Space Quest 5 -- Need help with something (not hints)

[MillsJROSS]

I think a lot of SQ6's downfall can be attributed to the shift in management at Sierra. It was rushed to be released, and the team creating the game seemed to be in a constant change. The plot seemed forced, and even with a general idea of what needed to be done, there was still a feeling that you were just wandering around aimlessly.

SQ7's project seems to be very quite as of late. I hope it is released, but looking at the graphics, I haven't really been impressed. I think, as a independent effort, they tried to bite off more than they could chew. Rather than making a simple game with lower resolution graphics they opted for 3dish bad looking graphics. The lead programmer had a problem with AGS, and refused to use it, and decided instead to make their own Adventure Game Engine using Java. I think they made some bad choices because they had been in big name brand products and didn't comprehend how much more effort goes into an independent game, when you're backing the cost of everything, and the only reward from anyone helping to create this free game, is the satisfaction of finishing a game. At least if they had decided to create the game, and then sell it, it might have had more of a drive from everyone else.

-MillsJROSS

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Well, while I agree that an adventure game should set out clear goals to the player, is it so wrong to allow some exploration in the very beginning of the game? Later on, as the story becomes more pressing and compelling, it helps to have goals, but the premise isn't so bad - Roger's on shore leave. Explore. Have fun. Eventually you'll learn about a couple of things to do. You went into a hotel, you tried to get a room, you didn't have the money. So you tried to get some. You learned about a deranged android. You tried to sort it out.

The big NO-NO is to put, right in the beginning, something that the player has no way of solving or sorting out until much later in the game and still making you believe you could sort it out RIGHT NOW, making you waste time and effort. But that didn't happen, did it?

We adventure gamers seem to be straying from exploration. In fact, nowadays, people I talk to who love exploration seem to much prefer the earlier Tomb Raider games than any given adventure.

[Babar]

I enjoy exploration in computer games, but I also think that having a properly set goal is important. Another game I remember losing interest in because of this was Freddy Pharkas. Sure, there was lots of exploration to be done, and lots of 'small' things you could accomplish, but as far as I went in the game, it seemed to be basically live your life the way you'd live your life as a western period pharmacist.

Exploring just for the sake of it might be fun, but I prefer having a goal. I mean, I don't even mind mazes as much as many people here seem to, as they usually have a goal: Find the exit, find the treasure, find the centre, etc. Who explorers a maze just for the sake of exploring it?

I didn't really like SQ5. I think SQ4 was the only game I really enjoyed in the series. I was never able to finish SQ6 because of some bug in the middle of the game, but I wouldn't say that the level of detail (jokes) were a redeeming factor. Even the animation of Roger waving his hands while talking gave the impression of a stand-up comedian being forced to make a joke about every single thing that you click the eye on. A game that did that much better (in my opinion) was Discworld, where exploration, and looking at things paid off, and it didn't seem to be as forced.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

it seemed to be basically live your life the way you'd live your life as a western period pharmacist.

A goal eventually emerged, but that concept in itself was half the game, yes.

[Uhfgood]

in all the examples for sq, I noted the goals in the beginning, weren't necesserily the goals of the end game.  But it gave you an idea.  SQ6 didn't really, I could have just skipped the dew beam inn, except the walkthrough told me I was supposed to do something there.  I like to know i'm moving in a direction, any direction, but a direction.

I am kind of struggling in my own game (that i'm making).  The first playable character gets brought into this fantasy world to help a wizard restore the tourist business to a magical kingdom.  But I don't really have any other goal for him in the beginning other than telling him to go to a couple of schools (in this tourists can train to be a knight, or a wizard, and the ladies can learn to be either princesses or fairy godmother's, but the schools are closed by this time), and ask a few questions to see what's going on.  But at least I tell the player that they need to go ask questions.  Still it seems weak.  The other thing is before you can go into the magical kingdom, you need to get a book from the library, and a candy bar (well i'll leave the details out for now), and before that he needs to find his library card and clean his room.  And I still haven't figured out a motivation for him to do any of this.

In any case the player needs an idea what to do, it doesn't have to be the full goal of the game, but it shouldn't be "well here you're in an adventure, now go adventure."

[stevetheblack]

But at least I tell the player that they need to go ask questions.  Still it seems weak.

I've been thinking about this and the way I see it is that so long as the player has some clue what to do then its ok.  Of course there are occassions where the general "explore and talk" plan is acceptable, depending on the situation.  If your character is a detective for instance you should be required to do some detecting at some point, or if something completely unexpected happens, like in SQ1.  Roger wakes up from a mid-shift snooze to find his entire ship uncharacteristically devoid of living crew, some exploration is in order. 

Sure, it provides a goal but it does it in a much more clandestine manner.  Instead of saying "you need to do this" it makes you think "what's going on here?", which provides more overall motivation to continue than being dropped what can amount to a very obvious hint.  Finding the balance between the two is the real trick, you don't want to have to tell them where to go after every puzzle, but they have to be able to work it out themselves.   

The other thing is before you can go into the magical kingdom, you need to get a book from the library, and a candy bar (well i'll leave the details out for now), and before that he needs to find his library card and clean his room.  And I still haven't figured out a motivation for him to do any of this.

Obviously I don't know anything about the situation of your game, and I don't want to impose, but if I may offer a  suggestion?  I think in the early stages of a game, before the proper story has really begun in earnest, then dropping the occassional hint is ok.  For instance, just having a character drop a hint that the player character hasn't cleaned his room for a while. 

Even the most mundane goal is fine for the start of a game, so long as it doesn't last too long.  One of the things that annoys me as a player is when after playing the game for an hour or so I still haven't seen hide nor hair of the real story yet (see SQ6 for a reference there).

Probably not much help, but there's my two penneth anyway

[Uhfgood]

Roger wakes up from a mid-shift snooze to find his entire ship uncharacteristically devoid of living crew, some exploration is in order.

Sure, it provides a goal but it does it in a much more clandestine manner.

Actually this is exactly what I was talking about.  It doesn't have to hand hold every bit of the way, but I mean, when he wakes up and it's devoid of crew, then you know something is up, so that provides the goal. 

I apologize for ranting about sq6 in any case it sort of ruined the game for me, so that's why I went off on a tangent :-)

Obviously I don't know anything about the situation of your game, and I don't want to impose, but if I may offer a  suggestion?  I think in the early stages of a game, before the proper story has really begun in earnest, then dropping the occassional hint is ok.  For instance, just having a character drop a hint that the player character hasn't cleaned his room for a while.

Well you need to clean up to find the library card (which will also be hinted at), I also kind of want them to finish cleaning the room after they've found the card.  (I'm toying with the idea of him letting the player know that he wouldn't hear the end of it from his mom if he left the mess for her to clean)... 

There is a couple of things I'm doing this for (and I'm sure this kind of thing has been done lot's of times) -- A) you get to know the interface, the interface is going to be slightly different (I guess you could say a modified verb coin... well actulaly pie menu), and B) you're instantly put into the action, even if suspension of disbelief doesn't occur yet (the character will talk to the player).  I figured we've all seen games where the intro scene really sets the stage, however sometimes players just want to play.  Also sometimes the players feel ripped off when the ending is rather short (see Curse of Monkey Island), so i'm considering doing it backwards.  The cutscenes toward the beginning of the game will be rather short, getting longer as the game gets to the climax.  With a decent end scene (I haven't determined length yet or anything, but just satisfying).

I just sort of felt you might like to start playing at a stage that was sort of pre-game, where you don't have to sit through alot of dialogue or whatever.

In any case I appreciate any opinions, criticisms, or suggestions.  Of course now i'm derailing the thread, but it is an interesting discussion none-the-less :-)

[stevetheblack]

The cutscenes toward the beginning of the game will be rather short, getting longer as the game gets to the climax.  With a decent end scene (I haven't determined length yet or anything, but just satisfying).

I just sort of felt you might like to start playing at a stage that was sort of pre-game, where you don't have to sit through alot of dialogue or whatever.

In any case I appreciate any opinions, criticisms, or suggestions.  Of course now i'm derailing the thread, but it is an interesting discussion none-the-less :-)

I don't want to derail the thread any more either, but I would just like to say that that sounds like a good way to do it.  No doubt I'll be stopping by your "in production" thread when it exists/if i can find it

But yes, let's get back on topic, peoples!

[Uhfgood]

Unfortunately there's not a forum for non-ags adventures in production.  I'm using the wintermute engine, because of the high resolution, and the fact it uses 3d hardware for certain effects.  But maybe i'll put up an in production thread for my game in this forum :-)

Keith

[Uhfgood]

hopefully someone will read this, because since this is similar to the other two questions I decided not to start a new thread.  I'm now playing King's Quest V (CD version I believe, as it's the one off the newest 2006 collection).  After going through a walkthrough I noticed that one of the things it said to do was to go into the desert, I want to know if anyone knows of a reason I'm supposed to go into the desert?  (That is, is there anything in the game that hints something might be in the desert to see?)

Keith

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

KQ5 is one of those game that encourage exploration. You don't *need* a reason to do anything.

I still think people are expecting to be lead by the nose too much nowadays. <sigh> No wonder people who like exploration have turned to Tomb Raider and Baldur's Gate.

[Uhfgood]

lead by the nose?  Adventure games are one of those unique genres of computer games that expose a narrative for the player to follow.  I don't play an adventure game to explore, but to reveal a narrative.  Thus I need to be "lead by the nose" in order to be directed to whatever narrative the story teller (game designer) wishes me to follow.  What do I care about anything in a game if I don't have a reason to do it?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Adventure games are one of those unique genres of computer games that expose a narrative for the player to follow.

If by unique you mean that RPGs and some action games also do it, and even some platformers, and in fact most modern games also do it...

I don't play an adventure game to explore, but to reveal a narrative.

Good for you. Me too, actually, but if I don't explore, how is the narrative going to unfold? If the player character is stranded on a desert island, he's got to explore, or even the narrative doesn't move forward.

What do I care about anything in a game if I don't have a reason to do it?

And thus, with a single blow, you fell the most amazing quality in an adventure game - depth, which defines how well the game pulls you into its "gameworld" (for lack of a better term). If you explore, and talk to characters, and go out of your way to learn more about the gameworld, you'll get a much more enjoyable experience. Or maybe *you* don't, but that's because you don't know what you're missing, because apparently you prefer a fairly linear experience not unlike that of a book which is fun to read the first time but gives you no reason to pick it up again.

I suggest you try Outcast. Heck, I suggest you try Quest for Glory.

[Uhfgood]

Pardon me for ruining your experience.  I did say one of those unique experiences.  And rpg's are really the only other ones that do that.  I mean you can have a story in any game, but only adventures and rpg's really expose the narrative.

Actually adventure games are alot like books -- and yes usually you don't play them more than once at a time unless you really enjoyed it.

I don't get depth from having to walk 20 screens to get to some obscure road crossing or oasis.  I also don't get it while wandering around aimlessly.  You don't have to tell me exactly what needs to be done, but I at least need to be pointed in the right direction.

By the way if you want to explore so much, try something like Grand Theft Auto, supposedly those are "sandbox' games that allow you to go anywhere and do anything.  If that's your cup of tea, then more power to ya.

Personally I go for the straight narrative which means there's going to be linear aspects to it.

I also apologize for being such an apparent simpleton to you.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Know what's the kicker? I also prefer games that are heavy on storytelling, and don't mind if they are lax on any other department (graphics, music, etc - but writing must still be great).

Pardon me for ruining your experience.  I did say one of those unique experiences.

Adventure games are one of those unique genres

Ok, I totally didn't get that. Anyway, I was just showing you that it's not a unique genre for storytelling, revealing a narrative. It's actually becoming rather fashionable in FPS nowadays, especially horror ones. American McGee's Alice had quite a narrative, too.

I mean you can have a story in any game, but only adventures and rpg's really expose the narrative.

If anyone believes that a sentence like that really is true, then that person is accepting pre-defined limits and is unlikely to surpass them, which ends in stale, seen-it-before experiences. I agree it used to be like that, but not anymore, or not as much as it used to.

Actually adventure games are alot like books -- and yes usually you don't play them more than once at a time unless you really enjoyed it.

I do. I also reread books often. And I always find something that made my replay worth it, you should try it sometimes. Or not, whatever strikes your fancy. Yeah, they're a lot like books. They aren't, however, books, for a simple reason: in a book, things happen regardless of whether you turn the page. In a game, you can make any darned thing you like, and you can't skip to the last page to know how it'll turn out. I loved REALMyst 3D - really gave me a sense of being there. I just felt like I was really stranded. So I just went around, explored, and started to learn more about my surroundings. No hint of what to do at any time, not really. And from reading reviews and stuff, I seem to be one of the few people who breezed through Myst without ever getting seriously stuck at all. Actually, scratch the seriously. See what I'm sayin'?

I don't get depth from having to walk 20 screens to get to some obscure road crossing or oasis.

Agreed.

I also don't get it while wandering around aimlessly.  You don't have to tell me exactly what needs to be done, but I at least need to be pointed in the right direction.

Agreed... sort of. That's the whole point of adventure games, isn't it? You know a couple of things you have to do, but the way to accomplish it might lie elsewhere, after solving another puzzle, maybe helping someone else at another location. Anyway, you didn't have to go to St. Louis Cemetary Number 1 until about chapter 3 or 4 in Gabriel Knight, and only really needed to go to Napoleon's once or twice and only a person there was of interest, but that didn't stop the location always being available. And it was quite a sensation to listen to the replies when Gabe tried to "TALK" to the tombs of his parents. These are the little details that add so much that you WILL miss if you just go "just tell me where to go and be done with it".

By the way if you want to explore so much, try something like Grand Theft Auto, supposedly those are "sandbox' games that allow you to go anywhere and do anything.  If that's your cup of tea, then more power to ya.

I suggest you take a look at my examples, then you'll realize why your example is so off-base. I don't care for going anywhere and doing anything. But I care for that illusion, I care for actually feeling I'm there. Again, isn't that what adventure games are all about? BUT they also have to tell a story - they should limit our freedom. There are much better ways to do it than tell the player he needs to go elsewhere. Why not just say "You slip and fall" when the player tries to climb the snowy hill, instead of "That looks slippery. Maybe you should get yourself some climbing gear"? If it's clear enough that the hill is an obstacle, then one of thesse messages will make the player feel clever, and the other will make him bored. Guess which is which.

Personally I go for the straight narrative which means there's going to be linear aspects to it.

Kicker - me too. But we're not talking narrative anymore, we're talking puzzles, and we're talking gameplay.

I also apologize for being such an apparent simpleton to you.

Apology accepted, just for kicks, but I really don't think you are one, and I didn't want to sound like I did think that, so it's my turn to apologize.

EDIT - Interesting, isn't it, that I didn't have any trouble at all getting through SQ5 or the first part of SQ6 (no further because of a critical bug). And this comes from a guy who usually has to resort to walkthrough.

EDIT 2 - But overall, this is pretty much pointless because we play games to have fun. I have fun feeling like I'm there, you have feeling like you're reading a book, other people have fun puzzle-solving, etc. And we've pretty much exposed our views on the subject. So maybe we should just go and play the games that give us the kicks we like... trying not to be too subjective about the games that gave us kicks we didn't (i.e. - didn0t give us what we wanted: not necessarily a bad game*).



*The REALLY bad thing is when a game tries to be something it's not. Black Dahlia (you'd like it!) is a great game with an awful amount of gratuitous puzzles thrown in for no good reason at all. The game could be a great story-telling experience (with, nevertheless, never *too* clear a direction ), but it also tries to be a puzzle-fest. THIS kills the game very fast. Play this one with a cheat-sheet.

[space boy]

Sorry, offtopic:
Rui, did you get my last pm?

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Did so. Still can't see your images. Didn't reply 'cause I thought if it was serious other people would have contacted you about it.

[Uhfgood]

Why not just say "You slip and fall" when the player tries to climb the snowy hill, instead of "That looks slippery. Maybe you should get yourself some climbing gear"? If it's clear enough that the hill is an obstacle, then one of thesse messages will make the player feel clever, and the other will make him bored. Guess which is which.

We seem to be talking about two different things.  You're talking about an individual problem, I am talking about the direction of the story.  I wasn't talking about specific puzzles at all.  How do I know to even go in the direction of the snowy hill?  Note my original question was about why I would want to go into the desert (in KQ5) in the first place.  Not what to do once i'm there.  I think most likely I would have wandered around for a while, and resorted to a walkthrough anyways (even though I did so in the first place).  Either that or I would just stop because I was completely stuck.  I don't mean stuck on a puzzle, I mean just dead-ended.  To give you an idea for contrast of what is good verses not-so-good.  When you encounter the snake in the path, you realize that the path extends past the snake, coupled with the knowledge that you need to get over the mountains to reach Mordack's Castle then that sets up a proper direction.  I have no idea of how to get past the snake, but I know what I need to do lies somewhere past that snake.  This is a good design, verses, the desert puzzle, where you need a gold coin to talk to the gypsy, and the genie bottle to take care of the witch. 

In any case if you find offense in any of my future posts, just simply don't reply to them.  You don't have to talk down to me, in fact, it's probably a waste of your time, which can be devoted to making a really awesome game, the kind of which you like the best ;-)

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

I find no offense at all, just a healthy discussion. Pardon me if I can get caustic, sometimes, I'm trying to quit, honest.

And after your example I understood what you meant better. And no, I didn't like the desert in KQ5 either, although not because there was no reason to go in, rather because mapping it was an insane task which offered no reward until you stumbled upon a pair of *very specific game-crucial* locations.

Anyway, look back, we can probably understand the reasoning behind it... dead-ended, people would resort to exploring the desert, mapping it out, because there was simply not much left to do.

Or it would have been the case if there hadn't been so many walking deads in that game. But, as you see, it's a valid scenario. Still, I think we've reached the point where we realize we disagree, and don't think we'll ever agree on that particular point. After all, if dead-ended, I would have braved the desert.

Imagine the silly grin of satisfaction on my face when I realized it had been worth it.

[Uhfgood]

Imagine the silly grin of satisfaction on my face when I realized it had been worth it.

Imagine the disgruntled look on your face when you realized you needed that coin you didn't get because you thought the point of the desert was that tent... and you couldn't get the staff because you didn't actually go to the temple in the first place to see them use the staff on the door.  And then further had to back up 5 or 6 save games and do all this over again in sequence. 

This is how most of Sierra's games used to be.

In fact the only reasoning behind dead-ends (and this is directly from the mouths of Ken and Roberta Williams) is so they could sell hint books.  Of course by the time we got to 6, lucasarts had gained enough popularity that they couldn't justify selling hint books ;-)