Old Vidya Mechanics

>>381433292
MGS replaced it with "Mission Failed" and "Time Paradox" did it not? You can always "Continue".

It's just a way of keeping you reined in on a goal so they game has some direction. Solid Snake couldn't complete a mission if he was filled with bullets, so don't make choices that will fill Snake with bullets.

Do it creative ways that match the game's atmosphere

one of the best game over mechanics is destroy all humans where you just have another clone made of you

>>381433684
I'm thinking more of game overs that are paired with lives. Perhaps a better example would have been a game like Super Mario World or DKC, where losing a life makes you restart the level/checkpoint and getting a game over makes you restart from the last save which could be multiple levels back. These are cases where people usually argue against the game over mechanic as being outdated.

File: darkness.gif (3MB, 540x256px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 540x256px

In this thread people think outdated game mechanics exist.

>>381434217
>outdated
What has changed about games to make this mechanic obsolete?

File: yass yall.jpg (54KB, 1220x577px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1220x577px

>>381434554
>>381434620

>>381434620
Namely the switch from arcades to home consoles, the former of which popularized high scores and lives/game overs as a goal for players (get the highest score) and punishment for failure (paying more quarters to play). The switch from arcades to home consoles meant you could play the same game over and over again without having to pay each time, but games still used scores and lives/game overs because it was simply the standard for the time; one could argue that in more modern times, high scores are fruitless goals to extend playtime while game overs are a needless punishment that draw out playtime in a negative way due to replaying multiple levels you had previously completed. Along with this is the fact that newer and more favorable alternatives to dying and game overs are being presented that shift the current standards (example being losing money or score upon death), causing people to view certain mechanics as outdated (which is also why people argue that some games "age poorly", due to shifting standards). Some games work well with life systems and game overs, while others would argue that they're a dated concept that merely exist because it was the norm for years.
And just note, I'm merely playing devil's advocate here for the sake of argument.

Lives and game overs paired with difficulty were created to make short games seem longer since you had to go through constant trial and error to perfect a game. For arcades it existed so you would plug more money into the machine to get another chance.

As games evolved, the concept became dated because games could be longer and arcades fell out of favor. It's a mechanic that no longer works or appeals to anyone except for the autists who want to pat themselves on the back for beating a fake difficult game

>>381435929
So what would be the replacement. What is the exact point here? People don't like games where they can lose? People want experiences, not games? Difficult games are outdated? I do see some trend on "modern games" that they seem to cater more to audience that doesn't or hasn't really played games before, leaving the game for more experienced ones very shallow. (No depth, shallow mechanics, lack of difficulty, more movie than game) This is more clear when the game is based on existing genre and it will either drop or combine some of its core mechanics because loud minority complain it's too hard or "annoying".

>>381436201
Tbh, I prefer those sort of games even nowadays. Since there is actually feel of accomplishment, when you finally beat the game. These games usually tend to have solid yet simple mechanics, and not dialogue or other movie-like crap constantly interrupting the gameplay. I don't get any feel of accomplishment, for reading tons of pointless dialogue, fucking around in empty world, pressing X to win, or watching "muh realistic graphics".

>>381436376
>People don't like games where they can lose?
In modern games with lives you don't even lose, you just start at the beginning of the level. It's a waste of fucking time to even bother implementing as a mechanic.

>>381436881
That's still fair. However if you simply do not die, the game suddenly would feel like it has no danger at all, making it feel very shallow. Similarly how recent co-op games, you can revive party members just by pressing button on top of them, and they are back on full health, swinging their weightless swords at monster that doesn't seem to react at all for at least 15 minutes before the hp sponge dies.

>>381436376
>So what would be the replacement.
Some examples I can think of are that of Souls games or Shovel Knight, where dying makes you lose money/exp without any risk of a permanent game over. You still lose something, arguably more valuable than a number that represents the number of attempts left since that money can buy you valuable upgrades, and still have to restart a level/checkpoint; the punishment still remains strict without forcing you to replay multiple parts of the game again for getting a game over. There are also other games where dying simply makes you restart the level/checkpoint but there's no risk of a game over (meaning lives are worthless).
>What is the exact point here?
Simply to discuss old mechanics and whether or not they're still valuable to keep around, or if they're merely kept because "that's how it's always been done" in spite of having a negative impact on the game. Some people will feel that certain mechanics no longer belong while others argue against it.

File: darksouls.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

I think Minecraft does it well with making you lose all items on the spot

You think twice before falling into lava

>>381433292
Depends, the Prince of Persia game had no game overs to speak of, and it matched the atmosphere of the game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC5ZiK6o7uQ
>Pointdevice mode

>>381437275
Yes I agree with you there. I was thinking you were about completely removing lives and the concept of "punishment", because it feels just like "waste of time". I don't still think level / checkpoint restart as "outdated", it depends on the game what works best. I guess "game over" screen asking you to load old save is not something you see very much nowadays, or at least it has option to either "retry" and "load".

>>381437275
You making a game?

File: Participant trophy.png (66KB, 350x273px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 350x273px

Let the player die as much as they like, giving them a minor setback to the previous checkpoint, but at the end give a run down of how well they did so they don't misunderstand their progress for competence.

>>381437642
Checkpoints are definitely more favorable to keep around, I wouldn't say they're bad so long as they're not abundant to the point that they mitigate the difficulty. Kinda like how save scumming in a game that allows saving at any time will reduce the difficulty because you can just reload when you fuck up.
>>381437723
Nope, just thought it'd be nice to discuss these things.

>>381436881
Fucking this. I have felt this way since the 5th games like Spyro and Mario 64, where losing all your lives just sends you back to the home world thing and you have to select the level again. lives exist to prevent a minor inconvenience, what is the fucking point.

File: 211308_1383118191_large.jpg (649KB, 1280x1626px) Image search: [Google]

649KB, 1280x1626px

Checkpoints ruin survival horror games. Having to save to have a checkpoint, and even better have a limited supply of items that allow you to use save point. If you are playing on proper difficulty to your skill level the environment and monsters feel different if you haven't saved for a while. Dead Space would be better with Resident Evil system.

>>381440517
only save point should give you a checkpoint, and even better have a limited supply of save items*

File: PANIC.gif (190KB, 200x381px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 200x381px

>>381440517
>Horror game doesn't let you pause when shit's getting spooky

File: 1386910816611.jpg (72KB, 851x472px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 851x472px

>>381433292
>game over
In many games is not about punishing, that's a naive way to lock at it, some type of games need a hard fail state to create a specific feel or reaction, kill that and you call that specific feel, is a trade.
Timers for example can be worked around but the best you can do for game over in some games is having a more creative presentation.