Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1411279 Posts in 69323 Topics- by 58380 Members - Latest Member: bob1029

March 28, 2024, 01:37:30 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignDeath in Games
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Print
Author Topic: Death in Games  (Read 17294 times)
Μarkham
Level 10
*****



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 09, 2009, 11:47:07 AM »

I absolutely hate how the average Roguelike handles death, especially when things like story and plot are involved.  Nothing quite like playing for a few hours, getting pretty far in to the game, and a manticore randomly pops out and eviscerates your vital organs and you're dead.  Good thing you saved a little while back right?  Wrong!  Upon death, the game took it upon itself to delete your save files!  Boy, isn't this fun?
Logged

Synnah
Level 7
**


La la la la - oh, what fun!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 09, 2009, 12:07:14 PM »

I do kinda miss the days where you'd lose progress by dying, and lose everything by running out of lives.  Or rather, the days when you could get away with such things.

Lives in games have become so meaningless these days.  No game that has them really needs them.  I guess you're not allowed to take progress from the player any more.  And death is, by and large, just as meaningless.  Things have changed, and people won't put up with death really setting them back.  You can always just go to another game if the one starts annoying you.

More than 'getting away with it', I think it's a case of 'losing your progress because of death' being relevant to how the game was played. This is most apparent in old arcade games, which were a test of skill, to see how far you could get without dying. This mentality carried over to console and home computing for a while, but died out with the advent of progress-saving, which allowed designers to create larger and more elaborate games, in the knowledge that players wouldn't have to try and complete them in one sitting. Thus, RPGs; it was a discussion about JRPGs that lead to the topic of death in the first place. Nowhere is the frustration of death more apparent than in a genre that frequently expects the player to spend an hour or so on a boss battle, only to have to do the whole thing again if things don't go right.

But what's the point in death if you don't lose anything?  Or even if you don't lose enough?  If there's nothing to fear, there's no reason to really care about what you're doing.  The player can become detached and careless...

And this is exactly what happened with Fable 2; death became a minor annoyance, but held no fear, and so I never felt the need to be cautious in battle, or do anything more than stand in the middle of a group of enemies spamming area spells. Death needs to hold some kind of penalty, but this penalty needs to be balanced against the rest of the game, and how it's expected to be played.

I think ranking after you finish a stage is a nice way around this.

If you die a lot, you get a C were you could have gotten a B or an A.

Sonic Unleashed did just this, and here's what Yahtzee had to say about it:

"Just to be completely insufferable, when you finally reach the end of a level, the game grades you; usually very poorly. I'm ashamed enough that I'm even playing this game, and now the game itself is insulting me for it!"
Logged

"What's that thing at the end of the large intestine? Because that's exactly what you've done here." - Ray Smuckles, Achewood.

My music. Will compose for free!
JLJac
Level 10
*****



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2009, 12:21:14 PM »

I do kinda miss the days where you'd lose progress by dying, and lose everything by running out of lives.  Or rather, the days when you could get away with such things.

Lives in games have become so meaningless these days.  No game that has them really needs them.  I guess you're not allowed to take progress from the player any more.  And death is, by and large, just as meaningless.  Things have changed, and people won't put up with death really setting them back.  You can always just go to another game if the one starts annoying you.

But what's the point in death if you don't lose anything?  Or even if you don't lose enough?  If there's nothing to fear, there's no reason to really care about what you're doing.  The player can become detached and careless...


I think fear of death is a precious thing nowadays.  Even if it's just so rare...  Does anybody remember trying to collect all the notes from the last two levels in Banjo-Kazooie?  There were 100 notes, and dying would reset them.  So whether you're scaling the giant tree, trying hard to to lose 3/4 of your health by falling, or jumping through fans in the engine room, you really felt the weight of the situation, that one small misstep and you'd lose it all. (In the new XBLA version, though, notes stay collected forever, and the game is robbed of this sensation.)

I dunno... maybe I'm not saying anything new, but I do miss the old concepts of death.

I agree with Fifth!

Problem is that these days games are made for everybody, not just for gamers. Games like Fable 2 are designed so that every aspect of the game should be achievable for you no matter how hard you suck, and so that you should never get frustrated no matter how short your attention span is. This means that for us who enjoy proceeding through effort the gaming experience is very, very dullifyed. What's the point of doing anything in a game if it is achievable for everyone extremely easy, and doesn't involve any risks?

The reason why you feel satisfaction when killing Ballos is that it was hard to do, it took a lot of effort and is maybe not possible for everyone to do. It is only in indie games those things remain, the commercial games has become movies. You always get to the end, and it takes the set amount of hours.
Logged
Lucaz
Level 6
*


Indier than thou


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2009, 12:26:09 PM »

I find the way most games handle this nowadays is awful. The worst I've seen is Bioshock. You die, you reappear three meters away, and lose nothing. It's like playing in god mode. Sometimes it's even faster to die than to walk back to some places. I find these things condecendent and insulting.

But dying once should never make you repeat stuff. Yes to repeat enemies, and a short battle, but not a boss, a puzzle or cutscene. Losing a continue can send you all way back to the start of the level instead of the checkpoint on games with short levels., but well, that happens when just you keep dying. Fast and short levels like Sonic's can be repeated as they are short enough.

I absolutely hate how the average Roguelike handles death, especially when things like story and plot are involved.  Nothing quite like playing for a few hours, getting pretty far in to the game, and a manticore randomly pops out and eviscerates your vital organs and you're dead.  Good thing you saved a little while back right?  Wrong!  Upon death, the game took it upon itself to delete your save files!  Boy, isn't this fun?

I love how roguelikes handle death. It put a kind of pressure upon you that no other game has. That pressure of needing to think beforehand, to never act without measuring consequences. The feeling that your character has just died and all your effort went to nothing. Of course, all this means that the game must be fair, specially in the more advance parts.
Logged

Kenta
Level 0
*


what the


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: February 09, 2009, 12:32:41 PM »

The worst part of death in Roguelike games is losing all your stuff, bar a small number of items you can save. And when you use them, they become useless in the next dungeon when you find much better items.
Logged
Hempuli‽
Level 10
*****


Sweet potatoes.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2009, 12:33:21 PM »

I think games that let you die with no penalty suck.

cough cough Prince of Persia cough. I agree.

The original Prince of Persia had an interesting way to do this.

While it also gives you infinite lives, you only have 60 minutes to complete the game.  Corny Laugh

Yeah, it was coolio.

The worst part of death in Roguelike games is losing all your stuff, bar a small number of items you can save. And when you use them, they become useless in the next dungeon when you find much better items.

This depends very much on what roguelike we're talking about. This losing-everything is most annoying when there's a possibility to loot some unique mega-awesome items, because losing them feels terrible. Actually I think that it's better in roguelikes that you must start all over and lose EVERYTHING, instead of just MOST of them. That way you don't feel like you could've something to save those lost items (except by beating that level 78 red dragon priestess).

I think losing progress isn't that bad, it's IMO better to get transported back to some sort of savepoint/beginning, than to get transported back AND losing some bonus items. Especially losing levels upon death is irritating.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 12:38:26 PM by Hempuli » Logged

Captain_404
Guest
« Reply #26 on: February 09, 2009, 03:11:10 PM »

The whole idea of death in a game is simply outdated to begin with. As games have grown more and more complex over the years (with regards both to story an gameplay) one would think that some of their more fundamental mechanics would also increase in complexity.

I mean, in Mario it makes sense. There is no story, or if there is any, it's the story of how you play the game. The story IS your gameplay. When you die, you're set back at the beginning, given a chance to rewrite the story using the knowledge you've gained from the last story.

The problem with death occurs when you layer another story on top of the story of gameplay. This causes the two narratives to fight for supremacy; I believe gameplay typically becomes a sort of subconscious narrative, while the actual plot becomes a conscious one. When the player dies, these stories are suddenly at odds, creating a jarring, surreal sensation. In the story, the player's character does not die, and yet in the gameplay-narrative the player's character does die.

The answer, I believe, is to let the plot allow for death in the same way that the gameplay-narrative allows for it; that is to say, either the player will die once at the end, or the player will die many times during the course of the story.

These two methods are shown almost perfectly by the games [spoilers!] Passage and Braid. In Passage, the player dies once and only once at the end of the game, it becomes both the primary mechanic of gameplay and of narrative. In Braid, the player will die many times, which is reconciled easily by rewinding, an aspect which is mirrored throughout the game's texts. (Although, I confess this is all supposition as I've only had a chance to play the demo on a friend's 360, I'm waiting eagerly for Braid on PC)


Still, if death in gameplay is merged with death in plot, how do we punish the player for making mistakes? Maybe we don't. When you make a mistake in real life, you don't get a chance to redo that bit of your life. It's gone forever and you have to live with the consequences of that decision. To extend the metaphor, in Mario, instead of simply restarting a level, what if you had to climb your way out of the pit you'd fallen into? Isn't it also a more powerful gameplay-narrative if Mario repeatedly falls in and climbs out of pits for the Princess instead of simply skipping over all of them. In this method, the user has to grapple with and overcome their own failure to a point where victory is once again achievable.



As an industry, as an art form, games should probably move away from death as an instrument of punishment. We need to find more creative ways to integrate it with plot and to find better ways to punish the player. Maybe - oh, I don't know - their actions actually having real, lasting consequences?
Logged
Candlejack
Level 2
**


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: February 09, 2009, 03:18:59 PM »

How about the consequences of death are procedurally generated based on how you were acting?
Logged
Kenta
Level 0
*


what the


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: February 09, 2009, 03:31:06 PM »

In the story, the player's character does not die, and yet in the gameplay-narrative the player's character does die.
Take Fire Emblem. When characters die, they die for good.

Another take at a different way to handle death is in the Boktai series. When you die, you are given a chance to return to the same stage, if you can pay it. If you don't have enough money, you can still return, but you must pay later. If the pay time limit expires you have to play a rather annoying mini-game to pay off every cent.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2009, 03:39:47 PM by Kenta » Logged
Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: February 09, 2009, 03:44:54 PM »

The reason you can't have death in games anymore is because games aren't fun.

If a game is fun to play, the setback adds to the challenge and is not crippling. Although dying a whole bunch in a game might make me put the game down for a bit due to frustration, I can come back later and try again after having let whatever skills I've sharpened from playing it really sink in, and do better. Then I get the genuine enjoyment of having achieved something (I mean, it isn't curing cancer, obviously, but I'd consider it equivalent to juggling or some other trivial skill).

For most games nowadays, the actual gameplay is just an exercise in pointless hand-waving to get to the 'rewards' which are a shitty plot and boring cutscenes. The reason death becomes annoying in these cases is because these rewards aren't enjoyable the second time (they're barely enjoyable the first time). In a game where the game itself and the mastery of it are their own rewards, the ability to lose simply increases the challenge and makes the game all the more rewarding.

Basically, if you're going to have setbacks they shouldn't be a real 'punishment' in the sense of inflicting boredom on the player. Losing at chess doesn't mean you have to keep playing the same chess game until you win.
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
Problem Machine
Level 8
***

It's Not a Disaster


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2009, 03:46:44 PM »

 Hand Shake Left Kiss Hand Shake Right

Edit: Ahem, I mean... I concur.
Logged

Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2009, 03:47:36 PM »

Sorry, I'd just like to append here that I don't think it's a bad thing to make a game about story. I just think it's a bad thing to try to serve two masters, and people who try to mix traditional challenge-based game structure with story-based rewards are mostly aping other (in my opinion failed) games and not actually considering the play experience very thoroughly.
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
Synnah
Level 7
**


La la la la - oh, what fun!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2009, 03:59:44 PM »

Basically, if you're going to have setbacks they shouldn't be a real 'punishment' in the sense of inflicting boredom on the player. Losing at chess doesn't mean you have to keep playing the same chess game until you win.

Which I think is what makes Spelunky so successful at what it does; When you die, you don't play the same levels again, so the game isn't about learning what happens when, it's about learning what can happen, and how to avoid it. Dying can be as frustrating as all hell, but when you go back in, you get a fresh set of challenges to pit yourself against, and that's rewarding.

And, while I think what you said about 'shitty plot and boring cutscenes' is a little cynical, you have a point, in that most commercial games are designed to be played through only once. Of course, this won't fly, so the designers will tack a load of stuff on to add replay value. Of course, this doesn't help much when you have to replay a section a mere 10 minutes after your first attempt.
Logged

"What's that thing at the end of the large intestine? Because that's exactly what you've done here." - Ray Smuckles, Achewood.

My music. Will compose for free!
Core Xii
Level 10
*****


the resident dissident


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2009, 04:10:18 PM »

To extend the metaphor, in Mario, instead of simply restarting a level, what if you had to climb your way out of the pit you'd fallen into? Isn't it also a more powerful gameplay-narrative if Mario repeatedly falls in and climbs out of pits for the Princess instead of simply skipping over all of them. In this method, the user has to grapple with and overcome their own failure to a point where victory is once again achievable.

Sounds like Warioland 2. You can't die, but when you get hit you bounce back, usually down to the pit you climbed from.


The stuff about the conflicting stories is interesting. It's so obvious now, yet I never thought about it that way.
Logged
Problem Machine
Level 8
***

It's Not a Disaster


View Profile WWW
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2009, 04:12:48 PM »

Quote
The stuff about the conflicting stories is interesting. It's so obvious now, yet I never thought about it that way.
Reminds me somewhat of a lot of the stuff Jon Blow talked about in this lecture.
Logged

Chris Whitman
Sepia Toned
Level 10
*****


A master of karate and friendship for everyone.


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2009, 04:19:15 PM »

See, I don't think having to climb out of pits solves the problem, because I don't think the problem is really related to dissonance between the 'story' view and the 'gameplay' view (in the same sense that Jon Blow discusses the love interest in GTA, for example).

If anything, having to climb your way out of pits could be even more annoying. I imagine the tenth time you fell down a bit in Mario you'd be screaming, "Not another fucking pit!" And probably throwing the controller.
Logged

Formerly "I Like Cake."
Soulliard
Level 10
*****


The artist formerly known as Nightshade


View Profile WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 09, 2009, 04:23:01 PM »

The death mechanics should reflect the type of game you're trying to create. If you want to make a skill-based arcade game, death should force you to restart (this is the case in most shmups). If the content is procedurally generated, this is an especially good mechanic, since your next game will still be a new experience (that's a large part of why Spelunky is so successful).

Gritty horror games should make death hurt. However, it's difficult to set the right balance between adrenaline and anger.

For a more heroic game, dying should not be a big setback. Sending the player back to the beginning of the latest challenge is usually enough to make dying meaningful, without making it frustrating.

This also applies to extremely difficult games. If death is frequent, then it shouldn't be a big setback, or it will just get frustrating quickly. Can you imagine playing Jumper 3 if, every time you died, you were sent back five levels?

I'm intrigued at the possibility of making a game without death, but with other penalties for being wounded. Obviously, this would be a very heroic game, but that's the kind of thing I love. Invincibility is a mechanic that I don't think has been fully explored.
Logged

letsap
Level 5
*****


Have faith...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 09, 2009, 04:39:09 PM »

I imagine the tenth time you fell down a bit in Mario you'd be screaming, "Not another fucking pit!" And probably throwing the controller.

Some people do that already. Giggle

Anyway, on death, I think it depends on how easy it is to die. If the game makes it reasonably difficult to die, because of player power or ease in challenge, the setback should be allowed to be a little more severe if the player neglects to save. Games usually recommend that you save often at some point or another (see: Xenogears, recent Zelda games), which makes the player feel kinda dumb for not saving at the last save point. If the player neglects to save, I think they deserve the penalty.

In games that make it easy to die, I think the setback should be less severe. Usually you'll have to find some kind of middle ground, balancing the game's progress with difficulty and penalties. That, and I think the kind of game counts a lot. Imagine if losing in Tetris just cleared a few lines away for you and said "try again," it'd totally change the experience. It might make it better for some people, but worse for others.. I guess the big thing is that you can't please everybody? I forgot where I was going with this. You get what I'm saying, right? Concerned
Logged

ElTipejoLoco
Level 2
**

You can call me Edua.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 09, 2009, 04:48:40 PM »

I think there have been large exploration games where death is not really possible- instead- for example, scaling a tower or mountain, and sliding down to the bottom. Despite a lack of death, you are penalized by having to repeat the entire climb (or however much distance you lost before you managed to recover a foothold). I just can't name any off the top of my head.

I'm intrigued at the possibility of making a game without death, but with other penalties for being wounded. Obviously, this would be a very heroic game, but that's the kind of thing I love. Invincibility is a mechanic that I don't think has been fully explored.

That sort of thinking made Fable 2's no-death+scarring mentality, and I think the general opinion of that has already been expressed on this thread.

Verge has two types of deaths, so I'm not sure if that counts into this discussion (one type of death sends you into the 'otherworld', the other sends you to the start of the level, I think).

Baroque has already been mentioned (death reveals plot). I find it partially frustrating, however, as there are some events within the Tower in the game that are randomly placed, and dying just before reaching the characters and seeing the cutscenes/hearing the dialogue is quite annoying for a completionist like me.

There's also 'unwinnable battles' in several Role Playing Games (especially when you fight a Rival or the ultimate antagonist early on in the storyline), which I do not know if they count towards this subject (i.e.- you MUST lose for it to make sense in the story, and even if you are victorious, it doesn't matter). I think a good Indie example of this can be found in Rinkuhero's Immortal Defense.

If I had to pick a way to toy with deaths, I'd probably want to meta-game Game Overs somehow. (i.e.- you die in the game, now you're controlling a player who just lost at the game! What a twist?) There's been a few RPGs (I think SaGa, or Final Fantasy Legend series) where death ends up leading you to a practically unwinnable boss battle (i.e.- Odin). The Chrono Trigger series (including Cross and Radical Dreamers) have played with 'finishing the game early' to mess with the plot/change the endings, but I am also unaware if that counts towards this topic. (I personally enjoy when losing in a game rewards you with a short cinematic of the consequences of your loss, such as the world ending/refusing to change, or your characters getting up to fight again when they offer a "retry" option)

... I should probably go eat dinner.
Logged


Currently brainstorming for a project
Soulliard
Level 10
*****


The artist formerly known as Nightshade


View Profile WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 09, 2009, 05:08:15 PM »

I'm intrigued at the possibility of making a game without death, but with other penalties for being wounded. Obviously, this would be a very heroic game, but that's the kind of thing I love. Invincibility is a mechanic that I don't think has been fully explored.

That sort of thinking made Fable 2's no-death+scarring mentality, and I think the general opinion of that has already been expressed on this thread.
That's not exactly what I mean. Here are a few ideas I have:
-A game where you have a time limit, and getting hit makes it more difficult to finish on time (either by stunning the character, pushing him backwards, or giving a direct penalty).
-A game where the object is to collect something, or alternately, a game where collecting things could offer additional benefits. Getting hit would cause you to lose some of the items you've collected. This is similar to the way rings worked in the old Sonic games. Getting hit didn't mean you died (usually), but you lost most of your rings, which made it more difficult to collect all the chaos emeralds. Getting hit wasn't punishing, which was perfect for a game based on speed rather than precision, but it still sucked for hardcore players.
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic