Death/DeadEnd/Retry/Save/Restore? (Was: KQ5,6,7 Remake?)

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm sorry, but that's my personal opinion. I don't like the retry button. Why even have a death in that instance? For mere comic relief? Not all the deaths are funny. The game isn't worthless with a retry button, the deaths are worthless.

[chucklas]

An easy compromise would be to have an option to turn on and off the retry feature. Those who love it can have it, others would restore.

[rugged]

For me it depends on what the dead end is. Some were only there because of poor design. Others were actually designed and you could logically think back through to why you were in the dead end

[techie775]

I remember playing kq5 back in the day and I managed to get the amulet from madam mushka after I gave the gyspy the golden needle (he will take that instead of the coin) and immediately though of the witch's forest. It made me think I was making progress, but instead when I got to the forest (which you can't escape until you go in the house.) with the amulet, I was stuck. I couldn't go back and get what I need to defeat the witch and since I used the amulet I thought what I needed to defeat her was in the forbidden forest. Very Frustrating. They could have offered you alternative solution instead of the lamp (which is also unfair cause you get no clue of the result of what the genie does to you without opening the lamp) that gave you less points within the forest.

[Brainiac]

Don't get me wrong, MI. I'm fine with your personal opinion. It's when people take it to the point where the mere presence of a simple option is detrimental to the game/industry/fanbase as a whole that I get annoyed.

[adeyke]

I grew up with the Sierra adventure games. I have a lot of fond memories of playing King's Quest, Space Quest, Quest for Glory, etc., and I can't count how often I've replayed them. I really quite like those games. It was only later that I was introduced to the LucasArts games. However, I must confess that I now like their approach to adventure games a lot more. I think that games are better if they lack dead ends and deaths (with certain caveats).

I don't think dead ends contribute anything to the gameplay. Spending time thinking about a puzzle and trying out different possibilities can be fun. Wasting all that time because there actually isn't a solution left to you isn't fun, nor is restarting the game because the thing you needed was way at the start (or might be way the start; you don't necessarily know where you went wrong, after all). And when I play a new game that has dead ends, I tend to get paralyzed by indecision. Every action I take, even if it seems to be the solution to a puzzle and seems to advance the plot might put me in an unwinnable state. This makes it very difficult to have fun exploring the game.

I have a lot more sympathy for arguments in support of deaths. With those, you at least know that you made mistake as soon as it happens. And dying is sometimes the expected result of an action, and death sequences can be entertaining to watch (e.g. if the villain is building a doomsday machine, I'd want to see what it does). However, in such cases, I do think there should be a "retry", either as a button or as an automatic consequence.

I suppose what it boils down to is that I don't think the save/load mechanic should be a part of the actual game. Its main purpose should be to let you take a break and continue where it left off, with a secondary purpose of saving "bookmarks" to re-experience especially interesting parts of the game. I don't think that, during normal gameplay, you should ever need to save the game, nor to load from a previous save.

One reason is that it disrupts the flow of the story. In a LucasArts game, there's a continuous progression from the start of the game to the end. Everything that happens, stays happened. And in the first play-through, you and your character learn everything simultaneously. With Sierra games, on the other hand, you often end up loading a game and thus causing events to unhappen. And the player might learn something from an event that the character never experienced (for an extreme example, consider the desert of KQ5: as far as Graham is concerned, everywhere he walks, he happens to end up at an oasis. The player, however, only manages this because they've made a map from watching where Graham would die in the alternative paths).

The other reason is that the interface is not the game. When you play an adventure game, it should be testing you on how well you can solve the puzzles within. In Sierra games, however, a more important skill tends to be knowing when to save (and when not to save). While LucasArts villains are sometimes laughable in their inability to kill you, Sierra villains are equally powerless, provided you saved first. The need to save certainly provides an additional level of difficulty, but I don't think it's the right kind. Just suppose there was a button on the GUI that you had to click every half hour. If you failed to click it in time, you'd die. Adding this feature would certainly make the game more difficult, since it introduces a new way to lose and gives you something additional to think about (even if you're in a very exciting part of the game, you can't neglect that button). I don't think anyone would actually support such an addition. And yet, the game-saving tends to be rather like that.

Because of the deaths and dead ends, I think I actually enjoy replaying Sierra games than playing them for the first time, since I then know what to expect.

[Blackthorne519]

I liked how in later games, like QFGIV for example, they had an "Automatic Save" feature, which would save your game for you in certain points.


Bt

[adeyke]

If the "automatic save" happens often enough, that would be just as good as the "retry".

[Blackthorne519]

If the "automatic save" happens often enough, that would be just as good as the "retry".

Yeah, it really is - but it seemed to not be as obtrusive. I don't know; in QFGIV, I thought it worked well.


Bt

[MusicallyInspired]

I just don't like the idea that that it's impossible to fail. There's no sense of danger, something Sierra games retained along with every other game genre out there ever, but LucasArts abandoned. I'd rather be stumped at a puzzle that causes me to die rather than a puzzle that causes me to....simply not surpass it. That's boring when that's all there is.

[Blackthorne519]

Yeah, well think of it like this - it's possible to die in Super Mario Bros. - but it just sends you back to the start of the world, not some three worlds before..... I like the possibility of dying in a game, but I don't want to have to rote repeat some area just because...


Bt

[adeyke]

I'm not sure cross-genre comparisons are that useful. "Danger" and "death" can mean very different things in different types of games. For example, there's a big difference between skill-based games, where going through the whole thing in one go is part of the challenge, and puzzle-based games, where the challenge is in finding the solution, and where you can then consistently repeat that solution once you've found it.

Instead of just saying that the possibility of death means that there's danger, which is good, you need to consider the actual effects on the gameplay:

In games without automatic saves or retry, the possibility of death means that there's a focus on the "save early, save often" (maybe to the extreme of hitting F5 after each successful action). Your punishment for death is inversely proportional to how recently you saved. And if you last saved a while ago, what you end up doing is repeating all the things you just did and thus already know how to do. You might also spend some time clicking away dialogue you just heard or rewatching any unskippable cutscenes. This is just tedious.

In games with automatic saves or retry (or those without, if the player is saving frequently enough), the punishment for death is just having to watch the death animation. There are no further consequences. Depending on how frequently this happens and whether the animations is skippable, this might be annoying.

So, then, what's the actual danger? Does the possibility of needing to replay part of the game (or keep saving the game in order to avoid this) or of repeatedly watching death animations really make the game less boring?

[Xandarius]

I'll always be fond of KQ5, but I feel like while the graphics and music were a huge step up, the puzzle design was actually taking major steps backwards. I really can't believe I managed to beat that game on my own.

I'm generally against any dead ends where the player won't be aware they're leading themselves into one. Especially when that dead end comes after significant playtime.

I don't see any need for a remake of KQ6. It's one of the best adventure games ever, in my opinion. KQ7, on the other hand... I really, really hated that game. Granted, it had a few good ideas, and I liked the idea of being able to play as Rosella and Valanice, but to me it felt even less like a King's Quest game than Mask of Eternity (which was at least kind of fun in an awkward sort of way).

[Xandarius]

I just don't like the idea that that it's impossible to fail. There's no sense of danger, something Sierra games retained along with every other game genre out there ever, but LucasArts abandoned. I'd rather be stumped at a puzzle that causes me to die rather than a puzzle that causes me to....simply not surpass it. That's boring when that's all there is.

I think Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis is a good example of a Lucasarts game in which you could still die, but in which there were no dead ends.

[Blackthorne519]

So, if one could, how would they remove the dead ends from KQ5? What are the major ones?


Bt

[Brainiac]

So, if one could, how would they remove the dead ends from KQ5? What are the major ones?

Well, the big one is, of course, not saving Cedric. As I've said before, I think that should stay.

Beyond that (and this may not be a comprehensive list), there's letting the cat kill the mouse, not getting the coin and the lamp from the bandit's stash, entering the woods without everything you need to escape, eating or giving away the pie, not picking up the necklace in the roc's nest, not picking up the conch before leaving the harpies' island (I might be wrong on that one, but I think they kill you on sight if you return), and not getting the cheese after being thrown into the dungeon. Also, getting thrown into the dungeon without befriending Cassima is perhaps the biggest dead-end simply in its nature; as I recall, you never die, you just wind up stuck there until you restore to a previous save.

[Bobbin Threadbare]

Yes, Indy actually has quite a few death scenarios, the fighting scene, the ending, and I think there's another in the middle which I forgot.

Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade were not so forgiving, as it actually has more death scenes especially with the Grail test which you could not even save games in midways.

And the earliest game was Maniac Mansion. You could also died there, one includes all of the player captured. I never played Zak so I wouldn't know if there's any death event in there.

And regarding KQ5, although I prefer not to change anything, I do have a complaint regarding the boot and the mouse. Although it wasn't necessary to load earlier saved games as long as you haven't encountered the cat & the mouse, the boot location (if my memory serves well) were located at the farthest path in the desert, even ways from bandit camps. I do wish it would have been discovered in midways, maybe perhaps within the bandit camps, but not far away. I think any first-time seasoned adventurer will be stumbled upon this dilemma for a long time without help from hint books (or hint call back in those days).

[calvinfoo]

Speaking about "Death"less, Yes, I fully agree with it. "Death" requires Restore is fustrating, it requires the player constantly save the games, incase accident happened.

Lucas Arts design is much better as it is "Death"less, you bump into mistake, you died, but the system always ask you to "Retry?" and you will be brought back to the point before you die. Much better approach, and pressureless.

Example in Full Throttle, at the near ending of the game, Bent needs to stop the "aircraft" from running into the chasm, if you failed, you die together inside the aircraft. But even if you die, the game doesn't end there, but instead, you will get "erm... let's try that again" to roll back the game, you just have to retry and retry to figure out the solution. Which is the best approach in adventure games I must say.

I think all King's Quest is applicable to "Death"less approach, but not sure about KQ3, because it is rather tricky to roll back if the Wizzard back from journey and found out that the wand is missing.

[adeyke]

In conversation elsewhere, I've been persuaded that deaths in adventure games can have a value, by providing a danger to the character (not the player). However, there are quite a few conditions to make this work right:
1. The game should have automatic saves or retries.
2. The death shouldn't give the player information that would help them. It shouldn't be advantageous to intentionally die.
3. The death should make an existing threat tangible. It shouldn't be the threat. This also means that the character should have some reason to avoid a particular action ("the player tried that and it resulted in death" isn't a valid reason).
4. The death should be avoidable. Someone who knows the game already shouldn't die, and walkthroughs shouldn't contain "If you die, that's okay. Just hit retry".
5. The death animation should either be quick or skippable.
6. It must be impossible to get stuck in a "die, retry" loop. That would be a kind of dead end. Each time you retry or restore the automatic save, the game should still be in a winnable state.

if all these are met, having deaths is quite okay (and can even be good).

[Anonymous Game Creator 2]

I must admit that while I hate walking-dead unwinnable situations, I also really dislike the inclusion of the "Retry" button whenever you die in an adventure game (even though we included one in Al Emmo). I think the first Sierra game I noticed a "Retry" button in was Larry 6 and I felt that it really removed the sense of danger and putting responsibility into the player's own hands for the game management decisions they made. In Quest for Glory 3 & 4, my first instinct was to go directly to the settings menu and turn OFF the autosave feature, because I didn't want "Autosave" popping up in my restore games list every time I got into a potentially dangerous situation and spoiling the game for me. Deaths give an element of excitement and surprise to the game, like you are living in a real world with real dangers where there are consequences to dying. Even in First Person Shooters, if I die, I won't resort to the autosave that the game made for me, because it feels like a safety net that I didn't earn. I'll always restore back to the last save file I made manually myself. This all comes down to personal player preference and how each individual finds a game most enjoyable and challenging, I guess. Some people don't have a lot of time to waste on a single game, while others enjoy getting completely engrossed in the game world and don't mind the sense of heightened danger and manual game management.

That said, I'm in full agreement with adeyke's list of "fair death criteria" above, and I always try to make death puzzles give the player a fair warning ahead of time, to indicate that they're at risk of dying in the upcoming scene.

In regards to a remake of KQ5, I think the best solution would be to give the player options, like we did in KQ1VGA. Give them a choice to keep or remove unwinnable dead-ends. But also give them the choice to enable or disable autosaves (or alternatively, show/hide a retry button on the "Game Over" GUI). That way, everyone is covered and nobody has to sacrifice their gameplay experience to appease the preferences of the "other" side.

[DrJones]

I've seen most japanese RPGs and action-adventure games such as Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia (which is wonderful, by the way, that's a game that's worth buying) include just before a "boss fight" a room where you can save your progress, as a cautelar warning. That one got parodied in Simon the Sorcerer 3D, I think, where Simon asks that if there's no danger in a room, why it was there a symbol to save your game?. Games nowadays tend to include two different save options. One quick save that deletes itself after one restore, and a full save that is usually restricted so that you have to beat a challenge beforehand.

There's also the option of not punishing wrong actions with death; gobliiins 1 had life bars, but I didn't really like that approach. I prefer the idea of punishing wrong actions with suboptimal results/making problems even worse. The problem with that approach, is that every "alternate path" can be a whole pain for developers, so it can't be a base for a pure graphic adventure.

[calvinfoo]

The subject has been off-track too much. And the discussion and argument is getting more and more interesting. I've renamed the Subject

[calvinfoo]

That said, I'm in full agreement with adeyke's list of "fair death criteria" above, and I always try to make death puzzles give the player a fair warning ahead of time, to indicate that they're at risk of dying in the upcoming scene.

In regards to a remake of KQ5, I think the best solution would be to give the player options, like we did in KQ1VGA. Give them a choice to keep or remove unwinnable dead-ends. But also give them the choice to enable or disable autosaves (or alternatively, show/hide a retry button on the "Game Over" GUI). That way, everyone is covered and nobody has to sacrifice their gameplay experience to appease the preferences of the "other" side.

Speaking of that, The game should have a machasm to remind or warn the player before he did something which could be a bad decision.

Example, In Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, where at the near end, Indy 'reminds' himself (not once, but a few times too) that he should go back and look for Sophia before continuing. Which I found it it is fair to players in the situation like deadend. Example, if Alexander took the Magic Wand and leave the Wizard's office, it should prompt a 'reminder' to himself "I think Manannan won'be be happy if he found out his wand is missing". If the player decides to take the risk, don't say I didn't warn you first. Same warning approach goes to the KQ3R in the pirate ship. Alex tried to climb up to the top, first time he will be lucky and the pirate missed him; if Alex ignores the warning and try to go up again, he will be killed.

If you want me to pick the best adventure game of all time, Fate of Atlantis would be it. I like it deadendless, you may die, but can be roll back easily. puzzles are fresh, creative, What I really like it the most is it has the same begininng, THREE different approach/path, but all leads to the same ending (two different ending actually).

[Bobbin Threadbare]

Just finished playing Zak (the FM-TOWNS version). I realized that this game has comparable silly death situation with Sierra games. The most common things is the suffocation when at Mars, or having Zak/Annie drown at middle of the sea.

And I think it's possible to end the game with having members that died. Similar with Maniac Mansion.

[Billetwound]

Just finished playing Zak (the FM-TOWNS version). I realized that this game has comparable silly death situation with Sierra games. The most common things is the suffocation when at Mars, or having Zak/Annie drown at middle of the sea.

And I think it's possible to end the game with having members that died. Similar with Maniac Mansion.

Yeah Maniac Mansion you could finish with 2 of the character dead, Zak was a little trickier. If Zak or Annie died, you couldn't finish the game. If Melissa or Leslie died you could still finish if you had certain things already done. My Favorite thing to do when i would catch my brother playing ( Commodore 64) and he would walk away i would put Melissa and Leslie in the Van and send them home. HAHAH and that would make him have to start over because you couldn't save the game on Comm 64.