Topic: Forgiving vs. unforgiving game mechanics

After (finally) getting to play Scram Kitty (a fantastic game, btw), one of the things I noticed is how unforgiving that game is regarding its game mechanics. And this is in a good way: I really get the feeling that it's always my own fault if I fail in the game, and the personal rewards for doing good moves and clearing a level are huge. Very old school.
Previously, I though Tropical Freeze required very precise movement, but now I see how forgiving that game really is in comparison. That game is more about timing than actually being in the absolute correct spot when doing a jump.
And I think Wonderful 101 is also pretty forgiving in this context, since it feels more important to do the right kind of action than to be 100% precise in that game.

I would like to see more of these well-designed games where skill really matters, where you simply can't proceed on luck alone. That would be a nice balance to games like 3D World, which are of course good in other ways.

Agree/disagree?

I agree.....mostly .

The problem is that there is a very, very fine line between unforgiving and challenging versus unforgiving and frustrating. A good example of the latter are the Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden games on the NES. It was stupidly easy to get yourself knocked to your death, which was frustrating. Compare this to the NES Megaman games, which were quite similar in many ways, but not to the point of frustration.

Scram Kitty reminds me of those unforgiving hardcore days, BUT compared to the old school "unbeatables", at least you can save progress and don't have to do all stages, or even all challenges in one level in one run. So frustration is kept to a minimum while the challenge is still full on.

I've lost track of how many times I've played Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze and wanted to snap my gamepad out of frustration because I keep dieing over and over and over and over, and finally 15 even 30 failures later (those late game rocket barrel levels are way too hard) I get lucky and move on to the next exercise in masochism, but by that time I no longer have the will to keep failing until I get lucky so I abandon the game for another week or so. Does anyone really find that sort of thing entertaining? I don't, it makes me miss the days of Game Genies and Game Sharks when we could tailor the difficulty of a game to our liking and avoid that sort of repetitive masochistic bull****.

I love easy games, they don't stress me out, I did my time when I was a kid playing games with stupid hard difficulties that made me want to scream out in frustration, now a days I want games I can relax with not games that make me feel like I'm in some sort of gamer hell, problem is easy games are often short games, and short games feel like a waste of money, I guess theirs always Tetris.

Well, the original DK Country games are known for their difficulty, and Retro wanted the DK Country games to retain that difficulty. I guess, if you don't like games that can get quite challenging, DK Country isn't your game. I'm no hero either, and I usually struggle with new games, but through experience we all learn. Anyway, I bet multiple people had to do some levels at least several times, you're not the only one.

At least the game doesn't feel broken, the controls are very smooth, it's just very challenging at some points.

So, I'd call Fire Emblem unforgiving, but not impossible.

I played W101 and after that I played Bayonetta, and the latter is way more unforgiving. There are barely health pickups and if you use one of your own you get punished at the end of the level. Plus the QTEs give you like a second of time before you fail and you get a game over, unlike W101 where they remove a little part of your health bar and are more lenient.

Scram Kitty is great, and very hard. Those cats you have to chase are the worst. I will play more today, but loving it so far.

Not sure if I got you right, but you make it sound as if 3D World does not require skill. The game is not brutal, but you don't beat levels by sheer luck, specially the second half and the secret worlds.

I prefer either Castlevania (First time through anyway) or the PC Engine version of Ninja Gaiden to any Megaman. (Only really played 2 & 9 to completion). Don't like the blind drops that Megaman has. Knockback is a mechanic that can be accounted for. With Megaman first time then you have to just guess.

And that is what keeps me playing, as maddeningly difficult as some of the levels are many levels are not, and it is those levels where everything just kinda clicks and creates a very enjoyable experience, I guess the trick is to force myself to play through the whole game to unlock all the levels, then go back later to enjoy the levels that don't make me want to bang my head against a wall.

I agree with you. The first half of 3D world is mostly designed for "entertainment" and after Bowser is defeated it's much more difficult.

But I think there is a difference between the kind of difficulty found in Scram Kitty, compared to the kind of difficulty found in Tropical Freeze and the later half of 3D World. For example: in Tropical Freeze, I had huge problems with the timing regarding 2 of the bosses (the fish boss and the last boss). I tried and tried, and I got a little better, until the boss was defeated. And when it was accomplished, I was just happy that I never had to beat that boss ever again, but my playing hadn't improved much. But in Scram Kitty OTOH, I practice until I master the mechanics, and when I have achieved that, I can beat the level(s) repeatedly. I don't know if this makes any sense or not. Perhaps it's just me.

I guess that what you say is that in DK you only conquered a hard part, without that having any bearing in your overall skill level. But in SK you do commit to master the mechanics, making you better in the long run.

If possible, give Yumi's Odd Odyssey a chance. I think that one could be interesting, as it demands a lot of skill and practice to even beat some levels, let alone find all secrets. That is Sayonara Umihara Kawase to the east of the Atlantic.

Oh, and regarding W101. Did you play the Kahkoo Regahs? Those things have infernal difficulty. A little mistake will cost you dearly there, yet they are optional.

Thanks for the tip! Will get it if I get a 3DS or if the Wii U will run 3DS games in the future.

No, I have yet a lot to master in Wonderful 101, but I've at least got some skills at drawing fast circles.

I hate unforgiving gameplay. I feel like it's a relic of the NES era, and it's just kind of infuriating when I have to redo such a massive part of a game because of a small mistake. That's part of why I hate games with one-hit kill mechanics. I far prefer life bars, in which I'm given space to make an error and learn from it without dying. The game can still be challenging, with life very easily lost, but I like to know when I can take risks and explore, and when I need to be super careful.

I don't think any of the games discussed have that kind of gameplay, and I think games rarely have that nowadays. The initial post was about the unforgiving game mechanics, not the gameplay.

This game is referenced all the time for this so I have no choice.

Dark Souls is a great game that is unforgiving but is really fair. You almost never get screwed over in that game, if you die it's because you aren't good enough yet or need to find a better strategy.

Different games or target audiences require different types of game mechanics. Sometimes I like unforgiving, and sometimes I like forgiving. I find games that straddle the line to be the most fun. I love the Trials series, I believe it straddles that line. Levels can be very punishing but with each level being about 5 minutes in length you never get to far set back. Super Meat Boy does the same thing. These games that have a lot of trial and error need to have short burst of intense concentration. I haven't played Dark Souls, but I did play a little of Rouge Legacy (which I have heard is similar in some ways) and the problem with the game is every time you die you are set back to the beginning, without any real progression.

I prefer 1 kit kills but a decent amount of game between checkpoints.

Or for something like 2D Mario always going small after a hit - no redoing levels to get powerups - very limited mushrooms. Cannot remember the last time I needed to use a continue on a Nintendo game.

For something like Metal Slug the only way is trying using a single credit.

You see that's one of the major reasons I steer clear of 2D Mario, as well as other 2D Platformers with similar mechanics. I feel like it completely discourages risk taking and exploration. If I'm going to either die or lose an ability by trying a risky technique, trying to access a hidden area, trying to beat a level quickly, or am simply trying to learn a new mechanic, I'm much less inclined to do such a thing. That's one of the reasons I like games like Aladdin on the SNES, they have a life bar, and don't take powerups away from you when you get hit.

You got it spot on: If the player feels like they failed because it was their fault, it's fun. If it's the game's fault, it's a bad game and not fun.

There are some other key things as well. If you're going to kill the player often and/or take them right back to the start when you do, then it's essential that you don't waste their time with some stupidly long death animation or "you are dead 5..4..3..2..1.. restart?" screen. This is not always easy, as the player also has to know why they died, so you can't insta-teleport them back to the start of the level or they'll be like "what just happened?" and not even realise they are back there because they died.

Much of the rest is level design. You don't want two really hard bits in a row without a checkpoint / save point between. Or then, people will finally get passed the first hard part, be like "yes!" and feel really great, then when they die on the second hard part and get spawned back before the first, they just plain quit the game and never come back.