would you play as the losing team?

[Jasper Jeffs]

Stupid fucking caches made me double post.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

I suspect you play for a faction other than SVER.

To the main point, I find that games are often at their most fun when there is no real hope of victory. In more than one past game, I would regularly switch to the losing side because those epic last stands were far more exciting than simply throwing my corpse at the enemy.

 

[yaoinut]

It could be interesting and played out in many ways. You could have a defeat early in the game, see your troops get slaughtered. Perhaps you survive, perhaps you flee when you finally understand you cannot win.

You could be encouraged to rebuild from the ground up. A lot of time building up your troops, gaining wealth all the while hiding from the enemy you know you cannot beat yet,

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I think it would work magnificently... for me. I can imagine it being very story based rather than gameplay which is just spectacular, I know a lot of people would love that. But I don't think it would cater to the masses. The majority of people would not like losing so it's not something that would sell well, though.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

RTS: No, it frustrates me to see my supposedly unpenetrable defense get blown open.

FPS: Yes, sounds like fun actually.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

In the Iron Grip campaign you can't really win either, you hold them off as long as you can until the really big enemies arive, then you try to slow them down until you get bombed into oblivion- repeat.

 

[imnot]

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.

HAlo Reach did it well you know your going to lose but you keep thinking "I can win this"
And yes I would play a game like that.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Well if the objective of every level was just to survive you could complete the game in minutes just by killing yourself every time? If there was an actual story in which you complete objectives and levels, and then, in the end, you all die - sure, that would work. But holding off hoards of enemies just to prolong your pitiful life just sounds like a zombie mini-game.

 

[demoman_chaos]

If they do it right, yes. If they do it like in Halo Reach, probably not. Considering most of your time in Halo Reach was capturing and holding areas, defeat didn't seem assured.

The wrong way to do it is make it seem like you are the only compitant one and your allies are dumbasses. You pwn all and complete an objective, then you are told you have to reterat because of allies not doing their job. That sort of style is more annoying than anything. They would need to make it where you really have to pull back.

 

[chif-ii]

Isn't this the point of every game with Survival Mode?

Also, check out Missle Defense (from the Extra Credits episode "Narrative Mechanics").

 

[dmase]

I've seen that a lot in games where the general end is already decided. People have used a couple of examples but there is the gundam federation vs. zeon where the majority of the game your slowly retreating to A-Baquo.