12-15-2005, 07:48 AM | #1 |
Not like them!
|
How to appreciate a fine adventure?
This will be a bit personal, but hear me out. I joined these forums not because I'm a fan of adventure games, but because I like the concept. I like good stories, and I like game experiences, and I am always looking for a good implementation of the former within the latter. I am a fan of the promise of adventure games. But the truth is that I have yet to play an adventure game and really enjoy it.
Okay, maybe that's a bit harsh- Secret of Monkey Island's humor was enough to get me to overlook the gameplay, and I did enjoy the experience. Grim Fandango had a good enough world that I forgave the endless puzzles. And I enjoyed Loom for its inventory system. But I've never enjoyed an adventure as an adventure. The few adventures I've enjoyed I would have enjoyed much more as movies. And yet I'm still attracted to this type of game, searching out new adventures all the time. When I played The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the first time, I hated it. But I refused to believe that the problem was with me, and kept looking for more text adventures. I must have played around fifty text adventures now, and each time I tell myself, "This is just a bad game. Maybe I should look for another one." And I keep looking. But now I can't ignore the problem anymore- this has gone on for too long. I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. Maybe you can help me. I've just started playing Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers. This is a classic, I told myself. Everyone loves it. AG gave it five stars! So I got it. I'm on the second day now, and hating every moment. Maybe the problem is that I'm just incapable of handling these puzzles. The day wasn't ending, no matter what I did. Eventually I spent hours just trying to hand every single item in my inventory to every single person in the game, with no luck. (This is not fun in the slightest.) So I turned to walkthroughs. (I always am eventually forced to turn to walkthroughs.) I learned that I had not read every single book at the beginning, and had not tried to pick up every item in the grandmother's attic, and had not made the connection between an obscure piece of dialogue, and had not treated a certain NPC as if he were a computer program to be manipulated and that was why I wasn't getting anywhere. But it's just me, isn't it? I'm doing something wrong, or else these puzzles would be so simple. I mean, the AG review says the puzzles are "almost universally logical", so I just have no ability to make logical deductions, right? Is there some way to develop this skill? These problems pop up every time I try to play an adventure game. (I don't consider Myst an adventure.) I want so much to enjoy these games- but how? |
12-15-2005, 08:10 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 692
|
Gabriel Knight is a hard adventure game. It's also unforgiving. Perhaps you should try lighter games (you said you enjoyed Monkey Island)?
Besides, a lot of people like difficult puzzles, because when you finally solve them, you feel very satisfied. If you don't enjoy this, however, don't feel ashamed to use a walkthrough. I don't see any harm at that. For some of the games I finished I used a walkthrough from beginning to end, because I didn't want to spend too much time on them. Can't say I didn't enjoy just because I used a walkthrough. Now, you're saying you're not an adventure gamer, but you have one quality which I consider a must for any true adventure gamer - you don't consider Myst an adventure you really do understand the concept, then. |
12-15-2005, 08:14 AM | #3 | ||||
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southampton, UK
Posts: 3,139
|
Quote:
__________________
Now Playing: Catherine, Sword and Sworcery:EP Recently Completed: The Witcher |
||||
12-15-2005, 08:23 AM | #4 | |
Not like them!
|
Quote:
I liked Monkey Island, but couldn't handle its puzzles. I don't think it's a matter of how hard the puzzles are, so much as what kind of puzzles they are. I mean, everyone agrees that Loom is easy, right? But I couldn't get through it without a walkthrough, because there was always a spot I'd missed. I'm not ashamed to use a walkthrough, but I do find it very annoying that when I see the answer, my reaction is never "Oh! I could have figured that out!" but always "What were the designers thinking?" Can't there be a game with realistic puzzles, the sort which actually make some sort of sense? But I digress. The real question is how to approach these games. Should I be reading a walkthrough from the start to spare myself the certain aggravation? Should I not use a walkthrough at all, but just wander around aimlessly for weeks of gameplay in the hopes that I'll stumble into it? Is there some simple principle these puzzles often use, which I just haven't learned? Or should I look for a different kind of adventure? |
|
12-15-2005, 08:40 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 3,038
|
'Adventure games' puzzles are a very special thing, and they obviously require a certain way of thinking. Some people enjoy them, others don't --- and I doubt than can be helped (and the same could be said of, say, action sequences, etc.).
If you don't enjoy the puzzles, then you should just give up adventure games for a while. Because, once you've removed the puzzles, you're left with exploration (of places, worlds, stories, characters' personalities, etc.), which may not be your cup of tea if you don't like Myst, and stories which, at the end of the day, are nothing compared to what you'd find in so many good movies or books. I completely understand what you mean by 'the promise of adventure games'; but we're not there yet. Far from it. Maybe one day someone will do something where the interactivity will not be used for puzzles at all (though I hope the puzzles will stay, in, maybe, another branch of adventure games, because I enjoy them). But it's not there yet --- except, maybe, in Fahrenheit. We have only one life, and no idea how soon it will end: don't waste it on something you don't enjoy. Forget about the 'classics', and look at what the future may be bringing; maybe something better suited to you will emerge there.
__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert) Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++] Currently playing: Skyrim Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++] |
12-15-2005, 08:49 AM | #6 | |||
Not like them!
|
Quote:
Quote:
No? Quote:
|
|||
12-15-2005, 09:46 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 3,038
|
MoriartyL,
My first reply was not really well thought-out, so I'd like to make things clearer. There are, I believe, three things that can be enjoyed in adventure games, as they now stand. 1) Puzzles. Those can be mechanical puzzles, conversation puzzles, etc., but they're often inventory puzzles, and that's precisely what you have a problem with, obviously. Yes, they're a convention, they're artificial, they require you to think of people as objects. Some people call them 'logical', but the truth is that they're only logical within the accepted rules of the genre; it's no more realistic or logical to move in a city by rolling dice and being able to buy a street when your movement ends on it, but Monopoly players accept it and enjoy it. There's an old editorial that very well pointed-out how artificial all of this was. The writer builds his argument on one puzzle in GK3; it's a bad choice, as that puzzle is not at all typical of GK3's gameplay. But he has a point, nevertheless. Some people, for some weird reasons, may enjoy inventory puzzles; but it's not surprising that they appear completely obscure to most people. 2) Exploration. And, by that, I didn't only mean Myst-like exploration. I meant the possibility to take the time to learn lots of useless things about the places, the characters, little pieces of story irrelevant to the main plot. I meant the ability to read every book on a shelf, to rummage through attics, to explore all conversation options. This is something you can't get in a movie or a book, and is for much of the appeal of adventure games. It's the reason why so see so many people complaining that Syberia felt so empty: because it didn't let you explore the screens, look at useless items and people. If that's not something you enjoyed in GK, but actually strongly disliked, then I can't do anything for you. 3) Stories. But, as I said, they're usually inferior to what has been done, and is done daily, in other story-telling forms. They're nice as candy wrapper, but that's about it. Indeed, there's nothing revolutionary about making a good story; but it's a complicated endeavour nonetheless. The fact that so many adventure game designers (Ron Gilbert, Jane Jensen, Chris Jones, Tim Schaffer...) were originally programmers instead of writers certainly didn't help. What could you play, then? Well, games without inventory puzzles, to begin with. That is, Myst-like games. Obsidian is possibly the best of that kind. If you want to see story used in a more interactive way, there's The Pandora Directive, about which I've already written much. But it certainly has its share of inventory puzzles. And then there's The Last Express. Very good story, superior characterization, almost not inventory puzzles (amost no puzzles, even). The game is all about exploration, discovering more about the characters and the story. Maybe you'll like it. But it's a completely unique game, so don't hope to find another one like it.
__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert) Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++] Currently playing: Skyrim Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++] |
12-15-2005, 09:47 AM | #8 | |
Rattenmonster
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,404
|
Quote:
I think it is true that people who have played a lot of adventure games find the standard puzzles to be easier, just because we've seen one variation or another of these puzzles many times. But if you're not having fun with a game, it's not because you're playing the game wrong. Trust your instincts. I forced myself to restart Planescape: Torment half a dozen times because everyone kept insisting to me that it was the best game ever, before I finally accepted that I just didn't like it. |
|
12-15-2005, 09:57 AM | #9 |
Magic Wand Waver
|
The story that sucked me in the most of all the adv games I've played has to be The Longest Journey. You might need a w/t in a couple of places, but the story is very strong and carries the game. It took me about 50 hrs to complete it (I'm notoriously slow), and I loved it. I prefer stories that have some relevance, and the characters are more human-like, rather than the cartoony ones, with humorous stories.
Others I like are Obsidian - totally unique, and not at all like my usual preferences, but a must-play game. Morpheus, Amber (won't play on XP), Blackstone Chronicles, Sanitarium, and another super favorite, Faust-7 Games of the Soul. These are far more serious games and show character development, and a good story. I suspect you haven't found the right niche for yourself within the adv game sub-genres. You need to sample different kinds and you will, I think find something that's right up your alley. FGM
__________________
Nothing can bring you peace but yourself. Ralph Waldo Emerson |
12-15-2005, 10:31 AM | #10 | |
Not like them!
|
Thanks for the tips. I'll see if I can borrow these games from someone.
Quote:
Oh, and by the way, thanks for that "death of adventure games" article. |
|
12-15-2005, 10:09 PM | #11 | |
Elegantly copy+pasted
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,773
|
Quote:
It may be that you just haven't found your kind of adventure game, but if you don't like inventory puzzles I kind of doubt that you'll find at least any third-person games that appeal to you. Traditional adventure games above all reward players who are thorough and methodical. If you don't want to examine every item in every room or explore every avenue of all conversations, the games are going to keep punishing you for that. Play with a walkthrough, if that helps, or even better with a hint system like UHS. And as some people keep pointing out, other genres have made great strides in the story department. Maybe you'll enjoy games with action-based or RPG gameplay more?
__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. |
|
12-16-2005, 12:10 AM | #12 |
Not like them!
|
Well, I certainly don't mind action and turn-based strategy- I like to think I'm a pretty open-minded guy. I have no prejudices against any type of game other than the FPS. But if I want that type of game, I'll play Zelda. For that matter, I do play Zelda! But that's not what I'm looking for here. Okay, so I'll accept for the moment that most adventure games are more about puzzles than about story. Is there a minority which cares at all about telling a good story unhindered?
The concept of first-person adventures makes no sense to me. If you're going to tell a good story, you need a character the player can learn about. With a first-person perspective, you are the character! So that's a very bad format for telling a story. I want third-person. How about Syberia? I've heard that it's pretty straightforward? |
12-16-2005, 12:42 AM | #13 |
Not like them!
|
By the way, I have nothing against puzzle games either. If there were a game with a lot of clear puzzles separated by a thin bit of story, I think I'd like that. When I say "clear puzzles" I mean that all elements of the puzzle should be out in the open, as opposed to hidden with lots of irrelevant details. When it is clear that you're faced with a puzzle, and you see all the elements of that puzzle laid out, it can be very fun to figure out that puzzle. Zelda has many such puzzles, and I spend a long time figuring them out. On the other hand, when I don't even know that I've come across a puzzle, because the elements of the puzzle are so far apart and hard to find, then I can't possibly have any idea where to start!
Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe the problem isn't me at all. I mean, this is just really really bad game design! A puzzle game shouldn't focus much on setting the right mood, because it distracts from the puzzles. That is, unless these puzzles are so brilliant that they can be part of that mood... Hmmmm.... And a puzzle game should always make the player know that he's faced with a puzzle, as well as show him in the right direction. What kind of game assumes that the player is so obsessive?! It should just assume that the player will enjoy a good puzzle, and give that puzzle to him! |
12-16-2005, 01:51 AM | #14 | |
capsized.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,534
|
Quote:
Try the first Laura Bow game. It's old, but still the most sophisticated interactive murder mystery I've ever played (right next to Sherlock Holmes And The Case Of The Scerrated Scalpel). And that's a shame, really, since... did I mention that these games are friggin' ancient?
__________________
Look, Mr. Bubbles...! |
|
12-16-2005, 03:43 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 3,038
|
Quote:
In GK, for instance, the puzzles you had problems with would clearly appear as such to people who are used to that type of games. It's 'obvious' that the attic has to be explorable for some reason, so it's 'obvious' you shouldn't stop searching until you've found the puzzle in it. It's also 'obvious' that the cop wouldn't be in the park if you didn't have to do something with him. Same thing for the mime: Spoiler: I know it's artificial, tricky, devious, whatever. But that's the way it works. A puzzle is a battle of wits between the player and the designer, much like a crossword puzzle or a hand-made jigsaw puzzle. Of course, it can get wrong at some point. I hated DOTT, and one of the reasons for that was that I actually solved most of the puzzles just because that felt like the kind of things the game would expect me to do to solve the puzzle, even though I only understood the logic behind my actions afterwards. That's bad design, if you ask me. Maybe you should play some older games, where the puzzles were less devious and refined, more 'naive' so to speak. If you can put up with old graphics, I think Transylvania might be good. It was my first adventure game, and I think the puzzles mostly actually make sense. They require you to think of them as puzzles (not real life problems), but still almost make sense in a real life context (if you consider vampires 'real life', of course). But, once again, some people hate crosswords because they lack practice and don't find them fun, and start liking them once they get used to them and have the pleasure of finding the solutions themselves. Others will never like them, no matter how many times they try. I think it's probably the same for adventure game puzzles.
__________________
Currently reading: Dune (F. Herbert) Recently finished: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (J. K. Rowling) [++], La Nuit des Temps (R. Barjavel) [+++] Currently playing: Skyrim Recently finished: MCF: Escape from Ravenhearst [+], The Walking Dead, ep. 1 [+++], Gray Matter [++] |
|
12-16-2005, 05:27 AM | #16 | |
Diva of Death
|
Quote:
That being said, I could think of a couple games... The text adventure A Mind Forever Voyaging consists mostly of exploring a futuristic society... there's only a handful of puzzles near the very end of the game. It's a very good SF story game, if you can find it (unfortunately I think you'll pretty much have to go the abandonware route, it's so old). In fact, you might want to try the "amateur" IF scene in general... I've heard that focusing on story over puzzles seems to be the trend nowadays. Perhaps someone more familiar with IF could point you to specific games. I'd also echo the recommendation of Sanitarium. In addition to having a very good story, I found the puzzles to be mostly straightforward and logical. (There are a few puzzles that are a bit more obtuse, but it's also quite obvious there's a puzzle.) Also each chapter is small and self-contained so any walking around needed is more tolerable. I will admit that I have yet to find a (IMHO) completely well-designed adventure, though, where all the puzzles seem to spring naturally from what you'd need to do to advance the story, without any "filler" or spots where you need to know to "poke around" without clues. Peace & Luv, Liz
__________________
Adventures in Roleplaying (Nov. 19): "Maybe it's still in the Elemental Plane of Candy." "Is the Elemental Plane of Candy anything like Willy Wonka's factory?" "If it is, would that mean Oompa Loompas are Candy Elementals?" "Actually, I'm thinking more like the Candyland board game. But, I like this idea better." "I like the idea of Oompa Loompa Elementals." |
|
12-16-2005, 05:52 AM | #17 | |
Elegantly copy+pasted
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,773
|
Quote:
I would say that in (at least traditional third person) adventure games, the ideal puzzle is one that gives the illusion of not being designed, but of arising spontaneously from the situation. It should require players to solve the puzzle without even realizing that's what they're doing. It should just feel like they're attempting to deal with a challenging situation. Kurufinwe describes a type of meta-reasoning that allows players to identify and helps them solve puzzles. I've heard people call that cheating, but I agree that it's an important strategy probably used (consciously or unconsciously) by all experienced adventure gamers. "It just feels like I ought to be able to do something on this screen!" "What the hell is this inventory item for?"
__________________
Please excuse me. I've got to see a man about a dog. |
|
12-16-2005, 05:52 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 6,409
|
Quote:
To address the subject: I didn't see a list of the games you've played but didn't enjoy as much as you would have liked to. That would be helpful to understand your concern. Perhaps a good list of recommendation is what you need, more than philosophical musings. And yes, adventure gaming is a skill that you develop. I used to be awful at AGs (I couldn't manage to pass Monkey Island's three trials, back then), and now most puzzles feel pretty easy to me.
__________________
...It's down there somewhere. Let me have another look. |
|
12-16-2005, 06:07 AM | #19 | |
Diva of Death
|
Quote:
The 7th Guest and The 11th Hour are *exactly* these sorts of games. Peace & Luv, Liz
__________________
Adventures in Roleplaying (Nov. 19): "Maybe it's still in the Elemental Plane of Candy." "Is the Elemental Plane of Candy anything like Willy Wonka's factory?" "If it is, would that mean Oompa Loompas are Candy Elementals?" "Actually, I'm thinking more like the Candyland board game. But, I like this idea better." "I like the idea of Oompa Loompa Elementals." |
|
12-16-2005, 08:57 AM | #20 |
Staff Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 531
|
I think many AG puzzles, in particular inventory puzzles are like cryptic crosswords; they rely not on your intelligence so much as your knowledge of convention and of the setter. Unfortunately, I agree, the majority of puzzles feel like so much filler and actually distract from the story. I think the way forward is to make the player deal with more realistic, integrated situations as in Fahrenheit. But one thing is clear; the player must be made to meaningfully interact and engage with the game or we essentially end up with a movie. Different kinds of puzzles are just different ways of doing this, and hopefully, if they are fair and well designed, enhance the story and give the player enjoyment solving them. "The Dark Eye" might be up your street; it can be downloaded from home of the underdogs as abandonware - unfortunately the company who made it is now bust. "Photopia" and the other IFs by Adam Cadre are superb, download Photopia now, it will change your view on games forever.
|