The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Okay, so dying in computer games is hardly the most joyous occasion, but few companies really take much notice of dying. You’re shot, you collapse, game starts over. Oh, and perhaps a life is deducted if the developer is so inclined.
However, I’ve noticed a recent resurgence in varying the whole idea of dying in gaming. The game that has caught my eye the most over this issue is Tekki- a typical Japanese mecha game except for one quirk. The quirk? Everything is totally realistic.
You use a peripheral three times the size of a Xbox to control your mecha (big robot for non-Japanese speakers), complete with 50 buttons, 2 levels and 2 joysticks. And, more importantly for this topic, an eject button covered under a plastic capsule. (Originally the eject button was to have a glass layer you needed to smash to get to it). The reason for such extravagance over this one button is that, should your robot fail completely during the massive game, you are forced to eject… deleting EVERYTHING you have done in the game up to that point (and yes, it wipes your save file too).
Certainly not a game for the casual (well, it’ll cost loads anyhow!). Dying in the game really does end the game then and there- no second chance and no retries. Now that is a brave leap for Capcom to make.
Other games have used equally innovative ideas. Take Soul Reaver in which you control Raziel- a vampire set on getting revenge on his master. Of course, vampires are already dead (!) so what to do when his life gauge reaches zero? Well the way it’s been worked is this: if you “die” in the real world, you are forced to enter the dead world- a place where the souls of dead creature live that resembles the real world but with distorted properties. (This fact makes it necessary to move between worlds in order to solve tasks). To re-enter the real world you must replenish on the energy of dead souls. Far more interesting than just restarting from your last checkpoint!
So, what use are these ideas to normal games? Clearly you can’t delete a player’s progress when they die on the latest James Bond game! Nor could Bond enter an undead state (he’s only allowed to do that when played by bad actors in films). However, perhaps there could be more incentive to trying to stay alive- like giving the player bonuses when they complete a level based on how many times they die (of course, there would have to be an auto-save to stop players resetting the console!).
In RTS games, losing one battle could affect the course of the game as well as lead to different consequences. So, for example, your army would lose moral and you’d be forced to fight another day- changing the path you take in the game. Imagine playing Command and Conquer and being allowed to lose missions, but every mission you lost pushing you further and further back, with increasingly important and tense missions.
Games that react to the player- now that would be something.
Sonic
(Those of you who are perseptive will know how this and the "I've seen things..." topic link together ;) Cookie to the first person to get it!)
However, I’ve noticed a recent resurgence in varying the whole idea of dying in gaming. The game that has caught my eye the most over this issue is Tekki- a typical Japanese mecha game except for one quirk. The quirk? Everything is totally realistic.
You use a peripheral three times the size of a Xbox to control your mecha (big robot for non-Japanese speakers), complete with 50 buttons, 2 levels and 2 joysticks. And, more importantly for this topic, an eject button covered under a plastic capsule. (Originally the eject button was to have a glass layer you needed to smash to get to it). The reason for such extravagance over this one button is that, should your robot fail completely during the massive game, you are forced to eject… deleting EVERYTHING you have done in the game up to that point (and yes, it wipes your save file too).
Certainly not a game for the casual (well, it’ll cost loads anyhow!). Dying in the game really does end the game then and there- no second chance and no retries. Now that is a brave leap for Capcom to make.
Other games have used equally innovative ideas. Take Soul Reaver in which you control Raziel- a vampire set on getting revenge on his master. Of course, vampires are already dead (!) so what to do when his life gauge reaches zero? Well the way it’s been worked is this: if you “die” in the real world, you are forced to enter the dead world- a place where the souls of dead creature live that resembles the real world but with distorted properties. (This fact makes it necessary to move between worlds in order to solve tasks). To re-enter the real world you must replenish on the energy of dead souls. Far more interesting than just restarting from your last checkpoint!
So, what use are these ideas to normal games? Clearly you can’t delete a player’s progress when they die on the latest James Bond game! Nor could Bond enter an undead state (he’s only allowed to do that when played by bad actors in films). However, perhaps there could be more incentive to trying to stay alive- like giving the player bonuses when they complete a level based on how many times they die (of course, there would have to be an auto-save to stop players resetting the console!).
In RTS games, losing one battle could affect the course of the game as well as lead to different consequences. So, for example, your army would lose moral and you’d be forced to fight another day- changing the path you take in the game. Imagine playing Command and Conquer and being allowed to lose missions, but every mission you lost pushing you further and further back, with increasingly important and tense missions.
Games that react to the player- now that would be something.
Sonic
(Those of you who are perseptive will know how this and the "I've seen things..." topic link together ;) Cookie to the first person to get it!)
Page:
Thanks, I think I'll have to pick myself up a copy of Edge or search on Google or something later.
Even though no-one will buy it because of cost, it will set new ideas for the future to be made into affordable games. Things like this evolve into something spectacular,
Even though no-one will buy it because of cost, it will set new ideas for the future to be made into affordable games. Things like this evolve into something spectacular,
The Japanese game, Tekki, is made by capcom, so try Capcom.com or other game sites. There's a feature on it in this month's EDGE mag. The controller was shown in last month's EDGE mag. (Why don't they have picks in this months mag?!).
I doubt many people would buy it. To be able to play you would originally need about $600 (inc Xbox cost). Thankfully they've "refined" the controller wo it'll cost a lot less...
Sonic
I doubt many people would buy it. To be able to play you would originally need about $600 (inc Xbox cost). Thankfully they've "refined" the controller wo it'll cost a lot less...
Sonic
heh...the Japenese game sounds pretty cool, and as you said not for the casual". Any place I can get some shots of it? I'm intrested. Not in a buying way though, just to see what it looks like.
I owned Soul Reaver for quite some time and the way of dying really was unlike any other game I had played, so much diffrence. I was so happy to see that it had been done like that, kinda relieving after all the other games you had played yet got the same results at death.
I think, as time goes on, we will see games doing more things to overcome the normal 'Game Over' screen. We've seen it happen already in this day and age. Very little games use the 'Game Over' screen now, that has been overcome. Now we're just beggining to overcome the new.
I owned Soul Reaver for quite some time and the way of dying really was unlike any other game I had played, so much diffrence. I was so happy to see that it had been done like that, kinda relieving after all the other games you had played yet got the same results at death.
I think, as time goes on, we will see games doing more things to overcome the normal 'Game Over' screen. We've seen it happen already in this day and age. Very little games use the 'Game Over' screen now, that has been overcome. Now we're just beggining to overcome the new.
Enemies responding to where you shoot them: fair enough.
Enemies dying in a realistic, potentially slow, manner: ok.
Enemies with non-fatal wounds being able to be reshot for personal amusement... now that's just plain sick.
Seek help
Enemies dying in a realistic, potentially slow, manner: ok.
Enemies with non-fatal wounds being able to be reshot for personal amusement... now that's just plain sick.
Seek help
Great post.
When it comes to dying in everyday games, when i kill an opponent i like their deaths to be fun to watch. (i am sick aren't i) This includes responding appropriately to where they have been shot (in the leg, etc) as well as slumping down before collapsing face down onto the floor. Also, it is essential that the dead corpse must continue to respond and move,etc when i continue to needless shoot at it... just for fun. (Yes, i definitely am sick!)
I always liked the way enemies died in Perfect Dark on the N64.
When it comes to dying in everyday games, when i kill an opponent i like their deaths to be fun to watch. (i am sick aren't i) This includes responding appropriately to where they have been shot (in the leg, etc) as well as slumping down before collapsing face down onto the floor. Also, it is essential that the dead corpse must continue to respond and move,etc when i continue to needless shoot at it... just for fun. (Yes, i definitely am sick!)
I always liked the way enemies died in Perfect Dark on the N64.
Lol... the way they link together has nothing to do with the topics... it's the titles. If you want the answer go into the other topic and see the full quote.
Sonic
Sonic
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> (Those of you who are perseptive will know how this and the "I've
> seen things..." topic link together ;) Cookie to the first person
> to get it!)
Maybe this is TOO subtle, but I can see a link between that crazy mech game, and eating sushi, or at least one particular kind of sushi. Fugu, the deadly delicacy, is (apparently) delicious, but if the chef gets it wrong then you're dead. This kind of reflects that whole perfection-or-death thing in the game.
Cookie?
On death in computer games, I'd say that the issue is treated far too lightly. Should it really be such a casual thing to reload after dying? I don't think so. Apart from the examples you mentioned, I think the most interesting and affecting attitude towards death was in Cannon Fodder, where you could carry on if you lost men, but had to face a hillside of gravestones as a reminder. Not only did this force you to play well but it also made you think about the consequences of your actions.
Intersesting topic.
> (Those of you who are perseptive will know how this and the "I've
> seen things..." topic link together ;) Cookie to the first person
> to get it!)
Maybe this is TOO subtle, but I can see a link between that crazy mech game, and eating sushi, or at least one particular kind of sushi. Fugu, the deadly delicacy, is (apparently) delicious, but if the chef gets it wrong then you're dead. This kind of reflects that whole perfection-or-death thing in the game.
Cookie?
On death in computer games, I'd say that the issue is treated far too lightly. Should it really be such a casual thing to reload after dying? I don't think so. Apart from the examples you mentioned, I think the most interesting and affecting attitude towards death was in Cannon Fodder, where you could carry on if you lost men, but had to face a hillside of gravestones as a reminder. Not only did this force you to play well but it also made you think about the consequences of your actions.
Intersesting topic.
Okay, so dying in computer games is hardly the most joyous occasion, but few companies really take much notice of dying. You’re shot, you collapse, game starts over. Oh, and perhaps a life is deducted if the developer is so inclined.
However, I’ve noticed a recent resurgence in varying the whole idea of dying in gaming. The game that has caught my eye the most over this issue is Tekki- a typical Japanese mecha game except for one quirk. The quirk? Everything is totally realistic.
You use a peripheral three times the size of a Xbox to control your mecha (big robot for non-Japanese speakers), complete with 50 buttons, 2 levels and 2 joysticks. And, more importantly for this topic, an eject button covered under a plastic capsule. (Originally the eject button was to have a glass layer you needed to smash to get to it). The reason for such extravagance over this one button is that, should your robot fail completely during the massive game, you are forced to eject… deleting EVERYTHING you have done in the game up to that point (and yes, it wipes your save file too).
Certainly not a game for the casual (well, it’ll cost loads anyhow!). Dying in the game really does end the game then and there- no second chance and no retries. Now that is a brave leap for Capcom to make.
Other games have used equally innovative ideas. Take Soul Reaver in which you control Raziel- a vampire set on getting revenge on his master. Of course, vampires are already dead (!) so what to do when his life gauge reaches zero? Well the way it’s been worked is this: if you “die” in the real world, you are forced to enter the dead world- a place where the souls of dead creature live that resembles the real world but with distorted properties. (This fact makes it necessary to move between worlds in order to solve tasks). To re-enter the real world you must replenish on the energy of dead souls. Far more interesting than just restarting from your last checkpoint!
So, what use are these ideas to normal games? Clearly you can’t delete a player’s progress when they die on the latest James Bond game! Nor could Bond enter an undead state (he’s only allowed to do that when played by bad actors in films). However, perhaps there could be more incentive to trying to stay alive- like giving the player bonuses when they complete a level based on how many times they die (of course, there would have to be an auto-save to stop players resetting the console!).
In RTS games, losing one battle could affect the course of the game as well as lead to different consequences. So, for example, your army would lose moral and you’d be forced to fight another day- changing the path you take in the game. Imagine playing Command and Conquer and being allowed to lose missions, but every mission you lost pushing you further and further back, with increasingly important and tense missions.
Games that react to the player- now that would be something.
Sonic
(Those of you who are perseptive will know how this and the "I've seen things..." topic link together ;) Cookie to the first person to get it!)
However, I’ve noticed a recent resurgence in varying the whole idea of dying in gaming. The game that has caught my eye the most over this issue is Tekki- a typical Japanese mecha game except for one quirk. The quirk? Everything is totally realistic.
You use a peripheral three times the size of a Xbox to control your mecha (big robot for non-Japanese speakers), complete with 50 buttons, 2 levels and 2 joysticks. And, more importantly for this topic, an eject button covered under a plastic capsule. (Originally the eject button was to have a glass layer you needed to smash to get to it). The reason for such extravagance over this one button is that, should your robot fail completely during the massive game, you are forced to eject… deleting EVERYTHING you have done in the game up to that point (and yes, it wipes your save file too).
Certainly not a game for the casual (well, it’ll cost loads anyhow!). Dying in the game really does end the game then and there- no second chance and no retries. Now that is a brave leap for Capcom to make.
Other games have used equally innovative ideas. Take Soul Reaver in which you control Raziel- a vampire set on getting revenge on his master. Of course, vampires are already dead (!) so what to do when his life gauge reaches zero? Well the way it’s been worked is this: if you “die” in the real world, you are forced to enter the dead world- a place where the souls of dead creature live that resembles the real world but with distorted properties. (This fact makes it necessary to move between worlds in order to solve tasks). To re-enter the real world you must replenish on the energy of dead souls. Far more interesting than just restarting from your last checkpoint!
So, what use are these ideas to normal games? Clearly you can’t delete a player’s progress when they die on the latest James Bond game! Nor could Bond enter an undead state (he’s only allowed to do that when played by bad actors in films). However, perhaps there could be more incentive to trying to stay alive- like giving the player bonuses when they complete a level based on how many times they die (of course, there would have to be an auto-save to stop players resetting the console!).
In RTS games, losing one battle could affect the course of the game as well as lead to different consequences. So, for example, your army would lose moral and you’d be forced to fight another day- changing the path you take in the game. Imagine playing Command and Conquer and being allowed to lose missions, but every mission you lost pushing you further and further back, with increasingly important and tense missions.
Games that react to the player- now that would be something.
Sonic
(Those of you who are perseptive will know how this and the "I've seen things..." topic link together ;) Cookie to the first person to get it!)
Page: