Half the games that do not have lives, saves or continues would be massively improved with lives, saves or contiunes.

[codeorange]

Looking at you Campanella 2 and Fist Hell, among other games. It's not even authentic to not have lives for the time. Not every game has to be a one life marathon hell like Spelunky 2.

[Adeon]

Wouldn't that mean basically anyone would beat it immediately regardless of skill?

[codeorange]

Publicado originalmente por Adeon:

Wouldn't that mean basically anyone would beat it immediately regardless of skill?

I didn't say unlimited lives or continues, I just meant having any amount of lives or continues. Just having one try is dumb for a lot of these games.

Like imagine if Campanella 1 was one life. It'll totally ruin the game. That's how I feel about Campanella 2 right now. Or with Cyber Owls suddenly changing format to having no continues for the second half of the game. It's an interesting experience mashing so many genres together but the overall game isn't that fun to grind through over and over again until you get everything down perfectly!

Or like, if Mortol and Attactics also didn't keep your save when you exited them. That'll turn them into major frustrations. One CC runs should be special, not the bare minimum for completing them!

[♥Puroseki (she/her)]

Campanella 2 is a short roguelike, lives or continues wouldn't really fit it.

Fist Hell DOES have continues, infinite of them in fact. It only matters for the cherry, where it fits it would ask you to 1CC the game.

[Maxim The Ghoul]

These games are also very short. If you were more lenient, you would definitely be done with them much faster.

[pi73r]

Sorry but looks like a skill issue. Also lives in beat em ups is a really stupod mechanic tbh. In fact no luves is what made many games great.

[Black Captain]

Publicado originalmente por pi73r:

Sorry but looks like a skill issue. Also lives in beat em ups is a really stupod mechanic tbh. In fact no luves is what made many games great.

You know that last part isn't true. The gameplay made it great. Upping the stakes made them arduous because you had to git gud. But if it's a quarter eater, being rich made the game trivial but that doesn't make it better not having lives. Being able to play the game longer means you can enjoy more of the game.

[DEFIANCE is Back !!]

or maybe have two modes, 'easy' and 'hard',

easy gives you 2 lives, but a cheap ending,

hard gives you no lives, but a 'good' ending..

[Man on Fire]

i'm sorry to do this and i know everyone will just call me a troll but what is this alien conscious amoung everyone here? you ALL seem to want these games as impenetrable, miserable experiences for the players. in fact many of you refuse to consider hey maybe the games could be made longer so they don't have to be agonizing. no you are all like "the game is made to be confusing, off putting, there can be no lives or really ANY quality of life improvements or it's be a different game/not a game at all" lets face it cause you are all admitting these games are shams!! they have no depth, to the point you can't even imagine more of them so they could BE less agonizing and MORE FUN!! (even something as simple as only having a single boss in overbold is fine. TWO bosses are you insane!?)

like when did gamers decide they enjoy being punished or the "experience" is taking laps, wasting time, having bad hitboxs, slowly crawling your way to one of TWO check points? and to SUCH a degree to act like people who like playing and enjoying or EVEN FINISHING THEM is abhorrent?

[Alex]

A few games I definitely feel this on, but sometimes there's just not that much content if winning is trivial and easy. Velgress is only a few levels and takes like 10 minutes to finish a successful run, so if there wasn't an overwhelming challenge it would be completely unremarkable and quickly forgotten. Since the games all need to be somewhat quick, it makes sense they'd lean on this strategy to add bulk when content is lean.

But I also get first impressions from games like Caramel Caramel, Star Waspir, and Fist Hell that they're "impenetrable" because I can't survive long enough to really see or do anything at all. Even if I were better at the game, you can still game over almost instantly by making a single mistake, so it's really hard to look forward to that level of stress. So yeah, there might be room for balancing.

Publicado originalmente por Man on Fire:

i'm sorry to do this and i know everyone will just call me a troll but what is this alien conscious amoung everyone here? you ALL seem to want these games as impenetrable, miserable experiences for the players. in fact many of you refuse to consider hey maybe the games could be made longer so they don't have to be agonizing. no you are all like "the game is made to be confusing, off putting, there can be no lives or really ANY quality of life improvements or it's be a different game/not a game at all" lets face it cause you are all admitting these games are shams!! they have no depth, to the point you can't even imagine more of them so they could BE less agonizing and MORE FUN!! (even something as simple as only having a single boss in overbold is fine. TWO bosses are you insane!?)

like when did gamers decide they enjoy being punished or the "experience" is taking laps, wasting time, having bad hitboxs, slowly crawling your way to one of TWO check points? and to SUCH a degree to act like people who like playing and enjoying or EVEN FINISHING THEM is abhorrent?

What? I honestly can't tell if you're mad at people for enjoying the games or for hating them.

[BadToken]

Failure is good for some game genres it forces you to slow down and learn levels/mechanics. It would be boring if you could just mindlessly drop lives and power through...

It's much more compelling to put in the work and finally get a clear. I think the changes proposed here would make Campanella 2 a much less satisfying game.

[Yuga-Suggah]

Publicado originalmente por Manky:

Publicado originalmente por Man on Fire:

i'm sorry to do this and i know everyone will just call me a troll but what is this alien conscious amoung everyone here? you ALL seem to want these games as impenetrable, miserable experiences for the players. in fact many of you refuse to consider hey maybe the games could be made longer so they don't have to be agonizing. no you are all like "the game is made to be confusing, off putting, there can be no lives or really ANY quality of life improvements or it's be a different game/not a game at all" lets face it cause you are all admitting these games are shams!! they have no depth, to the point you can't even imagine more of them so they could BE less agonizing and MORE FUN!! (even something as simple as only having a single boss in overbold is fine. TWO bosses are you insane!?)

like when did gamers decide they enjoy being punished or the "experience" is taking laps, wasting time, having bad hitboxs, slowly crawling your way to one of TWO check points? and to SUCH a degree to act like people who like playing and enjoying or EVEN FINISHING THEM is abhorrent?

What? I honestly can't tell if you're mad at people for enjoying the games or for hating them.

Yeah, this is kinda... word salady. Usually when my brain immediately hurts when I read something like this, its either I know nothing about subject and just need to read slower, or its tonally inconsistent.

I swear, its either a love or hate game. Or strange comments like why is this game $32. Im just glad people are exploring different genres after playing this.

[pi73r]

Publicado originalmente por Man on Fire:

i'm sorry to do this and i know everyone will just call me a troll but what is this alien conscious amoung everyone here? you ALL seem to want these games as impenetrable, miserable experiences for the players. in fact many of you refuse to consider hey maybe the games could be made longer so they don't have to be agonizing. no you are all like "the game is made to be confusing, off putting, there can be no lives or really ANY quality of life improvements or it's be a different game/not a game at all" lets face it cause you are all admitting these games are shams!! they have no depth, to the point you can't even imagine more of them so they could BE less agonizing and MORE FUN!! (even something as simple as only having a single boss in overbold is fine. TWO bosses are you insane!?)

like when did gamers decide they enjoy being punished or the "experience" is taking laps, wasting time, having bad hitboxs, slowly crawling your way to one of TWO check points? and to SUCH a degree to act like people who like playing and enjoying or EVEN FINISHING THEM is abhorrent?

Games by definition are meant to be challenging. In last few years casuals started talking like you that challenge = antifun. What you call offputting is the abc of gaming. Also no, nothing is confusing if you are actually thinking during the game.

[Black Captain]

Publicado originalmente por Man on Fire:

i'm sorry to do this and i know everyone will just call me a troll but what is this alien conscious amoung everyone here? you ALL seem to want these games as impenetrable, miserable experiences for the players. in fact many of you refuse to consider hey maybe the games could be made longer so they don't have to be agonizing. no you are all like "the game is made to be confusing, off putting, there can be no lives or really ANY quality of life improvements or it's be a different game/not a game at all" lets face it cause you are all admitting these games are shams!! they have no depth, to the point you can't even imagine more of them so they could BE less agonizing and MORE FUN!! (even something as simple as only having a single boss in overbold is fine. TWO bosses are you insane!?)

like when did gamers decide they enjoy being punished or the "experience" is taking laps, wasting time, having bad hitboxs, slowly crawling your way to one of TWO check points? and to SUCH a degree to act like people who like playing and enjoying or EVEN FINISHING THEM is abhorrent?

Some caret returns could have helped you here. And because of that and you lumped me into the fold, I’m out.

[Tatra]

Publicado originalmente por pi73r:

Games by definition are meant to be challenging.

There are plenty of widely-accepted definitions for the term "game", and I can't find any that use the word "challenge" or "challenging"; maybe you can find one, but there are still dozens of others descriptions of "game" that say nothing of the sort. So, no, games are not, by definition, meant to be challenging. They absolutely can be challenging, and for a given game (and gamer) that might be the appeal, but it's definitely not some inherent requirement of all games as a concept.

As far as I can tell, the word that tends to show up more than any in definitions of "game"... is "play". If games as a whole are "meant" to be anything, by definition, they're meant to be playful. Now, personally I think that's a bit restrictive... I can certainly think of excellent games where that would be a really weird adjective to apply... But, if we're talking by definition, that's what the definitions tend towards.

Ultimately, for any given game, the arbiter of what's it's "meant to be" is the development team, and it's up to them how much input they take from outside sources on deciding that. (Well, unless they have a publisher or investor waving a contract in their face, but that's another issue...) Here, only Mossmouth can decide how "challenging" UFO 50 is meant to be, or how that go on about achieving that... and only they can decide how much they wish to adjust that based on player feedback.

[Yuga-Suggah]

Publicado originalmente por Tatra:

Publicado originalmente por pi73r:

Games by definition are meant to be challenging.

There are plenty of widely-accepted definitions for the term "game", and I can't find any that use the word "challenge" or "challenging"; maybe you can find one, but there are still dozens of others descriptions of "game" that say nothing of the sort. So, no, games are not, by definition, challenging. They absolutely can be challenging, and for a given game (and gamer) that might be the appeal, but it's definitely not some inherent requirement of all games as a concept.

As far as I can tell, the word that tends to show up more than any in definitions of "game"... is "play". If games as a whole are "meant" to be anything, by definition, they're meant to be playful. Now, personally I think that's a bit restrictive... I can certainly think of excellent games where that would be a really weird adjective to apply... But, if we're talking by definition, that's what the definitions tend towards.

Ultimately, for any given game, the arbiter of what's it's "meant to be" is the development team, and it's up to them how much input they take from outside sources on deciding that. (Well, unless they have a publisher or investor waving a contract in their face, but that's another issue...)

One more thing about word salad, platitudes are also a problem.