Why is checkpoint starvation considered a part of "challenge" and not just a fucking waste of time?

Why is checkpoint starvation considered a part of "challenge" and not just a fucking waste of time?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=PJZByWHtzb8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I agree, you should be able to save anytime as long as it's not in the middle of a battle.

Because if fed checkpoints you won't play cautiously, you'll just keep playing recklessly at every minor challenge because playing it with any type of heed is just slower than trying to speedrun it 3 times.
Checkpoint starvation was a horror game element for a very good reason, tension alone is enough to test some players meddle.

Maybe you should actually look for the shortcuts then

I agree, you should be able to save anytime even if it's in the middle of a battle.

If you can.save at every step
No step has wieght

I agree, there shouldn't be checkpoints at all

Because you need to get good

>why are limits challenging

This is the best approach.

Didn't say anything about saving at every step or getting fed checkpoints.
Guhhh..
Literally nothing to do with skill.

youtube.com/watch?v=PJZByWHtzb8

chance to beat a section of gameplay length X = 80% (representative of skill required to beat, not pure odds)
length between checkpoints=2X => you have 64% chance to get to the next checkpoint
length between checkpoints=10X => you have 11% chance to get to the next checkpoint
option 2 is more skilled

>Literally nothing to do with skill.
>have to complete a series of challenges
vs
>have to complete one challenge at a time.

wow.

>checkpoint starvation considered a part of "challenge" and not just a fucking waste of time
>fucking waste of time
Go play cod or some shit, my "i have no time to waste to actually have a skill to beat the game" man
Also Ubisoft makes this kind of games for a reason

>have to complete a series of lame """""challenges""""""
vs
>have to complete one GREAT challenge at a time.

the great challenge is completing the series of challenges without fail.

Have you ever beat a retro game without save states?

I'm a proponent of save-anytime. Games are mainly supposed to be fun, so give the players the option to skip replaying sections if they find it tedious.

Unless the game is actively designed around replaying sections, like Dark souls. But in a sense of specific design philosophies, save anytime should be the default.

Because wasting time is the worst thing video games can legally do to punish gamers for fucking up.

the challenge that comes from checkpoint starvation is the challenge of maintaining your level of play at an acceptable level for longer periods of time
that is to say you can't just be a shitter and restart every two minutes until you luck out once, get to the checkpoint and then restart until you luck out again

>Games are mainly supposed to be fun
Games aren't fun if they're not challenging.

...

Reasonable

>Games are mainly supposed to be fun

Winning is fun. That's the challenge. Just being handed a win is empty and meaningless. Competitors trophies are for retarded kids.

>Have you ever beat a retro game without save states?
Yes. In fact, Metroid 1 is the exact game I'm talking about. The bosses are complete garbage compared to zero mission

>he thought this was funny

>he has no argument

Increased penalty for making a mistake adds to the difficulty.
It's the same reason walking across a 6 foot straight line in your living room is a piece of cake, but doing it on the edge of a sky scraper suddenly makes it a lot more intimidating.

Faggot.

No it doesn't, and no it's not.

There's no way I could have beaten Sonic without save states when I did it as a kid. And it was really stupid they didn't let you save. Also, having to leave the console on and the game in if you leave since you can't save. But I never actually had a sega genesis.

Wrong.

The point of Sonic and a lot of those games were that you would play from the beginning every time and get further as you got better. It was supposed to be fun replaying the levels. If you only have fun playing a level for the first time then I don't think the game was actually fun for you.

Arcade games were built on this style of play, and if you credit feed you're a no skill moron.

Right.

Except arcade games were literally designed to eat quarters

You can't save in an arcade because you don't own the console. Plus they want to get as much money out of you as possible.

Alright user, prove us all wrong and go walk across the edge of the top of your nearest tall building and record it.
Don't forget to do a flip when you inevitably fall like the bitch ass nigger you are.

If they weren't fun then nobody would have played them.

>i need more checkpoints because i can't stop dying!
>nothing to do with skill
lmao

You misunderstand, user.

But they weren't designed with skill in mind. They're difficult so that you fail more often and spend more money.

>grinding through all the same shit you've already done just to have another try at one obstacle you happened to fuck up on
No, that's really nothing to do with skill.

if you're so good why are you dying?

If you're not having fun with the game by playing a part of it one more time then why are you playing it?
They were designed to be fun enough that people would spend their money to play it. If it was unfairly hard then nobody would play it and it would make no money.

Very smart question.
Not everything is fun third or fourth time around, especially if you'd made it so far past it.

It does and it is you absolute brainlet.
Go right ahead and try and explain whatever mental retardation brought you to this conclusion.

My palms don't get sweaty playing video games.

Neither do mine.
Are you going to actually make an argument or just shitpost like a mongoloid?

Point is doing the same shit over and over doesn't make it easier or harder.

We're talking about extended periods of activity without a break increasing the strain on the player and thus the difficulty, not repetition.
Glad we've finally gotten to the core of your problem, you're a moron.

>grinding through all the same music notes in a song you've already played just to have another try at one note you happened to fuck up on
No, that's really nothing to do with skill.

I thought your palms don't get sweaty. But I'm glad you probably waste more time failing than I do because you let vidya get to you that bad.

>he thinks people learn music like they play guitar hero
that's fucking hilarious user. I love seeing people like you that have no idea how the world around them works

>why are students expected to know the answers in a test instead of letting them trial and error it until they get it right?

Are you implying people should be studying walkthroughs a couple of times before going at it themselves?

as long as you don't give me unskippable cutscenes i don't give a shit

All games should have suspend points so you can bow out at anytime, without being able to savescum. Most games that allow savescumming have something fundamentally wrong with their game design.

As for checkpoints themselves, it's really dependent on the game. Games in which you can easily be killed should have a decent frequency of checkpoints, around something similar to the average Sonic game. Unpopular opinion, but I think Dark Souls' checkpoints are just a little too far apart from each other. Not by a ton, but just enough that makes me want to stop playing when I die instead of trying again. But ultimately, it should really just depend on how much weight you want death to carry in your game. Which it kinda does in Dark Souls, so whatever, you can discard my opinion.

All videogames are a waste of time if there is an unlimited amount of tries for you to beat it.

Why is playing games considered a part of "challenge" and not just a fucking waste of time?

It is also not fun to replay an easy section for the Nth time just to get to the challenging part. You have to balance challenge with frustration level.

Obviously we can't go NO saves, so where's the limit?

Who is this man? I

Because thorough consistency is infinitely more challenging than mere initial competency.