Dying and living to tell the tale

31 January 2012 | 5 comments

This is a talk that I gave as part of the Southbank Centre‘s festival Death: A Festival for the Living. It’s a short, personal history of dying in videogames: a medium where death is common, and lives are plural but rationed. Why is it that “dying” such a common metaphor in games – even supposedly non-violent ones? Does it have any meaningful significance compared to the process of death in the real world? This essay is a short exploration of that, based on a life in which I’ve died thousands of times.

I’m a game designer, and before that I was a game player, and I have died a thousand deaths in videogames. More than that: many thousands. And I wanted to think a little about what that has meant: what those deaths have meant, if anything. And, because games are an interactive medium, not just think about the noun death, but also the verb dying.

What is confusing is that game death is not at all the same as real death.

Death is completely different in the world. Death seems to suck meaning, seems to suck purpose away. Videogame death is nothing like that. It has no cost, no permanence. If anything, I am rewarded for dying – rewarded with knowledge of how the game works, of how to beat it “next time”. Death in games quite literally gives meaning to life.

Permanence and absence are death’s key values in the world. How can games, with their INSERT COIN TO CONTINUE, replicate that?

They can’t. But they shouldn’t necessarily try to. Death in games has always been a metaphor. Has always HAD to be a metaphor. It can’t possibly be real.

Some games have tried, though. Tried to put a cost on all this failure – create worlds where the value of life is inestimably lifted through how they treat death.

Steel battalion 1

Capcom’s mech simulator Steel Battalion directly linked the life of a pilot – a player’s avatar – to their progress in the game. Eject from your walking tank before it takes too much damage and you faced the costly in-game penalty of replacing the vehicle, but lived to fight another day. Fail to eject in time and your pilot died. When the player’s pilot died, their save file was immediately deleted. No second chances; value given to a virtual ‘life’.

Steel battalion 2

The vast controller for the game placed a plastic cage around the eject button: it was too expensive in the game to hit that button by accident. But the button was huge and flashed bright red: it was too important to miss in the heat of a firefight. Some players I know removed the cage to make the button quicker to hit at a moment’s noticed. The weight of death in this game is signified through its interface. And it might have been more so: at one point, the development team mooted a glass cover for the eject button that would have to be smashed. By giving life such value – and death such permanence – it begins to take on meaning.

Lose lose

It takes on even more meaning in Zach Gage’s Lose/Lose. It looks like Galaxian: a simple scrolling shooter. But each alien represents a random file on the player’s hard disk. Killing an alien deletes the file; being killed results in the game program being deleted. You might delete a worthless image file; you might delete a critical system file. What’s the point, you might ask?

Gage explains:

“Although touching aliens will cause the player to lose the game, and killing aliens awards points, the aliens will never actually fire at the player. This calls into question the player’s mission, which is never explicitly stated, only hinted at through classic game mechanics. Is the player supposed to be an aggressor? Or merely an observer, traversing through a dangerous land?

Why do we assume that because we are given a weapon an awarded for using it, that doing so is right?”

The game explores what it means to kill in a videogame,” says Gage, and to do that, he has to give death a real value, and murder a real penalty.

How many have I killed? How many monsters squashed, bad guys shot, monsters blown up. Countless. But just as videogame death is not real death, this is not real killing. It is overcoming obstacles; doing what is asked of me to “win”.


In Uncharted 2 I kill hundreds of mercenaries and not a single character raises an eyebrow. In a non-interactive scene, a single bullet fells an ally and characters hurry around and mourn. It’s what game designers have called a “narrative bullet”: one that has significance for no rule-based reason, but simply because it makes the story better.


Metal Gear Solid 3 undermines those narrative bullets in the battle with The Sorrow. This is not a traditional, epic boss fight. The Sorrow appears standing in a river, a man in a soggy raincoat. Snake, our hero walks down the river towards him – and coming along the river walk the ghost of every character killed so far in the game. It’s a sneaking game: you’re not meant to kill people. Commit a slaughter early in the game and this sequence takes around an hour; a discrete player, that has been sneaking and knocking foes unconscious, might do it in minutes. (And of course, at the end, how else can it end? The Sorrow kills you. But it’s not a real death; you revive yourself with the “revival pill” you’ve been carrying around, and carry on. The franchise, as ever, wants to remind the player that they’re in a game; no death can be permament in that, and so the game reminds you of that – whilst making the player consider what they’ve done; making them consider this metaphor I’m exploring).

Games are so often about conflict: not necessarily war, nor killing, but struggle – and the outcome of that is catastrophic loss. That might be death; but even when it’s not, it may as well be. Chess pieces knocked from a board; a Pok√©mon that “faints” when it runs out of health; a team knocked out of a tournament. Games are a space where the metaphor of death runs deep, even if the reality doesn’t. Players will use the words “dead”, “killed” even when the game fiction suggests they shouldn’t.

The player gets to choose what death means, and that is an informed choice. I may be shooting a lot of things in this game, but these deaths are meaningless, like numbers in a spreadsheet. Or, I may choose to sacrifice a character i’ve developed over weeks or months; only one death, but so much more significant.

We choose what to make of the metaphor that we’re engaging with.

When we play, we get to ascribe our own meanings. So don’t underestimate players ability to create meaning where there may not have been any – and don’t undermine the value of that meaning.

One more personal story to end on.


It’s 2001, and I’m playing Capcom’s 1998 survival horror game Resident Evil 2. It’s a pastiche of the classic Romero genre movies: fighting off the undead in a city with limited resources. There’s never enough ammo.

I’m descending to the underside of a train station to fight the corrupted, now mutated scientist William Birkin. I think i’ve killed him, but he mutates again, and attacks me. U have a handful of ammo, a knife, and no herbs to heal with. He has absorbed everything I brought down with me, and there’s no ammunition in the room, no going back. I attack him with everything i’ve got, until I’m reduced to just my knife. I hack away, but he’s too strong. Leon Scot Kennedy succumbs to his wounds.

And that’s where I left it. I had no chance of survival: I was already too low on equipment in the previous save game. So it became the pessimistic, appropriate 70s horror movie ending: there were no survivors. I rejected the story of survival the game was fixated on, and let my actions speak for themselves. Leon was dead. He had never had a chance. No-one was coming. The city was overrun.

I left his body there, and I’ve never played the game again.

I had made my own narrative bullet.

So close to the end, but deliberately unfinished. For me, Leon is dead, and to try again undermines that. It makes his death less meaningful. And I mean that: this mess of low-resolution textures and polygons means more to me when I can’t play it again.

Death in games is not death in the real world, but it was never meant to be. This is confusing because “death” in games shares a name with something bigger, stranger, both more and less meaningful. The purpose of death in games is to tell us about life. To remind us to try things we don’t know. To push when we’re afraid to. To see what we can be. To investigate how things work. To fight for the best path through the one world we have. To understand that to change the past – to have another go – might not always be as meaningful as the single path we chose with no do-overs.

And why do we play these games? To visit other worlds, to live other lives. In that sense every game is an extra life. And in those games we navigate a branching multiverse; some paths are cut short by this thing we call “death” that is not, and we rewind, take another life, and take another path, until we get to a canonical, critical path where the game ends successfully, and another virtual life is well-lived.

To make a medium that is so often about living other lives must be to make a medium that is somehow about death. But not this airquoted “death” I have dwelt so much on; rather, the death when we step away from a game and return to the real world. A little death as we leave a life behind, and are left richer for it.

5 comments on this post.

  • On 31 Jan 2012, Matt Thrower said:

    Two words: rogue like.

  • On 1 Feb 2012, Tom said:

    Matt – quite! It was a talk for a non-gaming audience, and unusually, I went down the route of mainstream narrative-based games. But Rogue was my first experience of dying as mechanic, and there’s a decent amount to be said about From’s Souls games. And, of course, I’ve previously written about Roguelikes here.

  • On 3 Feb 2012, Matt Thrower said:

    Thanks for the reply. I was sufficiently inspired by this to blog about it myself: not the first time I’ve been propelled to write something in response to reading material by Hide & Seek people:


    Interestingly I have a longer piece on rouge-likes scheduled for the next week or so – might want to check back for that :)

  • On 3 Feb 2012, Jason Seip said:

    This piece brings to mind my experience playing Batman: Arkham Asylum. I didn’t truly master (and thus, enjoy) the game’s combat system until near the end of my first playthrough, so after finishing I started a new game again.

    While enjoying my proficiency with the combat, I began to realize that the further I got through the story without dying, the more excited I was to be experiencing it again. The thrill of an interactive narrative that didn’t need to make concessions for player failure was something I’ve rarely experienced (not without it being forced upon me, as in 2008′s Prince of Persia).

    Unfortunately, I did eventually make some mistakes and got myself killed. Afterwards, I felt like a child who let his balloon float away. I continued to play on for a bit, but the energy was gone, and I put the game down.

    As a game designer myself, I would love to generate that sensation during an initial playthrough: the continual elation of survival and success in an environment that wasn’t pandering to such desires.

  • On 8 Feb 2012, Tadhg Kelly said:

    Thanks for the interesting read Tom. I wrote something on the subject a few months ago that you might find relevant:

    All Games Are About Death


Comments on this post are now closed.

Latest blogposts from Tom