worlddan: Here is what I found dissatisfying about the ending, which I thought was sad because it was an otherwise good game. My problem with the ending was that the ending that seemed most obvious to this player, simply telling her no, lead to the ending that was the weakest: off to the scrapyard. I thought the dialogue options given to the player were poorly thought out. It was not obvious to /me/ that the option "I need to think about it" was going to take me to a place where I could then use something from the inventory. I remember thinking to myself, "Think about it. No, I do not need to think about it. I want you dead." With that thought process in my head the obvious choice was simply to refuse.
For me, the most frustrating part of any adventure game is when I press a conversation option thinking I am saying X and the programmed scripts acts as if I said Y. It breaks the immersion. I thought that by refusing I was going to destroy her and when that didn't happen it left a bad taste in my mouth. I felt mislead by the dialogue options I was given.
Sorry I have to completely, totally and utterly disagree with this - in that I think the way the it was handled in the game makes perfect sense.
Think about it - someone who has the power to kill/destroy you wants you to do something, and you outright refuse - what would be the logical outcome of that action? My first guess would be death to the player, which is exactly what happens.
By saying "you need to think about this" you are effectively stalling, plus control is given back to the player so you can roam around, look at your environment more closely, and consider further action. This is what I expected to happen and is exactly what happened.
In this way, the final action is actually
your action. If by choosing "No" you're suggesting that a whole sequence of events should have then played out that lead to her destruction (without player involvement), I would have found the ending much less satisfying. If on the other hand you're not saying that, and instead mean that by saying "No" control would return to the player, then that doesn't make much sense - logic suggests that outright refusing someone who can harm you will lead to your demise.
WormwoodStudios: probably what we should have done was have a short timed sequence at if you refuse to join her in which you can use Thanatos on Scraper or whatever.
No, I think the way the game handled it was the best and most logical way - at least in my opinion. I also agree with your opinion RE short timed sequences in adventure games and interface issues. That's not to say they should never be used, as they can make perfect sense sometimes - but the interface had better be supportive!
One potential way to handle this is to have a limit on number of actions as opposed to time. This can give the illusion of a timed sequence (with all the associated suspense and sense of imminent doom) while ensuring anyone who can't use the interface fast enough isn't actually disadvantaged. Or limit number of actions but have a really generous time limit that's much greater than what is required - this would be similar to an action-limit only approach, but the fact that it times out will further reinforce the illusion it's a frantic race against the clock.
Personally I think Gemini Rue is one game that handled timed sequences perfectly (same studio yes?). By which I mean, it was possible to complete all the timed sequences without requiring advance knowledge that the timed sequence was coming (or the actions to take). Again this is my opinion, but I think that if anything in a game requires advance knowledge that can only come from a player's death and reloading - then you're doing it wrong!
