Recommended Posts

1) I'm pretty sure I elaborated on my why. Which I assume you don't agree with then, but that's how it is for me. So, ok.

2) It's not true that there are no goals. It's what you make of it; you set your own.

 

Whenever I talk about DayZ with friends who played it too, you always end up recounting the war stories. The stories that come out of your playthrough, that's where the value is for me. I own that; that is my story.

i like to set my own goals but with an actual end goal in mind else it's like having battles but no war, like in fallout 2 i never actually complete it but having the eventual goal of getting the GECK makes my own goal of improving my character by traveling and having random encounters and doing all the side quests have meaning, because they were battles that would eventually help me win the war, but i could set a goal in dayz of getting a good gun and gear but what would be the point, to get more guns and gear?

 

AFAIK basically all rogue-likes have win states. I'm having trouble thinking of a game with permadeth that doesn't have a win state. I guess something like Tetris might count? If you screw up once, game over.  

does dungeons of dredmor or dwarf fortress (roguelike version) have a way to win? (ones i have played the most of) because if it does that isn't clear, it just seemed like randomness to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Souls game are for the hardcore in one sense only: they are for people who feel the urge to improve when they fail. That is their main parallel with roguelikes.

 

The lovely aesthetics and amazing subtle worldbuilding don't hurt either of course but you won't get to see much of them unless you are willing to get better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like to set my own goals but with an actual end goal in mind else it's like having battles but no war, like in fallout 2 i never actually complete it but having the eventual goal of getting the GECK makes my own goal of improving my character by traveling and having random encounters and doing all the side quests have meaning, because they were battles that would eventually help me win the war, but i could set a goal in dayz of getting a good gun and gear but what would be the point, to get more guns and gear?

 

does dungeons of dredmor or dwarf fortress (roguelike version) have a way to win? (ones i have played the most of) because if it does that isn't clear, it just seemed like randomness to me

I don't know about Dwarf Fortress but Dungeons of Dreadmor has a final boss on the bottom floor. It's definitely not all random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Souls game are for the hardcore in one sense only: they are for people who feel the urge to improve when they fail. That is their main parallel with roguelikes.

 

The lovely aesthetics and amazing subtle worldbuilding don't hurt either of course but you won't get to see much of them unless you are willing to get better.

well obviously my goal in playing games isn't to suck at them and i don't play games because i like there to be no challenge in playing them, that isn't the angle that i am coming from and that always seems to be what people that play hardcore games think that people who don't like them seem to think, while to me it seems like people that play hardcore games would love a game that uninstalls the game and makes you wait 24 hours before you can play again it if you die just because the would be "hardcore"

 

I don't know about Dwarf Fortress but Dungeons of Dreadmor has a final boss on the bottom floor. It's definitely not all random.

still that is like prototype RPG not really a proper goal more like a placeholder before the actual game has been finished

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i probably should have gone there and maybe i misinterpreted it but by saying "but you won't get to see much of them unless you are willing to get better." seems like you were implying that the reason i don't like these types of games is because i am not willing to get better at games.

 

and @Lu I'm not saying you are wrong for liking permadeath i am just trying to explain why it doesn't appeal to me, and maybe those reasons aren't fully formed or coherent so i am just countering people and that can seem argumentative, but i promise  i am not angry typing so it shouldn't be read in angry voice :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a hard time separating permadeath from randomly generated levels. I don't enjoy permadeath if I have to play the level over again. But when the levels are randomly generated, I enjoy permadeath because I enjoy experiencing a rapid and significant leveling up of abilities during that single play-session rather than through a 30 hour game that takes me a month. In Spelunky, I start out with a few hearts, a few ropes and a few bombs. Being in that beginner's state, I have a different kind of experience than if I have plenty of resources. A lot of games with 30 hour campaigns never allow you to return to that beginner's state in the natural course of the game. You earn abilities then always have them, but the beginner's state provides me with a different and valuable perspective of the game world. I approach situations differently when I have very little. Roguelikes let me experience the difference between having very little and having a lot, everytime I play. 

When I play this type of game, my objective is usually to see how far I can get. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still that is like prototype RPG not really a proper goal more like a placeholder before the actual game has been finished

How is that not a proper goal? I feel like you have a strange idea of what a win condition needs to be. For example, in a crossword, the only goal is to complete the puzzle. To me, that is a very compelling goal. Or in chess, the goal is to mate the other side's king. That too is a "proper goal" as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that not a proper goal? I feel like you have a strange idea of what a win condition needs to be. For example, in a crossword, the only goal is to complete the puzzle. To me, that is a very compelling goal. Or in chess, the goal is to mate the other side's king. That too is a "proper goal" as far as I'm concerned.

 

i guess i mean it is a bit basic, and also the fact i either didn't know or forgot about it means it has very little importance to the game where as in chess (as you mentioned) it is very clear the entire time that the goal is to checkmate the other king, and even though a lot of RPGs are basic in their storytelling "boss battle at the end" is just too basic, you could just apply that ending to most RPGs but there is usually a bit more to it, like i feel like diablo is a good comparison (to roguelikes) because it had randomly generated levels but there was actually a story that went with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am interested in Day Z, and wouldn't be if it didn't have permadeath, because I'm interested in the sensation of really wanting to not die because I don't get to magically resume from where I left off, and I am interested in the disempowerment fantasy aspect of it. I don't see it as being about winning just because it's a video game. Games don't need to be about winning.

 

There is a game called http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/555181'>One Chance which does its best to keep you from replaying it once you've finished it (and probably achieved an ending you aren't "happy" with). Because it's simulating your character having only one chance at solving the problem. He doesn't get to load a previous save so you don't either.

 

Similarly I think the Walking Dead episodes would be much weaker than they are if you could easily roll back a decision and try something new - not just because the choices you make in that game aren't actually as far-reaching as some people would like, but because the game does an excellent job at simulating moments of stressful indecision that lead to me making a mistake - sometimes only thinking of it as a mistake later on, sometimes recognising the mistake almost immediately - and forcing me to live with my choice. It's not about winning, or managing the perfect playthrough. It's not permadeath, but it's perma-choice, I guess. In Walking Dead, DayZ and One Chance the designers could choose to let me undo my mistakes or continue on as if they never happened, but they choose not to, and the game is better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perma-choice is a cool sounding thing, i tried that one chance and i made the right choice i think, i never wanted to undo my choices in the walking dead but you could if you wanted to, and the thing about the walking dead is that because all of the choices end up badly, that sort of means you can't make a bad choice, if the walking dead did have permadeath i would have found it annoying, especially because most of the times i died were as a result of not knowing what to do at the time (in terms of gameplay mechanics, not what i wanted to do) or not clicking on a hotspot in time, i guess you could say that in real life mistakes happen and sometimes you don't quite know how to do things, but i never really feel like mistakes i make in games are anything like mistakes i would make in real life, like i wouldn't accidently press the reload button in my brain and be forced to reload a gun or try to run and jump over something only to decide to jump a split second too late and just fall, so it might be that disconnect from reality that means i feel the need for a save/load option.

 

perma-choice is a thing i would be interested in seeing more of, as long as those choices don't leave me with a game over screen (permadeath) where i have to start from the beginning again :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Permadeath isn't something that can be applied to any game. The times it works is when the game is designed for it. When every playthrough is designed to be meaningful and not

just a retread. Where death has meaning and purpose.

Obviously playing through The Walking Dead every time you die isn't fun, but that's because it's not designed to be played like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perma-choice is largely dependent on having fail-states that you can continue to play after. Mount&Blade has this quality by stripping you of your army and your money, but not your rank or your life. You have to build it all back up and to make matters worse, friendly generals walk up to you and are like "I heard you got your ass kicked." Expeditions: Conquistadors does it in an interesting way. You are not a playable character in the combat, so you never seem to die. You just lose party members. From what I've heard, X-com seems to do that same thing. 

I was playing Far Cry 3 yesterday and it was some stupid story boss-battle thing and I kept dying and having to reload and I was like "C'mon! just take my guns away or something, I don't want to have to hit the boss in his weak spot three times over and over." I like it when I can just take the punishment in the game, replay it if I want to, but progress in the story with a failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Once again I'm going to go into my specialty and talk about a game I've never played but heard a lot about)

 

I understand the Fire Emblem games do something like this too.  If one of your characters falls in combat, they're dead for the rest of the game.  With very rare exceptions, there's no coming back for them.  This can undone by restarting the chapter, but obviously you're also undoing all your other actions.  Character relationships are an important part of the game too.  The characters can support each other in combat and possibly even get married.  If one of them dies, it could impact the game in a significant way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like random levels in a game that is the part of roguelikes i like but what is the point of testing builds with no goal or endgame it's useless knowledge and useless skills if there isn't anything to achieve with that knowledge and skill, if roguelikes had a goal and an endgame like Diablo it would have purpose 

 

Not to be a spoilsport, but... since when is being good at any video game a useful skill? It's an entertainment medium.

 

Besides, does a game having an ending really give it 'purpose'? Unless you're playing a game with a well-written story that you can reflect on and get some kind of insight from, what purpose is there in beating it? I'd much rather play a game with no story and no ending that forces me to find my own meaning, rather than slogging through a time-consuming quest that ultimately ends with a whimper.

 

I've also got to echo what some other people've said, in that I personally find the increased risk to be a source of motivation, rather than frustration. Like with everything, I think it comes down to what kind of games you like to play - some people view games as a storytelling medium, some people view games as a collection of systems, most people think they're somewhere in-between. If you personally put a lot of value into story (even when it's a Video Game Story) and persistent progression, it's completely reasonable that permadeath would drive you absolutely bonkers. My view is that personal progression of skills and abilities is just as important - if not moreso - as persistent progression towards an 'ending'.

Spelunky is a great example. I know some people were frustrated with that game, and felt like they never got any better, but I had the exact opposite experience. Every time I played, I learned something new that helped me get further, and along the way I had some great emergent moments that actually made me reflect on real-life stuff.

 

At the end of the day, roguelikes and roguelike-likes are a genre, just like FPSs, platformers, fighting games, etc etc. Including permadeath isn't something these developers do on a whim, they do it because it's been well-established that fans of the genre enjoy that mechanic. If you don't enjoy games with permadeath, then you don't have to play them. I mean, I don't like war simulations, so I don't play most modern FPS games, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

On that note, I've also got to recommend Dark Souls (haven't played Demon Souls) as a game that manages to capture the feeling of roguelikes and their ilk without including some of the things you seem to be not a big fan of (and it's actually worth playing to the end, unlike a lot of 'finite' game experiences nowadays). That being said, it's crazy punishing, so be ready for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to be a spoilsport, but... since when is being good at any video game a useful skill? It's an entertainment medium.

 

Besides, does a game having an ending really give it 'purpose'? Unless you're playing a game with a well-written story that you can reflect on and get some kind of insight from, what purpose is there in beating it? I'd much rather play a game with no story and no ending that forces me to find my own meaning, rather than slogging through a time-consuming quest that ultimately ends with a whimper.

 

it's more that an end game or goal gives me something to aim for and a reason for playing, like if the world isn't in peril because of some demon army or evil wizard etc. why is my character risking their life and what is the point of becoming super powerful if there is nothing to use that super power against, but if the world is in peril there is one idea driving the progression of my character to become more powerful.

 

i would say that if in elder scrolls games it was a time of peace i would want to be a wizard that grows plants and builds buildings and machines using magic not learning fireball spells, but because the world is in danger it feels like the right thing to do to learn fireball spells, it's hard to explain but even a bad story that actually gives me a good reason to do the things i am doing it makes more sense to play it and do the things i am doing, like in day z why are people not escaping the island and why aren't they building castles and farms, if dayz was set in a hell dimension where escape was impossible and building fortresses and farms would anger the hell gods it would make more sense to me as to why that isn't happening  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that permadeath makes it hard to roleplay?

If so, this could easily be solves for you if you just think of roguelikes having different player characters for each play session. I actually do this in FTL. I spend a little time naming my crew and my ship so I can start to roleplay a little bit. When I start a new game of FTL, my crew is saying to each other "None of the others have made it." Maybe they will beat the odds and be the one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa whoa whoa. I'm all for permadeath, but let's not go pretending a story has to give you some kind of insight for it to be worth experiencing. I'll watch the shit out of the new Superman movie and enjoy it and not get anything worthwhile other than that enjoyment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's more that an end game or goal gives me something to aim for and a reason for playing, like if the world isn't in peril because of some demon army or evil wizard etc. why is my character risking their life and what is the point of becoming super powerful if there is nothing to use that super power against, but if the world is in peril there is one idea driving the progression of my character to become more powerful.

 

i would say that if in elder scrolls games it was a time of peace i would want to be a wizard that grows plants and builds buildings and machines using magic not learning fireball spells, but because the world is in danger it feels like the right thing to do to learn fireball spells, it's hard to explain but even a bad story that actually gives me a good reason to do the things i am doing it makes more sense to play it and do the things i am doing, like in day z why are people not escaping the island and why aren't they building castles and farms, if dayz was set in a hell dimension where escape was impossible and building fortresses and farms would anger the hell gods it would make more sense to me as to why that isn't happening  

I can see where you're coming from, but I don't exactly see what that has to do with purpose. In Spelunky for example, there is a purpose - to get to the bottom and collect mad treasure sacks. It's the story of a guy accomplishing a goal, just like any other game, the only difference being that the story you tell in splunx is a personal one that changes every time and sometimes has a sad ending, as opposed to a consistent story that you play through over time towards a single point of resolution (or multiple, if the game has many endings).

 

Whoa whoa whoa. I'm all for permadeath, but let's not go pretending a story has to give you some kind of insight for it to be worth experiencing. I'll watch the shit out of the new Superman movie and enjoy it and not get anything worthwhile other than that enjoyment.

 

I don't think it has to - I'm just saying that without it, most game stories aren't worth finishing. If a game is specifically trying to be nothing but entertaining (and it succeeds), then that's awesome. Hell, I beat Borderlands 1 countless times for entertainment value alone. My problem is with games that take their stories and worlds very seriously, without actually having anything meaningful to say - and I don't even hate those games, but when there's no other motivation to finish a game except the story, I'm probably not going to finish it unless the story is at least half-decent. I dunno. Maybe saving the world just doesn't do it for me anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Once again I'm going to go into my specialty and talk about a game I've never played but heard a lot about)

 

I understand the Fire Emblem games do something like this too.  If one of your characters falls in combat, they're dead for the rest of the game.  With very rare exceptions, there's no coming back for them.  This can undone by restarting the chapter, but obviously you're also undoing all your other actions.  Character relationships are an important part of the game too.  The characters can support each other in combat and possibly even get married.  If one of them dies, it could impact the game in a significant way.

 

I was going to stay out of this until I saw this post (didn't have a strong enough opinion to bother). This immediately made me think of Ogre Battle 64 which I absolutely adored. There was a semi-permadeath mechanic where if you didn't revive a party member within a certain period of time or by the end of the mission they would become a zombie or something losing all of their leveled up stats in the process. It wasn't always a bad thing though because then you could re-level that character on the undead tree and eventually get a fucking Dracula or something.

 

I may be mis-remembering how the mechanic worked but I really felt like the way characters could 'die' in that game made it a better game and really affected how I organized my military forces and who I chose to revive. I always found it very interesting that 'permadeath' could put you at an advantage or a disadvantage depending on who was dying and how you were leveling up your forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay that's more fair. I won't go into any depth with this argument 'cause I don't think that's really the point of this thread. I just had a reactionary REACTION there. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i guess it is sort of going off topic, but in a way it sort of relates to permadeath, i totally do like to mess around and just have fun purely with the mechanics of a game (and some games are just mechanics and that is fine) but after a while i need a good reason to keep playing (narrative), and if it is a permadeath game i need a really really good reason to risk my life because otherwise i would just be motivated to stay alive and if there aren't enough things to do that are just about staying alive (base/farm building, escaping etc.) i wouldn't have the motivation to keep playing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your post in the 'turning opinions' thread about this, and from what you said there it seems like you just don't like mechanics-driven games. Nothin' wrong with that at all, but like I said, permadeath is (usually) a tool for telling stories in said mechanics-driven games. The entire notion of progression in roguelikes/likes is that the story is created entirely by the mechanics - it's an exercise in controlled creativity. It's like playing pretend with your friends as a kid, except all your friends are robots, and (with the exception of more "pure" roguelikes) you actually get to watch a guy shoot sweet fireballs at a skeleton. Permadeath is a really important part of this experience - when you're pretending as a kid, there are no rewinds or save points (unless you're with that one kid who keeps insisting he has time travel powers every time he dies even though everybody else voted and decided it was unfair, who even invited him to my birthday anyway). When you die, that story's over, and it's a story completely unique to you that will never be told again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A game that's impossible to lose is one where winning is meaningless, in my book. Take Dota (Crap I just lost must of the people reading this haven't I.)  for instance, while matches where you completely crush the other sides are enjoyable, the best games are the close ones that could have gone either way almost to the end. Achieving victory because of my skill* at a game is so much fun then winning because it was designed intentionally for me not to fail. More directed experiences aren't necessarily bad, of course, but completing them doesn't do much for me personally unless the narrative conclusion or final level/boss is really spectacular, which is why I rarely finish that type of game, lol.

 

Winning in a lot of case, isn't what's interesting about a game anyway, especially in roguelikes. I'll probably never beat TOME 4 or Brogue, but it's fun to see how far I can progress and learn more about the systems before I inevitably make some dumb mistake and get myself killed. Unreal Word or Dwarf Fortress don't even have a win condition, so it's they're purely exercises in forestalling failure and matching whatever interesting stuff happens in the course of playing.  

 

Permadeath also adds tension to games that otherwise would be pretty dull and give the player a sense that their decision actually have impact. FTL would be many magnitudes less interesting if you could just load a quick save whenever you jumped to a system with a difficult encounter in it, and flying ships around in Eve Online's insecure areas would just be boring if the game replaced the ship and cargo of anything you got blown up in. Mount and Blade is an interesting example because, while you can't actually die, you can lose enough battles to be knocked below even your starting position so that you might as well restart. 

 

That's my thoughtson the matter, I guess, sorry for reiterating stuff basically everyone else has already said.  :P

 

Direct, less rambling version: Games don't have to be about winning, and winning isn't winning without a change of the apposite outcome.

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