Lives systems.

[castletonsnob]

There's been some debate over whether live systems in games should still be a thing. What do you think? Do lives systems have any place in modern games, or are they just a relic of the arcade days?

[BorneAgain]

Depends on the game in question, really. A title like Celeste where the entire game is build around overcoming harder sections without having to go through the parts you've already beaten makes complete sense.

On other certain retro throwbacks feel most fitting with lives. There were some grumblings about Sonic Mania still utilizing lives, but given the worst possible punishment for a game over was going back to the beginning of a stage (as opposed to an act) I can't say it felt terribly unfair in that regard.

[Push R Truth]

I really liked how Mario Odyssey did it. You loose some coins and at most a minute or two of your time. It allowed you to be brave enough to try a lot of random stuff that would result in death, but it's not like you could die 30 times in a row without getting mad.


Overly harsh death systems in games tends to keep your gameplay safe and boring. Unless the entire game is built around the death system, like Survival in Minecraft. That's a different monster.

[chrom]

Only a handful of games do that anymore now. Last game I noticed that did was Mega Man 11

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

The Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor is probably my favorite death system, but obviously not one that is easy to use in other contexts.

[Cyno]

It all depends on the game and its structure. For games like "pure" platformers, it makes sense. One life and you're done in those cases is way too punishing. But there's also some penalty for failure. Infinite lives in those cases would make the games way too easy.

Though one of my favorite games lately is Hades, which has infinite lives but can also be really punishing as a rougelike. Every death means starting all over again, but you keep certain things to help make new runs more bearable.