By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Should the "lives" system be abolished?

Tagged games:

 

?

Yes 15 35.71%
 
No 27 64.29%
 
Total:42

With a few exceptions, it seems most modern games give you endless tries to get it right, with the traditional "game over" screen becoming a rare thing?

Do you think the idea of having a finite number of "lives" should be retained, or abandoned altogether?



Around the Network

They have been abolished, by everyone except Nintendo who for some reason thinks they're still making games for arcades and are trying to get as many quarters from us as possible. Go play Rayman Legends if you want to see how well a platformer can work without lives. Lives have been completely pointless since consoles were introduced.



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Fusioncode said:
They have been abolished, by everyone except Nintendo who for some reason thinks they're still making games for arcades and are trying to get as many quarters from us as possible. Go play Rayman Legends if you want to see how well a platformer can work without lives. Lives have been completely pointless since consoles were introduced.

I have played Rayman Legends; I still think platformers work better with lives, otherwise there's no rising tension as the number counts down, no intensity because that you have to get it right this time.



Hell yes! The only reason the lives system existed was cause the greedy SoBs that hated this world wanted every penny, nickel, dime and quartar out of the poor kids in the arcade so that they can have enough coins to make Scrooge Mcduck proud...

I hope Nintendo will get rid of that lives system, it makes games annoying and they give you enough lives to make sure you never run out anyway so I don't get their logic behind that unless you are a retard that keeps on running into the first Goomba in Mario in every game and doesn't realize that there is a jump button



                  

PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850

With Super Mario 3D World, Nintendo acknowledged that overarching score is largely pointless, a number that just keeps ticking upward unless you do indeed hit Game Over territory, so they focused on score within the level instead. Lives should be similar: you have so many chances to get this level right, or you have to start from the beginning, which is worse for long levels with one or more checkpoints. You could be given a set amount that varies per level, with chances to earn extra lives within the level.

This could also do away with the need to have high difficulty stages be one-shot wonders: the tension is built in, so even stages like 3D World's Champion's Road could afford to have checkpoints, because if you screw up enough on that damned section with the dash panels and lasers, you still have to go back to square one, just not right away, because it's guaranteed that you're only starting with 5 lives, instead of the hundred-twenty-some i had when i got there.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network

"Game Over" screens are a waste of time. They're an unnecessary punishment that stands between the player and actually playing the game. I'm glad they're mostly gone. When I die, I want to automatically start over at the last check point, level, whatever. The exception would be old style Atari type games, where things just get faster and faster, that's still fun.

Actually, what I really don't like--and I realized this recently while playing Rayman--are game "levels". I've come to a point where I just do not like that kind of artificial compartmentalization. I feel like the whole game just boils down to trying to get through this level, like I'm playing with one tree at a time rather than the whole forest. Level based gameplay feels archaic to me and I'm probably done with it for the most part.



It depends on the game. In some games, that's why it's difficult. In others. the game itself is difficult enough. And others aren't meant to be difficult. I think the majority of games a should have unlimited lives, but a few probably shouldn't.



Yes, they should. They were originally intended for arcades. It increased money and helped keep the line of players moving. Then lives were used for extending game time on early home consoles. Games would have been far too short without the implementation of a lives system that forced you to start over.

Nowadays arcades are less prevalent, but I'm okay with lives still being used there. For home consoles, though, it's pointless. There's about 10 hours of gameplay in Super Mario 3D World. It doesn't need a lives system for it to be a worthwhile purchase.



"On my business card I am a corporate president. In my mind I am a game developer. But in my heart I am a gamer." - Satoru Iwata

I like when the retries are accounted for leaderborads or even for trying to master the game. I hate regenerating health, infinite lives and all these things the kids love these days =/



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

Mr Khan said:
With Super Mario 3D World, Nintendo acknowledged that overarching score is largely pointless, a number that just keeps ticking upward unless you do indeed hit Game Over territory, so they focused on score within the level instead. Lives should be similar: you have so many chances to get this level right, or you have to start from the beginning, which is worse for long levels with one or more checkpoints. You could be given a set amount that varies per level, with chances to earn extra lives within the level.

This could also do away with the need to have high difficulty stages be one-shot wonders: the tension is built in, so even stages like 3D World's Champion's Road could afford to have checkpoints, because if you screw up enough on that damned section with the dash panels and lasers, you still have to go back to square one, just not right away, because it's guaranteed that you're only starting with 5 lives, instead of the hundred-twenty-some i had when i got there.

This guy gets it. :)