3 minutes is not a lot of time

[sixstarrs]

usually games with speedrunning achievement goals usually feel more like an introduction to speedrunning in that game.....not this one. now I know a newly released free-to-play short getting over it Style game centering around a sex metaphor probably doesn't have the biggest audience let alone speedrunning audience...but three minutes?!?! I am honestly baffled. I can do stage 1 through 4 in two-and-a-half minutes or less and Stage 5 in 3 minutes or less. I really have no idea how to cut 2 and two-and-a-half minutes out of my run

edit I just looked at speedrun.com and out of 92 runs only two are under 3 minutes........
I'm even more baffled than before

[TypicalSkid]

Correction, this game is made up of mostly speed runners, its the type of game built for speedrunning. But yeah, thats a pretty hard achievement to get, lol

[FilthySouls]

Originally posted by sixstarrs:

usually games with speedrunning achievement goals feel more like an introduction to speedrunning in that game.....not this one.

true, speedrunning steam achievements are usually for us normies to feel good about ourselves. but not in this game

Either way I love that they even added achievements for us, real speedrunners don't rely on those anyway.

[Devvill]

Even by following the wr you need to be extremely good to reach sub 3 min. I am getting closer to it but i cannot imagine reaching sub 3 without putting in way more time than i want to.

[pwnclub]

Sub 3:30 would be a lot more reasonable imo. Still a very good challenge (can't get a time like that making many mistakes), but doesn't require hundreds upon hundreds of attempts.

[Devvill]

i agree @pwnclub

[Terranigma]

first try was around 22 minutes mostly because im a damn potato.... once i learned the tricks to move around my 2nd attempt took 7:24 minutes im sure i could shave off more time mostly from inability to get it in the hole *cough* and attempting to be fast and failing certain areas thanks to it lol

[RisqueRaptor]

I'm getting carpel tunnel attempting to get the Living Legend achievement, and I've been playing this game for the last 10 hours. This is ludicrous for the average player to obtain this achievement. My best time is 3:52.433, and I can't get any faster than that.

[TypicalSkid]

Originally posted by RisqueRaptor:

I'm getting carpel tunnel attempting to get the Living Legend achievement, and I've been playing this game for the last 10 hours. This is ludicrous for the average player to obtain this achievement. My best time is 3:52.433, and I can't get any faster than that.

I suggest you join the discord and look at the strategies speedrunners use, a lot of people will get around 4 minutes while not knowing most of the speedrun shortcuts. And if it makes you feel better, I have 50 hours on steam version already

[TypicalSkid]

but yeah the achievement is supposed to be only for the best of the best

[Lascera]

I keep these type of games in my "following"-list rather than my library due to their borderline impossible requirements for 100%ing them. Next to impossible achievements are a deal-breaker when it comes to purchases due to the time and dedication needed to "git gud" just plainly not being worth it.

There is a certain point within the growth of a gamer's library at which expectation for rewards outweighs the recipient's patience, once that point is reached gaming slowly turns more and more from a learning experience into a chore that is not fun nor entertaining. The effect is amplified when players adopt a completionist mindset, which is what the inclusion of a limited number of unlockables that serve as a proof of prowess aims to accomplish.

The virtual value of said achievements lies purely within their unlock ratio by the player base. This artificial means of having your performance compared to other players can be exploitative in nature because it forces a competitive aspect to games that many players who aren't into competing against others (me being one of them) aren't fond of. There are obviously more ways to enjoying a game than competing within the playerbase or working towards being a part of a perceived elite, with one of them being about growing on an individual level by learning and reflecting over one's past experiences, or solving problems cooperatively within the game world.

Games used to have a "share score"-function that lets one choose whether they want to claim their bragging rights online, nowadays it is automatically done for you via the "always-online"-like nature of achievements that tries to make the player perceive their score as an absolute measurement of their own skill, this should not be the case and achievements can never be such a measure as neither number of unlockables nor completion rate is a consistent measure of skill in between games (some games take more effort to 100% than others at the same achievement count). Heck not even "% of all players unlocked" is an accurate measurement as a lot of players will not have even touched certain games. Having to compare your score to other people's is akin to forcing a player to play games in a very specific way (learning the most efficient solution path that is), which is objectively less fun than allowing a wider variaty of playstyles (e.g. less sword turns, less sword contact time).

Since achievements are treated as an absolute measure of skill developers are opting to make their unlock requirements more and more challenging in an attempt to artificially increase the replay value of their title when in fact it merely serves as unenjoyable padding to the playtime. Games having to be difficult in order to be more enjoyable is a relic of an era where storage capacities were limited and pricey on the at the time only available cartrige medium, so more playtime per KB of storage equalled more value per dolar spent and subsequently more fun (albeit diluted fun) that one can have.

These restrictions aren't a reality nowadays and developers clinging to the same technique of adding replay value to their titles is not very effective, the gaming industry of today has taken on much too grand of a scale for a developer to expect that the required skill for earning each unlockable in a game should increase exponentially.

The inclusion of achievements that pad a game's lenght is exploitative towards completionists and encourages less diversity in playstyles. I therefore will never make an uninformed purchase when it comes to the replay value of games. And grindy achievements are a big tell of low replay value.

[dreki]

takes me like ten minutes on level five alone ...

[Hex: BBL Sable]

Games free to play doesn't matter, get good to get the 100%

[TOMA 1V1 GEL]

For real my man that's what I also thought, 3 minutes is genuinely way too little even for the hardest achievement possible

[Vorlianis]

Originally posted by Lascera:

I keep these type of games in my "following"-list rather than my library due to their borderline impossible requirements for 100%ing them. Next to impossible achievements are a deal-breaker when it comes to purchases due to the time and dedication needed to "git gud" just plainly not being worth it.

There is a certain point within the growth of a gamer's library at which expectation for rewards outweighs the recipient's patience, once that point is reached gaming slowly turns more and more from a learning experience into a chore that is not fun nor entertaining. The effect is amplified when players adopt a completionist mindset, which is what the inclusion of a limited number of unlockables that serve as a proof of prowess aims to accomplish.

The virtual value of said achievements lies purely within their unlock ratio by the player base. This artificial means of having your performance compared to other players can be exploitative in nature because it forces a competitive aspect to games that many players who aren't into competing against others (me being one of them) aren't fond of. There are obviously more ways to enjoying a game than competing within the playerbase or working towards being a part of a perceived elite, with one of them being about growing on an individual level by learning and reflecting over one's past experiences, or solving problems cooperatively within the game world.

Games used to have a "share score"-function that lets one choose whether they want to claim their bragging rights online, nowadays it is automatically done for you via the "always-online"-like nature of achievements that tries to make the player perceive their score as an absolute measurement of their own skill, this should not be the case and achievements can never be such a measure as neither number of unlockables nor completion rate is a consistent measure of skill in between games (some games take more effort to 100% than others at the same achievement count). Heck not even "% of all players unlocked" is an accurate measurement as a lot of players will not have even touched certain games. Having to compare your score to other people's is akin to forcing a player to play games in a very specific way (learning the most efficient solution path that is), which is objectively less fun than allowing a wider variaty of playstyles (e.g. less sword turns, less sword contact time).

Since achievements are treated as an absolute measure of skill developers are opting to make their unlock requirements more and more challenging in an attempt to artificially increase the replay value of their title when in fact it merely serves as unenjoyable padding to the playtime. Games having to be difficult in order to be more enjoyable is a relic of an era where storage capacities were limited and pricey on the at the time only available cartrige medium, so more playtime per KB of storage equalled more value per dolar spent and subsequently more fun (albeit diluted fun) that one can have.

These restrictions aren't a reality nowadays and developers clinging to the same technique of adding replay value to their titles is not very effective, the gaming industry of today has taken on much too grand of a scale for a developer to expect that the required skill for earning each unlockable in a game should increase exponentially.

The inclusion of achievements that pad a game's lenght is exploitative towards completionists and encourages less diversity in playstyles. I therefore will never make an uninformed purchase when it comes to the replay value of games. And grindy achievements are a big tell of low replay value.

It's literally free to play as part of a game jam that's also just playable on their website.
You tripping hard man.

[Morbizzz]

being honest 3 minutes make the sex joke even better