Originally Posted by thom-22
You say that you just want to solve puzzles, but a dead-end means that you failed to solve a puzzle. I don't buy the argument that because the result of a player having failed to solve a puzzle resembles the unintended result of a programming error the puzzle is therefore unfair or illegitimate or lazily designed.
How is a dead-end artificial or cheap? In video-gaming, it is generally the case that when you fail to meet the challenges presented in a game-world, the game takes longer to complete. A dead-end is well within the bounds of this concept, it's just an extreme example.
I have long since given up arguing that games "should" have dead-ends or are "better" with dead-ends. (One has to pick and choose one's battles.) I agree that they can be replaced with other kinds of puzzles and still have a fun and challenging game. It's fine if people don't want to accept dead-ends as "fair game" in their personal video-game choices. I understand they don't want their video-game time spent on repeating large sections. But I have to object when they make the jump from personal dislike to declaring dead-ends invalid or illegitimate or unfair or lazy puzzle design -- it just doesn't wash. chucklas' point is worth repeating:
You don't have to play most of CoD over if you lost in the final fight. It's not the only example of a genre that's had to drop a frustrating mechanic as the years have rolled, either. You couldn't save in Castlevania I and if you died right before the final boss, you'd still have to play from scratch. There are a few hardcore gamers who long for that day, but it's not one that's going to come back.
"Hah! It's like we don't even have feelings. Now pardon me while I recline in my huge executive chair and guffaw, cigar in-hand. "
"ill just go with what Winslow always when something that funny about a location in monkey island is said"
Last edited by DAISHI; 07/06/2011 at 05:23 pm.