The One Thing That Stuck Out For Me About Codename: Iceman.

[adeyke]

The issue of dead ends and how to avoid/fix them is one I find very interesting. I personally think adventure games should never have dead ends, though I realize not everyone shares this view.

Ideally, this would be something done during design, before anything is set in stone. You'd make a chart of what puzzles have what as prerequisites, and what actions would make these impossible. That would highlight any potential issues and let you make whatever changes are necessary to fix it. Trying to fix these after the game is already done is much more difficult.

So I'll just be talking general philosophy here. When I use KQ5 as example, that's just as a shared point of reference and because it sparked this discussion. I'm not making any comments or suggestions on the project specifically.

I see three main types of dead ends: doing the wrong thing, failing a challenge, and crossing a threshold unprepared. They each have different fixes.

Doing the wrong thing

For this, I mean that the player has the option to do something that is never necessary to win the game and that will make the game unwinnable. An example would be eating the pie in KQ5.

The easiest fix here would be to just not allow that action. However, if the player tries to take that action, it's probably because they think it's the right solution, so a generic "You can't do that" message would be really frustrating. Instead, there needs to be an explanation both for why that doesn't work and for why the character doesn't try it anyways. Maybe the pie should be described less as delicious and more as gooey and messy. Care should be taken, however, that the reason why it doesn't work isn't taken as a hint that there's a puzzle to solve. For example, if Graham refused to eat the pie because he has no utensils, that might make the player think they need to acquire some.

The other possible fix would be to just end the game immediately on taking that action. For example, in KQ5, there's a place where you need to tie a rope to either a rock or a tree. If you tie it to the three and try to climb, you die. However, crucially, you can save between those two steps, making it a dead end. It would be better if Graham immediately climbed the rope. A game over screen is preferable to just being in an unwinnable state, especially if there's a risk you'd overwrite a good save with a bad one.

(A game where death is possible would preferably also have an autosave feature or a KQ7-style retry option, but that's tangential to this topic.)

Failing a challenge

For this, it's not that the player did something wrong but that they either didn't something at all or just did something poorly, whether that's a timed sequence, a minigame, or anything like that. An example would be failing to throw the boot at the cat in KQ5.

This is trickier, since you can't really forbid a player from not taking an action. The option of killing the character (if there's some narratively appropriate reason) is still there, but it could be very frustrating: if the character dies from doing something wrong, it'll happen only once, but if they die from not being quick or skilled enough, it might happen many times. Another option would be to just let the player retry repeatedly until they get it right. Finally, there's the possibility of just cutting the sequence entirely.

Crossing a threshold unprepared

This is probably the most traditional dead end: you missed an item earlier in the game and can't go back and get it. An example would be entering the forest without the genie bottle, amulet, and honeycomb.

The solution seems obvious: just don't let the player do that. However, there's a big possibility that it would be narratively unsatisfying. Maybe it means giving character knowledge they shouldn't have (e.g. Cedric knowing exactly what items Graham needs and warning him not to enter if he doesn't have them) or maybe it means creating some causally unrelated event (e.g. some barrier in front of the forest that's only removed once you have the required items).

Another solution is to have the required items be picked up automatically alongside something the player needs more immediately, or to have a required use for the items before the player gets to the threshold. Or the threshold could be removed entirely, with the player always being able to go back and get what they need. These fixes don't work for every game, though, including KQ5.

However, this sort of dead end is the symptom of what I see as another puzzle design flaw: solution-first puzzles. The player isn't given the chance to see the puzzle, think about it, and then try to work out the solution. Instead, they already have the puzzle solution (even if they can't yet imagine a use for it) and then run into the puzzle that requires it. This is a major issue in KQ5, but it's not something that can be fixed with just a few tweaks here and there. It would take a complete rewrite.

(Though I suppose the combination of solution-first puzzles and dead ends could combine to make them obstacle-first puzzles. It's just that, instead of walking around to look for solutions, you have to go back to previous save games. That means it's trial-and-error gameplay, though, and it means while the player has some motivation for their actions, the character doesn't (see also KQ5's desert maze).)

Alternative solutions

Finally, there's one possible fix that works no matter the kind of dead end: just have another solution that doesn't rely on whatever the player is missing. QfG2 does this well: if the player, as thief, gets to Rasier without oil, they can steal a lamp to use as replacement, and if they're missing their katta pin, they can instead use a rusty nail as lockpick.

However, this fix is also the most work, since it might mean new text, art, and animations, as well as making sure it doesn't interfere with any other puzzles. Also, in QfG2, both items are always there, but the player has no need to get them if they have the proper items already. That might not always be the case, so you'd potentially have to deal with the player getting both the regular and alternative solution and then being left wondering what the use for one of them is. Also, it means not everyone playing the game will have the same experience, which could be a good or bad thing.

[Tawmis]

The issue of dead ends and how to avoid/fix them is one I find very interesting. I personally think adventure games should never have dead ends, though I realize not everyone shares this view.

I don't mind "dead ends" where if you don't have a specific item, you die.
For example, in King's Quest 5, if you take the sled but don't have the cloak - you will go a few screens over, and it will tell you you're cold.
You can not, at this point, go back to the city. You're only option is to go forward and die. I don't mind that kind of dead end, where death is pretty immediate for missing something.
I do not, however, like dead ends, where death is not immediate/very soon after missing the item.
For example, a dead end I hated in Codename: Iceman is right at the the beginning with you go to the FBI/CIA/Whatever office - you show the guy at the desk your ID. He let's you in. You go upstairs, for whatever reason hand your ID to the guy at the door who "holds it for you." (This has never made sense to me, first of all). You do the meeting, if you then go downstairs, without getting your ID, the guy at the desk will NOT let you go back up to get your ID (even though he saw you not too long ago) - and thus you have no way to get your ID and can not continue the game. You can walk around the screens all you want, but can never go forward in the game.
I know it seems trivial (both require a restore, but one leads to death).

So I'll just be talking general philosophy here. When I use KQ5 as example, that's just as a shared point of reference and because it sparked this discussion. I'm not making any comments or suggestions on the project specifically.

(Actually Codename: Iceman technically sparked this conversation and bypassing the sub sequence)

The other possible fix would be to just end the game immediately on taking that action. For example, in KQ5, there's a place where you need to tie a rope to either a rock or a tree. If you tie it to the three and try to climb, you die. However, crucially, you can save between those two steps, making it a dead end.

If it's where I think you are - can't you step on different stones and back track? Thus not making you stuck on those stones? Or does something happen that I am not aware of?

Failing a challenge
For this, it's not that the player did something wrong but that they either didn't something at all or just did something poorly, whether that's a timed sequence, a minigame, or anything like that. An example would be failing to throw the boot at the cat in KQ5. This is trickier, since you can't really forbid a player from not taking an action. The option of killing the character (if there's some narratively appropriate reason) is still there, but it could be very frustrating: if the character dies from doing something wrong, it'll happen only once, but if they die from not being quick or skilled enough, it might happen many times. Another option would be to just let the player retry repeatedly until they get it right. Finally, there's the possibility of just cutting the sequence entirely.

What I think would be cool would be an auto skip of the arcade/timed sequence.
Because a lot of people don't want to do those nimble thing. So for example for the cat thing - you could do a thing, where it's too late to throw the shoe at the cat - a message pops up that says, "You need to save the mouse! Would you like to restore and try again? Or save the mouse without trying? (You will miss out on any points acquired by doing the save)"

That way they know the mouse needs to be saved, and can restore to a previous spot to try and figure out how to save the mouse; or just accept the saving of the mouse, and miss out on the points and continue the game.

[Datadog]

A good solution I saw for dead ends was in "Gold Rush". If you leave Brooklyn without all the necessary items, the game will tell you Jerrod has a bad feeling he left unprepared, and will use your score to show you how well you did. It doesn't tell you what you're missing, but that simple message is a good prompt to reload and explore further.

And I don't mind some of the dead ends in "King's Quest 5". It tends to use a lot of neutral cues when you mess up, like not giving you points when you lose an item or get stuck. I find its main problem is not its dead ends, but rather how it gives you negative feedback when you're not stuck. For example, if you linger in any room around the castle, Mordack will show up and kill you. But to progress, you have to stand around for two full minutes in the library - something the game was training you not to do. Same with the inn or forest; even if you're equipped, you have to deliberately trap yourself in order to make progress by accident. There's a rocky line between how the game wants you to "save often, save early" and how the game wants you to "call our hint line".

[Tawmis]

For example, if you linger in any room around the castle, Mordack will show up and kill you. But to progress, you have to stand around for two full minutes in the library - something the game was training you not to do.

This part was horrible. In my most recent play through of King's Quest V, I died a good 30 times, before I realize I simply need to wait in this room for a very long time.

[adeyke]

The issue of dead ends and how to avoid/fix them is one I find very interesting. I personally think adventure games should never have dead ends, though I realize not everyone shares this view.

I don't mind "dead ends" where if you don't have a specific item, you die.
For example, in King's Quest 5, if you take the sled but don't have the cloak - you will go a few screens over, and it will tell you you're cold.
You can not, at this point, go back to the city. You're only option is to go forward and die. I don't mind that kind of dead end, where death is pretty immediate for missing something.
I do not, however, like dead ends, where death is not immediate/very soon after missing the item.
For example, a dead end I hated in Codename: Iceman is right at the the beginning with you go to the FBI/CIA/Whatever office - you show the guy at the desk your ID. He let's you in. You go upstairs, for whatever reason hand your ID to the guy at the door who "holds it for you." (This has never made sense to me, first of all). You do the meeting, if you then go downstairs, without getting your ID, the guy at the desk will NOT let you go back up to get your ID (even though he saw you not too long ago) - and thus you have no way to get your ID and can not continue the game. You can walk around the screens all you want, but can never go forward in the game.
I know it seems trivial (both require a restore, but one leads to death).

I would define "dead end" broadly: any time the player gets into the state where they're able to continue playing but are unable to win the game. If the game has manual saves, it means that some save games could be winnable and some could be unwinnable.

Some dead ends are certainly worse than others. The longer the gap is between entering the dead end and realizing you're in it, the worse. However, I take the hard line stance that even the mildest dead end is still unacceptable. Even the mildest dead end will make you restore a previous save. Even if entering the dead end and realizing you're in the dead end both happen on the same screen, that doesn't help you if you last saved the game an hour ago or if you saved in the previous screen but then overwrote that save after entering the dead end. And if the game has any dead ends at all, you're never able to just think "I have access to these screens, with these hotspots, and these inventory items; how do I use them to solve this puzzle?". You always have to add "or maybe it's impossible now and the solution is something I might not even have noticed in some screen I no longer have access to".

Basically, I don't want the save game system to be part of playing an adventure game. It should only be necessary for when you stop and resume a session. Having manual saves can still be nice for when you want to replay a particular section of the game or if you're trying to examine the game, take screenshots, etc., but they shouldn't be needed for playing through the game.

The other possible fix would be to just end the game immediately on taking that action. For example, in KQ5, there's a place where you need to tie a rope to either a rock or a tree. If you tie it to the three and try to climb, you die. However, crucially, you can save between those two steps, making it a dead end.

If it's where I think you are - can't you step on different stones and back track? Thus not making you stuck on those stones? Or does something happen that I am not aware of?

I'm talking about this screen. You can either use the rope on the tree or on the rock outcropping. After you've done that and click the hand on the rope, you'll either die (if you tied it to the tree) or move on to the next screen (if you tied it to the rock outcropping). If you try the tree, you're already doomed and have to go back to your previous save. However, because the game lets you save after tying the rope to the tree, there's a chance the player could overwrite their previous save and thus be forced to go to their previous previous save.

The next screen after that contains the series of stones you may be thinking of. In that case, there are no dead ends: you either successfully move on to the next safe stone or you die. That's another example of the trial-and-error gameplay I mentioned (KQ5's puzzle design isn't good).

Failing a challenge
For this, it's not that the player did something wrong but that they either didn't something at all or just did something poorly, whether that's a timed sequence, a minigame, or anything like that. An example would be failing to throw the boot at the cat in KQ5. This is trickier, since you can't really forbid a player from not taking an action. The option of killing the character (if there's some narratively appropriate reason) is still there, but it could be very frustrating: if the character dies from doing something wrong, it'll happen only once, but if they die from not being quick or skilled enough, it might happen many times. Another option would be to just let the player retry repeatedly until they get it right. Finally, there's the possibility of just cutting the sequence entirely.

What I think would be cool would be an auto skip of the arcade/timed sequence.
Because a lot of people don't want to do those nimble thing. So for example for the cat thing - you could do a thing, where it's too late to throw the shoe at the cat - a message pops up that says, "You need to save the mouse! Would you like to restore and try again? Or save the mouse without trying? (You will miss out on any points acquired by doing the save)"

That way they know the mouse needs to be saved, and can restore to a previous spot to try and figure out how to save the mouse; or just accept the saving of the mouse, and miss out on the points and continue the game.

I think that sort of skip would be good for extended arcade sequences, where the sequence itself is fun for some people but not others (e.g. the robot fight in SQ3). In this case, though, it's just "quickly open your inventory to find the right item and then click it on a moving target." That's not really something to be excited about or proud to have done successfully. So while the skip pop-up you describe would work as a band-aid fix, I think the whole puzzle should be removed/redesigned.

That sort of pop-up does break immersion. However, KQ5 in particular already has "warning" (their word for it) pop-ups before its skippable cutscenes, so that apparently wasn't a concern for them.

(I personally don't think a numerical score is a really meaningful thing in adventure games, but I think I've already discussed that in another thread.)

And I don't mind some of the dead ends in "King's Quest 5". It tends to use a lot of neutral cues when you mess up, like not giving you points when you lose an item or get stuck. I find its main problem is not its dead ends, but rather how it gives you negative feedback when you're not stuck. For example, if you linger in any room around the castle, Mordack will show up and kill you. But to progress, you have to stand around for two full minutes in the library - something the game was training you not to do. Same with the inn or forest; even if you're equipped, you have to deliberately trap yourself in order to make progress by accident. There's a rocky line between how the game wants you to "save often, save early" and how the game wants you to "call our hint line".

I certainly agree that that's also a problem. Just the fact that you need to stand still in one room (where there's nothing of interest) for a long time is already bizarre and out of place. Needing to do that after being trained to think that staying in one room too long is deadly is just cruel.

I think the ideal puzzles are the kind where you encounter the puzzle, then try to think about it and explore the world until you discover the solution. That process doesn't really describe a lot of what happens in KQ5. Just imagine: "Hmm. I need to transfer magical energy from one wand to another. How do I do that? I know! I'll use some moldy cheese! Now, how do I get cheese? Maybe if I stand in the dining room for a long time, a blue monster will spontaneously appear, grab me, and open a magic portal to a dungeon I'm unaware of, where I can then use a fishhook I happened to pick up on an island a while back to get cheese from a mouse hole."

[MusicallyInspired]

I've got a lot to say here but I don't have data or internet currently at home so it'll have to wait...but it's coming.

[Tawmis]

I've got a lot to say here but I don't have data or internet currently at home so it'll have to wait...but it's coming.

Well since this thread has gotten jumbled going from: Things that stood out in Codename: Iceman -> Skipping the Sub Scene -> Preventing Dead Ends in KQ5...

I personally hope you poked at Codename: Iceman and figured out skipping the sub sequence... not that I'd be disappointed about KQ5 stuff... but... Codename: Iceman is way more painful that KQ5 on it's worse day!

[MusicallyInspired]

Ehh....I don't feel like it anymore now lol. If it comes up again sometime I might dive into it.

[Tawmis]

Ehh....I don't feel like it anymore now lol. If it comes up again sometime I might dive into it.

Wait, you had an announcement and now you don't?

[adeyke]

I think MusicallyInspired was just considering participating in this discussion but then decided against it.

On that note, I just now read the last few pages of this thread and noticed that MusicallyInspired already discussed the issue of KQ5 dead ends there.

One point that I hadn't really thought about is that KQ5's dead ends will kill you instead of just leaving you stuck. That is, instead of just leaving you unable to progress, you'll encounter some situation that kills you off if you missed something earlier. And the way you die will tend to give a big hint at what sort of thing you missed. This is still trial-and-error gameplay, which I still think is bad, but I'll grudgingly say it's better than the uncertainty that would come from just getting stuck, where you don't know if you missed something or if you just need to think about it more.

I'd note that the distinction between lethal dead ends and non-lethal ones isn't completely clear-cut, since the final action is often still the player's choice. For example, if you try to enter the inn without saving the rat, you'll die, but it's easy enough to just not enter the inn, which moves the point of realizing you're in a dead end to later in the game, when you don't have the items you would have gotten there.

I'm still taking the stance that all dead ends are bad and that all saved games should be winnable (or at least that there should always be a winnable autosave that doesn't require replaying much), but I appreciate that nuance.

[MusicallyInspired]

Actually, someone on Twitter notified me that there is at least one puzzle that, if missed, doesn't end in a death and that is missing the gold coin from the temple.

[Tawmis]

Actually, someone on Twitter notified me that there is at least one puzzle that, if missed, doesn't end in a death and that is missing the gold coin from the temple.

So your announcement was the "Fixed KQ5" - but then retreated that because you need to fix the gold coin one?

So you're still working/doing the "Fixed KQ5", right?

[Tawmis]

Actually, someone on Twitter notified me that there is at least one puzzle that, if missed, doesn't end in a death and that is missing the gold coin from the temple.

See, sometimes - things like this would be difficult. How do you let someone leave that area without the gold coin?

I mean, one way - the easiest way - is, do a check - if they have the gold coin they can get out (if they get out in time), if they don't have the gold coin, make it so the door always closes on them (killing them or trapping them, forcing a restore).

[adeyke]

Actually, someone on Twitter notified me that there is at least one puzzle that, if missed, doesn't end in a death and that is missing the gold coin from the temple.

So your announcement was the "Fixed KQ5" - but then retreated that because you need to fix the gold coin one?

So you're still working/doing the "Fixed KQ5", right?

You're reading too much into that comment. In the other thread, MusicallyInspired had said that all the dead ends in KQ5 result in a death. I commented on that here. All the the comment you quoted is saying is that, actually, there's a dead end that doesn't follow the usual trend in KQ5 of leading to a death. It's not saying anything about the fixing KQ5 project.

Also, I don't think that any sort of pressure is appropriate. If he finishes that project, great. If it takes a long time and is only finished sometime in the far future, that's also fine. If he sets the project down and picks it up later, that's also fine. And if it's delayed indefinitely or cancelled outright, that's also fine. Just mentioning that he's working on somethingdoesn't obligate him to finish it or to make any sort of status updates. "Are we there yet?" doesn't help anyone.

Also, there was never any mention of any sort of upcoming announcement.

[MusicallyInspired]

Yeah, no announcement lol. When I said I had a lot to say I was referring to the massive (but well written) post that adeyke wrote about dead ends. I had a lot of counterpoints to add but I couldn't at the time. Eventually I decided to just not comment because I just didn't feel like writing my own massive post anymore.

The KQ5 fix is still in the works (with a successful working proof of concept set of patches), though it's among my many other small hobby projects I've had a passing interest in and I can't guarantee it'll be done expediently. My solution to the gold coin puzzle, however, was to just disallow the staff from breaking so you can go into the temple at any time until you have the amulet, cloak, and harp. Then when you try to go in the staff breaks. This transforms the breaking of the staff from a heart-pounding "oh-my-gosh-I-only-have-one-chance-to-get-this-right-and-I-have-mere-seconds!" adrenaline rush to simply a notification that you're done with the temple. Honestly, I think the former is much better and makes the game more exciting and that entire area very mystical and special. Somewhere you can only access once which gives it a very exciting overtone. You see it once and then never again. Rather than just another room that you can access at will. But that was my solution to removing that dead end anyway. Killing the player for attempting to leave without all the items necessary is another interesting option I hadn't considered. Probably a little more LucasArts/TellTale-friendly as well.

And to clarify, I think where Tawmis is getting the "announcement" idea is from what I said about not having formerly announced my KQ5 Fixed patch project to the public. I don't know when that will be. Once I have more work done, anyway. But seeing as I've already talked about it here I don't really have anything more to announce here.