The perception of death and challenge in games.

Role-playing survival game is willing to take risks

By  Oct 8th, 2008 3:23 am UTC

Playing Mega Man 9 and getting killed on the numerous death traps sparked this idea I get whenever I play tough games. Its how death and challenge are intertwined in games.

Failure in video games can be distinguished between two disciplines, one being forced to start over when you’re out of lives or health. The other being stuck at a section and having to repeat it until you get it right. The common factor is the concept of death, that the character will bite the big one as it were. Without that factor there is a change in the play style of gamers.

When the player can’t die and there are no traps, pits, spikes, etc, the player will play very carefree, and most often will rush through the section, as there is no threat or reason to worry. Once you add in the notion of failure, the player will take their time with the game. I’ve seen it before, an obstacle will be set up that there will be no punishment for failure. Such as maneuvering across disappearing platforms over the floor, if the player misses no harm will come to them. This is used as a way of conditioning the player for what’s to come, and as a tutorial for future events. Later on the player will deal with the same mechanic, except this time it will be over a bottomless pit or spikes. Now the player will have to concentrate and use what they learn to survive.

Studying psychology I should know the formal name of what I’m talking about, but I’m rusty. When failure is on the line, both in video games and in real life, a different attitude comes over the participant. Suddenly it’s no longer a game but a challenge. Without that threat of failure and lost a lot of games would lose their popularity among the hard core. Imagine if there were no pits or spikes in the Mega Man series, the game play would lose a lot of its charm and I bet a lot of fans. One of the main details of causal games is that the player cannot lose and while I agree that there should be some games like that. I don’t think a future of all casual games is a good idea, yes moving away from the ridiculous difficulties of NES titles is good, but I think casual games over shoot the goal. I still say that Bioshock was ruined by the fact that it was balanced from the detail that the player cannot die.

One of the core features of what makes a “game” is that the player can lose, without it; it would not be a game anymore. Tell me this if I asked you to jump 5 feet in one direction on the ground would you react the same if I asked you to jump 5 feet in one direction on a platform 500 feet up?

Josh

Author Avatar

  • I’ve witnessed a similar thing happen when playing Poker. When playing just for matchsticks or chips the game was much faster and involved a lot more joking.

    The moment we started playing for money everything changed. It was still fun, but the pace was dramatically slower and everybody was a lot more subdued.

    I think in the divide between hardcore and casual (Two terms I personally loath), there’s entire groups of gamers getting missed out. Some people want the interactivity of games, and the depth and level of engagement required by a hardcore title but don’t really want to be challenged too much. These are gamers who are in it for the experience more than the challenge (Hardcore gamers), or more than the diversion (Casual Gamers). Nor are they lapsed hardcore gamers who find themselves with little free time (The Hard-Casual gamers, as I believe N’Gai Croal dubbed them). Instead these are the people who enjoyed playing BioShock with the Vita Chambers, or Halo on Normal. The type of people who play Role Playing Games or Real Time Strategy games on easy. They like the escapism, the mental engagement, the interactivity but don’t feel it necessary to be challenged.

  • I think the challenge is , are there high level games (4X strategy titles for example) That are still easy enough for casual gamers to play and understand?

    There are some genres that I don’t think will ever reach the same level of mainstream as the casual games or the FPS. Genres like the rogue, or the 4x genre, the aspects that make them popular for the hardcore gamers is the turn off for the casuals.

    Perhaps a further divide and restructuring of what is considered “easy” “normal” and ” hard” could work. A game set on easy would be just that, perfect for the casual gamers. Normal, something for people who just want a relaxed interactive time. Hard, a ball bustingly tough time for the experts. The hardest setting would no longer mean a completely imbalanced time against the player, but the hardest possible experience for the game.

    We as an industry are moving to a time where the casual market is a highly successful one compared to the days of the hard core gamers. I wonder if a sucessful medium between the two( either mainstream successes or niche devoted fans) is possible , or will one over take the other.