One hit kills is probably my most hated old school game cliché. It can ruin a game for me, but plenty of games still get a pass, like MetalStorm for one.
Close to that are games like Mario or Ghosts n Goblins where you die in 2 hits, which is not much better. But even I think not every game needs a life bar, although it would be nice. But why only one hit to die? Am I the only one who feels thats unfair? Especially if the character you're playing as is a huge fighting robot or something...
I don't think this in itself is unfair - it's unfair when combined with 'unfair' or poor design. I haven't heard of anyone saying SMB1 is unfair for example, which technically does have one-hit kills.
I love one-hit kills. None of that "I can take a hundred bullets and heal myself by just hiding behind a corner for five seconds / picking up a healthkit / eating three dozen blocks of cheese mid-combat" nonsense for me, thankyouverymuch.
The history of one-hit kills is money. Games began in arcades, arcades make money by killing the player so that they need to enter another credit, you kill players faster when they die easily. I remember reading somewhere that arcade operators actually researched this, the optimal time to kill the player (so that they get a Game Over) is around three minutes into the game. It's long enough that don't they don't get too frustrated and never play it again, but short enough that the game keeps their interest and makes them want to try again. So, one-hit kills. Console games started out by copying the arcade formula (so you see things like the score counter in Mario despite it being basically useless and easily broken) and one-hit kills made the transition as well.
For someone like me who doesn't play much modern games and tends to gravitate towards arcade-style games in general, one-hit kills are the way to go.
I agree with the points made so far. Modern games are far too easy! It's mostly a throwback to classic arcade games, as Ghegs pointed out. Think Donkey Kong and Pacman for example. Later titles (like the WWF games) let you top up your life bar with extra coins instead. For platformers, a 1 or 2 hit death sort of makes sense to me.
I have more of a gripe with several, sparse one-block platforms surrounded by wide deathpits, especially if you have to start the stage over.
Like Let said, the concept itself can't be considered unfair. There are plenty of one-hit games that are still easy, either because the enemies are easy to avoid or because you have tons of lives and respawn immediately on the same spot, or both. And likewise there are plenty of games with a vitality bar where players still dies like flies.
Historically I'm pretty sure one-hit-kill is older than the vitality bar (it's the simpler system after all). I read that Dragon Buster was one of the first with using the bar, but I think there where RPGs before that, that must had a HP system. Either way it seems to originate in RPGs (Dragon Buster is an RPG-inspired arcade game, although it probably really can't be called an RPG as a genre) since they have a Hit Point system which is virtually the same thing as a vitality bar.
When I was a kid there was a point where I was fed up with one-hit-kills (especially in shmups) and thought the vitality bar was the future. Now I simply like both in genres where they fit, and are done nicely.
I really like the one, or two, hit system in Super Mario Bros. When you're Super Mario, you can take one hit and play as you usually do. But once you're hit and become small Mario, you suddenly become much more cautious and you're keeping your eyes out for another mushroom. Once you get the mushroom, you can feel safe again! :P I find this very balanced when it comes to difficulty. At least in Mario you get these mushrooms as second chances. It really makes you appreciate each power up!
I've always wondered if designers spend much time play testing both methods before making the final cut? :upsetroll:
Personally, I only loathe one hit death when the game controls like garbage.
They probably usually have an idea, make it into a game, then play test it, realizing that it doesn't work very well, radically redesign the game, test again etc. That's my experience in game making anyway. ;D
Quote from: zmaster18 on March 09, 2016, 07:33:11 am
I really like the one, or two, hit system in Super Mario Bros. When you're Super Mario, you can take one hit and play as you usually do. But once you're hit and become small Mario, you suddenly become much more cautious and you're keeping your eyes out for another mushroom. Once you get the mushroom, you can feel safe again! :P I find this very balanced when it comes to difficulty. At least in Mario you get these mushrooms as second chances. It really makes you appreciate each power up!
Yeah they balanced that game very well, part of the reason it was such a big hit I guess. But in some cases the super power up feels like a downside since you more bulky. Especially when fighting Koopa, jumping over him is hard because you hit the ceiling easily, and going under is hard because you need to duck and slide. In the end you are at an advantage though since you can just rush through him if you fail, an instant win. But it feels like a cheap way to win.
This is especially true in SMB2j since you seldom get to keep the fire flower all the way to Koopa.
SMB2J was vile in that being large worked against you from time to time. I'm talking about instant fall-to-your-death; no shrinkage; nothing redeeming about being big:
https://youtu.be/xPjhyUbaTog?t=3m8s
https://youtu.be/xPjhyUbaTog?t=40m51s
https://youtu.be/xPjhyUbaTog?t=41m2s
https://youtu.be/xPjhyUbaTog?t=41m30s
And this is my favorite one:
https://youtu.be/xPjhyUbaTog?t=56m29s
I didn't realize it sucks to get by when you're not small. :-\
Yes that's exactly what I meant! Sometimes you even have to become small Mario before you can go on (or at least I wasn't able to, as Super or Fire Mario).
BTW here's the source about Vitality Bar:
http://www.gamesradar.com/gamings-most-important-evolutions/?page=4 (scroll down to Dragon Buster)
According to this at least, Dragon Buster was the first action game to use it, and the first game to graphically show it as a bar.
So it originates in RPGs, starting in Dungeons & Dragons. Which in turn originates in miniature warsim games. But warsim games usually had one-hit-kills at the time I think, so D&D might be the true origin.
There are not a lot of one hit kill games that I feel wouldn't be improved by adding a life bar of some kind.
Sounds to me you just want games to be easier.
Whether a game has one-hit kills or a lifebar is an integral part of the game's design. If you just take any one-hit kill game and add a lifebar to it, its intended balance goes completely out of whack, assuming the game has been designed well in the first place. Controls, stage design, everything's been designed with one-hit kills in mind. Add a lifebar and the game's challenge is considerably lessened as you can just plow through situations with little regard to proper tactics, weapon choices, etc. since you can soak up the damage.
The reverse is a bit different situation. A lifebar game might become impossible if you implement one-hit kills, or it might just become more difficult. Again, depending on the game's design. Modern games would probably be impossible, as there's practically no way to dodge every bullet in Call of Duty or Gears of War or what have you. However, I can think of many Famicom games that would be improved by removing the lifebar and adding one-hit kills (or at least adding a new difficulty mode that does that). Moon Crystal and Kyatto Ninden Teyandee are the first that come to mind, both are quite easy games. In Moon Crystal you can tank most of the bosses without having to learn their patterns at all, wouldn't be able to do that with one-hit kills.
And sure, something like Ninja Gaiden would become even more extremely difficult with one-hit kills. But it kind of has them already, since a hit at an inopportune moment will send you flying into a bottomless pit.
I fully agree with Ghegs. Although there are games that doesn't seem to have been play tested enough, most good games seems to have been carefully designed with the one-hit-kill/life-bar in mind.
Ninja Gaiden has a very good balanced damage system. It's enough to withstand a few good hits in situations where your footings are good, but it sinks fast enough for you to feel pressured not to get hit as much as possible. Sometimes you are just pushed around from all directions and die almost instantly. It would be a nightmare to play with one-hit-kills though.
Quote from: Ghegs on March 11, 2016, 12:29:56 am
Sounds to me you just want games to be easier.
Big whoop, wanna fight aboudit
Quote from: Ghegs on March 11, 2016, 12:29:56 am
Add a lifebar and the game's challenge is considerably lessened as you can just plow through situations with little regard to proper tactics, weapon choices, etc. since you can soak up the damage.
Not every lifebar has to be like the one in Megaman, it could be one that allows 2 or 3 hits.
Quote from: Protoman on March 11, 2016, 12:38:33 pm
Not every lifebar has to be like the one in Megaman, it could be one that allows 2 or 3 hits.
So you do want games to be easier? :P
This is pointless, games were designed the way they were. As has been pointed out (multiple times), changing this would alter the gameplay so drastically as to render it unplayable/ridiculously easy. If you don't like one hit death games, or just suck at them, don't play them. Easy solution :)
Quote from: chowder on March 11, 2016, 02:17:28 pm
If you don't like one hit death games, or just suck at them, don't play them. Easy solution :)
Or Game Genie ;D
Quote from: chowder on March 11, 2016, 02:17:28 pm
This is pointless, games were designed the way they were. As has been pointed out (multiple times), changing this would alter the gameplay so drastically as to render it unplayable/ridiculously easy.
I don't think adding a lifebar to Transformers no Nazo would make it too easy. Let's see a show of hands, how many of us here have completed that?
...
...
By the way, my hand is down.
Quote from: chowder on March 11, 2016, 02:17:28 pm
If you don't like one hit death games, or just suck at them, don't play them. Easy solution :)
Easy to say. How do you know you're getting into one? Perhaps I'm just a Dirty Pair fan, and I want to play the only known game in existence for the FDS. How am I supposed to know it's a one hit death trip? And that I'm going to suck at it? ::)
Fun thread!
Quote from: P on March 11, 2016, 01:06:40 am
Ninja Gaiden has a very good balanced damage system. It's enough to withstand a few good hits in situations where your footings are good, but it sinks fast enough for you to feel pressured not to get hit as much as possible. Sometimes you are just pushed around from all directions and die almost instantly. It would be a nightmare to play with one-hit-kills though.
Quote from: Ghegs on March 11, 2016, 12:29:56 am
And sure, something like Ninja Gaiden would become even more extremely difficult with one-hit kills. But it kind of has them already, since a hit at an inopportune moment will send you flying into a bottomless pit.
Not to mention, Ninja Gaiden would be literally impossible to no-death if it lacked a life bar - there's one point in the game where you're forced to take a hit on first try, against the 3rd form of the final boss battle. Upon destroying its head, it'll detach and roll at you, in which case there's no way to bypass it, unless you were to die, grab Spin Slash, and then use that to destroy the head as it rolls.
Ninja Gaiden is the game that I'll always stand by as having the perfect difficulty level. It's demanding, but manageable, it's mostly consistent so you can beast at it once you learn the tricks, however it has that *slight* element of randomness (with the "Hammer Bros." enemies) that makes even expert players have to be on their toes. Keeps things exciting without reaching Holy Diver-levels of nerve-wracking.
Quote from: Ghegs on March 11, 2016, 12:29:56 am
However, I can think of many Famicom games that would be improved by removing the lifebar and adding one-hit kills (or at least adding a new difficulty mode that does that). Moon Crystal and Kyatto Ninden Teyandee are the first that come to mind, both are quite easy games. In Moon Crystal you can tank most of the bosses without having to learn their patterns at all, wouldn't be able to do that with one-hit kills.
The game that I'll always use as an example of this is Choujin Sentai Jetman - there is some clever enemy layout in that game, but you'll only know it if you're playing on the 1.H.K. Very Hard mode setting. Every other setting on that game lacks intensity, meaning it fails to live up to the music. Very Hard is the way to go, and even then it isn't *too* tough a no-death run.
Quote from: Jedi QuestMaster on March 11, 2016, 04:26:48 pm
I don't think adding a lifebar to Transformers no Nazo would make it too easy. Let's see a show of hands, how many of us here have completed that?
(https://i.gyazo.com/f47e5eeb7a58d1dc8be57557de0e09c1.png)
Playing through Convoy no Nazo was... not the most pleasant gaming experience in my life, but the game was still fully playable and I did have some degree of fun solving the stages, specifically the best way to tackle those terrifying vertical stages... it wouldn't have been nearly as intense if I could have just tanked hits.
Edit: To clarify (as I admittedly failed to read the initial statement properly), I don't think that it having a health bar would make it too easy, but rather that I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.
Depends on the game. The SMB games are just about perfectly balanced. Ditto for a lot of Konami games like Contra. Games that DO give you a lifebar would be all-but unplayable with one-hit deaths. Rockman, Akumajou, Ninja Ryukenden etc.
It's when you get games that control like crap, where it's all-but impossible to avoid getting hit at times, where one-hit deaths hinder gameplay. Convoy no Nazo is, I think, a pretty good example. Or the Namcot Star Wars game.
Many people have cleared Rockman games without ever taking a hit. The ninth and tenth installations even offer achievement points for doing it, it's very far from unplayable. Same thing with Castlevania, I'd say.
I'll give you Convoy no Nazo but that's poorly designed to begin with. Namcot Star Wars, however, is not. Controls nicely, no problems with one-hit deaths there.
I personally don't enjoy one-hit deaths. I've played through games before without taking a hit, and have also made it through games while rarely taking a hit (such as Castlevania 3), but that can be credited to years and years of experience. If I were forced to do it that way, as a youngster, that game would have gone out the window years ago.
Namco's Star Wars is another good example. Its a game of memorizing the levels :) I wish there was a continue option. At least in Star Wars you can get crystals and use the force in many different ways. It's like you get to cheat once per level and you can levitate and stuff! I think that makes it pretty fair!
Quote from: zmaster18 on March 19, 2016, 11:25:56 amNamco's Star Wars is another good example. Its a game of memorizing the levels :) I wish there was a continue option.
There is! When you Game Over and see Vader's head, hold up and press A eight times. But it can only be done twice, and if I recall, you need to have enough Force power to do it.
As a side note, I like the Force power system in that game, far more interesting than what the other version has.
I like 'One Hit Kills', depending on how well it's implemented.
Like in Contra, you take a bullet, you're dead. Sorry. It also encourages you to not get hit and learn enemy movements and patterns.
Can you imagine games like Bubble Bobble, if you had a health bar? Simple games don't need to be over designed.
3D is a different world entirely. You'll notice Mario 64 has a life bar, where it typically wouldn't.