The only game I've played that has permadeath is State of Decay. I do enjoy games with permadeath because of the intense thrills provided and the need to have a fair amount if skill. However, it's not a good fit for all games. Additionally, if the game has cheap deaths(which SoD does) it can be more of a burden then anything.

It really depends on the type of game. The Fire Emblem series wouldn't be the same without it.

I'm not a big fan of it. I don't think I've played too many games that have the mechanic so I can't say too much about it.

How better to fully understand the fear of death in a game than to know that everything you've worked for is gone in an instance? It personally makes me play smarter and more reserved. I won't be the first person to fly into an unknown situation. I love playing DayZ with my friends and seeing them make the mistakes and telling them it's because they have no patience when they scream about being dead. Permadeath is also why Diablo 2 and X-Com are one of the greatest games IMO.

More permadeath in games means I don't have to deal with the COD and BF players in game as they just want to run around and kill everything and die with no repercussions.

As long as the developer can justify it, design the game from the start with permadeath always being a potential consequence, then it can work.

Premadeath in Xcom: Enemy Within/Unknown = Best thing ever

Permadeath in Xcom: The Burea = Terrible

So it depends on how it's done.

It can be a really nice change of pace, you really have to plan and be smart, use some strategy, vs. running out guns blazing... which is also fun.

it makes you appreciate and understand what you have better.

My only problem with the XCOM permadeath is that you're at the mercy of the most cruel mistress in all of gaming - the RNG. You can be the greatest strategic genius on Earth, but if the RNG is not on your side, you'll still lose. The RNG absolutely hates me with a passion that must surpass the heat of the sun. Still one of my favorite games, though!

It depends on the game. Sometimes permadeath just stresses me out.

I hate dying in games when it kills the whole vibe like in Sonic the Hedgehog when you are grinding and flipping around like you never knew a sexy hedgehog could but then you fall..... ):

Permadeath sounds even worse but I also hate just plainly respawning at the previous checkpiont. That is why the vita chamber thing in Bioshock is so clever because it sort of makes sense without altering the story. If I die as Sonic the Hedgehog I cry a little and say : That would never happen to sonic... I suck. If I get chopped and hacked by some splicers in rapture, it actually fits in with the story and setting to respawn at the nearest vita chamber. It is not demoralizing or overly convenient. There should be more games that take that into account. I can't think of any others.

Yeah.

Yes I love it, it just adds a lot to the experience in my opinion.

Conceptually I love the idea of permadeath, but I can never seem to commit to it when it comes down to the wire. For example, Fire Emblem on GBA is one of my favorite games of all time, but I could never bring myself to allow a character to die on the battlefield. Every time my thief would inevitably die on his journey to become an un-hittable assassin, I would force myself to restart the level all over again, being careful not to replicate the mistake I made earlier.

I like to have the option to enable perma-death or not. I'll usually play through a game once without it to get my strategy down then play the game again with perma-death enabled. (XCOM)

Personally I love the idea. It makes me think hard before every move. Fire Emblem is my favorite example, and it started me on permadeath. It was one of the first missions, and I got this beefy unit from a cutscene, so I send him out thinking "Oh, I'll just revive him if he dies." I didn't know I couldn't. It was harder to play after that, but it made the game much more enjoyable.

My roommate, on the other hand, is against it. He stopped playing FE after I told him it was permadeath. He just isn't the type to let a mistake go through, so on games that involve possible permadeath (or even something as simple as decisions affecting the storyline) he will save manually, than try every option to find which one is most positive for him. Nothing wrong with that, but I don't feel a need to pump in an extra 10 hours into my play time that is solely testing how it would turn out.

I'm not sure how i feel about it. I did the Nuzlock challenge in HeartGold. I lost to that gosh darn invincible Miltank in the 3rd gym. Then I lost while training the other pokemon i had already gathered so I was left with just Kakuna who was really good at using Harden.

Emphatically "YES."

Games in the past 15 years seem to be getting easier. It's not that I can't just choose to make the game difficulty harder, but the games themselves seem to lack consequences even. DayZ had a good thing going for it when you could be killed and lose all your stuff. Back to square one. This game made me more scared for my character life than any before it... an it was a massive rush.

On the other side, you've got Call of Duty where your death literally means nothing in almost all multiplayer modes.

Roguelike games are a thing of the past, but I find them more enjoyable by far. One of the best games I've ever played, Dwarf Fortress, is also one of the most difficult. This game has a steep learning curve.

But with no risk, there's no reward. In Minecraft, for example, I modded it to limit resources. If I wanted to play in creative mode, I would play in creative mode.

Just a few thoughts, I could say a lot more.

-Jack

If its done right I love it but if the game mechanics are terrible and it can cause you to die then I'd prefer not.