>game overs are a failure of the game designer
Do you agree with him, /v/?
>>343783759
I thought they were a failure of the player?
>>343783759
I wouldn't call it a failure by any means, but it is an outdated concept.
>>343783909
Why on earth do you think that? There's nothing wrong with having a lose state
>>343783759
>David Cage is a failure of a game designer
ftfy
I'm not fond of my country to begin with but having to share my nationality with this hack really doesn't help
No. The only time a designer fails is when the player gives up completely. Just like I've given up on David Cage games.
>>343783759
no fuck him and his interactive movies
Yeah permadeath is underated as fuck
As much as having a goal scored against your team is the failure of the grass
>>343783759
So what, players should only ever win? That's bullshit.
The concept of a Game Over is integral to a game that is designed to challenge the player's ability to play the game well.
Cage's interactive movies are not designed to challenge the player. They're designed to give the player choice in how the story plays out.
But David Cage hasn't helped make a proper video game since Omikron so what does he know. It's sad knowing that my second favourite game of all time was made by a man who doesn't want to make video games.
>>343784293
This
>>343784614
You can have gradients of failure instead of "Game Over". I'd say that having to deal with the consequences of failure is less "casual" than just a hard stop
>>343783759
what? its a way of letting the player know they fucked up. that they were not skilled enough to get past that point and have to try again.
>>343784439
That's not the point I think.
I can definetly see his reasoning, but it doesn't applies to all kinds of games. Game Overs are integral to a game like Mario for example, you NEED a failstate there, but games (that /v/ will certainly call just movies) like those made by his company certainly work better by not having a failstate per se, like a game over screen, but failures. Say you fail to catch a criminal running down the street in a game. In most ocasions you would just get a "game over" like in GTA, then make you re-do the mission untill you get it right, but a better game would allow the criminal to get away, and then give you consequences to that.
>>343785524
Look at this faggot looking at statements in context and thinking before posting. Where do you think you are, buddy?
>>343785449
>that they were not skilled enough to get past that point and have to try again
But why just "try again"? Isn't that cheap? Shouldn't some games allow you to fail and then live with that failure, changing the narrative accordingly?
Some games nowadays try so hard to be "lifelike". Life doesn't gives you a "you failed, here, do it over until you get it right".
yeah its a failure if you dont make the player game over
Within the full context of the quote, I agree.
>I’ve always felt that ‘game over’ is a state of failure more for the game designer than from the player. It’s like creating an artificial loop saying, ‘You didn’t play the game the way I wanted you to play, so now you’re punished and you’re going to come back and play it again until you do what I want you to do.’ In an action game, I can get that – why not? It’s all about skills. But in a story-driven experience it doesn’t make any sense.
In Heavy Rain the story continued no matter what, even if you died. That's why people liked it. Game overs and checkpoint restarts interrupt the story's flow. This only really applies to "cinematic" games though, which he acknowledged.
>>343786106
says the man who made beyond two souls right after
a game where if you fuck up then the game just goes back in time 5 seconds and makes you do it again
He needs to go back to Frog Land and get raped by a sand nigger horde.
>>343785524
>but a better game would allow the criminal to get away, and then give you consequences to that.
and yet you can literally miss all prompts in Cage's games and sometimes still get the same outcome as if you aced it.
I think the idea of consequence rather than game over is a good one, but it's not objectively better. If every story accounted for possibilities of failure, that would be a stupendous amount of work on any non on rails movie type of game, and you can't construct a tight narrative when there's so much potential for player agency affecting the game.
>literally whos with game design degrees trashtalk game concepts that predate their meme diplomas
yawn.
>>343786375
Did we play the same game? That never happened if you failed. The game just continued. People complained about not being able to die in Beyond, but that's because the game only had one protagonist, so if she died then the story is over. I get that, that's why he went back to multiple protagonists in Detroit.
>>343785524
The game over didn't make a lot of sense in Super Mario 64. All it did was take you back to the title screen, and then you could walk back to the level and start from the beginning of the level, which is only a little more punishment than dying. If that's the worst punishment the game has to offer, I'd rather just remove the lives system entirely.
It works fine in the other Mario games though.
>>343784067
I can agree that the concept of player lives and a GAME OVER is kind of outdated. Like what's the point of lives in super Mario 3d world, where you gain lives by the dozens in early worlds. It's a waste, it achieves nothing.
>>343783759
This must be one of the most idiotic things I heard regarding video game design
>>343783869
The player doesnt do mistakes. You should have learned that by now.
>>343786927
except for everytime you are in any kind of dangerous situation
the would either pretend you completed it correctly and there would be no consequences or you would just have to redo the QTE
although im not surprised you didnt notice considering the QTEs are piss easy
>>343787082
This is because you're a retard and don't know what he actually said.
>>343783909
Only because there is an entire generation of players who want to walk through a game without ever dying or needing to stop pushing forward on a joystick. The vast majority of games are cakewalks now.
Depends on what he means, if by that he means being able to lose, he's dead wrong. If he means game over as a lives system, limited or no continues, then it's arguable.
>>343786952
You're literally arguing that people shouldn't be able to lose
Go back to Kirby Epic Yarn or some shit you garbage shitter
>>343783759
I think they're pretty dumb in shit like Simon's Quest, where when you get a game over you start in the exact same place you died in but w/o any hearts, but sometimes in stuff like Yoshi's Island it's done pretty well
>>343787174
david cage had the equivelent of a game over and checkpoint system in the first game he made after making that statement
david cage is a fucking idiot who doesnt know what he's talkign abotu
the real irony is that his games force you to play the way he wants you to becuase most of your decisions never really matter in the end
heavy rain had the most decisions and even then only a few really matter
game overs just limit what the player can do, they are objectively bad game design and only exist when developers can't account for all the possibilities that a player can encounter
>>343787113
There were consequences in that it changed the scene slightly. Losing certain fights resulted in Aiden having to save you or another character. Or in the case of the police or soldiers she would be captured and you would have to escape.
>>343786106
Exactly. I don't know why people give him so much shit. He certainly is onto something, yet not quite there. Though his ideas are in the right place, his own games don't execute it very well.
>>343787537
so what you are telling me is nothing changed
>or in the case of the police or soldiers she would be captured and you would have to escape
like when?
>>343787390
What's even the point of lives if the only mechanic they offer you is to go grind them in case you're low? Also are you implying that death alone is not a setback? I guess you think that games like devil may cry and dark souls are just a cakewalk then?
>>343787372
He's talking in a more broad sense than that.
>>343787537
>>343787646
It was done better in Heavy Rain. Beyond really has no consequence to failing most things, just a different scene, nothing dramatic.
I agree with him. It was annoying as fuck in GTA V that they made you fail a section THREE fucking times before you could just skip the mission. I've never been so frustrated watching a movie in my life.
>>343787446
imo no game has ever really achieved that. Pretty much every game with multiple choices and branching narratives that I've played end up with the story pretty much going the same way with each path and just a handful of endings with one "canon" ending for the sequel. We haven't gotten to the point where every story is unique, I don't think its possible to be honest. For now we just have the illusion of choice, which is a clever design that does fool the casual audiences.
>>343787903
the problem is that he made this statement AFTER heavy rain
and on top of that made a game where almost none of your decisions matter at all in the end
even the credits imply that the ending you choose doesnt matter
Sounds like a lot of people in this thread haven't played 999, VLR, or ZTD.
>game over
>doesn't make the player start over from the start of the game
i never understood this
>>343783759
>game designer trying to sell his game
>making false statements to convince dumb asses that his game is superior to other "failure" games
>this thread is on my /v/
get the fuck out of here
S-A-G-E-D
Whether the game should have a fail state or not should be entirely up to the developers and the market is big enough to accomodate practically everyone nowadays regardless of how niche their tastes may be, I didn't vote for this guy, nobody did, he isn't the "president" or the "voice" of gaming, he's just one fucking guy who thinks so and so, well so fucking what, eat shit.
>>343788065
>every ending is canon because string theory.
That's the logical extreme. There must be a middle ground.
>>343783759
I think he's wrong but that might be that half of my favorite games have permadeath. However, games can punish a player without having them start over from scratch, sometimes simply having to restart the entire level or just the checkpoint is bad enough. In games like Darkest Dungeon losing your squad can seriously set you back but aside from NG+ there's no real lose state and there's nothing wrong with that.
How a game chooses to punish a player is really up to the genre and how the game works in general. There's many ways to go about this and game overs are a completely valid one.
>>343788207
because it's not the arcades anymore where you had to be nickel and dimed with playthroughs
>>343788560
>games should no longer require any form of skill
>>343788045
>with one "canon" ending for the sequel
I'm no writer, but I don't see a way to continue a story based on a game with multiple different endings that won't pick an ending and make it canon. It would be way too confusing.
Sure there's the "reading your past saves" thing that mass effect does for example, but I mean without that. Say a jrpg like SMT Nocturne. I guess the alternative is pick no ending at all and say none of them really happened the way you imagined.
>>343787646
During the chapter where she is being chased by the police you can get captured in the train, forest or town each leading to a unique escape scene. In the Africa chapter if you are spotted by the soldiers they will capture you, or it will start a fight scene where Aiden must save you if you fail. There are a lot of subtle variations in each chapter in the game, but yeah it is a straightforward story.
>>343788724
>implying you need to start all over to offer challenge
There's only one game in which you cannot get a game over that is actually fun. Wario Land 3.
>>343788724
>games should go back to tactics employed to take money from players in order to progress
If all game overing does is cost the player time then yes it's bad design. It's fine in something like a roguelike where permadeath is part of the appeal, but not in something like a platformer where it just makes you start the world over or something like that.
>>343788752
Many games are guilty of this. I say if your going to have multiple endings but then have one canon ending that the sequel follows then you might as well just not include the other endings at all, they are pointless.
>>343789113
so what you are saying is games shouldnt give the player incentive to not suck at the game
>>343783759
>Games shouldn't have failure states
Yeah, no. This is why we have bullshit "cinematic" games that go lazy on the game portion and heavy on the video portion.
>>343788803
>>343788961
Don't be a pussy, anon.
>>343783759
>play Ellen Paige Game: The Movie
>can fail almost every prompt in the game with no consequence
>almost none of your choices matter
David Cage is a hack.
I hope he has almost nothing to do with the new Quantric Dream game because then it might have a chance to be decent.
>>343788819
Depends on what we mean by game over, hard stops, reverting to an old save, auto saves or checkpoints etc.
There's several games that are fun without hard stops, most games don't have them anymore for a good reason.
>>343788961
>Games should not be hard because if they were in arcades you would have to spend a lot of money on them.
Holy shit that's terrible reasoning. Can you imagine coin-op X-Com or Jagged Alliance though?
>>343786106
>>343785524
>Game Over
>GTA
At worst you get a Mission Failed and go back to do it again. That is nothing like Game Over. How would GTA work if you could fail missions and still advance the story?
How about think of a game with an actual Game Over, like Mario, or Megaman, or shmups, and then try explaining how those games would be better off without fail states. Do you want to see an 8-bit animation of Bowser having his way with Peach?I already know the answer you sick fuck
>>343789271
why can't the incentive be rewards instead of punishment? bayonetta rewards you with platinum/pure platinums for doing well and you can unlock special things by doing it
>>343786106
What 'story-driven experience' has game overs?
>>343783759
>>343783869
>>343784257
>>343784439
>>343785449
>>343787082
>>343787406
>>343788371
>>343789291
He means the game continues even when you fail and you deal with the consequences i.e. Deal with the altered story.
Also If you dont like his shitty games dont buy it/ play it/ comment on it. Its obviously not for you.
>>343786106
He's right. It is like failing an escort mission and getting a game over. Life is not over for your character, it is over for the NPC.
>>343789710
>if you don't like X don't talk about it
>criticism is verboten
>>343785859
This
>>343783759
>Let's remove the context: the Thread
I think he means it's a failure in games that are about making choices. You have to let players experience the consequences of their choices.
>>343789585
The only meaningful incentive possible is nudie pics and Splatterhouse is the only game ever to do that.
>>343789710
Yeah, if you don't have anything nice to say, just don't say anything at all. I mean, jeez, why is negativity even still allowed on this board?
>>343789549
>How would GTA work if you could fail missions and still advance the story?
It depends on what happens. Failed an escort mission? He's either dead now or his new missions make allusions to that, but you still failed them, if you don't wanna punish the player too much. Like I said, not every game should be like this, but then again, not every game is better by just saying "here, do it over until you do it right".
>>343789646
Zero Escape
>>343789113
It's only bad if the game has a low skill ceiling, is not execution heavy and is very static. If there is something to engage you in each run, then it's part of the game's appeal. It can be just the basic difficulty keeping you on edge the entire time, it can be the deep mechanics that make you want to optimize your performance or it can be a wide variety of situations that can crop up.
What he said is true. Look at Dark Souls for example. If you fail the NPC storylines, and the NPC dies you don't get a game over, nor you get the ability to load the game again and do it again. You have to deal with the consequences until you finish the game.
>>343789868>implying I didn't made the op like that to bait people into the thread. It's not like /v/ reads shit that has over 3 lines of text. At least we can have a discussion instead of 404 with 3 posts
So if I'm playing a game and I'm in the middle of a fight but I drop the controller, go to the kitchen and get a drink, come back and find I've been killed, the game failed not me?
Play Chess
Lose
SURELY IT MUST BE AN ERROR OF THE DESIGNER
>>343790315
>what is pause
>what is going to the menu
>what is paying attention to shit you're doing
>>343789710
>>343789868
beyond two souls completely ignores this statement though
you literally cant fuck up in that game
>>343783759
The only "failures" of game design are North American AAA devs.
I beat Ninja Gaiden
But to do it it beat me many times
It's tough love and it's great to learn
>>343790457
Right
But if I don't do any of that shit and get a Game Over
The fool in op thinks the guy designing the game fucked up instead of me?
good thing he's not making games, he's a can't even make to hollywood tier hack
>>343787652
Apples and oranges friend. You are using mario games and applying it to all games with lives and then comparing all games with lives to games without them. Not every game with lives let's you go to whichever level you like and grind for lives. And if it did not everyone would be good enough to do so in the first place especially if they are already struggling with the game.
I guess you think games like traditional Castlevanias are just a cakewalk then?
>>343790508
There's one game over sequence in that game. I believe DSP got it.
>>343790301
You would have post ''le what did HE meme by this xD'' if that was your intention was baiting.
>>343790618
I think you found out a new form of shitposting. Dumbposting.
>>343790664
>its not a game over sequence if you dont see a game over screen
most if not all options in the game dont have consequences
if you fuck up one of two things happens
>OOPS I FUCKED UP GOOD THING [insert character/ghost here] WAS AROUND TO SAVE ME
or
>OOPS I FUCKED UP GOOD THING I CAN GO FIVE SECONDS BACK IN TIME AND TRY IT AGAIN
>>343789710
It's kinda hard for the story to continue without you, though. Otherwise I agree, having fail states that don't result in Game Over is usually more fun.
>>343790678
My baits are subtle.It did worked, didn't it?
>>343790116
>Big Smoke dies early on
>Tenpenny dies early on
Then you end up with a real Game Over, as in no more story or game to play at all
>>343789741
but you failed the mission fuck face.
>>343790116
>but then again, not every game is better by just saying "here, do it over until you do it right".
99% of cases the player will reload himself until he does it "right". Because players hate failure of any kind.
>>343789710
>If you dont like it don't comment on it
Literally be quiet.
Nowadays so many games are passing with flying colors that we need more professional demotivationals.
>>343786952
That's not an argument against lives, that's an argument against easily obtainable lives. Lives can add a lot to games. They can add a layer of risk vs reward to the game if you place them in dangerous places, they reward proficiency, they add tension, they encourage the player to push themselves like in the case of score-based lives in arcade games.
>>343791309
That's the reason why we have games with a single save. Xcom did it really damn well, as does dark souls. If you copy your save data to bypass those mechanics that's you cheating.
>>343783759
No. He's a faggot with horrible opinions. Just let him direct movies already, it's obvious that he hates gaming.
>>343783759
For RPGs, yes, that statement is 100% correct.
>>343791887
I'd argue that's only prevalent for S-Rpgs.
If you can "suck" at a traditional turn based, you probably need to stop.
>>343783759
From an RPG perspective, there should be no fail states that aren't caused by the player dying.
Even then, it would be cool if you die and get replaced by another character.
However, the idea that there should.never be a fail state in any game is retarded.
>>343792048
>I'd argue that's only prevalent for S-Rpgs.
Why? What does the strategy part of them have anything to do with it?
In an RPG, you have to stay immersed in your role, which means staying immersed in the game world. The better a game does this, the better the RPG. Having negative outcomes in a story due to your failures and having the game continue in this way retains immersion better than being thrown a Game Over, and being forced to repeat your actions.
