When can we expect to see SOMETHING about Telltale's KQ?

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by Cez

I'd still say dead ends in adventure games is a very bad design choice.

So much that when LucasArts came with the popular Monkey Island without a single dead end, Sierra started to change their philosophy towards having them in their games. Expected, maybe, but that may have been because there was no better design popular approach.

That may be, but if there's one thing I've learned from many years of following Sierra fan communities, it's that you'll never, ever convince anyone that something they like/hate about a given game is bad/good, and it is a waste of time to try.

[BagginsKQ]

I think the way that SOMI got around no deaths in some ways, but still allow exploration was to offer a few alternate routes and secret endings... Destroy your ship with a canon, or don't.

Quite a few adventures without deaths have you stuck on a rail. With no detours.

[MusicallyInspired]

Pretty much all of them. Multiple endings and pathways is the only way to deal with it to provide decent exploration (Fate of Atlantis!), but most companies don't want to put in the work to do that at all. That's why I appreciated Heavy Rain so much. You can fail, you can take multiple pathways, and you can STILL get to the end of the game. Genius really.

Also, it's a fair point about the hand-holding being that people who own computers aren't geeks anymore. And adventure-type games are being developed on game consoles as well, thanks to Telltale. It's worth nothing, however, that statistics say that in a 5 to 10 years the majority won't be using computers or laptops anymore, but instead tablets and other palm touch devices. When that happens, the people who still use computers may be special again and get more challenging titles. Then again, maybe they'll stop developing games on the PC altogether at that point. At least the big devs. But that wouldn't be so bad. We'd still have Indie devs.

[BagginsKQ]

And Fate still had deaths! It was balanced.

Another adventure that pulled it off well was Shadows of Destiny. Many paths many endings.

[Lambonius]

And now we're having two different conversations here. Actually, three.

1) Are dead ends a bad design choice?

2) Are deaths a bad design choice?

and 3) Is KQ5 badly designed because it has both deaths and dead ends?

For me, deaths and dead ends are part of a certain STYLE of adventure game, one that I happen to very much enjoy. Others may not. That's okay though, it just means they are wrong.

I just have a hard time with the supposed "fans" who say "I'm a HUGE fan of Sierra adventure games, except for those parts of the games that differentiated them from the other adventure games on the market--deaths and dead ends."

That's sort of like saying "I'm a huge fan of the King's Quest series, except for games 1 through 6."

[KatieHal]

You can enjoy a game and still dislike a particular aspect of it. I really like GK1 but I can't stand listening to the narrator, for example.

SHODAN, I hear what you're saying--parts of those game designs were very frustrating. Even if it was part of the style at the time, and you're by no means "wrong" for not liking that particular aspect of it.

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

For me, deaths and dead ends are part of a certain STYLE of adventure game, one that I happen to very much enjoy. Others may not. That's okay though, it just means they are wrong.

I just have a hard time with the supposed "fans" who say "I'm a HUGE fan of Sierra adventure games, except for those parts of the games that differentiated them from the other adventure games on the market--deaths and dead ends."

That's sort of like saying "I'm a huge fan of the King's Quest series, except for games 1 through 6."

False equivalency, reductio ad absurdem, etc. etc. You don't have to enjoy deaths and dead ends to enjoy Sierra adventure games. I enjoy them because of the challenging puzzles (dead-ends are a part of that, but certainly not the best or only) charming art and story telling, nostalgia, and because they're just plain fun. Deaths were part of the Sierra style, but hardly the defining feature of their games.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by KuroShiro

False equivalency, reductio ad absurdem, etc. etc. You don't have to enjoy deaths and dead ends to enjoy Sierra adventure games. I enjoy them because of the challenging puzzles (dead-ends are a part of that, but certainly not the best or only) charming art and story telling, nostalgia, and because they're just plain fun. Deaths were part of the Sierra style, but hardly the defining feature of their games.

Lucasarts games also had charming art and storytelling, are nostalgic for most of us, and were pretty darn fun, too. And they had challenging puzzles, especially the earlier ones.

Most of them didn't have deaths though. But that didn't make them any worse--just different, because they were designed from the ground up NOT to have deaths. Sierra games made deaths a core part of the gameplay, and dead ends to a lesser extent--they were more than just roadblocks--they revealed danger areas, helped point the player in the direction of puzzle solutions, etc. It was part of the style and part of the charm of a Sierra game.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

The only difference with KQ5 was it had the balls to make it a dead end penalty if you don't get it.

This is my point.

If you were to reach the machine without the required item, nothing would ever bring you to realize you needed cheese for it. Moon logic + dead end = bad. Usually we see one or the other, but encountering both in the same puzzle reeks of poor design.

Examine the other possible dead ends in King's Quest games. Which ones of them also include moon logic?

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

It's not so much enjoyment out of going through it but the satisfaction of solving it afterward.

I did not get satisfaction out of realizing I needed cheese for the machine.

Also, as a music enthusiast, you should be well aware that the two most important parts of any experience are the first impression and the last impression. To give the last significant puzzle a moon logic solution as well as to make it dead-endable is a bad design choice.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm not defending the cheese puzzle. Although, there is a shred of logic to it....."moon logic"? Moon is made of cheese? Intended correlation?

Probably not.

I'm defending the fact that you really should have looked into the mouse hole upon entry of the dungeon as everything was pointing towards it being important upon your arrival. But really, though. There should have been some kind of indication that the cheese was meant to start the machine either by accident or by intent. Like one of the books in Mordack's library alludes to it or something. Maybe they just ran out of development time.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

There should have been some kind of indication that the cheese was meant to start the machine either by accident or by intent. Like one of the books in Mordack's library alludes to it or something.

I remember having this exact same idea once. The library is full of potential hotspots, and even requires you to stay in there for some time, yet the only object of note is the one open spellbook whose pages don't turn.

[Lambonius]

Also, the cheese machine is not the LAST significant puzzle. That last significant puzzle is the magic battle with Mordack where you have to choose the correct counters for his spells. I you want to pick nits, which I DO.

[BagginsKQ]

Well even a comment around the machine, or smoke from the machine, or appearance of the contents of the cauldron could have offered a clue... Something about the smell that would hint towards cheese. Maybe;

If you look at it; 'The bottom portion of this machine, has the appearance of a giant fondue pot, as Graham bends over to examine it, a moldy oder wafts into his nostrils'

Try to pick it up; 'This is nacho machine!' (ok sorry, I couldn't resist).

BTW, I checked, the vat does vaguely look like some fondue pot designs (coincidental or not?)... But even if it was intentional, how many people have seen fondue pots (or one that looks like that)?

[Blackthorne519]

I'm sure Sierra sat on the pile of money they made off of King's Quest 5 and said "Hahah! I can't believe they still bought it in record numbers even with that fucking cheese puzzle....."

Bt

[exo]

I will still say that the damned Bridle puzzle in KQ4 is one of the worst. Again, the logic of finding it flies in the face of other areas AND if you miss it, then you are at a dead end.

Anywhere else in the game, typing look gives you a full view of the surroundings. Typing look at the ground told you all about the ground. Here, typing look at the boat or look at the wreck doesn't show anything, but typing look at the ground while standing in the obscured area in the boat suddenly reveals this bloody bridle.

If for some reason you miss this bridle (ie: basically everyone), then you can not get back to the island a second time. And yes, I knew I needed a bridle the first time I played through, and I hunted high and low for the damn thing. After days of this, a hint sent me replaying the game so i could get back to that island.

There is no satisfaction to a figuring out that I needed to be standing in the exact spot and type the exact thing it wanted.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by exo

I will still say that the damned Bridle puzzle in KQ4 is one of the worst. Again, the logic of finding it flies in the face of other areas AND if you miss it, then you are at a dead end.

Anywhere else in the game, typing look gives you a full view of the surroundings. Typing look at the ground told you all about the ground. Here, typing look at the boat or look at the wreck doesn't show anything, but typing look at the ground while standing in the obscured area in the boat suddenly reveals this bloody bridle.

If for some reason you miss this bridle (ie: basically everyone), then you can not get back to the island a second time. And yes, I knew I needed a bridle the first time I played through, and I hunted high and low for the damn thing. After days of this, a hint sent me replaying the game so i could get back to that island.

There is no satisfaction to a figuring out that I needed to be standing in the exact spot and type the exact thing it wanted.

I agree. That "puzzle" is absolutely terrible. I'm pretty sure Roberta went on record somewhere and admitted that they only put that in there to sell KQ4 hint books.

It's not even as bad as the KQ5 waiting-in-Mordack's-library "puzzle," because at least with that one, there is a chance (slight though it may be) that the player could just stumble on the solution. I seem to recall waiting for Mordack taking a different amount of time every time I played. Sometimes it would happen right away, sometimes it seemed like I would wait FOREVER on the screen before he appeared.

[KuroShiro]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

Lucasarts games also had charming art and storytelling, are nostalgic for most of us, and were pretty darn fun, too. And they had challenging puzzles, especially the earlier ones.

It *is* possible to like different things for similar reasons you know.

Though I don't actually disagree with you. I've always liked the deaths in Sierra games, I just felt the need to play devil's advocate since you were being difficult.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah, the bridle is absolutely the worst puzzle in King's Quest history...and it's NOT in KQ5! Astounding! Even more astounding as most people dislike KQ5 while KQ4, on the other hand, is a high ranking fan favourite.

[exo]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

Sometimes it would happen right away, sometimes it seemed like I would wait FOREVER on the screen before he appeared.

Well hell, when it comes to waiting puzzles, the eagle feather in KQ3 is my worst experience.

I looked every where for that thing. Finally, I check a hint guide and it says an eagle will randomly fly by and drop it. Even armed with this knowledge I still had to climb down the mountain 3 times (had to keep going back up before the wizard got home). So basically, nearly an hour in game time just wandering around waiting for this bloody bird to fly by.

I get that they were trying to give the player a reason to revisit places they had already explored, but that is just too random.

And the most 'You Sons of Bitches) moment for me was realizing I could only walk across that bridge in KQ2 a fixed number of times, and then *whoop*, you gotta play the game from scratch (or at least reload before the first time you crossed unnecessarily). I happened to find that bridge right off the bat, so I had to go all the way back.

What pisses me off about that puzzle is it flies in the face of exploration. The entire point of these games is to explore, even if cautiously. It wasn't even a puzzle... it was just a way to extend the game by making the player do it all over again.

[Cez]

Yeah I don't mind deaths in Sierra games either. Those were fine. I PREFER the retry option, although I can understand the argument that it takes from the game because you stop being careful.

HOWEVER, I wish there was a better solution to that that didn't require you to save before you tried everything. Because "saving" shouldn't be part of a game experience, it just breaks the immersion by reminding you that this is a game, and you have menus.