What's Wrong with Adventure Games: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Almost done with the first page.
*>JosephDiPerla
No edit summary
*>JosephDiPerla
(Almost done with the first page.)
Line 118: Line 118:


So stick that up your bumcrack and fart it!  Grin
So stick that up your bumcrack and fart it!  Grin
==Las Naranjas Discussion==
That's very true. Even the best written games would still be crumby paperbacks if they were turned into Novels. This is actually brought out in reality with GK.
Narratively, there is incredibly little creativity in games as a whole and generally, were you to transfer the plot and writing of any game to another medium, it would be downright atrocious.
==Edmundo Discussion==
There's also the whole linearlity aspect. Most adventure games are quite linear, where in order to solve a puzzle (well, maybe we can blame puzzles again) you have to get a specific object and then do this and that. sure, you can do the main puzzles in any order, like say the three trials in monkey island, but in the end you're going to end up doing pretty much the same sequence of things in order to complete the puzzle when you replay the game. If you're playing other genres, say...  warcraft, you have to complete a certain quiest, but the way you build the units and strategize is totally different each time you play it. you can try several things, specially if you've improved.
Maybe adventure games lack a degree of skill too... like for example, take the console adventure game (that's what they classify it as) Splinter Cell. You have to have some skill to climb walls, walk slowly, and stuff, but mainly you have to move around in the dark and sneak around, and you still have a lot of freedom to what you can do. Yeah, I guess this would be kind of hard to do in 2d, but 3d is the mainstream now, so there are new directions.
And back to linearity, definitely adventure games are too linear. the game ends the same way you play every time, although there are some exceptions. For example you have Maniac Mansion where if you did different things you got totally different endings, which I won't go in detail so I won't spoil anyone. My roomate was just playing Riven (the slide show advneture game, you know?) and he was showing me all the different endings you could run into...
Definitely things adventure games should not have is clicking in the wrong place and then daying. there is not fun in that; that's just torture. Dying is ok in the case you're in some sword fight or gun battle, but other than that I hate the "you walked off the cliff; you die."  This is like having a car racing game and when you hint one of the bumps you go out and blow up and lose the whole championship. that would suck.
Ultimately, I think I'm getting to the point that adventure games should be more free than ever, and not so rigid and linear. Oh, and also double clicking and running is pretty cool, you need some of that as well! Smiley
---
Quote from: Goldmund on August Saturday 09 2003 07 59 00 PM MDT
'''The interface.
I mean, it's so stupid!
I click "use" on a furnace and I have no idea whether the protagonist will open it, push it, sit on it, piss on it, try to eat it...
Of course, there are GUIs with more detailed actions, but still it's nothing compared to the Richness of Interactive Fiction. In IF you really have to think, not just click everywhere with every item from your inventory.
The solution could lie in the text input, like it was done in Police Quest II, but then we would need a better parser, something along the lines of TADS combined with AGS.
Another thing is combining inventory items, which I find ridiculous mostly because I usually have no idea what the protagonist is trying to build.
NO, dear Longest-Journey-designers, the player didn't use clamp on the duck as a result of 5-hour brain-storming and planning, it just happened during the act of every-clicking-on-everything-with-everything-of-my-inventory, Ma!
Again, text parser to the rescue.
I'm starting to think fondly about graphic adventures with text parser mostly because TADS and HUGO proved that a flexible parser with which you don't need to "guess verb" is possible. And as it IS easier to become involved when some nifty graphics are on the screen, the combination seems perfect... hm?'''
I thought about it, and I think I have this fun little idea.. there's three cursor modes, walk, action, and inventory. when you do action a text box appears and you can type the action you want like look, open, close, pick up, look at,  use, push, pull... and so on.
==MachineElf (formerly Vargtass) Discussion==
I don't think back-to-parser will help get adventure games anywhere. Of course I say this from the perspective of not having been very fond of the old Infocom games, probably because my english 10 years ago wasn't what it is today...
However, I think an interface have to be more transparent to be appealing (you shouldn't feel you're using an interface, rather you should feel you're manipulating the game world). It has to be more integrated with the game world. Also I think in terms of intuitivity. Is a parser intuitive? I guess it is for someone used to parsers, for me it's not. However, it's probably possible to make a good half-parser interface, but then you get the problem of having to switch between keyboard and mouse all the time.
I don't know what the perfect interface would be... I'm thinking something in the line of Broken Sword combined with the verb coin. For a game I'm currently trying to write a story for I think I'll use an interface where left mouse click is walk and look and right mouse click performs a standard action for the particular object (take, use etc). However, holding the right mouse would bring up a small menu of other verbs, all relevant to that particular object.
About items and puzzle... I think puzzles and item combination should be "liberal", so that any decently logical solution to the problem is possible, maybe with slightly different results. I think many RPGs does this pretty good, with different solutions to many problems (or you just don't care about the problem). This would probably require beta testers with good feedback as the designer just can't think of all the possible ways of solving that particular puzzle.
It's kinda like in that Indy film where there's a guy waving his swords in front of Indy and instead of fighting him he just draws his revolver and shoot him. The director (mr Lucas I presume) didn't think of this, rather mr Ford just did it as a joke after being tired of reshooting the fight scene.
Another, more adventure game related, example: There's a locked door, but you can see the key is in the keyhole. Hmm... Better find a newspaper and something pointy to do that old trick. In this case it should work with a screwdriver or a pocket knife or another key. On the other hand you've got that crowbar, so why bother?
I guess this is harder to implement on 'use inventory on inventory' puzzles though.
I haven't played Black & White, but from what I've heard the interface in it is pretty inventive.
==Edmundo Discussion==
well, the parser thing was just a thought... yeah, back in the 90s I had no clue how to play LSL other than typing open door because I barely knew anything about the english language.
About the interface being invisble... well it really depends on what you want to accomplish. The closest cousins to adventure games such as RPGs or even RTS (well, they have similar point+click interfaces) or even god sims (except for black and white) have a very visible interface; after all, you're just playing a game. You'll always have a visible interface, because sometime you're going to have to access the inventory or save your game, or change the sound volume, so there's no reason why to hide it as long as it's not intrusive.
So, from what I'm reading so far puzzles need to be less dumb and pointless, and a lot less rigid and more flexible. With this flexiblity, tho, there's the chance of going back to the old adventure games. for example, on King's quest 1 you have to find the three lost items, but that's really all you know. then you have to walk around and find out where they are, and you're totally clueless of what to do, therefore losing your attention span. Yeah, I haven't finished King's Quest I mainly because I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing. With zak mckracken and maniac mansion it was the similar style because you could basicly go anywhere and do stuff. Of course, this has changed over the years but to a super-rigid linear style that still has the same old I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing style here and there. So maybe players need more direction on what to do,... but that's all I've got. I have no idea how to accomplish this without making the game too stupid.
Maybe we should start working on some set of general rules we can use for future adventure games; we could call it something like "the adventure game code" (idea stolen from the comic book code Tongue)
==Ginny Discussion==
Vartgrass: I've had and played B&W for more than year now, aswell as the expansion pack, and the interface is indeed inventive, though I dunno how it would suit adventure games. You use the mouse to change your view and location, but not in the way you would expect. It takes some getting used to. You are 'the hand of god' and you drag your way around, or double click to get somewhere directly, and use the wheel or Ctrl+up arrow/down arrow to zoom in and out. Personally I really like holding down the wheel and moving the mouse, which allows me to trun, pan, and zoom altogether, finding the best view. This wouldn't work very well in a 3rd person perspective adventure though. It might work well in a 1st person, with some altering of course.
There is more to the interface of course, the physics of the B&W world are amazingly accurate and when you throw a rock for example, how quickly, how hard, and in what direction you throw it directly affect wherer it will hit. How hard it hits affects the object that it hits. There were some things that you could call puzzles in B&W, like finding a person or a stone you needed, but these aren't at all like adventure game puzzles.
If BW were and AG, it would be incredibly non-linear, since you can basically choose to do anything in each situation, and what you choose afects your alignment and thus the game (though the end of the game isn't affected. Just the means you use to get there Wink). What I liked most about the game was teaching the creature and growing it to be a useful "pet" which helps with your quests.
If such strong non-linearity and change, plus different possible endings, were to be implemented in a game, this would produch great results IMO, and great replayability.
Yes, linearity is sometimes a problem, which is why I think there should not only be several puzzles to solve at the same time, but also different solutions to puzzles, and these solutions should not just give alternatives, they should change things later in the course of the game.
Sometimes though, it's fun to play a quite linear, simple game, but the truly great games are the ones which focus on story and use the puzzles to advance it.
Let's not be too harsh on the puzzles though, I find them to sometimes be the best part of the game, what really makes i interactive and more interesting.
About  wether they are the Gameplay or part of the story, I think they should be the story, but very often become solely the gameplay, which is when they feel unnatural and disconnected.
DGM: Lol about Ben and Bernard! Smiley
Quote from: netmonkey on August Sunday 10 2003 01 47 25 PM MDT
'''So, from what I'm reading so far puzzles need to be less dumb and pointless, and a lot less rigid and more flexible. With this flexiblity, tho, there's the chance of going back to the old adventure games. for example, on King's quest 1 you have to find the three lost items, but that's really all you know. then you have to walk around and find out where they are, and you're totally clueless of what to do, therefore losing your attention span. Yeah, I haven't finished King's Quest I mainly because I have no idea what I'm supposed to be doing. With zak mckracken and maniac mansion it was the similar style because you could basicly go anywhere and do stuff. Of course, this has changed over the years but to a super-rigid linear style that still has the same old I don't know what I'm supposed to be doing style here and there. So maybe players need more direction on what to do,... but that's all I've got. I have no idea how to accomplish this without making the game too stupid.
Maybe we should start working on some set of general rules we can use for future adventure games; we could call it something like "the adventure game code" (idea stolen from the comic book code Tongue)'''
Good idea about the game code, seriously. It could be a great sort of guide/tutorial on making games. It should be very deatiled and extensive though, so it would take a lot of work,
About flexibilty: Yes, it's important to have flexibilty but also to make sure the player knows what to do. This can be accomplished I think, by letting the player find out the problem, and providing him with several ways of solving it.
About the visible interface: In BW there is no visible interface as I already mentioned, but as I said it isn't exactly good for AG's.
Your forgetting one great pure AG with no visible interface though: Grim Fandango Smiley
You move with the keyboard and your inventory is your jacket. You pick things up and you hold them in your hand when you use them. The only interface in that game is the menu, and the dialogs. I think the dialogs are one of the hardest interfaces to get rid of, because the only way would be to allow the player to type in what he wants to say, and this is generally impossible cause we never know what he will type, and how to respond.
The menu is also not yet "get-rid-of-able" but it might not be such a problem because it's outside the game. Saving the game will always be required for example.
Who knows... Maybe someday, we'll have a way to connect our mids to the computer, and it would read our minds and we control the game by thinking, and the dialogs would be spoken by us, with responses for anything, and with special virtual reality glasses we would feel like we were inside the game. And saving and loading will be implemented by thinking about it, and poof, it's saved, or will be automatic.
It would require making sure accidental thoughts don't get read though, like maybe identifying when the thought is directed at the game.
Now that's what I call immersive. Tongue Wink The only thing missing is adding the ability to taste, smell, and touch things inside the game. My, now that sounds scary. Fun, but scary... Wink
==MachineElf (formerly Vargtass) Discussion==
Well, I'm pretty sure the future of adventure games (if there is such...) lies in 3d environments and probably also cross-genres. I think there's a lot of console titles (most of which probably exists for PC as well) that goes in the right direction: Splinter Cell, Project Zero (which we discussed during Mittens and I didn't remember the name of - probably the scariest game I've ever played! Haven't yet tried System Shock though...) and we'll see where Broken Sword III ends up. These games have a solid story, which I would say is the essence of most adventure games, and a fair amount of puzzle solving. The difference though is that the puzzles usually are pretty basic or based on a specific action. I'd call these action-adventures. They are not FPS's, although they bear some resemblances of such, and not traditional adventures. Interfaces are almost invisible, although what I meant with transparent doesn't always have to mean invisible - there are always levels, and they're often non-linear to a point, meaning there are several ways to complete a level and it might have some impact later in the game.
I think the future of adventure games lies somewhere here. So you may all just kill me now for saying this...
But that's maybe another discussion.
The problem with a classic adventure game is that the game world is not realistic enough for an interface as transparent as explained above. But what can be done to get as realistic as possible? However, I think that's very different from person to person and there are also a lot of other things that makes you believe you're really in the game world - the entire mood the game creates. The illusion. The experience. If _everything_ in your game: story, graphics, interface, music etc, aims to maintain that illusion the player is more likely to get involved in your game. And that's what we all aim for, right? At least I hope so.
What I mean is: If your game is comical, make everything that way, is it comical but with dark undertones, state that in any way you can. Consistency, basically.
Again coming to the puzzle bit then... Puzzle, I think, must also be story driven (or sub-story driven). Why would you combine those two stupid items if you don't see the point in it? If the player ever does that, there's a design flaw. Ron Gilbert said something smart in an interview - goes something like this: "If you find a locked door and you have to get through, you have puzzle - you have to find the key. But if you find a key before you find a door, you know there will someplace be a locked door you'll have to go through." There's a difference there. The first puzzle is story driven (hopefully), the player wants to go through the door. The second puzzle is not. The player has no idea why he/she has to go through a door, just that somewhere there is a door that is locked. Mr Gilbert said that one thing they tried to do was to avoid such things. You should always find the door first.
I hope I made some sense and wasn't awfully off topic...
==eVOLVE Discussion==
I like the B&W interface Smiley I was at Lionhead and was directly asked about the interface, and that was something that I had some input in Smiley Check the manual for my name in the creds if you wanna give me an ego boost too...
Back to the top though, the problem will cross genre games is that you're limiting your audience if you cross them too much... Take a game that mixed lots of adventure elements with a FPS game or something... if you were a fan of both genres it might be the perfect game for you... if you didn't like adventures, even if the FPS portion was incredible, you may not get it, and equally vice versa for adventure fans...
==Ginny Discussion==
I don't have the credits for BW cause the manual was translated to hebrew and the left out the credits, and I don't have the game installed right now, but there's a guy in the CI (Creature Isle, expansion pack) named James Norton Wink.
There's also a European Marketing guy named... Murray Pannell Grin.
On topic though: "Now, there's puzzles and there's "must do's". Must do's are actions that you must carry out for the story to continue. Puzzles are challenges for the mind (how can I accomplish this/aquire that/whatever). How woul,d you feel about a game that only consists of "must do's", or perhaps sometimes not even that, but timed events carried out by NPC:s which of you have no control over. The actual GAMEPLAY is reduced, so it's perhaps not more than an interactive story of you can affect the way the plot will evolve. Is the puzzles the adventure GAMEPLAY, or is it also experiencing the story?"
Riot, I partially agree, but when you think about it, in order to perform the must do's, you have to perform the puzzles. In a well designed game, they are all essential to the story.
For example, a small MI spoiler:
Spoiler below, select the area to read the text
'''In one part of the game you have to free someone from a jail cell. I forget why, havent played MI for a while, but that's your must do. In order to do it though, since the cell is locked, you have to do something. In this case it's carry grog in a timing puzzle, and use the grog on the lock before it melts the cup. This is a puzzle, but it is not in any way avoidable, it too, is an essential "must do" for completing the game.
A game is like a sweater. One stich seems unimportant on it's own, but take it out and the whole sweater falls apart.'''
(That was a horrible cliche, excuse me while I throw up, but it is true IMO Wink).
IMO we shouldn't be so hard on the puzzles, they put the 'game' in 'adventure game', after all. The excpetions are mini games, extra puzzles, and easter eggs, which are not part of the neccessary "must do's", but in my opinion they do not detract from the story, instead, they can add to the game enviorment and thus add to immersion.
I don't think cross genres is a good idea both because of what eVOLVE said, and also because I just like the good old adventures. That doesn't mean I'm against 3d though, on the contrary, my favorite game is GF, and it's partially 3d. Realtime 3d in a game like S&M or BS3 doesn't mean it becomes an action-adventure, both of these are pure AG's.
==Barcik Discussion==
A shortcoming of the adventurre games genre:
Getting stuck. I hate it when I sit 2 days, trying everything and clicking all that is in sight. You just have no darn clue what to do next.
Obviously, there should be challenge, no doubt there. The solutions to puzzles mustn't be elementery. However, getting stuck takes away from your gaming experiencesas there is, unlike in other games with a wider array of options (such as GTA3, for example, where you can do anything), pretty much nothing to do if you do not progress the story. So, being stuck for long harms the gameplay and the link the player has established with the game.


[[Category:Game Theory Discussions]]
[[Category:Game Theory Discussions]]
Anonymous user

Navigation menu