surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Bioshock's vita chambers may not have captured that feeling of failure, but there's the one level near the end where you have a little sister leading the way I always think back to. These little girls I had been rescuing the entire game were completely vulnerable, and not matter what I did I couldn't protect them completely. The splicers always got to them eventually.
Did they pop back up in a vita chamber? Maybe, but I still felt amazingly guilty when I couldn't protect them.
Did they pop back up in a vita chamber? Maybe, but I still felt amazingly guilty when I couldn't protect them.
"Hm, what he says is true, someone should re... My god that is that beard growing while I'm watching? Dear lord! It is!"
@Burch where do you live man? I heard in Phoenix area, is this rumor true? If so look at my CBLOG, trying to get an AZ NARP going. Maybe Dave & Busters in Tempe the first time.
Looks like there is hair missing on his left side (our right). Anyone else notice that? Lol.
Beards are fine man, but you gotta maintain them.
Beards are fine man, but you gotta maintain them.
The vita chambers and the respawn system in Bad Company are my favorite parts of those two games. I hate having to repeat large sections of games. I don't need that punishment as a incentive not to die. My incentive is just to get good at the game. If I die, I'm clearly not meeting my goal. If I beat a big daddy and a bunch of splicers without losing any health, that would be me accomplishing my goal.
The Queen mechanic would be quite refreshing in a war/shooter-game (assuming it hasn't already been done). Even online, then people might consider staying alive.
The first time I died in Fable II, I was pissed, and it was significant (that damn commodore or whatever in the Spire that put you through all that shit). But then I realized that I didn't really have any noticeably scar or deformation! I totally agree. Its a good step in a good direction, but it really didn't do enough to make a difference.
I'll take more of that any day, and I Love Mega Man games.
I'll take more of that any day, and I Love Mega Man games.
I know its fun to nail Prince of Persias Elka savior feature to the wall. But don't you think that they thought about it the idea of loss and flow very similarly to how you just explained it. For the most part the whole PoP game was designed around flow. They simply took death as a mechanic out of the game completely, which is an interesting idea in its own right. Just my two cents.
Spelunky only works because its a pretty short playtime so any loss isn't too great, taking that into larger games isn't-BEARDBEARDBEARDBEARD
The feeling of loss being repeating the mechanic is inextricably linked to save systems which to some extent makes it difficult to alter the mechanic that much. I mean I think all survival horror games should be solely checkpoint based because its so reassuring to save after five seconds, it gives you control over a situation you essentially shouldn't control. I now don't have to face that scary bit again or deal with x enemies with only y bullets etc.
The unique queen system doesn't translate well to bigger budget titles because with notable exceptions like Gordon Freeman characters are expected to be voiced or at least be central to the narrative so replacing them with essentially faceless and unimportant (if you can be replaced you lose the feeling of being the one true hero) units would be a big shift and likely an unpopular one.
I don't like to be so negative because you raise a very good point but its difficult to see how one could adapt linear story based games and save game mechanics to alter the carrot and stick system we currently have.
The unique queen system doesn't translate well to bigger budget titles because with notable exceptions like Gordon Freeman characters are expected to be voiced or at least be central to the narrative so replacing them with essentially faceless and unimportant (if you can be replaced you lose the feeling of being the one true hero) units would be a big shift and likely an unpopular one.
I don't like to be so negative because you raise a very good point but its difficult to see how one could adapt linear story based games and save game mechanics to alter the carrot and stick system we currently have.
@AnthonyBurch
Where do you live man? I heard in Phoenix area, is this rumor true? If so look at my CBLOG, trying to get an AZ NARP going. Maybe Dave & Busters in Tempe the first time.
Where do you live man? I heard in Phoenix area, is this rumor true? If so look at my CBLOG, trying to get an AZ NARP going. Maybe Dave & Busters in Tempe the first time.
Why people hate Elika saving you in PoP I don't even know. It's just a checkpoint system except the fact they sugar coat it for you.
It's funny because you can actually see your beard growing in the preview images for your other Rev Rants.
LOL, most of the comments are about the beard than the video!
anyway: I think that the premise that one of your characters can die during Heavy Rain is one example of this mechanic, I still haven't played Heavy Rain so I can't talk how this works. But when trying to make the player have some kind of sense of loss it's more easy to present a character that it's somewhat close to the player and than taking it away ( Wander and Agro or Cloud and Aeris ). But it's more difficult to make the player care about the character he's controling since this character has multiple lives and the game can't continue without this character.
That's why I'm interested in the mechanic Heavy Rain brings to the table. With multiple characters if one of then dies, the plot can still goes on, since the goal of the game it's to catch the killer. Not reaching the end of the game with one particular character ( or all of them )
anyway: I think that the premise that one of your characters can die during Heavy Rain is one example of this mechanic, I still haven't played Heavy Rain so I can't talk how this works. But when trying to make the player have some kind of sense of loss it's more easy to present a character that it's somewhat close to the player and than taking it away ( Wander and Agro or Cloud and Aeris ). But it's more difficult to make the player care about the character he's controling since this character has multiple lives and the game can't continue without this character.
That's why I'm interested in the mechanic Heavy Rain brings to the table. With multiple characters if one of then dies, the plot can still goes on, since the goal of the game it's to catch the killer. Not reaching the end of the game with one particular character ( or all of them )
Agreeing with Tubatic on the Fable II point - on my first play through I avoided dying at all costs, but then I when checked my brother playing on his game, he'd died 2-3 times and i couldn't see anything wr-BEARDBEARDBEARDBEARD
I was thinking about Queens the other day, and how you could apply that loss idea to a AAA title. What if you play as part of a team, like in Mass Effect or even Modern Warfare, but when you die that player stays dead and it moves onto another member. If Roach dies, you play as Soap, and then Ghost and Price and so on. Each time you die, you actually loose something you care about. The team gets smaller and the game gets harder. Maybe you could find new team members along the way and they could act like you've just found a life or 1up or even get an injured member back if you can drag them to the end of the level. The point is, when you die- that character is gone, when your team is dead thats it, game over.
@Lex Singleton
The problem with making the game harder for players who die is that make a couple of mistakes and you've ramped the difficulty up significantly. Thats going to cause a lot of anger and frustration.
The problem with making the game harder for players who die is that make a couple of mistakes and you've ramped the difficulty up significantly. Thats going to cause a lot of anger and frustration.
Good point...I'm really straining to try to remember a game where a sense of permanence exists when your player or an NPC ally dies and that is final. Normally, you may end up in an "escort" or "keep this guy alive for 5 mins" type of thing like with Raynor or Kerrigan in StarCraft or like Alex Vance meaning they die, you start over. But It really brings up the issue. Suppose in Half-Life there was a mode where Alex could die and that would completely alter your game, not having her to open doors, get DOG to help, lose face with Eli, etc. The only games that really come to mind in my personal experience was maybe in FF2 or 3 when you are in a serious bind like when your about to fight Golbez or when you meet Sabin on the mountain and some of your characters have fallen. Like I remember losing a character with no revive or tent and feeling so screwed because you pretty much need every character in fighting shape. Granted their deaths were not permanent but for that moment in the game you really feel the loss. FarCry 2 has that permanence when your Buddies bite it. You really get an "oh fuck" feeling when someone who helped you out a lot takes one too many bullets for you. I've actually restarted the game if when I lost certain NPC buddies I liked in FC2. However, I think its a game that totally contradicts its permanence of death because screws with your perception of friends and foes during the half-way point and at the end where you really are left with no choice for what pans out. I won't give it away but I think anyone who played knows what I mean.
There hasn't been a Rant in recent memory that I can remember agreeing with as much as this one. Typically, your pieces tend to be a bit over-thought, but this I think hits the nail on the head.
Good show.
Good show.
Thinking about alternate ways of handling failure that still provide incentive to avoid it reminds me of Yoshi's island where the crying of baby Mario was deliberately made so annoying that it's almost as bad as death.
I got two words for you FIRE EMBLEM. When a character dies he/she does forever and you need to replay the mission in order to save the entire group (which sometimes it is a MAJOR pain to do so) However there are things that you may lose later on of some of the characters are dead so completionists have to tear their eyes out in order to keep everyone alive and this is a strategy RPG we are talking about.
I on the other hand am disappointed with the overall difficulty of current games so you got Goldeneye where learning where every guard is and how many people sneezed is crucial to survival. Yes it has some trial and error gameplay but trying to find a better hiding place in order to shoot the guards that will be alarmed by something you can't avoid doing, is immensely satisfying. Now we got regenerative health, who on earth came up with that crap? You don't replay stuff anymore in games sadly and this is partly because today there are too many options for the gamer so it is easier to just give up if a game is hard (kinda what some of my friends did with Little King's Story yet it is the best thing since sliced bread I assure you)
So yeah the fact that there are too many developers make games easier. If half of them close down, then we will see harder games (you know with health bars and limited respawn points) again.
I on the other hand am disappointed with the overall difficulty of current games so you got Goldeneye where learning where every guard is and how many people sneezed is crucial to survival. Yes it has some trial and error gameplay but trying to find a better hiding place in order to shoot the guards that will be alarmed by something you can't avoid doing, is immensely satisfying. Now we got regenerative health, who on earth came up with that crap? You don't replay stuff anymore in games sadly and this is partly because today there are too many options for the gamer so it is easier to just give up if a game is hard (kinda what some of my friends did with Little King's Story yet it is the best thing since sliced bread I assure you)
So yeah the fact that there are too many developers make games easier. If half of them close down, then we will see harder games (you know with health bars and limited respawn points) again.
i think that evolving the chance system in video games will be very hard. We always do mistakes by learning new things on a game, so if you died for the reason of experimenting with the environment, it would be bullshit hard to ever clear the game.
I don't think the idea is new, and it sort of relates in the games on the early 90s like Rocket Knight Adventures. You have a life system but the game is hard as hell, so if you died you had to start all over again.
Stating that the character should be just plain dead is hard to transmit in this medium, because we will always want to try again to do it right.
I don't think the idea is new, and it sort of relates in the games on the early 90s like Rocket Knight Adventures. You have a life system but the game is hard as hell, so if you died you had to start all over again.
Stating that the character should be just plain dead is hard to transmit in this medium, because we will always want to try again to do it right.
IMO, the feeling of loss should be completely be based on the time sink and the failure and that stomach-aching monotony of having to re-do whatever made you die and rebuilding to that point. Because that's what gaming is about.
I remember spending hours on Donkey Kong. You play, you lose. That's it. There is no punishment. You don't have to feel gut wrenching emotion about having your princess ripped away from you by a dirty ape. You just shake your head, grin, think "damn that was a good run" and restart.
That's the fun of video games. There's no real loss except time. You can care about the characters but they're never really gone. And that's what makes you pick up your controller and do it all again.
I remember spending hours on Donkey Kong. You play, you lose. That's it. There is no punishment. You don't have to feel gut wrenching emotion about having your princess ripped away from you by a dirty ape. You just shake your head, grin, think "damn that was a good run" and restart.
That's the fun of video games. There's no real loss except time. You can care about the characters but they're never really gone. And that's what makes you pick up your controller and do it all again.
Prince of Persia certainly made me hate an otherwise good platformer because of a lack of challenge and interest. If the characters had some danger or even depth, maybe that "no-death" thing could have worked.
Regardless, I really don't think I've ever played a game where the failure option made me think. Nearly everything either punishes you too hard (Old Resident Evils) or not hard enough (Bioshock's Vitachambers).
Demon's Souls, to me, is a very good middle ground. Yeah it's very punishing to people raised on newer generations, but it does make you strive to get better and figure out patterns that enemies have. It's almost like playing smart with an immense reward since you can level.
Regardless, I really don't think I've ever played a game where the failure option made me think. Nearly everything either punishes you too hard (Old Resident Evils) or not hard enough (Bioshock's Vitachambers).
Demon's Souls, to me, is a very good middle ground. Yeah it's very punishing to people raised on newer generations, but it does make you strive to get better and figure out patterns that enemies have. It's almost like playing smart with an immense reward since you can level.
I'm pretty sure games have thought of other ways of death because that's kind of what death entails a gameover but instead games have become creative in devising clever ways for a character to "live" even after they've been beaten. For example some games offer for experienced players or advanced or whatever options to end the game after being spotted/dieing (in reference to MGS series and Bioshock you can turn off vita-chambers).
Games however are meant to be fun and with that in mind developing a game that punishes all players who play will have a limited market. For example demon's souls even though they employ repetition after death they made it an integral part of the game. Games tend to do better (not always) with low punishment penalty other than re-playability on the death part because it makes the game more accessible to a wide market.
The only game that comes to mind currently that employs a fail punishment scheme other than replaying is Heavy Rain where it is possible to lose a character and still continue the story. Not sure how it'll do in the long run in sales.
Games however are meant to be fun and with that in mind developing a game that punishes all players who play will have a limited market. For example demon's souls even though they employ repetition after death they made it an integral part of the game. Games tend to do better (not always) with low punishment penalty other than re-playability on the death part because it makes the game more accessible to a wide market.
The only game that comes to mind currently that employs a fail punishment scheme other than replaying is Heavy Rain where it is possible to lose a character and still continue the story. Not sure how it'll do in the long run in sales.
Anyone notice that some of those background videos were mirrored? The text was backwards.
Also, beards.
Also, beards.
Cannon Fodder had a very Queens approach to the whole thing. You start the game with 3-4 soldiers (all Privates, unique names [Jools was my fave]), and every mission they survive moves them up a rank. Every successful mission also results in more recruits lining up outside your door (in front of a, to start with, verdant blank green hillside). When your soldier died during a mission, post-mission, you watched their name scroll past on the KIA list, and a rank-specific tombstone was placed on the green hillside, with fresh recruits being let in through the front door to replace them.
I was ridiculously attached to my starting 4 dudes, and I would reload save after save to make sure those guys made it all the way through. There was no in-game mechanic which punished you for this, as the extra soldiers were just as useful mechanically as your veterans. But I didn't need gameplay impacts to encourage me to keep those little dudes alive.
Apparently now freeware: http://www.games4win.com/games/cannon-fodder/
I was ridiculously attached to my starting 4 dudes, and I would reload save after save to make sure those guys made it all the way through. There was no in-game mechanic which punished you for this, as the extra soldiers were just as useful mechanically as your veterans. But I didn't need gameplay impacts to encourage me to keep those little dudes alive.
Apparently now freeware: http://www.games4win.com/games/cannon-fodder/
DUDE, Anthony , I think you've made this Rev Rant like 97 times now. Different titles same rants over and over. You can tell you're just going through the motions in this one. I think you need to innovate.
It just seems like another area of game design that doesn't get any critical thought put into it because we have established conventions for dealing with it. I mean, there are games that think about failure critically, and you mentioned some of them, but every game needs to put thought into failure states, and as players we need to recognize when its been sloppily dealt with.
I hate to disappoint you all, but in the time between my filming that rant and editing it, I got a shave and a haircut.
bustballs:
Fuck, good point. When the hell is that going to show up on GoG?
bustballs:
Fuck, good point. When the hell is that going to show up on GoG?
follow
