Death And The Video Games

Game mechanic death has a long history within video games.  What started out as the simplest way to get players to pop another quarter into the arcade machine has grown to be the cornerstone of most games.  Players were expected to die three times per coin.  The standard risk-reward system in our video games involves player death.  Do something wrong, you die, do something right, you don’t die, and possibly get a shiny new item.  The same developers that made arcade games that relied on these coin popping death sequences moved to making games on home consoles and PC’s.  Over time we’ve become slightly less reliant on death as a punishment with games like Braid dropping the death penalty entirely (and using it as the foundation for the entire game).

There is a difference between the deaths of old and the new style of narrative death we’re seeing.  The player controls the former while the game designer controls the latter.  In the case of Mass Effect 2 the player does have indirect control over the outcome, but once that cut scene starts no excessive tapping of the buttons can change the outcome.

The Problem

When these two styles of death (game mechanic and narrative) meet is when the problem arises.  Watching a cut-scene where the player dies is a great plot device and I’d love to see it in more games in the future.  However it’s watered down when you die 25 times leading up to the cut-scene with the narrative death.  If this common gameplay mechanic can be separated from the narrative death we will see even more powerful narratives in our games.

The Solution

There are a couple of solutions to this problem I’d like to discuss.  The first seems the most logical while the second is a lot riskier, but has the greatest opportunity to make a game that stands out.

No Death

Rather than death being the punishment for failure, have the player incapacitated or have a teammate come to your rescue just as your about to die.  Some modern shooters have the opportunity for a teammate to heal you without breaking the suspension of disbelief.  As squad based games become more feasible (with increased CPU power and AI) this seems like a logical choice.

Another possibility is to give the player rewind ability as in Braid and Sands of Time.  This is a more foundational mechanic though and would completely change the design of the game.

Permadeath

Most designers will shake their head in disgust at this idea.  It will likely lead to frustration and stop anyone but the most hardcore players from playing.  But bear with me as I take a small walk down insanity lane.

A small group of gamers are applying self-imposed permadeath while they play their games.  This is a great idea and adds a lot of weight to the narrative of the game.  Players feel more connected to the world and to their character.  In fact, the gameplay mechanic of death becomes a narrative device.  How would combining this style of permadeath with a fully narrative (read cut-scene) death?  It would make for some interesting gaming and I could certainly see myself screaming even louder at the screen than I already do.

If a game were built around the knowledge that permadeath exists it would completely change the design process.  Designers would be extremely careful not to put any unfair situations where the player may die.  It would also require the removal of any trial and error from the games, a legitimate design mechanic when used sparingly in our current style of games.

Conclusion

With either of these options the there are two main takeaway points.  Firstly the risk-reward system still needs to be in place.  Without a negative experience the player is not challenged and the experience will be watered down.  Secondly, perhaps we need to move on from tying the risk directly to death.  Once we move away from this, it empowers designers to make death a much more special part of their games rather than the foundation on which the player must climb to victory.

What are your thoughts on game mechanic death vs narrative death?  Did you feel narrative death in Mass Effect 2 or Modern Warfare 2 was watered down by the game mechanic death?  Do you have any other solutions I haven’t listed?

Features

Steam Points could be used to buy games, Downloadable Content and even in-game assets (through micro-transactions).  They open up the option of gift cards rather than buying a specific game for someone.  This would be perfect leading up to Christmas as non-game savvy friends and family could buy gift cards rather than guessing and thinking “Diaper Dash” is something you’d enjoy.

All payment would still go through PayPal keeping the security burden on them.  Keeping payment with PayPal also stops Valve from watering down their focus by becoming a merchant facility.  It will simply give gamers more options with how they buy their games.

Advantages for Valve

• Create new revenue sources – gift cards and micro-transactions
• Encourage micro-transactions within games, increasing revenue
• Bringing more developers and gamers to their platform
• Another differentiator to their competitors (not that they really need one)

Advantages for Developers

• A new revenue source
• Revenue during the life-time of the game rather than only at the point of sale
• Reduce barriers for customers as the initial cost of the game can be lower
• Micro-transactions allow more styles of games to be developed

Advantages for Gamers

• Using a trust company for purchasing points.  Valve isn’t going bust any time soon
• Initial cost of games will be lower, increasing the number of games a player can afford
• More options for how players want to play (pay for convenience)
• Can purchase points at a retailer removing the need for a credit card
• Unifies the currency leading to less confusion for the international market

Advantages for Retailers

• Gives them a simple avenue into online distribution
• Can sell cards in their shops and make a cut of online sales
• Game retailers may resist however it’s similar to “iTunes credit” which most music shops now sell

Conclusion

Whether you love or hate Steam, it’s here to stay.  I see a lot of great opportunity for Valve in the future and Steam Points are a great way to begin their move forward.  Some people I’ve discussed this with are against the idea as they already see Valve as having a monopoly over online distribution.  What do you think?  Would you be happy to start spending Steam Points to buy your games and make micro-transaction?  Should other platforms like Impulse use this system to differentiate themselves?

Facts

• IWNET – matchmaking for PC users just like consoles and L4D
• Helps you play against people your own rank
• Will replace in-game browser – no other option
• No dedicated server or server list
• Rely entirely on IWNet for matchmaking and finding games
• Still has private match – customize game and invite people to server
• Can’t put it up on dedicated servers you rent
• IWNET currently focussed on matchmaking only – big plans for its future
• Games running off users PC – along with consumer grade internet
• Everything will go through IWNET
• Matchmaking NOT through steam
• IWNET runs in conjunction with steam
• No more PunkBuster, using VAC for anti-cheating
• IW want to improve Multiplayer game on PC and make it easier for everyone
• Clan matches will use private games
• Complete control over who can come in, including kicking and banning
• Changes how IW is able to update and support the PC version
• Allows more control and structure
• Good from development perspective
• Can change all features of game without having to find server or run a server
• Helps reduce piracy, but this was not a driving force for creating IWNET
• All made in-house, working on it for a while
• Will listen to feedback and make changes in the future

Verdict

This is great for casual gamers and not so great for hardcore gamers.  The biggest sticking point for most people is the lack of a dedicated server.  There are two major issues from this:

1. Less Customization. Clan matches, and many players, love their customizations.  Without dedicated servers, the extent to which gamers and server admins can mod/tweak the game is greatly reduced.
2. Lower Performance. Dedicated servers have a lot of CPU power, and more importantly, high throughput and low latency internet connections.  Consumer grade internet connections (particularly here in Australia) can’t compete with the connections of most dedicated servers.  This will result in a lower user experience and limits on player counts.

The biggest boon for casual gamers is the ease in finding a game and playing against players your their  rank.  This is great for “first-timers”.  It’s easier for them to join a game and they should be playing against other low ranked gamers.

This is the core reason I think IW have invested so much time and money into IWNET.  Multiplayer games are by their very nature viral.  If a gamer purchases MW2 and sits through the singleplayer game, there’s a chance they will tell their friends what they are playing.  However if that same gamer is converted to a mulitplayer gamer, they will actively encourage their friends to buy the game and join them.  The more gamers IW can convert to multiplayer, the larger their sales.

Solution

The podcast was fairly light on technical details, however I saw a solution that would keep the 160K+ petition signers happy, without ruining the player experience for first-timers.  Rob mentioned a number of times that clan matches, and “custom matches” can be set up through private games.  The simple solution is to allow these private matches to point themselves at a dedicated server.  This would likely take some further engineering time, however it would be a fairly small investment compared to the mammoth task of implementing IWNET.  This would allow full customization on the server side and would be an “opt-in” situation.  This keeps the user experience clean, while allowing full customization for hardcore players.

Conclusion

This is the second large petition in the games industry this year.  Have you signed either the IWNET or L4D2 petition?  What are your thoughts on IWNET and where do you see PC multiplayer gaming moving in the future?