Originally posted by Riolu180No, it's okay. That's just what I wanted to know. VVVVVV and SMB have very high difficulty- SMWCP2 will NOT. Sure, it'll get difficult at the end, but not frustratingly hard. I do not believe that your comparison between those two and SMWCP2 is a very good one- they don't really prove your point because the former two are made to be extremely difficult.
I can't say it's an apples to apples comparison, not at all; the games have very different intentions, design philosophies, and target audiences. SMB and VVVVVV are short bursts of video game cruelty, whereas (I think I can be pretty safe in saying this) the average level of SMWCP2 will be considerably longer than the plain SMW levels, and a lower grade, but longer duration of challenge than the mentioned indie games. Though I have to say, "difficult" and "not frustratingly hard" are
very subjective terms. For people like us, who have been around the block more than a few times when it comes to SMW and its hacks, it probably won't reach the latter. Someone much newer to the scene will probably find what a lot of us take as a simple maneuver, to be a mountain to overcome. I hope SMWCP2 will try to provide a reasonable challenge for our demographic, though.
Anywho! The main point to my argument, which I still think SMB can compare to very well (and VVVVVV, though I wasn't the one to bring it up), is that instead of trying to put emphasis on the punishments of a game over or lost lives, the levels yet-to-be-conquered should be the only worry. Obviously, with autosave or a hub that has unrestricted access, lives become moot points, with a maximum penalty of a few lost midpoints. I don't think that's a bad thing at all, as there is a distinguishable difference between a game over and a regular death then, but by no means is it cruel.
Originally posted by Riolu180EDIT: note that I won't claim that it destroys your argument- far from it. I'm just saying, I don't think you should use it to back up your argument since the intentions and difficulty for each are vastly different. You can't really say that SMWCP2 would be better off without lives or with autosaving just because a much more difficult game has them, right? Although, I admit, for all we know, SMWCP2 really COULD be better with both. No way to know until it all happens, right? Besides, couldn't we easily switch mechanics if the one we go with ends up making the game feel a little worse off?
I ain't sayin' what I'm sayin' simply
because they're harder games. It's just that I agree with what they entail, and that these features allow a game to be harder, but retaining accessibility, which I greatly enjoy.
I suppose when level design rolls around is when all of this will truly unfold, and if we'll have wanted the catch-all of no lives or autosaves and whatnot. I have confidence that we won't
need either this time around, with the degree of scrutiny I'm sure the levels will be under. As hard as SMWCP was, it probably coulda done with an update in that regard! Especially after watching raocow's LP of it, which really got me thinking just how pointless lives are when there's a place like Weeaboo Manor to go back to any time you're nearing a game over.
I think I've said about all I can say on the subject at this point; take it for what you will.