Game Over?
There was once a time when, if you saw the words "game over" on your screen, you would be grief stricken because that meant the game was in fact actually over - to play the game again, you would have to start over. This applied to racing games like Pole Position, older arcade titles like Space Invaders, and even early platform games like Sonic the Hedgehog. But now, game over is just a formality that sends you back to your last checkpoint without penalty. Furthermore, it's become common to exploit the leniency of a "game over" sentence. For example, you can easily save your game at a checkpoint and then go to a boss battle just to see if you're ready. You have nothing to lose because if you're defeated, you just go right back to the checkpoint. This almost completely eliminates the necessity of being prepared throughout the entire game.
But the problem goes so much deeper than that. With the definition of "game over" being so lax now, victories are not as rewarding for gamers as they once were. If you ever played the original Mario Bros, you'll remember how great it felt to beat the game after having to start over numerous times; you rarely get that sense of satisfaction from beating a game in this generation. I've had Super Mario Bros for about 12 years and every time I pass that final Bowser stage, I still get a great sense of satisfaction. In contrast, when I conquer a game from this era, I just feel relieved that it's over. I rarely get the feeling anymore that I won because of hard work and determination.
Of course, with games that now last over 80 hours, sending a player back to the beginning for an error 75 hours into the game is unreasonable. But that alone should not mean the death of "game over" as an ominous term. Some games have already set the example for how to balance fairness and challenge. For example, the Pokemon RPG series makes you lose half of your money if you are defeated in battle, before sending you back to your last save point. More RPGs should implement similar consequences. Or, for the less epic games, the idea of a limited number of continues (as demonstrated early on with Mario Bros) is another good idea. Of course, there need to be strict limits on these continues. They should be tough to get, and should make you have to think twice before entering a situation where you lose one. But the more common concept of having virtually no punishment for meeting your demise in a game is just ludicrous.
"Game over" is quite possibly the most well-known gaming term ever created, and it once had an extremely notorious connotation. It's a shame that such a concept with deeply planted roots now means virtually nothing. While we'll probably never again see the day where games make you start over after losing once, there should still be penalties for making mistakes in games. It's one of the most prominent examples of how games are getting easier, and there needs to be a shift back to the stricter side if we want games to continue to challenge us.
