Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Hugehead]

Last time this came up, I mentioned that one way to make a game have real consequences *without* making it damage files or anything else that would make people not want to play it, would be to have an optional overpowered weapon/magic/whatever flip a few random bits in one of your savefiles and/or some of the graphics files of the game, in such a way that the files are still useable, but altered. The weaker ones could only affect your save, while the more advanced ones could alter other saves, and the most advanced ones could alter the actual game files, ensuring that after a few months, the graphics, enemy power levels, sounds, text, etc. would be damaged to the point of making the game fairly difficult. Or not, in the case of altering a savefile, as one of the chosen bits could be something of the player's, and changing that bit would make the player stronger.

That would be a much better way to convey this point, you start with a weapon that kills anything in the game in one hit but you have to consider using it since it could mess up your game.

[Singularity125]

Lose/Lose thread.

And there's a much better freeware game : Directory Blaster. Just the same as lose/lose, except you choose the files you want deleted.

There are some cool ideas in that thread, though. Like the roguelike where overpowered magic might corrupt the game (only the game directory), or display files. Stuff like that. I'd like that idea, if there was a quick way to reinstall / "reset" the files if things got too bad. I could see people reinstalling a game like that multiple times a day...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It would be interesting to have a game with a truly literal corruption mechanic.

[G-Flex]

Last time this came up, I mentioned that one way to make a game have real consequences *without* making it damage files or anything else that would make people not want to play it, would be to have an optional overpowered weapon/magic/whatever flip a few random bits in one of your savefiles and/or some of the graphics files of the game, in such a way that the files are still useable, but altered. The weaker ones could only affect your save, while the more advanced ones could alter other saves, and the most advanced ones could alter the actual game files, ensuring that after a few months, the graphics, enemy power levels, sounds, text, etc. would be damaged to the point of making the game fairly difficult. Or not, in the case of altering a savefile, as one of the chosen bits could be something of the player's, and changing that bit would make the player stronger.

In fact, something somewhat similar to this exists in many popular games already: Roguelikes associate a negative but restricted effect with death when they implement a form of permadeath, as it only deletes your save file, and not random other ones.

That's not making the same point at all, because that doesn't have consequences outside of the game itself. Games having consequences within the context of the game is hardly new or clever and isn't remotely the same thing as the game having consequences for more than itself. I'm not saying that you're proposing a bad idea, just that it's an idea completely outside the scope or goals we're talking about.

[dwarfguy2]

Last time this came up, I mentioned that one way to make a game have real consequences *without* making it damage files or anything else that would make people not want to play it, would be to have an optional overpowered weapon/magic/whatever flip a few random bits in one of your savefiles and/or some of the graphics files of the game, in such a way that the files are still useable, but altered. The weaker ones could only affect your save, while the more advanced ones could alter other saves, and the most advanced ones could alter the actual game files, ensuring that after a few months, the graphics, enemy power levels, sounds, text, etc. would be damaged to the point of making the game fairly difficult. Or not, in the case of altering a savefile, as one of the chosen bits could be something of the player's, and changing that bit would make the player stronger.

That would be a much better way to convey this point, you start with a weapon that kills anything in the game in one hit but you have to consider using it since it could mess up your game.

would the mess-ups be missingno style or just switcheroo style?

[qwertyuiopas]

That's not making the same point at all, because that doesn't have consequences outside of the game itself. Games having consequences within the context of the game is hardly new or clever and isn't remotely the same thing as the game having consequences for more than itself. I'm not saying that you're proposing a bad idea, just that it's an idea completely outside the scope or goals we're talking about.

Lose/Lose does not really express it's point. It is a game that only exists for controversy. Whatever message about consequences it may be trying to convey is lost, as people who *do* run the game break their computers or use some exploit or workaround to negate the consequences. Let me tell you about a game with a similar message, one that you, after playing, will actually *remember*, and not simply because it deleted your thesis or because you set a high score by "cheating" it. Go here. In that game, through some clever data storage, when you lose, it doesn't delete itself, but losing is *permanent*, and nothing short of an OS reinstall will change that. THAT game conveys it's message far more effectively.

Now, the self-corrupting game idea *does* have consequences outside of the game, because, as a key point, actions in one save file by one character may affecty any other savefiles/characters without warning, but it limits itself in what it alters so that the average user won't have to worry about damaging a critical file and losing their job over it.

would the mess-ups be missingno style or just switcheroo style?

If I made the game? Missingno style. And beyond. Only it would simply alter an existing enemy instead of creating a new one. Or maybe create a new one from a randomly chosen string of bits in your save file.

[G-Flex]

That's not making the same point at all, because that doesn't have consequences outside of the game itself. Games having consequences within the context of the game is hardly new or clever and isn't remotely the same thing as the game having consequences for more than itself. I'm not saying that you're proposing a bad idea, just that it's an idea completely outside the scope or goals we're talking about.

Lose/Lose does not really express it's point. It is a game that only exists for controversy. Whatever message about consequences it may be trying to convey is lost, as people who *do* run the game break their computers or use some exploit or workaround to negate the consequences.

The choice to not run the game (or to run it and die, erasing the program) expresses the point. Choosing whether or not to go through with playing the game in the first place is half the game, and makes the point in itself. Choosing to do it and fucking up your computer also expresses it, and it's honestly completely beside the point whether or not it's theoretically possible to cheat at it. Cheating at that game is entirely pointless, as it evades the premise the game is built around. It's effectively irrelevant to the question of whether or not the game succeeds in what it sets out to do artistically.

And yes, it's probably also meant to generate controversy and get people to talk about the subject, and there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not all there is to it.

Let me tell you about a game with a similar message, one that you, after playing, will actually *remember*, and not simply because it deleted your thesis or because you set a high score by "cheating" it. Go here. In that game, through some clever data storage, when you lose, it doesn't delete itself, but losing is *permanent*, and nothing short of an OS reinstall will change that. THAT game conveys it's message far more effectively.

It's not the same message, because the consequences in that only relate to the game itself. The point of Lose/Lose is that doing things in the game (namely, killing things) has consequences that extend beyond the act itself and beyond the immediate context (the game). "If you lose, you lose the game forever" is a very different (although sort of related) theme.

Now, the self-corrupting game idea *does* have consequences outside of the game, because, as a key point, actions in one save file by one character may affecty any other savefiles/characters without warning, but it limits itself in what it alters so that the average user won't have to worry about damaging a critical file and losing their job over it.

All of those things are within the context of the game itself, so no, it doesn't. You say that it has consequences "outside of the game", yet every example you list is within the game.


The average user playing Lose/Lose won't damage a critical file and lose their job because (provided they actually understand the gigantic freaking warning) they're not going to play it (or, if they play, won't actually kill any of the creatures). That's pretty much the point: It makes killing things in the game consequential to the degree that you won't do it if you're sane, as a statement about the fact that in most games, you make decisions that by right should be consequential in that way (e.g. killing dudes) but that are not. Not that I think it's really criticizing that kind of game, but it's a clever little way of simulating the fact that your actions actually have consequences beyond the immediate scope of what you're doing.

[qwertyuiopas]

However, the decision not to run the game is the c=hoice to disregard any message it may contain. To effectively spread a message through a game, people must actually run the game, and people will simply refuse to risk damaging files, ignoring the rest. Lose/Lose spread any attached messages through the controversy arising from the game, not the game itself. On it's own, it is barely better than a virus.

Hmm...

Maybe the message of Lose/Lose is directed at the internet itself, and senseless flaming and conflict over worthless matters...

[Eagleon]

My pretentious analysis is that it's a commentary on the nebulous nature of games as art, and art in general. Yes, no one will play it "for real", and that's exactly the point - gamers aren't out to take risks. Neither are movie-goers, or people that visit art galleries. They try to enter a new world without the consequences, and only get a surface view. The emotional impact can never be as great as life itself. And with so many people spending their lives on WoW, obnoxiously presumptuous concern for the direction of adolescents and humanity blah blah HEY LOOK a Steam sale

[Rumrusher]

I remember this wasn't it only for the mac?
also so many dang games going the pacifist route sooner or later you get a game where your boned if you kill and boned if you don't kill... leading to what soon to be all routes taken as for moral choices can go causing many to be so jaded to the aspect of not killing is good/ bad as well as the reversal, ART game makers would finally have to put effort into thinking up a original theme their next art game or face the wrath of "been there done million of times" comments and "didn't 60 art games had that moral choosing?" reviews.

[G-Flex]

However, the decision not to run the game is the c=hoice to disregard any message it may contain.

... No, because you're making that choice based on the characteristics of the game. The choice presented to you is most of the point.

[Eugenitor]

Let me tell you about a game with a similar message, one that you, after playing, will actually *remember*, and not simply because it deleted your thesis or because you set a high score by "cheating" it. Go here. In that game, through some clever data storage, when you lose, it doesn't delete itself, but losing is *permanent*, and nothing short of an OS reinstall will change that. THAT game conveys it's message far more effectively.

Delete HKEY_CURRENT_USER > Software > Game Maker > Scores > 138759 and you can kill that little bastard as many times as you want.

[Jay]

If you are a Mac user, do not download Lose/Lose
...
It is only for Mac.

What?

[Nikov]

They have a game with consequences outside of the game.

Its called gambling.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I wrote the warning later, after I was worried someone would be stupid and blame me after they killed their computer.