GAME OVER

[Boneasse]

It is a phrase commonly used in the videogame industry when you lose a game, run out of turns/lives, and "die". Whether we want it to our not, we are frequently shown a variation of these two words in whatever form, I.E; You are Dead, Mission Failed or Challenge Ended.

But the thing is, just two decades ago, GAME OVER, could hold a completely different meaning - the game was actually over, and a new game would have to be created to continue playing. Whatever you may have achieved thus far in your previous game would have been for naught if you ran out of lives.

Of course not all games were suitable with this design, and so checkpoints were made, continues were given and spawnpoints were created.

Today, if you play any first person shooter you will frequently encounter a checkpoint, or you will even be able to quick-save yourself. Even in todays' harder games, such as Ninja Gaiden (just an example, harder games do exist), checkpoints are given - if not rarely - but still given.

What happened? Did games all of a sudden get harder or longer? More complex? So much even, that the concept of "lives" for the player was soon to be forgotton? Or is the cause of the change our, the player's 'fault'?

It is proven that our attention spans have gotten marginally shorter than they were in the 80's and 90's. And the market has become gradually more casual (for better or worse) so that games are being toned down in difficulty.

Now don't misunderstand me! We still have difficulty levels that can be set to max to give the player one hell of a run for his or her money, but in the end; checkpoints, respawns and quick-saves have overturned the meaning of GAME OVER, so much that now, the phrase is practically useless.

So do you miss it? Should games, if not all, then some, follow the old formula? Has everything changed for the better and should stay the way it is, now? And when do you think this change happened, and why?

I'll leave the answers up to you.
[sub]Though you don't need to have all of them![/sub]

[HEADING=1]GAME OVER[/HEADING]​

 

[Boneasse]

Hell's No!

I'm not sure how to interpret that reply? No, as in, it should not change?

 

[Judgement101]

Game Over is better than Persona 3's ending. It's a poem thing....and it's long....REALLY long.

 

[Harlemura]

I think not.
If I've spent an hour or two getting to a certain spot, I don't want one slightly misjudged jump sending me right back to the start of the game.

If someone wants the challenge of only dying a few times, then they can just restart the game. But some people aren't wackos with nothing better to do than play the same levels over and over again.

 

[jamesworkshop]

It is a phrase commonly used in the videogame industry when you lose a game, run out of turns/lives, and "die". Whether we want it to our not, we are frequently shown a variation of these two words in whatever form, I.E; You are Dead, Mission Failed or Challenge Ended.

But the thing is, just two decades ago, GAME OVER, could hold a completely different meaning - the game was actually over, and a new game would have to be created to continue playing. Whatever you may have achieved thus far in your previous game would have been for naught if you ran out of lives.

Of course not all games were suitable with this design, and so checkpoints were made, continues were given and spawnpoints were created.

Today, if you play any first person shooter you will frequently encounter a checkpoint, or you will even be able to quick-save yourself. Even in todays' harder games, such as Ninja Gaiden (just an example, harder games do exist), checkpoints are given - if not rarely - but still given.

What happened? Did games all of a sudden get harder or longer? More complex? So much even, that the concept of "lives" for the player was soon to be forgotton? Or is the cause of the change our, the player's 'fault'?

It is proven that our attention spans have gotten marginally shorter than they were in the 80's. And the market has become gradually more casual (for better or worse) so that games are being toned down in difficulty.

Now don't misunderstand me! We still have difficulty levels that can be set to max to give the player one hell of a run for his or her money, but in the end; checkpoints, respawns and quick-saves have overturned the meaning of GAME OVER, so much that now, the phrase is practically useless.

So do you miss it? Should games, if not all, then some, follow the old formula? Has everything changed for the better and should stay the way it is, now? And when do you think this change happened, and why?

I'll leave the answers up to you.

[HEADING=1]GAME OVER[/HEADING]​

not that hard the lives/continues were left overs from the arcade coin ops thus game over happened when you stopped offering more money and the first home games were simple carry overs from arcade games in the early days, it stopped when the home video market took over and thus you were buying products not renting time off an arcade machine, thoses mechanics were all reflections on capatalist gain not game design, it stuck around for a while because little changes over night

 

[pulse2]

It could be said that games have become easier these days, in fact, we tend to attack and rate down difficult games, which is a shame, because back then you could judge a person's talent at that game based on thier high score or if they completed it or not, now everyone is the master, then you have topics like "Are you a better gamer then you were ten years ago".....no, not really, the games have just become hideously easy :/

 

[Daystar Clarion]

I think it's just a left over from the arcade years. 'Game Over' was code for 'put some more money in, you cheap bastard!' It's phased out now from pretty much any game that isn't arcadey in style.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

I think not.
If I've spent an hour or two getting to a certain spot, I don't want one slightly misjudged jump sending me right back to the start of the game.

If someone wants the challenge of only dying a few times, then they can just restart the game. But some people aren't wackos with nothing better to do than play the same levels over and over again.

This. If people really want that challenge it's there. It may not be forced upon you, but that helps makes games more accessible.

 

[supermariner]

in the old days it added a level of acheivement and urgency when you had limited lives
which worked well for those kind of games
like sonic or mario as an example
this is possibly because of their limited variation
i.e. run through 2 dimentional world collectiong rings/mushrooms/coins and avoid spikes/turtles/holes in the floor
BUT
for the current gen consoles i'm not sure that's a great idea
the industry has moved on and i get pissed off if i die and have to sit through a short cutscene each time before i get to continue because the checkpoint is too early
starting all over again would make me never play the game again

 

[KEM10]

I think it has more to do with added plot. The games are there to tell a story (or pretend they are) and by only making it through the first act the story becomes worthless. Final Fantasy was one of the first (I don't actually know which one was actually first) to take hold of saves because of the length and the evolving narrative that was being shown. Simply, I am glad there are checkpoints because then there is more to the game than just jumping and killing for questionable reasons beyond finishing the level.

 

[pulse2]

I think it has more to do with added plot. The games are there to tell a story (or pretend they are) and by only making it through the first act the story becomes worthless. Final Fantasy was one of the first (I don't actually know which one was actually first) to take hold of saves because of the length and the evolving narrative that was being shown. Simply, I am glad there are checkpoints because then there is more to the game than just jumping and killing for questionable reasons beyond finishing the level.

Agreed, but don't forget, they used to tell you the entire reason you are doing what you are doing on the box or in the game intro. Some didn't even have a plot, you made one up in your head, now that my friend is freedom as a gamer

I like to think that most games to come out today don't need plots anyway, look at Earth Defence Force, would it make much difference if you had a plot or not, lol.

Simple, giants ants and robots are bad, KILL THEM!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Physics Engine]

Games in the "golden age" (NES-SNES era) were limited by cartridge storage capacity. Most levels could be passed in a matter of minutes, if not seconds. "GAME OVER" was a way of (artificially) lengthening the playing experience.

Take Mega Man 2 for example. It could be beaten in under 45 minutes if you knew what to do and could actually do it. A first play through would be hours to complete due to the dreaded "GAME OVER" (though there was a password system in place).

The original Castlevania is the same way, as are most of the 8 and 16 bit era. There simply wasn't enough memory to merit the amount of content we see today. Believe it or not 256k was a lot of memory at one point in time.

Games these days aren't the rote exercise of try/fail/repeat any more. Even when they have that element a checkpoint makes sure you're not having to redo the parts that you have already completed just to get to the part that you haven't.

Now games can be 9-50gb in size (though very few actually are) and produced on a cheap medium, memory isn't really an issue in the same sense. Games now can be "beaten" much easier than before, but they're not easier. They're simply not hard just to be hard and can now tell stories and have character development. More people are playing their games to completion, instead of giving up from frustration. Not to say it doesn't happen anymore, but that it's far less likely. Game devs spend a lot of time creating the whole game and would like it if more people saw their creations through to the end.

Though, of course, this is only my opinion and may be completely wrong on every level. YMMV.

 

[Grygor]

I think it's just a left over from the arcade years. 'Game Over' was code for 'put some more money in, you cheap bastard!' It's phased out now from pretty much any game that isn't arcadey in style.

Not quite. "Game Over" quite literally meant "Game Over" - arcade games didn't give the game over screen when you ran out of lives, but only after you failed or refused to continue. It was a clear sign that all forward progress had been erased, not an invitation to put more money in - the invitation for more money was the "Insert Coin" or "Continue?" prompt.

It wasn't until later that the meaning of "Game Over screen" shifted from "screen that says 'game over'" to "screen that shows after you run out of lives", aided primarily by a fairly large number of console ports of arcade games, like the NES port of Double Dragon, that had "cheat-code style" continues (i.e. to continue, you press an undocumented key sequence at the title screen or on the Game Over screen), rather than full-fledged "Continue?" screens.