When you know you've become decent at almost any arcade/MAME game.

[homerwannabee]

A shoutbox conversation inspired me make this post.  I have come to the realization of when in my mind a person becomes decent at an Arcade/MAME game.
You see, almost all Arcade games have a certain point in the game where the game goes, "OK that's enough, it's time for you to get off the game", and amps up it's difficulty level.  Now for certain games, this isn't necessarily the hardest part of the game, it's at a point where they want to kick the casual player off the game.  Some games have a, "That's enough decent player, it's time for you to get off the game" part as well.

So here it is.  Where you are transformed from being a casual/mediocre player to a decent player is when you get more points after the game kicks into hard, than before.

So here are some scores from different games that I know of where I would consider the score to be "decent."

Donkey Kong
A person can get around 85k before the level 4 springs.  So a score of 175k in the game is decent.

Donkey Kong Junior.  An average player can get around 110k with basic point pressing before the level 4 spring board.  So a  score of 225k in the game is decent.

Donkey Kong 3.  A person can get around 150k before Donkey Kong starts throwing coconuts at you at the blue, and grey boards.  So a score of 300k in the game is decent.

Moon Patrol.  A person can get 75k before the tricky boulder stage.  So 150k in Moon Patrol is decent.

So there are some examples.  So yeah, it seems like a good rule of thumb for me.

[creech]

Hi George, it's a great topic, but, my main point was when do we find it to be common knowledge that a gamer's kids are decent at games? I don't think that this should be common knowledge, let alone label them as decent. Let the kids have fun. If you want to discuss that that's fine. That was my main point. Carry on with this alternate topic.

I'm not saying pussify the kid, but let him just game and have fun.

[homerwannabee]

Hi George, it's a great topic, but, my main point was when do we find it to be common knowledge that a gamer's kids are decent at games? I don't think that this should be common knowledge, let alone label them as decent. Let the kids have fun. If you want to discuss that that's fine. That was my main point. Carry on with this alternate topic.

I'm not saying pussify the kid, but let him just game and have fun.

When does it become common knowledge.  1) When the gamer's kid plays a game on their dads Twitch stream, and gets a decent score.  2) When a child of the gamer enters a tournament with their real name, and submits decent scores.

When it shouldn't become common knowledge.  When they are playing in secret, and a gamer tells another gamer in confidence that their kid is pretty good at a certain game.

So rule of thumb on that.  If they make it public, yeah it becomes common knowledge.  If this is in secret/private, then in no way is it common knowledge or should it be common knowledge.

[bensweeneyonbass]

I find it a waste of time to constantly qualify people's skills using words like "decent" and "good" because they're subjective, no matter how you justify it. The justification in and of itself is subjective. And eventually qualifying skills with subjective terms leads to comparisons amongst gamers using these terms, which is again subjective.

If you just wanna talk about stuff, fine, but it's just your opinions and then trying to justify your opinions as "correct" is yet again subjective and ultimately misdirected energy. I know none of this will stop Griley from "informing" people what makes a good gamer. Just thought I'd temper yet another Griley thread where he is pushing for people to accept his perception as accurate. If someone can score more points on a game than someone else, that person is better at that game IF both people's goal is to get as high a score as possible. That's the only clear cut example I can think of, and even THAT hinges on interpreting what gamers' goals are.

[homerwannabee]

I find it a waste of time to constantly qualify people's skills using words like "decent" and "good" because they're subjective, no matter how you justify it. The justification in and of itself is subjective. And eventually qualifying skills with subjective terms leads to comparisons amongst gamers using these terms, which is again subjective.

If you just wanna talk about stuff, fine, but it's just your opinions and then trying to justify your opinions as "correct" is yet again subjective and ultimately misdirected energy. I know none of this will stop Griley from "informing" people what makes a good gamer. Just thought I'd temper yet another Griley thread where he is pushing for people to accept his perception as accurate. If someone can score more points on a game than someone else, that person is better at that game IF both people's goal is to get as high a score as possible. That's the only clear cut example I can think of, and even THAT hinges on interpreting what gamers' goals are.

Oh, this is not to tell people how good they are at a game.  My whole point of the post is give people a possible rule of thumb, that could come in handy if they cared about such things.  And that's the thing, if no one is willing to even offer a guideline, then people who care about if they are decent at a game won't have even a rule of thumb to look at.

Also decent isn't "good" at the game in my book.  My personal classification system.

Great
Very Good
Good
Decent
Mediocre
Bad
Very Bad
Horrible

Also, one more thing.  I openly welcome other opinions on what it takes to be decent at a game.  If people have other standards to go by, I'd like to hear it.  It could very well be that their opinion on the matter has greater logical sense than my ideas. 

[bensweeneyonbass]

There's a thing called score that generally offers a rule of thumb as to how good someone is at a game. If someone is taking the first step to finding out if they're decent at a game, the first place they'd look is likely what other scores there are out there. And there are almost always other scores out there, accessible on a variety of platforms and databases, that they can look at and compare with.

[homerwannabee]

There's a thing called score that generally offers a rule of thumb as to how good someone is at a game. If someone is taking the first step to finding out if they're decent at a game, the first place they'd look is likely what other scores there are out there. And there are almost always other scores out there, accessible on a variety of platforms and databases, that they can look at and compare with.

Well my rule of thumb actually goes by score.  But yeah, going by comparative analysis is definitely a great way to do it too.  My general rule of thumb for that would probably be

Great > 95%
Very Good > 90%
Good > 80%
Decent > 60%
Mediocre = 50%
Bad < 20%
Very Bad < 10%
Horrible < 5%


At this moment you probably should give me a  for going in the wrong direction. 

[bensweeneyonbass]

LOL

I'll give you that certain games have a different distribution of scores that would indicate a level of play, but at the end of the day if you have a better score than any other you can find, you're "great."

[1971printer]

Gyruss - If you get 250k that means you made it back to earth, then the game cranks up.

Gunsmoke - 600k means you killed the Indian on stage 6 for 80k (the hardest boss and longest stage).