/v/ - Video Games

It's cool for achievements, but every player knows if they did good or bad. The adaptive difficulty you mention could be explained in a new entry in the in-game help section as a damageless, assistless run once you beat the game, or an actual difficulty option to force it, like hell and hell in devil may cry. Most people will just use a wiki, guide, or streamer and know about it first run. Imagine tetris telling you your block placement, your lack of healling item usage in a jrpg, or your precision while aiming in tf2 contributes to a C rank. It's just not for everyone, just like high scores aren't, but it can help show where to improve for people who enjoyed the game.

In singleplayer, it's "play how the devs want you to play".

In competitive multiplayer, it's incentive for people to try to exploit the system if they can't get gud.

>>16905456

>What do you think about ranking in videogames?

Best used for level based games or single player games that have relatively short run times.

>Is it an effective way to push the player into getting good?

Sure, it can let you know how often you maintained combo streaks. Tell you what percentage of items you missed on a stage. And let you know your general habits like item usage and damage taken.

>What is a good ranking system in your opinion?

I look to Platinum Games for good ranking systems for action games.

>>16905456

Are you retarded or something, anon? The ranking system in MMZ1 and 2 are probably the worst thing of the series, among other things. For starters, you can't really really improve with this system, and the system locks you out of what should be core elements of the gameplay, IE new movements and techniques. Basically, you are forced to improve with basic shit, and at the moment you are good enough to get higher ranks, those new techniques are meaningless because you are already good without them. That's unlike DMC3 ranking system where you improve as you unlock new weapons and techniques you can put together, because even though in the beginning you are forced to improve with the little basic stuff you have, the newer stuff is not exactly locked behind how well you perform. Sure, you can unlock things faster the better you are, but you don't have to score a fucking A or S in a level to unlock something as basic as an stinger.

>B-but the EX skills aren't core and you can finish the game without them!

True, but you'd do a lot better if you could just unlock them. And I get wanting to reward a highs skilled player, sure, but it's meaningless when you punish so hard a low skilled player when they are just starting to play. Instead of completely locking the skill, they should just give you a not as good version of it.

>B-but muh replayability

I want to replay a game because I like it, not because the game forces me to. The replayability meme needs to die.

All in all, MMZ as a series has A LOT of very questionable decisions, specially the first two, from having to drind your weapons to unlock a basic 3 hit combo with the z-saber, to cyber elves bein stupidly expensive to upgrade without grinding and being 1 use only, that on top of permanently damaging your final score. Most of those things were fixed in MMZ3, though, with Elves being more accesible, having all weapons fully upgraded from the beginning, and a way more flexible ranking system, but it still suffers from the design the first 2 did. Then MMZ4 basically is an step backwards from all that.

Same with DmC2 ranking system. What kind of fucking retard thought it was a good idea to time the ranking in a game about experimentation and style? Every time crapcom takes an step forward, they immediately take 2 steps backward.

>Mega Man game where you can't get boss abilities if you die or use upgrades

I hate it.

I can either like it or absolutely hate it. Katamari Damacy makes it a challenge to get bigger in size then the minimum requirement and it doesn't feel forceful. Games where it is required that you get the highest rank before continuing can be a nightmare. I play games to enjoy them, not feel like a speedrunner that needs to shave a second off my time to get a better rank.

I hated how it was in MMZ and it really makes me consider cheating the ranks to be s-ranks at all times in a next playthrough. The thing is, I want to play the hardest challenge my way, not by playing how the developers intend. I'm perfectly fine getting scored a B or an A for taking my time or getting hit although I remember Z1 and Z4 having a really tiny camera, to the point where it was difficult looking ahead at incoming threats and forcing leaps of faith. The same applied for the first Gunvolt game but I don't really want to be locked out of content because of it.

For all of X5 and X6's flaws they did something right with setting the bosses at their maximum levels on Xtreme difficulty, although they still fucked it up because beyond a certain difficulty it just makes enemies bullet sponges and considering how little any of the bosses are a challenge in X5(Outside of Volt Kraken it's hard to think of any of them as difficult) they still fucked that up.

I wish someone would make a spiritual successor to either X or Zero. Classic fangames are dime-a-dozen but when it comes to X or Z or even ZX there's barely anything. And yes, Corrupted X never ever.

>>16905750

But you're not X, you're Zero

If done at all in a narrative or atmospheric game, it should be done at the end of a game, like in MGS (not 5). Otherwise the player becomes hypervigilant of their own performance which may change their behavior. For example, imagine if you played RE3, except instead of ranking you at the end it was broken up into sections – say, every time you choose whether to fight Nemesis is a section – and then you get ranked. It completely disrupts the "I'm just trying to do what I can to survive" feeling of the game because you have an objective rating of how you're doing. Players who might have thought they were doing well suddenly think they aren't because they missed side content which they should only push themselves to get on subsequent playthroughs, which makes the game harder for them because its about route planning and resource management.

On the other hand it can be an extremely nice feature when your game is designed to be played on a strictly stage by stage basis like Doom or Hotline Miami.

Depends on what type of game it is.

For example; FPS/TPS that rate your accuracy are retarded since noone can consistently be 100% accurate unless they're a human aimbot.

>>16905685

>I look to Platinum Games for good ranking systems for action games

My biggest gripe with Platinum's ranking system is the time requirements for every combat encounter since it forces you into one optimal playstyle in order to finish the fight quickly enough.

>>16905987

>playing fast is a metric of skill I value in these kinds of action games

Kind of untrue. In DMC the meter is called "Style meter" for a reason. It is more about doing cool shit than do it fast. You could argue that doing it fast is kinda cool too, but not if it's detrimental to the rest of the score. I think I would be ok with it if it could be it's own ranking, so that way you can play it once for style and another time for speed, being 2 separate scores, BUT speed still being affected by how cool you play so it isn't just

>Exploit the game to do it faster

>>16905987

https://katamari.fandom.com/wiki/Eternal_Mode

A few of the stages have eternal modes, but We Heart Katamari has one where you have to roll up a million roses I think. It's comfy.

If we're talking in game ranking systems?

I suppose it's good for feedback on how much more gud you can git, but a lot of them are super arbitrary and inferior to any sort of leaderboard.

And even then leaderboards are pretty useless since everyone cheats these days.

>>16905987

It'd be nice to see a We <3 Katamari remake, that game did somewhat the best job in balancing items for the present goal. Even considering the fact plants are distinctly weighted differently because of the point you raised

>>16906059

>And even then leaderboards are pretty useless since everyone cheats these days

I was about to point that out, anon, and not only that, but leaderboards still depend on whatever the fuck the dev thinks counts as score. It's basically a combination of exploiting game mechanics and knowing what the games want you to do, and that's kinda shit.

>>16906012

>In DMC the meter is called "Style meter" for a reason

Full disclosure, I never played any of the DMC games but they are staring at me from the shelf. Regardless I recognize the lineage and how it's tied to Platinum games specifically and action games as a genre.

>You could argue that doing it fast is kinda cool too

I would genearlly say that playing optimally will kill enemies faster. Especially in games like Bayonetta or MGR where you have readily available instant kill moves for opening up enemies.

> I think I would be ok with it if it could be it's own ranking,

I agree regardless and I'll tie it back to Katamari Damacy. I think that there should be some sense of urgency to level/mission based action games. Time limits affecting rank are just the easiest way of doing so. But getting ranked for time should either be a secondary thing like how you can get a comets in KD, or time should be less weighted on the final score.

That being said. I don't remember if clear time had any impact on titles like God Hand. I know you got money for no continues and what level you were on when you beat an enemy. So maybe it had no purpose other than letting you know how long you were in a stage. Given how the game has comparably more emphasis on exploration or a stage this might be a reason for why time doesn't seem to have any effect, at least to my memory.

>>16906264

However, if I had to improve DMC ranking system in a way would be making punishment dynamic. I think it's kind of shitty that no matter what rank you are in, if you take a hit you go back one rank, so I would do it so in the lower levels like D, C and B you'd need to take 3 hits for it to go down. A an S would have you take 2, and SS and SSS would be 1 hit for you to lose it. That way you can keep a relatively high rank, but you'd have to master it to stay on top ranks.

I tend to prefer medal systems like in Shadow Tactics, where it challenges you to do a mission again with some restriction.

>>16905456

I hate ranks that go over S (S itself was pushing it since A was the old "highest score" rank). S is supposed to be the rank of absolute perfection, to say there's a "Rainbow SSS+" rank or some shit is absolutely pointless. Just make rank S harder to obtain if you think there needs to be something beyond S.

>>16905987

The problem with the time requirement is it runs counter intuitive to the combo requirement, you have to waste time styling on your opponent when you could've killed them.

I wouldn't mind if games had time requirements for beating levels like DMC since you can just speedrun past everything outside of fights.

>>16906264

>I think that's the primary difference in our way of thinking anon.

Sure. I think time as a factor in ranking systems, especially in ones that are built around combat systems benefit from grading on time since doing good generally means clearing out encounters faster since you are landing more hits and strong attacks net better points leading to health bars depleting faster.

Not every ranking system for action-based games factors in time or does so in obvious ways. I'm also not sure if Time matter in a title like Muramasa: The Demon Blade but you are still given an indication on how long each encounter went. Same with God Hand as it lacks any grade or ranking tied to clear time.

The balance comes down to how lenient clear times are when weighted against doing stylish things. Again, haven't played any of the DMC titles but I found a very good writeup on the 4th entries rating system and since the game grades purely on the whole stage it seems you get some really lenient outside chapter that I would assume are purely boss encounters or very short.

https://gamefaqs.please use archive.fo/boards/938686-devil-may-cry-4/41519092

I'd be hard pressed to imagine that you seriously can't execute combos like in the video you posted and still not get an S-rank in that game (it's DMC3 right?).

For something like Bayonetta which also grades each encounter individually. From memory as well as some research it seems like time is generally a non-factor to fights even if you are going for style points. Only exception would be using torture attacks super frequently as that's when I found you start to dip into gold/silver time rankings. That and boss/mini-boss encounters you are unfamiliar with raising how long it takes to beat them. But generally doing the more damaging melee strings and using wicked weaves which have the higher point returns will kill mobs faster.

Ultimately, as it relates to "going fast" and "looking good" I don't see how clear times severely impacts your ability to style on your opponents in the general sense. Obviously there are games that are way too tight, I can't think of any at the moment. But for these action games specifically I think the goal of a clear time isn't to "survive" as I see it. Much like fighting games the goal is to win within the urgency of a time limit which is where you have to weight taking riskier options for better rewards. Only in action games you rarely are in a situation where a time-out can occur, instead taking the more patient or time-consuming measures will give you worse returns.

I won't deny that this will annoy the players who just want to enjoy their proficiency at long combos and stuff. I'm just not the kind of guy to lab out something that extensive and I favor quick kills and short combo strings overall so time requirements fit my general mindset.

>>16906442

>>16905892

Didn't see your recent post but I think >>16906456 should explain at least how I view Platinum's ranking system and time requirements in general.

>>16905456

>So anon,what do you think about ranking?

Ranking ruins games because OCD. I pretty much can't even play DMC-style games because I get bogged down on rank on the first playthrough and stop enjoying the game before I even finish that. Same in other ranked games, I have a very strong compulsion to keep retrying to get the best ranks because I can't stand being told I wasn't good enough.

If ranking systems were reserved for special replay gamemodes like time trials or something, I'd be much happier overall. Having them in the main game especially the first time through kills me.