Bit Trip Runner = Psychological Torture

[abort_user]

Originally Posted by floyd_99

I'm not sure I'd go so far as torture, but I do agree with the OP that there are some serious game design issues with RUNNER.

In fact I've written an article on it. An excerpt is below (its pretty long, not sure it would even fit in a single post) and you can read the whole thing at the bottom link. Feedback welcome!



Keep Reading

i hate to do this to you but youre wrong about the "extreme difficulty curve" which is kinda funny cause almost everyone in this topic understands this games main flaw. almost everyone has even pointed it out and elaborated on it, myself included. the rest of your article was right (though this game fails to actually make you do actions on beats but most people missed this point. in fact, many times its actually best to have the music off or you will follow the beat to your death). but you spent so much time on the "extreme difficulty" that i gotta tell you why you were wrong.

you mentioned liking Super Meat Boy. its a game with an "extreme difficulty" curve. why is that game enjoyable and this one isnt? ill tell you. small levels. if you die, you arent set back far. you can clearly see where you messed up (the meat juice trail helps). the controls are tight and the hit detection is spot on.

this game is different. the hit detection is a little off causing you to die when you feel you shouldnt have (unlike SMB). but really the biggest problem is the long levels (which you mentioned but didnt connect that was the problem). you have do those entire levels over and over again if you make the slightest mistake. you will do all the easy parts of the level over and over just to get to the single hard part that stopped you. this is bad game design. its retro but it should stay dead. this game either needs checkpoints in long levels or a health system. its not that the game is hard. it actually isnt very hard; its just annoying to repeat the same section over and over again. it just feels like filler or busywork.

Super Meat Boy is a lot harder than this game but it understands how difficulty has evolved. in fact, i even linked an article on the subject from Super Meat Boys creator earlier in this topic. ill link it again because its still just as relevant then as it is now.

everyone who missed it before, this is how you do difficulty right: http://supermeatboy.com/13/Why_am_I_so____hard_/

[WO Saotome A.]

1) Play Atari 2600 Pitfall
2) Play this game
3) ???
4) Profit

Well, at least this is the image I have of this game, a throwback to ye olde atari titles were the games were mind numbing and downright repetitive at nauseum.

[Muraz]

Originally Posted by abort_user

you mentioned liking Super Meat Boy. its a game with an "extreme difficulty" curve. why is that game enjoyable and this one isnt? ill tell you. small levels. if you die, you arent set back far. you can clearly see where you messed up (the meat juice trail helps). the controls are tight and the hit detection is spot on.

this game is different. the hit detection is a little off causing you to die when you feel you shouldnt have (unlike SMB).

Sorry, no, that's wrong. Hit detection is something I've never seen an issue with in this game. And I'm going to say it ... this game has superior controls to SMB. SMB has issues when it comes to the keyboard (which is why they probably put a nice screen saying a big FU to keyboard users on the game's opening) which means that the controls are sluggish and sometimes just purely unresponsive ... and in a game which is designed to be frustrated, that is a cardinal sin.

At no point while playing BIT.TRIP RUNNER did I ever feel like any failure was the fault of the game. When I failed, I was always aware that it was my fault ... I did something wrong. Whereas playing Super Meat Boy, I was constantly feeling that the reason I died was the sluggish controls which weren't jumping even when I should of been able to.

[Pila987]

Originally Posted by Pila987

I got the game couple of days ago, it looks nice. Graphic is not that good (I would loved some nice pixel art) but it's fun to play so I'm satisfied. I don't find boring the fact that you have to restart the level when dying, levels are short... it's not like old games where you have to restart the whole thing if you ran out of ups.

Normal mode is fun and challenging, I'm going to try perfect out.

Normal mode was nice and I beat it, but level design is repetitious, I didn't feel like spending hours on perfect mode.
Game concept was nice however, it just lacks some better design.

[floyd_99]

I think you've misunderstood my point about the bad difficulty curve. Consider this: world one, and world two in Super Meat Boy are quite easy. World Three starts to get fairly hard - and it continues on from there. In RUNNER, the last 3 levels of World One are crazy hard for no reason whatsoever.

In SMB you are gradually taught how to deal with the difficulty. In RUNNER you are just tossed in the deep end - have fun with that!

But we are 100% agreed on the length of levels, and the speed with which you can retry levels. That's a problem in RUNNER. Long levels do exist in SMB, but nothing major in the first few worlds. By the time you reach them you're ready for them.

Originally Posted by abort_user

i hate to do this to you but youre wrong about the "extreme difficulty curve" which is kinda funny cause almost everyone in this topic understands this games main flaw. almost everyone has even pointed it out and elaborated on it, myself included. the rest of your article was right (though this game fails to actually make you do actions on beats but most people missed this point. in fact, many times its actually best to have the music off or you will follow the beat to your death). but you spent so much time on the "extreme difficulty" that i gotta tell you why you were wrong.

you mentioned liking Super Meat Boy. its a game with an "extreme difficulty" curve. why is that game enjoyable and this one isnt? ill tell you. small levels. if you die, you arent set back far. you can clearly see where you messed up (the meat juice trail helps). the controls are tight and the hit detection is spot on.

this game is different. the hit detection is a little off causing you to die when you feel you shouldnt have (unlike SMB). but really the biggest problem is the long levels (which you mentioned but didnt connect that was the problem). you have do those entire levels over and over again if you make the slightest mistake. you will do all the easy parts of the level over and over just to get to the single hard part that stopped you. this is bad game design. its retro but it should stay dead. this game either needs checkpoints in long levels or a health system. its not that the game is hard. it actually isnt very hard; its just annoying to repeat the same section over and over again. it just feels like filler or busywork.

Super Meat Boy is a lot harder than this game but it understands how difficulty has evolved. in fact, i even linked an article on the subject from Super Meat Boys creator earlier in this topic. ill link it again because its still just as relevant then as it is now.

everyone who missed it before, this is how you do difficulty right: http://supermeatboy.com/13/Why_am_I_so____hard_/

[Waypoint]

Yeah, running games are pretty bland as is, but the whole "jump a quarter-second after you hit the button" thing just kills any momentum it might've had, especially when it makes you be that precise about the simplest tasks. That's not actual difficulty, that's fake difficulty because the one basic mechanic is broken.

It's like combining the worst qualities of the original Prince of Persia and Atari Smurfs.

[ibitato]

it's a game, and I take it as a diversion
I play with wife on the TV with a gamepad, and we have fun......
not really our objective to finish it, but to have fun
if we someday finish it, well thats fine, but it's more ab having fun
I guess ppl sometimes it's too competitive with themselves,
Id rather have fun and take things not too serious .....
I like the game , its DIFFERENT form what we see nowadays, not saying its better
play for fun ......

[Emmy]

IMO this is a quality game ruined by obnoxious and pointless difficulty.

I got to the world 1 boss but never could beat it. Occasionally tried again. I have a copy of the game for Wii (I tried it on Dolphin as a demo before buying it on Steam) and kind of wish I just played it on there.
I could use save-states and probably get somewhere. xD

Imagine playing Guitar Hero and having to start the entire song over after missing one note.
Well now you don't have to imagine it. Just play this game.


I think this style of game has a lot of potential. If it were more about your score rather than having to miss obstacles. You shouldn't actually lose the level because you hit a wall. Instead it should just slow you down.
Add a bunch of other notes throughout the levels. Add multiple routes. Give points for triggering music notes with the spare buttons as well as having the faster you beat the level = the more points.

Just make it all point-based so that it isn't hard to beat the level. It's only hard to get really high scores.

That's much more how a rhythm game should be imo. I would have liked it a lot like that.
Some of the levels were fun but whenever you really got going, you'd hit something and have to start over.

I'll still try the sequel since they're added checkpoints, but it'll probably be the same crap.

[AmpliDude]

The problem here is not the lack of checkpoints (this would made the game too easy) but the low tolerance (if any) on timing when performing actions and on hit detection. It is very strict, pressing key a fraction of a second too soon or too late and you end up hitting the obstacle. Personally I had the biggest problem jumping over double trash cans at the end game boss level.
I've finished the game on normal without trying to get perfect on all levels. That's enough for me LOL, I'm not that patient as some Buddhist monk.

Funny thing - this game has 13k+ recommends - I don't know if I hate anyone that much to recommend him this game.

[padge61]

Originally Posted by god_man95

You need to be more patient and learn how to play

Nobody needs to subject themselves to this mindless drivel. This game fails in every quantifiable way, except presentation.

All the work that went into this game is most practically usable as a scene or two in a demo. (A demoscene demo, not trial software)

[padge61]

Originally Posted by ibitato

it's a game, and I take it as a diversion
I play with wife on the TV with a gamepad, and we have fun......
not really our objective to finish it, but to have fun
if we someday finish it, well thats fine, but it's more ab having fun
I guess ppl sometimes it's too competitive with themselves,
Id rather have fun and take things not too serious .....
I like the game , its DIFFERENT form what we see nowadays, not saying its better
play for fun ......

Don't blame the crowd's disappointment by accusing them of having some trait that's incompatible with the game.

Different doesn't mean worthy.

The problem is there is no way to play for fun: No matter what your expectations are it is NOT FUN TO PLAY. There's not enough mechanism.

[GK147]

Originally Posted by WO Saotome A.

1) Play Atari 2600 Pitfall
2) Play this game
3) ???
4) Profit

Well, at least this is the image I have of this game, a throwback to ye olde atari titles were the games were mind numbing and downright repetitive at nauseum.

Frankly, I'd rather go back to Pitfall because it is nowhere near as nauseating or mind numbing as this game.