Branching Dialogue: R.I.P. Death
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Dec 23rd 2008 at 8:15PM }
Presenting Branching Dialogue, a weekly, wordy and often worryingly pedantic discussion of video game genres, trends and err ... stuff I didn't think to put in this introductory line.
The game's difficulty (or supposed lack thereof) has also come under scrutiny, with some tough-guy gamers lamenting the Prince's newly found and quite convenient resistance to death. I don't wish to argue with the complaint ... but I do want to pluralize it. "This game is not difficult," and, "You can't die in this game," are two very different accusations, and one of them is more than a little unobservant of modern conventions.
I hate to break it to you guys, but death has been pushing up daisies for years.
There is no death in modern games. There is only progress or a lack of it, the latter usually being signaled by your hero having his head chopped off and an on-screen message politely relaying the bad news ("Umm, you died. Try again?"). But is the gruesome demise of your avatar really the same as death? Does your quest to save the universe come to a grinding halt?
"The GAME OVER screen lies somewhere outside of a game's universe ... " |
A stockpile of lives is no longer accepted as currency in today's games and second chances (not to mention third, fourth and fifth chances) have ceased being a limited resource. Having your avatar squashed, mashed, mushed or mutilated is largely inconsequential when the game instantly resurrects it and offers you another go. If you've ever had to repeat a devious segment numerous times, you'll agree that "another go" brings with it the real punishment for failure: your character's life may be infinitely expendable, but your time is not.
"This game isn't frustrating at all, so it must be easy."
When examined in this way, Prince of Persia's life-saving companion character isn't particularly innovative -- she's a glorified checkpoint with a plunging neckline. But then, this is also where I heap my praise on Prince of Persia: Elika is a beautiful solution to an ugly problem.
"Elika is a glorified checkpoint with a plunging neckline." |
Prince of Persia addresses this game design elephant in the room and successfully incorporates an inescapable, "videogamey" element into its narrative structure. It not only makes for a less frustrating and richer adventure, but it means you can enjoy the story without having to subconsciously filter out all the mechanical bits and bobs. Prince of Persia's certainly not the first game to do it -- BioShock buried death deeply within its story and Sands of Time disguised its checkpoints just as cleverly -- but it's a type of convergence I'd like to see explored further.
Like, in Prince of Persia 2. I'm dying to play it.
Branching Dialogue is written by Ludwig Kietzmann. He regularly writes posts on Joystiq and also wrote the highly narcissistic blurb you're reading right now (well done for making it all the way to the end, by the way). He can be written to by means of this fairly uncomplicated e-mail address:
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Aero @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:20PM
Totally agree with you, if it wasn't a magic teleport, then the game would just have checkpoints which this is just a more frequent version of.
One thing though, why is it that in this post and almost all Joystiq 'features' written by various people, why are they referred to as weekly posts when they never are weekly?
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:34PM
Joystiq is written by a bunch of optimists.
Naota @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:57PM
the only recent game i can think of with a "Death is the end" kind of situation is Steel Battalion for the XBox. When you died your save was deleted. At the same time, if your power went out at your house/dorm/apartment while playing, it would count as dying...
ryan @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:27PM
Diablo 2 Harcode mode. Ouch, lol.
Keroro @ Dec 24th 2008 12:04AM
@ Naota: Dead Rising did something where death ends the game, but there is always the option to reload the game prior to your demise.
Also, @ Ludwig: I understand what you're saying here (and I agree with you as well), but I don't seem to understand how death could fit correctly in any game(Except arcade games). It is, although, worth noting that Fable II was originally designed to handle death by allowing you to control one of your late character's offspring should you die. This however, never made it into the game, but it is the only thing I could think of that let the main character die, yet still continue the story. Would it not be expected though, if you were playing Metal Gear Solid and Snake died, that the plot would be unable to continue? Hence, this is only true if said game has a plot, unlike a multitude of arcade games. I believe that the only reason that death fits into arcade games so well is so that the machines can get more of your quarters. If you purchased a game from your local retail outlet for money, and then had an arcade-like death experience(as in death ending your game) within the game, you would be unhappy with the product, yes? Let's also say for instance, that you purchase Resident Evil 4 and you die 20 hours into the game, assuming death ends the game, you must start over from the very beginning. Unless you suffer from sever short term memory loss, you do not want to replay 20 hours of the game again with no added bonus.
In short Ludwig, I completely agree with you, but this phenomenon is all about marketing. They don't want to kill your jive while you're playing the game by having you start over from a checkpoint. They want to entice you so far into the game that you'll buy all other succeeding games. The reason behind this being (or to me, at least) that a large percentage of gamers now are unskilled, casual gamers and they don't want to have to endure starting over from a checkpoint 10 times. So they make it easy and effectively eliminate death from the game.
Naota @ Dec 24th 2008 1:42AM
I know about dead rising, and since you can reload or start over with all of your stats I didn't mention it. In Steel Battalion you seriously loose EVERYTHING when you die. All of your progress, all of your money, all of your mechs, all of your equipment.
Foetoid @ Dec 24th 2008 2:01AM
Dammit Ryan, now i feel like re-installing Diablo 2. I will say however, that Titan Quest (with expansion) is far superior to D2 in every way.
Ghen @ Dec 24th 2008 7:36AM
I enjoy games with permanent death like D2 hardcore and roguelikes. Its a matter of pride when I can reach a level never seen before (at least by friends ha) With the latest shooter/rpg/whatever you know everyone got to the same point in the end.
ryan @ Dec 24th 2008 9:40AM
A matter of pride? Yeah, I can see that. A matter of shame and hurt if you die and lose all those hours you put into that character, and not to mention all the uber rare elite items you collected lol.
WiredKnight @ Dec 24th 2008 5:08PM
@Keroro
Prey.
Once you got your Cherokee powers, when you died you'd go to the spirit realm, shooting down spirits to gain back your life. After a short amount of time, you were returned to the game, in the exact spot you died. YOu could do this an unlimited number of times, rendering your character effectively invincible.
Ethan @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:33PM
That's an interesting spin on it. As well as keeping a flow to the gameplay, it keeps a flow to the narrative.
But as one of the developers of PoP said, I don't need to stare at my character on the floor for a couple seconds and get asked if I want to carry on. If I did I'd switch the console off.
And Heavy rain's on the other side of things, making death permanent.
Levi @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:24PM
I was going to mention Heavy Rain, and the fact that you can play through the game past your death
That game sounds intriguing, I hope it turns out good.
Ethan @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:01PM
Since it's David Cage you can expect a very individual game that repeatedly kicks itself in the face while having some flashes of brilliance.
In A World (XBL) @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:16PM
Heavy Rain came to mind for me as well as I was reading this article. That's a game where death actually means something. Pretty sure it's accomplished through multiple characters and branching storylines, kinda like what was done in Eternal Darkness.
If a developer is just going to make a game with one character, however, I think the best way to do it is through an open world that presents you with enormous challenges right away, but if you can't or don't want to meet those challenges head-on then you have the freedom to find multiple indirect paths to victory. Can you beat Oblivion in 6 hours? Sure, but that's gonna be one tough battle and you missed the point of the game. Why not invest some time making things easier. There's about 11.5 million people who agree with this philosophy, and the all play World of Warcraft. It can even be something as basic as collecting all the heart pieces in a Zelda game; basically it's left up to the player how difficult the game really is... they just gotta work for it.
Some recent games that have used this design to great effect are Fallout 3 and Bioshock, both of which have received universal praise and gotten a few GOTY awards. A lot of JRPGs use level grinding to counter high difficulty levels as well, but they're usually so linear that you feel like you have no choice and must endure this repetitive chore for several hours in order to progress. Beefing up your character can be rather joyless if you're not also experiencing new things along the way, as you would in an open-world game.
The limited lives, do-overs, and strictly linear gameplay are a thing of the past. Developers, give the players choices by providing open worlds with branching paths. If your game is good enough then players will be willing to put the time in.
Eastman @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:35PM
I wholeheartedly disagree with this post, especially since I don't know what its trying to tell me. It comes off like a pompous college student that tells me I "just don't get it". When a game is not difficult it does NOT make is bad, but when a game series known for some difficulty changes into a cake walk then whats the point of playing it? Games should engage you in some way or another, such as being difficult or by being fun. When you give the player no repercussion for failing at a given task then why give them one at all? Why should the player progress when there is no challenge testing the players skill?
If you enjoyed the latest Prince of Persia then good! go and enjoy it to your hearts content. But for me, I enjoy challenge and feel accomplished when I over come a obstacle.
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:43PM
"When you give the player no repercussion for failing at a given task then why give them one at all?"
There *are* repercussions for failing in this game. If you don't perform a sequence correctly, you are sent back to the start and don't progress.
Eastman @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:52PM
The fact though that you have Elika (If I am spelling her name correctly) save you from everything, such as falling or being 'killed' by an enemy leads me to question why Elika with all her amazing ability's does not complete the quest herself. If see can save the prince from any type of situation, why does she not beat the game herself?
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:55PM
Because I'm told that some people "enjoy challenge and feel accomplished" when they overcome obstacles.
Eastman @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:04PM
It is not an obstacle if the game saves me if I do it wrong. If I play call of duty and miss shooting someone, does the bullet rewind with the enemy so that the game can give me another try? If I'm driving along in burnout and don't come in first does the game reset to just before I lost so I can win? In madden can I do a single play a million times if I don't get it right? No, as the game punishes me, even if its only a little, to give me an incentive to attempt to get it right.
Hyams @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:15PM
The only difference is a cut scene.
Either:
a) You fall, you die, a 'you are dead' message pops up, and then you load up from the last checkpoint,
or
b) You fall, your buddy catches you, and then takes you back to the last checkpoint.
Either way, the result is the same: you start again from the last checkpoint.
syrik zero @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:19PM
Dude, we're talking about Action/Platforming games here. Did Ludwig mention racing or sport games? Oh, he didn't? Hmmm...
So what would your genius mind think Action/Platforming games should do when you "die"?
Eastman @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:20PM
I defiantly agree, as they both take you back to the check point. But in prince of Persia its much more than just that, should even misjump the game saves you. if I miss jump in less say God of War I 'die' and am reset to the last checkpoint. I'm fine with that as it was my own fault for jumping, but when the game holds your hand the whole way like your a child that just open their eyes for the first time thats what ticks me off. Even if I wanted to die, the game won't allow it, leaving me stuck to only do what the game wants me to do.
Eastman @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:23PM
Also syrik zero, I'm just trying to argue my point. I do not claim to be genius.
Levi @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:27PM
There's not much of a difference, other than that *usually* games that kill you usually set you back farther than games that don't. Games that send you back to the last save point usually set you back farther than games with checkpoints between saves.
Usually being the key word.
Hyams @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:27PM
But it's still only an illusion. You didn't really die in God of War, cos ten seconds later Kratos is back again, ready to try the jump all over again. It's the same thing with Prince of Persia, really.
Either way, neither character truly died. You just happened to see a bit of blood with GoW before Kratos was magically transported back to the last checkpoint; wheras with PoP, instead of seeing blood, you see Elika catch the Prince before he's transported back to the last checkpoint.
The difference is purely cosmetic.
Kevin949 @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:30PM
Dude did you EVER play sands of time? Where you could just turn back time if you made a wrong jump or something. How is that different from this game? At least in sands of time when you had to turn the clock back you weren't sent all the way back to beginning of the section.
Also, is it just me or does this seem like a ridiculous thing to argue about? A game being too easy. Can't people just play a game to enjoy it? I dunno, but I still find enjoyment even in a simple game.
syrik zero @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:32PM
As it's been stated so many times already... Lets say in GOW when you jump off something and "die" what is the difference of going back to the beginning of that area for no reason and instead they have a Greek God carry you back and you start in the same place?
The whole argument here is that you don't have to "die." That idea has withered and died long ago. There are now much more clever ways that can include the story of the game in your mistake, such as POP or FarCry2.
Eastman @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:32PM
Not sure if your talking to me Kevin949, but yeah, this is a pointless argument as everyone has their own opinions. People will always disagree with each other over the smallest of things, but this of course is the bases of debates.
Gehodra @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:52PM
@Kevin949
Alright. You're only allowed to play your games on the easiest difficulty from now on. Enjoy.
@Eastman
It looks like you're just mad about the fact that death is not explicitly in the game, regardless of the fact that the elika system functions as the same thing.
Arnie @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:19PM
See here is my problem with these types of gamers. I play video games for entertainment not to achieve a goal. If I wanted to do that I would take up a productive hobby or help out at a local charity. The point of games is to have fun(at least it used to be). I am sorry but games becoming simpler to understand(by that I mean simple control scheme) and lesser DP is good.
One thing I dont understand is why the people complained so much about the Death handling in Too Human and almost universally everyone complained about it but this is kinda like that with just a shorter animation and at least most people dont mind it. I would like to know what the author thinks about that.
Eastman @ Dec 24th 2008 12:28AM
Apparently when someone offers an opinion that does not agree with the article or majority it becomes voted down.
IGLAW @ Dec 24th 2008 1:03AM
Welcome to Joystiq.
I personally have plenty of other, very real gripes with the game's design besides the difficulty, so I'll opt out here.
Marius @ Dec 24th 2008 1:20AM
@ Eastman
I get what your saying and i agree with you. To me dying in a game is part of the experience because if this continues i dont want to say "oh i failed lets try again", i want to continue saying "Damn, I died"
Mr.Ironic @ Dec 24th 2008 2:39AM
I really want a game where..when I fall I break my leg...and I have to play the rest of the game limping. Why? Because I'm Hardcore.
Kevin949 @ Dec 24th 2008 5:11AM
@Gehodra
I think you failed to miss the point of my post. personally I have Zero problems with playing a game on the easy setting just as I have Zero problem playing a game on the hardest difficulty setting. This is just one game (seemingly easy) out of the plethora of maddeningly difficult (see, Ninja Gaiden) games out on the market. And it creates this much of a stir simply because there is no "Game Over" or "Restart From Checkpoint" screen. I suppose being in the older gamer generation I've learned to appreciate the finer points in games and not dwell on the small stuff.
That being said, I WILL concede one thing, from what someone else said. someone mentioned something to the effect of being able to collect a seed and purposely fall to your "death" just to be brought back to the beginning of some section and you still have the seed....this I feel is an oversight, or flaw. If they had changed that, I'm sure this issue wouldn't have been as big as it is. And I doubt Ubisoft will fix this as they obviously don't see this as an "Issue" but as a game feature.
pixelate @ Dec 24th 2008 11:25AM
@ Kevin949:
This may be apropos of nothing, but now you have me hankering for a Ninja Gaiden title featuring Elika.
Maybe she daintily swoops in and sews your body parts back together when you screw up.
WiredKnight @ Dec 24th 2008 2:54PM
It's all just semantics at this point. No, you can't die, but you can still fail. It's not like the game plays itself, it's just more forgiving.
Mostly, the game wants you to have fun. You do want to have fun right? Many people get frustrated (obviously not all) when they die in video games, so Ubisoft is trying to figure out a way around it. The game is still gorgeous, and it's still fun, so I don't see what there is to complain about. It's just a different experience, which I for one, welcome.
Ashfurball @ Jan 4th 2009 8:34AM
"Not sure if your talking to me Kevin949, but yeah, this is a pointless argument as everyone has their own opinions."
-Yeah, arguments wouldn't really work if everyone had the same opinion though would they?
"Apparently when someone offers an opinion that does not agree with the article or majority it becomes voted down."
-Yes, well done. Also when someone offers an opinion that DOES agree with the artcle or majority it is voted UP.
Noshino @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:35PM
Ludwig,
I'm sorry to say it, but this:
"The hero dies, he comes back ... and everything just goes on, no questions asked. Huh?"
Was indeed already accomplished, or do you not recall this game that came out on 03 called Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time?
The use of time to replay not only accomplished that that you mentioned, it also did not sacrifice the difficulty of the title. What I mean is, you weren't being saved, you were just being given an option to RETHINK your moves.
In the latest PoP game, you are simply safe by this guardian at any time. If you couldn't think of a smart way to overcome an obstable, it doesn't matter, just go forward, and if you make mistakes, there is Elika to save you, you don't have to ever find out how to really overcome said obstacle...
KenshinSlayer @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:45PM
Your argument made very little sense. When you "die" in the recent PoP, you don't just go over the obstacle. She brings you to a checkpoint before the obstacle, then you have to do it again. Its the illusion of death that frustrates people. If their is no illusion of punishment, people will think "Wow that's easy." If, for example, in God of War, you die and you get the "You Are Obviously Dead, But We Just Want to Rub It In Your Face" message, then you will think it is exceedingly more difficult. Had PoP done the same, I doubt your opinion would have been the same.
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Dec 23rd 2008 8:48PM
Noshino, Sands of Time is mentioned in the article. I also explicitly mention that this PoP isn't the first to deal with death in this manner.
I'm not really sure what your point is -- the difference between rewinding time and Elika is that the latter is automatic, while the other requires you to hold down a button. Functionally, the two are identical. Elika doesn't play the game for you and it's impossible to progress until you get it right yourself.
Noshino @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:00PM
I apologize, english isn't my first language, and as such, sometimes I can't explain it well, but if you go over the gameplay section of the GT Review, you would see my point.
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/43264.html (3:38)
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:11PM
Wow Noshino. Normally I usually respect your opinions, but this time I do believe that you are full of shit.
Did you even play this game or are you just jumping on the "I hate this game cause I can't die" bandwagon?
What you said about Sands of Time is exactly what happens in PoP. Elika does not play the game for you, while you can't die, you have to do the obstacle over again in order to progres through the game. And until you past the obstacle, Elika will continually take you back to where you started. Like I've said previously if you're going to talk shit about a game, the least you can do is play it.
syrik zero @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:23PM
Vegeta, you were always my favorite Character in the DB series. I'm glad you came through again here.
Some people just don't get it, just let them be.
Levi @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:30PM
I think the illusion you speak of is probably true to a lot of people, but for me, it is the amount you are set back.
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Dec 23rd 2008 9:35PM
Also at your supposed proof.
The whole second jump thing with Elika(which I'm assuming is what you're talking about) only works in certain situations where the distances between platforms are far, but not too far.
Just because you use the second jump button does not mean Elika simply transports you to the next location. Of course you'd know that if you, oh I don't know, played the fucking game instead of using a review in your argument.
Gehodra @ Dec 23rd 2008 10:58PM
The sands were a gameplay mechanic, elika's saves are a checkpoint system. Very different.
Rob @ Dec 23rd 2008 11:29PM
How is Elika any different than "No, that's not how the story goes."?
Noshino @ Dec 24th 2008 2:56AM
uh, actually, I just finished fighting the Warrior... (playing it at a friend's arcade, so kinda slow D: )
Anyway, Ludwig and Vegeta, Uglzorp explained better:
"Death:
SoT: You can rewind time using sand. This sand is finite and can only be replenished by killing enemies and destroying objects. You never know when you'll next have a chance to replenish your sand so you use it sparingly (like when you're about to die). You also have finite health so if you want to replenish it during a difficult fight, you'll have to use a lot of sand to constantly rewind time.
PoP: Elika saves you. If you miss a jump, Elika saves you and returns you to the last checkpoint. Checkpoints are placed on every single platform in the game so you never lose more than 5 seconds worth of progress. If you are about to die in combat, Elika saves you. Your opponent heals some health so you do lose some progress."
You see, the sands were a feature that not only took care of making it harder to die (or helped you stay alive), but they also added a lot of deepness to the game and didn't sacrifice the difficulty of it...
Elika in the other hand doesn't do that, its just a feature that doesn't really bring anything to the table other than making sure that you don't die. I know, I know, you can say that she adds to the combat mechanics, I would agree if it wasn't because the mechanics themselves were very limited.
Or maybe Im not seeing it, or maybe as the game progresses, does her help become more limited? can she die? if the answer to both of those questions is "No", then yes, I stand by my statement that her function isn't the same as that of the Sands of Time, there is simply just no other use for her than to save you.
Now, before I'm cursed by x number of fans of this new PoP title, I love the Prince of Persia series, and despite the fact that I love Sands of Time the most, PoP is really good, but only on the art/atmosphere department, but when it comes to gameplay mechanics, and if we are to take in mind that these are the same developers of the Sands of Time trilogy AND Assassin's Creed, well, it is awful...
J @ Dec 24th 2008 11:48AM
nice, vegina.
way to bring the mean-spiritedness into the conversation. noshino didn't jump on any bandwagon. sounds like you jumped on the "elika saving you is the fucking same thing as fucking rewinding in SoT cause fucking Ludwig says so, and if you disagree you didn't play the FUCKing game" bandwagon.
noshino's latest wall of text destroys your argument, without cursing you out. that's y i still downvoted noshino for not trashing you like you deserve. and wtf noshino, your english is even better than vegina's. at least you don't substitute substance with f bombs.
vegina. teehee. >_