Gamerforlife wrote:I like checkpoints. I think lives and continues are relics from the past. I do believe, however, that checkpoints should save your status. So if you had half your health when you activated a checkpoint, when you die and go back to that checkpoint you should STILL have half health.
The problem with that is what if you get a checkpoint right before a grenade explodes at your feet, killing you? If the checkpoint doesn't do at least some resetting, you can get into some very frustrating situations.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:There is nothing feigned about it. What I wrote is a display of actual moral superiority.
Gamerforlife wrote:I like checkpoints. I think lives and continues are relics from the past. I do believe, however, that checkpoints should save your status. So if you had half your health when you activated a checkpoint, when you die and go back to that checkpoint you should STILL have half health.
The problem with that is what if you get a checkpoint right before a grenade explodes at your feet, killing you? If the checkpoint doesn't do at least some resetting, you can get into some very frustrating situations.
That would never happen. The checkpoint would either activate before you die or not at all if the death happens first. Besides, I don't believe in babying players too much. If a player can't get to a checkpoint with good health, that's their problem. I'm not giving them a free health boost just for killing themselves and re-spawning at the checkpoint
RyaNtheSlayA wrote: Seriously. Screw you Shao Kahn I'm gonna play Animal Crossing.
Gamerforlife wrote:I like checkpoints. I think lives and continues are relics from the past. I do believe, however, that checkpoints should save your status. So if you had half your health when you activated a checkpoint, when you die and go back to that checkpoint you should STILL have half health.
The problem with that is what if you get a checkpoint right before a grenade explodes at your feet, killing you? If the checkpoint doesn't do at least some resetting, you can get into some very frustrating situations.
That would never happen. The checkpoint would either activate before you die or not at all if the death happens first. Besides, I don't believe in babying players too much. If a player can't get to a checkpoint with good health, that's their problem. I'm not giving them a free health boost just for killing themselves and re-spawning at the checkpoint
What I meant was, that the grenade lands at your feet, and then the checkpoint activates like 0.5 seconds before the explosion. So every time you die, you'd respawn right over a grenade with no time to do anything about it.
I like the way the original Call of Duty did things. You had to have 40% or more health when you reached a checkpoint for it to activate. If you had barely any health, no checkpoint for you.
prfsnl_gmr wrote:There is nothing feigned about it. What I wrote is a display of actual moral superiority.
AppleQueso wrote:Since we're talking not only lives, but save systems too, I gotta ask...
What are your opinions on Resident Evil and its Ink Ribbons? You actually have to use an item to save, and this item has a very finite supply.
I thought the ink ribbon system was innovative and appropriate for a game that deals with having limited supplies. The consequence is if you don't have a lot of free time to dedicate to the game. There's BS to everything.
I'm all about having a lives system. I find that without a lives system, there's no repercussion to failing other than seeing your guy die ad nauseum.
I think that the lives system is a way of saying 'if you can't get through the level in X many tries, it's in your best interest to start over again'.
Plus, there's an added suspense and cautiousness one takes when they know they are out of continues and/or on their last guy.
The Nihilist wrote:I think that the lives system is a way of saying 'if you can't get through the level in X many tries, it's in your best interest to start over again'.
I agree. In other words, it prevents the player from ruining their experience by forcing them to get better. It's like preventing credit-feeding or quick-saving, it just prevents the player from making a bad decision.
Which has the drawback since it removes the positive aspects of such stuff.
It's a very fine line to walk and I haven't really made up my mind on it
Looking for a cool game? Find it in my blog! Latest post: Often, games must be difficult http://eriktwice.com/
I think lives and continues are primarily a remnant of the coin-operated arcade days. I think they were originally used for business reasons. It clearly defines when the game requires a new quarter due to your failings.
Lives can serve as a good training mechanism though. Your learn what NOT to do each time your character dies. If you are forced to restart, then you have to get better at the game as a whole to complete it. Once you get good enough to complete the game, there is a sense of accomplishment derived from being able to beat the game on the game's terms. However, this is also an artificial way to increase game replayability and it becomes increasingly obnoxious the longer the game is. Limited lives and continues are really only appropriate for games that are short in length to begin with and are skill focused. Otherwise, this is primarily a vestigial feature of game design.
alienjesus wrote:I'm of the opinion that modern mario games only have a lives system because the 1up mushroom is such an iconic image of gaming.
Yeah, especially in 3D Land. I think I ended up racking up over 250 lives in that game. It was almost like a score or something. Half of them got taken care of one day when I handed the 3DS to one of my female friends who rarely plays videogames, though. LOL!
Lives/Continues are a remnant of the days of the arcade and in my opinion, should stay in those days. Unless your game is arcade styled (such as a shmup), then I think there shouldn't be any lives or continues. As for instant respawn or checkpoints, I'm not too sure which would be preferable. There probably isn't a hard rule.
As for modern Mario games, lemme tell you my experience. I was playing one of the FLUDD-less levels in Super Mario Sunshine and had three lives. As far as I'm aware, in each of these stages there are a set of nails that Mario can ass pound to get either a green mushroom or a coin. Every set that I've encountered has a 1-Up mushroom. Also floating in the air is a green mushroom. So in addition to the three lives I entered with, I can grab two 1-Ups. Talk about defeating the purpose. What's the point of having lives if I'm going to get a hand out on the hard stages? What really would've helped would be a check point. I kept on dying near the end of the stage and to try again, I had to wade through slow moving platforms and wait for blocks to approach me.
i think you still need a life & continue system to add challenge to the game. look at all the side-scrolling beat-em-up ports that get released on xbla & psn; they all give you infinite continues so you never try you just keep mashing buttons its boring. i hear you though. i hate having to start over a section i passed already just cuz i died on the next part. i think theres just a way to do it well and a way to do it thats irritating.
