next »

[JasonPickering]

i like the positive feedback idea. I would like to see that in a super hard game though. like "I want to be the guy" it would be neat to see 5 people play through it and all the different changes. did spkpfd have any visual clues as the level of dificulty? did enemies look less menacing on lower levels? was lava changed to water?

also Seppukitties (i think that was the name) used death in a interesting way. you started a serires of levels with 25 adirable animals, and needed to kill many of them to continue (ala lemmings). it was rather sinster so jumping a koala into some spikes allowed the rabbit folowing him to use the body as a stepping stone.

[hamburger]

Something that's kinda interesting to think about relative to this is death/failure in linear narratives. There are of course no do-overs in a traditional story, yet it can be every bit as suspenseful and engaging as a game (does anyone disagree with me?). Let's say your action hero is running for his life - perhaps there's a giant round rock rolling up behind him. Logically, you know he's not going to die, yet you're still excited. I don't think this is because of the small chance that the story will break with tradition and kill the hero; if this were the case, then you wouldn't get any excitement out of the story the second time around. I think instead this suspense owes a lot to the amazing human ability to suspend disbelief and imagine that's you out there in the real world.

So then, theoretically the same should be true of games with no death - they should nevertheless be capable of all the suspense in movies and novels, right? Yet there's no arguing with those players who claim to derive no suspense or engagement from games like Fable 2. What else are films offering? I would suggest that maybe it's the 3-act structure, the whole Hero's Journey thing. The hero experiences failure in the second act, so you know he's vulnerable and therefore maybe you have an easier time suspending your disbelief when he's in trouble later on, or something like that.

As far as games go, I know of no equivalent to a 3-act structure in gameplay. I can't even imagine what it would be. Many games have a nice 3-act structure for their NARRATIVE, but generally the GAMEPLAY is totally separated from the narrative. For instance, in a typical RPG, you'll have your dialog tree scenes where the narrative is expounded, and then you'll have your gameplay--your D20 combat system--which has nothing mechanically in common with the narrative, and has no means of following the dynamics of the story. Yet this gameplay is what we're talking about when we talk about death in games.

Thus, if a deathless game is not engaging, maybe our problem is that the gameplay is flat as a pancake, does not change over the course of the game, and/or offers no dynamics other than life and death?

[rob]

^It was damn near impossible to die in the Trilby games and those were still scary as hell.

Also, a lot of games do actually get easier after you die once or twice, by getting rid of an obstacle or enemy usually,  and it's actually disappointing. I recently began playing RE4 and I died so much at the beginning it skipped the first encounter with burlap sack chainsaw guy. The whole time I was amped, having heard about how scary it was, and when I got the the second guy (outside the civilized house) I was pissed.

[Dhomochevsky]

interesting discussion!
jumped in just to remember how genius was death in Planescape:torment

[LaserBeing]

Illusion of Gaia for the SNES had a cute and rather elegant thing where any time you "died", the main character would would regain consciousness at the entrance of the area and say "I am sometimes aware of having fallen in a place I know. Must have been a nightmare." It makes sense as a sort of precognitive warning vision since the hero is supposed to be a psychic, and provides a satisfying in-character explanation for the player respawning with nothing more than a single box of text.

[Hempuli‽]

Illusion of Gaia for the SNES had a cute and rather elegant thing where any time you "died", the main character would would regain consciousness at the entrance of the area and say "I am sometimes aware of having fallen in a place I know. Must have been a nightmare." It makes sense as a sort of precognitive warning vision since the hero is supposed to be a psychic, and provides a satisfying in-character explanation for the player respawning with nothing more than a single box of text.

Yeah, this is a pretty nice to handle it. One good concept would be that the whole game screen turned to a sleepcloud, and would resize to show the main character sleeping and dreaming about it, and then waking up because of this 'nightmare'.

[LaserBeing]

That'd work, though it's a bit literal for my tastes. Part of what makes it work in Illusion of Gaia is the ambiguity. It's not really made explicit whether it's a dream, a vision, or something even stranger like a time loop or reincarnation. The uncertainty helps preserve the sense of danger; even though the player knows he'll just wake up again if he dies, the character is still technically in the middle of a perilous situation, and possibly even in worse trouble because he's apparently blacking out and having crazy visions!

The Silent Hill series did a few things along these lines too. In SH3, if Heather dies, you'll sometimes see a cutscene of a mysterious being dragging her body away, or turning a red wheel. Konami put out a book in Japan explaining some of the background of the first three games, and revealed that the being is called Valtiel and he's actually taking Heather to be resurrected so she can fulfill her destiny. The red wheel supposedly symbolises the cycle of death and rebirth. SH2 didn't really have any fancy game over variations, but James does have little quips when he examines a save point, like "Looking at this makes my head hurt," which, although it doesn't imply anything in particular, still brings the fact of the death/saving mechanic into the world of the character. The series as a whole does a good job of getting around meta-game incongruities by simply playing to the fact that the protagonist is not in their right mind. Suddenly something that might ruin the immersion of another game becomes something that just adds to the atmosphere of horror. But I'm starting to digress, I think.

The "unreliable narrator" technique is great for horror games, but of course it's not appropriate for everything. It depends on what kind of mood you're trying to set and how your death mechanic works.

[salade]

oh, just remembered how wonderful a fair death is in an adventure game (incessantly clicking the bear, eh?).

one I can think of is in thy dungeon man3 (yes, from homestarrunner) you get a pack of ketchup. if you eat the ketchup you don't die immediately but eventually the cholesterol in the ketchup builds up in your arteries and causes cardiac arrest "later down the road"(or something like that). the game then tells you that the ketchup obviously serves another purpose.

just an example.

[jimmythechang]

And I still think a game where death put you into the body of your emotionally (and physically) nearest companion would be rad. A hero sets out to slay a dragon, fails. Dies. His lover, concerned about her boo's well being, sets off after him and finds the dragon he was hunting gravely injured from the fight with the player's first life. She finishes the job and takes on the original hero's quest, now heading off to vanquish some source of evil or something, a quest given to her by some old hag. She fails. Dies. The hag now must find a new hero. She goes in search, finds one, trains him/her. Evil finds the hag, ends her. Dies. The new apprentice hero vows to avenge his/her mentor and goes on a quest to slay the beasts that killed the hag, but not before stopping in the nearest town and making a friend. Fails. Dies. Fails. Dies. Fails. Dies. See the cycle?

This is a fantastic idea, as these characters could be procedurally generated as necessary. As an example, you could take a game like Ninja Gaiden, a game with its share of frustrating deaths, but instead of controlling one main protagonist, the player is in charge of a cadre of characters, each cosmetically different but possessing the same skills and abilities. When one dies, he or she is replaced by a new character.

Granted, a big draw of games with meticulously (or ridiculously) designed main characters are the emotions that those characters have been designed to specifically elicit from us, whether it be excitement in the form of controlling a badass or fear from utilizing someone wholly unprepared for the situation at hand (something you see in a lot of survival horror). So while you do run the risk of handing the player a string of completely unmemorable characters who essentially serve as cannon fodder, this is also where this concept's greatest strength lies: providing the player a possibility to actually connect with the current incarnation of their character.

In roguelikes and games like Spelunky, the story develops from the gameplay. As death is always an ever-present threat, each of those experiences are worth that much more than if they were a given. When you take your miner and outrun a boulder, knock a caveman into a spike pit and "accidentally" shoot a storekeeper with his own shotgun, you begin to ascribe these stories to your time with the little guy. In this theoretical game of Ninja Gaiden with multiple characters, the same could happen from achieving certain things: clearing out an entire room of enemies, collecting a particularly rare weapon, and so forth. The better you do, the more of a connection you begin to have with your ninja, your death-dealer, the guy who's got your back.

And when he dies, he's dead. That's the price of failure. No reloading a save, no backtracking; if a boss was partly wounded, a new ninja can come in to finish the job off.

Obviously the difference between your next ninja and your previous one is only a cosmetic one, but I can't help but think that some people would genuinely feel as if they've lost a friend. And these deaths could be made all the more meaningful by tying them naturally into the narrative; a shrine could be erected for your previous ninja, detailing his or her exploits; an elder could recount the ways in which the last ninja failed, and thus provide hints as to how to avoid a similar fate in the future.

Something that's kinda interesting to think about relative to this is death/failure in linear narratives. There are of course no do-overs in a traditional story, yet it can be every bit as suspenseful and engaging as a game (does anyone disagree with me?). Let's say your action hero is running for his life - perhaps there's a giant round rock rolling up behind him. Logically, you know he's not going to die, yet you're still excited.

And this is where we could turn that concept on its head: this time, he can die. And when you come back to that area with your new hero, you see the messy results of his (your) failure. The beauty is that from the narrative's perspective, the story can still proceed as it should. The princess will always be saved; you just don't know by whom.

[Anthony Flack]

So while you do run the risk of handing the player a string of completely unmemorable characters who essentially serve as cannon fodder, this is also where this concept's greatest strength lies: providing the player a possibility to actually connect with the current incarnation of their character.

Ironically, you can see this idea quite eloquently expressed in the game Cannon Fodder.

[Anthony Flack]

And this is where we could turn that concept on its head: this time, he can die. And when you come back to that area with your new hero, you see the messy results of his (your) failure. The beauty is that from the narrative's perspective, the story can still proceed as it should. The princess will always be saved; you just don't know by whom.

Kind of reminds me of this, although in this case the story goes both ways.

[Pacian]

You know, I've been thinking recently about how nobody's ever been brave enough to do a proper Superman game - you know, where you're actually invincible.  Superman's issue is that the people around him are squishy and mortal, so even if he can survive a plane landing on him, the people in the plane might not be so lucky.

Imagine an open-ended, free-roaming superhero game, where whenever you start playing you know that nothing could ever hurt you, but if anyone else dies, they stay dead.  Their death could be tied into an online account, so wherever you went, however many times you reinstalled the game, little Jimmy wouldn't be coming back - and your failure to save his life would be forever on your conscience.

(I guess this is kind of a mirror-image of Xion's idea.)

[gunswordfist]

I was having a discussion with a friend last night about death in games which gave me cause to rethink a few of my opinions on game design. My recent stance, as someone in their late twenties with a full time job and less time than they'd like to spend on gaming, has been that anything that causes the player to lose the progress they've made since the last checkpoint/save is a Bad Thing. Even back when I did have more time to spend on games, this was what caused me to give up on Vagrant Story. Especially in that game, where so much time was spent in the clunky menu system, having to do it all again because I wasn't quite cautious enough just seemed like the game designer was having a laugh at my expense.

Having said that, however, I can't overlook the fact that having to repeat sections of gameplay is the best way to force the player to learn the game and its mechanics; I started playing games in the middle of the 80's after all, when they were intended to be completed in a single sitting, but becoming good enough to do that was where the longevity came from. So why is it that I find it so frustrating to have to repeat my actions these days? It might be due to the fact that modern commercial games are often heavily story-driven, and there's no merit in having to play through story developments again; the more the story becomes intertwined with the gameplay, the more this is true.

Is there any way to reduce the frustration of having to replay large sections of game, and still have the player learn, though? Fable 2 tried to do this, by making death a mere experience penalty/cosmetic scar, but this didn't work at all. I never felt like I had any reason to become good at combat. I have a feeling that the answer may just be that I need to be less impatient and more cautious in my playing style; however...

...Discuss!

Very interesting...

Having said that, however, I can't overlook the fact that having to repeat sections of gameplay is the best way to force the player to learn the game and its mechanics

That's too true. Megaman is the best example of this. I got so much better at after dying so many times on an INSANELY hard Wily Castle stage on Megaman 7 (yes the one with the different graphics) Now it's just the boss that takes me forever to beat on that game. I still need to beat Megaman 7 though...

It might be due to the fact that modern commercial games are often heavily story-driven, and there's no merit in having to play through story developments again; the more the story becomes intertwined with the gameplay, the more this is true.

This part confuses me. Do you mean games that fuse their story with their gameplay make their stories get old fast???

[professor dead]

This part confuses me. Do you mean games that fuse their story with their gameplay make their stories get old fast???

no, i think it is to say that how a modern game reveals its story is often tedious - like having to watch a cutscene again and again.

[gunswordfist]

This part confuses me. Do you mean games that fuse their story with their gameplay make their stories get old fast???

no, i think it is to say that how a modern game reveals its story is often tedious - like having to watch a cutscene again and again.

Oh that made sense and would be the opposite of what I thought he meant. heh

[gunswordfist]

Commercial console games these days tend to have a check point system that automatically saves before every "battle scenario", meaning that when you die you can immediately engage the same enemies in the same battle, until you get past them to the next save point. I think this is a very good mechanic for acieving what commercial games nowdays want to achieve, games as easy, pick-up-and-play entertainment.

The bad part about it is that you never really fear death, because you know that there are no serious consequenses. At least for me it works this way: If I fear dying or in some other way feel that my performance is important I get more engaged in the game, and the feeling of adrenaline and other sensations within the game gets a lot stronger. Therefore I gotta say that I prefer pretty hard penalties in games, it simply increases the whole sensation of playing. Then of course it shouldn't set you back so much you just give up... I guess it's a question of balance :D

Yeah I know what you mean. I had to face the hardest penalty before, having to restart the game and losing everything you spent hours getting. That happened when I had a PS1 and was playing FF8 and FF9. It was pretty painful to get killed by Diablo the first time I died in Final Fantasy 8 (I died and restarted DOZENS of times) and to get blown away by that insanely overpowered monster dragon in Final Fantasy 9.

One good approach (I think), is Baroque (ps2). Everytime you die a cutscene plays, revealing a part of the story which can't be seen in normal gameplay. And by dying many times, you're able to put together the story and figure what to do next.

Of course, everytime you die you go back to the first level in the game, but...

That's a weird yet unique way to do things. I might play that game.

[Synnah]

This part confuses me. Do you mean games that fuse their story with their gameplay make their stories get old fast???

no, i think it is to say that how a modern game reveals its story is often tedious - like having to watch a cutscene again and again.

Er, yes, I think that's pretty much what I meant; sorry I wasn't so clear. For example, take Metal Gear Solid; A lot of the game is spent going in and out of the Codec screen at critical points in the action to listen to dialogue about what is happening. It's all part of the story, which has in turn become part of the gameplay, and when you die and have to restart, you often have no choice but to go into the Codec screen again, only to mash X to skip the dialogue. I think that's what I was getting at, anyway!

[gunswordfist]

This part confuses me. Do you mean games that fuse their story with their gameplay make their stories get old fast???

no, i think it is to say that how a modern game reveals its story is often tedious - like having to watch a cutscene again and again.

Er, yes, I think that's pretty much what I meant; sorry I wasn't so clear. For example, take Metal Gear Solid; A lot of the game is spent going in and out of the Codec screen at critical points in the action to listen to dialogue about what is happening. It's all part of the story, which has in turn become part of the gameplay, and when you die and have to restart, you often have no choice but to go into the Codec screen again, only to mash X to skip the dialogue. I think that's what I was getting at, anyway!

heh heh I know what you mean.

[Candlejack]

Psychosomnium(a game by cactus) kinda does that death puts you in another person's body thing.

[William Broom]

You know, I've been thinking recently about how nobody's ever been brave enough to do a proper Superman game - you know, where you're actually invincible.  Superman's issue is that the people around him are squishy and mortal, so even if he can survive a plane landing on him, the people in the plane might not be so lucky.

Imagine an open-ended, free-roaming superhero game, where whenever you start playing you know that nothing could ever hurt you, but if anyone else dies, they stay dead.  Their death could be tied into an online account, so wherever you went, however many times you reinstalled the game, little Jimmy wouldn't be coming back - and your failure to save his life would be forever on your conscience.

(I guess this is kind of a mirror-image of Xion's idea.)

I'm pretty sure that this was done in Superman Returns. You were invincible, but the city had a health meter.