Mandible Games

For me, "better guns" (or, more specifically, "moar dakka") generally equals "more fun". So, after trying it the intended way the first time, I spent the second and third plays attempting to die as often as possible in order to get the best guns. Then, having achieved apparent maximum dakka ("maximum" in the sense of "I accidentally killed the final boss"; I couldn't tell if there was an actual maximum, or if the recursive guns kept improving), I set it aside.

Making the guns more varied in what they do, rather than simply increasing the rate and cone size, would probably indeed improve the experience, but it might also add more incentive for that contrary behaviour. I also craved more levels to use my epic dakka on, which may have the same problem.

But I am probably somewhat abnormal in that I never pay any attention to score for its own sake in any game, so I wasn't even slightly tempted to play it the proper way more than once. Take that as you will.

Good times. Pretty impressive that you could make that in 5 days.

Minor point: You might want to make it so hitting space doesn't close whatever the screen was at the end of level 2. I was hitting space repeatedly to fire, so I have no idea what that screen said.

Level 1, I meant.

To explain the hit/gun mechanic in other words, the game dynamically adjusts the difficulty to the player's skill level. Most games do this by starting easy and getting harder as you advance through scripted difficulty levels. Adjusting the difficulty in place is an interesting way of doing things.

I can't recall any other games that did that, although Final Fantasy 2(j)'s level mechanic was similar in that it increased your stats based on what skill you used most often and would only upgrade your HP if you got hit. I had my characters beat each other up to raise their max HP, which was probably not part of the original game design. Dynamic difficulty becomes another part of the game that can be played, as Malimar explains.

Thoughts on not dying: Most original Atari and arcade games did not have endings the way modern games do. They simply started over if they ran out of content. The goal was not to beat the game but to go as long as you could on the same set of lives.

Beating a game gives the reward of a sense of accomplishment, but it is less of a reward if the game does not challenge the player. Dying and having to start the game over makes it more challenging, but if the player is forced to repeat large sections of the game and it seems the player is never going to win it, the game ceases to be worth playing. Managing death in video games is a matter of finding the right balance of difficulty without contributing to annoyance. Savepoints alleviate the problem of repetition of parts of the game that the player has already beaten, but as you say, sometimes the savepoints are too far apart. The too-challenging games of the NES become a different experience on an emulator where you can save or restore at any point, but it was not a big accomplishment to beat them on an emulator.

Dying would make this particular game much too hard because there are simply too many missiles flying around the screen to dodge at certain points. The accomplishment here is not to beat the game but to beat it with the worst gun after taking the fewest number of hits. Failure in this game is getting hit more often than you did the last time you played, but this does not prevent you from finishing the game and it is a short enough game that you can start over and be back to the same place in five minutes.

One game which was much better than similar games for the fact that you couldn't die in it (except as an Easter Egg) was the King's Quest clone Monkey Island. Dying in the Quest games and having to start over was really annoying, and Monkey Island even joked about this ("Rubber tree."). The challenge and accomplishment in Monkey Island was in figuring out the puzzles. Puzzle games can also be too hard. An impossible puzzle in a puzzle game can be as bad for a game as dying and having to start over too much, but at least these days you can Google up the answer.

I have sometimes thought that for a little Flash game that is supposed to be fun to play and show off a fun story, but is not intended to be challenging, it might benefit the game for designers to replace the classic "you have X lives" mechanic with infinite lives and a notice that "you died X times" at the end. I believe the Unfair Platformer does this.

Actually, I don't find myself going for a better score – it's easier to remember what gun I ended with and keep trying to end with an earlier and earlier gun. I don't mind the game over as long as I get somewhere. Which I don't with the games you mentioned. Also, I really enjoy games more when someone else is involved – I think this is a common female thing, at least. I like playing Braid because you're usually there to laugh at me. ;) The other games I like and play alone have levels, but I usually top out well before beating the game, so I get bored. The main thing that's come along lately that I love and would play over and over (alone) is Flower. What it really comes down to is, I hate competition. I like Tang's idea of infinite lives, with a notice of how many times you died at the end. A game in which you can achieve immortality!

Oh, and why isn't there a Linux version? You're the one who talked me into switching… :P

[…] doing it within 48 hours, it turned out great. Compare it to my earlier games – I spent a third as much time on this one, and I think it turned out better. My tools […]