Support NeoGAF

[Risette]

nor am I going to make it some watered down easysauce game just for "broader appeal."

This is exactly what you'll get if you have infinite lives in your game, though. There's no way around it -- infinite lives, checkpoints, etc are poison.

I recommend reading this review of Super Meat Boy and this review of VVVVVV to understand why. They do not belong in the type of game you seek to make, I believe.

Also, if you're seeking to make an arcade style game in particular, I also recommend reading this to help you further understand the essence of arcade gaming.

 

[Tain]

Out of curiosity, how would you prefer it to be?

As justjustin said, the tension and specific type of progression that you get from limited lives with a basic extend system is awesome to me, and the ideal length of the game would entirely depend on how the retry structure works. A short (30-45 minutes) playtime with limited lives is what I'd be looking for from a game like this.

It's definitely divisive, though. Players who want an easier game wouldn't want something that only lasts 30 minutes, and 1CC people probably wouldn't want to bother with a 3+ hour game (since longer titles rarely hit the level of focus and variety present in arcade greats like Metal Slug).

 

[Rubikant]

This is exactly what you'll get if you have infinite lives in your game, though. There's no way around it -- infinite lives, checkpoints, etc are poison.

I recommend reading this review of Super Meat Boy and this review of VVVVVV to understand why. They do not belong in the type of game you seek to make, I believe.

Also, if you're seeking to make an arcade style game in particular, I also recommend reading this to help you further understand the essence of arcade gaming.

Thanks for the links!

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

Pizzaroll mentioned Insomnia.ac? My day is complete. We are two hardcore brothas, Pizza.

 

[luka]

This is exactly what you'll get if you have infinite lives in your game, though. There's no way around it -- infinite lives, checkpoints, etc are poison.

I recommend reading this review of Super Meat Boy and this review of VVVVVV to understand why. They do not belong in the type of game you seek to make, I believe.

Also, if you're seeking to make an arcade style game in particular, I also recommend reading this to help you further understand the essence of arcade gaming.

thank you. every time someone brings up lives/continues as an anachronism i want to have a fit. i'm glad to see there's a good deal of rational opinions in this thread at least.

developers! if you want your games to have meaningful challenges, there must be meaningful punishment for failure! encourage methodical prolonged play over endless respawns!

 

[wonzo]

This is exactly what you'll get if you have infinite lives in your game, though. There's no way around it -- infinite lives, checkpoints, etc are poison.

I recommend reading this review of Super Meat Boy and this review of VVVVVV to understand why. They do not belong in the type of game you seek to make, I believe.

Also, if you're seeking to make an arcade style game in particular, I also recommend reading this to help you further understand the essence of arcade gaming.

Yeah, these pretty much perfectly sum up my opinion on infinite lives.

 

[Risette]

Pizzaroll mentioned Insomnia.ac? My day is complete. We are two hardcore brothas, Pizza.

Arcade Culture is a life changing article. Like, seriously. It changed the way I viewed and played videogames permanently.

 

[Luigiv]

What the fuck is happening in this thread? Who let in all the retards?

Lets lay down a ground rule here:

Finite live do nothing to make a game any more difficult. All they do is make them more punishing. Punishment =/= Difficulty.

If you're a masochist and want a more punishing game, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But argue your damn arguments right, don't make up misinformed bullshit that changes the context of your argument.

Please, Crazy Viking Studios, do not fall for the trap of thinking that your audience actually knows what they're talking about. Don't take what they say at pure face value.

At the very least, if you do include a finite live system, please give us the option to lives to infinite. Some of us do appreciate your original sentiments.

 

[Grayman]

I am not a player who can 1cc anything but unlimited lives may make your game feel like a guided tour of your levels. Even limited lives and unlimited continues can be enough to let the player know they are falling below a skill limit to pass the level, without that they just grind through.

Being a throwback with a genesis cartridge I would almost expect 3 lives with or without continues. Fully up to what you think is best though. I enjoyed godhand a lot with unlimited lives and a yes/no screen after failure.

A way to further the conversation would be to talk about what your plans were for game length, save files, world maps, or anything like that which is going to fit into the finite or infinite attempts paradigm.

A last thought before I submit this post is that if you took an existing game like Super Mario Brothers and removed the live count keeping the restart at level or checkpoint mechanic the player would get into a frustration cycle that they eventually break themselves through anger or boredom and stop playing. If the player is stopped before that point they might start again right away or in a few minutes and feel better.

 

[Risette]

What the fuck is happening in this thread? Who let in all the retards?

Lets lay down a ground rule here:

Finite live do nothing to make a game any more difficult. All they do is make them more punishing. Punishment =/= Difficulty.

Wrong. They are the only actual way to have actual difficulty. Infinite lives means no real punishment for failure, and no real difficulty. Punishment is part of difficulty.

Also calling us retards isn't very nice.

 

[Rubikant]

This is exactly what you'll get if you have infinite lives in your game, though. There's no way around it -- infinite lives, checkpoints, etc are poison.

I recommend reading this review of Super Meat Boy and this review of VVVVVV to understand why. They do not belong in the type of game you seek to make, I believe.

Also, if you're seeking to make an arcade style game in particular, I also recommend reading this to help you further understand the essence of arcade gaming.

Excellent, thank you. I was riveted by each one. Though I wish the last article had proposed some ways in which a game that wasn't physically in an arcade could simulate the wonderful elements discussed without having to actually be in an arcade where each continue costs you money and starting over meant more play time per credit than continuing would likely give you.

Can we really say for certain that even fans of arcade games could maintain that methodology, when there yet remains no TRUE punishment for failure (i.e. no loss of your money)?

Essentially, it would seem it is impossible to duplicate the appeal of an arcade game in the way that article presents it by a direct 1-to-1 port of the game to another system, as the very business model destroys the motivation to play that way. Only by making the game actually much more restrictive than the arcade game itself was - namely, enforcing that you have no continues at all - could you emulate that.

But is that the best path? Would players excited about a game like this (particularly western gamers) embrace an arcade-style game that is actually intentionally different than an actual arcade game in an attempt to better duplicate the literal experience of playing one using quarters? If the design must be changed anyway in order to actually BETTER approximate the true arcade experience, is it certain that just taking away continues is the best path? Is it not also possible to have the challenge and thrill and punishment for mistakes and the amazing feeling that these true arcade games provide be done through better means than "take arcade game, remove ability to continue"? Are there other ways to encourage or even enforce the mindset of "mess up too much, not worth going on, try again from the start and do better this time, repeat until I truly master the game"?

Its definitely a lot to think about it.

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

I see nothing wrong with "punishment", since pain is just one more feeling that good arcade games can make me express. And I like games that make me express more than an unadulterated sugar rush of happiness and, in turn, complacency. Arcade games do that for me. They help me satisfy my urge to feel angry at things, without making me go berserk on my folks. Finite lives also force me to start over at the beginning of a game (without continues), at which point I can test my knowledge of the early-game before practicing later parts of the game and getting better at clearing those portions.

And, finally, these developers are making a game for an audience here, and they should consider the feelings of their audience. Kickstarter is, in this example, a crowd-source form of patronage, and there needs to be a compromise between what the developers want, and what the audience(s) want(s) (or perhaps what the developers think their audience(s) want(s)).

We're not retards either. We just like to play arcade games in a different way relative to the way we might play regular console games.

I still think that adding continue functions to arcade games was a trick Namco implemented in Bosconian to extort more quarters out of uninitiated casual arcade-goers. The original way to play arcade games was one credit, no continues. That's the way I enjoy them the most.

 

[AlexBasch]

I was a big fan of arcade beat 'em ups and replaying Punisher and Cadillacs and Dinosaurs recently with a friend showed me how recent games and ports softened me over the years, limited lives and limited continues kept us on edge to play better instead of pushing start every time we died just like that certainly added a good amount of tension to the game. Fun tension, if that makes sense.

Your project sounds awesome though, it's very awesome of you to read some feedback on this and make your own points to produce a better game in the end.

 

[Das-J]

Epic!

Spear Throw Animation

 

[Luigiv]

Wrong. They are the only actual way to have actual difficulty. Infinite lives means no real punishment for failure, and no real difficulty. Punishment is part of difficulty.

Also calling us retards isn't very nice.

Well since you can't understand such a simple truths I think it's fitting. Punishment and difficulty are not even remotely the same concept. Now I'm not saying they can't go together and can't enhance each other to some extent but saying punishment is a part of difficulty is like saying nuttela is a part of peanut butter. And just as spreading nuttela onto your toast doesn't make it more peanut buttery, increasing the punishment factor in a game does not actually increase it's difficulty.

I don't have a problem with people asking for finite lives because they like finite lives but I don't have patience for untruthful arguments.

 

[ChosenPredator]

What if it has two stories? One for normal mode with infinite lives and one for hardcore mode with coin option...I don't know it could work and by then I would think people would be confident enough to see different maps and have a harder challenge with a fresh coat of new enemies

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

Well that's another option: make two game progressions, one for non-1CC gamers and another for the 1CC crowd. I'd say Rubikant and Zio only do that once they have the extra money to guarantee an option like that anyway. And, even then, it's up to their discretion to decide if there should be a dichotomy between audience experiences.

 

[Platy]

Ha, that's so weird, Kris and I were just playing that the other day, SUCH a good game. We also played through its predecessor King of Dragons.

When we started Crazy Viking Studios we made a list of the types of games we always wanted to make, and this was up near the top. We decided to start with a side-scroller because it was the genre we had the most experience with, and make it viking themed to go with the studio name, but we have plans for more than just side-scrollers and viking games if this first attempt works out.

Beat Em Up are the holy grail of indie games !

So few, so many good ones !

Scott Pilgrim, Castle Crashers, TF2 Arcade ...

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

You forgot about the Final Fight games, Battle Circuit, and Dungeons & Dragons. Plus Arabian Fight, just for shits & giggles.

 

[Emitan]

King of Dragons~

 

[ChosenPredator]

Don't forget that alien and predator arcade game

 

[duckroll]

Well since you can't understand such a simple truths I think it's fitting. Punishment and difficulty are not even remotely the same concept. Now I'm not saying they can't go together and can't enhance each other to some extent but saying punishment is a part of difficulty is like saying nuttela is a part of peanut butter. And just as spreading nuttela onto your toast doesn't make it more peanut buttery, increasing the punishment factor in a game does not actually increase it's difficulty.

I don't have a problem with people asking for finite lives because they like finite lives but I don't have patience for untruthful arguments.

Making a challenge something that has to be completely cleared within a limited number of tries is a valid challenge and it is a form of difficulty. Why would you try to make it sound like it is not. Punishing is just another word to describe a challenge you find to be unenjoyable. That does not mean someone else might not enjoy the challenge.

Arcade style action games are designed as stages with a number of obstacles to overcome (enemies, platforms, traps, etc). Having unlimited lives and unlimited continues mean that you are free to keep trying each individual stage (or individual subset of obstacles if there are checkpoints) over and over until you succeed at that challenge. When you complete the game, it merely means that you have succeeded in overcoming each individual challenge at some point, but not that you have mastered the entire game.

Let's take a written examination for example. There are multiple sections in the text, each with questions in them. If you fail the test, do you retake individual sections you did poorly, individual questions you got wrong, or do you have to do the entire test again? If you fail the supplementary paper, do you get infinite chances to retry, or do you have to retake the entire semester instead?

Action game design can be approached the same way. Having penalties for not performing consistently is a form of challenge which is lost on a lot of people these days. It is a perfectly fine form of difficulty, and clearly simply one you do not prefer. That doesn't mean you should try to define it as something else. It serves a clear purpose and it can be part of the challenge by design.

 

[bishoptl]

What the fuck is happening in this thread? Who let in all the retards?

 

[duckroll]

Damn, I guess I typed all that for nothing!

I hope it still helps in the discussion in some way.

 

[Emitan]

Being banned by bish is probably the best way to be banned. He invests some emotion into it.

Damn, I guess I typed all that for nothing!

That'll teach ya for bein' nice!

 

[Rubikant]

EDIT: Woah I missed something even while typing this first part. I feel bad for this discussion leading to someone getting banned!

Wow, this discussion sends chills up my spine. Its just thrilling. Its vindicating. It finally proves that we are heading in the right direction. I know that may sound odd since there is much argument against what I mentioned our intent was, but hear me out. We have a plan I hinted at in an earlier post that so far I have not heard anything from either side of the arguments here that should have a real problem with it once they grok its full impact. We wanted to see how you guys would discuss it amongst yourselves to see if we were even on the right track (that's why I started off asking what Tain would actually want).

What I presented was our worst-case minimum scenario for completing the game. But we have a much better plan. However, we plan to only present this as a stretch goal and we didn't want to get people's hopes up if we couldn't do it. We can't afford to do what we REALLY want to do on the minimum funding, but we needed to set the funding at the minimum we could to get the core experience finished (which we felt would still be pretty awesome and something most fans of this game style would really enjoy), as we were afraid that if we set it high enough to do everything we wanted to do that we'd end up with nothing (Kickstarter is all or nothing).

I'm not going to reveal the design we hope to be able to do here, but I'm going to give you some things to think about, and maybe you can figure it out yourself.

I like to look at a problem from all angles, and try not to take anything for granted. This means looking not just at the what works, but why it works and if there are other ways to achieve the same thing without losing something else in the process. Everything you change about something to improve it, you lose something. I think this is a lot of the problem with the progression of game development over all. Right from the start, you improve by, say, making a player able to purchase a game once and play it as much as they want without using quarters. But there was a cost for doing that wasn't there? There was a cost for adding cinematic presentation. There was a cost for adding 3D (camera control anyone?). There was a cost for giving infinite lives, just as there would be a cost for taking them away again. You never get something for nothing.

So with that in mind, the key is to look at what experience you truly want the player to have. I will now break down the core elements I personally think are vital for this game and that I feel most of the posters here would agree with.

*Core element #1: Don't waste my time, give me the gameplay

This means don't spend a lot of time on cutscenes and story, don't make me "grind" at any point, please no filler to extend the length of the game, I want REAL game-play from beginning to end.

*Core element #2: Make me earn it

Pretty basic, give me a challenge so when I complete something, I feel like I did something not everyone can, and I can feel a true sense of accomplishment.

*Core element #3: Motivate me to not only play the game, but master it

I don't want to just play through the game and be done with it, I want to feel motivated to learn it inside and out and feel like a real bad-ass by the time I can do a flawless run.

*Core element #4: Give me a reason to play ALL of the game, not just repeat the part I'm on now

I don't want to just hammer away at one spot and then never have to deal with it again. This isn't a tour of the levels. I can't appreciate the game experience as a whole if its just forgettable nuggets from beginning to end. There needs to be some reason why I want to play the game again from the start (or am forced to).

Can most everyone here agree on these elements? I'd like to think so. We have a solution that we believe amply satisfies all of those elements, but only if we get enough funding to do it (done editing this post).

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

Whoa. "Retards" is a nasty and crass way to describe us, but I didn't expect a ban for that.

Huh. I liked that test example, Duckroll. It does a better job of explaining the gravity behind the 1CC better than most other examples I know of.

Asking Tain was your best move, Rubi. That guy knows what's up and what's down, lol.

 

[scitek]

thank you. every time someone brings up lives/continues as an anachronism i want to have a fit. i'm glad to see there's a good deal of rational opinions in this thread at least.

developers! if you want your games to have meaningful challenges, there must be meaningful punishment for failure! encourage methodical prolonged play over endless respawns!

Well, I won't bother with a game like that, but like the look of this one and loved the combat in the Spyro and Spider-Man games. I say have optional checkpoints and the ability to turn them off to suit both parties if at all possible.

 

[duckroll]

EDIT: Woah I missed something even while typing this first part. I feel bad for this discussion leading to someone getting banned!

Don't feel bad. The discussion didn't get him banned, throwing blanket insults at people did.

 

[@MUWANdo]

Is it not also possible to have the challenge and thrill and punishment for mistakes and the amazing feeling that these true arcade games provide be done through better means than "take arcade game, remove ability to continue"? Are there other ways to encourage or even enforce the mindset of "mess up too much, not worth going on, try again from the start and do better this time, repeat until I truly master the game"?

One of the reasons this works so well in the arcades and not so well at home is that there are immediate, direct repercussions for losing at an arcade--you lose your money, you have to forfeit your turn at the machine, and in the case of player-versus games like VF, Tekken, etc there's the loss of pride that comes from being defeated by another player.

When you're playing at home the stakes are much, much lower--there's no-one to watch you fail and nothing to keep you from credit-feeding or cheating or downloading a completed save file or whatever, and it's much easier to find excuses for poor performance, even when playing online against other people.

There are ways you can bring console/PC games closer to the arcade ideal by way of leaderboards, replay sharing, player metrics, etc but unless you're really comprehensive with them (and most devs aren't, particularly when it comes to single player games) then they're only really useful to people who are already motivated and have the arcade mindset.

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

Crazy Viking Games isn't your average developer, though. They're here to make arcade games. And, because of that end-goal, they're listening to their backers and potential players, mainly on how to find the best compromise between different points of view. If there's a market for it, then the money can go towards crafting a home-centric arcade experience, so long as the end product is a great, replayable arcade game first and foremost.

 

[Wallach]

Damn, I guess I typed all that for nothing!

I hope it still helps in the discussion in some way.

Fuck, we are both late I guess.

Anyway, yeah, it's pretty obvious how finite lives increases the difficulty of a game; not just in the overall sense of being able to complete it but on the path to doing so, restricting the opportunity the player has to adapt to the challenges presented each step of the way.

There is certainly a discussion to be had about all the ways finite lives specifically differs from the many other ways to increase difficulty within a video game. Calling people retards and reaching for a Nutella analogy maybe isn't the best way to go about it.

 

[Rubikant]

One of the reasons this works so well in the arcades and not so well at home is that there are immediate, direct repercussions for losing at an arcade--you lose your money, you have to forfeit your turn at the machine, and in the case of player-versus games like VF, Tekken, etc there's the loss of pride that comes from being defeated by another player.

When you're playing at home the stakes are much, much lower--there's no-one to watch you fail and nothing to keep you from credit-feeding or cheating or downloading a completed save file or whatever, and it's much easier to find excuses for poor performance, even when playing online against other people.

There are ways you can bring console/PC games closer to the arcade ideal by way of leaderboards, replay sharing, player metrics, etc but unless you're really comprehensive with them (and most devs aren't, particularly when it comes to single player games) then they're only really useful to people who are already motivated and have the arcade mindset.

Which then makes one have to ask, if its people that are already motivated and have the arcade mindset, including the 1CC rule, why could they not just choose to play that way? In the third article linked earlier, it discussed how a player would give up and stop playing after they ran out of lives even once the original motivations for playing that way were removed (time, money, people waiting to use the machine). Why? Because they had been trained to play that way and decided they liked it (and because it just became culturally accepted that it was the way it was done)! But there was no external reason, nothing forcing them to do it. Yet they played that way anyway.

So question is, what is stopping someone with that mindset from doing exactly the same thing on a home game? When you get to a certain point of failure, why not just stop and start over like you would in the arcade?

Now personally I think that's no excuse. I don't buy the argument that a design is without flaw because people can just choose to make it harder on themselves. But its still something to think about. Perhaps...perhaps a player doesn't need to be forced to stop playing. Perhaps they just need to be motivated to stop playing, in the same way the arcade players are motivated to stop but not forced to. But since the same motivations are not present at home, one needs to think carefully about the design of the game and how to possibly provide the same motivation by different means.

After all, arcades DO offer continues, and often players (in the west at least) used those continues and ALSO enjoyed the games, just in a different way. So there you have one game that was enjoyed by multiple types of players for mostly similar reasons, but just plopping that same thing in the home does not get you the same results. Something about the design needs to change to make it so both groups of players would also enjoy the game in the same way. And personally, I think just an option in a menu to pick your mode is NOT sufficient, for reasons I'll get into later if anyone hasn't died of boredom reading my posts by that point.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

Well, I won't bother with a game like that, but like the look of this one and loved the combat in the Spyro and Spider-Man games. I say have optional checkpoints and the ability to turn them off to suit both parties if at all possible.

Problem I see with optional checkpoints is that people are just going to play with whatever the default setting is. If checkpoints are "on" by default, nobody's gonna turn them off, because that might make the game unnecessarily frustrating -- you don't know in advance. If they're off, then people aren't going to turn them on, because it makes you feel like a chode.

Personally - and I say this as someone who revels in old-school challenge - I think there should be checkpoints, but a finite number of lives. Don't put a lot of them - just one in the middle of the stage, and one before the boss battle... and only give the player 3 lives. You run out of lives, you go back to the beginning of the stage. That, to me, is the best balance, since it's not unnecessarily punishing, but it still requires the player to skill their way through things.

If the devs. really want to make things hardcore, one idea would be to save a secret, "true" final level of the game for people who get through the whole thing on one credit. Bros can play through the game normally, get a solid challenge, and see the credits... they're happy. But for the hardcore crowd, this approach incentivizes replaying the game to get good and provides a challenge that's actually worth overcoming because they're into these sorts of games and they wanna see it through to the end for real. But the key is to make a complete game that feels satisfying sans the secret level, and then only reveal that there's more to uncover once the player beats the game once via credit feeding. That way, they're like "OH SHIT" and dive back in for more, provided they dug the game in the first place... and it doesn't put pressure on them to be perfect on their first playthrough, just so they can see the whole game.


That was more of a rant than expected.

 

[Risette]

I think score incentives are the best way to go about it. Offer unlimited continues, but each continue resets your score & the last digit of your score goes up by one, that way continuists can't try to pass off a mediocre score that they achieved by continuing once or twice as a score that was achieved on one credit. But this also requires creating a good scoring system that will encourage the players to play for score, which may be harder than it sounds...

In addition to this, you can also have things like a true last boss or true final stage that only unlocks if you've gone through the game without continuing.

Also if you go this route, offer a score attack mode with continues disabled for players who are certain they don't want to continue that way they can start over quicker! And a robust training mode that lets people who want to practice certain stages or bosses to do so without having to start from the beginning each time.

edit:

If the devs. really want to make things hardcore, one idea would be to save a secret, "true" final level of the game for people who get through the whole thing on one credit. Bros can play through the game normally, get a solid challenge, and see the credits... they're happy. But for the hardcore crowd, this approach incentivizes replaying the game to get good and provides a challenge that's actually worth overcoming because they're into these sorts of games and they wanna see it through to the end for real. But the key is to make a complete game that feels satisfying sans the secret level, and then only reveal that there's more to uncover once the player beats the game once via credit feeding. That way, they're like "OH SHIT" and dive back in for more, provided they dug the game in the first place... and it doesn't put pressure on them to be perfect on their first playthrough, just so they can see the whole game.

Great minds think alike!

 

[rjc571]

This is exactly what you'll get if you have infinite lives in your game, though. There's no way around it -- infinite lives, checkpoints, etc are poison.

I recommend reading this review of Super Meat Boy and this review of VVVVVV to understand why. They do not belong in the type of game you seek to make, I believe.

Also, if you're seeking to make an arcade style game in particular, I also recommend reading this to help you further understand the essence of arcade gaming.

All I can say is you have some pretty wacky ideas about what constitutes "difficulty". Forcing the player to replay long, easy sections of a game over and over again to get back to the part that they're having trouble with doesn't make a game more challenging than setting them back a reasonable distance, it just makes the game tedious and boring. Also, the VVVVVV and "arcade culture" articles you linked to are disgusting (the author uses homophobic slurs to refer to people who disagree with him)

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

All I can say is you have some pretty wacky ideas about what constitutes "difficulty". Forcing the player to replay long, easy sections of a game over and over again to get back to the part that they're having trouble with doesn't make a game more challenging than setting them back a reasonable distance, it just makes the game tedious and boring. Also, the VVVVVV and "arcade culture" articles you linked to are disgusting (the author uses homophobic slurs to refer to people who disagree with him)

Obviously, game design has to compensate at some point. There shouldn't be long, easy sections in the first place.

 

[Risette]

All I can say is you have some pretty wacky ideas about what constitutes "difficulty". Forcing the player to replay long, easy sections of a game over and over again to get back to the part that they're having trouble with doesn't make a game more challenging than setting them back a reasonable distance, it just makes the game tedious and boring.

This is why game of this nature should be designed to never be long or easy, hence the ~30 minute length and tight pacing of arcade games. Each repeated play should be exciting. Play a game like Metal Slug -- it's always exciting no matter how much you start over, because it's good.

Also, the VVVVVV and "arcade culture" articles you linked to are disgusting (the author uses homophobic slurs to refer to people who disagree with him)

That is one of his quirks and not one that I much like being a transgendered person myself, but it doesn't take away from what he's saying about games -- he's pretty much always right.

 

[Rubikant]

HA! I haven't finished my post higher up but you guys are even further convincing me that my original design is the right way to go. You've all made my day, seriously.

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

If there's too much redundancy in a section of a game, anyway, then that's a problem of its own. The best arcade games I've played offered something new and, at the same time, developed previous passages into more full-bore sections in later levels.

Alex Kierkegaard has an audience that he writes for, and he's very vehement. I was actually disappointed when he caved in during the Insomnia.ac site takeover incident. He dropped himself below his level by answering to the culprits, especially since he wanted to focus more on writing his books and having them published in the first place. And while it's hard to expect a guy like him to live up to everything he proclaims, I can't help but feel betrayed.

I think the best route for the game to take in-development is to design it like a medium-level arcade game, accessible to experienced console gamers and low-level arcade aficionados, while incentivizing secret stages and hidden routes for those who want to do a 1CC challenge. Then, of course, players can decide if they want to have finite or unlimited lives—same goes for continue functions. If there are enough areas in the game for players to replenish their life count, then both audiences would be satisfied.

 

[duckroll]

I love the "true final level" suggestion, because it's something that was used in a lot of classic games in the 16-bit era as well. In fact, WayForward also inherited that idea for Contra 4 on the DS. The normal and easy difficulties of the game with more credits and lives would only take you up to the second last stage, and to truly complete the game you had to play on hard.

Another suggestion I have is to build the incentive for playing well into the level design itself. I watched the pitch video, which shows that this game features power-up equipment which can be found throughout the stages. A good restart incentive which I've noticed in a lot of shootemup games is how you place such power-ups. By placing them earlier in a stage, and before any possible stage or mid-stage checkpoints, it ensures that when a player dies or tries to continue, they will no longer have the advantage they previously had which would allow them to ace later segments well.

This would present a choice of either soldiering on in a weaker state until they once again recover the power-ups much later on, or simply starting from scratch and not messing up once they have the power-ups this time. If they choose to soldier on and actually make it, it would mean that they had to overcome a greater than usual challenge, and that would be their penalty instead of starting over.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

This is why game of this nature should be designed to never be long or easy, hence the 30 minute length and tight pacing of arcade games. Each repeated play should be exciting. Play a game like Metal Slug -- it's always exciting no matter how much you start over, because it's good.

A definite concern, though, is that this has to be longer than an arcade game, because it's not... uh... well, an arcade game. Keeping the same kind of momentum as an arcade game for an hour or two is easier said than done, and it's going to require a lot more art assets. You have players slogging through the same forest level for 15 minutes, and you're done, son. Boring.

 

[Ziophaelin]

I'm eating pizza. Trying to catch up on reading this. OM NOM nom.

 

[Criminal Upper]

Um, why don't they just have difficulty settings? Easy gives you infinite continues? Normal gives you like 5? and Hard gives you 1?

Would that be okay?

 

[ChosenPredator]

This is why game of this nature should be designed to never be long or easy, hence the 30 minute length and tight pacing of arcade games. Each repeated play should be exciting. Play a game like Metal Slug -- it's always exciting no matter how much you start over, because it's good.


That is one of his quirks and not one that I much like being a transgendered person myself, but it doesn't take away from what he's saying about games -- he's pretty much always right.

True, I don't know what it is about arcade game but when there used to be arcades around my area back in the day I could play the same game over and over and even if I didn't finish it i felt satisfied how far I got and the only thing that stop me really was I didn't have enough quarters to continue, so the game beat me, maybe if i was a better player I would never have to go through so much quarters, lol.

Bringing the experience home is instantly different though I don't think it's possible to have that same experience, unless of course you have a certain amount of lives and continues..it makes me think of binding of Isaac people die in that all the time and start over at the beginning again..but continue to play anyways

 

[duckroll]

A definite concern, though, is that this has to be longer than an arcade game, because it's not... uh... well, an arcade game. Keeping the same kind of momentum as an arcade game for an hour or two is easier said than done, and it's going to require a lot more art assets. You have players slogging through the same forest level for 15 minutes, and you're done, son. Boring.

I totally disagree with this. Go play Contra 4 on the DS. It's not a long game, but most people won't be able to be beat it until they've played it many times. That's a 30 buck retail game too.

 

[Rubikant]

I love the "true final level" suggestion, because it's something that was used in a lot of classic games in the 16-bit era as well. In fact, WayForward also inherited that idea for Contra 4 on the DS. The normal and easy difficulties of the game with more credits and lives would only take you up to the second last stage, and to truly complete the game you had to play on hard.

Another suggestion I have is to build the incentive for playing well into the level design itself. I watched the pitch video, which shows that this game features power-up equipment which can be found throughout the stages. A good restart incentive which I've noticed in a lot of shootemup games is how you place such power-ups. By placing them earlier in a stage, and before any possible stage or mid-stage checkpoints, it ensures that when a player dies or tries to continue, they will no longer have the advantage they previously had which would allow them to ace later segments well.

This would present a choice of either soldiering on in a weaker state until they once again recover the power-ups much later on, or simply starting from scratch and not messing up once they have the power-ups this time. If they choose to soldier on and actually make it, it would mean that they had to overcome a greater than usual challenge, and that would be their penalty instead of starting over.

EXACTLY! I brought this up earlier (the gear thing being one of the motivations to go further back). The first part as well... Actually okay now I'm a little bummed in that it feels like some of you are stealing some of the thunder from our big plan... I wish we'd been able to reveal it initially, now its just gonna look like I'm stealing ideas from NeoGAF . Well, there's still a big element to it that no one has guessed yet.

 

[Dragoon En Regalia]

I don't care about length. If I was, say, watching a Warner Bros. short from the '40s, I'd care more about the quality of animation than I would about duration. My favorite arcade games are the ones that are replayable due to excellent level design, where the game itself is worthy of being re-played because of it's design, and not just the content available. I don't care how long this game is, so long as it's well-designed and a joy to replay.

Feel free to steal our ideas. We're the amiable folk of the gaming community, and I'm happy to help out.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

HA! I haven't finished my post higher up but you guys are even further convincing me that my original design is the right way to go. You've all made my day, seriously.

I was actually hating on the project earlier in the thread because I wasn't convinced this would be much more than another derivative indie actioner, but I've gotta be honest - your enthusiasm convinced me.

That, and I like that dudes in this thread know what's up with these sorts of games.

I love the "true final level" suggestion, because it's something that was used in a lot of classic games in the 16-bit era as well. In fact, WayForward also inherited that idea for Contra 4 on the DS. The normal and easy difficulties of the game with more credits and lives would only take you up to the second last stage, and to truly complete the game you had to play on hard.

Personally, I'm not a fan of games that force you to play on hard. That forces you to take on completely new challenges, and my response to that is generally "fuck that," followed by me turning off the system. Besides, you can still slog through the game on hard, so it's not necessarily like you're earning the privilege to see the true final level. The 1CC approach, on the other hand is like "okay, you got through this... good job... but now you've gotta be PERFECT." That prompts me to put on sunglasses, grab a strong-as-fuck drink, and start crackin' skulls. And thinking back, it wasn't completing games on hard that was particularly satisfying back in the day -- it was when I got through an arcade game one a single quarter that gave me that feeling of improvement, and made me yell "FUCK YEAH."

tl;dr: I want to yell "FUCK YEAH"

I don't care about length. If I was, say, watching a Warner Bros. short from the '40s, I'd care more about the quality of animation than I would about duration. My favorite arcade games are the ones that are replayable due to excellent level design, where the game itself is worthy of being re-played because of it's design, and not just the content available. I don't care how long this game is, so long as it's well-designed and a joy to replay.

Me too, but from the perspective of one who wants to succeed commercially... it might not be the best move.

 

[Rubikant]

Feel free to steal our ideas. We're the amiable folk of the gaming community, and I'm happy to help out.

Oh I will steal ideas .

But the point there was that in this case, we had an idea for a long time now that, through fostering this discussion, you guys are getting very close to the same idea, kind of stealing the thunder for my "check out this awesome idea we had!" moment.

On the plus side though, those in this discussion will have a much higher appreciation for the thought process we put behind it to come up with it in the first place.