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.
According of how I see the problem, it will. Because if they weren't Adventure Games, probably most part of the people who complain about it will not come with the set of it has to be point and click because is an adventure game. And I think this is, at least, the half of the problem.
I don't see why they can't use point and click either, because mostly I believe with enough brains, people can solve their problems. The point, I think, is mostly time: There's no time for solve those problems, because they have probably the craziest and constrained developing time of the industry. And don't come with the thing of "Developers gives the time they need to the games" (Which is probably totally subjetive: Some like Nintendo proves it right, others like Daikatana or Too Human proves it wrong!), far I get it, develop fast, release in time and develop quality games are, probably in the same level, the most important thing there, so, if they have to change something to keep those things the best they can, they do!
Apart, if the game contents have a ton of awesome, who's cares about how control the character? At least not me.
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.
So how do you make Guybrush walk towards you with point & click?
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.
It might work in theory, but practice is another matter entirely.
This is going back quite a ways to the "good old days" of gaming, but...The first Sierra adventure game I ever played was Police Quest 3 (saw it at Babbage's, begged for it as a Christmas gift, well...that and KGB).
Obviously it wasn't a 3D rendered game or anything of the sort, but they tried to give a three dimensional feel to a few scenes, notably the 2nd floor of the Lytton police department.
Briefly, for those not familiar with it, it was a two screen layout with two corridors running east-west (one in foreground, one in background) and one corridor on each screen running n-s. On both screens, there were offices (exits) across from each other in the middle of the n-s hall.
Drove me crazy.
Depth shouldn't be a problem on a 2D background, but the thing still had a serious problem telling whether you were clicking on the back hall, the front hall or the office doors on the "wall" connecting the two screens. Resulted in walking from screen to screen when you were attempting to enter an office, or entering an office when trying to go down the hall.
More recently....Culpa Innata. Loved the game, hated the navigation with a passion (particularly inside the security bureau building).
Think about it....There's a reason most 3D engines in point-and-click genres (strategy for instance) involve driving a camera along the x and z axes with the mouse (and usually require a key to be toggled or held to move on the y axis.)
And that's that mouse clicks are difficult to translate in to 3 dimensional space.
As has been mentioned, since Telltale is a relatively small studio, I'd rather see them devoting their finite resources toward finding ways to implement wacky new puzzles (like the environmental type mentioned earlier) or on building out locations further rather than having the artists and programmers spend more time on each episode figuring out how they can shoehorn in a point-and-click interface that will with the camera angles used episode-to-episode.
@Will
I do understand the argumentation that TTG is a small company and therefore does not want to develop/support what is needed in order to provide different steering mehtods which suits best on each platform (for example point&click on pc/mac). I don't applaud to this, as i rather would try to shorten ressources on other aspects but i can understand it.
I do not buy the argumentation that it's technically not doable and that point&click in 3d scenes would have to be played in a non dynamic environments with static cameras so that the endresult lacks.
I have no idea how your system looks like but just by looking at the situation and having implemented steering methods and camera behaviours for different input/visualisation devices operating in 2d, 2.5d and 3d spaces for quite some systems it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Accordingto the situations, advantages here vs. advantages there but nothing which really kills one option as long as the left hand also works together with the right one.
So how do you make Guybrush walk towards you with point & click?
The funny thing about this picture is that it's exactly one of these situations i rembember running zigzags and from time to time bumping into the pillars whilst hating the perspective and tinking, wow, now this is an great improvement over point&click.
Three ideas: How much worse would the game be if a) by clicking on the bridge the charcter would autimatically (bridge = autorun object until user stops) run to the end of the bridge on his own, b) we would choose a different camera perspective which is still 3d but enables us to reach the end by as less as possible click/click/click or c) define the 3d scene in such a way that a part of were i want to go can be seen so that i easily can click on it.
Three ideas: How much worse would the game be if a) by clicking on the bridge the charcter would autimatically (bridge = autorun object until user stops) run to the end of the bridge on his own, b) we would choose a different camera perspective which is still 3d but enables us to reach the end by as less as possible click/click/click or c) define the 3d scene in such a way that a part of were i want to go can be seen so that i easily can click on it.
I think no one denies that a bit of Point&Click would still be technically possible in some situations. In other situations it is however either restricting how the scene looks, or requires extra work as a workaround.
With direct control no such exception rules are necessary in case you decide to show the scene from a different perspective, which is obviously favorable from a developers point of view.
Now imagine the scenes were as they are, and Point&Click was still available at the places where the floor is visible. It would be nice for those who don't like direct control, but without the extra work of defining and playtesting hotspots they would get stuck and have to switch to direct control every now and then.
I think a lot of people could live with that as a compromise, but a lot would also complain that they have an inconsistent control system.
I was also a fan of Point&Click, and was very skeptic when i heard that ToMI would come with direct control. I hadn't even played W&G up to that point.
It turned out though, that i was able to adapt to the WASD controls for W&G, although i don't love them, and I am fond of click&drag. I even get annoyed a bit by Point&Click now when I start e.g. the earlier Sam&Max episodes.
Nope, direct control also comes with it's limitations. You have to take care of the camera as well. You have to be careful with the scene in oder to avoid difficult manouvering passages. You don't get a perfectly working scene for free. It's more working on this vs. working on that instead.
I think no one wants an inconsistent point&click but a working one would be great and this can be achieved if code and art works together, like with direct control.
I didn't like click&drag a lot as it instantly felt not 100% well implemeted (like that you had to press the button all the time, weird display, ...) and i also bumped into the environment with that, due to the camera changes (which in my opinion weren't always this wisely choosen) and that the steering wasn't perfect.
I also played other adventure games in the meantime and from all the experiences made so far i see room for improvement for all steering methods, may it be on the code or the art side, but in the end i definately would favour point&click because i feel much more comfortable with it than with the other steering options.
Beside of this i prefer beeing able to interact with the game in a way that i can say "You guys, go there." with a point&click and watch them doing so, instead of having the idea wanting them to go there and then having to execute this on my own in form of direct control. That's something completely different to me.
I'm 100% confident if they would tweak the game torwards point&click with some passion, no one would complain that it's not 3dish enough anymore.
- I don't hate anyone that I know of
- I don't think the Telltale team are liars
- I'm mostly over it, as in, I said bye-bye to point and click. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not trying to convince anyone to bring it back.
I'm just saying, while it's true graphics and gameplay aren't inversely proportional, as in, raising one doesn't necessarily cause reducing the other, they do go hand in hand. A change of graphics will often result in a forced change of gameplay, and while it can be a change for the better, it can also be a change for the not-as-good.
My personal take is that it happens quite often that video game companies decide to improve the graphics, and that results in a change of gameplay simply because the graphics are completely different (just like MI2 and MI3 have a different gameplay), and it seems to me that all of these changes have been one way (as in, the decision is "let's improve the graphics, we'll just adapt the gameplay" not "let's improve the gameplay, we'll just adapt the graphics"), and the gameplay changes I am not happy with.
So in effect, to me it results in higher graphics, lower gameplay.
It's not a rule that good graphics mean bad gameplay and vice-versa, but obviously they have to work like each other. It annoys me that it seems the gameplay adapts to the graphics and not the other way around. I could be wrong. Maybe you went "let's do direct control" (incidentally, I find it more direct to click directly where you want to go rather than have to move the character through the whole in-between) and then though "hey, that means we can change the graphics this way". Maybe you first changed the gameplay and adapted the graphics, and it's an accident that it resulted (in my opinion) in better graphics and worse gameplay.
But that doesn't make it less annoying to hear at the same time that no, gameplay and graphics don't conflict together, and that you guys won't go back to what I believe is a better gameplay because you don't want lower graphics.
And it doesn't help that each time graphics are improved, there is a chance I won't be able to play the game period (and that's definitely the worst gameplay, when you can't play at all).
In my opinion TTG isn't telling the whole truth regarding the steering options.
Well, that's quite possible. I assume TTG-Yare was playing with the control scheme for a few weeks at least, and if he was telling the whole truth, that would probably amount to something like 800 pages...
Seriously, though, while I don't believe in the impossible, some scenes would definitely need extra data to be navigable by p&c. I have no idea how much extra effort it would need, though.
Pointing and clicking on things or using the keyboard to move have absolutely nothing to do with gameplay. Control scheme does not equal gameplay, and the adventure genre is by far the least impacted by controls since basically nothing you do in any Telltale game involves any timing or skill to pull off.
The vast majority of screens are perfectly set up for point and click style gameplay as it is, the only times direct control is even required at all is moving between rooms. If you can't be bothered to use excessively simplistic WASD/click and drag controls once every several minutes while playing, I don't know what to tell you.
a) sorry if I used the wrong word, feel free to substitute whichever word is actually correct.
b) I can be bothered. I've played all of Tales before I even realised you could use the keyboard, even though I really didn't like Click&Drag. I'm not sure what you're getting at, really. I mean I'm buying Sam & Max 3. I'll probably buy most if not all future games. Just because I don't dislike it enough to boycott it doesn't mean I love it either.
Or was your point "shut up or stop playing?"
So how do you make Guybrush walk towards you with point & click?
This is the only example I have actually seen referenced to support the direct control argument. And here are my thoughts:
1. I don't *want* to make Guybrush walk towards me. It's a badly laid out scene if you have to walk towards a location that you can't see because it's behind the camera.
2. I don't actually think the composition of the scene even looks that great, everything's crammed in and you can't really see what's going on.
3. Anybody remember Alone in the Dark 1? This scene kind of reminds me of some of the more impossible-to-navigate bits of that game.
Now, can anyone post another example that actually compels me to support direct control?
There were a lot of games I couldn't play on my old Windows XP computer. That didn't make them bad games; in fact when I could play them they were incredible. It just meant that my PC was outdated. It's not the fault of the game that your rig can't keep up.
I just don't understand so many people making such a fuss over what amounts to a vast improvement in the controls.
Does the fact so many people are making a fuss about it perhaps tell you that it is not universally recognised as a "vast improvement"?
Some people like it, great for them. But there are a significant number of people for whom it greatly detracts from the gameplay experience, and we are simply stating our views in the hope that Telltale will notice how many of us are, and perhaps think about reimplementing classic point & click in their new games, *alongside* whatever new system they are devising (since they have already stated that S&M3 will probably not use exactly the same controls as ToMI in any instance).
As I said put a poll here and you will see. Or someone else make a topic poll, we will vote.
I don't think a poll would server any purpose.
It's not a competition of "which control system wins". It's more about that there are lots of people in both camps and the best solution would be to please both.
I realise it's not very likely that they'll consider p&c, especially going on what Telltale themselves have said, it's just that I still see no good reason why a new control system was even needed in the first place. Seems they changed everything for the sake of one or two scenes where it was a bit of extra work to make the old controls work.
Let me put it this way: there are some steps, and at the top has just opened a support center for disabled people. Problem is, wheelchairs can't get up the steps! Do you:
a. Redesign all wheelchairs *in the world* to include a special thruster allowing them to get up the steps
b. Put down a ramp
there are motorized wheelchairs now that can go up steps. people actually think like that.
I love the direct control (in the WASD side, click and drag really didn't actually work at all), I think people don't like it because they don't like change. with more games with it you will learn to love it.
Seems they changed everything for the sake of one or two scenes where it was a bit of extra work to make the old controls work.
I wouldn't count on it being just "one or two scenes" for very long. At least I, for one, would be disappointed if Telltale don't take more and more advantage of what 360-degree 3D environments offer them in that respect.
Also, calling the implementation of a workable point-and-click control scheme "a bit of extra work" is selling much of what Telltale has been stating on this matter rather short, IMO.
there are motorized wheelchairs now that can go up steps. people actually think like that.
That's quite awesome, but it's not an immediate solution to the problem - you can't upgrade every single wheelchair in the world overnight, just so they can all get up one set of steps. What if the motorised wheelchair shop is at the top of those steps?
I love the direct control (in the WASD side, click and drag really didn't actually work at all), I think people don't like it because they don't like change. with more games with it you will learn to love it.
Definitely not. It's insulting for you to even suggest that. I've played computer games since the early 80s and if I was so resistant to change then I'd still be playing on my ZX Spectrum, wouldn't I?
The fact is, I played 5 episodes of ToMI, and with each one I disliked the controls even more. Loved the episodes, grew to despise the controls. And I will give *anything* the chance it deserves. In fact (as an example), I loved the controls in Grim Fandango, even though it was something "new and scary" and a lot of people didn't like it, but to me direct control just seemed to fit perfectly with the design of that game, plus they did it in a way that allowed for full freedom of movement without ever making the character seem glitchy or cumbersome.
If you think my problem is as simple as not being able to get my head around something new, then please go back and read my many and very detailed analyses of exactly what I do and don't like about the controls, before you start throwing such insinuating judgements in my face. You will find I have written a very balanced opinion that is *not* simply "ZOMG stuff changed IT SCARE ME"
Just because you like something, does not mean everybody in the world will, however much you think that everyone should be exactly like you.
I feel like this conversation is just spinning its wheels here. Why don't those of you who hate the new control methodology just vote with your dollar? If you're a significant portion of Telltale's sales, they'll likely capitulate. Simply going 'round and 'round with "Nuh-uh" and "Yuh-huh" doesn't seem to be doing anything.
Also, calling the implementation of a workable point-and-click control scheme "a bit of extra work" is selling much of what Telltale has been stating on this matter rather short, IMO.
Well... since they *already had* point & click in their engine, it's not really that much work to extend/patch/develop that system, is it? As opposed to, say, writing an entirely new control system from scratch. Just saying...
Personally, I don't feel these epic and cinematic environments will add much to games at all. Such fruity camera angles are great for cut scenes and the like, but for general exploring, well, it's nice to see where you're putting your feet.
Earlier I mentioned Alone in the Dark as an example. For those who don't remember, in the early days of 3D graphics it was an attempt to do a puzzle/adventure with all kinds of extreme camera angles for cinematic effect. It was just very hard to play, because every time the camera changed you had to reorient yourself and your controls. I noticed a similar thing happening quite often with ToMI, and I don't think it's necessarily the best way to go purely in terms of playability.
I feel like this conversation is just spinning its wheels here. Why don't those of you who hate the new control methodology just vote with your dollar? If you're a significant portion of Telltale's sales, they'll likely capitulate. Simply going 'round and 'round with "Nuh-uh" and "Yuh-huh" doesn't seem to be doing anything.
What do you mean by "vote with your dollar"? You mean "not buy the games"? That's a silly thing to suggest and nobody wants to do that, because ultimately it would hurt Telltale because they are an indie developer and need all the sales they can get to make even better games, and it would hurt the boycotters because they don't get to enjoy the great stories and adventures. Telltale are well known for listening to their fanbase without the need to attempt a petty boycott. (Which incidentally would not work in any instance, if you have ever witnessed an attempted boycott of a game or company)
Actually, I did "vote with my dollar" - by buying the entire Telltale back catalogue after I discovered ToMI. If they are not going to listen to the reasoned opinion of people who have already paid for their games, they're certainly not going to listen to anything said by people who are refusing to buy them!
If they are not going to listen to the reasoned opinion of people who have already paid for their games, they're certainly not going to listen to anything said by people who are refusing to buy them!
Quite the opposite. You're missing the simplest of math equations: The bottom line.
Let's assume that point and click games sell well, but future direct control games sell poorly in this hypothetical scenario. If past point and click games sold well, but future direct control games sell poorly, Telltale would have three options:
1) Return to point and click.
2) Try a completely new control scheme.
3) Stick to their guns and die a slow death with minimal sales.
Which do you believe to be the least likely option under these conditions?
Money is the incentive. It is always the incentive.
As has been said before, an unhappy customer is much more vocal than a happy one, and in this very thread I believe there have honestly been more happy customers defending WASD than unhappy customers upset by WASD, which I believe speaks volumes in favor of WASD.
As has been said before, an unhappy customer is much more vocal than a happy one, and in this very thread I believe there have honestly been more happy customers defending WASD than unhappy customers upset by WASD, which I believe speaks volumes in favor of WASD.
If past point and click games sold well, but future direct control games sell poorly, Telltale would have three options
If they invested enough in the new games and they sold poorly, they might not have any options at all since they'd have lost all of their money. Not that it's likely to happen of course.
I'm not going to boycott the games. I like the games, and I love the company. And they experimented with click&drag because they thought WASD wasn't satisfactory enough, I'm guessing. If they had thought it was perfect with Wallace and Gromit, they wouldn't have changed anything. But they added click&drag, which failed but you know, they tried.
So they might keep experimenting and finding something that, although not point&click, I'd be happy with. I'll stick around until then, and deal with it if they don't and I have to use WASD.
I also think people who dislike WASD are a minority, not a majority. I'm not sure if a majority of people actually prefer WASD to point & click, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people really don't care. If you stop buying the games because of that, you'll be one of very few people, and with all the new customers brought by Monkey Island and possibly the next series, your absence probably won't even be noticed. And you wouldn't get to enjoy the games anymore.
That sounds like a pretty bad deal to me.
Also, the discussion is going in circles, yes. That's our contribution to remind everyone that this is an Internet forum. That and off-topic discussions.
As it is right now, the scenes that really require the direct control fee like "special scenes". You know, like a 3D movie that has only actually done some of the scenes in 3D, so you have to sit through the movie making sure to pay attention to the bottom corner of the screen so you notice when they make a tiny 3D glasses icon blink down there.
Not against direct control by any means, not anymore. I just want to see, well, a lot more of the benefit. I'm still walking around glorified digital shoeboxes for the most part.
WASD is just fine, but I never bothered with click and drag either, it just didn't work "right", allowing the control WASD allows.
Plus it took away your cursor which you had to use to click on items, which is probably one of the major reasons never to use it.
Also, isn't it quite possible in ToMI as it is to move by clicking items far away? Wont work for area transitions, but hey; there it is.
Some people suggest such a system or half/half; just try it out and see how awkward it feels...
1. I don't *want* to make Guybrush walk towards me. It's a badly laid out scene if you have to walk towards a location that you can't see because it's behind the camera.
(...)
Now, can anyone post another example that actually compels me to support direct control?
Well, it's probably not worth the effort, because you can easily say "it's a badly laid out scene" to practically any example given. Anyway, my favourite "obviously-direct-control-is-needed" scene is the interrogation in Wallace and Gromit: The Last Resort - it would be quite difficult to move around in that crowded room with clicks.
As has been said before, an unhappy customer is much more vocal than a happy one, and in this very thread I believe there have honestly been more happy customers defending WASD than unhappy customers upset by WASD, which I believe speaks volumes in favor of WASD.
Let's assume that point and click games sell well, but future direct control games sell poorly in this hypothetical scenario. If past point and click games sold well, but future direct control games sell poorly, Telltale would have three options:
Telltale are now selling far better than ever before (due to massive exposure from ToMI, *nothing to do* with changes in control scheme). So, how are they meant to tell if the newer control scheme is more popular purely from sales figures? That's right, it doesn't work. Go back to maths class until you've realised that all statistics are farcicle and meaningless.
Add to this, as I stated, I have no intention of depriving myself of Sam and Max, whatever the control scheme. That would be pure stupidity.
As has been said before, an unhappy customer is much more vocal than a happy one, and in this very thread I believe there have honestly been more happy customers defending WASD than unhappy customers upset by WASD, which I believe speaks volumes in favor of WASD.
As I said, there have been lots of people on both sides of the debate. A forum debate or poll is *never* going to be a true representation of actual numbers. I don't really care which there is a greater volume of, because there are still clearly plenty of people who really dislike the control scheme! (And plenty of others who don't *mind* it but would still prefer point & click...) "I believe" and "in my opinion" and "I suspect" are all well and good; but I am trying to have a reasoned and informed debate about exactly why point & click even needed to be changed, and I still haven't had a satisfactory answer.
Well, it's probably not worth the effort, because you can easily say "it's a badly laid out scene" to practically any example given. Anyway, my favourite "obviously-direct-control-is-needed" scene is the interrogation in Wallace and Gromit: The Last Resort - it would be quite difficult to move around in that crowded room with clicks.
I could say that to any scene, yes, but I will happily agree with you if I can actually see the design merit in a scene. Which in that case, I couldn't. And you haven't responded to my point that you should never need to have the player walking towards something behind the camera.
I don't know the W&G scene you describe, but surely it could have been achieved by just clicking on the people you wanted to talk to, rather than requiring the player to navigate themselves?
And you haven't responded to my point that you should never need to have the player walking towards something behind the camera.
For me, it was part of the "bad design" argument.
Anyhow, is there a rule saying anything like this? I honestly don't see any evil in walking towards something behind the camera.
I don't know the W&G scene you describe, but surely it could have been achieved by just clicking on the people you wanted to talk to, rather than requiring the player to navigate themselves?
Oh yes, you could click the people to achieve the results - but you would be missing out on the process. Part of the magic of that scene is that you have Gromit nosing around while everyone is tense and making various remarks - it really adds tension to the atmosphere.
(image)
So how do you make Guybrush walk towards you with point & click?
Why can't he walk over that bridge on his own until he's back at a point where I can see what's going on? It's not as if there is anything important in the middle of the bridge (if there was, this would have been a terrible camera angle) and even with WASD controls, I have no idea where I'm steering Guybrush. Having control over your character while not being able to see where he's going is not much better than momentarily relinquishing control, in my opinion.
Comments
According of how I see the problem, it will. Because if they weren't Adventure Games, probably most part of the people who complain about it will not come with the set of it has to be point and click because is an adventure game. And I think this is, at least, the half of the problem.
I don't see why they can't use point and click either, because mostly I believe with enough brains, people can solve their problems. The point, I think, is mostly time: There's no time for solve those problems, because they have probably the craziest and constrained developing time of the industry. And don't come with the thing of "Developers gives the time they need to the games" (Which is probably totally subjetive: Some like Nintendo proves it right, others like Daikatana or Too Human proves it wrong!), far I get it, develop fast, release in time and develop quality games are, probably in the same level, the most important thing there, so, if they have to change something to keep those things the best they can, they do!
Apart, if the game contents have a ton of awesome, who's cares about how control the character? At least not me.
So how do you make Guybrush walk towards you with point & click?
It might work in theory, but practice is another matter entirely.
This is going back quite a ways to the "good old days" of gaming, but...The first Sierra adventure game I ever played was Police Quest 3 (saw it at Babbage's, begged for it as a Christmas gift, well...that and KGB).
Obviously it wasn't a 3D rendered game or anything of the sort, but they tried to give a three dimensional feel to a few scenes, notably the 2nd floor of the Lytton police department.
Briefly, for those not familiar with it, it was a two screen layout with two corridors running east-west (one in foreground, one in background) and one corridor on each screen running n-s. On both screens, there were offices (exits) across from each other in the middle of the n-s hall.
Drove me crazy.
Depth shouldn't be a problem on a 2D background, but the thing still had a serious problem telling whether you were clicking on the back hall, the front hall or the office doors on the "wall" connecting the two screens. Resulted in walking from screen to screen when you were attempting to enter an office, or entering an office when trying to go down the hall.
More recently....Culpa Innata. Loved the game, hated the navigation with a passion (particularly inside the security bureau building).
Think about it....There's a reason most 3D engines in point-and-click genres (strategy for instance) involve driving a camera along the x and z axes with the mouse (and usually require a key to be toggled or held to move on the y axis.)
And that's that mouse clicks are difficult to translate in to 3 dimensional space.
As has been mentioned, since Telltale is a relatively small studio, I'd rather see them devoting their finite resources toward finding ways to implement wacky new puzzles (like the environmental type mentioned earlier) or on building out locations further rather than having the artists and programmers spend more time on each episode figuring out how they can shoehorn in a point-and-click interface that will with the camera angles used episode-to-episode.
Just my .50c worth.
I do understand the argumentation that TTG is a small company and therefore does not want to develop/support what is needed in order to provide different steering mehtods which suits best on each platform (for example point&click on pc/mac). I don't applaud to this, as i rather would try to shorten ressources on other aspects but i can understand it.
I do not buy the argumentation that it's technically not doable and that point&click in 3d scenes would have to be played in a non dynamic environments with static cameras so that the endresult lacks.
I have no idea how your system looks like but just by looking at the situation and having implemented steering methods and camera behaviours for different input/visualisation devices operating in 2d, 2.5d and 3d spaces for quite some systems it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Accordingto the situations, advantages here vs. advantages there but nothing which really kills one option as long as the left hand also works together with the right one.
Three ideas: How much worse would the game be if a) by clicking on the bridge the charcter would autimatically (bridge = autorun object until user stops) run to the end of the bridge on his own, b) we would choose a different camera perspective which is still 3d but enables us to reach the end by as less as possible click/click/click or c) define the 3d scene in such a way that a part of were i want to go can be seen so that i easily can click on it.
With direct control no such exception rules are necessary in case you decide to show the scene from a different perspective, which is obviously favorable from a developers point of view.
Now imagine the scenes were as they are, and Point&Click was still available at the places where the floor is visible. It would be nice for those who don't like direct control, but without the extra work of defining and playtesting hotspots they would get stuck and have to switch to direct control every now and then.
I think a lot of people could live with that as a compromise, but a lot would also complain that they have an inconsistent control system.
I was also a fan of Point&Click, and was very skeptic when i heard that ToMI would come with direct control. I hadn't even played W&G up to that point.
It turned out though, that i was able to adapt to the WASD controls for W&G, although i don't love them, and I am fond of click&drag. I even get annoyed a bit by Point&Click now when I start e.g. the earlier Sam&Max episodes.
I think no one wants an inconsistent point&click but a working one would be great and this can be achieved if code and art works together, like with direct control.
I didn't like click&drag a lot as it instantly felt not 100% well implemeted (like that you had to press the button all the time, weird display, ...) and i also bumped into the environment with that, due to the camera changes (which in my opinion weren't always this wisely choosen) and that the steering wasn't perfect.
I also played other adventure games in the meantime and from all the experiences made so far i see room for improvement for all steering methods, may it be on the code or the art side, but in the end i definately would favour point&click because i feel much more comfortable with it than with the other steering options.
Beside of this i prefer beeing able to interact with the game in a way that i can say "You guys, go there." with a point&click and watch them doing so, instead of having the idea wanting them to go there and then having to execute this on my own in form of direct control. That's something completely different to me.
I'm 100% confident if they would tweak the game torwards point&click with some passion, no one would complain that it's not 3dish enough anymore.
- I don't hate anyone that I know of
- I don't think the Telltale team are liars
- I'm mostly over it, as in, I said bye-bye to point and click. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not trying to convince anyone to bring it back.
I'm just saying, while it's true graphics and gameplay aren't inversely proportional, as in, raising one doesn't necessarily cause reducing the other, they do go hand in hand. A change of graphics will often result in a forced change of gameplay, and while it can be a change for the better, it can also be a change for the not-as-good.
My personal take is that it happens quite often that video game companies decide to improve the graphics, and that results in a change of gameplay simply because the graphics are completely different (just like MI2 and MI3 have a different gameplay), and it seems to me that all of these changes have been one way (as in, the decision is "let's improve the graphics, we'll just adapt the gameplay" not "let's improve the gameplay, we'll just adapt the graphics"), and the gameplay changes I am not happy with.
So in effect, to me it results in higher graphics, lower gameplay.
It's not a rule that good graphics mean bad gameplay and vice-versa, but obviously they have to work like each other. It annoys me that it seems the gameplay adapts to the graphics and not the other way around. I could be wrong. Maybe you went "let's do direct control" (incidentally, I find it more direct to click directly where you want to go rather than have to move the character through the whole in-between) and then though "hey, that means we can change the graphics this way". Maybe you first changed the gameplay and adapted the graphics, and it's an accident that it resulted (in my opinion) in better graphics and worse gameplay.
But that doesn't make it less annoying to hear at the same time that no, gameplay and graphics don't conflict together, and that you guys won't go back to what I believe is a better gameplay because you don't want lower graphics.
And it doesn't help that each time graphics are improved, there is a chance I won't be able to play the game period (and that's definitely the worst gameplay, when you can't play at all).
Well, that's quite possible. I assume TTG-Yare was playing with the control scheme for a few weeks at least, and if he was telling the whole truth, that would probably amount to something like 800 pages...
Seriously, though, while I don't believe in the impossible, some scenes would definitely need extra data to be navigable by p&c. I have no idea how much extra effort it would need, though.
In matters of life and death, you should never. Regarding a control scheme in a computer game, I do think it's time to let go.
The vast majority of screens are perfectly set up for point and click style gameplay as it is, the only times direct control is even required at all is moving between rooms. If you can't be bothered to use excessively simplistic WASD/click and drag controls once every several minutes while playing, I don't know what to tell you.
b) I can be bothered. I've played all of Tales before I even realised you could use the keyboard, even though I really didn't like Click&Drag. I'm not sure what you're getting at, really. I mean I'm buying Sam & Max 3. I'll probably buy most if not all future games. Just because I don't dislike it enough to boycott it doesn't mean I love it either.
Or was your point "shut up or stop playing?"
This is the only example I have actually seen referenced to support the direct control argument. And here are my thoughts:
1. I don't *want* to make Guybrush walk towards me. It's a badly laid out scene if you have to walk towards a location that you can't see because it's behind the camera.
2. I don't actually think the composition of the scene even looks that great, everything's crammed in and you can't really see what's going on.
3. Anybody remember Alone in the Dark 1? This scene kind of reminds me of some of the more impossible-to-navigate bits of that game.
Now, can anyone post another example that actually compels me to support direct control?
Does the fact so many people are making a fuss about it perhaps tell you that it is not universally recognised as a "vast improvement"?
Some people like it, great for them. But there are a significant number of people for whom it greatly detracts from the gameplay experience, and we are simply stating our views in the hope that Telltale will notice how many of us are, and perhaps think about reimplementing classic point & click in their new games, *alongside* whatever new system they are devising (since they have already stated that S&M3 will probably not use exactly the same controls as ToMI in any instance).
Actually, I don't think that's very likely. At all.
I don't think a poll would server any purpose.
It's not a competition of "which control system wins". It's more about that there are lots of people in both camps and the best solution would be to please both.
I realise it's not very likely that they'll consider p&c, especially going on what Telltale themselves have said, it's just that I still see no good reason why a new control system was even needed in the first place. Seems they changed everything for the sake of one or two scenes where it was a bit of extra work to make the old controls work.
Let me put it this way: there are some steps, and at the top has just opened a support center for disabled people. Problem is, wheelchairs can't get up the steps! Do you:
a. Redesign all wheelchairs *in the world* to include a special thruster allowing them to get up the steps
b. Put down a ramp
Answers on a postcard chaps
I love the direct control (in the WASD side, click and drag really didn't actually work at all), I think people don't like it because they don't like change. with more games with it you will learn to love it.
I wouldn't count on it being just "one or two scenes" for very long. At least I, for one, would be disappointed if Telltale don't take more and more advantage of what 360-degree 3D environments offer them in that respect.
Also, calling the implementation of a workable point-and-click control scheme "a bit of extra work" is selling much of what Telltale has been stating on this matter rather short, IMO.
That's quite awesome, but it's not an immediate solution to the problem - you can't upgrade every single wheelchair in the world overnight, just so they can all get up one set of steps. What if the motorised wheelchair shop is at the top of those steps?
Definitely not. It's insulting for you to even suggest that. I've played computer games since the early 80s and if I was so resistant to change then I'd still be playing on my ZX Spectrum, wouldn't I?
The fact is, I played 5 episodes of ToMI, and with each one I disliked the controls even more. Loved the episodes, grew to despise the controls. And I will give *anything* the chance it deserves. In fact (as an example), I loved the controls in Grim Fandango, even though it was something "new and scary" and a lot of people didn't like it, but to me direct control just seemed to fit perfectly with the design of that game, plus they did it in a way that allowed for full freedom of movement without ever making the character seem glitchy or cumbersome.
If you think my problem is as simple as not being able to get my head around something new, then please go back and read my many and very detailed analyses of exactly what I do and don't like about the controls, before you start throwing such insinuating judgements in my face. You will find I have written a very balanced opinion that is *not* simply "ZOMG stuff changed IT SCARE ME"
Just because you like something, does not mean everybody in the world will, however much you think that everyone should be exactly like you.
Well... since they *already had* point & click in their engine, it's not really that much work to extend/patch/develop that system, is it? As opposed to, say, writing an entirely new control system from scratch. Just saying...
Personally, I don't feel these epic and cinematic environments will add much to games at all. Such fruity camera angles are great for cut scenes and the like, but for general exploring, well, it's nice to see where you're putting your feet.
Earlier I mentioned Alone in the Dark as an example. For those who don't remember, in the early days of 3D graphics it was an attempt to do a puzzle/adventure with all kinds of extreme camera angles for cinematic effect. It was just very hard to play, because every time the camera changed you had to reorient yourself and your controls. I noticed a similar thing happening quite often with ToMI, and I don't think it's necessarily the best way to go purely in terms of playability.
What do you mean by "vote with your dollar"? You mean "not buy the games"? That's a silly thing to suggest and nobody wants to do that, because ultimately it would hurt Telltale because they are an indie developer and need all the sales they can get to make even better games, and it would hurt the boycotters because they don't get to enjoy the great stories and adventures. Telltale are well known for listening to their fanbase without the need to attempt a petty boycott. (Which incidentally would not work in any instance, if you have ever witnessed an attempted boycott of a game or company)
Actually, I did "vote with my dollar" - by buying the entire Telltale back catalogue after I discovered ToMI. If they are not going to listen to the reasoned opinion of people who have already paid for their games, they're certainly not going to listen to anything said by people who are refusing to buy them!
Let's assume that point and click games sell well, but future direct control games sell poorly in this hypothetical scenario. If past point and click games sold well, but future direct control games sell poorly, Telltale would have three options:
1) Return to point and click.
2) Try a completely new control scheme.
3) Stick to their guns and die a slow death with minimal sales.
Which do you believe to be the least likely option under these conditions?
Money is the incentive. It is always the incentive.
+1
Sorry, but I have to say it, I think he's right.
I don't care either way, but I think everyone's going overboard.
If they invested enough in the new games and they sold poorly, they might not have any options at all since they'd have lost all of their money. Not that it's likely to happen of course.
I'm not going to boycott the games. I like the games, and I love the company. And they experimented with click&drag because they thought WASD wasn't satisfactory enough, I'm guessing. If they had thought it was perfect with Wallace and Gromit, they wouldn't have changed anything. But they added click&drag, which failed but you know, they tried.
So they might keep experimenting and finding something that, although not point&click, I'd be happy with. I'll stick around until then, and deal with it if they don't and I have to use WASD.
I also think people who dislike WASD are a minority, not a majority. I'm not sure if a majority of people actually prefer WASD to point & click, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people really don't care. If you stop buying the games because of that, you'll be one of very few people, and with all the new customers brought by Monkey Island and possibly the next series, your absence probably won't even be noticed. And you wouldn't get to enjoy the games anymore.
That sounds like a pretty bad deal to me.
Also, the discussion is going in circles, yes. That's our contribution to remind everyone that this is an Internet forum. That and off-topic discussions.
Not against direct control by any means, not anymore. I just want to see, well, a lot more of the benefit. I'm still walking around glorified digital shoeboxes for the most part.
Plus it took away your cursor which you had to use to click on items, which is probably one of the major reasons never to use it.
Also, isn't it quite possible in ToMI as it is to move by clicking items far away? Wont work for area transitions, but hey; there it is.
Some people suggest such a system or half/half; just try it out and see how awkward it feels...
Well, it's probably not worth the effort, because you can easily say "it's a badly laid out scene" to practically any example given. Anyway, my favourite "obviously-direct-control-is-needed" scene is the interrogation in Wallace and Gromit: The Last Resort - it would be quite difficult to move around in that crowded room with clicks.
Good point.
Telltale are now selling far better than ever before (due to massive exposure from ToMI, *nothing to do* with changes in control scheme). So, how are they meant to tell if the newer control scheme is more popular purely from sales figures? That's right, it doesn't work. Go back to maths class until you've realised that all statistics are farcicle and meaningless.
Add to this, as I stated, I have no intention of depriving myself of Sam and Max, whatever the control scheme. That would be pure stupidity.
As I said, there have been lots of people on both sides of the debate. A forum debate or poll is *never* going to be a true representation of actual numbers. I don't really care which there is a greater volume of, because there are still clearly plenty of people who really dislike the control scheme! (And plenty of others who don't *mind* it but would still prefer point & click...) "I believe" and "in my opinion" and "I suspect" are all well and good; but I am trying to have a reasoned and informed debate about exactly why point & click even needed to be changed, and I still haven't had a satisfactory answer.
I could say that to any scene, yes, but I will happily agree with you if I can actually see the design merit in a scene. Which in that case, I couldn't. And you haven't responded to my point that you should never need to have the player walking towards something behind the camera.
I don't know the W&G scene you describe, but surely it could have been achieved by just clicking on the people you wanted to talk to, rather than requiring the player to navigate themselves?
For me, it was part of the "bad design" argument.
Anyhow, is there a rule saying anything like this? I honestly don't see any evil in walking towards something behind the camera.
Oh yes, you could click the people to achieve the results - but you would be missing out on the process. Part of the magic of that scene is that you have Gromit nosing around while everyone is tense and making various remarks - it really adds tension to the atmosphere.
For the record, I don't hate the WASD controls, but even if I did, I'd be crazy to boycott Telltale over such a triviality.