The days when you had 'lives'...

[Slasher]

Hi,

for all of you who can remember the days when you had 'lives' and these where shown. If you were killed you lost a life and carried on. Should you loose all 'lives' you would either die and the game ended or you would be sent back to try it all again.

What are your thoughts using this in today's games?

[Cassiebsg]

Uhm... has that changed?

Don't have a particular thought about it, never liked that, never will.

[Radiant]

Depends on the genre. Generally, it'd probably work best as a hardcore challenge mode.

Even twenty years ago, there were plenty of games with both "lives" and a save game mechanic, which basically defies the point of limiting lives.

[ManicMatt]

Why must I play a whole level, or even the whole part I'd already played through since pressing start, when I've proven I can get past those bits?

No, in the days of old, I very rarely finished a game. Nowadays I very rarely don't finish a game, and I am happy about that.

[Khris]

As far as I can see, there are only two reasons to implement lives:

1. you are building an arcade game where quarters = lives
2. your game is short, and you want to artificially increase the play time by making it frustratingly hard

[Mandle]

for all of you who can remember the days when you had 'lives'

HAHAHAHA...I honestly thought from the thread's title that you were talking about the days before we found AGS...

But, thinking seriously now on the question:

Maybe a happy middle-ground is to have a counter that keeps track of "Deaths" rather than "Lives". The game never resets no matter how many times you die but at the end of the game the player can gain achievements based on how many times they died:

200+: Suicide Machine
100+: Cannon Fodder
Less than 20: Well Played
Less than 10: Skilled
Less than 5: Hardcore
Zero: GODLIKE

Certain Achievements could also unlock new cutscenes, alternate endings, special powers for future playthroughs, or even bonus levels etc etc.

Or somesuch list like that. This way the player can still care about dying if they like, but doesn't need to in order to complete the basic game...

[haroldw]

Interesting question Slasher.
I think you ALMOST can't have a popular adventure game that does not have a dead person as part of the plot.   So dying in adventure games is almost a necessity.  The only question is who dies. 
I don't want to see "lives" return as a trend.   I want adventure games to be light and fluffy, like cotton candy and buttered popcorn. 
Then, some brave  bold developer will shatter the illusion with a game full of death and dying.

I'll  have to keep reading you guys comments, you ALL have good view points on this.  ( suicide-machine  LOL)

[portableTaco]

Up up down down left right left right B A start.  I need more lives!! D=

I never liked lives.

[Fitz]

Then, some brave  bold developer will shatter the illusion with a game full of death and dying.

I am that brave developer that's going to give you just that game in a couple of weeks.

What made me fall in love with adventure games was that the gameplay mechanics weren't centered around motor skills: I didn't have to jump and shoot and rush to the finish line before the time runs out. I could go around exploring, talking to people and nabbing things whose primary function was not to kill. As luck would have it, my first adventure game was The Fate of Atlantis -- and one of the first tasks was to knock out a goon in a back alley -- but that is beside the point. It was still something different. Something completely unlike Mario -- one of those NES games that I never finished.
My second PC game was Little Big Adventure -- and boy was it a mixed bag. On the one hand, you had this grand adventure, lots of NPC's to interact with and beautiful lands to explore -- and then you had CHECKPOINTS! Death was frequent and the enemies plenty, heavily armed and unyielding -- so very often you found yourself repeating the same huge levels over and over again. Damn, I hated that game back then. It grew on me, there was just something about it -- and I did finish it -- but it was a tough one. Only last year did I learn that they used checkpoints instead of savegames because the game was originally being developed for the SNES. LBA2, with its proper savegame system, was a MUCH better experience. And yes, it does render autosaves kiiinda useless. But sometimes you forget to save in the heat of the fight -- say, during the final stage, rockets flying in your face from all sides. And then, when you've defeated the boss and walk over to the edge -- and walk right off of it, and fall into the lava below. To have the game autoload with Twinsen plumetting to his death, dying, then plumetting to his death again and dying, isn't just "kiiiinda useless"
Originally it was either technical limitations or coins that motivated game design choices. But ridiculous difficulty level has become something of a cult thing among gamers. A game that's a smooth ride -- one where you always know what to do next and you always have the upper hand over your enemies -- is easily dismissed by the hardcore gamers as "casual". To them, games aren't a way to relax. They're a challenge. Winning is not fun if it's not preceded by failing a thousand times. I kiiinda get it now, after completing Hotline Miami a bunch of times. That game made failure less of a deal. In other games, everything freezes, the screen goes red/b&w, cue dramatic music, and then, when the cutscene is over, the game asks whether you want to quit or try again. In HM, you die just like that, press R and go right back into action. I also liked how it challenged my usual approach to action games. I love to snipe my enemies from afar. Here, stealth gets you nowhere. The game awards you for going in, guns blazing -- or, better yet, playful peek-a-boos. But I'm not going to try Dark Souls now. Super Meat Boy - maybe. But only because I like learning the game mechanics. I like figuring out the patterns -- but I still suck at improvisation. And, even with all animal masks, the whole passwords and A+ on all levels, I still have butter-fingers.

[haroldw]

Hi Fitz, I finally got around to playing your game Magenta.  It is excellent.    I had my doubts, but it's everything you said it was.
Both brave and bold.  Although I don't like comedies, I did find myself laughing out loud.  Comedy is always risky but it worked.

Because it's a demo, I couldn't find numbers or get a feel for how many have played it.   I'm sure the AGS community will enjoy it and
you probably will have to do some marketing if you want non AGS people to see it.

[selmiak]

Reading the threadtitle of this thread I vaguely remember the thread and what it is about and thought about the time when computergames had lifes. Just like people had more real lifes and didn't stare into the always connected smartphone all day. You could die in the virtual gameworld and were reminded that you also had another life. Now there are open world games where you can't even lose a life and it virtually goes on forever. You just respawn. Come on, every respawn should give the player some mean electroshock or a punch in the face to bring back some meaning!

[Stromvin]

@ selmiak: Or how about some screaming ugly face with aweful music playing? might work as punishment

To the topic: I am currently working on a game and chose to implement lives, so thats quite an interesting topic for me. That game however is not an adventure game but kind of a puzzler with levels of increasing complexity, where death can come quickly. I also impemented a save system and currently it resets your lives to full. BUT you get Score points in the game for stuff you do, and you have to PAY with these points for every save. Sounds overly complicated, but i think it kinda works since it is the players own choice and risk. And the lives are more of a buffer and reminder. Death is punishing, but can also keep you entertained, see dark souls.
For adventure games on the other hand im not really fond of dying in these kind of games at all. First of all you can save every time (at least i think you should be able to) and second, it might break the immersion a bit(but maybe thats just me)
IF however you manage to put it in the game in a story wise believable way (Planescape Torment) then i think its perfectly fine.
ok talking to much already.
Generally Lives YES, in an adventure game MAYBE NOT.
greez Stromvin

[Retro Wolf]

You could always add a hardcore mode to your game. Best of both worlds!