no >arcade: >"oops haha you died! better spend another quarter to try again!" >non-arcade >"oops haha you died. better throw yourself at the boss again and inflate your playtime for our investors!"
Depends on the game but in general it is bad game design and of its a roguelike where when you die you go all the way back to the start then its just filler to pad out game time.
>zoomers shit on arcade games for having some bullshit traps and making you start all over again >but if you're skillful you can beat the game with 50 cents
but >zoomers love roguelites because they have bullshit traps that make you start all over again >but instead of actually developing skills they just increase their stats with metaprogression
gaming is dying
It doesn't matter, the point is that one is about pure skill and the other uses grinding to create an illusion of skill growth. I don't like memorization traps either but they're nearly inevitable in genuinely challenging games in almost all genres and that absolutely includes most roguelites.
I used to be able to beat binding of isaac with the absolute shittiest of builds but now I can't get far without the right build, mostly because everything is a goddamn slog at best.
"trial and error" can apply to a lot of shit, the important thing is that the decisions you make are interesting
there are two apparent strategies for this boss and one of them is harder than the other one -> somewhat interesting decision
there are two doors forward and one of them instantly kills you and plays the laugh sfx -> not an interesting decision
Platformer: > You're standing on top of a row of 4 pits > 3 of the pits have spikes in them > Only one pit continues to the next area
> No way to know about the forced death until you try
Trial and error
What a competent game does is provide the player the opportunity to see the bottom of the pit first, then test the player's memory by delaying when that information is useful. > "We told you which pit at the bottom is safe; you're the one who forgot which is which."
This is the best approach- the one where you were given a warning. MegaMan is awesome at this and doesn't usually punish the player but at least rewards them for choosing well.
Trial and error is not good or bad game design, it is a game design tool and it can make game a 10/10 master piece (Hotline Miami) or, well, trash. (Super pitfall).
Game has visual cues for things? Good.
Visual cues are inconsistent and don't always apply? Bad.
The worst are things like pits that kill the player. Why would you make one of those pits now safe with no visual indication? I hate that shit. It's abusive, not clever.
iwbtg is a good example of what people hate with trial and error, but the fangames (if they're not trap ones) show a better sort of trial and error in my opinion where you gradually improve your ability depending on how hard it is.
trial and error is best done in short spontaneous amounts of high difficulty
yes because when you get it right on your first attempt if gives you a mild rush
Is roblox good game design?
no
>arcade:
>"oops haha you died! better spend another quarter to try again!"
>non-arcade
>"oops haha you died. better throw yourself at the boss again and inflate your playtime for our investors!"
also no
> make your own fun to its extreme
Depends on the game but in general it is bad game design and of its a roguelike where when you die you go all the way back to the start then its just filler to pad out game time.
>zoomers shit on arcade games for having some bullshit traps and making you start all over again
>but if you're skillful you can beat the game with 50 cents
but
>zoomers love roguelites because they have bullshit traps that make you start all over again
>but instead of actually developing skills they just increase their stats with metaprogression
gaming is dying
But how much money would you need to spend in order to be skillful enough to beat a game with 50 cents?
Less than the 30 bucks that the content starved Hades game used to cost
Probably took me $30-40 to get to the point where I could beat Time Crisis 2 on 50 cents.
Let's be honest, the people who actually go full autist on those games either emulated or played in free play, even back in the day.
depends on the player
some are just naturally skilled
others are permanently dogshit
It doesn't matter, the point is that one is about pure skill and the other uses grinding to create an illusion of skill growth. I don't like memorization traps either but they're nearly inevitable in genuinely challenging games in almost all genres and that absolutely includes most roguelites.
I used to be able to beat binding of isaac with the absolute shittiest of builds but now I can't get far without the right build, mostly because everything is a goddamn slog at best.
good roguelikes introduce you to systems and guidelines that you pick up over time
bad roguelikes are like nethack
No, but 50% of you here, in this very thread, wouldn't know the difference between a game being hard and a game being trial and error.
"trial and error" can apply to a lot of shit, the important thing is that the decisions you make are interesting
there are two apparent strategies for this boss and one of them is harder than the other one -> somewhat interesting decision
there are two doors forward and one of them instantly kills you and plays the laugh sfx -> not an interesting decision
only to a point
what were they thinking?
Dunno if I'd call it ''good'' but at least it should be regarded as a valid approach
Define trial and error
Textbook definition:
>the process of experimenting with various methods of doing something until one finds the most successful
That's just the process for getting good in general.
In many games, you can also get good by reading a bunch of guides and meta on the internet. No experimentation needed.
If a guide alone is enough to make you good at a game that usually means it's a shallow game.
>meta
if you're a homosexual that can't think for itself
>guides
if you're a fightan gay, get on with worshipping ecelebs
Platformer:
> You're standing on top of a row of 4 pits
> 3 of the pits have spikes in them
> Only one pit continues to the next area
> No way to know about the forced death until you try
Trial and error
What a competent game does is provide the player the opportunity to see the bottom of the pit first, then test the player's memory by delaying when that information is useful.
> "We told you which pit at the bottom is safe; you're the one who forgot which is which."
This is the best approach- the one where you were given a warning. MegaMan is awesome at this and doesn't usually punish the player but at least rewards them for choosing well.
Classic Megaman has tons of drops with spike pits at the bottom, are you kidding?
The great majority of them you can avoid without memorizing as long as you stay in the middle as you cross from one screen to another.
Trial and error is not good or bad game design, it is a game design tool and it can make game a 10/10 master piece (Hotline Miami) or, well, trash. (Super pitfall).
No, the main objective of this design was to force kids to buy guides or spend more quarters on arcade machines.
>kids morphen vidya from getting gud to le wholesome space
lol
Arcade games are good, battle royales are all garbage games
Game has visual cues for things? Good.
Visual cues are inconsistent and don't always apply? Bad.
The worst are things like pits that kill the player. Why would you make one of those pits now safe with no visual indication? I hate that shit. It's abusive, not clever.
No but that was also the least of Super Pitfall's problems
No, but you can thank Elden Soulsborne shit and Armoured Core for popularising the bad design.
No, the player should at least be given enough information that losing feels like they made a mistake rather than the game tricked them
Generally no, and that's why the Souls games are all shite.
reference
iwbtg is a good example of what people hate with trial and error, but the fangames (if they're not trap ones) show a better sort of trial and error in my opinion where you gradually improve your ability depending on how hard it is.
trial and error is best done in short spontaneous amounts of high difficulty
Boshy is still kino and better than celeste, imo