Game theory: What does it mean for a game to be fun to lose.

[levi]

Yeah, a fair few story-based games have a battle you need to lose in, although these days it's often reduced to just a cutscene.

For me a good risk/reward mechanic is important in giving me that 'one more go' feeling. In PGR1 on the xbox, your points would accumulate and only be banked if you could drive without crashing for a few seconds more. it was always a tossup between breaking for a corner and banking your points, or drifting round it and trying to increase your combo. Clip a barrier and you'll wish you'd banked a bit earlier.

The other thing that helps is having a quick reload mechanic. For me, memorably, VVVVVV got this just right - die in a room and you restart immediately, at the point you entered the room. I didn't enjoy dieing in that, except where I was trying out an idea to see if it's possible, but at least it wasn't too painful.

But I don't think there's any game I actively enjoy losing at.

 

[Klumpen]

The other thing that helps is having a quick reload mechanic. For me, memorably, VVVVVV got this just right - die in a room and you restart immediately, at the point you entered the room. I didn't enjoy dieing in that, except where I was trying out an idea to see if it's possible, but at least it wasn't too painful.

It's the same in "Teslagrad" (one of the best games ever made imho - with DRM free native Linux port). You get the frustration for having made a mistake but not for having to do a lot of stuff again - resulting in getting angry towards yourself and not towards the game if you won't learn.

Games that make me lose all my progress and let me play the last hour again are badly designed imho.
"Volgarr the Viking" is one of those more current cases where the checkpoints are way too far apart for the difficulty that is constantly thrown in your face.

 

[comradekingu]

The viking way to die is very much a once-over. A viking game should kill you at any opportunity of cowardice. If you equip armour, or use ranged abilities, you should be mocked out of the game.

New territory doesn't feel all that new if you arent used to grinding around in the old, on account of making a mistake. It makes you focus and get better at anticipating, noticing things.

The traditional Japanese honourable way of fighting till you die, is almost gone from games.

The idea of inevitable death is a compelling one, it leaves it down to shits and giggles, some sense of personal skill involved in postponing your fate. If you fight, you are alive, when you die, you are not.
Being alive past the high-score also has an impact on the feeling of death and playing the game in general.

If you take away every emotional de-tour, you end up with a game you haven't bothered to finish.

 

[Amnykon]

I find that the multiple endings approach (each with it's own unique content) seems to work well. I spent quite a lot of time playing through the DS game "999" multiple times so I could see all the different endings.

-Neelix

I think the root quality is: high reliability makes the game more fun in general. Having multiple endings is one way to increases reliability. A question I plan on asking in another game theory thread is what makes a game repayable? but not today.

This topic got me thinking, do any games exist where losing is a necessary step for winning? Think destructor-based programming. I don't remember any...

In the tactics game I am designing, It uses a karma system instead of dice (It's the only perfect information game in it's gene that I know of...). You may choose to take a hit to gain more karma. This allows you to have more choices of if you hit, or if they miss later in the game, however, you have lower life. This is similar to losing in order to win.

On a side note for real life: failure is not the opposite of success, but a step towards success.

This also does apply to game playing. People should lose the first time they play a game. They should start winning only when they gain a deeper understanding of the game.

 

[Christoph.Krn]

Maybe I should have phrased this better, I meant games where it's a core mechanic, not just an occurrence in an exceptional situation. Those are quite different things.

 

[comradekingu]

A death in a good game is only what happens afterwards, and what led up to it.

Some feel-good games don't need deaths, or any point, just exploration.
Though a game where you can't die, or its too easy to avoid it, is a boring game.

It is a penalty for being bad. If you issue a penalty to someone of the mind that they did no wrong, then that is the problem, not the penalty itself.

'I don't like dying in games', should be treated with the same respect as 'I don't like being bad'

Its not the games fault, and a good game is not one equally enjoyable for everyone.

But now we have easy games and dumb films, and everyone is not happy.

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

Amazing how experiences can differ so much. For me, Halo was one of the most bland and boring shooters I've ever played.

I'm not sure if your being facetious or not. Halo was for me an unforgettable gaming experience particularly in co-op mode. I always played in co-op with a mate. We once played for 12 hours straight, minus smoke, food and toilet breaks give or take. It was that compelling.
[doublepost=1468361415,1468361279][/doublepost]Silent Bomber on psx, great game btw, was quite difficult but such tremendous fun that I never was annoyed when I died, some tough boss enemies too- its pretty much impossible to win this game sadly- the chess board section goes on forever and its not clear what the player should do.

 

[Amnykon]

When I first read Donald X's comment, my thought was the people don't like to have there stuff destroyed, while people like to feel like they have had growth. This idea split games into two groups, buildup games and tear down games. Buildup games are where the players start at a low point and build themselves up. Tear down games is where the players start at a high point as the game progresses, their position diminishes. One of the qualities of a game that is fun to lose is that it is a build up game. What is interesting is that tear down games are similar to other tear down games in some aspect, while buildup games are similar to each other in other areas.

 

[tigerroast]

This topic got me thinking, do any games exist where losing is a necessary step for winning? Think destructor-based programming. I don't remember any...

Goddamn Chrono Trigger. Try fighting Lavos for the first time. You'll learn real quick about one of the easiest endings to achieve.

 

[ElPoco]

Maybe I should have phrased this better, I meant games where it's a core mechanic, not just an occurrence in an exceptional situation. Those are quite different things.

Some games require trial and error. A big part of "The Void" is about understanding the rules that the world follows and how to best use the resources you have. Usually the first playthroughs will have you stumble and fail until you understand it all.

There was "Nebulous Hero" from the Molyjam where every time you "completed the game" you got a part of the tutorial. At first glance, the game was a mario clone but the first tutorial told you that you shouldn't steal coins nor stomp on the other creatures, etc.

 

[Klumpen]

When I first read Donald X's comment, my thought was the people don't like to have there stuff destroyed, while people like to feel like they have had growth. This idea split games into two groups, buildup games and tear down games. Buildup games are where the players start at a low point and build themselves up. Tear down games is where the players start at a high point as the game progresses, their position diminishes. One of the qualities of a game that is fun to lose is that it is a build up game. What is interesting is that tear down games are similar to other tear down games in some aspect, while buildup games are similar to each other in other areas.

You know what would be awesome?
A game where you start as a master with maxed out stats, lots of money and an easy time. While the game progresses you lose status and tools/armies/power all the time due to environmental/social/political circumstances.
In the end you have lost everything you had but have gained incredible skills, morals, experience, friendship and true love.
I'd buy that if it has a drm free native Linux port.
I can imagine this scenario in several ways. A king that is struggling to survive when his house/country goes down or who has to deal with the end of monarchy; a martial arts master with a famous dojo during the dawn of guns; a father losing his wealth, wife and children; etc...
There are lots of scenarios where losing everything could be the possibility to gain much more. If you make it complex enough you could let the player choose whether he struggles to keep his power and wealth at all costs or whether he tries a different approach of handling the circumstances.
Oh game design would be so much fun if it wouldn't involve all the actual coding, haha. I'd love to make the soundtrack and write dialogues for this stuff though.

 

[_jr_]

I haven't played it, but I thought Planescape Torment required repeates death?

 

[Neelix]

I think the root quality is: high reliability makes the game more fun in general. Having multiple endings is one way to increases reliability. A question I plan on asking in another game theory thread is what makes a game repayable? but not today.

Could you explain what you mean by that? I don't understand what you mean by reliability in this context.

-Neelix

 

[ElPoco]

I think he meant replayability. Though I'm not sure I agree that high replayability makes games more fun in general.
@Klumpen : Interesting concept, could make for interesting games.

 

[PowerGod]

I really find difficult to find a lose entertaining... but I can think about some exceptions...

In some games, like the old Flashback, you had cinematics for every kind of death... sometimes I just WANTED to die to see all the animations...

Also in Lemmings, who didn't kill them all just for fun ?!

In other games, where you can choose a bad ending path, you can just be curious to see it... some examples can be Batman Arkham City (where Catwoman can leave Batman die, ending the game...) or Defenders Quest (when you can choose to not fight the last boss)...

mmm, speaking about Defenders Quest I can think about this, in that game, even if you lose, your characters gains experience, so you can lose many times while improving anyway... and I find it fun !!

Another game like this can be "Dino Defense" (Pandora)

 

[Amnykon]

I think he meant replayability. Though I'm not sure I agree that high replayability makes games more fun in general.
@Klumpen : Interesting concept, could make for interesting games.

Yes I did mean replayability. I agree that high replayability does not help the game the first time someone plays, which should be one of the focuses when designing a game. Games that have high replayability, depending on how the high replayablility is achieved, allow the players to learn more about the system and get better at using it. This growth could overcome the effect of failure and make the game a positive experience, even though a person lost.
A game with multiple endings might not increase fun when you lose, but a game with customizable initial starting points would.

in retrospect, high replayability has no impact on if a game is fun to lose, but rather the learning and improvement someone makes with their skill of the game.
[doublepost=1468417831,1468417211][/doublepost]

You know what would be awesome?
A game where you start as a master with maxed out stats, lots of money and an easy time. While the game progresses you lose status and tools/armies/power all the time due to environmental/social/political circumstances.
In the end you have lost everything you had but have gained incredible skills, morals, experience, friendship and true love.

Seems like you are already mastering how to minimize the effect of a tear down game by adding a separate build up game, while trying to help society by teaching what you think is important in life. WOW

Something else we can analyze is what is a zero sum game and what is the effect of a zero sum game for the loser?

 

[jeeks]

You know what would be awesome?
A game where you start as a master with maxed out stats, lots of money and an easy time. While the game progresses you lose status and tools/armies/power all the time due to environmental/social/political circumstances.

Losing awesome abilities and whole gameplay mechanics doesn't sound that good (at least gameplay wise). There's a quite a long thread on reddit about this. If you're more focused on story, it might be fine, but personally, I'd quit as soon as my favorite strategy (for combat, building something, etc) doesn't work anymore.

Yeah, a fair few story-based games have a battle you need to lose in, although these days it's often reduced to just a cutscene.

I restarted Lufia II a few times because I continously lost against one of the damn sinistrals. Blamed poor balancing, blamed some secret hidden dungeon I missed, blamed my party... Turns out that's one of those battles you're supposed to get wiped out in. Ugh. I'd ratherwatch a cutscene than my party getting slaughtered by some op enemy Worst thing was, when I fought the same dude again later in the game, he totally sucked.

 

[Klumpen]

Losing awesome abilities and whole gameplay mechanics doesn't sound that good (at least gameplay wise). There's a quite a long thread on reddit about this. If you're more focused on story, it might be fine, but personally, I'd quit as soon as my favorite strategy (for combat, building something, etc) doesn't work anymore.

Why should gameplay mechanics change?
It just gets harder because you lose your (unfair) advantages and have to look for different strategies depending on what you've got, sounds reasonable to me.
In a way that's what some building games do too: Giving you a lot of money in the easy levels/setting and making it harder by taking away your stuff and throwing all kinds of stones in your way later to make it harder.
We did similar challenges in my old martial arts club:
"So you know pretty well how to handle a fight with your trusty longsword, ey? Try it with this walking stick instead then!"
Next level: "Try to survive without any weapon apart from your body. Your opponent will keep his stuff."
During the stages in between you take away certain parts of armour of course, making him reconsider too incautious tactics.

 

[Caine]

I'm not sure if your being facetious or not. Halo was for me an unforgettable gaming experience particularly in co-op mode. I always played in co-op with a mate. We once played for 12 hours straight, minus smoke, food and toilet breaks give or take. It was that compelling.

I was being dead serious. By the time Halo was released, I had been playing multi-player shooters for years. We've had a four computer LAN at our home ever since the 486 era. It just didn't manage to create any new experiences. It merely copied stuff I saw many times before and, in my not so humble opinion, it even did a poor job at that.

I have absolutely nothing positive to say about the game. That said, if you enjoyed it that much, then good for you.

 

[Amnykon]

Losing awesome abilities and whole gameplay mechanics doesn't sound that good (at least gameplay wise). There's a quite a long thread on reddit about this. If you're more focused on story, it might be fine, but personally, I'd quit as soon as my favorite strategy (for combat, building something, etc) doesn't work anymore.

I agree that a focus of losing abilities is bad game design. A typical RPG is a:

Short term tear down game where the player slowly degrades in life throughout the battle.
mid term tear down game where the player endures battle after battle with diminishing items until they can reach a town to restore.
Long term build up game where the characters get stronger (exp and equipment)
A second Long term build up game of storyline progression and getting closer to game completion.​

People who play RPG's usually focus on the two long term build up games, not the tear down game. You simply don't play an RPG for the simplistic combat. There are better games for that.

Changing one of the Long term build up games to a tear down game is a bad Idea unless you can get the player to focus on a separate build up game. Have them focus on the relationships they are creating that will provide them with separate abilities rather then the money they are losing. This is accomplished by having the relationships provide more benefit then the money.