What makes you want to Point and Click

[magintz]

Well? What do you think it takes to make a decent adventure game, what do you like to see?

- Plot twists
- Incredibly hard puzzles
- Humour
- Monkeys

What are your suggestions that add to a perfect adventure game?

[Vel]

Of the above... only plot twists. Maybe a bit of humour too, but not too much. Puzzles often get in the way of a story in my opinion.

[Captain Mostly]

I think the atmosphere of a game can do more for it than anything else.

Also, things that looks different to anything else.

Monkeys would put me off these days. Monkeys in adventure games is too derivative now for my tastes.

[Darth Mandarb]

- Good story
Above all else there must be a good story/plot.  If you don't stay interested what's the point?

- Good game mechanics
If the game is a bear to control, even the best story would be hard pressed to keep me playing.

- Intriguing puzzles
Puzzles that are challenging and make you think, but are logical and make sense.

- Pleasing visuals
Hey ... everybody likes good graphics!! How often do you hear somebody say, "I hope the graphics suck!"

[DragonRose]

I agree with Vel that puzzles often get in the way.  I honestly have no compunctions about using UHS if I can't solve a puzzle quickly enough.  I don't want to spend days wandering around trying to find one little bit of information I missed, I want to get on with the story!

[LordHart]

Yeah, puzzles get in the way of stories. Especially if they are just pixel hunting puzzles... no sense getting lost in the game because you didn't find the "ant-sized diamond" or some other little thing like that.

[Mr Jake]

Monkeys..
who cares about the rest as long as there are monkeys

[DGMacphee]

I don't see why people moan that puzzles get in the way of the story.

Puzzles are meant to get in the way of the story -- that what makes an adventure game playable and what makes the player want to continue witht he story.

Without puzzles, you have no game.

You may as well just watch a movie if you think puzzles aren't important.

Puzzles are what makes me want to play, just as much as a good story.

[Barcik]

There is never one dominant feature. What really matter is how all of the above merge to create one full piece of gameplay. Sometimes, all seperate aspects of the game can be superb, yet not work well when put together. So, I pick the sum of all parts as what I care about the most.

[DragonRose]

DG: I'm not talking about obstacles. Those are completly necessary, and they are what make up the plot of the game.   Manny can't just sell Meche the train ticket at the beginning of the game, King Graham can't just walk through the woods to find Castle Daventary exactly where he left it, and Gabriel Knight can't have a happy family life. We need them to overcome these obstacles for there to be a story.

But I don't like puzzles like the safe door in GF, or getting the gems from the bag in KQV, or opening the clock in GK1.  Puzzles where it is not immedeatly obvious what needs to be done, where you have to twitch and fiddle to get things positioned properly, where there is no indication that it is possible to solve the puzzle in the way that it is necessary, THOSE drive me straight up the wall.

[Robert Eric]

Puzzles are common in daily life, whether it be trying to find a way to remember where you left your keys, or trying to get your computer to work again without having a professional or someone who knows what they're doing do it.  It would only be right to have puzzles in a game.  You wouldn't want the character to just go through the game without thinking would you?  That would take away the game aspect of it.

Edit: Puzzles should have a point.  Going to several different rooms and performing several different tasks just to open a door shouldn't be used.

[Dave Gilbert]

Well there are "puzzles" and there is "interactivity."  Games should be interactive, that's what makes them games.  Whether you're exploring a world, directing a conversation or solving a puzzle.  It's not puzzles that ruin a game per se, it's BAD puzzles that can ruin a game.  Take the end of Runaway for example...

Spoiler

where that Sushi character basically tells you everything that you need to do.  That's not puzzle solving.  That's just following directions.  Bugged me.

[close]

[Meowster]

I thought the safe puzzle in Grim Fandango was obvious... difficult, but obvious....

Something I heard somebody once say, (Tim Schafer to be precise) is that there always has to be a certain element of Wish Fulfillment for the player, too. Nobody wants to pick up a game and get a great plot, except with the same basic puzzles that are in 1000 other games that they've already played. You have to put the Player in a position where they are excited to be on this adventure with the hero.

Also, the puzzles in a game should be solved in a way that the HERO would solve them, not in a way that the PLAYER would solve them. For instance, and I think this is the example that was used in the interview I read... Ben Throttle would make an entrance by kicking a door down, whereas Manny Calavera would find a more subtle entrance.

Something else that I personally think is important in games, is innovation. It's great for a player to be able to say, "Woah!" when they play things that have been done for the first time in your game. Then you start to see other people using your techniques, and that's when you know you've done something right.

[Dave Gilbert]

Yufster, you remind me of my favorite puzzle from "Zork Grand Inquisitor," where you play the brogmoid guy (Throg?  Forget his name).  He's basically a dumb beefcake type of guy, and he encounters a Myst-like chess puzzle.  Throg has no idea how to solve it.  You can futz with it for awhile, getting nowhere fast and frustrated.  The solution to the puzzle?

Spoiler

Smash the chess board to bits!

[close]

I laughed myself silly.  Not only was it a satisfying solution, but it was totally in character.

[Privateer Puddin']

Monkeys. Gotta have Monkeys.

[Meowster]

Yufster, you remind me of my favorite puzzle from "Zork Grand Inquisitor," where you play the brogmoid guy (Throg? Forget his name). He's basically a dumb beefcake type of guy

Thanks.

[m0ds]

I don't like playing shit. Take time making your games. Don't rush. I can't stand rushed games. If it feels like its been made in a rush, I'll play it in a rush and probably quit after a few screens into it.

[Miez]

I don't like playing shit. Take time making your games. Don't rush. I can't stand rushed games. If it feels like its been made in a rush, I'll play it in a rush and probably quit after a few screens into it.

And that's EXACTLY why we won't be releasing FoY BEFORE 2016!  

[Mr Jake]

Does FoY have monkeys!!!?!?!?!
Oh i hope it does!
oh please....


Anyway, really I think the characters are the most /important/, I mean all roles are important but wih crappy character development you wont want to play for very long

[Duck]

A game needs to keep you interested. There are all sorts of ways of doing this, and if what the game does works, it's good.

To me, one of the most important things is action. I don't want to be sitting around for hours trying to figure out some puzzle, I want to be moving on! Similarly, I don't want all sorts of goddamn repetitive throwaway puzzles - it's a stretch to make me go back into the house to find my car keys, but if I need to use them every goddamn time I get into the car, I'm not going to like the game too much.

Also, storylines are important. They're what keep you interested. I also love to see developed characters. Take a pair of animes for example: Neon Genesis Evangelion has complex, developed, and interesting characters, while Robotech's characters bear so little resemblance to actual human beings that I didn't even finish watching the second episode.