Why Do Game Developers Let Us Die?
Published May 28, 2005
It's not just the gaming market that's changed. The games themselves have become epics, lasting days, if not months. However, one thing hasn't changed: Death. In almost game you play, you die, likely multiple times. This was relevant 10 years ago. Now, it just seems like an annoyance.
Take Halo 2 for instance. You walk into a room uncaringly, are blown away by a group of Elites, and within seconds you're back in action, right at the door you entered moments ago. You don't lose anything; you still have all your weapons and you even have full shields. What's the point of even making a game challenging anymore?
It's obvious that with the extended length, the old "three lives and your dead" routine isn't going to work for the vast majority of games on the market. Playing fifteen hours and being sent all the way back to the beginning of the game isn't feasible.
It seems that now all we're doing when we play is work through each title without a single care as to whether or not we're actually performing well. There's no real point in trying to avoid enemy fire in some games. You can go in guns blazing and hope for the best every time in Halo 2. The same can be said for Splinter Cell. You can experiment as much as you want with no repercussions.
Is this where the entertainment value derives from in today's games? Take Ninja Gaiden on the Xbox. People complained it's far too difficult, yet you have an unlimited amount of chances to make through any section you're stuck in. Is it really the difficulty that's causing you problems, or the fact that you're simply not making progress as quickly as you'd like?
Some games try to derive their challenge by adding in bonuses for great play or inserting special mission objectives. These have nothing to do with the games challenge level, but everything to do with replay value. Any generic platformer will have hidden things to collect strewn around the stages. When you have an unlimited amount of time and chances to get them, it's going to happen eventually and there's no stress in doing so.
Matt Paprocki is the former reviews editor for Digital Press, a video game website with an appreciation for the retro side of the industry. The deep game collection which spans nearly 30 systems and 2,000 games line his walls for research purposes. Matt strives to bring credibility to video game journalism, and take it in a new direction to aid the industry in becoming respected with all forms entertainment media. He currently freelances for GameArgus.com and MultiPlayerGames.com.
- Why Do Game Developers Let Us Die?
- Published: May 28, 2005
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Gaming
- Writer: Matt Paprocki
- Matt Paprocki's BC Writer page
- Matt Paprocki's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
In the genre of First-Person Shooters, the idea is kill or be killed, and the faster gun is the winner, death or avoiding death is the main objective. The adrenaline producing thrill of being outnumbered or outgunned but making it out of an ambush is something to be celebrated. The best FPS's will allow you to work your way through a situation in more than one way, but still have a few unavoidable bosses. It has to be challenging but winnable (Half-Life comes to mind).
As for AI, I think having electronic foes that are hard to kill makes the game much more enjoyable. Sure the early days of dumb pop up targets was fun in it's own way, but the knowledge that maybe the target is smart enough to find a better way to kill you makes you check your 6 a lot more often.
How about a great game like "Thief?" a game that rewarded stealth and cunning rather than brute strength? Very diffiult, but making it past several guards to steal something valuable with minimal bloodshed was tremendously rewarding.
Also, the game world or tone has to be immersive and enjoyable, in my mind no game has ever beaten Duke Nuk'em 3d for this. Upgrade the graphics and let me paly it all over again , I 'd be a happy man.
But SFC: If they just let you respawn a few feet from where the battle began (Halo), is that really a challenge? Is there any tension when you know you're just going to start back where you came in?
RJ: I see that point, and there are countless games like that for me too (Battletoads). Look at something like Mike Tyson's Punch-Out. It probably takes an hour to get through and make it to Tyson. Yet, once you've reached him, you know full good and well that one punch is going to send you back a few fights. Lose then, you need to start all over. Knowing that going in, you're so tense during that brawl, trying to anticipate and over-anticipate, it's an amazing experience.
In Halo, why do I need to be tense? There's no point for me to worry. I know they're going to let start back only a few minutes of gameplay, and even then, I can just die again with no penalty.
First off, I should have mentioned I haven't played HALO yet, so I can only use what you have written. I don't like to be sent TOO far back if I die.
I know that I use save points because I hate to lose all my gear. I guess I don'y have any other suggestions.
I know, it's very frustrating. I could never master that darn Super Mario Brothers.
I could never beat ZELDA II. Got to the last bad guy countless times, and kept getting my ass kicked. Gave up.
Beat Punch-Out numerous times.
Beat Super Mario Brothers numerous times.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/30253)
Remember RC PRO-AM? On the original NES?
I could never beat it, and it was incredibly frustrating to be sent all the way back to stage one. So I stopped playing it.
I think that's the reason why there are now unlimited continues. It makes it easier to win, sure, but it decreasing your frustration while increasing playability.
IMO, of course...