Are there any Sierra games without dead ends?

[nathanel.mori]

Kq6 contains at least 5 dead-ends.

You're completely missing the point. Dead-ends are much more difficult to reach in KQ6, and they all warn the player that he might consider going back and pick more items. That's ultimate proof that Sierra was getting closer to Lucasarts' philosophy. You can't expect the company who invented the genre to throw away all of their principles over night.

15 Days coudn't have won the game of the year award even if it was the last game on Earth."

It doesn't make sense. Every year there's a winner. "15 days" is a legitimate nominee and by law it would win. It's like they say - "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." 2002 was a pretty blind year (give me 5 decent adventure games from that year), and Syberia was the only eye-bearing game. Any game, including "15 days" could have won if it weren't for Syberia.

Syberia nurtures love for adventure games unlike any Sierra game could ever hope to do, but what am I saying. That's once again pointless, and Syberia is a mediocre game with bland writing. I'll try to repeat that statement, maybe after I keep repeating it to myself it will become true one day, who knows.

I think that the LSL series (particularly LSL3) nurtures the love for adventure games more than most of the games I ever played, but that's just me I guess...

By the way, I'd get rid of the sting in my sharp tongue if I were you. It's supposed to be a friendly board.

[doomer]

By the way, I'd get rid of the sting in my sharp tongue if I were you. It's supposed to be a friendly board.

Hmm that pretty much sums up your ideas. I never offended you, nor suggested that you are being unfriendly. It was merely a discussion. Seems you are something of a self-proclaimed authority here. But your suggesting that I am being unfriendly takes the discussion to another level, a level which I am not going to fall to. Have a nice day, friendly person.

And lsl3, yet another dead-end filled, cannot-be-played-without-a-walkthrough game. What is there to say? Ah well, as I said, have a nice day.

[balpat]

Doomer, your mind seems to be set on this. No need to subtly insult others.

Fact is, times were different back when most Sierra games were made. And also, there was no internet back then and I solved all of them without walkthroughs.


You know, through you - excuse me if I say so - rather narrow minded point of view, you forget that dead-ends in those old games were often because of technical limitations.

Different scenarios (sets of locations) had to fit on rather tight discs and unloading and reloading complete sets of scenarios often wasn't very feasible.


And one other reason especially Sierra games were prone to dead-ends: The graphical superiority.

Sounds strange? Just think about the detailed backgrounds even the oldest EGA titles had. It was often not very clear what exactly could be taken and what not. More often than not, you would go back and fetch an item that you remembered lying around, because you now know that you need it in a certain puzzle.

A typical Sierra game had also countless hot spots on each screen - a far cry from the rare hotspot Syberia had, for example. This added to the depth of the game but also, like the graphics, could add to the chance of missing something.


Really, I do believe you would have a lot of fun with older Sierra adventures if you would just try them. Maybe you have to save more often than in later LucasArts games. You would definitely have to save before going to a new scenario. But ultimately these games have become classics for a reason.

[doomer]

Doomer, your mind seems to be set on this. No need to subtly insult others.

Fact is, times were different back when most Sierra games were made. And also, there was no internet back then and I solved all of them without walkthroughs.


You know, through you - excuse me if I say so - rather narrow minded point of view, you forget that dead-ends in those old games were often because of technical limitations.

Different scenarios (sets of locations) had to fit on rather tight discs and unloading and reloading complete sets of scenarios often wasn't very feasible.


And one other reason especially Sierra games were prone to dead-ends: The graphical superiority.

Sounds strange? Just think about the detailed backgrounds even the oldest EGA titles had. It was often not very clear what exactly could be taken and what not. More often than not, you would go back and fetch an item that you remembered lying around, because you now know that you need it in a certain puzzle.

A typical Sierra game had also countless hot spots on each screen - a far cry from the rare hotspot Syberia had, for example. This added to the depth of the game but also, like the graphics, could add to the chance of missing something.


Really, I do believe you would have a lot of fun with older Sierra adventures if you would just try them. Maybe you have to save more often than in later LucasArts games. You would definitely have to save before going to a new scenario. But ultimately these games have become classics for a reason.

No need for you to subtly insult others either. And don't worry, I've played Sierra games.

The point I'm trying to make is that you if you make a person who has never seen an adventure game before, and you give them KQ6, no walkthroughs, no guidance, well there won't be much left of the game in their mind, or much of it on their hard drives either. Doesn't matter if it's today or 1991.

Graphical superiority? I guess Indiana Jones and Monkey Island 1 are graphically inferior games. Somehow I don't subscribe to this idea, but maybe that's just me.

Sadly, the mentality that adventures should be frustrating is one of the reasons adventure games are dying. I am doing something to change it, yet all you do is stick to dead-ends. That, oh, and the insults too. What's up with the insult-things too? I thought it was supposed to be friendly. So once you are out of arguments it's better to end the discussion by suggesting that a person is being unfriendly instead of trying to talk about it as in any proper discussion?

[nathanel.mori]

But your suggesting that I am being unfriendly takes the discussion to another level, a level which I am not going to fall to.

Sheesh, I wish you lived up to that promise.



My initial request came after a long rationale which you ignored. You weren't supposed to reply to the request, just keep talking on the subject, only without all the sarcasm. Maybe it's a language gap thing, but I'm not the only one who was offended. If you can't accept that others were offended by you, then it's your issues with yourself that you have to solve. We don't know you personally and therefore make no judgment, but we'd like to keep our conversations as peaceful as possible. And no, I'm not an authority on anything. Don't know how you got that idea...

[doomer]

Sheesh I wish you presented more arguments instead of commenting on my personality.

Yet, your statements only confirm my initial belief that you are only interested in insulting others instead of keeping up a good discussion. And mate, saying that I got issues to solve is going a bit too far when we are just discussing adventure games. Maybe issues need to be solved somewhere else. And maybe it's a language gap thing but your authority is all over the place...

[MusicallyInspired]

The simple fact that this is turning into an argument proves that dead-ends aren't a result of bad game design. There are fans on either side of the fence. Anything that has a decent fanbase must have done something right.

[doomer]

I didn't say they didn't do anything right. I just suggested that dead-ends alienate a lot of people and were definitely not the way to go. The very fact that people keep coming asking about how to avoid the dreaded dead-ends says enough about these games' unfavourable reputation in that regard. That in turn makes people avoid all Sierra games even if they are adventure game fans. And if they are not, they might avoid the adventure genre altogether.

[nathanel.mori]

I didn't say they didn't do anything right. I just suggested that dead-ends alienate a lot of people and were definitely not the way to go. The very fact that people keep coming asking about how to avoid the dreaded dead-ends says enough about these games' unfavourable reputation in that regard. That in turn makes people avoid all Sierra games even if they are adventure game fans. And if they are not, they might avoid the adventure genre altogether.

That's kind of like saying that old black&white silent movies had poor design and alienate many people today. It's simply not true. Dead-ends, like silent films, are outdated by today's standards. But any true film buff can sit back and enjoy the works of D.W.Griffith and his peers. That basically says it all.

[doomer]

That is true, but you are forgetting that you enjoy the movie in its entirety regardless if it's black and white or not. In other words, the movie flows freely. But in a dead-end game you get stuck and the flow is stuck. And if you are persistent you will keep being stuck for a long time if you dislike walkthroughs as some people do. That seriously detracts from the fun. Enjoyment is gone and frustration arrives. And before you know it, the game is over far sooner than you'd wish.

[nathanel.mori]

That is true, but you are forgetting that you enjoy the movie in its entirety regardless if it's black and white or not. In other words, the movie flows freely. But in a dead-end game you get stuck and the flow is stuck. And if you are persistent you will keep being stuck for a long time if you dislike walkthroughs as some people do. That seriously detracts from the fun. Enjoyment is gone and frustration arrives. And before you know it, the game is over far sooner than you'd wish.

Allow me to demonstrate how your claim looks like when talking about movies instead of games:

That is true, but you are forgetting that you enjoy the game in its entirety regardless if it has dead-ends or not. In other words, the game flows freely [to many people it does, even if not for you]. But in a black & white movie you get a bad picture and the flow of the movie is outdated in style. That seriously detracts from the fun. Enjoyment is gone and frustration arrives. And long after, the movie is over far later than you'd wish.

These two arguments are of equal value. I love old classic movies, but I know many people who can't enjoy B&W films or identify themselves with characters in a silent movie, etc. They are no different than you, the way I see it.

[doomer]

Well let me ask you a simple question. If you at a certain point in your time play a black and white movie, assuming your equipment is not broken, does it go to its end?

Actually it's two simple questions. You start a dead-end game, you press play, you hit a dead-end in the middle just after you've overwritten your old save that can, well, save you. You don't know that a thing such as a dead-end exists, as the very idea of it seems perplexing. Does it go to the end when you have already hit a dead-end for weeks?

Outdated in style does not mean broken and unplayable. The movie is playable and very much watchable.

A dead-end most certainly means unplayable, as in you can't play any more but stare at the same static picture for a very long time. You can decide which one is more likely to work and be fun.

[nathanel.mori]

You start a dead-end game, you press play, you hit a dead-end in the middle just after you've overwritten your old save that can, well, save you. You don't know that a thing such as a dead-end exists, as the very idea of it seems perplexing. Does it go to the end when you have already hit a dead-end for weeks?

A no dead-end game will also not play to the end if you sit down and do nothing. Games are not meant to go to the end without you working hard. (notice that I said HARD, not FRUSTRATING. The difference between the two is the fine line between being satisfied with solving and wanting to stop the game; that is a line which is different for each person, of course).

Outdated in style does not mean broken and unplayable. The movie is playable and very much watchable.

Like I said, I know people who wouldn't consider that watchable. Some people who are not accustomed to watching silent films will suffer from every second and just because the movie will "force" itself upon them does not mean that they were not frustrated with the titles between scenes. You can't speak for those who'd rather watch grass grow than watch a silent movie.

A dead-end most certainly means unplayable

While I can see why you think that (and I indeed feared the same before trying dead-end games), you will find that such is not the case. Many times going back to a previous save was much easier to solve than puzzles in no dead-end games. LSL1 is a much more easy and fun game than Runaway (which contained an awful lot of pixel hunting). In the case of Sierra, the dead-ends always have a clue of some sort - sometimes it's an obvious clue, like a clear message on your screen in KQ6 that says "stop now, you forgot some items", and sometimes you just die, but then the narrator gives you a clue what you were missing (for example - if Larry died from the sun heat, then you know to load a save - or even restart, which isn't bad because the games are short - and then you start looking for sunscreen before you go back to the sun again).

Again, B&W or dead-ends - it's all a matter of taste. People who can't stand having to restore or restart a game are no different than people who can't sit 2-3 hours in front of a screen that has no audio and plays in dirty, grainy black and white.

[doomer]

Well in the end, it all comes down to taste. Some people wouldn't even consider playing adventures or watching movies, outdated or not.

Yet that dreaded dead-end reputation speaks for itself; I know that for a fact as I've seen many people experience it, and it is certainly a major let-down for the would-be adventure fan. Unfortunately, a problematic Sierra game should never be your first adventure game, and by no means a game to play without some preparation, as even adventure gamers who'd love to play a Sierra game would first ask for some dead-end advice. I believe that all makes it look too complicated to an outsider, for example, and they'd think twice before jumping on the Sierra wagon. I admit Kq6 can be great fun if and only if it is played while following a walkthrough at least the first time, but for me that completely defeats the purpose of a game. As you said you no longer "work hard", though I also disagree with working hard in a game, there isn't such a concept. I'd rather say you no longer play it. Working is working while playing is something else. There's a reason games have their name.

[envisaged0ne]

1st, you stated that KQ6 has at least 5 dead ends. Could you state what 5 those are?

You also stated that dead ends caused all these people to ask for non dead end games. One person asked and look how many more in comparison defended dead end games. I'd say the popularity of them has not died. How many people have played syberia compared to the classic Sierra games? Or think it was better? I'd say acoording to most posts here, you're the only one that feels that way.

Dragon's Lair & Street Fighter 2 saved the arcades from shutting down. Arcades often would slowly start to die, then become popular when a good game came out. Did it make those games the best? Or better than any others? I don't think so. Just because they helped bring an interest back, doesn't make them better than what was already out there.

Anyway, my point is, you're stating an opinion and stating a majority of people agree with you on it. And somehow trying to make it look like that makes you right. That's not the case. You have a right to your opinion, of course. But don't think that most people agree with you.