There is a direct correlation between potential loss a player can experience and realism, and the potential fun a player can have in a game. That statement is a bit loaded so Ill elaborate a bit. In a world where a player fears nothing, he will without a doubt quickly become bored. Great concepts like the realm warfare in Dark Age of Camelot lose their sparkle when a player gets in the groove of fighting, dying and marching right back in to battle, only loosing about 5 minutes of travel time. Players tend to loose their edge because they really dont care if they die or not. In some cases there isnt a monster in the land players cant kill in one hit. Adventure becomes monotonous and quests become boring to the god-player. And what about realism? Ernest Adams put it best in his article "A Letter from a Dungeon"(which can be found at http://www.gamasutra.com/features/designers_notebook/20000126.htm) where he wrote about the never-changing environment around him. Many games today dont put much effort into creating a world around the player, its unexciting and predictable. Diablo II is a good example of how a game can be more fun when you have something to loose. People who switched from normal mode to "hardcore" (permadeath) quickly found that it was much more exciting when you had something to lay on the line, you actually felt connected to your character. Is it the gamble that makes it fun? Maybe its the fact that we cant just brush aside death as if it werent a consideration at all, a good indicator the loss factor is a reiteration of the realism factor. But, how far is too far? Realism definitly helps immerse players in games, but can it inhibit them? Some players like the idea of loss (i.e. some level of permadeath) being integrated into games, because being god isnt fun. Others cringe at the idea of actually loosing anything, yet they complain about being bored when they hit the level cap. How real do games need to be? Where do we draw the line? Where is the perfect balance between realism and inhibitation?

I think a lot of people are stuck with this "playing god" idea. I mean, it was one thing when people called rts''s "playing god". It makes a bit of sense to me. But calling, rpg''s, rts''s and such "playing god" games is stretching it a bit far. I think that, like most games, when you die, there should be a consequence, but i don''t think eliminating your account permanently is that good of an idea. I mean, its one thing if say, you die and your character looses a level, or five levels, or something. Or, maybe your account is suspended for a few hours or a day. I think that, if say, someone reaches level 60, and looses, and all their 5800 hours of game play go down the drain, never to return again, that would really discurrage the player from playing the game again. It''s one thing, if you loose a few levels, or gold, or whatever, but too completely delete your character is a bit much in my mind. Diablo 1 had somewhat of an odd consequence when you died. Basically, all of your stuff dropped, and you could leave the game, loosing all of your stuff forever, or, you could, by what seemd purly by chance, get your stuff back by going "exit to town" (or whatever that menu option was.) It was very odd because sometimes you did get all of your stuff back and sometimes you did not. None the less, even if you have to make it back to the level to get your stuff, it still isn''t as bad as deleting your character.

Fuzztrek

¬_¬

I personally think OSI did it best with UO. But god knows they screwed that all up catering to the lowest common denominator.

quote: But, how far is too far? Realism definitly helps immerse players in games, but can it inhibit them?

Realism is useless: we''re playing a computer game.
Believability is another thing. To me, it''s not about realism, it''s about virtual realism. In other words, things in the virtual world do not have to be like they are on Earth, but there have to be virtual laws governing the virtual world.

quote: Some players like the idea of loss (i.e. some level of permadeath) being integrated into games, because being god isnt fun.

I''m a big fan of permanent death, IF implemented correctly. Diablo 2 did not implement it correctly, it merely tacked it onto the existing game. As the existing game was far from designed for permanent death, permanent death really didn''t do it for me in this game. It was too easy to die (especially due to technical glitches, for which the game had no solution or even quasi-solution).

quote: Others cringe at the idea of actually loosing anything, yet they complain about being bored when they hit the level cap. How real do games need to be? Where do we draw the line? Where is the perfect balance between realism and inhibitation?

About losing ''anything''... If the game is based on gaining that ''anything'' (whatever it may be: experience, items, skills, etc), then yes, losing it will probably be upsetting. Where we have to draw the line is making sure that the game is NOT focused on gaining ''anything''. If the game doesn''t focus on items, but merely offers items as a welcome change of pace, then losing an item will not be so bad. If the game doesn''t focus on experience, then losing experience won''t hurt as much.

Imagine playing a football game, where there is only one goal: win big. Even winning small won''t satisfy the player. You have to make sure that playing the game itself is what is fun. Win or lose, the player had a good time.

This is a good question.

The short and vacuous answer: Depends.

Consequences that result from good or bad play always make things more exciting and involving. However, this has to be balanced against making the consequences so important that failure makes the game not worth playing. The most important thing to offer to counterbalance the consequences for failure is hope, and the chance to try again.

In a FPS deathmatch, you can get killed. Most games let you respawn right away and get right back into the action, with the hope that you can still take revenge and perhaps win the round. In scenario-based games such as Counterstrike, player death is permanent for the round - but that''s okay, because the rounds don''t last too long. The permanent death does mean that players are more careful and less likely to charge into dangerous situations - but then, Counterstrike was designed with this play style in mind. However, in a game such as Quake III DM, (average lifespan < 1 minute) it would be totally out of proportion to force the dead to stay that way for the rest of the round.

In a console RPG, you can get killed in battle. This means having to restore from the last save, which may be a ways back. It doesn''t mean having to start from the beginning (thank god). If it did, people would quickly get frustrated as playing through the same 30 hours of game again and again is just not fun.

If you want to make a relatively peaceful MMOG, you don''t have to ban PKing. Just make character creation a fun and involving process (so there are no throwaway characters), disallow respawning, and then balance the game so that even the rankest of newbies has a slim chance of beating the greatest swordsman to death with his stick. Sure, you could slice up that peasant - but is it really worth the risk, given that he might crack you a good one with his shovel and end 5 years of fun play? Of course, in order to keep the game fun, combat with monsters should not be nearly so lethal! Perhaps most monsters just want to be left alone, and only fight with those who attack them or intrude on their territory, and back off if the trespasser flees or plays possum. At any rate, these sorts of ideas have more to do with MMOG balance than the original question... sorry.

One way to encourage play is to have benefits which can be lost by not taking on new challenges. If one implemented a ranking system in, say, an online RTS such as Battle.net supported games, where one''s ranking could only be changed by one''s own actions, then the best tactic to keep a high ranking would be to fight no challengers! If on the other hand rankings decayed over time unless reaffirmed, or were based partially on number of matches played, then the top players would be happy to take on all comers.

---------------------------------------------------
-SpittingTrashcan

You can''t have "civilization" without "civil".

Death is a PITA (Pain In The rear orifice), especially when you start getting deeper into play methods that aren''t directly related to physical activity.

I think mostly in the context of RPGs, because that''s where my heart lies. I''ve been designing a system with a friend, where we''ve explicitly catered for at least three, and possibly four different styles of play - physical, mental, social, and possibly supernatural. In our many long discussions, it''s become apparent that we associate physical loss with death, almost without thinking any more about it. At a slightly higher level, almost always when you think of "physical conflict", you''ll be thinking of combat, fighting, swords, bows or guns.
Yet, when you get to mental challenges, you''ll think of thinks like a game of chess, and social would be an election or trying to persuade people to do something. Loss there isn''t anywhere near as final. What this suggests to me, is that first of all, physical conflict shouldn''t be nearly as fatal as it tends to be, and second, it shouldn''t translate into fighting even half the time.

"loss" should be final ONLY if game time is short. Chess has loss, but the average amateur game takes about half an hour at most. Sure, pros go for a few hours, but that''s still a far cry from the hundreds of hours people need to invest in some RPGs. If you expect your game to flow, and to last for thousands of hours in a single "play", then please make it very hard to suffer a final loss, just have "setbacks". Give the player a kick in their ego, make them take a long way around, but don''t force them to start over. Most of the problem stems from trying to get "physical realism". Stop trying to get it. Try to make a game instead.

I was worried about this same issue when I had my post on creating a game about the "eternal soldier". For a quick recap, the eternal soldier is the mythical Roman legionnaire that stabbed Jesus in the ribs to make sure he was dead. Supposedly he was cursed by God to live until Judgement day for his sin. I thought it would be a neat angle playing an immortal character...but if he can''t die, how do you make sure he doesn''t get bored?

I decided that even though he can''t die, he can still fail his missions, which depending on whether he follows a path of redemption or falling further into oblivion will be of certain types. The stress comes from not failing your mission and objectives.

You are right though, without some sort of sense of loss, players will get bored. I personally would err on the side of too much realism than a game that is too easy and/or too god-like. There''s a certain frustration that comes when you die too easily or fail too easily but it can become a motivator to be better at the game. If a game is too easy however, why continue playing it? To glorify your ego?

I remember playing a roleplaying years ago called Phoenix Command. It''s claim to fame was the realistic damage modeling, and the slogan on the back of the box said something like: "play your current game. Put a .45 to your head. Squeeze the trigger. Keep squeezing the trigger until your character falls unconscious and your friend''s put a band-aid on your head. Now, play this game and put the .45 to your head. Have your friends arrange a funeral and casket for your now headless body".

I thought it was funny, and hit a nerve about RPG''s at the time. They were too easy, too forgiving. When I GM''ed the first game, players were still using tactics which could work in old-style games, and consequently got blown away very quickly. Imagine a UT or Q3 deathmatcher expecting the same style of gameplay in Rainbow 6, and you''ll know what I mean. While Phoenix Command was very hard, it made the players appreciate what they did and not take things for granted as much.

I remember reading about a game a long time ago (in the dev stage, it was a MMORPG) and they talked about when you die you have a few options, you can stay dead hopeing your friends will come and res your body, while in the meantime you travel the world as a ghost, about how you could "respawn" as your players son, or daughter or other kin, so that while you have a different character you still kept your "loot". They also talked about kind of "going to hell, or heven" and how the game would continue down there, having the possiblity of being able to come back. Anyway it was prelly intresting, and I am all for perminent death.

That game sounds an aweful lot like dbz(with people ressurecting others, you staying in the after-life to accomplish things... its all there). The way I have it set up in my mmoarpg is like this:

Since there is no cap on levels(well, a 10 year cap actually, but I don''t have to worry about that for 10 years), you play to become the strongest constantly. Its an action rpg, so you can ambush and the such(it is majorly pvp, some "monsters"), and things don''t boil down to the same action over and over again(like in a poorly designed turn based game). Anyhow, to get to the point, death in my game just means you lose time(and some money, but that is relatively unimportant). Your character is dead for 5-30 minutes(depending on the life he lead). This means while you died, everyone else is "running around gaining power"... in theory anyhow. A lot of people get mad when they die, and it makes is so they don''t want to die, but its the best solution for the gaming situation its in. Perm. death would be stupid for an on-going game, and giving them an immediate respawn would also be foolish because there are actually some benifits to death. A delayed return solved all of the problems, and fit in with the story as well.

I do agree with many of you on certain things. Perm death would be an interesting idea, but its limited to a specific genre in games. The type of game I imagine it in is a game where you can go for the "World High Score", all the data from your game is put on a big hiscore chart so people can compare themselves to others. Of course you would have to stop cheaters, but if its an online game of types, you can just connect to the internet with it and have it download itself... computer or console.

-----------
"Little boy, our energy lasts forever, we are as good as new."

Death isn''t, and never should be, the only thing that a player fears while playing a game. If death is the only reason you aren''t mowing the lawn, it can get really boring.

¬_¬