On Death

Occasionally, as regular readers will already be aware, I stumble across an article on the internet that makes me do more than a little double take. This weeks prime candidate for wearing the dunce cap and getting to sit in “Shut The Fuck Up” corner comes courtesy of The Escapist and freelance writer Jared Newman’s contribution to the Going It Alone issue.

Entitled Indie or Die, it’s a musing on the use of death as a game mechanic, sort of… it reads more like a manifesto for “here’s something I don’t like so lets get rid of it but I haven’t really thought the consequences through too well” and no matter what we’re referencing, that sort of attitude never sits easy with me. There’s many things I don’t like, many things that really don’t appeal to me (rando JRPG battle mechanics for one, anything with orcs in, Rick Dangerous…) that whilst I’d not be sad to see the back of them, I don’t feel like I’m in much of a position nor should be in such a position as to deny those that do enjoy that sort of thing from enjoying that sort of thing.

I have, for my sins, played a lot of games over the years. And there are times when death in a game can be arbitrary (Rick Dangerous), times when death is a needless punishment (Rick Dangerous) and times when death gets in the way of enjoying a game (Rick Dangerous). When lecturing folks on the possibilities for their game designs during the 2006 RR competition, the subject of death in games cropped up quite often. I’ve thought a lot about death these past few years. Thankfully, it’s more in the game sense than pondering the futility of existence sense.

I’ve just finished updating War Twat, a game which hinges upon player death as its core mechanic, a death that comes quickly and brutally. Now, some may call this “resolutely old school”, some might call it “backwards” and they’re more than welcome to hold that opinion. Me? I call it “fun”. The past few days I’ve been playing through Braid when time (har!) allows. For those who haven’t had the pleasure of the game yet, you cannot die in Braid. Make a mistake and you can rewind back to where you were before you made that mistake. Tumble into a pit filled with spikes and within the blink of an eye, Tim (your character) is back, safe and sound on the safety of his platform as if nothing happened. I also call this “fun”.

As far as I’m concerned, there’s room for both extremes. War Twat would be a lesser experience without having the ultimate threat hanging over you. You have one life and one life alone and the whole point of the game is to score as much as possible before you lose that one life amidst the onslaught of bullets and enemies. Equally, Braid would be a lesser game if every step of the way you ran the risk of dying and enduring a frustrating retread of your steps. Unfortunately, it would seem Jared disagree’s.

“I think the old standby of avatar capital punishment has gone on long enough. There’s plenty of unexplored territory in the medium of videogames, and this convention is getting in the way.”

Now, I’d be fine if it were just a disagreement, but I don’t understand the thrust of his argument here. Can any reader please enlighten me as to how the existence of War Twat stops Braid from existing? In me creating a fast and brutal game, have I just managed to hold back the progress of video games in one fell swoop?

No, of course I fucking haven’t. Because that’s silly.

Death in games is a perfectly valid mechanic, but like all game mechanics it’s something you have to judge on a case by case basis whilst designing your game to judge if it’s an appropriate inclusion. Over the years, there’s been many a game where death has been a needless inclusion and something that a game would be better without. There’s also been many a game where having the ability to end the players progress is absolutely vital to the game actually working as a game. Most people, thankfully, have the ability to see this distinction but even when people don’t (Rick Dangerous fans), I’m not going to attempt to argue that the thing they derive enjoyment from is ultimately wrong. Although in the case of Rick Dangerous, it probably is…

I’ve argued at length before and even covered on this blog and elsewhere the accessibility issues that come with designing a game that punishes the player. I’ve even covered ways you can get around the issue. [1],[2],[3] and Barrie’s barriers in games wish list of accessibility features covers the issue in greater depth, but there’s one thing I’ve always maintained. You have to do what’s appropriate for your game design. And of course, the beauty of games is that like books, like films and like most artistic pursuits – there’s room for all flavours and styles out there.

What doesn’t follow is the existence of one impedes the other.

I enjoyed Rohrer’s Passage (sorry!) but I don’t want all games to be like Passage. I enjoyed Bioshock, but I don’t want all games to be like Bioshock and I enjoyed War Twat (yeah, first game of my own I’ve enjoyed, forgive me) and Braid but I don’t want all games like them… I want choice. I want the ability to choose what type of game I play. If that involves a game that contains a brutal death, or having to survive with only 4 lives or a game that poses no threat at all to my character, then so be it. What I don’t want, which is what Jared is advocating is some sort of sterile world where one persons dislikes shapes the entire spectrum of gaming.

And that, dear readers, is what ultimately pisses me off about Indie or Die. It’s not advocating progressive design or learning from design mistakes, it’s advocating an all or nothing stance that does no-one bar the author any favours.

Loaded

Anyone that has the cheek to pose the incredibly loaded question “After all, as soon as you remove the keystone that equates death with failure in videogames, the whole structure that’s existed since Spacewar! will crumble. Is that such a bad thing?” without the assured knowledge that yes, yes it is a fucking seriously bad thing needs to go back and play more fucking games before commenting.

Or at the very least, come back with a more convincing argument for replacing player death than “I fantasize about a mobster game that doesn’t thrive on body counts, but still harbors a violent subtext. Maybe there’s an occasional shootout, and if the player fails, the avatar’s friend dives in to take the bullet. You would feel the consequences for the rest of the game, and you’d learn not to make the same mistake twice.”. Genius!

Me, I prefer to learn from games when designing them. To delve into what worked for me, what didn’t work for me, what worked for other people no matter how dyed in the wool a mechanic it may be rather than frot myself senseless within a fantasy world that condemns entire genres to death because of my own personal inability to understand the medium of games.

The sort of thinking shown in the article does as much harm to game design as the extreme hardcore gamers who turn their noses up at anything that doesn’t involve millions of polygons per chair and bumpmapped camel toes. It gets us no closer to achieving gaming nirvana, it’s just the sad wank fantasy of one person trying to project his blinkered view onto the world.

Yes, there is a problem with some game design, I can’t argue that. We’ve got to learn what works and what doesn’t and adapt our games accordingly. We can’t do that by arbitrarily wiping out entire genres just because. Lets keep the future of gaming bright with all facets of gaming allowed to breathe and exist, otherwise we won’t get another Braid, we won’t have another Space Giraffe because there’ll be nothing to learn from.

And that, more than any criticisms of one mechanic, would be a bad thing