I hate getting kicked back to my last save when I die

[Japanmanx3]

Video games aren't explicitly developed to be convenient. Some were naturally made harder in the past to consume more of the players time. If you are playin him harder difficulties then this frustration is a residual side affect.

 

[Hypemaster]

Tons of save points throughout the map and many opportunities to create shortcuts for yourself if willing to explore. Can't recall having trouble with this problem in game.

 

[nOoblet16]

Tons of save points throughout the map and many opportunities to create shortcuts for yourself if willing to explore. Can't recall having trouble with this problem in game.

Yea this, there are save points close in every area and you don't even have to use them as you can quick save pretty much anytime you are in a "safe location" (and there's plenty of that even mid missions and between boss fights).

I even quick saved multiple times between major fights in the last mission of the last part of the game as the game allows you to do that. I never had the issue of losing progress in this game since I would save often, basically in this game you create your own checkpoints. Infact I remember I had this side quest where I had to kill these 3 powerful machines and I'd kill one and then simply step 20-30 meters back outside of the red zone and save before engaging the next enemy. It would help if you use the chip that lets you know if it's possible to quick save at that moment.

There is a reason why quick saving in Nier is so quick and only takes a touch of a button soon as you open the options menu.

 

[Opa-Pa]

This... Actually makes me more excited to get the game haha.

 

[thechristoph]

I do. Am I not allowed to voice my opinion on this design choice if I disagree with it? Hard is a lot more fun than Normal, but dying is bullshit and ruins the experience for me.

Of course, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have a challenging experience, but you don't want any consequences for failing. Your heart and mind aren't connected here. If you just want to respawn immediately, then what is the consequence of failing the challenge? Just take failure out of the gameplay loop and play on easy, then. It's how I'm handling Witcher 3 and I'm digging it.

 

[KiefbladeMaster]

I don't mind being kicked back a bit progress wise, but long load times after death do irk me pretty badly. So, Nier is fine for me in that regard. There are a lot of save points around too.

I recently started the Witcher 3 expansions and dying makes me want to stop playing for a bit because of how long it takes to load, even if you saved like right outside of the encounter.

 

[Sami+]

There's a vending machine in the Desert Housing Complex in the left entrance to the zone, and there's one in the Park near the broken ride that you side scroll platform on. Both of those are reasonably close to the bosses, did you use them? Like 2 minute runs at best.

I did use the second one, you're right, that was definitely close enough. The desert one though- is that the same one that precedes a fight with a robot mob (one big dude and a bunch of little guys)? I died at the end of that fight and had to chase the masked robot again before switching over to Normal.

 

[RubberLuffy]

I did use the second one, you're right, that was definitely close enough. The desert one though- is that the same one that precedes a fight with a robot mob (one big dude and a bunch of little guys)? I died at the end of that fight and had to chase the masked robot again before switching over to Normal.

Maybe? It's when you're outside and looking at the Housing Complex, there's 2 entrances, one on the right and one on the left, slightly obscured. There's a vending machine in the left entrance. It's hard to miss, you probably hit it. Across from it in the same room is a big hill with some non-hostiles hanging out, and past the machine is a bend that leads right into a fight with a small group of enemies.

If you're gonna play on Hard you gotta have your chipset on point. I played the whole game on Normal and died maybe 3 times, but I had Auto Heal (6 seconds of not getting hit, heal a percentage per second), Deadly Heal (percent heal per enemy defeated) and Offensive Heal (percent heal based on damage dealt), so even though I had 99 small and med recovs, I was still incredibly safe, lol. Even on normal and with those chips there were still fights where I burned through like 20+ medium recoveries.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Of course, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have a challenging experience, but you don't want any consequences for failing. Your heart and mind aren't connected here. If you just want to respawn immediately, then what is the consequence of failing the challenge?

The consequence is that you have to try again. I'm baffled how that even needs to be explained.

 

[NandoGip]

I've quit games over this shit.

 

[Silvard]

Play games that let you save anywhere, then. Or settle for Normal/Easy.

The way the game handles death is a design choice and part of the experience.

Love it or leave it, in N:A that's done intentionally. Toughen up OP!

Why do people try to dismiss discussion with these meaningless statements? Literally everything in every game ever that isn't a bug or an exploit is an intended design choice, it doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on it or that you can't discuss the merits of the implementation. Or even the merits of the design goal/intention itself.

 

[Sami+]

Of course, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have a challenging experience, but you don't want any consequences for failing. Your heart and mind aren't connected here. If you just want to respawn immediately, then what is the consequence of failing the challenge? Just take failure out of the gameplay loop and play on easy, then. It's how I'm handling Witcher 3 and I'm digging it.

I want to die a lot because difficult games are fun, and it feels better when I win. I don't like having to lose over ten minutes of progress just to get another shot.

I don't see what's hard to understand about that.

 

[ffvorax]

Spoiler

Well I understand time could be a problem, that's why I had to start playing games with lower difficulty lately... not enough time to master them all... or do again and again a level... :/

At least where I can, if a game is like Bloodborne/Souls and I can't change difficulty, then I just play it and git gud at it.

 

[Taliban Stan]

Super Meat Boy is a platformer that does a quick fade to black whenever you fail and takes you right back to where you were to try it again. A platformer called Prince of Persia (2008) shows like a 1 second clip of your partner saving you whenever you fail and takes you right back to where you failed to try it again.

The only difference is that one weaves the mechanic into the narrative while the other is cool with it obviously being a game function.

Super Meat Boy got praise praise for this. Knowing that you failed was the only punishment you got for messing up the platforming. It took you right back to where you died and people pretty much universally praised this. Meanwhile, Prince of Persia was slammed. And not slammed because "how dare you make this make sense in the story" (the only real difference between the two), it got slammed over the idea that a mechanic lets you quickly retry failed platforming attempts.

I say all that to say that you can't please everyone with this stuff. People will say it needs to be addressed and then praise a game in the same genre for fixing it yet turn around and slam another game in the genre for even considering it a problem. There is no good answer. Probably best to pull a Nier and just be like well games in the past were like this and so are we. There's no way to tell if people will give you a Meat Boy reaction to it or a Prince of Persia one.

 

[Vashzaron]

Personally I really hate when a game is pretty much doing the equivalent of built in save stating / save scumming for me.
BOTW does this but has Hard mode DLC on the way yet I'll be hard pressed to care about dying with that mechanic.

 

[Mandoric]

When you die at the end of a level in a game like Super Meat Boy, you grit your teeth and do it again and again until you finally beat the level after like 20-30 tries. It feels immensely satisfying, especially since that particular game shows you the replay of all the times you died happening concurrently with your final run.

Can you imagine how much that game would have sucked if after every death you had to waste 15 minutes before you could try again?

SMB is a far, far outlier in rewarding peaky execution over consistent execution. There's nothing inherently wrong with that or preferring to be tested on peakiness vs. consistency, but there's nothing inherently right or better with it; it's a drag racing sim and the game-traditional 3 laps, Daytona, and Le Mans are all valid (not "sucky") approaches too.

Super Meat Boy is a platformer that does a quick fade to black whenever you fail and takes you right back to where you were to try it again. A platformer called Prince of Persia (2008) shows like a 1 second clip of your partner saving you whenever you fail and takes you right back to where you failed to try it again.

The only difference is that one weaves the mechanic into the narrative while the other is cool with it obviously being a game function.

Super Meat Boy got praise praise for this. Knowing that you failed was the only punishment you got for messing up the platforming. It took you right back to where you died and people pretty much universally praised this. Meanwhile, Prince of Persia was slammed. And not slammed because "how dare you make this make sense in the story" (the only real difference between the two), it got slammed over the idea that a mechanic lets you quickly retry failed platforming attempts.

I say all that to say that you can't please everyone with this stuff. People will say it needs to be addressed and then praise a game in the same genre for fixing it yet turn around and slam another game in the genre for even considering it a problem. There is no good answer. Probably best to pull a Nier and just be like well games in the past were like this and so are we. There's no way to tell if people will give you a Meat Boy reaction to it or a Prince of Persia one.

A big part of it is that PoP was not very good at making it a tradeoff; if SMB is a drag race with its big asks on reaction time, nerves, and specialized engineering, PoP was gating plot dollops behind just getting into gear without stalling out, which raised the question of why the gating was there to begin with.

 

[SomTervo]

Zelda handles it well. Constant autosaves every few minutes so you never lose too much progress; auto saves at the beginning of every (short) dungeon, and you can manual save wherever you like (unless you're in a dungeon).

 

[UnemployedVillain]

BotW has an excellent save system. Seems to auto save:
1. After obtaining "important" items
2. After cutscenes
3. Seemingly (and I'm not sure how they determine it) at the start of enemy encounters

But it also lets you manually select your autosave if you don't like it because, while it loads an autosave it:
1. Doesn't reload anything you consumed/used since the save (ie. if you drank a potion and died after the autosave, it'll remain gone)

 

[iRAWRasaurus]

First page doesn't have git gud? Disappointed

 

[rocketskates]

Don't die

Spoiler

But yeah, there's save points and save zones galore. Save more often?

 

[Ellite25]

Generally I agree though. More games are handling it by just autosaving often, like BotW

BotW is the best at this. I died? Who cares, I start again basically right where I was and any items or weapons I used are right back with me.

It's very aggravating to me when I have to slog through a 5-10 minutes section again to do the same thing. Unless it's a souls-like game, it doesn't bother me a whole lot (most of the time, mainly because I just sprint through the level or because I'm learning/progressing as I get further into an area).

 

[Dusk Golem]

I've actually been thinking on this VERY topic a lot for the last few weeks. I make little horror games, and one things I've been tossing around in my head is how to tackle death systems better. I've thought of alternatives, but not quite the something that really hits the nail on the head for me yet. I think how death works in games is kind of an outdated mechanic for many which only fits in certain kind of games, but as it is it more often than not is either frustrating or a small slap on the wrist, either it has no consequence really or it it has the consequence of frustration and tedium.

Challenge in games isn't the fault, nor is being able to die in games. It just feels to me there needs to be better mechanics to death in a game than what we got. I have one idea for my own game I'm thinking of doing, but I'm still thinking over this topic in depth. In horror games, death is an especially weird thing. Being able to die is important as a consequence for survival, as survival and having a threat is important for horror. But on the flipside, one of the worst things a horror game can do is make you repeat the same sequence over and over. That breaks immersion, it makes a scene stale, it basically undermines all other aspects of horror game design. It's a weird balance of wanting threat, challenge, and reward for doing well and punishment if one fails so there's actual weight to success, but failure leads to some terrible faults and design sins in a horror game. There's certain alternatives a game can utilize individually, but I think the common death system in games needs more serious onlooking and thought. It's becoming archaic and with so many different genres and games having the exact same few death systems I think it's lost impact for gamers and now is just tedium work.

 

[chrominance]

I remember thinking quicksave F5 and quickload F9 with a 3 second load time was the greatest thing ever.

And then I quicksaved right before a nade went off in COD4.

Once I quicksaved in Metro 2033 just as my last gas mask cracked while I was outdoors. It took me 15-20 minutes to figure out that there was, in fact, one spot where there was a fresh gas mask that I could just reach before dying of asphyxiation. The fifteen minutes where I thought I was just going to have to start at the beginning of the mission (or worse) were probably the most tense of my Metro 2033 experience.

Back to the subject: the places where I tend to take issue are when games have large death penalties not because of intentional design decisions, but because of sloppiness or technical limitations. Bad checkpointing, for example, is something I despise because it really does feel like a waste of time: it almost never serves the player well to have to rewatch an unskippable cutscene because of technical issues, or play through a bunch of trash mobs to get to a boss because oops, we forgot to put a checkpoint in.

I tend to avoid games that have huge death penalties by design, just because I hate the feeling of having wasted time. I never made it past the first post-tutorial dungeon in Demon's Souls, for example. But I wouldn't say that's bad design, just design that doesn't work well for my playstyle.

 

[Lothar]

I've actually been thinking on this VERY topic a lot for the last few weeks. I make little horror games, and one things I've been tossing around in my head is how to tackle death systems better. I've thought of alternatives, but something that really hits the nail. I think how death works in games is kind of an outdated mechanic for many which only fits in certain kind of games, but as it is it more often than not is either frustrating or a small slap on the wrist, either it has no consequence really or it it has the consequence of frustration and tedium.

Challenge in games isn't the fault, nor is being able to die in games. It just fees to me there needs to be better mechanics to death in a game than what we got. I have one idea for my own game I'm thinking of doing, but I'm still thinking over this topic in depth. In horror games, death is an especially weird thing. Being able to die is important as a consequence for survival, as survival and having a threat is important for horror. But on the flipside, one of the worst things a horror game can do is make you repeat the same sequence over and over. That breaks immersion, it makes a scene stale, it basically undermines all other aspects of horror game design. It's a weird balance of wanting threat, challenge, and reward for doing well and punishment if one fails so there's actual weight to success, but failure leads to some terrible faults and design sins in a horror game. There's certain alternatives a game can utilize individually, but I think the common death system in games needs more serious onlooking and thought. It's becoming archaic and with so many different genres and games having the exact same few death systems I think it's lost impact for gamers and now is just tedium work.

I find that the fear in good horror games comes more from running out of ammo and health objects and permanently fucking myself over than it does death. Silent Hill 3 is probably my favorite survival horror game for that. Resources are scarce and I did fuck myself over and had to beat the last boss with a sword, which made it take a long time. It was worth it though.

There needs to some set back for death however because playing Resident Evil: Revelations 2 recently, I knew if I was having a tough time and using too much ammo, it was best to just die and restart. You wouldn't lose anything but a minute of play time that way. So it was too hard to resist not doing. That made it not scary compared to old REs, Silent Hill 3, and Fatal Frame.

 

[Mandoric]

Once I quicksaved in Metro 2033 just as my last gas mask cracked while I was outdoors. It took me 15-20 minutes to figure out that there was, in fact, one spot where there was a fresh gas mask that I could just reach before dying of asphyxiation. The fifteen minutes where I thought I was just going to have to start at the beginning of the mission (or worse) were probably the most tense of my Metro 2033 experience.

Back to the subject: the places where I tend to take issue are when games have large death penalties not because of intentional design decisions, but because of sloppiness or technical limitations. Bad checkpointing, for example, is something I despise because it really does feel like a waste of time: it almost never serves the player well to have to rewatch an unskippable cutscene because of technical issues, or play through a bunch of trash mobs to get to a boss because oops, we forgot to put a checkpoint in.

I tend to avoid games that have huge death penalties by design, just because I hate the feeling of having wasted time. I never made it past the first post-tutorial dungeon in Demon's Souls, for example. But I wouldn't say that's bad design, just design that doesn't work well for my playstyle.

Trash mobs are, or should be, ablative. If they literally can do nothing to wear you down, sure, why do they exist? But if they can wear you down, why shouldn't they be considered part of the holistic challenge of that segment?

I've actually been thinking on this VERY topic a lot for the last few weeks. I make little horror games, and one things I've been tossing around in my head is how to tackle death systems better. I've thought of alternatives, but not quite the something that really hits the nail on the head for me yet. I think how death works in games is kind of an outdated mechanic for many which only fits in certain kind of games, but as it is it more often than not is either frustrating or a small slap on the wrist, either it has no consequence really or it it has the consequence of frustration and tedium.

Challenge in games isn't the fault, nor is being able to die in games. It just fees to me there needs to be better mechanics to death in a game than what we got. I have one idea for my own game I'm thinking of doing, but I'm still thinking over this topic in depth. In horror games, death is an especially weird thing. Being able to die is important as a consequence for survival, as survival and having a threat is important for horror. But on the flipside, one of the worst things a horror game can do is make you repeat the same sequence over and over. That breaks immersion, it makes a scene stale, it basically undermines all other aspects of horror game design. It's a weird balance of wanting threat, challenge, and reward for doing well and punishment if one fails so there's actual weight to success, but failure leads to some terrible faults and design sins in a horror game. There's certain alternatives a game can utilize individually, but I think the common death system in games needs more serious onlooking and thought. It's becoming archaic and with so many different genres and games having the exact same few death systems I think it's lost impact for gamers and now is just tedium work.

I'd like to see a system where you have a party/team, all established characters, with permadeath as a lives system. Especially for the potential of branching content as your character finds their friend's corpse on a now-sprung trap, or with the guard dog happily dozing with his bloody shoe still in its mouth.

 

[autoduelist]

When you die at the end of a level in a game like Super Meat Boy, you grit your teeth and do it again and again until you finally beat the level after like 20-30 tries. It feels immensely satisfying, especially since that particular game shows you the replay of all the times you died happening concurrently with your final run.

Can you imagine how much that game would have sucked if after every death you had to waste 15 minutes before you could try again?

You are still losing progress, just on a smaller scale. You are comparing a game with small levels to games with grand scope. If a game with grand scope doesn't penalize death then there is no risk reward and no sense of accomplishment.

 

[Lagamorph]

Worse for me is the delay between when you die and the dialogue box to continue or reload a save finally comes up.
Yeah it's only a few seconds but I'm just sitting there spamming the A button because I want to get back to playing.

 

[Crayon]

Most often than not I think the answer to the Respect My Time complaint is to take a break from the game. Not redesign the game.

 

[Tigress]

Of course, but you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to have a challenging experience, but you don't want any consequences for failing. Your heart and mind aren't connected here. If you just want to respawn immediately, then what is the consequence of failing the challenge? Just take failure out of the gameplay loop and play on easy, then. It's how I'm handling Witcher 3 and I'm digging it.

Maybe you like the challenge of the actual gameplay but don't want to have to redo a lot of other stuff afterwards. Just cause you like there to be a challenge doesn't mean you also want harsher consequences. Maybe you want the incentive just to be being able to go further in the game, not fear of having to go a lot back.

 

[thechristoph]

The consequence is that you have to try again. I'm baffled how that even needs to be explained.

Not if you don't have to reload. If it's just *pop*, back to life, you're not really trying again, are you? You're just extending your original try. IIRC, this is how Fable plays, and there is no teeth to any of the gameplay because of it.

 

[wamberz1]

Better than being allowed to save anywhere and becoming an overpowered god because you have the ability to rewind time by any amount you want IMO. Saving anywhere completely ruins stealth games for me.

 

[SciencePilot]

I don't mind redoing things if it's fun. By having to redo things until you complete the entire stage, it builds mastery. And mastering a game is fun.

 

[Goldenroad]

Better than being allowed to save anywhere and becoming an overpowered god because you have the ability to rewind time by any amount you want IMO. Saving anywhere completely ruins stealth games for me.

Just because you can save everywhere doesn't mean you have to. I have no problem whatsoever with developers giving me more options in terms of how to play their game.

 

[Tain]

Just because you can save everywhere doesn't mean you have to. I have no problem whatsoever with developers giving me more options in terms of how to play their game.

I vastly prefer well-communicated options to being given a glut of options and being left with the task of shaping a difficulty level for myself while I'm playing through a game for the first time. A lot of classic 90s first person shooters are the latter, games like Hard Reset and Halo and Serious Sam 3 are more like the former.

I usually consider the ideal middle ground for discussions like this is to have save anywhere in lower difficulty levels or as an option in a cheat menu.

 

[reson8or]

Why do people try to dismiss discussion with these meaningless statements? Literally everything in every game ever that isn't a bug or an exploit is an intended design choice, it doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on it or that you can't discuss the merits of the implementation. Or even the merits of the design goal/intention itself.

Discuss all you want of course, but complaining about something that isn't going to change and is in matter of fact purposefully implemented is a waste of effort. The game goes out of its way to tell you that AUTO SAVE is not happening. If you don't like it adjust or move on.

 

[SliceSabre]

Nier Automata is a weird example for you to use considering how frequently you're able to quick save. Not to mention Nier actually tells you the moment you start the game NO AUTO SAVE! PLEASE READ NOOOOOOO AUTO SAVE!

 

[DKL]

I've played an entire route and a large chunk of another on Very Hard and I'll be the first to tell people that Nier's checkpoint system is miserable.

Not just because of the amount of content you have to redo everytime you die, but let's talk about that anyway.

Here is the runback flowchart for a major boss in the game:

-Load the game
-run through a cave
-ride an elevator
-forced walk
-run through a city
-1-2 minute speech
-fake part of the fight
-Actual part of the fight

Now, if you get hit at any point in that fight on Very Hard, you have to sit through all that content again... much to the detriment of the game, this will cause most people to rely on pod spam as opposed to figuring out the boss, which is actually pretty fun once you learn how to consistently launch it into a combo.

The other issue with how the game is designed is that it creates frustration because it's seemingly inconsistent with how it wants to checkpoint things. There's a very VERY similar boss fight to the one above, but you get a completely sensible checkpoint: you get booted back to the beginning of the boss fight so you can actually just... do the boss fight as opposed to a bunch of random stuff.

Route B opens with a cool novel sequence, but it becomes grating to have to see it every time you have to restart the game.

BUT, there is a checkpoint at some point in the middle of it and I thought to myself "cool, it's okay to die after this"... but then it turns out that if you die after a certain point, it boots you out to the main menu... because there's a hidden ending.

And I'm like WTF

Why don't you just give me the ending, but then boot me back to the checkpoint?

There is no reason to have people endure all this content again just because your game wants to be quirky.

As much as I love the game, there's all these seemingly random design decisions that more often that not lead to unnecessary frustration on the part of the player.

 

[Skyzard]

Yep, checkpoints everywhere please. Or at least the option for them.

I'd like BotW to take it even further - autosaving whenever you teleport somewhere.

I hate when I teleport somewhere, run into something within the 5 minutes before it autosaves and I get killed, load my last save and have to go through another loading screen to get where I was previously.

 

[DKL]

Zelda is interesting since, sure you can save scam, but it's actually kind of the hallmark of good checkpoint design: I think the game auto saves before almost each encounter.

It's not perfect since I will sometimes run into that thing where I get killed after a teleport and have to repeat stuff, but it's very good considering how open the world is.

I'm okay with save anywhere as a mechanic since you have to ask yourself at some point: am I actually good at the game? So you progressively scale back saving when you want to see how far you can go.

(and it's not frustrating to play Zelda like this in a 3 hearts run since the game gives you nice checkpoints)

And, to be honest, I don't think a lot of people are good at the new Zelda anyway based on all the complaints about weapon durability: it's apparent that people don't understand the game mechanics well enough to engage the one hit KO options that makes weapons last seemingly forever... so just give those people the ability to save anywhere since they clearly need it.

 

[John Kowalski]

I'll generally take whatever a game's got to throw at me.

That said i think a mixture of saves and volatile checkpoints is really elegant way to solve this conundrum.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

the opening mission in nier: automata is hell on hard lol

die anywhere and it's all the way back to the start including a couple of cutscenes at the very start that can't be skipped for whatever reason

the final boss of the opening mission kills you in one hit on hard lol

i finally beat it all today after seven hours of attempts D:

 

[PSqueak]

"I like games to be challenging, but this is too challenging!"

You know, there is nothing wrong about going back to easy mode, you don't need to be like "im a big boy, i play hard mode!".

 

[Vashzaron]

Add a new option to every game, when your HP reaches 0 instead of dying god mode is activated. If you are good at the game you'll never even see it of course and you can still have your challenge.
Yet If you "died" the game would fully respect your time and you can still have a "challenge" right?

Of course I am giving an absurd example, but if it's a side option whatever. Look at Phoenix Mode in Fire Emblem and the reaction to that, it's a you can never lose mode. Is this what some people literally want at this point? Lowering difficulty is not enough?

 

[Deleted member 752119]

Yeah I don't have a lot of patience for games without very liberal checkpoints/auto saves these days. My patience just isn't what it used to be, and challenge is near the bottom of the list of reasons I game anymore.

Games don't need to adapt to me though. I just avoid the hard ones and focus on easier games and mostly stick to more narrative-driven experiences or semi-easy gameplay focused stuff like most Nintendo games. Even the new Zelda while hard by series standards isn't bad and doesn't have much penalty for dying as it usually puts you right back before that.

 

[DKL]

The funniest thing about the difficulty balance in Nier is that the hardest part of the game that I did on Very Hard is also the least amount of time I spent on doing a specific challenge because it has a quick restart whenever you reached a fail state: no loading screens or nonsense or anything... it was just getting me back in the game so I could retry.

(this observation was based on the amount of times I experienced a fail state and had to restart a designed sequence)

This is probably why the game had me feel like I was indeed wasting my time because the amount of time spent relative to how many fail states I was getting in most sections of the game was not making sense.

 

[Megatron]

Back in my day when you died you started at the beginning of the level, and if you died too much you started the whole game over.

 

[DKL]

Back in my day when you died you started at the beginning of the level, and if you died too much you started the whole game over.

Back in the day, you didn't have forced walk sequences and 1-2 minutes speeches before you could even run the actual game back.

In the amount of time I've redone some sequences in Nier, I could have beaten 1, maybe 2 of those old games lol

 

[zoodoo]

I have the same issue with souls games. I like fighting challenges ennemies but having to restart the same section over and over is not fun for me especially after a long day of work.

 

[GreenMonkey]

I have the same issue with souls games. I like fighting challenges ennemies but having to restart the same section over and over is not fun for me especially after a long day of work.

Souls almost always has a shortcut you can open up if you explore that makes a run back to the boss a 2 minute effort, tops (running past enemies).

Might need to die a couple of times to find the right route there with minimal fighting, but it'll be there.

Part of the reward for playing through the level and finding it's secrets.

 

[Louis Cyphre]

Souls almost always has a shortcut you can open up if you explore that makes a run back to the boss a 2 minute effort, tops (running past enemies).

Might need to die a couple of times to find the right route there with minimal fighting, but it'll be there.

Part of the reward for playing through the level and finding it's secrets.

The shortcut means you are not earning anything, so there is a tradeoff. I know most of the charm of the Souls game is meant to punish the player but would more checkpoints hurt the game?