BBP wrote:Did we ever have a favourite Sierra death poll?
I am sure that had to be one of the polls Datadog did! (Where is he lately?)
adeyke wrote:That is a good point. Deaths, and the save/load issue, in other genres do still have some of the same problems as those in adventure games.
I suppose one difference is that adventure games are so much more focused on the story, so the discontinuities are more jarring there. RPGs often have some separation: first story stuff, then a skill-testing part, then more story stuff. If it's like that, having to redo the skill-testing part wouldn't affect the story part.
Well, I think part of it goes back to the limitations of gaming back then. I think if Adventure games lacked death - they would be too easy. Because you could literally go anywhere and try anything without fear of consequence. "You pick up a bottle of T3000 Vogarian Poison - strong enough to kill the largest of Vogarians! And those beasts are ten times your size, Roger!"
"What a bad idea! You think better of it since you're not Vogarian!"
There are games that do just that.
And that's fine. But I'd also punish the player for doing something that's clearly stupid.
adeyke wrote:There is something to be said for RPGs having a difficulty level setting, where turning it all the way down makes the fights so easy that a player will never die, and they can instead focus on the story.
I usually leave RPGs on the "standard" setting to do the original play through, and play the game "as it was intended to be played." But there's some games, that are large (like Dragon Age), that on the second or third play through, I put it all the way on EASY, because all I am doing is looking for things I missed, or just trying out another class to build.
adeyke wrote:Okay, then. Here's a similar list of things that would all be part of the game instead of external to it:
1. Suppose that, throughout the game, every few minutes there's a chance that the player is randomly struck by lightning and dies. This can't be avoided, but loading the game means that next time, they might get lucky and get a bit further before they die again.
Have you played GOLD RUSH? While it's not lightning, death can RANDOMLY find you.
And I _still_ love GOLD RUSH.
adeyke wrote:2. Suppose that the player is constantly given decisions (which item to pick up, which door to enter, which path to take), all but one of which is always lethal. No hints are given to the correct solution. Instead, the player just has to try an option and die, until they manage to get the right one. In the final playthrough, having memorized the full solution, the player will manage to make the right decisions each time.
This sounds like LEGENDS OF KYRANDIA BOOK 1 and the caves.
Which I admit, the caves drove me insane - and it was a lot of save and reload - but it didn't make me enjoy the game any less! It actually made me break out a piece of paper and MAP the entire caves.
adeyke wrote:3. Suppose that, at the start of the game, the player is given a choice of nondescript keys, of which they can only take one (and must take one to proceed). They can't change their mind later. Towards the end of the game, they're presented with a door that can only be opened with the correct key.
Well I already said I agree with you that dead ends absolutely suck. Because the player is in a position that they can't do anything BUT restore because of something they missed. I will always agree that dead ends were just poor designs.
adeyke wrote:4. Suppose that the game requires the player to fill a tub with water from a distant lake. The process involves filling a cup, traversing many screens, and emptying the cup, then repeating this over the course of an hour.
I can't think of what game puzzle you might be referencing for this one?
adeyke wrote:5. Suppose a game had a parser that only understood complete sentences, capitalization and punctuation included. Instead of "look desk", the player would have to type "Look at the desk."
Well, once you understood that, and if it was in the manuals, then I'd be all for it. I'd actually ENCOURAGE it really, as it not only allows you to play a game, it also teaches you, your kids, a foreigner, proper English.
adeyke wrote:I'm going to take a stand and say that all of those would be really bad. If someone is designing a game that has any of the above, they should stop. And if someone released a game like that, people shouldn't buy or play it. I don't at all think it's a good idea to just shrug and say that whatever choices the designer makes are equally valid and that strongly stating an opinion about it is automatically arrogant.
At least you don't sound arrogant and call it a Bill of Rights.
I think it's all in how you present your views - when they differ. Like I have taken nothing you said as remotely arrogant. But when I read the article linked originally, almost immediately I picked up a very snobbish, arrogant vibe.
adeyke wrote:And despite the name, it's not like it has any force of law behind it. You can violate those "rights" if you want; the result is just that it'll be a bad game. So complaining about the name or the implied arrogance behind it seems like a rather superficial issue.
Not really. We put power into words.
If someone called you a "Mother F&*ker." The implication is you go around having sexual intercourse with mothers. Or, it's an insult. Whether it's true or not (either statement), you're bound to take offense to it, because of the power and meaning of the words.
And to make it less personal, if you over heard two people you didn't know, calling an over weight, innocent woman "A fat slut" you're probably going to be offended based on their judgement, even if you don't know any of the people personally involved.
Because the power behind the words.
The Bill of Rights has a very powerful meaning, because of American History, and what the Bill of Rights actually represents.