I was wondering your thoughts on what exacly makes a point and click adventure game...Great.
What kinds of things must be present...and absent...so that while you are playing you are totally immersed...and when you finish you just want to play it again and again!?
I was thinking one of the things that is a "must" is the choice of music, for example. What I personally hate are puzzles that are too linear...like only 1 way to solve a puzzle. I also am a fan of dying in a game cause it can give "tension" if you never know whts going to happen. I hate the fact some games dont "kill you", it kills the "tension" (in my opinion).
Care to post your thoughts? It would be interesting to have people's opinions on this!
I dont like dead-ends, and probably, the most important thing for me are the dialogs.
E
Atmosphere is good.
For me, what is also important is replayability. An excellent example is the Fate of Atlantis, with its different paths, or Maniac Mansion with its different combinations of kids you can use. Other than those I rarely find a reason to play any adventure game a second time (although I realize that's a matter of taste, of course).
Also, a lack of such things as pixel hunts and nonsensical puzzles, because those can really ruin the gameplay. Interestingly, dead ends are a big NO in graphical adventures, but aren't nearly as bad in text adventures, presumably because it's much faster to retrace your steps in those.
Yeah, atmosphere is a big one for me, too. I can forgive iffy puzzle design if I feel immersed in a game. To create a good atmosphere, ambient sounds are key; they tell you there's a world outside of what you're immediately doing.
That said, puzzles are important and should be logical. I don't mind if they're fairly obvious since the world needs games of all difficulty levels. However, puzzles should not be difficult because of their obscurity; random clickfests are not fun.
Also, hotspots shouldn't be too small. I played a game recently where I had the solution to the puzzle (use main board on computer), but I had trouble using the item on something because I wasn't clicking the right spot (the friggin' keyboard). ARGH.
Graphics, sound and music have to be good enough. Story and the flow are important for me. Flow means that puzzles shouldn't be too hard for me (I'm not very good at puzzles) so I can follow the story in good pace. GUI should be one that is not needed, I don't want to control the GUI to control the game, I want to control the game. So if there are more actions there should be keyboard shortcuts for them.
Obviously a good story and good writing are probably the most paramount things I can think of. Nice graphics, music and voice acting to enhance the atmosphere and immersion are definitely a plus.
I think that puzzles should be organic to a games overall story design and every puzzle you solve should feel like a real step forward. I think puzzles should be clever and challenging enough to the player without feeling unfair. Day of The Tentacle is one of the best examples of puzzle design I can think of, the whole game fits together so perfectly and the puzzles are all fair and logical without being hair pullingly frustrating.
I am not a fan of dead ends, or deaths that don't allow you to restart from just before you died. I really only ever like the adventure game death when its used for humorous effect such as in Leisure Suit Larry 6.
I think that's another thing that I think is really important, a good sense of humour. Even in "serious" games, I think it's still important to give your game a sense of humanity with a good dose of humour.
Nudity, mostly.
Having someone called Gilbert involved in their production... :=
Voice talent.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Fri 19/06/2009 14:18:01
Nudity, mostly.
Excellent, my game is awesome twice then so far!
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Fri 19/06/2009 14:18:01
Nudity, mostly.
So,...
Resonance will have nutidy then?
Cause I'd love to check ProgZys pixel art in nude models and stuff! :=
I personally think it's all about making the player have the biggest role in the game, letting the player do all the work, having him or her standing in the centre of the events almost all the time. Bioshock did this very well. And of course the bizarre humour. :)
Quote from: Joseph on Thu 18/06/2009 18:27:37
... I hate the fact some games dont "kill you", it kills the "tension" (in my opinion).
I feel just the opposite, I hate games that do kill you (especially when it's completely arbitrary). It can be extremely frustrating to start completely over (especially when you are hours into the game already). I think LucasArts had the right idea when they made their adventures a bit more "safe".
I think the main things for me that make an adventure good are:
1) Compelling Story
2) Good art/sound/music/voices
3) Challenging puzzles (but not insanely hard or ridiculous stuff like killing the troll with a rubber duck), and lastly
4) Having a good hint system (so you don't have to look up walkthroughs).
original story and rewarding gameplay.
Boobs will help. Lots of it.
I'd choose aesthetic appeal because I found that that's what drwe me into DOTT and FoA, But thinking about it a little more, I thikn some untangible things like atmosphere and good puzzles (challenging but solvable - DOTT again), I'd like to point out that I really enjoyed the vaccuum - a game with minimalist rgaphics, but nevertheless they worked real well, and I enjoyed playing the game - until I ran into a puzzle that I couldn't solve. I'm affraid to say I ended up quitting shortly thereafter. I found I couldn't even solve the game by going bak a few saves - the way it was made (which was kinda cool), was thateven small decisions filtered through in a big way. - And I had made the wrong decisions - so I'd have to replay from the beginning - I didn't want to.
And I agree that Boobs will help - but they won't salvage a bad game, esp. not if they're too low-res
Quote from: Nikolas on Sat 20/06/2009 06:34:54
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Fri 19/06/2009 14:18:01
Nudity, mostly.
So,...
Resonance will have nutidy then?
Cause I'd love to check ProgZys pixel art in nude models and stuff! :=
I just saw this post. And actually, yes, there will be nudity in Resonance.
Can I direct this topic a bit in one direction I was pondering about a few days ago:
What makes a horror adventure game great??
What is it that's scary when it's on the screen? Cheap scares (like somebody jumping up from behind you), gore (body parts etc.), solitude mixed helpless characters (most japanese games are kinda like that) or maybe even pure atmosphere (just music, sounds and sights) of not knowing what is "out there"... Which of those elements make for a good horror adventure? Actually I think movies are best at making a good horror piece, but it is a mixed bag, on the other hand books and written stuff doesn't do it for me, it can make me turn pages faster, but rarely do I feel something more.
Adventure (and I really think it's the only way it can be done good, cause it's just not so much of a horror game if you're a badass marine with an assault rifle) horror games are kinda hard to make though...well make them so they're still "fun" to play and not be too frustrating or too hard. For example I always like to avoid timed events but they're kinda one of the main effective and easy solution for instant adrenaline rush, but in my game I would probably make them a cutscene (like a monster is coming so a cutscene shows that you hid somewhere). My favourites are where you just have a presence of something evil but you don't need to actually see it.
What kind of puzzles and the amount of graphic violence is most cool?
So any other thoughts on that?
EDIT: One thing I would avoid, that I hate in movies, although it is one more of the things that's easy to use for plot - characters do something that would be a good thing, like barricade, but then someone freaks out and spoils everything, or somebody gets bitten by a zombie but doesn't tell anyone about that until of course it's too late. Always felt that was a cheap way out. Soooo many more cliches like that though.
Actually, it is kind of the opposite for me...I don't remember ever being scared while watching a "horror" movie, but there's been a couple of times while reading a book that I've felt fear (although even that is pretty rare). Who knows, perhaps I've been watching the wrong movies?
I'm not really fond of horror adventure games either, mostly because they don't work for me. After playing 5000 other games with the "blood-spattered carpet", that just doesn't work for me. It didn't work for me the first time.
Random scraps of paper/computer notes/memories that you find throughout the gameworld, (usually completely irrelevant to the gameplay) chronicling gradual dementia is another ploy that has grown old.
Grisly blood-soaked, garishly nude people? No, I've grown jaded to that.
Heck, it is usually the same ploys they use with movies (although movies include a couple of their own special ploys such as the camera creeping behind the protagonist along with ominous music).
In fact, if anyone has any suggestions to a good horror movie, something with more than cheap "Booh!" scares, then please tell me!
QuoteI feel just the opposite, I hate games that do kill you (especially when it's completely arbitrary). It can be extremely frustrating to start completely over (especially when you are hours into the game already). I think LucasArts had the right idea when they made their adventures a bit more "safe".
But arbitrary deaths are different from logical deaths. It's one thing to die by falling from every cliffs or while interacting with an unthreatening object, it's another to get killed by a monster in a haunted house or while you are snooping around in an area full of armed bad guys. There are situations in games where getting killed is perfectly logical, and not getting killed would ruin the mood completly. Even LucasArts killed you in Fate of Atlantis when it was necessary.
Also, bundled with funny animations and death messages, arbitrary deaths can be a feature. Throw in a "Try Again" button and players will find themselves searching for new ways to die to see what happen. Death in adventure games can be good or bad, it's just a matter of how it is implemented and foreshadowed.
QuoteWhat kind of puzzles and the amount of graphic violence is most cool?
Graphical violence? Not a lot. With horror games I find that the promise of gore is far more effective than the gore itself. Just set the right mood, the right atmosphere, and when the monster start chasing you, your imagination will do the rest. The best way to ruin the horror out of a game is to just freeze anytime something potentially lethal can happen to you and watch what happen. The next time you will play the scene, the scare will be gone. Surprises or unexpected events are far more effective than gore. Even better would if they could be randomly generated at the start of the game so each time you replay a game you can potentially be surprised. And once again, with the right mood and atmosphere, the promise of surprises can be more effective than surprises themselves.
A second thing I found that scare the crap out of me in horror games is when I don't know beforehand that they are horror games. Generally, the games that scared me the most were game that started with a pretty normal, ordinary, light-hearted atmosphere and gradually shifted toward spooky, horror territory.
Being helpless also greatly help. Give me big guns and smooth responsive controls and I'll just blast my way through anything spooky. Give me no weapon, or weapons bundled with clunky control schemes and I'll certainly think twice everytime an enemy appears.
Deaths aren't bad in adventure games. I think Space Quest 6 handled them quite well... the "Retry" button brought you to the point just before you died, so you could try again without having to restart or restore. That's the middle ground, and while dying in SQ6 was not just something to shrug off, it didn't kill the mood of the game either.
Quote from: blueskirt on Sat 27/06/2009 02:48:02Being helpless also greatly help. Give me big guns and smooth responsive controls and I'll just blast my way through anything spooky. Give me no weapon, or weapons bundled with clunky control schemes and I'll certainly think twice everytime an enemy appears.
So, survival horror, like Silent hill etc.? But that's kinda been done already, I think. Plus it lacks a bit of the "adventure" part and to me it seems more stealth oriented...genere mixing doesn't have to be bad thing, but it usually leads to not being a good enough adventure (ie too simplistic puzzles) or good enough horror.
Quote from: TerranRich on Sat 27/06/2009 04:59:45
Deaths aren't bad in adventure games. I think Space Quest 6 handled them quite well... the "Retry" button brought you to the point just before you died, so you could try again without having to restart or restore. That's the middle ground, and while dying in SQ6 was not just something to shrug off, it didn't kill the mood of the game either.
What's the point of a Retry button? It turns into a guessing game with every step you take. We're back on the topic of deaths again, I see.
Arbitrary deaths suck, I mean you might as well put a random event while solving a puzzle or just standing - "you we're hit by a bus while crossing the street" or "too bad you just died of a heart attack", what the hell is the point of that, it's not fun and it's serves apsolutely no purpose.
But even if death is totally possible, like you see a bear and decide to "use rock on bear", of course the bear is gonna get mad and kill you, right? Well you could miss, you could stun the bear, but if it is a game where you can die, the bear will probably eat you...no imagination there.
And the middle of the road things are the most annoying, like in Broken sword 1
Spoiler
if you exit outside of the hotel with the scripture those two guys will kill you, that's just annoying, why not make it so George can't get out of the hotel by saying something (but make it so you can go out anyway, I guess)...no, you're just supposed to remember those two guys being there after spending an hour in that hotel trying to get into the room...
They might kill you, but on the other hand they might not. (although BS has about the best balance of death events and is not that annoying)
In theory threats are recognisable, but if you're playing an sf game or a fantasy, how the hell are you suppose to know what will happen for sure? I mean you might throw a rock at the bear and then he just responds to you "Why did you do that? That wasn't very nice." instead of killing you. A shady character is in a dark alley, you go to talk to him and then he kills you...on the other hand he might try to sell you stolen watches, you can't know and of course in real life you wouldn't even try to talk but that's why you are playing a game. Or Kings quest V where
Spoiler
you have to save a rodent from a cat so it can rescue you later...but it's a timed event so you might not even notice that happening...
so you have to play it over and over till everything fits togheter, that's just guess and it doesn't make a game great by any means.
Do you really want to make a player save game at every screen before leaving the screen or make the player forget about saving cause he/she is really hooked and is having fun?
There's a difference between pointless deaths caused by walking deads, and deaths that make sense. I agree that throwing the rock at the bear would cause in death, but that's because you wouldn't throw a rock at a bear for obvious reasons... unless it was hinted at, and is therefore the solution to a puzzle. There are many things to consider.
Quote from: anian on Sat 27/06/2009 10:12:24
What's the point of a Retry button? It turns into a guessing game with every step you take.
I've been trained through games like Kings Quest to save before / after doing.. well.. most everything. xD..
A "Retry" button is so that we can still have games where bad decisions get you killed, but it doesn't stop new players who haven't been trained in such a way from playing, and it doesn't make you do everything else over again when you only made one silly mistake. It just tells you "That last decision? Yeah, that... that wasn't smart..." ;). It can do so in humorous manners, and death-messages can even hint to a possible solution.
There are several games that are.. er.. unforgiving... ......like Kings Quest V...... but the.. erm.. ..annoyances... makes the game feel more rewarding when you finally pass it. Kings Quest V, as an example includes visual and verbal hints upon most obscure deaths; so even though you have to suffer from the deaths, you can still eventually figure it out on your own more easily than you could figure out a really difficult or obscure puzzle -- or figuring out you've reached a dead-end. What am I trying to say... hmm.. It keeps the difficulty of the game high, without actually stopping people from playing. It allows a more rewarding end through perserverance. :D
I particularly like games where I feel like I've accomplished something in the end. ^_^
Quote from: TerranRich on Sat 27/06/2009 15:34:02
There's a difference between pointless deaths caused by walking deads, and deaths that make sense. I agree that throwing the rock at the bear would cause in death, but that's because you wouldn't throw a rock at a bear for obvious reasons... unless it was hinted at, and is therefore the solution to a puzzle. There are many things to consider.
A difference? Between death when you forgot to take something in some scene and when you try to explore and adventure, so what if you missed a hint, is that then walking dead or "death that makes sense." So what you are saying you always start an adventure game by not touching absolutley anything unless specifically told to...which kind of makes me wander how to start off a game? And I must reffer you to my example in case you are in a fantasy world and ie the bear can actually talk or something like that...
It's not real life, it's a game, an adventure, you wouldn't go into a haunted house if you saw a ghost at the window but still in some game you must...death by some hinted rules is silly.
@Tijne:
Again, as said before, that last decision was wrong, ie you pressed conversation option A instead of B...so you press Retry and then you're in the same conversation but then you select option B...there's absolutly no point in that, it's still guess work except now it just takes more time.
For me, the part you have to repeat must be very enertaining otherwise it's a chore and I have those in real life thank you. Adventure games are not very good at making every passthrough different and even less when the the time you passthrough is a minute...again, seems tom, it's annoying. Few games manage to pull it off, I liked Broken sword, which most of the time told you not to run into a man with a gun...most of the time. Orient express ie let you repeat the fight scenes, I don't mind that that much, that's desirable even, cause it keeps the tension but still isn't too annoying, but again it technically changes the genre at that point (to a reflex game).
I've written bunches about my opinion of adventure game deaths but I want to restate them here and see if you agree with them, Anian, since you seem so devoutly, religiously, opposed to adventure game deaths.
Basically, I postulate that adventure games are not always bad, though they have been grossly misused by some games in the past. I further contend that used appropriately, they can heighten the tension of a game and provide more of a connection between player and character.
So, here are the three ideal rules for adventure game deaths:
1) Adequate communication of peril.
The player must be able to recognize a situation as one that would be lethal to the character. This may be communicated by having it be obvious peril such as a pool of water with electricity running through it, which logically would lead to serious injury or death. The player will know to avoid this until the peril is averted (electricity turned off) or find an alternative route.
Alternatively, if the peril is not obvious, such as a security system on an alien ship, it can be communicated by example: a fly buzzes down the corridor, and as it passes near the detection sensors, it gets zapped by a laser beam and falls to the floor in ashes. The player will know that he cannot walk down that corridor until the security alarm is deactivated.
If the player is in a timed puzzle that will result in death upon failure, it must be clear that there is a limited time to complete the objective in addition to it being clear that failure will result in death. Ideally, there should be something to allow the player to know how much time is left. In Resonance, there is a scene where someone is breaking down a locked door that you're hiding behind. You have only so much time to escape before this person will kill you. To communicate the fact that the puzzle is timed, the door slowly becomes more and more broken. Pieces of wood splinter, the door shakes more and more violently, small holes open up. This also gives you somewhat of an idea of how much time is left because you can guess when that door is about to give. Of course, I must also be careful to give enough time so as to be fair to the player, but that's a whole other topic.
If the peril is not adequately communicated, then the game becomes an exercise in frustration. If there are two doors, and walking through one of them will get you killed by a guy with a flamethrower, and there was no indication that that might happen, I'm quitting your game.
2) Consistency in character mortality
If a character can die in the game, then any perilous situation can cause death. Do not let the player roll through the whole game without any consequence in the face of grave danger and then suddenly hit him with a sudden death near the end. This will lead to players getting complacent in their saving and then getting really pissed when they have to replay a huge portion of the game. If death is possible, it should be possible from the beginning of the game.
One kink in this is that it's difficult to communicate to the player that the character is mortal and could die in the game before the first time the character actually dies. You could put a warning right at the start that says "The characters can die in this game, save early, save often." but that breaks the mood and kind of sucks. I'm not sure the best way to inform the player that death is possible, but one way would be to have several ways for the character to die right near the start of the game, so that when the player discovers the character's mortality, he doesn't need to replay too much.
3) Punishment for death proportional to means of failure
This one is the hardest because it's not something built into most adventure games. Usually, if the player dies, he had better hope he had a recent save to go back to. The punishment in this case is that the player has to replay everything after his last save.
Using this means of punishing the player for failure, players who don't save often are punished more severely than players who save after every action. Since I see the process of saving the game to be a process outside the game, I don't see this as fair punishment. In other words, I want to punish people who play the game poorly more than people who play the game well but made a mistake, but I don't think that a person who saves frequently is playing the game better than a person who rarely saves.
One possible way to punish people differently for poor play would be to have that "Try again" button, but have it take you back farther in the game if you died by doing something that would be considered bad gameplay like "use fork on electrical outlet" than it would if you died failing at a task that was very difficult like defusing a time bomb within a very short time. However, I still don't think this is quite right, since playing or replaying your game shouldn't really be a punishment... it should be fun.
I made a system in Resonance to address this third point. I'm not sure how well it will be received by players, but I have high hopes. While playing the game, you get points for doing good things (exploring, solving alternate puzzles, etc) up to a maximum of 99 points. So once you have 99, you can't get any more. And when you die in the game, it subtracts a number of points, and then lets you try again at a point just before you died, so you don't have to replay much, but you do lose points. If you try again and die again, you'll lose more points and try yet again. If you run out of points, then game over. You'll have to go back to a previous save.
Other than losing points, there's no penalty for dying. And since you can only have a max of 99 points, and you can get much more than that in the game, you might as well use them. Bad gameplay (stick fork in electric socket) would lose more points than failing at something difficult, of course, making it more likely that you'll get a game over if you play poorly. At that point it falls back upon the old save game.
So, basically it just provides a little extra challenge and tension (over a game with no death) without making you feel like you have to be constantly saving. Plus, poor or stupid gameplay gets punished more harshly than simple mistakes or failure at difficult tasks.
For players who don't like the system, they can choose between 1) This point/rewind system, 2) Infinite rewind, no points system, and 3) No rewind, die->reload, classic adventure system. So hopefully everybody can find a way they like to play the game. That's how I'm approaching the topic of death. I'm not saying it's the best way, but it's the solution that I came up with for satisfying all three of the ideals I listed above.
Thoughts?
What do you think of this as a solution?
I was thinking of warnings, such as if the player clicks on the outlet with his fork, a message goes "that wouldnt be wise"....the player ignores this, and does it anyways.
i say, in this istance, the player deserves to die!
There is also the "autosave" feature...you could implement that in the game so every 5 minutes or so it autosaves to a directory of your choosing...and done in the background. That way its not annoying for the player to manually save the game himself, and you get to keep your death scenes.
Yeah, I would definitely say that some warnings like that could help the "adequate communication of peril" if it wasn't possible to make it clear that there's danger. If the player clicked twice on the outlet with the fork, yeah, I would definitely say that some barbecue was in order!
And yeah, autosaving has been used in a bunch of games. I usually see it saving at the start of certain events or based on the player entering a new area. I can't think of any games that just saved every five minutes, though. There might be an issue with that though, for example if there was a timed puzzle like defusing a bomb, and you were two seconds before the bomb blows up with no chance of finishing and then the autosave kicks in, so when you die and reload, you'd just die again with no chance of saving yourself. So, you would have to be careful with a timed autosave, turning it off in certain situations, but it could probably be used to good effect. I still think that the first two ideals I discussed need to be followed at all times, even with an autosave, though.
Quote from: Joseph on Tue 30/06/2009 15:47:35
What do you think of this as a solution?
I was thinking of warnings, such as if the player clicks on the outlet with his fork, a message goes "that wouldnt be wise"....the player ignores this, and does it anyways.
i say, in this istance, the player deserves to die!
In my game Frantic Franko if you hear "that wouldn't be wise" or "that would be dangerous" you definitely need to try that specific action again. Even if in hope of watching a death scene. You probably won't die! But you can of course save the game beforehand if you truly feel endangered.
Quote from: Joseph on Tue 30/06/2009 15:47:35
What do you think of this as a solution?
I was thinking of warnings, such as if the player clicks on the outlet with his fork, a message goes "that wouldnt be wise"....the player ignores this, and does it anyways.
i say, in this istance, the player deserves to die!
There is also the "autosave" feature...you could implement that in the game so every 5 minutes or so it autosaves to a directory of your choosing...and done in the background. That way its not annoying for the player to manually save the game himself, and you get to keep your death scenes.
This was done to some extent in
Star Trek: 25th Anniversary. If you touched a control panel once, it would give you a little zap and verbal warning. A second time would cause a more severe zap and another warning. A third time meant fair game, and the player would be killed. (Actually, it was a redshirt security guard, but same idea.)
I like that idea actually. One warning should be enough, then after that, perma-death (i.e. you gotta restore a saved game to continue after death).
Vince Twelve, your idea is brilliant. It's almost like you're purchasing death re-tries. ;D
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Tue 30/06/2009 15:07:35
2) Consistency in character mortality
If a character can die in the game, then any perilous situation can cause death. Do not let the player roll through the whole game without any consequence in the face of grave danger and then suddenly hit him with a sudden death near the end. This will lead to players getting complacent in their saving and then getting really pissed when they have to replay a huge portion of the game. If death is possible, it should be possible from the beginning of the game.
One kink in this is that it's difficult to communicate to the player that the character is mortal and could die in the game before the first time the character actually dies. You could put a warning right at the start that says "The characters can die in this game, save early, save often." but that breaks the mood and kind of sucks. I'm not sure the best way to inform the player that death is possible, but one way would be to have several ways for the character to die right near the start of the game, so that when the player discovers the character's mortality, he doesn't need to replay too much.
While I see the merits of this, I think you have to be careful about letting players die early in the game. If the chance for failure is so high in an early scene, players may give up for losing so often and being unable to find the correct solution.
One example I can think of is in Pleurghburg. In that game, I don't think you could die until the very end of the first day. However, at the night scene on the docks I probably died upwards of seven times until I found the correct solution. If that scene was at the very beginning of the game, I may as well just have quit the game in frustration for failing so many times. However, since it was put later in the beginning, I had an incentive to keep trying and figure out more of the story despite my failure.
Great point J!
Warnings before death annoy me to be honest. As a player I like to experiment with everything new, experience everything there is. Warnings are just an additional temptation, and when my character dies it doesn't make me happier that I didn't heed them. Actually in those moments I'm hearing the game designer in my mind telling me: "Didn't I tell ya?" - not particularly pleasant.
Also, such warnings are easy to forget while you keep looking intensely for a way to progress forward - happened many times to me.
I say warnings before death are good, mostly to exactly say what I mean, I like deaths that you somehow say "Damn I knew I was bound to die." instead of dying without figuring it out. I hate being warned multiple dies though.
Dead ENDS:
I'm not the man who loves dead-ends, but they somehow really make the world of a game feel more alive..in a way. I actually have two difficulty modes, easy mode disables dead-ends in HHGTG.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Tue 30/06/2009 16:10:18
Yeah, I would definitely say that some warnings like that could help the "adequate communication of peril" if it wasn't possible to make it clear that there's danger. If the player clicked twice on the outlet with the fork, yeah, I would definitely say that some barbecue was in order!
And yeah, autosaving has been used in a bunch of games. I usually see it saving at the start of certain events or based on the player entering a new area. I can't think of any games that just saved every five minutes, though. There might be an issue with that though, for example if there was a timed puzzle like defusing a bomb, and you were two seconds before the bomb blows up with no chance of finishing and then the autosave kicks in, so when you die and reload, you'd just die again with no chance of saving yourself. So, you would have to be careful with a timed autosave, turning it off in certain situations, but it could probably be used to good effect. I still think that the first two ideals I discussed need to be followed at all times, even with an autosave, though.
Your post really freaked me out, I explain the autosave feature I have on HHGTG on the readme with the same example of the bomb.
I say go with a "autosave based on proper things done" and really nevermind the "time autosave".
Wow, Vince, that's a lot of work to go into just the saving part of the game, but that makes it even better. Yeah, I wouldn't mind that system at all.
In the end, although I wouldn't call them difficulty settings just modes or something, this "with dead end" and "without dead ends" options.
@Ascovel: but aren't does warnings, just the thing that makes you explore? When you know (not so it says in the game, but at the end you kind of get it) you'll be warned in diverese ways (although it doesn't always have to be a direct warning, it can also be like Vince said - communication by example).
It's all a matter of masking it properly, it's more work, but it still enables you to die if you're not careful. They say in writing you have to show and not tell.
John was happy he got away with murder. --> In the end John just smirked as he was exiting the courtroom. Supid example, but I think the point comes across. ;D
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Tue 30/06/2009 16:10:18
There might be an issue with that though, for example if there was a timed puzzle like defusing a bomb, and you were two seconds before the bomb blows up with no chance of finishing and then the autosave kicks in, so when you die and reload, you'd just die again with no chance of saving yourself.
You can get around this though; in some games if you die three times after a checkpoint is reloaded, then it loads the previous one, and so forth. I think the Halo games use this, although I'm not sure.
For me death in adventure games can give the game more urgency and tension. But of course it depends on the type of game. In comical adventures like DOTT or Sam&Max I wouldn't expect or want deaths.
But in more serious affairs, e.g. detective games where you are chasing some murderer, or in some horror games, I often feel the threat of possible death raises the stakes and makes me feel more involved. Games like Gabriel Knight 1 and Black Mirror used deaths very effectively in my opinion.
Other than that, strong characters and a gripping story are very important to me in adventure games. I also love historical background information and well written dialogs. So while I enjoy the odd funny adventure game, it's the more serious ones that are my favourites.
I'd like to place a warning on the use of "Be careful you could die here" notices in games.
In The Neverhood there's an area with three big signs that you can read from far away which tell you not to go to that area or you will die. Being stuck, I eventually try going there. And I die.
But it didn't seem unreasonable for me to try, I was expecting the signs to be a trick and entrance to the area to be necessary for completing the game. Like when a supervillain hides their top secret plans behind a door which says BEWARE OF THE INSTANT DEATH SNAKES, the player mightn't go in. But it was all a trick and they should have done. I think this can be avoided by having the player character themselves say that it'd be a stupid thing to do to jam that fork in the socket, or by having it said by a reliable narrator.
However, the problem with THAT is that, once the players get a funny response to trying something lethal, they'll do it again and push their luck.
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Sun 05/07/2009 21:50:00
However, the problem with THAT is that, once the players get a funny response to trying something lethal, they'll do it again and push their luck.
Though I have to add that dying every possible way in an adventure game is a badge of honor for me. Yes, I'm quite weird that way! ;D
Wasn't there even an AGS game that rewarded you with an alternative ending for “finding†all outlandish deaths? I think it was "Return to Civilization"...
I think a great game needs a great main character. And it has to be designed in a way that you must slowly become more and more empathically connected to him/her/it. So the two of you grow together as the story goes on.
I've never been bothered by 'fair' deaths in games. Take Quest for Glory as an example: you find a goblin, you fight the goblin. You have three possible outcomes:
1. You kill the goblin.
2. You are killed by the goblin.
3. You run away like a pansy.
Now, you can't make friends with the goblin, but aside from that you're given some good options. Death depends on your own character skills (weapon/magic levels) and personal skills (grasp of the controls) and while you might be angry at dying you can't say the game didn't give you a chance.
I list this in stark contrast to some of Sierra's other games, most notably the earlier King's Quest games. You can be walking along in the first game and die for a myriad reasons, many times without any kind of warning. This is frustrating. This is bad design. I can't fathom why anyone apart from the most masochistic enjoyed the early King's Quest games, but enough people did that they made many more.
Death in games should either come from wanton negligence on the part of the player (wandering into a busy intersection or a puddle of bubbling green goo) or as a consequence of a fight. It is possible that a player can be unaware that doing a certain thing is, in fact, dangerous, either because they've never encountered a situation like it or because your game is not presenting a real-world situation. In either case, not explaining the situation in enough detail to understand the consequences is just shoddy design and is more likely to frustrate someone than to amuse them, especially if the death is tied to an obscure puzzle and they have to trial-and-error their way through multiple deaths to find a solution. Tying death to a puzzle is something that should be done with careful planning. Is it a timed sequence? If so, do they have a reasonable enough time to figure out the solution on the first try if they are clever, or will they have to know exactly what to do to have enough time to do it? If it's based on a complicated mechanical puzzle, is it designed logically enough that most people can figure it out without guessing? These are important things to consider when factoring in death as a puzzle outcome.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sat 11/07/2009 17:06:49
I've never been bothered by 'fair' deaths in games. Take Quest for Glory as an example: you find a goblin, you fight the goblin. You have three possible outcomes:
1. You kill the goblin.
2. You are killed by the goblin.
3. You run away like a pansy.
Now, you can't make friends with the goblin, but aside from that you're given some good options. Death depends on your own character skills (weapon/magic levels) and personal skills (grasp of the controls) and while you might be angry at dying you can't say the game didn't give you a chance.
I list this in stark contrast to some of Sierra's other games, most notably the earlier King's Quest games. You can be walking along in the first game and die for a myriad reasons, many times without any kind of warning. This is frustrating. This is bad design. I can't fathom why anyone apart from the most masochistic enjoyed the early King's Quest games, but enough people did that they made many more.
Death in games should either come from wanton negligence on the part of the player (wandering into a busy intersection or a puddle of bubbling green goo) or as a consequence of a fight. It is possible that a player can be unaware that doing a certain thing is, in fact, dangerous, either because they've never encountered a situation like it or because your game is not presenting a real-world situation. In either case, not explaining the situation in enough detail to understand the consequences is just shoddy design and is more likely to frustrate someone than to amuse them, especially if the death is tied to an obscure puzzle and they have to trial-and-error their way through multiple deaths to find a solution. Tying death to a puzzle is something that should be done with careful planning. Is it a timed sequence? If so, do they have a reasonable enough time to figure out the solution on the first try if they are clever, or will they have to know exactly what to do to have enough time to do it? If it's based on a complicated mechanical puzzle, is it designed logically enough that most people can figure it out without guessing? These are important things to consider when factoring in death as a puzzle outcome.
On the note of Kings Quest, it was probably lack of competition on PC that allowed games with bad game design to flourish. In all honesty, playing KQ5 makes you wonder how the game didn't kill the genre, let alone the series. I don't understand why I enjoyed playing that game as a kid. There are 41 ways to die in the game, some obvious, most without warning. This is not including the walking deads that are rather abundant in the game.
This video demonstrates the horror.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vOn5D0XE9U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vOn5D0XE9U)
This might not make sense to some but to those who DO understand, I'm sure you'll agree with me, even if you didn't realise it before:
Adventures set at sunset/dusk really create a good sense of fun and adventure. I think this was actually the Secret of Monkey Island. Have a good think about how Melée Island was such a fun first chapter to play. It really had that 'feel' about it.