Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are lives in games an outdated mechanic?

What do you think?

Yes 22 56.41%
 
No 17 43.59%
 
Total:39
Spade said:
Yes, but trust me it's embarrassing when you have 99 lives and attempt Stormy Assault on livestream to a bunch of assholes and they roast you the whole time and after about an hour you lost all 99 lives and weren't able to beat the level :/.

Pls get rid of lives.

Ooof Dude you should’ve kept this in the drafts 😂😂

OT: 9.9/10 it’s not needed, except for certain indie games where that is the challenge and fun. 



Around the Network

Considering they're primarily a monetisation mechanic rather than a gameplay mechanic... hopefully!

It does seem like the industry has largely moved onto other monetisation mechanics instead too, but lives will still exist in arcade games if nothing else.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

ice said:
Spade said:
Yes, but trust me it's embarrassing when you have 99 lives and attempt Stormy Assault on livestream to a bunch of assholes and they roast you the whole time and after about an hour you lost all 99 lives and weren't able to beat the level :/.

Pls get rid of lives.

Ooof Dude you should’ve kept this in the drafts 😂😂

OT: 9.9/10 it’s not needed, except for certain indie games where that is the challenge and fun. 

You should keep those shitty games on your profile privated dude. 

Goes back to playing Neptunia :) 

Edit: I got Lucky in my profile, I can't really talk :( 




Undisputed Gamer BAY BAY 

Spade said:
ice said:

Ooof Dude you should’ve kept this in the drafts 😂😂

OT: 9.9/10 it’s not needed, except for certain indie games where that is the challenge and fun. 

You should keep those shitty games on your profile privated dude. 

Goes back to playing Neptunia :) 

Edit: I got Lucky in my profile, I can't really talk :( 



sundin13 said:
For the most part, yes. Lives add no value to most games. They exist to make you replay more of the game than you want to and artificially extend game length. I think there could be slight exceptions if the lives mechanic is used cleverly, like a rogue-like game may award you extra "lives" to let you not fall into permadeath when you die, but as a general rule, they suck.

/thread



Around the Network

Depends on the game. People like to use lives in Smash Bros, for example, or Street Fighter. I'm playing a lot of Super Mario 35 and I basically get 1 life. It's an extremely fun game.



So in SNES and NES games, I find myself suspending software and creating suspended points that I save, and I do it like ALL the time. I hate having to start part of a level over, or a whole level, or getting a Game Over. I wish modern games could be suspended and stored like the old ones on Switch haha.



Depends on the kind of game. If a newer game (usually some kind of indie title) is a shorter game trying to go for a more old-school 8-bit/16-bit/arcade-style of gameplay, then lives are perfectly fine. It's part of the challenge to avoid running out of lives so you don't have to redo a level, and when a level can be completed in 5-10 minutes, that's not a big deal.

But in any sort of larger-scale game, no. Save points and/or checkpoints should be the norm. Nobody would enjoy losing hours of progress just from running out of lives. That's why finite lives has never been the norm in any sort of RPG or open-world title. Even in a game like Halo that has discrete levels, those levels can take an hour or more to beat, and having to clear those levels with only, say, three or five lives could be tedious (though it would make for an interesting optional "arcade mode").



The_Liquid_Laser said:
Depends on the game. People like to use lives in Smash Bros, for example, or Street Fighter. I'm playing a lot of Super Mario 35 and I basically get 1 life. It's an extremely fun game.

I mean, yeah, but you know that's not the kind of life anyone's referring to.



It always depends on what game you want to make and what you want to use the mechanic for.