Death in Adventure Games... Good? Bad? Inevitable?
Very simple question. Should death be a part of adventure games? Should it be the punishment for doing soemthign stupid (like "use Fork with electrical outlet") or would you prefer to just get a simple canned "I wouldnt do that...." responce?
If you like death in games, should there be a "rewind" option, or should it require you to Restore/Restart/Quit?
If you like death in games, should there be a "rewind" option, or should it require you to Restore/Restart/Quit?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Adventure games in general are pretty linear story-telling games, with a pretty diverse sort of events that happen. These events lead to the player wanting to explore, and see what happens where. Death should only happen if there's a point or a story-point that hinges off of it. Within this linear world, making death a final-call is something that not only frustrates a player, but really accomplishes nothing for challenge-sake.
Death in a game can represent psychologically to the player a "challenge" or what "works" and doesn't work. This makes sense for an adventure game like Zelda or shooters. Death is an expected end-result of learning strategy, cognitive skills and being more aware of one's environment and the locations of enemies. It is only logical that a player can die because of not over-coming a challenge.
However, in adventure games, the challenge becomes wit. I think a fair "death" in an adventure game is when the player gives up after being frustrated with a puzzle for a day. In the classic LucasArts titles, I think this is something that is quite obvious, as the players aren't really lead to doing anything that would cause death, and if they did, it would end humorously, rather than having an "oh-no" moment. This way, the player enjoys their consequences, perhaps is able to broaden their imagination and brings forth a greater amount of appreciation out of the game.
A few examples of where death is fun and interesting is in Monkey Island, where death is often joked about, ie. the end credits in the bar in CMI and Guybrush jumping off a cliff in EMI. Or in Return to Zork, where you can blow yourself up in a shack after taking in too much Rye. Those are funny moments, where wit and humour brings the player into accepting the game's world. That, of which I strongly believe is the main-aspect of adventure gaming.
Simply dying in an adventure game would accomplish nothing, as no intelligent response other than "oh, obviously this will kill me now". It doesn't push the story further, which is something adventure games need to do constantly. If there is a certain item that can be picked up and used with another item with dangerous consequences, the character of the game will often refuse it. But if they didn't refuse, and the player is left with a ticking bomb, then that should be handled accordingly. The best thing one could do is end up with a result that will give more humor or interest to the game.
Now, if you consider a game like "Pneumbra: Overture," which quite elegantly meshes adventure and first-person shooter. Not perfectly, mind you, but elegantly enough to create atmosphere. Death becomes one of those obstacles that doesn't require intelligence per-say, just a more animal-instinct like approach to avoiding the "evil dogs" that roam in the caverns. These forms of death are just add-ons to try and make the game more challenging and to avoid producing a game with no conflict. However, if the story folk build their conflict properly, and in the right way, they don't need "death" to prove a point to the player.
The rewind idea is interesting, as it's used in many games, but it too, has to prove a useful purpose. I suppose Braid is one of those examples where rewind is used as an outlet to avoid death. Yet, I don't think that it provides a very concise and interesting element. It's become more of a cliche in gaming, as I believe the first use of the concept was back with Prince of Persia's Sand's of Time and Blinx (that old Xbox cat mascot thingie). I could be wrong, as I'm quoting from the top of my head.
Anyways, that's my two cents, and if I had a choice, I'd rather see death used to further a story and give something to the player. It could be used as a consequence as such "I won't do that again", but if that's all you're giving the player and nothing comes out of it, then what sort of learning skill are you giving? Adventure games are better off mocking or making use of death to point out the ridiculous things that could happen.
If developers want to create Game Over scenarios, there are all kinds of ways to do it outside of just coming up with “amusing” deaths. I remember Willy Beamish had a few odd ones like him being misplaced in another dimension for taking a wrong turn or having surgery for lying too much about an illness.
Death can work in Adventure Games of any kind really, it just depends on whether or not the player is informed of potential hazards before they encounter them. Those old Sierra games like Space Quest were terrible in this aspect, sure the descriptions provided a nice laugh the first time but, damn, dying for doing anything that seemed productive was just sadistic.
Far from the first but you bet bonus points for pointing out the BlinX games. I've only seen like 5 people that have even heard of them (and btw, they're awesome and fun but EXTREMELY nerve-wracking to play) Several Sierra games (and I think a few others) had an "Undo" or "rewind" button when you died so you could go back 1 step and NOT decide to >>use [Fork] with [Electrical Outlet]
I think the Gabriel Knight series handles player death well- you really can't die at all in at least the first half of each game because you're not doing anything that COULD kill you. It's only after you get deeper involved in the mystery and start taking risks do things actually start getting dangerous. I think the first actual death you could encounter in GK1 wasn't until Day 5 or 6 with
All depends on why you play adventures, though.
In some game genres (like platformers for example) usually the possibility of a game over is what makes it challenging, whereas adventure games have challenges in the form of puzzles, so I don't think a game over in an adventure game really adds anything to it.
See, adventure games are about thinking and reasoning, not reflexes, so I find it less logical to have the possibility of dying. The thing is, some games you win by surviving, so death has its place. But in adventure games, merely surviving means losing, you need to actually solve puzzles and stuff.
If some actions caused you to die, people would be less adventurous. We wouldn't try "fork with electrical outlet" in fear of dying. Or, we'd be less likely to try it. I guess we could just save before, but still, we'd have to reload and everything... And saving before every risky action would get annoying, especially in a game like Sam & Max where you're constantly doing stupid stuff.
It would also be extremely frustrating to lose if you haven't saved recently. In most games, it's easy enough to re-do everything (although it's still a bother), but in adventure games, it's so not-linear that it's easy to forget who you talked to or not, what items you have picked up or not, etc.
Now, there are some good adventure games where you can die, but in my opinion it's best if it doesn't happen often, if it auto-saves before the part where you can die and if you can start again without having to re-load.
Or, even better, the fork in the outlet electrocutes you and then you get up and say "well, that was stupid".
In short, I prefer my adventure games without death (unless it's part of the story of course). I can deal with it if it's rare (like in Broken Sword) but I prefer without, I don't think it adds anything, and I feel it takes away from the enjoyment.
The possibility of failure ups the challenge of a puzzle. Death in an adventure puts the player on edge. Even if the player just reloads a save from moments earlier, the character is in real danger.
There's also the idea that adventure games are, in fact, games. Some people get this idea that they are interactive storybooks, probably buying into this Hollywood envy that the industry is plagued by. I see people saying that story trumps gameplay, which...is idiotic.
Games are meant to challenge us. I know that if I can lose, and if the game is trying to kill me, my mind sharpens to meet the challenge. I'm more alert and pay more attention to detail. When you can't die, it's just more of a flow. Do what you can to shuffle through the thing.
Now, there is such a thing as a broken design. Miss a tiny thing at the start and dying at the very end is one example. Sierra gets a lot of flak for this sort of thing, some of it deserved and some of it undeserved, but you can get to the point where you're overcompensating for dumb people with little to no attention span and a trying lack of patience.
Ohhh wow I remember that.
Also, if you have wine and get into the Taxi. BLAMMO! End game, among other things.
When I was 8, I was strangely undaunted by this. I think I played just to play... Nowadays I think I'd have a fist-sized hole in my monitor.
Personally I think adventure games should have at least some acknowledgement towards adverse consequences of certain actions but also the player shouldn't be punished too hard for trying all possibilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUX8O6LMv9A
I hold that pit as one of the most brilliant moments in game design. It warns you quite clearly that the pit will kill you. And yet, I have a feeling that every single person who has played that game has jumped into it. Likely expecting an outcome other than death, no less.
Taking a few samples from Sierra:
Gabriel Knight: The snake puzzle. If you have a snake squeezing your neck an you don't react in time, you die -> Good Example for a situation where death it's an appropriate outcome and it's logical (and you actually have enough time to try something). My only complaint: the game didn't have the retry option so you're stuck to load a previous save game if you fail.
Gabriel Knight 3: The pendulum puzzle. If you miss the split-second timed click, you fall and die -> The outcome is logical, but it's a bad design since it punishes the player for not being "precise" (In fact that part of the game seems more like an action-adventure game to me. The rotating platform with blades and the pendulum looks more like an Indiana Jones game than a Gabriel Knight one)
Phantasmagoria 2: The Creature Mix. If you combine the incorrect creatures, you die. No warning, no context, nothing. Not only it punishes the player for not knowing in advance, but it forces you to save, try, restore, and continue until you actually find the combination that works (unless you cheat or are lucky enough to make it right in the first try)
Datasoft's "Dallas Quest" (Parser adventure). Something as simple as waiting in certain areas result in death.
Example:
-Wait for around six times (meaning you enter wrong commands or the wait command) when caught in a tree.
Game Over: "Oh well, at least the jaguar had a nice meal (you!)"
or
-wait in the pasture four times.
Game Over: "The cattle have trampled you to death."
I find this interesting, because I tend to experience a lot more trial-and-error in adventure games where you DON'T die. If I know that there are no permanent consequences to a wrong solution, I'm more likely to just keep trying things until they work than I am to actually think through a possible solution.
I still have this game for my Tandy Color Computer 3 (TRS-80 equivalent). Never did really play it at all.
Depends on how you look at it, really. I find that in games that you know you can't die, you're not afraid to try out different stuff. But games that gives you death if you do something wrong have you on your toes and you're afraid trying out stuff that you might have tried if you knew you couldn't die.
I don't mind death in games, as long as there's a proper warning before it happens, and gives you the chance to either replay that part, or save the game just before you get to the scene.