10-Feb-2014, 7:50 PM
Quote:I'm sorry but this just sounds a little ridiculous. How is it no longer chips challenge? Because it would no longer be painful and tedious? really?
But, btw, since it was mentioned; so what? Let it be a different game, the original game sucked. Everyone agrees it's filled with quite a few painful levels not to mention the fact of not having any kind of checkpoint system or the like.
And the whole thing with the level editor is arbitrary I still think, because people can use an editor currently to "cheat" or subvert normal gameplay anyway. Except it would be a lot nicer to NOT have to do this. I don't think refraining from changing the game is preventing people from cheating or whatever. They'll just use an editor or stop playing. And to be clear, I'm only talking about preventing the need for repeating already-made steps. Seeing the whole playing grid would change how the game is played definitely. But a type of save state system only serves to shorten the length of time playing. It doesn't PREVENT the player from playing a level again and again. Players still have to go through a certain area many times to complete it if they have difficulty forcing them to refine their skills.
I have to say, I'm still really baffled at all this aversion to this. Games are about having fun, not boring repetitive tedium. And most gamers, at least casual gamers would agree here. And I wouldn't like the idea of keeping this game accessible only a small number of hardcore players. I'm saying all this, after hearing a number of people tell me this is the reason they stopped playing chips challenge or didn't even bother with custom levels after hearing about it.
mobius, you're shifting the goalposts here. The issue at hand isn't whether I or anyone else agrees with the original game's lack of a checkpoint system, or even whether or not implementing changes like a checkpoint system would prevent people from "cheating." The point is that implementing these changes would make the game a different game. Period. We wouldn't call Chuck's Challenge "Chip's Challenge" because the two games are different. We could debate what elements in Chuck's Challenge are responsible for this, but the bottom line is that two versions of Chip's Challenge were released with the blessing of its creator, and any addition we make that affects the gameplay, whether they be ice blocks or checkpoints, would make the game a different game.
Also, I understand that Tile World isn't technically CC either, but it was constructed to emulate CC, and with the exception of some rather obscure bugs, does so well without significantly altering gameplay. Those here who were around back when Tile World was initially released know that it was carefully constructed as an emulation, not "Chip's Challenge Plus" with bells and whistles that altered the gameplay.
Do I want checkpoints in CC? Sure. I totally agree with the idea for the reasons you listed. But if we were to do something like this, we couldn't call it Chip's Challenge anymore because checkpoints weren't a part of Chip's Challenge. Checkpoints may not seem to affect the gameplay at first glance, but they would certainly affect the amount of care with which we approach gameplay, as well as level design itself. I've been involved with a similar "retrofitting" project for another retro action/puzzle game, and the creator has opted for the production of an entirely new game with the same elements and similar graphics, as well as some new ones and a checkpoint system. It's been quite amazing to see how the checkpoints have brought about a surge in linearly designed levels, versus the more open-ended levels that characterized the original. I'd also like to submit that the tedium of CC and the lack of a checkpoint system are not typically taken into consideration by most designers when building levels, whereas they should pay more attention to the game for which they're designing and its limitations and shortcomings.
Quote:And on this note; I predict that CCLP1 is not going to bring a ton of new players to CC like it's intended to. I'm sorry to sound so negative, but this is the just the truth as I see it. Hopefully I'm wrong.
The purpose of CCLP1 is to include a legal alternative to CC1 when distributing Tile World, versus the much tougher CCLP2 and CCLP3. Will it bring "a ton of new players to CC"? I'd say that would be a nice bonus, and I would certainly hope for it, but for now, that first goal is what we're focusing on. Perhaps we can discuss distribution methods as a community after the set's release. The staff has had enough on its plate just putting the set together. It's worth noting, though, that CCLP3 seemed to be accompanied by a new wave of players after its release, even though it was monstrously hard - and that there are many CC players who are not active community members and would rather play the sets that feature the best levels (CCLPs) instead of taking the time to keep up with every custom set. A few of these folks also popped up around CCLP3's release. Perhaps with a more casual player-friendly pack of levels, more involvement will come as well.