ViewtifulJC
Banned
Yo, FUCK Battletoads. Best game in the series is that arcade version, and even that gets highly repetitive by the second half.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Your thoughts on heavily checkpoint filled "rapid respawn" games?
- Thread starter djtiesto
- Start date
The correct answer is to not make your game as unforgiving in the first place.
The best part of Super Meat Boy was the three-level warp zones where you were given lives because they, shock and awe, forced you to actually play skillfully to progress.
Which ones are those?
I'm highly confused, are the dissenters advocating tedious and unnecessary load/wait times, longer levels, or both? I thought we all hated the in-between moments in games that remove the player from gameplay...
RawkHawk2010
Member
I liked VVVVVV for what it was, but...not a fan of the mechanic.
I like my games to have a sense of consequence.
I like my games to have a sense of consequence.
Never played the arcade version, but the NES version has plenty of variety.
More like 7-20 seconds honestly. lol
Battletoads's checkpoints are not that sparse, and you do respawn instantly.
Here's a random thought, and food for thought, and a real challenge to anyone in this thread...regardless of where you stand.
Go complete this path, match or beating his score (best of luck against telesniper), BUT wait 15 seconds after each death to try again and suicide to restart the level every time. If you can do that, then I'd be happy to listen to how SMB "save states" are bad or whatever else you've got, and I'll donate to you personally if you can beat that.
That meets the objections of the thread and it's discourse, it's a prolonged extremely difficult route with a speed demon pace and accuracy, and we can see who really enjoys waiting 5-15 secs each death in these situations. So rather than just smash the spacebar and argue with the best of them (anybody can do that), let's see who really has the gumption to put their rhetoric into practice.
Just a thought...
Go complete this path, match or beating his score (best of luck against telesniper), BUT wait 15 seconds after each death to try again and suicide to restart the level every time. If you can do that, then I'd be happy to listen to how SMB "save states" are bad or whatever else you've got, and I'll donate to you personally if you can beat that.
That meets the objections of the thread and it's discourse, it's a prolonged extremely difficult route with a speed demon pace and accuracy, and we can see who really enjoys waiting 5-15 secs each death in these situations. So rather than just smash the spacebar and argue with the best of them (anybody can do that), let's see who really has the gumption to put their rhetoric into practice.
Just a thought...
What an incredibly dismissive and reductive way of arguing against my post.
Yes, a SMB level can take 5-30 seconds when you get it right, but on harder levels it'll take many tries and many minutes. The fact that the game gets so brutal necessitates quick respawns, because you can (and do) get into a flow, which would only be broken by something unnecessarily punitive.
I really don't know what you're arguing for, honestly.
I don't think a mechanic that was implemented primarily to suck up quarters from players is exactly something to tout as great game design.
There's sort of an underlying setup going on there. If that was attempted, expect it to take a VERY long time to pull off, then we can discuss pacing, timings and level layout intricacies to be evaluated.
It meets the objections of consequence, wait times, playing skillfully for prolonged periods, and we get a pretty clear picture. Otherwise it's just foggy ambiguous back and forths about subjective "I don't like this or that" without the suffering needed to get a firm grasp of the fundamentals.
So... what's the solution? What should be implemented instead to make there be "consequences" when you die in HLM/SMB/VVVVVVV, other than something tedious?
Make the levels longer and/or implement a lives system. Adjust the challenge of the level design accordingly. Playtest until you find a good balance.
Sixfortyfive
He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
Uh, nothing? This thread is comparing two styles of games:
- those split into lengthy and moderately challenging pieces with high penalty for death
- those split into very small but extremely challenging pieces with virtually no penalty for death
Nobody is arguing that Super Meat Boy would benefit from sparse checkpoints and no continues while keeping the rest of the content the same, because its levels are clearly not designed for that kind of system. It's not a question as to what can be done to "fix" that style of game; it's just a statement that we don't really enjoy that style in the first place. "Fixing" it would mean making an entirely different game.
Literally nobody in this thread argued that loading times are a good thing, or that the "rapid respawn" aspect in and of itself is not wanted, so I'm not sure where any of you guys got that idea.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
.
But why? Then they wouldn't be the games they are: brutally difficult, quick-bites of focused action.
I don't really understand what making a SMB level longer accomplishes. These games were already playtested and balanced. That's why they have the systems they do.
That's the solution I feel like we're arriving at, but that nobody wants to say. If these games don't do it for you, there are plenty of alternative genres. Or you can simply wait five seconds and imagine a loading screen with a life counter going down (and punish yourself when it reaches zero). The game has enough consequence as it is; the level themselves are usually hard, you die quickly, and don't get to proceed to the next challenge. Restarting quickly encourages you to keep attempting and mastering the level, instead of giving up the first time.
If you don't like trial-and-error, then fine. But taking it out on this particular mechanic feels misplaced. I'm not sure what else needs to be discussed here.
KojiKnight
Member
I generally dislike the concept of death meaning nothing... till I play a game like AssCreed 3 where I have to do a mission over from the start when I fail on that last little part (usually "don't get detected" or "don't lose sight of your target" bs)
iconoclast
Member
Except those games are designed to be beaten with the resources you've been given. Instead of mashing continue you can just use more skill.
After you pull out some money to feed the machine.
Yeeeeeeup.
Tookay said:
I guess you take umbrage with arcade games requiring cash to start, but you haven't made it clear how that's a reason to throw arcade design out the window.
Chairman Yang said:
You're right that nobody here will do this and that it would be horriby unfun, but you're wrong in thinking that anybody here is arguing for this. Instead, as Sixfortyfive said, we're arguing that games like Hotline Miami and SMB are built from top to bottom around zero consequences (to the point where no amount of shoehorning our preferences into them will make them truly great), and that's one of the things that make them less enjoyable than our favorite 2D action games.
I don't think that Cactus or Team Meat will ever make a 2D action game that I would love, but if you told me to make one suggestion to them for their next titles, it would be to start by dropping the crumb-sized challenges and go for something bigger.
RockmanWhore
Member
Quick respawn is a must for challenging games, but I hate it when there are too much checkpoints.
The Mana Legend
Banned
I don't like it at all. Games where death means nothing aren't very fun.
The spaced out/non-existent checkpoints approach (like a beat'em up you're trying to 1cc) and the little-to-no penalty for death approach (SMB) force very different approaches from one another.
If a game has massive penalties for making mistakes, it encouraged very cautious non-experimental play from the player. These games are more about pattern memorization.
If a game has little to no penalty for failure (like SMB), it encourages experimental creative play and risk taking.
For the former, you get the exhilleration that at any moment you could get fucked, but I prefer the latter these days. Also anyone thinking you don't improve as you go and that you're simply brute forcing your way through a game like SMB is delusional.
If a game has massive penalties for making mistakes, it encouraged very cautious non-experimental play from the player. These games are more about pattern memorization.
If a game has little to no penalty for failure (like SMB), it encourages experimental creative play and risk taking.
For the former, you get the exhilleration that at any moment you could get fucked, but I prefer the latter these days. Also anyone thinking you don't improve as you go and that you're simply brute forcing your way through a game like SMB is delusional.
To Far Away Times
Member
No penalty for death means means less sense of accomplishment. I'm much more motivated to get better if I play a shmup where the penalty for death is huge, or a fighting game where you Win/Lose, compared to something like N+ or Super Meat Boy where you just keep trying until you get through it once and never play the level again.
Even though VVVVVV used this same quick respawn mechanic as N+ and Super Meat Boy, I ended up really liking VVVVVV. But I think it was mostly the clever implementation of the seemingly simple gravity mechanic, the music, and overall presentation that won me over.
What? Bad. No, no, no...
One credit or it doesn't count.
Even though VVVVVV used this same quick respawn mechanic as N+ and Super Meat Boy, I ended up really liking VVVVVV. But I think it was mostly the clever implementation of the seemingly simple gravity mechanic, the music, and overall presentation that won me over.
What? Bad. No, no, no...
One credit or it doesn't count.
Really? I just managed to finish HLM and defeating a boss after at least 10-15 attempts (it was probably closer to 30) using only what the game was giving me was incredibly rewarding. Knowing that I learned the mechanics myself, playing it on my terms (I control when I want to stop playing, when I want to give up... rather than the game tell me I only have X attempts before I have to play the whole thing over) gives you a greater sense of accomplishment because the game is giving you the power of whether you want to continue or not. It's why I stayed up until 2:30am finishing HLM just now.
See, that has the opposite effect for me. If I've played a shmup and I die on a boss toward the end, could I really be fucked playing through 90% of the game I've blitzed through numerous times before just because I can't repeat the game from a nearby checkpoint? I've put down many games in the past for that reason. Not all (because some games use that mechanic incredibly well) but some shmups I have, whereas games like SMB and HLM (which I consider to be very similar in some aspects) I'm happy to come back to because there's more than just beating the level in passing it. None of these games with instant restarts just have "finish the level" as the only goal. There's always a rating or points or time that can be measured and improved upon.
That's actually where I think the instant restart in VVVVVVV is different to SMB/HLM. In VVVVVVV the sole goal is to pass that level/screen. From memory (it's been a while since I played it) it's about working out the puzzle and instantly restarting it if you fail... there's really only one skill to master for that screen and once you've mastered it, there's no real point in attempting it again because the outcome will be identical each time. As I said above, SMB/HLM are vastly different in that you're doing more than just sussing out a puzzle, there's more than one aspect to it.
I'm running damn low on sleep right now, so apologies if the above is an incoherent mess
Read what I wrote above. The skillful play required isn't intended to be where you're *just* passing a level (a la VVVVVV), it's you're passing it *well*. I'm more likely to throw down the controller in frustration if I know I only have a certain amount of lives left than if I can have as many goes as I want. It's the reason I love a lot of iPhone games, there's a delicate art in creating something that begs for an instant restart/replay that isn't based on grinding for more in-game credits. That, and my ADHD generally means if I have to play through a whole fucking stage/level/game to retry one sticking point over again, I'm just more likely to not play that game at all. As it is, I've finished Hotline Miami, but I can guarantee you I'll be playing it again as I attempt a more fluid playthrough (rather than playing it solely to get past a particular point).
I'm advocating longer spaces between checkpoints (or, longer levels in the case of Super Meat Boy), a more methodical pacing to the game, and some type of setback when you die. Nothing about loading times or being forced to watch cutscenes over again whatsoever (I think those 2 are something that everyone on GAF can unanimously agree upon is a bad thing).
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
It depends on the game. This sort of design only works well with games that are really, really fast-paced. If you applied it to say... a Castlevania, for example, it wouldn't make any sense. I do like these types of games, but wouldn't want to see them replacing the older design. The sense of tension just isn't as strong, nor is the satisfaction of overcoming a brutally challenging level.
The bolded is why I think it's so prevalent, especially in indie games. Level design is hard, but designing a section that is about 30 seconds long is much easier than the stuff you saw when platformers were the AAA games of their time. Throw in instant retry and even a guy who starts a level with only has a 1% chance of finishing could do so in a play session without learning a thing. It's got the same end result as adding a RPG/XP component to an action game without having to bother with the meters...eventually you'll win if you just keep trying regardless of your ability.
Hotline Miami isn't really grabbing me and I think that the fast retry and messages about not being afraid to die are attempts to gloss over the things that actually bother me about the game (mainly the controls, randomness of the AI, and the opacity of the scoring system). Just try again, and it might be your lucky high scoring run.
Honestly, the quality of the game design is up to the customers to gauge, so it might actually be "progress" from that standpoint and perhaps the detractors just aren't the intended audience.
Being completely for or against is pointless, as it very much depends on the game and what its pacing is, BUT i think it's a fantastic way to give you a challenging scenario with (basically) none of the tedium.
I think it'd be brilliant in many many games and i loved it in Hotline Miami and Super Meat Boy.
A Dark Souls with it wouldn't make much sense though, so again, it depends on the game.
What's the difference between:
Boss kills me i respawn instantly and try it again.
Boss kills me and i have to manually reload; wait for the loading screen; walk an absolutely not dangerous X meters walkway; click on the door; loadingscreen; unskippable cutscene; second try at the boss.
Aside from the second case wasting my time with pointless garbage? In Dark Souls the way to the boss is often as hard as the boss and there are invasions and such, so it does make sense there, but in most games it really really does not.
I think it'd be brilliant in many many games and i loved it in Hotline Miami and Super Meat Boy.
A Dark Souls with it wouldn't make much sense though, so again, it depends on the game.
Death means you have to retry? Most games do the exact same thing, but with just a tedious loading screen or unskippable cutscene/part that is not challenging nor interesting.
What's the difference between:
Boss kills me i respawn instantly and try it again.
Boss kills me and i have to manually reload; wait for the loading screen; walk an absolutely not dangerous X meters walkway; click on the door; loadingscreen; unskippable cutscene; second try at the boss.
Aside from the second case wasting my time with pointless garbage? In Dark Souls the way to the boss is often as hard as the boss and there are invasions and such, so it does make sense there, but in most games it really really does not.
Save-state safety net imo.
I actually dug Hotline Miami well enough, but man. Every single floor of every single chapter is so incredibly brief, and they're all backed up by checkpoints. Imagine if Doom or something saved after killing a few imps. It's silly.
I actually dug Hotline Miami well enough, but man. Every single floor of every single chapter is so incredibly brief, and they're all backed up by checkpoints. Imagine if Doom or something saved after killing a few imps. It's silly.
I completely agree! The technique itself can make challenge much more palatable.
I also think combining it with tiny levels can also serve to blur all of the retries together so that you don't remember the failures and maybe actually increase the number of retries since you don't take time to consider a particular failure. Also, this combination could help you forgive any design choices on a particular level that would normally be offputting since you're only suffering because of it for a couple of seconds of a run at a time.
Of All Trades
Member
Except a lot of what you're describing, particularly in arcade environments, basically feels like a cutscene to me even if I'm actively playing. I got really good at Time Crisis 2 way back when in the college arcade, to the point where the entirety of the 1cc challenge happened in the third act, and the end result is that the first two acts, while entertaining to some extent, were largely challenge free and little more than unskippable cutscenes. It's how I feel about most shmups, too: as a recent example, Jamestown was fun but having to restart a level got boring because the first half of a level eventually contained no challenge.
If the imps could 1-shot me I'd be mashing F5 after every couple of kills.
Considering that everything kills you instantly, it's actually great.
I think another great example of instant respawn is Trackmania: Being able to instantly respawn at the start of the track everytime you make little mistake, it's what makes it enjoyable, versus having to see a goddamn loading screen in between every try.
iconoclast
Member
Play better shooters. Once survival becomes too easy, you can make them as hard as you like by playing for score.
Goldenroad
Member
OP should play Too Human if he feels "rapid respawns" are actually negative thing.
Jerry Orbach
Member
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
I wonder if NSMBWii's levels are really more like checkpoints within their worlds (notwithstanding the actual mid-level checkpoints in the game, which Miyamoto doesn't seem to mention here), considering how short these levels tend to be.
I also wonder if people actually enjoy longer Mario levels instead of shorter ones because of the increased danger and tension as you get further in a level. I certainly can't recall any correlation between my enjoyment of Mario levels and how long they were, but do any of you feel otherwise?
I find checkpoints necessary in games where the action isn't super predictable i.e. something like Halo, Gears of War etc. In something like Dark Souls having frequent checkpoints definitely hinders the experience since navigating the level methodically is the reward in and of itself.
I'd need to measure a bunch of Mario stages first, lol. I can definitely say that my favorite stages have been in FDS Mario 2 (which is before the mid-level checkpoints, of course), but I don't know if those stages were particularly longer or shorter than SMB/SMB3's. They're denser, though, which goes a long way toward making them enjoyable to repeat in their entirety.
I found myself having far more fun with Super Meat Boy than NSMBW, despite the second one being technically easier.
Simply having to reselect the level, reload and re-enter, was time wasting and annoying.
I can understand his point, but i also think that a lot of these action games involve pattern recognition and muscle memory, so facing completely different obstacles will not help you that much against different ones; on the other hand, facing the same obstacle over and over and over again, without any downtime in between, will really help you assimilate that mechanic.
I think Super Meat Boy is a great example of this- every time a new hazard was introduced (say: homing missles) your death ratio was bound to go up drastically, and only repeating and facing that same threat several times, you were able to master it and, in later levels, be able to quickly respond to it naturally.
If everytime you died with homing missles, you were sent back to the saws, it would've taken much much longer.
Sixfortyfive
He who pursues two rabbits gets two rabbits.
SMB1 and SMB2 have checkpoints. SMB3 doesn't, and its stages are much shorter.
human onion
Banned
They Bleed Pixels is a nice hybrid, I think. You fill a bar from pickups or comboing enemies and once it's filled, you can create a checkpoint if you stand still. If you don't stand still, you start back at the beginning if you die. There are often long sections where you wont be able to make a checkpoint.
I see merit in both, but I don't play platformers that much anyway. I think I prefer the rapid-respawn method since most platformers can't be beaten the first time without dying. I like games where you can avoid failure altogether by being methodical.
On the other hand, I like roguelikes. I like FTL and Binding of Isaac especially, but those are relatively short to beat anyway. I do love me some Dungeons of Dredmor now and again simply because of how fun building a character is.
I see merit in both, but I don't play platformers that much anyway. I think I prefer the rapid-respawn method since most platformers can't be beaten the first time without dying. I like games where you can avoid failure altogether by being methodical.
On the other hand, I like roguelikes. I like FTL and Binding of Isaac especially, but those are relatively short to beat anyway. I do love me some Dungeons of Dredmor now and again simply because of how fun building a character is.
Spot on. I never played NSMBW, but the last boss in Hotline Miami had me thinking the same thing. There were bosses that took me a good 20 attempts to learn, but once the muscle memory eventually kicked in, I felt like a beast. With that now out of the way, I'd love to play the whole game again just to see how that experience adds to the game from the beginning.
I agree with parts of this philosophy about checkpoints, but there's so much downtime when you die (watch the life counter go down, get kicked out to level select, select level, watch load screen transition, restart at checkpoint), that just feels unnecessary. Cut out that stuff, and I'd be much happier with NSMBW/U.
hbkajshdvfbkjhvgkahsgdfka
Member
Haha yeah dem trash mobs right?
Great Stone Knights ain't shit.
OnimaruXLR
Member
I can't really get into most of these games. I get no sense of accomplishment from getting through them. In most games if I manage to get past something because of a fluke or lucky break I can't reproduce, I just chalk it up to being a one-off case of happenstance, but it seems like at least 40% of the progress you make in games like Meat Boy and Trials are due to flukes and lucky breaks. Although I will say that Trials is a pretty amusing game when played competitively.
But that's not to say I dislike games that have a good checkpoint system and fast respawns, though. Mark of the Ninja is like that: due to it's slower pace in general, I don't feel like I'm running repeatedly against a wall when I try to beat it. Also, since each "section" of Mark of the Ninja is just that--a section--the way the checkpoints break it up and ensure I don't have to redo problems I've already solved is a good thing. That shit can get tedious, fast.
I sorta feel like fast games should penalize you by slowing you down, but medium and slow paced games should not force you to slog through already-tread ground in a slow fashion
But that's not to say I dislike games that have a good checkpoint system and fast respawns, though. Mark of the Ninja is like that: due to it's slower pace in general, I don't feel like I'm running repeatedly against a wall when I try to beat it. Also, since each "section" of Mark of the Ninja is just that--a section--the way the checkpoints break it up and ensure I don't have to redo problems I've already solved is a good thing. That shit can get tedious, fast.
I sorta feel like fast games should penalize you by slowing you down, but medium and slow paced games should not force you to slog through already-tread ground in a slow fashion
SatelliteOfLove
Member
That's the thing! There is no one "solution". It must be a judgement call from the developers after weighing the factors going in and the tuning. What I was warning of in that paragraph was cranking the lever only down (or, only up, which is just as bad). That's less game design and more deal-making "We'll never frustrate you if you buy this game" or "We made this punishing as FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK, buy it!".
Read what Miyamoto was saying. It's very good.
discoalucard
i am a butthurt babby that can only drool in wonder at shiney objects
I don't understand this sentiment. Death has a penalty in these games, it means you don't win.
I'm going to be the minority in this thread, seeming the way it goes, but I'm all for this mechanic, being that VVVVVV and Hotline Miami are two of my favorite games in the past few years. I'm not going to argue that it invalidates older games, or that all games should follow it, or that it's totally superior. But it's also much more progressive in that it provides a challenge without falling back on failure/penalty mechanics of twenty years ago. Some of you guys are massively conservative in your game tastes.
aaaaaaaaaaaa7654
Member
I like the fact that Hotline miami has those lucky moments where you cant believe you pulled off some crazy move. It adds to the chaotic gameplay and fast paced narrative.
In my opinion it mostly depends on the game but the faster you respawn the better.
It would also be nice to see devs explore more original death penalties than the standard lose some money or your stuff.
In my opinion it mostly depends on the game but the faster you respawn the better.
It would also be nice to see devs explore more original death penalties than the standard lose some money or your stuff.