Good Response

[HillBilly]

DON'T give me a walk pointer and then rob me of the ability to walk in toxic waste. DON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

I think it's designed that way to prevent the player from "accidently" shooting an important NPC, resulting in just wandering around with no way of completing the game. You're not only controlling a character, you're playing a role. It would be a little out of place for Leisure Suit Larry to suddenly stab a hooker in the face, or Barnard to wrestle a pack of alligators just for kicks.

I disagree that this is necessarily bad design. The freedom to do those kind of things is a great boon to some games, but not all. Player character free will is not bad design in itself, it is a problem when it MASKS bad design, as in the example I mention above.

I agree. I find the usual adventure game hero to be an awkward guy between 14-25 years old, and sometimes a passive-agressive sissy. You'll get dirt under your fingernails if you go through the trash? Too bad. I want that trash. I think the key here, as you say, is making a balance between personality and objectives.

If the character is to be anything other than a puppet or a suicidal sociopath then they ought to refuse to walk into toxic waste or shoot bystanders.

I'm hoping for this to be possible in Earl Mansin 2, if I ever get around to it.

[SSH]

But if you can't let a character do some particular action, surely its much better to show them trying and failing in some way than just cop out by having the character do nothing except "No, I won't and you can't make me!"

[Helm]

This would be an acceptable response if the main character was a small child, but not if they were a grizzled marine. It would be fun to find the child a nightlight, but irritating to find the marine a torch.

Yes I guess my problem is how when the designer feels like it, the small child will do completely risky stuff if they are the 'correct' thing to do, and not do all the rest of them he hasn't designed more involved try-and-fail responses to. So the same child that refuses to go in the dark, will throw water at a circutry board.

The thing is, most real people, and well-written characters will *not* feel compelled to do any sort of adventury-gamey thing besides the straightforward "I have locked myself out of my house!" scenario. So any sort of character in your game, unless they're McGyver, a private eye, some sort of master thief or what have you, is probably breaking character if you have them combining icecream with a magnet or somesuch. I can see how an everyman might be stressed to the point where he'd try inventory combinations, if he was really at risk and forced to be inventive, but as it happens most adventure games are totally sedate in atmosphere and it's just some dude walking around on a general 'quest' doing odd things like combining toothbrushes with flamingoes as if that's totally normal.
They don't seem to lack the motivation to do this shit, then why do they lack the motivation to put themselves at risk, or otherwise break character? They're breaking it just by carrying 30 items in their pockets.

If I am going to be combining random shit in a game, you bet your ass I want to be able to walk into toxic waste.

[TerranRich]

Sorry for diverging a tad here, but am I the only one who thinks that using the Talk action on the main character should cause the MC to ponder his current situation and perhaps divulging a hint or two as to what he should do next? Kinda like talking to Cedric in KQ5 or any sidekick in any game. I mean, when one talks to oneself, isn't it to think about a current situation, or to just ponder things?

[ManicMatt]

No TerranRich, as it gets on my nerves when a main character is clickable, as they get in the way when I'm trying to click on something near them, and I end up hearing the same damn phrases over and over again! So your idea is good, but perhaps executed in another way, please!

Back to topic more so:

Reminds me of something in my own game. I had a certain solution in mind for getting rid of this dog, and I'd put dog food in the area. The solution had nothing to do with the dog food, but I realised everyone is going to try using it on the dog, so I made a whole "cutscene" (if you will) where the EGO tries to use the dog food and fails, AND gives good reason as to why the dog won't eat it.

Deus Ex is a good example where you can kill whoever you want, excpet you can't kill certain main characters. And that's totally understandable. To do that, you'd need adaptable AI to cope with the loss of key characters that were integral to the plot. Or you might end up with a game where there's nobody left alive and theres nothing left to do in the game!

[TerranRich]

In designing By the Sword, I kept "unexpected" interactions in mind at all times. My plan was to include several meaningful and useful responses for inventory interactions that weren't correct, sometimes giving hints like "Hmm, you might have the right idea, but the wrong item" or something like that. The frustration of playing games with such annoyances has led me to avoid just that.

The laziest generic response system was in KQ5, where if something wasn't meant to be done, a red X icon appeared for a second...and that was it. If you tried to look at the tree... red X. If you tried interacting with a certain item... red X. Very lazy if you ask me.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

DON'T give me a gun and then tell me 'I don't want to kill these innocent people!'. Bad design.

I don't agree.  If the character whose part you're playing is an upstanding person (as opposed to a psycho), there's no logic at all in them just shooting everyone aside from the sadistic glee you might feel for being allowed to do so.  If the character is nuts and has a gun you'd expect this sort of gameplay, though.  I liked the responses in Star Trek 25th when you tried phasering random things/people.  They still gave you the sense you were in control by having someone else keep you in check, in this case Bones and Dr. McCoy. 

"That's a phaser not a flashlight, Jim!" 

[TerranRich]

I'd have to agree with ProgZmax. Your character has to have some level of believability, and that also includes some "self-awareness" in that he will not do uncharacteristic things, unless the game involves a change in personality of your main character, etc. Otherwise, if your MC is not normally a violent person (like a monk or something), then he should refuse to kill people. That gun could, however, be used for other purposes (e.g. dismantling it and using a part of it on something else, etc.).

Futhermore, let's say you play a peaceful monk, and your game allows the player to use a gun on innocent people. Then what? There must be repercussions, and those repercussions will most likely take away from the normal gameplay and not make any sense. The player will then think that (s)he was supposed to do what they just did. Having the main character refuse is a safeguard.

[Helm]

There must be repercussions, and those repercussions will most likely take away from the normal gameplay and not make any sense.

I remember Sierra giving you a textbox of death. Still better than 'I don't want to do that.'

[TheJBurger]

If I were to create a scene, where the main character has to go through a room, but the bad guy will see him if he walks out, should I allow the character to walk out and die every time? (The solution is not to sneak across the room, so timing puzzles are out).
Or should I just have him step back quickly and say "I can't go out there or he'll see me!" I myself, decided to choose the latter because I thought it would be annoying to see the character die for walking out into the open, or maybe because the player clicked there by accident and didn't save.
Is my choice bad game design or just one of two equal choices?

[Kweepa]

in this case Bones and Dr. McCoy.Ã, 

Shurely shome mishtake?
It seems like everyone has different ideas about this, and that's good. As long as things are consistent and well written, animated, etc, I don't see a problem with any approach.

[Erenan]

No TerranRich, as it gets on my nerves when a main character is clickable, as they get in the way when I'm trying to click on something near them, and I end up hearing the same damn phrases over and over again! So your idea is good, but perhaps executed in another way, please!

I personally like the idea of having a mugshot of the player character in the GUI for interactions with yourself.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Or should I just have him step back quickly and say "I can't go out there or he'll see me!" I myself, decided to choose the latter because I thought it would be annoying to see the character die for walking out into the open, or maybe because the player clicked there by accident and didn't save.
Is my choice bad game design or just one of two equal choices?

I think giving the player some idea that they are about to get into a dangerous situation would be fine, but allow them to do it if they really want to, like a narrator box stating "You have a feeling you're being watched" or something like that.  Don't make going into the room an instant kill, rather let them walk in there a bit and then get some sense of danger.  Avoid making the player die before knowing they 'can' die.  That's a major issue I've always had with Sierra games.  I find it immensely unenjoyable to repeat die through a sequence because the authors find it highly amusing to have pop-up insults and multiple unique deaths, and a desire to force you to see them all.

[Babar]

I prefer having the character clickable, because it's very frustrating for me to have to click through the character to something I can't see that is behind. Although Erenan's gives a great idea. In this way, you could control different clicks on the head, the chest, the legs, etc., which I don't think can be done on a character sprite.

I don't know about believeability or distracting the player, but to have the character just keep continuously saying "Hmm..Naah" for every single thing that can't be done gets irritating very fast. Sometimes I am bored in-game, and I wish to try weird and funny things. Sure, it might not work for the type of games which are not one big joke, but for example, you'd miss out on a LOT of things if you just went through with playing the game in Disworld.

[Helm]

Or should I just have him step back quickly and say "I can't go out there or he'll see me!" I myself, decided to choose the latter because I thought it would be annoying to see the character die for walking out into the open, or maybe because the player clicked there by accident and didn't save.

Depends... do you perhaps feel that a needed element in a game is the capacity for losing as well as winning? Should a game be stuck in the same place until the player somehow figures out what the designer had in mind in order to progress in a linear path towards resolution? Oh wait... adventure games.

The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

[ManicMatt]

I prefer having the character clickable, because it's very frustrating for me to have to click through the character to something I can't see that is behind.

Whether the character was clickable or not you'd be frustrated then? I gather you move them out of the way all the time. Thing is though, I've played some AGS games where I'm clearly NOT clicking on the sprite but the detection system thinks I am.

Helm, I like having no risk in adventure games. For me it's a change in pace. I can have a drink and a snack while I play without fear I'm going to die if I let go of the mouse for a second.

[Ali]

As long as things are consistent and well written, animated, etc, I don't see a problem with any approach.

I think this is the crux of all the complaints in this thread. If a character is consistent then their refusals won't be frustrating to the player, they'll just feel like another challenge. If a character is well written then their responses will be rewarding even if they don't further the game's narrative.

Well spotted Steve!

The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

I agree that risk is an important element, but it needn't always be the player character's health at risk. NPCs, objects, information and many other things can all be placed at risk in the interest of drama without the need for a kill-able hero.

[Helm]

I never said death is the only risk. But in the vast majority of the well-liked Adventure games (mostly non-Sierra), there's no risk at all! You cannot even lose the game in most of them, it's either being stuck, or progressing! I think there's an important discussion to be made on that point.

there is a mindset that is promoted when you understand you can either be stuck, or be progressing. From there starts the 'click on everything' issue, for example. If you know that if you do the wrong thing (like in KGB) you're at risk of detrimental effects, not just NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING AH YES THIS ONE WORKED, you play much more carefully, and probably become more immersed as you haven't become meta-bored with the process and are just clicking through it to get to the next part.

[Ali]

I never said death is the only risk. But in the vast majority of the well-liked Adventure games (mostly non-Sierra), there's no risk at all!

I didn't mean to suggest you thought death was the only risk. What I meant was that a sense of risk can add to a game in many ways, including the way it gave Sierra games their dynamic.

In the Secret of Monkey Island, Elaine is at risk of a forced marriage. Though the game is light-hearted this is still something the player doesn't want to see happen - so it adds to the drama of the narrative.

I don't think it's essentisl that the player can fail - as long as the consequences of failure are understood. In many linear artforms, particularly cinema, a sense of risk can be created without there being such a thing as an optional bad end.

In Gabriel Knight and Broken Sword, the fact that the player can fail really adds to the gritty character of the game world. I just don't believe that by abandoning bad-endings you necessarily abandon a sense of risk altogether.

[EagerMind]

The abolishment of risk in adventure games, I never understood.

Because risk - at least as traditionally realized in games - is basically pointless in adventure games. Is there really any point in killing the player when you can just restore immediately beforehand and keep trying again (I'm reminded specifically of Beneath A Steel Sky, trying to get by the giant spider in the subway)? Unless you allow the player to get into a "walking dead" situation, or kill without warning (hoping the player hasn't saved recently). Not really solutions in my opinion.

I think the best way of implementing "risk" is alternate endings, or alternate paths, based on what you do during the game. But would this necessarily eliminate the problem of being "stuck, stuck, stuck, oh! that worked!"?

In the Secret of Monkey Island, Elaine is at risk of a forced marriage. Though the game is light-hearted this is still something the player doesn't want to see happen - so it adds to the drama of the narrative.

I don't think it's essentisl that the player can fail - as long as the consequences of failure are understood. In many linear artforms, particularly cinema, a sense of risk can be created without there being such a thing as an optional bad end.

But if there's no chance of the bad outcome ever being actualized, then it's not really risk. It can provide motivation within the context of the story ("the MacGuffin"), but not risk.

Deus Ex is a good example where you can kill whoever you want, excpet you can't kill certain main characters. And that's totally understandable. To do that, you'd need adaptable AI to cope with the loss of key characters that were integral to the plot. Or you might end up with a game where there's nobody left alive and theres nothing left to do in the game!

Or you can do it like Half-Life, where the game just ends when you kill a key character. Thoughts about going this route?