I'm pretty sure many old platformers used that system too.

Yeah, like Super Mario Bros. 2 Japanese (Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels in other places like the U.S.). Even worse if you can't save whatsoever considering that game is extremely difficult due to crazy level design.

Volgarr can be a lot of fun, but it needs to be understood that it doesn't aim to be a traditional platformer like mario, commander keen, metroid or whatever. I think that throws a lot of people off because it looks like one, with the added bonus of a viking theme and loads of violence. The idea in Volgarr is that you gradually learn the level by chipping away at it piece by piece. Each time you die you're supposed to learn a little bit more about a certain enemy, jump, trap or boss. The fun comes from eventually being able to flawlessly navigate a hazardous level filled to the brim with extremely hazardous enemies and traps, and to feel like a total badass while doing it.
Of course that trade-off is not going to be enough for some/most people, for whom it's going to be less fun dying over and over again than it is to eventually beat the level flawlessly.

Actually, I find that game to be superbly designed. It is hard as nails, but totally fair (yes, you must get better at the game, but there are not cheap tricks like in another games with artificial difficulty, like IWBTG). It's just not your kind of game, but it's a marvellous example of a retro arcade game done right.
I find the people complaining about the lack of checkpoints don't understand the game, and even if I understand someine not liking the game, I think it's unfair for the developers to call the game poorly designed.

Here's another interesting case. Higher level characters and weapons are supposed to be better than lower level ones, right?

Well, Cave Story violates that rule with a couple of its weapons. The Blade behaves differently at each of the three levels, and while level 3 is a nice AoE effect, it isn't as good against single targets (like bosses) as the level 2 version. Level 2 does a lot of damage, but lacks the range the level 1 version has.

You can trade this weapon for another weapon, the Nemesis. That weapon violates the rule even more flagrantly; the level 1 version is *flat out better* than its higher level versions. It also levels up faster than any other weapon in the game (though it is worth noting that it can't store extra experience after reaching level 3, and it can't level up more than once from a single XP pickup).

This would be a serious issue if it were not for another mechanic; when you get hit, your currently equipped weapon loses experience and can level down. Because the Nemesis needs only 1 XP per level to level up, getting hit once will de-level the weapon to level 1. The + version added a bonus level called the Nemesis Challenge, where your only weapon is the Nemesis, and I have seen players get hit on purpose just to level down the weapon.

Interesting. But does it make Cave Story a better game for it? I doubt it.

Was it really intentionally (and what was the intention behind) or was it just by accident?

What is considered fair? Many (esp. free-2-play) games rely heavily on luck, e.g. Candy Crush Saga, Peggler etc. It isn't that much about you becoming good with the game, but you retrying a level as many times until you kinda get lucky.

Then there are games which are pretty much about trial and error. I'm sure there are more recent examples, but I'm thinking of e.g. a certain Amiga game, The Three Musketeers (apparently there was also a DOS version).

As far as I recall, the only way you could advance in the game was trying different options handed to you. Some of them worked and progressed the story, some ended up in game over. It didn't have save game either, so if you failed, you had to start it from the beginning (which wasn't that bad as it was a short game IIRC).

Then again, maybe it was kind of a memorization game? You basically had to memorize which options were the right ones, and then you could finally finish the game. I think I finished the game that way, I wanted to know how it all ends (as if I wasn't already familiar with the story...).

In the case of the Nemesis, it is clearly intentional. If you level it up to level 3, your weapon will be shooting ducks. I think Pixel just wanted more variety, and wanted a weapon with a somewhat different playstyle. If it weren't for this unusual mechanic, the weapon would be too similar to your starting weapon, with the only difference being the graphics and the damage.

Of note, actually getting weapon experience requires you to pick up items that enemies drop, so if you can avoid picking up the items (or switch to a weapon that will appreciate the extra experience), you can avoid having that weapon level up. Also, don't forget that one hit and the weapon is back to level 1, making it powerful again.

Also, there are 2 areas in the game (one being the bonus dungeon) where your weapons are reduced to level 1 on entry; the Nemesis is definitely useful there.

Syobon Action feels like a memorization game when you actually play it (though there are a few parts where the execution gets a little tricky). However, that game at least offers check points.

I deliberately am choosing not to define "fair", but a reasonable criterion is that a fair game doesn't punish the player for making reasonable choices.

Would Antichamber qualify? I mean, I'm not sure whether or not it breaks any "fundamental rules", but it does mess with your expectations quite a bit.

Bubsy. All of it. Period.

All of the simulator games after goat/surgeon/tabletop simulators. Games were initially designed to be fun. Those maintained fun while being gimmicky. Before them, simulators were for virtual skill improvements (airplanes/trains/boats/etc,) which is also fine because it's specialized. But then you get grass simulator or similar that are entirely gimmicky and whose laughs are based around "was I expecting more than this or is this what I really wanted?"

There are some really horrible ones out there. :/

Luftrausers. That game is impossible to beat.

An other flaw is multiplayer without lobby rooms (those games with quick match only usually integrated with Steam).

Interesting post.

I disagree with your example. Or rather, what is fair is so subjective that it strikes me as odd.
-- Is Dwarf fortress fair? In a way the whole rogue-lie permadeath thing is "unfair". Make one single mistake and back to the beggining you go.
-- Are casual F2P games fair? That's a whole other slew of games which often go back to arcade modes of "one more coin" in order to continue playing.

I think when you have so many "unfair" games - both rogue and F2P have exploded recently. And those multidudes are in a way quite traditionally representative of what videogames started like, ergo they represent a return to the roots and renaissance of mechanics driven play of sorts. Then seeing "unfairness" as contra normal game design, as somehow exceptional and subversive, seems to me quite an odd perspective.

That said, there are indeed unwritten rules defining what videogames are and implicitly how they should be. IMO the largest subversions of those unwritten rules are obvious. So called walking simulators and interactive fiction overall. I mean, they are "videogames" without even being "games". What more can you want in terms of exceptional game design subversion? :) Because unlike the genres I mentioned higher up, these are niche ones indeed, even if the narrative driven experience does appear as a supporting element to the experience in most modern videogames.

Game even has checkpoints.