Should "lives" be easy to get?

[FriendBot]

To sound like a broken record, removing the lives system was a good move on the Boom games. 

It makes the game less punishing and more of "whoops, you dun goofed. don't do that again". Also you do loose some rings/parts, you can easily get them back since there's enough of the around.

And if you do die in Shattered Crystal, you just respawn at the last checkpoint you touched. So yep, removing lives just cuts away a lot of stress.

But I wonder how would you make the ranking system still rewarding though since getting an S Rank is kind of rewarding to get and shows that I mastered the level IMO. 

[Shaddy Zaphod]

Well, dying can still lose your S-rank.

 

I've talked before about how I think Super Meat Boy handles deaths really well, because it instantly respawns you, the levels are short, and there's no button presses required. If Sonic did the same thing, only with there being shorter checkpoint intervals rather than full levels, I think it would work a lot better, especially with the franchise's current theme of flow and relatively nonstop movement.

[FriendBot]

Maybe instead of starting your score again at 0, it takes away some points like how you die in Smash 4 or Uprising.

The more you die, the more points lost. 

Sounds like a good enough compromise, I feel.

[Tornado]

Count me in on the no lives brigade. They were pretty much pointless as soon as even the 2D titles started having save systems that kept track of them, but when essentially starting burying you under the things in lieu of competent difficulty they almost seem to exist purely to justify collecting them. It's a pretty outdated concept anyway, and really has been ever since the PSX-era 3D platformers took hold.

 

 

Sonic Team has done a pretty good job continuing the justification for including point tallies, but I don't think a similar such thing can be done for lives.

[Tara]

But I wonder how would you make the ranking system still rewarding though since getting an S Rank is kind of rewarding to get and shows that I mastered the level IMO. 

The only thing the lack of lives system would do is make it so you can't get a game over, which wouldn't impact your level rank anyway.  They can still deduct points for dying. especially since you presumably would still start the level with no rings.  It wouldn't impact the ranking system in the slightest to not have lives.

[Kaze no Klonoa]

To sound like a broken record, removing the lives system was a good move on the Boom games. 

It makes the game less punishing and more of "whoops, you dun goofed. don't do that again". Also you do loose some rings/parts, you can easily get them back since there's enough of the around.

And if you do die in Shattered Crystal, you just respawn at the last checkpoint you touched. So yep, removing lives just cuts away a lot of stress.

But I wonder how would you make the ranking system still rewarding though since getting an S Rank is kind of rewarding to get and shows that I mastered the level IMO. 

My problem is that Rise of Lyric could had benefited from this by having some score system. Whenever you're in a encounter, you're graded by how well you perform (no death in a sequence gives you best rank if you perform well, time affects score, etc.). I guess the problem with this is that since the combat in ROL is kind of a mess getting good performance is hard but if it was a much better game combat-wise this could had seriously made combat better. It would had encouraged getting hit less (since whenever you die you just randomly jump back in, bringing in absolutely zero punishment) as well as dispatching enemies as fast as possible. There's a ranking meter for your hits (similar to Devil May Cry), but they could had gone a bit farther to make combat something players want to perform well at. In ROL, I kinda don't care if I die since there isn't much punishment for doing so. Adding a score system could had remedied this problem. Basically, a ranking system like Bayonetta/Metal Gear Rising.

Again, this score system would work much better if Boom's combat wasn't a mess, but it is and it probably would be problematic if it was added in the final rushed project.

Shattered Crystal's gameplay actually reminds me of Rayman Origins/Legends, except for the different character abilities, so the no lives thing/checkpoints only works well.

[kdotj24]

I'm in agreement with the above posts, lives are an outdated mechanic that serve no real purpose in video games anymore.

Maybe in Sonic games, but not video games in general. 

[Tara]

As far as I'm concerned, I can't think of a single home console game that benefits from having a life system.  The only games where they are necessary is arcade games, because it forces people to put in more quarters in addition to preventing one person from hogging a game for too long, but the arcade industry in America is almost non-existent now.

[NoirSuede]

Just like everyone else, I also think that lives are pretty archaic in of itself especially with stuff like quicksaves (that Sonic doesn't have, thankfully). Although, In a pure platformer like Sonic(as in no weapons like Castlevania/Megaman), there's only so much useful stuff that you can collect from exploring before it turns into a glorified collcetable, so i don't mind lives as long as they actually make you hunt for it instead of "welp here's a spot to grind 999 lives".

[Weh]

As far as I'm concerned, I can't think of a single home console game that benefits from having a life system.  The only games where they are necessary is arcade games, because it forces people to put in more quarters in addition to preventing one person from hogging a game for too long, but the arcade industry in America is almost non-existent now.

I agree. Even in games like Mario where 1up Mushrooms are iconic, they serve little purpose nowadays. They give you so many of them that you will never, ever see the game over screen. Which... makes them pointless.

[The Deleter]

I don't think people should be so quick to discard lives as a completely archaic and outdated mechanic, really. Sure, in terms of taking quarters from gamers, they're completely useless nowadays, but as a death penalty that's not all they're used for or mean. Especially in Sonic's case.

There are usually four types of penalty of death I've noticed in video games:
1: Die once, instantly respawn before the hazards, but with infinite "tries" -- how Super Meat Boy is designed;
2: Die once, get sent back to a checkpoint, with infinite "tries" -- how Shovel Knight is designed;
3: Die once, get sent back to a checkpoint, but deplete your "tries", and you get sent back to the beginning of the stage -- how Sonic is designed
4: Die once, get sent back to the beginning of the level, but deplete your "tries" and get sent back to the beginning of the game (ugh) -- how arcade games and several classic games like SMB1 were designed

Most games made with these penalty systems, with several minor adjustments depending the game and what they want to emphasize. And while many of us see these as "What way the game is going to annoy us for messing up that one time, at that one place", remember, there are people out there who aren't that familiar with the platforming genre, and need a system that directs them to explore and discover maximum fulfillment of the game's gameplay style.

 

 

I've noticed that players who play types 1 and 2, in games that don't have any major repercussions for death, tend to be more often sloppy and reckless, without much thought of perfecting the mechanics for their benefit, whereas a more physically punishing system naturally demands more skill, and surprisingly yields more mastered players. 

 

Take my experience with the newer players in my family while playing Minecraft, for example. When they were learning the ropes, I turned off the settings for items to be lost when dying, and several other settings to allow the game to be easier. As a result, for the next several months, the new players only learned what they needed bare-minimum, and stayed that way for those months, never once thinking about being more careful around dark spaces, lava pools, or mastering the controls for combat. At worst, all they ever lost from death was experience (which they never cared about really) and a short distance away from where they were before, where they would only have to return to and conquer in the same, sloppy fashion they'd been playing the whole game through as. There was no big detractor to death, no striving to be adequate enough for the game to acknowledge their skill. Just... recklessness and laid-back attitudes to it all.

Then we turned back on the settings. They didn't like it; not one bit. They found themselves losing precious items, dying from hunger, finding their items to be inadequate in speed and strength, and getting more frustrated with their lack of control over their character around pools of lava and in combat with the enemy. But guess what happened as a result?

They got better at the game's challenges and controls. And not only had they become better players at the game with what they went through, but they became more acute and appreciative to the game's crafting system and overall design. Caves were no longer just another mining place, but a whole new mining challenge to take on. Animals weren't just random creatures to be quickly slain for food that might keep you from going back to your bed longer, but creatures to be raised and produce essential items and more livestock to survive upon. And enemies went from neat little distractions to the more appropriate nuisances, and even competent challenges sometimes.

Now Minecraft doesn't have lives, but the punishment for losing items and possibly returning far, far away from where you died if you aren't careful, is a very violent punishment for the type of game it is, and is a huge motivator for players to get better at the game and fully understand it's mechanics, rather than lazily settling for bare minimum.

 

Now Sonic games are based around speed, agility, quick response time, and mastery of the controls. Sonic games are #3 on the penalty spectrum, with other consequences of death being loss of time in score bonuses and time attack.

People want this system gone, though, only left with the time bonuses being the penalty. Why? Because they think it's a relic of the times that's too archaic, as shown by this thread.

Why do I think this shouldn't happen, necessarily? Because 1) players generally don't care about time penalties on their first runs through the game, and 2) sending the player back to the beginning of the level gives the player a better incentive overall to be better at the game as a whole, rather than sending him back to a certain place in the game, which will just give the player incentive to be better at that specific point in the level, only.

While he has been on consoles for most of his life, Sonic is still a very arcade-y game series, as evidenced by the ranking system that was given to later games that didn't rely on the 4th system and level score for lives. Rings collected, enemies destroyed, time taken, and skill bonuses received -- it all comes down to the player being good at the game overall; not just in the time area. And while more seasoned gamers already know how to do well in the ranks and already have incentive enough to get them with past experiences, that's not enough for a new player. You need to give them a reason to be more wary of obstacles and the level design as a whole, to pick up as many of those rings as possible, to make sure they master the controls and mechanics of the gameplay more and more, and to make it through the rest of the level faster and faster. Not only is the latter point impossible to encourage the player to do with the 1st and even the 2nd penalty system until the very end of the level telling the player "this exists", but the 3rd system also gives the new player a much more prominent, but not too prominent, fear of death, thus giving him a desire to become better at the game, something mere score alone wouldn't encourage, as shown by modern 2D Mario games. This leads to more mastery, which leads to more speed, and better enjoyment of Sonic as a whole.

 

Granted this can be pretty fickle such as with Sonic games with boost or SLW, but eh

Point is, while results may vary from game to game, simply taking these out and leaving the time-based penalties as if they are a sufficient means of punishment and encouragement, would likely do far more damage to Sonic's gameplay system than good.

Are lives irreplaceable, then? No, probably not, but they are still a good penalty system for the series. And if any game does truly annoy you with it due to it being unfair, and it really isn't your fault for failing, well... isn't that the level design's fault, then? In that case, the level, or even game itself is inappropriately designed around a unfitting system for what it had in mind, and probably should have had it removed for it, such as with Eggmanland and some of Unleashed's design. And if you get too many lives, again, it's probably the overall design's fault, or you're just really, really good at the game, in which case you don't need it.

Change those elements if you must, but if Sonic keeps running down the same arcade-y path he's been running for quite a while, I really don't think the lives should be removed just for the sake of it.

[Roger_van_der_weide]

 

Change those elements if you must, but if Sonic keeps running down the same arcade-y path he's been running for quite a while, I really don't think the lives should be removed just for the sake of it.

I agree Sonic needs to feel arcade like, but I think that's where the ranking system is for.
So I'm also in the lives out camp, but keep the points.
Nothing like getting "1000 points! AMAZING!!!" for something stupid to keep in that dumb arcade adreline mindset.

But, I guess the thing you like is like Sonic Unleashed on the Wii?
I remember there ,you always start with the same set of lives, so you can't stockpile anyway.
Just 3, unless you find hidden objects to permanently increase lives.
I guess that was a neat system. That did create tension the harder stages.
And made finding the Permanent life increase items super special.
At least with the inability to stockpile lives for later, it keeps lives relevant to the end.

[The Deleter]

I agree Sonic needs to feel arcade like, but I think that's where the ranking system is for.So I'm also in the lives out camp, but keep the points.
Nothing like getting "1000 points! AMAZING!!!" for something stupid to keep in that dumb arcade adreline mindset.

But, I guess the thing you like is like Sonic Unleashed on the Wii?
I remember there ,you always start with the same set of lives, so you can't stockpile anyway.
Just 3, unless you find hidden objects to permanently increase lives.
I guess that was a neat system. That did create tension the harder stages.
And made finding the Permanent life increase items super special.
At least with the inability to stockpile lives for later, it keeps lives relevant to the end.

Eeeh, I haven't played that game in a long while, but I don't think that system would be all that great. Sure, you have the appropriate amount of lives for a beginner to have decent incentive to get better and be more wary, but at the same time, it still applies to the pros? I don't know about that. 

Lives have always seemed like they have the potential to be balanced both as a teaching tool and a reward system, punishing and teaching newbies who were bad at the game's mechanics, but at the same time rewarding both newbies and pros for finding enough rings, getting a high enough score, or finding secret monitors/capsules/DECAPITATEDHEADS, still encouraging the newbies to become better at the game to feel a slightly less-hurtful sting when punished, and pros for being a little more risky with speed and moves and exploratory of the stage in order to not come across a tedious fate simply for messing up a few times. Granted, this takes a lot of balancing variables in a stage, but I think it's a pretty good system for Sonic, all things considered. Games like SA2 did well with the risk=reward element, while S3&K had pretty great exploration balancing.

That system seems like it would become more tedious for players who are already good at the game yet want to take risks such as shortcuts and the like. And the permanent lives don't seem to be tied to skill in the game, because I sure didn't come across them in any of the levels.

I'd have to play the game again to make sure, though.

[Salamander]

Lives as a way of encouraging players to become more skilful - repeating sections makes you better at them which means you retain more lives for the parts you find difficult - is fine so long as the game is designed according to a simple principle: That skill matters.  That you can play a section noticeably better or entirely differently, or that there is some choice in how to proceed, or gradations in success rather than a binary of win-lose.  If there's only one way to play, then death later on simply means playing lots of sections you've already done in exactly the same way, which is entirely boring and a huge turn-off in any game.  I'm not sure if Sonic always meets my standards in this regard, of playstyle making a noticeable difference except at the very top skill levels, which require you to learn the level anyway and which by definition isn't achievable on a first run.

I've talked before about how I think Super Meat Boy handles deaths really well, because it instantly respawns you, the levels are short, and there's no button presses required. If Sonic did the same thing, only with there being shorter checkpoint intervals rather than full levels, I think it would work a lot better, especially with the franchise's current theme of flow and relatively nonstop movement.

Respawns in most games should be as quick as possible, really, but I don't think the SMB analogy quite works here.  Breaking Sonic levels up into sections as short as Super Meat Boy levels would make the experience that much more linear, and of course the design of SMB is intended to make you die as much as possible (which is why levels have to be short and respawns rapid), but I don't think that's particularly comparable to not playing a Sonic level well.  But there might be something to be said for going back to having more and shorter levels, because some recent Sonic games seem to hover in an uncomfortable region between wanting to have a lot of levels and wanting every level to be a showstopper with its own distinct idea, and I don't think it works very well.

[TheChris110]

 

I feel like you're restating what I said, just in a different manner.

I don't think people think of the life system when they think of Sonic. Maybe for platformers in general, but not for Sonic. Most of what I'd assume makes up Sonic's current identity is probably just speed, loops, and checkerboards. And mediocrity.

I can't imagine the general gaming crowd would be up in arms if the next Sonic game didn't feature a lives system.

What I tried to say: They don't need to change something. The punishment you demand is already there.

Sonic is a classic action platformer so when I think about Sonic, lives are also one thing I think of... and rings. You forgot rings. The ring sound is iconic.

But I guess this is up to the individual perception of each player.

 

[drillspike]

If lives are significantly easy to get then they may as well not be there, I'd have to agree. Limited lives provides challenge so if you can easily get as many as you'd like then there's no challenge and therefore no point. On the other hand, watching Retsupurae play through Sonic 06, that game has incredibly long, difficult levels and it could have been more generous with lives.

[Milo]

I don't think a life system is needed that much anymore in the context of Sonic nowadays, or ever actually were needed all that much for Sonic in general. I'm not exactly saying this though on the argument of lives being an archaic system due to a variety of factors, namely save points (some points of which I agree with), but more in the sense that Sonic platformers -in general- are relatively low on the difficulty scale. As long as you're holding at least one ring, you can't lose a life (crushing / drowning / bottomless pits / other instant-kill hazards notwithstanding), and most Sonic games have the player practically swimming with rings in levels, so it's relatively easy to stay alive in most cases. Even given that one hit usually resulted in losing all of the rings you carried, you could still endlessly recollect rings you just lost. Compare that system to those used a fair amount of contemporary platformers back then or even now--the character is usually a one-hit point wonder, at least without a powerup or shield of sorts (both of which can be permanently lost). That makes those games considerably more difficult to the likes of Sonic, because you don't get anywhere near as many chances of saving yourself from death than you do in Sonic.

The only times I feel the lives system actually mattered was when the game altered the system in a way that made rings easier to lose. Sonic Rush had the older rings you collected fly out further the more you got hit, to the point they could fly off the screen and you couldn't obtain them again, so you had to keep getting fresh rings on order to keep this from happening. Unleashed halved your total ring count everytime you got hit and prevented the player from recollecting rings, so obstacles would act more like threats the more you got hit (which might not mean much when you're boosting in the game, but it's evident fairly quickly in tricky platforming segments, especially with the later levels in the game). Colors and Lost World (initially, anyway) did away with earning lives with rings-which while didn't affect the difficulty in the former too much, but was a rather conspicuous change in the latter, if only for that game's other gameplay changes and moments of fake difficulty in later levels.

Maybe a lives system would work better in the aforementioned hard mode/arcade mode suggestion (of which, I'd like to see that implemented in a 2D Sonic game someday-clear the game with no save points and on a low stock of lives), or if the general difficulty or survival system of the games was changed (I personally would be rather interested in seeing that happen, but that would likely bring complaints, as seen by Lost World). But otherwise, I don't see the lives system as ever even needed for Sonic under the existing circumstances.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Gabe

[Tara]

Why do I think this shouldn't happen, necessarily? Because 1) players generally don't care about time penalties on their first runs through the game, and 2) sending the player back to the beginning of the level gives the player a better incentive overall to be better at the game as a whole, rather than sending him back to a certain place in the game, which will just give the player incentive to be better at that specific point in the level, only.

I don't think either of these are good arguments for the life system.  The first clause is irrelevant, because with or without a life system, time penalties and the ranking system are and always have been for the sake of mastering a game, not something to aim for on the first go when you're just getting their feet wet and testing the level design.  A life system would not change that.  Taking the life system out, however, offers the players the chance to experiment and explore their options without being punished too severely, which arguably makes mastery much more gratifying and interesting because it's at your own pace. There's less incentive for me to care about mastering it when finite lives makes a chore out of it, rather than an experiment.

The second point is moot, because I don't think it changes anything given Sonic's format.  The levels in Sonic are not that long, and thus being brought back to the beginning of the stage feels incredibly pointless, because for the most part, you'll be back at that stage in decent timing anyway.  Like, if I can start off there, why not start me off there?  It doesn't encourage me to improve on the overall level, and during my initial playthrough, that's not what I'm interested in anyway.  The ranking system provides a sufficient representation of overall level mastery when it's not as forgiving as recent games have been.  A life system just frustrates and demotivates, not to mention takes up more time, and there's nothing I hate more than a game that literally demands your time as opposed to earning it.