You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 4 (1004 words)
The main question examined by this article, as is evident from the title, is whether it is really necessary to 'die' in video games. Bevan looks at the issue from both sides: Dying is an extreme way to eliminate a player from a game, and wouldn't it be much better for all concerned if he were merely declared as 'out' and enabled to rejoin, subject to some kind of penalty Or, is 'dying' necessary to lend just that bit of excitement to the game, so that players are motivated to play more, to ensure that the game itself doesn't die out as a result of sheer boredom on the part of its players
We may pay an amount, or accept a game setback to come back from the jaws of death, to resume our place in the game. Likewise, at the end of the article too, she suggests that those who play video games and are attacked by laser-gun carrying space-men, should realize that being riddled with bullets does imply a finality, and not merely that this eventuality could get them teleported to the local Starbucks for a cappuccino. We may draw the inference from this, that what Bevan suggests is that video-games should (perhaps) not use 'death' but some other means for eliminating players.
In the course of discussing video games, Bevan also looks at how other media or means of entertainment/ games deal with the issue of eliminating players. For instance, in traditional 'games'. Team games have set rules, and a time frame. According to these rules players are eliminated, so that within the given time a particular team is enabled to be declared 'winner'. This finite time frame copies real life. ...
Not exactly what you need?