Excuse my ignorance, but...
I've seen in a few game descriptions and comments on the AGS site mention of a "dead man walking" situation (or something similar). For example, the author's description of Escape From Evergreen Forest (http://www.agsforums.com/games.php?action=detail&id=450) includes the sentence "I tried to avoid 'pixel hunting' or 'walking dead-man' scenarios. " What does this refer to? I know what pixel-hunting is (and yeah, it's definitely something worth avoiding), but what's a "walking dead-man scenario"?
Just wondering...
Walking deads in games generally means because of how you play a game, you may end up in a situation that no matter what you do, you can't complete the game anymore (unless you restart the whole game), so all you can do is wander around like a zombie without further possible progress. (It's sometimes called dead-ends, etc. but some of us just love to call it walking-dead).
Most of the time it's due to design of a game, for example in some of the earlier Sierra adventure games, it's not uncommon that you forgot to pick up an item and had played to a point that 1. you cannot return to the part of retrieving the item anymore and 2. you MUST have the item to make some progress in the game. So you're forever stuck, unless you restart or have kept some old save games handy.
Ah. Makes sense.
Yeah, I know about that sort of dead-end situation; I just didn't know that was what the "walking-dead" term referred to. Thanks for the explanation.
Hehe.. Yeah, basically what Gilbot said. Sorry for the confusion. I guess I figured most fans of Adventure games would already be familiar with the "Walking Dead-Man / Dead-Man Walking" term, and most of us have probably at one point played such a game with such a "dead-end" situation and know how frustrating it is.
But yeah, if you ever do play a game and encounter such a problem, then after a while you do feel like you're controlling a "dead-man walking" character... Your character isn't actually "dead", but might as well be, because you can't progress anymore in the game because of not doing a certain action and/or getting a certain item at an earlier point in the game, but the game no longer lets you go back to do the required action and/or get the item needed. A nasty design flaw indeed these situations are, and can waste a lot of time (as often the player does not know right away that he's reached a dead-end and must restart / reload), and it can be incrediably frustrating. :P At which point, you wish you had the game-creator within beating-the-crapp-outta range ;D
So you're saying forgetting the sunscreen is an error in LSL2?
I hate it when games are made that way! :)
Ahh, I was never sure what walking-deads were exactly, so thanks for clearing that up, Mr Cheeuung. Has anyone used walking-deads in their AGS game? Or why not, is it because there's absolutley no point?
:P
That's why I love Lucasarts adventures so much. It's their policy to not have that sort of thing.
I think most Sierra games have a (rather large) number of dead ends. On the other hand, most Lucasarts games have none (with the exception of some of their really old games such as MM). The first versions of KQ1 even allowed you to drop any and all of your items (including the treasures) and you could never get them back.
lemme think... dead-end-o-meter.... KQ1,3,4,5!!!,6; SQ1,2; LL1,2; QfG1,2; GR
Not particularly sure about KQ2, SQ3,4, LL3,5, PQ1,2,3, QfG3,4, TBC
It seems that their newer games (SQ5, LL6...) have less or no dead ends.
I believe there's little point in designing a game with dead ends in it. From the AGS games I've played, it seems that any dead ends that do exist are a result of bugs or obscure oversights. I do know that Tierra is deliberately leaving the existing dead ends in their QfG2 remake, since they claim they lead to interesting easter eggs.
However in text adventures there are often plenty of dead ends but it doesn't bother me much, mostly since replaying them can be done in a minute or two. Also if you can only carry six items at a time it is hardly a surprise that sometimes the object you should need is in fact somewhere else.
I first discovered walking deads with Return to Zork when I threw my whole inventory in the river.
On that day I learned to avoid walking deads at all costs.
And not to throw my stuff in the river.
Ali: That's one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard of anyone doing ever in an adventure game. Bravo, I say! Next time I'm playing a game with a river, I'm definitely gonna do just that ^_^
I think it makes the game way to hard!
I played a game once.... uhm what was it....
I think quest for glory 1??? (so you want to be a hero?)
You'd have to work and carry water and blabla.
I kind of hated the fact not to be sure if you have enough resources to continue. That's why I'm a fan of Indy games for example. You cán die, but you can always make it through
Gah, you people haven't been reading the AGS-dictionary closely enough!
It's been there all the time! Shame on you, Mods!
Quote from: Andail on Wed 29/09/2004 20:54:51
Gah, you people haven't been reading the AGS-dictionary closely enough!
It's been there all the time!
Whoops, so it has.Ã, Sorry about that.Ã, My mistake.
Though, in my defense, I
did before posting try to glance through all the FAQs and other links on the AGS Resources page (http://www.agsforums.com/acres.shtml) that seemed potentially relevant, and couldn't find anything on the term... but the AGS Dictionary wasn't listed on that page.
Yes, yes, I see now that the AGS Dictionary
is in fact mentioned and linked to in the "Welcome to Adventure-related talk and chat" (http://www.agsforums.com/yabb/index.php?topic=5295.0) message, and I probably should have seen it there, but still...Ã, it
does seem to me that the AGS Dictionary is something that should be listed on the AGS Resources page, too.Ã, So, Pumaman... how about it?
Quote from: Andail on Wed 29/09/2004 20:54:51
Gah, you people haven't been reading the AGS-dictionary closely enough!
It's been there all the time! Shame on you, Mods!
Deeeead maaaan, walkin'
To the defense of older Sierra games...the older games were shorter because of issues with how big, in bites, a game could be, with the technology at hand. And so, to me, it seemed walking-dead helped lenghten those games. Where a longer game today is by far much much longer, it wouldn't be a smart idea for there to be a walking dead with the game length expectations everyone has. The old SQ KQ games are beatable in a couple hours, with all the dialog. Games now are five (and sometimes more) times the gameplay length.
And when you really look at it, I feel it would be easier to design a game with walking deads, because otherwise you have to create puzzles to make sure the player gets a certain item. And this sometimes can hurt a game, if it's not done correctly. So my take is, if the game is relatively short, than walking deads are acceptable. As long as it doesn't take too much effort on the player's fault to find out he's walking dead.
-MillsJROSS
But there are ways to design a game to implicitly avoid these. For example, if a player needs a soccer ball found in Antarctica before he can proceed later in the game, in India, then either (1) have the player possess the ability to return to Antarctica to get the soccer ball if he missed it the first time, or (2) don't let him finish up in Antarctica before having the soccer ball. I had been designing By the Sword to avoid all walking deads, by one of the two methods above.
I'll let Andy Elliot's help file speak for me. He's the creator of SUDS, a point and click IF engine (which has died, I believe), and says the following in the section of his help file's design tips, under plot (and among other things, accourse, this is just an excerpt.
"Finally, decide on your attitude towards the player.Ã, I prefer games in which player death is either impossible or very very hard.Ã, On the other hand many games use 'death' as a punishment for failing a puzzle, and in fact rely on a 'death' to tell the player they are on the wrong track.Ã, This creates a culture of saving after every single move, and doing stupid things without caring about the consequences - neither of which sustain suspension of disbelief, and identifying with your character, which can make or break your game.
I also prefer games in which it is impossible to get into a situation from which the game cannot be solved.Ã, Anything else to me seems like lazy game design.Ã, But again, plenty of games find it acceptable to allow the player to destroy, or lose, vital items, or travel to places without the means to return, or kill off characters who have some important information or function.Ã, This again fosters a culture of constant saving and, usually, resorting to cheat-sheets.
But as usual, it's up to you."
Or, the short version -
QuoteAnything else to me seems like lazy game design.
Quote from: QuantumRich on Fri 08/10/2004 02:46:32
But there are ways to design a game to implicitly avoid these. For example, if a player needs a soccer ball found in Antarctica before he can proceed later in the game, in India, then either (1) have the player possess the ability to return to Antarctica to get the soccer ball if he missed it the first time, or (2) don't let him finish up in Antarctica before having the soccer ball. I had been designing By the Sword to avoid all walking deads, by one of the two methods above.
Well, there is a third way that may not be the best, but it is the easiest: let the character get soccer ball autometicaly before going to India.
Quote from: BorisZ on Fri 08/10/2004 10:27:38
Well, there is a third way that may not be the best, but it is the easiest: let the character get soccer ball autometicaly before going to India.
I remember (hope my memory is intact, and I'm not making this up) in Pleurghburgh there was a walking death in beta version, that you could get stuck if you didn't take the
Spoiler
glasses/lens (or it was actually some other item that I cant remember)
, which I think was changed in the final version that you can still retrieve the same item in later time.
This solved the problem, but in my opinion it all became too easy (because the latter solution is a more obvious one), I'll say you can make the game that if you didn't get the item that you
should in the early time, in later time where the "early action" cant be taken out anymore we cant have several solutions:
(a) Just give the player another EASY mean to get the item later (like the PB case and the football solution you mentioned), but as it's now EASY, you should punish the player for not doing the "correct" thing when he should, like giving less points (if it has a scoring system like PB, but I don't know if the points gained for that two cases in PB were different or not), or missing some
awesome scenes of teh game (but can still finish the game).
(b) Just give the player another mean to get the item, but should contain a puzzle at least as hard as the "early one" to get it or even harder (to punish the player for not getting the item when he
should).
(c) You can still proceed in the game without that item, but probably require solving other puzzles or getting other stuffs.
I somewhat agree with Mills...there was a certain thrill about beating the old sierra-games, mainly because it was so easy to get helplessly stuck.
You had to do everything in the exact correct order, or restart the whole scenario/chapter/game. When you had finally managed to keep all things in mind, and do it the right way, and finally beat it, the relief was enormous.
With many lucasart-games, you don't really feel an excitement or a sense of progress, since you can always go back and try everything one more time from the first location, you can never get really stuck, and you will eventually beat the game by just wandering around, clicking on things.
I dare say that games like monkey island (don't get me wrong, I still love those games) encourage the player - whenever they get stuck - to just click frenetically on everything that is clickable. This fosters a far lazier gameplay than sierra-games do, because in sierra-games, you have a certain responsability; you can't insult important npc:s, lest they refuse to share information, you can't wander out in swamp filled with monster, lest you risk your life, you can't break vital inventory items, etc.
Take for instance space quest 1 (the vga version, for the sake of pointing and clicking). When I played it as a kid, I had to really think, and I had to really keep track of all the steps that gradually would lead to escaping the mother ship.
I had to play it a dozen times in order to get everything right, and when I eventually left the exploding ship with the escape pod, the excitement and relief was a great reward.
Quote from: Andail on Fri 08/10/2004 11:29:28
You had to do everything in the exact correct order, or restart the whole scenario/chapter/game. When you had finally managed to keep all things in mind, and do it the right way, and finally beat it, the relief was enormous.
Also, not to forget the parser. ;)
With point and click interface, games are in general made easier to play, this is actually not a bad thing by itself, but the problem was that to make a point and click game deeper in content and gameplay it REALLY need MORE work on the design, otherwise they can just be made into either mindless frequent-click-trial-and-error-solves-all (especially when poor design can DESTROY the nature of puzzles, like the password in LSL1SCI, that game is crap) trolls or annoying hard-as-hell pixel hunting puzzle packs (well it depends on the context of the games actually, while it may be okay for a serious detective game to have intensive pixel hunting for clues, it's annoyingly evil for a comical game to have much of this for finding essential items, not to mention the older lucasfilm adventures like MM interface with LOADS of commands and evil "whatis" command for pixel hunting which rendered the games more difficult to control than using a parser).
While it seems possible to just use every inventory item on a puzzle in order to solve it, people still tend to get stuck in Lucasarts games. Well, not in Monkey Island or Loom, because those games are just made to be easy, but Monkey Island II is very difficult without resorting to pixelhunting. I find myself that whenever I get stuck in a Sierra game (or even a Tierra game), it is due to a detail I've failed to spot, such as the spellbook in KQVI or the fact that your own sword has a crystal in KQII+. Frankly that's annoying. In nearly all parser games that I know of, you can always find the relevant information by 'look'ing at stuff, and I think that's fair.
I agree with the Thrill mentioned before that you have to do everything right, but I can't remember this ever happening in a Sierra classic. I do recall it with several text adventures, such as Spellcasting 201 and Enchanter and Bureaucracy.
Quote(2) don't let him finish up in Antarctica before having the soccer ball.
That's exactly what I was saying could be a bad thing. You have to build a puzzle around getting an object. And story wise you have to adjust the story because the player needs this object in some far unseen way, that isn't concievable in the earlier stages of a game. It's a lot of work to make sure you have that one item...and I feel if done incorrectly, it can hurt the game.
Another positive about walking dead...when I play SQ, and I pretty much play the whole series once a year...I always get stuck and miss something vital. This is awesome, because this allows me to play the games I love repeatedly. Wheras MI and other user friendly games wear thin on replayability, because you can do no wrong.
Quote"Finally, decide on your attitude towards the player. I prefer games in which player death is either impossible or very very hard. On the other hand many games use 'death' as a punishment for failing a puzzle, and in fact rely on a 'death' to tell the player they are on the wrong track. This creates a culture of saving after every single move, and doing stupid things without caring about the consequences - neither of which sustain suspension of disbelief, and identifying with your character, which can make or break your game.
I find that death is a very useful feature for setting a mood. Everytime I play SQ1, and that droid is chasing me, my adrenaline gets pumping, and I get a thrill. And if I die, I feel compelled to get Roger on his way to safety. In real life you die if you do something stupid. I don't understand why we need to pamper the player if he decides to stick hand in a electrical socket. Now dieing for something that you couldn't predict would happen, is a bit different. But in any event, why have the ability to save in many locals and at different points in the game, if the ability isn't going to be used effectively. You can always go back to a saved game. And these are logic based games, so if it's a game where you know death is a possibility save where you think it's important. In which case, saving becomes part of the puzzle solving process. Which isn't a negative. It allows you to go back and rethink, and see what you did wrong.
To finish up, I'll say, that walking deads and deaths are more applicably used in shorter games. If I had to replay a 10 hour length game again because I missed an object or died, it would infuriate me.
About death, I don't believe you could die in The Longest Journey, but I still felt the adrenaline as the mutant thing (sorry, it's been a while) is chasinig you. Sure, you could just stand still and he just towers over you, growling and stuff, but it's still a rush.
Touché, QuantumRich. There are many ways to thrill, and while deaths and walking deaths are usually a sure-proof method (by *usually* I mean when it's done well, I believe it often is, mostly because the games where it isn't don't really survive), they're also a cheap method. No deaths, walking or not, is a much more challenging feat for the designer.
Besides, come on - Maniac Mansion has NO walking deads, despite what it may seem. Even FINDING something that LOOKS like a walking dead and then extricating yourself from it could be sooooo fun! Because you KNEW there was a solution... somewhere!
Spoiler
I'm mostly talking about getting all three kids in the dungeon. True, it's a LOT of pixel hunting if you don't have the key, but it IS possible!
I am totaly anti-walking/or not dead man scenarios. I just don't get the point in trying to solve something for days and finding out (in walktroughs mostly) that I'm stuck. Points for Rui and Quantum!
I don't feel that you need to have deaths in a game to give you that relief once you beat them. I mean, in Broken Sword 3, I got really stuck on the bottles puzzle. But the next day when I finally figured it out, I was sooo chuffed at myself. I will admit that I didn't actually mind the sneaking around bits that much, as they weren't too difficult, and it was pretty clear what to do, but dying simply because you went the wrong way isn't my idea of fun (Return to Zork).
As for the dead man scenarios, I agree that it can ruin the story a bit, trying to construct a puzzle to make sure you got a certain item. Referring to Broken Sword again, this time number 2: you needed a creepy little idol statue thing later in the game, and the area it was in was one you would not be coming back to. So when you tried to leave the room, without picking it up, George makes a comment about it being strangely compelling, and picks it up before leaving (I did actually pick it up the first run through the game, this was when I was writing a walkthrough). It made me cringe, because I'd already played through the game, and I knew I'd need it later, but George isn't supposed to know that.
However, when I'm playing a game, I don't like dead man scenarios. I like to know, that if I stick at it long enough, I'll eventually find the answer; though admittedly there does get a point where I start clicking everything randomly out of frustration and get it purely by accident. It's particularly annoying if you don't even know that you can't proceed (e.g. Return to Zork again). I play games for fun, not to bang my head on the keyboard when I realise I've spent several hours trying to solve a puzzle only to realise that I've gotten into a situation where I can't solve it.
I think though, most of these issues can be resolved by having alternate solutions to puzzles. I like BorisZ's ideas on having an alternate means of getting the item, or giving the player a more difficult puzzle later on etc. I'm throwing a few ideas around for my own project along these lines. I think its a good way to keep both types of gamers happy.
I think what defines a good game is one where the designers made it so that walking deads are impossible in the game. Not only that, but let's say you forgot Item A to use with Scenario B. There is an alternate solution. And if it can't be done, then Item A should be found within the vicinity of Scenario B, perhaps a few screens off. The best games are those with not so many "levels", like Space Quest had. You progressed, in SQ3, from the Junkyard, to Phleebut, to Monolith Burger, to Scumsoft (with things in between, of course), but the main problem is that certain items needed for certain scenarios were very often found earlier in the game. It doesn't make much sense to me.
Instead, a good game would have each "level", if existent, as separate entities. To use my semi-dead work-in-progress, By the Sword, as an example, it was rare to find an item needed in the game in an earlier chapter. And if this was the case (unavoidable as it was), I would provide alternate solutions. As a sort of punishment for not grabbing the few obvious inventory items in more-than-plain sight, these alternate puzzles would be harder. For example, you need to get the VirtuaVizorâ,,¢ helmet in Chapter 1, to give to somebody in Chapter 2 in exchange for some cash. But an alternate puzzle was to steal an ATM card and use that to get money. Not much of the gameplay would have been missed had the player actually retrieved the helmet, and if he so chose to, he could still steal the ATM card, but it wouldn't work. :P See where I'm getting at? Alternate puzzles that don't make the player feel that he would have missed out had he done it the "right way". Because there is no "right way". Only alternate ways.
Thus, if the player had gotten the helmet, the guy that needs it in Chapter 2 is a pawnshop owner. By giving the helmet to the owner, there would be short but entertaining cutscene. But if you stole the ATM card instead, there would be an alternate cutscene. This goes hand-in-hand with freedom in games and semi-nonlinearity. :)
This also goes hand-in-hand with intangible items, such as knowledge. I wouldn't let the player leave Chapter 1 until he had found out everythng there was to know about the situation he had found himself in. If the player tried to leave, once the method of escape was found, I would check certan variables, and display a "No, I don't know all there is to know about this" message. Basically, the main character KNEW what he needed to know. In other words, he had questions that needed to be answered and refused to leave until they were all answered. Consider the alternative: trying to construct a story around a guy that doesn't know what the hell is going on and didn't bother to find out, so he's missing out on a lot and... I can't even begin to imagine what I would have to script in order to fix this. So I just restricted the player until he knew everything the MC wanted to know.
i was thinking of creating a game when every decision matters
you are traveling by ship, and it stops at few places for like an hour but befor you are in your cyti packing your stuff, then you can go outside and buy things befor the trip and i had it like this:
if you forgot to pack important items or didn't buy some things at your city you could get it later but when the game shows you that you need it, it would be hard and taking some valuable time you have
this was my idea
but to off-topic
do you like timing games? i was thinking of making it not too hard(the time)
but still, what is your point on timing games, because i saw the game Last Express and that truly inspired me to my game
Wow, I agree with blackman!
You could have a store somewhere in the location but to get money you would have to do something like rob the waitress in sq7.
QuoteAbout death, I don't believe you could die in The Longest Journey, but I still felt the adrenaline as the mutant thing (sorry, it's been a while) is chasinig you. Sure, you could just stand still and he just towers over you, growling and stuff, but it's still a rush.
I, too, felt a rush, until I found out that I could let the guy pummel me forever and nothing would happen. Which completly ruined the mood of the game for me. I didn't understand why they didn't just allow the guy to kill you and restart you before he was released.
QuoteI don't feel that you need to have deaths in a game to give you that relief once you beat them.
It depends on what is happening in the context of the game. The example above is a good one for showing how the mood was ruined, for me, because there wasn't a death. Full Throttle handled death very well in the ending cutscenes, and I was on the edge of my seat. They realised that it wouldn't make sense in this situation to just let you live. So you died, but it was friendly enough to return you to a relatively close spot. Another example that ruined the mood, in CMI, the last chapter you can't die. At first I was like "Oh, shit!", then once I realised that I couldn't die, even though LeChuck was after me, I wasn't scared.
I'm not saying it's required for games to have deaths, I'm just saying, sometime I feel too pampered. If an evil guy is chasing me, with intent to kill me, then I should die.
QuoteHowever, when I'm playing a game, I don't like dead man scenarios. I like to know, that if I stick at it long enough, I'll eventually find the answer;
I think this is where good design comes in. In being able to tell the player they did something wrong. It's the designers job to make sure the player should at least know something is up.
Quoteif it can't be done, then Item A should be found within the vicinity of Scenario B, perhaps a few screens off. The best games are those with not so many "levels", like Space Quest had. You progressed, in SQ3, from the Junkyard, to Phleebut, to Monolith Burger, to Scumsoft (with things in between, of course), but the main problem is that certain items needed for certain scenarios were very often found earlier in the game. It doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't necessarily agree, because once again you're building a puzzle outside of the storyline. The focal point of any game should be what's happening in the game. And if the player needs a crowbar that happened to be in this toolshed at his house, earlier in the game, but now he was trapped in a box (for some reason), how would he go about getting that crowbar? Now if you can make it so the player recieved the crowbar in the game to propell the story, and not just to have a crowbar because you knew he was going to be in this situation, that's fine. But otherwise, I say the player should die, perhaps with a clue as to what was needed.
Also, SQ3 is an excellent game. And I like the feeling of going from one area to another. MI games do this a lot. You go from one island to another, and usually you can't leave the island. To me, MI seemed to have a lot more filler puzzles so that you'd have all the items you would need. Don't get me wrong, it's an excellent game also, but I enjoy SQ more.
I don't mind alternate solutions, but once again they have to fit in with the story line. And both SQ and KQ did indeed have an alternate solution or two.
QuoteSo I just restricted the player until he knew everything the MC wanted to know.
I don't necessarily like restricting the player. It always ruins the mood for me and takes me out of the game when a player is like "I can't go there, yet." It should be a good game designer who makes it known clearly what the player should be doing in the section of the game. Sometime I feel as if I'm restricted because I don't have an object that it wouldn't matter at that time, if I had it or not.
Once again, though. I only think walking-deads should be used in short games, or if used in longer games, make sure the player becomes aware of his state in a relatively short time period. And deaths are good, if the story calls for it, but make it so the game returns the player to somewhere where the player can prevent what's about to happen.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: LostTraveler on Sat 09/10/2004 00:18:49
Wow, I agree with blackman!
You could have a store somewhere in the location but to get money you would have to do something like rob the waitress in sq7.
But that would meen that the character is broke... this is what i hate about games, you are always broke, no my character will have money very much money but the proplem is that this ship sinks, then there comes another ship that rescues you but you have to pay for the far, thats why it is dangeros to buy too many things plus you could need money later
EDIT
ofcourse he will have much money left
Man, that's really bitter for the player. Make it all the way through, and then be left out because he had no money? That's the sort of thing I hate, tell you the truth.
Eric, you're a genius. I'm not being sarcastic either. :P
QuoteThe focal point of any game should be what's happening in the game. And if the player needs a crowbar that happened to be in this toolshed at his house, earlier in the game, but now he was trapped in a box (for some reason), how would he go about getting that crowbar? Now if you can make it so the player recieved the crowbar in the game to propell the story, and not just to have a crowbar because you knew he was going to be in this situation, that's fine.
That's an even better idea. If item A is needed later on in the game, then Item A should have to do with the story line and be required to propel the story forward, not just for a quick fix later on. Give the inventory more substance than just crap picked up randomly to save your ass in tight situations. :) I like your thinking.
The idea that a player who missed to do something early in the should be "punished" by getting a harder puzzle later has come up a couple of times in this thread. I find that strange. Isn't the player who failed to get that important object more likely to be bad at puzzles than the player who gets the object? It's the opposite of an adaptive skill level system. "Ah, this is a not-so-good puzzlesolver. A newbie adventurer, perhaps. Let's give him the
really hard puzzles to make sure that he needs to use a walkthrough!"
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sat 09/10/2004 05:38:14
I, too, felt a rush, until I found out that I could let the guy pummel me forever and nothing would happen. Which completly ruined the mood of the game for me. I didn't understand why they didn't just allow the guy to kill you and restart you before he was released.
Beacuse then you'd end up with a timed puzzle. When I want something like that I'll play an action game, not an adventure. Or they'd have to do things differently and never have a monster chasing April in the first place.
It's didn't mean it as punishing for n00bs. More like, there's an obvious way of doing a puzzle, and a slightly more involved solution. If you solve it the more involved way, you get presented with more involved puzzles later on. Like an intuitive difficulty level, making it actually more accessable to n00bs. Hey, that's not a bad idea...
*Takes idea and runs with it.*
Okay, maybe the "harder puzzle as punishment" idea isn't so great. I think Pelican is right on with the idea of alternate solutions, like I mentioned earlier. There are more than one way to solve a puzzle. Was it this thread where I mentioned my (well somebody elses's, but borrrowed) boy-with-lollipop scenario and the three alternate solutions? Each one would alter the outcome of the game. I think that idea would be a good one to implement, perhaps affecting other puzzles, even which ones the player must solve. For example, if the player solves Puzzle 1 a certain way, he later has to solve Puzzle 2, but not Puzzle 3. If he does it another way, it's the other way around. That's the simplified version.
I seem to use numbers and letters a lot in my examples. I'm not dumbing it down for anybody...it's actually for my own ease of understanding myself. Just so ya know. ;)
Hmm, I agree with Andail, sometimes Sierra Games are useful..... you can just forget to accomplish that, do some things restart the game and you can probably get it right the next time. That is how I figure out games.....
Quote from: QuantumRich on Sat 09/10/2004 23:19:00
Eric,Ã, you're a genius. I'm not being sarcastic either.
While I agree with you...
I didn't write any of that. Mills is a completely different person from me. However, as we all know, I am the genious and he's just a Floridian.
Also I just want to say, using a harder puzzle as punishment doesn't really seem like punishment when half the reason people play adventures is to solve puzzles, punishment would be missing a few puzzles and some of the story [BJ3] not getting more content.
Whoops, I was replying to one person and thinking of another. Wink, wink.
Quoteyou'd end up with a timed puzzle. When I want something like that I'll play an action game, not an adventure.
What's wrong with a timed puzzle? It's still a puzzle, which is what adventure games are intended for. And as such, it still requires thought, and it's purpose isn't so much action based. Anyway, there are several games which used timed puzzles/arcade sequences in there games.
QuoteWhoops, I was replying to one person and thinking of another. Wink, wink.
Which means you've been cheating on me! B*tch!
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sun 10/10/2004 06:04:45
Anyway, there are several games which used timed puzzles/arcade sequences in there games.
And there are several games that get reviews like "great game, except for the arcade sequences". Of course it can be implemented in a better or worse way, but there will always be people who will be annoyed by it.
(Personally as a player, I'm somewhere in the middle. I didn't mind the BS3 sequences, but I'm against timed/arcade sequences as a rule. The GK2 ending is a good example of a game that became worse beacuse of it.)
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sun 10/10/2004 06:04:45
QuoteWhoops, I was replying to one person and thinking of another. Wink, wink.
Which means you've been cheating on me! B*tch!
Oh, don't look so surprised, Mills! You're not half the man Senor Colossal is. I mean...just look at that
manly avatar! Grrrrowl!
As for arcade sequences, I'm not a big fan of them, if they're required to complete an adventure game. As for
timed puzzles, they're actually good, when done right.
QuoteAnd there are several games that get reviews like "great game, except for the arcade sequences". Of course it can be implemented in a better or worse way, but there will always be people who will be annoyed by it.
But when it comes down to it, you can't really please everyone. Some people like timed puzzles some don't. I think arcade sequences should have a skip-me button for those who don't enjoy them. But a good timed puzzle isn't bad, as long as the game isn't inflated with it (barring games where the whole intent it to make you feel the pressure of time).
QuoteOh, don't look so surprised, Mills! You're not half the man Senor Colossal is. I mean...just look at that manly avatar! Grrrrowl!
I suppose I'll go cry now...
-MillsJROSS
One could make a timed puzzle based on something different than physical (real-world) time, e.g. the amount of screens the player enters, the amount of mouse commands given, something like that.
Much like text adventures kept "time" with commands, or steps.