View Poll Results: To die or not to die: That's the question. In Adventure games | |||
Yes | 15 | 17.65% | |
No | 29 | 34.12% | |
Yes, but... | 34 | 40.00% | |
No, but... | 7 | 8.24% | |
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
04-03-2011, 07:07 AM | #21 |
Senior Automaton
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 898
|
It's a problem.
If you allow dying, players will just want to save every time every 2 minutes to make sure they don't have to reload too far back after they die. Like in Space Quest where dying is common. Without dying, games can start to get boring. When you can do nothing wrong, you don't really think as much about what you are doing, making the game less serious and hence enjoyable. It really depends on the game. I think it would be ridiculous not to allow dying in a horror game, and adds the necessary fear to the game, but in a fun game like Day of the Tentacle it's not needed and is better without it. |
04-03-2011, 07:18 AM | #22 |
Senior Passer-by
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Naissus (M.S.)
Posts: 1,612
|
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?!?
__________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses. |
04-03-2011, 07:52 AM | #23 |
lost in rubacava
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 322
|
"It really depends on the game. I think it would be ridiculous not to allow dying in a horror game, and adds the necessary fear to the game, but in a fun game like Day of the Tentacle it's not needed and is better without it."
I think Oscar explained what he meant pretty well there. I'm not sure I completely agree but I've had my say and my vote. |
04-03-2011, 10:04 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 295
|
I voted No and allow me to quote myself for the reason why:
Quote:
|
|
04-03-2011, 10:26 AM | #25 | ||||
Freeware Co-ordinator
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: South East England.
Posts: 7,309
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Fail to destroy the rabbit and it gorily bites all your knights heads off. The game then asks you if you'd like to restart where you died. Say yes and you get to enjoy the rabbit gorily biting all your knights heads off again. Say no and it asks if you'd like to restart BEFORE where you died, thus having a second chance to kill the rabbit. I think games can be fun in a lot of ways without death. There are also a lot of ways things can go wrong that don't involve dying. If I slam a door behind me and then realise my keys are the other side of it, I have a problem to solve due to a mistake but I'm not dead.
__________________
No Nonsense Nonsonnets #43 Cold Topic A thread most controversial, that’s what I want to start Full of impassioned arguments, of posting from the heart And for this stimulation all will be thankful to me On come on everybody it won’t work if you agree |
||||
04-03-2011, 03:10 PM | #26 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sydney, AUS
Posts: 244
|
Yeah I think I can agree with most people here.. 'Yes' to die but of course
there should be perfectly good reasoning and have an option at least to revert back to your last point before you kicked the bucket. Quote:
as real as possible. But there are those AG's that don't take themselves serious and have a more light hearted approach... these could probably do without death. Quote:
|
||
04-03-2011, 06:44 PM | #27 | |
Senior Automaton
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 898
|
Quote:
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. |
|
04-04-2011, 08:20 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 108
|
It depends, either way is fine. The early-'90s Lucasarts philosophy should not have taken over the genre the way it has. They were correct about not making dead ends, but there's no reason for adventure games to not have deaths if it's called for (especially if there's an auto-backtrack).
|
04-04-2011, 10:57 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 291
|
I think that dying in adventure games adds to the realism of the game; so if there is some dangerous situations during gameplay, its only logical that the character could die. On the other hand, most of the adventure players don't like "action" during the game, and "ability to die" may qualify as one of the "action elements".
In the end, I would say that it depends on the context: which type of the story is in question. There are some games and gameplays where simply there isn't much place for "dying", because they don't feature any of the "life and death" situations at all. On the other hand, there are also lot of sinister and dark themes, that would seem incomplete if the character couldn't die.
__________________
Recently finished: Yesterday Currently playing: Next in line: Not sure yet.. Looking forward to: Hitman: Absolution, Tomb Raider, Max Payne 3, The Last Crown, Bracken Tor, Sherlock Holmes: The Testament, Secret Files III |
04-04-2011, 10:59 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 103
|
|
04-05-2011, 03:19 AM | #31 |
Frak.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 485
|
Yes, it definitely adds to the experience and excitement of an adventure game for me. But only if you get unlimited automatic replay points like in Gemini Rue.
|
04-05-2011, 10:56 AM | #32 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
I'm dreaming that one day there will be a really good online adventure-game and if you die (out of mistake, not out of random) then your character will truely die and you won't get to replay it, in fact your IP will then be banned from trying to make a new account
Also it will send romantic invitations to everyone in your mailing-list. |
04-05-2011, 11:40 AM | #33 |
Stalker of Britain
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Missouri, US
Posts: 4,535
|
I dunno, MrLOL. Your post is intruiging. Like in Heavy Rain, if your character dies, you can't replay them...unless you start the game all over. I like that, but it could be frustrating in adventure games, and I wouldn't want my IP blocked so I could never play again, especially if I paid for it.
But you brought up a really interesting idea. To have a character die, and not be able to play that character again...
__________________
"And everyone's favourite anglophile, Fantasy!"-Intense Favorite Adventure Games-Lost Crown/Dark Fall 1&2, Longest Journey games, Myst games, Barrow Hill Favorite Other Games-King's Bounty, Sims 2, Fable, Disciples 2 Gold Currently Playing-Trine 2 Games I Want-Kings Bounty: Warriors of the North!!!, Asylum, Last Crown, Braken Tor, Testament of Sherlock Holmes |
04-05-2011, 03:09 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 108
|
Quote:
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/555181 It's an "adventure game" in the sense that there are no action elements. Once you complete it (no matter what happens), you're done (unless you scrub out all your cookies etc. I guess). Definitely would recommend all of you give it a shot. It's not long. |
|
04-05-2011, 08:44 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 775
|
Quote:
|
|
04-06-2011, 08:28 AM | #36 | |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 95
|
Quote:
And yes I was kinda being sarcastic, I didn't know that Heavy Rain was actually like that lol (I just watched the let's play pretending to hold a controller) |
|
04-06-2011, 08:37 AM | #37 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5
|
Yes, but without blind points. I think that the deaths in an adventure game are positive because are useful to enrich the argument and the gameplay experience. But I hate the blind points, I thinks that they're totally unnecessary.
|
04-07-2011, 10:23 AM | #38 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 20
|
The worst is when you can only die at 1 or 2 moments in the game. (i'm looking at you GK1.) If your going to be able to die in the game, the game should kill you right from the start in order to warn you, not give you a false sense of confidence and then murder you 5 hours in. In GK I wasn't saving often because I didn't think I needed to and then boom, my heart is ripped out. In Sierra games you die often, but at least you know to expect it.
|
04-07-2011, 06:35 PM | #39 |
Codger
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,080
|
In the old Sierra days, to die or not to die depended on the verb you used in the text-based game. "Pull rock" you died. "Push rock" you not only lived, but you found the knife you needed.
Save early and save often was the mantra. Most of today's games don't have that risk. That's too bad in a way. You can poke, prod, examine anything without fear.
__________________
For whom the games toll... They toll for thee |
04-08-2011, 12:23 AM | #40 |
Life and times of...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
|
|