Forced failure - what do you think?

[Wellington]

Note: (SPOILERS FOR LOTS OF GAMES!!!)



(REALLY! LOTS OF SPOILERS! NO KIDDING!)

(RANT ON.)

In some games, the player is forced to fail at some point, often as a key part of the protagonist's character development. This much is fine. It's a classic storytelling device.

But is it a good idea to have forced failures that cause the death of a likeable character? Is this genuinely involving, or just manipulative? If we wanted to hear a story where our best efforts had no effect, well, wouldn't we just _hear a story_, rather than play a game? When this device works, players try over and over to get around it, and fail, saving and restoring. This probably isn't good for the suspension of disbelief, really...

Often, the True Love or Best Friend is the one to go. I've seen scenes like this praised, but I have to wonder if they're good storytelling, or just apathetic. It's easy to write a Tragic Dead Love, but hard to write a convincing living one.

And the "Lover Girl's Going To Die At the Villain's Hands, RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU" device is overused for another reason.

It slaps the player across the face, because a game, being the least passive form of entertainment short of actually living an adventure, forces involvement in a character. Making a character you've developed happy might give a bit of brief joy, but killing them? Emotional chainsaw! This is great if the game does something with it, but it too often just becomes an opportunity to extract emotion without developing it, without getting the player to think about the implications of what's going on.

(Note that most action games have a lot of forced deaths, but we don't think about those. First-person shooters are filled with forced deaths, unless nonviolence is really a practical way to win.)


SPOILERS AHEAD!!!





That's not to say it always fails. Here are a few uses of the forced failure death that have actually worked to some degree, maybe:

Final Fantasy VII: Let's get this one out of the way. BIG, MANIPULATIVE FORCED DEATH HERE. Good thing or bad thing? You could argue that for some time.

Wing Commander III (or II? I forget which. Maybe both.): A character lives up to her name.

Baldur's Gate II: Best damned thief in the game. And he dies, a traitor all along!

Chrono Trigger: Crono. And the best use of the forced death ever, because it's a fake forced death.

Trinity: A text adventure where you have to be the instrument of an innocent creature's death, for reasons that are unclear at the time. You crush it in your bare hands.

Jigsaw: Another text adventure. You have to shoot the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and start World War I, or else the game ends quickly. Whether this is better or worse than causing a world war is an open question, but you need to do this to win. Chrono Trigger's forced death may be more obviously heartwrenching; in this case, you don't SEE the consequences of your actions. FFVII's is a lot more famous. But this has got to the biggest player-caused forced death ever written, unless somebody's written a game where actually you destroy the world.

Oh, wait... I forgot:

Loom: Wow. What a downer. The innocent guy whose appearance you stole for your own purposes just got eaten by a dragon you released, and now his ghost is really angry, with good reason. And it just gets worse, and worse, even after you resurrect they guy, and you end up involved very closely with the destruction of civilization. But hey, there's hope. For you, anyway. Not for the people ravaged by the undead armies you released.


A few games where forced death fails:

Shannara: Wow. What a flat scene. Wow.

Any game where you run into the Big Bad, and he's TOO POWERFUL FOR YOU, RUN BOY RUN! And there goes your loyal mentor. This kinda worked in Star Wars, but I haven't seen it done well in a video game. I think Gabriel Knight stumbled on a scene like this, badly, though it delayed the death until after the obvious danger had passed.

Forced parental death usually doesn't work.

-

Is forced failure a design risk worth taking?

[TheYak]

It is an interesting device.  Sometimes it's quite welcome as I've cheered a couple of times when an annoying character bit the dust.  I think it's usually meant to convey a feeling of despair and desire to seek vengeance.  Unfortunately, it falls flat more often than not.  Either it was anticipated from the beginning, it was a character you used/needed and just irritates you when the game decides to take them away, or you're left with the scenario you mentioned: Trying over and over again to avoid the death.  If it's avoidable, then kudos to the designer if neither way makes the game unbeatable. 

The alternative, however, is even worse.  It's difficult to suspend disbelief in a game where lives are on the line when you know that the core cast is invulnerable.  It's the Star Trek red-shirt syndrome all over again.  The only time I'd rather an author avoided forced death is when you're meant to care about the character but their departure has little or no impact.  FFVII managed a traumatic impact (for a game), while many others you just want to shout, "Okay, they're gone, get on with it!"

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

In the case of Shannara, I really didn't think it was flat at all... it started out rather flat but it build up...

...anyway. IMHO this is just one of those many things that apply to a larger question: what do people want when playing adventure games? Some people, like me, want to see a story. I'm ready to forsake non-linearity and other features, if I at least see a good story with good character design (and fair gameplay). Other people want to be in control, to have the freedom that a game can give. Those people would prefer the ability to always be able to avoid failure.

I believe it's a great device, actually.

Spoiler

It also was in American McGee's Alice - you had to escape from a rolling boulder, and also avoid the cracking ice. Eventually you fall down into the ice, and that takes you to the next level.

And Prince of Persia too! Remember the passage from level 6 to 7? It involves failing.

In Beyond Good and Evil, you can't save the lighthouse, or Pei'J.

IMHO, the examples I just mentioned work. I think it's all a matter of how to make them work, really, and what the game has to offer to who.

[close]

[TheYak]

Those types of examples are frustrating.  It's not so bad when you're just running along and something happens (like suddenly falling to the next level).  It's damned horrible when you know what's coming (like an anvil on the head or a pitfall) and you strive to avoid it, only to waste an hour running around when the game just wants you to jump to your "death" to progress.  Horrible, horrible design in those cases, similar to try everything/click everywhere gameplay in an adventure. 

In the same way, if the game continues unabated after an unavoidable death of a character, then at least you're clued in.  If you foresee the tragedy, strive to avoid it, and find out later that you not only can't avoid it, but don't want to (in order to progress) it violates the motivation of the character and knocks the plotline down to hack level.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Yak, that all boils down to gameplay and design. In PP and Alice, you went through the whole level first anyway, and you had no other choice other to "die" - and the "loading" screens showed that you were MEANT to go, anyway. And in BG&E, it was pretty clear, by the detail and by the way the story progressed, that those things had to happen.

[TheYak]

Unless you're a rapid-fire quickloader, which I can tend to be on fickle platformers, then sometimes the obviously necessary death isn't so obvious. Given that Alice had the equivalent of walking deads and clipping/coordinate issues, I had little desire to replay my progress through some of the glitchier levels.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Walking deads? It had? Really? Never noticed them... at any rate, it was the only one (well, that and the first Jabberwocky encounter). Didn't bother me as a gamer, honestly. Which only goes to show that it's hard to discuss these things in an absolute manner. But it's interesting to hear different opinions, to be sho'.

[TheYak]

Getting way off topic but Alice had an instance or two where you could bypass an obstacle if you were determined enough but a script or switch wouldn't activate because you hadn't hit the checkpoint.  It also had some level design and/or clipping issues bad enough that you could end up trapped in an area, sometimes seemingly advancing your level completion only to find out that you just saved in limbo.  That said, not saying it was an awful game.  The sets, some of the cutscenes and characters were brilliant.  Very dark and atmospheric..  shame it didn't had less gameplay than MDK.

[CodeJunkie]

Back on topic, I think forced failures can be a great plot device, but yes, only if used correctly.Ã,  I've only played a handful of games with forced deaths in (can only remember two right now), but they were well done.

Spoiler

In Silver, Fuge kills the protagonist's father.Ã,  The scene had plenty of action, and it wasn't drawn out.Ã,  The player even had a change to fight, although I don't think it was possible to win.Ã,  I remember loading plenty though to try and kill Fuge, which did break the atmosphere a bit.Ã,  But it was still good.

[close]

Spoiler

Final Fantasy VII - Definitely my all time favourite game, of any genre.Ã,  The scene in this game was anticipated, but not expected.Ã,  Considering that previously the game was focused a lot on action and battle crying, it really plunged the player into the storyline, and I didn't at all feel that the training I had done was wasted.Ã,  I think the problem with many RPGs, especially amateur ones, is that the designers focus too much on battles and all the D&D elements, and put in a storyline as an afterthought, to tie the game together.Ã,  FF7 on the other hand focuses a lot on the plot, with 2 hours (?) of cutscenes, and really shows that the characters are mortal, as other games don't.
/end of FF7 rant

[close]

As far as adventure games go, I can't think of any examples of forced failure, but I haven't played that many games, so I'll be careful which spoilers I read.Ã,  I think it's a great thing to do, just as long as it's appropriate and well executed (no pun intended).

[Andail]

In one of the Tex Murphy, I think it's Under a killing moon, you get jumped on by some crook in a back street, and a cut scene fight begins. Since you probably assume you did something wrong earlier, you don't know if this is a death scene or just some random action.
The excitement was huge when I played this, and even though you get beaten (and the player can see how the attacker shape shifts into an indian afterwards - a great cinematic moment by the way) you still continue the game and realize it was all necessary. Or forced, to use the current term

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

Edit:  Sorry.  Didn't read the opening part about "death"...

I'm sure I could name one... let's see...

(still don't know about the "spoiler" invisible text... oh well...)

The one in QFG3 worked.  It was the cougerman (or something like that) killed the tribeleader of the Simbani, as a result of you bringing them together for the peace confrence.  After that, you and your monkey pal Manu must save the greater Tarna reigon!! Yay! 

...Okay, so the game sucked.  But the death DID work out well in moving the plot foward.

[Wellington]

Would that scene have been better if you could have intervened and saved the Simbani, but not prevented the declaration of war? I think so.

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

Actually... the scene might've been worse.  The Simbani Chief wasn't that important of a character, he just sort of sat there and yelled at you for no reason occasionally.  And even if there WAS a way to intervene where you saved the simbani chief, the cougerman was posessed and had to die anyway.  But then again, that was the worst QFG game out of the five... so meh, anything would have been acceptable for that