GDC: Mattes reflects on Elika mechanic

By Tom Bramwell Published 25 March, 2009

"Projecting my own attitudes".

Ubisoft producer Ben Mattes has said that it was a "mistake" to believe that consumers would accept the no-death mechanic in last year's Prince of Persia.

"I guess I made the mistake of projecting my own attitudes... I believed that, as a consumer base, the gaming industry had evolved to the point where they were punishing themselves for their failures," Mattes said at a GDC gathering reported by MTV.

"The idea with the Elika mechanic was [that] if you were a really good player, a single fall - when she had to pull you up - would be devastating thing because it ruined your perfect run.

He went on to say that he believes developers shouldn't continue to "punish players for not being super l33t hax0rs", but that games must maintain some challenge to avoid the hardcore giving up and trading them in.

Although Prince of Persia was warmly received in some quarters, a few of its more controversial ideas did cause consternation, and the way that Elika automatically rescues you when you start to fall and returns you to a nearby ledge (even when she's tied up, inexplicably), was one.

That said, while we didn't particularly enjoy Prince of Persia, the no-death mechanic was one of the few things we celebrated. "For some the absence of death will be a step too far, but we agree with Ubisoft's designers; having to try again is punishment enough, and the lighter the punishment the better," some handsome devil wrote in our review.

For us, the main problem with the platforming was the relaxed timing for things like wall-runs, which meant that even before you discovered the Elika safety net, there was no real challenge to the Prince's death-defying feats. We also weren't hot on the combat, repetitive level design and the Prince himself.

Still, a lot of you were, and the game was among your 50 favourite games of 2008. We'll certainly be interested to see where Ubisoft takes it next.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (17) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Ceatlan #1 3 years ago

    I must admit that I really liked the no death mechanic, the relaxed timings for platforming and even enjoyed the fighting albeit it could have done with some more variety. Overall it was definitely in my top 2 or 3 games of the past year.

  • TheTingler #2 3 years ago

    Yes, totally agree with Ceatlan - really enjoying it still, although I haven't finished yet. This is the first POP game where I feel free to enjoy myself and not feel like chucking my controller through my TV. That's why I gave up on Warrior Within and didn't even bother with The Two Thrones.

  • JahB #3 3 years ago

    I'm the first to disagree.

    The 3 PoP games on the PS2 were fantastic because they were challenging pieces, and you felt massively rewarded after finally making it to the next section after a number of death-defying wall-runs, jumps and what not. This was completely removed from the new one, along with any difficulty in general. And just like that, all the tension you had in the previous games - gone.

  • neilka #4 3 years ago

    But what are his thoughts on Mike and the Mechanics?

  • UncleLou #5 3 years ago

    Elika and the saving mechanism were fine, the lack of platforming challenge and the awful combat (I enjoyed the combat in PoP 1+2) weren't.

  • Mockerre #6 3 years ago

    Yup,
    the lack of challenge,
    the forgiving timing,
    the depiction of the prince,
    the non-existent plot,
    the repetetive battles,
    and the quick-time events fest,

    that's what was wrong with PoP, not the no-death mechanic.

  • McBradders #7 3 years ago

    He failed to mention any of the actual issues of the game. I don't have high hopes for the sequel, which is a shame, because like Assassin's Creed I really, really liked it despite the flaws. :(

  • DanWhitehead #8 3 years ago

    I think the decision to make the game openworld was what ultimately dragged it down. It meant there couldn't be any escalation, since every area had to be of similar difficulty. In the end, it felt a lot like Assassin's Creed - a really good starting point for a potentially great game that simply winds up repeating the same introductory elements over and over until the game ends.

  • metalangel #9 3 years ago

    PC Gamer rightly pointed out that Elika's powers were such that you wondered why she didn't just save the world herself. Still, at least she was nice to look at, and a refreshing change to have a female lead who didn't have boobs bigger than her head.

  • superjag86 #10 3 years ago

    I agree, the 'no-death' mechanic wasn't the problem with the new Prince of Persia

  • Freek #11 3 years ago

    Strange, the most negative things I read (and what putt me off buying) was not the no death mechanic, but the large amount of repetition in the level design and the poor storyline.

    Bioshock (for example) also had a no death mechanic and that wasn't a problem either.

  • metalangel #12 3 years ago

    @freek: many people thought it was. There was no menace from the Big Daddies as you could just keep throwing yourself at them repeatedly from the Vita Chamber, gradually wearing them down.

  • Maykael #13 3 years ago

    This guy is really showing an incredible inability to learn from his mistakes... It wasn't the no death mechanic. It actually worked.. Whenever I'd had a perfect run, some kind of mishap would totally ruin it for me, without needing death as a supplementary kick in the nads. What actually did not work was the way the game helped you platform. It was like some kind of huge, never-ending quick-time event. Also the story, the dialogue, the whole conception of the Prince character were abysmally stupid. That's what he should correct in the next iteration of the franchise.

    Then again this seems to happen pretty often in Ubisoft these days.. Pretty good ideas, wrapped up in nice graphics, marred by shitty gameplay decisions and lame storytelling and character development (FarCry 2, Assassin's Creed, POP just to name a few uneven, ultimately disapointing deliveries of potentially great games. )

  • Spekingur #14 3 years ago

    Well, at least he is admitting fault no matter if it is misplaced or not. Apparently there aren't many ready to do that in the games industry.

  • Mockerre #15 3 years ago

    Admits fault? Yeah, right.
    He basically says his mistake was that he thought we (the gamers) were more mature (enlightened, 'evolved' etc.).

  • Burkey123 #16 3 years ago

    Absolutely adored this game! I genuinely loved the open world aspect. You could just finish the game anyway you wanted. Also, collecting those light seeds was, I thought, very enjoyable.

    I had no problem with the death mechanic either.
    Edited by 1 at 25/03/09 @ 14:40

  • Maykael #17 3 years ago

    @CountFapula: I saw the no death mechanic exactly the same. A checkpoint system seamlessly integrated in the game-world. But, dude, Elika doesn't hold a candle to Alyx Vance.:)