Casualizing Point and Click Adventures article at Gamasutra

[RedTalon]

By Andrew Goulding of Brawsome (Jolly Rover). An interesting read:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5889/state_of_the_pointandclick_art.php

[GarageGothic]

Many thanks for the link, RedTalon. Love reading Gamasutra, but rarely I find articles there that relates so closely to my own design situation.

Wow, never thought that over-the-top particle effects were such a genre defining trope of casual games (though it did feel awesome the first time I beat a level in Peggle and was rewarded with crazy fireworks and Beethoven's Ode to Joy - still does, btw). My GiP, Shadowplay shall henceforth be known as Sparkleplay!  

Also found the concept of constant player reward for the slightest action interesting. I don't think you should have to pat the player on the head just for being able to click a mouse button, but many current "hardcore" adventures feel so much like a chore, and whenever you think you're making progress the designer pulls yet another contrived obstacle out of his ass. I basically gave up on the otherwise beautiful but very old-school The Whispered World, because not even its main character could muster the slightest enthusiasm when I solved a puzzle. I was reviewing it along with Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney which was such a contrast, both more dynamic and incredibly satisfying, with its use of fighting game aesthetics during the cross examination sequences.

The "progress meter" idea isn't bad at all, if done subtly. Seems that Jane Jensen also adopted it for Gray Matter. I've always been a fan of games with clearly marked chapters/time blocks/days or whatever, because it really helps structure the game and give a feeling of progress. Can't see why it shouldn't work on a micro-level too.

Nice shout-out to CJ/AGS (and subtle bashing of the conservatism of amateur developers - can't say I don't agree, but I'm usually less snide about it):

So what was the relatively small group of fans of this fading genre to do? The answer of course was to start making their own games. The growth of this can be directly attributed to adventure game creation engines like Chris Jones' Adventure Game Studio.

This tool helped spawn the careers of several noted adventure game developers, such as Dave Gilbert and Yahtzee Croshaw. But these games, while giving fans exactly what they wanted, and possessing compelling stories, characters and puzzles, followed the same conventions as their predecessors -- doing little to evolve the mechanics of the genre to open it to new players, as was happening other genres during this time.

[TerranRich]

What I don't like is that, essentially, the article states that dumbing down adventure games is the only way to make them hip and popular.

I know it's much more than that, but it seems a bit much to add particle effects for every little thing the player does right, assume the player is an illiterate, drooling moron, and aim for the casual audience.

To me, that sounds very much like changing the genre. If you start off with an adventure game, then change it for a casual audience, what you basically have is a casual game with hints of adventure elements scattered throughout. You no longer have an adventure game. You've basically just changed your genre.

I just don't like the implication that adventure games can only survive if the genre itself is altered to make it more like existing popular genres. "Your adventure game is great and all, and it'll be great for the genre, but let's change the genre entirely, leaving little to nothing behind with an adventure element to it."

That dialog? Too much. Player don't read, so cut it all down to stupid phrases like "Wow! Neat!" or "Cool! I got it!" Forget about backstory or plot, because it's not like that's what adventure games are all about, is it? Take out everything that defines the adventure genre, and of course you'll have a successful game, because you're pandering to the seemingly brainless players who can't be bothered to do something silly like read.

That already-intuitive system where you do something as simple as click on an item to pick it up, and click on the super-simplified inventory bar to use an item? Then click on it again to use it on something on the screen? Derrr, that's too many clicks! Our players won't be able to understand something as complicated as that. They can barely pick their nose without an instruction manual, so dumb it down a bit: make things sparkle and flash, because -- much like dogs or children -- shiny things attract our players and leading them by the hand and patting their head after every oh-so-hard step (like moving the mouse more than 10 pixels) is the only way they'll comprehend your Einsteinesque game mechanics.

Of course, I'm only half-joking. It just riles me up that the article suggests that adventure games can only be popular if you make it something other than an adventure game.

[TerranRich]

As for the "Round 3" section, it pretty much includes things that we should all try to do: one-click interfaces (or left/right click interfaces at the very most), no pixel hunts (and some form of hotspot labeling and/or location feature), a subtle progress bar (even if it's in a not-so-obvious place, and this one's debatable), integrated hints (though some will debate this point as well), and some form of score (perhaps integrated with the progress bar) -- the author even mentions the sound effect earlier games used whenever you got some points added to your score.

Of course, Round 3 did little to appease my savage nature:

One of the failings of Jolly Rover is that some sections do have more than the casual game recommended maximum three lines of dialog per conversation option...

Because, again, casual gamers prefer not to read.

Then why even pander to them?

[Mati256]

What worries me is that I, and most of us, understood how to use old interface games.

But now you must:

hint at the crowbar/door task with dialog
pop up a dialog box explaining what to do
flash the crowbar
when the user clicks the crowbar, it pops up large on screen with particle and sound effects and flies into inventory slot
crowbar flashes in inventory
door flashes when crowbar is picked up
big reward for using crowbar on door

Are this games aimed to 5yo or is the TV making everyone a moron? 
People don't like to think anymore.

[Anian]

Grim Fandango had a brilliant progressbar. Not only was the game divided into a years (which cleverly connects to the mythos within it) but also the progress on save game screen has a big stone carving which is lighten up piece by piece when you solve a bigger puzzle - but it's implemented so that you see a part when you solve the puzzle but it's only then that you understand what symbols on that part of the picture mean (also connects to the mythos and the aztec style influence).

I know I 've checked a few times if what I did somehow affected the world, got me closer to my goal. It's fun and well implemnted and most of all - doesn't get in the way but offers extra rewards.

The "dumbing down" parts of the article scare me somewhat. From all that simplifing what I basically got is that puzzles and enviroment interaction should be on the level of a 3rd person action game (God of war, Tomb raider or similar). Which I guess is fine, only the thing is that those games are not really about puzzles, they're more about action and fighting, and puzzles are just to give variation to gameplay.
I guess the "casual" player market is exactly that - games which a regular gamer would consider minigames in a larger more complicated game...you can sell that, but calling that "evolution" is stupid.
Besides how many variations can there be on a one click for any action and one simple solution....not that I like those big GUI either.

I honestly can't believe that no one would like a challenge in a puzzle or similar. Aren't higher levels of any game harder than the ones before, surely casual gamers don't play only Lvl1 of every game then give up. So basically design an adventure game so that it's aimed at working 30 year olds and up, but make the plot, story and interactivity on a level of kindergarden? But what if you said to casual readers that they can only read fairytales for primary school and not something more intriguing, cause you consider them to not have the time or concentration for something more complicating?

As Terran sort of said - some middle ground would be brilliant. Though it's more an optimization of gameplay and not removing variation and features.

[TerranRich]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was scared by the process of over-simplifying actions that should be elementary and basic and blindingly obvious to players with even the dimmest of wit.

[Igor Hardy]

My motto concerning this: make game, worry later.

[GarageGothic]

You do realize that the crowbar example is just the tutorial for the game, right? It's not like every hotspot in the game flashes brightly whenever you enter a room (though the hidden coins do sparkle once in a while, otherwise you wouldn't be able to find them).

Edit: To be honest I couldn't see much difference in the puzzle difficulty between Emerald City Confidential and Dave's other games.

[Mati256]

You do realize that the crowbar example is just the tutorial for the game, right?

I do, but like he says, casual players didn't understand it by other way.

[TerranRich]

Even as a tutorial, it's still dumbed-down to the point where it's almost meant for mentally retarded players. What kind of a moron needs flashy lights and particle effects to learn how to click icons?

[LimpingFish]

Well, as veterans, we take a lot for granted. Some people, who may happen to own a PC, have never played a computer game. Some people can barely send an email.

I don't think making a game easy to understand (even idiot proof) is that silly an idea.

[GarageGothic]

I really think you're making way too big a deal out of this. Did you even play the demo or watch a video of the game? The sparkle/flash thing is such a minor bit, and nowhere near as disruptive as the "Quest Complete" pop-ups you get every few minutes.

Compare this to the 15-20 minute long tutorials of any recent action-adventure game like Bioshock or Alan Wake and then tell me which is being more condescending to the player.

[TerranRich]

I think I'm just being a little "Grandpa Rich" over here. As in: "Back in MY day, we could figure out how to play games without any help, thank you very much!"

I will admit I'm being a bit stubborn here, but whatever happened to figuring things out on your own? If anything, more people should know how to do these things nowadays, versus back in the day when computers were relatively new (80s and 90s).

[Igor Hardy]

I think I'm just being a little "Grandpa Rich" over here. As in: "Back in MY day, we could figure out how to play games without any help, thank you very much!"

I will admit I'm being a bit stubborn here, but whatever happened to figuring things out on your own? If anything, more people should know how to do these things nowadays, versus back in the day when computers were relatively new (80s and 90s).

Back then the audience for games was way smaller and purely hardcore, as was the choice of games, as was the number of gaming press outlets.

[TerranRich]

All that means is that gamers have gotten dumber and more shiny-object-oriented.

Nah, but seriously, it's really sad to see that as having been the trend.

[GarageGothic]

Ever read a Sierra manual from the late 80's/early 90's? They always had a step-by-step walkthrough of the first couple of puzzles in the game, not unlike today's in-game tutorials. Personally I'm quite happy that games have become more accessible - I remember when I first played (a pirated copy of) Indy 3 with my cousin and we had to start over whenever we got killed in the nazi castle, because we couldn't figure out how to access the save/restore menu.

[Gilbert]

All that means is that gamers have gotten dumber and more shiny-object-oriented.

Unfortunately this IS true. This applies to computer users themselves. Compare modern OSes to "ancient" ones and you'd know why.

There is nothing wrong with lengthy "stupid" tutorials, as long as it fits the audience the game is aimed at. There're still games designed for serious hardcore gamers, but usually it is a commercial decision that publishers want to earn more from a larger audience (especially consider the cost to develop a game of a certain scale nowadays; compare it to the past where certain "large" games could be all done by just locking a few nerds in a basement working for hours). A better design is, if you want to serve both general players and hardcore one, give them a choice, like with a selectable Professional mode or just make these dumbed down sections skipable.

[TerranRich]

Yep, I've read old school Sierra manuals with a walkthrough of the first 10 minutes or so of gameplay inside. I think that's fine, because it requires reading. I must be the only person on Earth who still glances through game manuals just in case there's something I should know before playing.

I just disagree with pandering to the increasing dumbing-down of computer game players in general. We should be making it so that they have to use their brain while playing adventure games.

As for casual games, that's a whole different stories. I understand perfectly that casual games should require little to no instructions, and things should generally be spelled out during gameplay. But adventure games? Why should we dumb our games down just because casual gamers are Neanderthals*?

* Note to Neanderthals: While we understand that you were actually quite intelligent, the insult is too popular to not use. We apologize for any inconvenience.

And forget about my plan to include important game-related hints in my game's manual -- although it'll take the form of a separate document called the "Star Force Survival Guide" and will be too obvious to not think it had something to do with the gameplay.

[Gilbert]

Note also that many games don't come in physical media these days (or, you can choose between buying a boxed copy or a downloaded version), so they don't come with a printed manual. To me, reading a printed manual is different from reading an electronic document (be it text file, pdf file, html page or whatever), drastically different. It's not like you have something on your hand that you can flip the pages any time you like. And honestly I'd rather play a stupid but interactive tutorial than reading an electronic doc. Of course, it's also good if the game provides in-game instructions to do stuff.