Making Mistakes.

[Goldmund]

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.

[Pumaman]

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.

[SSH]

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?

[Robert Eric]

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.

[remixor]

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.

[MrColossal]

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

[DGMacphee]

Gilbot:

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.

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:

I 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:

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?

Aye -- How can you kill yourself by dragging a rock on top you?

Eric:

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.

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.

[Goldmund]

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.

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?

[DGMacphee]

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[rodekill]

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.  

[remixor]

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.

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).

[DGMacphee]

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:

a) 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.

[Goldmund]

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...