Do you hate games with trial and error?

Specifically, left field punches. Let's say you're playing an adventure game. Then, all of a sudden, something comes ENTIRELY out of the blue and instantly kills you before you had ANY time to react to it. (For example, walking into a room and an enemy immediately attacking you.)

Better yet, what about where you have to keep exact perfection in order to complete the game? Like Flappy Bird, for example. That game is built upon a "perfection" mechanic, and if you mess up even a TINIEST of the tiniest microbits, you'll fail. (Flappy Bird is probably THE most unfair game ever, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu...)

Also, I think that Flappy Bird is unfair for these reasons.

The game operates on physics, so there are times when the bird falls at a speed that you aren't sure of at the time. The game also operates on how long and hard it's tapped, so if you don't tap with the exact timing and pressure, you will fail. So, unless you can count momentum and do some large math in your head about finger pressure and so on, this game is NOT fair whatsoever.

Oh, and I believe that the game is set up in a way that death is caused because of your performance a while ago. You could fail on pipe number 17 just because you tapped just slightly a little too hard on pipe number 5.

Were you just playing flappy bird?...

lol. its a mobile app. get over it

Trial and error is stupid but sometimes it's necessary.

@ajzoot: No, but this thread isn't about Flappy Bird. It's about unfair trial and error gameplay.

I don't mind trail and error so long as the game is within reasonable bound. If you learn and overcome, that's the purpose of gaming at its core.

If you want a game that plays everything for you, and/ or treats us like Imbeciles? Please keep that to yourself. It's ok if you just want casual fun. But plenty of gamers think a mild or above challenge is fun as well. As it becomes an adrenaline rush.

An unfair difficulty spike is one thing, but as such is not the same thing as trail and error.

Keep in mind what you deem fun, I as a gamer may find insulting.

Depends on the kind of game. If it's a platformer, then that tries my patience like no other.

It's why I don't get the praise for Limbo.

That entire game is frustrating trial and error.

First of all they should minimize the amount of trial and error......

Second of all. They should decrease reiteration time to conpensate for any trial and error that can't be removed.

And yeah.... Limbo was Fucked Up..... you're just walking along and SNAP !!!! You get killed by a non condpicuous beartrap

In general, yeah. It's frustrating. On the whole, though, it really depends on how each game uses it. Some games built around trial and error do it well -- where you know where you went wrong and know you what you need to do -- while others use it seemingly to create artificial difficulty -- that is, obstacles that are only challenging because they force you to fail before you can bypass them. I usually find the former agreeable since it doesn't actively obfuscate their solutions, whereas the latter is almost always frustrating.

Well, I gave it some thought, and I guess that maybe Flappy Bird is NOT an example of poor game design. In fact, since things don't really come out of left field, it's a fair experience. However, I still think the game could've been a bit better if all of the pipes were in the same exact order each time. That's just me, though.

This is what I mean when I say "trial and error."

Cat Mario - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NecGquJlMU

Unfair Platformer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F273w87w87U

I Wanna Be the Guy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuFOFjPCmuA

Those three games are examples. Now, granted those games were designed to be that way, but it REALLY bothers me when those types of mechanics are implemented into games without proper warning. Basically, it's when a game doesn't necessarily give you any time to react to it, and you cannot learn it's there until you die.

I feel like it should be 100% possible to try and be able to complete a game on the first try without even dying once. That doesn't mean the game should be extremely easy, but I don't think ANYTHING should come out of left field. You should see it coming, and you should be able to react to it in time.

Now, here's examples of GREAT game design that actually give players the chance to overcome any approaching obstacles.

The Impossible Game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXO1J3y2i6w

Super Meat Boy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=go-CKNCS8k8

Basically, stuff like that. You get a chance to react, but it doesn't make it entirely too easy.

Thoughts?

It just depends on how far I have to go back after the error.

This.

Basically the best way Trail and Error works is if it teaches you something without wasting your time. If you can regain the progress in a matter of minutes, it's not much of an issue.

Wanting the game to be beatable first time, everytime, is fine 'to an extent' for some games but not all. Ho ho no. . (if this is the future of gaming please don't knock on my door lol). Most games can be like puzzles in which you have no clue and must run into the wall a few times before it cracks. That's the 'fun' in it. Many games are challenges and should not be expected to be beaten with ease.

Like re-challenging Bloodborne bosses, in which you can just run past all the grunts because you know exactly where the boss is.

@RSM-HQ: Well, I'm not saying that it should be beatable on the first go. I'm saying that it should be a possibility, even if it were for the most skilled players. Left field punches are so sudden, that I wouldn't call that good design. I'm thinking that there should be enough reaction time to be able to avoid something, but quick enough to make the reflexes tested.

There really is a fine line to tread with trial & error.
Most of the time it's handled badly and ends up annoying but it some cases it's utilized correctly and heightens the gameplay as a result.

@chad_devore: I agree with you to an extent, some games will just be brutal, just to be brutal. But it should only be considered poor design if a message of clarity is not given upon death to pass the challenge.

You used @Super Meat Boy, except it has the error of difficulty spikes. That game has some perfect examples of needless torment, not the platforming levels 'they're beautifully designed', but the bosses. . Oh the bosses. . . I mean, who did not die 20x times on Goliath Meat on first-go-around? If you stated you beat it even after 10x on your first go I'd dub you a liar! It takes towards 30 minutes worth of deaths to see him kill itself and for that victory it feels cheap and unsatisfactory.

That would be terrible trail n' error. However, the creator wanted that. Is it annoying? Absolutely, however a programmers vision is what it is. He wanted to anger people in the bosses and he succeeded.

Same with Limbo, I personally dislike it for awkward controls, however it's designed to play mind-games not to be well constructed for a competitive playthrough. You die because it's designed with players dying in mind.

These sort of design choices are difficult to call who they're built to entertain. Though I personally think it's creators hanging the wrath of God. No other reason_

No not really although it depends on how it's implemented.

Most trial and error I just simply don't have the patience for.

I can tolerate it in some cases, though it specifically depends on what that actually involves.

@RSM-HQ:

Minutes ?

No Way..... I want to get right back to where I died in seconds.

Just like in Limbo and Super Meatboy fast Reiteration Cycles help mitigate alot of the Frustration.

This is also the case in The Trials Games however I've noticed some really really shitty Obstacles deliberately placed at the very end of some of the Tracks which I found to be very infuriating especially when I'm a perfect run. Sometimes they also deliberately use terribal camera angles just to get you to fall off.

*You are entitled to your opinion but I simply can't agree. What I'm writing should not be taken offensively so please keep that in mind.

The seconds in progression only works with, like your examples- Platformers. And even then not all platformers work well in the concept. Braid, Super Meat Boy, Limbo and Prince of Persia: SoT are the only games that pulled it off well 'other examples? please add like your cycle games'. All four are platformers.

When adding it to most games it would be insulting. On both a gamers intelligence and motor skills

Imagine Tetris that let you back-track your placements., oh wait that awful thing is a real game! 'Tetris: Party' the most critically panned Tetris game I know.

How can I sum this few seconds respawn better?

No X8,000!! Keep that feature out!

I know it's >my opinion< but that would make gaming accomplishments unfulfilling. I don't want this feature in any game to be honest unless the game is built a'round the concept. Games are not movies, never will be! Our experiences shouldn't be so lineally held the same with such lack of consequences. If this is the future of gaming then just make competitive play a joke as well stating, "everybody wins" every match.

Challenge and paying for your own mistakes is a part of life, and gaming, and it needs to stay. Not be turned into a hug and a kiss for taking a walk off a cliff >_</ rant over lol.

@RSM-HQ:

If you want an example from the Action Genre then I nominate Bayonetta..... you're never more than a few seconds from whatever encounter that killed you.

In the stealth Genre you have Mark of The Ninja that doesn't force you to wait and watch guards movement patterns all over again just to get back to where you got failed.

As for tetris..... I didn't say anything about Rewinding actions (thats not how quick reiteration cycles work).

Numerous racing games use a rewinding feature for whenever you spin out or wreck your ride at a corner.

Almost any game can benefit from from not having to repeat shit you already cleared just to get back to the part where you failed. I don't know how you can feel your intelligence is being insulted if the game is just skipping over the sections where you already succeeded. I mean does it make you feel smarter if you repeat those already beaten sections ?

I'm a big fan of Bayonetta and can state that's simply not true. The saving is just section-based. So if you die early in a mob fight it would 'appear' seconds. For bosses this is judged by difficulty on lower settings it respawns on each stage of a boss fight. on Med-higher it does not. Even then that's debatably more time lost than Bloodborne and Dark Souls that let you skip crowd control entirely.

I think you miss my point of controlling time isn't all that different from the seconds respawn feature. It's a pat on the back for doing wrong.

I can't have a opinion on racers with the feature, but I know past Forza games got marked down for it. As it's a single player feature that doesn't help train your skills for competitive play; infact it nerfs your skills.

I've already explained in past posts how it effects the experience and us as gamers. I don't expect you to agree with my thoughts. But the feature only works when its designed a'round the concept. Most cases it stinks!

Our views are like oil and water, they don't mix but neither is useless.

@RSM-HQ:

Yeah.... each section essentially is just one encounter with the game setting a checkpoint before and after each one...... I should know because I died a shit load of times but I don't remember having to redo an encounter I succeeded just to reach the one that killed me. That plus the combat in Bayonetta is actually satisfying..... the reason it doesn't let you skip fights is because Hideki, as always, is confident that he made a genuinely intrinsically motivating game to play...... which is more than I can say for Dark Souls.

"I think you miss my point of controlling time isn't all that different from the seconds respawn feature. It's a pat on the back for doing wrong."

No its just nothing for doing wrong. Its not a punishment and its not a reward either. Its just a time saving restart. Pure and Simple. Actually there is punishment..... if you fail you don't get to continue, and I think thats a fair punishment. The question is why do you want to add further punishment on top of that ?

Oh and Controlling Time is not the Samething as Respawning..... similar sure..... but not the same. Racing games have a system that accompanies this mechanic to make you consider if using the rewind feature is a good idea...... after all not every crash is going to lose you the same anount if time and positions and so you have to weight the cost and benefits of using the feature based on how badly you screwed up.

"As it's a single player feature that doesn't help train your skills for competitive play; infact it nerfs your skills."

WRONG !!!!!

The ability to practice going around one specific corner without having to go all the way around the circuit just to reach it again is great way to improve your skill..... hell I once spent 5 rewinds back to back just get the hang of goinf around a specific corner because its the only one I had problems with.

DiRT and GRID are pretty interesting because when you play online the rewind feature gets replaced with a Rolling Respawn..... which is an example of something that nerfs your skills but atleast it keeps you in the race........ its a kinda of a necessity because people WILL rage quit if they spin out. Nobody wants to come in last because of one mistake..... its the equivalent of getting one hit killed in an action game.

"But the feature only works when its designed a'round the concept. Most cases it stinks!"

No it doesn't....... the feature works on any game where there are multiple but unrelated challenges..... which essentially means it works on 90% of games.

@Lulu_Lulu: I can't argue on your information regarding racing games; as stated I don't play them. I just read something that counters your feeling on a certain feature.

Stating it works in 90% games however is highly debatable, if nothing less, obtuse. Because it rarely does work! But like I mentioned before this is us at opposite ends.

However I feel the fact it's not in most games is proof enough it doesn't work. Just because you'd like it in more is no different than some gamer wanting everything to be "open-world" or every game should be in "FP"; your taste isn't everyones. As I mentioned to Chad_Devore "what you deem fun, I as a gamer may find insulting." & it's just as simple as that. No one concept is wrong nor should one take all.

I will stand with not agreeing with your view on moment notice respawns, beats the point in paying for your mistakes and learning from it. If you respawn moments away in something like BB you could just button-bash like a clown. . . Yay. **** strategy :D

However this is like before with a Dogma conversation. Only way forward is going in circles and our views couldn't be anymore different on the concepts of fun in gaming. Which is fine. But this isn't my thread so best I make this my last post on the subject of MNR.

Till our next disagreement :) *tips hat*

@RSM-HQ:

How can you know if it rarely works if its rarely used ?

I know some games can be too easy but that has nothing to do with how the Saves/Checkpoints/Respawns are implemented...... if that was the case then you can make any game challenging just be giving it worse Checkpoints.

"I will stand with not agreeing with your view on moment notice respawns, beats the point in paying for your mistakes and learning from it. If you respawn moments away in something like BB you could just button-bash like a clown. . . Yay. **** strategy :D"

If you mash buttons and succeed then I'm pretty sure the problem does not lie with how far back you respawn the player. Like I said..... doing just that sure as hell isn't going to make the game harder....... tedious and annoying sure but not harder.

This isn't a case of preferences..... if it was I wouldn't be here..... or maybe it is.... if you say: "I want like having my time wasted when I fail" then yeah I have no business being here since I can't argue against that.

Wait..... what are we arguing about exactly ?

You basically want to nullify your mistake/loss as little as possible...because you think trial and error is a cheap way of playing a game...

Yeah, such gaming.

I guess I'm ok with it as I enjoy a lot the Mega Man serie which is pretty much build around that concept. I also liked Limbo.

It isn't as bad as some of you make it sounds like.

@acp_45:

Duh !!!!

And theres nothing wrong with that. The fact is I'm open to being punished for my mistakes but I will not tolerate anything that wastes time.

And to give you an example..... Transistor does this perfectly with the Overload Mechanic.

Some developers want to troll. Straight up.

A list of games in this train of thought could be compiled here. I'm not even joking.

That's too bad.

Don't play those games then...they are not for you.

Depends on the game, the amount of check points available and save system or ability to save (freely).

For me, personally, I'd prefer Trial & Errors if those above are in the game. If I have to start a level ALL OVER AGAIN, then that can be a bitch. Which I usually give up and toss the game in my toaster oven.

Agree with the comments on super meat boy - great game with an example of how trial and error gameplay can work if done well.

Some games use it well and offer a satisfying learning experience. The Souls games and the punch-out franchise are prime examples of it working.

@acp_45:

I'm a big boy..... I'l play whatever I want.

Trail and Error is going to happen in any game.

There is a different from a game where you will have a harder time like Oblivion's character builds and a game that does not let you win like in X-com Apocalypse and not getting one type of ufo.

no...you don't seem to understand..

It's called refining... and don't worry, it's part of being authentic...which is this style you seem to be striving for.. A quick lesson: One cannot achieve even a shred of authenticity in your life without consistency and refining.. I'm sure there are other factors too...but I assume you know them already..

Refining your taste..Realise what you like...and staying away from what you don't like.. This is a rational and logical equation.. This isn't about you being grown up.. Misconception.

I'm not telling you what to play either... I meant it as a suggestion...to something quite obvious actually.. But it seem like you couldn't grasp it.

I think modern stealth games have tackled the problem of trial and error. How? By giving you all the tools necessary to gather intel. For example, Splinter Cell and MGS V allow you to mark enemies. Styx Master of Shadows allows u to use Amber Vision to highlight enemies. Without these tools it really becomes a game of trial and error because a player can't be expected to get through an entire level without being seen by the enemy on his first try when he has so little info about their locations. You have to be ridiculously good and patient for that. Intel gathering allows you to strategize and plan your infiltration and for that good intel gathering tools are needed.

But there is one problem that they share in common. Loading times just aren't short enough. When you have to see the loading screen again and again after failing it becomes tiresome. This applies to games like Witcher 3 and Bloodborne as well.

I'd like to expand upon this.

I know that almost ALL video games have a form of trial and error, but when I myself am talking about trial and error, I mean left-field punches that give the player no time to respond to it. Like, imagine this. Imagine you're walking around in a game, then all of a sudden, you blow up. No explanation, no warning, nothing. Then, after a few more tries, you EVENTUALLY find out that you weren't supposed to walk in that particular spot, but that there was absolutely nothing indicating that you were supposed to avoid it. Basically, you couldn't find out that you were supposed to avoid it UNTIL you experienced it yourself. To me, that seems a bit cheap.

A better way of doing it would be to give SOME indication. A darker patch of grass, or some kind of beeping noise letting you know to move out of the way, SOMETHING. I consider deaths in video games to mean a way of failing a challenge, and NOT as a means to show a challenge. When I say that an entire game must be possible to complete on the first run without dying once, I mean that the challenges should be clear enough to react to. There must be SOMETHING to react to.

Bad design = I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100. What is it?

Good design = 23, 47, 100, 91, 7, 81, 25. Now repeat back to me what I just said.

@chad_devore: But you get that in games like Dark Souls and Bloodborne, which is why I used them as examples earlier.

Like the frenzy light in Bloodborne, you have no way in knowing what that is, or what is doing it, the first time it hits you will possibly lead to your doom

Same with DS3. Look at the last trailer with the giant spears.

Some can call it cheap or poor design but if it has a purpose and teaches you? Many gamers praise such bold design choices.

Furthermore from reading, many here already know what you are writing about, and in some context it's fully understandable for the games you listed, however if you like the concept or not as a whole or not? Is a completely different subject. It's that sort of randomness that keeps you on your toes and makes you think of every step taken.

"Strategy"

I actually don't mind randomness in games as long as the game is set up to be that way.

If a game is built to show an upcoming hazard that needs to be avoided on the next run, then it can be fun if the game is built AROUND that mechanic. I've never played Bloodborne or Dark Souls, so I might have a jagged opinion on the subject at hand. lol

That's perfectly fine :) other games have done it as well. Such as Ninja Gaiden Black and Devil May Cry 3. I just find it easier to use recent examples that have a positive reputation lol.

With that stated if you ever feel uneasy by games like BB or DS, know that they're not as difficult as the community would like you to believe. In fact based on your listed examples you've already played more difficult games, that require far more patience.

@acp_45:

That same process can be used to determine what is objectively good and what isn't.

Ofcourse thats never going to happen if you don't even consider it a possibilty to begin with.

I get the feeling this thread is about Dark Souls >.>

@RSM-HQ:

I don't know about Blood Borne but you sure as shit don't get that in Dark Souls......

You can and will die without warning...... or with a Really Stupid Warning like the one in Kalameet's Valley...... they place a "Beware Of Dragon" message in the exact middle of the Area instead of by the ladder. Now you can say that the game did warn you but thats kinda stupid if theres not enough time to run to safety.

Thats like me Sneaking up behind you and wacking you with a two by four then I tell you to look out afterwards.

At what point does a "Bold Design Choice" just winds up being stupid..... or do you believe theres no such thing ?

No. I like to anticipate all scenarios no matter how unlikely and love it when I'm surprised. I'm a huge fan of old adventure games like the Sierra Quest series. Before point and click you even had to guess the correct dialogue to type. Great games.

In the manner you described, yes I hate them.

There was this one fight in Mirror's Edge where you fought this boss (might have been the final boss, not sure), but basically you beat him on one stage, then have to follow him down to another. Now the problem arises when he swings a pipe at you, which you have to duck; its sort of a quick-time even of sorts, but there is no indicator and you have only a brief amount of time to hit the right button. So not only did you need to guess the right time (which was really weird, considering you had this second or two to see the pipe coming) but you had to hit the right key.

Anyway, long story short, I tried about 20 times, then finally looked it up; apparently it was frustrating to many others lol.

A bit of trial and error is ok, it provides challenge and provided you don't need to repeat it more than handful of times it is not frustrating. But if you end up having to do something that should take only 1 minute, and it ends up taking 5, that is just a cheap stunt on the developers part to extend the life of their game.

*also, as others have said, some games are built around this mechanic, and that's fine. Games like Frogger are all about trial and error; hell, even games like Tetris, where the parts you get are random, are built around trial and error (i.e. learning where to put the right parts).

just started playing Styx! Great game, not sure where the hate comes from. And you're right, Styx is trial and error done right. Every death is like "Well, I deserved that, maybe I will try this and that this time around"

Then just stay away from that which doesn't please you, objectively. Life Complete.

Sounds to me like the ideal situation here is to have a manual "save anywhere" feature. That makes everyone happy. People who don't like wasting time can save more often, and people who think that repetition is good can go as long as they want without saving.