Talk:Unwinnable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has an archived VG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
VG To-do:
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Adventure games, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of adventure games. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Impossible Mission example

I think that Impossible Mission is a bad example. It is unwinnable because of a bug, while the other games mentionen have unwinnable states as a consequence of their design (intentional or not). It is not the same.

its still a valid example, unwinnable states can be caused by bugs too, although i have now emphasised the fact that it is bug-based and not design-based. Niz 12:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Return to Zork "vigilante"

I don't think the word vigilante appears anywhere in RtZ. That character certainly isn't called that. He's The Guardian. He is referred to as such by at least one character, as well as the Encyclopedia Frobozzica. It's a minor nitpick which I'd fix myself if this page weren't so tremendously controversial. ;) 24.17.244.117 03:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Often by Eating" not true?

My memory may have been tickled by the screenshot of Zork being made unwinnable by eating the garlic; however typical or atypical that may be, most of the accidentally-unwinnable states I've had the misfortune to stumble into have revolved around food items apparently not intended by the designer for mere consumption by the player: Template:Spoiler the cheese sandwich (or hey, the tea at the wrong time) in the Hitch Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy is a striking example (though that game is riddled with them); if you prefer a Sierra example, eating the pie in King's Quest 5 (mm, pie, looks good!) renders the player unable to pass the Abominable Snowman later in the game. My recollection is that it's also possible to get Maniac Mansion (again, a home to a wide variety of unwinnabilities) into an unwinnable state by feeding Green Tentacle things intended for the hungers of others.

It's perhaps true that after a certain amount of adventuring experience no sage adventure-game-player is going to eat anything in their character's inventory unless there are hunger daemons driving them, because... I might need that stick of butter later to grease a sticky door hinge! That said, I am not trying to be funny by trying to squeeze in a reference to making games unwinnable by inadvertently eating something needed later -- I'm merely to represent a salient detail from my misguided hours of adventuring. "Be careful what your character eats because you might need it later" is a hard lesson that I had to learn, eventually, and unwinnability is precisely the reason I had to learn it.

That said, if I can find a more elegant way of phrasing it, might I be permitted to slip it back in there? Pseudo Intellectual 06:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I can at least confirm one unwinnable situation to which you don't get by eating anything. In Horrorsoft's Elvira 2, you were trapped in a refrigerated room. Using the matches to trigger the alarm would make the game unwinnable, since the matches are required in the very final spell you make in the game. In that very game, wearing the wrong clothes when visiting the doctor would also make the game unwinnable, as well as cutting the wires to Frankenstein out of time. This game could have several more of these situations. And, by the way, eating the eggs will also render the game in an unwinnable state.

I would also think that Elvira 1 can also be rendered unwinnable. But I can't confirm this. I have vague memories of an ingredient only found once that is useful in several spells (after that it should disappear)... including one required to find a key in the kitchen. The ingredient, if I recall correctly, is also needed in the "Wall of Fire" spell. Miguel Martinez, 20:06 31st January, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paper Mario example

The Paper Mario TTYD example isn't valid. It's not even described correctly in the article. Reading the diary will cause the ghost to kill you, but it's done on the spot. When you read it, you are killed before you manage to do anything else, like save. You cannot read the diary and then save, but you can save first, read the diary, be killed, and reload the file with no harm done. Agent CH 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I was going off second-hand information, not being stupid enough to read the diary myself.

[edit] F.E.A.R

I think that was fixed in a update

[edit] Metroid Fusion example

I removed this:

Metroid Fusion: During the final boss fight against the Omega Metroid, the player is required to take damage before gaining the power-up necessary to win the game. If an unlimited health cheat is used, then the player will never take damage, and therefore never be able to win.

I don't think the use of cheat codes really counts, because cheat codes are outside the normal playing circumstances. - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Unwinnable is a state in many text adventures, graphical adventure games and computer role-playing games where it is impossible for the player to reach the end goal [...]

Generally speaking I'd say that unwinnable may apply to every computer and video game genre. --Abdull 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Image

I am not sure if this is the best possible way to illustrate an unwinnable situation. While it IS a true example, it just seems out of place and requires more explanation than a picture should need. Of course, I can't think of anything else that would demonstrate it without such a lengthy explanation. Maybe scrap the pic idea completely? Gundato


[edit] revert warring

please use talkpage instead of revert-warring. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.141.208 (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Please practice what you preach. This article is about unwinnable situations; the distinction between unwinnable by design and unwinnable by accident isn't mentioned, and is rather pointless to the person playing the game.--Prosfilaes 17:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

the entire article text is about the design decision of building unwinnable situations by early adventure pioneers like infocom and sierra, and the converse decisions of other companies like lucasarts to specifically leave out such elements. it is not about bugs, because there is nothing encyclopedic to say - the subject of bugs causing unwinnability is non-notable. every piece of software has bugs. few pieces of software are deliberately designed to cause unwinnability. thats what makes this subject notable, not bugs.

furthermore, there are already plenty of redundant "list of videogame bugs" typ-articles to which the trivial, non-notable examples you wish to add can instead be placed. to suddenly switch from an encyclopedic design discussion to listing an exhaustive list of every videogame ever made that might have a bug that might cause the game to not be finished is jarring and irrelevant to the point of the discussion. this is further compounded by the ability of such lists to accrete endless irrelevant fancruft and trivia.

finally, the note is "hidden text" that canonly be seen by editors, and has been used successfully on several featured articles like Halloween (film) that similarly suffered fancruft problems before the note was inserted. its difficult to understand why you would want to encourage every 11-year-old schoolboy to post their bug reports on this page.

I agree that there is a distinction between game mechanics (deliberate deadends) and what you say above. Perhaps we should a small section referring instances where unwinnability was caused by bugs. Pictureuploader 20:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be in favour of a list of non-notable bugs appearing in this page, but that could simply be countered by removing unsourced or trivial information. On the other hand, consider Jet_Set_Willy#The_Attic_Bug, which is surely one of the most notable unwinnable situations ever caused by a bug. (At least, it is if you're my age!) I think that has a place here. CiaranG 22:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
heheheh...did it make it unwinnable though? iirc you could go back to the Master Bedroom and take a harder route to still win the game? it was a long time ago tho... :)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.26.75.231 (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

You're right, good memory. I stand corrected. This is what happens when you don't insist on sources. ;) CiaranG 22:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Locked

I have protected the article from editing due to the edit war going on. I will be more then happy to unprotect the page when an agreement about the scope and length of the list is made. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

I agree that the purpose of this article is to illustrate conscious design decisions, not bugs. If anyone considers certain bugs which render a game unbeatable notable enough, a separate article should be created, with both articles linking to each other in a "See also" section. I would also suggest to edit this article's first paragraph, in order to make its purpose more clear. Something like "...where it is impossible for the player to finish the game (not due to a [[Software bug|bug]] but by design), and where...". And please guys, sign your posts, it makes catching up on a discussion a lot easier. - Cyrus XIII 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

agreed. seems everyone here is on the same page, so i guess that concludes this little discussion, thanks! i'll do the suggested updates soon. 82.14.70.17 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between a bug and a feature to the player? Jet_Set_Willy#The_Attic_Bug was originally called a feature by the programmers. I don't see a reason to differentiate among games that let you lose a crucial item based on whether we think they meant to let you do that. Nor do I see it useful to separate out the concept of unwinnable by accident into its own article.--Prosfilaes 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
consensus is quite clear. the page is not for bugs. you are welcome to make your comments here but as you appear to be the sole figure arguing against consensus, its unlikely it will make a difference. your disruptive editing has already had you blocked once, so please keep it to the talkpage this time! moral: dont revert against consensus. revert-warring will just get you blocked.
There was no consensus when you unilaterally edited the page, and then proceded to revert-war to keep your changes. You were blocked for such revert-warring, and then you evaded such block. Don't lecture me on what I should do.--Prosfilaes 13:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Above disruptive editor (prosfilaes) has now been warned for breach of WP:NPA. Policies WP:CIVIL and WP:DE apply. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.28.4.148 (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
User prosfilaes now in breach of talk page vandalism, see WP:VANDAL. Reminder: "Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own is generally considered vandalism. Please note that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon.".
Peace be with you, brothers. As I said above, I don't think it's wrong to have a small section about unwilling unwinnability, perhaps having a 'see also' tag redirecting to an article about infamous computer game bugs; I just think that bugs also deserve even a minor, section. Pictureuploader 14:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As Pictureuploader shows, you don't have a consensus. Furthermore, it's strictly false that unwinnable "is a state in many ... games where it is impossible for the player to win the game (not due to a bug but by design)" Unwinnable is an English word with a simple and obvious meaning; un + win + able, that is, it is not possible to be won. Perhaps this article will be limited to certain unwinnable states, but the concept surely is not.--Prosfilaes 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DICT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.203.67 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
That doesn't mean that we should add false statements to Wikipedia. Saying that games that cannot be won due to a bug are not unwinnable is false and absurd.--Prosfilaes 14:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CVG to VG migration

Can a friendly neighbourhood admin please change the Category:Computer and video game gameplay category to Category:Video game gameplay. Thanks, Marasmusine 23:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Category:Computer and video game culture to Category:Video game culture. At the time of writing, the latter hasn't been created yet but should be shortly. Marasmusine 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, but if it stays red linked long enough it will get removed by someone no doubt. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, should be sorted out soon.

[edit] Games other than adventure games

I'm thinking of Jet Set Willy, which is an unwinnable platform game due to bugs (the infamous 'Attic bug' and a some required objects being invisible or implanted in walls). Worth mentioning? Marasmusine 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

already discussed above somewhere - the bugs dont make it unwinnable, just a lot harder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.224.150 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC).
Oh yes, I see. Having said that, considering Matthew Smith's sense of humour, maybe these bugs are a conscious design feature. But anyway. Marasmusine 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The original author speaks...

As the primary author of this article, and long-time non-contributor to wikipedia, I hereby break my silence. Hear ye, hear ye! Listen ye subjects, to the words of the wise! ;)

First, laying down the law: I have even-handedly dished out 3RR warnings all round. Its been getting like a school playground in here lately. I set the edit version back to the version before the edit-warring started.

Second: this article is indeed about unwinnability in the games of Infocom and Sierra On-line. Infocom even had an official "cruelty scale" that measured the ease of getting into an unwinnable state. I think its perfectly fine to define the scope of the article as such. I wish that those fighting would actually *contribute* to the article by finding sources and references instead of disrupting other users' (read: my!) wikipedia experience. That is where value can be added to this article. Niz 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not even close to where it was before the edit-warring started. And it's still wrong; a game is no less unwinnable if it can't be won because of a bug. It's also OR to define the scope of the article in such a way that it doesn't match any external definitions of the word.--Prosfilaes 15:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Are there any indepedent references that define an 'unwinnable' text adventure game? If so they need putting in the article ASAP. If not, then like the user above me has said, this is original research. Marasmusine 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Responding to dispute comments: Standard questions -- 1/ do we have a definitive statement from "outside" what unwinnable means, and whether bugs do or don't count, by some credible source such as a well known gaming commentator or website? 2/ Is there a reasonm why we can't acknowledge the uncertainty and live with it? FT2 (Talk | email) 00:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the article was originally a summary of a games research paper produced by mcgill uni about text adventures, specifically infocom, with passing reference to sierra's early graphical adventures. Should still be available from mcgill (for a fee! moneygrabbers.) Trouble is somebody decided to append a massive "list of examples" onto the article - not from the mcgill study -- which should be either removed or cut down to almost nothing.

Anyhoo, thats part of the reason i stopped using wikipedia, too much "entropy" on articles turning everything to crap. Have a look at any article in Category:Computer and video game culture and try to find a single authoritative secondary source. Good luck searching! The wikipedians will just say "oh there are no reliable sources for video game culture" but in fact there has been - you just won't find it with a "google search" (which is all the "research" done on wikipedia these days). I would rewrite this article myself but it would just start another fight. The pointlessness of wikipedia writ large. Its depressing. So speaketh the the wise one! Now lets all go get laid! Yeah! Niz 12:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of bugs and game design

My opinion as an outsider to the article:

I don't think it's notable to say that a bug or cheat could cause a game to be unwinnable. An article about the fact that bugs make games unwinnable? Zzzz. That info belongs in a discussion of bugs and cheats, not here. If a bug or cheat prevents a player from winning they will be frustrated, but otherwise it's an uninteresting statement.

Far more interesting is the debate that goes into the design decision to include unwinnability into a game, the consequences of such decisions, and the history of this design choice. That is worthy of an encyclopedia article (given external sources from which to draw the article).

When I first read this article, the distinction between bug- and cheat-induced unwinnability and conscious design-choice unwinnability was not apparent to me. I think a disclaimer that the article is not about bug- and cheat-induced unwinnability should be in the article; specifically, as an extra paragraph in the introduction. And I'd also be happy with an example of bug-induced unwinnability, since the way that players respond to unwinnability (whatever its cause) has an impact on the decision by designers to consciously include it.

Summary: Unwinnability due to bugs or cheats is relevant to this article, but is not the subject of this article. The subject is game design. Heresiarch Yo 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space Quest II Example

The current example is incorrect and should be removed. It states "The cube is needed to distract a monster much later on..." However, even without the Cubix Rube the Labion Terror Beast can be defeated. ***Spoilers*** Merely wait in the water (where it can't get you), leave the screen (back to the stone fountain), and then return to the screen where the beast was. It will be gone and you can continue the quest. You don't get any points but you can still beat the game. ***End Spoilers*** TheAlmightyGuru 15:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paper-burst problems

Has anyone else heard of this kind of scenario, where a game can become unwinnable, referred to as a Paper-burst problem? Apparently there's a text adventure where an early puzzle can be solved relatively easily by stepping through a barrier made of paper, but is much harder to solve in a way that leaves the paper-burst intact... then much later on in the game it becomes essential not to have broken the paper-burst. If anyone recognises what the game is, it'd be great to see it added to the list of examples, akb 193.82.160.225 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)