Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Naked Ninja fails his saving throw. Avoids death.

Fez

Erudite
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,954
In Bioshock you reappear in the nearest reincarnation tank. You can use it to rush blindly at enemies and just constantly rush at them from the nearby tank each time you die. Ruins the tension.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Fez said:
In Bioshock you reappear in the nearest reincarnation tank. You can use it to rush blindly at enemies and just constantly rush at them from the nearby tank each time you die. Ruins the tension.

Yet in System Shock 2 the reincarnation tanks were done brilliantly. Very minor cost each time, but enough to stop you from spam-rushing.
 

Dire Roach

Prophet
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
1,592
Location
Machete-Knight Academy
How about Pirates! as an example of a good game where your character never dies? There are no final "you lose" moments in the game either, with the exception of being forced to retire due to old age making every task impossibly hard. When you retire, you are given a score depending on what you managed to accomplish during your life as a pirate, and gives you a different ending depending on your score. It's about how well or how poorly you performed instead of simply winning or losing.

Another example could be P&P RPGs, where the general goal is to experience a great story (though perhaps 4th Ed. D&D would beg to differ with the Epic Destiny crap). It's possible to have a lot of fun and end up with a very satisfying experience after playing a session despite the fact that your character died, and it's also possible to have a very boring experience even if your character was wildly successful.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
I actually made an objection to the DM because my character DIDN'T die when it was so dramatically perfect for him to.
 

Sodomy

Scholar
Joined
Jun 25, 2007
Messages
365
You can't die in PS:T? Am I the only person who remembers the Fortress of Regrets? Or becoming the silent king? Or getting stoned by Marissa?

A much more accurate statement would be "you can't be killed by combat for a majority of the game."
 

xuerebx

Erudite
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
1,001
Sodomy said:
You can't die in PS:T? Am I the only person who remembers the Fortress of Regrets? Or becoming the silent king? Or getting stoned by Marissa?

A much more accurate statement would be "you can't be killed by combat for a majority of the game."

This.
 

Helton

Arcane
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
6,789
Location
Starbase Delta
Sodomy said:
You can't die in PS:T? Am I the only person who remembers the Fortress of Regrets? Or becoming the silent king? Or getting stoned by Marissa?

A much more accurate statement would be "you can't be killed by combat for a majority of the game."

Don't be so anal.
 
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
7,715
Helton said:
Sodomy said:
You can't die in PS:T? Am I the only person who remembers the Fortress of Regrets? Or becoming the silent king? Or getting stoned by Marissa?

A much more accurate statement would be "you can't be killed by combat for a majority of the game."

Don't be so anal.
lawl.
 

St. Toxic

Arcane
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,098
Location
Yemen / India
Naked Ninja said:
Exactly. Failure doesn't have to be death, it can simply be not achieving a goal to accomplish something.

So, what's the angle here? Haven't we been using these "failed objectives" as game-killers for ages already? Wouldn't it be alot more original to have the game continue even after every hope is lost and everything is fucked, just because my character hasn't yet recieved that lethal bullet to the brain with his name on it? Instead of, y'know, "You couldn't save your village. GAME OVER!" which, in a sense, is the same thing as "You didn't keep an eye on your HP. GAME OVER" only involving npc's that I potentially don't give a shit about?

Typically, a well constructed CRPG is full of failures, just as it is full of the sweet smell of success; big failures, little ones -- you name it. Death is the ultimate failure, in combat, with wounded retreats being the number 2 alongside with losing squad members, and substantial loss of hp and equipment post successful mission is number 3. Removing death, we're basically fucking combat in the ass, but that's ok; we can always scrap combat, it doesn't have to be in to make a game complete -- but don't expect people taking the combat situation seriously if the game guarantees them that they can't die, and pinning the player with time limits or forcing the player to protect certain units in fear of the GAME OVER screen is pretty much bad form, and doesn't save it, and, most of all, can't replace death.

Respawns and the like are out for the count too, as far as I'm concerned, because whatever the penalty is, short of a "start all over again from the top" respawn (which in a sense is just an autosave function gone rogue) the penalty won't inspire the same respect or fear in a player as does perma-death. And it's not the vanity deal of you being a sub-par player that can't get through one lousy game with your character intact, that makes people try to avoid death, because if it is we're talking a pretty lousy, unimmersive game (What, is the "High score" screen mocking you or something?). It is, or at least should be, that you are attached to your character, and would rather not see him riddled with bullets and pissing blood, since he is an extension of you in that particular gameworld, meaning it's your virtual ass out there and you don't want it bleeding and shitting itself. :vietnam:

In essence, my opinion is that failure should have an appropriate penalty, in the same sense that success should have appropriate rewards for the player. I'm not saying that it should all balance out evenly, because being victorious can't always mean a big sack of gold in your lap and foxy chicks dropping out of the sky, just that actions and reactions should make some sense. With that said, if you can't hold your own in a firefight, you'll get hurt; get hurt enough and you'll die, no question about that. Can't disarm a bomb, you probably shouldn't do that; you'll blow yourself to shit, and that means death. Can't climb a wall, you'll fall and break your neck. Can't sneak past some heavily armed dude, he'll spot you and you'll be deep in shit. Makes sense to me.

Can't keep your village from harm, they'll get in harms way, and while that's all sad and tragic bu-hu, it shouldn't kill the game; it shouldn't kill you. Can't save the president, well that's too bad, but it's no basis for ending the game. Your wife gets killed, that doesn't have to mean you blow your own brains out. That's just limiting the player's options; it's one of those major weaknesses that linear games suffer from. The "Failed objective = instadeath" routine, that just corners the player and makes him fight for something he may or may not care about, just so he can continue playing the game. In reality, it's probably the easiest way to create a more dynamic storyline, which makes me wonder why no one ever does it.

Age old scenario: we have bad dudes, we have good dudes who are you friends. You fail, where you should have succeeded, in saving your friendly good dudes, and the game ends. Had you succeeded you would have gone after the bad dudes and fucked them over good, for going after your chums. Why not do the same after you failed? Turn it into a revenge plot instead, where the slaughter of your buddies drives you to complete the mission even after it's all over? No real hassle in getting that to work is there?

And those games where we have bad guys and civilians (hardly the rpg scene, but still) where you're way out of line if you start popping civvies, even when you're there on your own and no one is monitoring your actions, and you get the good ol' GAME OVER when you friendly-fire on more than 4 people. Why? Why not just chalk it up to the bad guys? They don't give a shit, and they're there, firing on full auto? Who would ever know that I, Sergeant Whatever, unloaded on a group of women and children just for the funzies? I mean, shit, they did it in OFP; I could kill civilians all day, unless another trooper saw me doing it, and then they'd take me down. Makes sense.

The short version: A game that includes even a hint of combat should have no game-killer penalty for absolute failure other than death. A game without combat, on the other hand, can go any way it wants in punishing the player for failure, if punishment is even seen as necessary. There is absolutely nothing original or noteworthy about immortality, as there are plenty of games that've gone down that route, and unless there is any specific and original game-driving ideas about implentation, there is no real reason to explore that domain any further.
 

ushdugery

Scholar
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
371
I think the real issue is rather than making dieing impossible stop combat from being the only real solid game mechanic,
branch out in different ways. like it was said before don't make failures ultimate failures, make them different paths with
different outcomes, allow people more opportunities to retreat from combat. It's not like that would be entirely
unrealistic it will still give them a real ingame cost ie in healing money or time.
 

St. Toxic

Arcane
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,098
Location
Yemen / India
ushdugery said:
I think the real issue is rather than making dieing impossible stop combat from being the only real solid game mechanic

Has nothing to do with the proposed "immortality" suggestion, as far as I can see. Designing the game to take the weight off of combat is fine, and certainly a worthwhile goal. In fact, I think making combat more fatal would actually serve that purpose really well.
 

oscar

Arcane
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
8,036
Location
NZ
What's this about KotoR's death mechanic? What was strange about it?
 

ushdugery

Scholar
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
371
St. Toxic said:
ushdugery said:
I think the real issue is rather than making dieing impossible stop combat from being the only real solid game mechanic

Has nothing to do with the proposed "immortality" suggestion, as far as I can see. Designing the game to take the weight off of combat is fine, and certainly a worthwhile goal. In fact, I think making combat more fatal would actually serve that purpose really well.
Yes but taking the focus off combat allows the player to avoid combat deaths by not partaking in them and still having a full game, and since most games non combat gameplay seems glued together ad hoc (with certain exclusions) it seems silly to try and add more depth to the already fleshy game mechanic from most games (ie combat) when a no death style failures game could already be had by designing and inputting proper game play systems into the non-combat part of the game that don't just involve speech tree's and excrutiatingly simple crafting systems.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
oscarisaiah said:
What's this about KotoR's death mechanic? What was strange about it?
Some people find it making the game too easy.

To me, it's better to have a game without perma-death than have it with that and the cardinal sin of Resurrection spells (which would completely fuck any sense out of any setting). Permanent death is harder to get working properly than just having a "KO" mechanic.
 

DarkUnderlord

Professional Throne Sitter
Staff Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2002
Messages
28,343
re: Topic. I don't get why "OH NOES death" has become such a catch-cry. What exactly is wrong with re-loading other than the fact games these days aren't properly optimised and so take five minutes to load (I can remember loading instantly in Doom 2 plenty of times and not feeling any sort of "un-fun" feelings)?

The Rambling Sage said:
That doesn't mean that "death" is wrong as an element by itself. There are situations that call for "death" as the result of failure, just as there are situations that call for the lose of social standing, future oportunities, wealth, or allies. And just like there are situations that only call for long standing consequences (to have certain endings or threads forbidden, for an example) that is up to the player to consider either a failure or a success.
This. Why avoid death altogether? The only way to do so is to remove combat or make a non-combat RPG (unless PS:T angle). You failed the quest? So lose some fucking social standing or miss out on the prize. If you fail combat though, I do expect you to die. Otherwise you get the lameness like Mount & Blade where everyone just "knocks you unconscious", which feels both forced and lame.

Cloaked Figure said:
btw DU when the fuck are you going to fix the gallery at T-A? i need some fan art pics.
I've only been informed of its breakiness when I came back today. Working on it...
 

Kraszu

Prophet
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,253
Location
Poland
Vaarna_Aarne said:
Some people find it making the game too easy.

Actually the game was so easy that many people didn't even know about death mechanics.

St. Toxic said:
Respawns and the like are out for the count too, as far as I'm concerned, because whatever the penalty is, short of a "start all over again from the top" respawn (which in a sense is just an autosave function gone rogue) the penalty won't inspire the same respect or fear in a player as does perma-death.

Well if the game would have only save at quiting, and there would be real consequences to death then peaple could have more fear for death. Now you just use loads that breaks the game a little, at least to me, whit good resurrection system you could have challenge, and sense of continuation, also you would not be able to risk life stupidly, or just choose diferent dialogue option. You could be forced then to play safe, and do more planing.

I am thinking about factions that compete strategy style, they have they own goals (not necessery in war whit each other), they want to recruit new peaple but resurrecting cost allot (the better lvl the more) so if you are worth less then you cost then you could be cut off, maybe pay a penalty, or just have an ability to pay for resurrecting service. Let say that you are hight in ranks and you command some team, is it worth to risk of taking over some small mine or not? You could be forced to do some planing whit only save at quilting.
 

Rhombus

Liturgist
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
182
Location
In my head.
Only save at quitting sucks when games keep crashing at the rate they tend to do nowadays... In my recent replay of Gothic 3 I saved mostly to not loose to much progress when the game would crash, even with the community patch... And loading times are horrific, so I'd do anything to not have to reload anyways...

Kraszu said:
Vaarna_Aarne said:
Some people find it making the game too easy.

Actually the game was so easy that many people didn't even know about death mechanics.

You couldn't die in Kotor?... :?
 

Claw

Erudite
Patron
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
3,777
Location
The center of my world.
Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Not that I want to get involved in the discussion, but I think more games should offer more significant conditions between "alive and well" and "stone cold dead."

I find games where being injured matters and where health doesn't go up and down like an elevator far more interesting.
Instead, many games offer no penalty for anything short of being dead, which is a no-brainer reload, and on top of it add tons of health kits and instant recovery around every corner, which is just boring.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom