Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Wavinator, once again, I think you''re wrong If you were to do a reall WELL EXECUTED tragedy it is my belief that it would be heralded as a masterpiece by most of the gaming public. But then again, it''s never been done, so how am I to really know?
Hmmm... You''re right that it has never been done, but I don''t think the gaming public as it is now would accept it. I could be wrong, but that''s why I''m posting.
The reason, btw, that I don''t think it would be accepted is tied to the original post. Dying isn''t a problem for gamers, as long as something turns out alright in the end. But in the case of some types of tragedy, that''s not the case.
When we read or see a character experiencing this, it''s one thing. But when it is we who experience it, and there''s no way out, and no silver lining... well, that''s the stuff of moving tragedy, and the kind of thing that I suspect a win/lose requirement will not support.
????
-------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
Many games today distance the player from any real sense of conflict or consequences. If the player''s goals are to stay alive and finish the game, they won''t really care if they murder half the other game tokens to get there.
How would the player make a good choice? Choose A and bad things happen. Choose B and worse things happen. yuk.
Right!!!! This is why I suspect something called a *game* can''t support tragedy. You just illustrated the reasoning in the last paragraph. "How do I make a good choice?" A good which leads to what? Victory? Winning? It''s "yuk" because you''re supposed to win in a game.
Now, if you were exploring something I''ll call an electronic story, with no pressure to win, then it might not be the same thing. You choose A) and get, "Wow, that''s sad." Or you choose B) and get, "Wow, that''s really sad!"
Does anyone see what I''m talking about?
-------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...
--------------------Just waiting for the mothership...
1.First of all would it be possible to take the player a step away from the current situation, ie. have another person introduce the story as a narration, and then have the player play in third person viewpoint. This way there would be another character who would be able to tell the player the ending, they wouldn''t play this narrator though?
2. Players Do seem to dislike games where you die at the end.
3. Tragedies aren''t all bad, I mean Hamlet may die, the Evil King dies too, Polonius has died, Ophelia has died, Ophelia''s brother dies (I think?), but in killing the King, Hamlet has killed the evil guy, but unfortunately brought about a lot of destruction.. after this (I think) the "good" righteous guy gets to take over the throne ? I think it might be accepted if this sort of ending were to occur in games, as long as there was a narrator to show how the events turn out afterwards. In one film where the main character died, (a film noir) the character who dies not the first character that we see, there is sometimes the equivalent of a scene where another character goes to look for them. This detaches us from the character a bit? It might be worth studying this in films/ plays, to see which techniques have been used. Maybe even the camera could be used to "search" for the player, although most players would view this as a pointless introduction and not "get" the concept.
In my opinion, it would work better with 3rd person games like Final Fantasy or Planescape, than 1st person games.
Another problem would be "Saving", maybe "Final Fantasy style Save Points" would be needed as in a GAME where the player thinks that their character is about to die, as they would immediately reload to 5 seconds earlier and try to play better (if they die in a combat section). I am not for limiting "saves", so maybe a Zelda style save on Exit would be good for this. In Zelda you cannot reload during a game, (and the game design doesn''t need you to either), but you get infinite continues from the last place you saved.
So a more narrative based save system like Zelda''s MIGHT work better in doing tragedies. Think about Half-Life, where you lose some health and reload, or waste too much ammo and reload, or are continuosly killed and have to reload.
It HAS been done. Panzer Dragoon Saga on the Sega Saturn had just such an ending (i realy love that game!).
It''s a matter of fulfilling a contract with the player. The player expects fully that the game can be defeated, and so will attept to do that. But success and survival are often two very different things. It can be done. Hell, I think it''s pretty much ALWAYS a whole lot better. Most of my friends agree, and I even thought this before I was involved in creating games.
There''s just something about a story where the main character dies. It lends a sense of realism and closure, and signifigance to the events.
======"The unexamined life is not worth living."-Socrates"Question everything. Especially Landfish."-Matt
how about the ending to silent hill (another great game). in the opening sequence you crash your car. you go though the entire game, and once you beat it *SPOILER* you discover that you were dead all along....dying in the car crash. of course that was just one of the endings (the better one IMO)
My gosh, I agree with Landfish. *makes note of it* Well then. In a game where the only choice is between a bad and worse decision, then I think it would be up to whichever one better suited the player''s ironic sensibilities.
The purpose of playing a game is not to WIN, so much as to ACCOMPLISH something. Hence any game that can''t be won, but can simply be scored higher and higher at. As long as the player is responsible for some sort of resolution, I don''t think it would matter whether it was a comedy or tragedy. At least not on the level that is being discussed here.
Thanks luxury I rented Silent Hill one time and got to the very last boss but then my memory card or something screwed up and I never beat it. I really didn''t feel like playing over from the beginning again so i never bothered. At least i know the ending now
"One must choose, in life, between making money and spending it. There''s no time to do both."
There''s just something about a story where the main character dies. It lends a sense of realism and closure, and signifigance to the events.
Closure... exactly the word I was thinking of. I don''t think it''s so much that players dislike games in which their character(s) die at the end, it''s just that sometimes when this sort of ending is done, things are left unresolved. Dying isn''t going to hurt your ending -- dying for nothing will.
As long as everything draws to a logical and well-told conclusion, tragic endings can be a real asset to a game.
When you construct a story from a literary standpoint, certain things must be done by the conclusion to create a fulfilling experience for the character.
These things have a lot to do with tresolving loose ends, and little to do with the implied post-story events of the character. Hence, if the story makes sense for the character to die for a purpose, if it fits the mood and doesn''t leave too much unresolved, do it!
When a game ends, it will be my last experience sharing a life with that character. Sometimes it''s good to feel like there''s not going to be more story without you.
======"The unexamined life is not worth living."-Socrates"Question everything. Especially Landfish."-Matt
If you were to do a reall WELL EXECUTED tragedy it is my belief that it would be heralded as a masterpiece by most of the gaming public. But then again, it''s never been done, so how am I to really know?
