Player death in adventure games:
Moderators: adeyke, VampD3, eriqchang, Angelus3K
Player death in adventure games:
<FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>Ron Gilbert (the creator of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Monkey Island</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->) has said that he could more than fill a magazine by ranting about death in adventure games. (But would it be printable...?)<br><br>Do you think you should be able to die in adventure games?</FONT><FORM method=post action="http://pub57.ezboard.com/froyalquestfor ... ic"><table border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 width="55%"><tbody><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="1"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>YES - There's nothing better than having to restart a game because you weren't supposed to pick up that knife.</FONT></td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="2"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>NO - I like knowing that if I click randomly on the screen long enough, I will eventually complete the game safely.</FONT></td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="3"><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=2>I like games you can play almost to the end just to realize that you can't complete it because you didn't pick up that scroll in the first room.</FONT></td></tr></tbody></table><P><input type=submit value="Vote"></form><a HREF=http://pub57.ezboard.com/froyalquestfor ... s=on><FONT FACE="Verdana,Arial" SIZE=1>Show results</FONT></A> <p></p><i></i>
Re: Player death in adventure games:
If the situation calls for it, then yes, you should be able to die. Save early, save often as Al Lowe said. (not to mention the fact that even Lucasarts games end prematurely when a power outage occurs) I don't think dying just because you pushed a rock from the wrong direction is a good thing, but if someone's pointing a gun at me I expect to be shot if I do something stupid instead of being told to "back off" 20 times in a row. Deaths can add to the realism if properly applied.<br><br>Your last option didn't involve deaths in games, btw. Just dead ends, but that's another issue.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://httpd.chello.nl/c.vanempel/Nashs ... <!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>
-
- Canadian Pundit
- Posts: 445
- Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:25 am
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Player death in adventure games:
I agree with Erpy.<br><br>A couple of years ago I was playing some Lucasarts-style game by Disney. About halfway through I realised that it was impossible to die. It took a lot of the fun out of the game knowing that no matter how badly I screwed up there was never any real risk to my character. <p></p><i></i>
Re: Player death in adventure games:
There actually aren't that many games where you can't die at all. Even <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Secret of Monkey Island</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> had a couple of ways you could kick it, though you had to try really hard.<br><br>One of the big problems with having potentially lethal situations in adventure games is that it discourages players from trying interesting things that might be dangerous. In a "safe" game, they're gonna go right ahead with that wise-ass comment to that dangerous-looking thug. Therefore, they don't lose out on parts of the game out of caution.<br><br>That said, there are ways to use the threat of death successfully in adventure games. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Dagger of Amon Ra</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Pandora Directive</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> have some really tense chase sequences that work because you can actually get killed.<br><br>And yeah, of course I realize my third option wasn't about dying. It's just that it's a similar, even more annoying issue. There really is no excuse for dead ends in adventure games. <p></p><i></i>
-
- Infamous Sheik of Australia
- Posts: 1722
- Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:43 pm
- Location: Rockhampton Australia
- Contact:
Re: Player death in adventure games:
I'm just replaying SQ4 at present, and it's been so long since I played it that I forget that I couldn't take the unstable ordinance into the sewers. That was funny. <br><br>Thats why I love playing these games, just to see the great ways the two guys wrote for Roger to die.<br><br>So I voted to let ego die. As many different and equally gruesome ways as possible. <p><!--EZCODE CENTER START--><div style="text-align:center"><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>There are sunsets over other oceans my friend. Mighty sights and great wonders to behold.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></div><!--EZCODE CENTER END--></p><i></i>
-
- Knight Status
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:05 pm
Re: Player death in adventure games:
I always thought the fact that you couldn't die in LucasArts games to be very silly.<br><br>Plus, they managed to leave a comedic goldmine untapped. There's a whole website devoted to Roger's deaths! <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://imagiware.com/puzzle/images/sandman.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></p><i></i>
-
- The Master of All Things Musical
- Posts: 4030
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 8:57 pm
- Location: Manitoba, Canada
Re: Player death in adventure games:
Maybe that's why most of LA's games are comedy oriented and sort of foolish. Because you can't die. Or actually, that would make more sense the other way around. But going ahead and saying something to a thug without worrying about dying was kind of the feel of the LA games. You could do these things and the games were still fun. It's just a different animal, IMO. But when it all comes down, I prefer being able to die more than 'safe' games. Not dying does have it's place. The Dig or DOTT would just not be the same if you could die, I think. <p></p><i></i>
-
- Knight Status
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:05 pm
Re: Player death in adventure games:
I would have prefered instant death reversal, like in Sierra's later games. <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://imagiware.com/puzzle/images/sandman.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></p><i></i>
Re: Player death in adventure games:
Anybody ever played The Longest Journey?<br><br>I had to consciously remind myself at certain points that I COULD NOT DIE. Situations seemed so dangerous at points, that even though it was truly impossible to die (there was that one bug that made me start over though), I felt that if I didn't do something, or did something wrong, the character would be killed.<br><br>The thing is that there were situations that I thought the character should be able to die in, but just a few. <p></p><i></i>
Re: Player death in adventure games:
Any adventure game that you cannot die because you made a mistake stinks becuase by dying while making that error teaches ya not to do it again. Lucas Arts thinks they are perfect and they dont need the death stuff in their adventure games that they made. <p></p><i></i>
-
- Peasant Status
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 9:25 am
Re: Player death in adventure games:
In KQ7, I took Valanice far into the the desert without really realizing it. Soon I was lost. So I continued to wait for her to die of thirst. Didn't happen. So I made her walk from screen to screen for a long time hoping that would kill her off. Didn't happen. I couldn't quit my game because it would save where I was if I left. My point, games need death or at least not save when you quit! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START >: --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... ns/mad.gif ALT=">:"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> Errrr!<br><br>Number three. As much as I hate it, I like it at the same time because that could happen in real life to. <p></p><i></i>
Re: Player death in adventure games:
I like both. Sometimes it's a harder puzzle to solve when you can die, but sometimes it gets ridiculous for example, KQ3. That is the most impossible game- you can die every moment. <p></p><i></i>
Hmmm...
Personally, I like both.<br><br>TLJ is a wonderful game in which you can't die, but which doesn't lose any atmosphere at all because of it. The fact that you can't die or get stuck meant that I could win the game by myself, without any outside help at all. I liked knowing that it was still possible to win at any given point and that experimentation was okay and wouldn't get me killed.<br><br>However, games in which you can die can also be great. I liked purposefully getting myself killed in many sierra games (especially SQ) just to see the death message. It's just part of the humour.<br><br>Also, certain situations would entirely lose their atmosphere if you couldn't die. Picture yourself as the thief in QfG2, hurrying towards Ad Avis on your magic rope, with the city of Rasier far below you and Ad Avis about to finish summoning Iblis.<br><br>Now, suppose that you can't actually fall down. You can't run out of time, either. And, once you've disrupted the summoning, Ad Avis won't actually kill you with his spells. What would otherwise be one of the most intense moments in the game would then lose its entire edge.<br><br>That said, I do quite dislike senseless deaths. Dying from the same thing ten times in a row doesn't amuse me. From that standpoint, the above example could really be better. While eliminating the death entirely would be bad, having death practically unavoidable isn't better.<br><br>And random deaths or deaths that are unavoidable the first time through (such that you actually have to die and restore to get past) like the desert oasis maze of KQ5 are awful. If you know exactly what you're doing and are reasonably skilled (in terms of reaction times and such), you should be able to win a game without dying.<br><br>I think the Gabriel Knight series handled death very well. Most of the game was entirely safe. Just walking around won't get you killed, so you're free to explore and experiment. However, there are dangerous situations, and you know when you're in one. In these situations, you <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>can</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> die. These situations do have too high a die-and-retry rate, but the idea is solid; most of the game has atmosphere without death, while those parts that do need death to work have it.<br><br>So there are advantages to both death and the lack of death. The decision just has to match the game and every death should be considered carefully.<br><br>The third option isn't about deaths. It's about dead ends. I won't say anything in their defense. Dead ends of that scale are flat-out bad. <p></p><i></i>
-
- Knight Status
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 6:05 pm
Re: Hmmm...
What he said... Although I still think that LucasArts should have been the one to invent the instant death reversal idea, honestly. <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://imagiware.com/puzzle/images/sandman.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br>Jesus saves... Early and often.</p><i></i>
Re: Hmmm...
Larry 6 types deaths (the instant reversal) was the best. <br><br>Not having deaths takes away potentially funny death sequences, but dying and finding u have no good restore games sucks. So it rocks when you can die but know you won't lose progress. <p></p><i></i>
Re: Hmmm...
There is ONE and ONLY ONE dead end that I allow in an adventure game. That dead end is the one if you do not take the fish at some point in SQ6, you can't win the game. The thing is, that once you take it the first time, it's pretty darn near impossible to lose, and you get hammered in the face with how truly necessary it is for you to have it. Could someone refresh me on the conditions for gaining the fish in the first place? I believe that it was fairly obvious that you needed the fish. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub57.ezboard.com/broyalquestfor ... toflash</A> at: 2/16/04 2:09 am<br></i>
As a rule, adventure games should be able to be played from beginning to end without “dying” or saving the game if the player is very careful and very observant. It is bad design to put puzzles and situations into a game that require a player to die in order to learn what not to do next time.
Ron Gilbert
I totally agree. Ron Gilbert for president!
Ron Gilbert
I totally agree. Ron Gilbert for president!
-
- Royal Servant Status
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 10:13 am
- Location: Out of my mind
I used to hate deaths in games cause they scared the crap outta me when I was a kid. These days I like em so much, I even go look for em sometimes.
Though there should be some kind of warning of some kind that happens just before you get placed in a lethal situation. Like in Gabriel Knight, on day 5 (?) when you head into the Voodoo Museum, the snake attacks you and if you don't do anything about it, it's bye bye Gabriel. Of course, you don't need any objects to deal with the snake, but still.
I prefer to have it like in KQ6: the first time you visit the Isle of the Sacred Mountain, you get a chance to prepare for entering the catacombs, unless you already have everything you need. There also should always be some way to get to stuff you missed earlier; even if you missed the coins or the shield in the catacombs, you can always go back later to get them.
Though there should be some kind of warning of some kind that happens just before you get placed in a lethal situation. Like in Gabriel Knight, on day 5 (?) when you head into the Voodoo Museum, the snake attacks you and if you don't do anything about it, it's bye bye Gabriel. Of course, you don't need any objects to deal with the snake, but still.
I prefer to have it like in KQ6: the first time you visit the Isle of the Sacred Mountain, you get a chance to prepare for entering the catacombs, unless you already have everything you need. There also should always be some way to get to stuff you missed earlier; even if you missed the coins or the shield in the catacombs, you can always go back later to get them.
- Spikey
- Insomniac Speed Demon
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:23 pm
- Location: Rotterdam, Netherlands
- Contact:
However, if you don't have everything the second time you visit, you're dead anyway.Snake202 wrote: I prefer to have it like in KQ6: the first time you visit the Isle of the Sacred Mountain, you get a chance to prepare for entering the catacombs, unless you already have everything you need. There also should always be some way to get to stuff you missed earlier; even if you missed the coins or the shield in the catacombs, you can always go back later to get them.
*throws skull between gears*
CRASH
-
- The Heretic
- Posts: 518
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:03 am
- Location: Hoboken, NJ
- Contact:
-
- Royal Servant Status
- Posts: 114
- Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 10:13 am
- Location: Out of my mind
Yes, but the point is, they give you a chance to prepare.Spikey wrote:However, if you don't have everything the second time you visit, you're dead anyway.Snake202 wrote: I prefer to have it like in KQ6: the first time you visit the Isle of the Sacred Mountain, you get a chance to prepare for entering the catacombs, unless you already have everything you need. There also should always be some way to get to stuff you missed earlier; even if you missed the coins or the shield in the catacombs, you can always go back later to get them.
*throws skull between gears*
CRASH
-
- Honorary AGD
- Posts: 5378
- Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 1:19 am
- Location: US of A
- Contact: