Infinite Lives

Analysis by Getfullapps

I approached Infinite Lives as the kind of adventure game that asks you to experiment rather than follow a narrow path. Its central idea is a world where superhumans and subhumans struggle for control, but the interesting part is how open that premise feels in play. Instead of treating the story as a fixed ride, I found myself thinking about what kind of character I wanted to become, which conflicts were worth entering, and how much trouble I was willing to create before trying to recover from it.

That freedom can be exciting from the first session, although it also means the game is less immediately tidy than a traditional adventure. You are not simply moving from one obvious objective to the next. The appeal comes from testing possibilities, making mistakes, and learning how the world reacts. This is a game for players who enjoy discovering their own route through chaos, not for someone looking for a carefully guided sequence of short missions.

MDickie is the developer behind this free adventure title. It is aimed at a mature audience with a 17+ content rating, so I would not treat it as a casual game for younger players. The current version is 1.0.7, and it runs on devices using at least OS 7.1. The game has built a visible audience, with over 500 thousand installs and an average rating of 4.1 from around 6 thousand ratings.

Getting from the download to your first meaningful success

I’d make the first session about learning one small, repeatable action rather than trying to master the whole world at once. Choose a clear intention, change one thing at a time, and notice what follows; that gives you a useful foothold without turning experimentation into guesswork. Once you have that first success, you can decide which possibility is worth exploring next.

What the opening experience feels like

My first useful adjustment was to stop expecting Infinite Lives to explain every possibility before letting me act. The game’s appeal is easier to understand when I treat the opening as a testing ground. I look at the available situation, try a manageable action, and pay attention to what changes afterward. That approach is more productive than waiting for a perfect tutorial moment or assuming that every important option will be announced in large letters.

The superhuman-versus-subhuman premise gives the adventure a built-in source of tension. Even when I am not chasing an obvious objective, the setting suggests that relationships, power, and control matter. I can approach a situation aggressively, cautiously, or with the intention of seeing how far a strange decision carries me. That makes the early minutes feel more like learning a sandbox than completing a checklist.

For a first-time player, the most reassuring thing is that a failed experiment does not have to mean the entire session was wasted. A poor decision can still teach me how the game reacts. I recommend choosing one simple intention for the opening session: understand movement, identify how conflicts begin, and find one action that produces a clear result. That is a much better first target than trying to master the whole world.

The free entry point also makes it easier to judge the game on its own terms. I can install it without paying an upfront purchase price, spend time deciding whether its open-ended style suits me, and only then consider whether any optional purchase is worthwhile. In-app purchases are listed at $3.99 per item, so I would avoid buying anything during the first session. The first question should be whether I enjoy the underlying play, not whether an item can make the introduction smoother.

A practical first-session routine

When I begin, I would use a short routine rather than rushing into every available confrontation. First, I observe the immediate situation and identify what appears to be under my control. Next, I try one low-risk interaction or movement choice. Finally, I pause long enough to notice the consequence. This sounds simple, but it prevents the common mistake of making several decisions at once and then having no idea which one caused the result.

That method is especially useful in a game built around competing groups and unusual character possibilities. If I change direction, enter a conflict, and attempt another action immediately, the outcome can become difficult to read. Separating those choices gives me a clearer sense of cause and effect. It also helps me create a personal plan instead of copying an imagined “correct” route.

I would also keep the first session deliberately short. Open-ended games can become tiring when every possibility feels equally urgent. A focused first attempt—one small goal, one experiment, one recovery—gives enough information to decide whether the game’s rhythm works for me. If that rhythm feels rewarding, later sessions can become much more ambitious.

The first successful action matters more than the first victory

In Infinite Lives, I do not define early success only as defeating an opponent or taking control of a situation. A meaningful first success can be much smaller: making a deliberate choice, seeing it produce a recognizable outcome, and staying in control long enough to understand what happened. That is the moment when the game starts to feel less mysterious.

For example, I might decide to approach a conflict instead of stumbling into it, then watch how the situation develops. If the result is messy, I can still learn whether preparation, timing, or restraint would have helped. The important lesson is that the game rewards attention. I get more from a failed attempt that I understand than from a lucky success I cannot repeat.

My advice is to choose an action that answers a question. Can I avoid a confrontation? Can I influence the situation without escalating it? Can I recover after a bad decision? Each answer gives me a practical piece of knowledge. Once I have one repeatable action, I can start combining it with other choices and make the wider adventure feel less random.

Why the game can feel confusing at first

The same freedom that makes the game interesting can also create friction. Players accustomed to linear adventure games may wonder what they are supposed to do next. I had to accept that the game may not always provide the kind of clean objective chain I expect from a conventional campaign. The lack of a single obvious route is part of the design experience, but it can still feel disorienting.

Another source of confusion is the difference between an action that looks dramatic and one that is strategically useful. A powerful character may invite immediate confrontation, yet acting too quickly can leave me with fewer options afterward. I get better results when I consider the situation around the action rather than judging it by spectacle alone.

I also recommend treating unexpected outcomes as information instead of assuming the game has gone wrong. In a more scripted adventure, an unusual result might seem like a mistake. Here, it can reveal a relationship, a consequence, or a new direction that I would not have found by following a fixed route. That mindset does not remove every frustration, but it makes the experimentation feel intentional.

Turning experiments into a repeatable workflow

After the first successful action, I would build a simple three-step loop. I choose a goal, test one approach, and then review the result before making another major decision. This keeps the open-ended structure manageable. It also gives me a way to improve without needing a formal progression guide.

The useful trade-off is between safety and discovery. A cautious approach helps me preserve control and understand the world, but it may reveal less. A reckless approach can uncover surprising possibilities, but it can also create a situation that is difficult to recover from. I like alternating between the two: one session for learning and one session for deliberate experimentation.

This is one of the game’s less obvious strengths. The same scenario can serve different purposes depending on my attitude. I can treat it as a challenge to solve, a story to shape, or a laboratory for testing the limits of the setting. That flexibility gives the adventure more staying power than a game whose enjoyment depends entirely on reaching the next scripted scene.

Who will enjoy the open-ended approach

I would recommend Infinite Lives to players who like emergent stories, unusual outcomes, and the feeling that their decisions are not merely selecting dialogue from a predetermined menu. It is also a good fit for someone who enjoys replaying situations with a different attitude. The superhuman and subhuman conflict provides a strong theme, while the freedom to explore different possibilities gives each session room to develop its own shape.

It may also work well for players who enjoy short, experimental sessions. I can open the game with a small idea, test it, and stop once I have learned something useful. That makes it easier to return later without needing to remember a large amount of plot detail. The game’s value is not limited to one long uninterrupted campaign.

On the other hand, I would skip it if I mainly want a polished, linear adventure with constant signposting. Players who dislike ambiguity may spend more time asking what the intended objective is than enjoying the freedom. I would also be cautious if I am looking for a calm, family-friendly experience, because the mature 17+ rating clearly places it in a different audience.

How it compares with more traditional adventure games

Compared with a typical story-led adventure, Infinite Lives gives me more responsibility for creating momentum. In a conventional alternative, the game usually presents a mission, marks the next destination, and builds tension through a planned sequence. That structure is easier to follow and often better for players who want a cinematic experience.

Here, the trade-off is control versus clarity. I have more room to decide what matters, but I also have to supply some of the direction myself. A traditional adventure may deliver a stronger authored story, while this game is more appealing when I want to see what happens after an unexpected choice. Neither approach is automatically better; the right choice depends on whether I want to be guided or involved in shaping the experience.

It also differs from a simple action game. Winning a confrontation is not the only measure of progress in my sessions. Position, timing, relationships, and the consequences of earlier choices can matter just as much as immediate force. That makes the game more interesting for experimentation, although players seeking fast, uncomplicated combat may find the surrounding decisions slower than expected.

Handling purchases and deciding whether to spend

Because the game is free, I would begin with a no-purchase trial period. I want to know whether the basic loop—explore, choose, react, and try again—keeps me interested before I spend anything. The listed in-app purchase price of $3.99 per item is reasonable to consider only after I understand what I am buying and why it improves my own experience.

My practical rule is simple: do not purchase something to solve confusion that can be solved by learning the game. If I am still unsure how to approach the opening, an item is unlikely to replace that understanding. Spending makes more sense when I already enjoy the game and want an optional addition, not when I am trying to force myself to like it.

This approach also protects the main strength of the game. Its appeal comes from discovering possibilities personally. If I immediately remove every obstacle through a purchase, I may lose some of the experimentation that makes the adventure distinctive. I would therefore play several sessions first and judge purchases by long-term enjoyment rather than by first impressions.

Device expectations and audience fit

The minimum operating-system requirement is 7.1, which makes the game accessible to a broad range of compatible devices. Even so, compatibility alone does not determine whether it will feel comfortable. The open-ended style asks for attention, and the mature subject matter makes it unsuitable for children despite the free download.

I would also consider where I intend to play. This is a better choice for a focused break than for a quick distraction during a moment when I cannot concentrate. The game benefits from observing consequences and remembering what I just tried. If I only have a few seconds, a simpler arcade alternative may be more satisfying.

What I would do after the first session

Once I understand one reliable action, I would add a second goal rather than immediately attempting the largest possible conflict. For instance, I might repeat the first successful approach under a different circumstance and compare the result. That gives me a practical sense of how flexible the game is without turning the experience into random button pressing.

I would then start keeping a mental record of decisions that create useful options. Some choices may give me immediate excitement but leave me with fewer ways forward. Others may seem modest while preserving control over what happens next. Recognizing that difference is where the game becomes more strategic for me.

My next step would be to deliberately choose a different style from the first session. If I began cautiously, I would try a more assertive approach. If I rushed into trouble, I would slow down and see whether preparation changes the outcome. This comparison is more informative than repeating the same behavior and hoping the game suddenly becomes clearer.

With around 267 reviews alongside its broader rating count, the game has enough public feedback to show that it has attracted attention beyond a tiny early audience. Still, I would not choose it because of the number alone. The deciding factor is whether I enjoy taking responsibility for the direction of an adventure rather than being led through it.

My final recommendation

Infinite Lives is a distinctive adventure game for players who enjoy freedom, conflict, and outcomes that are shaped through experimentation. I like that its superhuman and subhuman premise creates more than a simple good-versus-evil backdrop; it encourages me to think about control, risk, and the kind of story I am creating through my actions.

Its limitations are equally clear. The open structure can be confusing, the mature rating narrows its audience, and anyone seeking a tightly scripted campaign may prefer a traditional adventure instead. It rewards patience and curiosity more than it rewards rushing toward a single obvious victory.

For a first-time user, my recommendation is to install it, set one small goal, and judge the game after you have completed one deliberate experiment rather than after the opening moments. If that first successful action makes you want to test another possibility, the game is probably a good match. If you mainly want clear missions, predictable progression, and immediate direction, I would choose a more conventional alternative. For me, the best reason to keep playing is the feeling that the next session can develop differently because I decided to approach it differently.