Design Immortality in games.

M

Misty

Guest
Immortality in games most to least.

1. Kirby's epic yarn. U cannot die ever. It makes the boss music unfitting and boring.

2. Computer fps games. U quick save whenever. Takes all the thrill and danger out of the game.

3. Borderlands 2. U cannot die but u lose money and have to spawn at the last save point. However if ur friend is still alive the bosses health will not reset making some bosses too easy to beat.

4. Modern games. If u die u just spawn at the last checkpoint, usually the same room of the boss making it a bit easy. Unless the boss is super hard.

5. Metroid. U spawn at the last save point. Usually a few rooms away from the boss making u struggle through obstacles.

6. Classic level system. When die u have to restart the level.

7. Sonic style. Run out of lives and u have to restart from the beginning of the game.

So which of these is your favorite and why. Also do u have any new ideas of how to improve these systems?

Call me old school but I like 5 and 6 the best, it really brings back fond memories of really getting into the game. When I die and it just respawns me in the next room it just feels fake and phony to me. I guess I am a masochist in terms of my sexuality, but not a super masochist, I don't like being abandoned insulted or abused.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Each of those attempt to fix a different issue.
They each tailor to a specific play style and feeling.

I can't say I have a favourite, they each complement their games well. (Though, I still think Sonics ring system is lazy and nonsensical)
 

YellowAfterlife

ᴏɴʟɪɴᴇ ᴍᴜʟᴛɪᴘʟᴀʏᴇʀ
Forum Staff
Moderator
In addition to what's said above
2. Computer fps games. U quick save whenever. Takes all the thrill and danger out of the game.
If the game format permits, I think leaving it up to player when to save (and saving on area transition in case they forget about saving completely) isn't too bad - some people will rely purely on auto-saves, some will save after every corner because they lack courage or can't trust themselves not to panic and make mistakes.
3. Borderlands 2. U cannot die but u lose money and have to spawn at the last save point. However if ur friend is still alive the bosses health will not reset making some bosses too easy to beat.
This is how death in most coop games works - either you decide to disregard that balancing issue and make bosses stronger in coop, or you accept the situation that in a 4-player game 3 players might die and have to wait as the most tanky but damage lacking player struggles with the boss for 15 minutes before finally dying. I'll leave you to guess which approach developers get more complaints over.

With that in mind, however, hardest difficulties in games commonly strip players of ability to respawn during boss fights in coop - not sure if that was the case in Borderlands, but Terraria's "expert mode" does that for ones that had complained that the game is too easy.
4. Modern games. If u die u just spawn at the last checkpoint, usually the same room of the boss making it a bit easy. Unless the boss is super hard.
Games had checkpoints since at least 1985 (first Megaman would already throw you back to entrance of boss room when failing), although older titles would more commonly also have an arcade machine style system on top of that where if the player failed enough times, they would be forced to replay the area or the entire game.
 

Rayek

Member
None of those that you list.

My favourite approach to how death affects play is Rogue Legacy's one. Integrate death as a feature, rather than as a punishment. It is very well done and turns the concept of death in games upside down.

My second-favourite (an important one which you have missed listing) is perma-death in Rogue games such as Rogue and Nethack, or older adventure games. No second chances. Your character dies, and it is game over.

My third-favourite death option is no death at all, like in many point-and-click adventure games. Death gets in the way of puzzle-solving and exploring (generally).

But really, it depends on the particular game type and play what works best.
 
A

abianche

Guest
5. Metroid. U spawn at the last save point. Usually a few rooms away from the boss making u struggle through obstacles.
This tends to be (kind of) my favorite, especially if the boss is hard enough it gets you think about strategy on how to beat it. Thinking about some Final Fantasy games where, sometimes, you don't really know what's best against a boss (e.g. for some reasons I think of FF VIII).
But then again, it really depends on the game itself, this won't probably apply in multiplayer games.
 
S

Snuffy

Guest
As already mentioned, each method is typically engaged for a specific type of game and play style. Vintage games typically had you start completely over when you died due to data constraints for save games (think mega man with its "code" boxes). As dying is essentially failing, it should have some penalty. I think that the general theme of losing experience points and regenerating somewhere else typically works.
 
Depends on what the pace and tone of the game is. If a game is all about simple, straightforward, nonstop action, it's usually not much fun to restart from the beginning of the level when you die. If the game is methodical and complex, with an immersive and tense atmosphere, though, raising the stakes a bit more can add significantly to the overall experience. Also, mechanical complexity can make repeating the same content several times a softer blow, as there are usually multiple ways to tackle a situation, and multiple possible outcomes for any given action.

Case in point: if Rayman Legends had for some reason been given Don't Starve's death mechanics, it probably wouldn't have been a very good game. Likewise, if dying in Don't Starve just resulted in you respawning wherever you were fifteen seconds ago with all of your items still in your inventory, what would be the point of not starving?
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
1. Yeah ok, that seems a little odd.
2. Many fps games don't allow you to quick save whenever. But I see your point. Checkpoints make more sense.

3. In single player mode, I actually really liked how borderlamds worked.
In multiplayer, it doesn't matter that much. The game makes up for it in fun.

4,5,6 are all essentially the same. What matters is checkpoint placement. Get a good game designer.

7. Sonics ring system seems badly designed to me. The number of rungs doesn't matter, if you get hit, you loose them all. I guess it makes sense for score? Eh.


Also also mario:
You have lives, and "health" in the form of powerups.
Lose health and you start level over.
Lose lives and you have to load a savegame.


Some games have no save modes. So called hard-core modes.
If you believe your game is better as a roguelike, with no going back whatsoever, then do the oposite; add a "friendly" mode which allows you to load.
People will know that is not how the game was supposed to be played, but it will allow people without as much time, disabilities, or other issues also have fun playing your game.
 

Niels

Member
I like the dark souls system where you can't get a game over state but you do get a penalty when you die. And also no manual save options
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
I think save systems need a discussion of their own.

For instance, being able to save anywhere does not always mean you can go back to that save point.
You may need to save the game in order to resume it later.
For example, look at FTL. Its a rogue like, but you can still save, and load your save game. The difference is you can never go back, you game is always saved to the latest point.

This is great when you don't have the time to go through a whole game ikn one sitting.

I think games that only allow you to save a certain moments for design reasons are doing it wrong.
You should only be able to go back to certain points. But being able to save whenever im order to resume is very important IMO.
 
I think games that only allow you to save a certain moments for design reasons are doing it wrong.
Eh...this has never bothered me. Almost all games with save points have them every 5-30 minutes apart. The higher end ones tend to be RPGs, where if you don't have thirty minutes to spare, you're going to ruin the game for yourself anyway. Metroidvanias and the like typically let you get to a save room within five minutes.

Not saying a "suspend game" feature is a bad thing to have (my RPG will have one), just that I've never really felt a game was lacking because it didn't have this particular feature.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Eh...this has never bothered me. Almost all games with save points have them every 5-30 minutes apart. The higher end ones tend to be RPGs, where if you don't have thirty minutes to spare, you're going to ruin the game for yourself anyway. Metroidvanias and the like typically let you get to a save room within five minutes.

Not saying a "suspend game" feature is a bad thing to have (my RPG will have one), just that I've never really felt a game was lacking because it didn't have this particular feature.
True, i do agree.
but i often like to have the option to just save, even in the middle of a cutscene. I often had to when people come over unexpectedly, or even if I forgot I had a lecture XD.

That's one thing I loved about the DS, I could just shut it and it would be fine (even if I worried a lot about it messing up).
 
True, i do agree.
but i often like to have the option to just save, even in the middle of a cutscene. I often had to when people come over unexpectedly, or even if I forgot I had a lecture XD.

That's one thing I loved about the DS, I could just shut it and it would be fine (even if I worried a lot about it messing up).
Yeah, that's true. The Switch let's you go to the home screen to pause/suspend a game too, no matter what's happening on screen. It's great when someone comes over or you get a phone call or something, like you said. Super convenient!

I guess I do agree that all games should let you suspend whenever. Now that I think about it, I've used the feature a million times on my Switch, and always love it, hahah!
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
Yeah, that's true. The Switch let's you go to the home screen to pause/suspend a game too, no matter what's happening on screen. It's great when someone comes over or you get a phone call or something, like you said. Super convenient!

I guess I do agree that all games should let you suspend whenever. Now that I think about it, I've used the feature a million times on my Switch, and always love it, hahah!
Oh thats great that the switch does that! Most portable console do, now to think of it (I think everything after the psp).

But I've never seen the feature in home consoles.

But its something I miss in PC gaming. Especially since i like to shut my pc down.
I've only seen a few games dol it on PC. In fact, I can't think of many AAA games that allow you to quick save anywhere.

I should really get a switch but IDK if I can justify the cost.
 

Kyon

Member
I think it's very interesting now-a-days to remove dying in games.
I'm really into perma-death stuff, so your mistakes can make your teammates die (and the game will save at that point too).
The game I'm working on atm has this a bit. If you make a wrong choice your story continues from that point, which could end up with you dying (creating an ending of the game) or someone else dying (creates a whole different experience).

But idk, this is harder with longer games.

I believe Death Stranding has announced that death will be a very important part in the game, and that they are not going to let the player die but instead you'll get to play in a different dimension or something.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
I think it's very interesting now-a-days to remove dying in games.
I'm really into perma-death stuff, so your mistakes can make your teammates die (and the game will save at that point too).
The game I'm working on atm has this a bit. If you make a wrong choice your story continues from that point, which could end up with you dying (creating an ending of the game) or someone else dying (creates a whole different experience).

But idk, this is harder with longer games.

I believe Death Stranding has announced that death will be a very important part in the game, and that they are not going to let the player die but instead you'll get to play in a different dimension or something.
I'm working on a rogue like atm (although it's indefenetly put on hold, uni is hard).
I will still have a gamemide to let people save and go back though. I think its important to allow people to play the way they want or need, as long as you communicate it's not the way you think its most enjoyed.

If I'm not mistaken thats what fire emblem does. @RichHopelessComposer can probably confirm.

I don't like the idea of enforcing difficult gameplay on people, especially if your game has more to offer than difficulty alone. (If the only apeal of your game is it's difficulty then why even bother thinking about game design...)
 

Kyon

Member
I'm working on a rogue like atm (although it's indefenetly put on hold, uni is hard).
I will still have a gamemide to let people save and go back though. I think its important to allow people to play the way they want or need, as long as you communicate it's not the way you think its most enjoyed.

If I'm not mistaken thats what fire emblem does. @RichHopelessComposer can probably confirm.

I don't like the idea of enforcing difficult gameplay on people, especially if your game has more to offer than difficulty alone. (If the only apeal of your game is it's difficulty then why even bother thinking about game design...)
Yes, I'm still thinking of making the save system save sort of the previous choice/moment you did at the next choice/moment you do. So it doesn't directly save your bad decision.
But that said, I think it's a challenge to make every moment just as exciting. So, for example, you have to jump over a hole in the ground or something. Make it just as exciting at the bottom of that hole than when you make it to the other side.

Something else cool is, at the same example, when you fall, that you have to climb up again, and if you made it, you didn't have to do that.
So the climbing (and thus less faster progression in the game) is the toll.
 
Yeah, the Fire Emblem series is known for units having permadeath, only the "main" hero characters result in a game over if they die in battle.
I like when games incorporate death into the gameplay. Dark Souls and Rogue Legacy have already been mentioned but they might be my favourites.

I actually like the Sonic system, it's a nice second chance system and seeing all your collectibles fly out like that and trying to reclaim them all feels distressing and exciting to me.
 
Z

zendraw

Guest
they depend on the game itself... and these have just come naturally based on what the game needed.
 

GMWolf

aka fel666
I actually like the Sonic system, it's a nice second chance system and seeing all your collectibles fly out like that and trying to reclaim them all feels distressing and exciting to me.
Perhaps i dont like it because I don't play for glory. I couldn't care less what score I get....
 
Perhaps i dont like it because I don't play for glory. I couldn't care less what score I get....
Well I never played for score either, I don't know anyone who did to be honest, it was just part of the game to collect them.
The more rings you had, the more chance you had to recover enough to keep you alive next time you get hit. If you only had one ring and you got hit, chasing it down to make sure you won't die on the next hit is stressful. But having a large amount fly out makes it easier to recover, and also a bit visually exciting.
 

TsukaYuriko

☄️
Forum Staff
Moderator
Newer Fire Emblem titles have options to turn off permanent death, which I think was a good move. It makes the game more accessible for people who would otherwise throw the game in a corner after their first character death and never return to it.

When developing games, I primarily focus on making the game fun to play - after all, it's a game - and not overly punishing and/or time-wasting (I mean the type of time wasting that has you re-do stuff you already did, like starting the game over from the beginning if all of your units die). It's entirely up to the player to impose additional rules onto themselves - for example, "Nuzlocke challenge" runs of Pokémon games - and play the game the way they enjoy it the most.

I get that there's a general trend of "I beat this super hard game, I'm so good" going on, to the point that games' difficulty is being compared to a certain series that contains "Souls" in its name, complete with all levels of elitism and length comparisons... and when optional, I believe that high levels of difficulty can be a good thing (making things too easy will be boring for people who can play the game well), but games that enforce it always feel like they're actively shrinking the game's target audience to me.


One example I find notable is Darkest Dungeon, a game which basically treats player characters like expendable resources. Characters can (and likely, will) die, all the time and effort that went into raising them is lost upon their death, alongside their equipment. The amount of characters that can replace fallen characters is theoretically infinite unless you play on the highest difficulty (but that's an entirely different story), your only limit is how much time you want to invest into raising new characters.

This is also the thing that made many people I told about the game stay away from it, including myself for quite a while after experiencing a full party wipe at a point where I had no characters that could quickly or easily replace the characters I had lost. No PCs were smashed against walls, nothing was uninstalled, I just wasn't willing to invest like 20 more hours into the game just to get back to the point I left off because the amount of time I could spend on playing games was already severely limited due to having a job and going to college at the same time.

A perfect example of "difficulty shrinking the game's target audience" and a developer's response to maintaining enjoyability for a wider range of players: The developers of the game responded to concerns like this by adding an alternate "difficulty" mode which essentially still pits you against the same-ish horrible abominations that are just waiting for the chance to get a pre-emptive attack on your party and focus down one of your characters (which, of course, is the squishy healer - RIP Verissa - so that your other characters are doomed as well) with critical hits, but reduces the amount of time that would usually be spent on grinding activities such as leveling your characters (more experience points), farming money (lower prices) and recovering from losses (more ways to recruit higher-than-usual-level characters). I picked the game up again after this change.

Notably, the permanent death mechanic remained exactly the same, yet having someone die doesn't feel like getting stabbed from behind and then kicked when you're on the floor anymore. It's just stabbing from behind now. However, since new characters level up more quickly than I manage to get them killed off this time around, permadeath no longer feels like that one gameplay element that causes me to waste time doing stuff I already did just to continue from where I left off every time it pops up and became a mere reminder that overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer.
 
Last edited:

GMWolf

aka fel666
Well I never played for score either, I don't know anyone who did to be honest, it was just part of the game to collect them.
The more rings you had, the more chance you had to recover enough to keep you alive next time you get hit. If you only had one ring and you got hit, chasing it down to make sure you won't die on the next hit is stressful. But having a large amount fly out makes it easier to recover, and also a bit visually exciting.
Yo me it always seemed like having a single ring was enough...
The levels are littered with rings after all. If you get hit that often then you probably deserve the gameover.
 
Top