My first puzzle dependency chart

[t3l3c0n]

Hi guys, this is actually my first post on here but I've been lurking in the background for the last few months trying to get up to speed on all things AGS, and I've got to the point where I'm confident enough to finally start making my own point and click adventure game (something I tried and failed at over 20 years ago as a teenager). I've been in the planning stage up till now and have just completed my first puzzle dependency chart. It has actually been really useful in not only making sure puzzles flow logically but also in showing where puzzles were too simple/complex and hopefully making sure the character has more than one option available to move forward in most situations. I've been tinkering with it for a couple of weeks now and I'm actually fairly happy with how its come out. This chart is for Act 1 and I plan on there being 3 acts and a short finale. There is also a short tutorial puzzle before this but I am still working on that to try and ensure it shows of the various mechanics in the game.

If anyone can offer any advice/criticism as to whether this looks a suitable size and complexity for an Act or can offer any other suggestions for improvements I would really appreciate it. This has all been done in a black hole so far so any feedback from someone other than me would be amazing.

Anyway ramble over, Thanks!

[Nahuel]

I like it!
 
What I do, for better readability in my opinion, is to add specific shapes for actions such as LOOK / INTERACT (pickup, use) / even for CutScenes or Events that need to be launched (when and where those are going to happen)

But globally if it works for you I would say, it's then, perfect.

[Snarky]

Nice!

My impression just from the graph structure is that it seems rather linear, in the sense that doing one action mostly opens up just one new action, and then that action opens up another action, and so on, and so a player will have to follow it very step-by-step. There are a few parallel paths, but each path is pretty linear.

This is partly a subjective question of taste, and a lot depends on how well it's executed, but personally I often find games like that unsatisfying, because it's like each move then kind of forces the next move. Or sometimes every time you seem about to achieve your goal, some new complication pops up, leading to increasing frustration.

I tend to like it better when more of the steps have more than one precondition (it looks like there are only two non-trivial examples of that in your design: to create the super plunger and hair of the dog), or open up more than one way forward. Basically, more branching in the graph. Or as Noah Falstein and/or Ron Gilbert put it: "Make it bushy!"

Here is a PDC for The Dig for comparison. It does have some linear sections, but usually it's only three or four steps between each branching.

[CaptainD]

It's a really good chart as long as you definitely want to stick with that exact structure. Personally I tend to change my mind about specifics as I go along so my puzzle dependency charts tend to be more about actions that depend on each other rather than "pick up x to do y to allow z to happen". But that's just me, if this works for you then that's great. My view is that game design is a rather organic process and that it needs room to breathe, as it can be difficult to know what really works until you try it out.

In my day job I sometimes create system process maps, which is a similar but much more rigidly structured process because you probably want - in fact need - things to happen a very specific way. When designing games I prefer a somewhat looser structure to work from. However again, that's just the way my mind works. If you're not sure (since you say this this is your first game) maybe try mapping out a smaller section (perhaps a closed-loop section of what you've already made) and making it to see if you're comfortable using such a detailed design to make the game from or not. (I do also appreciate the value of a detailed plan for keeping track of everything, which can be valuable.)

[cat]

If this is your first game, I strongly recommend to make a smaller game first. This way you will learn about AGS, graphics and game making in general. The lessons learned will help you to improve work on your big game from the start.
If you want, you could even make it a prequel to your large game. Just 1-2 rooms and a handful of puzzles.

[t3l3c0n]

Thanks for all the responses, it's always interesting to get a different perspective on something you have created in a vacuum as it always gives insights you hadn't even considered.

I like it!
 
What I do, for better readability in my opinion, is to add specific shapes for actions such as LOOK / INTERACT (pickup, use) / even for CutScenes or Events that need to be launched (when and where those are going to happen)

But globally if it works for you I would say, it's then, perfect.

I really like this idea and I will probably update the chart to include it. I think it will make it a bit clearer and should help to ensure every puzzle is not solved with the same action type (look, use, combine etc.)

Nice!

My impression just from the graph structure is that it seems rather linear, in the sense that doing one action mostly opens up just one new action, and then that action opens up another action, and so on, and so a player will have to follow it very step-by-step. There are a few parallel paths, but each path is pretty linear.

This is partly a subjective question of taste, and a lot depends on how well it's executed, but personally I often find games like that unsatisfying, because it's like each move then kind of forces the next move. Or sometimes every time you seem about to achieve your goal, some new complication pops up, leading to increasing frustration.

I tend to like it better when more of the steps have more than one precondition (it looks like there are only two non-trivial examples of that in your design: to create the super plunger and hair of the dog), or open up more than one way forward. Basically, more branching in the graph. Or as Noah Falstein and/or Ron Gilbert put it: "Make it bushy!"

Here is a PDC for The Dig for comparison. It does have some linear sections, but usually it's only three or four steps between each branching.

Some really interesting points in here. I did actually think I'd managed to make sure it wasn't too linear by ensuring there are always multiple objectives they can try to complete at any one time but I had not considered that the separate puzzles themselves were still fairly linear and this is something I will look to improve on.

It's a really good chart as long as you definitely want to stick with that exact structure. Personally I tend to change my mind about specifics as I go along so my puzzle dependency charts tend to be more about actions that depend on each other rather than "pick up x to do y to allow z to happen". But that's just me, if this works for you then that's great. My view is that game design is a rather organic process and that it needs room to breathe, as it can be difficult to know what really works until you try it out.

In my day job I sometimes create system process maps, which is a similar but much more rigidly structured process because you probably want - in fact need - things to happen a very specific way. When designing games I prefer a somewhat looser structure to work from. However again, that's just the way my mind works. If you're not sure (since you say this this is your first game) maybe try mapping out a smaller section (perhaps a closed-loop section of what you've already made) and making it to see if you're comfortable using such a detailed design to make the game from or not. (I do also appreciate the value of a detailed plan for keeping track of everything, which can be valuable.)

Thanks a lot for the insight. I realise it does look quite set in stone however I am still constantly tweaking it. I think in the future I may use a more simplified approach but for my first go at puzzle design I wanted to include everything in full to ensure (in theory at least) that everything fitted together correctly. I do however accept and expect that this detailed plan will probably go the way of all the best laid ones and if it doesn't fall apart completely will likely go through some radical redesigns along the way.

If this is your first game, I strongly recommend to make a smaller game first. This way you will learn about AGS, graphics and game making in general. The lessons learned will help you to improve work on your big game from the start.
If you want, you could even make it a prequel to your large game. Just 1-2 rooms and a handful of puzzles.

Thanks for that. I do actually plan on creating the 'tutorial' section first which will take place on the ship before it lands. That will have 4/5 rooms with only a few simple puzzles to hopefully show off the various mechanics used to solve puzzles throughout the game. I've no doubt that when I actually start to put things together I'll learn things which may make large parts of this chart redundant (or at least require a drastic redesign). This was as much an exercise to see if I could plot out the puzzles for a larger section of the game as a 'proof of concept' for myself. I will post the puzzle dependency for this smaller section at some point as well but I am still not happy with it at the moment.

Thank you for all your responses (and any more to come). These differing perspectives are invaluable to me and you will likely be hearing more from me in the coming weeks/months as I try to get me head around the various skills I need to acquire to make this dream a reality. My next big goal being to teach myself pixel art. Wish me luck!

[heltenjon]

If the game is fairly linear, this isn't always obvious to the player. It looks like most of the locations will be open for the player, so they will encounter a lot of problems and get to think about them, even if they can't solve them yet. Don't worry too much about linearity for your first game.

Also, if you look at what is actually needed in order to progress through an act of say, Monkey Island, it's probably a lot less than it feels like for the player. The player will spend time exploring, examining things, talking to npcs and so on. The puzzle dependency chart is not likely to show how the player's game will be like, as most players will need a bit of trial and error before reaching every goal.

[Snarky]

Also, if you look at what is actually needed in order to progress through an act of say, Monkey Island, it's probably a lot less than it feels like for the player. The player will spend time exploring, examining things, talking to npcs and so on. The puzzle dependency chart is not likely to show how the player's game will be like, as most players will need a bit of trial and error before reaching every goal.

It seems to me that the PDCs both for TSOMI and (to a somewhat lesser extent) MI2 Act II are quite bushy and complex.

[Danvzare]

My main gripe is, what's the point of using the ID card on the receptionist? Nothing depends on the "Free Access to Kitchen" node, so in theory, it should be completely optional. I get that it's a sub goal, but it's not linked to anything, so it shouldn't be blocking you from your end goal.

Also, it's a little hard to follow in a couple of places. Particularly on the "Use ID on Maid" node, "Get ID Card" node, and the "Get Porn Mag" node. Personally I would bend the arrows around to make them connect from the left side. That way all dependents connect to the left of a node, and all dependees connect to the right of a node. (I know the arrows are there, but it makes it easier to tell from a glance.)

Other than those minor nitpicks, it's good, it's quite easy to both follow and understand. And at the end of the day, it's whatever you prefer, since it's for your eyes only.
Just remember that it's a called a puzzle dependency chart, because each node depends on all of the previous nodes that are all connected to it, to be fulfilled before itself can be fulfilled. That means if there's anything, and I mean ANYTHING that needs to be done before you can fulfill a node, that means it needs to be added to the chart and linked up. (Exceptions are obvious tasks, such as opening an already unlocked door before you can walk through it.)

[heltenjon]

It seems to me that the PDCs both for TSOMI and (to a somewhat lesser extent) MI2 Act II are quite bushy and complex.

I don't disagree. So they would be wide, not long, if that makes any sense. When I played Daniele Spadoni's fan games, I noticed that he often only has implemented the necessary tasks to complete a puzzle, whereas the originals have answers to everything. He often uses the same structure, offering a different solution to familiar puzzles, but in comparison, the play time will be a lot shorter.

Still, I seem to remember being surprised by how short an act in MI2 was, when I happened to stumble upon the correct solution almost immediately. (A maze of some sort, I think?) I haven't actually studied the charts, though.