[Isak]

I recently made an interview with former Revolution producer Steve Ince. He talks about the upcoming So Blonde, his way of looking at adventure gaming, Broken Sword 4 and more.
Check out the interview at Delter Adventures
Direct link

[Squinky]

No, [multiple solution puzzles are] just a way of potentially making a game simpler. In fact, I would say that you reduce the amount of interaction density because players will only ever see one of the solutions. If during development you only have time to implement 100 puzzle solutions, say, then you will only actually have 50 puzzles in your game if there are two solutions to each puzzle. Whereas, if there was only one solution to each puzzle you’d be able to implement 100 puzzles. Therefore, interaction density is higher with single solution puzzles.

My oft-repeated counter-argument does not necessarily have to do with replay value (although you'd be surprised at how often people will make it a goal unto themselves to figure out all possible solutions to a challenge when there's more than one available -- this goes for pretty much any genre) but with the conflict that exists in a game writer's mind between how accessible they wish to make the story in order for as many people as possible to see it to its end, and how difficult to make its challenges so that the game won't "feel too short", so to speak. Steve's approach seems to overwhelmingly favour the latter side of the problem, but also has the potential to cause problems for the former. Suppose, for instance, that we have 100 puzzles that we need to get through in order to see the game to its end, each with only one solution. Suppose, then, that someone reaches Puzzle #11, and just can't figure out how to solve it, despite having tried every possible action that makes sense. She then has three options:

1. Mull over this same puzzle continuously until three weeks later, the solution comes to her while she's having a shower. She goes up to her computer, tries it, and gets the "That doesn't work." message. This process repeats itself ad-nauseum until a year and a half afterwards, when she finally gets it, and the Hallelujah chorus plays in the background.
2. Look up the solution in a walkthrough or other hint system, shrug, and keep going.
3. Give up and quit playing the game.

Option #1 is what a lot of us did while growing up in the pre-internet 90's, but sadly, has now become something that only a handful of people are willing to do these days. Option #2 is what a lot of people will likely end up doing, if you're lucky and they're invested in the story enough to wish to see it to its end. However, I hate walkthroughs with a passion, because I find that they tend to ruin your sense of continuity and suspension of disbelief; to paraphrase my good friend Lee in Limbo, if your players have to use a walkthrough to finish your game, then you've pretty much failed as a game designer. Option #3 is probably the one that no game designer in their right mind would ever wish on anyone. Particularly, since as Mr. Ince implied, not being able to see all of a game's puzzle solutions is a grave sin, now there are 89 puzzle solutions that the player is never, ever going to get to see! Uh-oh, what have we done?!

Now, let's say that some (not necessarily all, but perhaps the hardest, most complex ones) of our puzzles now have more than one possible solution. This time, when our hypothetical player encounters a challenge, it'll be less likely that she won't be able to solve it, as her proposed solution has a higher likelihood of already being taken into account. She will then finish the game with minimal outside disruptions, and if she's a die-hard adventure game puzzle fanatic, then she might just go around looking for all the alternate solutions. Otherwise, she'll just get to sit there satisfied with the fact that she's experienced a good interactive story. Seems like a win-win situation to me.

Finally, I have to nitpick about the alleged fact that it takes significantly less time to come up with one solution for each puzzle than it does to come up with several. From personal experience (mostly amateur, admittedly, so my point may not hold very much validity here), if you only have one solution to a problem, it also takes some time to come up with good explanations for the player as to why any other plausible and usually more obvious solution would not work. (And if you're going to simply give them the "That doesn't work." message, then I'm sorry, but your game sucks.) It's gotten to a point for me when trying to come up with such a roundabout exclamation for why one can't do something often ends up being even more difficult and ridiculous than actually allowing for that option; hence, I tend to find myself doing the latter.

My, that was long.

[Lucien21]

Alternative solutions do, I suppose, increase the probability that you will stumble over the solution of a puzzle you are stuck on. There is still the possibility of the situation above where you can't solve a particular puzzle and end up with 1/2/3 above.

I understand Steve's position, in a game development you only have limited time/money to implement features so any multiple solutions would potentially cut down on the number of unique features/puzzles implemented (and most users would never see the alternative solutions).

[Steve Ince]

Firstly, my response that you quoted was to a question about whether multiple solution puzzles offered a way of providing increased interaction density and my very simple explanation was to show that it would have the opposite effect, not to suggest that there is anything fundamentally wrong with multiple solutions.

Originally Posted by Squinky

Suppose, then, that someone reaches Puzzle #11, and just can't figure out how to solve it, despite having tried every possible action that makes sense.

Multiple solutions doesn't necessarily prevent this, just, in theory, reduces the chance of it happening. Designing adventure games is a difficult matter - make the puzzles too hard and people complain that they get stuck and have to resort to walkthroughs. Make it too easy and they complain that there was no challenge.

...as Mr. Ince implied, not being able to see all of a game's puzzle solutions is a grave sin,

With all due respect, you're reading things into my words. When I design a game I try to do it in a very holistic way, interweaving story and gameplay as much as possible. I don't think of puzzles as individual entities but as part of that whole. I often create simple puzzles that are layered on each other in a way that I hope feels very organic for the player. I look for ways to make the best use of my design time. For me, that's not about creating multiple solutions to puzzles unless they appear logically (like being able to collect water in a bottle or a bucket, say, but is this really a different solution?).

Finally, I have to nitpick about the alleged fact that it takes significantly less time to come up with one solution for each puzzle than it does to come up with several. From personal experience (mostly amateur, admittedly, so my point may not hold very much validity here), if you only have one solution to a problem, it also takes some time to come up with good explanations for the player as to why any other plausible and usually more obvious solution would not work.

I think that you're confusing different solutions with different objects used to get to the same solution. If, for example, you need to lever open a window you then hunt around for an object with which to do so. It may be that you already have the object, so you look in your inventory and find that you have a screwdriver and use it to do the job. However, you also find that you have a crowbar in your inventory so you should be able to use that, too. It's logical, and if a designer stops you from doing so, they'd better have a damn good reason. But this isn't multiple solutions as the solution is "find object to lever open window". As a player, you don't care what that object is, so anything logical that you find should be allowed.

The example Isak used in the interview was of trying to open a locked door and either finding the key or making a key - two very different solutions.

[MasterLoo]

Hi Mr Ince.

I was curious about your answer about Broken Sword 4. You wrote: I must admit to being a little surprised that the minimum specification was so high for an adventure game, but I’m sure that they felt it was necessary to get the best out of the graphics.

Is it the video card requirement you feel were too high? Apart from the video card, the system requirements seems to match the system requirements of the games from Telltale Games.

My second question is if you've had the pleasure of playing any of the games released by Telltale Games yet and what your opinion on that game is?

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by MasterLoo

Hi Mr Ince.

I was curious about your answer about Broken Sword 4. You wrote: I must admit to being a little surprised that the minimum specification was so high for an adventure game, but I’m sure that they felt it was necessary to get the best out of the graphics.

Is it the video card requirement you feel were too high? Apart from the video card, the system requirements seems to match the system requirements of the games from Telltale Games.

Sorry, yes I meant for the video card.

My second question is if you've had the pleasure of playing any of the games released by Telltale Games yet and what your opinion on that game is?

I didn't enjoy the first Bone game as I felt they didn't match the style of the comic.

I've only recently bought the Sam and Max first season and am half way through the second episode. So far I'm enjoying the series and hope that they can build on what they've created so far and make future outings even better.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Firstly, my response that you quoted was to a question about whether multiple solution puzzles offered a way of providing increased interaction density and my very simple explanation was to show that it would have the opposite effect, not to suggest that there is anything fundamentally wrong with multiple solutions.

Fair enough, but I'm not convinced that it has any effect at all. Interaction density, if I understood your point correctly, involves giving the player a lot to do so that they won't feel "stuck", and I don't really see how multiple puzzle solutions hinder that. (I do see how they would make a game easier, but as I said, that can actually be a good thing.)

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Multiple solutions doesn't necessarily prevent this, just, in theory, reduces the chance of it happening. Designing adventure games is a difficult matter - make the puzzles too hard and people complain that they get stuck and have to resort to walkthroughs. Make it too easy and they complain that there was no challenge.

Well, you're the seasoned veteran, so you probably understand the commercial side of this better than I do. Still, there are a few indies trying to come up with solutions to such a problem: here's one guy's proposal, and here's my own. I'm sure there are many others waiting to be discovered, not necessarily having to do with multiple puzzle solutions at all.

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

With all due respect, you're reading things into my words. When I design a game I try to do it in a very holistic way, interweaving story and gameplay as much as possible. I don't think of puzzles as individual entities but as part of that whole. I often create simple puzzles that are layered on each other in a way that I hope feels very organic for the player.

The way in which you phrased your earlier statement, "if you only have time to implement 100 puzzle solutions", suggested to me that you thought of puzzle solutions as discrete entities that each took a fixed amount of time to create; hence, I thought you felt the same way about the puzzles themselves. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

I think that you're confusing different solutions with different objects used to get to the same solution. If, for example, you need to lever open a window you then hunt around for an object with which to do so. It may be that you already have the object, so you look in your inventory and find that you have a screwdriver and use it to do the job. However, you also find that you have a crowbar in your inventory so you should be able to use that, too. It's logical, and if a designer stops you from doing so, they'd better have a damn good reason. But this isn't multiple solutions as the solution is "find object to lever open window". As a player, you don't care what that object is, so anything logical that you find should be allowed.

The example Isak used in the interview was of trying to open a locked door and either finding the key or making a key - two very different solutions.

I don't see how that's very different, actually; one could argue that it's also the "same" solution (i.e. "open locked door with key"). Since it's hard to tell where to draw the line, I consider all of the above to count as puzzles with multiple solutions. I agree, however, that when they are used, they should make sense.

[Steve Ince]

Having read the two links you posted, I must admit that the approach to game/puzzle design in each article is superb and the more it fits with the story and the setting the better. If that means you can create multiple solutions which don't conflict with the game's inner logic or that don't feel contrived, then that's cool, too.

I've thought a little deeper about multiple solutions and I still don't think that it increases interaction density. What it does, though, is to give the player more opportunity to solve puzzles and therefore not get stuck, which in turn means that you have to worry less about the low interaction density because players are less likely to be sitting around twiddling their thumbs.

If we look at my work on So Blonde, I spent six months writing, designing and refining the story, main gameplay thrust and the dialogue. With each iteraction, the puzzles, character interaction and story progression grew organically and fit very closely with one another. To put in multiple solutions I would have had to spend longer on the design, which would have delayed the dialogue, which would have delayed the implementation, etc. When a commercial project has very definite deadlines to meet you approach the whole design process with a different mind-set.

[jacog]

OOOOH, Steve Inch is like my favourit game making dude evar! Dreamfall was like my favourite game EV-VAR! EEE VAAAR!

*ahem* *cough*

Seriously though... I hate it when, as an example, you have to bash a nail into a board of wood... and the only object you can use to do this is a rock... not any rock, but a rock that's stuck up on a cliffside, protected by an angry mother eagle with her chicks.

Sure, this makes it an actual puzzle, but darnit those suspenders of disbelief start chafing after a while, especially when the game contains serious subject matter.

It's tricky though, because if you remedy this issue by providing a logical-in-the-real-world alternative, it's not really a puzzle anymore. Penumbra overture is a fairly decent example of puzzles that are realistic, and can be solved in multiple ways. Although this is more to do with the fact that the game uses real 3D with physics, and uses it well.

In that, if you have to break a lock... you can use any heavy enough object you happen to find. Perhaps less interesting, but much easier to swallow.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Having read the two links you posted, I must admit that the approach to game/puzzle design in each article is superb and the more it fits with the story and the setting the better. If that means you can create multiple solutions which don't conflict with the game's inner logic or that don't feel contrived, then that's cool, too.

Thanks! That's the whole idea, really.

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

I've thought a little deeper about multiple solutions and I still don't think that it increases interaction density.

Didn't mean to say it increases interaction density, only that it doesn't make much of a difference. You're absolutely right, though.

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

When a commercial project has very definite deadlines to meet you approach the whole design process with a different mind-set.

Understandably so, and I've observed that. Particularly if your solutions involve extra art assets and voice lines, which do tend to take some sort of fixed time frame to complete. Also, if multiple puzzle solutions feel like something you have to "put in" just for the sake of having them, then you're probably better off not doing so. For me, they're mainly a result of thinking about the question "but what if the player wanted to...?" and deciding whether such an action would be feasible (if not, I'd try and come up with a reason not to allow it) and what consequences, if any, would result from doing so.