Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
How would you make the perfect modern first person adventure game?
Regarding the puzzles, I find it difficult to add an option at the beginning of the game to choose the difficulty. A good puzzle can often have only one level of difficulty, particularly in a first person game where usually you don’t have people to give you additional clues.
True to a degree. Unfortunately, increasing the difficulty of a puzzle can usually only be done by also increasing the tediousness of the puzzle. I’m sure there are more, but Hanoi Tower and penny jump are two examples. Instead of starting with five disks, you start with nine. Instead of starting with five objects on either side of the open space, you start with ten. If you know how to solve them, they aren’t more difficult, but the amount of time it takes to solve them is increased by a whole order of magnitude.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
The way I see it, there are mainly 2 different ways of proceeding.
You start with your average puzzle (let’s say it’s a nice idea of puzzle, which gives a good challenge). If you want to add a difficulty option, then:
- either you increase the difficulty of the puzzle artificially
- either you help the player to solve it
easier > normal > harder
give help > average puzzle > increase difficulty
If the average puzzle was already easy, then increasing the difficulty could be a good option. If on the contrary it was quite hard to solve, then it’s probably better to help the player, by adding more clues, showing a text with a part of the answer, etc.
This is a very difficult exercise. Having well-balanced puzzles in terms of challenge is already complicated for game developers, so adding different levels of difficulty, which would remain fair and wouldn’t give the solution too fast, is even harder.
Also it shouldn’t come to the point where the difficulty becomes silly. As you said above, if the idea to make the puzzle harder is just to add more and useless inventory items in order to get the player confused, then I don’t think it’s good!
I usually like the puzzles in Myst-like adventure games because everyone can solve them with time. Usually the main issue why people can’t solve them is a matter of exploration/observation (finding the good clues and items). But usually the answer of the puzzle is logical, and with a paper and a pen, some thinking and a bit of time, and if the good elements have been gathered in the world, then the answer becomes obvious.
At least, that is how I would define a good puzzle.
But the surroundings in the game will make the feeling of the player different depending on the game, even for a similar puzzle. By ‘surroundings’ I mean:
- the level design (where the clues and items are hidden in the world)
- the gameplay (if it’s too messy to visit the world, people give up)
- the graphics (when the elements that compose the puzzle are not clear and easy to identify)
And probably more possibilities where a good puzzle becomes bad.
If everything is not done properly, even a good puzzle can become frustrating, even with a difficulty option.
What do you think?
Regarding the puzzles, I find it difficult to add an option at the beginning of the game to choose the difficulty. A good puzzle can often have only one level of difficulty, particularly in a first person game where usually you don’t have people to give you additional clues.
True to a degree. Unfortunately, increasing the difficulty of a puzzle can usually only be done by also increasing the tediousness of the puzzle. I’m sure there are more, but Hanoi Tower and penny jump are two examples. Instead of starting with five disks, you start with nine. Instead of starting with five objects on either side of the open space, you start with ten. If you know how to solve them, they aren’t more difficult, but the amount of time it takes to solve them is increased by a whole order of magnitude.
Those are some pretty specific choices of puzzle, though. Sudoku puzzles can be easy or hard while still being essentially the same puzzle. A crossword puzzle can offer a choice of cryptic or ‘straight’ clues to the same answers. A slider puzzle can be made more difficult either by having more tiles or a trickier image to assemble. A logic puzzle must have sufficient clues to determine a unique solution, but can be made easier by providing more clues or by providing those clues in a more obvious way.
Inventory puzzles are trickier to massage in this kind of way, but Curse of Monkey Island had a go at it and I don’t believe I’m the only one who enjoyed that game a lot.
Those are some pretty specific choices of puzzle, though. Sudoku puzzles can be easy or hard while still being essentially the same puzzle. A crossword puzzle can offer a choice of cryptic or ‘straight’ clues to the same answers. A slider puzzle can be made more difficult either by having more tiles or a trickier image to assemble. A logic puzzle must have sufficient clues to determine a unique solution, but can be made easier by providing more clues or by providing those clues in a more obvious way.
I think you’re saying the same thing I said. I chose those puzzles because they represented puzzles that could be increased in difficulty without necessarily making them harder to solve. The same is true with your Sudoku and crossword examples. Although, thankfully, I’ve never run across either in an AG. Another example is the greatest time waster of all, the maze.
Other puzzle types are what they are. If your objective is to get out of a locked room, you need to find the key. Although I have played games where finding the key is taken to ridiculous extremes. E.g. find the crowbar to loosen the baseboard, which uncovers a safe, for which you need to find the combination, which will, when opened, give you the key that gets you out of the room. And that’s an easy example.
I’m sure there’s probably a way to make any puzzle more difficult. But I doubt that necessarily adds to the game’s enjoyment.
For whom the games toll,
they toll for thee.
Shadowgate remake is a pretty good example of an adventure game with a huge range in what comes to puzzle difficulty. You can, in the beginning, choose from several difficulty levels, ranging from a story mode to a hardcore old school experience.
The easier modes remove some of the more difficult puzzles as well as simplify the solutions to some others. The incentive to play the game through with added difficulty comes from additional content you don’t see on the easier modes despite the story itself is on the broad strokes same.
Globally would you say that it’s better if there is an easier mode, or doesn’t it kill the game?
Easier mode can attract new player, but I have the feeling that it also stops many people from finding the solution on their own.
If people end a game too fast because of the easy mode, do they benefit of it as much?
From the point of view of a developer, it’s as if they had rushed something that took monthes or years to create, so it’s hard to find the good balance.
I think it depends on your point of view. Not all adventure gamers enjoy difficult puzzles, but they still play those games. And people who drop games because of some reason or another would probably have dropped it in any case. Some people play adventures almost solely with walkthroughs, as they play them because of stories, not because of puzzles, so easier puzzles might actually be a thing to do make those people actually play the game, not just run them through with a walkthrough.
I’m not a big achievement fan, but I’ve at times checked out the percentages on those achievements, as they do show how many people have gained them. It usually is, even with popular games, that closer to the end those achievements are, the less amount of players have gotten them. That has made me think, that it doesn’t really matter how good a game is, a big percentage, often more than a half, of players will never complete them.
Someone talked about map here. Whethert map for orientation or map with “teleportation” was meant i don’t know but personally map that allows to “teleport” to places where player has been would work for me in almost any first person game. This is not really related to this topic but has any MYST clone had map with “teleportation”?
in general i kinda hate first person. that said i loved j.u.l.i.a… so i guess if i made a game i’d try to emulate that. back in the day i could deal with first person better. i absolutely loved zork:nemesis and wish there could be some kind of hd update because the pixelated panning is just insufferable today lol
I haven’t read other replies so I apologize if I’m retreading old ground here.
Would it be in 2d, 3d, 360° nodal, VR?
3D. The only option that would turn me off the game is nodal though.
Would it have easy or difficult puzzles
Both. “Classic” difficulty curve of easy to medium to complete the main section of the game. Difficult to insane to unlock hidden endings or other such rewards.
I think modern puzzle games (even The Witness, which I hated) hit it right with doing multiple puzzles but not all are required to complete the game.
The Talos Principle did it perfectly with the clearly signposted three difficulty levels, and then all the hidden stuff.
would you include action scenes, minigames
No for action, no opinion for minigames (the line is blurred between minigames and puzzles).
do you seek for interactivity with the world (manipulating objets or puzzles)
There are good examples for both approaches. I think puzzles are more challenging/immersive when you manipulate the environment, but you can make a perfectly good puzzle game (for example, the second Safecracker) without that element.
Is there a kind of environment that you would favor in this kind of game?
One which atmosphere allows focus on the puzzles, so no for creepy stuff. Outlandish settings (future / magic) give you more freedom with the puzzle mechanics, so probably they’re better than more realistic settings, but you could make a great puzzle game in a realistic setting too if you were so inclined.
How would you like the story to be told?
If a puzzle game, optionally and minimally. Diaries (or recordings or videos) or environmental storytelling are best, if they contain no clues.
If you’re going for an adventure game, then I like anything which pace you control. Documents or dialogue you can skip - good. Movies or audio recordings - bad. Unskippable, tedious, poorly-written dialogue - worst.
What kind of system would you use
I play exclusively on PC. My wife only on the iPad. Make of that what you will 
The perfect modern first person AG should be in 3D, obviously.
Of course, I don’t personally care for modernity, and 2D is still my favorite, even with 1st person games.
Maybe modern means 4D and we just lack of imagination?
I probably didn’t choose well my word when I said ‘modern’. I mainly wanted to ask you what would be the best technique to create a very good first person AG, according to your tastes of course.
If they ever finish Miegakure I guess we’ll find out.
I’m curious. When you have a first person setting but puzzles pop up in your face for you to solve (sort of Myst style) ... does that not make it more of a PUZZLE game, than an outright ADVENTURE?
As such I see a perfect modern first person adventure to be smooth and concentrate on delivering the story, and that can mean minimal or simple puzzles.
If the player is to get stuck behind “in your face” puzzles along the way, I’d say it’s more akin to a puzzle game.
I don’t think I’d fill a “perfect modern first person adventure” with puzzles. I’d substitute that for offering up more exploration, exploring the lore of the games’ world, delivering more story or focussing on the characters.
This is personal preference. Imagine if when you read a book, you couldn’t progress to the next page because first you had to solve some “use fish in door on the moon” puzzle first. My point is, I don’t like a good story to be gated behind “grind to a halt” puzzles.
First person adventures have the potential to be very immersive, and if they’re clearly labelled as a PUZZLE adventure then it’s fine to have pop up puzzles or ones that grind the story to a halt until you solve them. But in my mind, a perfect first person adventure is probably more akin to an action-RPG than a puzzle game, because action-RPG’s rarely grind things to a halt whilst they wait for you to solve something. Often, you can start to solve them and move onto other things that progress the story in other ways or directions. In a typical puzzle adventure game you are generally only working toward one story goal behind that any given puzzle. And I don’t see that as “perfect”, at all.
Interesting topic though. My answer boils down to “anything streamlined where puzzles don’t necessarily hold the player back from making progress within the world”.
This is personal preference. Imagine if when you read a book, you couldn’t progress to the next page because first you had to solve some “use fish in door on the moon” puzzle first. My point is, I don’t like a good story to be gated behind “grind to a halt” puzzles.
Could you give an example of a puzzle that isn’t “grind to a halt”? All puzzles will need to be solved eventually, creating a bottleneck. What we are talking about is by no means limited to first-person adventure games, it’s actually a feature of all adventure games.
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
