Fuck the faggot writer and props to that dev, he is right.
>the goofy, fist pumping cheer when you (beat hard thingy there) that lasts for days
Do people actually experience this? Are people this retarded?
When I beat Ornstein I didn't feel happy, I started worrying about the next pile of bullshit the game was going to throw at me.
>people praise the game for being hard as shit
>combat is easy, bosses aren't very difficult at all and all the puzzles are fair
>but the clues for the puzzles are hidden in regions not even remotely near the puzzles location, and solving a puzzle often changes something somewhere else in the game world with the player being given no indication where it happened
What do you call this? Artificial lengthening?
The penalty in the first game is needing to go through that wave of enemies again or starting the boss over. How is that different from the penalty in the second game other than being less tedious?
>>the goofy, fist pumping cheer when you (beat hard thingy there) that lasts for days
>Do people actually experience this? Are people this retarded?
Are you a faggot? The feeling of victory after failing dozens or hundreds of times is fantastic.
I don't feel this at all. Then again I'm not complete shit at videogames and I don't fail often.
I guess if you spent 90% of your time eating dirt that one victory would feel good.
doesn't exist. If you're toio fucking retarded to realize that different games offer different things to different people and your way of gaming isn't the right one, but just the right one for you then you are the sperglords, John.
What if the challenge is in doing large portions of the game at once? IWBTG is much, much, much harder when there aren't checkpoints scattered everywhere.
It also adds tension, the further you get the more there is at stake. It's a feeling that many games nowadays don't have.
Yes it does. Anything that makes a game harder to complete that cannot be topped by skill or intelligence is artificial difficulty. It increases the difficulty without actually increasing the challenge.
For an example, try a regen health cover shooter that just makes you die a lot quicker out of cover on higher difficulties. It doesn't add challenge at all, it just means you have to sit behind a wall longer.
You have to be careful with that, otherwise you end up Guild Wars 1 shit. For those unfamiliar if you die you get a -10% to stats that stack up to -60% until you return to town. After a few deaths a hard encounter becomes impossible
>inb4 lol playing GW1 PVE
Thats stupid, it should run on a timer instead of forcing you to go somewhere. Then you could create a penalty by forcing the player to be more careful until they get their strength back.
The attacks have a very noticeable delay between pressing the button and executing the attack, for one.
Another is the plethora of regular enemies with giant health bars that drag the pace to a screeching halt.
but the only correct time to apply it is a section in which the player's skill does not affect the outcome. Prior knowledge of an otherwise undetectable trap/unpredictable attack/ect is not skill. It also applies to literally luck-based challenges.
Because it isn't challenging. You aren't actually being tested, the game is just going "fuck you" and retards defend it because they want to seem like Mr. Badass McHardCoreGamer.
I guess this is a troll, but whatever. I'm not going to say that DS was a perfect game, far from it. It had plenty of problems and unpolished aspects, but for the most part the level design was solid, comparable to DeS even. There was almost no "empty space", I don't know what you mean by that - compared to similar games it's actually a very small map packed full of content, just compare it to, say, Skyrim or NV. But the checkpoints were spaced out very heavily. That has to do with the short iteration time of the game. When you die, you lose almost nothing, and respawn almost instantly. By spacing the checkpoints out, it creates a more palpable sense of tension - all "hard" games use the same principle to some extent, it gets progressively more stressful as you go on because you realize there's more at stake when you die.
Good example, DS 2 had checkpoints everywhere, and it just made the game so much more vapid and boring.
>Simon's whip should've moved faster in Castlevania 1. The delay made it too hard.
DS didn't exactly have perfect combat but the "clunky" aspect was, in a big way, intentional.
>just be run past
And then they all follow you and rape you since aggro doesn't end until death.
not that guy but theres a delay between input and animation starting you smart mouthed whore
>I don't know what an attack delay
>Every attack must occur instantly or else it's shit
You must be really bad at Monster Hunter, man. Designers purposely hinder your attack, in good games, in order to create more interesting combat scenarios.
>Waaaaah why won't devs stop pandering to casuals
>devs decide to make difficult game
>ARTIFICIAL DIFFICULTY IT'S SHIT WHY AREN'T THERE MORE CHECKPOINTS TRIAL AND ERROR GAMEPLAY
A good majority of the people on /v/ have no idea what they want, they just hate everything that other people like.
>comparing your shitty game to a totally unrelated good game
Simon's whip didn't have a delay you mouthbreathing faggot.
I wish DaS never existed, these "get gud fggt" fanboys are the worst game community I've ever seen.
It's basic logic. Having to do more of the game perfectly is harder than doing a smaller portion of the game perfectly.
I used IWBTG in defense of both checkpoint systems, by the way.
I never actually understood people complaining about needing to run back from the bonfire in DaS. The bonfires are almost always placed in positions that make it easy to get back to the boss in like a minute TOPS. Only exception is possibly Lost Izalith, because I always run from the demon ruins shortcut and that titanite demon is a pain in the ass.
I could see where you're coming from if you made this complaint about Demons Souls though. Most areas were fine because there were shortcuts you could trigger, but then you have hell holes like 4-2.
If a designer wanted a difficult fight, they could make the enemy vulnerability window smaller, or they could make your attacks delayed. One feels more natural and responsive, and therefore more fun, than the other.
>It increases the difficulty without actually increasing the difficulty
either its harder or its not
the fact that you find it boring or otherwise dislike it is irrelevant
>And then they all follow you and rape you since aggro doesn't end until death.
but that's wrong
also git gud. I know that is overused, but it perfectly applies here. The enemy AI is extremely predictable and there should be no problems running past them
Other than an intended experience. This has nothing to do with CINEMATIC either. If I want the player to constantly be on edge then I don't want them to be able to pause, save, and take a breather until they get to a point I've designed them to get to.
If you can't understand that then I'm really sorry, but game design is more than that.
>And then they all follow you and rape you since aggro doesn't end until death.
You're bad at the game, then.
And DS does a fine job with that. If the animation lags behind the input that's a technical issue, not a design one.
I think you mean when the hit registers. In most games the animation will trigger long before the hit does, like with a projectile or a sword swing. It doesn't hit when the sword is at its apex, but when it comes down.
If you feel it's slow or clunky, to each his own. But it is by no means "bad design."
It doesn't hit the instant you press it, it has a slight delay. Go fire up the game again or watch a video.
>If a designer wanted a difficult fight, they could make the enemy vulnerability window smaller, or they could make your attacks delayed. One feels more natural and responsive, and therefore more fun, than the other.
Yes, because delayed attacks would be a terribly unfun thing. It's not like that could be a vital game mechanic in an arcade game about shooting spaceships - oh wait.
Both can be engaging. Don't hate a game just because you're bad at it.
True, and I agree 100%, but at the same time almost all attacks are hindered to some extent. That's just a fact. Few games land you a hit the exact moment you press a button, there's almost always a startup and a backswing.
>Simon's whip didn't have a delay you mouthbreathing faggot.
Simon's jump is instant. There is almost no discernible time between button press and jump.
Simon's whip has at least 2 frames of delay before the attack is able to damage anything. This is true in CV 1 and 3.
You fucking faggot
His example wasn't perfect, but artificial difficulty does exist. Skyrim is the best example to come to mind. It's basically a game that boost the numbers of the enemy without offering you many tactics to fight with in the first place.
I thought it was more than that. Like, almost a third of a second.
But yes, it's well known that Simon's whip has a long delay. Only retards think otherwise.
4 had a very quick whip animation, though, and I think 2 was instant.
Basically, it's just scaling the numbers without putting in any new interesting patterns or anything. Artificial difficulty is actually a fitting name, because it's difficulty that arises from direct manipulation, rather as a consequence of more interesting attack patterns.
Time is just frames/frames per second.
I dunno how many frames per second that game ran on.
Haven't played a Souls game, but here's my two cents
Games that withhold checkpoints often do so for the purpose of making a segment of a game a gauntlet. A trial of survival.
While it may at first seem tedious to lose to trial 3 and repeat the first two, the reason this is done is so that the challenge is trying to survive with less health lost. Yes, you've proven you can /survive/ the first two, but they still put you through those parts to see if you can perfect them. This isn't perfect however, as you can go through trial 1 and two flawlessly and die on 3, forcing you through 1 and 2 yet again. I feel a way to do this better might be to make checkpoints a prize, earned by doing a section flawlessly.
This is all irrelevant in a game without health bars (most platformers).
>it's not actually harder
>but I'm still going to call it difficulty
Maybe you should stop that? Of course the truth is you're full of shit. If a game is really like that, like some shitty JPRG where you just attack for more rounds and use a potion now and then, no one ever says it's more difficult, artificial or not. They just say "boring" because they're not tards. The only reason "artificial difficulty" is popular is because it allows people to dismiss games that actually ARE harder for them in a way they don't like, so they want to say it doesn't "count."
Haven't played Dark Souls, but I agree with the premise of the OP.
I don't mind dying in games, but I find being forced to repeat long sequences over and over incredibly frustrating. Any who thinks this is the mark of a good game is either autistic or gets off on feeling superior to casuals.
>implying changing attacks isn't "direct manipulation"
>implying "direct manipulation" isn't vague as fuck
>implying any of that shit has to do with the meaning of the word "artificial" anyway
He's a hypocrite. He complains about LttP guiding you by the hand instead of being open world like LoZ1 but in his talk on CV2 he bitched about not knowing where to go...
We call it tryhard, in the industry. Or idiot.
Lord God in Heaven, it doesn't have a delay. The animation has a wind up before the attack actually lands.
Dark Souls has a delay between when you press the button and when the animation even begins.
If there is checkpoints everywhere, eventually you'll get past the level/boss even if you aren't good at it as long as you make a little of progress.
In these games you don't get better at the game to progress, and you don't need to, you can just push yourself and eventually you'll beat it.
That's the problem with modern games.
Those old Sega and NES games had the worst difficulty.
LIVES? Only 3 of them for the whole game? No fuck that shit.
Now, quicksaving is too far in the opposite direction to be reasonable. There needs to be a middle ground.
I think he's using delay in regards to the windup. Not between the button press and the animation. And techincally, it would be a delay since the attack doesn't go into the hitbox frame until 2 frames of "windup" which is purely aesthetic, so...
DS has you repeat long sequences but they're by no means empty. They're not as good as DeS but still very strategic. You can avoid most traps just by paying attention, you can literally see archers and stuff on distant towers and cliffs.
Maybe I should've been clearer. You can objectively say, hey, if the boss has 2000 attack rather than 100, it's harder, but it's not as clear whether a boss with 20 new moves is going to be tougher. The difficulty arises in learning something new, and figuring out the patterns, rather than just getting better with old skills.
Not to say the latter isn't valid. Shmups are a good example of that. But they can be a point of contention.
>Dark Souls has a delay between when you press the button and when the animation even begins.
Well, that's just not true. Check your computer, that's never happened to me.
There are very long windups, but no delay between input and animation start. At least, not any significant input, or any input delay you won't see in other games.
No, no one knows "perfectly well" what it means because it's a nonsensical term that people use it to describe any kind of difficulty they don't like. They don't have consensus even among themselves. It's certainly not used strictly to only mean games that truly ONLY get more boring and time-intensive with zero additional skill required.
See, the thing about having actual criticism instead of just looking for phrases that seem to bolster your own opinion is that you have to give a shit about what you're actually saying.
So those of you who think that you should always have a checkpoint right before a boss fight, how do you feel about checkpoints during a boss fight, or instant respawns during a boss fight?
Folks weren't pussies back in these days though.
When I was a kid I could lose huge amounts of time on videogames (as in waste rather than spend), because they weren't obsessed with being time-efficient as they are today.
The reward felt better.
Among the few games still following these kinds of pattern today are roguelikes, and finishing one of time is often very rewarding. Some faggots copy their savefiles, but fuck them.
Yeah, that's what I mean. Having a delay between input and animation start would be silly. But delay can mean any number of things and I thought I was clear that I meant it as "startup" to the animation.
There isn't any severe delay between input and animation in DS, though.
Removes all challenge if you don't need to do the boss all over again, provided its a shorter boss.
If the boss is like W101 length, some checkpoints in boss fight should be there.
Instant respawn, hell no.
>You are now aware that this was the best checkpoint system ever invented in gaming
Why did we get rid of this shit? It was perfect. Let the player decide when to make checkpoints, but don't give him the ability to make checkpoints everywhere.
Artificial difficulty is a game in which you expect to be able to use your skills and abilities to get past a challenge but have a difficult time doing so because of reasons that are outside of the intended game.
So for instance, bugs, bad programming, inconsistent application of rules, etc. are all examples of artificial difficulty and many games do have this.
For instance, one could argue that in a game in which you expect to be able to hide behind pillars to avoid attacks but can't because the enemy's weapons can magically go through said pillars (even though yours cannot)...that would be artificial difficulty.
Let's say a fight is bugged and the enemy's damage is way higher than it should be. Artificial difficulty.
A game which denies information that is critical for progression would also qualify as artificial difficulty.
I dev there sums up how I feel about difficulty in games perfectly.
The penalty for dying should be to repeat the part that you failed over. Having to repeat the part you failed and 5 sequences that preceded it is just pointless tedium that makes the game worse.
Different check points work in different games.
In games based around resource management, exploration, or survival, demanding check points force the player to to not only overcome challenges, but do so efficiently. It also creates an actual sense of danger and reason to play conservatively.
This goes for games like Resident Evil, Dark Souls, Contra, and every Roguelike ever.
On the other side, game built around fast, difficult, one off situations benefit from not forcing the player to constantly go through sections in which they have clearly already found the "solution" to. This encourages experimentation and a fast pace.
Examples would be Hotline Miami, Doom, and every CRPG ever.
You still needed to use it at a typewriter; the save points were still set, you just had limited uses of them. And it has been a while, but I remember having enough of them that they never felt like a rare commodity.
You can get the same effect in modern games by just not stopping at every save point.
I can run past them just fine. I usually beat Velsdadt on my first try because he's easy as fuck but I was having a bit of trouble in my SL1 run (a lot actually), and in that run I learned how to run past everything. The key is to ring the bell.
Dark Souls is even less punishing than most conventional RPGs because you can just run past 90% of the enemies.
So really, the only difference between Dark Souls and a well paced game is that Dark Souls punishes you for exploring by throwing more enemies at you.
I remember that part with a hex character
>get to the turtling Syan knights
>cast Lifedrain Patch
>they just stand there in it until they're dead
Same goes for the lmao2shield guys earlier in the crypt.
this must be written by a kid, or someone otherwise unemployed
I work 8 hours a day
I have shopping to do, cooking to do, and obligations to be kept.
I dont have fucking time to spend 20 minutes redoing tedious bullshit because I died in a bossfight.
That is how you get me to uninstall your game.
I remember that I used to not mind. When I was a kid I didnt really care that I had to start from scratch every time, I did get that impression that it made the end result more tense...Now, between not having time for it, and knowing thats total bullshit (I regularly find games tense even knowing that restarting the fight is easy, instead of the punishment for failure being a retread, its the sacrifice of a smooth experience)
Every dev needs to follow this simple guideline:
That's another problem, and I don't think it has any other name than bad fundamental design, as in the dev just forgot to test it themselves. These things are pretty rare in the last decade, but in the 80's and 90's games they were numerous.
There is one ultima game, I think it's Ultima 3 Exodus, where you HAVE to buy some key to some guy in order to finish the game.
There is no clue whatsoever, neither in the manual nor the game itself, that indicates which NPC is it you have to tell "buy" to (you had to type what you asked to the NPCs). And it's a random, completly useless one. He respond to the same template as every other npc, only he has a special entry for the keyword 'buy', in which he sells you the key.
There was no internet at the time and there are tons on people nowaday on old-school forums asking how the fuck was this game supposed to be done.
That's not artificial difficulty, it just makes the game unplayable/unfinishable.
Beating a challenge that you had to fight through a ton of other shit to get through is much more satisfying that beating a standalone challenge. For example, I bought Ikaruga on Steam recently and have been playing it on default settings (ie. 3 lives, no continues) and every time I unlock a new stage it feels fucking incredible. It's the same feeling you used to get from killing hard raid bosses in WoW, before they just let you play on easy mode if you sucked.
/v/ is mostly inhabited by mid to late 90's born casuals, or dudebros and nongamers that came in with the Wii/360/PS3 generation and think they have a say while all sucking at games as much as they do.
Ignore the casuals, collect tears, it's what I do and it works. You cannot reason with casuals, because even if you come up with the most reasonable and even minded argument in the world, they'll just ignore it and start shitposting about how you're a tryhard autist. Modern /v/ is that kid that stormed into his brothers room, demanded to play his games, then whined and told his mom like a snot bubbling little cunt when he was told no. Modern /v/ is the timeout generation of kids that got sent to their rooms to play videogames as a timeout instead of being beaten like they should have.
Welcome to casual gaming, enjoy your stay. They have the money and that means devs/pubs will cater to them. They are ignorant enough to use their deep pockets to support bad games, and further the casualization of gaming.
He could get more time to become good at video games if he decided to play them instead of posting about how gamers need to get a life on /v/.
>Instant respawn, hell no.
But I've already proved that I can take the boss down to 73% health. I shouldn't have to do it again.
I was going to respond sooner but the auto update broke
....are we talking about something fucking specific here?
What game should I be unhallowed to play because I dont have mommy paying my rent and making my food?
Holy shit, please be 12.
I work full time too faggot, and I've also played games for 56 hours in the past 2 weeks according to steam, and that doesn't include Dwarf Fortress. learn to manage your time better.
Pic is tl;dr but this post is correct. Death should be a penalty. Death should be a punishment. Death should be significant.
Besides, you can run through the enemies in Dork Souls unless you're mentally challenged.
not reliably. They made it so those knights in particular turtle camp around the fog gate, and they also changed how fog gates (and doors) work so that you can be hit-stunned out of the animation. Enemies in DaS2 also run much faster and you can sprint across the entire map and enemies will still be right behind you waiting to rape you when you get to the fog gate.
It's not a challenge, it's just a massive FUCK YOU to anyone who doesn't want to grind mobs or anyone who likes speedrunning or just going fast in general.
Demon's Souls had a fucked up checkpoint system, in that you got sent back to the start of the level, but all the healing items you used before you died were still gone. Man that's fucking obnoxious, but at least they fixed it by introducing the Estus Flask.
I wish that people who hold this opinion would, instead of bitching and trying to get the formula changed to their tastes, would just stop playing Souls games.
We get it, you guys want zero penalties for sucking at games. For many of us, the experience is cheapened if we know it really doesn't matter how hard we try.
I wasn't the dude complaining and I don't complain about that. Some people want games that they can play quickly. If he's saying a game is bad because it can't cater to his lifestyle, then it's an issue. Dude was just saying he doesn't have time for games that can't match his needs. With offensive language that riles you guys up.
>I should be able to play super hardcore games even with my busy schedule and no free time
>all niche developers should base their games around my specific needs
fuck off and die
It heavily depends on the surrounding gameplay mechanics. For something like SMB which is just a simple platformer the lack of penalty makes sense, since you have nothing to lose anyway but time. Games like Dark Souls, where endurance, character advancement and planning play a large role, SHOULD have a more severe penalty, because you have a lot to lose or gain throughout the game and it's persistent.
>oh this game is too easy
>why isnt this game harder
>im looking forward to x game because its very hard
>no very hard mode? 0/10 wont buy
Why do you people put game difficulty in such a high light? A hard game does not make a good game. A game isn't supposed to challenge you, it's supposed to be a medium for your to experience a story or look at good artistic direction or listen to music (or a combination of all three). Making a game super hard just makes it that much harder to experience all of the above, essentially a barrier to entertainment.
Games should be relaxing and not challenging at all, modern games are way too convoluted normal people just want to watch stuff happen.
It seems no one here can read.
I have time to play video games. I dont have time to WASTE on video games.
There are also things outside of jobs, which you are apparently unfamiliar with...like friends, family, other hobbies, second jobs, kids, dogs, medical issues, fucking guardians of the galaxy oh my god they finally made a GoG movie, social events, vacation, working out, etc
I think you might be exagerating, but I think you have some truth of it.
Apparently it's not acceptable to spend several weeks to finish a game now. It HAS to be this 8 hours linear experience, otherwise it's a badly designed game that is either too hard or too vast or inhospitable to the player.
Pic related is Matsumoto Hitoshi, a japanese comedian and celebrity who got to test Pikmin 3 before it released. It's made as an interview, where he discusses the game with the developer on the right and at some point the dev just clearly say they wanted to make it easier, yet interesting for experts.
That's where gaming is headed. Easy and accessible first, "interesting" for experts second.
The majority of profits is in the casual wallet, and the devs know it. That's their audience now.
>A game isn't supposed to challenge you, it's supposed to be a medium for your to experience a story or look at good artistic direction or listen to music
>a game isn't supposed to challenge you
I know this is bait, but come on
offer two modes.
one for people who want to play games, but not have their time wasted
and another for the kind of guy who is so autistic about his hobby that anyone doing it differently needs to die.
of course youd still be pissed, wouldnt you?
no super exclusive club to be part of anymore.
>Lost Izalith ... that titanite demon is a pain in the ass
holy shit this
but i felt it added to the game
trying to run away from that faggot with 100,000~ souls on the line is a great tedious feeling
If the five sequences that preceded it are tedious, they shouldn't be there at all. All challenges in games are going to be of a set length. You wouldn't expect a game to give you a checkpoint every time you landed a hit on a boss, and especially not a mook, for example. Every encounter you pass is part of the challenge of beating a level, and some games decide that the length of time you're expected to not completely screw up for is longer than one fight.
The thing I like about hard games is that they force you to be thoughtful in every move you make, but reward you for taking risks. In a game with a good difficulty, you're motivated to be careful or be forced to play a section again, but the game rewards you for doing dangerous stuff by doing more damage more damage or to or killing an enemy/letting you skip something/unlocking stuff/ect.
This is why I bought a PC and buy more indie games. Smaller dev studios cater to cult audiences better. So I can get challenging games like Volgarr the Viking or games that are very specific and are an acquired taste, like Europa Universalis.
The PC is the platform for the enthusiast. The console is the platform for those who want high budget entertainment and filmic experiences.
So you're posting a video completely out of context in a discussion about playing VIDEO GAMES when he's criticizing Lucas for shitty storytelling in a fucking MOVIE.
Guy with life here:
Can I just point out that because you apes find it oh so difficult to understand what normal people are trying to communicate, let me put it to you this way.
Wonderful 101 is perfect. The game (depending on difficulty level) is hard, but it also doesnt make you restart a 40 minute long mission because you fucked up something. its framed into frequent enough checkpoints that restarting is never devastating to your time, and its hard enough that you get a good challenge from it, especially if trying to good scores (you punishment for restarting is a huge dip in your score card)
>inb4 people claim its the easiest shit theyve ever [strike]watched videos of[/strike] played
Yet the more you play super meat boy the better you get at it. Games are far more rewarding when getting good at it involves being able to generalize your skills to new game scenarios instead of achieving perfect muscle memory for a very specific situation.
I kind of like the way P* games and others that use a rating system handle this. Taking damage or continuing after death reduces your score or rating. A death or too much damage taken (maybe any damage at all) can mean a restart of a level or chapter to certain players while casual players can just hit continue and restart from right before the fight they died on.
He's right though. It's a generation thing.
Casuals are the new and future gamers. The games released today are the games they enjoy, and we can't say they are having "fake" fun.
20 years ago, gaming was about the challenge. It was about "SCORE". Ever see this word anymore? That's how it started, now it serves other themes and objectives.
We're done, we had our turn, but the casual audience is wider than us now.
It was -15% death penalty, so it only took 4 deaths to hit max instead of 6.
You didn't have to return to town, you could kill monsters and each time you did it went down 1%.
I can't tell what the fuck is happening to my posts. This is like the third time I've had to post this.
No, I have a 3ds for that.
incredible logic. Ill be careful in the future to not use words that have been spoken by someone else about something else to make any point, regardless of context or effectiveness.
PC gamer here. I fucking hate quicksaves. Quicksave management is such an important but laborious process that it becomes its own meta-level gameplay mechanic. The first times I played Souls I felt exhilarated to never have to worry about saving.
I do get that. Playing Blood Omen right now looking for a fucking savepoint. The shitposting on this topic is just terrible though. There are people in the world who can't (either mentally, physically, or both) afford time to waste on games that require you to wade through hordes of enemies and cutscenes before they can reach a stopping point. I mean, I was the kid who left my NES on on the pause screen, but other people can't handle wasting energy and leaving their system running. I honestly shouldn't expect openmindedness from 4chan though.
>Regardless of whether combat is good or not, it's not fun to fail and repeat the same shit over and over again.
>it's not fun to fail and repeat the same shit over and over again.
>it's not fun to fail
That's the true core of the argument. People can't handle the idea that they might fail, so developers pander to this mentality while still keeping the pretense that the game has some sort of challenge.
Yes but dark souls doesn't make you trudge through 40 minutes of gameplay again, it's more like 5 to 10 minutes, I can't even think of any modern games that force you through upwards of an hour of progress if you die, besides games without saving of any kind
Not every game needs to be designed to be played in sub-1 hour chunks. The mounting atmosphere and tension in games where death is a real punishment is compelling for people who are lucky enough to have the time to play them. Why would you want to destroy that? If you don't like such games then simply don't play them.
>There are people in the world who can't (either mentally, physically, or both) afford time to waste on games that require you to wade through hordes of enemies and cutscenes before they can reach a stopping point
So they can go and play something else. There are plenty of games to choose from.
You sound like a little neurotic shit. You're worried about what wonders await you? Just put the game down already if you're not having fun by OnS and pick up candy crush. You'd ruin the experience for everyone else just for a game you don't even enjoy.
>Guy with life here:
>Can I just point out that because you apes
I like how you think this somehow qualifies your post more than anyone else here. Seriously get the fuck over yourselves.
While we're on topic, what's the longest you guys have played a game in one sitting (more or less)
I once played monster hunter for 9 hours one day only taking breaks for food
Can't say I've ever wasted more time than that
>ll be careful in the future to not use words that have been spoken by someone else about something else to make any point, regardless of context or effectiveness.
What the fuck are you on about.
You directly used a video that has a completely different context because it's describing shitty storytelling, not the idea that video games are somehow wasting peope's time. It has NO effectivness at all because it's completely fucking irrelavent to the discussion at hand
Time isn't an excuse. You invest 3 hours to learn a game one day, you spend your 3 hours for every day of the next week playing it, ie 18 hours of playtime at the cost of 3 hours of learning curve.
You're saying that it's better to consistently only play dumbed down, mediocre games over costing yourself a single "day" of playing needed to learn the mechanics of a game with depth. You really can't lose one monday of mediocre, mildly rewarding, mainly brainless fun for the next 6 days of rewarding, complex and fully satisfying play?
Of course you could, you're just a dumb casual who couldn't enjoy a game like X3 or EU3 no matter how much free time you had; time simply is not a real excuse.
>play dumbed down, mediocre games
Out of the plethora of games in this world, ones that might utilize someone's time are mediocre? Seriously? Are you a walking hyperbole? What's funny is if you read MY posts, I am defending the guy, but I am not the guy that complains about time usage. So quit being an ass.
That's Nintendo, and they have always been babby's first vidya, expecting them to make a hard game is like expecting Dark Souls to have an easy mode, you're not their target demo or close enough that they can flip a few bits and give you what you want, deal with it. Their recent habit has been to make the start as smooth as they can, but then add secret worlds and NG+ content that's completely balls to the wall, which makes sense, but I've usually gotten bored of trudging through easy mode by the time things get interesting.
actually, lost izalith has a hidden bonfire in one of the towers
i never actually found it in my playthrough, i read it later in a guide after beating the level. guess that's what you get for not being a scrub and looking everything up or using Seek Guidance like a faggot
As much as this is bait, there is an interesting point.
Video games are about entertainment, that is their sole reason to exist. Putting difficulty on a pedestal and insisting that making a game difficult thusly means it is good is rather ludicrous. What makes a game good is it's mechanics and how ENTERTAINING IT IS. Entertainment value is a subjective thing and some people may not like hard games, while other will love hard games.
The longest I went recently was Xenoblade when it released 12 straight hours for a few days in a row. But my absolute longest was was Radient Dawn on Lunatic in Highschool. I stayed up 28 hours.
>ones that might utilize someone's time are mediocre
Since when did video games become a fucking utility?
And you have the balls to accuse anyone else of using hyperbole.
I didn't even stop because it felt too long, I just get bored of the same game after too long, I'm sure I've played multiple games in a row for much longer, but because we were talking about length of games I was curious to see how much time people spend
I know a lot of people do, but I've never beaten a single game in one sitting...
Why sub 1-hour?
and how is it not equally punishing to simply break the atmosphere by dying in the first place?
My first play of MGRR was on hard mode, When I died at a boss, I restarted at that boss
What was my punishment? Well for one, I lost my progress in the fight, two, I lost my items id used before, and worst of all I was taken completely out of the fantasy. The atmosphere that the fight set up, the intensity of the duel, the rhythm I had going in the fight, all broken, shattered because I fucked up.
The difference between that, and the same punishment plus a whole level of slashing up trash mobs? My time being wasted, my items being refilled, and my patience all together wearing thin.
Dark Souls had me quit and uninstall about half way through so I could play LA Noir instead
A game where again, the punishment for failure is breaking the fantasy. Nothing like getting told youre a shitty cop to ruin your detective fantasy, certainly more effective than being made to restart the case. (which you actually have to do if you choose to un-fuck everything)
People who think of score just think of the number. Like that's all that matters, just increasing the number.
You're playing with a different set of rules, that's what playing for score is. You're playing a game of tee-ball, I'm playin Home Run Derby.
I mean you can play however you want if you think that's fun, ruinin the game, just go ahead and ruin it. You can pretend you like it if you want. I won't stop you from pretendin. Just keep on playin tee-ball.
Since when did I say they were a utility? A game that may be more accessible to people on a limited schedule are not:
1. Always mediocre.
2. Considered a utility.
It just so happens to align with their needs. Please stfu if you are just trying to create arguments. I know you'll want the last word after this, but you won't get another response out of me.
I played WoW for around 30 straight hours once back in BC when my RL friends wanted me to roll on their server and I was leveling to catch up to them.
Other than that, I think I may have had a comparable session in Dragon's Dogma when I went to BBI for the first time as a warrior. That one was probably 20-25 hours though. Maybe I did something similar with Monster Hunter too, I honestly can't remember because I'm a NEET and I never have to keep track of time.
If you had no idea what that was from...how would you know anything but "stop wasting my time"?
is me posting this in reply to your post (as opposed to in reply to the exact situation that caused the initial reaction) going to piss you off?
The difficulty of Dark Souls has nothing to do with the lack of checkpoints. The difficulty comes from a combination of the combat mechanics, level design, enemy design, and limited healing items.
I can see what you're trying to say. I just think the "tediousness", as you so bluntly put it, isn't inherently a bad thing. It can help with the tension, immersion and overall enjoyment that comes with beating a boss and progressing.
It works in Souls games. Wouldn't work in Devil May Cry. Works with Mega-Man. Wouldn't work in a twitch-reaction platformer, like Super Meat Boy.
On a similar note, I also firmly believe that Skyrim would have been a better game if you could only save at certain points, and it was designed around this. Like setting up camp, sleeping at an inn, etc.
The journey from one point to another is one of the only neat things about that game, but quicksaving every five seconds, and the ability to do so, removes any difficulty, tension and excitement from the combat, exploration and general questing. Trigger a trap? Reload. Having a hard time killing some dude? Reload. Broke a lockpick, got noticed pickpocketing, and made a bad choice dialog-wise (as if that would ever have consequences in the first place)? Reload, reload and reload.
>breaking the fantasy.
>A fucking video game
>Not just that, but a video game where constant revival and the struggle to battle constantly against great odds is actually a part of the fantasy's canon
Stop playing video games if you don't want things that are "Too Gamey". Novels and films are more your speed. Well, when you actually learn how to read, they may be.
true artificial difficulty was just something /v/ made up to complain about hard games they couldn't beat I really didn't expect people to take it seriously. It wasn't talked about before Dark souls came out and /v/ claimed it was full of it. Yet demon souls is similar in difficulty and it was never mentioned when it came out
He must be referencing the light world and its story. Trying to go for 100% tested my patience quite a bit.
>you never turn off the system
You show me a normal trying to play The Kid warp zone alone, let alone the dark world cotton ally, without walking away. It takes a dedication and skill to get through some of the hardest shit the game actually throws at you. Thats not even including some of the insane shit on the user made levels.
there was indication I were illiterate?
How odd, as im certain ive been using words this whole time.
youre just REALLY into your broken and pointless ways, arent you? its like you cant even read what im saying, just knowing im not supporting you is enough to load default responses.
>Immersion is important and the better a game does with that, the more entertaining it is.
If you are incapable of immersion without factoring in the fact that you are playing a fucking video game, you are the problem here, not the developers.
>Designers can't just ignore that factor.
The video game, CANONICALLY, has revival and weakening upon revival is a very, VERY central aspect of the game's lore and story.
>there was indication I were illiterate?
Well yes, considering Dark Souls has the hollowing phase as a static element of the game's world. When you die, you come back to a bonfire. This applies to both the player and other NPC's in the world unless gameplay specifics call for them to permanently die. If you didn't actually realize this was a part of the game, and are complaining about this, you are either incapable of reading in a game, or incapable of understanding why the developers put these things into the game.
I don't even fucking like Souls games. I just hate retards like yourself.
>If you had no idea what that was from..
Nigga, what the fuck is wrong with you? Nowhere in any of my post was it even implied I didn't know what the video was from. Not only did I explain what the point of it was, but I even pointed out it was about Lucas in the Plinkett video.
It's like you're intentionally trying to be as dense as possibe. Maybe it's because you think it's it's funny and you're just "rusing" me. It really isn't, it's just fucking sad.
Take a long look Sony fans.
This is why you'll never have another shitpost-free thread.
This is why your threads always become shitflinging threads.
This is why no one likes you.
People like this.
Instead of flinging shit at other fanbases, why not try to expel people like this? That way everyone else will have less reasons to shit on you, and when you play the victim card it will actually be legitimate.
>>When I beat Ornstein I didn't feel happy, I started worrying about the next pile of bullshit the game was going to throw at me.
I bet you summoned and that you also kiss girls you faggot.
oh how humorous sometimes I love /v/. So now everyone knows artificial difficulty was just something made up to troll DS fags, and the PC scrublords who I will not associate with to bitch about DS.
I'm actually mainly a PC guy, I played Dark Souls on PC, and I just like shitposting and watching all sides get mad at each other. I still have fun playing vidya. You lot are some sad cunts.;)
I'm actually mainly a Playstation guy , I played Souls on PS3, and I just like shitposting and spamming silky smooth in bloodbourne threads watching all sides get mad at each other.
I still have fun playing vidya. You lot are some sad cunts. ;^)
How do you make video games feel good again?
I genuinely don't enjoy them anymore. I don't know whats wrong with me. I actually dread starting a new game now because I know its more work to do.
>>Make actual penalties for fucking up instead of "heh guess you gotta do it over :0)"
>You have to retrieve your souls, effectively money and exp
>You have one chance
>Demon's Souls had World Tendency kick in if you died as human
>You lose humanity in Dark Souls
I don't know what you understand as punishment.
All of those are wrong. Pic related is the best way to do a checkpoint. Especially if the checkpoint before the boss isn't a "real" checkpoint but rather a loop like phalanx in DeS.
I've been mainly a pc gamer my whole life started early 90s when I was like 3-4. Never use quicksave actually to be honest I never save that much anyways in PC games. I don't know why I just don't do it. I've had to play so many levels over again.
Has anyone here played Machines by Acclaim?
I still haven't finished that shit, that one level where you have to overcome a superior and unlimited force while building, defending and harvesting your heavily-limited resources was fucking ridiculous, I don't think it's even possible to complete it without going first person mode and running circles around the enemies
Except dying in the Souls games involves you losing all your unused experience/money at that point with the very real possibility of permanently losing them upon another death. Unlike a platformer where losing a life just means you simply lose another attempt and you can focus more on what you did wrong, you also have to deal with retrieving your souls as well as dealing with whatever killed you. Makes all the challenge feel extra cheap and undeserved
You'll never do anything to soulsfags except make them spout git gud. Dark souls is easy crap on a platter with poor game design. It tries and fails to harken back to trial and error games on the NES only in 3D. It's just a poorly made game.
No I'm not. It's one thing when you can make people mad by completely destroying them with facts and logic to the point where they can't argue anymore, shitposters are unintelligent and lazy so they just "pretend" to be retarded on purpose as much as possible and think it's some sort of schadenfreude. Nobody is actually raging at you though, it's just embarrasing and pathetic.
Seriously, play SpaceChem. It's Tetris-tier amazing. It's my favourite game of all time, and it's fucking genius. Play that shit. Pirate that shit right now. Or buy it. Whatever. Play it.
Yes some mongrel scot comdian knows everything. What I was trying to say is just because you can read something it doesn't mean you can necessarily understand it, ever read a math book and go to a formula or algorithm you couldn't understand easily
I don't know why people keep talking about this article as if he's claiming //all// games need to be difficult in the manner of delayed checkpoints
all the guy is saying is that games with instant checkpoints are inherently not difficult in any //legitimate// sense
He's not judging the game for its lack of difficulty
he's not accusing anyone of anything for playing such games
he's just saying, those are games that should not be described with the moniker //difficult//
I feel like difficulty should come from extra challenges, a good example is Death Cam VHS No Death in Retro City Rampage. It's the hardest part of the game but there are checkpoints in normally playing it, however to complete the challenge and acquire one of the hardest trophies to get you have to play through numerous obstacles without dying, it requires perfectly learning how the the enemies work, where they spawn, what weapons to use when, and how to respond to unexpected enemy patterns.
Look at something like Bayonetta or Wonderful 101 or DMC, you are rewarded for not dying and getting gud but you aren't forced to and can still enjoy the game in another capacity if you are incapable of learning how to play at that diffciulty. It's still rewarding, the game compliments you and feeds your ego for being able to beat it and it isn't forced(which would cause frustration, you have a choice to do these objectives.) Also it's the more fun way to play, you have to master the gameplay which provides you with more fun than the casual player.
Why? so on the next reload you can loose out on the gear/exp you got the first time through or have an unnecessary walk? You acknowledge the need to reach the boss faster once you have proven to be capable of reaching him... whats the difference between a shortcut and a quicksave?
that isn't true of other mediums
and video games are not 'just another story-telling medium' as it brings in an element completely unique in comparison to other mediums
to simply call it a book, or film, but with buttons is absurd.
>needing to be "rewarded" for your "hard work"
>He wants his video games to feel more "video gamey"!
Fucking plebs I tell you.
I can't wait for most people/companies to stop calling them "games" and call them interactive video.
I enjoy video "games", they have their place, but I am eagerly looking forward to the day that storytellers can make interactive software that is all narrative and has zero gameplay mechanics and they wont be ridiculed for it.
This would mean "games" can focus solely on story, and not waste dev time on their shitty gameplay.
Trying to balance cinematic story telling and engaging gameplay is holding the medium back. Get rid of gameplay, and it solves everything.
I'm not saying dissolve gameplay entirely, though, but less of it would only be a good thing.
I feel like you're looking at soul collection in the wrong way
It's not like you're going to be dying in some out of the way corner, completely off the proper path
you are, for the most part, dying on the same level, at an area that you need to reach again regardless in order to progress.
the game isn't arbitrarily punishing you
it's saying "you managed to get here, so do it again"
It's asking you to constantly progress further until you reach the next checkpoint, not simply repeat the first 'trial' until you do so perfectly. The goal isn't perfection, its success.
how about wouldnt beat?
I was in the sewers, just fighting some random shit, when I realized that I wasnt having any fun with the game, and it was poorly paced.
So I stopped playing it, and went off to play things that were not it.
>thinking someone literally fist pumps and cheers for beating a game
It's a metaphor for that feeling of satisfaction you get when you complete an absurdly difficult section of a game, however fleeting that feeling is, and how that sense of accomplishment can stay with you.
>dump so much time and effort into a game
>taking your skill to its very edge to reach that 100%
>finally beat it
>nothing but emptiness since you have nothing to play now
If youre really having THAT much trouble...
the post was a hypothetical. As in, how would someone who wasnt you, who didnt know what you knew see that same post.
The answer is that they would see it at face value, that the lesson is "dont waste my time"
when you use memes, do you regularly attempt to summon up every fucking detail about the meme's origin and ensure it fits perfectly within the context of your post?
I would be fine with games that lack significant gameplay
but claiming that gameplay is in itself harmful is stupid
gameplay is another element of storytelling
the problem isn't that they're trying to balance cinematic storytelling and engaging gameplay, its' that they consider storytelling and gameplay to be completely seperate elements that need to be balanced
you don't look at film and think of the music as divorced from cinematography
it's a symbiotic relationship. One lends to the effects of the other, and vice versa.
It's why dividing a film by its music/cinematography/actors/plot/setting/etc, and then assigning points to each and totaling, is such a terrible way of trying to 'review' a film
it completely denies the medium.
if doom had checkpoints after every group of enemies, that author would say doom is inherently not a -difficult- game.
but that's not a thing doom has
so the author probably wouldn't say that, at least not on the basis of checkpoints
so I have no fucking idea why you thought to bring up doom
and of course the author never says anything about whether or not non-difficult games are good or bad, so I'm not sure how your question even begins to form
do you idiots just not read or what
This'll never happen again. Games are now marketed to the everyday man, too. Taking away the freedom to launch a game and play for 15 minutes before saving and quitting to go out to drink or go to work is not even going to be considered by anything but the most obscure indie games.
>if doom had checkpoints after every group of enemies, that author would say doom is inherently not a -difficult- game.
...wait, was that its point? I kinda ignored that shit, but holy fuck
So it doesnt matter how bullshit hard the fight is, how much you struggle, the important thing is how much crap you have to redo when you fail?
This image is so false that it hurts. First of all, why do you need a checkpoint at the beginning of a level? Don't levels start with some sort of challenge, and eventually you reach a checkpoint?
Secondly, Dark Souls compacts a lot of content in to a small area, and the amount of space and number of enemies between each bonfire is very well thought out and well executed. Just because you died doesn't mean that the game isn't set up properly.
And also, I don't even agree with the general premise of this image, I think it's possible to have a game like any of those and it could potentially be good.
I'm not a retard who cites maymays out of context to support my argument, let alone at all.
Fuck your "hypothetical" excuse, that just further proves you're completely disengenous by presenting a Plinkett clip about Lucas being a hack director at face value to shoehorn it into an argument that difficulty somehow wastes people's time. The point being made about Star Wars prequels being meandering piles of garbage has NO bearing on difficulty in video games. Your "lesson" doesn't fucking apply.
How is it that every post that uses inappropriate ellipses is guaranteed to be retarded?
the idea is that having to repeat acts as a form of punishment, and forces the player to consistently play well, even when dealing with problems he's defeated before. As in, you don't just have to beat enemy A once, you need to consistently beat him (and the implication is that //difficult// games would eventually have you do this quickly once you've reached a point where the enemy is no longer //difficult//)
and then these non-difficult games, those with a constant stream of checkpoints after every occasion, have the player simply win once, and move on. Once you defeat the enemy, regardless of how poorly or well you do so, you move on and never really bother with it again.
He's complaining that 'difficult' games should be defined by the challenge of playing well //consistently// rather than playing well //once//
and importantly, as half the thread keeps missing, this is about what should be called a difficult game, not a good game. He doesn't say anything about whether a game is good or bad. Just whether it should be called difficult.
now keep in mind this isn't my argument.
Rainbow 6 did actual checkpoint creation. You got three checkpoints that you could use throughout the level and if you died without setting one up you'd go all the way back to the start, you also couldn't take them back after using them without fully restarting the level either, it was really great.
I feel like all games, regardless of genre, should implement some sort of ranking system. That way, you can play how you want, but if you play like a little bitch, use excessive saves, cheese tactics, win narrowly with trades, whatever, the game will let you advance (if you manage to), but it will also give you a shit rank. It incentivizes improvement without necessarily stopping you from enjoying the game. I find that most games with such a system are more fun than the average game, and that I improve more with a rank to quantify/qualify my success.
Casuals don't like to be explicitly told by video games that they suck at them. Just look at how people reacted to Itagaki when he had the gall to label people who die too much and play on easy as Dogs in Ninja Gaiden.
Then let them enjoy it.
In Vindictus, the game is currently divided into two "seasons" wholly seperate in story, and structured very differently in its dungeon design.
Season 1 really linear, its got a series of rooms with mobs in them that need to be cleared to progress before hitting the boss. when you fight the boss, if you die, and cannot be revived, you must restart from the first room. This applies even to raids.
Season 2 (and the end of season 1) gets rid of the boring, pointless mob fighting before a raid, having you instead take a walk through empty rooms (though one of these raids has stage hazards before the fight) before the fight. if you die, and cannot be revived, you must restart from the first room.
What is the difference for the player?
The difference is that instead of focusing on the shitty mob enemies who are making the fight into a chore, you get to experience atmosphere setting environments entirely without distraction.
In a fight with an ice dragon, you begin in a huge, frozen hall littered with bioluminescent crystals. when you approach the door it opens to a bright outdoor area set in a huge ice canyon
In a fight with a gigantic cyborg zombie spider legged rastafarian, you begin in a dark, dank sewer, shafts of dim light guiding you. as you approach openings in the pipes, you see the shadow of something massive run past, making horrible noises.
In season 1, you go into a room and kill the things youve been killing for days, too distracted to notice any fine details laid out before you.
I can only think of a few games that do that like some of the Mega Man X games and it's just annoying. Plus it's subjective, some would argue that beating a stage as fast as possible is the most challenging way to play the stage, while others would argue that you're just "avoiding the enemies" and stuff. I think if you stand there and kill the enemies, that's being a noob, because you're removing the obstacles. There's no real way this could be implemented and it would take forever to program.
And it's just fucking annoying when you get the second highest rank for some arbitrary reason then you have to do the whole thing over again.
but that only makes sense in the kind of game where playing exceedingly well is the goal
rather than simply being above a certain standard of -skill-
>and that I improve more with a rank to quantify/qualify my success.
I mean, when examining such a system and this result, have you ever experienced it in a game whose primary goal wasn't to get you to play //well//? Do you think that maybe those games had much more trying to push you to play //well// than simply the ranking system? Is there even a point to DMC beyond playing skillfully
why do we even care what the player wants out of the game
the whole fucking point of developing a game is because you want the player to experience something
just because we have interaction doesn't mean the player should be in charge of how the fucking game works, the player doesn't know shit
movies are made for the viewer to see something
games are made for the player to play something
games are not made so that the player can choose if he wants to experience the world with mobs and then choose if he wants to experience the world without
if mobs are part of the intended experience, mobs should be a part of the fucking experience. If they aren't, then they shouldn't fucking be there
simple as that
So I take it you play on easy, so you get maximum time efficiency? If you die that's just wasted time, right?
This is the mentality that has given us today's games and why Dark/Demons souls was such a breath of fresh air for many of us.
thats fucking stupid though.
whats the point? unless you got to the boss by pure fucking luck, then its not going to change unless youve reached the "I just dont care anymore" stage.
all it does is increase the chance that people are going to put down your game and play something which has more respect for the player's time.
repetition isnt hard, in fact, its commonly used to make things easier.
If the player DID make it through by the skin of his teeth, then how is it so awful to have him beat boss 1, THEN have to repeat the challenge before boss 2?
the way its set up, it just makes it so that after boss 1, everything before boss 2 is easier than it would have otherwise been.
stop making game experience mundane.
>I am bad at games therefore they should ALL be made easier.
>I am bad at baseball therefore everyone else should pitch the ball slower and make the ball bigger.
No, just fucking improve at the game you asshole.
Again, what the fuck are you going on about. Who the fuck said anything about it being significant. You used a Plinkett quote about the Lucas writing a drawn out dull script for the SW prequels and tired to falsely equate it to games somehow wasting people's time by the sole virtue of being difficult. You have to be a complete retard to miss how dishonest this is.
>How was it supporting an argument anyways?
>Every dev needs to follow this simple guideline:
>completely fucking oblivious
i hope you're shitposting anon, for your sake.
I guess it punishes autists like you that HAVE to S-rank everything, but I find it to be a nice way to gauge what part of my play is improving. Of course, it does depend on how it's executed. I like how SM3DW did it, high scores and times are separate. But the best example would have to be the DMC games/MGR/cuhrazy in general. You don't HAVE to go for the elaborate combos or sustain no damage to beat a level, but by acknowledging that achievement with a rank the game encourages you to improve your play. This makes you want to rise to the challenge, and when you do, the game is more fun, less frustrating, and at the end of it all you feel like a badass.
>the way its set up, it just makes it so that after boss 1, everything before boss 2 is easier than it would have otherwise been.
I think the idea is that the -challenge- wouldn't be repeated after boss 1. There would be no point, now you've //actually// proven your ability to handle it
rather than //possibly// knowing how to handle it well, in which case further tests (after the boss) would be justifiable
As an example:
In DOOM, you can save whenever the fuck you want.
>At the beginning of E1M1?
Sure, why not.
>In the middle of E3M5 on 1% health?
If you want, go ahead.
>Right before you pump rockets into Romero's face?
WHENEVER YOU WANT
>But wait, that means it's not challenging!
No, it just means you don't have to play the same segment over and over again.
If they are detrimental to other points of design, then why is it better they be included?
This is why Vindictus is a good example. the team had never done an action game before, and you can experience them growing in understanding of action design as the episodes progress. At this point they have a good deal of respect for the player, and a good deal of respect for THEMSELVES. Allowing the art to shine just as bright as any other aspect.
When you DO encounter mobs now, they are PART OF the environment, they compliment it, they dont distract, but inform.
They are also much more difficult to fight, but are possible in many cases to avoid with careful use of terrain.
Doing so (avoiding the fights) makes the bosses harder though, because you dont have your special meter built up as a result, but since many players are skilled enough to work without it, we skip passed mobs and try to head as quickly from boss to boss as possible.
The point is that if you aggressively save scumm and essentially split the entire game into thirty second segments, then if every so often you go thirty one seconds without completely screwing up, you will eventually win, regardless of how much skill you have and how consistently you can apply. Being able to go five, ten, twenty minutes, an hour, without screwing up that bad is obviously more skilful and requires you to learn and absorb the skills the game is made to teach you.
Now, you're right that a game that has liberal checkpoints can cram an absurd amount of bullshit into thirty seconds, but the fact that every last scrap of progress is saved and locked down automatically obviously makes it less difficult and less satisfying to make progress. That's why every man and his dog has jumped on the roguelikeliteish bandwagon. Someone who wiped their save every time the lost a life in Super Meat Boy would be a lot more skilled at it in the end than someone who didn't. They'd also be fucking nuts, sure.
There's nothing wrong with short, self-contained challenges, but there's nothing wrong with longer challenges either. They teach different skills, solving an immediate problem vs memorising the tools to solve any problem the game might pose consistently and efficiently.
No, I always play on the hardest mode available at the start (Im usually pretty upset if hard has to be unlocked)
I can afford to spend 20 minutes on a boss fight, I cannot afford to spend 20 minutes on doing the same old shit just so I can get back to the boss fight, my time is wasted that way, im getting no enjoyment from it.
lets not even say its because i failed
what if i JUST WANT to replay the fight, because i liked it? why do i need to shuffle through bullshit for that?
On the gamecube, I had three memory cards, all with three twilight princess saves on them, before each of my favorite bosses.
It wasnt hard to reach them, it wasnt hard to play them, and i didnt fail them...I just wanted to be able to go back and play them without restarting the friggin game.
Why is it SO AWFUL to you people that someone doesnt want to grind through a game to get to the juicy bits?
Do you get angry at people who eat pre-sliced fruit?
this thread summed up:
"Games can only be hard when badly designed, if they are hard while being well designed, then they are not actually hard and youre a casual"
You must all think I wanna be the guy is the pinnacle of game design.
And if you decide to never save, and run through the whole game without ever dying, you're obviously dangerously skilled at the game and you display that level of skill consistently. This is the fundamental point, consistency is important, it demonstrates a higher level of ability, and it's perfectly legitimate for a challenge-based game to demand a certain level of consistency before it recognises your progress.
>Why is it SO AWFUL to you people that someone doesnt want to grind through a game to get to the juicy bits?
It's more of the issue that games are being designed so that these repetitions are tedious
I'm actually quite content running through demon souls after dying, mostly because the levels and enemies are designed in such a manner that its actually quite painless and kind of fun. It gets annoying if I die to the boss [a lot], like I struggled a stupid amount with the tower knight and the level eventually became a pain, but for the most part repetition wasn't a problem. It was actually kind of nice, as I continued to handle the enemies better and I placed more weight on the boss itself (and his death)
But now when you have games that assume you'll only deal with a challenge once, and never again (because you'll reach the next checkpoint and never look back), there's no reason to make the levels interesting beyond the value of a single playthrough
Nintendo never really falls into this kind of trap, but a fucking ton of games make it absolute hell to do anything twice (except, generally, bosses)
Nah for me the pinnacle of game design so far is FTL.
Hard game but fair in many aspects since every ultimate decision that matters is yours, if you send your crew to fight giant alien spiders and you lose someone well that's your own fault. And the thing is you don't need to invest in a large amount of time to "git gud" at it. Someone playing for only 15 minutes has still the same tools as someone with a playtime of 5 hours. Not once does the game ever feel like a chore to get to the final battle.
>it does when you're playing engi and rng refuses to give you a proper fucking weapon
You have over several different sectors with plenty of nodes to find a weapon and plenty of shops to spend your scrap on to get a weapon you like, don't give me that excuse. You can even just play a defensive Engi ship build with protective drones and just using Mind Control and slowly hijacking mind controlled crew one by one off a ship in Advanced mode.
>stop liking what I don't like
>implying I'm save scum
I'm saying its YOUR CHOICE when to save, so any criticisms can only be directed at yourself.
If you want a challenge, don't save ever.
If you can't handle it, save when you get scared like a little babby.
>MFW I finished DOOM on nightmare with no saves.
There is no point in Dark Souls 1 or 2 where it takes 20 minutes to get back to the boss, unless you've learnt absolutely nothing about how to fight and deal with threats, i.e. the whole point of the game. If it takes you 20 minutes, you need to redo it and pay more attention, if it takes you 1 minute, suck it up, crybaby.
Now, it's perfectly legitimate to say that trash mobs that are always trivial to deal with are just a waste of time, but they're always a waste of time, even if you can quicksave right after, the meta-structure's niceties have just papered over the cracks. On the other hand, mooks in Dark Souls are meant to be non-trivial opponents, and dealing with their threat as well as the threat of a boss in a distinct section is the challenge the designer wants to set you, and is the one you're expected to overcome. Don't like it? Then you don't like the game. Go play something else.
>hardest parts are long platforming sections using shitty jumping controls and awful camera angles
>can't save the game anytime I want
Well that's the Engi ship designs of course. They're supposed to be dependent on drones because Engi ships have more Drone slots than the other type of ships. If you don't like the Engi ships then you don't have to play as them, plenty of other ships for you to choose from. That's why I like the overall game design of FTL.
You sound like the type of person who'd prefer to play a game with no checkpoints or save system at all, where you'd need to go through the entirety of the game in one sitting.
>I have time to play video games. I dont have time to WASTE on video games.
What you are saying is "I have time to VERB Hobby A. I don't have time to VERB on Hobby A." So you state that you both have time and don't have time? If you don't have time to waste on video games then maybe you shouldn't be playing video games at all that require time?
There's old dudes with kids who do 40 hour work weeks and still have time to play games. I'd know because I'm one of them. What's your excuse?
i love super mario brothers. i know that's a total cliche and i sound like some 12 year old who just grew his first pube and has a 1-up keychain and a wallet with the hyrule symbol on it, but it's a game you can only get better at, and it's mechanics are fucking ace, the jumping is perfect. it's just a joy to play and git gud at.
Too easy still. You can get extra lives and everything.
And yes, which was my point. Theres a reason gaming has evolved past that level of design. It only existed to pad out games to make it so people couldn't beat them in a game rental. Also it was a hold over from arcades.
They're also the people who say a game is bad because it has "aged"
Seriously, this niggers can't play a NES or a Playstation game just because it doesn't has good graphics
Bad game design, not difficult, unless the challenge is to not fall asleep during the cutscene and wake up to see GAME OVER.
Not really, you walk forward, you die, you walk forward in a way that avoids the thing that killed you. It's more time consuming than actually hard.
This highlights one of the larger problems: frequent checkpoints, or at will quicksaves, are used as an excuse to fuck with the player. Old adventure games would have immediate, untelegraphed kills, RPGs like Fallout think nothing of letting a minigun get a lucky crit and hit you for 800 HP, ignoring armour and dodge chance. These things aren't difficult to overcome, and people don't hold any esteem for someone who manages to beat them without saving, they're just bullshit. Ideally, games would be balanced around one checkpoint every hour, then have a more frequent babby mode that "hardcore" gamers could turn off and get a little badge on their victory screen.
All this sounds like is shit cunts who never grew up on arcade games and learned to git gud because of it. "Boo hoo I have to start all over again but i've already done this level" THEN YOU FUCKING DO IT AGAIN UNTIL YOU'RE SO DAMN GOOD THAT YOU BECOME A MASTER AT IT.
LISTEN HERE YOU PIECES OF SHIT
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS DEPEND ON THE GAME. IF YOU CAN GET FULL HEALTH / SUPPLIES AFTER EVERY ENCOUNTER, THEN YES, REPEATING MULTIPLE ENCOUNTERS IS TEDIOUS. IN SOME GAMES, LIKE DARKSOULS, THE CHALLENGE IS MANAGING YOUR ESTUS AND SHIT AND REACHING THE BOSS, AND HAVING ENOUGH TO BEAT THEM. HOLY SHIT, WHY DO PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND. THE MECHANICS OF DARKSOULS LEADS TO THE PATH UP TO THE BOSS BEING 1 ENCOUNTER.
MAYBE IF YOU WEREN'T A CASUAL PIECE OF SHIT YOU'D UNDERSTAND THIS, INSTEAD OF BLAMING "M-MUH TEDIUM" HOLY SHIT I AM NOT EVEN MAD RIGHT NOW JUST DISAPPOINTED.
>anon I'm not part of this conversation
Then fuck off. Noones addressing you then you whinging cunt.
There's no such thing as a waste of time mate. If it's your free time you do whatever the fuck you want with it. It would be exactly the same as saying "Man I got time to play the guitar, I just don't have time to WASTE playing the guitar." WHICH WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE EITHER.
i still really like playstation's visuals. yeah, low-poly as fuck, but I feel like the less they had to work with the more work they actually put into making things look unique and atmospheric.
i can get into fallout way more than i can skyrim or fo3.
Is there a particular reason why you should master a game? Are you going to play it competitively? Go for a world record? No? Then why bother with it for a single player game?
If you want to invest that much time into something, why not something you can actually use?
>Finally get around to Dark Souls
>Find that most of the "hard enemies" are made into joke fights by blocking (Capra Demon)
>Other fights are tedious with enemies with large health pools, or multiples (O&S)
>Supposed difficulty is in the level design with the occasional trap that kills you quickly
>Stop playing after O&S because I'm not having fun
I'm not really getting the appeal here, these games aren't especially difficult or deep. I've seen better designed encounters in Monster Hunter, and had more fun in Dragons Dogma. This game feels like they tried to be hard for hards sake, but failed at that and had a world with the lore being told through item entries and the exploration being rather lacking (OH BOY A SMALL ROOM OFF TO THE SIDE!).
Also the PvP in this game is a fucking joke.
Oh and a final note, we talk about the consequences of death in this game but outside of time there really aren't any. You can easily gain your souls and humanity back as both are plenty and souls SHOULD BE SPENT ASAP! Meaning that all you'd lose is what you would have acquired, which can easily be reacquired. All that is lost is time and you having to make your way back to the boss.
So much for it being this bastion of difficulty and good game design.
>Is there a particular reason why you should master a game? Are you going to play it competitively? Go for a world record? No? Then why bother with it for a single player game?
Because I can and want to. The game gives me a challenge, i'm going to overcome that challenge. Then not only am I going to overcome that challenge but i'm going to do it better than before and if need so better than anyone else. Why? Because I enjoy games and love to see them played and tested to their utmost limits. I also enjoy testing myself against others of quality skill too in friendly competition.
>If you want to invest that much time into something, why not something you can actually use?
Because it's my free time to do what I wish with it.
If this is true I might like Dark Souls 2 more than Demon's Souls
I like the game and even with the shortcuts being opened after each play, i find it pretty tedious to waste 30 arrows on a giant depraved one just to die at the boss before i learn their pattern
It led me to summon someone during the flamefucker fight, that nigger is impossible to defeat alone
Then you should pick another hobby and stop doing what you're doing altogether then. Otherwise you're doing the same shit and expecting a different result and finding no enjoyment otherwise.
>Because I can and want to. The game gives me a challenge, i'm going to overcome that challenge. Then not only am I going to overcome that challenge but i'm going to do it better than before and if need so better than anyone else. Why? Because I enjoy games and love to see them played and tested to their utmost limits. I also enjoy testing myself against others of quality skill too in friendly competition.
Then whats stopping you from doing it even if theres frequent checkpoints? If you're doing it because you want to, what does the checkpoint prevent?
why couldn't I just use my guitar and play something enjoyable or for practice
I don't see why a single poor potential use of my instrument should lead me to find a different instrument altogether.
As the original anon says
One way of playing video games is useful
Another is not.
Both require a time investment.
He does not wish to participate in the latter.
But you do not approve?
>Then whats stopping you from doing it even if theres frequent checkpoints? If you're doing it because you want to, what does the checkpoint prevent?
Nothing for the most part. It doesn't prevent me from going forward but it doesn't also help me in getting better or overcoming more difficult challenges. It would be akin to riding a bicycle and then not letting me take off the training wheels on it and then never able to be a good downhill BMX bike rider.
>It led me to summon someone during the flamefucker fight, that nigger is impossible to defeat alone
he's a pain to time well and consistently but he has very clearly laid out patterns and openings
flamelurker is a great boss
>why couldn't I just use my guitar and play something enjoyable or for practice I don't see why a single poor potential use of my instrument should lead me to find a different instrument altogether.
Because in this case both are a HOBBY, something you're doing in your SPARE TIME. Don't enjoy playing the guitar in your spare time but still want to play a string instrument? Play the Banjo, you might be better at it and enjoy its sounds better. Or maybe go play the Shamisen. Don't just sit around playing the Guitar and then complaining that you don't have time to waste on it and not trying to improve your ability to play certain notes or songs.
No, its nothing like that. Easy challenges you can already do don't make future challenges easier. It just means you're wasting time redoing something you can do in your sleep to get back to where you actually were challenged.
To use the guitar analogy, it'd be like if you're trying to learn a new song, but every time you screw it up, you have to play several songs you know by heart first before you can try again.
>replying to a 4 hour old post
Nonetheless what fucking side is this guy even on? He sits there and praises meatboy for like 5 paragraphs then says it sucks and doesnt punish you enough. Pro fucking tip playing on the medium difficulty is the best way to play a game. Challenging enough without pissing you off for no reason other than to say you beat it on nightmare dante must die mode.
It has literally no openings to attack when it has about 1/4 of his health left
He becomes too aggro to even keep healing yourself
maybe there's a method to solo him, but the journey all the way there from the armored spider boss is too fucking long, i even placed blue skulls just before him in the hopes to find a way to kill mine, but in the 5 battles i was, it all consisted of me or the other guy hurting him while the other was distracting him with an arrow or something else
I can't complain about the songs I'm being given being pointless and repetitive? Just because I have a song, I must accept it as good, or simply abandon the guitar altogether?
I have time to spend on the guitar.
I do not have time to spend on the guitar with one particular kind of use
I do have time to spend on the guitar with a different particular kind of use
Is it wrong of me to ask that I act upon the latter, but not the former?
He's not talking about SMB anon. He's talking about difficulty in games, and uses SMB as his primary example. And he also never really praises the game, he just describes some functions and interpretations of the title.
>No, its nothing like that. Easy challenges you can already do don't make future challenges easier. It just means you're wasting time redoing something you can do in your sleep to get back to where you actually were challenged.
It's the practice of fundamentals and basics. Every task that requires some skill does this. Whether it be practicing opening lines in chess or particular endgame situations like trying to play bishop knight endgame versus two knights. Snooker players still do basic drills where you put a bunch of balls in a line specific spaces apart and keep playing for the position after the shot while still trying to pot the balls.
Look for example I can beat the first boss in D&D Shadow over Mystara easily but I still play it out anyway because depending on how I feel which path I want to go on next. However even on the easiest first stage if i'm playing as the Fighter whether or not I get a short sword to drop on the first stage is going to affect my challenge on the Lich later on in a later stage and whether I decide to take a different path for the next stage after.
What? because I didn't know i had to train magic for some random enemy or increase vitality to be able to dodge for shit, how am i even supposed to discover that if i don't want to make a new game?
Well first off
you make an all rounder as a first character
But more importantly, you can just melee everything in the game with relative ease.
Including Giant Depraved Ones.
You should not be shoehorning yourself into shooting them with 30 arrows unless you have absolutely no confidence in your playstyle.
At which point you might as well reroll until you find something that fits you better.
really the issue is that you shouldn't be using much ranged at all
the game clearly isn't built to handle ranged stuff, the AI always flounders.
and of course, had you been using melee, the depraved ones go down quickly
as does nearly everything, since they're all built to combat, and die to, melee
and its the kind of game where when you have to do something 30 times in a row, you know you're doing it stupidly/poorly.
>It's the practice of fundamentals and basics. Every task that requires some skill does this.
Literally no task ever requires you to repeat the fundamentals every time you fail at your next task.
Oh i tried fighting them, I've been using the knight's equipment and stats distributiont eh whole game because i am afraid of spending my hard earned souls into a stat i don't really know what it does
The giant depraved ones were always faster than me and my weapons did shit damage even thoguh i could kill in one stab the little depraved ones
I didn't know i had to spend souls on vitality so i could roll normally and if i take off my armor they will kill me even easier, i also didn't know that you had to spend at least 3 souls levels on a stat that apparently did nothing before starting to grow fall damage
I mean, don't get me wrong, the game is great and i really like the mechanics
but you really need some kind of guide to truly enjoy this mother
Mostly just skimmed the thread, but I feel most of the thread is ignoring the fact that redoing shit makes you better at the fucking game.
Sure, you can have a checkpoint right at the boss and just slam your head into the wall until it breaks. But when you have to do the shit beforehand? You get better at the basics. You reach the boss with more health than last time. You reach the boss with more skill and a better chance of winning than if you just went right back at it again.
And using Souls specifically as an example, you build up more and more souls over time, so long as you keep grabbing your blood stain. This means that once you do finally beat what you are stuck at you get a huge wad of sweet, sweet souls you finally get to spend.
People keep talking about how "Oh, if I did this part I shouldn't have to do it again". Well, if you did it WELL then you shouldn't be having such a hard time at the boss in the first place. Doing the section over and over, you start using fewer of your limited resources, until you reach the boss with enough of them that you can come out on top.
There is a POINT to doing that shit over again and a lot of you seem to be missing it.
Demon's Souls did mention what stats do in the descriptions.
You wouldn't be able to minmax easily but it's not too hard to get a character capable of handling NG and even NG+ blind.
>I didn't know i had to spend souls on vitality so i could roll normally
you don't, you spend it on endurance for equip burden
equip burden affecting movement isn't abnormal for japanese games, which is why they assumed you'd figure it out off the bat
and fall damage from dexterity is like a minor benefit, the primary reason is for damage
which is also a normal thing
those fucking symbols are nonsense though, especially the ones for weapon scaling
>I can't complain about the songs I'm being given being pointless and repetitive?
Sure you can, it just makes you a whinging hack then. You should know that many musical songs and tracks have very similar and repetitive notes.
>Just because I have a song, I must accept it as good, or simply abandon the guitar altogether?
If you don't like the song then why are you playing it in your SPARE TIME?
>I have time to spend on the guitar.
>I do not have time to spend on the guitar with one particular kind of use
>I do have time to spend on the guitar with a different particular kind of use
Then don't spend time on said guitar with one particular use and complain about it at the same time. Just like you don't spend time on video games and complain about not having time to spend on video games. Otherwise you're spending your time on a guitar like the Banjo and then complaining that all other string guitars don't sound like a Banjo and you want them to be more like the Banjo.
The Souls series is the poor man's Ninja Gaiden. They are both difficult action games but Souls games are more clumsy and tedious
The guy made me pop open the manual to check. It's all in there. I mean, I guess it doesn't specify the melee damage type symbols but oh well. It doesn't take a degree to figure out what a rapier does.
>Literally no task ever requires you to repeat the fundamentals every time you fail at your next task.
You ever sew somethign and made a mistake in the stitching and had to stitch all over again? You ever screw up doing a gymnastics routine that you had to start the routine again? You ever fall off water skiiing that you had to start all over from the stop position? You ever fuck up cooking a dish that you had to start preparing, boiling, frying all over again?
Yeah sure, no task ever requires you top repeat the fundamentals again.
>You ever fuck up cooking a dish that you had to start preparing, boiling, frying all over again?
Compared to the others very rarely. I eat most of the food I cook even if a little "messed up", while the others are people requiring you to start over because fuck you do it again you loser.
I guess i didn't read caefully
Heh, glad i am in an anonymous board where i can be retarded without any consequences
I still think Demon's Souls is far more enjoyable witha guide
When you cook for yourself sure you might not care, I personally I don't at home. If you cook in a restaurant and if the customer asked for a rare steak and you gave well done then you fucked up and have to do it again.
Well personally I understood it'd probably do piercing damage or whatever and that dex was related to speedy weapons and such but seriously
A - - -
A B - -
C C C C
with indescribable symbols does not help me realize that those had anything to do with damage scaling, especially given that the weapon scaling wasn't clean (it wasn't a simple dex x grade; where A = 4 B = 3 and so on)
Like no you can't fucking defend the weapon scaling shit it was complete nonsense
Which is great, and explains why you listed it. Most people aren't "chefs" or line cooks, or what ever you are. Though I can't imagine you prepping a steak 30 seconds after a customer complains, unless you are literally just throwing some spices on them and throwing them on the grill/pan etc.
Exactly. NG often forced you to go through an encounter before bosses but once you understood them they were quick and relatively easy. There was more of a tiered system of challenge. Be shit and you'll die relatively quickly. Be good and you'll get through and enjoy it. Be perfect and you'll get through and have a great score. Everything in the game was fluid and fun but challenging without being tedious.
I think adding extra bonfires in Dark Souls 2 kind of ruined the tension of it all
DS1 had a lot of "fuck fuck fuck" moments where I'd miraculously somehow clear the remaining 1/2 of a dungeon with like 30% health and no estus left.
Dark Souls has a unique mechanic attached to it, that you see in every game. However, Dark Souls went far enough to completely embrace it as a full-fledged mechanic.
Death. Every time you die on a boss, you realize what you did wrong. You learned a new move, you learned a new vulnerability. Maybe you didn't learn anything, but your muscle memory slowly developed to know when to block and when to roll. You slowly get better and better as time goes on. You know, just like a GAME WITH ACTUAL DIFFICULTY.
to be fair, Dark Souls encourages the player to basically look out for help online or in the game by summoning
It only makes you afraid of losing your souls, so you don't really want to risk them
If you don't see what you did wrong then one of two things happened.
1) It happened too fast. You will catch what happened the next time.
2) It was taken away from you. The game doesn't convey what killed you well if at all.
Even bad players can see what caused them to die.
Now acting on it and correcting the mistake is another matter.
>be in military
>work 12-14 hours a day
>sometimes several weeks without a day off
>still find time to git gud
If you want to be a faggot casual, be a faggot, casual, but don't make excuses, faggot.
It still doesn't change the fact that there are many tasks where you will have to do the fundamentals again if you fail given or next tasks which was the focal point of the given examples.
As I said before, "every time" Just like the word always. You should use them with care.
Or you know you are treating it as a singular task. Let's say were replacing the intake manifold gasket in your car. You don't get excited after you get the intake manifold off as you still have 50% of the repair left, why bother celebrating when you have shit to do? You don't know if you accomplished the task until you finish the rebuild and you turn the motor over, why celebrate before then?
if #1 happened means you didn't learn every time.
If #2 happened you didn't learn every time.
Next time don't list a task that doesn't then, k thnx.
>You're going through a level
>You have to start the level again
That's fucking fine. It demands you learn from each of your mistakes and improve to the standard the game demands you to in order to complete the level. A lot of the games that punish you for dying also reward you for either exploring, or your eventual success. Both of those feel much better in an environment that wants you to fail for not being the best you can be.
See, that's a common mistake a lot of new Souls players make. "Oh man, I lost TEN THOUSAND SOULS". Souls are god damn everywhere and you're going to have them slipping out of your asshole while you walk around by the end game. They may be the only real resource in the game, but they are by no means precious or hard to come by. Especially in Dark Souls 1/2 where your estus flask refills for free. And even MORE so in DaS2 when the bonfires top off your equipment durability too.
Oh god. Good luck with that one. I'm going to bed. I'm literally both sick and tired. But there actually is a good deal of handy info in that manual. I don't recall if Demons Souls had it, but in Dark Souls you can press start/select in most menus for a description of each stat too. It gives you the prompt for it at the bottom of the screen but tons of people miss it anyway.
Slightly off topic, You ever see any baffling shit in the engines? Like you're looking in and someone's modified something and you're like "Who the fuck did this and how is it even workin?"
>Next time don't list a task that doesn't then, k thnx.
Except I did and it doesn't change the fact that the task still requires you to do the fundamentals again. Occupation is irrelevant to the example.
I think you're missing the differentiation of repeating one task and repeating multiple examples of the primary functions of that task. If you mess up a stitch you simply redo the stitch. You don't re-practice stitching. If you fuck up a dish you just remake the dish. You don't go over your cutting technique.
I get that you're providing examples of things you must re-do from the start but that ignores the point. If you are making a sauce and you over-salt it then have to remake it re-chopping garlic and basil isn't going to help you know how much salt to put in
if the challenge of the game is being able to do large sequences at once, then you choose the right size.
no one but the reddit tards in this thread are asking for a checkpoint at the end of every screen of a platformer or even after every jump.
you pick a size: 5 screens. or 2 different combats. you distribute difficulty equally among them ( because having to beat 3 slimes after trying the boss again is the stupid bit) and then add a checkpoint at the end.
health systems are really important in this kind of difficulty distribution.
many games should have strong healing checkpoints and weak no-regen-allowed- checkpoints. that way you would be able to avoid tedium while still having the " if the player isn't good enough he will arrive to the boss with just half health".
Consider the following:
Getting send back isn't there to punish you, it's there to make it feel like there are consequences for failing.It's to inflict a sense of "danger".
That's why i consider Prince of Persia (2008) a bad game. All the gliding and jumps over high canyons you do don't feel like they have any weight to them because if you fall you are just put right back where you fell off. Any enemy you encounter doesn't matter because if he kills you just re-spawn right next to him again. There is no sense of urgency, no sense of having to overcome something.
How is that any fun? What is engaging me, as the player, if the game doesn't care if i put in effort or not?
If i want a relaxing game, i'll play something like Harvest Moon or something. Something that's not fast high paced action but at least stimulates me to still make choices on what fruit/veggies i need to grow and how i go about taking care of the animals. All while enjoying the shenanigans with the town folk.
DaS2 was the worst offender of the bunch
you get overflooded with levels and souls
likely because they added the enemy non-revive mechanic, and didn't want players eventually becoming underleveled
so now if you don't play like total ass, you become massively overleveled
>why bother celebrating when you have shit to do?
Perhaps you don't have more time that day to finish it, if you can't sit down and enjoy a cup of coffee during the break you've got serious issues.
>I think you're missing the differentiation of repeating one task and repeating multiple examples of the primary functions of that task. If you mess up a stitch you simply redo the stitch. You don't re-practice stitching. If you fuck up a dish you just remake the dish. You don't go over your cutting technique.
It's the same thing in video games. You fuck up something you're going to end up doing a bunch of things similar and back to where you were when you fucked up and as a result you will get better than just resuming from the original fuck up point. To be fair even plenty of old games don't start you so far back even at the start of the level, for instance original Super Mario Bros. Many stages had a sort of mid-point checkpoint where you were forced to navigate through certain obstacles again that were close to the point you died but not too close to it so you were still forced to repeat the tasks.
I think the point is the difficulty of what you are being reset to. If the challenges you must overcome after the checkpoint are negligible then why redo them? It is simply a time sink
But that's not necessarily true. Take the given example of Dark Souls. If you die to a boss because you haven't learned their patterns then going through a bunch of enemies with different patterns does not help you with the boss. It just makes you better at fighting those enemies. Issue is that often times you're already adept at facing those enemies anyways and the only way you get hurt by them is if you are trying to rush because they aren't fun to fight anymore
that shit was so fucked up you didn't get invaded in normal play anyways and unless you checked online you didn't have any idea that was even a thing
I mean seriously if you're playing for the first time and you're worrying about that shit, you're being a fucking moron