Why do we accept one hit kills?

[Protoman]

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...

[L___E___T]

 

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.

[Ghegs]

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.

[chowder]

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.

[Jedi Master Baiter]

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.

[P]

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.

[zmaster18]

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! 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!

[Yelir]

I've always wondered if designers spend much time play testing both methods before making the final cut? 

Personally, I only loathe one hit death when the game controls like garbage.

[P]

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.

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! 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.

[Jedi Master Baiter]

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.

[P]

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.

[Protoman]

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.

[Ghegs]

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.

[P]

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.

[Protoman]

Sounds to me you just want games to be easier.

Big whoop, wanna fight aboudit

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.