I felt that an additional cause of death should have been added

[KelpTheGreat]

The game really could have used "died from blood loss". Alfred Klestil took me way longer than it should have to get his entry filled out, because I just couldn't figure out how exactly he died, since that wasn't an option. Since the first guy you see "torn apart by a terrible beast" is LITERALLY torn apart, I didn't think that Alfred - who has an arm torn off and then dies of blood loss several minutes later - deserved to be in the same category.

And there's also this other guy whose fate I haven't yet determined, who apparently has his foot cut off by a sword. Am I supposed to put "killed with a sword"? That doesn't seem right, since there are also people who are run through with a sword and die nearly instantly. "Having a foot cut off by a sword and then dying of blood loss from the resultant injury" is not, in my opinion, the same as "being killed by a sword".

[cyberboy2000]

That's very much intentional. You're not doing autopsies, you're figuring out what happened. If there was a safe answer for any ambiguous deaths then what would even be the point in having the mechanic?

[KelpTheGreat]

Originally posted by cyberboy2000:

That's very much intentional. You're not doing autopsies, you're figuring out what happened. If there was a safe answer for any ambiguous deaths then what would even be the point in having the mechanic?

I've read and re-read your comment and I can't figure out what the heck you were trying to say. In your favor, I worded my second sentence rather poorly; I know exactly how he died, I meant to say that I couldn't decide how the game thought he died.

There are no ambiguous deaths. You know exactly how each and every person died. There are causes of death as specific as "spiked" or "struck by lightning" or "crushed by falling cargo". What I'm saying is, with all these very specific causes of death, it seems wrong to put "having a limb torn off and dying from blood loss" to be in the same category as "being literally ripped into two separate parts and dying more-or-less instantly".

[BlueRaja]

Also the character who is "struck by a magic beam of light" is supposed to be "burned to death"?? Even though there's no way to tell that that magic beam is supposed to be fire, due to the game's horrible aesthetic choice? And even though his body looked nothing like the other guy who burned to death?

[tristophe]

I suppose some deaths have multiple answers, I thought the "magic beam of light" was electricity and it worked as well.

[:maurrokh:]

In the case of Alfred Klestil, I really liked that I could retrace his steps to see how exactly he lost his leg. Piecing together a timeline for the characters is part of the fun.
If you already knew he had his limb ripped off, I really don't understand why you wouldn't try the 'torn apart' entry. To me at least it seemed clear.

Originally posted by cyberboy2000:

That's very much intentional. You're not doing autopsies, you're figuring out what happened.

I agree with this. It's really less about what kind of injuries were the cause of death, and more about how these injuries were inflicted.

[NDMO]

Originally posted by BlueRaja:

Also the character who is "struck by a magic beam of light" is supposed to be "burned to death"?? Even though there's no way to tell that that magic beam is supposed to be fire, due to the game's horrible aesthetic choice? And even though his body looked nothing like the other guy who burned to death?

it's fire. You can tell it's fire if you listen to the audio. Characters affected by the "beam of light" are seen to be "burning" or smoldering, after their death.