| 29 JUN 2003 at 5:42pm |
EvaGuild Master
Posts : 3247
Joined: 5 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | I find the title of this thread slightly ironic. :-X :
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 5:44pm |
| Deleted User |
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 5:45pm |
EvaGuild Master
Posts : 3247
Joined: 5 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Meow!
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 8:37pm |
copycatSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 293
Joined: 24 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Eva (29 JUN 2003 5:44pm)
Meow!
That's my line (although I'm not a woman )
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 9:18pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By monkeybone (29 JUN 2003 5:22pm)
Better have a good reason, too.
Dismantling bomb --> timed sequence
Did you even read the whole post, or are you just scanning over it like a vulture ready to pick it apart without ingesting the information? This isn't what I'm saying whatsoever.
Yes, I’ve read your posts. Several times.
You love good action games, you don’t see the point of action sequences in pure adventures
(U-turn, sudden change of gamestyle), unless the action scenes blend in seamlessly, which they
don’t because that was the main problem that everyone missed, but if the game has some
action elements in it from the start, the player at least knows what’s expected from him/her.
My conclusion: If there are to be action elements, you prefer adventures with many action
elements (right from the start) to adventures with one or two (U-turn).
I felt and still feel that it was a logical conclusion. You say I missed the point and of course I accept that. You are the only one who knows what you meant to say.
...as an action scene in an adventure game isn't going to be as well made as an action scene in a purely action-based title.
So you said. I haven't seen any evidence to support this subjective opinion of yours (the main problem everybody else missed), except an ancient Delphine game (1989) that I haven't played.
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 6:32am |
| Deleted User | OK, name one action sequence in an adventure that's as well designed as an action game?
I can't think of any. Sam N'Max had some atrocious action compared to the action games of the day, for instance. Future Wars also had some bad stuff. The timed sequences in the GK games are always royally slagged off in these forums...
What I'm saying is that most action sequences are totally without need. There's no point whatsoever. Many of them play like a version of Space Ace anyhow, and who wants that?
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 6:55am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | What action sequences did Sam & Max have? Wack a rat? That was the sweetest action sequence ever!
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 8:21am |
| Deleted User | Perhaps that was a bad example?
The signpost jumping bit was poo though.
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 11:30am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By monkeybone (30 JUN 2003 6:32am)
OK, name one action sequence in an adventure that's as well designed as an action game?
I already have. Read my posts in this thread. Legend of the Prophet and the Assassin (the bird going for my eyes was almost a gamestopper for me). The combat in TLE was marvelous. Fit in perfectly too.
Future Wars also had some bad stuff.
If you insist on bringing up ancient games... the two Manhunter games are IMO good counterexamples.
What I'm saying is that most action sequences are totally without need. There's no point whatsoever.
Well... I'm repeating myself, but many many puzzles are totally "without need" too.
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 12:51pm |
jamarchandSchattenjger
Posts : 1665
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | I think adventure games works under a delicate equilibrium between funny and chellange.
Developers, frequentely choose the wrong way to build the story....and I understand the difficulty to find the exact equilibrium point.
I could tell you, my preferences, but certainly, many others gamers, will disagree....it's simply a taste question.....a point of veiw.
I think GK2 is a good exemple of a "natural game" in therms of problems-soluctions, because there are no use of "artificial puzzles"......only the story and strategy.
This, don't means that GK2 is the ideal.
In other hand, a good example of puzzle-use-plot is Black Dahlia, that choose a big variety of puzzle-solving.
In the middle, we have the great part of games, that use both, pure strategy and pure-puzzle.
The question and the difficulty is a balance between strategy, artificial puzzles and a funny.....all these elements need to be harmonoiusly into the game and at the same time, need to produce a large game.
For this fact GK2 is not a good game....because (despite of the good story, and logical strategy), GK2 coudn't maintain lenght beyond 2 or 3 weeks, the game is too short......So, this game would be use some "artificial puzzles" to improve the lenght, or put more attencion in the hardness strategy, or use another soluction to improve the duration.
In Black Dahlia, the puzzle-o-rama is so difficult, that turn it extremelly boring, impossible to figure out, and consequentelly, no funny, just a torture.
The best games, IMO, are the ones who combine the positive aspects of GK2 and Black Dahlia, and avoid the negative mistakes of both.
Beyond these words, there are many other ways to improve an adventure, such combining inventory itens, hotspots improvements, etc...
The ideal adventure to me, would be able to entretain me for a long long time.....maybe years. maybe an impossible dream, but certainly, is my ideal of adventure.
 &&&&[move]Actually playing SHIVERS and Rhem 2[/move]&&
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 5:40pm |
ElfstoneGuild Master
Posts : 5892
Joined: 4 NOV 2002
Status : Online | Certainly an impossible dream. That would mean a very bad ratio of effort to profit for the company that produces the game.
[b]playing[/b]: Destination Treasure Island (done in two sittings, but it's nice), Syberia (ho-hum), Dracula: Last Sanctuary (on hold)&&[b]reading[/b]: even more study papers&&[b]listening to[/b]: [url=http://www.last.fm/user/Brax82/]this and that[/url], plus [url=http://www.musicovery.com/]Musicovery[/url]&&[b]TV favorites[/b]: (currently) Pushing Daisies, Chuck, Journeyman (cancelled! grrr...), Heroes&& all-time) 24, Stargate SG1, X-Files, Lost, House
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 8:32pm |
copycatSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 293
Joined: 24 OCT 2002
Status : Online | I will not shut up about BS3. I've seen a preview, and I see a lot of Tomb Raider action. The only thing that's missing (in the preview) is the guns. If I want to play Tomb Raider, I'd buy Tomb Raider, not BS3. Secondly, if you're going to do jumping, and climbing and clinging, in a direct control game, (to which I have no objection I just prefer p&c, that's all) that means that either I'd have to learn several keyboard-combinations by heart, to do that stuff, or you'd have to work as in MI4, and cycle through options to do the action you want to do.
In Grim Fandango (another direct control game) Manny had to climb ladders, but you just had to look at the ladder, hit the Enter-button and away he went! Simple, if something was just there to look at, he looked, if something was just to use, he used, and if it was someone, he talked. No keyboard-combinations, no cycling through options, but then again, no jumping, or clinging, or climbing (onto walls) either...
Let's just say that my provisional judgement for BS3 is thumbs down.
|
| 30 JUN 2003 at 10:05pm |
nytimesguyPrivate Detective
Posts : 684
Joined: 14 OCT 2002
Status : Online | I will not shut up about BS3. I've seen a preview, and I see a lot of Tomb Raider action. The only thing that's missing (in the preview) is the guns. If I want to play Tomb Raider, I'd buy Tomb Raider, not BS3. Secondly, if you're going to do jumping, and climbing and clinging, in a direct control game, (to which I have no objection I just prefer p&c, that's all) that means that either I'd have to learn several keyboard-combinations by heart, to do that stuff, or you'd have to work as in MI4, and cycle through options to do the action you want to do.
In Grim Fandango (another direct control game) Manny had to climb ladders, but you just had to look at the ladder, hit the Enter-button and away he went! Simple, if something was just there to look at, he looked, if something was just to use, he used, and if it was someone, he talked. No keyboard-combinations, no cycling through options, but then again, no jumping, or clinging, or climbing (onto walls) either...
I've seen the trailer, and from that I can see some shimmying along ledges but no tombraider jumping. And shimmying along ledges is not difficult even in action games like Splinter Cell. There's no difference between pushing the right arrow and having your character walk or pushing the right arrow and having your character shimmy, it just looks different on screen. As for key combinations, well, yeah, you'll probably have to hit the space bar to make your character jump to a ledge or something, but you're making it sound like you'll have to learn Mortal Combat combos.
If I were making a trailer for a game that I wanted to have broad commercial appeal I would certainly put in whatever actiony-looking things I had in order to widen the appeal, but I see nothing in that trailer that indicates any sort of action controls. It's quite common for adventure games to show action-filled cut scenes in their trailers, after all.
My impression is those complaining about action elements in adventure games are complaining about things that make it difficult or impossible for a non-action player to get through the game (or people like me who just find action elements in adventure games generally poorly down and out of keeping with the game's sensibility.) But you seem horrified at anything that even hints at the game's protagonist working up a sweat, even if the player isn't going to work up a sweat along with him.
There are various levels of difficult in jumping in games. Tomb Raider games make jumping difficult; sometimes you might try over and over to make a particular jump, or have to make a whole series of tricky jumps. Other games basically just have the character jump automatically if he's at the edge of a cliff. Some games are in between, requiring a nominal amount of effort to get a character hoping from one place to the next.
If BS3 does have difficult action sequences in which I am making TR jumps and often falling off cliffs I will raise an objection. If, on the other hand, jumping and such just adds a little spice to the basic navigation I won't mind at all. Either way, until I actually play some of the game I am not going to try and guess whether it's going to annoy me at some future date. I can find plenty of annoying games right now to complain about.
Charles - Game Theorist
|
| 1 JUL 2003 at 12:29am |
| Deleted User | My own definition of a non-adventure element (arcarde, action, combat, whatever) is that hints and a walkthrough are not enough, you also need fast reflexes, good eye-hand coordination etcetera. It's all very well to define an adventure game as a mixture of story, puzzles and exploration without SIGNIFICANT combat elements, but if I cannot finish the game, that element is very SIGNIFICANT!!
What about the "beat the computer" puzzles in games like The Seventh Guest and Schizm? You can't beat them with hints or a walkthrough- you require skill at the particular puzzle. Are they action-adventure?
Also, if you're deaf you may not be able to beat a music puzzle even with hints or a walkthrough.
szcax is muy correctomundo. While an inability to die may be preferable for cartoon style games like Sam & Max and DOTT, it did hurt the sequences in TLJ where April was supposed to be in imminent danger. I think a good alternative to not dying, one that was used notably in Space Quest 6, was a "try again" button, which reloaded a game at a safe point before the death, regardless of whether you saved or not.
Exactly! I liked that feature in Dark Side of the Moon- they automatically reloaded before the disaster if you died (not that there were action sequences in Dark Side of the Moon).
It seems to me that most people either dislike action sequences because they can't play them or like them because they can play them. I am quite capable of beating occasional action sequences- unfortunately they annoy me. If the goal of a game is immersion and realism then that is totally shattered when a monster pops up and you have to press Enter and the arrow keys until it is dead. If you are using the mouse to pan around the landscape and move forward you can get used to it and almost feel like you're inside the game world but if you have to click a monster to death that feeling is ruined.
|
| 1 JUL 2003 at 2:52am |
Bob_the_BuilderJourneyman
Posts : 956
Joined: 25 APR 2003
Status : Online | Ray Ivey, you sir kick @ss.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
|
| 1 JUL 2003 at 7:22am |
Steve IncePrivate Detective
Posts : 571
Joined: 7 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By copycat (30 JUN 2003 8:31pm)
In Grim Fandango (another direct control game) Manny had to climb ladders, but you just had to look at the ladder, hit the Enter-button and away he went! Simple, if something was just there to look at, he looked, if something was just to use, he used, and if it was someone, he talked.
And this is the principle behind BSTSD. There are NO jumps done by running up to a ledge and timing when you press the button. You interact with the edge. The icon map tells you what option is available.
|
| 1 JUL 2003 at 7:46am |
| Deleted User | You tell 'em, Steve-o!
|
| 1 JUL 2003 at 7:42pm |
copycatSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 293
Joined: 24 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Like I said, my judgement is not definitive. The more I know about the game, the more my judgement 'solidifies'. Now that I know the control isn't going to be very hard, the balance is now tilting a bit more to the 'thumbs-up'-side, but it's not there yet.
I am not horridified at my character working up a sweat, why else would I make my character run in every game I play (and where he/she can run)?
What about the "beat the computer" puzzles in games like The Seventh Guest and Schizm? You can't beat them with hints or a walkthrough- you require skill at the particular puzzle. Are they action-adventure?
No, they're puzzle-adventures.
And don't forget, there were certain puzzles in T7G you had to restart ( a few times) because you could start with an unsolvable position (puzzle). However, skill? What skill and at what puzzle?
|
| 2 JUL 2003 at 10:12pm |
| Deleted User | My own definition of a non-adventure element (arcarde, action, combat, whatever) is that hints and a walkthrough are not enough, you also need fast reflexes, good eye-hand coordination etcetera. It's all very well to define an adventure game as a mixture of story, puzzles and exploration without SIGNIFICANT combat elements, but if I cannot finish the game, that element is very SIGNIFICANT!!
What about the "beat the computer" puzzles in games like The Seventh Guest and Schizm? You can't beat them with hints or a walkthrough- you require skill at the particular puzzle. Are they action-adventure?
Also, if you're deaf you may not be able to beat a music puzzle even with hints or a walkthrough.
Right!... all covered by my "whatever" and "etcetera". If you can't finish the game using a WT, then the game designers should add a cheat code! Obsidian had a few puzzles like that (the wave, the tree, and others) which I loved by the way.
|
| 4 JUL 2003 at 11:57am |
| Deleted User | Holy crap! LOL!
I ignored the whole article, since I thought it was too little too late and too dried up by the time it was finally posted because it was mentioned much much earlier before it finally made it to JA. And I already made a "Shut Up -- Zip It!" post looong ago about it. But just out of curiosity I decided to check at least the respones on the forum and dang! Found out that someone wrote quite a nasty letter to Ray, lol. Personally, I'm glad I stayed away from the whole thing. But it's made me laugh that whoever wrote it and Ray as well take things on the internet so seriously and are so easily offended. Sheesh!
But anyway, while I didn't read every response in here, it was fun and I had a laugh. The point? Cos I can! And cause I felt like posting something
|
| 6 JUL 2003 at 6:44pm |
Anastasia_RomanovSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 245
Joined: 28 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By Fickfack (1 JUL 2003 12:29am)
Exactly! I liked that feature in Dark Side of the Moon- they automatically reloaded before the disaster if you died (not that there were action sequences in Dark Side of the Moon).
.
It's got nothing to do with action. "ying" in an adventure game doesn't mean necessarily dying in an action sequence. In many old games, especially Sierra's, death comes as a result of doing something wrong, like going out of the spaceship not wearing the spacesuit.
This is just a small example. I, frankly, can't see the problem here (Many hates death in adventure games... Go figure!). Same thing with dead-ends:
Sure, sometimes I have problem with those, but I actually tend to like them (KQ5 was absurd with its dead ends!!!).
I'll take it your'e not familiar with classic adventures, right?
|
| 7 JUL 2003 at 1:06am |
jalexSchattenjger
Posts : 2503
Joined: 5 MAR 2003
Status : Offline | It was a great articale and I don't blame him at all.
There is nothing worse than an adventure game that uses a keyboard. There is just something about running over an object to pick it up and butting against a door to open it that I just can't get into. Not to mention fighting keyboard to get the charactor into into a certain position to examine something. Keyboards are for action games and have no use what so ever in adventure games except for opening a menu or saving the game or something like that.
Jim
|
| 7 JUL 2003 at 2:21am |
nytimesguyPrivate Detective
Posts : 684
Joined: 14 OCT 2002
Status : Online | It's got nothing to do with action. "ying" in an adventure game doesn't mean necessarily dying in an action sequence. In many old games, especially Sierra's, death comes as a result of doing something wrong, like going out of the spaceship not wearing the spacesuit.
This is just a small example. I, frankly, can't see the problem here (Many hates death in adventure games... Go figure!). Same thing with dead-ends:
Sure, sometimes I have problem with those, but I actually tend to like them (KQ5 was absurd with its dead ends!!!).
I'll take it your'e not familiar with classic adventures, right?
The problem with games that kill you off is if you don't save regulary - and I think that we all at some point have not saved when we should have - you have to replay a chunk of the game. And this is especially annoying in adventure games because you do exactly the same things the second time. Replaying a section of Thief is okay because things will be somewhat different every time, but why would I want to resolve the same puzzles and have the same conversations just because I didn't save right before the game killed me off?
I love Lucas Arts for putting out deathless adventures. And I do believe if you feel you must kill people for effect you should automatically restore them to a reasonable point in the game, as the Nancy Drew games do, and as The Last Express did (that was interesting, since the game took place in real time it would take you back to the last minute at which you could have done the right thing, a truly unusual approach.
Just because you can die in a lot of classic adventures doesn't make it a good thing.
Charles - Game Theorist
|
| 7 JUL 2003 at 10:57am |
Anastasia_RomanovSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 245
Joined: 28 OCT 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By nytimesguy (7 JUL 2003 2:21am)
The problem with games that kill you off is if you don't save regulary - and I think that we all at some point have not saved when we should have - you have to replay a chunk of the game. And this is especially annoying in adventure games because you do exactly the same things the second time. Replaying a section of Thief is okay because things will be somewhat different every time, but why would I want to resolve the same puzzles and have the same conversations just because I didn't save right before the game killed me off?
You don't understand. You, the player, know when you will die. It's not like death will come suddenly.
you see a monster, for example. The first thing you'll do is to save. Next you will think how to get rid of it (If you need, that is) according to information you got earlier in the game (Usually from NPCs).
Sure, a sudden death is a bad thing, since there is nothing you could have done to prevent it, but there are very few games with that kind of thing (KQ1 and KQ2), but they are one of the first adventures and there minor sudden deaths.
Originally Posted By nytimesguy (7 JUL 2003 2:21am)
I love Lucas Arts for putting out deathless adventures. And I do believe if you feel you must kill people for effect you should automatically restore them to a reasonable point in the game, as the Nancy Drew games do, and as The Last Express did (that was interesting, since the game took place in real time it would take you back to the last minute at which you could have done the right thing, a truly unusual approach.
Yes, it's a really good thing, but you need to say that in consideration that the KQ (and SQ series) are one of the first adventure series ever! Actually, you can say that on all of Sierra's games.
Originally Posted By nytimesguy (7 JUL 2003 2:21am)
Just because you can die in a lot of classic adventures doesn't make it a good thing.
And it also doesn't make it a bad thing (Read the above)
|
