Are there any Sierra games without dead ends?

[md5]

You mean the court jester, Jollo. You need to show him Alexander's insignia ring towards the beginning of the game to befriend him, otherwise you can't talk to him towards the end of the game. However, it's not really necessary to talk to him (though you should for maximum points). He gives you valuable help in the castle, but you can ignore his help as long as you have mint leaves when you enter the castle towards the end of the game.

Now, if you want a REALLY frustrating situation, try Return to Zork. I still remember I had to restart it cause I cut the bonding plant at the first screen of the game, instead of digging it out. If you cut the plant that way, you can't use it later on in the game, and you got to restart it (what were they thinking?)

[balpat]

KQ6 is actually rather well designed and usually offers one other option.

Basically, make sure you've shown Jollo your ring before giving it to Cassima.

Make sure you have all necessary items before entering the catacombs (they will offer you to go and collect them).

And make sure you have all necessary items before going to the Land of the Dead.

I think that's it.

King's Quest 6 is, in my opinion, one of the best adventure games ever created. It would be shame to miss.

[nathanel.mori]

Thanks, guys. Really helpful.

By the way, balpat, will I be able to tell that I have the necessary items? Am I told (by a character, list, or whatever) that I'm supposed to acquire certain things?

[KuroShiro]

Thanks, guys. Really helpful.

By the way, balpat, will I be able to tell that I have the necessary items? Am I told (by a character, list, or whatever) that I'm supposed to acquire certain things?

The first time you go to the island with the catacombs and reach the top of the cliffs, you'll be given an option to come back later if you don't have all the items. If you do have them all, then you won't be given the chance to leave. A hint is that there's one item you'll need from each of the other islands.

For the underworld (if you take that path), there's one thing you can miss. Look carefully at the ingredients in the spell book and you should be able to guess what it is.

[envisaged0ne]

To answer your question...

No, they will not tell you what you need before entering the catacombs. If they offer to let you go to collect them, then you don't have everything you need. If you do, they have you go in right away. However, if you go back and you still don't have all the items, then they will have you go in despite it.

[nathanel.mori]

Thanks to you both. I'll remember that.

However, if you go back and you still don't have all the items, then they will have you go in despite it.

I didn't get that last bit. "go back" where? where will they have me go despite what?

[KuroShiro]

Thanks to you both. I'll remember that.

However, if you go back and you still don't have all the items, then they will have you go in despite it.

I didn't get that last bit. "go back" where? where will they have me go despite what?

Telling you much more than that becomes a pretty big spoiler. You will know it when you see it.

[bobdevis]

You can die in all Kirandia games, however in the 2nd and 3rd game you get a waring first if you are about to do something stupid.

The 1st game has a couple of show-stoppers that LogicDeLuxe described.

You don't get any real warning before you die in kyra 2 nor kyra 3. The only thing kyra 3 offers is an extra restore before you died possibility after you died.

Yeah its more of a subtle warning. Malcolm's conscience warns you the squirl looks vicious. Zanthia mentions the swamp is quicksand, etc ...

[doomer]

Some can be frustrating, but that's the point of adventure games

Probably that's the reason why adventure games are so unpopular. Being frustrating shouldn't even be remotely considered in any game, be it adventure, action, racing, strategy or some obscure card game. In games one is not rewarded after being frustrated, but instead should have fun, because that's what games are about. Their very name implies it.

Actually, the main reason I've never really played any Sierra games is because it's so easy to die or get stuck in an non-winnable situation. Just how many save games should I have?

A very pertitent remark. Indeed, I clearly remember that during the early 90s I was never really interested in adventure games largely due to having experienced Sierra products. Sure the games seemed interesting, but their broken and downright poor game design drove me away after the n-th time of being irrevocably stuck or dead, and learning several weeks later in a walkthrough why I was stuck in the first place. "A Dead end." In other words, I was frustrated with that kind of games.

Only after experiencing the masterpiece Syberia did I realize how a good adventure game plays and made me discover classics like Broken Sword, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis and many more beautiful adventures that were not frustrating but actually immersive and fun to play.

[balpat]

You call Syberia a masterpiece? It's a nice adventure (I actually find to be rather mediocre if it wouldn't have been released in a time where there where practically none) nothing more.

Play some real adventures like "Gabriel Knight" to experience a real masterpiece.


Sierra games are not poorly designed. Back then, death was an almost required feature for any computer game. Sierra actually made an art about it and if you save regularly rarely frustrates.

A lot of people forget that LucasArts-Adventures up to Loom also featured deaths.

[doomer]

This is not so much about deaths but about dead-ends. And letting you save a broken and uncompletable state of the game completes the picture. If that is not poor game design, I don't know what is.

And saying that Syberia did not nothing short of saving the genre is nonsense.

[nathanel.mori]

The philosophy behind adventure game design had to develop over time.

I think you're wrong calling it "poor design", and while I agree about how frustrating it could have been, most Sierra games mitigate this by keeping their games pretty short overall ("restarting" was pretty standard back then, and not everyone actually used the saving feature). I found Maniac Mansion to be much more frustrating (deadlock-wise) than any of the Larry or KQ games.

Don't take it for granted that deadlocks don't exist anymore. Here's an original article by the guy who invented the contemporary adventure game philosophy, Ron Gilbert:

"Why adventure Games Suck":
http://grumpygamer.com/2152210


Oh, and I don't know if Syberia saved the adventure game genre, but even if it did, it doesn't make it one of the best adventure games ever to be made. While Syberia might have saved the genre, it also brought upon us an era of oversimplified games with bad writing (even Syberia pales in comparison to the somewhat similar TLJ) and contrived puzzle design.

[doomer]

And that article only strengthens the point of dead-ends in the I forgot to pick it up section with only a small alternative caveat. So Ron Gilbert and a few others figured it out back in 1989, while Sierra kept their antiquated dead-end game-design in 1992 with King's Quest 6.

Undoubtedly that article only reinforces the idea instead of rejecting it.

And talking about dead-locks which are also very problematic is altogether a completely different story.

Right, winning numerous game of the year awards plus saving the adventure genre makes Syberia a pretty mediocre adventure game. Good point.

[nathanel.mori]

Sierra kept their antiquated dead-end game-design in 1992 with King's Quest 6.

Undoubtedly that article only reinforces the idea instead of rejecting it.

Actually, you're wrong. KQ6 is a perfect example of how Sierra learned to stop with all the accidental deaths and deadlocks. KQ6 contains only 1-2 of them, but that's compared to 20-30 in every previous Sierra release.

Right, winning numerous game of the year awards plus saving the adventure genre makes Syberia a pretty mediocre adventure game. Good point.

Ever heard of a movie called "Tom Jones"? Probably not. And neither did most people today. But it won several awards, including best picture in 1963! So what? Sucky year, sucky awards. The adventure genre was dead then, even "15 days" could have won it (apologies to "15 days" fans). Syberia "revived" the genre because it solved the biggest problem it had at the time - accessibility. Syberia was friendly to people who never experienced adventure games, but it had bland themes, mediocre dialogue, and contrived myst-like puzzles. If you want to play a good Syberia look-alike, try The Longest Journey.

[doomer]

Right again. Saying that King's Quest VI contains only 1-2 dead-ends is the same as saying that 15 Days could have won the Game of the Year award. Saying that both statements are wrong is the least justice you can do them. Kq6 contains at least 5 dead-ends and 15 Days coudn't have won the game of the year award even if it was the last game on Earth.

And, yes, thanks to Syberia I've also played the magnificent The Longest Journey. 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.