Talk:Permadeath

Comparison of pedophilia and permadeath unneeded opinion and frankly weird.

Permadeath is, among gamers and non-gamers alike, not nearly as unpopular as pedophilia. It's insulting and unfair to gamers to say that they are as repulsed by permadeath as they are by pedophilia. The comparison is exaggerated, ridiculous and not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

Worse, Permadeath is increasingly used as a mechanic in games which emphasize short, brutal play sessions, such as Spelunky and DayZ. Assuming gamers don't want to take the opinion that pedophilia isn't so bad when it is performed well, the opinion holds even less water than it did when it was written.

Richard Bartle's larger point is that Permadeath in multiplayer invokes an immediate and negative reaction, which may be true, but the comparison remains massively exaggerated. The statement began as a ridiculous opinion and is now an embarrassing opinion.

I recommend either removing the sentence, or replacing the comparison to pedophilia with a more direct statement along the lines, "discussion of multiplayer permadeath generally invokes immediate, hard-line negative reaction from gamers." Finding a different source may be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.93.2 (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think the point is that the response goes beyond a simple negative reaction, and this comparison allows non-gamers to understand the depth of the reaction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If that really is the depth of the reaction, gamers could stand to have some perspective. Like I said, "Richard Bartle's larger point is that Permadeath in multiplayer invokes an immediate and negative reaction, which may be true, but the comparison remains massively exaggerated." The only way that this comparison isn't exaggerated is if gamers have a remarkable tolerance for child abuse, and I think of gamers as better than that. 208.49.93.2 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Path of Exile does belong in this article

The character is punished by being dropped from the league. This includes losing access to all his wealth that he stashed, losing the ability to play with friends who are actively participating in a hardcore league, not being able to enjoy the special mod system of the hardcore league and many other things. Saying that this is equal to a character simply being resurrected is completely delusional.

PvP works different as well. The character can die in PvP, but only in a special environment that removes the character from the league for a short duration of time (Arena). If a character loses a duel in open world he will not die, but lose the duel with 1 (one) remaining life point. Meaning: he didnt die.

All of this proves pretty well the the game provides a hardcore environment, simply not in a classic way. That doesn't make it any less punishing though. The idea of a hardcore environment is to penalize the player for losing his one and only life. Path of Exile does that in a more modern way. Nonetheless, it punishes the player severely.

Permanent death is defined in the article very clearly as a mechanic that permanently deletes your dead characters from the game, not simply moves them from one league to another. Therefore, Path of Exile simply doesn't have permanent death as defined in the article, and as such does not belong in it.

I respect your opinion that being moved from one league to another constitutes a harsh penalty; however, please appreciate that opinions are not facts and as such should never be a basis for altering Wikipedia articles. Please also appreciate that being moved from one league to another does not constitute character deletion which is a prerequisite for permanent death. PathOfExile (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving a character from one league to the another is equal to the punishment characters receive in Diablo 3 and plenty of other games. You're removed from a league, lose access to all accomplishments and contacts. The fact that youre too stubborn to understand that it's an equal punishment doesn't mean that it isnt. If your problem is with the false definition of the term then I will be pleased to adjust it.

The idea of a hardcore environment is to punish a character for making mistakes, as can be read in the articles introduction. The presence of permanent death increases the penalty for mistakes leading to the death of PC. The treatment it receives in Path of Exile is equal to the treatment it receives in other titles. The most important points are met, which include the character to have one life, lose access to his wealth and all the progress he managed to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.130.218 (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinions, but as I already said: Wikipedia relies on factual data. PathOfExile (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And I dont respect your opinions because they are biased to no end. The definition of a hardcore environment, based on the source that this very page provides, is that the character resembles a real human being. Therefore, the only criterion that has to be met is that the character doesn't have more than one life. Unforunately for you it's met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.130.218 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You have demonstrated your lack of respect for Wikipedia and its policy of relying on facts already, no need to spell it out so blatantly. I will be contacting an administrator regarding your vandalism as it's clear to me at this point that you're not planning to stop. PathOfExile (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. Maybe you should check out the source for the terms definition yourself to actually get an understanding of what it is supposed to mean. The most amusing part is that the actual quote is provided at the bottom of the article. Never-to-return death is called permanent death or PD. A dead character will never return to a hardcore league after losing his one and only life. Therefore, the essence of the statement is met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.130.218 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally: the opening statement is based on a quote, made by a game developer. This statement has no academic backround. It's a subjective definition of a term, no larger group of people agreed on. We can take this is a basis to define the term, but the quote simply states that a character permanently died as soon as the opportunity to return is denied. Path of Exile meets this criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.130.218 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Characters in Path of Exile in hardcore servers are permanent removed from it with all items, and there is no possibility to return them, End of Theme.--Darek555 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Path of Exile does not belong in this article

Path of Exile does not feature permanent death as defined in the article. Dying in the hardcore mode in Path of Exile does not delete the dead character from the game - instead, it either (1) moves it to softcore, if the death occurred in PvM, or (2) does not affect the character at all if the death occurred in PvP.

This means that characters in Path of Exile's hardcore leagues can effectively die multiple times and still be allowed to stay in the hardcore leagues, which nullifies the already weak argument that the person that persistently re-adds Path of Exile to the list makes.

Please do not re-add Path of Exile to the list of games featuring permanent death unless you have access to sources that would justify your altering the definition of what permanent death is.

Here's the current definition, with relevant parts in bold: "In role-playing video games (RPGs), permanent death (sometimes permadeath or PD) is a situation in which player characters (PCs) die permanently and are removed from the game. Less-common terms with the same meaning are persona death and player death. This is in contrast to games in which characters who are killed (or incapacitated) can be restored to life (or full health), often at some minor cost to the character."

Being moved from hardcore to softcore (in case of death occurring in PvM) is what the above describes as "some minor cost to the character." Note that if a hardcore character in Path of Exile dies in PvP, it can be resurrected without any penalties whatsoever.

Until a change to the definition is made, Path of Exile in its current form does not belong in the article. PathOfExile (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• In Path of Exile is PermaDeath in Hardcore league, character died in this league is deleted from it for ever End of Theme. But in suggestion that player can play it in standard leagues where died characters are transfered is not right, because player who wants play it in hardcore have no chance to do this, many players just deleting such characters as usless. Standard and Hardcore leagues are separated and there is no possibility to play with characters from standard in hardcore leagues. Simply word, in Hardcore league in Path of Exile is hardcore mode of game, because permadeath is mode of game not a type of game, implemented in wide types of game.--Darek555 (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

a way to add permadeath in a game

you just have to put heaven and hell , or another post-death place, this place cannot have the same amount of things that has on the places that you can go when you are alive (because if they made a very cool post-death place, stayng there would be a good thing and the bad thing in dying would be gone). Like for example making a dungeons and dragons game (a other dungeons and dragons game, a gamemore based om books) and adding contents of the book that wizard made that explain how to play after death.

Story-based permadeath

Couldn't events like the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy VII and the death of Nei in Phantasy Star II be considered a form of permadeath? Crimson Shadow 18:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not by any definition I've heard of. Permadeath is about risks that the player is taking. Scripted loss of an NPC isn't about risk; it's a required part of the game. Unscripted loss of an NPC is more marginal, but usually permadeath refers to the PC's existance being on the line (the death of a useful NPC is a nuisance, but typically doesn't end the game). Alan De Smet | Talk 20:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clearing that up. Maybe this should be clarified in the article? Crimson Shadow 13:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of gamers

I pulled out some of the discussion of hardcore gamers. While some discussion is clearly relevant (permadeath is something typically associated with hardcore players while being against permadeath is typically more "mainstream"), it really went off topic. For example Ultima Online was totally off topic as it never featured permadeath. A discussion of move from "simulation" MMORPGs to "gamey" MMORPGs is interesting, but more of a topic for MMORPG than poor little permadeath. Alan De Smet | Talk 01:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I have touched a little on the psychology of pd vs non-pd gamers in my last edit - mostly as a way to make your "some say" point and counter point additions flow a little better. Feel free to butcher away again. I'm not going anywhere and it'll help strengthen the article in the long run, even if I feel that some relevant stuff gets lopped off in the struggle. Newsmare 06:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're straying pretty far from a NPOV. You've added statements that are more opinion than fact. For example, suggesting that lack of permadeath is "a relatively shallow depth of experience" and that "...those looking to play under the shadow of permadeath recognise that these consequences heighten their experience with their character while they're alive." The article comes across very pro-permadeath. I definately feel that anti-permadeath players and designers are portrayed as somehow lesser. There is a condescending tone toward the anti-permadeath side. There is a very active debate about the merits and flaws of permadeath and I don't think the article conveys that terrible well. I'm going to resist a major edit right at this moment; I'd like to know your thoughts before I dive in with any non-trivial changes. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Permadeath RPGs are just relatively extreme gaming, with all the depth of experience that entails - certainly more so than the threat of death in non-pd games which this article needs to namecheck in order to give it a frame of reference. I wouldn't argue with an article on basejumping that said it was a relatively extreme sport that provides a relatively deep spiritual or heightened emotional experience. I wouldn't argue with a claim on that page that said basejumpers paid more attention to safety than those involved in a sport that didn't have the slightest chance of death either. Nor would I argue that these people were in fact being a hell of a lot braver than chess players.

Maybe these facts are just so obvious that they don't need stating though. Regardless, you'll notice in my quotes I used the word "relatively" and said "those looking to play [...] permadeath [...] heighten their experience". I don't see anything there about those choosing not to, other than the fact they're choosing to play less extreme games. If that's perceived as negative because it insults some fragile sense ego in someone who's spent many years and thousands of dollars cultivating a completely false view of themselves as all-conquering heroes then that's their problem, not the articles.

Obviously we're all potentially massively POV, we'd all be pathetic push-overs otherwise (ooooh POV), but I'm trying my best to be as NPOV within the article as passion allows. Keep the dialogue going and if the argument's good enough we'll go with what we've got until something even better comes along and trumps it. As for the debate on merits and flaws that are yet to appear, I look forward to reading/presenting/editing them. Newsmare 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(Hrm, that probably enough indent levels for now.)

I'm not sure how extreme you can get sitting in front of your computer or console and playing a video game. If your console came installed with a gun that actually shot you when your character died, or perhaps it drained your bank acconts, I'd be more prepared to say players "that that investment to the extreme". What we're talking about here is severity of penalty, a penalty that is usually measured in time. Given that, calling a game with permadeath extreme verges on hyperbole. The same goes for heroism. As the player is risking nothing more than time and perhaps some emotional involvement, you're never going to get "true heroism" in a video game.

Ok, so you're intentionally misunderstanding me here then. I've used the word 'relatively' more than enough times to make my point clear surely? Obviously I'm not claiming it's extreme in the grand scheme of things. I would say that suggesting I'm taking that stance is spin, so perhaps you're entering the realm of exaggeration yourself. Take a random 6 month old MMO character and wipe it... tell me that's not extreme loss relative to the usual gaming experience. If it's from a pay to play MMO then guess what happened to your investment of time and money? Also, re the 'shot IRL' and 'drained bank account' comments, are you telling me a player wouldn't be grieved in real life about it, or that 6 months of fees that in any non-pd game would still hold a liquidatable value being wiped out isn't a quantifiable financial loss? Newsmare 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

To take the two examples I called out. "...relatively shallow depth of experience" is opinion. "Relatively" doesn't change the bias in the statement, it simply reduces the magnitude. You're labelling games with permadeath as having deeper experiences, a claim many would challenge. "...those looking to play under the shadow of permadeath recognise that these consequences heighten their experience..." also suggests that those against permadeath fail to recognize this statement as fact. The implication is that 1. it is an accepted fact permadeath heightens experiences (a fact not yet established), and 2. Those who are anti-permadeath are willfully ignorant of the fact.

I would suggest that point 2 above is confirmed if people won't see point 1 for themselves. Most gamers avoid pd games because they don't like how a big GAME OVER makes them feel. The fact that they will play similar characters in places where it won't die forever suggests that temporary death doesn't make them feel so bad, ergo the depth of feeling that pd facilitates through potential or actual loss is greater than non pd. Basically, it would take an idiot not to see that the closer a system models reality, the more realistic the experience is within that system. The events therein can still be of a fantastic nature, but as the simulation approaches reality, it's going to evoke an increasingly more intense response from participants. Where's the argument? Newsmare 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've overhauled the first pro-permadeath paragraph. Take a look and let me know what you think. The first anti-permadeath paragraph needs work to, I'll get to it "soonish". I'm reasonably familiar with the debate and I think I can flesh it out with a few more arguments.

Personally, I can't see how your edit changes the message. You've said practically the same thing as me, but with a lot more repetition. Choice words for repetition are 'permadeath', 'increased' and 'significance', a net concept which is conveyed in the first sentence of your edit. I've made some changes, incorporating the additional content you added. Let's see how it sits. Newsmare 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Relatedly, given that the anti-permadeath group includes both the majority of MMORPG players as well as a sizeable subset who spend 40 or more hours playing per week, I don't think "casual" game is a suitable term. I'm not sure what is.

Alan De Smet | Talk 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the whole I think the paragraph in question is improving. I really disagree with "without permadeath there is little actual incentive to consider your actions quite as seriously as you would in real-life." One's decisions in real life typically aren't life-and-death. Most decisions are made weighing the pros and cons, the benefits and potentially negative consequences and costs. There is risk even when death is on the line and it strongly influences ones decisions. There is hardly "little actual incentive"; is most MMORPGs there are negative consequences that most players would avoid. Obviously it varies from game to game. While the consequences do tend to be minor (on the order of hours) for most, it's possible to have significant loss without permadeath. The most striking example is Eve Online where a mistake can cost months of gametime as a player created corporation is destroyed. The losses on Eve Online can be more severe as they are much more likely to impact other players (in the form of their similar time and monetary investments in the corporation). Lesser examples include the risk of destroying a large guild (the sort of thing that takes months or years to create) through bad management, or losing hard fought territory in games where various factions can claim territory.

When I said "as you would in real-life" I meant "as you would in a similar situation in real-life". Choosing to walk alone in enemy colours through a known gang-bang hotspot for example (i.e. travel abroad in a faction based MMORPG) or wandering into a forest to fight bears would be a fair example. People would just not up and decide to do something like that completely unprepared. Games like Eve and Shadowbane, where corps/guilds can be ruined is again a slightly different scenario to PD. Although the risk is there, it's unlikely to happen suddenly and without a concerted team effort to prevent it. These events take a while, as opposed to character death which can happen in the blink of an eye. They are systems with great potential though, both of them. -newsmare.

I suppose my point is that permadeath is not toggle without which players have little incentive to consider their actions. It's a single step across a spectrum of options. Permadeath does happen to be pretty far along the spectrum toward the "high risk / more significant choices", but it's not a lone case. Decisions of similar severity are through other forms.

"Most gamers avoid pd games because they don't like how a big GAME OVER makes them feel." This is a major assumption. I would suggest most gamers avoid permadeath games because typically after a permadeath you simply restart and replay content you've already played. The very content you (hopefully) enjoyed the first time (or first ten times) suddenly becomes your punishment for failure. It's not about feeling bad; it's about facing many hours of not having fun, it's about the game suddenly becoming a job you have to do before you can get to the fun again. Alan De Smet | Talk 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, you have break out of the mindset that gamers have been trained into over the years to help them hand over their money. A well constructed PD environment would not be constructed like a modern MMO. It would be more of a sandbox, less of a structured game. Therefore you wouldn't necessarily have to re-tread the same path, and advancement might only be through player versus player interaction, the human factor of which would reduce that feeling further. The single player example I provided for the article was NetHack. That's massively replayable because, although it's still very much a closed environment/goal oriented game, it's a deliberately a lot more random than most SP games. It's also stayed in a state of constant development which is unusual for a SP game, and in fact is quite similar to the fluidity of MMOs where balance, rules and features are added or tweaked all the time. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 21:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a pretty serious overhaul.

- I tried to make the first few paragraphs more general. They were pretty MMORPG specific, which seemed like a bad idea. I moved that content into the online play section.

- I removed some prognostication about why permadeath won't succeed. I think it's a pretty obvious conclusion and guessing about the future really isn't Wikipedia's place. There might be a place for a less forward looking, "many claim that games with permadeath cannot achieve mainstream success."

- I overhauled the online play section to try and improve the flow. It now opens with "What's the state of permadeath today", flows into "Why permadeath" followed by "Why not permadeath", then the discussion of games in development.

- I reworked the "why not permadeath" pretty much from scratch. Notably I tried to pull pro-permadeath discussion into the "Why permadeath" paragraph and expanded it.

It feels like there is still a lot of redundancy in the text. It could probably use further pruning.

Alan De Smet | Talk 05:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro text

From the third paragraph: "Of course, true heroism will only ever manifest itself in an environment where the potential hero has everything to lose, but given the choice between the illusion of heroism, or heroism in an illusion, most gamers will choose the former because it's the path of least resistance." What in blazes is that supposed to mean? It sounds like flowery language, but for the life of me, I can't seem to extract any meaning. Viltris 06:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Illusion of heroism: loading up a game where you automatically get to be the hero. Everybody is a dragon slaying champion who cheats death, amasses ungodly riches and weilds artifact weapons, all you've got to do is ride the ride for long enough. That's gaming on rails, a nice safe world where you really aren't going to lose - so in reality nothing you do there is ever actually heroic, hence the illusion of heroism.

Heroism in an illusion: loading up a permadeath game where you start as a nobody like everyone else until you really risk your characters life (and all your time and effort) to try to earn the gold, artifact weapons and respect that heroism brings. Although the game world is an illusion, the risks taken on the part of the players involved is still real, hence getting the chance to be a hero within the illusion. Old characters here will either have lead a safe, boring life and won't be particularly noteworthy, or they'll have surmounted seemingly bizarre odds, taking other's lives and probably saving many too along the way, including their own.

Path of least resistance: most gamers like their little comfort zones where they pay a one off or monthly fee to be a 'special' person in a sea of 'special' people, and will take the former option because it's easier and infinitely more acheivable to them. These are the people that balk at the mention of permadeath, because they can only handle a flat-line gaming experience as opposed to the intense peaks and troughs experienced when it's all or nothing. Obviously, some games do try to capture that experience by letting you risk items from your inventory, or whatever the penalty for 'death' is, but few have gone so far as to put everything on the line.

So... yes, I suppose the way I put it was a bit flowery, a bit fucking Zen if you like, but I figured the sort of people interested in the challenge of permadeath gaming would be able to infer all the above for themselves without me having to be so verbose. I'll try and think of a replacement for it that's a little less tacit - you're, of course, welcome to do the same in the meantime. Newsmare 10:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made an attempt at rewording it - but will leave the above here on the talk page in case it prompts further refinement. Newsmare 11:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Implications of Permadeath in Game Design

Permadeath would seem to require fundamental changes in MMORPG game design. Given the lack of MMORPGs with permadeath, I really have no direct information on the matter. If someone knows of good information (say interviews with designers or information on actual shipping games), it seems like it would be an interesting addition to the article. On the down side; is there solid information? I suspect we can find discussions by developers on games that either terminated without shipping or were modified to not have permadeath, but those simply amount to wishful thinking. Alan De Smet | Talk 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Zen of Design has this article and this article. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of game fee?

Apart from the obvious, are there any games with an out-of-game fee to revive a character or to create a new character? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

I think the article is in really solid shape, but it could citations and references. Presumable credible people have written about these issues. Here's a scratch space to start collecting them: — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Glater, Jonathan (2004-03-04). "50 First Deaths: A Chance to Play (and Pay) Again". New York Times. Retrieved 2007-02-02.
• Schubert, Damion (2005-04-12). "Please, Not the Permadeath Debate Again". Zen of Design. Retrieved 2007-02-01. - Discussion of Permadeath design by a developer who has worked on MUDs, Meridian 59, and several other designers. (Thanks Damian Yerrick for pointing out the article.)

Deletion of article?

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Permanent death, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 132.161.187.62 10:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC) (This comment imported from here.)

I've removed the template. It failed to "explain why." The links above fail to clairify the situation (WP:NOT covers a large chunk of territory). Trying to defend the article at this time is not realistically possible as I'm not a mindreader. However, this is useful article that documents an important game design concept. It's a concept under near-constant debate in game design. Excluding it would make Wikipedia weaker. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

One major reason against permadeath, not mentioned

I'm a bit surprised that this article doesn't even mention the biggest problem with permadeath: that sometimes characters die due to out-of-game circumstances such as power failures or crashes to desktop. Losing a character because one bit off more than one can chew is one thing, but losing a character because your brother tripped over a power cord is another thing entirely. Powers ^T 11:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen solutions to that problem in MUDs. Simply provide an automatic mechanism for your character to flee. This is often called a "whimpy level". If you are in a fight, and do nothing, when your hp gets to too low a level your character will flee. If you think you can win you can override the whimpy level and so risk your life to complete the win, but you do so knowing that it is a risk. QuantumG (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to second this. If sources can be found, this is something that should certainly be added to the main article. The main reason I personally do not like perma-death is two bad experiences I have had. Losing my best sword in the original Way of the Samurai due to a power outage, and losing a high level battle.net character in Diablo 2 hardcode mode due to lag. Once problems like these are solved, I might be willing to try a game with perma-death again, not before. — Odin_son 20:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Here's a place to dump possible references that might be used for citations in the article: — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Schubert, Damion (2005-04-19). "Beating a Pale Horse". Retrieved 2007-05-26. (credentials)
• "Permanent Death in MMOGs". 2001-01-28. Retrieved 2007-05-26. - Online chat between a number of people about permadeath. Includes the lead dev for Dawn (a game that never shipped), the lead dev for Adellion (another game that never shipped), and several editors. On the up side, it's real developers. On the down side, the pro-permadeath people are developing games that haven't shipped and are unlikely to ever ship.
• Klastrup, Lisbeth (June 14-16 2006), "Death Matters: Understanding Gameworld Experiences", Proceedings of the 2006 ACM SIGCHI international conference on Advances in computer entertainment technology, Hollywood, California, USA, ISBN 1-59593-380-8 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) Seven page paper on death in games. Only directly mentions permadeath briefly, but may contain other information.

article organization

The multi-player section is poorly organized. There are games that feature or featured PD mentioned at the top, then some text about the controversy surrounding PD, then more games. The games all need to be listed together, either at the top or the bottom. Otherwise the reader has to sift through the text to put together a list of games. The games can be mentioned redundantly in the text if they are relevant to a point, but a clear list must appear somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.232.143.202 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The point of the article isn't to provide a handy list of games with PD. The section opens with some notable examples, which seems relatively important. The remaining games are universally minor league, and not worthy of as much of a note. (Indeed, an argument could be made to delete some of them.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've tried my hand at improving what was already there, added one notable early adopter (full disclosure: which I am involved in), and separated things out into current vs. not-current. I question whether some of the games linked are notable, and researching them prompted me to prod one. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing Games

I think one of the earliest examples of a Permadeath game isn't included. I'm talking about Oregon Trail. I'm not adding it cause I'm not sure if it fits in the context of the article.67.182.10.151 (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that takes me back. I'm not really sure if it does either, but it certainly sounds like a legitimate progenitor--I'll see if I can add it in reasonably. Jclemens (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't an expectation in the original Oregon Trail that you would play the same character over an extended period. You played for an hour or so and were done. If I recall correctly, it didn't include the ability to save, emphasizing the short nature. Permadeath does seem an appropriate label for such a game, any more than it does for Pac Man. I realize this doesn't jive with the current definition, which discusses computer RPGs and not extended play duration. Upon reflection, I think it's the wrong definition and we should tweak it. Note the inclusion of non-RPG Steel Battalion in the discussion, which I believe is very appropriate. — Alan De Smet | Talk 22:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Path of Exile should be in there somewhere. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.86.114 (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the X-Com series should probably be included. The player can't die, but the soldiers commanded may be killed during the mission. If that's the case then, the soldier is no longer available. Specially in the more recent iteration of the game the player may invest in a character a lot of time and lose it if it gets killed (or gravely wounded and not stabilized within 3 rounds). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.105.26 (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Permanent death types

The article only describes the essence of what permanent death is (that the character is removed from the game permanently after death), and then goes on to describe the views of both sides of the debate on why they think it is a good / bad design principle. What I miss here is a short description on the various types of implementation of PD that can be done.

There are atleast 3 core designs of PD of which various deviations exist (in design, I haven't seen all that many released PD games)

Limited lifes: You start with a limited amount of lifes, if you lose all those lifes, your character is gone. A special version of this is the Ironman mode, where you get only one life. My POV: I find that this is by far the most common type of PD that is discussed, especially the Ironman version. Many opponents of PD that I have talked with initially think of Iron Man when they discuss PD, and many proponents also limit their discussions to the idea of 1 or multiple lifes found within the Limited lifes type when discussing PD. However, this is subjective information as its my personal observation, and I don't know how I can make a NPOV statement out of this so lets not add it to the article.

Limited time: Everyone dies permanently after an amount of time, after which a new phase starts. This is already implemented in a few browser based MMO's like Kings of Chaos. The amount of time is usually set up front (as with Kings of Chaos), but design variations exist where the phase ends when a certain goal has been met(though these games are obscure as I can't find proof of it again)

Regenerative PD: you start with a low amount of lifes but if you have lost a life or more you can regenerate them by spending enough in-game time without dying. You can still take a few risks without hampering your character later on, but you cannot risk it all every time you fight. My POV: This is a sort of middleground between hardcore PD proponents and the mainstream, but leaning towards the PD proponent camp.

Some (I believe many, but I'm not entirely sure of that) proponents of PD view designing a good game with permanent death as a "holistic design". This means that having PD in your game influences the design of every other aspect of the game as well. They believe that adding the PD feature to a mainstream MMO makes a horrible game, as it wasn't designed to have PD in it. A good example of a holistic PD-centric game design theory can be found at http://mu.ranter.net/theory/general.html(This is a long discussion and heavily opinionated from the proponent camp, but that is to be expected and it is the best source on PD-centric game design that I could find)

Final note: I believe this information above was missing in the article, but I'd like to get an opinion from other, more experienced, editors first before I add it as I'm rather new to editing articles on Wikipedia. --NotAnotherPerson (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to be careful about coming up with our own categories of such things; it's borderline original research, which Wikipedia strives to avoid. We shouldn't be crafting our own terminology, but instead reflecting what the world is using There is the general problem with writing about permadeath, finding reliable sources discussing it is surprisingly hard; the majority is written by random, frequently anonymous people. So I'm hesitant to add something like this. — Alan De Smet | Talk 00:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only RPGs?

I first heard of Permanent Death from the Far Cry 2 playing of it here: http://drgamelove.blogspot.com/2009/06/permanent-death-episode-1-inasupicious.html . But I have also tried doing this myself while growing up with many games other than RPGs. --phocks (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Creatures have a permadeath-like feature with the starting eggs on a floppy disk? Medinoc (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Yoshi's Story

In Yoshi's Story, the amount of Yoshis available corresponds to the player's number of chances to succeed at any course in Trial Mode, or the 6-course challenge of Story Mode. As such, they practically resemble extra lives; and as in most games with this concept, a Game Over will usually result in a penalty, typically seen as lost progress. Also, the game doesn't really illustrate the death of any Yoshis; and lost Yoshi's can be retrieved in Story Mode, with the help from white Shy Guys. So in conclusion, I have decided to remove the note about Yoshi's Story, as it isn't really an appropriate example of this subject.

~ I has unique username (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

MW3: S&D

A noteworthy instance of a popular game type with permanent death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.52.47 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Taryn's Shiver

>muh semantics >muh theorycrafting >you're autistic >le mastur troll Who cares if taryn's shitter crits 100.3267785% of the time across 5.64 targets? Why do people think good build=more damage! What's gonna happen when you crit for 923998 damage and have only 75% cold resist and 2500 life and die instantly? "I don't care about dying because I play softcore", how does it feel to have an empty XP bar all the time? That will sure get you far in this game. This whole thing ties into how people will fight eachother to no end about "muh theorycrafting" instead of actually making the build and either proving the people wrong who said it was bad, or seeing that sometimes things that work on paper don't always work in practice. You're planning out builds for a ONE MONTH LEAGUE. You act like all these uniques you talk about just drop off hillock at two a pop. Yes I'm mad, make this into a pasta if you want, if only to tell people to PLAY THE FUCKING GAME, instead of shitposting about "muh theorycrafting" on an anonymous anime image board founded by a 15 year old with his mom's credit card.

Cleanup, especially the unreferenced example farm

I tweaked the cleanup templates and started on a bit of cleanup. I removed one particularly long, unreferenced paragraph about what looks like a non-notable game series added by an editor with a possible conflict of interest. I also added a few references for statements that were trivially easily to validate. The article could be expanded somewhat through these citations, as they discuss the topic. As a result, I removed the {{one source}} cleanup template. I made a few trivial additions and copy edits, but nothing major yet. The first half the article is fairly well-written, well-referenced, and describes the topic well. It could still use a few additional sources, but that's not a big issue. Then the article degenerates into a unreferenced example farm that probably needs to go. If I can stand it, I'll go through the list and try to find sources for the examples. This is mind-numbing drudgery, but I've done it for a few other lists and have become fairly adept. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

RuneScape

I found this article from Joystiq which says that RuneScape may add permanent death. The problem is that WP:VG/RS calls Joystiq a "situational source". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Systematization of notion and terms - Permadeath is mode of game not a type of game

Permadeath is mode of game not a type of game. This mode is implemented in various types of game, from cRPG fo FPP, more wide last time, but mainly implemented in cRPG games. Extremely type of this mode is perma-permadeath, where is concept to permanent block of game like in One Life.

Second thing is that encyclopaedic term should be PermaDeath not Permanent Death, as it is known and life as the main term, not permanent death which should be translation of this term. Pls express your opinion for correction the article--Darek555 (talk) 15:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Permadeath is not developed by Roguelike games it is over-interpretation

It is over-interpretation saying that permadeath is introduced by Roguelike games in the 80's, and today's permadeath exist before. Roguelike games mainly is characterized by random localisations and incalculable actions which made that type of game very difficult, in past, commonly called as arcade game. Weak graphic in beginning of computer technology caused that games weak graphic ability. Because of technology there was no possibility to save progress of game, and statement that it was today's permadeath mode, which is consciously introduced to game is not correct. Roguelike games with its no possibility to save game are similar to permadeath games, only that. Other case is introducing today's roguelike game with permadeath but, Roguelike games don't introduce permadeath today's mode. Statement that permadeath was created consciously in the eighties is inappropriate.--Darek555 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)