Necessary Losses in Games

[DuelMark]

Recently in the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon by Nickelodeon, episode 9 had the turtles face The Shredder for the first time. They suffer their first real loss at the hands on the Foot Clan's leader as he manages to defeat them and leave them battered and bruised.
Where am I going with this? Always when Link faces an opponent, he always ends up winning because he either slays them or they decide to give up. What if, and bare with me, we have a boss battle taking place in the middle of the dungeons, like, say, after the tradition three dungeons before the big plot change, Link faces against Ganondorf in a battle that Link literally cannot win? You can have Link slash away but his attacks are either dodged or caught by the villain and lets him deal damage to Link. Should Link have one heart left, that's when the battle ends.

What do you think? This would actually be a good idea to me because it would better show just how powerful and dangerous the villain is, thus it would show just how strong Link becomes when he faces him again and ultimately wins.

 

[Spirit]

Well, its worked in a lot of games in the past. God of War on psp, Metroid more than one and even Golden Sun. I wouldn't mind seeing a necessary loss, its something Zelda hasn't done and it needs to bring some new elements to the table, this would be something interesting to witness, especially if they can rope in the Spaceworld 2000 scene at the battle's beginning or end or something, that'd be some nice fan service.

 

[Castle]

Sounds like the infamous Square Enix stunt. People tend to dislike it when game makers put players in a situation where they are supposed to lose. After all, it is completely contrary to the nature of a game in which participants are encouraged to win. In Final Fantasy there are some boss fights that players are required to lose for the sake of the narrative. The boss is literally invincible. The problem is, players don't know that. After all, it is their goal to win, so players consume valuable restorative items such as health restoring potions during a boss battle that they have no hope of winning. They end up getting cheated because the game writer took control.

Getting cheated aside, most players get extremely frustrated whenever control is taken away from them, especially when it has to do with gameplay.

A better idea is to revamp the way traditional game overs are handled these days. I don't know why video games even have them anymore. They're pointless. All they do more often than not is simply send players back to the last save point... whenever that was.

What if, if the player suffered a loss, the repercussions are reflected in the game. Maybe a town full of civilians is over run so players no longer have access to the shops that were located there? or a character vital to the quest is killed or captured? Maybe the player would then have to liberate the town or rescue the captured character later? If the player succeeds, then shops in town stay open and the player gets the help of the person they saved.

If there is a way for players to fail saving the captured character or liberating the town later, perhaps if the player fails too often, the bad guy defeats the protagonist and wins in the end?

How's that for a game over?

It could work in the contest of a fight in which the player is up against overwhelming odds. But if the player actually does manage to defeat the enemy the payoffs would be spectacular rather than the designer simply demanding, "you're a looser because we said so!"

That having been said, the following video illustrates perfectly how a mandatory defeat actually serves both the gameplay and the narrative.

[video=youtube;8FpigqfcvlM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=LLPI0vT_Eit2Af-WLkHOwucA&v=8FpigqfcvlM[/video]

 

[Krazy4Krash]

That's actually pretty cool. Wouldn't mind it at all. Though I don't really care if something like it were missed entirely. What if it were like say, Paper Mario, where it takes place at the very beginning of the story.

 

[HyruleHistory10]

I think if Played in the story well it would work

 

[the_gamer]

Like loosing all your equipment in SS or getting arrestet in TWW?

 

[DarkestLink]

Done it. Zant. Ganondorf.

 

[Dragoncat]

Sounds like the infamous Square Enix stunt. People tend to dislike it when game makers put players in a situation where they are supposed to lose. After all, it is completely contrary to the nature of a game in which participants are encouraged to win. In Final Fantasy there are some boss fights that players are required to lose for the sake of the narrative. The boss is literally invincible. The problem is, players don't know that. After all, it is their goal to win, so players consume valuable restorative items such as health restoring potions during a boss battle that they have no hope of winning. They end up getting cheated because the game writer took control.

Getting cheated aside, most players get extremely frustrated whenever control is taken away from them, especially when it has to do with gameplay.

This. I would be mad. Imagine spending all that time getting health potions, then wasting them.

I like your idea though, that would be something I could live with.

 

[SNOlink]

This idea doesn't really appeal to me. It's mostly because it's a bother and it feels like a complete waste of time if I'm going to lose anyways. I like what OoT did in that they did have you lose against Ganondorf when you first meet him, but it was all a cut-scene. You don't really feel like you've lost or waste any precious materials you have and you still see that Ganondorf is this really powerful guy who's not just messing around.

 

[izi]

Just because it would be awesome:
I think your idea of a necessary loss would be good for the series after the "first half" dungeons. Maybe a battle with the main antagonist or their right-hand man/woman. It could still be played as a boss battle in which the player would attack them a certain amount of times and win, but then in an epic cutscene battle, Link would lose, almost die, and that's what would bring him to the "second half" dungeons - to collect (a/the) piece(s) of the Triforce to grow stronger, or something similar.
Necessary losses can actually tell a lot about a character: how they deal with loss (because it rarely happens) among other things.

Then again, it might not be a great thing for it to bring out Link's character. Link is a very developed character simply because he's as developed as everybody wants him to be - and that's hardly at all. He has his signature look, items, grunts, and that's all he really needs.

Whatever they do with the idea, though, I hope they execute it well. I've seen it done some in some great instances and some story-ruining instances.

 

[snakeoiltanker]

First off, as soon as i read the first post i was thinking of that MegamanX vs. Vile battle at the beggining of MegamanX, and for Castle to post my favorite Sequelitus episode, i just started laughing. but on topic. I like izi's idea. a battle that you have to somewhat win to get to the cutscene where Link is defeated. this keeps everyone happy, cuz then we are not pointlessly useing consumables just to be killed. But instead, we "win" the battle, but for story sake, Link is still defeated in the cut-scene. Good job Izi!

 

[Spirit]

I like izi's idea. a battle that you have to somewhat win to get to the cutscene where Link is defeated. this keeps everyone happy, cuz then we are not pointlessly useing consumables just to be killed. But instead, we "win" the battle, but for story sake, Link is still defeated in the cut-scene. Good job Izi!

I think Devil May Cry 3 did that, i fought really hard on that boss, won.. and still lost :-/ good cutscene though, so as long as the defeat is entertaining then its all good =]