Messages

first of all thanks for the cool link to the interfaces templates. is it easy to change the graphics of these?

Yes.

That's how easy AGS is.

matt, that sure helped, thanks. and I didn't realized AGS is getting better and better until I discovered that now it has a windows GUI. with its development, community and ressources, I guess it's become a pretty cool editor.

It already is a cool editor.

still, what I had in mind was something different. AGS is still pretty complex for non-geeks, if you want a more functional GUI and more interactivity. imagine: a simple and lightweight engine, with an easy to use editor (I mean easy like photoshop, no programming required , available for many platforms, even online gaming maybe. it would be limited to one type of interface. but powerful enough in its interactivity to make lets day monkey island.

That's already AGS.

Simple interface, no programming necessary, available on Windows and Linux.

Even non-Geeks can use it.

the idea is that you could build an AG without writing a single script. all that matters would be the art content: story/script, graphics/anim, audio/music. and the fact that the interface had to be the same (in terms of functionality) would make these games look like a standard. a bit like lucasarts and sierra have their own standards.

That's AGS.

You don't need a single script to make a simple adventure -- just use the predefined functions for your interactions.

Or the "MAKE GAME" button.

That's how good AGS is!

imagine a new art standard. like paintings or pop songs. adventure games.

Pop isn't a new art standard.

It old and it's crap.

Unlike AGS.


P.S. CJ, I got that cheque in the mail!

P.S.S. AGS roolz!

Dude, where's my WMD?

Rock on!

Interactive movie are included in the genre of adventure games.

They're a sub-genre.

"This must be that Woodstock place Mom and Dad are always talking about."

- Laverne travelling in the time vortex in Day of the Tentacle

No offence at all.

However, I'd rather play a graphically-impared game like Pleughburg than a dog's breakfast commerical game, like Myst.

Myst had pitiful gameplay and felt very limited once you got past the gloss.

It seems most commercial developers concerntrated upon graphics during the late 90s -- How do you account for the "interactive movie" boom (which was caused by Myst).

Seriously, you had several games with shitty gameplay but great gfx/FMV, including Critical Path, The Journeyman Project, and my pick for 'Dunder of the Decade', Phantasmagoria.

Graphics do take back seat.

But most developers didn't realise this during the 90s -- They thought, "Hey if a glossy game like Myst can make a million bucks, so can our glossy Myst-clone!"

So when a gameplay-enriched FPS shoot 'em up called Doom came along, most developers turned away from adventures and concerntrated on real-time 3D.

Eric's signature is right: Adventures didn't die; they commited suicide, and were assisted by greedy developers.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind it at all if I made a game with "mistake" paths.

It adds a sense of replayability.

And even if no one played the mistake bits, I still wouldn't get depressed, cause I've at least done something that not too many games do.

I could then say I tried for something different.

BTW, Rode:

a) Will the player not bother, and instead just restore his game anyways, rendering the whole thing pointless?

That's why I suggested disabling the restore options.

However, there's probably a better way to do this.

[Eric:]

Eric:
Don't worry -- I wasn't strictly saying you thought Hitman was gay.

I thought he he didn't like the kiss from the prostitute because he didn't let his positive emotions seap through (after all, he was a hitman -- It's hard to love people when you kill for a living).

Then again, he dresses quite smoothly too (and he likes dry-cleaning) -- So, he might be gay.

Also, for a great movie on the whole black and white partnerships, see this film that started it all 'The Defiant Ones': http://www.imdb.com/Title?0051525

Or, see the film that one-uped it, 'In The Heat Of The Night': http://www.imdb.com/Title?0061811

These two films explored race during a time when black/white relations were at their most heated.

And Sidney Poitier is the man!

I loved him in 'In The Heat Of The Night' -- especially that scene where the investor slaps Sidney in the face and Sidney just slaps him back with the same gusto!

Gold:
I thought the same thing about the two girls on Mars in Zak Mackracken!  

And I agree on your points about stereotypes and re-writing reality.

However, I also enjoy some familiar patterns in fiction (as most people do).

Fiction that's overly-experimental leaves me cold -- Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse is great from an artistic standpoint, but I didn't find it a very rewarding experience.

I had to force myself to read it because I wasn't interested in what happened next -- The book would elaborate on the different characters' viewpoint but would never really go anywhere witht he story.

In the end, it took me five years to read completely.

On the other hand, I enjoyed Marquez's 'One Thousand Years of Solitute' because it did the opposite, it would explore numerous characters, but would constantly move -- In fact, you could read only a few pages to find the story has passed several years.

I guess the thing I've learned about writing is this: Do whatever you want (stereotypical or experiemental), but above all, don't be boring.

GG:
The thing about DOTT was that it semi-twisted the stereotypes.

Bernard was a nerd, but he was a nerd with balls -- Like his attempt to rescue Dr Fred from the feds, or his knife-fight with the inflatable clown.

Hoagie was a typical roadie, but his type was contrasted with his setting (contemporary character trapped in a ye olde setting [like Simon The Sorcerer]) -- I believe comedy theorists call this the 'Fish Out Of Water' scenario.

And Laverne was just... strange -- I don't think she was a geeky girl, but just... a weirdo.

I guess that's why I liked her.  

http://www.freeoldies.com

It has links to EVERY old game -- and I mean EVERY!

This is the way they made it in Tex Murphy:Overseer, i.e. at the point of death we see Tex telling the story to his lady, and then she goes like: "Oh no! You're lying!", and he is like "Haha, bimbo, sure thing, if I did that dumb thing I wouldn't be here with you!" and here we go again.
Which didn't really help with the general suckiness of the game.

I haven't played Overseer, so I can't really comment -- But I'm against instant deaths in an adventure game because when looking at the game as a multi-pathed narrative, death undercuts the entire structure of a game.

The only real death in a game comes at the conclusion, like Grim Fandango's final scene where Manny finds enternal rest -- that's a perfect example of a proper "death" in an adventure.

No matter what path you choose, the conclusion to that path should be the final death.

Instant death provides no real closure, and thus mocks the player in a way.

Here's an idea: In Kings Quest 6, when you die you go to the Underworld.

If you die in an adventure game, you could go to hell and be given, say, three chances to escape -- and each chance to escape presents a harder puzzle to solve in Hell.

This seems better than a standard instant death -- It gives the game a better sense of closure.

I think that the problem behind your idea, DGM, is that it's kind of unrewarding to the designer - especially, an amateur designer. If I create something, I want it to be seen - and not evaded easily by not falling down that silly cliff.

I'm at odds with this point because it doesn't explain the numerous Easter Eggs placed in games by designers.

Many hide Easter Eggs in games (and DVDs too) that go unnoticed by people.

There's a certain joy in hiding something in an adventure game.

My concept borrows from the idea of Easter Eggs in a way.

And what would you do if the player failed to solve the second, harder puzzle after failing the first, easy one? Would you present him/her with a third one, hardest of all, or would the player be just stuck? If so, what's the difference?

Why not present the player with an even harder puzzle?

Remember Wing Commander 3?

I enjoyed that game because after failing several missions, the game presents you with harder missions (and even more hard than the missions from the "winning" path).

I appreciate the realism of this because it actually seemed like the Kilrathi were winning, especially the invasion of Earth at the finale.

That was a great post DG.

Thank you, but I hope it hasn't overshadowed Andail's post.

His message was very insightful.

I went through a stage of depression due to an emptiness within me.

Nothing made me happy and I felt all the same things: I 'hated' people and their 'false smiles'.

I felt so depressed even to the point of contemplating suicide (Yep, Dada: SIB is starting to make more and more sense to me now).

Then one day, I thought "Fuck it."

So, I did a number of things that were unusual for me:

1. I started going to bed and waking up at a normal time -- I read on in an article on creative writing that this particular author bought one of those automatic coffee machines (with some good coffee) and woke up early in the morning to write amidst the calm. It's a great period for relection and I'm trying to get that way myself.

2. I phoned people -- Not friends, but random people. I study journalism, and my soon-to-be job will require me to phone peope. However, I'm shitscard of rejection. Then one day, I just decided I was going to call random people out of the phonebook and tell them I have a fear of talking to people and that i'm trying to get over such a fear. Most people I called were quite obliging to my experiment. However, this one guy stood out. He was this ex-publisher and we talked for 20 mins. We talked about fears, about writing, and about famous novelists. At the end of the conversation, he said I could call back at any time. And I felt good about talking to people on the phone. My mobile phone battery died a while ago and I didn't want to replace it because I hated my phone. But now I've bought a new battery and see it as not a hinderance, but a chance for new possibilities.

3. I got the guts to make mistakes -- At Uni, everyone is obsessed with "getting it right". Now, I'm more focused on making mistakes (Hmm, that sounds like a good topic for an adventure game thread ). Yes, I will make over a thousand mistakes so I can adapt to a thousand situations. Each mistake teaches me something. They are not punishments. They are oportunities (Excuse me if this sounds like part of a Help-Self book/Anthony Robbins tape, but it's true). I don't care if I'm marked down and get a 'C' grade. I want a 'C' grade. I pity the fools who get 'A+' all the time. When the times comes when they're in a new situations, they won't know what to do because they've been focused upon perfection and not adaptation. They fly with their head and arse up in the air, while my 'C' grade slowly brings me down to earth. And I feel all the more human because of it.

4. I found out reality wasn't such a bad thing -- Reality sucks, yes. It's true. But not always. However, to gripe about it and retreat into a world where things should make sense only stagnates a person. And therefore, I didn't develop. But now I'm ready to face the cold, harsh, anvil-on-the-head truth. It hurts, yes, but once I face it without backing down, I feel more so better. Once again, I've adapted without supression.

5. I learnt how to deal with my own emotional responses -- Okay, now the touchy-feely stuff. Emotions. I learnt that you can't get too in-touch with your emotions (Wow man, I'm so into my emotions, man, like wow I can cry and stuff), because they start to take control of you. On the other hand, you can't suppress them because they affect you without you even realising it. But Ireaqd in this book about creativity (which, from my perspective, the book has little do with the creative process, and more to do with handling ourselves in that respect) and one of the things I read was that people should realise they are not their emotions, just the same as they are not their possessions. Yes, you can feel your emotional responses, but you can't become them. The phrase they used that I liked was "People need to take a step back from their emotions so they can see the whole portrait". Yes, I feel pain, and I admit it's there. But it's only pain. No need to become a painful person because of it. I just tell some one I'm feeling bad. Or if I'm angry, I don't start with a barage of bad language against everyone I hate. Instead, if someone makes me angry I just state "You're making me angry" and explain why. Sheer honesty. No bullshit.

6. I got organised -- I cleaned my room and got everything filed for Uni (Though, I still have to tackle the last four years-worth of tax returns )

7. I resolved to get out there and meet people -- Just anybody. And have fun.

Shit, I don't have cancer and I manage to eat healthily.

My family, despite their faults, are fine.

Not only that, my girlfriend, despite her obsessive traits, is still beautiful in everyway I can see.

And people may still have those 'false smiles', but I'm going to face them and show myself that I don't have to lie to myself.

I don't have to be like them.

I am, flawed, like everyone on this Earth, and I'm cool with that.

But I'm now not afraid of my flaws -- I embrace them.

Hopefully, one day I'll get better because I can objectively look at myself, see the parts that hinder me and face up to them.

One day, I'll be a strong person.



I didn't write this as a lecture or sermon to Andail or anyone else.

I wrote it because it seemed on-topic, and in a way I needed to evaluate my perception upon my depression -- In a way, kinda the same thing Andail did: write it all down.

Anyway, I'll end here as the post is long enough and I feel like a cup of tea!

Gilbot:

The main reason is that if I'm a game designer, if the player did something which is a "mistake", why don't you just let him die? If you can still recover from some action you had done (which put you into some situation) and continue with the game, that certainly is NOT a mistake, even falling down a cliff, that's just an alternate route within the game, maybe taking such route would not bring you to the true/best ending, but you still can continue with the game, so it is NOT mistake, and this is just how multi-scenario/multi-ending can be done.

I think my problem is not so much the deaths themselves, but the stupidity behind them -- Sometimes you explore a new area but you suddenly die for entering a room that you're not supposed to.

I think my idea tries to merge the realism of Sierra games (the death and mistakes) with the LEC philosophy (not to bring the game to a sudden halt when you make a mistake).

I also don't think a player should die for merely exploring a new area -- I think a player should be rewarded for exploration.

Panda:

I think the besdt example of retarded instant deaths goes to willy bleemish (which was sorta made by seirra right?)

Aye, this is exactly what I'm talking in my reply to Gilbot -- As soon as you explore a new area you die.

Willy Beamish is one of the most annoying games to play because you die so easily without any warning.

Pumaman:

And then there's the infamous KQ1 puzzle, where you have to move a rock to the side in order to retrieve something from behind it. If you're standing the wrong side of the rock when you try to push it, it flattens you and you die. Whaaa?

Aye -- How can you kill yourself by dragging a rock on top you?

Eric:

If you die in that game you get teleported back before the death and the character has a memory of it. If you get eaten by the large hamsters [or whatever it's been a while] and then try and walk into them again he won't want too cause he died last time.

Aye, that kinda makes sense.

I think the main character could do something like walk into an instant death and then realise he/she was dreaming about it happening, and thus it serves as a warning not to do it.

Or something akin.

since you're bringing up the Last Crusade, DG, here's a different example that i find interesting :

in the end of the Brünwald episode, when indy and henry are captured, you are forced to give the journal to the nazis. however, it is also possible to give a fake version, provided you found it earlier in the game.

if you give the real version, the plot is affected and you have to go to Berlin and recuperate the journal. if you give the fake one, the Berlin episode is skipped.

now what's my point ?
when in Berlin, you can get a pass signed by Hitler. with that pass, you can later go through the checkpoints without having to solve any puzzle.

in the end, a mistake that you made earlier in the game (giving the real journal) is counter-balanced when you can get the signed pass, thus resolving a whole sequence of the game.

i think this principle is even more interesting than what you described... what do you think ?

Aye -- It's been a while since I played the game and didn't remember it very quickly, but yes that's a prime example, plasticman.



Naranjas:

The only problem is that if I was to create a game like this, it wouldn't be possible to do the right thing, just to make diffferent mistakes.

And I think that's part of the beauty of the idea.

In fact, I just thought of an idea for game called "Geoff Fucks Up"

The object of the game is to make mistake after mistake and in the end kill Geoff.

Or you can just solve the problem through one interaction and "win" the game.

But it'd be more fun to make all those mistakes.

Uh, no.

It don't know if you're joking or not, but read the poster very carefully and you might see the name of the movie.    


This handy hint was brought to you by the letter T and the number 69, dudes!

Yes, that's a good example.

Also, I think I said summed it best when I was chatting to Esseb, via private messages:

"Aye, I agree it's a barrier -- But my theory goes like this: "If you do one barrier incorrectly, it creates several harder barriers for you". And some of these extra puzzles seem redundant to the game ( like falling off a cliff) -- However, they are there to add to the atmosphere." (Not quite a direct quote -- I edited this a little)

Some puzzles (such as the cliff example) are redundant examples, yet add to the general atmosphere.

Meanwhile, the Robin Hood and the Indy examples block the flow of the narrative, and thus create a greater tension in such a flow.

This means so far we have two different examples of "mistake" puzzle creation -- 1) narrative and 2) atmospheric.

It's a parody of a well-known movie poster.

Custard:

It's a welcome change from walking dead situations. One problem I see, if the player becomes aware that when they make a mistake, they get more puzzles, players wanting a longer game will deliberately make mistakes. I bring this up because (imo, feel free to disagree) it will leave players who have done things right with possibly less of a game, those who have made mistakes have been given extra challenges.

This is why I like the idea so much -- Sometimes, I purposely make mistakes in real life to learn the method I feel most comfortable in resolving such and such problem.

Fuzz:

On the subject of "walking deads", I always thought that term referred not to death scenes, but to true dead ends where the player might become stuck because they forgot to do something hours before and are unable to go back, forcing them to backtrack through their saved games, often without even knowing what they missed and when. It goes without saying that this kind of thing should be avoided.

There why I think this idea should come into play -- Let's just say you forget to get the gem in Space Quest 2 and you've already jumped off the rope onto the cliff face -- Instead of a walking dead (as the game presents), you have to find another way to create a light source (and this would be a much harder puzzle than getting the gem in the first place).

Gonzo:
Don't get me wrong -- my fav games are LucasArts games.

However, I'm not faulting their philosophy as such (maybe my comment about their method being "crap" was a little exagerated, but I did that on purpose to make my point).

However, I am trying to find ways to develop their methods a little further, just like that "What's Wrong With Adventure Games?" post.



On a side note: I also agree it would take a lot of extra effort, both in graphics and scripting -- I think I'm trying to determine if it would be worth it.

I also thought of another example in an early LucasArts game -- Indy and the Last Crusade.

Remember when you fly the bi-plane, but it gets shot down if you don't play the arcade sequence too well? You have to pass through all those checkpoints.

Therefore, your failure in that particular arcade sequence creates more puzzles hindering the player from the resolution of the game.

cause esseb's a pansy and cause hardly anyone knows what my first image is

I nearly pissed myself when I saw your first entry!  

Excuse this if a) it eschews the current GTD post or b) if something like this has been posted before, but Ihad a long think about this idea.

Remember making mistakes in Sierra games?

Whenever someone made a mistake they'd end up with a death scene (or a 'walking dead' situation) [Note: I edited this, as I got confused with my 'walking dead' defintion, and a few pedantic widgets complained! YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!! YOU'RE ON MY HUNTIN' LIST NOW!! ]

LucasArts on the other hand forgot about the whole 'making mistakes' thing and concerntrated on the storytelling.

However, I believe both methods are crap.

I think this should happen instead:

Whenever a player makes a mistake, the game presents a set of new puzzles (or rather a sub-puzzle) to increase the difficulty.

My reasoning is that it gives the game a more humanistic feel.

Also, when someone makes a mistake in real life, it leads to more problems -- the same could apply for adventures, as making a mistake creates additional puzzles.

Therefore, making a mistake ads to the tension within an adventure game.

For example, let's just say Roger Wilco has to walk across a log between two cliffs (like he did in Space Quest 2) and you make him accidently fall off -- instead of him dying, have an extra puzzle where you have to climb the cliff.

Now, you're probably thinking "Why can't the player just restore the game and not fall off the cliff?"

Simple solution: disable the save, restore and quit options at that very moment so the player HAS TO face the additional puzzles, and they can't save or anything until they rectify their mistake.

This doesn't mean the player is punished as such (like removing points from their score), but it challenges their ability to re-adapt to a sudden problematic situation.

The best example I can think of is in Kings Quest III, where you get mugged by the robbers and have to go to their treehouse hideout to get your stuff back -- It's similar to that, only more puzzle-specific instread of inventory-specific.

And I also think Sierra should have done more of this instead of walking dead.

This is an under-developed theory at the moment, but if anyone wants to add to or challenge any of it, I welcome it.