I don''t want to spoil too much of a game concept that hasn''t even been utilized but...

My next project(after this one) is to do sort of an MMOFPS with permadeath. Now, it''ll be a sort of command-and-conquer deal, and the main idea behind permadeath is that players will be allowed to own any piece of property in the game, including hospitals and such. If a clinic or hospital is owned in a particular zone, the player will respawn with a massive doctor''s bill. If not, then say goodbye to the guy you spent so long working on. Of course, going out into uncharted regions means that you may find an important item that no one else has...

I think what the whole board is trying to say is that there needs to be more character investment in players'' attitudes. This can be attained through harsher penalties on the character past XP loss or item loss. At the same time, there should be a REALLY good reason to stick your neck out like that. In short:

Greater Risk = Greater Rewards.

Of course, I think gaming in general will invariably be moving towards this philosphy soon.


B. Bradley: The number 2 mind

www.numbermind.com(coming soon)

That''s why people invented the easy, moderate, and hard modes. Make use of it

have it so a choice perma death or not, but perma death get way way way better prizes etc

Or have it untill you''re level 15 or so, your character is blessed by the spirit of newbies or something. Once you''re at level 15 you should be at a point where you can run away from a battle if you fear you are in mortal danger. Also make it so that death isn''t swift and just happens right away. It should be hard to die if you''re going to have it set up so that when you do die, you start over. Once you get to a certain critical point in health, you have super running skills from adreniline. But more damage beyond that point will result in extremely diminished performance.

Here''s an idea, why not make certain area''s ''hardcore'' area''s (maybe have two worlds, one watch over by a kind god that makes permadeath impossible, the other watched over by a god that just doesn''t care). It would be possible to finnish the game without venturing into the hardcore area''s but the best rewards (not the least of these being bragging rights) would be found there and also different endings (like ADOM''s ultra endings) would only be possible by exploring these area''s.

Stuart

Just as a note, i will only play street fighter 2 on super extra hard mode. And megaman x6 has been my faveourite of the genre to date. It was also the most insanely difficult megaman to date. Far as i''m concerned, if people dont want any chance at losing a game, they should enter the cheat codes and be cheaters. Games should be challenging and full of risk. Whats the point in playing if there''s no chance of loss?

quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
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.

Have you tried CRAWL?

When I play Quake 2, I like to think I can go a long way without getting killed, making use of my coordination and such. The farther I go, the better it feels, but it can get boring. I would hope that if I do get killed it was from a worthy opponent, but sometimes it isn't.

When I first played and enemies appeared from triggers and I got killed, I was excited to try again and see if I could figure out where they came from and outmaneuver them. Being surprised and dying was sometimes a reality of the game. And I didn't mind it because I heard it calling me to the challenge.

I'm talking single player here. Forget the online stuff. That's a whole other story.

In any case, a game where you don't die very much better have its own share of fulfilling challenges and rewards, otherwise the experience has a hollow factor of way too high.

[edited by - Waverider on December 21, 2003 6:12:13 PM]

I think gamers want exactly what hollywood movies give - threat of danger, but no real danger. Just about every action movie from hollywood has ''intense'' action scenes where the hero comes ''SO CLOSE'' to losing, but then prevails anyways. It is all about the illusion of risk. With real risk, if you fail, you die and it sucks. With fake risk, if you (can) fail, you see through illusion at best and think ''oh, so it wasn''t really as bad as I thought''. If you succeed at either, you get to think ''wow I came SO CLOSE to losing but I still won! I must be really good!''.
You need to give no reinforcement(very little if any punishment) for poor decisions/performance, and positive reinforcement(lots of flashy lights, ''LEVEL UP'', ''[name] IS GODLIKE'' etc) for good decisions/performance. Also, you need to make it feel like the positive reinforcement was actually earned and not just given out.
That will make a game that many people will find addicting (ie all MMORPGs that I know of).

To make it even better, try to get a community going inside and around the game, and you can get even more people playing (the sims).

Make any player vs player aspect of the game appear to be fair, and you''ll get even MORE addicts.

Add just enough realism, and you''ve probably got the whole of gamers addicted =-)

Would it be enriching at all to see a movie where the hero dies?

Well, that happened in Braveheart, but the point of that was the influence he had on people by defying the authority.

Indiana Jones doesn''t influence the population, he just retrieves artifacts.

The best movies are where we really do think the hero is going to die but doesn''t (even though we should know they aren''t going to die, but the threat still feels real).