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It's obviously an out-of-date element of gaming.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 :)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't consider it a "puzzle style" at all. It's just lazy design.
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)
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 (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/colonels-bequest) 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...
Why does everybody keep referring to dead ends as types of puzzles?
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
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.
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.
Quote from: BonanzaJellybean on Wed 12/11/2008 02:38:34
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:
QuoteI 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 :D)
~Trent
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.
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 ;)
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.
Quote from: Trent R on Wed 12/11/2008 04:23:12
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!)
Quote from: OneDollar on Tue 11/11/2008 12:29:18
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 (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/colonels-bequest)
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.
Quotebut can be avoided simply by designing your game so that all areas remain accessible at all times.
That's not the only solution. Another solution would be... let's say that Item A is required in the current area and Item B is required later on... but where Item B is needed, the player cannot return to retrieve said item. If you make Items A and B obtained at the same time, the player is basically forced to collect the item that is required later on in the game.
There are many solutions to this "feature" other than making all areas accessible. Sometimes making all areas accessible at all times just isn't feasible or doesn't work story-wise.
Quote from: Radiant on Wed 12/11/2008 14:01:07
Quote from: OneDollar on Tue 11/11/2008 12:29:18
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 (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/colonels-bequest)
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.
I wouldn't have called the endings in Laura Bow
dead endings... There were only really three types of ending - get killed by the murderer (which was always due to an action by the player, rather than an omission), get the bad ending by not finding enough clues to work out who the murderer was and getting the good ending (as far as I remember anyway).
To me a dead ending would be either a walking dead situation (the player cannot possibly progress any further, but the game doesn't actually end) or one where the game ends prematurely (You died. Restore/Restart/Quit). Laura Bow does do the second one, but never because you missed an item which is what's under discussion here.
Personally I see no problem with this kind of game where multiple playthroughs are expected. Its all about replayability, and being able to act on information you get later etc etc. Then again if you know people who didn't get this idea, I guess the game design needs some more work ;)
For the record I'm not much of a fan of being killed off in Sierra games for doing some small thing wrong (you opened the cupboard, but someone was hiding in it who dragged you in and killed you), so there are things in Laura Bow that I don't like, but the point of this topic is missing items. I reckon its a good example of a game that treats them well - you will alway get to the end of the night without items and while you won't get the best ending you get hints about how to improve.
Also for the record: walking deads should
never ever be used. As other people have said, its just bad game design
Quote from: Radiant on Wed 12/11/2008 14:01:07
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!)
You're stressing the point I was trying to make (and apparently wasn't able to make without sleep). BJB pointed out one walking dead that he liked, and I replied that I would rather such a situation be changed so it's not a walking dead in the first place.
Quote from: Makeout Patrol on Wed 12/11/2008 08:13:35chances that I will ever pick it up again are almost nil.
So what if it's a bug? Would you try it again once a patch was released?
~Trent
One interesting point people have made, that I will pick up on, is that some people have said that in some games it wasn't too bad because you could restore a recently saved game, and it wouldn't have been too bad.
The problem with this, IMO, is that in the old Sierra games, Saving actually became a part of the gameplay strategy itself, which may have been acceptable back then, but in this day and age, IMO, saving and restoring should only be used to store and return to your progress when you have a rest from playing.
Just my two bobs :)
Exactly, this is a different time. As dkh said as the first reply to this thread, they just don't count as nostalgia.
That being said, how about we gear this thread and discussion toward other types of the missing-item syndrome (as some of us have done) instead of the 'anti-dead-end thread'.
~Trent
Quote from: Trent R on Wed 12/11/2008 17:55:15
Quote from: Makeout Patrol on Wed 12/11/2008 08:13:35chances that I will ever pick it up again are almost nil.
So what if it's a bug? Would you try it again once a patch was released?
Only if I was really enjoying the game up to that point.
I liked the walking-deaths. Let me repeat it so it sinks in. I liked the walking-deaths. The space quest one pointed out before was one of the funniest ones I had ever witnessed. I didn't have a saved game before that, for some reason, and DID have to start the game over again. Yes, it effectively screwed you, but it made you think smarter. It added en element of fear, that you just don't get anymore.
That said...I need to emphasize the past tense I used. In games of today, I don't think we tolerate this way of creating a game anymore. It's not necessarily because it's bad puzzle design. It's that it's bad puzzle design for us in this time. Just think back to when you were playing those games. The last eighties and early nineties didn't have all these fancy forums, blogs, social-groups, etc...That's not to say that the internet wasn't around, it just wasn't as global or as entertaining. So back then, when you got stuck in your game, you had nothing else to do...so you had the drive to start again, or go to a restore point. Now, you're stuck, you have several other things at your fingertips that will provide instant entertainment.
The walking dead puzzles just don't work with our attention deficit lifestyle. They don't work with the length of games we have today. Place them back in the time they were made, though, and I don't think it was bad design.
-MillsJROSS
I hate walking deads, and whenever I play a game that has them, I just follow a walk-through. I just do this to pass time and to get to know a game I haven't played yet. The idea of not knowing whether you're just stuck or already in a dead end completely ruins even the greatest game for me.
I vividly remember playing Gold Rush for the third time or so; this time without the solution. When I got to the very end, it suddenly occurred to me that I forgot to pick up my mail back at the beginning. So there I was, near the end, and even though I had plenty of saved games, I still had to more or less restart from the beginning.
Now imagine playing a game like that in DOS, without a HD, constantly juggling game and save disks, waiting for half an hour in between rooms. Gives me the shivers.
Games have simply evolved; back in the 80s, the designers tried to make them as realistic as possible, game play-wise, thus wrong decisions lead you into a dead end or to death, just like in real life. Additionally, producing a very hard game increased the length (just look at the average NES Jump'n'Run, those are the devil's work).
Nowadays, games don't need to be realistic, they need to be fun. And with media like DVDs, there's also no need to artificially lengthen the play time.
Another mean dead end was in Broken Sword II; after you shoot the boar on zombie island, you can simply run away to the left, but you have to jump up to the branch to reveal another exit. I spent literally hours walking back and forth trough the damn forest maze, trying to find a way to proceed.
To stay on topic, though: I'm not sure what happens if you don't pick up the tequila worm at the very beginnig; you need it later on, but I think I've read there's a replacement in case you don't have the worm.
Quote from: Trent R on Wed 12/11/2008 04:23:12
Because then it's not a walking dead and more like an ordinary Sierra game (ie. 'ordinary' death traps everywhere :D)
Hmm, you have an excellent point and I take back my previous post. I do enjoy a good death scene. But I don’t really consider a puzzle that involves you getting killed by performing the wrong action a “walking-dead†… especially since you’re usually killed rather close to the time that you made the mistake. A true “walking-dead†in which there is no entertainment value and is there only to lengthen the game and frustrate the player is not only a bad design but lame.
Just thought of a (sort-of) dead-end/missing item syndrome from QFG4. There's a character that gets framed for a murder he didn't do, and you have to either prove him innocent or break him out of jail (if he dies, you get a death message).
Because QFG has classes and stats, it's not a missing-item, but rather a low-stat problem. So you had to do one of the following (supposing you had enough in that stat/skill)
Eg.
- Picklock the jailhouse and cell (pick locks skill)
- Cast an unlocking spell at previous mentioned doors (magic skill)
- Use brute strength to free the trapped 'murdered' (strength skill)
- Use a grappling hook and leverage to free the trapped 'murdered' (strength skill (I think))
So basically, if you're skill isn't high enough if one of these areas, you'd have to solve it another way, which poses a possibility for a 'dead-end'.
~Trent
PS-It seems like I'm missing some clarification on something above, but I can't pinpoint what..... Oh well, my brain's fried! (which is why I'm ignoring my scripting and on the forums in the first place)
That doesn't constitute a dead-end, Trent, because you could sit and practice those skills over and over until they succeeded (especially lockpicking).
I'm thinking (ie. I could be wrong) that I've played through times where I saved too late (say, the night before the burning) and my skills weren't up to par. Even with mad-training (train, nap, train, nap) I haven't been able to make it in time.
So it only becomes a dead-end if you wait too long..... But like I said, it's not a true dead-end, just 'sort-of'.
~Trent
Dead ends (and deaths) are the main reason why I NEVER played Sierra games, I just hate it.
I agree, If you must "die" you should be warned first, as i did in my games ;)
Or at least autosavegame should be made in case of "dead end".
OK it sound more realistic but games must adapt to that, the whole point is to play and have fun with game, not furstration when it kicks you in your balls !
my 5 minutes are up...
Technically, you can still get dead-ends in games these days.
Take a first person shooter for example.
You may have a save game (and no previous saved games for ages), and got to a point with only 1 bit of health.
However, the next action part you play may indeed require at least 15 bits of health without being killed, no matter how skilled the player.
Technically a dead-end, although in fairness created by yourself by not thinking ahead.
... just thought i'd whack that one in for some interest!
;D
Quote from: mrsix on Thu 13/11/2008 19:19:54
Technically, you can still get dead-ends in games these days.
The difference is how you perceive the game. In a first person shooter there is obviously going to be shooting, and because there's shooting you expect your character to be shot at. If you're character is being shot at then you expect to lose health, and depending on the difficulty of the game you expect to die, sometimes very frequently. Because you go into a FPS with that mindset you (generally) blame yourself for saving with 1 health then not being able to get any further. You expected to be shot at and if you didn't prepare for it then its your fault and not the designer's.
In the Sierra classics the old restore/restart/quit dialogue was expected, and it was part of the game strategy to have multiple save files. You expected to die so you played as such. Since LucasArts came on the scene and started making adventure games where you (mostly) could never die or get irreversibly stuck the genre moved on. Nowadays if you play an adventure game you expect not to have to save every 5 minutes, so if you miss something and need to reload you blame the designer.
It boils down to establishing ground rules before you start playing. The other issue is that games have moved on as a whole from being really hard (to keep you playing the same short game over and over) to being perfectly possible to complete so that you'll buy the next one. Nowadays gamers expect the game to 'play fair', which in this case either means making it impossible to die/get stuck or possibly autosaves.
Also people seem to be interchanging terms
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Wed 12/11/2008 22:36:39
I liked the walking-deaths. Let me repeat it so it sinks in. I liked the walking-deaths. The space quest one pointed out before was one of the funniest ones I had ever witnessed
I always thought
Walking DeadThe player cannot progress any further in the game, but is not told this. They are left wandering around the game world until they either abandon the game or have their character killed by a triggered event (e.g. performing an incorrect action or running out of time)
Dead endWhen the game ends 'badly'
...? The difference being a dead end is a definite end of the character (usually death) whereas a 'walking dead' character is one that has no chance of finishing the game, yet the game carries on anyway and the player may not realise.
mrsix,
Walking-dead/dead-end is a term applied to the Adventure Genre. It'd be like talking about an overworld map (like many console RPGs) in an FPS discussion. It just doesn't work (granted, there's a few hybrid games in every genre, but I'm talking generally).
And to continue off of what OneDollar was saying, the genre has evolved, so those old design choices just don't work any more, even though others have persisted. To take the FPS example again, imagine the flop it would be if Halo4 used a raycasting engine (like Doom, Wolfenstein) on the 360. It'd be ridiculous because the genre (and tech) has evolved from older design choices.
OneDollar,
In this thread, I think the two are interchangeable. Which is fine by me:
I personally use the term 'death message' when the game ends badly (ie. Sierra games). If you get a bad ending (ATOTK, QFG1, Laura Bow(note: I've never played LB)) then that's just a bad ending (as opposed to the good/canon ending).
It's the difference between a Game Over screen and rolling the ending credits. (And DDR is the only game that I know that does both ;D)
~Trent
[Edit]: To take this point further (not to bash OneDollar, but just for discussion) I'll talk about the QFG1 example. Being both a Sierra Game and RPG, there were plenty of ways to kill off your character (ie. death messages). As for ending the game, you could fulfill the prophecy completely (free the prince, free the princess, and drive away the ogress) which gave you the best ending (canon from QFG4 and 5 dictates this when you talk to Baba Yaga, Elsa, or Toro). However, to just end the game you only had to free the princess, but it gave you a 'bad ending' (and you lost the associated score points).
Example 2: Daggerfall, you could obviously die in many ways (if you didn't know how to manipulate the opening quiz and character building, that could be in the first dungeon!), but the Main Quest and ending deals with giving a powerful artifact to one of 9 characters/organizations. (Interestingly enough, all 9 endings are considered canon! Jeez I love TES).
Example 3: Chrono Trigger, to end the game you just had to kill Lavos. But because you could do this at multiple times, the ending changed depending how far you went in the 'main quest' and completing major side quests.
Example 4: Suikoden, in the Suikoden series, you can recruit the 108 Stars of Destiny to your army/crew (many of which joined automatically). But if you recruited everybody, you would get a special ending (dealing with the main character's True Rune) through the power of the 108 Stars.
~Trent
Quote from: Trent R on Thu 13/11/2008 20:37:19
It's the difference between a Game Over screen and rolling the ending credits. (And DDR is the only game that I know that does both ;D)
Yeah, Laura Bow does that (which is why I was trying to use it as an example ;D). Basically you play through a night at your friend's grandfather's mansion and gradually everyone around you gets killed off. All you
have to do is survive the night, but if you want the full ending you're going to have to some detective work and figure out who the murderer is, where all the bodies are etc etc...
The game does have Sierra's Restore/Restart/Quit bits, but these are always triggered by an
action from the player, never by an irreversible
inaction. Going right back to the subject of this topic...
Quote from: mrsix on Mon 10/11/2008 17:21:08
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?
...missing an item in Laura Bow never kills the character or gets you irreversibly stuck....
but there are sections you can't do because you don't have an item...
Example: There's some steps going down a secret passage and if you try to go down them without a lamp you fall to your death. This means if you haven't got the lamp you can't go down the steps so you never find the dead body down there and hence don't get the best ending... but you don't
have to go down the steps. You'll still get to the end of the night alive and with the credits rolling, essentially the end of the game, but the game will give you a list of the things you did/didn't find. Amongst those will be at least one corpse you didn't find and a secret passage you didn't explore, so you can restart the game with the aim to find a way down the passage and find the dead body.
What this shouldn't be confused with is the standard death sequences...
Example: If you use the shower in the bathroom you're treated to a sequence where a mysterious figure comes into the room and stabs Laura ("Didn't Alfred teach you anything?"). This is either funny or annoying depending on whether you saved/your sense of humour/how much you're enjoying the game etc etc... but you never
have to use the shower so its not the type of sequence that mrsix mentioned originally. If the puzzle were
At the very start of the game go to the barn and unscrew the door lock (because the barn becomes an inaccessible location after 11 o'clock or something) then at 11:30 you need to take a shower so fit the lock to the bathroom door then you can shower in peace. If you didn't get the lock... restart the game, which is something similar to what mrsix described, I'd call it bad game design. Adding replayability to the game by giving you bad endings - but proper endings with clear suggestions for improvements - if you don't get items could, in my book, be good game design. The reason I brought Laura Bow up in the first place is because that's what it does.
Did any of that make slightly more sense? ;D
yeah, I played that Dierdre Kiai game The Game That Takes Place On A Cruise Ship (or something), and after perservering for ages trying to advance the story by wandering back and forth, trying different item combinations, I eventually conceded defeat and consulted the walkthrough...
...turns out I'd missed doing something earlier and so I was now stuck in a dead end, from which I couldn't proceed. I was extremely >:(
I mean, what's the point?
Quote from: Trent R on Thu 13/11/2008 20:37:19
mrsix,
Walking-dead/dead-end is a term applied to the Adventure Genre. It'd be like talking about an overworld map (like many console RPGs) in an FPS discussion. It just doesn't work (granted, there's a few hybrid games in every genre, but I'm talking generally).
If I were being pedantic and meant 'dead-end' soley for the Adventure Genre, then perhaps, but I meant it as a general term.
There are many types of dead-ends in games if you're not careful. How many times have you dropped an important item in an RPG and thought "oh heck, where on earth did I leave that?!".
Still I guess this is an adventure forum I guess, so I take it all back :)
But, back to the original question - Dead ends suck. Period. ;D
Personally I thought some dead ends / walking deads in King's Quest 6 were worse than others. It depended on if you knew that you could have missed something. Often you're just stuck because you didn't take an item earlier and you have no idea why.
For example, the catacombs. Before you go there you're told to prepare yourself, which basically tells you that you should take everything with you that isn't nailed down. Therefore I didn't consider this as much as a bad dead end.
You could also go in the castle unprepared (missing the mint and the mechanical nightingale), but I think here the game didn't give you a clue that you should prepare yourself well because once you're in there's no way back later. Sure, the doors close behind you and can't be opened, but the game should warn you before you get into a dead end. It was obvious with the catacombs, but not here. So, while you could think ahead to take the mint leaves and the nightingale I didn't get the feeling that I had to, so I didn't like this dead end really.
A really bad example of a dead end was when you forgot to take the key from the skeleton guard in the realm of death you couldn't unlock the chest in the castle. It's especially annoying because I still don't understand how the player should've been able to deduce that this was the necessary key! Yeah, keys unlock locks, but not every key unlocks every lock. This was just stupid.
Personally, I think I never would design a game with dead ends. While I thought the catacomb one was fair I think it's possible to design a game without ones and I don't see any advantage in them. They just may force you to play a segment again. And since adventures don't have much replay value in contrast to, say, RPGs, it's just wasted time.
Quote...but not every key unlocks every lock
Skeleton keys do. I think this was more of a cultural-based puzzle, where the term "skeleton key" was used in a humorous way with an actual skeleton. Plus, it's an outdated term. I only remember hearing "skeleton key" from cartoons that were made decades ago. Bad puzzle.
I don't think it is exactly a culture-based puzzle. Skeleton keys are reasonably well known to anyone you ask. I've encountered the term with locksmiths, as well as books, movies, and even games.
But yeah...despite how great a game I consider KQ6, it did have a number of walking dead situations. At least in that situation you knew what you were in for.
QuoteAnd since adventures don't have much replay value in contrast to, say, RPGs, it's just wasted time.
I think most would disagree with this statement. I
personally replay my favorite RPGs all the time (FF6, FF9, any Suikoden, Skies of Arcadia, etc) but many adventure games are geared towards re-playability. (LB, any QFG, KQ6, MM, Art of Theft, ATOTK, etc)
~Trent
[Edit]: Offtopic, which is why I'm editing a previous post. Personally, I can't stand FF7 or 8, cause of the super-sci-fi genre, whereas I prefer the fantasy of the originals, mixed with the excellent characterizations of the later ones (6+) making FF9 my favorite, followed by 6.
And I know I've beaten FF6, but I can't remember the end. FF9-can't remember past the escaping from Terra. Skies-can't remember from the final dungeon.
Despite, I still love them (and sometimes the beginnings are the funnest, just cause you're the underdog!)
Aye, I've replayed FF7 loads of times... (never actually completed it though, but shhhh, that's between you and me).
Well, I kinda guessed this reasoning behind the skeleton key, but I had no idea of its cultural meaning. It's kinda like monkey wrench in Monkey Island 2 then. ;)
Quote
I personally replay my favorite RPGs all the time (FF6, FF9, any Suikoden, Skies of Arcadia, etc) but many adventure games are geared towards re-playability. (LB, any QFG, KQ6, MM, Art of Theft, ATOTK, etc)
I'm not sure if you misunderstood me there or not. I said indirectly that RPGs have replay value, so...
But I think only a minority of adventures have replay value. KQ6 had some because of the two paths. QfG is half an RPG, so it's no wonder where it comes from. ;)
Blade Runner and Indiana Jones 4 were very replayable and like you said Maniac Mansion, but these are already all I can remember.
It's no wonder, most adventure follow just one story path from which you can't deviate.
But my point was, dead ends just make you replay parts again that you already experienced and at most times in exactly the same way. It feels like wasted time then.
Sure, it's fun to replay a game after some time, but not so to replay it in parts before you have even finished it. ;)
I think that situations where you cannot make progress anymore should generally not be in these kind of adventure games. They will cause frustration in most players, especially if you don't know that you have entered such a situation, and leads to either giving the game up or resorting to a walkthrough which are the two things you really want to avoid when designing or playing a game.
I think the only way they are acceptable is if it is made clear to the player that they are entering such a situation when they do a particular action, and ask them do they really want to do this as space-time will be anomolied or something, like in oblivion when you kill an important NPC. You can carry on for the fun of it but you know you cannot progress as normal. So a warning window comes up, and it says if you do this then you are screwed... are you sure you want to? If you click yes it should autosave anyway incase you change your mind.
But I would say that unless you put a lot of effort into the above 'losing' scenarios, they aren't gonna be much fun anyway and it will be wasted effort that could be used to make the game better in general so I'd say just avoid these situations altogether.
I also totally agree that you should aim for a game experience where you only save and load when you are starting or quitting a game session, you shouldn't have to keep doing it manually for fear of losing or missing things, this detracts from the gaming experience.
robvalue, you mean Morrowind, not Oblivion. Morrowind popped up a window and treated you as intelligent, Oblivion treated you like a baby and wouldn't let anyone important die (which I guess is okay when it comes to AI acting random, but that's what the cheating;) debug console was for)
But rob reminded me of another topic/idea:
Suppose that an AGS had walking deads in it. Suppose it was an excellent game even though it had walking deads. Suppose it had a frequent autosave. Suppose it popped up a warning saying (you have passed a point of no-return and have missed an important item).
In this hypothetical game, would you support a feature that turned off all saving features once you entered walking-dead mode?
~Trent
PS-That game truly is hypothetical, I would never implement such a thing.
PSS-I only cheat in TES after I beat the main quests and main guilds on subsequent playthroughs. And even then, it's usually just teleporting :)
Quote from: Trent R on Mon 17/11/2008 10:01:14
In this hypothetical game, would you support a feature that turned off all saving features once you entered walking-dead mode?
That would be acceptable in my opinion if there was an autosave made of the game before doing anything unwinnable.
It would also be acceptable to have the savegame flagged as unwinnable so you can't save it over a savegame that is winnable but still allow saving. (Give them some message, "the following savegame is unwinnable, but we'll let you continue to explore anyway.)
I think it could be pushed even further, causing for extra dialogue and scenes---insisting that the player mess up and explore around!
"Hey, there's that bastard that killed the sheriff!! Run him out of town!"
~Trent