Banner
Views: 958,974,000
Time:
22 users online: ageVerrly,  Anorakun, awol_tuna, bd90492, Children's Digest 1950-2009,  Deeke, DooTCraft, HammerBrother,  Hooded Edge,  JamesD28, KaidenThelens, lx5, Natsuz2, NBSpider, Paperdomo101,  patcdr, Sarsath,  Segment1Zone2, sipoliv, SoSure, TS_N, Will331999 - Guests: 103 - Bots: 76 Users: 53,109 (2,253 active)
Latest: Jolle457
Not logged in.
I really dislike hacks where you loose your progress after you die
Forum Index - SMW Hacking - SMW Hacking Discussion - I really dislike hacks where you loose your progress after you die
Pages: « 1 2 » Link
I just recently played some hacks which only had saves after castles and switches and when I die I loose my progress on many of the levels that I've already beaten.

I would highly encourage anyone making a hack to make it save after every level. Loosing progress is a pain and I end up rage quitting on the hack.

Let me know if you also hate this.
I can sort of understand what you mean, but at the same time I personally feel that's just in the nature of games. Sure, I'll definitely agree that some hacks go overboard with difficulty spikes and make losing lives feel cheap, but for a lot of the time that knowledge that you'll lose progress if you die should serve as incentive to get better at the game.


I mean like Hook said, if the hack is overkill in terms of spamming or overall bad level design I'd understand, but otherwise saving after every level is just holding your hands the whole way through
Forcing the player to replay the entirety of two or three levels they've already beaten just to get back to the one part in one level that stumps them is the sort of game design idea that comes out of a horse's ass rather than a clever mind.
GANYMEDE

Chapter two: Land of No Shame
Coming January 2022
Originally posted by Final Theory
I would highly encourage anyone making a hack to make it save after every level. Loosing progress is a pain and I end up rage quitting on the hack.

Let me know if you also hate this.


That is a slippery slope there. Its dependent on the design of those hacks in relation to your own skill set at playing them in which they expect a certain level of competency out of you, player. If you are dying a lot to the point of getting Game Overs that make you then start again a few levels back but in ways that the level design doesn't feel cheep is on you, not the hack. Git gud on that part.

However if the levels in question are positioned to be boring to unfair slogs then id agree on having those levels save every time because beating them as much as they are shit oozes with the feeling of accomplishment if you haven't been completely broken by the level first says a lot about craft of the levels being bad.

As for hacks that save every level, I don't really mind it myself but objectively speaking on having the save every level option that others on here would make a more subjective point about that that would hold it for or against the hack, is that it cheapens the existence of lives if you hack a hack that relies that then decides to go down that route to be able to save after every level and people believe it or not still see lives as a valid thing to have in a game to encourage risk vs reward on player skill and having the option to save after every level goes against that concept. Design your hacks accordingly in which risk vs reward is something to consider.

--------------------
On Pixel Art Requests: I generally do not accept work unless I either have the time, if I see your project worth my time to contribute towards, and that is usually me doing the approaching to you on that.
-I also do not accept speculative work as I do have various art I made on-hand with me.
-I am more receptive to equivalent exchange of resources in which case, you can DM me wherever I have an active presence on for the details.
-Other times I'm availible for your project is C3 request threads I may run.




Well, that depends on the difficulty of the hack. If it's a hard or kaizo: light one, it does deserve saving after every level so you can stop playing every time you beat a level. If the hack is ridiculously easy, that would be a kind of blasphemy.
I have a Discord server as well!

KLDC2021
OLDC2021


Basically, I believe in peace and bashing two bricks together.
Originally posted by Ten
Forcing the player to replay the entirety of two or three levels they've already beaten just to get back to the one part in one level that stumps them is the sort of game design idea that comes out of a horse's ass rather than a clever mind.

Why are savestates frowned upon, then? #wario{-_-?}
Originally posted by ThePat545

Originally posted by StrikeForcer
Git gud on that part.

go back to shitposting on discord thanks in advance

Originally posted by ThePat545
saving after every level is just holding your hands the whole way through

Excuse me? Not being confined to archaic game design meant to pad the game out with pointless repeated playthroughs just because you're bad at a level is holding your hands?

Also, what Hook was saying was that not saving after every level would give you an incentive to try and get better at stages so you can more easily get back to where you were (which imo is stupid game design but), not that autosaves are for casuals or w/e

Originally posted by StrikeForcer
That is a slippery slope there. Its dependent on the design of those hacks in relation to your own skill set at playing them in which they expect a certain level of competency out of you, player. If you are dying a lot to the point of getting Game Overs that make you then start again a few levels back but in ways that the level design doesn't feel cheep is on you, not the hack.

The quality of levels doesn't matter, saves only in fortresses and ghost houses was a thing in 1991 because that's how game design was back then. C'mon, we've evolved past that. We're not gonna start making batshit hard endgame stages without saves or continues to pad out playthroughs a la the NES, now are we?

Originally posted by StrikeForcer
(...) it cheapens the existence of lives if you hack a hack that relies that then decides to go down that route to be able to save after every level and people believe it or not still see lives as a valid thing to have in a game to encourage risk vs reward on player skill and having the option to save after every level goes against that concept.

You lose the midpoint if you game over, you do realize that right

The only difference is that you'd lose progress in a level from game overs instead of having to restart half a world over

Originally posted by Rainbow Star
If the hack is ridiculously easy, that would be a kind of blasphemy.

Hard games can do it but easy hacks can't because they're easy?

???????

Originally posted by Ten
Forcing the player to replay the entirety of two or three levels they've already beaten just to get back to the one part in one level that stumps them is the sort of game design idea that comes out of a horse's ass rather than a clever mind.

Best post in this thread, ty Ten <3

--------------------
HackPortsASM"Uploader"

Whats up with people who suck at games wanting the hard games be nerfed just because they suck at games.

There's easy hacks, play those instead. Don't try to take the challenge away from other people.

You gotta learn to crawl before learning to walk.
Originally posted by Aguni_
Whats up with people who suck at games wanting the hard games be nerfed just because they suck at games.

There's easy hacks, play those instead. Don't try to take the challenge away from other people.

You gotta learn to crawl before learning to walk.

he's literally just saying not saving after every level is annoying how is that removing challenge

are levels just flat out non-existent now

does JUMP lose all of its challenge because of the save block in the house stages

are we gonna treat autosaves the same way we do The Cuphead Video™

--------------------
HackPortsASM"Uploader"

There are hacks out there that do this right; if you're not having fun/a good time playing those levels, then the hack either might not be for you or it's badly designed. Also, there are remedies to game overs: You close to losing all your lives? Go farm some one-ups, any well designed hack will have a life farm or two.

There are just hack designers who believe in the "Don't-Hold-Your-Hand" philosophy. It's a platformer game, not an RPG or First Person Shooter, which may as well save your progress every five minutes. If the hack is extremely hard/unfairly designed, yes your points are highly valid, but if the hack has levels which take just a couple minutes to clear... then there's not really much of a problem. You lost all your lives, get a game over: you're going to get punished for it.

I'm the kind of person who enjoys a game for what it is, punishments and all; not the kind of person who speeds through it. Either way, disliking a hack due to those reasons is nothing to get mad at or start an argument over, but it's a point of view I choose to disagree with.
Originally posted by lion
Originally posted by ThePat545

Originally posted by StrikeForcer
Git gud on that part.

go back to shitposting on discord thanks in advance


I barely shitpost on Discord so that applies more on ThePat than me. And even then, its not entirely unreasonable to say that on someone who very likely is finding fault at the game when its not the design of the game being at fault here but Final Theory poor-ass skill at the game that prompted him to make this thread.

Originally posted by lion

Originally posted by StrikeForcer
That is a slippery slope there. Its dependent on the design of those hacks in relation to your own skill set at playing them in which they expect a certain level of competency out of you, player. If you are dying a lot to the point of getting Game Overs that make you then start again a few levels back but in ways that the level design doesn't feel cheep is on you, not the hack.


The quality of levels doesn't matter, saves only in fortresses and ghost houses was a thing in 1991 because that's how game design was back then. C'mon, we've evolved past that. We're not gonna start making batshit hard endgame stages without saves or continues to pad out playthroughs a la the NES, now are we?


Yes it does and quality of levels (SMW being the frame of reference here) transcends different game design standards that existed then from now. I wont deny that you have endgame levels that have no saves/continues at the end which isnt good design ill admit but at the same time even with that it exemplifies risk vs reward because the benefits of going through those slogs if you win is mastery. And yes im not going to deny that we fans have a long precedent of standards each game either sets or serves under to take inspiration from but we do not have to follow the same "linear" progression of game design standards modern games follow.

Originally posted by lion

Originally posted by StrikeForcer
(...) it cheapens the existence of lives if you hack a hack that relies that then decides to go down that route to be able to save after every level and people believe it or not still see lives as a valid thing to have in a game to encourage risk vs reward on player skill and having the option to save after every level goes against that concept.

You lose the midpoint if you game over, you do realize that right

The only difference is that you'd lose progress in a level from game overs instead of having to restart half a world over



I do realize that but that by default isnt bad game design because that is the penalty you get usually when you fail at what the game at any point you are at demands out of you to play.

Originally posted by lion

Originally posted by Ten
Forcing the player to replay the entirety of two or three levels they've already beaten just to get back to the one part in one level that stumps them is the sort of game design idea that comes out of a horse's ass rather than a clever mind.

Best post in this thread, ty Ten <3


Disagree because of my assertation that the quality of the levels do matter. Why not just accept the consequences of your poor playing than just subjectively claim that its bad design on the part of the game designer?

--------------------
On Pixel Art Requests: I generally do not accept work unless I either have the time, if I see your project worth my time to contribute towards, and that is usually me doing the approaching to you on that.
-I also do not accept speculative work as I do have various art I made on-hand with me.
-I am more receptive to equivalent exchange of resources in which case, you can DM me wherever I have an active presence on for the details.
-Other times I'm availible for your project is C3 request threads I may run.




@lion I just meant easy games are friendly to beginners so they want to continue the game until the castle/ghost house.
I have a Discord server as well!

KLDC2021
OLDC2021


Basically, I believe in peace and bashing two bricks together.
Originally posted by StrikeForcer
Yes it does and quality of levels (SMW being the frame of reference here) transcends different game design standards that existed then from now. I wont deny that you have endgame levels that have no saves/continues at the end which isnt good design ill admit but at the same time even with that it exemplifies risk vs reward because the benefits of going through those slogs if you win is mastery.


The topic is saving and game over mechanics. Quality of levels doesn't even factor into this argument at all, and nothing "transcends" anything. Forcing the player to replay already finished levels because you got a game over is IMO poor design, regardless of how well-designed the individual levels are. You cannot claim that the poorly-designed parts of a well-designed game are good; at best they just get tolerated.


Originally posted by StrikeForcer
Originally posted by lion
You lose the midpoint if you game over, you do realize that right

The only difference is that you'd lose progress in a level from game overs instead of having to restart half a world over

I do realize that but that by default isnt bad game design because that is the penalty you get usually when you fail at what the game at any point you are at demands out of you to play.


I agree that there should be some form of player punishment, but SMW's game over system isn't the correct way to do it. Being forced to replay levels that you already know how to beat isn't teaching the player anything. It's just annoying.


Originally posted by StrikeForcer
...when its not the design of the game being at fault here but Final Theory poor-ass skill at the game that prompted him to make this thread.

Originally posted by StrikeForcer
Why not just accept the consequences of your poor playing than just subjectively claim that its bad design on the part of the game designer?


Nobody up to this point has mentioned any specific hacks. Arguing that the problem can't possibly be the level design but rather the skill of the player is incredibly rude.
People can choose to stick to older or newer design philosophies. SMW wasn't unfun because a game over made you replay levels. As Veck said, it is the punishment of not playing well enough. Some pressure on the player. A vestige of SMB1's game over which meant, no less, "the game is over". Games weren't meant to be breezed through back then, but they felt infinitely satisfying to beat.
If anything I just think most hacks out there are quite boring to make me want to replay levels after a game over.

--------------------
Quote
Disagree because of my assertation that the quality of the levels do matter. Why not just accept the consequences of your poor playing than just subjectively claim that its bad design on the part of the game designer?


It's like being forced to endure unskippable cutscenes over and over again as punishment for failing at a boss fight in a JRPG. Who finds that fun?

It's bad design because good design is all about keeping the player engaged and interested. If you want to punish the player, find a more creative way of doing it. Quality of the levels definitely do matter, but only the most spectacular games can get away with forcing replays of whole sections of the game. If you frustrate the player into quitting, then you lose.
GANYMEDE

Chapter two: Land of No Shame
Coming January 2022
I have 2 things to say:

1. It's possible that some people are not experienced enough at hacking to know how to make the game save after levels that didn't have the save option in the original SMW.

2. Unless the creator of a hack explicitly says that a hack is intended to be played without save states, I am comfortable using them. I recommend using Save and Load as many times as you need.
Originally posted by NathanWarford
I recommend using Save and Load as many times as you need.

And then you will never improve your smw playing skills. Savestates make players impatient and careless. Source: me two years ago; ninja boy.

Anyway, losing progress for very hard/kaizo: light hacks can be frustrating, but I also feel that if you always save progress, then lives don't even exist anymore. There has to be at least some sort of incentive to get 1UPs, right? Or not?
Originally posted by ft029
Originally posted by NathanWarford
I recommend using Save and Load as many times as you need.

And then you will never improve your smw playing skills.

This is true.

Gonna try and practice VIP5 without savestates once I'm done beating all levels in the hack for the nth time


--------------------
HackPortsASM"Uploader"

The lesson to take from this is you can't please everybody. If people get frustrated with a hack because of its win/loss mechanics and other functions, it's not for them; but it may be up somebody else's alley. Plain and Simple Design Mechanics 101. After all, that player that quits a hack due to "punishment" is but one person among hundreds or thousands. That designer is simply losing somebody whom probably might not have even said "Thanks for making this for free," anyways.
Pages: « 1 2 » Link
Forum Index - SMW Hacking - SMW Hacking Discussion - I really dislike hacks where you loose your progress after you die

The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.

Copyright © 2005 - 2022 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Privacy Policy - Link To Us


Menu

Follow Us On

  • YouTube
  • Twitch
  • Twitter

Affiliates

  • Super Mario Bros. X Community
  • ROMhacking.net
  • Mario Fan Games Galaxy
  • sm64romhacks