You are viewing an archived version of the site which is no longer maintained.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 02-06-2012, 08:53 AM   #61
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aimless View Post
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.
No, but I have played all Larry Laffer games, Space Quest etc., and even though the death scenes can be funny, they are still annoying when they happen.

And I still fail to see, how they have any place in adventure games. It is after all an adventure, a story, and if you die, it should be over. How can you complete an adventure after having died 27 times? The fact that you can do just that only shows that deaths are totally irrelevant for the gameplay (except for a few cases where you actually HAVE to die in order to finish the game).

Last edited by FrankB; 02-06-2012 at 09:09 AM.
FrankB is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 09:08 AM   #62
3rd person fanatic :)
 
MoonBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankB View Post
Why? What is the point of dying if you can just restore and try again? These are adventure games, not arcade games.
Because it simply doesn't bother me if the game continues anyway.
__________________
~Flight Of The Amazon Queen - Best adventure ever~
MoonBird is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 09:40 AM   #63
lost in rubacava
 
aimless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBird View Post
Because it simply doesn't bother me if the game continues anyway.
Me either.

Look at it as a philosophical reassurance that death is not the end.
aimless is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 02:21 PM   #64
long live the dragons
 
pointandcliklover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 427
Send a message via MSN to pointandcliklover
Default

i was a no but,

ifs theres an auto save, i once had to redo all of broken sword because of that scroll (you know what i mean).

also agree...thats one reason why i play AGs

it's also what almost put me off GK.
__________________
may the best thing you do tommorro be the worse thing you do today

Marise-Chiko
pointandcliklover is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 06:55 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Collector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 775
Default

This strikes me as a rather silly argument. I don't mean to demean anyone's opinion, but it is really no big deal if you save often enough and before you do anything risky or stupid enough. It doesn't take that much to save and for those that want to whine that saving breaks immersion, you can easily make the argument that removing the possibility of death when your character does something dangerous enough can break immersion even more. For the less serious games, it can be a real blast. Killing Roger is half of the fun of playing a Space Quest game. Many of the silly death scenes are absolutely hilarious.

Those that want to complain about dead ends have a better case to make, but that is another debate.
Collector is offline  
Old 02-06-2012, 07:57 PM   #66
Member
 
Datadog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 48
Default

If killing off your character is appropriate to the game, then I don't mind death. It makes things fun. But of course, this is a "Yes, but..." post.

Monkey Island might hold the biggest case against in-game death. In "Tales of Monkey Island",
Spoiler:
Guybrush dies and the adventure continues. Had this been a series where Guybrush died frequently, the shock of seeing him die let alone finally seeing the pirate afterlife would have been lost on us. Not like "Space Quest" where we've become desensitized to Roger getting disemboweled.
So, in a way, if a game deprives us of being sadists, it's also opening itself up to a lot of narrative possibilities.

I should also mention that making death sequences is very time-consuming in development. If you're going to extremes to make sure your character dies every possible way, then that's less time spent developing game-play and puzzles (i.e. "Jurassic Park" extended their release date by several months just so they could fill their game with death sequences.) The advantage of having a semi-intelligent ego character is that their sense of self-preservation does add to the realism of the game when they refuse to blindly walk off a cliff.
Datadog is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 02:06 AM   #67
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Collector View Post
This strikes me as a rather silly argument. I don't mean to demean anyone's opinion, but it is really no big deal if you save often enough and before you do anything risky or stupid enough.
Yes, it is indeed a big deal when you walk down a cliff, like in Kings Quest 3, and you have to save the game every two steps, because you would otherwise fall over the cliff and die at least 10 times on your way down. There are plenty of examples like this, where you do something you are supposed to do, but do it a little bit wrong, and you are back to your last save. It is simply annoying, and adds nothing to the game other that frustrations.

Also in many cases, you don't know that you are about to do something dangerous. Eating something, that looks like it is supposed to be eaten, but proves to be fatal, is not something you anticipate, and it only leads to you saving the game every time you are about to eat something, even if the other 68 eatable items in the game are totally harmless. It is a waste of time, and takes away the pleasure of playing a game.
FrankB is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 07:18 AM   #68
lost in rubacava
 
aimless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankB View Post
Yes, it is indeed a big deal when you walk down a cliff, like in Kings Quest 3, and you have to save the game every two steps, because you would otherwise fall over the cliff and die at least 10 times on your way down.
But think about it. Would you be half so thrilled when you finally got your hands on that traveling map if you hadn't tumbled down that cliff time after time because you were careless about where you put your feet? A recent remake of KQ3 made it so easy to get down the path that it took some of the fun out of it for me!

It is indeed a futile argument. Best to accept that some won't mind and some will and the danger of repeatedly dying that you don't like is part of the adventure for someone else.
aimless is offline  
Old 02-07-2012, 08:54 AM   #69
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 7
Default

'Yes, but...'

The character in the game should be able to die,

I agree with most points being said by like-minded people. The same goes for other games. A FPS without dying would probably be no fun to play, there is a certain skill level involved. I understand it's not the same for adventure games, but the fact that the player character can die shows something about the vulnaribility (or even 'normal'ness of the character) or about the danger the enemy poses. Fighting off the coming end of the world (in the form of some terrible monstrosity) while playing as regular joe..., would be more serious and immersive when joe is able to die.

If you're playing a game where you spend alot of time in dangerous situations and in dangerous company (like GK, Broken Sword, etc) it's only normal to show how dangerous it can actually be for your 'standard human' character. Often in adventure games a person of some wit (wich they promptly have to use to get out of the situation at hand).

but...

there has to be a certain level of fairness. I liked the person who said something about the piranha pond. If you actively choose to jump into said pond, well deserved death. Just trying to look at the pond shouldn't outright kill the player. Same for the warning system and auto-save (or some other form of try again button). Walking around in the most dangerous areas without a scratch and suddenly dying in the final act of the game is just weird, make the danger for the player character obvious from the start.

All in all, it's not about reflexes and skills in adventure games, it's about using smarts and logic (well... hopefully logic). Death in adventure games should adhere to those same rules. Death serves a role in adding immersion and threat, or even to flesh out the player character. I can relate more to George or Gabriel then i can to Space Marine #27. Saying it serves no point because you can reload your game... how is that any different then reloading any other action or FPS game?
Free Spirit is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:42 AM   #70
The Magnificent
 
Iznogood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Denmark
Posts: 29
Default

I woted NO.
The reason beeing that i recently played Jurasic Park, where you constantly die, and i absolutely hated it

Having read some of the arguments, I might consider changing it to "No but".
Being able to die might add something to a game, if it is done properly and the conditions mentioned by others are met, but 9 times out of 10 it will destroy the game.
Iznogood is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 10:52 AM   #71
handsome
 
TiAgUh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1,135
Default

Can't see why anyone would vote anything but the "Yes, but" since followed by "if it's done well" is probably the answer to everything. I guess "No, but" could also work if done the other way around i.e. "if it's not done properly".

Now don't try to be funny by giving me some extreme examples, k?
TiAgUh is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 11:17 AM   #72
Senior Member
 
Collector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 775
Default

Agreed, but as you note, the caveat could apply to all elements. Who wants bad puzzles randomly thrown in the way?
Collector is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 02:46 PM   #73
handsome
 
TiAgUh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1,135
Default

Dunno if I'm getting you there bud, but, if so: how can there be bad puzzles if the "only if done right" rule (i.e. by not frustrating players, by not dwelling in the bad kind of non-sequitur events, yada yada yada) automatically guarantees a quality product?
TiAgUh is offline  
Old 02-08-2012, 09:04 PM   #74
Senior Member
 
Collector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 775
Default

Any badly executed element can detract from a game. A hard puzzle is not necessarily a badly executed puzzle, but they should still fit within the character of the game and the narrative. I only mentioned a puzzle as merely one other element of adventure games. I could have cited any other element, be it the writing, artwork, voice acting/dialog or whatever. A couple of badly done parts will not necessarily break a game, but they do make it less than what it could have been.
Collector is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 03:55 AM   #75
handsome
 
TiAgUh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1,135
Default

Sure, I can't argue with that since I'm nitpicky as they come. But... where are we trying to get here?
Any element, if inserted properly = matching it's world and everything you've just said, like the insult-swashbuckling mechanic or whatever, is good for the game. Of course they shouldn't put any element that seems to work neatly within its world; I mean, less is (often) more, right? But, doesn't the rule by itself also prevents an overkill?

I feel like we're just discussing semantics and whatnot, now. (Not that I'm not enjoying our little dialogue here, of course )
TiAgUh is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 09:38 AM   #76
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 7
Default

For me it doesn't really matter if you can die or not. Quite irrelevant.
ohyesIdid is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 09:39 AM   #77
Senior Member
 
Collector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 775
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiAgUh View Post
I feel like we're just discussing semantics and whatnot, now. (Not that I'm not enjoying our little dialogue here, of course )
And that is the point. The "but" options are a little meaningless, given that the same can be applied to most other aspects of a game. Not that a well executed part will make a game on its own, but a badly done one will certainly detract from, if not ruin a game.
Collector is offline  
Old 02-09-2012, 01:19 PM   #78
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 7
Default

I fully agree with Collector, well put. Also, the discussion is an interesting one indeed.

In the meta, ofcourse you are correct. The yes, but and no, but is always valid (except in extremo). However, i saw the but option here as a way to explain my views and reasoning behind choosing the option. Not in the sense of 'yes, but if done correctly' wich, without question, goes for just about every aspect of a game (or life for that matter).
Free Spirit is offline  
Old 02-10-2012, 05:06 AM   #79
handsome
 
TiAgUh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Portugal
Posts: 1,135
Default

I've just realized that I'm debating meta-terminalogies with Dr. Cranium and Deadpool. How baked am I?
TiAgUh is offline  
Old 02-12-2012, 11:29 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
WitchOfDoubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 104
Default

Death at appropriately dramatic or dangerous junctures can increase suspension of disbelief, but constant accidental death breaks it. This holds double for causes that generally only happen to computer game characters. Who accidentally walks off a cliff sober, in broad daylight, on a path as wide as they are tall? Only the gap between our imperfect control and view of the protagonist and actually BEING the protagonist makes a mistake like that possible. Generally speaking, it's not a good idea to emphasize the ways our controls and camera angles fall short of reality!

Random cliff deaths and falling bridges and so on make me feel less as if I'm playing out someone's story, and more as if I'm controlling a disposable sprite, like Mario. On the other hand, Gabriel Knight really should be in peril when he's surrounded by zombies, and Indiana Jones shouldn't expect to get off with a pat on the back if he loses a fight with a Nazi.
WitchOfDoubt is offline  
 



Thread Tools

 


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