In PvE death penalty has nothing to do with making things hard and rewarding after success. If your purples in WoW means nothing its not becouse of missing real death penalty, its becouse they made content so easy so all can complete it. Compare how many people completed nax in vanila wow and in wotlk - even without serious death penalty.
Experience loss is imo retarded example of death penalty in group play. In Aion I have seen too many times ppl who caused fuck ups to get way, while others to die and loose experience becouse of them. If you play solo you are responsible for yourself, so be it. In group play it is simply wrong imo.
Gw1 is imo example of death penalty done right. Penalty is not pernament and makes finishing mission harder - for all in group.
In PvP it's completly different. Without penalty for dieing you get retarded strategies like suicidal bomb squads. Imo you need to be punished for dieing in PvP.
I agree with you OP and lean heavily towards games with a significant 'risk' element to them. That being said the mmo playerbase nowadays is predominantly casual and predominantly risk averse so most would not concur with my choice.
I'm just grateful for the likes of CCP and AV who cater to the more risk seeking amongst us.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
If there is no fear of dying (stinging death penalty), there is no real reward from surviving in these games; it's kind of like playing on sedatives. Ho hum.
I have 80's in WOW, all decked out in purples, and none of those items or achievements means as much to me as the time back in EQ when I rounded up the parts for the Burning Rapier quest and had to go into some pretty scary places.
A stinging death penalty just plain adds immersion. Now folks can try to rationalize that into being "challenge" all they want, but when you are "afraid" of your character dying while traversing a scary zone, it makes the experience come alive. And when you see some foolhardy nitwit "buy the farm" and you know he is somewhere slamming his forehead into his keyboard, you will have to keep from falling out of your seat laughing.
An MMO without a stinging death penalty "isn't alive".
I always consider the 'fear of failure' more powerful than 'fear of dying' in a video game. I can be a very competive person who hates failing. If I am presented with a challenge I want to beat it and do so in the most skillful way. If I fail and die that is a very big kick to the ego and motivates me to try again and do better next time. I really do not see a point in a game that tries to make it not worth my while to try to improve my skills. It feels like playing on sedatives.
When I play WoW I regularly handicap myself or try to 'take on more than I can chew' since that makes the game more exciting and heroic. In EVE I had to force myself to forgo challenging things because tha game would punish me for that with hours of extra grinding. In the end all that bore me to tears.
A stinging death penalty just plain kills immersion. When you are 'afraid' of your character dying it makes the experience dull.
Personal RL example: I was recently in a car accident and now when I drive I am constantly afraid that another car will hit me. This has made me an even safer driver but it sure made the driving experience less fun for me. I really do not want that in a video game.
Look at the risk that RL mountain climbers take when they scale Everest or something. The penalty for failure is extreme, but people are much more careful and rarely does someone incur "the penalty". But all get the rush for trying.
Do they get the rush because they did not die or because they achieved a feat of strength, endurance and intelligence that few other people are capable of?
To me challenge and penalties have nothing to do with each at all, in games or any aspect of life. If something is challenging it is hard to achieve either because it takes a long time, or it requires a great deal of skill. What happens if I fail to get it, the penalty, has nothing to do with how hard it is to succeed.
Gambling isn't more challenging because your risking something, the actual difficulty of what your doing does not change if there is a penalty attached.
Again challenge is what is required to get it, not what happens afterwards.
Venge Sunsoar
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
EQ wasn't successful because of penalty. It was held back by it.
Kind of depends. While the penalty did sting, the threat of it made players more alert, more in tune with their surroundings, more relieved when they got to a safe destination, more like they achieved something when they traversed a dangerous zone, and a host of other immersion factors.
I think any such penalty is tweak-able, and I do think the extremes are a turn off to gamers, be it extreme penalty or such a non-penalty as to make dying into a non-event.
Well it'd be ridiculous for me to think there weren't upsides. All I'm saying is the downsides heavily held EQ back.
Rob's opinion is a great example actually: more players want satisfying challenges than stinging penalties.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well maybe i'm completly alone in this idea then. Though there hasn't been an mmo since eq that has satisfied me since eq did. I like to be challenged and like to be forced to play smart. So I could play all day, not make a level, not obtain anything great but enjoyed the experience of trying...I've played quite a few mmos since then and they're all dumed down so bad a toddler could play, but if that's what is popular of course thats going to be the model to follow.
I think there is probably a big enough audience to market a tough as nails game to. Im not meaning so tough you have one life, just enough to keep the players emotionaly engaged. Theres enough hand holding mmo's flooding the market to keep everyone happy i'm sure!
You can't compare Eq to anything,because there was zero competition.
FFXI offers PLENTY of fear and challenge,but it does not hold the millions.
Even though Eq2 is identical to Wow but has nicer graphics,it doesn't have the numbers.So trying to put it in perspective is hopeless.
Personally i like fear and challenge,but the majority do not,i personally witnessed tons crying over losing a bit of xp in FFXI,that you could gain back in like 2 kills,it is really sad how childish most gamers are.
So to cry over a penalty so minute that you get it back in two kills,pretty much sums up what kind of players we have floating around in this genre.
So i highly doubt any develoepr is going to make a real good challenging game,because fiorst time someone dies,he/she cries foul,then itis a chain reaction,then it hits the forums and they all insult the game for making them look childish.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Originally posted by Wizardry You can't compare Eq to anything,because there was zero competition. FFXI offers PLENTY of fear and challenge,but it does not hold the millions. Even though Eq2 is identical to Wow but has nicer graphics,it doesn't have the numbers.So trying to put it in perspective is hopeless. Personally i like fear and challenge,but the majority do not,i personally witnessed tons crying over losing a bit of xp in FFXI,that you could gain back in like 2 kills,it is really sad how childish most gamers are. So to cry over a penalty so minute that you get it back in two kills,pretty much sums up what kind of players we have floating around in this genre. So i highly doubt any develoepr is going to make a real good challenging game,because fiorst time someone dies,he/she cries foul,then itis a chain reaction,then it hits the forums and they all insult the game for making them look childish.
Most games do not have any sort of death penalty at all. The game just resets to a certain point and you go on as if nothing happened. You can eventually lose the game but the real punishment is the lack of getting the "win" state.
What a death penalty ends up being for most people is a penalty for playing the game, not for playing poorly. Most people are not going to pay money to be penalized for playing. This is why "hardcore" games do not have large subscription or sales numbers. Smaller developers can create "hardcore" games at a higher profit margin and smaller sales. Larger developers (for the most part) cannot.
But in any event, a death penalty is like anything else in the games we play. If it's implemented well, it benefits the game, fits with the players and generally progresses things. If it's only in there because the game wants to be "hardcore", then it will probably keep people from playing the game instead of making people want to play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
Imo its different in PvE and in PvP.
In PvE death penalty has nothing to do with making things hard and rewarding after success. If your purples in WoW means nothing its not becouse of missing real death penalty, its becouse they made content so easy so all can complete it. Compare how many people completed nax in vanila wow and in wotlk - even without serious death penalty.
Experience loss is imo retarded example of death penalty in group play. In Aion I have seen too many times ppl who caused fuck ups to get way, while others to die and loose experience becouse of them. If you play solo you are responsible for yourself, so be it. In group play it is simply wrong imo.
Gw1 is imo example of death penalty done right. Penalty is not pernament and makes finishing mission harder - for all in group.
In PvP it's completly different. Without penalty for dieing you get retarded strategies like suicidal bomb squads. Imo you need to be punished for dieing in PvP.
I agree with you OP and lean heavily towards games with a significant 'risk' element to them. That being said the mmo playerbase nowadays is predominantly casual and predominantly risk averse so most would not concur with my choice.
I'm just grateful for the likes of CCP and AV who cater to the more risk seeking amongst us.
"Come and have a look at what you could have won."
I always consider the 'fear of failure' more powerful than 'fear of dying' in a video game. I can be a very competive person who hates failing. If I am presented with a challenge I want to beat it and do so in the most skillful way. If I fail and die that is a very big kick to the ego and motivates me to try again and do better next time. I really do not see a point in a game that tries to make it not worth my while to try to improve my skills. It feels like playing on sedatives.
When I play WoW I regularly handicap myself or try to 'take on more than I can chew' since that makes the game more exciting and heroic. In EVE I had to force myself to forgo challenging things because tha game would punish me for that with hours of extra grinding. In the end all that bore me to tears.
A stinging death penalty just plain kills immersion. When you are 'afraid' of your character dying it makes the experience dull.
Personal RL example: I was recently in a car accident and now when I drive I am constantly afraid that another car will hit me. This has made me an even safer driver but it sure made the driving experience less fun for me. I really do not want that in a video game.
Do they get the rush because they did not die or because they achieved a feat of strength, endurance and intelligence that few other people are capable of?
To me challenge and penalties have nothing to do with each at all, in games or any aspect of life. If something is challenging it is hard to achieve either because it takes a long time, or it requires a great deal of skill. What happens if I fail to get it, the penalty, has nothing to do with how hard it is to succeed.
Gambling isn't more challenging because your risking something, the actual difficulty of what your doing does not change if there is a penalty attached.
Again challenge is what is required to get it, not what happens afterwards.
Venge Sunsoar
Well it'd be ridiculous for me to think there weren't upsides. All I'm saying is the downsides heavily held EQ back.
Rob's opinion is a great example actually: more players want satisfying challenges than stinging penalties.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well maybe i'm completly alone in this idea then. Though there hasn't been an mmo since eq that has satisfied me since eq did. I like to be challenged and like to be forced to play smart. So I could play all day, not make a level, not obtain anything great but enjoyed the experience of trying...I've played quite a few mmos since then and they're all dumed down so bad a toddler could play, but if that's what is popular of course thats going to be the model to follow.
I think there is probably a big enough audience to market a tough as nails game to. Im not meaning so tough you have one life, just enough to keep the players emotionaly engaged. Theres enough hand holding mmo's flooding the market to keep everyone happy i'm sure!
You can't compare Eq to anything,because there was zero competition.
FFXI offers PLENTY of fear and challenge,but it does not hold the millions.
Even though Eq2 is identical to Wow but has nicer graphics,it doesn't have the numbers.So trying to put it in perspective is hopeless.
Personally i like fear and challenge,but the majority do not,i personally witnessed tons crying over losing a bit of xp in FFXI,that you could gain back in like 2 kills,it is really sad how childish most gamers are.
So to cry over a penalty so minute that you get it back in two kills,pretty much sums up what kind of players we have floating around in this genre.
So i highly doubt any develoepr is going to make a real good challenging game,because fiorst time someone dies,he/she cries foul,then itis a chain reaction,then it hits the forums and they all insult the game for making them look childish.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Most games do not have any sort of death penalty at all. The game just resets to a certain point and you go on as if nothing happened. You can eventually lose the game but the real punishment is the lack of getting the "win" state.
What a death penalty ends up being for most people is a penalty for playing the game, not for playing poorly. Most people are not going to pay money to be penalized for playing. This is why "hardcore" games do not have large subscription or sales numbers. Smaller developers can create "hardcore" games at a higher profit margin and smaller sales. Larger developers (for the most part) cannot.
But in any event, a death penalty is like anything else in the games we play. If it's implemented well, it benefits the game, fits with the players and generally progresses things. If it's only in there because the game wants to be "hardcore", then it will probably keep people from playing the game instead of making people want to play.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.