Game Theory: Puzzle Motivation.

[Helm]

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.

[Erenan]

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.

[Ali]

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?

[lo_res_man]

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)

[MrColossal]

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.

[Helm]

Does 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.

[jetxl]

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.

[Helm]

Strange 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.

[Radiant]

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

[MrColossal]

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

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

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.

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.

[Helm]

I didn't say they're not funny. I said I didn't enjoy them as games.

[big brother]

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.

[Ali]

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.

[magintz]

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.

[Kweepa]

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

[Helm]

Yes, aware.

[TerranRich]

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.

[EagerMind]

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.

[Helm]

Try dreamweb.