VVVVVV, the beta of which was reviewed previously by TheDustin here, is now out. It's a platformer, but saying that is a bit like Edmund's character saying that. Since there's a demo on Kongregate that takes about ten seconds to load, I'll leave the explanation short, but what I can add to the demo is that the full game is more non-linear than that demo; the world (excluding the final sequence, etc.) is 400 screens large, some completely empty, some you'll be stuck on for a long time. You can also buy its soundtrack if you like the music (I do).
Its announcement posts on neighboring indie game blogs have more than 150 comments each; it also got reviewed by Edge, rare for an indie game. All that commentary seems to be split between it being a great game, and it being a great game that costs too much for too little content. Not being Adam Smith, I've no strong opinion on the $15 issue.
There are a few changes from the beta; the game is a little easier, but that's relative; as an example, a room which took me a hundred or so tries previously only took me ten or twenty this time around. There are also new segments related to the rescue of a few crew members, and additional game modes.
I know of two interesting game design issues related to this game, which I give to you, unanswered, for your comment in the comments.
The first is whether cathartic pleasure is worth it -- i.e., if you fail 500 times at some arbitrary challenge, is the pleasure at finally succeeding at that challenge worth the pain of failing 500 times? Is that preying on a quirk in our physiology, or is it a legitimate value that games can offer to us?
The second is whether difficulty curves should be regular, or whether that feels too artificial, as if the very act of having a carefully balanced game *reminds* you that it's a game, and detracts from the experience -- i.e., is it a problem if game follows "best game design practices" too well? Terry here has said that feels a bit boring when games do that, and he avoided it here, is he right to do so?
VVVVVV is a finalist in the 2010 Indiecade Festival.
VVVVVV's ancestry
And this former comment of mine may still be of interest to all who enjoyed VVVVVV, and would like to meet some of its forefathers and foremothers.
On the first, if your just
On the first, if your just playing a game for hedonism, why not just go drink beer or smoke dope? Games involve engaging some sort of obstacle - and obstacles are to some degree unpleasant. If there isn't an obstacle, it's probably about as much a game as popping the cap on a beer is a game.
And in terms of what a difficulty curve 'should' be, there's a 'should'?
There are certain ergonomics in terms of human perception and engagement (much like you can't fold your elbow backwards, the mind doesn't fold in certain ways). But apart from that, I'm not aware of any 'should'.
Then again these days I'm not sure the word 'should' should exist...hur hur.
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
& a funny take on/the shocking truth about space invaders
reply
Callan.
Games are the best recreational activity available. While obstacles/challenges can be unpleasant, the greater the challenge the greater the feeling of satisfaction of accomplishment.
The reason you're confused about what a difficulty curve should be, is because there doesn't need to be a difficulty curve in console/pc games. Arcade games had to have a steep difficulty curve because if the players weren't dying the vendors wouldn't be making money. Since many games aren't arcade games anymore, people have been moving away from difficulty in games (and becoming more confused about difficulty levels) and more into roller coaster rides (dumbing down challenges so that the game can be easily won).
One & Two
To answer Paul's first question, I'll paraphrase one of his own comments amongst the anarchy of the IndieGames comment section: it's the same effect from playing a JRPG, and I think it's either ingrained in your psyche or it isn't. For those who are afflicted, it's amazing. I haven't felt as elated from a video game since I was, say, eight years old (See: Veni, Vidi, Vici). The quick answer is that it's a bit of both, and I'm perfectly ok with it.
The second question is something I'm going to focus on for my final analysis (which I swear I'll get around to, I just wanted to get my fifth playthrough in before I did so). I loved having the combination of both the Knytt-like exploration and masocore elements; a large part of masocore is its off-putting nature (the game also toys with its own rules towards the end which is awesome). I loved that twist there, I loved exploring the landscapes as much as I did in all those atmospheric platformers I always drool over. Instead of being constantly high pressure, the game has the sweeping dynamics of a Pixies song. It accentuates the difficult parts all the more. In the same way that the instant respawns improve the difficulty curve, having those low pressure segments improve the game as a whole.
And to those who don't believe this is worth $15 dollars, I'll say this: I'd rather have an ounce of prime cut steak over a pound of gristle anyday. This is the most enthralling game experience I've had in a really long time, and the game's length is perfect.
alastair jack, if you just
alastair jack, if you just want the satisfaction and if there was a way to get an equivalent satisfaction much faster from something else, well, you'd go for that. That's what the OP's first question gets at.
And you've missed my point about 'should' - unless some god stepped down from heaven and commanded it so, there is no 'should' that I am aware of.
There are certain, almost mechanical qualities of how a mind works, that you can't go against as much as you can't fold an elbow backwards. But there is no 'should' that I'm aware of. It's not confusion, it's simply a lack of zelous certainty in the face of zero evidence.
Dustin,
Good analogy with the ounce of primecut/pound of gristle thing! Make sure to spread that around because it's word of mouth that sells these things, I think.
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
& a funny take on/the shocking truth about space invaders
callan, if there is no
callan, if there is no should, why would you want dustin to spread the analogy around in order to help sell the game? i mean, doesn't that imply he "should" do that?
i think should is just a shorthand for 'recommend' -- i.e. if something is recommended, it should be done
cathartic pleasure of
cathartic pleasure of success is clearly a big part of the game habit. I'm not a big platformer fan because the payoff for me isn't worth the repetition, but as soon as I finish an fps that I like on medium, I'll crank the difficulty to hard and start over.
The challenge is finding the balance between challenge and payoff, which differs for all people. Platformer fans, other gamers and casual/non-gamers are disparate clusters of that balance - I'm not sure you can serve more than one of those types of gamers.
no question difficulty curves should be irregular - regardless of HOW difficult you make things. the idea of plateauing is common to the development of all skills. you flatline for a while, keep working at it and jump to a new level of expertise.
The first is whether
The first is whether cathartic pleasure is worth it -- i.e., if you fail 500 times at some arbitrary challenge, is the pleasure at finally succeeding at that challenge worth the pain of failing 500 times?
That isn't really what's happening in Veni Vidi Vici. Throughout those 500 times you're getting better more or less continuously. (And 500 death is two hours, tops. As far as video game OCD goes, that's pretty tame.)
Contrast it with "I'm Sorry". I got stuck there for about 15 minutes and gave up on it--if you fail at it, you're just going to continually die in pretty much exactly the same way every time.
To be honest, I don't really feel the catharsis everyone's talking about, and that's not at all what drives me to a challenge. It's more a combination of curiosity about my own limitations and "Losing is Fun!" I don't play DF, but I've lost every game of Spelunky I've ever played, I'll almost certainly lose every game of Spelunky I play in the future, but I'm probably going to keep playing Spelunky in the future, not expecting to get anywhere near the bottom.
This game will make you want
This game will make you want to kill yourself. I haven't figured out yet if this is a good or a bad thing
rinkuhero, your miss
rinkuhero, your miss identifying what I want - I don't want dustin to spread the analogy, I want dustin to achieve what he wants to achieve. Now I may have miss identified what he wants to achieve, but I'm sure he'll tell me that if that is the case.
i think should is just a shorthand for 'recommend' -- i.e. if something is recommended, it should be done
I'll respond to that on my blog rather than make another bulky comment here.
I have some issues with the
I have some issues with the "slidy-ness" of the characters. I know it's a part of the engine and all but it makes many death seem unfair. I actually really like "masocore" games that pit you against ridiculous challenges, but I feel that these games are really more enjoyable if you have 100% control of your character, and that you feel that the many death you encounter are your fault, and not some random event that you'll get over by chance after 1000 tries
callan, if you were were
callan, if you were were merely recommending to him a method to achieve his goals and desires, couldn't i then likewise say that by 'should' i was asking which method to use for game developers to achieve the quality of games they want to achieve?
It wouldn't be likewise to
It wouldn't be likewise to ask of a single method for all game developers to use. Game developers may have, or can have given the chance, different goals from each other (though harmoginisation can occur to a degree if you start treating them all the same and perscribing the one method to them all). I offered one customised method for one single guy.
Currently indie development culture...I think alot of people have been told what they should do for it to be a cool or popular game. They haven't had their own vision nurtured much at all - their own vision is like a sapling in the shadow of a sort of zeitgeist. And I think because their own visions aren't nutured individiually, they in turn don't pass on nuturing of vision to others and instead pass on an overall standard to be met.
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
& also my web comic!
It wouldn't be likewise to
It wouldn't be likewise to ask of a single method for all game developers to use.
Well, okay, which goals would find non-monotonic difficult curves useful, and which would not? Presumably, difficulty curve monotonicity is not, itself, a first-order goal for a very large number of developers.
Currently indie development culture...I think alot of people have been told what they should do for it to be a cool or popular game.
There are lots of people who try to tell indie developers what to do, but I think the subset of indie developers actually successfully making games generally lets that crap roll of their backs. Nurture your own vision.
There are lots of people who
There are lots of people who try to tell indie developers what to do, but I think the subset of indie developers actually successfully making games generally lets that crap roll of their backs. Nurture your own vision.
I don't think that works - though I'm willing to hear contesting hypothesises.
Basically if your making a game for people other than just yourself, then you can not close yourself off to that crap. Your opening yourself up to other people by making games intended not just for the you, the author, to play.
Granted you could write a game just for yourself to play - and people probably do. But we might not be hearing about them for that reason as well. Or you could write for specific people in your life to play it. But again that suffers from a similar problem, though through word of mouth and encouragement those specific people might encourage the author to allow a wider audience to see the game (though heck, does that audience deserve it (assuming the audience enjoys it) if the author was so reluctant to begin with)
Or maybe I'm just airing things I'm grappling with. Who knows?
~~~
Philosopher Gamer Blog
& also my web comic!
Game design questions
The first is whether cathartic pleasure is worth it -- i.e., if you fail 500 times at some arbitrary challenge, is the pleasure at finally succeeding at that challenge worth the pain of failing 500 times?
No. No sense of relief ever makes up for that frustration.
The second is whether difficulty curves should be regular, or whether that feels too artificial, as if the very act of having a carefully balanced game *reminds* you that it's a game, and detracts from the experience -- i.e., is it a problem if game follows "best game design practices" too well?
Personally, I don't think it's a problem. But I just look at it as producing a different kind of experience. It depends on what sort of experience you want to create, I don't know if you can say one is "better" than another, they're just different.
Fruitful Frustration
Actually, I'll argue that frustration is often a positive. 500 times may be excessive, but I'll give an example: When I first played WoW, shortly after it was first released, getting my first mount was hard. Getting to sufficient level (I think it was 40 at the time) was a long slog, and the damn thing was expensive. Buying my first mount was a landmark, it felt like a major, and satisfying, accomplishment.
I played WoW for a while last year, starting again from first level -- and they've nerfed it. You can get it at lower level, it's vastly cheaper, and it's no big deal -- when you hit level, you buy a mount, no problem. It was disappointing -- and, in a way, felt like it devalued my earlier struggle.
(They've nerfed it for a good reason, btw -- newbie areas are on most servers practically deserted now, so they want to get you past them quicker and to the higher level areas where the action now is. But this makes the lower levels less interesting, alas.)
The point is that being challenged, and overcoming a challenge, is rewarding; and you're only challenged if you have to work hard, and quite likely fail many times. The problem is to find the sweetspot of "fruitful frustration" -- too much and people will quit in disgust, to little and the game feels trivial. The ideal is to make people work, and feel good when they finally succeed.