Messages

Hey Fred, the game is awesome! Played for about half an hour before I had to go, but I loved it. The controls feel very natural. Did you only use that sprite for the title screen?

Spoiler

She WAS!?!?

[close]

Anyway, this is very interesting. I played TLJ once, years ago, and it's amazing how little of it I remember. Is it endemic only of certain games? Or pretty much any game we played years ago only a few times (or even once).

I've played Runaway 1 a total of, I think, 3 times. But I think the graphical and dialog style kind of stuck in my mind, so it's hard to forget most of it. TLJ was... I don't want to say bland, but definitely not as memorable as most other games.

Thank you, Fred! You've saved us all from the hassle of those damn password pop-ups. If only others had been as non-lazy as you.

Adventure games have always been evolving, and continue to evolve to this day. Today's adventure games tend to use simpler controls, whereas games of the past used multiple action icons, verb coins, or even text parsers.

I just don't see the point in trying to mold an adventure game to also market to casual gamers. You inevitable end up losing most of the finer points that made it an adventure game, and it becomes something else entirely. I'm not saying the end result is a bad thing per se, but it's no longer a true adventure game. Any more than taking the shooting out of an FPS and adding in puzzle-solving would still make it an FPS (unless that stood for F__ing Pacifist Solver).

My second point was that over-simplifying things in a tutorial can sometimes go too far. I found the tutorial in The Blackwell Legacy to be perfect. You start off in front of your apartment, and the in-game text tells you to talk to the guy standing in your way. After you do, it's pointed out that Rosangela has an inventory item, and tells you what to do from there.

Also, there are some things that a player should be able to figure out on his/her own, but at the same time the game must make things easier on the player. If I didn't know intuitively how to put away an inventory item, I'd try several things... Escape button, right-click, going back up to the inventory and clicking on the item a second time... it can be argued that it is up to the game designer to make all three (and more) options the correct one.

There's nothing wrong with providing in-game hints, gameplay tutorials, and multiple correct UI options to the player... but there's a balance that must be struck between telling the player to figure it out his-damn-self, and holding them by the hand and rewarding them with a treat for every little action.

[in adventure games]

I'm talking about in adventure games. Stupid particle effects and gems have no place in adventure games. Plain and simple.

As for casual games like Peggle, that's fine and dandy, because that's what the genre calls for. Casual gamers evidently dig that kind of stuff.

Is it elitism to demand something more intelligent than fireworks and silly rewards for wiping your ass? Then so be it.

[not]

Throwing around stupid terms like "elitism" is absurd.

Sorry, but somebody please tell me... how is using flashy graphical effects and sparkly particle effects not dumbing things down? How is using gems to reward the player for wiping his ass (I'm exaggerating, of course) not patronizing and insulting? I'd be insulted if I played a game like that. It basically assumes I'm too fucking stupid to know which mouse button to click, because dammit, reading is hard.

The thing is, nearly all applications have a right-click feature, and the workaround on a Mac is Cmd-click (or sometimes holding down the mouse button for a period of time). So this isn't an excuse. I actually prefer the two-click method (left for walk/look, right for interact) over the one-click method (cuts down interaction possibilities by half).

[IS]

Offering the player a helpful tutorial is not dumbing down.

Using shiny effects and fireworks to focus the player's attention and rewarding them for every tiny action, however, IS.

There's a difference. The evolution from text parse to icon/verb GUI to one/two-click interfaces was a natural one, borne out of a desire for accessibility. I see nothing but patronization and head-patting when I see that a developer has resorted to shiny gems and particle effects to reward a player for doing the most basic of tasks.

Anyone who has used a computer for more than 5 seconds will tell you that left-clicking to select an item is most definitely intuitive. Right-clicking to put away an inventory item might not be intuitive, but that's what intelligently-designed tutorials are for. We shouldn't resort to using shininess and dazzle in order to draw a player's attention and focus. If they can't be bothered to read a few lines of text on how to do a very necessary object, then they're playing the wrong genre of gaming and should stick to simpler games.

[alive]

It's up to people like us to keep adventure gaming alive, not by changing the definition of the genre, but by sticking to what the genre is and not pandering to outside forces.

"What room will be left for 'real' adventure games?"

Who says that the overtaking of casual games will drive adventure gaming to extinction? Only you are saying that. What the rest of us are saying is that we shouldn't have to redefine adventure games just to keep them alive. That's just nonsense.

It would be like if motorcycles started to go out of style because people preferred cars. So, to keep motorcycling alive, it's suggested that they build newer motorcycles to more closely resemble automobiles. It would make more sense to keep fighting the good fight and getting more people into motorcycles, as opposed to changing what a motorcycle IS.

I'm not saying in-game tutorials aren't useful... I thought the tutorial at the beginning of the Blackwell Legacy was an excellent feature. But to over-simplify to the point where you have to force the player to look at flashy icons to drive the point through their thick skulls is just overkill. On-screen text instructions should suffice. Something like, "You now have an item in your inventory. Move the mouse to the top of the screen to see your inventory."

Then, when you do: "You have a crowbar. Click on it to equip it." - "Now your mouse cursor has become your item. Click on an item to use the crowbar on it. Try it on the door." - "You try, but the door doesn't budge." - "Since the item didn't work on the door, right-click the mouse to put it back into your inventory." - etc., etc.

Flashing icons and particle effects are a bit much, and it's a little insulting, if you ask me.

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.

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.

www.tubedubber.com does it for you online, but you can't save it as far as I know.

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).

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?

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.

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?

[defines]

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.

Wait a minute... they released Runaway 3?

I love those games. And I agree that they made it work wonderfully. Runaway is one of the inspirations in my own game development.

I love the wonky eyes of the bartender.

Overall, a great improvement over the original.