03-31-2008, 08:14 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6
|
What's so good about the lack of death/game over moments?
I'm thinking about buying the Monkey Island series, and so far I've heard that you can't lose in all of the games, let alone most other LucasArts adventure games. That won't stop me from buying the whole collection, though I have a bit of a concern about the games' difficulty.
So I got a question about this unusual feature: Can the removal of death moments lessen the appeal of adventure games? I've played a few games that did not make death a game over moment and were less fun because of that, although these games were in different genres. But considering a few adventure game titles that did not have death and were still fun to play, such as The Longest Journey and Myst, maybe removing death isn't that bad for adventure games. So what are your reasons why death isn't necessary in adventure games? Last edited by Neol; 03-31-2008 at 08:19 PM. Reason: Pressed enter while typing... :( |
03-31-2008, 08:26 PM | #2 |
3rd person fanatic :)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 404
|
I would say that it depends. Game over events are annoying if they occur too many times and if they aren't obvious at all. However. Death moments do not always mean game over (Just like in NiBiRu), because you are taken back to what you were doing before the death and can try again. There weren't any times, when I was annoyed about game over moments in Broken Sword 1, but then again, for example Prisoner Of Ice was ruined totally by those events (appeared too continually)
|
03-31-2008, 09:51 PM | #3 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 89
|
I really like this topic. I discussed my feelings about it, and how I'm addressing it in the adventure game that I'm developing here and in the sequel to that blog post here.
Bottom line, I think that allowing the player's character to die helps create a connection between the player and character. However, if you simply force the player to revert to their last save, you're punishing players who don't save frequently more than other players who save every two minutes, which seems unfair since frequent saving doesn't necessarily represent skillful gameplay. (Though obviously not-dying represents skillful gameplay, so maybe my argument is unnecessary! ) |
03-31-2008, 11:12 PM | #4 |
Unreliable Narrator
|
Simple. I like being able to explore a gaming environment freely without constantly having to be on the defensive, for a change.
__________________
Squinky is always right, but only for certain values of "always" and "right". |
04-01-2008, 12:57 AM | #5 |
Red Bicycle Brake Unit
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 177
|
The fact that adventures don't have mechanics like extra lives or hit points (with the Phoenix Wright series being an interesting exception) makes dying more problematic. Imagine a platform game featuring a moment that would make you lose all your extra lives and continues at once. That would feel pretty unfair, no?
It's not too bad if it fits the mood, there's a decent undo, and there are chapters (KGB). It's workable if you know death is around every corner and you should save before any remotely dangerous action (Eternam). But it's downright awful if it strikes when you least expect it and forces you to redo large amounts of the game, or if you can work yourself into a dead end and not know it until much later (Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy). Mood factors into it. Light-hearted exploration games where you should try everything, especially silly stuff, are better off without deaths in them. Deaths are more suited to a serious feel where you have to think things through carefully before making your move. An extra lives/hit points system might aim for a middle ground, but that would be a very tricky proposition.
__________________
"The golden age of mathematics - that was not the age of Euclid, it is ours." -Cassius Jackson Keyser |
04-01-2008, 01:38 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 196
|
Quote:
In my opinion, allowing for deaths can be a good thing if it adds to the mood of the game by giving a sense of real danger. It should be supported by an auto save feature, or give an option to restart the section that led to the death, though. Having to save every 2 minutes to avoid replaying large sections of the game is a mood killer for me at least. I played a lot of old Sierra games before trying out the no-death Lucas Arts games, and while I love the Sierra classics, it was a relief to be able to play without being penalized for trying everything. I think that had more to do with knowing that there were no dead ends than deaths, though. With the exception of Full Throttle, I think the puzzles in Lucas Arts games require more thinking and experimenting than the Sierra games. To a certain extent, it's the lack of penalties for experimenting that allows more complicated puzzles, and I think that's a good tradeoff. |
|
04-01-2008, 12:51 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: New York City, NY
Posts: 157
|
Sorry but I seem to be missing the point of this post. Isn't one of the reasons we play adventure games is so that we can play and explore at a leisurely pace. It's about the story, the puzzles and the exploration.
The only true "adventure" games that I can think of which consistently have a death scenario in them are the Nancy Drew ones. Fortunately, they also offer a quick second chance recovery.
__________________
LadyLinda |
04-01-2008, 01:07 PM | #8 |
Monkeyboy
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 218
|
eh, you can die all the time in sierra games, and it's really really annoying.
I don't mind it too much if it's a natural part of the storyline, like in The Pandora Directive, but mostly I downright hate dying in adventuregames. that's NOT why I play them, if I wanted to die and do the whole thing over again I would play Halo instead. |
04-01-2008, 01:29 PM | #9 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 75
|
Actually you can die in Monkey Island 1 and 4 (not sure about 2), but you have to know what you are doing I don't mind dieing in the Sierra games, its the dead end parts (miss an item, etc.) that makes me want to consult a walkthrough so I don't miss anything.
|
04-01-2008, 02:08 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 126
|
I absolutely hate it when my character can die in an adventure game. If it's a situation I can handle, no problem - I died a couple of times in the first Broken Sword but always managed to find a way out so I only needed two attempts at those situations (one in which George, sadly, died, the second in which he succeeded). That's ok with me and in the BS-games you usually know something's going to happen, the situation is going to be more dangerous - save and see if you can continue. What I absolutely hate are the in-game-deaths that occurr without warning and provide you with a game-over. And I hate action-induced in-game-deaths - that's why I'm having a real hard time with Lost right now because there's one sequence that could be oh-so-easy to handle if I were allowed to run. But no, I'm not because I carry some dynamite with me. Therefore, Ubisoft says, I must walk and try to escape some deadly fiend. Needless to say, this is really, really annoying and no fun at all. No, I'm not a fan of in-game-deaths. Never have been, never will be. They spoil the fun for me. Mind you, if it's an action game I play, I expect death. But I don't want that in an adventure. When playing an adventure, I want to concentrate on puzzles, story, characters. I don't want to think about where I could die next and how I could escape that fate.
|
04-01-2008, 02:58 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 418
|
When I first got into adventure games, dying was always part of the game. Infocom text adventures had plenty of ways to off yourself, and I think it was part of the philosophy of allowing you to do pretty much anything you could think of. At least one game of that era incorporated it into the gameplay so that you had to be sacrificed in order to continue. I think the Sierra games, being right after that era, operated with that same idea. By allowing you to save at any time, having your character be killed wasn't such a tragedy. As the games evolved, death opportunities became less random.
Consider how in the Gabriel Knight games you can die in multiple places in the first game, and in only a few places (mostly towards the end) in games 2 and 3. I think the situations where you could die were appropriate to the situation and seriousness of what was going on. Contrast this to a game like Dark Fall. For me, the game was missing something because your actions never had grave consequences. The atmosphere was forboding, but because it was entirely safe to life and limb it never felt like more than set dressing. On the other hand, I can respect the LucasArts philosophy and I don't think that their games suffered any for it. Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle have completely different ideologies behind them, and I don't think that death sequences would've been appropriate. The Indiana Jones games do have places where your choices can be fatal, and in this I feel it's perfectly fine. What I don't appreciate, and this is something that Sierra has been guilty of in a number of games, are dead ends, especially when the consequence of something done or not done relatively early in the game has an impact much further along. That to me is unnecessarily annoying and diminishes the experience. |
04-01-2008, 05:19 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: From Bay Area, live in LA
Posts: 164
|
I don't like the notion of a single standard for all adventure games. I'm tired of all the nit-picking and whining too in the community. In some ways, it's probably harmed the adventure game production (we didn't have such entitled, relentless feedback with many of the early 90s classics) but that's just speculation on my part.
Basically, there are adventure games with death and totally annoying or cheap tricks that I absolutely love! King's Quest??? C'mon! King's Quest 6 is still a legendary game, yet if you clicked on the wrong pixel you'd die in climbing up the cliff. So what? That's part of what made it King's Quest. Many of us love those old classics, warts and all. And there's something to be said with just how incredibly simple and accommodating most adventure games these days are, there isn't enough of that old-school raw difficulty. Then there are the adv games without death, like all the LucasArts greats, that I love equally if not more. The only standard should be creativity, mentally stimulating puzzles and an engaging, "page-turning" experience. How a game achieves those things should be entirely open-ended. |
04-01-2008, 05:34 PM | #13 | |
Treasure Hunter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
__________________
Current Adventure Gaming Status: Played: Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars - DX, The Longest Journey Gave up on: ... Playing: ... Next up: Syberia 2, Full Throttle, Dreamfall: The Longest Journey |
|
04-01-2008, 10:18 PM | #14 | |
Playing character
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 7,472
|
Quote:
|
|
04-02-2008, 03:11 AM | #15 | |
Maker of Other Worlds
|
Quote:
Regarding the topic, I've always saved my games very often therefore I don't mind dying. In fact, dying sequences can add to the experience if they match the game's theme: funny if it's a comedy adventure, scary if it's a horror adventure. I'm thinking Leisure Suit Larry and Phantasmagoria.
__________________
Atropos Studios Nothing adventured, nothing gained Diamonds in the Rough has been released! |
|
04-02-2008, 11:27 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 418
|
I'm reminded of a particularly insidious way to die in King's Quest 1.
Spoiler: |
04-02-2008, 11:34 AM | #17 |
Playing character
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 7,472
|
Yep, that's what put me off those games completely.
|
04-02-2008, 12:25 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 165
|
I don't mind a little bit of death in context. For thriller or horror games, the thought that you might die adds to the atmosphere. Even in games where I know I can't die, I always save before I go down the dark stair case or push the big red button, sort of a talisman against my own fear. As long as the death isn't too time consuming or inconvenient, i.e, it puts you back to where you were to try again, it wont put me off exploring or enjoying the game. Sometimes, however, I question the developers idea of a good recovery point. While playing Next Life, there is a timed action sequence where you can die. If you fail, you go back not to the beginning of the playable sequence, but all the way back to the beginning of an unskippable cut scene. Your character automatically hides at the beginning of the cut scene so for every retry you have to watch the long boring cut scene of a hovercraft landing then only after your character slowly ambles back into position and repeats his inane comments do you have three seconds to find and click on the appropriate hotspot before it sends you back to do it all over again.
|
04-02-2008, 12:27 PM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 726
|
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I think deaths aren't appropiate to comedy adventures, so I understand the philosophy LucasArts developed. But in serious, adventurous adventures deaths are a must I think to create some anxiety. But death should be expected and not be handled in the King's Quest way. Dead ends are mostly a design sin. King's Quest VI proved to me that they can work sometimes when it is clear that you're in a dead end, but otherwise they don't. |
||
04-02-2008, 01:17 PM | #20 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 75
|
Spoiler: Last edited by PhoenixWrong; 04-02-2008 at 01:31 PM. |