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

Propose new game/software design concepts or new game/software ideas. They can be as whimsical as you like, just be careful you don't ask someone to make it for you...
User avatar
hikoki
Dizzy
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 am

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

Post by hikoki » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:58 am

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.
0 x

User avatar
1024MAK
Dizzy
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:52 pm
Location: Sunny Somerset in the U.K. in Europe

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

Post by 1024MAK » Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:16 pm

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
0 x

User avatar
hikoki
Dizzy
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 10:54 am

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

Post by hikoki » Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:05 pm

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.
0 x

User avatar
Nomad
Microbot
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 12:38 pm

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

Post by Nomad » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:46 am

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'.
1 x

Post Reply