The thing is that most people don't like losing and inorder to sell the game to wider audience you'll have to water down the puzzle difficulty and add unlimited continues. These days it's hard to find difficult games and usually most challenging games are those published by indie game makers or small studios who aim for niche market of hardcore gamers.
The first couple King's Quests come to mind, where there were alternate puzzles for almost anything if you forgot to pick up or do something. However, if you didn't have the alternate inventory items you would still be stuck. Also, the alternate solutions were not favourable and would not grant as many points, and in some cases, cost you some.
Hmm, I thought there was something very familiar with it when I came up with the idea. It seems that I'm reinventing the wheel here.
Look, I agree games are getting too easy. Its been happening for years and it's not something I'm entirely happy about. But those are action games. Action games are all about the action, so replaying sections there is fine, but when you have to replay sections in adventure games, you're going through the same dialogue, the same puzzles... adventure games don't have the same replayability factor as other genres. Adventure games should be about the story and the atmosphere, and in my experience you lose a lot if you have to replay sections, especially if it's not by choice.
It's clear we're not going to agree on this issue Inspired, so I'll try to leave it there and not push it any more. We're obviously different people with different tastes, and all that.
I will say one last thing though. In my first post in this thread, I said that a good death sequence can add a great deal to a story, and I stand by that. But in my experience, most possible deaths in games have not been fair, and it's those that seem to have helped form my opinion on the subject. Good deaths, with enough forewarning, aren't necessarily a bad thing. They just seem not to be very prevalent, and it's a shame.
...adventure games don't have the same replayability factor as other genres.
Exactly why I'd want the experience to last as long as possible rather than have the whole thing over because the game helps me through it so much.
It's clear we're not going to agree on this issue Inspired, so I'll try to leave it there and not push it any more. We're obviously different people with different tastes, and all that.
Indeed. I'm not against others' opinions. But when people just flat out say that certain things are just simply and plainly bad game design, that's more than just an opinion.
I will say one last thing though. In my first post in this thread, I said that a good death sequence can add a great deal to a story, and I stand by that. But in my experience, most possible deaths in games have not been fair, and it's those that seem to have helped form my opinion on the subject. Good deaths, with enough forewarning, aren't necessarily a bad thing. They just seem not to be very prevalent, and it's a shame.
I agree there's room for more possibilities all around. Including what you've stated. I'm just not against unforseen deaths, because I don't entirely agree that they are truly unforseen. A gaming world, no matter if it's action or adventure, shouldn't be a safe gaming world. At least not everywhere. And if it's not safe, then you should be careful. And most dangers are forseeable.
Look, I agree games are getting too easy. Its been happening for years and it's not something I'm entirely happy about. But those are action games. Action games are all about the action, so replaying sections there is fine, but when you have to replay sections in adventure games, you're going through the same dialogue, the same puzzles... adventure games don't have the same replayability factor as other genres. Adventure games should be about the story and the atmosphere, and in my experience you lose a lot if you have to replay sections, especially if it's not by choice.
It's clear we're not going to agree on this issue Inspired, so I'll try to leave it there and not push it any more. We're obviously different people with different tastes, and all that.
I will say one last thing though. In my first post in this thread, I said that a good death sequence can add a great deal to a story, and I stand by that. But in my experience, most possible deaths in games have not been fair, and it's those that seem to have helped form my opinion on the subject. Good deaths, with enough forewarning, aren't necessarily a bad thing. They just seem not to be very prevalent, and it's a shame.
Personally only time I think that the death is completely unfair is when there's action minigame inside adventure game which is annoyingly difficult because of bad controls. Although I occasionally find timed puzzles where you die if you fail somewhat annoying. I like to explore everything and often it takes several retries before I have managed to do that and then I can actually focus on solving the puzzle. Although if timed puzzle is well designed it doesn't annoy that much. Last Express did this extremely well, there were several things happening at the same time on the train and sometimes you had to be in right place at the right time. And sometimes it took plenty of rewinding back the time before you figured out what you were supposed to do, but it was never boring because there was plenty of new things to learn while you explored the train and you often did find plenty of stuff you had missed in your first attempt.
I don't know I was pretty avoidant of dieing in tomb raider just because of the connection we had to the character and how brutal the deaths were, plus added with the survivalist theme made me even more concerned. Worse still was when I had to worry about other characters I cared about. Given that was a pretty linear game, it managed to give me a different fear for dieing that I felt was much more emotionally rewarding and less frustrating then starting over.
This also depends on the length of the game and the different options. In longer games, having to restart may make some not want to unless there are different options and paths. For example, in FML if you die that's game over and you restart but everything is different the next run. In sunless sea when you die you start over but you get a piece of something you left behind which makes it feel like you are still moving forward, but still feel the punishment from dieing, plus you are wiser from you last excursion. In binding of isaac, each time you enter things are randomly generated so no one playthrough is the same, giving you new and exciting moments. Also is a skill game that updates the difficulty any time you male it all the way through, so you are always feeling engaged.
There are definitely games out there that fit your needs, and I can understand why you want the new kings quest to be just as brutal due to its predecessor, but the style of the game doesn't seem to fit that. It's more of a retelling of the old series and not an exact copy. I find it enjoyable but there are times where I want to go play a more difficult game so I just do it. This one though I'm more engaged by discovering the story and character choices rather than the difficulty.
There are some games with a hard core mode that might make more sense for the game, a realistic mode. The problem with me is on certain games I get curious if something will kill me so I intentionally in act some deaths.
Comments
Hmm, I thought there was something very familiar with it when I came up with the idea. It seems that I'm reinventing the wheel here.
It's clear we're not going to agree on this issue Inspired, so I'll try to leave it there and not push it any more. We're obviously different people with different tastes, and all that.
I will say one last thing though. In my first post in this thread, I said that a good death sequence can add a great deal to a story, and I stand by that. But in my experience, most possible deaths in games have not been fair, and it's those that seem to have helped form my opinion on the subject. Good deaths, with enough forewarning, aren't necessarily a bad thing. They just seem not to be very prevalent, and it's a shame.
Exactly why I'd want the experience to last as long as possible rather than have the whole thing over because the game helps me through it so much.
Indeed. I'm not against others' opinions. But when people just flat out say that certain things are just simply and plainly bad game design, that's more than just an opinion.
I agree there's room for more possibilities all around. Including what you've stated. I'm just not against unforseen deaths, because I don't entirely agree that they are truly unforseen. A gaming world, no matter if it's action or adventure, shouldn't be a safe gaming world. At least not everywhere. And if it's not safe, then you should be careful. And most dangers are forseeable.
Personally only time I think that the death is completely unfair is when there's action minigame inside adventure game which is annoyingly difficult because of bad controls. Although I occasionally find timed puzzles where you die if you fail somewhat annoying. I like to explore everything and often it takes several retries before I have managed to do that and then I can actually focus on solving the puzzle. Although if timed puzzle is well designed it doesn't annoy that much. Last Express did this extremely well, there were several things happening at the same time on the train and sometimes you had to be in right place at the right time. And sometimes it took plenty of rewinding back the time before you figured out what you were supposed to do, but it was never boring because there was plenty of new things to learn while you explored the train and you often did find plenty of stuff you had missed in your first attempt.
I don't know I was pretty avoidant of dieing in tomb raider just because of the connection we had to the character and how brutal the deaths were, plus added with the survivalist theme made me even more concerned. Worse still was when I had to worry about other characters I cared about. Given that was a pretty linear game, it managed to give me a different fear for dieing that I felt was much more emotionally rewarding and less frustrating then starting over.
This also depends on the length of the game and the different options. In longer games, having to restart may make some not want to unless there are different options and paths. For example, in FML if you die that's game over and you restart but everything is different the next run. In sunless sea when you die you start over but you get a piece of something you left behind which makes it feel like you are still moving forward, but still feel the punishment from dieing, plus you are wiser from you last excursion. In binding of isaac, each time you enter things are randomly generated so no one playthrough is the same, giving you new and exciting moments. Also is a skill game that updates the difficulty any time you male it all the way through, so you are always feeling engaged.
There are definitely games out there that fit your needs, and I can understand why you want the new kings quest to be just as brutal due to its predecessor, but the style of the game doesn't seem to fit that. It's more of a retelling of the old series and not an exact copy. I find it enjoyable but there are times where I want to go play a more difficult game so I just do it. This one though I'm more engaged by discovering the story and character choices rather than the difficulty.
There are some games with a hard core mode that might make more sense for the game, a realistic mode. The problem with me is on certain games I get curious if something will kill me so I intentionally in act some deaths.