Current Events > 'Losing all your stuff permanently if you die trying to retrieve it'

(+) Yeah! (+)

Do you like this mechanic?

Fuck no.

---

Hell yes. Death being cheap always felt lame in arpg titles. Make me care. Make me feel fear.

---

The agony of dying in a bad spot in Shovel Knight and dying again trying to get it against your best judgment.

---

Guide posted...

Hell yes. Death being cheap always felt lame in arpg titles. Make me care. Make me feel fear.

---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

The agony of dying in a bad spot in Shovel Knight and dying again trying to get it against your best judgment.

This was the exact situation that came to mind.

---

Idk. I guess it's better than losing all your stuff but it's not too interesting of a mechanic.

---

Yeah it adds some tension. It also makes you approach whatever killed you differently because now something is on the line.

Idk, I like it if its done well like Souls.

---

If I die, then that section is obviously hard and above my level, why make it even harder and more frustrating?

A better mechanic is like the one in Grim Dawn, you keep your stuff, but you lose EXP. You can try to reach your corpse and regain most of your lost exp (and enemies regain some health on harder difficulties), or leave it and come back later when you're stronger. Frustration avoided.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

https://images.app.goo.gl/UwWKMKbb9JDqiA4QA

---

No corporation has ever pushed socialism or Marxism for fairly obvious reasons. We should be careful not to let anti corporate sentiment be rerouted into even more anti leftist opinion.

---

Oh hey that's way easier than what dead cells does

---

This is my least favorite thing about doing stuff irl

---

legendary_zell posted...

No corporation has ever pushed socialism or Marxism for fairly obvious reasons. We should be careful not to let anti corporate sentiment be rerouted into even more anti leftist opinion.

I think you're in the wrong thread.

However, a game that "redistributes" the player's lost loot could be an interesting concept...

Questionmarktarius posted...

I think you're in the wrong thread.

However, a game that "redistributes" the player's lost loot could be an interesting concept...

Absolutely, I'm lost. But that would an interesting mechanic for an MMO or something


---

No. The only reason I don't like Dark Souls.

---

It's one of the main reasons I don't like Shovel or Hollow Knight.

---

No, it's a shitty mechanic that punishes people for trying things. You shouldn't discourage people from trying things.

---

Zeus posted...

No, it's a shitty mechanic that punishes people for trying things. You shouldn't discourage people from trying things.

This is too much of a blanket statement to make sense as applied to most things.

---

MorbidFaithless posted...

The only reason I don't like Dark Souls.

If you have a blood puddle with souls you can take multiple shots at retrieving it by wearing a Ring of Sacrifice when making the attempt. Otherwise, if you still have the souls and sense something dangerous you can use a Homeward Bone to leave. Consumable soul items are also available if you're a few souls short when leveling, upgrading, or purchasing stuff. Souls grants quite a few tools to manage the tension.

---

Nope. I don't like punishing myself.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

Fuck no.

It's the one thing stopping me from getting Diablo 2. Hate it.

---

I don't mind the loss of exp/money in games. I absolutely despise when equipment is lost.

At least Souls lets you keep items/weapons etc. You can actually abuse this to an extent.

---

I like it in Souls games and Hollow Knight except when it's stuck in a boss fight.

---

nope. i dont play games to get punished. difficulty and punishment are two completely different things.

No. I don't think I've seen a game where the risk/reward balance around it feels fun. It's just tedious. I think something like a "die X times and you lose your checkpoint, bouncing you back to the prior checkpoint" would be a better way to do it.

There's a philosophical statement there. If your house is on fire you shouldn't go back for your possessions because you'll technically lose everything if you die.

---

Feels dumb. I think you should either just permanently lose the stuff on the first death or it should always be recoverable.
---

I think it can be ok but sometimes it bothers me a lot, like in hollow knight. that game's all about exploring and has tons of potential branching paths you can explore. If I die somewhere, I'd really like to have the freedom to just go a different random unexplored direction if I want instead of being forced to return down the exact paths I just went when there's so many new areas out there still to see

---

It's dumb as hell. Half the time when I die in a game like Holllow Knight, I don't even want to return to the place, I'd rather head in another direction for a change of pace. But the game locks my stuff there

---

why play a game that does that?

---

kirbymuncher posted...

like in hollow knight

which is why I gave up on it very early in the game in spite of really enjoying what little of it I played.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Unless the game auto-saves at the moment of death.

---

In general, it is a garbage mechanic made by masochists. As others have mentioned before, it ruins Hollow Knight.

---

EverQuest did it better with timed expiry and you could pile up as many corpses as you wanted to

Getting rid of every corpse after the next death is dumb
---

Solar_Crimson posted...

Unless the game auto-saves at the moment of death.

We often forget that from about 2004-2012, games got so fucking easy that oftentimes death did nothing except move you back to a previous checkpoint.

---

DarkRoast posted...

We often forget that from about 2004-2012, games got so fucking easy that oftentimes death did nothing except move you back to a previous checkpoint.

checkpoint systems dont have anything to do with a games difficulty.

This was the reason I stayed out of the wilderness on old Runescape......

---

Kloe_Rinz posted...

checkpoint systems dont have anything to do with a games difficulty.

if you need proof of this then just play VVVVVV. the penalty for death is never more than respawning at the last checkpoint, which is usually only one or two seconds back. Still a challenging game. There was no need to raise the stakes further, other than to frustrate the player pointlessly.

---

VVVVVV is a funny example since the game actually has a built in mode that removes all checkpoints

and, as expected, the game is extremely hard in that mode lol

---

Games dont do it for me unless they have consequences

JimmyFraska posted...

Games dont do it for me unless they have consequences

If I wanted permanent consequences for my own recklessness and stupidity, I'd go outside.

There are worse mechanics, but I can't think of any instance where it actually added to my enjoyment of a game

---

Blue_Dream87 posted...

There are worse mechanics, but I can't think of any instance where it actually added to my enjoyment of a game

I think it's fine as an optional feature. I love that Hardcore options exist in Diablo II and III, but I don't want to be forced into it.

---