Login to vote in this poll.
According to decree 2. NO INHERITANCE. Upon death, a person loses all property rights and his or her wealth is redistributed by a global agency to provide education, healthcare, clean water and meet other basic needs throughout the world. I believe the game should not end once one has died, rather they would have to start all over from scratch and rework their way to the top. However, I am more of a hardcore player who accepts these types of challenges. The reason behind this is because I believe everyone should get a second chance. Although, I could see some players not accepting these consequences and eventually just walking away because the risk is too great. Which some players will either just have to learn to accept it or not to play the game. These are just some decisions that have to be made by developers, do you cater to a care bear crowd or a hardcore crowd?
I think the game does have to end once a player dies according to decree 2.. Upon death, you will lose all your wealth, property, and other belongings, you will have nothing left. You only get one chance to live, there is no re-spawn. And I am not surprised that a lot of people here in this post agrees with me. It seriously changes everything. Think about it, if you're playing a game and you know that if you die you can just start over and immediately resume, you would not take it as seriously and you would not think as hard. Because in the back of your head, you know that the consequence for making a decision is not that harsh. However, when you're playing a game and you understand that you only get one shot, one chance, that's when everything changes. You think before you do anything, and observe more, you're more aware. You know that there is no second chance and you're smarter about things. I feel like this is more real, and it relates a lot more to the real world. We only get one chance to live, if we mess it up, there is no second chance.
I think the game does end once a player dies due to decree 2. Upon death, you will lose all your wealth, property, and other belongings, you will have nothing left. Unlike other MMO games such as WoW, when a player dies, we can start right back up by reviving at a graveyard or finding your corpse. All your wealth, property, and belongings are still kept in your inventory and you can easily start the game from where you left off. However, if you lose everything you own upon death, the same could not be said. You can't just start from where you left off, and are forced to start from square one. Decree 2, the idea of no inheritance upon death, makes it so that the players' game pretty much ends. The player can continue playing but you would have lost everything that you once owned so you would pretty much be starting the game over again from the beginning. So in this sense, the game ends and you are restarting the game.
Also, I feel that this game is trying to achieve a game world that is realistically similar to our very own with some political differences. I feel that the realistic aspect of the game would go to waste if we are allowed to be revived from the dead once we die. This would force the players to be conscious of their actions as they are in the real world. The players won't be able to do stupid and suicidal actions as they please. This rule would differentiate this game from other MMO world simulation games in that most other games, when a player's avatar dies, they can come back to life very easily.
I think you bring up really good points about how making it so dying causes the game to end would really differentiate this game from other MMOs. We want people to actually become emotionally invested in this game, which is really a simulation of the real world. If players actually care about whether or not their player dies, they will most likely choose their actions much more carefully, as they would in real life.
An example of a game that chose to make a player dying significant was Heavy Rain. Heavy Rain tells the story of a father trying to save his kidnapped son, and you switch off playing as significant characters in the plot such as the father, a private detective, a cop, etc. While you're playing as that character, if you die, that player will be dead for the rest of the game, and the plot will change accordingly. This made me take every aspect of the game much more seriously as I knew every action I did had consequences.
Likewise I think making the death of the avatar end the game would make this game much more realistic and would make the players care much more about their actions. Also as you said and others have mentioned, by decree 2, it would really make no sense for death not having any consequences on the player's wealth, property, etc.
According to decree 2 as mentioned by other posters, the game should end when a player dies.
Decree 2 states that a player should have no inheritance meaning that the avatarial capital acquired by the character should not be controllable after the player has died. Depending on the genre of game this could have several different implications.
In a game following the MMORPG formula it would mean that upon character death all of the currency and items acquired by the character would have to be distributed to the other characters within the game in some manner. This would encourage players to store all of their items on characters which are generally in low risk situations. If the player is unable to transfer capital between characters or they are limited to only one then it would make sense for the player to establish a group with other players in which they can transfer items between one another to keep them safe. In any case, it seems that the MMO environment would encourage players to work around a system of no inheritance with relative ease.
Alternatively a single player game would be more adept to the idea of no inheritance. In games such as side scrollers or traditional role playing games a player's capital could be much more easily monitored. Without the influence of other players, the developer of the game is able to control a player's experience much more acutely as the player cannot work with others to get "around the system" in the case of death.
These examinations are based on the idea that within a multiple player game items or currency are transferable between characters in some way. Given this, it only makes sense that a game which is intended for solo play would employ the idea of permanent character death. Even outside of games, I feel that the idea of no inheritance is flawed in that an individual can simply distribute their belongings before death rather than making arrangements to have it done after death.
In a more general sense outside of video game genres, it follows for a game to end if a player dies but it is often acceptable for the nature of the players interaction with the game to simply change upon death rather than end entirely. An example of this might be a game of Monopoly. After a player has been eliminated they can function as a dedicated banker so that they are still able to be a part of the game however their previous game had ended. In the most general sense it seems that the specific instance of a player's game should end but the game itself can exist and continue beyond the experience of the player.
I suppose the nature of the question is really dependent on the nature of the game. The game should only end if the mechanics of the game dictate that the game ends upon the death of the player. To say that a players game should always end upon death limits the scope of what experience a game can bring to a player. If the intent of the game is for the player's point of view to shift upon death then it would not make any sense for the game to end upon character death. To always end a game upon death eliminates the possibility to use death as a game mechanic. It is, however, I think fair to say that a players game should always be effected by their death.
Due to the rules indicated by Decree 2 and Decree 4 it is necessary that upon a characters death the game should end. Upon death all of a characters property both in items and in land will be recycled and given to others in need. Assuming that this game does indeed go by the natural rules of death, nothing can come after death. Explaining further, unlike other games where there is a second chance after a game over, this game should not allow for any player to rehabilitate themselves. Also it should not allow a player to create another character that has access to any of the previous characters items or points. If a player has the ability to create another player it destroys the concept (Decree 2) because they can just redo everything they've learned which is a form of inheritance which violates the attempt at fairness because it gives them an unfair advantage.
You've stated that the player should not have access to any of their previous belongings after death. This is in line with the manifesto, however do you think this is truly a realistic goal? Assuming the player is capable of playing the game again, don't you think that it would be entirely possible for players to work around this in order to ensure that they are always able to access at least some of their previous assets?
Consider that a group of players could all mutually agree to donate 10% of their belongings to any one of the players reincarnation in the event that any of them die. The only way to prevent players from doing this would be to make them completely anonymous within the game, which is simply not realistic given the quantity of alternative means of communication present within today's society.
If a group agreed to "insure" each other, then they would always be guaranteed to maintain some of their capital. In the event that they die, their game has not ended. They are simply set back a bit from where they were before.
To make players unable to ever play again after they have died does not make any sense from a development standpoint. The life cycle of the in game character would have to rival that of the person in real life otherwise the player base of the game would have no incentive to even play, but if that were the case then player death would have to essentially be a non issue.
It seems to me that the game either has to allow for the player to try again after death, or simply not involve a death mechanic. Irregardless, it is nonsensical to implement a no inheritance policy within a game as any game in which personal advancement is made would encourage players to work around the policy.
That's a great point, but is there ever really a way to prevent people from finding ways to cheat and work around a game's rules? In a more extreme way a person could also make "mules" to just hold belongings and to treat as a bank and safe hold in any event of death. So it could prove to be quite a dilemma and possibly game breaking.
I think that by ending the player’s game once they die, it would make the players much more conscious of their actions. It would add an element of consequentiality, which adds a sort of realism to the game. Whereby just like in real life, the choices you make have very real outcomes. Thus, if a player’s game ends once they die, they would think twice before doing something, just in the same manner that one would think twice before acting something out in real life. In this manner, the game would get players to be self-critical of how their actions can have a plateau of negative and positive outcomes.
I will make the very grandiose and controversial opinion of saying that a general apathy exist today; apathy that is a hindrance to solving the world’s problem. Don’t get me wrong, there are many people out there who do care, but I think a majority of us are simply indifferent to problems that don’t affect us personally because we don’t feel like our actions have much of an impact. And I will say that even a greater majority of us are oblivious to the problems happening outside our realm of existence. And this should not be the case in this day and age, with the great power of the World Wide Web. And so maybe, just maybe, by having someone’s online persona die, the creators might get the message across about how one’s actions do in fact make a difference/impact.
In addition, ending the player’s game once they die, would also have consequences for the players who remain alive in the game. What if the player who died was a very prominent figure in the game? It would be interesting to see how the players still in game would react to such a drastic change. If the Utopian model is actualized, a death should not disrupt the internal political structure of the game. Or will it? We will only know by having a player’s game end.
I do not think the game should end, but I do think that the player's character in the game should cease to exist. I believe that if the game isn't realistic, as a social experiment, the game would fail in that aspect. The game is intended to allow the player to see an alternative, a different way to exist, and allow them to see the difference between the current world and the virtual world, so if the game isn't realistic, the gamer will probably treat the game just as any other non-thought provoking game.
Agreed. I think that if the consequences of a player's actions could result in his or her's character's death, the player will put much more thought into the decisions that are made. By putting more thought into these decisions, they will affect the world in a more meaningful way. This will lead the player to consider the reasons for various decisions leading to a deeper understanding of the game.
I think you should be able to respawn, but with limitations. This allows the player to keep interacting with the environment and create the environment themselves. The limitations that I am talking about are respawn times. As lew.177.jo mentioned, if people were constantly able to respawn, there would be players that created havoc. Although this may be true, it is a part of the real world. If we wanted to recreate the real world, we have to have people that create havoc, just like the real world. By allowing people to respawn, with possibly time restraints, you give the player a reason to not do things too carelessly.
The main reason why I think respawning would be good is because I would want to interact with the environment again if I had already started. There would be things that I wanted to see and there could be a mistake in the way I died in the game. I think that because this is a simulation and a "game" we should be able to enjoy it and not over-represent the real world.
In order to simulate real life, players should be prevented from respawning. Preventing respawning limits players' gamer-skills and brings about more realism into play. If players were allowed to respawn, imagine a world where players would be able to create havoc without punishment (i.e. imprisonment or death). What kind of justice system would this world have, and how would it ever be enforced?
I can not agree with what you said. I believe that it should really depend on the catalog of what this game belongs. For instance, the first person shooting game, which refers to the FPS game, we difinitely need the respaning system since we may get killed every minute while we play. If the respawning system is not allowed, this game would only playful for those players who are really (or we can say "super") good at it. So that this game would become biased and the players with lower skill level would feel discrimanited, which would agaist the principal of playing the games which I believe to give everyone the chance to have fun. I did have this kind of expierence when I play the Medal of Honor, in this game, there is a tier 1 mode which means that you have to pass the chapter with just ONE life and in LIMITED time, I tried almost hundreds of times but I can not even pass the first chapter which is considered the easiest. I felt so depressed and I wont come back and play. Based on the survey, there are less than 1% of players on XBOX live who ever tried can pass all the chapters in this mode. So this is my opinion, at least for FPS games, we difinitely need the respawning system.
I agree. Albeit indefinitely. One has to wonder, "Is this game being played in real time?" Another question one might need to answer is, "If the game is meant to accurately simulate reality, does it mean that there is also the possibility of warring factions, and freak accidents?" If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then one might wonder, "What if the player has played the game on end for hours, and dies unfortunately with no fault of his/her own?" I would tell this inquisitive fellow, "Well, that sucks." If the players weren't able to respawn(after dying with no fault of their own) at all, under such circumstances, they wouldn't be able to transfer their avatarial capital from that previous game into a new game that they probably won't even bother to initiate. Thus, in my opinion, players should be able to respawn, but under a set of conditions. These limitations should act as an incentive for the players to act wisely, and carefully, which solves your dilemma regarding the players wreaking careless havoc. In addition, these incentives will help players abide by one of the game's goals; to alleviate global violence. If players were driven by such concerns, the outbreak of war would be less likely.
COCU177: Critical Computer Game Studies
WI12; Ayhan Aytes
At first I thought that a player should be able to be respawned/reborn, starting over from birth. But after much thought I have changed my mind. Originally my thoughts were that since this is something that people could learn from then the more chances they get to perfect their avatar, then the better chances they have at creating a fair environment for all. Players would be able to maximize the efficiency of their experience and the impact that their character has on the surrounding environment. The better choice would be to not allow respawning. The multiple chances given to a player by allowing respawning could damage the purity of the game/experiment. Multiple lives gives a person an upper-hand in the aspect of time and manipulation. Those who have more time are given the ability to understand how to better manipulate their environment through multiple lives. Also, multiple lives disincentives a player's integrity. By giving the player multiple lives, that player then can make decisions that would otherwise not be made when they do not have a second chance. Keeping lives to one chance gives the game a fair environment mirroring choices that the players would make in real life.
Ending the player's game when their avatar dies works for different types of gamers. Before the advent of console games with saves and whatnot, there were arcades. Arcades were essentially die and you had to restart (assuming you didn't have anymore quarters to continue). Now with saves and advanced gaming mechanics, people can resurrect with a penalty (i.e. World of Warcraft) or go back in time (i.e. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time), etc. Arcade games and the aforementioned games each have their own cult following. Some people don't care if they have to restart while so do. The people that do care, care because of the time invested. This goes along with casual gamers or hardcore gamers. An interesting game that uses a mechanic of life or death is EVE online. Players start off with virtually nothing and work their way toward experience and items (avatarial capital), but if they die anywhere along the way, they lose everything and have to start all over. However, the game implements an interesting way to combat this. You can clone yourself, for a price, and once you die, have that clone take over from the point you died. The clone is essentially a save marker. I thought this was an interesting way of having both aspects in the game.
I agree with this 100%. You only get one chance to live life, and there is no respawn. The brevity of human life is a large motivator of decisions. Coming back and consciously doing it all over again gives a player an advantage over others, and though they may not individually impact the lives and actions of others, it would be unsettling to know that someone has such an edge to potentially make things go their way. "Learning your lesson" from an action in your first life takes away from the experience of making a true decision
That may be so but since this is a game that would be played over the internet, there is no way to keep players from coming back and starting a new character if they want to. Close their account, they'll make a new one. Block their IP address, they'll use a proxy. May as well accept the fact that there will be people playing the game multiple times. Isn't that the sign of a successful game anyway?
I agree with this. im not sure what should happen when a character dies, but the game should not end because it would be too easy to just start another character. If the sole reason for not allowing people to respawn is to keep the game realistic, theres no way from preventing someone from making decisions in game they wouldnt make in real life, and then starting another character when they are done. a penalty for death would be fine, maybe they lose some experience or some points or something, i dont really know. but ending the game for people who die would do 2 things in my opinion. first, it wouldnt prevent people from making decisions they wouldnt make in real life, and second, it might lose players that would have otherwise continued playing. Personally, if i were to play this game and my character were to die and my game ended at that point, i would just stop playing. I wouldnt take the time to create another character, since i would have already invested the time and effort in the game, only to lose everything.