>>4590386
>I guess you mean in home games
No shit. Scoring systems will always be relevant to arcade games with solo modes, as that actually adds incentive to improving yourself. Only times it doesn't matter in arcade games is when you're PvPing.

>>4590498
That's not true, though. Arcade games after the early 80's still have a scoring system, true, but for some it's hardly the focus and as a result it's sometimes broken by checkpoint milking and the like. Fighting games (solo) in general have lousy scoring, beat 'em ups don't focus on that either from what I've played. Metal Slug's scoring is particularly bad.

>>4590489
>Idiotic baseless assumption.
What's baseless about it? The best SM64 player in the world can't figure out how to use a PC properly. He can barely form coherent sentences. I've spent enough time around that community to be well aware of his general level of competency.
>Have you seen their IQ scores? Have you seen how they would perform in fields that demand high intelligence if they put as much effort into them as speedrunning?
Have you? On what grounds do you think it requires a smart person to repeat the same inputs over and over until it's ingrained in muscle memory?
>>4590490
>Being rewarded for your skill by a victory in a game =/= Being rewarded with an extrinsic trinket for only merely playing enough without actually having tried.
No, they are the same thing. The former is being rewarded for their ability to do something in the game, and the latter is as well. The distinction you're drawing is one of severity, not of any fundamental difference.
>So, click to see numbers going up?
Yes, that is the goal of the game.
>I can do pretty much the same by counting how many times I click my pen.
Well, no, cookie clicker is far more mechanically complex than that.
>NOT the point, stop with this garbage.
I'm asking you to justify your position and you continue to refuse.
>Yes, and THEY are becoming better at it, not their avatar.
Claiming you can't become better at an RPG or even at cookie clicker is both disingenuous and laughably stupid.

>>4590503
>some games have shit scoring systems
Okay?

>>4590506
>The former is being rewarded for their ability to do something in the game, and the latter is as well.
One requires skill, the other doesn't. Beating world records requires you to get better as a player, you don't have to even think to grind, man. Why are you even defending this shit.
>Yes, that is the goal of the game.
There's no goal. How do you win or lose at Cookie Clicker?
>Well, no, cookie clicker is far more mechanically complex than that.
Cookie Clicker confirmed GOAT
>I'm asking you to justify your position and you continue to refuse.
My position is not that one, stop with your "You just said" garbage. My point is, progress systems =/= game mechanics, I'm not saying that a game needs to be challenging to be a game. Stop making shit up.
>Claiming you can't become better at an RPG or even at cookie clicker is both disingenuous and laughably stupid.
You can become better at the RPG (like in low level runs), but the act of grinding the character to ridiculous levels is to improve the avatar, not to improve yourself as a player. This isn't hard to see at all.

This asshole is on a whole other level of "moving the goalposts"

>>4590506
>What's baseless about it?
The fact that you've given 0 evidence besides a personal anecdote? Intelligence is multifaceted, even autists can succeed in certain fields while being completely inept at basic tasks.
>On what grounds do you think it requires a smart person to repeat the same inputs over and over until it's ingrained in muscle memory?
I love how you're attempting to shift the conversation in a direction of intelligence because you have no ground to stand on otherwise. I never stated this, and whether or not it does has literally nothing to do with my point. In fact, reaction times was the talent/skill I brought up to demonstrate it, which has nothing to do with general intelligence besides correlation. Focus, you colossal dumbass.

>>4590513
It's not "some", arcade games in general became less score based after the early 80's, with only some exceptions later on (like how shoot 'em ups became more scoring based in the 90's). They still left the score in but they didn't put that much effort into it.

>>4590517
How do 1ccers even compete with eachother, if score is completely irrelevant to them?

>>4590520
Why would they need to compare with each other? Beating good games is fun.
Anyway, there's a thing called speedrunning, I guess. But there's a reason shoot 'em ups are the most popular arcades for scoring not from the 80's.

>>4590515
>This asshole is on a whole other level of "moving the goalposts"
That's because he's not trying to understand or argue in good faith, his goal is to poke your definition until he finds an apparent hole so he can claim it's ALL baseless. That's how these arguments against strict definitions go every time.

>>4590525
>Why would they need to compare with each other?
because competing is fun?

>>4590529
Sure, but my point was that beating the games can also be fun.
Anyway, in the 90's you had shooters for score and fighting games for direct competition.

>>4590515
>One requires skill, the other doesn't.
They both require skill. The only distinction is that you're drawing an imaginary minimum quantity of skill required for something to be considered a game. That's not how it works.

And you're now going in circles, forcing me to repeat myself.
>There's no goal.
The goal is to acquire more cookies.
>progress systems =/= game mechanics
Progress systems are game mechanics. They have a tangible affect on gameplay in virtually every game that implements one.
>the act of grinding the character to ridiculous levels is to improve the avatar
Yes, but that's not what an RPG is. There is far more to virtually every RPG than "grind to improve avatar lol!"
>not to improve yourself as a player.
There are countless RPGs that reward improving yourself as a player.
>>4590516
>I love how you're attempting to shift the conversation in a direction of intelligence because you have no ground to stand on otherwise.
You claimed that getting good at a game requires "smart" time investment, which isn't the case. You can brute force any speedrun and get good at it. There is no real methodology. Getting good at score runs and speedrunning isn't hard, it's literally all based around how much of your life you're willing to waste.
>In fact, reaction times was the talent/skill I brought up to demonstrate it
Speedrunning doesn't require reaction. It requires action. You do know the difference between those two things, right?
>>4590526
Stop samefagging, it's fucking embarrassing.

>>4590532
>Sure, but my point was that beating the games can also be fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk-lA12FBk

>>4590529
we do this thing called "sports" for that, you have to leave your house for them tho

>>4590540
>You claimed that getting good at a game requires "smart" time investment, which isn't the case.
It is the case, it's just not "you need to be at least 120 IQ to beat THIS game!". Games are simple puzzles, you need to think critically to overcome challenges. Most people can do this just fine so it's taken for a given. Cookie Clicker literally plays itself after the first bunch of clicks, there is no thought, skill, effort, talent or anything that is tested unless you deliberately make a proper skill based game out of it such as setting a goal to get as many cookies as quickly as possible.
>Getting good at score runs and speedrunning isn't hard, it's literally all based around how much of your life you're willing to waste.
Wrong, people progress at vastly different rates. How come Pazzy got a good DOJ score after a few hundred hours while it took some chink thousands? How come some players work at speedruns for years getting nowhere while others rise to the top quickly? Don't be an idiot.
>Speedrunning doesn't require reaction.
You're the one who keeps shifting this towards speedrunners, and specific ones too. I'm talking about games in general. People with abnormally low reaction times will literally never get good at playing rhythm games with the random modifier for example.

Keeping you from moving the goalposts is the real challenge here.

>>4590553
>le APM is the only video gaming skill
jesus christ lol

>>4590558
Who are you quoting?

>>4590541
>also
Please, read. Why do people here always assume others are confrontational? Survival and competition can both be fun, it's the point.

>>4590540
>The only distinction is that you're drawing an imaginary minimum quantity of skill required for something to be considered a game
Dude, it's time we stop arguing with you, you insist on twisting our words and we're just like this:
I make a point
You: But you said (point I didn't make)
Me: That wasn't my point
You: But you said (point I didn't make)
This is just garbage, I hope you've had fun with the attention you've received. It was a fair bait until you just ran out of ideas and resorted to "SO YOU'RE SAYING" crap over and over. This is like a comedy sketch now.

>>4590553
Just leave him be, man. We're wasting our time here.

>>4590562
That's pretty much his "strategy".

>>4589997
Everybody who sucks at games and who has a stick up their ass seems to have this problem, ie. Yahtzee

>>4590627
Yeah, it's something along these lines:
>The problem can't be me, therefore the game has the problem

>>4590120
I'd bet there are speed records for max score in SMB1 and other NES games in which max score is reasonably attainable.

>>4590363
None that I know of, though life counters could have that problem. There was a tempest exploit where you could die "twice" and go to -1 lives, which would make the life counter overflow and go to 40 lives.


The thread back and forth is interesting even if I'm slept deprived and not following all of it. What exactly is the definition of a game being debated here? Is it that games have to have a win or lose state, or what? I think I got lost in all the back and forth as to what the point actually was

>>4590750
We were wasting our time with a troll, don't bother too much with it.

Counterstops are decently common in arcades without needing to go to the games that go on infinitely, like in Mars Matrix or Batsugun Special Version.

>>4590567
he did address your points though. you can't wrap your brain around the fact that you might be wrong so you act like he didn't, but then you just repeat points he already addressed.

it takes a really sad level of delusion and elitism to convince yourself that RPGs aren't videogames.

>>4589359
>Ignore him, it's the same autist that posts this in every thread. Basically he thinks that EVERY game should be a single-serve highscore oriented game where 1cc is the end all be all, and any game that you can save your progress is garbage. He literally posts this in every thread and can't accept that anyone could possibly even slightly disagree with him
Accurate. Guy is clearly out to lunch. His compulsive samefagging is blatantly obvious too.

@4590768
>he
nice try

>>4590778
yes, he. you don't think disagreeing with the mouth diarrhea you post here is out of the ordinary, do you?

>>4590136
>Nintendo games are the best for speedrunning by a pretty huge margin. Noone puts the kind of offline work into their game that the SM64 and OOT runners do.

That's not necessarily a GOOD thing though.

4590783
nice try x2 it's no coincidence that this argument happened as soon as the anti arcade fag came back while the other disagreements have been civil

>>4590793
>the anti arcade fag
who? i don't see anyone who said anything that was anti-arcade.

also, learn how to tag posts properly. it's not hard.

>>4590553
>People with abnormally low reaction times will literally never get good at playing rhythm games with the random modifier for example.
Why did I come back to this thread?

>>4590801
Masochism.

>>4590774
Which posts are the samefagging you're talking about?

>>4590785
Why's that?

#4590798
Solid attempt, however...
>>4590801
Abnormally slow*. Got a problem with that statement?

>>4590810
>slow*
I figured that much.
You know you can click the post number to quote people, right? Is this what the kids are doing now to stop giving people (You)'s? Doesn't make sense when you're trying to actually argue something, if you can call this an argument.

>>4590810
>#4590798
this is the saddest shit i've ever seen.

>>4590807
>Which posts are the samefagging you're talking about?
The posts you made agreeing with yourself and arguing with the other guy while pretending to be a different person.

>>4588962
They existed in some games, and a tiny handful of people paid attention to them. But they were far from relevant.

It's different from an arcade where the same games were there all the time so you may as well spend months working on perfecting one of them. Also they're designed with that in mind so the player is encouraged to keep coming back and putting more money in the machine.

Console games are both approached and designed differently. More variety and volume of games to choose from encourages players to beat a game and then move onto the next one. Players aren't shelling out for each gaming session so the way to keep profits going is to keep them buying new games. Score systems are counterproductive to that and most gamers didn't care so that's why they by and large faded away.

>>4590817
The argument stopped a long time ago when the other anon decided to do low effort shitposting >>4590558 though I doubt he was interested in actually discussing anything to begin with.
~4590818~
Shit's pretty funny if you ask me

>>4590810
>#

Holy shit man

>>4590828
>Shit's pretty funny if you ask me
yeah but you're a cretin. noone cares what you think is funny.

>>4590823
Which are?

>>4590823
Never happened, it's two different people (me and the toaplanfag) arguing with the same idiot. Can see my first post here >>4590207

>>4587894
What really activates my almonds is how gen Z sees score as totally inexplicable and seems to wonder why it hasn’t been retroactively eradicated

>>4590846
>>4590848
why is this dude pretending to not know which posts he samefagged with?

>>4590854
Score is only good for games that are designed around it, like rhythm games or shmups. It's completely redundant otherwise.

>>4589430
Stop linking this trash domain

>>4590862
what about getting extra continues in sanic

>>4590867
>continues
Redundant mechanic.

>>4590868
Antiscorefags just hate arcade-style game structure

>>4590862
I'd say it's almost the opposite, more like the scoring isn't designed around most games. I mean look at Metal Slug. It's a run n gun game so the most obvious choice would be to tie the scoring system with stage clear time right? But no, they went with a traditional old school shmup type of scoring system without caring about the type of game they're making.

>>4590868
what? how so

>>4590880
Because it just you to play through shit you've already done to be able to practice the part you can't do. It's like a negative feedback loop that forces you to stay bad because the game doesn't want to admit how easy everything is with practice.

>>4590883
>Because it just you
forces you*

>>4590875
Except I love arcade style games that do it well. Continues is an insanely retarded way to do it.

>>4590887
>arcade style games that do it well
Such as? Continues are an arcade staple.

>>4590883
what? do you work at Bioware? if someone plays sonic blind and runs out of continues halfway through, he'll be way better at the levels next playthrough, get extra lives and continues he didn't get last time, and make it way further. It sounds like you hate playing video games and just want to get to the destination and be done with as soon as possible if you're unfamiliar with games where the gameplay/level design isn't shallow enough for you to have experienced a level after beating it once. might as well have a skip gameplay to next cutscene button with the way you 'enjoy' games

>>4590894
>Such as?
Geometry Wars

>>4590896
>do you work at Bioware?
What does Bioware have to do with what I said?
>if someone plays sonic blind and runs out of continues halfway through, he'll be way better at the levels next playthrough, get extra lives and continues he didn't get last time, and make it way further.
And the guy with save states who can just practice any level as many times as he wants will get way better, way faster than the first guy. Your argument is bullshit and you know it.

>>4590896
>learning stairway to heaven on guitar
>have to start the whole song over from the beginning every time i fuck up the solo
wow, what an efficient way to get good!

>>4590916
>>4590923
Solved by practice modes/stage select ages ago. Also continues themselves as soon as games shifted from being checkpoint based to instant respawn based.

>>4590924
>Also continues themselves as soon as games shifted from being checkpoint based to instant respawn based.
Yes, exactly. It was removed as a feature because it's redundant. Super Meatboy has no continues, you can just do any level any time. That's objectively the best way to do a platformer.

>>4590925
They just tweaked the system, those are still continues. What youre saying is that they removed respawning at checkpoints. SMB system is trash for a whole game but for practice modes/stage select it's goat

>>4590924
>switched
If you think those didn’t coexist, often even in the same game, or that there was a hard transition from one style to the other at some defined point, you’re an idiot.

>>4590928
>instant respawns are the same as continues that force you to restart the entire game when you run out
You cannot possibly be this stupid.

>>4590928
>SMB system is trash for a whole game
No, it's perfect for a full game. Being forced to play through stages you've already done is nonsense padding on par with minigames in 3d platformers.

>>4590930
No, I'm talking about later implementation of continues (instant respawn upon continue) vs early implementations (respawn at checkpoint), the former addresses your problem of having to restart the whole game if you lost.

>>4590935
To borrow the guitar analogy
>>4590923
Playing individual parts is good for practice, but you still need to play the whole song to test what you've learned.

>>4590916
>And the guy with save states who can just practice any level as many times as he wants will get way better, way faster than the first guy.
That's so boring. It removes the thrill, the tension, the pressure. You're not afraid of losing anymore and beating a game that way isn't rewarding at all.

>>4590975
>getting good at a game and then beating it because you got good isn't rewarding

>>4590981
I'll pretend to believe someone who uses savestates will actually play the game properly

>>4590925
Super Meat Boy is actually extremely flawed because of that. You just brainlessly trial and error attempt over and over until you get 1 lucky attempt and then you never play that level again. It's very meaningless and hallow. It's a shame because McMillen is talented and the level design is mostly really good, but the game really needed lives and checkpoints to send you back to after death. Most people who finished Super Meat Boy are incapable of playing it

>>4591069
For what it's worth, there are achievements for clearing each world without deaths.

>>4590987
>properly
Savestating and not savestating has no effect on the game, stop being an autist. If you're doing a casual run of a game there's no reason not to use them.

Interesting debate, and I suppose it comes down to what an individual subjectively considers a "game" or a "good" game. And it's also a semantic matter, since there's really no universal agreed upon definition of what a game is. Some definitions simply reduce it down to any activity that's "fun."

I have to agree with the progress system poster that games built strictly around rewarding attrition more than skill are less of a game than games where progression is attained through improvement of skill, strategy, and tactics. But that doesn't mean progress system games are any less "fun," they just provide a different interactive experience that can be called more "casual" or relaxing.

To use an analogy with a real world game, pool would become less of game if the player was rewarded with a magical cue stick that made every shot considerably easier after 100 hours of play and/or after making 1000 balls. That's the progress system game design distilled down.

>>4591081
>casual run with savestates
Why not just sit and watch a TAS and safe yourself the calories lost by pushing Z, X, and the arrow keys?

>>4591069
>You just brainlessly trial and error attempt over and over
Yeah, so it's like any other platformer except it doesn't force you to waste time.
>until you get 1 lucky attempt and then you never play that level again.
Why would you never play the level again? How retarded are you?
There are leaderboards and achievements for beating them fast and performing certain tasks. The game has a fuckload of replay value.

>>4591084

>To use an analogy with a real world game, pool would become less of game if the player was rewarded with a magical cue stick that made every shot considerably easier after 100 hours of play and/or after making 1000 balls. That's the progress system game design distilled down.
Well most games of that nature at least attempt to scale the challenges the player faces with the upgrades they get. So a magical +1 cue stick vs a +1 pool table that cancels it out or something.

>>4591093
Only 1% of players got the "beat the world without dying" achievements. Now what do you think would be the result if we asked those players how many of them think they beat the game? Something tells me it'd be a whole lot more than 1%.

>>4591092
Because you're not actually experiencing the game by watching a video.

You must really be mentally handicapped, huh? Is beating games "legit" the only "achievement" you have to feel proud about in your pathetic, empty life?

>>4591093
>Yeah, so it's like any other platformer except it doesn't force you to waste time.
But if you had the critical thinking skills of an 8 year old you wouldn't need it explained to you that beating a game that punishes you for mistakes requires you to be able to play it in order to beat it. If I play Castlevania and have to go back 1-3 checkpoints every time I run out of lives, I actually have to be capable of playing that section of the game to get past it. Super Meat Boy is just brute forcing your way through on your first playthrough.
>There are leaderboards and achievements for beating them fast and performing certain tasks. The game has a fuckload of replay value.
I don't give a fuck about leaderboards and certainly not achievements. I play games for the game itself.

>>4591097
>Now what do you think would be the result if we asked those players how many of them think they beat the game?
2%.

And this doesn't even count the glitch levels lol.

>>4591108
>beating a game that punishes you for mistakes requires you to be able to play it in order to beat it.
All games require you to play it in order to beat it.
>If I play Castlevania and have to go back 1-3 checkpoints every time I run out of lives, I actually have to be capable of playing that section of the game to get past it.
Which you are, because you already did it. Now you have to waste your life doing it again.

>>4591113
You're off your rocker if you believe that beating a game is the same as 100%'ing it in the average player's mind

>>4591108
>I don't give a fuck about leaderboards and certainly not achievements. I play games for the game itself.
If you don't want to replay the game, why are you whining that they aren't forcing you to?

It takes talent to be that stupid.

>>4591124
100% in super meat boy means beating all the levels. That's what the Golden God achievement is.

And it isn't even actually all the levels, it goes up to 120%.

>>4591127
Oh, didn't know that. What a disgrace.

>>4591128
>What a disgrace.
There's plenty to do after that, retard.

https://steamcommunity.com/stats/SuperMeatBoy/achievements/

>b-but i dont care about achievements!
fuck off. achievements are the same as any other goal/reward system in a video game.

>>4591130
I meant the shit-tier performance of players, not the achievement

>>4591131
oh okay, my bad. this place has me on a hair trigger.

>>4591081
I mean, you do whatever you want however you want, you've got nothing to prove me and vice versa. I've played with savestates (fucking Kid Chameleon, lel) and on actual hardware.

Denying savestates doesn't affect the game I must say it's no true. It's as if a very important element of retro gaming cease to exist: lives. They're a resource that you have to manage. If you remove it then there's no point in trying to find them and collect stuff that will earn them. You can just go around doing stupid shit for teh lulz without any penalty whatsoever. You're totally safe. You fight bosses all calm and relaxed because there's no risk at all. The feeling of
>oh sheeit I'm on my last life if I die it's all from the beginning again
is removed. As is
>OMG I DID IT WITH NO LIFE'S LEFT
Many times I accumulated lives just to get to a boss I've never seen and get fucked. All you can figure out about his patterns was a right that was quantified by how well and consistent you played on previous levels. Sometimes I just got lives to waste trying to figure out how to beat some bosses easier and faster or to find secrets with stupid leaps of faith or exploring instead of rushing through the end.

It's a long process that added to the longevity of a game whose capacity storage was limited and inherently part the game's design.

I'm not going to say it isn't frustrating or that I wouldn't ragequit, specially when you get to the last boss and think you've done it but then suddenly faggot shows his 2nd form. Scary stuff.

FOR ME, savestating is adding a layer of modern games over retro shit and I don't mean it as an insult, like I said in the beginning, have fun the way you want.

For me this is an important element of retro gaming

>>4590807
>Why's that?

Why is people blitzing through your game without any thought on how to get through it fast, skipping as much content as possible for an arbitrary clock time bad?

>>4591204
I don't know, that's why I asked.

>>4591204
>skipping as much content as possible
speedrunning introduces new content, though. that's what people like you fail to understand.

I'm sure this show would be just as exciting with save states.

>>4591237
what content anon? savescumming, zipping, glitching, clipping, intentionally dying, bugging, saving and resetting to load at another location, loading wrong models and textures?

>>4591237
No it doesn't, it recontextualizes existing content, often making your interactions with it more interesting. Don't muddy the terms, this is how pointless semantics arguments start.

>>4591249
What the fuck is that patch he wears on his forehead? I'm curious

>>4591260
Cold compress. It's got menthol and eucalyptus and lavender.

>>4591254
>defining terms in a discussion is pointless
I really must be a masochist.

>>4591253
>what content anon?
It creates a new game out of an old one where you're forced to play in ways you never would have considered previously.

>>4591312
And a brainlet too. I defined the term myself in the same post. The arguments are pointless when these terms can be defined if people spend a few seconds thinking about what the fuck they write or looking up definitions.

>>4591321
>oh no he got me better mince words then throw shade to cover my tracks
The only brainlet here...
is U

@4591349
No clue why I even bothered

>>4591351

I'm the guy that argued that progress systems =/= game mechanics and my last post was >>4590754
Accusing me of samefagging was just retarded. Fucking really? Were you that desperate?
>it takes a really sad level of delusion and elitism to convince yourself that RPGs aren't videogames.
I hate you "SO YOU SAID" morons. I even said I like playing RPGs here, just without grinding. Here: >>4590448
Fuck your stupid "tactics".
RPGs, if anything, are good DESPITE the progress systems. They feature them out of tradition from P&P stuff and then because they realized players got addicted to that aspect. But, say Fire Emblem, a game series usually called SRPG. You can disable stat gains so the game no longer has progress systems and it still works as a fun game.
> it's no coincidence that this argument happened as soon as the anti arcade fag came back while the other disagreements have been civil
Jest, I just noticed when I stopped posting here he posted on another thread.
>who? i don't see anyone who said anything that was anti-arcade.
He's a very distinct underage veddit crossposter.
>Console games are both approached and designed differently. More variety and volume of games to choose from encourages players to beat a game and then move onto the next one.
Not so true back then, games were quite expensive so it wasn't as easy to have a lot of console games. If anything, arcades were a nicer way to access more games for cheap. The rest of your post is right, though. Interestingly, modern games have become about "playing the same game over and over" again, however it's no longer to improve your skills / score but to get fed rewards just by playing enough without skill and to try to take money out of you with microtransactions during that with how they are structured psychologically.
Cont.

Cont. from >>4592024
>What really activates my almonds is how gen Z sees score as totally inexplicable and seems to wonder why it hasn’t been retroactively eradicated
Gen Z is pretty alien to the concept of games being skill based (and scoring is just that), their concept of a video game is that of progress systems. They've been conditioned to that since progress systems are very profitable addiction schemes.
>Score is only good for games that are designed around it, like rhythm games or shmups. It's completely redundant otherwise.
I'd say you're right, but rather than redundant it's just less engaging or only works in lower level play in other games. Also, as pointed out, extends are a thing.
>Because it just you to play through shit you've already done to be able to practice the part you can't do. It's like a negative feedback loop that forces you to stay bad because the game doesn't want to admit how easy everything is with practice.
Consistency is a different, valid challenge as well. And considering how most games that are still challenging these days are only difficult in short bursts with a lot of permanent saves/checkpoints, the arcade challenge of needing to be consistent in a challenge of 15-60 minutes makes them special among other games. Not every game has to be like Super Meat Boy, that would be boring and it's not "objectively better".
>>4591084 (Too long to quote)
Glad to see someone getting it. As I said, they can be fun to someone, but they diminish game mechanics. Fun =/= Game Mechanics, since fun is subjective. Just like how moving the ball around can be fun but it's not a game, while playing soccer can also be fun and it IS a game.
>Why would you never play the level again? How retarded are you?
As I said, being able to consistently beat a challenge of 15-60 minutes can be satisfying. Maybe not to you, but don't think it's invalid.
>Which you are, because you already did it.
But can you do it again, or was it lucky? Consistency.
Cont.

>>4591351
>@

Cont. from >>4592046

>achievements are the same as any other goal/reward system in a video game.
They can be a relatively decent way to suggest cool self-imposed challenges to players that they may not have thought of on their own. However, they are abused to see how far the playerbase progresses through the game, and some of them aren't skill based but grinding/farming based.

>>4591171 (Again, a long post)
Save states are relativelyfine when the game is not designed around them and are thus optional, just to train for the real deal at best. I still don't use them myself since I enjoy playing games the way you explain, the good ol' way. However, I hate games that lack real checkpoints and expect you to savescum (see: a lot of PC games) while of course not being reasonably beatable in a single, arcade-length sitting (and even sometimes kill you with pure RNG)
>Why is people blitzing through your game without any thought on how to get through it fast, skipping as much content as possible for an arbitrary clock time bad?
It's a self-imposed challenge, most are bored with the game and want to take it to new limits I guess.

>>4592064
>grinding isn't a skill
Of course it is. In fact, grinding prepares you for the marketable 9-5 workforce better than anything else in video gaming.

>>4592089
Dealing with boredom is a skill not grinding and evidently rpgs are terrible at teaching it because jrpg fans are all miserable jobless shutins

>>4592117
>evidently rpgs are terrible at teaching it
Wrong.
>jrpg fans are all miserable jobless shutins
1. This isn't true.
2. JRPGs are only the tip of the grind iceberg.

>>4591084
>it's also a semantic matter, since there's really no universal agreed upon definition of what a game is.
This. The autist in this thread seems to think he's stumbled upon the only definition of "game" that anyone abides by.

>>4592089
What >>4592117 says. Though don't insult by generalizing JRPG fans, man.
Becoming more tolerant to menial tasks doesn't make them any less menial lol
Video games aren't meant to train your skills in other aspects anyway, it's a hobby.

>>4591084
>To use an analogy with a real world game, pool would become less of game if the player was rewarded with a magical cue stick that made every shot considerably easier after 100 hours of play and/or after making 1000 balls. That's the progress system game design distilled down.
You left out the part where your opponents cues also get better alongside you, and that the game doesn't actually get easier, it just changes.

>>4592143
>Becoming more tolerant to menial tasks doesn't make them any less menial lol
Being tolerant to boredom is literally a marketable skill. Far more marketable than "oh wow you crushed the goomba and got a point XD"!

>>4592143
>>4592117
lmao at this guy samefagging here again.

4592157
Oh boy, this shit again. No more (You)'s today I'm afraid.

>>4592160
coward

>>4592160
>taking the effort to copy and paste the number instead of just clicking on it
you have no idea how happy it makes me that you're this mad.

>>4592160
That is a (You) though. You addressed his post and even included his post number so that you could make sure he would know you were addressing him. Doing all that shit without tagging him is just giving him more attention, not less.

Dealing with boredom being a useful skill isn't a counter to what he said. The task is still menial. Not only that but grinding is a shit way to learn how to deal with boredom because it requires very little concentration so you can space out and still do it, many dull jobs are not like this and require your full attention on top of being fucking boring.

>>4592180
Grinding is a skill.

>>4592180
LMAO he didn't copy and paste the number this time.

Holy shit this guy is weak and easy to manipulate.

>>4592179
It objectively isn't and it's entertaining

>>4592192
>it doesn't say (You) so it's way different!
>p-please believe me!
lol

I see you're thirsty but sorry to say but the (You) gravy train is over, work on subtlety next time.

>>4592204
>see? i did what exactly what you said
>i didn't copy and paste y-your number
>see guys? s-see how i didn't copy and paste it this time?
>i w-win, right?

An intelligent person can appreciate good points on their own merit, even if the source is a drooling idiot. Some day you will learn.

>>4592223
Who are you talking to? You sound like a mumbling homeless person.

}}4592186
}}4592207
>copy and pasting numbers
>not just clicking the post
wew lad

>You left out the part where your opponents cues also get better alongside you, and that the game doesn't actually get easier, it just changes.
Except that you can play the same easy pool for a while so all subsequent pools are just as easy. Which is what some people do in these since they fear challenge and want to play just for the aesthetics, story or whatever. And some just play the same pool over and over just for the reward.
>Being tolerant to boredom is literally a marketable skill.
We're talking about video games, not an university degree or something lol

>>4592251
Agreed, even when you try to avoid grinding it can be difficult not to get overpowered in JRPG's without deliberately gimping yourself. Games like SMT exploit this aspect and basically encourage you to make the most exploitative, broken party you can since you will be forced to change it soon enough anyway.

>>4592251
>>4592267
your samefagging is obvious and sad.

Some posts here are giving me a nostalgia overload and reminded me of a chat I had with a q2 friend over icq a long time ago

>Hey anon, do you know any cheats for Commandos?
>No, why? Cheats sux
>Whatever. I see no point getting good at singleplayer games I just want to see the ending.

>>4592267
This is what happens to SotN. Light progress systems can be OK, as seen in later Metroid-style Castlevania games. But when they become too big they just destroy the game; it's hard NOT to break SotN, you have to be creative to find a satisfying self-imposed challenge for that game.

4592271
No, you're sad. And even if I was samefagging, you insist on LOL SAMEFAG instead of arguing against properly since you clearly can't.

>>4592290
>4592271
>he's still doing it

>>4592290
oh wow, yeah, certainly no manipulation was done on that screenshot. truly the burden of proof has been met here.

>>4592295
he isn't a soyboy, though
>no soy
but a fucking beaner

4592297
>And even if I was samefagging, you insist on LOL SAMEFAG instead of arguing against properly since you clearly can't.

>>4592290
>instead of arguing against properly since you clearly can't.
Nobody wants to engage with you because you're thicker than cement and there's no value in having a conversation with you.

4592306
Some anons ITT clearly do (not counting the troll/s seeking attention)
Spanish people are beaners now? Anyway, I don't blame you, it's natural to insult us. I'm not in an Spanish board for a reason.

>>4592310
a Spanish*

>>4592310
>Some anons ITT clearly do
Yes, the people who agree with you. No shit. Also, why are you not tagging posts? You're retarded, aren't you?

4592313
I'm OK to discuss stuff with people that disagree, I've had fun with that in /vr/. However, the trolls ITT are disagreeing just for attention and with very weak "arguments", it's not the same.
Don't get so triggered, I just don't like to give yous to shitposters, since that's all you guys want.

>>4592313
>Also, why are you not tagging posts?
he's seething to the point of nearly boiling over. it's so funny to watch his scrambling denial and mental gymnastics.

>>4592314
I'm OK with discussing*

If you've noticed, the guy you're accusing of being me samefagging actually disagreed on one point with me, or rather we had a misunderstanding.

>>4592304
>>4592310
>>4592314
>>4592235
>>4592160
What mental illness causes people to behave like this?

>>4592310
moor beaner

>>4592314
>However, the trolls ITT are disagreeing just for attention and with very weak "arguments", it's not the same.
Yeah that's the thing if they offered definitions of their own, it would make for some discussion, but it's literally just contrarian "so you're saying..." and "this definition isn't 100% perfect by my shitty standards therefore it's wrong". One of my early posts was this :
>>4590219
And look at the responses, a completely empty "hurrr defining things is mental gymnastics" and a lazy attempt at a gotcha without addressing any of the premises.

>>4592314
>I just don't like to give yous to shitposters
You are giving yous to them. You're putting their post numbers in your post and responding to them. Why are you acting like it's different? You're giving them literally the exact same amount of attention.

>>4592325
Because it's far more amusing to watch the guy sperg out

>>4592324
>that's the thing if they offered definitions of their own
are you trying to claim they didn't? >>4590186

>>4592328
Well, sure, but in this case you're the one sperging out. All anyone else is doing is laughing at you.

>>4592329
The previous post I made addresses how that's a shitty definition because it can be applied to anything and everything and doesn't make the distinction between video games and software tools. And as usual, that didn't get addressed at all.

>>4592328
>claims to have a problem with trolls
>trolls the thread himself
Mental illness.

>>4592332
>it can be applied to anything
A game can be made out of anything, yes. It's an incredibly vague term.

>>4592332
>it's a vague definition, so it's not a definition
??????????

>>4592329
We already addressed that. It's a definition that's too broad, if we accept that one then watching paint dry can be accepted as a game since that can be recreational to some.

We refer to this other acceptation of the word:
3.
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

Just that in video games you can play alone against a computer.

>>4592339
>It's a definition that's too broad
No it's not.

>>4592335
Except my post content is on-topic for the most part, I'm not responsible for some idiots deciding to shit up the thread because I didn't include two symbols when responding to them. Don't be daft.

>>4592339
>if we accept that one then watching paint dry can be accepted as a game
Yes, this is correct. There is no actual line between what can be considered a game or not, and you're certainly not the authority who gets to draw one. It's incredibly ambiguous.

>>4592336
>>4592338
Yes definitions that fail to discriminate between 2 vastly different things are poor definitions, this isn't hard to understand. Why even categorize something if the category is broad it can include anything? Not to mention even your explanation is nonsense. You being able to make a game out of anything still requires you to define what "making a game" even is to begin with. Without that it's circular reasoning.

>>4592340
This is the shit we have to deal with here.
One side is civil and backs his points.
The other is a trollfest of moving the goalposts, "you just said", "LOL SAMEFAG!"and this "NO IT'S NOT" garbage. Explain how it's not too broad.
>There is no actual line between what can be considered a game or not
3.
a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.

>>4592345
>definitions that fail to discriminate between 2 vastly different things are poor definitions
No, this isn't the case, and you're attempting to draw a false dichotomy.

There are adjectives you can use to categorize it further if you would like.

"Competitive game"
"Sandbox game"
"Casual game"

But to 99% of the population, nobody gets confused when you refer to the ambiguous word "game". You seem to be the only one.

>>4592345
>Yes definitions that fail to discriminate between 2 vastly different things are poor definitions
Okay, so why do you refuse to quantify and define skill?

>>4587901
This is the correct answer.

Nobody cares about your score unless it's on an arcade machine in a bar.

Again, this example makes the distinction very clear to see:

Kicking a ball around can be a fun activity.

Playing a soccer match can be a fun activity.

However, only the second one is a game. Soccer is what happens when you get a ball and design a game around kicking it. You take a merely recreational activity and make it abide by some roles that define either a win or lose state, and that state requires either skill or chance (or both) to achieve. By skill I mean it doesn't do itself (moving the ball around and kicking it to goal involves skill; having fun kicking it around doesn't require skill), it doesn't have to be hard.

>>4592360
Who are you talking to?

>>4592352
>But to 99% of the population, nobody gets confused when you refer to the ambiguous word "game".
Is that why it has always been a contentious topic among people discussing game design, and why Gone Home and such are very controversial in gaming communities? The average person doesn't much care about defining, but enthusiasts do and their numbers aren't that small. And surely if it's that simple you can what a "game" is without circular reasoning?
>>4592353
You're confusing me with the spaniard. Sure I can define skill. Skill is personal ability gained through practice, as distinct from talent which is innate ability. Grinding, while potentially developing other connected skills (it can increase knowledge of a game), aren't skill in themselves because it's not your ability that grows but your in-game avatar's. Quantifying skills is difficult because it requires a lot of research. Also you're changing the topic.

>>4592360
by some rules, not roles*

>>4592360
>only the second one is a game
They're both games.

>>4592363
To the thread in general

>>4592368
So how do you win or lose at "kicking the ball around"?
How do you win or lose at "watching paint dry"?
Fuck off, man.

>>4592371
Not him and don't agree with him either, but you're too obsessed with win/loss states. Games don't necessarily need them, what they need is structure and goals. Win/loss states are just simple examples of things that structure play and give goals, but they are not a must. You make something a game when you introduce specific rules and goals to it with the purpose of recreation (though I'd argue that's not necessary either). But when people say if "x" is a game, they're of course talking about whether "x" has those game-like rules and goals built into it or not by the creators, rather than whether or not those rules/goals can be applied to it. The latter will always be true of everything.

>>4592364
>The average person doesn't much care about defining
Average use is what dictates the definition. Definitions are made to fit common use, not the reverse.
>Skill is personal ability gained through practice
>Grinding, while potentially developing other connected skills (it can increase knowledge of a game), aren't skill in themselves because it's not your ability that grows but your in-game avatar's.
So if I practice grinding, and become more efficient at it, I haven't increased my grinding skill? How does that work?

>>4592371
>So how do you win or lose at "kicking the ball around"?
You don't. Playing a game does not require winning or losing, as was defined for you earlier in the thread.

>>4592380
>Average use is what dictates the definition. Definitions are made to fit common use, not the reverse.
Yes and anyone defining the terms will have to find consistent common traits that the things those definitions are applied to share which is exactly what I'm doing. What are you doing? Just saying there's no definition and leaving it at that?
>>4592380
You didn't increase the skill through grinding, you increased the skill by studying in-game systems that are interconnected with grinding. You could obtain those exact same skills without doing any grinding what so ever, and games that require the same skills but 0 grinding exist too, they're called tactics/strategy games.

>>4592386
>you increased the skill by studying in-game systems that are interconnected with grinding
That's how getting good at any game works. You learn the in game systems, such as levels, physics. movement tech, etc. Unless you're defining "skill" as "muscle memory", which is not what you said earlier.

>>4592378
>>4592381
OK.
What's the structure of goal of kicking the ball around or watching paint dry?
You just substituted my words for yours, but they mean the same.

>>4592380
>So if I practice grinding, and become more efficient at it, I haven't increased my grinding skill? How does that work?
Not him, but while grinding you can become better at other things that have nothing to do with how your character is improving, like say learning to menu faster (which is a skill for the metagame speedrunning); however, you are not improving at the game itself by doing so, it becomes easier just because the character is improving, as opposed to practicing an execution based game where you are the one that's improving all the time and specifically on that game's skill requirements to beat.

>>4592393
structure or goal*

>>4592393
>while grinding you can become better at other things that have nothing to do with how your character is improving
While grinding you can become more efficient at grinding. You are arbitrarily separating the word "grinding" from everything that makes up grinding, and refusing to acknowledge that they're the same thing.

>>4592392
It comes back to the discussion you had with spaniard in regards to cookie clicker. You can make cookie clicker skill based yourself by introducing systems and goals that demand it, such as getting cookies as fast as possible, but the system itself isn't inherently based on skill since there are no inherent pressures to do that.

>>4592393
>What's the structure of goal of kicking the ball around or watching paint dry?
Step 1. Swing foot
Step 2. Make contact with ball
Step 3. Observe ball moving following contact with foot.

>>4592398
>the system itself isn't inherently based on skill since there are no inherent pressures to do that.
Yes there are. The goal is to get as many cookies as possible, therefore you are pressured to find ways to do that.

>>4592397
>While grinding you can become more efficient at grinding
Nope, you only become more efficient at grinding if you study a game's systems while grinding. That's where the skill lies, it has literally nothing to do with grinding, if anything grinding goes against it because it gives you the option to not learn a game's systems indepth because you can overlevel.

>>4592404
>you only become more efficient at grinding if you study a game's systems while grinding
Yeah, that's how you get good at anything. You can't just mindlessly a game with a high skill ceiling and eventually become good. You have to study and analyze what you're doing.

>>4592402
>The goal is to get as many cookies as possible
Why? You can do it at your own leisure, nothing in the game suggests you should do it as fast as possible. It's not even how the vast majority of people play the game.

>>4592407
>Why?
Because that's the goal of the game. It's literally in the title.

>>4592406
And games that are skill based will demand this, while in grinding based games you do not need to do this because you can compensate for your lack of understanding with stats.

>>4592412
>And games that are skill based will demand this
No they don't. My 5 year old retarded nephew can beat Super Mario World. He can't even get past the first dungeon in Final Fantasy.

>>4592409
Oh my bad, I misread it "as fast as possible". Anyway yes, the goal is to get as many cookies but this goal is achieved through time investment instead of skill. Skill is something you can use to speed up the process, but there's nothing in the game that demands this so it's entirely self-imposed (making a game out of a non-game).

>>4592415
Well for a start, RPG's are a mix of skill based gameplay (tactics, navigation, party composition, etc.) and progression (stats, levelling, gear). It depends on WHY he can't get past it, I sincerely doubt it's because he's "bad at grinding", whatever that means. Also intelligence is far from the only skill, we already went over this multiple times.

>>4592397
What >>4592404 says.
Pressing a button to kill an enemy that poses 0 threat to you over and over so your character can one shit the final boss means the character has improved, not you.
And again, I'm not saying RPGs are like that, it's just to make the example clear enough.
>>4592406
This guy gets it. It seems that everyone gets it except the troll/s.
>>4592401
That's not a goal
Step 1: Paint wall
Step 2: Sit down
Step 3: Watch paint dry
And it's not defined, not everyone kicks the ball for amusement the same way. However, soccer has well established rules
>>4592409
You're deliberately confusing "activity" with "goal". Going for a walk is an activity that has no goal, no rules, and it's not a game. Now, trying to get home faster each time while following the same route would be making a game out of that. Don't you see? It's very easy. You just want to shitpost.
>>4592412
This is exactly the problem with progress systems and why they undermine game mechanics, as well as make gamers as a whole alien to challenge.
>>4592415
Super Mario World doesn't demand that much to clear. But there are games that are MUCH harder. Can your nephew beat Gradius III arcade? Can you?

>>4592427
>I sincerely doubt it's because he's "bad at grinding"
Well, if grinding requires less skill than super mario world, he should be able to do it right?

So why isn't he?

>>4592427
Yes, this is why I used the Cookie Clicker example as something that's purely progress systems as to illustrate why I think they aren't a If by only having progress systems you don't have a game, then by definition they aren't a game mechanic.

>>4592429
Because Final Fantasy isn't just about grinding, as I made clear in the very same post you're responding to? For christ's sake.

>>4592429
You're stupid, right? He may be bad at exploring, or bad at reading comprehension, or bad at understanding how numbers work, etc. any of the game mechanics of the game. It's still a game, it just features progress systems and thus a way to make encounters trivial if given enough time to mindlessly grind.

>>4592428
>Pressing a button to kill an enemy that poses 0 threat to you over and over so your character can one shit the final boss means the character has improved
Nobody said anything that disagreed with this.
>This guy gets it. It seems that everyone gets it except the troll/s.
fucking lol
>That's not a goal
Of course it is.
>not everyone kicks the ball for amusement the same way.
What does that have to do with anything?
>Going for a walk is an activity that has no goal
The action of putting one foot in front of the other isn't a goal, but consciously performing that action is impossible without having it as your goal.
>Super Mario World doesn't demand that much to clear.
You're right. It demands less than final fantasy, apparently.

>>4592435
>he's bad at all of the things that grinding requires
>but grinding still requires less skill
lol

>>4592442
woops forgot to attach pic

>>4592447
Those aspects aren't inherent to grinding, they're inherent to turn based tactics/strategy games or RPG's which need not feature grinding at all. Are you even trying?

>>4592454
>Those aspects aren't inherent to grinding
The claim was that grinding doesn't require skill. I've proven that it can and does.

>TO GRIND YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ AND DO BASIC ARITHMETIC THEREFORE IT'S SKILLFUL
>WATCHING PAINT DRY HAS A GOAL
>NOT HAVING DEFINED RULES FOR A GAME DOESN'T MATTER TO DEFINE IT AS A GAME
OK, we're REALLY being trolled. I'm out, just like yesterday. I thought we were dealing with different people but no, it's the same guy/s.

>>4592457
You've proven that games which feature grinding can require skill, which nobody ever disputed. Not grinding. Come on now, focus.

>>4592454
Name 5 games with grinding that don't feature reading, numbers, or exploring. Then you can pretend they're not mutually exclusive.

>>4592458
Ofcourse it's the same guy, it's primarily him samefagging about the lack of (You)'s too, same old shit. I'm mostly hoping that he'll find a way to actually make counter-arguments but he's too daft for it and would rather employ the low effort Cathy Newman style of argumentation.

>>4592462
There's not a single game that doesn't feature one of those elements as a whole, they're inherent to the medium.

>>4592459
>You've proven that games which feature grinding can require skill
almost all of them, according to how you've defined skill. in fact, i'm not aware of any that don't.

>>4592464
>it's primarily him samefagging about the lack of (You)'s too
That actually wasn't me, but I wish it was. God damn it was funny how pathetic it made you look.

>>4592468
Cookie Clicker after you do the first few clicks, I'm sure there's some ripoffs where even that isn't necessary.

Saying grinding doesn't require skill is like saying pressing A in a platformer doesn't require skill. No shit. It's the context that makes those actions difficult.

>>4592472
To add before you go for another "gotcha", this is by your definition of what a game is. My definition of a game is a test of skill by default.

>>4592475
Are you saying that grinding is difficult?

>>4592480
Doing it well is difficult, yes. Just like pressing A in a platformer is difficult to do well.

inb4 "but anyone can grind forever and achieve the same thing lol!". Anyone can beat Mischief Makers, but that doesn't mean you aren't shit at it.

>>4592489
Are you saying that grinding in Final Fantasy is as difficult as beating Mischief Makers? lmao

>>4592480
Just stop, man. We are truly wasting our time, no matter what we say this guy will keep going on and on.

>>4592492
Yes. If I grind in Final Fantasy I fall asleep. Mischief Makers was significantly easier for me than FF.

>>4592495
So basically what you're saying is that not falling asleep is the only skill you need to grind, sounds about right lol

>>4592497
>So basically what you're saying is that not falling asleep is the only skill you need to grind
If you want to be reductionist about it, then sure. Just like how pressing A and holding right is the only thing you need to beat Super Mario Bros.

>>4592498
Pressing ATTACK against a single enemy that can't do anything to you over and over is not reductionist, however. THAT'S grinding.

>>4592498
>how to grind : press A
>how to play SMB : hold right and press A
Even when being reductionist it's already noticably more complex rofl

>>4592506
This troll is just noticeably bad, even for a troll.

>>4592504
>Pressing ATTACK against a single enemy that can't do anything to you over and over is not reductionist
Yes it is.

>>4592506
>you don't have to press directions to grind

>>4592506
>grinding raids in World of Warcraft requires 20 people, each with 20 ability buttons and require 360 degree movement
>retard thinks holding right and jumping is more complex than this.

The retard/s is/are BACK
>Yes it is.
NOT IT IZN'T!!11 ARGUMENTZ
>grinding raids in World of Warcraft requires 20 people, each with 20 ability buttons and require 360 degree movement
Who the fuck was talking about raids in MMOs

>>4592868
>Who the fuck was talking about raids in MMOs
The topic is grinding. Try to keep up.

>>4592868
do you sit here staring at this thread all day?

>>4592856
Correct, with the addition of autobattle you no longer even have to press A

>>4592878
You don't even have to hold the controller to play Barney's Hide and Seek. I know, I'll cherrypick that as an example of a platformer to prove all of your arguments wrong.

>>4592880
>cherrypick
>standard feature in respected "hard" jrpgs such as SMT and Etrian Odyssey
try again lol

>>4592872
OK, I'll bite
A raid is not grinding, you idiot.
Grinding in a game like that would be killing easy enemies over and over to get experience points
A raid can theoretically be designed in a game without grinding (as in, imagine riding in a game like WoW but without experience points and the like). Of course it's skillful and a game.
Sure, you get rewards for raiding, that's how these games are designed.
>>4592878
I mean, people abuse speed increases in emulators to grind faster because you just need to press a button over and over most of the time.

>>4592886
Auto battle is fine for backtracking and the like, which you'll be doing in these dungeon crawlers. The fact that it makes grinding easier is just an option so progressfags are happy.

>>4592886
The argument is that grinding requires no skill. But there are numerous of examples where grinding is objectively more complex than any platformer.
>>4592891
>A raid is not grinding.
Of course you are incorrect. Raid teams grind the same bosses week after week to get loot drops to progress their characters. This is also known as "farming".

>>4592891
>shifting the definition of "grinding" to suit his bullshit
so sad.

>>4592897
>But there are numerous of examples where grinding is objectively more complex than any platformer.
Nope, completely false. Games that allow grinding can be more complex but the complexity doesn't disappear if you remove grinding because it doesn't come from grinding

>>4592891
>you just need to press a button over and over most of the time.
You can't possibly be this stupid.

>>4592897
Did I miss these examples?

>>4592897
>>4592903
You are pathetic.
The aspect of getting the reward requires skill, since you are playing a game to get the reward.
However, the fact that your characters improve is not an increase in the skill of the player.
In older JRPGs this becomes more obvious since you can grind very easily.

Becoming good at raiding (which is a game that can be separate from the rewards) =/= becoming good at grinding. There's no such thing as "becoming good at grinding", your character/s become good via the grinding.

>>4592912
>You can't possibly be this stupid.
I mean, how else do you grind in older turn based JRPGs? Go to a safe place an hit a button to ATTACK every time, get experience points to the point that you can do the same with harder enemies, rinse and repeat.
I play these without grinding, remember.

>>4592908
>the complexity doesn't disappear if you remove grinding because it doesn't come from grinding
Sure, the complexity in any game isn't based on the style of gameplay, but from the game's unique mechanics. This is obvious to everyone.
>>4592917
>the fact that your characters improve is not an increase in the skill of the player.
The players have to be skilled enough to kill the bosses in the first place in order to grind them. There is a climb to that point. If this were not the case, any player with good gear would be able to grind them. It requires skill for a raiding team to grind hard bosses.
>>4592923
I love how you immediately started samefagging. Not even trying to hide it anymore lmao.

>>4592927
>The players have to be skilled enough to kill the bosses
No, they can just outlevel them by spending hours killing basic enemies lol

>>4592931
>outleveling raid bosses in WoW
Yeah, let me know how that works out for you.

>>4592927
Yes, those last two posts are mine, but that's because I forgot to answer to the other one. The first one is another person, though.
>The players have to be skilled enough to kill the bosses in the first place in order to grind them. There is a climb to that point. If this were not the case, any player with good gear would be able to grind them. It requires skill for a raiding team to grind hard bosses.
So you see my point. The act of raiding has nothing to do with the rewards or progress systems. It is a skill based game, it just so happens to reward the player at the end. It would be like playing an arcade shooter and then get a new ship to play as by 1CC'ing it. The process of unlocking said ship is NOT grinding, it's playing a game.

>>4592927
>Sure, the complexity in any game isn't based on the style of gameplay
Yes it has literally nothing to do with whether grinding is present or not hence grinding by itself requires no skill. Youre this close to getting what Ive been saying for hours.

>>4592932
I dont play timesink no lifer mmo trash but if you cant outlevel them then the game is more skill based than progression based and the activity isnt exactly grinding since its challenging rather than dull

>>4592940
>Yes it has literally nothing to do with whether grinding is present or not hence grinding by itself requires no skill.
Okay, so in that case, platforming requires no skill, shooting requires no skill, and driving requires no skill. Glad we've come to a consensus.

>>4592949
Raiding takes skill, as well as platforming or shooting.
Mindlessly killing easy mobs for experience points to make your character improve doesn't. And this affects old games too based on progress systems.

>>4592946
>the activity isnt exactly grinding since its challenging rather than dull
How is it not grinding? They're doing the same shit over and over every week specifically to progress their characters with gear. These enemies are the only enemies that drop said gear for further progression, they can't fight weaker ones.

>>4592949
Duh, they dont if its a list of actions without context lol, is this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

>>4592954
>as well as platforming
Platforming requires no skill. I could make a platformer where you hold right and the character does all the jumps automatically. You need context to create gameplay.
>>4592958
Right, and grinding is the same way.

>>4592960
Yes, now apply this to progression systems as a whole and you will concede a point youve been arguing against with multiple people for hours

>>4592956
Again, imagine if you got rewarded with phat loot by 1cc'ing shoot 'em ups. Doesn't change the fact that it's a skill-based game, regardless of the reward or not. They just so happen to give you rewards in MMOs since people get addicted.
However, in older RPGs you can get rewards by pressing ATTACK over and over on easy enemies that make you able to completely steamroll the game without any thought whatsoever, which attracts progressfags and storyfags to the medium, and then over time makes it so challenge in games becomes an alien concept.

>>4592961
>you will concede a point youve been arguing against with multiple people for hours
No, I've been arguing that grinding can require skill straight from the start.

>>4592964
>imagine if you got rewarded with phat loot by 1cc'ing shoot 'em ups
shooting doesn't require skill. i could make a shmup with no enemies and you just shoot a bar that covers the entire top of the screen.

this is the same logic you are applying to grinding.

>>4592965
Then it ceases to be grinding, it just becomes replaying a fun part of a game

>>4592969
Fuck no. Grinding is grinding. You don't get to backpedal now.

>>4592972
Hey I don't make the rules I just follow them, grinding is by definition dull and unchallenging otherwise it wouldn't be derogatory

>>4592975
It's not derogatory. That's a "you" thing.

>>4592975
>grinding is by definition dull and unchallenging otherwise it wouldn't be derogatory
dull, maybe, but unchallenging? bullshit. to go back to speedrunners; they get bored grinding runs, but there's no fucking way on earth you can tell me it's unchallenging.

Grinding is the act of doing a repetitive and easy task (in this case, to make it so the progress systems work and your character becomes overpowered), you fucking idiot.
The fact that some skilled games also reward you doesn't mean grinding is skillful.

>>4592978
That's a "most people" thing. when an activity stops being enjoyable and becomes a dull slog that you have to put up with it's called a "grind".

>>4592983
Who are you talking to?

>>4592984
No, it's a "you" thing. There are plenty of people who enjoy "the grind", both in video games and otherwise. I enjoy grinding for good times in F-Zero, for example.

>>4592981
Runs stop being fun and become a grind when it's mostly repeating easy shit to get to the hard parts

>>4592989
t. someone who isn't a speedrunner and doesn't interact with speedrunners.

you're entirely and absolutely talking out of your ass at this point.

This is all you can do, argue with stupid semantics?

>>4592992
Who are you talking to?

>>4592991
Wrong, though I guess there's also RNG which I forgot to mention
>>4592987
Post times

>>4592995
>Wrong
No, it's correct. You aren't a speedrunner and you don't interact with speedrunners. You are literally making things up now. It's so fucking sad.

>>4592989
SM64 runners get bored running SM64, even though the very first stage of the game is one of the hardest.
yeah, absolutely just making shit up now. what a faggot you are lmao.

I'm not into speedrunning.
The fact that this asshole is comparing pressing a button (an action that you can do speeding up an emulator 1000% and mashing the same button, LITERALLY) so that your character becomes overpowered
With a player playing an execution based games over and over so he can become better at the game
is just so disgusting it's not even funny

>>4593002
>The fact that this asshole is comparing pressing a button (an action that you can do speeding up an emulator 1000% and mashing the same button, LITERALLY) so that your character becomes overpowered
This is only one example of grinding, and not even a very common one. You don't get to pidgeonhole the entire concept through this lens just to win your argument.

>>4593001
And? They have the rest of the game to put up with and even if the beginning is hard it still becomes dull because not all parts will be equally difficult, ever heard of restart syndrome, brainlet?

I think scores were a good way of keeping a primitive game replayable. Lol. Now there are so many things to do in video games that the score is not really nesssssary. It would still be cool though in some games though.

>>4593004
The other examples are skill based challenges that happen to feature rewards (and they don't necessarily need to feature them to work). How's this so hard to understand, you moron. You just pretend to not understand.

>>4593005
>grinding is unchallenging
>except for all of these examples where it's challenging

>>4593004
If you actually had the brain power to follow a simple conversation you would understand that grinding was brought up in the context of progression systems vs skill, and why activities heavily skewed towards progression systems make games less "gamey". The problem is that the idiot arguing originally had no ground to stand on, so he had to extract it from the original context in order to make his point seem more credible. This is what happens when you argue with idiots, they drag you to their level and beat you down with experience.

>>4593008
>grinding cannot be a skill based challenge
See, this is where you brain breaks. You absolutely refuse to admit that grinding can pose a challenge.

According to the same logic you're using, platforming isn't challenging, shooting isn't challenging, and driving isn't challenging.

Pretty much what this guy says
>>4593015

Guys, just stop.
You can do hard stuff that gets you rewards in games. This is not what we're arguing against.
Our point is that said rewards undermine game mechanics and are not game mechanics themselves.
The old JRPG grinding example is just the easiest way to see this, or the even more exaggerated Cookie Clicker one.
Stop.

>>4593015
Progression systems are just alternative ways of presenting reward and variety. It's no different than the score in Galaga or the fire flower in Mario.

The fact that some games implement progression in a clumsy and easily exploitable way is not a good argument against the concept.

>>4593005
>restart syndrome
No. I've heard of the "reset trap", but "restart syndrome" is something you made up, which further proves you don't have a clue what speedrunners believe.

>>4593046
I agree, they are a tool that can make games more fun, and even encourage skill based play. But it's a tool that should be used responsibly. When games skew towards progression systems at the expense of skill, then it becomes a problem. Good integration of progression systems with skill based challenges is always welcome, and from the late 90's to early 00's games did it quite well generally.

>>4593026
>Our point is that said rewards undermine game mechanics
No they don't. Stop acting like this is mandatory. They can add a lot of depth and variety if presented right. Could you imagine how boring Super Metroid would be if they gave you everything right away?

>>4593054
>then it becomes a problem
No it doesn't, because noone is forcing you to play the game. Stop being a wet blanket and let people enjoy what they enjoy.

>>4593054
>and from the late 90's to early 00's games did it quite well generally.
Except the 90s was riddled with boring JRPGs that are nowhere near as mechanically complex as they are today.

>>4593057
It does, even developers themselves are starting to realize this as games drift closer towards gambling/other kinds of manipulative timesinks. It's an opinion obviously but that's what this board is for.

>>4593046
You can't grind in a safe spot so the rest of Galaga a no-challenge affair, though. This is a fundamental difference.
The thing is, people got addicted to the rewards in particular, for the sake of being rewarded. And thus making games worse over the years as this aspect was focused on more and more in later games.
>>4593056
I'd prefer a game like Super Metroid without the rewards, actually. There are a ton of dead ends added just for missile upgrades and the like, which feel totally redundant for players like me that don't care or even hate these rewards.

>>4593060
>boring JRPGs
Redundant, just play strategy games or wrpgs instead of that gay shit

Anyone telling you score didn't matter in the 16-bit era is full of shit, and wasn't alive at the time.

The vast majority of games still tracked score, albeit through sometimes abstracted methods, well on into 90s. Tons of 16-bit games on console and DOS not only track score, but require high scores to even advance (think old school combat flight sim games like FALCON). The biggest evidence I can give you of this is manuals from the era devoting SEVERAL PAGES to listing every enemy and powerup and their point value.

A lot of 16-bit platformers thought score mattered so much that high scores didn't even get you anything. Best example I can think of is the original Bubsy. No 1 ups. No Continues. Points only for bragging rights at being good at a terrible game.

Score is still relevant in modern games as well, if you go into any shooter or moba and have a terrible K/D/A, (the modern score), you're going to get shit all over by your team.

Valuing completion time over score has always been a thing in some circles, but this push for it to be the ONLY thing is very VERY much a political move by the top two major speedrunning sites to distance themselves from Twin Galaxies.

>>4593075
>K/D/A, (the modern score)
Sad

>>4593072
>>4593060
>>4593026
There hasn't been a good JRPG that sold well in the west since Final Fantasy 4. Final Fantasy 2 and Phantasy Star 2 are the pinnacle of their respective series, and only people who don't know how to plan parties and have never played a western rpg struggle and are forced to "grind" in JRPGs.

You were expected to plan out EVERYTHING, DRAW MAPS, and play with a guide in these games. People play them as grind simulators because they don't understand the genre, because they never played Ultima or Wizardry.

>>4593075
Multiplayer games actually got more scoring systems implemented as complex matchmaking became a thing. League of Legends had the mmr/lp system for example (though it's hidden now), and while it's very imperfect due to the nature of multiplayer games it's still attempting to be skill based.

>>4593072
>>4593083
All RPGs are objectively shit desu

>>4593083
>Final Fantasy 2
>pinnacle
>guides
It's the gift that keeps on giving.
At the least the trolls are slightly better here.

>>4593083
Well, the fact is they get addicted particularly to the fact that you can become overpowered with no need to become skilled. To the rewards.
Devs saw this and started to implement those rewards in other genres. And the rest is history: games are progress system fests now, not only turn based strategy / exploration games.