@Lulu_Lulu: Because the original argument are gameovers are only an inconvenience, that's a heavy implication that they should be removed, especially on the first posts of the first page. My point was that gameovers themselves are okay, and later that it also depends on the respawn point.

"Thats not what anyone wants....... we want to skip over the things that don't cause us Trouble to get back to the obstacle or boss that is causing us Trouble.... that doesn't make the game easier, no matter how you slice it"

But what in the description I provided of having no gameovers, the difficulty wears off because you'll just be skipping anything that's too difficult, and when you get to something actually too difficult, you could be stuck there forever. And yes, it does make the game easier. Parts of the level before the boss can still cause you trouble and you've managed to get past it to beat the boss. But since you got a gameover and have to redo the level, now you can get past those harder parts of the level and manage to beat the boss with more health, powerups, etc.

Also, if you can't beat an obstacle at the end of the level, it's a punishment that gives you the incentive to get better at the game, get better at your critical thinking, tempo, and so on. And through getting a gameover you can tune those skills through the level you're redoing.

@Byshop: Yeah--I'm also still surprised that unskippable cutscenes are a thing at all. Some of us just want to play the game damn it! I mean sure if it's important, maybe you wouldn't want them to skip it, but just give them a warning then, ugh.

@Lulu_Lulu: Problem is, these days I don't hear a lot of people caring about a scoring system unless there was some kind of leaderboard, and I honestly don't know who'd want a Mario leaderboard. Anyway...

Why we shouldn't stick what I described as a good gameover to every game? Because games are different everywhere even if they're in the same genre. Mario, Castlevania, Sonic, Kirby, Rocket Knight, etc. all have their own way of playing, their own level lengths, it goes on. You should never have to repeat a boss (unless it was very closely put to the next boss) but there are times when getting a gameover should entail different outcomes, such as the beginning of the level in Castlevania, beginning of the world in Mario, beginning of the level in Kirby, and so on. Also, in a shmup, reflecting on your faults is just how you go back and get better. Say I lost horribly to a spellcard in Touhou, I shouldn't just skip that, I should master it. I think a fun part of games is also being able to show your skill off after a while. A game with no gameovers, and being able to skip everything that causes you trouble, starts to lose its interactivity and eventually just becomes a movie with downgraded graphics. What you describe is easy for anyone to just die a million times in Mario, get a -9999 score, and still beat the game. It's not gratifying, it doesn't feel good to win that way, even for the developer it feels like an insult, it defies literally everything a game should have. Yes, gameovers were originally intended to lengthen a game, and to gain quarters in arcades, but they've always had more function than that. They're a reflection of your skill, an incentive to get better, a small endurance for a bigger challenge, a way of mastering those skills, becoming good at the mechanics, being able to show those skills, and everything from this debate embodied. That's what gameovers are there for, sometimes people will hate to experience them but it's a fall they have to take so that games can still be fun.

@Byshop: Pretty true, this generation's gamers often think it's better to cut anything that somewhat takes your time, when games have always done so. :\ Most likely due to AAA titles becoming cinematic. After all, nobody likes their movies to be paused unnecessarily, do they?

@Lulu_Lulu: But it is a skill. Endurance is perhaps one of the most helpful skills, in fact--not just in games, in life itself. And endurance itself can be done right or wrong, some good examples are the Mega Man boss rushes and the final boss of Donkey Kong Country. But you're also implying that games always have a way of replaying a certain section of a game. But regardless of that, if you're sent too far back, then yes, it can be annoying to get a gameover. This is why I have continuously stated that games like Super Mario Bros. All Stars and Castlevania do it right, because at most you're sent back to the beginning of the world (just 4 short levels) or the beginning of the level (kind of an equivalent to about 3 Mario levels I'd say, for Castlevania). I've never stated that all gameovers are good, but not all are bad--it's just going back to what @Byshop said...again. Also as to what you said "no matter how much you enjoy the previous bosses you're going to want to beat the one you're stuck at first", this is somewhat true. But I never said a good gameover would stick you that far behind. To get a bit more technical, I'd like it if a gameover didn't send you behind any bosses you've already beaten, only to the start of after you've beaten that boss if it's for a game such as Mario (leaving you at the first level of the next world), but there's many ways a gameover can be done for all sorts of genres, the cinematic games don't really need gameovers, but games like Shmups, sidescrollers, RPGs, etc. have potential for adding gameovers.

@Byshop: Exactly. Lol Half the fun of games like Touhou is trying not to get a game over in the first place--speaking of which, Touhou actually probably has one of my favorite ways of gameovers, you can still continue but you won't get the good ending or the extra stage.

@Lulu_Lulu: Actually, it does--or at least can, be excused. The bosses of Mega Man are fun to fight, and they prove for a good endurance run. You may have fought them individually, but all one after each other? Nope. And it proves to be one of the best parts at the end of a Mega Man game.

I'm getting kind of tired of the conversation, so I'll just throw out some games where I like the gameovers done in them. Castlevania, Final Fantasy, Super Mario Bros. All Star Version (brings you back to the beginning of the world instead of the beginning of the game like the NES version, I find it more fair since it's still a way of making you want to be good so you don't screw up again but doesn't ruin the experience), stuff like that, I suppose. But also, gameovers prove to be a good way of proving your endurance in the game. If you get a gameover, simply, you probably aren't that great at the game. If you can't endure it then you're going to redo it and become better, and it's only a waste of your time when you're playing those really cinematic games, which I can understand not wanting gameovers in those.

@Lulu_Lulu: While there's other ways to debate that, I'd say stuff that requires SEVERAL challenges like for example a boss rush in Mega Man can be particularly cruel--though I think Mega Man bosses are easy enough that the boss rush is fair, but the idea still applies. As I said, gameovers all depend on how they're done, there's plenty of good and bad examples of gameovers.

@Lulu_Lulu: Gameovers: A part within a game where once you have failed to meet your objective several times under certain circumstances, possibly within a limited amount of tries, you are sent back to an earlier point in the game, whether it be your last save point or the beginning of the level or game.

And wasting people's time has a lot of variables, some of which are excusable. Gameovers I find, are quite excusable. Many things that sound bad can turn out to be excusable with a little bit of reasoning behind it. Hence why I've written several paragraphs defending it.

@Lulu_Lulu: Perhaps I was mistaken in my explanation.

Gameovers are an incentive to getting better, meaning you don't want to waste your time, so you start to get better, so you can beat the game. The idea that you must become better if you don't want to suffer the consequences, and it's a difficult decision in how people design their games. A world with no gameovers would simply leave us with games that are either too easy, or have no ability for progression whatsoever. Games that don't do gameovers are often the cinematic games, easy games, or are unique to their gameplay. There's possibility for games not having gameovers, such as how @Byshop said that it's naive to say games unilaterally need or don't need gameovers. But the simple point is, the better you get at a game, the more you understand its mechanics, and the less you'll get gameovers. If someone wanted to do a section better, it's hard to believe they'd just redo it entirely. In Castlevania, if I'm doing pretty bad in a level, I don't want to redo that part, I want to keep living until I get to the next checkpoint, unless I'm getting a gameover, then I realize I need to practice the level and beat it faster. And in a more modern game, as I'm playing Bravely Default, I know not to die because I'll be sent back to the last time I saved, so I save somewhat frequently and practice fights, so that I know the game, its mechanics, its enemies, and how to fight bosses pretty well, so I'll never suffer an inconvenience. The people who can enjoy a game the most are usually the people who know how to play it. Those who don't like gameovers simply are too impatient. Finally, the way a gameover is done is important as well. In Pokemon games, it's done fantastically as its an easy RPG, and for a game with a lot of depth in its customization, it makes sense not to lose progress. In a game that is purposefully meant to be hard, gameovers would just simply not work--which is why I truly don't like games such as the Angry Video Game Nerd Adventures. True, they're done in the right way, but the game itself is intended to be a frustration-fest and the gameover then comes to be the other way around, being the most agonizing thing you can see. Gameovers aren't unilaterally good or bad, there's room for them in many games and no room in other games.