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)

(Linked from WT:WPVG) Without looking into it deeply, it doesn't seem like a significant qualified statement. If the given quote is the only mention of this, then it's kind of WP:OR to suggest out of context that a question by itself is the same as expressing the comparison, even if meant that way. I expect the surrounding context to matter and I would expect the source to actually compare, otherwise we're not really saying anything just by stating that comparison was made. That said, here's a source that actually comments on this quote. For example, "most people who hear the idea are horrified that it should even be suggested" would be a much better quote to signify what is meant without ambiguous or implied meaning. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a good solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I support the idea of changing the pedophilia quote with Engadget "horrified" description. It describes the reaction well. It's a bit odd, however, that the first section of the article describes permadeath in multiplayer games, where the mechanic is unpopular, before describing the mechanic in the context of singleplayer games, where the concept originates from. ~Mable (chat) 15:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the comparison between pedophilia and permadeath from the article text, but I kept the original citation and the quotation inside it. If this is still contentious, feel free to remove the original citation. As far re-ordering the article to put single-player first, that sounds fine to me, but I didn't want to make too many changes at once while we're still discussing this stuff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, nice job :) ~Mable (chat) 05:19, 10 February 2016 (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)

I'm not even sure what "mode of game" means. It's gameplay mechanic. It might be a special mode offered to players (such as hardcore mode in Diablo II), or it might be the only option in the game (such as NetHack). But I don't think "mode of game" really makes sense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

thinking is no argument...Darek555 (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Have the type of game sense for you like in million games ? Because permadeath can be present in different types of games then simple: this is no type but mode of game. Type of game is cRPG, Arcade game, MMORPG, FPP etc, that are types of game, now have it sense for you ?--84.10.4.211 (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Permadeath would generally be a mechanic where progress does not get stored after a certain failstate. For some definitions:

• A video game genre generally refers to a more complex set of mechanics that indicates gameplay. Permadeath impacts gameplay, but it does not indicate a game's genre.
• I'm not entirely sure what a "type" is in gaming - the term is very vague. When I hear the term, I immediately think about genres of games. However, I don't believe permadeath impacts gameplay enough for it to be a lone indicator "what kind of game" it is. "roguelike-like" may be a "type" of game, not defined enough to be a genre and not vague enough to be a mechanic.
• A mechanic is a specific aspect of a game. This can be input ("press down to duck"), the way input is translated to in-game motion ("the jumping mechanic is smooth"), variations in physics ("The ice mechanics are annoying"), enemy AI ("The mechanics of Goombas are interesting"), aspects of the user interface, etc. Most notable here, we sometimes talk about "save mechanics". I think, from this point of view, permadeath is most certainly a mechanic.
• A mode is generally one of multiple states in which a game can be played. A game like Diablo or Minecraft have explicit permadeath modes, in which permadeath mechanics have been implemented. Some people "decide" to "implement" permadeath mechanics in video games that do not actually have those mechanics within their code, such as in Pokémon. Roguelike games generally always have permadeath mechanics turned on - therefore, it is not a specific "mode". After all, wouldn't describing something as a "mode" indicate that alternative modes are also available?

To sum up, I think that permadeath is a mechanic that can be implemented in a defining mechanic, or simply as an alternative mode. ~Mable (chat) 10:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• Mechanic of game is wide term which group many things and aspects of games. We must build clear definitions, and mechanic of game does not meet these conditions. Every thing in games are mechanic, like permadeath or cRPG but not the same is permadeath and cRPG. Types of game like cRPG, FPP, FPS, TPP, arcade, adventure, simulators of any thing are mechanics, view in game is mechanics, controls are mechanics, I am surprised you don't understand this, simple.--Darek555 (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's a good thing that "mechanic" is a wide term. point-of-view is indeed a mechanic. Game mechanics are "constructs of rules or methods designed for interaction with the game state, thus providing gameplay." I believe this is exactly what permadeath is, do you disagree? A type of game and a genre of game would consist of a combination of mechanics. An FPS is a game that incorporates shooting, a first-person perspective, and three-dimensional motion. A roguelike incorporates procedural generation, turn-based gameplay, and permadeath. ~Mable (chat) 15:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• • • I agree that permadeath is mechanics in that point of view, from which is consisted types of game or genre, but I want assign more accurate classification, and permadeath should be mode.--Darek555 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Do you have a source that states permadeath is a "mode" in games like Rogue or Spelunky? Or could you define mode further? There are permadeath modes in games like Diablo and Minecraft, but this is not the only way in which this mechanic is used. ~Mable (chat) 16:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Of couerse that roguelike games are consist of mechanic's elements like permadeath, this is indisputable. But what the mechanic have name ? And don't you want to tell that, because this mechanic is one of main rule i Roguelike it can't be mechanic of game like mode and cant have name ? Simple Rogulike games are consists of many mechanics wchich is defined in Rogulike article in wikipedia. Last question when introduce purposely permadeth mode in games first, and then what was first idea to make game with permadeath mode or game itself created permadeath ? If inventor firs think about this mode therefor from where he took this idea ?--Darek555 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid I don't understand your questions. What exactly do you mean with mode? ~Mable (chat) 20:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
            • Every arguments are in section, if you don't understand it , what they mean, then I don't explain it for you for now, or suggest another word to classify permadeath.--Darek555 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't agree with main part and most important of your explanation especially in building an incorrect definition of permadeath based on Roguelike games. You mistakenly assume that the lack saving of progress is main base of permadeath AND HERE is you mistake !. Games with no save mechanics, have specific mechanics. No save - is a mechanics of game no mode ! And at this stage you have no progress and because of that automatically you have permadeath, but You can't definite permadeath in that way as main definition.Darek555 (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Like I explain above Assumption that no save of progress as permadeath is wrong. And all resulting from this definition are wrong. No save is mechanics of game and can't be implemented, permadeath could be implement and is mode.Darek555 (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Rogulike games are no-save game or session game they don't introduced permadeath, over-interpretation

One I want say roguelike game are similar to old games the 70's-80's. Gameplay of this game is based only on session, with no-save option because of technology limitations. Today some ones want continue this tradition in Roguleike games. But this game are not permadeath, becouse of characteristics, gameplay of this games are based on one session, it must be ended sooner or later and does not have to explicit the end due possibility dependetion only on a result or score. This is another mechanics like today's permadeath, important is that a progress could be fast repeat, not with all games but it could be .--Darek555 (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
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 today's permadeath was created consciously in the eighties is inappropriate.--Darek555 (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

It's fairly well-sourced that Roguelike games pioneered this gameplay. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I want to stress that roguelikes are cemented on using permadeath as core, defining feature, but I would be careful to say that the concept of permadeath was pioneered by roguelikes. It's a bit different than saying that roguelikes created the concept. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• introduced they consciously permadeath mode having choice, and consciously use term permadeath, are you sure that no possibility to save game in 80 is the same game modes which is introduced today, because someone used word permadeath, this is the same thing becouse im not sure ?--Darek555 (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• (Linked from WT:WPVG) While phrasing and meaning might have arrived after the roguelikes, the reliable sources (that I've encountered) have always described permadeath's roots in roguelikes, applying the term retroactively. It's not uncommon for a term to be coined after it's pioneered. Like "first-person shooter", for example, instead of "Doom clone". The article could use more sources describing relation between permadeath and roguelikes, but otherwise I wouldn't have an issue since sources support these claims. Hopefully some sources can be found that mention the difference between modern permadeath and the original reasons for "unsavable games". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• I don't believe "lack of save features" and permadeath are really the same thing. It was a deliberate design choice to not allow players to continue playing after the character's death. I do agree, however, that this choice was common in the 80s. I believe most arcade and computer games from this period went this way. Console games often didn't implement permadeath: games like Ninja Gaiden and Super Mario Bros. 3 allowed players to continue playing from an earlier point after dying. Many games featured a multiple lives system, such as the original Super Mario Bros., in order to balance the game's difficulty. Meanwhile, text adventures were not difficult from a gameplay-perspective and arcade games implemented lives in the form of paying money. I think the lack of lives does somewhat cement roguelikes as the "father of permadeath" as we know it today. As always, though, we need sources on the topic :) ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Darek555: I'd like to point at WP:REDACT: it's not entirely proper to add new information to the top of a talk page section, or to change the section's title. I know you do a lot of copy-editing on your comments, which is fine within reason, but it isn't fair to change the context of your earlier posts after people have replied to them. ~Mable (chat) 13:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I do want to add that I went to a key recent book on roguelikes "Dungeon Hacks", and in the development of Rogue, they specifically talk how they came to add permadeath (though not called that) into the game, and that was due to that after adding a save feature, they found ppl scumming from that. Nothing about being influenced from arcade games or the like. This I've added to this article to be clear. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • is it prove that they based his permadeath mode on today's Roguelike games (one session game with no-save, because so I understand it), because known is that cRPG are derived from game like Rogue etc, but this are different things ?--Darek555 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Types of permadeath mode section

should be included in article as section ? Because of different types of game which implement permadeath mode. Different implementation could be in cRPG games and different in FPP shooters where character could be killed by opponent decision or not. And the status of items are important to, could be deleted with character or leave for new character.--Darek555 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

On getting rid of the example farm

It is not a secret that this article is in need of clean-up. My idea of getting rid of excessive examples would entail deleting over half of the article, which I will do right now. I already know this kind of edit won't go over easily, though. I think this way, the article is better, but not exactly cleaned up. I currently don't have an in-depth knowledge of the sources or even the intended article structure. If anyone has any thoughts on this edit, be sure to weigh in :) ~Mable (chat) 08:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• As I mentioned before, examples should only be included if they are notable to the term. That is, reliable sources say that the games have some sort of impact on the term's development, existence or that the games are primary examples of the genre. Simply having permadeath in the game is trivia without context, and without context, it's useless information unless one is already familiar with the game. This implies the source has to actually talk about the example and why it's important in relation to the term, so we can write content about it. I agree to removing the current example farm and attempting to find meaningful examples. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
• It was probably for the best. I think I can source a few of them better, and I'll give it a go. Right now, I've found this article about permadeath in the rebooted X-COM series. The way it implements permadeath seems different: all difficulty levels have permadeath, but only "iron man" mode restricts your ability to load saved games. It's also mentioned in the 1up article. I haven't played this game, though, so I don't know the exact details of its implementation. If other games separate permadeath from save scumming like this, then "iron man" mode as a topic might be worth a mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We should probably try to look at the mechanic's evolution, so yeah, if games build on top of eachother and influence eachother with regards to permadeath, then that's worth describing. We just have to watch out that we don't accidentally list all unique implementations of permadeath. ~Mable (chat) 18:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. I don't know how prevalent this is. This article discusses iron man and essentially uses it as a synonym for permadeath, which I suppose might also be a useful data point. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Permadeath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zenofdesign.com/2005/04/12/please-not-the-permadeath-debate-again/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Mistakenly assumption the lack saving of progress is main definition of permadeath

Like in theme. Group of people here made mistakenly assumption, the lack saving of progress is main definition of permadeath, and from this wrong assumption they made many wrong conclusions. One of main :
1. Because there is no saving of progress and this is main mechanic of game then can't be implemented and finally permadeath can't be mode of game.
2. Roguelikes are as formula.
2. Permadeath is mechanic of games only.
3. There can't be permadeath mode etc.

This is wrong conclusions. Roguelikes games have some specific mechanic which is -no save mechanic, one session game play. it can not be interpreted as main definition of permadeath. This is main mistake people who provide in this topic.

Second wrong treatment in this thread is using opinion some third person as an argument like Ewen Hosie some person works in IGN. How personal opinions someone might be an argument ?
Please provide your opinion. Darek555 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC) -whom of initiative This topic was changed from Personal Death to correct -permadeath, more common name.

The word "save" isn't even used in the lead section of the article, so the claim that a "lack of saving progress" is the primary definition of permadeath according to this article is clearly false. This is often how the mechanic plays out in single-player games however, as stated in "Few single-player RPGs exhibit death that is truly permanent, as most allow the player to load a previously saved game and continue from the stored position." This is shown by comparing a game such as Final Fantasy to Rogue, or Super Mario Bros. (ignoring the life system) with Super Mario World. Are you claiming a game such as Rogue doesn't feature a "pure" form of permadeath because it doesn't allow you to save? If so, what single-player games do feature permadeath?

As for the second "wrong treatment": on Wikipedia, we base our articles on sources that are considered reliable so that we can verify the content of the articles. No editor's opinion goes over the sources listed at WP:VG/S. ~Mable (chat) 09:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

As said before, we use reliable sources. Trying to prove something otherwise is pointless. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

NetHack image

NetHack is certainly one of the most infamous permadeath games, due to both its longevity and difficulty. However, does an image of the "do you want your possessions identified" prompt really add anything to this article? If we're going to have a screen capture from NetHack, why not the tombstone? Or is there an even better graphic we could add? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the image doesn't actually show the death. We can still keep it, but we could have a better one, like the aforementioned tombstone. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hardcore or Iron man

I have played Diablo / II / III, Torchlight / II, Grim Dawn and am familiar with the term "Hardcore" at character creation to enable permadeath. Very recently I have become aware of "Iron man" being used as an alias for hardcore. Is there a particular time frame when this trend began? Is the "iron man" alias specific to certain genres and/or publishers? Did they adopt the new term to avoid the negative connotations of the term hardcore (eg, they don't want to discourage casual players from buying the game)? Are there any other (minority or emerging) aliases? Ten minutes on my favourite web search engine hasn't turned up answers so if anyone knows (or has better luck with their specific personalised search results), I think this information would make a valuable section on this article. 49.180.147.105 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my understanding (among many) for early Diable II play was that Iron Man play conventions was to simply never use any town services that weren't plot/quest gateways: buy nothing, sell nothing, repair nothing, upgrade nothing that couldn't be done in the field, etc. This could be combined with "hardcore" (whether enforced by the game or simply by starting over instead of resurrecting), but wasn't dependent on it or interchangable with it as terminology. Hellsop (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Pac-Man permadeath?

Pac-Man you start with 3 lives and you can get more after scoring 10k points. How is that permadeath in the same way that it is in later games? That would make games like Super Mario Bros. a permadeath game because you have to start over from the beginning after losing all your lives, unless you cheat by inputting a code. Super Mario Bros. 2 (USA) does not have any code and has only 2 continues, and losing enough times brings you all the way back to the beginning of the game. So where do we draw the line if Pac-Man is considered one of these games?

17.235.103.103 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, first, the article has been tagged for a complete rewrite. Second, Pac Man not really cited as a permadeath game but as an example of an arcade game. The point is that arcade games have a similar mechanic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite

After several years of nobody attempting the rewrite suggested by the cleanup tag, I'm going to try to at least improve the article a bit. I don't know how well this will be received, but I'm going to reduce the number of shout-outs to individual games. Maybe it's just me, but I find that shoehorning random examples into an encyclopedia article just makes the article more confusing. When people rattle off the names of a dozen video games that I've never played, and they give no context for why they're in the article, it does not help me understand the concept any better. If there's a reason to mention a video game by name, that's fine. Rogue, for example, went on to become the most prominent example of permadeath and influenced how it is implemented in countless games. But what about Moria? NetHack? Angband? We don't need to individually list every roguelike that implemented permadeath; we can just say "and virtually all roguelikes have implemented permadeath", as the article does now. Once you add Moria, some NetHack fan is going to say, "You forgot NetHack!" and add it. Then an Angband fan is going to say, "If you mention Moria and NetHack, you definitely have to mention Angband!" It just never ends, and then you get a massive example farm. I also moved the Dungeons & Dragons stuff up top because that was the inspiration for how early CRPGs implemented their death mechanics. The rest of that "in other games" section was mostly redundant to the stuff about arcade games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As a comment, I think you may want to rework the first part of the single-player experience. While arcade games are "permadeath" by definition, they were not really designed around permadeath as a gameplay feature compared to roguelikes and games since, if that makes sense. That is, permadeath was only a concept once the idea that you could save your game came about, as the idea worked against the notion of game saving. (But to that end, I agree with putting the D&D RPGs ahead of this since this is where saving makes sense). --Masem (t) 02:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I would probably agree except for the prevalence of sources that mention arcade games. Then I started to think that it gives a nice bit of history, which was missing from the article. I don't think I did a particularly good job, but I tried to give an idea of where permadeath came from and why it eventually became niche. One could potentially say something like "Permadeath was initially an unintended consequence that came from technical limitations in arcade games", but some of the sources consider Pac-Man and other arcade games to be legitimate examples. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

D&D

There is only one mention of Dungeons & Dragons, and that it inspired other games. There should be more information about table-top RPGs like D&D. Steinm07 (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)