I think this is pretty essential:

Quote:Original post by Kest
One problem is that when the player has been given the capacity to change events, it's difficult for them to accept that this one event, regardless of its negative impact, is unchangeable because the designer says so.

Once it's an unchangeable event, the player shouldn't feel he's being punished. If you've invested a lot of time building and equipping a character, it doesn't feel fair if that character is taken away from you for "no apparent reason" (that is, you're not being punished for anything you did in the game, you've just reached the point in the game where that character dies).

If it's a linear path of rewards and punishments, I think it might be easier to pull off. If in some Zelda game, progressing through the story, the player has to get a wooden sword, then a proper sword and then some fancy hat, then you might be able to get away with removing the sword and hat at some later point in the story. The player is "just" progressing through the story, which causes those four things to happen in that order. If you additionally set his health back to 3 hearts, while he's been collecting a lot of secret heart-pieces and such, and also removes that golden sword he got from that optional cave, you're suddenly rendering a lot of previous effort useless.

The same would apply to character deaths. If at this point in the game, you have this character with just those stats, it might work out taking it away (for now ignoring the chance of the player having built his own character in a certain way because that goes really well with the soon-to-be-dead one and such). If it's one you can invest a lot of "additional" time in, building and hunting down equipment for, I don't think it will work out that good.

Edit: And on that note, character deaths that can be avoided, but takes the story in some other direction, sounds rather interesting.

Quote:Original post by KestThe OP used Aeris as an example. I assume everyone that played Final Fantasy VII suffered in this way, in addition to any possible emotional distress. The emotion is great for a story, but slapping around the player's previous efforts is very bad for a game. So in this case, main character death is different from most story telling elements, because it is a game.

To an extent Final Fantasy VII's gameplay elements mitigated this problem.

I think its worth noting two in particular that stood out to me.

First, most of your character advancement isn't character specific. Most of your character's power is tied to Weapons and Materia, which can be bought and the latter advances on its own.

Second, the game establishes very early on that characters will leave and join your party to help push the story along. Aeris actually leaves your party about an hour of gameplay before she dies. So for when you lose her for good, you've already been training up a replacement for an hour.


The trick is to design the gameplay so that the player can't become entirely dependent on the character. I suspect that the main problem with discussions such as these is that people always focus in on RPGs, when this kind of plot point actually works best in games without character stats.

As to the original post, I think it could work as long as people don't just die off one by one. For example, if you had ten people, killing one person, then another, then six at once, then waiting a while to kill the last person would work better than just killing one person off ten times in a row. Killing people off regularly would definitely numb the player to it. Better to shock him with the sudden loss of almost everyone, give him a little bit of hope that one character will survive (perhaps even giving him a choice of who that last person is), then dashing that hope will result in the greatest reaction.

Quote:Original post by Gnarf
I think this is pretty essential:

Quote:Original post by Kest
One problem is that when the player has been given the capacity to change events, it's difficult for them to accept that this one event, regardless of its negative impact, is unchangeable because the designer says so.

Once it's an unchangeable event, the player shouldn't feel he's being punished.

That's not the point. The point was about forcing story elements onto the player by removing control. It's a video game, so control is extremely important. If it were just a book or movie, then there would be no control to speak of. Some developers don't seem to acknowledge this difference.

Final Fantasy VII gave the player absolute authority over Aeris' development and well-being. Right up until they zapped her with the story.

Quote:Original post by Galliard
Aeris actually leaves your party about an hour of gameplay before she dies. So for when you lose her for good, you've already been training up a replacement for an hour.

Whether she leaves or dies, the gameplay effect is the same. Leaving then dying isn't applying some type of transition effect. She's either totally lost, or she isn't.

Quote:Original post by KestFinal Fantasy VII gave the player absolute authority over Aeris' development and well-being. Right up until they zapped her with the story.

My entire point was that this isn't the case.

The game establishes very early that Cloud is the only character that you have absolute control over (though a plot twist shows this to not necessarily be the case). Characters come and go depending on their decisions, not the player's.


Now, you might not like this kind of gameplay, and that's a fair point. But the game is structured such that losing Aeris is, gameplay wise, no different than anything else that's been happening for the last 20 hours. It's more akin to not being able to use Luigi in the last level of Super Mario Bros. 2 than having your Hardcore character die in Diablo 2.

Quote:Original post by Galliard

Quote:Original post by Kest
Final Fantasy VII gave the player absolute authority over Aeris' development and well-being. Right up until they zapped her with the story.

My entire point was that this isn't the case.

Okay. Then you're wrong.

Quote:The game establishes very early that Cloud is the only character that you have absolute control over (though a plot twist shows this to not necessarily be the case).

The player controls every character in the party during a battle. When one dies, it's often because of mistakes the player made. Upon death, the player can use an item to revive them. They have absolute control over life and death for every character in the party. Right up until the story decides to take one death out of their hands.

Quote:Characters come and go depending on their decisions, not the player's.

I can't remember exact details about each character. But if any did this, then none of them are any better or worse than the Aeris situation. It all adds up to overriding gameplay elements with story elements, which is just not cool in my book. The story should take you for a ride, but it should never autopilot.

Quote:Original post by Kest
The player controls every character in the party during a battle. When one dies, it's often because of mistakes the player made. Upon death, the player can use an item to revive them. They have absolute control over life and death for every character in the party. Right up until the story decides to take one death out of their hands.

Quote:Characters come and go depending on their decisions, not the player's.

I can't remember exact details about each character. But if any did this, then none of them are any better or worse than the Aeris situation. It all adds up to overriding gameplay elements with story elements, which is just not cool in my book. The story should take you for a ride, but it should never autopilot.

Example: You reach Red XIII's hometown and he leaves the party. Ten minutes later he finds out he needs your help, so he forces himself into your party (i.e. you have to use him and Cloud, so you only get to pick your third character).


And it's perfectly within your rights to not like this. But considering that people are still pondering how to create exactly the same situation suggests that those feelings aren't universal. I consider writing it off as "bad gameplay" and not trying to figure out why it worked to the extent that it did is a mistake.

(As a side note, FFVII is actually BETTER in this regard than any of FFIV through FFIX.)

To risk a terrible example, I despise the Pirates of the Carribean movies. I know why I despise them, but they're obviously successful and very much loved. My "bad pacing" and "filler" is another person's "awesomely long fight scene" and "hilarious situations".

Quote:Original post by Galliard
Example: You reach Red XIII's hometown and he leaves the party. Ten minutes later he finds out he needs your help, so he forces himself into your party (i.e. you have to use him and Cloud, so you only get to pick your third character).

I believe the game should have let you know which characters were going to be absolutely under your control. Either that, or give you the ability to fight singlehandedly and not rely on anyone else. Even games that don't give you control over party members rarely ever kidnap them from your party. It's not cool.

Quote:And it's perfectly within your rights to not like this. But considering that people are still pondering how to create exactly the same situation suggests that those feelings aren't universal.

I would assume most players that get into the gameplay aspects of games do not like having the story sideswipe them, override gaming rules, and remove those gameplay aspects that they've been working toward, all outside of the normal realm of gameplay interaction. It might work for the story. And it might work for the game in general. But it will never be anything other than detrimental to gameplay.

Quote:I consider writing it off as "bad gameplay" and not trying to figure out why it worked to the extent that it did is a mistake.

It's not bad gameplay. It isn't gameplay at all. Bottom line, it's not interactive. And it's hurting what is.

Quote:(As a side note, FFVII is actually BETTER in this regard than any of FFIV through FFIX.)

And FFVI is better than FFVII, and FFV is better than FFVI. In that regard. It seems like each addition leans more and more toward a movie, and less and less toward a game.

Quote:To risk a terrible example, I despise the Pirates of the Carribean movies. I know why I despise them, but they're obviously successful and very much loved. My "bad pacing" and "filler" is another person's "awesomely long fight scene" and "hilarious situations".

I'm not saying there aren't players out there that might enjoy Final Fantasy VII+ immensely. But most are probably pre-teens or soap opera addicts.