Does the "game over" screen really need to go away?

EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Rob Savillo

The current trend of abandoning meaningful fail states worries me as someone who's interested in game design and how system models interact. Although I don't mind an ultimate "game over" screen (thus, requiring the player to start fresh), I can do without those "try again?" intermissions that force me into mindless repetition. Developers are yet to discover alternative, better ways to implement incremental failure, and Daniel has several ideas of his own that studios could consider.

Garnett Lee on the Weekend Confirmed podcast has said that he no longer likes fail states. David Cage has at least once criticized the age-old gaming conventions like bosses and "game over" screens. You have to admit that fail states originally came from the arcade cabinets that wanted more of your quarters. It seems that people are increasingly taking issue with the fact that you die in video games.

I understand the frustration and the desire to see the medium go forward, but does a definitive alternative really exist?

While I agree that the this screen inherently conflicts with the flow of many types of games that have emerged since the rise of consoles, I still don’t mind it. I’ve actually taken issue with a lot of the alternatives people have come up with. I also see the problem not with the concept but with the implementation of it.

I did not enjoy the 2008 Prince of Persia release -- mainly because of the dull level design but particularly because of the mechanic involving Elika, who would immediately rescue the prince whenever he fell. Removing the fail state altogether basically removed all sense of challenge from the game. It became a smooth experience because of that, but it was also a boring one.

Games that try to rename the fail state aren’t really any better. The Assassin’s Creed series tells you that you’ve “desynchronized” with the memories you’re reliving, but the effect gets no less frustrating at the 10th attempt.

Some games that subvert this come up with solutions that have been more infuriating in my experience. Phantasy Star Online, for instance, warps you to a hospital when you die, but you have to trek back to the place where you perished in order to get all your money back. Okay, I won’t call that infuriating, but when you stop breathing in Phantasy Star, it’s actually worse than when you die in most games that give you normal fail states.

Grand Theft Auto 4 has been the worst offender for me. Instead of trying to stay in continuity by waking up at a hospital or immediately retrying with depleted armor and ammo, I just reloaded my last save whenever I die. That’s one game that would actually benefit from a traditional save-state system...and checkpoints.

It’s not all bad, though. I’ve seen one or two games do interesting and even convenient things with failure in games. I can even think up a couple decent ideas myself for how some genres might subvert the game-over screen.

1 2

Tags: Heavy Rain, Dead Space 2, Prince of Persia, Call of Duty, Mirror's Edge, Maniac Mansion, dead space, Grand Theft Auto 4, Phantasy Star Online, Resident Evil 4, Assassin's Creed, Kirby's Epic Yarn, Amnesia: The Dark Descent, Ninja Gaiden Black

Comments (3)

Jason Lomberg

April 01, 2011

Story-driven games like Heavy Rain might work without fail states, but I don't think a shooter could. What happens if enough soldiers die? Does the campaign fail? Bad guys win? I just don't see AAA titles allowing that level of creative control on the part of players.

Moreover games like Lego Star Wars (or Kirby's Yarn apparently), where you can't lose, tend to bore me after a while.

On the other hand, I do see a lot more games in the future incorporating Heavy Rain's branching-path/elastic narrative.

Rob Savillo

In my view, Demon's Souls solved this disconnect within a traditional design structure. There's no "game over" screen." Instead, you're notified of your character's death and penalized in gameplay terms (50% reduction to maximum health, enemies respawn, and you are sent back to the nearest archstone).

The neat trick, though, is that all of this fits perfectly within the game's narrative. Your health reduces because you've lost your physical body and returned in "soul" form, which is possible because your character's soul is bound to the Nexus, a safe haven, so long as the Old One, the demon who brought death to the land, lives. The archstones are gateways between the physical world and the Nexus, so it makes sense that you would revive there.

You also have an incentive to play well -- any souls (the game's currency and experience points) you collected before your previous death are sitting in a bloodstain at the point of your demise. You'll want to reach that location again to reclaim your souls. And once you "beat" a level (by clearing out the boss demon at the end), you regain your body.

You can't reload, either, because Demon's Souls forces a constant autosave feature. Whatever happens is permanent, and that doesn't let you game the system like save files do, nor does it frustrate you with mindless repetition as save locations and checkpoints do.

The key here is preserving what happened to the player in the game. Save locations and checkpoints force you to repeat actions and erase previous accomplishments from the record. Save files allow players to game the system by reloading and avoiding consequences. The fail state, whatever it might be, works best when it can maintain your playing record post-failure. Too few games actually accomplish this, though.

Ben Villarreal

Great read, Dan!

Dead Space 2 is the perfect example of where I would have preferred a good, old fashioned "You Died" screen instead of having to watch Isaac get ripped apart "30 times in the span of five minutes"--especially with that cheap final boss.

On your note about a game where man after man is sent in to save continuity, I was really bummed that Dead Space: Extraction missed an opportunity for this. As the player, you control several different characters, most of whom end up dying. Why should I have to replay an entire level for dying if the character I'm playing as is just going to die at the end of the level anyway? And the reward for not dying and choosing to replay could simply have been the hidden upgrades placed sporadically around every level.

I agree that we don't we need to universally get rid of "Game Over" scenes, but that's no reason developers shouldn't search for suitable replacements.

WHAT THE HECK IS A BITMOB?