whenever you complete a level or a task in a game you get rewarded with new items, abilities or cool cutscenes.. but wouldn't it be cool if you get punished for failing to complete a task or a level, or just made a mistake.. i think that a reward 'and punishment' system will allow players to take the game more seriously, the game would be more like real life.. because you will think twice before doing anything stupid and you will avoid mistakes, whereas if there was no punishment in the game you would be reckless. this has already been done in puzzle games like tetris, but to my knowledge no story-driven or mission-based action/adventure game tried this. what's your opinions & ideas on this concept? ((work for the world like you will never die, and work for the hereafter like you will die tomorrow)) - Prophet Mohammed. [edited by - Jackyll on November 14, 2002 5:17:11 PM]

I thought that was what happened when you lost a life or got damaged making the next battle harder. Take a look at wing commander 3 where you could lose certain missions and it would make the game harder. I played through it several times and lost some missions on purpose so I could play through the game differently.

Are you referring to a _persistent_ system of reward and punishment on a large scale? Because all games have some sort of a reward and punishment system. That''s essentially what game design is.

As long as the punishment isn''t too drastic.

I''ve played many games that punish the user for failing. However, the punishment is too harsh so that the player has no chance of accomplishing his/her tasks. Imagane a RPG where monsters can steal all of your money, and weaken you, how can you afford medical care to survive? You can''t. You cannot defeat monsters, you''re too weak. And even if you were able to defeat a few, you can still lose everything because the 1st monster can take it...

Another problem with punishments is when a player gets too many in a row. In Everquest, certain monsters make you lose levels. After losing so 3 or 4 levels, a player can get frustrated enough to quit... :D

So I''d like it if you work some system where both situations are avoided...

I think the Wing Commander example is best. Having death as your primary punishment is not enough. It would mean completing the games only occurs through correct proceedings. War games are also good reward/penalty genre. Do a good job, and the game is easy, make a mistake, and it may take a while to recover from it. Basically, any simulation does a good job at it. Even in Gran Turismo 1,2 and 3, spend the cash on a useless upgrade, and spend more time tyring to buy a car that allows you to actually participate in other parts of the game.

That''s quite what Abe''s Odessee/Exodus did. If you save enough Mudakeens, you could gain access to certain areas. However, sometimes if some die, you couldn''t finish the level and had to restart (Argh!) or, if too many die per section, you would have to do the entire section again (Double Argh!) However, the concept worked rather well in making the player take it seriously.

The past was unknown, the future was predicted.

quote: Original post by Jackyll
i think that a reward ''and punishment'' system will allow players to take the game more seriously, the game would be more like real life.. because you will think twice before doing anything stupid and you will avoid mistakes, whereas if there was no punishment in the game you would be reckless.

And how is that a good a thing?

Why shouldn''t the user be reckless? Or make mistakes? Or do stupid things? Isn''t that the point of a game - a virtual environment to try/experience things you otherwise never/rarely would? Why should a game be like real life, with severe consequences?

The "realism!" mantra is buggy. Games should be fun. A game that punishes me for failing any more than my failure (and attendant consequences like loss of units, etc) already does strikes me as unpleasant and counterproductive. Why would I want to play a game that kicks me when I''m down? What you refer to as "punishments" should not extend beyond intrinsic disadvantages due to losing, and that''s something most games today already do quite well.

well, i meant this as an analogy, i don''t want games to be like real-life either, punishment may not be suitable with all game genres.. but you can''t deny that it would be great if applied to story-driven adventure games, or mission-based games that require skill. if you want to be reckless then there are games for this thing.

not only this but a reward and punishment system (as opposed to only rewards) can increase the level of immersion in the game, some games just need you to take them seriously.

you can''t deny the novelty of this concept, it''s the future, it just needs more time and experimenting.

((work for the world like you will never die, and work for the hereafter like you will die tomorrow)) - Prophet Mohammed.

If you make the Punishment survivable, it''s okay.

Only four games really did this nicely. The first was Wing Commander, but that one was allready mentioned. The next was Fallout 2. In this game, you were really given choices. You could do the right thing, or the wrong thing. But both gave you ''rewards'' and ''punishments'' in a sense, and opened up new ways in the game. I-War did things like Wing Commander did.

And Baldurs Gate 2 gave me the real feeling. Though only in Throne of Bhaal. By then, I was like the most powerfull being in the game, and eveyone knew that. So that gave me a bit of an advantage But it also gave me another important thing: choice. Example: I was seeking shelter in a monestary town, and a monk was going to beat up a cleric. The monks were also guiding me, and the gameflow clearly dictated that I should keep them as my friends. Though, because I also knew I might be able to take them head-on, I decided to do "the unexpected", so I attacked the Monk. The Monk warned me to go away, so I killed him. Definatly the ''wrong'' thing to do, and the game punished me for it by making it harder to deal with the monks, but still... it felt great. Deliberatly doing the wrong thing.

Erm... I guess I''m ranting ^_^

I think you have to be a little careful with punishing the player for failure.

First of all, in any game with a save feature, if your punishment is too severe, then you may as well have no punishment at all, since the player will just reload an older save from before the screw up took place. 'Player death' is completely pointless in most modern games, it is about time designers realised this and started coming up with more appropriate ways of dealing with failure.

Making the game harder is also a dangerous road to travel. If the player isn't good enough to complete it at it's current difficulty level, making it harder isn't exactly going to help him enjoy it more.

In short, I think it is far better to reward the player for doing well, than to punish him for doing badly. And make the reward scalable, so that the players are always striving to do better .

[edited by - Sandman on November 18, 2002 2:54:49 PM]