Language…
12 users online:  AmperSam, Anas, Cristian Cardoso, Golden Yoshi, Hayashi Neru, mmmdoggy, MorrieTheMagpie, nonamelol1, PMH, Rauf, Scags, Sokobansolver - Guests: 250 - Bots: 451
Users: 64,795 (2,377 active)
Latest user: mathew

Lives: get rid of them?

Link Thread Closed
Seriously, let's ditch em'.
Besides everything Axemjinx said, you have to keep in mind that this is a team hack. No matter wha twe do it's either going to be too easy or too hard, and anyone with a millionth of a brain cell could tell it's gonna be the latter. Like AxemJinx said, if people wanted to re-play things over again, they'd just go back into the level.

Especially consdiering how often we end up not being sure if something is death or goodness.
Originally posted by AxemJinx
Personally I think that that gratification is a cheap psychological trick, akin to most Achievements and Trophies.

I love to collect things. I can't help it! I must have my shinies!

Extras



I should have something witty to put here (even if it's just to update dated info), shouldn't I?

Advertising Space

Originally posted by raocow
The first game removed the little thrill that comes when you get a life from one hundred coins. The second apparently will remove them entirely, so gone is that little thrill period.

Piece by piece, for the sake of 'change', y'all are stripping away these little bells that goad and push the player foward.

tl:dr - I'm out. See y'all when this thing is done, let's hope the sequel is better received by people outside this community than the first one was.


The thing that gets me with you is that you typically use farming techniques when one comes along if worse starts to come to worse; so while you may not *actually* have infinite lives, you have them by sheer technicality.

With that being said, I'm still on the fence. Either keep them and go the Mario/DK route or remove them and replace them with a hopefully equally-rewarding item.

Originally posted by MrDeePay
With that being said, I'm still on the fence. Either keep them and go the Mario/DK route or remove them and replace them with a hopefully equally-rewarding item.


Elaborate for those of us who haven't played far into Mario vs. DK (assuming that is what you're talking about not just literally "Mario or DK")
No lives.

most people DO use savestates, i guess

rather than punishing those who die, a reward for those who do it in one sitting would be good; losing progress is bad enough. to me, anyways.

Extras



I should have something witty to put here (even if it's just to update dated info), shouldn't I?

Advertising Space

I meant Mario or DK when I said that.

Such as in the sense that extra lives were relatively common in Mario's later platformers and DKCR, but not too common. Though honestly, the more I think about, the more I'm inclined to be in favor of remove them. I mean, if a more convenient save system (save anytime/anywhere, save after each level, etc.) is a possibility, then the only downside to having extra lives is that a Game Over removes any checkpoints hit in the level).

Originally posted by AxemJinx

That sounds like a cop-out toward level design to me.

Actually, I was thinking that having lives gives level design more purpose. As some have stated, knowing you have lives and knowing that there will be big consequences for dying too much can make people be more careful with what they do. No lives could easily lead to a mentality of, "Oh what the heck, I'll just do this very dangerous thing because there's absolutely no risk involved!" Emphasis on "could", though.

Really, if you remove lives, then what's the point in being able to die at all? Just make getting hit teleport you back to the beginning of the level, or the midway, if you got that. :/ Also, as for the notion that this hack WILL be too hard: keep in mind that, IIRC, SNN has stated that he'll crack down on levels more this time. I'm really expecting levels to actually get denied entry this time for being too hard, so I highly doubt this hack will be "too hard".

GoldenSonic: I really disagree with the notion that because we all play on emulators, and most people use savestates, lives should be removed. It's up to the player how they want to play. If they want to remove all risk, let them. If they want to actually have risk and danger, let them. I, for one, feel that removal of lives will lead to less danger and risk. Where's the fun if there's no risk? :( Heck, where's the sense of accomplishment? That's the big thing. Sure, some games out there that have no lives are fun and have a sense of accomplishment, but this hack seems like it's going to be just another fun SMW hack, not something like IWBTG or Wario Land 2.

Also, I've noticed that most of you seem to be voting to remove lives just because you don't like them anymore. Is that really fair to everyone?
<Adam> I feel like smwc is a prostitute now, because we put up a porn ad for money
Originally posted by Riolu180
Hi.


Here's the thing though; with saving after every level, and I really can't see why that would be skipped out on, dying and losing a life already has next to 0 punishment over no lives at all. You say they add a reason to be careful, and head directly on to what the player thinks is the critical path, doesn't that seem like a problem rather than a good thing? So what if someone tries crazy stuff? More power to 'em, I say, for seeking out whatever corner of the stage they feel like explorin'. Accomplishment isn't directly achieved from farming 99 1-ups in Weeaboo Manor, but from using those extra chances to overcome the obstacles that you needed to farm them for in the first place. No lives just means you're automatically at 99 lives every time you die, without having to go through a silly process of hanging on a rope over a Bullet Bill launcher.

I'm voting to remove lives because I feel they're pointless punishment for those who don't want to farm them, and serve very few positive aspects to SMW, so in other words, yeah, because I don't like 'em. I don't see the significance in this point, seeing as the whole thread is pretty much just about votin' whether you'd like them or not. Some people don't even try to give a good reason to be for/against lives though, which is just silly.
Originally posted by Riolu180
Actually, I was thinking that having lives gives level design more purpose. As some have stated, knowing you have lives and knowing that there will be big consequences for dying too much can make people be more careful with what they do. No lives could easily lead to a mentality of, "Oh what the heck, I'll just do this very dangerous thing because there's absolutely no risk involved!" Emphasis on "could", though.

Originally posted by Riolu180
It's up to the player how they want to play.

Quite the oxymoronic juxtaposition there. If it's up to players to decide how to play, why force them to be careful? Doesn't the level design dictate player behavior enough?


Originally posted by Riolu180
Really, if you remove lives, then what's the point in being able to die at all? Just make getting hit teleport you back to the beginning of the level, or the midway, if you got that. :/

You're looking at a spectrum in terms of its endpoints, in terms of absolutes. Dying does make you repeat small sections. Lives, however, make you repeat superfluously larger sections. Think about how small Super Meat Boy's levels tend to be. You can complete most of them in half a minute or less. So, there's not even a pressing need for a health system of some kind.

Also, as I've said before, powerups put Mario in different states, e.g. ability to throw fireballs, glide, fly, throw hammers, etc. They don't only function as health.


Originally posted by Riolu180
Where's the fun if there's no risk? :( Heck, where's the sense of accomplishment? That's the big thing. Sure, some games out there that have no lives are fun and have a sense of accomplishment, but this hack seems like it's going to be just another fun SMW hack, not something like IWBTG or Wario Land 2.

I must sound like a broken record by now, but I don't see how what you're saying relates to lives. This sense of accomplishment you speak of comes from level design, not a life counter.


By the way, I hope we aren't ignoring HuFlungDu's point that coins also function aesthetically, to guide the player, and to provide hints about secrets...coins and lives aren't really so interwoven.
Youtube (Main) | Youtube (Alt) | Bandcamp | DeviantART
Originally posted by mineyl
If lives do get removed, we could possibly try using a system similar to what DahrkDaiz did in Mario Adventure and make 1-up mushrooms gives a large amount of coins instead. Though if we go that route, try to increase the importance of the shop so that the player will actually care enough to get as many coins as he can.

This made me think, what if we just made it so that the power-ups are buy only, except for rewards. This would go good with the inventory I read about.
Jujubes!¡!¡!


Also, still alive, just lost in life stuff
last edited March 7th
It would be fun to play without lives(super meat boy FTW) but then, it would take away the fun of getting "achievements". I say that if we remove the lives, we change them to something else, such as making lives "bonuses" that are just up there... I don't know... to give you some other form of achievement.
I vote for no lives. Without them, people will make the levels even harder because there would be no other difficulty and we would just get more complaints. And to those who are using the savestate argument, not everyone uses savestates. You can't even use savestates outside a emulator, those games have lives and lives are used well. Why remove something when you could just make it work so it adds to the gameplay? Lives give players a point to play the game. If you have infinite lives, what's the point of even trying to play the level at all.

Eh, I'm not going to bother repeating what Riolu180 and everyone else said. And we will probably end up with no lives, because that's what everyone wanted. But it won't work.
Originally posted by phenolatukas
there would be no other difficulty

This is what I thought at first, but a life *count* doesn't change the difficulty of levels, just of the game.
I've realized this was outdated.
There is positive and negative consequences of both keeping or removing lives.

- Keeping lives will be good for the progress and rewarding factor, but will although result in many "game overs" for savestateless palyers.

- Removing lives will obviously be the opposite of keeping.

I would say; keep the lives, there ain't a Mario game without a 1-UP
Keep them. It just doesn't feel right for this style of game not to have a life counter. Having infinite lives could also be an invitation for some people to abuse the fact. As far as farming lives goes, why not have the life counter—if these is one—save to SRAM?

----------------

I'm working on a hack! Check it out here. Progress: 64/95 levels.
3 digit lives counter, maybe?
And start with more lives?
woag.....

(previously superdragonyoshi1. sup yall.)
people will definately abuse the lack of lives. "Hey, we have no lives so i'll go make a kaizo level." It wouldn't get acceptd, but making douchy levels will obviously hold up the production
If you want to chat some interesting people, check out my new forum at: http://bloodybalcony.forumotion.ca/
I think we're going to keep lives in then. That seems to be the popular vote. We'll just ensure we utilize the system properly, and deal with any methods which could somehow lead to farming lives.

Thanks for the input everyone.
Link Thread Closed