alternative ways? (spoilers for ep1 06 bright side of the moon)
Hello, I enjoyed playing sam and max, that said, I sometimes wished more flexibility for the way I get what I need.
I give an example, we have the spoonbending talisman and want to get it out of its box, so we need to use it with the lunar landers rocket. Then the unicorn has to be exposed to heat. We aren't able to do that with the rocket, sam says he doesnt want to destroy it. Theres the footprint max ruined, where it could possible be placed. But thats not possible. So we use the lunar lander at the end inside of a house to heat up the fishtank and bliss gets boiled, but nothing else happens to the fishtank or the room. I may be nitpicking here, but I would like to be able to use different approaches for the same effect.
I like adventure games, but sometimes I get annoyed with the fact that generally you have to do exactly what the designer wanted you to do with an object to get through, although you may encounter objects that would have similar effects, but simply get a "nah, won't do". I know it's a common thing in adventure games, but imo it leads to some frustration at times. It's like I say to you come over to my house and I give you the address, but if you walk any other way I previously used to walk, the road will get closed. I know, it would mean extra time, extra code and more complexity, but I really would like to have the illusion at times, that the road to victory wasn't that narrow. So I would like to have some less linearity at times.
I give an example, we have the spoonbending talisman and want to get it out of its box, so we need to use it with the lunar landers rocket. Then the unicorn has to be exposed to heat. We aren't able to do that with the rocket, sam says he doesnt want to destroy it. Theres the footprint max ruined, where it could possible be placed. But thats not possible. So we use the lunar lander at the end inside of a house to heat up the fishtank and bliss gets boiled, but nothing else happens to the fishtank or the room. I may be nitpicking here, but I would like to be able to use different approaches for the same effect.
I like adventure games, but sometimes I get annoyed with the fact that generally you have to do exactly what the designer wanted you to do with an object to get through, although you may encounter objects that would have similar effects, but simply get a "nah, won't do". I know it's a common thing in adventure games, but imo it leads to some frustration at times. It's like I say to you come over to my house and I give you the address, but if you walk any other way I previously used to walk, the road will get closed. I know, it would mean extra time, extra code and more complexity, but I really would like to have the illusion at times, that the road to victory wasn't that narrow. So I would like to have some less linearity at times.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Take a blind guy and have him shoot an arrow. If the target's bullseye is much larger, then he's more likely to hit it out of sheer chance.
PD: I think my english it's a little strange. Sorry for that.
It would be just too dang easy, otherwise, wouldn't it?
If you had more than one way to break the glass, where would be the challenge? It's just as if you'd need to open a food package you got from the fridge. But how? Well, you just go and get the scissors or a knife to do that. You don't need to think, you just do what comes naturally. That wouldn't exactly work in a game, puzzlewise.
I've had some games that I gave up and checked a walkthrough and still didn't know why that particular combination solved a puzzle, which is a sign of bad writing.
Actually, a generation jump for adventure gaming could be an open and highly interactable environment, where you don't solve specific puzzles but try to accomplish certain goals, to which you need to build your own way. However, I don't see that happening in the near future...
I don't think truly multi-solution puzzles or emergent goal based situations aren't something you can just "add on" to the existing structure of the classic graphic adventure game, without the whole thing coming out changed. Something like that would definitely be cool, but it would be quite the feat to accomplish it and still maintain the level of writing/storytelling/adventure-style immersiveness that you get from a more traditional adventure game. Not saying that I wouldn't want to see (or work on) an adventure-type game with more system-driven solutions, but I think you would have to throw a few other things people like about adventure games out the window (or at least smother them a bit) to accomplish it. That might be a really good thing, but it would also end up being a different thing.
Agreed - and a few more thoughts. Unfortunately, the first thing that would have to go is storytelling as it is today, and that would be a bitter pill to swallow - it can be substituted by characterization to some extent, but there's surely a limit to that.
Then, the games would feel significantly different (to me, at least) as the main source of immersion is not the same as with a story-driven game, where the player is the prime mover - in a goal-driven free-action game, the game's universe has the opportunity to even not give a damn about you
Before going on too long, I think that conceiving, writing and realizing such a game would be a very noble ambition, and a major artistic accomplishment - and these terms are the direct translation of "huge financial risk". But, daydreaming about it is for free, isn't it?