I've thought about perma-death in an MMO. I can only see it working if the game is largely skill based, there's no point having sixty levels to grind if the players can lose everything. Something that could help would be if the player could acquire titles and wealth that are inherited, so you would have in game marriages and when you die you get to reroll as one of your kids.
A sort of Mount and Blade style feudalism simulator MMO thingy would be great in principle I think, but there are probably huge problems in practice.
Design Roundtable 1: The Death of Death
I think GeraldL raises an excellent point. Death should come in two forms. The compulsory punishment and the optional punishment. What I mean by that is, death/failure by itself is not punished too heavily, maybe a quick reset, but for perfectionists, it is still a major set back. Time trails is an obvious way of doing this, but you could also have it in other ways. For example, in Fable 2, dying didn't really matter, but it would leave you with a permanent scar. I don't think the optional punishment is severe enough in that example, as it was hardly hard to get someone to fall in love with you, but I think that is the basic principle.
-Thomas Kiley
-Thomas Kiley
I think it's going to come down to 1 thing with every single one of these articles and that is...
It doesn't matter what the mechanic is, how well it works in this or that game, but how it works in the game your looking at right now. In some games it is the best method, like say Mario, imagine Super Mario Bro.s without deaths. That game wouldn't be fun at all. Or you can take Fable II and add those types of death to it and that would be a worse design than what it is now. When they are used with the right game the mechanics are good, but when used with the wrong game the mechanics are bad. I can say this of just about every mechanic out there and no matter how many questions you ask about how good is this mechanic or how good is that mechanic it will all result in the singular answer of...it depends on the designer and the game. No specific mechanic alone is or will ever be good or bad.
It doesn't matter what the mechanic is, how well it works in this or that game, but how it works in the game your looking at right now. In some games it is the best method, like say Mario, imagine Super Mario Bro.s without deaths. That game wouldn't be fun at all. Or you can take Fable II and add those types of death to it and that would be a worse design than what it is now. When they are used with the right game the mechanics are good, but when used with the wrong game the mechanics are bad. I can say this of just about every mechanic out there and no matter how many questions you ask about how good is this mechanic or how good is that mechanic it will all result in the singular answer of...it depends on the designer and the game. No specific mechanic alone is or will ever be good or bad.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that its fun to play till near the end of a Nintendo Hard game like Super Mario and have to do the whole freaking game over again because you flubbed the last jump with your sweaty thumbs because you have been spending the last month, or even year, trying to beat the game?
No, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Yes you have a point in that some mechanics are appropriate in some games and not others, but some mechanics just don't ever produce fun results. Forcing a player to start the whole game over because of a failed challenge is just not good design. Maybe instant resurrection and a scar isn't the right mechanic for Mario, but restarting the whole game sure isn't it either.
No, I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Yes you have a point in that some mechanics are appropriate in some games and not others, but some mechanics just don't ever produce fun results. Forcing a player to start the whole game over because of a failed challenge is just not good design. Maybe instant resurrection and a scar isn't the right mechanic for Mario, but restarting the whole game sure isn't it either.
Re:
But games were like that and people used to dig it. Super Mario on Gameboy was fun because enemy moves were deterministic. So after a while, you could race pass stages because you know exactly where the monsters were. This was a situation where the game was fun because after repetition, the player develops a routine.
On one hand you have players that keep saying, "give the enemies better AI so that they don't do the same things over and over", on the other hand, there was the case where the game was fun because the monsters do exactly the same thing.
But games were like that and people used to dig it. Super Mario on Gameboy was fun because enemy moves were deterministic. So after a while, you could race pass stages because you know exactly where the monsters were. This was a situation where the game was fun because after repetition, the player develops a routine.
On one hand you have players that keep saying, "give the enemies better AI so that they don't do the same things over and over", on the other hand, there was the case where the game was fun because the monsters do exactly the same thing.
The thing is with Mario the area wasn't that long between save points via levels and really if you couldn't get past the current level without using up all your lives you probably weren't skilled enough to go on so it was best to go back to the beginning because then it allows you to play more variations while building you skill...
The hinging point you seem to be working on though is that if it takes a long time and then you are sent back to the beginning then you get frustrated. That's not true. I've never seen anyone get frustrated at mario type games for the death mechanic but rather themselves for their lack of skills. And further more we can counter that more by pointing to Battle Toads stage 2 and Metal Gear for NES. Metal Gear killed you every few steps and sends you back to the beginning..no long trek, just annoying. Likewise Battletoads stage 2 when in multiplayer pretty much garentees game over, but the more frustrating part is that you sit there and have to repeat something over and over again in a relative short amount of time.
Same mechanic used in pretty much the same way. 2 out of the 3 are horrible. Are you going to say its' the mechanic that made the games frustrating? No. It's how it was used in relation to other parts of the game.
Not to go too far off track but let's take another mechanic. The special move in fighters. You press a special combination of buttons and you do a move. Some games went super easy with 1 button specials like GG or SSB which aren't all that popular as serious while others like Mortal Kombat make you put in a string of several button pushes and d-pad whirls to even get a single special to come out which makes it irritating to play and as such is unpopular as either a casual or competitive game. But we have street fighter which makes you push more than a single button, but it's natural and most people can master it as if it were pretty quickly and on top of that allows for players to invent and use their own strings of button combos...this game is by far one of if not the top fighter.
It's the same mechanic, but the area around that mechanic are slightly different which make it good or bad. We can do this with every mechanic one can ever think of so the bottom line will always be implementation and not individual pieces.
The hinging point you seem to be working on though is that if it takes a long time and then you are sent back to the beginning then you get frustrated. That's not true. I've never seen anyone get frustrated at mario type games for the death mechanic but rather themselves for their lack of skills. And further more we can counter that more by pointing to Battle Toads stage 2 and Metal Gear for NES. Metal Gear killed you every few steps and sends you back to the beginning..no long trek, just annoying. Likewise Battletoads stage 2 when in multiplayer pretty much garentees game over, but the more frustrating part is that you sit there and have to repeat something over and over again in a relative short amount of time.
Same mechanic used in pretty much the same way. 2 out of the 3 are horrible. Are you going to say its' the mechanic that made the games frustrating? No. It's how it was used in relation to other parts of the game.
Not to go too far off track but let's take another mechanic. The special move in fighters. You press a special combination of buttons and you do a move. Some games went super easy with 1 button specials like GG or SSB which aren't all that popular as serious while others like Mortal Kombat make you put in a string of several button pushes and d-pad whirls to even get a single special to come out which makes it irritating to play and as such is unpopular as either a casual or competitive game. But we have street fighter which makes you push more than a single button, but it's natural and most people can master it as if it were pretty quickly and on top of that allows for players to invent and use their own strings of button combos...this game is by far one of if not the top fighter.
It's the same mechanic, but the area around that mechanic are slightly different which make it good or bad. We can do this with every mechanic one can ever think of so the bottom line will always be implementation and not individual pieces.
Just a few quick ideas that came up, what if instead of death one would halt progress for that level until it is reloaded, fail too many times within a level and the possibility to continue is diminished each time.
So for a simple mario clone, fail too many times within a level and the door to the next one or a bonus level is closed to you, only other possibility is reset and try again. It would lend itself to increasing the skills needed for higher levels easily and/or for bonus material.
(Level 1, 10 tries within, else door closed)
(level 10, 5 tries within, else door closed)
(level 20, 3 tries within, else door closed)
(level 30, 5 tries within, else door closed)
(level 40, 1 tries within, else door closed)
Next to this one could make it so that one has to master certain parts to unlock a new group. It would mean if a player gets stuck they can go to the part/level select and play within the range of parts open, but need to master a set (90%) before continuing. (inside mmo's this is done via gear level, or key items to unlock a new range, no permanent death, you're just stuck at a certain group.)
Or on death for for example platform games reverse the level and play through as a ghost to get to your body to reconnect at that point.
J. Rosenboom ing.
So for a simple mario clone, fail too many times within a level and the door to the next one or a bonus level is closed to you, only other possibility is reset and try again. It would lend itself to increasing the skills needed for higher levels easily and/or for bonus material.
(Level 1, 10 tries within, else door closed)
(level 10, 5 tries within, else door closed)
(level 20, 3 tries within, else door closed)
(level 30, 5 tries within, else door closed)
(level 40, 1 tries within, else door closed)
Next to this one could make it so that one has to master certain parts to unlock a new group. It would mean if a player gets stuck they can go to the part/level select and play within the range of parts open, but need to master a set (90%) before continuing. (inside mmo's this is done via gear level, or key items to unlock a new range, no permanent death, you're just stuck at a certain group.)
Or on death for for example platform games reverse the level and play through as a ghost to get to your body to reconnect at that point.
J. Rosenboom ing.
Note before hand: Level means physical height difference in this post. Not the levels you usually find in games as in measure of progression.
The previous post made me think about 2D platform games. Often in these games its preferable to stay has high in the level as possible (because due to gravity its usually easier to go down then up).
In this specific case you can use it to handle failing. Say you have three levels above each other. If you fail to make a jump or something like that, you fall down a level, but here you can continue. After a certain amount of time perhaps you have a possibility, if you are good enough, to climb back up again.
Make the rewards higher, in the higher levels, voilá.
Ofcourse the lowest level you cannot die, but there are no rewards, just many opportunities to go back up again.
I wouldn't appreciate this system, but many people seem to have a problem with dying. I think this is just one example of handling this, for a specific subset of games.
The previous post made me think about 2D platform games. Often in these games its preferable to stay has high in the level as possible (because due to gravity its usually easier to go down then up).
In this specific case you can use it to handle failing. Say you have three levels above each other. If you fail to make a jump or something like that, you fall down a level, but here you can continue. After a certain amount of time perhaps you have a possibility, if you are good enough, to climb back up again.
Make the rewards higher, in the higher levels, voilá.
Ofcourse the lowest level you cannot die, but there are no rewards, just many opportunities to go back up again.
I wouldn't appreciate this system, but many people seem to have a problem with dying. I think this is just one example of handling this, for a specific subset of games.
A couple people have mentioned load times as the real punishment, not the actual death mechanic itself.
Perhaps we are looking at the wrong issue. As games become more complex and longer to load, the more time we spend waiting around not playing the game we purchased.
Do games with little to no load times naturally engage the player more easily?
Perhaps we are looking at the wrong issue. As games become more complex and longer to load, the more time we spend waiting around not playing the game we purchased.
Do games with little to no load times naturally engage the player more easily?
Of course. A forced break from the game by a load screen is very disengaging. Seamless non-stop game play is very engaging. So optimally, however death is handled, it should not stop the player from playing the game. After-all, as designers, do we really want to tell the player they can't play the game as punishment for even a minute for failing a challenge?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
