[Reedx]

I think the fail states in Sierra's games were actually part of the fun. Just because of the variety and how tongue-in-cheek many of them were. It was amusing and sort of an easter egg hunt to find all the ways you could die.

> The much bigger problem comes when you can make the game unwinnable, but not actually lose right away

Yeah, that sort of thing instilled a life-long habit of constantly saving my progress and having saves that go back many hours. I specifically blame King's Quest II for that. There was a bridge that you could only cross a handful of times and then it collapsed. If it collapsed too early in the game, you are screwed and need a save prior to crossing it unnecessarily.

[DrStalker]

I remember in one of the Kings Quests games you could throw either a shoe or a stick at a dog chasing a bird; both awarded you points, but one led to not being able to complete the game.

In addition at the very end the bad guy casts a spell at you, and the bird flies into the way and you don't die... if you didn't save that bird 4 hours earlier you have no way to possibly know that is why you are doomed to failure in the final fight.

It felt like shitty game design at the time, and by today's standards it would be completely unacceptable to most players.

[Razengan]

I think those kind of stretched consequences could work well with a time-travel gimmick in a modern game.

[Razengan]

That "Dead End Dread" had a more sinister form, where you weren't sure whether the lack of progress was due to an unwinnable state, or a bug, which caused me to look up walkthroughs and cheat despite having the best intentions not to (I swear!)

[sevensor]

Prompted by this comment, I went and looked up Conquests of Camelot. Turns out I missed about a third of the game. Always wondered why the ending was so unsatisfactory! If only I'd had internet access in 1992.