How should this game handle ingame deaths?

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

Deaths =/= annoying.

I'm not saying deaths are annoying, I'm saying removing auto-save and forcing people to manually save is annoying, and not beneficial in any way to the game experience, nor does it in any tangible way increase difficulty.

[wilco64256]

Originally Posted by SHODANFreeman

I'm not saying deaths are annoying, I'm saying removing auto-save and forcing people to manually save is annoying, and not beneficial in any way to the game experience, nor does it in any tangible way increase difficulty.

But if a game handles saving in any situation that requires it, where's the pressure on the player to pay attention to anything? You can just wander along totally carelessly knowing that the game is holding your hand in case anything bad happens. Personally I prefer having to be responsible for covering my own tracks.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by SHODANFreeman

I'm not saying deaths are annoying, I'm saying removing auto-save and forcing people to manually save is annoying, and not beneficial in any way to the game experience, nor does it in any tangible way increase difficulty.

The whole point of death in any type of game, not just adventure, is to provide negative consequences for the player's careless actions. In an adventure game, it is careless to go through large sections of the game without saving. In a shooter, it is careless to run through large sections of the game without enough health, or without stopping to heal (actually I hate the magic recharge system from current shooters, but that's another story.) If you remove the consequences of careless play, you remove the player's responsibility to play the game intelligently. I'd say that is a pretty darn blatant decrease of difficulty.

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by wilco64256

But if a game handles saving in any situation that requires it, where's the pressure on the player to pay attention to anything? You can just wander along totally carelessly knowing that the game is holding your hand in case anything bad happens. Personally I prefer having to be responsible for covering my own tracks.

Originally Posted by Lambonius

The whole point of death in any type of game, not just adventure, is to provide negative consequences for the player's careless actions. In an adventure game, it is careless to go through large sections of the game without saving. In a shooter, it is careless to run through large sections of the game without enough health, or without stopping to heal (actually I hate the magic recharge system from current shooters, but that's another story.) If you remove the consequences of careless play, you remove the player's responsibility to play the game intelligently. I'd say that is a pretty darn blatant decrease of difficulty.

If you can hit save at any point on your own, then all it is doing by removing auto-save is removing convenience. Nothing is getting harder except your ability to continue enjoying the game uninterrupted because you have to keep jabbing a save menu any time you accomplish anything significant. Also, no one on earth is going to just wildly charge through levels just because auto-save exists. The incentive to play intelligently is already present in the form of the desire to not repeatedly fail the same thing for hours on end.

[MusicallyInspired]

Originally Posted by SHODANFreeman

I'm not saying deaths are annoying, I'm saying removing auto-save and forcing people to manually save is annoying, and not beneficial in any way to the game experience, nor does it in any tangible way increase difficulty.

And I'm saying leaving in an autosave is not a real death.

Originally Posted by SHODANFreeman

If you can hit save at any point on your own, then all it is doing by removing auto-save is removing convenience. Nothing is getting harder except your ability to continue enjoying the game uninterrupted because you have to keep jabbing a save menu any time you accomplish anything significant.

Yes, but then it's your responsibility and not that of the game itself. I think the argument here is mostly that we believe the gamer has too much convenience as it is. Yes, we believe that is part of the gameplay experience. It's psychological and it matters. Why should I care about what actions I take if the game won't let me fail? But the moment you do care about your actions the game becomes a lot more real, engaging, and ultimately a lot more fulfilling in the end.

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

And I'm saying leaving in an autosave is not a real death.



Yes, but then it's your responsibility and not that of the game itself. I think the argument here is mostly that we believe the gamer has too much convenience as it is. Yes, we believe that is part of the gameplay experience. It's psychological and it matters. Why should I care about what actions I take if the game won't let me fail? But the moment you do care about your actions the game becomes a lot more real, engaging, and ultimately a lot more fulfilling in the end.

How does this change if you can save whenever you want? You can just save, do random stupid crap, and reload, any time you want, so why does it make a difference if the game throws in a few auto-saves after you complete a section of the game or not? If you were arguing in favor of static save points (as in Resident Evil, or Dead Space) rather than constantly-available-manual-save, I could see your point, but currently, I am honestly confused as to how forcing you to interact with an immersion-destroying menu at all times is something you are seeing as a good thing.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yes, you can save whenever you want. The game can't. That's a big difference. A huge difference. It's psychological. No, it doesn't make much sense especially with the way you're describing it, but it's true. And everything you're saying is absolutely correct. But that's the way the human mind operates. I just believe that the gamer should be responsible for the safety and continuation of his own gameplay because that adds more realism than staying immersed without having to exit to a menu does. Otherwise I just don't see the point because you just wouldn't care WHAT you do if you can't fail. It's a psychological fact that if one believes they receive no consequences for their actions (or if they don't care about those consequences) they don't care what they do. Because they don't have the responsibility. It's an extreme example but it's the perfect way to explain it.

And I don't see escaping to the menu "all the time" (I don't believe it's "all the time," either, you're exaggerating here) being distracting or "immersion-breaking." If you know what you're doing and you're being careful enough it becomes part of the gaming experience and you never even have to do it that often. I don't mind saving manually at all. I can't stand any game that saves for you. Checkpoint FPS's drive me insane, for instance. I love me my quick save keys.

Basically, I believe that the frustration that comes from losing game time due to death and no automatic saving is frustration with you the player, not the game. It's not the game's fault. It shouldn't be the one looking out for you. But everybody wants everything done for them all the time. But this has proven to be completely unfulfilling in every facet of life. You only truly enjoy something when you've done it yourself. Again, extreme examples but it's all the same and it certainly applies to video games. I just believe video games today cause gamers to be extremely lazy. Take BTTF. You don't even have to think to get through the game!

[Armakuni]

Yeah, as much as it might sound like just an unneccessary hassle to have to save manually, there really is a difference in how it feels to play.
I think it's essential to leave this optional.

The problem having the game automatically save whenever danger lurks is that it's so easy to get into a pattern of not caring if you die and just going ahead at full speed, which completely changes the atmosphere as you now feel perfectly safe at all times.
A bit how I feel about health automatically recharging in modern FPS games as opposed to good old health kits, but now I'm going too far off topic

Anyway, strange as it might sound, even though you can save manually whenever you want, it really does *feel* very different somehow, and this also allows you to choose how often you wish to save... you might want to let some time pass in between saves, I often do that in games... I used to save every 5 seconds but now I find it more fun to space them out a bit more (though I still do 'save early, save often', just not *as* often ).

Anyway, rambling on as usual, but having a traditional save system should definitely be an option, and I can't see why it shouldn't be - I find it hard to imagine implementing an option like that could take very much effort on Telltales end.

Something I'm even more worried about though is - Telltale not including many deaths at all. Have they given any official statement on this? I can easily imagine a scenario where they decided to cut that specific part of what is very much what makes up Kings Quest, in a misguided attempt to make them more playable.

[MusicallyInspired]

Originally Posted by Armakuni

A bit how I feel about health automatically recharging in modern FPS games as opposed to good old health kits, but now I'm going too far off topic

Yes! I hate that! People may think they want to have certain features that do things for them (and unfortunately game developers deliver this *cough*nowalkinginjurassicpark*cough*) but ultimately the end result turns out to be extremely mediocre eventually as a result. Look at games like Call of Duty. They're not popular and the best selling games because of the checkpoint-laden single player campaigns (which are barely anything to speak of and are simply comprised of the same drivel over and over again). It's the multiplayer. Because that's the only way they can derive a new experience from the game; by playing with other human players. Most FPS games now are multiplayer games with a single player campaign tagged on as opposed to the other way around (the way it should be). And when you think about it, the relation of this being fun to an adventure game with deaths and no autosaves being fun is the human factor which is the only reliably varying factor in the entire equation. Human interactivity is what makes games fun. Whether it be just one person being responsible for most of his own gameplay in a game world, or playing with another human being in an otherwise completely structured and "choice-safe" FPS multiplayer game.

I'm rambling as well...

[SHODANFreeman]

Being forced to even restart a single fight in a game is enough frustration for me to play to the best of my ability at all times. Furthermore, Amnesia uses an auto-save system, and I'm still scared to death of every noise and wet myself when I hear an enemy. Auto-save has no effect on my desire to do well in a game, and I think it's a ridiculous claim. I do not know anyone who would intentionally half-ass a game just because they knew it auto-saved regularly. No one wants to lose or die if they have any say in the matter, period.

Also, if a game has auto-save and manual save, and you don't want to use auto-save, just don't reload an auto-saved game.

[MusicallyInspired]

At that point it's too much work to AVOID the autosave feature, which to me breaks the immersion.

This just proves that everybody has a valid opinion and nothing is a ridiculous claim. In short, it should be optional, which is what I've been arguing all along. I only keep on because you keep trying to prove how it's pointless and invalid when it in fact isn't.

[wilco64256]

Originally Posted by SHODANFreeman

Also, no one on earth is going to just wildly charge through levels just because auto-save exists. The incentive to play intelligently is already present in the form of the desire to not repeatedly fail the same thing for hours on end.

That's exactly how I (and a lot of other people) played through Tomb Raider Legend, Tomb Raider Underworld, and both Drake's Fortune games. There's not even any actual need for health packs in the TR games because if you get low on health all you have to do is die and the game gives you a brand new full health bar.

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

In short, it should be optional, which is what I've been arguing all along. I only keep on because you keep trying to prove how it's pointless and invalid when it in fact isn't.

I've said it should be an option the entire time, I completely agree that more options = better, I'm just trying to decipher why it makes a difference to anyone if you save after a boss fight/new section of the game, or if the game does it for you.

Originally Posted by wilco64256

That's exactly how I (and a lot of other people) played through Tomb Raider Legend, Tomb Raider Underworld, and both Drake's Fortune games. There's not even any actual need for health packs in the TR games because if you get low on health all you have to do is die and the game gives you a brand new full health bar.

Why would you intentionally ruin the experience for yourself by playing like a careless idiot, just because you are able to? How is it fun to play a game intentionally as stupidly as possible, dying over and over and over just so you can later complain that auto-save made you do it? I just don't understand this mentality.

[Blackthorne519]

If you're really looking for "immersion", you shouldn't be able to "save" at all. Because you can't save and reload in life, man!


Bt

[SHODANFreeman]

Originally Posted by Blackthorne519

If you're really looking for "immersion", you shouldn't be able to "save" at all. Because you can't save and reload in life, man!


Bt

That's how most games worked in the NES era, but then again, most NES games are less than 1-2 hrs long from start to finish if you know what you're doing. In games that are anywhere from 10 to 100 hours long, saving is kind of a necessity.

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

It's psychological. No, it doesn't make much sense especially with the way you're describing it, but it's true. And everything you're saying is absolutely correct. But that's the way the human mind operates.

It's funny how this is, like you say, it's psychological. The logic behind what SHODANFreeman is saying is airtight, and yet if given the choice, I would choose to manage my own saves and face the consequences. But it's hard to explain why...

Some other haphazard thoughts on the topic:

While it's fine for a poll, I don't think presenting users with three different, somewhat related choices would work well -- as a sometimes software designer, I can tell you that's usually just bad user experience. And realistically, knowing Telltale, I'd have to guess the game will, by default, offer a "Try Again" button that just puts the player right back to before where the death occurred (as in KQ7). Like most everyone else here, I hope they include some alternate choice for old-school players. Maybe a setting that would change the death screen to have only a "Reload" button instead of "Try Again"? That's just off the top of my head, as something that sounds straightforward and not too difficult to implement.

I also think that the circumstances of in-game deaths might influence how they're handled. For instance, if all of the deaths can be reasonably anticipated by players, then that might suggest one way of handling them that might not be best for a game where deaths are more random. (Personally, I've always thought KQ was about the former and not random, but it seems to get accused of having random deaths more often than is warranted.)

Finally, I hope that the possibility of death is given the same tone as it was in the original games, that deaths aren't turned into some kind of inside joke or parody, or a gimmick meant to appease KQ fans.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by SHODANFreeman

I've said it should be an option the entire time, I completely agree that more options = better, I'm just trying to decipher why it makes a difference to anyone if you save after a boss fight/new section of the game, or if the game does it for you.

Have you played KQ6? Have you played KQ7?

Don't you see how being responsible for the proper continuation of your own gameplay after death increases the suspense and realism?

In KQ6, if you go blundering about the Island of the Beast, and click on the area where the gardener is without paying attention, you get skewered through the chest by a stone arrow. I was on a fast playthrough of the game once and accidentally clicked in the upper area of the screen. "Oh, damn." I believe is what I would have said.

If in KQ7, such a thing were to happen, the only thing I would emote is a mild =\ because the game will start you right back before you died with zero consequences for your carelessness.

In my opinion, having a Retry option that loads the game to a point immediately before death provides no more challenge or suspense than having no death at all. This isn't to say that I don't like Monkey Island. I do. I'm saying that KQ7's difficulty is on par with Monkey Island whereas the earlier KQ games up the bar on suspense, immersion and difficulty by forcing you to personally take consequences for being needlessly careless. They force you to pay attention. If you don't, you may die. If you die, you may have to go back a ways because you didn't take the time to save your progress recently.

KQ's way of treating death isn't better or worse than MI, it's just different. The KQ series (largely) treats death with far more consequence than the MI series does, and as the KQ series is known for having such a method of gameplay, I would prefer that this game have it also.



Again, I did vote for choice. I believe giving the gamer a choice would prevent alienating old school purists or casual gamers alike, even though I side with the former.

[joek86]

Here's some basic truth here, the manual saves weren't put in old adventure game to make them more difficult, it was a limitation of the era, nothing more. I prefer the KQVII style, where you had the deaths and retries. I don't like to save my game all the time, and if it's a good game, I want to keep playing, not constantly dealing with a save screen. That was one of the bad things about the old adventure games was that half your playthrough was spent dealing with the save system.

[MusicallyInspired]

It may have been merely a limitation, but it turned into the gameplay experience for a lot of people. The simple fact is that retry deaths make it too easy for a lot of people.

And personally I've never had to look at the save screen so much. I mean come on, even when you do it doesn't last long. You get to a new area you, press F5, type your save name, hit save. Done. The whole process lasts like 5 seconds if that.

Originally Posted by thom-22

I also think that the circumstances of in-game deaths might influence how they're handled. For instance, if all of the deaths can be reasonably anticipated by players, then that might suggest one way of handling them that might not be best for a game where deaths are more random. (Personally, I've always thought KQ was about the former and not random, but it seems to get accused of having random deaths more often than is warranted.)

Finally, I hope that the possibility of death is given the same tone as it was in the original games, that deaths aren't turned into some kind of inside joke or parody, or a gimmick meant to appease KQ fans.[/QUOTE]

Great points here.

[Armakuni]

Greatly reducing, removing entirely or altering in some drastic way (forced autosave, etc)... would in my opinion cause such a drastic change in how a Kings Quest game feels (goes for a lot of other Sierra series as well).

In fact, I think it goes so much against part of the 'essence' of these games that if they actually plan to cut deaths or alter them in some way to remove any sense of danger, then I can't help but wonder why they would pick a series like Kings Quest... why not another Lucasarts license, or any other of the many adventure game titles/franchises designed in this more 'user-friendly' manner already?

Maybe especially so with Kings Quest - in my opinion, the actual storylines were for the most part not all that interesting... not saying I didn't enjoy them, but in the case of Kings Quest, they were never my main reason for playing the games.
Neither were they particularly funny games... instead of any of that, the Kings Quest games rather seemed to rely on having the player feel like an actual adventurer/explorer... exploring the diverse landscapes that made up the games, feeling like you were on an 'old-fashioned' adventure, in many ways.
And an essential (!) part of that is exactly the feeling of danger surrounding you, nearly every step of the way.

Had the Kings Quest games been heavily story-driven, with deep and engaging storylines, then picking the series up even if planning to remove deaths... well, then it could maybe make a bit of sense, as that would mean one of the main reasons for playing the games would always have been the storylines, where (not saying it wouldn't change anything, of course) deaths might be less of an issue... you could probably write quite a tense and exciting storyline without necessarily having to rely on deaths (certainly you would not need the abundance of deaths you have in KQ games).

But yeah - that's not Kings Quest... Kings Quest 6 might have started going a bit in that direction, but for the most part, that never seemed to be the idea behind the games.