Shmup Scoring Mechanics

One of my students is contemplating applying for some kind of game design course next year (just finished first year of 6th form). Now whilst I'm not really convinced by those type of courses, he's well up for it and at least he seems to have been well advised by one of his teachers to start early by building up a portfolio of work by analysing existing games, modding etc.

Anyways, given that he's of the Halo/GTA generation (still only 17) I've been trying to encourage him to play a load of retro/classic arcade games etc. and to see what got us 'oldies' so hooked in the first place before all that new-fangled 3d malarky and photo reality came along.

One specific area I told him to look into was scoring. I suggested he play both some classic shooters and some modern ones and look at how a bunch of games which superficially appear to be very similar could often have very different play styles and often featured interesting score mechanics. (Flipping kids - I spent a good few minutes trying to even get him into the idea of high scores!)

Anyway, I'd like to help him out a bit and so I'm after some examples of games that you guys consider 'classic' shmups, and more importantly why. The key thing I'm looking at is the ones with really interesting score mechanics, multipliers, chaining, bonuses for xyz or whatever.

Even if you can't think of specific games, what sort of thing gets you hooked when you're chasing scores etc?

Any ideas much appreciated, ta

Scoring mechanics started to evolve as soon as chains and combos became common (In that respect I would start with Galaga), later followed by complex bullet patterns.

Another aspect which I would seriously consider are power up mechanics, which often identifies the gameplay more than scoring and is usually tied with it.

Here there are some notable games in relation to original mechanics and scoring.

Mechanics:
Gemini Wings (you collect smart bombs as tails and you can release them in a stack order)
Ikaruga (you can switch between two shooting colors, and you can only destroy enemies of the respective tint)
X-Out (you can change your weapons between stages, and the configuration is truly important... later games in the same genre are Stargunner and Jets 'n' Guns)
Xenon 2 (weapons can be took during levels or later in a store, the configuration is important)
Alpha Mission, Terra Cresta, Action Fighter, Xevious, Twin Bee (you can attack land units with an alternative weapon)
Gradius (each power up fills a bar with weapons to choose from)
1943, Twin Bee (when you shoot a power up it changes to a different one; same idea was used in Platypus)
R-Type (the ship itself isn't very powerful, but you have a companion drone which can be detached and powered during the game)

Mechanics/Scoring:
Do Don Pachi (bullet hell, plus chains which influence the multiplier score)
Space Invaders Extreme (hitting enemies in rows/columns/etc. raises the multiplier)
Rayforce, Raystorm, Raycrisis (you can lock enemies and then unleash your energy missiles: if you lock and destroy entire formations you are awarded bonuses)
Twinkle Star Sprites (a versus shoot'em up: the bigger the chain, higher the chaos you send to your adversary)

Scoring:
Zanac X Zanac (chains which influence the multiplier score)
Mutant Storm (each enemy destroyed fills up a multiplier bar, so that subsequent enemies give you more points thus making easier to reach extra lives and higher records)

This website could be helpful as a reference:
http://shootthecore.moonpod.com/articles.php

scoring isnt high on my agenda (sorry for the pun ;) )
i could play any match 3 or tetris clone and get one giving me 1 point per match or line and another 20 in those games its how many lines and matches that count

as for shoot em ups its deffo about the powerups
with coin op continues would you keep your high score?

imagine being armed to the teeth at the end of the level only to die quite by accident on the next harder level and being reduced to the pea shooter you had to begin with

so if you had spent points when they equal money (the only reason to have points if you ask me :) ) and kitted out your ship for one life only you dont want to die stupidly

Xout had a system where you bought your lives via ships and fitted out each as you saw fit
one ship armed to the teeth or a few minor ships and hope for power ups along the way
i sucked at it but im sure inbetween levels you got to buy more / beter ships and weapons perhaps trading in what you had

so imagine if you could collect un opened weapon canisters eg you already had that power up and it wasnt going to be an enhance ment to it
you could trade it in the shop or even bolt it onto your next life

return to genisis a uridium type game with defender elements had you picking up scientists who were carrying weapon power ups, once saved you could select one of however many scientists you had's weapon and use that till you changed your mind or died

Seconded -- I don't think anyone but for a very small minority of stinky nerds ever gave the slightest hoot about maximising scoring in shooters; folk mostly just want to blow shit up. Make your shooter a pretty, tactile experience and you're laughing.

Chains, combos and multipliers seem to sit much better in other types of game -- namely pinball, vs fighters and Tony Hawks-a-likes. Examining how those work strikes me as far more worthwhile. The audience will actually care.


Yup -- this has to be the number one issue with shooters. Knowing how R-Type and Space Giraffe immunised themselves is probably handy for an aspiring designer.

Silkworm was the daddy on the Amiga. R-Type and Hybris were also excellent. The reason- gameplay. R-Type and Hybris had excellent weapon upgradability, but I can't remember what Silkworm was like in that department.

No idea on the scoring mechanisms. I wasn't interested in hi-scores. It only interested me if weapon upgrades became available based on score.

I also enjoyed "Better Dead than Alien" although I was probably the only one.

I've played a ton of classic shooters since eons ago and scoring maybe interested me for a couple of years when I wasn't even a teenager but then I just forgot about it and got into playing the games and completing them (+ upgrades etc). I think scoring was important on old games with not many extras which were modelled on arcade games (where the highscore is there for everyone to see), but then games got more complex and it was more about making progress. However, when scores in games are important to upgrade (like scores are MONEY) then people start getting interested again. Also some casual game players like to replay games and compare their scores the second/third time round with previous scores/times + these sort of games have normal and "expert" goals for example, so in a sense "scoring" is making a comeback. That's my 2 cents.

Play Geometry Wars today ... scoring is still a big deal.

Scoring got new life with online rankings.

As Grey Alien pointed out, after the late eighties games were more geared toward level progress, and it particularly affected shoot'em ups since we passed from arena style ones to top down/side scrolling ones (where the common denominator was to try completing the game with as few coins as possible).

Now though we are refining all the original mechanics, adding internet functionalities and labelling these games as 'retro' (Geometry Wars was a good example, and Pac Man Championship Edition is another one, but there are plenty of good ones).

For me, there's one game that really got it right and that was the Amiga version of Deluxe Galaga. It's now known as Warblade but I'm not certain that something hasn't been lost in the translation - or maybe I'm just overly nostalgic.

Deluxe Galaga had the perfect mix of accessible powerups, bonuses, score multipliers and importantly, variety - esp via the memory game and meteor storm which were great breaks from the action. The random drop element worked really well - ensuring no two games were quite alike. Then there were the game secrets - secret ways of attaining higher scores and the absolutely cracking idea of the "money ship".

Stages were very well thought out difficulty/balance-wise and the end of level shop again had items at the right price to keep you interested, "in the game", and feeling like you were achieving something.

I think Deluxe Galaga would make the perfect "study" game - cause it's so simple yet so very addictive. But hey, I'm oh so biased!

To stiiiii-nky nerds, yes. :P

Really? Do the vast majority of players -- who will never get anywhere near the top of the leader-board -- really care about their rank? Or is it actually an elitist, excluding device just like the convoluted scoring systems that one is required to master in order to get a look-in?

That's a genuine question -- I don't know the answer -- but, mainstream appeal being such a vital facet of the modern business, I would be thinking of ways to bring some sort of parity between on-line scores and the undeniably popular 'achievements' system (ie place people on the leaderboard for doing interesting, fun things, not for simply being persistent social retards).

In short, I think there's a danger of getting carried away with fancy-pants scoring systems and potentially ostracising the majority of players in the process. The real question isn't 'How do we do this?' but 'Should we do this?'

if he wants to work in games don't send him to a 'games degree' type course. nearly every uni offers one and there awful. Get him on a streight Physics degree and get him to code in his spare time.

boomboom:

I totally agree. My degree (many years ago) was Comp Sci and I really don't see a lot of use in the games courses but as Rob is a family friend I'm keen to help him out whichever route he takes.

@Sledge: rankings are always a bonus... and anyway, you should have a top 100 or top 1000 instead of a top 10, so that the feature would not be 'ostracizing' (never felt that way after playing a flash game though) but just challenging. It would be ostracizing if reaching the scoreboard gave you optional features, but it has never been the case. Having different scoreboards for strange achievements instead of summing all up in a main score is a good idea though.

my mobile version of bejeweled refuses to save my scores so i stopped entering my high score

if i were to play an online game id be late in with the likes of geometry wars so id never get a sniff at the online board and would only have myself to compete against with on the local scoore sheet

so i ask

does getting a high score ACTUALLY give you anything in geometry wars or just a number in a list?
you have 1,000,000 points hey you know what have a new gun
or
you have 10,000,000 points thats like x points in live arcade money

getting a high score in an xbox live game to buy more from xbox live is a nice idea but if you can buy 'credits' then you dont need to persist in racking up a high score in games you might suck at just to earn enough to buy one that you dont

i can match 3 for a while before i get bored
if i was playing it for 'dosh' i wouldnt be able to 'live' off the procedings but it would be nice to get iTunes style music credits that way

but geometry wars with its minteresque gfx and id be dead in the first 30 seconds lost in a hail of vectors that arnt bullets and collide with something unknown cos i have NO IDEA where i am on screen

but if you cut out the 'live' c**p and just have what affects your game regardless of platform then id only worry bout my score if i was raking in in-game money to buy a better gun

your score 0,000,000 your ammo 1,999,999 your gun REALLY BIG