Do players want risk in games? Because it seems to me like they prefer to have games easy, where there is no danger to their characters. It occured to me that it would be intrested to have danger in games but at the same time I don't want to leave players frustrated. For instance if you deicided to hunt down the terrible basilik. Now the basilik has deadly venom and a single bite will mean death with in two minutes unless the player brought a rare phenoix teardrop to cleanse, the venom from their system. Or if in any combat a maxium critcal causes death. So that means that in any fight the player gets in to, there is chance that character could be killed instantly, however this also applies to enemies. So that begs the question. Would gamers be turned off by having lethal combat? If there was a chance that fighting powerful enemies could leave the character permently injuried or dead. ----------------------------------------------------- Writer, Programer, Cook, I'm a Jack of all Trades Current Design project Chaos Factor Design Document [edited by - TechnoGoth on December 17, 2003 5:41:03 PM]

Oh, heck, they wouldn''t mind getting killed in every battle, as long as your quick save and quick load functions are fast enough. Even in "nerfed" games, players will try again and again until they get the right battle or receive the right item. If you really want to incorporate risk, make it strict play with perma-death. I never had the guts to play Escape Velocity on strict play. Once, I tried it, but watching my litle shuttlecraft burn and knowing I had cheaped out on the escape pod was so traumatizing I could never bring myself to do it again.

So no, players don''t want risk in games. They want progress and a return on their invested time.

Chances are, they already took a risk investing in your game . Its all about what you give back to the player. In a high risk scenario, they would want alot back, but alot of times it really DOES bug the player. perma-death was tried in the past by gaming companies, and failed (except in the arcades) in favor of PROGRESS. People like progress, they like to see the fruits of their labor (or gaming)

I think it is more fun to have setbacks with options than to suddenly lose all options.

For instance, it is more fun to lose a skirmish and withdraw and be chased down thinking you have a chance of getting away vs getting insta-nuked and thrown off the game without recourse.

I think it depends on the chances of success, and what the potential reward is.

It would put some gamers off, no matter how much the odds were stacked in their favour, so I would suggest making it optional rather than obligatory.

Something like Diablo''s hardcore mode might work.

quote: Original post by PaulCesar
People like progress, they like to see the fruits of their labor (or gaming)

Definately true for games like RPGs / FPS / Platform games. Other games like puzzle games and some racing games (although people like to keep the courses they have unlocked) would be interesting to experiment with.I think that it would be fun to make a game where you can make "bets" ie. I''ll give you my engine if you win the race etc.
And you could combine this with a multiplier system, (like double or nothing) ie. if the player wins a challenge they will get an even better prize if they compete in the next race, but the problem is that they will lose everything if they don''t win! This would certainly make the game tense !

I am a big fan of roguelike games such as Nethack and Crawl, most of which feature permadeath and a high level of risk of dying quickly and messily on dungeon level 1. While I personally enjoy the challenge, I am sometimes frustrated to make it so far, only to be mind flayed or finger-of-death''ed, and not have the option of going back and trying new choices. Sure, it''s easy to copy savegames if you are so inclined, but an "official" system for recovering from death is better and more convenient.

I think that any instances of "extreme" danger-- ie, instant annihilation, perma-death, whatever-- should be by the player''s choice and involve something like the Diablo2 hardcore mode; and that an "easier" standard mode should be available for those gamers who don''t want to repeatedly bash their head against the same wall multiple times before breaking through. Once a gamer is hooked on your game, and knows what it''s all about, the extra challenge of the extreme danger mode can keep them playing your game even after they''ve mastered the standard cake-walk.


Josh
vertexnormal AT linuxmail DOT org

Check out Golem: Lands of Shadow, an isometrically rendered hack-and-slash inspired equally by Nethack and Diablo.

I prefer to see situations like that as those I choose to get into. For example, I''d love to be able to choose to go after that basilisk when I was ready for that challenge, and whe I was prepared and looking for a tougher challenger, but I wouldn''t want to play a whole game like that.

tj963

So it seems risk turns off gamers like I feared. It seems people would rather walk through the game without fear of injury or death.

Although a thought occured to me instead of having 2 modes. What about letting the player know in advance that a creature was lethal? There could be a book they can aquire early on that list all the lethal creatures in the world as well as the number of them. There would be only 1 or 2 of each in the entire game. The book could also glow in warning when a lethal creature was near. None of these lethal creatures would be nessary to hunt down. However by avoid them the player loses out on a good portion of the game. say 50% of the game is all they will experince if they avoid lethal creatures.

The game itself would still be winable when the player defeats the evil overlord bob. However from bob''s ashes rises SkalnaKath the arch fiend a lethal creature. Now the player could either fight and risk losing everything but gaining the true ending. Or flee and enter possibly an arcade sequence as they try to escape the crumbling castle. They still get an ending for escaping and killing bob but not the games'' true resolution.

In this way the player can still choose not to risk however doing so means they miss out on much of game.


-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

I like the idea of suffering big setbacks, but not death. Say if your character does something stupid, and gets defeated then they lose a small or large proportion of their equipment, and possibly some of their character experince/progression. They then have to go about piecing together a new kit, much wiser for the experience.

You could still have the possibility of total death, but make them fairly rare and something that a player is more or less forwarned about. Say the player finds out that a beast will eat its foe, making resurection impossible. This would make an exciting challenge that a player would spend a great deal of time preparing for, including finding the potion of insta-monster-death, and the potion of counter-monster-eating-me-v0.01.

This gives real incentive to solve problems using less direct means.

EDIT: oh, you allready thought of this.

[edited by - Gleno on December 17, 2003 11:01:45 PM]