GTD: What's wrong with adventure games?

[the rev]

Wondering if I'm crazy...

I’ve been thinking about this lately, and I wonder if I’m the only one.  What I really hate is when adventure game puzzles are not obvious.  I don't mean that puzzles need to be easy, but I prefer a game that draws upon common sense/knowledge to create a puzzle.  Perils of Rosella IMHO did this well.  Many of the puzzles drew upon common knowledge from the genre of "fairy tale."  Likewise with the better Space Quests--if they're spoofing Star Trek, drawing upon an old Star Trek episode helps you solve the puzzle.

What I hate are random inventory item associations that lead to "guess and click" puzzle solving.

[ciborium]

What I really hate is when adventure game puzzles are not obvious.Ã, 

I hope you mean obvious in that when you're stuck on the puzzle and you finally solve it (or cheat and look at the walkthrough,) you say to yourself, "Why didn't I think of that before?"

Such as opening a pocket knife before trying to use it to cut a rope, or striking a match / lighting a cigar lighter before lighting a candle with it.

Not obvious as in using the blue key in the blue safe which contains the blue gem to give to to blue meanie...

The puzzles I really hate are the ones that have no logical solution (the "Why the [insert expletive here] would I do that?!" and the "Who the heck thought that up?" type puzzles,)and the completely trial and error puzzles.

Non-Logical: Pulling the cat's tail so it scares the little mouse who runs into the bookshelf, shaking it just enough so that the bowling trophy falls off so you can give it to the Maharaja of India to be his best friend so he will let you into his kickball game.

Trial & Error: Three card monty. Use every item with every item and see what happens.
If there is a pattern to the puzzle, give some kind of subtle clue to the pattern somewhere.Ã, 

Indy FoY demo did this with Sally's homework and the end puzzle.
Not like the floating island puzzle in Journey to the Center of the Earth. (Serious T&E)

What I'd really like to see is an adventure game where all objects/inventory items are in a place where you can get to them when you need them, but the character doesn't seem interested in them until he knows he needs them.Ã, 

When you try to pick up the butcher knife at the beginning of the game, EGO says, "I might cut myself if I carry that large knife!" then the player would have to remember it was there later when he needs to cut rope tying the boat to the shore later in the game.Ã, 

That's realistic. Unless I am a cleptomaniac, I don't go around picking up random objects for no apparent reason.

I don't want to have to re-play half the game because I forgot something and now have to restore, but I won't mind walking across six or eight screens to get the item I just realized I now need.

[DoorKnobHandle]

Trial & Error: Three card monty. Use every item with every item and see what happens.
If there is a pattern to the puzzle, give some kind of subtle clue to the pattern somewhere. 

Indy FoY demo did this with Sally's homework and the end puzzle.
Not like the floating island puzzle in Journey to the Center of the Earth. (Serious T&E)

What are you talking about exactly? There were a lots of clues and you should've really recognized those symbols on that wall from the homework. The words were given in Sally's papers and you had to think of what sentence you could enter that contains four words. You found it in the Memoirs.

I see what you mean with Trial&Error "puzzles" (and I hate those as well), but if you could only solve the final puzzle in our FoY Demo by trying out all combinations on the wall buttons, then you completly missed the point and probably spend hours and hours doing this...

[Erenan]

That's realistic. Unless I am a cleptomaniac, I don't go around picking up random objects for no apparent reason.

Then why would you tell the player character to do it in the first place? If the player wants to steal something, let him steal it. If there really is an ethical barrier in the gameworld, maybe give the player a warning, like... "Taking this object would be stealing. Do you still want to take it?"

I think it's important to maintain a sense of being in the game, and the player saying, "Nah, I don't want to do that" and "No, I think I'll ignore the player this time" really doesn't help with that.

[ciborium]

Trial & Error: Three card monty. Use every item with every item and see what happens.
If there is a pattern to the puzzle, give some kind of subtle clue to the pattern somewhere.Ã, 

Indy FoY demo did this with Sally's homework and the end puzzle.
Not like the floating island puzzle in Journey to the Center of the Earth. (Serious T&E)

What are you talking about exactly? There were a lots of clues and you should've really recognized those symbols on that wall from the homework. The words were given in Sally's papers and you had to think of what sentence you could enter that contains four words. You found it in the Memoirs.

I see what you mean with Trial&Error "puzzles" (and I hate those as well), but if you could only solve the final puzzle in our FoY Demo by trying out all combinations on the wall buttons, then you completly missed the point and probably spend hours and hours doing this...

What I meant was that Indy FoY gave you the pattern to the puzzle in the memoirs and in Sally's homework (i.e. you did a marvelous job,) however Journey did not.  Even UHS and the walkthroughs for Journey said they couldn't find the supposed patterns between the columns and the statues.

After reading your post and then re-reading mine, I guess I could have been more clear.  Not to say it was too easy, but I realized the symbols on the wall were the same as the symbols in the homework and memoirs.  Although maybe you should have had Sally make a few more mistakes, or (in)corrections to make it a little more challenging.


Erenan: We tell the character to pick up everything that's nailed down because that's the way we have learned to play adventure games. (If EGO can pick it up, then I must need it later on.)  I think King's Quest V taught us that, because if you didn't pick EVERYTHING up, then you would't be able to continue the game. (If you don't pick up the hammer, then you die when the innkeeper puts you in the cellar.  If you don't pick up the rope in the cellar, then you can't climb the cliff [and you can't go back and get the rope.]  If you don't pick up the leg of lamb, you can't feed the eagle, and he won't save you from the roc's nest.)

In a game like MI2, where you can go back to where you've been (for the most part,) then it might make sense for Guybrush to say, "No, thanks.  There might be lice on that tupee." until after the Voodoo lady tells you you need "something from the head."

[Davros]

While it makes more sense, that's an incredibly painful way to play, because at some point, you *know* you need the knife.  Or your game crashed, and you're restarting.  For me, that would be enough to not play the game.

A weight limit might be another way to handle it, especially in a game where you *could* take anything.  Sure, you can take the books, the mirror, the rope, the flowers from the vase and the comfy chair, but your speed is now 5% of what it might be otherwise. 

I often find puzzles where I know what to do (pretty sure), but it's a matter of finding the right pixel combination.  That happened all the time in the old text-interface KQ games, and happens a bit less frequently with the point and click interface.  I think programmers need to think outside the box, or hire beta testers for more solutions or possibilities.  There's no reason that the pocket knife can cut the rope, but the butcher knife can't.  This is more of a pain for developers, but makes a richer experience for the player.