I prefer the kind of games where you cannot lose, and it is just a matter of wandering around until you figure out the solution, like Simon the Sorcerer.

Sometimes it is funny when you die, like the larry series.. but the game should then set you at a point before the deadly action..

I don't mind deaths but I hate unwinnable paths without any information that you're screwed.

Yep I prefer the LucasArts style, where you can't die or truly get stuck, to the Sierra style...

I don't mind. But I remember getting to the very end of Laura Bow II, and not having an item, which made the game unbeatable 🙁 That's the worst.

It depends...

If it's an adventure game where it's easy to die and you are not immediately reset to a point where you can avoid said death, then it's annoying because you have to constantly save and use multiple slots in case you save to far forwards.

However, so long as death sequences reset you to a point where you can avoid the death without having to load a previous save, then it doesn't bother me AS much, but sometimes death sections are actually timed puzzles and I'm not a fan of timed puzzles either. :P

"Walking dead" is the worst though, when the game lets you continue playing and saving when you've permanently messed up the sequence of events and are unable to win no matter what you do. When the player enters a walking dead state they should just have something cataclysmic immediately happen to them, otherwise it just wastes a whole lot of the player's time and effort in trying to get further, only to ultimately fail.

I love deaths. Not only because they're entertaining but they make you work for victory. Dead ends too. Retries are worse than no deaths. Save your own game. Retries completely nullify the point of deaths for me: failure.

Space Quest II comes to mind. It has a death with a timer attached to it. Very annoying 😀

#1 too, at the very-very beginning 😀
The obvious answer to the question is a "no" (I suck as a gamer), but if it comes to death or deadlock later on, I certainly prefer dying a 100 times more than advancing in a game and finding out that I cannot complete it because of something I didn't do half a life earlier

philscomputerlab wrote:

Space Quest II comes to mind. It has a death with a timer attached to it. Very annoying 😀

But then again one should know better than french kissing the alien.

I think being able to die or "lose" in any game is pretty much needed, in order to make it a challenge.

Uh, cool. Speaking of game design here.
I have some pretty neat links, if somebody is interested (even though they are not specific to older games)

http://playersdelight.blogspot.com/2013/10/ho … elltale-at.html
http://playersdelight.blogspot.com/2013/10/be … feature-is.html
http://www.pressxtostory.com/2015/01/the-13-c … re-holding.html
http://www.theastronauts.com/2013/11/empathy- … yond-two-souls/
https://s3.amazonaws.com/Casual_Connect_Magaz … 013.pdf#page=67
http://www.gamesradar.com/real-problems-video … real-solutions/
http://frictionalgames.blogspot.se/search/label/design

StSam wrote:

philscomputerlab wrote:

Space Quest II comes to mind. It has a death with a timer attached to it. Very annoying 😀

But then again one should know better than french kissing the alien.

Way back then before it came out of its cell, I thought it was going to be leather suit Larry.

and then it turned