next »

[DavidCaruso]

Whenever people talk about things like Ico or some other game's "emotional experience" I just mentally replace it with "I really enjoyed this game's aesthetics despite the actual game part being boring," since most of the time that's what the people who use the term essentially mean anyway. Which is a perfectly valid reason to enjoy a game! It's just that I couldn't imagine myself playing most games where most of the enjoyment lies on an aesthetic level (graphics, story, music, etc.) more than once, and likewise if you're designing a game like this you always have the risk of outstaying your welcome and running out of new cool shit to show the player. I think challenge is one of the best ways a game can engage the player, since fair and difficult obstacles to overcome forces the player to pay close attention and "get in the game" (aka: "immersion"), and many of my favorite games are designed to be both challenging and fair while also having a lot of cool shit to show the player on a graphical/aural level. (Though there are 1 or 2 exceptions, but they're not really near the top of the list anyway, and in general I can't think of many great games at all which elect to put narrative or visuals over mechanics.)

As much as I feel driven by challenges in games and in life, I think that progressing through and overcoming challenges is more enjoyable than being challenged. From this perspective, it's more important to help the player progress through your games challenges, than simply make the entire game more or less difficult.

The general rule I've found is that the greater the challenge, the more exhilarating it feels when you overcome it. Think of climbing Mt. Everest vs. climbing the hill in your backyard, etc. Of course there are some preconditions to this, e.g. the challenge has to be fair (the game has to make it feel like it's your fault that you lost). The great thing about challenging games is that there is a sense of progression (if the game is well designed at least, e.g. Super Meat Boy and VVVVVV are excluded from this category), every single try you can feel yourself getting better or getting farther than you did the last time. If you only find yourself having any fun once you finish a challenge in a game instead of the entire time you're trying to get through that challenge then that's a possible sign that it's a badly designed game (though of course it'll always be the most exhilarating the first time you get past a difficult section you couldn't before).

[mirosurabu]

Am I the only one to think that challenge in single-player games is inferior to challenge in PvP games? I mean, I really do love challenge, but I've never found a single-player game to be satisfying in this department. It always felt like a watered-down challenge for noobs, to be honest. (grand strategies aside, demon's souls is not as challenging as people say)

As such, I rarely see a lot of difference between "art games" and supposedly challenging games. The first ones let you progress at a fixed pace and the second ones have you progress at a variable pace. That's all there is to it. I still don't enjoy many of "art games" though, but for a very different reason.

Another thing that always bothered me is that a lot of people seem to be obsessed with "level of challenge" and never really seem to care about "quality of challenge" as if it doesn't matter if they are dealing with timing precision, aiming precision, memory, association, spatial coordination, lateral thinking, classical conditioning or logic.

People want "another platform but with more challenging" or "new mechanics" and all but a game with a "new type of challenge".

[DavidCaruso]

Am I the only one to think that challenge in single-player games is inferior to challenge in PvP games? I mean, I really do love challenge, but I've never found a single-player game to be satisfying in this department. It always felt like a watered-down challenge for noobs, to be honest. (grand strategies aside, demon's souls is not as challenging as people say)

Have you 1CCed Dodonpachi? Armed Police Batrider? Denjin Makai II? Metal Slug 2? Beaten Deus Ex on Realistic without quicksaving and loading every 5 seconds? Ninja Gaiden Black and Vanquish on hardest difficulties? I still have yet to accomplish a lot of stuff (especially with arcade games).

EDIT: Though I can definitely agree that the best competitive games have the potential to be much more challenging than the best single-player games, sure.

As such, I rarely see a lot of difference between "art games" and supposedly challenging games.

There's a huge difference, the supposedly challenging games are 1000x better videogames. :D

Another thing that always bothered me is that a lot of people seem to be obsessed with "level of challenge" and never really seem to care about "quality of challenge" as if it doesn't matter if they are dealing with timing precision, aiming precision, memory, association, spatial coordination, lateral thinking, classical conditioning or logic.

Yeah this is the type of thinking which brought us Super Meat Boy. It's so supra dupra hard because you have to repeat these 10 second levels like 40 times to beat them! Except the levels are 10 seconds long, and because they are 10 seconds long they're incredibly basic by necessity, and because of the basic level design combined with short length there's only one or two ways at most to tackle each scenario, and because of infinite lives the level designers were allowed to make any scenario as badly designed as they wanted to with the excuse of "so hard," and because of infinite lives combined with short level lengths the game pretty much loses all tension, and because of the lack of all tension it just becomes retarded especially with later levels boiling down to "will you get lucky on the 40th time."

[C.A. Sinner]

I haven't played Super Meat Boy so I'll reserve judgement on that, but what you're describing is a problem I've noticed with a lot of "retro" games. Their creators try to imitate the difficulty of classic games (LOLZ N1NT3ND0 HRAD!!!1) but don't get WHY the games they're ripping off were difficult in the first place.

Difficulty for its own sake is dum. It's boring and shallow. Good challenging games aren't good because they're hard but because they give the player interesting skills to master. Mastering the scoring system in a Cave shooter or the combat and strategy in Demon's Souls is fun because these mechanics are inherently interesting and the difficulty of these games is just a way to make the player use them and explore their nuances. Peace out yo.

(I just realized I'm basically repeating my post from earlier in this thread but w/e)

[DavidCaruso]

I haven't played Super Meat Boy so I'll reserve judgement on that, but what you're describing is a problem I've noticed with a lot of "retro" games. Their creators try to imitate the difficulty of classic games (LOLZ N1NT3ND0 HRAD!!!1) but don't get WHY the games they're ripping off were difficult in the first place.

Difficulty for its own sake is dum. It's boring and shallow. Good challenging games aren't good because they're hard but because they give the player interesting skills to master. Mastering the scoring system in a Cave shooter or the combat and strategy in Demon's Souls is fun because these mechanics are inherently interesting and the difficulty of these games is just a way to make the player use them and explore their nuances. Peace out yo.

Yeah, I feel like the main thing that modern "retro" game devs get wrong is that they confuse the focus that old games had for simplicity. I mean, if you view a video of something like Captain Commando on Youtube then it might look like a shallow and simplistic game, but once you actually sit down and try to clear it (The Proper Way) you'll need to learn how to master every single move, weapon, and option available to you, you'll need to learn how enemy behavior works and manipulate it to your advantage, you'll need to learn how each of the stages are structured and develop strategies for them, and moreover you'll need to be able to play through the levels virtually flawlessly in a tense environment where one major mistake can mean your shit gets wrecked and you'll have to start over. Despite being in 2D stuff like that is easily on par with most modern action games. Unfortunately I don't feel like many indie devs really get this at all, so they try and make "simple" "nostalgic" "throwbacks," as if the only reason those old games are so enjoyable was because people were kids when they played them or because the games were so much "simpler."

[mirosurabu]

Right, so single-player games can indeed be challenging. A concentration/memory game can be quite challenging if you put billion cards on deck, right? But then, why I do feel like art games feel the same challenge-wise to single-player games? I think it's because majority of these games play easy on normal. There are exceptions of course, which I didn't take into account. But point is, they play easy because I've been through that sort of challenge before, so it's same to me. But more important than that is the fact that single-player games are overemphasizing memory skills. There is nothing you cannot beat if you simply memorize the game. And that's common for all single-player games, including bullet hell shooters and beat em ups (some procedurally generated games try to address this, but let's leave that aside for now).

Bullet hell shooters have fun moments where you get rewarded for successfully relying on your intuition. That's the only thing that I find fun about them. Everything else is just memory and reflexes and I don't think it's particularly good sort of challenge. You can make them more difficult by requiring faster reactions or making complicated patterns, but man, that's a cheap trick.

Beat em ups. Point? Memorize. Dissect enemy patterns. Find weaknesses. Build simple strategies so you don't killed by other enemies. Win. Can be fun? Sometimes. Challenging? Not quite, unless you use cheap tricks. Is it more thoughtful than VVVVVV? Probably. More fun? Not necessarily.

[J-Snake]

Yes, overuse of memorization-requirements is my main concern with the old retro-games. But adapting to clean patterns and mastering them, which can also be thrown randomly at you, that is clean challenge, that is satisfying, it's a man's nature.

That is also why I dislike common shmups, in addition they also put a ton of effects-/ and features-overhead which adds to an unclean quantity-experience.

[King Hadas]

Yeah, I feel like the main thing that modern "retro" game devs get wrong is that they confuse the focus that old games had for simplicity. I mean, if you view a video of something like Captain Commando on Youtube then it might look like a shallow and simplistic game, but once you actually sit down and try to clear it (The Proper Way) you'll need to learn how to master every single move, weapon, and option available to you, you'll need to learn how enemy behavior works and manipulate it to your advantage, you'll need to learn how each of the stages are structured and develop strategies for them, and moreover you'll need to be able to play through the levels virtually flawlessly in a tense environment where one major mistake can mean your shit gets wrecked and you'll have to start over. Despite being in 2D stuff like that is easily on par with most modern action games. Unfortunately I don't feel like many indie devs really get this at all, so they try and make "simple" "nostalgic" "throwbacks," as if the only reason those old games are so enjoyable was because people were kids when they played them or because the games were so much "simpler."

To me all this easily applies to Super Meat Boy, except for getting your shit wrecked since the penalties in Super Meat Boy are nearly none existent but that doesn't mean the game lacks tension.

[1982]

Yes, overuse of memorization-requirements is my main concern with the old retro-games.

Yes need to memorize is what ticks me off in some old games. I'm very bad at remembering things, call it early alzheimer or whatever. However game can still be great challenge without requiring any memorizing of things or patterns. For example N+ is good of being very challenging at times, but the challenge is always easy to approach because of "rooms" that are in single screen, and hold different challenge each.

[C.A. Sinner]

To me all this easily applies to Super Meat Boy, except for getting your shit wrecked since the penalties in Super Meat Boy are nearly none existent but that doesn't mean the game lacks tension.

Again, I haven't played Super Meat Boy, but I think VVVVVV, which also uses tons of checkpoints and next to no penalty for dying, lacks tension. The game is still decent fun, but a lot of the challenges in it devolve into mindlessly doing the same thing 500 times in a row until you get that one button press exactly right. That's not tension, it's grinding. It's also a lot more "frustrating" to me than having to replay the entire level after I die.

Also, a lot of the fun (and challenge) in old hard games comes from having to do things in sequence. By breaking the levels up into lots of tiny sections, you're dumbing down your level design.

BTW: I don't understand the hate for memorization here. Challenging games test skills, why is memorization inherently a "bad" skill for games to test?

[1982]

BTW: I don't understand the hate for memorization here. Challenging games test skills, why is memorization inherently a "bad" skill for games to test?

Because it tests too much brain capabilities. I can't survive.

[mirosurabu]

BTW: I don't understand the hate for memorization here. Challenging games test skills, why is memorization inherently a "bad" skill for games to test?

It's not inherently bad, it's just overdone and boring, especially if it's the most important skill in the game.

Also, a lot of the fun (and challenge) comes from having to do things in sequence

A lot of the fun is lost because you have to repeat things that you've mastered. In PvP games you rarely get to play through the same game.

eidt: Also, I don't think it's because you have to do things in sequence, unless by "sequence" you mean pedantic playthrough. The sole reason they give you no checkpoints is because they want you to master all the skills before they reward you with "The End". That's totally fine, but the way they do it, by forcing you to repeat boring sections that you already mastered, is extremely stupid. There must always be a degree of agency on the players' part when it comes to learning, the kind of degree of agency that is present in PvP games (sports, chess, etc). With games like these you can't even sit back and "think" because you don't have enough information and choice to do that. You have to actually play through the boring sections for you to get any chance to learn. And that's, if you ask me, always going to be worse than "bite-sized challenge".

[DavidCaruso]

To me all this easily applies to Super Meat Boy, except for getting your shit wrecked since the penalties in Super Meat Boy are nearly none existent but that doesn't mean the game lacks tension.

No penalties -> no tension. Why would there be any tension if every time I die I just go back 10 seconds in time with infinite tries? How could playing the same 10 second basic design over and over with only one or maybe two ways to beat it and almost no room at all for experimentation or trying different approaches possibly be anything but boring? Like C.A. Sinclair said, all it does is dumb down level design and turn any possible fun into frustration and tedium.

That's totally fine, but the way they do it, by forcing you to repeat boring sections that you already mastered, is extremely stupid.

If you're losing lives in a section or can't get past it then you obviously haven't mastered it. Also many good games have things (e.g. complex and compelling scoring systems) to keep things interesting even if you're replaying sections you can already go through without dying, like every game I've mentioned in this topic plus many more.

[King Hadas]

No penalties -> no tension. Why would there be any tension if every time I die I just go back 10 seconds in time with infinite tries?

I can attest that when you've played a level over one hundred times and are obsessed with finishing it then yes there is tension even if it is only a ten second level.

How could playing the same 10 second basic design over and over with only one or maybe two ways to beat it and almost no room at all for experimentation or trying different approaches possibly be anything but boring? Like C.A. Sinclair said, all it does is dumb down level design and turn any possible fun into frustration and tedium.

I think SMB allows as much experimentation as most old school games. You keep saying SMB has a basic design but I would call it a focused one. There is no filler in Super Meat Boy, all challenges and obstacles are immediate and don't require you to travel through lesser challenges or long empty spaces or redo a string of areas you've long since gotten sick of. I'm in total agreement with mirosurabu on this, moving through areas I've already conquered is tedious.

[mirosurabu]

No scoring system can make up for boring sections when there are games that are far more challenging and fun. I can just pick up latest FIFA or PES game and go PvP, or just go out and play real football. Besides giving you a lot of options, these games have no "The End". (edit: this is not saying that video games are inherently boring, just that seeking good challenge in single-player video games is not the best idea; I can see how mildly-challenging atmospheric/story-based/aesthetics-driven games can be really fun)

Also, luck-based challenge and bite-sized challenge are separate. You guys seem to be talking about the former, which I agree is bad, but the later is absolutely not; if done right that is. Bite-sized challenge has the capacity to teach people things they otherwise wouldn't learn, due to its simplicity and accessibility, and that I think is priceless. Of course, since we're talking about "testing skills" here, then, yeah, it ain't that good at it.