The first couple of things to say, I don't like the tern save scumming
as it's by default a negative implication and also people can enjoy
games how the wish.

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow Gambit,
where saving before you try something is very much part of the game, and
some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not a 'real
gamer' if you do it.

So keeping it more to narrative style games where your choices do, or
should, have consequences I think it kinda depends. So for your typical
RPG I will do it before combat for two main reasons. The first I don't
play CRPG's for their mechanics and understanding how to create good
characters builds hence I get killed a lot. My general approach is save,
was that combat harder than I thought so at least one party member died (probably all), reload and put a bit more effort into it. Where I don't
save is conversations where I'll just go with what ever happens even if
that means I didn't get the best outcome due to failing a skill check or
just picking the wrong option.

One of the comparisons I've seen is, well you can't do it in tabletop
RPG's so why can you do it in CRPG's. Now it is off course true that in
TT RPG's you can't just keep rolling the dice until you succeed but I
also think that they handle failure far better than CRPG's where the
idea of don't worry you can reload a save feels almost built in. In TT
RPG's you have a GM that knows how to keep the game running while still
making your actions have consequences and in for example Call of Cthulhu
you even have the idea of a fail can succeed just not quite in the
desired way. Heck as a GM I have an unwritten rule that players only die
from bad choices not bad dice rolls.

A couple of CRPG's where I made an exception to my normal rule are
Sunless Sea and Disco Elysium. When the former was first released you
couldn't actually save at all but I think the devs realised that was a
bad idea so introduced two other options of save when you want or only
save at a port. I went for the last as that still gives you a feeling on impending doom and the horror of the sea but isn't completely brutal.
With DE something it does really well is embracing failure so it won't
stop you progressing but it will mean you take a different path.

So that's my thoughts, anyone else?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:49:31 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

So keeping it more to narrative style games where your choices do, or
should, have consequences I think it kinda depends. So for your typical
RPG I will do it before combat for two main reasons. The first I don't
play CRPG's for their mechanics and understanding how to create good >characters builds hence I get killed a lot. My general approach is save,
was that combat harder than I thought so at least one party member died >(probably all), reload and put a bit more effort into it. Where I don't
save is conversations where I'll just go with what ever happens even if
that means I didn't get the best outcome due to failing a skill check or
just picking the wrong option.

I play RPGs for the reasons you don't but I still save the same way as
you. I always save before combat. If a party member dies, I
immediately reload. I do not save before a conversation. I always
choose whichever option I think my character would and I go with it,
whatever the results.

As for save scumming in general, I tend to follow the adventure game
mantra of 'save early, save often' as I don't enjoy repeating the same
part of a game over and over. Screw that.

I do occasionally limit my saving, however. The last time I chose not
to save scum was when I played Jagged Alliance a few years ago. I did
not allow myself to save during combat as it simply felt cheesy to do
so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:49:31 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow Gambit,
where saving before you try something is very much part of the game, and
some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not a 'real
gamer' if you do it.

Rule #1 about video games: They're supposed to be fun. If you're not
having fun because you're enforcing a 'no-reloads' rule, then why
bother playing?

Rule #2 about video games: Everybody has a different definition of
'fun'. Some people love the /challenge/ of games, and reloading a save
runs contrary to that. But not everyone feels the same way. That
doesn't mean they're way of playing is wrong; just that they enjoy
games for different reasons.


TL;DR: play the way that makes the game the most fun for you.



Myself, I /despise/ repetitiveness, and a pleasing narrative is more
important to me than banging my head against the same challenge over
and over. So I'll reload as necessary.

Of course, it helps that I tend to avoid 'spoilers' about a game ahead
of time, so it's usually gameplay and not story issues that force a
reload. Did I fuck up a relationship role with that NPC? Does it
matter? Did I just prevent myself from getting a 'good' ending? I
usually have no way of knowing, so - unless it's immediately obvious -
I usually roll with it.

(Well, unless the dialogue tree is so obtuse that - while I intend to
be nice to NPC - the protagonist makes a comment that does that
opposite. CRPG dialogue options are /so/ limited and frustrating at
times. When that happens, I may try every option until I get the
result I intended).

One of the comparisons I've seen is, well you can't do it in tabletop
RPG's so why can you do it in CRPG's. Now it is off course true that in
TT RPG's you can't just keep rolling the dice until you succeed

Hah! I call bullshit on that one! ;-)

"That roll doesn't count. It was just a practice roll!"

"Oh wait, the die fell out of my hand before I intended it to. Let me
do it again."

"I have a karma point that lets me roll a second die and take the
better of the two options!"

And my favorite:

'Accidentally' rolling two identical dice and then picking the better
result.

Besides, dice-rolls aside, pen-n-paper RPGs aren't limited to single
dice rolls determining the outcome; a generous DM, a clever argument
from a player, or just a good understanding of the mechanics usually
allows the player to grant themselves a second (or third, or
fourth...) chance if a die roll fails. Save-scumming is a result of
how linear and constrained CRPGs are because they blindly follow the
rules. A good GM will never "rocks fall, everybody is dead" a party
(well, unless you piss him off) just because the dice say so, but a
computer will happily do so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 8/31/2023 1:49 AM, JAB wrote:

The first couple of things to say, I don't like the tern save scumming
as it's by default a negative implication and also people can enjoy
games how the wish.

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow Gambit,
where saving before you try something is very much part of the game, and
some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not a 'real
gamer' if you do it.

So keeping it more to narrative style games where your choices do, or
should, have consequences I think it kinda depends. So for your typical
RPG I will do it before combat for two main reasons. The first I don't
play CRPG's for their mechanics and understanding how to create good characters builds hence I get killed a lot. My general approach is save,
was that combat harder than I thought so at least one party member died (probably all), reload and put a bit more effort into it. Where I don't
save is conversations where I'll just go with what ever happens even if
that means I didn't get the best outcome due to failing a skill check or
just picking the wrong option.

One of the comparisons I've seen is, well you can't do it in tabletop
RPG's so why can you do it in CRPG's. Now it is off course true that in
TT RPG's you can't just keep rolling the dice until you succeed but I
also think that they handle failure far better than CRPG's where the
idea of don't worry you can reload a save feels almost built in. In TT
RPG's you have a GM that knows how to keep the game running while still making your actions have consequences and in for example Call of Cthulhu
you even have the idea of a fail can succeed just not quite in the
desired way. Heck as a GM I have an unwritten rule that players only die
from bad choices not bad dice rolls.

A couple of CRPG's where I made an exception to my normal rule are
Sunless Sea and Disco Elysium. When the former was first released you couldn't actually save at all but I think the devs realised that was a
bad idea so introduced two other options of save when you want or only
save at a port. I went for the last as that still gives you a feeling on impending doom and the horror of the sea but isn't completely brutal.
With DE something it does really well is embracing failure so it won't
stop you progressing but it will mean you take a different path.

So that's my thoughts, anyone else?

Much the same as yours and the two prior replies. If it is a combat
heavy game I will save (when I can) before battles. I still vividly
remember games like the Wizardry series when a random encounter could
wipe your entire party out without a chance of surviving. Storyline
stuff? If its a game with enough branches in the storyline for that to
be significant there's a better than usual chance its a game worth
playing more than once to explore the branches.

Personally I've drifted away from games where there is a "need" for
frequent saves. I'm more into "cozy" games like the 'My Time at' series
and Stardew Valley these days. I'm not into the "thrill" of having
survived, yet again, by the skin of my teeth and lucky random number generations anymore. Bad for my blood pressure.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:49:35 AM UTC-7, JAB wrote:

The first couple of things to say, I don't like the tern save scumming
as it's by default a negative implication and also people can enjoy
games how the wish.

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow Gambit, where saving before you try something is very much part of the game, and some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not a 'real
gamer' if you do it.

*shifty eyes* *Ahem*...

So keeping it more to narrative style games where your choices do, or should, have consequences I think it kinda depends. So for your typical
RPG I will do it before combat for two main reasons. The first I don't
play CRPG's for their mechanics and understanding how to create good characters builds hence I get killed a lot. My general approach is save,
was that combat harder than I thought so at least one party member died (probably all), reload and put a bit more effort into it. Where I don't
save is conversations where I'll just go with what ever happens even if
that means I didn't get the best outcome due to failing a skill check or just picking the wrong option.

If you get killed, what's the alternative, restart from the beginning? That's not save scumming. Save scumming would be more like saving before
every turn in combat and if you miss, or get hit, you reload that turn.

If someone dies I reload too. I did once play an ironman Fallout possibly
a couple other games, your companion dies you keep going. Eventually
all the companions were dead, and the game became insanely difficult.

I have been reloading a lot in BG3, and unfortunately the loads are slow. General conversations no. However the game seems to like to start conversations with one of the companions at times, and if my last save isn't too far off I'll often go back and have my character talk instead. Especially when I was playing a Bard, as the companions are all a bunch of
low-medium cha characters with no speech skills.

I've also been doing a lot with traps as the PCs should really just stop when someone says "Watch out there's a trap" instead of just barreling into them.

So it's mostly to counter the stupidity of the game.

I have been doing some pick-pocket save scumming though. That I feel
bad about, but I have to feed my need for loot. I'd prefer some other
mechanic with that that had some amount you could steal and that's it.
Or just not having it possible at all.

Also have to do that to get around the idiocy of the time I killed the
goblin merchant, and he didn't have any of the things he was selling, that
one I don't feel bad about.

- Justisaur

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/08/2023 14:41, Mike S. wrote:

I do occasionally limit my saving, however. The last time I chose not
to save scum was when I played Jagged Alliance a few years ago. I did
not allow myself to save during combat as it simply felt cheesy to do
so.

Yep, anything with some sort of tactical strategy angle it does seem a
bit silly to constantly save as it kinda feels like why not cut out the
middle man and have a question box at the start which asks, Win or Lose?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/08/2023 14:31, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:49:31 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow Gambit,
where saving before you try something is very much part of the game, and
some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not a 'real
gamer' if you do it.

Rule #1 about video games: They're supposed to be fun. If you're not
having fun because you're enforcing a 'no-reloads' rule, then why
bother playing?

Rule #2 about video games: Everybody has a different definition of
'fun'. Some people love the /challenge/ of games, and reloading a save
runs contrary to that. But not everyone feels the same way. That
doesn't mean they're way of playing is wrong; just that they enjoy
games for different reasons.

TL;DR: play the way that makes the game the most fun for you.

Very much agree with one caveat, games are generally designed with a
gameplay style in mind so it is possible that if you go against it,
without realising, you might be missing out.

Myself, I /despise/ repetitiveness, and a pleasing narrative is more important to me than banging my head against the same challenge over
and over. So I'll reload as necessary.

Don't remind me of fighting the wolf in The Witcher 1 in I think the
first chapter. I lost count the amount of reloads I had to do to get
past it.

Of course, it helps that I tend to avoid 'spoilers' about a game ahead
of time, so it's usually gameplay and not story issues that force a
reload. Did I fuck up a relationship role with that NPC? Does it
matter? Did I just prevent myself from getting a 'good' ending? I
usually have no way of knowing, so - unless it's immediately obvious -
I usually roll with it.

(Well, unless the dialogue tree is so obtuse that - while I intend to
be nice to NPC - the protagonist makes a comment that does that
opposite. CRPG dialogue options are /so/ limited and frustrating at
times. When that happens, I may try every option until I get the
result I intended).

One of the comparisons I've seen is, well you can't do it in tabletop
RPG's so why can you do it in CRPG's. Now it is off course true that in
TT RPG's you can't just keep rolling the dice until you succeed

Hah! I call bullshit on that one! ;-)

"That roll doesn't count. It was just a practice roll!"

"Oh wait, the die fell out of my hand before I intended it to. Let me
do it again."

"I have a karma point that lets me roll a second die and take the
better of the two options!"

And my favorite:

'Accidentally' rolling two identical dice and then picking the better
result.

Besides, dice-rolls aside, pen-n-paper RPGs aren't limited to single
dice rolls determining the outcome; a generous DM, a clever argument
from a player, or just a good understanding of the mechanics usually
allows the player to grant themselves a second (or third, or
fourth...) chance if a die roll fails. Save-scumming is a result of
how linear and constrained CRPGs are because they blindly follow the
rules. A good GM will never "rocks fall, everybody is dead" a party
(well, unless you piss him off) just because the dice say so, but a
computer will happily do so.

And also agree so in the last edition of CoC you can push rules which
means you get to roll again (if you give a plausible explanation) but if
you fail again the consequences will be far worse. These also the idea
of luck points which you spend to 'increase' your roll to turn a failure
into a success.

This also the rule of when you use skill checks, so if a character is
competent and it's not stressed or under time constraints then they
always pass. Saying that we used to have GM that would do things like
have us make a climb check to get up a perfectly fine ladder which was
there for that exact purpose. When someone failed they'd then sort of
back out on it and there wouldn't be any consequences. You wanted to
scream, what's the point of that.

As for a generous GM, there's a meme in CoC that you should be killing
off characters or making them go insane as part of your job. Forutanetly
most people treat it as just a meme although I do remember a poster in a
forum that was very insistent that was the correct way to play and boy
did they use to get upset with anyone how merley suggested that there is
no right way to play as it's all about having fun.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/08/2023 16:52, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

Personally I've drifted away from games where there is a "need" for
frequent saves.  I'm more into "cozy" games like the 'My Time at' series
and Stardew Valley these days.  I'm not into the "thrill" of having survived, yet again, by the skin of my teeth and lucky random number generations anymore.  Bad for my blood pressure.

In the same boat here, I've moved more to games that are for the rather pretentious concept of a gaming experience rather than a gaming challenge.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/08/2023 23:12, Justisaur wrote:

On Thursday, August 31, 2023 at 1:49:35 AM UTC-7, JAB wrote:

The first couple of things to say, I don't like the tern save scumming
as it's by default a negative implication and also people can enjoy
games how the wish.

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow Gambit,
where saving before you try something is very much part of the game, and
some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not a 'real
gamer' if you do it.

*shifty eyes* *Ahem*...

So keeping it more to narrative style games where your choices do, or
should, have consequences I think it kinda depends. So for your typical
RPG I will do it before combat for two main reasons. The first I don't
play CRPG's for their mechanics and understanding how to create good
characters builds hence I get killed a lot. My general approach is save,
was that combat harder than I thought so at least one party member died
(probably all), reload and put a bit more effort into it. Where I don't
save is conversations where I'll just go with what ever happens even if
that means I didn't get the best outcome due to failing a skill check or
just picking the wrong option.

If you get killed, what's the alternative, restart from the beginning? That's
not save scumming. Save scumming would be more like saving before
every turn in combat and if you miss, or get hit, you reload that turn.

Well I did say I don't like the term :-)

If someone dies I reload too. I did once play an ironman Fallout possibly
a couple other games, your companion dies you keep going. Eventually
all the companions were dead, and the game became insanely difficult.

I have been reloading a lot in BG3, and unfortunately the loads are slow. General conversations no. However the game seems to like to start conversations with one of the companions at times, and if my last save isn't too far off I'll often go back and have my character talk instead. Especially
when I was playing a Bard, as the companions are all a bunch of
low-medium cha characters with no speech skills.

I've also been doing a lot with traps as the PCs should really just stop when someone says "Watch out there's a trap" instead of just barreling into them.

So it's mostly to counter the stupidity of the game.

I have been doing some pick-pocket save scumming though. That I feel
bad about, but I have to feed my need for loot. I'd prefer some other mechanic with that that had some amount you could steal and that's it.
Or just not having it possible at all.

Also have to do that to get around the idiocy of the time I killed the
goblin merchant, and he didn't have any of the things he was selling, that one I don't feel bad about.

Very much my view as well because generally computer game structures
just don't support failing very well. The Fallout one also highlights
another problem with the TT comparison. If a character dies next week
they'll be back with a new one. GM's also aren't in the habit of the
party had some unlucky rolls so the scenario/campaign is over.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JAB <noway@nochance.com> writes:

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow
Gambit, where saving before you try something is very much part of the
game, and some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not
a 'real gamer' if you do it.

Sounds like a reason to do it :)

More seriously, it really depends on the game. For example, I've been
playing the System Shock Remake. I was leaving research deck but thought
I'd top up my internal battery with a visit to recharge station
nearby. I saved as I had noticed fairly heavy respawning earlier. Good
thing too because there were three hoppers in the room with the charge
station. I reloaded since those guys are bullet sponges for my little
pea shooter and I was low on charge for my little ray gun. And there's
zero point in fighting those stupid things, they rarely drop loot that's
worth anything and the game doesn't have experience.

So, annoying respawning => license to liberal saves and reloads. It's
possible this has improved in the upcoming 1.2 patch but I can't tell
from the notes. May have gotten worse too.

Also, silly sequences where you can't save and failing it costs
something? For sure I'm going to save before. Cyberspace in the SS
Remake is like that. At least it seems there was a late addition where
you can bail out of cyberspace at any point.

Some games, you can just leave a fight if it seems too hard. I remember stumbling on some factory in Fallout 4 where the occupants had armor my
puny rifle couldn't easily penetrate. So I plinked away, went through
most of my ammo and got a few enemies but then leaving was really the
only option. At least I gained some experience from that exchange.

Another time in FO4, there was this dish farm occupied by some super
mutants. I could take out those guys easily but there was a damn
legendary super mutant dog too. It was the first legendary anything I'd
met and I was just itching for some legendary loot. That thing probably
killed me a dozen times before I finally managed to put it down. So,
saving and reloading for rare loot is just fine in my book.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 09:49:31 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

So with that out of the way, this came up as I'm playing Shadow Gambit,
where saving before you try something is very much part of the game, and
some comments made about BG3 which aren't far off you've not a 'real
gamer' if you do it.

TL;DR - Yes and no.

You should save scum until you know how the game will react to tactical decisions. It is non-intuitive, and if you're familar with 5e, some stuff
is missing. It's like hybrid 5e/D:OS.

For instance, I moved my ranger into a doorway to tank it for crowd
control. I went to click on the "Dodge" action, which gives opponents disadvantage on attack. Guess what? They didn't implement it.

Other things like pathing and reactions can be problematic. Set all
reactions to "ask me" until you know what the game does. You'll want to
AoO the ogre as he leaves your threat range, not the goblin, so you may
want to hold your reaction because you only get one.

And then there's shit like the flaming sphere rejoining your party in
formation and fucking up your companions in the process. That's a
surprise! I bet you're glad you're save scumming.

But yeah, if you don't accept the consequences of your actions, you're
missing a big part of the fun. I'm not gonna "no true Scottsman" gamers,
but you'll be shooting your experience in the foot.

You can literally save at any time, even between rounds, so if you're not
sure how the game will react to a new tactic or newly acquired power, quicksave, see what it does, and if you're unhappy quickload until you
figure out how to use it.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:32:59 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

Don't remind me of fighting the wolf in The Witcher 1 in I think the
first chapter. I lost count the amount of reloads I had to do to get
past it.

I got lucky and beat him on the first try, but I did it with a hearty
helping of cheese.

Otherwise it just kicks your ass and DIAS.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

And when I cast Grease and approached with my good DEX save characters, I
was very surprised when a simple Firebolt (cantrip) set the whole thing
on fire, transforming it into a field of death, like the oil in D:OS.

That is not core D&D. Grease stays grease in 5e. In this game, Grease
becomes very useful in a totally different way. Prone and burn, baby!

So you never know when your tactical decisions will be bolluxed by things
that are flat out not 5e, or actions have mechanics and UI management
problems. Or are completely not implemented.

It's messy. There's a learning curve. And then you advance to new
mechanics and it's back to square one.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 02/09/2023 15:10, Zaghadka wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:32:59 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:

Don't remind me of fighting the wolf in The Witcher 1 in I think the
first chapter. I lost count the amount of reloads I had to do to get
past it.

I got lucky and beat him on the first try, but I did it with a hearty
helping of cheese.

Otherwise it just kicks your ass and DIAS.

I just thought it was strange to put in something that as far as I could
tell was just keeping trying until you get a bit of luck and kill it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 18:48:41 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

On 02/09/2023 15:10, Zaghadka wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:32:59 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

Don't remind me of fighting the wolf in The Witcher 1 in I think the
first chapter. I lost count the amount of reloads I had to do to get
past it.

I got lucky and beat him on the first try, but I did it with a hearty
helping of cheese.

Otherwise it just kicks your ass and DIAS.

I just thought it was strange to put in something that as far as I could
tell was just keeping trying until you get a bit of luck and kill it.

Thus, DIAS. Do It Again Stupid. It is my least favorite gameplay
mechanic. Metroid games are steeped in it.

Some people think it adds "hard core" gaming challenge.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 03/09/2023 18:54, Zaghadka wrote:

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 18:48:41 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB wrote:

On 02/09/2023 15:10, Zaghadka wrote:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 10:32:59 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

Don't remind me of fighting the wolf in The Witcher 1 in I think the
first chapter. I lost count the amount of reloads I had to do to get
past it.

I got lucky and beat him on the first try, but I did it with a hearty
helping of cheese.

Otherwise it just kicks your ass and DIAS.

I just thought it was strange to put in something that as far as I could
tell was just keeping trying until you get a bit of luck and kill it.

Thus, DIAS. Do It Again Stupid. It is my least favorite gameplay
mechanic. Metroid games are steeped in it.

Some people think it adds "hard core" gaming challenge.

I'm ok if games are just hard and I'm also ok if something is there to
teach you through gameplay. The latter was what I expected to see on YT,
what I actually got was run around in circles like a headless chicken
while crossing all your fingers and toes and hope for the best.I found
it rather weird that at no point did anyone in the dev. process say, are
you sure this fits with the rest of the game.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)