Do you like it when games have a "High Score" system?

[Zed Clampet]

I used to think it had to be a certain type of game to include one, but Just Cause kind of opened up my eyes regarding that, charting all sorts of things. I find that I really enjoy this. My only problem with it is when developers don't take care of them and people cheat/cheese to get unreasonable scores.

Overall, I'd love to see this become a thing that a lot more games do. Maybe not narrative heavy games (although Telltale did their own version of this by showing how your choices aligned with everyone else's), but it feels to me like an added goal sort of thing that creates more interest for me. It could add a new level of challenge to just about any game. Maybe you think you've mastered a game, for instance, until you see what other players have done, and that encourages you to try new things and play differently.

It could make games more replayable. For instance, I loved Vampire Crawlers, but I have no inspiration to play it again. But if dungeons had a high score system? I be playing the heck out of that right now.

This is really an old concept. A lot of games used to ship with a fake top scores page. But I think this really needs to come back and be expanded on. It's like PvP without having to deal toxic people. It's PvP for the anti-social.

 

[Colif]

Getting the high score was the main reason I used to keep playing some games... Starfox and Wave Race 64 were games I kept playing to beat my scores or times... until the onboard battery stopped working.

But that was a long time ago.

Racing games still do it for lap times and race times. These get cheesed a lot though unless devs care.

Clocking Galaga and showing top score of 000030 was fun... long ago.

 

[Pifanjr]

What I liked most about Just Cause 3 is that it only(?) showed the scores of your Steam friends.

Seeing impossible to beat scores from the best of the best, even if they didn't cheat, won't motivate me to try to get better, but seeing a score from a specific friend definitely does.

 

[Zed Clampet]

What I liked most about Just Cause 3 is that it only(?) showed the scores of your Steam friends.

Seeing impossible to beat scores from the best of the best, even if they didn't cheat, won't motivate me to try to get better, but seeing a score from a specific friend definitely does.

What? You don't consider me and @Zloth the "best of the best"?

 

[Zloth]

A high score system!? I haven't seen one of those in years and years!

I used to think it had to be a certain type of game to include one, but Just Cause kind of opened up my eyes regarding that, charting all sorts of things.

<ahem> I haven't seen one of those in weeks and weeks! (Come to think of it, BattleTech has one, too. I just haven't ever thought about trying to beat my first score.)

I find that I really enjoy this. My only problem with it is when developers don't take care of them and people cheat/cheese to get unreasonable scores.

Oh jeez, I remember one for... was it an early Rocksteady Batman game? It had high/low scores that were simply ludicrous. Defeat a stealth level in less time than it takes Batman to get to even the closest enemy? No, that's a clear cheat. And the top 100 was full of those kinds of scores. That feature was a waste of good bytes.

With JC3, it's harder to tell. The whole game is crazy cheesy and there are bugs, too, which can cause something to flip out and send an object flying for miles. Limiting to friends helps a TON, though.

Achievements can kinda fill the same niche if you compare your achievements to a Steam friend's achievements but the scores for individual bits of the game work better, IMHO.

What? You don't consider me and @Zloth the "best of the best"?

Wait, why are people laughing!? 😉

 

[Rolfil]

I used to hate the Super, Excellent, Good, Average type of scoring. It just made me realise just how the game thought I wasn't very good.

I'd rather play a game and have fun doing it and not get to the end of a level and find out I'm apparently "Bad".

 

[Johnway]

honestly i don't really care for it. if there was some thing to unlock then sure, why not. but bragging rights for a higher number? not really.

back in the old days when i played on the amiga, i would get the high score constantly and since it resets after you turn it off its pointless. Online scoreboards do nothing for me as i'm not going to be in the top tier players and means very little recognition if i was. Why bother engaging with it? it one of my revelations the same with achievements tbh. For who's pleasure am i unlocking them for? if there is some side content related to it, sure it acts like a tick box and if its easy enough i'll attempt it. but grinding for achievements or score just for bragging rights for nobodies pleasure? waste of time.

 

[Colif]

The games I played that had charts in them were cartridge based and not online. So the charts were just scores to beat and eventually the top 10 was me trying to beat my previous scores.

That or arcade games and the machine owner would turn it off each night, resetting high scores.

I don't want to compete against everyone in the world. I much prefer to beat the machine. That is why I play single player games. I don't need to know how others are doing, it has no effect on my game.

 

[Pifanjr]

I used to hate the Super, Excellent, Good, Average type of scoring. It just made me realise just how the game thought I wasn't very good.

I'd rather play a game and have fun doing it and not get to the end of a level and find out I'm apparently "Bad".

I don't care too much about a game telling me I'm bad at it, but I do distinctly remember playing Bulletstorm and being acutely aware of how bad I was at the game because I couldn't get any combos going. I gave up on that game pretty quickly because of it.