Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Sacrifice

AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,387
Some games you lose. They were designed that way.

Halo Reach (I've never played it) comes to mind as one where you fight massive hordes trhat get tougher and tougher the longer you hold out until you're dead. Some games, you can choose to lose. (That should be a meme or something... "Choose to Lose.")

Fallout 3 had this before the Brotherhood of Steel DLC canned that idea. You can choose to sacrifice yourself (or one of your companions) at Project Purity and the game ends.

Some game sequels rewrite what happened before to make the sequel. XCom 1 (Firaxis reboot) you could win. XCom 2 happens 20 later and apparently the aliens won the first game.

What are your thoughts on games where we can lose, do lose, or they rewrite for the sequel?

- Al

Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
- FARGIN_WAR


Comments

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 19,904
    I don't mind a rewriting of game history to make sure you have a sequel, that's a given really if you have a big grandiose win in the first game and want to have a second one.

    Gaming is about completion not achievements, loosing the whole game is great for story purposes but rather defeats the object of playing. These days no doubt you would get an "achievement" for losing humanities struggle for survival against aliens. :)
    AlBQuirky
  • Po_ggPo_gg Member EpicPosts: 5,749
    edited August 2018
    I have no mouth, and I must scream. The perfect example :wink:
    Based on the late Harlan Ellison's novel, he helped the script (with extending the novel) and also voiced AM in the game. Basically it became an interactive "director's cut" version of the original novel... and no surprise (if you know the novel) it is a game you can't win.

    There are several different endings, one is worse than the other. The "best" ending is still pretty awful, but at least you keep everyone's alive. Good novel, good game, but definitely not for everyone - maybe that's why the low ratings :smiley:


    ed: in case you'd think I'm maybe just a lame player and missed an ending :wink:
    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/jun/14/harlan-ellison-q-and-a-interview

    "In fact I did a video game called I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream, and I created it so you could not win it. The only way in which you could "win" was to play it nobly. The more nobly you played it, the closer to succeeding you would come, but you could not actually beat it. And that annoyed the hell out of people too.

    [Laughter]

    HE: I spend a lot of time annoying people. That's my job on this planet."

    AlBQuirky
  • berenimberenim Member UncommonPosts: 162
     I remember playing Obscure. You could have two characters with specific special skills go into the horror highschool together. If someone died you could fetch on of the others. I played it with my wife in hotseat coop.
     When we started Obscure II we noticed the only missing characters were those two we used and thus survived. Obscure II seems to think of them as victims of Obscure. :(

     In Wasteland you could save the world, yet lose because you had a time limit to get out of that base. If not all of your characters made it you had a sequence per character banging at the glass dome then turning to ashes in the explosion.

     In an the first DSA (Das Schwarze Auge, dunno the English name but doubt it would be the black eye *lol*) computer game you could be too late (I was a year early, poor fols spent some time camping) and thus lose. You could also be stuck in the final dungeon being greedy. If you had no earlier save game this would mean start over from start. So you could lose.

     Starflight I had no obvious time limit. But if you were too slow some of the home planets of allied races would have fallen victim to the solar flares you had to inspect. If you were even slower your home base could be wiped out. So you could lose.

     It seems in former times the ability to actually lose the game, or sacrifice yourself was way more common (as was the Game Over screen) than nowadays.
    AlBQuirky

    image

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,056
    One of my favorite games of all time, Massive Chalice, is designed this way.  At the end of a 30 hour campaign if you survive that long it all comes down to one battle.  Fail that and you Lose.  The opposite of Win.
    AlBQuirky

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 5,063
    AlBQuirky said:
    Some games you lose. They were designed that way.

    Halo Reach (I've never played it) comes to mind as one where you fight massive hordes trhat get tougher and tougher the longer you hold out until you're dead. Some games, you can choose to lose. (That should be a meme or something... "Choose to Lose.")

    Fallout 3 had this before the Brotherhood of Steel DLC canned that idea. You can choose to sacrifice yourself (or one of your companions) at Project Purity and the game ends.

    Some game sequels rewrite what happened before to make the sequel. XCom 1 (Firaxis reboot) you could win. XCom 2 happens 20 later and apparently the aliens won the first game.

    What are your thoughts on games where we can lose, do lose, or they rewrite for the sequel?
    The Venom comics are rewriting as well. If you are a comic reader and dont want to spoil it skip the video.

    AlBQuirky
Sign In or Register to comment.