Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
PERMANENT CHARACTER DEATH IN YOUR STORY?
Posts
Archeia_Nessiah
View playlists
CloseI have character death that affects storyline in my games. If the plot demands it, so shall it be delivered. Compromising just because of players or you don't want to can potentially put the story at risk. Especially when you are at the point the characters and story are writing themselves.
Definitely needs a proper story and atmosphere. Impact can or cannot be there.
Digital Devil Saga comes to mind as well - it helps tremendously that any character can learn any spell. So you are not tactically limited with fewer characters.
And while it was certainly emotional and tragic, the characters simply moved on.
While we're at it, making it the driving core of your story can easily backfire. You can care too little or it can become pointless (as revenge or whatnot ultimately always is)
Digital Devil Saga comes to mind as well - it helps tremendously that any character can learn any spell. So you are not tactically limited with fewer characters.
And while it was certainly emotional and tragic, the characters simply moved on.
a game where killing off ALL of your playable characters one after another works. incredibly well at that
It was imbedded in the story and that's how it had to be. "nirvana" has been the goal all along
It was imbedded in the story and that's how it had to be. "nirvana" has been the goal all along
While we're at it, making it the driving core of your story can easily backfire. You can care too little or it can become pointless (as revenge or whatnot ultimately always is)
Crystalgate
694
Kill a character if the story demands it, but do not use it as a shortcut for anything. Killing a character is not an easy way to get the player to care, rather you have to be good at getting the player to care to make a character death work.
There's always the question of how you deal with the gameplay aspects of that character. I would not suggest a direct replacement. However, I do think you should eventually replace the tactical options that character offers. Tellah was mentioned earlier. Rosa and Rydia has all spells he had. You do not even have to replace the tactical options skill for skill though, just the overall functionality. Eventually other characters should be able to accomplish whatever the deceased characters was able to accomplish.
There's always the question of how you deal with the gameplay aspects of that character. I would not suggest a direct replacement. However, I do think you should eventually replace the tactical options that character offers. Tellah was mentioned earlier. Rosa and Rydia has all spells he had. You do not even have to replace the tactical options skill for skill though, just the overall functionality. Eventually other characters should be able to accomplish whatever the deceased characters was able to accomplish.
suzy_cheesedreams
1480
Even the sudden realisation of loss and anger of having all that work you put into the now deceased character having gone down the drain could BE relevant to the story - the surviving characters suffer the same feelings the player does, and the rest of the story/gameplay is built around having to cope with the loss.
I'm thinking of a parent/child or a mentor/mentee relationship. You have two characters, one that is wise & aged etc. and the other is young and weak, and you (and the older character) put a lot of faith and effort into raising this young character into a strong and resilient warrior - but then they're killed somehow for whatever reason, and you as well as their parent/mentor are extremely annoyed and betrayed.
hahaha... that is obviously extremely dependant on context, but that's just a tiny idea I had while reading through everyone else's posts of how this could potentially work (or not). If this were poorly executed, I'd expect the player to ragequit and they would probably be completely justified in doing so XD
So anyway, I'm with Liberty & JosephSeraph that the gameplay should be built on the expectation (to the dev) of the death, so that the player is not cheated (but may still feel like they are, at first). If the death is tied in to the rest of the plot as well as the gameplay then I see no reason for it to not be there...
I'm thinking of a parent/child or a mentor/mentee relationship. You have two characters, one that is wise & aged etc. and the other is young and weak, and you (and the older character) put a lot of faith and effort into raising this young character into a strong and resilient warrior - but then they're killed somehow for whatever reason, and you as well as their parent/mentor are extremely annoyed and betrayed.
hahaha... that is obviously extremely dependant on context, but that's just a tiny idea I had while reading through everyone else's posts of how this could potentially work (or not). If this were poorly executed, I'd expect the player to ragequit and they would probably be completely justified in doing so XD
So anyway, I'm with Liberty & JosephSeraph that the gameplay should be built on the expectation (to the dev) of the death, so that the player is not cheated (but may still feel like they are, at first). If the death is tied in to the rest of the plot as well as the gameplay then I see no reason for it to not be there...
Housekeeping
3571
I don't really have much to add to this topic, but, to echo the majority here: if the story demands it, then kill off the character. The death should mean something to the surviving characters, though; it should inform their actions after the death.
Someone was discussing how death is a random occurrence and how that's a tough sell in games; I don't really agree with this. You can still make the death a random occurrence, but the aftermath of that death shouldn't be random. The fact that the death is random itself should be important--i.e. you're making a statement about life. In that way it's not random from a writing perspective--it's just written to mimic that aspect of life.
People get pissed off when characters die for no reason, such as a character that self-sacrifices for melodramatic purposes and is then never mentioned in the plot after that. Actually, "pissed off" probably isn't the right phrase; people have no reaction whatsoever to that character dying. They're anesthetized to that kind of melodrama, and they'll forget that character just like the in-game characters do, and that reaction--total ambivalence to your creation--is about the worst thing that could happen to a writer.
Someone was discussing how death is a random occurrence and how that's a tough sell in games; I don't really agree with this. You can still make the death a random occurrence, but the aftermath of that death shouldn't be random. The fact that the death is random itself should be important--i.e. you're making a statement about life. In that way it's not random from a writing perspective--it's just written to mimic that aspect of life.
People get pissed off when characters die for no reason, such as a character that self-sacrifices for melodramatic purposes and is then never mentioned in the plot after that. Actually, "pissed off" probably isn't the right phrase; people have no reaction whatsoever to that character dying. They're anesthetized to that kind of melodrama, and they'll forget that character just like the in-game characters do, and that reaction--total ambivalence to your creation--is about the worst thing that could happen to a writer.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
author=LibertyMake whatever kind of story you want, obviously. But the story has to fit with the gameplay, and the gameplay has to fit with the story. If you're going to make a game with a major playable character death, don't make it a game where the players choose which party members to sink their time and gold and points into. If you do want to make a game like that, don't unexpectedly kill off one of the characters! It's dishonest and unfair.
My story, if it calls for death, is going to contain it and I will not compromise the story for the player or myself. It may make things harder on me but that's okay - that's just like every other part of the game that is designed for the story.
Killing off a playable character worked fine in FF4 because you gained and lost party members after every single dungeon. This is a perfectly good model for a JRPG that has a character death. Killing off a playable character did not work fine in FF5, by contrast. They had to pull some extremely laughable stunts that made no sense just to make the game still be playable after Galuf's death.
As a story element, yes kill them kill their friend kill off half of the cast but you really have to make sure if they were an active party member in the case of an rpg you have to adjust what comes later to suit who is left now.
As a game element, I'd rather have it optional as it may make the game more challenging/fun I totally feel Nintendo adding the casual mode (Units retreat from battle instead of dying) to Fire Emblem Awakening is one of the things that made me play that game way more than once.
You could always enter the void and get the chaos emeralds though if you really want to bring a dead character back. (Sonic 06' reference because I'm trash)
As a game element, I'd rather have it optional as it may make the game more challenging/fun I totally feel Nintendo adding the casual mode (Units retreat from battle instead of dying) to Fire Emblem Awakening is one of the things that made me play that game way more than once.
You could always enter the void and get the chaos emeralds though if you really want to bring a dead character back. (Sonic 06' reference because I'm trash)
If I kill off a character and do not replace them, then I would instead allow some way for the remaining characters to get ripped, as it were. The game would be designed around there being less characters from that point on.
I don't understand the idea that 'oh no I've lost a character and now game will be bad because I've one less choice'. If a developer is any good they will have planned around that death and what lies beyond. It's not like they're suddenly saying "Now you lose the game because you lost x character. Lol for you."
If you kill a character off and do not submit a new character (which I wouldn't do. It cheapens the death in a story-driven game - I though FF does this badly. Losing a character should hurt the team in some way, and it should hurt the player - not as punishment for the story, but a sudden 'bandaid' character cheapens the whole experience, imo), you have to have the gameplay work from then on to compensate for that loss.
It's not dishonest, nor is it unfair. It's the way death in a game should be. It is supposed to hurt and make you angry - and then you play and realise, okay, I can still do this. The game has changed so that you're not hurting as much. And slowly you build up your confidence again, and slowly you make your way through but now the anger is a thirst for vengeance... if done right.
Of course there are ways to balls it up - but it is very possible to do it well.
I don't understand the idea that 'oh no I've lost a character and now game will be bad because I've one less choice'. If a developer is any good they will have planned around that death and what lies beyond. It's not like they're suddenly saying "Now you lose the game because you lost x character. Lol for you."
If you kill a character off and do not submit a new character (which I wouldn't do. It cheapens the death in a story-driven game - I though FF does this badly. Losing a character should hurt the team in some way, and it should hurt the player - not as punishment for the story, but a sudden 'bandaid' character cheapens the whole experience, imo), you have to have the gameplay work from then on to compensate for that loss.
It's not dishonest, nor is it unfair. It's the way death in a game should be. It is supposed to hurt and make you angry - and then you play and realise, okay, I can still do this. The game has changed so that you're not hurting as much. And slowly you build up your confidence again, and slowly you make your way through but now the anger is a thirst for vengeance... if done right.
Of course there are ways to balls it up - but it is very possible to do it well.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Liberty
If a developer is any good
I think this assumption speaks a lot to the disagreements I see on this subject (and others!): I tend to answer with a tacit assumption that I'm covering games in general, good and otherwise, while a lot of other people are assuming it's only covering things on the "good" end of the spectrum.
It's my feeling that something with the kind of impact a PC death would have should be treated like, say, invasive surgery: it's certainly possible to do well, but it's not something I'd encourage anyone to do without a lot of experience and planning, because the result if you screw up is terrible. (Granted, in the case of games it's just a kind of crap game and usually not lifelong medical consequences or fatality.)
Crystalgate
694
If the author doesn't have the skill to pull of a character death properly, chance is the rest of the game isn't too well written either. In my experience, a poorly set up and/or executed character death will just add another groan among the groans I've already let out previously.
That said, while the harm hasn't been great in those cases, the benefit has been none. It's still not a good idea for a bad writer.
That said, while the harm hasn't been great in those cases, the benefit has been none. It's still not a good idea for a bad writer.
author=Crystalgate
If the author doesn't have the skill to pull of a character death properly, chance is the rest of the game isn't too well written either. In my experience, a poorly set up and/or executed character death will just add another groan among the groans I've already let out previously.
That said, while the harm hasn't been great in those cases, the benefit has been none. It's still not a good idea for a bad writer.
Or is it？ If the game isn't too well written then experience is lacking. And how can you get experience other than... experimenting？ If you're not a good writer (yet) but want to kill a character, go ahead! It's experience. It's not like we spit pearls since we're born XD
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=JosephSeraph
It's not like we spit pearls since we're born XD
Wait, you don't?
There's other ways to get an idea of what's good and bad: you can observe the successes and failures of other people and learn from them.
I also think there's a big difference between experimenting privately and experimenting then releasing the results for all to potentially suffer from.
One of the things that bugs me in discussions like this is the motto of "if the story calls for it." That implies that the story is some kind of entity of its own, and the creator just a conduit for it, rather than the reality that a story is crafted by the writer, who has complete control over it.
A story doesn't really "call for" anything. It is exactly what the writer decides to put in or leave out. Generally, a moment where something seems "called for" is just the intuition of the writer following the narrative path they've seen in other stories. This isn't good or bad, but we really shouldn't assume there's some kind of Platonic Ideal of story that must be adhered to.
(Note that this isn't really meant to dissuade someone from using character death if they feel it's appropriate, or they feel like they want to, just that it's not the only option or even necessarily the best option for any particular story. I'm all about considering multiple options.)
I think everyone is covering their thoughts well from a storyline aspect, but here's my take on the gameplay aspect.
I don't mind character death as long as my gameplay investing in that character didn't get thrown away. This isn't so bad for temporary characters or characters early in the game, but it can be problematic for characters that have been with you for a while who pass on. Some ideas I've seen are things like; passing that characters stats on to a new character (Legend of Dragoon) or somehow 'crystalizing' that character's skills and stats into a tangible item to be used by another character (Grandia). Depending on how your game is set up this may not be feasible, however.
I can live with my statistical investment in that character hitting the bucket if there's no clean way to mitigate it; but please don't add insult to injury by allowing my potentially rare equipment on that character to go down the drain as well.
I don't mind character death as long as my gameplay investing in that character didn't get thrown away. This isn't so bad for temporary characters or characters early in the game, but it can be problematic for characters that have been with you for a while who pass on. Some ideas I've seen are things like; passing that characters stats on to a new character (Legend of Dragoon) or somehow 'crystalizing' that character's skills and stats into a tangible item to be used by another character (Grandia). Depending on how your game is set up this may not be feasible, however.
I can live with my statistical investment in that character hitting the bucket if there's no clean way to mitigate it; but please don't add insult to injury by allowing my potentially rare equipment on that character to go down the drain as well.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Feldschlacht IV
I can live with my statistical investment in that character hitting the bucket if there's no clean way to mitigate it; but please don't add insult to injury by allowing my potentially rare equipment on that character to go down the drain as well.
If you're not at least offering me a way to strip party members I'm losing of their stuff I hate you forever and on future playthroughs will keep that member naked and in the back out of pure spite.
Not that the developer cares but video games are one of the few places I'm willing to cut of my nose to spite my face.
I don't even need that; just have the game itself strip the character of their equipment and put it in my inventory as soon as said character gets dead.
author=Soozauthor=JosephSeraphWait, you don't?
It's not like we spit pearls since we're born XD
Gosh, that just reminded me that in Portuguese, Pérola (pearl) is a slang for something so stupid that it becomes not only humorous, but almost precious. lol
btw @Felds I feel like doing the opposite and transforming all your investment with that character in enemy power just because it seems fun.
You taught Firaga to that dude who just died？ That's a shame, because the Demon who killed him just learnt all his skills and will now teach them to all the other demons.
Yeah most people'd ragequit instantly but that sounds so amusing
My stories are entities of their own. I'm not changing them when they work, just because someone is pussy-footed about losing a character they might grow attached to. Fuck that. I write a story where a character dies? As long as it works for the story and makes it better, I'm not going to change it. Of course, if it doesn't work then I'll definitely consider it, but sometimes you just gotta shank your characters. Sad truth, but truth all the same. If the story calls for it, then do it because you should.
Ultimately it's your game, your story and if you want to kill someone off, do it. Just remember to plan for it afterwards and don't inconvenience your player too much (which you won't be doing if you did plan for it.)
Because when the story calls for something it calls for something. Stories are alive, man. They are living, breathing beasts that have souls and if you shank your story in order to keep someone alive, you are a bad writer.
That said, yes, strip the character first, unless they have character-centric items equipped - that is, only that character can equip those items. I mean, you could still strip them for the income but it's not as grave a sin if they die and you don't strip them when they have stuff that only benefits them equipped.
Ultimately it's your game, your story and if you want to kill someone off, do it. Just remember to plan for it afterwards and don't inconvenience your player too much (which you won't be doing if you did plan for it.)
Because when the story calls for something it calls for something. Stories are alive, man. They are living, breathing beasts that have souls and if you shank your story in order to keep someone alive, you are a bad writer.
That said, yes, strip the character first, unless they have character-centric items equipped - that is, only that character can equip those items. I mean, you could still strip them for the income but it's not as grave a sin if they die and you don't strip them when they have stuff that only benefits them equipped.
Ideally, the character should explode into a vat of XP and coins when they die. That way, everyone wins.
emmych
817
author=Liberty
My stories are entities of their own. I'm not changing them when they work, just because someone is pussy-footed about losing a character they might grow attached to. Fuck that. I write a story where a character dies? As long as it works for the story and makes it better, I'm not going to change it. Of course, if it doesn't work then I'll definitely consider it, but sometimes you just gotta shank your characters. Sad truth, but truth all the same. If the story calls for it, then do it because you should.
O-Or, you keep them from dying because they're beautiful flowers and don't deserve to die a-a-and the world is better w-with them around and a bLOO BLOO BLOO BLOO ;____;
Killing characters is literally the worst and I am so fucking bad at it, because I always end up SUPER ENDEARED and just want my characters to be happy. OTL I agree, though, that permanent character death is A Thing that should happen if it moves the story forward.
I'm just... a huge wuss about it...
