Permanent Character Death

Recommended Videos

Manji187

New member
Jan 29, 2009
1,444
0
0
I don't know about you but progression adds to fun (or at least should) and permanent death is a progression killer.
 

GuerrillaClock

New member
Jul 11, 2008
1,367
0
0
Crazzee said:
Everyone keeps mentioning frustration, but that's the thing: It doesn't have to be. It's kind of a way to FORCE people to avoid the frustration of dying. You fear for your character's life rather than just getting killed, reloading your save, running in, rinse and repeat.
But why should gamers be forced to do anything? I don't want to spend my gaming life fretting about a character because 100 hours of hard work could be wiped out just around the next corner. Getting killed repeatedly is frustrating enough, and I think most gamers see having to do a certain section again punishment enough for a failure. Good games can make you fear things (or feel anything they want you to, in fact) without having to resort to cheap, shitty mechanics like this.
 

teutonicman

New member
Mar 30, 2009
2,565
0
0
I like the save ability that you were talking about. For the kind of nervousness your talking about when entering an unknown area I'd soon just increase the difficulty level.
 

Merteg

New member
May 9, 2009
1,579
0
0
I would hate nothing more than that!

One of the major appeals of MMORPGs to me is my skills can only increase.
 

Kaijj

New member
May 5, 2009
82
0
0
No, I don't think so. It would be massively annoying to restart because your level 2 ran into a deathclaw. Or even worse... your level 30 gets killed because your companion accidently found a fatman. 8\
 

Darkwolf9

New member
Aug 19, 2008
394
0
0
Most of the games in the Suikoden (although I can't think of one that doesn't have em) have permanent deaths. Valkyria Chronicles has them as well. The original FF Tactics had permanent deaths too.
 

The_Deleted

New member
Aug 28, 2008
2,188
0
0
I remember reading an interview with Kojima some while back where he said that he'd like to make a game that just stopped when you died. No save points. No retry. Game Over. If you wanted to start again. You bought an new game.
 

eels05

New member
Jun 11, 2009
476
0
0
I think it has a place in some games.
If those games are designed in a balanced way so that its not impossible to finish without dying and without making the game to easy at the same time.
It has the potential to add alot of tension if done right.
 

salbarragan

New member
Feb 23, 2009
134
0
0
When you can spew out a new character every two seconds, the game stops being about skill and more about brute force. I'll just keep sending wave after wave of PCs until I just overcome my nemesis. Kind of like a zerg rush actually. For that reason, I always believe that death should come with a heavy consequence. That's actually one of the reasons that I love D&D. If your character dies, you have a heavy price to pay in order to bring them back.
 

IceStar100

New member
Jan 5, 2009
1,172
0
0
sirbryghtside said:
IceStar100 said:
In mmo it would flop. One person get strong and bully everyone. In the end it would only kill the game it's self.
But then, wouldn't it be cool to see this awesome player crushed by an army of weaker ones?

And there would be eras - the horrible people leading the tyrannous ones, and the kind rulers with peaceful lands.

That would make it so much more realistic and cool... sigh...
Maybe but it would still be a flop. Becuase MMO need new blood. Vet get bored sooner or later. When this happends they stop playing. If bully kills new blood on his demo time. He will get fed up and not pay for the game. That waisted resores. So in the end it would be a nightmare. Plus MMO are grind worth. Not many want to keep doing the same level again and again. To loss all progress is a death kiss. Then again if it's a choice like only one server does it. It might keep it freash for vets
 

Nutcase

New member
Dec 3, 2008
1,177
0
0
GuerrillaClock said:
Crazzee said:
Everyone keeps mentioning frustration, but that's the thing: It doesn't have to be. It's kind of a way to FORCE people to avoid the frustration of dying. You fear for your character's life rather than just getting killed, reloading your save, running in, rinse and repeat.
But why should gamers be forced to do anything?
Games have rules. As long as you play the game, you are forced by them. If there are no rules, there is no game.
I don't want to spend my gaming life fretting about a character because 100 hours of hard work could be wiped out just around the next corner.
It's not like you are forced to. You can play some other game. Right now there are almost no games which feature long-term character development and permanent death. There are many of us who'd like to see a few such games being made into the mainstream. If you are not convinced, you would still have the 99% of forgiving games. Why would you want to deny us the 1%?
Getting killed repeatedly is frustrating enough, and I think most gamers see having to do a certain section again punishment enough for a failure. Good games can make you fear things (or feel anything they want you to, in fact) without having to resort to cheap, shitty mechanics like this.
Oh? How do you propose to make the player fear death in Steel Battalion if not with this "cheap, shitty mechanic"?
 

GuerrillaClock

New member
Jul 11, 2008
1,367
0
0
Nutcase said:
GuerrillaClock said:
Crazzee said:
Everyone keeps mentioning frustration, but that's the thing: It doesn't have to be. It's kind of a way to FORCE people to avoid the frustration of dying. You fear for your character's life rather than just getting killed, reloading your save, running in, rinse and repeat.
But why should gamers be forced to do anything?
Games have rules. As long as you play the game, you are forced by them. If there are no rules, there is no game.
I don't want to spend my gaming life fretting about a character because 100 hours of hard work could be wiped out just around the next corner.
It's not like you are forced to. You can play some other game. Right now there are almost no games which feature long-term character development and permanent death. There are many of us who'd like to see a few such games being made into the mainstream. If you are not convinced, you would still have the 99% of forgiving games. Why would you want to deny us the 1%?
Getting killed repeatedly is frustrating enough, and I think most gamers see having to do a certain section again punishment enough for a failure. Good games can make you fear things (or feel anything they want you to, in fact) without having to resort to cheap, shitty mechanics like this.
Oh? How do you propose to make the player fear death in Steel Battalion if not with this "cheap, shitty mechanic"?
OK, the "play something else" card that you seem to be playing here is totally irrelevant. If I didn't like a game, I would play something else, of course. That hardly affects the fact that the idea is dumb.

Yes, games have rules. Of course they do, but, again, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If a gamer wants to try something out, they should be free to do so without the fear of having hours of hard work brushed into the bin. If I want to attempt a shortcut in a racing game, my car shouldn't be at risk of exploding, because it would make the risk-taking and excitement that people play games for redundant. If I want to try flanking someone in a shooter, and it doesn't work out, why should I have to die permanently just for trying something off the wall?

Fire Emblem is the only series that I've played (never played Diablo 2) that did this mechanic well, and I admit it could be made to work in games where you control a party of characters, as in Fire Emblem it wasn't game over when you let someone die, but it was a harsh punishment. What I am taking issue with is the idea that gamers should be forced to spend hours tiptoeing around a level without wanting to make progress because they know everything they've done so far will be scrubbed off if they put a foot wrong. First and foremost, games are toys. They need to entertain. If a game wants to pass itself off as art, that's fine too, but it needs to be entertaining first for it to fit the bill of a good game. If people want to play a game like that so they can shout about being 'hardcore' on the forumz, then I'll happily let them, but it won't change my mind that permanent character deaths in most games are a ridiculous and unnecessary idea.
 

StigmataDiaboli

New member
May 18, 2009
716
0
0
Ah, now I remember some time ago that Hideo Kojima (the MGS guy) wanted to do a game where you die once and that's it for both your save file and disc, so that players can understand how precious lives are...real ones...I think it was Kojima...or was I dreaming?
 

Laura.

New member
May 30, 2009
560
0
0
GuerrillaClock said:
If people want to play a game like that so they can shout about being 'hardcore' on the forumz, then I'll happily let them, but it won't change my mind that permanent character deaths in most games are a ridiculous and unnecessary idea.
That's exactly what I was thinking: unnecessary and for teh hardcorez.

If you are making a game with permanent character death, make it optional, otherwise I will use a trainer or some sort of hack.
I get really attached to my characters, enough to try very hard not to die. I don't need the fear of permanent death as an incentive to get more involved in the game.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
Nutcase said:
the point is the knowledge that you will lose everything if you die is extremely immersive in the right games.
I don't think so. I just find it annoying.

Ideally, the player should fear death so much that they tread carefully enough to never actually die.
That may be ideal, but I do not think it works in actual practice.

I don't think it works even as an ideal, but that may be just me who finds that to be the, well, antithesis of what I would want in a game.

I think largely the idea of character death is an illusion that doesn't even have greased tissue paper concealing it. Because no matter what, the risks are not real because you can always replay the level or the game in it's entirety.

I don't think character death is in any way a useful tool for designers to use because it just doesn't even apply anymore. The only reason to have character death is to allow repetition of the same actions carry some merit, like seeing how many Space Invaders you can shoot before you lose all three laser bases. But today's games with their plots and/or multi-leveled gameplay, repeating the same stage over and over again is no longer a virtue so much as an outdated annoyance. It's an old way of playing tacked onto new games and it's not a good fit. Games need to evolve beyond what they have been and be what they need to become.
 

SimuLord

Whom Gods Annoy
Aug 20, 2008
10,077
0
0
Pankeyman said:
It's an excellent feature in Fire Emblem, it really makes not fucking up all the more intense.
It also makes Fire Emblem one of the most frustrating, irritating games in existence for people who prefer lighter fare on handhelds (I liked Disgaea DS and Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and A2 far more because they seemed to understand what platform they were on.)