Adventure Gamers - Forums

Detective Mosely - 13 October 2013 01:28 AM

Antrax - 12 October 2013 12:13 AM

What I’d really like to know and wasn’t even brought up in the interview: the original game had the Sierra issues, i.e. deaths and dead ends

They better not take out those deaths.  They were one of the most fun parts of the game for me.

I loved to find new ways to get Gabe brutally killed.  (Dr. John taking out Gabe and Mosely in the back room of the Honfour is my favorite)  And they always let you try again from the moment you messed up anyway, so I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with them.

If it’s an absolute must, deaths that rewind the game to the last winnable state, assuming it’s not too far back, are okay. However, you could just the same tell me you really enjoyed a typo in the game text or a particularly awful voice performance - they can be funny but they’re not really legitimate parts of the story.
I think the possibility of death serves to heighten tension, but in adventure games it just results in playing a section over and over again which kills any tension, so all that remains is tediously replaying a section.

im assuming they’ll keep the death scenes. But im also assuming they’ll remove the dead-end: entering the hounfour without being ready. Thats probably a good thing.

I doubt very much POS had anything to do with choosing the art style of this game.  Remember, Activision was ALREADY making the game long before POS came onto the project.  Everything I’ve read so far seems to indicate that many of the resources were already produced and were then transferred over to POS when they came on board.

Antrax - 13 October 2013 10:46 AM

Detective Mosely - 13 October 2013 01:28 AM

Antrax - 12 October 2013 12:13 AM

What I’d really like to know and wasn’t even brought up in the interview: the original game had the Sierra issues, i.e. deaths and dead ends

They better not take out those deaths.  They were one of the most fun parts of the game for me.

I loved to find new ways to get Gabe brutally killed.  (Dr. John taking out Gabe and Mosely in the back room of the Honfour is my favorite)  And they always let you try again from the moment you messed up anyway, so I don’t see why anyone would have a problem with them.

If it’s an absolute must, deaths that rewind the game to the last winnable state, assuming it’s not too far back, are okay. However, you could just the same tell me you really enjoyed a typo in the game text or a particularly awful voice performance - they can be funny but they’re not really legitimate parts of the story.
I think the possibility of death serves to heighten tension, but in adventure games it just results in playing a section over and over again which kills any tension, so all that remains is tediously replaying a section.

Not remotely comparable.  The deaths weren’t mistakes.  They were a design decision.  And they were pretty damn cool.

Removing them would take away from the game and do nothing to add to it.

And seriously, Gabe is in serious peril at the end of GK1.  Making it so Doctor John just stands there and gives you as long as it takes to find the right thing to do would completely destroy the suspension of disbelief.

a) Deaths don’t add to the narrative because they’re not a part of the story. The GK story doesn’t go “...and then he got shot in the stomach and died, at which point time rewound and he tried something else”. So, removing the deaths wouldn’t detract from the narrative.

b) You’ve said yourself you treated deaths not as a logical extension of the peril the characters were in, but as some sort of diversion, to see how many ways you could get them murdered.

c) Not sure how replaying a section over and over doesn’t ruin your suspension of disbelief, but more importantly, that seems like a false dichotomy. You have one scene that needs to be tense. Why are “death” or “the bad guy patiently waiting” the only options? Make a new design decision that keeps the atmosphere and go with that.

They don’t detract from the narrative, but not having them WOULD detract from the GAME.

Bt

Antrax - 13 October 2013 11:33 PM

a) Deaths don’t add to the narrative because they’re not a part of the story. The GK story doesn’t go “...and then he got shot in the stomach and died, at which point time rewound and he tried something else”. So, removing the deaths wouldn’t detract from the narrative.

Nonsense. Deaths add to the narrative by being a possible outcome. Removing the ability to die changes the tone of the story completely. It’s like going hiking through the Amazonian jungle and seeing deadly snakes along the way, and then being told halfway through they’re all made of rubber and you were never in any danger the whole time. You really think that doesn’t change the narrative of your trip?

Antrax - 13 October 2013 11:33 PM

a) Deaths don’t add to the narrative because they’re not a part of the story. The GK story doesn’t go “...and then he got shot in the stomach and died, at which point time rewound and he tried something else”. So, removing the deaths wouldn’t detract from the narrative.

b) You’ve said yourself you treated deaths not as a logical extension of the peril the characters were in, but as some sort of diversion, to see how many ways you could get them murdered.

c) Not sure how replaying a section over and over doesn’t ruin your suspension of disbelief, but more importantly, that seems like a false dichotomy. You have one scene that needs to be tense. Why are “death” or “the bad guy patiently waiting” the only options? Make a new design decision that keeps the atmosphere and go with that.

The whole death/no death argument is overblown and it probably doesn’t matter much either way. But your a) and c) here are wrong, because another thing that isn’t part of the base narrative is “Gabriel went to the voodoo store, then to see Dr. John, then to Grandma’s attic, then back to the bookstore, then back to the voodoo store, then to Franklin Square, then back to the voodoo store, then to Tulane University, all the while repeatedly asking the same people the same questions and trying to use random objects on each other.” So don’t pretend that death is the only traditional adventure game mechanic that doesn’t work as “part of the story”.

I love how people dismiss my opinion as “wrong”.

That being said, excessive backtracking and improperly clued puzzles are very common complaints in adventure games, because they break the narrative. So, not sure how that’s a counterpoint.

I’m still not convinced my only options are having a death scene or having the poisonous snakes do nothing. To argue that games can’t be suspenseful if the are no death scenes is like arguing you can’t be in suspense watching a movie because you know the protagonist will live.

Antrax - 13 October 2013 11:33 PM

a) Deaths don’t add to the narrative because they’re not a part of the story. The GK story doesn’t go “...and then he got shot in the stomach and died, at which point time rewound and he tried something else”. So, removing the deaths wouldn’t detract from the narrative.

Actually they do add to the narrative, because they show what would’ve happened if Gabriel did something differently.

What if Gabriel just walked into the middle of a voodoo ritual in the woods without a disguise and is just like “Hey, what’s up, Dr. John?”

What if Gabriel tried to kill Malia?

What if Gabriel and Mosely didn’t put their masks on before Dr. John found them in the backroom?  (Dr. John would’ve smashed the armed Mosely into the wall with his bare hands, killing him instantly, and then choked Gabriel to death, like a complete bad ass.  That’s what.)

With King’s Quest style deaths where you get killed for walking down the wrong path, I completely agree those are pointless and outdated.  But they always make sense in Gabriel Knight, and they completely fit the tone of the games.  I have to think you’re very much in the minority of people that would rather have them removed from the game.

The more I think about this, the more excited I get.  I love Sins of the Fathers more than any other game in the history of existence.  Hell, my screen name and avatar come from the game, so that’s probably not much of a surprise.

I totally don’t think the game needs a remake.  It’s great as is, and I’ve replayed it more times than any other game I’ve ever played.

However this is a chance to replay it again and find NEW stuff.  To look at it from a new perspective.  To see a new take on the characters and the plot.  Perhaps with some new content and a directors commentary track thrown in as well.  And to help introduce more people to one of the best games ever made.

This is flat out exciting stuff.  Even if we ignore the fact that this makes GK4 more of a possibility than it’s ever been before.

I’m really looking forward to it.  I just hope they don’t screw it up.  They have a lot to live up to here.

Detective Mosely - 14 October 2013 02:16 AM

I have to think you’re very much in the minority of people that would rather have them removed from the game.

What’s more important, IMO, is what people who’ve never played GK would expect. You and I are already sold, no matter what path they take.
I have no clue what a modern audience will expect from a game like this. I do hope it’ll be an enormous success.