How should this game handle ingame deaths?

[Armakuni]

Yes, that can definitely be very annoying... the best idea is just to create a lot of saves and never overwrite.
However, seeing as that issue is easily solved by simply creating a lot of saves, it's not what I find the most difficult about not having an indication that you've reached a dead end - the one thing that sometimes really bugs me is when I reach a point where I feel unsure of whether I'm just stuck and need to keep trying, or whether I've actually encountered a dead end.
It can be annoying when you're not sure which is the case.
On the other hand, I think it's a great feeling whenever I successfully solve a puzzle I realize could easily have turned into a dead end.

I also find it kind of annoying (though a very minor annoyance) there isn't room for more saves in each folder... especially in these games where I always end up with a lot of saves.
Not a big effort to create more folders, but still one of the things I've always found a bit annoying.

Anyway, maybe it's better to get back to talking about dying, it's much too easy to wander off topic when talking about something I'm (maybe even a bit excessively) interested in

[coolguy721]

Thing is is that the harder the puzzle the longer the game. also it's a lot more satisfying when you solve a harder puzzle then an easy puzzle

[Armakuni]

Yes, as long as the dead ends/general puzzles/ways to die aren't completely unfair, I'm completely fine with it.

[MusicallyInspired]

I'm slowly realising this is exactly the same debate as when the parser was replaced with P&C. Or when 160x200 was replaced by 320x200. Or EGA replaced by VGA. or Super VGA. Or 3D (as is evident in another thread). And now retry deaths. This is a huge preference thing. Granted, some things really detract from the gaming experience (P&C and non-retry deaths), but that doesn't change what's going to happen whether we like it or not, unfortunately. Telltale are going to put in retry deaths I guarantee you. And there's nothing we can do about it.

[chucklas]

I agree with you MI, TellTale will do it their way, and I imagine deaths will be included but it will most likely just have the KQ7 retry as the means to handle them. I would love to be able to disable that feature (which would not be too hard to do) but I doubt it will happen.

[Lambonius]

Yes--please Telltale, give us the option to customize the play experience slightly. The option to disable automatic retries should be quick and easy to implement, and would please both sides of the debate.

[Sinaz20]

Originally Posted by Lambonius

Yes--please Telltale, give us the option to customize the play experience slightly. The option to disable automatic retries should be quick and easy to implement, and would please both sides of the debate.

So, is the only difference, in your opinion, of automatic retries, and a save game manually made right before a perilous part of the game just that the player had to make the decision to save?

Or is there something deeper?

Our engine has autosaving and manual save. What if autosave just kicked in after solving a puzzle rather than before (as would make sense to me at least?)

I think we have the ability to disable autosaves by simply not calling them as well, but I think some skus require an autosave feature. I could be wrong, though.

[wilco64256]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

So, is the only difference, in your opinion, of automatic retries, and a save game manually made right before a perilous part of the game just that the player had to make the decision to save?

Or is there something deeper?

Our engine has autosaving and manual save. What if autosave just kicked in after solving a puzzle rather than before (as would make sense to me at least?)

I think we have the ability to disable autosaves by simply not calling them as well, but I think some skus require an autosave feature. I could be wrong, though.

The difference is that having an autosave happening automatically before any perilous situation takes the pressure off me trying to plan ahead for those types of situations. If I know a game is protecting me from any peril then there's no effort needed on my part to stay safe or pay attention until after I get killed and choose the Retry option.

On the other hand, if I'm expected to manage my own saves then I'm going to be a lot more careful and observant of my surroundings and so forth. For example, in Tomb Raider Underworld I never felt any desire to deliberately save the game or be careful at all as the game was constantly autosaving and a death only cost me maybe a minute or two tops. In Thief Deadly Shadows I am manually creating new saved games every five minutes or so just in case I manage to get myself killed or stuck someplace I didn't expect. Thief is the far better game in my opinion.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

So, is the only difference, in your opinion, of automatic retries, and a save game manually made right before a perilous part of the game just that the player had to make the decision to save?

Or is there something deeper?

The point is making the player feel the NEED to save at all.

A sense of unexpected peril around any corner was a staple of the KQ series, and a big part of what made those games feel like such memorable adventures. Automatic retries remove that sense of peril and ultimately make the game a more shallow and bland experience as a result. In order for something to really feel dangerous, there needs to be a sense that missteps in those dangerous situations will have actual tangible consequences.

[thesporkman]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

So, is the only difference, in your opinion, of automatic retries, and a save game manually made right before a perilous part of the game just that the player had to make the decision to save?

Or is there something deeper?

Our engine has autosaving and manual save. What if autosave just kicked in after solving a puzzle rather than before (as would make sense to me at least?)

I think we have the ability to disable autosaves by simply not calling them as well, but I think some skus require an autosave feature. I could be wrong, though.

Autosaving after solving a puzzle sounds like a good idea to me. It's still up to the player to determine whether something might be perilous and whether they think they should save beforehand, but if they do mess up and don't save, they'll lose some progress but will only have to go back to the last logical checkpoint.

[MusicallyInspired]

I believe I suggested earlier the idea of saving after solving a puzzle or receiving a point. As long as that point isn't before a major perilous event. I don't mind losing some progress as opposed to all of it, though that would be the better choice I think personally. But autosaving after a puzzle is solved (which I would do anyway) or when you reach a new area or something (as long as it's not a dangerous area) seems an ok compromise.

Basically, I just want deaths to mean something. Don't put them in if it's just going to be a retry. There's no point. KQ deaths were not for the lulz, that was Space Quest's shtick. KQ's deaths were meant to hinder your progress and punish you for making wrong decisions.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

KQ's deaths were meant to hinder your progress and punish you for making wrong decisions.

Good times, man.

[ATMachine]

Interesting that you Sierra fans talk about the necessity to punish the player. I think that's a major point where the Sierra and LucasArts design philosophies differed, with LucasArts (almost) always trying to avoid penalizing the player for screwing up.

Personally, I would like a "retry" feature, although I wouldn't complain if there isn't one. However, I must admit I grew up as a LucasArts fan first and foremost, so I think punishing the player is something that generally should be minimized.

[MusicallyInspired]

The design philosophies are certainly very different. Sierra and LucasArts split the adventure community into two groups; those who wanted to explore, discover, and solve puzzles without the possibility of failure, and those who enjoyed the challenge of overcoming deadly puzzles and obstacles. Not that there's anything wrong with either, but they are two very real and very equally-sized groups. That's why Sierra did so well alongside LucasArts. LucasArts didn't steal any fanbase from Sierra, they merely provided an alternative.

The downside is the "do no evil" side (LucasArts) of the fanbase criticizes deaths and player punishments as design flaws and considers most Sierra fans to be gluttons for punishment. This is not the case. There is simply a greater feeling of satisfaction for solving and beating a dangerous adventure game, in my opinion, by overcoming all those obstacles and perilous areas. Sierra made adventure games alive with danger. Despite the fact that it was just a game where you walk around and click on things, their games felt very dangerous and so felt very alive, while LucasArts games lacked that in a way (games like Myst and most Adventure Company games completely lacked this in every way, which is why most people consider adventure games today to be boring; no challenge, no live atmosphere). To make up for it almost ALL of LucasArts' games had great humour and dialogue, but if you removed those things their games wouldn't nearly be as fun at all gameplay-wise. Even the Indiana Jones games had a bit of humour and where it lacked in humour it added actual deaths and consequences. Even LucasArts seemed to realize that you can't have a serious adventure game without peril. I believe there's actually a quote somewhere where they said adventure games needed to be funny to be entertaining. And you can't have peril without deaths and consequences. And those consequences mean absolutely squat if you can just retry to avoid it.

[Lambonius]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

...you can't have peril without deaths and consequences. And those consequences mean absolutely squat if you can just retry to avoid it.

Exactly. Retries are not a compromise; they completely negate the consequences of dying in the game. You either have deaths, or you have retries. Deaths with retries are not deaths.

The bottom line is you simply can't make a good KQ game adhering to a strictly Lucasarts design philosophy. Heck, it wouldn't even be a KQ game, period.

[chucklas]

Yes the philosophies are different, but there is the simple fix of allowing the user to DISABLE auto save and retries. If this were done (a simple fix from the design and programming perspectives), then everyone would be happy. The revised death poll so far shows 100% of the people that have responded say that they would be satisfied with this solution. It doesn't get much better than 100%.

[MusicallyInspired]

Of course.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Sinaz20

What if autosave just kicked in after solving a puzzle rather than before (as would make sense to me at least?)

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

I believe I suggested earlier the idea of saving after solving a puzzle or receiving a point. As long as that point isn't before a major perilous event. I don't mind losing some progress as opposed to all of it, though that would be the better choice I think personally. But autosaving after a puzzle is solved (which I would do anyway) or when you reach a new area or something (as long as it's not a dangerous area) seems an ok compromise.

Basically, I just want deaths to mean something. Don't put them in if it's just going to be a retry. There's no point. KQ deaths were not for the lulz, that was Space Quest's shtick. KQ's deaths were meant to hinder your progress and punish you for making wrong decisions.

I agree. I would prefer it didn't autosave after every puzzle.

In KQ6 on the Isle of the Beast, if there were such a post-puzzle autosave, I would prefer it didn't happen after disabling each trap, but instead after disabling every trap and dispelling the curse on Beast (which you must solve after completing the last trap lest you die.)

In KQ2, I would be perfectly okay if it only autosaved after unlocking each door while expecting that if I wanted more frequent save points then I must do it myself.

TTG's King's Quest doesn't need unfair deaths, but I would also qualify unfair and unexpected as different ideas. There ought to be a way to keep exploring fun such that you're not penalized for poking around a lot, while still having places where something can startlingly pop out and kill you in a way that adds to the tension without detracting from the fun.

[SHODANFreeman]

The only people that KQ deaths ever punished were people that didn't mash their save button every time they ever accomplished anything (read: no one).

How many times did you lose any significant progress (as in, something more than having walked into a new area) to a death? My guess is either zero, or one time, because after one death of that sort, you started saving so often that it never mattered.

If adding some kind of auto-save to a game makes you unable to enjoy the game because you force yourself to play like a complete fool, perhaps you should try playing things as they're intended rather than exploiting them on purpose and blaming the game for your own stupidity? Basically, you're just saying that you want to be forced to manually save so that if you somehow happen to forget (you won't) and die, you can curse yourself out for being a total moron. It's an annoyance, not a feature, and nothing anyone can ever say will convince me otherwise.

(PS: I am still in favor of an option allowing auto-save to be turned off, though I completely don't see the point in doing so.)

[Armakuni]

Just having to save the game a lot is a constant reminder of how you could die at any moment, which is lost when you don't have to worry about this at all.

Another thing you'll lose if saving is automatically done for you is the feeling of being really glad you just saved the game.
Not everyone saves the game all the time, many people mostly only save when they suspect something dangerous is about to happen... and it's kind of a nice feeling when you have that suspicion, save the game and then end up dying soon after.
Instead of having the game doing that for you, it becomes your own decision and your own responsibility.