Should Game Over be, well, over?

[Gamereviewgod]

In the new PSM (this mag has really went down the tubes by the way, but that's another thread), they interview Hideo Kojima. He has an interesting quote:

"If there's one thing I don't like about videogames, it's the whole idea of 'game over.' This is a feature you really don't need in console games. I guess it's a remnant of arcade games where you needed to kick one person off to get the next person to put in their quarters."

Now, I can inderstand this in a game like Metal Gear 3. If it was game over in hour 15 out of 16, then I'd never play it again. However, is there still a need for this in todays gaming world? Have we advanced that far? Are games too long for this type of, uh "feature" anymore? Is it even a "game" anymore without it?

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

In multiplayer games, if there's no finite end to the game, how do you declare a winner?

[Nez]

I can only see game over being used in shooters, but other then that its pretty usless.

[Mr. Smashy]

"If there's one thing I don't like about videogames, it's the whole idea of 'game over.' This is a feature you really don't need in console games. I guess it's a remnant of arcade games where you needed to kick one person off to get the next person to put in their quarters."

Now, I can inderstand this in a game like Metal Gear 3. If it was game over in hour 15 out of 16, then I'd never play it again. However, is there still a need for this in todays gaming world? Have we advanced that far? Are games too long for this type of, uh "feature" anymore? Is it even a "game" anymore without it?
Is this just poorly translated because it doesn't really make much sense?

[retroman]

thats what saves are for...

[Cirrus]

Is this just poorly translated because it doesn't really make much sense?

It certainly makes sense. Think about it: In Resident Evil 4, or MGS 3, or something like that, when you die, it isn't really "Game Over" at all. You just immediately restart where you left off.

Game Over is when you beat it, or turn it off for good. Otherwise you are really just pausing, or going back to a checkpoint.

[Ed Oscuro]

Agree with Smashy, what has Videogame-Forecaster Man said here?!

He's either talking about the actual end of the game (i.e. Pac-Man has none)...or deaths kicking you back a step (well, that's it, isn't it?), or...both?

I dunno...I've thought over how one would make a linear, progress-based 2D sidescroller where you don't die, but say have continuous challenges that can knock you back. It would work with shooters too (i.e. Halo 2's shields recharge, both yours and those of Elites), but for something like Metal Gear Solid III...doesn't make much sense.

Something like Halo 2 can be a brutal game experience because the closer you get to actual war, the more apparent it is that you can get killed off by pretty random happenings, but if we take the scenes from MGS3 where Snake fights tons of enemies, what sense does it make if he just sort of keeps playing? Do we keep a count of how many credits he used by the end of the game? Wierd.

[Griking]

I can only see game over being used in shooters, but other then that its pretty usless.

Sports games would all be pointless without an ending. I think that platform games should all eventually have an ending other wise they'd get boring and wouldn't ultimately be very rewarding. What about fighting games such as Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat? I think that RPGs and Adventure Games would get old if there was no finale that you were striving towards. In fact, the only real games that I can think of that don't really have or need real endings are arcade type games that count on reflexes to play. As the action gets harder and/or faster you're not expected to live forever.

[Ed Oscuro]

I just gotta keep going. This is something I've thought over a bit, but damned if Kojima shouldn't keep these crazy ruminations to himself; makes you wonder why Konami lets their guys talk to the press without a PR agent jacked into their brain. Well, I guess some people love that Hideo Vision thing. :p

So, is it still a game without game over? Hmm...I'm sure Kojima has made a distinction between immediate challenges and an overall picture.

Well, there's some shooter being developed for the XBox right now (no...not Pariah) where the storyline is shaped by your success or failure. I think it's wholly possible, say, to have a character who runs around and tries many different things but never gets killed, even if they fail to access the PC's files (bail? heh) or their host body gets killed (sounds like a number of God games around).

The only problem with all this is that these are examples of games where no game over has ALREADY been implemented...yeah, Kojima seems to be taking on the action games genre here and that doesn't sit too well.

(On the other hand, I like my System Shock 3 idea.)

[goatdan]

I guess it depends on how you look at it:

Do we still want / need games like puzzlers and 2D shooters that without the chance of game over would be pointless?

Do we want all games to be save anywhere? Game Over is still important in a game that doesn't allow this, as it kicks you back to your last save point -- just like arcade games will do.

Do we want the challenge of having to restart a game like a 2D fighting game if we can't beat a certain opponent, or just playing that same opponent over and over forever?

Do we want games that only give you a limited number of continues to beat?

Do we want games that are just high score based?

If the answer to any of the above questions is "yes," then I think that game over is most definitely needed. Even in titles like the new TMNT game, if there wasn't a game over after losing all your lives, it wouldn't be half as much fun as it is. Depending on when it is used, the game over screen is, in my opinion, one of the most important things to making a game challenging and fun.

On an aside, I don't like games where you can save whenever you want as much usually as games that you can because I don't like not having to do anything but face the same boss over and over. In a game that builds you up to a climax (fighting ten guys and then fighting the boss, lets say), if I'm allowed to save after I beat the first guy, and then the second guy, and then the third guy, etc. I don't feel nearly as accomplished when I finally complete the game.

Just some thoughts. I do see his point. I just don't think it applies to the industry as a whole.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think the general thrust, taking off on what Goat Store Dan wrote, is that this is really wishful thinking. Like bullet time, you can try to force it into a game, but that doesn't mean it should be there. Hideo's idea that games don't require game overs at all is fundamentally wrong.

[Jorpho]

Wario Land 2 and 3 are the ideal examples of "no game over". (Not so much Wario Land 4.)

[yoursisterspretty]

Well I think I understand what he's saying and this was the first thing that popped into my head. Take Castlevania: SotN. You die. The screen says Game Over and reverts back to the title screen. You go and load your game up and you're on your way again. Why should you have to go through all that hassle? Shouldn't the game automatically just reload at your last save?

But "game over" is an important part of many games. Take puzzle games. There's really no point in continuing in Tetris is there?

[Ed Oscuro]

Well I think I understand what he's saying and this was the first thing that popped into my head. Take Castlevania: SotN. You die. The screen says Game Over and reverts back to the title screen. You go and load your game up and you're on your way again. Why should you have to go through all that hassle? Shouldn't the game automatically just reload at your last save?
Yeah. I'm not sure if he's trying to apply this to the concept of dying (you hardly ever do in SotN...err, Galamoth aside?) He seems to be aiming at a broader application...like Zelda 64, without the ability to be killed.

Thinking about it indicates that console games really are pretty darn easy...and that dying thing is tacked on to make the game longer. Oh well. The idea of a game without it is uncomfortable.

[DynastyLawyer]

"If there's one thing I don't like about videogames, it's the whole idea of 'game over.' This is a feature you really don't need in console games. I guess it's a remnant of arcade games where you needed to kick one person off to get the next person to put in their quarters."


Kojima's a mutant. While when you're dealing with Shenmue and Metal Gear Solid 3, the game "ending" is essentially just a painful intermission to the progress of the story and the game, what else does he suggest? I think the only other options are either to make games such that you can never lose them (interesting idea, but wouldn't really work with a gritty game like MGS3) or emulate that old hologram game in that whenever you die, you can rewind to the moment of truth. It'd odd that he'd be the one to be game over's detractor. I vaguely remember an interview of his that said he wanted to make the ending of a game a bit more dramatic, like the game self destructing if you lost it. Likewise, I have to hand it to the guy: he's done the most interesting stuff with Game Overs out of any videogame director (Be it Revolver Ocelot's "There are no continues, my friend!" to ZOE's "You were just one step away from being a hero, weren't you kid?")


In multiplayer games, if there's no finite end to the game, how do you declare a winner?

Right. Although for a party game like Smash Brothers, I kind of wish instead of declaring a winner based on number of knockouts, they took into accound more factors (who did the crowd like the most? Who seemed to play with the most "style?" Who death-defyingly jumped out of the way of a four bomb collision just in the nick of time?)


Is this just poorly translated because it doesn't really make much sense?

Right.

[spoon]

If he is talking about Game over, ie no play no more, than, a game like Wario Ware has use for that. I can see where games that are designed for consoles really do not need limited amounts of continues or lives.

[squidblatt]

I wish designers took the concept of game over more seriously. There are so few games that actually allow you to achieve a sense of closure and satiisfaction. Eventually, I am going to buy Halo 2, but not anytime soon because I hate the idea of playing through something only to get slapped in the face by a lousy and unfulfilling ending.

One of the worst culprits was Eye of the Beholder, which just congratulated you with a line of text and dropped you out of the game after first making you go through hours upon hours of otherwise very satisfying gameplay. The problem is that you invest time and emotion in the game only to be expected to walk away from it without having either payoff.

Baldur's Gate 2 on the PC is a good example of how an ending is done correctly. Not only does the story end nicely, each NPC in your party is given stage time enough to have their own stories rounded-out. The entire ending sequence is long enough to top off the many hours you've spent on the game, and what sequel hooks there are don't interfere with the plot at hand. I felt as if I had travelled from the beginning to the end of an epic (for a video game) story. Games should end when they are over. Otherwise players are just setting themselves up for greater disappointment the more they play.

[motley6]

Whoahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! This is deep!




http://keanupolis.com/Billampt1-2.jpg

[jdc]

I've always thought of "game over" as being a penalty for a poor decision in your gameplay. You fucked up....it's "game over".....the two words tend to mock you.

Yeah...there is still a need for game over.....depending on the genre. Gamers are too coddled. Let 'em die a few times and incur the penalty.

[whoisKeel]

I like dying...it gives me a good stopping point.

[Flack]

I think the changes in games reflect the changes in society. Older gamers were used to being presented with fairly simple gaming options (ie: hit the ball with the paddle or you lose), whereas gamers who have grown up in free-roaming 3D worlds don't like restrictions. The whole "game over" concept reflects that as well -- the original idea of videogames (at least for me) was to prove how far you could get on a quarter. "Continues" were a novel idea! Most of the classics wouldn't let you continue, and the few that did still reset your score. There was no "I got to level 9 on 3 quarters" or "I got to level 20 but on 5 quarters" -- it was "I got to level 3" and if you wanted to see level 5 then you had better start practicing and get better at the damn game.

But kids now don't want that; they don't want boundaries or rules. They want non-restrictive games like Grand Theft Auto, where you wander anywhere and do everything. That same mentality doesn't like "game over".

Well tough tittie I say, give those kids Donkey Kong and make 'em play it until their fingers bleed.

[Kid Ice]

Me, I like endings. There comes a time to move on. When I finished the final mission in GTAVC, that was enough for me...I didn't need to drive people around in taxis and do wheelies on a motorcycle after that.

But I'm an old guy, from back in the day. Back when movies had endings too, instead of stringing you along for the sequel.