How to Handle Deaths (Revised Poll)

[chucklas]

There has been much debate over how to handle deaths in this game. I want to present a single option asd ask, would this be ok with you?

So, if they were to implement the retry option as the default and allow the user to disable it and only save manually if they choose, would you be satisfied with that compromise?

[wilco64256]

Or if the "retry" just loaded your last manually saved game.

[MusicallyInspired]

If you could disable it, yes.

[GuybrushWilco]

I would be satisfied with this.

[chucklas]

Ok, so one person has said no. I am curious as to what the objection to this idea would be (unless of course there is no reason).

[All-thumbs]

It's a good compromise.

[Lambonius]

No! Options bad!! Limit player choice as much as humanly possible!!!

Idiots.

[Armakuni]

Yes, this would be pretty much a perfect solution, I can't see why anyone would have issues with that.

[Mr. Freeze]

Well, for some people it might make the game lose some authenticity knowing that the choice to go the easy route is always there...

[Armakuni]

Hmm true but that is being a bit too picky, in my opinion.

[MusicallyInspired]

No! Options bad!! Limit player choice as much as humanly possible!!!

Idiots.

:D.

[Datadog]

I was about vote yes because this sounds like a good idea in writing, but then I gave it some thought. Now I'm going to vote no just because I think it would be a waste of effort on Telltale's part. It seems like a system that many people would try for a bit, before they get fed up and switch over to "retry" mode. Many past developers have stated that the save/restore method of playing was really more attributed to bad game design, and I don't see any down-side to the "retry" system. It streamlines the constant hammering of F5 and F7, and always sends us back to a place that any smart person would have likely saved at anyway. Being able to die and come back instantly is a solid way of identifying goals and promoting exploration.

I think people seem to forget how frustrating "save early, save often" really was. I admit, I do feel some nostalgia for the save/restore style, but those rose-colored glasses only seem to apply to games I've played as a kid, when repetition really didn't mean anything to me. When I tried "The Colonel's Bequest" last year for the first time, I found that saving and restoring held no strategic value, since the constant deaths and replaying of the game were actually distracting me from both exploration AND the story. "Retry" doesn't really change the game's difficulty, it just removes the frustration factor (much like the invention of the "skip" button for cut-scenes.)

[thom-22]

Now I'm going to vote no just because I think it would be a waste of effort on Telltale's part.

Huh? Autosaving and manual saving both are already a part of Telltale's usual game design. Implementing a retry system for deaths will be the new development that requires effort. It wouldn't be that much more effort to just not show the retry screen to those users who don't want it, who would prefer to go directly to the load-saved-game screen, which already exists, and to thereby satisfy a larger portion of the user base. Because you personally don't see any down-sides to retry and you personally find manual saves frustrating, you oppose choice for your fellow gamers who don't? Okay. Whatever...

[Lambonius]

Being able to die and come back instantly is a solid way of identifying goals and promoting exploration.

I use my brain to do those things. I don't want them handed to me.

[Datadog]

That's the thing - anybody clever enough to use the save/restore method properly, probably doesn't need it the way games are made these days. Instead of dying at random, danger is now a lot more obvious. "Retry" is more like the F3 key where it saves you the trouble of re-typing your last command.

But if one really wants the choice between retrying and restoring, there's a more classical solution that doesn't involve toggling a button's function and won't confuse new players. Just make the death screen pop up with three buttons: Retry, Restore, and Quit. That's how "Space Quest 6" handled it.

[MusicallyInspired]

So your idea for people who hate retry is to just not hit the retry button? You guys keep rambling on about how the save/restore function was indicative of bad game design as if it was irrefutable fact, but it's not. It's not the universal opinion. Why does our opinion not matter?

I think people seem to forget how frustrating "save early, save often" really was. I admit, I do feel some nostalgia for the save/restore style, but those rose-colored glasses only seem to apply to games I've played as a kid, when repetition really didn't mean anything to me.

If you really believe that then your perfect game wouldn't have any deaths at all. None of this changes the fact that it removes the challenge from the game. Period. The added function of "retry" completely changes the dynamic of the game. There's no consequence for anything you do anymore which was the whole point of deaths in the first place. Why have deaths if they're not a consequence? Just remove them. Of course, then it wouldn't be King's Quest. Either way it's a shallow and empty experience.

This is why I think King's Quest should have just stayed dead.

"Retry" doesn't really change the game's difficulty, it just removes the frustration factor (much like the invention of the "skip" button for cut-scenes.)

Yes it does change the game's difficulty. It completely nullifies any consequence for failure. ANY consequence. Where's the difficulty if there is no consequence? The puzzles? We all know Telltale's puzzles are dirt easy. And it's nothing like the skip button for cutscenes, unless the game is nothing but cutscenes (...I keep thinking back to BTTF).

Sigh...it might as well be accepted that Telltale are eventually going to just go their own tried and true method. They'll probably just implement easy puzzles and retry deaths. Which is a no buy for me.

[thom-22]

Sigh...it might as well be accepted that Telltale are eventually going to just go their own tried and true method. They'll probably just implement easy puzzles and retry deaths.

And limited exploration and plastic-y graphics and more time spent on cinematics and "emotional investment" in characters than gameplay ...

NO! Stop! Let's not go there yet! Hold on to that faint glimmer of hope that they'll do the franchise justice. There is that faint glimmer, isn't there? Please?

[chucklas]

I think they will at least provide the option to turn off auto save and retry as do I think deaths will remain. It would be a HUGE mistake to mess that much up. If they do as little and look at the amount of traffic on this board, they will see that there is significant more buzz for this project than any of the others that they announced with it. They know they have a predeveloped fanbase that that they risk alienating by screwing it up. From a marketing viewpoint, they don't want to lose what they didn't have to work to get. It is a easy solution to let people opt out of the telltale way. I am hopeful that they will at least do that. If not, then I agree with MI that it would have been better for KQ to remain dead.

[MusicallyInspired]

Acutally, unlike other franchises like Monkey Island, King's Quest never really died. After MOE hit there was a couple years of silence, but then the KQ9 project got started (now released) and Tierra's first KQ remake was released in 2001 or something like that with 3 more that followed afterwards over the years. And out of all those fangames that have been released they've all shared a non-retry death mechanic (TSL didn't have retry did it? I can't recall). This is what KQ has been for the last 10 years with every new fangame release. It's not like it has to be resuscitated and reorganized to make a new generation happy. The fans exist now and there are a LOT of them. Don't break what the fans have been used to and providing for themselves and been happy with for the past 10 years.

[wilco64256]

Acutally, unlike other franchises like Monkey Island, King's Quest never really died. After MOE hit there was a couple years of silence, but then the KQ9 project got started (now released) and Tierra's first KQ remake was released in 2001 or something like that with 3 more that followed afterwards over the years. And out of all those fangames that have been released they've all shared a non-retry death mechanic (TSL didn't have retry did it? I can't recall). This is what KQ has been for the last 10 years with every new fangame release. It's not like it has to be resuscitated and reorganized to make a new generation happy. The fans exist now and there are a LOT of them. Don't break what the fans have been used to and providing for themselves and been happy with for the past 10 years.

Yeah we have both a manual save/load system and autosaves with a retry option for deaths. We've taken some feedback both positive and negative on how that's been received by people and will do our best to implement a system that people will be happy with in future projects.

[Lambonius]

Yeah we have both a manual save/load system and autosaves with a retry option for deaths. We've taken some feedback both positive and negative on how that's been received by people and will do our best to implement a system that people will be happy with in future projects.


Lol...the way it was explained at one point on the TSL boards was that the entire team was against retries but that Cesar exercised his personal veto and insisted they be put in. Or perhaps I am imagining things...

;)

[Cez]

I don't have an ultimate veto power. It was more of a heated up conversation and me exposing the reasons why it should be implemented and finally convincing the rest of the directors that it was the way to go.

After analyzing it a lot, to me, having to constantly save in fear of trying things becomes a distraction to the immersion of the game. I don't consider having to access an interface to enter some random name on a save file part of the gameplay, and it's something that interrupts the experience --especially when you become self conscious about it. I recently replayed Kyrandia and it was a pain to have to do it.

There's a counter argument to this in which people say that if you add instant retries, then you remove the element of danger of the game. There is truth to this, but the problem with King's Quest is that deaths can be totally random. I'm of the mentality that repeating a bunch of things that you already did is not fun --essentially because if it happens, you start to skip through everything quickly so that you can go back to the point where you were because normally adventure games do not offer the different replay experience that other genres do (such as using a different attack strategy or a different magic spell to say something) --I personally do not enjoy this in this type of game, and I'm sure there are many others that don't either. To me, it's an "old-school" thing that I was so happy to see changed when they started to do so.

Now, if they add both options of retry and restore, whoever wants to play by the old rules can do that --which is the way TSL is set up. If you don't like it easy, simply omit the fact that there is a retry button. If you use it, it means you actually prefer the option.

[QuestForGloryFan]

This is the first time I've fully agreed with everything Cez has written. Good job. Save early save often was such a weird thing that everyone just accepted. Anytime you thought there was danger you would save but sometimes you would die randomly so you'd save when you enter every single room, then your saves would overwrite the earliest ones because hey, who would ever go back there. Then you found out you used the boot at the wrong time and now you have no pie for the yeti. Even though you've saved early and often you're totally boned when it comes to yeti pie.

Obviously this was mostly restricted to King's Quest V but unless the danger is immediately obvious, cliffs of logic, ogres on screen, or an archer with a bow poised at you from the top of a gate it's really counter intuitive to be saving all the time. Monkey Island did have a couple of spoof deaths in the series and they implemented the retry option or the story just keeps on chugging. Sure these are jokes at Sierra's expense but they're well deserved.

Saving does work for Quest For Glory though(because I see where you would argue this), even if you didn't die in an action sequence it's totally conceivable to die when you're riddled with arrows on a frontal assault on a brigand camp or get killed by the seduction of the Resulka. These are acceptable deaths that happen outside of combat because the game is constantly threatening you, however in what I can only think of as one exception in QFG1 you can use the same file the entire game for saving and not be screwed. I'd be against autosaving for the same reason I would in any other RPG.

[MusicallyInspired]

Despite all of this, retries negate the effect of a death in a game. If that's the way adventures MUST go then remove deaths altogether because there's no point for them. But then there goes half the experience. I couldn't disagree more.

I think I'm done with this debate. What's been said has been said a hundred times on both fronts and neither ends are closer to being persuaded or even understood. I'll just lament the end of adventure games due to the overruling of simple puzzle games.

[snabbott]

I don't personally see a need to turn off the Retry option, but if it makes hardcore fans happy, then I'm all for it. To me, the deaths were always for fun, not for dead-ness.

[Cez]

I think I'm done with this debate. What's been said has been said a hundred times on both fronts and neither ends are closer to being persuaded or even understood. I'll just lament the end of adventure games due to the overruling of simple puzzle games.

Actually, I did say I understand the element of removal of danger. I just don't necessarily agree, personally, but, because I understand it, I said it's fine to have the "retry, restore, quit" option. Then anyone can decide how they want to play it.

I do not see, however, how forcing you to remember to save changes the difficulty of a game. That should come from the game itself, the puzzles, the experience, and again, I fail to see how having to go to a save menu needs to be part of that experience altogether (except for the fact that it was a common thing to have to do in the past).

For example and *spoilers* ahead on King's Quest VI: You go to the isle of Wonder and save. You go get the lettuce, and figure out it will help you in the isle of Beast. You go to the Isle of Beast, try it on the pond, yes, it works! Cross the pond, get killed by an arrow. Now you restore the game. Your experience to get back to where you were is EXACTLY the same. The difficulty of the pond/lettuce puzzle did not change at all, you just have to repeat something you already figured out. Now, if because of dying now the lettuce isn't where it used to be, or now the pond is red and you have to use something different instead --that would have changed the difficulty because now you have to rethink the puzzle you just solved, not just repeat the motions that you just did. As it is, Adventure Games hardly do something like that, and dying is more of an annoyance than a challenge.

for me, like Snabott said, I enjoy the deaths because they are fun, never because they pushed me back 40 mins in gameplay because I forgot to save :) I can live with this in an RPG, or an action game --like I said, I can try different things as I do it a second time, but not in an adventure game.

[Chyron8472]

I said it's fine to have the "retry, restore, quit" option. Then anyone can decide how they want to play it.

"Retry/Restore/Quit??"


It's Restore/Restart/Quit and Retry/Quit.


There should not be a Retry/Restore/Quit screen because if the option to retry is always right there in front of you, why the heck not use it?

There should be an option(s) in the settings (as well as perhaps at the start of a new game) to turn "Retry" on or off and/or to turn Autosave on or off.

Retry shouldn't just always be there on the death screen expecting hardcore fans not to use it.



http://i.imgur.com/qDgEy.png

http://i.imgur.com/XuibC.png

[Cez]

If a "hardcore" fan is so determined to want to play "old school" they will use the restore. If the same fan uses "retry" instead of "restore" that means that the fan is just talking crap and at the end such fan prefers the easy way out. That's the same thing as turning it on and off at the beginning of the game.

If your point of view holds, what's the point of the "restart" button, other than if you never saved the game at all. In a way, "Retry, Restore, Quit" and "Restore, Restart, Quit" are almost the same thing in terms of "if there's a save, why not use that instead", as opposed to, you get killed, it's the ultimate penalty, you have to start from the beginning. The decision is always made by the player at the end on how they wish to take the challenge.

In a way, the "restore" is a cheat implemented by designers so that you could just save your game and not have you start from the beginning all over again every time. In the same way, the retry allows you to not have to replay small sections of the game again. Games became longer, and one could argue that saving became a necessity, but in the days of King's Quest I, you could certainly finish that game in one sitting without needing to save. The point I'm trying to make is that "save" itself is a cheat already, so what's the problem of taking it to the next level? In the Nintendo days, there was almost no saving function. You had to finish games like Mario and Mario 2 in one sitting and with limited lives --now THAT'S hardcore. I don't hear complaints about being able to save in Super Mario Galaxy, however. Again, you can argue length of a game as a defining factor, and you can say that games like Mario only allow you to save every time you clear a level, but then again, I can enjoy playing and replaying a mario level. It's always a different experience.

[wilco64256]

*is glad Zelda let you save your game*

[Lambonius]

The point I'm trying to make is that "save" itself is a cheat already, so what's the problem of taking it to the next level?

I get what you're saying, and in some ways I agree with it, but isn't this the logic that led to "adventure game" travesties like BttF? Interactive movies that have no "game" value at all? The logic is basically, "IF such and such is good, then such and such times ten will be even better!!"

Basically, following your logic, if people like cinematic elements in adventure games, then why not just go all the way and make the games so movie-like that basically the player isn't playing anything anymore? We've all seen how well THAT worked out.

You're basically saying that if something is good in moderation, then it will also be good in excess, which most certainly is not always the case. :)

[Cez]

It's more of a case by case scenario, and really looking at what is it that made it good or bad. Certainly, the cutscene experience enhances the game, but you are right that there is a question of what is too far. I wouldn't mind a cinematic experience as long as the gameplay is still there. And then, as some games have already shown, sometimes they put you in control of the cinematic experience, which is taking this a step further --for example, by controlling them through quick time events to say something.

But with this particular case, it's a flawed design choice for reasons already stated. It's something that doesn't work as good as it could work. "Retry" is a way to deal with it, but as I pointed out, there are other ways to deal with it --change the puzzles and give me something different as a penalty for dying, for example. My bottom line is that repeating actions in an adventure game just because you didn't save and you like to explore everything, most likely resulting in a death, is just not fun because there's no added challenge to doing so (and there's even less fun in becoming self-conscious of saving every 5 mins)

Or, maybe the solution is to present you with the option of the death, but then give you an element that you look around for retries (almost like somehow finding extra "lives" within the game and hide these in an extra challenge way so that you can prevent these situations by means of being prepared), or put you in a dangerous situation in which you triggered a death sequence, but you can still save the day by going into a QTE sequence, or something.

Again, it's just a question of making it better in a way and less unfair/random/absolute. Making something that was there and was a cool element of previous games something much better (as opposed to making it crappier like the all cutscenes experience you mentioned).

[ATMachine]

I personally like the system from SQ6--where you had the "Restore" and "Try Again" buttons on the same death message screen.

In conjunction with that, why not have some sort of penalty for using retries? What if you lost points for using the retry button, so that you had to never use it at all in order to get a perfect score? (Assuming Telltale includes a point score, that is.) I think some sort of gameplay penalty, where you get a less than optimal final result, is an adequate compensation for the use of retries.

[Cez]

Yep, I was going to mention losing points for retrying as another option, too. There are many ways to modernize this and make it better than it used to be.

[Chyron8472]

Let me just say that I consider myself to be a hardcore adventure game fan, and if Telltale doesn't allow me to disable the option to Retry (ie. restore to a safe point immediately before death) I will be annoyed.

Now, granted I will also not say that KQ7 was a bad game. Sure, it has its issues for me personally (ie. a chapter select screen at New Game; single-action cursor; Retry upon death,) but they are not enough to qualify the game as worse than KQ5 (which doesn't have a Retry option) though I believe KQ7 would be all the better for fixing these things.

Still, I would certainly prefer and greatly appreciate the option to disable Retry and, separately, Autosave in Telltale's KQ.

[Lambonius]

I will happily say that KQ7 is a giant, chunky, turd of a game. Worst KQ game BY FAR. haha

[MusicallyInspired]

I'd rather not be allowed to just pretend my mistake didn't happen.

[Cez]

Let me just say that I consider myself to be a hardcore adventure game fan, and if Telltale doesn't allow me to disable the option to Retry (ie. restore to a safe point immediately before death) I will be annoyed.


So... if you are presented with the option to retry and restore all at the same time, you'd choose retry over restore and then be annoyed at Telltale for tempting you to do that? In that case you should be annoyed at yourself for falling for it, instead of keeping to your principle of using restore instead, no? :) If you were to use it, it means you are happy with it. I wouldn't do something that annoys me over something that pleases me. Would you?

That analogy sounds a bit like using a walkthrough and then being annoyed at the person who made the walkthrough for making it. :) But I guess to each their own --I just find it funny.

[Chyron8472]

No, it's like playing Back to the Future and having goal tasks pop up all the time that I can't ignore. I wish to God that they could be turned off but they can't. Don't tell me "just don't read them" because that's really a foolish thing to suggest. Using a walkthrough is entirely different because it doesn't automatically come packaged with the game and the game won't ever prompt you to look at it.

Yes, I would be bothered by the temptation. I don't want to feel like I'm continuously purposefully making the game harder for myself. What I want is to tell the game once that I don't want Retries, and have the game stop dangling it in front of me like "are you SURE you don't want to?"

Really Cez, come on now.


EDIT: Okay, I'll run with your mention of walkthroughs, since I thought of a store-bought strategy guide that really rubs me the wrong way. The Final Fantasy IX Official Strategy Guide by BradyGames has places all over it in the margins that refer to PlayOnline.com with various codes which must be input on said website to read further game hints and information. What I want is a standalone guide with all the pertinent info included in print. Sadly, no such guide exists in paper form for FF9, but I digress. You might say "just don't visit the site if you don't want to" but the fact that the guide constantly bothers me about it is of great annoyance to me.

So the same goes for always having a Retry button bothering me in a KQ game when it is not wanted.

[Blackthorne519]

Man, I wish I had a retry button for the first time I had sex. But no.... I had to restore.....


Bt

[Lambonius]

Man, I wish I had a retry button for the first time I had sex. But no.... I had to restore.....


Bt

I tried restarting, but ended up just having to quit.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm trying to think up a witty statement for Error 52 (or whichever it was) from QFG4....but I fail greatly at wit most of the time.

[chucklas]

I tried restarting, but ended up just having to quit.

What went wrong Lamb, you get a dead end? :D

[Lambonius]

What went wrong Lamb, you get a dead end? :D

Out of heap. Lol

[ScreamingFalcon]

EDIT: Okay, I'll run with your mention of walkthroughs, since I thought of a store-bought strategy guide that really rubs me the wrong way. The Final Fantasy IX Official Strategy Guide by BradyGames has places all over it in the margins that refer to PlayOnline.com with various codes which must be input on said website to read further game hints and information. What I want is a standalone guide with all the pertinent info included in print. Sadly, no such guide exists in paper form for FF9, but I digress. You might say "just don't visit the site if you don't want to" but the fact that the guide constantly bothers me about it is of great annoyance to me.

So the same goes for always having a Retry button bothering me in a KQ game when it is not wanted.

Yeah, I hated that guide too. Even LONG after PlayOnline yanked down the FFIX online guide, BradyGames was STILL printing new copies of that annoying guide with all the margin crap in there! AGHHHHHH!!!

[ScreamingFalcon]

Out of heap. Lol

Bad RAM?

[Lambonius]

Bad RAM?

Haha...yeah, my RAM was just not up to par!

[caeska]

Did this tread derail already by the way?

Back to King's Quest though, I'd be happy with a retry/restore option when you die and I have no problem with them modernizing the system a bit. But the most important thing to me is that there actually is the possibility of death. It's been an important part in all of Sierra's adventure games, it makes the player feel that he's constantly in danger and can't just run around willy-nilly without consequences.

My favorite game is KQ5, it has excellent puzzles, it's challenging and it's serious yet funny. Every time I play it I always save the game and get Graham killed by going to a deadly scorpion, jumping off the cliff, getting caught in the castle etc. The narrator adds so much to that game, and his comments every time you die are so funny :)

So yes, the possibility of death absolutely has to be in TTG's version of KQ too. If there isn't, well then I will be utterly disappointed.

[NSM]

Yes, I would be bothered by the temptation. I don't want to feel like I'm continuously purposefully making the game harder for myself.

So the onus is on the developers to make the game arbitrarily difficult?

This debate just seems really weird, because it's almost as though the proponents know deep down that repeating sections of the game as punishment is no fun and kinda stupid, but choose to do it anyway out of tradition.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yahtzee agrees with me. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2948-Kirbys-Epic-Yarn 2:43

[Chyron8472]

it's almost as though the proponents choose to anyway [B]out of tradition.

Yes. This.

It's part of the established gameplay of the franchise. KQ7 moved to retries and ticked a lot of people off for it.

King's Quest has a very loyal fan following with strong feelings of nostalgia about the franchise, and if Telltale doesn't want to alienate a significant portion of the target market for this game, then they need to stick to tradition in this case.

[ScreamingFalcon]

Yes. This.

It's part of the established gameplay of the franchise. KQ7 moved to retries and ticked a lot of people off for it.

King's Quest has a very loyal fan following with strong feelings of nostalgia about the franchise, and if Telltale doesn't want to alienate a significant portion of the target market for this game, then they need to stick to tradition in this case.

It torked off so many long time fans that they brought back manual saves and restores in later pressings.

[caeska]

Hopefully we can get a fast save and load-system in this game, hopefully a quick-save and quick-load function.
None of that crap we've had up until now where it takes 18 hours to save your game.

[ScreamingFalcon]

Never took me 18 hours. With Sierra games, even once the mouse was introduced, they allowed you to press F5 to save and F7 to reload. Odd coinkydink (or not), Interplay used that setup as the quicksave/quickload combo for Fallout and Fallout 2.

[caeska]

Sierra games always had a quick way to save and load, I'm talking about the Telltale games, ScreamingFalcon.
Like TOMI, Sam and Max, BTTF etc, where it requires 450 mouse clicks every time you want to save your game.

[NSM]

Yes. This.

It's part of the established gameplay of the franchise. KQ7 moved to retries and ticked a lot of people off for it.

King's Quest has a very loyal fan following with strong feelings of nostalgia about the franchise, and if Telltale doesn't want to alienate a significant portion of the target market for this game, then they need to stick to tradition in this case.

It's a bit like getting mad at Microsoft because they introduced an autosave feature to Excel. "I remember the days when the best part of creating a spreadsheet was the thrill of losing it when the power went out!" It just seems very strange to me.

I do agree that many of the complaints are nostalgia-driven, it's the only way that calls for 2D graphics or (of all things) a text-parser can be reasonably considered when talking about a game being released in 2011. I just don't think the loyal fanbase is as large as you think it is.

It kinda ties into this false dichotomy of old school gamers and casual gamers. Things like save/restore/quit died out because technology and gaming evolved, not as a personal affront to hardcore gamers. The shift in expectations was at least implicitly acknowledged by Sierra itself when it introduced retry in KQ7. Adventure games have probably, of all genres, been most resistant to change. It's hardly surprising you don't see all that many of them anymore.

[caeska]

It's a bit like getting mad at Microsoft because they introduced an autosave feature to Excel. "I remember the days when the best part of creating a spreadsheet was the thrill of losing it when the power went out!" It just seems very strange to me.


I don't see how that's a valid comparison, it's apples and oranges. This is about making the game somewhat challenging and adding a danger element to the game world.
In King's Quest death can lurk behind every corner, it's the way it has always been and it's a tradition that should not ever be broken.
You have to save often or you can expect to get screwed.

[doggans]

Despite all of this, retries negate the effect of a death in a game. If that's the way adventures MUST go then remove deaths altogether because there's no point for them.

So I'm curious, does that mean that the deaths in Portal are pointless?

[MusicallyInspired]

No. The game doesn't give you a retry in Portal. It autosaves at the beginning of each test area. If you don't save manually immediately before a death you have to do a bunch of things over again. I'm ok with area-based autosaves. Not death autosaves.

[Chyron8472]

Agreed.

[ScreamingFalcon]

Example of a non-cheap death in KQ: from the files of KQVI, you are warned multiple times of the strong undertow in the waters around the Land of the Green Isles. However, if you are stupid enough to try to ignore this good advice, you WILL drown and be visiting the underworld.

The deaths in KQ's later games were not random and most deaths in KQ at all came from ignoring plain old common sense (example: swimming too long or too far from shore in KQI-IV) or from ignoring the best advice you can get in an adventure game, "if it isn't nailed down, pick it up" (for the unfamiliar, KQV and KQVI have great examples of dead-ends that punish the unprepared, although KQVI would give you a chance to get your supplies before embarking on the challenge). I can think of only a few random kills and those are mostly from KQI and KQII (ok, a tiny bit in KQVII, but you could make those end for good eventually). However, in those you could get temporary protection from a faerie of some sort so you would not die.

So, there you have it, Sierra's in-game deaths were there not to be walls in the way of progress, but to teach you to use your head and think about it, THEN act.

[joek86]

I don't see a valid argument when someone says a retry option would make the game lose its "authenticity" as Sierra implemented the retry into its adventure games in later years. Anyone who followed Sierra at the time knew why too, because most people HATED the old save system that they hung on to for so long. The games evolved, the only reason to have the old save system would be for nostalgia and if that what you want, you might as well play the old games.

[Mr. Freeze]

It doesn't have to do with evolving, it has to do with the shift from adventure gaming to puzzle gaming. If the only option is to retry (or quit), then there's really no point in dying in the first place.

And for everyone complaining about how the retry option is there to tempt you, I bring you back to the post I made on the first page. >_>

The way I feel about that is - if they're going to stick the retry option in, it's not my fault for wanting to click it when it pops up. First, the fact that it's even there annoys me because I know that other people will use it and that detracts from the true value of the game; there's a sense of danger - but only if YOU feel compelled to go the extra mile and play it the hard way. All that really creates is annoyance, not suspenseful gameplay. We shouldn't have to discipline ourselves to feel like we're playing something that we're not. The game developers should go all-in in one direction or the other; not wishy-washy. If you're going to call it an adventure game, then there should be a sense of danger. If there's a retry option, there's no sense of danger. It's as simple as that. If Telltale is going to go the puzzle game route, then ok. I'll be a little bit disappointed, but I guess the modern generation of gamers prefer to be spoon-fed in their games (I still like my idea of just having an unskippable warning when you start a game that says there's a lot of ways to die and that you should save frequently... just have a hotkey to open the save window and multiple save slots readily available so it isn't a hassle).

The other reason I don't like having the retry option there to tempt you is that if I now know that the death is there... why would I waste my time having to travel back to it?

"Ah ha!" you say. "So the retry option is the better way to go!"

Well, if playing a puzzle game disguised as an adventure game is what does it for you, then I suppose so. But I definitely feel that sacrificing a little walking time (because if there's no retry option, you'll be saving frequently anyways) to experience the true nature of an adventure game is well worth it.

Edit: Oh, and for the "Well, random deaths annoy me more than the retry button!" comeback: A lot of the deaths in the latter King's Quest games (minus the dead ends or having to guess in mazes, of course), especially KQ6, could reasonably fall on the player's blame. Are there going to be surprise deaths to some degree? Yes, but that's where frequently saving comes in handy. And seriously, did you really think that walking into that bear wouldn't kill you? Did you really think that that lady with the sparkling eye surely couldn't be the genie again?? C'mon now... >_>

[caeska]

The way I feel about that is - if they're going to stick the retry option in, it's not my fault for wanting to click it when it pops up. First, the fact that it's even there annoys me because I know that other people will use it and that detracts from the true value of the game; there's a sense of danger - but only if YOU feel compelled to go the extra mile and play it the hard way. All that really creates is annoyance, not suspenseful gameplay. We shouldn't have to discipline ourselves to feel like we're playing something that we're not. The game developers should go all-in in one direction or the other; not wishy-washy.

This. Well-said, TTG needs to uphold the Sierra tradition. I don't get all the so-called gamers who want easy puzzle-games and are afraid to get their hands dirty. You can tell most of those didn't play games back in the 80s.
"Save often, and with different save-games"; what ever happened to that advice?
King's Quest has been and will always be a "Hero's Journey" type of game. There is a very tangible danger-element and if all the game is going to be is puzzles and there is no way the character can die, well...that's unacceptable.

Yeah, no retry option. It would just do more harm than good I think.

[MusicallyInspired]

Wow, you're right. And that's why Telltale is going to implement Retries on all their "deaths." Telltale doesn't make adventures games. They make puzzle games. It was sitting in front of us the entire time. We've been criticizing their games from an adventure standpoint. But from a simple puzzle game standpoint they're doing pretty darn good. I don't think I want to consider myself a Telltale fan anymore after realizing this...I mean, I was on the fence already, but this....changes everything.

[Lambonius]

Telltale doesn't make adventures games. They make puzzle games.

And now with BttF, they have officially stopped doing even that.

[Armakuni]

Aiming to become a very low budget Pixar, maybe? :p

Hehe nah that's too mean.

[Pseudonym]

I don't really mind deaths one way or the other. It's nice to feel immune to them (LucasArts style), but it's also kind of fun to know that at any moment you might push on a rock the wrong way and die.

So long as I know what style of game I'm playing, I can have fun with either.

What I hate, though, are dead ends. Someone referred to them earlier. The "oh, you shouldn't have spent so much time exploring because now your window of opportunity to pick up Weird Ed's package is gone" kind of thing. They're total deal breakers. So long as there's no dead ends, I don't mind dying a thousand times over or not at all.

[NSM]

... just have a hotkey to open the save window and multiple save slots readily available so it isn't a hassle).


But if it's not a hassle then where's the fun in it?

[DAISHI]

I don't really mind deaths one way or the other. It's nice to feel immune to them (LucasArts style), but it's also kind of fun to know that at any moment you might push on a rock the wrong way and die.

So long as I know what style of game I'm playing, I can have fun with either.

What I hate, though, are dead ends. Someone referred to them earlier. The "oh, you shouldn't have spent so much time exploring because now your window of opportunity to pick up Weird Ed's package is gone" kind of thing. They're total deal breakers. So long as there's no dead ends, I don't mind dying a thousand times over or not at all.

From TV Tropes, on Hitchiker's game:

"The Infocom text adventure based on The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy contained some deliberate, devilish cases of obscure things that needed to be done within a certain time frame. For instance, at the end of the game, Marvin will ask you for a specific tool to repair the ship with. The tool required is arbitrarily selected from a pool of ten; if you don't have one of those ten items, then the game will choose that one. So, if you left the toothbrush in your bedroom at the beginning of the game, then you'll be forced to start over completely. "

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnwinnableByDesign

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Infocom or not, Douglas Adams or not, the above makes me glad I never tried the Hitchhiker's game. In fact, I generally like everything about Infocom games other than the designs, which often included things like this. This hearkens back to an age when the word "frustrating" was often meant as a positive in game reviews. Honestly, many reviews in 80s magazines pointed out that a game was so addictive because it was so frustrating.

[NSM]

I don't see how that's a valid comparison, it's apples and oranges. This is about making the game somewhat challenging and adding a danger element to the game world.
In King's Quest death can lurk behind every corner, it's the way it has always been and it's a tradition that should not ever be broken.
You have to save often or you can expect to get screwed.

You're only arguing that it's a tradition that should never be broken out of nostalgia. Now, I'm not overtly opposed to nostalgia driven gaming, but there's no future in it. The Princeless Bride was released 17 years ago and even then the save-system had become antiquated.

Further, the game should be challenging in and of itself. Dead-ends and unfair deaths (which go hand in hand with "save early, save often") are just gimmicks to pad the length of the game by forcing the uninitiated to backtrack.


Telltale doesn't make adventures games. They make puzzle games. It was sitting in front of us the entire time. We've been criticizing their games from an adventure standpoint.


Don't you see that as a sort of arrogant viewpoint? In a single statement it erases the Monkey Island series, DOTT, Sam and Max, Grim Fandango, Myst and a number of other games from the adventure game genre despite supposedly defining it.

[MusicallyInspired]

I never meant that games without deaths are puzzle games as opposed to adventure games. I consider puzzle games just immensely easy versions of adventure games with no consequences for any actions with all the answers staring you in the face without having to force a complete thought at all. (BTTF)

[DAISHI]

Professor Layton is a puzzle game but the consequence is if you don't solve the puzzle, you don't progress.

[coolguy721]

I never meant that games without deaths are puzzle games as opposed to adventure games. I consider puzzle games just immensely easy versions of adventure games with no consequences for any actions with all the answers staring you in the face without having to force a complete thought at all. (BTTF)

early lucas arts games had game deaths but not unwinnable parts. These are ideal adventure games

[NSM]

I never meant that games without deaths are puzzle games as opposed to adventure games. I consider puzzle games just immensely easy versions of adventure games with no consequences for any actions with all the answers staring you in the face without having to force a complete thought at all. (BTTF)

Alright, just keep in mind that the person you quoted said the below:


If you're going to call it an adventure game, then there should be a sense of danger.


A point which can only be made by redefining what adventure games are.


early lucas arts games had game deaths but not unwinnable parts. These are ideal adventure games


I think it depends largely on the tone you're going for. I've never really liked in-game deaths in adventure games, but thought they worked really well in Yahtzee's Chzo mythos. At the same time, in-game deaths would hurt the atmosphere of a game like DOTT (although I guess that's straying off-topic a bit).

I don't play as many games as I used to, but I played Portal 2 last weekend. Portal 2 has autosave and quicksave and eventually the quicksave became kinda reflexive for me. It didn't add or detract anything because it was just another mechanism in the game. The only time saving would become an issue would be if you needed multiple save files, but I imagine this would only be necessary if the game has dead-ends (which I'm quite firmly opposed to).

[thom-22]

You're only arguing that it's a tradition that should never be broken out of nostalgia.

How does one decide what is a sine qua non of a venerable franchise, and what's just "nostalgia"? If someone proposed to make another Godfather movie but without the organized crime, would you accuse critics of only wanting the organized crime for the sake of nostalgia? I don't think so. To me, others here and many fans, the constant peril faced by the characters in KQ is an essential aspect of the series; omitting danger, death and consequences from a revival would seriously debase the franchise.

Now, I'm not overtly opposed to nostalgia driven gaming, but there's no future in it. The Princeless Bride was released 17 years ago and even then the save-system had become antiquated.

Further, the game should be challenging in and of itself. Dead-ends and unfair deaths (which go hand in hand with "save early, save often") are just gimmicks to pad the length of the game by forcing the uninitiated to backtrack.

Really, I think you're committing the same "sin" you're accusing others of, only in reverse. That is, I'd call it "reverse nostalgia" to describe the Sierra style as "gimmicks". While it has fallen out of favor over the years, it was a legitimate style of gameplay in its day, one that many people enjoyed. You mentioned KQ7, that Sierra itself changed the game-over screen in that installment. I would put it this way: Sierra didn't make changes until KQ7. How the hell do you think they even got to number seven if they were doing it so wrong? ;)

It's one thing to not like dying in adventure games (and I very much agree with you that deaths are not a requirement to make for a good adventure game). But it's quite another to conflate that bias into a claim that meaningful death in an adventure game makes it retro. I accept and even welcome modernization of KQ: I don't expect to see dead ends, 2D graphics, single-screen scenes or dialog portraits in Telltale's game. But it would not be right for them to gut it of the very things that make KQ what it is.

If you don't want death in your adventure games, it's not like you don't have choices -- Telltale has made, what now?, seven series under the no-dying philosophy. But that philosophy does not define the entirety of adventure gaming and KQ should not be mangled just because so many people have come to believe that that philosophy is the only correct one.

[NSM]

How does one decide what is a sine qua non of a venerable franchise, and what's just "nostalgia"? If someone proposed to make another Godfather movie but without the organized crime, would you accuse critics of only wanting the organized crime for the sake of nostalgia?


If manual saving in KQ is analogous to their being organised crime in the Godfather then it was a shallow series indeed (I don't believe that to be the case, though).


It's one thing to not like dying in adventure games (and I very much agree with you that deaths are not a requirement to make for a good adventure game). But it's quite another to conflate that bias into a claim that meaningful death in an adventure game makes it retro. I accept and even welcome modernization of KQ: I don't expect to see dead ends, 2D graphics, single-screen scenes or dialog portraits in Telltale's game. But it would not be right for them to gut it of the very things that make KQ what it is.


This, to me, is the most interesting thing that you've said. There are two overarching points, the first being the differentiation between death and meaninful death. The second is the willingness to modernise certain aspects of the game.

When you say "meaningful death," I'm guessing you're differentiating it from death without consequence. However, once you remove dead-ends (to modernise it), you essentially remove any possibility of consequence (as defined by others in this thread) in the game. I replied (somewhat sarcastically) to this earlier comment:


just have a hotkey to open the save window and multiple save slots readily available so it isn't a hassle).


If you're going to have a hotkey to open a save window, you might as well have a quicksave key. If you have a quicksave key, the entire act of saving is completely reflexive. "Ok, new screen -I haven't been killed - time to save." "Ok, puzzle done, time to save." It's easy to become like that in modern first person shooters. The only reason you'd need a save window would be if you wanted multiple saves, but why would you need multiple saves if there are no dead-ends which force you to traipse through the game a second time?

I completely understand that saving is good practice but, for me, there is this fundamental disconnect between "it's important to save" and "saving the game is a pivotal part of what makes the game great." I mean, are there really any consequences of death for an experienced King's Quest player?


If you don't want death in your adventure games

I just want to clarify that this is not my position. I'm totally fine with death in adventure games, though it's not my preference. This isn't about death, per se, but the way to handle those deaths in the game.

[Lambonius]

NSM, thom's post was about DEATHS being an integral part of King's Quest, not necessarily manual saving, though I suppose the two are related. I think you're misinterpreting him a bit here.

Also, I think it's inaccurate to equate dead-ends with deaths-that-have-consequences on gameplay. You can remove dead-ends while still retaining the ability to die based on human error or even unexpected surprises.

For the record, I agree with aspects of both of your points, for what it's worth. I think the real question to ask is "how frequently should the game auto-save for you?" After every puzzle is too frequent for most traditional adventure game players--and Telltale's games are typically heavily story-driven, so how about at certain plot-specific points? Then manual saving would still be required to bookmark your progress between those plot-specific autosave points, but at least the game wouldn't be holding your hand by saving at every screen change or after ever puzzle solved.

[thom-22]

I completely understand that saving is good practice but, for me, there is this fundamental disconnect between "it's important to save" and "saving the game is a pivotal part of what makes the game great." I mean, are there really any consequences of death for an experienced King's Quest player?

Having mechanisms available that allow individuals to minimize consequences at their own discretion, no matter how trivial employing those mechanisms might seem to be, is not the same thing as having the consequences removed altogether. You're welcome, of course, to reduce the issue to an equation of those two things for yourself, and even to assert that most people would see it your way. But some of us reject that equation, rendering invalid your ridiculous contention that our views can be summarized as "saving the game is a pivotal part of what makes the game great".

[Chyron8472]

We're talking about rebooting a classic franchise here. Keeping the original feel of the original franchise is important. With that in mind, we must examine the aspects that came together in making the franchise what it was. Having consequences for dying is an integral part of the gameplay in King's Quest. If Telltale was merely interested in making a game set in a fantasy world with certain ancient mythos and fairy tales mixed into the game world, they can do that without calling it King's Quest.

But they are calling it King's Quest. Therefore, holding true to the original feel is important. Keeping the loyal fanbase that has been waiting over 16 years for this is important. Making you backtrack because you were reckless and hadn't saved in half an hour or perhaps longer is the price you pay for doing so.

If you hated Sierra games because they made you take 5-7 seconds (at most) every once in a while to save, then I'm sorry but those are the breaks. You mention that KQ7 changed the Autosave formula, but as I recall it pissed alot of Sierra fans off, it didn't make them happy at all.

[Lambonius]

We're talking about rebooting a classic franchise here. Keeping the original feel of the original franchise is important. With that in mind, we must examine the aspects that came together in making the franchise what it was. Having consequences for dying is an integral part of the gameplay in King's Quest. If Telltale was merely interested in making a game set in a fantasy world with certain ancient mythos and fairy tales mixed into the game world, they can do that without calling it King's Quest.

But they are calling it King's Quest. Therefore, holding true to the original feel is important. Keeping the loyal fanbase that has been waiting over 16 years for this is important. Making you backtrack because you were reckless and hadn't saved in half an hour or perhaps longer is the price you pay for doing so.

If you hated Sierra games because they made you take 5-7 seconds (at most) every once in a while to save, then I'm sorry but those are the breaks. You mention that KQ7 changed the Autosave formula, but as I recall it pissed alot of Sierra fans off, it didn't make them happy at all.

Best post of the thread. :)

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

I love old Sierra games, but there is no way I want to be penalised for getting immersed in the story. Saving the game is nothing to do with the story. Just the opposite, having to do it manually breaks the immersion for most of us. I say "most of us" because I believe there are not many gamers out there who still want this gameplay mechanic in new games. There are a few very vocal defenders of (only) manual saving on this forum, but I very much doubt there are more of them among gamers at large than there are those who want the game to take care of this aspect.

The argument that having to save manually makes the deaths have consequences is not very persuasive in my view, because in that case the consequences are no more part of the story than they would be with the "Try Again" option enabled. I would say it is consequence enough to see the player character (and possibly others) die! And I agree with those who have said that it is silly for people to complain about the option to either have "Try Again" enabled or not. If they want to punish themselves, they are free not to utilise that option. Just don't ask everyone else (not to mention the game's sales) to suffer for you...

[Lambonius]

Just don't ask everyone else (not to mention the game's sales) to suffer for you...

Lol...hyperbole much? I would call this a bit of an overstatement, especially considering EVERY Telltale game so far has had manual save-game mechanics in place.

[Chyron8472]

Saving the game is nothing to do with the story. Just the opposite, having to do it manually breaks the immersion for most of us.

No it doesn't. Seriously, watch this part of a KQ6 Let's Play (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7uD1P6_INE&t=3m05s) and tell me how long it takes to save your game. Was the immersion broken for the guy playing? No. It took 4 seconds to save. Did he have to backtrack? No. He was careful. What if he hadn't saved before he did that? Well, I guess he'd say "oh crap" (or another expletive) and learn to be more careful next time. It still would have immersed him further into the gameplay by making him feel stupid for not having saved.

This isn't about being immersed in the story, it's about being immersed in the game. It's a game, not just a story. The save mechanic affects the gameplay, and the gameplay is important. Being held responsible for your own gameplay choices is important. If you walk into a dangerous situation without having saved in a long time and then get killed, kicking yourself for not having saved may break the story a small bit, but it immerses you in the gameplay by teaching you a lesson for being foolish. If you're going to quit playing a game and say it sucks because you hadn't saved in over an hour and have to retrace your steps (albeit taking 10 minutes the second time because now you know where everything is) then that sounds rather a childish way to react to what is clearly your own mistake.


If they want to punish themselves, they are free not to utilise that option. Just don't ask everyone else (not to mention the game's sales) to suffer for you...Really? I'd like to know how much the BTTF game's sales have suffered because that game is so intent on keeping you from breaking the story for any reason. A meaningful gameplay experience is equally as important as a meaningful story.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Chyron, that clip hardly proves my belief wrong. The length of time it takes to save a game is not the issue for me, it is having to do it at all when I would rather spend that time on something more meaningful than mechanical repetition. Even if it only took 4 seconds a time (and you know it takes longer in many newer games), a mere fifteen saves would already mean a minute of one's life irrevocably lost. I grew up saving early, saving often, but I do not want to grow old doing it.

You are describing your own experience when you say that habituating yourself to save regularly enhances your immersion in the game. (Or story. For me, it is primarily a story, an interactive one.) But it does not work that way for everyone. Personally I do not mind the constant saving with older games, since the choice there is either to accept it or not to experience these wonderful games at all, but my preference for new games is to let the game keep track of saving, for the same reason that I feel relieved to use the iPad to write down notes knowing that everything is always saved automatically.

Lambonius, you may have misinterpreted my statement if you thought it was an exaggeration. I was saying that everyone other than those who want only manual saving (no "Try Again") would be likely to find such a system archaic and off-putting. I may be wrong, but that is my feeling. The comparison with earlier Telltale games is not valid, as you could not die in most of them (at least the ones I have played).

Anyway, I have stated my opinions to my satisfaction, and I am not going to change my views any more than you are, Chyron and Lambonius. Clearly we have each formed our respective views based on extensive personal experience and consideration.

I reckon the results of the poll reflect the likely preference of the public at large. I think the solution suggested in the original post is very good.

Cheers and peace. :)

[Blackthorne519]

I always played the games over several days. I know a lot of you cave dwellers like to boot it up, and play it till you beat it, bleeding eyeballs be damned, but stopping to go to bed never "ruined" the immersion for me. Neither did taking four seconds to save.


Bt

[MusicallyInspired]

Geez, it's not that bad to have to save manually. And getting penalized for everything you do was a big Sierra tradition. I'd say if you don't like it don't play it. That's part of King's Quest. Of course, you'll probably get your way anyway and that's incredibly sad...

[chucklas]

You are describing your own experience when you say that habituating yourself to save regularly enhances your immersion in the game. (Or story. For me, it is primarily a story, an interactive one.)

This is the issue (at least for me). If you want an interactivce movie or story or whatever, go play BttF. That is the complaint many have had. It isn't an adventure game. As an interactive movie, it is quite good, but it was advertised as an adventure game, and by doing so, TellTale deceived many gamers who probably would not have purchased it if they had know what it really was.

Kings Quest IS an adventure game and if it is made into an interactive movie, that will really piss people off because it will go against what the game is and should remain. The "story immersion" argument works well for an interactive story as you put it, but not so much for kings quest.

[MusicallyInspired]

You have to understand that as much as LucasArts-type adventure fans would think that they're trying to stick their Sierra-fingers into Telltale's development, Sierra-type adventure fans feel the same vice versa. And that was all well and good for franchises like Monkey Island and Sam & Max because those WERE LucasArts type games. King's Quest, on the other hand, is our baby. Not just any baby, the flagship of what made Sierra-type adventures what they are. It's like a betrayal if anything but the original game design philosophy is used.

As much as you wouldn't probably enjoy King's Quest by Telltale as much as others if it followed this design philosophy, we didn't enjoy BTTF which employs your philosophy.

[chucklas]

And if you just want to be immersed in a story, go watch a movie. Games should be games, not stories/movies.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Please do not put words in my mouth, my fellow King's Quest lovers!

I will be buying Telltale's King's Quest, no matter what. The saving system is not a deal-breaker for me (but anyone who definitely will not buy the game if the wrong saving system is adopted, please raise your hand...), nor is it even in the top ten of elements I consider vital to the success of King's Quest.

I am as big a fan of Sierra as anyone else here. So King's Quest is also "my" baby, if a property can ever be said to be the audience's baby. I have been playing computer games since the mid-80s, adventure games since 1987. So my opinions are not due to my not being enough of a fan of Sierra. I say all this because there seems to be this assumption that any "true" fan of Sierra and King's Quest, anyone who has been dedicated to these games for long enough, will automatically be of the opinion that manual saving only is the way to go.

Well, guess what... I am a huge Sierra fan and I disagree with that. My opinion is based on as much experience as anyone else's around here. Once it was traditional to have games on floppies. It was traditional to wait for quite some time for a game to load. And it was traditional to have to pay for a hintbook rather than go online for free help. These changes have all been for the better, in my opinion, and the earlier circumstances were not an important aspect of the experience for me.

I am also open to more gameplay mechanics than some others appear to be, including interactive movies, automatic saving, and manual saving. Like I said, the saving system is not a huge deal for me, but that is because I am an experienced gamer. Thinking beyond just myself (though taking into consideration my preference for future games, rather than just what I have been used to), I think it would be a poor commercial decision for Telltale not to include some kind of automatic saving system in case they do include sudden deaths in the game (which I hope they do).

(One of the potential problems with manual saving only is that this would lead to some less experienced players using a single saved game and then getting stuck half-way through the game because they saved in a position from which it was impossible to recover. This would lead to some of them giving up in disgust, in turn leading to them not bothering to buy the next episode, in turn possibly leading to no more King's Quest. Even for those of you who dislike the idea of a "Try Again" button, is it really too high a price to pay to have more people onboard for the duration?)

The Beast Within is an adventure game for me, and an adventure game is just a variety of interactive story as far as I am concerned. What matters to me about interactive stories is the content, not the gameplay mechanics. Gameplay mechanics are only there as the interface between me and the story. Of course I wish the mechanics to be such that I get as much enjoyment out of the experience as possible, but that is it.

So there is no hard and fast rule for me that a King's Quest positively needs to use any of the gameplay mechanics from the past. To be perfectly clear: I am a long-time Sierra fan and I feel the artistic and story content is what made Sierra what it was. It was not the gameplay mechanics. It was Graham and Daventry, so to speak, not manual saving or sudden deaths (even though I like the latter, as I said). The gameplay mechanics (aside from such aesthetically important points as interaction density and optional interactivity), including the saving system, were incidental, in my opinion, a product of the times and subject to the technological and software limitations thereof.

I have no idea whether Back to the Future utilises the kind of saving system I meant or not because I have not played any of the series. But since I have indeed not played it or even mentioned it in this context, I feel it is not appropriate to associate my name with it the way you did, Brandon. It would be as inappropriate for me to say that Hopkins FBI "employs your philosophy". Do you see the problem? But probably it was just a bad choice of words.

The frequent Back to the Future comparisons are not terribly relevant, anyway. We know BttF was designed to appeal primarily to non-gamers, because the brand is a film series first and and foremost. We can also be pretty darn sure Telltale will be aiming King's Quest for a different demographic, because King's Quest was always a game series first and foremost.

P.S. chucklas, you seem to have not understood what is meant by immersion in a game. It involves interaction. I might as well tell you to go play baseball if you want a game and not a story. :rolleyes: And no, I am not going anywhere. Sheesh!

[MusicallyInspired]

Ok, you're a big Sierra fan. My bad. All I'm saying is there are just as large a community of people on both sides; those who want manual saving and those who don't. And the BTTF example still holds. When I said "your philosophy" I meant the lack of a manual saving system being ok.

I never thought that King's Quest was about story so much as gameplay, as opposed to LucasArts games. It was about the adventure. The journey. The puzzles. The danger. The story was just the starting point and the goal. Yes, even in KQ6. You found out stuff along the way and helped people in side stories but it wasn't all about story.

[puzzlebox]

You have to understand that as much as LucasArts-type adventure fans would think that they're trying to stick their Sierra-fingers into Telltale's development, Sierra-type adventure fans feel the same vice versa. And that was all well and good for franchises like Monkey Island and Sam & Max because those WERE LucasArts type games. King's Quest, on the other hand, is our baby. Not just any baby, the flagship of what made Sierra-type adventures what they are. It's like a betrayal if anything but the original game design philosophy is used.

As much as you wouldn't probably enjoy King's Quest by Telltale as much as others if it followed this design philosophy, we didn't enjoy BTTF which employs your philosophy.

I don't think it's quite so simple as "us and them". And I think it's rather unfair to say BTTF employs a LucasArts design philosophy. I sure never played an oldschool LucasArts game like that. There is simply no comparison between games like The Secret of Monkey Island and BTTF.

If I'd had to choose back in the day between Sierra and LucasArts, I would've gone with Sierra. I certainly considered myself a Sierra fan. I played plenty of manual-save-only, die-and-you're-dead Sierra games. And maybe I was a little late to the party, but many of the Sierra games I grew up with did have a retry-on-death option, as far as I recall. I can't remember exactly because it's never been terribly important to me. I suppose from my angle, I see the move away from "manual saves only" as a design evolution rather than pandering to a less patient audience. That's how I see the move away from dead-end possibilities too.

Personally I feel that dead ends are simply poor design, and "manual save only / no retry on death" is a personal preference rather than a creator-designed immersion technique. Even with auto-saves and retry options, I still create my own manual saves. But that's just second nature to me, not an integral part of the immersion.

Anyway, to each their own. I highly doubt the save mechanism is a make-or-break purchasing decision for any of us.

[MusicallyInspired]

I never said BTTF was a LucasArts style game.

Only KQ7, SQ6, and maybe one or two other sierra adventures ever had a try again button. And those were the later hi-res games in around 95/96 when their touch was waning.

[puzzlebox]

I never said BTTF was a LucasArts style game.

My apologies, when you said "we didn't enjoy BTTF which employs your philosophy" I assumed you were talking Sierra vs LucasArts.

Only KQ7, SQ6, and maybe one or two other sierra adventures ever had a try again button. And those were the later hi-res games in around 95/96 when their touch was waning.

Aye, the ones I remember as having retries would be mid-nineties-ish. But they are Sierra games nonetheless (including an entry in the KQ series), so I don't think its fair to say "Sierra = death" as an absolute. Anyway, as I said, it never mattered much to me either way.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Now that I have calmed down a bit...

For the record, I would certainly like to have a manual saving option in addition to the automatic retry option. And I would not even mind having both options optional for the really HC among us. :p

Where the manual saving only would become a fairly large annoyance for me personally is on replays after the first time through. That is when I like to try everything possible. If there were many deaths lurking in wait and a lot of flags to be triggered, it would become a chore to save after almost every step (but necessary in order to preserve the flag states).

But I thought the purpose of this thread was to see if the compromise suggested in the original post was acceptable to most of us? I think the answer to that has been established as positive. I do confess to still failing to see the rationale of opposing leaving this up to the player.

[thom-22]

I am also open to more gameplay mechanics than some others appear to be, including interactive movies, ...

What?!? "Interactive movies" is not a gameplay mechanic. In fact, it's the antithesis of gameplay.

We can also be pretty darn sure Telltale will be aiming King's Quest for a different demographic, because King's Quest was always a game series first and foremost.

We can?!? You're taking that for granted because you don't care (about gameplay). We do care, and all the signs we see point to a real concern that TTG will neglect gameplay. The whole tenor of this sub-forum would be entirely different if we weren't pretty darn NOT sure.

P.S. chucklas, you seem to have not understood what is meant by immersion in a game. It involves interaction. I might as well tell you to go play baseball if you want a game and not a story.

This counterpoint to chucklas' comment is untenable. King's Quest is a game -- you acknowledged that yourself ("KQ is a game series first and foremost") -- so we're not the ones who should go elsewhere to look for the kind of product, ie. game, we enjoy. Just because you personally turned a video game into an interactive story doesn't mean it's not fundamentally, unmistakeably a game. KQ has all the markings of a game. There are challenges involved. There is a predefined set of actions and rules you employ to meet those challenges. You can succeed or fail at those challenges. There is a point system to track your progress. Telltale can put their own spin on it, but the challenges part -- real, honest-to-god gameplay, not just "interactivity" -- is not optional in a video game, especially one calling itself King's Quest and capitalizing on its legacy.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

thom-22, your definition of "game" is limited, moreso than accepted dictionary definitions. One of the definitions from Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game?rskey=iBXDIR&result=1#m_en_gb0325750) is "an activity that one engages in for amusement". Anything that matches this description fulfils the dictionary definition. Clearly any kind of interactive movie is not outside the definition, nor are regular films or books, for that matter.

All games are limited to a greater or lesser extent. You can only do things that have been made possible by the creators of the game. Therefore, the difference between an interactive movie such as The Beast Within and a real-time 3D game such as Outcast is quantitative, not qualitative. All the content has been preprogrammed in both cases and you are simply engaging with it via different gameplay mechanics and interfaces and rendering systems.

There is a loud contingent among hardcore adventure gamers who say that interactive movies are not true adventure games, and there is a loud contingent among hardcore gamers who say that adventure games are not even real games, that adventure games "play themselves". I think this is silly snobbery that has its roots in a recognised psychological phenomenon:

People tend to feel the need to establish that they are better than or at least very different from their immediate neighbours and near-equals, especially when they feel in danger of getting lumped together with them, but not so often when it comes to people further away, people who are not close to them in status or wealth or caste or whatever (since there is less chance of getting mixed up with these groups). In light of this, defensiveness about game genre boundaries is an implicit admission that indeed adventure games and interactive movies and shooters are closely related, certainly inasmuch as the physical activity of playing is concerned. There is far less difference between us adventure gamers and shooter fans and casual gamers and wedding or other "life" gamers than we tend to think.

Or, for an alternative response to this point: I meant, "gameplay mechanics ... including those collectively constituting what are frequently termed interactive movies". :p

We can?!? You're taking that for granted because you don't care (about gameplay). We do care, and all the signs we see point to a real concern that TTG will neglect gameplay. The whole tenor of this sub-forum would be entirely different if we weren't pretty darn NOT sure.

Well, in that case I should say that I am pretty darn sure and leave it at that. I do care about gameplay mechanics. As I said: "Of course I wish the mechanics to be such that I get as much enjoyment out of the experience as possible ..." I was only disagreeing about the claim that what made Sierra games great was the specific gameplay mechanics involved. (That is a matter of subjective opinion, so not really worth arguing about. We can all state our own views on this, but it is not a testable matter. Analysis of the past is only useful up to a point, anyway. After identifying what inspired us, we ought to, ideally, try to incorporate those things in what we create ourselves. I am sure the Telltale designers will be doing just that. And of course all this analysis may be helpful in figuring out those great things.)

As I said, I am confident that Telltale will not neglect gameplay by any reasonable standards. They will certainly not please everyone, particularly the most HC on this forum, because those demands pretty much equate to pretending the world has not moved on since a whole generation ago. As far as I can see, the tenor of this forum is so negative because a lot of us have extremely fixed ideas from our childhood about what King's Quest should be like (more fixed than any ever had by, say, Roberta Williams herself) and because a lot of things are getting either assumed or blown out of proportion.

I mean, it seems like many assume, for example, that there will not be the option for manual saving in the new game just because Back to the Future apparently did away with manual saving (if I understood correctly). There is no reason that I can see to suppose that this game will share a similar design philosophy to that of BttF, yet that assumption keeps getting dredged up all the time. Have Telltale said anything that links their respective approaches to KQ and BttF? (Maybe they have and I simply missed it.)

Yes, of course King's Quest is a game series. I never disputed that. I want it to be a game series. The problem seems to be that our definitions of neither "game" or "story" match. For me, King's Quest is a playable story and all adventure games are playable stories. We can each of us form our own interpretations of what a "game" is (as you did with the characteristics listed in your last paragraph), but those are subjective matters and as such cannot be disputed as erroneous or counterfactual.

I guess we have all heard the catchphrase "the story is the puzzle" (or variations thereof)? That is almost how I see the true potential of adventure games as a viable storytelling medium with an unlimited expected lifespan, with this modification: "the story is the game" (or "the game is the story"). If the story (and there is no reason to assume a story needs to be fixed or unflexible or passively observed!) is woven effectively and densely and dynamically enough (and I would hope it involves great freedom of exploration, not storytelling on strict rails), and if it generates a sense of playfulness and fascination and involvement, it will be a game and a story at the same time. Then there will be no need to shoehorn in artificial puzzles or "challenging gameplay".

Games like The Colonel's Bequest went a long way towards the goal of making the interactive story sufficiently playable and enjoyable and explorable without very many traditional "gameplay challenges". As we all know, Roberta Williams continued exploring this territory of "pure story" with Phantasmagoria, so clearly it was something that intrigued her. I believe she too grew tired of the contrived puzzles when she mostly wanted a living story. Just my impression, of course.

But please note, everyone, that I am not trying to make anyone else change their views on any of these things! I simply felt the need to weigh in with an opposing viewpoint to that of many of the most frequent posters on this forum, from someone with an equal amount of love for Sierra yet who has not arrived at the same conclusions. Unfortunately the forum is now so polarised that anyone who expresses an opinion that even vaguely sounds like one of the polar opposites is automatically assumed to hold just that extreme of opinion, with no allowance made for our individual nuances of thought and viewpoint. At least I definitely felt that way looking at the reactions to my posts in this thread.

But like a Zen master said, only gardening is important in this life, and even that is not very important... In other words, none of this will make or break any of our lives or (I reckon) enjoyment of the coming game. So again, peace to everyone and I hope this mammoth post (if read at all) is taken in the spirit in which it was written: as nothing more than an attempt to take part in a useful and constructive discussion that hopefully Telltale will be able to use in gauging the variety of opinions out there, and that may have been of some positive interest or value to the individual posters (as the posts of others have been to me). :)

[chucklas]

I mean, it seems like many assume, for example, that there will not be the option for manual saving in the new game just because Back to the Future apparently did away with manual saving (if I understood correctly). There is no reason that I can see to suppose that this game will share a similar design philosophy to that of BttF, yet that assumption keeps getting dredged up all the time. Have Telltale said anything that links their respective approaches to KQ and BttF? (Maybe they have and I simply missed it.)


Really? You think people don't like BttF because of manual saves? Really? I think BttF is a great interactive movie. It was advertised as an adventure game, and I feel as though that was quite misleading. I believe this is the gripe with BttF. It has nothing to do with save game mechanics. As for Kings Quest, people fear that they will do the same to gear it towards a larger audience. If that happens many people here wont be supporting TellTale anymore.

[thom-22]

thom-22, your definition of "game" is limited, moreso than accepted dictionary definitions. One of the definitions from Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game?rskey=iBXDIR&result=1#m_en_gb0325750) is "an activity that one engages in for amusement". Anything that matches this description fulfils the dictionary definition. Clearly any kind of interactive movie is not outside the definition, nor are regular films or books, for that matter.

Of course my definition is limited, limited to the context at issue here. Dictionary definitions are immaterial. (Quoting the dictionary is often a good sign that someone is actually trying to re-define something away from everyday experience.) Not every "amusement" is a game in the way most people use the term game, especially wrt video games.

All games are limited to a greater or lesser extent. You can only do things that have been made possible by the creators of the game. Therefore, the difference between an interactive movie such as The Beast Within and a real-time 3D game such as Outcast is quantitative, not qualitative. All the content has been preprogrammed in both cases and you are simply engaging with it via different gameplay mechanics and interfaces and rendering systems.

I have no idea what you're trying to demonstrate here or why you think The Beast Within is merely an interactive movie. It is a full-fledged adventure game, and an excellent one at that. One plays it by applying a set of skills to the challenges presented -- skills and challenges conventionally associated with adventure-game gameplay -- and one can either win or lose, all while enjoying an excellent, integrated story. (The actual mechanics used for interaction are rather a more trivial aspect of gameplay, one I'm not particularly concerned about.) The differences between it and Outcast are merely ones of genre and graphics style, full-motion video vs. real-time 3D. But they are both video games.

Well, in that case I should say that I am pretty darn sure and leave it at that. I do care about gameplay mechanics. As I said: "Of course I wish the mechanics to be such that I get as much enjoyment out of the experience as possible ..." I was only disagreeing about the claim that what made Sierra games great was the specific gameplay mechanics involved.

You're disagreeing with your own straw man. Nobody is saying that any specific gameplay "mechanic" is what made Sierra games great. But the overall gameplay style of King's Quest -- not to mention the fact that they are games and not merely interactive stories -- cannot be disregarded as essential aspects of the series' popularity and excellence.

I mean, it seems like many assume, for example, that there will not be the option for manual saving in the new game just because Back to the Future apparently did away with manual saving (if I understood correctly).

I don't see anyone assuming there won't be manual saving. The concern is that we won't have a choice but to be put right back into an automatic do-over after a death (as in the Jurassic Park gameplay video). BTTF's problems have nothing to do with its save system -- it's so not-a-game that the save system is irrelevant.

There is no reason that I can see to suppose that this game will share a similar design philosophy to that of BttF, yet that assumption keeps getting dredged up all the time. Have Telltale said anything that links their respective approaches to KQ and BttF? (Maybe they have and I simply missed it.)

I'm pretty sure we've been quite clear as to the factual basis for our concerns, and that you're the one going strictly on assumptions or blind faith. In fact, I'm almost sure that I posted in direct response to a post of yours on this very matter a while ago. The decline in difficulty level started (at least) with The Devil's Playhouse. Moreover, puzzle-ruining hints were included even for those who turned hints completely off and TTG staff responded cavalierly to players' forum comments that certain episodes were getting too easy. There is also a long article in which a TTG developer discusses design philosophy that is particularly horrifying to those who prefer real video games to "entertainment experiences". I do not have time to look up a reference, but Rather Dashing cites it frequently.

And then there's BTTF. If BTTF was merely an exception, an attempt to appeal to a broader audience, why didn't TTG use the opportunity to attract these new "players" as customers for future products by teaching them how to play and raising the difficulty curve gently over the course of the game, instead of having an exceedingly low, flat difficulty curve throughout?

For the record, I have no problem with adventure-game developers adding mechanisms that enable casual "players" to turn an adventure game into nothing but a click-through movie or story -- hint systems, automatic do-overs upon death, whatever. I really don't care how other people consume their entertainment products. After all, any adventure game can be turned into a trivially interactive movie/story with a quick visit to gamefaqs.com. But when it comes to continuing a video-game franchise known for challenging gameplay, that legacy should be respected by producing a real, whole game, playable with hints and do-overs turned off, for fans of the originals.

I don't have time now to respond to the rest of your post, it seems a lot of words, loose definitions and special pleading that KQ is primarily a storytelling vehicle rather than a video game known for engaging, story-integrated gameplay that required some thought to proceed. (King's Quest I. Storytelling. Really?) It would be just as easy to come up with specious arguments that KQ is primarily a vehicle for puzzles and story is inconsequential. I would argue against that with equal vigor.

[caeska]

Personally I feel that dead ends are simply poor design, and "manual save only / no retry on death" is a personal preference rather than a creator-designed immersion technique.

Anyway, to each their own. I highly doubt the save mechanism is a make-or-break purchasing decision for any of us.

I disagree, dead-ends are vital in Sierra games and they add to the realism. I mean, if you go off on a quest without stocking up on supplies, you are asking for a slow and painful death.
Like not bringing the mirror with you to the underworld in KQ6. Or not taking the sunscreen in LSL2.
Having inventory items magically appear in your inventory with little or no context however, is a much worse design.
At least some games have done that fairly well, like Broken Sword, but I prefer having to acquire items that will only be used later, or risk getting stuck. As I said, it makes the game more realistic and challenging. And it was never an issue with multiple save slots anyway.

If they screw with this mechanic it will only hurt the overall product in my opinion.

[yoshiwam]

Having inventory items magically appear in your inventory with little or no context however, is a much worse design.

except for the fish in Space Quest 6, of course <3

[puzzlebox]

I disagree, dead-ends are vital in Sierra games and they add to the realism. I mean, if you go off on a quest without stocking up on supplies, you are asking for a slow and painful death.
Like not bringing the mirror with you to the underworld in KQ6. Or not taking the sunscreen in LSL2.
Having inventory items magically appear in your inventory with little or no context however, is a much worse design.
At least some games have done that fairly well, like Broken Sword, but I prefer having to acquire items that will only be used later, or risk getting stuck. As I said, it makes the game more realistic and challenging. And it was never an issue with multiple save slots anyway.


I think it's actually a lot harder to design a game where you can't get stuck than it is to design one with multiple dead ends. For that reason I wonder whether dead ends were a conscious design choice on the part of Sierra creators, or if they were in there simply because they didn't try to work around them. It's probably worth noting that later Sierra games removed the possibility of getting stuck at the end without an item you need (not sure if that was a move to what they saw as better design, or simply a result of "marketplace realities").

Of course it's totally legitimate to enjoy the realism dead ends add to a game, I just wonder whether that was indeed the effect intended when the earlier Sierra adventures were designed.

Ron Gilbert (yes an ex-LucasArts guy, hear me out!) gave a great lecture at a German games conference this year about the design of Maniac Mansion. Maniac Mansion is probably the most complex adventure game I've come across in terms of the number of different combinations and possibilities there are to play the game to completion. It's quite realistic in that the different player characters you can choose each have different skills, and who you chose at the beginning as part of your group partially dictates the path you take to play through the game. Different problems have different solutions depending on who you have at your disposal, and some character combinations open up new puzzles entirely. Even though the creators tried to design the game without dead ends, the sheer complexity of their undertaking means there are still a couple of ways to get yourself hamstrung.

I'd definitely recommend a listen to anyone with an interest in adventure game design (I'd strongly recommend checking out the game too!). The talk can be found here (http://www.nordmedia.de/content/digitale_medien/digital_media_cluster/game_forum_germany/veranstaltung/mediathek/index.html) (click on 2011, then on Ron Gilbert's talk), and there's a discussion thread about it on the forums here (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23393).

If anyone knows of any similar talks/interviews given by any of the prominent ex-Sierra people, I'd very much appreciate a link. It'd be interesting to compare the different philosophies.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

thom-22, you have misrepresented everything I wrote.* I also feel your responses to me here are quite hostile in tone. You seem to be attacking me instead of engaging in conversation.

Unless we can keep things polite and make actual attempts to understand each other, I recommend we drop this subject while we are behind.

I would prefer to have you as a friend, man! But the attempt has to be mutual. Right now we are just failing to communicate here. Don't you think?

* For the record:

1) I definitely think The Beast Within is an adventure game (an excellent one). I was reacting to your comment that "interactive movie" is the antithesis of gameplay. TBW is often described as an interactive movie, you know. I was defending its value as a game and a story (interactive story). You implied there was a qualitative difference between "interactivity" and "gameplay" when you wrote: "real, honest-to-god gameplay, not just 'interactivity' ". But gameplay is interactivity.

Dictionary definitions are necessary reminders for many of us that words mean more than the limited uses they are often put to. Everyone is free to go by their own more limited definitions if they wish, but they have no grounds to claim that their way is somehow more correct than definitions formulated over centuries by recognised experts of the field. So here are some more from Oxford Dictionaries:

gameplay (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0325860#m_en_gb0325860): "the features of a computer game, such as its plot and the way it is played, as distinct from the graphics and sound effects." (my Italics)

interactive (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0415580#m_en_gb0415580.006): "allowing a two-way flow of information between it and a user; responding to the user's input"

In light of these accepted definitions, "gameplay" and "interactivity" refer to the same thing. Feel free to dismiss these definitions, but please do not expect me to do the same. Words mean what they mean, not what we may hope them to mean when we use them.

2) So an interactive story is a game by my definitions. (See also point 5 below.) You said: "KQ has all the markings of a game." It also has all the marks and makings of a story. In fact, you could eliminate the gameplay aspects entirely and still have it accepted as King's Quest. But you could not eliminate or change the story aspects while retaining only the gameplay! Unless you think Space Quest qualifies as King's Quest. This clearly shows that King's Quest is a story first and foremost. Roberta turned the story into an interactive one by making it into a game.

3) People - including you, thom-22, in the very paragraph where you dispute this - are claiming that the gameplay mechanics (plural all along, rather than the singular, "specific" gameplay mechanic you use in your argument) were an important part of what made Sierra great. (Just reread this thread - and also see what you wrote in the paragraph just mentioned.) My belief is that it was mainly the story content and those aspects of gameplay relating to the richness of the interactive storytelling only.

4) Assuming that KQ will be like BttF or later S&M is unwarranted unless Telltale say something explicitly along those lines. The interview part frequently quoted as supposed indication of this is nothing of the kind, in my opinion. The reaction to that is part of the overreaction common on this forum. No good reason so far to suppose the sky is falling! :)

5) Re: King's Quest I. Storytelling? Really. Absolutely storytelling! What aspect of a story is missing? Honestly, I would be very curious to know. What do you think made the whole thing even relatable, let alone interesting, if not the story? (And every single action you can take and every response from the game is part of the interactive narrative.) Replace all the characters and locations with Tetris blocks and eliminate the character/character and character/environment interactions (pure interactive storytelling, all of it) and see how many people will play. You are seriously undervaluing the story content of these games, my friend! :)

[MusicallyInspired]

Backtracking a bit, I think the issue of the definition of interactivity is each of our own opinions on what is an acceptable level of interactivity. Pressing a "Next" button to advance to the next cutscene could be said to be interactive but that doesn't mean it's fun. Sure call it a game all you want but the fact is all you get to do is press a button. I'm exaggerating but I'm just making the point that there are multiple levels of interactivity with multiple levels of immersion. Speaking of which, how do you define immersion? Merely being swept away by the story like a movie? Or feeling like everything you do has some affect on the world around you and yourself and you truly are playing the character you're controlling?

And I think Thom's point about KQ1 is that there is a lot less story than there is gameplay. As opposed to something like BTTF where there are insanely easy (and short) puzzles intermittently present between dialogue and cutscene sequences. KQ1 is all interactivity. All exploration. All gameplay. There isn't even any dialogue. At least in the AGI original. In the remake there's one or two areas of dialogue but no intense conversations beyond the introduction. KQ5 and KQ6 may have more involved stories but it's basically the same. It's all gameplay.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Thank you for asking, Brandon. :)

I have no easy personal definition of immersion. It is mainly a feeling of engagement, both intellectual and emotional. For me, immersion even in a film is an active state. I am unable to get totally swept up by a film in any kind of passive sense of just watching and accepting everything I see and hear.

I only get immersed in a film if it wins my "complicity" (acceptance) by passing at least most of my mental filters regarding quality, attitude to audience, the space given to the audience to actively interpret and form their own opinions of things, ethical viewpoints seemingly espoused (if at all), etc.

The same is true of games, but then additional criteria come into play. These are harder to pin down. What if I give examples of games I find immersive? These would include practically every adventure game from Sierra, particularly from the SCI era on. These all have a great deal of freedom of exploration, and the addition of voiceovers some way into this era was a huge improvement in helping the sense of immersion for people like me, to whom the aural component of films and games is extremely important.

But I also find very immersive the Cryo games Atlantis: The Lost Tales and Beyond Atlantis despite their lack of great freedom of exploration. Those games create immersion with their combination of deceptively innocuous-seeming (yet profound - in my opinion!) storytelling, lush music, and atmospheric graphics. Also great voiceovers. They have an aesthetic all their own that is quite different from any American style. (All of them valid approaches, of course, though the Sierra style is the one I could not do without.)

The Beast Within is extremely immersive even though there is not a great sense of actually directing the course of the story. The key to the immersion here may lie in part with something Jane Jensen once said about what she was trying to achieve with this game: that it was not only a whodunnit (though it was that, too), but also a whytheydunnit. So the goal was to pull the audience into the story by inviting (virtually forcing) them to actively interpret what they see and hear (what all did this person reveal by what he or she said and did?) and mentally put the pieces together.

Games that are not immersive to me at all include Myst, Keepsake and Syberia. I admire some aspects of all these, but I never had that sense of mental engagement in any of them. I also confess that I have never found many Lucasfilm/LucasArts games actually immersive. They have been entertaining and lovable in their own, different ways, but immersion is not the word I would use for them, apart from exceptions that include at least The Dig and Loom.

Erm, so, as a general rule, immersion for me requires that the game is not only artistically acceptable in all the ways that I mentioned in connection with films (Hopkins FBI, for example, fulfils none of those criteria and remains the only adventure game I have precisely no interest in ever completing), but also lets me do a lot of other things than only take the steps necessary for completion. It should encourage personal initiative in exploration. King's Quest VII is the least immersive of the series for me partly because it has so little optional stuff to find.

Far from a definitive answer, but I hope that is understandable, considering this is the aspect every game maker probably struggles the most to bring into being with every game.

Would you agree or disagree with any of this, Brandon? Or anyone else? I do suspect our differing definitions of immersion sparked off some of the heat here, so I appreciate your asking.

[Blackthorne519]

tl;dr

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Thank you for sharing that, friend. :)

[thom-22]

thom-22, you have misrepresented everything I wrote.* I also feel your responses to me here are quite hostile in tone. You seem to be attacking me instead of engaging in conversation.

Unless we can keep things polite and make actual attempts to understand each other, I recommend we drop this subject while we are behind.

I would prefer to have you as a friend, man! But the attempt has to be mutual. Right now we are just failing to communicate here. Don't you think?

I have never attacked you personally. Everything I've written has been in response to what you have written. I argue about ideas, I don't attack people. I am well aware that my style of argumentation, in which I try to be as straightforward, concise and rational as I can be, does not always come across friendly. That's not the same thing as hostility, and there's really nothing I can do about it, and nothing I should have to do. I have not, nor would I ever attack you or anyone else personally.

1) I definitely think The Beast Within is an adventure game (an excellent one). I was reacting to your comment that "interactive movie" is the antithesis of gameplay. TBW is often described as an interactive movie, you know. I was defending its value as a game and a story (interactive story). You implied there was a qualitative difference between "interactivity" and "gameplay" when you wrote: "real, honest-to-god gameplay, not just 'interactivity' ". But gameplay is interactivity.

Yes, but the point is that not all interactivity is gameplay, not all interactive entertainment products are games. MusicallyInspired already covered this. A busy box is an interactive amusement, but it is not a game, in any everyday sense of that word, involving the objective of meeting of a predefined challenge. If you do not get that distinction, then you're literally the first person I've ever met who doesn't.

Dictionary definitions are necessary reminders for many of us that words mean more than the limited uses they are often put to. Everyone is free to go by their own more limited definitions if they wish, but they have no grounds to claim that their way is somehow more correct than definitions formulated over centuries by recognised experts of the field.

It doesn't matter how old a definition is if it's applied out of context.

In light of these accepted definitions, "gameplay" and "interactivity" refer to the same thing. Feel free to dismiss these definitions, but please do not expect me to do the same. Words mean what they mean, not what we may hope them to mean when we use them.

One can treat them as the same thing, but they are not fundamentally the same thing. An interactive busy box is not a game.

2) So an interactive story is a game by my definitions.

Not necessarily. A busy box with a story is no more a game than a busy box without one.

(See also point 5 below.) You said: "KQ has all the markings of a game." It also has all the marks and makings of a story.

While KQ has all the markings of a game, I wasn't implying that it's just any old kind of game. I thought it went without saying that as an adventure game, a story -- a fictional world with a protagonist and some kind of narrative that serves as a basis for gameplay, and can even be enjoyed more than the gameplay by those players so inclined -- is an essential part of KQ as well.

In fact, you could eliminate the gameplay aspects entirely and still have it accepted as King's Quest. But you could not eliminate or change the story aspects while retaining only the gameplay! Unless you think Space Quest qualifies as King's Quest. This clearly shows that King's Quest is a story first and foremost. Roberta turned the story into an interactive one by making it into a game.

This here is the fundamental point of contention. I don't see how anything you've said "clearly shows" that King's Quest is a story first and foremost. You've merely asserted that without backing it up. One could just as easily assert, and even come up with arguments to support, that King's Quest is first and foremost a puzzle game. I believe that King's Quest is an adventure game, meaning story and gameplay are equally important. Moreover, KQ adventure games are ones known for being on the challenging side. Including either story or gameplay without the other -- or story or gameplay that bears no relationship to the story and gameplay of the originals -- in an interactive entertainment product with the King's Quest name would be an affront to the series' legacy and its fans.

Unfortunately I don't have time to continue but will have to come back to it. For now what I offer to support my views is the first eight KQ games themselves, looked at objectively, at all that they offered to all those who played them, and not just the aspects that you personally enjoyed.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Thanks for the explanation, thom-22. I accept that you have not been deliberately provocative. I want to assure you that neither have I.

The last part of your message touches on probably the biggest miscommunication between us. I have enjoyed pretty much every aspect of every King's Quest game! That includes the manual saving, all the gameplay challenges you speak of, the puzzles, etc.

Where our views go their separate ways is when it comes to what we wish for future instalments in the series. You and many others wish for similar gameplay structure as the existing games. I and many others think it is not as important to carry on the form as it is the content.

The form can incorporate all the design elements from previous games, if they are found appropriate by the designers. The only point where I disagree with you here is on whether they must be included.

Again, I want sudden deaths and I want manual saving and I want deep gameplay just as you do. But this thread has been (at least nominally) about the suggested compromise of having the option to have "Try Again" in addition to manual saving. (Having both would be my preference.)

About King's Quest being a story first and foremost: Remember that I consider it an interactive story and an adventure game and that I consider these terms synonymous. It is indeed more a matter of viewpoint than of facts, but I do feel that what I wrote (the paragraph you quote and the later part of my message, about the Tetris blocks) shows that the most essential part of KQ - the part that makes it possible to recognise it as KQ - is the story content, not the gameplay, since you could remove or transform the latter, but not the former. Roberta Williams did that gradually herself as the series progressed.

To me it seems analogous to say that your essence concerns your personality rather than your body. You use your body to express your personality (and both shape each other), just as the gameplay gives expression to the story. But in my view the essence lies in the story and personality.

Really, we probably agree on most of the issues. It now seems to me that we have been talking about the same thing with the words gameplay, interaction, story, mechanics, etc. And I reckon we can get along fine as long as we accept our slightly different word choices.

I think that for now we have covered most of the ground and expressed our views as clearly as we can. It has been quite time-consuming, and I could not afford to spend so much time on this in the future.

I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my concern, and I regret if I lack the energy to address your every point.

[MusicallyInspired]

I just think King's Quest was fun and as uniquely entertaining as it was for a reason. And those reasons being the gameplay mechanics that many wish were not present in future instalments. To me, that's not a King's Quest game at all. What was King's Quest? Story? I think not.

And anyway, a choice would be fine. If I can choose not to have a Try Again button appear, have any autosaves occur, and have deaths that mean something then I'd be somewhat happy. I'm still not convinced that Telltale can even pull off a King's Quest game properly, though. We'll see.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Well, I agree with you that it is what it is for many reasons.

I think it has always been a playable story (emphasis on both words), a game that would be nonsensical if all the story elements were removed or made abstract. The same is not true of games like Breakout or Tetris, as there all the elements could be (and have been) changed into something quite different. Those games remain recognisably the same as long as the gameplay remains unchanged.

Whereas in King's Quest, if all the characters and objects were changed into Tetris blocks and all the narration was removed or made gibberish, there would be no reason to suppose that it would be necessary to manoeuvre the block previously known as Graham into the block previously known as the royal castle. :) The only thing that makes the goals even make sense is the story content.

[Blackthorne519]

Wow. I'd venture a guess that there's more text in this thread than there are lines of code in the original King's Quest game.

Just sayin.... maybe there's a little too much thought going on here. I mean, the point of games is to entertain and escape..... this sounds like WORK to me.


Bt

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Sure, but some of us find the whole phenomenon of games fascinating and spend a lot of time thinking about them anyway, out of personal or professional interest, or both. The thoughts I was trying to express were not straightforward and seemed to call for lengthy explanations. However, I agree with you that brief is best when possible. But also, there is no obligation for anyone to read lengthy posts.

[Blackthorne519]

True, true. I was just suggesting less is more for your OWN sanity, really. Trust me, I love, love, love, the games too - but I try not to delve TOO deeply into it.


Bt

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

I agree that is definitely something to keep in mind. And in fact I am trying to wind down my involvement in this thread.

[thom-22]

3) People - including you, thom-22, in the very paragraph where you dispute this - are claiming that the gameplay mechanics (plural all along, rather than the singular, "specific" gameplay mechanic you use in your argument) were an important part of what made Sierra great. (Just reread this thread - and also see what you wrote in the paragraph just mentioned.) My belief is that it was mainly the story content and those aspects of gameplay relating to the richness of the interactive storytelling only.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. I stand by my statement that while I don't think any specific gameplay mechanic can be cited as something that made Sierra games great, what I termed the "style" of gameplay in KQ (and I do mean KQ; I'm not talking about Sierra in general here) is just as much a part of what made KQ great as story is. I admit that "gameplay style" is vague; more on this below. I think that your idea of "those aspects of gameplay relating to the richness of the interactive storytelling only" is a good one but far from complete.

4) Assuming that KQ will be like BttF or later S&M is unwarranted unless Telltale say something explicitly along those lines. The interview part frequently quoted as supposed indication of this is nothing of the kind, in my opinion. The reaction to that is part of the overreaction common on this forum. No good reason so far to suppose the sky is falling! :)

I have never assumed anything about the forthcoming KQ game. I have suggested there is cause for concern, I gave a list of facts in support of that contention, and there are others here who agree with this reasoning. (Also, I forgot to include on that list the negative comments that were made by the Jurassic Park developers concerning adventure gaming.) So you take one of my reasons, say it isn't valid "in your opinion", offer no opposing reasons of your own, and you expect that to be persuasive? Just because you say so? At least attempt to make a rational counter-argument before accusing people of overreacting.

5) Re: King's Quest I. Storytelling? Really. Absolutely storytelling! What aspect of a story is missing? Honestly, I would be very curious to know. What do you think made the whole thing even relatable, let alone interesting, if not the story? (And every single action you can take and every response from the game is part of the interactive narrative.) Replace all the characters and locations with Tetris blocks and eliminate the character/character and character/environment interactions (pure interactive storytelling, all of it) and see how many people will play. You are seriously undervaluing the story content of these games, my friend!

My quip about the first King's Quest was not to say that any aspect of a story was missing or that story was unimportant in the game, but rather that the story was less detailed those of the later KQs or games like GK2. I do not undervalue the importance of story in KQ. I've said repeatedly that story and gameplay are equally important. And the only reason I've responded to your posts is because you are undervaluing gameplay, with your last statement below and this earlier one:

In fact, you could eliminate the gameplay aspects entirely and still have it accepted as King's Quest. But you could not eliminate or change the story aspects while retaining only the gameplay! Unless you think Space Quest qualifies as King's Quest. This clearly shows that King's Quest is a story first and foremost.

Where have I said anything like that with terms "gameplay" and "story" switched?

Where our views go their separate ways is when it comes to what we wish for future instalments in the series. You and many others wish for similar gameplay structure as the existing games. I and many others think it is not as important to carry on the form as it is the content.

You don't need to convince me that there are many people who believe it is more important to carry on the KQ content than the form; I was aware of that going in. In fact, that in and of itself, rather than anything you've said here, is enough to conclude that content must be essential in defining what KQ is, what makes it great, why fans love it. What I don't get is why, when so many KQ fans in this forum have made it clear that gameplay is important to them, you can be so dismissive of that portion of the fanbase and what we find to be essential about KQ, what makes it great, etc. There have been quite a few threads in this forum on gameplay -- on deaths, danger, exploration, the Sierra puzzle style, etc. -- that fly in the face of the idea that gameplay could just be eliminated entirely from a KQ "game" and the KQ fanbase would accept it as King's Quest.

The form can incorporate all the design elements from previous games, if they are found appropriate by the designers. The only point where I disagree with you here is on whether they must be included.

Again, I want sudden deaths and I want manual saving and I want deep gameplay just as you do. But this thread has been (at least nominally) about the suggested compromise of having the option to have "Try Again" in addition to manual saving. (Having both would be my preference.)

While this thread was about manual saving, your ideas to which I've been responding went well beyond that. My comments in this latter part of the thread are not motivated by a desire to defend manual saving. I have jumped into that discussion primarily to defend its legitimacy in game design in general, and to request that it be preserved as an option in TTG's KQ game. There is no narrow aspect of gameplay, as narrow as manual saving, that I have said "must" be included. But I think there are more broadly defined aspects of gameplay -- like exploration, and complex interactivity, and engendering a sense of danger, and engaging puzzles that are not trivial to solve -- that are essential to KQ. Those things couldn't just be eliminated, or transformed beyond recognition, in a King's Quest game that the fanbase (at least that part of it that play the games for more than story) would find satisfying.

In other words, there is some bounded area within the realm of gameplay-space outside of which a KQ game would not be acceptable. For instance, you couldn't make a KQ video poker game, even if the story is dead-on, and claim that it respects the legacy of the existing KQ games. Now, where those boundaries lie would be difficult to define precisely; the list I gave above is intended to be suggestive, not definitive. But that doesn't mean boundaries don't exist. At the same time, there is a lot of leeway within the area -- in part because, as you've said, the gameplay varied in the existing KQ games and in part because it can't be defined with sufficient precision -- for Telltale to design the gameplay with their own touch; some things included in the existing games will be subtracted, other things will be added. But in the end, the game will be evaluated by the fanbase as to how well it feels like KQ in terms of gameplay as much as it will be in terms of story. Individuals will differ in the terms they use, a few perhaps even sticking to narrow criteria like whether or not it includes manual-saving; but I believe there is enough of a consensus among those of us who believe it is important to "carry on the form".

About King's Quest being a story first and foremost: Remember that I consider it an interactive story and an adventure game and that I consider these terms synonymous.

How, under this scheme, do you account for something that is clearly interactive, and clearly fiction, and yet demonstrably not a game, in the everyday sense of that word? Because the most generic dictionary definition of "game" you could find encompasses such a thing, you just declare it a game anyway and move on? Even though there is a community dedicated to and creators of interactive fiction who would bristle at the notion of describing their works as "games"?

(You said before something to the effect that words "mean what they mean" and not what we hope they mean. Do you not see the irony in that you have done exactly that by picking only one of a multi-part definition without regard for context and its relevance to which of the definitions offered is most appropriate?)

To further demonstrate that there is a real or commonly understood distinction between these things, I'll note something about discussions going on in the BTTF forum. There have been some thorough and eminently logical arguments demonstrating that BTTF cannot reasonably be considered a game. But here's the interesting part: BTTF's defenders do so on the basis of its fictional content, that it works fine as a (trivially) interactive movie, that it is still an enjoyable entertainment experience; but to the best of my knowledge, there have been no serious attempts to defend it as a game.

It is indeed more a matter of viewpoint than of facts, but I do feel that what I wrote (the paragraph you quote and the later part of my message, about the Tetris blocks) shows that the most essential part of KQ - the part that makes it possible to recognise it as KQ - is the story content, not the gameplay, since you could remove or transform the latter, but not the former. Roberta Williams did that gradually herself as the series progressed.

The paragraph where you merely restate your hypothesis and call it a conclusion? Neither facts nor viewpoints mean much without logic. So the Tetris argument...

A. KQ would be "nonsensical if all the story elements were removed or made abstract". (That is not in dispute, btw.) B. There are some games that "remain recognisably the same as long as the gameplay remains unchanged". (Also not in dispute.) C. Therefore "the most essential part of KQ - the part that makes it possible to recognise it as KQ - is the story content, not the gameplay". I'm sorry, but that is a non sequitur if I've ever seen one! Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premises.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

I still feel we are failing to communicate. I can think of no more ways to phrase what I wanted to say, and you seemed to ignore important parts of my posts. You even suggest I went out of my way to find the most generic dictionary definition of "game", when that is simply not true. I use Oxford Dictionaries as my first-stop quick reference and that definition (here (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game?rskey=6S9xz9&result=1#m_en_gb0325750)) is the only one that applies to computer games.

It does match the way I have long regarded most activities that you would probably consider passive and not games, such as reading and watching films. There is the same sense of playfulness and need to actively relate oneself to the proceedings as there is with computer games. This is a point of view shared by many psychologists and researchers today and is a way of seeing things that I find fertile.

I am not dismissing anyone else like you suggest! You have to understand that my default assumption is that what each of us says has equal value. Accordingly, my posts carry no more (or less) weight than yours, for example. I am only a single voice and certainly Telltale is not going to make the game based on what any one of us says. So there is no reason to suppose my words will have any great effect.

I say this because you seem to see me almost as someone out to destroy what makes King's Quest beloved to you and others. But I clearly stated I have no problem with any or even all of the old gameplay mechanics being included if they are found appropriate and desirable by the designers. I only feel they are not required, and I remain open to new ideas. What more can I possibly say...?

I am sorry, but I feel I would be wasting time and energy I genuinely need elsewhere if I continued our point-by-point exchange. (As Blackthorne519 was right to point out.) That is not intended as an insult - just a statement about the extent of miscommunication and misinterpretation I feel is going on both ways. No offence intended, and I do look forward to reading your reactions (as well as those of others) when the game comes out!

[Beacon80]

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and calm down. You're arguing over which way of enjoying the game is better, and that's not an argument that can be won. Play the game the way you enjoy it, and don't worry about why other people enjoy it.

Which is why I think a "Retry" button should be included. Ideally with the option to turn it off, but if you truly believe it detracts from the game, just hit the "Restore" button right next to it. I've only played Tales of Monkey Island and a little bit of Sam & Max (too many games, not enough time), but I seem to recall that they both had manual saves as well. I see no reason TTG can't let us have our cake and reload, give the gemstone to the ogre, climb up the cliff wall, save the game this time, and eat it, too.

[thom-22]

I still feel we are failing to communicate. I can think of no more ways to phrase what I wanted to say, and you seemed to ignore important parts of my posts. You even suggest I went out of my way to find the most generic dictionary definition of "game", when that is simply not true. I use Oxford Dictionaries as my first-stop quick reference and that definition (here (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/game?rskey=6S9xz9&result=1#m_en_gb0325750)) is the only one that applies to computer games.

Sorry, I take back any suggestion (never intended) that you went out of your way to find the most generic definition, but that hardly negates the point I was making. You cited the second definition given in that link, rather than the first more specific one, which most certainly does apply to computer games. I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring; I thought my last two posts touched on everything in the posts quoted.

It does match the way I have long regarded most activities that you would probably consider passive and not games, such as reading and watching films. There is the same sense of playfulness and need to actively relate oneself to the proceedings as there is with computer games. This is a point of view shared by many psychologists and researchers today and is a way of seeing things that I find fertile.

I am not dismissing anyone else like you suggest! You have to understand that my default assumption is that what each of us says has equal value. Accordingly, my posts carry no more (or less) weight than yours, for example. I am only a single voice and certainly Telltale is not going to make the game based on what any one of us says. So there is no reason to suppose my words will have any great effect.

Ideas do not all have equal value. They need to have a logical, rational basis behind them before they can be considered worthy. In contrast, personal experiences are indeed equally valid. That you (and many others) experience KQ as interactive story and I (and many others) as video game (a particular kind of game in which the story is essential, to be sure) is what it is and not something to be debated or resolved. Which is why I find your idea that content is more important than form, story more important than gameplay, to the KQ legacy as not only ill-conceived (when asserted as anything more than a personal preference) but somewhat ironic. Because it fails to take into account how many players, including many who have posted about various gameplay issues in this forum, experience KQ. Saying that story is more important, that gameplay could be eliminated without altering the very nature of KQ is dismissive of our experience, Simo, there's no way around that. I'm a little skeptical this is simply a case of miscommunication because you've made the same assertion several times and never really addressed any of my counterarguments or revisited your own argument that was clearly fallacious.

I say this because you seem to see me almost as someone out to destroy what makes King's Quest beloved to you and others. But I clearly stated I have no problem with any or even all of the old gameplay mechanics being included if they are found appropriate and desirable by the designers. I only feel they are not required, and I remain open to new ideas. What more can I possibly say...?

No, I do not see you as someone out to destroy anything, or as someone with any ill intentions whatsoever. But talk about ignoring posts -- I've tried to explain I think twice now that I'm talking about how more fundamental aspects of gameplay are essential to KQ; I have always understood that you have no problem with any specific mechanics being included and are not arguing against them, as I have no problem with their being excluded. Of course the designers are going to pick and choose among mechanics and include new ones of their own, but the whole they come up with can and will be evaluated by many players in terms of how consistent the overall feel of the gameplay is with that of the previous games.

I am sorry, but I feel I would be wasting time and energy I genuinely need elsewhere if I continued our point-by-point exchange. (As Blackthorne519 was right to point out.) That is not intended as an insult - just a statement about the extent of miscommunication and misinterpretation I feel is going on both ways. No offence intended, and I do look forward to reading your reactions (as well as those of others) when the game comes out!

No apology or explanation is required here. That's the beauty of discussion forums. Participation is entirely voluntary, non-obligatory and self-motivated.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Thanks, thom-22. I reckon it all comes entirely down to our different ways of seeing things.

The Tetris block example seems completely indisputable to me, but you see it as a non sequitur and think my conclusion does not follow from my premises. I confess that I quite honestly fail to see how it does not follow. Maybe I am missing an important part of your counterargument, but that is not deliberate.

About the dictionary definitions from the source I used, I don't see the first definition as applying to computer games, since I don't see all computer games (certainly not adventure games) as a "competitive activity or sport". However, "played according to rules", sure. But then, books are read and films are viewed according to some rules, too.

On the "gameplay" vs "story" issue: In my way of looking at this, almost everything you might call gameplay (and that I have been thinking of as gameplay for the purposes of this thread) is actually part of the story. This is really the true and whole meaning of my thinking of it as an interactive story. And yes, it is a personal view only and I am not trying to convert anyone into sharing it!

What I mean is, "story" comprises not just the scenario or premise or basic plot. It also includes the narration, the dialogue, every action, every consequence, the sights and sounds - just like with a story in any other medium. The only difference is that the player controls the actions of the main character(s). Playing an adventure game (or most other types of games) is almost nothing else than story.

But please note I never suggested "gameplay" should be eliminated. I was only trying to make the reasoning behind my viewpoint as clear as possible by giving two contrasting examples, one where a variable is changed but the subject remains recognisable, and one where another variable is changed and the subject becomes unrecognisable. It was an illustration, not a suggestion. :)

I hope this goes some way towards addressing the points you felt I had ignored earlier. I suspect we will not be able to reach agreement on these things, but I don't want you to feel I intentionally ignored anything you said.

[thom-22]

About the dictionary definitions from the source I used, I don't see the first definition as applying to computer games, since I don't see all computer games (certainly not adventure games) as a "competitive activity or sport". However, "played according to rules", sure. But then, books are read and films are viewed according to some rules, too.

I do see computer games as a competitive activity, in the sense that they're a personal challenge, in a similar way that climbing a mountain is competing against the elements, so to speak; like playing solitaire or solving a crossword puzzle, single-player video games are competitive activities in that one can either succeed or fail in a way that doesn’t really apply to watching movies or reading books.

On the "gameplay" vs "story" issue: In my way of looking at this, almost everything you might call gameplay (and that I have been thinking of as gameplay for the purposes of this thread) is actually part of the story. This is really the true and whole meaning of my thinking of it as an interactive story. And yes, it is a personal view only and I am not trying to convert anyone into sharing it!

I totally believe that you are not motivated by any desire to impose your viewpoint on others. But you have framed some of your statements in a way that goes beyond the expression of opinion. Several of your statements posit something about the essence of KQ -- "This clearly shows that King's Quest is a story first and foremost."; "...the most essential part of KQ - the part that makes it possible to recognise it as KQ - is the story content, not the gameplay…" -- as if they were universal truths.

Those ideas might flow naturally from your viewpoint of adventure games as playable stories, but I don’t believe there’s any objective basis for them outside of that and so they’re not necessarily valid characterizations of KQ for those with different approaches to adventure or computer games. Moreover, I’m not sure there’s any rational way to determine what defines KQ or what makes it great. I would suggest it’s whatever the fans say it is, individually and collectively. Of course it's not possible to know the collective or majority consensus. But from what I know about KQ fans, I believe that any assertion about what makes KQ great has to include both story (defined any way you want) and gameplay, regardless of whether it's included in the definition of story, pretty high on the list.

What I mean is, "story" comprises not just the scenario or premise or basic plot. It also includes the narration, the dialogue, every action, every consequence, the sights and sounds - just like with a story in any other medium. The only difference is that the player controls the actions of the main character(s). Playing an adventure game (or most other types of games) is almost nothing else than story.

I understand that your idea of story doesn’t mean merely plot but encompasses gameplay and other things, that that follows from your view of games as playable stories, and that you might even view these things as somehow inseparable. But what I’ve been trying to show is that gamers can and do view these things as separable, especially for purposes of analysis and evaluation. That’s why I can’t accept the hypothesis that story is more important than gameplay -- even though your vision of what story means encompasses gameplay -- because I can, do and will continue to evaluate the games I play on the basis of gameplay, independently of any other features.

It's not that I think your ideas are blatantly wrong, it's that they don't even begin to capture why I enjoyed the King's Quest series or play computer games in the first place, and especially why I play them instead of watching movies or consuming stories in any passive media. That the player controls the actions of the character might be the only difference between an adventure game and other forms of media, but it's a huge difference, a fundamental difference, for me and probably many others who talk about gameplay around here.

You know, I also lump some elements together when thinking about what makes a particular game or games in general enjoyable. My personal rubric for evaluation is two-fold: gameplay and what I'll call "atmosphere", which includes plot, writing, art style, music, sound, and the like. These two terms are probably how I will decide for myself whether the new game captures the spirit of the existing KQ games. But I can readily see that this breakdown would be insufficient for someone who plays games for different reasons or different experiences than I do. I can insist (and actually do believe) that the first Quake FPS had terrific atmosphere, and insist that my view of atmosphere includes plot, but to someone for whom high-quality plots are tremendously important in a game, my assertions would be meaningless at best, dismissive or even insulting at worst.

I reckon it all comes entirely down to our different ways of seeing things.

So, yeah, it does come down to our different ways of seeing things. :) I've enjoyed learning about your personal view of adventure games; your ideas are more intricate than those found in the many plot-vs.-puzzles debates I've seen in other adventure gaming fora over the years. What those debates have taught me is that, even though gameplay is more important than story for me personally, it would be wrong to work that into any kind of general rule or definition for all adventure gamers.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

This exchange has been very interesting and useful for me, too! Your spirited advocacy of gameplay is both appropriate and necessary. And I think I now understand what you meant: that crucial factor X (which we have called gameplay and interactivity and interactive storytelling) that makes adventure games a very special form of entertainment for both of us and that can transform even a lesser story into solid entertainment.

That first half of the term I used, "interactive story", is indeed fundamentally important to the charm these games hold for me as well. If these stories were stripped of all interactive elements and reduced to a single linear narrative, they would lose much of their allure for me. I love exploring the boundaries and the workings of the story worlds in every sense, trying different permutations, seeing how far off track they let me stray, etc. Things that are only possible in computer games.

[chucklas]

I love exploring the boundaries and the workings of the story worlds in every sense, trying different permutations, seeing how far off track they let me stray, etc. Things that are only possible in computer games.

Which is exactly where BttF has failed.;)

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Well, it sounds like BttF was made with a different kind of player in mind.

[chucklas]

I think thats why so many are worried about KQ. If they don't make it with actual KQ fans in mind and try to bring in a larger audience the actual KQ fans will be seriously disappointed.

[MusicallyInspired]

Well, it sounds like BttF was made with a different kind of player in mind.

Without our knowledge or consent.

I think thats why so many are worried about KQ. If they don't make it with actual KQ fans in mind and try to bring in a larger audience the actual KQ fans will be seriously disappointed.

Exactly. See the problem? And the reason for preemptive negativity? Telltale may have said that they're going to have to cater a little bit to the KQ audience because of the type of game KQ is, but that means virtually nothing really because we don't know how much they are going to remain faithful and how much they are going to change. And also because they've lied to us before.

[chucklas]

Exactly. See the problem? And the reason for preemptive negativity? Telltale may have said that they're going to have to cater a little bit to the KQ audience because of the type of game KQ is, but that means virtually nothing really because we don't know how much they are going to remain faithful and how much they are going to change. And also because they've lied to us before.

And to those who think the whole argument is just about save games or deaths or dead ends...etc. this is why it really is more than all of that. Once they start messing with auto saves and retrys, they are tipping their hand that they are trying to cater and design the game for those who are not comfortable with KQ to begin with. Even though some KQ fans like some of those ideas, the game is not being designed for them, it is being designed for a much different, much larger demographic. It makes sense for their bottom line, but as KQ fans, the game wont be made with us in mind.

[thom-22]

TTG's need to expand the audience for its offerings isn't the only cause for concern here: If it were merely about making games more accessible, there are various ways they could have done so without sacrificing what makes games enjoyable to experienced adventure gamers. I think the more troubling issue is the philosophical shift toward cinematic production. And before anyone says the philosophy will only be applied to "the movie games", JP and BTTF, note that this shift started before the Universal deal; it's clearly evident in The Devil's Playhouse -- Sam & Max. Not a movie. -- and IMO gameplay suffered as a result.

The latest spewing of this philosophy can be found in this interview (http://www.360magazine.co.uk/interview/interview-jurassic-park-the-game/) with TTG's Executive Producer of JP, who says "every scene, shot, and activity" in JP is being composed cinematically. I have difficulty seeing how the adoption of cinematic composition as a central design goal could provide an enjoyable experience for gamers who value exploring a gameworld and tackling substantive obstacles to progression found therein.

I have always appreciated TTG's attention to visual design, but they went overboard in TDP, and actually scuttled the ship (http://www.telltalegames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21680) in BTTF. Who knows what their thinking is on cinematic design wrt King's Quest? I don't think it's a sure bet either way. But the cause for concern is justified.

[Lambonius]

I can't wait for the inevitable poll:

Which is the worst King's Quest game?

A) Telltale's King's Quest Machinima
B) The Silver Lining
C) King's Quest: Mask of Eternity

[Valiento]

Its interesting that from Roberta William's perspective, often it was technology that was the essence of King's Quest. She used it, and all her games to some extent push technology. Plot and story, and puzzles came second!

Which is the worst King's Quest game?

A) Telltale's King's Quest Machinima
B) The Silver Lining
C) King's Quest: Mask of Eternity

You need to add King's Quest VII: The Princeless Bride to that (it's one of the most criticized games in the series). Some people include King's Quest V (due to Cedric, and 'incoherrent' puzzles/dead ends)!

But I'm sure each game has its detractors!

[chucklas]

KQV was one of, if not the best game in the series.

[Lambonius]

You need to add King's Quest VII: The Princeless Bride to that (it's one of the most criticized games in the series).

True...I almost did include it, but left it off at the last minute for some reason I can't remember now.

I honestly have a feeling Telltale's KQ will feel most like KQ7, which is why I'm dreading it so much, as I absolutely HATE that game. Telltale's KQ will most likely have: 1) a single cursor that does everything, 2) only a few clickable hotspots per area, 3) automatic retries for deaths, etc.

Telltale's KQ game is going to be everything fans of the series hated about KQ7. Mark my words.

[MusicallyInspired]

You forgot annoyingly exaggerated cartoonish features.

[NSM]

Without our knowledge or consent.


That's a really, really weird comment...

[MusicallyInspired]

What I meant was, they advertised it as something akin to what they were always doing. We didn't have the knowledge or the time to know exactly what it was before it came out and before we preordered it so we could make an informed decision. They didn't tell us it was going to be easier and geared more towards fans of the movie series rather than gamers. As a result many people (myself included) preordered the game almost immediately thinking it would be something it wouldn't.

[Feazy]

We didn't have the knowledge or the time to know exactly what it was before it came out and before we preordered it so we could make an informed decision.

But that's always the case with preorders. You can never really trust trailers, screenshots, previews, etc. to tell you what a game will be like. Think of the times you've read a glowing preview, or seen a wicked trailer, only to throw down the dosh for the game and realize that it's nothing at all like you thought. Sucks, doesn't it? But that's what you get for being hasty with your purchase.

Now, maybe with the adventure genre being so sparsely populated preorders are a safer bet, but I think anyone willing to slap their money on the table before reading a review or playing a demo is taking a gamble and shouldn't complain if the product isn't up to their standards.

[rosellagin]

I don't think the "Retry" option would be applicable....especially if you missed something early on in the game. I'm sure anyone here who has played KQ5 is more than familiar with the cat & mouse fiasco.

[MusicallyInspired]

Oh don't worry, Telltale would never put a gamer in the position of screwing themselves over because they weren't careful or observant. :p

[Alex IDV]

Hmmm

As someone who only started playing King's Quest recently (late last year, if I recall correctly. I've only played AGDI's remakes of KQ1-3), I can say that while the whole "save often" thing doesn't bother me, it doesn't add anything to the experience for me. Deaths should absolutely be there, it wouldn't really be King's Quest without them.

[arcanedude34]

Deaths in adventure games serve no purpose unless they're funny or add to the tension of a conflict puzzle. However, my normal reaction to dying is something like "Damn, now I have to backtrack because I don't save every time I walk onto a new screen. How was I supposed to know that that Graham would be attacked by a wolf from out of nowhere before I could react?" It's more a frustration than anything, especially in King's Quest games where the developers were clearly just messing with the players at some points, and there's nothing wrong with a game that doesn't punish you for exploring.

Somewhat related, Telltale fans are really whiny.

[MusicallyInspired]

There's nothing wrong with being punished for exploring either. It's all a matter of tolerance and what you can (or want) to handle as a gamer. I personally don't see a point in deaths if there are no consequences for it (like losing your place and having to start over). It's a threat to the continued progress of you the gamer, like any death should be in any game. Without it it's more like a "GOTCHA!!! Hahaha no I'm just kidding. I had you, though! I had you!" thing. Which is funny in Family Guy, Monkey Island, and even Space Quest, but not in King's Quest.

[arcanedude34]

I disagree fundamentally with the first sentence of your post. I mean, yes, if you do something completely stupid, like walking up to a dragon, you should die, and if you didn't save before, that's your own stupid fault. But the sheer unpredictability of some of the game overs in the early KQ games really baffles me as to why people would find that enjoyable. It's not punishing bad decisions, it's punishing not guessing what ludicrous thing the game developers wanted you to do, or not walking right along the two pixel-wide walkway perfectly, or not knowing the in-game timer to a T.

And I guess I'm confused to why people are getting so worked up about this, even if there was a choice to disable the feature, and why people are saying the mere knowledge that some people aren't playing it as hardcore as them is ruining the game. I mean, the first three games have fan remakes that disable dead-ends. Does that ruin the original games for you?

[Mr. Freeze]

That logic doesn't apply to my original point (if I remember it correctly)... Taking dead ends out of the game was the right move. King's Quest is (ideally) supposed to keep you on your toes while you play, not screw you over at the very end because you forgot one item at the beginning that you can't get now. We should draw the line for how the KQ player experience should be reasonably; let's not fall into a slippery slope argument where if we can do one thing in one situation it automatically applies in all situations.

[arcanedude34]

I wasn't referring to you or anyone else specifically. And yes, I know that nobody (sane) would argue that the "You forgot an item three hours ago? Unwinnable." approach should stay. But there are a LOT of deaths in the old Sierra games that didn't need to be there.

For example, King's Quest I: You had the various rivers in the game. Fair enough, if you walk into the river, the game lets you know this is bad by killing you, and it's easy enough to tell which bodies of water are shallow enough to wade across. Then you had the witch, dragon, and giant. All plot relevant, all obvious dangers, as fairly easily avoidable until you were ready to deal with them.

Where it loses me is with the wolf, the ogre, the dwarf, and the leprechauns. The first three, they're just there to antagonize you with no context, and inhibit exploration in an often unfair and unpredictable way. Yes, they always appear on the same screens, but you won't know that until you've already had to restart because of them.

And the leprechauns represent the absolute worst trend in adventure games: The aforementioned punishment for not having the right item. I guess it wouldn't be too bad, except that you can save between when you can last acquire the item needed to get rid of them, and when it's too late to go get it, and you probably will because of the obvious danger in the cave leading up to them. But again, I don't think anyone is defending this trend.

I guess it really boils down to this for me: If the cause of death has a place in context of the story, and is obvious enough to encourage you to save before experimenting, then it's fine. It's the random, out of context middle fingers that Sierra would send my way that make me prefer the fan remakes of the first three KQ games.

EDIT: I'm going strictly from memory on this, by the way, so if there are contexts for the dwarf, wolf, or ogre, or if the game prevents you from going to the leprechaun cave without the clover or fiddle, then I will concede those points. And I know the dwarf is provided context in later versions, but not the original, if I recall correctly.

[Blackthorne519]

Sometimes that's life, man. You don't always get a warning when bad shit up and happens.


Bt

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm not defending dead ends so much as I'm attacking autosave/retry deaths. I could live without dead ends, even though I appreciate them. I can't live with retry deaths or without an option to disable them. It renders them pointless.

And I don't consider these classic adventure game mechanics so much as trying to guess what the developer wants you to do as it is searching out the game world and experimenting to find out just what kind of world it is and what dangers it holds. Some call this fourth-wall breaking and frustrating because it absolutely depends on the save game feature, I beg to differ. It's all part of the game experience for me. Deaths and dead ends to me are dangers that impede your ability to progress and complete the game. It's an added difficulty. Obstacles to overcome. Gamers today don't appreciate this. Even in the FPS world. We don't even have save slots anymore, we have checkpoints. So you never have to worry about losing in your game. Just shut it off whenever you're done and the game automatically saves your progress. I guess I'm just used to the old-school days of not even HAVING saves and you have to beat the whole game in one sitting (like the NES and SNES classics) and when a game does have the ability to save I use it for all it's worth. I don't think saves should come packaged with the game, I think they are a game tool one must utilize, not something to not have to worry about.

Regarding dead ends, they're frustrating, yes. But as I said above I also consider them gaming obstacles. Whether intended or unintended implementations. If you're at the end of the game and you don't have the item you need and can't figure out what to do it's you're logical reasoning skills (a mandatory adventure tool) that deduce that you missed something and have to go back. This isn't a bad thing! This means you GET to go back and explore the world again! More game! You missed something! There's more of the world to explore and solve before moving on! I always worry when moving into new game areas that I missed something beforehand because of this and make sure I look absolutely everywhere I can think of. Of course this doesn't always work, but again, you get to play the game longer to find new things you never noticed before. There are ALWAYS things you never noticed before in an adventure game. Even if you beat it. There's always more in the world to see and do that you missed (not in Telltale games, but anyway...).

I do this in other games too. FPS, RPG, everything. I look around everywhere for every possible secret I can find and make sure I have everything I can get before moving on. I'm not saying that everyone should share my practices of playing a game, I'm just sharing how I enjoy and support deaths, random deaths, and unwinnable situations. I'm romanticizing a little bit, as dead ends CAN be insanely frustrating to the point of me wishing they weren't even there, but at the end of the day it makes for much more enjoyable experience when I finally beat it with full points. Yeah! I BEAT this sucker! Bring it on!

Yeah.

[gamingafter40]

I think King Graham should finally be made to pay for his crimes.

Oh, those aren't the kinds of in-game deaths we're talking about? Because I know a couple of witches' families who might have a thing or two to say about that. Those poor old ladies didn't get to SAVE and RESTORE, that's for sure.

[MusicallyInspired]

Hahaha

[Kroms]

There's nothing wrong with being punished for exploring either. It's all a matter of tolerance and what you can (or want) to handle as a gamer.

It's the stuff real men are made of.

I think you're completely wrong, but when did rational argument ever beat nostalgia in a sparring match?

[MusicallyInspired]

Just because people are too lazy nowadays to enjoy a good dangerous baffling adventure game and want every answer handed to them on a silver platter in the safest game environment possible doesn't mean I'm speaking solely out of nostalgia.

I'm alright with removing dead ends. That will never work ever again I imagine. But that doesn't mean that gameplay and that on-edge feeling of exploration has to be completely nonexistent. I don't understand gamers today. Games just aren't challenging anymore.

[Alex IDV]

I personally think that totally random and unpredictable deaths are terrible - you know, walk onto a new screen, and WHAM, before you get the chance to do anything, a werewolf kills you. Ones that could've been avoided if you used logic, common sense and a bit of cautiousness (sp?) are great, and add to the game.

[Kroms]

Just because people are too lazy nowadays to enjoy a good dangerous baffling adventure game and want every answer handed to them on a silver platter in the safest game environment possible doesn't mean I'm speaking solely out of nostalgia.

I'm alright with removing dead ends. That will never work ever again I imagine. But that doesn't mean that gameplay and that on-edge feeling of exploration has to be completely nonexistent. I don't understand gamers today. Games just aren't challenging anymore.

Yet you have rock-hard games like Demon's Souls or Super Meat Boy that are somehow both hard and fair.

I don't think it's really laziness. Dying should be instantly reversible, and not a punishment. No menu should come up. Press "R" to return to the edge of the cliff you so beautifully slipped over.

Dead ends never worked in the first place.

[MusicallyInspired]

That's a fair point, but you can't compare two genres together. Even Super Meat Boy doesn't allow you to continue from the very point you died. And it wouldn't be very challenging if you did. You have to start the whole level over. And that can be just as maddening if not more seeing as it happens so frequently.

[Kroms]

Right, except getting to the edge of the cliff in Super Meat Boy is in itself a challenge. In King's Quest, it's just clicking on a point and watching your character slowwwwwwwly get there. I think most gamers would die of boredom the fifth time they had to do this. Instant access to rooms via double click was the best thing that ever happened to adventure games.

I really, really don't like GUIs or menus in my games. If you want death, fine; but don't use it as punishment, nor bring up a menu everytime it happens. Make it instantly reversible, and use it as feedback to players - a way to tell them that whatever they just did was wrong. I can't see it being useful otherwise.

[Krohn]

What is the difference between being able to chose retry or having to load an old game anyway.
To make a death meaningful all saves have to be deleted.

Preferable the adventure gets changed around too, so you can't use previous experience to handle things better.
(Too bad that current adventures do have a problem with randomizing the environment)

[Kroms]

What is the difference between being able to chose retry or having to load an old game anyway.

Bringing up menus is an immersion killer for me. I just wanna get on with it. We Arabs have a word for it - "Yallah!". Hurry up already. I could do without the silly menu.

[MusicallyInspired]

Right, except getting to the edge of the cliff in Super Meat Boy is in itself a challenge. In King's Quest, it's just clicking on a point and watching your character slowwwwwwwly get there. I think most gamers would die of boredom the fifth time they had to do this. Instant access to rooms via double click was the best thing that ever happened to adventure games.

You sound like the type of person who would love the new Jurassic Park game. Perhaps King's Quest isn't for you.

I really, really don't like GUIs or menus in my games. If you want death, fine; but don't use it as punishment,

Then what good is it? For a laugh? That's not King's Quest, that's Space Quest. Or to a lesser extent Leisure Suit Larry.

nor bring up a menu everytime it happens. Make it instantly reversible, and use it as feedback to players - a way to tell them that whatever they just did was wrong. I can't see it being useful otherwise.

Geez, you sound like an incredibly impatient gamer. Perhaps adventure games themselves aren't your cup of tea? Adventure games aren't about "getting on with it." It's about exploration, discovery, and the journey. Not the goal.

What is the difference between being able to chose retry or having to load an old game anyway.
To make a death meaningful all saves have to be deleted.

The difference is it's your responsibility as a gamer to save the game yourself. So if you forget or don't bother it's your fault. It's a threat to the progression of the game. What else should a death be? They're completely pointless otherwise. This is the first and oldest rule of video games in general with regards to failure. The save feature should be bonus enough. Autosaves are just handing the game to you without putting up a fight. And that's just not fun and makes deaths merely minor annoyances rather than the show-stopping dangerous game events they should be.

[thom-22]

One of the things that gave King's Quest (and other Sierra) games a distinct style is that as the player, you are responsible for your character's feet. Graham and family do not automatically avoid raging rivers and toxic swamps as Guybrush does. Other threats are mobile and so must the player be prepared to use the character's feet to get his or her ass away from them. You need to put yourself into your character's feet -- and not just their inventory stash -- to survive icy mountains and vast deserts.

While it has mostly disappeared from the adventure genre since the heyday of Sierra, puzzle-solving from the perspective of the feet can add excitement to gameplay and contribute to immersion in the game-world (far more than occasionally having to reload a saved game detracts from it). There's nothing inherently "unfair" about it -- just as it's not unfair to have to be responsible for aiming your character's weapons in a third-person action-adventure even though many of them have auto-aim, it's not unfair to have to consider your character's feet in an adventure game just because most of the others incorporate an auto-danger-avoidance system during movement.

It's a different approach to gameplay, and one that I think is worth preserving in any honest attempt to revive the King's Quest franchise. Why are adventure gamers always so eager to have every title hammered down to fit the same mold?

[MusicallyInspired]

Here's an interesting article on deaths in video games past, present, and what to expect in the future. It doesn't really tread into the adventure genre, but it does raise some great points nonetheless which I think are just as pertinent to adventure games.

Check it out.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-crucial-lessons-learned-by-watching-kids-play-video-games/

Here's a particularly interesting tidbit, though:

... those of you who grew up with the old-school games, have you felt anything like the horrible tension you felt when you knew that you were on that last life, on that last level and that dying meant everything you had accomplished would be wiped out?

The stakes were so high, and the feeling you got from winning was like you'd won the Super Bowl. Now, when I'm given a virtual God Mode from the very beginning as part of the game design, it just feels ... well, kind of wrong. But the new generation of gamers disagree with me, and the entire concept of getting stuck in a game is treated like a bug that gets squashed during play testing. So games have moved on to the "long interactive movie" concept, a progression from A to B where it's a foregone conclusion that you're going to win, and without any kind of real hardship along the way.

[chucklas]

You know, that quote immediately made me thing of Contra. I love that game. It was fun to use the code for 30 lives to easily beat the game, but the game was so much better when I sat down with a buddy and played the game for 2 days straight until we beat it without using the code. There were some seriously tense moments, and when we finally beat it, the satisfaction was huge. I haven't felt that from a game in a LONG LONG LONG time.

[BagginsKQ]

Then what good is it? For a laugh? That's not King's Quest, that's Space Quest. Or to a lesser extent Leisure Suit Larry.

I don't know what games you were playing but deaths in KQ up to KQ7 often included humor, especially KQ5 through KQ7 and KQ1 remake. They were also generally exaggerated in the earlier games. Lots of unique animations for each death in all the games (before the textbox appeared). Also note the death theme in kQ2 was in and of itself a joke. Many of the deaths, sometimes the most amusing ones were only possible to see if you went out of your way to make something a dead-end. In all the games quite entertaining.

Even though KQ8 lacked fancy death text screens, there were still a variety of animations depicting connor's death via different obstacles and enemies. It wad however the only one to lack all humor in death.

One of these days I need to make a list of the deaths for each game.

[MusicallyInspired]

There were very few if any humorous deaths in KQ5 and KQ6, though. Maybe some mildly amusing narrator comments. My point was not that they can't be funny at times but that that the deaths weren't meant entirely for comedic purposes, like many people here seem to be suggesting. That's Space Quest and LSL.

[BagginsKQ]

I meant the text box was the funny part.

Actually in space quest most of the deaths are not so much funny (unless you are into sadomasochism), but rather violent and realistic. It was the death comment after the death that made them funny. There are only one or two that are flat out funny even before you got he text screen. With the instant replay cam.

In earliest KQ the funny aspec of the death were the exaggerated animations since the original games lacked unique death comments for each death. The practice of adding a funny death coment began with KQ3 IIRC. For example falling off the ice cave cliff gave a comment about Russian judges giving your fall a 9.0.

[MusicallyInspired]

The point of deaths in Space Quest was (admittedly, by Scott Murphy) to make them humorous and fun to attempt rather than annoying to run into. That's quite a far stretch from King's Quest's approach.

Let's be honest, you didn't go around in King's Quest looking for ways to brutally murder your character and laugh at it. But that was entirely the intended effect with Space Quest. I'm pointing out the difference that King's Quest deaths were meant to impede your progress while Space Quest deaths were there to impede your progress but also reward you for finding ways to kill off Roger in very brutal ways if you wanted to. While one could find it amusing to try and kill your character in a King's Quest game it wasn't really the point.

Again, in short, King's Quest deaths were usually not funny until the death message since it wasn't a comedy game. That's the main difference I'm pointing out here. Even the narrator in KQ6 describes the process of your death as it's happening as a suspenseful ominous event. It's not until after the death you get a subtly smarmy remark. I'm just saying that the deaths aren't supposed to be funny like some people are saying. That's Space Quest's territory. SQ's were funny because it was so overbearingly brutal.

[BagginsKQ]

By the way you use KQ6 as your main example of what narration 'is' in KQ but in general it is the one game that is the least like any previous KQ.

It's overly dramatic tone is more to do with Jane Jensen than Roberta! If you go back to previous Roberta games, the humor was in exaggerated cartoony death animations in the earliest games, the addition of funny death picture in KQ5 and KQ1 remake (a style ripped out of Space Quest 3 actually). More importantly many of the narrations were filled with puns and jokes even in non dangerous situations (often at the expense of the player, or nods to pop culture)! Check out KQ2 and KQ3 scripts for prime examples!

[BagginsKQ]

Yet most deaths in space quest in general do impede your character. You had to solve a puzzle to get past them. Others act as rather logical barriers preventing you from traveling to far on a planet. Try to explore outside of the designated area and you might be eaten like a snake or grell, or have an asteroid fall on your head!

Granted it also had it's 'secret' deaths like pushing the red button, or poking about mysterious holes. But for the for the most part most acted as barriers or punishments for making puzzle mistakes.

If you hadn't noticed Sierra produced their own hintbooks and in most of them there were 'did you try sections'. These were written by people such as Roberta Williams or Al Lowe in the case of KQ games. What's interesting is many of the things to try involve secret deaths that the designers put into KQ for the fun of it. Many of these do not 'impede' your progress and a player has to try to do illogical thing to see them. Like for example in KQ2 you can choose to 'drink' the poison lake water. Graham is given an overly dramatic death scene where he turns a deep shade of purple. Most people aren't going to attempt to drink poisoned water! Unless they are suicidal.

I point this out as this is a case where even Roberta or Al Lowe (KQ2) admitted that many deaths were for the fun if it and to reward you for finding them! But let's remember she personally never saw KQ as a serious series, to her it was almost satirical nod to classic fairy tales. Many of the scripts for the earliest four games were filled with puns in the narration and jokes at the player's expense (with references only the player would understand). Such as references to Mr. Ed or Colonel Sanders or in some cases other Sierra games! Many of the comments were fourth wall braking in KQ2 and KQ3's style of narration (thankfully not nearly as much as in the fan games).

Yes Space Quest did many of its deaths in an attempt to satire KQ or really any older adventure games with death. But even the designers in KQ were not always 'serious' about it.


In fact I've even read a few old interviews where Roberta claimed that she intended KQ to be a light and humorous adventure game, and even wanted the deaths to be fun and entertaining, not something to annoy the player.

I suppose it's where space quest and KQ are different is the author's completely different styles of humor. It's also a matter of different people's interpretations of the humor. Murphy apparently saw KQ as a serious series, Roberta saw it as something light and whimsical, full of humor.

I think it's also kind of funny how KQ5 and KQ1 remake nabbed the funny close up death pictures-style that Space Quest had been utilizing since SQ3!

[MusicallyInspired]

You're still missing my point so I'm not pressing the issue further.

[BagginsKQ]

I'm not trying to 'miss' your point, I'm just trying to point out that the purpose of deaths in KQ was interpreted differently by different people, including those working at Sierra, including Roberta Williams. It's probably tinged by their various different senses of humor. What Roberta considered humor, Murphy's was quite a bit different!

Hoever, I wouldn't put it past Roberta started taking some inspiration from the Space Quest way of doing deaths by KQ 3, much in the same way KQ5 'ripped off' the Space Quest 3/4/5/1VGA style death boxes. KQ2's narration might have had been inspired by Al Lowe's sense of humor considering the number of slightly lewd elements hidden in the text in regards to the female characters in the game.

Speaking of people not getting certain types of humor, over another type of humor. Have you ever run into diehard Lucasarts fans that prefer those games, because they didn't find Sierra games funny? Because of completely different styles of humor?

Or visa versa for diehard Sierra fans?