BLAM hurk! reload.... why do all protatonists have this superpower?

[Tharwen]

Play Dwarf Fortress!

You will enjoy it. At least, if you don't, you won't stick around your fortress long enough to see them all die painful and horrific deaths.

[sub]My last fortress ended when a beastie came from underground which ejected a gas that both burnt and paralysed any part of any creature it touched. All the while there was a siege outside which my archers were having strange troubles shooting at. In the end I just opened the gates and watched...[/sub]

Ah Dwarf Fortress...

Losing is fun! My recent one ended when the dwarves flooded my fortress with lava. Which wouldn't have happened if they had an ounce of competence. But a Dwarf acting competent is about as likely as... well I don't have a metaphor for it, but its highly unlikely.

AS LIKELY AS A NOBLE DOING SOME WORK AMIRITE?

[sub]I made a pit with a spike for the sole purpose of dropping small animals down it.[/sub]

 

[viking97]

didn't seem like jack had any negative consequences put on him from using the good ol' vigor restoring vito tube

Maybe, but look at what happened to everyone else from Rapture after years and decades of exposure. Most were either batshit insane or mutated freaks. I'd call those pretty negative consequences. (and it leads into the second example.)

I'm sure there are other games that show the hell immortality can bring (intentionally. Too Human and a few others did it by accident by punishing the player with interminable death/rebirth sequences). Infinite Undiscovery comes to mind, but that wasn't as good a game as Bioshock.

it was more the adam that drove them insane, i'm not even sure they were allowed to use the vito tubes.

but i take your point, in fact that could make a cool game; a city where nobody dies.

 

[Valdsator]

I always loved the way Prince of Persia: Sands of Time handled that.

"Wait... Thats not what happened..."

I loved that too, but it's still a bit silly.
"I JUMPED FOR THE LEDGE, BUT MISSED AND WAS IMPALED BY SPIKES...wait...no, that's not what happened."

I liked how MGS3 did it, too. If you died, or did something wrong, you caused a time paradox, and you were often informed of this by a character that Snake hasn't yet met in the timeline.

 

[James Raynor]

Because everyone wants to play the same first half of the game over just to kill the first encounter with a cheap enemy/boss.

 

[Fayathon]

Go play Steel Battalion...

If you don't eject before your mech dies, your save is deleted!

To my understanding at least.

You are indeed correct, and the fact that the game kinda throws you to the wolves in the first level is kinda crazy.

OT: With the AI Director that Valve has going with the Left 4 Dead series, I would be surprised to see this being a real issue for much longer, yeah, it's still the same area you're going through, but with different drops and enemy placement it changes gameplay pleasantly every time you go through. At least for me.

 

[kickyourass]

Go play a game, any game really, but I think perhaps a one of those million hour JRPGs would be most appropriate. Now every single time you die, delete all your saved progress and start the whole thing over again. Now let's see how long it takes before you want to lob your entire entertainment center out a window in frustration.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Because it wouldn't be very fun if the game became unplayable after the first time you died.
That being said, they do need to make failure in games have more of a significance these days. Not that I want to go back to the Nintendo Hard days of course, but some sort of significant consequence for failure I think is called for.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Guys, I don't think he was saying, "We shouldn't be able to continue if we die" Just that perhaps the fact that the protagonist CAN try again if s/he dies needs some more explanation.

...why?
In most cases where it's just a case of save and reload, it's not the player character that get's to try again, just the player. From the point of view of the player character, once the game is reloaded, s/he warped back in time and never experienced your failure. As far as the player character is concerned, each try is the first try. Now when you start trying to introduce convoluted mechanics to try and explain the player character's perceived (non-existent) immortality, that's when things get confusing and weird.
Edit: Oops, double post. Sorry. I was counting on someone else posting while I was typing the second post.

 

[drbarno]

What would a game be where yo uonly had one life? a bit like this really: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/505914 (In short, not fun at all)

In short: just like the other posters are saying: it's one of those things that gamers see as basic, a nice explanation like some games are nice, but ultimately it doesn't matter as it allows people to continue pplaying the game.

 

[TornadoFive]

Hmm, what about a ronin samurai (redundant?) who is possessed by a spirit locked within a powerful sword? When the player dies, show a short montage of the sword being picked up, dropped off back at his village (or the nearest) and eventually presented to a promising young student. The student is then possessed by the sword-spirit, and sets out once again, under the control of the player/sword. Just an idea, doesn't mix well with any games I'm working on right now, but the concept is sound.

Not a bad idea. It might be tricky explaining why every student in the village looks exactly the same though. Unless they're all clones or something.

Or were you thinking of having the player character be different each time you die?

 

[TornadoFive]

Guys, I don't think he was saying, "We shouldn't be able to continue if we die" Just that perhaps the fact that the protagonist CAN try again if s/he dies needs some more explanation.

...why?
In most cases where it's just a case of save and reload, it's not the player character that get's to try again, just the player. From the point of view of the player character, once the game is reloaded, s/he warped back in time and never experienced your failure. As far as the player character is concerned, each try is the first try. Now when you start trying to introduce convoluted mechanics to try and explain the player character's perceived (non-existent) immortality, that's when things get confusing and weird.
Edit: Oops, double post. Sorry. I was counting on someone else posting while I was typing the second post.

I know, the "die, reload" thing works well in most games. I'm not saying all games need to find a reason for it. Most can't. I couldn't see CoD or Gears of War coming up with a rational explanation for it. But when a game manages to find an explanation for it, within the context of the story, it can be quite interesting.

 

[PhiMed]

Here's a bit of reading for your enjoyment and edification:

<link=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfFun>The Rule of Fun

 

[Juventus]

op i have the perfect game for you. now granted it's a military style shooter and it has a learning curve to it, but it can't be too easy now. if you die in this game, if you get a serious injury, then it's game over.


it's called joining the military and going to iraq/afghanistan.

i'm sure you'd love it.

 

[FalloutJack]

Games wouldn't be any fun otherwise.

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

OT. I like the Assassins's Creed method of death. You never actually "die", you're just "desyncronised". It fits quite nicely with the game's story. It also has the advantage of having an explanation for the U.I and mini-map, which I really, REALLY liked when I saw it. The game actually takes away the U.I. and map when you're playing as Desmond, so it feels more natural.

Yeah, I think the way Assassin's Creed deals with this thing is fantastic.
Through the whole idea that you are simply puppeteering the manifestation of genetic memories with a machine that controls with a video game controller (thanks for that tidbit AC manuals!) reconciles the game mechanics with the game itself.

I am not one to generally care about the whole saving/reloading issue. It's so embedded within gaming and gaming culture now that I don't think twice when I hit F5 and F9 in quick succession.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Guys, I don't think he was saying, "We shouldn't be able to continue if we die" Just that perhaps the fact that the protagonist CAN try again if s/he dies needs some more explanation.

...why?
In most cases where it's just a case of save and reload, it's not the player character that get's to try again, just the player. From the point of view of the player character, once the game is reloaded, s/he warped back in time and never experienced your failure. As far as the player character is concerned, each try is the first try. Now when you start trying to introduce convoluted mechanics to try and explain the player character's perceived (non-existent) immortality, that's when things get confusing and weird.
Edit: Oops, double post. Sorry. I was counting on someone else posting while I was typing the second post.

I know, the "die, reload" thing works well in most games. I'm not saying all games need to find a reason for it. Most can't. I couldn't see CoD or Gears of War coming up with a rational explanation for it. But when a game manages to find an explanation for it, within the context of the story, it can be quite interesting.

Maybe, but I think it's just makes things more convoluted. Kinda like explaining the Force in Star Wars and we all know how well that went.

 

[Vidiot]

Hmm, what about a ronin samurai (redundant?) who is possessed by a spirit locked within a powerful sword? When the player dies, show a short montage of the sword being picked up, dropped off back at his village (or the nearest) and eventually presented to a promising young student. The student is then possessed by the sword-spirit, and sets out once again, under the control of the player/sword. Just an idea, doesn't mix well with any games I'm working on right now, but the concept is sound.

Not a bad idea. It might be tricky explaining why every student in the village looks exactly the same though. Unless they're all clones or something.

Or were you thinking of having the player character be different each time you die?

The player would pick a new body from a random selection of students.

 

[newwiseman]

I time was you had a life counter, when it ran out there was no save, you started over. I like it better now, makes things easier, takes away most of the challenge; but ultimately improves the experience because you CAN actually finish the game.

To think of how many hours I invested in Solstice and Mario before I finally beat them, good times.