Dead Man Walking Scenarios?

[Alun]

Excuse my ignorance, but...

I've seen in a few game descriptions and comments on the AGS site mention of a "dead man walking" situation (or something similar).  For example, the author's description of Escape From Evergreen Forest includes the sentence "I tried to avoid 'pixel hunting' or 'walking dead-man' scenarios. "  What does this refer to?  I know what pixel-hunting is (and yeah, it's definitely something worth avoiding), but what's a "walking dead-man scenario"?

Just wondering...

[Gilbert]

Walking deads in games generally means because of how you play a game, you may end up in a situation that no matter what you do, you can't complete the game anymore (unless you restart the whole game), so all you can do is wander around like a zombie without further possible progress. (It's sometimes called dead-ends, etc. but some of us just love to call it walking-dead).

Most of the time it's due to design of a game, for example in some of the earlier Sierra adventure games, it's not uncommon that you forgot to pick up an item and had played to a point that 1. you cannot return to the part of retrieving the item anymore and 2. you MUST have the item to make some progress in the game. So you're forever stuck, unless you restart or have kept some old save games handy.

[Alun]

Ah.  Makes sense.

Yeah, I know about that sort of dead-end situation; I just didn't know that was what the "walking-dead" term referred to.  Thanks for the explanation.

[Barbarian]

Hehe.. Yeah, basically what Gilbot said.  Sorry for the confusion. I guess I figured most fans of Adventure games would already be familiar with the "Walking Dead-Man / Dead-Man Walking" term, and most of us have probably at one point played such a game with such a "dead-end" situation and know how frustrating it is.   

But yeah, if you ever do play a game and encounter such a problem, then after a while you do feel like you're controlling a "dead-man walking" character... Your character isn't actually "dead", but might as well be, because you can't progress anymore in the game because of not doing a certain action and/or getting a certain item at an earlier point in the game, but the game no longer lets you go back to do the required action and/or get the item needed. A nasty design flaw indeed these situations are, and can waste a lot of time (as often the player does not know right away that he's reached a dead-end and must restart / reload), and it can be incrediably frustrating.    At which point, you wish you had the game-creator within beating-the-crapp-outta range 

[n3tgraph]

So you're saying forgetting the sunscreen is an error in LSL2?

I hate it when games are made that way!

[m0ds]

Ahh, I was never sure what walking-deads were exactly, so thanks for clearing that up, Mr Cheeuung. Has anyone used walking-deads in their AGS game? Or why not, is it because there's absolutley no point?

[Phemar]

That's why I love Lucasarts adventures so much. It's their policy to not have that sort of thing.

[Radiant]

I think most Sierra games have a (rather large) number of dead ends. On the other hand, most Lucasarts games have none (with the exception of some of their really old games such as MM). The first versions of KQ1 even allowed you to drop any and all of your items (including the treasures) and you could never get them back.

lemme think... dead-end-o-meter.... KQ1,3,4,5!!!,6; SQ1,2; LL1,2; QfG1,2; GR
Not particularly sure about KQ2, SQ3,4, LL3,5, PQ1,2,3, QfG3,4, TBC
It seems that their newer games (SQ5, LL6...) have less or no dead ends.

I believe there's little point in designing a game with dead ends in it. From the AGS games I've played, it seems that any dead ends that do exist are a result of bugs or obscure oversights. I do know that Tierra is deliberately leaving the existing dead ends in their QfG2 remake, since they claim they lead to interesting easter eggs.
However in text adventures there are often plenty of dead ends but it doesn't bother me much, mostly since replaying them can be done in a minute or two. Also if you can only carry six items at a time it is hardly a surprise that sometimes the object you should need is in fact somewhere else.

[Ali]

I first discovered walking deads with Return to Zork when I threw my whole inventory in the river.

On that day I learned to avoid walking deads at all costs.

And not to throw my stuff in the river.

[Kinoko]

Ali: That's one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard of anyone doing ever in an adventure game. Bravo, I say! Next time I'm playing a game with a river, I'm definitely gonna do just that ^_^

[n3tgraph]

I think it makes the game way to hard!

I played a game once.... uhm what was it....

I think quest for glory 1??? (so you want to be a hero?)
You'd have to work and carry water and blabla.

I kind of hated the fact not to be sure if you have enough resources to continue. That's why I'm a fan of Indy games for example. You cán die, but you can always make it through

[Andail]

Gah, you people haven't been reading the AGS-dictionary closely enough!

It's been there all the time! Shame on you, Mods!

[Alun]

Gah, you people haven't been reading the AGS-dictionary closely enough!

It's been there all the time!

Whoops, so it has.Ã,  Sorry about that.Ã,  My mistake.

Though, in my defense, I did before posting try to glance through all the FAQs and other links on the AGS Resources page that seemed potentially relevant, and couldn't find anything on the term... but the AGS Dictionary wasn't listed on that page.

Yes, yes, I see now that the AGS Dictionary is in fact mentioned and linked to in the "Welcome to Adventure-related talk and chat" message, and I probably should have seen it there, but still...Ã,  it does seem to me that the AGS Dictionary is something that should be listed on the AGS Resources page, too.Ã,  So, Pumaman... how about it?

[m0ds]

Gah, you people haven't been reading the AGS-dictionary closely enough!

It's been there all the time! Shame on you, Mods!

Deeeead maaaan, walkin'

[MillsJROSS]

To the defense of older Sierra games...the older games were shorter because of issues with how big, in bites, a game could be, with the technology at hand. And so, to me, it seemed walking-dead helped lenghten those games. Where a longer game today is by far much much longer, it wouldn't be a smart idea for there to be a walking dead with the game length expectations everyone has. The old SQ KQ games are beatable in a couple hours, with all the dialog. Games now are five (and sometimes more) times the gameplay length.

And when you really look at it, I feel it would be easier to design a game with walking deads, because otherwise you have to create puzzles to make sure the player gets a certain item. And this sometimes can hurt a game, if it's not done correctly. So my take is, if the  game is relatively short, than walking deads are acceptable. As long as it doesn't take too much effort on the player's fault to find out he's walking dead.

-MillsJROSS

[TerranRich]

But there are ways to design a game to implicitly avoid these. For example, if a player needs a soccer ball found in Antarctica before he can proceed later in the game, in India, then either (1) have the player possess the ability to return to Antarctica to get the soccer ball if he missed it the first time, or (2) don't let him finish up in Antarctica before having the soccer ball. I had been designing By the Sword to avoid all walking deads, by one of the two methods above.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I'll let Andy Elliot's help file speak for me. He's the creator of SUDS, a point and click IF engine (which has died, I believe), and says the following in the section of his help file's design tips, under plot (and among other things, accourse, this is just an excerpt.

"Finally, decide on your attitude towards the player.Ã,  I prefer games in which player death is either impossible or very very hard.Ã,  On the other hand many games use 'death' as a punishment for failing a puzzle, and in fact rely on a 'death' to tell the player they are on the wrong track.Ã,  This creates a culture of saving after every single move, and doing stupid things without caring about the consequences - neither of which sustain suspension of disbelief, and identifying with your character, which can make or break your game.

I also prefer games in which it is impossible to get into a situation from which the game cannot be solved.Ã,  Anything else to me seems like lazy game design.Ã,  But again, plenty of games find it acceptable to allow the player to destroy, or lose, vital items, or travel to places without the means to return, or kill off characters who have some important information or function.Ã,  This again fosters a culture of constant saving and, usually, resorting to cheat-sheets.

But as usual, it's up to you."

Or, the short version -

Anything else to me seems like lazy game design.

[BorisZ]

But there are ways to design a game to implicitly avoid these. For example, if a player needs a soccer ball found in Antarctica before he can proceed later in the game, in India, then either (1) have the player possess the ability to return to Antarctica to get the soccer ball if he missed it the first time, or (2) don't let him finish up in Antarctica before having the soccer ball. I had been designing By the Sword to avoid all walking deads, by one of the two methods above.

Well, there is a third way that may not be the best, but it is the easiest: let the character get soccer ball autometicaly before going to India.

[Gilbert]

Well, there is a third way that may not be the best, but it is the easiest: let the character get soccer ball autometicaly before going to India.

I remember (hope my memory is intact, and I'm not making this up) in Pleurghburgh there was a walking death in beta version, that you could get stuck if you didn't take the

Spoiler

glasses/lens (or it was actually some other item that I cant remember)

[close]

, which I think was changed in the final version that you can still retrieve the same item in later time.
This solved the problem, but in my opinion it all became too easy (because the latter solution is a more obvious one), I'll say you can make the game that if you didn't get the item that you should in the early time, in later time where the "early action" cant be taken out anymore we cant have several solutions:

(a) Just give the player another EASY mean to get the item later (like the PB case and the football solution you mentioned), but as it's now EASY, you should punish the player for not doing the "correct" thing when he should, like giving less points (if it has a scoring system like PB, but I don't know if the points gained for that two cases in PB were different or not), or missing some awesome scenes of teh game (but can still finish the game).

(b) Just give the player another mean to get the item, but should contain a puzzle at least as hard as the "early one" to get it or even harder (to punish the player for not getting the item when he should).

(c) You can still proceed in the game without that item, but probably require solving other puzzles or getting other stuffs.

[Andail]

I somewhat agree with Mills...there was a certain thrill about beating the old sierra-games, mainly because it was so easy to get helplessly stuck.
You had to do everything in the exact correct order, or restart the whole scenario/chapter/game. When you had finally managed to keep all things in mind, and do it the right way, and finally beat it, the relief was enormous.

With many lucasart-games, you don't really feel an excitement or a sense of progress, since you can always go back and try everything one more time from the first location, you can never get really stuck, and you will eventually beat the game by just wandering around, clicking on things.

I dare say that games like monkey island (don't get me wrong, I still love those games) encourage the player - whenever they get stuck - to just click frenetically on everything that is clickable. This fosters a far lazier gameplay than sierra-games do, because in sierra-games, you have a certain responsability; you can't insult important npc:s, lest they refuse to share information, you can't wander out in swamp filled with monster, lest you risk your life, you can't break vital inventory items, etc.

Take for instance space quest 1 (the vga version, for the sake of pointing and clicking). When I played it as a kid, I had to really think, and I had to really keep track of all the steps that gradually would lead to escaping the mother ship.
I had to play it a dozen times in order to get everything right, and when I eventually left the exploding ship with the escape pod, the excitement and relief was a great reward.