Good or bad game design?

Good or bad game design?

Attached: Screen_Recording_20220901-170322_John GBAC_1.webm (720x474, 297.67K)

In this example it is bad because zero is a terrible game and the developers had no idea what they were doing, but in most cases it is fine or even desirable.

>filtered
what's it like being an S-Ranklet

Terrible, IMO.

No single design decision is 'bad' or 'good' just by itself. What matters is how all the various design decisions come together and complement each other.
If you disagree with that then you are literally too retarded to discuss video games. Like this mongoloid right here

It's only bad design if respawnable enemies have items you can grind infinitely, be they currency or health ups.

In Zero's case it's poor design because of how small the view field is. There are plenty of instances where you'll move back to either get space from multiple enemies or deal with a jumping segment and inadvertently respawn enemies in the process.

OP's video shows not so much design but rather technical limitation. Respawning entities are retarded.

In a game with drops or rewards obtainable from enemies (as demonstrated in your webm), obviously it's fine. Provides players with incentives for backtracking or playing carefully.
What's actually bad game design is when the game traps you in a situation where you were required to either conserve or farm for one of these resources beforehand. Like Megaman 2, the most shilled game in this franchise.

>f-filte-
not an argument or a defense, zero is god awful

Not liking a shit game isn't "filtered" you stupid nigger.
4 is the only remotely good Zero game.

HUHAHO

I think bad, but kind of inconsequential. It only ever becomes an issue when you retreat a little bit to dodge an enemy and then you respawn the dude you just killed by accident. Now there's two of them. I have been actively fucked before by killing an enemy at the top of a platform. When I stepped back a little to jump on the platform, the enemy respawned and killed me.

If it was a technical limitation than it would have been resolved years before the game in OP.
It's a deliberate design choice that's represented in all Megaman platformers. Interpret that as you will.
Interesting how you can't actually answer that post with that S-rank you totally have.

>technical limitation
You have no idea what you're talking about. That is a video game from 2002.

another player filtered by the wall boss

Metroid enemy spawners for farming > walking back and forth to respawn an enemy >>>>> dogshit > leave an area and come back to reload it

it isn't even the sole instance of that happening in its own game, kaizofag

I like X5, with the exception of the second last boss, fuck that shit.

It's only an issue if you're bad considering Zero games constantly have you moving forward in a level and the only times you'd ever "backtrack" is to retry a jump you failed.

I love the Megaman X and Zero serirs, but both series have their games or parts of their games that are designed like fucking ass, but X and Zero were never as profitable as Classic or other Capcom series so most X/Zero games were rushed to shit and they suffered massively from it.

Depends on the rest of the game, as always. It doesn't bother me in Zero because most enemies can be dispatched in a single hit, there's no knockback and you have no finite resources since enemies drop HP recovery often. It's pure cancer in Ninja Gaiden because you might use a subweapon to clear the way only to get hit by a flying enemy or projectile, get knocked back and lose HP and ammo without moving forward at all.

Awful. Megaman games are shat out by an algorithm, that's how they've managed to make something like 150 of them in such a short time.

Attached: what.jpg (410x127, 13.47K)

hi *hits you*

Attached: Carryarm.jpg (360x360, 20.16K)