I don't want to stand on a soapbox here, however I have begun to notice an "issue" with 1001 Spikes, and something that could potentially be an issue for games "similar" to it that are now confident to come out and present a much more challenging, "Dark Souls" like experience. Obviously Dark Souls isn't the only hard game in existent, but games flooding through the gates taking inspiration from Spelunky and Dark Souls is not something new.

The issue at hand however, is what determines a fair, balanced, challenge and what is just a challenge for the sake of it. After watching the Quick Look to this enhanced remake and my recent experience with some more difficult games, I figured this game would be right up my wheelhouse. I instantly downloaded it, and begun having a solid time as the game was teaching me the error of my ways similar to any harder game. You usually never die without learning something. The game generally was well developed. At least early on. As the stages began to get harder, and harder. I started to notice...the "fuck you" element of this game get taken to a new height. A height that I think is a detriment to it's game design, and actually serves no real purpose.

It made me really wonder if games inspired by the more challenging resurrection we are seeing are going to get lost in the "it has to be harder and harder" edge as opposed to understanding what actually makes these challenging games compelling. First and formost these challenging games are compelling because you can actually see your skill curve go up over time. The thrill of finally accomplishing a challenge as you learn from every death, master the mechanics, and overcome is a big joy of games like this. However 1001 Spikes has several levels in it where you can't learn anything from death. Several levels are paced in such a way that there is absolutely zero time to stop and figure out what killed you and why, and at times you just randomly guess/reflex your way through the pacing. In those cases the game is hard simply for the sake of it. It feels like the developer just added in harder elements because they felt that is what makes these games so good, without actually understanding the pacing/structure to how that aspect of the game design SHOULD work.

In a game like this, at least in my mind, at no point should a player not be able to understand what is happening or why they died. I encountered several levels where once you hit a certain point in the level, you couldn't stop moving until the end. Ever. Which would be fine if the screen was large enough for me to see all the traps/challenges I was going to encounter in advance, and figure out the timing or pacing of it to learn and master every area. But in a lot of cases you can't see more than a few traps ahead of you. So you proceed through, there is zero safe ground for you to at all try to figure out whats coming next and you just go, hoping for the best. You end up dying and because you had zero time to actually figure out anything of what is killing you, you go back to square one. This is a perfect example of flawed game design when it comes to creating a difficult game like this. I certainly hope 1001 Spikes ends up being the odd straw out for future games that continue to take inspiration from this new movement, because I think losing the essence of what makes these games so fun and compelling pretty much kills the resurrection these genres have been experiencing.

I was watching Danny O'Dwyer stream this game yesterday and I think he was doing one level for over an hour. At one point he finally got to the exit and starting walking through the door, when suddenly spikes came out of the floor and killed him in the middle of the "leaving the level" animation. That was really humorous for Danny's reaction, but in the end it proved really terrible in design because he had to get through the already challenging level just to test new ways of approaching the very final bit.

i agree that its not fair,thats why i dont play this game or games like it.however there is a audience for games like this and i wanna be the guy.so basically these kinda games are just not for us.

There seem to be a lot of places in that game where you can't tell when spikes are going to pop up. There just doesn't seem to be any consistency in where they're placed, or you can't always make a good guess on where they are. I just can't accept that as "good design" either. If there was some sort of tell that "hey, if you're paying attention you'll notice the spikes here!" it would be fine, but I can't tell if there is one.

Yeah, 1001 Spikes definitely fails to strike that balance for what is actually fair to the player. It's actually disappointing because I was interested in checking it out until watching some videos and realizing that it seems to be intentionally channeling terrible game design.

@believer258: You can always tell when spikes are going to pop out from somewhere, as there is always a visual cue and audio cue as to when they will poke out of the ground. You hear them for a split second, see them for a split second, and then you die, unless you react in time. All the spikes are timed such that you can simply jump in place to avoid them if you time it right. Nothing about 1001 Spikes is unfair to the player. Although, I've only made it to 5-3, so there could be some real fucked stuff coming.

But you can't look at a screen and make a pretty good guess as to where they are? It's just a visual and audio cue that, oh, you have stepped on a spike square. And you're going to die, by the way, because you're not inhuman. You'll know for next time, though! At least until you hit the next obnoxiously hidden spike!

I think it looks great and I think a lot of it looks pretty well designed but the random spikes just turned me away from it. That's not fun, I don't remember Super Meat Boy stabbing me with random, unexpected things that pop out without any reasonable way to guess where they might be.

I don't need spike blocks to glow rainbow colors or something, I'd just like a more recognizable way to notice or guess at where they are.

@believer258: I just don't see a way to signal where the random spikes will be without just outright telling you. I can definitely see how it would be a turn off, but they aren't that prevalent. Plus, you restart levels so quickly that it never really breaks the flow of the game. Not to mention each level takes no more than a minute to complete if you do it well, and most take 45 seconds or less. I got to 106% completion in SMB and these are definitely different styles of games despite the similar appearance at the surface. 1001 Spikes is more about pattern recognition and timing whereas SMB is more of a pure platformer.

I think where 1001 Spikes turns into something special is when you've familiarized yourself with the game, seen all the levels, know the patterns, and are just trying to find the optimal run through each level to minimize your time. Getting to that point though will require a lot of frustrating deaths, which unfortunately will deter a lot of people from a game that I think is pretty genius.

That's why I stopped. There are sections with absolutely no warning and it's just memorization at that point.

The problem is there didn't seem to be much of a pattern. I'm not looking for the game to outright tell me, but some sort of "tell" before I step on the spike block would be nice. I don't want a game of trail and error and rote memorization.

Patterns, slight differences that you would notice if you were paying attention, having the spikes peek out a half second before you actually get to the block - those might have been good ways to tell players to be careful while punishing those who aren't paying attention.

My direct issue was how certain levels use those hidden spike traps. Most of the time it's fine. It teaches you where the safe spot to stand is and isn't. However in a few levels the hidden spike traps are a barrier between two larger obstacles. The second obstacle being off screen. Trial and error is fine if it teaches me what to prepare for not just in that one level but in the whole game. In this case you just have to die to go forward to learn how that one section of that specific level works.

The purpose of better designed challenging experiences like this is to teach the player how the game works. In some of the levels my growing skill in the game can react and are plan for what I think might happen and I have gotten it in one or two attempts. But the few levels I'm talking about there simply is no chance to get good enough at the base game or feel what's coming. You have to trial and error and memorize those specific parts and you gain no lasting game knowledge from it.

That type of stuff to me is counter to essence of what these challenging games are trying to accomplish. Meatboy, Issac, Spelunkey, Dark Souls are all teaching you things with your errors and deaths. You still encounter new things but you eventually get skilled enough and know enough about the games design and rules that you have a fighting chance, even if you still may die. Some of the encounters in 1001 there is zero fighting chance. You have to brute force it to figure out one areas trick and know what to do and as I said that doesn't carry anything over to the next levels or rest of your game knowledge.

Yeah I was a bit disappointed in the way the game handled difficulty as well. Was expecting more Meat Boy (hard but with perfect clarity so you can't get too mad) and not I Want To Be the Guy (Difficulty mainly via troll visuals and extremely precise timing). Some really amazing levels early on though (3-1 in particular was kind of great). I'd say up till about 4-3 the game is fair enough to be fun.

There are also some weird discrepancies between the various versions of the game, for instance I noticed playing on the Vita sometimes the spinning spike things will randomly fail to change direction upon being hit with projectiles (usually if you throw one out a bit after you just threw one) resulting in it continuing on unabated charging into you. With the game being trolly as is minor hiccups become exceptionally infuriating.