An actual discussion of credits

[exodus]

Like many, I was fooled by the (now deleted) post about the importance of credits - so let's talk about it!

This is not much of an issue anymore, but in the past, arcade games were often ported to console - arcade games are inherently different, because they're made to suck quarters away from you. Earlier attempts to port these games gave you limited lives, with the ability to earn more, and that became the standard for quite some time. Others, like SNK's ports, gave unlimited credits, and simply relied on difficulty to keep you going.

Nowadays, the concept of 'lives' barely exists - even a game like New Super Mario Bros. has lives, but does it really? If it's throwing lives at you to the point where you can easily beat the game with 30 left (or something, I don't know, I didn't like it) - what is the point of having 'lives'?

So what works and what doesn't? To me the concept of lives works in some of those older games that require learning the level, and memorization. Not many of us have the patience for that anymore, unless it's well integrated into the design, or the levels branch enough to where it's enjoyable to explore in different ways (I'm thinking of sonic games here. Don't make any 3D Sonic jokes, I'm not talking about those).

As far as credits go, I think they're still compelling in arcade games. Recently I played a Data East arcade game called Cliffhanger Edward Randy (going to make a dedicated post about it later), and the 'just one more try' thing still works on me, though that game's simple once out figure out the trick.

In a way, I feel like achievements on the 360 are the new 'just one more game' type of incentive. Keeps you going, but for a specific goal, this time (if you care to meet the goal). But it also fosters some of that OCD game design that I'm not a fan of.

what do you all think?

[Roosty]

I think lives in most genres of games have become an antiquated mechanic. I think as games move more and more into the "living room" of middle America, games are slowly no longer a niche hobby, but another form of entertainment. As a piece of entertainment, I think games have a obligation to the player to provide entertainment in the least frustrating way possible.

(Another argument for another post: Do games deserve to be "taken away" from niche gamers who were the ones providing the sole revenue to these developers for a not insignificant amount of time?)

So, for argument's sake, let us say that most genres of games are made today to be used as entertainment for the masses. If this is the case, what good is it to punish the player who wishes to be entertained? If the player only ever sees the first three levels of ten levels you've put into your game, was their experience worth the money they spent on the game? Was the experience worth the developer's years of work? If only a small margin of players saw the last level in a game, doesn't that make the last worth less than the first level? How does a developer justify the amount of time and money spent on making the last level of a game when only a few people were able to experience it?

If we are to make an analogy to another form of entertainment (for example books) the design decisions made in game's past would seem, for lack of a better word, silly. Imagine reading a book and you got to the third chapter only to reach a word you didn't understand. Now, you have to start reading the book over again. So now you know what the word in Chapter 3 means and you get past it, but a word you don't know pops up in Chapter 6. And now you have to start the book all over again.

I think there are for sure alot of game still that could benefit from the use of lives and the additional challenge but I think as hardcore gamers, we're likely now in the minority.

As a final thought in an overlong post there are a number of games I love that while playing, didn't ever really notice or care I had infinite lives. Ratchet and Clank, Jak and Daxter, Uncharted, Call of Duty 4 and God of War.
_________________
"You know you've hit rock bottom when you're told you have character flaws by a man who hung his predecessor during a military coup."

[exodus]

They certainly do seem outdated, but they also have their uses...I think those uses are not being explored right now, aside from in games that are just too lazy to modernize design-wise. They're also used as an artificial extender of gameplay, which is rather pathetic.

When I have time, I want to think of a scenario in which lives are good or necessary.

[mrnutz]

[Deets]

This seems like a good time to mention Cursor over here.

I like a lot of arcade games, and I like trying to finish them on 1-credit, but I can usually only maintain interest if I have some freedom in how I pursue that goal. Playing from stage 1 every time is monotonous and generally irrelevant to the rest of the game after a certain point.

Space Giraffe has an interesting solution to this problem - the game has 100 levels, and playing through all of them from the beginning takes something like 5 or 6 hours - a huge pain in the ass, to be sure. The solution then, is the "start bonus" - every time you finish a stage with 3 or more lives, your current cumulative score from every stage previous at that time is recorded, and the next time you begin a new game from that stage it gets added to your score at the end of the level. The result is that you can slowly develop a 1-credit-clear score and explore the game at your leisure without having to play a terrifying 6-hour game - although there's an achievement for that, too. I think it's an elegant solution to a lot of arcade design issues that players have just kind of accepted due to their ubiquity.

[exodus]

I really liked the start bonus idea in Space Giraffe...I can't say I've played it extensively though. I can only imagine how upset Minter will get if Tempest outsells Space Giraffe, but I guess we'll see...

But yes, it really does keep you from having to play through all 100 levels in one go, while still letting you feel like you're getting "real" points for your trouble. It also sort of means you can replay the game in chunks, to increase your start bonus, yes?

I should try Geometry Wars Galaxies - but I haven't had the urge to plug in my Wii yet.

[TheMunter]

[NPC]

When it comes to arcade ports, I like the old idea of gradual credits(ex: Ikaruga). It forces players to replay parts of the game until they are truly worthy of progressing. This gives them the full "experience" and makes them understand the true mechanics of the game. The same thing could be done with "lives" I guess.

If a game is throwing lives at you, then the "game" was probably designed to highlight other aspects besides the actual gameplay. This isn't a bad thing, it's just more "video" than it is "game". Besides that I think the reason why modern games are drifting towards this more recently is because developers want the casual player to easily access all of their game. If the game even appears to be too difficult some may walk away. In the case of modern Mario games there are a lot of lives being thrown at you. Though luckily the gameplay at its core is still there.

So anyways, it all depends on the type of game IMO.

[TheMunter]

[Mister Toups]

I think the concept of extra lives has its place in arcade style games (particularly of the ilk of games like geometry wars or space giraffe). And I think they could still work as a way to ensure difficulty in more linear platformer games such as mario galaxy, if only those games didn't throw extra lives at you like they were candy.

But the direction game design is moving in, I do think that they are largely becoming obsolete. Most linear, plot-based games these days are broken up into set pieces, which are divided by continue points. Lives exist to provide incentive to not screw up -- if you die enough times, then you have to repeat the entire level instead of starting from the beginning. In a game like super mario brothers, this may not be a problem, since the level design is both snappy and deep enough to make multiple playthroughs brief and engaging. But the sad truth is that most games do not have setpieces that hold up well to repetition. Usually, once you play through it once, playing through it again is simply boring and repetitive. Games like Jak and Daxter get this and don't punish failure with significant setbacks, and I think this works in their favor.

[Mister Toups]

Also, I can't recommend playing Space Giraffe enough. It has an obnoxiously high learning curve, but consequently it's one of the most rewarding games I've ever played. One of the best games of 2007, easily. Everyone who is able to should play it.

[mrnutz]

From the Llamasoft blog:

[luvcraft]

Our very own Alex Kierkegaard's ruminations on the subject are very enlightening and a good read. They made my brain go think about aspects of arcade vs. console game design that I hadn't thought of before.

[layazero]

I was going to mention Ikaruga, but it already was! (thanks, NPC!). I'd like to elaborate on the fact that I love how you are rewarded for playing more. If you are already a pro, then you can beat the game, and who cares about extra credits? However, if you aren't so good, it forces you to practice and get better, so that while you can eventually get free play, at that point, you might not actually need it.

I was also always enamored with how Resident Evil approached this (they eventually went to free saves, right?). You had a limited number of saves, so you had to use them strategically. It added to the sense of urgency to the game, and helped get you on tilt with the rest of the bizarre situation you were thrown into. What was also great was sometime you had to choose between the ability to save and heal or save or carry more ammo!

HOWEVER! I understand that one could argue that this design is making the game harder through artificial means, which is just lazy design.

Anyway, I think save points are the new "lives" or "credits."

[Roosty]

[NFG]

[exodus]

oh, I forgot about the Resident Evil save system, that was an interesting concept indeed, and did work to increase the tension in a graphically very rudimentary game.

I thought of another interesting implementation - Mars Matrix has you earn points as money, and you can spend those in a shop which gives you things like extra lives, continues, tutorial plays and score attack opportunities for certain levels.

Anyway, if you're only mediocre at shooters, like me, this allows you to play through to a certain point, then die - then go spend points on more lives, then play a bit further, remembering everything I played through the first time, and subsequently getting better - then dying and getting further. It worked because you always got a little better, and maybe you had another life or two, so it was easy to see your progress, which can be tough in other shooters that may be harder to beat.

[paintbucket]

Well, how would we have Zelda, or even Half-Life 2 if we were still using "lives" the way we did? (royal we, heh) Maybe even Within a Deep Forest? Or even, dare I say it, The Sims, Harvest Moon, or Animal Crossing? I am not against lives, though, it would be a lie to say that I really have MAME on any of my computers. There is also no arcade near me that I know of (though I should probably look into this).

I mean, don't get me wrong, I used to go to the arcade all the time, and there is a certain tribalistic thrill to having a limited amount of lives; hell, even the multiplayer Counter-Strike uses a 1-life system (in its vanilla form...without plugins and such which can very drastically change the nature of the game to tell you the truth). And in the long credit threads we've had before, it's been highlighted rightfully how to play through an arcade or arcade-like game to its end on one or at the most a few credits is an act of cumulative skill against exponentially harder targets/puzzles/etc. At the end of the experience, you have more or less ingrained a feat of skill into your muscle memory--at least, the best of these games make you feel this way.

But I also have to believe that lives stemmed from sheer economic investment. You can't have a public game that makes money unless it makes the vast majority of "you" (the player) lose eventually--much like how movies tend to stick to a few hours, about 1-3, as otherwise the audience in all seriousness gets bored. Writing this post, Bemani games ultimately made me realise that there's a reason you usually have about 3 "songs" to play. Nothing would ever, ever get done without lives.

That's not to say that incidentally and tangentially this limitation hasn't spawned a fascinating game mechanic. Indeed like many other discussions we have had, say on the nature of portables, hardware and other external limitations, like many things even in the Real World (™), inadvertently spawn things that are beautiful and amazing.

Let's talk about a game like Planescape Torment. This wasn't even precisely trying to walk over the hump of death, since death and its consequences are so salient in the gameplay, but then again, I can easily see the game being spawned out of discussions of Black Isle on the frustration of D&D and dying. edit: also, who can forget Dragon Quarter?
_________________
cult of the kino-eye

[Shapermc]

[NFG]

Sorry shapermc, I was referring to New Super Mario Bros, which exodus mentioned in the first post.

Kororinpa's awesome though, definitely my favourite game of this generation so far.
_________________

[Ashura]

I thought this was, initially, a talk about tokens. I collect tokens, and I have some cool ones (Like a bunch of Namco ones with Pac-Man on them, and Sega City ones) to some weird ones (I have this one with a naked chick with hot boobs on it that I have no idea where I got it.) to random junk mixed in (Car Wash tokens!?)

I also somehow accumlated like 10 dollars worth from the Putt Putt Golf place close to here somehow.

[Gironika]

[dai jou bu]

[kitroebuck]

This disscussion reminds me of the time Nintendo sued Galoob over the Game Genie. I can't find anything that says this specifically now, but the way I understood it at the time, Nintendo was upset that the Game Genie decreased the value of its games by making them easier to complete in a short amount of time. That is to say, the limited number of credits and constantly starting over at stage one was seen, by Nintendo at least, to be an essential factor in the value of the game. I may have misunderstood this in my youth, but, hey, that's pretty different from today's attitude that measures the length of the game as the time it takes to play from the begining to the end one time.

I was thinking about this while playing the XBLA port of Metal Slug 3. The first thing I did when I got it was set the credit limit to one. I've played it about six times so far and I can finish the first level no miss easily and usually make it well into the third without running out of lives. At the begining of this thread, Roosty asks if later levels are worth less in games with credit limits as fewer people are likely to see them. From a bussiness perspective this is probably the case, but as a player aren't they worth more? I'm kind of kicking myself for credit-feeding my way through this game back in the day, because I can imagine how awesome it would be if my eventual one credit completion were my first completion of this game.

[Kiken]

[Panoptic]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Zanac yet, with its auto-adjusting difficulty. Did any other Compile games do that?

As an aside, I love the fact that Compile got the NES to throw so much stuff around on the screen; same with what Naxat did with Recca.
_________________

[dai jou bu]

[Kiken]

[dai jou bu]

[Gironika]