This is our fundamental disagreement. There is another point to this. The point is to apply pressure, raise the stakes, and make risks more meaningful. Those things are hard to do with low consequences of failure. And with high consequences, the thrill of victory can be greater for many players.

By the way, isn't that in ITSELF a bit outdated? It seems like game developers can't think of a better way to punish you than to make you replay a bunch of content you already have. It's pure frustration and tedium, and pushes me AWAY from the game.

I don't see why this isn't a valid design choice.

Because the player is already being punished.

That's not necessarily better, it's a completely different game.

How so?

Completing a series of challenges in a row with limited attempts shared between them is fundamentally more difficult than completing those same challenges with unlimited attempts at each. This is a basic fact; it's not even debatable.

No it isn't. Difficulty comes from the task at hand, NOT the punishment. Besides, don't you technically already have an unlimited amount of chances anyways? The only difference is, the game decides to mock you every set number of lives. It's not like you can't play the game again if you die (yes, I know of that one game that does this).

Dark Souls uses a completely different consequence system (return to bonfire, turn hollow, risk of losing stuff), but it ultimately serves the same general purpose as a life system. There is more than one right way to do things.

I guess.

...I admit I wasn't expecting this sentence. Was this thread a reaction to the Game Club? I'd be happy to give some advice if you need it.

What?