Is it just me or does this article go completely off topic after about 10 or so lines. It starts about the term "death" being used synonimous with "failure" even when nothing got hurt at all. Then is goes on rating on how dying as a failure is bad because it's not realistic and how death should affect the story of the game in ways that are not even possible outside point and click adventures citing various games that use death as something other then the "try again" screen.
161: Indie or Die
- Thread starter Jared Newman
- Start date
The Soul Reaver's take on death does sound very interesting.
Or on the other end of the spectrum, Diablo's Hardcore mode offer some real consequence to death. In the middle, games like Fable (from what little I know of the game)leaves markings, scars, or some kind of permanent imprint upon death. Not so extreme, and doesn't serve much to enhance the narrative, but at least it is recognized.
MMORPGs especially are guilty of the way they treat deaths, especially if you do care about the RPG elements. NPCs always respawn, and more importantly you respawn in a non-isolated world, where hundreds of people just witnessed you dropped and turned into skeleton. But in the end, most games need to offer a challenge to the player, and you have to be able to fail the test somehow, either via death or whatever. It is indeed a hard question to tackle.
Or on the other end of the spectrum, Diablo's Hardcore mode offer some real consequence to death. In the middle, games like Fable (from what little I know of the game)leaves markings, scars, or some kind of permanent imprint upon death. Not so extreme, and doesn't serve much to enhance the narrative, but at least it is recognized.
MMORPGs especially are guilty of the way they treat deaths, especially if you do care about the RPG elements. NPCs always respawn, and more importantly you respawn in a non-isolated world, where hundreds of people just witnessed you dropped and turned into skeleton. But in the end, most games need to offer a challenge to the player, and you have to be able to fail the test somehow, either via death or whatever. It is indeed a hard question to tackle.
Death is a great way to lose because it's universally understood as an undesirable thing. Just as death in life signals the end of your life, death in a video game often signals the end of the game for that point.
Death works in many games because most games are action games. Most games put you in the position of fighting for your life and having a game end in any other way than death seems silly. You used the example of Bioshock's Vita-Chambers, even though this was pretty much universally panned by critics and gamers. It ceased to really feel like a game because you could never lose the game. There was no challenge. There was no fun in the Vita-Chambers.
I'm for using other ways to equate failing in a game other than death, so long as they work well. The Vita-Chambers in Bioshock were one example of it not working well and pretty much detracting from the overall experience.
Death works in many games because most games are action games. Most games put you in the position of fighting for your life and having a game end in any other way than death seems silly. You used the example of Bioshock's Vita-Chambers, even though this was pretty much universally panned by critics and gamers. It ceased to really feel like a game because you could never lose the game. There was no challenge. There was no fun in the Vita-Chambers.
I'm for using other ways to equate failing in a game other than death, so long as they work well. The Vita-Chambers in Bioshock were one example of it not working well and pretty much detracting from the overall experience.
"If games are to move beyond death as punishment, the change has to be deeper."
Jared, it kind of seemed as if you view death in video games as a debased or bad thing. Is that the case or am I reading too much into the tone of the article?
Much like the dialogue of violence in video games intellectuals (not trying to label you as one) seem to think that death and violence are cliched and debased videogame conventions that the medium should be moving past. Again, I don't know if that is your perspective but I think that view is a bit condescending.
Sure, for some of us an educated civil white collar lifestyle is easily attainable but we should never forget that our social civility is a constructed facade which we buy into for our own safety. For the rest of the world, reality can be a far more dangerous place then any videogame could possibly present.
And I don't say that in order to justify the mass production of violent games. I say that because fictitious representations of violence do not need to be justified.
Jared, it kind of seemed as if you view death in video games as a debased or bad thing. Is that the case or am I reading too much into the tone of the article?
Much like the dialogue of violence in video games intellectuals (not trying to label you as one) seem to think that death and violence are cliched and debased videogame conventions that the medium should be moving past. Again, I don't know if that is your perspective but I think that view is a bit condescending.
Sure, for some of us an educated civil white collar lifestyle is easily attainable but we should never forget that our social civility is a constructed facade which we buy into for our own safety. For the rest of the world, reality can be a far more dangerous place then any videogame could possibly present.
And I don't say that in order to justify the mass production of violent games. I say that because fictitious representations of violence do not need to be justified.
The 'kill or be killed' nature of games has always appealed to me. I find games without that mechanic to be boring. If you can't die as a result of failure, who cares?
Thanks for the comments.
BallPt -- I don't view death in videogames as a bad thing, but the way that it has become a cliche troubles me. On the other hand, I agree with you that violent games don't need to be justified.
It's just that there are so many of them. The shooter genre itself is, in a sense, a cliche now, so limited in its variation from one game to another that the best you can hope for is a slight improvement on the formula. But that's not my point.
I'm saying that violent games and others that aren't overtly violent, like Super Mario Bros., rely too heavily on the model of kill or be killed, survive or perish, to the point that it's hard to think of any other structure. As such, gamers are denied the full range of experiences that this medium can provide.
Reading again through your post -- "For the rest of the world, reality can be a far more dangerous place" -- I'd like to see a video game represent that world, instead of the bizarre cocktail of death and respawning safety nets. Danger can mean more than just death, it can be drug addiction, going to prison, hiding from the mafia. If we are indeed so trapped in our white collar machinations, the alternative would be one hell of an escape.
Not that games have to be realistic -- Karoshi and Urban Dead far from the familiar, but they still offer challenge, excitement and emotion, traits that gamers typically seek.
BallPt -- I don't view death in videogames as a bad thing, but the way that it has become a cliche troubles me. On the other hand, I agree with you that violent games don't need to be justified.
It's just that there are so many of them. The shooter genre itself is, in a sense, a cliche now, so limited in its variation from one game to another that the best you can hope for is a slight improvement on the formula. But that's not my point.
I'm saying that violent games and others that aren't overtly violent, like Super Mario Bros., rely too heavily on the model of kill or be killed, survive or perish, to the point that it's hard to think of any other structure. As such, gamers are denied the full range of experiences that this medium can provide.
Reading again through your post -- "For the rest of the world, reality can be a far more dangerous place" -- I'd like to see a video game represent that world, instead of the bizarre cocktail of death and respawning safety nets. Danger can mean more than just death, it can be drug addiction, going to prison, hiding from the mafia. If we are indeed so trapped in our white collar machinations, the alternative would be one hell of an escape.
Not that games have to be realistic -- Karoshi and Urban Dead far from the familiar, but they still offer challenge, excitement and emotion, traits that gamers typically seek.
Oh and sorry for missing some games in the writeup. Don't forget this was the indie issue, so we were specifically calling out independent videogames that messed with the usual framework of dying in a game.
-Jared
-Jared
That reminds me a little bit of Breath of Fire 4. There is a small, but rather interesting consequence to death in the game. (I also like the gameplay a lot, since it deviates a lot from most RPGs, but that's for another day.) Anyway, when you die in that game, you get turned into an all-powerful dragon that can smite enemies to bits. You can even choose to assume your dragon form freely. The catch is, you can only stay in the dragon form for so long, then the dragon takeover and you fly off as a dragon, ending the game. Not death, but being overcome by a force greater than yourself. I think it's a very fitting end for the theme though.ThePimpOfSound said:
Granted you can still continue the game infinitely many times, the timer counter is still there (and it ticks even if you do not turn into the dragon), so you could potentially run into a situation where you simply will never finish the game.
Anyway, I thought it was interesting.
At the point when you're just killing the big daddy by repeatedly wrenching the bastard, I think it's safe to say that you aren't really going to care about the game's lack of realism. I have to assume that games-as-narratives like Bioshock call on the player to be an active participant in the story, and by that I mean they have to assume the player is letting himself be the character. At the point when you become the character, there is meaning beyond simply achieving the objectives, there is fear of pain, there is triumph. When you the player desynchronize with your character's memories there's no reason to keep playing other than to see what some guy at a computer made, why do you even care?SlayerGhede post=6.67618.606274 said:
And since that links me nicely to the topic- why do you ever want to achieve objectives in a game? Hell, even Painkiller which has as much story as a nutrition facts label, gives you a reason to march into a fight other than sheer awesomeness. Death in video games is a thing that doesn't need to be 'fixed' because it belongs. Take for instance, mass effect, death occurs in this game forcing you back to your last save routinely, but if you save often why try to avoid it? For the same reason you build relationships with characters, for the sake of being involved. And there you go, just another for-instance. Other themes and conflicts in games, love and hate, good and evil, I played a character just recently in a campaign who, by accident, had absolutely no love-based interactions at all, illustrating very clearly the real opposition of love - apathy.
At the end of the day, stories that hold our attention are almost always about conflict, and since consoles and computers are only ever going to be computers, they cannot create a mechanic for the abstract, or rather they can but it will feel forced, and death/survival will always be the easiest thing for a game to process because it is a strictly binary operation, you are either dead or alive. 0 or 1. With other things like love/apathy, happiness/anger, you can't really make mechanics of those, and even if you could it would be a ***** and a half to make the myriad story possibilities based on those vague concepts.
And at the end of the day, if you install those vague concepts, they will become the same as death- take as evidence the people who have friends simply for the benefits their friends provide, or girlfriends/boyfriends simply to get laid. The fact that these people exploit the gameplay elements of real life mean that they will exploit them in the game world too. Then valuable and interesting things become nothing but nuisances, if it affects the storyline all you'd ever have to do is jump back to previous and re-play a conversation for instance.
What's my point in all this? I guess at the end of the day what I'm saying is this- it's not so much the game using an outdated opposition to your progress, it's you using the wrong mentality to appreciate the opposition. Death can be a hindrance or it can be a challenge, it's why people like roller coasters, and it's why people like video games.
I don't think that lack of creativity is the problem and I don't think that as people we are inherently locked to the concept of death vs survival when it comes to game design. I think the real problem lies in how excessively expensive it is to make games these days. As long as there is a heavy financial cost you will rarely see unique non-typical game designs in the mainstream game space.ThePimpOfSound said:
As an investor you want to put your money on "sure things". In the game industry the closest thing to a sure thing are sequels, proven game models, or developers with a track record of high sales.
As you have shown, within the low cost world of indie games, people can create and entertain non-typical game models without the fear of losing their house. For this reason, indie games will continue to be the proving ground from which designers and developers will have to prove their new non-typical ideas which go against the typical death/life model.
Until then, mainstream games will continue to grind out their rutt of wannabe B action movies.
Artsy Farsty pretentiousness, drama and angst are not good art. Nor is it about messages.arrr_matey post=6.67618.604935 said:
Art is about entertainment, Good art is entertaining, everything else is irrelevant.
Video games offer entertainment, they are a wonderful art form.
They are not however a good method of storytelling because storytelling is based on a passive audience that simply absorbs the message of the author. Painting isn't a good story telling medium either, there are lots of good paintings though.
How do you intend to do a love story in the medium?
Graphic novels? That's not really gaming as much as a graphic choose your own adventure book.
No seriously, i don't see how you can really represent a love story through game play. Not "let's ignore the medium were in" cutscenes but the actual medium itself, the gameplay.
You call it artsy fartsy pretentiousness, but I think the whole "entertainment is everything" argument is a bit small-minded. Certainly, entertainment should be an important element of good art, but why does it have to be the only one. What's wrong with striving for something deeper, more emotional and more involving?WhitemageofDOOM post=6.67618.842407 said:
Also, does that mean everything that's entertaining is art? Why do we have two words, then? Is an NFL game art? Is a magic show art? Is watching my ferret scurry after his toys art? They're all entertaining...
I don't know of any medium that is based on a passive audience, except maybe propaganda. Just because you read a book doesn't mean you have to absorb the message of the author. Art is supposed to be something that is actively engaging, where you're mentally interacting with the ideas, messages and themes of the work. On the most basic level, for example, just because I read a story that promotes racism doesn't mean that I'll absorb that message passively. I'll refute it, argue with it in my head, and ultimately reject it.WhitemageofDOOM post=6.67618.842407 said:
Also, painting can be a wonderful storytelling medium. Just look at almost any classic painting based on mythology and you'll see how the great painters can tell a whole story in a single image.
Just because you and I can't see how it can be done doesn't mean it can't be done. There are other human beings in the world who think about such things.
What's wrong with it? Because it creates this self serving cliquish elitism that tries to push out the audience and focuses on the artistic community. It tends to eclipse the core entertainment value of art.arrr_matey post=6.67618.843404 said:
There may be nothing wrong inherently with trying to focus on emotional depth, but if you sacrifice entertainment value for emotional depth it becomes a problem. Emotional depth should increase the entertainment value, not detract from it.
Whoever designed the rules of football did some artistic work obviously. The people who designed the magic tricks were artists. And the person who designed those ferret toys were art.
But not all entertainment is art this is true. That doesn't change the fact art is fundamentally about entertainment and socializing. But the best the artist himself can often do is make it entertaining(well game designers can make a good game for local multiplayer.)
That isn't exactly what i meant, you might be mulling over it in your head what the story is saying. But you have no impact on the story, you aren't really doing anything with it. You can take away ideas from the story but that doesn't really affect the story itself, since you can choose to ignore any ideas in the story.
A story based game inevitably removes player participation, which is the core of gaming. For two reasons, to tell a story with a game requires the players actions to have no effect on the story if they do the game isn't so much telling a story as allowing the player to create his own which is something interesting gaming can do, but there is a different word for that it's called roleplaying and roleplaying doesn't become a story until you start telling people about it. Second is game designers as i implied earlier a bit use the crutch of dialogue and cut scenes instead of the fundamental aspect of gameplay which is the medium itself, inevitably story based game isn't "The gameplay tells a story" but "we take away player participation away to shove dialogue down your throat."
Well let em think about it. If the game plays good and that somehow evokes feelings of love, and this all works together for a seamless piece of entertainment...Well that's damn impressive.
I agree with you actually. Sacrificing entertainment value is a no-no. I just see a lot of the "entertainment only" crowd as being just as elitist as the "artistic" community, in that they criticize anything that doesn't meet their "pure entertainment" standards.WhitemageofDOOM post=6.67618.847456 said:
I think we both agree that art should be entertaining. I just feel that this should be the springboard for bigger and better things, not the endpoint. Game designers should be aiming for more than just entertainment. But they definitely should not forget to keep the entertainment part in.
I don't think that's necessarily true. I think games just make the audience/gamer's involvement more explicit. In some games you can decide whether your character is good or evil, for example. In other media, like movies and books, you can also decide whether characters are good or evil. Maybe you can't alter the words on the page or the scenes in the film, but you can alter what they mean. And that, I think, is actually more important.
Is Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness" a villain, a tragic figure, a symbol of civilization, etc? Figuring out that question is a more involving interaction with a piece of art than most videogames provide. And each person will figure it out differently for themselves, meaning that the book is never really the same text each time a person reads it. Most games allow you only unimportant interactions, like whether you shoot a zombie in the head or knees, with a gun or rocket launcher.
I guess you could say that videogames allow you to change the actual storylines sometimes. Like, say, the end of Half-Life you can choose to join the aliens or not. But some movies and books let you do that, too. This is a really lame example, but it's all I can think of at the moment... I remember having lots of unresolved debates about whether the old lady dies at the end of the movie Titanic. Some people say she does, some people say she doesn't. Importantly, the ambiguity means there are really (at least) two different endings to that movie that people choose depending on their interpretation of the movie. That means there are actually (at least) two storylines to pick from, just like many a videogame.
For good examples of games where the gameplay tells a story, try Facade or Dwarf Fortress.
Facade - http://interactivestory.net/
Dwarf Fortress - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_Fortress
They're more artsy fartsy than you might like, but imagine if character interactions in an RPG were as good as they are in Facade. Wouldn't that be sweet?
Or maybe the kid knew something nobody else seems to have realized yet, when a performer has a bad show it is frequently referred to as either "bombing" or "dying."Jared Newman said:
Well for a game to be interesting, you need something at stake. The biggest thing that often can be put to stake is your own life (and the fate of humanity as we know it). When you raise the stakes this high, death is a manditory punishment for failure. You wouldn't have anything at stake if you can't be killed, so the conflict of the story dissapates.
I don't see this as a problem. Detective Mystery novels also require deaths. Readers are far less likely to continue reading a story if the mystery isn't dealing with something particularly serious. Death is the only thing that can really encaptivate a reader, or justify the elaborate nature of a story. Poirot would be boring if he spent 200 pages, looking for the one who stole a thousand pound necklace. It wouldn't justify the effort. You can get away with that kind of thing in a short story format, but for anything longer, death is obligatory.
I don't see this as a problem. Detective Mystery novels also require deaths. Readers are far less likely to continue reading a story if the mystery isn't dealing with something particularly serious. Death is the only thing that can really encaptivate a reader, or justify the elaborate nature of a story. Poirot would be boring if he spent 200 pages, looking for the one who stole a thousand pound necklace. It wouldn't justify the effort. You can get away with that kind of thing in a short story format, but for anything longer, death is obligatory.