Poll: Who the hell does Super Meat Boy appeal to?

[benderinTime]

All you're saying is that the game got hard, and you didn't like it. Mario suffered the same things. There were bullshit traps everywhere at the end, and there were projectiles flying at you from about 50 different angles at once. I'm confused as to what you want from a challenging platformer if you also want the game to make the final level as easy as the first one.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Did the controls ever fail you right out causing you to die? The game is solid, fairly lengthy and difficult while not being impossible. I'm not sure how you don't like it, but we all have our own opinions. I find it funny that you seem to think that no one should like this game, like you can't see any redeeming value in it. Why make there another challenge near the end of the already hard level? To add to it. If it didn't have it, you would claim it's too short. Maybe this game just can't please you, but I was pretty sure there was a demo of it?

I never said that anyone shouldn't like the game. I just don't understand why the type of people who like these games would pay to play it, since it's design is on par with the average rom hack.

EDIT: I suppose you haven't played "I want to be the guy: the movie: the game" then? If you didn't like super meat boy, don't even google that game.

I have. And while I didn't like that game, I didn't feel pissed off by it. Mainly because I didn't pay $15 dollars under the pretense that it had better design than the typical rom hack. Thing is, I feel that Super Meat Boy isn't anything special to justify the price tag. It might as well be another bullshit rom hack.

Out of curiosity, what WOULD make it less of a bullshit game in your opinion?

Levels of the appropriate length. In the first area of the game, I enjoyed it. It was difficult, and definitely frustrating, but overall rewarding. It's only towards the end of the game, when the levels started to become pointlessly long, that it started to really piss me off and I felt that it was poorly designed. I think that short levels work in the games favor due to its trial and error playstyle. When the levels start getting to long or bloated with an abhorrent amount of hazards all enjoyment is lost.

All you're saying is that the game got hard, and you didn't like it. Mario suffered the same things. There were bullshit traps everywhere at the end, and there were projectiles flying at you from about 50 different angles at once. I'm confused as to what you want from a challenging platformer if you also want the game to make the final level as easy as the first one.

That is a gross exaggeration. And I never said I wanted the final level to be as easy as the first one. What I wanted was for the levels to keep the appropriate length. Because when the levels become incredibly long, they just start to become to frustrating. I wouldn't care nearly as much if they were incredibly difficult but still relatively quick to complete.

 

[tsb247]

Super Meat Boy = Hard platformer

I Wanna Be the Guy = Torment and agony

Having played the ladder, I don't see Super Meat Boy as being that bad. Coincidentally, Super Meat Boy GREATLY resembles an old freeware game known as, "Jumper."

http://www.gamemakergames.com/archive/jumper

 

[Manicotti]

Out of curiosity, what WOULD make it less of a bullshit game in your opinion?

Levels of the appropriate length. In the first area of the game, I enjoyed it. It was difficult, and definitely frustrating, but overall rewarding. It's only towards the end of the game, when the levels started to become pointlessly long, that it started to really piss me off and I felt that it was poorly designed. I think that short levels work in the games favor due to its trial and error playstyle. When the levels start getting to long or bloated with an abhorrent amount of hazards all enjoyment is lost.

I think that's fair. I really can't refute that because I'm still working through World 2 at the moment. But I can see how shorter levels can maintain the challenge and reward at the same time without being frustrating.

 

[KazOondo]

Other. I have no idea what it's about.

 

[Aurora Firestorm]

I'm in the "Have not played, will not play" category.

I think it appeals to the same people who liked the gameplay mechanics of old-school adventure games and CRPGs (think Baldur's Gate for the first 3-4 levels of character, and older stuff) -- the people who want a game that is so hard that they have to work their asses off and get really good in order to beat the game. It's less about story/character/whatever and more about being really, really good at the gameplay. If you stretch this out, you get people who actually play I Wanna Be The Guy and win one day.

I don't like hard platformers just because I don't really like having to trial-and-error grind levels. I think winning by a lucky shot isn't winning at all, and I tend to ragequit if I can't finish any game's level after...20 or so tries. I can try for a while, but spending hours on a level and getting nowhere starts fraying too many nerves, and when nerves fray, I do worse at a game, and then...it just sucks.

 

[KILGAZOR]

If a level is lengthy but is all about mastering the same mechanic, then if you die at the end then you shouldn't be upset about starting over because you obviously didn't learn the mechanic that got you through the first part of the level very throughly, and besides you could use the practice. The point isn't about repeating the same one jumping movement over and over until you get it right once, it's that you can do a number of similar but slightly varied ones in a row to show that you understand the overall mechanic.

However, if the level combines a bunch of different mechanics in the same level at different points in the level, I agree, that is kinda unfair.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Out of curiosity, what WOULD make it less of a bullshit game in your opinion?

Levels of the appropriate length. In the first area of the game, I enjoyed it. It was difficult, and definitely frustrating, but overall rewarding. It's only towards the end of the game, when the levels started to become pointlessly long, that it started to really piss me off and I felt that it was poorly designed. I think that short levels work in the games favor due to its trial and error playstyle. When the levels start getting to long or bloated with an abhorrent amount of hazards all enjoyment is lost.

I think that's fair. I really can't refute that because I'm still working through World 2 at the moment. But I can see how shorter levels can maintain the challenge and reward at the same time without being frustrating.

I was mostly enjoying the game back in World 2. There were some aspects I disliked, but overall I felt it was well designed. It's when I got to World 5 I felt that the quality had started to nosedive.

I suppose I do understand why some people like it despite the bullshit. I just don't get why these people would pay for Super Meat Boy when they can evidently get the same quality of gameplay from a rom hack.

 

[coldshadow]

I pretty much felt the same way about "vvvvvv".
at first it was awesome and had a great concept, but partway through the game you start to get pissed off of the fact that your character slides like hes wearing roller blades and some of the puzzles feel like they are luck based.

 

[Firetaffer]

Can you send me your copy, then? I'm the one they're appealing to.

I don't get how people can enjoy a game that, statistically, you will not beat. As only 4.5% of the people who own this game have beaten the light world, according to Steam.

4.5% of all the people who bought this couldn't beat it. And I don't think it's because all 95.5% of those people suck at platforming games. I think it's because towards the end of the game the amount of bullshit overpowers the game's redeeming features.

When you say the end? Are you talking about the world? Or the end of the game? Or the end of the cotton alley? Or the end of the end of the dark world? Really I'm rather confused, I'm currently at Hell's dark world and finding it a nice challenge, everything is predictable and if I die, it's my fault, not because of some 'random' event occurring.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Can you send me your copy, then? I'm the one they're appealing to.

I don't get how people can enjoy a game that, statistically, you will not beat. As only 4.5% of the people who own this game have beaten the light world, according to Steam.

4.5% of all the people who bought this couldn't beat it. And I don't think it's because all 95.5% of those people suck at platforming games. I think it's because towards the end of the game the amount of bullshit overpowers the game's redeeming features.

When you say the end? Are you talking about the world? Or the end of the game? Or the end of the cotton alley? Or the end of the end of the dark world? Really I'm rather confused, I'm currently at Hell's dark world and finding it a nice challenge, everything is predictable and if I die, it's my fault, not because of some 'random' event occurring.

According to Steam Achievements, only 4.5% of players have beaten the Light World. I assumed that was beating "The End" in the light world, though I honestly don't know since I got fed up wih the game's bullshit on the last level.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I might get it, I have 800 MS points lying around.

 

[cainx10a]

The game was on sale for $3.75 on steam, twice. And I still didn't purchase it. This game does not appeal to me at all.

 

[inkheart_artist]

Dude, that's what ridiculous difficulty is all about. Have you ever played some of those platformers from the 80s and early 90s? That's the difficulty its trying and succeeding to emulate.

 

[CoverYourHead]

I didn't find it that difficult! I played a friend's copy, picked it up right around the point most people claim it becomes immensely hard and enjoyed every minute of it and beat it without a real issue.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Dude, that's what ridiculous difficulty is all about. Have you ever played some of those platformers from the 80s and early 90s? That's the difficulty its trying and succeeding to emulate.

I don't see why you would try to emulate archaic gameplay rather than, say, improve it.

But the thing is I felt that Super Meat Boy was better than that at first. Sure it annoyed me that it was clearly wallowing in nostalgia and the game had little soul of its own as a result, but I still felt like the creators learned from the faults of old platformers and improved on them in Super Meat Boy. For example, the short length of the levels made the trial and error nature of the gameplay tolerable and, dare I say, fun in the early area. It's only towards the end of the game when they abandoned short levels in favor of long ones for extra "difficulty" that I felt the game fell apart.

 

[mudE13]

Not only does the game appeal to me, but it very well might be my "Downloadable Game of the Year". It has AWESOME level design, insane unlockables, and most importantly keeps you coming back for more. Anybody that hasn't played this game and likes old 2D side scrollers needs to play it A.S.A.P.

 

[StephEff]

I don't like it, but I don't hate it.

I'm still really convinced that it's a rip off of I Wanna Be The Guy.

It's probably the only game that has ever made me rage-quit.

 

[Death God]

I didn't even realize it was a game until a while ago. I'm not really looking into it though. I can't see the appeal to it.

 

[joshthor]

i just bought it, so far i have put about an hour into it, i bought it for 3.75. totally worth it. so far, i like it. i havent gotten very far yet though.