Death is not a very fun way of losing a challenge. I think what we need to look at here is ways we can create a challenge situation where losing does not result in death but results in some other situation, preferably a situation that is also a challenge, but one more likely to be won by the people who would lose the first challenge.

Death is just one motivator that can be used in game’s design. It’s a state of failure and the player has to work to avoid it. You can call a failure state something else and wrap it up in a pretty bow but it’s the same concept at its core. The player knows they will be punished if they fail to succeed at some part of game. Yes, the type and extent of the punishment varies, but its punishment none the less. This motivates them to achieve the game’s goals while giving the player a sense of risk. Since, risk is often associated with fear & adrenaline (and hence excitement), well introduced punishment mechanics like death can make games more exciting while motivating the player to advance.

The other powerful motivator in games, reward, can motivate the player but seems to lack the element of risk. A game that doesn’t use death (or punishment in general) has to rely on the player seeking some sort of reward to motivate them to continue advancing. This reward could be something in game like completing a quest and getting gold or it could be personal satisfaction at completing a puzzle, etc. Getting a reward can lead to satisfaction and excitement (especially with random rewards like finding a rare item in a game) but still lacks risk and the feeling of danger about it.

I remember in my psychology classes when I was getting my undergraduate degree, they always said that the most powerful motivator is random reward because consistent reward quickly lessens the emotional impact of it and punishment is only a powerful motivator when the source of punishment is around (which isn’t realistic in the real world). However, in the game world, it is possible to have a consistent source of punishment that is always around. So, I would venture to say that consistent punishment combined with random reward is much more effective than simply having random reward.

Death is just one way of punishing someone for failing at the game. Some games try to take the sting out of the punishment, like the mentioned above Fable 2. Finding the right balance is important because if the cost of making a mistake is too high, people will just stop playing the game. However, if the cost of making a mistake is too low, you’ve effectively removed the motivator associated with the punishment.

Personally, I don’t like dying and having to repeat some section of a game. It lessens the impact, not because I “died”, but because I’m now going through the motions I just went through simply because I made a mistake. I’ll now defeat the challenge of the game but not because I played better as much as I simply know what’s going to happen.

Everyone’s tolerance for death and having to replay parts of the game is different so I don’t think there’s a right answer but I think in the perfect (unachievable) world the threat and risk of death would exist but the game would keep the player on the cusp of death, always teetering over the edge of the cliff but never letting them fall.

I think a lot of the beginning confusion starting here(at least when I started writing heh) is based on the idea that "death" is really just a specific form of defeat. In the reasoning of "death generic" that is surfacing, even climbing the wall with risk(falling)/reward(the top) can be said to be that the falling is equivalent to "death generic" in that you have to restart from the beginning.

So with that said, if we are actually talking of 'death specific'(as is commonly thought of), I find that it is hard to address the flaws and merits of (D)eath in games without also delving to a deeper level of abstraction in order to understand the foundations of what is happening when we chose death as a gameplay 'punishment'(as we can pretty much all agree that dieing really feels like a punishment for failure to surmount a given obstacle).

pun⋅ish⋅ment
   /ˈpʌnɪʃmənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [puhn-ish-muhnt]
–noun
1. the act of punishing.
2. the fact of being punished, as for an offense or fault.
3. a penalty inflicted for an offense, fault, etc.
4. severe handling or treatment.

3 & 4 are brutal when you consider that is what a death system can represent to a player.

What I mean to advance, is that in determining the other options to Death as we know it in game design, what are we really asking?

# Is it a question regarding the 'ultimate punishment' for failure in the game that we embody with the grim shadow of Death? What is another form of 'ultimate punishment' that can take its place, perhaps only in a new guise?

# What would keep immersion?(as per Spoonbender's valid point)

# And finally, the basics of death have usually been the forcing to REDO content. (PoP had you REDO in small increments, Super Mario Bros. where if it was your last life it was the title screen and quitting for a week because you were on the last stage...again) Is it the fact that content is so static that is the root cause of not wanting to REDO/Die, making it not the death mechanic at fault, but instead the actual gameplay?

Quote:Original post by Azenrain
# And finally, the basics of death have usually been the forcing to REDO content. (PoP had you REDO in small increments, Super Mario Bros. where if it was your last life it was the title screen and quitting for a week because you were on the last stage...again) Is it the fact that content is so static that is the root cause of not wanting to REDO/Die, making it not the death mechanic at fault, but instead the actual gameplay?

I think that's *part* of it but there's also the aspect that when this happens the player is no longer progressing (instead, it's quite the opposite) which can have a negative impact on the player's motivation to continue playing.

Think about if your save game became corrupt (Sort of a death by game bug instead of game mechanic). Even if the game is dynamic and starting a new game won't be the exact same experience, the loss of all of that progress may be such a blow that the player will just shelve the game and move on.

One of the things that I would really like to see with Death would be game altering.

For example if your playing Splinter Cell (I think the guys name is Sam) but if you die 3 times or fail 3 times trying to break into the office building through the vents on the roof. Each time you die the security strengthens that area you were in. Making it harder to get through. However the security is diminishing in another place which you have to find to resume your mission.

Or maybe your trying to save the princess playing mario... you die too many times then just let her die so he can go get another prisoner.

This way your not really getting punished, though you do have to back track and rethink your strategy, but it can also fit into the story.

Chris Tucker