Whenever a fast paced action game like Devil May Cry, Prodeus, HiFi Rush or Doom have a grading system then I would feel like not continuing them as if some one is judging my performance, instead of a bar to get better.
It’s weird that this feeling never happens in a game like Hitman or Overcooked. I view them as challenges, but not grading like in DMC.
A grading system that does nothing doesn’t bother me. A grading system that unlocks highly desirable, but non-essential stuff will probably get me on my nerves, or get me to cheat. Tenchu on the PS1 had 1 unlockable item for each mission you got a GrandMaster rank
Tenchu, the game that I wished for the checkpoints system the most since PS1. Sneak your way to the boss and get killed? Well, let’s replay the whole mission.
If playing a game is fun I’ll have fun. If playing it is not fun, I’ll not have fun.
I don’t take grading systems in consideration. Just like the color of the protagonist’s shirt doesn’t affect my fun.
Some people play games to get away from the challenges and struggles of their day-to-day. Others play to find new way to challenge themselves.
I like games with clear indicators of “good”, “better”, “best”, even inside wins. Having a grade, or at least some metric by which to measure just how good my success was, is fun to me. I still load Hi-Fi Rush because, even though I’ve beaten it twice over, there’s opportunities to get a higher rank in each stage or in the post-game challenge modes. I raid in FFXIV because I like trying to parse better and better every week. “Haha number go up” is a fun goal in any game where I find the gameplay engaging.
Does this mean I play games “right” or “wrong” while you do the opposite? Not at all. I’d assume we’re just there for different reasons, and that’s totally fine. The good news is there’s games for both types, and we don’t have to play them all.
The trick is to not give a shit I guess: Just play the game, and if you can’t enjoy it, why bother playing it?
There might be some mods out there to change it if you play on PC though, might also be worth looking into, but at the end of the day: If you aren’t having fun, what’s the point?
It’s funny, even though mechanically they’re the same, different games make it feel different.
Like, if a game presents them as special objectives or something, that seems okay. Extra stars for extra achievemnt? Fine.
But when they say “you finished the level… I rate you a D+” that’s kind of a kick in the nards.
Yeah, I don’t have this kind of issue with Hitman’s grading at all. Guess, each grade (Progressional, Silent Assassin) isn’t judgmental.
Same applied to the original Medal of Honor, though I never understood why some of those grades were given, I think they had more to do with where most of your shots landed?
I don’t remember grading in the original MoH. Guess I was too young to care about that. Finishing games is already too hard for me back in the day.
DMC grades you on the “rule of cool.” It’s not about being good. It’s about looking good, and is based on how many times you can hit something without missing or being hit; often you’ll take out an enemy pretty fast without getting even a B rating, and I feel like getting through the game faster is better than keeping a weak ass enemy in the air for 1000 hits. So found it much easier to ignore than Hitman and other stealth game rating systems, as those really do kinda judge how well you did since they focus on being stealthy. Sure you can go in guns blazing and kill everything to win, but it’s a stealth game. You’re supposed to be sneaky. The scoring reflects that.
But in Hitman, it gave the agent do many tools to take the target out. I could’ve spent an entire day setting up traps and still score SA rank. It felt more relaxed that way.
