Checklist of adventure game ideals

[ildu]

I've always wondered if it would be possible to optimize an adventure game to a certain ideal, simply using a checklist of commonly-prefered features. What I mean is that during these couple of decades that we've had adventure games, we've grown to learn a number of ideal rules to combat the most cliched adventure game no-no's. Nevertheless, game companies and independent developers keep making the same tried errors year after year. By simple logic, one should be able to create quite an enjoyable game by nothing more than following the basic rules of adventure game-making, but for some reason, it just isn't happening. Usually these development decisions don't even require any extra effort to implement - more often than not, it's a matter of simply saying yes or no. I'm often baffled how even high-level developers are unable to follow the most fundamental adventure game rules.

So, I'd like all of you to help me compile a checklist of the basic characteristics of a successful adventure game. Hopefully, new developers can reference this thread in the future to check if their own game follows which standard. Feel free to add your own rules/suggestions, and if you want to discuss earlier ones, remember to quote what you're talking about.

Here's a quick list right off the top of my head:

• Skippable dialog lines/cutscenes: This has to be the stupidest mistake for devs to make - making dialog lines or cutscenes unskippable. It frustrates the player and is overall a huge waste of time. I remember one recent game that had a lot of dialog and all of it was unskippable. It made hotspot interaction feel like eternal hellfire, as you're forced to sit through the same lines over and over again. And God forbid you accidentally interact with something twice - oh, the horror. Tip: You can force a player to listen, but you can't force him/her to pay attention. If there are plotpoints that you absolutely have to get accross to the player, do it in a subtle manner or provide a way for the player to research earlier interactions/conversations.
  
  
• No pixel-hunting: There are only a few instances where pixel-hunting is justified. In the other 99%, it's downright insulting. There really is no reason why a game would be testing my eyesight, so why do it. It's not increasing the gamelife, because it certainly isn't quality time if you get completely stumped because you missed a single hidden pixel somewhere, nor does it test one's puzzle skills, since you usually only solve pixelhunts with a walkthrough or by sheer dumb luck. Tip: If you want to have a pixelhunt in your game, and you think it's justified and fits the plot, at least have something to point the player to the right direction, such as a sparkling animation for a hidden key or something.
  
  
• Unique hotspot reactions: Nothing's more annoying than having to hear "I'm not gonna do that", "That doesn't go there" or just simply "No", whenever the player experiments with interactions. It's not very motivating when 9 out of 10 times you receive a non-sequitor response just because the developers have been too lazy to explore unlinearity. Tip: For each scene, write up a multiplication table where one axis represents the modes of interaction and another axis represents the separate targets of interaction. This way you can actually see how much repetition there is and work on it. You could even plot out a 100% spontaneous response archive for your game, if you happen to have the patience and imagination for it.
  
  
• Quick-exit from a scene: In 3rd-person adventure games, always include the ability to exit a scene instantaneously, to avoid wasting the players time. I always hate it when developers leave this feature out and you end up using half of the gamelife watching the protagonist wander through different scenes. The Sinking Island for example didn't have this feature (though it did have running), so I for one got very annoyed while playing it, especially since there was literally zero interaction value within the individual scenes, and the graphics were very bland. Tip: Implement instant exit when player double-clicks on an exit hotspot.
  
  
• Clear exit hotspots/rollovers: This one relates to AGS especially, since most indie games in this community seem to utilize the walk-to-specific-threshold-to-exit mentality. This is when you have to walk extremely close to the side of the screen to exit a scene. Personally I find this very irritating especially since I play all AGS games in a window, so when trying to exit a scene, I often end up missing that specific spot and have to click multiple times to make my character finally exit the room. Tip: If at all possible, implement clear exit hotspots, where a rollover image indicates when you're on the correct exit spot.
  
  So, please try and add your own. I'm looking forward to learning something I haven't considered before .

[Jared]

The big one for most people I would say would be No dead-ends. I cann accept games where you die, but a game where a lack of a particular action will later make the game impossible to win is poorly designed. (If the game has multiple endings and said action is needed for a certain ending, then that is fine...)

Stick to the established rules. One of the most frustrating puzzles ever to me, in Runaway 2 involves using an inventory item on an exit. The only exit in the game that you can interact with. To me, I just felt cheated.

Reward the player. I speak for myself here, but I reeeally don't like it when a game has me complete a ridiculously difficult puzzle and, wa-hey, the player character does something stupid or somebody else drops the crystal ball you wanted etcetera and so you have do even HARDER puzzles to fix it all. I want to move forward in the game - I like puzzles but I play for the story and characters.

[TheJBurger]

Great topic.

Don't make puzzles unnecessarily convoluted - This was really an eye-opener for me in this post, because I was so prone to doing it in all my early design documents. The key question here is: what fantasy do we want to play out as adventure game players? Do we want to collect endless supplies of keys and try them out on doors in order to proceed through a story? Or do we want to make story-impacted decisions like hijacking a plane, navigating a tomb for treasure, or investigating a murder by interrogating suspects? Give the player clear goals (with some exceptions) - I don't want to be dropped in a game and left wandering around senselessly for an hour trying to figure out what to do. I want to know what my objective is; I want to know why I'm solving these puzzles and what I'm trying to achieve; I want to be able to relate my progress to my ultimate goal. If the game has no goal, then make that clear to the player. You don't have to tell the player exactly what to do, but at least point them in the right direction.

I feel like I have a lot more to say that I can't remember, but most of what I could add is ripped from either the GTD threads, or the very handy "Why Adventure Games Suck..." by Ron Gilbert.

[Makeout Patrol]

Streamline the interface. We're making video games; not novels, not movies, not board games, video games. As a result, your interface must serve the needs of gameplay primarily. In my mind, the best interface is the one that allows players to complete any simple action with only one click; there's a lot of debate over this, however, and I can respect that a lot of people like multi-verb systems. This will sound strange, but there is nothing that I hate more than having to move my mouse all over the screen to select a verb or to need to cycle through 5 or 6 options to get to the one I want. If you're absolutely married to these interfaces, include keyboard shortcuts! Even better, include multiple keyboard shortcuts - maybe ones that start with the letters, and also the numbers 1-5.

[Babar]

While I agree with the idea of unique hotspot reactions, many people (some on these forums, even) don't care for them, because it causes confusion as to what is useful and what is not in the game. I can even understand this point of view. For example: There was this one inventory item in Monkey Island that you got pretty early on, and there never seemed to be any use for it, and whatever you clicked it on (or clicked on it), you got the exact same response, so I ended up thinking it was just one of those waste items. Later on in the game, I got stuck, and remained stuck for several years (until the advent of internet walkthroughs), when I found out that you had to give that item to someone.

Also, for the quick exit point...while I agree with it, for some reason, I always disliked it in games that had it. An alternative that I'd prefer would be a map screen (like in Conquest of Longbow).

As for something I've found out, that probably goes against a lot of adventure games out there:

Adventure Game Puzzles are stupid: Now I don't know everybody's mind, but I really can't imagine that anybody plays an adventure game for the puzzles. Lots of people say "Make the puzzle fit the story!", but really, if it is fitting the story, then you don't really notice that it's a puzzle, and thus the 'puzzle' aspect of it is gone. Does anybody ever REALLY want to read a line of poetry etched randomly on a wall, and then decode it, and use it to position a pile of boxes nearby to advance the story? Compound this with the fact that you (as a gamer) would have no idea that the two are connected, or even that the poem is meant to be decoded. Does anyone really get it on by finding a random cat-head and stone mug in a huge maze, attaching it to a nozzle, catching the lava that starts falling out in their stone mug, and then pouring that lava into a machine to advance the story?

The only puzzles I ever did like were technically 'gimmicks'- Like finding out that what you thought was a map is actually dance steps, and then realising you can use the dance steps as a map. Or learning random insults by challenging people, and then using them in a different context to fight the boss.

Now if you find a suitable alternative to puzzles as the gameplay element of an adventure game, please tell me. Because so far, all I've got is adding something from another genre, at which point people tell me "That's not an adventure game!"


PS: Ildu, check your PMs!

[Radiant]

• Skippable dialog lines/cutscenes:

Absolutely. Not doing this is the single worst design failure for an adventure game (I'm looking at you, King's Quest V).

• Keyboard support: both Sierra and LucasArts had this one down pat, but surprisingly many fangames omit it entirely. If your interface is more complex than single-mode clicking somewhere, you have no excuse for not using keyboard support. Press L for look, P for pickup, etc. Press ESC for control panel, TAB for inventory.
  
  
• Have a simple GUI: players tend not to read manuals. If they can't figure out what your GUI does, chances are they'll just quit and delete your game. If your GUI is different from the standard Sierra/Lucas layout (e.g. Nanobots) add a tutorial so people can figure it out.
  
  
• Allow alternative solutions: if one of your beta-testers (you do have testers, right?) suggests that you can solve problem X by doing Y, do not disallow it simply because it wasn't the solution you were thinking of when you wrote that puzzle. Seriously, just add the extra solution rather than a snarky remark for trying. For instance, Spellcasting 301 has the problem that you can't carry lemon juice in the jar you've been carrying along for ages, because jars self-destruct violently when exposed to lemon juice (?!?!) so instead you have to find a bottle somewhere. Words fail me to explain how ludicrous this is.
  
  
• Events should make sense: in many adventure games, something will change in room X at some point, because you solved puzzle Y in room Z. Frequently, the two are completely unrelated: the bridge won't get fixed until you give the cheesecake to the horse. Don't do this! Players looking for a way to fix the bridge will have no clue that it'll happen magically if you do something entirely unrelated in a faraway room.
  
  
• Avoid one-time-only puzzles: don't make puzzles where you can obtain item X only the first time you enter room Y, or where you have only ten seconds to open door Z before it locks forever. I'm looking at you again, King's Quest V. This is completely unfair; if the player misses some detail he should be able to go back to it.
  
  

  
  

  • Unique hotspot reactions:

  I'm not sure that this one should be in the list, because unlike the others here, it requires a tremendous amount of work to implement. However, a stock response is always better than no response.
  

[Snarky]

Some points about storytelling, and one about innovation:

Lead with the hook:
Quite often, I'll download a game, play it for about five minutes, get bored and quit. Then I'll never play it again. Five minutes is all you get. Something interesting must happen in those first five minutes after starting your game that will make me want to continue playing. This can be an exciting plot, great comedy, flashy graphics, a different type of gameplay, or what have you. Whatever you think makes your game cool, makes it stand out, make sure that a player gets to see it in the first five minutes. The Longest Journey has a slow opening, but makes sure that you start off with a playable dream with a dragon and stuff. Otherwise the first hour of the game would just be April doing her laundry and handing in her homework or whatever.

A corollary to this: Don't drop me into the game with no idea about what I'm supposed to do. Start off with a clear short-term goal, and some obvious steps I can take to achieve it. For example, in 5 Days a Stranger your initial goal is to steal whatever is in the safe, and you can easily find the safe in the room you start in (or is this done for you in the intro? I forget). Now you are presented with another goal: get the hell out of the house. Obvious first step is to try the window, which doesn't work. Next obvious step is to look for another exit, which means exploring the house. Through this task you're dragged deeper into the game and the main story.

I don't care about your stupid backstory:
When I'm just starting to play, I'm still trying to decide whether I'm going to stick with it for more than five minutes. I'm not committed to the world you're creating. So don't bog me down in background information. I don't care. Not yet, anyway. Can you imagine if, when you started Monkey Island, you had a ten-minute conversation with the blind lookout, where he explained the entire history of Governor Marley, LeChuck, and the search for Monkey Island? ZZZZzzzzz! No! Instead it's all "I want to be a pirate!"; "Go see the pirate leaders in the Scumm bar!"; "OK!"... and you're off! You learn about all that other stuff once you're into the game and actually care.

This also has a corollary: use cut-scenes with caution. It can be tempting to have a long introductory cut-scene, but this isn't 1989: no one is impressed that you can show moving images on the computer. And my patience is strictly limited: every minute spent on the introduction is one less minute you have to grab my interest with the game itself.

Three good things:
As a rule of thumb, try to come up with three things that makes your game different, unique, interesting, or just cool. Three things is what it takes to impress me. If your game is overall solid, and there are three ways in which it is outstanding, you have a winner. By the same token, there's not much point in coming up with much more than three novelties for each game. Instead of adding more unique features, work on getting those three, and the rest of your game, up to good quality.

For example, you can have one thing that is unique about your gameplay, one unusual twist in your story or in the way you tell that story, and one creative thing about your presentation (graphics, music, animation) or interface. For example, Trilby's Notes had this gameplay mechanic that involved shifting between two realities (gameplay innovation), it told an epic backstory to 5DAS through playable flashbacks (story innovation), and it used a text parser (interface "innovation"). Reactor 09 had a sidekick with an attitude meter that was affected by your actions (gameplay innovation), homoerotic themes (story innovation), and a unique graphic style (presentation innovation) as well as a well-designed custom interface (interface innovation).

You don't have to spread your three things across all the different dimensions of the game, of course. You can keep it traditional in one or two of the areas, and really focus your creativity in the remaining one(s).

[Khris]

Subpoint to Quick-exits:
Make the player character walk reasonably fast. There's still the occasional game where the main character walks annoyingly slow; add scrolling rooms and I'll mash Alt-X*, regardless of the game doing a great job everywhere else.

Subpoint to No pixel-hunts:
Indicate that there's a hotspot under the mouse. A verb bar is great, but a cursor that lights up is enough.
And, seriously, create custom cursors with clear hotspots!

*Alt-X aborts the game immediately.

[TerranRich]

These are all very good points, and I'm soaking them in like a sponge as I finish up the story line design for my game.

Just one question: Is a 5-minute intro really so bad? I mean, I guess if the player skipped the intro and went into the gameplay (which should always be an option), there could be some short explanation of how the player got where he is and why.

And what does Alt-X do again?

[Radiant]

Just one question: Is a 5-minute intro really so bad?

I think it's acceptable as long as it's skippable and not necessary to enjoy the first part of the game. Players can always get back to it later.

[blueskirt]

No useless mazes: There are two kind of maze in my opinion, there are those that have a gameplay application outside of being a maze, like the forest of Quest For Glory 1, where the player can be attacked in between locations, or the castle in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where the complex castle layout make it possible to find alternate path to avoid guard patrols. I am not talking about those mazes, the maze that should disappears are those that are only there to be explored, kill the player and add game length. Here I'm thinking about the cave in the Legend of Kyrandia, the various mazes of Zak Mckracken, the desert in KQ5 or the catacombs of KQ6. These don't have their place in adventure games.

Arcade sequences should require brain or be skippable: I don't have problem with arcade sequences but a lot of people just don't like them. Arcade sequences, in a good adventure game, should reward those who use their brain rather than their reflexes. A puzzle or two could be added, which once solved, allow the players to bypass a sequence, or give them an edge or a bonus during the sequence that isn't given to players who simply headed straight to the arcade sequence. Arcade sequence can also be puzzles in desguise, like the bike fighting sequence of Full Throttle, which featured a subtle Rock, Paper and Scissors mechanic. If none of this is done, then the option to skip the arcade sequences should be included. Alternatively, losing in an arcade sequence could also result with a different outcome than death: after losing a fight the main character might wake up in a prison cell rather than dead. One last note: Never put an arcade sequence in the final chapter of a game, never.

Just one question: Is a 5-minute intro really so bad?

It depends on the intro. If it's something you don't see often in an indie game, like say a comic book kind of introduction, or if it featured amazing artworks, or was fully animated, or in 3D, I wouldn't mind watching a 5 minutes intro. But in my opinion, introductions that are 5 minutes of nothing but in-game sprites talking or monologuing their thought is boring and a misuse of this media's potentials. I play games to play games, not to see in-game sprites read me novels. The very long scrolling text intro, like you can often see in scifi games, detailing two decades of intergalactic conflicts and the politics of entire galaxies, is also a misuse. It's good to see I'm not the only one who delete games for such reasons.

If you can't do one of the thing I listed above, save the useless information for later, when I will care about the little details of your story, make the intro interactive, throw in some music and some unique animations, (the talking, walking and taking an object/opening a door/pushing a button generic hand motion animations do not count as unique), or put in your plot something that will immediately hook me to the game right from the start.

Adventure Game Puzzles are stupid: Now I don't know everybody's mind, but I really can't imagine that anybody plays an adventure game for the puzzles.

I know that a big chunk of adventure games players nowadays, even some of those that have been playing adventure games for a long time, don't care about the puzzle aspect anymore, see puzzles as an obstacle to the flow and immersion of the story and define adventure games as nothing but interactive stories. Many newcomers to the genre use walkthrough when they're stuck for more than 5 minutes. Many developers make IF or adventure games without a single puzzle. I'm not one of them. I don't play adventure games uniquely for the puzzles, I like good writing and good aesthetics like everyone else, but solving puzzles and using my brain and creativity to overcome situations is one of the reason why I play them. I don't want to play interactive stories. Nor do I want to play visual novels. Nor do I want to solve no-brainer puzzles like those I described in the 3D adventure games thread or play adventure games that are all story and feature no puzzles at all. I like solving a good puzzle just like fans of action genres like to kill a boss or survive a great action-y moment, just like fans of RTS like to see corpses and enemies' buildings burning.

I'm not sure about the rest of your point. If you're trying to say that solving puzzles is not fun at all and should be removed from adventure games, then maybe you would prefer visual novels because the gameplay of adventure games has been about using one's brain and creativity to solve puzzles and get out of sticky situations since forever. Asking for an adventure game without puzzle would be like asking for a first person shooter where you don't shoot anything, where all you do is run through the map and enjoy the sights 'til the next cutscene.

If what you're trying to say is that puzzles don't fit in a lot of adventure game settings, well, the thing is, there are many games where inventory based puzzles have their place in adventure games. In comedic adventure games like Maniac Mansion, Zak Mckracken, Monkey Island, DOTT, Sam and Max, the Leisure Suit Larry, or Space Quest games, wacky inventory puzzles fit just fine, there is no other gameplay mechanics that could suit comedic games better than puzzles. Puzzles, in a slightly less wacky form, even fit in a game like Fate of Atlantis. On the other hand, there are the investigative, serious, dark, horror and realistic settings where inventory based puzzles do not fit very well.

Just because they don't fit in these settings, it doesn't mean inventory based puzzle have to disappear completly. It means we have to find new type of puzzles, new gameplay mechanics that, while not being inventory based, will still require brain and creativity to occupy a bigger place in games with investigative, serious, dark, horror or realistic settings. If someone want to see a good example of that in action, they just have to purchase Dave Gilbert's Blackwell Unbound. Not only it is a terrific AGS game, I wish it was free so more people would realize how innovative gameplay can enhance a story and how gameplay innovation could inject new blood in this stale genre, gameplay speaking.

[Stupot]

Don't make the player read too much.
A lot of adventure games use items such as old diaries, journals and letters to help tell the story.  I love these things and will be including similar items in my next project, but I will be sure to keep them short and sweet.  When I come across such items I often find myself skipping the text if it is more than about 2 pages long.  Any more and I get bored, even if the story is good.  We call them Graphic Adventures because they should be exactly that.. Graphic.  If I want to read I'll turn my computer off and grab a Mills and Boon.

If you insist on having such text, then at least make it relevent to the gameplay, as well as to the story... It could contain important clues, instructions or a riddle to help you solve the current puzzle.

[Babar]

I don't play adventure games uniquely for the puzzles, I like good writing and good aesthetics like everyone else, but solving puzzles and using my brain and creativity to overcome situations is one of the reason why I play them.

Hey, I've been playing adventure games for a long time too. I'm too young to have gotten with Interactive Fiction the first time round, but my first game was SQ3 at the tender age of 4 (my parents were playing it, with me watching and advising, and moving about). And I agree with you- in most cases, those interactive stories, visual novels, and those 'push the boxes around to make a pattern' 3D action/adventure game segments are all pretty uninteresting. That is why I didn't advise them as an alternative for the puzzles. I haven't found a nice alternative for the puzzles yet.

This doesn't mean that puzzles are all that great, though. My parents bought me loads of adventure games as a kid because they had the same idea as you- that unlike those action games, adventure games would involve me using my brain to get past the obstacles. But apart from very few of them, it wasn't really like that. Most of the games you mentioned either had some obstacle that you figured out needed some item(s) to get past, and then you had to find it (or use the item you randomly picked up earlier),  or had lots of 'give/use X, get Y, give/use Y, get Z, use Z to get past obstacle' puzzles. I'd hardly call this challenging your creativity.

I loved it when the obstacle was passed, and I got my little 'prize' of a little animation, or a new room or item, or an advancement of the story (and that kind of feeling is one of the reasons I loved adventure games), but the actual puzzle itself was more often than not pretty silly and convoluted- eg. getting a bucket, filling it with muddy water, getting rid of the innkeeper to get into a room, placing the bucket on the door, getting him go to the laundry, getting a laundry ticket, to get the clothes. Do you realise that there was 1 major goal (which was itself only an item needed for an even greater goal), that went 5 levels deep? I dunno about you, but I didn't find anything enjoyable about the process itself, even if I enjoyed the...peripherals (the item collection, the overcoming of the obstacle, the hilarious situations and descriptions, etc). Thing is, those 'enjoyable' parts, don't really need a puzzle at all, and may even be more enjoyable for the lack of that kind of puzzle.

An interesting type of puzzle that I mentioned earlier, which may have involved use of brain power and creativity was the insult sword fighting in Monkey Island 1- using insults you have, the excitement when you learn a new insult (especially if you've fought the swordmaster and realise it's usable), the fun of beating them, and the logical connecting of the insult responses with the new insults (and that kind of feeling is one of the reasons I loved adventure games). The problem is, these type of puzzles cannot really be re-used without it being obvious where it came from. Another game that I enjoyed the puzzles in was Loom (although some say it had no puzzles)- where you had a set of patterns (and their opposites, most of the time), and had to figure out a way to get past obstacles using them, as well as learning new patterns by exploring.

You even mention your dislike for 'useless mazes'. I actually enjoyed those, because while they may have used an unorthodox, and some say 'wrong' system (where you had a trial-and-error save, die, reload, try again thing going), there was nothing really wrong with it (if you KNOW it's trial and error, and accept that, instead of fundamentally believing it is wrong), and the exploration aspect was fun. With the catacombs in KQ6, I'd whip out my square-lined math paper, and start mapping out the maze. Every time I found a point of interest, whether it be a new inventory item, or a special room, that'd get me really happy and excited (and that kind of feeling is one of the reasons I loved adventure games)

I hope the Adventure game genre isn't defined by puzzle solving. If someone likes the intellectual challenge (ahem) of puzzles, actual puzzle games may very well be what they're after- those games where somehow or the other, they incorporate jigsaws, cryptography, math puzzles, and those sort of minigames into the story.

[Eggie]

Don't make the player read too much.
A lot of adventure games use items such as old diaries, journals and letters to help tell the story.  I love these things and will be including similar items in my next project, but I will be sure to keep them short and sweet.  When I come across such items I often find myself skipping the text if it is more than about 2 pages long.  Any more and I get bored, even if the story is good.  We call them Graphic Adventures because they should be exactly that.. Graphic.  If I want to read I'll turn my computer off and grab a Mills and Boon.

If you insist on having such text, then at least make it relevent to the gameplay, as well as to the story... It could contain important clues, instructions or a riddle to help you solve the current puzzle.

I had this problem with The Feeble Files. Information is good but an encyclopedia is a really terrible, undynamic way of presenting it.

[Jared]

I loved it when the obstacle was passed, and I got my little 'prize' of a little animation, or a new room or item, or an advancement of the story (and that kind of feeling is one of the reasons I loved adventure games), but the actual puzzle itself was more often than not pretty silly and convoluted- eg. getting a bucket, filling it with muddy water, getting rid of the innkeeper to get into a room, placing the bucket on the door, getting him go to the laundry, getting a laundry ticket, to get the clothes. Do you realise that there was 1 major goal (which was itself only an item needed for an even greater goal), that went 5 levels deep? I dunno about you, but I didn't find anything enjoyable about the process itself, even if I enjoyed the...peripherals (the item collection, the overcoming of the obstacle, the hilarious situations and descriptions, etc). Thing is, those 'enjoyable' parts, don't really need a puzzle at all, and may even be more enjoyable for the lack of that kind of puzzle.

See, this is exactly why I can't understand the view of the anti-puzzle crowd - I loved solving that puzzle. And pretty much all the other ones in MI2.

If you cut out the traditional puzzle (which a lot of people are trying to do anyway, worryingly..) where are people like me going to get the fun out of the game? I mean, if you want to just cut to the chase, good luck to you, grab a walkthrough and have a good time. But *I* can't make the game any more difficult to solve.

The thing is, a game needs obstacle. And the adventure game naturally has puzzles for an obstacle. If you make it like an open book... it's not a game. It's just a story.

[TheJBurger]

I had this problem with The Feeble Files. Information is good but an encyclopedia is a really terrible, undynamic way of presenting it.

There was a post-mortem on the game Portal, where Erik Wolpaw stated the designers' intent to specifically avoid these types of "Audio Log Emails." Instead of having pieces of paper, or diaries you could pick up around the environment, they limited all the backstory information to

Spoiler

graffiti, hidden on a cell wall.

[close]

In my opinion, it gets the job done equal or better than any audio log ever could. And honestly, who wants to pick up a book, inside a game, and read that book instead of reading a real, physical book?

See, this is exactly why I can't understand the view of the anti-puzzle crowd - I loved solving that puzzle. And pretty much all the other ones in MI2.

If you cut out the traditional puzzle (which a lot of people are trying to do anyway, worryingly..) where are people like me going to get the fun out of the game? I mean, if you want to just cut to the chase, good luck to you, grab a walkthrough and have a good time. But *I* can't make the game any more difficult to solve.

The thing is, a game needs obstacle. And the adventure game naturally has puzzles for an obstacle. If you make it like an open book... it's not a game. It's just a story.

I'm in the same crowd as Babar here. I tried doing so many things for that puzzle, but eventually I had to use a walkthrough. When I finally saw the solution, I thought, 'who in the world would actually connect the dots with all these separate puzzles to accomplish one (out of four?) sub-goals to accomplish a main goal in the first act?' But then again, I was young when I played it, and I might have a different view on it if I tried again today.

[Babar]

Jared, I'm not advocating a play-through with no obstacles, or some kind of interactive movie. I just wish there was a better gameplay mechanic than these silly puzzles.

[Jared]

I just wish there was a better gameplay mechanic than these silly puzzles.

I gathered that - but the issue is that there isn't one. I think most people thinking about adventure games today are hanging too many design albatrosses around their necks.  'No dead-ends', 'no deaths', 'less inventory', 'less puzzles', 'one click interface'! Implement all that and what do you get? An interactive storybook.

I could be wrong, maybe somebody will think of the mythical new gameplay mechanic that isn't just a glorified minigame but even though I've read much pontification from people who want to do away with puzzles in AGs, they never seem to end their talk with a suggestion for what exactly they're to be replaced by.

In the end, I think all you can do is try to keep the game's feet on the ground - most puzzles in Broken Sword, for example, were fairly credible as taking place in the real world. (Albeit with more kleptomania than is generally tolerated)

When I finally saw the solution, I thought, 'who in the world would actually connect the dots with all these separate puzzles to accomplish one (out of four?) sub-goals to accomplish a main goal in the first act?'

Well I did without much trouble - it all seemed logical that I'd need Largo's clothes to go to the laundrey, and thus they'd need to be dirty etcetera etcetera.

At the same time it's easy for me to think 'who in the world would actually love getting out math paper and drawing a maze for hours when they're meant to be playing a game'.. horses for courses.

[Radiant]

If you insist on having such text, then at least make it relevent to the gameplay, as well as to the story... It could contain important clues, instructions or a riddle to help you solve the current puzzle.

I disagree with this. If there is long text in the game, the player at least has the option not to read it if he doesn't want to. Don't force him to sift through it page by page in order to find necessary clues. I know at least one indie game that buried crucial clues in a thirty-page manual; that's no good.


Aside from that, I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting "interactive movie" gameplay without puzzles; at least, I can't think of any succesful games, commercial or no, that followed that formula - if people want to see a movie, they'll go see a movie. I believe that what is bothering people is primarily puzzles disjoint from gameplay - puzzles that don't fit in the scene, that disrupt the flow of the game, or that have a solution that doesn't make sense. It isn't even difficulty per se - some people certainly are interested in difficult games. It's the cohesion.

[Snarky]

I don't necessarily buy the argument that excessively long cut-scenes or in-game documents are OK as long as they can be skipped. For one thing, how is a player supposed to know that there's no essential information in that intro or in that diary?

I think a lot of adventure gamers are completists, if only by bitter experience. We'll pick up every item, exhaust every dialogue option with every character, read every document. Don't justify leaving in the bloat by reasoning that players who don't care for that kind of thing will just skip it.

Since this thread is (predictably) turning into a discussion of what makes a good adventure, maybe it would be a good idea to take the less controversial recommendations and make a page on the AGS Wiki?