Extra Punctuation: Death in Videogames
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I watched Next for a reason I don't remember. To be fair there were some decent scenes, that army of clones being one of them. I didn't get how he was able to get the bad guy to empty his gun into his (Nics) alternate selves though. Don't those alternate selves not exist?
I loved the way death is dealt wth in Legacy of Kain:Soul Reaver. It fits the way the plot and game structure is designed. Very clever.
That whole thing about all of your attempts being different universes tends to be how I think of it.
If just because the idea of there existing several realities where Wesker tears Chris's head off.
Wasn't the first Prince of Persia told as a story? If you or your sidekick died, the prince would explain that you misunderstood and that's not how it happened? So in the reality of the game, the whole gameplay was a flashback, and if you failed, you had not killed the prince but failed to understand his story, or make him tell the story wrong.
It would make for a very frustrating gameplay if you were only able to try every mission once. Or were unable to replay your games.
Some old arcade games only gave you one life, and if you fucked up, you had to try again. Would this be the kind of gameplay you'd want?
Well, there are the games like Pokemon that punish your failure by other means, in pokemon's case, taking some of your money away, and teleporting you back to the last Pokecenter.
But you still can reload an old save.
However, in some challenge battle areas like in Pokemon Stadium or Battle frontier, you can't save during your challenge so if you lose, you can't just reload a save and try again. You have to take the challenge from the start, but as the pokemon and the trainers change, it won't be the same thing.
If just because the idea of there existing several realities where Wesker tears Chris's head off.
Wasn't the first Prince of Persia told as a story? If you or your sidekick died, the prince would explain that you misunderstood and that's not how it happened? So in the reality of the game, the whole gameplay was a flashback, and if you failed, you had not killed the prince but failed to understand his story, or make him tell the story wrong.
It's something we take for granted, so much so that I don't think it necessarily ruins the immersion or the atmosphere. If it does, the developers did something wrong.A Curious Fellow said:
It would make for a very frustrating gameplay if you were only able to try every mission once. Or were unable to replay your games.
Some old arcade games only gave you one life, and if you fucked up, you had to try again. Would this be the kind of gameplay you'd want?
Well, there are the games like Pokemon that punish your failure by other means, in pokemon's case, taking some of your money away, and teleporting you back to the last Pokecenter.
But you still can reload an old save.
However, in some challenge battle areas like in Pokemon Stadium or Battle frontier, you can't save during your challenge so if you lose, you can't just reload a save and try again. You have to take the challenge from the start, but as the pokemon and the trainers change, it won't be the same thing.
I think I know a solution to the continuous timeline problem.
The character never dies, but can "faint".
Think of the Pokemon games. Pokemon never die, they faint. If you lose a battle, you'll restart at the last healing centre. That way, the flow of time continues as normal, but the player still must replay the battle until they win.
You could apply this to other games (for example Fable 3).
-Player starts quest
-Player is unsuccessful and character faints
-Character is saved from death (by an NPC?) and attempts the quest again, essentially restarting the quest
-Rinse and repeat
-Player completes quest
The character never dies, but can "faint".
Think of the Pokemon games. Pokemon never die, they faint. If you lose a battle, you'll restart at the last healing centre. That way, the flow of time continues as normal, but the player still must replay the battle until they win.
You could apply this to other games (for example Fable 3).
-Player starts quest
-Player is unsuccessful and character faints
-Character is saved from death (by an NPC?) and attempts the quest again, essentially restarting the quest
-Rinse and repeat
-Player completes quest
You are using Quicksaves for a SELF-IMPOSED challenge, but the fact that you can even use them in such a manner, speaks volumes about how exploitable they really are.Dectilon said:
There's a really poignant example of the "alternate timeline where you fail" idea, in the Vietnam war game Men of Valour, whenever you died, the "game over" screen would be a reading of the letter sent by your commanding officer to your character's family, and it changed depending on where you were when you died, referencing specific points in the game, including the odd occasion when your usual CO wasn't around at the time where it was written by someone else.
Certainly drove the point of dying home.
Also, that game had the most horrific checkpoints in the last parts of the game, where there was a horribly long section which even had a non-skippable in-game cutscene in it with no checkpoints in-between.
I eventually resorted to using a god mod cheat to simply get to a reasonable point as it was easily 10 minutes long by playing normally to even get to the cutscene, let alone get beyond it, as there was a fair way to go after that before hitting another checkpoint. It didn't help that it was one of the hardest parts of the game anyway.
Certainly drove the point of dying home.
Also, that game had the most horrific checkpoints in the last parts of the game, where there was a horribly long section which even had a non-skippable in-game cutscene in it with no checkpoints in-between.
I eventually resorted to using a god mod cheat to simply get to a reasonable point as it was easily 10 minutes long by playing normally to even get to the cutscene, let alone get beyond it, as there was a fair way to go after that before hitting another checkpoint. It didn't help that it was one of the hardest parts of the game anyway.
I would mostly agree, with you, save that this is a children's game. I compare Yoshi's Story: a relatively brutal death mechanic in a game, in where you had a limited number of Yoshis (baby Yoshis, mind), and if you ever died, ever, they were gone, and could only come back under extreme circumstances.
I grew attached to my Yoshis, because the game made me love them. I had favourite colours and favouite fruit which influenced my favourites, before the Yoshis died they would pant and look distraught, and there were special Black and White Yoshis that were really rare and hard to find that I spent hours chasing.
In that game, death motivated me because I really, really loved my Yoshis. I was young, mind.
I grew attached to my Yoshis, because the game made me love them. I had favourite colours and favouite fruit which influenced my favourites, before the Yoshis died they would pant and look distraught, and there were special Black and White Yoshis that were really rare and hard to find that I spent hours chasing.
In that game, death motivated me because I really, really loved my Yoshis. I was young, mind.
Since this seems like an excellent home for ideas that will never be made because people are thick, I have envisioned thus.
Think of a game like Prince of Persia circa twenty-aught eight. Let's say the whole meeting scene didn't happen and say the game got the ball rolling already. After a scripted (possibly with player control) first time you fall in the goop and get your ass saved, the hero's says:
HERO: "What just happened?"
GIRL: "I just saved you with my powers."
HERO: "Oh... cool. How many times can you do that?"
Then we have an in-game content choice, a-la the beginning of Brutal Legend, of your standard difficulty settings, Easy ("enough to complete our task"), Medium ("only x times, but I'll recharge when we claim a piece of the maguffin"), Hard ("only once more. Period."), and Badass("I can't"). Choosing a harder setting get's the added logic of their team up: instead of some remarkablly happenstance meeting and need of someone to kill things for her, you were picked for hero duty because she needed your athetic chops to get from A to B, and to kill things for her.
But here's the spice, in easy or medium you'd get saved with increasing disdain and brilliantly written humor (why not I'm already in pretendland)
Think of a game like Prince of Persia circa twenty-aught eight. Let's say the whole meeting scene didn't happen and say the game got the ball rolling already. After a scripted (possibly with player control) first time you fall in the goop and get your ass saved, the hero's says:
HERO: "What just happened?"
GIRL: "I just saved you with my powers."
HERO: "Oh... cool. How many times can you do that?"
Then we have an in-game content choice, a-la the beginning of Brutal Legend, of your standard difficulty settings, Easy ("enough to complete our task"), Medium ("only x times, but I'll recharge when we claim a piece of the maguffin"), Hard ("only once more. Period."), and Badass("I can't"). Choosing a harder setting get's the added logic of their team up: instead of some remarkablly happenstance meeting and need of someone to kill things for her, you were picked for hero duty because she needed your athetic chops to get from A to B, and to kill things for her.
But here's the spice, in easy or medium you'd get saved with increasing disdain and brilliantly written humor (why not I'm already in pretendland)
I guess Pokemon is a good example of what you can do without dying.
I think death is a problem do to the type of games you are referring to. People don't die in Gran Turismo, but they die in anything which has combat.
Really, what else can the ultimate failure be in a combat situation that isn't combat. Sorry, but Pokemon kinda has it nailed. The only thing I can think of is a kind of tiered game, where failure physically returns you to a previous level...
I think death is a problem do to the type of games you are referring to. People don't die in Gran Turismo, but they die in anything which has combat.
Really, what else can the ultimate failure be in a combat situation that isn't combat. Sorry, but Pokemon kinda has it nailed. The only thing I can think of is a kind of tiered game, where failure physically returns you to a previous level...
Using a couple of your other ideas on Extra Punctuation, how about a game set in a Dante's Inferno style version of hell, where the objective is to escape.
You begin with a lot of powers, but as the game continues, you loose many of them-the struggle to escape becomes draining to you.
Now, with every failure, you return to a previous level of "hell", but don't get any of those powers back. You know how the level works, and how to win it, as you've already done it. It may be subtly different, but the main thing is that the enemies aren't as strong/intelligent as the level you have just come from.
You get the opportunity to learn how to master the skills you have left. If you can't beat that level, then you get dropped again. To avoid terrible repetition, things will have to be different each time, and there will have to be a customisable way to enhance or alter the powers that you have... for every skill that's taken away, and option to enhance the ones that remain opens. However, that end goal is always slightly out of grasp.
Also, as this would be a stealth and trickery based game, instead of regenerating health, you have skills and suchlike that can hoodwink your enemies, disguise you, heal you etc, because let's face it, if you're in hell, how are you supposed to be killing things? What's deader than dead? With this mighty arsenal of skills (at the beginning) it won't be hard to save yourself, or disguise yourself, but as your skills become fewer, the game gets harder, and you are forced to rethink your manoeuvres and plans in order to not get caught... and if you do, you get sent right back down.
It's a ***** of a game, but I think with some tweaking it could work. I'm sure you'd find something wrong with it
You begin with a lot of powers, but as the game continues, you loose many of them-the struggle to escape becomes draining to you.
Now, with every failure, you return to a previous level of "hell", but don't get any of those powers back. You know how the level works, and how to win it, as you've already done it. It may be subtly different, but the main thing is that the enemies aren't as strong/intelligent as the level you have just come from.
You get the opportunity to learn how to master the skills you have left. If you can't beat that level, then you get dropped again. To avoid terrible repetition, things will have to be different each time, and there will have to be a customisable way to enhance or alter the powers that you have... for every skill that's taken away, and option to enhance the ones that remain opens. However, that end goal is always slightly out of grasp.
Also, as this would be a stealth and trickery based game, instead of regenerating health, you have skills and suchlike that can hoodwink your enemies, disguise you, heal you etc, because let's face it, if you're in hell, how are you supposed to be killing things? What's deader than dead? With this mighty arsenal of skills (at the beginning) it won't be hard to save yourself, or disguise yourself, but as your skills become fewer, the game gets harder, and you are forced to rethink your manoeuvres and plans in order to not get caught... and if you do, you get sent right back down.
It's a ***** of a game, but I think with some tweaking it could work. I'm sure you'd find something wrong with it
A similar thing has been on my mind in terms of RPGs lately. Is it fine for players to kill lots of small creatures and gradually whittle down their health and MP reserves, or is it better to constantly restore those stats to full in order to make each encounter more interesting?
To me the whole issue just seems to be a struggle to justify the old ways of doing things. "I think it's better this way because that's how it was in my day of gaming! But that's not a good enough reason to convince you all, so... here's my attempt to try and make it sound vital to gaming itself on a fundamental level."
One size doesn't fit all though, and I'm sure for some gamers harsh penalties and punishment in their gaming is a big plus. Can't say I'm one of them though.
To draw a comparison (albeit a flawed one, as the two mediums aren't exactly identical): some people watch movies to be really tested. They want to really think about what's happening, they want to struggle to figure out who the murderer is, what the twist might be. They want to agonize over the symbolism, the meaning. Other people just want to watch crap blow up on film.
Some people want both, others want both but at different times.
One size doesn't fit all though, and I'm sure for some gamers harsh penalties and punishment in their gaming is a big plus. Can't say I'm one of them though.
To draw a comparison (albeit a flawed one, as the two mediums aren't exactly identical): some people watch movies to be really tested. They want to really think about what's happening, they want to struggle to figure out who the murderer is, what the twist might be. They want to agonize over the symbolism, the meaning. Other people just want to watch crap blow up on film.
Some people want both, others want both but at different times.
I'm surprised nobody was yet to mention Super Meat Boy. In Super Meath Boy, the 4th chapter, "Hell", is filled with bodies of dead Meat Boys representing your past hundreds of attempts to finish other levels in the game.
[SPOILER WARNING]
The boss fight in the this chapter is actually a huge golem made out of these bodies (http://www.aeon.net.nz/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SMB-hell.png). Apparently, all the dead Meat Boy hate the one Meat Boy who was lucky enough to stay alive.
[SPOILERS END HERE]
Quite an interesting concept to think of, actually. I hope other game would exploit this strange game mechanic and somehow combine it with the storyline, the same way Super Meat Boy did.
[SPOILER WARNING]
The boss fight in the this chapter is actually a huge golem made out of these bodies (http://www.aeon.net.nz/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/SMB-hell.png). Apparently, all the dead Meat Boy hate the one Meat Boy who was lucky enough to stay alive.
[SPOILERS END HERE]
Quite an interesting concept to think of, actually. I hope other game would exploit this strange game mechanic and somehow combine it with the storyline, the same way Super Meat Boy did.
The talk of quantum mechanics reminded me of Mogworld.
Did you know that Yahtzee wrote a book called Mogworld that's available on Amazon & Amazon.co.uk?
Well Yahtzee wrote a book called Mogworld thats available on Amazon & Amazon.co.uk, buy now beat the rush!
Hmmm, feels like I heard that before in a subliminal message somewhere...
Did you know that Yahtzee wrote a book called Mogworld that's available on Amazon & Amazon.co.uk?
Well Yahtzee wrote a book called Mogworld thats available on Amazon & Amazon.co.uk, buy now beat the rush!
Hmmm, feels like I heard that before in a subliminal message somewhere...
The film Run Lola Run is another excellent example of video game death mechanics played out in film
I like the point how it's not about gameplay, but it's about the mindset of the players. But was all that about quantum mechanics really necessary? Oh, yeah...
... I guess it was. A similar mechanic exists in Phenomenon 32. In that game your deaths are failed simulations of spaceship navigation.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
it's be interesting to make a game that played with this multiverse idea, by choosing one of your deaths to be the true reality - after you've completed the level.
You're pretty sure you made it, but everyone else remembers you getting shot down about halfway through.
In a soldier game, maybe EACH play through becomes rumors of your skills for future missions. (like in the recent movie "Battle Los Angeles," the solidiers aren't sure of their squad leader because they've heard some stories about what happened on his last mission). so if you made it through on first life, everyone is on the same page. But if you died 100 times (or saved 100 times?) people have a very mixed view of you.
...
* Also, wasn't there a text adventure about a decade ago (I believe it won awards at the time, in that community) wherein : you've been caught during a break in and are being interrogated. The game is split between surviving the interrogator, and exploring the flashbacks of how you broke in. In the end, you find that your flashback stories each had slight lies, which will let you escape the interrogation. (like you hid something in a vent, unlocked a door, called for help, etc.)
I just heard about it. never played it. if anyone has name/link please let em know!
You're pretty sure you made it, but everyone else remembers you getting shot down about halfway through.
In a soldier game, maybe EACH play through becomes rumors of your skills for future missions. (like in the recent movie "Battle Los Angeles," the solidiers aren't sure of their squad leader because they've heard some stories about what happened on his last mission). so if you made it through on first life, everyone is on the same page. But if you died 100 times (or saved 100 times?) people have a very mixed view of you.
...
* Also, wasn't there a text adventure about a decade ago (I believe it won awards at the time, in that community) wherein : you've been caught during a break in and are being interrogated. The game is split between surviving the interrogator, and exploring the flashbacks of how you broke in. In the end, you find that your flashback stories each had slight lies, which will let you escape the interrogation. (like you hid something in a vent, unlocked a door, called for help, etc.)
I just heard about it. never played it. if anyone has name/link please let em know!