Archive: 46 posts

---

Lately, I started a level based on 'Batman: Arkham Asylum' (if you know me, you know that I start about 1 level a week and finish 1 out of 100 ). I'm trying to make it a challenging-but-not-INSANELY-challenging level, with platforming that will make you work hard and maybe some puzzles to make you THINK hard. I keep asking myself if I should use infinite-life checkpoints or not. I want the level to be challenging, and using double-life checkpoints might give it more of a frantic feel. Players might be more satisfied if they beat a tough challenge with a few lives remaining. However, considering much of the community are childish enough to rate 1 star on a good level they fail at (that is completely possible to beat), I don't want my ratings to drop due to not using infinite-life checkpoints. I also hope for the level to be a long one to beat, and if people get far into it and die, most of them won't replay it. So, even if I don't finish this level, for future referance, would you say I should use normal and double-life checkpoints on a tricky level, or infinite-life checkpoints?

2010-05-18 02:35:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

infinte life!

2010-05-18 02:37:00 Author: JspOt Posts: 3607

---

infinte life! Well, thanks for the reply, but can you explain your opinion a bit more? (also, why can't I make this post any smaller? >.>)

2010-05-18 02:42:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

Because well it'll be hard. Some aren't very good and would like to finish a good level, and I've had experiences where I kept losing lives and dying, even with the double life checkpoint. In fact, everyone (well, everyone who's played the story bunker that is ) should have had that experience at least once.

2010-05-18 02:47:00 Author: JspOt Posts: 3607

---

Hmm, I prefer now to not have infinite anymore because to my prespective is that it doesn't look as good as it suppose to be. So I recommend to have double or regular life points to give it's spit-clean look.

2010-05-18 02:53:00 Author: Woflgod Posts: 295

---

I'd prefer not to do this, but would people appreciate a second version of the level with infinte life checkpoints along with the original?

2010-05-18 02:54:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

I kinda made a thread like this a looooong time ago: https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=16093-Infinite-Lives-Checkpoint-Yes-or-No I can see that this one is different, so it doesn't matter, however, you can look at my thread for opinions. Anyways, don't post in that thread because it's old.

2010-05-18 03:05:00 Author: warlord_evil Posts: 4193

---

If it's a fun/fast pure action platformer you could get away with normal/double life checkpoints. It will be difficult to make sure the challenges are predictable and don't ever appear cheap or I don't think many will retry. You also need to pay special attention to your score bubbles to reward people for doing well. The level also better look cool so that you really want to see how it ends. Since you've mentioned puzzles and having to think you'll be better off with infinite checkpoints...people won't want to restart from the beginning and resolve the same puzzles. So for puzzle/exploraton type levels I'd go with infinite checkpoints.

2010-05-18 03:24:00 Author: fullofwin Posts: 1214

---

Personally I would ditch the infinite-life checkpoints. From how the OP sounded it seemed that you were leaning more towards using double-life checkpoints and that the only reason you were considering infinite-life checkpoints is because immature players would find it too hard, give up and rate it 1 star. If this is the case then I think you need to ask whether or not ratings and plays are important enough to change the way you want to create. Just try both and decide which one you found to be more enjoyable and go with that

2010-05-18 07:36:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

Use normal checkpoints as default, on very tricky bits use double life checkpoints, and on sections where the player will definatly die everytime until they work out what they are doing wrong (or not doing) use infinite life check points. Thats what I do at least I generally don't use infinite life check points a lot.

2010-05-18 08:10:00 Author: Asbestos101 Posts: 1114

---

I use regular and double lives checkpoints. In my opinion, infinite lives checkpoints take the challenge out of levels, and anyone can beat it by rushing into everything. With regular checkpoints, you have to try and put in some effort! Plus, everyone uses only infinite lives checkpoints! It just seems annoying to me. If you're worried about n00b ratings, publish it locked for about an hour, and give a key to some reviewers on this site for an HONEST star rating. Then the kids who skip the star rating by choosing the current one again will just help it stay there.

2010-05-18 13:14:00 Author: KlawwTheClown Posts: 1106

---

I use regular and double lives checkpoints. In my opinion, infinite lives checkpoints take the challenge out of levels, and anyone can beat it by rushing into everything. With regular checkpoints, you have to try and put in some effort! Plus, everyone uses only infinite lives checkpoints! It just seems annoying to me. If you're worried about n00b ratings, publish it locked for about an hour, and give a key to some reviewers on this site for an HONEST star rating. Then the kids who skip the star rating by choosing the current one again will just help it stay there. What prattz said

2010-05-18 13:18:00 Author: Alec Posts: 3871

---

I think I'll use the normal and double checkpoints for the most part, and if I have puzzles that are very hard to beat, I'll use an infinite-life checkpoint for that little part. I don't think I'll use infinite-lives for hard PLATFORMING bits, though, because Prattz made a good point about that; everyone just rushes ahead and gets it done without even stopping to look around. With non-infinites, you have to stop and plan your moves. That's more of the feel I want for the level, because in the video game, Batman always plans out his next move carefully Thanks for your opinions!

2010-05-18 13:22:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

on sections where the player will definatly die everytime until they work out what they are doing wrong (or not doing) ... ... Rebuild the section from scratch because you have clearly screwwed up your design! On topic, there's nothing wrong with infinite life checkpoints. All it does is open up the level to more players that might enjoy the level but struggle with it. There is just as much challenge there, for those that want it. Those who aren't that keen on the challenge can get a slightly easier ride. In essence, the infinite life checkpoint allows, to a certain extent, the player to determine how they are going to enjoy the level. If you have a decent understanding of how to place score bubbles, then you will further offer those who want more challenge the chance to strive for it. Opening up the level to be enjoyable to a wider audience is no bad thing

2010-05-18 13:31:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Yeah! Both! Both! BOTH!

2010-05-18 15:20:00 Author: JspOt Posts: 3607

---

... Rebuild the section from scratch because you have clearly screwwed up your design! Nooo, lol. I'll explain what I mean more. Imagine a section where little carts roll past you on a different plane very slowly. You have to jump to avoid a couple of plasma balls and electric spikes that would otherwise kill you, then right at the end you have to jump out, pull a lever and get back in again in time. If you just stay in the cart at the end you'll die, it might take the player a couple of go's to realise they have to jump out and do something rather than just stay in the cart. That's an example from an actual level that I played, I can't remember who made it but its like the 7th in a series and was really quite good. I played it with littlewit (so he might remember what it was called )

2010-05-18 18:47:00 Author: Asbestos101 Posts: 1114

---

I was mostly joking That said though, if the player has to die to understand what is expected of them, then something is wrong. There should be enough visual information to understand the scenario, or enough time time to react to the scenario. Otherwise it is badly designed - trial and error gameplay and cheap deaths should generally be avoided. With regards to the section you are talking about, I think it's a section from captainCowboyHat's latest. In honesty, that section I genuinely consider to be badly designed (for complex reasons I can't be bothered to go into), which is a rarity from CCBH, and something I meant to feed back to him, but haven't had time to as yet

2010-05-18 19:28:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

I was mostly joking That said though, if the player has to die to understand what is expected of them, then something is wrong. There should be enough visual information to understand the scenario, or enough time time to react to the scenario. Otherwise it is badly designed - trial and error gameplay and cheap deaths should generally be avoided. With regards to the section you are talking about, I think it's a section from captainCowboyHat's latest. In honesty, that section I genuinely consider to be badly designed (for complex reasons I can't be bothered to go into), which is a rarity from CCBH, and something I meant to feed back to him, but haven't had time to as yet Haha, that's amazing that you knew which bit of which level I was talking about from that bad description I thought it was a greatly layered puzzle, but I suppose we'll call that artistic differences

2010-05-18 20:44:00 Author: Asbestos101 Posts: 1114

---

I'm getting mixed feedback, so I started up a poll. Please vote for one! I'm leaning towards a combination of all types of checkpoints at the moment. EDIT: Please note that I do not actually find the bunker-wheel to be challenging, but I feel that many people do

2010-05-18 23:35:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

I only use infinite life checkpoints even though my levels are easy anyway. I hate levels that don't, the only exception of course being survival challenges. There's nothing worse than playing a level for 10 minutes or more and then dying at 1 section simply through lack of an infinite life checkpoint. I guarantee I will never play that level again. You simply have to ask yourself 1 question: "Do I want people to finish my level ?" If the answer is yes then use infinite life checkpoints. If the answer is no then don't. However if you choose the latter don't expect any feedback from me!

2010-05-18 23:46:00 Author: mistervista Posts: 2210

---

I've grown so used to playing levels with infinite live checkpoints, I just expect they are there. I use limited live checkpoints in the easy parts of the level, or the beginning, and use infinite live checkpoints where ever else, not double live checkpoints. I suppose I should switch double live checkpoints with limited 3-live ones.

2010-05-18 23:53:00 Author: warlord_evil Posts: 4193

---

Use normal checkpoints as default, on very tricky bits use double life checkpoints, and on sections where the player will definatly die everytime until they work out what they are doing wrong (or not doing) use infinite life check points. Thats what I do at least I generally don't use infinite life check points a lot. This is what I thought of.

2010-05-19 01:19:00 Author: GreatWhite000 Posts: 673

---

I would put in limited life checkpoints but I'm not sure how difficult certain parts are for people to complete.

2010-05-19 01:21:00 Author: monstahr Posts: 1361

---

If you are going to have infinite checkpoints at the "difficult" sections I don't comprehend the logic of not using them throughout the entire level. You've basically already made a concession to not allowing them to lose all their lives...where's the harm in also having the infinite checkpoints in the places where you don't think they are needed? People could still have trouble in a section you think is easy...it doesn't matter if previous sections had infinite checkpoints, they die, they don't retry. A checkpoint mix makes the least amount of sense to me...you just need to decide what sort of level you want and how much you care about what the "cool level" crowd thinks.

2010-05-19 01:50:00 Author: fullofwin Posts: 1214

---

If you are going to have infinite checkpoints at the "difficult" sections I don't comprehend the logic of not using them throughout the entire level. You've basically already made a concession to not allowing them to lose all their lives...where's the harm in also having the infinite checkpoints in the places where you don't think they are needed? People could still have trouble in a section you think is easy...it doesn't matter if previous sections had infinite checkpoints, they die, they don't retry. A checkpoint mix makes the least amount of sense to me...you just need to decide what sort of level you want and how much you care about what the "cool level" crowd thinks. You made some very good points. However, I meant to say that I'd only use infinite-lives on PUZZLE parts, not the extreme platforming parts. Why? Well, in a part where you have to climb through burning rubble and avoid evil henchmen, a lot of people would simply run through as quickly as possible. I don't want that, because in the game, you have to plan your moves, not just run ahead and get gunned down. Why the infinite-lives at the puzzle parts, then? Because at those parts you can't exactly 'rush into it' without thinking. Im thinking of 'puzzles' where you have to pull levers to arange platforms to swing from and things like that. There isn't a way you can reach that part of the level, not look around, and try to beat it. You HAVE to think harder to make it work, or you cannot finish it. However, the part I highlighted in red struck me. I realized that if you used a normal checkpoint after an infinite and the player died, they'd still have to restart; I just never thought about it much. I'll leave the poll open, and for now, I'm going to stick with normal and double-life checkpoints, because I DO want my level to be challenging. My main concern about not having infinite-life checkpoints came from the massive amount of levels coming out with them as the only checkpoint type. And I don't just mean lame levels, but some of my favorite levels are using them. (I can't belive I'm so torn on something so silly )

2010-05-19 02:28:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

Heck, I wouldn't give them a single checkpoint. Once they enter they should have to survive. But sense I would probable die too... the infinite checkpoint would be handy. Just limit it's use in the level to once or twice, at the hard parts.

2010-05-19 02:37:00 Author: Unknown User

---

(I can't belive I'm so torn on something so silly ) I don't think it's silly at all...it's a very interesting design consideration. Really what's needed is a difficulty rating for levels so that people that don't want a challenge won't play it, become frustrated, and rate it 1 star. I can't design a level that plays as well as Mm's so I like the infinite checkpoint as it helps compensate for the weak points of my level design. I also usually have stuff to find and finite lives would discourage exploration. You just don't get that sense of accomplishment like you do with finishing story levels like the Bunker, the MGS levels, etc. even if the level is every bit as good when there are infinite lives...I think this is what you are striving for and I commend you for trying. My pet peeve is paintinator final bosses with a single weak spot, huge health bar, and you're given infinite lives...just wake me up when it's over!

2010-05-19 03:05:00 Author: fullofwin Posts: 1214

---

Actually, now I think about it, this was a serious problem when making the final boss fight on my Zero Punctuation level. The boss is Lord Quicktime-Event (as is fitting with ZP) but the way I wanted you to 'fight' him involved just making it to the end of his challenge. First off, boots would fall out of the sky in a semi-predictable pattern. Then he'd spew bombs that you could push to the edges to survive. Then he'd go all bullet hell on you and start spitting more and more plasma balls until he gives up and then you win. I had a double life checkpoint there, but a lot of people kept saying it was too hard, but I felt adding an infinite life checkpoint there would have undermined the difficulty (and the point) of the boss. In the end, I caved(-ish), and added a second double life checkpoint, but it is an interesting example to bring to the table here.

2010-05-19 07:59:00 Author: Asbestos101 Posts: 1114

---

I try to use limited-life checkpoints because I think it give it a more professional look. Infinite-life checkpoint are, in my mind, a mark of noob (showcase levels aside). I really don't need an unlimited amount of lives to swing across a ditch. That said, I'd say infinite-life checkpoints should be used for what they were probably intended for - difficult sections. Not to make the entire level easy, but to give players a chance at getting through that one tricky bit. I'd say use the infinite-life at your major challenge, but then afterward switch to limited-life ones. I only say this because of my own feelings. I say, if a level really is great, people will replay it. Some people, anyway. (On a more personal note, people are too comfy with their infinite-life checkpoints.)

2010-05-19 08:06:00 Author: KablooieKablam Posts: 364

---

I would say go with infinite. If you need to take away lives from people to add a challenge then your level design is probably lacking. There are obviously exceptions where infinite lives would detract from the gameplay (eg where you simply run at something until you get lucky) but for the most part it holds up. Being sent back to the start of a level is not enjoyable. It's one of the reasons games design has moved on from the 3 lives concept. The player has done all that part and is unlikely to find jumping over that gap or swinging from that sponge too exciting the second/third/fourth time round. Especially when there are cut scenes or intros to watch. If the limited lives are integral to the level or gameplay then do what you have to do, but for the most part I see them as a means to artificially make a level harder.

2010-05-19 11:34:00 Author: Matt 82 Posts: 1096

---

You made some very good points. However, I meant to say that I'd only use infinite-lives on PUZZLE parts, not the extreme platforming parts. Why? Well, in a part where you have to climb through burning rubble and avoid evil henchmen, a lot of people would simply run through as quickly as possible. I don't want that, because in the game, you have to plan your moves, not just run ahead and get gunned down. One interesting point here, is that it's perfectly possible to design the level sections so that rushing through at full pelt is actually impossible. If you want to force people to take their time and consider their actions, I'd build that into the gameplay rather than the fear of running out of lives. If you have a well-balanced, well-designed, challenging level, just throwing yourself into it full pelt will actually be more difficult, more frustrating and ultimately take more time than being careful. Why the infinite-lives at the puzzle parts, then? Because at those parts you can't exactly 'rush into it' without thinking. Im thinking of 'puzzles' where you have to pull levers to arange platforms to swing from and things like that. There isn't a way you can reach that part of the level, not look around, and try to beat it. You HAVE to think harder to make it work, or you cannot finish it. I understand all of what you are saying here, but I really don't get the concept that infinite life checkpoints are suitable in the areas where you are naturally likely to die less... You just don't get that sense of accomplishment like you do with finishing story levels like the Bunker, the MGS levels, etc. even if the level is every bit as good when there are infinite lives...I think this is what you are striving for and I commend you for trying. That's not the feedback I've received. Being told by someone (actually several people) that they spent an hour trying to complete setbacks (a level which is doable in just over 10 mins), but it was worth every minute, tells me that the infinite life checkpoints were worth it. I don't think that in any way they detract from the challenge of the level, and I don't believe that the level is in any way a "comfy" ride through. If someone takes enough lives to run out on a double life checkpoint, that's quite a lot of deaths. At this point, many players would naturally quit out of frustration. Some would want to continue, despite all the deaths, because they are enjoying the level and wish to continue. I see no good reason to deny people the satisfaction of finishing the level, when they are willing to devote so much of their time, and persevere for that long, to get there. I'd be horrified to think of someone spending that much time to my creation only to run out of lives a stone's throw from the ending. I tend to think that the points loss is punishment enough for dying more times, but that's just me. As fullofwin says, this is a very complex and interesting design issue and there is no correct answer.

2010-05-19 11:50:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

I'll put it as CCubbage has in the past... if you have spent a great deal of time building this level, it is not fair to yourself to have people quit out after running out of lives. One thing that I'm not sure was mentioned in great detail is the fact that a double life checkpoint doesn't add lives when more players are in the party. If you have 4 players, that works out to two deaths per player. If a section involves a bit of trial and error (exacerbated by the chaos that ensues with 4 players), it won't take very long for those lives to be exhausted. Hence, I always use infinite checkpoints. If players want a challenge, they can always try to beat it without dying or go for the high score. That's how I approach the issue.

2010-05-19 12:04:00 Author: comphermc Posts: 5338

---

You just don't get that sense of accomplishment like you do with finishing story levels like the Bunker, the MGS levels, etc. even if the level is every bit as good when there are infinite lives...I think this is what you are striving for and I commend you for trying. This is true and but what you have to remember is that infinite life checkpoints didn't exist when Mm made the story levels. The most important thing to note though is that we all had an incentive to replay those levels when we died in that we were forced to if we wanted to collect all the prizes. No offence to anyone but I for one would never do that with a community level because there is nothing I want or need to collect from them. The only reason I would replay a community level is if it was FUN. Keep dying and having to restart simply because the creator refuses to include infinite life checkpoints is not fun and simply makes me despise them for being so petty and cynical and trying to force replays.

2010-05-19 12:08:00 Author: mistervista Posts: 2210

---

It certainly is an interesting topic. Kids are used to having infinite lives now. When was the last time you saw a game over screen in a modern game? They control the cool pages, and if you want your level there, it can't be too difficult. Some levels are badly designed, and it is when playing those levels I thank MM for the infinite checkpoint. However if your level is well designed (no layer switching problems/no cheap deaths/clear direction/etc) I believe you can get away with having the original limited ones. One non-platforming example of this was a badly deisigned "put keys in correct holes" puzzle. It had a four life checkpoint, and I used them all up from being squished accidently (the room was tiny!). If your level is fun/interesting, and the player gets game over, they will replay it. If it is below par, they will not. Long unskippable intros are a pet peeve of mine, and I don't think I have ever replayed a level with one. If a level combines; a long unskippable intro + poor gameplay design + limited checkpoints = It's a deal breaker for me. The problem with acing/high scores/point deduction is that the scoreboards can be inaccurate. Meaning there is not much point conserving lives if it doesn't matter at the end result. It also depends on how frequent your checkpoints are, if the level is linear or exploration, and how many people are playing at a time (x4 player on boom town anyone?). When I play a level, I usually take the stickers off the first checkpoint to check if it's infinite or not. A few times I have been caught out where the creator has used infinite for the first sections, but then change to limited afterwards! I feel that is quite unfair, as the majority sticker over checkpoints with the same colour, even though they have different values! I cannot see the logic in that myself. Another thing to consider is that a creator playtests his/her own level over and over, and can most likely ace it easily, while a new player can have trouble with it. It is very hard to judge the audience's capabilities, especially when that audience is ranged between 5 and 60+ I voted for the separate levels option in the poll. If it was easy to do, I would let the player choose wether they wanted infinite checkpoints or not and emit them. I would offer more point bubbles or worthy prizes as an incentive. At the end of the day, time is a precious commodity, and that's the main reason I use infinite checkpoints. And I thank you for your time if you read this post. =)

2010-05-19 13:43:00 Author: midnight_heist Posts: 2513

---

> This is true and but what you have to remember is that infinite life checkpoints didn't exist when Mm made the story levels. Didn't they have them for the MGS pack (which didn't use them)? They certainly did for PoTC pack (can't actually remember now whether it used them or not...those levels were somewhat lacking in the challenge department). The Mm prize bubbles are certainly a big motivation that a community level will be hard-pressed to compete with. A few levels with really good secrets like Holy Clucking Cowbells manage to pull it off and motivate me to play more than once...it's rare that I play a community level multiple times. Score isn't really a motivator for me since I'm not likely to be top 10 (and reporting your best score reliably is rather flakey)...I think going for a high score will only motivate a handful of players and once you stop caring about score you stop caring about losing lives when you have an infinite number... You might want to take a gander at the play/complete ratio in any of my levels which are all fairly easy and use infinite lives...<waits>...still think you can get away with not using them?

2010-05-19 13:54:00 Author: fullofwin Posts: 1214

---

I see and understand what everyone's saying. It is true, sadly. I guess it was probably just me wanting a bigger challenge in levels, and assuming more people did too, but like what was brought up, kids fail at games. Nah, I'm kidding, but I really wish there were some more challenging levels out there. All the challenging ones either have infinite lives checkpoints, or they're easy, but with only one life. Thinking now, I'd say the best would be to have some kind of selection at the beginning of the level, (To not waste one of your precious 20 upload spots) between Regular, and Easy. (With hard having more points, obviously.) Still, I wish Mm did something about the pesky rating system... I had a whole thread full of ideas to improve the search functions, but it didn't really do well. Shame.

2010-05-19 22:25:00 Author: KlawwTheClown Posts: 1106

---

I go with infinite for all my levels now. Almost all my levels are LONG - some take about 20 minutes to complete (at least), especially, my Puzzle Wheels series. However, before infinite lives - people still made it through and gave high ratings. But I also included a picture at the end of the level for those who became a "Puzzle Wheel Master", I'd get great comments from those who completed all the wheels and they'd usually post their pics. The big reasons I use infinite only: As others have said, my levels are just as hard to complete - now, you don't have to start from the beginning (since there are no save points). Just keep trying. Heck, it's hard enough to get people to complete your challenging levels even with infinite lives. Why make it even more frustrating by making them start over? I had infinite checkpoints only in my last level - and decided to put in some double life - but my thermo jumped way up. Seems having different kinds of checkpoints really effects the thermo - so I stayed with all infinite. I played my latest level with 3 people, and in a very challenging section, we all kept dying (none of us were very good players and it was a hectic part) - if not for the infinite lives, we would have had to start over - with infinite lives, we got to laugh at ourselves and eachother. Yeah, it was hard, but fun. Starting over would have sucked, so I'm glad I went with infinite, otherwise, we each would have gotten to die twice and then game over. I realized a long time ago, I don't have prizes like MM levels - and I have 1 shot for people to play my level. I don't want them to die and not come back. I want them to keep trying and get to the end. I didn't spend hours and hours creating for people to leave in frustration. I want them to see the whole level. It won't be easy, but if they keep trying, they can eventually make it through - which I think is just as satisfying when they reach the end.

2010-05-20 00:12:00 Author: CYMBOL Posts: 1230

---

Thinking now, I'd say the best would be to have some kind of selection at the beginning of the level, (To not waste one of your precious 20 upload spots) between Regular, and Easy. (With hard having more points, obviously.) Now THERE is an idea!! I haven't thought of that yet. That would be pretty much like my idea of two seperate levels, but this way it only takes ONE slot and all the plays and hearts are on ONE level (for me to brag about!). Thanks

2010-05-20 00:15:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

Keep dying and having to restart simply because the creator refuses to include infinite life checkpoints is not fun and simply makes me despise them for being so petty and cynical and trying to force replays. Sorry, but you're being very ignorant. A creator who chooses not to add infinite life checkpoints doesn't mean they're petty and want more plays. Heckboy has made that very clear. He wants to make it challenging. I can see you don't like challenge if you have to restart the level, but why call people like Heckboy names? There's more to a level than flat-out fun, and if you lose all your lives, you've been dying a lot, which isn't as fun as the second, less deathly playthrough. Besides fun, there is the sense of accomplishment from completing a challenge, the sense of replay value to see the level in a new light, the sense of hunting around to find secrets, and the list goes on and on. Sometimes it is the creator's intention to make it harder for you. You may or may not agree with it, but in my opinion, that's definitrly not a reason to quit if you lose all your lives. A harder level can keep the player in a more detailed environment for a long amount of time as opposed to a detailed level that a player rushes through. It can teach the player new gameplay lessons, and leave them with a sense of accomplishment after completion. You also need to know that some players are more skillful than others, and I truly think there's an extent of ability that a player needs to have to truly enjoy LBP. -------------- As for checkpoints themselves, I wish we could just tweak the life number, and other data for adaptive life numbers for different amounts of players.

2010-05-20 03:31:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251

---

Personally, due to me having a fetish for adjustable options. I'd have a switch at the start of the level to choose between infinite and normal checkpoints. However playing with normal checkpoints selected would reward the player with a huge bonus upon completion.

2010-05-20 03:51:00 Author: Unknown User

---

I understand all of what you are saying here, but I really don't get the concept that infinite life checkpoints are suitable in the areas where you are naturally likely to die less... It doesn't make sense at first glance but the way you have to think about it is that the fail criteria for platforming sections is death. The ultimate price being running out of lives. The fail condition for a puzzle is that you get stumped and are unable to progress. Theres no reason that people should be able to accidentally die on puzzle sections and be penalized for it as at that point, thats not whats being tested of the player. The logic doesn't work the other way around, trying to keep the threat of limited life checkpoints but in reverse. Using infinte life checkpoints on platforming bits and normal checkpoints on puzzle bits, because what? You TRYING to get your players killed on the slowest paced section of your level? You might as well just use infinite life check points throughout. Thats just silly now I'm pretty sure thats what he meant rtm

2010-05-20 08:32:00 Author: Asbestos101 Posts: 1114

---

Personally, due to me having a fetish for adjustable options. I'd have a switch at the start of the level to choose between infinite and normal checkpoints. However playing with normal checkpoints selected would reward the player with a huge bonus upon completion. Well said. Since Klaww suggested it, I've been working on making it possible to choose between normal and double or infinite using emitters. I also worked out a reward system, too! More bubbles and prizes for those that take the tougher path I think I'll make this Batman level my first attempt of a level in LBP2, because I'd like the cinematic cameras for one part, and Sackbots would help a ton. Still, everyones' feedback has really helped me understand how people like levels to be, and I won't forget it when I start a new project! Wouldn't it be so much easier if a creator could see the stats on WHERE players died the most and how hard they would rate the level out of 5?

2010-05-21 03:03:00 Author: Heckboy88 Posts: 179

---

My first level used infinite-life checkpoints throughout. And I believe any other levels I finish will do so as well. Why? It's pretty simple: LittleBigPlanet's platforming is really lacking. Sackboy's jumps are floaty and imprecise. His velocity feels almost random at times. For the most part I never (ever) feel like I'm really in control of Sackboy. Even the best levels (no matter how hard you try to correct for it) are made more difficult just because the platforming isn't that great. And I know I'm not the only one who thinks so (when the PSP version released Gamespot said that it was too bad the game lacked the excellent physics engine of the PS3 version, but it was good because Sackboy was easier to control). So, because the platforming seriously leaves something to be desired, I'm not going to punish my players for it.

2010-05-21 03:24:00 Author: Binarynova Posts: 24

---

Sackboy's jumps are floaty and imprecise. His velocity feels almost random at times. That depends on how hard you press x: tap is a small hop and holding x is for a big jump. There has been commentary and speculation about random imprecision, but that's just getting complicated For the most part, sackboy's jumps are predictable, and I think sackboy is much easier to control than the way you worded it in your post.

2010-05-26 03:57:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251

---

I've actually found that other platfomers, where the physics are far more controlled are waaay harder than LBP now. When people moan about the floatiness of sackboy's jumps, it's not because there is something wrong with him, it's that almost every other game handles jumping in a supremely artificial manner, so much so that the more realistic physics-based actions of sackboy actually seem slightly alien. It just takes time to get used to is all.

2010-05-26 09:50:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

I've actually found that other platfomers, where the physics are far more controlled are waaay harder than LBP now. When people moan about the floatiness of sackboy's jumps, it's not because there is something wrong with him, it's that almost every other game handles jumping in a supremely artificial manner, so much so that the more realistic physics-based actions of sackboy actually seem slightly alien. Along with this subject - Sackboy's physics are certainly consistent.... it's just that they're VERY complex, which makes the jumps SEEM inconsistent. For instance, if you're walking on a slightly uneven floor and you jump when the floor is descending, you will not quite jump as high as when the floor is ascending. This, combined with the hardness of the press, can make levels that require pinpoint precision jumps really difficult. This is why I enjoy difficult levels which base the difficulty around timing instead of pinpoint precision jumping. I hate BARELY missing platforms because I didn't quite hit the button hard enough. "Shoot jump die", "Oh no the princess" and "Subterranean Setbacks" were perfect examples of making a difficult level based on criteria that work well in LittleBigPlanet (as well as CompherMC's new one ). But back on the subject of infinite checkpoints: ALL of the arguments I've read here are valid.... but it all depends on the level. The type of checkpoints you use in a level is all about play balancing: * If your level is fairly forgiving and you want the player to ACTUALLY TRY instead of waffling through it, a limited checkpoint may be appropriate. For instance, in Splat Invaders I don't use infinite checkpoints when in the invader battles because I want to encourage the player to try and avoid the aliens. * If you want to add challenge, but don't want the player to totally die and start over.... spread out the infinite checkpoints so that if the player dies they must go through a challenging part of the level again. This will encourage them to really try, because they will have a good ways to travel again. CompherMC uses this technique in his latest. * As mentioned above, if you have a puzzle area that you aren't supposed to die in, give them an unlimited checkpoint in the area as a backup. * If the whole POINT of the game is getting as high a score as possible, use unlimited checkpoints. And there are many more scenarios. There is no right or wrong answer, just good game design. I've seen a handful of levels where not using an unlimited checkpoint was a BIG mistake. For instance, not too long ago I played through a LONG puzzle level that took me darned near 40 minutes to get to the final boss. The final boss was difficult and didn't have an unlimited checkpoint. I concentrated as hard as I could, but ended up dying. I still hold a grudge against that one , especially since I absolutely loved that level up to the final room. I can't really answer the pole, because I think all choices are 100% valid based on the situation.

2010-05-26 13:23:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.