[Burge]

TLJ is the only AG I've come across using the item system which it does, being that when you hold the right item over right NPC or other item, it flashes to tell you that you are correct. I've never seen this system used in any game before or after. Now personally I love this system, coupled with easy scrolling of items in you inventory it makes solving puzzles, when you have the right items in your possession, a joy to behold.

I can see how some people might see it as treating the users as dummies, almost bordering on walkthrough level of help, but I don't see it this way, takes a lot of the tedium out of item matching.

What do you guys think?

[D.C.]

Agreed. Its pretty cool.

i've seen it done manytimes in games. i cant remember every game off the top of my head but i think toonstruck, jackorlando, hopkins FBI and maybe diskworld did it. that is also my favorite type of item notifaction. the onlt thing i dont like is when you can combine an item with somthing else to make somthing absolutley useless. untill you find out you need it later on in game. you guys know what i mean

it's like when find a coathanger and a branch then you combine the 2.
why would you do that?
then you find out later in the game you need it to unlock a window, out on the lim of a building.

[Maxwell Horse]

I would vote for the "modern marvel" choice.

Also, if memory serves, TLJ also had that great feature where you didn't have to keep dipping back into the inventory box if you wanted to experiment. You could just place the arrow over the area you were focusing on and use the "scroll through" button on the keyboard.

[Zanthia]

Yes, it was rather nice. Helped to avoid many 'no, i can't do it'

[Burge]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Horse

I would vote for the "modern marvel" choice.

Also, if memory serves, TLJ also had that great feature where you didn't have to keep dipping back into the inventory box if you wanted to experiment. You could just place the arrow over the area you were focusing on and use the "scroll through" button on the keyboard.

I think I mentioned that in my initial post, but yeah, it's a top way to handle inventory to keep things moving fast.

[Sky Warrior Bob]

Well, on the other hand, what do you think about Simon II's hotspot locator? Personally, I liked it a lot, as most adventures don't always make it clear what items are available to be picked up & whatnot.

Frankly, I wish more adventure games had the same feature.

Sky Warrior Bob

[Burge]

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

Well, on the other hand, what do you think about Simon II's hotspot locator? Personally, I liked it a lot, as most adventures don't always make it clear what items are available to be picked up & whatnot.

Frankly, I wish more adventure games had the same feature.

Sky Warrior Bob

Hmm, never played Simon 2. Must try this.

[Huz]

I've never played TLJ, but the system described here does sound a bit of a cheat. Still, if all it does is to save time when you're stuck at the "use everything with everything" stage, it sounds like a good thing - since you only ever reach that stage if the puzzle is illogical, or you're just being stupid (in which case you need all the help you can get!)

Originally Posted by Sky Warrior Bob

Well, on the other hand, what do you think about Simon II's hotspot locator? Personally, I liked it a lot, as most adventures don't always make it clear what items are available to be picked up & whatnot.

Now, I think this is a great feature - pixel-hunting isn't fun or part of the challenge of a game, it's just annoying. Having to do it shows the game is flawed. The vast majority of times when I have to reach for a walkthrough, it's because I've missed some 1x1 pixel object somewhere, either because it's simply too small and inconspicuous (ala Simon 1 and the VINES) or the interface hinders you in finding it (ala Sam and Max, where you have to traipse over to an item just to find out what it is you've highlighted). I wish most games would do more to help you find objects - especially important in direct-control 3D games, since searching for stuff is much harder.

[DJ Souza]

Originally Posted by Burge

TLJ is the only AG I've come across using the item system which it does, being that when you hold the right item over right NPC or other item, it flashes to tell you that you are correct. I've never seen this system used in any game before or after.

I can see how some people might see it as treating the users as dummies, almost bordering on walkthrough level of help, but I don't see it this way, takes a lot of the tedium out of item matching.

I am with you, I think this system is great.

The alternative way is just let the player CLICK on EVERY item, hear something like "That doesnt work", and then go click on another object. In TLJ, you dont need to hear those standard "that doesnt work" responses, you just select one item and place it over the object you want to combine with, if it flashes, it is the right one.

The nice thing is that this system cuts a lot of repetitive work, while leaving the challenge of having to figure it out which is the right combination. You see, if you try one object, and if it doesnt flash when placing over another item, then it is the wrong one, that is obvious. It is the same as clicking and hearing to those standard "I cant do that" lines.

[DJ Souza]

Originally Posted by Huz

Now, I think this is a great feature - pixel-hunting isn't fun or part of the challenge of a game, it's just annoying. Having to do it shows the game is flawed. The vast majority of times when I have to reach for a walkthrough, it's because I've missed some 1x1 pixel object somewhere...

Me too, almost all of the times I get stuck it is because of pixel hunting. That is why I hate when games use too much of that. (Runaway comes to mind.... )

...either because it's simply too small and inconspicuous (ala Simon 1 and the VINES)

Those f*****g vines got me stuck for at least 1 month, I didnt have acces to walkthroughs back when I first played. You know how I solved this? I opened the ".txt" file of the game, the one that contains all lines of dialogue and descriptions.

...or the interface hinders you in finding it (ala Sam and Max, where you have to traipse over to an item just to find out what it is you've highlighted).

A simple line of objects at the bottom of the screen would solve that problem (example: Open the trashcan, pick up the lens, etc.)

I wish most games would do more to help you find objects - especially important in direct-control 3D games, since searching for stuff is much harder.

I think direct control is probably the worst way of interacting in an adventure game. 3D pixel hunts are even worse, specially when your character has to stand right in front of the object in order to see it as something you can interact with.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I had no fundamental problems with TLJ's system. However, I feel things could be so much more improved anyway, seems that most adventure games, imo, are still stuck in the primitive 'click-here-click-there' monotony, perpetually forcing the player on pixel hunts, thus shattering the immersion. I have this idea of an in-game hint system, similar to GK3 but more sophisticated, whereas whenever (if ever) you get stuck, click the hint icon in your HUD, and the character says something like: "Hmm, there must something in this room I can use to reach that high shelf"; or "None of these things in my backpack seem to work together, maybe if I combined them in a different way". It is then that the character could look around the room and settle their eyes in the general direction of the usable object, or perhaps remove the possible items in their pack and lay them out. In essence, the graphic equivalent of the UHS hint system - the more you click on the hint icon, the more clues you're given.

Originally Posted by DJ Souza

I think direct control is probably the worst way of interacting in an adventure game.

I think you're giving a blanket statement here about direct control. Considering very, very few adventure games have used it, I feel it's wise to wait until more games using it come out and then gauge its efficacy. What I mean is that we have yet to see an adventure game developer use direct control intelligently, at the service of the gameplay, and not, for example at the service of otherwise superficial cinematic manipulations that sacrifice efficient, intuitive gameplay, like what Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon did. Just because the very few games that have direct control failed to use it to its best advantage does not mean it wouldn't work at all, period.

3D pixel hunts are even worse, specially when your character has to stand right in front of the object in order to see it as something you can interact with.

In No One Lives Forever, anything that can be used or taken highlights when you get close enough to it. Why not use this system in a classic adventure game? Silent Hill 2's version of pixel hunting - James Sunderland simply looks directly at the interactive object, and a generous area allows him to pick it up, instead to forcing the player to position him over the painfully minute, stingy square millimeter to get it.

Nope, this has more to do with sloppy programming. A good game allows a more generous 'area' of interaction. One solution to this problem would be to have the character look in the general proximity of an object, thereby prompting the player to hover the cursor over that area until it highlights. Another solution would be similar to what the FPS game No One Lives Forever did, where the interactive object begins to glow rythmically when you get close enough.

[DJ Souza]

I think you're giving a blanket statement here about direct control. Considering very, very few adventure games have used it

I am considering the few recent adventures where direct control have not add anything new to the gameplay, specially MI4 and Grim Fandango, 2 games that have featured static backgrounds and fixed camera angles, and present the objects and interaction in almost the same manner as old point and clickers. There is no reason why those game shouldnt have a point and click interface, at least as an alternative. It would be a lot easier and faster if you didnt need to navigate your character to a particular location.

I am also considering that ALL graphic adventures featured direct control gameplay untill the creation of the Scumm interface. Kings Quest 1-4, Larry 1-3, Space Quest 1-3, etc. Back then, after the release of Maniac Mansion 1, it was obvious that the point and click interface was much more suiting to an adventure game. Direct control was completely abandoned. Nowadays, with the advance of 3D real time gameworlds, adventures are returning to direct control. But most of the time, like you already said, this feature only serves the real time 3D graphics and superficial cinematics, not exactly the gameplay.

My opinion is, if the game is set in a 3D real time world, where you can walk just about anywhere, with the camera following your every move, direct control might be the best alternative. However, I think direct control is much more suited to a game where you need quick reflexes, where there is much running and jumping, etc (example: Tomb Raider). Those are not the typical style of actions in an adventure.

The ability to make your character run everywhere with the gamepad is not something adventures really need, adventures are traditionaly the slow paced kind of games. There is much more slow exploration of each game screen, and there is very little need of quick running back and forth. Adventure players are usually "stuck" in one screen, so why need the ability the control your character when running. It may be my personal taste, but I think direct control suits action games a lot more than adventure games.

If the adventure game is the same ol style of fixed camera angles, the most intuitive interface, IMO, is the point and click. The mouse cursor can examine any part of the screen, while in direct control games, you are usually limited to objects that are near the area where your character is able to walk. With something as simple as a double click of the mouse, you can instantly teleport to the next room you need to explore. Why adventure players need to run there with the direct control? We already did that back in the 80s, when there was no mouse around to help us. Back then, we would usually hear a standard response like "You are not close enough".

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by DJ Souza

I am considering the few recent adventures where direct control have not add anything new to the gameplay, specially MI4 and Grim Fandango, 2 games that have featured static backgrounds and fixed camera angles, and present the objects and interaction in almost the same manner as old poiint and clickers. There is no reason why those game shouldnt have a point and click interface, at least as an alternative. It would be a lot easier and faster if you didnt need to navigate your character to a particular location.

Well, I agree. In terms of intuitive gameplay, GF could simply have had a p-&-c interface. I think this was an instance where progression wasn't really needed. I personally had some minor problems controlling the character in a 2D world using an interface more suitable for a 3D world.

...with the advance of 3D real time gameworlds, adventures are returning to direct control. But most of the time, like you already said, this feature only serves the real time 3D graphics and cinematics, not exactly the gameplay.

Precisely. This is where titles like BS3 failed. Evidently Revolution got too caught up in the novelty of a real time 3D adventure and just used cinematic angles where they interfered with the gameplay. I believe that the idea of direct control is fine here, but they obviously failed to see that it's ultimately the player who has to control the character, not the camera. They obviously never did their homework and studies games already adept at this method, games like Max Payne, where the player is always allowed full control of the camera via the perspective of the character and the cinematics never interfere with the gameplay.

My opinion is, if the game is set in a 3D real time world, where you can walk just about anywhere, with the camera following your every move, direct control might be the best alternative. However, I think direct control is much more suited to a game where you need quick reflexes, where there is much running and jumping, etc (example: Tomb Raider). Those are not the typical style of actions in an adventure.

I disagree, if your opinion covers all games. For example, in realMyst you have full direct control over where you can go and where to look, the control wasn't that bad at all. And realMyst did NOT demand quick reflexes. And to some extent Uru was the same way. Of course, I also agree with others that Uru's control system was badly done, and this had to do with Cyan NOT doing their homework and studying games from other genres to get a good idea of how to implement direct control to provide smooth, intuitive gameplay. Again, just like BS3, another case of developers' failure at recontextualizing the adventure game now that it's in real time 3D.

Adventure players are usually "stuck" in one screen, so why need the ability the control your character when running. It may be my personal taste, but I think direct control suits action games a lot more than adventure games.

Again, I give you realMyst, where it's meditatively slow paced, and yet it's direct controlled, very few problems if any.

If the adventure game is the same ol style of fixed camera angles, the most intuitive interface, IMO, is the point and click.

Agreed. That is, unless some developer comes out with a 2D world that somehow ingeniously uses direct control to great effect. How likely is that, I don't know.

The mouse cursor can examine any part of the screen, while in direct control games, you are usually limited to objects that are near the area where your character is able to walk. With something as simple as a double click of the mouse, you can instantly teleport to the next room you need to explore. Why adventure players need to run there with the direct control?

Not necessarily so. Again, it's a matter of how intelligently and skillfully developers implement it, not the idea itself. Playing Silent Hill 2, I had absolutely no problems with direct control and proximity to objects. This is because the game space was designed to be small and immediate enough so that the character never had to run 10 miles across the screen to get something. Conversely, when I played The Longest Journey there were scenes where it took nearly forever for the character to get from one part of the screen to the other just to get something or trigger the next screen, and that game is in 2D and the character was already running and it was p-&-c! There was no double-clicking to 'teleport' her where I wanted her to be. Again, as I stated, it's a matter of how the idea is implemented, not the idea itself. If there's a problem, blame the developers, not the idea.

[Maquisard]

I don't remember how Syberia does it, but Syberia II, as I saw from the demo does something similar to TLJ--if you try to combine things that wouldn't work, you just get an X icon, meaning, "you can't do that" without the anoying repetition of the phrase. Personally, I like it.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

In my ideal adventure game, every item could be clicked on everything and everyone in the game world and the game would react individually to every possible combination - this is simply the way a fully realized virtual world should work.

Anything less represents a compromise due to lack of time, money, inspiration, storage space, care, or all of the above.

...

USE rubber ducky ON leaf

APRIL: "The rubber ducky isn't hungry right now. Better hang on to this synthetic leaf in case that changes, though."

...

USE rubber ducky ON April (when in an empty room)

<animation showing April putting the rubber ducky on her head, balancing it there for a while, then removing it and putting it back in her pants>*

APRIL: "That was fun; I'm glad there was no one around to see it."

...

USE rubber ducky ON April (when in The Border House)

<animation showing April putting the rubber ducky on her head and balancing it there for a while>

<Charlie claps>

CHARLIE: "Go, April!"

<animation showing a blushing April removing the rubber ducky from her head and putting it back in her pants>

...

USE rubber ducky ON jukebox

<animation showing April giving the jukebox a good thwack with the rubber ducky, making the jukebox switch tracks>

...

I guess you get the idea.

*This is another thing that needs to be addressed in future adventure games if we are to inch closer to that Holy Grail of adventure gamers: the elusive goal of total immersion and suspension of disbelief. Whatever the merits or flaws of Post Mortem, the main character in that game actually carried around a bag, visible in many scenes. This certainly enhanced my immersion in the game - lacklustre though it was in other regards.

[DJ Souza]

Again, I give you realMyst, where it's meditatively slow paced, and yet it's direct controlled, very few problems if any.

Well, I said it can be interesting to explore a real time 3D gameworld by using the direct control, that allows you to make quick turns of the camera angle. I havent played Real Myst, but now I remember how I liked the way Gabriel Knight 3 was done. It was even better because there is an alternative of fixed camera angles and point and click interface. There is also the Tex Murphy games, which I had played only Under a Killing Moon, a long time ago, IIRC, you could control the camera with the arrow keys too. So, in the end, I agree, direct control can be used for adventure games, specially in real time 3D ones.

Right now, I just dont know any good examples of a well implemented direct control in an adventure game with fixed camera angles.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by DJ Souza

Right now, I just dont know any good examples of a well implemented direct control in an adventure game with fixed camera angles.

Well, because ...... there aren't any . Simple as that. But like I stated, we've yet to see a fixed camera angle game that skillfully and effectively implements a direct control interface. Until then, p-&-c is perfectly fine with me.

[DJ Souza]

In my ideal adventure game, every item could be clicked on everything and everyone in the game world and the game would react individually to every possible combination - this is simply the way a fully realized virtual world should work.

Agreed, but only if you get a different reaction or response almost every time you attempt something useless.

If you get "That doesnt work" every time you click on something, then I think TLJ system is the best one.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I mean seriously, the design of adventure games as we know it needs a MAJOR REHAUL!