Do you think life systems are outdated?

[Glen-i]

I was catching up on some videos from Matthewmatosis, an excellent games critic on YouTube, when he made a point that I kinda fully agree with.
Combined with a certain change in the recent Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door remake I don't like (Being able to immediately retry any fight you happen to get a "Game Over" on), and it's got me thinking about it again.

But first, a bit of context for why I even bring this up.

When Super Mario Odyssey released way back in 2017, one of the consistent praises I saw around the internet is that it ditched the traditional lives that the series has used throughout pretty much every game beforehand. Instead, when Mario croaks, you lose a few coins, and you're plonked right back at the last checkpoint. That always happens, by the way, even if you run out of coins. There's no "Game Over" as such.

This might not come as a surprise to most of you, but I don't agree with this, and fast forward a few years to Mario Wonder, and people weren't thrilled that lives returned.
Now I know to someone like me who plays way too many games, there was no actual risk of me losing all of my lives in Mario Wonder, because I've had years of experience before hand, but I do feel that lives create a sort of safety net for failure, while also looming the chance of punishment for playing poorly by setting you back to an earlier point in the game, should you see the dreaded Game Over screen..

But I can't help but feel I'm alone in that mindset. These days, people don't want games to "Waste their time" by making them repeat content they already beat. (I kind of find the concept of games somehow wasting your time silly, because they're designed to be time wasters, but whatever)
Am I alone? Am I just out of touch with this like I am with open-world games, or is there someone out there who has that same viewpoint?
Are there alternatives other then just getting rid of them that you prefer?

EDIT: I've been trying to get the timestamp for the video I mention here, but it's not working, and it's a 3 hour video, so it's not exactly easy to just say "Go to this point". Not sure what's happening there. I guess a link will have to do.

Edited June 1 by Glen-i

[Cube]

I personally dislike lives systems in games, I like replaying parts on my own terms rather than having an arbitrary amount of attempts before redoing earlier parts.

I think Super Mario 64 is an early example of a truly pointless lives system.  When you lose a life, you get booted out of the level and lose all your progress. It's quite a severe punishment, but it works for the game. If you lose all your lives, the punishment is just trivial: you get booted out of the game and have to walk through the hub to the level. It's a big example of the "waste your time" side of things as that's all there it, you don't have to redo any difficult sections, it's just walking (there are a very small number or exceptions).

 

One interesting example is Sonic Unleashed. If you hit a checkpoint and lose a life, you start at the checkpoint. Lose all lives, you start at the beginning of the level. The problem is the whole system is easily trivialised as it's immensely easy to build up your lives by collecting them in the hub worlds. The are a few sections where the game puts easy lives before difficult sections (including one right after a checkpoint that's impossible miss). So the system just feels pointless, like many games where you can redo an earlier level to build up lives.

That's the HD version, though. On the Wii, things get smarter: your lives aren't shared across the game, but rather just within each level. You start each level with three lives, so you just can't grind easy lives. Instead, you can complete optional stuff to up your starting lives. It's a really good system for lives in video games.

[Dcubed]

There’s no such thing as an “outdated” gameplay mechanic.

Lives have their use and their place.  At the end of the day, they are a system that gives the player a limited number of chances to make a certain amount of progress through either a portion of, or the entirety of, a game.

Their ultimate purpose is to provide an element of tension and risk, and they are ultimately tied to a stake of progress.  The higher the stake (i.e, the amount of progress a player stands to lose if they run out of chances), the higher the sense of tension & risk, but also the higher the sense of payoff and satisfaction that comes with completing a challenge.

They are a means of adding difficulty to a game, and often are even directly tied to the difficulty setting chosen (Higher difficulty setting = less lives available to the player).

An issue arises however when the stake that’s being wagered is so low, that their impact is rendered almost meaningless.  In Super Mario 64 for example, its use of lives is almost pointless because you don’t really lose any progress for a Game Over (You get sent back to the castle courtyard, whoopdie do!).  This also has the side effect of making 1up mushrooms a meaningless and unsatisfying reward for finding them.

In this case, it’s not the mechanic itself that’s the issue, it’s the application.  Lives with no stake at risk are pointless.

Now.  Let’s look at an example of the complete opposite application, and how the loss of their stake completely ruins their effect… Super Monkey Ball.

In the original arcade game (and it’s GCN port), lives are the most precious thing you can possibly earn, because you lose all progress in your run when you run out of lives/continues; and in such a difficult game, the pressure rises exponentially as you get deeper into the run and come ever so tantalisingly close to reaching the end of each of the different difficulty modes.  And on top of that, unlocking the Extra and Master stages require you to complete each difficulty without using a single Continue.  As such, collecting as many Bananas as you can is utterly crucial to succeeding in this game, because you need 100 of them to earn an extra life; and of course, those Bananas usually require you to take the riskier paths and pull off those more difficult jumps… risk and reward! Oh! And don’t forget those secret exits too that allow you to jump ahead and skip certain stages… gotta take the risk if you want to get ahead and conserve those lives…

It’s an expertly crafted game with a perfect balance of mechanics that serve the game design perfectly… and all of it is completely undone by its HD remake, Banana Mania.  In the HD version? You no longer need to complete a run in one go, the game just saves after each stage.  Now there is no stake at risk, and so, Lives (and subsequently the Bananas, secret exits, the risky paths, EVERYTHING that strays from the easiest critical path) are rendered completely pointless.  This is a catastrophic change that utterly demolishes the original intended game design, an absolute butchering by developers that fundamentally did not understand the appeal of the original game.

Lives are a powerful mechanic when applied correctly, but they are just one gameplay mechanic amongst many.  There is no such thing as an “outdated” mechanic, but there is certainly such a thing as a pigheaded, dismissive and outdated point of view.  And ultimately the most important thing is to consider what your game design is trying to accomplish.  If you’re looking for a way to provide meaningful tension, dread and a sense of accomplishment with your game? Lives can be a fantastic way of achieving that.

[Hero-of-Time]

I think the lives system is simply a throwback/holdover from the arcades where games were designed to eat up your money. This system was then ported over to home consoles and stuck around for a very long time.

Personally, I don't mind them. It adds a challenge to the game. Yes, it can be punishing at times but it also encourages the player to do better and learn how to play a game in a more successful way.

I think back to when I was a kid and completed things like Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and Nemesis on my C64 or countless NES games. These games required repetition, memorisation and concentration in order to see the end, otherwise you would be sent back to the beginning. I couldn't imagine a lot of today's younger generation putting up with that. 

I think a lot of it is that people these says want instant gratification and if it requires a bit of effort they will simply move on. There is a wealth of choice out there now and so it's easy to move on to something different.

[drahkon]

Just now, Hero-of-Time said:

I think the lives system is simply a throwback/holdover from the arcades where games were designed to eat up your money.

Don't give the shareholders any ideas

"Get 10 extra lives for only 1000 dick bucks"
"Get 800 dick bucks for 12.99€, ONLY TODAY!"

Anyways, I'm so good at games, I don't care if they have lives or not. HEHEHEHEHEHE!

Seriously, though. I really don't mind 'em. For games like Celeste and Super Meat Boy, however, lives would suck.

[EEVILMURRAY]

An interesting discussion. Thinking about it off the bat I don't mind the life system, it gives you a bit of tension and an encouragement to actually put effort into your playthrough, because if there's no fear of consequence, it doesn't feel fun to me, because I like at least a semblance of a challenge. 

That being said I have abused the rewind function on Switch online quite a bit, but that's out of sheer laziness, if it didn't exist I'd still play the games.

Crash Bandicoot is a great example of the reward for not losing a life, get through a level in one life and break all the boxes, you get a gem which appears in another level which gives access to a different path which may have more boxes so you can get a gem on that level. It adds a subtle layer of replayability that I didn't notice all that much, as I liked the challenge. Except High Road of course, fuck you.

That said I do think it has been toned down over the years, with a few exceptions.

1 hour ago, Hero-of-Time said:

I think back to when I was a kid and completed things like Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and Nemesis on my C64 or countless NES games. These games required repetition, memorisation and concentration in order to see the end, otherwise you would be sent back to the beginning. I couldn't imagine a lot of today's younger generation putting up with that. 

I don't know what age these people are, but those that fist the Souls-like games can't stop blowing their load over how difficult it is and how this equals maximum fun. This is an example of the consequence concept going too far for me, especially when I die a fair distance away and have to backtrack for about 5 minutes and depending on the circumstances of my death I may be able to get my currency back, it simply sucks out then fun for me, but some people seem to love it. The only solution given as either "get good" or "grind". I could do both of these things, but I simply do not want to spend the time doing it, I've got other shit to do. I'm stuck on a bit of Dark Souls, which with a bit of practice and training, I could probably beat it. But I simply can't be arsed, and I don't feel bad about abandoning it at all. I bought the trilogy and I can't be bothered to even try 2 and 3 even though I've heard they're better, I've got more fun games to play.

[Hero-of-Time]

16 minutes ago, EEVILMURRAY said:

I don't know what age these people are, but those that fist the Souls-like games can't stop blowing their load over how difficult it is and how this equals maximum fun. 

The enjoyment in Souls games usually comes from a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

In my previous job, I was working with a couple of lads who were both 21 years old. Neither had played a Souls game before but both got caught up in the Elden Ring hype and bought it launch. Liam quit early on as he kept dying and didn't want to put in the effort, he also lost a fair bit of cash because he bought it digitally. Cal on the otherhand kept at it and was coming into work each day excited to tell everyone how he beat this section or defeated that boss. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with what Liam done but you can see the appeal of these types of games when you look at the reaction of Cal and the buzz he was getting off it. Very few console games push back at players these days.

I will say though that the Souls games aren't a patch on difficulty and fairness when it comes to comparing NES era games. Those were Souls games before Souls was even a thing. Being sent right back to the start of a game is far worse than just respawning at the nearest bonfire. 

[Glen-i]

10 hours ago, Cube said:

That's the HD version, though. On the Wii, things get smarter: your lives aren't shared across the game, but rather just within each level. You start each level with three lives, so you just can't grind easy lives. Instead, you can complete optional stuff to up your starting lives. It's a really good system for lives in video games.

Wow, this is a really cool solution to the "You can just grind lives" problem, shame no-one else copied it.

I should state that I am well aware that there are poor implementations of lives in many games. Banjo-Kazooie is a fine example of a pointless implementation, so much so, that Rare realised this, and ditched them for Banjo-Tooie (For the better, in that case, in my opinion)

9 hours ago, Dcubed said:

It’s an expertly crafted game with a perfect balance of mechanics that serve the game design perfectly… and all of it is completely undone by its HD remake, Banana Mania.  In the HD version? You no longer need to complete a run in one go, the game just saves after each stage.  Now there is no stake at risk, and so, Lives (and subsequently the Bananas, secret exits, the risky paths, EVERYTHING that strays from the easiest critical path) are rendered completely pointless.  This is a catastrophic change that utterly demolishes the original intended game design, an absolute butchering by developers that fundamentally did not understand the appeal of the original game.

This was almost the example I went for, but I just knew you would use it.

But it's an excellent example, because the original Super Monkey Ball is a game that's built around the life system, and getting rid of it completely destroys the challenge of the game.

12 hours ago, Hero-of-Time said:

These games required repetition, memorisation and concentration in order to see the end, otherwise you would be sent back to the beginning. I couldn't imagine a lot of today's younger generation putting up with that. 

I think a lot of it is that people these says want instant gratification and if it requires a bit of effort they will simply move on. There is a wealth of choice out there now and so it's easy to move on to something different.

There's definitely truth to this, but I think you underestimate the younger generation. They can be just as tenatious as us lot if they're having fun. Failure doesn't have to be unfun if it feels fair and it feels like you're still improving, despite the setback.

[Dcubed]

15 minutes ago, Glen-i said:

There's definitely truth to this, but I think you underestimate the younger generation. They can be just as tenatious as us lot if they're having fun. Failure doesn't have to be unfun if it feels fair and it feels like you're still improving, despite the setback.

There’s a reason why the Roguelike genre has exploded in popularity in the past 6 odd years…

[Hero-of-Time]

16 minutes ago, Dcubed said:

There’s a reason why the Roguelike genre has exploded in popularity in the past 6 odd years…

Yeah, because it's easier to create randomly generated levels than ones that we'll balanced and are handcrafted.

Edited June 1 by Hero-of-Time

[EEVILMURRAY]

On 01/06/2024 at 11:24 AM, Hero-of-Time said:

The enjoyment in Souls games usually comes from a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment.

In my previous job, I was working with a couple of lads who were both 21 years old. Neither had played a Souls game before but both got caught up in the Elden Ring hype and bought it launch. Liam quit early on as he kept dying and didn't want to put in the effort, he also lost a fair bit of cash because he bought it digitally. Cal on the otherhand kept at it and was coming into work each day excited to tell everyone how he beat this section or defeated that boss. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with what Liam done but you can see the appeal of these types of games when you look at the reaction of Cal and the buzz he was getting off it. Very few console games push back at players these days.

I will say though that the Souls games aren't a patch on difficulty and fairness when it comes to comparing NES era games. Those were Souls games before Souls was even a thing. Being sent right back to the start of a game is far worse than just respawning at the nearest bonfire. 

I get the why, and I've experienced it myself. It's just that later on the effort-to-satisfaction ratio isn't worth the time taken to achieve it for me.

Good on Cal to come in each day to flex though.

[Jonnas]

This is an interesting topic. Playing through a bunch of NSO games really put into perspective just how many ways to implement a "lives" system there are, and how many undermine or enhance the experiences the game is going for.

Just recently, I played SCAT, a perfectly fine game that just... doesn't have lives nor continues. You reach the end of your health, you start from the beginning. Too harsh. Then you have Super EDF, which gives much better leeway (3 Continues), but it still feels harsh if you aren't relying on save states. Ultimately, these two titles are undone by not letting the player fiddle with their amount of lives: better games would increase the amount of lives/continues after reaching a certain point/kill threshold.

Sin and Punishment does that. For every 100 hits (without dying), you gain an extra Life. You can gain a few dozen lives while fighting mooks, then spend them while trying to beat the boss. Not sure what happens when you run out of Lives, but I assume you're supposed to restart the level. The true punishment comes from the fact that your score resets every time you die, so lives matter the more you try to play high-level.

Speaking of that, ranking systems can interact in a fun way with lives. If you lose some, it lowers your ranking, either directly (like in Megaman Zero, where you lose 50 ranking points for dying in a stage) or indirectly (like in Sonic Unleashed, where no direct penalty is given for dying, but the clock keeps ticking, effectively lowering your speed ranking). Or you could go the Starfox 64 route, and have lives not matter at all for the ranking, instead being there as an optional "retry" button for specific missions in the run you're going for.

The classic Megaman series does something interesting with "Continues". If you run out, you can just input a password to go back to where you were... except for the final Wily Castle stages. Passwords only bring you to the beginning of the first stage of a Wily Castle, and no further. In other words, running our of lives is a mild punishment for the first half of the game, and a much harsher punishment in the later stages.

While the point of "running out of lives" can be made redundant, there's a psychological effect at times. Like, maybe running out of lives is a slap on the wrist, but it's a slap that forces you to sit through a Game Over screen, like in Donkey Kong Country. As you're sitting there, waiting for the game to bring you back to the title screen... that's a much needed pause! You can replay the same Super Meat Boy level a 100 times in a row, but an occasional Game Over screen every 10 deaths or so could actually encourage you to take a breather and return a bit more fresh of mind.

Finally, what I thought was a clever way to interact with lives: Revenge of the Shinobi and Shinobi III both have a fairly traditional lives system where it's Game Over if you run out, and you can nevertheless collect more throughout the game... but you can also spend lives. There's a full-screen insta-kill move where your character also dies, and is then revived on the spot and restored to full health immediately. It's a really cool risk-reward system, because sure, it costs a life, but you aren't forced to go back to the last checkpoint, and it's a neat way to go back to full health in the middle of a difficult boss fight.

On 01/06/2024 at 9:43 AM, Hero-of-Time said:

I think the lives system is simply a throwback/holdover from the arcades where games were designed to eat up your money. This system was then ported over to home consoles and stuck around for a very long time.

[...]

I think back to when I was a kid and completed things like Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles and Nemesis on my C64 or countless NES games. These games required repetition, memorisation and concentration in order to see the end, otherwise you would be sent back to the beginning. I couldn't imagine a lot of today's younger generation putting up with that. 

See, having played a few old Arcade games as well recently, I don't think these two are the same thing. Older console games would require repetition and memorisation, sure (and I would argue many modern games do so as well, but now on a per-stage basis), but Arcade games surely did not! Losing a life does not set you back in the slightest, you can power through the likes of Final Fight, dying 50 times along the way, without ever replaying a single stage. Death was just a slap on your wallet, not your time.

I also feel like kids these days are generally fine with replaying stages (being more bothered by the moment of "losing the game" than having to restart a level), rather, it's the adults that make a fuss about "wasting time". But that's my personal experience.

On 01/06/2024 at 8:38 AM, Cube said:

On the Wii, things get smarter: your lives aren't shared across the game, but rather just within each level. You start each level with three lives, so you just can't grind easy lives. Instead, you can complete optional stuff to up your starting lives. It's a really good system for lives in video games.

Sonic Unleashed was the first good example I thought of as well! Lives are just how many retries there are per level (resetting to your base number whenever you start a new level), and you can increase that base number the same way you increase max health in a Zelda game: by exploring, or completing side quests/missions. It's a really well-thought out system, and becomes particularly useful in the Werehog levels, which can be quite long.

EDIT:

Not long after posting this, I caught up with N-E news, and a curious title, Umbraclaw has been released recently. A game where you have 9 lives, and the ending seems to depend on how many lives you still have? Intriguing concept.

Edited June 3 by Jonnas

[Dcubed]

@Jonnas, losing all of your lives in Sin & Punishment ends your run completely; forcing you to start the game over from Stage 0.

You’re probably not gonna be seeing a true Game Over in Easy mode? But in Hard & Turbo? You definitely won’t be beating it your first time!

S&P isn’t a particularly long game, but beating Hard mode is proper nails! Feels awesome when you finally manage it 

[drahkon]

On 6/1/2024 at 10:46 AM, drahkon said:

Don't give the shareholders any ideas

"Get 10 extra lives for only 1000 dick bucks"
"Get 800 dick bucks for 12.99€, ONLY TODAY!"

...

Multiversus

Devs said it was "a bug that has been addressed and is not an intended feature in the game."

Sure thing, buddy.

[bob]

From that, I can ascertain that 1 of those purple gem things is worth around 2 dick bucks.

 

 

[Glen-i]

3 hours ago, drahkon said:

Devs said it was "a bug that has been addressed and is not an intended feature in the game."

The thing that has a menu designed for it isn't intended?

No-one believes that, surely?