Article about creating good puzzles, GUIs, stories, etc.

[Radiant]

Indeed they would, but people don't always understand what's best for them, or why they don't like something. There are unexpected details that impress the subconscious only.

I hope the irony in that passage is not lost on you

Also, the interface I proposed is meant to be used as a last resort, only if you can't afford to renounce to some puzzles. And I stated that clearly. A thing you keep ignoring.

Well, you may not have meant it that way, but your article does imply that your 'type-a-word-once' GUI is the one and only best way to create an adventure game.

You keep ignoring it, but I clearly states that adding puzzles to a story is an iterative process, not sequential, in which you should start with the story, because stories that are born to justify puzzles rarely make good games.

Neither are puzzles born to justify the story, good puzzles. I would say that puzzles and story are two concurrent processes, rather than one iterative (which in this context is a synonym of sequential, by the way).
Your document has a clear outline of steps, one of which is story design, another of which is puzzles. That part of the document implies that you should do one after the other. If that's not what you meant, you should consider fixing it.

Untrue. Color animation is the only way to animate lights.

Not true. You can get a better flicker in true animation, because it's more versatile, and you can get better fire effects using particle engines. Try the fire plugin.

Once again, I am not confusing anything.  I am proposing a very simple thing: since current cards cannot simulate palette animation in hicolor modes,

What you propose is nothing new, but you do have your terms mixed up (I mean, you're talking about multiplying a color) which makes it a bit hard to understand. Anyway, the method you state does work, but you can get better results in different ways (e.g. flickering shadows can be done in true animation, and it looks better that way). The method you're suggesting in fact implements a subset of true animation.

Blitting has to do with palette cycling.

To blit means to move pixel data from one location in memory to another. To cycle a palette means to send a port-out command to your video card to change color values. Read the VGA docs if you don't believe me. What you suggest isn't even modifying the blit function per se, it is preprocessing the pixel data before you blit it. You could do similar things using an alpha channel, btw.

[seguso]

Indeed they would, but people don't always understand what's best for them, or why they don't like something. There are unexpected details that impress the subconscious only.

I hope the irony in that passage is not lost on you

There is no irony. Only someone who ignores someone else's arguments and tries to put him in riducule, providing no counter-arguments at all.

I now believe you are not looking for the truth, but only for some kind of personal satisfaction.

Also, the interface I proposed is meant to be used as a last resort, only if you can't afford to renounce to some puzzles. And I stated that clearly. A thing you keep ignoring.

Well, you may not have meant it that way, but your article does imply that your 'type-a-word-once' GUI is the one and only best way to create an adventure game.

Please tell me where. I am curious.

You keep ignoring it, but I clearly states that adding puzzles to a story is an iterative process, not sequential, in which you should start with the story, because stories that are born to justify puzzles rarely make good games.

Neither are puzzles born to justify the story, good puzzles.

1. Not necessarily, but least you have a chance. The other way your chances are way smaller.

2. I stated clearly that there are exceptions---another thing you ignore.

I would say that puzzles and story are two concurrent processes, rather than one iterative (which in this context is a synonym of sequential, by the way).

Radiant, your conscious attention can only focus on one task at once. You either think about the story, or about the puzzles. Not both at once. Therefore the word "iterative" it much more appropriate than "concurrent". (Of course I know your objection was only a provocation)

Your document has a clear outline of steps, one of which is story design, another of which is puzzles. That part of the document implies that you should do one after the other. If that's not what you meant, you should consider fixing it.

Untrue. Color animation is the only way to animate lights.

Not true. You can get a better flicker in true animation, because it's more versatile, and you can get better fire effects using particle engines. Try the fire plugin.

In the document I discuss color animation as a technique to create 2d backgrounds with animated, trembling lights (e.g. a still room with a couple of candles). In this context, your suggestion of creating an animation is completely inappropriate: the only things that need to change over time are the intensities and shades of the pixel colors.

Once again, I am not confusing anything.  I am proposing a very simple thing: since current cards cannot simulate palette animation in hicolor modes,

What you propose is nothing new, but you do have your terms mixed up

I never said it was new.
Also, I appreciate noticing that what you called "bogus" has now become "correct but not new".  Well, at least it's something!

Radiant, the only question here is: with whom are you fighting? And why?

[big brother]

I don't think Radiant is trying to "fight". He's only correcting erroneous information in your article. Accepting his criticism can only result in a better informed article.

Maybe this whole topic should have been posted in the Critic's Lounge.

[Radiant]

I now believe you are not looking for the truth, but only for some kind of personal satisfaction.

That is a rather cheap shot. The fact of the matter is that you asked for feedback on your document, in this thread. Several people, myself included, gave feedback. And then you either ignored what we said, or stubbornly claimed we were wrong, without really giving a good reason. That's not a way to improve your document.
You may not have intended it that way, but your document has a rather arrogant ring to it, as if it were the sole truth of the matter. That is a matter of style but you might want to look into that (especially as you have no experience to back you up). If you want to write an authoritative document on any aspect of game design, you will have to look at multiple viewpoints. We have given you alternate viewpoints and you ignore them.
Or, try and write a game yourself, and in doing so, you will find out several fallacies in your document.

And by the way my conscious attention can focus on at least three things simultaneously. Maybe that's just me.

I'm now going to stop this thread before it turns into a flame war. For what it's worth, any document requires proofreading - and if you treat your proofreaders badly, they will leave, and your document will be the worse for it. Caveat emptor.

[Snarky]

I think seguso's document is interesting. It is not the final word on the matter by any stretch, but that may not be a bad thing. Some things he's right about, some things he's probably wrong about. When he is right, that's great. When he is wrong, others will point out the correct answer, and that's great too.

In any case, it is just one point of view, one way of doing things (or at least thinking about doing things). Yeah, I agree that the tone comes across as arrogant and pontificating, but that may be a language/cultural thing. My Italian friends are the same way.Ã,  Hopefully, this too may serve a purpose, if it motivates others to articulate their alternative perspectives.

That's why I think it's so unfortunate that this discussion is starting to descend into a flamewar.

There hasn't been a lot of innovation in adventure game interfaces lately, and I for one am happy to see any fresh ideas. And to be honest, I think the proposed interface isn't half bad as an updated parser UI. It doesn't really do much to resolve the deeper problems with text interfaces, though, as highlighted by the hilarious statement: "there are usually only a few ways to express an action".Ã,  Still, I'd quite like to see a game that used this interface. (Or should I say another game? Anyone played LSL7?)

Some of the disagreements I had with the document...

Most of the reasoning is based on the assumption that players should approach the game as if it was real life, and that anything else is "cheating". To me, this is as absurd as insisting that people should be forced to play chess as if it was a real war.

Adventure games are games, and they're meant to be fun. What's right for an adventure game is what makes it more entertaining and more interesting. Meta-reasoning is only bad when it leads to tedious try-everything-with-everything attempts to solve a puzzle, or makes everything just too easy.

The idea that games should be fun, which I'll call the Fun Principle (TM pending) also leads me to criticize the whole direction of the argument. Adventure game puzzles shouldn't be more like lateral thinking puzzles, because lateral thinking puzzles aren't fun. OK, a small minority of enthusiasts think they're a great hoot, but for most people something like "The music stops, and a woman dies" is not a fun puzzle.

To the idea that animated backgrounds lead to increased immersion, which presumably leads to more FUN, I have to ask: Doesn't this imply that live-action movies should be more immersive than animated movies? After all, animated movies look fake, while live-action movies look very real (with shimmering lights and all). Yet I found The Lion King more immersive than, oh say The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Also, the claim that by acknowledging that the game isn't real, players will be less involved in the game is pretty bold. Someone like Shakespeare filled his plays with sly references to the fact that they were mere theatre ("All the world's a stage..." etc.), and he's generally pretty well regarded. On the other hand, he put jokes into his tragedies, which clearly makes them LESS SAD, so what did he know?

But I ramble... Let me conclude with this: Fitts's Law does not state that "buttons that are often used should be either very large, or located along the edge of the screen." It merely gives a formula for the time it takes to point at a target in terms of its size and distance. Specifically, MT = a + b log2(2A/W).

[seguso]

Hey Snarky,

First, I am glad to announce that I am opening a sourceforge project to build a free (GPL) engine and editor for 2d games. Like AGS, with some additional features:

- dynamic lighting algoritms for 2d scenes in hicolor modes.
- the verb-based interface I described in the docs
- works on linux too.

Second, version 3.0 of the document is out:
http://onefinger.sf.net/What-makes-a-good-adventure-game---by-seguso---english-3.0.pdf

I think seguso's document is interesting. It is not the final word on the matter by any stretch, but that may not be a bad thing. Some things he's right about, some things he's probably wrong about. When he is right, that's great. When he is wrong, others will point out the correct answer, and that's great too.

In any case, it is just one point of view, one way of doing things (or at least thinking about doing things). Yeah, I agree that the tone comes across as arrogant and pontificating, but that may be a language/cultural thing. My Italian friends are the same way. 

Please tell me where I sound pontificating. I also asked Radiant but he didn't reply.
The fact is, when you are not mother tongue, you tend not to see rude forms. You tend to oversimplify, write "must" instead of "had better", etc.

Hopefully, this too may serve a purpose, if it motivates others to articulate their alternative perspectives.

That's why I think it's so unfortunate that this discussion is starting to descend into a flamewar.

There hasn't been a lot of innovation in adventure game interfaces lately, and I for one am happy to see any fresh ideas. And to be honest, I think the proposed interface isn't half bad as an updated parser UI. It doesn't really do much to resolve the deeper problems with text interfaces, though, as highlighted by the hilarious statement: "there are usually only a few ways to express an action". 

It's true it's poorly phrased and superficial. I should have said "there are usually only a few verbs to express an action". Do you still not agree?

Still, I'd quite like to see a game that used this interface. (Or should I say another game? Anyone played LSL7?)

Some of the disagreements I had with the document...

Most of the reasoning is based on the assumption that players should approach the game as if it was real life, and that anything else is "cheating". To me, this is as absurd as insisting that people should be forced to play chess as if it was a real war.

True.
I modified the meta-reasoning part to better express why I believe this is cheating.
I also moved it to the beginning of the doc.

Adventure games are games, and they're meant to be fun. What's right for an adventure game is what makes it more entertaining and more interesting. Meta-reasoning is only bad when it leads to tedious try-everything-with-everything attempts to solve a puzzle, or makes everything just too easy.

The idea that games should be fun, which I'll call the Fun Principle (TM pending) also leads me to criticize the whole direction of the argument. Adventure game puzzles shouldn't be more like lateral thinking puzzles, because lateral thinking puzzles aren't fun.

That's because you are using a definition of "lateral thinking" that is not the official one. A lateral thinking puzzle is one you can only solve by giving up some assumptions. Not one where "the music stops, and the man dies".
Maybe I should state that more clearly in the doc...

OK, a small minority of enthusiasts think they're a great hoot, but for most people something like "The music stops, and a woman dies" is not a fun puzzle.

To the idea that animated backgrounds lead to increased immersion, which presumably leads to more FUN, I have to ask: Doesn't this imply that live-action movies should be more immersive than animated movies?

Not in my opinion. I only believe that there is a number X such that, if the animations in your game are less than X, immersion is prevented. I have no opinions over movies or games that have many animations. It may be that, after Y animations, there is no improvement.

After all, animated movies look fake, while live-action movies look very real (with shimmering lights and all). Yet I found The Lion King more immersive than, oh say The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.

Also, the claim that by acknowledging that the game isn't real, players will be less involved in the game is pretty bold. Someone like Shakespeare filled his plays with sly references to the fact that they were mere theatre ("All the world's a stage..." etc.), and he's generally pretty well regarded. On the other hand, he put jokes into his tragedies, which clearly makes them LESS SAD, so what did he know?

I was warning against the abuse of such practice... I have changed the docs to better specify that. Thanks.

But I ramble... Let me conclude with this: Fitts's Law does not state that "buttons that are often used should be either very large, or located along the edge of the screen." It merely gives a formula for the time it takes to point at a target in terms of its size and distance. Specifically, MT = a + b log2(2A/W).

Another oversimplification I tend to do when writing in a hurry. Thanks.