|
Socoder -> Question of the Day
|
|
| Fri, 24 Nov 2006, 15:12 | |
Jayenkai
|
Given the fact that most games include Save Games to let you restart from the last level, do you think we still need a set number of lives for the player? What kind of penalties would the loss of all the player's lives achieve, compared to the loss of a single life?
-=-=- ''Load, Next List!'' 
|
| Fri, 24 Nov 2006, 18:11 | |
JL235
|
Again like all your questions, this depends solely on the game. To have three lives in an RTS would be weird. In an FPS it would be annoying, and again strange. However that might be a good avenue to look down. Combining the restraints of old retro games with the genres of today. |
| Sat, 25 Nov 2006, 10:28 | |
HoboBen
|
Personally, I like it when you can save whenever you want, for example just before you're going to do anything dangerous. I hate dying in games - it fustrates me!
-=-=- blog | work | code | more code |
| Sat, 25 Nov 2006, 10:38 | |
magicman
|
as diablosdevil said, it depends on the game.
|
| Sat, 25 Nov 2006, 12:15 | |
Scherererer
|
One important thing to look at with any game is this. Having set save points can be frustrating to the player since they usually have to end up re-doing a lot of stuff. You want the player to keep coming back, not get them angry enough to leave.
-=-=- YouTube Twitter Computer Science Series: Logic (pt1) (part 2) (part 3) 2's Complement Mathematics: Basic Differential Calculus
|
| Mon, 27 Nov 2006, 12:53 | |
|
garand |
Resident Evil has this "feature" where there is a set "save spot"(typewriter) but to save you have to have a certain rareish item that can only be used once per save(ink). It can get very frustrating. I like to be able to save at any point in a game and I like to be able to pause whenever I want, wether it be in the middle of a cut scene or story or anything.
|
|
|
| |||
|
| ||||