minecraft's way of losing all items and even losing the world by dying adds that extra bit of disapointment, similar to sonic losing rings instead of dying. Losing something you've collected is possibly better in some games than time lost.
This is essentially the problem with Fable 3, the character is knocked out and even that is rare. It takes the feeling of challenge out of it completely, games=competition=challenge/difficulty. Fable 3 wasn't technically even a game in this regard, it was just an annoying semi-planned walk where the greatest threats to your experience were tennants not paying rent or the game timeline jumping forward half a year after one mission.Iglock said: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
Technically that happens in modern MP shooter too. It's just that no-one pays attention to these things any more.Raiyan 1.0 said:Funnily enough, this actually reminds me of Doom 95's mulitplayer. Each time you died, you respawned, but your last dead body remained on the map. After a while, the entire map is strewn with your and the other players' dead bodies. The visual message of dead bodies strewn throughout the map is more powerful than any number showing you frag counts...
Yes awesome game. Death in there was a WHOLE PLAYTHROUGH too. I got a bit angryy at it beacuse I came very close to doing it right the first playthrough and spent other times doinging everything else I could think of and failing. Could be frustrating but awesome.Divinegon said:Funny. As I read about Yahtzee's tale about the movie Next and how it would be good to be transcribed into a videogame, one actual game came to my mind that did the exact same thing.
Light to Medium SPOILERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/999:_Nine_Hours,_Nine_Persons,_Nine_Doors]
I won't explain why because it is a big part of the plot but the game did just do that: Show your deaths as failed universes where your actions were wrong. And that knowledge even became important in the plot. Failing was nearly as critical as winning in the game. But it wasn't rewarding you with failure, by all means no, each failure hit you hard when you thought about every little thing you did in the game that might have activated the Failure state. And it made you progressively more paranoid in your second attempt.
When it comes to this article, I think this game does everything Yahtzee is asking for.
Really...? I logged in so many hours of MP with you guys, but I never noticed... Maybe it's due to the fact that everyone is brown colored and is barely visible on the brown colored ground when they fall, as opposed to Doom's gaudy space marine suits...GrizzlerBorno said:Technically that happens in modern MP shooter too. It's just that no-one pays attention to these things any more.Raiyan 1.0 said:Funnily enough, this actually reminds me of Doom 95's mulitplayer. Each time you died, you respawned, but your last dead body remained on the map. After a while, the entire map is strewn with your and the other players' dead bodies. The visual message of dead bodies strewn throughout the map is more powerful than any number showing you frag counts...
I remember Shining Force also had a similar mechanic... when the main character falls unconscious in battle, you end up back at the last church you save at - but with half your money. Which always made me wonder how they knew exactly how much I had, and thusly charged half of that to bring me back to life.Iglock said: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
Not entirely sure that's the same as death; you can always race again at a later point.awesomehawk said:In gran turismo there is an equivalent to death though. It is called "losing a race".
Mogworld was pretty amazing I thought._Russell_ said: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...
I agree almost entirely. However, quicksaves aren't quite as bad as what Kirby's Epic Yarn does. WHen you lose all your money/jewels/whatever, a boss doesn't suddenly have all its health back. You could literally go forever on zero, get hit constantly, and still beat the game. Even quicksaves have a BIT of a progress barrier.BloodSquirrel said:It's not *time* it's *progress*.Yahtzee Croshaw said:There have been several games that have made the connection that, what with players frequently quicksaving and autosaving, death will usually mean nothing worse than using up a few minutes of your time as you're backtracked to a little way before your mistake.
It's the kind of difference that only matters when the game is actually challenging in the first place. Not actually losing progress means that it doesn't matter if you die- you can gain ground one inch at a time without ever having to change tactics or get better at the game. Losing progress means that you have to actually be able to beat some defined chunk of the game to move on. When you can oaf your way through anyway, it stops mattering so much.
This is why I far, far, prefer checkpoint systems to quicksaves.
^^ this would be an extremely interesting mechanic that i would pay good money to see.warrenEBB 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.