Extra Punctuation: Death in Videogames

[Nohelpplease]

You know, the end Yahtzee described sounded a lot like Second Sight, which is a fun game with psychic powers, but shitty in design and linearity and many other bothersome things, like the annoying alarm sound.

But, in Second Sight, you can project out of your body like Yahtzee mentioned, but when you run out of power or finish what you had planned as your astral form, you snap back to your body, and, ironically, your character sometimes holds his head in pain, just like he described.

So, yeah, it's an interesting concept, and I wonder if game companies think they want people to realize what death really is, or want you to keep playing without any breaking any flow of the game.

 

[mandrilltiger]

I think Killer7 did a good job in connecting death to the narrative. Although I must say was inconvenient.

Personally I prefer quick saves and auto saves and for people that think quick saves are too easy can just use the auto saves.

 

[Worr Monger]

I've always been a fan of the multiverse idea.

Hell.. sometimes I'll complete an area of a game and reload to try it again because I think "That didn't go as well as I wanted it to... I can do that better".

In one universe, I die. In another, I'm just mediocre at getting the job done. And then there's the universe where I'm a total badass.

 

[PotatoHunter]

I think my favorite way of dieing in games was in Medal of Honor Pacific Assault (for some reason, this is also my favorite WWII single player campaign, for length and mission content).

Basically, you had a medic in your squad, and he had a certain amount of medkits depending on the difficulty. When you went to 0 health, you would be on the ground wounded, and he would have to run to reach you, and if he didn't then you would die. WHAT ALSO would happen was if a Jap go to you first, you were rewarded with many stabs, stomps and shots to the brain, which always freaked me out. That game presented death in the most realistic and memorable way for its setting, atleast for me.

Also carrying wounded allies on your back, despite being useless ish, was always epic feeling in the hardest difficulties.

 

[mrhateful]

Its very simple very prey wasn't fun... You could literally keep attacking the same boss slowly draining its health. The reason why loading takes time is not to punish you but because your computer is too slow to do it instantly. Also I prefer the Baldurs Gate 2 way over all others aka you die, if your cleric can resurrect that's fine if not go reload, and saving in battle is NOT allowed.

 

[templar1138a]

That's an interesting interpretation of the standard die-reload method. I don't mind losing those few minutes, but what I hate are death sequences that are obnoxious and/or unskippable. For example? MASS EFFECT.

Seriously, I HATE dying in the first Mass Effect game. Between the loud synthesizer music, the slow movie-of-a-musical camera rotation, the blurry red filter, and the fact that the sequence can't be skipped, it almost makes me want to toss the game disc under the freshly ignited engines of a space shuttle. It made me SO happy that Mass Effect 2 changed the death sequence so that you didn't notice the music until the option to reload appeared (which was within only a couple of seconds).

Basically, the Mass Effect 1 death sequence was "OH MY GOD YOU JUST DIED RAAAAAAAH!!!", whereas the Mass Effect 2 death sequence was "Well, that was embarrassing." I hope the Mass Effect 3 death sequence just cuts to black and instantly brings up the reload options. That would essentially be, "Oops."

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Or perhaps I'm overthinking all this. No, I guess you're right, Nintendo, the best approach is to replace dying with making all my pocket change fly across the room.

I-isn't that the Sony approach? With Sonic?

 

[Samus Aaron]

Um... Hasn't anyone ever heard of something called Wario Land before?

Wario Lands 2 & 3 were two of the best games on the Game Boy (Wario Land 4 was similar, but it had health, and I haven't played Wario Land 1 before). In the game, Wario could not die, and enemies didn't kill you or make you lose health, but stun you and knock you back for a little bit. This minor annoyance was irritating enough to make you want to avoid hits (just like in any game), but it also added to this by providing some of the best platforming I've ever encountered in a game. Other enemies transformed you when they hurt you, and this could either serve as am obstacle, or as an extra power for Wario. For example, one enemy turned Wario into a spring. This was good if you wanted to go high, but bad if you wanted to go low. Depending on how the level was designed, this enemy could become either helpful or annoying.

Overall, Wario Lands 2, 3, and 4 were all extremely fun to play, and all but #4 didn't allow the character to die. I sincerely recommend that you buy them when they are inevitably released on the 3DS virtual console.

 

[RelexCryo]

I actually like this article. I agree, the issue is storyline, immersion, and the fact that your enemies know you are immortal and won't surrender anyways. Well done.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Funnily enough I'm working on a game concept that over comes the trope the death via automatic time-travel to a time when your character wasn't dead. Addressing simple yet madding tropes like this is something I wish to do with story elements. I mean Bioshock addressed a single trope with its entirely plot twist structure and people loved that right?

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

Hasn't Yahtzee also cried against death screens because they take you out of the game? I'm getting mixed messages here.

Personally, I've got no problem with getting rid of death screens. Games like Prince of Persia (2008), Limbo, and yes, even Kirby's Epic Yarn manage to keep the flow of the game going with their systems.

 

[The Random One]

I also didn't mind much PoP's save mechanic (in fact, for all the things people complained about the game, the one thing I disliked was how it had me collecting shiny trikets to proceed, rather than just having me see how many shiny trinkets I could collect).

I think any death mechanic works as long as it makes sense in the context of gameplay. Roguelike games have the most punishing death mechanic, forcing you to start the game over again, but it's designed to be an alluring experience from the first time, so you are never just rethreading old ground. Meanwhile a game can afford to just let you restart from the same spot as long as reaching that spot in the first place is difficult.

Yet another problem with the gameplay and story segregation, although it might be a gameplay and gameplay question this time.

 

[Frozengale]

It would be cool if a game really grabbed and ran with the whole multi-universe idea of the deaths. It doesn't even have to be integral.

Like imagine a game where once you die when you go by the spot again you might see the whole thing play out in a kind of ghostly visage type way. You can not only see your mistakes which can help you but it can be a distraction as well. Like maybe after you get shot down you see the "Ghost" of your enemy come up to your fallen body, pull out a blade and chop your head off, so you see the after of your death as well. Maybe you see your "Ghost" team mates scream in horror as you die or call a retreat.

If you want to make it more integral then how about after you die so much in one area the location becomes unstable. You start getting leaks like enemies from your last failed attempt pop into existence and the other you right before you die. Maybe you can save your other self and your "current" self gets killed and suddenly your playing your previous self again with your "current" self dead at your feet.

You could do some pretty poignant things with the whole multi-verse theory.

 

[Frozengale]

Hasn't Yahtzee also cried against death screens because they take you out of the game? I'm getting mixed messages here.

Personally, I've got no problem with getting rid of death screens. Games like Prince of Persia (2008), Limbo, and yes, even Kirby's Epic Yarn manage to keep the flow of the game going with their systems.

He's also talked about how the PoP: Sands of Time was a great way for deaths to occur since it does everything that a normal "death screen" does without taking you out of the game. You lose time and progress but it isn't a glaring "YOU DIED HAHAHA" thing it's more the Prince thinking about how he is going to approach and obstacle.

From what I can gather he is against death that snaps you out of the immersion of a game. The "You are Dead" screen takes you out of the game and reminds you that you are just playing some pixels on a screen instead of playing a character in a story.

 

[Unesh52]

I've always liked the Pokemon method.

Take my money!

I keep the EXP gained in the battle. I have to travel back to where I lost, but with less money. And I still have to beat the challenge previously presented to me.

I think it'd actually fit rather well in some other RPG series, since money takes time to get.

Although, this does fail miserably from a narrative standpoint. And only really works in the happy-go-lucky, all-for-fun world of Pokemon battles.

I just realized I've only lost maybe 10 Pokemon battles in my entire life. And I've got like 250 hours logged on Heart Gold right now. Actually, most of those were with the Elite Four. Huh... kinda makes you wish there was a "hard" mode for veteran players.

OT: I think Sands of Time mechanic was flawless. It succeeded precisely because it let you die without actually dying. The sands mechanic is basically a "lives" mechanic when you think about it. You can continue right where you left off for the first four times you die, but if you're still messing it up, you'd better just go back to the start of the level son. It's like... ok, let me explain:

When I play a game like Devil May Cry 4, I feel like a total badass -- when I'm winning. But if somebody wrecks my shit in the middle of an awesome combo, it really takes it out of me. It's just so disappointing. I get the same sensation if I fall off a ledge in a platforming section in PoP. But in that game, I get a few "retry"s. I still get to feel like I pulled off a wicked series of jumpy-swingy-climby things and retain my margin for error. The part that makes the mechanic shine is the way it lets the player feel competent, despite failure.

At the same time, it wasn't limitless. I could just keep jumping off ledges as many times as I wanted. It was a precious resource to be used sparingly. While failure didn't necessarily mean death, it meant you were closer to death. Hmm... in that respect it was like a health bar for falling off shit. So in that respect, the '08 reboot was like playing with infinite life on.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

The problem is that all mentioned replacements are evidently the same thing.
I really do not mind as I don't wanna restart my 14 hours of gameplay on an rpg because I forgot to buy potions once

 

[PlasmaCow]

Upcoming movie Source Code uses pretty much exactly the idea you talk about at the end Yahtzee:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkTrG-gpIzE

It's by Duncan Jones, the same writer/director as last years Moon, which starred Sam Rockwell, Sam Rockwell, Sam Rockwell & Kevin Spacey's voice.

Also Assassin's Creed series uses a similar concept with the Animus to the clairvoyant idea.

 

[CruxisCalling]

I can't count the number of times I've died and my only response is frustration at having to repeat the last 20 minutes. Though there are those (very few) games that actually make me pause and think about the fact that a character I really connect with just died, which in my eyes is a sign of a really developed character. However, I don't care how amazing a character is, after a while it just gets annoying watching them die.

There's really nothing story-wise that will make me regret letting my character die, because eventually I don't notice it anymore other than to thing it's a waste of my time. I'd like to see a game that has a mounting penalty hanging overhead through the entire game for death. Like an extra battle after the final boss against all of the versions of your character that died, or the final boss himself is harder to defeat, or something like that. The more times you're killed, the harder the battle is, so there's a reason to avoid death. If it has a connection to the story, even better.

But really, no matter what game developers do, death is more a pain rather than a punishment.

 

[Superlordbasil]

His suggestion at the end reminds me of a demo I played of a game called the Sting ages back. In that you planned your robbery first and then play out a simulation which would show the holes in your plan. This sort of allows you to have try and fail method without actually getting arrested.

 

[Chrinik]

There was one game, Steel Battalion...
If your pilot actually died, it completely wiped your save file...and since it was on the X-BOX, if you weren´t clever enough to use a memorycard to make a backup save, you lost everything you did.
The only thing that could prevent it was if you ejected, saving the pilot, but you still lost the mech.
That is an interesting death mechanic. If you ignore the "WARNING, MECH ABOUT TO BLOW UP! DE-ASS THE COCKPIT!" signs, you lost all your progress (your life, if you will), but if you manage to hit the "Eject" button on that huge controler, you could at least retry.

It was hardcore. It was a sim for a reason. Not only did it have the hugest control interface ever to be used on a home console, it also had the most punishing death mechanic in all of gamings existance.