4 ms·
What does "stupidly difficult" even mean? Does it just mean you did not manage to solve all the puzzles (yet)? Honestly, I find that Spacechem is one of the ve
by forty 8y ago
What does "stupidly difficult" even mean? Does it just mean you did not manage to solve all the puzzles (yet)?
Honestly, I find that Spacechem is one of the very best game ever. I am really happy that Zachtrorics continues trying making better similar games, as it generally does make great games (I immediately purchase all their games - I only missed Opus Magnum as I was busy becoming a father when it launched), but so far, I was not able to feel the joy I felt when my Spacechem reactor finally worked, watching all the chucks fitting together (I know, I really need to try Opus Magnum which is more similar to Spacechem than other games in the serie - but my impression is that the UI looks much more busy, and simplicity is one of Spacechem strong point, which makes it enjoyable on a tablet for example). I'll admit that Spacechem had the advantage to be the first of this kind I tried, so it could be one of the reasons I loved it so much.
Also I am a bit sad that making games easier to beat is even a goal at all - it's great to try to make them easier to play / to start for non-programmers and beginners. But I find that having a few levels that are really challenging makes a game strictly better. I know that many people think "I paid for the whole game, I need to be able to finish it all reasonably quickly", but personally, I think it could just mean that the game was simply not challenging enough.
For what it is worth, I did beat Spacechem (whatever it means, I have the "beat the game" achievement on Steam), but I am stuck on TIS-100 and Shenzhen I/O (I spent much less time on this one though). Exapunks does feel easier than both for now (the programming language is slightly "higher level", so maybe it feels more familiar).
- Scaevolus 8y agoI'm quoting from the linked Gamasutra post, which shows the attrition rate per level.
- forty 8y agoSorry, my bad, I did not read this article. Zach himself is calling the game "stupidly difficult". I still strongly disagree with the term though :) Plus seeing the graph, I find that it does not seem to be the case - I mean most levels in the main campaign seem to be over 80% success rate (hypothesis: "defense" levels are not available in the Android version, which could be a reason why they seem to have a lower success rate)
- patrec 8y ago80% completion rate with 20 levels works out as a ~1% chance of ever finishing the game (which i'd say counts as fairly hard). Looking at the graph, the pass rate seems to be higher, but there are also a lot more than 20 (non-optional) levels, so I would guesstimate the finish rate to be less than 1% (90% per level for 40 levels is also around 1% to finish the game, for example).
- forty 8y agohttps://steamcommunity.com/stats/SpaceChem/achievements https://steamcommunity.com/stats/SpaceChem/achievements according to steam achievement "beat the game", it's actually 4%. I do agree that it makes it a difficult game to finish. Then again, my point is that I think it's fine not to be able to finish a game, especially a puzzle game which have no story. You just have to spend more time on the puzzle you are stuck on, so in a sense, you get more game time for your money :)
- roryokane 8y agoSpaceChem does have a story though. I gave up on the game after it got too difficult, and at that time I was disappointed that I wouldn't find out what happens in the rest of the story.
- fb03 8y ago"stupidly difficult" to me means Nethack. You should try it if you're into rpgs :)
- forty 8y agoI like Nethack :) Btw, that reminds me of Dwarf Fortress and the whole "losing is fun" idea, of which I am a great fan as well, and do not find anything stupid about it ;)