Death

[fog]

Does it really exist in games today?  Is it now more a case of a slight inconvenience as you reload from your last save or are magically healed and returned to the start of your current level or check point.

People say that games now are a lot easier than they used to be.  It's not that the gameplay is necessarily more difficult, although it often is, but more that old games almost always had a limited number of lives.....and if you were very lucky a limited number of continues.

Before you discount having limited lives in a game consider how much tension it adds to shmups and how different they would be if you could just continue from the start of that level when you died. 
In DUO I added a save game feature after requests during testing but decided to restrict its use to every 5 levels.  Even then I thought this took away a lot of the challenge.  You die, no huge loss....at worst you have to play through 5 relatively short levels again.  To compensate for this and to reward people that play "properly" your score is reset to zero if you load from a save point.  Either way it was a compromise that I'm still not 100% happy with.

Hell imagine having save points or continues in Tetris?  It would destroy the game.

Personally I think there's a lot to be said for having limited lives or preferably one life in a game.  It adds tension and a genuine feeling of fear.  Of course the way it is implemented would have to differ from game to game to take into account the length of some bigger titles.

As an extreme example how differently would you approach playing Oblivion if your character had one life and could die, with no opportunity to just load and try again.  Would you care about him more, identify with him more, avoid some of those suicidal fights you get into?  Would the feeling of dread not be increased as you wander around a dark dungeon?  A character you have invested hours in now feeling so vulnerable.  Every fight a genuine battle of life or death.

Maybe that's too extreme a case but there would surely be benefits from severely punishing the player in some way?

 

[las6]

go play ADOM. there's plenty enough of death in that game.
Not to mention that the only time you can ever save is when you're quitting the game... >.<

thing is, not all people are equally good players.. and not everyone has the same amount of time. Given how expensive games are, you expect to get everything out of them, not just that bloody hard first level. I mean, some old games had insane difficulty, right from the start. Sure, it is very rewarding when you get past a really difficult level, but most of the time it's just bloody frustrating.

That said, I do think that some games gain from making things difficult for the player. I could see Oblivion being one of those games, but it would have to be changed quite a bit in some ways. First of all, the quest "series" would have to be shorter... as in most quests should be available from the get go, because when you start over for the Nth time, it really bugs to go through all those annoying quests to get to the one you tried to do last time. the leveling is about right, because you can level up bloody fast in oblivion - if you've got the right skills. Main point is that the game should be wildly different each time. That way people wouldn't see death as an end or as a total failure... cos you can always find something neat next time around. Basically this is why ADOM is fun... it's wildly random so you never know just how high level items you can find, so you play and play it over again...

but a game like NFSU? I'd hate to have just one life in it... mainly because I know I didn't do my best if I lose the race, as it is required of you that you complete all the races... if the races were more random, I might start to think that with my skills, I may not be able to win each one - so losing one wouldn't feel like a total failure..

[fog]

First off I'm not talking about making games like they were in "the good old days".  Very hard, very short and very frustrating.....hell no

thing is, not all people are equally good players.. and not everyone has the same amount of time.

Both of those are factors apply regardless of how many lives you get.....that's what difficulty settings are for.

And while I agree that not everyone has the same amount of time you could argue that having a finite number of lives would be a benefit in that situation.

And again I'm not suggesting we use this everywhere.  We could still have big games with unlimited continues but this would as least add to user choice.  Where as old games pretty much all had a limited number of lives, modern games are, with the exception of puzzles and some arcade games,  loaded it totally the opposite direction.

How about a bunch of FPS where death actually means death and not "oh well time to reload".....that would add so much to some games if applied right.

Given how expensive games are, you expect to get everything out of them, not just that bloody hard first level. I mean, some old games had insane difficulty, right from the start. Sure, it is very rewarding when you get past a really difficult level, but most of the time it's just bloody frustrating.

Totally agree about old games.  A hell of a lot of them had their routes in the arcades though so there are reasons why many were so hard

I'm not talking about making games ridiculously hard  though.  On the contrary, many would be made easier than they currently are.  Thing is though they wouldn't feel that easy because of the threat of "real death" is always hanging over you.

That said, I do think that some games gain from making things difficult for the player. I could see Oblivion being one of those games, but it would have to be changed quite a bit in some ways. First of all, the quest "series" would have to be shorter... as in most quests should be available from the get go, because when you start over for the Nth time, it really bugs to go through all those annoying quests to get to the one you tried to do last time. the leveling is about right, because you can level up bloody fast in oblivion - if you've got the right skills. Main point is that the game should be wildly different each time. That way people wouldn't see death as an end or as a total failure... cos you can always find something neat next time around. Basically this is why ADOM is fun... it's wildly random so you never know just how high level items you can find, so you play and play it over again...

That's pretty much what I'm talking about.  Perhaps picking Oblivion as an example wasn't my cleverest move as the game is almost perfect and is enjoyable partly because your unlimited continues allow for such a large expansive adventure.

Games like Doom3 may benefit from it far better.....not slagging D3, just an example.
 

but a game like NFSU? I'd hate to have just one life in it... mainly because I know I didn't do my best if I lose the race, as it is required of you that you complete all the races... if the races were more random, I might start to think that with my skills, I may not be able to win each one - so losing one wouldn't feel like a total failure..

Yeah but you need to think of a different way of how you could apply it here.  Rather than just tagging this onto an existing game structure why not change the game structure to accommodate it in a natural way.

Instead of having losing a race ending your game why not base it on crashes?  If you had a severe crash you could in extreme circumstances die.  If you have a bad crash you may be out of action for a while and have to drop to a lower level of racing  as sponsorship dries up.

[dadrew1]

Ah, Nethack...  now there was a frustrating game LOL!  But the no continues/lives worked because of the sheer randomness of it, like ADOM (I guess, since I've never played)

[las6]

How about a bunch of FPS where death actually means death and not "oh well time to reload".....that would add so much to some games if applied right.

well FPS games all tend to be rather silly when it comes to the difficulty and "fear" aspects of the game. That's because getting hit doesn't mean a thing, and the way to kill things is to basically run fast, sidestep until the enemy is in the crosshairs and then shoot. I mean, would you do that in real life? No. You'd use cover... as much as you can while trying to get few quick shots at the enemy. You would camp.
COD2 tries to do this, by using a different damage system and combination of very good sound fx and respawning enemies. The game makes you think that you die just as easily as anyone and that you need cover. (which isn't true when you work out the logic of the game, but that's another story...for another old thread)

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, go watch someone play an FPS. better yet, go watch someone play FPS game on a console. Then try to think of how a real person would've handled the situation that was in the game. I was very interested to hear that the Gears Of War core game mechanism relies heavily on you taking the advantage of cover. But then I saw parts of the in-game video...which basically showed that the game is pure action.

the only fps where death has been something I feared (to a degree) was and still is America's Army. Mostly because it can take a loong time to get back in the round if you get killed in the beginning... And because it's damn easy to get killed. only takes a couple stray bullets. What's worse, is that you hardly ever see where the bullets come from. And trust me, if you start hearing the bullets flying past you, You do not try to work out where the enemy is - you RUN for cover.

Games like Doom3 may benefit from it far better.....not slagging D3, just an example.

I dunno, permanent death & enemies that teleport behind your back doesn't sound like a perfect combination to me.

Instead of having losing a race ending your game why not base it on crashes?  If you had a severe crash you could in extreme circumstances die.  If you have a bad crash you may be out of action for a while and have to drop to a lower level of racing  as sponsorship dries up.

Now that makes a lot more sense... BUT, there is one problem. The reason why people play games like NFSU is that they want to drive these expensive cars and take the most out of em... meaning that they want to go as fast as they can. But if they have to worry about crashing, then they have to drive more carefully...

this reminds of the original sega rally - I was playing it with my older brother in this arcade (a loooong time ago). He drove the car like you would drive an expensive racing car... slowing to the tight corners and all that.. I just maxed out the speed as fast as I could and actually used the edges of the track to my advantage... helped me turn faster.

But the no continues/lives worked because of the sheer randomness of it, like ADOM (I guess, since I've never played)

Yup, pretty much the same deal.

[Prime_8]

hehe i would love to see a scary survival game where the "gosts" only scare  the player into accidentaly hurting them selves falowing  scary movie rules .
and if you die ..

you'r dead .. game makes you create a new charter .. and starts you out in a whoel new random house . heheh

but  more on teh visual scare . like walink arround an old house and you look in a room  and see nothing and when you look back in to the hall a scray red eyed face is right there in allits dark glory for 1/2 second . just enough to  spook and then they player basicaly  is setup into avoidable situations that the scare maks them triger the accident

shure the ghost can lock a door for a bit or move teh odd thing but nothing direct but they look realy scary .


but the fear of death is if you die .. 1 it was prolly your fault and 2 you have to make a new character

[fog]

How about a bunch of FPS where death actually means death and not "oh well time to reload".....that would add so much to some games if applied right.

well FPS games all tend to be rather silly when it comes to the difficulty and "fear" aspects of the game. That's because getting hit doesn't mean a thing....

Exactly.....but if you could die without the ability to simply start the level again then getting hit would mean something and there would be a feeling of fear.

the only fps where death has been something I feared (to a degree) was and still is America's Army. Mostly because it can take a loong time to get back in the round if you get killed in the beginning... And because it's damn easy to get killed. only takes a couple stray bullets. What's worse, is that you hardly ever see where the bullets come from. And trust me, if you start hearing the bullets flying past you, You do not try to work out where the enemy is - you RUN for cover.

Yeah Operation Flashpoint had a similar effect on me.  I loved that game because you felf so vulnerable and that's the feeling I'm getting at here.

Games like Doom3 may benefit from it far better.....not slagging D3, just an example.

I dunno, permanent death & enemies that teleport behind your back doesn't sound like a perfect combination to me.

lol.  I know but you would change that.  Teleporting enemies is clearly bad game design anyway but that's something for a different discussion.

Now that makes a lot more sense... BUT, there is one problem. The reason why people play games like NFSU is that they want to drive these expensive cars and take the most out of em... meaning that they want to go as fast as they can. But if they have to worry about crashing, then they have to drive more carefully...

But that's the whole point.   Your character has a mortality so you would approach the game differently.  If you don't want to apply it to NFSU then think of it in TOCA.  Neither of which are necessarily relevant mind as you'd really design a game with this element in mind as opposed to just sticking it into an existing game.

hehe i would love to see a scary survival game where the "gosts" only scare  the player into accidentaly hurting them selves falowing  scary movie rules .
and if you die ..

Ah what was that game where you were in a house with ghosts and all you had was a camera?  I played that on the PS2 and it had a great atmosphere.

[las6]

Exactly.....but if you could die without the ability to simply start the level again then getting hit would mean something and there would be a feeling of fear.

Not really, cos you'd know that you'll gonna find the next health pack just behind the corner. Seriously speaking, of course it would make a difference, but not so much if you'd just slap that sort of "iron man" mode into existing fps games. I think the current level design / control schemes in most FPS games are simply not suitable for careful (read: realistic) gameplay. especially on consoles. They might feel okay when you're playing the game, but just look at the screen when someone else playing the game... it all looks rather silly.

If you don't want to apply it to NFSU then think of it in TOCA.  Neither of which are necessarily relevant mind as you'd really design a game with this element in mind as opposed to just sticking it into an existing game.

True, but I still think that there are games where permanent death would not be a good thing. like in arcade racers...In arcade racing games you're supposed to have nice visuals and fast cars.

 I would love to see (and i've sorta seen it already) in more realistic racing games, though. I remember playing Mobil 1 Rally Championship (aka Rally Championship 2000) and it had those "multi-level" races. And you couldn't save in between the tracks, and best of all, the car took damage. So it was truly fun starting a race with a broken gearbox (no first gear is always FUN) or a night-time race without lights. The thing was that the car must pass the inspections in order to be able to continue to the next track - fortunately repairs were occasionally allowed.
Thing is, I never completed any of those ... cos after about two tracks (that could last up to 20 mins to complete) my car was pretty much a wreck. So I missed out on a lot of things, I guess. And the cars were not nearly as hard to handle as in that Richard Burns Rally. (you gotta try that game!)

also, most gamers these days are casual gamers. Casual gamers do not want permanent death. That's just the way it goes.

Yeah Operation Flashpoint had a similar effect on me.  I loved that game because you felf so vulnerable and that's the feeling I'm getting at here.

Uuh, operation flashpoint. Now that was a game. I too remember spending an hour trying to circle around the enemies... because I knew that if they'd see me, I'd be good as dead. And boy did I run once when I had just stepped out of a forest and was crossing this small clearing...when I noticed an APC coming straight at me - with bunch of troops on both sides. And I was alone. (one of those missions where everyone else dies.)

[fog]

Exactly.....but if you could die without the ability to simply start the level again then getting hit would mean something and there would be a feeling of fear.

Not really, cos you'd know that you'll gonna find the next health pack just behind the corner.

And you assume there would be health packs why?

Seriously the way some games implement health pick-ups is seriously wrong as well but again that's another topic for discussion.

Seriously speaking, of course it would make a difference, but not so much if you'd just slap that sort of "iron man" mode into existing fps games.

No very different.  Slap an "iron man" mode into current FPS would make them harder but you could still just reload after you died.

Anyway as I've said earlier I'm not talking about just adding this to existing games.....I'm talking about designing games from the ground up with this in mind.

If you don't want to apply it to NFSU then think of it in TOCA.  Neither of which are necessarily relevant mind as you'd really design a game with this element in mind as opposed to just sticking it into an existing game.

True, but I still think that there are games where permanent death would not be a good thing.

Totally agree.  I wouldn't expect many game styles to work with this idea at all.  Obviously it wouldn't suit arcade racers but it might suit more realistic racers.

also, most gamers these days are casual gamers. Casual gamers do not want permanent death. That's just the way it goes.

I couldn't give a toss what "casual gamers" want....this clearly isn't aimed at them  

[Prime_8]

crap some one made a game like that and i missed it ...  

[Geti]

ok, some games have sh!t loads of death in them. ever played the original V of ragnarok? if you die, you start again. you can save, but only every 300 steps or moves, and a moster normally finds you, tears your head of and eats you by then.

i like games like halo, 1 and 2, because it give you a checkpoint each 5 min or so, but the amount of health packs in 1 is tiny, and they arent in 2.

if you are gonna make a game with dying in it. like, real dying, make no saves, and one go. and make it a rpg/shmup that would be awesomely godly fun

[las6]

And you assume there would be health packs why?

I couldn't give a toss what "casual gamers" want....this clearly isn't aimed at them

but pretty much ALL current commercial games are made so that even casual gamers like them. Which means health packs and quick saving.

Slap an "iron man" mode into current FPS would make them harder but you could still just reload after you died.

As far as I know, Iron Man mode doesn't let you reload... or well, it could in current games. But I know people who played morrowind in a way where they didn't reload if they died... and they called that style as "iron man"

[fog]

but pretty much ALL current commercial games are made so that even casual gamers like them. Which means health packs and quick saving.

fair enough but...

But I know people who played morrowind in a way where they didn't reload if they died... and they called that style as "iron man"

so some people would pay it so maybe add it as an option?  Anyhoo it might not appeal to the casual gamer but then many of the best game designs in recent years like Ico and Katamari D haven't either.....doesn't make them bad games.

[Prime_8]

I liked gamea that rewarded teh IRONMAN style by givving credits for no saves or restarts .. and such

and even unlocked  secret levels  if you play the game one life teh whole way through on directers mode.

I think AVP 2 was like that . (i just liked AVP and AVP 2 cause i liek teh movie franchises asc' with the game)

but heheh her is a killer ..

what if a complany /developer released a pay per life game .. 20 bucks get the game home and a training area .
but once you start the  main game .. it's on

that is  once you start saving the games is limited to true safe between mission areas so real world won't muck it up.

so you would have to make sure you had time to compleet a stage .

but once you start playing from a save point that save point is erased once teh game is under way so ther is no returning if you fail

oh and if you die .. you have to purchase a new life ..LOL
say an othe 5 bucks or such ..LOL

just a brutal idea.  (one i would not like but an idea non the less to make gamers fear the loss of thier life in game)

[TheKhakinator]

I think it may be a problem with 1 life in story titles. Didn't know DUO reset score after a save *SOB* !  You wouldn't get anywher ein story titles.

Also, when I play a game, I usually play to win. HOwever, sometimes, I might want to play, and just be a little off my best, so I don't want to worry "OH NO! I must work out and all that so I will be good enough not to have my 20 Hour character die forever!" It works in some, though...