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


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.
Aaah, okay. I misinterpreted your post, sorry. I had games in mind where different characters have unique abilities, and losing one of them means not being able to use those abilities anymore. For example, your only healer gets killed during a cutscene or another (unforeseeable) story event, and keeping everyone else alive during combat gets unreasonably hard all of a sudden.

Just to make sure I got it right this time, instead of making the enemy stronger, your resources get cut? That would be interesting (depending on the gameplay) :)
 
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.
Then I think you kind of missed my point. In "999" each "losing" ending contributed something different to the story, and the story itself wasn't really over until you'd explored them all, and found the extended ending that I seem to recall was not actually available on the first play through, even if you did follow the right path, because you needed information from at least one of the other endings to get there. Each "losing" ending gave you it's own "Aha" moment, which lead to wanting to go back and try again, to use what you learned to progress further. (edit: Or differently as the case may be) So while in one sense I re-played it several times, in another sense I only actually played it all the way through once, and the extended ending when I actually finished the last "re-play" was actually quite satisfying.

-Neelix
 
but a game with customizable initial starting points would.
In "999" each "losing" ending contributed something different to the story
"Zero Escape: Virtues Last Reward" (sequel to "999") has both :) Well, the starting points are not customizable, you have to "unlock" them, but there are lots of them to choose from. Much more comfortable to play than "999"; no more skipping through long dialogues and solving the same puzzles over and over again, aka less wasting time and waiting for that one hint necessary to proceed with the whole thing. Replay value is there, because during the second run you can notice some cool stuff in the early dialogues :D
 
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.
It was the first proper fps I ever played extensively and I never played or play online games. I would not have played anything similar prior to Halo- this may have added to my fondness. It seemed fresh to me, ah well.
 
Monster Hunter isn't exactly fun to lose, except if you're playing with friends who will tease you for having to ride the Kitty Cart back to safety. With that said, I want someone to try telling me that Monster Hunter isn't fun, even with grinding for materials (FWIW, the games have gotten less grind-y with each iteration in my experience), and even with calling the newest game by its true name: Hit It Until It Dies: Generations.

When you're killed by a monster, there's anywhere between a handful or swath of reasons why you died. Armor's not good enough, unless you're a gunner, in which case your armor will never be good enough. Mistimed block/dodge. Too aggressive and got caught in a slow animation. Mistimed deployment of items (drank a potion just as Stygian Zinogre was coming out of its slow walk and targets you). Whiffed on a few attacks, allowing the monster to get into a better position to attack (particularly true for Hammer/Hunting Horn, where missing the head means missing KOs and failing to create openings for your team).

When not hunting specific monsters needed to rank up in the Guild, you're usually seeking ways to gain an edge over those key monsters. This usually involves getting better weapons and armor, more items (incl. things to create openings such as flashbangs and paralysis knives), better ingredients for meals that give you buffs for the hunt (which only last until you die the first time), the works. However, even with all of this shit, unless you're fighting High-Rank monsters after grinding with your G-Rank friend (AKA cheating), victory is never assured. Personally, I think that's what makes up for games that aren't fun to lose: the requirement of the player to achieve victory for himself/herself.

Of course, as mentioned earlier in the thread, if the game is fun to play, then whether or not it's fun to lose isn't important.
 
From what I observe on myself and others, when a player gets hardcore into roguelikes, losingafter a good playthrough, apart from the fact that it's simply going to happen hundreds of times more often than a victory, can be as satisfying, because after learning Your lessons, focusing and carefuly balancing between risk and playing it safe, the game will still find a way past Your defences, and You'll be like "wow. now that's something that missed me", because despite the associated random element, almost always it's something that could've been avoided that kills Your character.

So to me a game that is fun to lose is a game that proves You wrong and exploits a flaw in Your plan
 
Back
Top