Gameguru Mania Updated:06:46 PM CEST May,10
AR Wallet

66 lottery login

91 club

okwin

bdg game

55 club

Playbonus.ca
CONTACT
Please e-mail us if you have news.

(c) 1998-2026 Gameguru Mania
Privacy Policy statement
SEARCH:
 Gameguru Mania News - Nov,24 2009 -  
Opinion: Rethinking Player Death - briefly
(hx) 12:58 PM CET - Nov,24 2009 - Post a comment / read (2)
Gamasutra has an editorial originally published in Game Developer Magazine's November 2009 issue by editor-in-Chief Brandon Sheffield. He asks the question "Why is death even part of the equation?" for games if meaningful consequences aren't built in. Here's an excerpt:
Death can be a good time to provide positive feedback for players, and add tutorial hints. Considering the fact that games are meant to be won, the player is essentially invincible in the grand scheme of things, requiring, again, nothing more than perseverance and the occasional GameFAQs hint. Why not try to create a game that contains similar challenges to standard games, but completely avoids death?

If the end result is the same, and meaningful (or humorous) consequences aren’t built in, why is death even part of the equation? It isn’t really death, after all, it’s really just the proverbial “flesh wound.”

These days we have a buffer against death in games anyway: Most first- and third-person shooters have regenerative health, whether it makes sense for the world or not. Once the player’s regenerative health is depleted, they crumple to the ground momentarily, only to have time magically rewound, with players finding themselves transported to a very familiar (usually identically instanced) checkpoint save state from their recent past.
last 10 comments:
Sabot(01:56 PM CET - Nov,24 2009 )
Woah! hold yer horse for a mo.
Death has to be balanced in most games due to the poor level design -as in enclosed scripted paths where your ALWAYS going to die unless you do it the EXACT dev's path/way. Or in a helluva lot of cases trying to kill something -a level boss etc- with MEGA hit points.

Games (or sims to put it correctly) like OFP/ArmA on PC allow the gamer to know roughly how easy it is to die *instantly* with one shot without knowing who/what/where? killed you. Likewise it models impaired limb damage through unsteady impossible aiming, or the inability to get up through damaged legs. You *HAVE* to have a reload point otherwise the player will never,ever learn tactics and will rapidly tire of restarts -which in something like a simulation is an instant no no!
Games like COD etc which model a red mist-like coloured vision to signify non vital bullet nicks or hits are done so that the gamer knows he is getting pinged on. We don't have feelings of impact in a game and lots of us haven't played a military like simulation, just watch them run around firing without using cover! That's what makes game sales, the ability to convince the player that they are GOOD at the game, when in a simulation you would be dropped as soon as you stood up.

Horses for courses! as the saying goes :wink:

If you want something that dies and relays feelings to the player, remember the original hand held tamagotchi? If you never cared for it; fed/watered it simply died. Lots of fun....not

GAMES, big clue in that title eh?

Tom(02:15 AM CET - Nov,25 2009 )
In short it all depends on how it's used. If you don't like games where you die in them, then don't buy them. Stupid article not worth more than 3 sentences.

All comments
 Add your comment (free registration required)


Related news:
Controversial Opinion: Modern Games Don't Need to Be Sophisticated - gameguru review (Dec 03 2021)
Your opinion on Hunt Down The Freeman? - briefly (Mar 01 2018)
Opinion: The New Old Wave of PC Games - briefly (Jan 26 2009)

related cheats/trainer:

no results found


 Links
Search results for -Rethinking- :

no records found

 External links