This is just my opinion of course, but I think one of the reasons AAA games got away from being challenging is that they first stopped being about interesting mechanics, so there is no way to produce interesting challenges.

My main observation is that most people have a wrong outlook/relationship on puzzles in video games. I partly blame the big commercial games for it why the word "puzzle" is hated/not liked. They include puzzles as an annoying attachment which has nothing to do with the actual mechanics of the main gameplay. When I talk puzzles I mean the type of challenge which is resulting from the actual game-mechanics. I consider the quality of possible puzzles a measure for the depth of a gameplay system.

i said "stuff like" puzzle games so yeah i'm including all puzzles in all games obviously.

Then you are left with simple, short and straight forward games which can be completed in one session and be regarded as just one exam. What's the point talking about obvious microchallenges such as contra?

forcing players to repeat challenges only makes sense if the challenges are not trivially repeatable. i.e. i'm excluding stuff like puzzle games (which your college analogy falls into) from this.

I don't see why you have to make an exception for just puzzle games. The same applies to a boss fight. Puzzles are not exclusive to puzzle-games.

I understand it though if the game expands to more than just gameplay, if its goal is to have a permanent simulation layer. In an rpg it could be the loss of a member who will never return again. That of course ties the relationship and care quite a lot. So at times you might face tough design decisions regarding it, depending on the meaning the game tries to achieve. But if it is mainly about gameplay then I would cut perma-deaths.

There is a problem with this point of view. Let's say you are a good college student but fail just one exam. Why should you restart and rewrite all you have already accomplished. Instead you could focus on your actual problem. May be that explains it.

This applied to video games: Let's say you do everything well but fail at just one boss fight. I consider it more productive and respectfull towards the players to give him the option to study the boss instead of forcing him to repeat stuff from new he has already accomplished, possibly just to fail at a new thing then again.

If a game requires a restart to be challenging then it is possibly not a demanding/interesting game to start with.

Perma-death might make a game more intense but it is an artificial difficulty increase. I prefer difficulty coming from the variety of depth.

i feel as if the most fun games are the most difficult, but they also are the least inviting and drive the most people away from ever discovering that fun

Btw, how far are you in TrapThem now?

A big part of why I think difficulty is a good thing is that it is what causes players to more deeply engage with the systems of a game.

The only thing that concerns me is how the shutdown may effect NASA.

Why exactly?

*Affect
Because I'm a NASA fanboy and care about science and stuff I guess.

It is not always about science in a global game. What if curiosity is somewhere in Nevada instead of on Mars. You still won't miss anything.

The only thing that concerns me is how the shutdown may effect NASA.

Why exactly?

I already am a vegetarian. Contrary to what some people think, meat is not necessarily necessary.

You are a vegetarian, so how can you know? The power of meat will come into you, if you let it in.

EA, probably.

I remember a pr excuse how 30fps feels more realistic compared to 60fps. Now they are trying to go for 60fps on the new consoles.

And that's what is hard/thought-provoking, finding the right restrictions/abstractions and design around them properly.

For instance the rules of chess haven't been invented in a polished state over night, it took many iterations. My advice for game-creation is to have a quick prototype up and running to study the fundamental qualities of the mechanics, in this stage you can already sort out a lot things and grow some fundamental understanding of how the rough details relate to each other. You have to make sure you do good analysis in this stage before starting full production. After that you will know the right direction to evolve or polish up the mechanics.
Chances are there will be a lot of right directions to go but the same goes for wrong directions.
So you have just to make sure the direction you pick is a right one.

I am aware that I am focusing on the gameplay part here and that video games have evolved into more facets. But the gameplay part is fundamental for the games of my interest.

It doesn't matter if genre have lot of depth

Think again.

What about you posting again? I am not even sure are we talking about the same thing.

The more limitations you have, it is harder to design. You could also add additional limitations like for example specific theme - jungle while also adding rule that mouse is the only control component. I am talking about this from experience, when I was designing WW2 shooter it was much harder then designing fantasy shooter where I could basically add whatever I want, and it was still okay.

I always come back to a board game like chess to keep a clean outlook on that matter. You could add more features and even allow the figures to move more freely across the board. But added flexibility as such would not add depth, it would destroy it. Depth comes from restrictions. That is my understanding of depth in games.

This outlook has been very expedient for my own game design.

It doesn't matter if genre have lot of depth

Think again.

Tommy's analysis was a good read. It sounds to me like the controller would work fine for Super Meat Boy with the modifications he suggested, but I still have concerns for Spelunky. If the right circle pad is set up to act like four face buttons, what does it feel like to press two buttons at once (for example, ascending with the jetpack and throwing a bomb at the same time)? There need to be distinctive, separate clicks for each button pressed, and if the entire pad is one physical button, I'm worried it won't feel good to press both the bottom and the right side of it at once. Haptic feedback might help, but I'd have to feel it to know how well it actually works. My suspicion is not well enough.

There are 4 buttons on the grip you can use at once so I am not sure why you focus so much on circle pad buttons for that particular matter.

Yeah, doesn't seem like it'd be good enough as it is now.

It seems like you wish it to fail.

The lack of a D-pad is my only concern

It will possibly be obsolete if the track pads work sufficiently well.

My first ever PC gamepad had six "shoulder" buttons. The usual four under the index fingers and middle fingers, plus another two tucked under where the ring fingers rest. Worked quite well from what I can remember.

That pad I would love to see. Mind sharing some photos if you still have it?

No this was over a decade ago.
But after a bit of goolge imaging:

So it was a Thrustmaster Firestorm something-or-other. Mine was pre-analogue-stick.
Looks like updated ones are still around (or maybe not).

 Cool thanks. It's a shame they are so rare. Hopefully Valve will change that.