Effective Scoring?

Hey guys,

I'd like to put to you all a question about game design when it comes to effective scoring. Is being no1 the only way to win?

Im self asking this myself because lately I've been playing Sleeping Dogs and King Oddball, two completely different games but ones that offer a scoring system. In Sleeping Dogs for example you partake in races and must be the first over the line or you don't complete the mission; every race. Why is it so important to be no1? I see the point in being able to obtain no1 status as a goal but completely disregarding your attempts until otherwise seems a bit harsh. If the goal is to be number 1 to win then it might be nice to let me finish the race, get anything positive out of it.

In King Oddball; a game where you throw rocks and destroy the army of earth, lets you pass each level once you destroy all the objects needed, the ultimate goal is to use as few rocks as possible. Now this could be seen as the same as what Sleeping Dogs does on a pass fail basis. Well King Oddball has a nice little scoring system in place not with numbers but with positive phrases for whatever outcome you get once you complete each level depending on how many rocks you used. Isn't that nice.

Fostering the idea; the idea mind, that you can achieve something without it being perfect should be considered in games more often. A lot of players aren't great race drivers or mathematicians or cooks, they come to games to play, and I'm not saying codling should be instilled or competition taken out. All I'm saying is, Is being no1 the only way to win? And lets admit a gamer rage reduction should be considered a plus if we can reduce that.

Just something that caught my attention lately,

SGW