The Death of the Death Penalty
Is it time to retire the death penalty in games?
Read Full Article
Is it time to retire the death penalty in games?
Read Full Article
The Death of the Death Penalty
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Perhaps. Although with respect to it being a pride thing, it's good if a game keeps a death counter like Titan Quest. People liked to show off they finished the whole game or sections with zero deaths.
I think XP removals are one of the best death penalties. Just wastes some of your time without punishing you un-necessarily (Y)
I think XP removals are one of the best death penalties. Just wastes some of your time without punishing you un-necessarily (Y)
Anything more than the barest minimum of delay in returning to the action isn't fun and usually has a way of completely throwing me off. Even in games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 where death just means I reload to a point some seconds before when I hit quicksave manages to stunt my enthusiasm until I start progressing again. Anything more than that usually makes me exit the game and go do something else.
Also, the article says it was done by Greg Tito at top, but it has Shamus Young's name and image in the article, oddly.
Also, the article says it was done by Greg Tito at top, but it has Shamus Young's name and image in the article, oddly.
A death "penalty" in games really should only serve to ensure that death isn't a normal play strategy. There are times when people use a quick death to fast-travel from one place to another, or use corpse runs to inch through an area without actually fighting... but other than that? It's bad form to punish a player for playing the game, and it's an even worse idea to punish them for taking risks once in awhile.Greg Tito said:
Most of the death penalty proponents will almost always push for a "full-loot PvP" mechanic, claiming they want to feel the danger... but, of course, a quick look at the tactics they use shows they aren't the least bit interested in danger.
When someone pushes for a stiffer death penalty, I usually just invite them to self-impose the penalty of their choosing: drop some of your gold, take a 10-minute break, randomly delete one of your items, or something else like that. If they choose not to, the evidence is clear. They don't want to experience a stiffer penalty. They want others to experience a stiffer penalty.
Okay! I get to toute Guild Wars again!
In Guild Wars there IS a death penalty. Every time you die, you get a semi-permanant condition called Death Penalty. It shows itself in the corner of the screen(or whereever you put your conditions) as a red box with a number percentage. What that number is is the percentage of your max heath and energy that is taken away from you. Each time you die, you take 15% DP, so if you had 100 health, now you have 85. And it's cumulative to a cap of 60%. Short of missions, if you die and there is nothing to raise you, you and everyone else that's dead will pop back to the nearest resurrection shrine and you can go at it again, but with that death penalty. The incentive to avoid dying is simply this: 15% DP is easy to live with. You can kill monsters and work it off easily enough. at 60% DP, you're minus more than half of your health and energy. Warriors no longer have the energy to use their skills. Mages no longer have the health to survive a battle. It can't go any higher than 60, but depending on where you are it doesn't have to. Now you can keep plugging away and you may be able to finish what you were doing, but each time you die it gets harder.
In Guild Wars there IS a death penalty. Every time you die, you get a semi-permanant condition called Death Penalty. It shows itself in the corner of the screen(or whereever you put your conditions) as a red box with a number percentage. What that number is is the percentage of your max heath and energy that is taken away from you. Each time you die, you take 15% DP, so if you had 100 health, now you have 85. And it's cumulative to a cap of 60%. Short of missions, if you die and there is nothing to raise you, you and everyone else that's dead will pop back to the nearest resurrection shrine and you can go at it again, but with that death penalty. The incentive to avoid dying is simply this: 15% DP is easy to live with. You can kill monsters and work it off easily enough. at 60% DP, you're minus more than half of your health and energy. Warriors no longer have the energy to use their skills. Mages no longer have the health to survive a battle. It can't go any higher than 60, but depending on where you are it doesn't have to. Now you can keep plugging away and you may be able to finish what you were doing, but each time you die it gets harder.
I think punishment such as losing items and such in single player is less acceptable than in MMOs is because single player games can just throw you back to the checkpoints when the monsters or whatever you killed were still alive and have to try again, whereas MMOs don't have that luxery due to the other players in the same area. This would happen if checkpoints were put in MMOs.
Player one: Wow I had a tough time killing all those monsters. *another player respawns from death. due to checkpoints, the monsters that player one fought and is still injured from respawn as well.*
P1: son of a bi- *ripped apart by monsters*
Maybe MMO's could have a similar thing to checkpoint systems by throwing you back into the nearest safe zone upon death.
Player one: Wow I had a tough time killing all those monsters. *another player respawns from death. due to checkpoints, the monsters that player one fought and is still injured from respawn as well.*
P1: son of a bi- *ripped apart by monsters*
Maybe MMO's could have a similar thing to checkpoint systems by throwing you back into the nearest safe zone upon death.
*cough* Bioshock *cough*
I think it really depends on the game, and a lot of it depends on the narrative restrictions of the world. For instance, I have no idea how Bioware's going to handle death in their Star Wars MMO. If your ship blows up while you're in it, that's kind of hard to survive. Escape pod to the nearest world and loss of your ship? And planetary death, maybe picked up by an ambulance and sent to a hospital? In WoW it's all well and good to be a ghost and get resurrected, but the narrative of Star Wars places certain restrictions.
Personally, I think it's good to give players choices, given the chance. Hardcore modes (ala Diablo II) where death is permanent is nice to have for that bit of realism, but largely unappealing to the general public. For a standard, most online games are okay with a delay to returning to action. Body looting, while hilarious as a looter, sucks if you're being looted.
For single player games, I've never had a problem with restarting from my last save (assuming I can save whenever I want). A slight XP penalty is occasionally acceptable assuming I'm being compensated appropriately for running that risk (Nightmare/Hell modes on, once again, Diablo II).
Edit: Now that I think about it, Bioware will probably have a "death" system similar to Dragon Age (temporary unconsciousness and healable injuries) for the Star Wars MMO.
I don't think that every game needs a penalty for death necessarily. If they don't they just need to provide incentive to play better, such as unlocking bonuses and other cool things.
Case in point: Kirby's Epic Yarn.
Case in point: Kirby's Epic Yarn.
ever notice you never see Shamus and Greg in the same place at the same time? *DUN DUN DUN!!*Jumwa said:
In my opinion, the difference between the two is that most videogames are just games, whereas some MMOs aspire to be simulations of virtual worlds. Because of the latter aspiration, some MMOs treat death with versimilitude, rather than fun, in mind.
In a videogame by definition the game world ceases to exist when you are killed. It's a purely solipsistic experience. Therefore it makes sense to have the state of non-existence be as minimal as possible, i.e. to get you right back into the game.
In a virtual world, the game world does not cease to exist when you are killed. Since some MMOs in fact aim to give the impression that the game is an ongoing reality and that your death has meaning within the context of that world, the death penalties are much "less fun". That's because it's death for the sake of versimilitude, not fun. UO had you become a ghost when you died not because being a ghost was 'fun' but because that's what they thought should happen to a dead person in their world.
Over time, the focus on simulation or versimilitude in MMOs has decreased as they have transitioned away from being virtual worlds and towards being purely theme parks aiming at "fun", i.e. WoW. This has been a very successful formula (compare WoW's success to Shadowbane/Eve/etc.) but I don't think it means that early game designers thought that their death systems were more fun. They simply had other design priorities, like realism, ecology, etc. (The same could be said of UO's open PvP mechanic, its ecologically-based monster spawning system, and so on).
In a videogame by definition the game world ceases to exist when you are killed. It's a purely solipsistic experience. Therefore it makes sense to have the state of non-existence be as minimal as possible, i.e. to get you right back into the game.
In a virtual world, the game world does not cease to exist when you are killed. Since some MMOs in fact aim to give the impression that the game is an ongoing reality and that your death has meaning within the context of that world, the death penalties are much "less fun". That's because it's death for the sake of versimilitude, not fun. UO had you become a ghost when you died not because being a ghost was 'fun' but because that's what they thought should happen to a dead person in their world.
Over time, the focus on simulation or versimilitude in MMOs has decreased as they have transitioned away from being virtual worlds and towards being purely theme parks aiming at "fun", i.e. WoW. This has been a very successful formula (compare WoW's success to Shadowbane/Eve/etc.) but I don't think it means that early game designers thought that their death systems were more fun. They simply had other design priorities, like realism, ecology, etc. (The same could be said of UO's open PvP mechanic, its ecologically-based monster spawning system, and so on).
Well then, I assume you're not looking forward to the Witcher two's death penalty for their hardest mode? The one that deletes your saves when you die?
Anyways, good article. I can't really comment on death penalties in MMOs as I don't play those types of games. I do think that when done badly, either being too long or too short, then it can break the flow of a game and make the entire experience a little worse. I'm looking at Bioshock myself, which had no penalty for dying other then going to the nearest vitachamber. That made boss fights almost completely pointless and gave no fear of death.
Anyways, good article. I can't really comment on death penalties in MMOs as I don't play those types of games. I do think that when done badly, either being too long or too short, then it can break the flow of a game and make the entire experience a little worse. I'm looking at Bioshock myself, which had no penalty for dying other then going to the nearest vitachamber. That made boss fights almost completely pointless and gave no fear of death.
Yeah... I never used that feature of Bioshock. If I died I reused my last save, much more fun in my opinion.Azuaron said:
No, death penalties make games more fun. Case in point: EVE Online the game with the best pvp combat that I've ever experienced. In EVE Online when you die you lose your ship, your ship's inventory, and even some skills if you don't have an up-to-date clone. That's like if in, say, WoW every time you died the only things you'd have left would be your money and whatever is in your bank. This makes the combat amazingly pulse-pounding. The threat of real loss gives a thrill in combat that makes the experience all the more worthwhile. It's a bit like the feeling of bungee jumping.Greg Tito said:
There's another game, Vindictus, which has a different take on death penalties. In Vindictus every character has the option to resurrect themselves... for about 0.30 USD in real world money. Soloing in Vindictus thereby becomes extremely fun. $0.30 is not much but just the fact that you might lose something real gives every threatening boss fight real dramatic weight.
In every other narrative medium death is very often permanent. When a character dies in a book or film and later returns perfectly fine the book or film is met with a lot of hate (see: Highlander: Endgame) Without death resulting in real loss it's impossible for fights to have significant emotional impact.
WoW has a death penalty to add value to resurrection-capable classes. It provides incentive for the Warrior to team up with his Priest or Shaman buddy because they can keep him away from the penalty and help him bypass it much more quickly. In return, his superior damage-dealing and damage-soaking skills can be employed to their benefit.
It also adds value to the consumables trade. When you know that a health potion is often going to be the only thing standing between you and a long corpse-walk, you're going to pack some with you as you quest. Similarly, when your panic button is the only thing that's going to save you from that same penalty, you're going to invest in glyphs that lower its cooldown or otherwise make it more effective.
In short Shamus, the penalty can be harsher in multiplayer games because there are other players to help you bear that burden, and it encourages you all to work together. There is an unspoken camaraderie of "we've all been there" when it comes to rez sickness or long corpse walks.
While I see where you're coming from, comparing WoW to Too Human is overlooking this basic fact. So, I disagree.
It also adds value to the consumables trade. When you know that a health potion is often going to be the only thing standing between you and a long corpse-walk, you're going to pack some with you as you quest. Similarly, when your panic button is the only thing that's going to save you from that same penalty, you're going to invest in glyphs that lower its cooldown or otherwise make it more effective.
In short Shamus, the penalty can be harsher in multiplayer games because there are other players to help you bear that burden, and it encourages you all to work together. There is an unspoken camaraderie of "we've all been there" when it comes to rez sickness or long corpse walks.
While I see where you're coming from, comparing WoW to Too Human is overlooking this basic fact. So, I disagree.
Funnily enough, in both Fable II and III, at the cost of a [sub]small[/sub] amount of xp, not only did you get bck up and immediately fight at full health, but you actually knocked enemies back, occasionally knocking them over, when you did so. So dying put you in a better tactical position than living did.
Or Prince of Persia '08 (and I'm surprised he didn't mention it)Green Ninja said:Isn't that how Fable works?Shamus Young said: