Failure is an option, but you have to consider some points:

- The player needs to know that it is. Often players reload in a loosing battle, especially in RPGs and Strategy games. With your FPS it isn't that much of a problem, as dying is rather 'easy'.

- Every branching storyline is n the work. From a producer's perspective it's a nightmare as it would shorten the main gaming experience or incur additional cost for parts the player might not even realize it's there.

- How do you explain the failure? If you control a disposable grunt or drone to assassinate the general it's not that much of a problem, but if your main character dies and miraclously finds himself back at the base, it breaks immersion.

- If you do it once, the player expects it all the time.

- Should the player really have a choice in this? Gamers naturally want to beat the game, if you give them the option to admit defeat, they'll hardly ever use it and rather try again and again. On the other hand, it's also very annoying to die of a stupid mistake and not get the possibility to try again. Especially in an FPS. I can't think of an optimal solution on the top of my head. Think about limiting the retries and a level selection screen that shows all the possible branches.


Recently Dragon Age had failure as an option, but just for one fight. When you are defeated, your characters are captured and you either break out of prison or mount a rescue operation. Although this was a nice feature, it breaks the pattern of all previous and subsequent fights. Players might not even know it and reload the battle if half of the party is already dead. It is a tough battle that is very hard to win and if you don't know that failure is an option, it can really be frustrating.

Unlockables and achievements are a good way to encourage players to accept failure. Also, if you have many "endings" players may accept a failure route that they otherwise would not. Another method might be to "hide" the best endings in story-routes that include failure, so players understand that winning is not always the most important thing. Throwing in the occasional mission where failure has a better result than success may well make the player stop and say "whew, good thing I didn't win..." Finally, you can even make the "failure" route lead to harder missions, meaning that players wont feel like they're taking the easy way out but are in fact doing it the hard way.

Slightly OT but I could see this working really well in a Online/Multiplayer Teambased FPS such as Wolfenstien: Enemy Territory. Certainly I would have enjoyed the campaign system in W:ET more if the results of one battle affected the next.

Failure is an option in Dead Rising.

You are trapped in a sandbox mall with zombies everywhere.

Every day, at certain times, events happen. If you aren't at the right place at the right time, you fail to complete them, and the game keeps going. This includes the main storyline.

On day 3, at the 72 hour mark, rescue comes. You can fail to show up for that too, and the game keeps going. You can also hide in a closet for 3 days and run to the rescue, ignoring everything.

But you can restart at any time, with everything you've earned transferring over. The game has only 1 save too.

The important thing to remember is that failure does not equal loss.

In the game Freespace 2 (I don't know about Freespace 1) with most missions the only way to lose the game was for you to die, but you could fail the mission and still continue the game (although on another story branch). Certain levels were only accessible if you failed certain missions and other missions were only available by succeeding at certain missions too.

This also frees you up to introduce missions that are impossible to succeed at. In FS2 a memorable one is that you are supposed to be chasing an enemy fleet and trying to get to them before they reach a jump node, but they are faster than you and you have to return to the fleet because a diversionary attack is threatening to cripple your mother ship - you either fail to protect your mother ship or you fail to catch the fleeing enemy fleet - there is no option but to fail at something and it is possible to fail at both.

This kind of mission design, where failure is a certainty can increase the tension and realism that the player feels and even make their choices have more of an emotional impact on them (increasing immersion).

Failure can be a fine part of a game, depending how its implemented. Failure can mean a *lot* of different things though. Many of the examples here are good examples of how to do failure within a game. If you fail to complete an objective, you may lose some reward at the end of the mission or whatever the case may be, but they are never show stoppers and the game always simply moves on.

You have to decide at what level failure is acceptable in your game, and balance around that. Every game has some failure mechanism, at least on the minor levels, otherwise it would be an interactive movie. It can be a failure to hit a target, this doesn't stop the game, you keep shooting till you get it right. It can be timed objectives that once missed cannot be re-tried. It could be that the culmination of every choice the player made gives them a bad ending.

What you have to do is condition the player that failing is not the end of the game. If every mission has 2-3 objectives and you may only complete one, sacrificing the others, then failure is part of the overall game mechanics and accepted by the player as a normal part of progression. If its 1 mission in the middle that seems pivotal, and they fail, you'll likely have them reload to try and succeed.

Quote:

If you fail to complete an objective, you may lose some reward at the end of the mission or whatever the case may be

This doesn't quite match with what has been said. What has been said in this thread is that failure of a mission does not actually have to give a loss of reward. Instead a failure can actually result in a reward (eg: new levels).

What is being said is that game loss (either completely loose the game or even just suffer a loss of reward) does not have to result from a failure. Failure can be used to advance the plot of the game (in certain directions) or even act as emotional intensifiers which give the player greater connection to the game.

Failure should always be an option because a clever game designer can use it to enhance the experience of the player.

So if failure is an option... what happens if the player just sucks and fails at everything? Does the game at some point stop rewarding the failures (with new levels or storylines or content), or does the game give you an ending in which the player has failed to save the day? (or rescue the princess or whatever)

It also really depends on what type of game you're making. This sort of thing wouldn't work in a game like... Mario. Imagine you're in level 1-1 and you die. What happens? Do you go to Mario heaven? Do you restart the level only now there are more enemies taking over the land? If you die once does that mean game over and the Princess is forever a prisoner of Bowser?

Do you have to take a different route to the castle which may or may not be more difficult? If so... what happens if you fail there?

I think it's far easier to design a game when you have a clear chain of events for winning, and a clear punishment for losing. (losing a life, starting the level over, etc)

When things can totally change when you fail the game (even when the player is aware of it)... there is no standard of punishement, so the player is left wondering what exactly their failures will bring about. It also means the developer has to also figure out scenarios for every failure.

It's not impossible to do this, but it's not very practical.

Hey there, Eigen.

This response was written while I thought of your project as an RTS,
it sounded so much like it, that I forgot you said it was an FPS.
Anyway, you may find this useful anyway:

You're doing an RTS, or at least, it seems you're doing an S. ;)

You should study Emperor: Battle for Dune a bit. It may seem exactly like it copies the Features of Dune 2, C&C, Dune 2000, Red Alert etc.
The interesting thing is that missions can be completed in a variety of ways,
and sometimes only the choices in the "Next-mission-map" affects wether the enemy generals will succeed taking over a plot of your land, rather than just the outcome of your next mission.

It still amazes me how Westwood managed to add cinematics to fit every story,
or perhaps i'm just a player to be fooled easily.

Dune 1 does this as well.

Essentially i'm talking about creating a large scale story, with perhaps relations
with other factions, generals and statistics about every plot of land on this world map ("Next-mission-map"). Then you could simulate story by altering the values depending on the performance of the player in specific missions, on specific plots related to other factions and such.

I agree that failure/success is not the way to go, if you want the story to be flexible. The player shouldn't know.

Quote:

Original post by Konidias So if failure is an option... what happens if the player just sucks and fails at everything? Does the game at some point stop rewarding the failures (with new levels or storylines or content), or does the game give you an ending in which the player has failed to save the day? (or rescue the princess or whatever)

Remember, they are not only being rewarded for failure, they are also be3ing rewarded for successes too.

And, failure here is not "Character Death", but not being able to achieve the gaol of the mission (so they might have to leave the mission). If they are killed in the mission, that is an entirely different thing altogether, remember I said failure and loss are not the same thing. So if the player looses their life, that is different from them failing the mission but escaping with their life (failing the mission and loosing their life is a loss).

Quote:

Original post by Konidias It also really depends on what type of game you're making. This sort of thing wouldn't work in a game like... Mario. Imagine you're in level 1-1 and you die. What happens? Do you go to Mario heaven? Do you restart the level only now there are more enemies taking over the land? If you die once does that mean game over and the Princess is forever a prisoner of Bowser?

Again, here you are confusing loss of character life to failing the mission. Sure, loosing the life also fails the mission, but they don't have to be the same thing.

In Mario, the only way that you can fail a mission is to loose your life. In this case, because the game is designed so that the failure condition is also the loss condition, failure means loss. But there is no reason that games have to be designed like that.

Quote:

Original post by Konidias Do you have to take a different route to the castle which may or may not be more difficult? If so... what happens if you fail there?

Actually, is some Mario like games (and in Mario as well IIRC) there are places where failure is not a loss. There are places within levels where you might have to make a certain jump, but if you fail at the jump it does not result in your loss, but instead that you have to find a way out of where you are and past the gap.

So yes, even in games like Mario they have this exact thing that you are saying would need to be done. In other words you have not in fact provided a counter argument, but proof that the idea works, is used and can be fun.

Quote:

Original post by Konidias I think it's far easier to design a game when you have a clear chain of events for winning, and a clear punishment for losing. (losing a life, starting the level over, etc)

Easier, yes, but so is designing a game where the player has no choice, is easier than designing a game where they do have choices.

Remember, failure is not the same as loosing. Losing is where you punish the players, but failure does not have to be.

Choice in games does not have to be a conscious choice, it can be a choice where one option is too difficult for the player to achieve. In a skill based game like Mario, this is an excellent way of doing it.

Here is a question: Is it more fun to be continuously frustrated by a challenge that is too difficult for you to overcome or for you to be given paths that reward you (in different ways) despite your skill level?

I know that people will give up on a game if they can't proceed, but if they are able to proceed, but then go back and try a harder path when they have sufficient skill to be able to handle it, then they will play the game for longer and get more enjoyment out of it.

By not allowing players to be rewarded for failure and for equating loss conditions with failure conditions, then you are setting your self up for challenges that are just too hard for some players to achieve and so loosing potential players. But, if the player has a choice of difficulty, and that failure of the difficult one does not mean a loss, then you open up the game for players of more varied skill levels and even provide greater re-playability of your game.

Quote:

Original post by Konidias When things can totally change when you fail the game (even when the player is aware of it)... there is no standard of punishement, so the player is left wondering what exactly their failures will bring about. It also means the developer has to also figure out scenarios for every failure. It's not impossible to do this, but it's not very practical.

Yes, it takes more effort to make a branching story line game, either in writing the plots, or designing the ability to generate the new ways that the game can proceed.

However, you can simplify this quite a lot by only having key plot points as branching locations and the accumulation of failures as the trigger for the branching (this is how it was done in Free Space 21).

So you phrase the loss and failure conditions differently. For example: If your character dies, this is a loss. If you fail to achieve the mission, then this does not prevent you from advancing in the game, but if too many failure occur, or a failure at a critical point occurs, then the plot branches and the player sees a different branch of the story.

An example:
The player is a super spy (James Bond like) and they are trying to defeat an evil super villain from unleashing a doomsday weapon.

One mission is to prevent a small scale test of this weapon in a remote town of a few thousand people.

There are 3 outcomes that can occur here:
1) The player prevents the test
2) The player does not prevent the test
3) The player dies and doesn't prevent the test.

If the player prevents the test, then they have succeeded in the mission. Outcome 3 is a loss condition.

However, with outcome 2, the player might loose the mission, but they are still alive and can still attempt to stop the final launching of the doomsday weapon later in the game. Failing this mission does not have to cause any change in the progress of the game, but small changes can occur in some of the FMVs or text of the game (they could get a chewing out by their superior), with references to the disaster (the testing if the DDW) in the news reports.

Now, although the player will have failed the mission, it will actually feel to them like their actions have an impact on the game. People are "What if?" thinkers. We tend to think about the alternatives that might have been. So even though they fails the mission, they will be thinking "What if I had succeeded at it, what would be different".

However, if success of the mission is the only option available, then they can't think "what if" because they will have experienced the what if they fail, because it means they will have restarted the mission until they get it right.

What this means is that the player is not actually having an influence on the game word, because their effect is already forced to occur and there is no possibility of any alternative. With no alternative, there is no "what if" and without a what if, there is no effect that the player has on the game world as the effect is caused by the designer not the player.

The rewards here are that the players action (or inactions) are reflected in the game world (the reward of power) and that they can potentially experience a different plot path (reward of exploration/discovery).