Not sure about Psychonauts, they are Tim Schafer's invention and I would rather want Double Fine to create a sequel.
In my opinion, another franchise that could fit Telltale is Ace Ventura. I've recently replayed the game, it has an appropriate sitcom-type kind of humor and consists of three different missions, so it really feels like episodic.
I would choose (in no particular order) Tales of Monkey Island season 2, an IP and the Freelance Police Academy, an idea that was briefly disscused during the "Summer of Sam & Max" years ago.
I've said it several times earlier, and I repeat it now.
It would be totally awesome a graphic adventure with Mortadelo y Filemón made by TellTale.
Maybe they're not well known characters outside Europe (Spain and Germany mostly), but I think they are great characters for a TellTale game.
This! These guys are hilarious, and it's one of the few ideas I can immediately see working as an episodic adventure game. You're sending me on a nostalgia trip with that pic.
Hadn't thought about Telltale doing an Ace Ventura series before, but I agree with Cyrus7. That was a great game, and something about it just fits Telltale perfectly.
I had wondered about Full Throttle at one time. And like tredlow mentioned, after seeing them pull off the whole cinematic action thing so well in S&M season 3 so far, I'm thinking this might be a good idea!
Kinda starting to like the idea about Futurama too. Again, another one I've not thought about that much, but when I do think about it I find myself agreeing with it.
Oh, if only Telltell could get their hands on two of my all time favorite non-Lucasarts series: Gabriel Knight and the Legend of Kyrandia. Both were absolutely fantastic, in their own ways. GK ended on such a cliffhanger - I'd love for Jane Jensen to finally be able to give some closure to us fans. Kyrandia, if only, because it was fun. Also, Malcolm's Revenge had fantastic music. I believe, both could be set up as episodic adventures.
Frankly, I haven't played the CSI games and I don't intend to. I don't think live action TV translates very well into video games (Lost, Dr. Who, etc.). Just my opinion though.
The problem with asking for anything is that all adventure series that I want to see again that also do not feature dying in any way have been done, except for one: Loom. And I don't know if Telltale can pull off Loom.
I don't want their hands on Sierra games if they are going to continue the no-death policy. I'm sorry, but there is no way you can maintain the feel and atmosphere of a Sierra game without death scenes.
Still, if Telltale were capable of pulling off another Trinity or A Mind Forever Voyaging(not a continuation of these specific stories, mind you, but something in this general style), that would be amazing. Sadly, I really have a doubt in my mind that Telltale really wants to go in that direction, and even if they did...it would be hard to justify going forward from a financial standpoint.
Dirk Gently - Much better Douglas Character than the ones in Hitchhikers guide
Nodwick
PS238
Stargate
Starwars
Star Trek
Stardust
Graveyard book -It Even has a classical adventure puzzle in the book
Batman
I don't want their hands on Sierra games if they are going to continue the no-death policy. I'm sorry, but there is no way you can maintain the feel and atmosphere of a Sierra game without death scenes.
You could have death scenes as long as the game gives you a "Continue?" option that puts you back in the scene before you died. It's not death they're opposed to, it's game-over scenarios
This! These guys are hilarious, and it's one of the few ideas I can immediately see working as an episodic adventure game. You're sending me on a nostalgia trip with that pic.
Thanks! I was starting to think I was the only one that thinks that TellTale could make a great game with those characters.
Their comics are episodics by themselves, an episodic game is only natural with the characters.
An spanish company (Alcachofa Soft, whose last game was "The Abbey") alredy did several cool adventure games with them, most of them with sort of episodic format (the games are auto-conclussive and are sold separately, but some games may be considered a small chapter inside a greater story -or "season"- and if you have the two games that compose that "season", you unlock a bonus final chapter).
You could have death scenes as long as the game gives you a "Continue?" option that puts you back in the scene before you died. It's not death they're opposed to, it's game-over scenarios
You don't get it. LucasArts fans never got it. In a game, the only way to increase tension and focus is to change how the gamer interacts with the game, in this case: Game Over screens. The WAY you play the game is different, and that means the tension and focus you have during gameplay is different.
And besides, the Game Over screens always admonished you, always hilariously told you that you suck. A CONTINUE? button would make any such thing ring...somewhat insincere.
You don't get it. LucasArts fans never got it. In a game, the only way to increase tension and focus is to change how the gamer interacts with the game, in this case: Game Over screens. The WAY you play the game is different, and that means the tension and focus you have during gameplay is different.
And besides, the Game Over screens always admonished you, always hilariously told you that you suck. A CONTINUE? button would make any such thing ring...somewhat insincere.
Yes, the way you play the game is so different. It's such a great gameplay feature to mash quick save every time you ever consider anything, and keeping a separate save file before you solve every puzzle, just in case you accidentally caused a dead end that you'd have no way of figuring out without restarting the game and happening to not get the same dead end. Such fun.
A continue button would be exactly the same thing as the violent quick save mashing, but without forcing the player to mash quicksave. I would probably even enjoy Sierra games if they had that feature, and removed all the utterly pointless dead-ends that do nothing to enhance gameplay, and only serve to frustrate players who don't even realize they've done something wrong.
You don't get it. LucasArts fans never got it. In a game, the only way to increase tension and focus is to change how the gamer interacts with the game, in this case: Game Over screens. The WAY you play the game is different, and that means the tension and focus you have during gameplay is different.
And besides, the Game Over screens always admonished you, always hilariously told you that you suck. A CONTINUE? button would make any such thing ring...somewhat insincere.
Are you specifically talking about early Sierra games? Because Sierra themselves changed their paradigm in later years. Although you can still "die" in the later titles, you generally get a "Continue" button on the game-over screen. I'm pretty sure that Shivers, Shivers 2, Torin's Passage, Lighthouse, and King's Quest VII are all like this (there are probably others).
Don't you think the lack of such a feature in their earlier games would have been down to simply not thinking of it, rather than a deliberate plan to increase tension by making "death" frustrating and difficult? When you don't fear the "death" itself so much as the repetitiveness of recovering from it, a major part of the emotional response is completely outside the game world - and that's not a good thing.
I see what you mean about tension, but for me there's plenty of tension anyway when I know my player character can die, because I am emotionally invested in that character's well-being. I don't see the problem with keeping the threat of "death" while making any game-over scenario more user-friendly to recover from.
I thought there was a lot of tension in the Broken Sword games. You can die, but not all the time, and not for flushing a toilet or forgetting to remove a condom because you assumed the character was smart enough not to keep it on.
Maybe the game could just have an intelligent autosave function. So if you die, you get a full game over scene and get sent back to the main menu, but the game will always have saved at the point before your death
Yes, the way you play the game is so different. It's such a great gameplay feature to mash quick save every time you ever consider anything, and keeping a separate save file before you solve every puzzle, just in case you accidentally caused a dead end that you'd have no way of figuring out without restarting the game and happening to not get the same dead end. Such fun.
A continue button would be exactly the same thing as the violent quick save mashing, but without forcing the player to mash quicksave. I would probably even enjoy Sierra games if they had that feature, and removed all the utterly pointless dead-ends that do nothing to enhance gameplay, and only serve to frustrate players who don't even realize they've done something wrong.
Generaly, you don't make sequels catering to the people who hate the originals. If you make a sequel with a contempt for the gameplay of the first set of games, why are you bothering?
Generaly, you don't make sequels catering to the people who hate the originals. If you make a sequel with a contempt for the gameplay of the first set of games, why are you bothering?
Making a game more accessible to people who are fans of the genre but not fans of a pointless time-wasting mechanic is making them "with a contempt" for the original?
Making a game more accessible to people who are fans of the genre but not fans of a pointless time-wasting mechanic is making them "with a contempt" for the original?
That's like saying that all of TTG's games were made with contempt for LEC's games because they simplified the item interaction and removed verbs in order to make the games more accessible to non-hardcore adventure gamers.
Look, Sierra's death scenes are a part of the games. A PART OF THEM. They were in every single game in every single one of their best franchises. There is no reason to suddenly remove them just because some people are little bitches who can't cut it. Those tough parts are part of what made the puzzles so difficult and they increased the amount of satisfaction you'd get once you actually beat the game. I'm sorry but if there was a Sierra franchise without death scenes, I wouldn't play it.
A. They increased the difficulty. B. They increased satisfaction upon winning. C. They were hilarious. If you don't get it you don't get it and these games aren't for you. D. They were unexpected, and made the game unpredictable. This is also part of the games charm. E. In every game they made, it did increase the atmosphere. Rather Dashing is right. The death screens made sense, either as a joke, or for the setting.
Take Laura Bow. If you used the shower, a psycho would come in and stab you to death. This is a spin on horror movie cliches. Sometimes the chandelier would crash and kill you, which was another spin on a classic murder mystery cliche. You could fall over the banister, another cliche.
Or take Leisure Suit Larry. Putting the condom on first fit the game. The point was that it was making fun of the sexual situation. It added to the games humor, point, and atmosphere. It's not like the death scenes never made a point.
Or at the beginning of Space Quest 1 with the sandworm. That showed that the world was alien, treacherous, and it caused extreme tension while on its surface.
This brings me to one more point. One thing that can go, is being unable to continue because you missed something. Like in Kings Quest 5 where you didn't save the mouse. That can go.
Look, Sierra's death scenes are a part of the games. A PART OF THEM. They were in every single game in every single one of their best franchises. There is no reason to suddenly remove them just because some people are little bitches who can't cut it. Those tough parts are part of what made the puzzles so difficult and they increased the amount of satisfaction you'd get once you actually beat the game. I'm sorry but if there was a Sierra franchise without death scenes, I wouldn't play it.
There's nothing tough or challenging about deaths, and I'm not saying they should be removed. Just add in an autosave system so that shortly before any scene where a death is possible, it automatically saves the game, so you don't have to constantly be worried about whether or not you hit quick save lately. I don't see how this would ruin the death scenes, as the vast majority of even action games utilize an autosave system before entering dangerous areas.
This brings me to one more point. One thing that can go, is being unable to continue because you missed something. Like in Kings Quest 5 where you didn't save the mouse. That can go.
But doesn't that make the game harder, more rewarding when you win and unexpected, too?
For that matter, wouldn't changing which key does what every five minute do all of that, too?
As far as it being hilarious, I fail to see why saving automatically/being able to start again right before your mistake would remove that.
There's nothing tough or challenging about deaths, and I'm not saying they should be removed. Just add in an autosave system so that shortly before any scene where a death is possible, it automatically saves the game, so you don't have to constantly be worried about whether or not you hit quick save lately. I don't see how this would ruin the death scenes, as the vast majority of even action games utilize an autosave system before entering dangerous areas.
That's completely wrong. Something being deadly forces you to figure out how to avoid dying at that point. It's just another form of puzzle, really.
But doesn't that make the game harder, more rewarding when you win and unexpected, too?
No, that's usually just an unintended game design fluke. Death scenes are intended, fit, and make sense if done right. There was one instance in Leisure Suit Larry 3 where it was done on purpose, when you could take your clothes off to go to the showers and if you didn't lock your locker someone would steal your clothes and you couldn't leave the building because you were nude. Which did work in the instance and game, was funny, and was all right in my book.
For that matter, wouldn't changing which key does what every five minute do all of that, too?
Is that from something? I'm not sure what your point is.
As far as it being hilarious, I fail to see why saving automatically/being able to start again right before your mistake would remove that.
Oh there's no problem with that. I just don't want the death scenes to go.
Oh there's no problem with that. I just don't want the death scenes to go.
Well, Dashing seems opposed to it though.
My point was that a lot of the things that make a game harder, unpredictable and more rewarding when you finish it do so by being incredibly frustrating. Of course your mileage may vary.
Changing which key does what every five seconds (potentially leading to losing if you hit the wrong key because you haven't figured it out, or even, just annoying because you have to re-figure out what everything does all the time) is frustrating, but also unexpected, and making the game harder to finish.
I don't think any game does that. I was trying to find an example that would be considered annoying to most people playing an adventure game, because uncalled for and unnecessary. A lot of people see random death scenes as something similar to that.
I'm okay with the idea of dying, but I like when it makes sense. You don't have to tell Larry to put his clothes back on after he has sex, if I recall, yet you have to tell him to remove the condom? How are you supposed to guess that he put his clothes back on OVER IT? And if you end up having to redo a big portion of the game, all in the right order, remember what you had done and not when you last saved, it feels frustrating more than rewarding to me.
You haven't played many text adventures like Hitchhikers Guide have you. Coming down from those, Sierra games were a breeze. Play some text adventures and you'll understand better the term "frustrating" in relation to games.
I appreciate dying in Sierra games. (Space Quest 6 was another with the Continue function, incidentally). I also appreciate it without a continue button. I'm with Rather Dashing here. Although I am opposed to taking out deaths in a Sierra franchise, I'm not opposed to removing "dead ends" (something completely different which many people seem to easily confuse, astonishingly).
Especially for Space Quest. Those games had a unique perspective on dying that no other adventure game has ever had (that I know of anyway). And that is that they tried to make dying fun by coming up with the most insulting, creative, and entertaining deaths you'll ever see in a video game. Half the fun of Space Quest was finding out how many crazy ways you could kill Roger! Of course solving the game was fun too. But there's something about playing a game where it's possible not only to win but to lose. You can't lose to Monkey Island or similar games. There's a possibility you won't win, but you never lose.
It's exactly what RD was talking about regarding tension. Playing a game with a Continue button is like playing a game with no game over screen. There's absolutely no difference. When there is no Continue button it forces you to be more careful how you play and save often. That's not a design flaw. It's a game mechanic that's not frustrating if you're looking at it the right way. Which admittedly most people aren't and don't. Probably because they're too lazy.
That's one thing that constantly changes about the adventure genre. As the genre "progressed" it made things easier for people causing them to be more and more lazy in their approach to adventure games. First by giving them graphics so they didn't have to use their imaginations (ditto for sound, music, and speech as well). Then they did away with the parser altogether and made them P&C with different verb functions. They removed the ability to die (yes, I said ability) so you didn't have to worry about saving so much, taking a lot of tension out of the genre. Then they simplified the P&C interface to a single-function cursour which does whatever you're supposed to do. They added an auto-save feature so you don't even have to save your game yourself. Then they removed the ability to combine inventory items with eachother. And more and more until people were screaming for a drag-&-move mouse controle scheme.....
Of course, I don't mind a lot of those changes, but it's all still true. They did make adventure gamers lazier. People don't even like to read in games anymore (for games like Myst where reading is essential).
How is a continue button/autosave different than hitting quick save before you do anything? Oh yeah, it's not, except that you aren't forced to do a tedious task like pressing a button repeatedly in order to recover from a death.
Most modern games have autosave features that activate before dangerous areas of the game, so that if you happen to die, you don't end up replaying 6 hours of the game over again. No one complains about autosave in action games, so why is it that it would suddenly destroy adventure games and kill all supposed "tension" that exists, just by making it less irritating to avoid ridiculous death penalties?
I have not once suggested removing deaths from the games.
Is anyone even attempting to comprehend what I'm saying?
How is a continue button/autosave different than hitting quick save before you do anything? Oh yeah, it's not, except that you aren't forced to do a tedious task like pressing a button repeatedly in order to recover from a death.
It is so different. You're not pushing the button yourself. And I'm not talking about "quick saves." I'm talking bring up the save game dialogue, type the name of your save game, and hit save. Quick save buttons weren't around back then (for adventures).
Most modern games have autosave features that activate before dangerous areas of the game, so that if you happen to die, you don't end up replaying 6 hours of the game over again.
Yes, and thereby completely removing the challenge, tension, and immersiveness. Don't you see what I'm saying? The risk is suddenly gone. The risk is a big part of gameplay. At least for me it is.
No one complains about autosave in action games,...
Actually, I do. But that's a different topic altogether.
...so why is it that it would suddenly destroy adventure games and kill all supposed "tension" that exists, just by making it less irritating to avoid ridiculous death penalties?
Because the point of an action game is action. It's all about reflexes and certain points in time. Adventure games are not about reflexes but rather about thinking. Usually, adventure games are big pieces of waiting periods where you're in no danger unless you put yourself in danger. If you're too stupid to save before attempting something that could possibly be dangerous to your character, you deserve that frustration. Now, I understand that in some instances the game gives a time limit where you have to do something or you will die. In those instances I wouldn't mind an autosave feature. But not with generic death sequences.
I have not once suggested removing deaths from the games.
Is anyone even attempting to comprehend what I'm saying?
I never said you were. You're not comprehending what we're saying. Game deaths aren't the same with a Continue button or an autosave feature and might as well be removed if such is the case because it renders them pointless. There's a reason that there were deaths in Sierra games. It was a gameplay element. One which was completely destroyed by autosaves.
Game deaths aren't the same with a Continue button or an autosave feature and might as well be removed if such is the case because it renders them pointless. There's a reason that there were deaths in Sierra games. It was a gameplay element. One which was completely destroyed by autosaves.
I don't understand how hitting a button to do the same thing makes the game better. Please explain why hitting buttons that you shouldn't have to hit makes a game fun.
I believe most people here are more feeling than thinking.
I haven't played a Sierra game in my life, and my first Adventure Game was Abe Lincoln must Die, so, I'll leave it there. But really, calm down for a moment and try to put in the other position for a moment.
I read Shigeru Miyamoto said once Frustration is one of the things that keep people going. If you put a little of it, and the people will not feel motivated enough, and if you overdo it, people is going to leave you.
Dirk Gently - Much better Douglas Character than the ones in Hitchhikers guide
I agree.
I don't see how Lost, Family Guy or American Dad would work as an adventure game. Futurama has much better characters, and it would be cool to be able to use Leela and Bender like you use Max in Penal Zone or like the characters in Maniac Mansion.
I'd like to see what Telltale would be able to do with a sci-fi (Beneath a Steel Sky, Red Dwarf) or fantasy (Kyrandia) theme though.
Comments
In my opinion, another franchise that could fit Telltale is Ace Ventura. I've recently replayed the game, it has an appropriate sitcom-type kind of humor and consists of three different missions, so it really feels like episodic.
Well, maybe a spin-off. Something taking place in the Psychonauts universe.
10. Adventure Time With Jake And Finn
09. ThunderCats
08. Wind In The Willows (BBC TV claymation version)
07. Danger Mouse
06. King's Quest
05. Mystery Science Theater 3000
04. ElfQuest
03. Azumanga Daioh
02. Red Dwarf
01. Fraggle Rock
ThunderCats, Ho!
I had wondered about Full Throttle at one time. And like tredlow mentioned, after seeing them pull off the whole cinematic action thing so well in S&M season 3 so far, I'm thinking this might be a good idea!
Kinda starting to like the idea about Futurama too. Again, another one I've not thought about that much, but when I do think about it I find myself agreeing with it.
these.
I want these
I don't want their hands on Sierra games if they are going to continue the no-death policy. I'm sorry, but there is no way you can maintain the feel and atmosphere of a Sierra game without death scenes.
Still, if Telltale were capable of pulling off another Trinity or A Mind Forever Voyaging(not a continuation of these specific stories, mind you, but something in this general style), that would be amazing. Sadly, I really have a doubt in my mind that Telltale really wants to go in that direction, and even if they did...it would be hard to justify going forward from a financial standpoint.
Nodwick
PS238
Stargate
Starwars
Star Trek
Stardust
Graveyard book -It Even has a classical adventure puzzle in the book
Batman
You could have death scenes as long as the game gives you a "Continue?" option that puts you back in the scene before you died. It's not death they're opposed to, it's game-over scenarios
Their comics are episodics by themselves, an episodic game is only natural with the characters.
An spanish company (Alcachofa Soft, whose last game was "The Abbey") alredy did several cool adventure games with them, most of them with sort of episodic format (the games are auto-conclussive and are sold separately, but some games may be considered a small chapter inside a greater story -or "season"- and if you have the two games that compose that "season", you unlock a bonus final chapter).
And besides, the Game Over screens always admonished you, always hilariously told you that you suck. A CONTINUE? button would make any such thing ring...somewhat insincere.
Yes, the way you play the game is so different. It's such a great gameplay feature to mash quick save every time you ever consider anything, and keeping a separate save file before you solve every puzzle, just in case you accidentally caused a dead end that you'd have no way of figuring out without restarting the game and happening to not get the same dead end. Such fun.
A continue button would be exactly the same thing as the violent quick save mashing, but without forcing the player to mash quicksave. I would probably even enjoy Sierra games if they had that feature, and removed all the utterly pointless dead-ends that do nothing to enhance gameplay, and only serve to frustrate players who don't even realize they've done something wrong.
Are you specifically talking about early Sierra games? Because Sierra themselves changed their paradigm in later years. Although you can still "die" in the later titles, you generally get a "Continue" button on the game-over screen. I'm pretty sure that Shivers, Shivers 2, Torin's Passage, Lighthouse, and King's Quest VII are all like this (there are probably others).
Don't you think the lack of such a feature in their earlier games would have been down to simply not thinking of it, rather than a deliberate plan to increase tension by making "death" frustrating and difficult? When you don't fear the "death" itself so much as the repetitiveness of recovering from it, a major part of the emotional response is completely outside the game world - and that's not a good thing.
I see what you mean about tension, but for me there's plenty of tension anyway when I know my player character can die, because I am emotionally invested in that character's well-being. I don't see the problem with keeping the threat of "death" while making any game-over scenario more user-friendly to recover from.
Making a game more accessible to people who are fans of the genre but not fans of a pointless time-wasting mechanic is making them "with a contempt" for the original?
That's like saying that all of TTG's games were made with contempt for LEC's games because they simplified the item interaction and removed verbs in order to make the games more accessible to non-hardcore adventure gamers.
A. They increased the difficulty.
B. They increased satisfaction upon winning.
C. They were hilarious. If you don't get it you don't get it and these games aren't for you.
D. They were unexpected, and made the game unpredictable. This is also part of the games charm.
E. In every game they made, it did increase the atmosphere. Rather Dashing is right. The death screens made sense, either as a joke, or for the setting.
Take Laura Bow. If you used the shower, a psycho would come in and stab you to death. This is a spin on horror movie cliches. Sometimes the chandelier would crash and kill you, which was another spin on a classic murder mystery cliche. You could fall over the banister, another cliche.
Or take Leisure Suit Larry. Putting the condom on first fit the game. The point was that it was making fun of the sexual situation. It added to the games humor, point, and atmosphere. It's not like the death scenes never made a point.
Or at the beginning of Space Quest 1 with the sandworm. That showed that the world was alien, treacherous, and it caused extreme tension while on its surface.
This brings me to one more point. One thing that can go, is being unable to continue because you missed something. Like in Kings Quest 5 where you didn't save the mouse. That can go.
There's nothing tough or challenging about deaths, and I'm not saying they should be removed. Just add in an autosave system so that shortly before any scene where a death is possible, it automatically saves the game, so you don't have to constantly be worried about whether or not you hit quick save lately. I don't see how this would ruin the death scenes, as the vast majority of even action games utilize an autosave system before entering dangerous areas.
But doesn't that make the game harder, more rewarding when you win and unexpected, too?
For that matter, wouldn't changing which key does what every five minute do all of that, too?
As far as it being hilarious, I fail to see why saving automatically/being able to start again right before your mistake would remove that.
That's completely wrong. Something being deadly forces you to figure out how to avoid dying at that point. It's just another form of puzzle, really.
No, that's usually just an unintended game design fluke. Death scenes are intended, fit, and make sense if done right. There was one instance in Leisure Suit Larry 3 where it was done on purpose, when you could take your clothes off to go to the showers and if you didn't lock your locker someone would steal your clothes and you couldn't leave the building because you were nude. Which did work in the instance and game, was funny, and was all right in my book.
Is that from something? I'm not sure what your point is.
Oh there's no problem with that. I just don't want the death scenes to go.
Well, Dashing seems opposed to it though.
My point was that a lot of the things that make a game harder, unpredictable and more rewarding when you finish it do so by being incredibly frustrating. Of course your mileage may vary.
Changing which key does what every five seconds (potentially leading to losing if you hit the wrong key because you haven't figured it out, or even, just annoying because you have to re-figure out what everything does all the time) is frustrating, but also unexpected, and making the game harder to finish.
I don't think any game does that. I was trying to find an example that would be considered annoying to most people playing an adventure game, because uncalled for and unnecessary. A lot of people see random death scenes as something similar to that.
I'm okay with the idea of dying, but I like when it makes sense. You don't have to tell Larry to put his clothes back on after he has sex, if I recall, yet you have to tell him to remove the condom? How are you supposed to guess that he put his clothes back on OVER IT? And if you end up having to redo a big portion of the game, all in the right order, remember what you had done and not when you last saved, it feels frustrating more than rewarding to me.
Especially for Space Quest. Those games had a unique perspective on dying that no other adventure game has ever had (that I know of anyway). And that is that they tried to make dying fun by coming up with the most insulting, creative, and entertaining deaths you'll ever see in a video game. Half the fun of Space Quest was finding out how many crazy ways you could kill Roger! Of course solving the game was fun too. But there's something about playing a game where it's possible not only to win but to lose. You can't lose to Monkey Island or similar games. There's a possibility you won't win, but you never lose.
It's exactly what RD was talking about regarding tension. Playing a game with a Continue button is like playing a game with no game over screen. There's absolutely no difference. When there is no Continue button it forces you to be more careful how you play and save often. That's not a design flaw. It's a game mechanic that's not frustrating if you're looking at it the right way. Which admittedly most people aren't and don't. Probably because they're too lazy.
That's one thing that constantly changes about the adventure genre. As the genre "progressed" it made things easier for people causing them to be more and more lazy in their approach to adventure games. First by giving them graphics so they didn't have to use their imaginations (ditto for sound, music, and speech as well). Then they did away with the parser altogether and made them P&C with different verb functions. They removed the ability to die (yes, I said ability) so you didn't have to worry about saving so much, taking a lot of tension out of the genre. Then they simplified the P&C interface to a single-function cursour which does whatever you're supposed to do. They added an auto-save feature so you don't even have to save your game yourself. Then they removed the ability to combine inventory items with eachother. And more and more until people were screaming for a drag-&-move mouse controle scheme.....
Of course, I don't mind a lot of those changes, but it's all still true. They did make adventure gamers lazier. People don't even like to read in games anymore (for games like Myst where reading is essential).
Most modern games have autosave features that activate before dangerous areas of the game, so that if you happen to die, you don't end up replaying 6 hours of the game over again. No one complains about autosave in action games, so why is it that it would suddenly destroy adventure games and kill all supposed "tension" that exists, just by making it less irritating to avoid ridiculous death penalties?
I have not once suggested removing deaths from the games.
Is anyone even attempting to comprehend what I'm saying?
It is so different. You're not pushing the button yourself. And I'm not talking about "quick saves." I'm talking bring up the save game dialogue, type the name of your save game, and hit save. Quick save buttons weren't around back then (for adventures).
Yes, and thereby completely removing the challenge, tension, and immersiveness. Don't you see what I'm saying? The risk is suddenly gone. The risk is a big part of gameplay. At least for me it is.
Actually, I do. But that's a different topic altogether.
Because the point of an action game is action. It's all about reflexes and certain points in time. Adventure games are not about reflexes but rather about thinking. Usually, adventure games are big pieces of waiting periods where you're in no danger unless you put yourself in danger. If you're too stupid to save before attempting something that could possibly be dangerous to your character, you deserve that frustration. Now, I understand that in some instances the game gives a time limit where you have to do something or you will die. In those instances I wouldn't mind an autosave feature. But not with generic death sequences.
I never said you were. You're not comprehending what we're saying. Game deaths aren't the same with a Continue button or an autosave feature and might as well be removed if such is the case because it renders them pointless. There's a reason that there were deaths in Sierra games. It was a gameplay element. One which was completely destroyed by autosaves.
I don't understand how hitting a button to do the same thing makes the game better. Please explain why hitting buttons that you shouldn't have to hit makes a game fun.
I haven't played a Sierra game in my life, and my first Adventure Game was Abe Lincoln must Die, so, I'll leave it there. But really, calm down for a moment and try to put in the other position for a moment.
I read Shigeru Miyamoto said once Frustration is one of the things that keep people going. If you put a little of it, and the people will not feel motivated enough, and if you overdo it, people is going to leave you.
I agree.
I don't see how Lost, Family Guy or American Dad would work as an adventure game. Futurama has much better characters, and it would be cool to be able to use Leela and Bender like you use Max in Penal Zone or like the characters in Maniac Mansion.
I'd like to see what Telltale would be able to do with a sci-fi (Beneath a Steel Sky, Red Dwarf) or fantasy (Kyrandia) theme though.