Before you get to play Crash Bandicoot
4, you have to make a big decision. I'm not talking about whether or not
to accept a 20 page software license. Or a 24 page privacy policy. I mean, there's
nothing more bodacious than legalise. Uh. No, I'm talking about whether you
want to play in the Modern or the Retro play-style - which is all about whether or not
you want the game to feature a lives system. Now, putting aside the questionable
practice of asking players to make fundamental game design decisions before
they've even started playing… this does bring to mind an interesting design debate
that has raged in games for the last decade or so. Particularly in platformers, but also
side-scrolling brawlers, shoot 'em ups, and more. And that's this - is a lives system still relevant game design - or just an
antiquated relic of the arcade era? Well, I'm Mark Brown, and
this is Game Maker's Toolkit. First, let's define what a lives system
is, so we're all on the same page. Lives dictate how many times you can retry a
challenge, before you're forced back to some earlier part in the game. So there are points in
the game where your progress is saved permanently. But between those, there might
be several checkpoints where your progress is only saved temporarily. If you die, you'll lose one of your lives and
then return to the last temporary checkpoint. But, if you run out of lives, it's Game Over, the temporary checkpoints are lost - and it's all
the way back to your last permanent save spot. There might be some quirks like continues,
or whatever - but that's the basic concept: it's all about permanent
and temporary checkpoints. Over time, the gap between
the permanent save spots has shrunk - take the Donkey Kong series where
it's gone from the very beginning of the game, to specific save points in the world, to the
start of every level. And that's what you get in Crash 4's Retro mode - levels mark permanent
progression, but checkpoint boxes are temporary. Recently, however, the concept of lives
has started to disappear entirely. Now, every checkpoint is a permanent mark of
progress and while some games might still count the number of lives you lose, there's no
penalty for wasting hundreds on a single bit. So, Super Mario Odyssey is the first
major Mario game without lives - which is probably sensible, as they carried
almost no meaning in Super Mario 64. Most indie platformers have ditched the concept
entirely, with Super Meat Boy maker Edmund McMillen saying "removing lives altogether lets
the designer base difficulty more on the actual level design and challenge and less around
the penalty of losing lives and restarting". And now Crash 4 recommends you play in
Modern mode which gets rid of lives, and lets you infinitely return
to those mid-level checkpoints. Now, the argument against lives is
pretty obvious. When you run out of them and get sent all the way back
to some earlier point in the game, it's simply frustrating to have to
re-do bits that you've already finished. When Sonic Mania came out - which only has
permanent checkpoints at the start of each zone - US Gamer published the written
equivalent of an Alt-F4 rage quit, calling the lives system
obnoxious and infuriating. And just from anecdotal evidence, new and
inexperienced players seem to find these penalties especially rough.
Even if it's just back to the start of the level. Plus, lives systems are frequently unbalanced. You either end up with so many extra lives
that the whole system becomes meaningless, or have so few that the game's difficulty
curve spikes up into the stratosphere. But there is also an argument
for including a lives system. So, for one, the fear of losing
significant progress is one fine way to ramp up the stakes to nail-biting heights.
Which can lead to precise and intentional play, rather than sloppy, brute-force
attrition. And this also creates a greater sense of satisfaction when you
finally find the next permanent save point. Lives also create a very high-value reward
for players to find. If a 1-UP mushroom or a Mega Man face is all that's between you
and repeating half an hour of content, then that should really encourage players to
hunt down 100 coins, play bonus mini-games, find secrets, and take risks to get extra lives. And finally, lives can create an interesting
meta challenge. It's not about finishing a single sequence at any cost - but instead
it's about completing a string of sequences where your performance in each part can
carry across into the rest. For example, finishing a Mega Man level usually involves
perfecting the early parts - so you have enough health, lives, and ammo to
face the robot master at the end. Okay, so lives have pros and they have cons. But
maybe it's not just a choice between having lives in the game, or not having them at all. Maybe
designers can do something more interesting? First, we can try to solve the problem of lives
becoming unbalanced by tying them to levels, rather than the character. So in Furi, you'll
always start each boss fight with exactly three lives, which means you never begin a stage with
an overblown advantage or a crushing disadvantage. Elsewhere, games find ways to reduce the sting
of losing all of your lives. In Kero Blaster, you get to keep all your upgrades and cash,
even when you run out of lives - which makes repeating those old areas less frustrating. And
because you wake up in hospital, you get access to a special drug store where you can buy
handy upgrades like extra lives and health. And that's not the only game that makes
it less annoying to repeat content after a Game Over - Sonic games let you try
alternative routes on repeated visits, and roguelikes are entirely built
around losing massive chunks of progress - because they make up for
it with completely randomised content. There are also games that ditch lives in favour
of permanent checkpoints - but still find ways to add a sense of meta challenge. So in Shovel
Knight, the checkpoints can be destroyed - which gives you handy gems, but also makes you go
back further if you die. Are you willing to risk that? There's a similar idea in Panzer
Paladin - you have to activate checkpoints by inserting a weapon, so it might be better to skip
them altogether and keep your arsenal stuffed. Meanwhile in Ori and the Blind Forest, you can make your own checkpoints by spending
a certain type of currency. It's up to you to decide where to save your progress -
and up to you whether you can afford it. But perhaps the smartest approach of all, is to
flip the entire concept of lives on its head. Instead of punishing players who
run out of lives, games can instead reward the players who manage to complete a
sequence without having to retry too often. So while most bullet hell shooters let you
play with infinite continues - there's a whole community around doing a 1CC (or one credit clear)
where you try to finish the entire game without dying. And over in Sonic Forces - the number
of retries players use in a level are counted against the final score. So to get the high ranks,
you need to finish the stage in a single life. And there's actually a really smart version of
this in the game that kicked off the whole video: Crash Bandicoot 4. The game still
tracks your lives in Modern mode, even if there's no penalty for losing them
- and that's because every level has a gem that can only be unlocked if you manage to finish
the entire level with fewer than three retries. System like these mean that new players never
need to worry about running out of lives - but advanced players can opt-in to the additional
challenge and peril of a lives counter. So, are lives outdated? Well, it's really down to
how they are implemented. How they are balanced, how they are supported by the other systems in the
game, and how they are presented to the player. But more importantly, it's about why they are
implemented. Lives are one of those things that can be added to a game simply because
"that's what platformers have always done", or in some misguided attempt to capture
the feeling of being a retro game. But great games aren't made by thoughtlessly
copying trends and tropes. The most amazing games come about when every single system
is added with intention, thought, and care. Hey, thanks for watching! I want to give a shout
out to the GMTK Discord - I often talk about upcoming videos in there and ask people for ideas
and suggestions. It's available to all Patrons on any tier, and it's a cozy, well-moderated place
where you can talk about game design without, you know, The Gamers clogging everything up.
It's a good place. So cheers, I'll see you there.
One thing that went kind of un-talked about in 2019's Astral Chain is that it asks you to make the choice of difficulty after you've beaten the first level. I think this is something more action games should do because the first level acts sort of like a litmus test for players. Depending on how you feel about the first level, you can make the game easier, harder, or stay the same.
I think there's an important distinction between two types of game structures that answers this question. For lack of established terms, let's call them campaign based games and run based games. A campaign-based game is one that you play typically once from beginning to end, usually in multiple sessions, with slight progress loss on death but no final failure state where you can say you've actually lost the game (outside of giving up). A run-based game is one that you sit down to play a full run or even multiple runs in one sitting, and typically has a failure state where you can win or lose each run. Roguelikes are the most common example, but most shmups and many beat-em-ups have a similar structure. Lives fit the latter, but (usually) not the former.
Crash Bandicoot 4 handled lives in a sensible way - they were still there if you wanted the classic retro experience but could be turned off in Modern mode. To be honest, after playing Modern mode I wish the developers of the N-Sane Trilogy would patch it in as an option, it reduces so much of the tedium (but not difficulty, there's a difference).
A smart, well-thought out video that actually tries to think about the issue instead of deciding on something and then thinking later. Great content from Mark as usual.
Lives system can definitely still be good for a game overall, but it's important to think about the purpose of such a system in the game in the first place.
You know what the most pointless use of lives was? Super Mario 64. No significant setbacks as you can save at every star, purely an annoyance.
[removed]
I think they're outdated for mainstream gaming. There are still ways they can work in games, but for the prompting question of Crash 4 I think they're outdated and unneeded for most platformers. Crash 4's retro option really only exists to satisfy purists who think the way the game showers you with lives constantly is somehow different to having no end to them.
That later levels can get brutally difficult, sure, but if it's taking me 70 attempts to get through a section or to perfect something I see no value whatsoever in being made to go back to the start of the level if I fail attempt 71. I guess there's an additional thrill knowing you can only screw up so many times, but the buffer becomes so incredibly large in that game it just ceased to have any real meaning. I found it more entertaining to have the death counter telling me how many times I'd died trying to be perfect on a level.
Found GMTK a few weeks ago and have been devouring his content ever since. Love it and this video.
Can anyone recommend similar channels? I also found Design Doc which I’m digging as well.
I actually feel like most games have moved on from 'lives'.
And I find it kind of refreshing when I do see lives in games.