No Damage cheevos in Core? (Gamer perspective)
Posted: 14 Sep, 2018 23:38
Last Edit: 14 Sep, 2018 23:40
What do you think as a Gamer about No Damage cheevos in Core? are they fun or boring/annoying? i am asking because 'No Dying' and 'No Damage' are the most common cheevos yet the easiest and least creative to create from a Dev perspective, you can basically turn almost everything into 'without dying/taking damage'.
I am aware that it depends on the Game itself and its true, while some can be fine like the Mega Man Games as you respawn directly next to the Boss, its that many Games aren't like this and you have to replay the entire Stage or even worse multiple Stages just to get the 'chance' again to get the Cheevo when there is no Stage Select available.
I am asking as a cheevo creator what you Gamers think about them because i consider doing something else instead that is adding value to the set, i honestly feel like the 'without Dying/No Damage' are easily to spam and that is why they are so common, nobody would have a problem with them if they were in Bonus but Core could be used for different challenges.
So what do you think about them from a Gamer perspective? i am not interested in a Dev perspective and i am sure many Devs will defend them cause they are easy to create. Your feedback will have impact on my future work on cheevos. Thank you.
Posted: 15 Sep, 2018 00:44
Last Edit: 15 Sep, 2018 00:48
If they're fair challenges, they're a good way to prove you're truly good at the game. Very few games actually require you to replay enormous chunks of the game between each attempt, and people attempting challenges like these aren't going into them entirely blind, they've generally spent some time making sure they got patterns and such down.
As an example, I did three such achievements recently, "beat Metal Gear without dying", "beat the final boss in Blue Shadow without getting hit" (that game also had a "beat the game without dying" achievement) and "beat Back to the Future without dying", and they all felt like perfectly fair challenges. Not super easy ones, but not ones that asked unreasonable things of the player.
Posted: 15 Sep, 2018 00:57
So far I mostly played games that had "no damage on bosses"-achievements, which was alright and put up a decent challenge without taking to much progress from you if you failed to get it on your first try. You just save before the boss (like in a link to the past) and you can try over and over again. On the other hand things get a bit more frustrating if you lose a lot of progress while you are trying to get a certain achievement. Currently I'm trying to complete the Oracle of Seasons/Ages Bonus Set where you have to beat each dungeon with a major handicap and without dying and it gets kinda annyoing if you get through half a dungeon only to die to a mini-boss and have to do the whole dungeon again. For a Bonus Set it's OK but for a Core Set that would be overkill.
So in general for Core Sets I would say, it's a about how much time you have to invest to get another shot at an achievement after failing it once. If it's to much it quickly gets annyoing to try again.
For Bonus Sets there should be no open end to difficulty, as they are aimed for people who can normally beat the game half asleep.
Posted: 15 Sep, 2018 07:55
I don't think anyone here is for easy cheevs ! Even I who is bad at video games xD
The reasen we all here is to get more of the old games we loved and gave it same extra care
In other hand I don't like or care about cheevs that happened normaly by beeating the game like beat stage 1 or get the 1st badge in pokemon, I'll like to see less cheevs that each mean more.
Posted: 15 Sep, 2018 15:52
I dunno. I started playing Soul Blazer, but there are No Damage Cheevos for the boss fights, and it's difficult to find those out. It's especially difficult because I'm not very familiar with the game. I've basically decided that I don't want to invest the time in perfecting those fights, and why continue unlocking achievements if I'm no going to master it?
login to RetroAchievements:
or create a new account
or create a new account