Looking for dead-ends (in order to avoid them)

[Anym]

Whenever I want to try and older adventure game I haven't played yet, I'm worried about the same thing: Dead-ends! Years of LucasArts have spoiled me and games like Larry 2 and Space Quest 1 (which I finished nontheless) confirmed me in my belief that games with dead-ends (i.e. walking dead situations) just aren't my cup of tea.

So, I was wondering if there was a list or a database that categorized adventure games according to their design philosophies (dead-ends, deaths, action-sequences, etc.). If not, I was thinking about starting one, hopefully with contributions from other useres, probably right here in this thread, if something like this would be useful for other people as well. What do you think?

Alternatively, on a more specific note can somebody tell me whether the following titles, which are the ones I'm considering to play in the near future, contain dead-ends?

• Freddy Phrakas (just bought it)
• Lure of the Temptress (freeware now)
• Legend of Kyrandia 3 (part 1 had some, part 2 didn't, I think)

[Tolka]

I remember freddy pharkas.    it's been a long long time since I played that.  but I don't remember and dead end sistuations in it.   the other two I'm not familure with so I can't say.

[Babar]

Legend of Kyrandia 3 -  As far as I remember, don't throw anything away, and save all the "codes" that you find out at the beginning of the game, because they'll be needed later (at the end).

[Ali]

I'm not sure whether a catalogue helping people to avoid adventure games is too good an idea - but I suppose it would be nice to know if a game has a design philosophy you absolutely hate.

I don't believe I experienced any walking deads in Lure of the Temptress, but I think it is possible to die. I don't remember the deaths being unreasonable, however. It also had dynamic timed challenges, but nothing like an action sequence. This is from memory, so I could be mistaken.

[Scummbuddy]

I think you're better off citing the difference between a "dead end" and a "walking dead" game design, before you go about building a database of some sort.

In my opinion and correct me if I'm wrong but a "dead end" is obvious to the player that they can not proceed any further and will have to restart or reload.Ã,  A "walking dead" is when you can wander aimlessly around without much clue as to what you should be doing, or are incapable of doing, with no real hint that you missed something awhile back.

[Helm]

heh probably all the games I really love have walking deads.

[Mordalles]

I'm currently playing Futurewars, and it has quite a few dead-ends.
I have to replay the whole game because I missed a gas socket way way back hidden somewhere in a room.  :'(

[blueskirt]

I think it's a good idea. There's so many adventure games I never played mostly because they weren't made by Sierra or LucasArts so I was unsure wether or not I would fall on dead-ends, walking deads, timed events or some really cryptic and hidden copy protections at some point in the game.

[Anym]

I think you're better off citing the difference between a "dead end" and a "walking dead" game design, before you go about building a database of some sort.

Really? I always considered them to be synonymous. How does "unwinnable situation" sound?

In my opinion and correct me if I'm wrong but a "dead end" is obvious to the player that they can not proceed any further and will have to restart or reload.  A "walking dead" is when you can wander aimlessly around without much clue as to what you should be doing, or are incapable of doing, with no real hint that you missed something awhile back.

So, you're basically saying the difference is whether the player knows he can't proceed, right? But when is that "obvious" and what constitutes a "real hint"? Could you give exaples of clear dead ends in that sense, because, to me, one of the annoyances of walking dead situations is that you can never be sure you are in one. Of course, if you were given a wrong ID card earlier in the game, it seems quite likely that you'll have to reload in order to remedy that, but can the player know that there's no way to get a replacement, a forged ID or even avoid the ID check altogether?

[TerranRich]

This could be something to add to the AGS Wiki. A list of dead-ends, walking deads, and the difference(s) between the two.

Some examples I can think of off the top of my head:
* Forgetting an inventory item early on the game, usually without any clue as to its significance when it was available (it is best to make this item required before proceeding, or make it so that the game doesn't let you proceed without collecting this item -- e.g., the gates to the town are closed until you retrieve a lantern...although unrelated to each other, once you retrieve the lantern, the gates to the town suddenly open, and you proceed to the next part of the game, where you cannot return to where the lantern was)

* Not helping out another character early on in the game. (The problem with free will is that the signficance of certain things might not be obvious to the player, and helping out a certain character must be urgent to the player character, or required to proceed. For example, you need to give some bread to a homeless man, in order for him to save your life near the end of the game. Perhaps he is blocking your way to the next part of the game, and giving him the bread is the only way that works to remove him. Then, he helps you out later on in the game. Of course, there is a sort of exhiliration when you realize that the character you helped out earlier, on your own without any hints or requirement, now helps you out in return.)

* A timing puzzle that gives you only one chance. (The best example I can think of is in King's Quest V where you must throw a boot at a cat that is chasing a rat, the latter of which helps you out later one -- see above. In another thread, I discussed a possible solution to this, which is basically making it so that this chase does not end the first time, and in fact repeats itself everytime you enter the screen where it happens -- the bakehouse -- until you help out the rat.)

There are undoubtedly more, but the common thread in all these walking-deads is the fact that it is not apparent to the player that the required action/inventory item/puzzle from before was, in fact, required, or even possible. It is a stretch to assume that most new players will think of throwing a boot at the cat...a boot that you find in a distant part of the desert, out of the way, and nowhere near any place you would normally be.

There are two trains of thought at work in these types of puzzles. Either "Hey, I have this item I needed earlier...maybe I need it for the cat and rat?" or "Hey, I need an item to help out the rat. Where would I go about looking for it?" It makes more sense for the first train of though to be kept in mind, and to (1) provide an item from the beginning that will work, (2) make it so that you already have said item when you need it, or (3) again, make it so that said item is required before proceeding to the part where the cat chases the rat. This can be extended into a fourth option, where the chase does not even occur until said item is in the inventory. I believe this occurs in KQ5, in that the chase does not occur until you have the boot. But if you never find the boot, you won't know that it's even required. Capiche?

One suggestion is to indirectly block access to the later part of the game until that puzzle/etc. is completed. In the KQ5 example, you need a tamborine to scare the snake to proceed to the snowy mountains. You can't get the tamborine unless you've entered the dark forest and escaped it successfully. This is an example of an indirect cause-effect solution, where you cannot proceed in the game without entering and escaping the dark forest.

Hey, if anyone ever writes a wiki article on this subject matter, please feel free to use any of my words above.

[Helm]

For example, you need to give some bread to a homeless man, in order for him to save your life near the end of the game.

no offense, I know you were just providing an example but god-damn if what you describe isn't the worst game-design ever. Give the food if you think that is the moral or role-playing decision you desire, and reap the rewards later. Similarly, die a bitter death because you didn't feed him otherwise.

From a design-standpoint this is putting an ethical situation in a game, good. Ethical choices are good. FORCING them just so the game doesn't break later on: awful.

-Do you want to help the Princess? Y / N
-No
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes
-Come on now, are you sure? Y/N
-Yes

[TerranRich]

Yes. Helm, it was just a simple, bare-bones example and the context wasn't meant to be relevant in any way. I could have just as easily said "give the crack to the druggy" instead. :p

But you do make a valid point. If the "help-an-NPC-out" puzzle involves a moral issue, leave it the way it is, required for something later on, and punishment for those who ignore it.

BUT...what if you never encounter the homeless man? You would have to make it so that you're bound to run into him at some point in the game, so that nobody can go "Homeless man? What you say?"

[ManicMatt]

If not giving the man bread meant he fails to safe your life and you later have no choice but to die, then I'd think that was bad design. If by not giving him the bread it makes the game harder in some way because you don't get his help, then I'd think that was good design.

(Written before Terran's reply to Helm)

[Helm]

If not giving the man bread meant he fails to safe your life and you later have no choice but to die, then I'd think that was bad design. If by not giving him the bread it makes the game harder in some way because you don't get his help, then I'd think that was good design.

Agree

[TerranRich]

That's a very good point, ManicMatt. Far too many designers think only in black and white -- doing action A will allow you to part B, and not doing it causes immediate and severe punishment (death). Implementing multiple solutions into one's game is a very good design feature that far too few designers actually take advantage of.

[Helm]

Could there be a reason for that perhaps?.... maybe how much more content you'd have to make to create less fortunate but not severe circumstances for everything the player might try and fail at?

[Radiant]

The less linear a game becomes, the harder it is to design. Thus, we get the four easiest steps of handling dead ends, in order of increasing goodness...

1) don't handle them at all, consider the increase in play time a feature. Examples abound.
2) negative enforcement: kill the player the instant he forgets something. For instance, the "you forgot to buy a saurus" death in QfG2.
3) positive enforcement: make the player automatically do certain actions (e.g. pick up criticals) or forbid him from leaving the area until he performs them. There are several games where the protagonist says "I don't think I'm done here yet" when you try to leave some area. Tends to give players the hint.
4) make sure every part of the game remains accessible at all times, so the player can go back and do things he forgot. For instance, KQ1 and QfG1 play on a map where you can basically go anywhere at any time, and thus have few dead ends; on the other hand, most space quest games and KQV play on a series of rooms to cross and backtracking is not always possible.

Good game design trumps them all, of course. A good example is Fate of Atlantis, which is linear but nevertheless not subject to dead ends without using obvious enforcement.

[TerranRich]

There has to be a middle ground. Something like multiple paths that still lead to one outcome, just in different ways.

For example, you can (A) help Bob, or (B) ignore Bob completely. Helping Bob now ensures that he helps you later on, say, to enter a warehouse. Lo and behold, he's a security guard there and lets you in. Otherwise, he sees you and stops you from going in at all. You have distract him (or whatever) in order to get past him and into the warehouse. It doesn't HAVE to be really complicated, and it's not that much extra content that has to be added.

Radiant, I used your #3 in the BTS demo when the player tried to leave via the shuttlepod. If you didn't finish everything, Ronald would say something like "No, I stil haven't figured out what happened here," or "No, I have to try to change the ship's course!" depending on what you have and haven't tried yet. A better design would've been to have one last piece directly required to operate the shuttle (instead of indirectly like above), which isn't accessible until you've gotten all the knowledge you need in that chapter.

I also made all the chapters independent of each other, so that you could not possibly have any walking deads. Either (1) the items you needed in Chapter X were in Chapter X, or (2) you could not have gotten to Chapter X without first having gotten the required item in a previous chapter.

[Babar]

1) People hate this. Let the dead-ends be? Pshaw!

2) People hate this. Kill us for every little thing? Pshaw!

3) People hate this. Trying to lead us by the collar? Nice doggy? Pshaw!

4) People hate this. Lack of adventure! Might as well just stay in hero's home. I want to explore new places. Pshaw!

You can't please anyone, so it's no use trying to please everyone. Making things a varying degree of bad? Some people would say that "If you were going to punish me for not feeding homeless man, you might as well have killed me off instead of leading me to traverse this this secondary path and getting only to the secondary ending".

Work on your game the amount you wish to work. It's obvious that however much you work on it, it will be that much better. But you have to stop sometime. And I can understand the presence of dead ends. I mean, the designer must think "I put the magic beans right there! In the centre of the screen! How could you miss it! It's not my fault you only realised about it 50 screens on!"

[TerranRich]

It's a balance between making it too easy and making it too hard. You can't make it too easy where all items are optional and the game is just fine without them and you can never die because of lack of an item, but you can't make it too hard where all items are hard to find and vital to staying alive in the game. You have to find some way to make the porridge "just right" so to speak, although it'll always be too hot for some and too cold for others.