Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Agent Smith explains to Morpheus that the first Matrix was a utopia. Humans rebelled because we define our existence through suffering.

A common theme in the Vampire genre is a malaise or depression that comes from being immortal. When we can't die, we also say goodbye to joy.

Viktor Frankle wrote "If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and death, human life cannot be complete."

I'm playing Shadow Gambit, Mimimi Games Magnum Opus. The culmination of their expertise built over 15 years on a specific genre. Their last big attempt at saving their studio.

In this game, they build save scumming directly into the narrative. The game is constantly telling the player to save so that, when they fail, they only have to rewind 7 seconds rather than 30+ seconds like in prior games.

Mimimi Games thought removing as much pain from the player as possible would help save their studio. The result...Shadow Gambit bombed and Mimimi Games closed up shop.

Part of the reason why multiplayer has usurped single player is because consequence and suffering is naturally built into the design. We're willing to risk losing if we have a chance at winning. In the single player space, we see the Soulslike games grow in popularity, the roguelite genre continues to rise, and open world RPGs continue to get more popular.

Is the industry slowly uncovering the fact that players want consequence in their games?

 

[Guilty_AI]

You can save scum as much as you want in BG3 and the game was a massive hit so... how does that fit into your argument?

 

[RoboFu]

Nope, Games are on subs now and can also be refunded easily. Grossly padded with easy wins is the main path going forward to keep those " engaged " numbers up.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You can save scum as much as you want in BG3 and the game was a massive hit so... how does that fit into your argument?

BG3 may eliminate pain via save scumming, but consequence (choice) is very clearly a strength of its design.

 

[Rivdoric]

It's more about incredible background, lore, story, music, gameplay and overall ambiance than pure difficulty the reason i love FS games.
In all honesty i don't fancy these "throwing my controller out of rage" moments that much. I had a lot of these in Sekiro and that's what i call too much.
But that's only my humble POV.

 

[Guilty_AI]

BG3 may eliminate pain via save scumming, but consequence (choice) is very clearly a strength of its design.

Then, why action RPGs a la Diablo are so popular despite being a genre that gives you no meaningful penalty for dying, nor contain any long last consequences?

 

[Three]

I think players actually hate unfixable or longterm consequence. They don't mind consequence that takes them a reasonable time again to undo. Consequence and choice are not really the same though so your save scumming BG3 example isn't the same. One is about the effect of risk and losing that risk vs the reward, the other is choosing your own path. Multiplayer games dont normally have longterm consequences, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Most of them have you jump into a new game and what happened before isn't important. At worse there is a risk/reward system with loosing loot in some games.

 

[HL3.exe]

That's a 2000s mindset. I appreciate consequences in my games too, but the developers of that era, especially ImmSim devs, were heavily focused on 'choice & consequences', which ultimately proved to be not a holistic solution or evolution for games.

I believe the next step in games isn't just about consequences; it's about solid mechanics and reactive systems. Building your game around a simple but solid simulation that is coherent, with great and multiplicative mechanics to interact with in that world, to generate open-ended problem-solving.

...but, let's be honest here, the future of games seems to be leaning towards nostalgia bait and grand monetization plans more than R&D innovation, because games are riskier to make than ever before.

 

[Wildebeest]

Consequence makes people play different ways, which are often less enjoyable, or make them stop playing entirely. Single player role playing and adventure games have experimented more with consequence more than MP games, where long term consequence is something boring like your MMR going up or down or your stats seeming less impressive. One good thing about action games is that in game consequences are often immediate, such as you miss a shot or get blind sided and you die. It is easy to see why it happened, even if it does not always seem like a fair game or a well-designed game.

An example of consequence gone wrong is in adventure games, where a key item at the start can be needed at the end of the game. If you don't pick it up, your game is soft locked without you knowing, for hours of wasted gameplay. This is the sort of "hard consequence" that seems funny and justifiable to a designer who never has to sit with players and watch them play the game all the way through. Maybe the designer is a psycho who still thinks this is funny, but maybe the user is also a psycho who makes them a Darwin award winner with some handy piano wire. Anyway, the consequence of this, if allowed to be normal, is that players just become very anal about tearing every part of the game apart looking for hidden items they might need later, and they make progress incredibly slowly.

Another example is the time limit to finding the water chip in Fallout. To a player, this can seem incredibly intimidating. If they don't find this item, it seems like game over for them, and it could be anywhere in a big open world. They don't trust the game to give them what they need because the game setting any time limit at all has already broken what they see as the sacred covenant between player and developer. It is not an easy sell at all because it is very hard to link the consequence to what you are doing at the moment, unless someone reliable straight up tells you that they know where a water chip is and how long it should take to get it. But on the other hand, I would say this sort of longer term consequence has a good side. A player is encouraged not to fart around too long going on long pointless side journeys, camping in the desert to grind random encounters, forget about the task at hand completely until they no longer even care what the main mission is. It is anti boredom, burnout and confusion.

 

[Gaiff]

You can save scum as much as you want in BG3 and the game was a massive hit so... how does that fit into your argument?

Save scumming only works if you already know the desired outcome. There are some things that won’t have consequences until much later that save scumming cannot guard you from unless you’re willing to rollback 10+ hours.

 

[nkarafo]

That's why i prefer puzzles/exploration at my own pace over action. I want my consequences to be getting stuck somewhere and not being able to find something instead of being killed and forced to re-do stuff again and again. Things like getting lost in the original DOOM and Super Metroid or trying to figure out a puzzle in Talos. That's my favorite type of challenge. Save scumming doesn't really help with that either.

Maybe i'm the minority though. I see a lot of people complaining about getting lost in games.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Then, why action RPGs a la Diablo are so popular despite being a genre that gives you no meaningful penalty for dying, nor contain any long last consequences?

Well, Diablo does have consequences in the skill tree. You can only build your character using so many branches. That's probably one of the key reasons the franchise took off.

Plus, do you think Diablo 4 is as highly regarded or as successful (relatively speaking) as Diablo 2? I don't.

This is a slow moving, long term trend with thousands of data points landing every year. All games since the dawn of time have "pain & consequences". It's just that the industry is doing better and better and playing with those ingredients.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

That's a 2000s mindset. I appreciate consequences in my games too, but the developers of that era, especially ImmSim devs, were heavily focused on 'choice & consequences', which ultimately proved to be not a holistic solution or evolution for games.

I believe the next step in games isn't just about consequences; it's about solid mechanics and reactive systems. Building your game around a simple but solid simulation that is coherent, with great and multiplicative mechanics to interact with in that world, to generate open-ended problem-solving.

...but, let's be honest here, the future of games seems to be leaning towards nostalgia bait and grand monetization plans more than R&D innovation, because games are riskier to make than ever before.

I would argue immsims generally do a poor job at playing with pain & consequence, which is largely the reason the genre has failed to take off.

The genres strength is choice but it's weakness has been in making you feel the consequence of that choice

 

[Guilty_AI]

Well, Diablo does have consequences in the skill tree. You can only build your character using so many branches. That's probably one of the key reasons the franchise took off.

Same thing in multiple CRPGs that never took off if that's your reasoning .

As someone said above, this action-consequence way of thinking is too early 2000s. Nowadays we understand people tend to prefer their games to work in self-contained loops with an overarching linear progression, which unsurprisingly is the loop many GAAS try to adopt.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Save scumming is not an issue for 90%+ users, they will never even know they can do that.
Choice and consequence locks you out of content which is anathema of modern game design (WoW LFG quoted this as exactly the reason).
There will not be a game like Witcher 2 for many years to come. The democratisation of gaming is strong despite From Soft popularity.

 

[Gandih42]

I agree with the general idea; meaningful consequences add a special kind of spice to games that can separate them, or even elevate them, from the rest. I think its a bit of a stretch drawing a direct line from Shadow Gambit encouraging save scumming to it flopping. You can find any number of examples that directly contradicts (or agrees) with your point, so I don't really buy it being such a strong indicator for a successful game.

I also sort of disagree with the idea that 'consequence' is built into multiplayer design. Sure you could interpret elements as being 'consequence' driven, such as getting to the end of a Battle Royale round only to end up loosing. But most of these games are also flooded with different kinds of progression paths that the player is still rewarded with, even if they loose. So that they're rewarded for the time spent regardless. Unless you're razor focused on being number 1, I don't see this as being particularly 'consequence' driven. I haven't played any extraction shooters, but I'm guessing these are good examples of consequences in MP games. At the very least, Hunt: Showdown looks really interesting to me, especially due to the strong emphasis on severe and immediate consequences to your actions (and strong atmosphere). But at the same time, I think this makes it fairly niche compared to more accessible examples.

From a game design perspective I think consequences tend to translate into time sinks, which can very easily feel frustrating rather than engaging. I imagine this is why games tend to get streamlined over time, until something comes along to shake things up (eg. Demon's Souls, Extraction Shooters, Military Sim Shooters). But I agree that well implemented consequences can truly elevate a game, even though it will ask more of the player than a more lenient game would. Its a fine balance though. If a game is too lenient it can break immersion, feel pointless, as if you're just going through arbitrary motions to have some audiovisual experience. If its too hard (too severe consequences) you'll get frustrated and bounce off.

Personally I like it when games give me some friction, in the form of consequences or otherwise. And I appreciate developers who dare to challenge players in that way.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Same thing in multiple CRPGs that never took off if that's your reasoning .

Think of it more like an ingredient such as flour. Flour only had X number of uses 1,000 years ago. As we progressed, we started learning how to utilize it more effectively to create more pastries, breads, desserts etc...

It's not a binary concept.

 

[crackajack]

I occasionally play MP but its core endless design makes it pointless and usually subpar for me. There is just no consequence whatsoever if any round is just another round. MP games and their "end game content" try to make some round more important than others, but still it is just another round. Some games don't need any more important finals, CS proves that for decades and any real life sport as well, but I like games to be sorta that one and done experience, a movie and book is too. But while movies and director cuts and probably books could in theory too it comes more natural to videogames to offer branching stories and proper choices like Detroit. Where my main character can die early and that is a valid outcome for a playthrough. That's pretty much the same as getting killed early in a MP round and having to wait for a respawn or the next round but still the sp "round" matters within a story, while mp rounds never matter that way.
I can see why some prefer it the other way round, I enjoy Trackmania eg immensely, much more than the more liked shooters and MOBAs or whatever, but preferences between people exist. The future of game design might be able to deliver good stuff for varying tastes. With Fortnite becoming some themepark for any game character ever, maybe adding very different game modes within one game, what GTA practically already is, so just being huge might make that happen in some way.

I'd boil everything down to offering options. That should be the game design of the future. Not try to pander to a limited number of players, but offer all sorts of stuff to various tastes and make it as automatic as possible. Give players pain, consequences, chill, beauty, mind challenges whatever they want. Some future algoritm should be able to find what I like most, maybe soonish all games lumped together within a sub and I just start my VR implant and play without ever selecting a single game.

 

[diffusionx]

If anything, modern games are moving away from consequence. The roguelite genre is a way to wipe the slate clean as much as you want while still ostensibly progressing. And multiplayer games have absolutely no consequences whatsoever, they are completely disposable. The only "consequence" of note is losing out on "rare" items if you don't complete a battle pass or whatever, which is by design.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I occasionally play MP but its core endless design makes it pointless and usually subpar for me. There is just no consequence whatsoever if any round is just another round.

I think MP gamers generally feel like they've failed if they don't win their round. Failure is an interesting, suboptimal outcome that acts enough as a motivator to keep things interesting.

In many SP games, death is less of a failure and more of a learning experience/annoyance. The players overall goal has not resulted in failure, but a minor setback. I think that's the advantage baked into MP.

I'd boil everything down to offering options. That should be the game design of the future. Not try to pander to a limited number of players, but offer all sorts of stuff to various tastes and make it as automatic as possible.

What is the purpose of having options if there's no consequence to those options?

A cookie has butter (choice) and flour (consequence) among other ingredients. Butter alone leaves you with limited baking avenues.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Agent Smith explains to Morpheus that the first Matrix was a utopia. Humans rebelled because we define our existence through suffering.

A common theme in the Vampire genre is a malaise or depression that comes from being immortal. When we can't die, we also say goodbye to joy.

Viktor Frankle wrote "If there is a meaning in life at all, then there must be a meaning in suffering. Suffering is an ineradicable part of life, even as fate and death. Without suffering and death, human life cannot be complete."

I'm playing Shadow Gambit, Mimimi Games Magnum Opus. The culmination of their expertise built over 15 years on a specific genre. Their last big attempt at saving their studio.

In this game, they build save scumming directly into the narrative. The game is constantly telling the player to save so that, when they fail, they only have to rewind 7 seconds rather than 30+ seconds like in prior games.

Mimimi Games thought removing as much pain from the player as possible would help save their studio. The result...Shadow Gambit bombed and Mimimi Games closed up shop.

Part of the reason why multiplayer has usurped single player is because consequence and suffering is naturally built into the design. We're willing to risk losing if we have a chance at winning. In the single player space, we see the Soulslike games grow in popularity, the roguelite genre continues to rise, and open world RPGs continue to get more popular.

Is the industry slowly uncovering the fact that players want consequence in their games?

I didn’t buy Shadow Gambit because they hired SBI.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I didn’t buy Shadow Gambit because they hired SBI.

You're a better man than I. You can definitely feel the BS in its story but once you get to the gameplay it's just moving Chess pieces around the board.

 

[Toots]

Rise of the Ronin has a great system called testament of souls that let you replay missions, but also cutscenes, and let you change your responses/ actions and update your choices accordingly in the main game. You can see every outcome and choose the one you think is best. It might seem to totally kill any choice making but curiously it doesn't, maybe because you know you have this safety net that enable you to change your choices at any moment in the game, and I find it a extremely elegant way to let the player experience all the content of the game in one playthrough.

Also in a world where everyone tend to flee their responsabilities instead of facing them like adults, i don't think owning to consequences is a greatly appreciated value.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Rise of the Ronin has a great system called testament of souls that let you replay missions, but also cutscenes, and let you change your responses/ actions and update your choices accordingly in the main game. You can see every outcome and choose the one you think is best. It might seem to totally kill any choice making but curiously it doesn't, maybe because you know you have this safety net that enable you to change your choices at any moment in the game, and I find it a extremely elegant way to let the player experience all the content of the game in one playthrough.

I suspect this form of game design is gradually dying.

When a game doesn't tattoo the player with consequences then the experience becomes sort of a flip book narrative. A really long movie where you're allowed to hop around and see every possible outcome.

It's The Count of Monte Cristo where Edmond Dantes uses his REWIND Dr Who space screwdriver to undo Fernands betrayal. The thing we appreciate about that story is the 14 years imprisonment...not avoiding the imprisonment.

I think that's what too many SP games still do. I think we're gradually moving away from that.

Also in a world where everyone tend to flee their responsabilities instead of facing them like adults, i don't think owning to consequences is a greatly appreciated value.

Wouldn't you also argue that reality is leading to unhappiness? When you flee responsibility & consequence, you turn into a miserable jerk. I don't think players actually want to see all 7 outcomes. That's actually not fun. They want to feel the 1 outcome they chose.

 

[IAmRei]

It might be equal to replaybility, as long as its fun, i dont mind replaying because my "wrong choices" in the next playthrough. Im fine with game mechanic like that. I replay Dragon Dogma about many times, and i believe i will do it too in DD2. I also replay lot of game like that. Such as Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Shin Megami Tensei series, etc. It give me sense of roleplaying. Not all games need to be like that. But it will give me reasons to return to the game. Also one of the reason needed for me to buy the games.

 

[Toots]

When a game doesn't tattoo the player with consequences then the experience becomes sort of a flip book narrative. A really long movie where you're allowed to hop around and see every possible outcome.

It's The Count of Monte Cristo where Edmond Dantes uses his REWIND Dr Who space screwdriver to undo Fernands betrayal. The thing we appreciate about that story is the 14 years imprisonment...not avoiding the imprisonment.

I think that's what too many SP games still do. I think we're gradually moving away from that.

Sony cinematic single player games are what you describe in your first sentence. People love those.

For me the thing people appreciate in the Count of MC is the way the hero overcome hardships and manage to exact vengeance upon those who wronged him, with wits and sheer willpower, but at the cost of himself. The emprisonment is what gives Dantes the means to exact his vengeance on those who wronged him in the Dumas' novel. It is a necessity and there's no story without it. Im not talking about changing that.
In Rise of the ROnin the overall story doesn't change much also, its all the contingent stuff that you can sway one way or another. That is also what's great with a video game as a medium. You can spend as much time as you want on the unnecessary stuff, since it's you who dictates the pace of the story being told.

Wouldn't you also argue that reality is leading to unhappiness? When you flee responsibility & consequence, you turn into a miserable jerk. I don't think players actually want to see all 7 outcomes. That's actually not fun. They want to feel the 1 outcome they chose.

I'd argue that youtube channels showing all the different outcomes of game choices are too successful for you to say that

 

[SmokedMeat]

Mimimi Games thought removing as much pain from the player as possible would help save their studio. The result...Shadow Gambit bombed and Mimimi Games closed up shop.

Mimimi Games didn’t close because of Shadow Gambit. They closed because the cofounders were burnt out, and didn’t want to sign on to develop another game for the next several years.
They wanted to spend time with their families.

 

[RickSanchez]

A cookie has butter (choice) and flour (consequence) among other ingredients. Butter alone leaves you with limited baking avenues.

 

[RickSanchez]

multiplayer has usurped single player

I disagree. The success of a few multiplayer experiences like GTA Online or Fortnite has skewed this narrative/perception. A large number of games that get made (and games that go on to become critical and commercial successes) are still Single Player (thank fuck). Just look at the list of GotY winners & nominees of any publication from the last few years. An overwhelming majority of the best games ever made are considered the best because they are fantastic single-player experiences.

Is the industry slowly uncovering the fact that players want consequence in their games?

Consider the reason many online multiplayer games make money, including mobile games : pay-to-win micro-transactions; which is nothing but players paying to ease their playthroughs by reducing negative consequences.

 

[jason10mm]

I think players actually hate unfixable or longterm consequence. They don't mind consequence that takes them a reasonable time again to undo. Consequence and choice are not really the same though so your save scumming BG3 example isn't the same. One is about the effect of risk and losing that risk vs the reward, the other is choosing your own path. Multiplayer games dont normally have longterm consequences, I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Most of them have you jump into a new game and what happened before isn't important. At worse there is a risk/reward system with loosing loot in some games.

I think players dislike unknown/unintended consequences. Having to make a binary choice like a branching skill tree or "save the village or take the magic talking axe" are pretty straightforward choices. But things like "XXX will remember that" in a Telltale game after you made what you thought was a fairly benign dialogue choice can be INFURIATING as a player because you are usually missing some critical info at that point, the dialogue choices didn't really convey the importance of the decision, or in real life you'd never know WHY that choice was important.

Players I think like when the gamestate reflects their personal choices, but they (or at least I) tend to dislike when you can't make a fully informed decision under what is often an artificial time pressure. Games like Civilization are, from a certain POV, ENTIRELLY player choice and consequences, you have worked to craft the entire landscape by the end. Versus a "on the rails" shooter where your only real contribution to the endstate is how much ammo and health you might have left.

It'd be nice to play a game that accounted for EVERY failure and never stopped, you just diverged from the path and ended up in a shit sandwich of your own making. But that's a pretty ambitious undertaking and not many narratively driven games can really account for that kind of thing versus "you failed, restart". Roguelikes probably get the closest as failure is usually baked into their design, but the eternally changing playfield limits the mark the player can leave.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Sony cinematic single player games are what you describe in your first sentence. People love those.

I think it's safe to say we've progressed passed that point in gaming. That type of game peaked ~15 years ago. Imagine PlayStations budget allocation in 2010 and compare it to what they're doing today.

It is a necessity and there's no story without it.

Not true. Edmond didn't need to go to prison, his punishment was whatever the author wanted it to be. We love that story in particular because the stakes (consequences) were so dramatic.

In Rise of the ROnin the overall story doesn't change much also, its all the contingent stuff that you can sway one way or another. That is also what's great with a video game as a medium. You can spend as much time as you want on the unnecessary stuff, since it's you who dictates the pace of the story being told.

I don't think people actually want to dictate the pace of their play.

Picture the body language of 6 basketball players shooting around at a hoop with 3 balls. People are sluggish, walking slowly around. Now picture the body language of that group when you tell them it's one ball, 3 v 3, first one to 11 wins. The human species lights up when the pace is dictated by outside control.

It's why there's so few stories where the protagonist is God. Hell, is there any story in human history where the main character can rewind time and experiment with different outcomes? There's not because humans innately are drawn to consequences and stakes.

Videogames may be leaving the novelty stage and entering the stage of consequence.

I'd argue that youtube channels showing all the different outcomes of game choices are too successful for you to say that

There's no energy there. Time + money goes overwhelmingly to playing games, not watching outcome videos.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I disagree. The success of a few multiplayer experiences like GTA Online or Fortnite has skewed this narrative/perception. A large number of games that get made (and games that go on to become critical and commercial successes) are still Single Player (thank fuck). Just look at the list of GotY winners & nominees of any publication from the last few years. An overwhelming majority of the best games ever made are considered the best because they are fantastic single-player experiences.

Wars are not won with numbers. Wars are won with violence.

"We have 10,000 soldiers in this area. There's no way they can beat us."

"We'll just carpet bomb that area with 500 bombs."

500 > 10,000 in the same way that a small number of multiplayer games out earn a large number of single player games. All the large publishers are also prioritizing Live Service production now.

Awards are meaningless. Engagement + revenue is everything.

Consider the reason many online multiplayer games make money, including mobile games : pay-to-win micro-transactions; which is nothing but players paying to ease their playthroughs by reducing negative consequences.

In the console + PC space, P2W is extremely rare. Also, ease does not mean eliminate.

 

[Gameplay Gods Bless]

Then, why action RPGs a la Diablo are so popular despite being a genre that gives you no meaningful penalty for dying, nor contain any long last consequences?

The consequence in Diablo is grinding to get bad loot, Diablo players are addicted to good loot drops but that only works when there's bad loot to add meaning and value to the good loot.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Mimimi Games didn’t close because of Shadow Gambit. They closed because the cofounders were burnt out, and didn’t want to sign on to develop another game for the next several years.
They wanted to spend time with their families.

Shadow Gambits player peak on Steam was ~50% of what Desperados 3 was. It was also very clearly their most expensive game to date.

They chose to spend more time with their families because the alternative (losing money) was so miserable.

 

[Wildebeest]

I didn't make myself clear, so I'll try again. Consequences are bullshit. Nobody like random consequences because some narrative designer just says so or some game designer who just worked out what a skinner box is says you should get consequences instead of rewards based on a random number.

What players want are rules to a game, so they can know what happens is fair. They want the game to provide good feedback to their actions. Things like harsh death screens, or being made to do a timeout in the losers chair for a while, are totally supplemental to the main event.

 

[Toots]

Not true. Edmond didn't need to go to prison, his punishment was whatever the author wanted it to be. We love that story in particular because the stakes (consequences) were so dramatic

That's crazy talking dude
He needed to be wrongfully accused and go to prison or else he wouldn't need to avenge himself.
He needed to go to Château d'If so he could meet Faria who gave him the means to take his revenge.
We love the story because it happens the way it happens. Of course the stakes are high since it was written that way. Because the writer wanted to write it that way because he wanted the stakes to be high.

I don't think people actually want to dictate the pace of their play.

Picture the body language of 6 basketball players shooting around at a hoop with 3 balls. People are sluggish, walking slowly around. Now picture the body language of that group when you tell them it's one ball, 3 v 3, first one to 11 wins. The human species lights up when the pace is dictated by outside control.

I think you rely too much on the anecdotal to explain too broad truths (if that makes any sense).
One could argue those men on the basketball court started to get lively because cheerleaders entered the gym at the time not because they started playing. Outside factors are often decisive to give purpose to people, but one can give himself purpose as well, and we aren't some kind of amorphous directionless masses on our own like you seem to think.

It's why there's so few stories where the protagonist is God. Hell, is there any story in human history where the main character can rewind time and experiment with different outcomes? There's not because humans innately are drawn to consequences and stakes.

Again imo you're trying to pull broad truths from anecdotal evidence. And you omit all the anecdotal evidences contrary to your thesis.
I'll leave you with a really confidential little scifi book with a main character who can do exactly what you say (bolded text). It's called Dune.
Also the son of the hero is called the "god emperor" for some reason and he managed to rule the universe for 3 or 4 thousand years, before it start to get really boring.

Spoiler

you could argue that the ending of the god emperor of dune is exactly what you say about human being drawn to consequences and stakes, because under the guidance of the omniscient god emperor, humanity stagnate totally. There's no stakes in anyhting because Leto II can predict every outcome. And what he does at the end of the book is exactly giving back consequences and stakes to humanity. But no the way you meant it !!!

 

[rm082e]

Obviously we can point to games that have not had consequences, but I think we've pretty much always had some games that have consequence. Take it back to the old days of the Arcades, 2600 and NES: Games used to have a set number of lives. If you died too many times, you had to either restart the level or the entire game. That was a consequence for sure.

RPGs have had choices that result in consequences since forever. Characters that can die or not die depending on your choice, optional quests and characters that you just don't see if you don't explore the optional content, etc.

I would also point to things like scoring systems in the old days, grading systems in the PS2 era (DMC and Ninja Gaiden for example), and Achievements/Trophies as a minor form of consequence. Although I think often those are more of incentives than consequences, but that's probably down to how each player feels about them. Some people can't stand not having all the trophies, so they feel like they're being punished when a game has a really difficult or laborious set. Hell, I know some people who won't play a game they are really interested in if they don't think they can get the Platinum. Other people ignore them and can't imagine caring one bit.

We really only got to the idea of games with no consequence when the length of time the player could potentially waste got longer and longer. Think about Super Mario Bros: Levels are 2-3 minutes long. If you died and had to go back to start the level over again, it didn't seem like that big of a deal. But as we got into games where a level or section of gameplay might last 30 minutes, the idea of losing that progress felt like punishment. Obviously the checkpoint mechanic was invented to solve this problem.

I would point to something like Prince of Persia (2008) as an example of a game that had nearly zero consequence. I remember articles being written about that at the time praising that game as a great way to bring new people into gaming. At the other end of the spectrum, you have the From Software games. When Demon's Souls came out, I remember a lot of people got excited about the idea of a challenging RPG that wasn't going to hold your hand - where you were free to go way out on a limb exploring a level and die knowing you basically lost all that progress because you were not going to be able to make it back to your bloodstain to collect the souls you had gathered. For players who wanted that challenge and that consequence of risk vs. reward, it was thrilling. Some of my best memories from the PS3 are realizing I went really far into a new area, got lucky to kill the enemies that I likely would die through if I had to replay that section, and then I was desperate to find the shortcut to unlock the boss area so I could get back to the Nexus without dying.

So yeah, I think it's always been there in a bunch of different ways. The more narrative driven consequence has become more popular over time, but that's probably because the technology has evolved to store a database with all that choice info and call back to it later.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

But no the way you meant it !!!

No, that's EXACTLY how I meant it!

We do not give a pass to any narrative without consequence. Books, film, TV...all our favorite stories are filled with risk + consequence.

Our games are largely without. An infinite # of lives with save scumming is objectively bad narrative design.

 

[jason10mm]

No, that's EXACTLY how I meant it!

We do not give a pass to any narrative without consequence. Books, film, TV...all our favorite stories are filled with risk + consequence.

Our games are largely without. An infinite # of lives with save scumming is objectively bad narrative design.

I think many (if not most) games operate under different rules than a static narrative experience like a film or novel. In those mediums, setting up a clear understanding of the states and the consequences is CRITICAL for audience emotional buy-in. Lots of poorly written stories fail to do this and just the spectacle of it quickly grows dull.

Video games however, CAN survive mostly on spectacle because they can offer different rewards, like loot drops, flashing "level up!" icons, skill based challenges, and a constant feed of new looking enemies to fight. Arcade games are largely based on this, with the emotional vestment coming from the amount of quarters you have. I play a lot of mame and being able to effortless add digital coins does take away most of the thrill of the game.

As video games increasingly trend towards complex narrative sequences and events (though even asteroids and pac-man have SOME level of backstory and are not just random flashing lights on a screen) then they do need to play more attention towards the consequences of a fixed narrative or a "choose your own adventure" one at least. Some folks hate making the "wrong" choice and want to be able to roll it back. Others hate missing ANY content, no matter if what they get is narratively rewarding and coherent in the path they did get. Still others thrive off the resilience and unpredictability of getting sent into new areas due to their choices even if they were sub-optimal.

I'm playing The Quarry right now, which oddly enough has a "movie mode" where I guess you can just watch the game play out in one specific sequence. Otherwise so far it's kinda hard to see what the "best" path is, though it makes you aware that you did do something to affect the later game, even if you don't know exactly what. Leave that door open or jammed shut? Just gotta ride it out to see if it helps or hurts yah down the road. Not the game for everyone, for sure.

 

[Gaelyon]

It's why there's so few stories where the protagonist is God. Hell, is there any story in human history where the main character can rewind time and experiment with different outcomes? There's not because humans innately are drawn to consequences and stakes.

It's the whole plot of Life is Strange... The main gameplay is you rewind time to experiment different outcomes. Also there's tons of stories with a time traveller protagonist and multiple outcomes and consequences about it.
And your take about gaming discovered that consequence is the next step, via multiplayers games, is really absurd. There's consequences to losing since Pac-man and Space Invader and the "Game Over" screen.

 

[Toots]

No, that's EXACTLY how I meant it!

We do not give a pass to any narrative without consequence. Books, film, TV...all our favorite stories are filled with risk + consequence.

Our games are largely without. An infinite # of lives with save scumming is objectively bad narrative design.

I know but you know what i meant
Also one determine on his own which stuff he gives value to in life.
I'll use another exemple. Marriage story isn't a movie about saving the world or even saving one's life, but it managed to engage a lot of people a lot more than any 80's actioner (where the stakes are always comically high).

I made a joke about palmer luckey's death vr headset (where if you died in the game you'd die irl) saying he should have made a headset where if you have sex in game you're not a virgin anymore irl. It's a joke because of course what you do in game doesn't impact what you are irl. But it seems you are really taking this seriously. Do you really think a game where you cannot go back to experience all outcomes is the way forward ?

 

[Majukun]

Gaming is nothing other than a series of meaningful choices, to have meaningful choices, you need consequences.

 

[HL3.exe]

I would argue immsims generally do a poor job at playing with pain & consequence, which is largely the reason the genre has failed to take off.

The genres strength is choice but it's weakness has been in making you feel the consequence of that choice

It's because long-term consequence is a abstract high-level design driven concept, and most games are build on low-level direct cause-and-effect runtime interactions.

Eventhough I love consequences in games, I kinda dislike pre-planned consequences build by a designer. I like unintended consequences due to systemic collisions like in most ImmSim.

Simple example: forgetting to hide a body and causing NPC being in an alert style. No scripts, all systemic. Having a consistent simulation with persistence creates way more interesting choice & consequences than pre-planned stuff.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Shadow Gambits player peak on Steam was ~50% of what Desperados 3 was. It was also very clearly their most expensive game to date.

They chose to spend more time with their families because the alternative (losing money) was so miserable.

I’ll take the founder’s word over your version. They absolutely could’ve gone onto another game if they wanted to. They’re one of the best tactical strategy developers in the industry.

 

[Umbral]

I would argue immsims generally do a poor job at playing with pain & consequence, which is largely the reason the genre has failed to take off.

The genres strength is choice but it's weakness has been in making you feel the consequence of that choice

Would you mind elaborating on this?

 

[Meicyn]

Risk and consequence have existed in games since forever. I mean, take Sid Meier’s Pirates back in 1987. Do I attack that treasure galleon loaded with silver being transported from Incan Mines on route back to Spain in my tiny-ass sloop with a fraction of the men, fire power, and significant risk of being sunk if even a fraction of cannon fire hits me? Even if I don’t get sunk and manage to board the vessel, can I defeat the Captain in a sword fight? If I win, I get a huge ship worth a lot of gold, lots of treasure which will make my crew happy, etc. If I lose, I literally lose everything. The consequences are significant in the game from start to finish if you focus on the path of being a pirate, because every loss has some form of impact ranging from the hit to your crew’s morale, the long-term health of your character (you become more sluggish as you age), or even losing everything you’ve accumulated from pirating! The game is everything Ubisoft’s Skull and Bones should have attempted to replicate.

The premise of the thread is flawed because it assumes everyone wants to play the same kind of games, or that all developers will chase trends. Sometimes I enjoy playing Stellaris which is chock full of the aforementioned risk vs reward with the nigh infinite ways to play its simulation of interstellar conflict. Other times I just veg out and play Fortnite Festival, doing the functional equivalent of Simon Says with music accompanying my mimicry.

Variety is the spice of life. There is no single type of game design that is the industry’s future. We all like different types of music, art, food, and so on. Games are no different… mobile gaming rakes in more money than Sony could possibly dream of right now, and yet I have zero inclination to play Pokemon Go… an extremely popular game with absolutely zero risk in the design.

 

[mdkirby]

I disagree with the premise of life can only have meaning through death and/or suffering. That aside it also reminds me a bit of the eldars in 40k, where their technology allowed their lives to become long, everything they wanted they’d have, and they became extreme hedonists and became increasingly depraved…personally I view to concept as a form of cope. We say pain and suffering “builds character” and all that jazz, just to make ourselves feel a bit better over the inevitable reality that we will experience it at some point, or for some, often.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Would you mind elaborating on this?

Immsims are essentially this...

Most games want the player to start at A and get into B.

The player can choose the green circle (stealth), or the red square (conversation), or the yellow triangle (violence)...but at the end of every objective, it doesn't matter because you're there to trigger the dialogue/cutscene. Once you do, your set in a safe place with full health and you're supposed to run to the next childrens shape box and do it all over again.

If we have to steal a letter inside a mansion it's not interesting to weigh your options. You're incentivized to go with the first opening you see because there are no long term ramifications.

It would be far more interesting to break into a mansion in real life because you're strategy matters deeply. You don't want to get caught or get hurt, breaking into a mansion because obviously there are consequences IRL.

I love the concept of the immsim but it's missing a vital ingredient for it to take off.

 

[_Ex_]

The easier something is the less value it provides.

 

[FoxMcChief]

People these days don’t deal with consequences. Why would they enter the game realm?