So you're playing an RPG or an open world game like Fallout or Assassin Creed (anyone). You've been playing for a good sum of hours and have amassed a good chunk of fortune, enough to practically buy a nation and rule over it like a king with a castle made of solid gold. You've pretty much bought every item you can with that loot, and upgraded every weapon, yet game designers don't seem to ever try implementing a system where they can try putting your fortune at risk.
I mean, with a game like Fallout, I know that the game designer at least tried to implement a system to have some sense of realism of how it would feel like being some vagabond trying to survive the wastes. But in a realistic scenario, for anyone that had that much amount of loot stashed in their pockets, others would noticed and would go to extreme lengths to take it away from you (realistically, no one could ever carry that much, but we're talking about game design friendly realism).
The point I'm trying to get at is, would you.. would YOU play a game that placed you at risk of getting robbed, or there was some game element that placed you at risk of regressing your character?
Now, I know exactly why game designer wouldn't ever want to do this. Almost all games are about progression, about turning you into even more of a badass and better off then when you started. But to me the point of games is also about playing with risks, and I don't see a reason why some games can't try implementing this. Personally I'd find the game to have a lot more depth and complexity if it did.
Now there has been games that do this. The best example I can really think of was Ultima Online, and how players could completely rob you blind of all your possessions and items you had collected and made. But that game turned out to demonstrate all the reason why such a system shouldn't be implemented considering how harsh you were penalized for losing.
But - in Fallout - let's say I have 1000 caps, and some Raiders ambush me and take away 400 caps, a two out of seven weapons, and my boots. Would that really take away more than I'm willing to risk?
I mean, with a game like Fallout, I know that the game designer at least tried to implement a system to have some sense of realism of how it would feel like being some vagabond trying to survive the wastes. But in a realistic scenario, for anyone that had that much amount of loot stashed in their pockets, others would noticed and would go to extreme lengths to take it away from you (realistically, no one could ever carry that much, but we're talking about game design friendly realism).
The point I'm trying to get at is, would you.. would YOU play a game that placed you at risk of getting robbed, or there was some game element that placed you at risk of regressing your character?
Now, I know exactly why game designer wouldn't ever want to do this. Almost all games are about progression, about turning you into even more of a badass and better off then when you started. But to me the point of games is also about playing with risks, and I don't see a reason why some games can't try implementing this. Personally I'd find the game to have a lot more depth and complexity if it did.
Now there has been games that do this. The best example I can really think of was Ultima Online, and how players could completely rob you blind of all your possessions and items you had collected and made. But that game turned out to demonstrate all the reason why such a system shouldn't be implemented considering how harsh you were penalized for losing.
But - in Fallout - let's say I have 1000 caps, and some Raiders ambush me and take away 400 caps, a two out of seven weapons, and my boots. Would that really take away more than I'm willing to risk?