I guess we can all agree that the most elegant way to design a puzzle is for the player to meet the obstacle before they come across the solution. But when a game is plotted in a non-linear way, it's (probably) inevitable that the player has a chance to come across the solution first.
So here's my question. If the solution involves carrying a large/outlandish item that doesn't seem immediately useful, should the player character decide to take it before they have a reason to?
I would say no. Though, I can see the traditionalist argument, that the player is king and you shouldn't stop them from picking up whatever they want.
I think the player character should refuse to take an item until he/she sees the relevance of it. I think that's preferable because (in an adventure game) the protagonist is a character with opinions, not just the agent of the player. The player's agency is mediated through their personality, and they are entitled to refuse to do something which is pointless or doesn't make sense. Particularly in the context of a 1 or 2 click interface, I think the protagonist picking up useless bulky item X is unlikely to be what the player intended them to do anyway.
What do you think? How happy/angry does this make you as a player?
One solution to this I thought about back when I still thought I'd ever make a game was to have the character "remember" the item in question, and show it in the inventory in a thought bubble or similar. If you try to use a "thought bubble" key on a door the character will say something like "hm, I wonder if that key would work here" and then a short cut scene in an overlay window would show her picking up the key back in her brother's apartment or something.
Might feel a bit artificial though, the current method of picking up everything that isn't nailed down is effectively the same solution just presented more directly. I basically pretend the thought bubble solution is in place while playing Monkey Island 2 instead of assuming Guybrush is really carrying a monkey around in his pocket for half the game.
So basically it's a non-issue. Just don't make the main character put a ladder in her pocket and you're fine.
The usual solution that I've seen that actually makes sense (seem to remember this in an early part of Nelly 2 as well? But off the top of my head can't remember what) is for the reaction to be "Well I know where it is if I need it". Although I think that was with a non-movable object? (Bucket of tar?)
Something along those lines. I've seen the "memory item" idea Esseb used too, can't remember which game (might have been Runaway 3).
Both methods scream out to seasons adventurers "this item is important, but not just yet!". So it would make me happy to an extent because I know that I've found the solution to a problem that I have yet to come across in the game.
Another possibility - perhaps difficult in a non-linear game - is that the character is unable to take the item for some reason, but once the purpose of the item is known, the means to get it also becomes available. So... I don;t know, for example you need an engine, but it's far too big to carry, you come across a speedboat with a faulty engine and realise you need to fix it, on the same location or a nearby one only accessible after you've seen the speedboat you find a wheelbarrow that allows you to transport the engine.
Alternatively, you can give them a limited inventory, like can only carry 10 items at a time, or a limited weight, like 10kgs. Then use a custom property to assign weight to all your inventory items. This way the player has to have a good reason to be carrying a 9kg ladder around. ;)
In one of the games I'm working on, I have just went for big, medium and small items. Big items, you can only carry one at a time (on the hand slot), the rest you need a backpack to carry unlimited medium/small items. Otherwise, picking up everything that isn't nailed is the "norm" and refusing the player to let it pick up, might just annoy the player (specially if you playing it for the 2nd time and you already know you need that item).
I like the idea of having the character say "I know where it is if I need it". The thought bubble is kind of cool, but I think that may make things too easy. I don't see anything wrong with picking up an item later in the game when needed, but I think it's important to give the player a hint that it may be useful later.
I HATE it when I can't pick something up now but can do it later.
I'd suggest either doing it the way CaptainD suggested or, doing it similar to what Cassie said:
Once the player picks up the huge item, he says something like "Ok, I'll take this, but I can't take anything else with me now." and then dumps all the stuff somewhere on the floor in a huge pile (and switches to a view carrying that bulky item). Since most players are kleptomaniacs, they will feel highly uncomfortable without their inventory and soon switch back to their regular inventory.
Personally, I think that if you can't pick up an item until the player character actually sees the problem, then the actual player might not go and try to pick up that item, since they'll be expecting to get the same response as last time.
As a matter of fact, I think puzzles designed like that have been what has tripped me up a few times in the past. It's infuriating to get stuck because of something like that.
On the other hand, if this puzzle doesn't appear until another clearly identifiable act, but the item can be found on an earlier act, then it's ok. A good example of this would be the blue tack on the door on Ben There Dan That.
I see your point, but it seems to me that you're viewing the protagonist as a puppet for the player. Conversely, I get really annoyed when the character picks things up for no (apparent) reason.
Even if the protagonist is a puppet - in a single click game, when the player clicks on the large, unwieldy item which they don't yet need - do they actually WANT to pick it up?
Then, I guess either your interface or the puzzle is too simple/casual. If you want to have a simple interface with a casual feel but still difficult (non-casual) puzzles, you have to think differently about the puzzles.
One more option you could use is making the environment dynamic. Just have the big, heavy object only appear after you have encountered the puzzle. For example, if the item is a crate, make an empty cargo bay (maybe with a ship approaching in the background?). Only after you have encountered the obstacle, the ship has landed and the crate was unloaded there.
I did something similar in Toffee Trouble where
Spoiler
the egg with the cogwheel only appears on day two.
Maybe it's because I have only made one adventure game, but I like the subtle humour of carrying around impossible objects in hammerspace, even if the game does not draw attention to it.
But maybe this is just something we inherited from classic adventure games, and maybe it is something that should be left behind, except when it's done deliberately for comedic effect.
Quote from: CaptainD on Fri 29/07/2016 10:45:50
...a wheelbarrow that allows you to transport the engine.
This sounds like a clip from one of those Meanwhile in Russia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzH8H_9fec) videos. I'm already cringing for when the wheelbarrow tips over due to far too much weight and the engine slams into the ground.
If the player character feels as though anything he can get his hands on might help him (escape or progress further from an area),it's very easy to justify picking everything up. The idea of this inventory item appearing only after the puzzle has presented itself like cat has mentioned might be the way to go. Hopefully you can figure out how to do that.
Quote from: Ali on Fri 29/07/2016 09:34:31
I think the player character should refuse to take an item until he/she sees the relevance of it. I think that's preferable because (in an adventure game) the protagonist is a character with opinions, not just the agent of the player. The player's agency is mediated through their personality, and they are entitled to refuse to do something which is pointless or doesn't make sense.
I agree with that, if the game isn't a weird comedy game anyway where you're constantly carrying stuff around that doesn't make sense to you.
I think it's totally fine that you can't pick something up first but later can see a use for it. And for me it's quite satisfying when I think "Ah, that item I encountered some time ago could be useful here", go back there and then can actually pick it up. I don't see so much difference to the decision what item to try on what object/character - something you think about in most adventure games all the time anyway. As long as it's (more or less) logical, it's fine for me.
Something like "Well I know where it is if I need it" is too much of a hint imo, because then you already know (or believe) that it'll be necessary later on. Without knowing why it is not a good idea, or at least not necessary. I'd prefer that either the player can see a use for that item on his own or gets a hint
later on and thus returns to try to pick it up. If I already know that I'll need the item later, it's less exciting and not really satisfying. I'd prefer something like "I can't see a use for it" or "I'd need a good reason to carry something that large with me".
"Well I know where it is if I need it" would be especially silly in a case where the player sees "a large/outlandish item". If he can't think of a use for it then he wouldn't say something like that.
Personally I hate having to backtrack in games... I like to 100% explore a location when I visit it (look at, use and take every available item). I'm not necessarily going to remember a vaguely interesting stone from 20 screens ago when I'm looking to break a window, so could quite easily waste a lot of time having to backtrack and reexplore. Sure carrying all the things is unrealistic, but this is a game, and not frustrating the player is way more important than realistic pocket physics.
Quote from: Ali on Fri 29/07/2016 11:46:46
I see your point, but it seems to me that you're viewing the protagonist as a puppet for the player.
Exactly! The protagonist isn't a puppet for the player, the protagonist IS the player, and the player IS the protagonist.
You get to choose what they say during dialog, you get to choose what items they try to combine and use to solve puzzles, and YOU get to choose what they should try to pick up.
We're all kleptomaniacs while playing adventure games, and thus all protagonists are kleptomaniacs who constantly talk to themselves. It's really jarring and immediately pulls you out of an experience as soon as this bond between player and protagonist is broken, just because the creator wants the protagonist to act in a realistic way.
If you wanted to be ultra realistic, you probably shouldn't have chosen to make an adventure game. One of those choose-your-own-adventure games like what Telltale makes nowadays would be better suited for that type of gameplay.
And I'm not saying that the protagonist can't have a personality. What I'm saying is that when you're really immersed in an adventure game, you start thinking like the protagonist and taking on their personality, while at the same time it feels as though the opposite is also true, with the protagonist taking on your goal of completing the game and bringing the story to it's conclusion. In short, it feels as though the player and the protagonist become one.
Not being able to pick up a key because you haven't found the door yet, ruins that experience.
Quote from: AGA on Fri 29/07/2016 13:19:19
Personally I hate having to backtrack in games... I like to 100% explore a location when I visit it (look at, use and take every available item). I'm not necessarily going to remember a vaguely interesting stone from 20 screens ago when I'm looking to break a window, so could quite easily waste a lot of time having to backtrack and reexplore. Sure carrying all the things is unrealistic, but this is a game, and not frustrating the player is way more important than realistic pocket physics.
Also this.
I couldn't agree more. (nod)
For me , as the answers here show us, this is an impossible thing to decide correctly. It's a pure "What's your flavour?" problem. Personally I am with Matti on this one. Getting to crack a complex puzzle where the player has to rethink what he did and saw and do the right things in the light of new events is 100% fun!
Of course this is only the case if the puzzle is logical and consistant. Not picking up a stone you later want to break a window with, is imho an example for senseless restriction and flawed puzzle design. But finding an item that is for example too dirty for the character to touch it without hesitation makes sense. In this case the char can say "I need a really good reason, before i'll touch that filthy thing!"
Another thing Cassie mentioned is letting the player feel the consequences of picking up everything. As abandoning the whole inventory is a really drastic idea I like a lot, the game designer could also be less cold-hearted and f.e. let the player constantly complain every thirty seconds, why he is holding onto that thing until the player really finds out he needs it. If so, the char now could still complain but with a homourous touch like " argh... I really hope this damn thing is worth all the sweat.", "Will I ever find a purpose for this???", or "I really wanna get rid of this...".
Most players, rightly or wrongly, scan each room for hotspots and pick-uppable items. As a designer, you want to encourage the player to realise this won't always work. So I think sometimes a later-needed item shouldn't always be pick-uppable from the get go. Try to make it something that fits well in the environment. E.g. if you are in a church, there might be some candles. The player wouldn't necessarily be disappointed if they can't pick uo the candles at first pass. But a little later, when she needs to make a fire, she's going to remember the candles and go back for them.
Now I want to make a game where the character can only hold so many items at a time. Some items might take up 2 or 3 spaces while others only take up 1 space in your inventory. A puzzle game that has you wondering which items to carry together...hmmm.
Adventure games have become predictable in the way people play them. Scan every new screen for every item you can pick up, and some games let you hit space bar so you can see every single item you can pick up. I think it's important to break away from that mold and to try new things. Depending on what the goal is for the character to accomplish, I don't think this should be a clear cut answer.
I'm not a fan of picking up an item to only use it immediately. Since I'm working on a non-linear game, I think a little bit of everything is good for a well balanced atmosphere. Some items can be used immediately, some later, some more than once... hell some items change when used and can be used in another location differently.. I wouldn't mind using an item acquired later in the game in an earlier location, for example:
In Space Quest 4:
Spoiler
Roger picks a cigar butt that can be used near the end of the game in a room that appears early in the game.
Non-linearity is really awesome when it comes to inventory. If you can choose where to go first between locations A, B and C, you'll definitely pick up items in different order. The trick here is making the puzzles in each location solvable in several ways as well.
Quote from: AnasAbdin on Sat 30/07/2016 10:50:06
In Space Quest 4:
Spoiler
Roger picks a cigar butt that can be used near the end of the game in a room that appears early in the game.
I can see I'm clearly in the minority, but this SQ4 example is exactly what I think is bad. In a detective game, holding on to a cigar butt for ages makes sense. But not in a humorous space adventure.
I'm not saying the player shouldn't be able to pick up useful looking objects - hammers, keys, books etc. I just don't like it when they pick up useless looking items for no reason.
I kinda agree with you Ali.
But in SQ4 defense:
Spoiler
If Roger doesn't want to pick up the cigar butt, he can still visit the -later- location where it is impossible to go further without the cigar. The puzzle that needs the cigar is very obvious and you can always return to pick it up.
But yeah, this example fits fine with comedy. So all I can say that it is all up to the story and the writing style. I am not into limiting what the player can or cannot do. I do however like realism in the amount and size of inventory items a person can carry.
I'm not saying this is right, but I'm sure we all have noticed this. In many adventure games the developers are thinking about this, because in so many cases when you pick up an item that seems to be useless the character says...I have no idea why I'm picking this up, but what the hell.
So yes, there does seem to be a problem here, and the developers know it. Now it's a matter of keeping the game fun or user friendly for the player. It seems very easy to just not have these items available until certain places, but in Ali and AnasAbdin games where the character can go in any direction they want, this becomes an issue. Maybe it's important to tell the player in the beginning of the game that they can pick up anything they want. By doing this, the player is deciding which items to pick up and not the character, if that makes any sense?
Maybe in this case it's important to add items that will be useless? Never to be used in the game? Let the player know that they indeed may be carrying useless items around. Maybe limited inventory space is a reasonable idea, so deciding which items to pick up seem very important and this adds another layer of thinking to the game? It will be very important for the player to be able to get around the game world quickly though, to keep it user friendly when the player says...Now I do want that light bulb I saw in the shop before.
In AnasAbdin case, maybe his character can store all these items he finds in his space ship, but his character can only carry so many items with him? Now his character can go back to his supply crate in order to decide which items to take with him. I actually really like this idea, because it adds another level of puzzle solving to the game. This will make it harder on developers to code the game, but I think this sounds pretty cool.
There has to be a better way than just picking everything up even if it is useless at the time.
Which would you prefer your players to experience: a) to initially be unable to pick an item up only to find out they need it later, or b) be able to pick up an item despite having no initial need for it only to coincidentally need it later?
I think most adventure games have a mixture of these scenarios. For me, a) has more potential for 'AHAA' moments where the player remembers something they have previously seen and has to go back for it. Just make sure they don't have to go back an annoyingly long way to get it. Or better still, make it something in a room that they will be going back to anyway so as not to feel like a needless backtrack.
Quote from: Stupot+ on Sat 30/07/2016 13:55:52
Which would you prefer your players to experience: a) to initially be unable to pick an item up only to find out they need it later, or b) be able to pick up an item despite having no initial need for it only to coincidentally need it later?
B, definitely B.
A introduces too many problems, such as "Well I saw a candle earlier, but I couldn't pick it up, so what the hell am I supposed to do?".
I also like CaptainD's suggestion, even though that was a bit extreme with an engine and wheelbarrow. (laugh)
More like... "I can't pick that up! It's screwed to the wall..."... later, after you come across the puzzle that needs that item, and you realize you need it, you may just find a screwdriver someplace, maybe an NPC dropped it, or has it, and know you can talk him out to trade that screwdriver, buy it or convince him you need it to solve a problem... and all of a sudden you have 3 puzzles instead of 1. ;)
Quote from: Ali on Sat 30/07/2016 10:59:03
I'm not saying the player shouldn't be able to pick up useful looking objects - hammers, keys, books etc. I just don't like it when they pick up useless looking items for no reason.
The straightforward solution, then, is to not have any puzzles that require useless-looking items. This is elegant, whereas disallowing taking the item until the character has a reason for is not elegant.
I don't think disallowing an item to be picked up at first is such a bad thing. It just has to be handled carefully. Set up a small puzzle early on or in a tutorial where this happens, then you can teach the player that your character isn't always going to pick up everything that isn't nailed down and that he might sometimes have to recheck a room they've already been in. Once that is an established game mechanic I don't think it's a problem as long as you avoid the other pitfalls that might come with it (distant backtracking, calling your player an idiot, etc) and try to make it natural (make it a room that the player would be going back to anyway, so that it doesn't feel like they are just going back to fetch something they could have picked up earlier.
TLDR: Train the player to think 'okay, I can't pick that up now (and why would I, there's no obvious need for it) but I'll bear it in mind because I might need it later.'
Quote from: Radiant on Sun 31/07/2016 23:40:38
The straightforward solution, then, is to not have any puzzles that require useless-looking items. This is elegant, whereas disallowing taking the item until the character has a reason for is not elegant.
A man says to his doctor "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." and forces his elbow up behind his head.
The doctor says "Then don't do that."
Quote from: Stupot+ on Mon 01/08/2016 00:30:40
Once that is an established game mechanic I don't think it's a problem as long as you avoid the other pitfalls that might come with it
Agreed, if you establish it as a game mechanic, everything should be fine.
Although to add to your list of pitfalls, another one is to make sure that the player can pick up the item when they think it'll be useful. Nothing is more frustrating than finding a dark room, going back to pick up that candle you saw earlier, and finding out that you can't because you first had to tell someone that you couldn't go forward because the room was too dark, so you could be given a lighter, and then the player character realizes he needs the candle (despite there being a fire in another room somewhere where you could have lit the candle).
I'm fairly sure something like that has happened before to me on non-adventure games. You figure something out, but you can't do it, because there's a per-requisite that you didn't know about or even need.
I also agree with Stupot about it being a legitimate mechanic, and I think that bad puzzle design has trained us to play adventure games wrong. I do it too, but reflexively combing every location for hotspots and filling your pockets indiscriminately is a silly way to behave (except in the context of a forensic detective game). I don't think games should reward silly behaviour just because it's traditional.
Quote from: Danvzare on Mon 01/08/2016 20:31:15
Although to add to your list of pitfalls, another one is to make sure that the player can pick up the item when they think it'll be useful.
Danvzarre I hate that too. It happens in one of my (otherwise) favourite bits of Morrowind.
Adventure games usually work in that way - you can pick up stuff you encounter, put it in your inventory and try to use it whenever you want to. Is this realistic? Probably not. Should this be discuraged? Maybe.
You don't want the player to walk around and pick up random stuff? Fine - then don't give them an inventory at all. Or make it more realistic and let the player only pick up one item in each hand. Or make an inventory with very limited item count. Or... options are endless.
If you don't like the established mechanics, make new ones. But do it for the whole game and don't just use it in one place as an excuse for lazy puzzle design.
Quote from: Ali on Mon 01/08/2016 20:50:22
I also agree with Stupot about it being a legitimate mechanic, and I think that bad puzzle design has trained us to play adventure games wrong. I do it too, but reflexively combing every location for hotspots and filling your pockets indiscriminately is a silly way to behave (except in the context of a forensic detective game).
It is true that it
can be a legitimate mechanic. However, bear in mind that characters in most games behave in lots of silly ways - so 'cracking down' on only this one would be weird to the player. If you want the main character to behave realistically, that's great (and innovative), but it would require more changes than the one this thread is about.
I see your point. I suppose these kind of interface-based ideas, like the Resonance's short/long term memory, probably need to be well integrated into a very good game to avoid simply annoying people. And even in the case of Resonance, I often forget that it had a memory-inventory at all.
I think my solution in this case will be to allow the character to take the outlandish objects, but to justify it in a way that is in-character for the protagonist.
EDIT: I should say I was asking this with reference to less cartoon-y games than Nelly. Obviously, Nelly can pick up stupid stuff and it doesn't matter.
For a piratey game like Nelly, you could have some kind of trading ststem. In that setting there are sure to be certain characters who are into buying/trading useless junk in return for either money or other junk which turns out to be less useless. This is the kind of thing that would justify a player-character picking up all sorts of crazy stuff.
In a more serious game I think it doesn't hurt to at least ask yourself "why does my character think it's okay to pick this up?"
Oooon the other hand, I remember a point being made a while ago (maybe by me?) that you can think of the inventory not necessarily just as a giant box of goodies the character has in his posession, but also as a record that your character is aware of the item abd it's location. So when I click on the inventory, select the plank of wood and use it in the window, I'm not really pullingba massive chunk of wood out ofvmy trousers. Instead I'm recalling the plank, going back to get it, bringing it back and smashing the window with it all without the ugly backtracking.
I guess there's a kind of elegance to that thinking, but it's flawed. Especially if the player is in a new area and wouldn't physically be able to have gone back for the plank.
(Sorry, my fat thumb is being fatter than usual today and I can't be arse to fix all the typos right now.)
Quote from: Stupot+ on Tue 02/08/2016 02:36:46
(Sorry, my fat thumb is being fatter than usual today and I can't be arse to fix all the typos right now.)
Just admit it mate...It's summer holidays and you are drunk...Nothing to be ashamed of...I'm drunk too...
If you have a key in room A and you don't want the player to pick it up until they've encountered the door in room B, put the key up on a tall shelf, and put a long stick next to the door in room B.
There will always be times when you use the protagonist's opinion as a no response-- "I don't want to do that." But generally it's an awkward type of puzzle when the player has to convince the protagonist to do something that would have no apparent consequences, like picking something up.