would you play as the losing team?

[Karma168]

Would you play a game in which the ending involves your defeat? the missions are not geared towards you winning through and defeating your enemy but simply surviving while slowing their unstoppable advance.

Think pre-Dunkirk British forces or post-D day German forces. you know that you cant win outright so your missions revolve around delaying tactics and making sure enough of your troops survive.

the game could either be a FPS or a RTS;

for the FPS you could be placed as the rear-guard of your retreating forces, your objective is to make sure X number of allies escape while trying to slow down the advancing enemy. delaying tactics could be used to influence later missions (i.e destroying a bridge to keep enemy armour from advancing in support of regular infantry).

The RTS would be similar. the campaign could either be made up of a choice of different locations (each with their own distinct missions) or a more linear system. the enemy force could be made up of several armies (similar to the set up of the war of the ring mode of BfME2) by defeating one of these armies you reduce the enemy strength in a later mission.

So What do you think? would you play a game designed this way? or would the innate desire to win make a losing battle less fun?

P.S if there are any games like this i'd be grateful to hear about it.

 

[shinigamimeijin]

if they actually do the story right it would be a good dramatic game.
Halo:reach is this way

 

[Amethyst Wind]

I can and have done that several times when playing the Kessen series. Although they were less delaying actions and more 'oh shit here they come run for your lives!'.

 

[SomeLameStuff]

A lot of people would.

See: Halo Reach.

 

[OliverTwist72]

No. Just win baby.

Actually I have a little turn based strategy game on my phone that I play called Panzer Tactics 2 in which you play the Axis (pro-tip you don't win). So I'm sure it's been done in other games. But of course you actually "win" a couple of the scenarios but afterwords it goes "while you had success many of our armies did not and we will withdraw from the area."

I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about since to me it's still kind of winning.

 

[Newtilator]

In MAG, you must choose a team online, and stick with it. One team is very good, with many advantages over the others. Once this was realised, many defected to that team. But me, and many other people, play as the "worst" team not because of a petty lust for victory, but because this is the team we like the most.
Not quite what you asked, but a similiar example.

 

[Cpt Corallis]

I have done something like this in Medieval 2. I know that any armies I pit against the Mongols will probably lose. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it. So I try and do as much damage as possible with any armies they come across so that by the time I have a proper response the damage that my forces did will mean something.

 

[Ziggy]

many words
company of heroes tales of valor campaigns
in one of the last missions you must hold an area while you can see your allies retreats

 

[darth.pixie]

See, there are two ways to look at this. First is, if you are losing and continue losing but then make a comback or if you keep on losing and end up being the sole survivor or just you and a couple of people.

If you're struggling to survive, it could be frustrating to lose everything.

I would definitly play it (being the underdog is always fun) but it depends on how things are presented. In games, you are always forced to survive or help others survive but this particular idea, I haven't played before.

 

[Jedamethis]

Well, if there was a small chance of success I would. If everybody will definitely die, then no.

Unless I don't know that.

 

[The Wykydtron]

As long as there are a few victories in there and it was done well, it wouldn't go down well if you just start going "oh blimey shits getting real lets gtfo" at the end of every level

 

[repeating integers]

I played and greatly enjoyed Reach despite your eventual loss (the ending was so well done). So yes, people would play it.

 

[Merkavar]

like the protoss missions in starcraft 2?


all i care about that its a good game. who cares if you die at the end or what ever

 

[Bomberman4000]

I think it'd be a breath of fresh air in video games to have a game where you have the possibility of not winning. Mass Effect's multiple ending sequences sort of lend itself to this, and Halo Reach has already been mentioned. I'm not sure of a whole lot of other games that offer this type of end-game scenario.

But yeah, if I knew losing was a possibility I'd still play the game. I would hope losing wouldn't be the ONLY outcome because that can hinder a game's replay value in my opinion (and yes the same goes for games where you MUST win too. I don't replay a lot of games after I beat them)

 

[SckizoBoy]

In a lot of cases, there's much for history buffs who have analysed battles to get their teeth into.

E.g. Rome: Total War, there's a series of 'historical battles' that you usually fight as the loser of the actual battle (Raphia/Seleucids, Teutoberg Forest/Romans, Trasimene/Romans, Asculum/Romans (am I picking on the Romans, here?)) so it's quite engrossing. Done it all, except Asculum, damn those Epirote phalangites

 

[Karma168]

A lot of people would.

See: Halo Reach.

Reach suffered from the 'you win but you still lose' problem, in the missions you're always on the offensive (Lone wolf is a good exception), though you beat every enemy that comes near you the rest of the planet collapses and you have no involvement in that.

I'm thinking a game that's the other way around. instead of smashing through the enemy at point A and winning, only to lose point B and thus the whole war, the player actually sees the defeat himself and is involved in the struggle to hold the enemy back. there could be missions that involve a counter strike (maybe split the campaign between 2 characters ala CoD4) but more of the game is given over to actual defeat rather than having your victory tainted by having a cutscene say that even though you just won an epic fight the wars over because something went wrong somewhere. If I'm going to lose I want to see it, not just be told that I've lost.

 

[Sixcess]

Yes, I'd play, if it was done well.

*Crysis Spoilers follow*

Crysis almost does this. From the moment the aliens go on the offensive the US forces are in retreat, almost a rout. The problem is in how it plays out. The game railroads you from one admittedly spectacular setpiece to another, and you're not really defending anyone since the plot relevant soldiers and civilians you're with can't be killed.

I can see why they did it. If the enemy AI was able to target and destroy your allies these missions would be nigh impossible, because the odds are so heavily stacked against you and they'd be wiped out in seconds, but once you realise that they won't kill your allies it stops being a desperate battle for survival and starts being just a noisy linear backdrop.

It's still very effective. The VTOL level towards the end of the game is a nightmare to play because of the dreadful controls (and that you're supposed to be dogfighting with flying aliens that are about three times faster and more maneuverable than you are) but the spectacle of your retreat... hearing the panic over the radio, seeing US jets shot down in flames as they try desperately to provide cover for the retreat, not to mention the attack on the carrier later on... despite the horrible gameplay those are some of the most compelling sequences I've experienced in a game, and if it was done right it would be awesome.

 

[Iwana Humpalot]

Alot people do (not gonna mention reach because ALOT of you guys already did) for example: Gears of Wars Horde mode, Halo: ODST and Halo: Reaches firefight, Red dead redemption zombie survival thing and some other games that death depends on ur decisions.

 

[DaemonicShadow]

I would play as the Nazis in a second.
Also, I once played as Poland in a WW2 Civilisation IV scenario. Five turns I lasted.

 

[Jasper Jeffs]

I play on the Alliance. I'm always the losing team.