-
Copy? Deconstruct puzzles you liked in the "classics" and analyze them, then integrate them into your story/game/plot. Take for example RPGs, it's a lot of grinding and bascially all the quests are a variation on talk to NPC->kill monsters->take loot->back to NPC, real simple, but good RPGs adapt it to the world they're in and to the characters that are inhabiting it.
Besides, even if you don't think of anything while copying, you'll still learn how they are put together and then even if you have just an idea, it'll be easier to think of a way to turn it into an actual puzzle....
...that's what I'd in any case.
One technique is to think of something obvious your protagonist needs to do for the story to progress (dig a hole, unlock a door, eat a pear) then take away their means to do it (make the shovel factory be on strike, put the key on the other side, make the character have no mouth).
Like a lot of narrative constructs it's about forcing the protagonist to become something they weren't before; in this case that thing is: resourceful). By dropping appropriate hints (preferably in interesting ways that think outside of simple exposition) you can provide the player with enough information to A) Accept why the obvious won't work and B) Set their minds onto the less obvious, more convoluted solutions and work out that pears can be taken as a contraceptive tablet, that the key in the lock is magnetic or that by joining the shovel-makers union the complimentary 'no more shovels until we get justice' sign makes an excellent shovel.
At least... that's my theory.
Here's a great list of adventure game puzzles.
http://www.adventuredevelopers.com/featuredetail.php?action=view&featureid=30&showpage=1
You pretty much just do what Eggie said. The player knows the goal, but the path isn't going to be what you'd expect.
Lets say you have a time machine in the basement. Before you can use it you must turn on the power.
Turning on the power you notice it doesn't work.
Something must have happened to the power connections to the machine.
There is a metal panel that covers the power connections.
You have to rummage through things to find a screwdriver/knife/penny etc (it's better if it's not the obvious, which in this case would be the screwdriver)
You open the panel to discover a mouse has made a nest in there and chewed through the cable.
The mouse is vicious and won't leave the nest--and bites your hand every time you try.
You take the vacuum from the shelf, but the motor is broken.
You replace the motor with one from a robotic arm--or something as crazy.
Then suck up the mouse with the vacuum cleaner (it of course lives and you can see it in the clear vacuum dust container, still angry--you don't want to murder a mouse :P)
You fix the cable connection by wrapping a sheet of metal around it--one you found in the room somewhere.
Then you turn on the power and the time machine works!
It's actually pretty easy to think of puzzles. Just try to think of things to prevent the player from doing what they know they must do.
-
Quote from: Eggie on Sun 03/01/2010 02:26:16
One technique is to think of something obvious your protagonist needs to do for the story to progress (dig a hole, unlock a door, eat a pear) then take away their means to do it (make the shovel factory be on strike, put the key on the other side, make the character have no mouth).
From Cyberdreams unsuccessful sequel "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Eat Pear".
I have to disagree with Ryan Timothy's technique, I know his suggestions were random top of the head puzzle ideas but they all seem designed to annoy the player. Everything is broken or lost or out of reach.
Say there is a time machine in the basement, there is no "before I can use it", I want to use it now! It's a time machine in my basement! Let me use it! I'm running around putting a screw in a hole when there is a TIME MACHINE in my basement! I should be whipping through time and space solving puzzles in the old west and the future, not messing around with mice!
Anyway, the reason I feel the need to post that is because there is a time and place for puzzles and sometimes fewer puzzles is a good idea. If you've set up an obvious path for the player to take, let them take it with few roadblocks, if you keep breaking things or locking doors in front of them I fear they're going to get frustrated and not care that they finally fixed the time machine because they are worn out on tiny puzzles.
I consider this like RPG battles. Every few steps you are confronted with a puzzle. Just getting out of your house takes 30 minutes because of all the locked doors and fetch quests you have to do!
Let them walk the obvious path and struggle at the non-obvious path. Or make all paths easy enough because being stuck in an adventure game is not the same as being stuck in any other game. Being stuck in an adventure game means NO PROGRESS. NONE. The player will not advance a single bit until they've solved the puzzle before them. They will try everything on everything and then talk to everyone again and then give up and look for a hint. Say they are stuck for 2 days on the puzzle and then finally solve it on their own, they did not learn a skill by solving this. They did not learn something that can then be applied to the game in the future. They got past 1 puzzle out of X puzzles in the game. Being stuck in Mario means you can't do a series of jumps but through trial and error you should eventually build the skills needed to do those jumps. Or you go back a level and get a power up. When you're stuck in an adventure game you do not slowly build any skills of deduction as you sit there staring at a screen. Anyway this is a different rant for a different time.
The way I personally like to work is that if an obstacle doesn't present itself relatively quickly, no obstacle is created. I've set the player up in a situation and if it only takes 2 puzzles to get out of that situation then that is how many it takes. Hopefully the 2 obstacles are fun to overcome and that is what is important. The player just had fun overcoming 2 obstacles and they weren't worn down by me breaking those 2 obstacles into tiny fragments.
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 03/01/2010 06:58:12
Or make all paths easy enough because being stuck in an adventure game is not the same as being stuck in any other game. Being stuck in an adventure game means NO PROGRESS. NONE.
I agree with this.
Other forms of getting stuck mean I either have to learn to get the timing on that jump/minigame/whatever better, run around levelling up so that I'm a bit stronger or simply improving my skills.
Getting stuck because I didn't see something or didn't realize that I could totally have used the badgerpants on the sleeping cactus makes me sad and encourages me to give up :P.
Quote from: Ben304 on Sun 03/01/2010 07:10:10
Getting stuck because I didn't see something or didn't realize that I could totally have used the badgerpants on the sleeping cactus makes me sad and encourages me to give up :P.
Thats just common sense. you ALWAYS use the badgerpants on the sleeping cactus.
Quote from: Green Boy on Sun 03/01/2010 05:39:13
Quote from: Eggie on Sun 03/01/2010 02:26:16
One technique is to think of something obvious your protagonist needs to do for the story to progress (dig a hole, unlock a door, eat a pear) then take away their means to do it (make the shovel factory be on strike, put the key on the other side, make the character have no mouth).
From Cyberdreams unsuccessful sequel "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Eat Pear".
I also forgot to mention, in I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream there is a puzzle on eating a pear!
lol yes you're right that my off the top of the ol' noggin puzzles were a little convoluted. But it's all on the game. The game I was describing from my head, was actually just that. Get the time machine running. Once you get it running you're whisked away into time, game over.
Adventure games don't always have to be about what's on the other side of the street, it's about crossing the street.
But yes, the puzzles were a little random but nothing that didn't make sense.
It's also all in the dialog: "Oh, the motor is broken, I must find a replacement"
Rather than: "It's broken", that doesn't tell me anything. Do I even need to fix it? What's wrong with it? etc
You have to basically push the player in the right direction, without actually telling them what to do.
But you can't give the player tons of obstacles at once. It should be like opening a door within a door within a door.
Not multiple doors, that lead to more doors. That's just plain confusing.
For example, Ben's Featherweight game. When you walk past the 2nd sentry the player pretty much tells you "I guess I should have distracted him first". If that dialog wasn't there, you'd be confused with what you had to do, which is: distract him.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sun 03/01/2010 08:00:58
But you can't give the player tons of obstacles at once. It should be like opening a door within a door within a door.
Not multiple doors, that lead to more doors. That's just plain confusing.
Actually, you've just described non-linear gameplay, which is generally considered a
good thing.
I'll just quote Ron Gilbert from his quintessential overview on adventure game design: "Why Adventure Games Suck." (http://grumpygamer.com/2152210) (If you haven't read it, it's a must read)
Quote from: Ron Gilbert
A lot of story games employ a technique that can best be described as caging the player. This occurs when the player is required to solve a small set of puzzles in order to advance to the next section of the game, at which point she is presented with another small set of puzzles. Once these puzzles are solved, in a seemingly endless series of cages, the player enters the next section. This can be particularly frustrating if the player is unable to solve a particular puzzle. The areas to explore tend to be small, so the only activity is walking around trying to find the one solution out.
Try to imagine this type of puzzle as a cage the player is caught in, and the only way out is to find the key. Once the key is found, the player finds herself in another cage. A better way to approach designing this is to think of the player as outside the cages, and the puzzles as locked up within. In this model, the player has a lot more options about what to do next. She can select from a wide variety of cages to open. If the solution to one puzzle stumps her, she can go on to another, thus increasing the amount of useful activity going on.
The non-linear, "multiple-doors approach," arguably works better because when you get stuck, you don't sit around endlessly frustrated. Instead, you can try to solve a different puzzle and get endlessly frustrated a second time until you run out of puzzles to be solved.
One thing I find helps well is to write the puzzles into your storyline from the get-go.
I guess you've got to have a sort of knack for it (not that I'm boasting that I have such a great knack for it), but as Eggie already mentioned, you've got to decompose the storyline for it. Of course no hero can save the princess without having to slay the dragon first, decompose how you should slay the dragon, what with, where to find those tools, etc. Once the dragon has been slain, find a way to ecologically-friendly get rid of the corpse, then find a way to get inside the villainous mage's castle, of course that presumes that the hero already has knows where the castle is.
Give the player lots of easy to find inventory items to start with and give them two or three puzzles to attempt from the word go, make the puzzles come together as one to unlock a new set of area's/puzzles. Make sure the puzzles are logical and have a visual problem to solve, use close ups if you need to.
imo
Quote from: Chicky on Sun 03/01/2010 12:13:09
Give the player lots of easy to find inventory items to start with and give them two or three puzzles to attempt from the word go, make the puzzles come together as one to unlock a new set of area's/puzzles. Make sure the puzzles are logical and have a visual problem to solve, use close ups if you need to.
imo
I have to say that chicky has some good advice ;) . Make sure your puzzles are logical. Nothing is worse than a game that it is impossible to figure out :) . If you want to make hard puzzles make them. So that if the player can think of the solution after a while.
0
also use a variety of puzzles, there's nothing worse than a game full of inventory puzzles.
Quote from: TheJBurger on Sun 03/01/2010 08:17:07
Actually, you've just described non-linear gameplay, which is generally considered a good thing.
But, but, but... I like linear adventure games--with maybe a little non-linear-ness to it. :P
Just as long as the linearity is not as crazy as Merry Christmas Alfred Robbins (sorry HillyBilly) :P. That game also suffers from a hotspot indicator. Like clicking a hair piece from a characters hair. How are you supposed to know that without an indicator? Even with an indicator, people would still miss it. Characters are usually a whole interact-able piece.
Some people think a hotspot indicator gives away the puzzle, but if pixel hunting is the puzzle, I'm not interested. If a hotspot indicator gives away the puzzle, it's probably not a good puzzle in the first place.
edit: Seriously though, if you toss me into an adventure game world that's fully explorable like a GTA map, I'd go insane. I like small sections in games. Where you can't get to the next few rooms without solving a puzzle.
I tried playing A Second Face once, and I gave up shortly after the (really long and kinda dull) intro. There was too much to explore. And nothing of importance in any of the first rooms I had explored.
If there isn't a Character or Object in that room that I can talk to or pick up or some kind of switch/puzzle, to progress in the game, then that room really shouldn't be there. IMO.
Yeah I'd agree that too much non-linear gameplay can often be a pain. I think it's good to have a mix of both.
I dislike nonlinearity when it messes around with the story. Having it so that I can toss the dress into the fire and get one ending where everything magically turns great vs wearing the dress and having everything turn out horrible is just irritating, especially when otherwise, all the puzzles are EXACTLY THE SAME.
Having slight changes to the story with the rest being EXACTLY THE SAME, doesn't make for replayability. It just makes for boring replayings.
Nonlinearity while solving puzzles is great. You can open the door by using the axe on it. Or the old newspaper under the door trick. Or knocking. Or calling in the GPS coordinates of the door and having a missile blow it open.
In fact, I like nonlinearity in the sense of "Hey, why don't I forget the door, and go find the lost Helmet of Evel Knieval instead?" as well.
Also: for puzzles and site pimpage: try this tut: AWESOMENESS MEGA-TUTORIAL COMPILATION (http://www.lumpcity.co.uk/~babar/tut.htm)
PS: Merry Christmas Alfred Robbins WAS INCREDIBLE! :(
Quote from: Babar on Sun 03/01/2010 19:53:11
Nonlinearity while solving puzzles is great. You can open the door by using the axe on it. Or the old newspaper under the door trick. Or knocking. Or calling in the GPS coordinates of the door and having a missile blow it open.
Can you name a game that allows for this? I can't think of one personally and I'm interested.
Post Mortem attempted this very thing and failed dreadfully. There is a locked door in a hotel which can be opened several ways, but they depend upon what path you have chosen.
The hotelier asks what your job is, and the answer you give dictates what path you follow. As the player you do not know this. If you say you're a journalist you can pick up a pencil and newspaper and do the old classic.
If you say you're a detective (as I did), you have to find a different way of opening the door. However, you can still pick up the newspaper and put it under the door. You just can't pick up the pencil. The pencil that's right there on the desk. Taunting you with its pencil shape.
There's nothing in the game to tell you why the obvious solution is impossible (or to explain why only journalists need pencils).
For this kind of puzzle to be successful, I think the player would need to be given the kind of freedom offered by games like Morrowind and Oblivion. In these games a door could be opened by finding a key, picking the lock, casting a spell, charming someone into giving you the key. Maybe even making yourself invisible and following someone through.
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 03/01/2010 21:00:25
Can you name a game that allows for this? I can't think of one personally and I'm interested.
Nothing so huge as I mentioned (maybe the bouncer at the start of Fate of Atlantis?), but I'm pretty sure I've played several games where sharp edged inventory items were interchangeable in their use, for example.
Or me being irritating and hybrid in Quest for Glory, and getting stuff like the potion-maker's ring in a way that didn't conform to my class.
Babar, the suggestions you offered about the door are quite different from being able to use some sharp edged inventory items for the same puzzle.
So I'm curious, where does the love for nonlinearity come from? Or is it a love for the potential or the idea of nonlinearity?
"In fact, I like nonlinearity in the sense of "Hey, why don't I forget the door, and go find the lost Helmet of Evel Knieval instead?" as well."
This line confuses me too, can you be more specific? Also offer an example of where you can do this in previous games?
The reason for all these questions is because I am not sold on the idea of nonlinearity in traditional point and click adventure games and want to be persuaded!
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 03/01/2010 23:27:52
So I'm curious, where does the love for nonlinearity come from? Or is it a love for the potential or the idea of nonlinearity?
"In fact, I like nonlinearity in the sense of "Hey, why don't I forget the door, and go find the lost Helmet of Evel Knieval instead?" as well."
This line confuses me too, can you be more specific? Also offer an example of where you can do this in previous games?
The reason for all these questions is because I am not sold on the idea of nonlinearity in traditional point and click adventure games and want to be persuaded!
I think Duty & Beyond (by Mordalles) had something like this. In each of the four stages/worlds of the game, you could complete the main quest, but there was always an optional side quest with extra puzzles in order to get a special gem, not needed to complete the game (unless you wanted the best ending). I quite liked this approach, because it gave you optional puzzles to solve in case you were bored or stuck with the main puzzles, but you never really had to solve the extra puzzles.
Looking back at non-linear gaming as a whole, I think Zelda really got it right. Most of the Zelda games set up optional non-linear scenarios, scattered around the world, such as a cave filled in, or an inaccessible piece of heart across a chasm. You're never required to complete these puzzles, but they exist independently of the somewhat linear narrative.
I think one of the keys to non-linearity, in that sense, is making it optional.
Also i think it's a good idea in general to make puzzles that are kind of tied in with the game world, not just in tone (ie more cartoonish puzzles for humour games etc) but that they encourage the player to explore and get a sense of what the world or characters are about. Bad puzzles are ones that feel like they curtail exploration, like seeing a cool futuristic city out the window and having to go through some tedious number puzzle to get out there and wander around it. Good puzzles are ones that feel like an extension of exploration, that draw the player in and make them involved not just by the result of the puzzle but through the actions required in solving it.
I'm being kind of vague here since I don't play enough adventure games to come up with good examples but i guess it's the difference between having puzzles that feel like impediments to the 'real game' and having ones that feel like the real game itself, like the player is PROGRESSING when he or she solves it instead of just getting rid of a distraction. I really liked the notepad idea in Discworld Noir because while the puzzles involved often played like inventory puzzles (use x on y) solving them and getting more clues felt like you were unravelling the game's story instead of just uh running errands or whatever.
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 03/01/2010 23:27:52
So I'm curious, where does the love for nonlinearity come from? Or is it a love for the potential or the idea of nonlinearity?
The potential, sure, but also in games. As I mentioned, the bouncer at the beginning of Indiana Jones & The Fate of Atlantis had 3 ways to be dealt with (and although it was just that single instance, and mostly just a plot point, it was still great).
If you played QfG (1, at least I remember had this) as a hybrid character (with reasonable stats in all areas), you had the opportunity to solve several puzzles in several ways
Spoiler
In the potion-lady example I gave, I was finding it difficult to get my hands on the telekinesis spell, so I ended up trying to climb the tree instead and got the ring down. Another way to have done it was to toss stones at the tree
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 03/01/2010 23:27:52
"In fact, I like nonlinearity in the sense of "Hey, why don't I forget the door, and go find the lost Helmet of Evel Knieval instead?" as well."
This line confuses me too, can you be more specific? Also offer an example of where you can do this in previous games?
Most LucasArts games had this, I think, although Monkey Island 1 and 2, with their neatly divided parts showed it off most easily. If I got tired of trying to get the treasure, I could spend some time in effort to beat the sword master, etc.
It wasn't nonlinearity in the sense of diverging storylines, but that you didn't HAVE to stay on one thing.
Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 03/01/2010 23:27:52
The reason for all these questions is because I am not sold on the idea of nonlinearity in traditional point and click adventure games and want to be persuaded!
As I said, neither am I, when it comes to a nonlinear storyline. Having multiple storylines depending on what actions you take is immensely frustrating for me, especially since most games don't offer any new "goodies" (animations, BGs, puzzles) when you take a different path on a replay: it just feels like playing exactly the same game, with specific points where you can make certain arbitrary decisions that change the story.
And I don't mean it in the sense of Morrowind type open sandbox games. While they're great in their own right, they don't make very very tightly knit storylines. However, the example Ali gave is probably applicable in the sense of puzzles.
Personally, I REALLY dislike puzzles in adventure games. If you ask me, it is almost impossible to get it right, a balancing act between making it an interactive movie, and trying to figure out the designers thought-process at every turn. I'd be all for replacing the puzzles as a gameplay element with something else, but most others aren't really tailored towards story-driven games.
Quote from: TheJBurger on Mon 04/01/2010 01:53:58
I think one of the keys to non-linearity, in that sense, is making it optional.
Some games do get it right, I believe. My examples here would be the two games I mention far too often: Deus Ex and Planescape: Torment.
Whereas non linearity in a game like Boiling Point makes me stop focusing on the mission and going snake hunting, non linearity in games like these really add to the experience and really give you the ability to be creative with how you play the game (Deus Ex in particular allowed for some wonderful creativity).
I don't recall this sort of non linearity in adventure games at all though.
QuoteI don't recall this sort of non linearity in adventure games at all though.
5 words: Indy and the Last Crusade.
Starting in Castle Brunwald, the game turn into a sandbox where you're given the goal to find, free and escape with your dad and you can tackle the guards that stand in your way the way you want to. You can fight the guards, if you don't want to fight, you can disguise, bluff, puzzle and bribe your way in, you can also avoid a lot of guards by sneaking in, waiting for guards to have their back turned to sneak past them, ducking in rooms to avoid patrols, if you didn't fight anybody, guards won't bother you unless if you walk straight into them when you wear the officer uniform IIRC, and you can find a couple of alternate roads that avoid some guards entirely. And if you beat all the guards patrolling the hallways, you could escape from the castle without being arrested. It's like an Hitman level.
I wish they had more than 6 months to ship that game, it could have been so much better. And I wish they didn't strip all of these options when they designed the Fists path in FOA.
How can you guys forget the biggest classic of nonlinearity?? ;D
Maniac Mansion
Quote from: Ben304 on Mon 04/01/2010 10:55:45
Quote from: TheJBurger on Mon 04/01/2010 01:53:58
I think one of the keys to non-linearity, in that sense, is making it optional.
Some games do get it right, I believe. My examples here would be the two games I mention far too often: Deus Ex and Planescape: Torment.
I agree about Planescape, but Deus Ex fellt terribly linear and confining to me, much more than your average FPS. The supposed choosing between different paths to your goal was like choosing between several tight parallel corridors where you can go only forwards and backwards without any freedom of action. Sometimes the game was literally like that.
A truly well-realized non-linear FPP was System Shock 2.
Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Sun 03/01/2010 18:01:49
Some people think a hotspot indicator gives away the puzzle, but if pixel hunting is the puzzle, I'm not interested. If a hotspot indicator gives away the puzzle, it's probably not a good puzzle in the first place.
Well, as I see it, a hotspot indicator only gives away the puzzle there is only one hotspot to indicate. A good game will hide that hotspot among many others. I love ending up in a new room and finding a dozen new hotspots to play around with before I get down to the more serious business of solving the next puzzle.