How can you make self-sacrifice a positive experience? Imagine this CRPG example: You command a destroyer. You and a fleet of 60 ships have just engaged a superior battle group. The odds are bad, you're down to 12 ships, and you and the remaining 7 destroyers have been ordered to cover the retreat of valuable carriers. If you do this, they'll make it to safety, but you'll probably die. If you don't, there's a fifty-fifty chance that you can escape; or that everyone will be annihilated. If the player had a choice of getting in to this situation, and knew that it was possible that they'd be asked to "stand and die," would this be bad gameplay? If so, is it ever possible to make self-sacrifice a positive experience? (btw, assume you can restart as a new character in the same game, but if you die then the character building "work" is lost...) -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership... Edited by - Wavinator on March 1, 2001 5:21:32 PM

It would be pretty tough to keep the game going if you die.

The only thing I can think of is some of the following:
1. Your ship may go down, but your captian survives and is later rescued. For deeds well done, he get''s a new ship and the game continues.

2. You have x number of "lives" like the old arcade games. Not very realistic, but it keeps the game going.

3. Each level of your game can be a mini-story. In the example you gave, the ship get''s destroyed but the mission is a success and the player is a hero. The next level is a totally different ship with different people playing a totally different story. Almost like the Twilight Zone Movie. The reward for completing the mission at all costs is getting to the next level (or story).

Personally I think idead #3 is the best since it is pretty creative and is something you don''t usually see (actually, I have never seen it in a game).

Hope this helps,

borngamer

I think that if you were to survive then it wouldn''t really be sacrifice would it? And having lives is probably just too unrealistic, but I was thinking of something along the lines of borngamer''s 3rd point.
Maybe there could be more then one character you could play as in the game world, trying to do different things. They could all exist concurrently (just for the flow of the game) and maybe meet eachother. So if you sacrificed yourself to save another one of the people you could play as, it would seem worthwhile. Or maybe you value the one you are currently with more and decide to run away and leave the other to die. There are lots of possibilities for having multiple player characters in the game. It would be kind of like a book where the attention shifts between main characters, but instead you could play as them, sometimes interacting with others. Just a few of my thoughts on the subject.

Try like hell to survive. In other words, cling tenaciously like you were debating a topic that you refused to concede. Maybe you will survive. Or, maybe it would be interesting to play it out as one who refuses to die a hero and instead decides that saving your butt is better. The repercussions of this might be interesting. Death should still be death. This ensures that you will try not to die, whatever course you take.

I think it would be very intresting if a game went like this: You had one underlying goal, become king, kill the dragon, steal a crystal, or whatever. Everytime the player died, he would take control of a new character, and lose all of his "character-building" work. However, what the last character did effects the new character(this makes it so it would sometimes be benificial to sacrafice your character. So say the captain sacrafices himself, but destroyes most of the enemy''s navy. The new character would now be living in a world where the enemie''s navy is that much weaker. This would be an intresting experience, as the player would not be tied to one character, but it would be somewhat of a group effort.

! say screw that and put in some plot twist where you have clones of your current character but theres some reason you can''t have them out all at once. i guess that goes with the whole lives thing but it makes it sound more realistic. maybe you could have cash you had to earn to buy a new clone?

as for self-sacrifice i don''t like thinking about that in large numbers of lives but if it were just me and it was a really hot chick... then it might be a different story!

I guess we''re talking about a form of Sci-fi CRPG then? (character building)

And I also guess we''re talking about some form of permanent death?

Myself, I know I''d be one of those kamikaze pilots who''d just stay till the end, tapping myself on the shoulder for my courage (I wouldn''t do that if only someone else would).

Everquest (and probably most online CRPGs) did the same thing for me. Although death wasn''t quite permanent (merely a small experience loss -nevertheless people kept complaining about that-) I usually sacrificed myself in fights, especially if I felt that before the turning point in the battle, I had done something wrong, if I should''ve been able to turn the fight back in our favor.

But... I think most players will hightail it our of the situation, wanting to keep themselves alive above all.

But, what now if those carriers that they''re protecting are in some way their own property?

What if a player starts a pilot character, buys a fighter ship... but also owns that carrier ship. Now the choice becomes a little more self-centered. Do I keep my life intact or my belongings (just imagine a game where characters can have families etc, characters that don''t inherit the character development that the primary character has gone through, but that do inherit the property owned by the primary character upon his or her death)

A somewhat similar idea came up in my little head when I was playing an oldie called M.U.D.S. For those of you that haven''t had the pleasure of playing it, it''s a wacky sports game (Mean Ugly Dirty Sports). Object of the game? Dunk an object into a basket. To do that, jump across a moat. So what? Well, the moat includes a rather nasty flesh eating fish that will devour your player if you don''t make it back to land in time. In a single player game it''s actually rather easy to avoid being eaten.

But I was thinking of what would happen if a game like M.U.D.S. ever made it to a new version, a version that could be played online, where players could develop their characters.

Would you take the leap across the moat, risking your own life, but at the same time hightening your glory so that you might make more money in your next fight, money that you can then use to practice a little more and become a better player etc.

If a player is given the choice between the very risky and the rather safe... what motivations will make the player choose?

Self-sacrifice is broadly overlooked in games. For wargames (either RTS or squad-based)it would be good if this were notably
rewarded with medals or such. Whereas this reward would have little "success" value, (because you die, obviously) it could
be handled in the following way-

The person or player that stays and faces superior numbers above
a set number (greater than 3 to 1) would be eligible for a Purple
Heart, or some similar major medal or reward. They would only recive it if they destroy all or a vast majority of the pursuing
attackers within either a set radius, or those attackers that had
hit the remaining player. This way, just staying and dying would
do nothing for you, but staying, inflicting major damage, and
and untimely death would be rewarded.

It is a sound idea, but is not appropriate for quake-style games. Halo, Team Fortress2 and Tribes 2 may make use of this concept...here's hoping.

Edited by - hanzz on March 2, 2001 12:34:55 PM

Well, there is something a friend of me is going to incorporate in a game... It is actually a space sim, so the example might even work

You are the captain of a ship, but that is not your only character. Even though you can only control the captain (ie. you are him), you got several ''friends''. In the beginning of the game they are with you on your ship, sharing your experience. But there is always at least one person back home. Later in the game, you might even have to distribute your people to their own ships, but that is for later...

Anyway, when you die, your second-in-command will take over. When you die in close-combat or something, your first officer will take over. When you die with your ship, you will have to use that person that you left behind (that is, should you have done so...)

Worst case scenario: the enemy attakcs the base where your other people are. Would you loose, they will be killed/captured also...

Thing is, you must take care of your crew. They are better then the average officer, and most of all, are loyal to you and they know your ship. Should you consider to attack your admiral''s fleet, you can always be certain of their help. THere will be other things as well to make sure they are valuable to take along.

So you have to choose. Take them along to make the mission easier, or leave them behind in case of disaster... Carefully consider the odds when you go in battle, for you might just not make it back

If you''re talking Perma-Death as a game mechanic, then having the player put into a situation where they''ll more than likely die and then have to start all over with a new character: Forget it, it''ll never work. Reason being that you''ve got way too many players out there who don''t routinely like playing things where they build something, only to have it turned to nothing in a matter of moments. Something must survive, otherwise players'' time within your game will be drastically shortened.

In games such as Final Fantasy , for instance, this is less of an issue, because even if one character dies, you''ve still got a group of them elsewhere to care about. Starting over with nothing after being forced to sacrifice a long-term character, however, is not an option, IMO. At least not if you''d like to sell the thing.