The point I'm trying to ask is if the lives are easy to farm which is far less frustrating than forcing the player to get items which reward the players to newer levels which reward you with little to no satisfaction, what is the point of not having lives?

Then why not get rid of both? I'd don't get the obsession with lives.

If your main argument in favour of having lives is that they are not any *more* annoying than other forms of collectibles... Well, that doesn't seem like a very good argument.

Again, since lives are so easy to get in platform games, it won't take that long to get like 200 of them.

This looks like an argument for removing lives, to me. After all, if it's so easy to farm them that one can amass far more than one is likely to burn through, then how is that effectively different to having unlimited lives?

The "limited lives" mechanic seems superfluous in this case, and potentially an incentive to grind (something that I detest).

However, bear with me for a moment: How do you farm lives like that? Is that something that a new player would know? Or is it something that comes from either spending a lot of time with a game, or spending time in platformer-centric communities? If either of the latter, remember that not everyone is interested in doing either, and those people may never know about whatever trick allows one to farm so many lives.

Even those games have challenge in them. The levels are made to complete within a certain time and so even the lowest skilled player can easily master Angry Birds and Candy Crush despite their level of difficulty gradually increasing.

They have a challenge, in that there's a task to be completed--but the same can be said of games with unlimited lives. By your description (they're not really my type of game, although I've played somewhat of Angry Birds) they're not challenging in the sense of being hard, presenting a high skill barrier, which is something that you've seemed to be arguing for.

Minecraft has that exploration value and leaves little to the ones who want challenge.

But what about people who don't like either the 3D world or crafting, but who do like platformer mechanics? It's quite possible, I believe, to enjoy the mechanics themselves--jumping, killing enemies, etc.--but nevertheless lean towards that "exploration" approach to finding enjoyment in a game.

... a level of discipline is needed inorder to enjoy a game.

I strongly disagree. This may be true for you, but it isn't for everyone, I think that you'll find. Some people may prefer to just jump in and have fun.

This looks like an argument for removing lives, to me. After all, if it's so easy to farm them that one can amass far more than one is likely to burn through, then how is that effectively different to having unlimited lives?

The "limited lives" mechanic seems superfluous in this case, and potentially an incentive to grind (something that I detest).

However, bear with me for a moment: How do you farm lives like that? Is that something that a new player would know? Or is it something that comes from either spending a lot of time with a game, or spending time in platformer-centric communities? If either of the latter, remember that not everyone is interested in doing either, and those people may never know about whatever trick allows one to farm so many lives.

I don't get this one bit.

You are fine for a level that requires you to collect a certain item and when you do get that item, you can't quit the game with the item but instead you have to complete that level inorder to get the item. If you are fine with this which obviously leads to frustration because you have to complete the entire level inorder to keep the found items, then I can't understand the frustration a player would get with the lives mechanic..... its so odd.

Again, Platform games are for the most part very easy to play. How easy you ask? Easy to the point that all the player has to do is move to the right to reach the goal (or sometimes left).

In the Super Mario games, certain power ups allow the players to skip huge chunk of the level and go to the next. How would the player learn this? Because the games make sure that you do learn how to use them by the time you get them. Its not hard for a new gamer to get into a platform game really.

As for time, I think that everyone can atleast play a level that's worth five minutes and that's what platform games have in mind. With that said, how can you have a certain condition that the player needs to have inorder to keep the player alert? Warning the player to go back to a previous checkpoint? If having limited lives is such a problem, then I doubt that this would make it any more balanced than lives. How about reducing the difficulty when failing too much? Well that's what Super Mario 3D Land and World did and many didn't like that move from Nintendo one bit. Also, as you have stated, that mechanic ruins the level's challenge.

Why not have unlimited lives then? If a level is designed to last for five minutes, then why would there need to be unlimited lives to begin with? I mean Super Meat Boy does that right?

Wrong. While Super Meat Boy does have no live count, it does have limited lives when going to special levels which are challenging and don't make me wonder why not have unlimited lives here. But here's the thing, they are completely optional to play so I guess you can get away saying that but even then, simply playing the game for a casual gamer isn't something to have in mind because many won't even plan on beating it if its already too hard for them to begin with.

But Super Mario and Kirby games, they are easy to play for anyone and there are items that help them to do so. So if there are items which help them, then what is the problem of not having lives? If there are unlimited lives, designers would feel like there wouldn't be any challenge simply obtaining powerups in the game because there is no point of them if there aren't any conditions the player has to be aware of other than the enemies and the level design gimmicks. That's exactly what Legends and Origins did. Lack of power ups that make it easier to beat the levels faster.

Let's not forget the game feel here. We don't want the player to feel that its long while at the same time, its challenging. You think that having unlimited lives with no powerups would fix that issue? I doubt it.

I strongly disagree. This may be true for you, but it isn't for everyone, I think that you'll find. Some people may prefer to just jump in and have fun.

Imagine a multiplayer game being played by a group of friends. One of the players constantly knocks of the other players in the game. Obviously, other players wouldn't want that player at all so they would quit the game immediately.

Or how about playing an online game where you choose a server to play the game. you find yourself incredibly weak compared to the hardcore gamers out there. Perhaps you need to try someplace else where you can play with other players of the same level as you. That here is discipline. You need to know where you are right now no matter how great or bad you are in games.

Then why not get rid of both? I'd don't get the obsession with lives.

But not collecting stuff ruins the whole point of platform games. If that's the case, then its just your typical action adventure game with little to no platforming kind of like Metroid ( which is partly a platformer because of it having power ups.)

But Super Mario and Kirby games, they are easy to play for anyone and there are items that help them to do so. So if there are items which help them, then what is the problem of not having lives? If there are unlimited lives, designers would feel like there wouldn't be any challenge simply obtaining powerups in the game because there is no point of them if there aren't any conditions the player has to be aware of other than the enemies and the level design gimmicks. That's exactly what Legends and Origins did. Lack of power ups that make it easier to beat the levels faster.

There's at least three basic ways to inject challenge without lives. The first is to send players backwards on a failure: you can break the game into screens and on death send them to the start of the screen. You can have a series of jumps where if you miss you fall to the beginning.

The second is to require that certain things be accomplished, for example having many bosses. You can't lose per se, but damaging the boss is a challenge.

The third is to reward performance without demanding it, giving unlockables or grades or whatever for good runs.

With any of those, a power-up can be used to make a hard challenge easier. A power-up can also be pure flavor: you get the walk-on-water power up and then need to use it to complete the stage. You get the machine gun, and although the pistol is sufficient, the machine gun is fun. I disagree that unlimited lives in any way excludes power ups.

Or how about playing an online game where you choose a server to play the game. you find yourself incredibly weak compared to the hardcore gamers out there. Perhaps you need to try someplace else where you can play with other players of the same level as you. That here is discipline. You need to know where you are right now no matter how great or bad you are in games.

Playing with other people is a different situation. Even then, it's not necessary to know your strength: I've met plenty of people who vastly overestimate their skill at games. Some people think they're great at poker. They lose a lot, but still think it.

But not collecting stuff ruins the whole point of platform games. If that's the case, then its just your typical action adventure game with little to no platforming kind of like Metroid ( which is partly a platformer because of it having power ups.)

Ah, this actually explains a lot of the disagreement here. There's a genre convention of having interesting, out of the way areas that you are rewarded for getting to. And there's often a sort of lesson system, where early on you learn how to spot profitable areas, and then later on you put that knowledge to use in more subtle situations. Is this what you're referring to in 'not collecting stuff ruins the whole point'? That you need some reward for exploring side paths?

Donkey Kong is the granddaddy of the genre, and although you can grab parasols for points, I hardly think removing them would ruin the game. But the focus is precision timing and predicting the barrels. I Wanna be the Guy and company are the same way, they cut out lives and power ups and such to focus on pure difficulty and the humor of all the ways you can die. I forget the name, but there was an indie game where you played a wolf or something, and you just explored the art. But it is true that most platformers use the 'get rewards for leaving the beaten trail' mechanism

Do I understand better? Is your premise that for platformers that involve exploring side areas either giving lives directly or giving somewhat necessary powerups makes that exploration interesting? And that one alternative, hiding keys of some variety, is less enjoyable?

You are fine for a level that requires you to collect a certain item and when you do get that item, you can't quit the game with the item but instead you have to complete that level inorder to get the item.

I am? When did I say this? That seems rather frustrating to me. :/

For example--if I may stray away from true platformers for a moment--I recently played an Android game called "Silly Sausage in Meat Land". While not technically a platformer, the experience of playing it very close to the experience of playing a puzzle-platformer. In this game there are two types of collectibles (unless I'm forgetting a third): keys that are required to get through doors, and gems that are used to "buy" checkpoints. Death takes you back to the last activated checkpoint, and one has unlimited lives. The keys are part of the puzzles, and as such respawn on death. The gems, on the other hand, remain collected whether you get to the next checkpoint or not.

Overall, I rather like this system.

What you're describing might be analogous to having any gems collected since the last checkpoint be deducted from my counter and respawned in the level upon death--which I think that I'd likely find rather frustrating.

Again, Platform games are for the most part very easy to play. How easy you ask? Easy to the point that all the player has to do is move to the right to reach the goal (or sometimes left).

... Plenty of platformers are rather difficult, as I recall. There's a fair bit more to be done than just "moving to the right"--there are timed jumps, keys to collect, enemies to kill or avoid, etc.

As I said, not everyone is equally skilled at platformers.

In the Super Mario games, certain power ups allow the players to skip huge chunk of the level and go to the next. How would the player learn this? Because the games make sure that you do learn how to use them by the time you get them. Its not hard for a new gamer to get into a platform game really.

I think that this depends significantly on the platformer.

I'll confess that it's been a long time since last I played a Super Mario Bros. game; I think that the last was Super Mario Bros. 3, and I'm not sure of whether I completed it. However, I don't think that I ever completed whichever Adventure Island game it was that I had as a child, while I believe that I completed Monster In My Pocket more than once.

I'm pretty confident that there are other platformers that I've given up on as a result of just not managing to progress.

Imagine a multiplayer game being played by a group of friends. One of the players constantly knocks of the other players in the game. Obviously, other players wouldn't want that player at all so they would quit the game immediately.



Or how about playing an online game where you choose a server to play the game. you find yourself incredibly weak compared to the hardcore gamers out there. Perhaps you need to try someplace else where you can play with other players of the same level as you. That here is discipline. You need to know where you are right now no matter how great or bad you are in games.

Those are social games: how you play affects others, and is affected by the way that others play. In a single-player game this element may not be present.

When I'm playing a game by myself, why should my play be disciplined? Why may I not just jump in and have fun if I so desire?

But not collecting stuff ruins the whole point of platform games.

... I'm trying to recall whether I collected anything other than weapons, weapon-powerups, and plot-items in Cave Story, a platformer that I very much enjoyed--although its difficulty was very near to my frustration point. (I actually did give up on it on my first play-through, as I recall--I would likely have enjoyed it more had it been a little easier.) I don't recall any other collectibles; if there were any, then they don't seem to have been sufficiently significant to me that I remember them.

Instead, what I remember most is perhaps the story and combat: blasting enemies, fighting desperately against bosses, and watching the narrative unfold. That's what was important to me in that game.

I do like collectibles, and I do usually try to get them in platformers, but they also tend to be one of the first things that I leave behind when the game becomes difficult.

For example, another platformer that I very much enjoyed was Iji. In that game, I made a point of getting all of the "ribbon" collectibles--perhaps especially because they affect the story--but I'm pretty sure that there are audio-logs and perhaps other collectibles that I've never managed to find. And I'm fine with that: I completed the game, after all.

What you're describing might be analogous to having any gems collected since the last checkpoint be deducted from my counter and respawned in the level upon death--which I think that I'd likely find rather frustrating.

Now just imagine if that weren't the case and you play a platformer with the unlimited lives. Easy right? Play the game again and again. Don't mind about your personal taste in platform games an just play it. You will notice that there isn't much of challenge once you are skilled.

Also, getting hit once or twice and then respawn isn't challenging but rather frustrating because it isn't easy because you claim that not every gamer is skilled and its very likely that the player would just give up. So the only way to do this is to do it like how Nintendo does it. Lost too much lives? Here's a powerup that makes you invincible so now you can beat the level with no troubles (There's even a power up that takes you straight to the goal with little to no movement required.).

Again like I said, most of the time, platform games are accessible to everyone assuming you are playing the ones that are accessible.

Those are social games: how you play affects others, and is affected by the way that others play. In a single-player game this element may not be present.

When I'm playing a game by myself, why should my play be disciplined? Why may I not just jump in and have fun if I so desire?

Ok, let's go single player. you can't go to any level you want to go on because there is a level of discipline that's needed. First there are levels that teach you the basics. Then there are levels that teach you the gimmicks that each level has to offer. Then there are bosses which vary in difficulty. Finally, there's the boss. No one would have the skill to be the final boss immediately because it will be hard and also it ruins the games value.

So even Fun has its own value of discipline. If the game you play in whatever section first doesn't impress you, you have played it at the wrong section and need to master the basics.

Again, mastering skills requires discipline and since every game flat out teaches you the basics of the game instead of going in which ever level you want to go to, then fun is also in form of discipline. Think about it. If you could just choose the levels that you only liked but left out the ones that you didn't, you're not getting much value of the game. A game should and will always have levels that are fun, boring and challenging.

... I'm trying to recall whether I collected anything other than weapons, weapon-powerups, and plot-items in Cave Story, a platformer that I very much enjoyed--although its difficulty was very near to my frustration point. (I actually did give up on it on my first play-through, as I recall--I would likely have enjoyed it more had it been a little easier.) I don't recall any other collectibles; if there were any, then they don't seem to have been sufficiently significant to me that I remember them.

Instead, what I remember most is perhaps the story and combat: blasting enemies, fighting desperately against bosses, and watching the narrative unfold. That's what was important to me in that game.

I do like collectibles, and I do usually try to get them in platformers, but they also tend to be one of the first things that I leave behind when the game becomes difficult.

For example, another platformer that I very much enjoyed was Iji. In that game, I made a point of getting all of the "ribbon" collectibles--perhaps especially because they affect the story--but I'm pretty sure that there are audio-logs and perhaps other collectibles that I've never managed to find. And I'm fine with that: I completed the game, after all.

In favor of lives, an energy bar is added which honestly easily compensates for that quite well. Collectibles even for a completionist don't do much except benefit the player's progress. There's a difference between having items that don't do much to a platform game but reward the player in some fashion that rewarding the player a better upgrade that eases the difficulty. If you do get some power ups, it does ease the game's difficulty. Problem is that you need to do it at one point of time instead of taking your own time or doing your own decisions. And for the record, I love cave story as well and its one of my all time favorites.

There's at least three basic ways to inject challenge without lives. The first is to send players backwards on a failure: you can break the game into screens and on death send them to the start of the screen. You can have a series of jumps where if you miss you fall to the beginning.

The second is to require that certain things be accomplished, for example having many bosses. You can't lose per se, but damaging the boss is a challenge.

The third is to reward performance without demanding it, giving unlockables or grades or whatever for good runs.

With any of those, a power-up can be used to make a hard challenge easier. A power-up can also be pure flavor: you get the walk-on-water power up and then need to use it to complete the stage. You get the machine gun, and although the pistol is sufficient, the machine gun is fun. I disagree that unlimited lives in any way excludes power ups.

Explain how Rayman Origins and Legends have power ups. They hardly have any except one which is still quite useless if you ask me.

Do I understand better? Is your premise that for platformers that involve exploring side areas either giving lives directly or giving somewhat necessary powerups makes that exploration interesting? And that one alternative, hiding keys of some variety, is less enjoyable?

I'm not saying that games like Metroid should have lives. I'm saying that basic platform games should have lives simply because of how less challenging they are compared to most genres when not having them. Of course, this depends on what sort of platform game you are playing.

Exploring and variety is mandatory for platform games but should be well executed to make the reward satisfying when found.

Explain how Rayman Origins and Legends have power ups. They hardly have any except one which is still quite useless if you ask me.

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that Rayman Origins or Legends had powerups (beyond the health heart).

That said, I also don't consider that a problem. Levels where it makes sense will auto-issue you the shooting fists or the rideable mosquito, which adds variety to the level design. And the rest of the levels don't all have to be designed to account for every possible combination of power up.

I don't recall anyone ever claiming that Rayman Origins or Legends had powerups (beyond the health heart).

That said, I also don't consider that a problem. Levels where it makes sense will auto-issue you the shooting fists or the rideable mosquito, which adds variety to the level design. And the rest of the levels don't all have to be designed to account for every possible combination of power up.

Here's one problem to that. Levels aren't very memorable or at the very least, don't make the player want to play them again. Also, whether a game has variety or not, It really isn't fun because of how cheap getting health in this game really is. If you have one heart and if you get another, it doesn't add two hearts but instead gives you items which again are useless. You want to say that Legends is a good game as they motivate skilled gamers and not so skilled into it but if you're having just two health bars that force the player to be super careful and yet if getting another one isn't fulfilling, that's good game design?

The only way to make it challenging and to actually have the items useful is to have lives in them.

But even with the health being better, that still doesn't make the game better because the challenge and the way the game is structured

Now you can get away with that by saying that the 2D Mario games suffer from this but honestly, the fact that with the exception of World, they are short and pretty easy to beat. As a result, you would seem to enjoy the games because of how challenging the levels were.

Now just imagine if that weren't the case and you play a platformer with the unlimited lives.

... But Silly Sausage does have unlimited lives, and I like it that way. o_0

Unless I'm misunderstanding you?

Also, getting hit once or twice and then respawn isn't challenging but rather frustrating because it isn't easy because you claim that not every gamer is skilled and its very likely that the player would just give up.

Then balance the game around that.

I will grant that frustration can enter if respawning requires going back more than one step, and the steps before the one on which you died are either long or are likely to trip you up and cause further deaths. I have hit that problem in Silly Sausage.

But even there I see a potential solution: instead of fixed checkpoints, give the player the ability to place checkpoints as they desire--at a gem cost, of course--thus allowing the player to adjust the locations of checkpoints according to their particular playthrough.

I will grant that a something between the two might be useful as well: instead of having limited lives, and sending the player back to the menu when they're lost, give the player limited "hearts" as a buffer to harm, while retaining unlimited lives. In this case, being hit doesn't send you back to the last checkpoint unless you have no more "hearts" remaining. Note that one is never sent back to the main menu by loss of lives: this is actually easier than having either limited lives or single-hit unlimited lives. It might, however, call for careful balancing, and might not work in all games.

Ok, let's go single player. you can't go to any level you want to go on because there is a level of discipline that's needed.

I disagree: that's just learning, which may or may not require discipline. Free play can produce learning; one needn't be disciplined about it.

In any case, there are other reasons to prevent the player from entering any level from the start of the game, such as maintaining the flow of the story, or using the unlocking of new levels as a reward for completion of the preceding levels. In the case of exploration, allowing the player to jump in at any point might deflate the sense of exploring a world, as that would generally be a continuous experience, moving from one point to the next.

Collectibles even for a completionist don't do much except benefit the player's progress.

Ah, I think then that I misunderstood you--do I take it correctly now then that when you were talking about "collecting stuff" you were referring to things like weapons and powerups, not collectibles?

If so, then one can still have those with unlimited lives, it seems to me: weapons aren't necessarily dependant on having lives, and consumable powerups might simply respawn when the player does.