Who has made the most points in BDC?

I just have finished the game on Beginner, then I've played Intermediate, then Advanced. Everything in the correct order. At last I've made 2.000.150 points. Can anyone stop me?

Richard I think did it without dying, falling into the dungeon, or using elixirs, and not stopping at all.

That is if I remember correctly.

Richard I think did it without dying, falling into the dungeon, or using elixirs, and not stopping at all.

That is if I remember correctly.

Which would mean that he wouldn't have the highest score, because he wouldn't have killed as many enemies. Having the highest score just means you killed more things, which either means you went to the dungeon a lot, or went around rounding up points just for the sake of points. In Richard's run of the whole game, he was around 250,000 something before facing the BK on Advanced, meaning he was probably at 1,250,000ish, and I do think he did go to the dungeon once or twice, but he never died. So beating the game from Beginner to Advanced with the lowest score would actually be more impressive to me.

Yeah, which Richard probably nailed.

Second on what Izdale said. Any game, beaten with the lowest score possible, is always more impressive. Like in an arcade: if someone beats a game on $5, and another on $20, the $5 guy did a better job.

Agreed, but unlike BDC, Dark Castle is different because you get more points for beating levels quickly, so the measure of impressiveness is different for each game. DC=most points and BDC=lowest points

This post has been edited by izdale on Apr 7 2008, 08:21 AM

Actually, the only way to get a really low score is to wait until health has almost run out at the end of each level to avoid bonus points. This is very dull and rewards slower and less interesting play. Sadly neither aiming for high points nor aiming for low points is very rewarding in DC/BDC. This is why those of us who can beat the game on advanced had largely moved to other types of challenge like playing without elixir or the shield, or not dying. The original poster has done something quite impressive, but it is not getting 2,000,000 points, instead it is winning all three difficulty levels in a row. Sure Richard has done better, but it is still impressive.

I think removing score in RtDC was probably a good idea.

Agreed, but unlike BDC, Dark Castle is different because you get more points for beating levels quickly, so the measure of impressiveness is different for each game. DC=most points and BDC=lowest points

I had the highest points in a DC run where I never even beat the BK, and it was only because it would get tons of points getting out of the dungeon in half a minute. I must have fallen in 15 times.

So I remember hearing of.

That was what my point was about earlier: the better you do, the less points you get.

Points are kinda useless...nothing's stopping anyone from parking his butt between Fireball 1 and Fireball 2 and shooting bats, mutants and vultures for hours on end using the endless refill of rocks in Fireball 2.

edit: hmm, but I guess we're talking about BDC, where points are useless also since the same strategy can be applied. Just pick a room that has rocks at the entrance and a few enemies to take down and, there you go, free points.

This post has been edited by Alaric Was Here on Apr 9 2008, 06:39 AM

But this is not true. It would be good if it were, because then points would be useful: we could have a lowest score competition etc. However, you get almost all the points for (1) killing the Black Knight and (2) completing rooms quickly, both of which reward skill. Getting a really low score would be as tedious an exercise as getting a high one -- just wait until the timer runs out or health is almost zero before finishing a level.

But this is not true. It would be good if it were, because then points would be useful: we could have a lowest score competition etc. However, you get almost all the points for (1) killing the Black Knight and (2) completing rooms quickly, both of which reward skill. Getting a really low score would be as tedious an exercise as getting a high one -- just wait until the timer runs out or health is almost zero before finishing a level.

I think you are mixed up half (or maybe I am). There is no timer/extra points for completing rooms fast in BDC, which is why La Porta and I say that having the lowest score is most impressive in BDC. Your posts would make perfect sense in DC, where there is a timer and extra points, in which case more points would be more impressive. Here is the topic about most points in DC: http://z6.invisionfree.com/Dark_Castle_For...p?showtopic=724

But this is not true. It would be good if it were, because then points would be useful: we could have a lowest score competition etc. However, you get almost all the points for (1) killing the Black Knight and (2) completing rooms quickly, both of which reward skill. Getting a really low score would be as tedious an exercise as getting a high one -- just wait until the timer runs out or health is almost zero before finishing a level.

What I'm saying is that points that you HAVE to get (for taking out the black knight, etc, whatever you get with your inventory multiplier, etc) nonwithstanding, a lower score is better, because it means you had to shoot fewer enemies, get through the dungeon less times, and go through individual rooms less. It's like the same thing in a game of Street Fighter II: the guy with the highest score beating the game, while toughening it out, isn't as good as a guy who beat the game with a lower score. That's because the guy with the lower score didn't have to repeat taking on as many of the characters as the high score guy. Therefore, he actually is better at the game than the guy with the higher score.

Makes sense to me.