In an counterculture action I was wondering what makes a bad, or downright awful, adventure game.
For me, it has ANYTHING, I do mean ANY
THING, to do with sliding things like puzzle boxes and plates. In example:
Spoiler
While not an adventure game in Resident Evil 4 when you take the role of Ashley you have to solve a sliding puzzle that drove me insane and only solved it by random chance and a walkthrough. But I did tough that one out because I am a RE whore.
But another game I had just gave up on was Murder on the orient express, getting stuck on the crime scene I ran to the walkthrough I found out that there would be a difficult puzzle box AFTER I solved it to gain an important item. After that I had just gave it up, uninstall the game and toss the thing aside.
And that is what makes a bad game for me.
That's the big one for me too. Puzzles that are just too hard, too obscure, or too complex, and there's not adequate hints given to solve it. I also hate "pixel finding".
"That's a good idea, but... maybe later."
"I can't do that now."
"That would probably work, but I don't feel like doing it."
You'd better have a damn good reason, main character...
Game where you have no idea what you have to do (or what you can do) and why. All the puzzles are illogical, obscure and hard. Also you have sudden death and walking deads lurking around the corner, so when you eventually find something you can you, you are afraid to do it in a fear of becoming walking dead.
Actually this came up in my mind recently. In the First Episode of Tales Of Monkey Island you have to go through a maze- simple enough, I've no problem with mazes. But then, you have to go through the maze again, only slightly differently. The rest of TOMI I enjoyed thoroughly, but the use of the maze twice really irritated me. Seemed like an obvious way of making the game feel longer, tis all.
So I guess my point is, repeating the same puzzle without reason.
But don't get me wrong- this is a double-edged blade. For example, using the same puzzle twice can be done for effect- like the main character needing to do a puzzle at the beginning of the game and then needing to do a very similar puzzle near the end. It can be used to teach the player, as a hint for a future puzzle. What comes to mind is finding the ingredients for Largo LaGrande's voodoo doll at the beginning of MI2, and finding the ingredients for LeChuck's voodoo doll at the end.
I personally hate when you have to do something (worse even if it's something that doesn't look important) to trigger an event. Like in Gabriel Knight, where you have to deal with time-blocks: a day passes only if you did everything the game requires, but sometimes you'd rather just wait, and you can't. For example, if you give some ancient text to a professor, who says will give you the translation tomorrow, I want to be able to choose if I'm gonna wait or if I'm gonna do something meanwhile.
Well, let's just say that I don't like time-blocks.
Logorrhea. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logorrhea)
If you want to write a novel, just write a novel.
1. Unintuitive / plain confusing puzzles
2. Pixel hunting
Everything else is just an annoyance.
1. Random deaths - where nothing you do triggers the death... it's just random and entirely unfair.
2. Walking deads (or whatever they're called) - where you missed something earlier and are now stuck in the game and have to restore/restart in order to fix it and continue. It's sloppy design.
Quote from: Abisso on Fri 10/07/2009 19:22:16
I personally hate when you have to do something (worse even if it's something that doesn't look important) to trigger an event. Like in Gabriel Knight, where you have to deal with time-blocks: a day passes only if you did everything the game requires, but sometimes you'd rather just wait, and you can't. For example, if you give some ancient text to a professor, who says will give you the translation tomorrow, I want to be able to choose if I'm gonna wait or if I'm gonna do something meanwhile.
Well, let's just say that I don't like time-blocks.
I liked how Dave Gilbert got around this problem with Emerald City Confidential. One could say those little gems at the bottom of the screen listing every goals you had to achieve were only there for casual players, but at least it told you up-front what you had to do before the next time block. I wish Gabriel Knight had such thing.
Bad writing. If the writing sucks then who cares.
The only things that make an adventure game awful are (in the order of importance): general boredom (in lots of games), reused assets or/and puzzles (Kyrandia 1, episodic Sam & Max), walking deads (every masochist should try Kyrandia 1 and Leisure Suit Larry 2), complete lack of hints for difficult puzzles
Sometime there are also really stupid puzzles that can drive you crazy, like pushing buttons in specific order and rhythm (Fahrenheit, Galador)
Time-blocks are great (if they're properly announced by the game of course). I loved watching the game world change in Gabriel Knight and Discworld
Quote from: blueskirt on Sat 11/07/2009 11:43:11
Quote from: Abisso on Fri 10/07/2009 19:22:16
I personally hate when you have to do something (worse even if it's something that doesn't look important) to trigger an event. Like in Gabriel Knight, where you have to deal with time-blocks: a day passes only if you did everything the game requires, but sometimes you'd rather just wait, and you can't. For example, if you give some ancient text to a professor, who says will give you the translation tomorrow, I want to be able to choose if I'm gonna wait or if I'm gonna do something meanwhile.
Well, let's just say that I don't like time-blocks.
I liked how Dave Gilbert got around this problem with Emerald City Confidential. One could say those little gems at the bottom of the screen listing every goals you had to achieve were only there for casual players, but at least it told you up-front what you had to do before the next time block. I wish Gabriel Knight had such thing.
Mmmh, never played that game... but, yeah, it seems that knowing what to do could fix the problem, for sure.
QuoteTime-blocks are great (if they're properly announced by the game of course). I loved watching the game world change in Gabriel Knight and Discworld
The world can change without the need for time-blocks (and actually the real world changes THIS way): in The Colonel's Bequest, at least, the time passed by without the need to do something specific (changing by half an hour a time).... I know this can be frustrating, but at least you don't have to wander helplessly until "you find you actually didn't ask that person about that '1 on a thousand topics possible'!".
Dead ends, especially if they're not immediatly (and I mean immediatly) obvious.
Also, not being able to skip dialogue. Some people read faster than the voice actors talk, you know.
/EDIT: Whoops, I totally forgot I already posted in this thread. Sorry. Damn you, 10-hour codeathons, you and your effects on my sanity.
I think walking deads are pretty much a thing of the past, honestly. I don't know a single person who actually thinks it was ever a good idea to have the player need to pick up a pickle from the sidewalk at a park to use at the very end of the game on a guy allergic to pickles without any kind of prompt. I think this is one design approach that has gracefully disappeared. Designers understand enough now to tell you to take certain things you'll need before progressing or just have the character automatically pick them up.
As for the time passing issue, I really don't like games where time is counting down against you and limiting your possibilities. It's more like the game is playing you than you're playing the game. I definitely prefer Gabriel Knight's approach, though it could have done with a to-do list in the inventory you could check of things absolutely necessary to advance the day. I don't really like having my hand held through a game, but when you need to visit certain people inexplicably because the game just wants you to talk to them in order to make headway it would be nice to have a note about it (or a call from that character on the phone asking you to visit).
I say time can sometimes yes be a bitch, but not always. For example in a trial and error game time sequences can really work out (not better than timed ones). As for dead-ends yes indeed they're a thing of the past. Damn Progz you put into a lot of thoughts about H2G2 now.. :-X
I hate games where the very beginning is just an endless amount of exits leading off to rooms full up with too much inventory all the time not knowing what your mission is.
Quote from: DazJ on Sat 11/07/2009 19:16:02
I hate games where the very beginning is just an endless amount of exits leading off to rooms full up with too much inventory all the time not knowing what your mission is.
Any game examples?
Games with abolutely terrible graphics really draw me out of the game and bug me as I think of prettier adventure games I could be playing
Quote from: shinymans on Sun 12/07/2009 00:48:11
Games with abolutely terrible graphics really draw me out of the game and bug me as I think of prettier adventure games I could be playing
Conversly, games that sacrifice gameplay for the sake of better graphics irk me. I'ld rather suffer the sub-par looks and have fun with the game than have the best graphics and be bored with the game.
Quote from: Ascovel on Sun 12/07/2009 00:37:29
Quote from: DazJ on Sat 11/07/2009 19:16:02
I hate games where the very beginning is just an endless amount of exits leading off to rooms full up with too much inventory all the time not knowing what your mission is.
Any game examples?
The Longest Journey, although it turned out ok in the end.
Quote from: DazJ on Sun 12/07/2009 02:25:24The Longest Journey, although it turned out ok in the end.
Well, except for Ragnar Tørnquist's ...
Quote from: Esseb on Fri 10/07/2009 19:55:25
Logorrhea. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logorrhea)
Games with more than 3 lines of dialogue without the player being able to participate (Ron Gilbert set the magic number at 3 and I don't feel worthy to displace him).
Looking at you, Discworld.
I actually enjoy games with lots of dialog, so long as what is being said is interesting/funny. Each to his/her own!
Quote from: ProgZmax on Sun 12/07/2009 04:44:28
so long as what is being said is interesting/funny
Tossing the 3 lines rule out of the window and STILL looking at Discworld.
(I love Discworld more than I'd love a child of my own but the dialogue exchanges still pissed me off.)
And since I'm here, to borrow something from the ToMI thread, puzzles that make sense after you do them. Again, Discworld. The shenanagins you go through to get that black cloak which involve time travel and weather manipulation and never asking or stealing.
Edit: Long dialogue/cutscenes which you
can't skip (at
least on the second hearing/viewing) for some reason are going to annoy me no matter how much I enjoyed it the first time I heard/saw it.
Usually I hate walking deads and real time, but somehow I really liked Darkseed, also in terms of the gameplay. Practically you replay the game repeating actions until you do everything all right and on time.
As for walking deads, the different types of them are nicely summarized here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unwinnable
Hmm. While not complete deal breakers:
Pixel sized hotspots for room to room movement:
Made finding new locales in The Reposessor quite painful. Make them nice and roomy people, having an arrow flash up to indicate that that location can be travelled to is also quite helpful.
Unexpected death:
ProgZ's otherwise brilliant Limey Lizard suffered from a room that if you went in (and hadn't visited the other rooms first) you would die. Killing the player is fine but atleast give them some prior warning.
* Segregation of plot and gameplay - "I will tell you everything you need to know about your father - if you find me this potion". The player should follow clues to find out about their father - not just play their way from one info-dump to the other.
* Main characters who are idiots - when the player comes up with a brilliant puzzle solution and the main character screws it up, this is annoying. Not necessarily a deal-breaker, I guess, because Guybrush pulls it off, but Brian Basco from Runaway is a very bad example. I can't remember the exact puzzle but he assembles something incorrectly so then you need to find a tool to take it apart so it'll actually work. What makes this even worse is the player can try to do it the right way in the first place - prompting Brian to say that way would be a waste of time. AAARGH!
* Items that come from completely illogical puzzles - the player should know what they're setting out to accomplish. If you break into a tower that's meant to be filled with gold and all you find is a crowbar that you need to open the boarded up door to the plague house but didn't know where to get one then your game is plain retarded. The player will stop thinking and just try anything, it makes the world seem less real and so the story suffers. Or, another Runaway example, I didn't mind-wipe that guy to get three magical marbles. What the hell?
* Big puzzles for mundane items - why the hell can you only get one broom when you walk all over the entire world in Discworld?
*Bad writing - obviously. So subjective it's hard to go into detail. But it's cousin is:
*Bad translation. I take pride in my English skills and I wince everytime I see dialogue like this, from a game I downloaded - "Ok so maybe its true my life is a shit". Or any line of dialogue from the game The Treasure of Lost Island - I actually felt myself getting a headache trying to work out what the characters were meant to be saying. This isn't a racist thing - how can you expect people do be immersed in a story where nobody can talk properly? Unless the game's set in a remedial class or an asylum, it isn't going to work.
* Lack of hints
* Too many flags - you can't do x until you've done arbitrary thing y. Also one that Runaway has a reputation for, although commonplace. Not inherently bad but massively annoying if used too often. It isn't fun wandering around to find out what may have been unlocked, after you've done/seen something.
* Lack of direction - at the start of a game you should know what you're doing. This doesn't have to be anything major - some games it's just going to a place. Monkey Island - you need to talk to the pirates in the SCUMM Bar and the game unfolds from there. And the game should use scope to keep this interesting. Maybe you need to avenge your father, but to begin with you don't know who killed him so you need to find out?
* Excessive cutscenes - ... okay I'm ragging on Runaway a lot but COME ON! The game can't keep anything mysterious for over a minute. Whenever the player is uncertain about what's happened to Brian we're sure to be treated to a ten-minute cutscene explaining everything that was going on - with thrilling scenes such as one of his friends talking to a librarian for a minute. A lot of European games seem to have this flaw as well, I've noticed.
* Taking the player out of the moment - Connected to the above and the segragation of gameplay and story. Escape from Monkey Island was one of the worst examples for me - hey! I've finished the game. Now all the badguys kill one another without me having done anything to stop them. WTF????
* Compulsory minigames - unless they're both fun and easy, like the ones in Sam & Max and some of the Sierra games, these are always a bad idea as noted many times in this thread already. I think these are especially problematic because adventure game designers traditionally haven't had much to do with other types of games, so may tend to produce minigames that are quite lacking. Stooge Fighter in Space Quest 6, for example, is incredibly un-fun.
That's the main ones off the top of my head at the moment.
Great list, Jared.
I think your first point is really critical, particularly in adventure games. Whenever I'm a player I want to feel like the puzzles I'm completing are actually contributing to the game world and story. I don't want them to just exist as independent obstacles that could pop up in any context.
Quote from: TerranRich on Sun 12/07/2009 23:05:19
As for walking deads, the different types of them are nicely summarized here: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unwinnable
Leaked design notes for the unfinished Hitchhiker's Guide 2 game suggest including a puzzle whose solution causes the game to become essentially Unwinnable (ignoring a one-in-a-million random chance). Only by not solving the puzzle and losing the points could the player have won the game. This is just how the people at Infocom used to thinkGoot to know I've implemented that..poof. That might give me some sleep..
Quote from: ginanubismon on Fri 10/07/2009 00:25:00
In an counterculture action I was wondering what makes a bad, or downright awful, adventure game.
(1) long unskippable cutscenes. I'm looking at
you, KQV.
(2) pixel hunts
(3) atorsiouc spleggin
(4) items that can only be picked up once your character knows he'll need it, despite the fact that your character happily picks up everything else, and picking stuff up is a fundamental strategy in adventure games