Super Meat Boy pt.3
Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 12:22PM "Refining Platformers"
Though authorial intent doesn't matter to the type of analysis and critique promoted here at Critical-Gaming, I'll address various statements made by Team Meat to cover important topics.
According to a podcast on indiegames.com and this blog post on supermeatboy.com, Team Meat believes that they, along with developers like Matt Thorson with Give Up Robot 2, are "refining platformers" in a very particular way.
;)
"We're all moving in the same direction, and realizing that difficulty needs to change and how can we change it. What is punishment? How can we remove it from games. What can we do to refine the paltformer to the perfect state basically. The penalty for dying in new current platformers is the time that it takes to respawn. And we shaved it off to nothing. It's like an instant thing. We also took the levels down, so the levels [are] small enough not to be discouraging as well. There's a difference between being difficult and being frustrating. Maybe later in the game Meat Boy gets maybe a little frustrating. But I wouldn't ever say that it gets that frustrating. It's quite difficult. But it's not punishing enough to be frustrating frustrating."
Here's my response:
The word "punishment" has a very broad definition that applies to any situation where one experiences a consequence, a loss, or a disadvantage from their actions. Still, thinking about difficult design in terms of punishment misses the point. Video games are essentially learning systems. At their most basic, video games are tools for players to teach themselves. Knowledge is the skills that's the most stressed for most video games. This means players are mainly tested on their ability to observe, create tests, and learn from the results. This is the core of the trial and error method of learning. Everything when playing a game is a learning experience. This means positive/negative feedback, moments of reflection, developing questions, and opportunities to experiment are all important.
Regardless, the "penalty" for dying in other platforming games is not the time it takes you to respawn. The consequences for mistakes are a part of all games. If there's a win state, there's a not-win state or a fail state. The "shaved" off respawn time in Super Meat Boy and the core design that revovles around 1 hit deaths actually achieves the opposite effect the designers intended. As humans, we all learn in the same, slow fashion. The faster a game's speed, the harder it is for players to learn. This is because increased speeds deemphasizes dexterity, adaptation, reflexes, and timing skills while putting a greater stress on knowledge skills. The more knowledge skills are stressed, the less room there is to take in new information, analyze it, and store it. So Super Meat Boy is a game that inherently challenges the learning process and demands proportionally more knowledge.
"Difficulty in a platformer is usually established by this very simple formula:
(% chance the player will die) X (Penalty for dying) = Difficulty?As time has passed, lives systems and penalty have almost vanished from most games due to the amount of frustration they caused and difficulty had become watered down to the point of it not really being a factor anymore."
This formula is all wrong. First of all, the percentage chance the player will die is a factor of player skill (DKART). Using this as a factor to determine difficulty will only deliver inconsistent and subjective results. Furthermore, the penalty for dying really has nothing to do with the difficulty of the challenge. Sure, having to replay part of a level may try one's patience, but patience isn't a measurable skill (at least not a DKART skill). The easiest challenge in the world can have the steepest penalty (loss of life). However, this doesn't make the easiest challenge any harder.
It's much more effective to break core level challenges down according to DKART skills to get a better idea of a level's difficulty. Then you have to consider how the player can undermine the challenge and other factors. In other words, difficulty and challenge are tricky subjects that can't be reduced to a simple formula like the one above.
Of course difficulty is a factor in platformers like Super Mario World and beyond. There's variable difficulty and difficulty modes for people who want extra challenges with awards and rewards that only the skilled can earn. The secrets in the levels, secret levels, and pro techniques are all a part of the flexible difficulty design.
This attitude completely overlooks the impact of variable difficulty and suspension in games like Super Mario. Powerups not only change the way players can overcome and undermine challenges, but they can be held over (suspended) throughout the game if players don't get hit. Getting to Bowser on 8-4 in Super Mario Bros. as Fire Mario is difficult because the last powerups you can get are in stages 8-2 and 8-3, and they're hidden in normal bricks in dangerous places. Once you get to 8-4, you're on your own. With suspension, when you die you can lose a lot more than just the time it took you to progress through the level. In the same way, grabbing coins and adjusting your strategies across levels is significant. This is a whole layer of design that you don't get from the bite sized, compartmentalized design of Super Meat Boy and most indie platformers for that matter.
"It was imperative that the action never stopped, even when the player was killed. The time it takes for Meat Boy to die and respawn is almost instant, the player never waits to get back into the game, the pace never dropps and the player doesn't even have time to think about dying before they are right back where the left off."
The worst part is that the fast respawn rate exacerbates the problem. As humans, we need time to reflect. We need to take our time in the critical steps where we analyze our mistakes and store the processed information. If you mess with this process, you make a game unnecessarily hard. Sure, the player can take a break after every death, but playing an interactive video game is probably too enticing for most gamers to force breaks on themselves at every death.
Playing Super Meat Boy is like playing a hard song in Guitar Hero, but every missed note quickly resets the song. Not only would the musical flow of this GuitHarD Hero be destroyed, but you can imagine that (like the original Guitar Hero Game) getting more exposure and practice to the later sections of the song would be more difficult and repetitive. Guitar Hero eventually added an extensive practice mode that allows players to focus on specific sections of a song at different speeds. Bangai-O Spirits lets players edit any level so they can practice any part of a stage in any fashion at any time. And games like Donkey Kong Country Returns have checkpoints so the repetition is reduced when practicing. And all of these games let you make mistakes and keep going.
"...it was very important that the levels in Super Meat Boy be bite sized... If we keep the levels small enough for the player to see their goal, it lowers the stress of not knowing what's to come and the distance they will have to start over from if they die."
The designers claim that the levels are bite sized so that you can't lose too much if you die near the end of a level. Otherwise, Super Meat Boy would be overly frustrating, they claim. However, the fast game speed, questionable mechanics design (controls), and 1 hit KO design creates a type of difficulty that is much more repetitive than a platfomer like Super Mario Bros. There are some Super Meat Boy levels that are contained within a single screen where the goal and obstacles are clear, but most have some kind of scrolling (vertical, horizontal, or both). In these larger levels the goal and hazards are obscured. Sometimes I didn't know which way to go. Sometimes I had no idea how far I had to go. Some levels are very large with winding paths to compress space. Certainly, the bite sized design intent isn't consistently applied across the majority of the game.
In Mario Bros. players can grab powerups to increase the number of hits they can take. When you take a hit, the game pauses so you can take the extra time to see where you made a bad move. When you die there's a brief moment with no music so you can mentally prepare for another attempt. Then the game starts you back at the beginning of the level or the last check point. All of these design features create a game where players can learn better and faster. Super Meat Boy doesn't feature such an intelligent design. So really, the game doesn't refine platformers at all.
"People will forget. They'll see videos of meat boy and wonder... Aren't they frustrated? But when you're actually palying it, you forget about your misses and only remember you hits. You're only thinking about the good things that you've done."
Another way of explaining this is Super Meat Boy plays at such a high speed with such a fast respawn from mistakes that players don't have enough time to perceive and reflect on the mistakes they make. So not only will they take more time making more of the same mistakes, but this time will be forgettable because it's comparatively mindless. And when the player succeeds, of course they remember the victory. Beating the level is the whole point, and it's the last thing they do.
"This simple visual reward for taking a beating not only reminds the player of just how hard they tried but also shows a time line of how they learned and got better as they played."
I consider the replays to be a neat feature, not a reward. More so than anything else, the videos show me exactly how strict some of the challenges are. Seeing all the many Meat Boys die from being slightly off in spacing/timing is upsetting at times. Sure, the replay shows me how I developed/learned to beat the level, but I also see a very inefficient, stressed learning process driven to this point by the core design of Super Meat Boy that I don't completely agree with. For the most part, I see dozens of myself being killed for trying to freestyle and express myself.
"You did it. And you didn't die because the controls are bad. You know that you did it. It's not that discouraging at all. And you kind of enjoy it."
I died many times because the controls aren't perfect. Besides many graphical glitches, there are times when the buttons simply didn't register. I hear other people are having this problem with the PC version as well. Some times a WALL KICK, which should be a diagonal arc, JUMPs me straight up.
I greatly respect Team Meat for articulating their design philosophies so well (and with such nice pictures that I had to borrow). But their ideas are missing key insights of game design and how humans learn. They're like the young, excited teachers that have plenty of new ideas on how to teach, but fail miserably at actually fostering a quality learning environment.
The meal is over, but for dessert I'll discuss how Super Meat Boy stacks up against N+.
Reader Comments (13)
Your opinions on the respawn system are interesting, as most people I have talked to have found the Warp Zones to be the more irritating. For those that don't know, the Warp Zones put you through three stages with only three lives per stage. Losing all your lives will punt you back to the level select. Death itself is much like Super Mario Bros, with black screen displaying your lives remaining after each death.
Perhaps it's just a lifetime of experience playing games, but I feel there isn't a terrible amount to learn after each death. With as little variance as the game has, most mistakes boil down to simple issues of timing. I don't require a lot of reflection on that and would rather get in my next attempt.
That might just be the developers aiming at the people who play a lot of more difficult platformers than a mainstream audience. Whereas a more general audience is accustomed to a pause in the action after failure, the fans of the genre are comfortable with sudden deaths and simply wish to move on without a lot of fanfare.
Now, I wouldn't call the controls "bad," but I have noticed issues. The developers have said they had a struggle with PC development, and I'm curious if the console version has fewer hiccups.
@ Garrett
Good response.
The warp zones are definitely more irritating than the normal levels for the simple reason you described. It takes the issue and makes it worse.
You may think that there isn't a lot to learn about each death, but this obviously depends on the level. There is some trial and error in the game. And there are challenges that are very complex forcing the player to move quickly between areas without a chance to get a clear view of the upcoming hazards. Sure, you may have mistimed a JUMPy. But mistakes are generally timing based. But what I'm getting at is so much more complicated than this.
I'd be interesting to observe you playing some levels in Super Meat Boy. I could tell you a lot about how your mind works by looking at you play. I wrote a whole article about this...
http://critical-gaming.squarespace.com/blog/2010/12/27/gamemental-state-pt1.html
I't would also be interesting to crunch some of your #ofdeaths data. Like what's already been expressed, it's easy to forget many of the mistakes you make and the possible bad habits you developed beating a level.
I don't expect the average person or gamer to understand the nuances and complexities of their mind/learning processes. So I don't think it matters so much what the player says he/she wants. In general, Super Meat Boy levels test the player. If the player has the skills, great! Otherwise, they're in a learning phase. I know that the way the game is designed, it can hinder more than help the learning process. And I've stated that this kind of design isn't worth it. If the game had some kind of practice mode where you could feel a little freer to experiment on specific parts of a level, it would be a better game. With this option, you can get focused practice when you need it without interruption or mental distractions from thinking about other things.
Less than 2% of the people who bought the game on Xbox beat the game (light & dark levels). Compare this to COD:Blops 60% or other games 40-50s and you should wonder what it is about Super Meat boy that makes people give up.
Sure, the game isn't exactly easy like some Kirby games. But tnce you have the skills (lots of knowledge) Meat Boy is manageable and the game is a lot more accessible. So perhaps if the game was designed to aid the player in learning better, the % of players who beat the game would increase. After all, there's always the dark world levels for the "hard core."
The idea is, I'm not talking about mere preferences or style choices. I'm getting down to the nitty gritty of where game design (which is complicated enough) meets human design.
You're right. The controls are mostly good. I didn't mean to say that they're "bad" above. I meant to say that they aren't perfect (yet, hopefully). I'll make the change.
"Less than 2% of the people who bought the game on Xbox did not beat the game (light world levels)."
I assume you mean that less than 2% beat the game.
There are 140445 records for level 1-3, and 25630 records for level 6-5... So about 18% of players have beat the last leaderboard level, 6-5 (no leaderboards for the boss level.) About 1/10 of those players have also beat 6-5x (dark world version)
"Certainly, the bite sized design intent isn't consistently applied across the majority of the game."
I have completed all levels in the game, and my average level completion time is less than 10 seconds. You can't get much more bite sized than that. Only a couple of levels take longer than 30 seconds.
@ Shadowxaf
Thanks for catching the typo. I'll correct it.
And the stat page I referred to is here. The numbers refer to completing the last level in the dark world. http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2010/12/22/which-is-statistically-harder-n-or-super-meat-boy/
I like that you're bringign more stats to the table, but I don't think looking at the records is an accurate measure of the number of unique players there are in the system. Otherwise, link to your information so I can look at it.
You can beat Mario 64 in under 10 minutes
You can beat Zelda, Link to the Past in under 10 minutes
You can beat super Metroid in about half an hour.
Does this mean these games are bite sized? Certainly not. The speed at which you can beat Super Meat Boy levels at your fastest doesn't necessarily mean the levels are bitesized. Otherwise, you can beat SMB3 and SMB levels and many SMW levels very quickly.
It's better to look at how many challenges and of what type are in a given level.
I also feel that the analysis of "penalty" is biased on supermeat boy blog. They fail to take into account the lenghtening of Mario series. Super Mario World virtually has twice as much levels, without counting SPECIAL and star road worlds. With such a longer game, you cannot expect the game to be played in a row anymore. Frustration is a wrong metric here.
I note that VVVVVV is one of the game that has the shortest respawn cycle I've ever seen. I wouldn't say it had an impact on frustration, but definitely the fact that I'm immediately send back to action has an addictive result that all barriers that would prevent me from trying again have been erased. This is likely an important factor to prevent me from trying another game. I observed the same with Everlasting Love, but it doesn't appear playing Meat Boy.
I think what make me stick on some game and give up on others is the feeling that the game mechanics are adapted to the challenge and that the challenge is "fair": only my skills need to be developed.
@sylvainulg
Interesting points. I try to stick with games until I beat them or understand them (even if it's understanding why I hate them). But there aren't many games that I hate.
Other times I figure out if the skills I need to progress are worth putting in the time and effort into. Sure, I can beat just about every RPG by leveling up like a madman. But that's not worth it to me.
"I like that you're bringign more stats to the table, but I don't think looking at the records is an accurate measure of the number of unique players there are in the system. Otherwise, link to your information so I can look at it."
I got my information the same way MTV did. If you are going to include the dark levels of an extra-hard bonus world in SMB when comparing completion rates to COD:Blops, you should only look at the completion rates of the hardest difficulty level in COD:Blops. Also, COD:Blops is a sequel and a much more expensive game, so there is a different incentive to complete the game.
"You can beat Mario 64 in under 10 minutes
You can beat Zelda, Link to the Past in under 10 minutes
You can beat super Metroid in about half an hour."
I am not an exceptionally good gamer. I can't do any of those. The Mario and Zelda runs use major glitches that skip most of the game. All the Super Meat Boy glitches I used only saved me a few seconds overall. (the Spelunky guy saves his momentum after his death)
@Shadowxaf
I had originally thought that the stat referred to just the light world levels, but we can still use the information. If you can find more data on the others games let me know.
Does the SMB Xbox stats include all the warp zone levels? Are these levels harder than the dark world levels (which I've nearly completed all of now. Woot!)? Or is the issue getting a little sticky to sort out? Should we backtrack?
So you do agree that we have to look at the level challenges and take things case by case. After all, you seem to delegitimize using glitches outright for the purposes of this discussion, but that's not necessarily a given.
Even without the extreme glitches, you can beat many SMB64 levels (getting stars) in a few seconds just like Super Meat Boy. I mainly used these examples to prove a point.
"Does the SMB Xbox stats include all the warp zone levels? Are these levels harder than the dark world levels (which I've nearly completed all of now. Woot!)? Or is the issue getting a little sticky to sort out? Should we backtrack?"
It includes all timed levels. Everything but warp zones, negative levels and boss levels (levels 1-1 and 1-2 also aren't included due to a bug). Some 360 players are experiencing a save bug, so that may be discouraging them from playing the game until the patch comes out.
It's too bad that the game was programmed in a way that allows graphics framerate to affect the internal gameplay/movement calculations. I like to play the xbox version because the engine seems more reliable.
It's hard to discuss controls on a modern PC platformer. Who knows what one player may be experiencing that the developer didn't intend?
When SMB (mario) came out for the NES every single player had an analog TV with exactly the same amount of Lag... 0ms. I just got a new video card in my PC and hooked it up to a Plasma Display with HDMI. When playing SMB(meat) I get significantly more lag than the XBOX 360 meatboy on the same display.
"you can beat many SMB64 levels (getting stars) in a few seconds just like Super Meat Boy"
SMB64 and Sunshine are like large playgrounds. You can choose to visit all the playthings, or you can skip most of it and go straight to an objective without encountering most of the obstacles.
I don't understand how this relates to the length of Super Meat Boy's levels.
One thing I find interesting about Meat Boy is that speed running can make the game easier. Some levels that I had a lot of trouble with initially. When I came back and visited them several days later. I stopped trying to be cautious, and I ended up using significantly less lives. I set a goal to get in the top 1% of the leaderboards for each level. It was my only personal A++ goal. I succeeded with all the Light World levels and about half of the dark worlds. I had to find new paths through several of the levels, instead of just speeding up on the same line.
@Shadowxaf
"It's too bad that the game was programmed in a way that allows graphics framerate to affect the internal gameplay/movement calculations....
It's hard to discuss controls on a modern PC platformer. Who knows what one player may be experiencing that the developer didn't intend?..."
I know what you mean. As far as my experience goes, even the little hiccups weren't enough to sour my gameplay. I'm pretty forgiving on things like this.
As far as PC controls, I use the default. But my attitude is, as long as the player doesn't hack or mod the game, whatever they experience falls within what the developer intends. I haven't tried mapping my controls to any other buttons, but it's safe to say default PC controls are definitely intended even if not ideal.
I'm curious to try using a PS3 controller. I wonder how easy it is to set up. I intended on using a Wiimote on my PC, but my bluetooth tool expired.
"SMB64 and Sunshine are like large playgrounds. You can choose to visit all the playthings, or you can skip most of it and go straight to an objective without encountering most of the obstacles.
I don't understand how this relates to the length of Super Meat Boy's levels."
I was making a specific kind of counter argument for taking each game on a case by case basis and not just referring to completion time. I used a few extreme examples and some more reasonable ones to prove this. For each example you explained case by case why they would/wouldn't be comparable to the meat boy discussion meaning, for all games/examples we intend on discussing we need to look at their design/gameplay.
One thing I find interesting about Meat Boy is that speed running can make the game easier. Some levels that I had a lot of trouble with initially. When I came back and visited them several days later. I stopped trying to be cautious, and I ended up using significantly less lives. I set a goal to get in the top 1% of the leaderboards for each level. It was my only personal A++ goal. I succeeded with all the Light World levels and about half of the dark worlds. I had to find new paths through several of the levels, instead of just speeding up on the same line.
"One thing I find interesting about Meat Boy is that speed running can make the game easier."
Indeed. The game has "speed tuning" meaning that many of the opportunities and timings will work out better for the bold and fast player (calibrated to Meat Boy's speed). Many great games have this including Super Mario Bros.
"I set a goal to get in the top 1% of the leaderboards for each level. It was my only personal A++ goal. I succeeded with all the Light World levels and about half of the dark worlds. I had to find new paths through several of the levels, instead of just speeding up on the same line."
Finding new paths and shaving off time is what it's all about in a race. Some levels have wonderful elegant solutions and alternate paths. Some don't. I haven't taken any data for the ratio though.
By the way, if you're at the top 1% for those levels, then I don't think you can't call yourself an exceptional gamer.
"By the way, if you're at the top 1% for those levels, then I don't think you can't call yourself an exceptional gamer."
Haha.... good point.
I think If there were actual A++ times or an achievement for what I did, there would have been a lot more competition. I think I simply put a lot more time and lives into than most players.
"I died many times because the controls aren't perfect." Wrong. The controls are the best I've seen in any platformer, and I've played them all. Besides, I don't think it was Team Meat's intention for EVERYBODY to beat this game, hence the $15 price tag (I got my copy for $3.75 on Steam during the holiday sales). I've played this game to death, and can honestly say nothing negative. The controls are perfect, the level design is perfect, even the price is right. The only problem is your individual skill.
@ Foshorror
If only things were as simple as you make them out to be.
For your information, I beat every level in the game (including dark world but not all warp zones) with an A+ rating. So I have the skills.
There's really no need to exaggerate so much and yet say so little.
You haven't played all the platformers. Pricing isn't a factor in gameplay/game analysis. And everyone beating the game isn't an issue either.
If you can't say anything negative about Super Meat Boy, then.... great. You probably love the game then. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's perfect or not seeing any flaws that others claim.
I, on the other hand, find issues even with some of my favorite games. In my mind, a game can be perfect and still have issues/"flaws." This concept is sort of radical in itself.
I do encourage you to read part 4 of my Super Meat Boy analysis. I do like the game for many of its best features/qualities. Even if it sounds like I'm ultra critical, you have to pay careful attention to exactly what's being said and why.
Oh.. and for a final piece of advice on Meat Boy ... "push the buttons!"