Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
What is the point of points?
I just finished Moebius: Empire Rising. It was never in my wish list, I didn’t expect much from it, but at the end I came away pleasantly surprised - story wise. Animations are of course horrendous, but at the same time the music almost makes it up.
Anyway, I finished with the score 666 out of 676. As I came into adventure games when point systems were already out of the door (I think I have played some games what have counted points, but never payed any attention to it), I’m wondering what are those?
I see those are in a way progress indicator, showing how close/far you are from the end. And it seems to be like earlier version of achievements - or rather mix between high scores from arcades world and achievements - awarding actions and hinting you missed something to be perfect. But were/is there any other, maybe more practical point?
Or maybe there is difference between companies? In some games its just cosmetic, but for an example for Sierra games, which afaik were especially fond to points, it played role in the final outcome or something?
Yeah its just a way of giving measurement to your actions. Finding a stick might be 1 point, while saving the kingdom is 50 points. Its just to give perspective, and i suspect in some ways it was for the game designers as much as it was the players; its a way to visualize the overall progression. Its just lost relevancy.
Incidentally, on more than one occasion i played drinking games with such adventures, drinking for each point earned 
Thanks!
on more than one occasion i played drinking games with such adventures, drinking for each point earned
That’s the practical way to use points then - although saving a kingdom, as you said, is in such case really a challenge and may end up with serious consequences. 
Thanks!
on more than one occasion i played drinking games with such adventures, drinking for each point earned
That’s the practical way to use points then - although saving a kingdom, as you said, is in such case really a challenge and may end up with serious consequences.
yep! for big point bursts i decided to just finish drinks.
But playing this game with tex murphy titles was a serious mistake
Comparing points to achievements makes sense to me. I would replay the Sierra games after finishing the first time, trying to find the points I’d missed. I’ve done the same with achievements in more recent games.
I think I’m remembering correctly that in some Sierra games you could lose points, too, which suggested that there was a better solution to the puzzle.
I love the point system. It makes me want to get the most points and then play again to see what I missed. I wish all games had this.
I love the point system. It makes me want to get the most points and then play again to see what I missed. I wish all games had this.
So it somewhat confirms old hypothesis that points in videogames (among adventures) tickles human psychological impulse to collect. And secrets, extras, tokens etc. collectibles in games are just versions of it, to urge the completist inside a gamer to dig deeper in game.
I love the point system. It makes me want to get the most points and then play again to see what I missed. I wish all games had this.
So it somewhat confirms old hypothesis that points in videogames (among adventures) tickles human psychological impulse to collect. And secrets, extras, tokens etc. collectibles in games are just versions of it, to urge the completist inside a gamer to dig deeper in game.
I don’t know about that. I love points but hate collectibles. I think it’s because points do have a point to them, letting you know you’ve done something right. Collectibles are totally pointless.
For me points mean extra content that I might miss - story bits, dialogues, hidden gags. Games used to be full of those. Points also help to indicate how hard was the puzzle and how smart I was at solving it, which is always useful to know. Collectibles mean complete the opposite: how stupid I was to waste a lot of time on a badge. Points worked especially well in Sierra games, because the devs allowed themselves to experiment with non-linearity, multiple solutions, moral dilemmas, etc. In linear, straightforward and easy games like Moebius they don’t add much to the experience, although JJ included multiple solutions to several puzzles.
PC means personal computer
The only thing points have ever done is frustrate me because they shove the fact that I missed something somewhere in my face. I prefer not knowing.
The truth can’t hurt you, it’s just like the dark: it scares you witless but in time you see things clear and stark. - Elvis Costello
Maybe this time I can be strong, but since I know who I am, I’m probably wrong. Maybe this time I can go far, but thinking about where I’ve been ain’t helping me start. - Michael Kiwanuka
The only thing points have ever done is frustrate me because they shove the fact that I missed something somewhere in my face. I prefer not knowing.
That’s pretty much how I feel about it. In some cases you can use points to tell whether you made the best decision or not. But points tend to push me toward using a walkthrough.
Incidentally, on more than one occasion i played drinking games with such adventures, drinking for each point earned
The best use of points I’ve ever heard of.
In most cases the points are completely pointless just like achievements are, and they only serves to appeal to the gatherer/hoarder in all of us. I must confess though that when they are there then I find it hard to ignore, getting a low score or missing out on a large number of achievements can fell a bit like a slap in the face or like the game is taunting me for not doing better, so it can trigger a bit of save-scumming in me.
There are however a few games where there is a point to the points, and the ending or some other elements are influenced by the number of points you have accumulated. In this case it is perfectly fine, but otherwise I prefer to be without them and will try to ignore it.
You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ
I figure the points are a remnant of old style of gaming, where people were given points in order to see who won. It’s a simple way of keeping track of who’s in the lead and that migrated to computer games, as the developers propably were thinking that people want that. I even remember old game magazines having these “score boards” where people could send in their high scores in order to brag. The same happens now within social media, as some games have public score boards linked to different social media outlets.
In old adventure games I reckon the reason for points was to show the player that they’re doing something right. I think very few old adventures ever deviated from that. I can think only Space Quest 4 and Larry 2, where you got points after doing something wrong (SQ4: the bomb, Larry 2: spinach dip (but again you got more points if you had the dip and threw it in the sea, so in that sense it was clever)).
But, as such, point systems are pretty pointless in the end. I think Larry Reloaded is a good example of this. It originally didn’t have a point system, a thing that didn’t really hurt the game, but after people wanted it they threw one in. And that is pretty much the worst adventure game point system I’ve seen, as you can pretty much around half from the max score only when you finish the game. There’s very little feeling of level of achievment during the game, when all the other puzzles are just peanuts. Personally I feel the point system made LLL:R a bit poorer game.
In a lot of cases, the point system in the old games was a way of letting the player know that they had missed something. Lots of classic adventure games had tons of optional stuff to do or alternate solutions to things—points were a way of keeping track of that and letting the player know that there was more to see. It encouraged players to replay the game to “discover” everything. Achievements are a decent modern parallel, but they aren’t exactly the same thing. To get all of the “extra points” in old adventure games, you usually had to do some cool little extras, which sometimes included additional dialog or even cutscenes that essentially rewarded the player for careful observation or experimentation.
Sometimes, points were used to indicate that the player had used the “best” or most clever (or least violent) solution to a particular puzzle. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is an excellent example—you got more points if you found the hidden travel pass in Vogel’s office, had the good sense to have Hitler sign it when you confronted him, and then used it to pass all the checkpoints on the way to the Grail Temple. There were many alternative ways to get through those guys, but the pass required the most planning and got you the most points. Another example would be the non-violent alternate ending, where you got a ton of extra points if you had the good sense (and quick reflexes) to pick up the Grail before Elsa did, thus saving her life and preventing the destruction of the Grail temple.
In that case, the game would not have been nearly as good without the points and the ability to do those extra things.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
