It's worth mentioning that the laundry ticket was just the first example I plucked out of my head, and it was more about closing the door to find it than the actual act of looking for it. I'm not saying it's the best example - there are plenty of other good examples though. Picking apart the one I gave is rather missing the point.
I still stand by the assertion that ensuring puzzles are LOGICAL (even if that's a twisted cartoon logic) is essential, and that avoiding puzzles which are read-the-developer's-mind types or pixel-hunting extravaganzas can only be a good thing. Succeeding at that sort of puzzle is nothing to do with cleverness, merely persistence. As far as I know I played adventure games to test my wits, not my patience.
So far what I've seen in TMI consists of good start-of-game puzzling.
So with all this talk about tone, I just wanted to mention that SoMI SE was released yesterday on Steam, and IMO it absolutely *nails* the tone thing, maybe moreso than the original did.
And you'll be glad to know that they didn't sissify any of the pirates; all of the pirates that were a little scary in the original, are still scary in this one (maybe moreso, especially in the case of LeChuck). Although they did make the characters look a bit more cartoonish, the backgrounds are more painterly than ever.
In any case the secrets of MI is out...and its time to play it oldschool...you know back in the days when the makers didnt give a monkeyball about you being able to solve the puzzle or not! aah yes, the good ol glorious days of thinking for yourself instead of having it spelled out for you!
I agree with this. In the old days it was like the developers were out to challenge you. Now it's like they want to coddle you and make sure nobody ever feels in any way uncomfortable with the game and have it affect bottom line. Catering to the lowest common denominator rarely translates to quality for me.
The irony is that adventure games were actually popular back then, and are still considered to be the best. A few developers still seem to get it, thankfully. Telltale seems to be on the fence a bit.
I agree with this. In the old days it was like the developers were out to challenge you. Now it's like they want to coddle you and make sure nobody ever feels in any way uncomfortable with the game and have it affect bottom line. Catering to the lowest common denominator rarely translates to quality for me.
The irony is that adventure games were actually popular back then, and are still considered to be the best. A few developers still seem to get it, thankfully. Telltale seems to be on the fence a bit.
Just because those adventure games were great, and very popular (and believe me, I love them) doesn't mean that everything about them is great and should be imitated. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that.
Really, what do you mean by 'challenge'? That would be my first question. There were some good puzzles in those days, but the ones percieved as the most difficult were almost never the best - they were always the ones that have cheap pixel-hunting or frustrating leaps of so-called logic.
What most people think of when they talk about good puzzles, even in those old games, tend to fall into one of maybe two categories:
1) The ones that are solved in a sudden 'eureka!' moment (such as picking up the idol underwater in MI1).
2) The ones where a satisfying solution is reached through a very clear line of reasoning (such as the jailbreak with the mugs of grog in MI1 again).
So what I mean by 2) is you've maybe worked out you need to break Otis out, and you can't use the file, but you know Grog eats through stuff. But if you try to carry grog to the jail, it eats throught the mug before you get there. So, you now know you need some way of making it last longer - you don't have anything stronger than the mugs to hold it, but you do have access to LOTS of mugs, so it's just nice intuitive leap to realise that you have to pass them from one to the other to get them to the jail.
At no point in the process do you have to do anything that you couldn't be expected to think of, and the process of figuring out what to do comes in a number of layers, each one teaching you a little more about the parameters of the puzzle.
So anyway...
I would argue that Chapter 1 has both these kinds of puzzles in it: Type 1), for example, when deciphering the first map and type 2) when capturing the Screaming Narwhal or in the bit with the chair.
Perhaps they have not reached the level of cleverness of the very best puzzles in those old games, but some of them are GETTING there (particularly those examples) and we're only 1 chapter in.
I just spent about half an hour thinking about that and typed a somewhat useless, but long and detalied answer and my connection fucked up and everything is lost.
I'll just go hang myself now :mad:
Okay, since i couldn't find any rope, i figured i might as well try again, this time typing all this crap in the notepad first.
So where did i even begin...
The thing i don't quite like about the puzzles discussions is that both sides have their point. As sladerlmc77 said, it seems to depend on how one's brains work, and it usually ends up in "people who get their kicks out of scratching their heads versus people enjoying good story and writing". I think what actually matters is balance.
I don't think adventure games are ABOUT puzzles. It's been said, but if you get rid of those in a good adventure game, you basically end with a good movie. But it's interesting to look at how both medias work and what the puzzles actually bring to the whole thing.
People are gonna tell me "well, challenge, it's a GAME, you've got to DO something". Well yeah, obviously, but i think there's a bit more.
Take this scene from the first Star Wars, in which Luke grabs Leia and jumps Tarzan style over the death star's uh... "big big hole", for lack of a better word
What makes this scene work ? I dunno exactly, i haven't tried and analysed every bit of it, but it's a mix of the acting, the music, the camera angles, the timing, the tension that's been built up from the previous chase and which is released when they escape at the last second... Basically, what we call the film direction.
All this direction stuff is hard to do in a game, and not really interesting, because it leaves the player out. What you need to do is to INVOLVE the player, not only by making him DO something, but having him get into the character's head. Indentifying with him.
In an arcade or action game, they might do this by having you aim at some tricky spot on the ceiling while avoiding laser fire or negociate the jump... somehow performing the action.
In an adventure game they'll do that with puzzles. You get there and think "ok, i'm in deep poo, what do i do ?" Tension.
Now of course just clicking somewhere on the screen and gettin away would be a big anti-climax. They got you into luke's head, now you've gotta figure out something. Maybe you could combine your belt with the magnet you found on Darth Vader's fridge earlier to create the cable which you'll use afterward on the ceiling. This wouldn't be quite hard, but the basic goal would be reached : YOU got out of trouble and you get rewarded with a cool cutscene before getting on to the next scene.
Release.
Basically, that's what i guess people mean when they say "puzzles are here to advance the story", but i think it's mostly this identification thing that really matters. YOU've got to BE the hero. And heroes don't wander around the place tweaking stuff, they get the job done.
Which is why the puzzles must make SENSE depending on the situation and have a PURPOSE.
Note that all this isn't about the actual difficulty of them. Obviously if no thought at all is involved, it misses the point. No tension is created. And the most climatic scenes should be harder to figure out (recent bad exemple : the final one in TMI. You had this weird U Tube thingie since almost the begining, and finally could use it. It was so obvious than it felt like no challenge at all, and failed to set up any real tension). But overall, the design and the way the puzzle works within the story/situation is still more important, no matter how easy or hard the actual task is.
Ideally, it should never feel forced or artificial. You know, make sense. Locked or guarded doors have their uses, but it gets old (story wise and gameplay wise) after a while. Sam and Max season one suffered a bit from too much of those (off the top of my head, i'm thinking about myra's studio door in ep2, the guard in the casino in ep 3, and then superball in ep 4). Now they were well done and clever, and due to the episodic format, the wait between episodes didn't make em too boring, but this would have been terrible in a full lenght game. I thought TMI's "get past the door" puzzle was well done as well, because it was handled differently : in order to get past it, you didn't have to open it, but fool De Singe into believing you had done it. The actual task wasn't the one expected, but it still made sense : well designed puzzle. Too easy ? maybe, I dunno, but in the end it's still satisfying. Another way to handle this type of puzzle could be, for instance : You open the door and guybrush (or whoever) goes "oh, crap, i broke the handle". Bam, you've got to figure out another way to get in, maybe by fixing the handle or gettin through the hard to reach window. The rest of the puzzle could be great or terrible : it all depends on how it fits.
Which kinda brings the matter of frustration. If handled correctly, it can add to the experience, but once again, it should never feel forced or "just there to make it (even) more difficult. Remember the gull stealing your map piece in MI2 ? The actual cutscene was great. It made you yell and curse the damn bird, but it also brought the feeling that the whole world was against you, and in that way, definetly helped in the overall story and feel. But at the same time, it brought you to another long and not soo logical puzzle. Even though the first part triggered one of the coolest cutscenes of the game, it was basically divided in THREE parts : Find the row (don't remember how) and figure out you could "build a staircase", fix the damn row (another frustrating thing : you thought you had done the required job but no), and then "use dog on pile of papers" (another FTW?? puzzle). That's not so good. Not because of the difficulty, but it's long, not so useful and overall feels forced. The reward (release) is pushed for too long and in the end don't really makes up for the amount of tension that's been built up. The whole chase for this piece of map ended up feeling like the developpers were playing with your nerves, not with your brains.
(that being said, i'm sure one could think of much worse exemples like this one in gabriel knight about the fake mustache (haven't played it), but still).
On the other hand, remember the one in CMI, with the balloon when stuck in the swamp. When you figured that one out, they made you THINK you had screwed it all up by having the balloon go too far and then come back. I think that was brillant. They played on the whole frustration thing to poke fun at you without becoming sadistic.
The twisted logic involved also can bring a lot to the overall game feel too, of course, and i don't mind so much if it increases the difficulty along the way. In the old sam and max, having to use max on the electrical thingie to stop the ride was a FTW?? moment when you figured it out, but it made perfect sense in the character's mind. On the other hand, i'm sure some of the other game's puzzles weren't so well fitted (but, as i haven't played it for quite a long time now, i can't really remember any exemple).
SO, i think what i'm trying to get at is that more than gameplay elements, the puzzles should be actual plot devices. They're basically the wheels that make the whole thing roll. I'd rather solve an easy puzzle that makes sense and managed to get a bit of the tension/release thing going than scratch my head to get past a meaningless wall. Which doesn't really answer the question of difficulty ITSELF, but is (i think) the criteria upon which a good puzzle should be judged.
So yeah. Balance.
All of this is rather general, but when you add to this the episodic format, which IS retricitve in itself, it obviously makes it harder to create "hard" puzzles. But it can be done. As has been said, Telltale did increase the difficulty along the course of sam and max and there's not doubt they will with TMI as well. But as far as the designing goes, sure, not everything is perfect, but i think they are definitely on the good tracks.
Wow, all this crap made me hungry.
I'll go get a sandwich now. Hope nobody put a lock on my fridge.
Really, what do you mean by 'challenge'? That would be my first question. There were some good puzzles in those days, but the ones percieved as the most difficult were almost never the best - they were always the ones that have cheap pixel-hunting or frustrating leaps of so-called logic.
Sierra games were always in for a good challenge, but then they may have had that hint-line up and running for a reason. It's business, you know.
I don't think anyone argues against being challenged in here. The key to your typical adventure game puzzle or problem is that is musn't be overly obscure to be challenging. Adventure puzzling is like a non-verbal dialogue between you and the game's designer. He can tease you in any way he wants, and has you guessing. If Telltale are able to get this right with their hint system, which basically allows a designer to tease and lure the player into this one direction that's the right one in more than one or two ways, I think they'll hit onto the holy grail of universal appeal™.
If something like that ever exists beyond The Sims, Oprah Winfrey and French Fries, that is.
Still a good discussion, probably the best on the board.
Let's discuss one other aspect of the game that is being talked about in a few other threads, but extremely poorly.
The dialogue. This game follows the lead of Sam and Max in that the dialogue option you select is usually not what is said by Guybrush. What do we think about this?
The dialogue. This game follows the lead of Sam and Max in that the dialogue option you select is usually not what is said by Guybrush. What do we think about this?
I think the issue has been blown a bit out of proportion. Still, it was taken too far in Episode 1 to the point that, especially in the conversation with Nipperkin, it went too long and ended up being annoying. I don't need Guybrush to say what I selected word-for-word, but I'd like the spirit of my choice to shine through. Generally I feel like this happens, but Screaming Narwhal had a couple of rough spots.
I think the issue has been blown a bit out of proportion. Still, it was taken too far in Episode 1 to the point that, especially in the conversation with Nipperkin, it went too long and ended up being annoying. I don't need Guybrush to say what I selected word-for-word, but I'd like the spirit of my choice to shine through. Generally I feel like this happens, but Screaming Narwhal had a couple of rough spots.
That about sums it up really. That first conversation there makes it really stand out but after that it's not so bad. But still could use a little tweaking
I think this is an example of "lets re-use some old jokes to try and get some cheap and easy laughs."
Guybrush not using the dialogue you selected (usually due to some good reason) =funny ONCE.
The problem is, it's already been funny...in multiple games. You may be able to pull it out right out the chute in this one, but it's sort of a bad idea...you've already blown the joke.
Another example is the "Club 41" puzzle. It's a re-hash of the theft of the Idol of Many Hands. (IE - dont' show what's actually happening...just let the user hear and infer, and instant laughs ensure.)
The problem with using BOTH of these jokes, particularly in the first episode, is that you have to EARN those jokes. When used in prior games, you were well into the story, and the game was making light of the fact that you're going through ridiculous tasks that have no basis in reality.
By essentially retelling jokes that we've already heard, it almost makes you feel as though the writers are desperate to find their own voice.
While I doubt if they're desperate, the first episode DOES probably carry a lot of water in setting things up, and that's got to make anybody nervous. My hope is that as the season wears on, they'll hit their own stride
and move on from the gags we've already seen.
With the dialogue thing too, it is a little bit different from Sam and Max (at least from season one, which is all I've played, apart from hit the road). Sam's dialogue options are very minimalistic and basic, nearly all the time, and Sam just about always extends on them when he talks, but the same meaning is usually conveyed.
With Tales, you have full proper dialogue options - the kind of thing you would expect Guybrush to actually say - and he doesn't. Like others have said, this is funny on occaison, as used in previous Monkey Islands, but it's just frustrating after a while... unlike in Sam and Max where you still had some control over what was said.
I think this is an example of "lets re-use some old jokes to try and get some cheap and easy laughs."
Guybrush not using the dialogue you selected (usually due to some good reason) =funny ONCE.
The problem is, it's already been funny...in multiple games. You may be able to pull it out right out the chute in this one, but it's sort of a bad idea...you've already blown the joke.
Another example is the "Club 41" puzzle. It's a re-hash of the theft of the Idol of Many Hands. (IE - dont' show what's actually happening...just let the user hear and infer, and instant laughs ensure.)
The problem with using BOTH of these jokes, particularly in the first episode, is that you have to EARN those jokes. When used in prior games, you were well into the story, and the game was making light of the fact that you're going through ridiculous tasks that have no basis in reality.
By essentially retelling jokes that we've already heard, it almost makes you feel as though the writers are desperate to find their own voice.
While I doubt if they're desperate, the first episode DOES probably carry a lot of water in setting things up, and that's got to make anybody nervous. My hope is that as the season wears on, they'll hit their own stride
and move on from the gags we've already seen.
Lorn
I had forgotten all about the idol of many hands. You're right it is a direct rip off, but a poor one at that! From what I remember, the idol scene involved Guybrush using a plethora of verbs with hilarious random nouns in the room and it had me in stitches. Guybrush getting thrown out of a bar for stumbling around is not so funny.
You're right, the "Guybrush doesn't say whats on the screen" joke has been done before, and it really isn't funny anymore. It could be funny again in a "high tension" environment as we've been discussing, but barring that, it needs to be laid to rest. We've got Domenic on board, so let's hear Guybrush start SAYING some of these ridiculous things.
Part of what made Guybrush so charming is that he's out of his depth. HE is a wannabe, everybody else is a real pirate. If EVERYBODY has the same schtick, Guybrush loses some of his charm.
Nonsense. Guybrush is a real pirate. He lies, he steals, he causes property damage, he's a good swordfighter and he smells bad. If that's not piratey, I don't know what is.
I don't know why the Gabriel Knight III mustache puzzle is so universally hated. I really enjoy that kind of puzzle. I hate obvious solutions (aka use the key in the door), I like wacky solutions that still make some kind of sense. Again, I like the MacGuyver aspect of good adventure games, I feel like the value placed on relishing that MacGuyver kind of challenge and cleverness has been lost, when that used to be a central point to adventures.
TMI doesn't totally miss the mark at all. But it just doesn't provide enough ways to stump you. There are very few options BUT the right option in many cases, it doesn't feel like you're just picking up natural items in the world that you may or may not need. It feels like those items have a big red pointer on them and each one is clearly designed to solve a puzzle, and when that puzzle comes along it's obvious. there should be more roadblocks and surprise logic set up. I don't like being not surprised by the in-game logic used to solve a puzzle.
I don't know why the Gabriel Knight III mustache puzzle is so universally hated. I really enjoy that kind of puzzle. I hate obvious solutions (aka use the key in the door), I like wacky solutions that still make some kind of sense. Again, I like the MacGuyver aspect of good adventure games, I feel like the value placed on relishing that MacGuyver kind of challenge and cleverness has been lost, when that used to be a central point to adventures.
I think it's the 'still make some kind of sense' bit that people are hung up on. In an extremely cartoony game you could MAYBE stretch the imagination enough to think some syrup and a bunch of animal hair might pass for a moustache, but GK3 is not cartoony in the least, so why on earth would something like that work?
I feel like the value placed on relishing that MacGuyver kind of challenge and cleverness has been lost, when that used to be a central point to adventures.
Totally depends on the game doesn't it? There's not just been the Goblins games that are full ot this, but also something like Nancy Drew or EA's Sherlock Holmes titles that demanded you to hone some of your sleughting skills. And so so. And so on. After all, "adventure game" is just a category humans made up to wrap their heads around games that appear to share some similar traits - though one is inclined to ask where the similar traits of Bad Mojo, Grim Fandango or Myst are. I cannot think of games that are any more different, and yet people don't make a fuss about it, heh!
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you - on a larger scale this has become a more straight forward affair on average, probably. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple more complex tasks are demanded from you in later episodes though. In terms of overall design though, I'd say this is really onpar with almost anything classic LucasArts. Full Throttle has been a much, much more straight forward experience - for the better of it in this case, by the way. I'm not necessarily talking about length, mind. But the pace that is high throughout since there's no artificial road blocking going on a la: This door be locked by ancient slider/logarithm/sound puzzle. Whenever there's a door Ben just gets to kick the fucker down. It's almost an afront against your archetypical adventure game design.
*heh* Taking off from that front, one thing that Raymond Chandler (I think?) used to say, was that if your plot starts lagging and the audience starts losing interest, have somebody kick the door in and start trashing the place.
Sometimes, a game needs a kick in the tail like that...something unexpected that shakes the players world up.
Sometimes it's a twist, but that's usually reserved for the climax, and I suspect we'll be GETTING a twist at the end of this series.
I do think there's a point to be made that tougher puzzles are necessary to really feel like "Monkey Island." I do think that Telltale may have taken casual just a bit *too* far, and I'd like to see some good brain-bendy puzzles going forward.
That said, I expect they're going to be there. I'm just curious to see what degree they go to to bring them in.
ah well, i'll never agree. i like that puzzle and it made sense to this adventure game fan. i've played the sierra games since King's Quest I, and to me that puzzle is just great. and GKIII is easily in my top 3 adventure games of all time. it's a damn shame that people can't get over that one puzzle, because that game is so friggin brilliant all the way through. it's the pinnacle of the genre imo. i think it'd be awesome if someone updated the graphics files.
I think it's the 'still make some kind of sense' bit that people are hung up on. In an extremely cartoony game you could MAYBE stretch the imagination enough to think some syrup and a bunch of animal hair might pass for a moustache, but GK3 is not cartoony in the least, so why on earth would something like that work?
all of the GK games are quite difficult, especially 1 and 3. and i wouldn't call a game where zombies, werewolves and vampires are real exactly a work of non fiction. there's a ton of humor and classic sierra adventuring in them, especially during the exposition which that part was in. syrup is an obvious adhesive substitute in an adventure game. most people who have owned a cat know about disciplining them with spray bottles, getting them down from the counter or whatever. that part was obvious to me. the game helped you along the way and gave you little hints to understand the logic of what you were doing. it wasn't a total stab in the dark. you could get the cat down, interact with the hole. you knew you had to do something with that. taking cues, trying a little trial and error, and it's not that hard. and it makes sense in game logic.
it was fine. at the end of those kinds of puzzles i think "wow that was a really creative solution." i don't think "F*CK THAT!! THAT'S NOT HARDCORE REALISM! THAT MADE MY BRAIN HURT WAHWAHWAHWAH!!" If a puzzle is just too damn frustrating I'll go to a walkthrough. I'd much prefer a game with a few of those walkthrough moments than a game where I just click through a story and never have to think very hard about what to do next. sierra was one of the adventure game developers for a reason, they made extremely challenging games but with great stories and that was part of the game. that's another thing, for all the complaining about that GK3 puzzle, that game has probably the best and deepest story of any AG ever. so I think people put up a huge false choice when they pit puzzles against story. there's no reason for them to be separate.
the old King's Quests are ridiculous for their challenge but people don't rail against them. I mean, typing Rumpelstiltsken backwards in a backwards alphabet? it's one thing if there's literally insufficient information or ability to figure out something, but it's another when a player just doesn't like the solution b/c they want an easier game.
i like that puzzle and it made sense to this adventure game fan.
Of course it makes "sense", as it's playing by every cheap adventure game trick in the book. I had it solved real quickly myself, after all, I'm the kind of person that was taught how to get your pet hamster to retrieve your wallet from under the couch from an early age too! It's just hard keeping a straight face remembering this. There you are on a mission to investigate a childs kidnapping, spooky vampires involved and all. There is life at risk, the air smells of blood, mystery and Eau de Mosley. You expect Bela Lugosi, Klaus Kinski and the gang to hit the shit any minute now - and the game asks you to perform a stunt like.. THIS.
It may be a bit unfair to single this one out of the bunch, but Gabriel Knight 3 is a popular game from a popular series. And therefore the cat-syrup-conundrum remains an often cited howler for good reason. Hey, I like Gabe myself, YOU brought this puzzle all up again. I find it a little hard to believe that anyone would advocate something like this rather than the actual cerebral bits of the game. I mean, something that's thought-provoking, quite clever and meaningful has got to be somewhere in this one too! Parts of Le SerpentRouge come to mind, but it's been a long time.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's the best puzzle in the game or anything. I'm just saying I think it's a cheap hindsight shot for people to take, and it's really not that bad. And it's unfair to the game, as that game should be recommended to everyone, and yet all the focus is on that one puzzle which counts for only a couple minutes of an epic. An epic with some of the best puzzles ever, too, like Le Serpent Rouge.
It's one of those things I never even thought to become outraged about until I read people years later start bashing it. It's definitely not the most captivating part of the game, for sure. Like I said, it's part of the exposition which in Gabriel Knight games often includes more light-hearted adventure fare before it gets too serious. I like that style.
all of the GK games are quite difficult, especially 1 and 3. and i wouldn't call a game where zombies, werewolves and vampires are real exactly a work of non fiction. there's a ton of humor and classic sierra adventuring in them, especially during the exposition which that part was in. syrup is an obvious adhesive substitute in an adventure game. most people who have owned a cat know about disciplining them with spray bottles, getting them down from the counter or whatever. that part was obvious to me. the game helped you along the way and gave you little hints to understand the logic of what you were doing. it wasn't a total stab in the dark. you could get the cat down, interact with the hole. you knew you had to do something with that. taking cues, trying a little trial and error, and it's not that hard. and it makes sense in game logic.
it was fine. at the end of those kinds of puzzles i think "wow that was a really creative solution." i don't think "F*CK THAT!! THAT'S NOT HARDCORE REALISM! THAT MADE MY BRAIN HURT WAHWAHWAHWAH!!" If a puzzle is just too damn frustrating I'll go to a walkthrough. I'd much prefer a game with a few of those walkthrough moments than a game where I just click through a story and never have to think very hard about what to do next. sierra was one of the adventure game developers for a reason, they made extremely challenging games but with great stories and that was part of the game. that's another thing, for all the complaining about that GK3 puzzle, that game has probably the best and deepest story of any AG ever. so I think people put up a huge false choice when they pit puzzles against story. there's no reason for them to be separate.
This surprises me because isn't that puzzle exactly the sort of conflict in tone that you were worried about in ToMI?
What I mean is that no, it's not supposed to be a work of 'non fiction' but it is supposed to be set in something akin to the real world but with fantastical elements (in the same way that, say, Buffy The Vampire Slayer or Doctor Who is...). Making a fake moustache out of syrup and cat hair is arguably somewhat at odds with a game that basically presents itself as 'real world where some fantasy stuff happens.' It's just not even remotely believable that something like that would work in the game world that it has presented to the player.
It's like if Marty McFly went back to 1955 in Back To The Future and disguised himself with googly eyes and a clown nose ... and then nobody even mentions it.
the old King's Quests are ridiculous for their challenge but people don't rail against them. I mean, typing Rumpelstiltsken backwards in a backwards alphabet? it's one thing if there's literally insufficient information or ability to figure out something, but it's another when a player just doesn't like the solution b/c they want an easier game.
They don't rail against King's Quest because it's no longer relevant. If someone released a game like King's Quest I today they would be boiled alive by reviewers and anyone who played the game. But progress had to start somewhere so design and puzzles back then were "acceptable."
However Sierra kept on putting flat out dumb puzzles into games simply to defeat the player - I remember a Roberta Williams interview where she was quite pleased with herself over this. This is probably part of the reason - besides the fact that King's Quest has 8 games in the series - it is no longer relevant. There comes a point when somethings are just played out.
Can we AT LEAST all agree on the fact that the puzzles need to be harder?
Slader has mentioned red herrings...Isn't this the BIGGEST disappointment in the new game? At no point was I ever pursuing a line of logic the game had hinted at that lead nowhere. You don't have to make the puzzles like King's Quest or GB, but you CAN present some sidetracks and distractions for the player.
I do think we can agree that the puzzles need to get progressively harder as the series goes on.
Part of that (in my opinion) needs to be handled with the addition of red herrings, and the other part needs to be handled with devious puzzles. (mutliple-item combination and twisted/cartoon logic).
I think where we may DISagree is that it needed to be that way in the first epiosde. I can see the need to ramp up the difficulty level in the series, and the first episode shouldn't punish new players.
That said, if the difficulty level remains the same as the first level, I'll probably be at least somewhat disappointed.
They don't rail against King's Quest because it's no longer relevant. If someone released a game like King's Quest I today they would be boiled alive by reviewers and anyone who played the game. But progress had to start somewhere so design and puzzles back then were "acceptable."
However Sierra kept on putting flat out dumb puzzles into games simply to defeat the player - I remember a Roberta Williams interview where she was quite pleased with herself over this. This is probably part of the reason - besides the fact that King's Quest has 8 games in the series - it is no longer relevant. There comes a point when somethings are just played out.
I do think we can agree that the puzzles need to get progressively harder as the series goes on.
Part of that (in my opinion) needs to be handled with the addition of red herrings, and the other part needs to be handled with devious puzzles. (mutliple-item combination and twisted/cartoon logic).
I think where we may DISagree is that it needed to be that way in the first epiosde. I can see the need to ramp up the difficulty level in the series, and the first episode shouldn't punish new players.
That said, if the difficulty level remains the same as the first level, I'll probably be at least somewhat disappointed.
Lorn
Fair enough. I understand to be commercially viable you need to have a scaling difficulty. So they get a pass on the first episode as far as difficulty goes. I think the other constructive criticism stands.
Part of that (in my opinion) needs to be handled with the addition of red herrings, and the other part needs to be handled with devious puzzles.
But most of that is a cheap trick isn't it? Inventory puzzles are pretty hard to get right as is, arguably. Adding dozens upon dozens of items doesn't equate to ramping up the complexity of the puzzly bits per se in any kind of way. Think of what I said earlier about the nature of adventure game puzzles at their most typical: You're asked to solve a problem in that one way the designer deems workable. Therefore it's super easy to get all vague by hiding this way behind obscure items and possible inventory combinations a la: if you combine this rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle with the maple syrup and apply the duct tape to get a voodoo doll of Steve Purcell, stick the doll on tops of the rabbit ears and dump it on the dog poo, the piranha poodles on the far end of the island will get all grumpy and head off into the seas - which you'll notice you were trying to do as soon as you're finished with this, promise! Or, well, something like that.
It's also easy to be obscure about the objectives at hand - which LA puzzling at its best and classic never was, by the way. Sure, there are entire games made like this and similar, but if you get any sense of satisfaction from solving this obnoxious stuff pretending to be a cerebral challenge you win a very special price. Being vague about the objective and pretending to be complex by adding more junk and confusion itself isn't key. Adding a couple more layers to the puzzly bits, perhaps. The Club41 "puzzle" is perhaps the best example, as it's the most straight forward thing in Episode1 to do. Rather than merely consisting of the rather simple task of finding the membership card that at worst boils down to clicking on some pants by accident, this could have been a more layered quest.
F'r instance, there could be an entire parade of shorts hanging on the clothes line aboard the Screaming Narwhal, and only carefully listening and "getting" the clues given to you in the dialogue sequence would save you from spending 15 minutes of sniffing through each pants in the vague hope of hitting onto a membership card rather than a pirate's poo staints. Add to this a "dialogue puzzle" that has you convincing a Club41 member to start a fight. Again, this would involve paying attention to what's actually being said. You know, that actually "thinking about something thing" rather than going all MacGuyver over the piranha poodles above. Etc. That sort of thing.
Twisted logics itself can be very cool. I mean, just think of the time travelling madness in Dott! A red herring? Sure, why not. But a high degree of daft obscurity is the Telltale sign of each and every average at best adventure game. Well, right next to fishy writing, that is.
They don't rail against King's Quest because it's no longer relevant. If someone released a game like King's Quest I today they would be boiled alive by reviewers and anyone who played the game. But progress had to start somewhere so design and puzzles back then were "acceptable."
Heh.
In case someone would like to take a look at King's Quest or Space Quest anyway - their full collections have just been added to Steam at 7.49 EUR each...
I agree that simply adding red herrings is a cheap trick. It's easy just to put a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff in the world in order to artificially increase the percieved difficulty of a game. It's much harder and ultimately more satisfying to the player to create a puzzle that is genuinely clever in its execution and solution.
I'm not saying that all red herrings are a bad idea altogether - just one that shouldn't be used too often.
I *don't* think red herrings are a cheap trick...particularly if there's a valid reason for the "red herring" item to be in the environment, and if it could prove useful later.
They're especially suited for an episodic adventure. Just because they're not useful in THIS episode, doesn't mean they won't be in future ones.
The greatest example I can give is the original red herring from Secret...a LITERAL red herring...something that seems as though it could be important, but has no real value.
It was a brillant joke, yeah, but the thing WAS useful in the end
I'm not sure, but didn't they do it once in the sam & max season ? I know a few items carried over from one episode to the next, and i think one wasn't of any use in the episode in which you found it, but i might be wrong...
Comments
I still stand by the assertion that ensuring puzzles are LOGICAL (even if that's a twisted cartoon logic) is essential, and that avoiding puzzles which are read-the-developer's-mind types or pixel-hunting extravaganzas can only be a good thing. Succeeding at that sort of puzzle is nothing to do with cleverness, merely persistence. As far as I know I played adventure games to test my wits, not my patience.
So far what I've seen in TMI consists of good start-of-game puzzling.
And you'll be glad to know that they didn't sissify any of the pirates; all of the pirates that were a little scary in the original, are still scary in this one (maybe moreso, especially in the case of LeChuck). Although they did make the characters look a bit more cartoonish, the backgrounds are more painterly than ever.
The irony is that adventure games were actually popular back then, and are still considered to be the best. A few developers still seem to get it, thankfully. Telltale seems to be on the fence a bit.
Just because those adventure games were great, and very popular (and believe me, I love them) doesn't mean that everything about them is great and should be imitated. It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that.
Really, what do you mean by 'challenge'? That would be my first question. There were some good puzzles in those days, but the ones percieved as the most difficult were almost never the best - they were always the ones that have cheap pixel-hunting or frustrating leaps of so-called logic.
What most people think of when they talk about good puzzles, even in those old games, tend to fall into one of maybe two categories:
1) The ones that are solved in a sudden 'eureka!' moment (such as picking up the idol underwater in MI1).
2) The ones where a satisfying solution is reached through a very clear line of reasoning (such as the jailbreak with the mugs of grog in MI1 again).
So what I mean by 2) is you've maybe worked out you need to break Otis out, and you can't use the file, but you know Grog eats through stuff. But if you try to carry grog to the jail, it eats throught the mug before you get there. So, you now know you need some way of making it last longer - you don't have anything stronger than the mugs to hold it, but you do have access to LOTS of mugs, so it's just nice intuitive leap to realise that you have to pass them from one to the other to get them to the jail.
At no point in the process do you have to do anything that you couldn't be expected to think of, and the process of figuring out what to do comes in a number of layers, each one teaching you a little more about the parameters of the puzzle.
So anyway...
I would argue that Chapter 1 has both these kinds of puzzles in it: Type 1), for example, when deciphering the first map and type 2) when capturing the Screaming Narwhal or in the bit with the chair.
Perhaps they have not reached the level of cleverness of the very best puzzles in those old games, but some of them are GETTING there (particularly those examples) and we're only 1 chapter in.
I'll just go hang myself now :mad:
So where did i even begin...
The thing i don't quite like about the puzzles discussions is that both sides have their point. As sladerlmc77 said, it seems to depend on how one's brains work, and it usually ends up in "people who get their kicks out of scratching their heads versus people enjoying good story and writing". I think what actually matters is balance.
I don't think adventure games are ABOUT puzzles. It's been said, but if you get rid of those in a good adventure game, you basically end with a good movie. But it's interesting to look at how both medias work and what the puzzles actually bring to the whole thing.
People are gonna tell me "well, challenge, it's a GAME, you've got to DO something". Well yeah, obviously, but i think there's a bit more.
Take this scene from the first Star Wars, in which Luke grabs Leia and jumps Tarzan style over the death star's uh... "big big hole", for lack of a better word
What makes this scene work ? I dunno exactly, i haven't tried and analysed every bit of it, but it's a mix of the acting, the music, the camera angles, the timing, the tension that's been built up from the previous chase and which is released when they escape at the last second... Basically, what we call the film direction.
All this direction stuff is hard to do in a game, and not really interesting, because it leaves the player out. What you need to do is to INVOLVE the player, not only by making him DO something, but having him get into the character's head. Indentifying with him.
In an arcade or action game, they might do this by having you aim at some tricky spot on the ceiling while avoiding laser fire or negociate the jump... somehow performing the action.
In an adventure game they'll do that with puzzles. You get there and think "ok, i'm in deep poo, what do i do ?" Tension.
Now of course just clicking somewhere on the screen and gettin away would be a big anti-climax. They got you into luke's head, now you've gotta figure out something. Maybe you could combine your belt with the magnet you found on Darth Vader's fridge earlier to create the cable which you'll use afterward on the ceiling. This wouldn't be quite hard, but the basic goal would be reached : YOU got out of trouble and you get rewarded with a cool cutscene before getting on to the next scene.
Release.
Basically, that's what i guess people mean when they say "puzzles are here to advance the story", but i think it's mostly this identification thing that really matters. YOU've got to BE the hero. And heroes don't wander around the place tweaking stuff, they get the job done.
Which is why the puzzles must make SENSE depending on the situation and have a PURPOSE.
Note that all this isn't about the actual difficulty of them. Obviously if no thought at all is involved, it misses the point. No tension is created. And the most climatic scenes should be harder to figure out (recent bad exemple : the final one in TMI. You had this weird U Tube thingie since almost the begining, and finally could use it. It was so obvious than it felt like no challenge at all, and failed to set up any real tension). But overall, the design and the way the puzzle works within the story/situation is still more important, no matter how easy or hard the actual task is.
Ideally, it should never feel forced or artificial. You know, make sense. Locked or guarded doors have their uses, but it gets old (story wise and gameplay wise) after a while. Sam and Max season one suffered a bit from too much of those (off the top of my head, i'm thinking about myra's studio door in ep2, the guard in the casino in ep 3, and then superball in ep 4). Now they were well done and clever, and due to the episodic format, the wait between episodes didn't make em too boring, but this would have been terrible in a full lenght game. I thought TMI's "get past the door" puzzle was well done as well, because it was handled differently : in order to get past it, you didn't have to open it, but fool De Singe into believing you had done it. The actual task wasn't the one expected, but it still made sense : well designed puzzle. Too easy ? maybe, I dunno, but in the end it's still satisfying. Another way to handle this type of puzzle could be, for instance : You open the door and guybrush (or whoever) goes "oh, crap, i broke the handle". Bam, you've got to figure out another way to get in, maybe by fixing the handle or gettin through the hard to reach window. The rest of the puzzle could be great or terrible : it all depends on how it fits.
Which kinda brings the matter of frustration. If handled correctly, it can add to the experience, but once again, it should never feel forced or "just there to make it (even) more difficult. Remember the gull stealing your map piece in MI2 ? The actual cutscene was great. It made you yell and curse the damn bird, but it also brought the feeling that the whole world was against you, and in that way, definetly helped in the overall story and feel. But at the same time, it brought you to another long and not soo logical puzzle. Even though the first part triggered one of the coolest cutscenes of the game, it was basically divided in THREE parts : Find the row (don't remember how) and figure out you could "build a staircase", fix the damn row (another frustrating thing : you thought you had done the required job but no), and then "use dog on pile of papers" (another FTW?? puzzle). That's not so good. Not because of the difficulty, but it's long, not so useful and overall feels forced. The reward (release) is pushed for too long and in the end don't really makes up for the amount of tension that's been built up. The whole chase for this piece of map ended up feeling like the developpers were playing with your nerves, not with your brains.
(that being said, i'm sure one could think of much worse exemples like this one in gabriel knight about the fake mustache (haven't played it), but still).
On the other hand, remember the one in CMI, with the balloon when stuck in the swamp. When you figured that one out, they made you THINK you had screwed it all up by having the balloon go too far and then come back. I think that was brillant. They played on the whole frustration thing to poke fun at you without becoming sadistic.
The twisted logic involved also can bring a lot to the overall game feel too, of course, and i don't mind so much if it increases the difficulty along the way. In the old sam and max, having to use max on the electrical thingie to stop the ride was a FTW?? moment when you figured it out, but it made perfect sense in the character's mind. On the other hand, i'm sure some of the other game's puzzles weren't so well fitted (but, as i haven't played it for quite a long time now, i can't really remember any exemple).
SO, i think what i'm trying to get at is that more than gameplay elements, the puzzles should be actual plot devices. They're basically the wheels that make the whole thing roll. I'd rather solve an easy puzzle that makes sense and managed to get a bit of the tension/release thing going than scratch my head to get past a meaningless wall. Which doesn't really answer the question of difficulty ITSELF, but is (i think) the criteria upon which a good puzzle should be judged.
So yeah. Balance.
All of this is rather general, but when you add to this the episodic format, which IS retricitve in itself, it obviously makes it harder to create "hard" puzzles. But it can be done. As has been said, Telltale did increase the difficulty along the course of sam and max and there's not doubt they will with TMI as well. But as far as the designing goes, sure, not everything is perfect, but i think they are definitely on the good tracks.
Wow, all this crap made me hungry.
I'll go get a sandwich now. Hope nobody put a lock on my fridge.
Sierra games were always in for a good challenge, but then they may have had that hint-line up and running for a reason. It's business, you know.
I don't think anyone argues against being challenged in here. The key to your typical adventure game puzzle or problem is that is musn't be overly obscure to be challenging. Adventure puzzling is like a non-verbal dialogue between you and the game's designer. He can tease you in any way he wants, and has you guessing. If Telltale are able to get this right with their hint system, which basically allows a designer to tease and lure the player into this one direction that's the right one in more than one or two ways, I think they'll hit onto the holy grail of universal appeal™.
If something like that ever exists beyond The Sims, Oprah Winfrey and French Fries, that is.
Let's discuss one other aspect of the game that is being talked about in a few other threads, but extremely poorly.
The dialogue. This game follows the lead of Sam and Max in that the dialogue option you select is usually not what is said by Guybrush. What do we think about this?
That about sums it up really. That first conversation there makes it really stand out but after that it's not so bad. But still could use a little tweaking
Guybrush not using the dialogue you selected (usually due to some good reason) =funny ONCE.
The problem is, it's already been funny...in multiple games. You may be able to pull it out right out the chute in this one, but it's sort of a bad idea...you've already blown the joke.
Another example is the "Club 41" puzzle. It's a re-hash of the theft of the Idol of Many Hands. (IE - dont' show what's actually happening...just let the user hear and infer, and instant laughs ensure.)
The problem with using BOTH of these jokes, particularly in the first episode, is that you have to EARN those jokes. When used in prior games, you were well into the story, and the game was making light of the fact that you're going through ridiculous tasks that have no basis in reality.
By essentially retelling jokes that we've already heard, it almost makes you feel as though the writers are desperate to find their own voice.
While I doubt if they're desperate, the first episode DOES probably carry a lot of water in setting things up, and that's got to make anybody nervous. My hope is that as the season wears on, they'll hit their own stride
and move on from the gags we've already seen.
Lorn
With Tales, you have full proper dialogue options - the kind of thing you would expect Guybrush to actually say - and he doesn't. Like others have said, this is funny on occaison, as used in previous Monkey Islands, but it's just frustrating after a while... unlike in Sam and Max where you still had some control over what was said.
I had forgotten all about the idol of many hands. You're right it is a direct rip off, but a poor one at that! From what I remember, the idol scene involved Guybrush using a plethora of verbs with hilarious random nouns in the room and it had me in stitches. Guybrush getting thrown out of a bar for stumbling around is not so funny.
You're right, the "Guybrush doesn't say whats on the screen" joke has been done before, and it really isn't funny anymore. It could be funny again in a "high tension" environment as we've been discussing, but barring that, it needs to be laid to rest. We've got Domenic on board, so let's hear Guybrush start SAYING some of these ridiculous things.
Nonsense. Guybrush is a real pirate. He lies, he steals, he causes property damage, he's a good swordfighter and he smells bad. If that's not piratey, I don't know what is.
And the idol is a rip-off of this (action starts around the 9:00 minutes mark). Well, except for the bang-on parser jokes.
TMI doesn't totally miss the mark at all. But it just doesn't provide enough ways to stump you. There are very few options BUT the right option in many cases, it doesn't feel like you're just picking up natural items in the world that you may or may not need. It feels like those items have a big red pointer on them and each one is clearly designed to solve a puzzle, and when that puzzle comes along it's obvious. there should be more roadblocks and surprise logic set up. I don't like being not surprised by the in-game logic used to solve a puzzle.
I think it's the 'still make some kind of sense' bit that people are hung up on. In an extremely cartoony game you could MAYBE stretch the imagination enough to think some syrup and a bunch of animal hair might pass for a moustache, but GK3 is not cartoony in the least, so why on earth would something like that work?
This third paragraph in this post pretty much nails it. Seriously.
Totally depends on the game doesn't it? There's not just been the Goblins games that are full ot this, but also something like Nancy Drew or EA's Sherlock Holmes titles that demanded you to hone some of your sleughting skills. And so so. And so on. After all, "adventure game" is just a category humans made up to wrap their heads around games that appear to share some similar traits - though one is inclined to ask where the similar traits of Bad Mojo, Grim Fandango or Myst are. I cannot think of games that are any more different, and yet people don't make a fuss about it, heh!
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you - on a larger scale this has become a more straight forward affair on average, probably. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple more complex tasks are demanded from you in later episodes though. In terms of overall design though, I'd say this is really onpar with almost anything classic LucasArts. Full Throttle has been a much, much more straight forward experience - for the better of it in this case, by the way. I'm not necessarily talking about length, mind. But the pace that is high throughout since there's no artificial road blocking going on a la: This door be locked by ancient slider/logarithm/sound puzzle. Whenever there's a door Ben just gets to kick the fucker down. It's almost an afront against your archetypical adventure game design.
Very true.
And a great one, too
Sometimes, a game needs a kick in the tail like that...something unexpected that shakes the players world up.
Sometimes it's a twist, but that's usually reserved for the climax, and I suspect we'll be GETTING a twist at the end of this series.
I do think there's a point to be made that tougher puzzles are necessary to really feel like "Monkey Island." I do think that Telltale may have taken casual just a bit *too* far, and I'd like to see some good brain-bendy puzzles going forward.
That said, I expect they're going to be there. I'm just curious to see what degree they go to to bring them in.
(Also...more red herrings!)
Lorn
Nice review, but you may want to rethink your system. But if you want to stand out amongst the thousands of reviewers out there, keep it up!
ah well, i'll never agree. i like that puzzle and it made sense to this adventure game fan. i've played the sierra games since King's Quest I, and to me that puzzle is just great. and GKIII is easily in my top 3 adventure games of all time. it's a damn shame that people can't get over that one puzzle, because that game is so friggin brilliant all the way through. it's the pinnacle of the genre imo. i think it'd be awesome if someone updated the graphics files.
all of the GK games are quite difficult, especially 1 and 3. and i wouldn't call a game where zombies, werewolves and vampires are real exactly a work of non fiction. there's a ton of humor and classic sierra adventuring in them, especially during the exposition which that part was in. syrup is an obvious adhesive substitute in an adventure game. most people who have owned a cat know about disciplining them with spray bottles, getting them down from the counter or whatever. that part was obvious to me. the game helped you along the way and gave you little hints to understand the logic of what you were doing. it wasn't a total stab in the dark. you could get the cat down, interact with the hole. you knew you had to do something with that. taking cues, trying a little trial and error, and it's not that hard. and it makes sense in game logic.
it was fine. at the end of those kinds of puzzles i think "wow that was a really creative solution." i don't think "F*CK THAT!! THAT'S NOT HARDCORE REALISM! THAT MADE MY BRAIN HURT WAHWAHWAHWAH!!" If a puzzle is just too damn frustrating I'll go to a walkthrough. I'd much prefer a game with a few of those walkthrough moments than a game where I just click through a story and never have to think very hard about what to do next. sierra was one of the adventure game developers for a reason, they made extremely challenging games but with great stories and that was part of the game. that's another thing, for all the complaining about that GK3 puzzle, that game has probably the best and deepest story of any AG ever. so I think people put up a huge false choice when they pit puzzles against story. there's no reason for them to be separate.
the old King's Quests are ridiculous for their challenge but people don't rail against them. I mean, typing Rumpelstiltsken backwards in a backwards alphabet? it's one thing if there's literally insufficient information or ability to figure out something, but it's another when a player just doesn't like the solution b/c they want an easier game.
Of course it makes "sense", as it's playing by every cheap adventure game trick in the book. I had it solved real quickly myself, after all, I'm the kind of person that was taught how to get your pet hamster to retrieve your wallet from under the couch from an early age too! It's just hard keeping a straight face remembering this. There you are on a mission to investigate a childs kidnapping, spooky vampires involved and all. There is life at risk, the air smells of blood, mystery and Eau de Mosley. You expect Bela Lugosi, Klaus Kinski and the gang to hit the shit any minute now - and the game asks you to perform a stunt like.. THIS.
It may be a bit unfair to single this one out of the bunch, but Gabriel Knight 3 is a popular game from a popular series. And therefore the cat-syrup-conundrum remains an often cited howler for good reason. Hey, I like Gabe myself, YOU brought this puzzle all up again.
It's one of those things I never even thought to become outraged about until I read people years later start bashing it. It's definitely not the most captivating part of the game, for sure. Like I said, it's part of the exposition which in Gabriel Knight games often includes more light-hearted adventure fare before it gets too serious. I like that style.
This surprises me because isn't that puzzle exactly the sort of conflict in tone that you were worried about in ToMI?
What I mean is that no, it's not supposed to be a work of 'non fiction' but it is supposed to be set in something akin to the real world but with fantastical elements (in the same way that, say, Buffy The Vampire Slayer or Doctor Who is...). Making a fake moustache out of syrup and cat hair is arguably somewhat at odds with a game that basically presents itself as 'real world where some fantasy stuff happens.' It's just not even remotely believable that something like that would work in the game world that it has presented to the player.
It's like if Marty McFly went back to 1955 in Back To The Future and disguised himself with googly eyes and a clown nose ... and then nobody even mentions it.
However Sierra kept on putting flat out dumb puzzles into games simply to defeat the player - I remember a Roberta Williams interview where she was quite pleased with herself over this. This is probably part of the reason - besides the fact that King's Quest has 8 games in the series - it is no longer relevant. There comes a point when somethings are just played out.
Slader has mentioned red herrings...Isn't this the BIGGEST disappointment in the new game? At no point was I ever pursuing a line of logic the game had hinted at that lead nowhere. You don't have to make the puzzles like King's Quest or GB, but you CAN present some sidetracks and distractions for the player.
Part of that (in my opinion) needs to be handled with the addition of red herrings, and the other part needs to be handled with devious puzzles. (mutliple-item combination and twisted/cartoon logic).
I think where we may DISagree is that it needed to be that way in the first epiosde. I can see the need to ramp up the difficulty level in the series, and the first episode shouldn't punish new players.
That said, if the difficulty level remains the same as the first level, I'll probably be at least somewhat disappointed.
Lorn
On which part? What he said, or what I said? *confused*
Lorn
Hmm sorry.
Bored and trying to be funny
Fair enough. I understand to be commercially viable you need to have a scaling difficulty. So they get a pass on the first episode as far as difficulty goes. I think the other constructive criticism stands.
But most of that is a cheap trick isn't it? Inventory puzzles are pretty hard to get right as is, arguably. Adding dozens upon dozens of items doesn't equate to ramping up the complexity of the puzzly bits per se in any kind of way. Think of what I said earlier about the nature of adventure game puzzles at their most typical: You're asked to solve a problem in that one way the designer deems workable. Therefore it's super easy to get all vague by hiding this way behind obscure items and possible inventory combinations a la: if you combine this rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle with the maple syrup and apply the duct tape to get a voodoo doll of Steve Purcell, stick the doll on tops of the rabbit ears and dump it on the dog poo, the piranha poodles on the far end of the island will get all grumpy and head off into the seas - which you'll notice you were trying to do as soon as you're finished with this, promise! Or, well, something like that.
It's also easy to be obscure about the objectives at hand - which LA puzzling at its best and classic never was, by the way. Sure, there are entire games made like this and similar, but if you get any sense of satisfaction from solving this obnoxious stuff pretending to be a cerebral challenge you win a very special price. Being vague about the objective and pretending to be complex by adding more junk and confusion itself isn't key. Adding a couple more layers to the puzzly bits, perhaps. The Club41 "puzzle" is perhaps the best example, as it's the most straight forward thing in Episode1 to do. Rather than merely consisting of the rather simple task of finding the membership card that at worst boils down to clicking on some pants by accident, this could have been a more layered quest.
F'r instance, there could be an entire parade of shorts hanging on the clothes line aboard the Screaming Narwhal, and only carefully listening and "getting" the clues given to you in the dialogue sequence would save you from spending 15 minutes of sniffing through each pants in the vague hope of hitting onto a membership card rather than a pirate's poo staints. Add to this a "dialogue puzzle" that has you convincing a Club41 member to start a fight. Again, this would involve paying attention to what's actually being said. You know, that actually "thinking about something thing" rather than going all MacGuyver over the piranha poodles above. Etc. That sort of thing.
Twisted logics itself can be very cool. I mean, just think of the time travelling madness in Dott! A red herring? Sure, why not. But a high degree of daft obscurity is the Telltale sign of each and every average at best adventure game. Well, right next to fishy writing, that is.
In case someone would like to take a look at King's Quest or Space Quest anyway - their full collections have just been added to Steam at 7.49 EUR each...
np: B12 - Colloid (B12 Records Archive Vol. 1 (Disc 2))
I'm not saying that all red herrings are a bad idea altogether - just one that shouldn't be used too often.
They're especially suited for an episodic adventure. Just because they're not useful in THIS episode, doesn't mean they won't be in future ones.
The greatest example I can give is the original red herring from Secret...a LITERAL red herring...something that seems as though it could be important, but has no real value.
That was brilliant writing.
Lorn
I'm not sure, but didn't they do it once in the sam & max season ? I know a few items carried over from one episode to the next, and i think one wasn't of any use in the episode in which you found it, but i might be wrong...