Cave Story has an energy bar instead.

The bit about Cave Story was an aside--it was simply a case in which I might have had more fun had the game been easier; in any case, I still don't think that one needs either lives or an energy bar.

More to the point, you said the following, referring (I believe) to platform games in general, not Cave Story in particular:

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?

My answer, in short, was this:

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.

Also if you find it difficult, have you considered getting health upgrades or saving that heart pot for the final boss?

It's been a while since I last played the game, but I don't think that I squandered my resources, at least given my level of skill. I think that I recall that I gave up on my first playthrough well before hitting the final boss, becoming frustrated while trying to defeat Monster X (I think that it's name was--the cat in the tank, at least). I did eventually deal with the final boss, and even (with the help of a guide) managed to defeat the bonus boss, as I recall.

... 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 you've read a guide, at least--I don't think that I'd have discovered the better powerups for the initial gun, let alone the means of saving Curly or getting the upgraded jetpack, without reading information on the internet.

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.

I suspect that what makes a collectible worth having may vary from person to person--some people might be happy with little more than an increased score counter, or an achievement. For myself, I do prefer to have something more than a blank number or a meaningless achievement.

(Funnily enough, my favourite implementation of the "achievement" mechanic was arguably that used in Planescape: Torment--the tattoos were in many cases essentially achievements, but unlike the standard sort, actually provided optional advantages and disadvantages. I don't think that it was a perfect implementation, but I do really like the idea.)

I'm also not convinced that all platformers require collectibles. Personally, I do like them, but I suspect that there are players who would be quite happy with little more than platforms and enemies.

In any case, I don't think that the inclusion of powerups--especially the sort that unlocks external rewards like posters or bonus modes--relies on the inclusion of lives.

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?

I'm saying two separate things. If I recall correctly:

First, you claimed that the removal of lives makes a game easier. In answer to this, I argue that it's possible to make a game challenging even when using unlimited lives.

Second, you claimed that making games easier makes them less appealing. In answer to this, I pointed out that this isn't the case for all players.

Put another way, I'm saying that some gamers prefer easier games, and that, even for those that prefer difficult games, the use of unlimited lives isn't necessarily problematic.

When I made Sol, I made the decision to ditch lives. The reason was simple: savegames rendered them useless, what's the point of a game over when you can just reload the save? And also usually the real blocker is getting stuck at some hard part, it doesn't matter if you have 99 lives when you're still going to be stuck until you figure it out. So I just don't put a limit on how many times you can respawn. You're still sent back to the last checkpoint (assuming you touched one) and the level still gets reset though, just there isn't a limit to how many times you can do it.

(incidentally this brought up a side effect: when you reach a checkpoint with only one health point left and no power-ups, it may be better to just die so your health is refilled, albeit with the trade off of clearing your score)

When I made Sol, I made the decision to ditch lives. The reason was simple: savegames rendered them useless, what's the point of a game over when you can just reload the save? And also usually the real blocker is getting stuck at some hard part, it doesn't matter if you have 99 lives when you're still going to be stuck until you figure it out. So I just don't put a limit on how many times you can respawn. You're still sent back to the last checkpoint (assuming you touched one) and the level still gets reset though, just there isn't a limit to how many times you can do it.

(incidentally this brought up a side effect: when you reach a checkpoint with only one health point left and no power-ups, it may be better to just die so your health is refilled, albeit with the trade off of clearing your score)

Oh, I didn't even think of saved games. It probably did make sense for consoles to use lives before saving games on consoles became common. If you could try as many times as you want on a really difficult level, but the moment you turned off the console you're reset back to the beginning of the game, that could be kind of awkward.

Lives were created so that coin-op arcade ports would make sense on the home console. They're a pretty arbitrary device, antiquated by today's standards.

Lets take a step back and ask one question: what make a challenge in a platformer? Solving the level, right? How can it be harder? By having more pixel-perfect actions (jumps, moves, shots) that if failed move you back some amount of other pixel-perfect actions (fall few platforms below, restart at checkpoint). Also there need to be changing conditions like moving platforms / enemies so you can't just train you muscle memory. And additionally time constraint (constantly rising lava or just a timer).

What I fail to see is how it is at all related to having lives. Especially in games were you can "farm" them before harder levels. Going further, if you remove ability to farm lives on easier levels, then the game should be more challenging (a.k.a. more interested), right? Yes, but only in games that are relatively short. Because in such case you can't have 50 levels that take 60 seconds each to finish on fast run because skilled player would need at least 30 minutes to get to more interesting levels and less skilled one will never see at least half of it. I'm assuming here no way to save the game because it IS unlimited lives.

I'm assuming here no way to save the game because it IS unlimited lives.

If the game isn't very short, then I would hope that it at the least saves on exit. Whether it allows free-saving likely depends on the design of the game--a roguelike platformer might not allow it, a merely difficult platformer might provide limited opportunities to save, and a casual platformer might allow the player to save at will, for three examples.

I'm assuming here no way to save the game because it IS unlimited lives.

If the game isn't very short, then I would hope that it at the least saves on exit. Whether it allows free-saving likely depends on the design of the game--a roguelike platformer might not allow it, a merely difficult platformer might provide limited opportunities to save, and a casual platformer might allow the player to save at will, for three examples.

Sorry for confusion it wasn't my point. I tried to tell that limited lives only make sense in short games and are in no way related how fun or how challenging the game is.

Also the ability of save/load on demand or easy way to farm lives is not different from unlimited lives beside a bit of distraction from current player focus.

Sorry for confusion it wasn't my point. I tried to tell that limited lives only make sense in short games and are in no way related how fun or how challenging the game is.
Also the ability of save/load on demand or easy way to farm lives is not different from unlimited lives beside a bit of distraction from current player focus.

Its funny because platform games are actually short lasting about 5-10 hours of gameplay.

Actually the usual length for a long platformer is about an hour... on the assumption you never get stuck, which is never the case the first time you play (if it is, then the game is considered too easy).

Actually the usual length for a long platformer is about an hour... on the assumption you never get stuck, which is never the case the first time you play (if it is, then the game is considered too easy).

Which is why I mentioned it lasting about 5-10 hours.

Next week is the release of Tembo The Badass Elephant and while the title is a bit offensive to a younger audience, I'm looking forward to it. Also, the game is likely going to be better than legends. Why? Because it has lives.