Why do Video Games Still Have a 'Game Over' Outcome?

[AT-AT Luvah]

So my boys are heavy into Wii gaming right now, enjoying Super Mario Bros, but as they are 6 and 3 1/2, they often 'die' within the game.

I don't mind the character deaths, but it got me thinking - what exactly is the point of a 'game over' in a home console game?

I can understand the rationale for 'game over' at an arcade machine. But we bought the game to keep, so why must we go back to the map to start over when we exhaust our lives?

Anybody know?

 

[OldKen]

Usually games like mario will let you keep starting over in the same world untill you run out of lives then you have to start back at the save spot.

It makes certain parts harder to get past. If lives were unlimited there would be no fear of getting killed. Thus making there be nothing to lose thus making it boring.

 

[hankey01]

A game would be boring of there were no risk at all..so having to start a level over, or return to a save point add some desire to perform well.

I had the Prince Of Persia for the Xbox 360 and you just can't die in that game..the fairy or whatever always brought me back to life. Got pretty boring and pointless. The newer Prince of Persia:Forgotten sands..you have vials you collect again so you have a limited amount of saves before you die and must return to your last save point. Much more exciting to me.

 

[exoray]

To create a challenge? If you had unlimited lives and no restart there wouldn't be much of a challenge would there, there wouldn't be the anticipation of what is the next level, what will get unlocked, or what not... Yeah you could say make it an option, but you know that if you did except for the very young kids most kids would lose interest very quickly as there was no challenge...

You could explore one of the saved game cheats for your kids, basically a hacked saved game you load on an SD card and then load into the Wii, with 99 lives and all things unlocked...

 

[Sigma-LS]

I feel the same way about the "Easy" mode, but that's on the opposite end of the spectrum I think.:lol

If a game isn't moderately challenging, it's no fun. I can't even stand to play shooters without being on the hardest difficulty anymore. I want my $60 worth of entertainment and a higher difficulty makes the game longer as you can't just waltz through a hurtstorm to win.

As for kids, I recall dying being the time to swap turns. Gave you an incentive to get better. And game over was when it was time to go do something else for awhile.

 

[patsmear]

I feel the same way about Buddists, why would you want to come back and try it all over?

 

[tubachris85x]

I feel the same way about Buddists, why would you want to come back and try it all over?

Its the challenge; you may come back as a fly in the next life only to have to avoid getting smacked

 

[Solo4114]

I think it depends on the game. "Game over" could just mean "You die" but you die with consequences no worse than "Now go back to the start of the run and try again." Personally, I think a "use whenever" in-game save feature (rather than checkpoints) is the best of both worlds. Want a challenge? Don't use the save feature except for maybe the autosave. Don't want a challenge? Quicksave every 20 feet so it's as if you're invincible. If you die, you can just reload from right before you died.


Games have a tough task of trying to find a balance between being challenging/interesting enough to be more than just a minor diversion, but being rewarding enough that you don't simply snap your controller in half and go read a book.

 

[SSgt Burton]

Why do Video Games Still Have a 'Game Over' Outcome?

To teach you two things:

1- Life can be tough sometimes.

2- If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.


Kevin

 

[Kylash]

thats why i like the ghostbusters game, you never really die, you can keep going.

 

[AT-AT Luvah]

I understand having to make a game challenging, but the in-game challenges are still there. The characters can still die.

I just don't get having to have a 'game over', when gamers will just hit 'Continue' anyway.

 

[Minder Thr33]

thats why i like the ghostbusters game, you never really die, you can keep going.

What? You die and start over from the checkpoint if your team has been down and there's no one to revive them.

Games will be boring if there is no 'Game Over'. There's no challenge. There are games like Sim City where you really can't die, but that's a different type of game. Prince of Persia was a good example as you can redo all the mistakes you made and really can't die.

 

[Wes R]

Games have come a long way from when i was younger and you had to redo a level when you died.

 

[propologist]

So my boys are heavy into Wii gaming right now, enjoying Super Mario Bros, but as they are 6 and 3 1/2, they often 'die' within the game.

I don't mind the character deaths, but it got me thinking - what exactly is the point of a 'game over' in a home console game?

I can understand the rationale for 'game over' at an arcade machine. But we bought the game to keep, so why must we go back to the map to start over when we exhaust our lives?

Anybody know?

you haven't learned the two words you need to know .." cheat codes"