How to Handle Deaths (Revised Poll)

[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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Freeze

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]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

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?

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]

Originally Posted by Mr. Freeze

... 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.ph...nnableByDesign

[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]

Originally Posted by caeska

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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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

[NSM]

Originally Posted by 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)

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]

Originally Posted by NSM

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.

Originally Posted by NSM

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]

Originally Posted by thom-22

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).

Originally Posted by thom-22

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?

Originally Posted by thom-22

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]

Originally Posted by NSM

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.