So they could toss in extra death scenes and make the player try again at an early point in time... Save, save, and save.
Forget Cedric, you die by mordack's hand. Forget to help Cassima you die seconds after entering the dungeon. As mentioned its difficult to even avoid being thrown into the dungeon. Don't stop Manannan with the sack you die. All intentional dead ends.
Even earlier if you forgot to get everything you needed before entering the woods you could be killed by several other special unique deaths. Get lost and starve, get eaten by a spider, get eaten by a plant, or get turned into a toad.
So they could toss in extra death scenes and make the player try again at an early point in time... Save, save, and save.
Forget Cedric, you die by mordack's hand. Forget to help Cassima you die seconds after entering the dungeon. As mentioned its difficult to even avoid being thrown into the dungeon. Don't stop Manannan with the sack you die. All intentional dead ends.
Even earlier if you forgot to get everything you needed before entering the woods you could be killed by several other special unique deaths. Get lost and starve, get eaten by a spider, get eaten by a plant, or get turned into a toad.
Indeed. Most dead ends are based on your ethical character and common sense skills.
If you had to go through the entire game from scratch, you totally ignored the 'save early, save often, save at every important point in the game' mantra. Sounds like you never saved at all, or only used one save slot!
Also it doesn't take long to 'start over' if you have too... You can skip cutscenes, and these point in click games you can speed through in to where you left off half hour or so... Probably less time if early point in the game... I could probably get up to the point I need to enter the woods in less than 10 minutes, if I skip the diologue and go straight to puzzle solving...
It's not quite the same as getting into a dead end situation in a 20+ hour game, like Zelda series or other RPGs...
Also I always thought part of the enjoyment of KQ and where the 'replayability' (if there was any replayability) came from was finding out all the ways you can die! Discovering the 'dead ends' and secret not so optimal 'endings' is part of the fun of those early Sierra games...
Make a game so linear, with no sense of risk, and you strip out most of the challenge, or any need to play through the game again (since there is nothing new to experience)...
It's not so much enjoyment out of going through it but the satisfaction of solving it afterward.
It's the same satisfaction you get for solving a difficult but fair puzzle, the only difference is you're wading through a sea of needless and monotonous torture to get to it.
If you had to go through the entire game from scratch, you totally ignored the 'save early, save often, save at every important point in the game' mantra. Sounds like you never saved at all, or only used one save slot!
Why would you EXPECT a game to completely ruin your save file because you went somewhere earlier than it decided that you were allowed to? Honestly, how is that good design? What player expects the game to be actively trying to screw them over in the most foul manner conceivable? It's like if you got halfway through Portal and realized there was a random button at the beginning you forgot to press and had to start over from scratch. No one would be praising that as brilliant design. People would be swearing and uninstalling the game.
Also it doesn't take long to 'start over' if you have too... You can skip cutscenes, and these point in click games you can speed through in to where you left off half hour or so... Probably less time if early point in the game... I could probably get up to the point I need to enter the woods in less than 10 minutes, if I skip the diologue and go straight to puzzle solving...
The point isn't how long it takes, the point is that you shouldn't have to. You're being forced to do mindless busywork for minutes/hours because you happened to miss a single thing and aren't allowed to simply go back to get it, even if you happen to magically realize what it was and where it was and why you need it.
Also I always thought part of the enjoyment of KQ and where the 'replayability' (if there was any replayability) came from was finding out all the ways you can die! Discovering the 'dead ends' and secret not so optimal 'endings' is part of the fun of those early Sierra games...
I'm not talking about deaths in the games right now, just dead ends. You don't really "discover" dead ends so much as you get totally owned by them without realizing they exist.
Make a game so linear, with no sense of risk, and you strip out most of the challenge, or any need to play through the game again (since there is nothing new to experience)...
Maybe to try different dialogue options? Or alternate puzzle solutions? I sincerely disagree that adding dead ends is an effective or intelligent way to add "replayability".
Dead ends occur for two reasons: Bugs and bad design. It's not fair to the player to make up new rules halfway through the game in order to make them lose, and then not even have the courtesy to let them know that they've lost, leaving them to wonder why on earth they can't progress. If you aren't told in advance that dead ends are possible, or told when you are at one, how are you supposed to magically know that you've dead ended?
It's the same satisfaction you get for solving a difficult but fair puzzle, the only difference is you're wading through a sea of needless and monotonous torture to get to it.
That's a wonderful opinion you've got there. Really. But it's not better than mine.
Dead ends occur for two reasons: Bugs and bad design. It's not fair to the player to make up new rules halfway through the game in order to make them lose, and then not even have the courtesy to let them know that they've lost, leaving them to wonder why on earth they can't progress. If you aren't told in advance that dead ends are possible, or told when you are at one, how are you supposed to magically know that you've dead ended?
Here's the core problem with your argument:
Dead ends may be bad design by today's standards, but they were par for the course back when these games were new. Everyone knew about them and EXPECTED them. And so the mantra "Save Early, Save Often" with the addendum "On Many Different Savegames" was born. Everyone who played a Sierra adventure game back then KNEW to do this and KNEW to look out for dead ends. Dead ends were not the major roadblocks they are made out to be today in this day and age of hand-holding and linear "cinematic adventures." And they certainly weren't "new rules" that the game "made up" halfway through to surprise the player. The bottom line is that you're projecting a very specific standard based on today's concepts of video game design back onto games of 25 years ago, and it doesn't work. The mindset of gamers back then was VERY different than it is now. Replaying parts of a KQ game over and over, or a difficult level in Super Mario Bros. or something--was part of the joy of the game. That's not usually expected today. That's why games like Dark Souls are so controversial.
This isn't to say that the design of all the old Sierra adventure games (or even KQ5) was perfect--that's definitely not true. KQ5 had some TRULY bad design decisions--the worst of which was having to stand around in Mordack's library and just wait an indeterminate amount of time for an event that the player has no idea is going to happen--Mordack appearing in the bedroom and taking a nap.
Yeah. They should have at least made a ton more hotspots the user could interact with in that room while waiting. Which brings me to KQ5's other bad design flaw: the dreaded red X cursor.
But everything else you've said is spot on. It's a generational thing. One that I hope will change again in a few years to something more challenging. And it's not just adventures. It's every game. People don't like to fail and now game developers are catering to that. Screw that!
The mindset of gamers back then was VERY different than it is now. Replaying parts of a KQ game over and over, or a difficult level in Super Mario Bros. or something--was part of the joy of the game. That's not usually expected today. That's why games like Dark Souls are so controversial.
There's a big difference between adventure games and action games. Action games are entirely skill based, so if you lose, it requires skill and effort to get back to where you were. In an adventure game, if you lose, you're not really "replaying" anything, as you've already completed the challenge of the game by solving the puzzles, you're just mindlessly redoing them from memory, which is a waste of time and not really enjoyable at all. Lucasarts understood that they were bad design, so it's not really a product of the times as much as it is simply bad design.
But everything else you've said is spot on. It's a generational thing. One that I hope will change again in a few years to something more challenging. And it's not just adventures. It's every game. People don't like to fail and now game developers are catering to that. Screw that!
It's not as much about not failing as it is about not failing in pointlessly unfair ways. At least, for me. I don't think that most of the Sierra dead ends can be considered "fair". It wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if the game decided at some point that it was done tormenting you and said "oh, just wanted to let you know, but you haven't been able to win for the past 4 hours, so you might want to restart", but they really shouldn't exist at all.
The thing about the deaths in adventure games is that they discourage experimenting, which is what adventure games actually are all about. They're all about letting you experiment with several components that are interactible. If they have undesirable effects, they don't really encourage experimenting.
Also, you have to remember that back in the old days, the amount of saves were limited.
That, and if you didn't do something in the beginning and it was vital in the end, you are royally bummed in the gob.
Also, @Baggins, it is absolutely possible to beat the game without ever using the peas on the blue beast or bagging Manannan. I've done it many times
Ya, so have I! But that's only if you arent' caught a second time, or aren't seen by Manannan (he can't be on screen at an time).
But more importantly you can't beat the game without going to the dungeon the first time!
The thing about the deaths in adventure games is that they discourage experimenting, which is what adventure games actually are all about. They're all about letting you experiment with several components that are interactible. If they have undesirable effects, they don't really encourage experimenting.
I see the exact oppposite... Deaths promoted experimenting, because it was fun to discovery the various ways things could go wrong...
Remove the 'death aspect'... The game becomes basically linear, there are few actions that can actually made, few things to even interact with...
That and deaths often offer some kind of clue on how to progress further... You have a better idea what an obstacle is, and what you'll need to get past it.
Also, you have to remember that back in the old days, the amount of saves were limited.
Not really, sierra games had at least 10 saves, with possibly up to 20+. With the additional ability to create additioanl save folders. You literally could not run out, unless you lacked disk space...
Far cry from some of the adventure games that only allowed one save slot (KQ7), or 3 max (many nintendo games)...
Seriously, in a game where you can't die, and there is no threat, what's the need of even having saves? You really only need one save, and its an auto-save is fair enough... It would be far more linear, and there would be no reason to save...
hat, and if you didn't do something in the beginning and it was vital in the end, you are royally bummed in the gob.
In most cases, things are actually gated! You get a warning, not to go into the woods for the first time, to tell you need to be ready.
If you choose to go in anyways, you learn quickly what will kill you... It's not that far to actually reach that point again...
Infact, you you were a smart player, you would have made a save before entering the woods!
The mountains, you can't enter them until you have completed both the desert and the woods, and the Inn. At which point the gypsies leave, and you get tamborine to scare the snake away. It's the only item you have left to try on the snake at that point (assuming you were 'experimenting')...
The mountains themselves have several gates, including, freezing one screen in (better have that cloak), and 'starvation' (you lose points if you ate the pie, which should be a good indication not to eat it)... You are warned about the cold and hunger early on into the mountain.
The sled itself is a gate. You must have done every trading in the town before you can move on past it.
The queen and her wolves are yet another gate, requiring that you have completed all the forest puzzles. But at this point there is no going back. If you were stupid enough to eat the pie (losing points in the process, a fair warning), you won't be able to get past the yeti...
If you were stupid enough not to feed the eagle, who is clear, that he is starving, then there really is no hope! You will be die, in the nest...
If you are completely blind, you might miss the necklace! But its one of the only animated things on the screen, and that animation is there to draw your attention... It's a rather obvious flash. Perhaps it might be a problem for the color blind...
Again,, if you had been smart, you would probably have saved before entering the mountains! As that it a major act change, and represents a sequence of events leading up to new puzzles!
Smart person would save 2-3 times more throughout the mountains...
Finally once you reach the beach, would be another good point to save. With 2 other additional save slots in the ocean.
Once you reach Mordack's island is another major point to save! As you are in another series of puzzles.
If you keep saves made at the start of every major setting change, you will have less need to backtrack... Since most of the game can be finished quickly, by skipping conversations. It's really not that big of a problem. It's not a very long game...
In reality if you saved before entering woods, before the desert, before the mountains, and before mordack's island, that's only 4 major saves, and you have at least 6 more to use to test things in between!
The thing about the deaths in adventure games is that they discourage experimenting, which is what adventure games actually are all about. They're all about letting you experiment with several components that are interactible. If they have undesirable effects, they don't really encourage experimenting.
Deaths in adventure games do not discourage experimentation. They discourage experimenting without preparing for the consequences of failed experiments. If you want to be able to interact with abandon, with no possibility of negative outcome, that's fine. But the unqualified statement that deaths discourage experimenting is belied by those of us who experiment in Sierra games all the time, who enjoy experimenting all the more because the stakes are higher.
The pie argument bugs me. I mean, when you first enter the bakery the guy specifically says "this is the last of the custard pies". So when you buy it you know you only get one. Also, seeing as there are no other silver coins in the entire game then you couldn't get another one even if it wasn't the last one.
If you eat the pie you get no points. So obviously you messed up there because you get a point for buying it. Anyone who complains about the pie because they ate it earlier on just wasn't paying enough attention to the game.
Deaths in an adventure game are not a penalty. They're not there to punish you. They're part of the exploration. They're often how you find out that something is dangerous or that there's an obstacle you need to get past. Dying a lot doesn't mean that you're doing something wrong, it means you're a thorough explorer. If the threat of death makes you reluctant to explore a particular area, it means it's time to save; it doesn't mean that you shouldn't explore it anyway.
Indeed. There's nothing more satisfying than dying a specific death from a monster or killer plant or something and not being able to pass it. But then later on you discover another deadly creature that needs to be dealt with so you lure him into a trap for the other death. Now, had you not died there previously you wouldn't have known it was dangerous at all or that it might be possible to kill the second creature in the same way. Those moments are awesome.
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.
These days it's a bit different because computer games aren't for geeks anymore. So that's why you have all this hand-holding stuff to make it easier for the general masses.
But not matter how much of an analytic geek you were, it was not uncommon, and it was very frustrating to run into a dead end in the early Sierra games. That's an absolutely horrendous design choice because you are talking about games where the norm is to be stuck until you figure out what to do. But if the reason why you are stuck is because you are missing an item you cannot get anymore, that's just the worse thing you can do to a player that is used to being stuck until they find that hotspot they missed, or the right verb combination. AT THE VERY LEAST the game should have made an effort to tell you you've run into a dead end so you don't keep trying to find a non-existent solution.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)?
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....."
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I always felt like the ability to save anywhere was just another tool in my adventure game box, like the hand or talk icons. It was an integral part of the experience for me.
I didn't just use saving for trying new things, I saved all the time before cool parts (once I had beaten the game, of course) just so I could replay or rewatch them. Being able to save at any point in the game really extended the life of the game for me.
Comments
Forget Cedric, you die by mordack's hand. Forget to help Cassima you die seconds after entering the dungeon. As mentioned its difficult to even avoid being thrown into the dungeon. Don't stop Manannan with the sack you die. All intentional dead ends.
Even earlier if you forgot to get everything you needed before entering the woods you could be killed by several other special unique deaths. Get lost and starve, get eaten by a spider, get eaten by a plant, or get turned into a toad.
I know you do. But it's ok. Nobody's perfect.
Indeed. Most dead ends are based on your ethical character and common sense skills.
Also it doesn't take long to 'start over' if you have too... You can skip cutscenes, and these point in click games you can speed through in to where you left off half hour or so... Probably less time if early point in the game... I could probably get up to the point I need to enter the woods in less than 10 minutes, if I skip the diologue and go straight to puzzle solving...
It's not quite the same as getting into a dead end situation in a 20+ hour game, like Zelda series or other RPGs...
Also I always thought part of the enjoyment of KQ and where the 'replayability' (if there was any replayability) came from was finding out all the ways you can die! Discovering the 'dead ends' and secret not so optimal 'endings' is part of the fun of those early Sierra games...
Make a game so linear, with no sense of risk, and you strip out most of the challenge, or any need to play through the game again (since there is nothing new to experience)...
Haha...as Baggins said, if you had only one savegame, you aren't doing it right.
Also, @Baggins, it is absolutely possible to beat the game without ever using the peas on the blue beast or bagging Manannan. I've done it many times.
It's the same satisfaction you get for solving a difficult but fair puzzle, the only difference is you're wading through a sea of needless and monotonous torture to get to it.
Why would you EXPECT a game to completely ruin your save file because you went somewhere earlier than it decided that you were allowed to? Honestly, how is that good design? What player expects the game to be actively trying to screw them over in the most foul manner conceivable? It's like if you got halfway through Portal and realized there was a random button at the beginning you forgot to press and had to start over from scratch. No one would be praising that as brilliant design. People would be swearing and uninstalling the game.
The point isn't how long it takes, the point is that you shouldn't have to. You're being forced to do mindless busywork for minutes/hours because you happened to miss a single thing and aren't allowed to simply go back to get it, even if you happen to magically realize what it was and where it was and why you need it.
I'm not talking about deaths in the games right now, just dead ends. You don't really "discover" dead ends so much as you get totally owned by them without realizing they exist.
Maybe to try different dialogue options? Or alternate puzzle solutions? I sincerely disagree that adding dead ends is an effective or intelligent way to add "replayability".
Dead ends occur for two reasons: Bugs and bad design. It's not fair to the player to make up new rules halfway through the game in order to make them lose, and then not even have the courtesy to let them know that they've lost, leaving them to wonder why on earth they can't progress. If you aren't told in advance that dead ends are possible, or told when you are at one, how are you supposed to magically know that you've dead ended?
That's a wonderful opinion you've got there. Really. But it's not better than mine.
Here's the core problem with your argument:
Dead ends may be bad design by today's standards, but they were par for the course back when these games were new. Everyone knew about them and EXPECTED them. And so the mantra "Save Early, Save Often" with the addendum "On Many Different Savegames" was born. Everyone who played a Sierra adventure game back then KNEW to do this and KNEW to look out for dead ends. Dead ends were not the major roadblocks they are made out to be today in this day and age of hand-holding and linear "cinematic adventures." And they certainly weren't "new rules" that the game "made up" halfway through to surprise the player. The bottom line is that you're projecting a very specific standard based on today's concepts of video game design back onto games of 25 years ago, and it doesn't work. The mindset of gamers back then was VERY different than it is now. Replaying parts of a KQ game over and over, or a difficult level in Super Mario Bros. or something--was part of the joy of the game. That's not usually expected today. That's why games like Dark Souls are so controversial.
This isn't to say that the design of all the old Sierra adventure games (or even KQ5) was perfect--that's definitely not true. KQ5 had some TRULY bad design decisions--the worst of which was having to stand around in Mordack's library and just wait an indeterminate amount of time for an event that the player has no idea is going to happen--Mordack appearing in the bedroom and taking a nap.
Now THAT was bad design.
But everything else you've said is spot on. It's a generational thing. One that I hope will change again in a few years to something more challenging. And it's not just adventures. It's every game. People don't like to fail and now game developers are catering to that. Screw that!
There's a big difference between adventure games and action games. Action games are entirely skill based, so if you lose, it requires skill and effort to get back to where you were. In an adventure game, if you lose, you're not really "replaying" anything, as you've already completed the challenge of the game by solving the puzzles, you're just mindlessly redoing them from memory, which is a waste of time and not really enjoyable at all. Lucasarts understood that they were bad design, so it's not really a product of the times as much as it is simply bad design.
It's not as much about not failing as it is about not failing in pointlessly unfair ways. At least, for me. I don't think that most of the Sierra dead ends can be considered "fair". It wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if the game decided at some point that it was done tormenting you and said "oh, just wanted to let you know, but you haven't been able to win for the past 4 hours, so you might want to restart", but they really shouldn't exist at all.
Also, you have to remember that back in the old days, the amount of saves were limited.
That, and if you didn't do something in the beginning and it was vital in the end, you are royally bummed in the gob.
Ya, so have I! But that's only if you arent' caught a second time, or aren't seen by Manannan (he can't be on screen at an time).
But more importantly you can't beat the game without going to the dungeon the first time!
I see the exact oppposite... Deaths promoted experimenting, because it was fun to discovery the various ways things could go wrong...
Remove the 'death aspect'... The game becomes basically linear, there are few actions that can actually made, few things to even interact with...
That and deaths often offer some kind of clue on how to progress further... You have a better idea what an obstacle is, and what you'll need to get past it.
Not really, sierra games had at least 10 saves, with possibly up to 20+. With the additional ability to create additioanl save folders. You literally could not run out, unless you lacked disk space...
Far cry from some of the adventure games that only allowed one save slot (KQ7), or 3 max (many nintendo games)...
Seriously, in a game where you can't die, and there is no threat, what's the need of even having saves? You really only need one save, and its an auto-save is fair enough... It would be far more linear, and there would be no reason to save...
In most cases, things are actually gated! You get a warning, not to go into the woods for the first time, to tell you need to be ready.
If you choose to go in anyways, you learn quickly what will kill you... It's not that far to actually reach that point again...
Infact, you you were a smart player, you would have made a save before entering the woods!
The mountains, you can't enter them until you have completed both the desert and the woods, and the Inn. At which point the gypsies leave, and you get tamborine to scare the snake away. It's the only item you have left to try on the snake at that point (assuming you were 'experimenting')...
The mountains themselves have several gates, including, freezing one screen in (better have that cloak), and 'starvation' (you lose points if you ate the pie, which should be a good indication not to eat it)... You are warned about the cold and hunger early on into the mountain.
The sled itself is a gate. You must have done every trading in the town before you can move on past it.
The queen and her wolves are yet another gate, requiring that you have completed all the forest puzzles. But at this point there is no going back. If you were stupid enough to eat the pie (losing points in the process, a fair warning), you won't be able to get past the yeti...
If you were stupid enough not to feed the eagle, who is clear, that he is starving, then there really is no hope! You will be die, in the nest...
If you are completely blind, you might miss the necklace! But its one of the only animated things on the screen, and that animation is there to draw your attention... It's a rather obvious flash. Perhaps it might be a problem for the color blind...
Again,, if you had been smart, you would probably have saved before entering the mountains! As that it a major act change, and represents a sequence of events leading up to new puzzles!
Smart person would save 2-3 times more throughout the mountains...
Finally once you reach the beach, would be another good point to save. With 2 other additional save slots in the ocean.
Once you reach Mordack's island is another major point to save! As you are in another series of puzzles.
If you keep saves made at the start of every major setting change, you will have less need to backtrack... Since most of the game can be finished quickly, by skipping conversations. It's really not that big of a problem. It's not a very long game...
In reality if you saved before entering woods, before the desert, before the mountains, and before mordack's island, that's only 4 major saves, and you have at least 6 more to use to test things in between!
Deaths in adventure games do not discourage experimentation. They discourage experimenting without preparing for the consequences of failed experiments. If you want to be able to interact with abandon, with no possibility of negative outcome, that's fine. But the unqualified statement that deaths discourage experimenting is belied by those of us who experiment in Sierra games all the time, who enjoy experimenting all the more because the stakes are higher.
If you eat the pie you get no points. So obviously you messed up there because you get a point for buying it. Anyone who complains about the pie because they ate it earlier on just wasn't paying enough attention to the game.
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.
These days it's a bit different because computer games aren't for geeks anymore. So that's why you have all this hand-holding stuff to make it easier for the general masses.
But not matter how much of an analytic geek you were, it was not uncommon, and it was very frustrating to run into a dead end in the early Sierra games. That's an absolutely horrendous design choice because you are talking about games where the norm is to be stuck until you figure out what to do. But if the reason why you are stuck is because you are missing an item you cannot get anymore, that's just the worse thing you can do to a player that is used to being stuck until they find that hotspot they missed, or the right verb combination. AT THE VERY LEAST the game should have made an effort to tell you you've run into a dead end so you don't keep trying to find a non-existent solution.
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.
Quite a few adventures without deaths have you stuck on a rail. With no detours.
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.
Another adventure that pulled it off well was Shadows of Destiny. Many paths many endings.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)?
Bt
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.
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.
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.
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.
I always felt like the ability to save anywhere was just another tool in my adventure game box, like the hand or talk icons. It was an integral part of the experience for me.
I didn't just use saving for trying new things, I saved all the time before cool parts (once I had beaten the game, of course) just so I could replay or rewatch them. Being able to save at any point in the game really extended the life of the game for me.