Originally Posted By Fnord (15 SEP 2011 7:48pm)
The bots are getting smarter. I take it that the links were not there when you responded to what it posted.

Originally Posted By walsh (16 SEP 2011 11:36am)
Never mind if it's a bot, there's probably a good discussion we can get out of the topic.

Doesn't seem to be written by a bot. What bot in his or her right mind would bother to be so specific without trying to sell us a pair of flip-flops as well?

Wanna challenge? Play "RHEM" without a walkthrough or hints. That one took me six months (and I have an amateur's grasp of infrastucture: cables, pipes, step-up (or step-down transformers): The stuff in the ceilings, walls, and floors that make us tune-in, drop-out... and take a shower. Things that also break.

I've never thought, "Well, that game was just too short!" because if it's a good (i.e., "One I like.") game, I like to take my time and let the scenerios wash over me. I'm not in some panicked state of mind to have to achieve. I get enough of that in my work.

I'm also probably the slowest Adventure Gamer in captivity.

In fact, the shortest game I ever played was "D" and I *had* to finish before the two-hour cutoff. Failed. Needed two more minutes.

I'll get you one day, "D"!

I confess, on some of the longer games, I immediately find a walkthrough, although I try not to use it until I get stuck. There are some games which are straightforward enough for me to jump right in and not need help. If it gets to be too much, though, I look it up. I guess everyone has their things they'll do or won't do. To each his own.

Appealing to a walkthrough in a game is like reaching for the chips, hard to stop once you get going. I've had a few sucessful times where I only peeked once, but as a rule the rationalizations for reaching become flimsier and flimsier, and can soon devolved into metronomic race to the finish. I usually regret reaching as it's almost sure to disrupt the whole mood of the game, and not tom mention lost respect for ones own puzzle-solving acumen. Doesn't mean I won't reach on occasion, just that if the game is any good at all it detracts from the potential rewards of playing it.

One case I don't have much issue with walkthroughs is in marginally interesting games that I'm on the verge of walking away from. Dreary, repetative or ridiculous gameplay can stand in the way of an interesting story, and maybe it's not a crime to bypass the numbing aspects of play to hook onto the story arc with a walkthrough.

An example of a "one peeker" is with the inspired Outcry - I couldn't make out the musical tones well enough in the last major puzzle, and though I know what to do just could couldn't do it - and I generally do okay on audio puzzles. A quick look at a few lever settings and I was back in action. Much more time in futile efforts to randomly get it would have done more to kill the buzz than a quick reach.

Corrosion on the other hand, I made the mitake of consulting a walkthrough about 3/4 through, and it devolved into chips and salsa. Great little game but I was kicking myself - as I was playing through the endgame..  

I don't really mind how short or long a game is (the longer the better though!) as long as the story is interesting & concludes! One of the modern, or perhaps not so modern trends is to start something that never gets finished - infuriating!

As for walkthroughs - I used to print them off but no more as they are just too handy!  I found myself getting tired but instead of leaving a game alone I'd just look to persevere  rather then resting, thinking & going back later - walkthroughs are great for a tip in the right direction but can make you lazy when you should just switch off & go back at a later time!

The thread starter must have wayyyyy too much time on his/her hands and a walkthrough to finish all those games that fast. Too me ages playing that Indy and the fate of atlantis game and i didn't even complete it in the end.

Of course , this thread is super old now.