poetic codex
Augur
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2010
- Messages
- 292
I don't think I've ever played an RPG that handled these two things well.
In every game, dying, or failing certain skill checks is essentially another trip to the reload screen. For instance, you attempt to steal from a shop, but you failed, so the merchant and city guards start to attack you. Trip to the reload screen.
(Of course, there are exceptions such as Planescape, but I will address that later on because in some ways, the Planescape death system was even worse.)
This death = reload system that is so pervasive has always bothered me and now I'm starting to understand why.
1.) In a game that uses killing lots of stuff as the primary way to engage with the game , the death = reload system is a way to make things more fair for the player. But that's the thing. Why use killing lots of stuff as the primary way of interacting with the game? It's one of those things that game designers blindly accept as a necessity and design their games with it. "Hey, every other game has this, so we shouldn't think outside the box " It's the reason why FPS shooters are so pervasive. So the first way to stop this death=reload system is to actively design games in such a way that killing lots of stuff is not the primary form of interaction/conflict resolution. I have some ideas about this which I will discuss below.
2) Games do a poor job of designing consequences. Stealing from a shop and failing usually means its time to reload if the guards and merchants start attacking you. But there are so many other consequences they could have used aside from instant death. How about the merchant upping his prices or banning you from his shop ? Alpha protocol, despite its many flaws, actually made an attempt in the right direction when it comes to designing consequences aside from imminent death.
Perhaps you guys will add other ideas, but for now, those two are the main culprits that make death=reload 1) designing a game around killing lots of stuff, and 2) poor job of designing consequences.
---------------------------------------- ------------------
---------------------------------------- ------------------
So how to rectify this situation where death=reload?
There are many ideas. I have some, and I know you guys can add more.
1) The Planescape method. Just make the player immortal ! Unfortunately, this method is akin to placing a cup to collect blood under a bleeding wound. Your priority should be to stop the bleeding, not simply contain it. Similarly, simply making the player immortal does not solve the problem if the underlying issue is still present: the game is still designed around killing lots of stuff. So now instead of death=reload, we get death=respawn.
2.) Design the game in such a way that killing lots of stuff is not the primary form of interacting with the game. Even though Planescape suffered from the above problem, one thing it did do very well was give non-combat methods of gaining new skills, and character development via dialogue with NCPC's. So dialogue is one way. Another way to design a game where killing lots of stuff is not the primary form of interaction is making consequences arise directly from gameplay decisions. For example, whether you choose to follow through a quest or whether or not you choose to explore a cave you will find new skills that won't be accessible to other players who did not choose to do these things. This is explained more fully in THIS THREAD HERE
3. Design more creative consequences for failing skill checks. Not simply getting slaughtered by the guards. I already mentioned making merchants up their prices, or banning you from their shops if you fail an attempted steal.In Morrowind, you could go to prison or you could try to bribe the guards with money. The ideas are out there, it's just that more game designers don't implement them, and opt for the lazier failure=death=reload screen.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Are you guys satisfied with the current death=reload system?
If you are, please explain why. I'm open-minded enough to consider the possibility that my assessment here is missing something.
If you are not satisfied with it like I am, please share your alternative ideas if you have them.
In every game, dying, or failing certain skill checks is essentially another trip to the reload screen. For instance, you attempt to steal from a shop, but you failed, so the merchant and city guards start to attack you. Trip to the reload screen.
(Of course, there are exceptions such as Planescape, but I will address that later on because in some ways, the Planescape death system was even worse.)
This death = reload system that is so pervasive has always bothered me and now I'm starting to understand why.
1.) In a game that uses killing lots of stuff as the primary way to engage with the game , the death = reload system is a way to make things more fair for the player. But that's the thing. Why use killing lots of stuff as the primary way of interacting with the game? It's one of those things that game designers blindly accept as a necessity and design their games with it. "Hey, every other game has this, so we shouldn't think outside the box " It's the reason why FPS shooters are so pervasive. So the first way to stop this death=reload system is to actively design games in such a way that killing lots of stuff is not the primary form of interaction/conflict resolution. I have some ideas about this which I will discuss below.
2) Games do a poor job of designing consequences. Stealing from a shop and failing usually means its time to reload if the guards and merchants start attacking you. But there are so many other consequences they could have used aside from instant death. How about the merchant upping his prices or banning you from his shop ? Alpha protocol, despite its many flaws, actually made an attempt in the right direction when it comes to designing consequences aside from imminent death.
Perhaps you guys will add other ideas, but for now, those two are the main culprits that make death=reload 1) designing a game around killing lots of stuff, and 2) poor job of designing consequences.
---------------------------------------- ------------------
---------------------------------------- ------------------
So how to rectify this situation where death=reload?
There are many ideas. I have some, and I know you guys can add more.
1) The Planescape method. Just make the player immortal ! Unfortunately, this method is akin to placing a cup to collect blood under a bleeding wound. Your priority should be to stop the bleeding, not simply contain it. Similarly, simply making the player immortal does not solve the problem if the underlying issue is still present: the game is still designed around killing lots of stuff. So now instead of death=reload, we get death=respawn.
2.) Design the game in such a way that killing lots of stuff is not the primary form of interacting with the game. Even though Planescape suffered from the above problem, one thing it did do very well was give non-combat methods of gaining new skills, and character development via dialogue with NCPC's. So dialogue is one way. Another way to design a game where killing lots of stuff is not the primary form of interaction is making consequences arise directly from gameplay decisions. For example, whether you choose to follow through a quest or whether or not you choose to explore a cave you will find new skills that won't be accessible to other players who did not choose to do these things. This is explained more fully in THIS THREAD HERE
3. Design more creative consequences for failing skill checks. Not simply getting slaughtered by the guards. I already mentioned making merchants up their prices, or banning you from their shops if you fail an attempted steal.In Morrowind, you could go to prison or you could try to bribe the guards with money. The ideas are out there, it's just that more game designers don't implement them, and opt for the lazier failure=death=reload screen.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Are you guys satisfied with the current death=reload system?
If you are, please explain why. I'm open-minded enough to consider the possibility that my assessment here is missing something.
If you are not satisfied with it like I am, please share your alternative ideas if you have them.