Mauricio_Magus
Banned
No, game design doesn't need to cater to you and your scrubbiness.
Thankfully they have a product for you OP, it's called DmC.
But that game also has lives/continues.
Lives are a rather archaic concept in certain aspects, I agree. Games like Rayman Origins/Legends would be worse off with them as failed attempts flow into new ones never breaking the pace, and I have no idea why games like Puppeteer has them for any other reason other than getting something out of it's pointless coin collecting.
And so, the entitled generation has spoke.
I remember an "article" a few years back on how by paying for the game, you where entitled to access at will all the contents in it from the beginning, be it guns, cars or even the ending. Who knew that kind of mentality would be not only prominent, but direct the changes in the "gaming" industry.
It is an industry. Content costs money - a lot of money in fact. Costs are also rising. If most people cannot access some piece of content, it will simply not be worth making it and it will not be made. As long as it's an "industry" and games are thought of as content you buy, they will have to become more and more like this. Well at least this is how the generic "management" methodology seems to look at this stuff. The extra content also has a place - in DLCs. And no, I don't like this, but I think that's how things are going and I think it is rational on some irrational level.
You wont get better if the game doesnt punish you somehow.
Rayman 1 is a perfect example.
The game was stingy with lives.
Continues? You get two. For the entire game. The game never offers you a way to gain more.
And the game was hard as shit anyway.
Run out of lives and continues and you're stuck on your last save. Forever.
Game would have been impossible to defeat without the 99 lives cheat.
This was a game aimed at children. Sadistic bastards.
After 10 years and many tries I am finally getting into Devil May Cry. Being patient and looking at patterns is actually clicking and I made further than I ever had. Everything is cool except for one thing.
What kind of shit for brains thought limited continues and making you start a mission all the way over was a good idea?
It's the boss that's kicking my ass, don't waste my time and make me run through the entire level of respawning enemies for that!
Do the sequels get rid of this junk?
Play DmC? Really you should, it's DMC without the elitist stuff. And 30 frames less but whatever, feels like butter. Great game.
Writing off an entire gameplay mechanic is silly.
I'd write off regenerating health and not think twice about it.
In all seriousness, lives and continues absolutely have a place in modern gaming. If anything, the constant checkpoint-coddling is what makes me hate most modern games.
Being forced to replay the entire area to get back to where you were is your incentive to not die.
Do the sequels get rid of this junk?
They're named after a terrible non-alcoholic beer!Look at this scrub-ass OP
This is often stated, and is not true at all.
You get better through trying, not through punishment.
It is easily possible to have a failure in a game without punishment, allowing something to be retried until you get it right, without making you lose x amount of time in progress. That is bad game design. It is also not helpful to a player that is failing.
This is often stated, and is not true at all.
You get better through trying, not through punishment.
It is easily possible to have a failure in a game without punishment, allowing something to be retried until you get it right, without making you lose x amount of time in progress. That is bad game design. It is also not helpful to a player that is failing.
Edit: I'll expand on this.
Picking door locks. Many games have this mechanic in various forms, that generally involve playing with an analogue stick and lining things up or turning them. Failure will result in failure of that task only, it doesn't move you down three hallways and a bunch of encounters. Having the same mechanic with in game death is perfectly fine, and causes minimum stress to the player, meaning it is more fun. There is no excuse to have a game that punishes a player in place of teaching them.
This is often stated, and is not true at all.
You get better through trying, not through punishment.
It is easily possible to have a failure in a game without punishment, allowing something to be retried until you get it right, without making you lose x amount of time in progress. That is bad game design. It is also not helpful to a player that is failing.
Edit: I'll expand on this.
Picking door locks. Many games have this mechanic in various forms, that generally involve playing with an analogue stick and lining things up or turning them. Failure will result in failure of that task only, it doesn't move you down three hallways and a bunch of encounters. Having the same mechanic with in game death is perfectly fine, and causes minimum stress to the player, meaning it is more fun. There is no excuse to have a game that punishes a player in place of teaching them.
Look at this scrub-ass OP
Play DmC? Really you should, it's DMC without the elitist stuff. And 30 frames less but whatever, feels like butter. Great game.
It raises the tension if there's some sort of drawback to not succeeding. Without starting over the level, you could just try the boss over and over again until you get it. There's no heart-racing close calls because there are no stakes.
I'm not suggesting they start your whole game over, but a little bit of "punishment" for poor play actually enhances the game design.
So many people looking down from their Ivory towers in this thread.
OP is right as soon as you can find a game in the same genre that present a similar challenge and do things without a limited continue system, and that game is Bayonetta.