Explanation of death mechanics

[theredviola]

So, my fellow mmo-c'ers, do you enjoy games where the death mechanic is PART of the game and is explained? Opposed to "You have died. Wait 5 seconds to respawn."

For me, I'd prefer it if the death mechanics can be part of the flow of the game. It helps keep the immersion. I understand that it's not possible for all games, but it serves as a nice "OOooo! That's cool!" tid bit in games for me.

[Fencers]

Depends.

I prefer when death or failure is a logical consequence of the gameplay.

I think Planescape Torment did the best- waking up in the morgue, clinging to half memories spread across hundreds of realities. It was consistent with the game in gameplay [paramount], narrative and plot.

[slime]

I'm not sure this belongs here... but the death mechanic in GW2, instantly turned me off to the game (although there were already other things i didn't like). Tapping a button quickly to rez yourself to not-die was a serious turn-off for an mmorpg for me.

[Loaf Lord]

I find death itself and the fact that I failed to complete the objective I was trying to complete a good enough incentive to not fuck up. Unless the death animations are hilarious. "You died. That means you failed." is good enough for me.

[GodlyBob]

Read Mogworld by Yahtzee Crowshaw, perfectly explains dying mechanics in an MMO universe, particularly in a fantasy setting. Dust 514 and Eve Online also have explained death mechanics in the lore, clones and all. I think it ties you in to the game better if there's a reason to come back. In single players games, this is circumvented by death being final, but I like to think there's a reason that death is irrelevant anywhere else.

[Dezerte]

It's not something that bothers me, but it's always cool to see games incorporate game over/death as a mechanic of the game.

[Dabrix32]

Death needs to be a bigger part in MMOs to discourage zerg tactics. Games like Everquest where you had long corpse runs and EXP loss (which is negated by rez) are good. Games like UO and EvE where dying in PvP means loss of gear and loot you were carrying are good. Games like WoW where death doesnt matter one bit at all... BAD!.

[FrenchieKDC]

Death needs to be a bigger part in MMOs to discourage zerg tactics. Games like Everquest where you had long corpse runs and EXP loss (which is negated by rez) are good. Games like UO and EvE where dying in PvP means loss of gear and loot you were carrying are good. Games like WoW where death doesnt matter one bit at all... BAD!.

Death in WoW is, or at least used to be, a long walk, which matters. Continuing to die so often and quickly also adds up, giving a timer till you can even rez after getting to your corpse -- that also matters. The instance where dying in a game and having something worse happen to you such as exp loss is if dying is so amazingly hard that you deserve an exp loss. It doesn't make since to give an exp loss, money loss, gear loss, travel time, etc just because someone died. Why must death be so harsh? Because someone got the idea that it is "hardcore"? If that's hardcore, then the actual gameplay must suck if the only hardcore thing is the death mechanic. Why not spend the resources developing gameplay that is hard, instead?

As far as anything being explained, I think that could be a lot of fun if it fits and immerses me. But if it breaks the immersion, that is a no-go.

[Orby]

There is probably a good theme for a game to have that as a mechanic but death is supposed to be a penalty for dying not a reward, but I see what you mean

[Deleted]

One of my all time favourite games is Dark Souls, and the game actually has a story behind you dying and then coming back to life.
If I remember correctly, you are afflicted with a curse that prevents you from dying, no matter how much pain or suffering you go through, even if your body is destroyed you will come back to life (respawn). It added a lot to the game, you weren't just restarting a challenge you failed, you were using your endless will to keep facing a challenge and overcoming it, and that's more exciting than just reloading once you die, pretending it never happened.
Death was actually the main mechanic of the game, it forced you to learn from your mistakes. The bosses all had brutal abilities that could kill you in 1 or 2 attacks, but there was always a way to avoid them or block them, and every time you died on a fight, you learned a new tactic/strategy. That's what made me love the game so much.

[FrenchieKDC]

There is probably a good theme for a game to have that as a mechanic but death is supposed to be a penalty for dying not a reward, but I see what you mean

Why is anything more than death a penalty? If death is already a penalty, why add onto it? I don't see the rationale people have for wanting to add in exp loss, gold loss, gear loss, or anything else. Dying itself serves as a penalty. It stops your playing, and if you add a long enough respawn position, it forces them to have to walk back to continue what they were doing. I've played games with such extreme losses, and those games were sometimes fun -- but it was because the game itself was fun that I was able to overlook the silliness of extreme death mechanics (unless the game called for it, such as Ultimate Online; I loved every part of that game, even death and the losses related).

[Edge-]

If the game needs to give you a tutorial on death mechanics and can't simply teach you through normal gameplay, it's doing it wrong. So no I'd rather they not be explained, I'd rather they be taught through gameplay (like everything else).

[Fencers]

What is amazing here is the degree of posts that are completely misunderstanding the OP's premise and question.

The OP is asking whether players find a gameplay/lore explanation of death an added bonus to the the game experience.

I.E.

"Game over."

or

"You have died and all the fluffy bunnies were turned to mulch by Dr. BadIntentions. Game over."

or

"These clones are expensive. Do try to be more careful, solider."

[Loaf Lord]

It would appear I have. IN MY DEFENSE I JUST WOKE UP! Nah don't really care if it's explained in the lore. It's a nice touch, but not necessary.

[Rukh]

There's a big difference between making death a major part of the gameplay as a consequence, and making death a major part of the gameplay as a lore feature.

Take GW2 for instance. Death as a lore feature is very serious and very permanent. As a gameplay consequence it is nonexistant. You cannot die, you are only ever defeated and even that isn't a huge penalty, just a durability, go back to another location penalty.

EVE is another example. Death is very permanent in EVE as a lore aspect, but also as a lore aspect the players have found ways of avoiding it, so as a gameplay aspect, it isn't generally a severe consequence. More severe than GW2, and can be quite severe if you do things totally wrong.

There are other games though where you do die if you lose, take WoW for instance, but both as lore and as gameplay, it doesn't seem all that severe. "The orc chopped my head clean off!!! ...I got better"

[Brightamethyst]

While I always find a bit of lore and explanation interesting, it doesn't really impact my enjoyment of a game one way or another.

Telling me "We made a clone of you from the data you uploaded at the last save point" as opposed to just magically respawning there doesn't really affect the game any.

[NymPhox85]

I feel that if they can bring it into the game, where it actually makes sense (such as games like Eve), it's a nice bonus to have. WoW, I mean, I don't really know, just doesn't really make a lot of sense, my spirit whisks away to magic grave where an angel hovers overhead saying "Herp, not yet!" Eh, not really doing much, but I guess they tried.

So if they can bring it into the game, where it ties in with the lore, sure, it's a nice added bonus to have versus "Game Over."

Though to folks bringing up penalties for dying, dying is penalty enough. Games that used xp loss etc, tended to be horrible systems . There was nothing like FFXI to bring that about. "Alright lvl 35! Time to move to the next area... tralalalalala... oh no.. the mob spotted me.. RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN <dead, deleveled to 34>. Hey guys, so ummm, mind partying back up with me for 1 mob?" Or the better scenario "Time to go to town, buy some new gear, get all squared away, lets go get some xp <find a horrible group, die over and over, delevel> Great, now i'm half naked and i can't do anything... well, time to go rebuy all my gear and head back." Just ended up with so many unavoidable headaches.

edit: And to be honest, I kinda liked the clinging to life system in GW2. It was an interesting change from GW1 (which I believe just left you there on the ground hoping for a revive). It keeps the player in the battle, trying to focus down low hp folks, or interrupting the enemy to save a teammate even while down. But I can see where it can get frustrating, especially trying to execute a downed player -_-.

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there was a shooter (Red Orchestra maybe?) where if you died, your character's death was permenant, but the game continued as you moved to controlling the other members of the squad. Game over was achieved when all characters in the squad died.

Also, in Crusader Kings, the game ended when your current king died and he had no succesor to pass on the crown.

I really enjoy these types of gameplay where even if you die, you still continued because there was other to do so. I would like to see a game like Mass Effect try this.

Lastly, FATE's death system involved the grim reaper giving you three choices; 1 was free resurrection but you were randomly teleported either three levels up or down, 2 was that you were teleported up 5 levels but all your money was left back were you first died and you have 20 minutes to go get it back before it's gone forever, and 3 was instant resurrection at the place you died in exchange for experience points.

[Vankrys]

not sure what you meant by "death mechanic explained to me"
game : "you took more damage then you have HP and your HP hit 0, therefore you are dead"
me : "thank you, game. It's all the more clear now. "



I don't want the game to take my hand and guide me step by step, i want to explore and go by trial and error.

that being said, i like when death are logical.

for instance, bordelands 2, you make a few step outside area limits, boom insta death. Where that come from, who killed me, who control the missle laser thingy that killed me. If it's the enemy, they can kill me anytime, why wouldn't they do it then.

Totalbiscuit made a video about scripted MMS in which he illustrated how going outside the scripted area earned you an instant death that makes no sense whatsoever. A complete immersion break for the player.

bioshock, dying is no consequence, you reappear in a chamber nearby, i don't like that, i should be force onto an earlier save/check point if i die.

People criticize prince of persia for not dying ever, but what it really is, it's a check point system if you about to die, the game load you at a earlier check point and try again. you can't bypass area or brute force a path/fight. that it doesn't show you a grapical death is errelevant, the consequence are the same, try again.

[shokter]

I don't mind at all when they are not rationalized, but doing so can add some flavor. Bioshock 1's Vita-Chamber's add a little wrinkle to the plot. Borderland's digital respawning of players, ammo, and vehicles don't add a lot plot wise but are the subject of a few good one-liners.

Not all games need work the same way, in fact it is likely better if they do not.

Also in response to above...the insta deaths in BL2 when leaving boundaries are from the corporations that fiercely control pandora...there are even warnings. Yes it is a hackneyed way to restrict the size of the game world, but it is explained in game.