Topic: Why platform games now focus on unlimited lives?

I don't like platform games that have this unlimited live gimmick going on in there. The point of platform games to have lives is to teach the player what wrong he did and how he can improve on it and it also develops the responsibility towards the players that's why getting extra lives isn't such a chore. But when you remove lives and then make it so the player respawns from the beginning, the learning curve is more delayed since checkpoints are out of the question when playing these sort of games.

Now I can understand that games like Metroid, Cave Story, Shantae and other metroidvania games can be excused but these games have energy bars to compensate on the lives. Seriously, I hate games with unlimited lives as it makes the game boring really fast. This is one of the reasons why I didn't enjoy much from Rayman origins and just simply didn't bother to get Rayman Legends immediately (Well one of the reasons is for the price drop but you get the idea.)

Would you want Mario, Donkey Kong or Kirby and future Nintendo games to do like this in the near future. To make unnecessary stuff that will drive gamers insane? Its bad enough that the level design is hard so let alone the levels be hard not this one life gimmick like cut that crap out!!!!!

Two reasons: Lives are an archaic method only designed to make the player put more quarters into the arcade machine. And two, the penalty for dying/getting a game over is no longer a severe penalty. It seems almost pointless now.

Even taking just the normal Mario platformers they always made something worse with the one exemption of the Lost Levels which improved a few minor things.

Super Mario Bros
Super Mario Bros 2 (Lost Levels) - Continue from the begining of the world and the high jump from hitting a Koopa.

Gets worse from here.

Super Mario Bros 3 - Stop going small always when you take a hit.
Super Mario World - Can repeat levels meaning losing a powerup has even less relevance.

Yeah, I agree. I can barely stand platformers without them.

It's one of my main gripes with Rayman Legends & Origins. There is pretty much no punishment for dying in those games, you always get to start at a checkpoint and never have to restart the level from the beginning. You might as well make the characters invincible if you're not going to punish the player for dying.

Other games that come to mind are Prince of Persia 2008 & Kirby's Epic Yarn.

So you're saying that you would rather have the unlimited lives thing more than the actual lives because the punishment isn't much? That isn't the lives fault but rather the creativity of the level design's fault.

Every Super Mario game is very well balanced. If a particular thing is difficult, you can get the power up to pass through it or do it the hard way. All Super Mario games have challenging levels as well the only problem is that most of the time, they are only unlocked at the end or are just a few of them.

Not saying I prefer one way or the other, but yes, the punishment isn't there anymore.

Topical Freeze could have been a far better game overall if they mandated the -K level before unlocking the boss and then assuming everything needed in that was perfected for the next set.

Because it was a pointless mechanic that never served any positive purpose in the first place, and the only people who ever liked them were sadomasochistic elitists who think gaming is some kind of exclusive club that everybody needs to be hazed before being able to get in. Newsflash, normal people don't like being punished by their "entertainment".

The positive purpose was mastery through practice and perseverance which is a good thing for anybody to learn. (Ideally as young as possible).

It is also more enjoyable playing it properly. (Stuff like 3D Sonic especially - playing it badly or at snails pace is no fun at all. But once a certain level of competency is achieved its brilliant.)

I've gotta admit that it is fun to see how quickly you can gather the maximum of lifes in some games.
It does suck a lot in Contra 4 though where one boss is the only real problem i have and i've just quit after half a dozen attempts since i didn't want to play all the levels that lead up to up anymore.

If you don't like it, just restart the level when you die.

Eh.. Pretty much every game punishes the player. Where in the world are you supposed to get motivation to play or even bother to learn the game if you have nothing to motivate you?

In stealth games you get punished for making sounds by enemies noticing you etc., in car games you get punished for driving poorly by losing etc., in hack & slash games you get punished by getting a poor rank/low score etc., in GTA you get punished for doing pretty much anything illegal etc. etc. etc.

Lives do seem like a leftover from the arcade era.

Most home console games with lives even let you continue right at the same level/world when you lose them all.

I disagree. Lives are incredibly archaic and there can be plenty of challenge without them.

Donkey Kong Country Returns gives a nearly unlimited amount of lives and yet it is still really challenging. Having to redo three levels just because you died in the boss level is nothing short of an annoyance. If i wanted to go through those levels another time i would.
Edit: Than again most games are not like that nowadays. This makes the concept of lives even more unneeded.

Unlimited lives can be ok but the difficulty has to be such that you can never get past whatever section by luck. (Long enough so that is basically impossible is one way).

Or unlimited lives but no checkpoints would be ok for something like Tropical Freeze.

Any of the Metal Slug games or something like Chronicles of Mystera are totally pointless without a finite number of lives.

The AES Metal Slug's where you need to do a level with 5 credits is much better. (They are designed so they can be done without losing a life though).

There can be challenge and that is true but if they make it so that when you lose, you have to start from the beginning and make the level design complex that takes a long time for the player to master, then they aren't motivating the player to make progress but rather they insult the player.

How about nearly every platform game tries to emulate the feeling to retro games? Isn't that archaic? How about the pointless scores that platform games tend to have? Isn't that archaic?

The beauty of platform games is the level of mastery and that has quick and fun experience and the simple objectives those games teach you unlike most genres. Just showing the tutorials, making one easy level and making others ridiculously hard with having only one life and if lost, you start over isn't motivating gamers to play more but rather get more frustrated. Some games like Rayman Origins difficulty suffer because of this fact. Sure you can complain that New Super Mario bros 2 had the pointless lives thing that there's no point in getting a game over for most platform games. But unfortunately, the game ended up having DLC levels that are hard.

You know even Shovel Knight had this easy difficulty problem but the game is too fun and that it did try something different in that so it really doesn't matter.

Games now have to be longer than 2-3 hours, if they are longer than that you need save points, if you have save points lives are pointless because you can simply restart from the last save point

At the same time, if the game is so hard that lives make you start over, how will that motivate players to make progress. I don't want to beat a level only to have to do it again because I lost in a later level.

How about nearly every platform game tries to emulate the feeling to retro games? Isn't that archaic?

Yes actually. The gaming market is changing, so having nearly every game be "retro" isn't really moving forward with the market. With that said, I don't think having some retro games is bad.

How about the pointless scores that platform games tend to have? Isn't that archaic?

Depends. Most scores are simply a way to motivate a handful of players without really affecting the play of other players.

The beauty of platform games is the level of mastery and that has quick and fun experience and the simple objectives those games teach you unlike most genres. Just showing the tutorials, making one easy level and making others ridiculously hard with having only one life and if lost, you start over isn't motivating gamers to play more but rather get more frustrated.

So how is this supposed to be a counterpoint to the lives being "archaic"?

Some games like Rayman Origins difficulty suffer because of this fact. Sure you can complain that New Super Mario bros 2 had the pointless lives thing that there's no point in getting a game over for most platform games.

I think the best way to tackle the issue is to make a difficulty setting. I would like something similar to Fire Emblem: Awakening's brilliant settings. FEA had the classic setting for those who like being masochistic and an easier setting for those who want to enjoy the game without being slaughtered. For platformers, a setting can include lives vs. unlimited lives, where you start over, etc.

But unfortunately, the game ended up having DLC levels that are hard.

Most games seem to now include hard levels as DLC, so there's not much to be said here.

You know even Shovel Knight had this easy difficulty problem but the game is too fun and that it did try something different in that so it really doesn't matter.

That's my point. A game can be enjoyable without being brutal and punishing to the player. If a game only has a punishing difficulty, it will only be niche. However if the game had an easier setting or adjustable difficulty like FEA, it can be enjoyed by a much larger audience. So yes, the retro brutal difficulty is archaic and outdated.