How hard is too hard for an adventure game puzzle?

[Redlands]

Hello. I'm in the rather early stages of developing an adventure game using the AGS engine with the primary focus on three things:

• Multiple solutions based on seven scores that increase depending on how you go about solving a puzzle; a rather weak inclusion of some rather basic RPG features. I did this because I get tired of playing adventure games once and not being able to play it again without having the same stuff happen..

• Having a narrative pretty much told through things you can experience from the game-world rather than through dialogue and cutscenes. This is because I want to make this game by myself, and I'm not that great at graphics.

• Challenging puzzles.

It's with this last point that I have a bit of a problem. My question is: when is a puzzle "too hard"?

I've made up some codes for the game: basically, one big one per "area" that you need to proceed using clues in any previous areas. However, I think I've made figuring them a bit too complicated and it could be possible that they are too hard. I mean, I don't think so, but I made them up. Each code also uses aspects of the previous codes, and it gets worse trying to explain everything so I'll stop now.

But the thing is, I don't want them to be too easy because that would defeat the purpose of trying to challenge people. Almost every adventure game out nowadays is fun, but not very mentally challenging - just click everything on everything else until you win.

So, where should the line be drawn? Should everything be able to be done in your head? Should you need a scrap of paper for some quick notes? A whole notebook? What?

Oh, and hello Codex.

 

[Section8]

As long as there's at least a vague objective, I don't mind having to take notes, scribble, work out codes and cyphers are even make mathematical calculations. The difficult thing I find with adventure games is if I reach a point where I'm just utterly stumped. However, that's usually my own fault. I fail to notice something obvious, or try to look too hard for a solution that's ultimately pretty simple.

Which isn't particularly helpful, I know. But in a nutshell, I like a puzzle where it's fairly obvious what has to be done to reach the solution, but it's difficult to actually get there. I think the 7th Guest/11th Hour were both pretty good in this respect.

 

[ghostdog]

As long as you give hints and the puzzles are logical, everything is ok. I welcome hard puzzles in an adventure, since when you manage to solve them you get a feeling of accomplishment. Variation would be nice though, hard puzzle after hard puzzle can lead to frustration.

Also, you should be careful to convincingly integrate the puzzles into the setting and the plot. The worst thing in an adventure game is having puzzles just for the sake of puzzles.

 

[Castanova]

Also, I think your puzzles should NOT reward trial-and-error. Potentially have some kind of very light hint mode which, if you mis-use an item for example, might comment very vaguely how it might be used correctly.

 

[Annonchinil]

I am not much of an adventure game player, in fact I only seriously played two, Syberia and the Longest Journey. I gave up in Syberia and am about 1/4th of the way through TLJ. There are puzzle trends in TLJ that I simply do not like, one is pixle hunting, having to wave my mouse across the scree or even worse fine-tooth-comb something is not my idea of fun. The second is random puzzles, although this seems to be in many adventure games that I saw I still do not like it. What I mean by that is that some puzzles have no releation to the story or the objective at hand and you are simply required to do them so that you can have item X for that next puzzle three hours down the road. The item that you get is also in no way related to the beggening of the puzzle. I can see how observing the environment can work in a game base on that but when it occurs in TLJ I find my self stumped.

 

[Tychus Findlay]

The rubberducky puzzle near the beginning of TLJ completely stumped me...had to read a walkthrough just for that. That was the only one in the whole game too.

Solutions in adventure games are so narrow-minded in focus sometimes. You can try other options that would make "real world" sense with respect to combining certain items or using objects on something else in the gameworld based on the other inherent real world properties of those objects, but gamewise, you're not meeting the exact criteria for the solution the game designer had in mind and so you can't progress in the game. The puzzles always make sense in hindsight after you solve them but not while you're trying to solve them. This is definitely frustrating.

Instead of designing from a solution first/break down into puzzle pieces next approach, it should be opposite from the player's perspective of getting each puzzle piece and thinking of the possible ways of how the player could combine them to reach the solution or what the player is thinking in terms of ways to solve the puzzle based off of the player's limited knowledge of the gameworld/gamerules.

I suppose you can try to resolve this by adding multiple solution paths to puzzles or adding some detection of repetitive meta-gamer activity to solve a puzzle which would trigger hints, etc.

 

[coaster]

On pixel hunting, I wish adventure games would have something like in BG/NWN where you can press TAB to highlight objects you can't pick up. Games which are just about "how thoroughly can I move my mouse across the screen so it turns into a pick-up icon" are idiotic. Personally I'd also like the game world to be filled with a lot more objects, all fairly easily found, but where only about 20% of them are actually used. A lot of adventures have zero, or just one or two, red herring items.

Obvious point, but try to make puzzles logical. Absolutely no cat hair moustaches, and please avoid random stupid item combinations (of course! I should have combined the jam with the string!).

Avoid the "key-newspaper-piece of wire" door opening puzzle. A little piece of me dies every time I see it. Latest culprit - Penumbra (otherwise a great game IMHO).

Most of the time I play adventures for the plot/atmosphere rather than the puzzle aspects, so will second the call for a light hint system. Even better, variable difficulty levels (with the actual difficulty of the puzzles changing) would be nice. I don't mind making the odd note (map references etc), but would personally prefer info to be stored in an electronic journal.

 

[Hory]

I think that a puzzle is "too hard" when the player has no understanding of what he accomplishes by solving the puzzle. For example, "cat hair moustache" might not be a far fetched thing to think of, as long as you understand that you need to disguise yourself as a man with a moustache. But it may be too difficult to think that: 1) you will be recognized if you try to do some sneak operation, 2) only with a disguise you can go through, 3) you MUST have a moustache in order to complete your disguise.

And this brings me to my second point: another thing you can do to avoid the player getting stuck with no idea how to solve a puzzle is to add multiple solutions to the more difficult puzzles. There could be, for example, 6 possible disguise components, while only 3 are needed for a successful disguise. The player shouldn't have to think "of all and strictly of all" that the designer has thought of. The player will appreciate the freedom of choice that he has, in determining his own way of getting around an obstacle. Can the designer think of all these potential solutions? I don't know, not many adventure games have this feature. Maybe a "solution-proposing committee" is needed.

A good hint system can improve the player experience, especially when naturally tied in to the story world. Take the new Sam & Max series for example. Max will occasionally make suggestions to you, but they're both in the style of the character and in the style of the game. Also, he's always following you around, so the hint system is always accessible. However, this is definitely not the case for all games, so an in-character hint system will be challenging to design... but worth it.

 

[mirrorshades]

The absolute worst puzzles (where "worse" == "most frustrating and make me hate the author a little") I've played are the ones where, upon reading a walkthrough, I've said to myself, "Damn, I *never* would have thought of that."

Of course, that's hard for a game designer to know ahead of time. Realizing, though, that not everybody already knows what you're thinking is a good start.

I've done some reading on puzzle design as pertains to authoring text adventure games; I think a lot of the concepts hold true, even if you're designing a graphical adventure. Here are some links that may be of interest:

IFWiki Puzzle Category: http://www.ifwiki.org/index.php/Categoryuzzles (different archetypes, and how to avoid common suckage)

Inform Designer's Manual: http://www.inform-fiction.org/manual/html/s50.html (chapter on puzzle design; there are some other good chapters in the book as well)

Some specifics, off the top of my head:
- if it's a "find the key" puzzle, make sure I can still get to where the key is by the time I get to the door OR make it clear that something monumental is about to happen and I'd better hope I've done everything I need to do before I push the button (check the end of Ultima 5 and the sandalwood box for a rough example)
- assume the player doesn't have any special knowledge -- I recall a puzzle where I was trapped inside a crystal sphere and had to make other crystals vibrate to establish a resonant frequency in order to shatter the sphere. The idea was okay, but it used all sorts of musical terminology (which octave, which harmonic of F-sharp, etc...) that it was way too elaborate for me, not being a musician.
- in contrast to a previous post, I think trial and error is okay as long as you can keep trying (so having "certain death" as an outcome for error is bad design); I always figure that a player should be able to sit down and play a game through from beginning to end without restarting or dying, assuming they're clever enough... so situations that end the game shouldn't be required to "teach" you the correct option (chessboard trap in Wasteland, I'm looking at *YOU*)
- don't rely too much on random numbers or player skill ("Okay, we'll let the dice decide") -- UNLESS -- you can provide a way around it as well (check Beyond Zork's card game for an example of this)
- not too much on the mini-games... we've all played Towers of Hanoi to death and we don't like it anymore
- be careful with riddles/wordplay; not everyone who plays your game may speak American (or whatever language is your native one); idioms and alternate uses of words can lead to needless frustration
- have a couple friends that will give you honest (brutal) feedback test the puzzles before releasing the game at large

 

[Hümmelgümpf]

There is this puzzle from The Legend of the Prophet and the Assassin that became a legend (pun not intended). It involved poisoning a barrel of water by greasing an icicle with some potion and then attaching it to a drain located above the barrel. Yes, you read that right.

 

[Andhaira]

Lol, kings quest was notorious for this. As were the gabriel knight games.

LOL the indiana jones adventure games 2.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I recall playing a game where, in order to cross a stream of lava flowing out a a rock, you had to block it. With what? Not the rocks, or anything logical, oh no. With a fucking tin bucket. Oh yeah. Real fucking lava proof material there. Just jammed right in the hole.

 

[mirrorshades]

There is this puzzle from The Legend of the Prophet and the Assassin that became a legend (pun not intended). It involved poisoning a barrel of water by greasing an icicle with some potion and then attaching it to a drain located above the barrel. Yes, you read that right.

That's an interesting example of a puzzle that has steps that are logical from beginning to end. The only illogical thing is to expect the player to even freaking think to do that in the first place, unless there are some extremely strong hints or context clues that something like that might even be appropriate.

Reminds me of another one in an old game... The Pawn, maybe, or Jinxter (one of the old Magnetic Scrolls titles). You had to get a quantity of water to a particular place, only there were no apparent sources of water (rivers, wells, etc). Solution had to do with climbing up to a snow-covered mountaintop, filling a bowl with snow, walking back down the mountain, and waiting for it to melt. Makes sense, but borderline "too hard" in my opinion. Sure, players probably understand basic science, but unless there is something else in the game that indicates which law of physics might help solve a puzzle, it may be more of a challenge than they appreciate.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

If the player isn't mentally raping their mind in a desperate attempt to solve your puzzle, then it's not hard enough. And when it is too hard, well, that's why Al Gore invented the internet. Walkthroughs - with each section divided so you don't get spoilers to everything in one go and can instead just get the answer (or even better, hints ranging from cryptic to outright obvious for when you're really mind-fucked) for the bit you need - are the saviour of the adventure gamer.

 

[Andhaira]

lol I remember in an old adventure game by mocroprose you play as a shapechanger.

That was fun. One of the few adventure games I enjoyed.

 

[mirrorshades]

lol I remember in an old adventure game by mocroprose you play as a shapechanger.

That was fun. One of the few adventure games I enjoyed.

Yes indeed.

Andhaira is a puzzle that is too hard.

Now look... you've gone and scared the OP away. Shame on you.

 

[Atrachasis]

Reminds me of another one in an old game... The Pawn, maybe, or Jinxter (one of the old Magnetic Scrolls titles). You had to get a quantity of water to a particular place, only there were no apparent sources of water (rivers, wells, etc). Solution had to do with climbing up to a snow-covered mountaintop, filling a bowl with snow, walking back down the mountain, and waiting for it to melt. Makes sense, but borderline "too hard" in my opinion. Sure, players probably understand basic science, but unless there is something else in the game that indicates which law of physics might help solve a puzzle, it may be more of a challenge than they appreciate.

The Pawn. Actually, I found melting the snow man with the White to be more of a leap. It's the kind of puzzle that you cannot approach with real-world common sense, nor is the solution hinted at in the game world's logic.

Another example of a puzzle that I found a bit silly, for the reasons that Tychus Findlay also alluded to: Is there really nothing else between Katmandu and Stonehenge that can be put to use as a makeshift lightning rod? Not the Groucho nose glasses, not the hair pin sign, not a torn-off piece from a wrought-iron fence that happens to stand nearby, no, it just has to be a flag pole, and it just has to be the one in Katmandu, because no other flag pole in this world will do. If the solution to a puzzle cannot be deduced from the game world's logic, please let at least real-world common sense apply (even if that common sense might have to be stretched to include general relativity).

 

[Redlands]

Thanks for all of your replies.

Section8:

I like a puzzle where it's fairly obvious what has to be done to reach the solution, but it's difficult to actually get there.

Do you mean that the goal is obvious, or how to get there from the clues is obvious?

ghostdog:
If by hints, you mean the player gets enough information to solve the puzzle, then I've planned for hints. If by hints, you mean "Smack the player over the head because it doesn't matter since they're already retarded.", then no. As long as the player is observant and thinking, they should figure things out.

The hardest puzzles, at least the way that I rate them, are for gaining access to new areas, so the player is suitably motivated to solve them (more game-world to explore etc.) and gets rewarded (with same).

The majority of the puzzles are integrated with the story. There are a few that seem to exist "just for the sake of puzzles", but there are a couple of reasons. One is due to the rather eccentric and rather geeky nature of the people who designed the structure where the game takes place.

Castanova:
There's at least one puzzle I can think of which could be argued as trial-and-error. However, I've tried to make sure that all puzzles have multiple approaches, or at least that certain parts of them have multiple approaches. I'm trying to avoid making objects which exist solely for the purpose of providing a solution to one puzzle, so that might not work correctly. But when I write up the final descriptions of the objects, it should be clear how they can be used.

As for a hint system: No. I prefer the "God helps those who help themselves" approach. This game is designed to be mentally challenging, rather than being atmospheric or funny or emotional or whatever: providing hints for players who are stuck just undercuts the whole challenge and undermines one of the reasons why I made the game in the first place. Unless you are talking about a hint as to "what to do next", which I can hopefully avoid because your objectives will be clear and any other puzzle will be either right in your face or alluded to somewhere in the game in a clear way.

Annonchinil:
Well, since I suck at graphics, the backgrounds in this game are all simple. Every object you see will be interactive or useful in some way, so clicking on things that are obvious won't be too much of a waste of time. However, there is at least one quite "pixel-hunting" puzzle, but the item in question is quite large so if you are observant you should be able to find it (it's a pixel-hunt for a different reason).

Tychus Findlay:
Am I the only one who found the rubber ducky puzzle reasonable? I had much more trouble with a later puzzle that requires positioning and rotating several things. I couldn't for the life of me figure out the logic, so I brute-force'd the puzzle into submission. Given the fact that I couldn't automate it, and there were (I think) about 497664 possible combinations, it took me a while.

The main problem with what you point out is that most designers make up puzzles with only one solution, whereas I'm trying to consider everything that the player might have access to in account before designing possible solutions. It'll take a long time; but fortunately most items probably aren't reasonably expected to be useful at certain times.

coaster:
Most of the puzzles have multiple paths to solutions, and you might be able to reuse some objects in multiple solutions so there might be some objects you don't use on a particular playthrough.

Most combinations should be reasonable, like plugging one electronic device into another. If for some reason I think a weird combination is so totally cool I decide to include it, there will be a clue somewhere. I've never played GK3, but when reading about the infamous cat moustache I thought the more bizarre thing about that puzzle was that the guy you were trying to disguise yourself as didn't even have a moustache!

All of the doors in the game have electronic locks requiring access cards or codes (particularly codes).

My game probably is more puzzle-oriented than plot-oriented, but I've tried to give the game-world some flavour, and to make sense of what's going on.

Variable difficulty levels: No. First, as I've said about the hint system, the game is supposed to be a mental challenge. Second, I'm already quite aware of how much time I'm going to have to spend working on making sure that several reasonable approaches to problems work as solutions (by programming them in), apart from all the other programming, art, sound effects, etc. that will all have to be done by me. Third, on some of these puzzles I've had to fiddle around with them for weeks until they worked on all of the levels that appealed to me: having to do that for several different difficulty levels will ensure that this game gets relegated to the vapourware pile.

Electronic journal: I was thinking of maybe using the fact that AGS games can be run in a window, and maybe having an .HTML or .PDF file with some of the information already inside it - in an obscure way. That way, people can print some pages out and work on puzzles at their leisure while away from the game. The problem with an in-game electronic journal is that you have to think of what information any player might want to keep, and how to present it in the AGS engine in a way that is readable. Some puzzles require too much notes to make that viable. But maybe giving pre-alphabetized tables that are printable or can be accessed while the game is running might make things easier.

Hory:
Any time I think a puzzle clue might be too unrelated, I've tried to give another clue which points that way. As I've said before, I always intended to have multiple solutions.

I have to argue about the Sam & Max hint system, since I don't see that the logic actually applies to my case. Sam & Max games don't seem to me to have a primary focus on giving challenging puzzles. They are great games, just not very challenging. Because they are episodic, and their makers want to earn money from them, they have to make sure people can enjoy and finish them (so that they will buy the next one). My game'll be for free, is not episodic, and has a primary goal of providing challenging puzzles. I also don't actually care if people enjoy the game or finish it - it'd be nice, but not necessary.

As another example, Myst IV had an online hint system. Now, it has challenging puzzles, but it is also for sale. I didn't like it, but I can understand why it is helpful (avoids having to quit the game to read a walkthrough on the 'net, for example), but they have to worry about their customers liking it - i.e. being able to finish it. I don't.

mirrorshades:
Thank you for the links.

I'm aware of the problem with assuming people have knowledge that you do. I was thinking about adding some of the information to the file I was talking about above regarding the "electronic journal". You find a book quite early (the second "room", to be exact) in the game, which has this information inside it. I was going to put it into AGS, but it's a lot of text, and for other reasons I thought it might be better to include as an external file. Including preliminaries on basic cryptography, for example, which might be useful. Also, have some flavor text so it's more like the bundled stuff included by Infocom back in the good old days of text adventures (it was Infocom I'm thinking of, wasn't it?)

As for your points:
- Until right at the end, you'll always be able to go back to any other place you've been, and you are only prevented if you deliberately choose to do something, and it is always reversible.
- Anything I can think of will be included in the external file.
- There might be some trial and error, but I haven't finalized all of the puzzles yet. You will be able to die/get stuck, but it won't happen unless you do something stupid or risky or otherwise I will have the game give you a warning like "Only three tries before system lockdown".
- There are some randomness and player skill, but there will always be another solution.
- More like Towers of Annoy, am I right?! There are a couple of minigames - a weird poker-machine, for one - but you don't have to play it as there is another path to the solution. Actually, a Towers of Hanoi where one of the spikes and some of the pieces are polarized so they either won't go on a spike or crush/block lower ones might make an interesting puzzle... but maybe for another day.
- I've included something of this, but there is a different clue you can get if you don't feel like doing a lame cryptic crossword. You have to be particularly observant though, and I might include a quick guide to anagrams and cryptic crosswords in the external file anyway.
- Friends? What a hilarious concept! I probably will inflict it on some other friendish people, but they might not want to be my friends afterwards so I'll have to be careful.

Now look... you've gone and scared the OP away. Shame on you.

It's less to do with Andhaira, and more to do with the fact that I live in the middle of a very hilly nowhere, and getting a decent internet connection requires about $5000 for a satellite installation.

Lestat:
I can understand that if you couldn't reach the barrel but could the icicle, but if you could reach both, then why? Why? WHY?

Andhaira:
What exactly do you mean? "this" is vague when there are a lot of earlier posts. Also, don't get my thread retardoed, please. I've been lurking around here enough to know about you.

DamnedRegistrations:
That reminds me of that time in Legend of Kyrandia where Brandon says "OH SHIT!" if you make him walk across the lava without cooling it.

DarkUnderlord:
Walkthroughs are for looking for easter eggs, dealing with "cat moustaches", boring games you just want to end, and ones with rude, uncooperative main characters CRUISE FOR A CORPSE YOU LOUSY MOTHERFUCKER!

Atrachasis:
The problem of having too much of the world available was one of the reasons why Shivers, a Sierra game apparently similar to 7th Guest, was set in a museum.

PS: I've started work on the booklet I'm including in the game. If you want to include a lot of additional text in a game, this is the way to go, particularly if there are associated pictures.

PPS: This may be the first game which comes with its own exam. 26 questions. None are too trivial. I'm not kidding.

 

[Section8]

Section8: Do you mean that the goal is obvious, or how to get there from the clues is obvious?

Guh, I didn't realise how poorly I'd worded that. Yes, what I meant was the goal should be obvious, but the steps to reaching the goal should be difficult. I don't like to be in a situation where I'm kind of floundering, not knowing where to go, what to do, and randomly trying combinations of objects.

 

[mirrorshades]

Is there really nothing else between Katmandu and Stonehenge that can be put to use as a makeshift lightning rod? Not the Groucho nose glasses, not the hair pin sign, not a torn-off piece from a wrought-iron fence that happens to stand nearby, no, it just has to be a flag pole, and it just has to be the one in Katmandu, because no other flag pole in this world will do. If the solution to a puzzle cannot be deduced from the game world's logic, please let at least real-world common sense apply (even if that common sense might have to be stretched to include general relativity).

Now come on... that whole game was just silly. Making a lightning rod out of a flagpole was one of the more *normal* things you could do.

Though you bring up an interesting point. If you establish a context of absurdity, then puzzles that might seem otherwise unfair in a "normal" game may fit right in. In Gabriel Knight, if I would have had to fill out a fan club card with a yellow crayon, fly to the Bermuda Triangle, and meet and impress an alien who thinks he's Elvis in order to get the next day's winning lottery numbers... it wouldn't have made sense at all. But I had no trouble believing it in Zak.

 

[Redlands]

I don't like to be in a situation where I'm kind of floundering, not knowing where to go, what to do, and randomly trying combinations of objects.

Well, I've noted down or have planned a few things to ensure once all the puzzles are finalized that should avoid this kind of thing, either by design or by accident.

The first is to give the player the game's overall mission from the beginning in terms of what they have to get the controlling character to do. So the player will hopefully remember "Does this help me complete my mission?" The core storyline, as it were, is very simple, with most of the "meat" coming from things you read/see/so on.

The second is that the game world is quite small, and you open up the "next level" of the gameworld by solving a puzzle that will be quite obvious.

The third is that the vast majority of the puzzles have solutions based in the "real world". There are a few more abstract puzzles (which tend to be harder) but hopefully I'll include enough clues so that reasonably clever people can solve them.

As an extra point of consideration (since surprisingly enough there hasn't been a thread on the subject yet, or at least recently). Death: should adventure games have it?

After Sierra started bumping you off for seemingly random things, death in adventure games seemed to peter out. However, we now have the absurd situation where adventure games seem to not put their characters into situations with any real harm at all. In TLJ, for instance, April gets threatened TWICE, but at no point is she actually at risk. In Syberia, the same thing happens. The same thing with Sam & Max, although that kind of gets a pass. You can "die" in Fahrenheit, but people don't think that it's a pure "adventure game" (and "dying" is a bit weird in regards to that game anyway). Most of the AGS games I've played don't have the character dying, unless it's prescripted to serve the plot.

But I really don't see how eliminating risk helps at all. What you're left with is an interactive storybook. Killing characters for trying stupid things also probably makes it clear "DO NOT TOUCH" rather than being ambiguous by saying "It's too dangerous" (you could make it less dangerous) or "I'm not going to do that, because I'm a rude Frenchman who deserves to be tossed overboard."

It also adds to the excitement, and might make a stronger player-character emotional connection because you actually have to care for their well-being to advance through the game.

 

[Mnemon]

The problem with puzzle difficulty is that people are different and will struggle with different problems. What might seem easy and logic for you isn't necessarily for your audience. Or the other way round. I think the golden rule with any adventure game is to provide a way out for those puzzles (which can be any) that just don't work for that particular individualr, while, at the same time, not providing a too simple way to cheat yourself of experiencing the game (as - sadly - is the case with many internet walkthroughs/forum discussions).

If the player isn't mentally raping their mind in a desperate attempt to solve your puzzle, then it's not hard enough. And when it is too hard, well, that's why Al Gore invented the internet. Walkthroughs - with each section divided so you don't get spoilers to everything in one go and can instead just get the answer (or even better, hints ranging from cryptic to outright obvious for when you're really mind-fucked) for the bit you need - are the saviour of the adventure gamer.

Or - much better - do what Under a Killing Moon, The Pandora Directive and Tex Murphy: Overseer did - offer an in-game tip system that you can buy clues from (you earned points for solving puzzles/advancing). If you want to go a step further then these, don't just make it a simple tip system, but a character to talk to.

[Loads of ways to tie that into your game. None easy, but so much more worthwhile and adding depth to it. Have a matrix like setting? Allow the character to use a phonebooth and call that unknown/mysterious, whatever, person that helps you along. Mystery setting - have your character have visions when using some substance (yay for drug abuse in games :p)/casting a spell/using a power. Etc. Etc.]

None of the tips in these games told you what to do exactly - but gave clues as to where to look, and - if you thought about what was said a little - what to look for. Best thing you could do is to try to get hold of any of the three (and they are, even if a bit cheesy, among the better Interactive Movies). Just to see what the tip system "felt" like, and how it worked. I cherished the system and think it is one of the best innovations in the genre, really. And yes, I still think you should consider it, even after reading your "no" above.

(This another of those series that died when one company ate another, btw. . )

[Edit: Your character wasn't immortal in any of the three games mentioned, and - as far as I remember (been a while) - it usually was quite clear when you entered those parts/zones of the game that could mean "game over".]

-Mnemon

 

[Redlands]

I probably should address the "hint system" idea again, since it seems to be a popular idea.

There are two ways to help the player - clues (which are in the game world) and hints (which might be integrated, but they're kind of outside the game world). As an analogy: in a detective game you might find a fingerprint (a clue); but you might also get told, either directly or indirectly, to dust for fingerprints (a hint). I know it gets a bit confusing because the usual definitions are similar, but for convenience's sake I'll stick to my way to describe them.

Clues are I think essential for solving a puzzle - crosswords give clues, otherwise they're impossible to solve. I'm all for clues, and occasionally I have to go over a puzzle I made up earlier to make sure that the clues aren't too obscure, or at least give simpler clues to these clues.

Hints, on the other hand, I'm not happy with, for a number of reasons.

One, I think they're a cop-out for lazy puzzle designers not to include clues into a game - it's like a crossword puzzle which could be one of several words and you can't figure out which one because there aren't enough 'crossing' letters or the clue isn't specific enough.

Two, even if it's integrated into the game world, I've found that in-game hint systems remind me of the "gameness". While I was playing the last Season 1 Sam & Max game, I was talking to Max (because I was stuck and wanted to see if I'd missed something) when suddenly he's giving me a hint. Which seems stupid - if he knows what to do, why doesn't he do it? But, oh that's right, I'm controlling Sam and I'm playing a game. I think it's a mark of a good game that you kind of forget you're actually playing a game and focus more on doing appropriate in-game actions. Another example is the owl in Simon the Sorceror; although that game seems to break the fourth wall as often as an episode of Boston Legal. Now, both games have a certain comical vibe about them, where taking the player out isn't too bad a problem. However, it doesn't work with more serious gameworlds, in which mine probably falls into.

Three, which again is associated with gameworlds, and is in response to Mnemon, and is due to the fact I've wanted to avoid talking too much about what happens in the game because it's not finalized, and I don't want to promise "enslaving nations with necromancy" only to change it later into "Oblivion with guns"! But it's safe to say that the character you control isn't in a position to get help, since he's behind enemy lines, as it were, and because of what happened before the game begins he doesn't have a way to call home. Also, there are no other characters, hostile or otherwise, in the gameworld - and it just seems stupid to have the player's character giving hints in the context.

Four, no matter how detailed a hint system you create, there are still people who are going to be stuck, so where do you draw the line? For example, one of the hints I got in the Sam & Max about how to get into the main baddie's chamber had me trying to do something that wouldn't work until after I had opened the door; another example - in Simon I got the clue that there was a ring in the river, but because of pixel hunting I couldn't figure out how to get down to where that river was, and I spent a fairly long time trying to fish for one by the troll's bridge. When you write in a hint, you have to be careful not to ruin the puzzle, but make it understandable enough to actually be of help. The problem is: wouldn't it be better for me to spend my time adding a different solution to a puzzle rather than propping one a player might never think of?

Five, if I do give hints, which way to the answer to I choose to hint at, when there are a number of ways? Do I randomize them? Do I give hints for the lower-scoring paths? The paths I spent most of my time on, so that others can bask in the faint bulb of my intelligence? And, if I do any or all of these, it's going to be more time spent not doing what I should have done (given sufficient clues to the puzzle) or wasting it on coddling people that can fuck off for all I care.

Six, I don't want to encourage any more mental laziness than there already exist in the world. Offering hints is a tacit signal to players to use those hints, even if they aren't stuck, because it's much easier to just rip through a game using a walkthrough than to actually have to use your brain. Sure, if the game is buggy or unpleasant, but I hope I don't make that kind of a game.

Seven, and not to channel the 'inner marketing rep' within me, but it doesn't seem to me to suit my target demographic. It might be just faulty memories on my part, but the old parser-based text adventures seemed a lot harder. Even factoring into account difficulties of guessing correct command, there were a lot more interesting puzzles that I think disappeared as the interaction between player and computer decreased in complexity. I want the game to challenge clever people; I don't know that it will, but that's the plan. I've noticed that, outside of the Myst games and a few really annoying puzzles, I can just click (figuratively speaking, perhaps) my way through every adventure game that I've played in the last few years: TLJ, Grim Fandango, Syberia, some other AGS games, Sam & Max...

Eight, and finally, I don't necessarily think that a player should be able to finish a game, particularly if it's provided to them for free (which is what I'm intending). It should be an accomplishment to finish a game. I've only really felt that twice for adventure games: Riven and Myst 3. I guess the Myst series is quite a big influence on how I think about adventure games.

Would it help if I gave the introduction and a very vague plot outline for what the game entails? Or perhaps it would be better to ask the question "How much mental effort and diligence are you willing to exert on an adventure game puzzle?"

Also, I'm sorry if I repeated myself. And I meant to post this about a week ago, it was all written up and everything, but every time I went online it wasn't on the computer I was using, and there's no way in hell I'm typing it all up again.

 

[Thydron]

If you haven't already, I'd suggest looking at some flash "escape the room" games - a lot of them have good ideas.
The Submachine (not submarine) series is a good example, and strikes a decent balance between difficulty and accessibility, perhaps erring on the side of being too easy.

 

[Redlands]

If you haven't already, I'd suggest looking at some flash "escape the room" games - a lot of them have good ideas.
The Submachine (not submarine) series is a good example, and strikes a decent balance between difficulty and accessibility, perhaps erring on the side of being too easy.

I downloaded them, and they're pretty good - although as you say the puzzles are quite simple. They're also quite short, apart from the 2nd one, which I had almost finished last night. But apparently no saved games which is a bit annoying after getting so far into the game. I haven't played the 4th one or the FLF one yet. But I think it would be hard to top the 3rd one in terms of style, interaction simplicity, and humorous death messages at the end.

The earlier versions of the game I'm working on was going to be more similar to these games than it is at the moment, after I completely changed the storyline.

Is it possible to create save games using Flash, if you're the programmer?