Topic: The 'Missing Item' Syndrome in old-school Adventure Games

[mrsix]

Sorry if this is a popular question among you AGS veterans, but I thought i'd crop the question up again.

How does everyone feel about the old-school adventure games that would make you have to revert to a much earlier save, or start again, if you inadvertantly forget to pick up an item, or you use it on something you shouldn't have had?

As a wanna-be adventure game producer (like us all!), I am now tempting whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.
It's obviously an out-of-date element of gaming.
How do you feel about games that follow this rule? Forget to pick up an item, or neglect to ask an important question to an NPC to reveal a peice of information. The 'Dead-end' Apoplexy, if you like 

[DoorKnobHandle]

As you say, the "scientific" term for this is a "dead end" and I'm sure that it's actually not very popular these days, not even with adventure-game nerds. One of these things that doesn't quite count as nostalgic - it's just so annoying and lame.

[Stupot+]

Once upon a time the dead-end might have been seen as part of the puzzle, something to avoid happening to you in the game... these days it's seen as more of a design flaw, something to avoid putting in the game in the first place.

I personally don't like it.  The main part of an adventure game, for me, is the story and I don't want it to be interrupted by having to revert back to previous saves.

[Trent R]

I, like most other gamers, don't like these situations.

However, I think if a game does allow such things, you should be EXPLICITLY WARNED. Take QFG1, you can break into the brigands fortress rather soon(if you know how), but you're told multiple times that you need to make a dispel potion. If you don't have the potion when you enter the main section of the fortress, you're in a walking dead.

~Trent

[Ghost]

I wouldn't mind having items in a game that *can* be missed, but only if I am given clear hints that they are important.
Once I know I can accidentally enter a dead end, I'll be a bit more careful... and yes, it can be a pain in the ass, but also add some thrill.
Another idea would be to include items that grant you "easier solutions" to puzzles that can also be solved in a different way- a bit like the "Wishbringer" in the game of the same name. Missing those isn't a dead end but forces you to a maybe more complicated solution to a puzzle- so players will try to "get everything" but also be at ease because they know they'll not get stuck just because they didn't pick up the ten-feet-platypuss.

[Trent R]

Ghost also reminded me of KQ6, where there are two endings based on whether you got all the available items and were able to go to Hell, or if you were a walking dead and had to complete the easier and less satisfying ending.

~Trent
PS-Sorry that that is all one sentence... Hope it made sense.

[TerranRich]

If dead ends (or "walking deads") exist in nowadays' adventure games, then it's just bad design, plain and simple. In no way, shape, or form should an item that can no longer be retrieved (and that wasn't required to proceed somehow) be required later on in a game. You either connect it to something that is required to proceed in the game, make the player retrieve it along with another item that is required in the area it's found, or find some other way around it.

[Ionias]

I hate the "walking-dead" puzzle in a game. I have no problems with any other puzzle styles or even killing my character at the drop of a hat for no reason. Just please don't use the "walking-dead" puzzle.

[TerranRich]

I don't consider it a "puzzle style" at all. It's just lazy design.

[mrsix]

I agree with everyone here - the dead-end puzzle sucks, and is down to bad design.

On the original KQ3, I remember forgetting to make the invisibility spell or the thunder spell (cant remember which), and was doomed right at the end!!

Or in KQ2, walking over the bridge too many times destroys it. Have to find an earlier save when you dont even bother going over it!!

I like the idea of missing out important peices, but still being able to complete later on by using less inventive ideas, and missing out on the story and points, but still being able to complete the game but with less of an effecive ending (like someone mentioned on KQ6)

[OneDollar]

I think it could work but only in very specific situations, e.g. a shortish game that is specifically geared towards re-playability. Look at something like Laura Bow which is full of bits you can and will miss on the first play through, yet it works because
1) The player expects to have to play the game several times
2) There is always a 'proper' ending
3) You get hints on how to do better when you reach the end
By 'proper' ending I mean you don't suddenly get killed 2 hours in because you didn't pick up some item in the first 10 minutes. You can get to the end of the story without taking the item, but you won't get the best ending.

In other words missing items are fine as long as...
1) The player understands that the game works this way and that they are expected to (and not severely punished for) miss things and have to replay. Also this isn't a one off instance, the whole game is structured around re-playability.
2) You can get a satisfactory ending without finding the item. The player doesn't get a sudden 'You didn't have item x so you died' and the player is never left at a point where they can't move any further.
3) The ending leaves the player with something to work on. If they rescued the princess but she's sad because you forgot her teddy bear then next time you should work out how to get the teddy bear before leaving the castle. It should be obvious what the player needs to do to get a better score.

Also don't forget about autosaving...

[TerranRich]

Why does everybody keep referring to dead ends as types of puzzles?

[Trent R]

True dead-ends are just dead-ends and suck.

But there are types of puzzles that *seem* like dead ends, and are perfectly valid in games (if done correctly).


~Trent

[mkennedy]

If you put dead ends in the game then once a dead end has been performed then the save function should be disabled. Or perhaps the game should autosave prior to performing the thing that caused the dead end so you can revert back to that save game. Of course having dead ends for intentionally killing important characters is understandable as you probably shouldn't go around slaughtering everybody anyway.

[Andromeda]

There is one time where I considered it ok for a dead-end type of puzzle, and that was in Space Quest 2, where you get french kissed by the alien in one of the cells, and then during the endgame, which isn't very far down the line, it's spawn rips our of your chest. The reasons I think that this wasn't awful are the following:
1. It was a pretty great spoof off of Alien, and obvious made to be a joke.
2. Most gamers would realize that a huge, malicious-looking alien accosting you is probably not a good thing, and wouldn't save over their previous save games.
3. There wasn't a lot of game-time to replay if you went all the way to the part where the alien rips out of your chest.
Besides that, dead-ends=huge pain. But I wouldn't mind another game with something the one in SQ2.

[Trent R]

There is one time where I considered it ok for a dead-end type of puzzle, and that was in Space Quest 2, where you get french kissed by the alien in one of the cells, and then during the endgame, which isn't very far down the line, it's spawn rips our of your chest. The reasons I think that this wasn't awful are the following:
1. It was a pretty great spoof off of Alien, and obvious made to be a joke.
2. Most gamers would realize that a huge, malicious-looking alien accosting you is probably not a good thing, and wouldn't save over their previous save games.
3. There wasn't a lot of game-time to replay if you went all the way to the part where the alien rips out of your chest.
Besides that, dead-ends=huge pain. But I wouldn't mind another game with something the one in SQ2.

Something like this I'd prefer to be more like SQIV and the unstable (clue enough?) ordnance. If you had the item, you blew up once you entered the next screen. And the death message literally mocked you:

I would think that something identifiable as UNSTABLE ORDNANCE would be low on your list of fun and healthy things to carry.
We hope you'll get yourself together and rejoin us. Isn't this a blast?

Because then it's not a walking dead and more like an ordinary Sierra game (ie. 'ordinary' death traps everywhere )


~Trent

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Walking deads should never happen in a game that seeks to entertain rather than infuriate its players.  I think that's all that needs to be said about them.

[Arj0n]

Partual missing things like "I've got 5 gold instead of the needed six golds" made me learn how to crack savegames with a hexeditor and add the missing part by my self instead of loosing time with replaying game parts... A funny result.

Completely missing things: damn, replay game parts....
That means mostly wandering around, for to long with loosing the reel feeling that the game should give.

So no, I also don't like that. People should design a game properly.
And if the author like to create such games, a warning should be nice

[Makeout Patrol]

If I'm playing a game and I realize I'm at a Walking Death, I'm going to put the game down, and chances that I will ever pick it up again are almost nil.

[Radiant]

Something like this I'd prefer to be more like SQIV and the unstable (clue enough?) ordnance.

Ah, but that's not actually a dead end, because if you've saved after picking it up, you can still put it down again (and you get points for doing so!)

I think it could work but only in very specific situations, e.g. a shortish game that is specifically geared towards re-playability. Look at something like Laura Bow

I strongly disagree that the dead ends in laura bow somehow "work". Heck, I know people who've played that game to the bad ending and didn't realize it was the bad ending.


Anyway, multiple endings are fine, and if done well can be one of the few things that add true replay value to an adventure game. Dead ends are not fine (except that the text adventure crowd seems to have decidedly less problems with them) but can be avoided simply by designing your game so that all areas remain accessible at all times.