A conversation about death

[DarkUnderlord]

I saw this on <a href="http://www.sorcerers.net">Sorcerers.net</a> and totally wanted to steal it. <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3167594">1up have a feature about death</a>. It's not entirely about RPGs but could be relevant soon given the nature of games to have insta-respawn points and a complete lack of any challenge what-so-ever. Here's a bit to get your taste buds excited:
<blockquote>Whether you believe death to be a permanent state in real life or not, in virtual territory it's generally anything but. But is game design's reliance on death as a gameplay mechanic simply a holdover from when game narratives consisted of "You're a spaceship -- shoot bad things and don't die"?

...

Some developers have come up with creative alternatives to dying -- or even creative reasons to die. In Smith's Thief: Deadly Shadows, protagonist Garrett doesn't die the first time he gets caught by city guards; instead, he wakes up in jail (a concept mimicked in Starbreeze Studios' Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay) -- transforming potential failure into a dramatic and fun story event with its own opportunities. Black Isle Studios' 1999 RPG Planescape: Torment famously required its main character to die in order to solve puzzles.

But Smith admits that Thief illustrates the challenges of this approach: How enjoyable (or plausible) is it to go back to jail again and again? How do you justify such alternatives to dying while still maintaining narrative credibility?</blockquote>
Oblivion anyone? It's an interesting article about a game mechanic which I think is actually on the verge of disappearing altogether (is that a good or bad thing?). <a href="http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3167594">So head on over and read the rest</a>.

Spotted @ <a href="http://www.sorcerers.net">Sorcerers.net</a>

 

[Section8]

I've come to believe that gameplay should be as seamless as possible, and unless "lives" are a form of resource management challenge, then I think death should be considered with a lot more depth. I'm definitely against the idea of reloading after death.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I've come to believe that gameplay should be as seamless as possible

I hate you and want you to die. "Seamless"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean? What, no difficult challenges because the player might have to stop and think about it for more than half a second? What are you making, a game or a reaction test?

and unless "lives" are a form of resource management challenge, then I think death should be considered with a lot more depth. I'm definitely against the idea of reloading after death.

You know, I think a lot of people these days really need to play Doom. Not Doom 3. Original Doom. Original super-awesome OMG I COULD DIE ANY SECOND HOLY SHIT QUICK SAVE Doom.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

What the hell is fun about quicksaving/loading because instant death lurks everywhere? "Fuck died - reload" "Didn't like how that fight went - reload".

Death becomes absolutlely meaningless, without consequence or penalty. Not unlike DnD games where if you don't feel like reloading you can always fully resurrect your dead and go about your merry way. While in most games I appreciate the ability to save anywhere normally this is because there is always at least one really irritating part of the game that I do not want to have to play through again.

That said there are some (especially JRPGs) that I rather like for the inclusion of only saving at save points/terminals/whatever that can be few and far between. In games like this, while sometimes a pain in the ass to trudge back through the last 45 minutes of gaming again, at least it gives fights some urgency and tension cuz if you fucking die it is not without cost.

I guess the best solution to date is save anywhere/time but not in combat? Stilll feels unsatisfying but better than the save/reload treadmill or the "godammit I have to do that fucking annoying part again."

Death in games shouldn't be game-destroying and certainly not fun-destroying but I sure would like to see a mechanic where it meant something more than mild irritation and a reload.

 

[The Dude]

I like how death is handled in Gearhead. When the player dies, he wakes up in the hospital. However, his reputation suffers (and he's likely to get temporarily depressed) and this makes missions easier, but at the same time lessens the rewards for completing said missions. I think it also makes some employers less likely to hire you. I think it's a decent compromise between keeping up the suspense and not getting stuck in the infinite quicksave shithole, while at the same time rewarding the player for keeping his character alive and somewhat punish stupid decisions.

 

[hiver]

So its a problem if you go to jail over and over again?

Is there anybody with a brain out there? Is this whole world covered kneedeep in morons?

tries not to start screaming..... tries not to start screaming... GOD DAMN ... tries to stop screaming... FRYING PAN.... calm down,... calm down...

The problem is that nobody can connect a couple of simple things together... like going to jail should affect your reputation in different ways, going multiple times surely would cause even more reputation troubles and consequences you would have to deal with when you get out.
I dont need to give examples do I?

It could attract the attention of various shadowy groups who could take you under their wing and so provide another route through the game.

It would at least provide the opportunity to get to know other people inside the jail and so provide you with different quests, sub quests and other options of going the different way.

But noooo... the height of this feature is picking a lock and stealing back your stuff then paying off some stupid agent so that there is no bounty on you. Great!
And then you are doomed to repeat this indefinitely every time.

Ofcourse it SUCKS GOD DAMIT!

BECAUSE they are MORONS!

 

[DarkUnderlord]

What the hell is fun about quicksaving/loading because instant death lurks everywhere? "Fuck died - reload" "Didn't like how that fight went - reload".

Given the alternative is some stupid Prey-like archery contest, I'll take reloading for five dollars thanks Jim. Loading means death does matter. It means if you die, that's it, you're dead. By re-loading, you're cheating death and you get the opportunity to do it again, only right this time. Think of the Spider Master Mind in Doom. You save before you begin attacking it and you either take shot after shot and save again if you like (where you save is your choice after all) or you get a Prey-like or BioShock like crap where you can just run in, shoot it, die, then run in again because you respawned. The enemy has less health but you get to kill it because you're an immortal, not because you actually needed any skill to put the thing down.

I guess the best solution to date is save anywhere/time but not in combat? Stilll feels unsatisfying but better than the save/reload treadmill or the "godammit I have to do that fucking annoying part again."

You wouldn't have to reload so much if you didn't suck at the game.

 

[NiM82]

If dying/reloading is annoying players it's because the core gameplay isn't fun and/or the developers are abusing it with trial by <s>error</s> death scenarios/puzzles. I didn't quicksave once in Doom, if I died it was restart the episode time. But I didn't care, it was fun. Saving was for pussies.

Doom3 though had awful gun play, tedious scripted events and level design that was beyond awful for the most part. Unsurprisingly I found myself quick-saving every 5 seconds for the simple fact that if I had to replay any level, to any length, I wouldn't have bothered. Doom3 is an extreme example (being a shit game), but same issue applies with most modern games - who wants to replay FEAR, Bioshock or the later levels of Farcry?

I think ironman levels and save points are the way to go if you want atmosphere and a true meaning to life/death (in FPS games), but obviously the developers need to get the gameplay just right, or people will walk. A good example of this being used well is AVP(1), the marine campaign was the most awesome, edge of the seat gaming experience I've seen. I must've replayed each level loads before succeeding, yet having to restart didn't bother me. Dying in that game with the objective in sight was soul destroying, as it should be. This whole prey/bioshock can't die bullshit just reaks of poor design and rewards stupidity.

RPG's admittedly have more scope for interesting 'deaths', particularly party based fantasy games, where it routinely pisses me off that no survivng members ever think to drag you in front of a cleric for some healing (with a penalty), despite them being reliant on you to save the world and there being enough loot in the kitty (or spells). Final death should always be a possible outcome though.

 

[hiver]

Dying is a problem because games usually dont give you any other opportunity.

There is no non-lethal combat systems at all.
And there should be, especially in RPG genre.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

or you get a Prey-like or BioShock like crap where you can just run in, shoot it, die, then run in again because you respawned. The enemy has less health but you get to kill it because you're an immortal, not because you actually needed any skill to put the thing down.

Granted the Prey/Bioshock route is *not* the solution and a cure worse than the disease. And given the alternative I'll take the Doom scenario - neither remains very good tho, just degrees of crappy.

I guess the best solution to date is save anywhere/time but not in combat? Stilll feels unsatisfying but better than the save/reload treadmill or the "godammit I have to do that fucking annoying part again."

You wouldn't have to reload so much if you didn't suck at the game.

Again, granted .

 

[tunguska]

A good example of this being used well is AVP(1), the marine campaign was the most awesome, edge of the seat gaming experience I've seen.

That was one of the few games I have played with shutter glasses. The 3D effect was very cool. I had very little interest in the game though. My tolerance for any action game is very low. My monitor was not really fast enough to not give me headaches after about 30 minutes of play, but it taught me the intensity of stereoscopic gaming. Truly amazing. The 2D projections most of us are used to really suck. There is just no comparison.

As for the death thing and going to prison I think this is a very important game mechanic. I used to love fighting the Daggerfall city guards with their shiny plate mail, but I always wished there were a more complex and interesting result to it than just going to jail or dying. I like the idea of permanent death as long as you can save the game state. Realism is great as long as it doesn't remove the fun of the game. And if not handled correctly death can do that for some. The combination of save games and permadeath really appeals to both camps because you don't have to use save games. In fact they take you out of the game world and are at least a slight PITA and autosaves will slow down the game at the worst possible time. So there are rewards to playing without a net. Not worth it to me though. I always save. Even with the best of games I find having to immediately repeat a sequence that I have just done to be so annoying.

 

[Section8]

I hate you and want you to die.

I share the sentiment.

"Seamless"? What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

As in, once you're in the game, you're in the game. Part of the reason why games like Civilisation are so engrossing, is because it never diverts focus away from the game. You don't really quicksave/load, you just take it all as it comes, and concern yourself only with the game rather than the metagame. And you're never looking at loading screens.

Is it really worse to have plausible gameworld mechanics to get rid of saving/reloading? Things like the rewind in the recent Prince of Persia games or that fruity mexican themed GTA clone? Being forever knocked unconscious in Mount & Blade? The death/resurrection mechanics in most MMOGs? Waking up outside the hospital/police station in GTA?

I think even certain metasystems like checkpoints (if done well) or even respawning can be preferable to saving and reloading.

What, no difficult challenges because the player might have to stop and think about it for more than half a second? What are you making, a game or a reaction test?

It's not about compromising the challenge in any way. Systems like Bioshock's vita-chambers are analogous to saving and reloading in Gothic 3 - they're done poorly, and the player suffers. It's all about context - if you know your game is going to have 10 second save delays and 30 second load times on a high-end machine, then for fuck's sake, tweak the dynamics so the player very rarely has to save and reload. If you can see your playtesters whittling away the hitpoints of big daddies with suicidal "chamber-to-the grave" wrench charges, then you should twig that maybe that game mechanic is getting in the way of your planned challenge.

You know, I think a lot of people these days really need to play Doom. Not Doom 3. Original Doom. Original super-awesome OMG I COULD DIE ANY SECOND HOLY SHIT QUICK SAVE Doom.

I don't think I'd ever bother to quicksave in Doom if it let you keep your weapons when you "retry" a level after death. But keep in mind that quicksave/load in Doom is lightning fast, so it's fairly unobtrusive. Compare that to the resource bloated pieces of shit around today and the amount of non-interactive "downtime" you'd get from a game where you have to regularly save and reload.

 

[MetalCraze]

There's only one word which will answer all your questions about death...

PREY

 

[Bar Tec]

I am not against reloading after death per se. Sometimes, death of the protagonist is a result of simple mistake of a player - you forget to pause or press the wrong button during combat .

IMHO, the main problem is not whether you reload but how frequently you are forced to do so. In RPG, the problem with frequent reloads is usually caused by bad design, in which combat is the most (or the only) challenging part of the game. Imagine the RPG with rather easy combat, but difficult quests based on, let's say, information gathering or puzzles. Such a game could be quite challenging, without restoring to killing the protagonists and forcing frequent reloads.

 

[Vagiel]

Gothic handled death very well, after the last strike you fall down some wild critters might kill some might not and even better when you fight with others they rarely kill yet they take your money or some of your possessions. Such a system expanded somewhat would even add death to the c&c formula. Die as a thief you are taken to jail or even better lose a fight to an opposing faction and you could be taken captive and be interrogated. I agree death should not be absent from games but not everything can kill you! In the usual first quest where you usually fight the rats if you lose you fail at the quest and thats it. While when you fight the big bad boss you die and ...you die.

 

[Crazy Tuvok]

Die as a thief you are taken to jail or even better lose a fight to an opposing faction and you could be taken captive and be interrogated.

Which is fun exactly once. Then it becomes just a very tedious version of load/reload.

I agree death should not be absent from games but not everything can kill you!

Absolutely. There is a difference between a game wherein life is cheap and you'd best watch your step and the game is cheap and you'd better figure how to play it.

I found the mechanics of the GTA games and the recent PoP games not only organic and unobstrusive but the right amount of cost for death (so as a level or mission maintains an impetus to compelete) vs. minimizing the fuck-me-i-have to-do-that-again.

Vs. the resurrection or recall or whatever the hell they were stones in NWN. Still a game mechanic and not a reload but to me worlds of difference.

 

[Solaris]

It all depends on the lore/backstory of the game of course so that it makes sense but the most 'seamless' one I've come across is where you lose a portion of your HP temporarily or have to earn it back by killing more foes. It's not an SP game, but as an example Guild Wars does this quite well.

The system makes sense as you spawn at a res shrine which is part of the lore. The death penalty grows to a maximum if you keep failing (dying), but not to the point of making you totally useless (unless its a tough boss mission). This system still gives you a good incentive not to get killed because you have to work harder with your now depleted HP, which ironically can sometimes make you a more effective player, since you have to knuckle down and concentrate more/be more cautious. At the same time this method doesn't take you 'out' of the game for a reload (which I hate in games). Although having a reload option would be a good backup (liking zoning back to town in GW)

Of course GW is a party based game but even so I think it just as valid a solution for SP games, depending of course on game mechanics of the particular game.The DP on HP could be balanced accordingly.

 

[Dark Matter]

So its a problem if you go to jail over and over again?

Is there anybody with a brain out there? Is this whole world covered kneedeep in morons?

tries not to start screaming..... tries not to start screaming... GOD DAMN ... tries to stop screaming... FRYING PAN.... calm down,... calm down..

You are the moron here. I'll just bring up the term mentioned in the article: "narrative credibility".

It might work in some games, but in the example provided, it would make no sense whatsoever, not to mention it would end up becoming a completely tedious task. If someone manages to escape for the one tenth time, why on earth would they continue to try and capture someone who is clearly too crafty to be locked up in a prison. Wouldn't it be much more effective to just kill them? Even if they do insist on putting them in jails (lets assume, they have really strict laws they absolutely need to follow, which I have yet to see in a game), they would need to rectify past mistakes and find new methods to keep the prisoner locked up each time. Otherwise, it would make no sense if the prisoner can simply use the same few methods to escape. Of course, doing this is simply not practical. So yes, having a kill-on-sight attitude towards the PC after the first few escapes is perfectly acceptable (unless the crime committed is very minor).