Thirith on 11/8/2008 at 11:44
As I'm just replaying the
Prince of Persia games and as I'm currently reading a recent (
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_161/5111-Indie-or-Die.3)
Escapist article on death in games, I'm thinking about the issue. What good/interesting alternatives are there to the death/reload pattern in gaming? It's a tricky one, it seems to me, since reloading and replaying don't exactly make for riveting gameplay, while it's too easy to do away with death in games and lose any feeling of danger. What alternatives are there that maintain the challenge but get rid of quicksave/quickload-fests?
Jusal on 11/8/2008 at 12:07
I'm a big fan of permanent death myself: Death is final, which means that you are definitely going to feel it, and try to avoid it to your best ability. Unfortunately this approach only really works with non-linear or partially randomized games (such as most roguelikes). And possibly games that allow you to use a very different approach every time you play so the old parts of the game wouldn't be a bore.
Thirith on 11/8/2008 at 12:17
To provide a bit more of my own opinion:
I liked the story approach Sands of Time took to death, but in terms of gameplay mechanics it's no different from other games that allow you to continue at savepoints. It was simply wrapped up nicely, so to speak, which made it somewhat better in my opinion.
I liked that death was a real risk in Aliens vs. Predator (somewhat less so in the patched version), but at the same time I accept that games that are similarly unforgiving will sell fewer copies. If anything, it could be made an option at installation; if it was a simple, easily accessible option, it might be too simple to abuse it (but then, that's probably my lack of discipline talking more than anything else).
I liked what the System Shock games did with the healing suites. In my opinion, Bioshock simplified it too much, overshooting the target.
I must say that I also liked the system used in Call of Duty 2. Sure, it's unrealistic, but I didn't feel less thrilled because of the health system - and the medpack approach is no more realistic, really. However, I also liked death in Operation Flashpoint, where you knew that any well-aimed bullet could mean death.
Rogue Keeper on 11/8/2008 at 12:20
I may look predictable by mentioning Planescape Torment AGAIN, but... :D
Thirith on 11/8/2008 at 12:28
Man, I'd forgotten about that one... even though I thought, just yesterday, that I should replay it.
However, Planescape Torment is one of those games where the plot/character setup permit such 'deathless' gameplay. It wouldn't work for other games with different stories. But that may be the key - different types of 'death' work for different games.
I've never played Prey. Any comments on that game's system?
Gambit on 11/8/2008 at 12:41
Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen was really inovative.
If you died you would just enter the spiritual world and would need souls to come back to the material world. If you died in the spiritual world you would just come back to your hud.
There were no save games. Instead you had to activate teleporting gates throught the game so that once you start in your hud you could teleport further.
mothra on 11/8/2008 at 12:42
ad prey:
you played basically a minigame to determine with how much energy/health you get respawned with but you get respawned nonetheless no matter how bad you do.
it was fun the first time around and got really boring in the end. I actualy found myself not motiviated or driven to complete a certain part of a mission in a good manner because...you know, if u fuck up you can still carry on.
this is also what makes me (most of the time) hate any non-death system. because overtime you get lazy and loosing/performing poor and not investing more brains or better reaction into a gamesection and therefore getting less enjoyment out of it (at least with me it's like that).
When I have a game with a non-death system I happen to use that much, much, much more often than I would have used Quickload in a "death" game.
I, personally, want to get my setback/punishment for playing bad and I want to have to manage my health in some way. I don't care if it's healthpacks, I can't see what ppl have against them. they are as "immersive" as "repleneshing health". but my views are not popular, ppl want to play interactive movies instead of practising/training
Thirith on 11/8/2008 at 12:55
Quote Posted by mothra
ad prey:
I, personally, want to get my setback/punishment for playing bad and I want to have to manage my health in some way. I don't care if it's healthpacks, I can't see what ppl have against them. they are as "immersive" as "repleneshing health". but my views are not popular, ppl want to play interactive movies instead of practising/training
Before anything else: do you really need this passive-aggressive, self-pitying "I'm old skool, but they only make games for wimps and pussies these days..." spiel? Because you make valid points, but the undercurrent of "I'm better than the mainstream, for which I'm sadly neglected" is somewhat annoying, frankly.
To pick up your points, though: speaking for myself, I've often used quicksave/quickload as an excuse not to get better at playing the game. Trial & error is not the same as improving. If it's too easy to get back to exactly where you were before you died, you just try again without thinking too much about what you did wrong. On the other hand, having to replay long sections of a game just because it works with savepoints isn't much better really.
Are there setbacks/ways of punishing the player that are more fun/immersive/exciting than "You have died. Press X to reload"? That's the main issue, perhaps: is 'death' the only valid setback that maintains the challenge of the game?
van HellSing on 11/8/2008 at 13:39
vita chambers ololol
demagogue on 11/8/2008 at 13:50
I thought this was going to be more a discussion of games like Seiklus or (parts of) Knytt where you just don't die ... At worst you fall down the cliff and now you have to climb it again, or you go another direction.
I guess the punchline here is that even getting rid of death doesn't solve the problem. The designer is manufacturing a situation where you have to "redo" the area if you screw up, so it's still a design issue.
I guess one positive aspect of it is that when the PC can't die, then the designer designs for "mortal mistakes" every area; they have to ... whereas in a game with the death/reload mechanic in place, a designer might get lazy and just let that do its thing without further thought, and then you get the problem the OP is thinking about where it isn't always handled well and it's a tedious die-reload fest for a lot of areas.
