Hi everyone, I have a bit of a dillemma..
My game has one puzzle in particular where you need a special item. This item is gettable in a very logical way (IE: The item is where it would be in reality, its not a random object in some room somewhere). The problem is that the player in question (for reasons I can't go into because it might ruin a bit of the game) normally would not take this item. Its not something they would ever get or use. Except for this one puzzle when they get to it...
Do you think it would be cheesy for me to restrict the ability to get this item until the player finds this puzzle and needs to figure out how to solve it? The item WOULD (100% for certain) be found otherwise. IE: Its somewhere the player would interact with anyway.
My only concern is that by disabling the ability to get the inventory item, the player might not think to go back and get it from here, and might get confuzed.. I was thinking a possible way to handle it would be that when they find the item before the puzzle it says something like "This shelf contains a, b, c, d and e. You don't want anything from here now," or something similar.
Anyone have thoughts?
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: poc301 on Tue 24/02/2009 22:22:00
I was thinking a possible way to handle it would be that when they find the item before the puzzle it says something like "This shelf contains a, b, c, d and e. You don't want anything from here now," or something similar.
Yeah, I would do that. It's a normal thing to let the character say that he doesn't need an object
right now.
Or if you want to give the player a big hint, the character could make some jokey remark about how he doesn't need it unless he needs to do something - something being close to what he'll need it for later.
e.g.
he'll need a screwdriver to open a grating.
"I don't need a screwdriver, unless I have some screws loose! Get it? I've got some screws loose... Hahaha... ha... ha. Erm. Yeah."
I also find it only sensible if you can pick an item up before it is clearly part of a puzzle, especially if (as you say) it is easy to find and get, but seems "unusual" to have.
In your case the item itself becomes a puzzle- the player must understand that he needs the item.
So it's perfectly safe that it can be picked up before the puzzle: IF he picked it up before, the player will feel "good" when he understands the role of the item in the puzzle. If he DIDN'T, he can easily go back and get it. It's a double win for you.
It's quite usual for games to have objects become 'pick-upable' at a certain stage in the game when the item is actually going to be useful.
I think it makes things a bit more realistic... in real life you don't go around picking up everything you see just in case it might become useful... but if you happen upon an obstacle you might remember something you saw earlier that could help you overcome it.
While I agree with Ron Gilbert's principle that the player shouldn't find the solution to a puzzle before finding the puzzle, if the item is being used in a less than obvious way then the puzzle is actually about figuring out that a certain item will work rather than finding it, so it's acceptable for player to already have it.
Was that all one sentence? I'm sorry, my grammar is terrible...
In reality you might not pick up everything you see, but in adventure games players have been trained to do exactly that, and they get annoyed when they discover an item they were told was meaningless suddenly is needed for a puzzle without an exceptionally good reason. Instead of saying 'I don't need anything from there now', a better response would be to say 'the shelf has some chemicals on it' or something like that and leave it at that. That way they know what is there in case later on someone says 'I need some chemicals'. Personally, though, I'd just allow them to take it if they're intent on grabbing everything or place another puzzle in the way of getting it (a locked container, for instance).
Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 25/02/2009 02:56:28
... but in adventure games players have been trained to do exactly that...
In fact, MacGyver was also
trained to do exactly that, and he always seemed to pick up stuff essential in the future, ignoring those that
ihe knew would be of no help.
I think restricting pickup is fine in moderation (something like in Runaway is clearly excessive), as long as you avoid three dangers of the approach:
First, there's a risk that not being able to pick the item up when they first try, players assume that they can't, and don't think to try again later. You need to be careful about the feedback you give them, so that you're not closing the door on the possibility. On the other hand, if players immediately realize that the feedback means it will become important later and they'll have to come back for it, then the whole thing just acts as an inconvenience for the players, adding a pointless trek back to the screen to retrieve the object. (This will feel especially frustrating if only a short time passes between when players find the object and try to pick it up, and when they find a use for it and have to retrace their steps.) In this case, it's probably better to sacrifice strict realism rather than aggravating the players for no gameplay benefit.
Finally, make sure that there aren't any other things a player might reasonably want to use the item for. For example, if the item was a crowbar and you couldn't pick it up until you found the crate you were supposed to break open, that would be very frustrating if you came across a locked door in the mean time, but your character still refused to get that crowbar. Don't just think about ways the item could be used to solve other puzzles in the game; the player doesn't necessarily know what's a puzzle and what's just an irrelevant detail or dead end, so you have to consider all reasonable actions within your game world (as far as possible).
Why not try something like this:
Scenario 1:
So the problem is that the player reaches object A first, when they need to use it up ahead on object B to win the game. Why not make so that object A is locked, and that you need object C to unlock it. However, you only get object C at the location of object B.
-->This allows the player to see that object A is an obstacle that needs a solution when they first approach it.
-->The player reaches object B and realizes that object A is needed to proceed.
-->The player spots object C and realizes that he or she can go back to object A and unlock it.
-->Player unlocks object A with object C then proceeds back to object B.
-->Player unlocks object B with object A.
--> WIN GAME
Unless I'm missing something, isn't this a valid solution?
I think the best is to have a mixture of both pick-up-able and not.
Normal everyday items (a pencil, notepad, mobile phone maybe) you can pick up straight away, but things with a more specific use you can't.
Think about it in real-life terms.
Do you go around your house at the start of every day picking up everything you can on the off-chance that it might be useful later on, or do you leave most things where they are until you actually need them?
But yeah, the feedback is critical.
Also, this approach works best when there are a lot of red herrings, so it's not immediately obvious what will or won't be useful.
I think this is closely connected to how realistic the game is. In a comical game, I think part of the fun is to collect all these whacky items and feel the anticipation of getting to actually use them.
In Monkey Island and similar games you typically tug around various objects through half of the game before they come in handy. It tickles your imagination and creates some sort of coherency throughout the game.
In a comical game, it doesn't matter that only one out of thirteen office stationeries can be picked up, or that only one fruit in the vegetable stand happens to be for sale.
In realistic games, it's a totally different story. In a normal, contemporary setting there would be an endless amount if pickupable items around the player. You need to circumvent that problem, and one way is to simply tell the player that he doesn't need it right now.
A method not yet covered in this thread, basically because it's a bit stupid but I thought I could mention it anyway, is to have the object not appear until it's needed. In Lure of the Temptress there is a special herb that grows in a patch of grass, but it's not visible until you're told to search for it. Not very logical but still...
I know where you're coming from with this one, it seems silly to let the player pick up whatever he wants for no logical reason. However, in the same way you want to avoid situations like in The Black Mirror and Rhiannon where you are constantly having to backtrack for miles to get something that you have already tried to pick up and knew would be useful!
If it is just one or two puzzles like this then I say wait until the player discovers the puzzle before allowing him to pick up the object, unless it involves backtracking through too many rooms to get there. However if it is lots or all puzzles then this can get seriously annoying.
I agree with Andail, it entirely depends on the style of game you're making. In 'serious' (as apposed to comical or silly) games I would personally recommend not allowing anything to be picked up which is not either an item that the character would rationally carry around in his situation or immediatly useful. It is also important then to make the game area quickly negotiable (Nelly Cootalot is a good example) or to make sure all abnormal puzzle items are close to their intended puzzle (long backtracking is not fun as stated above). I also like Ultra Magnus's idea of 'red herrings' - lots of items that all tell you that they 'might' be useful at some point - so that puzzle items aren't completely obvious.
Another (much rarer) method is to let the player pick up any object but to somehow limit the amount of objects that can be held and create many useless objects. This forces the player to only pick up things that they themselves would think to be useful (Many RPG's use this system).
I personally think serious games should attempt at a 'role playing' feeling -the player should be acting out what they think the character would do in the current circumstances (obviously not to the point of playing stupidity...). The player shouldn't be 'gaming' so much as acting out the character. Nonsensical actions (such as carrying a bar of soap from your bathroom to work) should be strongly discouraged or disallowed.
Quote from: Andail on Wed 25/02/2009 09:46:28
A method not yet covered in this thread, basically because it's a bit stupid but I thought I could mention it anyway, is to have the object not appear until it's needed. In Lure of the Temptress there is a special herb that grows in a patch of grass, but it's not visible until you're told to search for it. Not very logical but still...
Definitely be careful with this method, if you use it. This was going to be one of my Why Your Game is Broken articles. If a certain item appears at a place in the game that you have visited earlier in the game, then there better be some kind of indication that we should check back there. That's a big gripe for me in some games.
If I can pick on just one game, (and this is by no means the only game to make this mistake, I even see it in some professional games) Diamonds in the Rough makes this mistake several times. At the beginning of the game, you're told that you need to go speak to a certain character, but when you go to his office to do so, he's not there. Later in the game, after solving a completely unrelated puzzle, he appears in his office. However, there's no indication that he has arrived. So, you're left stuck with a huge area (about 40 rooms) to wander through until you notice what has changed to let you proceed.
A simple solution would have been to have the player think to himself "Hmm. I'd better go check and see if so and so is there." or even better, when the player walks out of the bar (which is where the puzzle triggering the character's appearance takes place) have a car drive by and the player character remark "Hey! That's so and so's car!" Something like that, so that it didn't seem so arbitrary. X triggers Y. Very cold. Not organic.
This happens later in the game with a letter in a mailbox. No indication, you'd better just happen to wander into that room and notice that the flag is up on the mailbox (at least it had that very small graphical indication that something was in there). I would consider this a serious flaw in a game. When expressing my concern with the game's author, however, he told me that he likes this kind of puzzle in a game and enjoys wandering around a large gameworld taking notes. So, to each his own, I guess.
Spooks also had this issue, so I'm guilty of it myself, though. But at least that room only had nine rooms to wander through.
To add to what Vince said, having an item wink into existence somewhere purely when needed is an execrable way of creating a puzzle (or an awesome way to irritate the player). I ran into a situation exactly like this in that dire 'And Then There Were None' game where I basically had to go through all the outside areas again until I stumbled upon this item that was magically there without any explanation but would further the plot. Like anything there are rare exceptions, and with comedy games you can much more easily 'explain' these occurrences if you're clever, but it's something I think you should avoid rather than try to do well. I mean, why have puzzles at all if your goal is to torture the player? Just add a shitload of random walking deads and kill them constantly instead!
Oh wait, Sierra already did that... :=
I don't think it's a good idea to frustrate the player with arbitrary rules in order to make a story more realistic. While the "Don't find the solution before the problem" sounds nice on paper, it's not that great in practice.
I played an adventure game that was exactly that, the puzzle solving was so linear and there were so many story events triggered, locations unlocked and objects becoming pickable only after you looked at specific objects that it just didn't work. And it didn't take very long for the game to turn into a very long row of interacting with every objects I previously encountered everytime I got stuck, in hope that the game would react differently this time. The game was Speculum Mortis in case any of you want to see the game. That being said, now that I've told you that you must interact with many objects you've interacted before with no results, I've probably eliminated most of the frustration out of the experience for you.
I'd say, having the protagonist say "I don't need that, at least not yet." or something to that effect is an acceptable method if you don't want the player to pick an object before finding the puzzle, but I totally second what people have said so far about not doing it too often and being careful with backtracking. Also, like Vince Twelve said, X triggering Y when both are completly unrelated is bad design, and I think it's even worse when Y is trigerred by a passive action, like looking at an object, without a cutscene or a clue to tell you this particuliar action made the story progress forward. Because when you solve a puzzle, you at least know that this action made the story progress forward.
It's past bedtime and I'm finding it difficult to find the words to say where I'm trying to get to, so I'll use an example. Suppose you're playing a game, and you decide to load a previous save, for a reason or another (crash, verifying something...) You'd solve every puzzles you previously solved, re-take everything you had, you'd hastily exhaust every conversation subjects with NPC in order to quickly get back to where you were before, but would you examine every minor objects and hotspot you encountered? The important objects which triggered important cutscenes? Surely. But everything? That's where requiring the player to find the puzzle before the solution can become problematic, when it is necessary to do passive actions, rather than active actions, in order to make the plot progress and/or unlock a new possible interaction.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Wed 25/02/2009 19:42:46
Quote from: Andail on Wed 25/02/2009 09:46:28
A method not yet covered in this thread, basically because it's a bit stupid but I thought I could mention it anyway, is to have the object not appear until it's needed. In Lure of the Temptress there is a special herb that grows in a patch of grass, but it's not visible until you're told to search for it. Not very logical but still...
Definitely be careful with this method, if you use it. This was going to be one of my Why Your Game is Broken articles.
[snip]
If I can pick on just one game, (and this is by no means the only game to make this mistake, I even see it in some professional games) Diamonds in the Rough makes this mistake several times.
[snip]
When expressing my concern with the game's author, however, he told me that he likes this kind of puzzle in a game and enjoys wandering around a large gameworld taking notes. So, to each his own, I guess.
Each to his own indeed, but if you want people to play your game, you need to consider what will go down well and what won't. The game developer might like a particular type of puzzle, but if most people don't, he or she should not then be surprised if people then criticise the game because of it. After all, games are (usually) written to be played by other people.
When people judge old Sierra games on this basis, I don't think they take into account the time aspect.
When it comes to gaming, people had much more patience and perseverance back in the eighties as they were usually stuck with very few games, and computer and video games over all was something new.
I mean, take an average nintendo title from the mid-eighties. It was full of wandering back and forth, gathering millions of points by monotonously slaying generic monsters, find your way through vast and mostly empty mazes, repeat things ad infinitum. Constructing games back then was largely about extending the length of the game, to any cost.
Early Sierra titles were about trial and error. Rince and repeat. Do and do again, do better. And people were ok with this, because it was just the way you played games. It's first in retrospect that players have considered this a conscious - and annoying - way of wasting the players' time.
We have high demands nowadays, we want puzzles to make sense and we want plots to make sense and we don't want to waste our time on things that don't make sense.
How could a day pass just because you sent a letter in Under a Killing Moon? Is the post office somehow connected to the rotation of the Earth? Doesn't make sense!
Quote from: Andail on Thu 26/02/2009 13:32:53
When people judge old Sierra games on this basis, I don't think they take into account the time aspect.
When it comes to gaming, people had much more patience and perseverance back in the eighties as they were usually stuck with very few games, and computer and video games over all was something new.
Spot on.
I'm sure many of us remember the days of playing adventure games when there were no internet walkthroughs available. I remember a couple of games took me literally over a year to complete beacuse when you were stuck, you were stuck and unless one of your friends had the game you just had to keep trying or give up and come back to it. It was just an accepted part of gaming.
However nowadays we have completely different standards and I do think you have to take into account today's mentality when making games.
1-900-370-KLUE
The Sierra Hintline. Good lord my parents nearly killed me numerous times in the early-mid 1980s for calling that thing when I got stuck..
But yes, I do agree with a lot of what was said here.
I have decided to say something when the item is activated about not needing it right now. That way it can be gotten when the puzzle is discovered.
Thanks much everyone.
-Bill
Agreed with all but doesn't that make for more challenging game making? Isn't it more exciting to create games where we really need to be conscious of the player's excitement? I feel it makes us better creators in that we are more in tune with making better games than what was brought out in the 80's - 90's.
With regards to the puzzle, JBurger hit it on the money with his ABC scenario. I would think about incorporating something like that.
I wouldn't mind an item suddenly appearing at a previously traveled location, just as long as it was reasonable.
For example:
Lets say you had traveled past an old ladies house. After triggering something a couple screens down the road, the next time you pass by her house there is a pie in her kitchen window cooling off. Just as long as going back to the house is reasonably close, or you needed to travel back even further for another item or to talk to someone again. I feel would be ok.
Just make sure the newly added item is easily noticed, or else it could add to frustration.
Best way to make it noticed would be to have some kind of action. Perhaps you see the lady put the pie on the window and walk back into the center of the house. Or just the steam coming from the pie would do. Another thing could be to have a bird perched above the window and just as you enter the screen, the bird flies away.
Only read through the first bunch of responses, of which I agree with so far.
Don't know if someone mentioned this yet, but having to back-track for one specific item is extremely annoying. But if the rooms are close enough, then it'd probably be fine (depending on other things, which other posters have discussed)
~Trent
Back-tracking needn't be a problem.
Take Simon the Sorcercer - and Black Mirror for that matter. These games involve quite a lot of trekking to-and-fro, but you can save a hell of a lot of time by simply clicking on the map to whichever location you want to go, providing you have made the legitimate trek to that destination at least once.
In Black Mirror, I vaguely remember having to go back to the barn for a hammer or something which I couldn't pick up before, because I didn't need it. I don't actually mind this kind of situation (despite saying otherwise in my review of the game last year). I think as long as you can be reasonably expected to have a good idea of where to look for an item, and as long as you can get there easily, then it feels as though you've done the thinking yourself rather than been spoonfed the solutuion to the puzzle.
hey, why dont you put into a locked thing? And then find a key in the puzzle room? 2 puzzles in 1!
Cause key puzzles are overdone, and I believe that poc's game is a detective one--therefore focusing more on clues rather than puzzles that eventually lead to the keyring syndrome.
~Trent
Quote from: Trent R on Fri 27/02/2009 21:03:03
Cause key puzzles are overdone, and I believe that poc's game is a detective one--therefore focusing more on clues rather than puzzles that eventually lead to the keyring syndrome.
~Trent
Yes, the game is a thinking detective game. Its not puzzle heavy, but a lot of it is actually dialog based. Talking to people and finding out clues will unlock other options, locations and information into the story. So yeah, keyring mentality is a no-go :)
-Bill
Oh... So, you can put it on a locked chest, and with the help of a hair clip minigame, you can unlock it, and then use it on the puzzle in the future. Why not pick the puzzle solution before the puzzle? I think its one of the adventure game fundaments, well, almost it.
It can sometimes work, depending on the game. If your game progresses on a timeline (i.e., day one, day two, etc) and takes place in the same area, then it's logical to assume that people will have moved around. Also, you'll have to - at the very least - provide a logical reason for the object to have mysteriously appeared. And you'll need a logical reason for the player to back there.