[Dark Sonic]

Blue Blood, on 23 September 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Jimmy Hedgehog, on 23 September 2013 - 09:05 AM, said:

Blue Blood, on 23 September 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

I've thought about this before, and whole heartedly agree. It's especially a problem in Generations where you need to get a perfect bonus to get an S rank, but you lose that bonus if you die before the first checkpoint and then proceed to complete the stage a second time without dying. Where's the logic in that?

The logic is you died in the first place, so it's not a perfect run anymore. It still took a second try to finish the stage, regardless of whether it started back at the start or not />/>/>

Hitting restart will re-instate the perfect bonus. So long as you're still playing from the start of the stage to the end without dying, what difference does it make?

Fun fact, although I can't find any proof but I know I saw it in some beta footage, but the perfect bonus used to require not getting hurt, let alone dying.

[roxahris]

Andrew75, on 23 September 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

you bunch of noobs.... all these modern game checkpoints have spoiled you.

Addenum: get good.

No, beating a stage without dying should be a thing to STRIVE for. Practise should be IMPORTANT. Especially now that lives are a PER-LEVEL concept rather than a PER-SESSION one. Especially when lives restart you at a CHECKPOINT rather than the START.
You see, if they only put you back at the start, they would be UNBALANCED. With the hub system in play, returning you to the very start of the stage should arguably incur no penalties, due to the paradox/slap in the face of starting over without actually restarting. The life/checkpoint duality is arguably an important elements in games like these. Sometimes the best way to attack a problem is to STEP BACK and retrace your prior steps - with a limit on lives, pushing the player into restarting forces them to reconsider their path and gives them the opportunity to attack the challenges ahead with both a new perspective AND another chance to get a perfect score.
Lives that last entire play sessions are also unbalanced - that is to say, going through the entire game in one stretch should be a challenge for after completion, rather than a goal from the outset.

[KingofHarts]

<div>I quoted the wrong thing... I meant the thing mentioned about running through a level without getting hit to get a Perfect... oops</div><div><br></div>

This post has been edited by KingofHarts: 23 September 2013 - 12:30 PM

[RuRi]

roxahris, on 23 September 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Andrew75, on 23 September 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

you bunch of noobs.... all these modern game checkpoints have spoiled you.

Addenum: get good.

No, beating a stage without dying should be a thing to STRIVE for. Practise should be IMPORTANT. Especially now that lives are a PER-LEVEL concept rather than a PER-SESSION one. Especially when lives restart you at a CHECKPOINT rather than the START.
You see, if they only put you back at the start, they would be UNBALANCED. With the hub system in play, returning you to the very start of the stage should arguably incur no penalties, due to the paradox/slap in the face of starting over without actually restarting. The life/checkpoint duality is arguably an important elements in games like these. Sometimes the best way to attack a problem is to STEP BACK and retrace your prior steps - with a limit on lives, pushing the player into restarting forces them to reconsider their path and gives them the opportunity to attack the challenges ahead with both a new perspective AND another chance to get a perfect score.
Lives that last entire play sessions are also unbalanced - that is to say, going through the entire game in one stretch should be a challenge for after completion, rather than a goal from the outset.

But couldn't you argue that with having limited lives, the player is more scared to try alternate paths and would stick with the safest one they know rather than risking it? Having unlimited lives does ruin some of the challenge, but at the same time the challenge has shifted from "completing the level" to "perfecting the level" and the only way to perfect a level is when you study it inside and out and optimize your route, and if you do that then lives are pointless because all they serve is to send you back to the beginning for messing up a run where your aim is to get a good time/score and not finish the level in one piece.

[Covarr]

Metalsonicmk72, on 23 September 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Or maybe it's time we got rid of the life system altogether like Rayman Origins did...

Billy, on 23 September 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

I too and a proponent of removing lives all together.

Sodaholic, on 23 September 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yes, lives are pointless and a remnant of arcade design.

Dark Sonic, on 23 September 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

I think that lives should no longer exist.

KingofHarts, on 23 September 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

I'm all for removing lives as well.

Wow. A lot of people here agreeing on the same bad idea.

I do agree that the lives system—at least as seen in Sonic games—is problematic, but I don't think it should be taken out entirely. It just needs reworked. I'm all for flarn2006's idea of not removing lives before a checkpoint, but he's missed a few things more important: lives gained in a level before a checkpoint should also be un-gained, and lives should not be carried over between levels. If I get twelve lives in a single stage, good for me, but I should still start the next one with three. Really, it should be treated like faults in Trials Evolution, except counting down instead of up. Hell, even counting up would be good for a speedrun-oriented Sonic game.

The thing about per-level lives is that it allows greater control and precision in creating a good difficulty for each level. When you know exactly how many lives a player will start the stage with, you can get away with more difficult levels, and more lives monitors within that level. Without that guarantee, you have no clue whether a player is going in with 3 or 99, so they're not all starting at the same point, and making the level too difficult would just encourage grinding easy levels for lives. Per-session lives somewhat worked in the classic games because there was no way to go back and replay a stage (except in S3/S3&K after beating the game), so developers could still count on what the overall difficulty up to any given point, and how many lives a player could've collected. Now that most modern platformers let us replay stages as often as we want, though, this really needs to be toned back to per-stage lives to prevent abuse, and to open up a wider range of difficulty to level designers.

[flarn2006]

Covarr, on 23 September 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Metalsonicmk72, on 23 September 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Or maybe it's time we got rid of the life system altogether like Rayman Origins did...

Billy, on 23 September 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

I too and a proponent of removing lives all together.

Sodaholic, on 23 September 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yes, lives are pointless and a remnant of arcade design.

Dark Sonic, on 23 September 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

I think that lives should no longer exist.

KingofHarts, on 23 September 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

I'm all for removing lives as well.

Wow. A lot of people here agreeing on the same bad idea.

I do agree that the lives system—at least as seen in Sonic games—is problematic, but I don't think it should be taken out entirely. It just needs reworked. I'm all for flarn2006's idea of not removing lives before a checkpoint, but he's missed a few things more important: lives gained in a level before a checkpoint should also be un-gained, and lives should not be carried over between levels. If I get twelve lives in a single stage, good for me, but I should still start the next one with three. Really, it should be treated like faults in Trials Evolution, except counting down instead of up. Hell, even counting up would be good for a speedrun-oriented Sonic game.

The thing about per-level lives is that it allows greater control and precision in creating a good difficulty for each level. When you know exactly how many lives a player will start the stage with, you can get away with more difficult levels, and more lives monitors within that level. Without that guarantee, you have no clue whether a player is going in with 3 or 99, so they're not all starting at the same point, and making the level too difficult would just encourage grinding easy levels for lives. Per-session lives somewhat worked in the classic games because there was no way to go back and replay a stage (except in S3/S3&K after beating the game), so developers could still count on what the overall difficulty up to any given point, and how many lives a player could've collected. Now that most modern platformers let us replay stages as often as we want, though, this really needs to be toned back to per-stage lives to prevent abuse, and to open up a wider range of difficulty to level designers.

I must have played Casino Street Zone Act 2 at least 20 times to get enough lives for Egg Station Zone. Didn't end up needing all of them though.

[Palas]

RuRi, on 23 September 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

But couldn't you argue that with having limited lives, the player is more scared to try alternate paths and would stick with the safest one they know rather than risking it?

...No. This is not the second run we are or should be talking about, because those are reserved for the more dedicated players. Lives can be important exactly to encourage exploration when everything is a discovery (I.e.: in the first playthrough), because there is the possibility of dying and, because of it, trying to find another way to finish the level.

Lives, you see, are a key component of Sonic's approach to level design. Not only because of the enhanced fear of the menacing elements, but because of the enhanced desire of what might give you prevention against them. What's the point of rings - for instance - if you will always have at least 100 of them? If rings are scarce and lives matter, rings become a more important positive stimulus than, say, speed or score. A game is not about enhancing your performance, but about playing it. That means the stimuli should be there by itself and subject to a player's desires while still trying to influence them. So a life system is important to make the player have to choose multiple times and have different variables put into account each time.

The arcade game design philosophy was indeed based on generating fun through frustration, as the main source of pleasure came from surpassing your own or some else's limit - represented by the game over. Even though this approach is made more difficult in home consoles, lives do mean something else in home and essentially get-to-the-finish games. I will give you an example:



See that shield above the loop? The force with which this stimulus can drive you away from your natural behaviour (going forward) is proportional to the danger you sense ahead. If you get rid of lives, you will only try and get that shield when you might as well try to lick your own elbow. If we do have a life system, though, the last life will make a search for a path to get that shield almost mandatory (and we do have a checkpoint not far from here). I don't intend, of course, to put exploration as good in itself, but consider how much this process leads the player to get better (which will make him less prone to die later on); how he will explore the mechanics of the game in a more meaningful way, which can also help him dealing with further challenges in a creative way; and still bring back that kind of fun augmented by one's own previous frustration.

Sure, modern games may not be able to have the life system we know due to their length and their possibilities, but that definitely doesn't mean we should throw its advantages away. We can always reinvent it by using per-level lives, new ways with dealing with death, making penalties based on other variables etc.

This post has been edited by Palas: 23 September 2013 - 10:15 PM

[Captain L]

The most important thing is, we need to get rid of games that put you back on the title screen when you get a game over. If you haven't been saving often enough, you're absolutely screwed. If you have, you're wasting time reloading the file when it could have just as easily restarted you at the save spot and cut out the middleman.

[Sodaholic]

Covarr, on 23 September 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

Sodaholic, on 23 September 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yes, lives are pointless and a remnant of arcade design.

Wow. A lot of people here agreeing on the same bad idea.

Except that you misquoted me.

Sodaholic, on 23 September 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Yes, lives are pointless and a remnant of arcade design. However, aren't Sonic games easy enough for us veterans?

In the second sentence, I said that I was generally unsure of removing the artificial challenge, even if they're an outdated concept.

[TimmiT]

"Artificial challenge" is a thing now? Really?

[Black Squirrel]

I think the idea is you make Green Hill Zone interesting enough so that you don't mind multiple playthroughs. That's better game design than developing ways to ignore parts of your game.

Sonic 1 is actually pretty terrible at this because Marble Zone is super linear and tedious (and Labyrinth piles on the pain later on). It's why Sonic 2 is so great - more stages with fewer acts to keep you visually stimulated, and more levels where there are multiple routes so you're not doing the same thing over and over. But you can't really blame Sonic 1 for this - it was very much an experimental release.

[Tyty]

Why don't we just make the restart option put you exactly back where you were when you entered the level.

Life count and everything.

It would fix a lot of games, especially since most save between levels anymore, while making lives still important.

[Palas]

TimmiT, on 24 September 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

"Artificial challenge" is a thing now? Really?

Yes, if only because we lack of a better term. You could say objectives that demand artificial effort, that doesn't really add up to the experience but induces pure task-making and checklists, are artificial challenges. That's definitely not the case with lives.

Black Squirrel, on 24 September 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

I think the idea is you make Green Hill Zone interesting enough so that you don't mind multiple playthroughs. That's better game design than developing ways to ignore parts of your game.

Sonic 1 is actually pretty terrible at this because Marble Zone is super linear and tedious (and Labyrinth piles on the pain later on). It's why Sonic 2 is so great - more stages with fewer acts to keep you visually stimulated, and more levels where there are multiple routes so you're not doing the same thing over and over. But you can't really blame Sonic 1 for this - it was very much an experimental release.

Why does everyone seem to put so much focus on multiple playthroughs when, really, people don't really get to finish games (not saying this is official statistical data, because it isn't, but the point matters and should be thought over)? How can we say Marble Zone makes us do the same thing over and over when each and every section we find is a new thing? Even if you die and come back, the approach will be different. The monotony you are looking for is not here.

That, and I'd like to address this "ignore parts of your game" issue. Why is that a problem? It's not like Sonic 1 gave you something you didn't use. Isn't ignoring part of an experience?

This post has been edited by Palas: 25 September 2013 - 05:07 AM

[TimmiT]

Palas, on 25 September 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

TimmiT, on 24 September 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

"Artificial challenge" is a thing now? Really?

Yes, if only because we lack of a better term. You could say objectives that demand artificial effort, that doesn't really add up to the experience but induces pure task-making and checklists, are artificial challenges. That's definitely not the case with lives.

Quote

te·di·ous
adj.
1. Tiresome by reason of length, slowness, or dullness; boring. See Synonyms at boring.
2. Obsolete Moving or progressing very slowly.

[Palas]

...Sorry, I don‘t see what you meant by that.