[RuRi]

The problem I see with Sonic having lives is that it only stands to make the game longer and more frustrating to those less skilled. Yes, if you died then you might decide to get the shield on that loop, but that's if you die. It wouldn't matter how many lives you had because it's the first level which is easy, and the shield.

The main reason I see lives as being useful anymore are games based on getting the highest score on games that usually don't end or are stuck on the same area, like Pacman. That means the player does play better to get the higher score because you don't want to lose your score and end the game prematurely when you could've done better. Sonic pretty much has a end, and the player probably wants to see it. Dying and going back to the beginning either makes the player give up and not bother, or get's the player frustrated and want to try more.

And you're saying that people will only do a single playthough of Sonic? I thought the point of the original was that it was ment to be repeated with multiple playthroughs, that's why there's so many alternate paths. If you was a kid and the only game you had was Sonic 1, then you'd probably play it several times and try a new path each time. Nowadays yeah, some people don't get to finish games, but I think they'd be happier if they could play it how they want and be able to stay on track without fear of dying so much and being sent to the start, wasting their time when they just want to experience the most out of the game while they can play it.

[Palas]

RuRi, on 25 September 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

The problem I see with Sonic having lives is that it only stands to make the game longer and more frustrating to those less skilled. Yes, if you died then you might decide to get the shield on that loop, but that's if you die. It wouldn't matter how many lives you had because it's the first level which is easy, and the shield.

The main reason I see lives as being useful anymore are games based on getting the highest score on games that usually don't end or are stuck on the same area, like Pacman. That means the player does play better to get the higher score because you don't want to lose your score and end the game prematurely when you could've done better. Sonic pretty much has a end, and the player probably wants to see it. Dying and going back to the beginning either makes the player give up and not bother, or get's the player frustrated and want to try more.

And you're saying that people will only do a single playthough of Sonic? I thought the point of the original was that it was ment to be repeated with multiple playthroughs, that's why there's so many alternate paths. If you was a kid and the only game you had was Sonic 1, then you'd probably play it several times and try a new path each time. Nowadays yeah, some people don't get to finish games, but I think they'd be happier if they could play it how they want and be able to stay on track without fear of dying so much and being sent to the start, wasting their time when they just want to experience the most out of the game while they can play it.

It's just a number attached to the player's performance. Basically any of these numbers can "make the game longer and more frustrating to those less skilled" - even the inoffensive score goals in Angry Birds. And what's the point in talking about lives if we aren't talking about death? It doesn't matter which level it is for the record here, but the fact that a shield protects you from death and the value of this protection is much more objective if you link it to a number. If you hadn't a life count, a player would only be interested in the shield once he got tired of dying, which is entirely subjective. Lives can add up a lot to the game and aren't intrisically destined to padding.

And while I don't think the first playthrough is the only one people will do, it's the only one we are sure anyone will do even if the player doesn't finish the game. Furthermore, I, for one, thought the point of the original was to let players face similar problems, but solve them in their own ways (due to Sonic's very mechanics), alternate paths being a part of this process. Sure, the Chaos Emeralds are a replay factor, but then again it's also attached to a number. You can rest assured Sonic Team could never know whether Sonic 1 was your only game or not and, if it was up to them, it wouldn't be because they'd like you to buy Shining Force as well. So that's probably not the point. Nowadays people may want many things, but a game isn't engaging if it simply says what the player wants to hear. It's a matter of how to deal with lives, not lives in themselves.

You can argue games shouldn't take you to the start or that game overs could be more meaningful, but to advocate the end of life counts and systems is to toss away a world of game and, more specifically, level design possibilities and get much less in return.

[Aerosol]

On lives: Having lives is pointless in a game where you can save your progress. OH NO! GAME OVER! Guess I'll just start the stage again. lol. Losing all of your lives should erase all of the progress you've made in the game. Or maybe not all...in the case of Sonic Generations, maybe completed challenges stay completed? Point is, getting a game over should mean starting over. It doesn't anymore.

[ICEknight]

And it doesn't mean that the Lives/Continues system is flawed. When there's no differences for losing a life/losing a continue/loading a saved game, some of the designers on board just don't know what they're doing.

This post has been edited by ICEknight: 25 September 2013 - 07:11 PM

[Dark Sonic]

But then you have to ask, how many series even use lives anymore? Like 3 or 4, and they all predate 1995? The Rayman revival series has no lives but still has excellent games. It just seems so much like a lazy tack on of nostalgia it's just not worth it.

[Palas]

There are other possibilities. Counting deaths instead of lives covers OP's concerns as well as Ruri's, while still being a life system. I find the way VVVVVV deals with that quite interesting: die all you need and don't get pushed to the start, but you'll have an ugly number at the end. Then all you have to do is to reward the players that die less. The thing I really don't want to see gone is the possibility to play with our desire not to die, because how are we as players having all the game can offer if we aren't dealing with failure as well? Failing isn't bad, people. No pain, no gain!

So for example we can have a level in which there are many 1Ups, but all of them have a timer of their own which starts counting when the level begins. When their time is up, they turn into those Robotnik power ups that hurt you. Speed would be kindly rewarded. Or, alternatively, we can have a stage in which checkpoints also activate traps. Or another one where dying takes you to the next checkpoint, not the previous one (and in the end if you just die repeatedly to finish the level in 10 seconds you get a message saying that yes, the game knows you've been naughty). These kind of approaches aren't possible if you are just letting the player on his own, not dealing with his failures in any way just because it's "modern". By the way, why are we taking a restart button for granted again?

Just think of what Sonic would say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This post has been edited by Palas: 26 September 2013 - 03:53 AM

[ICEknight]

I don't want a win/win situation in every game I play. I'd get tired of watching the endings. =P

[Caniad Bach]

I'd say get rid of lives, and instead make the score system more meaningful. Score gets converted into points which can them be used to unlock additional content, artwork, upgrades and skins. Reset the score to how it was at the last checkpoint when you do die, and if you get 100 rings, get a score bonus.

That way it's not frustrating for people that suck, but you still are rewarded for being good at the game.

I'd also have a new high score only give you additional points depending on how much better you did, rather than the full amount you'd get for beating the level the first time, to save people spamming the first level to unlock everything.

[Brooklyn Brawler]

I used to hate lives a short time ago, however I started to like them at some games like Sonic 2 or Sonic 3K.

[ICEknight]

Some games, even when treating Continues as mere 3-UPs, do feature a good balance between the number of initial+achievable lives and the game's difficulty, challenging the player to become good enough in order to see the ending, and there's also some games which have lives and continues act differently as part of the game's design (you've failed the level multiple times? Perhaps you need a bit more practice with these new enemies/gimmicks/situation).

What I mean with this and my previous post, is that the finite-lives system is not obsolete in the least, it's just that some game designers just keep shoving it in their games without really having a clue on its proper home-system use.


See also: NES Ikari Warriors (die, ABBA, scroll up a little, die, ABBA, scroll up a little... =P)

This post has been edited by ICEknight: 26 September 2013 - 04:29 PM

[SpeedStarTMQ]

I disagree with this. It really needs to be catered to the individual game rather than something across the board. Whilst there are some brutal games out there that could benefit from an infinite lives system (Revenge of Shinobi and TMNT NES I'm looking at you!) most games are fair in the way you lose lives and how they structure their levels. I think a lot of games nowadays (like platformers) are much easier than they used to be, and give the players more chances than they should need.

Whilst from a technical standpoint lives and game overs in most games might seem pointless, they are psychologically meant to affect you in games where save points prevent you from having to start over. It basically confirms to you that you've done badly enough to reach the point where the message comes up. If you die THAT many times in a game to get a game over, then you haven't been paying attention to the game/collecting items/seeing the sights and at least deserve to see something confirming how poorly you've done. In the past, you would have had to have started the game again, so whilst that rarely happens nowadays and games are more lenient, seeing that "GAME OVER" surely is a pretty glum thing to see. Isn't it an incentive to NOT get to that point? It is to me.

It's been a long long time since I got a game over in any game, but I'm pretty sure what it does in a lot of newer games is take away all your power-ups, and start you with the default amount of lives and from the starting point of at least the world/zone you were on. Games (more so platformers) that don't have a lives system and churn you out at the same spot again and again increase carelessness in players. I've played games like this before where I haven't given a shit about what I'm doing and just died over and over, whereas if I had lives, I would have been more inclined to give a crap and do stuff properly.

With some games like Sonic 4 and New Super Mario Bros, getting the highest amount of lives is an achievement too, where you either get an actual achievement, or Mario takes his cap off. It just shows that you're a good player, or you've done a particular trick to farm lives by exploiting a game mechanic in a clever way.

[Palas]

SpeedStarTMQ, on 29 September 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

Whilst from a technical standpoint lives and game overs in most games might seem pointless,

How so?

[SpeedStarTMQ]

Palas, on 16 February 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

SpeedStarTMQ, on 29 September 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

Whilst from a technical standpoint lives and game overs in most games might seem pointless,

How so?

Because nowadays getting a Game Over usually just means starting from the beginning of the level/zone/whathaveyou, rather than starting the entire game again, which is what Game Overs were originally all about back in the arcades and the majority of the early to mid 90's games.
Having lives is part of this feature, because running out of lives is what gets you a Game Over, but as they are more or less redundant in today's world where games have save files and are often easier than games of the late 80's and early 90's,why bother having lives either? Why not just make lives infinite? If you die you die, and getting a Game Over just means you'll have to start the level again at worst, rather than the entire game. For Sonic and Mario at least, starting a level all over again is hardly much more of a chore than dying and restarting at a checkpoint.

For some games that use the lives and Game Over system still, it makes no difference anyway. Sonic 4 and NEW Super Mario Bros are so difficult to lose all your lives on that you'll probably never see the Game Over screen in your entire lifetime. It just makes the whole system pointless.

[Jayextee]

I like lives in games.

Because "try to beat it in three attempts or less" sounds more like a game than "keep going until its done"; which sounds like a fucking job I actually paid to do.

[Mr Lange]

Didn't notice this thread. Disable life loss before the first checkpoint in Sonic? If you die before the first checkpoint you deserve to lose that life, holy crap. How can you possibly expect to get through Marble, Labyrinth, and Scrap Brain if you're dying before the first damn checkpoint in the game? Obviously you need a lot of practice. By then, you won't be dying before the first checkpoint, it's that simple.