[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Mares

About traveling quickly between locations. You know how you can give a code number to a group of units in an RTS by going Ctrl + 1 and so on (up to ten groups, I think)? I was always of the oppinion that AGs should have that same quick link for coding locations. Press one, and boom, you're there!

Or you could just have a good old map. Accessible from anywhere, not just from your car (I'm looking at you, Moment of Silence ).

[Maquisard]

With a map, you'd click on (let's say) the mansion, and go through three screens before you enter the main room where all important people are. With MY system, you could just skip to the main room.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Bastich

I also feel that knowing the answer to a puzzle before the character you are controlling is irrelevant. The character isn't you and doesn't think like you. Your job as player is to try and get THEM to figure it out, not just figure it out for yourself.

I may have agreed with you before the Hauntings of Mystery Manor puzzle. Be warned, I am going to give the entire solution in this spoiler, so don't reveal it if you have any intention of playing the game:

Spoiler:

You need to smash a window. Despite having lots of suitable items for this in your inventory, you need to use an anchor. This anchor is in another room, and you're told that you have no use for it until you return to the room with the window in and, using a whole load of children's blocks lying round the house, spell the word ANCHOR out. At which point your character will accept picking it up.

I don't think that that is in any way fair to the player. Why on earth would anyone want to perform the necessary activity without any form of prompting to do so?

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Mares

With a map, you'd click on (let's say) the mansion, and go through three screens before you enter the main room where all important people are. With MY system, you could just skip to the main room.

Play Death Gate. (I should make a shortcut for this sentence )

It has a node-to-node map, which is more immersive and pleasant than a simple keyboard shortcut, IMO.

EDIT: Not to mention that you can have a map + double click feature enabling instant exit.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I may have agreed with you before the Hauntings of Mystery Manor puzzle. Be warned, I am going to give the entire solution in this spoiler, so don't reveal it if you have any intention of playing the game:

Spoiler:

You need to smash a window. Despite having lots of suitable items for this in your inventory, you need to use an anchor. This anchor is in another room, and you're told that you have no use for it until you return to the room with the window in and, using a whole load of children's blocks lying round the house, spell the word ANCHOR out. At which point your character will accept picking it up.

I don't think that that is in any way fair to the player. Why on earth would anyone want to perform the necessary activity without any form of prompting to do so?

Spoiler:

The little girl in the children's room tells you that the window needs to be broken so the spirit can come in. Though I do agree that any item should be able to be used to break it.

Lynsie

[Jackal]

I totally support the "not until you need it" principle, though I agree it's been handled pretty poorly in several games. And as mentioned, there's always going to be a tension between when a player decides they need something and when the developer decides the character needs it. I'm not sure what the best way around that is.

Maybe the ability to pick everything up combined with a limited inventory size is a better way to go. Obviously the same rules of design would have to apply (logical puzzle solutions, no excessive backtracking, etc.) You could add more random junk to the environment, too.

[Erwin_Br]

When you're playing a very well designed game, you only think about picking up a certain object after you're confronted with a certain problem. When you're picking up a random object for no reason, something is wrong because you already KNOW you're probably going to need it later on.

--Erwin

[Martin Gantefoehr]

Originally Posted by RLacey

The Moment of Silence does this at one point, I believe

I don't recall having included anything like that. What situation do you mean?

[Scott Nixon]

When you're playing a very well designed game, you only think about picking up a certain object after you're confronted with a certain problem. When you're picking up a random object for no reason, something is wrong because you already KNOW you're probably going to need it later on.

I don't agree with this at all. I think a lot of players, myself included, will try and pick up everything in every room, whether or not we think we have a reason for needing it.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Martin Gantefoehr

I don't recall having included anything like that. What situation do you mean?

I apologise if I'm wrong; I'm going from memory here. I seem to remember that you can return to the park where there's a tramp with a little hovel, and that you can take an item from there but only after doing a whole load of other stuff.

My mind may well be playing tricks on me, though .

[MoriartyL]

Ah, what an opportunity to butt in with a ridiculous and irrelevant idea....

Say there were a noticable difference between the backdrop and any usable items. You know, a usable item might have an outline, or it might have brighter colors- that sort of thing. The player will subconsciously filter out any items without that graphical enhancement, because he knows it's not usable. Later, if some object in the background, becomes necessary, it might gain that enhancement, to indicate that the character has considered using it.


Oh, and by the way, Mares, bad idea. Assign rooms to numbers and you break the story. This could only work if the entire game is built around this type of movement- say, if the entire plot takes place in a number of adjacent, numbered rooms. Otherwise, it just pulls you out of the game. The connection between area and number would be too arbitrary. A letter, maybe, or a list item. But not a number.

[fov]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I apologise if I'm wrong; I'm going from memory here. I seem to remember that you can return to the park where there's a tramp with a little hovel, and that you can take an item from there but only after doing a whole load of other stuff.

I think you just missed the hotspot the first time. I remember picking up said object near the beginning of the game.

Originally Posted by Scott Nixon

I don't agree with this at all. I think a lot of players, myself included, will try and pick up everything in every room, whether or not we think we have a reason for needing it.

I do this. Never know when I might need it!

My problem is with games that will let you pick up some things but won't let you pick up other things that are just as random. (Sorry Scott, the example that comes to mind is in ATTWN .)

Spoiler:

It drove me nuts that there's a piece of rope on the pantry shelf, but Patrick won't take it. He takes some other pretty random things, like a wheel of cheese ( ), but when you try to take the rope he says something about not being a klepto (that was paraphrased ). When I found out I needed a rope for the parachute I ran back there, but even then he wouldn't take it.

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Oh, and by the way, Mares, bad idea. Assign rooms to numbers and you break the story. This could only work if the entire game is built around this type of movement- say, if the entire plot takes place in a number of adjacent, numbered rooms. Otherwise, it just pulls you out of the game. The connection between area and number would be too arbitrary. A letter, maybe, or a list item. But not a number.

I think what takes me out of the flow of a story more, in say--Syberia, is how you have to walk back and forth between a bunch of pretty screens a whole lot before making any progress.

My idea for numerical shortcuts, if you've noticed, comes from RTSs. I'm a gamer well versed in most genres, so I'd have no trouble using this type of interface. Imagine the skipping between screens as movie editing--the transition is implied, and left out because it's irrelevant to the story. So I imagine it working in quite the opposite way. If you insist it shouldn't be a number, I don't see why a gamer wouldn't be allowed to assign letters to screens as well. Whatever mnemonic device works best for you.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Mares

If you insist it shouldn't be a number, I don't see why a gamer wouldn't be allowed to assign letters to screens instead. Whatever mnemonic device works best for you.

Sure, I have no problem with the general idea, only the usage of numbers. Letters are okay, if it's not too hard to keep track of them.

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by Scott Nixon

I don't agree with this at all. I think a lot of players, myself included, will try and pick up everything in every room, whether or not we think we have a reason for needing it.

Uh, I didn't mean to say that I don't pick up everything that can be taken. I do that too. (Although I'm not hunting the screen for them)

What I mean is, that the best games don't present their 'useable' objects too clearly. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like pixel hunting. But I don't like objects screaming "Pick me up! It is very probable that you will need me later on!" either.

--Erwin

[scribeswindow]

I prefer to pick things up as I'm going along. I hate having to revisit just to find that something previously unavailable is now available. Also, it gets me thinking ahead. So, if I'm walking along, and I find said coathanger, I can pick it up, then I know that somewhere further along the line something will happen that will allow me to make use of it. I find that perfectly logical.

[shiajun]

I think the most reasonable way of doing that, or at least the one that pleases me the most, is having every item that might or might not be able to be picked up active as hotspot (maybe a changing cursor to avoid pixel hunting), but that interaction by the character renders a description of the object itself, and not something about the lines of "that is interesting", "huh, pretty" or something that gives you no idea of what the object is. This way you accomplish two things: make the player conscious of all the items available in the game, and have opportunity for character development by dialogue. Then, when the player encounters a puzzle, one might remember objects from the rest of the game and go and try to fetch them, and only then will the possibility of a pick up be enabled. This way, in my opinion, forces the player to retain more of the game in their minds, maybe accomplishing higher immersion.

You can always have a comment on an item in your world, but not always have a reason to pick it up. Acquiring (sp?) something up has to have more context, and that context is given by a puzzle (mechanic, ambient, fetch-for-someone,etc).

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Bastich

I also feel that knowing the answer to a puzzle before the character you are controlling is irrelevant. The character isn't you and doesn't think like you. Your job as player is to try and get THEM to figure it out, not just figure it out for yourself.

I really believe that shouldn't be the case. The player and the character you are controlling should figure stuff out at the same time. What's the fun in trying and make an idiot understand the solution to a puzzle you've already solved in your head???

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Sure, I have no problem with the general idea, only the usage of numbers. Letters are okay, if it's not too hard to keep track of them.

Not to sound too upset, but I find it strange that you'd start generalizing and calling my idea about numbers bad, when it's clearly a matter of personal preference for you.

[Bastich]

Originally Posted by Henke

I really believe that shouldn't be the case. The player and the character you are controlling should figure stuff out at the same time.

What you ask is impossible as there is no way for any developer to know when exactly a player will figure out a puzzle, given the many variables involved. Some may know it well in advance and others may have to resort to a walkthrough.

What's the fun in trying to make an idiot understand the solution to a puzzle you've already solved in your head???

You obviously don't have what it takes to be a school teacher...