Not a completely new thing we know that, but getting a tad worrying. Here's a paragraph from AG's preview of Gray Matter:


" But you have to expect the level of difficulty to be far below Jane's famous trilogy. The sometimes obscenely hard Sierra classics are not considered compatible with the broad audience that the game is trying to reach "

I'm sure Gray Matter will be great fun regardless. But in a way, it's a shame if more games get dumbed down. Discworld was criticised for being too obscure in it's puzzles. While that may be true, I kinda like that in a game, it really makes you think, or at least, it really makes you try the most unthinkable things to get a solution to a puzzle. Thinking outside of the box.

On the one hand it's great if adventure games reach a wider audience by making them easier, because there'll be more money in the kitty and then more games will be developed. But on the other hand, where does this leave the hardcore gamers who want an exceptional challenge? In secret files of tunguska, they introduced an on screen hint system. You can simply see all the hotspots in one go if you don't want to search. Today, there are walkthroughs and messageboards to get help on your game in an instant. Between simplifying puzzles, eradicating pixel hunting, walkthroughs and forums, it's perhaps all getting a bit too easy.

[Ksandra]

I have to admit that I winced when I read that sentence as well. While games like the first Discworld are a little too ridiculously hard even for my tastes, I do enjoy puzzles that actually provide a challenge, rather than the 'pick up the only object on screen and use it on the only hotspot on screen' crap you see in so many recent AGs. OTOH, I've never played the GK games, so I don't know how hard they were to start with - I'm willing to give GM the benefit of the doubt and hope that it provides a suitable balance between 'stupidly easy' and 'insanely hard'.

I have to admit that one thing I certainly am not likely to miss is pixel-hunting. It's incredibly dull and takes no actual thought; the only thing it tests is the player's patience. As for walkthroughs and forums, no one forces people to use them if they don't want to - I wish more developers would provide in-box walkthroughs and then include puzzles that require some actual thought, rather than just making the puzzles easier.

[Crapstorm]

Originally Posted by Ksandra

I wish more developers would provide in-box walkthroughs and then include puzzles that require some actual thought, rather than just making the puzzles easier.

Here here. Thought-provoking puzzles are on the endangered species list. Patience puzzles (i.e. "find all the hotspots and exhaust all the combinations") seems to be the fashion. It's ironic that a game called Grey Matter is planning to go easy on the neurons.

Originally Posted by Crapstorm

It's ironic that a game called Grey Matter is planning to go easy on the neurons.

Heh, very good point

[Giligan]

Two adventure games from the last two years:

-Safecracker (all puzzles, extremely difficult)

-Sam&Max: Season 1 (few puzzles, more dialogue and setting driven)

One was extremely popular, even outside the very exclusive and very nitpicky adventure game community. One was hardly heard of. Something tells me that besides a few die-hard puzzle fans who like to pore over a single puzzle for hours, a lessened difficulty and more of a drive on other aspects of gameplay are what gamers like.

Sorry, had to say it. If select game popularity today is any indication, gamers are more inclined to enjoy a game if it blends gameplay, story, characters, and yes, some brainwork, rather than games that cater to an exclusive community. That community is the gamer type who wouldn't throw in the towel after getting stumped on a difficult puzzle.

[MoP]

I can't decide how I feel about this.
On one hand, I expect games to offer a challenge. I loved sitting hours and hours scratching my head during Riven, gazing at the visuals when tired and doing this when the visuals got boring. The satisfaction of pushing it forward was worth it.
On the other, I don't want the genre to fade into obscurity (again). And illogical, frustrating puzzles can lead to that (appropriately, the cat hair moustache from GK3 is a prime example).

Maybe, when adventure games get more "mainstream" (whatever that is) again, the more "hardcore" adventures will have a sustainable market.

... but pixel-hunting has to be finally eradicated for good...

I've never really understood the increasing demands by adventure gamers to get rid of pixel hunting. Sure it can be frustrating, but no more frustrating than working out difficult puzzles. Looking for hotspots and items is part of the staple diet of adventure games isn't it? I really enjoy looking for that elusive object or hidden entrance, it's all part of the fun.

[MoP]

*shrug* I don't know, I never really got as frustrated with a really demanding puzzle than with a hotspot I couldn't find. With the former, after realising the solution I usually go "jeez, I'm dense". With the latter, it's usually "... ... ... I wasted all that time... for this?".
To each their own, I guess.

[MoonBird]

Originally Posted by Roman5

it's perhaps all getting a bit too easy.

Nobody forces you to use the hint system or look in the walkthrough.

As for pixel hunting... old sierra games didn't even *have* hotspots at all, nor has Al Emmo And The Lost Dutchman's Mine.... My opinion is, that hotspot has to exist at least. Because pixel hunting without hotspots... that's someting that ruins the game.

[Steve Ince]

We're moving into a period where people want to be entertained by their games and they don't want them to be like doing a job of work. Funnily enough, I was talking to Chris Taylor, the guy behind the Dungeon Siege games, and his new game, Space Siege, takes a very different approach. They've realised that a lot of gamers don't want RPGs where they are constantly managing stats and inventory as that becomes work and takes away from the entertainment value. He's also embraced character and story in a much better way and the player will play a specific character rather than one who's been created from a group of stats. Although our games are in very different genres, I found that our approaches had a lot in common.

So Blonde hasn't been designed as a series of puzzle obstacles that the player must work through, but as an entertaining mix of story, character, gameplay and fun that utilises many classic adventure gaming mechanics and principles.

[samIamsad]

Perceived level of difficulty (surely a subjective thing) isn't something that sets me on fire. It's attributes like this: Creativity, inventiveness, cleverness, and wit. Nothing against puzzles at all but: To string together a bunch of ridiculously hard puzzles copy&pasted from granny's puzzle book or letting the player try to combine a thousand suspicious items is neither of that inherently.

Originally Posted by Giligan

Two adventure games from the last two years:

-Safecracker (all puzzles, extremely difficult)

-Sam&Max: Season 1 (few puzzles, more dialogue and setting driven)

One was extremely popular,..

Ye sure, but some food for thought again: What do these two games really have in common? Except both lazily being stuffed into the same box labeled adventure games? Ah, they are both controlled with a mouse, fair enough.

[Ksandra]

Originally Posted by Giligan

Two adventure games from the last two years:

-Safecracker (all puzzles, extremely difficult)

-Sam&Max: Season 1 (few puzzles, more dialogue and setting driven)

One was extremely popular, even outside the very exclusive and very nitpicky adventure game community. One was hardly heard of. Something tells me that besides a few die-hard puzzle fans who like to pore over a single puzzle for hours, a lessened difficulty and more of a drive on other aspects of gameplay are what gamers like.

How is that even close to a fair comparison? Sam and Max received massive media attention because it was the sequel to a very popular classic adventure game (which had some pretty difficult puzzles, if I remember rightly); Safecracker got almost none at all. And obviously, S&M already had a ready-made market in fans of the previous game, which is another huge advantage. I've seen no statistical evidence that very easy games sell better in general than ones with more difficult puzzles - in fact, what I have seen suggests that the opposite is true, though I can't prove it.

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

We're moving into a period where people want to be entertained by their games and they don't want them to be like doing a job of work.

Believe it or not, some of us actually find solving puzzles to be entertaining. There was a time when puzzle-heavy Myst-style games were all the rage, and they must have sold reasonably well or people wouldn't have gone on making them. I realise the balance has shifted away from puzzles in the last few years, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a market for games with challenging puzzles as well as a good story, characters etc.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by Ksandra

Believe it or not, some of us actually find solving puzzles to be entertaining. There was a time when puzzle-heavy Myst-style games were all the rage, and they must have sold reasonably well or people wouldn't have gone on making them. I realise the balance has shifted away from puzzles in the last few years, but that doesn't mean there isn't still a market for games with challenging puzzles as well as a good story, characters etc.

I apologise if my words were seen as undermining the entertainment you derive from difficult puzzles. I'm certainly not trying to devalue the puzzle in any way shape or form and there are things in So Blonde that only experienced gamers will appreciate. For instance, there are a number of endings to the game, but a special ending can only be unlocked by the player working through every aspect of the game - a challenge for the seasoned player if ever there was one.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

We're moving into a period where people want to be entertained by their games and they don't want them to be like doing a job of work.

Has this ever been any different, though?

Personally, one trend in gamedom I don't like is when I'm being treated like a fool not able to remember his own name. Games that take you by the hand in such a way that any joy of discovery, of exploration, any feeling of achievement, any sense of active participation is completely obliterated. Kind of like this, you see?

[Terramax]

If I realise that a game has obnoxiously illogical puzzles, I don't 'think out of the box' I just resort to a player's guide.

I don't think there's any intelligence or skill involved in figuring out illogical puzzles, just a test of patience. It's not dumbing down, it's giving the player a fair chance. Although I will keep on playing past the illogical puzzles if there's a good story, dialog or graphics worth progressing for.

Believe it or not, some of us actually find solving puzzles to be entertaining. There was a time when puzzle-heavy Myst-style games were all the rage, and they must have sold reasonably well or people wouldn't have gone on making them.

I argue the reason why adventures were the rage back ithen was simply because the graphics were mind blowing compared to the other genres. As soon as other genres like FPS games caught up, the 1st person adventure nose dived into oblivion within about 2 years.

Almost nobody played Myst and its clones for the puzzles. If there were a fair few, they'd probably all still be playing adventures and not Resident Evil. The ones that did play for puzzles are on these forums. The ones that didn't are on IGN, and the way it seems to me, there's a heck of a lot more on IGN than adventure gamers, Justadventure, etc.

In any case, for those who do enjoy puzzle solving, I think there are plenty of games to go around. The list of rock hard adventures on Justadventure's site seems endless.

How is that even close to a fair comparison? Sam and Max received massive media attention because it was the sequel to a very popular classic adventure game (which had some pretty difficult puzzles, if I remember rightly); Safecracker got almost none at all.

That's true. Lets compare Sam & Max to Myst IV & V. I may be wrong but S & M is probably doing better overall and Myst IV & V are from what was for about a decade the most successful franchise in the world.

Not even top production values could save Myst.

Between simplifying puzzles, eradicating pixel hunting, walkthroughs and forums, it's perhaps all getting a bit too easy.

Surely all the real hardcore adventure fans are in the habit of not looking at walkthroughs anyhow? Tunguska gives the option to find items straight off. If people enjoy looking for items as part of exploration they don't need to use this feature.
And if that destroys the exploration side of it, it hasn't affected the sales and ratings for games like Zelda and Okami. People still love exploring and figuring out the puzzles without searching for obscure puzzles still, and they're pretty long to boot.

[Catbert]

Difficulty in AGs to me is basically what little freedom you have. Instead of having the freedom of choice you have to solve a problem, you're stuck with what the developers wanted to be the solution. Of course I know this is rhetoric, but it had to be said. These little subtleties are what made Deus Ex such a great game to me. Sure, hacking was just clicking a button, but god damn it, if I wanted I COULD do it.

[Giligan]

Originally Posted by Ksandra

How is that even close to a fair comparison? Sam and Max received massive media attention because it was the sequel to a very popular classic adventure game (which had some pretty difficult puzzles, if I remember rightly); Safecracker got almost none at all. And obviously, S&M already had a ready-made market in fans of the previous game, which is another huge advantage. I've seen no statistical evidence that very easy games sell better in general than ones with more difficult puzzles - in fact, what I have seen suggests that the opposite is true, though I can't prove it.

For the sake of the comparison, detract hype and the established fan base, and you'll find that the games still succeeded on their own. The people who were playing AG's back in the early 90's are the kind of people on here - the older gamers who aren't into the newer market so much. It's a pretty small "fan base". S&M: S1 succeeded because newcomers to the genre saw a good review for the games on Gamestop, IGN, and said, "Wow, those look cool. I'll try them." Heck, a lot of the AG players on here never played Hit the Road. Fans of Hit the Road were not, repeat, were not, enough to make S1 as much of a hit as it was.

[Crapstorm]

Comparing Sam & Max (a big production of a popular franchise) to Safecracker (a cheap little production with no history behind it) is fine with me. To draw an analogy in the motion picture business, it is like comparing the movies "Rush Hour 3" and, say, "Pan's Labyrinth". The first one was hugely popular, successful and millions of people paid money to see it. The later was scarcely shown in U.S. theaters, and received revenue only from a small following of discerning theater-goers.

I'm glad there's a niche market for deep, thoughtful movies and adventure games. I applaud the creators who take the risk to make the products that they want to make, rather than hopping on the bandwagon and playing to the masses. I will always support the true artists.

[AprilLives]

Dumbing down seems to be the way of the world in general.

I think a balance of difficult, moderate and simple is good. I also dislike those “patience puzzles” where one spends all their time looking for hotspots and exhausting all combinations. This could describe Mysterious Island so far, a game I just started.

I also dislike obvious time fillers like in Broken Sword 3 (which I just finished) that has you pushing boxes over and over and over again. One or two of the better ones that had you really thinking about how to get from point A to point B would have been fine.

I like puzzles that make sense and/or puzzles that are clever, whether difficult or not. For example, I played a game recently where a picture placed upside down on a desk was a clue for a code that needed to be imputed backwards. Simple … but I was proud for getting it. I’m even more proud when I get the tough or unusual ones ... as long are they are not designed to be impossible to figure out logically.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Giligan

The people who were playing AG's back in the early 90's are the kind of people on here - the older gamers who aren't into the newer market so much.

Weird then that everybody back in my class at school owning a computer of kinds was pretty much into anything from Maniac Mansion to Monkey Island etc. Notice how I dropped the name of two games instead of throwing some weird label containing like a billion games around. Regardless, I'm gonna stay out of that discussion for sure. Home-brewn theories are nice and all, but they're just that.

Originally Posted by Crapstorm

I will always support the true artists.

That's nice as well, but without being disrespectful, as far as I can see, that indie movie, creative nirvana kind of analogy doesn't even halfway apply.