Extra Punctuation: Death in Videogames
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I started playing games in the 80s and at the start "save" options weren't common. The usual thing I remember was getting three lives with the chance to earn more with higher points ... but the moment you lost those lives all progress was lost and you had to start all over again. Endlessly frustrating but also incredibly rewarding when I finally managed to beat the game.
Now I can quicksave in many games almost all of the tension I experienced when younger is diminished or even gone.
But while the tension may be reduced the convenience of saving, for me, far outweighs this. I have no interest in playing a game through for hours only to get killed by one mistake and then be forced to start playing through the whole thing again. How many people who have had the YLOD on their machine have immediately thought - well, I may have to buy a new console, but isn't it great I have to go right back to the beginning for every game saved on there?
"Death" gimmicks may work well in some games (like assassin's creed - no, it didn't happen like that) but I know that one of the many things I appreciate about games is the power they give you to get it right the next time. I've played lots of COD games where matches have been die, spawn, die, spawn, few kills, die, spawn and appreciated that dying meant a short time out of play, in matches like S and D where your death means you have to spend the rest of the game watching other people play something you've paid for ... may be OK sometimes, but I know which I'd rather be playing.
One of the posts at the start of this thread mentioned Groundhog Day - a film I have really enjoyed for the concept but now think of it differently in terms of how well it highlights that our lives are full of the constant risk of completely f*cking up with no chance at a do-over. Look at the relationship with the woman - just how many times did he get slapped, how many things did he have to learn how to do to impress the stuck-up, self-centred cow? Again and again he tries and fails until he finally reaches the point where he knows everything about her and manages to fit in impressing her with running around saving and helping everyone around the town. In real life he would have had just one chance - and that would have seen him just ride back to the same crappy job without ever getting the time with her or the chances to reach what he was able to get only when he was able to start again fresh every single day - the perfect situation for trial and error with no punishment (apart from the dark despair and suicide bit through sheer frustration and boredom, of course, but even that was something he could get over and change).
"Dying" may add value, increase tension, and make you work far harder to reach the goal ... but if "dying" means I have to go back to the beginning every time? You can keep it. I'm quite happy with the way games work these days.
Now I can quicksave in many games almost all of the tension I experienced when younger is diminished or even gone.
But while the tension may be reduced the convenience of saving, for me, far outweighs this. I have no interest in playing a game through for hours only to get killed by one mistake and then be forced to start playing through the whole thing again. How many people who have had the YLOD on their machine have immediately thought - well, I may have to buy a new console, but isn't it great I have to go right back to the beginning for every game saved on there?
"Death" gimmicks may work well in some games (like assassin's creed - no, it didn't happen like that) but I know that one of the many things I appreciate about games is the power they give you to get it right the next time. I've played lots of COD games where matches have been die, spawn, die, spawn, few kills, die, spawn and appreciated that dying meant a short time out of play, in matches like S and D where your death means you have to spend the rest of the game watching other people play something you've paid for ... may be OK sometimes, but I know which I'd rather be playing.
One of the posts at the start of this thread mentioned Groundhog Day - a film I have really enjoyed for the concept but now think of it differently in terms of how well it highlights that our lives are full of the constant risk of completely f*cking up with no chance at a do-over. Look at the relationship with the woman - just how many times did he get slapped, how many things did he have to learn how to do to impress the stuck-up, self-centred cow? Again and again he tries and fails until he finally reaches the point where he knows everything about her and manages to fit in impressing her with running around saving and helping everyone around the town. In real life he would have had just one chance - and that would have seen him just ride back to the same crappy job without ever getting the time with her or the chances to reach what he was able to get only when he was able to start again fresh every single day - the perfect situation for trial and error with no punishment (apart from the dark despair and suicide bit through sheer frustration and boredom, of course, but even that was something he could get over and change).
"Dying" may add value, increase tension, and make you work far harder to reach the goal ... but if "dying" means I have to go back to the beginning every time? You can keep it. I'm quite happy with the way games work these days.
So, for the "quantum death" thing you were talking about, were you thinking about something like this?
Yahtzee, I don't think that the constant revival has to be explained that much by the story. If anything, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time did that pretty well with its constant "Wait, no, that's not how it happened..." thing.
But there are other ways to do that even more subtly. An example that none of the games followed, to my memory, would be a banal tape rewinding. An average gamer, remember those stone age VHS players your parents or if you're a bit older you yourself still keep around in a dusty attic, in a corner? If you do, figure the rest for yourself, it's not that hard, else go educate yourself, you ignorant twat!
If you rather go into SF territory, a version about a multiverse would be appropriate, and you don't even need to make it man-made. Just assume you, as a protagonist are being plagued by an uncertain quantum state (purely scientifically speaking a complete rubbish on macro scale, unless you've been turned into a Bose-Einstein condensate, but you wouldn't survive that much punishment in all probability) and the only way to achieve certainty is to complete certain tasks, such as assassinating the main villain or perhaps snuggling your cat named Snuggles. The point is that you will remain in that state of quantum uncertainty, thus being unable to die, until as I said earlier you can finish that one particular task.
I could probably think of a dozen more methods, and I probably will use such one in my own game.
Coming back at you, Yahtzee. How can a game punish us except by taking away our precious time? Even on hardcore in Diablo 2, where you would lose your character once you died, in the end you would still just lose time. Who stops you from just making another and starting all over again? That's a massive time loss, compared to modern games, but in the essence it still is nothing more than a time loss. If an optical medium with your game would explode after your unfortunate in-game death, that would be another story.
My point is there are ways to be creative here, not only in terms of a story, but in terms of gameplay that always comes first in a good game. Death doesn't have to be punishing in a traditional sense. Since all the punishment it can give us is temporal in nature anyway.
Still probably the best game in that field, as much in story as in gameplay department was "Omikron: The Nomad Soul". You as a character were a gamer (read: you yourself), or more particularly a player's soul (read: your soul, if such a thing even exists) that was sucked into a dying world by a demonic force. If you died you would just enter a body of a person that happened to be closest to you at a time. That game was a great effort at innovating things like that. An underrated gem, highly recommended.
But there are other ways to do that even more subtly. An example that none of the games followed, to my memory, would be a banal tape rewinding. An average gamer, remember those stone age VHS players your parents or if you're a bit older you yourself still keep around in a dusty attic, in a corner? If you do, figure the rest for yourself, it's not that hard, else go educate yourself, you ignorant twat!
If you rather go into SF territory, a version about a multiverse would be appropriate, and you don't even need to make it man-made. Just assume you, as a protagonist are being plagued by an uncertain quantum state (purely scientifically speaking a complete rubbish on macro scale, unless you've been turned into a Bose-Einstein condensate, but you wouldn't survive that much punishment in all probability) and the only way to achieve certainty is to complete certain tasks, such as assassinating the main villain or perhaps snuggling your cat named Snuggles. The point is that you will remain in that state of quantum uncertainty, thus being unable to die, until as I said earlier you can finish that one particular task.
I could probably think of a dozen more methods, and I probably will use such one in my own game.
Coming back at you, Yahtzee. How can a game punish us except by taking away our precious time? Even on hardcore in Diablo 2, where you would lose your character once you died, in the end you would still just lose time. Who stops you from just making another and starting all over again? That's a massive time loss, compared to modern games, but in the essence it still is nothing more than a time loss. If an optical medium with your game would explode after your unfortunate in-game death, that would be another story.
My point is there are ways to be creative here, not only in terms of a story, but in terms of gameplay that always comes first in a good game. Death doesn't have to be punishing in a traditional sense. Since all the punishment it can give us is temporal in nature anyway.
Still probably the best game in that field, as much in story as in gameplay department was "Omikron: The Nomad Soul". You as a character were a gamer (read: you yourself), or more particularly a player's soul (read: your soul, if such a thing even exists) that was sucked into a dying world by a demonic force. If you died you would just enter a body of a person that happened to be closest to you at a time. That game was a great effort at innovating things like that. An underrated gem, highly recommended.
The game idea that Yahtzee sounds like an interesting one. I think it'd be a cool idea and really add some new kinds of enjoyment to game play. I feel it would really be able to pull in a player to try a whole bunch of different scenarios to either continue on in the game or just let the players mind run wild and try any kind of scenario they wished to create. The only problem I could see with this kind of system would be how far the player should go before they are flung back and realize that's not what they were supposed to do. I think this kind of game would also need a very strict story too which would limit what players could do in the game and might turn some of them off of a game like this. It would definitely be something interesting though that I'd like to play if some one were to make one.
I care if it has something to do with the way I earn experience points. Other than that, I have no problem with unlimited deaths... except the repeated banter at the last check point when you loaded back up. A person can only take "WE"RE SURROUND FROM EVERY DIRECTION!" so many times.
I personally think that there's room for both approaches. Some players will always prefer the traditional "die and try again" method, while others might be more interested in the "play through" take on failure. Personally, I'm inclined to see more experimentation in the alternative field. I think a lot of people are resistant to new death/failure mechanics because they feel like they're being coddled. I mean, death has always been a stern smack on the nose, so when we don't lose a life or have to retry a level, it feels like we're playing with some kind of cheat code enabled. But like Yahtzee pointed out, the end-result is the same. You've still gotta try again until you get it right. So what difference does it make?
Personally, I'm opposed to the die-and-repeat mechanic because it breaks immersion. I mean, if you're playing a WW2 FPS or something, and get taken out while you're in the middle of mowing down a field of Nazis with a machinegun, you feel like you're being kicked off a bike while speeding down a hill. It's a rude awakening and a reminder that you're just playing a game. If, instead, you were struck down and laid on your back, gasping for breath while you looked around in hazy slow-motion before a medic appeared to get you back on your feet...I think that would make the experience just that much more real. Or, at the very least, not so much like an arcade game.
Anyways, I just disagree that one is inherently superior to the other.
Personally, I'm opposed to the die-and-repeat mechanic because it breaks immersion. I mean, if you're playing a WW2 FPS or something, and get taken out while you're in the middle of mowing down a field of Nazis with a machinegun, you feel like you're being kicked off a bike while speeding down a hill. It's a rude awakening and a reminder that you're just playing a game. If, instead, you were struck down and laid on your back, gasping for breath while you looked around in hazy slow-motion before a medic appeared to get you back on your feet...I think that would make the experience just that much more real. Or, at the very least, not so much like an arcade game.
Anyways, I just disagree that one is inherently superior to the other.
I think what's important to death mechanics is that is discourages you from screwing up. As long as there absolutely isn't any punishment it's alright in my book.
That being said, I was okay with Epic Yarn's death mechanics, because I really didn't want to lose all those damn beads. I didn't really do much of the hotel stuff, and I didn't really need the beads, I just didn't want to lose them.
In fact, I'd say I preferred Epic Yarn to games such as, say, Call of Duty as far as death went. I really hate repeating parts of video games, to the point where I've simply stopped playing them just for forgetting to save after a lengthy investment of time, and to me having to repeat a segment of the game I just played was always really annoying. And I don't like my video games to be annoying. I want them to be fun, and nothing other than that.
That being said, I was okay with Epic Yarn's death mechanics, because I really didn't want to lose all those damn beads. I didn't really do much of the hotel stuff, and I didn't really need the beads, I just didn't want to lose them.
In fact, I'd say I preferred Epic Yarn to games such as, say, Call of Duty as far as death went. I really hate repeating parts of video games, to the point where I've simply stopped playing them just for forgetting to save after a lengthy investment of time, and to me having to repeat a segment of the game I just played was always really annoying. And I don't like my video games to be annoying. I want them to be fun, and nothing other than that.
I have to mention Demon's Souls because Yahtzee failed to. In that game there is a penalty in game to dieing making it harder to progress the next time through. This is not exactly what he was talking about but it is worth noting due to being part of the dieing in game process.
I've always wondered the same thing myself. The way I see it, the player will always control a perfect character that never failed, never died, was extremely lucky and, even if he was the rookie, he acts like a pro. he might even manage to outlive the rough veterans he hangs out with. The game will never focus on the sidekick who died a while back, no. You will ALWAYS be perfect. It bothers me, but at the same time I've realized that controlling a lame, weak character is not exactly appealing. And sadly, most people will prefer to play as Mr./Mrs. Perfect than the realistic kid who, in reality, is just as lame as the player itself. See, we don't need to be reminded of our reality. So we just roll with this unrealistic universe. I know I do. So dying, respawning at the beginning of the level or whatever and doing that all over again is unrealistic but needed.
Yeah, I praise games who have managed to find a way around this. Heck, Mario 64 did this beautifully: If you receive enough blows, Mario gets weak and is eventually pushed out of the painting (I forget exactly why, though) and then he starts all over again. This way, we don't play as the "perfect" Mario. We see him fail and try again and again, all within the same timeline. Prince of Persia is, obviously, another example, though I gotta say that I don't like it as much. Like Yahtzee mentioned, it happens within the same universe/timeline and since there's not a pivotal moment between "dying" and going back to where you were before you died, it almost feels as if I didn't do something wrong. For all I know, I could have pressed the rewind button by mistake.
But the bottom line is this, I think. An overly complicated mechanic that could replace death will only scare players away. We're ALL lazy when we play games, in one way or another. When you die, you don't want to go through a small bonus level that will require you to work your way back to the living (I'm reading some past comments and this is also based off one of Yahtzee's comments). You don't wanna wait; you just want to go back to the main level and kill whoever killed you. You don't want the game to remind you that you failed, you just wanna pretend it never happened. And I think this is why the die/pop back in/ play again mechanic is still so popular. But that's just me.
Yeah, I praise games who have managed to find a way around this. Heck, Mario 64 did this beautifully: If you receive enough blows, Mario gets weak and is eventually pushed out of the painting (I forget exactly why, though) and then he starts all over again. This way, we don't play as the "perfect" Mario. We see him fail and try again and again, all within the same timeline. Prince of Persia is, obviously, another example, though I gotta say that I don't like it as much. Like Yahtzee mentioned, it happens within the same universe/timeline and since there's not a pivotal moment between "dying" and going back to where you were before you died, it almost feels as if I didn't do something wrong. For all I know, I could have pressed the rewind button by mistake.
But the bottom line is this, I think. An overly complicated mechanic that could replace death will only scare players away. We're ALL lazy when we play games, in one way or another. When you die, you don't want to go through a small bonus level that will require you to work your way back to the living (I'm reading some past comments and this is also based off one of Yahtzee's comments). You don't wanna wait; you just want to go back to the main level and kill whoever killed you. You don't want the game to remind you that you failed, you just wanna pretend it never happened. And I think this is why the die/pop back in/ play again mechanic is still so popular. But that's just me.
Well, this is exactly the same thing you'd see in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Whenever the Prince dies, he just goes "Wait, wait. That's not what happened" or something like that. However, Sacrifice came out 2 or 3 years before Sands of Time.sketchesofpayne said:
So...Sands of Time copied Sacrifice? I would have thought it'd be the other way around since Sands of Time is more popular and (In my opinion) more fun and original. Well, that sure shows me not to judge a book by its cover.
It's an interesting question for sure.
- Some feel piss easy when you just go back without penalty and fucking up isn't even something you try to avoid, suddenly you just do trial and error grinding instead of actually playing strategically (Prince of Persia where the girl saves you every time).
- And other feel too punishing by sending you back to a checkpoint miles from where you were, and then you haveto do it all over again(Demon's Souls).
- With quick save/load it sort of falls on the player to decide what system he wants, save every time you smell trouble and you never loose anything, leave it to the auto-save and you will probably burst out in tears once you noticed last save was hours ago.
I say as always developers need to remember this is an interactive medium, so let people f*cking choose.
Why is it so damn hard to include extra options, there was a time when games were sold on new features now it seems they sell on lack there of.
I understand grandma needs a 20 hour tutorial and a no-penalty system, but I'm still under 70 and like to be challenged by games not arthritis.
- Some feel piss easy when you just go back without penalty and fucking up isn't even something you try to avoid, suddenly you just do trial and error grinding instead of actually playing strategically (Prince of Persia where the girl saves you every time).
- And other feel too punishing by sending you back to a checkpoint miles from where you were, and then you haveto do it all over again(Demon's Souls).
- With quick save/load it sort of falls on the player to decide what system he wants, save every time you smell trouble and you never loose anything, leave it to the auto-save and you will probably burst out in tears once you noticed last save was hours ago.
I say as always developers need to remember this is an interactive medium, so let people f*cking choose.
Why is it so damn hard to include extra options, there was a time when games were sold on new features now it seems they sell on lack there of.
I understand grandma needs a 20 hour tutorial and a no-penalty system, but I'm still under 70 and like to be challenged by games not arthritis.
I always thought the Pokemon handling of death was pretty good, handled within story, within the one universe, and with more setbacks than just time or progress (loss of money).
What if you added the chance that letting a pokemon faint too many times would cause it to literally die? It would add a genuine emotional burden to the player as his prize fighter or favourite pikachu is let down by him and breathes no more. Plus the loss of a hard trained asset makes the progress loss all the more tangible and reinforces the idea of training a balanced team, that way you never lose your only good member.
What if you added the chance that letting a pokemon faint too many times would cause it to literally die? It would add a genuine emotional burden to the player as his prize fighter or favourite pikachu is let down by him and breathes no more. Plus the loss of a hard trained asset makes the progress loss all the more tangible and reinforces the idea of training a balanced team, that way you never lose your only good member.
I like Yahtzee's idea for getting around the whole death idea, only replace "astral projection" with "mind control". You control a NPC, and every time your character dies, you have to switch over to a nearby non-enemy NPC.
If you give the NPCs enough character, it'll still feel like a loss to the player if they let the NPC die. The guilt on the player's conscience is their punishment. And if they die too many times (run out of NPCs) then they get the traditional 'game over' screen and have to start the mission over.
If you give the NPCs enough character, it'll still feel like a loss to the player if they let the NPC die. The guilt on the player's conscience is their punishment. And if they die too many times (run out of NPCs) then they get the traditional 'game over' screen and have to start the mission over.
Remind me of this Peter Hamilton book where some ex Mindstar op looks into the future for the main character during his missions.
