04-20-2014, 02:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-20-2014, 02:13 PM by Crappy Blue Luigi.)
this design style is a relic of arcade game development, but it's not inherently bad; it just made a lot more sense back then because the primary goal of an arcade game was to get as much of your money as possible.
it can still be effective, though. taking a permanent loss near the end of a game can be really frustrating, but does it motivate you not to play again? with exception to a few games that had outright cheap difficulty spikes at the tail end, i can't think of any time i've played a game where getting a game over meant starting from the beginning that i didn't feel like coming back to later. playing from the start and having to experience the first level over and over builds experience and muscle memory, so soon enough you start to become really good at those first sections. following that is the mid-game, and then the late-game. the more you play the game, the better you are at it.
instead of the overall school analogy (which is way too broad in scope), let's think about a class analogy. if you tested into beginning algebra in college, you have to pass that class, along with higher divisions of algebra, in order to graduate. if you fail that class, you have to take it again. that's a frustrating thing to hear, right? however, more likely than not, your knowledge from going through it the first time will help you in taking it the second time, and you'll have a better experience with the class. that, to me, is how video games of this style work. the struggle of going through it in full with no backup measures makes the accomplishment more rewarding.
obviously, it's not the best mechanic for every game, but roguelikes and beat-'em-ups thrive on this--interestingly, for two different reasons. the roguelikes motivate you to keep playing after a loss through the randomized content and the interest that generates, while the beat-'em-ups motivate you through knowledge of the game's progression and enemy placements, as well as the strategies for dealing with enemies and bosses.
it can still be effective, though. taking a permanent loss near the end of a game can be really frustrating, but does it motivate you not to play again? with exception to a few games that had outright cheap difficulty spikes at the tail end, i can't think of any time i've played a game where getting a game over meant starting from the beginning that i didn't feel like coming back to later. playing from the start and having to experience the first level over and over builds experience and muscle memory, so soon enough you start to become really good at those first sections. following that is the mid-game, and then the late-game. the more you play the game, the better you are at it.
instead of the overall school analogy (which is way too broad in scope), let's think about a class analogy. if you tested into beginning algebra in college, you have to pass that class, along with higher divisions of algebra, in order to graduate. if you fail that class, you have to take it again. that's a frustrating thing to hear, right? however, more likely than not, your knowledge from going through it the first time will help you in taking it the second time, and you'll have a better experience with the class. that, to me, is how video games of this style work. the struggle of going through it in full with no backup measures makes the accomplishment more rewarding.
obviously, it's not the best mechanic for every game, but roguelikes and beat-'em-ups thrive on this--interestingly, for two different reasons. the roguelikes motivate you to keep playing after a loss through the randomized content and the interest that generates, while the beat-'em-ups motivate you through knowledge of the game's progression and enemy placements, as well as the strategies for dealing with enemies and bosses.