Death

[T_M_C]

I thought SM64 had a Game Over if you ran out of lives.

You know, you might well be right.  It must be my age.   
I simply remember being dumped out of the levels to the castle section when i "died" to continue playing.

Hands up if i've made a mistake there. 

The point i wanted to get across was that i'm now of the opinion that death really is pointless in a game, unless of course your simulating real life such as in a ww2 game.

Why shouldn't the player be allowed to stay in the game indefinately with the game supplying all the trials and challenges via content without the worry for the player that all his hard work could be undone when he dies.

I personaly hate having to replay levels over and over again to be able to progress further than before.  Thats why i love the save options.  It helps the player, not hinders him.
And the bottom line is, the player has to enjoy playing the game.  So, as a "games designer / dodgey programmer " i want to remove as many barriers to the player as i can which prevents him from having fun.

I may not achieve it, but thats my goal.

Something where there are no sudden deaths and a nice risk/reward mechanism where it is essentially always possible to survive but the closer you get to actual death the greater the rewards.

But why not just create lots of game content to cater for different skill levels which offer different rewards for the player.  To me, it seems a bit of a cop out to use the fear of death for the player as a game mechanic instead of creating game content which provides the challenges and rewards.

Just my opinion of course, but my attitudes to games have changed quite a bit over the years.

TMC

[fog]

Just my opinion of course, but my attitudes to games have changed quite a bit over the years.

Mine too.  That's one of the main reasons my "softcore shmups" have energy bars instead of straight lives.  It's a far more forgiving system and, from my point of view, makes it more fun.

But why not just create lots of game content to cater for different skill levels which offer different rewards for the player.  To me, it seems a bit of a cop out to use the fear of death for the player as a game mechanic instead of creating game content which provides the challenges and rewards.

Oh yeah perfectly valid points.  I just currently have an interest in proper risk/reward gameplay ATM after writing Crack.  I found the simple but effective risk of going for the bonus multipliers versus the increased chance of dieing in that quite appealing, and it's something I'll be looking to expand on when I get around to the full version.

[TheKhakinator]

One game in which death pisses me off: Far Cry. Many FPS have quick save set up and such, but Far Cry has preset save points. This alone isn't too frustrating. It's more this one level where there's a savepoint, then you have to open a valve on a pipe to flood the room, swim up through a duct, climb through the duct (which is slooooooow going) and then finally you get out and then you walk out the room to begin fighting monsters. It would be a LOT better had they put the save point in that room instead of making you swim and climb for 5 whole minutes every time you get killed by the damn monsters.

I thought SM64 had a Game Over if you ran out of lives.

You know, you might well be right.  It must be my age.   
I simply remember being dumped out of the levels to the castle section when i "died" to continue playing.

Hands up if i've made a mistake there. 

Ah yeah. I think I remember now. You had say, 5 lives. If you went into a level and were killed, whatever, it would chuck you back out into the castle and you would only have 4 lives. So if you were careless and didn't get the extra lives scattered around you could game over, IIRC.

[T_M_C]

Mine too.  That's one of the main reasons my "softcore shmups" have energy bars instead of straight lives.  It's a far more forgiving system and, from my point of view, makes it more fun.

Yeh, i agree, it's a system that helps the player and is much better for it.

Oh yeah perfectly valid points.  I just currently have an interest in proper risk/reward gameplay ATM after writing Crack.  I found the simple but effective risk of going for the bonus multipliers versus the increased chance of dieing in that quite appealing, and it's something I'll be looking to expand on when I get around to the full version.

Well, thats still quite a traditional approach, tried and tested i'll grant you, but instead of killing off the player, have you thought about other methods of penalising the player.

Dumping the player to an earlier level
Losing some powerups
Losing points

ect ect, there are alternatives to the usual kill player scenario.  You can still adere to the higher the risk = higher the reward scenario too.


It dawned on me yesterday that mmorpg's do exactly what i am suggesting.  Although you can die in game, it's not game over.  If it was, the developer / publisher would lose money because they need constant money supply via subscriptions. 

The player would lose all that hard earned experience and loot also, so for that type of game, keeping the player in the game is essential on many levels and the game mechanics reflect this.  It benefits both player and developer / publisher.

One game in which death pisses me off: Far Cry. Many FPS have quick save set up and such, but Far Cry has preset save points. This alone isn't too frustrating. It's more this one level where there's a savepoint, then you have to open a valve on a pipe to flood the room, swim up through a duct, climb through the duct (which is slooooooow going) and then finally you get out and then you walk out the room to begin fighting monsters. It would be a LOT better had they put the save point in that room instead of making you swim and climb for 5 whole minutes every time you get killed by the damn monsters.

Yeh, what a nightmare, just plain old bad level design.  That type of problem would turn me straight off the game and i would feel i had wasted my money if i couldn't progress through the game because of bad level design.

Ah yeah. I think I remember now. You had say, 5 lives. If you went into a level and were killed, whatever, it would chuck you back out into the castle and you would only have 4 lives. So if you were careless and didn't get the extra lives scattered around you could game over, IIRC.

Well, you've got a better memory than i have.   
Perhaps Mario wasn't the best example i could have used.  lol

TMC

[fog]

Well, thats still quite a traditional approach, tried and tested i'll grant you, but instead of killing off the player, have you thought about other methods of penalising the player.

Dumping the player to an earlier level
Losing some powerups
Losing points

ect ect, there are alternatives to the usual kill player scenario.  You can still adere to the higher the risk = higher the reward scenario too.

Yes that's pretty much what happens in Tension.  Taking a hit makes you drop some powerups and as weapon strength and score are directly linked to the number of powerups you are carrying, they are effectively reduced too.

[fog]

Well my original proposal that you could die in a game and not get any second chances split opinion, but a feature of the new Fable 2 game may take things even a step further than I proposed.

It's all to do with how other co-op players can interact with your world.  In Fable 2 each player has their own game-world so when you play co-op the other player actually enters yours and any actions they take will remain in your game world from then on.

Now in Fable as you progress you can get married, have children and watch them grow.  However in one of the latest demo videos it shows that another player in your world can actually kill your spouse and children and there's no bringing them back.  The many hours you've invested in them wasted.

Now as with my original suggestion, dieing in a game when it's your own fault is one thing, but how would you feel if someone killed your family in a game and there was nothing you could do about it?  Is it truly immersivor has it taken things too far to the point of frustration?

[TheKhakinator]

Man New Super Mario Bros sucks. Die, and respawn at the start of the world with full lives, and saves MILES apart so it's USELESS to play on the train because you need a whole HOUR to get anywhere.

[fog]

Man New Super Mario Bros sucks. Die, and respawn at the start of the world with full lives, and saves MILES apart so it's USELESS to play on the train because you need a whole HOUR to get anywhere.

That's why I gave up playing it.  Even if it wasn't a handheld the save system sucked, but for Nintendo to put such a system in a handheld, where by it's nature people play in bite sized chunks and need to save often, is unforgivable.

[fog]

Old thread necromancy.  Ironic given the thread title. 

I'm currently playing Final Fantasy Tactics (the PSP version on Vita) and, as I haven't read the manual  I've just found out that when a member of your party dies in battle they stay dead unless you manage to quickly revive them with a Pheonix Down potion.

You've no idea how gutted I was when I found this out and my leveled up Black Mage was dead and gone forever.  In one way it's a bit of a pisser that he's gone and I now need to grind to level up another character, but on the other hand it's made me care a lot more about my party members and I will be a lot more careful with them in future.

It's like "that bit" in Final Fantasy VII, only this time the death and consequences are entirely my fault.  Pretty cool TBH.

I'll add a Shmup RPG to my list of future titles.   

[T_M_C]

Well, the bottom line for me, is, 'is the game mechanic fun'.

Ie, does perm a death make the gameplay experience more fun.

I'm sure for some people it does, and for others , it doesn't.

I think ideally, an option to play either style would be the best of both worlds.

Let the player decide how they want to play.

TMC

[Prime_8]

perma deth has its place ..
but i hate lazy save points .

i like how deadspace 2 has   thes save point computers here and there on the wall.
at first i did not like them, or the notion of fixed number of save slots .

but some times it blends in to game and works , especialy how there seems to be auto saves every 5 min worth of play too ,
just pick resume on load .

i think a toughness scale with awards , and make playing perma deth a unloch achievmet , like pacifist  mode on some games , if you can win with  out shooting anything but items .

[T_M_C]

i think a toughness scale with awards , and make playing perma deth a unloch achievmet

Thats a good idea.   

I hadn't thought about that.

TMC

[fog]

Well, the bottom line for me, is, 'is the game mechanic fun'.

Ie, does perm a death make the gameplay experience more fun.

In this case I wouldn't say it makes the game more fun, however for me it does improve the gameplay experience simply because I now care more about my party members than I did before.

Much like the little guys in Cannon Fodder, your party members can be replaced, they just start out crap and have to be leveled up again.

It's certainly borderline whether it's awesome and frustration though so it wont be for everyone. 

[TheKhakinator]

I love permadeath in ME. So good.

[Prime_8]

perma death can add that illusive adrenaline spike that comes of near mis and mild anxiety .  an actual quatifiable rush for some