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

Unless I'm misunderstanding you?

.....we are talking about pure platformers....not puzzle platformers. So that mechanic doesn't apply to pure platforming games.

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.

That's something that is incorporated in Action-Adventure games like Metroid for example. Instead of lives, you have health as means of the same punishment and you can save anywhere and encourage exploration. Problem is that these games are very short and give little to almost lack of replayability.

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.

I don't understand here..... how can learning not be discipline when understanding the fundamentals of a game is indeed discipline?

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?

for games that are under Action-Adventure, yes, those items benefit progress like in Cave Story.

But for Platformers, collecting stuff is part of fun and if there's no value in them, then there is no point in them at all. Had Legends used its items as means of earning extra lives, then there would be challenge.

.....we are talking about pure platformers....not puzzle platformers. So that mechanic doesn't apply to pure platforming games.

Ah, looking back, I think that I misread you there--my apologies. Let me try to respond again! ^^;

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

Not necessarily, no.

Play the game again and again.

Why am I re-playing the game so often? There are few games that I've replayed more than a few times, and then I tend to leave a significant amount of time between replays. I think that you and I perhaps play games somewhat differently...

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.

What makes you think that I'll play enough to reach that level of skill, or care to do so? It's not uncommon for me to put a game down once I've completed it.

Conversely, what makes you think that I'd likely be bothered by the game becoming easier? I've happily replayed adventure games that I particularly like, despite knowing many of the puzzles rather well, because I enjoy the experience of taking part in the story. Turning to platformers, If I were to re-play Iji today, I'd likely do so with the intention of following one of the other story-paths--perhaps playing "beserker Iji" rather than my usual pacifist run.

Problem is that these games are very short and give little to almost lack of replayability.

For you, perhaps, but I suspect that fans of the style would disagree.

how can learning not be discipline when understanding the fundamentals of a game is indeed discipline?

... It's not, necessarily at least.

Let's turn to the dictionary:
Discipline:

• 1.
  training to act in accordance with rules; drill:
  military discipline.

Since one can learn via free-play, rules and drill aren't required.

One might argue that the player is being trained to act in accordance with the rules of the game, but I disagree: this is describing a form of self-control, of not moving past rules that one could, potentially, move past. A video game's rules are more like the sheer walls of a terrain: learning them is like exploring a landscape, discovering what does and does not work. This can very much be done via free-play, I believe.

• 2.
  activity, exercise, or a regimen that develops or improves a skill; training:
  A daily stint at the typewriter is excellent discipline for a writer.

I suspect that this is what you mean. However, note again the implication that there's a certain degree of self-control involved: free-play isn't disciplined. However, one can learn via free-play (learning is one of the purposes of play, after all), so this approach to learning isn't required to learn the mechanics of a game.

• 3.
  punishment inflicted by way of correction and training.

Presumably not what you mean.

• 4.
  the rigor or training effect of experience, adversity, etc.:
  the harsh discipline of poverty.

Similarly.

• 5.
  behavior in accord with rules of conduct; behavior and order maintained by training and control:
  good discipline in an army.

This might be what you mean, but again, one can learn through free-play, so this sort of learning isn't necessary in games.

• 6.
  a set or system of rules and regulations.

We're talking about an activity, so this doesn't apply.

• 7.
  Ecclesiastical. the system of government regulating the practice of a church as distinguished from its doctrine.

Presumably not what you're talking about.

• 8.
  an instrument of punishment, especially a whip or scourge, used in the practice of self-mortification or as an instrument of chastisement in certain religious communities.

Hopefully not what you're talking about.

• 9.
  a branch of instruction or learning:
  the disciplines of history and economics.

We're not talking about a type of learning, but about how one learns, so this doesn't seem to apply. That is to say that one might refer to the "discipline" of "learning a game's mechanics", in the same way that one might refer to the "discipline" of teaching, but that doesn't mean that the activity of "learning a game's mechanics" involves discipline.

understanding the fundamentals of a game is indeed discipline?

It's not, necessarily, any more than exploring a terrain needs discipline. One can "feel out" the workings of some games; one needn't approach it with stern self-control and ordered thinking.

for games that are under Action-Adventure, yes, those items benefit progress like in Cave Story.



But for Platformers, collecting stuff is part of fun and if there's no value in them, then there is no point in them at all. Had Legends used its items as means of earning extra lives, then there would be challenge.

Okay, I think that I'm following you here. Again, I haven't played Rayman myself, so I won't comment on that game specifically. More specifically, however, removing lives just removes one type of powerup. There are plenty of others, including invulnerability, weapons, traversal abilities (double-jump, dash, etc.), and likely a fair few others besides, depending on the game in question.

As to using items as a means of collecting lives--I'm thinking here of Super Mario Bros. giving extra lives for every one-hundred (I think that it was) coins, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you--one could replace that with weapon powerups (as in Cave Story), or perhaps temporary invulnerability at every hundred coins, or some other powerup.

Additionally, I'm not sure that all players are as bothered by the purpose of collectibles as you are: I suspect that there are players who enjoy collecting these things just for the sake of collecting them, regardless of whether they confer some advantage. That may make such collectibles worthless to you, but not necessarily to these players. This is speculation on my part, however.

.....we are talking about pure platformers....not puzzle platformers. So that mechanic doesn't apply to pure platforming games.

Do you really think that makes a big difference? I think lives have the same effect in a pure platformer as it does in other genres. You can make a game where players progress is saved, and they can restart at the last checkpoint or level, or you can make a game where progress is reset and players have to restart from the beginning. Does the part where you're jumping on platforms or solving a puzzle really make that much difference to which you prefer?

I think the popularity of rogue-likes lately is really exploring the idea of resetting players back to the beginning of the game, and does some cool stuff to make that fun. I think a lot of what makes them work is procedurally generated levels, so each time you restart you can have a new and different experience. Learning more about the world is also a good way to progress, so when you restart from the beginning you know the tricks that will let you get farther next time. A platformer or puzzle game could incorporate these kinds of things to use limited lives in an interesting way, but with old fashioned platformers it's just sticking you back at the beginning of the same exact levels you already played. Nothing new to see. Jumping on platforms doesn't make me feel any better about that.

Do you really think that makes a big difference? I think lives have the same effect in a pure platformer as it does in other genres. You can make a game where players progress is saved, and they can restart at the last checkpoint or level, or you can make a game where progress is reset and players have to restart from the beginning. Does the part where you're jumping on platforms or solving a puzzle really make that much difference to which you prefer?

I think the popularity of rogue-likes lately is really exploring the idea of resetting players back to the beginning of the game, and does some cool stuff to make that fun. I think a lot of what makes them work is procedurally generated levels, so each time you restart you can have a new and different experience. Learning more about the world is also a good way to progress, so when you restart from the beginning you know the tricks that will let you get farther next time. A platformer or puzzle game could incorporate these kinds of things to use limited lives in an interesting way, but with old fashioned platformers it's just sticking you back at the beginning of the same exact levels you already played. Nothing new to see. Jumping on platforms doesn't make me feel any better about that.

There is a game called Spelunky which generates random levels whenever you die. This adds to a lot of replayability because you need a lot of money to have a save point and going through the same levels doesn't seem to be frustrating in this case.

Still, there's a health system added to it regardless. Again, Kid Icarus Uprising difficulty mechanic might be something that platformers can implement....assuming if its done right.

Honestly, I beated Ducktales with medium difficulty and I had no issue with the lives because the game gives you lives when you are careful enough.

For you, perhaps, but I suspect that fans of the style would disagree.

Whether they agree or not, it is our duty as game designers to provide enough content for the games to satisfy the consumers. Games are getting expensive and while there are shops like Steam taking advantage, players should never feel that they aren't getting their money's worth for something that they bought their hard earned money on.

Since one can learn via free-play, rules and drill aren't required.

Can you please elaborate this "free-play" term to me? I don't get what you meant by that.

Can you please elaborate this "free-play" term to me? I don't get what you meant by that.

Of course.

(I'm rather tired today, so I apologise if I do a poor job of it, however! ^^; )

Essentially, what I'm talking about is playing without any self-imposed strictures; just "having fun", essentially.

Discipline, as I see it, is essentially about self-control; it's about being able to do something, but choosing to not do it.

Imagine children playing freely with their toys: they're hardly likely to be described as "disciplined". Nevertheless, this play can teach them things. For a few examples: those playing with delicate items might increase their fine motor control; those playing together might learn elements of social interaction; those stacking blocks might learn about (very) basic physics; and so on.

Thinking about it more, I do agree that there's some degree of discipline involved in most activities--after all, one doesn't just do whatever comes into one's head. However, it's not always a major element; when you talk about being "disciplined" in playing a game, I presume that you mean more than just the basics required for continuing to achieve the goals of the level, rather than either giving up or just jumping about at whim. When you talk about discipline in learning, I take it that you mean applying oneself diligently and carefully, likely with some self-imposed structure, rather than just learning as you go.

Honestly, I think that we may have been talking past each other on this point to some degree, and I'm not sure that I've been giving this the thought that I should have; I apologise for my part.

Whether they agree or not, it is our duty as game designers to provide enough content for the games to satisfy the consumers. Games are getting expensive and while there are shops like Steam taking advantage, players should never feel that they aren't getting their money's worth for something that they bought their hard earned money on.

If so, then the question, I feel, is this: Which players are we attempting to satisfy? As I and others have pointed out, different players value different things in games. To quote Swiftcoder, earlier in the thread:

You like playing old-school platformers with limited lives, I like playing Rayman Legends where I get a fun experience with no worries about lives. Both types of game are commercially successful, so clearly both markets exist.

So, if I were making a platformer, which player-base should I target? It seems to me that either is viable. On top of that, I imagine that there are other player-bases available. If we concentrate on only one player-base, then the other may go unserved.

A game that is unsatisfying for you might be exactly what another player wants; conversely, a game that is satisfying to you might be frustrating and unpleasant to someone else.

Honestly, I think that we may have been talking past each other on this point to some degree, and I'm not sure that I've been giving this the thought that I should have; I apologise for my part.

No problem. I have no issues here.

If so, then the question, I feel, is this: Which players are we attempting to satisfy? As I and others have pointed out, different players value different things in games.

That's what bothers me the most. Nintendo seems to appeal to all ages and all types of gamers. I don't quite understand the target demographic here.....but we are going way to off topic here.

As I said earlier, if a game shouldn't have lives, then do something that is the substitute of lives. What would make the game any more challenging if lives were removed if I respawn from the last part without going to any check points?

What would make the game any more challenging if lives were removed if I respawn from the last part without going to any check points?

Remember, it's not necessarily true that all players want the game to be more challenging; some may well want it to be less so.

(I would probably have enjoyed Cave Story rather more if it had been a little easier, for example. This isn't to say that Cave Story would have benefited from unlimited lives specifically, but just in support of the idea that it isn't always a bad thing to make a game less challenging; it may instead shift the group of gamers to which it's suited.)

Thus I really don't agree that something should necessarily be included to replace lives in all games that omit them.

In any case, it's worth noting--as I think has been said before--that the removal of lives can allow the designer to make the game more difficult in other ways (deadlier enemies, more difficult jumps, etc.) without worrying as much about frustration resulting from being sent back to the main menu repeatedly.

Remember, it's not necessarily true that all players want the game to be more challenging; some may well want it to be less so.

Like I said, the Mario games fix that challenge issue.

Thus I really don't agree that something should necessarily be included to replace lives in all games that omit them.

Cave Story has an energy bar instead. Also if you find it difficult, have you considered getting health upgrades or saving that heart pot for the final boss? I'm with you when the game is challenging but its good enough because of how easily you can get a lot of better equipment in the later half of the game and that's what I mean with the collectibles. If something is too hard, get items to make it easier. If it doesn't benefit you in any way, make the collections worth something.

For example, Pokemon has a lot of species that may or may not interest gamers. But if you get them, it does make it rewarding for many reasons such as requiring them to get better pokemon or completing the pokedex or making them evolve which makes the pokemon even better.

That's the thing that platform games need. Either make the collections act as power ups or give rewards that are worth having. like a congratulations poster or unlocking a bonus mode or additional concept art, etc.

n any case, it's worth noting--as I think has been said before--that the removal of lives can allow the designer to make the game more difficult in other ways (deadlier enemies, more difficult jumps, etc.) without worrying as much about frustration resulting from being sent back to the main menu repeatedly.

You just mentioned that having lives makes it hard because of every gamer not being skilled at certain things where as having hard levels later on in the game without lives makes sense for those not skilled?

Like I said, the Mario games fix that challenge issue.

No they don't.

With the possible exception of Yoshi's Island, I've never finished a Mario game, because they require way too much time and patience endlessly repeating difficult sections, only to die a few minutes later, and be sent right back, unless you went and read a strategy guide to find where to spend hours grinding additional lives...

If something is too hard, get items to make it easier.

It takes a lot of time and effort (or a 3rd party strategy guide) to find collectibles. That's not something which should be required to enjoy playing a game.

I actually joined gd.net exclusively to weigh in on this conversation lol so here goes.

Talking specifically about 2d platformers, because honestly I can't think of a 3d one without lives.

Firstly, I could be wrong, but didn't lives originate from arcade days, where part of game development was finding ways to make sure people kept feeding quarters to your game? Then, once consoles happened, I imagine lives just got thrown in games because that's what games were at the time. The argument for the lives mechanic enhancing actual game play in any way is kind of weak.

I cannot think of a platformer that I've played where I've said to myself, "boy, my enjoyment of this game sure has been elevated because there are lives in it." On the other hand, I can think of many games that would be a whole lot worse if lives were suddenly included in them, suh as Super Meat Boy or Rayman Origins.

I just don't see how a game becomes better, or more fun, with the inclusion of lives.