Are lives in video games an outdated concept?

No, or if you remove them, you need to add mechanics to replace all its functions.

Yes, obviously, but you're being facetious because obviously that is an untenable economic proposition since it is only design to make profit. We've moved past arcades to having rich, fleshed out games to experience from the comforr of my home. Why should I bust my ass trying to beat some shitty game after busting my ass at my dead-end jobs? I play games to unwind, not to uphold some pathetic ego online with other neckbeards.

Yeah, they're outdated
It's padding
Challenge is a good thing but then you had people making lives scarce just so that kids won't simply rent a game

Depends on the kind of games. Stuff like Dwarf Fortress, Kenshi, Rogue likes, ect where you die you fucking die its obviously important but something like platformers its not. Platformers punishment for failing is just putting you back at a checkpoint / start of the level, you don't need lives.

lives are shit, he's 100% right.
game over screens should still be a thing though, games SHOULD be somewhat punishing. no matter the genre

I've never understood why zoomers had such a huge issue with lives.

Only shitters think Lives are an outdated concept.

Yes it's just outdated, like using passwords instead of save files

i haven't played a game with lives that's put up a fight in years. i don't think i ever even had a game over when super mario 64 was new

Without a Lives system no game can be truly punishing because you can just restart from checkpoint over and over again

The souls franchise has no game over screens and proved that they are outdated and irrelevant.

Challenges are just fun for some people. And playing a game for a quarter where the graphics were way past consoles at the time wasn't a bad deal.

Lives have been outdated for 20+ years.
If a game is challenging because its actually difficult to overcome the challenge it presents to you (Whether its by mechanical skill or decision making/puzzle solving), thats good. That makes you try hard and feel accomplished to beat it

If a game is a challenging because you're only allowed so many mistakes before you end up back at the beginning of a long level and have to repeat all the progress you just made, then it isn't challenging. Its frustrating and a slog.
If theres a really tough boss you cant beat, everyone wants to just jump straight back in and try again. Nobody wants to try 3 more times, then repeat the entire level to reach the boss again because reasons

Yes. The only notable measure of skill in anything is the 1-Credit Clear, therefore anything between "if you die restart" and "if you die go back a bit" is completely unnecessary.

Doom Eternal Ultra Nightmare proofs? Nightmare Extra Life Mode proofs?

and here come the dark souls fags thinking their roll simulator is a hard game lmao

Yeah it really doesn't matter specially if the ending screen will just ask you to continue with next to penalties. They have been pointless since games have not forced you to start from the very beginning like in arcade games and first mario bros. At worse they just take you to main menu nowadays

Attached: download.jpeg.jpg (229x220, 14.01K)

there are no doom games beyond doom 2. and doom 2 just kicked your ass back to the start of the level

the last part of your post is literally the worst part about soulslike games, forcing the player to go back through the entire level again to get another try from a hard boss. It's not hard just frustrating

It depends on the game. The difficulty of some games is just clearing a challenge, in which case you don't need lives because you've already proven you can clear it. In other games, the difficulty comes from clearing multiple challenges in a row without dying. In which case lives are valuable in giving you multiple chances at completing the goal but without making it something you can clear by bashing your head against it.

Yeah, Already having to retry a level is a decent enough punishment for failure

it unironically worked for Prince of Persia

Souls games make a mockery of it by allowing you to sprint through the whole level in the vast majority of cases, unless they give you a shortcut from the start zone to the boss

Souls is an already babified take on dungeon crawler penalties and is virtually no different than any NES game with infinite lives where the checkpoints are deliberately shitty.

Game over screens are outdated, change my mind.

Attached: 1598951342832.jpg (496x496, 16.11K)

>souls games should delete your save file if you die
fuck off

Completely. It was never good for platformers in the first place, it was designed for beat em ups or shit like Pac Man as artificial difficulty to force more players to pay to win or move on to let others pay to win
When you bought a copy of the entire game for 60USD, that means you should be free to complete it at the pace you want to, aka, not die in a video game anymore.

People want to explore and have fun. Not be punished for shit they bought. LoZ was the best form of fix if you fell down a pit or something, just respawn you back at the nearest door/ledge you came through/stood on. That's how it should be. Not resetting all your hours of progress.

>So you think arcades should give you unlimited tries till you beat the game?
Yes, it's called quarters you fucking retard. If you were a rich autistic neet these people would indeed do this, that's how the birth of world records for speedrunning was born.

Yeah. I don't really see the point.

No

>They only existed to artificially extend the lengths of games by having you repeat levels you already beat to get back to where you were.
No. Lives serve to compel the player to develop skills before finishing the game. Nowadays you can finish difficult games like Celeste and Super Meat Boy and that says nothing about your skills unless your achievement is accompanied by some autism like "finish without dying" or "finish in less than 10 minutes".