Only for console afficionados?

[Kamm]

I must admit that in the last years I was eager to one day play this game and patiently kept it in my wishlist.
But I guess I should have known that a game referencing console fps classics has ... console things going on? :/

I never had a console, but I love all the fps games on PC made for PC. So, if it only was this "one life, no health pickups, no saves" thing of bad console design, I may have accepted it as a compromise I have to make.

But I've heard that in the single player campaign (the only thing of interest to me) you have to get points by replaying levels again, so you have enough to unlock the next level. Is this true? That would be something so badly designed it would move the game directly to my ignore list.

[Yistaan]

It's true but if you fulfill all the objectives on medium difficulty then you should be fine. The problem is that medium difficulty means you'll be dying a lot if you're slightly rusty in your FPS skills (I'm not even THAT bad and died twice trying to finish the first level). Because of no quicksaves and no checkpoints, you restart at the start of a level.

To add insult to injury if you express frustration on here you'll often get "Git Gud you kid" type of comments against you. Meaning that the "social" aspect of the game if you're not good is even more humiliating than dying in the game.

Yeah, this does seem to have its basis in the old console technical setbacks but it's worse that a seemingly entire elitist culture has developed around those decades old technical deficiencies.

[Basseman]

not bad? i myself consider myself not really that good, at all overall. but on the first level on medium? like the bots aim really bad. i do not get what you do wrong to actually. die even twice on that difficulty..

[Timothy Dalton]

Never played the original two games. I just followed this project and like FPS games.

[Yistaan]

Originally posted by Basseman:

not bad? i myself consider myself not really that good, at all overall. but on the first level on medium? like the bots aim really bad. i do not get what you do wrong to actually. die even twice on that difficulty..

I've beaten Heretic, Wolfenstein 3D, and the entire campaign of Star Wars: Battlefront 2 on the default difficulty. The only difference between those games and this is that you were allowed to save (and in the case of Battlefront 2, it has checkpoints).

You're not diminishing the claim that removing checkpoints/saves artificially enhances difficulty. During Goldeneye it was necessary. Now it's not really, even if save anywhere was too hard to program, checkpoints shouldn't have been. Considering the FPS games that I have beaten, it proves my point that removing checkpoints/saves artificially enhances difficulty and Heretic, Wolfenstein, and Battlefront managed to be successful games without such an artificial limitation.

[Kamm]

Originally posted by Yistaan:

To add insult to injury if you express frustration on here you'll often get "Git Gud you kid" type of comments against you. [...]

Yeah, I've seen that. :D
There are different player types, playing the same game for entire different reasons and motivations. To my understanding the "git gut" fraction essentially play games to boost their ego, because they constantly have to prove to themselves and others that they are ... good, indeed, and they surely like to brag about it. I don't think this behavior speaks too much of a healthy relationship to themselves and the world they're in, so I don't get affected when they call me names or try to insult me.

I play games for completely different reasons. I like to explore and get lost in these skillfully made up worlds, revel in the sights and sounds. Call it digital sightseeing. Of course, a little bit of challenge only adds up to it. Some difficulty can be nice - for example I do love Dark Souls - but I don't like to be punished for being not so good at games sometimes, because I'm not a masochist.

Imagine in Doom, you get to the level exit, and some message pops up: "Well done, but you've missed to kill three pinkys with the chainsaw to get enough points. Play the level again!"
This would have significantly worsen the game, like from an all time classic to something with really, really stupid design decisions. Why put in something so gamey and arcady in something trying to be immersive? It's not a 70s arcade anymore, we've evolved from that! And at least for me this would have been a deal breaker.
Like in this game, if such a system really exists.

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by Kamm:

Originally posted by Yistaan:

To add insult to injury if you express frustration on here you'll often get "Git Gud you kid" type of comments against you. [...]

Yeah, I've seen that. :D
There are different player types, playing the same game for entire different reasons and motivations. To my understanding the "git gut" fraction essentially play games to boost their ego, because they constantly have to prove to themselves and others that they are ... good, indeed, and they surely like to brag about it. I don't think this behavior speaks too much of a healthy relationship to themselves and the world they're in, so I don't get affected when they call me names or try to insult me.

I imagined that people saying it unironically were mostly teens or young adults back when Dark Souls was popular (despite harder indie games also existing yet they ignored them because it was less popular).

[Mifdy]

The thing is, the levels are pretty much all less than 10 minutes long. There are games out there with checkpoints spaced further than 10 minutes apart.

[AlexM]

The game is trying to capture a specific type of tension present in those old games- one life to do all this stuff within a time limit. It is a unique tension that would be completely deflated with saves or checkpoints. Honestly, that type of game feel and experience is the entire point of this game. There are so many other games with checkpoints, it may be better for you to go play them instead of dismissing design decisions in this game because you don't enjoy them.

[Basseman]

Originally posted by Yistaan:

Originally posted by Basseman:

not bad? i myself consider myself not really that good, at all overall. but on the first level on medium? like the bots aim really bad. i do not get what you do wrong to actually. die even twice on that difficulty..

I've beaten Heretic, Wolfenstein 3D, and the entire campaign of Star Wars: Battlefront 2 on the default difficulty. The only difference between those games and this is that you were allowed to save (and in the case of Battlefront 2, it has checkpoints).

You're not diminishing the claim that removing checkpoints/saves artificially enhances difficulty. During Goldeneye it was necessary. Now it's not really, even if save anywhere was too hard to program, checkpoints shouldn't have been. Considering the FPS games that I have beaten, it proves my point that removing checkpoints/saves artificially enhances difficulty and Heretic, Wolfenstein, and Battlefront managed to be successful games without such an artificial limitation.

but this game don´t even play like those fps, at all and as already mentioned. These levels are not long at all. like the par time on the first lvl is like 1min 30 second. To just quicksave basically take longer time then that.. all games must not play the same regardless.

[Yistaan]

Originally posted by AlexM:

The game is trying to capture a specific type of tension present in those old games- one life to do all this stuff within a time limit. It is a unique tension that would be completely deflated with saves or checkpoints. Honestly, that type of game feel and experience is the entire point of this game. There are so many other games with checkpoints, it may be better for you to go play them instead of dismissing design decisions in this game because you don't enjoy them.

It's basically trying to recapture an experience from 30 years ago you're saying, because most people who've played Goldeneye now on Switch Online have the convenience of save states (for that matter, I don't see Nintendo having all this pushback for allowing save states in Goldeneye on Switch Online--the way some here go on adding save states here would've had Nintendo facing a boycott and pushed into bankruptcy immediately)

[Kamm]

Originally posted by Mifdy:

The thing is, the levels are pretty much all less than 10 minutes long. There are games out there with checkpoints spaced further than 10 minutes apart.

I really don't like repetition in narrative games - for me it destroys the feeling of playing something connected and immersive, with a development from a starting point to an end. Even when grinding the same enemies in JRPGs I'm progressing in some ways, not playing the exact thing again. Being forced to do so feels like a cheap way to lengthen the play time.

Playing the same 10 minutes again because I was bad and unobservant may be okay if it happens occasional. But playing the same 10 minutes again because I don't have enough points? I can't think of something like this other than a really bad design choice, and I'm completely clueless why someone should put something so bad in a game.

Additionaly, I'm an explorer. 10 minute levels for others can be easily 30 minutes for me.

[Ikagura]

Originally posted by AlexM:

The game is trying to capture a specific type of tension present in those old games- one life to do all this stuff within a time limit. It is a unique tension that would be completely deflated with saves or checkpoints. Honestly, that type of game feel and experience is the entire point of this game. There are so many other games with checkpoints, it may be better for you to go play them instead of dismissing design decisions in this game because you don't enjoy them.

Games like Quake had some tension and were challenging while still having quicksave possible.

[Kamm]

Originally posted by AlexM:

The game is trying to capture a specific type of tension present in those old games- one life to do all this stuff within a time limit. It is a unique tension that would be completely deflated with saves or checkpoints. Honestly, that type of game feel and experience is the entire point of this game. There are so many other games with checkpoints, it may be better for you to go play them instead of dismissing design decisions in this game because you don't enjoy them.

Thank you, this actually helps. :) I absolutely despise time limits, with the exception of some timed sequences like in "Ori and the Blind Forest".

Yeah, I don't think this is a game for me. Happy gaming for everyone who vibes with it! :)

[Yistaan]

Originally posted by Kamm:

Originally posted by Mifdy:

The thing is, the levels are pretty much all less than 10 minutes long. There are games out there with checkpoints spaced further than 10 minutes apart.

I really don't like repetition in narrative games - for me it destroys the feeling of playing something connected and immersive, with a development from a starting point to an end. Even when grinding the same enemies in JRPGs I'm progressing in some ways, not playing the exact thing again. Being forced to do so feels like a cheap way to lengthen the play time.

Playing the same 10 minutes again because I was bad and unobservant may be okay if it happens occasional. But playing the same 10 minutes again because I don't have enough points? I can't think of something like this other than a really bad design choice, and I'm completely clueless why someone should put something so bad in a game.

Additionaly, I'm an explorer. 10 minute levels for others can be easily 30 minutes for me.

Exactly. I pointed this out in the other thread. It seems the people enjoying this game by winning based on memorization from past Agent 64 deaths are basically playing a memorization/reflex game and have tossed out any semblance of "role-playing" Agent 64 (John Walter, I'll just call him Agent 64 for convenience)

Agent 64 is not realistically going to have all the enemy locations memorized. Winning based on memorization of past character deaths pulls you out of the story because if the only way to win a level is to die repeatedly, then basically this is just a roguelike with an FPS perspective. Which is fine, but maybe the rogue-like tag should be added because it confuses gamers with a background in PC FPS games like Wolfenstein, Heretic, Battlefront, etc.

[Kamm]

Originally posted by Ikagura:

Games like Quake had some tension and were challenging while still having quicksave possible.

I'd even say games like Doom, Quake, System Shock, Undying, RTCW, F.E.A.R. and countless others had far more tension than any of these console shooters, at least from what I have seen of them from youtube videos.

Again, player types. I'd say so because of intrinsic values like atmosphere and level/world design. Having fear of being forced to replay the same thing in case of failure is a extrinsic form of tension - and at least for my taste, a far worse form of tension I really don't like.