... Because it has lives.
It seems as though it might be one for some of the rest of us to avoid, then. ;P
(For the sake of clarity given the lack of tone in text, the above is facetious hyperbole: while I don't agree that lives inherently improve or are important for a platformer, their inclusion doesn't necessarily kill a game either.)
(For the sake of clarity given the lack of tone in text, the above is facetious hyperbole: while I don't agree that lives inherently improve or are important for a platformer, their inclusion doesn't necessarily kill a game either.)
Of course it doesn't because it needs to be. The game will have collectibles that besides getting extra lives, they don't do anything else which makes it WORTH getting which is something LEGENDS DIDN'T DO! I know I'm shouting here but I'm trying to get the point that lives do matter. All it takes is a new mechanic to make them less archaic even though getting lives doesn't bother me so much.
The game will have collectibles that besides getting extra lives, they don't do anything else which makes it WORTH getting which is something LEGENDS DIDN'T DO! I know I'm shouting here but I'm trying to get the point that lives do matter.
I get that lives are important to you, and I (think) that I even understand your reasons, and I won't argue against any of that: I won't tell you that a game would be better for you if lives are removed.
That doesn't mean that a game would not be better for someone else if lives were removed: different people see value in different things, have different perceptions, and different perspectives.
Swiftcoder has indicated that he enjoyed Legends, which seems to imply that either he enjoyed getting the collectibles despite the lack of lives (which argues against your assertion that collectibles are necessarily worthless without lives), or enjoyed the game without bothering with the collectibles (which argues against your assertion that collectibles are important to the enjoyment of a platformer).
Now, it's possible that he would enjoy the game more with the inclusion of lives--but I have no good reason to believe that.
Let me give you an example outside of platforming, from my own experience: I have a somewhat love-hate (or rather "love-frustration") relationship with traditional roguelikes. I love the randomised levels, and being dealt a random "hand" of items with which to play. I really, really don't like to-hit rolls, random damage, respawning monsters, or runs that simply don't seem give me sufficient resources, however. To me, the result feels unfair: I keep losing not because I'm playing poorly, but because the "dice" say so. It's frustrating. I keep feeling that there's a fun game there, if they'd just remove (or, in the case of what items are doled out, "fix") those elements.
But there are other people who love exactly those things: they look at the game as being about management of risk, I gather, and love the feeling that death could be just around the next corner. They come back time and again, and thoroughly enjoy it.
That doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that they're wrong; it means that they and I are different.
On the point of collectibles, I feel that I've already addressed that: I'm pretty confident that I've given examples of how collectibles might still be useful and interesting in the absence of a "lives" mechanic. Do you have any counterarguments to those points?
In any case, as I've already said: collectibles aren't necessarily the most important element of platformers for all gamers. Personally, I like them, but I don't think that I play platformers for the sake of the collectibles, and none of those that I do find valuable--weapons (and other abilities or powerups) and external rewards (posters, concept art, etc.)--seem to me to rely on lives in any significant way.
@Cap'n VG
"Of course it doesn't because it needs to be. The game will have collectibles that besides getting extra lives, they don't do anything else which makes it WORTH getting which is something LEGENDS DIDN'T DO! I know I'm shouting here but I'm trying to get the point that lives do matter."
How do lives make collectibles suddenly "worth" getting? There's not usually any in-game reward for collectibles (unless more points is your jam), and the value of extra content like concept art and stuff differs from player to player. I would say that most people getting collectibles in a platformer do it for the sense of accomplishment that comes with obtaining them, especially the ones in hard to get places. Lives do not make this feeling more (or less) valuable to the player.
I don't consider Rayman Legends to be a great platformer, but that has nothing to do with it's lack of a life/game over mechanic. In fact, I think that the game would be a whole lot less fun if there WERE lives in it. I cannot understand why you think lives would make this game (or any game, for that matter) better, please explain your opinion to me, so that I might.
Also, like I said, not a huge fan of Legends, but while we talk about it's mechanics and stuff, it's probably important to remember that the devs were making a single-player platformer which they had to make sure was balanced for 4-player multiplayer, which I'm sure influenced a few design decisions.
The game will have collectibles that besides getting extra lives, they don't do anything else which makes it WORTH getting which is something LEGENDS DIDN'T DO! I know I'm shouting here but I'm trying to get the point that lives do matter.I get that lives are important to you, and I (think) that I even understand your reasons, and I won't argue against any of that: I won't tell you that a game would be better for you if lives are removed.
That doesn't mean that a game would not be better for someone else if lives were removed: different people see value in different things, have different perceptions, and different perspectives.
Swiftcoder has indicated that he enjoyed Legends, which seems to imply that either he enjoyed getting the collectibles despite the lack of lives (which argues against your assertion that collectibles are necessarily worthless without lives), or enjoyed the game without bothering with the collectibles (which argues against your assertion that collectibles are important to the enjoyment of a platformer).
Now, it's possible that he would enjoy the game more with the inclusion of lives--but I have no good reason to believe that.
Let me give you an example outside of platforming, from my own experience: I have a somewhat love-hate (or rather "love-frustration") relationship with traditional roguelikes. I love the randomised levels, and being dealt a random "hand" of items with which to play. I really, really don't like to-hit rolls, random damage, respawning monsters, or runs that simply don't seem give me sufficient resources, however. To me, the result feels unfair: I keep losing not because I'm playing poorly, but because the "dice" say so. It's frustrating. I keep feeling that there's a fun game there, if they'd just remove (or, in the case of what items are doled out, "fix") those elements.
But there are other people who love exactly those things: they look at the game as being about management of risk, I gather, and love the feeling that death could be just around the next corner. They come back time and again, and thoroughly enjoy it.
That doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that they're wrong; it means that they and I are different.
On the point of collectibles, I feel that I've already addressed that: I'm pretty confident that I've given examples of how collectibles might still be useful and interesting in the absence of a "lives" mechanic. Do you have any counterarguments to those points?
In any case, as I've already said: collectibles aren't necessarily the most important element of platformers for all gamers. Personally, I like them, but I don't think that I play platformers for the sake of the collectibles, and none of those that I do find valuable--weapons (and other abilities or powerups) and external rewards (posters, concept art, etc.)--seem to me to rely on lives in any significant way.
Ok then, like I said earlier, if unlimited lives are the future of platform games, then fine. But unless they figure out how to make the game challenging like how lives make them challenging, then its very likely that the game is far easier than what it was suppose to be.
How do lives make collectibles suddenly "worth" getting? There's not usually any in-game reward for collectibles (unless more points is your jam), and the value of extra content like concept art and stuff differs from player to player. I would say that most people getting collectibles in a platformer do it for the sense of accomplishment that comes with obtaining them, especially the ones in hard to get places. Lives do not make this feeling more (or less) valuable to the player.
Items are there around you. Wouldn't you as a player would like to collect things that give you something in return? Of course and that's why getting lives is part of collecting because they want to.
Ok then, like I said earlier, if unlimited lives are the future of platform games, then fine. But unless they figure out how to make the game challenging like how lives make them challenging, then its very likely that the game is far easier than what it was suppose to be.
Lives do not affect the challenge the game is presenting. If you're finding a platformer easy, throwing in lives won't make it harder. Conversely, games can still be challenging without lives.
Items are there around you. Wouldn't you as a player would like to collect things that give you something in return? Of course and that's why getting lives is part of collecting because they want to.
I have nothing against collectibles. If the only benefit from lives, though, is that they are just one more thing to collect, then why are they any better than any other collectible? Do you think Rayman Legends would be that much better if there was another thing to collect? I don't think it would. "Because collecting stuff is fun" is not a great reason to have lives in a game, and "because collecting stuff that matters" is even worse, as lives don't exactly have a positive effect on gameplay. Wasting the Player's time as a punishment for failure, creating more exit points for the Player to walk away and never touch your game again, for example.
Ok then, like I said earlier, if unlimited lives are the future of platform games, then fine
It doesn't have to be one or the other: games that use lives can coexist alongside those that don't. I'm not arguing that no platformer should ever use the limited-lives mechanic; I'm arguing that platformers don't have to use the limited-lives mechanic to be good.
But unless they figure out how to make the game challenging like how lives make them challenging, then its very likely that the game is far easier than what it was suppose to be.
Not necessarily--it could have exactly the difficulty that the designers intended, even if that's easier than you, personally, would prefer. Not all gamers want games that are as challenging as those that you enjoy, I imagine; not all platformers are supposed to be hard, I feel.
In any case, I've already pointed out that a game can very well be challenging without the inclusion of lives: just make the actual in-game obstacles challenging to overcome.
All that lives really do is throw you back to the start of the game every so often, which means asking the player to re-play sections--which may be quite long--that they've already completed, potentially many times over--and not everyone enjoys that, I think that you'll find. If the game allows saving, then you essentially have unlimited lives anyway, but with a clunkier interface.
Well....I guess time will tell if having lives or not really means a thing. Though personally, it matters to me and I guess I'll have fun playing games with lives instead. I don't see how platformers personally can be fun without lives because there either needs to be an energy bar or a life system.
Platform games with no lives often tend to break up the game into small, bite-sized chunks of action that require extremely precise execution. Platform games with lives tend to have longer levels that not only test the player's coordination, but also their endurance, and their ability to react to unforseen situations. In games with lives, your performance in one section can have a big impact on the next section- if you burn up most of your lives in the first level of the world, then you'll be walking on eggshells for the rest of the world. In games with no lives, each section is totally independent. Games with lives can feel more coherent, and have a more high-stakes feel due to the possibility of getting sent back a ways if you lose all your lives.
I prefer my platformers to have lives!
I'm making a platformer game and I decided to scrap the lives system. Why?
Because in my childhood games, when I had a Game Over, I had to go through several load screens before getting back to where I was before. Which discouraged me from playing the hard level again.
