Gamers are unequivocal: “Dying gives a game meaning”, say posters on the PC Advisor forums. Markus Montola, a researcher at Tampere University in Finland, takes this further: “You have a motivation – to avoid being annoyed by dying. Motivation is what makes the game meaningful.”
Pete Hines – vice-president at Bethesda, the developer behind the role-playing game Oblivion and its expansion pack, Shivering Isles – agrees. “Having your character die or fail is important because your actions have to have some meaning in the game, and to you.”
But is the death of your character the right way to give a game meaning? Peter Molyneux of Lionhead, the developer of Fable, Black & White and The Movies, says: “A fight has to cost the player something, or it loses its meaning. Previously, that cost was time and tedium [in replaying a level]. But is that the right cost?” —Kate Bevan —Why do we have to die in games? (Guardian)
The choreographer daughter is doing a thing.
No interior yet. Getting there. Gotta start somewhere. Low-poly background detail for a medieval theater…
This is manageable. Far better than some semesters.
Creating textures for background buildings in a medieval theater simulation project. I can always improve…
Nothing in this stack is pressing, but they do include rough drafts of final papers,…
View Comments
Lucasarts managed to make several very interesting and engaging games that did non allow the player to die. The monkey-island series, Grim Fandango, etc. Granted, these are puzzle themed games, not twitch shooters.
Interesting. In an interview with J.K. Rowling last night on Dateline one of the main topics was why she killed off certain characters and how she decided through the series as to who. Aside from the authorly input on the characters, her answer suggested that she felt that even in children's books there was the necessity of bringing in the reality of death.