Death

[aamesxdavid]

I thought I would open up a little design discussion here, after going through a few games that have extremely varying ways of dealing with death. This can really make or break the replayability of a game, or I suppose even the playability.

..also, I'm slightly avoiding work on a certain band that I really don't like.

So let's give a little background here. The ability to die is necessary in most games - it's what you're supposed to avoid. It's a way to provide a challenge. Get to this goal, do this thing, without dying. Death is the punishment for not doing something properly (or for being gay in a Christian game.. ehm, anyway).

But when does this idea become more of a nuisance and less of a motivation? When does it stop being a design philosophy and start being a way to avoid having one? I'll show you what I mean with a few examples of games I've played recently.

Fable 2: Peter Molyneux being the big teddy bear he is, doesn't want anyone to die. In Fable 2, you just get "knocked out", and a few seconds later, burst back into action, losing only the bit of experience that you hadn't collected from your downed enemies. Your character also gets a scar, which particularly if you're playing an evil character, could be a good thing.
The good: Personally, I commend this decision. It's something different. In a developer interview, they mentioned that they didn't want to force you to totally replay a section you died in, "because you're obviously having some difficulty with it". Most importantly, this means never going over and over a boss fight or puzzle that has some kind of unique obscure strategy, and being bored with it by the time you're able to beat it. This also allows for a greater possibility of choice in your character, which I'll get into a bit later.
The bad: I've heard it takes the challenge away, and similar things to that effect. While I see the point there, I don't really see a game punishing you for screwing up being such a great thing. Sure, it can take away one of your set number of lives, it can force you to replay that section, it can make you start from your last save, but there have been many many times I have been frustrated with games that do that. And not once in Fable 2 did I ever get frustrated; it just lets you play it seamlessly, and do as you please. When did this start being bad design.
Final note: Counting lives and restarting levels is design from when it used to mean another quarter or two being put towards the game by a very devoted child. Since the days of home consoles, it's just stupid. When you pay $60 for a game, you should be well within your rights to play and enjoy the whole game, without sticking you over and over in a section that you're dying in. Let's face it, if one section of a game has you dying repeatedly, chances are you don't like that part. Why is it then that that's the part of the game you're forced to play the most? Games spend so much time trying to be challenging that they forget to be fun. Which leads me perfectly into my next example.

Lord of the Rings: Conquest: As a review on these forums pointed out, fail one part of a level, and you start the whole thing over. Basically, each area consists of about 4-5 smaller battles, each with a particular objective (generally keeping orcs and the like from taking over your area). With scripted cutscenes, and entire level could be about 30+ minutes. The last battle in each one is the toughest, naturally, but that means you'll be the farthest in when you're most likely to die, so you'll have to play the entire level over every time. This is not good design, it's a good way to sell game controllers to replace all the ones snapped during play. Add that to the fact that things like flying dragons (I don't remember if they had specific names), can swoop down and take out even your main heroes in one hit, and you'll be getting some intense deja vu trying to get to the end of this game. But let's try to be fair here.
The good: Well for all the critics of Fable 2's system, it keeps it challenging. You're given a certain number of lives per battle, and you can't fuck it up, or you're back to square one.
The bad: Well, just about everything else, of course. Playing the same battles over and over again just to get back to the one hard one you repeatedly die at, listening to the same voice overs, watching the same cutscenes.. it gets really old. You'll either be bored, frustrated, or both at some point.
Final note: Conquest gives the impression that Pandemic somehow found a way to turn your console/PC into an arcade machine, getting coins for every death of a player. Their unquestionable adherence to old design philosophies ruins an otherwise very fun game. It also affects the illusion of choice the game gives you, which I'll get over with here. You can choose your class, which is a wonderful idea in theory. In practice, you have to choose what the game wants you to choose, or you'll be playing that section quite a bit. Hell, even if you do choose correctly, it's far from a guarantee of victory. Now, even this could be overlooked if the punishment for death wasn't so severe. Fine, make certain sections easier with a particular class. But impossible? Why bother giving the option? The truth is, through much of Conquest, your class is chosen for you - you're just not told about it. This brings me to the final example: the middle ground.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine: I'm using this as an example for two reasons: it's the most recent game that uses this design, and it's the best game of those by a long shot. In fact I've been meaning to post a review here. Wolverine uses a checkpoint system. Far from that of Conquest, these checkpoints are about a 5-minute run from one another. Add that to the fact that it's already pretty difficult to die (minus one section near the beginning) with mutant healing ability being what it is, and you have a far less frustrating game.
The good: You're never playing large sections of the game over again, but the challenge of getting past a certain area is still there.
The bad: You do still play sections over, and for certain puzzle sections that you can die in this causes a little bit of trial-and-error frustration, but it's minimal.
Final note: While not a groundbreaking strategy, Wolverine doesn't commit any unforgivable sins for its handling of death. It's effectively the first logical step from arcade to home gaming. Meaning it's better, but could certainly be improved with some more thought on its design.

Wow, this came out even longer than I thought. If you read the whole thing, feel free to PM me with your address so I can send you a medal. Anyway, this was meant to spark discussion, so whether you read the whole thing or not, what are your thoughts on dealing with death in games? Should we still be counting lives and starting levels over, or is there a better way?

[gordon]

I think it would depend on the individual game and the style of that particular game. Different genres deal with things in different ways because it works well there (for example the 'knocked out' idea wouldn't work in a final fantasy style rpg). I do often get frustrated and never finish games because of the annoyance of dying and having to replay huge sections. Perhaps this should be determined by difficulty and the player can be given the option as to what negative effects death has and how far apart checkpoints are.

[MarauderIIC]

Where's the example of the game that makes it easier every time you die?

As for quick responses to your game examples (yes I read the whole thing) :
Fable 2: Why should I even bother trying to avoid death?
LotR: PITA
Wolverine: Sounds just fine

[MadPumpkin]

Word for word i read the whole thing...

Fable 2: Never heard of a pacifist game programmer that didn't work for Nintendo
LotR: TERRIBLE IDEA
Wolverine: would be a bit better if it saved after every event instead of individual check points

i don't see a medal haha

so my wolverine one is what i think all games should be like.

no seriously wheres my medal...

[programmerinprogress]

How about that Assassins Creed thing where you didn't die, you just became 'Unsynchronised' or something like that...

In theory it was a pretty good system that fitted in with the story line, but in reaility it was pain in the ass!

'De-Synchronisation' takes you back to the lab, which is a pain in the ass to walk around in (you're literally willing the guy to walk a bit faster, but he just won't)

I think this is an interesting topic, the way your character recovers from death seriously affects a games dynamic.

For example, I love many arcade fighting games which give you 10 seconds to "rematch" your opponent rather than go back to the beginning of arcade mode, I have absolutely no problem with not advancing until you win something, but I feel like it ruins the buzz if you have to go back and redo parts you may not have liked, or did like but because you've done it, you don't want to do it again...

[MarauderIIC]

I think the solution is to penalize both the player and the enemy.
For instance, Bioshock's VitaChamber system had no penalty for the player, besides moving him, but the enemy kept his damage and dead enemies stayed dead.
Then you have things like you said, where the player has to start over but the enemy does not suffer.

I still think something that makes all enemies come back to life but hurts them all based on how many times you've died is one of the best solutions.

[dandymcgee]

Reminds me of an indie game I played recently (downloaded about 20 during an evening of severe boredom) that seriously made me want to break something. It was called "Tower Rescue" and the entire point of the game was to get to the top of a tower.

There were no enemies. There were no save points. There was no "death", but I died inside. You jumped from platform to platform as they got smaller and smaller, hoping to god you wouldn't fall all the way back down the ground.. again. And to make it ever worse, there were physics that made it so you kept sliding when you stopped moving...

In case anyone needs motivation for a boxing match:
http://www.markfrim.co.uk/Tower_Rescue_ ... n_LD12.zip

[MarauderIIC]

I think I've played that.

[eatcomics]

Reminds me of an indie game I played recently (downloaded about 20 during an evening of severe boredom) that seriously made me want to break something. It was called "Tower Rescue" and the entire point of the game was to get to the top of a tower.

There were no enemies. There were no save points. There was no "death", but I died inside. You jumped from platform to platform as they got smaller and smaller, hoping to god you wouldn't fall all the way back down the ground.. again. And to make it ever worse, there were physics that made it so you kept sliding when you stopped moving...

In case anyone needs motivation for a boxing match:
http://www.markfrim.co.uk/Tower_Rescue_ ... n_LD12.zip

that sounds like complete torture! So thanks for the warning

[trufun202]

There was an FPS released fairly recently that handled death in a unique way. I can't remember the name, but I remember reading an article about it in Game Developer Magazine.

Basically, when you "die" your character goes into an undead state, where you vision is obscured and your powers/abilities are weakened. You then have to fight your way back to life. There are also portions of the game that are not accessible in an undead state.

It's certainly an interesting approach. I'd like to hear how well it was received. I'll have to find the article and read some reviews.

[OrinCreed]

I haven't had a chance to play any of the above mentioned games but the LOTR death systems sounds horrible.

If I'm remembering Doom1/2 correctly they had a decent system. If you died you would return to the level start without any of the gear you had before you died. However the level was not reset and anything you did remained like dead enemies and exhausted power ups. So it was rugged but not a complete rape.

[MarauderIIC]

There was an FPS released fairly recently that handled death in a unique way. I can't remember the name, but I remember reading an article about it in Game Developer Magazine.

Basically, when you "die" your character goes into an undead state, where you vision is obscured and your powers/abilities are weakened. You then have to fight your way back to life. There are also portions of the game that are not accessible in an undead state.

It's certainly an interesting approach. I'd like to hear how well it was received. I'll have to find the article and read some reviews.

This sounds like how some MUDs handle it. One in particular had you as a ghost and you had to find your soul box which was in a random location in the world (but you got general directions to it), except that you couldn't hurt anything nor could you be hurt. Once you found your box you had to take it back to the starting location, so you didn't get resurrected in the middle of a bunch of deadly mobs. Although as it was an online environment, all it did really was force people to explore.
You mighta took an exp hit or something, I don't recall.

If I'm remembering Doom1/2 correctly they had a decent system. If you died you would return to the level start without any of the gear you had before you died. However the level was not reset and anything you did remained like dead enemies and exhausted power ups. So it was rugged but not a complete rape.

Unless all you had when you started the level was a pistol and you already picked up all the new weapons.

[aamesxdavid]

I thought I'd do a little bulk reply here, even though I am out of the hell of previously-alluded-to band.

(for example the 'knocked out' idea wouldn't work in a final fantasy style rpg).

Yes, I agree. I wasn't saying that everyone should adopt the idea, just that it's a good example of thinking outside the box, and taking away a lot of the frustration of the idea of dying, but doesn't make the game any less challenging really. I think people have a poor idea of the term "challenging", and kind of define it in a way that lacks creativity. So basically, in Fable 2, you are never at any point stuck, unable to defeat a certain enemy. A lot of people would say that basically means it's not challenging, and in a way it's kind of hard to argue. I think it more boils down to what exactly you want out of the game. Not really being punished for dying didn't bother me or detract from my enjoyment of Fable 2 because I didn't play the game simply to avoid death. Fable 2 provides you more with an interactive experience than a simple challenge. You may provide yourself with a challenge in that if you like, where the creativity comes from. If you want to get through the whole game without dying because that's how you would enjoy playing it, then go for it. But if you don't, or if you fail in that, punishing you by restarting something or taking away something probably won't cause you to enjoy the game more. And isn't that the point?

Sorry this is getting a bit tangental and repetitive. The point is, no, the "knocked out" system wouldn't work for every game, but that's a terrible reason to go back to arcade-style restart designs. The only thing I think they work for are casual puzzle games, because that's all they are, and that is the point of the whole thing. Even there, I'm sure there are more creative ways of doing things, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with basing your system around it if that's the point of the game.

Where's the example of the game that makes it easier every time you die?

I've never heard of this. Or at least I can't recall one. I'd love any examples shared though.

Wolverine: would be a bit better if it saved after every event instead of individual check points

This would depend on what you classify as an event. Basically the only thing you'll lose by dying is a few dead enemies. And you can't really expect the game to save after the death of every enemy, especially in that game. The checkpoints are quite generously distributed.

How about that Assassins Creed thing where you didn't die, you just became 'Unsynchronised' or something like that...

Gameplay-wise, that's just putting an orange peel on an apple and saying it's a different fruit. Whether your virtual self dies or you just become disconnected from it, you're still starting that level over. Not to mention, it makes no sense whatsoever. You'd think if they could invent this technology that put you into the memories of your ancestors, you could make the link a little stronger, or not base it off of arbitrary details like getting caught for the virtual murder of a fake person. But that's not the point. The point is that it's the same thing, they just called it something else. You even regenerate "health" by sitting around hiding for a while. There's nothing really wrong with that either, I loved Assassin's Creed, and it wasn't really that easy to die in; I hardly ever got desyncronized. Maybe it was the first step to doing something clever with death. I'll take that.

I still think something that makes all enemies come back to life but hurts them all based on how many times you've died is one of the best solutions.

Is this the making-things-easier-each-time-you-die example? (Okay, that was really over-hyphenated.. damnit!) Having enemies come back at all is a bit sketchy to me, but for a lot of RPGs where enemies spawn all over the place anyhow, it wouldn't matter. For things like boss fights, however, it could be a huge problem. I guess having a boss's health start out lower might be a small comfort to starting the damn thing over again, but I'd have to play a game like this to really make a qualified statement on its design. I started Bioshock recently, so maybe that will give me an idea, but if I don't like it, I won't say anything because 2K Boston is reeeeeally close to my apartment (I could easily walk there) and they might find me.

Basically, when you "die" your character goes into an undead state

This definitely sounds interesting. My opinion of it would essentially boil down to how difficult it is to fight your way back, and what (if anything) is changed when you do make your way back. From the sound of it, I'd guess nothing would change, since it seems like it would flow seamlessly from one state to the other, but hey, I've heard better ideas butchered to an unbelievably bad state in implementation, so who knows.

the LOTR death systems sounds horrible.

I just quoted this to say once again, it really is. I'm going to try online co-op this week to see if 2 competent players can turn around an entire battle. I may reply to the post in the Review section with the results.

Also, I don't recall the Doom way of dealing with this (it's been forever), but it does sound like you could get into a bad situation pretty easily, as Marauder pointed out. You're still punished for dying, and seeing as how all of the weapons you gain are just as (if not more) important than some downed enemies, it's a really frustrating loss. Call me a Peter Molyneux-wannabe sissy, but something that punishes you isn't fun - by very definition.. unless you're into that sort of thing. If it doesn't add to the fun of a game, then it shouldn't be a part of the game. Since when did gaming become about masochism?

This sounds like how some MUDs handle it.

What you described sounds suspiciously like WoW, so I'm inclined to hate it. Okay, so it sounds interesting at least, but the thing about dealing with death is that in order to avoid being frustrating, it has to be relatively unintrusive - no matter how many times it happens. Exploring a bit might be fine the first one or two times, but if you've already seen the area, all you're doing is flying around the same area, unable to do anything but find your own dead body. This could only be okay if it was a very quick process, which it doesn't really sound like it is, particularly when you have to take the box back to the start location. Again, I've never played it, so I can't say anything for sure about it.

no seriously wheres my medal...

I guess you're just expecting it to appear on the forums, so here you go:



But I do want to thank everyone who actually read through that (not to mention this one), and I'm glad it got some discussions going.



end.