Adventure Game Studio

Whats some good Response to use in a game.
Need some for my game so it's not so boring.
And instead of txt use voice?

In what context?

Things like objects stuff like that.

I always made games that were attempting to be humorous, so I would try and put something I found funny in the description. I typically would make it up on the fly though.

"Nice [noun]."

Seriously, though, I suggest that you try to put yourself in the character's shoes and imagine what he or she would think and say when looking at different objects. Instead of saying, "It's a wall," say something like, "Hmmm... This wall seems to be falling apart with age." Give responses that further the storyline and give clues to the solutions of puzzles.

Thank you for the help. will help me a lot.

"I don't really want to do that."
"That wouldn't shed any light on things."
"I don't think I'll use the [item] on [hotspot]."
"That's not on fire."
"My scythe, I like to keep it next to where my heart used to be."

[pimp]
Also, use my MultiResponse module so that its very easy for repeateded examiniong to give further information
[/pimp]

Candle, please try & be a little more specific. What kind of responses? Erenan gives a good suggestion, but if you're trying to fill up less important space you could always use the following - short, sweet, and allows the player to just carry on moving!

For example, talking to a block of ice:

"No!"
"No way!"
"I don't want to!"
"Tomfoolery!"

I take it you want some generic responses in the vain of "I can't do that"

How bout...
"I can't [action] the [object]"
"I don't wanna [action] the [object]"
"There's no need to [action] the [object]"
"I don't know how to [action] the [object]"
"You can't [action] the [object] in this game!"
"There's no way i can [action] the [object]!"

And for inventory:
"These things don't go"
"I can't use [inv1] in this way"
"The [inv1] and the [inv/hotspot2] do not work together"
"Using [inv1] and [inv/hotspot2] is not going to happen"


Of course replace 'action' with, "interact with", "look at", "talk to" etc, and [object] with "door", "worlds smallest gorilla", "mouldy fairy cake", "chipmonks dancing the tango" etc...

Of course I would recommend at least having a response for every "look at" command. But using inventory and inventory can just be "these things don't go", or "The [inv1] and [inv2] don't go together". The shorter the better, since the user might at some stage try all inventory items against all inventory items.

Hope this helps

It is important to have those generic ones in your unhandled_event just in case you miss some interaction by accident. Some generic rubbish still looks better than no response at all. However, do try and fill in all those gaps.

This is much easier to do in comic games, where you can make some joke about most objects, but serious responses are much much harder to do, and tend to be longer.

Quote"You can't [action] the [object] in this game!"

This breaks the fourth wall.  I hate games that do this unless they are expressly comical.


Also, Erenan's advice for you to think like the character is excellent.  Make the character a unique entity with his/her own likes/dislikes and attitude and then tailor their responses based on these traits.  Is the person kind hearted and gentle?  Perhaps most of their responses will be optimistic and sweet.  If the person is a sadistic killer, however, you'd expect their view of the world to be twisted.

Thank you , all great stuff and going to help me out.

Be creative.

for example,

use brick on car

"I shouldn't do that. This car belongs to mr. Rogers, who is very depressed man. If I'd ruin his car, he'll be really angry next day. This leads to conflict with his boss, and he'll be fired. His wife dumps him after hearing what happened and mr. Rogers tries to kill himself by speeding in the midtown. Unfortunately, president of <insert country name here>'s motorcade will pass the city at same time, and even worse is that mr. Rogers will hit his limo. Causing such accident within our country borders will totally spoil our relationships with <same country> and its allies, which will result in nuclear war, and eventually in WW3.
So, in conclusion, not using brick on this car will make me the saviour of planet Earth and humankind. Try something else!"

;D
(Just joking)

Quote from: InCreator on Tue 26/09/2006 21:36:41
use brick on car

"I shouldn't do that. This car belongs to mr. Rogers, who is very depressed man. If I'd ruin his car, he'll be really angry next day. This leads to conflict with his boss, and he'll be fired. His wife dumps him after hearing what happened and mr. Rogers tries to kill himself by speeding in the midtown. Unfortunately, president of <insert country name here>'s motorcade will pass the city at same time, and even worse is that mr. Rogers will hit his limo. Causing such accident on our country will totally spoil our relationships with <same country> and its allies, which will result in nuclear war, and eventually in WW3.
So, I in conclusion, not using brick on this car will make me the saviour of planet Earth and humankind. Try something else!"

Preeeeeeety cool indeed. Thinking seriously about that option...

use brick on InCreator

;D

Some ideas on item usage:

"I'm not that desperate."
"It would be a good idea, providingÃ,  that [item] didn't look so good where it is right now."
"Despair leads all adventure game players to try absurd things."
"That's a jolly good idea!(NOT)."

Here are some ideas for using items on something.

"uhh.... is that legal?"
"I think that would be painful"
"How would that even work?"
"Uhh... not now.  My leg still hurts"
"If my mother saw me doing that..."
"If anyone saw me doing that..."
"I would...but....no"
"NO....just...no"

For talking to inanimate objects.

"my phyciatrist says not to do that anymore"
"do you even know WHAT you're asking me to do?"
"For the sake of sanity....no"
"Uhh....is that legal?"

For looking at stuff.

"It's a(n) [object]"
"It's me [object]"
"It's not me [object]"
"It's a(n) [object] in me [other object]"
"It is a well-crafted [object]"
"It's a somewhat painfull-looking [object]"
"[adjective]...isn't it?"
"uhh....is that legal?"

Hope this helps.

I like how it's breaking the fourth wall to be talking about how it's a game, in the game, but nobody seems to mind that a person is talking out-loud to nobody in particular about random items his gaze is travelling over and debating the relative merits of using bricks on them.

You mean, you don't do that Helm?

Yesterday's 7up can. It has some drink left in it.

drink 7up

Well.. I am thirsty.. *glug glug*

We could also discuss how people manage to fit ladders and buckets in their pockets.

Also:

Ah the old games where you'd collect floppy disks and joysticks for points. That sucked.

I do find that I talk to myself alarmingly often, but I fear it is a sign of an unstable psychology more than anything else. Therefore: adventure game main characters are predominantly schizophrenics.

And kleptomaniacs.

QuoteI like how it's breaking the fourth wall to be talking about how it's a game, in the game, but nobody seems to mind that a person is talking out-loud to nobody in particular

I don't personally like the characters in games to shout out their actions either.  'Ok, I pick up can lol1' is pointless, and that's what an omniscient narrator is for anyway (if you really need to say anything at all about picking up an object).  Also, contrary to the Book of Roger, talking to yourself is not a sign of madness!

QuoteAh the old games where you'd collect floppy disks and joysticks for points. That sucked.

But picking up coins in Super Mario Bros. bigger than little Mario is ok. :)

In my game I would make the character say "I got it!" or whatever sometimes 'cos it makes it clear to the player he actually grabbed the object in front of him that is obscured from view by his body.

A sensible way of having the character appear sane is with George Stobbart. He thinks the descriptions of objects and the like.

Hmm, the narrator in BJ 1 deluxe, I can't remember who did that voiceover, but I found it slow and annoying.. I think it was the accent?

Yes, thinking or descriptive text outside the screen, be it from a narrator figure or just utilitarian 'this object has been picked up' is better for serious games, I think.

7h1rD p3r50n TotTaly bR34ks teh 4TH W4ll!

f1R57 P3rs0n a|| t3h w4ys!

Shut up.

I personally HATE generic replyes such as "That doesn't work.." or "I don't want to do that.."

First off, in my mind, that DOES work and secondly, YOU have no vote in this, I play the game, ok?!

I have no better alternatives other than making an unique reply for every possible action. Sure, it's one helluva job, but what isn't in game creation? A huge bit of extra effort and voila..

I very much agreeify with 2ma2. Showing personalised responses to each action shows some understanding for the player. If you are forced to go through each action, you're likely to see many different solutions to your puzzle, and even if you can't make the solution broader, you can explain why the method you tried didn't work.

QuoteI personally HATE generic replyes such as "That doesn't work.." or "I don't want to do that.."

This is a situation where it's simply better to just not have interactions than to have poor ones.  Objects I know I can't do anything with are better off as background noise imo than a footnote for the designer to infuriate you with evasive comments and lousy attempts at humor.  It's easy to leave in a look at interaction and just not have a pickup/interact one at all, sending a clear signal that the item is useless in the game without saying 'I'll never use this'.

I think, that in games where you have to use duct tape with a fishing pole in order to catch a bird, there is a good reason to give every possible action an answer. Like, I can't do that just now, or, that item doesn't work that way. Just to give the player a hint that there's something to do that is allowed, but it's not this.

Then again, in a more realistic game, or so, you should nedd to point out that you can't use a broken shoe with a spoon in order to pick a lock, when you have a lockpick in your inventory. So basically, for example in the game I'm doing atm, I will try to make it clear there is no need to use absurd thing on each other, or to try to open a mirror or talk to a tree etc. Just because it wouldn't make sense. So I'm not sure if I should give everything an answer saying the same, that doesn't work, or just figure out something. Like, "you can't talk to a tree" or "a mirror doesn't function that way"...etc etc

Did Ripley say anything about ridiculous commands in the Riddle of Master Lu? I seem to recall him simply shrugging. Can anyone refresh my memory?

On my current project I'm working on this system to avoid the player just trying everything on everything without a clue. Every time s/he tries something like "talk to banana" s/he is awarded 1 idiot point. After 50 points s/he is kicked out of the game.

Which in turn makes the player afraid to experiment and try anything?

Which in turn, makes them realise they can save the game prior to doing something that will risk getting an idiot point, so they spend the whole game interupting play to save it just incase?

To make this thing work, the game world needs to be clearly defined - it should be obvious that talking to bananas would be useless. The player must feel what kind of experimenting makes sense according to the situation.

The player is forced to pay attention to what is going on, what clues are given and how the game world works. The creator must make sure it's all clearly presented, and that it's an interesting world to be in. The goal is to keep the player so hooked onto it that s/he drives the plot forward at a good pace and is never clueless. Pointless experimenting digresses from the world and makes the experience far less interesting.

Though it was the same every time, the can't pick up sequince in Sam and Max: Hit the road, will always be dear to my heart.

Quote from: 2ma2 on Tue 03/10/2006 14:08:50
First off, in my mind, that DOES work and secondly, YOU have no vote in this, I play the game, ok?!

I agree wholeheartedly. I've just given up on Journey to the Centre of the Earth because of awful responses/lack of response. At one point there's a map screen and the character responds "Do I really want to go there?" when you click on ANY of the locations. The answer is 'YES, of course you do!'

I've never seen a poorer or more frustrating reason for keeping a player from exploring a location. There are many more examples of dreadful interactions in that game, but that's the worst.

Quote from: Neil Dnuma on Wed 04/10/2006 15:28:11
On my current project I'm working on this system to avoid the player just trying everything on everything without a clue. Every time s/he tries something like "talk to banana" s/he is awarded 1 idiot point. After 50 points s/he is kicked out of the game.

That sounds like a good idea, as long as you print this on the screen after:

*** You have died ***

Idiot points: 50/50

You have reached the rank of Bananamage

The issue with 'I don't want to do this' is player command, and the designer hiding behind a silly 'free will' clause for the main character. So we feel we're not really *controlling* the main character, we're just nudging him along in what he wanted to do anyway, because he has a 'character' and he can't step outside of it. This is in most cases awful. Either the character is compelled to do every little silly thing we want him to do, and is therefore more of an Avatar than he is an actor ( Sierra deaths ahoy! ) or our method of control of the character has to be scaled back considerably (The Last Express, for example). DON'T give me a walk pointer and then rob me of the ability to walk in toxic waste. DON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

Thank you Helm, that was very helpful to me.

Quote from: Helm on Fri 06/10/2006 13:11:28
DON'T give me a walk pointer and then rob me of the ability to walk in toxic waste. DON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

I disagree that this is necessarily bad design. The freedom to do those kind of things is a great boon to some games, but not all. Player character free will is not bad design in itself, it is a problem when it MASKS bad design, as in the example I mention above.

"I'm not going in there, it's too dark."

This would be an acceptable response if the main character was a small child, but not if they were a grizzled marine. It would be fun to find the child a nightlight, but irritating to find the marine a torch.

As long as the PC's refusals grow out of their character and not out narrative necessity they will be enjoyable rather than frustrating. If the character is to be anything other than a puppet or a suicidal sociopath then they ought to refuse to walk into toxic waste or shoot bystanders.

I suppose the problem is that games often fail to offer sufficient freedom to make a 'puppet' PC fun, and fail to make a 'conscious' PC rounded enough for their refusals to feel like anything other than artificial obstacles.

Quote from: Helm on Fri 06/10/2006 13:11:28DON'T give me a walk pointer and then rob me of the ability to walk in toxic waste. DON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

I think it's designed that way to prevent the player from "accidently" shooting an important NPC, resulting in just wandering around with no way of completing the game. You're not only controlling a character, you're playing a role. It would be a little out of place for Leisure Suit Larry to suddenly stab a hooker in the face, or Barnard to wrestle a pack of alligators just for kicks.

Quote from: Ali on Fri 06/10/2006 14:26:34I disagree that this is necessarily bad design. The freedom to do those kind of things is a great boon to some games, but not all. Player character free will is not bad design in itself, it is a problem when it MASKS bad design, as in the example I mention above.

I agree. I find the usual adventure game hero to be an awkward guy between 14-25 years old, and sometimes a passive-agressive sissy. You'll get dirt under your fingernails if you go through the trash? Too bad. I want that trash. I think the key here, as you say, is making a balance between personality and objectives.

Quote from: Ali on Fri 06/10/2006 14:26:34If the character is to be anything other than a puppet or a suicidal sociopath then they ought to refuse to walk into toxic waste or shoot bystanders.

I'm hoping for this to be possible in Earl Mansin 2, if I ever get around to it.

But if you can't let a character do some particular action, surely its much better to show them trying and failing in some way than just cop out by having the character do nothing except "No, I won't and you can't make me!"

QuoteThis would be an acceptable response if the main character was a small child, but not if they were a grizzled marine. It would be fun to find the child a nightlight, but irritating to find the marine a torch.

Yes I guess my problem is how when the designer feels like it, the small child will do completely risky stuff if they are the 'correct' thing to do, and not do all the rest of them he hasn't designed more involved try-and-fail responses to. So the same child that refuses to go in the dark, will throw water at a circutry board.

The thing is, most real people, and well-written characters will *not* feel compelled to do any sort of adventury-gamey thing besides the straightforward "I have locked myself out of my house!" scenario. So any sort of character in your game, unless they're McGyver, a private eye, some sort of master thief or what have you, is probably breaking character if you have them combining icecream with a magnet or somesuch. I can see how an everyman might be stressed to the point where he'd try inventory combinations, if he was really at risk and forced to be inventive, but as it happens most adventure games are totally sedate in atmosphere and it's just some dude walking around on a general 'quest' doing odd things like combining toothbrushes with flamingoes as if that's totally normal.
They don't seem to lack the motivation to do this shit, then why do they lack the motivation to put themselves at risk, or otherwise break character? They're breaking it just by carrying 30 items in their pockets.

If I am going to be combining random shit in a game, you bet your ass I want to be able to walk into toxic waste.

Sorry for diverging a tad here, but am I the only one who thinks that using the Talk action on the main character should cause the MC to ponder his current situation and perhaps divulging a hint or two as to what he should do next? Kinda like talking to Cedric in KQ5 or any sidekick in any game. I mean, when one talks to oneself, isn't it to think about a current situation, or to just ponder things?

No TerranRich, as it gets on my nerves when a main character is clickable, as they get in the way when I'm trying to click on something near them, and I end up hearing the same damn phrases over and over again! So your idea is good, but perhaps executed in another way, please!

Back to topic more so:

Reminds me of something in my own game. I had a certain solution in mind for getting rid of this dog, and I'd put dog food in the area. The solution had nothing to do with the dog food, but I realised everyone is going to try using it on the dog, so I made a whole "cutscene" (if you will) where the EGO tries to use the dog food and fails, AND gives good reason as to why the dog won't eat it.

Deus Ex is a good example where you can kill whoever you want, excpet you can't kill certain main characters. And that's totally understandable. To do that, you'd need adaptable AI to cope with the loss of key characters that were integral to the plot. Or you might end up with a game where there's nobody left alive and theres nothing left to do in the game!

In designing By the Sword, I kept "unexpected" interactions in mind at all times. My plan was to include several meaningful and useful responses for inventory interactions that weren't correct, sometimes giving hints like "Hmm, you might have the right idea, but the wrong item" or something like that. The frustration of playing games with such annoyances has led me to avoid just that.

The laziest generic response system was in KQ5, where if something wasn't meant to be done, a red X icon appeared for a second...and that was it. If you tried to look at the tree... red X. If you tried interacting with a certain item... red X. Very lazy if you ask me.

QuoteDON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

I don't agree.  If the character whose part you're playing is an upstanding person (as opposed to a psycho), there's no logic at all in them just shooting everyone aside from the sadistic glee you might feel for being allowed to do so.  If the character is nuts and has a gun you'd expect this sort of gameplay, though.  I liked the responses in Star Trek 25th when you tried phasering random things/people.  They still gave you the sense you were in control by having someone else keep you in check, in this case Bones and Dr. McCoy. 

"That's a phaser not a flashlight, Jim!" 

I'd have to agree with ProgZmax. Your character has to have some level of believability, and that also includes some "self-awareness" in that he will not do uncharacteristic things, unless the game involves a change in personality of your main character, etc. Otherwise, if your MC is not normally a violent person (like a monk or something), then he should refuse to kill people. That gun could, however, be used for other purposes (e.g. dismantling it and using a part of it on something else, etc.).

Futhermore, let's say you play a peaceful monk, and your game allows the player to use a gun on innocent people. Then what? There must be repercussions, and those repercussions will most likely take away from the normal gameplay and not make any sense. The player will then think that (s)he was supposed to do what they just did. Having the main character refuse is a safeguard.

QuoteThere must be repercussions, and those repercussions will most likely take away from the normal gameplay and not make any sense.

I remember Sierra giving you a textbox of death. Still better than 'I don't want to do that.'

If I were to create a scene, where the main character has to go through a room, but the bad guy will see him if he walks out, should I allow the character to walk out and die every time? (The solution is not to sneak across the room, so timing puzzles are out).
Or should I just have him step back quickly and say "I can't go out there or he'll see me!" I myself, decided to choose the latter because I thought it would be annoying to see the character die for walking out into the open, or maybe because the player clicked there by accident and didn't save.
Is my choice bad game design or just one of two equal choices?

Quote from: ProgZmax on Fri 06/10/2006 19:51:17
in this case Bones and Dr. McCoy.Ã, 

Shurely shome mishtake?
It seems like everyone has different ideas about this, and that's good. As long as things are consistent and well written, animated, etc, I don't see a problem with any approach.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Fri 06/10/2006 19:07:04
No TerranRich, as it gets on my nerves when a main character is clickable, as they get in the way when I'm trying to click on something near them, and I end up hearing the same damn phrases over and over again! So your idea is good, but perhaps executed in another way, please!

I personally like the idea of having a mugshot of the player character in the GUI for interactions with yourself.

QuoteOr should I just have him step back quickly and say "I can't go out there or he'll see me!" I myself, decided to choose the latter because I thought it would be annoying to see the character die for walking out into the open, or maybe because the player clicked there by accident and didn't save.
Is my choice bad game design or just one of two equal choices?

I think giving the player some idea that they are about to get into a dangerous situation would be fine, but allow them to do it if they really want to, like a narrator box stating "You have a feeling you're being watched" or something like that.  Don't make going into the room an instant kill, rather let them walk in there a bit and then get some sense of danger.  Avoid making the player die before knowing they 'can' die.  That's a major issue I've always had with Sierra games.  I find it immensely unenjoyable to repeat die through a sequence because the authors find it highly amusing to have pop-up insults and multiple unique deaths, and a desire to force you to see them all.

I prefer having the character clickable, because it's very frustrating for me to have to click through the character to something I can't see that is behind. Although Erenan's gives a great idea. In this way, you could control different clicks on the head, the chest, the legs, etc., which I don't think can be done on a character sprite.

I don't know about believeability or distracting the player, but to have the character just keep continuously saying "Hmm..Naah" for every single thing that can't be done gets irritating very fast. Sometimes I am bored in-game, and I wish to try weird and funny things. Sure, it might not work for the type of games which are not one big joke, but for example, you'd miss out on a LOT of things if you just went through with playing the game in Disworld.

QuoteOr should I just have him step back quickly and say "I can't go out there or he'll see me!" I myself, decided to choose the latter because I thought it would be annoying to see the character die for walking out into the open, or maybe because the player clicked there by accident and didn't save.

Depends... do you perhaps feel that a needed element in a game is the capacity for losing as well as winning? Should a game be stuck in the same place until the player somehow figures out what the designer had in mind in order to progress in a linear path towards resolution? Oh wait... adventure games.

The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

Quote from: Babar on Sat 07/10/2006 09:53:45
I prefer having the character clickable, because it's very frustrating for me to have to click through the character to something I can't see that is behind.

Whether the character was clickable or not you'd be frustrated then? I gather you move them out of the way all the time. Thing is though, I've played some AGS games where I'm clearly NOT clicking on the sprite but the detection system thinks I am.

Helm, I like having no risk in adventure games. For me it's a change in pace. I can have a drink and a snack while I play without fear I'm going to die if I let go of the mouse for a second.

Quote from: SteveMcCrea on Sat 07/10/2006 00:28:57
As long as things are consistent and well written, animated, etc, I don't see a problem with any approach.

I think this is the crux of all the complaints in this thread. If a character is consistent then their refusals won't be frustrating to the player, they'll just feel like another challenge. If a character is well written then their responses will be rewarding even if they don't further the game's narrative.

Well spotted Steve!

Quote from: Helm on Sat 07/10/2006 10:26:19
The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

I agree that risk is an important element, but it needn't always be the player character's health at risk. NPCs, objects, information and many other things can all be placed at risk in the interest of drama without the need for a kill-able hero.

I never said death is the only risk. But in the vast majority of the well-liked Adventure games (mostly non-Sierra), there's no risk at all! You cannot even lose the game in most of them, it's either being stuck, or progressing! I think there's an important discussion to be made on that point.

there is a mindset that is promoted when you understand you can either be stuck, or be progressing. From there starts the 'click on everything' issue, for example. If you know that if you do the wrong thing (like in KGB) you're at risk of detrimental effects, not just NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING AH YES THIS ONE WORKED, you play much more carefully, and probably become more immersed as you haven't become meta-bored with the process and are just clicking through it to get to the next part.

Quote from: Helm on Sat 07/10/2006 10:41:54
I never said death is the only risk. But in the vast majority of the well-liked Adventure games (mostly non-Sierra), there's no risk at all!

I didn't mean to suggest you thought death was the only risk. What I meant was that a sense of risk can add to a game in many ways, including the way it gave Sierra games their dynamic.

In the Secret of Monkey Island, Elaine is at risk of a forced marriage. Though the game is light-hearted this is still something the player doesn't want to see happen - so it adds to the drama of the narrative.

I don't think it's essentisl that the player can fail - as long as the consequences of failure are understood. In many linear artforms, particularly cinema, a sense of risk can be created without there being such a thing as an optional bad end.

In Gabriel Knight and Broken Sword, the fact that the player can fail really adds to the gritty character of the game world. I just don't believe that by abandoning bad-endings you necessarily abandon a sense of risk altogether.

Quote from: Helm on Sat 07/10/2006 10:26:19The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

Because risk - at least as traditionally realized in games - is basically pointless in adventure games. Is there really any point in killing the player when you can just restore immediately beforehand and keep trying again (I'm reminded specifically of Beneath A Steel Sky, trying to get by the giant spider in the subway)? Unless you allow the player to get into a "walking dead" situation, or kill without warning (hoping the player hasn't saved recently). Not really solutions in my opinion.

I think the best way of implementing "risk" is alternate endings, or alternate paths, based on what you do during the game. But would this necessarily eliminate the problem of being "stuck, stuck, stuck, oh! that worked!"?

Quote from: Ali on Sat 07/10/2006 11:03:14In the Secret of Monkey Island, Elaine is at risk of a forced marriage. Though the game is light-hearted this is still something the player doesn't want to see happen - so it adds to the drama of the narrative.

I don't think it's essentisl that the player can fail - as long as the consequences of failure are understood. In many linear artforms, particularly cinema, a sense of risk can be created without there being such a thing as an optional bad end.

But if there's no chance of the bad outcome ever being actualized, then it's not really risk. It can provide motivation within the context of the story ("the MacGuffin"), but not risk.

Quote from: ManicMatt on Fri 06/10/2006 19:07:04Deus Ex is a good example where you can kill whoever you want, excpet you can't kill certain main characters. And that's totally understandable. To do that, you'd need adaptable AI to cope with the loss of key characters that were integral to the plot. Or you might end up with a game where there's nobody left alive and theres nothing left to do in the game!

Or you can do it like Half-Life, where the game just ends when you kill a key character. Thoughts about going this route?

QuoteI think the best way of implementing "risk" is alternate endings, or alternate paths, based on what you do during the game. But would this necessarily eliminate the problem of being "stuck, stuck, stuck, oh! that worked!"?

Yes it can.  I took this approach in Mind's Eye, where at certain points of the game certain memories could no longer be recovered, and if you didn't piece together enough of Noah's past you got the bad ending.  It's not a perfect system but it does inject some replay value.  Also, despite there being only one death situation in the game (and it fitting with the world I created for the story) people still complained about being killed.  I think the important thing to weigh in any of these discussions is the fact that you can't possibly hope to please everyone, not even with the most clever design.

Quote from: EagerMind on Sat 07/10/2006 18:21:14

Quote from: Helm on Sat 07/10/2006 10:26:19The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

Because risk - at least as traditionally realized in games - is basically pointless in adventure games. Is there really any point in killing the player when you can just restore immediately beforehand and keep trying again (I'm reminded specifically of Beneath A Steel Sky, trying to get by the giant spider in the subway)? Unless you allow the player to get into a "walking dead" situation, or kill without warning (hoping the player hasn't saved recently). Not really solutions in my opinion.

but 99.99% of all games that have save and load abilities are like this. What is the point in dying in Half Life 2 when I can just quickload and keep trying until you get it right.

not being able to do anything because there is no risk is, in my opinion, a lot different feeling than watching your character dying because of actions you took.

"Oh, I appear to be stuck..." vs "Oh man! I died!"

risk!

thats what's so cool about diablo 2 hardcore! you die, hours of play are wasted. you don't get second chances! no loading.

Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 07/10/2006 18:32:12Also, despite there being only one death situation in the game (and it fitting with the world I created for the story) people still complained about being killed.Ã,  I think the important thing to weigh in any of these discussions is the fact that you can't possibly hope to please everyone, not even with the most clever design.

Yes, I finished this just recently. A nice game! (Off-topic noob question: Is it ok to dig up old threads in the Completed Games forum to comment on older games? Darth Mandarb has me scared ...Ã,  :'()

WRT dying, I suspect the issue from the perspective of game play is: if you aren't successful, then you have to
- Watch the death cutscene
- Reload an old game
- If you didn't save just before dying, then you need to replay from your last save point (and in adventure games, this typically means rotely solving puzzles you've already solved) and save again right before the death point.
- Try again.
- Repeat until you succeed.

I don't know, is this better than if the character gives you a warning and doesn't move so he won't die (in effect, leaving you stuck in the hallway until you get it right)? I don't know. I personally didn't have any problems with the player dying (you had obviously set the stage for it, and it gave me an excuse to knock off for the night), but I think it's an interesting question from a design perspective.

Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 07/10/2006 19:24:51but 99.99% of all games that have save and load abilities are like this. What is the point in dying in Half Life 2 when I can just quickload and keep trying until you get it right.

Good point. Maybe these games would be better if you could only save in between levels? I'll confess that I found some of the combat in Half-Life (and FPS games in general) rather tedious, exactly for this reason. Probably why I never got around to finishing Duke Nukem 3D. Half-Life was unique because of it's atmosphere and it's story. More than slaughtering a bunch of aliens and soldiers, I wanted to find out what was going to happen. I found the demo level from Half-Life 2 (the one with the reverend and all the zombies) extremely tedious. (It didn't help that half-way through, the guy tells you you're going the wrong way, thus setting you up to fight your way back out. _I_ knew the right way to go, but don't force me to go the wrong way because that was the only way to advance the level.) Perhaps if it was set in the context of a progressing storyline (which I realize you can't really get from a demo), I wouldn't have minded so much.

Concerning the whole idea of walking out into the wrong room and instantly being killed... This bothers me. I don't like it. But I also don't like being told, "I'm not going out there. It's scary!" Instead, let the player go out there if he wants to, but don't simply take control away from him. Let him fight his way out if he can. Maybe he can't, but don't make him stand there staring while he's being killed. What kind of a knight was Graham, anyway? "Oh no! A wolf! I'm doomed!" Blech.

I died three or four times in Mind's Eye. I watched the cutscene once, and then I instantly learned to hit Alt-X and reload the game. This honestly didn't bother me at all. In fact, I found the guy with the coffee more annoying, although that too was not a big deal for me.

Eagermind- Glad to hear you enjoyed it!  Also, I wouldn't bother dredging up old threads in the completed games forum.  If you have something to say, pming the author is the way to go.

QuoteI don't know, is this better than if the character gives you a warning and doesn't move so he won't die (in effect, leaving you stuck in the hallway until you get it right)? I don't know. I personally didn't have any problems with the player dying (you had obviously set the stage for it, and it gave me an excuse to knock off for the night), but I think it's an interesting question from a design perspective.

Going back to my approach in Mind's Eye, when you check your memories (clicking on the Eye on the gui) Noah has the distinct fear that should he encounter Childs again he won't survive it.  This was a further clue that you really don't want to cross paths with him again and should avoid attracting attention.

Quote from: Erenan on Sun 08/10/2006 05:30:33
Concerning the whole idea of walking out into the wrong room and instantly being killed... This bothers me. I don't like it. But I also don't like being told, "I'm not going out there. It's scary!" Instead, let the player go out there if he wants to, but don't simply take control away from him. Let him fight his way out if he can. Maybe he can't, but don't make him stand there staring while he's being killed.

I agree with this also. In the catacombs of KQ6, although it might be logical that "ooh, you should be careful! These are dark and dangerous catacombs", I still got peeved when I walked into a room, Alexander walked to the centre of the room, the floor opened up, and you died. I mean, when you walked into other rooms you didn't automatically go to the centre!

If there is danger, it should be logical. You see a evil man with a gun walk into a room, you would be careful following behind him. You see smoke coming out of a room, you would be careful going in. You see a skull and crossbones etched outside the door, and it was etched next to some other deadly trap you saw before, you would be careful going in. If you are able to look into a doorway and you see a funny looking floor, you should be careful going in.

Another way to make it less frustrating would be to have a safety net. In the catacombs example it could be giving a 1-2 second chance to grab a ledge, or the option of tying a rope outside the door before entering.

Risk is probably frowned upon in most (non-sierra) adventure games because if you look at it, there is nothing at all to lose except your interest in continuing the game. You have a few minutes worth of replaying a saved game. If there is no save option, that would just be annoying. Replaying a game from the beginning is ok for a small game, but for a game the size of KQ6? Being made to go down an alternate 'lesser' path is just as annoying, especially when you don't know that you're going down it. To have to end the game with the '2nd place' ending for something you did wrong at the beginning of the game is just as bad as a walking dead.

The only solution, as I see it, is to (groan) put more more effort into making the game. Risk will have to be portrayed through atmosphere (graphics, music, ambient sound, etc.) as well as the chance of dying/losing. If you can be pulled into the game far enough so that you actually fear dying/losing, then you've succeeded. But if you are in a sunny happy outdoorsey place, and you move one screen left, and are shot through the head by a bandit, that is just annoying.

I don't mind death in an adventure game if it made a checkpoint just before you encountered the danger so you get another chance without having had the premonition to save the game before hand. Sure it takes away some suspense that you will lose the game, but so what. I am so glad that many platform-ish games have abandoned the lives system quite frankly, as I now have a chance of actually playing through to the end, and feeling like I got my money's worth.

I could never get past the second level of ghosts and goblins, so I may as well have found a playable demo for cheaper.

QuoteI don't know, is this better than if the character gives you a warning and doesn't move so he won't die (in effect, leaving you stuck in the hallway until you get it right)? I don't know.

If you don't see any merit in rote repetition of gameplay until you overcome a challenge, then I fear you don't seem to see the merit in gaming. If the game isn't fun to play, of course you won't replay it. If it is, you won't mind dying (or losing) and redoing the section. That is what I think we should be focusing on, not as easy and painless a storytelling experience possible. We've said this a lot of times, I'll say it again: if I want just a good story, characterisation, plot, thematic consistency, I'll read a book and it'll be a million times better than a computer game 99% of the time. A computer game should be foremost about gameplay.

Quote from: Helm on Sun 08/10/2006 15:05:55If you don't see any merit in rote repetition of gameplay until you overcome a challenge, then I fear you don't seem to see the merit in gaming.

Yes, but don't you see how this works differently in adventure games from action games? Challenge still exists when replaying action games, not so with adventure games. I've gotten to the last level of Ghouls 'n' Ghosts, but sometimes I don't even get past the first. I've gotten to level 3, round 2 of Qbert, but usually I don't get past level 2. In adventure games, once I've progressed up to a certain point, I can do so again, everytime, without fail, and without really even trying.

QuoteIf it is, you won't mind dying (or losing) and redoing the section. That is what I think we should be focusing on, not as easy and painless a storytelling experience possible.

I never said I have a problem dying or losing in games. I was trying to point out why some people had issues with the player dying in Mind's Eye (and adventure games in general). From a design perspective, there would have been alternate ways to handle that situation, and I was attempting to discuss those options. If the obstacle is "get down this hallway," is it really necessary to kill the player if he fails? Is it really "losing" when in a matter of seconds you can be right back at the same point to try again, or just a really annoying way to temporarily impede the player? Surely the choices one makes in how we're going to hamper the player's progress and inject some risk into the game directly impact how fun it is?

Quoteis it really necessary to kill the player if he fails? Is it really "losing" when in a matter of seconds you can be right back at the same point to try again, or just a really annoying way to temporarily impede the player?

I think that games with gratuitous efforts to kill the player (most sierra games) are just there to make the game artificially difficult in lieu of clever puzzles and gameplay, but a game that only has you die a few times in key situations to reinforce danger is important--not because the player can just reload, but because it sets a tone and makes it clear that his/her actions can end in death.  Just about every post-80s game has a save feature, so the concept of reloading isn't really an argument anymore.  Games have been allowing it for ages and a vast majority of people still seem affected by death in a game even when they reload, if only because it gives them a sense of failure and an urge to succeed.

Yes, I think adventure games should bring back failure and failing, not just death. I think hotsaving (Diablo/Roguelike style) where you save when you quit only is the way to go. Do things, have the game react to you in more shades than DEATH - SUCCESS. There's shades of failure and shades of success.

Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 08/10/2006 18:15:37I think that games with gratuitous efforts to kill the player (most sierra games) are just there to make the game artificially difficult in lieu of clever puzzles and gameplay, but a game that only has you die a few times in key situations to reinforce danger is important--not because the player can just reload, but because it sets a tone and makes it clear that his/her actions can end in death.

Yes, I would agree with you on this point. And it was clear from playing Mind's Eye that this was your intent, which is why I was ok with it. Another game where I thought player death was appropriate was 5 Days a Stranger. But as a counterpoint, I think the end of Monkey Island 2 where you're trying to defeat LeChuck was an enjoyable experience because you couldn't die. Imagine how annoying that sequence would have been if LeChuck killed you every time you ran into him! But when you consider the style of each game, this wouldn't have worked at all in 5DAS - in fact, it would have been rather laughable.

So yes, killing the player does definitely go toward establishing a game's tone. But given that death is just a minor inconvenience, I think failure really needs to be done some other way. Unless you restrict the player's ability to recover from death (limiting save opportunities, for example), but I think it would be difficult to do this in a way acceptable to players.

I've always thought death should be handles in adventure games much the same way it was handled in Broken Sword III, for example. If you died, it would let you replay from the moment before death. SQ6 did this to an extent, too, adding the "Replay" option in addition to "Restore" and "Restart".

As for walking out into danger and just dying, as opposed to a message refusing to comply, I'd rather have a combination of the two. I want my main character to have a mind of his own, rather than just some puppet I push around and let fall into undesirable circumstances. If I try to walk out into the danger, there should be a message saying "Mmm, I don't think so, I have a bad feeling about going out there." Another attempt would get a response like "I'm REALLY not sure it's a good idea!" And then a third time, it would say "Okay, but I warned you!" and actually DO it. This way, if you die, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Or there's always the last-chance scenario mentioned earlier, where, upon facing said danger, you have a few seconds (or even less) to react before you really DO die. There could be a chance for survival and escape, and a later message saying "I'm never doing THAT again!"

It's a more intelligent way of handling things, as opposed to interacting with the water in KQ5 and just dying (I believe that happens anyhow).

There are SO many things that adventure games SHOULD have, but fail to include, either due to time constraints, lack of intuitiveness, or just plain laziness.