Good Response

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I think the best way of implementing "risk" is alternate endings, or alternate paths, based on what you do during the game. But would this necessarily eliminate the problem of being "stuck, stuck, stuck, oh! that worked!"?

Yes it can.  I took this approach in Mind's Eye, where at certain points of the game certain memories could no longer be recovered, and if you didn't piece together enough of Noah's past you got the bad ending.  It's not a perfect system but it does inject some replay value.  Also, despite there being only one death situation in the game (and it fitting with the world I created for the story) people still complained about being killed.  I think the important thing to weigh in any of these discussions is the fact that you can't possibly hope to please everyone, not even with the most clever design.

[MrColossal]

The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

Because risk - at least as traditionally realized in games - is basically pointless in adventure games. Is there really any point in killing the player when you can just restore immediately beforehand and keep trying again (I'm reminded specifically of Beneath A Steel Sky, trying to get by the giant spider in the subway)? Unless you allow the player to get into a "walking dead" situation, or kill without warning (hoping the player hasn't saved recently). Not really solutions in my opinion.

but 99.99% of all games that have save and load abilities are like this. What is the point in dying in Half Life 2 when I can just quickload and keep trying until you get it right.

not being able to do anything because there is no risk is, in my opinion, a lot different feeling than watching your character dying because of actions you took.

"Oh, I appear to be stuck..." vs "Oh man! I died!"

[Mordalles]

risk!

thats what's so cool about diablo 2 hardcore! you die, hours of play are wasted. you don't get second chances! no loading.

[EagerMind]

Also, despite there being only one death situation in the game (and it fitting with the world I created for the story) people still complained about being killed.Ã,  I think the important thing to weigh in any of these discussions is the fact that you can't possibly hope to please everyone, not even with the most clever design.

Yes, I finished this just recently. A nice game! (Off-topic noob question: Is it ok to dig up old threads in the Completed Games forum to comment on older games? Darth Mandarb has me scared ...Ã,  :'()

WRT dying, I suspect the issue from the perspective of game play is: if you aren't successful, then you have to
- Watch the death cutscene
- Reload an old game
- If you didn't save just before dying, then you need to replay from your last save point (and in adventure games, this typically means rotely solving puzzles you've already solved) and save again right before the death point.
- Try again.
- Repeat until you succeed.

I don't know, is this better than if the character gives you a warning and doesn't move so he won't die (in effect, leaving you stuck in the hallway until you get it right)? I don't know. I personally didn't have any problems with the player dying (you had obviously set the stage for it, and it gave me an excuse to knock off for the night), but I think it's an interesting question from a design perspective.

but 99.99% of all games that have save and load abilities are like this. What is the point in dying in Half Life 2 when I can just quickload and keep trying until you get it right.

Good point. Maybe these games would be better if you could only save in between levels? I'll confess that I found some of the combat in Half-Life (and FPS games in general) rather tedious, exactly for this reason. Probably why I never got around to finishing Duke Nukem 3D. Half-Life was unique because of it's atmosphere and it's story. More than slaughtering a bunch of aliens and soldiers, I wanted to find out what was going to happen. I found the demo level from Half-Life 2 (the one with the reverend and all the zombies) extremely tedious. (It didn't help that half-way through, the guy tells you you're going the wrong way, thus setting you up to fight your way back out. _I_ knew the right way to go, but don't force me to go the wrong way because that was the only way to advance the level.) Perhaps if it was set in the context of a progressing storyline (which I realize you can't really get from a demo), I wouldn't have minded so much.

[Erenan]

Concerning the whole idea of walking out into the wrong room and instantly being killed... This bothers me. I don't like it. But I also don't like being told, "I'm not going out there. It's scary!" Instead, let the player go out there if he wants to, but don't simply take control away from him. Let him fight his way out if he can. Maybe he can't, but don't make him stand there staring while he's being killed. What kind of a knight was Graham, anyway? "Oh no! A wolf! I'm doomed!" Blech.

I died three or four times in Mind's Eye. I watched the cutscene once, and then I instantly learned to hit Alt-X and reload the game. This honestly didn't bother me at all. In fact, I found the guy with the coffee more annoying, although that too was not a big deal for me.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Eagermind- Glad to hear you enjoyed it!  Also, I wouldn't bother dredging up old threads in the completed games forum.  If you have something to say, pming the author is the way to go.

I don't know, is this better than if the character gives you a warning and doesn't move so he won't die (in effect, leaving you stuck in the hallway until you get it right)? I don't know. I personally didn't have any problems with the player dying (you had obviously set the stage for it, and it gave me an excuse to knock off for the night), but I think it's an interesting question from a design perspective.

Going back to my approach in Mind's Eye, when you check your memories (clicking on the Eye on the gui) Noah has the distinct fear that should he encounter Childs again he won't survive it.  This was a further clue that you really don't want to cross paths with him again and should avoid attracting attention.

[Babar]

Concerning the whole idea of walking out into the wrong room and instantly being killed... This bothers me. I don't like it. But I also don't like being told, "I'm not going out there. It's scary!" Instead, let the player go out there if he wants to, but don't simply take control away from him. Let him fight his way out if he can. Maybe he can't, but don't make him stand there staring while he's being killed.

I agree with this also. In the catacombs of KQ6, although it might be logical that "ooh, you should be careful! These are dark and dangerous catacombs", I still got peeved when I walked into a room, Alexander walked to the centre of the room, the floor opened up, and you died. I mean, when you walked into other rooms you didn't automatically go to the centre!

If there is danger, it should be logical. You see a evil man with a gun walk into a room, you would be careful following behind him. You see smoke coming out of a room, you would be careful going in. You see a skull and crossbones etched outside the door, and it was etched next to some other deadly trap you saw before, you would be careful going in. If you are able to look into a doorway and you see a funny looking floor, you should be careful going in.

Another way to make it less frustrating would be to have a safety net. In the catacombs example it could be giving a 1-2 second chance to grab a ledge, or the option of tying a rope outside the door before entering.

Risk is probably frowned upon in most (non-sierra) adventure games because if you look at it, there is nothing at all to lose except your interest in continuing the game. You have a few minutes worth of replaying a saved game. If there is no save option, that would just be annoying. Replaying a game from the beginning is ok for a small game, but for a game the size of KQ6? Being made to go down an alternate 'lesser' path is just as annoying, especially when you don't know that you're going down it. To have to end the game with the '2nd place' ending for something you did wrong at the beginning of the game is just as bad as a walking dead.

The only solution, as I see it, is to (groan) put more more effort into making the game. Risk will have to be portrayed through atmosphere (graphics, music, ambient sound, etc.) as well as the chance of dying/losing. If you can be pulled into the game far enough so that you actually fear dying/losing, then you've succeeded. But if you are in a sunny happy outdoorsey place, and you move one screen left, and are shot through the head by a bandit, that is just annoying.

[ManicMatt]

I don't mind death in an adventure game if it made a checkpoint just before you encountered the danger so you get another chance without having had the premonition to save the game before hand. Sure it takes away some suspense that you will lose the game, but so what. I am so glad that many platform-ish games have abandoned the lives system quite frankly, as I now have a chance of actually playing through to the end, and feeling like I got my money's worth.

I could never get past the second level of ghosts and goblins, so I may as well have found a playable demo for cheaper.

[Helm]

I don't know, is this better than if the character gives you a warning and doesn't move so he won't die (in effect, leaving you stuck in the hallway until you get it right)? I don't know.

If you don't see any merit in rote repetition of gameplay until you overcome a challenge, then I fear you don't seem to see the merit in gaming. If the game isn't fun to play, of course you won't replay it. If it is, you won't mind dying (or losing) and redoing the section. That is what I think we should be focusing on, not as easy and painless a storytelling experience possible. We've said this a lot of times, I'll say it again: if I want just a good story, characterisation, plot, thematic consistency, I'll read a book and it'll be a million times better than a computer game 99% of the time. A computer game should be foremost about gameplay.

[EagerMind]

If you don't see any merit in rote repetition of gameplay until you overcome a challenge, then I fear you don't seem to see the merit in gaming.

Yes, but don't you see how this works differently in adventure games from action games? Challenge still exists when replaying action games, not so with adventure games. I've gotten to the last level of Ghouls 'n' Ghosts, but sometimes I don't even get past the first. I've gotten to level 3, round 2 of Qbert, but usually I don't get past level 2. In adventure games, once I've progressed up to a certain point, I can do so again, everytime, without fail, and without really even trying.

If it is, you won't mind dying (or losing) and redoing the section. That is what I think we should be focusing on, not as easy and painless a storytelling experience possible.

I never said I have a problem dying or losing in games. I was trying to point out why some people had issues with the player dying in Mind's Eye (and adventure games in general). From a design perspective, there would have been alternate ways to handle that situation, and I was attempting to discuss those options. If the obstacle is "get down this hallway," is it really necessary to kill the player if he fails? Is it really "losing" when in a matter of seconds you can be right back at the same point to try again, or just a really annoying way to temporarily impede the player? Surely the choices one makes in how we're going to hamper the player's progress and inject some risk into the game directly impact how fun it is?

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

is it really necessary to kill the player if he fails? Is it really "losing" when in a matter of seconds you can be right back at the same point to try again, or just a really annoying way to temporarily impede the player?

I think that games with gratuitous efforts to kill the player (most sierra games) are just there to make the game artificially difficult in lieu of clever puzzles and gameplay, but a game that only has you die a few times in key situations to reinforce danger is important--not because the player can just reload, but because it sets a tone and makes it clear that his/her actions can end in death.  Just about every post-80s game has a save feature, so the concept of reloading isn't really an argument anymore.  Games have been allowing it for ages and a vast majority of people still seem affected by death in a game even when they reload, if only because it gives them a sense of failure and an urge to succeed.

[Helm]

Yes, I think adventure games should bring back failure and failing, not just death. I think hotsaving (Diablo/Roguelike style) where you save when you quit only is the way to go. Do things, have the game react to you in more shades than DEATH - SUCCESS. There's shades of failure and shades of success.

[EagerMind]

I think that games with gratuitous efforts to kill the player (most sierra games) are just there to make the game artificially difficult in lieu of clever puzzles and gameplay, but a game that only has you die a few times in key situations to reinforce danger is important--not because the player can just reload, but because it sets a tone and makes it clear that his/her actions can end in death.

Yes, I would agree with you on this point. And it was clear from playing Mind's Eye that this was your intent, which is why I was ok with it. Another game where I thought player death was appropriate was 5 Days a Stranger. But as a counterpoint, I think the end of Monkey Island 2 where you're trying to defeat LeChuck was an enjoyable experience because you couldn't die. Imagine how annoying that sequence would have been if LeChuck killed you every time you ran into him! But when you consider the style of each game, this wouldn't have worked at all in 5DAS - in fact, it would have been rather laughable.

So yes, killing the player does definitely go toward establishing a game's tone. But given that death is just a minor inconvenience, I think failure really needs to be done some other way. Unless you restrict the player's ability to recover from death (limiting save opportunities, for example), but I think it would be difficult to do this in a way acceptable to players.

[TerranRich]

I've always thought death should be handles in adventure games much the same way it was handled in Broken Sword III, for example. If you died, it would let you replay from the moment before death. SQ6 did this to an extent, too, adding the "Replay" option in addition to "Restore" and "Restart".

As for walking out into danger and just dying, as opposed to a message refusing to comply, I'd rather have a combination of the two. I want my main character to have a mind of his own, rather than just some puppet I push around and let fall into undesirable circumstances. If I try to walk out into the danger, there should be a message saying "Mmm, I don't think so, I have a bad feeling about going out there." Another attempt would get a response like "I'm REALLY not sure it's a good idea!" And then a third time, it would say "Okay, but I warned you!" and actually DO it. This way, if you die, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Or there's always the last-chance scenario mentioned earlier, where, upon facing said danger, you have a few seconds (or even less) to react before you really DO die. There could be a chance for survival and escape, and a later message saying "I'm never doing THAT again!"

It's a more intelligent way of handling things, as opposed to interacting with the water in KQ5 and just dying (I believe that happens anyhow).

There are SO many things that adventure games SHOULD have, but fail to include, either due to time constraints, lack of intuitiveness, or just plain laziness.