next »

[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.

[moi]

memorizing things is actually what I liked the most in  old games.
For example felling like a boss when I could finish all the levels with one credit in shinobi.

[s0]

memorizing things is actually what I liked the most in  old games.
For example felling like a boss when I could finish all the levels with one credit in shinobi.

yeah, exactly.

i also like the feeling of "getting familiar" with the mechanics, levels etc. Your typical casual flash platformer with tiny levels and checkpoints after each one is the gaming equivalent of fast food. you play through it once and then move on to the next thing. it's not an experience that "stays with you."

[gunswordfist]

Challenge should be tied into the fun factor. Is it fun enough to keep on coming back after losing? Is trying to win that much fun? (basically, the gameplay itself) Also, games should be designed to the point where players can get noticeably better after loss after loss. Mega Man is a perfect example. The game forces you to get better (in a good way...well most of the time.)
EDIT: Almost forgot, some games should be able to get away with little to no challenge. For example, a good Superman game gets made. Bullets should not suddenly hurt him and non extremely powerful humans should be defeated with ease. There shouldn't be senseless challenge just because it's a game.

[XRA]

a good Superman game would deal with super-conflicts and super-catastrophes, juggling or managing them in the best ways the Player can figure out, I wonder has there even been a Superman game that does that?

[s0]

In Superman 64 you have to deal with the super-catastrophe of horrible game design

[rek]

The more challenging the better. As long as the player knows what to do/how to do it, and it's actually possible without sub-millisecond timing, there's no reason to pull punches. Think about how difficult early NES games were.

[Gorgoo]

a good Superman game would deal with super-conflicts and super-catastrophes, juggling or managing them in the best ways the Player can figure out, I wonder has there even been a Superman game that does that?

The Superman Returns game tried to do that. The game had a lot of good ideas, but failed in execution. More than anything, it felt unfinished (you fight the same few enemies and bosses several times, without much difference).

[gimymblert]

The kirby game have wide spread praise while being easy to skip part by flying away, not that the game isn't challenging once you step back to fight your way and find secret. Nintendo should have done that instead of super guide ? I mean even in zelda you control your difficulty level by backtracking and doing fun side quest to save some backup (potion, faery, bottle to store them, etc...) modern zelda force you into them they became not fun and meaningless :/

[rek]

The kirby game have wide spread praise while being easy to skip part by flying away, not that the game isn't challenging once you step back to fight your way and find secret. Nintendo should have done that instead of super guide ? I mean even in zelda you control your difficulty level by backtracking and doing fun side quest to save some backup (potion, faery, bottle to store them, etc...) modern zelda force you into them they became not fun and meaningless :/

Modern Zeldas are also so easy you don't need to stock up on supplies before heading into a dungeon, and you never have to consider how you spend those rupees because you'll be rich again in 20 minutes.

[baconman]

The ideal Superman game would be one where you ARE invincible, and capable of dealing with ridiculous amounts of pain and torment (he's invincible, but not necessarily unfeeling - CN's "electric current" clip proves that). However! The game is about whether or not you fail to protect innocents and loved ones, and "saving the day" without destroying everything/everybody around you in the crossfire, all marginalized by a bit of existensial tension...

Does being a super-powered person make him a liability to the world and his loved ones just as much as an asset, or more? Heck, even his existence seems to deem Batman as a cooler, more relateable hero than he, and it shows in every aspect, especially video games! How can there be so many cool Batman videogames, and not ONE good Supes one? Even his villains seem cooler, although they're pretty much the same one-to-three "sanitarium escapee personalities" in different wardrobes, basically.

FTR: The clepto, the seductress, and the venegance.

Then there's LOIS; and his ever-nerdtastic ways of trying to win or recapture her heart. And then what? How can somebody that "super" have sex without breaking the poor lady? I'm sure Wonder Woman has that problem with breaking dicks off too, and the two could bounce their needs off of each other, but how could you do so without wrecking the relationships of both's lives involved - OR the SuperFrien... Justice League, or whatever they're calling themselves today.

But basically, you don't have a lifebar or damage limit to contend with, you're freaking SUPERMAN. You can take damaging effects that mess with you, maybe slow you down or wear you out. You have your powers that are all useful tools, but sometimes with negative consequences for others when/if you use them; and it's all about managing your (positive) relationships with other characters (including other heroes/villains).

The flying thing: Either the game should focus a LOT on appropriate and scary-looking but simple super-accurate flying (incredible odds still against you and everything), or the game should feature "super jumping," and just ditch the flying at the door. You can site "classic Supes" as an excuse.

BTW, Lex Luthor NEEDS to have the Xanatos Complex down, and be ever-present and menacing. Not trying to kill you directly, but to trick you into screwing things up for yourself. But either way, inaction is hardly an option. (It IS, but your loved ones will die/suffer of it; and your morale/abilities will also suffer as a result.)

But the unfortunate truth with Superman, is that there is really no "happy ending." Enemies are just as enduring and persistent as you are, although they all have a point where they retreat, and some failsafe that preoccupies you as they do. Just raw scoring and endurance, and making the most of what you have, while you have it.

Well, at least there's always Wonder Woman to take your mind offa things.

That's SO weird! I dreamt about this last night for awhile, having NO IDEA that this was posted here. Also, Adventures of Galactic Emo would be almost a perfect precursor to this kind of thing.