You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.
Go to the current live site or the Adventure Gamers forums
Adventure Gamers

Home Adventure Forums Gaming Adventure To die or not to die: that's the question. In Adventure games


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
Old 04-08-2011, 12:38 AM   #41
Senior Passer-by
 
zobraks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Naissus (M.S.)
Posts: 1,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtrooney View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPtimist View Post
To me that's not "too bad" but almost the whole point
UPtimist's opinion seconded. If I'd want to risk/die I would go to Libya instead of playing (adventure) games.
__________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses.

Last edited by zobraks; 04-08-2011 at 12:44 AM.
zobraks is offline  
Old 04-09-2011, 05:50 PM   #42
Senior Member
 
laffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 103
Default

Well considering how dying in adventure game isn't the end of anything, worst case scenario is having to replay quite a bit if you've forgotten to save your game... any analogies to dying in real life somewhat fall flat

For me, the possibility of dying really does add to the atmosphere of the game... not only because you as the player can fail and have to reload but also because a world in which your character can die seems like a very different place than a world where your character is always safe from harm.

I somewhat identify with the character I'm controlling in the game, and seeing him/her die in various ways adds a level of 'harshness' to the game world itself.
It somewhat colors the world differently, gives it a very different feel.

I'm not happy with how I explained it here, as is often the case... but hopefully it's possible to get the gist of what I'm getting at.
laffer is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:41 AM   #43
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 32
Default

Well, for me, it's yes, but only you have lots of different and wackiest ways of dying!

Ok, seriously, I don't have any major beefs with this, since I usually try to save a lot. And I think, in specific games, and specific situations, knowing you are in fact taking a real danger that can affect (although in a limited way) your character and your progress in game, that can add up to the feeling of immersion in the game.

However, I do not like in any ways something that keeps me from progressing by forcing me to repeatedly try out the same action over and over and over so that I can bypass a "cliffhanger" scene (yes Fahrenheit...I'm talking about you)!
TechnoSpike is offline  
Old 04-13-2011, 08:52 PM   #44
Myst-loving person
 
Annacat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 78
Default

I think it can work, but I think it's something that needs to be used carefully.

Die too often, and it either becomes comedic (which is fine in intentionally funny games, not so much in serious or scary ones) or else becomes a glaring reminder that you're in a game rather than a realistic scenario.

Deaths should make sense. It should be logical that you could die as a result of that action. I dislike when it seems completely arbitrary that the character was killed.

I profoundly dislike it when a game forces you to die at least once the gain the information you need to be successful. That totally destroys the realism for me, because if I was really there, I wouldn't get a second chance with information gained from my own death. I want there to at least be a way I could have gotten it right the first time.

Finally, while I believe in saving frequently, I still want the game to automatically return me to before the death. Sometimes people forget to save, and sometimes it's simply not a reasonable place you could have saved (for example, at the end of a long puzzle sequence) so you have to backtrack. Make it as non-frustrating for the player as possible.

Honestly in the majority of games I'd just as soon not be able to die. If the game chooses to uses the mechanic, though, there are enjoyable and less enjoyable ways to employ it.
Annacat is offline  
Old 04-14-2011, 02:46 PM   #45
Codger
 
rtrooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zobraks View Post
UPtimist's opinion seconded. If I'd want to risk/die I would go to Libya instead of playing (adventure) games.
Feel free to enlist in the army/air force of your NATO country of choice.

As to the question: I will agree that death, without the ability to recover from same can be a PITA. On the other hand, most of the early adventure games, where accidental death was almost a certainty at some point in the game, had an almost unlimited number of saves available. Thus the "Save early. Save often" mantra wasn't that much of a hinderance.

Later games seem to have limited saves to a maximum of ten or so. The first saves being reused as you progress through the game. So you have to be judicious with your saves.

To my point: If there is no consequence to your actions, you are free to go, unthinkingly, about your merry way. I think a good adventure game ought to pose consequences for actions taken. Should you have to start the game over because of a misstep? No. Of course not. Should you have to pay a penalty of some sort. Seems entirely fair.
__________________
For whom the games toll...
They toll for thee
rtrooney is offline  
Old 04-14-2011, 06:11 PM   #46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 10
Default

I don't mind dying but like to get a second chance without starting all over. Having to save every couple of minutes in case you mind die again is a pain. Just started playing Dracula 2 and you can die 3 times in the first couple of minutes. Not good!
Siamese3 is offline  
Old 04-15-2011, 01:10 AM   #47
Senior Passer-by
 
zobraks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Naissus (M.S.)
Posts: 1,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtrooney View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPtimist View Post
To me that's not "too bad" but almost the whole point
Quote:
Originally Posted by zobraks View Post
UPtimist's opinion seconded. If I'd want to risk/die I would go to Libya instead of playing (adventure) games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtrooney View Post
Feel free to enlist in the army/air force of your NATO country of choice.
Name:  blink.gif
Views: 216
Size:  1.0 KBName:  wondering.gif
Views: 215
Size:  1.1 KB
Why me? I think I made it clear I DIDN'T WANT TO DIE (not even in an adventure game), while on the other hand you said you needed some risks and you missed the fear. I beleive it's quite obvious who of the two of us should join the army. Perhaps my logic is too twisted for you? Name:  opanachke.gif
Views: 216
Size:  959 Bytes
__________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses.
zobraks is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 06:52 PM   #48
Codger
 
rtrooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zobraks View Post
Perhaps my logic is too twisted for you?
Twisted? Not hardly. If you don't like playing games where there are risks involved, there are a bundle of great adventure-lite games on BigFish where death will never be an issue.
__________________
For whom the games toll...
They toll for thee
rtrooney is offline  
Old 04-16-2011, 11:22 PM   #49
Life and times of...
 
UPtimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Up there in the mist
Posts: 6,025
Default

That's hardly the issue. You're suggesting that if one doesn't like to die in games, one shouldn't be allowed to play anything but casual games, which I might start to find a little bit insulting. You really think that the whole point of full-size games, and the difference between them and casual games, is that in full-size games you can die?

Like: "if you don't like to get utterly drunk, you can drink grape juice instead of wine!" (because, surely, the point of wine is the "fun" of getting drunk, like the point of AGs is the suspension that you might die).
UPtimist is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:11 AM   #50
Senior Passer-by
 
zobraks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Naissus (M.S.)
Posts: 1,612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtrooney View Post
If you don't like playing games where there are risks involved, there are a bundle of great adventure-lite games on BigFish where death will never be an issue.
That's a great suggestion Name:  opanachke.gif
Views: 183
Size:  959 Bytes I never thought about. Thanks for showing me the path of enlightenment.
__________________
If you can read this you don't need glasses.
zobraks is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:14 PM   #51
Myst-loving person
 
Annacat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtrooney View Post
Twisted? Not hardly. If you don't like playing games where there are risks involved, there are a bundle of great adventure-lite games on BigFish where death will never be an issue.
Why does "risk" have to equal player character death?

I mean to me, that would just be sloppy writing, if the only tool in the writer's repertoire to get you to feel something is at stake is literally offing you.

What about failing at your objective? If the development team has done a good job of coming up with a compelling plot, that should matter to the player. What about a threat to another character? If the game includes likable characters, their death or injury should be a concern. And so on...

Now, the death of the player character can of course be one way of conveying risk. It can be an effective device if used meaningfully.

It just seems like treating this as if the only options are either death or no risk at all ignores other very real and powerful storytelling possibilities.
Annacat is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 06:33 PM   #52
Codger
 
rtrooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annacat View Post
It just seems like treating this as if the only options are either death or no risk at all ignores other very real and powerful storytelling possibilities.
Why is it that a question is posited, die or not die? And then assume that not die is the only logical answer. And when someone, eg me, says that die is the logical result of a risk/reward proposition, the "pro-life" people get upset because someone disagreed.

Remember the short story? Behind door number one was the beautiful maiden. Behind number two was the tiger. Which to choose? One resulted in eternal bliss. The other in instant death. A very real and very powerful story. Albeit in words on the printed page rather than images in a computer game.

Push rock, die! Pull rock, live and be rewarded.
__________________
For whom the games toll...
They toll for thee
rtrooney is offline  
Old 04-17-2011, 07:16 PM   #53
Myst-loving person
 
Annacat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtrooney View Post
Why is it that a question is posited, die or not die? And then assume that not die is the only logical answer. And when someone, eg me, says that die is the logical result of a risk/reward proposition, the "pro-life" people get upset because someone disagreed.
The problem isn't that you disagreed. I've enjoyed reading multiple opinions.

The problem is that you said that people who don't agree with you aren't fit to play adventure games, which is frankly pretty unfair.

The reason I clarified what I did about other types of danger and suspense, is that you assumed anyone who doesn't want the player character to die in your words "do[es]n't like playing games where there are risks involved."

Thus I pointed out that there are other things that can be risks - unless the game suffers from a very lazy writer - so people who don't prefer this particular element are not necessarily risk-averse in all ways.

Quote:
Remember the short story? Behind door number one was the beautiful maiden. Behind number two was the tiger. Which to choose? One resulted in eternal bliss. The other in instant death. A very real and very powerful story. Albeit in words on the printed page rather than images in a computer game.

Push rock, die! Pull rock, live and be rewarded.
Have you actually read the story? Because that's reeeeally not what "The Lady, or the Tiger?" is about. The woman knows that one door means sending her lover to his death, while the other means sending him to marry another woman. The man looks to the woman to make the choice. She chooses; the reader is never told which.

Thus the piece is really a study of human nature. Will she sacrifice their relationship to save his life? Or will she choose that if she can't have him, no one can, and allow him to die?

It's an interesting story, but the conflict really isn't as simple as life/death, and neither choice will result in "bliss." Both options are actually pretty bad - death, or losing the person you love forever.
Annacat is offline  
Old 04-18-2011, 04:58 PM   #54
Codger
 
rtrooney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,080
Default

But the choice is still die or not die.

Maybe it breaks down to the choice of games one plays. Death in one game may seem inappropraite. Death in another may be totally appropriate.

I died several times in GK3, but was given another chance at life. Died several times in Dark Side of the Moon. Don't recall immediate resurrection.
__________________
For whom the games toll...
They toll for thee
rtrooney is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 03:07 AM   #55
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4
Default

I never understood how dying adds anything to an adventure game.

The only thing it does, is make you save every few minutes, or every time you have done some action that should be saved, even just picking up an object, and that gets annoying, especially if you "only" have 30 save slots. There is no risk element at all, because you make sure that you are not set back when you die, so what is the point?

Now developers have started making autosaves before places where you can die, or an undo function. Again, what is the point of dying then?

It doesn't make us play any more carefully and think about what we do. It just makes us waste a lot of time on saves and reloads, which is not why I play adventure games. Is there anything more annoying than the constant saving and reloading in the old Sierra games? I could do without it.

If dying really should be implemented in a game, then it should be definitive. Game over. No reload of any kind, but start over from scratch. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. Personally I would never play a game like that, and I guess that is why we never see it. Dying is always harmless, which is actually stupid if you think about it.

Last edited by FrankB; 02-06-2012 at 03:22 AM.
FrankB is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 05:27 AM   #56
3rd person fanatic :)
 
MoonBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 404
Default Not To Die

BUT... if there is automatic save-system or unlimited tries without game-over, then it's quite allright.
__________________
~Flight Of The Amazon Queen - Best adventure ever~
MoonBird is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 07:22 AM   #57
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBird View Post
BUT... if there is automatic save-system or unlimited tries without game-over, then it's quite allright.
Why? What is the point of dying if you can just restore and try again? These are adventure games, not arcade games.
FrankB is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 08:04 AM   #58
lost in rubacava
 
aimless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankB View Post
I never understood how dying adds anything to an adventure game.
Have you ever played Zork Grand Inquisitor? I purposely made choices that led to my being totemized just for the hilarious comments from the game.
aimless is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 08:24 AM   #59
Senior Member
 
Kurufinwe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 3,038
Default

I don't think dying is particularly useful as a gameplay mechanic but, for the sake of the story, I think it should be used when appropriate. I hate the ridiculous contortions that some games perform in order never to kill the player while still throwing him/her in all sorts of situations which are supposed to be dangerous. It breaks the immersion. It's better to just kill you and auto-restore than have the bad guys dance around you forever while you decide what you want to do.
__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert)
Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++]
Currently playing: Skyrim
Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++]
Kurufinwe is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 08:52 AM   #60
Filmfreak
 
TimovieMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,049
Default

No, but...

If they make an autosave (so you don't lose too much if you hadn't saved in a while), and if the death fits within the game (you're in a dangerous situation and you just did something of which you knew it *might* kill you), then meh, go for it. I'd prefer no deaths at all - it's not really necessary for my immersion, but meh, handle it well and I won't mind. Of course, if you're doing something that'll obviously result in immediate death (like jumping in a pool of piranha's while wearing a bacon swimsuit just for the fun of it), then I'd prefer if the character just says "Uhmm, I'm not doing that, it'd kill me."

A good example is facing the giant scorpion in King's Quest VII: The Princeless Bride. When the scorpion is next to you, you have three options:
- Run away to safety (or better: exit the cave through that hole the scorpion can't get through).
- Divert him with a flag so he'll attack it (and pin himself to the wall in doing so) - the solution to this particular puzzle.
- Try something that doesn't work (or do nothing for ten seconds) and die.

Giving you an exit strategy to allow saving the game and thinking things over is a great way to handle this. And you are still facing a giant scorpion, so the risk of death should be there.

However, if deaths are more or less random like in the early Sierra games, then F#!% OFF, I'll go play something else instead. Click too far on the map and fall off a cliff, inspect an item and die, pull a rock that should have been pushed and die, etc. All these will make me throw the game across the room.

It's basically what most of you have already been saying, but as a "No, but..." instead of a "Yes, but...".

Games where death was possible and implemented well: the final chapter of Phantasmagoria and the final sequence of Full Throttle.
From what I hear and read: The Last Express has death or imprisonment at every corner, but they implemented a great auto-rollback feature. The same apparently goes for Amnesia: The Dark Descent (although that one is too scary for me to ever attempt).

And I loved Monkey Island's *scare* in having Guybrush walk off a cliff and getting a Sierra-like "I hope you saved recently"-message. It managed to panic me since I hadn't saved in ages. That was, of course, BEFORE the rubber tree...
__________________
Currently playing: Again, Escape from Monkey Island (replay), King's Quest VI: Heir Today, Gone Tomorrow
Next in line: King's Quest VII: The Princeless Bride, Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers, The Last Express, Time Hollow
Recently finished: King's Quest V: Absence Makes the Heart Go Yonder, The Curse of Monkey Island (replay), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (abandoned), Mass Effect 3
TimovieMan is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.