I like numbers, and I think numbers can clarify an argument very nicely. Sometimes a persons principles can cloud common sense. So I ask a simple question.
Is a 1.089 million score on MAME more impressive than a 1.025 million score on Arcade? The answer should be clear as day. Getting a 1.089 million score is much much harder. I can see this being a legitimate argument if we were talking about a 1.035 million score on MAME Vs. a 1.025 million score on Arcade. Then there is not enough difference, and the Arcade argument has validity. So getting that extra 64k means that one has to average an extra 550 points per screen. Not the easiest task considering it means going full out on hammer, and going hard on grouping. At 1.025 you basically need to go top, and bottom hammer with a little bit of grouping for a couple of levels. In my opinion that is a BIG difference, a difference that is much bigger than the difference between playing on MAME Vs. Arcade.
I agree with everything above. Something else that needs to be considered, other than just the points and scoring averages per level...is the rest of the gameplay. Traps, the fireballs, screwings, odd barrel combos, wild barrels, how many free passes you got, etc.
Leave out the arcade vs. MAME stuff. Is a 1.1M MAME score more impressive than a 1.05M MAME score? I'd say you have to look at the entire game. Sure 50k is a big chunk of points...nearly a whole level's worth at those paces. But what about the fact that maybe, for example, the 1.1M score had free passes on all but 1 or 2 Pie Factory levels...whereas the 1.05M score got screwed multiple times on nearly every Pie Factory screen...and had to freestyle several of them....making jumps over fireballs...being patient at the bottom and waiting for an opening...jumping over pies to get away from fireballs...knowing to climb that ladder a little to get a fireball to climb up as well and out of the way.
Spending all that time freestyling Pie Factory screens easily will eat up 50k points...and look at all the hard work, manuvering, jumps, patience...etc...the 1.05M player had to show...whereas the 1.1M player got free passes pretty much the whole time. If you think about it, all other things equal, a 1.1M game with mostly free passes is actually easier and takes LESS skill than a 1.05M game with several forced freestyle rivet/PF screens.
I've brought this up in other posts before...sure there is an official scoreboard and all the scores are ranked based on score alone...but that doesn't mean one player is better than the other player right below him...and vice versa.
I've also said something along these lines before...I'd really like to see Vincent for example, play through Hank's world record game. Not knowing it was in fact the same exact game, same fireball movements, same exact wild barrels, same exact number of free passes...and see if he would get the same score, worse, or better.
It's a shame this is essentially impossible, for many reasons, but I feel that's the only 100% fair way to really tell if one player is "better" than another. The game is so random, the difficulty varies largely from game to game.
I mean if you really think about it...in the end, once someone gets that 1.2M game or more...it's going to happen on a relatively "easy" game...meaning they won't get screwed much at all on any PF or Rivet screens...because the minute you start having a 'difficult' game, you're losing tons of points on these screens...getting trapped or delayed on rivets and PF screens multiple times and having to freestyle, you lose thousands of points every time that happens...but these are the games that really seperate the men from the boys. I also think it's the most fun when you have to freestyle...even though you're losing thousands of points, it's cool to make it through alive = )
If someone gets 1.2M+ on Donkey Kong, will that really mean they're the best Donkey Kong player?
