Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
Anyone miss death in AGs?
We probably have different situations in mind - I’m not imagining Myst-style games and comedies having deaths. That would definitely reduce enjoyment (though I think I recall Myst 3 having deaths?) But in games where you’re constantly placed in danger with no chance of dying, there’s no tension there in the story. I think that’s clear. It’s like playing pinball with no chance of the ball going down the hole - the player might still enjoy it but she isn’t as involved, because she can’t lose. So winning or getting a high score will mean less to her. THAT is the ‘purpose’ and ‘point’ that everyone keeps mentioning. If you haven’t experienced the pleasure of completing a more challenging task whether it’s a job, a mountain hike, an exam, or a game, well, I’m speechless.
I’m not quite sure where you get the idea of equating “death” with “challenging” (At least that seems like what you are implying with your last few sentences). I don’t see that at all. The “challenge” of avoiding having your game experience brought to a screeching halt is not a challenge I’m looking for in a game. There are plenty of FPS games I can try if that’s my definition of challenge. In an adventure game, (to my mind)the challenges lie not in avoiding unrecoverable failure, but in working your way through obstacles to success. Death can be one of those obstacles, but insisting that said death MUST be game ending, requiring a restore from wherever you last thought to save, in order for it to represent a “challenge” seems odd to me, especially given that, in practical terms anybody playing such a game is likely to make darn sure they save frequently, thus erasing that “danger” and just replacing it with a nagging annoyance of having to save repeatedly the entire game, “just in case”, regardless of how cleverly you play.
We probably have different situations in mind - I’m not imagining Myst-style games and comedies having deaths. That would definitely reduce enjoyment (though I think I recall Myst 3 having deaths?) But in games where you’re constantly placed in danger with no chance of dying, there’s no tension there in the story. I think that’s clear.
Well, maybe we’re just not playing the same games, then. I can’t remember any games I’ve played where I was “constantly placed in danger.” I’m more focused on exploration in my adventure games.
I think games like The Lost Crown, Dark Fall, and Barrow Hill (which are among my favourites) do a fine job conveying a sense of menace even without death or with only infrequent possibilities of dying. That’s of course different from something styled more like survival-horror, which I don’t play.
If you’re restricting it to only games where the character seems to be in direct physical danger all the time, I can certainly buy your point… but at least within the adventure genre, at that point you’re talking about a pretty narrow pool.
It’s like playing pinball with no chance of the ball going down the hole - the player might still enjoy it but she isn’t as involved, because she can’t lose. So winning or getting a high score will mean less to her. THAT is the ‘purpose’ and ‘point’ that everyone keeps mentioning.
I don’t think that analogy fits well. In pinball, there’s only one fairly simple objective - to get the maximum score without losing your ball.
In adventure gaming, there can be a multitude of different objectives and paths, and plenty of ways to fail without the character necessarily dying.
If you haven’t experienced the pleasure of completing a more challenging task whether it’s a job, a mountain hike, an exam, or a game, well, I’m speechless.
I hope that’s directed to “general you,” not an assumption about me personally based on my gaming preferences. It would be a pretty inaccurate assumption about me. 
I just don’t buy the idea that avoiding death in a game is the only (or even always the superior) form of challenge.
I just don’t buy the idea that avoiding death in a game is the only (or even always the superior) form of challenge.
This.
I daresay I derived MUCH more pleasure from finishing Riven without any hints (and found it FAR more challenging, rather than simply irritating) than any game I’ve ever played that included death as a looming possibility. Death, to me, is (as I think I’ve said) not infrequently a rather cheap way of increasing difficulty or challenge, one that doesn’t actually make the game more challenging (due to save and restore ability), but just makes it take longer.
Well, maybe we’re just not playing the same games, then. I can’t remember any games I’ve played where I was “constantly placed in danger.” I’m more focused on exploration in my adventure games.
I think it’s less a case of our not playing the same games, than it is we haven’t played the same games.
Think of the very first graphical game put out by Sierra, King’s Quest 1. It was essentially a text-based game with pictures. Very early in the game you encounterd a boulder. If you typed “pull rock” you died. If you entered “push rock” you not only lived, but found a knife. The logic of that escapes me to this day. Death was not a consequence of doing something perilous. It was a simple consequence of doing something other than what the game designer wanted you to do.
Thus was born the mantra, “Save early. Save often.” Which wasn’t hard to do. Even in a DOS-based world where hard drives were tiny, if they existed at all, a saved game might run 32 bits in length. You had unlimited saved games.
Of couse that didn’t make death any more palatable. As you move your cursor key to the edge of the screen, you have to save the game because you don’t know what lurks on the other side. There may be nothing, but why take the risk? So, you interrupt the playing of the game to do some housekeeping.
Did this in any way contribute to the game’s “fun factor”? Absolutely not. Was it the pravalent mode of game design at the time? Absolutely.
And, even after LucasArts killed death, if you will pardon the phrase, it still remained a part of game design at Sierra and other studios. To my knowledge, the last five successful games produced by Sierra were Phantasmagoria 1&2, and Gabriel Knight 1,2&3. All five had possible death sequences.
No game I’ve played in the last 7+ years had the possibility of death without offering you an instant replay. In fact, not many games in that time frame even offered the option to save a game. You want to quit the game for the night? OK, your game is saved. You don’t “restore” to that saved game, you simply start playing from where you left off.
Should death return as part of game design? Probably not. If a person decides to jump off a cliff when there is no motive to do so, e.g., being chased by thugs, then the person probably deserves to die. But if the game designers allow that option, to me it’s just plain bad design. If they want to include it, put in a bonus pack of some sort.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
posted below
Very early in the game you encounterd a boulder. If you typed “pull rock” you died. If you entered “push rock” you not only lived, but found a knife. The logic of that escapes me to this day.
Really? Pulling a rock you’re standing behind makes it roll on to you. Pushing it makes it roll away from you. I don’t mean to be patronising but it’s perfectly logical. If the game was a full text adventure, I’d be disappointed to find that pulling something described as a large moveable rock does not lead to it rolling on top of me. Now that’s just one example, but I find that most cases it’s the same - the situation everyone is talking about with unavoidable, unexpected and necessary death doesn’t exist.
Now let’s say King Graham refuses to pull the rock, saying “no, it will kill me if I do that”. A big part of my complaint is that it takes the initiative away from the player. We were talking about freedom in another thread - the freedom to die is something I feel contributes a lot to the player feeling in control and responsible for the character.
Should death return as part of game design? Probably not. If a person decides to jump off a cliff when there is no motive to do so, e.g., being chased by thugs, then the person probably deserves to die. But if the game designers allow that option, to me it’s just plain bad design. If they want to include it, put in a bonus pack of some sort.
To me this says we don’t value gameplay freedom much anymore, which Sierra games tried so hard to give us. We would rather the protagonist tell us, upon clicking ‘use’ with ‘cliff’, that he shouldn’t jump off because he would die. The player is reduced to a passive observer, instead of an active participant with the power of judgment. It’s a choice between two different styles, and modern players value the safe gameplay.
We probably have different situations in mind - I’m not imagining Myst-style games and comedies having deaths. That would definitely reduce enjoyment (though I think I recall Myst 3 having deaths?) But in games where you’re constantly placed in danger with no chance of dying, there’s no tension there in the story. I think that’s clear.
Well, maybe we’re just not playing the same games, then. I can’t remember any games I’ve played where I was “constantly placed in danger.” I’m more focused on exploration in my adventure games.
I think games like The Lost Crown, Dark Fall, and Barrow Hill (which are among my favourites) do a fine job conveying a sense of menace even without death or with only infrequent possibilities of dying. That’s of course different from something styled more like survival-horror, which I don’t play.
If you’re restricting it to only games where the character seems to be in direct physical danger all the time, I can certainly buy your point… but at least within the adventure genre, at that point you’re talking about a pretty narrow pool.
I don’t think it’s that narrow. A recent example is Dark Eye: Chains of Satinav. Almost every scene has you placed in a dangerous situation - in one screen there are orcs eating around a corner and your character refuses to do anything that might alert them (it’s beyond me why the player herself can’t figure that out). It’s utterly stupid, but it’s what the players want (most). I think it’s more that game design has changed to avoid those kinds of situation.
I hope that’s directed to “general you,” not an assumption about me personally based on my gaming preferences. It would be a pretty inaccurate assumption about me.
I just don’t buy the idea that avoiding death in a game is the only (or even always the superior) form of challenge.
I only meant to say that gameplay involving death is more challenging, and I stick with that. I don’t know how to convince you, because it seems obvious to me.
I daresay I derived MUCH more pleasure from finishing Riven without any hints (and found it FAR more challenging, rather than simply irritating) than any game I’ve ever played that included death as a looming possibility. Death, to me, is (as I think I’ve said) not infrequently a rather cheap way of increasing difficulty or challenge, one that doesn’t actually make the game more challenging (due to save and restore ability), but just makes it take longer.
If I felt that deaths were senseless like everyone has been saying, I would agree with you. I just don’t see them that way. I’ve said what purposes they serve, which include much more than mere challenge. Maybe it really does come down to taste in the end.
Really? Unfortunately your logic is not based on the game(s) I referenced. In the original text-based games with graphics position wasn’t even a consideration. You could be above, below, to the right or to the left. The verb was everything. In this particular game you could “pull rock” from “above” and it would still kill you, while pushing from “below” allowed you to live.
Parsing had not quite reached the sophistication of “I am going to push this rock from a position higher on the hill.”
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
i think Black Mirror had gave i need example of reasonable deaths which i didnt mind and Space Venture prototype had also shown a demonstration of the upcoming game which will also have Deaths , but if you are talk like KQs Deaths at the 1st 5 part, without any reason just you took a wrong turn or stayed a little bit more while in a place were you shouldn’t, i guess that was a fase of time and might had been acceptable in the 80’s because ALL game had death Scenes but now as Adventure features are being clear no space for anyone (expect the Andromeda Guys whom we are just happy they are back so i guess we can not argue with them at least now) to change it now
Please translate. I do not understand this post.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
the situation everyone is talking about with unavoidable, unexpected and necessary death doesn’t exist.
In the first LSL, within the first few minutes, walking into the alley on the right presented a screen where you could pick up an inventory item while the walking into the left alley was instant death. Walking into the street was instant death. Flushing the toilet in the bar was instant death. They were all amusing gags, but expected and necessary?
Really? Unfortunately your logic is not based on the game(s) I referenced. In the original text-based games with graphics position wasn’t even a consideration. You could be above, below, to the right or to the left. The verb was everything. In this particular game you could “pull rock” from “above” and it would still kill you, while pushing from “below” allowed you to live.
Parsing had not quite reached the sophistication of “I am going to push this rock from a position higher on the hill.”
No, I guess not. But it would now?
Anyway it was just an example. The idea was logical even if the execution wasn’t. I don’t think many newly developed games would face this problem.
the situation everyone is talking about with unavoidable, unexpected and necessary death doesn’t exist.
In the first LSL, within the first few minutes, walking into the alley on the right presented a screen where you could pick up an inventory item while the walking into the left alley was instant death. Walking into the street was instant death. Flushing the toilet in the bar was instant death. They were all amusing gags, but expected and necessary?
Wow. That’s really stupid.
I hate LSL. Silly, badly designed and ugly games.
Please translate. I do not understand this post
.
i think Black Mirror had gaven an example of reasonable deaths in adventures which i didnt mind and Space Venture prototype had also shown the game will also have Deaths , but if you are mean like KQs Deaths as with the 1st 5 parts, without reasoning but because you took a wrong turn or even stayed a little bit more time at one place that you shouldn’t, i guess that is a fase/trend that is out of time and should never come back at to a minimal extend,
plus those deaths might had been acceptable in the 80’s because ALL games (all genres)before Adventuring Appearing had that (trend) death Scenes .
now as the Adventure features had changed and agreed on for a long while (more than a decade) and those pushed in difficulties forgotten even for the very 1st generation whom witnessed the start of the genre . there no space/place for any developers to get back for deaths scenes or that would be thae rea end of the genre when you delete more work indifferently (
i hope i did make it more a little more understandable
I only meant to say that gameplay involving death is more challenging, and I stick with that. I don’t know how to convince you, because it seems obvious to me.
The reason it’s so obvious to you is because it’s your own opinion. 
For you, death may make things more challenging, but someone else might see it as a minor annoyance and be more challenged by another game aspect.
Your opinion is a perfectly valid one, and you have every right to state it. The problem comes when you try to make it into some kind of objective truth for everyone.
Personally, I tend to save a lot out of habit, so I find a puzzle that’s good and tough much more of a challenge than clicking through a few screens to reload my game. That’s just my opinion, though, and doesn’t render your opinion moot.
What you don’t seem to be understanding is that what people see as challenging versus just a pointless irritation varies from person to person and always will, so you’ll never “convince” people to share what are really just preferences.
What you don’t seem to be understanding is that what people see as challenging versus just a pointless irritation varies from person to person and always will, so you’ll never “convince” people to share what are really just preferences.
It’s funny no one said that to Ron Gilbert when he wrote his article, but well said. It’s still fun to discuss though, isn’t it? 
What you don’t seem to be understanding is that what people see as challenging versus just a pointless irritation varies from person to person and always will, so you’ll never “convince” people to share what are really just preferences.
It’s funny no one said that to Ron Gilbert when he wrote his article, but well said. It’s still fun to discuss though, isn’t it?
I tend to just assume that when someone writes an article stating their views, the fact that it’s only their opinion is just implied. If Ron Gilbert tried to convince me of his opinion in a conversation, though, I would say the same thing to him that I did to you.
It’s an interesting discussion, and I’m glad you brought it up.
And yet he says this while removing all danger from his games. It’s simply not dramatic for me to watch someone else being dangled over a cliff while at the same time knowing he’ll survive, because that’s given in The Rules. It’s true he doesn’t recommend all death be removed, but that’s effectively what Lucasarts did and their legacy.
You can’t blame Gilbert for that (MI1 and MI2 are about a kid playing make believe in an amusement park; it could hardly have had deaths), or even LucasArts (FoA and Full Throttle had (fair) deaths — with instant replay for the latter). What he got rid of is the unfairness of the old adventure school of design. It’s true that afterwards some people decided that adventure games should have no death whatsoever, even when fair and appropriate, and I regret that.
Again, I have a feeling this [unfair, unavoidable deaths] is very rare.
Are you kidding? 
Just take KQ5:
* You go into the forest without the right items: you die (and you can’t know what items you’ll need until you’ve tried and died).
* You go into the inn without the right items: same thing.
* The desert has virtual borders; you walk into them, a scorpion comes out of nowhere and kills you.
* You reach the bandit camp before going to the temple; you find it deserted; you can explore the small tent, but if you try to get into the large one a bandit jumps out of nowhere and slits your throat.
* You open the genie bottle: you die (and you absolutely need to know what opening the bottle does for a later puzzle).
* You go into the mountains without all the necessary items: you die at some point.
* In the mountains, you eat the pie, or feed it to the eagle (instead of the leg of lamb): you’ll die later on when facing the yeti.
* In the mountains again, you need to jump on rocks to reach your destination; some hold your weight, some send you crashing down and you can’t know until you’ve died a few times.
* On the beach, there’s a boat; if you try to use it, you discover once out at sea that it has a leak and you drown (there’s no way to detect the leak when the boat is on the beach).
* The sea, like the desert, has virtual borders; go too far north or south and a sea monster kills you.
* In Mordack’s castle, if the game randomly decides to put Mannannan in the room you walk in before you have the necessary items, he calls Mordack and you die.
* In the castle, if you avoid the blue monster or kill it immediately, you don’t get to go to the dungeon and miss an essential item for later on.
* However, if you get caught by the monster a second time, you get stuck in the dungeon and die.
And that’s just off the top of my head — I’m sure I’ve missed a couple. You could come up with similar lists for the earlier KQ games or SQ series, or LSL 1-2
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
