Do you have tangible numbers to reflect that this is indeed a tendency and not just your personal experience?
Platformers I've played lately didn't promote unlimited lives.

Did you not enjoy Shovel Knight? Do you consider it has an unlimited amount of lives? It is boring?

I did play shovel knight and the way its done is well executed. If you lose all your treasure, you have to go back to the menu but losing treasure is really not hard because its easy to get them in both the normal and hard mode.

Take a game like freedom planet. It has lives and it has powerups that make the progress easier when found. If the game had unlimited lives, then these powerups would most likely not appear since that would make the game incredibly easy with little to no challenge.

Not necessarily: if the level is difficult in and of itself, then such powerups could still be useful. Of course, the player could just keep trying over and over again until they get it right without powerups, but some might find that tedious, perhaps even frustrating; conversely, I imagine that many would appreciate and even enjoy the change of pace that the powerups provide, along with the aid that they give.

In any case, some games are easy, and--I believe--some people like easy games. I daresay that not everyone wants a very challenging experience, and that seems like a perfectly valid desire.

In donkey kong country returns, there is a harder mode added called mirror mode which plays a level in reverse and you have two hearts of health. Problem is, there arent' many checkpoints so it really is tedious and there is no point of doing it unless you want to 100% it. A good game but very hard in general.

Is this arguing against my point regarding difficulty settings? You don't seem to be either agreeing or disagreeing with me... (I'm genuinely uncertain of what point you're making here. ^^; )

As I said, one needn't have an entirely separate mode, just difficulty settings.

If you lose too many lives in a level, there's a power up that makes you invincible to complete the level.

Ah, I see--thank you for the clarification. ^_^

Hum... I don't think that such a powerup is one that I'd like overmuch. Nevertheless, I also think that it could work in either a game with lives or one without them: in the latter, there may still be segments that the player isn't managing to pass, despite having infinite lives, and thus such a mercy-pass item may still be useful. It would even work on much the same logic: if the player dies however-many times, they get access to the mercy-pass item.

Again, that ranking is already done for the Sonic games and the way its done there except in Colors and Generations is poorly executed and more tedious rather than challenging.

Fair enough. I daresay that many--perhaps most--mechanics can be made unpleasant if poorly-executed, or forced into experiences to which they're poorly suited.

I did play shovel knight and the way its done is well executed. If you lose all your treasure, you have to go back to the menu but losing treasure is really not hard because its easy to get them in both the normal and hard mode.

I'm just trying to see what would be gained over this by a life system here, and I struggle to find any value there aside from nostalgia and bragging rights (although, even a speedrun would make for better bragging rights, especially if you break your save points all along for even more pts).

Again, that ranking is already done for the Sonic games and the way its done there except in Colors and Generations is poorly executed and more tedious rather than challenging.

Yeah, that ranking system I describe using in my game in dev has definitely been in other games. Rayman Origins and Legends both had something very similar, if not identical. I think it's great: doesn't stop the player cold for failure and kill flow, but it gives more skilled players a reason to replay the game.

Where you return to when you run out of lives determines how much mastery you need to display. The easiest system, unlimited lives that drop you exactly where you are, only demand that you luck through a hard sequence once. At the other extreme, when game over is a hard reset, you may need to be able to beat the first level flawlessly every time to have enough lives at the end. As a beginner, you might get to world 2 with 1 life left. When you're ready to beat world 8, you'll get there with 5 lives. So you keep playing the same content over and over, but with a goal of achieving much greater mastery.


It's also common to restart a level or travel back a ways on a death. This requires an intermediate amount of mastery, in that you need to accomplish each task fairly successfully to be able to chain them all together in one run.


For long games, a hard reset becomes infeasible. Also, modern game design usually demands a lot lower level of mastery than before. There are so many games, it feels presumptuous to demand years of practice (although there's certainly a place for demanding games).


There really isn't a right or wrong system, there's just misapplied systems. Even can't fail scenarios can be fun: I hated Contra as a kid until I turned on unlimited lives. The game was punishingly difficult, but it was fun to see how well I could do with the constraint of death gone.

Is this arguing against my point regarding difficulty settings? You don't seem to be either agreeing or disagreeing with me... (I'm genuinely uncertain of what point you're making here. ^^; )

As I said, one needn't have an entirely separate mode, just difficulty settings

True that having a harder mode makes it challenging but here's the problem.....it is only suitable for getting achievements rather than playing the game again.

Again, Platform games have this curve that is well balanced for the most part.

Not necessarily: if the level is difficult in and of itself, then such powerups could still be useful. Of course, the player could just keep trying over and over again until they get it right without powerups, but some might find that tedious, perhaps even frustrating; conversely, I imagine that many would appreciate and even enjoy the change of pace that the powerups provide, along with the aid that they give.

In any case, some games are easy, and--I believe--some people like easy games. I daresay that not everyone wants a very challenging experience, and that seems like a perfectly valid desire.

Kirby games are very easy to play for anyone and that is not a problem. But to 100% games, its quite challenging. As a result, majority of the times, Kirby is about collecting stuff.

Now I can sort of agree that not having lives in these kind of games might balance it but that being said, since its very hard to lose all the lives in these games, not having them is a bit pointless as like I said before, if a game is about collecting stuff, then it needs to implement it as such. Which is something modern platform games are suffering from.

One of the reasons why lives are mandatory which is something I strongly feel is because it tells the player to take a break or learn something from the hard levels.

I'll say one thing, unless punishment is compensated for games that have unlimited lives and that it ends up being well balanced such as Shovel Knight, then modern platform games need to have lives. I don't see any harm in them nor do I see any issues in them since it is some discipline that the player needs to have when playing these games. You wouldn't shoot everything in an FPS game because there is discipline to be followed there as well.

However, I do agree that games like Psyconauts can have unlimited lives because it focuses heavily on adventure elements rather than platforming.

Yeah, that ranking system I describe using in my game in dev has definitely been in other games. Rayman Origins and Legends both had something very similar, if not identical. I think it's great: doesn't stop the player cold for failure and kill flow, but it gives more skilled players a reason to replay the game.

Problem with that is that its through online. We need something that doesn't require online to make it challenging for single player.

...Now I can sort of agree that not having lives in these kind of games might balance it but that being said, since its very hard to lose all the lives in these games, not having them is a bit pointless as like I said before...

I don't understand this logic. If it's very hard to lose all your lives, that makes having lives at all sound pointless to me. Usually good design is about cutting out unnecessary elements: if lives are more than sufficient 95% of playthroughs, why bother? Why punish only 5% of the playerbase?

One of the reasons why lives are mandatory which is something I strongly feel is because it tells the player to take a break or learn something from the hard levels.

Encouraging breaks is an interesting take. There are games I've overplayed and got sick of, although there's also lots of games I took a break from and never returned to. I'd always just figured the players will play at the rate they desire, but now you've got my wondering what role design should play in encouraging how the game is consumed...

I don't understand this logic. If it's very hard to lose all your lives, that makes having lives at all sound pointless to me. Usually good design is about cutting out unnecessary elements: if lives are more than sufficient 95% of playthroughs, why bother? Why punish only 5% of the playerbase?

Well if the kirby games were really that easy, then they have to like put some level of discipline to make it worth a challenge. So that's what I meant by that but its far better than doing pointless challenges that force you to do it in one sitting without getting hurt.

True that having a harder mode makes it challenging but here's the problem.....it is only suitable for getting achievements rather than playing the game again.

I'm honestly not sure of where playing the game again comes in: I'm talking about one's first play-through. If you enjoy highly-challenging gameplay, then at the start of the game you select the "hard" difficulty setting and enable "limited lives". If you prefer unlimited lives, or just want to play something light, you select the "easy" or "normal" difficulty setting, and disable "limited lives".

Encouraging replayability is another question, and can be addressed in various ways, including challenge modes, unlockable items, and the like.

Well if the kirby games were really that easy, then they have to like put some level of discipline to make it worth a challenge.

Are the players of Kirby necessarily looking for a challenge?

I don't see any harm in them nor do I see any issues in them since it is some discipline that the player needs to have when playing these games.

Why do they need to have that discipline? Why can they not just have fun? (I'm not saying that it's wrong to want or have that discipline, just that some people might be looking for a different experience.)

For example, what if a player enjoys the activities inherent in platforming--running and jumping, collecting items, perhaps killing enemies--but doesn't value challenge as you do: they just want a fun experience. This player wants to see the next bit of level, the next hurdle, enemy or set-piece, but isn't interested in having to watch their life-counter. To them, enforcing a "limited lives" mechanic might harm their enjoyment of the game. Is their preference invalid? Are they not allowed to have games that they like?

What about someone who wants some challenge, but doesn't have the time to master the mechanics? Being shunted out to the main menu might be frustrating for them.

Something that I've been trying to suggest is that what you value in a game--challenge and mastery--isn't necessarily universal. Come to that, your level of mastery, and your degree of interest in attaining that mastery, isn't necessarily universal.

I'm honestly not sure of where playing the game again comes in: I'm talking about one's first play-through. If you enjoy highly-challenging gameplay, then at the start of the game you select the "hard" difficulty setting and enable "limited lives". If you prefer unlimited lives, or just want to play something light, you select the "easy" or "normal" difficulty setting, and disable "limited lives".

Encouraging replayability is another question, and can be addressed in various ways, including challenge modes, unlockable items, and the like.

But even then, the only reward the player gets for all that is just an achievement which really doesn't do much of fulfillment.

Are the players of Kirby necessarily looking for a challenge?

While finishing the main game is a breeze, completing the game 100% is a challenge.

Why do they need to have that discipline? Why can they not just have fun? (I'm not saying that it's wrong to want or have that discipline, just that some people might be looking for a different experience.)

For example, what if a player enjoys the activities inherent in platforming--running and jumping, collecting items, perhaps killing enemies--but doesn't value challenge as you do: they just want a fun experience. This player wants to see the next bit of level, the next hurdle, enemy or set-piece, but isn't interested in having to watch their life-counter. To them, enforcing a "limited lives" mechanic might harm their enjoyment of the game. Is their preference invalid? Are they not allowed to have games that they like?

What about someone who wants some challenge, but doesn't have the time to master the mechanics? Being shunted out to the main menu might be frustrating for them.

Something that I've been trying to suggest is that what you value in a game--challenge and mastery--isn't necessarily universal. Come to that, your level of mastery, and your degree of interest in attaining that mastery, isn't necessarily universal.

A game needs to be balanced and cannot simply focus more on one factor over the others as that leads to bad game design. Simply having fun isn't the best way to make a game. Its like playing with cheat codes.

Claw is a very hard platform game and part of its fun is that you have to beat it without the cheat codes. With the cheat codes, its just becomes boring and its only fun through cheating methods which can be good or bad.

Mastery and challenge may not be universally necessary, but it is essential to balance the game so that you don't get bored of it after a while.