100: The Slow Death of the Game Over

[Archon]

I liked this article better the first time when it was called Killjoy: How Inconsequential Death Took the Fun out of Virtual Life [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/84/8], which went way beyond questioning whether quicksaving is for lamers or not, but rather the fundamental concepts of player death and consequence in RPGs/adventures.

Tongue in Cheek: How come Cosmo can cover the exact same topic EVERY ISSUE ("guys and sex") but when The Escapist covers the same topic twice a year later, someone immediately calls us out on it??

Perhaps we need to distract with pictures of scantily clad women and articles on "gamers and sex".

 

[Joe]

Tongue in Cheek: How come Cosmo can cover the exact same topic EVERY ISSUE ("guys and sex") but when The Escapist covers the same topic twice a year later, someone immediately calls us out on it??

Perhaps we need to distract with pictures of scantily clad women and articles on "gamers and sex".

I'd just like to point out that this summer, white is the new pink.

 

[nytimesguy]

If gamers don't like save anywheres, then DON'T SAVE. Why should hardcore, masochist gamers ruin it for those of us who don't have a huge desire for intense aggravation and don't think it's fun to play the same 10 minutes of a game over and over again sometimes watching the same 5-minute cut scene over and over to do it?

For some people apparently this sort of torture is more fun, so I would suggest that when you start a new game, players be allowed to turn off saving.

I have another objection to the lack of saves; power failures, console crashes and tripped-over cords. These have all been responsible for my replaying big chunks of games at times. When you present me with an Xbox that is impervious to loss of power and has games that never crash, regardless of coding errors and scratched disks, then I'll listen to arguments about whether save anywhere ruins the dramatic tension of a game.

 

[Russ Pitts]

Perhaps we need to distract with pictures of scantily clad women and articles on "gamers and sex".

10 Hot Tips for Hot Cyber!

 

[Russ Pitts]

I liked this article better the first time when it was called Killjoy: How Inconsequential Death Took the Fun out of Virtual Life [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/84/8], which went way beyond questioning whether quicksaving is for lamers or not, but rather the fundamental concepts of player death and consequence in RPGs/adventures.

I, for one, enjoy both articles, as they present a clearer picture taken together (albeit months apart), and, since we can all agree how we deal with the end of a game is at least as important as how we deal with it's beginning (or middle), I think it's great we've been able to get a couple of top-flight talents like Mr. O'Hale and Mr. Orland to approach the subject.

As for the games, I've always enjoyed a good amount of tension in a game, but frankly, I much prefer being able to redo bits of the game here and there as I see fit. But, as Dead Rising and the most recent Hitman have proven, a good game can overcome it's stupid, rigid save system.

 

[TomBeraha]

To Archon and the Escapist staff: Your complaint applies to a lot more than just the Escapist. I feel like any major issue which really does need to be examined gets tossed out in favor of trash in the name of ratings. I think that reporting from most venues has become so diluted with meaningless drivel that people dislike reading about something just because they think they already know what the answer is. More boring stuff about global warming - put an article about Paris Hilton instead. Addressing the growing concerns of minorities who are unable to escape poverty because they would stop receiving government aid if they were able to save any money away - Sounds like a snooze to me - I hear that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are having problems, put them on the cover instead. Worse yet - New Orleans is still in shambles from Katrina, people who lost everything still don't seem to have anything. But rather than a detailed intelligent piece on several specific families, lets instead run an article talking about how great Spiderman 5 will be.

I'm ranting a tad, and probably not making the point as well as it could be, but the gist of my argument is thus: We need more articles about everything from as many different views as possible. I would very much enjoy a third article from a third author's perspective still talking about death and it's place in a game. I would love to read rebuttal articles in the Escapist. Maybe Marty O'Hale thinks this piece is completely wrong and wants to write why. I would enjoy that article. I think the joy of debate is lost on the majority of the people I interact with in the "real world". I don't fault the escapist for holding some of it here. If an article is well written, POST IT! Don't keep intelligent well thought out view points from me just because we've talked about something before.

And before someone says it - two people debating do not necessarily need to disagree on everything - just on a couple finer points for it to be interesting.

- Tom

 

[Archon]

Tom, your points are well taken. While I would not be so vain as to claim we succeed all the time, The Escapist was certainly founded with the intent of tackling "big issues" in gaming. Perhaps those issues aren't as big as global warming, but they are big for our little corner of the universe.

Julianne, Russ, and Joe would have to speak to the possibilities of rebuttals. I'm just the Man in the Grey Flannel Suit that trots out to talk on the forums sometimes.

 

[Russ Pitts]

The idea of rebuttal articles or editorials is interesting, and something I'm sure we'll be talking about in the weeks ahead.

As for accepting that not all issues have one -or even two -sides, I think this is a failure of the internet age, and perhaps a symptom of the reduction of the typical attention span more than anything. It would be very nice indeed to break out of the mode of thinking that everything printed on the internet is an Absolute Truth, and one must either accept or disavow that Truth or therefore become irrelevant.

The fact is, most folks have opinions, and even though they may vary widely, none are usually any more valid than any other. Was Fallout the greatest game ever? No, not really. Not in my opinion. But if someone else thinks so, I'm interested to hear why, even though I may disagree. It's not the opinion itself that makes for interesting conversation, but the reasoning behind it.

 

[Nelsormensch]

I've found both of these articles to be quite resonant and enjoyed them both greatly. I generally agree with the sentiments whole-heartedly, finding the tension and drama in a game is reduced when you have as many "do overs" as you want. Sure, some might say that the player can always opt not to use the quicksave, but when the option is there, saying no is really, really difficult. Upon completing both of these articles, I find myself agreeing that a less flexible save system would usually improve gameplay.

But then I remember playing FarCry. The original release of FarCry had only a checkpoint save system. For the majority of the game, this was fine, it heightened tension, etc. It led to a few annoying replays, but nothing I couldn't handle. Then came the very final area of the game. It was the part set into the volcano caldera, filled with those hulking, nearly unkillable giant baddies. Just before this area, you were able to get loaded to bear at a armory, so one couldn't have been more prepared. The areas was quite large, the enemies quite plentiful and you had to kill every last one before you could continue (IIRC).

I played that area for something like six or seven hours straight, dying time after time after time. Near the end, I was nearly blind with rage and frustration. It wasn't fun, it wasn't challenging, it wasn't tense. It was insulting. But I'd spent some 20+ hours getting to that point, so I didn't want to just stop so close to the end. I swore that as soon as I finished the game, I'd uninstall it and never play it again.

And that's exactly what happened. I finally gave up that night (it was probably closer to dawn), but after about three more hours the next morning, I finished that area and the game, watched the ending and uninstalled the game forever. What had been a relatively impressive game up to that point was completely and utterly ruined.

I think this is the danger that many developers face when choosing their save system. Providing an unlimited quicksave might slightly annoy a few people, but nobody is really going to take major issue with it. The converse is not true, however. Forcing players to perform the same task over and over and over can quickly build frustration and hostility, which really shouldn't be what the developers are going for. A overly flexible save system isn't going to harm your game much (if at all), but an overly rigid one could very well kill it.

Maybe the problem is that we're looking for a "one size fits all" solution that doesn't really exist. I can't imagine many people think Resident Evil would have been a better, more terrifying game if you could save whenever you wanted. But FarCry, for example, could have been redeemed for me if they have offered in-game saves or more prolific checkpoints. Maybe the save/death mechanism needs to be more strongly examined as a design feature, especially in terms of the effects it will have upon gameplay. But what's for sure is I still haven't touched FarCry since, and probably never will.

 

[marco.antonio.costa]

Diablo 2 in Hardcore mode FTW

 

[HolyWillie]

To hell with the Game Over screen. Its only use is that of artificial game lengthening. It's a rustic artefact of the coin-guzzling arcade games of yore, and it deserves to be dead.

 

[rossatdi]

Personally I stopped playing Bioshock because there was no threat in death nor challenge in life. I can't find any sense of achievement in that! I literally put down the game and went and played outside.