Whoa... Do I even LIKE adventures?

[remixor]

DGM: Exactly, it's all about context.  A given puzzle could fit perfectly well in a logical "world of today" game but seem totally mundane in a fantasy setting; by contrast, a totally absurd and hilarious puzzle that would be right at home in a goofy fantasy world wouldn't make much sense in a serious detective adventure.  The same goes for all elements of games (and movies, and books, etc.), not just puzzles.

[big brother]

I don't know, guys.

Despite everything said, puzzles aren't central to a good adventure game.

The only reason we consider games like MI, FOA, or DOTT to be classics is because Lucasarts managed to create worlds we were interested in.

We really don't give a shit about the puzzles, as long as they are mutually consistent with the sense of escapism so carefully fostered in these games.

So get off of "combine object A with object B" or "distract NPC C" already. Nobody cares about yet another pirate game ripoff.

Puzzles exist solely to allow interactivity, enhancing a bond between the player and the game.

Be original; cultivate your own world. Vision counts.

[remixor]

Yes, but if a game has puzzles that don't fall into the same old traps, it can increase enjoyment of the game anyway.  Obviously the world is more important than the puzzles, but if the puzzles are stupid and not fun to play, people won't care enough to discover the world.  Good puzzle design in still important.

[Nellie]

The only reason we consider games like MI, FOA, or DOTT to be classics is because Lucasarts managed to create worlds we were interested in.

Speak for yourself .  I consider the quality of the puzzles to be an absolutely essential element in my consideration of those 3 games as classics.  Especially in FoA, whose excellent puzzles I consider the best part of the game.

So get off of "combine object A with object B" or "distract NPC C" already. Nobody cares about yet another pirate game ripoff.

Eek!  'Combine A with B' can produce actions as varied as 'Combine sniper scope with gun', 'Combine doughnuts with hairband (for makeshift earmuffs)', 'Combine blue drink with yellow drink (for super-spit green drink)', 'Combine tie with shirt', etc, etc.  It might sound like a stale formula, but only if you forget that objects A and B can be anything out of thousands and thousands of possibilities.  I'm not sure how using tried-and-tested puzzle structures is connected with pirate game ripoffs, either. :p

Puzzles exist solely to allow interactivity, enhancing a bond between the player and the game.

Well, no, because games can be highly interactive without any puzzles at all.  Puzzles create interaction and challenge the player - so if interaction can exist without puzzles, it follows that the primary reason for including puzzles is to challenge the player.

[|Alky|]

I have to admit I don't like puzzles much either.
That's partly the reason I'm going to be doing such a big and complicated and probably un-makeable game as soon as I finished warming up. In short, what I wanted to do is make the game 90% character based, like Fate of Atlantis or Day of the Tentacle but moreso. Not only that, but also to not treat interactions with characters as puzzles, with only one solution, but as actual people, who affect others, and have different opinions of you depending on your actions.

Hard as hell to explain, and much much harder to do ^_^

But anyhow, make Shadowplay what you want it to be. I think that if you have a good story, it won't matter how you tell it...

[DGMacphee]

bigbrother: I disagree -- Secret of Monkey Island and Escape from Monkey Island both are set in the same world, created by the same developer, but I believed in SMI's puzzles, yet I was not convinced of EMI one bit.

Especially that whole Ultimate Insult bullshit.

Fuck that.

[Haddas]

I loved the

Ultimate Insult bullshit

It helped me during my younger years at school when the bullies insulted me. I quickly came up with an answer that rendered them speechless.

It seems everyone has an opinion about how a good game should be. Or taste about how a good game should be, if I may say so. You can't argue about taste! If I say: " I LOVE BROCCOLI " then none of you can change my taste for food, how wierd the food might be.
I think the same goes for adventure games too.
You like puzzles ( Yes, you over there! ),
and You like the story better. There is no right or wrong.
there is only true enlightement... and broccoli

[Layabout]

The reason SMI's puzzles worked and EMI's didnt was due to one man. Ron Gilbert. He knew how not to piss a player off. He pretty much came up with the no death thing (apart from the 10 minute water thing... And the sierra style one near the end...).

They mostly got it right in CMI, but they had no clue in EMI. They should have let it end at CMI.

[Trapezoid]

Care to back this opinion up at all, Layabout? Y'know, with examples and stuff?

[big brother]

Ok, guys, before I cultivate any misunderstandings, let me elobarate on my earlier points.

A good adventure game (insert your favorite title here) tells a story. The puzzles, while they can enhance or detract from that story, serve as a vehicle for player immersion into the game world.

Despite bad puzzles, a world can be a memorable experience due to the designer's storytelling ability.

Even with good puzzles, no one will remember a banal world or a poor story.

Think of puzzles like icing on a cake. While it contributes to the overall flavor, good icing doesn't necessarily mean the cake will be good. Likewise, if your cake is a compressed  brick of sawdust, I don't care how good the icing is, I will still spit out every bite I'm foolish enough to take.

For instance, think of Full Throttle and some of the puzzles at the beginning. KICK door. USE bartender. USE keys with BIKE. In fact, there were maybe two good (original to some extent) puzzles in the entire damn game -- locking the junkyard door so you could climb up the chain and walking the bunnies through the minefield. (Maybe I missed one, please don't jump all over me)

However, Full Throttle was a very memorable game because it involved the player in a good story.

No matter how well an adventure is designed, there will always be a puzzle or two that a player just won't get (different people may have trouble with different puzzles). As long as the game world is interesting and emmersive enough, the player will keep trying and eventually solve the puzzle. If the world is boring, the player will quit.

I would argue that EMI and CMI are not set in the same world. Sure they share characters and maybe some themes in the music, but the environments are radically different, as is the story. In my opinion, the first two MI games were much darker than the second two (think of the voodoo lady, the navigator's head, and Lechuck as a living corpse).

But my point is this -- the puzzles should not be the focus. Players tend to remember a game holistically, so it's the story that matters.

[MillsJROSS]

Or perhaps we could just talk about whether or not we LIKE adventures. Instead of picking which games are better, and explaining them, with examples.

I love almost every aspect of the adventure game. The story AND the puzzles. I don't view either over the other, when both used effectively they provide entertainment for me. Now, I don't have to like every game that comes my way just because it's an adventure game. But adventure games, in general, appeal to me.

I can still emerse myself into my games, as easily as I did when I was a kid. I love these games, and I don't think no amount of time will ever change how I look at these games. I might look at them from a different view now (that of a little kid, and currently one of a young adult). So now I can probably get a better grasp on jokes that, as a kid, I wouldn't have been able to get before.

I think adventure games still are evolving. Yes, mixing item A and B will always be a staple of an adventure game. It's a puzzle, that's part of the experience. It's when you realise that A and B could solve all your problems, when you have a whole alphabet to choose from, than it becomes more of an accomplishment, and doesn't sound so formalaic.

There is no correct forumula for making these games. Diffrent people desire different things. It's just realising this, and trying to balance between all the wants. And now I'm just blabbing, so i'll end here.

-MillsJROSS

[InCreator]

Yeah! Let's make a game everybody likes - At the start of a game, player is forced to complete IQ-test, and the puzzles in the game will vary on the test results - easier ones for stupider ones...

[DGMacphee]

Granted, Full Throttle was a great game with a lot of basic puzzles.

However, there were still quite a number of puzzles that were very memorable.

For example, the puzzle where you have to get into the junkyard with the chain and the falling door -- That one screwed me around for a while, until I found out the REAL answer.

I think puzzles like that really separated it -- There are other great puzzles in FT, if you need more elaboration.

And I also agree that SMI and MI2 were great because of Ron -- I like to think of him as the Preston Sturges of the gaming world.

I could see where Ron was taking Guybrush, as he was developing the character more from SMI to MI2.

LucasArts post-Ron seem to be more focused on developing the gaming engine i.e. the SVGA graphics in CMI and the 3D world of EMI.

Notice how they just used Guybrush's physical make-up from SMI in EMI.

They should have kept the tougher, hard-arsed Guybrush from MI2 -- And made him tougher!!!

YARRRRR!!!

[Nellie]

A good adventure game (insert your favorite title here) tells a story. The puzzles, while they can enhance or detract from that story, serve as a vehicle for player immersion into the game world.

But not just a vehicle for immersion - the most important characteristic of puzzles is the challenge they provide.  Interaction and immersion can exist without puzzles, so why would anybody use puzzles, unless they also desired to provide a challenge?

Despite bad puzzles, a world can be a memorable experience due to the designer's storytelling ability.

A book can be a memorable experience because of the writer's storytelling ability, but that doesn't make it a good adventure game.  Adventures need more than just a good story to be great.

Even with good puzzles, no one will remember a banal world...

But is this is an impossible construction?  Good puzzles fit contextually into their gameworld, so if the puzzles are not banal, then the gameworld cannot be banal either.

...or a poor story

I disagree.  Simon the Sorceror has one of the most paper-thin stories I've ever come across, yet many people enjoyed it (including me), it spawned two sequels and is still talked about today.

But my point is this -- the puzzles should not be the focus. Players tend to remember a game holistically, so it's the story that matters.

I agree that puzzles shouldn't be the focus.  It's not a good idea to focus on one element of an adventure game over the others, if you're looking to give a complete experience.  But then that also includes focusing on the story.

It's true that players remember games where the story is good but the puzzles and interaction are poor.  However, I'm not just in this to create a buzz with players, I want to make the best adventure game I can - and that means giving equal focus to all the elements I include.

[remixor]

But is this is an impossible construction?  Good puzzles fit contextually into their gameworld, so if the puzzles are not banal, then the gameworld cannot be banal either.

I think this is a very dangerous statement, and not an accurate one.  It is very possible to create a beautiful and well-designed game world filled with crappy and poorly-designed puzzles.  By the same token, it would be fairly easy to have a game designer with an excellent understand of puzzle theory but no real imagination when it comes to envisioning a world.  As you say, puzzles are one part of an adventure.  They're certainly not the whole thing, and the design of the game world is separate from puzzle design.  Certainly they must interlock and coexist, but the same game world could be populated by puzzles of any varying degree of quality.

[big brother]

More elaboration --

Nellie:
I agree that immersion can exist without puzzles. But puzzles provide an exigence for interactivity. The player doesn't play a big role if the game's a graphic novel, and he just clicks to turn the page. Of course, that example is interactive, since the game requires input from the player. If that same graphic novel added puzzles, it would require a greater level of interactivity to play. Providing a challenge isn't really a focal point.

You say a memorable story doesn't necessarily make a "good" adventure game. In this case, you don't define "good," which is a subjective adjective anyways. When I said memorable, I was trying to re-define "good" in terms relevant to a game designer.
I want people to remember my games as an experience that transcends mere button-pushing (so I use "memorable" as my paragon of achievement).

On the surface, Simon the Sorceror's plot was simplistic and weak, and excuse for a modern boy to delve into a fantasy world. The world itself was the focus, with its unforgettable characters and good dialogue.
For instance, the turtle with his soup, the orcs gambling by the firelight, and the "Accountants and Apartments" parody were just a few of the highlights from the game.  

I don't think all elements involved in an adventure carry equal weight. Rightly or wrongly, most reviewers stress graphics more than music, and music more than sound effects. Not that these elements are unimportant or don't contribute to the gameplay, but a player preference definitely exists (and varies a little from person to person, I'm sure).