Question

Hobbes's avatar

Is there an alternative to death in video games?

Asked by Hobbes (2047 points) | asked August 9th, 2008 | 22 responses | “Great Question” (5 points) | Flag as…

Death is the most commonly used punishment/incentive against failure in video games. However, “death” is usually nothing of the sort – it’s simply a temporary inconvenience, and a frustrating one at that, as it requires tedious repetition of parts of a level that have already been beaten to get back to the point at which you died.

Some video games have made the constant respawning more plausible (In Planescape: Torment, for example, your character is immortal and the story centers around your quest to die), and some have circumvented the need entirely (in a new game, Braid, you can simply rewind time to a few seconds before your “death”). Are there any other possibilities or alternatives to death that you folks can think of?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

Answers

petethepothead's avatar

less lethal weapons?

ladytmerie's avatar

A spanking? Seriously though, I always die on almost every game I play and it dosent bother me. Interesting question.

uberbatman's avatar

its been a while since i played it, but werent you a clone in Portal.So when you died, they just got another clone.

crunchaweezy's avatar

Because it’s realistic.

megalongcat's avatar

Obscure. When one character dies, it stays dead for the rest of the game. Just like real life.

PupnTaco's avatar

Collecting every yellow coin?

Hobbes's avatar

@crunchaweezy – but that’s part of the point: it’s not. Death in games can’t be realistic, because if it was, the console would permanently turn off every time you died. Instead, it’s just a setback, an annoyance.

crunchaweezy's avatar

Would you rather it shut off everytime you die?

Hobbes's avatar

What? No. I’m just pointing out that it’s not realistic, not saying that it should do that. I’m wondering if there’s some other way to give the game challenge besides threatening a forced repeat of the level, usually defined in game-fluff as death.

Lightlyseared's avatar

anything they replaced it with would also be a set back and annoyance too.

winblowzxp's avatar

How about eternal life…

delirium's avatar

a game in a dream. If you die, you wake up.
Everyone dreams of dying, no one dreams of being dead. (- Gaiman)

Skyrail's avatar

Once you die you have to go out and buy the game again which has a seperate, and new, character on it. Leading on from the real life replication scenario.

uberbatman's avatar

@delirium Nights for the sega dreamcast was like that.

cheebdragon's avatar

I don’t like games where the character can die…...but I don’t have a problem with other people wanting to play them, to each his (or her) own, I just won’t be buying them for myself.

gailcalled's avatar

Sinking into a comatose stupor, and waiting to be kissed by the prince in 100 years or so?

XCNuse's avatar

it’s the same in movies and books, once a character dies, it is because they are no longer needed for the plot, any more use of them would become an inconvenience and possibly just make it more confusing such as “well.. what about so and so?”

In other words, it’s the easy way of removing someone from a story to save you the hassle of questioning it and becoming frustrated.

Lovelocke's avatar

There are thousands of titles that don’t use death as a penalty: Look at the scores of puzzle games, racing games, arcade/reflex style games (Shooting Gallery titles as old as Duck Hunt and as recent as Police Trainer/Dance Dance Revolution). The musical titles like Para Para Paradise, Guitar Freaks, Guitar Hero, Rock Band and so on. Nintendo titles like Wario Ware, Wii Sports, Wii Fit and so on.

There’s a few dozen games right there pulled out of the hat. We can go even more in depth and get to the PC side of things, with games like Sim City, Diner Dash, Chess and so on.

What bugs me about this arguement and any arguement leaning towards “gentler games” is that they’re all around you all of the time, but if you are only playing games where you personally die or the goal is to kill others, then chances are you put the cash down and the time into it because you found the concept interesting… and I believe that’s what it comes down to: How far can you go in a virtual game to deal with virtual consequences that you are unwilling/unable to do/take in real life.

Many millions of people out there played Grand Theft Auto, sure… but many millions more played Super Mario Brothers. “Death” is a consequence of both titles, but one allows you to steal cars, murder entire populations and have war declared on you: While the other requires you to wiggle a wiimote, shoot stars at the screen and soar through a galaxy via star-portals.

Whichever you choose, I feel, is up to you. Me? I love Mario, but I also love super violent video games just because I find them kind of comical. Ever see bodily mutilation in some of the older Mortal Kombat titles? It’s like, while a person explodes, 12–15 legs will fly out of the blood geyser: Just for effect.

Hobbes's avatar

@Lovelocke – I’m not making an argument for “gentler” games. I don’t have a problem with death per se, I just think it’s generally ineffective as a penalty, and that what is called death in the average FPS is nothing of the sort.

I hadn’t thought of the multitude of Puzzle games. You’re right: many don’t use death. But I can’t think of a platformer, adventure game, or FPS that doesn’t use “death” as the penalty for failure.

Skyrail's avatar

Garry’s Mod for Half Life 2 isn’t centered around death/killing/whatever but more of utilising the game engine to build. Although death is a down side if you do get killed ;)

ninjaxmarc's avatar

It’s not death in a game but a 2nd chance.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.