Walkthroughs: necessary or game-killers?

[accolyte]

I once read an article stating the importance not to to cheat on adventure-games as it forever ruined the fun and the challenge of them. It can be read here:
http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/index.php/site/features/164/ 


Do you agree with the article? How long can you tolerate being stuck on a puzzle before consulting a walkthrough/hint-file? I myself usually consult UHS ( universall hint-system) if i can,t figure it out after about two or three playing sessions, otherwise I risk loosing interest in the game and start playing something else instead. 
I thought your opinions on this matter could be fun to know and and also an important help for those who thinks about implementing in-game hints in their games.

[GarageGothic]

Ideally, a well-designed adventure game doesn't need a walkthrough, at least not for it's target audience. And since nobody is making money off hint books and hint lines anymore, I see no reason not to redesign a puzzle if it stumps more than a few percent of your beta testers. As for a built-in hint system? That's a cop-out. Rather add some dialog or change a look-at description to nudge the player in the right direction.

However, I have absolutely to scruples looking up a solution rather than wasting half an hour guessing randomly what to do. When I was playing Runaway 2 recently, I ended up referring to a walkthrough for every third puzzle, and not once did I find myself reading a puzzle solution thinking "Damn, that was so obvious, why didn't I think of that?" but rather "Man, this game is horrible". Games are entertainment products, and if they frustrate you for a majority of the time rather than entertain you, the creators have failed.
That said, when I originally purchased one of my all-time favorite game, The Colonel's Bequest, I also bought the hint book. But since it took a long while before I got access to a PC to play the game on, I ended up reading a lot of the hints before even starting the game. And to be honest, I think that I enjoyed the game a lot more from knowing what was actually possibly in the game world. (I was quite young, and I think I would have missed a lot of things, maybe even big parts of the game such as the hidden passages).

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I have very simple rules. If a game draws me in enough to want to solve the puzzles on my own, even when I get really stumped (Reactor 09 and Silent Knight Chapter 2), I'll do it. Else (Crave, Magsic, Starship Caramba and so many others...) I'll look up a walkthrough.

[nulluser]

-

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Oh, if the game is good, it IS very rewarding. But there are many puzzles I don't agree with, and rather than get frustrated... but ayuh, if the game is good and well designed, and that shows very early on, it's very rewarding.

[nulluser]

-

[Vel]

Lately, I don't much care if I do use a walkthrough or not. In the 90s, when there were hint lines and hint books, creators put at least a puzzle or two to support those. Even in an otherwise perfectly designed game like Gabriel Knight those are present - the message that you had to write on the tomb with a brick puzzle, for instance. It would take a lot of trial and error to get that right without some help. Not to mention the games in which the inventory puzzles play a central role, namely Monkey Island and Sam and Max.

[GarageGothic]

Even in an otherwise perfectly designed game like Gabriel Knight those are present - the message that you had to write on the tomb with a brick puzzle, for instance.

I'm amazed how many people criticize this puzzle. Was there really any doubt what to write - aren't you basically replicating the original message you found? Or maybe I just solved it in the reverse order (planted the tracking device first), so the object of the message itself was obvious and I did it in my first attempt. The only actual "puzzle" element in it was figuring out the letters you didn't have translated yet.

Edit: Same thing with the tape recorder puzzle in GK2 by the way. I'm not sure why, but it seemed totally self-evident which words to combine. If you want to point out a bad puzzle in GK, how about the zombie vine swinging puzzle, or the rather vague Drachen-drei/clock connection.

[Vel]

I don't really remember, since it's been a few years since I last played GK1. But perhaps you're right. And if you think that's obvious, take the maple syrup puzzle from GK3.
In my opinion, it is the inventory-driven puzzles being emphasised on heavily that lead the genre to the place it is now. And that's mainly why I don't feel guilty looking at walkthroughs.

[accolyte]

Indeed, many of those playing adventure-games regulary, probably doesn,t have all the time in the world to spend on every single puzzle which solutions just can,t seem to solved. I must admit though that if the solution to a puzzle I have cheated on is reasonably logical I often feel a small sense of guilt. But rather spoil one puzzle to be able to move on with the game than stubornly refusing to cheat and perhaps leave the game unfinished for months (or forever), I say. That,s the tricky part with puzzles. Have just one obscure puzzle in an otherwise good game and the imersion is broken.

In my opinion, it is the inventory-driven puzzles being emphasised on heavily that lead the genre to the place it is now. And that's mainly why I don't feel guilty looking at walkthroughs.

I agree. Inventory jumbling are overused. Puzzles must be varied to maintain interest.

[Ionias]

In an amateur game I will consult a walk-thru. Commercial games I've yet to use one. I try very hard not to even use one with the amateur games. Sometimes though, an amateur game's puzzles are just not up to par. I'm not saying that commercial games are flawless, just that they lend themselves to more logical puzzle designs. I'm from the old school days though and I love the challenge of dead ends, walking dead and even death. I think those sorts of elements are what make a good adventure game, if done not to prolong game time but for the immersion factor.

[LimpingFish]

Challenge is only fun while there are still logical possible solutions available to the player.
When you've tried everthing you can possibly think of to solve a puzzle, and the solution turns of to be something completely illogical, then it ceases to be fun and becomes a frustration.

It's a fine line.

Leisure Suit Larry 3. The knife is too blunt. Solution? Sharpen knife on steps.

...

Have you ever sharpened a knife on some steps?

Funny, I do it all the time.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I'm very much against walkthroughs for graphic adventures because most adventure games are just a series of puzzles.  If you have the solution for every one you have nothing to do but float through it, since there are very rarely any action type sequences that you just can't be walked through.  I think walkthroughs are okay for those people who do not just go right through them rather than try to think of solutions, but based on the hints and tips forum very few people actually do that.

[nulluser]

-

[Radiant]

Actually, when I was playing The Colonel's Bequest last year, I ended up referring to a walkthrough for every second puzzle, and not once did I find myself reading a puzzle solution thinking "Damn, that was so obvious, why didn't I think of that?" but rather "Man, this game is horrible". Games are entertainment products, and if they frustrate you for a majority of the time rather than entertain you, the creators have failed.


I think that the point is that walkthroughs can make a good game boring since they take away the challenge, and they can make a bad game reasonable since at least you'll be able to see how it ends.

[Cyrus]

I'm a true fan of walkthroughs, because it seems very boring for me to be stuck in the game for days, and days, and days. But I don't mind if someeone has another opinion, because in all the games I prefer the plot, not the puzzles.

[MrColossal]

I dislike walkthroughs, I dislike the help forum on this forum and I dislike UHS.

The reason why is the help forum on this site is too random. We tried to fix this by suggesting everyone start their own official hint thread [http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=25792.0] and by doing a search it seems maybe 5 games have done it. I personally think it should be mandatory but that's just me.

It helps so much in my opinion!

Anyway, I don't like the UHS site because I go looking for help that won't spoil things and the page reads:

How do I get out of the first room?
Dealing with the robots.
Solving the gryphon puzzle.
Throwing the villian into the blackhole.

Now the game has been spoiled and I don't know if my section is in the first room tab or the robots one! So I end up reading a bunch of hint titles just to find mine which spoils the game even more.

The reason I don't like walkthroughs is because while they're better than the other options they're too easy to alt tab too and just keep reading. Especially if the puzzle I was stuck on was just unfair, I feel that if that puzzle was unfair I want to make sure the next one is fair.

I think, for me, the solution is Official Hint Threads with a liberal use of the spoiler tag. Or I just ask a friend who's beaten it already... That's actually much better.

[Snake]

I think walkthroughs are fine. The only time I use one is if I'm really stumped and can not for the life of me figure something the hell out. When I find it in a walkthrough it's most always something totally stupid that I had missed.

Getting too comfortable with a walkthrough is a dislike for me. Someimtes I'm tempted to look in it when I'm just a little stuck and use it more often than I actually should. Now I don't download them anymore and just look one up if I really need it - then "X-out" of the page so I can't easily look at it again. Being lazy, this helps the temptation.


--Snake

[accolyte]

I dislike walkthroughs, I dislike the help forum on this forum and I dislike UHS.

Well, in my opinion it,s still better than a traditional walkthrough. Often, a small push to get you on the right track is all that,s needed to solve the aggravating puzzle.   

It, seems that, in the end, the best way to make sure no one gets stuck in puzzles would be not to include puzzles at all in adventure-games. And that wouldn,t make it much of a game at all!

[EagerMind]

ProgZ, I pretty much agree with your comments. Taking into account that some people may get genuinely stuck and that most other people will place a limit on how much time they'll spend trying to solve a particular puzzle, I think it's safe to say that walkthroughs are a fact of life. I wonder what people's thoughts are on game developers creating "official" walkthroughs/hints. From the perspective of the game developer, it seems you can at least make an effort to control the release of information and try to preserve as much of the game experience as possible.

MrColossal, I think you made some goods points about the problems of walkthroughs and hints spoiling much more of the game than the people consulting them are looking for. For linear games, I think this can be remedied fairly easily ("Have you done this? Yes? Have you done this? No? OK, here's how ...."). But for non-linear games where you can tackle multiple puzzles at once, I don't think there's any easy solution for trying to figure out exactly what the player is having trouble with without giving away other parts of the game. Perhaps a forum like you described, ideally with the designer controlling the release of information?

I wonder if this might actually be an argument in favor of in-game hint systems? Although I'm generally opposed to in-game hint systems, it seems like a well-designed system can monitor the player's progress and provide only information related to the tasks the player is trying to accomplish without spoiling too much of the rest of the game. Thoughts?