Okay...here's a question for y'all: what is the use of lives in games nowadays?
Back in the old days, games were designed for arcade purposes. There had to be a way to make sure nobody hogged those machines the whole time unless they fed it quarters every so often. So lives were introduced. It carried over to early consoles with the same idea. In time, consoles reacted to the idea. At first, extra lives were used as a prime way to reward people who did exceptionally well or went out of their way to risk things. But gradually, infinite continues became the norm (truly...when was the last time that "game over" REALLY meant game over?) and scores kind of become sort of there in most games. That, and the fact that save states started being used...pretty much everywhere outside arcade games, that started to fill the place. There still has to be a drawback for not playing well, but being thrown back to the last save point or the beginning of the level served as the same thing.
I never thought of it until pointed out in Yahtzee's comparison between Rayman origins and NSMBW, but he certainly had a point...why are there still lives in games nowadays? It's not like recent games are really going to throw you back all the way to the start if you fuck up too many times (if you know examples of recent games without save states or endless continues...post it below).
Well...perhaps I should turn it around and ask which games still DO use lives nowadays. Sports and racing games make you restart the match/race. Same for RTS'es and puzzle games. Action-adventures, FPS'es and RPG's go with save states. Fighting games have endless continues. Fuck...even survival horror games don't tend with lives (though I could certainly be wrong on this).
In fact...I wanted to say that platformers are the only remaining type to use it, but games like Rayman and VVVVVV don't use it either.
So...I really can't think of anyone still using it outside nintendo, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Keep also in mind: this is something to design to. If you have infinite lives, you can make the game harder. Or even much harder (and put the savepoints close by). Certainly, there may be some frustratingly hard sections in it (I managed to die over 70 times in VVVVVV's final challenge), but your player won't ragequit the game over it if they appear.
On a Mario game, however...losing a game is always something that is rubbed in. How is that supposed to be fun?
So...your stance or opinion on this?
Oh, and yes...Gahars was a direct inspiration for this thread. His post in this thread made me do it:
Back in the old days, games were designed for arcade purposes. There had to be a way to make sure nobody hogged those machines the whole time unless they fed it quarters every so often. So lives were introduced. It carried over to early consoles with the same idea. In time, consoles reacted to the idea. At first, extra lives were used as a prime way to reward people who did exceptionally well or went out of their way to risk things. But gradually, infinite continues became the norm (truly...when was the last time that "game over" REALLY meant game over?) and scores kind of become sort of there in most games. That, and the fact that save states started being used...pretty much everywhere outside arcade games, that started to fill the place. There still has to be a drawback for not playing well, but being thrown back to the last save point or the beginning of the level served as the same thing.
I never thought of it until pointed out in Yahtzee's comparison between Rayman origins and NSMBW, but he certainly had a point...why are there still lives in games nowadays? It's not like recent games are really going to throw you back all the way to the start if you fuck up too many times (if you know examples of recent games without save states or endless continues...post it below).
Well...perhaps I should turn it around and ask which games still DO use lives nowadays. Sports and racing games make you restart the match/race. Same for RTS'es and puzzle games. Action-adventures, FPS'es and RPG's go with save states. Fighting games have endless continues. Fuck...even survival horror games don't tend with lives (though I could certainly be wrong on this).
In fact...I wanted to say that platformers are the only remaining type to use it, but games like Rayman and VVVVVV don't use it either.
So...I really can't think of anyone still using it outside nintendo, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Keep also in mind: this is something to design to. If you have infinite lives, you can make the game harder. Or even much harder (and put the savepoints close by). Certainly, there may be some frustratingly hard sections in it (I managed to die over 70 times in VVVVVV's final challenge), but your player won't ragequit the game over it if they appear.
On a Mario game, however...losing a game is always something that is rubbed in. How is that supposed to be fun?
So...your stance or opinion on this?
Oh, and yes...Gahars was a direct inspiration for this thread. His post in this thread made me do it:
