Page 1 of 2

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 12:23 pm
by Ast A. Moore
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:42 am It's actully quite hard to guess if game will be hard or easy for gamer.
Not really. It’s harder to predict what the gamer’s initial experience will be, true, I’ve experienced it myself. Once the player overcomes the initiation barrier, his experience will be not dissimilar from that of the developer. We’re all human.
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:42 amYou don't know what he will be using - keyboard, joystick, some pad... Will he be playing it in emulator, real Spectrum with rubber keys or on on small mobile phone with tiny keys.
I can only speak for myself, and I develope games for the ZX Spectrum. Not ZX Spectrum clones (including the NEXT), nor ZX Spectrum emulators running on traditional computers, nor ZX Spectrum emulators running on touchscreen devices. I will try to accommodate all of them to a degree—and if necessary—but not if it requires breaking compatibility with the original hardware. It is unrealistic to expect a ZX Spectrum game to operate as though it has been written with a modern smartphone in mind.
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:42 amShould we assume that if it's a game for Spectrum then he should be playing it on real Spectrum? I'm not so sure about it.
Should be? No. Might be? Absolutely.
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:42 amI also saw many times so guy losing all lifes on first screen of the game where your reaction was "wtf? how can be so lame?" ;) Players can foten surprise you.
True, but it can easily go the other way. That’s what balancing gameplay is all about.
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:42 amwhen you write a Spectrum game you are a single man doing coding, design and testing. You don't have testers.
True for many other platforms, including modern ones. It’s neither here nor there. It’s up to you to invite more people to help you design, develop, and test your game. You’re free to release as many pre-release versions, or updates to the final release. Some developers prefer not to do it. Others are quite open about it. Neither approach is inherently good or bad. Ultimately, it’s the result that matters.
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:42 amThe problem is that while making a game you play and test it hundreds of times so you learn it ,you memorize it. It becomes easy for you and you are no longer able to take point of view of a guy who sees it for the first time.
I partially addressed it in my first point. Unless it’s some cryptic puzzle-solving adventure game, where it is, indeed, not easy to predict if anybody other that yourself will get the clues (e.g. pour machine oil on a magic bean during a waning gibbous moon, jump up three times while standing 17 pixels to the left of the Dorky Idol statue, and feed the been to the blue pterodactyl), we’re all pretty much on the same level. It will obviously take a novice a little bit of time to get the hang of the game’s mechanics—controls, inertia, collision detection, enemy patterns, pace, etc.—but it’s not something unattainable in principle. In this regard, the developer is just a gamer with more gameplay time under his belt.

TL;DR: Design a well balanced game. Then you won’t have resort to enabling, or relying upon, cheats such as infinite lives, emulator snapshots, etc.

Sorreh!

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:06 pm
by Hikaru
MatGubbins wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:21 pm Maybe we are older and don't want
Image

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:20 pm
by Morkin
R-Tape wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 8:34 pm I'm guilty of this with Biscuits in Hell (well 128 lives anyway), but the game is very, very hard. I don't see a problem
One thing about collect-em-ups is that I don't find infinite lives helpful when the game resets the objects on a screen after you lose a life. I accepted it with Manic Miner but nowadays I like to feel that I'm progressing, even if a game is hard.

The biggest problem with Biscuits from Hell was the disgraceful lack of custard creams in one of the first two levels to give gamers motivation to persevere with it. :evil:

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:28 pm
by R-Tape
I think most games will work equally well on hardware and emulator. I can only think of the typing game 'Utter Tripe' that should have a separate rubber keys version, and people that play Speccy games on smartphones are lunatics that should never be catered to :mrgreen:

It all depends on the type of game of course, but say in a large flip screen game what is the point of sending the player back to the start? I suppose there is more of a thrill if you jussst complete the game with one life to spare.

And why does the correct number of lives always seem to end up somewhere between 3 and 8?

Serious questions by the way, these are things I've always done "just because we do".

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:32 pm
by R-Tape
Morkin wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:20 pm One thing about collect-em-ups is that I don't find infinite lives helpful when the game resets the objects on a screen after you lose a life. I accepted it with Manic Miner but nowadays I like to feel that I'm progressing, even if a game is hard.
When I did Stamp Quest I reset the objects on screen because I didn't know how to do otherwise*, with Biscuits I chose not to do it. I preferred the idea of 8 separate challenges, each one having to be fully completed.


*I hope no-one ever does a disassembly on that game.

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:39 pm
by Spud
What about Treasure Island Dizzy? That only had 1 life. They got that spot on in my opinion.

I don't like it when games don't give you the final life, ie life 0. Starting the game with three lives should mean you get 4 lives. That is criminally poor form.

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:48 pm
by Ralf
I'll generally hold my opinion that people of our age are nowadays crappier in playing games that you would ever expect ;)

The problem with retro communities is that many people here aren't actually active gamers. They used to be gamers 20 years ago. Now they are mostly driven by nostalgia, they turn on some new game, play it for 3 minutes and turn it off.

If you don't play games regularly then you are lame at it. And when you are lame you quickly lose so you give up and don't play. It's a vicious circle.

So for whom should I do my games? For 10 people that are active, motivated gamers and will play it from start to end? Or for 500 lamers who played seriously for last time 10 years ago?

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:18 pm
by Ast A. Moore
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:48 pm The problem with retro communities is that many people here aren't actually active gamers.
Agreed, but I don’t think it’s a problem.
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:48 pmSo for whom should I do my games?
I make games I myself would like to play. Developing retro games (I mean actual retro games, not modern games with a “retro” vibe) is hardly a commercial or highly profitable undertaking. We don’t have binding contracts with publishers, no deadlines to meet, no bad reviews in magazines that might dissuade our employers from renewing our contracts. While it does take away a certain degree of healthy competition, we can focus on things that are more rewarding to us, if only to distract us from counting the number of gray hairs (at least those of us who have any left to count to begin with).

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:42 pm
by Ralf
I make games I myself would like to play
All right, so do I :) I don't do any serious research if other people find it entertaining I just do what my intuition tells me is right. And actually I will never know if most other people find it entertaining. When I release a game I get comments from let's say 10 people. And I have reasons to believe that number of people who downloaded it is actually much bigger, let's say 100 or even 1000 in longer time. But as they don't say anything I don't know their opinions.

Okay, I guess we went too far from the original question ;)

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2017 3:59 pm
by Morkin
R-Tape wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:32 pm When I did Stamp Quest I reset the objects on screen because I didn't know how to do otherwise*, with Biscuits I chose not to do it. I preferred the idea of 8 separate challenges, each one having to be fully completed.


*I hope no-one ever does a disassembly on that game.
Yes, I guess it changes the dynamic slightly, making them like 'screen challenge' games, each level of which you have to master. Probably why I'm always rubbish at Donkey Kong (back to the bottom of the screen...). Mind you, I'm rubbish at Pac Man and that game doesn't put the eaten dots back when you lose a life... Hmmm..

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:58 am
by hikoki
Infy lives may force the designer to make smarter and harder level designs which engage the player. I for one tend to make fewer snapshots so it may help to challenge the playe as there's room for more difficulty with lots of chances to improve. The designer is freed to think out more complex levels without worrying about getting the player tired or frustrated. Some classic games used to be be really hard for durability and lack of testing. Infy live on modern games MAY be a good excuse to make good old challenging games while being approachable, that is, more work for the designer even though the game will last few days in the hands of the player.

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:16 pm
by 1024MAK
R-Tape wrote: Sun Nov 19, 2017 4:07 pm We have less time for Speccy games these days, and a google times more distractions. Most people play in an emulator with snapshots, hacking is easier than ever, and POKEs usually appear within a few days of release.

Is it even worth trying to design a game around a limited number of lives anymore? Should game authors acknowledge this and include an infy lives option on release? Or is it yielding too much to the leg jiggling ADHD of the lazy (or modern) player?

I suppose the hackers would get bored...
So, I've read through the whole thread (without needing infinite lives :mrgreen: ), and no one has mentioned that a lot of early ZX Spectrum games were inspired by arcade games machines. Arcade games of course had to have a system to get you addicted, but also to "kill you off" so that you would put another coin in the slot to try again... or to tempt another player (spectator) to have (another) go...

That was Sir Clive's big failing, he never put a coin mechanism on the ZX Spectrum Image

So to sum up
  1. Games should be playable enough to get a player interested, to get them addicted.
  2. But, just as there should be rewards in the game, there should also be some kind of stick (punishment), to as to encourage the player to be more careful in his/her moves. Loosing a life (or energy level or similar) does this.
  3. And of course, there has to be a balance, as it is the overall balance in the difficulty of the game that makes it a good game. Too easy and players will feel let down. Too hard, and many players will give up, and moan that it was too hard...
  4. And of course, without the coin mechanism, there are many other ways to "punish" the player (metal Joystick that gets energised to 1000V maybe? - only joking!) within a game. Or to reward the player. But it is up to the game designer to decide ;)
So to answer the original question, NO games should not normally be released with an infinite lives option.
And games should be developed that are playable on a real ZX Spectrum.

Mark

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:05 pm
by hikoki
A few examples.
Doodlebug:
good stuff but too short!!
Dead Flesh Boy :
makes me play despite being killed many times (the free version has some bugs and too easy levels like they were designed in a rush.. so the cassette version may be worth a try)
Janosik:
Hard Dinamic-like great game. It could have been better (even harder, with randomness elements,etc) with infinite lives.

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:46 am
by Nomad
Ralf wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:42 am <snip>
The problem is that while making a game you play and test it hundreds of times so you learn it ,you memorize it. It becomes easy for you and you are no longer able to take point of view of a guy who sees it for the first time.
So many of the microcomputer games of the 80s fall into this trap and become unintentionally cryptic enigmas, Spectrum and Commodore were ok because the pool of players was large enough you would run into someone who knew how to beat the stage/level. But pity the Dragon/Atari/BBC micro user in the UK lol.. No dice, you could have spent 10 pounds or more on a game that you were totally stuck on and there was no way you could realistically progress.

With a text adventure; the well written ones it was ok because you could work through it. But for the action games there was no way you would get through some of these games unless you knew the trick(s). There were many times I put down a title and thought 'it must have made sense to him at the time, but I can't understand why a human being would do it that way...' lol.

It's really true what they say 'You can be to close to something to see that there is a problem'.

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:20 pm
by ANDREWRYALS
Fashionably late as usual. I used to hack everything in site and I used to look for code levels, passwords, solutions to text adventures. I even found a few spikey messages left for me (thanks guys). Now I just prefer to hack for a little nostalgia and I only poke things which I really enjoy playing or need hacking for historical reasons.

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:22 pm
by Lady Eklipse
Is this a rhetorical question? Of course we should have infinite lives and (if relevant) continues!
The concept of lives itself is archaic. I like old games, but I like the good aspects of old games, not replaying the same level, or worse - screen, for infinite hours. I choose infinite lives instead.
Life is hard enough to handle. Why should enternainment also be hard?
When I played ZX Spectrum and (later) console games, I used to literally dream about a possibility to have infinite lives, savestates or something like that, which would let me actually play the game, not just exercise in failure. Instead, I always liked to explore the game, to see the world of the game, to see what's on the next screen, on the next level etc. Lives are just a hinderance.
Thankfully, not only we have save states, I'm also able to play hacked games on original hardware, which is awesome!
That was actually my philosophy behind creating ZX Pokemaster. I want even access to cheat codes be easy. Life should be easy and so should be games.
If you are a developer, please make infinite lives at least an option.

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:58 am
by Nomad
There is a lot to be said for the philosophy of the games, where a user would be given the choice of 'stay in a sea of fail or get good.. your choice bro.' :lol: Once you get past the cryptic games or ones with sparse player bases. Its the mindset that is different in players now compared to before. Sure you always had people sharing pokes but the challenge aspect was a big part of why people played the games. To be able to say you beat a title.

When someone completes a game on inf lives thats more a person resigning themselves to not being good enough to complete the game as intended.

What does it say about us today - that we don't have the skills or patients that people back in the 1980s did (probably), that we expect everything to be made easy (again probably). Nobody wants to be 'triggered' by a task that might have a failure state (probably). Is it so hard to accept that perhaps some tasks are beyond us without a significant amount of effort? What does that say about modern society? :lol:

Its hard to say as we have accepted enforcement of the lowest common denominator as a norm rather than the exception. Perhaps content was denied to plebs to make it all the more sweet for the ones that spent the time to master the game? If you let everyone see the content that was predicated on skill before then it removes the achievement from those who go their by regular means.

Any snowflake, with no time mastering the game can just lay bare the content for everyone to see for the P?s? poor youtube videos, blog posts in a cynical attempt to get Patrion welfare or ad revenue. Lost in a sea of simplistic, bottom of the barrel gameplay - hundreds of flappy birds clones, one screen puzzles or 5 nights at fredies creative abominations. It would seem that when your average player wants everything handed to them with no effort what is the point in developing games with deep elements or challenging game play? You might as well just focus on shovel ware that is a thin veil to promote whatever hipster pseudo science is the flavor of the day and get on that virtue signalling hype train to indie success. :lol:

But one thing that has not really been considered is everyone (well most of us) are that much older and have more things to take up our time than we did back in the day. So perhaps there is not the free time necessary or the motivation to get good.. Could that have been a major reason for games having an expectation of a cakewalk option? If you pay for content do you have a right to see it all as part of your purchase? :lol: They are hard questions I am not sure to be honest. It's not like a whole new generation of kids is waiting to pick up these titles and use them in the same way that kids back in the 80s did. Hmm...

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 9:58 am
by Ast A. Moore
Nomad wrote: Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:58 am There is a lot to be said for the philosophy of the games . . . Hmm...
Agreed. Or, to condense the above to a more succinct and technical term: grow a pair. :)

Re: Should every new game be released with an infy lives option?

Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:42 am
by Ralf
Is this a rhetorical question? Of course we should have infinite lives and (if relevant) continues!
Well, the world has certainly changed. Games become mouch easier than they used to be in the 80s.

How many gamers actually completed Knight Lore or Manic Miner? 10%? 1%? That's the numbers I believe. And today everybody is expected to be able to complete his purchased game and see the ending.

But infinite lives still may be a fun killer, I believe. The game should be easy enough to be possible to complete but you still should be able to lose if you are totally careless.

A game is a game. And a part of a game is a challenge ;)