What if all the characters died at the end of the game? Including you. This would happen in every possible ending except perhaps for an easter egg. The point of the game would not be to survive, but to do the most good before you died. Do you guys think this is a sick idea or a cool one? How would you keep the player from feeling cheated? If you knew there was an easter egg that would enable your + others survival, would you feel morally obligated to do that? (No Hamlet jokes!)

This is definitely a cool idea, but we have to really look at what this includes. In a linear story such as books, movies, plays, etc. when the main character(s) die there is usually the "greater good" that is accomplished.

Like the protagonist is a martyr (Braveheart or Joan of Arc). The problem is that in games (our beloved non-linear medium), the protagonist may not accomplish this "greater good" so the player may very well feel cheated.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Ever see the movie Fallen?


***** SPOILER WARNING****
*
*
*
*
*

If you haven''t, it basically pits a man against an evil, fallen angel who can possess whatever body he touches. The end is brilliant in the way that the hero tries to kill the angel, by being the only one alive that the angel can jump into, and then poisoning himself.

I''ve thought that this would work as a game, except the goal would be to kill the angel by having him possess you. Most of the game would be about manipulating social relationships and getting into position to be possessed. Then you''d "win" by suiciding.




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

quote:Original post by Nazrix

This is definitely a cool idea, but we have to really look at what this includes. In a linear story such as books, movies, plays, etc. when the main character(s) die there is usually the "greater good" that is accomplished.

Like the protagonist is a martyr (Braveheart or Joan of Arc). The problem is that in games (our beloved non-linear medium), the protagonist may not accomplish this "greater good" so the player may very well feel cheated.

Actually, wouldn''t this be a good thing? Then you''d replay for a more satisfactory ending, right? After all, any suboptimal ending could be viewed much the same way as a low score.

You''d need to be certain to tell the player that his result was suboptimal, though. So if the greater good isn''t accomplished, you need to somehow say this ("Though your struggles are remembered in legend and song, sadly, your people could not break free...")

(Or did I miss your point?)




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

This is actually the same arguement in books and film. Same pros and cons. Some people hate it because it eliminates sequels. Frankly, that''s why I like it... (WARNING, WARNING: Personal Opinion Expressed. Commence flaming of Landfish)

Anyway. What I consider to be some of the best recent games do this already. I won''t list them here, because then you''ll know, and I''d rather not spoil it. It all comes down to the story you want to tell.

Wav, yeah that is a good point. I think that would work actually.

What if the story was involving enough to where the player could judge for themselves how useful their death was. I just think that having to overtly explain a story to the observer kind of cheapens it.

...but you have a good point there, Wav.


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Maybe, when they die, they get to see what changes in the world and to what end. They get to ''come back'' to the game after so much time of being dead (reincarnation) and see what kind of adverse affects they have had. They can judge how well they have acted by the changes in the game, and they can make decisions on how to accomplish their ultimate goal based on previous mistakes.

Oh yeah... I think instead of ''pointful death'' it should be ''purposeful death''. Makes look good grammar real nice and spelin mutch beter.

-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
          

I was just thinking that the one thing that pisses me off when the hero dies is when you jsut dont see it coming, and there was no reason for it. In a game, this would be exactly the same. So the player would really have to understand that whatever he does, he's gonna die. Make that quite clear. In Braveheart, everybody knows (ok, maybe not everybody :
##SPOILER##)
.
.
.
that he dies at the end. The whole thing about the movie is how he dies, bravely, and most importantly, free. Wallace basically knows that if he get caught he dies, so all he does is try to make the best he can for the limited time he has... maybe saving his life if he had been lucky. But I guess you will agree this wouldnt have been the same thing anymore. Sometimes there is no better ending that a purposeful death.

Also if the hero is meant to die, it would be nice to set the context to reflect that. Have a bit of romantism and drama, tons of dialog and plot twist, rather than a puzzle or action based game, if you know what I am saying.
For instance, the french book "Mme Bovary" by Flaubert (hope I remember that correctly) is utterly romantic, with the poor woman being bored to death, trying to find a purpose in life, and finally suiciding, which is the best thing a romantic person could do. Basically, fromn the beginning, you know that it's gonna end badly, and the whole book is about the struggle to find a purpose in life, it's like watching sisyphus push his rock endlessly.

Oh, and one last, perfect example : UBIK, by Philip K. Dick
"I am alive and you are dead". I think they made a game of it already, but I am not sure how well it went.

anyway, what do you think ?

youpla :-P

Edited by - ahw on November 11, 2000 10:57:11 AM

Good point, ahw. That kind of goes along w/ my point that the story should make it very clear that the player''s death was pointful without being too overt about it...


"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

Otherwise you could make the games so that NOBODY DIES and basically you just go around wounding everyone and taking them prisoner... that way, if the player DOES ''die'', they are really just taken prisoner and the story continues thusly.

Good point though ahw... Good movie that though, pity there aren''t many other dragon movies around... I yearn to see more of my kind

-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