QFG1 places you can get stuck permanently

[ericm]

I am wondering if anyone has compiled a list of places you can get stuck permanently, particularly in QFG1 VGA remake. For example, failing to get an item at a crucial juncture and never being able to get it again, or the time passing on an event that will never occur again, etc.
I don't want to start playing this game and then getting stuck like this.

Further, I plan on playing all 4 games and am wondering if anyone has done the same for all 4 (the second being the remake by AGD).

[Tawmis]

I don't know that QFG1 has any "dead ends" so to speak... Because I think it's pretty "open" in that, you never really "leave" an area that you can't get back to... (that I remember, anyway).

I have not played the non official QFG games, including fan made remakes. (Mostly due to lack of time).

[Collector]

And that openness means that there is a lot that you do not have to do to win, albeit with a lower score.

[DeadPoolX]

I don't know if this counts as "getting stuck" per se, but if you got caught stealing from the lady who makes potions and pills, I think she barred you from her services.

[Collector]

That just means you have to be more careful to avoid damage in fights. More likely that you could die, but saving more often can get around this.

[DeadPoolX]

But what about the "undead unguent?" Isn't that necessary to get through the graveyard to grab the mandrake root?

[Collector]

Oh, yes. I was forgetting a about that. But is it not possible to win without it? Is it a class thing? It has been years since I have played it.

[Tawmis]

Oh, yes. I was forgetting a about that. But is it not possible to win without it? Is it a class thing? It has been years since I have played it.

I was trying to remember that too... I remember the riddle he's referencing... but I can't remember for the life of me, if it was needed or if there was a way around it... :-/ Like you, it's been eons since I played. If I didn't have 10,000 freaking hobbies, I'd set aside some time to really start going through all these classic games again...

[stuntology]

But what about the "undead unguent?" Isn't that necessary to get through the graveyard to grab the mandrake root?

I'm pretty confident that that whole sidequest isn't necessary to complete the game. However, you absolutely need to have a dispel potion before you enter the brigand fortress.

I believe that everything else you need to complete the game can be backtracked to get.

Good luck!

[adeyke]

There are a lot of dead ends centered on the dispel potion. Angering the dryad can make you unable to get the magic acorn. Or you can get it and eat it. As noted, annoying the healer before you get the dispel potion will also be a dead end. If you're unable to get the potion (or just forget to do so) before entering the fortress, it's a dead end.

[Fender_178]

Some of the dead ends in QFG1 VGA can be found in Paw's lets play of QFG1 VGA. Such as stealing from the healer if you are a thief or a hybrid character. Also including forgetting to buy the stuff for the grave yard part after visiting Baba Yaga.

[Collector]

As Josh Mandel once said, there were two kinds of dead ends. The unintentional by design screwup and the intentional ones by design. Stealing from the healer is obviously an intentional one. It does not take you long to figure out that you screwed up.

The unintentional one amounts to a bug. These became more rare with later Sierra games and is one thing that LA did better than Sierra. For those that like the extra difficulty that unintentional dead ends can add to the experience, just like puzzles, there are good designs and bad ones. An illogical dead end is just as frustrating as an illogical puzzle. One other kind of badly designed dead end is one that lets you play too long before it becomes evident that you need to go back. Some may not like them at all and might as well just play some adolescent LA game instead and not have to put up with dying, either.

[adeyke]

Personally, I see all dead ends in adventure games as bad design. It's just my opinion, of course, but I do think that any time you restore a game, you should be able to go on from there to win the game. The only exception I'd make is when you save the game when it's obvious you were immediately going to die (e.g. saving with a lethal projectile already in the air), but even there I'd prefer if the player was just unable to save at that point.

I would definitely categorize the stealing-from-healer dead end as bad design. Consider:
1. In the VGA version, you steal just by clicking the hand on the table. Given that so much of QfG1 is about exploration and interacting with everything to see the messages, it's possible to steal on accident.
2. If you click a second time, it'll say "You're getting greedy. She'll notice if you take any more." The clear implication is that she didn't notice the first time.
3. It takes a while before you can notice you're in a dead end. You normally don't go back to the healer immediately (you'd wait until you either have more ingredients or need more potions). Even if you do return immediately, she won't have noticed the theft yet, so you might think you got away with it.
4. It is, if I remember correctly, the only time in the series that theft works this way. In every other case, you either get way with it completely, or you lose instantly, or the game just doesn't let you steal it.
5. They could have worked around it. I think the best solution would just be to not allow the player to steal from the healer. However, even if that is allowed, maybe the healer could just demand that you pay for the potions, increase the prices, and keep an eye on you whenever you're there. Or maybe she'd refuse to do business but still make the dispel potion (saving the land would still be in her best interests).
6. It's not obviously stupid. This isn't a "just drop your important items to see what will happen" situation. Thieves steal, and having more potions is definitely advantageous. If you could steal those potions without ever getting caught, it would be a sensible thing to do. It would also be immoral, of course, but the game doesn't stop the player from performing other immoral acts of theft.

I'll note that there are cases where QfG games did include fail-safes against dead ends. In QfG2, even if you forgot to pick up your sapphire pin or oil (as a thief) before leaving Shapeir, the game provides you with alternatives.

[DeadPoolX]

I have to agree with Adeyke. Anytime a game puts the player in an unwinnable position, it's bad design. There should always be a way around an obstacle.

There's nothing intelligent or logical about deadend situations. The only way to learn, in these instances, is to do something that screws up your game and then load an older saved game. That's trial-and-error, more or less, and requires no more intelligence than than randomly clicking on items in your inventory.

In fact, it's partly because of Sierra's notorious unwinnable deadends that the term "save scumming" was coined. I dislike the name, but the idea is you have to constantly save, because even the tiniest misstep or not seeing a 1x1 pixel in the corner of the screen could destroy your game later on.

Now dying in games is another topic entirely. I don't mind dying in games, so long as the danger is understandable. Typing "push rock" and having it roll over you, crushing you to death (which means the rock actually moved in the opposite direction you pushed it in) or witnessing your hand get sliced off when you've typed "touch metal" are both examples of absurd deaths.

Sierra got better at lessening the ridiculous nature of death in their later games. LucasArts, in some ways, went too far in the opposite direction, but they were smart in playing to an audience that was sick of dying for exploring the game world when no danger was apparent.

Some LucasArts games did allow you to die. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis is one such title. The major difference between it and many Sierra games, however, was that the danger Indy was in made sense. If a Nazi SS officer is holding you at gunpoint, it's logical to assume you're in a potentially life-and-death situation.

I've often said here that I preferred LucasArts's games to Sierra's. Not because of the storylines involved (although some of them did have good stories), but because they didn't punish you for simply interacting with game environment. Sierra's titles had a "know-what-I'm-thinking" and "you-should-know-something-is-dangerous-without-knowing-it" mentality, which to be blunt, is f*cking retarded.

[Collector]

I don't think we are as far off from each other as you indicate. I did say that an intentional dead end can be badly designed. To work, it has to be logical and you should never have to restore to a much earlier point to correct it. It should also be obvious that it has happened before you have spent much more time playing. With these considerations, it should not be much different than a death scene.