View Single Post
Old 10-28-2011, 12:30 PM   #18
Oscar
Senior Automaton
 
Oscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 898
Default

We should also remember that sometimes it is not a clear cut division between A and B. I'm thinking of something like the Space Quest games, where you aren't always given an objective and have to figure out things on your own as Roger Wilco, but in many cases and especially when you look at/touch/smell/taste things the narrator gives you hints on what you need to do.

I'm not sure I agree with TimovieMan's "there needs to be an objective". I can think of two cases where the application of this might spoil a game for me -
Myst: The main puzzle is figuring out what you have to do, and this is an objective by itself. In Myst you wander around without any objective at all. But when you come to broken machine, is there any need for the game to tell me i need to fix it? I don't know what the machine does - it may be useless. That is part of the game, and part of being a stranger lost on a strange island. It is the intrigue that keeps you playing and exploring, not an objective that pops up when you press F1.
Gobliiins: Where you know very brief details of the plot (eg. you know you need to get a key), but to get there you need to knock the apple off the tree, to use to catapult yourself up on a ledge, to get the carrot so you can steal the mole's hat, to catch the flower falling from the bush, to make the giant sneeze so you can steal the key. All of this is figured out from trial & error - this is the fun of the game. Should the game tell me at each step what my objective is ? - "first you need to get the apple...."

I think I'm trying to say: A game divided into objectives becomes less of a game and more a series of puzzles. And to me, an adventure game is much more than a series of puzzles.
Oscar is offline