1CCing: The intended way

[Recap]

Didn't know you had a hi-score thread for this game! Since it's my first time doing this on any forum besides mine, I'll clarify that I _never_ use more than 1 credit per play. It's the reason I always ignore hi-score threads; this is a rule which makes the labor way harder and seems nobody but me follows, so there's no actual competition.

So! I'd advocate a brand-new "disclaimer" heading every hi-score thread in order to know which is the case -- true 1-credit play / fake 1-credit play (gotta love that naming convention).

I really don't know about that rule. Save states or credit feeding saves me a lot of time, which allows me to learn and experience far more games in a shorter period of time (and several of the mediocre ones become less frustrating). I'm all about playing the game as the designers intended but I don't think I'm hardcore enough to spend that much effort on games such as this one [Super Contra].

So it seems we indeed have a problem here, 'cause on the one hand you prefer to ignore the rule, but on the other, you acknowledge that as the way "the designers intended"...

But what actually got my attention from your post was the final statement. What do you mean by "games such as this one"? "Non good-enough games"? Or is it "games as terribly hard as Super Contra"?

'Cause if it's the former, well, you, in fact, are making them worse games than they actually are by ignoring the "rule"! Maybe the question here is why the hell are you wasting your time with "non good-enough games"!

And if it's the latter, you can make the game easier by going to the switches and setting the diff. level at a lower level, for God's sake!

That is, why in the world are we so worried about making clear we use "default" settings here and there while we're ignoring the very first "default setting" -- "1 credit per play only"!

And my ultimate point being, of course, that you're spoiling your game. You're missing the opportunity to get thrilled by the progress itself, by discovering new areas thanks to actual merits. How in the world [general question here] can you say if a game is good or not if you don't let it show. The challenge of arcade game resides not only in the pure motor skills/concentration it demands from you, but also in the patience. 'Cause you know, if it's a matter of "saving time", you have all the super play movies out there.

[icycalm]

Yeah, I never saw the attraction in credit-feeding to get better. It seems to me it turns the game into some kind of work (lol).

But some people seem to derive more enjoyment from being competitive in a game than from the pleasure of letting it slowly unfold before them, conquering each stage one screen at a time, etc. This is one of the rare cases in which I am willing to say "to each his own". Because, really, I do understand them. There's a valid preference there which is definitely not based on ignorance. Superplay DVDs play the same kind of role, and this is standard practice in all sports -- which, to a certain extent, is what reflex-based games are. Again, even in sports, I prefer not using any kind of aids and just learn the game by playing the game. But those who derive most of their thrills by high-level performance than simply by improving their skills (there's a big difference here) do not share my views. And I understand them.

And Recap, man, really, there's nothing fake about a 1CC achieved that way. And I certainly wouldn't want to fill up each high score entry in each thread with "fake", "fake", "fake", "fake" all over the place. This would be just mean. I mean we get the point. If you want, we could add some sort of comment on each of your own scores, and have it linked to this thread so that whoever stumbled upon your scores would learn what's up. Better yet, write an article on the subject and I'll post it on the frontpage. Call it "On Fake 1CCs" too if you want. As if the site didn't have a hardcore enough reputation already :)

[raphael]

This falls down to:
Does the way matter more than the result ?

I tend to think that if somebody has better results than me, then he is better than me, whatever amount of effort he put into it. Of course this is debatable. But this point of view helps me focusing on goals and not wasting my time on repeatedly failing (which we often mistake for efforts).

It reminds me of this:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/dominatio ... cheapness/

Improving is not about making more efforts, it's about getting better.
And that's why teachers are so precious.

P.S.: This said I don't credit feed nor use save states (nor am I good).

[zinger]

I've missed a decade and a half of amazing games and I'm trying to catch up, get as good of a perspective as I possibly can of what has happened circa 1978-1993. Playing the games, learning them is no doubt the best way to do this. For my favourite games I stick to one credit, but in the many other cases I just can't be bothered: I feed certain sections to learn them quicker and then restart to do the full run with one credit.

On another note; discovering systems and strategies together with friends (including forum members, what we've done here, to some extent) is also one of the best ways (as in the most fun) to experience a game in my opinion. Where do you want to draw the line?

Edit: century - decade :)

[Recap]

But some people seem to derive more enjoyment from being competitive in a game than from the pleasure of letting it slowly unfold before them, conquering each stage one screen at a time, etc. This is one of the rare cases in which I am willing to say "to each his own".

That goes without saying.

Because, really, I do understand them. There's a valid preference there which is definitely not based on ignorance.

That, I'm not as convinced as you are, I'm afraid. How many of them did really know that "credit feeding" is an artifact not really intended for proper play when they first met video-games? I mean: how many have learned that thanks to the internet, after they became experienced players and "credit fed" everything so that their minds can't make it look as the unnatural thing it really is?

Without noticing, these "score-focused" players may have been blinded by their mindset, which accepted "credit feeding" originally, hence missing once and again the pleasure of discovering and finishing the games with legit methods, which, if you ask me, it's the very first point of most video-games (they have and ending scene for some reason, damn it).

The question is -- what if not a single game had a continue feature. What if all those players were forced to restart every time.

My answer -- ultimately, action games would have a much better balance, since the devs would have focused on perfectly measuring the stages' length, variety and final challenge. Lots of these games are ruined or almost ruined just for considering the "credit feed" practice as standard behaviour.

Superplay DVDs play the same kind of role, and this is standard practice in all sports -- which, to a certain extent, is what reflex-based games are.

I believe my previous lines unveil I think of arcade games as "something more" than mere "games". They're of course "reflex-based games", but they're also "narrative". And with that, I don't mean "storytelling", but "scene development" (this is where I hate to be forced to use a language other than my native one), which goes together with the "reflex-based game" and indeed (and this is important) subordinated to it.

Think about it -- if there weren't narrative elements to them, every arcade game without a properly-implemented scoring system / good vs. feature (and there're LOTS of them), would be a bad video-game.

So I don't like the sports analogy. You can take arcade games as mere sports and just play for beating others. But you'll be missing an (also) essential part of them (in some cases such as vs.-based games, a very small part, I'll admit that).

And Recap, man, really, there's nothing fake about a 1CC achieved that way. And I certainly wouldn't want to fill up each high score entry in each thread with "fake", "fake", "fake", "fake" all over the place. This would be just mean.

I actually was kidding with the terminology. Remind me of some amusing internet moments. You know.

On another note; discovering systems and strategies together with friends (including forum members, what we've done here, to some extent) is also one of the best ways (as in the most fun) to experience a game in my opinion. Where do you want to draw the line?

That's a good question. You had to learn a lot by watching others if you went to the arcades with assiduity. You needed to wait for the machines to get available, after all. It was part of the experience and it was fun. But still, it's not too legit, from the pure game perspective. Do you think you'll have more fun if I tell you how to kill Super Contra's third boss than if you figure it out by yourself? C'mon.

[icycalm]

Yeah, I now agree with everything you said, especially this:

The question is -- what if not a single game had a continue feature. What if all those players were forced to restart every time.

My answer -- ultimately, action games would have a much better balance, since the devs would have focused on perfectly measuring the stages' length, variety and final challenge. Lots of these games are ruined or almost ruined just for considering the "credit feed" practice as standard behaviour.

This stuff really needs to go into an article.

[Recap]

I hear you.

[zinger]

Agreed, that's something I've been thinking about a lot too.

[zinger]

What about autofire? It's something that was implemented in just about in just about every cabinet I used while in Japan. Are there examples of games that have been designed with autofire circuits in mind, or should they be avoided at all times, too?

[Recap]

It's long now since I've been there, but never found an auto-fire implemented cab. Guess it's a recent feature. Did you find that in other than shooting games?

I remember some of the latest Cave games had an auto-fire setting vía option screen, but not as default. In my opinion, the answer is quite obvious, unless it's a default feature (like on all those domestic games), it should be avoided.

[JoshF]

Darius Gaiden without autofire? You can't even destroy some of the larger enemies without it.

What's the correct way to play the AC Batman game (besides not at all)?

[Recap]

Darius Gaiden is indeed an "auto-fire-only" game. Never saw the Batman game, though.

[Jedah]

I thought that most games with scoring system have a built-in mechanism to let you find out how many credits the machine was fed. Cave shooters and MAME emulated Raizing games add 1 to the last digit of your high score:
200.000 -> 1 credit
200.001 -> 2 credits a.k.a 1 continue
... and so on. A value of nine is of course as like you have set coin to autofire :P. Therefore for a game that has this or a similar mechanism it's very easy to post 1 credit high scores with a screenshot only. For games that do not implement such a system or do not reset the score, sadly there is no point to compete in a forum by posting pictures. If we really like to have an interesting and fair high score section, we must compete in particular games.

[icycalm]

You have not understood the point of this thread. The point is not to try and prevent people from posting scores they achieved while continuing on a single run. This has always been and will always be prohibited. We don't require screenshots either: people are expected to be mature adults who would not bother cheating on a forum high score board.

The point of this thread is to discuss Recap's idea, that the correct way to 1CC a game is to NEVER continue, not even in order to practice tough spots in a more efficient manner. Many people do this. They use continues and save states to get good at all the tough spots, and then they put the whole run together in a singe session and ON A SINGLE CREDIT. This is still technically 1CCing, but Recap has explained to us why it should be frowned on.

[Jedah]

Sorry, typical forum misunderstanding. Well I'm totally with Recap in this, especially when it comes to arcade games. It's better to work your way from the start than credit feeding in order to "practice". There's no real practice it's just curiosity to see what follows if you ask me. What prevails is certainly something very personal and game depending.

[zinger]

That's simply not true. Credit-feeding is a very efficient method for learning games.

[Recap]

And ironically, it's never an efficient method for properly knowing games.

[Cpt. Coin-op]

But some people seem to derive more enjoyment from being competitive in a game than from the pleasure of letting it slowly unfold before them, conquering each stage one screen at a time, etc. This is one of the rare cases in which I am willing to say "to each his own". Because, really, I do understand them...Again, even in sports, I prefer not using any kind of aids and just learn the game by playing the game. But those who derive most of their thrills by high-level performance than simply by improving their skills (there's a big difference here) do not share my views. And I understand them.

This brings up an interesting point.
The only reason I got the XBOX version of Metal Slug 3 was because I found out it had a "stage select" feature, which was put there for the purpose of perfecting one's chops. (Keep in mind, this was back before I got any good at Metal Slug.) I practiced that son-of-a-bitch final level each day until my hands blistered from the control pad, and eventually I was able to beat that stage in one life. (The kicker is that the one bit that was giving me so much trouble was escaping from the blood-vomit zombie clones. That final boss was nothing compared to the trouble I had with the zombies.)

I beat the game in 1 credit soon after. Now, my question is: Considering that the game gives you that feature as a "study aid" of sorts, would that be considered a "legitimate" 1CC or would it fall under "credit-feeding to improve" territory?

[icycalm]

The game is not "giving" you anything. You were playing a PORT of an arcade game. Ports often give you lots of stuff that the original game's designers never meant for you to have. The designers, after all, often have had nothing to do with the port whatsoever.

[raphael]

Yeah, I now agree with everything you said, especially this:

The question is -- what if not a single game had a continue feature. What if all those players were forced to restart every time.

My answer -- ultimately, action games would have a much better balance, since the devs would have focused on perfectly measuring the stages' length, variety and final challenge. Lots of these games are ruined or almost ruined just for considering the "credit feed" practice as standard behaviour.

This stuff really needs to go into an article.

I don't think I follow you there.

Wouldn't that precisely have the effect of diminishing the number of levels and the quality of the later ones ?

We all know tons of exemples of difficult games which later levels aren't polished at all because the developers thought few people (if any) would reach them. I even remember the time when the continue feature didn't exist. Games had fewer levels (if any) and didn't have a proper end. And on home computers, "continues" and "saves" didn't exist for even a longer time, resulting in most games later levels being trash, and arcade ports often missing the later levels.

I think the continue feature in arcades made games richer.

I can't understand your reaction.
Did I miss something big ?

[RemyC]

With credit feeding being similar to using extra lives, I'm curious about what peoples stances are on extra lives? and the way they are obtained in certain games as either items, or as a bonus for reaching a set score, or even being able to add to the starting amount of lives via the options menu?

[raphael]

This is definitely not similar.
Credits cost you money, and money only.
Extra lives are free, but you need a minimum skill or knowledge to get them.
Option menus are only usable by the owner of the cabinet, not the players.

By the way, in most games, credits and lives are definitely not the same either.

[Recap]

Did I miss something big ?

Only that you're talking about prehistory. The natural evolution in all these years normally would have palliated/erased those issues. Particularly those.

I myself find that there're too many games artificially lengthened (we can mention the "loop" system here) and usually dislike games with long stages (take all those Super Mario-inspired turds on the SNES, for instance). Length rarely implies better quality/measurement.

With credit feeding being similar to using extra lives, I'm curious about what peoples stances are on extra lives? and the way they are obtained in certain games as either items, or as a bonus for reaching a set score,

You're answering yourself right there. Extra lives have nothing to do with credit feeding and indeed are part of the game design.

or even being able to add to the starting amount of lives via the options menu?

That's a different subject, though. Those aren't "extra lives". It doesn't matter if we're talking about an arcade game or a domestic game -- there's a thing called "default settings" which you need to keep intact (saving some very particular cases) if you want to know the actual designer's intention, not to mention if you want to compete with others. Difficulty-focused settings are much like the continue feature -- a protocol-like addendum.

[RemyC]

By the way, in most games, credits and lives are definitely not the same either.

When I said, "Credit feeding, and extra lives are similar", i had certain platforming games in mind, that allow you to add on an obscene amount of extra lives in the options menu.

It doesn't matter if we're talking about an arcade game or a domestic game -- there's a thing called "default settings" which you need to keep intact (saving some very particular cases)

Would these be the settings that make the game more challenging? (hahaha)

[rob dot]

That is, why in the world are we so worried about making clear we use "default" settings here and there while we're ignoring the very first "default setting" -- "1 credit per play only"!

I've never seen this sign on an arcade cabinet before. In actual fact, some games say please (!) continue. To me, that means they want you to continue. Where does this "default setting" come from and how does it apply to games that ask you to continue?

'Cause if it's the former, well, you, in fact, are making them worse games than they actually are by ignoring the "rule"!

How is it making a game worse by playing it? You haven't triggered an invincibility cheat or altered the game's rules in any way. You've just forfeited your score. A game experience should not be worse off by enjoying what is most challenging about it, which would be at and beyond the point that ended your run.

you're spoiling your game. You're missing the opportunity to get thrilled by the progress itself

Progress doesn't have to come exclusively at the 'edge' of the game. Making progress in places I've played through hundreds of times is the most satisfying. I know a game is good if I can see it all and play it all many times and still enjoy it. You're assuming a game is that good and worth all of that effort.

When I buy a new game I want to see right away whether or not the entire game is worth playing through on 1 credit. If I hadn't credit fed through Metal Slug 3, I might've thought it'd be worth the effort. Then I found out it was jam packed with filler. That'd be a horrible surprise.