Recently announced title The War Z looked interesting. Close parallels to the amazing Day z mod for Armed Assault 2, it boasts similar features; survival, scavenging, zombies, and an open world wide enough to get properly lost in. Then, spectacularly, they ruin it with one word.
“Perma-death (Optional)”
Way to kill off half your user-base, guys.
Now, lets leave aside the idea that this is blatantly ripping off Day Z; that’s actually a good thing. The more developers that accept the idea that the current crop of genres aren’t exactly set in stone, the better. Leave aside the fact that it’s clearly aiming at a wider audience than it’s sister-game; not everyone is as comfortable with Day Z’s hardcore-sim engine as the rest of us, and it can be bloody daunting sometimes.
No, lets just focus on that one little word – optional. If the idea of perma-death is a turn-off for you, you can play a different version of the game, where you can re-spawn intact and bounce around like a big zombie-killing god with almost no threat whatsoever. Does this even sound good on paper? Ask anyone who has ever played Day Z what was the biggest impression taken from the mucky hours spent in its undead embrace, and they will reply “fear”. Fear of getting swarmed by zombies, fear of getting shot by bandits, fear of falling off a cliff while being eaten and shot… but the root of this fear comes from something far simpler than simply watching your character die – you lose everything.
Where there is no risk, there is no fear. The fear you get from playing a game like… um, Fear, is artificial. Built around jump-scares and creepy music. Possibly a dismembered body or two. This isn’t real fear, this is anticipation – expecting something to jump at your face while singing Susan Boyle songs, or at worst, getting killed and having to start again from a checkpoint ages back. This is not life-and-death fear. However, if you play a game for hours, amass wealth or treasure or loot for hours, and then have it all taken away from you in an instant, never to be reclaimed?
That’s real fear.
And the assumption that those who actually enjoy true risk will plump for the “hardcore” mode is flawed. It’s like a racing game that allows you to turn back time. It doesn’t matter how dedicated and strong-willed you are, eventually, you are going to use it. It’s like dangling a bridge over a river with a small sign stating “For people who can’t swim”. If you can’t swim, you shouldn’t be fording a river in the first bloody place. The second the easy option is presented, it will be used. Oh, there will be a few people who grit their teeth for a while, but after a few “unfair” deaths, they will eventually give in. We all will. The solution? Don’t offer an easy way out in the first place.
Developers have pandered to weaklings and whiners for far too long. There is a revolution coming in the form of true, emotional feedback from games, and difficulty levels to match. Eve Online kick-started the concept, although was by no means the first. Flying a ship worth billions of ISK (the money alone would have taken a player months to accrue), only to be blown up by a clever gate-camp. It’s terrible, painful, heart-breakingly tragic. But it’s also one of the reasons for Eve Online’s success. The brutal nature of the game rewards patience, intelligence and erring on the side of caution. Flying a ship you can’t afford to replace is one of the first rules of Eve, and you will only learn it once.
And millions hate Eve Online for that very reason – it’s too hard, too unfair, too unforgiving. However those that still play, are playing one of the greatest story-machines of our gaming-generation, and an experience that will stay with you long after you turn off the PC.
Another game that, at least initially, decided not to pander to pussies was Star Wars: Galaxies. Initially, becoming a Jedi was a mind-buggering mix of luck and sheer effort. The developers argued the logic with a few vocal whiners, stating that the time-frame Galaxies was set in, there were very few Jedi. And so, they were monitoring the number of Jedi (good and bad) carefully so as not to disturb the setting. But, a few years later, they caved to pressure and suddenly everyone was a Jedi, and the game is now dead. Way to kill your game, guys. Have a slow clap.
More recent murmurings from those of us who actually enjoy a challenge were heard during a World of Darkness news-release, which, incidentally, is being developed by CCP – the guys who made Eve Online. Perma-death was to feature in some way within WoD. Suddenly, a million ears pricked up, including mine. Until this point, I had no interest in WoD in any way, but an MMO with perma-death as a feature? Sign me up.
Now, those of you screaming “masochist” and various other S&M slogans, can bugger off. This isn’t about being slapped repeatedly with a stick for every mistake I make in a game. This isn’t even moaning about a world so bent towards making everything as accessible as possible (although this is the root of the problem), it’s about bringing games back to what they were meant to be – a challenge. Not in the “insert another coin to continue” nonsense, but something you can brag about in the pub on a Saturday night and not feel like a six year old.
A real game will make you work for your bread. Yes, you can play Ridge Racer Unbounded and feel vaguely cheery at beating the AI, but try playing iRacing with a dozen other real people on the grid and coming higher than 8th. “Vaguely cheery” doesn’t quite explain the hole you just punched in the roof. You can play World of Warcraft for two years, amass stupid amounts of gold and hit level 85 just like everyone else, but try finishing The Binding of Isaac (a game you can finish in an hour) without losing any hearts. Good fucking luck with that, by the way. By the end, you will be exhausted, possibly in pain, and your nerves will be shot to hell, but damn it – you have done something few other will even attempt. There is no sense of accomplishment if there is no challenge, and if there is no challenge, there is no game. You’re just wasting time and electricity in an entertaining way.
My point is, Day Z is special because it simply doesn’t allow you to “game” your way through it. There are no auto-saves, if you die, the character dies and you have to start from scratch. Without this, the dread you feel is gone, and it’s just another shooting gallery with undead-flavoured targets. It’s not real, in a far more fundamental way than it currently is – no, Day Z isn’t real, but the fear you feel while playing it is.
And if Rocket ever adds optional perma-death to Day Z, you watch the servers empty like a broken bottle of milk. To the developers of The War Z – good luck, you’re going to need it.
Strong words. Tell us, in your New World Order of gaming, what are the “weaklings” and “pussies” who do not share your glorious vision of permadeath and intense time/energy investment to do? Consider that they make up a significantly larger part of the market than you do. Is the industry to abandon their revenue?
“Consider that they make up a significantly larger part of the market than you do. Is the industry to abandon their revenue?”
Yes. ARMA II being in the top sale charts on Steam for so long shows that it’s not such a crazy idea.
The Sims 3 has sold over 10 million copies in 3 years. I’d imagine it’s somewhere in the region of 150 million sold of the franchise. last figures I read pegged it at 125.
Bejeweled Blitz brags 25 million uniques. Bejeweled across downloadable variants has sold over 50 million, no doubt more since the push to iOS and consoles also.
Day Z celebrated 900k uniques a few weeks ago. That’s “shutter a studio” numbers to big publishers.
Just for some perspective there.
Who said anything about abandoning the casual market? The point I was trying to make, is that Day Z is so popular due to it’s difficulty. Developers are terrified to make a game that may be too difficult, and turn them into nonsense.
I, personally, get far more enjoyment from a game that pushes me past the comfort zone. And as for time investment, I work stupid hours and barely have a few hours of an evening to game. And due to that, I am properly terrible at just about every game I mention. Doesn’t stop me enjoying them.
*whooosh* The point passes over ateius’ head.
Great article, I hope the promised revolution delivers. The resurgence of roguelikes is a welcome start.
Cheers. Yeah, until last year I had never actually sat down and played a roguelike game before. Now I’m frothing at the mouth waiting for FTL. :D
Funny how you should mention finishing binding of isaac without losing a heart as a measure of “hardcore” enjoyment. Since the game doesn’t immediately end if you lose a heart, you enforce that rule yourself, just like optional permadeath.
Challenge works both ways. There’s an optimum level of challenge that you might enjoy and the easier, -or harder-, a game is than that the less enjoyable it is. Either you don’t understand that for people with differing skill levels that perfect level of challenge will be different, or you just don’t care about anyone else being able to enjoy the game.
As for the “if the easy option is there people will use it even if they don’t enjoy it” argument, that’s just a load of bollocks. If I get matched with someone considerably lower rank/elo than me in a game and it’s unranked, I’ll try something unusual or difficult to pull off, or veto my best loadouts, because at least then the game will be enjoyable rather than predictable. Likewise I don’t start single player games on “easy” just because it’s there, since I know it’ll be more fun to start on hard. If anyone can’t handle that little bit of responsibility for themselves, perhaps they’re not the gaming ubermensch they see themselves as and need to man up a bit more yet rather than insisting everyone else is wrong.
That’s fair enough. Self-imposed rules are a basis for replaying many games for myself. But the levels between Day Z and The Binding of Isaac are a little steeper than that. Hell, just finishing Isaac was a celebration for me.
But playing Day Z without the fear of getting killed? It would be pointless.
Well first off, I don’t think talking about Day Z without permadeath is fair to the dev’s of The War Z. It doesn’t look like they’re aiming for cheap knock-off clone, so transposing changes into Day Z out of context needn’t reflect on how The War Z will play. (Yeah I know their name doesn’t help the case much!)
No permadeath needn’t mean no fear of getting killed at all, any kind of penalty is enough to provoke fear. Hell, even without permadeath you could still fear death in The War Z more than Day Z. I mean you can run out of new things to strive for in Day Z quite quickly, even if you die and lose it all you could be back in at the top in a dozen hours. Now it takes hundred hours to potentially reach the top end of the power curve in The War Z and you only lose a quater of what you have when you die, there’s still reason to fear that more than permadeath in Day Z since it takes even longer to get back to where you were.
The War Z could be fantastic, hell, it will be if they pull off the promises. But if you are aiming at that side of the gaming spectrum, something as simple as the death-respawn mechanics can make or break the experience.
Again, this was not a chest-beating piece, just an observation that while trying to cater to everyone, they may dilute the game to the point where it won’t appeal to anyone.
I’ll still probably give it a go either way. I like zombies.
Just Nitpicking: It’s ArmA 2, not Armed Assault 2, that’s the official title of the game. The War Z isn’t a rip-off of DayZ, being this developed so soon after DayZ went live, it would take quite a bit longer for it to reach the level it’s looking like now.
On topic: My stance on the subject, perma-death (or whatever equivalent penalty) where necessary. No point throwing in punishment such as you want in a game that won’t benefit from it. Although if such a penalty is to be implemented, I agree that there is no point in implementing a half-assed alternative of it, escpecially if it’s going to be an online multiplayer like The War Z is trying to be.
THANK YOU!
At last, someone gets it. If you are going to do it, do it right. Sticking perma-death into World of Warcraft would make it an very unpleasant game (in my opinion, of course), but I feel it’s integral to a game like Day Z or Eve Online.
It’s not even “hardcore”, it’s just how it should be.
As for the game name… I didn’t know that. Noted. :D
Look at games like Ultima Online (pre-trammel), Demons Souls, Dark Souls and Day Z. Hell, let’s throw in Planescape: Torment, Bastion and Amnesia too. What do they all have in common? They tell/told the player: “Look, this is how it’s going to be, deal with it or get out”. They defined the experience, and you either experienced it or didn’t. Dramatically different from the popular approach, which is to create games that cater to “everybody”. Bland, boring games that take no risks. There’s no need to point fingers, because the practice is almost ubiquitous. This isn’t just about permanent death, it is about a desire to play games made by developers with the vision and the spine to defy the petty, childish majority who wish to see every game that interests them tailored to their needs.
@ergerg: exactly. This goes way beyond permadeath. It is about game design decisions being made by the marketing department and focus testing, and avoiding anything at all that could lead to ragequitting. And because the practice is so widespread in the industry, we end up with no variety when it comes to real, inescapable challenge.
Amen. I was waiting for someone to mention Demon’s/Dark Souls. I’m kinda shocked the article didn’t mention it. Fantastic article by the way. Death is not punishment. It is an opportunity to learn.
Cheers. I was going to include the ‘Souls games, but they have been primarily console games. And I’m doubtful for Dark Souls appeal on the PC thanks to the evil GfWL…
Now there is a REAL way to kill off half your user base.
I’m not sure how you think The War Z is blatantly ripping off DayZ. How many MMO’s do you know of that were made in less than a year? They may be adjusting some things to fit what has worked so well for DayZ, but the fact is that it’s very hard to change a game this far in development – look at TOR. Flourishes aside, it had obsolete mechanics before it was launched. DayZ is in a way a rather obvious idea, not a brilliant one, given the success of minecraft, EVE, and other such “player made” games as well as the popularity of zombies. The fact that someone else may have came up with it first is not exactly hard to believe.
Well, they haven’t actually said when War Z started production. And whatever the case, you can’t throw an open-world zombie-survival game out there without it being compared to Day Z.
“Riffing” would probably have been a better word there.
http://tinyurl.com/ignthewarz
They state in the first question of the interview that they had the idea and started development a year ago… Claiming The War Z is a blatant ripoff of DayZ is just a big show of ignorance.
It just says they were thinking about a zombie game “last year”. And when they saw DayZ they were happy it was a game they were looking for.
“So short answer – while we began developing our game before DayZ, we’ve been encouraged by fact that DayZ has become so popular.”
They still started before DayZ, and therefore is not a “ripoff”
Pirates of the Burning sea also half-assedly embraced the option to lose your ship, then they ruined it by giving you “stacks” of the same ship, instantly ruining the economy and any feeling of loss it might entail.
Also it would make the pirate faction even more hideously overpowered, unless they could only get player’s ships :)
There’s a key point here that the article doesn’t address but some of the other commenters have touched on: DayZ’s permadeath works so well because it’s the norm for the game. You *will* die in DayZ, and regularly, and it’s difficult but achievable to hit the endgame for a character (ie. get high end gear) within a life cycle.
As someone previously mentioned, this dynamic changes completely when hitting endgame for a character is a much lengthier process. Having the traditional RPG style character, with potentially hundreds of hours invested in it, subject to permadeath makes for a much, much more “hardcore” game (and more limited audience) than DayZ currently is.
A game like War Z could still do it, but I think the right way to do it is similar to DayZ’s model, where death is pretty much inevitable. They could extend the average life expectancy from DayZ’s days out to weeks, with an achievable “max” for the character within that time, and/or some kind of progression that isn’t tied directly to the character, like building and improving a fortified survivor’s base or something.
It’s the norm because it isn’t optional. It essentially forces you to tolerate it and adapt, or find something else to play.
But yeah, if War Z is going to be like a shooty-WoW-style MMO, then perma-death to the degree of Day Z would make it terrible.
Being optional isn’t the issue though, the point I’m making when I say “the norm” is that it happens as a regular and unavoidable part of the gameplay, not as a rare and devastating event.
I’m a little surprised that nobody has mentioned Dead Island yet, which is renowned for the tension and fear it creates. As an open world zombie game with few scripted sequences, it also manages to invoke the stress and suspense that made Day Z successful – with one exception; the only penalty for death is losing a small modicum of money, with neither XP nor item loss. In fact, throughout the entirety of my Dead Island experience, I never died once; not because it was easy by any means, but because I took extreme measures to ensure I stayed alive. The game manages to create such fear simply by its skillfully crafted atmosphere, such as the sound of groaning zombies from every direction, the lack of any music to emphasize the brutal sound effects, and the discordance created by the beautiful scenery juxtaposed to the lingering sense of despondency. Coupled with the “weight” you felt your character had and the shakiness of the camera – all of which added to the prevalent sense of vulnerability – the fear of death is very much present.
I didn’t even know what the penalty of death was in the game, so I searched it up. Turns out there are plenty of threads asking the same question. Why? Because they were too scared to find out for themselves. My point is that while the insistence of permadeath in Day Z certainly added to the fear, it is not integral to creating fear itself. I agree, however, that you shouldn’t include a feature such as permadeath just for the heck of it; either stick to it or discard it entirely.
I can’t really say that permadeath instantly means a game is “hardcore”, simply because the term itself is vaguely defined. What exactly IS hardcore? A game that is a challenge? A game that is different from the rest? Because if it’s the first, then I can tell you that even Call of Duty has an “Insane” difficulty. If it’s the second, then the word hardcore is as shallow as it appears. I don’t think we should be throwing around terms that we ourselves cannot properly define.
Dead Island was great fun. Death was an irritation, and that was about it, but it suited the style of game. Your weapons degraded so fast anything more punishing would have made it unplayable (or at least not fun).
I’m not saying ALL games should be hardcore (whatever your interpretation), hell, I’m about as casual as you can get these days. But if you are going to float a game based on the styles and mechanics of a current and popular game (ie. Day z), you HAVE to be as good or better. Cutting out one of the key aspects of the experience is the wrong way to go about it.
Of course, it’s not even close to release yet, I’m just using it as a spark for the concept. It might end up being brilliant for all I know. :D
I do agree with you on most of your points. One of my favourite games is Mortal Online. While you do not lose your stats or banked items when you die, you lose everything else.
Transporting items between cities is one of the most exciting experiences I’ve had in any game. It’s pitch black, you’re not entirely sure that you’re going the right way and any moment a red player killer might pop up. That dread you feel when you hear hooves in the distance is terrible, but oh so memorable.
I remember that one, it was like a fighty Wurm Online. I could never get it to work for some reason. Is it still going?
“… something you can brag about in the pub on a Saturday night and not feel like a six year old”
Yeah, I never get tired of hearing EVE stories down the pub. “I blew up a pretend spaceship and my pretend spaceship didn’t get blewed up”, fucking awesome, tell me that one again about how you sold a pretend thing for way more pretend money that it was really worth.
I’m not one for drinking in pubs in the real world, so you could be right. :D
But if that’s what you think Eve Online is about, you really are missing out.
It’s disappointing to see someone write about the value of games that don’t pander to the least able player yet disregard arcade games as ‘“insert another coin to continue” nonsense’.
Do yourself a favor: actually play some of these games properly. Try to beat them without inserting another coin. There is a lot of info on which games are good available on the internet.
I wasn’t talking about arcade games, I was talking about upping the difficulty to silly levels just to wring more time from the player. Just like the old arcade games of yore, where actually finishing it would cost you a fair few pennies – unless you were stupendously good.
I love arcade games. My mother used to hate them with a passion though. :P
Being stupendously good is sort of the point, isn’t it?