Gaming Signal: Bioshock, Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Chris Taylor

Bioshock, Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Chris Taylor

I was reading an editorial by Gas Powered Games founder Chris Taylor this morning that rang true with me. The gist of the message was that people don't like to be punished by games. His point was that we should get rid of Game Over screens, and not punish players for failing to achieve objectives.

When I read that I was reminded of two very different gaming experiences I've had recently. The first was Bioshock. This is a game I'd have bought regardless how hard it was - the universe was that intriguing to me, and knowing it was the spiritual sequel to System Shock 2, one of the best games I'd ever played, didn't hurt, either.

I started the game on Normal mode (not easy) and when I encountered my first Big Daddy I found that dying was something that I'd be doing a lot of in this game. No matter, though, the Vita Chamber takes away all penalties for dying. This was something I'd not encountered in a game before - I could die and when I came back, the mob would still have all the damage I'd given him before! This freed me up to try all sorts of wacky ideas for ridding Rapture of bad guys. And, I believe because of this feature, made the game a heck of a lot of fun to play. (Well, that is until the end-game where there's no Vita Chamber, and no way to gain additional health packs or Eva).

Contrast that with another game I'd read a lot of good things about and wanted to try, Ninja Gaiden Sigma for the Playstation 3. This gorgeous ninja action game had gotten a lot of good press on the XBox and also on the PS3. I'm not great at twitch games, but I'd heard a lot of good things about the game, and a review I read said that it had 5 difficulty levels, so that it was approachable by all gamers, so I gave it a try. I was dismayed when starting the game to find that there was no difficulty setting, but I got through the first couple bosses without a problem. The third boss, though, stopped me dead. After dying three times, I was asked if I wanted to abandon the way of the ninja. The manual mentioned nothing about what happened if I chose this route, but I chose it, and then asked if I was sure, and then if I was sure I was sure that this was wanted to do. Afterwards, I was belittled by one of the characters in the game who, in essense, called me a panty-waist and then said something to the effect of "Oh well, there are things that need to be done, I guess you'll have to do."

Of the two gaming experiences, which would you prefer?

Although I enjoyed Ninja Gaiden the first time I played it. I have to agree with you that replaying damn near the whole level after a death did become overly tedious. In fact it became so tedious that I never saw the end of the game.

However, to some, overcoming this difficulty is a badge of honor to them.

Are we discussing "death penalty" or "casual vs. hardcore" game completion persistence? The argument twists depending on your perspective.

I guess as far as Ninja Gaiden goes, you and I are "casual" gamers.

Then again, I played Dead Rising to the end and it had the same terrible death penalty. Worse even. I think you finished Dead Rising too Kevin?

Why did we put up with the death penalty in Dead Rising?

Posted by tditto on Monday September 24, 2007 at 4:29 PM

This topic is very interesting in that it was also discussed in the latest Game Developer magazine. In the article, they discussed save systems that were designer friendly versus ones that are good for the player. It really comes down to the designer and the vision they have for the game. Many times they are building a system that matches that vision and have lost touch with how people really play these games. I will try to see if there is an online version of the article since it tends to apply in this case. Dead Rising was specifically discussed in the article in an example of a save system that is probably good from a game design perspective but lousy for players.

As to the hardcore/casual crowd - I see very little difference in that for many folks hardcore is simply the ability to play a lot more. My suggestion is to use your financial ability to send a message to game designers that we don't want games that have "old school" save systems.

Posted by Tim on Tuesday September 25, 2007 at 8:43 AM

There are 2 different things being discussed here. One is a death penalty and the other is the save system.

I've played plenty of games with limited death penalty but horrendous save systems (Far Cry comes to mind.) Both can definately punish a player.

I appreciate where Kevin felt that the lack of a meaningful death penalty freed him to experiement and play. It made him feel he could go different routes and switch playstyles without being unduly punished or slowed down. There is something to be said for allowing players to safely explore and attempt different approaches. The Grand Theft Auto series does that very well.

That said, I felt Bioshock was a bit too easy because of the recovery model. It made me feel that my skill wasn't all that important because I could progress no matter what. It didn't really detract from an otherwise very fun game, but it was sort of how I felt.

Posted by scottsh on Thursday September 27, 2007 at 8:58 AM

While I agree that difficulty and save systems are not same, they do reflect the fact that difficulty is often increased by a bad save system. I was using that as an example of how game designers do not necessarily think of the gamer when they build the game. I am okay with "easy" games but that is mainly since I want to see the story progress. I can also forgive these decisions since they are really trying to build a game that is accessible and one that does not induce un-necessary stress for the consumer, and ultimately that is the right answer. Sure there are times where a given encounter is intended to be difficult or requires some problem solving skills to bypass - but I shouldn't be punished when I can't figure it out on the first attempt through the engagement.

Posted by Tim on Friday September 28, 2007 at 10:56 AM