Tracey John of MTV Multiplayer writes: "Dying in video games, like in real life, seems to be a natural part of the process. You play, therefore you die - and you usually have to start over. But does it have to be that way? Not necessarily..."
What a stupid question.
No they've just been re-branded as mission failed.
...Or Fission Mailed.
It's an interesting point. Take something like BioShock - the lack of a meaningful death severley diluted the experience for me. The menace of a Big Daddy meant nothing when I knew that even using a wrench I could eventually take one down with nothing more than time wasted on my part. There was no in-game consequence, but I can't really see how a checkpoint or Game Over death system would have improved (or detracted) from the game - so I guess the respawn was the best (if totally flawed) answer. A lot of gaming is about consequence and also risk vs reward. Would we care so much if Mario just respawned next to the point of death rather than at a check point. Would the experience be further eroded if Mario had infinite lives instead of at least the consequence of having to go back to the start of a level after a number of fails? Would we be so immersed in Resident Evil if we knew that death held no consequence at all? But isn't it kinda of trivial when trying to immerse a player in a game that we get a 'Game Over' screen and have to return to some arbitrary save point. As games try to deliver more emotional and immersive experiences developers need to be far smarter in how they handle death in game. I can't see a simple solution and there certainly isn't a 'one size fits all' answer to this. Perhaps one partial answer is to change the dynamics of some games. For example, in an FPS instead of being killed a player is wounded and captured or rescued. It will be interesting to see what Heavy Rain delivers, if characters can die and not return. In some ways games seem to be getting a lot easier. The old 3 lives and a few continues (if you were lucky) really helped focus the mind!
I hope not. We don't have much stuff left classic PS1 age...
Remember the psone era when there was a game over screen, then it went back to the main menu and you loaded from there, its the use of checkpoints that has really made game over screens obsolete... or at the very least you automatically load your last save nowadays, but I'd love if some modern games would readopt the older stragety, it really added something to the intensity to games like RE.
Wow, you made me remember old RE2 times. Me and my brother were not able to afford a memory card (back then), and had to finish RE2 from begin to end in one run (every time). This meant we were not able to "continue" as the other character, but it was much more challenging. (8 hours straight gaming, and any failure means a complete restart). Now I'm spoiled, and use plenty of "checkpoints".
everytime a xbox gets a rrod it should say "GAME OVER" "PLEASE BUY ANOTHER XBOX"
There's nothing like a final Fantasy starting a song dedicated to the game over screen.
Games have gotten really easy these days. Trying playing Contra on a first run. You probably won't beat it. Try playing a modern game like Gears of War on a first run. Very easy with the infinite amount of checkpoint restarts and save points.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.