Lots of innovation in gaming these days has come out of taking a familiar genre or mechanic and changing, really, just one or two key things. Look what Portal added to FPS mechanics when the gun didn't shoot bullets, and how the platformer changed when you no longer had to jump. I love Braid because it makes something entirely different from the platforming mechanic simply by letting you rewind back whenever you want.Many of the changes in gameplay mechanics in recent years have come from a gradual surrender of the habits of the arcade days, back when games were geared to make you keep putting quarters in. Though we've been surprisingly stubborn about it, clutching those relics of player penalty and punishment like an old baby blanket, in general most kinds of games have been more enjoyable since we stopped counting lives, segmenting up stages and putting time limits on everything.
I'm interested to see what would happen if we let go of one more -- the damage bar.
Even in modern games, if you're playing a person, that person can die. In fact, games have put life bars on just about everything perishable, from hostages to vehicles, and often your ranking and other factors depend on how much damage you take. Some games have innovated on the damage bar by measuring, for example, how much sound you make when silence is the objective, or by tying it in somehow with time limits. It's really a fundamental of gaming -- your present endeavor ends if you are hurt enough, period.
It's something we've accepted for a long time because it's lifelike -- if you were a soldier, a secret agent or a fighting champion in real life, you would, like any human body, have a threshold. Pass that threshold and it's game over for real; you're dead. The argument in favor of life bars says that players wouldn't want to take hits without eventually dying, wouldn't believe a character who could sustain endless injury and come away unscathed.
But while we're talking lifelike, let's talk about how, under the damage bar schema, a shotgun blast to the gut sometimes does as much damage as a punch in the face or a fall from a high platform. I wouldn't be the first to knock turn-based RPGs for featuring characters who can face a linear formation of heavily-armed soldiers with only a sword, taking wave after wave of machine gun fire and still managing to win by the blade. But no matter what the genre, when your life bar is depleted and you die, you start again in better shape, and not always from the spot where you hit the ground. Lifelike?
Not really. The damage bar depletion death is just another archaic way to measure failure, force the player to restart as a penalty. Just as some of the innovators I've mentioned have done, I'd like to see a new twist on taking damage in games -- instead of using the mechanic to penalize the player, could we use it to make play more interesting?
I'm certainly not proposing an invincible hero. But what if, instead of merely drilling down a bar from green to red, taking damage would actually affect the player's abilities and physicality? At full health, you can easily run, jump and climb. Take a few knocks and be forced to move a little more slowly, suffer some limitations on what you can do. At max damage, you're forced to drag on your belly and can no longer fight until you find some health supplies. Enemies can kick you when you're down and impede your progress, but your game won't end. You might have to crawl, bleeding, past a ladder or a ledge you couldn't negotiate unless you were in good health, but the concept that somehow death will just bump you back a while and send you, fully healed, to confront the same areas you've already tried would be a thing of the past.
Certainly, most modern games have let the player character respond and react based on the state of his health, looking wounded or limping. But I think we can go further with this -- where the consequences of injury are the inability to interact as thoroughly in the game world, rather than ultimately ending in an antiquated game over screen.
If the technology is up to it, this could get even more interesting, especially if you were playing a non-human who reacted in an interesting way to injury. Or if you were being pursued, and trailing blood made you more likely to be found. Or if you'd be doomed to slogging along feebly unless you spent hard-earned money for the help of an unscrupulous doctor, or used some kind of precious ability to heal yourself -- thereby leaving yourself with less magic or whatever to use against your enemies.
I once read somewhere (and I can't recall) an argument that games would never be as immersive as other kinds of media because of the repetitive save-die-reload functionality at the core of almost all of them. But there are many worse things than death, as the saying goes, and I'd like to see game mechanics explore what some of those might be. It could create a greater investment in the characters' lives than seeing them repeatedly killed and resurrected ever did.
23 comments:
Deus Ex and Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth both had realistic injury systems akin to the one you suggest.
The thing that worries me about this is that it would cause a negative feedback loop. Once you start to get hurt, your performance decreases, making it harder to not get hurt, which causes your performance to decrease further...
For example, I'm already *terrible* at Metal Gear Solid, though I trudge through it because the story fascinates me. If I got worse at the game I already suck at because of that suckage, I wouldn't even make it through the first level.
It's a really compelling idea on the surface, I admit, but unless it's paired with Big Red Button's big red easy button, I just can't see it working.
Reminds me of the vestigal "Game Over" screen I see in Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings when I lose a mission. Although it says "Game Over," the game just gives you a token amount of experience and lets you retry. It's not "Over" in any way!
I would definitely like to see a designer run with this kind of concept, although I sometimes worry about the industry's obsession with realism. As hardware and programming tools get more sophisticated, it makes sense that games will try to reach that point where everything is completely lifelike - graphically and gameplay-wise - but I'd actually rather see more games lean more toward the fantastic and unrealistic.
It's all personal taste, but I tend to find less-realistic games more compelling because they give me an opportunity to do things that aren't possible in the real world. That, for me, is one of the medium's greatest strengths, and I think games could do a much better job of creating new and different universes for us to play in. I'd apply that to gameplay mechanics as well as art styles, too. I have a much better time bounding from rooftop to rooftop in Crackdown than I do jogging down the sidewalk in GTA games, and that's specifically because it's kind of crazy. It would be much more lifelike if my agent would occasionally sprain his ankle and have to limp until he can find a hospital, but I would get tired of that real fast.
Your example of the hero whose abilities are depleted as he takes damage sounds interesting, but I'm actually getting frustrated just thinking about it. It's one of those games I would admire more than I'd enjoy. But, you know, that's just me.
Interesting concept!
The gameplay designer would have to be very careful it didn't turn into a "slippery slope" of difficulty. Like, once the player starts doing poorly the game becomes harder, making a comeback unlikely. There's a large chance that a game where the player's abilities are affected negatively as they start losing would quickly get very frustrating.
A good example of a game that does slippery-slope difficulty might be like Marvel vs Capcom 2. Each player has 3 characters that they can tag in/out are call in for assists. When a player loses one or two characters, they are at a big disadvantage if the other player still has all their characters.
Something very close to what you're suggesting exists in some of the Warioland games for gameboy(I think it's warioland 2 or 3). Anyways, in those games you never die- you lose a couple of coins when most enemies hit you. However, instead of injuring you, many enemies transform you in some cartoonish way. For example, if you get crushed by a mallet, you bounce like a spring, or if a bat touches you, you change into a zombie. Lots of puzzle depend on you using these states. It's certainly not realistic, but they did an extremely good job of making a game with an invincible hero fun and challenging to play.
But you're just exchanging one penalty for another one, and arguably in a way that makes the game less fun.
After you get shot in the gut, would you rather die/restart, and continue to be the same badass you were 30 seconds ago (but have to redo part of the game you already did), or more realistically slump over, drag your self forward at 1/3 speed towards an offscreen health kit, and have the bad guys kick you repeatedly in the side while you leave a blood trail across the level? Maybe the first time around you'll think its a cool mechanic, but it will get old quick.
There have been successes with games that mitigate/remove death penalties (Lego Star Wars leaps immediately to mind), but it tends to imply sandbox environments, or a lot of work by the developer to provide either significant replayability, and/or an environment where exploration alone is sufficient reward.
I'm all for exploring new gameplay styles. But penalty and risk of loss == tension == player involvement. One of my favorite gaming sessions ever involved me and 2 buddies playing the original Diablo -- all three of us died on a deep level (thereby dropping all our best equipment on the ground, and potentially losing it permanently if we ended the game). We played another two hours, sweating bullets and muttering profanities, trying to recover that gear. Awesome.
Bioshock's resurrection chambers fulfil a similar idea to this one presumably, and I know that I (and many others) preferred simply to reload a save on dying rather than be resurrected. I don't know if that's just because the save/load mechanic is so deeply ingrained, or it just felt like cheating, but it didn't seem right to me. And then there's the people who took it to the opposite extremes, and complained that the game wasn't fun because they could just attack a Big Daddy with a wrench, die, respawn, attack again... and so on.
To me, a lot of the fun was in challenging myself to complete Big Daddy battles and such without dying or wasting excessive ammo.
Also, isn't Fable 2 going to have some kind of feature where when you die, you just collapse and your enemies can attack you and give you permanent scars? I can imagine a similar mentality existing there, making the 'hardcore' prefer to restart than have their character become disfigured.
Interestingly the latest Zero Punctuation just made a case for the damage bar...
It's a mechanic, good in some cases and not so good in others. While I think it's certainly old enough it needs to evolve, I'm with Yahtzee on the concept that leaning against a tree to heal bullet wounds is kinda dumb too...
Really not sure how well it would work. Just think how many missions in GTA it was just easier to reset then have to spend all the time getting weapons back, getting vehicles back and jumping through the triggering events.
I think Prey had a spirit-world sort of minigame when you died. Jade Empire has a whole section of the game where you have to escape the spirit world and take revenge on the dude who killed you, though if you die for non-story reasons earlier or later then the classic mechanic is there.
Also, re: fates worse than death: I'm not sure I want minigames for escaping horrific torture or something instead of the bad guys just killing my character.
Most games don't have good enough balance to keep you challenged without killing you, and I'd rather developers get better at that sort of balance than toss in an experimental mechanic. Max Payne had auto-adjusting difficulty that kept me both challenged and having fun throughout, and I think changing or replacing death and the damage bar would've been a mistake. I think a better alternative would be interesting healing mechanics like Gears Of War's heal-your-friend co-op mechanic and Max Payne's limited regeneration and carryable health powerups.
I honestly don't think most developers have the skill or creativity to create and implement anything better than the damage bar, and if they tried it might well end up much worse.
The Warioland example given is the closest to what I have in mind : don't cripple the player even more, make him different. Of course, it would demand a very particular setting explaining this situation... but maybe being hit shifts you into another dimension... which could become a puzzle in itself, and still be a punishment if you get hit when it's not needed.
There is definitely a fine balanced that must be maintained if you are going to wound and hinder your character, I can see it becoming frustrating as hell at times, but there are many ways you can damage the other senses of the main character. Take for example poison darts in the N64 Perfect Dark game. The lower power ones do minimal damage but make you trip out like mad. At first the results are minor, but the more you are hit the bigger the trails and soon everything is a colorful, mushy rainbow of gunfire and love, accented only by flashes of red as everyone shoots your drug loving, hippy ass. If you were tripping hard enough when you died, you would still have some of the effects when you respawned. Instead of slowing you or hurting you, the real damage is a loss of your senses. Now if it was done in a more timid way, and maybe was able to boost your hearing or something to compensate for the loss of vision then it could be a viable way to hurt you in a non-lethal way.
Or if you want to go with the slower, crawling movement of a wounded soldier, maybe his strength would increase due to the increase of adrenaline that any real person could have while trying to stay alive. As many have pointed out, there probably needs to be some compensation for a loss to keep it enjoyable. But I think it is doable.
As far as punishments for death, I like the idea of Fable 2's scar injury thing that chris brought up. I think for some people, they would want to finish with no scars whatsoever. But I think a large group would WANT the scars. It can help you feel more, when you can see the scars your own personal feelings of revenge could grow. Myself, I would probably let myself get scarred right away so I could have a more troubled back story in my mind. Maybe it's just because I watched Gungrave again recently, but seeing a scarred hero go and take his revenge is always satisfying to me. Especially when it is from beyond the grave, or at least close to it.
One of the worst punishments for death I have come across has to be what I experienced in my short time trying out WoW. When you die, your soul is released in some graveyard which most likely is nowhere near where you died, and you need to fly your stupid little soul to your stupid little dead body to restore your stupid little life. As you can tell, I was not a fan of it. Maybe if I had more time in my days at the time I wouldn't have minded, but the fact that I had to find my body was a bit of a pain. Especially when I fell down a waterfall and had to kinda guess and jump my fuzzy lil soul over the edge. Needless to say, I missed the ledge my body was on, and that is where that body will forever stay. The trial is over, the Nigh Elf is dead. Good riddance!
Reading you thoughts on the subject made me think of Midwinter, a 3D, first-person, strategy game from back in the 286 dark ages. The game had a damage system that caused different effects for different limbs: arm damage made it harder to shoot, leg damage made it harder to ski, head damage made everything harder and could knock the character out, etc. It got around the limits this implies by having more than one person you could control. This lead to situations where a healthy character could "rescue" a severely hurt character by finding him/her and giving medical aid.
The interpersonal setup of the game, while primitive, was also full of potential lessons for today. You started off with only one of the 32 playable characters (each with different abilities and skills) and had to try to recruit as many others as possible. Each character had their own history and relationship with the others which would determine whether a given character could recruit any other.
I agree that a creative approach viewing realistic damage as an opportunity for new gameplay elements has serious potential.
Deus Ex indeed. The good thing about the unrealistic injury systems however is that they incur less annoyance. In a single player game, where you're galavanting around the increasingly large world map, the slower the character is, the more time the game consumes the same returns.
This may be a fine idea for, say, Pokemon Snap, but it hardly seems a good idea, in my opinion, for the vast majority of genre.
Also back in those old days of PC gmaing there was an Elvira RPG, this one in particular was Jaws of Cerberus. It too had the realistic damage model of losing maneuverability when a leg was injured, or fighting ability with an injured arm and etc. etc. It's not that it hasn't been done, it's been done a lot actually. It's just that these systems are too involved and complex for the typical player, particularly on consoles. 15-20 year old PC games in a lot of cases had more depth than some current titles.
I just have to mention Dwarf Fortress here. The fortress mode, which plays like a super-involved RTS uses local damage for your soldiers. That is, a stab in the chest may puncture some vital organ leading to a bleeding death, or a hacked off arm cannot use a sword anymore. The death mechanic is that the soldier Dwarf is one of many. You don't want to lose a Dwarf, but the game doesn't end with the death of one.
Also, in the adventure mode, death is almost encouraged. You could easily get some arm, finger, ear, or lung torn off, properly impairing you. And once a character is dead- they're dead. You need to start over with a different character. In this way a history of adventurers is built up.
Anyway, just another interesting no-damage-meter mechanic.
But again, it is a very complex PC game...
Hmm...
Come on! Nobody remembers Vagrant Story? It DID have a life bar, but at the same time enemy hits to certain parts of your body resulted in diminished ability; take too many hits to the legs and you can´t run that fast. However, get those HP up and the injuries (and their effects) disappear. Kinda like the mechanics in Fallout 1 & 2.
Bushido Blade tackled this concept pretty well. Get hit in the arm, it goes limp and your offensive abilities suffer; hit in the leg, you've got to shuffle awkwardly forward. A direct strike to your head—or your strike on an enemy's head—is a one-hit kill.
The point made earlier about a negative loop—damage = poorer performance = more damage—gets neatly sidestepped by the fact that Bushido Blade is a fighting game. So you may or may not be done for if your leg gives out (though its fun to play the underdog and take out your opponent while at a disadvantage), but either way the penalty to your performance lasts only until the round ends.
What it comes down to, I guess, is that this sort of mechanic works great some some genres, not so great for others.
Oddly enough, I posted about this particular problem with dying just a few days ago. I think you're right on the money - it sure seems like death is just an easy panacea to a hard design problem.
Prey has probably come the closest to a serviceable solution - serviceable meaning 'it needs improvement'. The game just got really easy with no sense of consequence, which emboldened the player (well, me, anyway) to rush into a fight and usually come up trumps.
According to John Davison (in one of the GDC 1Up Yours podcasts) Lionhead have removed/are going to remove their proposed death mechanic for Fable 2, i.e. you crumple to the ground and either get beaten up by the enemies and scarred or pay a money/experience penalty and get up right away. Play-testers found it really frustrating (the' old baby blanket'), so they're (apparently) removing it - I cry.
What about the Legacy of Kain games? Didn't they have some kind of cool death mechanic?
The idea of 'death' in (certain) games is pretty archaic. I was playing something (can't remember what) and I got a 'Game Over' screen and I thought "Huh-wha?". It just seemed like a really old-school thing in a new game (still can't remember).
We aren't crunching-quarters anymore. We have less time to spend playing games. Games shouldn't waste our time with antiquated design methodologies. That's the heart of the issue.
Games should have penalties for 'poor performance' (really? should they?) but wasting your real-world time is not one of them. When you die in a game, all you're going to do is reload that save game or have to trundle for 5 minutes to get back to where you were. Why waste that time?
What developers really need to do is give themselves an unsolvable problem in the form of; "Our player has no health bar and cannot die - if we *have* to penalise players, what do we do?" and go from there.
Letting comrades die and fail a mission is *OUT*! Oh, and 'making a noise' or 'walking out of the perimeter' to fail a mission is also *out*... you hear me, Raven? No mission failing. Raven? Yeah?
There are solutions. Prey proposed the beginnings of one. If you read Leigh's post again (hint: "where the consequences of injury are the inability to interact as thoroughly in the game world" and "there are many worse things than death") and extrapolate a bit, you can come up with a fair amount more (solutions not to do with dragging your body around - that is frustrating - but the probably-self-loathing Operation Flashpoint peeps would get a kick out of it, for sure).
The Advance Wars series does interesting things with health. Each unit can be injured. Less health affects how much damage they can do and how much of a defense they can put up. For units that capture or raise buildings, they can only complete that task as fast as they have health for (because health represents actual human bodies within the unit).
I like this approach better than other strategy games where a unit can do max damage at 1% health.
Good ideas here. I'm currently working on an article that attempts to fix some of the dated design elements in fighter games.
"I'm certainly not proposing an invincible hero. But what if, instead of merely drilling down a bar from green to red, taking damage would actually affect the player's abilities and physicality? At full health, you can easily run, jump and climb. Take a few knocks and be forced to move a little more slowly, suffer some limitations on what you can do. At max damage, you're forced to drag on your belly and can no longer fight until you find some health supplies. Enemies can kick you when you're down and impede your progress, but your game won't end. You might have to crawl, bleeding, past a ladder or a ledge you couldn't negotiate unless you were in good health, but the concept that somehow death will just bump you back a while and send you, fully healed, to confront the same areas you've already tried would be a thing of the past."
If a game was mainly about fighting enemies, I wouldn't see much fun in this - crawling and bleeding for most of the time. Imagine an action movie where the hero is in the hospital 90 percent of the time because of wounds he or she has suffered from all kinds of stunts and battles.
If fights are just one part of the game that only happens every now and then, I could see this working. But show me the game that's like that at the moment - certainly not a RPG or a shooter or an action adventure.
Post a Comment