Support NeoGAF

[Chainsawkitten]

How often does that happen for you in games?

The latest where I used a guide was actually Super Metroid which I played recently. That was due to an inconsistency in the design, namely there's an x-ray beam which shows you where you can open hidden passages with missiles or power bombs etc. This x-ray beam works in every single location in the entire game except for one place. At one point you're supposed to power bomb a glass tube. The puzzle itself is fairly simple, the problem is that the x-ray beam, in this instance only, doesn't show that it's power bomb-able. So I think "hmm, this looks like something I could power bomb. Hold on. I shouldn't waste a power bomb unnecessarily, I'll use the x-ray beam to check it. Huh. Turns out I can't power bomb it. Oh well." And then I roam around the game for hours until finally consulting a walkthrough that says I should just power bomb it. If I wouldn't have gotten the x-ray beam I wouldn't have gotten stuck.

I would say some of the Metroid games are actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about with just testing your patience. Now, I do like the Metroid games (well, most of them, not the first two), but some of the design definitely seems flawed to me. Finding hidden passages is seldomly a matter of connecting the dots "hmm, this looks like it could be some kind of secret". It's often a place where there's absolutely no discernible difference between that block and every single other block in the game, until you've tried to morph ball bomb it. So you end up having to morph ball bomb (or x-ray beam once you get that) every single block in the game methodically. That's not a challenge, that's trial and error, since there is no way for you to deduce the answer with logic, you just have to try everything.

 

[Valjean Lafitte]

Metroid, on the other hand, has a lot of samey level design and is often so large that it's not testing your mind, it's testing your patience.

And your skills! While you see that samey level design as a fault, I see it as not only a plus, but a deliberate feature of the game. Binstar isn't so vast that you should get lost at the beginning of your game; I often hear people complain about the twin corridors in Brinstar, how they're exactly the same. But the truth is besides the obvious palette difference, they have very different layouts that are not so difficult to remember. I have never drawn nor consulted a map while playing Metroid and yet I can tell you exactly where the Bombs and the Hi-Jump Boots are in Brinstar. It's in Norfair and Tourain that the designers clearly meant for you to get lost, and I believe that making so many similar-looking rooms is an ingenious way of doing that, and forces you to pay attention to minute details such as enemy and item placement in order to find your way out.

Maybe this type of game does appeal to only one type of person, but still, I can't remember anyone complaining about it back in the day. At any rate, the fact that there are so many gamers now who don't see the fun in getting lost doesn't mean that this sort of game shouldn't still be made.

 

[farisr]

When the graphics/art is so badly done that you can't tell a door from a wall decoration, and this wasn't purposely done to be a puzzle/guess how to get to location B type deal, not to mention, the game not even once had you previously open a door in the past few hours (ever since starting the game), that section was badly made for sure.

 

[CecilRousso]

While great linear levels will show you visual clues, it's a bit harder to guide the player when you have a giant open world. But why would you want to guide the player if you gave them a huge playground to explore? That would be like taking a kid to the park and having them only go on the slide. There's no reason to try to apply linear level techniques in an open-world unless its during the introduction part of the game when they teach the player on how to play the game.

Precisely. I don't get people who buy games like Skyrim and then complain about the game not steering them in the right direction all the time. Any direction whatsoever is the right direction.

 

[Aβydoς]

I'm playing Metroid Prime. Haven't felt like this in a long time. Have to pay attention to my environment, look for stuff. Constantly getting lost. I love it.

Metroid Prime is pure perfection. You get lost sure but rarely for more than a few minutes, then you remember that there was that door you couldn't open and now you can. That I can appreciate.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

And your skills! While you see that samey level design as a fault, I see it as not only a plus, but a deliberate feature of the game. Binstar isn't so vast that you should get lost at the beginning of your game; I often hear people complain about the twin corridors in Brinstar, how they're exactly the same. But the truth is besides the obvious palette difference, they have very different layouts that are not so difficult to remember. I have never drawn nor consulted a map while playing Metroid and yet I can tell you exactly where the Bombs and the Hi-Jump Boots are in Brinstar. It's in Norfair and Tourain that the designers clearly meant for you to get lost, and I believe that making so many similar-looking rooms is an ingenious way of doing that, and forces you to pay attention to minute details such as enemy and item placement in order to find your way out.

Maybe this type of game does appeal to only one type of person, but still, I can't remember anyone complaining about it back in the day. At any rate, the fact that there are so many gamers now who don't see the fun in getting lost doesn't mean that this sort of game shouldn't still be made.

I'm not saying it only appeals to one person. It's just a difference in taste, and there's a multitude of tastes. My dad really likes games like Myst where you figure out a big puzzle. He doesn't like games that require skill. So while I would categorize him as a gamer that likes to get lost or stuck, there's no question that Zelda or Metroid wouldn't be any fun to him. Some games from "back in the day" expect both, and it's not out of the question to see how that can limit the amount of satisfied gamers.

I'm not saying Metroid is a bad game, I'm just explaining why the difficulty in the game isn't satisfying to me. I don't think that's testing my skill at all - it's no question I could go find the items, I just don't want to. That's not to say the game is bad! I still played it and found value in the experience. I prefer Super Metroid though - that's a type of lost/stuck that I find fun on its own terms because I can go explore and experiment, not just because the game beat me black and blue and now I have to find some solace in defeating it, somehow. It doesn't matter how deliberate the design was - I don't like it. I don't find it fun.

I'm also not saying that they shouldn't make games where you get lost. The only thing I've ever said in this thread is this: not liking games where you get stuck or lost doesn't make you less of a gamer, or ignorant, or shallow, or any other derogatory term that's been thrown around. Everything about that attitude can fuck right off.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Actually all mechanics are explained in the witcher 2 and crafting is completely optional (and while simple, is pretty cumbersome). Most quests have a way point and those that don't have a detailed explanation in the quest log.

I played the 360 version and felt lost. I didn't get too far into it and stopped at a task that had no waypoint. Crafting was a complete mystery to me.

While RPGs aren't my most played genre, in the 30+ years I've been gaming I've played a good number of them. Talking to npcs is not a problem nor is reading or making my own maps (when I was younger).

 

[Dr. Buni]

Nostalgia colors it up a little bit but yeah, being stuck sucked always..

My thoughts exactly. Getting stuck trying to figure out where to go in a game is not fun. It never was and it never will be.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I hate games where you can push a button and it shows you a line you have to follow. Dead Space is the worst offender, wtf. An atmospheric space survival horror? More like: follow this line and beware of the jumpscares around each corner thxbye.

So don't press it? It's an option at the players disposal, nobody is forcing you to use it.

 

[Dr. Buni]

By going mainstream gaming has attracted a lot of people who didn't like games for what they originally represented. Now sadly these people have to be catered for, turning a lot of games into inoffensive generic messes where challenge and having your intellect respected are now seen as bad design (by people who don't know what they're talking about).

"Muh challenge"

Friendly reminder that games aren't about being challenged and not everyone wants and enjoy "challenge" in their games.

 

[CecilRousso]

Friendly reminder that games aren't about being challenged

They're not?

 

[Chainsawkitten]

They're not?

They can be, but they can also be about a million different things. And they're all equally valid.

 

[Atomski]

I feel like it became a negative thing for many because a lot of gamers want a streamlined story they can just easily follow along with. Its just like how many people these days play games on easy just so they can quickly digest the games story.

To me it makes no damn sense at all because 99.9% of game stories are garbage and laughably bad.

 

[DjRalford]

I can remember playing games where you had to remember and even write down clues, combinations etc, and if you didn't you wouldn't get further when the time came to need the information.

Too much hand holding and you may as well be watching a movie

 

[L Thammy]

A lot of old NES JRPGs would guide you through the very beginning of the game, then give you an open world to explore with no direction. The problem was that you needed to go someplace specific to progress, but you didn't even have the faintest idea of what that place was, so you'd just end up wandering around aimlessly. If you didn't happen to wander into the right place you waste your time, don't progress, and don't really gain anything of note. It was terrible.

I think there's an optimum area between totally closed and totally open that works. One extreme being bad doesn't make the other extreme any better.

 

[Calibus]

I'll echo that it depends on the game.

Reminds me of when I got lost in Minecraft shortly after I started playing it a few years ago. I had decided to explore a bit away from my home base and ended up spending hours upon hours trying to retrace my steps (I was pretty high character level and had a lot of useful stuff so I didn't want to just suicide to respawn). Finally I had the realization that since the game was based on an X/Y coordinate system, and I hadn't built my base that far away from my spawn point, all I had to do was start making my way back to point 0,0. Sure enough, as the numbers got lower, I found my base again.

So in that case, it started out as a bad thing but ended up teaching me a useful mechanic for the game.

 

[Enco]

If I'm not having fun then yes it's bad.

 

[oneils]

I'm casual as fuck when it comes to gaming. I game as a distraction or to kill time. I will try out any kind of game. But I do tend see getting "stuck" as annoying rather than as a fun challenge. I just don't see gaming from that point of view.

But, that doesn't mean games shouldn't have these challenges. I will still play those types of games, and get annoyed, but I try to not pretend that the game sucks for it.

 

[Jacksinthe]

If you're lost in an area in a game, and the game is giving you zero indication of what to do, the game has fucked up.

Perhaps you are just so fixated on the end result that you never paid attention to the clues which told you how NOT to get stuck?

Now here you are. Not the game's fault in this scenario.

 

[L Thammy]

Perhaps you are just so fixated on the end result that you never paid attention to the clues which told you how NOT to get stuck?

Now here you are. Not the game's fault in this scenario.

Why are you assuming the games have clues in this hypothetical scenario? Clues aren't just magically there.

 

[Jacksinthe]

Why are you assuming the games have clues in this hypothetical scenario? Clues aren't just magically there.

Because Jack assumes automatically getting stuck is the game's fault. I presented a different scenario.

Is that not allowed on GAF?

 

[Dire]

http://www.p4rgaming.com/monkeys-now-make-up-60-percent-of-focus-test-groups-for-new-video-games/

...

What was once a rare practice in the video game industry is now the leading and best method. Monkeys now officially make up over half of all focus testers when creating new video games.typicalcodplayerBack in the early 1990s, only one or two monkeys would be used in groups of around 30 to test new video game ideas and concepts. As people became less and less reliable, companies turned to using more monkeys in an effort to create better video games.

“What we’ve discovered is that the more a monkey enjoys a video game, the larger the audience will be,” remarked Activision Blizzard CEO Robert Kotick, “People are sometimes reserved and don’t express how they truly feel about a video game. Monkeys go wild for whatever pleases them. We show an explosion and we get such a great response. It boosts our self-esteem.”

...

It's a joke about a serious issue. Games are now in effect designed by committees, but committees with no background whatsoever in game design. Companies compile their product and then extensively tweak it through focus groups, usability testing and all these other nice demographic analysis buzzwords that tend to be highly geared towards favoring well established gameplay paired with minimal challenge and immediate reward systems.

The fact that games like League of Legends, and its pushing towards 80million players a month, would be a complete disaster were one to ask these sort of groups doesn't seem to bother the suits behind this focus group mentality in the least for some reason that I don't really understand. Or going the other direction - games that are clearly the result of extensive focus and usability tests, like Titanfall, aren't exactly setting the world on fire with their sales or even their post-launch window reception. Like most industries that end up collapsing the collapse starts not just with a decline but a decline paired with a complete lack of acceptance of any responsibility. We're not losing customers because they're growing dissatisfied with our products or because we may be doing anything less than optimally - we're losing customers because of mobile and it's completely out of our control! Let's go make mobile games!! What's selling well there...?

 

[L Thammy]

Because Jack assumes automatically getting stuck is the game's fault. I presented a different scenario.

Is that not allowed on GAF?

I didn't say it wasn't allowed. But there's no reason to assume it's not the game's fault, either.

What's more, Jack specifically said "the game is giving you zero indication of what to do".

 

[Bluforce]

I'm lost in FEZ.

 

[Curufinwe]

I was stuck for weeks in TR3 back in 1998 when I didn't have internet access because I couldn't find the coin slot.

 

[Jacksinthe]

I didn't say it wasn't allowed. But there's no reason to assume it's not the game's fault, either.

So when I said "Not the game's fault in this scenario", referring to what I just posted, is that not explicitly stating I gave a different example and not putting the blame on Jack?

I made a clear differentiation.

Edit for your edit:

What's more, Jack specifically said "the game is giving you zero indication of what to do".

Let's look:

If you're lost in an area in a game, and the game is giving you zero indication of what to do

He stated you were lost first and the game didn't offer help. My scenario (which I made sure to indicate was not his) states the clues were given before being lost/stuck/clueless. I don't understand what is your beef, man. It's quite literal what he said and I said.

 

[CecilRousso]

They can be, but they can also be about a million different things. And they're all equally valid.

Yes, I know that there are of course more things like games focusing on choices to present an interactive narratives and there are simulators, but there most at least be something that motivates why player interaction is at all neccessary in the project.

If someone asks me what the most important factor in a game is, I would say that challenge is the one.

If it's about exploration, there must be some kind of challenge to see everything.
If it's about combat, there must be some kind of challenge to win the battles.
If it's about puzzles, they must be somewhat challenging.
If it's a simulator, there must be some kind of challenge to master whatever it's simulating.
If it's an interactive novel, like The Wolf Among Us, there must at least be choices that I you want to think about.

Otherwise, what's the point of wasting the time with the game?

Challenges doesn't have always have to be hardcore ones, but they should be there in some form. And when they are, there will always be someone who gets stuck.

And yes, anyone who wants can ignore these opinions I have.

 

[inm8num2]

I'm lost in FEZ.

I got lost quite a few times in that one. The map can at least give you a sense of where you are, but finding the right door/path is another matter.

 

[L Thammy]

He stated you were lost first and the game didn't offer help.

"Zero indication of what to do" suggests that it isn't giving you anything. Not even a lack of explicit direction, but also a lack of even vague instruction. In the scenario you posed, that problem is not there, so I do agree that the conclusion would be different... but I don't think that the conclusion being different for a different problem is particular insightful.

I didn't really mean to single you out, there were a few posts similar to yours earlier.

 

[Jawmuncher]

I definitely don't enjoy getting lost or stuck in a game.
Thus why i'll use a guide if I need it. Not like i'm taking away from someone else's game when I do that. I'll have fun the way I want to have fun.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Yes, I know that there are of course more things like games focusing on choices to present an interactive narratives and there are simulators, but there most at least be something that motivates why player interaction is at all neccessary in the project.

If someone asks me what the most important factor in a game is, I would say that challenge is the one.

If it's about exploration, there must be some kind of challenge to see everything.
If it's about combat, there must be some kind of challenge to win the battles.
If it's about puzzles, they must be somewhat challenging.
If it's a simulator, there must be some kind of challenge to master whatever it's simulating.
If it's an interactive novel, like The Wolf Among Us, there must at least be choices that I you want to think about.

Otherwise, what's the point of wasting the time with the game?

Challenges doesn't have always have to be hardcore ones, but they should be there in some form. And when they are, there will always be someone who gets stuck.

And yes, anyone who wants can ignore these opinions I have.

I'm a programmer so I'm usually pushing my brain fairly hard. Getting mentally stuck is literally my job. I love it. But when it comes to playing games? Erm, not so much. Game mechanics can be satisfying without being difficult. I find algebra pretty easy, but I still like to do it. Sudoku is fun when you're solving the easier puzzles. It's brain exercise that's basically going for a light jog. It's relaxing and entertaining in a deep and enjoyable way.

Like Resident Evil 4. The game was constantly throwing new, different enemies at me, which was fun, but it never got frustrating. That's because the core mechanics of the game were satisfying in their own right - it's still fun to me to play the opening village part of the game even though I can blow through it no problem. The guns are fun to shoot with, corralling the zombies through the town, finding choke points and ripping off a grenade. Not difficult, but super gratifying.

There's a wide variety of games I enjoy. Arcade racing games or arena shooters are two of them I enjoy - not in a competitive or intense way, but because the game mechanics are just fun to use. I'll be damned if getting the perfect drift doesn't put a smile on my face.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I'd say that they're two very different categories, OP. Getting stuck on a puzzle or something is generally fine (that's kind of the point of puzzles, after all), but getting lost is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. Consider what has to happen for you to get lost:

-The game must have fairly same-y environments
-The game must lack a decent map (fairly standard piece of the toolset)
-The game must lack any sort of visual or auditor indicator pointing out the way to go.

If a game has all three of these be true, I'd say it's fair to call it a consequence of bad game design.

 

[Jacksinthe]

"Zero indication of what to do" suggests that it isn't giving you anything. Not even a lack of explicit direction, but also a lack of even vague instruction. In the scenario you posed, that problem is not there, so I do agree that the conclusion would be different... but I don't think that the conclusion being different for a different problem is particular insightful.

I didn't really mean to single you out, there were a few posts similar to yours earlier.

I still don't understand. I made a different point using Jack's original post as a basis for mine and was clear in that distinction. How is this not allowed and why are you going on about his post when, again, I made a clear distinction? How does that affect his post?

Again, if I'm not allowed to post alternative points of view, feel free to notify a moderator and they can tell me to keep my lips shut and follow the status quo, I guess.

Cheers.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

If you're lost in an area in a game, and the game is giving you zero indication of what to do, the game has fucked up.

You should play some old games. The original Legend of Zelda gave no indication of where and how to get into some of the dungeons. Now I wouldn't have the patience for a game like that but back then I enjoyed every second of it

 

[semiconscious]

There are two kinds of getting stuck, there is "oh damn I'm such an idiot for not having noticed this obvious clue earlier / I'm such a scrub for having struggled with this for so long" and there's "how in the blue hell were I ever supposed to know this?!"

The first kind is/was great, IMO, as it usually results simply from the game being demanding from the player. And yeah, I wish more modern games had any of that these days.

The second is a waste of the player's time and usually ends with me checking a walkthrough online...

agreed. i'm thinking the problem nowadays is sorta a 'chicken or egg' type thing: it's both many developers & many gamers being unable to distinguish between these 2, the end result being hand-holding by default...

 

[Scrabble]

Getting lost in "90's style maze like level design" was never fun. If there's one thing I'm glad I don't have to deal with anymore, it's fucking mazes as level design. Thank god for Half Life. Though people will always que that "doom level vs modern level" image, there should be a nice equal ground between "super linear hallway cutscene to cutscene" vs "look how complex and confusing this maze level is."

 

[DrDrizzay101]

Sometimes it's a problem due to poor game design, but other times getting stuck is a great part of the experience and furthers the tone, setting, and mood. It works perfectly for something like Super Metroid and mimics the feeling of being isolated on an alien planet; it puts you in the mindset of the character. The Swapper was a good example of this: they didn't hold your hand for anything, and, even if you got stuck on a tough puzzle, you always felt like the solution was still within reach.

 

[mclem]

I think the *big* problem is that, for the player, it's impossible to distinguish between "Stuck because you've missed/haven't figured out what to do next" and "Stuck because the game has failed to give you adequate information on what to do next". Both are frustrating, but the first is a challenge for the player to solve, wheras the latter requires either a guide or luck.

The risk, though - and it's a trap I've fallen into - is that if you can't tell between the two of them, the average player will assume it's the latter. You need to have a lot of trust in a game to consider the possibility that the problem lies with you, and many games simply fail to earn that faith. And as soon as a player looks at a guide once, the path's open for them to keep looking, potentially ruining later puzzles even before they've given them proper consideration.

From a game design point of view... do you *assume* that a player will trust you? It's a brave move; it might produce better games, but it also produces *riskier* games. Not least because, of course, you as the designer may have judged your clues wrong, they might be much harder than intended (it's very difficult to step back and judge a problem you've created objectively, since you'll inherently already know the solution). It's a much safer option to err on the side of caution and be a bit too obvious.

 

[Astral]

You mean the thing which is literally covered with up and down pointers that you press up & down to operate? If only the sadistic bastards had given us some sort of clue.

They look like freaking diamonds to me. They couldn't put actual arrows?

Spoiler

I've never even played this game

 

[RoadHazard]

Depends. Sometimes it can feel really unfair. But if you're just being impatient, not paying attention, mashing through dialogue, etc, and then have no idea what to do, then you fucking deserve to be lost. Let's plays where people do this infuriate me to no end.

 

[Pizza]

I used to get stuck waaaaay more in my younger years of gaming. But now I like to read every single thing npcs say, and Im also much more attentive and patient. When ocarina of time first came out my friend let me play it, I dont remember even getting as far as hyrule castle before getting lost for hours and giving up.

But now Im 21 and my gf finally convinced me to play it (it helped that she wanted to play it with me, and that its her favorite game) so i just finished playing the whole game, and I think we only got stuck enough to consult a guide like, once? I cant remember where though. I was intent on not using a guide the whole game, which made it that much better to me, i felt like I beat it instead of getting a paint-by-numbers story. Majoras Mask seems like itll be much tougher though, which is real exciting.


Some games have awful design that leaves you lost, other times its player error. If the game sucks then i find getting stuck incredibly frustrating, i also find it frustrating if its my fault, but then i feel like i accomplished something when i figure it out, or like a dope when i check a guide and go "oh, yeah that makes sense"

 

[Griss]

All depends on the game, if you're truly lost and confused (Thief 2014's hub city for example) it's bad level design and it's nothing but frustrating. If you feel like you're on an adventure (Dragon's Dogma, Metroid) it's wonderful.

Exactly this. Killzone Shadow Fall was a brilliant example of 'bad lost'. There was basically nothing to find off the beaten track, so no reason to explore. However you'd get constantly lost all the time, when you just wanted to find and shoot some bad guys.

 

[SpongeBob NoPants]

They look like freaking diamonds to me. They couldn't put actual arrows?

Spoiler

I've never even played this game

Well, yeah, it would have been even clearer, although it probably would have been less visually appealing. I guess they just felt that most people would be familiar with the up and down triangle symbols that are commonly used on elevator call buttons.

 

[Gsnap]

Hmmm. Depends on the type of game I guess. No real reason to have players get stuck on something like god of war. It's all about combat. They put you in a room and have you kill everything. Why have the rooms connect in weird ways or allow the player to get too stuck? It's not like the puzzle solving or traversal in those games were really that fun. They can be good for pacing, but no need to make them so tough that players are stuck.

But then there's games like dark souls or Zelda or earthbound. Those games are specifically trying to take the player on a grand adventure. And adventures aren't all candy and flowers. Sometimes you gotta deal with hardship. Sometimes you gotta not know what to do right away. Sometimes you gotta get lost.

In general I'd say I'm against games that offer constant flow, though. It's like junk food to me. Sometimes you gotta eat your vegetables. Pacing is good. In some games, all you need for pacing is to have the characters walk through the woods on the way to their next destination. In some games all you need is a cutscenes. In some games, well, you need to get lost.

 

[Skilletor]

The latest where I used a guide was actually Super Metroid which I played recently. That was due to an inconsistency in the design, namely there's an x-ray beam which shows you where you can open hidden passages with missiles or power bombs etc. This x-ray beam works in every single location in the entire game except for one place. At one point you're supposed to power bomb a glass tube. The puzzle itself is fairly simple, the problem is that the x-ray beam, in this instance only, doesn't show that it's power bomb-able. So I think "hmm, this looks like something I could power bomb. Hold on. I shouldn't waste a power bomb unnecessarily, I'll use the x-ray beam to check it. Huh. Turns out I can't power bomb it. Oh well." And then I roam around the game for hours until finally consulting a walkthrough that says I should just power bomb it. If I wouldn't have gotten the x-ray beam I wouldn't have gotten stuck.

I would say some of the Metroid games are actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about with just testing your patience. Now, I do like the Metroid games (well, most of them, not the first two), but some of the design definitely seems flawed to me. Finding hidden passages is seldomly a matter of connecting the dots "hmm, this looks like it could be some kind of secret". It's often a place where there's absolutely no discernible difference between that block and every single other block in the game, until you've tried to morph ball bomb it. So you end up having to morph ball bomb (or x-ray beam once you get that) every single block in the game methodically. That's not a challenge, that's trial and error, since there is no way for you to deduce the answer with logic, you just have to try everything.

I haven't played Super Metroid in awhile, but isn't that single glass tube full of cracks?

 

[Gsnap]

I haven't played Super Metroid in awhile, but isn't that single glass tube full of cracks?

If I remember correctly, there's a similar glass tube that is already broken that the player has seen a few times already, giving them the clue that the glass can break. And when you are in the tube and check your map you can see that the map connects in a certain way, indicating that you should be able to be outside of the tube in that room.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I haven't played Super Metroid in awhile, but isn't that single glass tube full of cracks?

Once you've laid the power bomb it cracks and then breaks. Again, the problem there wasn't that I didn't realize you were supposed to lay a power bomb. The problem was that I realized it, but then the game told me not to (since every time up until that point in the game (and every time after it), if you could power bomb it, it showed up on the x-ray beam but this time it didn't).

 

[SkeptiMism]

If I'm not having fun then yes it's bad.

You not having fun doesn't automatically make a game bad though (I hope this would be obvious, but some people actually seem to think that). Not every game is for everyone.

 

[Skilletor]

Once you've laid the power bomb it cracks and then breaks. Again, the problem there wasn't that I didn't realize you were supposed to lay a power bomb. The problem was that I realized it, but then the game told me not to (since every time up until that point in the game (and every time after it), if you could power bomb it, it showed up on the x-ray beam but this time it didn't).

The x-ray beam only works on blocks, though. There's nothing to x-ray through on glass.

I dunno...I played Super Metroid when I was 13 and never had to consult a guide.

If I remember correctly, there's a similar glass tube that is already broken that the player has seen a few times already, giving them the clue that the glass can break. And when you are in the tube and check your map you can see that the map connects in a certain way, indicating that you should be able to be outside of the tube in that room.

Ah, that was it. I remember there being some clue.

 

[nkarafo]

Once you've laid the power bomb it cracks and then breaks. Again, the problem there wasn't that I didn't realize you were supposed to lay a power bomb. The problem was that I realized it, but then the game told me not to (since every time up until that point in the game (and every time after it), if you could power bomb it, it showed up on the x-ray beam but this time it didn't).

I guess the glass tube didn't have a surface thick enough for these x-ray indicators that were basically fat tiles/blocks. Personally, the moment i got into that tube i tried to smash it with everything i had, even though i didn't have the power bombs yet... The moment i got the power bombs first thing that came to mind was this glass tube. It was a glass tube, begging you to smash it, despite any clues or an x-ray indicator.