03-01-2021, 10:20 PM
Last night, I watched a couple of Game Maker's Toolkit videos - and I posted one of them in that thread, but I decided the other one was worth a thread of its own. And, here it is .
This video deals with the question: are lives systems outdated game design, or are they still relevant to games today?
I'm sure we all know what 'lives' are: you have a limited number of them, and if you lose them all, then you have to restart the game (or go back to the last save point, or whatever ). These systems were a staple of games in the arcade era, and for some time afterwards; however, in recent years, they've fallen out of favour in some quarters. There are a couple of reasons for this, as the video explains. First of all, they're quite punishing: running out of lives often means having to redo parts of the game that you've already completed, which is often frustrating. Secondly, they're hard to balance: too many lives makes the system meaningless, while too few will lead to harsh difficulty spikes. However, there are arguments in their favour: for example, they discourage sloppy, brute-force play; extra lives can serve as a high-value reward; and the system allows skilful play in earlier levels to be rewarded later on (as the player has more lives left).
Of course, there are some games that have twists on the traditional 'lives' system. For example, some have a fixed number of lives per level, while others take some of the frustration out of losing all your lives (for example, by allowing the player to keep their equipment after a 'Game Over'). And then, there are those that don't punish the player for running out of lives, but instead reward the player for completing the game without dying too many times (for example, with an achievement or bonus content).
Myself, I don't think the lives system is 'outdated' - although, I do think it works better in some kinds of game than others. In my opinion, it works best in relatively short games, where you're not expected to save your progress anyway (such as Pac-Man: it's hard to imagine that game without a lives system !). However, in longer and more complex games, I don't think it really adds anything: it's simpler just to make all checkpoints permanent IMO.
So, what are your thoughts? Do lives still have a place in video game design, or are they an outdated game mechanic?
This video deals with the question: are lives systems outdated game design, or are they still relevant to games today?
I'm sure we all know what 'lives' are: you have a limited number of them, and if you lose them all, then you have to restart the game (or go back to the last save point, or whatever ). These systems were a staple of games in the arcade era, and for some time afterwards; however, in recent years, they've fallen out of favour in some quarters. There are a couple of reasons for this, as the video explains. First of all, they're quite punishing: running out of lives often means having to redo parts of the game that you've already completed, which is often frustrating. Secondly, they're hard to balance: too many lives makes the system meaningless, while too few will lead to harsh difficulty spikes. However, there are arguments in their favour: for example, they discourage sloppy, brute-force play; extra lives can serve as a high-value reward; and the system allows skilful play in earlier levels to be rewarded later on (as the player has more lives left).
Of course, there are some games that have twists on the traditional 'lives' system. For example, some have a fixed number of lives per level, while others take some of the frustration out of losing all your lives (for example, by allowing the player to keep their equipment after a 'Game Over'). And then, there are those that don't punish the player for running out of lives, but instead reward the player for completing the game without dying too many times (for example, with an achievement or bonus content).
Myself, I don't think the lives system is 'outdated' - although, I do think it works better in some kinds of game than others. In my opinion, it works best in relatively short games, where you're not expected to save your progress anyway (such as Pac-Man: it's hard to imagine that game without a lives system !). However, in longer and more complex games, I don't think it really adds anything: it's simpler just to make all checkpoints permanent IMO.
So, what are your thoughts? Do lives still have a place in video game design, or are they an outdated game mechanic?
Board Information and Policies
Affiliation | Coffee Credits | Ranks and Awards | Name Changes
Account Deletion | BBCode Reference
Moonface (in 'Woman runs 49 red lights in ex's car')' Wrote: If only she had ran another 20 lights.
(Thanks to Nilla for the avatar, and Detective Osprey for the sig!)
My Items