Castle Paradox

Soule X · Joined: 13 Sep 2004 Posts: 131 Location: Indiana

In my opinion, Final Fantasy 3/6j is a good example of a game with non-gender specific roles that doesn't use it in a ridiculous way like I talked about earlier.

JSH357 · Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 1705

Hey, losers! Get out of my thread.

The original topic was: WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT CHARACTER DEATH IN GAMES LIKE FINAL FANTASY TACTICS?

It has nothing to do with a game's story OR gender discrimination in games. The underlying issue is: Is it OK to let 'expendable' characters die permanently?

Get your own thread.

Moogle1 · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 7:38 am Post subject:

Do you care that this thread is older than many of our members? (And I'm talking about their actual ages, not how long they've been members.)

I say, capital-y Yes. You wanna know why FFTA feels like a kiddie game? Not enough bloodshed. FFT dealt maturely with mature subjects.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

JSH357 · Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 1705

Well, Moogle, the problem with saying permanent character death is OK in games like FFT lies in the issue of Player Safety.

Players like to know that they aren't wasting their time playing a game, correct? If I spent three days building a character up in FFT and he got killed the very next, I'd be very angry. (Let's pretend I'm not allowed to save files, etc) Having the player control to reverse death ruins the entire concept of decisions being final, but at the same time, why would I let something I had worked on remain dead? One good example of a game where this is acceptable is Advance Wars. You build tens/hundreds of new units per battle, so those units ARE expendable. But when you are supposed to be growing a BOND with one of your characters, killing him off is ridiculous.

So I'm opposed to permanent death in games (Even though my top 2 favorite games have this feature; yes, it's one of their only flaws) I think it's more realistic, but it's just too fatal. In toys (like The Sims 2), however, I have no problem with permanent death-- it's a toy, so you naturally have more control over what happens. (ie, you can cheat if you want to)

Oh, and this is mainly about RPGs. Platformer games usually have 'extra lives' and such.

RedMaverickZero · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:10 am Post subject:

The fact that characters could die in FFT was something that made you try harder in battles. You tried harder to keep your characters alive so they could fight another fight. I think it was a good and strategic thing that was implemented.
_________________
---------------Projects----
Mr.Triangle's Maze: 70%
Takoyaki Surprise: 70%

JSH357 · Joined: 02 Feb 2003 Posts: 1705

You say that until the character you were levelling up for two days dies.

Yeah, you can cheat the system, I know; but what if you couldn't?

Sephyroth · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:48 am Post subject:

Ha.. here you are complaining about Character Death in FFT, which was much more lenient than Tactics Ogre, which had your soldiers killed off permanently as soon as they hit 0 hp, and you only had one character that could use a Ressurect spell.

But then again, it's much harder to build up characters in FFT. Anyhoo...

I'd have to agree with JSH in this case. It's a waste of time for players to lose characters that they spent time to level up (or obtain, in some cases). In FFT, it might've been an improvement if the player was allowed to buy soldiers with levels higher than 1 and a number of JP appropriate for balancing the battles. (Like in Knight of Lodis, where you could hire soldiers at levels equal to those of your most powerful unit)
_________________
im realy ded Sad...

Moogle1 · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:23 pm Post subject:

Yeah, okay, it's harsh to have your characters knocked off. But I reset when that happens. Canopus must've died like five times before I beat TO (I didn't get Ressurrect, either), but I reset each time. I agree with RMZ on this one. It's almost as if you get a "Game Over" when one of your characters dies.

In FFTA, on the other hand, I don't care if I only have one guy left alive. Everyone's getting the AP anyway.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

Zombie Hunter Green · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:32 pm Post subject:

Just don't try that strategy in the Jagds.

Moogle1 · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:08 pm Post subject:

Right, but in the jagds I can do whatever I want.

Actually, I lost a character that way before I figured out what in the world they meant by the characters dying. He was minor, so I let him die.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

RedMaverickZero · Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:58 pm Post subject:

I hated the judgemaster because I'd always get all used to one strategy and then the rules would pop up and I'd have to change my characters and waste like 10 minutes just for one fight. And then I'd always forget and have to go to the prison and waste money and time. I'd much rather just lose a character than spend all that time getting them legal for a fight.
_________________
---------------Projects----
Mr.Triangle's Maze: 70%
Takoyaki Surprise: 70%

The Wobbler · Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Posts: 2221

Soule X · Joined: 13 Sep 2004 Posts: 131 Location: Indiana

If anybody's ever played those old Lord of the Rings games for PC you know all about having your characters die. That game showed you no mercy. It was really easy for someone to get smoked, and when they did that was the last you saw them.

I don't know, I think it almost doubles the realism factor and makes the game much more interesting to have characters lost forever. Also, it could potentially add a lot of replay value if you were losing different characters each game.

Kenji Murasame · **Shizuma** Joined: 06 Nov 2003 Posts: 103 Location: ON TO

Having characters in an RPG perminantly die has a profound effect on Gameplay... If they are setup like in most RPG's (well developed), you would do everything possible to keep them alive.

I recall in suikoden, any character could die in the Large-scale battles, it was therefore pretty imparitive you win perfectly every single one of those.

IN the same case, the objective would be absolute victory in games with perminant deaths, unless the nature of the game was where you just get generic heroes out of slotmachines and you can just fix things up, but then.. are the characters heroes at all, and doesn't it become silly?

LeRoy_Leo · Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:04 am Post subject:

Then, it's just a game. Games don't have to be THAT real. They are simulations. Only simulations, and one should be able to simulate in to the maximum extent. That is, being simulations, you should have to keep your characters. This is because one cannot get through the entire sim if they just give up after x amount of tries. It is obvious to me (from reading all of this and personal experience) that the majority of people are just fine without permanent death. It isn't necessary. Some absolutely hate permanent death being mandated, so I suggest that we, as game designers, continue to avoid implementing this... Oookay...

It is our duty to find a way to fix this problem. That is, if you are quite done complaining. I can wait...
PS: I am not necessarily talking to any one person. And probobly just talking to myself, actually.
_________________
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. "