In that case if Season 3 sells better than Season 2 can we say that direct control has "won" the argument?
If you implement both, it is a safe bet that sales wouldn't be affected. After all, you could implement drag movement and keyboard movement without sacrificing any of the existing season 2 controls. No one would complain about options.
In that case if Season 3 sells better than Season 2 can we say that direct control has "won" the argument?
I guess if you can make up the people who will leave in exchange of the people which will come, I guess.
Personally, I think is more pre conceptions about how an Adventure Game should be, more than a clumsy or weird control scheme. I loved the control scheme of Wallace and Gromit on PC, and when I went to play ToMI and I discovered the WASD I was trying to open the inventory using the shortcut from Wallace and Gromit. It took a while to get used to the change, but I think most people here complaining simple don't want to change their conception. But, if the content is awesome (And in ToMI, at least for me, is awesome) most people would not complain.
If you implement both, it is a safe bet that sales wouldn't be affected. After all, you could implement drag movement and keyboard movement without sacrificing any of the existing season 2 controls. No one would complain about options.
But the point is that point&click isn't possible with the graphical direction they're taking. You can't see the ground so you can't click on it.
I have to say that I did like someone's thing about all items being clickable to walk towards them, that would allow for movement without the keyboard, however I'm not sure how that would work from the programming point of view, having hotspots everywhere like that.
I might add that by casting a ray from the mouse position (and thereby receiving all the hit information you need) you of course can obtain invisible information as well, as long as you define it, so technically it's doable.
But the point is that point&click isn't possible with the graphical direction they're taking. You can't see the ground so you can't click on it.
This is an entirely untrue statement that keeps getting repeated despite the fact you can clearly just click on a background area or an area just above the floor and the character could still just walk to the nearest bit of floor to the click. (As stated in slightly more technical terms by taumel)
This is an entirely untrue statement that keeps getting repeated despite the fact you can clearly just click on a background area or an area just above the floor and the character could still just walk to the nearest bit of floor to the click. (As stated in slightly more technical terms by taumel)
It is not an entirely untrue statement. In fact it is very true. How would a character being shot from the waist up walk towards the camera? Even if clicking on the bottom "border" moved the character, it would only move him a very small amount. Actually I dont even think that's true. Because when you're looking forward, you're only gonna be able to click on what's in front of the player character.
People have said, "you can just click the borders to move the character", but that's just a worse implementation of direct control. I guess I'm just baffled that people are still talking about these ideas that won't work. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but we have a lot of smart dudes who's job it is to make theses systems better. We've tried many things and if a real alternative surfaced, believe me, you'd know. We aren't making side scrolling adventure games anymore. Like Chuck said, these are full 360 environments now. Something we can't do with a control scheme like point and click. Its never been more apparent to me that direct control is the way to go, then when I'm working on Season 3.
If you hate direct control, play the demo, then decide if you want to buy it. I can tell you right now, that 301 would not be the same awesome amazing game without direct control.
If you hate direct control, play the demo, then decide if you want to buy it. I can tell you right now, that 301 would not be the same awesome amazing game without direct control.
You already sold me the game. This is around the 4th time, I think, you sold me the game. What are you waiting then?
If you hate direct control, play the demo, then decide if you want to buy it. I can tell you right now, that 301 would not be the same awesome amazing game without direct control.
Sounds great. I'm just wondering where Max walks now you have direct control and the full 360 environment. Does he follow you around or walk around the general area?
Sounds great. I'm just wondering where Max walks now you have direct control and the full 360 environment. Does he follow you around or walk around the general area?
Maybe this time he automatically walks to one area and stays there till you leave or talk to someone. Which would ruin the entire concept of Max, unless they finally let us play him.
Sounds great. I'm just wondering where Max walks now you have direct control and the full 360 environment. Does he follow you around or walk around the general area?
How would the control scheme affect what Max does?
@NickTTG
You're moving away from what makes fun in adventure games, at least for me.
I don't care this much about camera perspectives as i do care about proper steering and exploration options and the mood this creates. Beside of this there still is a lot of potential you could use with very well clickable 3d scenes and (non)interactive moments. So far you just don't use this potential and combine it with proper steering. I can remember problems in every single episode (just thinking of the stairs nightmare in the last episode of TOMI) with the current solution. Point&click is damn fine and can be used with nice angles as well.
Dunno but i guess we more than once heard how clever and experienced all you at TTG are but regarding the subject steering i don't see a practical convincing result, just some half baked alternative which could be enhanced as well.
Will it be like Normality, except in 3rd person view? In that case, keyboard movement and a click & drag-option would make perfect sense.
I think, Normality was unusual with its 2.5d engine, yet it was very playable, and that was in 1996. The popup verbs and inventory was very similar to Curse of Monkey Island.
If you implement both, it is a safe bet that sales wouldn't be affected. After all, you could implement drag movement and keyboard movement without sacrificing any of the existing season 2 controls. No one would complain about options.
Heh, but we'd complain, since we'd basically be making two different games! Keyboard controls, console controllers, and click-and-drag all have the same purpose of driving the main character around, so implementing "drag movement" and "keyboard movement" are two ways of doing the same thing.
"Season 2 controls" are different. If you can only move Sam around by clicking on things, then you either have to a) make everything you can click on visible at once, or b) make the floor visible so that you can click on the floor to make Sam walk exactly here. It limits how the environment artists can design the locations, the choreographers can set up cameras, and the game designers can design puzzles.
I don't care this much about camera perspectives as i do care about proper steering and exploration options and the mood this creates. [...] Point&click is damn fine and can be used with nice angles as well.
Dunno but i guess we more than once heard how clever and experienced all you at TTG are but regarding the subject steering i don't see a practical convincing result, just some half baked alternative which could be enhanced as well.
We do care about camera perspectives, and that's how we choose to present the games. As we've explained repeatedly, at great length, in multiple threads, the teams started running into limitations of what point & click could do on its own as far as scene composition and environment design, and it was no longer "damn fine" for the games Telltale wants to make.
If the team explains the reasons for doing something, what they're trying to achieve, why certain approaches didn't work, and how various decisions affect the overall design, there's not much more the team can do than that. Except explain it over again, and then again, and then again a fourth time. There will always, unfortunately, be people who refuse to listen and instead insist that that's wrong, but there's not much the team can do about that, either.
As we've explained repeatedly, at great length, in multiple threads, the teams started running into limitations of what point & click could do on its own as far as scene composition and environment design, and it was no longer "damn fine" for the games Telltale wants to make.
I swear, you guys have the patience of saints about this. You've had to reiterate the same perfectly logical and reasonable explanations for direct control for W&G, ToMI, and now S&M, and yet it never gets through to some (and sometimes the same) people. I fear what might happen if you announce a direct-control Strong Bad Season 2!
I was playing through S&M Season 1 recently, and going back to point & click again was REALLY annoying. Walking down the street from the DeSoto to Bosco's requires you to click...wait...click...wait...click...wait...click to keep Sam walking. Wish I could just hold down the D key (and the Shift key for good measure)!
We do care about camera perspectives, and that's how we choose to present the games. As we've explained repeatedly, at great length, in multiple threads, the teams started running into limitations of what point & click could do on its own as far as scene composition and environment design, and it was no longer "damn fine" for the games Telltale wants to make.
If the team explains the reasons for doing something, what they're trying to achieve, why certain approaches didn't work, and how various decisions affect the overall design, there's not much more the team can do than that. Except explain it over again, and then again, and then again a fourth time. There will always, unfortunately, be people who refuse to listen and instead insist that that's wrong, but there's not much the team can do about that, either.
There does not exist only one solution or one truth. If you want to achieve a certain atmosphere then there are different ways to approach it. I really don't think it helps saying that this and that isn't possbile whilst it isn't true in such a form.
In my opinion you're axing a component which is a strong part of what makes adventures attractive in favour of something which a) could be achieved otherwise as well and b) also if it wouldn't be possible it wouldn't be the component which interests me the most. On top of that the so far presented alternative isn't top notch in any way, it's a half baked implementation.
So again this isn't a problem of not listening to you. This is more a matter of having different opinions and looking at the current situation.
So the let's say mighty, clever, awesome mindblowing TTG neurons + awareness of the situation + time != a so far good steering implementation.
It seems that bringing men to the mars is the smaller effort compared to coming up with a sexy and smooth steering method or a good looking point&click which again is something i do not understand. In the time we've been discussing this, others are completing games from scratch. Get a grip Boston!
It is not an entirely untrue statement. In fact it is very true. How would a character being shot from the waist up walk towards the camera? Even if clicking on the bottom "border" moved the character, it would only move him a very small amount. Actually I dont even think that's true. Because when you're looking forward, you're only gonna be able to click on what's in front of the player character.
How would the player know that he/she can walk towards the camera?
People have said, "you can just click the borders to move the character", but that's just a worse implementation of direct control. I guess I'm just baffled that people are still talking about these ideas that won't work. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but we have a lot of smart dudes who's job it is to make theses systems better. We've tried many things and if a real alternative surfaced, believe me, you'd know. We aren't making side scrolling adventure games anymore. Like Chuck said, these are full 360 environments now. Something we can't do with a control scheme like point and click. Its never been more apparent to me that direct control is the way to go, then when I'm working on Season 3.
I have asked this before, can you give any examples from Tomi where direct control is neccessary? Preferably with screenshots, since I don't have the game. I (as a developer) have an hard time grasping why point and click would be impossible for you (as artists). I don't buy the whole "these are 3d environments! we CAN'T do that", simply because I (again as a developer) don't see problems, only solutions.
If you hate direct control, play the demo, then decide if you want to buy it. I can tell you right now, that 301 would not be the same awesome amazing game without direct control.
Sure, send me a copy of 301 and I willdecide if i want to buy it.
We're too stupid and/or stubborn to get it. If we would be clever, we obviously also would work for TTG. Quite simple, at least for those who are clever. So, don't ask me. Oh well, just some fun.
Why does it hurt and offend you so much that they want to design games that have a camera that does more than pan back and forth on static backgrounds? The games aren't hard to play, and I don't know anyone who plays adventure games just because they love to click on things so much, that's just a ridiculous argument. And like someone said earlier, going back to point and click after being so used to WASD + Mouse feels so slow and ancient.
Also, there's a difference between "graphics vs. gameplay" and "presentation vs. control scheme"
So many times I see people posting about how they have this magical system in their head of how point and click could work without showing the ground, and not once have I seen anyone provide their magical concept without it being immediately shot full of holes. Short of putting in several random hotspots on every screen that say "Click here to move to the next part of the screen" (which would be even worse than direct control as far as "taking you out of the experience" is concerned), there is no practical way to achieve movement to specific spots without them being on screen.
If Telltale doesn't want to make a game that is static and boring as far as camera angles are concerned, being an avid fan of cinematography, I fully support that.
There is a lot of hatred in this thread towards the choosen Telltale Control scheme. I don't get why so much hatred is there about something that is suppose to be the gateway to fun.
Here is a pirate kitten instead:
Something I thought of last night: Along with the other pluses mentioned, direct control's allowance of more flexible camera angles lessens the visual incongruity between gameplay and cut scenes. This isn't far off from how the improved Telltale Tool-implemented animations (e.g. new and more expressive facial, er, expressions) are bridging that gap as well. My experience with the current controls and spiffy new cinematography tells me there's enough of a boon in this gap-bridging to make the change worth it.
Which leaves me with two hopes: one, that Telltale will continue refining both click-and-drag and WASD/arrow key steering; and two, that they will push and push and push the cinematography until the largest amount of people possible can see the switch in control schemes as more of a trade up than a trade in.
It seems that bringing men to the mars is the smaller effort compared to coming up with a sexy and smooth steering method or a good looking point&click which again is something i do not understand. In the time we've been discussing this, others are completing games from scratch. Get a grip Boston!
I have two points to make here:
a) let's give Telltale the credit that they tried a lot of things before they've given up on p&c - I'm sure they didn't axe the method just because it felt like a cool thing to do. I was among those who used to nag at TTG-Yare for reasons, and he indeed gave a lot of explanations. to be honest, I still can't see how the camera problems are unsolvable, but at one point I decided to believe the people who work on the stuff > 8 hours / day.
b) Telltale made this decision 1 year ago, and there wasn't a single indication since then that they have any mind to go back. time to move on, I guess...
Why don't you just accumulate your reasoning for the change in control methodology into an FAQ so that you don't have to respond to individuals that want to argue with you?
I was playing through S&M Season 1 recently, and going back to point & click again was REALLY annoying. Walking down the street from the DeSoto to Bosco's requires you to click...wait...click...wait...click...wait...click to keep Sam walking. Wish I could just hold down the D key (and the Shift key for good measure)!
I just *clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclick* all the time
Sorry for the double post, buuut, I'll insist: If you wanna stop this problem with people complaining about direct control, I think the only thing you have to do is change the genre of the games from Adventure Games to something. You doesn't have to even change the games, just the name of the genre. To, I don't know.
Also, you deserve a some sort of trophy for still bearing with us and not close this thread. Because, I had the power to do it, probably I'd already did it. The FAQ is a good idea too.
@Pale Man
I'm not sure if you were talking to me but just in case:
I feel better with point&click because personally i'm still playing a lot of games on pc/mac and there, for such games, the mouse is superior to the gamepad. The mouse feels more accurate, better suited for exploration, more relaxed as you don't have to fight with things like bumping into objects, you just click were you want to be. Point&click works well on multitouchdevices too (assumed the screensize isn't too small) and so on.
In my opinion TTG isn't telling the whole truth regarding the steering options. They want to make it sound like you either get dynamic wobbel wabble or point&click but normally both works together quite fine if you do it right. It's easier seeing this when you're having some understanding on how things work.
@Pantagruel's Friend
a) I think they favour the new steering method primary because they benefit from time friendly crossreleases.
b) Well, you never should give up hope. Beside of this the slightly snotty justifications just made me think, "Oh come on, you're not telling the whole story here.".
@Pantagruel's Friend
a) I think they favour the new steering method primary because they benefit from time friendly crossreleases.
b) Well, you never should give up hope. Beside of this the slightly snotty justifications just made me think, "Oh come on, you're not telling the whole story here.".
A) No. It's just simply not possible to both. As we've said over and over. And the accusation that we are lying to you is frustrating at best. We will continue to design the games in the style that best suits them. The decision won't be based on anything except for what would make the most sense for that particular license and game.
Edit:
To clarify, I don't understand why people would think we would lie about something like this. If we simply decided "no that would be too much work" then we would SAY that. And have in the past when something like this has come up. It's no great secret that we are a relatively small company and don't have all the resources in the world. Sometimes things are just too much work for us to do, and we aren't afraid to say as much.
I have asked this before, can you give any examples from Tomi where direct control is neccessary? Preferably with screenshots, since I don't have the game. I (as a developer) have an hard time grasping why point and click would be impossible for you (as artists). I don't buy the whole "these are 3d environments! we CAN'T do that", simply because I (again as a developer) don't see problems, only solutions.
Sure, send me a copy of 301 and I willdecide if i want to buy it.
As a developer, I'd hope you were familiar with free game demos, which are available to be downloaded from this site. They're often the best way to make informed opinions that can then be posted to internet forums, as opposed to idle speculation.
as a developer, i'd hope you were familiar with free game demos, which are available to be downloaded from this site. They're often the best way to make informed opinions that can then be posted to internet forums, as opposed to idle speculation.
If you wanna stop this problem with people complaining about direct control, I think the only thing you have to do is change the genre of the games from Adventure Games to something.
But they ARE adventure games. And renaming them to something other than adventure games will not have any influence at all on those who want to complain about the control method.
There is a lot of hatred in this thread towards the choosen Telltale Control scheme. I don't get why so much hatred is there about something that is suppose to be the gateway to fun.
I object to equating this discussion with hatred. I think we should be able to have a respectful discussion about the pros and cons of the new control system without going around calling people liars or haters. Moreover, if someone objects to one aspect of a game, that doesn't mean they didn't like the game at all.
Let me state for the record that I had no trouble with the controls in W&G or ToMI (even though I only used WASD and not the mouse) and if Telltale decides that's the only thing they are going to do, that's totally cool with me and I won't think any less of their games. In fact, I don't necessarily believe that Point & Click is superior even if it is feasible.
That being said, I don't buy the whole "it's physically impossible to do Point & Click!" argument. Sure, I understand the impossibility of mapping screen coordinates to a ground plane when the camera is facing away from the ground. But at the same time I can't imagine what a reasonable scene looks like, where it's justified to put the camera at such a weird angle that traditional control becomes completely impossible. After all, the control scheme doesn't have to work always and anywhere; just in the scenes that you put in the game!
That's why it's important to note that a well-designed adventure game always puts reachable locations and objects within the player's view, so the player knows that there's some place to go or something to interact with. If an exit is in view, that means also the player has somewhere to click to reach it. Telltale is really good at this (putting all information at the right places in the scene so the player doesn't get stuck) which also means that the scenes they create should (in principle) be navigable by point and click.
So I think that the traditional algorithm of mapping the screen coordinates to 3D object coordinates and then moving the player close as possible still works in any well-designed 3D game. It's not without its pitfalls (there is path-finding involved, and the game might have a different idea of what the nearest reachable spot is than the player) but by and large it works. Note that many 2D adventure games of the past were also at least partially 3D, in the sense that scenes had width, height and depth, and still point and click worked for them.
Finally, I cannot recall any scenes in W&G and ToMI that absolutely required the new control scheme. Maybe that's because I didn't pay enough attention. Or maybe playability considerations prevented the game designers from using the liberties that the new control system provides. I'd like to see some counter-examples, if there are any, though.
Comments
I guess if you can make up the people who will leave in exchange of the people which will come, I guess.
Personally, I think is more pre conceptions about how an Adventure Game should be, more than a clumsy or weird control scheme. I loved the control scheme of Wallace and Gromit on PC, and when I went to play ToMI and I discovered the WASD I was trying to open the inventory using the shortcut from Wallace and Gromit. It took a while to get used to the change, but I think most people here complaining simple don't want to change their conception. But, if the content is awesome (And in ToMI, at least for me, is awesome) most people would not complain.
But the point is that point&click isn't possible with the graphical direction they're taking. You can't see the ground so you can't click on it.
I have to say that I did like someone's thing about all items being clickable to walk towards them, that would allow for movement without the keyboard, however I'm not sure how that would work from the programming point of view, having hotspots everywhere like that.
This is an entirely untrue statement that keeps getting repeated despite the fact you can clearly just click on a background area or an area just above the floor and the character could still just walk to the nearest bit of floor to the click. (As stated in slightly more technical terms by taumel)
It is not an entirely untrue statement. In fact it is very true. How would a character being shot from the waist up walk towards the camera? Even if clicking on the bottom "border" moved the character, it would only move him a very small amount. Actually I dont even think that's true. Because when you're looking forward, you're only gonna be able to click on what's in front of the player character.
People have said, "you can just click the borders to move the character", but that's just a worse implementation of direct control. I guess I'm just baffled that people are still talking about these ideas that won't work. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but we have a lot of smart dudes who's job it is to make theses systems better. We've tried many things and if a real alternative surfaced, believe me, you'd know. We aren't making side scrolling adventure games anymore. Like Chuck said, these are full 360 environments now. Something we can't do with a control scheme like point and click. Its never been more apparent to me that direct control is the way to go, then when I'm working on Season 3.
If you hate direct control, play the demo, then decide if you want to buy it. I can tell you right now, that 301 would not be the same awesome amazing game without direct control.
You already sold me the game. This is around the 4th time, I think, you sold me the game. What are you waiting then?
Ok, that was pretty direct.
Sounds great. I'm just wondering where Max walks now you have direct control and the full 360 environment. Does he follow you around or walk around the general area?
Maybe this time he automatically walks to one area and stays there till you leave or talk to someone. Which would ruin the entire concept of Max, unless they finally let us play him.
You're moving away from what makes fun in adventure games, at least for me.
I don't care this much about camera perspectives as i do care about proper steering and exploration options and the mood this creates. Beside of this there still is a lot of potential you could use with very well clickable 3d scenes and (non)interactive moments. So far you just don't use this potential and combine it with proper steering. I can remember problems in every single episode (just thinking of the stairs nightmare in the last episode of TOMI) with the current solution. Point&click is damn fine and can be used with nice angles as well.
Dunno but i guess we more than once heard how clever and experienced all you at TTG are but regarding the subject steering i don't see a practical convincing result, just some half baked alternative which could be enhanced as well.
I think, Normality was unusual with its 2.5d engine, yet it was very playable, and that was in 1996. The popup verbs and inventory was very similar to Curse of Monkey Island.
It's the WASD
I wonder the same...
"Season 2 controls" are different. If you can only move Sam around by clicking on things, then you either have to a) make everything you can click on visible at once, or b) make the floor visible so that you can click on the floor to make Sam walk exactly here. It limits how the environment artists can design the locations, the choreographers can set up cameras, and the game designers can design puzzles.
We do care about camera perspectives, and that's how we choose to present the games. As we've explained repeatedly, at great length, in multiple threads, the teams started running into limitations of what point & click could do on its own as far as scene composition and environment design, and it was no longer "damn fine" for the games Telltale wants to make.
If the team explains the reasons for doing something, what they're trying to achieve, why certain approaches didn't work, and how various decisions affect the overall design, there's not much more the team can do than that. Except explain it over again, and then again, and then again a fourth time. There will always, unfortunately, be people who refuse to listen and instead insist that that's wrong, but there's not much the team can do about that, either.
I was playing through S&M Season 1 recently, and going back to point & click again was REALLY annoying. Walking down the street from the DeSoto to Bosco's requires you to click...wait...click...wait...click...wait...click to keep Sam walking. Wish I could just hold down the D key (and the Shift key for good measure)!
There does not exist only one solution or one truth. If you want to achieve a certain atmosphere then there are different ways to approach it. I really don't think it helps saying that this and that isn't possbile whilst it isn't true in such a form.
In my opinion you're axing a component which is a strong part of what makes adventures attractive in favour of something which a) could be achieved otherwise as well and b) also if it wouldn't be possible it wouldn't be the component which interests me the most. On top of that the so far presented alternative isn't top notch in any way, it's a half baked implementation.
So again this isn't a problem of not listening to you. This is more a matter of having different opinions and looking at the current situation.
So the let's say mighty, clever, awesome mindblowing TTG neurons + awareness of the situation + time != a so far good steering implementation.
It seems that bringing men to the mars is the smaller effort compared to coming up with a sexy and smooth steering method or a good looking point&click which again is something i do not understand. In the time we've been discussing this, others are completing games from scratch. Get a grip Boston!
How would the player know that he/she can walk towards the camera?
I have asked this before, can you give any examples from Tomi where direct control is neccessary? Preferably with screenshots, since I don't have the game. I (as a developer) have an hard time grasping why point and click would be impossible for you (as artists). I don't buy the whole "these are 3d environments! we CAN'T do that", simply because I (again as a developer) don't see problems, only solutions.
Sure, send me a copy of 301 and I willdecide if i want to buy it.
a) graphics and gameplay don't conflict
b) we can't do point-and-click because it conflicts with how we want the graphics to be
Just saying.
Also, there's a difference between "graphics vs. gameplay" and "presentation vs. control scheme"
So many times I see people posting about how they have this magical system in their head of how point and click could work without showing the ground, and not once have I seen anyone provide their magical concept without it being immediately shot full of holes. Short of putting in several random hotspots on every screen that say "Click here to move to the next part of the screen" (which would be even worse than direct control as far as "taking you out of the experience" is concerned), there is no practical way to achieve movement to specific spots without them being on screen.
If Telltale doesn't want to make a game that is static and boring as far as camera angles are concerned, being an avid fan of cinematography, I fully support that.
Here is a pirate kitten instead:
Which leaves me with two hopes: one, that Telltale will continue refining both click-and-drag and WASD/arrow key steering; and two, that they will push and push and push the cinematography until the largest amount of people possible can see the switch in control schemes as more of a trade up than a trade in.
Pirate Kitten makes everything better.
I have two points to make here:
a) let's give Telltale the credit that they tried a lot of things before they've given up on p&c - I'm sure they didn't axe the method just because it felt like a cool thing to do. I was among those who used to nag at TTG-Yare for reasons, and he indeed gave a lot of explanations. to be honest, I still can't see how the camera problems are unsolvable, but at one point I decided to believe the people who work on the stuff > 8 hours / day.
b) Telltale made this decision 1 year ago, and there wasn't a single indication since then that they have any mind to go back. time to move on, I guess...
Why don't you just accumulate your reasoning for the change in control methodology into an FAQ so that you don't have to respond to individuals that want to argue with you?
I just *clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclick* all the time
Also, you deserve a some sort of trophy for still bearing with us and not close this thread. Because, I had the power to do it, probably I'd already did it. The FAQ is a good idea too.
I'm not sure if you were talking to me but just in case:
I feel better with point&click because personally i'm still playing a lot of games on pc/mac and there, for such games, the mouse is superior to the gamepad. The mouse feels more accurate, better suited for exploration, more relaxed as you don't have to fight with things like bumping into objects, you just click were you want to be. Point&click works well on multitouchdevices too (assumed the screensize isn't too small) and so on.
In my opinion TTG isn't telling the whole truth regarding the steering options. They want to make it sound like you either get dynamic wobbel wabble or point&click but normally both works together quite fine if you do it right. It's easier seeing this when you're having some understanding on how things work.
@Pantagruel's Friend
a) I think they favour the new steering method primary because they benefit from time friendly crossreleases.
b) Well, you never should give up hope. Beside of this the slightly snotty justifications just made me think, "Oh come on, you're not telling the whole story here.".
A) No. It's just simply not possible to both. As we've said over and over. And the accusation that we are lying to you is frustrating at best.
Edit:
To clarify, I don't understand why people would think we would lie about something like this. If we simply decided "no that would be too much work" then we would SAY that. And have in the past when something like this has come up. It's no great secret that we are a relatively small company and don't have all the resources in the world. Sometimes things are just too much work for us to do, and we aren't afraid to say as much.
combo breaker!
But they ARE adventure games. And renaming them to something other than adventure games will not have any influence at all on those who want to complain about the control method.
Let me state for the record that I had no trouble with the controls in W&G or ToMI (even though I only used WASD and not the mouse) and if Telltale decides that's the only thing they are going to do, that's totally cool with me and I won't think any less of their games. In fact, I don't necessarily believe that Point & Click is superior even if it is feasible.
That being said, I don't buy the whole "it's physically impossible to do Point & Click!" argument. Sure, I understand the impossibility of mapping screen coordinates to a ground plane when the camera is facing away from the ground. But at the same time I can't imagine what a reasonable scene looks like, where it's justified to put the camera at such a weird angle that traditional control becomes completely impossible. After all, the control scheme doesn't have to work always and anywhere; just in the scenes that you put in the game!
That's why it's important to note that a well-designed adventure game always puts reachable locations and objects within the player's view, so the player knows that there's some place to go or something to interact with. If an exit is in view, that means also the player has somewhere to click to reach it. Telltale is really good at this (putting all information at the right places in the scene so the player doesn't get stuck) which also means that the scenes they create should (in principle) be navigable by point and click.
So I think that the traditional algorithm of mapping the screen coordinates to 3D object coordinates and then moving the player close as possible still works in any well-designed 3D game. It's not without its pitfalls (there is path-finding involved, and the game might have a different idea of what the nearest reachable spot is than the player) but by and large it works. Note that many 2D adventure games of the past were also at least partially 3D, in the sense that scenes had width, height and depth, and still point and click worked for them.
Finally, I cannot recall any scenes in W&G and ToMI that absolutely required the new control scheme. Maybe that's because I didn't pay enough attention. Or maybe playability considerations prevented the game designers from using the liberties that the new control system provides. I'd like to see some counter-examples, if there are any, though.