Adventure Gamers - Forums

piXeL hunting rejection is just one point of the long thread of How to make Adventure Games Easier but not Better

The pixel-hunting in Botanicula is very rewarding. 

Pixel hunting is really gross, pixel hunting I hate the most!

But on a more serious note, what you describe as “good pixel hunting” is not really pixel hunting at all, but well-designed exploratory challenges. Such challenges can be criticized as pixel hunting, when an argument is made that they are too extreme, unintentional and/or out of place in the context of a particular scene. In other words, it’s the type of challenges that many people enjoy, only badly implemented and unintentionally difficult.

The last time I encountered pixel hunting was in Resonance where a body scanner in the morgue was very difficult to notice without any point to it at all. I wasted a lot of time running around locations looking for some clue I might have missed. If I was the designer I would simply put the item in a place were the player’s eyes are bound to go. For example, I was always impressed how much care about visual placement took the author of Gemini Rue: http://www.hardydev.com/2009/11/18/visually-directing-the-player/

I dunno. If the game tells me that a object is hidden well somewhere, then that’s alright, because I know I have to look for it, and possibly where

I definitely agree with that. A good example on how pixel hunting should be done is from Primordia when you know that you should look for an object at a junkyard, scanning the area with a metal detector, but the object is very hard to find. You have to scan all over the area until you finally find the object. That is how pixel hunting can be “fun” and fair.

Again, it depends on how it’s implemented.

For instance, the very first screen you start on after the intro sequence in King’s Quest VI (the beach) has a one-pixel object (your signet ring) to find. But the ring sparkles and has a clear contrast to the sand around it, so it’s easily visible, and I don’t think anyone would miss it.

On the other hand, there are plenty of games that have a one-pixel object that’s not visible at all (like a small piece of rock in a rock wall that can be pushed to open a secret doorway). You can’t really see it (it doesn’t stand out in any way), and the hit area is so small (one pixel) that scanning the screen with your mouse might still make you miss it.
That’s the sort of pixel hunting that should disappear from games.

Pixel hunting like any other feature in gaming has to be taken in context and used sparingly and appropriatly.

In scenes where you are investigating a crime etc then hunting the scene for small clues is prefectly acceptable.

However some developers in the past have used it to cover for bad puzzles, they hide the item you need in a 2 pixel hotspot so you end up stuck. Not because you don’t know how to solve a puzzle, but just because you never found the nail you needed to poke the key through the other side of the door onto the paper.

It’s commonly used as a cheap way to amp up the difficulty of a game. Rather than make interesting or challenging puzzles to test the brain you just hide objects in difficult to find areas or make them one pixel wide.

Lucasarts used to play with the pixel hunt tradition usually for easter eggs and secrets (Like the button on plunder island beach that fires the cannons)

The problem with pixel hunting is that adventure games are not hidden object games.

IMO the challenge in AG should be about using your intelligence and logical thinking to solve different kinds of puzzles, not about finding items or clues that are more or less hidden.

Sometimes a bit of pixels hunting can be ok, but only if you either know what you are looking for, or know that you have to find someting in a specific place, but that is rarely the case. In most games you really have to turn into a kleptomaniac, and take everything that is not nailed to the enviroment, figuring that it will be useful later in the game.

Siddhi - 27 January 2013 08:32 AM

Also the point of games is not necessarily to be realistic but to be fun and entertaining. Just because Poirot would have to search every corner doesnt mean I want to spend 20 hours observing every pixel. The idea is to make me feel like I am Poirot, but to keep it fun at the same time.

I totally agree.

I loved The Dig except for the the scene in which Boston talks to the alien inventor.  There is a wand to pick up that furthers the story, but like the wrench in Guilty, it’s impossible to see.  I spent several frustrating hours trying to figure out what to do next.  Even after checking a walkthrough, I had trouble finding it.  Those are the kinds of pixel hunts that drive me batty.

Siddhi - 27 January 2013 11:25 AM

Also, its worth pointing out that in IF games, you can always do a “look” and get a description of all the objects in the room.

I was just about to ask the same thing, and how would “pixel hunting” relate to IFs (if at all), so your analogy is very interesting. However

Siddhi - 27 January 2013 11:25 AM

This is no different than doing a look command in IF games. If the main challenge in the game is in hiding the object then there is something wrong with the game design. The puzzle should be in how to use/interact with objects, not hunting them on the screen.

and after giving some thought to it - I’d say “pixel hunting” is a graphic adventure invention, and not necessarily a bad one. If adventure games did “evolve” from text to graphic, it didn’t come without its “flaws” or “casualties”. But I agree with the notion mentioned here that “good” pixel hunting is actually good design and exploratory feature. It’s just that we use “pixel hunting” term only when it’s brought to the extreme, like those examples above, with objects well hidden, and to the point of frustration.

So, and as already said by Tim and others - it really depends on the game design, but to me it also depends on the graphic itself. I mean, give me lush graphics like The Whispered World and I’d spend whole day looking at the scene trying to find the objects. But it’s not really in how good the graphics look, it’s also how the game “prepared” you for the scene with “pixel hunting” - if it’s been all *yawn* up to here, then pixel hunting certainly won’t help. However, if you’re in the middle of the CSI-style scene, where everyone expect you to be a great forensic detective, then you should really closely observe the screen and deduce what’s important. Furthermore, detecting by yourself which “hotspots” are relevant to the current state of things could be just another “puzzle”, and skipping it by highlighting hotspots can kill the fun of it. Imagine a game where you’ve entered your boss’s office while he’s not there, and even more, let’s imagine it’s a timed puzzle (but it doesn’t have to be) - you need to know what’s important here, and good game design will hint you previously that. Then, “pixel hunting” is just a sort of a puzzle. For example, the game hinted to you that some proofs are hidden in your boss’s cell phone. Then you’ll certainly want to look for the phone as soon as you enter the office no matter how small and hidden it may be.