-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Lives and continues have no place in games post-SNES/Genesis
- Thread starter Odoul
- Start date
Ahahahhahaha
You're championing the basest and most pedestrian form of motivator in games, call digital sports meaningful and think others don't understand the medium. Classic.
Or we could let some games keep them if appropriate. Binning them would make relatively short shmups and run-and-gun games like Contra IV way too easy. If I could just restart on the same level every time the game would have lasted me two days at best, the whole point is to get better so you want to replay it rather than some modern, lengthy disposable games where you get to the end due to having no real chance of failure and any sense of achievement at completion is just non-existent. The developers wanted to make sure you saw the ending so they did everything bar have the enemies roll over and die as soon as they spawn, and even then they give you infinite lives, regenerating health, infinite continues and saves every ten metres.
I'd rather games didnt just pander to people who never want to replay a level just so they can say they 'beat' it as quickly as possible. If you aren't good enough to beat a level, the earlier levels exist to teach you better play rather than you stumbling through the game with infinite lives like a bull in a china shop, guaranteed to get frustrated on the next tough section too. Game design exists to teach you how to play so that you can intuitively figure out the best strategy based on previous experience and observation, not to give you extremely hard sections with no idea what to do with your abilities and infinite goes at it.
You make it sound like having to replay a level of a game you paid for is punishing. Why not enjoy it and get better at it?
I'm going off on a tangent here, but in the NES days we had games that were bastard-hard, glitchy as hell, few lives, three continues at best and very few ways of saving outside of long passwords. Often you had to play start-to-finish each time, even on the lengthy Mario 3, and the upside of that was that repetition made you better at the earlier game, it made you want to replay it and get a bit further each time- most games were only an hour or so long so it wasnt a problem. Today a 5 hour campaign is a short one, although they get bulked out with naff cut scenes and tutorials. We dont replay them as often, but we can reach a tough part of the game, replay it from a checkpoint only a couple of minutes back 'till we get past it, trade it in and then moan that games are too easy and hold people's hands. I like games that feel like they can be mastered and fight back, rather than games that are far more worried about rushing the player through the story regardless without any real chance of a fail state, making sure they get to inflict every one of the awkward cut scenes they are so proud of on them along the way.
Being able to skip cut scenes where I'm just a passive observer is a far more essential mechanic for me than infinite lives/continues, and will be until games writers can get past the sci-fi fan-fiction level they are stuck at. Build the writing into the gameplay, let me learn both the mechanics and the story by playing, and let me feel that my victories are a result of me learning something, that a game isnt a guaranteed path to success from the minute I open the box.
Devil May Cry existed at the turning point between the two, I think. When was it released, 2002 or thereabouts?
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Said no literary, music or film critic ever. But I guess if games are to remain in the same space as hardware appliances, then sure.
Well games certainly have more in common with machines than they do with music, film, etc so you're not far off.
Let's agree to disagree.
Of course, there's a slightly reductio ad absurdum argument to that: If that's the case, what's the point of the game ever making more content than that fun section!
I think players do need *some* variety over time. When you've perfected a sequence, you end up just going through the motions every single time - and indeed, if you slip up, you may consider that you should restart *immediately* so you don't get end up in the troublesome selection without maximised resources. Maybe the game could have some random elements in that sequence so the player needs to vary their approach and adapt - but then there's a subsequent issue of the player recognising a setup that isn't favourable to them from the outset and resetting until they get one that suits them (How many times have you restarted Hotline Miami because the first enemy doesn't have a gun, for instance?)
I think part of this is an odd piece of player psychology that I've observed in many players: If they're having difficulty with one piece of content, the default mental response is a feeling that they need to min/max to conquer it. Now, better players can - and perhaps should - scoff at that - playing better is more effective than maximising resources - but it's important to note that maximising resources is a visible and achievable goal, while simply playing better is a slightly nebulous concept.
I think it's worth having an interlude here, too, to mention games where death is, I would argue, *too* negative. Megaman, as mentioned elsewhere, I'd say is one - the difference in power between a player with full weapon power and one with depleted weapon power is *massive* in a boss environment. Gradius is another good example, I think; it's easy to get power-ups in early levels and a fully powered-up Vic Viper is well-equipped to survive in later levels for a player who is even relatively poor - but as soon as the player loses one life, suddenly he's in an extremely hostile environment with only a basic speed-up to hand and the simplest weapon - and will generally lose his other lives in quick succession.
I'm thinking more of this from a player psychology and frustration standpoint; I don't think it's right to 'solve' this by demanding that all players view games with the same philosophy. I think there does need to be reasonable choice so players can play the game in a way that suits them. By all means lock higher rewards behind better play, of course; this setup shouldn't restrict players from being able to improve. I've not yet played it, but it does sound like Bayonetta has the right idea.
Riposte
Member
I didn't say anything about digital sports. Whatever though. I didn't exactly write it for you to understand; I wrote it so other people could understand you.
I disagree with the OP. I think lives and continues have a place with certain styles of games, like Mario and Sonic. However, certain games shouldn't use them, but I've never thought a game used it when it shouldn't have.
In contrast, I think way too many games basically tell you exactly where to go, taking away exploration. Example: Bioshock Infinite and the big pointing arrow, and Ni No Kuni with the star arrow always pointing to the next goal. These are optional but they are built into the game from the get-go; they aren't cheats or unlocks.
Also another thing I don't get is when I read reviews complaining about save points in RPGs. I'm completely cool with them. I do like games that have a save-anywhere feature, but there is a certain kind of challenge when you are playing an RPG that has save points located strategically so that you concern yourself with staying alive/item usage until you can reach it. That being said, there's still bad design choices that can be made with this old-school system, but I have no problem with it.
In contrast, I think way too many games basically tell you exactly where to go, taking away exploration. Example: Bioshock Infinite and the big pointing arrow, and Ni No Kuni with the star arrow always pointing to the next goal. These are optional but they are built into the game from the get-go; they aren't cheats or unlocks.
Also another thing I don't get is when I read reviews complaining about save points in RPGs. I'm completely cool with them. I do like games that have a save-anywhere feature, but there is a certain kind of challenge when you are playing an RPG that has save points located strategically so that you concern yourself with staying alive/item usage until you can reach it. That being said, there's still bad design choices that can be made with this old-school system, but I have no problem with it.
I recall reading an interesting observation about the differences between the early Wizardry titles and the early Might & Magic titles along these lines which I think reflects a difference in philosophy which ties in to the central theme of this thread. Both games are old enough that save-anywhere really wasn't an option, but - along a similar theme - there were notable differences in how the two games approached regenerating resources (HP, SP) combined with the nature of combat.
Might and Magic, each individual fight is potentially dangerous unless you're reasonably overlevelled; there's usually going to be mechanics that can wipe out your characters if you're not suitably careful to plan around them. You can expect to use up significant amounts of resources in any given fight. However, you can rest in most places in the environment, and doing so removes most status ailments and fully recharges health and mana; each fight will generally be approached with a full set of resources.
In Wizardry, however, the individual fights aren't really all that unpleasant. A nasty status element here, an occasional big hit there, but in general a fully-powered team will have little difficulty with a fight. However, you can't regenerate resources - in general - unless you're in a town. In other words, Wizardry is balanced around the accumulation of fights.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with either approach, fundamentally. Both require different skills, both are valid approaches to game design - and ultimately, both have benefits and pitfalls.
More importantly - and I need to highlight this - there's nothing inherently more noble about beating a game designed around conquering the accumulation of challenge and managing resources than there is about beating a game designed around conquering individual tailored challenges. Or indeed vice-versa!
southerncross
Member
That kind of logic led to checkpoint-filled games in which you can use brute force to pass every challenge. You are not asked to master the game's ruleset, you're asked to master the task at hand and move on, like a student who is asked to learn the content of one chapter in his textbook at the time - only to forget it after the test is over.
Yeah, that kind of logic is alien to me as well. Like 6 hours spent beating a short game that barely requires player's participation were more valuable than 6 hours of constantly testing my wits and reflexes on four levels of other game.
You do have to factor in that in this system, checkpoints are themselves part of the ruleset. If a game is balanced around that consideration, I see no issue with it.
southerncross
Member
Of course, and if the checkpoints are placed well, there is no problem.
Try playing with more skill, OP.
Lives can still be relevant, just look at the recent popular rise of Roguelikes and games with iron man modes if you need an example of how to do it in the modern era. Lives and continues need to be a deliberate design choice, that's all.
Other than that, Riposte fucking nailed it.
Lives can still be relevant, just look at the recent popular rise of Roguelikes and games with iron man modes if you need an example of how to do it in the modern era. Lives and continues need to be a deliberate design choice, that's all.
Other than that, Riposte fucking nailed it.
I like how this gif basically drives home the point of challenge vs reward better than even a page long essay would.
My best friend is a full-time tenured professor in Game Design and I showed him Riposte's post last night when we were having drinks while playing Shadows over Mystara and went on to bemoan the state of current games.
You're not really doing yourself any favors here.
ReturnOfTheRAT
Member
Killer is Dead has an interesting continue screen.
Excellent. I'm not saying my opinion is the only opinion; in fact I repeatedly said people play for different reasons, I'm just saying that this 'only people that play for challenge are interested in games' is a demonstrably bogus assertion.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Me sense a mod will come and close this thread soon.
OP,...speak for yourself.
OP,...speak for yourself.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
It's your opinion, yes, but it's not a very good one IMO. This is discrediting the history of the industry, countless classics and genres.
Whether a game has a lives system or not, is an intentional design choice. Devs shouldn't be lamblasted for choosing it.
Good points, thanks for that.
Felt quite pertinent to me as I've just started Etrian Odyssey IV, and the series has elements of both- not paying attention when meeting the basic denizens of a new floor for the first time is a quick way to get wiped out, as is too much reliance on the 'auto' button if you don't completely outclass the opposition.
Good points on Megaman and Gradius too. I've enjoyed both over the years, must have finished at least a dozen Megaman titles. I've always thought it odd that, due to you respawning outside the boss room if you die, but also losing your e-tanks if forced to continue, that the best thing you can do if you have only one life left but have reached the boss on poor health is to get killed and try again with a full health bar and then the e-tank if you need it. It makes any extra lives over 1 or 2 feel a bit worthless compared to e-tanks which are the most valuable resource.
Gradius is another matter entirely, its tough for any extra life after the first. Contra is on a much lower scale, mainly due to some weapons being clearly better all-rounders than others (spread vs laser), which leads to gaming the system on later games by keeping the best gun in reserve so your second life can use it on the boss!
Excellent post! The only thing I'd add is that the Might and Magic approach tends to have a lower and lower difficulty floor with each extra checkpointing system the player is given, though its difficulty CEILING is still extremely high as evidenced by infinite lives platformers like Super Meat Boy and IWBTG.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
It's just that people enjoy games for different reasons. Some play to be challenged, to practice and master the mechanics etc.
Others like me enjoy them as basically interactive movies. Stories and audio/visual experiences that can be more immersive than a movie due to being interactive.
I don't mind a little challenge, some puzzles to figure out etc., but I don't have the time or patience to master hard boss fights or keep replaying long sections due to a game lacking frequent checkpoints etc.
That said, there is plenty of room out there for both types of games. I can play the games like Gears, Mass Effect, Uncharted, Last of Us, Halo, Skyrim etc. for story/experience. Others can play stuff like DMC or Ninja Gaiden and play the types of games I listed on higher difficulties.
A life system is just a set of requirements for completing a certain part of the game, and a good player is one who learns to work within those limitations. The negative reinforcement part of things is an incentive for bad players to get good.
This.
I was really freaking horrible at Mega Man when I first played it. The way the games were designed help me motivate and overcome the challenges. I eventually got good at the games because the game actually encourages me so. This is why Mega Man is ultimately my favorite gaming franchise, the gameplay design strikes a perfect balance with difficulty when done right. It also helps that the levels are generally short instead of being lengthy, so if I were to Game Over, I'd lose like... 2 to 3 minutes worth of gameplay?
If I get a Game Over and respawn at the last checkpoint, I wouldn't have as much incentive to improve my skills as I do now. There's no fun in that.
The solution is not to remove the lives system away completely in video games and ruin it for many that enjoys that type of gameplay. The solution is to either get better or move on and play a different game. It's likely not intended for you if you don't want to be challenged. This is why I think the OP is spouting non-sense, as rude as that may sound.
I find it selfish that people want to remove a specific game design out of gaming completely. The world does not revolve around anyone and anyone's specific taste. There are plenty of games that suit your taste better, play those instead. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having preference, but there is a problem with wanting to remove a specific game design from everyone that enjoys it.
Arc Christelle
Member
How come no one ever compares video games to board games like Monopoly, Sorry, Trouble, etc. or card games like UNO, Spades, Freecell, or Poker or something like that? Are you one of those people who prefer to play with house rules than the original rules of a game like that?
Because you do understand at the end of the day, you're playing a game and each game has its own rules and regulations right?
This attitude I like better. He acknowledges that he may not be into more skill oriented games, but doesn't wish to drive them away, instead, he sticks to the games he feels cater to him.
Not sure what you mean by the last sentence, but sure. Lots of people compare games to board games, especially in terms of economies. However, video games are much bigger than regular boardgames in terms of complex emotions they can engender (presence, cognitive dissonance, persuasion through procedural rhetoric etc), so that would be a disservice to the medium. As would talking about boardgames without acknowledging the rich cocreative social interplay that they are vehicles towards.
No thanks for pointing that out.
Fwiw I'm not arguing otherwise. Although I do feel there should be inherently better mechanisms than limited continues and redoing large sections, in the end opinions are like assholes.
If people here are stating they like that stuff then that's the use of them justified.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Agree 100%.
I have no problem avoiding skill based games and just sticking to the AAA blockbuster games in genres I like.
By the same token, people who like challenge should bitch less about the cinematic types of games that people like me enjoy and stick with the skill based games they love.
There are plenty of both out there, and that will only expand with the rise of indies.
That Dude John
Member
And this is what I don't get. To me, the incentive to get better is the fact that you're losing and can't progress. I don't see why to you need anymore negative reinforcement past that.
Because Mega Man games are made to test your skills at platforming. You can progress when you figure out how to overcome the challenges. It's seriously less satisfying making it easier.
There's more to Mega Man than just "beating the game".
Although I generally like the difficulty of Megaman, I found there to be too many 'cheap shots'. Enemies jumping out of pits without warning as you jump over them etc. It's a bit like jump scares; they're effective but feel dumb. Well I feel the same about many implementations of limited lives/continues.
shakin_haitian
Banned
Slow down and be more careful. There's very few actual insta-deaths that you can't anything about without prior knowledge, it's that you're running and gunning through the stages. The only problem with this is playing through the stages slow sucks, and you don't get the rush of running through the entire stage with perfect timing.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I don't think Mega Man is 100% perfect with level design (I just think its gameplay blueprints are perfect). There has been real stinkers here there such as what you've mentioned about enemies coming out of pits. It's a bit trial and error-ish, I don't like that. Outside of that, most Mega Man levels are generally well designed. (Those pit enemies hasn't become a thing until Mega Man 4)
In the end, I think it depends on the type of game. Not every game benefits from lives/continues and not every game benefits without them either.
Lives/Continues have their place in platformers. Just like how QTEs have their place in cinematic games. It's all down to the execution.
Also, I don't see how this is comparable to cheap enemy placement. Trial and Error =/= Game Mechanic
Limited continues are awesome in all action games. Makes you get better, and I cant believe even Neo Geo home releases have infinite continues. Get better and you'll be fine.
Good checkpoint placement is another thing. All action games need to work on that. Once you hit a boss, check point should be there, but if you lose all your continues/lives/whatever, you just need practice.
Arc Christelle
Member
House rules are when players decide to make exceptions, or use their own set of rules as opposed to the standard/universal rules to play the game. [C'mon man you study game design.]
But the thing is, you're still downplaying the experiences you gain from those boardgames, such as social interaction, critical thinking, strategic approach, and building a strong metagame. No matter how much production values will placed in the game, at the end of the day, it's still a recreational activity like playing a sport, or how some of you like to compare to books and movies.
It's time consuming, but there's always something to gain, and not everyone is in it, for some emotional bonding or something. I laugh when characters die, I don't get attached to that shit. Not even trying to be edgy, but some people actually prefer the entire pizza, instead of just the toppings.
The only prob with that, was that earlier, it was as if you were arguing to eradicate those games that reward players for skill. Or as if playing for skill was just an empty reason. It's as if you don't understand why people may find investing into mastery is worthwhile, thus can't respect it.
I mean if you like Narrative driven games, that's cool, they have their place as well. But demanding skill based games to change to fit your demands or any type of game for that matter is pretty selfish considering that there are already games that cater to you.
For example, plenty of people love Tekken. I understand how the game works and the system, but I don't enjoy it as much. Therefore, I'm not a fan and I don't play it as much as I may play other 3D fighters such as DOA or VF. I would never demand that Tekken embrace a conventional 3D Fighting system like DOA/VF/SC because there are people who actually enjoy the game for what it is, and making it change comes at the cost of its identity. I accept it for what it is, and from there I can choose to adapt to it, or just play something else.
toastyToast
Member
Beating the level means beating the whole level, boss included. If there's a continue system it was probably a conscious design decision that the difficulty was balanced around.
Meccanical
Member
Thank you JC, now I don't have to post anything.
anexanhume
Member
Aren't lives and continues a design element carried over from arcade, where the point is to make failure more common to force you to pay more? That need to pay more doesn't exist in the home environment.
Moreover, one could argue it artificially expands the length of the experience. Sure, it's possible to have fun and be rewarded for spending 10-15 hours beating a game that can be speed run in less than 30 minutes, but games have grown and can provide 10-15 hour experiences regardless of your skill level. A player skill wall is no longer necessary to make sure games last longer, and thus, to make it feel as though your purchase had value.
I remember buying rampage world tour as a kid and being pissed it only took 2 hours to beat. And at the time, I was someone that did not like difficulty in games and liberally used cheat codes. To me, rampage was worse.
That's not to say every game needs to be a cakewalk. That's why multiple difficulty levels exist and why game developers are lauded for designing games that function well on multiple difficulty levels.
If you want to complain about games no longer being setup to reward difficult accomplishments, remember that unlockables that are usually associated with these achievements are now themselves monetized.
Moreover, one could argue it artificially expands the length of the experience. Sure, it's possible to have fun and be rewarded for spending 10-15 hours beating a game that can be speed run in less than 30 minutes, but games have grown and can provide 10-15 hour experiences regardless of your skill level. A player skill wall is no longer necessary to make sure games last longer, and thus, to make it feel as though your purchase had value.
I remember buying rampage world tour as a kid and being pissed it only took 2 hours to beat. And at the time, I was someone that did not like difficulty in games and liberally used cheat codes. To me, rampage was worse.
That's not to say every game needs to be a cakewalk. That's why multiple difficulty levels exist and why game developers are lauded for designing games that function well on multiple difficulty levels.
If you want to complain about games no longer being setup to reward difficult accomplishments, remember that unlockables that are usually associated with these achievements are now themselves monetized.
Arc Christelle
Member
Interesting thing I just thought about. Has anyone in here played Alien Soldier?
It's one of my favorite Action games on Genesis. I still haven't beaten the game yet, but that's because it has two modes Super Easy and Super Hard.
Super Easy - Unlimited Continues and Password system.
Super Hard - 3 Continues and no passwords.
I always select Super Hard and try to go as far as possible, I usually make it to XI-Tiger or lose all my continues at the Boss fight with the machine at the airport. I think like Stage 7.
But I always get a rush while playing it, because I like the options given to me to take down enemies and stay alive. (converting projectiles into energy etc.)
I was wondering are there any games you may feel compelled to push yourself with a limited supply of lives or credits for the sake of improving at the game? [I'm gonna make a separate thread about this.]
It's one of my favorite Action games on Genesis. I still haven't beaten the game yet, but that's because it has two modes Super Easy and Super Hard.
Super Easy - Unlimited Continues and Password system.
Super Hard - 3 Continues and no passwords.
I always select Super Hard and try to go as far as possible, I usually make it to XI-Tiger or lose all my continues at the Boss fight with the machine at the airport. I think like Stage 7.
But I always get a rush while playing it, because I like the options given to me to take down enemies and stay alive. (converting projectiles into energy etc.)
I was wondering are there any games you may feel compelled to push yourself with a limited supply of lives or credits for the sake of improving at the game? [I'm gonna make a separate thread about this.]