5 ms·

So to clarify: With infinite lives, it would have guaranteed you made it to the end, at which point you would stop playing anyway. So in both cases you stop p

So to clarify: With infinite lives, it would have guaranteed you made it to the end, at which point you would stop playing anyway. So in both cases you stop playing, but at least in one of the cases the game remains hard for people who like a challenge. Win win!

VS1999 2y ago
This is some insane logic. The goal of the game isn't just to get the player to stop playing. Obviously two players haven't reached the same point just because one quit because he doesn't want to replay the starting levels again. This is known as "artificial difficulty".
jncfhnb 2y ago
Modern game design would suggest it’s better to simply put a death tracker for those who want a challenge rather than impose tedium on those who just want to play the game casually “Stop playing” is not a meaningful metric
latexr 2y ago
A win win would be if both types of people were happy, but the status quo frustrates one of them. It’s only a win if you stop playing because you’re satisfied, not because you’re annoyed. Games are supposed to be fun. Plenty of games have a “zen mode” or “story mode” or “explorer mode” or any other kind of name to enable an option where’re you’re not severely punished by mistakes. Better yet, they usually allow you to switch modes mid-game. Which means you can progress at your own pace and appreciate everything without getting stuck and rage quitting. Anecdotally, even if I never turn those modes on I find that the games who have them tend to be more fun and better designed in terms of difficulty progression. Examples include Celeste and Cross Code. For this game, such a mode would even allow someone to see all the levels or practice in one where they’re stuck and then try again with lives turned on. That would be a win win.

5 ms·

So to clarify: With infinite lives, it would have guaranteed you made it to the end, at which point you would stop playing anyway. So in both cases you stop p

by risenshinetech 2y ago

VS1999 2y ago
This is some insane logic. The goal of the game isn't just to get the player to stop playing. Obviously two players haven't reached the same point just because one quit because he doesn't want to replay the starting levels again. This is known as "artificial difficulty".
jncfhnb 2y ago
Modern game design would suggest it’s better to simply put a death tracker for those who want a challenge rather than impose tedium on those who just want to play the game casually “Stop playing” is not a meaningful metric
latexr 2y ago
A win win would be if both types of people were happy, but the status quo frustrates one of them. It’s only a win if you stop playing because you’re satisfied, not because you’re annoyed. Games are supposed to be fun. Plenty of games have a “zen mode” or “story mode” or “explorer mode” or any other kind of name to enable an option where’re you’re not severely punished by mistakes. Better yet, they usually allow you to switch modes mid-game. Which means you can progress at your own pace and appreciate everything without getting stuck and rage quitting. Anecdotally, even if I never turn those modes on I find that the games who have them tend to be more fun and better designed in terms of difficulty progression. Examples include Celeste and Cross Code. For this game, such a mode would even allow someone to see all the levels or practice in one where they’re stuck and then try again with lives turned on. That would be a win win.