Excuse this if a) it eschews the current GTD post or b) if something like this has been posted before, but Ihad a long think about this idea.
Remember making mistakes in Sierra games?
Whenever someone made a mistake they'd end up with a death scene (or a 'walking dead' situation) [Note: I edited this, as I got confused with my 'walking dead' defintion, and a few pedantic widgets complained! YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!! YOU'RE ON MY HUNTIN' LIST NOW!! ;) ]
LucasArts on the other hand forgot about the whole 'making mistakes' thing and concerntrated on the storytelling.
However, I believe both methods are crap.
I think this should happen instead:
Whenever a player makes a mistake, the game presents a set of new puzzles (or rather a sub-puzzle) to increase the difficulty.
My reasoning is that it gives the game a more humanistic feel.
Also, when someone makes a mistake in real life, it leads to more problems -- the same could apply for adventures, as making a mistake creates additional puzzles.
Therefore, making a mistake ads to the tension within an adventure game.
For example, let's just say Roger Wilco has to walk across a log between two cliffs (like he did in Space Quest 2) and you make him accidently fall off -- instead of him dying, have an extra puzzle where you have to climb the cliff.
Now, you're probably thinking "Why can't the player just restore the game and not fall off the cliff?"
Simple solution: disable the save, restore and quit options at that very moment so the player HAS TO face the additional puzzles, and they can't save or anything until they rectify their mistake.
This doesn't mean the player is punished as such (like removing points from their score), but it challenges their ability to re-adapt to a sudden problematic situation.
The best example I can think of is in Kings Quest III, where you get mugged by the robbers and have to go to their treehouse hideout to get your stuff back -- It's similar to that, only more puzzle-specific instread of inventory-specific.
And I also think Sierra should have done more of this instead of walking dead.
This is an under-developed theory at the moment, but if anyone wants to add to or challenge any of it, I welcome it.
I guess that disable the save/load isnt a good thing. Whats the problem to face other problems? I always play the Hard versions of MK II, III to face more problems. Noone save screen by screen. And almost noone will know that it made a mistake and the fall isnt "normal"
It's a welcome change from walking dead situations. One problem I see, if the player becomes aware that when they make a mistake, they get more puzzles, players wanting a longer game will deliberately make mistakes. I bring this up because (imo, feel free to disagree) it will leave players who have done things right with possibly less of a game, those who have made mistakes have been given extra challenges.
This, ofcourse could be balanced with players doing things correctly being 'awarded' (? - depends on the player, i guess) with more puzzles, or pretty cutscene that doesn't majorly affect the story)
Another potential problem, the developer will get different feedback depending on how many mistakes one person made to another.
But, if done correctly, i believe it would be a welcome addition to certain adventure games (I for one, would prefer it to walking dead situations.)
EDIT - You would need to make it obvious that a mistake has been made. An example would be, In a sierra game if you got too close to a cliff edge, you'd fall off and die. Restore gui would come up.
In the new system, the player would get too close to the cliff edge, fall down with a cutscene or specific falling animation. At the bottom where they have landed, they would make a reference to the player making a mistake ie, " I knew i shouldn't have got so close - how am i gonna go out of this?" Then they would face their puzzle to get back up to where they were before, but away from the cliff edge, or perhaps on the next room. All this would need careful consideration.
I wouldn't exactly outright disable saving/loading - if a player abuses these features, it's their own fault if they end up missing a large part of the game's feel.
One other problem I see with the idea is the designer potentially either having to cope with many massively diverging puzzle routes (if not necessarily plot developments) or a mechanistic "Do A in one of four ways, then do B in one of three ways, then do C in one of five ways" thing. I do think, however, that you are right and it can be done - it's just that it is not at all easy to accomplish.
On the subject of "walking deads", I always thought that term referred not to death scenes, but to true dead ends where the player might become stuck because they forgot to do something hours before and are unable to go back, forcing them to backtrack through their saved games, often without even knowing what they missed and when. It goes without saying that this kind of thing should be avoided.
I like this idea. It makes the player try and be cautious (sp) but they are not forced to restart if they get something wrong so they will not be worried about getting things wrong. It would be interesting to see this idea incorperated with a system that let's you use your inventory items in any combination you choose or want to use so it lets the player use their own ideas to get them out of problems instead of following a set path. A downside of this is that you would have to create graphics for all the combinations but it would be interesting to see it.
This idea reminds me of a game i once thought up, not so much an adventure game due to lack of story, characters and the such. This game was called Swag Quest. The focus was on puzzles, you played a robber who had to break into a house. There would be many ways in to the house, a simple route of saying, using brick and window would get you in easily without much thought, but once inside, you would have less time to do the puzzle before the police came.
Difficult solutions would result in the player having more time inside the house.
The idea of being forced to do more puzzles when making a mistake, should, in theory make the player think about the proper solution before rushing in. There would need to be some sort of reward (as i mentioned before, exciting cutscene or something) to make it worth spending the time thinking about a proper solution.
It sounds like a good idea, I'm not sure that you can write off LucasArts approach of making it impossible to make mistakes though. What you're saying probably would apply very well to Sierra games, which were often rather harsh in killing the player off for mistakes.
But LucasArts adventures were very different - the focus was on the storytelling, rather than complex realistic problem-solving. The whole premise in most of those games was pretty unrealistic and fantastical, so to try to bring realism to that world, to me would seem a bit misguided. LucasArts were mostly very linear, and you just unfolded the story in the one way you were meant to, but I think that's the way that worked best for that kind of tight storytelling. I still think their Game Design Philosophy was spot on, it went perfectly with the stories they were telling.
Custard:
QuoteIt's a welcome change from walking dead situations. One problem I see, if the player becomes aware that when they make a mistake, they get more puzzles, players wanting a longer game will deliberately make mistakes. I bring this up because (imo, feel free to disagree) it will leave players who have done things right with possibly less of a game, those who have made mistakes have been given extra challenges.
This is why I like the idea so much -- Sometimes, I purposely make mistakes in real life to learn the method I feel most comfortable in resolving such and such problem.
Fuzz:
QuoteOn the subject of "walking deads", I always thought that term referred not to death scenes, but to true dead ends where the player might become stuck because they forgot to do something hours before and are unable to go back, forcing them to backtrack through their saved games, often without even knowing what they missed and when. It goes without saying that this kind of thing should be avoided.
There why I think this idea should come into play -- Let's just say you forget to get the gem in Space Quest 2 and you've already jumped off the rope onto the cliff face -- Instead of a walking dead (as the game presents), you have to find another way to create a light source (and this would be a much harder puzzle than getting the gem in the first place).
Gonzo:
Don't get me wrong -- my fav games are LucasArts games.
However, I'm not faulting their philosophy as such (maybe my comment about their method being "crap" was a little exagerated, but I did that on purpose to make my point).
However, I am trying to find ways to develop their methods a little further, just like that "What's Wrong With Adventure Games?" post.
On a side note: I also agree it would take a lot of extra effort, both in graphics and scripting -- I think I'm trying to determine if it would be worth it.
I also thought of another example in an early LucasArts game -- Indy and the Last Crusade.
Remember when you fly the bi-plane, but it gets shot down if you don't play the arcade sequence too well? You have to pass through all those checkpoints.
Therefore, your failure in that particular arcade sequence creates more puzzles hindering the player from the resolution of the game.
this is one of the reasons I loved seirra's Robin Hood, Conquests of the longbow. (guys...play this game).
in the game, the ulitmate object is raise enough ransom dough to save king richard. You have a couple of chances in the game to score some big bucks, but if you screw one of them up, the next one is really hard.
Example: A huge treasure train of stolen money is going thru sherwood forest. You are given several choices on what the best way to capture the money. Should you screw up, a lot of your men die. Lets say you do that, you dont get as much dough, and you are shorthanded...
Now, later in the game, Marrian gets kiddnaped and is going to be burned at the stake. Now, if you didnt screw up before, you have a ton of men, you can storm the castle, longbows blazing, and its really easy. some of your men died? I guess yo uhave to go in yourself! this method of solving the puzzle is timed, and much harder.
the game, as far as adventure games go, isnt too linear. there are several endings, and lots of ways to solve the puzzles, depending of what you did before
--edited for glaring typos
Yes, that's a good example.
Also, I think I said summed it best when I was chatting to Esseb, via private messages:
"Aye, I agree it's a barrier -- But my theory goes like this: "If you do one barrier incorrectly, it creates several harder barriers for you". And some of these extra puzzles seem redundant to the game ( like falling off a cliff) -- However, they are there to add to the atmosphere." (Not quite a direct quote -- I edited this a little)
Some puzzles (such as the cliff example) are redundant examples, yet add to the general atmosphere.
Meanwhile, the Robin Hood and the Indy examples block the flow of the narrative, and thus create a greater tension in such a flow.
This means so far we have two different examples of "mistake" puzzle creation -- 1) narrative and 2) atmospheric.
Sounds like a really good idea - especially in those Sierra situations when making a mistake kills you, but had you made the same mistake in real life, you wouldn't be dead - but you'd be in a pickle that you'd have to get yourself out of.
The problem with this is, of course, practical - if the game developer is having to script in all these extra puzzles for when the player fails, the game starts to get very large. In the same amount of time it would take to make say Space Quest 2, you would probably only be able to create say a quarter of it this way (albeit with the bonus puzzles thrown in).
This would invariably lead to the game being very short if the player made all the right decisions and never encountered the extra puzzles.
I guess the reason this wasn't really done by commercial games goes back to something Bill Tiller said - "Don't waste the player's money creating alternate solutions to puzzles that they may never see."
That's a crap excuse for being lazy IMO, since these sorts of extras can lend a lot of replayability to a game. But from a commercial perspective, it would take too long and cost too much to add all these extra puzzles.
It is, however, something that an amateur adventure could accomplish, though it'd take a great deal of time and motivation to pull it off.
since you're bringing up the Last Crusade, DG, here's a different example that i find interesting :
in the end of the Brünwald episode, when indy and henry are captured, you are forced to give the journal to the nazis. however, it is also possible to give a fake version, provided you found it earlier in the game.
if you give the real version, the plot is affected and you have to go to Berlin and recuperate the journal. if you give the fake one, the Berlin episode is skipped.
now what's my point ?
when in Berlin, you can get a pass signed by Hitler. with that pass, you can later go through the checkpoints without having to solve any puzzle.
in the end, a mistake that you made earlier in the game (giving the real journal) is counter-balanced when you can get the signed pass, thus resolving a whole sequence of the game.
i think this principle is even more interesting than what you described... what do you think ?
Very interesting idea DGM. I think, if not over used, it could work very nicely. If it would be used too often, though, it could become just as annoying as death-scenes: player will know he did a mistake and that this "fix-it" puzzle won't advance the story... and what's worse, he won't be able to simply restore the game (as with death scenes), but he'll even need to solve a puzzle.
Still, if used correctly, it could work out very well. Similar thing was used in Toonstruck- if you got captured by bad guys, during certain part of the game, you got thrown into jail and you had to solve an extra puzzle to get out of there.
I think this sounds like a really great idea. As Igor points out though, the puzzles making up for a mistake would have to deepen atmosphere, enhance the linear narrative or expand the player's understanding of the plot in order to be valid artistically.
My only reservation is in relation to disabling save and load functions. I think this kind of game might be better suited to automatic saving, with the option to restore earlier chapters and re-cap dialogue and cut-scenes. This would have to work better than the auto-save in Atlantis (which sends you back to the start of a chapter or an acton sequence) but I think it could make a game quite exciting.
The player would carve a meandering route across a linear plot with only one shot at every target and no option to 'try-that-again'. They would have knowlege that they couldn't die or get a bad ending, but would not have the security of knowing where they were in relation to the 'correct' path. Isn't this close to how real lives are led?
I think your idea could really add a dash of reality and risk to a straight plot. Excellent!
With automatic saving, would that encompass a sequential save of the kind like The Last Express, except of course there's no time ticking and you can't rewind.
Because as long as there's no walking deads, as long as puzzles like the cliff for excample are additional rather than just more difficult like in Longbow, it shouldn't cause too many difficulties.
The only problem is that if I was to create a game like this, it wouldn't be possible to do the right thing, just to make diffferent mistakes.
disabling save and load, like Maniac Mansion. There was another game, Guilty maybe? where you couldn't save at some point, probably cause there was some timer ticking down in the game that would mess up if saved and restored.
but what really comes to mind is Kyrandia 3. if you get captured by police they send you to jail. There are 4 I think difficulties of jail and each has a puzzle in it. The one I remember is loading rocks onto a minecart. you can either do it. load like 50 rocks one at a time onto this mine cart and get out of jail or solve a puzzle that does it for you.
now that version of jail is disabled and a harder one is enabled ultimately leading you to the next part of the game on the isle of the dogs [i believe, been a while]
i thought it was cute but thinking back on it now, the whole "being chased by police" thing was random and pretty sloppy. But you could also outwit the police while they were chasing after you, put a log on the ground and he'll trip on it. however next time he won't fall for the log [HAH!] and he'll throw a net on you, but you have scissors in your inventory so you cut your way out.
eric
Quote from: plasticman on Sun 24/08/2003 19:10:20
since you're bringing up the Last Crusade, DG, here's a different example that i find interesting :
in the end of the Brünwald episode, when indy and henry are captured, you are forced to give the journal to the nazis. however, it is also possible to give a fake version, provided you found it earlier in the game.
if you give the real version, the plot is affected and you have to go to Berlin and recuperate the journal. if you give the fake one, the Berlin episode is skipped.
now what's my point ?
when in Berlin, you can get a pass signed by Hitler. with that pass, you can later go through the checkpoints without having to solve any puzzle.
in the end, a mistake that you made earlier in the game (giving the real journal) is counter-balanced when you can get the signed pass, thus resolving a whole sequence of the game.
i think this principle is even more interesting than what you described... what do you think ?
Aye -- It's been a while since I played the game and didn't remember it very quickly, but yes that's a prime example, plasticman.
Naranjas:
QuoteThe only problem is that if I was to create a game like this, it wouldn't be possible to do the right thing, just to make diffferent mistakes.
And I think that's part of the beauty of the idea.
In fact, I just thought of an idea for game called "Geoff Fucks Up"
The object of the game is to make mistake after mistake and in the end kill Geoff.
Or you can just solve the problem through one interaction and "win" the game.
But it'd be more fun to make all those mistakes.
Actually I have something to say on this one.
In my opinion, instant deaths in games aren't really annoying if done right (unless there're thousands of them in one single game and when most of them are ridiculous), it is walking deaths that must be avoided.
My reasoning is that, in some critical situations it is just reasonable for the character to die. For example it is sometimes quite ridiculous to make the hero alive when he falls down a cliff, unless he's hung on a branch and he must solve a VERY difficult puzzle to save his own life, which I think most of the players would think "rat, I'd rather restore my game!" That makes no difference from instant death. The main problem was that most games were too linear in plots, so when you have solved that "life-saving" puzzle you just go back to the original route. However, if it's treated differently, that for example, if the "hero" fell down a cliff and didn't die, he may find some other items, puzzles, etc., that may affect the progress of the game itself, for example twist in plot, different encounters, etc. (that's like the Indy3 example just mentioned)
But the problem is that making your game this way would make it a huge project, because there're lotsa stuffs to take care of, if you just want to make a medium/small game (that way the game progress would be more linear most of the time), I think it'd be best to make the game either without death or only instant deaths.
The main reason is that if I'm a game designer, if the player did something which is a "mistake", why don't you just let him die? If you can still recover from some action you had done (which put you into some situation) and continue with the game, that certainly is NOT a mistake, even falling down a cliff, that's just an alternate route within the game, maybe taking such route would not bring you to the true/best ending, but you still can continue with the game, so it is NOT mistake, and this is just how multi-scenario/multi-ending can be done.
Walking deaths, however, is a bad thing, IMO it's caused by poor design of a game, so the game designer must need to take care of such situations, and make sure the player can continue with the game whatever he had done, even if that led to a "bad" ending, there're still progress and an end to the game itself. The reason I don't like about those online RPGs myself is similar, that you wander around aimlessly, doing some quests, etc, but you can never get an end to such mess (until you're bored with it), that IMO is just the same with walking deaths...
Some very good thoughts Gilbot. I agree that everything can work in advnture *if* done right. For example, Broken Sword had a few scenes where you were able to die, but because it was done right, it added to the tension and made the game more interesting. Sierra, on the other hand, took those sudden deaths to the extreme and made them annoying.
The same goes for "fix-it" puzzles. They'd have to be fun, so the player would have motivation to solve them. If they'd be too hard, boring or frequent, he/she'd be tempted to simply restore a game or exit the game and continue from last saved game (and those are usually the things that annoy the most).
Non-linear plot could be fun too, but again i think it should be done very carefully. Adventures are the most plot-driven and static games (in RPGs you have fights, strategy, etc.) and most of the time, player want to see the whole game in one play (it's like you'd be reading a book and in the end you'd be told to read it again, to enconunter different ending).
But i think FoA did it best. Non-linear, but still more or less the same, no matter which route you took.
I think the besdt example of retarded instant deaths goes to willy bleemish (which was sorta made by seirra right?)
in the beginning of the game, you can die doing just about everything. The worst is when you are pushing your little sister on the swings. she wants to go higher, but if you do....she flys up 100 feet in the air, breaks her arms and legs, you go to boot camp, and die. Wtf???
Most of the deaths in seirra games makes sence I think. you try to walk off a cliff in king's quest, yeah, you die. You show up in downtown nottinham dressed as the wanted outlaw robin hood, yeah, you're going to get shot. it makes sence. its when they are simply retarded like in WB that it gets annoying, and you wish prehaps there was another puzzle
Aye, Panda, but I think that there's always this feeling of being uncertaint how seriously a game takes your choices. This is why Sierra's death are sometimes quite unnerving.
When I see a clif in a game I simply HAVE TO try and fall.
And when there's a road in a game I don't know if they introduced the killer-traffic or not.
The problem is, I don't know if memory of "already dying" in a game doesn't somehow change the way we perceive the story told.
Quote from: El Panda Grande on Mon 25/08/2003 13:07:34
Most of the deaths in seirra games makes sence I think. you try to walk off a cliff in king's quest, yeah, you die. You show up in downtown nottinham dressed as the wanted outlaw robin hood, yeah, you're going to get shot. it makes sence.
Some of them did, yeah.
But as Goldmund says, there's the stupid traffic killer death which was in Larry 1 and PQ2 - you can stand on the screen for an hour and no traffic goes by, but as soon as you walk into the road - BAM! a car goes past and runs you over.
And then there's the infamous KQ1 puzzle, where you have to move a rock to the side in order to retrieve something from behind it. If you're standing the wrong side of the rock when you try to push it, it flattens you and you die. Whaaa?
So yeah, while some of the Sierra deaths were justified, others were just stupid.
I think that in Kings Quest VGA it is very silly that you can die just becuase you forget that it's pathfinding algorithm wont steer you around the river automatically... like every other game I've played does.
I've been thinking about this for "Awakening of the Sphinx". I think that I will instigate an automatic save when entering the situations in which you can die, e.g. the big-spikes-coming-out-of-the-walls timed puzzle I've mentioned before. The other thing I considered was having a hint that suggested that the player might want to save: i.e. a character saying "Save yourself!" or a hieroglyphic that means the same thing in the background: the trouble is being not too blatant but not too subtle!
I seem to remember some game with a musical cue to tell you when you were in a potentially fatal situation: the music went all dramatic (like it does in the same situation in a movie). Now what game was that?
Most of the deaths were for comical purposes. Great examples...Leisure Suit Larry and Space Quest. Another one that many people have never heard of...Martian Memorandum. I, personally, enjoyed watching the death scenes, but despised having to go to the 'load game' menu to load a saved game only to find that I hadn't saved recently.
I think that just about the biggest problems with instant death scenarios is that there is virtually NO consistency between games. How are you supposed to know that in SOME games, walking towards a cliff will make you fall off? As SSH notes, most games include a pathfinding algorithm to steer you around obstacles like that. It certainly makes sense. Since there's no Adventure Game Death Ratings Board that reviews games for consistency, doing something in one game that's NECESSARY can prove fatal in another game. It's kind of ridiculous.
I think DGM's system is a great idea, but as others have brought up, it's kind of impractical for the developer. I'm not advocating laziness on the part of developers, but most adventure gamers aren't going to play a game 27 times just so that they can make all the different "mistakes" and see everything that happens. I'm sure there are many of us hardcore adventure fans who have played their favorite games multiple times (I know I have), but, let's face it, I honestly don't think most people finish adventure games all the way through ONCE. But if they don't, they'll never get to see the whole game. I'm also not convinced that the "mistakes" route is the right way to go--how is a player supposed to know that doing things the "wrong" way will give him more gameplay? And if you told the player that in a manual or a readme, wouldn't that sort of destroy the realism the whole system is supposed to be create by making the player aware he's supposed to do things wrong? I like the idea of divergent paths, but not because the player makes a mistake. I think it would be better if different paths open up because the player does things differently, not right or wrong per se. Maybe some could result in harder puzzles, but I don't tihnk any particular path should leave you with shorter game, or at least not a significantly shorter one. Also, it seems it would be really impractical to program divergent paths for most decisions in the game. I remember reading a Hal Barwood interview in which he said that even doing the three paths in Fate of Atlantis was a major headache for everyone--and there was only one divergence in that game! I think they pulled it off brilliantly, but remember that the team in charge of FOA was a professional team at arguably the greatest adventure developer, and even they had problems implementing such a system.
All in all, I think DGM's idea is wonderful in theory, and as a hardcore adventurer I'd love to play a game with many divergences, but in practice I think it would be quite difficult to pull off to a very high degree (and let's not discount the beta testing nightmare it would create!).
EDIT: I don't know how much of this has already been said. I read this thread yesterday, and didn't post on it until just now, so I restated some things.
for another example of deaths in games let's turn to Monolith Burger.
If you die in that game you get teleported back before the death and the character has a memory of it. If you get eaten by the large hamsters [or whatever it's been a while] and then try and walk into them again he won't want too cause he died last time.
as far as i know there wasn't a reasoning for this in the story [reanimation pills, or Never-Die Jacket] it was just an aspect of gameplay.
eric
Gilbot:
QuoteThe main reason is that if I'm a game designer, if the player did something which is a "mistake", why don't you just let him die? If you can still recover from some action you had done (which put you into some situation) and continue with the game, that certainly is NOT a mistake, even falling down a cliff, that's just an alternate route within the game, maybe taking such route would not bring you to the true/best ending, but you still can continue with the game, so it is NOT mistake, and this is just how multi-scenario/multi-ending can be done.
I think my problem is not so much the deaths themselves, but the stupidity behind them -- Sometimes you explore a new area but you suddenly die for entering a room that you're not supposed to.
I think my idea tries to merge the realism of Sierra games (the death and mistakes) with the LEC philosophy (not to bring the game to a sudden halt when you make a mistake).
I also don't think a player should die for merely exploring a new area -- I think a player should be rewarded for exploration.
Panda:
QuoteI think the besdt example of retarded instant deaths goes to willy bleemish (which was sorta made by seirra right?)
Aye, this is exactly what I'm talking in my reply to Gilbot -- As soon as you explore a new area you die.
Willy Beamish is one of the most annoying games to play because you die so easily without any warning.
Pumaman:
QuoteAnd then there's the infamous KQ1 puzzle, where you have to move a rock to the side in order to retrieve something from behind it. If you're standing the wrong side of the rock when you try to push it, it flattens you and you die. Whaaa?
Aye -- How can you kill yourself by dragging a rock on top you?
Eric:
QuoteIf you die in that game you get teleported back before the death and the character has a memory of it. If you get eaten by the large hamsters [or whatever it's been a while] and then try and walk into them again he won't want too cause he died last time.
Aye, that kinda makes sense.
I think the main character could do something like walk into an instant death and then realise he/she was dreaming about it happening, and thus it serves as a warning not to do it.
Or something akin.
QuoteI think the main character could do something like walk into an instant death and then realise he/she was dreaming about it happening, and thus it serves as a warning not to do it.
This is the way they made it in Tex Murphy:Overseer, i.e. at the point of death we see Tex telling the story to his lady, and then she goes like: "Oh no! You're lying!", and he is like "Haha, bimbo, sure thing, if I did that dumb thing I wouldn't be here with you!" and here we go again.
Which didn't really help with the general suckiness of the game.
I think that the problem behind your idea, DGM, is that it's kind of unrewarding to the designer - especially, an amateur designer. If I create something, I want it to be seen - and not evaded easily by not falling down that silly cliff.
And what would you do if the player failed to solve the second, harder puzzle after failing the first, easy one? Would you present him/her with a third one, hardest of all, or would the player be just stuck? If so, what's the difference?
QuoteThis is the way they made it in Tex Murphy:Overseer, i.e. at the point of death we see Tex telling the story to his lady, and then she goes like: "Oh no! You're lying!", and he is like "Haha, bimbo, sure thing, if I did that dumb thing I wouldn't be here with you!" and here we go again.
Which didn't really help with the general suckiness of the game.
I haven't played Overseer, so I can't really comment -- But I'm against instant deaths in an adventure game because when looking at the game as a multi-pathed narrative, death undercuts the entire structure of a game.
The only real death in a game comes at the conclusion, like Grim Fandango's final scene where Manny finds enternal rest -- that's a perfect example of a proper "death" in an adventure.
No matter what path you choose, the conclusion to that path should be the final death.
Instant death provides no real closure, and thus mocks the player in a way.
Here's an idea: In Kings Quest 6, when you die you go to the Underworld.
If you die in an adventure game, you could go to hell and be given, say, three chances to escape -- and each chance to escape presents a harder puzzle to solve in Hell.
This seems better than a standard instant death -- It gives the game a better sense of closure.
QuoteI think that the problem behind your idea, DGM, is that it's kind of unrewarding to the designer - especially, an amateur designer. If I create something, I want it to be seen - and not evaded easily by not falling down that silly cliff.
I'm at odds with this point because it doesn't explain the numerous Easter Eggs placed in games by designers.
Many hide Easter Eggs in games (and DVDs too) that go unnoticed by people.
There's a certain joy in hiding something in an adventure game.
My concept borrows from the idea of Easter Eggs in a way.
QuoteAnd what would you do if the player failed to solve the second, harder puzzle after failing the first, easy one? Would you present him/her with a third one, hardest of all, or would the player be just stuck? If so, what's the difference?
Why not present the player with an even harder puzzle?
Remember Wing Commander 3?
I enjoyed that game because after failing several missions, the game presents you with harder missions (and even more hard than the missions from the "winning" path).
I appreciate the realism of this because it actually seemed like the Kilrathi were winning, especially the invasion of Earth at the finale.
You dug your grave now deal with it.
I can see a situation where, say, King Graham falls off the cliff, and then rather than dying, he grabs on to a rock on his way down. Now the player has to pass a small puzzle to climb back up to proceed.
You're still punishing the player for making a mistake (whether falling off a cliff is a mistake or not will not be debated here), but the player still has a chance to fix his mistake and is still involved in the outcome.
There are two issues with this though.
a) Will the player not bother, and instead just restore his game anyways, rendering the whole thing pointless?
b) Will the player see this as too much of an annoyance and get bored and frustrated with it?
The other option, as discussed, is having these mistakes open up complete new paths in the story. Personally I think it's a great idea, but as a guy who makes games, I can firmly say that hiding that much of my work from the player when it could potentially go towards other things in the game doesn't appeal to me much. If I had the time/resources, then well, it'd be a whole different story. Ideally, this could open up some interesting discussion amongst your players, and some fun interaction with them.
I'm still all for easter eggs and little useless jokes and stuff, just because they're fun. Heck, no one noticed one of the ones I did for Rode Quest 2, but it still amuses me for some stupid reason. ;D
Quote from: DGMacphee on Tue 26/08/2003 02:37:36
QuoteI think that the problem behind your idea, DGM, is that it's kind of unrewarding to the designer - especially, an amateur designer. If I create something, I want it to be seen - and not evaded easily by not falling down that silly cliff.
I'm at odds with this point because it doesn't explain the numerous Easter Eggs placed in games by designers.
Many hide Easter Eggs in games (and DVDs too) that go unnoticed by people.
There's a certain joy in hiding something in an adventure game.
My concept borrows from the idea of Easter Eggs in a way.
I think the difference is that Easter Eggs aren't part of the narrative flow of the game. Sure, I'd think my little exploding aardvark easter egg is hilarious, and maybe someone else would too, but whether the player sees it or not should not in any way affect the game. However, to program many divergent paths which nobody will ever see may be kind of depressing on the part of the developer (particular amateur ones as Goldmund notes, who have no real monetary motivation--only the motivation of people seeing their work).
To be honest, I wouldn't mind it at all if I made a game with "mistake" paths.
It adds a sense of replayability.
And even if no one played the mistake bits, I still wouldn't get depressed, cause I've at least done something that not too many games do.
I could then say I tried for something different.
BTW, Rode:
Quotea) Will the player not bother, and instead just restore his game anyways, rendering the whole thing pointless?
That's why I suggested disabling the restore options.
However, there's probably a better way to do this.
As much as instant deaths may be irritating, sometimes trying to avoid them is just stupid.
Longest Journey is a good example: there were two dangerous situations, one is when April is in the house of the Witch and the second one is when she's being chased by a scary mutant who does NOTHING when he catches her.
I mean, you could easily go and make you a ham sandwich and then call your mother during those scenes, they were so unbeliveably harmless.
I guess they tried to raise the atmosphere by music and scary noises, but still...