Ben

Editorial: Dealing with Death

Recommended Posts

I really liked that in Half-Life 1, sometimes scientists would run up to you and tell you something important, but you could (intentionally or accidentally) crowbar them in the face and they'd just fall to the ground dead, leaving you to figure it out. If they ever needed a scientist to open a locked door, there was usually one on the opposite side to do it, so you could kill the guy on your side if you wanted. It was kind of a bummer to find that in the later games Valve fell so in love with every single "good guy" speaking NPC that you weren't allowed to kill them.

It was such a shock when, late in HL1, I was listening to a scientist impart some plot to me, and then I accidentally clicked the mouse and unloaded a shotgun right in his face, dropping him instantly. It was just disappointing when, in HL2 (and most every game of that style since), when I mouse over someone remotely plot-relevant, my character -- who I can make jump off a cliff or smack himself into a crushing vice or automated flamethrower whenever I want -- lowers his gun and won't let me interact.

It's obviously a somewhat necessary solution to what would otherwise be, at least at first glance in my mind, an epic problem, but it's still always disappointing. You know that nearly everyone who plays these games tries to fire off a round or two at those NPCs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess if they'd kept HL2 as simple as HL1 they could've given you the opportunity to kill those people all over again.

I can't wait to see if Duncan will continue to write an entire trilogy of Bioshock hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent article, and on a classic Thumbish subject: design flaws and gameplay philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wonderful!

I dislike these obvious interference barriers. The copy protection simile was excellent: I'm not going to do something wrong, but you're still treating me like a criminal! This is getting to be the case with lots of things these days, movies, airport security, surveillance...

Anyway, I'd rather have a system like in HL1, where you can kill everyone, and have the game reload if it's a "vital" character. In linear shooters, this works. I find the HL2 solution even better. The character lowers the weapon. It's not impossible to shoot Alyx. You can throw a grenade, shoot a barrel at her, even good timing lets you shoot your load in her face. It's just that if you really must hurt these persons, they'll simply ignore it. I fully accept this: the game isn't about moral choice, or who is good or bad. It's a store where who lives and who dies is already decided for us. In exchange for "letting myself be exposed" to these unreal moments of invurnerability or characters moving cars by walking into them I get these awesome immersive sequences if I just play by the rules. I don't shoot Dr. Kleiner, and I'm allowed to stand in a group with people, listening to them, having them look me in the eyes and tell me stuff, or follow me around. I can take part in these events rather than simply observing them through bulletproof glass. The people who'd rather shoot everyone and ignore what's happening, and are disappointed that Alyx doesn't die. Fuck those guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although in Bioshock's defense, they did give you the option to murder Cohen late in the game, although there was little motivation to do so. Still it's a valid complaint. I feel as though mechanisms to prevent the murder of vital NPCs are inherently constricting, and players should be responsible enough to allow for the story's continuation.

Where in Bioshock can you break the game though? Now I'm curious. :mock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent article, and on a classic Thumbish subject: design flaws and gameplay philosophy.

Hear Hear ! More please !

Article was great but a bit long and repetitive at some points. But good overall :tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really liked that in Half-Life 1, sometimes scientists would run up to you and tell you something important, but you could (intentionally or accidentally) crowbar them in the face and they'd just fall to the ground dead, leaving you to figure it out. If they ever needed a scientist to open a locked door, there was usually one on the opposite side to do it, so you could kill the guy on your side if you wanted. It was kind of a bummer to find that in the later games Valve fell so in love with every single "good guy" speaking NPC that you weren't allowed to kill them.

Yeah, I don't the HL2 solution for plot-centric NPCs but there were times when I really wanted to be able to shoot the resistance fighters (when they got stuck in a doorway as a Strider was shooting at us, for example. :shifty: My Gordon shoots people who are in his way.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed this article and I'd like to open the subject a little more.

Duncan makes a really good point when he writes that the shortcomings around the death of NPCs are due to the fact that the designers and writers don't want the player to screw their story up.

In Oblivion, as stated in the article, the player is warned that the story is screwed up... maybe the next step would be to provide closure to the gamer when he destroy elements of the story that can't be reinjected in an artificial station. For exemple, if you kill someone who is supposed to open a door, you can replace him by a tool or another NPC but if you kill Alyx, it's going to be difficult to find a replacement for her practical function [she open doors and helps around] and symbolical function[the player is doing everything for her sake].

It doesn't have to be a satisfactory ending for the player, in fact, it shouldn't be satisfactory but the player should be provided a coherent ending to the game.

If you're stuck because Alyx is dead, you should see HL² world going to shit....Then death or 'screw ups' could become an important part of the narrative toolset, enabling the creator to show the player what would have happened without him ala It's a Wonderful Life.

D'you think it's a good idea ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really enjoyed this article and I'd like to open the subject a little more.

Duncan makes a really good point when he writes that the shortcomings around the death of NPCs are due to the fact that the designers and writers don't want the player to screw their story up.

In Oblivion, as stated in the article, the player is warned that the story is screwed up... maybe the next step would be to provide closure to the gamer when he destroy elements of the story that can't be reinjected in an artificial station. For exemple, if you kill someone who is supposed to open a door, you can replace him by a tool or another NPC but if you kill Alyx, it's going to be difficult to find a replacement for her practical function [she open doors and helps around] and symbolical function[the player is doing everything for her sake].

It doesn't have to be a satisfactory ending for the player, in fact, it shouldn't be satisfactory but the player should be provided a coherent ending to the game.

If you're stuck because Alyx is dead, you should see HL² world going to shit....Then death or 'screw ups' could become an important part of the narrative toolset, enabling the creator to show the player what would have happened without him ala It's a Wonderful Life.

D'you think it's a good idea ?

On a side note I'm getting sick of helping Alyx save the world. I already did my part 3 times. "Gordan will help" "Fuck no, I don't even live here. Deal with it,im off for some hot coffee"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really enjoyed this article and I'd like to open the subject a little more.

Duncan makes a really good point when he writes that the shortcomings around the death of NPCs are due to the fact that the designers and writers don't want the player to screw their story up.

In Oblivion, as stated in the article, the player is warned that the story is screwed up... maybe the next step would be to provide closure to the gamer when he destroy elements of the story that can't be reinjected in an artificial station. For exemple, if you kill someone who is supposed to open a door, you can replace him by a tool or another NPC but if you kill Alyx, it's going to be difficult to find a replacement for her practical function [she open doors and helps around] and symbolical function[the player is doing everything for her sake].

It doesn't have to be a satisfactory ending for the player, in fact, it shouldn't be satisfactory but the player should be provided a coherent ending to the game.

If you're stuck because Alyx is dead, you should see HL² world going to shit....Then death or 'screw ups' could become an important part of the narrative toolset, enabling the creator to show the player what would have happened without him ala It's a Wonderful Life.

D'you think it's a good idea ?

I agree. I think that the way to solve the issue isn't really to prevent the player from doing anything but, like Cliffy B said, expect them to try to break the game and account for it. I'm going to use the example of Deus Ex again, with its utterly complex story line, and how it managed to write in character deaths without interrupting the narrative. The designers simply made sure that the only differences the NPC's death would make would be with certain conversations and periphery events later in the game.

I think that the difficulty in dealing with this problem nowadays is the high level of integration each character has with the flow of the game. That is not to say that Deus Ex's characters weren't twice as complex as your average modern-day NPC (they were), but scripted events were just simpler back then. The same is true for linearity. When the overall quality of the game rests on the presentation of each of it's individual elements, open-ended dungeon-crawlers can feel empty by the standards of cinematic experiences like Bioshock when you take into account the detail that goes into creating a believable or (more importantly) an involving world. People now expect much more of a roller-coaster experience from their single-player games. In Deus Ex, taking out a character was as simple as removing their model from the level (though their dialog and cues were scripted, their paths through each map and their actions in combat were non-specific). However, in HL2, Alex's specific actions are so closely intertwined with the narrative that by eliminating her character, the game grinds to a halt. Logistically, the designer has to account for a missing character (using Dog as an example) by contriving other ways to catapult the player over a ravine and into the Citadel or pick up a tank and fling it into a storefront. Especially with HL2, scripted sequences are critical in moving the player through a game at the intended pace, and invincible characters are the price we pay for experiencing the game on a deeper, more cinematic level. Obviously there are other ways of obtaining this level of involvement, and HL2 is certainly one of the more extreme examples of modern linearity in games, but I think there is a trend among first-person shooters to provide experiences that are character-driven as opposed to event-driven. Each character has such a tangible connection with the game world that to allow them to be removed at the player's whim would be impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say something here? Fire Emblem.

In Fire Emblem, when one character in your party dies, they're dead. Period. All further dialogue in the game simply skips the lines where they might have mentioned that character. (Other than the occasional "He's dead!" speech.) There's not even a Phoenix Down or a 1up to save you. Dead is dead is dead. It makes keeping your characters alive a very, very, very important thing to do.

Granted, there are a few exceptions: If one of the main characters (of which, there are usually 2-3) dies, you get a game over. And some characters (usually children) are "critically wounded" instead of being killed, so that you cannot use them in battle, but they're still around for the cutscenes. This is kind of a shame, and lessens the impact on story-telling a bit, but I guess the writers can't account for *everyone* being missing at the big moment.

Anyway, this isn't totally relevant - Fire Emblem is a fairly constricted single-player turn-based tactical-RPG, and so far most of the discussion has been about open-ended FPSs. But there it is! Death!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
like Cliffy B said, expect them to try to break the game and account for it.

Given an infinite amount of time, sure. But would you rather have the developers spend all their time figuring out how to continue the game with all possible combinations of dead NPCs, or avoid having the story too intertwined with NPCs, so they can all be killed of easily at any point, just to take into account the crazy antics of people who don't really care about the story in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love something like HL2 to allow me to kill inconsequential good guys, maybe with horrid reactions from those around me, but still do the lowering-gun thing with characters like Alyx. I remember when Doom 3 first came out and I'd brought it over to a friend's so that he could give it a shot. About an hour and a half in, he's walking up to a doorway and he hears a voice. What those of us watching heard was "Hey! Over here. Look pal, I'm done for, but---" and nothing more. This abrupt end was because, though none of us were entirely sure what my friend heard, it was enough to make him scream and shotgun this guy in the face. In his defense, the atmosphere really had him on edge. In a game like Doom 3, which I really don't remember that fondly, this was a defining moment of awesome.

"Shit dude, he was going to help you! Why the fuck did you blow his face off?"

"I don't know! I don't know! I panicked!"

Perfect.

There are very few ways the Half Life series can get better, but allowing me to have moments like this would be one of them. Comparatively, when playing Episode 2 a month or so ago, I

got to that point where you fall a bit of the way down a mineshaft and climb back up to be greeted by your vortigaunt sidekick.

I'll admit it. I was spooked. His face popping up in front of me like that startled me. I shot that vortigaunt in the face about 4 times before I figured out he was friendly. Didn't even interrupt his speech file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn't even interrupt his speech file.
I did that too. Of course, I'd argue that climbing ladders is generally one of those guns-lowered situations.

Seriously, though, I agree that having real consequences for stuff like this would be awesome, but I'd rather he was invincible than expendable by design, just because you'd have to be able to go on without him. It would for example be totally lame if another nameless Vortigaunt comes running from around the corner whenever your current one dies. It'd work in some settings, but not in the journey to the center of the whatever the fuck was down there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with toblix here.

Killing minor characters works in Doom 3 because it's such a straight shooter. In HL2, though, it's preferable not to let players shoot people accidentally. They'd (at least I'd) just get frustrated and load the game. The player is actually involved in the story, and so wants to hear what everyone has to say. If we wanted to include all the kill scenarios, we would have to revert the complexity of the rest of the game to the level of Doom, where everyone else but the player character is completely inconsequential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
..even good timing lets you shoot your load in her face.

Was that intentional, toblix?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost quoted that, but didn't because I have too much class for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to try to be funny with something, but forget that, because when I searched for "Alyx expressions" I found this awesome site. It's someone making nudie pics of girls in games or something. Check it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given an infinite amount of time, sure. But would you rather have the developers spend all their time figuring out how to continue the game with all possible combinations of dead NPCs, or avoid having the story too intertwined with NPCs, so they can all be killed of easily at any point, just to take into account the crazy antics of people who don't really care about the story in the first place?

No I agree. Thats my point. One of the major restrictions is that programing character deaths into a game as cinematic as HL2 is impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was going to try to be funny with something, but forget that, because when I searched for "Alyx expressions" I found this awesome site. It's someone making nudie pics of girls in games or something. Check it out!

That site deserves an article all to itself :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where in Bioshock can you break the game though? Now I'm curious. :mock:

After the Ryan scene, when Rapture's about to explode and Atlas is screaming at you to put the key card in its slot or whatever. You can stand there doing nothing for-fucking-ever. It doesn't "break" the game in that it's impossible to proceed but it breaks the narrative in the same way as Alyx not getting hit when you shoot her.

By the way thanks for discussing this article everyone. It warms my heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the Ryan scene, when Rapture's about to explode and Atlas is screaming at you to put the key card in its slot or whatever. You can stand there doing nothing for-fucking-ever. It doesn't "break" the game in that it's impossible to proceed but it breaks the narrative in the same way as Alyx not getting hit when you shoot her.

By the way thanks for discussing this article everyone. It warms my heart.

Haha, it's a great topic. No-one thinks to bring it up but it's a good issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now