Why do we still die in games?

[Gamereviewgod]

Take Halo 2 for instance. You walk into a room uncaringly, are blown away by a group of Elites, and within seconds you're back in action, right at the door you entered moments ago. You don't lose anything; you still have all your weapons and you even have full shields. What's the point of even making a game challenging anymore?

It's obvious that with the length of games now, the old "three lives and your dead" routine isn't going to work for the vast majority of games on the market. Playing fifteen hours and being sent all the way back to the beginning of the game isn't feasible.

It seems that now all we're doing when we play is work through each title without a single care as to whether or not we're actually performing well. There's no real point in trying to avoid enemy fire in some games. You can go in guns blazing and hope for the best every time in Halo 2. The same can be said for Splinter Cell. You can experiment as much as you want with no repercussions.

Is this where the entertainment value derives from in today's games? Take Ninja Gaiden (Xbox). People complained it's far too difficult, yet you have an unlimited amount of chances to make through any section you're stuck in. Is it really the difficulty that's causing you problems, or the fact that you're simply not making progress as quickly as you'd like?

Some games try to derive their challenge by adding in bonuses for great play or inserting special mission objectives. These have nothing to do with the games challenge level, but everything to do with replay value. Any generic platformer will have hidden things to collect strewn around the stages. When you have an unlimited amount of time and chances to get them, it's going to happen eventually and there's no stress in doing so.

Going back to Halo 2 for a moment: what if the game designers simply made Master Chief invincible? Would that change the gameplay dynamics? Yes, obviously. It would also cut the game down to five hours, not 10 or more. Would you still feel like you've paid money for a great product? Probably not.

That really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Is it all that different? Not particularly. Sure, you can jack the difficulty up to legendary, but where's the tension? You're not going into the final battle with one life and no continues. A three year old with no experience with FPS's is eventually going to pull through in due time. You can play as recklessly as you want and with no repercussions.

So, why are companies even bothering with new artificial intelligence? Does it matter? It may look impressive when an enemy soldier dives for cover, but all he's really doing is making your job a little more annoying. In most games, it's not making things anymore difficult.

Is there a solution here?

[tholly]

Is there a solution here?

not with today's gamers

too many people are happy with the Halo style gameplay.....and companies are happy making money off people that like it

not too many companies try new things that aren't proven....just because the want that guaranteed money

[boatofcar]

It's a trend towards the habits of people who want instant gratification in their games. Think about all the classic games that are released with "save anywhere" functionality. It's hard to imagine back to a time when you had to actually start from the beginning of most games and play through to the part that you couldn't beat, over and over again. The same thing goes for RPG's. You used to be penalized by dying, like in DW, you lost half your gold. Of course, you have to work really hard to actually die in most modern RPG's, but that's a whole other rant. x_x

[shoes23]

The most obvious example of this is in Kya: Dark Lineage. The game is a beautiful platformer, however, die in any number of ways and you start over mere feet from where you stood, except, with a very small sliver of health shaved off. Unlimited guys and health regeneration makes for a very trudging and un-entertaining game.

[DeputyMoniker]

It doesn't bother me TOO much. It brings back the arcade feeling in a sense. There are exceptions though. One of the pleasures and challenges of completing an arcade shooter, for instance, is finishing without running out of tokens. That adds a degree of challenge to the game. Sweating and heart racing you say to yourself "Damn! One more token!" I don't think that without your imagination, unlimited lives on a console will be able to bring that feeling of urgency home.

Maybe some gamers these days like having unlimited lives and the *cheat-code advantage* without bothering with cheat-codes. I can enjoy a game of Halo or FFX myself...but I play nice and slow and I don't like to die. We all enjoy games for our own reasons. I like to beat them by being good at it…not by playing chance until I reach the end. I let my imagination bury me into the experience.

I think these days a game can be more than a button tapper, memorizing levels or hours of repeating routines until you finally beat the game. It can be a story, like an interactive book. I can relate to characters and nothing would remove me from the experience more than restarting a level.

That’s not how I feel 100% of the time though...it all depends on the game, genre and mood I'm in. Like I've said before, Galaga is my fav game and there’s no story or continuing there!

I'll tell you this; you'll get a lot more respect from me if you're good at an old school arcade than you will by being the frag king. Nothing is a challenge like the patience it requires to be the best at a game you can't continue in!

[Nes]

Oh please may we never return to the days where it's 3 lives and back to the beginning of the game. I'm embarrassed to say that it's because of this that I was never able to beat Super Mario Bros.

[DeputyMoniker]

Oh please may we never return to the days where it's 3 lives and back to the beginning of the game. I'm embarrassed to say that it's because of this that I was never able to beat Super Mario Bros.

I assume with a name like NES you knew of the continue from your last level cheat...

[evildead2099]

That really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Is it all that different? Not particularly. Sure, you can jack the difficulty up to legendary, but where's the tension? You're not going into the final battle with one life and no continues. A three year old with no experience with FPS's is eventually going to pull through in due time. You can play as recklessly as you want and with no repercussions. ...

Is there a solution here?

Interesting observations.

Not that I think the idea would be welcomed by gamers, but companies could make the outcome of each and every play count more instituting a "pay per play" system, not unlike that common to coin-op titles. If you want to explore the virtual terrain without the risk of jeopardising your status / inventory / whatever in the long run, perhaps you should have to could up the fin for that liberty.

Or simply pretend that such a system is in place. Every time you mess around in a game without saving your status (With the intent to continue playing from where you left off), you should obligate yourself to set aside some money that will go towards charity.

[evildead2099]

That really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Is it all that different? Not particularly. Sure, you can jack the difficulty up to legendary, but where's the tension? You're not going into the final battle with one life and no continues. A three year old with no experience with FPS's is eventually going to pull through in due time. You can play as recklessly as you want and with no repercussions. ...

Is there a solution here?

Interesting observations.

Not that I think the idea would be welcomed by gamers, but companies could make the outcome of each and every play count more instituting a "pay per play" system, not unlike that common to coin-op titles. If you want to explore the virtual terrain without the risk of jeopardising your status / inventory / whatever in the long run, perhaps you should have to could up the fin for that liberty.

Or simply pretend that such a system is in place. Every time you mess around in a game without saving your status (With the intent to continue playing from where you left off), you should obligate yourself to set aside some money that will go towards charity.

[Nes]

At the time when I was playing it, (20 years ago or whatever) I had no idea about that cheat.

[zmweasel]

Is there a solution here?

I don't perceive a problem. Most of today's games are about an experience, not a high score.

You cite Halo 2 as a game that, if Master Chief was invincible, would only take five hours to play through instead of ten. Many NES/SNES/Genesis games, using a Game Genie for invincibility, could be played through in one or two hours.

Old-school games used limited lives and extreme difficulty (twitch reflexes and/or pattern memorization) to make up for their lack of content. Modern games, with their breadth and depth of gameplay, don't need those crutches. Death in a modern game is usually an inconvenience, not a crippling penalty, and that's as it should be.

-- Z.

[jajaja]

You have games where you can only save 1 time pr. level if you play on the hardest difficulty. Also one thing to make it more challenging :)

[Sam]

For games like RPG's ect - saving is all good.

But I have had this arguement mainly with pc gamers a number of times. When a game that uses the checkpoint system comes out they moan about repetition and ask for a quick save but I see it as a challange. It really does depend on the game though as sitting through long conversations multiple times is not cool but replaying some fast action sequence until you master it can be satisfying.

Also someone was asking me why I don't just play old games on emulators so I could quick save. One of my replies was that this kills the experiance and challenge for me but he didn't really see my point. I largly enjoy the Mario games for instance on NES more than All Stars for the SNES because I feel there is more urgancy, pressure and challenge from not having a save.

Hopefully the above is semi-coherant as my brain is a bit fried right now. :P

[thegreatescape]

Sure, you can jack the difficulty up to legendary, but where's the tension? You're not going into the final battle with one life and no continues.

You can get a similar buzz to this by playing an online FPS like Counterstrike, where you only get 1 life. Trying to complete the objective when your whole team is dead results in a similar tension, albeit on a smaller scale.

I enjoyed Halo respawns because you get to enjoy the story instead of worrying about dying, but I am somewhat of a lazy/impatient gamer..

[tylerwillis]

It might be part of the more hectic lifestyle. Everyone's so busy these days that they don't have time to sit down and truly "master" a game.

I'm not just talking about those of who grew up and now have jobs/families/etc... even kids are busier than ever.

It could also do with the American need for instant gratification.

[Gamereviewgod]

Death in a modern game is usually an inconvenience, not a crippling penalty, and that's as it should be

Right, but then you're not answering the question. Why bother letting us die in the first place?


Many NES/SNES/Genesis games, using a Game Genie for invincibility, could be played through in one or two hours.


But they weren't initially programmed that way. That wasn't the "proper" way to play them. Halo 2 you can simply walk through without worrying about dying. Is Halo 2 really a 10 hour game after all?

[slip81]

It might be part of the more hectic lifestyle. Everyone's so busy these days that they don't have time to sit down and truly "master" a game.

I'm not just talking about those of who grew up and now have jobs/families/etc... even kids are busier than ever.

It could also do with the American need for instant gratification.

I tend to agree with this now. When I was younger I had nothing but time and could afford to spend an entire day playing a game and mastering it's ins and outs. Now that I'm an adult and out of school and have a full time job it's nice to have saves and unlimited continues becuase I don't have the luxery of sitting down and playing through a giant platformer level for 5 hours till I master it.

But there are still some games that offer unlimited lives and a challange. Brothers in Arms is one example. It gives you unlimited guys, but if you die you have to restart from the save chepoint (which is determined by the game, not player), and sometimes the checkpoints are pretty far apart, and if you die it could set you back and hour and a half or more depending on how you play.

[Crazycarl]

This seemed like an interesting thought. I see how you say why bother w/ death in newer games like Halo. Personaly I loved the first Halo (not too thrilled w/ the second) because of the story, vast enviroments, and the insanity of guy's coming at you. The problem w/ dying is that, many people would give up in a split second on the game, if they get all the way to the end, and die. I'm guilty of this at times, but i put the game down for an hour then go right back to it.

You also asked why even have death in the game. Death is still used to make the game challanging, and you do go back to the first part of the lv., just not the first part of the game. If the hero was invincable, then there is no fun to the game, and what ever illusion of a challange just goes away.

Now the death in games probly will never be the 3 lives, then cont., but with the vast areas, and games going for a more open ended feel, the 3 death and cont. idea no long is capable of working anymore, and like many other people have said, "hinders" the fun, and story telling of the game. So this was my thoughts, and i hope it added something to this conversation.

[Gamereviewgod]

You also asked why even have death in the game. Death is still used to make the game challanging, and you do go back to the first part of the lv., just not the first part of the game. If the hero was invincable, then there is no fun to the game, and what ever illusion of a challange just goes away.

Isn't the hero still invincible? Like I said, Halo just sends you back a bit to regroup and try again. Would it change the game that much if MC was just invincible?

If the point of gaming now is to move the story forward, then why don't they just put you in control of a movie-type hero that's going to end up at a happy ending anyway? The hero doesn't die in films, why should they in video games?

Look at it this way:

Back when you were a kid, your parents took you to an arcade. They gave you $10 in quarters. You walked up to one machine, spent $9, and breezed through it. You never really felt challeneged and you could almost zone out because you knew you had enough money to make it through.

Now, you're stuck with only a dollar. The next machine you walk up to, you're going to be paying far more attention. You're going to try and keep going as long as you can because you know you don't have the money.

That's the same thing when you're limited on continues. No matter what people will say, Halo is, simply put, easy. There's no reason to think through a section. Just go in, start firing, and hope for the best. If you get lucky, you'll make it through. If not, there's no penanlty.

So, why die in the first place?

[PDorr3]

I agree with everything you have said, while I am never one to complain about how games are made too hard or too easy, as long as it fits right with a game I'm ok with it.

Games like god of war definitly need to have unlimited continues, I really do not want to be sent back to the start of a level eveytime I die, sure it makes it more challenging and makes you feel like you need to do better, but really, who WANTS to go through that 20 minute level all over again?

You can argue that people are given too much slack in games today and that the times of old and challenging games are over, but times change, and as said old game mechanics just wont work in todays gaming.

[zmweasel]

Right, but then you're not answering the question. Why bother letting us die in the first place?

Because most types of games require a form of "death" to encourage the player to perform better. The trick is, as I stated, to make "death" an inconvenience and incentive, not an abusive penalty that discourages the majority of players from continuing on. This is particularly important with tie-in games, which are purchased by casuals.

Game designers have been struggling with this balance since the get-go. I recall David Crane mentioning that, until near the end of its development, Pitfall! gave the player just one life instead of three, which would have made it a much harder--and less enjoyable--experience.

I once interviewed a Cinemaware designer whose philosophy was that any game which takes you more than an hour to beat requires a save-game function. That philosophy was fine for his era and for the kinds of games he was designing, but it certainly wouldn't apply to modern games, especially portable games that need save-anywhere functions.

Also, there are quite a few games (particularly in the modern era) that don't have "death" at all, but I'm focusing on game designs that do.


But they weren't initially programmed that way. That wasn't the "proper" way to play them. Halo 2 you can simply walk through without worrying about dying. Is Halo 2 really a 10 hour game after all?

Neither would playing through Halo 2 with invincibility be the "proper" way to play through it. The designers have implemented a form of "death" that stretches the gameplay of the one-player mode (which is a secondary mode in Halo 2's case) from 5-6 to 10-12 hours, just as designers of old-school games implemented limited lives and gameplay patterns that stretched them from 1-2 to 6-8 hours, but in a less enjoyable way, with enormous amounts of repetition and pattern memorization.

-- Z.

[Crazycarl]

i see your point. And the games you talk about are arcade style, which arcade style games are still made the same way. You would agree there is a diffrence between arcade style games, and more story driven action/adventure games like Halo.

Now with the death deal, i see what your talking about why even care since were dealing w/ "movie like" story driven games. but thats because the characters in the movies are not getting pummled by bullets in the movies. i mean the hero always seems to always have a bullet just miss him. In games ur not that lucky. So there has to be some penelty for getting hit. so my question to you is what penelty would best if your trying to keep people intrasted in the games story, and keep it moving foward?

[zmweasel]

Isn't the hero still invincible? Like I said, Halo just sends you back a bit to regroup and try again. Would it change the game that much if MC was just invincible?

Of course it would change the game if the hero never "died" at all, if you needed literally no skill to march through the game. Very few action games wouldn't be changed in a similar way.

In Halo 2's particular case, "death" is a slap on the wrist, a temporary distraction from the story. In RE4, the best game of the year so far, "death" is almost as mild a punishment. Should the designers have made these games more difficult? That's not what they wanted. They wanted to focus on the story-telling aspects, to keep the player involved but not frustrated.


Back when you were a kid, your parents took you to an arcade. They gave you $10 in quarters. You walked up to one machine, spent $9, and breezed through it. You never really felt challeneged and you could almost zone out because you knew you had enough money to make it through.

Arcade game design and home game design are very different creatures. Early coin-ops were inherently designed to be very difficult, and to keep quarters rolling in. Later coin-ops (SFII, NBA Jam) adopted a different tack: multiplayer modes in which the loser pays to play. This was less frustrating, more lucrative, and more fun.

It sounds as if you prefer old-school high-score games to modern story-driven games, and that's fine. But it doesn't invalidate either design approach.

-- Z.

[Cmosfm]

Well, if the character were invincible, you wouldn't have a single challenge at all.

Say you walk into a room with 20 baddies in it, you have to kill them all, if you were invincible..simple...just shoot em. You're not though, so you have to master dodging and weaving and the right way to kill em while taking the least amount of hits.

Life is hectic, I have an hour a day to play a game, and I have a lot of games to play, I want to GET somewhere in my game...not practice and practice until I do.

For example, I bought Spikeout Battle Street, I loved it, but the levels last about 20-30 minutes, and if you die, back to the beginning! It's a hard ass game too, so after spending an hour on the first level...and not getting ANYWHERE...on the shelf it went. I just don't have time to play a game and not get anywhere in it, expecially when I have tons of other games on my "to play" queue.

Lazy gamer? Nope...Busy gamer. That's what I am.

[joshnickerson]

It does seem to hinge on the facts that most games today have much more content than the old days, and that today's culture is much more fast paced, wanting to blast through a game quickly just to jump to the next one. In fact, I think it's come to a point where difficult games just can't find an audience anymore outside of the hardcore crowd. Take F-Zero GX for example. That game can be brutally hard, to a point where some magazine reviewers actually took points OFF the game because of it's difficulty. And to that end, it flopped in sales (which sucks, because its an excellent game) and people chose "easier" games to buy.

So my theory is that the declining use of penalties and lives in games is due to the fact games are so mainstream now. But to be honest, it's been happening for years now, even back with Super Mario 64. When you lost a life in SM64, you got shot back outside of the painting and you had to jump back in. When you lost all your lives, all that happened was you were sent back to the title screen and you just had to pick up right where you left off. But that didn't ruin the game, did it? The most important thing is, that you had fun playing it. And I guess that's what we need to focus on with modern games... not that if it's difficult enough, or if it has unlimited continues, but if we're having fun playing it.

Eh, that was too long winded. LOL

[Gamereviewgod]

Say you walk into a room with 20 baddies in it, you have to kill them all, if you were invincible..simple...just shoot em. You're not though, so you have to master dodging and weaving and the right way to kill em while taking the least amount of hits.

Strafing doesn't exactly take much skill. Strafe around, fire a few hundered shots, and you're clear. There's very little incentive for me to master anything when I know, as ZM said, I'm just going to get a slap on the wrist. I'll just keep plugging away until I manage to clear the room. That's all I really did when I played Halo, because that's all you really need to do. That's not a bad thing, and it can still be fun.


It sounds as if you prefer old-school high-score games to modern story-driven games, and that's fine. But it doesn't invalidate either design approach.

No, not really. I loved Halo. I loved RE4. I just don't comprehend why exactly, if they want us to "experience" the game, do they even bother making us die?

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I've played games where I've died and just became frustrated when all they did was send me a few feet. It seems like the entire point of making deep AI or complicated puzzles is lost. I'm not neccesarily asking for a challenege, but like CMOSFM said, there's not a lot of time to play now that most of us are older. Just let us go through, "epxerience" the game, and we'll move on.

It seems that now all a "challenge" is to artifically extend the life of a game.

[zmweasel]

That's all I really did when I played Halo, because that's all you really need to do. That's not a bad thing, and it can still be fun.

Indeed. And Halo 2 is geared toward the multiplayer experience in any case.


No, not really. I loved Halo. I loved RE4. I just don't comprehend why exactly, if they want us to "experience" the game, do they even bother making us die?

Because coming up with an alternate form of player "punishment," or a game design that doesn't require the concept of "death," is something that designers have been struggling with for 25 years. They've managed to move away from the concept of limited lives in most genres, and they're slowly moving away from the concept of player "death," as well.


I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I've played games where I've died and just became frustrated when all they did was send me a few feet. It seems like the entire point of making deep AI or complicated puzzles is lost. I'm not neccesarily asking for a challenege, but like CMOSFM said, there's not a lot of time to play now that most of us are older. Just let us go through, "epxerience" the game, and we'll move on.

So you actually WANT games in which the player is invincible?

-- Z.

[Ed Oscuro]

Say you walk into a room with 20 baddies in it, you have to kill them all, if you were invincible..simple...just shoot em. You're not though, so you have to master dodging and weaving and the right way to kill em while taking the least amount of hits.

Strafing doesn't exactly take much skill.
Jesus. Wow, that's a pretty...uh...is there a strong enough word for how stupid that is? Maybe you managed to pull that off in Halo 2 MP, but that hardly is all you need for single player...or for a more intricate game. Dude, FPS games can be hard as HELL. Halo 2 on the highest two difficulty levels destroys me. You need much more skill than knowing how to circle strafe (which, incidentally, isn't a tactic that's as useful in military-style FPS games).

Clearing a room in Counter-Strike? Listen for noises, throw a flashbang, wait, strafe across, make sure to move so that you're visible to the smallest area possible at first, visually clear a room (figure out where resistance isn't), try to remember where the camping spots are...then there's remembering how to fire. If you've played a game like this for years a lot of it seems natural and maybe even boring, but the same would be true of Delta Force. Making something look easy doesn't mean it is.

[/rant]

[pragmatic insanester]

then there's people like me with OCD who reset the game if they're not playing "well enough". i can't remember which game did that to me last, but i reset it a good thirty times one level until i killed every single enemy without getting hurt and using only one-hit headshots.

i started spazzing out in PN03, but since you can money and redo the trial mission forever (which gets horrendously boring) i eventually only try achieving professional rating just to unlock the next level.

[DeputyMoniker]

How many people do you personaly know who bought, played & enjoyed Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter? I don't know one. Hell...I even thought it was too hard to enjoy.

[Julio III]

I've never played Halo 2 singleplayer but have watched people play it and I have never seen anyone just go in guns-a-blazing as you say. The people I have watched kick the shit out of me in multiplayer and in singleplayer they are very cautious. Hiding behind objects and planning their attacks yet they still die often. It takes a long time to complete a level. Now, when you die you get a chance to do the bit you are stuck on again. Why should I have to go back to the start of the game and play again for a few hours simply to get back to the bit I am stuck on? Making Master Chief invincible would ruin the whole Halo experience. The one-player game to me seems one of caution, good shooting and keeping well concealed, definitely not about going in guns-a-blazing without a care in the world.

The thing about Halo 2 is that they have taken away a bit of the old "death" mechanic because your health recharges. This makes the multiplayer game more about single encounters. If you emerge victorious from a fight in which you both almost die you don't simply die straight away the next time but the battle starts again on an even footing. Halo 2 is a very well balanced game and is designed for multiplayer gaming.

[KJN]

How many people do you personaly know who bought, played & enjoyed Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter? I don't know one. Hell...I even thought it was too hard to enjoy.
Me! Dragon Quarter is one of the best RPGs on the PS2. It's not that hard.

[Ed Oscuro]

Just for the hell of it, I recently was looking through the last issue of XBN. They've got a bit about a Thief-style sneaking game where you go and steal stuff. The catch is that you can't kill anybody, but you can be killed. Should be fun if executed right :)

[dethink]

dunno. after playing these damn things for 20+ years, i'm happy as a clam that i don't have to start at the beginning of a level in halo when i die.

you know how much freakin walking that is? LOL but seriously, back in the day it didn't take that much time to get back to where you died - i mean if you die in world 8 in the original SMB, even without the continue code, you're what...maybe 5-10 minutes away via warp zones? there was almost always an easter egg or code (continues, 30 life codes, etc.) to make sure you could hamfistedly get back to where you were in a few minutes. games rarely have anything as drastic as a 30 life code nowadays.

but whatever...the point is either can still steal plenty of my time, except it's just 2 different methods. so does it really matter? :D

also, if you're not stringent about clearing out every enemy in a room in halo 2, your checkpoint autosaves are much fewer and further between. play on legendary, and the very necessary tactic of knowing just when to RUN will ensure you don't get as many checkpoint saves, as i found out near the end, and my 15 minutes of half-assed progress soon turned into 45min/hour of ducking for cover and battling things out.

[spider-man]

Devil May Cry 3 (and 1) are what I would like to see in today's games. You can make it as hard or as easy as you want. If you want to make it easy, go orb farming for a couple hours to buy that continue, health, devil trigger orb(s). If you want it difficult, play Dante Must Die mode with a fresh character (no upgrades already on your character from a previous playthrough). You also have the ranks. If you can get SS ranks in all the levels of DMD mode, then you would do the eqivalent of a 'perfect' (scoring the near max. amount of points) run through a shmup.
There are old school style games out there (as mentioned above), the only thing is that they are few and far between :(

[dethink]

i'm all about medals or ratings/high scores being incorporated back into modern games.

i think the 2 modern games i've put the most time into and had the most fun with were blast corps and project gotham 2. both involve hours of hair-pulling frustration to get those top medals. LOL

i'd love to see some kind of level ranking a la the original tenchu worked into the next halo installment.

sure, you can make it through the level, but can you completely kick it's ass? :D

[DeputyMoniker]

How many people do you personaly know who bought, played & enjoyed Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter? I don't know one. Hell...I even thought it was too hard to enjoy.
Me! Dragon Quarter is one of the best RPGs on the PS2. It's not that hard.

There's 1! LOL
Anyway...maybe I should give it another chance. Maybe I'll enjoy it a little more now that I can look at it as a modern Intellivision game! Hell...if they had the technology back then, BoF: DQ is what we would have been playing. :pimp:

[ubersaurus]

That really doesn't make much sense when you think about it. Is it all that different? Not particularly. Sure, you can jack the difficulty up to legendary, but where's the tension? You're not going into the final battle with one life and no continues. A three year old with no experience with FPS's is eventually going to pull through in due time. You can play as recklessly as you want and with no repercussions.


Actually on Legendary, if you die too much at a specific spot, it'll send you back a checkpoint. The tension comes from the fact that due to the fact you get so few checkpoints and the balance of your defense versus their offense and defense is so lopsided that you can't go toe to toe with even a grunt and be assured victory. It's not so much the goal that you're fighting for-it's the journey. You have to be a sneaky little shit to get through Legendary.

To be fair, if all you want is lots o' deaths, the jackal snipers are fucking pricks on Legendary, and I hope like hell Bungie weakens them in 3.