I just don't see how having the main character vulnerable to dying is a bad gameplay convention. It exists in EVERY other major genre! Why is it only in adventure games (ironic, given the "adventure" part) that people want to say being able to die is a bad thing?
Because LucasArts convinced everybody it was. I personally think they (along with Cyan and the Myst franchise) were major factors in making modern day adventures, well, boring. Yes, Telltale's games are much more stimulating than any other adventure today, but they still lack that sense of danger. And any sense of danger they try to instill just feels like a facade because there's absolutely NO WAY to fail in a Telltale game. Even Riven and Myst had bad endings. At least you could die in Indiana Jones, but only through the arcade sequences.
Because LucasArts convinced everybody it was. I personally think they (along with Cyan and the Myst franchise) were major factors in making modern day adventures, well, boring.
Well at least you can get bad endings in every Myst game.
I haven't completed Myst 3 and onward yet so I wasn't sure. But yeah, that's my point. There's always at least a sense of real danger of failure. That should exist in all games. Including adventures. Otherwise it's just a puzzle game and that's just not as interesting to me.
The biggest thing keeping Telltale from greatness is the lack of ways to die in the games. There's never any fear in doing the wrong thing because you just can't mess the game up!
The classic King's Quest games (and all of Sierra's adventures for that matter) had so many ways to die. I'm not saying it needs to be as hard as the old games because obviously we're in a different era and you want everyone to be able to enjoy the story, but give us SOME sense of danger.
There needs to be more than deaths. There needs to be alternate bad endings. There basically needs to be consequences for actions/inactions and a resulting failure. There needs to be danger. (I'm not necessarily talking about dead ends)
I should say that I don't just want something that's basically a Telltale game with deaths. That wouldn't be any good either. That's no different than the game holding your hand all the way through like the current Telltale games do.
Also, Roberta didn't exactly invent these conventions. The text adventures that came before King's Quest used them, too. You can't fault her for designing the type of experience the audience at the time expected and that she herself had experienced in games she'd played and enjoyed.
Exactly. Even if we entertain the notion that the LucasArts model of making Adventure games is inherently and objectively better in every way, and that they innovated the genre by removing all of the negative elements of it that were present in many of the day's Sierra adventures, Roberta can't be blamed for not innovating exactly the same way LucasArts did. I personally find the notion ridiculous, but even if we believe it, then she is at worst a product of her time. Even then, though, considering how many innovations appeared first in Roberta Williams games, I think she's paid her dues in terms of innovation and value to the computer gaming community, and the massive bitch-fest that surrounds her is extremely overblown, if not entirely undeserved.
There WILL be deaths.. TTG is smart enough to know that the old games had them and that they need to be included... its not like they are afraid to kill the player... the Jurassic Park videos are proof of that.
I've said it before and I say it again, and this is coming from a LucasArts adventure game fanboy, Telltale need to follow the Sierra design philosophy when making King's Quest, and this means there needs to be deaths. They don't have to be unfair deaths necessarily, but if you are stupid enough wake the sleeping troll more than once then he is going to kill you.
They don't need to bring back deadends though, they're just a royal pain.
My only worry is that they won't understand how to go about it given their expressed opinions on it and just throw deaths in any old way at all. But it seems like more people than just Dave Grossman (if he) will be involved, and the Telltale member that appears to be the one leading the project is a big fan. So....in short, we don't know.
only parts? no it needs to format the whole thing.
Even better, it could downgrade the hardware to 1982 standards. Then you could not even play the original, first, classic, non-remade King's Quest. The ultimate dead end short of the big one.
There should be an Ironman mode, where you must play through the entire game without dying AND without saving (although savestate saving could be an option).
That's actually how I completed the CGA KQI 20+ years ago - I couldn't figure out how to switch floppies to save games, so I always played the game in a single session. Imagine the fun when you slip off the stairs or run into the dwarf after collecting all three treasures...
Even better, it could downgrade the hardware to 1982 standards. Then you could not even play the original, first, classic, non-remade King's Quest. The ultimate dead end short of the big one.
It should do what the slot machine does to Roger Wilco in SQI - that would be a real DEAD end.
(A "try again" option is an okay compromise. But when you get into sequences where the death happens quickly and you can't figure out in time how to avoid it, that gets tiresome. I'm thinking of some of the scenes in KQ7, like the one with that giant beetle/scorpion thing... my god, Valanice, STOP SCREAMING AND DO SOMETHING!)
I'm not bothered too much by sequences where you have to react fast to avoid deat; I find unavoidable deaths caused by random events much more annoying.
Like walking into the cyborg in SQXII - if he's on screen when you walk in, you can't even get out of the way; you can only stand there waiting for your death.
There's no doubt that deaths are mandatory, that seems nearly unanimous on these boards. Any Sierra game with Quest in the title needs at least 100 ways to bite it; bloody violent ways via death traps and monsters, accidental ways, humerus ways and just plain careless ways. For the most part, I think they should be avoidable if the players are careful; they will see signs of an undertow if they look at the ocean and a vast dangerous place like a desert or mountain range will need a certain amount of equipment and advice gathered before they're ventured. There's a place for unexpected or unpredictable danger and death as well, used more sparingly like in KQ3: you know the wizard will return to check on you soon, but maybe there's a little more time. Stuff like the KQ5 scorpion that just always appears on the one screen, and boom, your dead, I'm less of a fan of, but I guess it has it's place. Better if there's *some* survival option whether it's fight, flight or fright.
(A "try again" option is an okay compromise. But when you get into sequences where the death happens quickly and you can't figure out in time how to avoid it, that gets tiresome. I'm thinking of some of the scenes in KQ7, like the one with that giant beetle/scorpion thing... my god, Valanice, STOP SCREAMING AND DO SOMETHING!)
I do agree that Val's screems got tiresome, but then she's not used to this adventuring crap.
In my case though, I love being caught of guard and having a short amount of time to figure out how to survive. However, we usually have all the time we could need in these games, especially when opening the inventory pauses the action and gives the player time to think. I know that's not strictly the case in the example you gave, but that scorpion was posturing for 15 seconds or so, and as with most KQ7 encounters you have the option of retreating until you have a plan. This sort of thing I see as a tension killer, KQ7 is the worst, but only KQ1-4 had the charm of randomness; where baddies just show up and you must then do what you can to survive. This wasn't perfect either though, simply running to (or hovering near) the edge of the screen to escape is not realistic unless it's out of the monster's territory, like a Troll would not enter the light, nor a shark come up on land.
I think the new game should bring back these random encounters, only make them creatures not as central to the plot, which can be dealt with non-essential inventory items. Then we can still have the scripted encounters; the minotaurs and ice wolves and nightmares, with all the story and drama attached, maybe just a bit more deadly then in KQ7.
Why do so many of us want to die?
I keep reading about consequences and a sense of danger, the feeling that only your wits can save you in a unpredictable world. I'd have to agree that these were something made King's Quest memorable and replayable. But what consequence is enough?
For some I think it's enough that they feel sympathy and guilt for letting the character down, or the trauma of feeling that they themselves are being devoured, drown or locked up by an greasy innkeeper. I dig that to, but for me, more is needed. I have a problem with the instant restore function used in KQ7/TSL/SQ6 etc. I see that many people here see this fuction as a fair compromise between the old way and the new, therefore it should be kept. Just please make it optional from the start, cause if the choice is there every time I die, I'm probably going to use it. I'll do this because I do want to get right back on with the game, but I'll do so with a sigh because it feels so easy now. It's like how I want to figure out a game without a walkthrough, but they are hard to resist temptation when they are so close to hand.
So the classic manual saving, though primitive, to me represents the best consequence that make you want to avoid death, to avoid loosing at least a little bit of time. Maybe you will loose more time, if you didn't see the danger, but again, warning signs should be there if you make a point of looking for them. Then it becomes less about saving obsessively, and more about saving prudently.
I've tried to think of some other way, some other consequence; perhaps it could lower the score, although the score is a bit arbitrary to me, more of an indicator of how much game is left, and if there were parts of the game I missed. I would not mind terribly if it was removed as a feature.
Maybe a bonus extended ending for those who can make it through without dying?
But still, that's not as impactful as loosing time combined with some twisted animation that makes you feel the death in a host of different ways.
I have a problem with the instant restore function used in KQ7/TSL/SQ6 etc. I see that many people here see this fuction as a fair compromise between the old way and the new, therefore it should be kept. Just please make it optional from the start, cause if the choice is there every time I die, I'm probably going to use it. I'll do this because I do want to get right back on with the game, but I'll do so with a sigh because it feels so easy now. It's like how I want to figure out a game without a walkthrough, but they are hard to resist temptation when they are so close to hand.
Using auto-restore and reading a walkthrough are still two completely different things...
Saving continuously requires no creative thought or rational planning whatsoever - there's no risk of running out of space for saved games nowadays.
In adventure games, my satisfaction comes from the feeling that I was so smart in solving a difficult puzzle. Knowing that I was diligent in saving the game every two minutes doesn't bring me any additional satisfaction...
But if it adds to your enjoyment of the game, I have nothing against the inclusion of an option to disable 'auto-restore'. I'll just keep auto-restore on
Hm. Marquilin raises a good point. What's the point of dying if it won't bring consequence? To remain in the spirit of King's Quest, I suppose?
Perhaps the retry button shouldn't be set to have you restart from right where you died, but a little bit farther back? I don't know, but I do feel like there should be a sense of danger when playing. I mean, can you imagine playing King's Quest 3 without being worried about Manannan?
I couldn't. When I played King's Quest III, I was always so nervous about Manannan returning home from a journey. I tried to do whatever I could within the 30 minutes I had. Yes, I admit I did use a walkthrough, and it told me what I should try to do, but I was still nervous. I had to walk down the steep hill where it was easy to fall off the edge, and I had to watch out for robbers. I also had to make sure I put the wand back in place after using it to cast spells, and I had to close the secret entrance to the lab and hide the magical items under the bed. Once I got rid of Manannan, I was able to relax and continue on with the game. For me that was an accomplishment. If I didn't have to worry about Manannan, then the game would be too easy.
Hm. Marquilin raises a good point. What's the point of dying if it won't bring consequence? To remain in the spirit of King's Quest, I suppose?
The point is that in most cases there's isn't any meaningful consequence to death in adventure games anyway, since you can always restore and try again.
In an arcade game, where the main skill required is reflexes, forcing the player to replay the same sequence "better" makes sense. In an adventure game there's no added gameplay value, it's just a "challenge" to your memory and your ability to take notes. In most cases forcing the player to repeat a sequence he has already solved will just feel like a loss of time.
Perhaps the retry button shouldn't be set to have you restart from right where you died, but a little bit farther back? I don't know, but I do feel like there should be a sense of danger when playing. I mean, can you imagine playing King's Quest 3 without being worried about Manannan?
And this is a good example of an exception
In the case of KQ3, the death sequences added an actual gameplay value because they ran on a timer. If Manannan caught you, you were challenged to complete the same section of the game faster.
Well, there's still always the reason that "It doesn't feel like a true King's Quest game if you can't die", and that's a sincerely valid reason. It won't.
Roberta has said in the past that Josh Mandel is the one other person that truly understands King's Quest. And he's proved it. He's a great game designer. He designed King's Quest I SCI and rewrote all the dialogue and a couple of the puzzles. It was fantastic. I trust him with King's Quest.
Space Quest, on the other hand, is an entirely different animal. Space Quest is very easy to miss the mark on what it's all about. Only Scott Murphy truly knows how to grasp the Space Quest and Roger Wilco concept. Even Josh Mandel (who designed Space Quest 6) didn't catch it quite right.\
I'm not coming from the viewpoint that whoever created the franchise should be the ones handling it, rather I'm coming from the viewpoint of who does the franchise best.
And Jane Jensen didn't design anything to do with KQ, as far as I know. She was a co-writer for KQ6, but she did not design it. I'd rather she keep her overdramatic fingers out of the KQ lead game designer's pie.
Jane Jensen was the co-designer, co-writer, and co-director of KQ6. She wrote all of the text (meaning descriptions and narrator comments) and dialogue. I agree with not having her anywhere near KQ again, though. She injected a little too much GK into it.
Fun fact: Lorelei Shannon singlehandedly wrote KQ7.
I disagree with you on Josh re SQ6. I think he did a pretty damn good job on SQ6. Mark Crowe went a little overboard with the Star Trek references in SQ5, and SQ5 lacked that acidic, sarcastic punch which Scott gave the series. Josh isn't nearly as acidic in humor as Scott, but he did a great job of emulating the SQ feel by himself.
Well, everyone's opinions differ. Personally I thought Space Quest 6 lacked every bit of Space Quest humour that there ever was in the series. It was definitely funny, but not in the same way. And that was my problem.
KQ5 was the best of the KQ games hands down. From the setting, the graphics and the difficulty I thought it was the most enjoyable of the bunch. After that the series went downhill fast (with 6 being ok, 7 and 8 being really bad).
Hands down? I and everyone else who played King's Quest 6 may have to challenge you to fisticuffs now!
There seem to be a lot of KQ5 lovers on this board. Honestly, while I like all of the games, KQ5 annoys and frustrates me the most.
In addition to the grating voices, illogical puzzles, and frequent dead ends, what I like least about it is that there are NO alternate solutions to puzzles, no alternate paths. Everything HAS to be done. There's no wiggle room; no way to beat the game without full points. I realize this isn't the only game with that problem, but it hits the hardest because this is a world that I'd really like to explore beyond the necessary path.
It has beautiful artwork, some great music, and a decent story (although Graham's characterization and attitude is hilariously inconsistent), but it's very flawed.
KQ5 was the first Sierra game I ever played. Mostly because of the amateurish and silly voices and mediocre writing, I remember being confounded as to how the KQ series could be so popular and beloved. But it quickly grew on me as I played (to the point where I almost freaked out when the Harpies attacked Cedric -- while I enjoy the humor of the game-over screens when Graham dies, I didn't want to see a death scene for a cute kind-hearted little owl, no matter how annoying his voice is ). The puzzles are what kept me playing; I thought they were mostly logical or well-clued, with maybe one or two exceptions. I played KQ6 soon after and I'd say it's a better game, with deeper gameplay and storyline, better writing, plus I really liked the spells and the wordplay puzzles. But KQ5 has a charm of its own that makes it easy for me to overlook any flaws.
They could have a part where Graham finds a PC with Leisure Suit Larry Box Office Bust playing and he RAGES and punches the screen and electrocutes himself.
I personally prefer the oveall story atmosphere of KQ5. The puzzles may have been frustrating (not to me) but if there was a more KQ5-themed KQ game with the puzzle and character approach of KQ6 it'd probably be the perfect KQ game.
It has beautiful artwork, some great music, and a decent story (although Graham's characterization and attitude is hilariously inconsistent), but it's very flawed.
Well, Josh Mandel (the voice of Graham) wanted to have more consistency in his lines in relation to the scenario. But the voice director told him that "Graham is always buff" and wouldn't let him.
I personally prefer the oveall story atmosphere to KQ5. The puzzles may have been frustrating (not to me) but if there was a more KQ5-themed KQ game with the puzzle and character approach of KQ6 it'd probably be the perfect KQ game.
Well, Josh Mandel (the voice of Graham) wanted to have more consistency in his lines in relation to the scenario. But the voice director told him that "Graham is always buff" and wouldn't let him.
I'm in total agreement with you on this--It comes very close to being the perfect KQ, and beyond that, it's a great, engaging fantasy world. It draws you in. Much more than any of the other games. A refined KQ5 would indeed be the perfect KQ game.
And I feel that Josh Mandel IS Graham. Seriously, I'd have a hard time accepting any substitutions for him. To me, Josh is like the Sean Connery of the KQ series; Yes, you can replace him with a great actor, but Connery will always BE Bond, regardless of who's in his shoes at the moment.
Hm. Marquilin raises a good point. What's the point of dying if it won't bring consequence? To remain in the spirit of King's Quest, I suppose?
Well, imagine Graham walking up to an evil bridge troll, and the evil bridge troll picking him up and throwing him in the water. You can "try again" all you want, but that bridge troll will just keep making good on his threats.
Now imagine Graham walking up to the same bridge troll over and over again, only instead of following through on his threats, the bridge troll just keeps telling him to go find something that will draw interest but have no real use.
That second one doesn't happen because Graham isn't Guybrush Threepwood. Guybrush uses his sense of humor and self-preservation as a means of avoiding death - as of where Graham will walk straight into danger. And seeing those deaths can also be considered more realistic (and sometimes more entertaining) than watching an infinite loop of the hero surviving. Just look at some scenes from BTTF - Kid Tannen can shoot at Marty forever and never once hit him. A death scene can help to break up the monotony (and sometimes provide a funny death sequence.) So I'd think of it as more of a mini-consequence as opposed to controlling an invincible character.
Well, Josh Mandel (the voice of Graham) wanted to have more consistency in his lines in relation to the scenario. But the voice director told him that "Graham is always buff" and wouldn't let him.
I don't fault Josh Mandel, who gives the best performance in the game. But it's still hilarious how he'll be humble and resist taking the very useful tools from the shoemakers until they insist, and yet he DEMANDS a marionette from a gnome. :P
... A death scene can help to break up the monotony (and sometimes provide a funny death sequence.) So I'd think of it as more of a mini-consequence as opposed to controlling an invincible character.
Indeed, I consider death sequences mini-rewards - you get to see content and physical action that would otherwise not be there for you to enjoy.
They can also be seen as a form of mini-mini-branching - the deadly branches are very short, but they are there, complementing the main path.
In addition to the grating voices, illogical puzzles, and frequent dead ends, what I like least about it is that there are NO alternate solutions to puzzles, no alternate paths. Everything HAS to be done. There's no wiggle room; no way to beat the game without full points. I realize this isn't the only game with that problem, but it hits the hardest because this is a world that I'd really like to explore beyond the necessary path.
Ahh well I seem to recall you don't have to use the peas on the monster, and thus you don't necessarily have to put the cat in the bag. That will lead to a incomplete score.
I've never tried it to see what it leads to, but there are a cople of alternate puzzle solutions such as thowing the boot at the dog, and the stick a the cat. Not sure if that changes the score or not.
In most cases doing an alternate trading solution ends to a dead end and death later in the game right?
I am one of the persons who loved both Sierra and Lucasarts gameplay for both had their own uniqueness. Even though I am certain a lot might dissagree, I believe that staying true to the original franchise should be really looked into especially the absurd deaths! I can believe how many times I laughed my ass out after dying for something so small! Of course I understand that a lot of people got frustrated by this but I found Sierra gameplay more challenging for the hardcore adventurer. What do other people think?
Demetris
Comments
Well at least you can get bad endings in every Myst game.
The classic King's Quest games (and all of Sierra's adventures for that matter) had so many ways to die. I'm not saying it needs to be as hard as the old games because obviously we're in a different era and you want everyone to be able to enjoy the story, but give us SOME sense of danger.
But NO deadends.
I should say that I don't just want something that's basically a Telltale game with deaths. That wouldn't be any good either. That's no different than the game holding your hand all the way through like the current Telltale games do.
They don't need to bring back deadends though, they're just a royal pain.
Even better, it could downgrade the hardware to 1982 standards. Then you could not even play the original, first, classic, non-remade King's Quest. The ultimate dead end short of the big one.
That's actually how I completed the CGA KQI 20+ years ago - I couldn't figure out how to switch floppies to save games, so I always played the game in a single session. Imagine the fun when you slip off the stairs or run into the dwarf after collecting all three treasures...
It should do what the slot machine does to Roger Wilco in SQI - that would be a real DEAD end.
Whoops, our mistake - there won't BE a next time!
I'm not bothered too much by sequences where you have to react fast to avoid deat; I find unavoidable deaths caused by random events much more annoying.
Like walking into the cyborg in SQXII - if he's on screen when you walk in, you can't even get out of the way; you can only stand there waiting for your death.
I do agree that Val's screems got tiresome, but then she's not used to this adventuring crap.
In my case though, I love being caught of guard and having a short amount of time to figure out how to survive. However, we usually have all the time we could need in these games, especially when opening the inventory pauses the action and gives the player time to think. I know that's not strictly the case in the example you gave, but that scorpion was posturing for 15 seconds or so, and as with most KQ7 encounters you have the option of retreating until you have a plan. This sort of thing I see as a tension killer, KQ7 is the worst, but only KQ1-4 had the charm of randomness; where baddies just show up and you must then do what you can to survive. This wasn't perfect either though, simply running to (or hovering near) the edge of the screen to escape is not realistic unless it's out of the monster's territory, like a Troll would not enter the light, nor a shark come up on land.
I think the new game should bring back these random encounters, only make them creatures not as central to the plot, which can be dealt with non-essential inventory items. Then we can still have the scripted encounters; the minotaurs and ice wolves and nightmares, with all the story and drama attached, maybe just a bit more deadly then in KQ7.
Why do so many of us want to die?
I keep reading about consequences and a sense of danger, the feeling that only your wits can save you in a unpredictable world. I'd have to agree that these were something made King's Quest memorable and replayable. But what consequence is enough?
For some I think it's enough that they feel sympathy and guilt for letting the character down, or the trauma of feeling that they themselves are being devoured, drown or locked up by an greasy innkeeper. I dig that to, but for me, more is needed. I have a problem with the instant restore function used in KQ7/TSL/SQ6 etc. I see that many people here see this fuction as a fair compromise between the old way and the new, therefore it should be kept. Just please make it optional from the start, cause if the choice is there every time I die, I'm probably going to use it. I'll do this because I do want to get right back on with the game, but I'll do so with a sigh because it feels so easy now. It's like how I want to figure out a game without a walkthrough, but they are hard to resist temptation when they are so close to hand.
So the classic manual saving, though primitive, to me represents the best consequence that make you want to avoid death, to avoid loosing at least a little bit of time. Maybe you will loose more time, if you didn't see the danger, but again, warning signs should be there if you make a point of looking for them. Then it becomes less about saving obsessively, and more about saving prudently.
I've tried to think of some other way, some other consequence; perhaps it could lower the score, although the score is a bit arbitrary to me, more of an indicator of how much game is left, and if there were parts of the game I missed. I would not mind terribly if it was removed as a feature.
Maybe a bonus extended ending for those who can make it through without dying?
But still, that's not as impactful as loosing time combined with some twisted animation that makes you feel the death in a host of different ways.
Using auto-restore and reading a walkthrough are still two completely different things...
Saving continuously requires no creative thought or rational planning whatsoever - there's no risk of running out of space for saved games nowadays.
In adventure games, my satisfaction comes from the feeling that I was so smart in solving a difficult puzzle. Knowing that I was diligent in saving the game every two minutes doesn't bring me any additional satisfaction...
But if it adds to your enjoyment of the game, I have nothing against the inclusion of an option to disable 'auto-restore'. I'll just keep auto-restore on
Perhaps the retry button shouldn't be set to have you restart from right where you died, but a little bit farther back? I don't know, but I do feel like there should be a sense of danger when playing. I mean, can you imagine playing King's Quest 3 without being worried about Manannan?
The point is that in most cases there's isn't any meaningful consequence to death in adventure games anyway, since you can always restore and try again.
In an arcade game, where the main skill required is reflexes, forcing the player to replay the same sequence "better" makes sense. In an adventure game there's no added gameplay value, it's just a "challenge" to your memory and your ability to take notes. In most cases forcing the player to repeat a sequence he has already solved will just feel like a loss of time.
And this is a good example of an exception
In the case of KQ3, the death sequences added an actual gameplay value because they ran on a timer. If Manannan caught you, you were challenged to complete the same section of the game faster.
Jane Jensen was the co-designer, co-writer, and co-director of KQ6. She wrote all of the text (meaning descriptions and narrator comments) and dialogue. I agree with not having her anywhere near KQ again, though. She injected a little too much GK into it.
Fun fact: Lorelei Shannon singlehandedly wrote KQ7.
I disagree with you on Josh re SQ6. I think he did a pretty damn good job on SQ6. Mark Crowe went a little overboard with the Star Trek references in SQ5, and SQ5 lacked that acidic, sarcastic punch which Scott gave the series. Josh isn't nearly as acidic in humor as Scott, but he did a great job of emulating the SQ feel by himself.
Hands down? I and everyone else who played King's Quest 6 may have to challenge you to fisticuffs now!
In addition to the grating voices, illogical puzzles, and frequent dead ends, what I like least about it is that there are NO alternate solutions to puzzles, no alternate paths. Everything HAS to be done. There's no wiggle room; no way to beat the game without full points. I realize this isn't the only game with that problem, but it hits the hardest because this is a world that I'd really like to explore beyond the necessary path.
It has beautiful artwork, some great music, and a decent story (although Graham's characterization and attitude is hilariously inconsistent), but it's very flawed.
Well, Josh Mandel (the voice of Graham) wanted to have more consistency in his lines in relation to the scenario. But the voice director told him that "Graham is always buff" and wouldn't let him.
I'm in total agreement with you on this--It comes very close to being the perfect KQ, and beyond that, it's a great, engaging fantasy world. It draws you in. Much more than any of the other games. A refined KQ5 would indeed be the perfect KQ game.
And I feel that Josh Mandel IS Graham. Seriously, I'd have a hard time accepting any substitutions for him. To me, Josh is like the Sean Connery of the KQ series; Yes, you can replace him with a great actor, but Connery will always BE Bond, regardless of who's in his shoes at the moment.
Well, imagine Graham walking up to an evil bridge troll, and the evil bridge troll picking him up and throwing him in the water. You can "try again" all you want, but that bridge troll will just keep making good on his threats.
Now imagine Graham walking up to the same bridge troll over and over again, only instead of following through on his threats, the bridge troll just keeps telling him to go find something that will draw interest but have no real use.
That second one doesn't happen because Graham isn't Guybrush Threepwood. Guybrush uses his sense of humor and self-preservation as a means of avoiding death - as of where Graham will walk straight into danger. And seeing those deaths can also be considered more realistic (and sometimes more entertaining) than watching an infinite loop of the hero surviving. Just look at some scenes from BTTF - Kid Tannen can shoot at Marty forever and never once hit him. A death scene can help to break up the monotony (and sometimes provide a funny death sequence.) So I'd think of it as more of a mini-consequence as opposed to controlling an invincible character.
I don't fault Josh Mandel, who gives the best performance in the game. But it's still hilarious how he'll be humble and resist taking the very useful tools from the shoemakers until they insist, and yet he DEMANDS a marionette from a gnome. :P
They can also be seen as a form of mini-mini-branching - the deadly branches are very short, but they are there, complementing the main path.
I've never tried it to see what it leads to, but there are a cople of alternate puzzle solutions such as thowing the boot at the dog, and the stick a the cat. Not sure if that changes the score or not.
In most cases doing an alternate trading solution ends to a dead end and death later in the game right?
Demetris