If everything in a story-based game was really there for a reason, wouldn't it be interesting if the player's character never died. INstead the story would just be advanced. For instance, if the player were to try and steal an NPC's belongings and gets caught. Then the NPC would start fighting w/ the player. Then the player gets hurt badly enough to collapse. The guards drag the player into jail or throw the player outside the town and banish him. The player then has to deal with these situations and mend his wounds when he comes to or whatever else. There still is a consequence to the player's theft, but just not an ending to the game. The point is, instead of death the story would change because of the player's actions. The only time player death would occur is when it is a profound part of the story. How damn interesting is death (unless it does have a greater significance like being a martyr or something)? The player just either reloads a saved game or restarts, but if in place of death, a major change in the flow of the game's plot happens it's much more interesting. ""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator Nazrix, the yet-to-be-determined-cool half-liberitarian half-not-nihilistic-anymore-but-plain-confused messiah Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself. Edited by - Nazrix on 10/19/00 5:07:25 PM

I like this idea, and would love to see an alternative to repeat and die/reload gameplay. The one advantage death does give you, though, is that visceral, motivating fear that many other types of loss can''t match. The fear you have of falling as you navigate a canyon, or fight a horde of monsters, or hear the collapse of a building around you; these are all the fear of death.

You will run into a problem in terms of realism in some situations. Realistically, the dragon or serial killer or whatever you''re facing likely would not keep you alive, and so the fear of facing your foe would probably be somewhat diminished.

But those issues aside, I think it''s an awesome approach. I think if you structure the emotional and motivational meaning of your world correctly, there are many worse than dying that don''t necessarily end the game.

Just a last minute thought, though: Death also lets you know when you''ve failed, so you''ll have to look at what failure means in the game. What I mean is that death puts you out of your misery, gets it over with so you can do better. Just a thought

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote:Original post by Wavinator

I like this idea, and would love to see an alternative to repeat and die/reload gameplay. The one advantage death does give you, though, is that visceral, motivating fear that many other types of loss can''t match. The fear you have of falling as you navigate a canyon, or fight a horde of monsters, or hear the collapse of a building around you; these are all the fear of death.

Yes, in real life, death is frighteing because you know it''s the real end but you don''t know what is on the other side of death. Often in games it just pisses you off...You know what''s on the other side. And you know you''ll have to repeat what you did before now. (although you are right it lets you know when you fail)

quote:
You will run into a problem in terms of realism in some situations. Realistically, the dragon or serial killer or whatever you''re facing likely would not keep you alive, and so the fear of facing your foe would probably be somewhat diminished.

Yes, I meant to mention that. It would depend on the creature or reason you died.

quote:
so you''ll have to look at what failure means in the game

Agreed.





""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

You should try and eliminate death in games altogether and make the setbacks of death remove any stats (if stats you have) or skills (if they be what you have) that would cause a lot of pain. Then people would fear death rather than endure it. In Diablo II I would always use thorns to remove that nasty boss bitch at the end of the second act (always on multiplayer, because he was far too hard then). I died so much, and although I lost experience, I didn''t really care... Make death something that people wouldn''t endure

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote:Original post by dwarfsoft

You should try and eliminate death in games altogether and make the setbacks of death remove any stats (if stats you have) or skills (if they be what you have) that would cause a lot of pain. Then people would fear death rather than endure it. In Diablo II I would always use thorns to remove that nasty boss bitch at the end of the second act (always on multiplayer, because he was far too hard then). I died so much, and although I lost experience, I didn't really care... Make death something that people wouldn't endure

Well, what I'm thinking is if the game is a heavily story-based game, death just gets in the way of a potentially interesting turn in the story (assuming the story is fairlt divergent). Instead of making it inconvenient to the player to get his ass kicked in a battle, make it an interesting turn in the story.




""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.



Edited by - Nazrix on October 19, 2000 7:51:07 PM

Hmmm, As long as they realise that death is a hardship that they wish to avoid, but can continue on if they do die then I think it is acceptable. I would just like to see it more difficult after death than before, because otherwise people act out of character and throw themselves to a certain death.

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote:Original post by dwarfsoft

Hmmm, As long as they realise that death is a hardship that they wish to avoid, but can continue on if they do die then I think it is acceptable

Either I am really confused, or I''ve been misleading in my statements. I''m not talking about continuing after death, I''m talking about death being rare. Instead, there will be in-game consequences like the player being captured or banished or something of that nature. There wouldn''t be death, but there would be plot-based negative consequences.





""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

BTW, how do you like my dwarsoft color scheme?



""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Ah, Now I understand why we were at odds when we need not be. You are absolutely correct, I must be tired .

PS. I like the colour change in your sig

-Chris Bennett of Dwarfsoft - Site:"The Philosophers' Stone of Programming Alchemy" - IOL
The future of RPGs - Thanks to all the goblins over in our little Game Design Corner niche
          

quote:Original post by dwarfsoft

Ah, Now I understand why we were at odds when we need not be. You are absolutely correct, I must be tired .

I was trying to figure out what the hell you were talking about

quote:
PS. I like the colour change in your sig

I do too





""You see... I'm not crazy... you see?!? Nazrix believes me!" --Wavinator

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.


Edited by - Nazrix on October 19, 2000 8:02:43 PM