Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Death is not the end
by Kevin Ng on 01/07/13 07:39:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

The trend in games over the last couple of years is clear. Dark Souls, Super Hexagon, FTL - death is in fashion. Or, more precisely: frequent, almost inevitable player death. So why are us game devs climbing over each other to teabag the player? How can embracing the possibilities of death serve the game design?

TEA BAG

Let's start with the most famous recent advocate of frequent player death: Dark Souls. This is a game (whose tag line, remember, is “Prepare to Die”) which positively revels in killing the player. Yet both Dark Souls and its precursor Demon’s Souls have become big hits. Terry Cavanagh’s Super Hexagon is even more difficult. Lasting more than 30 seconds may sound like a given in most video games, but achieving this in Super Hexagon will take some practice. Super Crate Box takes a similar approach, readily handing out sudden death, with the added cruelty of making it entirely your fault in the case of disc gun misuse. Super Meat Boy delights in sudden player evisceration, gleefully depicting your character explode into bloody chunks. Keeping your ship together long enough to augment its defences enough to survive even a moderate attack in FTL is difficult. Day Z takes all of this, and adds adds a dollop of PvP and an object lesson in the dark side of human nature into the mix.

The list goes on. Yet despite sharing an almost unhealthy love for flashing up the Game Over screen, it’s these titles that we keep coming back to. So what’s happening here? What exactly does frequent player death bring to the gameplay design table?

FTL

Death comes quickly in FTL - Faster Than Light

A sense of danger

The most obvious effect is introducing a sense of danger to the game. If it is easy to stay alive, there is no tension in the game. Knowing that death could be just around the corner is a powerful way to engage the player. You have to keep on your toes, exercise caution, pay attention to every visual and audio cue. Watching TV in the background is not an option. Total concentration is demanded. 

Repercussions

In recent years, we have become accustomed to games holding our hands, tutorialising, making sure that if we make mistakes, nothing bad will happen. The player is surrounded by an inpenetrable layer of bubble wrap, unable to fail. However, just as raising a child in this way may leave the child unable to deal with adult life, so this approach will ultimately fail the player. A world without repercussions is a world in which you don’t learn life’s lessons. 

A great way to see the effect that real repercussions bring is to play Minecraft on survival mode. In normal mode, death means a respawn back at base camp. In survival mode, there is no respawn. If you die, your character dies, and more importantly, your entire world dies. All of the places you explored, all the items you found and crafted, and all the houses you built are lost forever. Gone. Deleted. And so it will go for a couple of games. And then you will adapt, and change your play style. You check carefully in the morning for creepers before opening the front door. You don’t go anywhere without armour. You carry a bucket of water with you in case of unforeseen lava. You *never* dig beneath your own feet. If you’re becoming overly familiar with normal mode in Minecraft, give survival mode a go. Most likely, it will reinvigorate your interest in the game. True survival horror.

Super Hexagon

Abstract polygonal death in Super Hexagon

Freedom

A perhaps unexpected effect of frequent player death is an amplified sense of freedom. Knowing that death will likely come quickly frees the player to experiment, to test the boundaries of the game. If you know you are going to die soon, why not try out this new tactic? Why not try out that piece of equipment which you normally wouldn’t use? You’re Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, so why not learn to play the piano? Dark Souls and FTL in particular make good use of this effect.

It’s important to note that freedom only comes with the promise of resurrection. In flash game One Chance, you have six days to save the world. Quite a mundane, expected scenario for a video game. Except in this case, you can only play the game once. There are no retries, no extra credits. The game tracks your system and makes sure you only play once.  This turns the dynamic of death on its head completely. Freedom to experiment goes out the window, and real survival instincts kick in.

Realism

Embracing player death can serve the feeling of realism within a game. It can place you more viscerally within its scenario. In Day Z, the experience strives to ask the question, what if a zombie apocalypse really did break out? And not just in the comic book brush strokes of Resident Evil or Dead Rising, but for real? So now you have to scavenge for food and equipment whilst skulking around in bushes, playing with the risk and reward of going into a town knowing that you might find a new weapon. Player death can make a game experience more real, more relatable, more powerful.

Progression

With all this death and player punishment, what brings the player coming back for more? In all of these games (except for One Chance), there is a sense of progression between death and respawn. In Dark Souls, you keep any equipment you had from the previous life, as well as any levels you have attained. In FTL, although you lose your ship, crew, and equipment, you unlock new ships that will get you further next time around. Super Crate Box unlocks weapons as you earn points. There is always the sense that even though you just died, your next life will be better. This is powerful fuel for the “just one more go” imperative.

Even those games without explicit game mechanics for progression between lives provide it through player learning. Super Hexagon is all about this. Promoting the feeling that the player is continually improving their score and getting better at the game is a good way to keep them interested.

Not the end

Embracing player death in your game design is a powerful thing to do, in the right circumstances. As always, it is necessary to judge your audience and design accordingly. Making a casual game really hard will likely alienate your audience. But if your audience skews more towards the core gamer, exploring the many advantages of frequent player death can be an interesting tool in the game designer’s toolbox. 

Dark Souls

You can play Kevin Ng's (@pixelontoast) new game, Food Run on 22nd January 2012. You'll probably die a lot. Review copies are now available via promo codes and TestFlight. 


Related Jobs

DeNA Studios Canada
DeNA Studios Canada — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[10.22.14]

Analytical Game Designer
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at Dallas — Richardson, Texas, United States
[10.22.14]

Assistant/Associate Prof of Game Studies
Avalanche Studios
Avalanche Studios — New York, New York, United States
[10.22.14]

UI Artist/Designer
Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — ORLANDO, Florida, United States
[10.22.14]

Game Designer






Comments


Kevin Fishburne
profile image
Nice article. I think anyone who REALLY loves games (not casual players) and who grew up during the NES/SNES period understands your points. Games back then were buckets full of ass whipping. You knew you were going behind enemy lines when you pressed Start.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
Really hoping this trend keeps on spreading.

Just recently some friend said "nice, you won the battle with the boss", when I replied, "no I did not. I just pressed A repeatedly".

Nick McKergow
profile image
There are so many new examples popping up, it's fantastic. Besides the one's you mentioned, there's also Spelunky, Tokyo Jungle and ZombiU. I'm hoping it ends up influencing the industry as a whole.

Nathan Mates
profile image
Sorry, but I'd say you're overgeneralizing. Your post starts off with these words:

"The trend in games over the last couple of years is clear. Dark Souls, Super Hexagon, FTL - death is in fashion. "

The trend? The one and only trend? Based on an list of seven games linked? And those seven titles are representative of the probably 5000+ titles released (counting X360, PC, Wii*, Steam, iOS, Android, Kongregate, etc) in the last year? Sample size *fail*. The wording on your post is not backed up by actual facts.

I think you're generalizing what *you* want as being a trend that you'd like to see encouraged. That's great. But, please don't pretend you're a majority without more data. Also, please read up on player archetypes. Not everyone shares your preference. Yes, some people love harder games. Great. But, over the past decade, games have generally gotten easier. That would indicate to me that there's a market for easier games.

A really informative post would have not just pointed out seven games, but done real analysis as to what percentage of the game playing (and also game buying) public falls into each archetype. No, I don't have the numbers for that. But, to claim that your preferences should be the industry's direction -- without even acknowledging why some people might feel differently -- is just plain arrogance.

Kevin Ng
profile image
Sorry you didn't enjoy the article, Nathan. I certainly wouldn't claim this is an extensive analysis of the market. it's just an opinion piece, designed for further conversation, nothing more. Apologies if that offends you.


none
 
Comment: