Ranking systems in games: yay or nay?

[TamagotchiTamaHero24's icon TamagotchiTamaHero24 TamagotchiTamaHero24]

So, I love ranking systems in games. I’ve never heard an exact reason, but I’ve always had this understanding that I was mostly alone in that feeling. Today, I finally heard an argument against ranking systems in games. The argument was “it pairs with an uncreative player, compensating for their lack of ingenuity to play games in a unique way. It gives them a game to play since they won’t make one for themselves”.

I don’t know about that. I’ve always come up with my own games, my own goals. I’ll play a level and I’ll see a thing and I’ll come up with a small goal for myself that I want to do. I played NiGHTS last night and I wanted to go into a special part of a level every time I passed through an area, despite knowing it would go against the clock. But I still wanted to get a high rank, I wanted to do my best. When I see a ranking system and I get a bad rank, my first thought is “oh no, I can do better. Let me go again.” I’ll become better at the game through what I learn when trying to get a good rank. I’ll experiment, I’ll play in different ways, and I’ll find what way is the best. I’ll learn the game. And my next move after getting a top rank? I’ll play again. And again. I’ll see how expressive I can play, because I’m good at the level now. I’m having fun. That’s how I have fun.

But I admit, I prefer games with ranking systems to not. I prefer seeing immediately “oh, this is a thing I can work for”. I find that more enjoyable than the sandbox “I dunno, find something. You make your fun.” unless you’re giving me something that is immediately fun that I can easily make into a game. Like, GTA, I can go on a run and make a game about seeing how long I can last with a high wanted level. I want to see how far I can go. But when I’m not given a goal like that, I don’t really engage as much.

I’m interested in hearing how you feel. Do you like ranking systems? Do you not? Are you indifferent?

 

[qw90700]

It depends on the game.

Back in arcade games era I cared to have the local high score of the game I liked like Missile Command, not much for other games though. If I broke the high score it was "good" but if not that's ok.

Same logic for me regarding this ranking system. I do think ranking systems are either too easy or too BS to get the highest rank. For example Metal Gear Rising has the most BS not so clear on how to score the highest rank but I did care to have S rank for everything in the highest difficulty because such a gameplay is fun itself for me for that game, not to show off or anything. After all a game is made of goal for players so players can have fun with a fun challenge by playing within the boundaries of a set of rules. So if the challenge is not fun then I don't care about my rank or high score.

Another aspect of topics is unlocking hard-to-unlock Steam achievements. If I buy a game it means I liked it and it means I would unlock every fun achievement, not necessarily all of them because some of them can be BS boring and nonsense stuff I wouldn't care to do and some achievements are about what a player shouldn't do actually. Because of this I intentionally left some games in their "not every achievement is unlocked" state.

 

[Turbo Kid]

I like level ranking systems as long as the requirements aren't insanely annoying. Getting an S rank feels good and gives you a reason to replay a stage and try to master it. It's all about dopamine hits man. When you see that S rank get plastered on the screen it's like

Ranks in the Tenchu games force you to try and not get detected, which is the whole point of a stealth game. It makes you play properly. Tenchu II had a nice scoring system that allowed for mistakes because there were so many enemies. So if you got spotted, you just had to go out of your way to get more stealth kills for the level to get that Grand Master ranking. It punished you for screwing up, but you didn't have to start the level over again.

Lollipop Chainsaw had both a level rank and a high score for you to beat. It encouraged you to go for those cool, "SPARKLE HUNTING!!!" kills. This actually made you appreciate Juliet's upgrades as once you purchase some of the better combos you start nailing those sparkle hunting kills consistently. Same thing with bane movies in The Lord of the Rings Return of the King. Getting them was so rewarding as it made it easier to get into perfect mode and start getting those high scoring kills.

I think when a level ranking is done really well, it encourages you to play the game the way it was meant to be played instead of playing like some brain dead Twitch streamer that is spending half the time staring at the chat room. I like that, it really brings out the beauty of a game's design.

I do sometimes create my own challenges as well as a way for me to test the quality of a game's design. I often try to do no damage runs of certain games, where if I take a hit I will reload a previous save or try to go back to a previous check point. This lets me see how well designed enemy encounters are and how deep a game's combat system is. When I play Japanese rpgs or any game that gives you an inventory I try to avoid using items as they tend to make things too easy. I save them for really frustrating fights. These types of games often have items that just feel like cheats, like there was one in Okami that literally made you invincible.

Now, to clarify, I'm not one of those masochistic gamers. When level rankings require insane level completion times or other extreme shit then I go

I hate rankings in Resident Evil games with their combination of speed running, no saving, and restricted item use. Yeah, that's a bit much and I don't have patience for that type of bullshit. Yet another reason why the original Resident Evil 4 is the best one in the entire series.

Overcoming challenges is a part of what makes games fun, but there is a careful balance between fun, rewarding challenges, and obnoxious, sadistic bullshit from douchebag developers like that "Give me God of War" mode in a certain God of War game. Fuck the guy who designed that shit. Seriously.

 

[blossom357]

It gives them a game to play since they won’t make one for themselves

As someone who does love ranking, I agree with the counter argument: regardless of the intended disparaging tone, that sentence describes me. For example, the main reason I avoid Minecraft is because I'm not creative in that way. I want games to be a test of skill or a narrative experience.

 

[TamagotchiTamaHero24's icon TamagotchiTamaHero24 TamagotchiTamaHero24]

Devil May Cry is kind of the perfect poster child of all of this.

 

[Turbo Kid]

I love the ranking system in The Red Star, made you try to get hit as little as possible. This is in a game with several bullet hell style boss fights. You didn't have to be perfect though as many stages allowed for 1 or 2 hits and still let you get an S rank. So it wasn't uber frustrating.

Getting gold medals in the infierno challenges in Guacamelee or the Tiempochtli Challenges in Guacamelee 2 was also a blast as it put your platforming and beat 'em up skills to the test.

Getting some S ranks in some stages for Shinobi on the PS2 was a pain in the ass, but I loved that game so much I suffered through it. My tolerance for how frustrating a challenge is in a game goes up if I really like it a lot.

The five star ranking system elevated Final Fantasy XIII's combat above its predecessors for me because it actually incentivized me to find the most efficient way to win a fight. I was trying to five star rank everything from random battles to boss fights.

There are other ways for games to reward level mastery beyond just ranks though, like finding 100% secrets in every stage in Donkey Kong Country 2. That's fun as well. Kaze and the Wild Masks had end of level evaluations for finding a certain number of gems, finding two hidden green items (usually from hidden bonus levels), finding all of the letters in true DKC fashion, and finishing the stage with no damage. On top of that every level had a speed run challenge and the times were quite reasonable. You just had to do a clean run with little to no mistakes and make sure that you were constantly moving forward at all times. You didn't need weird tricks like roll canceling or some other bullshit, and you didn't have to abuse massive in level short cuts.

Also, to get the most out of Valkyria Chronicles you have to play for ranks as it requires you to finely hone your strategies to complete a stage in as few turns as possible...or just abuse orders/scout rushing LOL, but that's mostly just a tactic for the main story missions and won't help with DLC missions or the higher difficulty skirmishes.

 

[bjork]

Generally dislike, unless it is made pretty clear what I need to be doing. The immediate example I thought of was Devil May Cry, which felt like I had to play it a way I normally wouldn't and so it's a series I'd rather watch than suffer through myself. But it's really a title by title thing and I'm not one to always try to get the absolute best time or whatever unless the game has really hooked me.

The first NiGHTS game is pretty clear on what to do, and the loop is super fun when you hit a good groove on a level, so I've done all As on multiple versions... that said, Stick Canyon is the worst stage in that game and if they ever did a remake, it just needs to not have the sections where you ride the little panel things. Kills the flow of an otherwise great game and makes an A in that level really frustrating.

 

[TamagotchiTamaHero24's icon TamagotchiTamaHero24 TamagotchiTamaHero24]

Generally dislike, unless it is made pretty clear what I need to be doing. The immediate example I thought of was Devil May Cry, which felt like I had to play it a way I normally wouldn't and so it's a series I'd rather watch than suffer through myself. But it's really a title by title thing and I'm not one to always try to get the absolute best time or whatever unless the game has really hooked me.

The first NiGHTS game is pretty clear on what to do, and the loop is super fun when you hit a good groove on a level, so I've done all As on multiple versions... that said, Stick Canyon is the worst stage in that game and if they ever did a remake, it just needs to not have the sections where you ride the little panel things. Kills the flow of an otherwise great game and makes an A in that level really frustrating.

It’s the endless debate of game design: to play as the character or to play as yourself. DMC doesn’t compromise: you will get a bad rank unless you play like the character you’re playing as. Taunting when you can, performing every action with perfection, grouping enemies as much as possible, varying up your movements, etc.
I personally find that fun and the only thing I can use to describe why is: I prefer characters to vessels. I want to play a role rather than a representation of the self. And I don’t know how to get around that for other people, I don’t know if you can, but it’s a rift that exists.

Hollow Knight V.S. Silksong is a good example of this. Neither game has any kind of ranking system, but one game you play as a player and the other you play as a character. In Silksong, Hornet’s moveset is expressive and fluid and so personalized. It’s also way harder to use that the moveset of the Knight, which is more direct by comparison, but is far easier to use at a base level and introduces mechanics to you that are more intuitive in their immediate use. So, it’s harder to play as Hornet, but I’m rewarded personally because I like this character and I want to embody her as well as I can. I want to play like the character. But my partner prefers to approach it as playing as a player, and prefers the original Hollow Knight as a result.

 

[bjork]

Yeah, I guess that's where it breaks. I don't want to play as Dante. I want to play as my Dante. As long as the shit is dead, who cares how I got there?

Hollow Knight is a weird one for me because it's got really beautiful presentation but I find it an absolute chore to play, to the point that I'm yet to finish it because I keep putting it back down. I likely won't ever check out silksong as a result. When I finish something in Hollow Knight it doesn't feel rewarding, it's more like a relief that I never have to do it again, which is the exact opposite or what I want. But I don't see it as playing a character or not in that case, it's more to do with map structure and flow for me.

 

[TamagotchiTamaHero24's icon TamagotchiTamaHero24 TamagotchiTamaHero24]

It depends on the game.

Back in arcade games era I cared to have the local high score of the game I liked like Missile Command, not much for other games though. If I broke the high score it was "good" but if not that's ok.

Same logic for me regarding this ranking system. I do think ranking systems are either too easy or too BS to get the highest rank. For example Metal Gear Rising has the most BS not so clear on how to score the highest rank but I did care to have S rank for everything in the highest difficulty because such a gameplay is fun itself for me for that game, not to show off or anything. After all a game is made of goal for players so players can have fun with a fun challenge by playing within the boundaries of a set of rules. So if the challenge is not fun then I don't care about my rank or high score.

Another aspect of topics is unlocking hard-to-unlock Steam achievements. If I buy a game it means I liked it and it means I would unlock every fun achievement, not necessarily all of them because some of them can be BS boring and nonsense stuff I wouldn't care to do and some achievements are about what a player shouldn't do actually. Because of this I intentionally left some games in their "not every achievement is unlocked" state.

Should mention, I’m always going to be sad at the death of the arcade in the wider world for that very reason. One of my most memorable gaming experiences, one I’ve talked about before, was when I got in a high score battle in Donkey Kong 3. The person I battled didn’t even talk to me, and I didn’t talk to them, but we were communicating by playing this game. I’d get a high score, leave the room to talk to my family, come back and it’s the same person I’ve been battling all morning at the top of the board. And so I’d have to play better just to beat them. And I’ve never been able to play Donkey Kong 3 ever again like that. I’ve never been able to play as good as I played that day.

Ranking systems are like that to me. They’re the guy who beats you on the leaderboard. They’re the person pushing you to play better. I need that push, because that pushes me to play my best no matter the game.

 

[qw90700]

I personally find that fun and the only thing I can use to describe why is: I prefer characters to vessels. I want to play a role rather than a representation of the self.

And I do both as in self-inserting myself to the character by selecting a suitable Persona to simulate the character I play as. It means I do what the character would wanna do but in the way I want by finding a middle ground. This does add extra fun to fun games like having the best fun in Metal Gear Rising you gotta active your Jack the Ripper mode as a player muhuhahaha lol.

 

[raiden_dj]

I like them

 

[nobitakun]

Ranking means perfection. Perfection means training. Training means wasting time as you can lose perfection by stop training. And the circle never ends.

So, no, I am totally opposed to something that has a learning curve and forces you to be "up to date" all the time, like we were machines that are not allowed to forget things. That's one of the reasons I don't like PvP or competitive games, because you need to keep wasting time because other people keep wasting time to be on the ranking. I have better things to do with my time, for instance play other games :)

 

[qw90700]

Ranking means perfection. Perfection means training. Training means wasting time as you can lose perfection by stop training. And the circle never ends.

But my dear Nobita-kun perfection is impossible because "pobody is nerfect" lol and you don't even need to be "too good" for good rankings. You don't need training to be good. If you have to waste your time for nothing then it ain't playing a game to have fun, it's just masochism lol.

My gamer philosophy is "playing game to play for fun" which is what I do focus on even if I chase for S ranks or high score so thus I can only focus on the bar I set for myself to have fun. When people think "it's impossible!!!" I don't think anything, I just enjoy me game. "Enjoying" and "fun" is my fundamental reason on whatever I do to have the best of my life so I can avoid unnecessary and complex BS from my life and only focus on what I wanna do. This is IMO the key on playing a game decently that will naturally make you a good player. No need for obsession and stress for it. Just play the game and have fun yo but if I game is stressful to you that cannot provide fun then it cannot be a game to you so then if it's not a game it ain't playing and then no point in doing it so gotta fun something else that's actually fun.

 

[Ferik]

I think Mega Man Zero 2-4 did ranking amazingly well. You use upgrades you lose rank, you don't use upgrades and perform really well you get EX skills which have a variety of uses in the combo system.

If you're bad at the game take the health and armor upgrades and power through, you wouldn't know how to use the EX moves properly anyways.
If you're really good at the game you don't need the defensive upgrades so have some special moves that let you really push the combat to its limit.

But then there are still a few ways to get EX skills even if you don't have a good rank so you can still get a taste of what the game offers pushing you to get better so you can earn all of them.