[amarriner]

Hello all - neophyte AG Forumer here. I've been playing adventure games (on and off) for a long time, and I really enjoy them. I haven't played many of the more recent ones, but I still go back and play some of the older classics I've missed.

At any rate, to my point. As much as I do love these games it seems that I'm just plain bad at them. I can rarely get through a game without a lot of help of some kind. I saw the "Walkthrough Weaknesses" thread and it's not as much a question of whether I use them or not, rather how much I need hints of some kind for many of the puzzles I'm confronted with.

Sometimes I think it comes down to being impatient and not reading the game text thoroughly. I just feel genuinely lost a lot of times.

Anyway, just a little post to get me started here. Hi!

[Kurufinwe]

Welcome to the forums, amarriner.

(nice choice of avatar too )

Maybe you should try a few more of the new ones. They're (generally) considered more forgiving than many classics.

[Fairygdmther]

Welcome Amarriner! Don't feel guilty using hints or walkthroughs - many of us do. Who has the time (or the desire) to devote hours or days to a single puzzle? I often check out what I'm supposed to do or to accomplish, then do the puzzle myself, if I can. I also check a w/t to see what I've missed in an area before I leave there. Inevitably I've missed something, so I'm glad I did that. I hate backtracking.

FGM

[LeisureSuitedLooney]

Hey, welcome the the forum!!

I know what you mean about over-reliance on walkthroughs and hints. Playing any type of game before the Internet was available was a much more creative process. I would read more carefully, study each screen, brainstorm with friends...These days, the ability to simply do a search and get instant gratification is waaay too tempting. But that doesn't make you "just plain bad", gaming-wise.

I find that when I resort to WT's and hints, it usually means I'm not that invested in the game, and just want to finish it for the sake of completion. Usually it's because the puzzles don't make sense to me, or the story is under-developed. But everyone has their own reasons for using hints; as long as you enjoyed the game experience overall, don't feel too bad about it.

[amarriner]

I always _try_ to get through the games with the fewest hints possible. I think the only time I was able to complete something without help at all was on Wishbringer (Infocom Text Adventure). And that took me some time.

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

Maybe you should try a few more of the new ones. They're (generally) considered more forgiving than many classics.

Ah yeah that's probably true, thanks. I'm playing through the first Phoenix Wright right now which is a blast. I'll have to dig up some others. On the docket still are Gabriel Knight and Grim Fandango, though so newer ones might have to wait.

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

I also check a w/t to see what I've missed in an area before I leave there. Inevitably I've missed something, so I'm glad I did that. I hate backtracking.

That's a good idea. I, too, get pretty frustrated when forced to backtrack. As you said, too, it's tough to find the time to get through the tougher puzzles.

Originally Posted by LeisureSuitedLooney

Playing any type of game before the Internet was available was a much more creative process. I would read more carefully, study each screen, brainstorm with friends...

Heh, yeah it was a _much_ different experience. There was a lot less temptation.

Thanks for the welcomes, all!

EDIT -- ack sorry for all the smileys! I get carried away sometimes ...

[MoriartyL]

I'm no good at adventure game puzzles either.

It just occurred to me to ask: Is there any adventure game specifically designed for newcomers? I don't mean a game which is uniformly simple. I mean a reasonably puzzle-focused adventure with -and this may take some explaining since the concept is so foreign to adventures- a good difficulty curve. I am talking of a game which starts out so simple a monkey could play it, and adds on concepts gradually until (by the end) it becomes very difficult indeed. I am talking about a game where the designers thought out what skills the player would need to acquire to solve the puzzles they want to throw at him, and teach him those skills (very subtly) before they ever require those skills of him. A game which approaches every type of puzzle in the same structured way: first give the player a puzzle where it is perfectly obvious how he is supposed to go about it, then immediately afterwards give him a puzzle with the same exact solution but not so obvious, then integrate that type of thinking into the rest of the game. I am speaking of an adventure game capable of preparing a player for adventure games.

Is there one such game, or have adventure developers always preferred showing off the cleverness of their puzzles to actually designing them well? All I ask for is one, because then I wouldn't have a problem with the rest. (For the most part.)

[Crapstorm]

No, not always. Back in the '80s, Infocom ranked their games by level of difficulty, i.e. "novice," "intermediate," and "expert." They deliberately made games, like Wishbringer (1985), to ease newcomers into the pasttime. I haven't seen an adventure game marketted "for beginners" since then.

[Crapstorm]

P.S. The Nancy Drew games, I think, have an age category printed on them.

[ATMachine]

Originally Posted by Crapstorm

No, not always. Back in the '80s, Infocom ranked their games by level of difficulty, i.e. "novice," "intermediate," and "expert." They deliberately made games, like Wishbringer (1985), to ease newcomers into the pasttime. I haven't seen an adventure game marketted "for beginners" since then.

Hmm. Is it any coincidence then that Brian Moriarty made both Wishbringer and Loom? Of course I imagine his other Infocom game Trinity is much more difficult (I've never played it).

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Crapstorm

No, not always. Back in the '80s, Infocom ranked their games by level of difficulty, i.e. "novice," "intermediate," and "expert." They deliberately made games, like Wishbringer (1985), to ease newcomers into the pasttime. I haven't seen an adventure game marketted "for beginners" since then.

You misunderstand me, I think. I'm not saying that I'm looking for a game for beginners, or even a game which makes things easier for beginners. I'm looking for a game with a well-thought-out difficulty curve. When I think of a good difficulty curve I think of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, so maybe I ought to point that out just to show what I'm saying. (I'd decided in the last post not to bring it up, but I really need to get the idea across.) It's a game which gets pretty difficult later on, with lots of different types of gameplay that the player needs to understand completely. But every gameplay element is introduced gradually and clearly. It's not designed only for beginners, but it acknowledges that it might be someone's first game. And it doesn't do it in a way that's condescending. For instance, the player might not know how to use an analog stick at the very beginning. The game doesn't baby the player- it just puts the very first controllable scene in a small 2D room where there is a clear goal to walk over to the door. (This is what I meant by subtle.) It's as un-frustrating a learning environment as possible, so that the player won't feel overwhelmed. After that, the game can take the element as a given. Or as another example, as soon as the player gets the slingshot there is a very small puzzle which can only be solved by understanding how the slingshot works. Immediately afterwards, the player is put in an action environment which can only be passed with the slingshot; the solution is less obvious, but it is the same solution. After that, the player will understand to handle anything that comes their way for the slingshot.

I hope I've made clear what I'm talking about. I'm not saying the developers need to be condescending- I'm just asking if there were any adventure developers ever who understood that their players would be learning as they went, and designed a game for that.

A bad difficulty curve is when a game starts and the player, still trying to get a feel for the interface, is asked to solve a complex inventory puzzle. The proper way to design that is to give the player at the start examples of every type of interaction, where it's perfectly clear what needs to be done. A bad difficulty curve is when a type of puzzle is used only once, in the best way the developers can possibly think of. Proper design would be to use a very simple version of the puzzle first, then continue with that type of puzzle as a returning theme, each time more complex and brain-twisting, until by the end of the game there is an extremely difficult variant of the puzzle. A bad difficulty curve is when the second half of the game is easier than the first. Proper design would be to increase the difficulty level slowly and consistently. A bad difficulty curve is when the final puzzle of the game is a self-contained one having no connection to any of the previous puzzles. Proper design would be for the end of the game to be the climax of the most common type of puzzle.

I dunno- maybe I'm using the words "difficulty curve" wrong. Maybe there's a different term I ought to be using. But I think I've made myself clear by this point. A game which is well-designed can be played by players of any level of experience, because the player will always be given the tools he needs to succeed. A poorly-designed game can only be played by people who already know what they'll be asked to do before they start. An inexperienced player playing a well-designed game will always be challenged for a little bit, because his skill will constantly and consistently be stretched. After solving each problem, he will be satisfied. But if that player tries a poorly designed game, he will feel frustrated and confused throughout. And then he'll go to a walkthrough, and in the long run he'll feel left out of the experience. In a well-designed game, a player will be much better by the end of the game than he was to begin. In a poorly-designed game, that is not necessarily the case.

I don't have the patience for poorly designed games. Some of you may recall how annoyed I get by typical adventure games. Adventure games came from a time when if you were completely stuck (a sign of poor design), you'd keep trying anyway. Eventually, you'd figure it out on your own, and then you'd be able to deal with similar puzzles whenever they showed up in other games. Well, I didn't play those older games, and I don't have the patience for them. If I get stuck, I will check a walkthrough, and I won't be sorry to do so. I've got better ways to spend my time than force myself through a poorly designed game. For instance, I can spend my time on games that were designed well. But when I use a walkthrough to solve a puzzle, I don't learn anything at all. When I end the game, I'll be no better a player than when I started. And when I play another adventure and come across the same kind of puzzle, designed just as inaccessibly, I'll be just as stuck.

Now, in an ideal world, most adventure games would be designed well and no one would get very frustrated. You'd stick with it for a few minutes, and you'd remember something you'd done earlier, and you'd figure it out. But this is not an ideal world, and adventure games have never been the epitome of good design. Yet there might still be a solution. Adventure games' puzzles are pretty conventional. Every now and then you'll see one which is truly original, but it's rare. So you should only need to learn it once, in one game, and then you're equipped to play all the rest. What I am looking for is that one game.

And to repeat for the umpteenth time: I am not talking about dumbing adventure games down. Since adventure games are so impenetrable (due to not teaching their players what they need to learn), modern adventure designers often try to make their games more accessible by not making their puzzles difficult. Well, it works, in that more people can now play the games. But the problem of bad design doesn't go away, because the players are still not much better by the end of the game than they were from the start. A flat difficulty curve (albeit a bumpy one) is pointless, whether that "curve" is on ground-level or so high up that no one can reach it. An easy adventure won't prepare new players for hard adventures, it'll just waste their time. And for experienced players it'll just feel lightweight. So no, that is not what I'm looking for.

[Kurufinwe]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

You misunderstand me, I think. I'm not saying that I'm looking for a game for beginners, or even a game which makes things easier for beginners. I'm looking for a game with a well-thought-out difficulty curve. When I think of a good difficulty curve I think of The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, so maybe I ought to point that out just to show what I'm saying. (I'd decided in the last post not to bring it up, but I really need to get the idea across.) It's a game which gets pretty difficult later on, with lots of different types of gameplay that the player needs to understand completely. But every gameplay element is introduced gradually and clearly. It's not designed only for beginners, but it acknowledges that it might be someone's first game. And it doesn't do it in a way that's condescending. For instance, the player might not know how to use an analog stick at the very beginning. The game doesn't baby the player- it just puts the very first controllable scene in a small 2D room where there is a clear goal to walk over to the door. (This is what I meant by subtle.) It's as un-frustrating a learning environment as possible, so that the player won't feel overwhelmed. After that, the game can take the element as a given. Or as another example, as soon as the player gets the slingshot there is a very small puzzle which can only be solved by understanding how the slingshot works. Immediately afterwards, the player is put in an action environment which can only be passed with the slingshot; the solution is less obvious, but it is the same solution. After that, the player will understand to handle anything that comes their way for the slingshot.

You really should try Phoenix Wright. It has a nice learning curve, with the game basically walking you through a simple section at first, and then slowly introducing new gameplay mechanics, reducing the amount of hints, and increasing the difficulty and complexity of the various types of challenges as it goes on. It never gets extremely hard, but the last two cases can be rather challenging, and I lost a few times then.

[MoriartyL]

Okay, if I ever get a DS I will. It figures that the Japanese would design their games well. And it explains why even people who have not in the past been fans of adventures have praised this game.

[Davies]

Very interesting idea, Moriarty. I've just been studying behaviour analysis and programmed learning, which (if you don't already know) involves taking the student through a series of very small steps. In a well-programmed course, the distance from one step to the next is almost imperceptible, yet by the end you can look back and see an enormous amount of progress.

I might consider applying this in a game context...

[MoriartyL]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. I just never knew such a concept was used outside a game context!

[Crapstorm]

Ah, yeah, I misunderstood. Most of the strategy games that I play are designed with learning in mind. Usually, a tutorial walks first-time players through the interface and basics. Then, the actual game begins with easy levels, progressing to moderately difficult levels and then, hopefully, ending with some really tough levels. Come to think of it, most games outside of the adventure genre are like this.