Adventure Gamers - Forums

noknowncure - 13 December 2013 04:11 PM

Who are you to judge how anyone else chooses to consume a form of media, after they’ve paid for it? If they opt to play a game with hints on permanently, while it’s not what I’d want to do, I wouldn’t deride them from getting enjoyment from it.

As others have said, the in built hint system is there to stop people switching the game off. In the modern world, the more a player switches something off, the less likely they are to start it up again - each time you lose them to the internet, it’s a time you potentially aren’t getting them back. The hints are optional and as long as the game plays perfectly well without it, I genuinely don’t see the problem.

The sign puzzle you cite as a problem does have similar in-game clues to the ones you suggest.

Edit to add: I’m always fascinated by a worryingly high number of Adventure Gamers who are of the opinion that they’re in some way superior to, say, ‘brainless *hack, spit* FPS fans’, and that by attempting to reach a wider audience, AG developers are pandering to ‘Lowest common denominators’ - and who are they to sully our glorious genre of choice?

It’s all disturbingly elitist. There are ways to frame the points being made, but the language chosen often has this ugly attitude behind it.

Great post. I totally agree. When I was younger, I used to love wandering aimlessly around trying to figure out what the heck to do. And the satisfaction of solving a particularly hard puzzle was very rewarding. And I still do this now if I’m really enjoying a game.

However, now that I’m older, I find that I don’t want to be stuck and frustrated for hours and I will get hints. And it has nothing to do with being intellectually lazy. As an engineer, I spend hours at work each day solving problems. My intellect is quite active! In my free time, I enjoy playing games but that doesn’t mean that I want to spend hours on some frustratingly hard puzzle (though sometimes I find it enjoyable still). And I don’t give a crap if anyone looks down on me because of it.

Everyone plays and enjoys things differently. We’re not talking about rocket science here, we are talking about PLAYING GAMES! I just love people getting enjoyment out of it, no matter what manner they choose to play. I just don’t understand the concept of getting all bent out of shape about how other people choose to spend their OWN FREE TIME. If one doesn’t like using hints, don’t use them. It’s really quite simple.

And I certainly don’t blame video game companies for trying to reach out to wider audience. They want to make money. And I want them to make money so that they will keep making games. Therefore, I am just fine with them adding stuff that will make the game more appealing to the “lowest common denominator” as long as the hint system is optional for those who want the challenge as well.

Lambonius - 12 December 2013 06:06 PM

The answer to the original question is because there is a big demand for it.  People are stupid and nobody wants to think anymore.  The way we consume entertainment has changed dramatically in the last 30 years.  We no longer want to work at all, even in the slightest mental capacity, for gratification.  We simply want to absorb information.  People are terrible.

There’s another way to look at this though.

I remember reading an interview with Jane Jensen from around 5 years ago where she said that the days of puzzles that were so tough that they’d leave you stumped for days have passed, and the future of adventure games involved much more easy, common sense solutions.  In part because non-adventure gamers wouldn’t put up with non-sensical puzzles that they couldn’t solve, but also because those puzzles disrupt the flow of the narrative.

And I remember at the time thinking what she was saying was kind of heresy.  (if you take away all the difficulty, where is the game?!)  But then The Walking Dead comes along, and it’s seemingly the biggest hit the adventure game genre has had in 15 years, and it seems like Jane was on to something.

And btw, since you seemingly think otherwise I have to get this off my chest.  The Walking Dead is NOT a game that is made for dumb people.  Games where there’s nothing to think about but shooting everyone you see are made for dumb people.  TWD is one of the more thought provoking games I’ve ever played.  It’s just that what the player thinks about (hopefully, at least ...) are things like morality, life, death, consequences of your actions, responsibility to help your fellow man, etc.

Which debatably are much more intelligent and mature things to think about than how to get through a locked door with only a ball of yard and a rubber ducky. 

Lambonius - 13 December 2013 03:58 AM

**Disclaimer: Rage-filled rant below:

I couldn’t disagree more.  Putting hint systems in the game AT ALL is a crutch.  It’s not about “player willpower.”  It’s about developers pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence and patience.  They put that shit in there TO TEMPT YOU, and to appeal to people who don’t have what it takes to make it through otherwise.  It reminds me of the stories you always hear about the American education system, where instead of improving things so that more students succeed, administrators just lower the bar of success, to the point where borderline illiterate neanderthals are graduating high school with diplomas that they DON’T FUCKING DESERVE.

It’s no different from the new Super Mario 3D World, which has a special block that appears if you die 5 times in one stage, that turns you completely invincible and allows the player to just walk to the end of the stage.  Sure, you can opt NOT to use the block, but the very fact that they put it there is INSULTING.  It threatens to negate everything that made the older games GOOD.  The sense of practicing until you got good, then finally beating a stage, the rewarding feeling that came with knowing you had finally made it.  That block gives the player an out so that they DON’T HAVE TO LEARN.  SO THAT THEY DON’T HAVE TO WORK FOR IT.  FUCK THAT BLOCK. 

Those same rewarding feelings used to be present in adventure games, when you actually needed to THINK your way through puzzles.  When you occasionally needed to take a break and come back to a puzzle with fresh eyes, or talk it over with a friend.  All of those things made finally solving them and moving on that much more rewarding.

Gamers today are fucking lazy.  Nobody wants to work for anything.  Developers should quit the fucking pandering because they’re only making it worse.

End rant. 

I disagree with you often, but I must say, you are quite entertaining. 

noknowncure - 13 December 2013 04:11 PM

As others have said, the in built hint system is there to stop people switching the game off. In the modern world, the more a player switches something off, the less likely they are to start it up again - each time you lose them to the internet, it’s a time you potentially aren’t getting them back.

That’s a really good point.

Even as a serious gamer, I find that’s true for me.  Not in adventure games, but in some roleplaying games where you have to do really specific things to accomplish some bonus goal or to reach a certain ending.  If I keep having to check a guide over and over the game eventually loses its fun for me.  No matter how much I liked it before then.

I just want to be able to play, and everything to do so should be included inside the game.  (and while that is the case with adventure games, players not use to adventure game puzzles probably feel differently at times)

I’ve just had some awesome experiences with the social aspect of playing adventure games (in the mid-90s, mind you, not today) that make me really value those puzzles that I COULDN’T always solve on my own.  I remember playing Fate of Atlantis, King’s Quest 6, The Dig, and many of the classic games in grade school, being stumped by something, and then going to school the next day where I’d talk to all of my friends who had also been playing the games, and they always had something new to contribute, some new experience to discuss—it was awesome.  As I progressed to a new area of a game, I remember being so excited to go to my friends and tell them about it, and to hear what they had figured out and seen—and it really came down to a point where we all felt like we figured out the games TOGETHER, and it was all the more special because of that.  I miss that.  Games aren’t like that anymore, in any genre.  The most recent game I’ve played that has given me anything close to that amazing feeling was Dark Souls.  And while the reasoning may seem different at first, it really boils down to a similar sense of community and shared experience.  If any of you are into Dark Souls and have experienced the awesome community that has sprung up around that game, you’ll know what I’m talking about.  I want to play adventure games that get people talking again—not because of gimmicks like an overly dramatic story where the player character *gasp* dies in the end, but because many people shared in a mutual sense of discovery, obstacles, and triumph in overcoming them.  Those were MY adventure games, and I want them back.

Lambonius - 14 December 2013 03:11 AM

I’ve just had some awesome experiences with the social aspect of playing adventure games (in the mid-90s, mind you, not today) that make me really value those puzzles that I COULDN’T always solve on my own.  I remember playing Fate of Atlantis, King’s Quest 6, The Dig, and many of the classic games in grade school, being stumped by something, and then going to school the next day where I’d talk to all of my friends who had also been playing the games, and they always had something new to contribute, some new experience to discuss—it was awesome.  As I progressed to a new area of a game, I remember being so excited to go to my friends and tell them about it, and to hear what they had figured out and seen—and it really came down to a point where we all felt like we figured out the games TOGETHER, and it was all the more special because of that.  I miss that.  Games aren’t like that anymore, in any genre.  The most recent game I’ve played that has given me anything close to that amazing feeling was Dark Souls.  And while the reasoning may seem different at first, it really boils down to a similar sense of community and shared experience.  If any of you are into Dark Souls and have experienced the awesome community that has sprung up around that game, you’ll know what I’m talking about.  I want to play adventure games that get people talking again—not because of gimmicks like an overly dramatic story where the player character *gasp* dies in the end, but because many people shared in a mutual sense of discovery, obstacles, and triumph in overcoming them.  Those were MY adventure games, and I want them back.

What’s ridiculous about this though is that TWD is probably the modern game that MOST incorporates this feeling.  I’ve gotten friends to play the game, and finding out what choice they make in some very sticky moral dilemmas is very interesting to me.  And it’s interesting to debate those choices afterwards too.

It makes for much better conversation than “Hey, I reached level 52!”  “Cool!”  Which I don’t think I’d be having as an adult anyway, even if technology hadn’t advanced.

I also found it interesting to see the percentage of people that made each choice.  (not that this actually worked in my game, but there’s youtube videos showing the stats)  There really seems to be more of a social aspect to this game than any other adventure game I’ve ever played.

Seeing the percentage of other players who made certain major choices WAS interesting, and certainly one of the details that I particularly liked about TWD.  I thought it was a great choice to compliment the type of gameplay they were looking for—I just wish that they would have made some of the choices create a few more distinctly divergent paths through the game than just “oh, you chose this, so you get to hear THIS line of dialog on this playthrough, instead of that one.”

Lambonius - 14 December 2013 03:48 AM

Seeing the percentage of other players who made certain major choices WAS interesting, and certainly one of the details that I particularly liked about TWD.  I thought it was a great choice to compliment the type of gameplay they were looking for—I just wish that they would have made some of the choices create a few more distinctly divergent paths through the game than just “oh, you chose this, so you get to hear THIS line of dialog on this playthrough, instead of that one.”

Now you’re moving the goal line. 

It’s not innovative because of drastically being able to alter the game and choose your own path.  You can’t do that, and if that’s what you’re looking for than you’re better off playing Blade Runner.  But it still is one of the few games that actually lets you alter your path at all.

And it IS extremely innovative in just how many choices you are given.  Being able to choose nearly every line your character says, shaping characters impressions of you.  Being able to make so many major decisions when most games don’t offer you a single one.  For going to really dark places that most games would not dare to approach (in episode 3 and 5 in particular).  And having decisions carry over from game to game, even if most are in non-drastic ways, is basically unheard of.

Add in the social factor that we just talked about and hopefully you can see why so many people would be really excited by this series.  I really think it’s a great step forward for the genre.  And while I totally DO think it would be better with some actual decent puzzles thrown in as well, they’ve done so much right with this series that I really can’t bash what little they haven’t done well.

And having decisions carry over from game to game, even if most are in non-drastic ways, is basically unheard of.

It’s mostly some role playing games that have experimented with this to varrying degree of success. I think a lot of them deal with the problem that devs often probably don’t like implementing a lot of content that might be skipped by accident or that people might dislike having to replay the entire game they now know just to get the 1% or 2% of the game that are different. (which I personally think is a bigger problem in RPG or action games since a lot of them are longer and the fighting can imo get repetitive)

A game that imo did a very interesting take on branching paths actually is imo Long Live The Queen (also available on steam). It actually has a lot of branching paths and some alternate endings but it mostly gets away with pulling that off because

1.) it’s very simple graphically

2.) it’s relatively short

It’s kinda like The Stanley Parable in that the game really only works in you playing it over and over again till you have maxed out/uncovered all the branching paths. [though unlike the Stanley Parable it has more clear failstates and has a basic math optimization puzzle as the core under the hood]

Back to the point, I don’t think that having a hint system that you can switch off in the options is really comparable to the game secretly altering the level layout without your permission. Now this idea of secretly adjusting difficulty is something that I’ve seen being done or discussed in other games, but I don’t think I’ve come across it in an adventure game yet.

I also have to say, particularly in adventure games I don’t see a problem with giving higher “achievements” for higher (aka hint less) difficulty. If you want that you can just replay the game after you have beaten it and now know the solutions probably. => yeah you still didn’t figure it out on your own, but you still had to put in at least some extra effort [putting in the time for a second run through].

thalolli - 14 December 2013 06:37 AM

It’s mostly some role playing games that have experimented with this to varrying degree of success.

Ah yeah.  I know Mass Effect did a lot of this stuff too.  But still, bringing innovations like these to the adventure genre for the first time is really a good thing, I think.

And even for people that don’t like TWD, there’s a good chance that future adventure games that they will like—with proper puzzles and all—will follow TWD’s lead on some of these things, and make the genre better for everyone.

Even Lamb must enjoy being an active participant in every dialogue, right?  It’s so much more interesting and refreshing than clicking on every available option.  And for future adventure games that do offer the branching possibilities that he wanted, they’ll be doing so based off what the TWD has done before.

So when he talks about TWD as if it’s been some curse on the adventure game community, I really think he couldn’t be more mistaken.

Detective Mosely - 14 December 2013 04:14 AM

It’s not innovative because of drastically being able to alter the game and choose your own path.  You can’t do that, and if that’s what you’re looking for than you’re better off playing Blade Runner.  But it still is one of the few games that actually lets you alter your path at all.

And it IS extremely innovative in just how many choices you are given.  Being able to choose nearly every line your character says, shaping characters impressions of you.  Being able to make so many major decisions when most games don’t offer you a single one.  For going to really dark places that most games would not dare to approach (in episode 3 and 5 in particular).  And having decisions carry over from game to game, even if most are in non-drastic ways, is basically unheard of.

Er…you mean NOT counting all of the classic adventure games that let you choose every line of dialog and had divergent paths?  Fate of Atlantis comes immediately to mind as just one example.  I don’t see anything that TWD is doing that is new…at all.  I am thoroughly confused by this statement.  Modern games have been doing the choice/shape how NPC’s see you thing for years.  Every Bioware game since Baldur’s Gate has done it.  TWD copied its conversation mechanics almost note for note from Mass Effect, except they added a timer.  TWD is basically just like playing all of the Mass Effect conversations in row, without any of the RPG or shooting stuff in between, except with a timer.  And sprinkle in a few more things carbon copied from Heavy Rain, but without the ability to actually alter the course or outcome of the narrative (beyond the aforementioned cosmetic dialog changes) that made that game so interesting.  Just about the only thing that TWD did that was unique was the super dark places it took its characters, and THAT was Robert Kirkman, not Telltale, that brought that to the table.  Loving Telltale’s TWD is one thing—that’s fine.  I even enjoyed it for what it was.  But innovative it is not.

Oh, and let’s not forget QTEs!  Everyone loves those! 

I really could not possibly disagree more with what you just said.  Bringing recent innovations from other genres to the adventure genre IS being innovative.  And when other adventure games build on what they’ve done, I bet you’ll be loving it just as much as I am now.

But I’ve stated my points enough.  I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

Also, not even joking, I do think adding the timer to conversations was a great innovation.  It makes the conversations in TWD feel so much more life like to me than the ones in Mass Effect or any other game I’ve ever played.  Having to be on your toes during every conversation made them so much more interesting.

And even above and beyond that, Mass Effect and most games of the like more have clear “good” and “evil” answers, or “correct” and “incorrect”.  With TWD it’s all about various shades of gray, and personal opinions on morality.  Again, so much more interesting.  This should be the future of conversations in adventure games.  If we can be so lucky.

Detective Mosely - 14 December 2013 08:41 AM

Bringing recent innovations from other genres to the adventure genre IS being innovative.  And when other adventure games build on what they’ve done, I bet you’ll be loving it just as much as I am now.

Okay, I’ll concede that one.  You’re right, at least from a certain point of view.    The individual mechanics themselves aren’t innovative, but putting them together in a modern adventure game arguably is.  I can agree with that.  I’d love to see other adventure games using the GOOD mechanics of TWD (the QTEs can fuck right off, though ) along with the good mechanics of classic adventure games.  The potential for greatness is definitely there.  I don’t personally think TWD reaches it yet, as too much of what it does is wedded to the interactive movie format as opposed to an actual adventure game (with exploration and puzzles), for my tastes.  But that’s another argument (that has been had way too often) about how one actually defines an adventure game. 

I also agree that the timer was a good addition, especially since it was variable, and certain sections really did only give you a split second to make a decision.  That was probably the best mechanic of the game, honestly.

In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a bit of a sucker for a good interactive movie anyway.  So I don’t really consider that a bad thing. 

But I do consider adventure games and interactive movies to be part of the same gaming family.

And yay, I finally got you to admit the game did something well!  There is no emoticon available to properly express my level of joy.