OPINION

Why Do Game Developers Let Us Die?

Written by Matt Paprocki
Published May 28, 2005
page 1 | 2

Going back to Halo 2 for a moment: what if the game designers simply made Master Chief invincible? Would that change the gameplay dynamics? Yes, obviously. It would also cut the game down to five hours, not 10 or more. Would you still feel like you've paid money for a great product? Probably not.

That really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Is it all that different? Not particularly. Sure, you can jack the difficulty up to legendary, but where's the tension? You're not going into the final battle with one life and no continues. A three year old with no experience with FPS's is eventually going to pull through in due time. You can play as recklessly as you want and with no repercussions.

So, why are companies even bothering with new artificial intelligence? Does it matter? It may look impressive when an enemy soldier dives for cover, but all he's really doing is making your job a little more annoying. In most games, it's not making things anymore difficult.

Is there a solution here? As games become more like movies, will the need for story overshadow health bars? Maybe this is just the beginning of where games are going and developers are still holding on to the roots of the industry. Either way, it's obvious that something needs to change, and developers need to make a move in the direction they plan on taking us soon, and a big one at that.

page 1 | 2
Matt Paprocki is the former reviews editor for Digital Press. The deep game collection, which spans nearly 30 systems and 2,000 games, lines his walls for research purposes. Matt strives to bring credibility to video game journalism, and to aid the industry in becoming respected with all forms of entertainment media. He currently freelances for GameArgus.com and MultiPlayerGames.com.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
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
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Matt Paprocki
All Gaming Articles
All Opinion articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — May 28, 2005 @ 01:31AM — RJ [URL]

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...

#2 — May 28, 2005 @ 01:49AM — SFC SKI

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.

#3 — May 28, 2005 @ 11:11AM — Matt Paprocki [URL]

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.

#4 — May 28, 2005 @ 15:23PM — SFC SKI

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.

#5 — May 30, 2005 @ 01:23AM — Leoniceno [URL]

I know, it's very frustrating. I could never master that darn Super Mario Brothers.

#6 — May 30, 2005 @ 01:42AM — RJ [URL]

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.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/30253)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments