One Life - A Perma-Permadeath game

Ugh, if it were like said, I'd be all for it. Probably wouldn't play it, but there'd be no issues with it. Paying for the experience? There's a few ways they can avoid spawn death, but we'll have to see if they thought it through. There's randomly CREATING a place to spawn each time someone joins the game. There's not allowing anyone else to actually kill you without permission to begin with, so that ONLY suicide can actually kill. There's giving you a detection system in your base so you can see if strangers are lurking, and talk to them.

There's ways. Just have to wait and see.

inb4 a Let's Player goes "Start game and heeere we go... blahblahblahblah Oh look a gun *BLAM* oh shit!.... That's it? I'm done for real!? What the hell? Well, that was One Life, permanently ended with a bang in the first 30 minutes. I almost feel like asking for a refund now, and you might wanna consider buying another survival game... Well I'll see you later".

Or glitch causes you to die by falling through to the world to the blue abyss WOOOOOOOO!!! And like said before, I can see trolls/hackers with good weapons ruining new players

"The darkness of the glitch abyss killed me 10/10 would refund again" - Steam Review

edited 26th Oct '15 4:15:06 AM by YoKab

I'll go the opposite tack. Bet you can't BE killed, only badly injured and made to recover. The only way to die will be a suicide button under three layers of "are you sure you want to do this?" messaging with a warning that says "No refunds!"

Due to the huge backlash and people requeting refund when dying too early, I don't think they will make thier money back. It would be hilarious if they stick to thier guns but from a buisness prespective it is not very wise.

This could be a case of a publicity stunt because No Such Thing as Bad Publicity or some bullshit like that... not that it will make me consider buying the game because it looks like almost every generic survival game ever, along with potentional reputation decay "devs lied to make thier shitty game more known". But again, this is a world where The Flock is a thing so it would not surprise of they actually do it.

edited 26th Oct '15 9:48:16 AM by YoKab

^ Consider how bad The Flock failed even with its gimmick providing publicity...no, not all publicity are good publicity.

Which is what I attempted to point using my view after "or some bullshit like that" except the very last part . Publicity will make people know about your game but never guarantees sales. Now, if X game was something that turns out very good I can see that, but if it just bad or mediocre then the quality and criticism will overshadow the drama.

It's a no-brainer really. What makes One Life better than the others? Nothing, probably fucking nothing! This is going to be another game that people will talk about for a while and move on to something more worthwhile.

edited 26th Oct '15 11:18:07 AM by YoKab

That gimmick makes it different, but not better. It honestly makes it WORSE than other games, for reasons already discussed in this thread. Different's not always better. There are reasons popular things are the way they are, and if you're going to change them, you've gotta think about WHY people love them so much, and try to improve on that.

If you really want to punish people for dying in your game, don't make them unable to play ever again without cheating. Just up the respawn counter from the usual few seconds or minutes to several hours. During which they can either go do something else and take a break, or stew and think and plan how to avoid it next time.

And don't make the fucking thing multiplayer.

What I find worrisome is that the gimmick is so central that it's the entire title. The title says nothing about the game other than the central gimmick, which is one that I personally wouldn't be interested in.

Not a great sign.

I think it just gives an impression how much faith (or lack of) they have in thier project in the first place. The survival games market is pretty saturated by this point.

edited 26th Oct '15 11:20:30 AM by YoKab

Admittedly, if they provide you with a base to start in that's one thing this game has standing out for it. Never liked how so many of these games start you off with absolutely nothing in the middle of nowhere with no justification.

If TF 2 taught me anything then the enemy will just spawn camp outside the safe zone rather than standing behind the spawn spots.

Watch your "secure bases" end up in the middle of a C4 minefield.

It'd funny if at least one Let's Play of this game would turn into series of videos where the player simply keeps failing to get themselves killed.

The most important feature of a game - one that all other traits contribute to - is replayability. Developers go out of their way to increase the game's replayability. A great story that makes you want to see it over and over? Replayable. Multiple endings with intriguing hooks and choice-based gameplay? Replayable. Amazing gameplay that keeps you coming back again and again? Replayable.

This game's core feature is that it has zero replayability. I don't think that's going to work as well for it as the developer thinks.

edited 27th Oct '15 7:38:03 AM by TobiasDrake

Most likely not.

This is just ASKING for hackers to ruin the game/make it tolerable.