Castle Paradox

[JSH357]

What do you guys think about permanent death in games?

I personally find it annoying as hell. If I go through all of the
trouble to build a character up, the last thing that I want is for it
to be gone forever because I screwed up.

But then, making character deaths permanent can add a degree of strategy
to games. If characters can be lost permanently, you have to think
very carefully about your actions.

Of course, you can just reset over and over.


So.. permanent character deaths. Good? Bad? Neural?

[Fenrir-Lunaris]

If a character doesn't have any particularily useful abilities and they do not further the plot, then their death is almost mandated.

The other excuse for permanent party deaths is when they simply don't get along with the rest of the party or they consistently backstab/slowdown/or have an ideaology that runs counter to the rest of the group's. A lich running around with a cleric and a paladin is simply NOT going to be a happy hero. Neither is the obnoxious self-absorbed wizard who happens to be surrounded by incompetant buffoons.

For that matter most adventurers/heros seem to have similar alignments and similar outlooks on life with one or two exceptions (The leader is usually the lone wolf, oddly enough), which tend to classify them as being 'good'. If one of the party dies, then it can either galvanize the remainder of the party to fight harder, or it can completely wreck havoc with oither characters in the game. In FFIV, when Tellah died, the party swore to defeat Golbez and had a newfound sense of purpose. If it was Rosa who died instead, I doubt Cecil would have even raised his sword to fight Golbez. The use of character deaths in an RPG should be used judiciously, for they are a powerful tool indeed.

As far as Villains go, they're all going to either die or be trapped in the void/abyss/hell/whatever anyway. The 1% that are still alive by the end of the game usually end up dying soon afterwards anyway.

[LeRoy_Leo]

I found this to be annoying in FF Legend... Especially when the leader dies and you can't revive him, so you end up having to drag some dead leader around (the leader cannot be replaced). Anything that could inconvienience the player like that, and doesn't add much to the startegy is a waste of time. But in OHR it might be a neat thing to try.

Then again, who cares what I think...

PS: Not all villains die... Satan is the one behind all of the bad stuff, and noone's ever killed him yet... Wait... In Diablo, he is killed. But then God would have to take up in the absence of Evil... That would suck... Truth sucks!
_________________
Planning Project Blood Summons, an MMORPG which will incinerate all of the others with it's sheer brilliance...

---msw188 ---
"Seriously James, you keep rolling out the awesome like gingerbread men on a horror-movie assembly line. "

[Squall]

The reason Aeries's death in FFVII was such a big deal was because nobody expects a playable character to die. The loss the player feels from the level building is mirrored in the other characters sorrow. It's a great chance for the player to connect with the hero. Just don't kill off the main character.

[JSH357]

I was referring more to games where you actually make characters-
ie, Tactics Ogre and its clones. I guess I should have clarified.

Good replies though.

[Eggie]

I note that idea a lot. I mean, of course it is annoying, but it brings a challenge, like Fallout (Amazing RPG. Better than any SquareSoft piece of sh*t.) It's another way to keep players aware of weaknesses and strengths.

In FF6, Shadow can die if you do not rescue him at the Ashura Lamena (Floating Continent). This is really important, but it brings an interesting challenge, and if he dies, then the way you get the other characters is slightly altered.

Another big thing is the way enemies die in RPGs. In FF7, when you beat an enemy, you kill her / him. If an ally's HP is dropped to 0 then the character is KO'd, being very different. That's what I hate about some RPGs. If a characters dies, you revive him, but when you kill the arch enemy, you can't revive him. Useless...

And some villians at the end of games just get put in jail, like Reno in Lapez Chronicles.

In Ogre Battle, if the Lord dies, then the game is over. Of course you could revive him, but that wouldn't be very hard.

[Me]

I liked the system in Romancing Saga III. In that game, each character had, in addition to HP, MP, and TP, a stat called LP, Life Points. Most of the characters had around 10 of these, harder to get characters had more (the best was the elephant, with 24), and certain characters were severely lacking in LP (Herman the aging pirate, who only had four). Every time a character died in battle, they lost one LP. Characters could be revived with any healing item (I think), but that LP was gone until you rested at an inn. If a character's LP were depleted completely, the character was dead FOREVER. Good system, although the chances of having a character die forever were slim.
_________________
UP DOWN UP DOWN LEFT LEFT RIGHT RIGHT A B START

[Setu_Firestorm]

As annoying as it may be, I think that would add much more realism to a game. Besides, it'll teach you to be more careful before rashly rushing into battle unprepared.
_________________


Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/georgerpowell
Newgrounds: http://setu-firestorm.newgrounds.com

[Shadowiii]

I had an interesting concept a while back (though I'd never use it because it throws character development out the window) where you'd have one or two main characters, then as you advanced through the world you could pick up people to join TEH POTTY, but it could never exceed four (ie: if you had four memebers, no one new would join). However, if any character died and wasn't revived in battle, he/she was removed perminently, and then you coudl go pick up that other guy if you wanted. If a main character died...well...that's that.

I rather liked FFT's system...since the sub-main-characters only fought in specialized battles, the only things you really did for them is buy armor. So if they died...big whoop. Plot device, but not a major strain on your party.

As for killing main characters to advance a plot...I'm all for it. However, killing a LOT in the middle of a game (after leveling one up like madness) is a pain. Foolish me learned all of Aeris' limit breaks and got her to an insane level...and she died. Same with Shadow (but I went back into my save file and saved his butt).

Thats actually one reason why Stop is a trilogy, yet still one continuing story. Quite a few times in-between games main characters are killed. However, since it is the end of the game, no one really cares (as long as the few elite heroes live). I mean, you won the game, so much for them. If it had been one continuious game it might have been frustrating...because you lost all your stuff.

Yeah.
_________________
But enough talk, have at you!

[xaero]

I think it could be a decent idea but as long as you get new characters every now and then to make sure you don't get screwed

[Aethereal]

At the very least it adds a degree of realism to the game not usually seen. That's the only thing I don't like about RPGs; their realism is nil (if one of your characters gets stabbed by a sword, how is it possible that they are still walking around like nothing happened?). A survival-type system could be built around this idea where you begin with a certain number of characters, and if a character is killed they are gone forever, and you ideally want to make it to the end with as many characters as possible. So, really, I like the idea, but only if it's used correctly.

[MultiColoredWizard]

I think he meant that if it was possible to revive him then it'd be too easy.

[junahu]

How about having the player enitity seperate from the character entities? If your party gets trapped in a hopless situation, you can just leave them and gather a new party, or find a village and ask for help. You could be like a god, overseeing many quests at once. You could leave a character outside a cave with some rope incase the others fall into a pit. In this way, individual character development would be almost unnessesary (and furthermore, impossible) since you create your own adventure, get into your own mishaps...
_________________

[The Drizzle]

That's two revived threads in a very short period of time... Aethereal will have your head.
_________________
My name is...
The shake-zula, the mic rulah, the old schoola, you wanna trip? I'll bring it to yah...

[LeRoy_Leo]

Ah, give Jun a break. He has a good idea. I liked it. Interesting. Not many people here capable of conducting a system like that to work right though. If they could, it would take a lot of studying the PS dictionary or just a lot of time.
But a good idea none the less.

PS: I'd be a major hypocrite to point this out, but be sure to check and see if the date of the last post was a month or more ago. If the thread is dead, I think making a new one related to the topic would be ok. Otherwise a lot of people don't get a say. History tends to repeat it's self anyway. Do you know why? It's probably because people always must learn even from past mistakes.
_________________
Planning Project Blood Summons, an MMORPG which will incinerate all of the others with it's sheer brilliance...

---msw188 ---
"Seriously James, you keep rolling out the awesome like gingerbread men on a horror-movie assembly line. "