Not quite an unloosable game but equally annoying are the games where doing nothing is better than doing something.

One of the Jedi games (I can't remember which one): if you stood still and had the light saber, you automatically deflected blaster bolts and occasionally directly back at the attacker so eventually you could clear out a room just by standing still. If you moved your chance to deflect bolts decreased quite a bit so you had to dodge manually and in my experience, you got hit more often.

If you look at 3DR's Prey, they have a cool concept that instead of dying you go to the spirit world and have to fight your way back, depending on how well you do is how much health you get back.

Another game where you can't lose is Soul Reaver (and sequels)

If you die in the physical realm, you get bounced to the spiritual realm. Only if you die in the spiritual realm do you actually "lose", and even then, you just get bounced back to the game's starting location and face a walk to get back to where you were. OK, that's effectively just a "continue" option by another name - the game gets away with it by being more about the puzzles and exploration than the combat.

That's a good observation, rmsgrey, and I think it points to something else we're missing. You say that Soul Reaver isn't loseable because you just fade to the spirit world, and even if you "die" there you just go back to the last checkpoint.

Isn't that true of any game that doesn't feature permadeath?

Halo 2 is unloseable, because even on Legendary your defeat only inflicts a small setback on the player. I know I spent days--DAYS--fighting Tartarus. The poor Arbiter died dozens of times. Each time I'd wait for the reload, throw a few grenades, and get right back into the thick of it.

So what is "losing" in a video game? Is it the end of an attempt, like in Tetris? That's a pretty clear loss. Death in strict play in Escape Velocity costs you your save file, so that's a hard loss, too. When you "lose", you really do lose something. You lose all the effort that you've expended in that game.

If all you "lose" is a few minutes' worth of play time, then it's a far smaller loss. You "save" the vast majority of the effort by saving the game. Saving preserves the game so that it won't be lost when you lose the game. It kinda makes sense.

There are situations where your character can win on his own, like in Tactics Ogre where a warrior with a good counter-attack, high defense and auto-regen faces a team of inferior melee fighters. Heck, that guy doesn't even need a turn. This situation is either the result of careful pre-planning and preparation or else it's a flaw in the game. Maybe it's intentional, like a tutorial level where the bad guys always do one damage. Maybe it's plot-related, to showcase the incredible power you've unlocked.

In conclusion, I agree that a game that doesn't need a player is little more than an interactive victory video. Bad design, bad balance.

I think Pirates! was already mentioned, but it's an example of a great game which you essentially can't lose.

For example, if you attempt to sink an enemy ship, you have to fight the captain. If you lose the swordfight, you don't die, but instead get put into jail and consequently age a few months. Halfway through your sentence the game gives you the choice to break out, which requires you to go through a stealth sequence. If you get caught sneaking out, you're just thrown back in to serve the remaining half of your sentence.

Then, upon finishing your sentence, your released about half a year older and allowed to keep playing the game as if nothing happened.

The same lack of loseability is true also of Sid Meier's SimGolf, and basically of all "sim" games.

alexokita,

No. The game was for Orthobiotech for the drug Procrit, but I'm sure that there are many games that are similar to these.

I think it really depends on what the point of the game is. I think repetition in an adventure game is really frustrating and unnecessary for an example, and the possibility of death only leads to the dreaded "save-try this-,load - try that" gameplay. In the end you play for a while and forget to save every 5 secs and then you die and have to spend an hour to catch up again. However, usually the point is to figure out a way over an obstacle, not to stop the character from jumping off a cliff. Here, death is unreasonable I think.

But if the point of the game is to test the players reflexes and tactical thinking by throwing him into a battlefield then failure must be possible, and it is reasonable. But if it's strictly linear scripted experience, I really don't like to repeat it too much. It better not be too difficult or else I'll give up after a few shots. These days, a lot of people have very little time on their hands and they like to use it on something fresh. If there's a lot of variation and a lot of options, the ability to lose is good and the game can be quite challenging. The next game (or next try) will be different and hopefully won't frustrate the player.

Quote:

Original post by rmsgrey Another game where you can't lose is Soul Reaver (and sequels) If you die in the physical realm, you get bounced to the spiritual realm. Only if you die in the spiritual realm do you actually "lose", and even then, you just get bounced back to the game's starting location and face a walk to get back to where you were. OK, that's effectively just a "continue" option by another name - the game gets away with it by being more about the puzzles and exploration than the combat.

You can't die in the spirit realm, you just end up with no health and have to get it all the way back up to enter the physical realm!!

I think the "Unloseable" games mentioned here (apart from the interactive victory videos) are like that because the path to victory is defined differently. In general we can think of games as an attempt to reach to a victory point. Whether it is getting to the castle at the other side of the level, reaching level 100 in Tetris or becoming ruling of the world it is essentially a point that you must progress toward in order to win the game. However that progression can be made in two different ways (or more frequently a combination). The first way is where you progress toward the goal by not losing. Tetris is a perfect example of this - the entire game is centered around not stacking to the top of the screen (lose condition). This is accomplished by clearing lines. Super Mario Bros is much the same thing - to reach the end, you must avoid being killed by enemies. In all these games the default state is losing. The goal of the game is not to succeed, instead the goal is not to lose. The other type of game, commonly found in point and click adventures and such, is where you figure out how to reach the goal. In this case the threat is not the game, the threat is the player. If the player cannot figure out how to proceed, they cannot reach the goal. In these games, the default state is not winning. To contrast the two, in one the path is clearly laid out, but you must avoid falling off it. In the other, you cannot fall off the path, but you can't proceed until you have found it.