Permadeath

[dibs]

Play Passage. Very little mechanics, everything to live for.

[Frenetic Pony]

I think a lot of these arguments... come from absolutes being applied to "all games" for no reason.

 

RTS games have permadeath, your units die permanently OMG! Clearly, first off, the entire idea must be put into the context of the game you're talking about. In something like Xcom or Dead State, permadeath is a thing that ecompasses a fundamental portion of the game. It doesn't meant you lose the game, but death is instead the loss of a resource taken into account in the games design.

 

So, what I think should be concentrated on is not "permadeath" but "permanent loss of the game". You die, you lose the entire game, yes? Again, for games like Dead State and Xcom, that's a large factor of the game. That you can "Win" or "Lose" even though its a singleplayer game. So again, it really matters what game you are talking about. If a game is "meant" to be won, designed in such a way that your reward comes solely from progression, and yet "permanent loss" of the entire game is still a factor, still possible, then perhaps in that specific instance "permadeath" or whatever it causing that isn't a good design decision.

 

But the point is that it stems from design goals of the game, and isn't a "good" or "bad" thing just taken from itself.

 

As a side note, there's no such thing as an intrinsically valuable skill, just like there's no such thing as an intrinsically valuable item. It's all just based off the demand for whatever skill you're talking about and how much people are willing to pay for that. I mean, playing video games professionally can be a better job than working at McDonalds or something.

[Twig]

mggrrrrhhhhh

 

Passage is boring. U:

[thestalkinghead]

i cant really think of a game where it is impossible to

 

I think a lot of these arguments... come from absolutes being applied to "all games" for no reason.

 

RTS games have permadeath, your units die permanently OMG! Clearly, first off, the entire idea must be put into the context of the game you're talking about. In something like Xcom or Dead State, permadeath is a thing that ecompasses a fundamental portion of the game. It doesn't meant you lose the game, but death is instead the loss of a resource taken into account in the games design.

 

So, what I think should be concentrated on is not "permadeath" but "permanent loss of the game". You die, you lose the entire game, yes? Again, for games like Dead State and Xcom, that's a large factor of the game. That you can "Win" or "Lose" even though its a singleplayer game. So again, it really matters what game you are talking about. If a game is "meant" to be won, designed in such a way that your reward comes solely from progression, and yet "permanent loss" of the entire game is still a factor, still possible, then perhaps in that specific instance "permadeath" or whatever it causing that isn't a good design decision.

 

But the point is that it stems from design goals of the game, and isn't a "good" or "bad" thing just taken from itself.

 

As a side note, there's no such thing as an intrinsically valuable skill, just like there's no such thing as an intrinsically valuable item. It's all just based off the demand for whatever skill you're talking about and how much people are willing to pay for that. I mean, playing video games professionally can be a better job than working at McDonalds or something.

 

i think you are absolutely right it totally depends on the context of the game and actually it is more the "permanent loss of the game" i have issues with (i backed Massive Chalice in kickstarter knowing it has permadeath but in a different context to DayZ).

 

@BenLuke i can't really think of a game that is impossible to lose (except games like adventure games where you can't loses because that isn't the point) but usually in a game where it is very hard to lose eg. plants Vs zombies the challenge is to come up with creative ideas that are still effective and i guess it is sort of similar for games like dwarf fortress that have no win state

[BenLuke]

I don't view "have to reload from your last quick save/chechpoint" as real failure, but  "difficult to lose" would have been a better way of putting it, yeah. :\

[Super Blizzard]

That's actually what I assumed you meant, and what I always (mistakenly) use 'permadeath' to mean in conversation.

[thestalkinghead]

I don't view "have to reload from your last quick save/chechpoint" as real failure, but  "difficult to lose" would have been a better way of putting it, yeah. :\

ahh i get what you mean, in a way a game with save/loading is impossible to lose (unless you accidentally save yourself into an impossible situation) but the way i see it is that you can fail multiple times until you finally win, and i like that but i just like "trial and error" as an approach to doing things in general so i guess that is why i like saving/loading

[SecretAsianMan]

Another way to look at permadeath is showing that actions have consequences.  News outlets are quick to point out that video games are violent but they don't like to talk about when that violence might have a meaning.  Take Mass Effect for example.  It has permanent character death, depending on your actions (or inaction).  Yet people were quick to blame it for events like Sandy Hook, which I thought was very ironic since Mass Effect does a better job than most games of showing the aftermath of your actions and emphasizing that what you do matters.  When you can simply reload a save, those consequences are lessened considerably because you can "undo" your death.

[BenLuke]

stalkinghead: Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. The save/reload system a ton of games have isn't bad, and actually is really great for the sort of games it's been created and fine-tuned for. It's just that between two equally good games (As if quality can be judged like that at all, heh.) where one is has and is designed with permadeath or a similar constantly saving type deal and one designed with saving and reloading in mind I'll probably prefer the former to the latter, assuming we're in example land and not in reality.

[thestalkinghead]

i believe that in a game with saving and loading you can make the game harder (while i appreciate that saving/loading makes it impossible to lose) because you can have scenarios that are totally unfair that would basically take a miracle to accomplish, because with saving and loading it gives the player character magic hollywood/Video game powers that make that impossible task possible, whereas with a game with permadeath/permanent loss of the game it has to be balanced to what the player character can accomplish in one try, a made up example would be like in XCOM with iron man mode off you could have a siege situation where wave upon wave of enemies are coming at you and only save/load magic would make that possible to beat it, but because it was designed with iron man mode in mind that means that a scenario like that would just almost always result in a squad wipe so it wouldn't be in the game.

 

i guess it's really just a point of view thing, but to me saving/loading splits a game up into small chunks that are individually hard/easy on their own, whereas a game without saving/loading the entire game is one big chunk that has to be achievable in one try

[SecretAsianMan]

i believe that in a game with saving and loading you can make the game harder (while i appreciate that saving/loading makes it impossible to lose) because you can have scenarios that are totally unfair that would basically take a miracle to accomplish, because with saving and loading it gives the player character magic hollywood/Video game powers that make that impossible task possible, whereas with a game with permadeath/permanent loss of the game it has to be balanced to what the player character can accomplish in one try, a made up example would be like in XCOM with iron man mode off you could have a siege situation where wave upon wave of enemies are coming at you and only save/load magic would make that possible to beat it, but because it was designed with iron man mode in mind that means that a scenario like that would just almost always result in a squad wipe so it wouldn't be in the game.

 

i guess it's really just a point of view thing, but to me saving/loading splits a game up into small chunks that are individually hard/easy on their own, whereas a game without saving/loading the entire game is one big chunk that has to be achievable in one try

 

I don't think that's necessarily true.  A lot of those games are designed with the idea that players will die, quite frequently in some cases.  The frequent deaths make that one run where you finally win even more satisfying.  It doesn't mean that the game would never have a no-win situation (not that I'm suggesting devs purposely program no-win scenarios), it just hopefully means that it won't occur every time.  Not every run has to be possible, just some of them do.  I think your fictional XCOM scenario is a very distinct possibility, but it won't happen all the time.

[thestalkinghead]

even though in XCOM there was never anything like my fictional scenario, there were some missions where the odds of beating it without anybody dying seemed totally impossible without the ability to load it, and i got satisfaction from doing exactly that, i would never have been satisfied with just accepting the loss of my soldiers that just seems like accepting defeat to me and i don't like doing that

[dibs]

For me the ability to reload a difficult scenario can ruin a game. I stopped Skyrim (which i hadn't been enjoying as much as most) after cheesing a fight with quick loads.

The design of the game has everything to do with wether permadeath or reloads fit the game. Roguelikes are built from the ground up in the near surety that you will die, and that you will learn something when you do.

Have you played an roguelikes thestalkinghead? Maybe something like zagaa on iOS or brogue on pc or iOS if you are worried about they being too hardcore?

[thestalkinghead]

For me the ability to reload a difficult scenario can ruin a game. I stopped Skyrim (which i hadn't been enjoying as much as most) after cheesing a fight with quick loads.

The design of the game has everything to do with wether permadeath or reloads fit the game. Roguelikes are built from the ground up in the near surety that you will die, and that you will learn something when you do.

Have you played an roguelikes thestalkinghead? Maybe something like zagaa on iOS or brogue on pc or iOS if you are worried about they being too hardcore?

i have played a few, but my personal response to dying without the ability to load is something like "well, that was pointless" i would try out a few different character builds to see what they are like as with any RPG but i don't see the point in putting my time into the game any more than just testing character builds because to me dying just makes that time a waste of time (personal opinion, not saying you waste your time playing a game you enjoy)

 

it's a bit like how you wouldn't make a war film about the guy that died before doing anything important, you make the war film about that guy that survived the omaha beach landing not the guy that got shot in the boat.

 

i have my own set of rules for saving and loading, i don't like to use it to cheat, like in XCOM i have a save at the beginning of the mission i keep for if i feel like i should just restart the mission, and another save mid mission when i have cleared an area and am safe, but i do have the ability to cheat save/load if it really comes down to it even though i don't like to do that

[SecretAsianMan]

I'm not sure I get the "waste of time" arguement.  If you're saying that everything leading up to your death is pointless because you died, then I would also say that everything leading to the end of the game is equally pointless.  Once you beat the game your character doesn't continue because the game doesn't continue, with a few exceptions.  I would say the real point is the experience you had playing the game and not the manner in which the game ends.  Maybe a permadeath is not a satisfying ending to you, which is a fair thing to say, but I wouldn't necessarily call it pointless.

 

I feel I should say that despite all the arguements I'm making I actually agree with you in some ways thestalkinghead.  I also prefer games where I can save/load and am not overly fond of permadeath.  I just don't agree with your reasons for not liking it.  I find permadeath stressful and I already have enough stress in my real life that I don't like to add it to my virtual one.

[youmeyou]

it's a bit like how you wouldn't make a war film about the guy that died before doing anything important, you make the war film about that guy that survived the omaha beach landing not the guy that got shot in the boat.

 

I think that's what makes roguelikes so compelling though (at least, the idea of them). Isn't it more interesting to keep being that guy who got shot on the boat until through a mix of skill and luck you were the guy who made it through and survived the beach landing? As opposed to run forward and die > foggy screen > run forward a little further and die > foggy screen > congratulations you won this level through sheer attrition!

[thestalkinghead]

well i think to properly explain the reasons for my perspective on why i feel like dying before accomplishing anything is "pointless" i would have to explain my entire life story, but to me games do continue on after the "congratulations you beat the game" screen, also why something that for some people would be a frustrating determination to try harder next time like permadeath just seems pointless to me, is because in short, frustration and stress is something i have worked my whole life to avoid and if i allow myself to get frustrated and annoyed by things bad things happen, so i have developed and internal off switch for stress and frustration and because of that a mechanic like permadeath just makes me feel nothing so it just seems "pointless" it's probably why high stress competitive games don't really do anything for me 

[clyde]

I'm scared to ask, but how do you feel about pinball thestalkinghead? Does it feel like a waste of time unless you get to the wizard mode?

[dibs]

I'm scared to ask, but how do you feel about pinball thestalkinghead? Does it feel like a waste of time unless you get to the wizard mode?

Indeed. Does any game where a reset occurs count as a waste of time? Sports games, Multiplayer matches, LOMAs?

[thestalkinghead]

Indeed. Does any game where a reset occurs count as a waste of time? Sports games, Multiplayer matches, LOMAs?

pinball is a game about getting the highest score with limited resources (balls) the point of the game is a high score (high scores don't really interest me but that is a different discussion) so that wouldn't count as permadeath or permafail as my more accurate description of what i don't like should be called,  sports games don't end before the match ends because you make a mistake so it doesn't count(and punishments are like lives in a Video game and they are handed out for cheating), multiplayer matches you respawn and if you don't that doesn't equal permafail because the match is completed before it ends the game (the whole game is one match so it completed the game and you were part of that no matter how small) the whole pointless part is that nothing you did mattered (even just existing as cannon fodder changes things in a multiplier match), i don't rage quit from permafail games i just don't feel like playing again because there is no point (to me) 

[BigJKO]

Well.. Roguelikes (the most poplar Permadeth genre) are also about getting a highscore with limited resources (your health/hearts/lives)

[thestalkinghead]

so are you saying that you play roguelikes the same way you would play pinball, as in the highscore is your goal you set out to achieve?

[clyde]

so are you saying that you play roguelikes the same way you would play pinball, as in the highscore is your goal you set out to achieve?

I do, only it's not a highscore that is my objective, it's how far I can go. So for instance, in Spelunky, I am trying to get to a world I haven't gotten to yet. In FTL, I get excited when I get to a zone farther than I've gotten before. In Binding of Isaac, it's the Cave, or Basement or whatever the temples are called.

[thestalkinghead]

i guess everyone has their own motivations when playing video games, but when i play FTL i play to win and unlock more ships so i can win with them and i play on easy because the other settings just made the possibility of winning so slim it wasn't worth me putting in the time of playing, and now i have beaten it and unlocked the ships i could i feel like i am done with the game, i think that game could be much more complex and have more strategy to it if you could save and load the game, i feel like permafail holds back the scope of what you could do/achieve in a games design and most games with permafail would be improved if that feature was removed

[BigJKO]

I think that's just absolutely wrong. I don't think any permadeath game would be better without permadeath. It would be intolerably worse, in my opinion. Roguelikes are not meant to be finished. They re indeed played similarly to pinball. How far can you go? How long can you hold out? Every playthrough is different. Give players the option to skip the permadeath and you muddy the value it has for the players that spend time getting better at the game. Pinball would be meaningless if the next player could just flick a switch and have infinite balls.

And the reverse is true as well, like you've pointed out. Games without permadeath would almost always be worse with permadeath. Half-life, a game meant to be finished, would be no fun with permadeath.

Thank god both types of games exist so both you and I can enjoy video games the way we want to.