Quote:
Originally Posted by zobraks
Maybe for masochists and action game lovers, I can manage fine without dying.
I don't understand this. The (adventure?) game is enjoyable when it's not serious? The less serious the (adventure?) game is, the more enjoyable it is? Or you mean the (adventure?) game has to be serious to be enjoyable?!?
|
Maybe I put that wrong. I'll try again, but I can only speak from experience. When I'm playing a game where I know I can't die, I'm clicking on everything, doing any action I can to solve the puzzle. It's more laid back for me because I feel I can do no wrong. I tend not to think as much because there is no threat. Death changes the game because not only do you have to solve the puzzle you are facing (doing a correct action), you have to avoid death (doing an incorrect action). That double-edged sword is what made games like Space Quest fun.
You could also say it's more interactive. Clicking through all dialogue options and all items to exhaust all options is like watching a movie, you're not really playing a game. There's that extra distance between you and the character you're playing. In something like Heart of China, you need to think what dialogue would be best given the situation knowing that saying the wrong thing could be dangerous. I can't imagine that game being as good without death when the story relies so much on a sense of danger. When you are allowed infinite conversation attempts to pass through armed warriors guarding a gate, it loses some realism.
Of course, I am only talking about puzzles here, not story. The story can be completely involving death or no death but in relation to puzzles I think death can add an extra dimension when needed. Also, we're not really talking about JUST death, are we? This discussion could apply to "you have failed to save the princess" or other ends to the game which makes your quest impossible to complete. It's not necessarily morbid or masochistic, just a game technique.
