Mortality

Unless it is explicitly chosen (like Diablo2's hardcore mode, even then it's not an age but a death thing) mortality in the sense that you are looking for is quite often viewed with distaste. People generally want the game to either end at the conclusion of the story, or when they want to stop playing, not when their character just keels over.

I cant speak for everybody, but if a game just offered your options 1-4, I probably wouldnt bother picking it up. #5 to me doesn't even seem like an alternative, it seems more a mechanism to suggest fast play.

Option 1 would be incrediably annoying. I like character development, and am always thinking of what Im going to do with a character. If in the middle of a plan he just dies, I wouldnt start over.

Option 2 feels like it would be punishing me for enjoying a game and wanting to play it.

Option 3 would seem to work the best, it gives very specific warning, allowing the death-age to be factored into character planning and whatnot.

Option 4, see comnment on option 1.

I think Sid Meier's Pirates! did this. You might want to take a look at it.

Quote:

Original post by loom_weaver 3. Your fate is determined by the stars and the exact pre-destined date for you to enter the afterlife is foreseen and known much much earlier in the game.

I think this could be feasible in some cases. Say your family has been cursed to death and you're on a mission to end that. But you see, you can use that up to a certain point, and personal taste still applies.

In all the time I've spent on forums discussing games over the years, players don't seem to typically respond well to a global "time limit" where the world "ends" if you don't stop the villain in n minutes/hours/days (although in my own experience some of my favorite games employ a time limit for all or large parts of the story).

One thing you might consider along the lines of your option #4 is "wrapping" the time limit in game events, such that at a certain point events conspire to send the player's character through a sequence of (mostly) unavoidable conflicts that lead up to an end that sees the player fail spectacular or die a hero -- which IMO is ultimately a better solution than having the player simply keel over.

No matter what the solution it's important to give the player a reasonable opportunity to equip himself with the knowledge/skills/weapons etc. that will give him a fighting chance to "win the game" whether he played the first forty hours with that in mind or not. If that requires holding his or her hand through some major world events to obtain the necessary tools, so be it. IOW, if the player reaches his last few months of life, you probably still want him to have some chance of completing the game's main objective without having to reload a save from "thirty years ago."

And incorporating option #3 into any other path is a classy and reasonable way to handle a time limit IMO -- it alerts the player that "Hey, you don't have forever to do this!" without just sticking a countdown timer in the corner of the screen.

Old age shouldn't just equal death, there ought to be benefits to it as well, as there are in life.

Option 1 is terrible, and not just subjectively. I'm surprised you even mention it. There isn't anything "hardcore" about randomness you can't control.

Option 2 sounds great. A steadily progressing (but not completely static, nor shown anywhere) aging schedule would be good and retain some mystery in the game. I'd consider giving the character some otherwise-unattainable strong perks in addition to the creeping weaknesses when he approaches death, making him weak in some aspects but strong in others he was not before, necessitating a gradual change in playstyle.

I think a precise date known from the start (Option 3) fits character death badly. An in-world time limit could be mechanically the same but be much easier to justify in plot. Even better if there isn't just one static time limit, but one the player can manipulate through what they do in the world, or several of varying intensity of which only the last one directly ends the game. Proven to work in Fallout. (I don't remember if the player was constantly informed of the dates though.)

Option 4, depending on how it's executed, is mechanics-wise equal to option 2 or 3. Using it instead of death seems to be a purely aesthetic / plot choice.

With the exception of 1 and 5, these are generally fine choices for a traditional RPG.
One thing though. I would seriously consider not providing an universal save/load facility in any game, but especially in a this kind of game if you choose to go with Option 2 or Option 3. The rationale for this being that the pressure for hoarding behavior is too much. At least in a FPS with unlimited save you can usually only pile up a couple of grenades, a couple of medipaks or something - as long as your stocks are maxed out or on the high side, you feel like you can actually use the items without immediately reloading and trying the same situation again to preserve them. In a game with an overarching time limit, the thing to hoard is "saved time", and it can be hoarded at all times without limit - so it feels it has to be hoarded at all times. So you'll have players play a short segment, plan out their actions, then reload and execute - over and over again. No immersion, no excitement. The "winning" way to play such a game is supremely boring.

Quote:

Original post by Stroppy Katamari One thing though. I would seriously consider not providing an universal save/load facility in any game, but especially in a this kind of game if you choose to go with Option 2 or Option 3. The rationale for this being that the pressure for hoarding behavior is too much. At least in a FPS with unlimited save you can usually only pile up a couple of grenades, a couple of medipaks or something - as long as your stocks are maxed out or on the high side, you feel like you can actually use the items without immediately reloading and trying the same situation again to preserve them. In a game with an overarching time limit, the thing to hoard is "saved time", and it can be hoarded at all times without limit - so it feels it has to be hoarded at all times. So you'll have players play a short segment, plan out their actions, then reload and execute - over and over again. No immersion, no excitement. The "winning" way to play such a game is supremely boring.

Heh, you kind of guessed a mechanic that will make it into my game. I'll be incorporating several ideas from Rogue and that includes the loss of your saved game if you die i.e. perma-death.

The aging time-limit is important but not central to my game. The goal of the game is to pay off a debt of 10000 talents of silver (like the bible parable) and that is designed to take a heck of a long time!

The reason I'm thinking about age-limiting the game is because I am planning a few concepts like city-building simulation and world events into the game. The better I know what time-period to target (e.g. 30-40 years) the easier this will be. I don't want the game to drag on for 200-300 years because that's harder to plan for. For example spending a lot of time creating a world event that happens 200 years is likely a waste of time if the player pays off the debt way before then. Also if I plan city sizes to double within the 30-40 years that is manageable but using that algorithm in 200-300 years all cities will be 1000x their original population throwing everything out of whack!

Overall everyone's ideas has me thinking. Another idea I had is a cataclysmic effect ending the game i.e. the Great Flood.

I remember in sims when I found out how to make that potion where you would live forever.just wasn't fun anymore.probably in the minority though.

but i got kinda upset with pirates for making me old.and rushing me.

maybe a heir could pick up where you left off if you die without finishing the main quest.

that said,losing is fun.I say make em drop dead.

While I like the idea of getting older in a game I don't like the idea of a global time limit. Maybe if you aged the character based on how long it took them to reach mile stones. As they hit these mile stones, such as certain money amounts, they would reflect back with a cut scene on their missions to that point and when they came back they will have grown older, for good or bad. But never make the player so old they couldn't complete the mission. This would give the story a feeling of taking a life time but still leave the player not feeling like they were up agains a clock.

Or maybe the amount of money is so much the debt is carried by your whole family. So if you do die in the progress of the story you pass on your debt to a child or brother or sister. Then you have the aging taking something away in that it takes your character that you have worked on for most of the game but you still have a chance to finish the game you just have to start with a raw character.

Having a variable time limit is a good thing in my mind. It forces the player to accept that can't do everything in a life time, and the goal becomes how well you can do in your chosen life path. If the game offers a fair amount of diversity then it all increases the reparability as the player tries for different and better endings.

Did they marry the most beautiful woman in the city?
Raise a healthy family?
Pay off the debt?
Recover the Family Estate?
Earn a large fortune despite their crippling challenges?
Lead the city to victory when the raiders tried to sack the city?
Become the most famous trader?

All of these can make for a fun experience as the player tries to do as much as can with the time they have.

That first one... that is incredibly stupid imo. Unless there is more to it, but imagine just playing a character in lets say.... WoW. a 40 man raid, and 2 of your guys die because.... just because (according to how you're wording it) It would make no sense, they aren't attacked, and away from danger and yet they still died. Of course, it doesn't matter much in WoW, since you can revive but if it's a hardcore character that has a one time death limit, it would just destroy any want to play the game.

If you were to apply health status to it, it wouldn't be so bad. Example:

a 1 to 100 meter bar, measuring your health.
At 100 you are at perfect health, physically fit, etc.
At 50, you are susceptible to illness, like... Aids, The Common Cold, the Flu.
At 0, you are very likely to be terminal.

With something like this and a way to raise your health with actions, it would be more reasonable and not catch the player off guard and ruin it. If they do decide to not care about their health, then they really have nothing to complain about.