What is the most hardcore single player game format you can enjoy?

[Nutmeg]

Background and history lesson:

On premises pay to play single player gaming, or "arcade" gaming, peaked in 1983 and then again 1993. This kind of gaming was characterized by a special type of game format.

The format and its early variant was that each payment was an opportunity to score against successively more difficult challenges, with game termination and score recording occurring on the player entering a fail state.

The late variant added score recording upon a success state i.e. the game terminated itself after a set period of time or set of score obtaining player actions.

There was also a middle variant of games which had an end credits roll, but also looped.

Games were considered broken if it was possible to score endlessly without any risk of triggering score recording.

Pay per game gaming (or home computer/console gaming) deviated from arcade gaming almost at the beginning. Since there was no pressure to rotate players on the machine, play at your own pace became common, and led to broken, boring and eventually forgotten scoring (e.g. re-spawning enemies worth points). Since saving was possible, 1 credit play went out the window.

Somehow, scoring came back to the mainstream in the form of ranking. I haven't dug into the exact history here, but it seemed to have happened in carefully designed niche hardcore games in the mid 90s (e.g. the Firemen), and somehow filtered through to the mainstream with Resident Evil and its children e.g. Devil May Cry etc. in the 00s.

1 credit play never came back to the mainstream, although miraculously at least 2 games with 1 credit play got some mainstream attention in the early 00s: Treasure's Ikaruga and Sin and Punishment. The interesting thing about the latter is that it features saving as a suspend and resume feature, which IIRC resets your score.

If you look at today's so called "hardcore" games, whether they can be played for score or simply the clear, you will see they follow a segmented format. Namely, they allow the player to replay segments either fixed by the game (e.g. levels in Cuphead or chapters in Bayonetta) or managed by the player themselves (saves) either in a controlled manner (save points, checkpoints, limited saves) or completely freely.

What's more many of these games give the player an escape hatch. Let's take the poster boy for modern hardcore gaming - Dark Souls. If you can't clear a gauntlet from one bonfire to the next, you can just reduce the difficulty by grinding for ore or souls. There's no score, nor is a clear time recorded (IIRC), so there's no difference (from the game's point of view) from a player who grinds and does not. Likewise for the "hardcore" tactics game Valkyria Chronicles, where you can grind skirmishes and then proceed to trivially get A ranks in story missions. Another common loop hole is abusing suspend resume check pointing to circumvent fixed segments (e.g. exiting to menu if you break your chain during a Bayonetta chapter).

Yet even with segmentation and loop holes, many players complain about the difficulty of today's mainstream "hardcore" games. Which are not that "hardcore" at all, and also less mainstream than they should be.

True hardcore games (those that kept the middle or late variant arcade format) have been relegated to niche genres and indie efforts.

 

[Bester]

If you can't clear a gauntlet from one bonfire to the next, you can just reduce the difficulty by grinding for ore or souls.

Eh? When you're a game journo, you summon 3 guys in havel and they clear it for you.
Worst case, if you don't have internet, you can just sprint through. Mobs usually let you pass.
Do you even Dark Souls?

 

[Bester]

Also, didn't read OP post. Why do you care about anyone's opinions? Is that interesting? Cause it's not for me. I just posted cause I saw "dark souls".

 

[Falksi]

Time is the key factor here.

Most games between 83-93 would be made of sections that would take a handful of minutes to complete, and amount to a game which would usually take somewhere between 30-90 minutes to complete as a whole.

Modern games are often 15-60 times as long as that. It's impractical to expect someone to play through a 2-3 hour level without saving, because real life often gets in the way (e.g. got to go for a shit, the dog's got out again, the kids have had a fight etc.)

 

[Nutmeg]

amount to a game which would usually take somewhere between 30-90 minutes to complete as a whole

Any e-sports RTS or FPS multiplayer session falls within that time interval. I don't really understand why single player games moved away from that. I guess it's related to score play and 1 credit play disappearing and something needing to fill the void. I guess in this case long winded cut scenes, dialogue, and other periods of the game not even accepting player input, as well as swathes of meaningless "content" (walking from A to B). That makes me think, if you removed that would games really be much longer than 90 minutes? I remember once looking at a cut scene free speedrun of OoT and it was like, yeah, roughly, 90 minutes.

 

[Wunderbar]

I liked old Resident Evil games system (typewriters and ink ribbons). Also some games penalize you for saving with lower rank.

 

[Lord of Riva]

I never understood this debate.

Save options are one of the easiest options to allow scaling of difficutly and it does not hamper the difficulty in the least.

I would never design a game based around those people who are simply unable to avoid their compulsions to save. Ironman existed long before the checkbox for it existed.

The more open the save system the harder you can make the game as the user can themselves scale their challenge.

 

[Nutmeg]

The more open the save system the harder you can make the game as the user can themselves scale their challenge.

The point is to have a single player game with meaningful player grading the player must not be able to scale difficulty how they like.

You can't grade a player who clears a game and reloads 100 times the same way you grade a player who clears a game reloading 0 times.

A game that doesn't differentiate the two is not much of a game. It's an everyone wins happy time casual play ground.

 

[Lord of Riva]

The more open the save system the harder you can make the game as the user can themselves scale their challenge.

The point is to have a single player game with meaningful player grading the player must not be able to scale difficulty how they like.

You can't grade a player who clears a game and reloads 100 times the same way you grade a player who clears a game reloading 0 times.

A game that doesn't differentiate the two is not much of a game. It's an everyone wins happy time casual play ground.

But this has been done before, you can associate a "Grade" with the amounts of saves used. Why would the existing save system have any influence on this? Isn't this exactly like DMC and RE did it?

Breath of Fire 5 is a good example here: You get awarded a specific amount of points at the end of the game and for every time you save a penalty is awared.

In a new game plus you get ranked based on this with the so called D-Score and you even get access to new areas in the game (which I am not a fan on, you should not make the game easier (through more rewards) if you are already good.)

EDIT: Just to give another example on the latter:

Valkyrie Profile awared more XP on hard and also access to additional Dungeons and to the "true" ending. In effect that meant though that save from the earliest part of the game, it was actually easier on hard than on easy as you characters got stronger faster and there were more options to farm xp through additional dungeons-

 

[Nutmeg]

But this has been done before, you can associate a "Grade" with the amounts of saves used. Why would the existing save system have any influence on this? Isn't this exactly like DMC and RE did it?

Breath of Fire 5 is a good example here: You get awarded a specific amount of points at the end of the game and for every time you save a penalty is awared.

In a new game plus you get ranked based on this with the so called D-Score and you even get access to new areas in the game (which I am not a fan on, you should not make the game easier (through more rewards) if you are already good.)

You'll notice the examples you give are actually option 1 on my poll:

Saving is not possible or loading invalidates score, or stains a clear e.g. Sin and Punishment

I'm fine with this kind of saving. But it's not the same as save anywhere any time without penalty, which IMO is the least hardcore kind of game format possible.

BTW do you know of any other examples where saving (or better, loading) is penalized?

which I am not a fan on, you should not make the game easier (through more rewards) if you are already good.

EDIT: Just to give another example on the latter:

Valkyrie Profile awared more XP on hard and also access to additional Dungeons and to the "true" ending. In effect that meant though that save from the earliest part of the game, it was actually easier on hard than on easy as you characters got stronger faster and there were more options to farm xp through additional dungeons

I agree really strongly with this. It's one of my pet peeves when it comes to RPG design. Unfortunately the genre has at its core "reward good players with an easier game". It's the opposite of arcade game design which usually features the concept of rank, which is the game becoming more difficult the better a player is doing at any point in time.

 

[Lord of Riva]

But this has been done before, you can associate a "Grade" with the amounts of saves used. Why would the existing save system have any influence on this? Isn't this exactly like DMC and RE did it?

Breath of Fire 5 is a good example here: You get awarded a specific amount of points at the end of the game and for every time you save a penalty is awared.

In a new game plus you get ranked based on this with the so called D-Score and you even get access to new areas in the game (which I am not a fan on, you should not make the game easier (through more rewards) if you are already good.)

You'll notice the examples you give are actually option 1 on my poll:

Saving is not possible or loading invalidates score, or stains a clear e.g. Sin and Punishment

I'm fine with this kind of saving. But it's not the same as save anywhere any time without penalty, which IMO is the least hardcore kind of game format possible.

BTW do you know of any other examples where saving (or better, loading) is penalized?

Hrm there are were in the past loads of games which did this. Dino crisis (2?), did this as well I believe. at least i remember trying to beat it without saves. I really do not remember much, it is not something I search for actively.

The crux for me that the "Grade" should not affect the game, it can be a meta reward though (bragging rights, aknowlegdement in game even without content barrier etc.).

While you are right that this is option 1 on your poll the question is "What is the most hardcore single player game format you can enjoy?" And in that regard i enjoy "save anywhere without penalty" the most. There have been games of all suggested types i enjoyed though but it would have to be a special game to make it worthwhile to me, or to make it clearer regarding the topic: The enjoyment is in most cases hampered if i can not save whenever i want.

I fail to articulate what exactly would be needed to bind me to a game that has mechanics i do not enjoy normally but for example i am a fan of Rogue adaptions both in their closest adaptions and their "lite" forms.

 

[Nutmeg]

Hrm there are were in the past loads of games which did this

The decline spares nothing.

The crux for me that the "Grade" should not affect the game

Why? If you take any game where you play it just for the clear, and also add a (non broken and challenging) scoring/grading system to it, you necessarily make it richer no?

i am a fan of Rogue adaptions both in their closest adaptions and their "lite" forms.

Me too. I think comparing Rogue likes to RPGs and RPGs to Rogue likes is what actually started my journey towards arcade gaming.

And in that regard i enjoy "save anywhere without penalty" the most

Even in games where all you have is the clear, I find saving and loading anywhere without penalty turns it into a Super Meat Boy like experience. It removes all meaning from player decisions just as badly as grinding (another thing I quite dislike) does. You can, for example, repeat some very risky approach to a prroblem over and over again, get through it with dumb luck, and never really understand or learn anything in the process.

When you remove the ability to save and reload whenever, a whole new dimension of play opens up - risk management and the associated excitement and problem solving that comes with it.

I guess I should make it clear here that my premise is strictly that player imposed challenge is not valid. With player imposed challenge you are really just playing your own game. Not the game the designers made, not the game anyone else plays. You can make any poorly designed game interesting by imposing so many restrictions. But the fact is, it's not actually an interesting game if you have to do that. Not saving and loading in a game where you're not penalized for doing so, is just one of these kinds of restrictions that players make to compensate for bad design. Another is to not over level. Another is to not use this or that item. All because clearing the game itself is so trivial and uninteresting if you play by the game's rules.

 

[DraQ]

I am uninterested in scoring, but have played ironman Wizardry 8.

 

[Lord of Riva]

Why? If you take any game where you play it just for the clear, and also add a (non broken and challenging) scoring/grading system to it, you necessarily make it richer no?

hrm, either I am missing something or you. Yes, I agree, as I did before that a grading/scoring system (as long as it does not block content) does not harm and can bring enjoyment to some, as long as it does not block content.

but isn't that what achievements are for, as an example?

"yeah this could work, but I risk dying and having to start over, can I think of a safer way?"

I guess I should make it clear here that my premise is strictly that player imposed challenge is not valid. With player imposed challenge you are really just playing make believe. You can play any super shit not well designed game and just impose 100s of restrictions on yourself to make it interesting. The fact is, it's not actually an interesting game if you have to do that. Not saving and loading in a game where you're not penalized for doing so, is just one of these dumb self imposed restrictions you have to make to compensate for bad design.

I can not agree with this premise. First of all not all games are played for the challenge, even if i personally agree that there has to be some challenge for it to be a game, this is not a widely shared opinion. Then you argue that self-imposed challenges are "make-believe" however i fail to discern how random numbers that the creator associate with tasks is any more or less make-believe compared to you doing it yourself. (Score), Gaming is "make-believe" in basically all it's forms.

Your example is somewhat lacking as well, it suggests a lack of player agency finding a saver way can be a challenge in itself even if you can save. The thought process just has to be "what is the most efficient way of solving this with a Focus on "X" (here safety) ) it is not necessary to "force" someone through mechanics to do this and i personally prefer to be rewarded (even if it's just a score) for behavior than to be forced to adopt something. Not even the argument that you need to "limit" a player to create choice holds a clear argument, games are already always limited in scope such a limitation is always done via the framework of what you want to create.

Even in games where all you have is the clear, I find saving and loading anywhere without penalty turns it into a super meat boy sort of experience. It removes all meaning from any decisions or anything you do just as badly as grinding (another thing I quite dislike) does. You can, for example, literally repeat the same sub optimal approach (from a consistency or risk management point of view) over and over again, get through it with dumb luck, never really understand or learn anything.

Not only is there not anything wrong with super meat boy it is a perfect example of saving not having an impact on difficulty. The short fired "back in action" type of game enabled the game to be much harsher than most people would be willing to play and still enabled a hardcore gamer to try and never fuck up. You can put that in contrast to games like "wings of Vi" or "I wanna be the guy" which are extremely unforgiving which in truth only limits how many players can enjoy it.

In truth depending on the game challenge is simply not the Focus. In retrospect i had to learn that the combat of PST for example is a very important factor in the game, thanks to Numa Numa. It is not that the combat is great or that it is challenging but rather the fact that even if the bar of challenge is not high it is something that gives a sense of danger and something to overcome to frame what the game is actually about.

There are a lot of games were the challenge is secondary, while not being a walking simulator, and that is fine. RPGs are actually one of the genres that lends itself the most this as the story it tells is what most people, arguably, are what they are most interested in.

 

[Jack Of Owls]

Generally any method that doesn't allow you to save scum but doesn't force you to replay entire levels/areas if you fuck up is probably the most satisfying method but even I have only recently (within the last 4-5 years or so) veered towards this style of play. I intensely dislike anything that forces you to replay and "get gud" with difficult areas over & over again but love the idea of game mechanics that encourage the player to be thoughtful and circumspect in their approach rather than just blasting in there all guns and balls a'blazin.

Grim Dawn is the perfect example of a good game with a frustrating save system to me. In one early DLC boss battle, I found it incredibly annoying & tedious to the point of causing rage-quit that i had to play through several entire areas each time to fight a boss that I kept losing to. Prefer a system where the game saves just before a major fight just before the arena of battle instead of two or three entire areas away with respawning enemies.

 

[Norfleet]

The most hardcore single player game format I can enjoy is "when you die in the game, you die in real life", like "Minesweeper Go" and "Don't Explode Live".

 

[HansDampf]

Not only is there not anything wrong with super meat boy it is a perfect example of saving not having an impact on difficulty. The short fired "back in action" type of game enabled the game to be much harsher than most people would be willing to play and still enabled a hardcore gamer to try and never fuck up. You can put that in contrast to games like "wings of Vi" or "I wanna be the guy" which are extremely unforgiving which in truth only limits how many players can enjoy it.

Is that a bad thing? I don't like these game either, but they are filling a niche.
And Super Meat Boy also has some longer levels with several potentially frustrating parts where you could die close to the finish line after over 1 minute of gameplay. Would the game be better if you could quicksave anywhere?

 

[Lord of Riva]

Not only is there not anything wrong with super meat boy it is a perfect example of saving not having an impact on difficulty. The short fired "back in action" type of game enabled the game to be much harsher than most people would be willing to play and still enabled a hardcore gamer to try and never fuck up. You can put that in contrast to games like "wings of Vi" or "I wanna be the guy" which are extremely unforgiving which in truth only limits how many players can enjoy it.

Is that a bad thing? I don't like these game either, but they are filling a niche.
And Super Meat Boy also has some longer levels with several potentially frustrating parts where you could die close to the finish line after over 1 minute of gameplay. Would the game be better if you could quicksave anywhere?

No it is not a bad thing. I enjoyed these two games. But just as with an Eroge, to have something that will only be enjoyed by a niche aucience, you are limiting your audience quite massively, just with that crowd you are opening yourself up to some things that may make it worthwhile to you. eg. Adult content for the Eroge or unfair gamedesign for the other category.

It's just a factor to be considered, there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[DraQ]

"Minesweeper Go"

Kickstarter plox.

 

[Machocruz]

Number two. Rogues are one of my favorite genres now. I don't care much for non-saveable, arcade-like games unless they have unlimited continues. I'm ok with not being able to save if I only have to redo a stage and not the entire game if I lose all my lives.

 

[Nutmeg]

In truth depending on the game challenge is simply not the Focus. In retrospect i had to learn that the combat of PST for example is a very important factor in the game, thanks to Numa Numa. It is not that the combat is great or that it is challenging but rather the fact that even if the bar of challenge is not high it is something that gives a sense of danger and something to overcome to frame what the game is actually about.

There are a lot of games were the challenge is secondary, while not being a walking simulator, and that is fine. RPGs are actually one of the genres that lends itself the most this as the story it tells is what most people, arguably, are what they are most interested in.

Do you really think that's how games should be framed? That the game should be designed to support the story, graphics, audio etc.? Don't you think that's a bit backwards?

IMO games should be games first and foremost, then all that stuff comes as a dressing.

Then you argue that self-imposed challenges are "make-believe" however i fail to discern how random numbers that the creator associate with tasks is any more or less make-believe compared to you doing it yourself. (Score)

It seems as though I edited my post while you were typing your response. I figured I wasn't expressing myself very well. Anyway the point is:

1. A game is its rules
2. A player's rules are not the game's rules
3. Players create new rules when the game rules fail to satisfy.
4. A game's whose rules fail to satisfy is a failed game.

Do you find this reasonable?

And Super Meat Boy also has some longer levels with several potentially frustrating parts where you could die close to the finish line after over 1 minute of gameplay.

The fact that people consider this a big deal really reflects the casualization and decline of the hobby to me, as well as the increasing childishness of the audience.

1 minute? Oh no. It used to however many minutes you spent playing the game, up to a usual 30 or so required to clear, sometimes more.

Anyway it's not so much a matter of "Kids these days. To play games I used to walk 6 miles to the nearest arcade. Up hill. Both ways" (I didn't live somewhere where arcades were a thing when it would have mattered, nor would I have had the pocket money to use them), it's a matter of what you lose by reducing the time between when players may save and what you gain.

What you lose is:
1. Consistency and repeatable execution as a desirable.
2. Risk as a factor in decision making.
3. Attentiveness towards factors that might influence risk.
4. Excitement and tension towards the end of a challenge.

What you gain is:
1. Player comfort.
2. Everyone's a winner.

I see trading the latter for the former as a massive decline.

 

[Nutmeg]

I'm ok with not being able to save if I only have to redo a stage and not the entire game if I lose all my lives.

Might I ask why? Is it because you feel playing the game itself isn't very fun, and only want to reach the end / watch the cut scenes? Wouldn't it be better in that case if there was no game at all?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

I would say games that save automatically - either at checkpoints or when the PC performs/incurs certain action/status - and don't allow you to manually reload the game while playing - it's also done automatically when the player triggers a failure state.

IMO, unless the game is a roguelike (or a very short game), permadeath sucks because either the game must have a very forgiving difficulty curve or they force the player to adopt very safe and boring playstyles.

 

[Machocruz]

Might I ask why? Is it because you feel playing the game itself isn't very fun, and only want to reach the end / watch the cut scenes? Wouldn't it be better in that case if there was no game at all?

I should say it applies to first playthrough and is about making a compromise between challenge and seeing what the whole game has to offer. Old arcade/console games were about sustained performance. I don't want a cakewalk, so having unlimited continues at stage start (as opposed to at place of death or mid level checkpoint, for examples) preserves a degree of that while also reducing the annoyance of having to start over from the very beginning if I fail towards the end and/or the early levels are a bore; I found with many games that most of the cool stuff was past the halfway mark. But the reward is still in the playing of the game, not seeing cutscenes or plot resolutions, which I do not care about at all. I'd rather see and fight new bosses, see new stages, get new equips/powers.

Plus I'm just used to a lot of arcade-style console games being designed with unlimited continues starting you back at stage beginning, and I didn't feel they were too easy.

 

[Nutmeg]

I should say it applies to first playthrough and is about making a compromise between challenge and seeing what the whole game has to offer. Old arcade/console games were about sustained performance. I don't want a cakewalk, so having unlimited continues at stage start (as opposed to at place of death or mid level checkpoint, for examples) preserves a degree of that

I misunderstood you cause I was talking about continuing/saving/loading without penalty with the other guy, but you seem to be just talking about continuing at all.

Yeah I agree with you, there's nothing wrong with infinite continues. I'd go even further and say there's nothing necessarily wrong with continues at point of death.

It's only wrong if the game doesn't differentiate a player who uses continues from a player who does. It's a bit hard to do if you have broken scoring or don't have scoring, but not impossible. Console games usually did have meaningless scoring, but at least they symbolically reset your score so if you messed up close enough to the end, your score would necessarily be quite low. Another approach is to gate extremely difficult content (e.g. a TLB) to people who manage the 1CC.

There are some (rare) instances of arcade games that don't reset score when you use up your credit. They call them quarter munchers or, in more modern terminology, pay to win. No one takes them seriously.

the early levels are a bore; I found with many games that most of the cool stuff was past the halfway mark. But the reward is still in the playing of the game, not seeing cutscenes or plot resolutions, which I do not care about at all. I'd rather see and fight new bosses, see new stages, get new equips/powers.

Ah yes. The first few levels problem.

Three commonly used solutions:

1. Make the first few levels a bit more RNG influenced than the later ones, so every run is just as challenging/exciting as the first. e.g. Contra 3 SFC.

2. Make the levels interesting beyond the simple clear with scoring, such that scoring well on the first level is more challenging/exciting than clearing even the last level e.g. any game with good scoring.

3. Randomize the order of the first few levels e.g. Raiden Fighters, Armed Police Batrider, other late 90s single player arcade games.