Re: Pyramid of Umas - Timed Puzzle for Mirror Greaves
I was originally pretty sure no one was encumbered, but given that when I went back to the puzzle and this time made absolutely sure no one was encumbered (and beat it on my third try), I am forced to conclude that a party member probably was encumbered during my first attempt and I didn't notice it. I had tried a lot of times before I had given up originally, too. Also, my computer is more than powerful enough to run the game and I've had absolutely no frame rate issues, so that's ruled out. I do really like Grimrock and Grimrock II as they're both great games.
I didn't grow up with the games Grimrock pays homage to, though (I grew up with Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Star Fox, etc.) Some of those were indeed poorly designed in the old days (Zelda II, Ghost 'n Goblins, etc.). The medals in expert mode in Star Fox 64 were a good example. I loved that game, but I never could get the expert mode medal on the planet Solar after countless attempts (so I finally gave up as it was the only intelligent option left)... Definitely BAD DESIGN. Donkey Kong 64 had some stuff that was excessively over the top too. And this all comes down to one simple fact, there is no point in playing a game you can't win (doing so is a waste of your time and more importantly shows the designer is not respecting their players or their player's time).
I do disagree with Isaac's comment, though. While I don't mind challenges, if they're over the top then they should be optional with nothing behind them. There's no reason for some stuff to be out of reach for some players. That's pointless design that helps create the divide between new and experienced players. I can't understand players who do the insane challenges anyway as it requires an absurd amount of time to do. Not to mention that life is too short for such nonsense and there are countless other gaming experiences to play that are much better designed and not pointlessly aggravating. I happen to be an experienced gamer, as I've been playing games since the NES era when I was a little kid. That's probably the biggest reason I dislike steep challenges since games back then were largely very badly designed (like Ghosts & Goblins). I totally understand why they did it, the systems had crap for resources so you couldn't put in all that much content and they wanted to make the games last.
In general, the player should feel like failure was his/her fault, because if they feel more like the game is to blame then the player will begin to have negative sentiments toward the game. The illusion of fairness is very important in video games design (I mean, we all know that games are often not fair by design, but if it actually feels unfair then players will dislike it). The more a game throws random unfair crap at a player, the more it creates negative sentiments in the player's mind. I dislike games that do that, as there really isn't any good reason why that should be the case. If its too common, then the game should've been tweaked to minimize it a bit.
The Grimrock Games do have a few cheap spots, but for the most part they're not too bad. They are very good games.
I didn't grow up with the games Grimrock pays homage to, though (I grew up with Zelda, Metroid, Mario, Star Fox, etc.) Some of those were indeed poorly designed in the old days (Zelda II, Ghost 'n Goblins, etc.). The medals in expert mode in Star Fox 64 were a good example. I loved that game, but I never could get the expert mode medal on the planet Solar after countless attempts (so I finally gave up as it was the only intelligent option left)... Definitely BAD DESIGN. Donkey Kong 64 had some stuff that was excessively over the top too. And this all comes down to one simple fact, there is no point in playing a game you can't win (doing so is a waste of your time and more importantly shows the designer is not respecting their players or their player's time).
I do disagree with Isaac's comment, though. While I don't mind challenges, if they're over the top then they should be optional with nothing behind them. There's no reason for some stuff to be out of reach for some players. That's pointless design that helps create the divide between new and experienced players. I can't understand players who do the insane challenges anyway as it requires an absurd amount of time to do. Not to mention that life is too short for such nonsense and there are countless other gaming experiences to play that are much better designed and not pointlessly aggravating. I happen to be an experienced gamer, as I've been playing games since the NES era when I was a little kid. That's probably the biggest reason I dislike steep challenges since games back then were largely very badly designed (like Ghosts & Goblins). I totally understand why they did it, the systems had crap for resources so you couldn't put in all that much content and they wanted to make the games last.
In general, the player should feel like failure was his/her fault, because if they feel more like the game is to blame then the player will begin to have negative sentiments toward the game. The illusion of fairness is very important in video games design (I mean, we all know that games are often not fair by design, but if it actually feels unfair then players will dislike it). The more a game throws random unfair crap at a player, the more it creates negative sentiments in the player's mind. I dislike games that do that, as there really isn't any good reason why that should be the case. If its too common, then the game should've been tweaked to minimize it a bit.
The Grimrock Games do have a few cheap spots, but for the most part they're not too bad. They are very good games.
(Looking at your avatar) 
