I have something to say to you. You're all spoiled. The majority of people playing this game, it seems, are the kids
and teens who are used to the way most video games are now-a-days, with selective difficulty, mindless gameplay, and *cough* many checkpoints close-together *cough*. You all are used to playing games like these, and then when you play Volgarr the Viking, it seems impossible, and beyond frustrating to the point where it completely ruins the game. Now here's the sad thing. The sad, pathetic truth. This game, compared to many other games I played 'back-in-the day', this game is NOT that hard. Now I'm not bragging or anything, don't get me wrong. This game is quite the challenge for myself, as I admit to have grown into modern-day video gaming along with everyone else. However, compared to other video games I played growing up, this game would have been considered Average / Medium difficulty. This game is not for everyone, I understand. In fact, I believe that this game appeals much more to a minority group.
Volgarr the Viking has a genuine feel of an old, hard platformer. The game is very polished and well-crafted. I personally found nothing wrong with this game. The way it was created, is what the developers wanted. They intended the game to be the way it is now, and they did a hell of a job. As I said, this game isn't for everyone, but some of us (as myself) will truly appreciate this indie gem.

... which is why those who disagree with you are spoiled and don't remember the OLD games. Yyeah.

I'll just quote dbfuru as he/she reflects my thoughts perfectly: Besides, nobody wants you to enjoy the game less. People just want an option to enjoy the game more. I won't even get into absurdity of calling people who want entertainment for the money they have paid for entertaiment 'spoiled'

There might be some people who were weened on console gaming since the PS2 era who would find this game to be one of the worst games ever and you would be right about them, OP. Some people though, just want to be able to enjoy progressing through the game to the end despite their busy lifestyles.

Then again, you could say this game isn't for those people and they should have never blindly bought it. Most days I can spend a few hours gaming so this doesn't bother me so I bought the game but I'm lucky.

Any game in 2014 should have a save anywhere system as an option, really. Devs could still implement a hardcore mode that takes away the ability to save, if they wanted to and had the resources.

Please Add checkpoints.

Walk left when you first start the game. Continue to walk left.

Here's an excerpt from RPS's Complete Rules For Games:

DO save my checkpoints – it’s not actually against the law for me to stop playing a game and then play it again later on. It’s not cheating. It’s not weird. It’s what people do. Why on EARTH should I have to start an entire mission from the beginning just because I wasn’t able to play your game non-stop from beginning to end? You lunatics.

Really, I don't know what all the fuss is about. It's not like there's a constitutional right to have saves! Developers said they wanted to make an old-school game like those on the SNES-Mega Drive, so if you're fine with not having saves you buy it, otherwise you don't. It's as simple as that; if not having a checkpoint every now and then is really a bad idea, only developers will feel the consequences - Volgarr has always been advertised to be a game of this kind.
Besides, as Gydion said above, you can choose the levels if you simply walk left at the beginning of every stage (after you reached them, of course).

Being faulty by design doesn't necessarily make the game immune to criticism.

I do not see any design problem. I'll repeat myself: this was a game kickstarted for the sole puropose to give a completely old-school (or maybe, for a certain kind of gamer, even "anachronistic", if you prefer the term) chellenge; if you don't like it that does not make it faulty, since it perfectly matches backers' requests. There is a checkpoint every level, so approximately one every 15 minutes if you take your time (I'm not that good myself and I finished every level in nearly 5-7, but that means nothing since speed will vary from person to person), then there is the super-hard challenge named "Path of the Valkyrie", where you really have to play it in one shot: add checkpoints and you will remove the purpose of the entire game. If developers decided to go that way, it was not a mistake: Volgarr the Viking was made for a very specific target audience, and if you don't find yourself in that group nobody is guilty. "De gustibus", nobody is right or wrong, neither "spoiled" nor "faulty".
Statement: game developement is NOT a democratic process. Your game does not please the masses? Too bad, you'll sell a relatively small amount of copies. When they decided to make VtV, they knew the risks.

I was curious about exactly how far apart those checkpoints were, so I did a full crystal run a while back and timed each level. I don't have the figures with me, but most levels were 2.5 to 3.5 minutes in length, disregarding the multiple small levels in world 6. I think the longest was 2-2, which took me 5-6 minutes. That's how long it takes if you know what you're doing, but we're talking about a linear platformer here. As far as "lost progress" is concerned, the actual length of content is what's relevant. Once you figure out how to get past a section, you'll know how to get past it next time.

So, we have checkpoints every 3-4 minutes or so, and stage select points every 8-10 minutes, when you factor in the bosses. The entire game, even PotV, is designed to be playable through in about an hour. I really can't see why this is such a problem.

Neither do I, really! That's why I wrote the above post in the first place...
It seems to me that many people don't get the difference between "games they don't like" and "badly designed games".

Sorry, I agree. I meant my post as support for yours, not a rebuttal.

I did some quick mental math on how long it actually takes to beat the game. I beat it for the first time after playing for a week or so. As I recall, it took me two hours to beat world 1 and four to beat world 2, but after that I was over the hump. It probably took me about 20 or so hours in total, without using the stage select. Since there's about an hour of actual content, that means that unless you're a lot more skilled than I am, you'll probably spend about 95% of your time dying, learning, and practicing before you beat the game once.

That sounds extreme on paper, but it's really not. For an arcade-style platformer, that sounds about right to me. Beating the game is the game.

Same for me: in PotV world 2 was really hard, but after beating it I never died once until world 7, and that was my first time playing those levels. When you start to feel comfortable with the mechanics, the game becomes suddently a lot easier!

Thou hast told thy sacred words! :)

Well yes, what I said applies nonetheless. I don't care what goals behind development are and what did people throw money at, I have a game in front of me and I take it for what it is. Simple as that.

I mean no offense, but your reasoning does not make much sense.
Your arguments are tautological, and sound very much like "I'm right because I'm right", or worse, "I'm right because I don't care about your opinion".
The only faulty thing I see here is the logic behind your reasoning... it's like using a cross-tip screwdriver for a hex-screw: it will never work, because you are effectively demanding something to be what it was never meant to be. The fact that someone might like what you find annoying in perfectly normal, and, at least once, all of us bought someting that in the and we considered an unpleasant waste of money. It HAPPENS. The world does not revolve around you. Simple as that.