In a lot of Sierra games you just die all the time through random actions, during walking or looking at something. How is this fair?
2 Likes
In Sierra games you died too often and for stupid reasons. How can I die for having crossed a road? For having visited a dark street? For having followed a woman in red? Nah.
1 Like
But it is fair if Zak shows you an important combination only once? Or if you start the van? Or if you run out of money? Or if you burn all paper sheets?
1 Like
That is not true by the way.
Until a few days ago I would have said what´s a good reason to even do that?
And that´s an action comparable to “just walking around looking at stuff”?
No, I just thought of them now.
1 Like
And? You have to restart the game or at least to load a savegame. This is annoying.
To be honest, more than verbs like “look” and “talk”, whose functions are partially covered by “what is” (especially for things), what I missed in Zak was a strong narrative explanation of goals I have to achieve, moreover because the game is so open, with elements of story that can float, since you can travel and do things in a different order. I really like this feature, but probably I would have been more confortable if some passages were remarked more. If you start the game again, anyway, you’ll get those again. More playthroughs, more clearness.
But I know this is a point of view of a player who got into Adventure games with Monkey Island.
1 Like
Which one do you mean in particular?
Yes. What did you expect to happen? Zak is quite realistic in its consequences.
That I get a real chance to get more money even if I can’t fly to the special place.
And that’s not the case if I cross the street in Larry and don’t watch the traffic lights?
That’s how fairy tales work. I like the more logical approach used in Zak. If you waste money you run out of money. There are ways to get more but if you don’t discover them you have to spend it more sparingly or just end up living on the street.
This wasn’t a good example from @ZakPhoenixMcKracken. Crossing streets is a real danger and many people die every year. But are you seriously comparing those few and mostly fair deaths of MM/Zak with Sierra games where you die every two minutes for absurd reasons?
No. You started to distinguish between the different methods. I just would like to point out that the MM, Zak and the Sierra games are forcing me to restart the game. And I don’t like that - regardless of the reason. The reason doesn’t matter in this case.
(Well, the Sierra games are telling me that I have to restart the game. If I start the van in Zak, I can wait three month. 
).
btw: You die often in Sierra games but not that often.
I distinguish between fair and unfair. Actually in MM you can get very far with a defensive play style and without the need to reload a lot. It’s true that in Zak you rely a lot on save games because you often save, fly to some places, try something, then reload etc.
1 Like
I was expecting this from you 
About the dead ends in Zak, not sure I agree but you have a point, they’re funny. Unlike Sierra games.
1 Like
You know…just like in real life.
It wouldn’t be necessary but the player wouldn’t know that.
Also, I am thinking the nature of the puzzles would change. Because for example, now you can chat with the shaman and you learn he is into golf. You don’t need to deduce it by observing.
And suddenly you expect a dialog option “would you like this nice golf club?”. You assume it must be there and you never try “give”. And suddenly the game is no more a mental challenge, but a trial and error game…
That’s the main issue with Zak. But, I cut Zak some slack (what a poet!) because it’s a flaw in design that has been corrected later, while Sierra deaths were put there willingly.
I think Zak is pretty fair, except that sometimes you run into a dead end “too soon”. You do thing Y at the beginning that you don’t know will prevent you from doing a needed thing X during the endgame. And it happened so long ago that now you don’t even remember why you can’t do X, so you don’t notice you’re in a dead end.
Otherwise, it’s a pretty fair game. Except for the problem above, which I suffered personally and led me to consult a walkthrough, I was able to solve the game without hints. It took ages and lots of written notes, but it felt like a nice challenge and not a frustrating experience like Laura Bow where every time I replay it I have to remember WHEN I’m not allowed to enter a room otherwise I’ll die.
5 Likes
Incidentally, this illustrates quite well what I meant above. You “read” a photo of the shaman and the guru.
I didn’t know that. 
I just got to his shack and saw a golf club on one wall.
That too. But I went to Tibet first and since the golf club didn’t seem to have a use there I figured that was probably a hint for where to use it.
I think it’s easy to say that with hindsight. The problem I had is that I did save it beforehand, but when I took off there was nothing to make me think it was a dead end, and it’s easy to switch to the other characters and carry on playing. Before I knew it I’d solved loads of other bits and it was only when I came back to the ship that I realised it wasn’t going to land any time soon, and that I probably needed to do stuff on Mars first.
I actually find that more annoying than the paint remover because reverting back to an older save in Zak has more complications (the world is bigger, you need to remember where you’ve been and in what order, there’s the money to think of, etc).
At least with the paint remover you’d likely be more alert to the fact that it might be a dead end - since nothing happens when you use it, and it’s more of a ‘classic’ dead end to waste an inventory item.
What’s this thread about again? Oh yeah. I’ll answer that soon 