At 7/5/09 08:01 AM, Doomsday-One wrote:
Developers don't need to beat the game; they just need to make it beatable.
Normally I would say yes, but this entire game is a trial and error game. If you know exactly what to do, you shouldn't have a problem with it.
The famed Konami Code came along because the person porting it found it too difficult for himself to play through.
Once again, this game is trial and error, whereas Contra was just a precursor to modern day bullet hell. >.>
I doubt PsychoGoldfish could earn Drunken Deity easily. And this, from where I'm standing, looks easier than that, considering that getting through obstacles will become second nature after a point.
Now how about if PsychoGoldfish wanted to make it work negative points for people who lose on easy mode? I would be all for people being pissed off at him.
Also, screen capturing software does lag up some computers by a significant amount. As PiGPEN had this, and little time to create a video, it's fair that he didn't win.
I'm just being bitter, I don't really mind he didn't win that quickly.
I have little doubt that he could win given enough chances.
So could I, and if we give infinite time into that equation, my cat can also. Can you name a single game that "Given enough chances" you still won't be able to win?
However, I am against the negative medal point thing. Punishing people will just make people not play the game.
By the way, when PiGPEN said "You could at least make the gap between the springs and land the size of a tile", he was commenting on how the image of the game 'looping' had been faked.
That makes sense, I was wondering what he meant by that. I had no idea that picture was faked, I just thought the person made a wrong turn somewhere. =P