I only just beat word 2 so I probably haven't encountered the really hard stages yet but so far the difficulty isn't that bad: you'll die a lot but since the levels are short that's not that frustrating. Of course if you've never played or dislike platformers from the NES era I really wouldn't recommend Super Meat Boy.
The game could have honestly taken a page out of the VVVVVV level design book in hard obstacles but generous checkpoints.
Games are about fun not being aggravating, I have fun trying to overcome an obstacle (VENI VIDI VICI!) but having to start all over again from a single death would be horrible (imagine having to do a whole VVVVVV stage over because of one death)
The game could have honestly taken a page out of the VVVVVV level design book in hard obstacles but generous checkpoints.
Games are about fun not being aggravating, I have fun trying to overcome an obstacle (VENI VIDI VICI!) but having to start all over again from a single death would be horrible (imagine having to do a whole VVVVVV stage over because of one death)
Not quite sure we're talking about the same Super Meat Boy...the levels last less than 2 minutes when you actually get through them. Where exactly did you want the checkpoints? Many of the levels fit on the screen without scrolling. Did you want it to auto save every 5 seconds for you so you don't have to redo one saw blade?
That'd be nice, actually. Many challenges in VVVVVV can be tough to overcome and it would be rather annoying to have to go through many challenges again just to get where you were and fail, again then have to redo it over and over. I like a challenge and a game making you work for your reward but there is a fine line between challenge and bad level design.
It would castrate the difficulty, from what I've tried. None of the challenges I've seen in SMB are particularly difficult in themselves (jump over a saw blade, jump a gap, climb a wall), it's the stringing them together that is the challenge.
It claims to be hard and it is. And it's fairly hard to me, you can see all the stuff that's going to be in your way before you try to navigate it. It's not like Tomb Raider's "leap of faith" gameplay or that "Super Mario Frustration" romhack where random invisible blocks you didn't know about your first time cause you to die. You get a fair view of every hazard and have to get through them all. Then it just comes down to your skill as a player. And when you die, you just instantly start over. No bullshit life and game over system, no Too Human style animation you have to watch each time you die, you just get to try again right away. It all seems completely fair to me and I find it to be a shining example of good difficulty.
As for being worth the price of admission, I got it when Steam had it on sale for $3.75. Easily worth it to me, I could have paid the whole $15 and been happy, especially as more content is being worked on.
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.
Hey, I have bought it, and I haven't beaten it, but that is because my computer can't cope with it (it is definitely not a gaming PC). If I get a better PC by the time that the Mac version of the game is released, then I will continue with it then. Do not assume that 95.5% of those players cannot beat the game.
Personally, I am greatly looking forward to picking up from where I left off.
It would castrate the difficulty, from what I've tried. None of the challenges I've seen in SMB are particularly difficult in themselves (jump over a saw blade, jump a gap, climb a wall), it's the stringing them together that is the challenge.
I get that, and obviously I didn't mean put them after every single challenge, my whole "that would be nice thing" was saying that would be better in comparison to starting all over. but a single midway point in the levels would cut the frustration down a whole lot and probably make the game a lot more fun when you are not hating yourself for making a mistake and having to do things all over again.
lacktheknack said:
SMB's levels are one screen long at first, then two later... I don't know how long they get at the end, though.
Weird quoting me twice but whatever, the thing is though SMB has many challenges per screen, whilst VVVVVV has maybe one or two.
I suppose I should say now since I can see I have been ridiculing the level design quite a bit, I don't dislike SMB as a whole. I generally enjoyed the game (when I was not having to do a level over and over upwards of 20 times) but the level design could have been better.
It claims to be hard and it is. And it's fairly hard to me, you can see all the stuff that's going to be in your way before you try to navigate it. It's not like Tomb Raider's "leap of faith" gameplay or that "Super Mario Frustration" romhack where random invisible blocks you didn't know about your first time cause you to die. You get a fair view of every hazard and have to get through them all. Then it just comes down to your skill as a player. And when you die, you just instantly start over. No bullshit life and game over system, no Too Human style animation you have to watch each time you die, you just get to try again right away. It all seems completely fair to me and I find it to be a shining example of good difficulty.
Yeah, that's the thing. The longest level in the game is about 2 minutes (some of the ones where you have to blast bricks to get through, the last boss fight is about a minute). Really, the levels last about as long as it takes for you to get from one checkpoint to another in a game of Halo. You see every obstacle miles ahead. The controls are predictable. If you die, you get instawarped into the beginning. No long-winded death animations, no animations at all that you need to skip. You don't even have to get past every level to get through the light worlds. Sure, it's far more about reflex than it is about puzzles like, say, Limbo or Braid.
Is it hard? Yes. But it's not in the least bit unfair. It's the best designed 2D platformer in a while, in my opinion, managing to top the new Donkey Kong. The only platformer period I thought was better than this was SMG2 and that's a completely different kind of experience altogther.
EDIT: As for who the hell it appeals to... well, it's a nice little game that doesn't hold your hand at all. It's nice that such a game is getting attention since the vast majority of games these days are all about long-winded tutorials and gameplay where have little chance of failing. It's not for people that care about immersion or atmosphere but it is for people who like their games gamey.
Say hello to every game with a Survival mode in existence.
I really hope you're this spiteful towards every game with more than 20 seconds of gameplay between checkpoints, because the other possibility is that you're just being a huge girl about this and are using 'long' levels as a smokescreen to make it seem like the game's fault.
Say hello to every game with a Survival mode in existence.
I really hope you're this spiteful towards every game with more than 20 seconds of gameplay between checkpoints, because the other possibility is that you're just being a huge girl about this and are using 'long' levels as a smokescreen to make it seem like the game's fault.
I suppose the statement I made wasn't entirely correct. Here's the revised version; measuring endurance in a trial and error platformer is not fun. Look, I beat the light world. I got A+ on the majority of the levels as well. Does that mean I'm good at the game? No, but it does mean I'm not completley awful at it and I did play it quite a bit. And I'm saying that I found the longer levels to be frustrating and filled with bullshit design, as opposed to the shorter levels which were really just as challenging but better served the trial and error style of gameplay. I would have enjoyed the game a lot more if the later levels stuck with that format rather than switching over to the unnecessarily long levels.
Also why must so many of you see my dislike for some of the level design in this game as a reason to insult me? I'm not insulting you, or at least don't intend to.
Jezzascmezza said:
I like it.
Sure, it's super tough, but the satisfaction you get after beating a tough level is awesome.
I felt the same way at first, but there really isn't any satisfaction for beating the levels towards the end of the game. I felt that I wasn't improving my skills and overcoming legitimate challengers, but rather working past terrible level design. And that wasn't satisfying.
I played the smaller, demo, version on Kongregate ages ago, but I haven't bothered with the full version. At the end of the day, it's a nice little platformer, and I did enjoy it to some extent, but it just gets really tough, there's such a steep learning curve, and so I got fed up with constantly dying or struggling with my crappy laptop and the controls all the time. Overall, a decent game, but not one I'm particularly interested in, sadly. If I was a reviewer though, to be fair, I'd probably give it around 60%, which could be bumped up to a 75% easily if the levels were made that bit easier...
Yes. I bought this game for $3.75 and I approve of it heartily. It's challenging, but not too challenging. If you want a ridiculously hard platformer with bullshit level design, download I Want to be the Guy. Once you've completed the first level of that game, all of Super Meat Boy is a walk in the park.
I felt the same way at first, but there really isn't any satisfaction for beating the levels towards the end of the game. I felt that I wasn't improving my skills and overcoming legitimate challengers, but rather working past terrible level design. And that wasn't satisfying.
Which levels were these excruciatingly long ones, when just about every level that didn't involve a slow elevator of some sort clocked at or below a minute? Of those level types, I only remember around 2 or 3 out of a couple hundred. And yes, I actually did count. Even the last boss around lasts around a minute.
And like I said, you see every obstacle beforehand. After the first 2 worlds or so there really shouldn't be any surprises regarding how the traps work.
Which levels were these excruciatingly long ones, when just about every level that didn't involve a slow elevator of some sort clocked at or below a minute? Of those level types, I only remember around 2 or 3 out of a couple hundred. And yes, I actually did count. Even the last boss around lasts around a minute.
And like I said, you see every obstacle beforehand. After the first 2 worlds or so there really shouldn't be any surprises regarding how the traps work.
I'd say any level that foes past 30 seconds for the A+ requirement is to long. Now you might be thinking "but Internet Kraken, 30 seconds isn't long at all!". Well in other games you'd be right, but in Super Meat Boy you have to keep in mind that pretty much every part of each level is trying to kill you. In a game based around trial and error, having levels even half a minute long seems like a bad design choice. At least to me it does. I've been going back to the earlier levels an redoing them in the dark world, and it's legitimately entertaining. Even the levels that are kicking my ass are enjoyable. It's when the levels get unnecessarily long that the game stops being fun.
See the above part of this post for an explanation on how even a half a minute long level in Super Meat Boy is what I would consider to be to long. You have to keep in mind I am saying these later levels are long relative the the other levels in the game.
You have a TERRIBLE definition of Trial and Error (hard but COMPLETELY VISIBLE AND HONEST areas =/= trial and error, trial and error involves GUESSING which is something you NEVER HAVE TO DO in SMB).
What? I'm sorry, but what you just said baffles me. Trial and error does not necessarily involve guessing. It involves analyzing your failure, adjusting your playstyle based on it, and then trying again.
"experimentation or investigation in which various methods or means are tried and faulty ones eliminated in order to find the correct solution or to achieve the desired result or effect."
-Dictionary.com
Guessing is not necessarily a part of trial and error. I'm not saying trial and error gameplay is always bad either.
And someone earlier pointed out that you overuse 'bullshit' which is entirely true.
The reason I used bullshit to describe the level design so much is because that, to me at least, perfectly summarizes my feelings towards it. But if people are taking offense to that, and on reflection I can see why, I'll stop using the term so much.
Meanwhile no-one here actually cares that you "don't like SMB", they care because you flailing around your 'bullshit' as if your misguided butthurtedness is fact, and you continue to spew forth 'bullshit' without even READING the posts pointing out the fact that you are actually WRONG
I do read posts in my thread, and that should be obvious given the fact that I've taken time to respond to several of them, yours included. I hadn't considered that people would actually interpret my use of the word "bullshit" to describe the level design in such a hostile manner, though on reflection I can see why people would. Still, I don't feel it jsutfiies some of the unnecessarily rude responses I've gotten.
The point I'm trying to make here, is that your entire argument is "The levels are too long, and they are trial and error, thus bullshit level design" and none of these things are true.
How so? You haven't proved how any of this is not true. I still don't see how having long levels (relative to the length of levels in the rest of the game) is a good idea in a game based around trial and error. And yes, it is based around trial and error. I don't see how else you would describe it.
Somehow I get the feeling I'm gonna be sent into probation for this, even though I'm being far less offensive then the guy i'm quoting... :/
Side Note: SMB != trial and error. How many times during the course of the entire game did you not know exactly what had to be done to finish a level? Practicing to get skilled enough to pass an obstacle isn't trial and error. That's called practice.
I think the problem with what you're saying is the "bullshit level design" part. Nothing about it is bullshit. A stage being a little too long for your tastes doesn't qualify. I hate to parrot what everybody else has said already, but you need to look really hard at I Want to be the Guy and then come back to SMB and tell me with a straight face that SMB's levels are unfair.
Other Side Note: These forums are way too saccharine and nice if the kind of talk I've been giving you is harming your delicate sensibilities.
Side Note: SMB != trial and error. How many times during the course of the entire game did you not know exactly what had to be done to finish a level? Practicing to get skilled enough to pass an obstacle isn't trial and error. That's called practice.
And how exactly does that not mean trial and error? I'm not saying this is a bad thing either, so I don't get why you are fiercely denying that this is what the game boils down to. This is only a bad thing when you bring in (relatively!) long levels.
I think the problem with what you're saying is the "bullshit level design" part. Nothing about it is bullshit. A stage being a little too long for your tastes doesn't qualify. I hate to parrot what everybody else has said already, but you need to look really hard at I Want to be the Guy and then come back to SMB and tell me with a straight face that SMB's levels are unfair.
I have played I Want to be the Guy. I played it long before I played Super Meat Boy, and not it does not change my opinion on Super Meat Boy. In another thread I unfairly compared the two games together out of spite, but really they're two different kinds of platformers. IWBTG is filled with ridiculous surprises, while Super Meat Boy does lay out of every obstacle for you.
That doesn't change the fact that the level design is still poor though.
Other Side Note: These forums are way too saccharine and nice if the kind of talk I've been giving you is harming your delicate sensibilities.
Or I'm just tried of people assuming the only reason I disliked the later levels was because I was bad at them. I'm not saying I want you put on probation or anything like that. I'm just tired of people taking a jab at my skill rather than defending the actual game design. It's tiresome and doesn't actually prove anything.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
