GTD: When challenges become puzzles - and nothing but puzzles

Started by ambitious6831, Sun 19/02/2017 14:48:05

Previous topic - Next topic

ambitious6831

I still remember, as no doubt many here do, getting relentlessly stuck as a kid on the original Kings Quest/Sierra games etc, but it's always something I enjoyed and learned from, and the experiences stick in your head for decades (may just be nostalgia, but more notable than others).

But revisiting the games again now after decades (having forgotten what to do, and resisting the use of a walk-through)... I can't believe how subtle and difficult some of the challenges are? As in, cannot believe a broad range of people could figure them out. Isn't that, well, terrible?

I mean it goes to show how ridiculously dumbed down a lot of titles are now. When I moved away from adventure games, friends would always point out how other genres held 'clever' aspects also: here you have to align some blocks, here you rotate this object until it fits in the key hole, here you need to activate two switches to make the water start pumping.

These 'puzzles' withstood the test of time, and the problems everyone solved as 8 year olds, are still being thrown at 30+ players today. They never pose themselves as: "here's something you may or may not be able to solve", instead it's always: "this will take you a moment or two to figure out, apologies if it takes longer".

What's the point? Just leave it out if it's not supposed to challenge you. I miss the days I'd get stuck on something for hours, days, or even weeks. But I've been simplified for some many years now, I'm not convinced my mind would even tolerate it?

I'd love to see some works on this forum that have the courage to test their audience like the originals did. I tried the new Kings Quest, and it didn't come close in my opinion.

Hopefully there can be more games with actual challenges, rather than toys/puzzles.

If none of that made sense, this video illustrates the point further: https://youtu.be/G59Iwi7_Cp0

Edited by Andail: Added GTD to title

Cassiebsg

Well, problem is, most players just want to "steam-line" through the story, so they can quickly finish and move on to the next game. Getting stuck for more than 5-10 minutes on a puzzle will make them close the game and find a new one to play... or run to get hints or a walk-through.

So, since most people want others to play and finish their games, they tend to not do it too hard. Finding the small balance of things is hard.
Personally I like the games that I play to provide a challenge, and I don't mind being stuck for months as I get my enjoyment of figuring it out on my own. But I get split when deciding if a puzzle might be too hard or too easy. :-\
There are those who believe that life here began out there...

Destinii

I think the question is, why do people get stuck?

Is it because of an intelligently designed challenge, or because the game was downright unfair?

For instance, and notably in the KQ entries, if the game becomes unbeatable because you didn't happen to chuck a boot at a cat to save a rat the very first time you saw it - I'd personally call that cheap and unfair.

But I agree there's a difference between getting stuck for the right reasons, and getting forced into these inescapable situations which the original titles get a lot of stick for (although some like this approach).

cat

Even back then, I didn't like Sierra games. They were just way to difficult and I didn't enjoy dying. A few years ago I watched a walkthrough video of a KQ game and thought "I could have never figured that out myself back then".
I was always more a LA person.

However, even LA had some difficult puzzles (DotT, MI2) that I wasn't able to figure out without help.

Today, I prefer puzzles that require some thinking but don't have me stuck for too long. In a well crafted game there would be various storylines going on at the same time, so when you get stuck in one place, you can always continue somewhere else.

NickyNyce

Back in the day we were forced to be stuck and pain stakingly try to figure things out because we didn't have a walkthrough to find. I too loved thinking about what to do while I was playing outside, at school, eating dinner. That AHA moment when you figured it out was the greatest! As long as the puzzle made some sense, I loved getting stuck. My best memories of adventure games back in the day was when I got stuck, not blowing through easy puzzles. I played them for the challenge of figuring out puzzles and not so much the story. For me, puzzles were always the number one reason I loved adventure games, followed by graphics and story.

Cassiebsg is correct with today's adventure games and designers. But what I don't understand is this...today we have easy to find walkthroughs, more hints, hit space bar to show all interactive objects and hotspots. So I'm not sure why designers take the easy route now. Designers should not be in fear of people not finishing their games anymore.

What we are seeing now is designers being worried that the new generation doesn't have patience. They want the player to experience a fun, semi smooth ride for a few hours of story and puzzles without really getting stuck. Lots of games these days are more like going to the movies then hard core puzzle games...it's sad.

I was thinking about this the other day. I noticed that with today's new technology, it has not made adventure games more fun for me. I prefer the old style crazy graphics, pixels, instead of the...try and look real with stiff 3D modeled characters. I love the warped graphics over the try and make everything look real games of today. I think this is due to the strange puzzles we come across. Strange puzzles seem to fit in better with the crazy pixel graphics more then the new real life ones in my opinion.

Destinii

Quote from: NickyNyce on Sun 19/02/2017 16:30:27
I too loved thinking about what to do while I was playing outside, at school, eating dinner. That AHA moment when you figured it out was the greatest! As long as the puzzle made some sense, I loved getting stuck.

This I can definitely relate to, especially after your mind solves your problems whilst you sleep.

I genuinely think being challenged like that was educational.

Danvzare

Quote from: NickyNyce on Sun 19/02/2017 16:30:27
Cassiebsg is correct with today's adventure games and designers. But what I don't understand is this...today we have easy to find walkthroughs, more hints, hit space bar to show all interactive objects and hotspots. So I'm not sure why designers take the easy route now. Designers should not be in fear of people not finishing their games anymore.
That's something that confuses me as well. Designers complain that if they made a puzzle too hard, then people will just look up a walkthrough online.
That just makes me think that there's no reason to make them easy then. Minimizing the game to look at a walkthrough online, doesn't exactly take you out of the experience. At least not in my opinion, I'll understand if it does for others.
That being said, I don't understand the hardcore gamers gripe with a hint system and that "spacebar that shows all hotspots" function. If you don't want the game to be too easy by using those things, then don't use those things.
People are weird. ???

Now with all that being said. I prefer easy puzzles. I like getting stuck and then solving it the next day (I find that it breaks up the game nicely). But I don't like being stuck for any longer than that.
Still, it would be nice if someone made an impossibly hard game like an old KQ game.


Quote from: NickyNyce on Sun 19/02/2017 16:30:27
I was thinking about this the other day. I noticed that with today's new technology, it has not made adventure games more fun for me. I prefer the old style crazy graphics, pixels, instead of the...try and look real with stiff 3D modeled characters. I love the warped graphics over the try and make everything look real games of today. I think this is due to the strange puzzles we come across. Strange puzzles seem to fit in better with the crazy pixel graphics more then the new real life ones in my opinion.
I know what you mean. Aesthetics nowadays have been almost completely thrown out of the window in favour of realism only. That's more of a problem with people always praising graphics, without knowing the definition of that word.

I prefer zany aesthetics over realistic ones. Especially for adventure games.

Radiant

I find it's good if the game is not too linear, so that if you're stuck in one puzzle you can do another instead. And if some of the harder puzzles are optional.

...that's probably also something that Lucas Arts was better at than Sierra.

ambitious6831

The dead ends are a valid point (http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Dead_end), just frustrating and feel cheap. But do they not add to the challenge?

Would the games be as difficult without dead ends? If you can't step off the track, you can just run around trying every possibility until something works.

Radiant

Quote from: ambitious6831 on Sun 19/02/2017 19:15:05
The dead ends are a valid point (http://kingsquest.wikia.com/wiki/Dead_end), just frustrating and feel cheap. But do they not add to the challenge?
No - they're fake difficulty.

QuoteWould the games be as difficult without dead ends?
Certainly. For example, Monkey Island 2 (if not set to lite mode) is a very difficult game, with zero dead ends.

Basically, it's more satisfying to finally solve a puzzle and realize how it made sense all along, than to finally finish something and wonder how on earth you were supposed to know that you shouldn't eat a pie when hungry.

Destinii

Quote from: Radiant on Sun 19/02/2017 19:23:30
No - they're fake difficulty.

Agreed.

Quote from: Radiant on Sun 19/02/2017 19:23:30
Certainly. For example, Monkey Island 2 (if not set to lite mode) is a very difficult game, with zero dead ends.

Basically, it's more satisfying to finally solve a puzzle and realize how it made sense all along, than to finally finish something and wonder how on earth you were supposed to know that you shouldn't eat a pie when hungry.

The Monkey Islands were tough, but annoying in my opinion. I don't think the solutions were as logical as Sierra, relying more on crazy/intentionally-ludicrous paths rather than trail of thought. That was part of the comedy of course, but I ended up resorting to trying everything a lot of the time (only to be annoyed when I found out what did work).

I never had that issue with Grim Fandango, which is surprising because that game's mad also.

Radiant

Quote from: Destinii on Sun 19/02/2017 21:07:30
The Monkey Islands were tough, but annoying in my opinion. I don't think the solutions were as logical as Sierra,

Really now. Would you like a refresher on the vast amounts of illogical Sierra puzzles? (such as KQV's yeti, Gabriel Knight's fake ID puzzle, the entire good-ending sequence of Laura Bow...) :D

Mandle

Quote from: Cassiebsg on Sun 19/02/2017 15:15:57
Getting stuck for more than 5-10 minutes on a puzzle will make them close the game and find a new one to play... or run to get hints or a walk-through.

I think this is an important point. Back in the '90's there just weren't that many games to play. You went to the actual store and bought one that caught your eye for say $50 or more, and took it home. You felt committed to the game due to the lack of options and the time and money invested in the purchase. Also there were no walkthroughs easily available so you really had no option except to keep trying on your own.

For me this made for a more memorable experience. I will never forget getting stuck in Sam & Max for like 2 months just because I hadn't realized the room with the underground magnets at the mystery shack place could scroll to the right... Grrrrrr... It was frustrating but when I finally found this out it felt so awesome. Not exactly a puzzle but, yeah.

Radiant

Quote from: Mandle on Mon 20/02/2017 00:20:37
I think this is an important point. Back in the '90's there just weren't that many games to play. You went to the actual store and bought one that caught your eye for say $50 or more, and took it home. You felt committed to the game due to the lack of options and the time and money invested in the purchase. Also there were no walkthroughs easily available so you really had no option except to keep trying on your own.

Yep. I remember opening King's Quest I in a hex editor to try and find the name of that #&*$&#$ gnome. Of course, not being a native speaker, I had no idea what his fairy tale was called in English in the first place.

CaptainD

Quote from: Mandle on Mon 20/02/2017 00:20:37
I think this is an important point. Back in the '90's there just weren't that many games to play. You went to the actual store and bought one that caught your eye for say $50 or more, and took it home. You felt committed to the game due to the lack of options and the time and money invested in the purchase. Also there were no walkthroughs easily available so you really had no option except to keep trying on your own.

For me this made for a more memorable experience. I will never forget getting stuck in Sam & Max for like 2 months just because I hadn't realized the room with the underground magnets at the mystery shack place could scroll to the right... Grrrrrr... It was frustrating but when I finally found this out it felt so awesome. Not exactly a puzzle but, yeah.

I agree, it was a completely different dynamic.  I do find myself wondering how many games I loved growing up would be ones I get frustrated with and put to one side quickly nowadays.  It took my sister and I nearly 2 years to complete Zak McKraken would you belief!  (Immense sense of anticlimax when we did - "what are we going to do now?  There's no point playing it any more...")

For me the puzzles should always fit in with the narrative flow of the game.  If they don't it does indeed feel that they've simply been put there for the sake of it.  As for illogical puzzles... anyone else think many of the puzzles in the Secret Files games were pretty obscure?
 

Babar

Through random traversal of the Internet that I can't replicate just now, I came across this interesting article that seems very relevant to this discussion:
Http://www.filfre.net/2015/07/the-14-deadly-sins-of-graphic-adventure-design/

Puzzle design is a thing that very much...puzzles me :D, and often I've contemplated switching them out for some completely different mechanic.
The ultimate Professional Amateur

Now, with his very own game: Alien Time Zone

Mandle


NickyNyce

Maybe its just me, but I do wonder why there are so many detective adventure games. It's not like in order to make an adventure game the character needs to be a detective. Adventure games can have the lead character be just about anyone, or anything that's got a brain and limbs. Maybe it's because I'm old and have played so many of them, but when I see the...You're a detective, I do kind of get a bit turned off. I'm not bad mouthing any detective games in development because I know there are some, and many of them pretty darn good, and everyone has their own tastes, but I've seem to have grown away from them.

I don't know if it's the classic hat and coat, detective office, pencil and pad, questioning of people and suspects, but I feel that it's been done so many times. I've not really heard anyone else ever mention this before. I have heard many people say they love adventure games for the story, and it makes me wonder if just changing the bad guy is enough to keep them happy when it comes to detective games. Maybe I'm just an old fart.

No offense to anyone making them right now. I've just always wondered why there's so many of them, especially considering adventure games can work just as well with almost any kind of story you can think of.

Mandle

Quote from: NickyNyce on Tue 28/02/2017 01:58:54
Maybe its just me, but I do wonder why there are so many detective adventure games.

Some reasons I can think of, and I was just thinking of this earlier today in regards to mystery fiction, are that a detective character does not require a complex or lengthy call-to-adventure section. They get a call and BAM they're on the case. The game or book starts quickly and you are immediately in the action. Also, the character's motivation to continue to solve the mystery, even when things get hairy, is automatic: It's their job.

Look at Agatha Christie stories or Shelock Holmes: There is usually very little preamble explaining how the main character came to be involved in the mystery, perhaps a paragraph telling of how the police or an involved person contacted the detective, and then the reader (or player in that case of a detective game) can get started on what they came for: the mystery and how it is solved.

So, it's more like one of those roller-coasters that goes from 0-100 instantly out of the gate, instead of taking the long, slower haul up the first big hill.

I like all kinds of stories but yeah, sometimes the quick-start is exactly what I'm looking for. And detective stories do that pretty well.

Cheers for reading!


Stupot

To add to what Mandle said, I think detective games are the easy option to avoid the "Why don't they just call the police?" problem that a lot of games and films fall into. There always has to be some kind of reason why the protagonist can't just get their phone out and get someone better equipped to handle the body count. Or if you can call the police they are just downright uncooperative. At least in a detective game you are the police. Or if not, you're an ex-cop with a healthy rollerdex and a hankerin' for justice.

Andail

Excellent topic! Even though it tends to resurface every 2-3 years or so :)

I remember how beating PQ1 back in the day (this was 91-92 I believe) took me and my friends more than a year of more or less constant playing. Heck, I remember having played for a really long time before anything even remotely important gameplay-wise occured. We were happy enough walking around looking at things and getting replies when we typed stuff.

Needless to say, this was before the Internet, but Amiga had a monthly magazine that had a page with puzzle hints and tips, and if you were extremely lucky they'd eventually print a tip that actually helped you wherever you were currently stuck... that's how I finally solved the nightstick vs bikers episode, hehe....

I definitely think there's a market for games that aren't super easy to beat, probably as a counter movement to how many modern games tend to hold their players' hand and tutorial the living crap out of them, when in actuality lots of players appreciate games like Dark Souls where virtuality nothing is explained and they're expected to discover and learn the game on their own.

Quote from: NickyNyce on Tue 28/02/2017 01:58:54
No offense to anyone making them right now. I've just always wondered why there's so many of them, especially considering adventure games can work just as well with almost any kind of story you can think of.

Do you really wonder that? I think it's quite obvious that the adventure game genre lends itself quite well to investigative mysteries; following chains of clues, gradually unravelling a case, etc, plus the whole thing Mandle mentioned, how you don't need a contrived reason to put the protagonist there in the first case, or motivate them to actually solve the whole thing.

Even in literature at large, detective stories are quite prevalent, because they're easy to construct and people like them.

That said, loads of adventure games aren't detective stories, at least not in the sense of featuring an actual, official detective.

But sure, I'd like to see more perfectly mundane games, where the protagonist is just an ordinary person doing everyday stuff, not even catching a bad guy let alone saving the world, but that might be hard to construct a functional gameplay around, I don't know.

NickyNyce

I'm certainly not looking for games where you don't save the world, don't catch a bad guy, and just do mundane stuff. I think those are the games that didn't have a good story, villain or action. I would just like to see the genre open up a bit. It all comes down to story. I've seen so many movies about detectives, books and games, that perhaps it's just me that seems to be getting tired of them. Maybe I'm just looking for something fresh. But mundane also stands for repetitive.

I understand it's easy to have the phone ring and have the detective go and look for clues. But I don't think easy should be a factor, especially for the developer. Again, no offense to anyone making these games. There are some really good ones. Perhaps it's the quantity of them that turns me off of them. I would probably enjoy them more if there weren't always 3 of them being made at a time, while I also watch 3 of them on T.V.

I guess my question has been answered though. Perhaps I am the only one getting tired of seeing so many of them. I think the problem may be not the games themselves, but just seeing them everywhere I turn. I guess it's hard for me to decide which one to play when there's so many to choose from. That might be my main issue.

Mandle

Quote from: NickyNyce on Tue 28/02/2017 12:33:09
I understand it's easy to have the phone ring and have the detective go and look for clues. But I don't think easy should be a factor, especially for the developer.

That's another thing I was going to write actually:

The detective theme could be the sign of a lazy developer in many cases as much as could could be the sign of a developer who understands the genre and the fast plugged-in atmosphere it can provide.

Another thing to look for as you play the game (or watch the movie/TV show) to determine which you are experiencing is: Does the piece just run through the generic formula or does it do something new with it and take it to the next level?

My favorite example is Twin Peaks, which was loved by people who had grown tired of the "Whodunnit" formula and wanted an extra layer, but hated by those who just wanted more of the same.

Oh, and kinda getting back to the general theme of the thread:

I just watched this amazing video about the development of the original Zork series by one of the makers, and he talks a lot about how puzzles were developed or rather not developed in this fetus stage of the genre:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXdmo2j_CiQ

Blondbraid

A most interesting discussion!
Personally, I think that a big difference between Adventure games and other genres is how intertwined the story and gameplay are. I have seen many examples of FPS, RTS and RPG where players excuse a cliched or bad story and bland atmosphere because the gameplay is fun and entertaining.

With Adventure games, it's mostly just pointing and clicking with little variation, so the enjoyability almost always comes down to puzzles and story and atmosphere. And then, many fans are willing to defend games with bad/nonexistent puzzles if the story is good.

I also think that the argument that linear adventure games with few puzzles are too much like movies miss some of the other aspects of games, like the exploration and interactivity. While I can see why there is a demand for more challenging hardcore adventure games, I would also see more games focused on storytelling and atmosphere.

For a difference between games and movies are that in a movie, you are a passive observer, but in a game you play a character, and your interactions in the game depend on the character you play. For example, one of the game moments that made the most impression on me in Dreamfall: The Longest Journey was when you got to play different characters moving through the same area, but making completely different remarks on the things in that area. The freedom fighter April sees an abandoned hovel and thinks "Another poor fellow driven from their home by the empire", while the imperial soldier Kian looks at the very same hovel and says "No one should have to live in such a poor hovel under the empire's rule". Really, the bit I enjoy most in adventure games is to examine the surroundings and see how the character reacts, explore their mindset and walk in their shoes.

Therefore I think it's boring when too many adventure games start off with a protagonist with amnesia or a generic detective, or have have the protagonist do something that goes completely against their personality for the sake of making a puzzle, say having an honest character suddenly stealing a ton of things or vandalizing something.


Radiant

Frankly the only adventure game I can think of where the protagonist starts with amnesia is Planescape Torment, and the only one I can think of with a generic detective is the laura bow series. Are those tropes really as common as this thread suggests?

Gurok

Quote from: Radiant on Thu 02/03/2017 22:03:49
Frankly the only adventure game I can think of where the protagonist starts with amnesia is Planescape Torment, and the only one I can think of with a generic detective is the laura bow series. Are those tropes really as common as this thread suggests?

This is so common among AGS games, I can't believe you're asking. It's more a sign of bad writing than anything.

Go look at the completed games forum.

It's an escape clause that allows authors to avoid writing a backstory, and some authors acknowledge that. See Emont's description here: https://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=50096.msg636482448#msg636482448

Recent commercial releases include Dead Synchronicity and Gemini Rue. Or I don't know, you could go look at the various adventure / survival horror titles named "Amnesia".

There are also games that avoid establishing a backstory for the main character altogether. Myst comes to mind.

Detective stories... there are so many. I can't tell if you're lazy or this is just some weird sophistry.

Darkside Detective, Tex Murphy, Thimbleweed Park.

Before you argue that these are not in some way generic, the point is not that the backstory is "s/he's a detective" and that's it. (Admittedly, Darkside Detective comes close.) The point is that most of the backstory is covered. The authors don't delve much into the character of these people outside of their detective work. There is also little in the way of character development. Basically, exactly what Mandle outlined. The game is set up and ready to go. You can jump straight into the action.

Even games that might bother with a little setup -- Sherlock Holmes games, Poirot games -- tell very little about the character. The best you'll get out of Poirot is that he's a neat freak who comes from Belgium. There is an occasional mention that Holmes has a brother. WOW. Outside of this, these characters only talk about their old cases.

This is intentional. Detectives are the original "player characters" -- left intentionally generic so YOU could get into the novels. It's tough to find a good twist on the detective character. The Raven, for instance, which has an avid detective novel fan cum amateur detective reveal that he's a master criminal. It's a trite twist, but that's at least something.
[img]http://7d4iqnx.gif;rWRLUuw.gi

Mandle

Quote from: Gurok on Fri 03/03/2017 00:39:21
The Raven, for instance, which has an avid detective novel fan cum amateur detective reveal that he's a master criminal. It's a trite twist, but that's at least something.

Hehe... I've always thought that in the real world Miss Marple would be in jail for sure. To have been present at that many murders has "serial killer" written all over it. She's obviously a mastermind and planting all the evidence needed to frame someone else for each of her kills!

Gurok

Quote from: Mandle on Fri 03/03/2017 00:48:42
Quote from: Gurok on Fri 03/03/2017 00:39:21
The Raven, for instance, which has an avid detective novel fan cum amateur detective reveal that he's a master criminal. It's a trite twist, but that's at least something.

Hehe... I've always thought that in the real world Miss Marple would be in jail for sure. To have been present at that many murders has "serial killer" written all over it. She's obviously a mastermind and planting all the evidence needed to frame someone else for each of her kills!

Yeah, Miss Marple came to mind when I started typing the words "amateur detective". Though what about Jessica Fletcher? Arguably more likely to be a serial killer, in my opinion.
[img]http://7d4iqnx.gif;rWRLUuw.gi

Radiant

Quote from: Gurok on Fri 03/03/2017 00:39:21
Before you argue that these are not in some way generic, the point is not that the backstory is "s/he's a detective" and that's it. (Admittedly, Darkside Detective comes close.) The point is that most of the backstory is covered. The authors don't delve much into the character of these people outside of their detective work. There is also little in the way of character development. Basically, exactly what Mandle outlined. The game is set up and ready to go. You can jump straight into the action.

To be fair, adventure games in general tend to have little or no character development, or indeed backstory. This is pretty much expected of the genre, and not just limited to detective stories.

For example, the premise of King's Quest is "you are a knight" and that's it. Monkey Island goes with "you want to be a pirate" and that's it. Yes, in most adventure games the protagonist is effectively the Everyman, or AFGNCAAP.

Andail

I'm a bit wary of calling things tropes and cliches, since it's hard to draw the line between unoriginal genericness and hallmarks of a genre. Let me explain:

For a long time I found it a bit uncreative and generic how many games would start in a locked room, and have the protagonist (often amnesic) escape it. But then this got so common it turned into a genre of its own - escape the room games. It wouldn't make sense these days to play an escape-the-room-game and complain that escaping a room is a bit of a cliche, since that's what people expect and presumably enjoy when playing them.

Having a character who's amnesic isn't just lazy writing - it's a rather effective dramaturgic device that lets the player experience the game world on the exact same conditions as the protagonist - namely with no prior knowledge or experience. They'll explore and learn about the world together, which is quite cool. There can still be tons of lore to learn, it's just presented very gradually.

This isn't some kind of defense speech - TSP was about a cryptologist helping a stranger to understand a family mystery-turned-tragedy, which I'd like to think is quite original, even though the actual adventure probably plays like a detective story, but I'm just saying it's sometimes hard to define what's cliche or not, or whether they're automatically bad.

Snarky

Quote from: Radiant on Thu 02/03/2017 22:03:49
the only one I can think of with a generic detective is the laura bow series.

For the record, Laura Bow is not a professional detective. She is a student and then a journalist who just happens to come across a bunch of murders.

Quote from: Gurok on Fri 03/03/2017 00:39:21
This is intentional. Detectives are the original "player characters" -- left intentionally generic so YOU could get into the novels. It's tough to find a good twist on the detective character.

There are plenty of literary detectives who are quite fleshed out with backstory, personality and individual quirks, which sometimes get as much focus as the mysteries they investigate, from Lord Peter Wimsey (gentleman dandy suffering from WWI shell shock) to Lisbeth Salander (possibly-autistic punk-rock hacker with a history of abuse).

Radiant

Quote from: Andail on Fri 03/03/2017 09:15:59
I'm a bit wary of calling things tropes and cliches, since it's hard to draw the line between unoriginal genericness and hallmarks of a genre.
"Hallmarks of a genre" is pretty much the definition of a trope. The word "trope" is not a negative term or an insult (although "cliche" may be).

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 03/03/2017 09:26:55For the record, Laura Bow is not a professional detective.
Clearly. She is, however, also an everyman with no backstory or character development.

Danvzare

Quote from: Radiant on Fri 03/03/2017 09:38:26
"Hallmarks of a genre" is pretty much the definition of a trope. The word "trope" is not a negative term or an insult (although "cliche" may be).
You're right, tropes aren't negative. As a matter of fact, they're practically unavoidable.
Cliches on the other hand are overused and should be avoided.

The main difference between the two is that tropes can be used in many different ways, even when they're very specific, and people generally won't grow tired of them.
Cliches on the other hand are usually things that were great the first time, but became groan inducing pretty quickly soon after.

If you experience a trope (for example, Zombies) for the hundredth time, you probably won't mind it, you might even like it.
But when you experience a cliche for the hundredth time (for example, the protagonist is actually unknowingly working for the bad guys), you will undoubtedly roll your eyes because you've seen it happen too many times.

Haggis

Obviously I have to stick up for the amnesiac hero, the Fugue wanderer if you will. I agree with the comment above that it sets you both on the same playing field; what's new to you, the player, is also technically new to the character. I don't think it's necessarily a sign of lazy writing - if anything it means the writing has to be even sharper in order to encourage the player to play on and unravel the story (and the reveal of the amnesiac heroes identity / backstory etc), normally through other characters, puzzles, environments etc.  Same goes for movies featuring amnesiac heroes, if the story telling is strong then it mostly works. However I can appreciate that it's been heavily used which can make it feel tired. For me personally, when I play a game I want the opportunity to stamp my own personality on the character - I want them to make my decision, not 'their' decision. Of course, amnesia doesn't need to be the plot mechanism to achieve this - but limited backstory normally helps. Firewatch is the most recent memorable example I played that let the player define the character through responses they choose as they go, including decisions regarding choices made in their backstory.

Anyway I digress, probably moving away from the topic (i'm not going to get involved in the cliches / tropes stuff).

Andail

Quote from: Danvzare on Fri 03/03/2017 11:41:27
Quote from: Radiant on Fri 03/03/2017 09:38:26
"Hallmarks of a genre" is pretty much the definition of a trope. The word "trope" is not a negative term or an insult (although "cliche" may be).
You're right, tropes aren't negative. As a matter of fact, they're practically unavoidable.
Cliches on the other hand are overused and should be avoided.

The main difference between the two is that tropes can be used in many different ways, even when they're very specific, and people generally won't grow tired of them.
Cliches on the other hand are usually things that were great the first time, but became groan inducing pretty quickly soon after.

If you experience a trope (for example, Zombies) for the hundredth time, you probably won't mind it, you might even like it.
But when you experience a cliche for the hundredth time (for example, the protagonist is actually unknowingly working for the bad guys), you will undoubtedly roll your eyes because you've seen it happen too many times.

Well, this post kind of proves my point that the line between tropes and cliches is a rather blurry one. You list one example as a trope and the other one as a cliche, and presumably we are to react negatively to the latter and kind of neutral to the formal, but surely many people would argue that both are cliches, or both are tropes.

I wouldn't even say that "Zombies" is a trope - surely, 'trope' implies a story telling device rather than just a... noun?

The - ludicrously extensive - site tvtropes.org covers your example of a cliche and call it a trope:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero

so yeah, let's not pretend these are clear-cut terms and labels!

Radiant

Quote from: Andail on Sat 04/03/2017 08:49:12so yeah, let's not pretend these are clear-cut terms and labels!

They are clear-cut terms; the part that you're missing is that cliches are a subset of tropes (specifically, a cliche is a trope that's overused to the point of being trite or irritating; that mekes it somewhat subjective but nonetheless clearly defined).

"Zombie" is not a trope. "Zombies that act in such-and-such manner" is a trope, and several of those are cliches (whereas other writers can create a non-cliche story that uses different zombie tropes).

Andail

Quote from: Radiant on Sat 04/03/2017 08:55:46
Quote from: Andail on Sat 04/03/2017 08:49:12so yeah, let's not pretend these are clear-cut terms and labels!

They are clear-cut terms; the part that you're missing is that cliches are a subset of tropes (specifically, a cliche is a trope that's overused to the point of being trite or irritating; that mekes it somewhat subjective but nonetheless clearly defined).

"Zombie" is not a trope. "Zombies that act in such-and-such manner" is a trope, and several of those are cliches (whereas other writers can create a non-cliche story that uses different zombie tropes).

I understand the theoretical definition of the words - I'm not illiterate - I'm just saying that applying them is difficult since the whole thing is a bit of a grey area.

Since another forum member just gave an example that you immediately contradicted, and another example that a website dedicated to this concept has already contradicted, why should we maintain that this is an exact science?

Actually, my original point was that it's kind of interesting when things go from cliche to becoming a genre of its own (as in how escape-the-room became a type of game rather than a cliched story element of a game).

dactylopus

Quote from: NickyNyce on Tue 28/02/2017 01:58:54
Maybe its just me, but I do wonder why there are so many detective adventure games. It's not like in order to make an adventure game the character needs to be a detective. Adventure games can have the lead character be just about anyone, or anything that's got a brain and limbs. Maybe it's because I'm old and have played so many of them, but when I see the...You're a detective, I do kind of get a bit turned off. I'm not bad mouthing any detective games in development because I know there are some, and many of them pretty darn good, and everyone has their own tastes, but I've seem to have grown away from them.

I don't know if it's the classic hat and coat, detective office, pencil and pad, questioning of people and suspects, but I feel that it's been done so many times. I've not really heard anyone else ever mention this before. I have heard many people say they love adventure games for the story, and it makes me wonder if just changing the bad guy is enough to keep them happy when it comes to detective games. Maybe I'm just an old fart.

No offense to anyone making them right now. I've just always wondered why there's so many of them, especially considering adventure games can work just as well with almost any kind of story you can think of.

I also find detective (or detective-like) stories as adventures to be quite prevalent.  It's a large subset of the adventure genre, and as far as current indie production is concerned there is a lot of precedent from the golden age of adventure gaming.  Examples include Police Quest, Sam & Max, Tex Murphy, Grim Fandango, Gabriel Knight, and more (they do seems to be more prevalent among LucasArts games then Sierra).  Even some of the more popular adventures from the modern era contain similar ideas, like Blackwell, Ben Jordan, or the Chzo Mythos, for AGS examples.

I do understand why this is so, and many have pointed out good reasons for this already.  It makes sense, as any adventure protagonist picks up whatever they can carry, and in the case of detectives these things will be valuable clues.  And not only does this story framework allow for a quick entry into the game, it also sets up a simple formula for sequels.  Each game is another case for the detective (investigative journalist, police officer, etc) to solve.  And of course the tradition of detective stories is even longer and more illustrious than it is in the adventure gaming world, so there is a lot to build on and compare to.  There is also a lot to break down, challenge, and invert.

It gets to me, personally, because I'm not drawn to these types of games.  I'm drawn to more 'adventurous' adventures, like the Quest for Glory, King's Quest, or Legend of Kyrandia series.  Aside from that, I'm happy that they continue to get made, because there is a large audience for these types of games.  I'm happy to see those players get games they enjoy.

Blondbraid

Maybe detective games are to be seen as a sub-genre of adventure games, though I think it's worth to make some kind of distinction between games where solving the mystery is the main attraction and the protagonist is almost a blank slate, like in the Nancy Drew series, and character-driven stories which happens to star a detective, like in Technobabylon.

However, I only think that games with a blank-slate protagonist works if they are used to better introduce the audience to the setting and it is an engaging setting.

I also think that a big problem with some games that starts with amnesia and/or a murder mystery, is that it feels like the writer came up with an intro without having any clear ending or plot twist in mind, and then the ending either is massively underwhelming, or something completely derailed from the original premise.

Some have said that having the protagonist be amnesiac or a detective is an easy storytelling device, but it can be just as hard, if not harder, to make that engaging than to write a protagonist with a backstory and distinct personality. With a protagonist without backstory the risk is that the player don't feel like a part of the game world, and don't care weather the protagonist succeeds or not, which leads to the story losing most of it's stakes and tension.


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk