gunsmoke on 13/8/2008 at 16:18
Dying in games is what spurs me on to try harder and IMPROVE. Games that have health and/or shield regeneration are set up so that the player is constantly making forward progress. I like the old way, where you are actually punished for being careless, too aggressive, etc. Often times, I will reload a small area several times until I am satisfied w/the outcome of the battle. The newer systems negate that.
van HellSing on 13/8/2008 at 17:38
Quote Posted by Ulukai
[Rewind in GTA etc.]
Total Overdose.
Yell Piranha on 13/8/2008 at 18:34
I dont feel that death necessarily has to be done away with. One of the reasons I enjoyed HL2 so much is that while I never felt it to be easy I hardly ever had to reload a save (apart from the one part in the prison). Every time I would be running short on ammo/health there was a natural break, feeling like my skill had enabled me to reach that point, just.
This enabled me to remain immersed far more than hiding around a corner waiting for my health to recharge (although this can work well too).
The_Raven on 13/8/2008 at 23:01
Quote:
Every time I would be running short on ammo/health there was a natural break, feeling like my skill had enabled me to reach that point,
You do realize that really isn't the case, though...right?
EDIT: Years ago I had this idea of a save system where there would be a predetermined amount of time, depending on the difficulty level, where you would no be able to save. This system would retain the save anywhere functionality, but would try to deal with abuses by only allowing the player to save every 5 minutes or so. It was merely a passing thought at the time, so I have no idea how good of an idea this really is.
catbarf on 14/8/2008 at 03:26
Quote Posted by The_Raven
EDIT: Years ago I had this idea of a save system where there would be a predetermined amount of time, depending on the difficulty level, where you would no be able to save. This system would retain the save anywhere functionality, but would try to deal with abuses by only allowing the player to save every 5 minutes or so. It was merely a passing thought at the time, so I have no idea how good of an idea this really is.
Good in concept, bad in practice when someone accidentally saves a bit earlier than they should (right in front of a chase sequence followed by a boss battle, for example) and then sits around waiting for the save to recharge.
june gloom on 14/8/2008 at 03:56
Here's an idea that could fit in, say, an RPG.
Suppose your character dies horribly. Instead of loading a save game, you re-roll with the idea that you would be traversing largely the same path your first character did- because your main goal is to find the guy's corpse and pick up where he left off.
I dunno, I think with some refinements it could work. Like, say, they only have 3 guys to send out then it's game over.
The_Raven on 14/8/2008 at 04:16
Quote Posted by catbarf
Good in concept, bad in practice when someone accidentally saves a bit earlier than they should (right in front of a chase sequence followed by a boss battle, for example) and then sits around waiting for the save to recharge.
I highly doubted the system would be perfect. You could, potentially, augment the system with checkpoint saves for special events like that; however, this would largely reduce the whole point of the system.
Outcast had a save system where saving near enemies would alter them to your presence; I can't say I found that system to be too intrusive, but it was hardly a universal solution since the game's reliance on adventure elements allowed it to work.
CCCToad on 14/8/2008 at 04:19
Similiar ideas have been used. For example, Crackdown's explanation is that when the first agent dies, another can be quickly cloned and sent out.
Still, though, it doesn't eliminate dying, just changes the penalty for it.
Thirith on 14/8/2008 at 06:44
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Still, though, it doesn't eliminate dying, just changes the penalty for it.
That's the main point, I think. There is punishment that is primarily frustrating, and if it's too frustrating you stop playing the game. Then there's punishment that motivates you to try again and do better. It's getting the balance right (and that balance is different for every individual game) and the means of punishment/motivation (which, again, differs from game to game) that is the tricky bit. And many devs seem quite lazy when it comes to looking at alternatives to quicksave/quickload or savepoints/replaying 10 minutes.
Taffer36 on 15/8/2008 at 06:12
I don't see any reason why there needs to be an alternative to death. Even GTA IV is technically death. You respawn at a hospital, but events actually reset themselves so it's just like starting from a checkpoint anyways, just going along with the phone menu system, although the fact that they let you choose to return to the checkpoint or not works really well for an openworld game.
Quote:
And many devs seem quite lazy when it comes to looking at alternatives to quicksave/quickload or savepoints/replaying 10 minutes.
I think quicksave/quickload is an outdated and poor system, but I see no problem with checkpoints at all. In fact, I think GTA IV would've been greatly improved by a checkpoint system. Having to start missions over from the very beginning is utter piss and commonly the reason I stopped playing wasn't because I tired from the game (because it was a fucking awesome roller coaster ride all the way through) but because I became frustrated by having to replay missions from the beginning.
I don't think death really needs a penalty, either. Death is a part of a game, and developers should embrace it as such. You run up and try something, you die, and so you try again. It forces you to try to vary your tactics each time, yet allows you to be creative because the only penalty is that you have to do it again.
