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.