Death and Game-Overs

Game Development Writing and Content
48

Goodness, I’m sorry to have hit the wrong nerve. I hadn’t realized that “tradition” is a bad word for you. It’s not for me; I wasn’t disparaging game design by saying it has traditions. For my money, any field of design that says things like this:

has a tradition. It may in this case be a young tradition, and shaped (like most are!) in reaction to other older traditions. It no doubt welcomes the “unconventional,” as pretty much all modern Western art traditions do. At the same time, this young tradition of thinking about games also has developed its own strong internal conventions, its laws and principles, which you’re trying to describe as if they’re universal and objective.

Whereas I would suggest that inconsistency–changing the rules partway through, or having bits of your game that are chaotic and unpredictable–is a tool game designers can and should use when it fits their purpose. Why wouldn’t they? Pretty much anything that is frustrating in one context can be part of a compelling experience in a different context. If there’s any universal axiom of art, surely that’s it.

Despite the bold caps and credential-waving, I find it hard to believe you really mean this. For example, the book you shared looks great (thanks!), and from the title onward it’s clear that it’s steeped in the continuities between games and other forms of art.

It begins by describing the creation of an experience as fundamental, which is obviously something games share with other arts; on pp 11-12 the author recognizes that similarity, along with suggesting a distinctive element to the experience games can create. (And of course music, books, etc. likewise have their distinctive features; you can’t do the same things with a game that you can do with a symphony, and vice versa. Doesn’t mean they’re not all art.)

Every art has gone through periods where some people (critics as well as practitioners) try to boil it down to psychology and act as if there’s an objective, universal, science-backed standard for good and bad writing, music, painting, design, etc. If that’s the line you’re taking with games, you’re in perfectly respectable company. I just disagree–I think those attempts fail, because the diversity of what humans want, enjoy, and express can’t be reduced to a science.

5 Likes
49

It’s also rather difficult and time consuming to code @Havenstone certainly had some headaches over the winter sections of XoR and even then it is only partial randomisation. Even before that there was Vendetta’s dreaded maze.
These features can work, but they are tough to do and will inevitably cause some frustration. On the other hand getting through them can also feel like a genuine achievement.

This is true and it is also why I wish CoG would officially implement something like Dashingdon’s save system in some, not all, but at least some of their games as it would encourage, imho, more experimentation with risk and/or randomisation as game features and mechanics which could really benefit some titles.

See above for some things, mainly a save system, that I think could help with that while also retaining a focus on what makes so many choice games enjoyable, plot and relationships.
If I just wanted a roguelike I’d fire up FTL.

That being said your own latest wip, where the mc is a non-powered kid in a world of dangerous magic might possibly benefit from having at least the shadow or fear of death hang over it in some places, like the Infinity and XoR series. :thinking:

There’s also the fact that sometimes in any art form, literature, movies TV, music some things can end up gaining “cult” status because they’re so bad it’s good. :grin:
Of course in addition to the point you make where “good” or mainstream game design might miss or deliberately omit something important to many people. Non-stereotyped gay content still often being that thing for me, for example. I mean gay content is what brought me here after all, particularly gay content where my mc could be the protagonist, get the boy in the end and not suffer additional trauma or only being able to get “bittersweet” endings just on account of being gay.

I argue it in fact does, only it is most often a serendipitous result of bad, sloppy or misaimed game design.
Sometimes it may even be deliberate, I mean just look at Pyongyang racer.

7 Likes
50

Whereas I would suggest that inconsistency–changing the rules partway through, or having bits of your game that are chaotic and unpredictable–is a tool game designers can and should use when it fits their purpose. Why wouldn’t they? Pretty much anything that is frustrating in one context can be part of a compelling experience in a different context. If there’s any universal axiom of art, surely that’s it.

Hence why I specifically wrote; “without any good explanation or point to make”.

Despite the bold caps and credential-waving, I find it hard to believe you really mean this.

Lol no dude, trust me, thay are nothing alike. But thanks for reinterpreting my own words and experiences in favor of your own argument.

I just disagree–I think those attempts fail, because the diversity of what humans want, enjoy, and express can’t be reduced to a science.

Never, ever claimed this.

Not to be the resident wise-ass (probably too late now anyway), but that has nothing to do with game design.

I argue it in fact does, only it is most often a serendipitous result of bad, sloppy or misaimed game design.

That’s a writing issue, dude. Please. :sweat:

Here’s a wikipedia article about the subject to hopefully clear up some of the massive confusions about this subject on this thread. You’re welcome.

51

I think for me, the important thing to think about what purpose death would serve in a game, and the effects it would have on the player.

For example, deaths near the end might have the purpose of capping the story in a satisfactory way, and would usually be the sum of many earlier choices that led you down this path. It might be a good ending or a bad one, but the important thing is that it is one ending among others. The consequences are great since it’s at the end of the story and you might not want to replay, but it also gives closure to the path you took if done right.

On the other hand, deaths close to the start might have the purpose of showing the player that they can’t get away with being completely stupid, and that they need to think before they act. This might be a good thing with low stakes, since it easy to restart, and these kinds of deaths are often of the more jokey variant. On the other hand, it might also make people nervous and risk averse, and lead to a lot more gamey approach to the story than might otherwise have been the case.

The hardest ones to get right in my opinion are the middle ones. Too little time has passed to get a proper closure in the story, and at the same time, there’s a lot of things to reread, and you can’t just click through because you need to figure out how not to die again. This can have a really bad effect on the story if not implemented right, making the player think that there’s only a few right ways to play the game and they need to decipher the right one in order to survive. If the death is due to many earlier choices that can lead to frustration if it happens again, and if it’s down to a single failed stat check it might lead to the next run being character minmaxing rather than just playing organically.

Death can have a place in these games, but all too often it feels like the consequences of death on the actual gameplay is not fully understood by the authors.

26 Likes
52

@malinryden

This. You elegantly formulated what I was trying to get across, but much more clearly and tactfully than I could ever have done. Thank you, well done. :clap:

53

Although a death at the end can do this (I tried to get something like this in my own story, if the MC chooses to sacrifice themselves for the city), I have seen at least one published game where a failure at the final hurdle ended up with a death scene which wasn’t far from “And then you died. The end.” :grimacing: If you’re going to make the MC’s death into an ending, it still has to be a satisfying ending.

7 Likes
54

And how is writing suddenly not part of the design process anymore? If your game has any sort of plot it will have writing.
Now I agree that communication between the writers and the programmers and other people who implement it is often far from optimal in big organisations but that is a communication and leadership problem. Which is also related to the design process.

Oh, gee thank you for the patronising attitude. Good to see that 'ole prestigious university spirit is alive and well :unamused:

But just FWI it is not always the writing that is responsible for that effect bugs, glitches and generally bad programming and level designs can all create some unintended mirth too.

That’s sloppy and lazy storytelling all of its own. Particularly if the company then decides on a sequel anyway and hey what do you know they’re alive and well again.

That said I actually liked some of the death endings in the old Dragon Age Origins they at least made it feel like the Warden’s sacrifice had weight and we got a nice funeral scene.

3 Likes
55

Okay, Everyone, This is getting personal attacks and stupid. Each one has their opinions and call trash and patronizing others don’t help anyone.

So you know the drill about Circular discussions.

Why won’t all of you derived the fight to concrete ways to implement Death scenes In a Cog format. That will be certainly more informative for new writers like me. That see all of you fight

11 Likes
56

I think this is a semantic issue. You seem to think of game design as the all encompassing process of creating games, whereas my definition of it relates to a specific set of disciplines in the game making process and writing isnt inherently a part of that. It bridges the gap between gameplay, mechanics and writing, but it isn’t responsible for the writing in and of itself.

Anyway, to bring the discussion back to the topic at hand, I think Malin put it perfectly. A death mechanic should be implemented if the author fully understands the consequences on it’s readers. Whatever the case, the cause of death should be an obvious slip-up of the reader not paying attention to information that’s readily available, which in CoG’s requires extra care and attention from the writer. Or else it devolves into the guessing game I was talking about, when youre thinking “what option does the author want me to pick?” Instead of “what option would my character logically pick?”

57

If it is supposed to bridge the gap then part of it would seem to be facilitating and making sure there is good and clear communication between the writers and the people on the other end of the bridge so one does not muddle, hobble or make the task of the people on the other end impossible.

Which often seems to come back to those leadership and communication problems I mentioned. Compartmentalisation and over-specialisation combined with inadequate or even lack of communication between parts of an organisation are, imho, responsible for a lot of problems particularly in bigger organisations where the executives who are theoretically supposed to monitor the whole process and keep sight of the “big picture” often have only a business or economics education and little knowledge of or affinity with whatever their organisation is actually doing, be that game creation, medicine or construction.

That seems to be the most common definition in the media, at least where I come from, so yes that is what game design and development means to me as a lay person.

Intent often translates poorly over the internet and it seems we have been communicating poorly but this is an open access forum if you didn’t want lay people/consumers like me to weigh in you can limit your audience through PM to only published authors.
I’m sorry for any unintended miscommunication on my part here.

5 Likes
59

I can understand a healthy debate, as that’s the purpose of this topic–to discuss the pros & cons of dying or game overs in these text based games.

The problem right now is that this has slued from a debate into a destructive deconstruction of each others’ comments, and replies. This in no way contributes to the discussion, and instead narrows the focus on opinionated views, and sniping at each others’ differences.

I know you weren’t trying to be a negative party here, Blackbird, so don’t worry too much about ‘tone perception’. I’m just making a general post about the derailed topic.

Now as for my own thoughts on the matter, I agree with Malin’s succinctly worded take. Timing. Placement. Purpose.
Still, there’s no precise rules of what will work “best” when taking into account that consumer response is usually what dictates whether something just works, or doesn’t… But that’s why this debate is here; to see if there isn’t a way to find more ideas that can help everyone pin down what might work best in their own works. :thinking:

4 Likes
60

@malinryden pretty much nailed the developmental aspects of a death mechanic design in a text-based IF game.

The magic being produced by the authors and designers here is facilitated partly by the very nature that they are not formally trained or educated in the “traditional” schooling of game design.

With that said, this should not excuse them from taking wisdom offered up by design theory; this is where the tension often arises.

@Blackbird – I really believe you have a lot to offer this community and I feel that if you opened your own specific thread to discuss relevant design principles and practices – even providing the resources (and others) that you have here – the entire community would benefit.

Bringing the death mechanic into the forefront of each post should be paramount in this thread. Otherwise, there is a danger of sniping breaking out between us all. This is a very enlightening and educational thread.

I ask that each one of us make an effort to refocus our individual posts on the death mechanic – specifically and not invest the effort to debate each other in vain. Too many really helpful and insightful threads turn into a mess because we lose sight of the forest while examining the individual trees up close.

10 Likes
61

The death ending , or rather it was choice of ourselves in order to save the world in Heart of the House had the same weight and purpose as Dragon Age as well, MC know exactly what is the consequence in some of the ending choice of closing the portal , some choice will result in the sacrifice of MC if MC is unwilling to work with the House

62

See this is where I think they dropped the ball on some of that.

In the origin prologues, there is always a situation where Duncan ends up forcing you into the Wardens no matter whether you agree to go with him or not. It’s like why bother having the dialogue choice if there isn’t going to be a consequence for it?

What would have been a lot more interesting is if they had put in the consequence of not joining the Wardens instead of just railroading the character into the storyline.

While obviously this would have always resulted in a bad end/death probably in the form of a cut scene, (Such as the dwarf and elf commoners getting executed) in at least two cases of the origins, I can see there even still being some gameplay involved. If you were a mage and didn’t join, it would have been fun to do a short play through of the mage tower being attacked and you inevitably getting overrun by demons. In the dwarf noble’s case, I could see the gameplay just continuing to wander through tunnels until the darkspawn eventually killed you.

In all of them I can see the character’s eventual death followed with text saying “In your last moments, you briefly wonder “What if you had taken Duncan’s offer instead?”

In any case, would have been a lot more interesting to have seen such an addition put in, rather than Duncan just saying “Nope you’re coming with me.”

2 Likes
63

Well… sometimes it is a way to lead a character into the plotline , for PC RPG or text RPG , it is not as open world as the pen and paper RPG , because these story do develop a plotline to lead MC into an adventure …

And that’s the reason why no matter how advance technology is, they still can’t replace the human mind of the pen and paper RPG, where a good GM could expand the story based on Players’ decision …

1 Like
64

While I do agree with you on the fact that the joining the wardens bit could have been handled better with the refusal, I think events like you describe might have a big issue regardless of the extra work involved.

When you buy a game there’s an unspoken contract between the player and the game, that even if instances along the way might be hard and difficult to overcome, if you persevere and get better you will be able to make it to the end and have a full (but varied) experience of the story.

Unless you put in the money and effort to make parallel games for the backgrounds, a refusal like that would lead to a much shorter game, and most likely an annoyance with the player since it didn’t live up to the 80+ (something, I don’t remember) hours of gameplay on the box.

Not only that, but adding a choice like that clearly makes a difference between the RIGHT way of playing the game (as decided by the designers) and the WRONG way (leading to a shorter game and probable death) without having the player know that it was wrong at the time since you were given the choice and assumed that both the choices were equal.

I think they could have handled that choice a LOT better, probably not even having a choice at all (or just how to react to it) because as you say, it’s not handled well.

12 Likes