ポスト #1 · 2015-04-22 01:08:40amにポスト 9年前
I've been messing around with my own music game recently (think finger button mashing keysound type) and was watching some playtesters getting frustrated at repeatedly failing the songs that I began thinking to myself - is a life bar really necessary? There are three distinct ways of passing/failing I've seen in various music games (there might be more in ones I haven't played):
1) Require the life bar to be above a certain level at the end of the song in order to pass the stage, a la IIDX. This is the least desirable as it leads to the various "artificial difficulty" scenarios present in IIDX (e.g. a song being easy except for the last bar which is so hard it drops you to 1% below the passing life threshold).
2) If the life bar reaches 0% at any time, the stage is failed (like in DDR or ITG). This can either be instant or at the end of a stage (although my experiences with failing at the end of a song means the playtester thinks they're passing until they reach the end).
3) Not have a life bar at all, and instead decide whether the player's passed or failed a song based on how much they scored (similar to Pump it Up) - for example, a score of at least 50% is required to proceed to the next stage (or pass the song); a score of say 80% or 90% could be required to unlock a new song or something.
In each system listed above it's possible to play the song till the end (with the exception of DDR if the machine is set to fail immediately). So it's not like removing the life bar would "ruin any suspense" or something like that (in fact, the game could have an extra "course mode" which has its own exclusive songs, and employ an Oni-style life battery which will end the stage immediately on emptying).
100% of the playtesters of my game weren't even aware of the life bar until it was pointed out to them, and there were very frequently situations where one player passed with less points than another player who failed the same song. While removing the life bar may remove some of the feeling the need to do consistently well at the song, it might also make the player a little more relaxed, as well as making the objective purely to get the highest score possible (rather than just trying not to fail).
EDIT: I forgot to mention that a life bar make more sense from an arcade standpoint, in that it pushes crap players off quickly for the next one to come on and make more money. But even so, only allowing them the next stage if they score above a certain percentage does the same thing.
A couple of cases against from a chatroom I frequent:
So what's everyone's opinion on this?
1) Require the life bar to be above a certain level at the end of the song in order to pass the stage, a la IIDX. This is the least desirable as it leads to the various "artificial difficulty" scenarios present in IIDX (e.g. a song being easy except for the last bar which is so hard it drops you to 1% below the passing life threshold).
2) If the life bar reaches 0% at any time, the stage is failed (like in DDR or ITG). This can either be instant or at the end of a stage (although my experiences with failing at the end of a song means the playtester thinks they're passing until they reach the end).
3) Not have a life bar at all, and instead decide whether the player's passed or failed a song based on how much they scored (similar to Pump it Up) - for example, a score of at least 50% is required to proceed to the next stage (or pass the song); a score of say 80% or 90% could be required to unlock a new song or something.
In each system listed above it's possible to play the song till the end (with the exception of DDR if the machine is set to fail immediately). So it's not like removing the life bar would "ruin any suspense" or something like that (in fact, the game could have an extra "course mode" which has its own exclusive songs, and employ an Oni-style life battery which will end the stage immediately on emptying).
100% of the playtesters of my game weren't even aware of the life bar until it was pointed out to them, and there were very frequently situations where one player passed with less points than another player who failed the same song. While removing the life bar may remove some of the feeling the need to do consistently well at the song, it might also make the player a little more relaxed, as well as making the objective purely to get the highest score possible (rather than just trying not to fail).
EDIT: I forgot to mention that a life bar make more sense from an arcade standpoint, in that it pushes crap players off quickly for the next one to come on and make more money. But even so, only allowing them the next stage if they score above a certain percentage does the same thing.
A couple of cases against from a chatroom I frequent:
Quote: Nick
imo games should be rewarding, but it's up to the dev to figure out the balance between work and reward i guess
no lifebar = everyone's a winner...?
no lifebar = everyone's a winner...?
Quote: New Huge Comfortable Cute Cartoon Pikachu Bed Super Soft Sleeping Bag
whether having a score based passing system is a good idea is highly dependent on your scoring system itself. if the scoring system is similar to something like itg (where every note has a raw value), it's probably not a great idea because that makes the criteria for passing vary really weirdly between songs -- songs with one hard part but a lot of "score padding" become overly easy to "pass" even though they're physically exactly as hard to play as something half the length with the same hard section
So what's everyone's opinion on this?
ポスト #2 · 2015-04-22 01:37:11amにポスト 9年前
silenttype01 | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
8,023 ポスト | |
Reg. 2007-01-19 | |
"DINGDONG♥HEARTS" |
Oh, the health bar/ health meter!
I misunderstood the thread title as the bar that you hold on to when playing a song. Oopsie
I misunderstood the thread title as the bar that you hold on to when playing a song. Oopsie
ポスト #3 · 2015-04-22 01:51:49amにポスト 9年前
BemaniHyper | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
1,434 ポスト | |
Reg. 2013-09-13 | |
i like #3 myself. i know jubeat and reflec beat use these, and that might be why i enjoy playing them so much.
ポスト #4 · 2015-04-22 01:55:48amにポスト 9年前
blastlocket | |
---|---|
Banned | |
300 ポスト | |
Not Set | |
Reg. 2012-10-25 | |
I'm pretty casual when it comes to things like StepMania, where I just play songs for fun and don't care about the grade or anything, and timing isn't all that important to me, so I'd prefer something with no lifebar, as well as a very lenient judge system where it's either just hit or miss, like in Mungyodance 2 and 3. Also, I mostly play at home, so no one else waiting in line to play or anything like that. Actually, one theme I used even removed grading altogether. As soon as the song's steps end, you immediately went back to the song select to pick another song.
ポスト #5 · 2015-04-22 02:29:48amにポスト 9年前
King_Mew | |
---|---|
Member | |
269 ポスト | |
Reg. 2012-06-27 | |
"Fast 'n Bulbous!" |
I think in arcade games, life bars are necessary to add "suspense" and make things harder so people put in more credits. Specifically, I think the "instant fail" is the best, as it means that when someone leaves the game in frustration, the game will quickly reset itself for the next players.
For anything else, not having a life bar is fine. I guess it just depends on the style of gameplay and the aesthetics of the game itself. If I'm making a rhythm game aimed more for a general/casual audience, having no life bar would most likely be more beneficial. If you're aiming to have a more "Nintendo Hard" game, a life bar is a great way to screw the player up. I sure love getting a B on a song and failing in IIDX.
For anything else, not having a life bar is fine. I guess it just depends on the style of gameplay and the aesthetics of the game itself. If I'm making a rhythm game aimed more for a general/casual audience, having no life bar would most likely be more beneficial. If you're aiming to have a more "Nintendo Hard" game, a life bar is a great way to screw the player up. I sure love getting a B on a song and failing in IIDX.
ポスト #6 · 2015-04-22 03:41:42amにポスト 9年前
zeroroute | |
---|---|
Member | |
105 ポスト | |
Reg. 2014-10-09 | |
I agree with number 3 for 2 reasons = 1. It adds a jukebox-esque feeling and 2. It somehow makes me feel like I'm getting more bang for my credit even if the song lasts 20 more seconds.
ポスト #7 · 2015-04-22 04:19:58amにポスト 9年前
I'd rather just keep the lifebar but have a scoring system similar to DDR Supernova and onwards where every note counts for the same amount of points regardless of how far into the song you are. Plus, I like being able to tell how I'm actually doing on the song I'm playing while only having a quick glance away from wherever the notes are.
ポスト #8 · 2015-04-22 04:36:18amにポスト 9年前
Madotsuki98 | |
---|---|
Member | |
109 ポスト | |
Reg. 2014-08-25 | |
"Sleepy" |
Quote: Nix
I've been messing around with my own music game recently (think finger button mashing keysound type) and was watching some playtesters getting frustrated at repeatedly failing the songs that I began thinking to myself - is a life bar really necessary? There are three distinct ways of passing/failing I've seen in various music games (there might be more in ones I haven't played):
1) Require the life bar to be above a certain level at the end of the song in order to pass the stage, a la IIDX. This is the least desirable as it leads to the various "artificial difficulty" scenarios present in IIDX (e.g. a song being easy except for the last bar which is so hard it drops you to 1% below the passing life threshold).
2) If the life bar reaches 0% at any time, the stage is failed (like in DDR or ITG). This can either be instant or at the end of a stage (although my experiences with failing at the end of a song means the playtester thinks they're passing until they reach the end).
3) Not have a life bar at all, and instead decide whether the player's passed or failed a song based on how much they scored (similar to Pump it Up) - for example, a score of at least 50% is required to proceed to the next stage (or pass the song); a score of say 80% or 90% could be required to unlock a new song or something.
In each system listed above it's possible to play the song till the end (with the exception of DDR if the machine is set to fail immediately). So it's not like removing the life bar would "ruin any suspense" or something like that (in fact, the game could have an extra "course mode" which has its own exclusive songs, and employ an Oni-style life battery which will end the stage immediately on emptying).
100% of the playtesters of my game weren't even aware of the life bar until it was pointed out to them, and there were very frequently situations where one player passed with less points than another player who failed the same song. While removing the life bar may remove some of the feeling the need to do consistently well at the song, it might also make the player a little more relaxed, as well as making the objective purely to get the highest score possible (rather than just trying not to fail).
A couple of cases against from a chatroom I frequent:
So what's everyone's opinion on this?
1) Require the life bar to be above a certain level at the end of the song in order to pass the stage, a la IIDX. This is the least desirable as it leads to the various "artificial difficulty" scenarios present in IIDX (e.g. a song being easy except for the last bar which is so hard it drops you to 1% below the passing life threshold).
2) If the life bar reaches 0% at any time, the stage is failed (like in DDR or ITG). This can either be instant or at the end of a stage (although my experiences with failing at the end of a song means the playtester thinks they're passing until they reach the end).
3) Not have a life bar at all, and instead decide whether the player's passed or failed a song based on how much they scored (similar to Pump it Up) - for example, a score of at least 50% is required to proceed to the next stage (or pass the song); a score of say 80% or 90% could be required to unlock a new song or something.
In each system listed above it's possible to play the song till the end (with the exception of DDR if the machine is set to fail immediately). So it's not like removing the life bar would "ruin any suspense" or something like that (in fact, the game could have an extra "course mode" which has its own exclusive songs, and employ an Oni-style life battery which will end the stage immediately on emptying).
100% of the playtesters of my game weren't even aware of the life bar until it was pointed out to them, and there were very frequently situations where one player passed with less points than another player who failed the same song. While removing the life bar may remove some of the feeling the need to do consistently well at the song, it might also make the player a little more relaxed, as well as making the objective purely to get the highest score possible (rather than just trying not to fail).
A couple of cases against from a chatroom I frequent:
Quote: Nick
imo games should be rewarding, but it's up to the dev to figure out the balance between work and reward i guess
no lifebar = everyone's a winner...?
no lifebar = everyone's a winner...?
Quote: New Huge Comfortable Cute Cartoon Pikachu Bed Super Soft Sleeping Bag
whether having a score based passing system is a good idea is highly dependent on your scoring system itself. if the scoring system is similar to something like itg (where every note has a raw value), it's probably not a great idea because that makes the criteria for passing vary really weirdly between songs -- songs with one hard part but a lot of "score padding" become overly easy to "pass" even though they're physically exactly as hard to play as something half the length with the same hard section
So what's everyone's opinion on this?
IIDX last bar difficulty can be averted with hard gauge. If you die before the hard part the song is probably beyond your level. Maybe I'm just a masochist, but I like IIDX's system. While it could be more lenient, I think it does force a bit of consistency, and it's actually fairly merciful that IIDX's stupid EX score system isn't tied to clearing. imo it would make the game a lot harder and less fun
ポスト #9 · 2015-04-22 05:05:28amにポスト 9年前
NuVirus | |
---|---|
Member | |
694 ポスト | |
Reg. 2011-10-10 | |
(had to retype, because too many people log on at the same time & erase my text with high server load)
I'd totally support #3, particularly if it were to be implemented for ReRave.
I mean, let's face it, how are we ever supposed to memorize high difficulty ReRave charts firsthand, if the game keeps preventing us from doing so by failing us prematurely?
On that note, I'm quite appalled at how up to now, the devs behind ReRave have never considered implementing a feature that can have failing set to "End Of Song," as opposed to it's current & only setting of "Instant." unless they have and I just have not been made aware of it
I'd totally support #3, particularly if it were to be implemented for ReRave.
I mean, let's face it, how are we ever supposed to memorize high difficulty ReRave charts firsthand, if the game keeps preventing us from doing so by failing us prematurely?
On that note, I'm quite appalled at how up to now, the devs behind ReRave have never considered implementing a feature that can have failing set to "End Of Song," as opposed to it's current & only setting of "Instant." unless they have and I just have not been made aware of it
ポスト #10 · 2015-04-22 08:54:54amにポスト 9年前
Quickman | |
---|---|
Member+ | |
6,064 ポスト | |
Reg. 2013-08-17 | |
"five minute white boy challenge" |
Make it like ITG. Have a lifebar AND a %-based scoring system. There's a lot of satisfaction in simply passing a hard song when your lifebar is at "OHMYGODONNADIENOW"-level.