I've just become profoundly stuck playing Sherlock Holmes and the case of the Silver Earring and it's started me to thinking about the importance of puzzle integration. (Apologies for the lengthy post, but I'm fueled by 'that-puzzle-was-ludicrous' energy.)
I don't think I'll give too much of the game away by describing the set up of the puzzle: I want to get into an inventor's safe. The safe has a model of Noah's ark on it.
In order to open it I need to lead a series of 8 animals into the ark. The clues I need to work out this order are hidden in a series paintings and a document I recieved by solving another one of the inventors puzzles.
Having read about 5 walkthroughs I am aware of the three problems I had with this puzzle:
1. I can't tell the difference between the developers' drawing of a bear, a pig and a gorilla.
2. Only 4 of the animals have to go in in a particular order, the others are arbitrary.
And most importantly:
3. No one, not even a 'wacky' inventor, would keep the combination of his safe HIDDEN IN HIS PAINTINGS!
The puzzle is un-motivated by it's surroundings. A brilliant inventor would surely be aware that just not telling anyone the code to a combination lock is safer than hiding the solution about his house.
Likewise, locking a door with a key, and then not losing it is the best way of keeping a door locked. That's why very few of us lock our houses with complex coded key pads, levers or arrangements of crystals.
The bit I'm finding tricky is how to integrate obstacles and puzzles into a game in such a way that they are motivated by character, plot and story. I think this is crucial, and wondered if anyone had any thoughts on the matter.
Plus, puzzles should fit the scenery. I remember Still Life and that ridiculous cookie puzzle. That was so ... damn silly. Or activating a crane by solving a lever puzzle.
Still life's cookie making puzzle.
It was the first and hopefully last time I will call my mother in for help on a puzzle in a game.
With a lot of puzzles there will always be difficulty in it being realistic, as it's not the sort of thing we do in real life. (Unless you have puzzles like fix an engine of a broken down car, find the remote control down the back of the sofa, or make cookies)
At the time, the cookie puzzle felt like a nice change, but in retrospect, it's quite awful. First of all, mixing amounts with encryption made it way too difficult and frustrating. Also, the lack of direction was apparent. Secondly, the puzzle was near impossible for people outside the main English-speaking countries, since many of the ingredients were uncommon to them.
I used a mixture of knowledge of the English language and the american culture with my knowledge of cooking. I knew the ingredients that go into making chocolate chip cookies before I played the game, and I knew that, for example, molasses means a type of sugar, but it was still overly difficult for me. I can't imagine anyone with less knowledge in the English language or cooking being able to solve that puzzle without help.
For me, when making puzzles, if there is no reason for a puzzle to exist I don't let it exist.
If you can't think of any real way to open a locked door other than a long convoluted process... Don't lock the door. That will "shorten" the game in a way but I'd rather spend time solving puzzles while chasing a murderer or disarming a bomb or freeing trapped alien slaves than unlocking a door. The door may just be blocking the way to all the good stuff inside the location, don't stop me from getting there.
Also, it seems people spend a lot of time trying to make puzzles where you go from easy to hard through the whole game. "The puzzles must get harder and more devious!" and they forget about a lot of simple actions that can feel like puzzles.
You have a knife in your inventory? Draw some overgrown weeds on the door [where applicable] and have the knife cut them down. Or just let the player USE HAND on WEEDS and tear them down. I didn't need to search for weed killer only to find an empty can of it but read the ingredients and find that all the ingredients are simple house hold objects I can get through other puzzles and then use the new weed killer on the weeds and they magically die in 1 second and the door is opened. Sure that adds a lot of puzzles to the game and a lot more time the player is playing the game but UGH! Quit, Uninstall, Nasty Email from Eric!
I'm disappointed to find that there's no real game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory) in this post.
Pah! That just sounds like people trying to make maths exciting...
Eric, your thoughts are really interesting but I suppose the natural question is, how do you engineer puzzles that feel natural (i.e. not convoluted) which are also challenging.
Something I've been thinking about in reference to machine style puzzles and locked door puzzles is the misuse of obstacles in adventure games. The worst examples of myst-clones or games featuring alien technology tend to feature elaborate mechanical locks and the like.
Better games, like The Dig or Myst-not-clone, give you the same obstacle in a different form. You are presented with a means of achieving your goal or a mode of transportation but it doesn't work, you have to fix it or learn how to operate it.
I think it's much more satisying to fix an elevator and get to the second floor, than to try and solve yet another implausable mechanical lock.
QuoteEric, your thoughts are really interesting but I suppose the natural question is, how do you engineer puzzles that feel natural (i.e. not convoluted) which are also challenging.
Hello, this is Eric speaking.
One possible answer is: making puzzles which are relatively straightforward interesting again, by stripping away layers of automation we're used to in pointless clicking games. This is sort of tall-order for AGS games, but do you have a door that's locked? Do you have a crowbar? Show a closeup of the door, actually place the crowbar and try to wedge that open. Just 'click x on y' itself can make the simplest to the most complicated thing boring.
This is all very much to ask. But gameplay makes games. Not clicking through a story.
Hello, this is Helm speaking.
For a quick at-work-eating-lunch answer I'm going to default to my long running bit of advice to people making adventure games.
Add a verb.
Current style adventure games have stripped down all the possible actions one can do in the game into "USE". Why do games even have TALK TO when USE would work just as well with characters. Use is such a generic do everything word that it ruins puzzle design. You don't need 20 verbs [turn on, turn off, push, pull, examine, look blah blah] but just try adding 1 new verb. In Spellbound I added the magic system which let me add as many new verbs as I wanted. In Automation I added KICK. In a way this agrees with Helm though I dislike the crowbar example because it's a lot to ask [as he says] and unless you build an engine around interacting with the world like that, it just ends up being a minigame.
You can keep the USE icon but limit it to just what can be done with the hands. If you create a GUI where there is HAND, EYE, FEET, MOUTH and let the player know that they don't just represent USE, LOOK, WALK TO, TALK TO.
MOUTH could be anything that can be done with the mouth. Talk, eat, blow on, suck [grow up!], bite... FEET, walk to, kick, jump... HAND has a ton of stuff it can do but try your hardest not to make it the generic verb, grab, open, pick up, press, pull...
This doesn't solve the problem of convoluted puzzles because you could still make a puzzle where you have to blow air up a drain pipe to unclog it and get a birds nest that was in there... But it opens the possibility of puzzles and frees you to think, in my opinion.
Crowbar in door: With the hand put it in the door, the crowbar sits in the door, use hand on crowbar, the character jiggles the crowbar back and forth, not enough strength to break the door down, use foot on crowbar in door, the character kicks the crowbar which breaks the door lock and the door swings open.
I don't know if that helps or is relevant to the discussion.
I get this: Have things that are obvious, work out in the obvious way, and some that do not. Don't have things that are not obvious work out in not obvious ways! There's nothing I dislike more in adventure games where something is needlessly convulted. Sometimes opening the window should entail, opening the window.
But! place a few situations where something you have to do requires a few more steps to get done than usual automation in pointless click games has us used to. As eric says, he makes an 'use crowbar on door' puzzle a two-parter in a very intuitive way. It's still the obvious thing to do, it just takes more thinking of how to use an actual OBJECT on another OBJECT and not just a symbol of an object on another symbol of an object. Making people think in abstract terms is not always good for gameplay. Stuff is made from parts, with physical properties, you can look under stuff, you can manipulate their shapes perhaps, you can use both ends of the crowbar for different things, it's not just A ON B. This sort of thing is what killed the genre. More direct translation of what the player wants to do exactly (therefore, options), not just a generic USE THIS approach would help.
My solution is usually a parser. If you don't know what you want to do, you can't do anything. You can't pointlessly click everywhere.
Quote from: Helm on Thu 25/05/2006 18:58:15If you don't know what you want to do, you can't do anything. You can't pointlessly click everywhere.
I like everything you and Colossal have suggested this far, but how would something like this be excecuted? Same with the crowbar example: Should the crowbar icon have two hotspots, one for each end? Or is there another way to do this?
If anyone has played the CSI games, I think that would be a nice direction for adventure games. Atleast for the whole exploring part. A more close up look on inventory items and objects, and a way to manipulate them. Of course, this needs to be done in a way that does not drive the user insane. E.g. no pixel hunting.
I stumbled across THIS (http://www.juncmodule.com/downloads/What-makes-a-good-adventure-game---by-seguso---english.pdf) a while back. While it pushes his opinions a lot, it does have some good points and is presented in a pretty clear way. I think it could be used as a nice guideline in conjunction with Helm and MrC's ideas. Personally I think this is the best piece of advice:
QuoteFor me, when making puzzles, if there is no reason for a puzzle to exist I don't let it exist.
As far as modern commercial adventure games are concerned I think they all tend to miss the mark. I have yet to play anything made in the past ten years that made me think I like modern commercial adventure games (AGS games on the other hand...). Then again, I haven't played many. I did read a rather nasty review of that Sherlock Holmes game recently though.
later,
-junc
Pixel Hunting is just fine if it's the sort of game that continuously rewards close examination of your environment. Pixel Hunting's only cruel when a game is mostly smooth sailing with very visible items and hotspots and just has one or two very tough ones.
My idea would be a hybrid GUI like the one Bernie's using for Hero Theorem. Take away 'USE' pointer from player, retain click-intuition with look-ats and other obvious stuff like walk-at and talk-to, but with parsered verbs for anything more complex.
This is not Helm speaking. The number 1 most annoying thing to me in adventure games is having puzzles for the sake of having puzzles. At that point you're just adding artificial length to a game that most likely is too weak to stand on its own. Step back and think about the story and progression without factoring puzzles first. Is it interesting? Does it have staying power? Are there enough opportunities for CLEVER puzzles and events to occur? If not, rework the idea. I try to keep mundane puzzles to an absolute minimum when I make a game, instead replacing them with a minigame (not a slide puzzle) or an action sequence. This makes the puzzles in your game more valuable, a) because you have fewer of them and b) because they occur sporadically and are relevant. The constant pick up item a to use on b to get c to use on d thing is really a used up concept in adventure games and when I play one that is just a string of pointlessly mundane puzzles I delete it. Make sure that any puzzle in the game gives the player a feeling of accomplishment by challenging their mind and advancing the story enough to make the effort justified.
-The artist formerly known as Eric
I agree that adding a new specific verb other than a hand icon would be nice. However, if added it should be utilized enough to make it commonplace to use it (i.e. There's no reason to have a "punch" verb if you're just going to use it for one puzzle).
As far as text parsers are concerned, let me start of with I love text parser games. However, I don't think many other people enjoy these games. They're a hell of a lot more work to deal with than the point and click icons of today (for players and developers alike). If you want to make one, by all means, be my guest. I don't think they will necessarily go over well. This could be a wrong assumption. I do think they can add a lot to a game, it really does allow the player to be more interactive within the game.
I think the thing to really avoid is Fetch me puzzles. I do it, I'm not proud of it, though. These puzzles are probably the worst. It's part of the weed killer example. You have to fetch the ingredients. But it also goes along with characters who won't give you the medicine to help the old man until you've found them some fresh strawberries. It's really easy to make them, without too much difficulty on your part.
I think a lot of the time we build puzzles around characters vs situations. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but it seems that in almost all games our main character needs to know as much detail about all NPC's than a person would usually need to know. We don't need to know about the bartender's love life! And most games fall into a formulaic, hello, need information, goodbye, type of deal. For once I'd like to see a game where the main character is too shy to ask a lot of these in depth questions, that he doesn't need to know. And I want people to stop building puzzles around non-important characters lives.
That said, I do enjoy puzzles where you might have the material available, but your character doesn't have the knowledge at hand to do certain things. The only downside to this, is we come across situations where we figure it out before the MC does, and sometimes it seems there's enough evidence for the MC to know what to do, but sometimes the MC has to hear explicitly what to do, which can be rather annoying.
You should either build your puzzles around with the plot or the plot around with your puzzles. They should be closely related to each other, and not work against each other. You can allow puzzles to force different plot lines to come out if a player decides to solve something a certain way. I have no problem with making puzzles more difficult as the game progresses. As long as the puzzles don't step away from the plot it's alright. And I just want to say, while the plot is important, don't downplay the importance of puzzles. The key is in being original with your puzzles, and no one can really tell you how to do that.
-MillsJROSS
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Sun 28/05/2006 06:41:35
I agree that adding a new specific verb other than a hand icon would be nice. However, if added it should be utilized enough to make it commonplace to use it (i.e. There's no reason to have a "punch" verb if you're just going to use it for one puzzle).
I have quite an innovative GUI design for this. I'll post a module in a week or two when I find a couple of hours to work it out.
To be honest, I don't mind a simplified interface if it suits the game. The Discworld series is one of my favourites, but it only has USE/LOOK for the mouse buttons, and an inventory. It didn't make the game easy by any means since the inventory had about 30 items at times, and so most of the game was inventory based. I really didn't mind since there are too many items to solve the puzzles by brute force in any short time, but it wasn't obvious what to do with them. The Curse of Monkey Island is similar too.
Don't get me wrong though, I didn't mind the verbs in MI1 since they were all used a few times each, but I don't think it's the only interface that works. Having to move your mouse back and forth between the verbs and the scene is tiring, and having your hand sprawled across the hotkeys isn't that much better. I get tired of the standard 4-verb interface in most AGS games as well, and pressing the right mouse button to cycle to the icon you want isn't really that pleasant, especially since the icons are different for every game, and often too ugly to recognise instantly.
The only parser games I've played are text-only, except for The Lion's Den (OROW). I'm not that good at them, but they're a lot more fun, and more personal in a way. In fact, I think the best interface is the drop-down menu to suit each object. It means you don't have to think about the stupid verbs which hardly apply to anything, such as 'open/close' and 'give'. I saw a tech demo or two with this in, but nothing longer.
As far as puzzles go I haven't got much more to add. I like MJR's point about conversations, and I think there should be consequences for what is said in a conversation. Every game just seems to have conversation topics that are built up and then exhausted during the course of the conversation, until talking just results in 'bye' each time. What order it is done in doesn't matter one bit, one topic doesn't affect another in the slightest. I want to play a game where I save before an important conversation in case what is said is pivotal to the storyline, or at least slight details throughout the game. I want to be able to put my personality into a game I'm playing by actually choosing the pathways I want, not reading pages of linear script. Of all the aspects of the game, the NPCs are the only things that can think, and talking to them should be exciting.
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 21/05/2006 16:33:08
For me, when making puzzles, if there is no reason for a puzzle to exist I don't let it exist.
If you can't think of any real way to open a locked door other than a long convoluted process... Don't lock the door. That will "shorten" the game in a way but I'd rather spend time solving puzzles while chasing a murderer or disarming a bomb or freeing trapped alien slaves than unlocking a door. The door may just be blocking the way to all the good stuff inside the location, don't stop me from getting there.
Or just put another and more interesting way around it, just like they did in Grim Danfango.
Or Day of the Tentacle. Or even Monkey Island 2.
Do you rember those? When I first played the GF demo I was amazed with the whole climbing up to the ledge and entering the offices through windows. It was such a great and atmospheric thing.
The same thing happened, if I recall right, in Day of the Tentacle(oh you Tim, you). Hoagie was going through a chimney to get to the attic. When I was a kid and was watching my uncle playing this game, having Hoagie entering the attic window was one of the memories that got me remembering that game about 10 years later.
Also the time when you had to break in the kitchen in MI2 was great. The way they did it was in true adventure form. It was always screw the laws, and if it didn't go the ordinary way, it would go the fun way.
SimB, I agree with your post a lot.
Let me tell you a thing or two about a thing or two.
To be honest, I don't care about "dynamic conversations". Heck, I always press through dialog when I can. I don't talk that much in real life eighter.
I'd rather had a designer focus on dynamic story and puzzle solutions then on dialog. Why do I have to solve the slider puzzle on the box if I can go to a shop and buy a hammer and a screwdriver?
And since when do adventure games hate FedEx puzzles! Plot coupon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_coupon) X is out of reach, but as soon as you got it you know that you need to give it to person Y to solve puzzle Z. It's a great way to get some pasing in the game, and it gives people a desire to get the item, thus playing your game obsessively.
Last, I would like to say that games are set in Game World, not real life (I sometimes forget it as well). Game World is like Movie World. If it's not about the story, character development or setting atmosphere then don't use it at all.
Real life soully excists out of events that are left out of the Movie World.
QuoteIf it's not about the story, character development or setting atmosphere then don't use it at all.
That's movie world. In game world, it's about gameplay.
Quote from: jet on Wed 31/05/2006 13:15:15
And since when do adventure games hate FedEx puzzles! Plot coupon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plot_coupon) X is out of reach, but as soon as you got it you know that you need to give it to person Y to solve puzzle Z. It's a great way to get some pasing in the game, and it gives people a desire to get the item, thus playing your game obsessively.
They don't bother me usually, but it's not pacing, it's padding out.
Game developer: "Oh my! Our game is rather short! I know, lets make the player have to turn back on themselves lots of times so they run through the same bit of level again and again, thus making the game -seem- longer than it is!"
If it's something like giving Otis a mint, then I don't mind.
I' personally love dialog. It's essentially what makes the story in an adventure game. I want to know as much about the gameworld as possible. I go down every dialog path, even if I have to play the game a couple times. I'll click everything with every icon available. I like to interact with what's there. I think "dynamic conversations" would just add so much more to the game, for a person like myself.
I have no real problems with "FedEx" puzzles, as long as there's a perfectly good reason for them, other than adding length to a game.
QuoteThat's movie world. In game world, it's about gameplay.
In an adventure game, the word "gameplay" doesn't really mean that much to me.
According to Wiki:
QuoteGenerally, the term "gameplay" in video game terminology is used to describe the overall experience of playing the game excluding the factors of graphics, sound, and the storyline. The term "Game mechanics" refers to sub-elements of the gameplay, but particularly the primary control and movement features of the game (thus excluding things like level design or AI).
So if we take out graphics, sound, and storyline; We have puzzles and how we control our player character left. I don't think the control of the player character is that important, only because whether or not you like to type in commands, use the mouse, or use a joystick (and whatever else you can think of), there are good games in each of these categories, as well as, bad ones. Puzzles are a major contributor to the enjoyment of a game. However, look at The Longest Journey. In my eyes it didn't particularly have any great puzzles, and some of them were insulting. But the depth of the storyline was enough to make it enjoyable for me.
What I really want to know is what we actually consider gameplay, and to that end, how should gameplay be applied to puzzles to make the game more enjoyable. I only ask because gameplay seems like such a vague word. I'm not really understanding how we can say it's all gameplay and nothing to do with storyline, sound, or graphics. Especially, when a majority of gamers buy games purely for graphics, regardless of whether or not the game is the same in almost everyway as many other games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_play
-MillsJROSS
The lack of forward-thinking gameplay contributed to the genre being considered dead, and only kept in a sort of static-life-support by nostalgic fans and nostalgic fans-that-start-studios alike. Gameplay can be so much more in adventure games than it has been in the era of point and clicks. You say the way you control the character doesn't matter because there's examples of good control on all aspects of adventure games. I disagree. I think point-and-click games destroyed adventure game control. Show me a game that is point-and-click look/use and I will show you 10 ways to make a better game from it. That these were occasionally really immersive experiences is IN SPITE of the control scemes, and that is indeed a testament to the power of the story-driven medium, but it doesn't excuse pointless clickery. Controlling a character in my opinion should not be ordering him around with clicks and waiting for him to do as decreed. That sort of thing leads to a detachment from gameplay. Constant, direct control is better in my opinion. There's so many elements in that sense that make an AGI game far superior in gameplay than say, King's Quest 5, from the aesthetics to the control to the puzzles. Also, point-hand-at-thing-and-guess-what-hand-does is ridiculous and sad that we still play games that are like that. There's so much to discuss here and I don't mean to ramble. Gameplay should mean more than just puzzles in adventure games.
I tend to agree with Helm, though not on the point and click nature of adventure games being damaging to the genre; rather, I believe that style of gameplay was one of the defining features of adventure games that set them apart. I've never minded clicking on a spot and watching the little guy walk there, as long as he does so at a good clip. I do tend to like direct control in games, but it doesn't bother me in adventure games at all for some reason-- perhaps it is due to me growing up playing them in this format and expecting it, much like when you play a platformer and expect direct control of the character. I certainly do think that adventure games need to be more than just the sum of their puzzles, and fun minigames (and more clever use of the inventory) can increase enjoyment immensely.
I almost completely disagree with Helm. I don't think forward planning has anything at all to do with the genre "death." A genre is a genre is a genre. I mean if there really was a neat trick to add to adventure games to make them sellable again, I really think we would have found out. And just remember, there have been attempts to revolutionize the adventure game. But they go so far to add other enjoyable elements, that we ourselfs don't consider them adventure games. I think that adventure games have gone places, but it's original fans are so purist, that we refuse to put newer games in the adventure game category, even if they have many adventure game elements. I don't think there's a death of the genre, I think there's a death of the genre by our narrow minded view of what makes an adventure game. And what a lot of people fail to realise if you look at the number of sales newer adventure games have today (like Dreamfall), there's actually not that much of a difference in numbers from the "golden age."
If anything the point-and-click gaming allowed adventure games to survive another five or more years. You think that typing in commands makes the game oh so more emersive, and to some point I agree. But I also remember being so angry at a few text parser games when I couldn't find the correct verb, that it completely tore me out of the game. And it made me even angrier when I wasn't far enough away from what I was trying to say, to make much of a difference. And yes to a point point-and-click does limit the thinking process. I don't disagree...however, I do think I can enjoy solving a puzzle with a mouse with as much satisfaction then with a parser, if by clicking object1 on object2 I know how they will mix before-hand. The handicap of making a point-and-click game, is I can click like crazy and eventually find an answer. And I think it annoys me more when I get into a situation where I'm clicking on everything like crazy, because I have no idea what to do. But if this was a text parser game I'd be typing like crazy with the same result.
I think what would be really awesome, is a mix between the two systems. You click on X and put it on Y, and then you have to type a verb to go with it. It would provide the ease of a mouse, and this would help you get out of those traps where you're trying to look at something but you don't quite know the name of the object, and it takes you a couple minutes to find the correct noun. And it would force the player to know what they were solving.
Personally, I just don't like the term gameplay. It's too ambiguous of a meaning for me. You either enjoy the game or you don't, and for me, it has more to do with the storyline, sounds, and graphics then the mechanics. I loved Grim Fandango, but personally, I don't like the mechanics of walking around (although, I eventually got used to it, but never loved it). However, this didn't make or break the game for me. And let's compare it to a game with pretty much the same "gameplay"...MI4. Didn't like it...gameplay had little do to with this. And I didn't even mind the puzzles in that game (other than monkey combat). The sound quality wasn't as good as I expected considering they "improved" their graphics. I'm using these two as an example, because other than storyline, sound, and a few puzzles. They played very similar to each other. Those are my ramblings, make of them what you will.
-MillsJROSS
I'll always hated those text adventure games. Whenever I found one within ten minutes I'd be having fun trying to find words that makes your character kill themselves. "Use sword on me"
Or one game I recall where I told it to f*ck off, and it did.
Mills- I definitely agree that a poorly written parser can instantly destroy a game, especially when REALLY common verbs are left out like 'get'. Also, very few adventure games aside from early text adventures ever used the parser cleverly enough that you could type in pretty much what you want and get some kind of response.
I must say I find text parsers frustrating when it comes to action but freeing when it comes to interrogation and examination.
My problem with the text parser is that in real life I don't have to articulate an impulse like 'pick up map' linguistically. I find clicking on an object to be more dynamically satisfying.
On the other hands the ability to ask characters questions and examine my surroundings with the freedom of a good parser is far more immersive than being able to choose from a list of options.
I think the Spookitalk feature in Starship Titanic had the potential to be revolutionary. If only someone other than me had loved the game...
It's not exactly new news, but George Lucas seems like a guy who may actually back up his wish for better speech recognition in games with cash.
Quote...the movie-maker expressed he wants artificial intelligence and speech recognition to improve "to a point where you can talk to the game and it will talk back."
Article (http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=10556)
I've coded in Jess myself (rule-based AI) and it is indeed possibe to have huge language-processing rule-sets to create semi-intelligent dialogues. Nobody is fooled for long, though, and often I prefer some really funny/well-scripted dialogues to AI. I doubt that those will ever be surpassed by AI, even considering the learning aspects (like in Spookitalk), however interesting it may be. Also, I didnt like the weird iconic language from Sims very much.
It took me a while to read all that. Interesting discussing going on here. Here are my two (Euro) cents (or maybe a bit more).
First of all, any puzzle that doesn't flow naturally (and logically) from the main story should be eliminated. I completely agree with what MrColossal said in his first post. The only exception of that rule I can think of are things that flow naturally (and logically) from the game world. Think of it as (optional) sidequests if you want. I really don't like that most adventure games don't let you do anything that's not related to the story, implying that anything you can do has to help you with your main goal somehow, even if it makes no sense.
A collary to that is that you should never ignore or disallow obvious and maybe unexciting, but very sensible solutions, like buying tools or destroying obstacles. A convulted series of actions might seem more interesting at design time, but at play time it is often just frustrating, especially if there'd be an alternative path in real life that just doesn't work in the game.
As to how to design puzzles that feel natural which are also challenging, my advice is: Don't! (Note that I say "design" rather than "engineer" because puzzle making seems more like an art than a science to me.) You shouldn't force puzzles (that don't fit) into your story and puzzles don't have to be challenging to be enjoyable. I think that despite what Helm says, that the story is much more important to an adventure game (not to games in most other genres though), than its gameplay.
I think an adventure game hardly needs any puzzles. Especially if you're making a freeware game. For commercial adventures I can understand the desire to add puzzles to pad out the game and make it appear longer. It might have even been a necessity, for example, I remember magazine reviews of Loom (nowadays often regarded as a classic) complaining how it was too short.
It might be interesting to have a look at the interactive fiction (what used to be called text adventures) community here, who's favourite genre died before ours (maybe even because of ours) and who's independant game making started earlier as well. There, besides traditional text adventures in the tradition of Infocom or Legend, among other experimental games, a new subtype, that of the puzzle-free interactive fiction emerged and also became popular, not replacing puzzle-driven games, but complementing them. Two examples, from the top of my head, would be Adam Cadre's Photopia and 9:05.
Getting back to puzzles, I don't think the type of the interface influences the quality or the difficulty of the puzzles. Especially not the number of verbs. Loom had more than twenty different drafts (counting reversed ones), The Dig had only two (three if you count walk-to). Which's puzzles were more challenging? For me, definitely The Dig's. Before it, I was kinda suspicious of one-click interfaces. Afterwards, not anymore. I can't remember (but, admittedly, it's been a while since I last played it) any situation in which I couldn't do what I wanted to do because of the interface or (which would have been even worse) in which the interface did something I wouldn't have thought of. I was stuck several times without ever having to resort to pointlessly clicking on everything. Even though I ultimately prefer Loom, I like The Dig very much and would really like to hear Helm's ten (or more) ways to make a better game from it.
Don't get me wrong. I do very much appreciate interfaces that deviate from the norm and the normal set of verbs interesting ways, though. It's a very nice touch, that doesn't improve a game by itself, but opens many interesting opportunities, but if you can't design good puzzles with a one-click interface, chances are you won't be able to design good puzzles with a different interface, even though that might give you more possibilities. Remember that the interface should never get in the way of the puzzles, so picking a different interface to make the game more interesting is OK, but doing so only to make it more difficult isn't. Especially if the increase in difficulty stems from the fact that there are now more verbs to experiment with because you won't be able to guess the correct one due to lack of logic.
The next problem is how to prevent the player from stumbling over solutions without effort, be it through pointless clicking or by accident. Here more verbs really might help, but that's still not a sufficient reason on its own to add more verbs. I think this happens most often when the player is trying to combine every item or in dialogues.
Dialogues are a bit tricky because multiple choice by its very nature allows to "solve" the puzzle simply by exhausing all dialogue options, especially, if you don't want to have dead-ends and walking dead. Increasing the size of the dialogue tree is an obvious workaround, but at the same time, a lot of additional work (that might be better utilised elsewhere). Alternatives might be to include loops, so that the player should be aware of what he says instead of just clicking on the first option until it goes away or having characters actually become angry (and unapproachable) if the player does something wrong and remain that way, until a certain amount of time has passed or until the player made some progress elsewhere. It's very important that the player has always something else to do and doesn't have to wait for a character to cool down again after angering him. After all, who wants to spend his free time with waiting?
For the inventory itmes, again the problem is, that in most games you can only combine things to make things that you're going to need and often won't ever have to disassemble them again. If the combination process was non-destructive, then it should always be possible to take things apart again, not matter if it's actually useful or not. There could also be items that you need to use both on their own and a part of a combination of items, so that you have to disassemble them again at some point and that successfully having combined two items without knowing what for doesn't atuomatically equate progress. If combinations can be taken apart again, you might even want to allow nonsensical combinations, like pushing your screwdriver into your potatoe. And, as Helm said, don't automate the combing process too much. If it takes two logical steps to combine two items, let the player perform both.
Basically, my solution here was giving the players more options so trying everything becomes less attractive. This might help a bit, but doesn't really solve the problem. At least not in the way a parser would. Still, I don't think parsers are the solution, neither for verbs, nor dialogue options. I'd like to elaborate on that a bit and I will, but for now, this post's long enough and it's getting late.
On a sidenote, math is interesting. I don't know much about game theory, though.
QuoteEven though I ultimately prefer Loom, I like The Dig very much and would really like to hear Helm's ten (or more) ways to make a better game from it.
Ways to improve The Dig (which I love, otherwise)
part 1: remove stupid crystal puzzles. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Time-consuming, padding, for no reason whatsoever.
part 2: make everything look-at-able so I can also know how the game characters feel about the game world themselves. I know how I feel about it, but this isn't a movie. This is a game. Let me in on the player character's heads. We know, adventure game characters talking to themselves for no reason... "it's just not cinematic". I don't care, it's a genre convention I can deal with, let me in on those heads! Make it 'thoughtspeak' if you have to! In the wonderful IF tradition (sierra kept it on for a few of the early graphical games) a global look-at impression would be nice for a whole alien world.
part 3: discussions that are dynamic and influence how the other NPCs feel about you, not just info-mining CLICK ON EVERY OPTION crap. There's just 3 people on the planet. Give me dynamic affiliations and distancing, make me feel paranoid if I push everyone away. Make the NPCs cooperate if I manage to be diplomatic. Make Brink not do stupid shit on his own if I am EXTRA good at keeping the mission together. Give me these options, don't just throw puzzles in my face that I solve to advance your movie-plot forward. This 'oh this is my story, and if you're a good boy and solve my riddles I'll read you another chapter' stuff we're all better off without.
Heh, the alien puzzles that basically required leaps of logic were what pissed me off about The Dig, I dug the rest of the game though. Also, while I think Helm has a valid point about the characters reactions to what they see, I don't think that the lack of it hurt The Dig in any way. And let's not forget that it is based on a scrapped film idea, so having the game more cinematic works. Also, I don't think that your actions should be able to so dramatically affect the game that the characters stop behaving as independent entities. Take Helm's example of stopping Brink from doing stupid things. Brink is an extremely arrogant, headstrong character who essentially does not value Low's opinion at all. While some ability to alter their relationship would be nice, I don't think that having the power to completely transform Brink's behavior would improve the game, because at some point it conflicts with his basic nature.
I'm not saying make it completely freeform. Just not as on-rails as The Dig was.
I have no problem with a game that has side quests that don't really do much for the main plot, as long as it serves a purpose. Character development would be big reason to do something like this. And it would be cool, if by doing side quests you get rewarded. Perhaps you get a fuller interpretation of the main story. Something that puts twist to the story, or felshes it out, more than if a person decides not to go down that side quest. Or maybe you get information that helps you solve a future puzzle with more ease.
QuoteA collary to that is that you should never ignore or disallow obvious and maybe unexciting, but very sensible solutions, like buying tools or destroying obstacles. A convulted series of actions might seem more interesting at design time, but at play time it is often just frustrating, especially if there'd be an alternative path in real life that just doesn't work in the game.
I agree with this. There's so many times when logic points to another solution, but the designer failed to realise this. This is one of the reasons I highly advocate beta testing, not only to get bugs out, but incongruities within the game. A designer can't think of everything, but if you get enough people to give advice before you release a game, you can rid a game of this problem. At the very least, instead of allowing the logic solution, show enough evidence that the logical solution goes against what your character would do, or how the game world works.
QuoteFor commercial adventures I can understand the desire to add puzzles to pad out the game and make it appear longer.
I don't think there should be any padding, more so from a comercial game. What I do think is that for games, the length of time to beat a game should be a factor in how much the game costs. I find the industry usually sticks to the same price for every new game, and I don't quite agree with this. It's perfectly fine that a company shouldn't make an adventure game that isn't epic. But if I am able to beat the game in one sitting, the price should reflect this. But I don't think that padding is the answer. The game could be absolutely perfect in one sitting...but let's be honest, the price of a game does affect our expectations. Of course, it's perfectly fine for me to say this considering I'm not the one who has to pay for the production of the game.
I think that regardless of whether or not you use parser, the mouse, or something else, that the biggest problem in designing games, is that sometimes the player is stuck without having any inkling as to what they should even be doing, let alone be solving puzzles. So as a designer, when making puzzles, it should be abundantly clear to the player what their goals are and how they should be achieving those goals. So we can't just ask ourselves, "What puzzles should I add, that go along with the plot?" but afterward "How can I guide the player to a solution." Along with this question we should assume the player knows nothing of the outside world. Regardless of whether or not we think something to solve a puzzles is common knowledge, a designer should make absolutely certain that there is something within the game to allow the player to attain that knowledge. We shouldn't take this to extremes, like explaining what a paper clip is and it's uses. But once again, this is where beta testing can really help designers out, if say someone doesn't grasp the reasoning behind a puzzle, and you find you have to explain it to them, than you should probably place that knowledge somewhere in the game.
Anym, in regards to mixing items in your inventory. I don't think you should be able to mix items in your inventory if they don't make sense, like a flashlight and a pear. I don't think we should be trying to confuse the player. It makes the game tougher, but I think it has more of a possibility of pissing the player off. You could mix items that make sense together, but only if by mixing an item the player thinks they can solve something with it...and either find out that it didn't quite work.
-MillsJROSS
I don't like padding either, but from the company's point of view, the price has the price has to reflect the development cost, whereas consumers (or reviewers at least) always expect to get the same "amount" (time-wise) of entertainment. Of course, padding is hardly entertainment, but maybe the customer won't notice. I don't want to justify padding in commercial games, but try to understand the (misguided) mindset for putting it there in the first place, while at the same arguing that it might be unavoidable for commercial games, but should be completely absent from freeware games. For the same price, Indy 3 was much "longer" than Loom and I admit that I might have been disappointed at how short it was, had I bought it at full price, altough I don't doubt that they costed about the same to make. However, I only got them in a compilation together with three other games, so that didn't matter and today, I very much prefer Loom.
And I probably didn't make myself clear about combining inventory items. I, both as a player and as a designer, can't think of a way to combine a pear with a flashlight, so if my testers couldn't think of anything either, they probably shouldn't be combine-able because you can't do it in real life (unless of course you can use magic or a molecular resequencer to make a pear-shaped flashlight or an edible light source). On the other hand, I can think of a way to combine a potatoe and a scredriver, namely by sticking one into the other, forming a potatoe-on-a-stick. That may be a stupid thing to do and I can't think of any possible use of such an item, but seeing the character do it might both be more satisfying (if you wanted to do it) and more discouraging (if you were just trying to combine everything with everything, than just having the character say: "That would be stupid."
This acutally leads organically into my next point (and further away from the topic of puzzle motivation): What is the relationship between the player and the player character? Does the player take the role of the character or is he just a voice in his head? In action games, there is no question about that. I'm the player character and if I press FORWARD he character will move forward and if I press FIRE the character will shoot. In adventure games, all too often, that isn't the case. You can't USE a gun on a NPC and expect your character to actually do it. At best, you'll get a witty response, at worst an "I don't want to do that." What? I didn't ask if you wanted to do it, I wasn't suggesting you to do it, I was ordering you to do it! Of course, adventure game character usually aren't empty shells for the player to fill with personality, but have a personality in their own right, which you shouldn't always be able to override. For example, it would be out-of-character for Guybrush to stab people in the back, but where do you draw the line? Is it OK not to allow sticking screwdrivers into potatoes just because the character (acting as a mouthpiece for the designer) think it's stupid?
Helm, while your points on The Dig are all valid to some extent, I don't see how any of them are the fault of point-and-click interfaces in general or one-click interfaces in particular. Padding exists in parser-driven games as well. Being able to look at everything is a simple matter of making everything that isn't a hotspot a "global" hotspot, like the SCI games and filling dialogue options with a meaning (other than just information) and consequence is able indepented of whether you have clickable multiple-choice lines or ASK and TELL. Of course, with multiple-choice and your options (and maybe even their possible ramifications) become more visible, but is that that much of a problem?
My two cents, part two, section one: Parsers. While parsers are obviously more powerful and flexible than point-and-click interfaces, I prefer the latter because of its comfort and its accessability. Basically, the same reasons why most people are using a graphical user interface for their desktop in favour of command-line interfaces. If you don't have the typing or language skills, parsers are much more annoying to use and even if you do, most parsers lack the comfort I want from such an interface. I haven't yet seen a graphical adventure with a parser that's good enough. I'd prefer a TADS game to an AGI one any day of the week, but tend to prefer graphical point-and-click adventures to both of them.
My two cents, part two, section two: Gameplay. I think that unlike other computer games, adventure games aren't really aren't about gameplay. They are about story. Gameplay in many adventure games is quite poor actually. If you strip away the graphics and the story you realise just how stupid most adventure game puzzles are, regardless of whatever interface is used. Have a look at the discepancies between what games are mentioned in "The greatest Adventure Game of all time..." and the "What are your favorite hated Adventure Game Puzzles" threads. It looks like the best adventure games didn't necessarily have the best puzzles. For example, why is Grim Fandango so popular? Mostly because of its puzzles or mostly because of its writing? What's more important? To me, GF's story is certainly one of the best of what I've seen in computer games, one of the few computer games which's story is comparable to what you'd find in novels or movies, but I can hardly remember any individual puzzle that struck me a being that great. True, there weren't any especially bad puzzles either, but that's just my point. Don't add unnecessary puzzles and puzzles are subordinate to the story.
If I really wanted a game that's mostly about physical puzzles, I'd play The Incredible Machine or if I wanted to push around crates, I'd play Sokoban. Or look at Gobliiins. It has lots of gameplay and little story, in fact so much, that it's almost more of a puzzle game than an adventure game. Loom (which I seem to be mentioning a lot recently) on the other hand, is almost entirely story. Which is the better adventure game? In that sense, Japanese visual novels are like adventure which leave out puzzles entirely in favour of dialogue. Being completely puzzle-free is probably overdoing a bit, but when balancing puzzles and story, you should definitely opt for puzzle-light unless it really, really makes sense in the framework of your story.
In that respect, advances in graphics and story-telling in other genres probably had more to do with the downfall of adventure games, than actual misdevelopments in the genre itself. Today, people bemoan that so many people buy games just because of their graphics, but back in the day, adventure games were among the best-looking games there were. They weren't too hard on the hardware and had huge panoramic background images and relatively large sprites to show off their pixel art. Also, today games from every genre try to have interesting plots, another thing that used to be one of adventure games' strengths.
I think it is possible to identify the significance of gameplay in adventures.
To my mind, narrative is doubtless the most important part of adventure games, and indeed of most things. In truth though, the majority of adventure games have hackneyed, B-movie, pulp fiction plots. I don't think it stops them being enjoyable, though and that's largely down to the games' interactivity.
Without a story there would be no point in completing puzzle after puzzle. Conversely, without challenging puzzles, many of our favourite games' narratives wouldn't be worth sitting through.
Okay, I haven't red all of this but Helms post made me thinking. Still, I disagree with him in most parts.
I think direct control can be way too messy and unessecary if the game does not envolve any thrilling action like shooting etc. But I think that putting mind staggering puzzles and skillful shootings into one game is just a pure mess and is unthrilling to play.
So, in my opinion, point and click option is the best for peaceful adventure games and puzzling games overall, just like in many RPGs.
Bsides, direct control is best only in a certain perspective like (profile) platform, top-down, etc. But games that are isometric, or with diferent perspectives (like most adventure games), it is best to let the computer do the stepping and you do the clicking.
Probably the best way to improve click-adventures is to make them more alive. And by alive, I don't mean putting more animations and characters in there, but more like realistic items and puzzles.
What I mean is that in todays game, there are only certain items that you can pick up, and usually those items are used in puzzles. But my point is that you should put more items in the game, but most of them are not useful at all, you just have to choose the most logical items and compare them.
For example, imagine a toolbox full of all kinds of tools. You need to open a wooden hatch on the floor that is locked with an old rusty bolt that doesn't want to come out, what do you do? Well, lets say, in the toolbox, there is a hammer, a saw, a rug, a pack of nails, a measuring tape, a sharp flat chisel and a small roll of tape... Hmm, now think. All I can say now is that when we got burglars in our country home, they got in through a small hole and to get the things out of the shed, they had to go through a similar puzzle. What they did, was that they used the chisel and carved the bolt out. You can use the chisel with hammer too, if needed.
QuoteProbably the best way to improve click-adventures is to make them more alive. And by alive, I don't mean putting more animations and characters in there, but more like realistic items and puzzles.
The problem with this statement is that most puzzles are not realistic, and the ones that are prove to be so mundane and overused that people don't enjoy solving them. Making a game more alive isn't about puzzles, it's about creating a compelling world.
I think its both, an adventure game is a just a barely interactive movie, without puzzles, and is a puzzle game( like "incredible machine") without story. It needs BOTH. And a story is more then plot, its also theme, and execution. None of the elements can exist in isolation
A very narrow definition of 'puzzle' hurts what adventure games can do. Before I start ranting on my own, I'd like to invite talk on what a 'puzzle' is. Be expansive, include anything you think falls into this.
Whatever advances the story in an interactive way(that is, you choose to do it), and or opens up a new area for exploration. I am sure you can think of exceptions, but its the best I can think of right know.
So what is the difference then between a puzzle, and an obstacle?
hard to describe, in fact is there a difference? Why do you solve a puzzle? to surmount a obstacle. How do you get past an obstacle? You solve a puzzle.
I am suggesting broader definition because puzzle to me, seems firmly entrenched on the 'use item on item' mentality. Whereas an obstacle could be a npc's mood (angry guard you calm down via smart conversation), or it could be to traverse some difficult or dangerous terrain using data you've gathered in the process of the game, or it could be to overcome a huge amount of bureocracy in an office to get whatever. How many of these games have we played? And how many of the 'give fish to fisherman to get hook, use hook on rope, use grappling hook on window' variety?
Obstacles are in every sort of game. Puzzles however, are a different thing. I'd gladly play an adventure game where I have to negotiate different obstacles in different ways, without a single oldschool puzzle in the way. I am not trying to make any 'realism' case, but I don't walk around with pockets full of inventory items, and I negotiate obstacles every day. Some of them boring, probably all of them mundane, but not all of them impractical to game design. I think *any* story is wounded by excessive adventure game puzzling.
Yes just like a game can be drowned by story. but I can see what you mean by puzzles tend to mean "use thing on other thing" but that is but one type of puzzle. though the word is rather mechanistic, ( makes you think of jigsaw, or *shudder* slider puzzles) it can mean so much more, like the silly bucket puzzle in "MI2: LeChucks revenge" or the coffee puzzle in Grim Fendango ( I wanna be a thunder boy!)
Quote from: Helm on Wed 07/06/2006 20:38:06I'd gladly play an adventure game where I have to negotiate different obstacles in different ways, without a single oldschool puzzle in the way.
Could you give an example of this, and how it would be used in a full-length game without getting repetive along the way?
Sure.
Discarded Helm game idea #234265247: I play the part of a man stranded on an island. How I got there is not very important. My first interest is securing food and potable water. I scavenge in the wilderness, trying to avoid dangers and get my basic resources going. Then I make basic tools with which I defend myslef if needed, fish, harvest, hunt and upgrade my living conditions (thatched hut by the beach, wee!) more efficiently or what have you. If it rains a lot and I have no shelter, I might get sick and die. Once my basic needs are taken care of, I start to travel the island and map its' geography, slowly finding remains of an older civilization, clues that lead me to search the various caves on the island. I fight off a bear in one cave, carefully navigate the slipperly terrain inside, find it too dark. I emerge to search for means of fire, find some broken lens, concentrate the sun's rays (only on a very sunny day) on a piece of wood, or alterately, I try the rubbing wood together thing to get fire. Anyway, once I have fire (also, cooked fish straight from the sea, but watch out for the shark!) I return to the caves and with the added illumination find a series of painted instructions on a wall. They're very symbolic, and I have to discern where the clues lead me on the island. Now with fire, I may maintain a beacon flame at an elevated spot on the island, that needs regular tending, and hope that one randomly passing ship will see me. On the adventuring front, once I find the location the hints hinted at, I find a hidden passage to the deeper cave system of the island, where only the braver survivor dares to dwell...
at the end of the game, I'm ranked for how I survived, what habits I had, if I was a vegetarian, a pacifist or none of these things, what I ate and how much I did, how sick I got and how many days I lived. How much of the island I charted, what kind of clues did I gather and how far into the subterrainian mystery sideplot of the island I get into. Finally, if I was rescued, and what my overal morale was.
This is a kind of adventure game I'd love to play. A very realized version of the 'deserted island' cliche. Now think how most people have utilized the deserted island scenario in actual adventure games. It's endless day, you walk wherever you want, no danger, you collect objects and combine them and solve PUZZLES until the designer deems it right to transport you from this locale to the next one. Boring, underutilized, marred by unambitious design. Everything I say above is not easy to make in AGS, but scripting-wise nothing is stopping you. I can't do it, but somebody else might. It's difficult to do, but it's a better game than the usual fare.
Alright, I've been reading this post for days now, and have come to one conclusion: It's the same discussion on every adventure site, continued in most adventure articles, and beat to death on most adventure forums. And if that's not enough, the 'I.F.' sites are adding their opinions to the case. So, as to not let us fall behind, I'll add yet more fodder to the fire.
I do believe there is a distinct difference between puzzles, and obstacles.
Quotepuz-zle
v.tr.
1. To baffle or confuse mentally by presenting or being a difficult problem or matter.
2. To clarify or solve (something confusing) by reasoning or study.
3. To ponder over a problem in an effort to solve or understand it.
n.
1. Something, such as a game, toy, or problem, that requires ingenuity and often persistence in solving or assembling.
Quoteob·sta·cle
n.
One that opposes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress.
Now, I realize that it may be tacky to quote definitions, and I'll accept that (for now), but I think it's necessary to make my point. Within an adventure game, puzzles and obstacles may indeed go hand-in-hand, but to vastly different purposes. An obstacle is merely something, or someone, that's in the way and needs to be overcome/circumvented so that the player may continue. That's it. No big deal here. But a puzzle, now that's a different matter. A puzzle can tease, entertain, and move the story forward, if designed well.
To my mind, a puzzle, within the confines of a game, is anything that can be accomplished by the player. Be it unlocking/opening doors, getting information from the NPC in the other room, or shutting down a doomsday device. It doesn't matter what the task, how simple, complex, or convoluted, as long as it requires more than clicking 'Next', or leaving the room, it's a puzzle. If it's in inventory, dialog, or multiple rooms, it's a puzzle. Click it or parse it, it's still a puzzle. But, the 500 pound gorilla in the room is: What differentiates good puzzles from the bad ones?
A good puzzle fits in the setting, doesn't make assumptions, or force the player to do anything randomly. A good puzzle will also challenge the player to think within the game-world defined by the developer, and make sense once it's solved. Each of these points can be discussed endlessly, as to what they mean for each game, but for sake of brevity we'll condense them for general consumption.
- Setting: The puzzle must use components, knowledge, or language consistent with the rest of the story. Keeping the technology/magic/realism level the same is important. Good puzzles, like good writing, require what authors call a suspension of disbelief. If the developer breaks that suspension then the puzzle is little more than fool-the-player. This is frustrating at best.
- Assumptions: Puzzles shouldn't rely on specialized knowledge, or education, that isn't hinted at within the game. It's absolutely fine if a player has to go look something up, if he has a clue where to start. The other pitfall for an international gaming community, such as this, is euphemisms. Expecting everyone to understand a particular slang can be a puzzle killer.
- Random: I despise randomly set locks, color codes, passwords, etc... You can't figure out random. Random should be saved for stock character responses, or anything else that gets boring after reading it the umpteenth time.
- Sense and Sensibility: If the puzzle means nothing to the plot, once it's solved, it shouldn't have been there to begin with. If the solution isn't obvious, after it's over, then the puzzle was poorly conceived. If the story can move on without it, well, let it.
Plot + setting + character. It all adds up to one thing: Good writing. We've seen all of the puzzles based on surroundings and objects (setting). We've gone through dialog trees of outlandish size (character). But how many puzzles take advantage of plot? What's plot but a series of conflicts and their solutions? All good writing has conflict. Ask any writer. Conflict of interest, conflict with one's self, conflict with the environment, conflict on any scale. It needs to be there to make a story interesting. It's these conflicts that can create natural openings for some puzzles, and ones that have been very underutilized. Don't take this as applying to only serious writing. I wouldn't expect a 'Monty Python' game, and it's puzzles, to be anything less than absurd. 'Care-Bears' should be obnoxiously cute, and so should the puzzles. Conflict exists in comedy, and childrens stories, too.
Anyway, just an idea of what makes a puzzle, and where to get some inspiration for them.
I'll close with one more (tacky) definition just to make sure that we know where these puzzles belong.
Quotead·ven·ture
n.
1.
a. An undertaking or enterprise of a hazardous nature.
b. An undertaking of a questionable nature, especially one involving intervention in another state's affairs.
2. An unusual or exciting experience: an adventure in dining.
3. Participation in hazardous or exciting experiences: the love of adventure.
v. ad·ven·tured, ad·ven·tur·ing, ad·ven·tures
1. To venture upon; undertake or try.
2. To expose to danger or risk; hazard.
3. To take a risk; dare.
QuoteI play the part of a man stranded on an island. How I got there is not very important. My first interest is securing food and potable water. I scavenge in the wilderness, trying to avoid dangers and get my basic resources going. Then I make basic tools with which I defend myslef if needed, fish, harvest, hunt and upgrade my living conditions (thatched hut by the beach, wee!) more efficiently or what have you. If it rains a lot and I have no shelter, I might get sick and die. Once my basic needs are taken care of, I start to travel the island and map its' geography, slowly finding remains of an older civilization, clues that lead me to search the various caves on the island.
This smacks strongly of Robinson's Requiem, a very horrible game. Also, it's more of a survival simulation than an adventure as you have broken it down into so many specific pieces that the 'adventure' aspect turns into a life sim.
Sounds interesting Helm, like a realistic Harvest moon game! However your game idea seems to be lacking in anything resembling a story line? And I don't really like playing games where you are inevitably going to die than succeed, and then keep starting over again doing the same things from scratch but being more effecient at it. So it wouldn't appeal to me as I rarely play a game through more than twice these days. (Although being unemployed might change that..)
I think what I posted stronly rests within the definition of what an adventure game is: a game where exploration, discovery, conflict occurs, with the emphasis on story and characterization.
By looking up the term puzzle real quick (from dictionary.com) Puzzle: "To baffle or confuse mentally by presenting or being a difficult problem or matter." and Obstacle: " One that opposes, stands in the way of, or holds up progress."
I like the term obstacles much more than the term puzzle. It allows for some more abstract ways to hold the player back, than the term puzzle. The difference between the two, it would seem, is really whether or not whatever is holding us back is confusing to us or just difficult. So a puzzle to someone, might be an obstacle to another person, and vica versa. Obstacles are more apparent in other games, where it's obvious what you have to do, like in FPS's...to advance kill these people. But there definately have been adventure games with obstacles in them. Ex. SQ3, avoid killer robot in begining. There's really nothing hard to think about, just avoid being detected by it, by being quick about whatever you do.
This brings to mind something about puzzles, that I've preached before. Lucas Arts and a lot of newer games have coddled us adventure gamers. I say if you have an obstacle, where you're character has potential of being in danger, allow said character to die if he messes up. You can allow the player to restore or start at a point right before death, but once it's known you can't die, it makes obstacles like that non-sensical. Why try to make a scary forest, if there is no danger? If you don't want to make a game where you're character dies, that's fine. I just think that a puzzle has more weight, and more of an enjoyment factor if you can die. I just remember feeling fear for my character, and enjoying it more.
-MillsJROSS
Mills, which brings this to why I believe restore mechanics should be more like in roguelikes than they are in hold-your-hand-adventure-games.
The storyline appears to be somewhat lightweight, like Halo, or even half life 2.
Man wakes up deserted. (With no importance on how he got there?)
Man finds cave with writing in it.
The end!
I suppose it would be difficult to create a plot heavy free form game like this, what with so many variables. You'd need self adapting AI if there were other characters. I can't say I've read a book/seen a film with only one character on his own throughout the film. Even cast away had loved ones in it at some point.
Hey Helm, imagine if adventure games were popular and EA made them. Goodness knows they insult our intelligence with big massive arrows in game to show us we need to turn left. (From playing a DEMO of some James Bond game)
How much story you can put there can go from Sierra AGI Space Quest 1 to Gabriel Knight. I presented a gameplay model.
Helm: My comments about conflict are no reflection on your post/story idea. I was writing while you posted that. And I agree that the length and breadth of the plot have little to do with continuity, or good puzzle design.
To die, or not to die. That's another matter. But, I am with MillsJROSS on this one: A sufficiently violent story shouldn't be safe for the player.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Wed 07/06/2006 23:06:42Also, it's more of a survival simulation than an adventure as you have broken it down into so many specific pieces that the 'adventure' aspect turns into a life sim.
An adventure game can't just be about survival, its puzzles based on surviving? I think your definition of adventure game is a little narrow...
http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/78.html why not here hehe.
I like Helm's desert island idea, and I hardly see how the terms we use to describe it are important. Well, I should rephrase that. The terms are perhaps important, but they don't change the actual content of the game. If the game is an enjoyable and engaging experience, then I'll play it.
In fact, Helm, I'm so interested in that idea, that I'd be willing to give scripting it a shot if you created the graphics. Of course, my scripting is a little messy, so I couldn't guarantee a terribly high level of quality.
Lately, I've been finding myself wanting to play games with a higher level of immersion and interactivity with the game world than usual. The world needs to feel like it's a living and breathing environment in which the player's options of action are many and varied. This can be difficult to implement, but not impossible, and I believe it to be very, very worthwhile if done properly.
As far as puzzles go, using item A on item B to remove obstacle C so that you can enter cave D and retrieve item E so that you can alter item F to give to dwarf G gets tedious, as does saying what I've just said. I'd like puzzles in-game to lean more towards being riddles, so that it's something integrated with the game environment that the player, being a part of that world (immersion!), must find a solution to. The key here is that the actions the player must do to solve problems should always be relevant to the in-game situation, should always make sense, and should involve actual brainwork instead of, "What combination of items is required to make the game keep moving?"
Erenan, thanks for the offer, I was making this a year ago or something, I have some graphics, I have a full design document, and a map of the island I've now lost, but I don't believe that at this time, I can make all the graphics needed. However, if you feel so inclined http://dasjoe.de/helm/ there you will find test graphics and the doc. This is actually something that would be better done in 3d, but a good 2d implementation is not impossible. Know that you'll have to write some sort of dynamic randomizer of objects (which you should be able to walk behind and in front of also) and a lot of nifty little things AGS won't make easy to do. I am very safe in 'public domain-ing' this knowing that anyway, nobody will manage to make it in the next 3-4 years, at which point I might reattempt it myself with others. But if you think you can, go for it.
Thanks. I'm reading the document right now. Seems very interesting. I have enough game ideas of my own to last me for a long, long time already, but this is interesting enough that I might just give it a shot at some point.
Quote from: Helm on Wed 07/06/2006 19:38:20
So what is the difference then between a puzzle, and an obstacle?
All puzzle are obstacles, but not all obstacles are puzzles.
Any good platform game is full of obstacles which challenge the player to respond in an instinctive, kinetic manner.
A puzzle, in the very broadest sense, is an obstacle which cannot be overcome in this manner. Anywhing which compels the player to think, to examine and re-evaluate their situation is a puzzle. Many good platform games have some obstacles of this sort.
I'm beginning to wonder if the problem which led to me starting this thread relates to the
abstraction of puzzles from obstacles.
An obstacle, like a locked door, must be a part of its environment. The kinetic response to a locked door would be to use a different door, or a window, or a door smashing device, or a key.
To make this into a puzzle we must challenge the player to think. So we add a slide-tile puzzle, a coded number-pad or an intricate series of levers. This places the player in a ludicrous situation, wherein the puzzle has taken precedence over the obstacle.
While the obstacle of the locked door could grow naturally from its environment, the puzzle of a slide-tile lock is unlikely to have. It no longer seems like the player's progress is blocked reasonably, by a door, but unreasonably, by the developer.
Does that make sense, or is it all tosh?
If I find a puzzle with a slide puzzle in it I shall KILL the developer(s)
{the previous statement was purely the opinion of the entities Id, and is not in any way related to the opinion of the entities Ego, or Superego, we say we bust their kneecaps)
Quote from: Ali on Fri 09/06/2006 17:45:59
the puzzle has taken precedence over the obstacle.
Gather 'round children! Behold the downfall of adventure game puzzles.
If you are writing a puzzle for an adventure game, ask yourself the question, "Is the puzzle taking precedence over the obstacle?" and if the answer is yes, rework it.
QuoteDoes that make sense, or is it all tosh?
Yes, yes you are. And thank you for your post, and I echo eric's final position. This thread has been helpful.
Quote from: MrColossal on Fri 09/06/2006 18:02:19
If you are writing a puzzle for an adventure game, ask yourself the question, "Is the puzzle taking precedence over the obstacle?" and if the answer is yes, rework it.
That sounds logic an all, but adventure games from that golden age didn't take themselves very seriously. Many games still don't.
Strange that two cartoonist, no less, think so logically and common to dismiss a puzzle based on it's randomness. A gorilla in a pink dinosaur suit blocking the way is random, but funny. What about all those puzzles that are taking precedence over the obstacle, but are funny, smart or easy? They do have a place in adventure games.
And now I would like to talk about Maniac Masion. This is Lucas Arts (Film Games) first adventure game, yet it deviates from any adventure game that was made after this (and before). There is only one location, but there are 3 characters playeble at that location the same time. There are even more characters to choose from, each with different skills, which means not every puzzle can or has to be solved and multiple endings. Characters need to be placed on strategic points to solve a few puzzles. The characters could die or get captured, they need to be carefull, but the games is never punished injustly. (And now the best part) randomly events will happen, for instance the doorbell will ring and a NPC will walk through the hous to the door. Any character on the halway need to move, or they will be caught. The NPC takes the initiative.
It is as if Lucas Arts created an adventure formula after Zak MacCracken, perfected it after Monkey Island and never tried to make something revolutionary again. The worst thing is other companies copied that succes formula.
(And now for my point) There wasn't really a story in MM, appart from that kidnapped-girl-needs-saving cliché. The characters couldn't even talk to each other. Looking at differend objects led to the same responce. It's core puzzling. Still, we can see the plot line and follow the clues.
I conclude that adventure games CAN excist out of pure puzzles and no story.
QuoteStrange that two cartoonist, no less, think so logically and common to dismiss a puzzle based on it's randomness.
I can't speak for eric, but I never enojyed 'random funny' adventure games like Monkey Island or Day of the Tentacle, be me a cartoonist or not. I'm sure they have their place and a lot of people continuously say how Monkey Island 2 for example is their favourite game, but I do not see their appeal, and I am not interested in playing them any more. Games that are funny that also have great gameplay is something I haven't witnessed a lot of times in my life, and they were certainly not adventure games. Especially games that break the fourth wall and go 'lol I am an adventure game' just make me gringe. Calahan's Crosstime Saloon is a good example of an amazingly funny piece of entertainment that simply... should have been either a book or a movie. The interaction within it doesn't add to it at all, in my opinion.
Quote from: jet on Fri 09/06/2006 22:44:36
And now I would like to talk about Maniac Masion. This is Lucas Arts (Film Games) first adventure game, yet it deviates from any adventure game that was made after this (and before). There is only one location, but there are 3 characters playeble at that location the same time.
It never ceases to amaze me that this simple yet effective system of using multiple characters has, to my knowledge, never been duplicated since Maniac Mansion.
(ok, Zak McKracken uses it, but only barely; in every other game I can think of, the characters either cannot unite (DOTT), cannot split up (Gobliins) or aren't freely available (Indy4))
So, we should probably have a MAGS assignment that makes for multiple characters. Hm... maybe that means I should win this month's MAGS :)
Quote from: jet on Fri 09/06/2006 22:44:36
That sounds logic an all, but adventure games from that golden age didn't take themselves very seriously. Many games still don't.
Strange that two cartoonist, no less, think so logically and common to dismiss a puzzle based on it's randomness. A gorilla in a pink dinosaur suit blocking the way is random, but funny. What about all those puzzles that are taking precedence over the obstacle, but are funny, smart or easy? They do have a place in adventure games.
Well, I can't speak for eric but me being a cartoonist means nothing in this situation. I used to like all the silly puzzles in adventure games "Sure, I'll just knock this speaker over and of course the bass with unstick the vomit on the ceiling, which I'm sure is there for a very good reason..." "Use Max on the circuit breakers? Seems like a reasonable thing to do!" "Any puzzle ever in a discworld game? Brilliant!" but I also used to like Ren and Stimpy until I realized that it's just a bunch of random stuff thrown together.
Much like DoTT's art style, one can take a concept of a room and twist it out of proportion and mess with the angles and make it look WACKY WA-HEY! but it's still a room and it has rules that it bends but does not break. Apply this to puzzles. Bend the rules of your world, don't break them.
The majority of ZANY WACKY puzzles in adventure games are just "This is funny, put it in" it seems. DoTT has some intersting puzzles like changing the past so the statue has it's other arm up so Nurse Edna can't grab onto it but I don't remember how you decide to do that if you even do.. Getting the vomit off the ceiling just happens when you're playing around using everything. I never made the logical leap "This will shake the house and knock the vomit off the ceiling..." I was looking for something ANYTHING to scrape it off with.
I guess the first question your beta testers should ask is "Did I figure that solution out or did I accidentally solve it?" but more eloquent like what Ali wrote
QuoteI'm sure they have their place and a lot of people continuously say how Monkey Island 2 for example is their favourite game, but I do not see their appeal, and I am not interested in playing them any more.
Not finding DoTT or Secret of Monkey Island funny in any way makes me wonder what exactly amuses you, Helm.
As for crazy puzzles for the sake of shocking the player, those never really did much for me. If there's a reason behind the craziness (other than just to do it) then I think it's worthwhile, otherwise it's just a deliberate attempt to make you like something you normally wouldn't.
I didn't say they're not funny. I said I didn't enjoy them as games.
Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 10/06/2006 02:01:05
The majority of ZANY WACKY puzzles in adventure games are just "This is funny, put it in" it seems. DoTT has some intersting puzzles like changing the past so the statue has it's other arm up so Nurse Edna can't grab onto it but I don't remember how you decide to do that if you even do.. Getting the vomit off the ceiling just happens when you're playing around using everything. I never made the logical leap "This will shake the house and knock the vomit off the ceiling..." I was looking for something ANYTHING to scrape it off with.
Perhaps these puzzles were a stretch, but they did provide clues. When talking with Green Tentacle he emphasizes the volume of the band and the effects. In fact, playing the demo song causes the entire room to shake (Bernard even comments about the volume after this action). If you leave the music on, and go back down to the lobby, you will see that the room is shaking.
It becomes apparent later in the game that you need to find some way to see Dr. Ed putting in the safe combination slowly. By looking at the monitors upstairs, you can see that the security camera gets a good angle of the safe, but his hands are moving too fast. By talking to Edna, she tells you about the features of the system, but she won't let you use the VCR. It's obvious you must somehow get rid of her. The game visually emphasizes the fact her chair has wheels through her idle animation, where she constrantly slides back and forth along the controls.
When you push Edna, she grabs onto the arm of the statue and rebounds. In your conversation with her, she even gives you background about the statue. Dr. Ed and the twins both talk about their handed-ness. The main reason this puzzle is misunderstood is the fact you could solve it before you needed unhampered access to the security system. Making a puzzle only solvable when the game character "understands" the logic can be seen as a frustrating flaw for the player.
By giving visual or verbal feedback, the game encourages the player experiment with their surroundings. The rewards are hints that give the player direction on the puzzles to solve. The game mixes up the methods of instruction, sometimes explicitly telling the player the goal, while other times it lets the player discover the goal by herself. Because the game world was so rich with dialogue, art, and music, exploring the actions was half the fun.
I think the puzzles in question, zany as they may have been, were good. As Big Brother shows, they grew out of their environment and, most importantly, followed the logic of the DOTT world.
The worst instance of a zany, just-for-fun, puzzle-takes-precedence-over-obstacle must be the Hush Puppies puzzle from Simon the Sorceror.
Having puzzles which make no sense can turn me off a game for good, and even when making a game it can turn me off. When makign Piratess I made many mistakes because I had no idea what I was doign with it and was makign it all up as I went along. It is because of this my puzzles made little to no sense. Here's a litte GTD of my own to help out some peeps.
I find the best way of designing puzzles is to always have a good solid plot, that way you know what the player will be working there way to.
1) I generally start with my plot outline.
2) Next I split it into areas of interest, such as rooms. I choose these areas so that the end of the area will allow you to progress onto a new location or something, sometimes an area may be several rooms long but all integrated. In MI2 the first area is Scabb Island.
3) Each area should have some final goal such as in MI2 you need to remove the Largo Embargo.
4) I then go about splitting this goal into as many logical steps or sub-goals as I can, this was achieved very nicely in MI2 by getting a shopping list from the Voodoo Lady (sorry if this ruins anything for those who haven't played it but I chose a game that probably everyone has played). This required you to gather a few items each item had it's own puzzle to solve. These tasks should be brief without detail.
5) I then pad these tasks out using the available locations. If I needed a boot and my locations were a lake, forest and a museum I'd think that the boot could be fished out of the lake, but that would require a fishing rod, so to get the fishing rod I could make it from a twig in the forest and so on...
6) Continue to evolve from here until you are happy.
Some tips that help me and can help you:
1) I don't care how secret your game is or how much you want everything to be your own work, truth is that your idea will not be 100% unique anyway and you are making this game for people to play and enjoy, so consult with someone. Find someone you can trust or believe to be helpful and get them to read over some of your stuff, get them to critique it and see if things are logical. What I usually do is speak with a housemate, someone who has no experience in adventure games. I ask them perhaps something along the lines of "if there was a locked door and you had no way of getting through it but you need to, what would you do". Chances are they might say just kick down the door, which in itself could be a better alternative than just leaving it unlocked, perhaps the user has to kick it three times for it to give way, perhaps first you need to put on some shoes first or something.
2) With the door example you could also attempt the following, make a huge list of items that can be used to open a door; credit card, key, key card, boot, axe, wood worms. Just think of everything. Then perhaps try to link some of these items that could be logically gathered in your available locations. In an earlier example I used the lcoations a forest, a lake and a museum. The forest could have wood worms or even an axe if there is a lumberjack. The lake could hold the boot and so on.
3) Remember it is an adventure game and the idea generally is to be an adventure, so people should be exploring around. Looking for items everywhere and picking up everything, so there may be a chance that some random items that may not have seemed logical in real life. As long as it makes sense with in your story. Comdedy games are great for this, in MI you get a staple remover, although it has no real use it's funny because you would never expect to see that... but it could be used within a puzzle.
Anyway hope some people find this helpful.
Quote from: Helm on Fri 09/06/2006 23:41:41
Calahan's Crosstime Saloon is a good example of an amazingly funny piece of entertainment that simply... should have been either a book or a movie.
Strange you should mention that:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812572270
Yes, aware.
After reading the Wiki article on Plot Coupons, it reminded me of the type of plot coupon that you start off a game with. I love the idea of putting an item into the inventory of a character right from the beginning, and have the player keep saying "NOW do I use this thing?" and not use it until the very end, or close to it.
How about the opposite - Red Herrings, I guess you'd call them - where you get a potentially useful item that ends up not being useful at all? I'm thinking specifically of Maniac Mansion, where you pick up a chainsaw almost immediately but never find any gasoline to use it.
Actually, I think more games would benefit if they included items that you don't ever use. I think it would probably help discourage the "what haven't I used in my inventory yet?" syndrome. Also, I find it kind of annoying/unrealistic when you, for example, open a refrigerator or look in a desk, etc. and there's one item you can take, which you know must be useful later.
Try dreamweb.
Well, in Canada, Adventure Games do moderatly well. Has anybody heard of The Adventure Company? They publish adventure games, and some are good. If anyone played Myst, 1-3 and 5 are worth the money. There are puzzles which are so weird, they make sense. I think it's because there are practically NO people. You are always thrust into a situation where you don't know anything. For example:
Spoiler
In Myst 3, you talk to Atrus and BOOM! This guy attacks you out of nowhere! You're only hope is to follow his escape.
Puzzles which help the storyline (You find a strange machine by an old civilization on "The Island" which happens to emit light when you solve the very easy puzzle, telling you these people know about making light without fire. Sometime no knowledge or very little is the key.
And if anyone plays Benoit Sokal's games, you'll also know that a puzzle can be very logically done. (You need to turn on a machine, but half the instructions are missing.)
But, never EVER "Schizm" it. The problem with Schizm is that the puzzles MAKE NO SENSE. So a key part is definantly situation, and relativity to a situation.
BAD PUZZLE:
You come to a stairway which retracts, and it is reracted. You must pull a series of 12 switches, push 6 buttons, and twist 2 knops to get this stairway to work. Once you do, the stairway collapses but opens a door on it's way down.
GOOD PUZZLE:
You come across an old ruin, and in the centre is a pillar with a clear indentation of a jewel. You found a jewel earlier. When you place the jewel in, a wooden tablet comes out. Everything is writen backwards, which you can also tell. You must use it on one of many reflective surfaces to read it. I mean it can be read using water, a mirror, a really shiny rock. etc. etc. etc. Once read, it can be used to assist you later, AND it tells you some key items about the ruins and it's race.
Old games were good. But I think the community should recognize some new jewels too. Maybe then developers would know what's good.