Two hours? I pray this is a mistake...

[avatar_58]

http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2006/051206_e3_day2_chris_1.x

"Each two-hour episode will see Sam & Max solve a complete case, with an overarching storyline tying the episodes together and culminating in a season finale-like grand finish."

I mean come on, two hours? Are these episodes going to cost $5.00? I just don't understand this.

At least someone tell me they will have puzzles in them to stump players right? Its not going to be a cake-walk ala Bone is it? I'm royally confused as to why these episodes are going to be so short.

The original Sam 'n Max game was short too, but at least it stumped the player with puzzles and figuring out what to do. In fact some of the game could take days to figure out, it depended on the player. Will these episodes include such puzzles?

It almost seems to me that you want to sell an interactive (barely by the sounds of it) cartoon rather than a series of adventure games.

[Diduz]

I am not surprised. The FAQ said that the episodes will be "shorter than The Great Cow Race". Considering that Bone 2 lasts 5 hours, I assumed each S&M installment would be half as long (more or less). But they will be published more often than Bone episodes are. In addition, the "season concept" allows players who don't like episodic publishing to buy the whole season when it's over. If the season includes - e.g. - 7 episodes, you'll get a 14 hours adventuring experience: nowadays this is the length of an average adventure game, which often doesn't feature the same amount of animations a Telltale game does and often requires more than a year to get made anyway.
Diduz (Italy)

[SamNmaX88]

Yeah 2 hours is extremely short. If thats how short they are then i'll probably buy it at the end of the season or something. I really REALLY hope that it's not more of an "interactive cartoon" than an adventure...Thats really why i don't enjoy Bone.I have confidence in TT though that they will be able to deliver...

[avatar_58]

In order for these episodes to be truly worth it they are going to have jam pack each episode with puzzles and humour, because even once the 'season' is done I couldn't see myself buying it just to "watch" Sam'n Max rather than play it. :(

[TheTingler]

This is my biggest worry, even more so than the voices.

So there's less play time but we wait less for the next one.

The flipside of this is: that also means less development time, a set schedule for Telltale to adhere to, and so the games will be RUSHED. Just look at any film licensed games that come out the same time as the film for an example as to how rushed they can be.

And also, this will totally destroy two of my favourite things about adventure games: solving tricky, difficult puzzles and exploring. How much of either can appear in a 2 hour long game? There wasn't much in The Great Cow Race, and that was 5 hours.

[Junkface]

Depending on the pricing, the short playtime itself doesn't so much concern me, but the effect it may have on opportunities for exploration does somewhat. I'm willing to give Telltale the benefit of the doubt though, and wait for the first couple of episodes before I make any judgements.

[HieroHero]

the length doesnt concern me considering we will be getting episodes a lot quicker.. What does concern me as other people have said is the difficulty.. in all my favorite adventure games including sam and max: hit the road.. theres been puzzles thats taken me days even weeks to figure it out.. is it 2 hours of gameplay if you figure out everything within 5 seconds? I do want to be challenged.. I do want to be playing a game..figuring out the puzzles is the greatest thing.. if its very easy and you just play through a story in 2 hours that will be disappointing :(

[Krazy]

2 hours eh? Since they compared it to The Great Cow Race, I'd like to know how the length compares to say Out From Boneville? I REALLY hope these games don't end up pitifully brief and easy... What's the fun of exploring and solving puzzles if it's over in a flash? I don't see myself being able to wait for the whole season and play it at once either, it was bad enough waiting to see where Sam & Max went after the Lucas Arts fiasco.

[Emily]

The flipside of this is: that also means less development time, a set schedule for Telltale to adhere to, and so the games will be RUSHED. Just look at any film licensed games that come out the same time as the film for an example as to how rushed they can be.

On the other hand, TV shows have been following this sort of schedule since the dawn of television.

[TheTingler]

A very, very different beast to videogames, and you know that!

I'm just after one thing: knowledge that the whole series will basically be completed before the first episode hits: that's what TV shows do. The final time between episodes should be pretty much for bug-testing and polishing only.

[Algotsson]

Seriously. I wont buy a game that is too easy. Come on, you want to revive the adventure game genre, what do you think made it popular?

The combination of a good story, atmosphere, jokes AND the great feeling that the player achieves when he or she has managed to solve a really really hard puzzle.

The puzzles can't be easier than those in Curse of Monkey Island. If that's the case, I prefer replaying the good ol' Hit the Road.

[matan]

Completing the whole series before the first episode would be silly, because (as you can see with Bone) the best thing about the whole episodic idea is that TellTale can get feedback and improve the next episode accordingly.

[ben_ethus]

Difficult puzzles = a good thing.

Lots of items on the screens and in the background to click on and explore = a good thing.

A large array of humorous responses from Sam and Max as you click on those previously mentioned things = gold.

Lots of goofy dialogue options = rockin'.

My hope is that the Sam and Max episodes will retain these things. This stuff is what made the original Lucasarts adventure games what they are. Every time I played Sam and Max Hit the Road, I'd stumble across something new that I'd never seen before as I used every command action on everything on the screen. (Yes, I played that game a *lot.*)

If the episodes retain these characteristics, I don't really care how long they each are. Difficult puzzles generally add time to the game anyway, making them seem longer than they are... :D

[TheTingler]

Completing the whole series before the first episode would be silly, because (as you can see with Bone) the best thing about the whole episodic idea is that TellTale can get feedback and improve the next episode accordingly.

Then how else are they going to get them done to a satisfactory standard? By now, after two Bone games, I would like to think they KNOW about how to make episodic adventure games.

And when I say "completed", I mean "everything in place". So if criticisms do arise, they can use the time between episodes just to correct those problems, rather than make the whole game.

If major criticisms at the heart of the game appear that requires a total restructuring of the game, then Telltale hasn't done their job properly or learned anything. Which I doubt will happen - I think they pretty much know what they're doing now:

Make them tricky, make them have plenty to do for replaying, make them have good exploration value, make the story engrossing, make the characters entertaining, make the voices right for those characters, and most importantly - make it laugh-out-loud funny.

Telltale - print that last paragraph out and hang it on your notice board. Follow it, and we'll be happy.

[Diduz]

Difficult puzzles = a good thing.

Lots of items on the screens and in the background to click on and explore = a good thing.

A large array of humorous responses from Sam and Max as you click on those previously mentioned things = gold.

Lots of goofy dialogue options = rockin'.

My hope is that the Sam and Max episodes will retain these things. This stuff is what made the original Lucasarts adventure games what they are. Every time I played Sam and Max Hit the Road, I'd stumble across something new that I'd never seen before as I used every command action on everything on the screen. (Yes, I played that game a *lot.*)

If the episodes retain these characteristics, I don't really care how long they each are. Difficult puzzles generally add time to the game anyway, making them seem longer than they are... :D

Bull's eye! ;)
Diduz (Italy)

[Linque]

Difficult puzzles = a good thing.

Lots of items on the screens and in the background to click on and explore = a good thing.

A large array of humorous responses from Sam and Max as you click on those previously mentioned things = gold.

Lots of goofy dialogue options = rockin'.

My hope is that the Sam and Max episodes will retain these things. This stuff is what made the original Lucasarts adventure games what they are. Every time I played Sam and Max Hit the Road, I'd stumble across something new that I'd never seen before as I used every command action on everything on the screen. (Yes, I played that game a *lot.*)

If the episodes retain these characteristics, I don't really care how long they each are. Difficult puzzles generally add time to the game anyway, making them seem longer than they are... :D

I agree with this 100% as well. This and that the games have to be difficult enough.

[salmonax]

I'm just after one thing: knowledge that the whole series will basically be completed before the first episode hits: that's what TV shows do. The final time between episodes should be pretty much for bug-testing and polishing only.

Actually, that's NOT what TV shows do. TV shows generally only have a month, maybe two months, worth of episodes completed when the season starts. The rest of the shows are filmed througout the rest of the season. Only mid-season replacements are sometimes complete before they air, due to their late start date. This actually allows for networks or producers to request changes if the show doesn't perform well right away. (Although usually the networks just cancel the show.)

Keep in mind, folks, we don't KNOW how difficult the game will be yet. Bone isn't Sam & Max, and there's no reason to assume it's going to be exactly the same. And if the first episode proves to be too easy, Telltale will probably see that people aren't happy and make adjustments to future episodes. Which is why the episodic approach might not be a bad thing.

[Linque]

Keep in mind, folks, we don't KNOW how difficult the game will be yet. Bone isn't Sam & Max, and there's no reason to assume it's going to be exactly the same. And if the first episode proves to be too easy, Telltale will probably see that people aren't happy and make adjustments to future episodes. Which is why the episodic approach might not be a bad thing.

We're just expressing our concern. I'm sure every single person on this board wishes the S&M games to be great and have faith at least until the first episode is released.
These posts simply mean that we care. :)

[TheTingler]

Actually, that's NOT what TV shows do. TV shows generally only have a month, maybe two months, worth of episodes completed when the season starts.

Oh yes, sorry, I forgot you guys are in America where 24-episode seasons are the norm.

[HieroHero]

Difficult puzzles = a good thing.

Lots of items on the screens and in the background to click on and explore = a good thing.

A large array of humorous responses from Sam and Max as you click on those previously mentioned things = gold.

Lots of goofy dialogue options = rockin'.

My hope is that the Sam and Max episodes will retain these things. This stuff is what made the original Lucasarts adventure games what they are. Every time I played Sam and Max Hit the Road, I'd stumble across something new that I'd never seen before as I used every command action on everything on the screen. (Yes, I played that game a *lot.*)

If the episodes retain these characteristics, I don't really care how long they each are. Difficult puzzles generally add time to the game anyway, making them seem longer than they are... :D

awesome post. I'll also add..giving the use like 8 options.."talk/use/pick up/look etc etc" is what i'm really hoping for as well.. that just increases the possibilities of things you have to do.. thus makes it more difficult..but also means you spend more time in the sam and max universe.. if you're only option is to look at that cute picture of max as a kid on the wall..instead of attempting to look/pick up combine with somethin else.. then it limits the fun..and your immersion in the game...

[Junkface]

I also really hope for a return of more possible actions (although look, pick up/manipulate, talk/eat/lick, would be enough to make me explode with joy.) The whole single cursor thing is one of the trends I attribute the devolution of the genre to. At least Bone allows you to both use and look at a lot of hotspots (though this is still not ideal.) The difficulty of the puzzle is less important to me. They should be more challenging than Bone, and we've been told they will be, to give the Sam & Max flavour, but they don't have to be the hardest puzzles in adventure gaming history, as some seem to be arguing... A six on Telltale's difficulty meter would satisfy me. Anything else would be getting dangerously close to artificially inflating the playtime in my view.

[avatar_58]

On the other hand, TV shows have been following this sort of schedule since the dawn of television.

You know whats funny....I still have an old manual around where Ken and Roberta Williams explain how television is outdated and they want computer entertainment to take over. They explain how much more involving, interactive and challenging games are much better than an episode of any TV show.

Ironically now we are sending games into the realm of TV and Movies through episodic easy games.

Its just interesting is all...

[Dave Grossman]

awesome post. I'll also add..giving the use like 8 options.."talk/use/pick up/look etc etc" is what i'm really hoping for as well.. that just increases the possibilities of things you have to do.. thus makes it more difficult..but also means you spend more time in the sam and max universe.. if you're only option is to look at that cute picture of max as a kid on the wall..instead of attempting to look/pick up combine with somethin else.. then it limits the fun..and your immersion in the game...

I'm always interested when people say they want lots of "verb" options, because to me the practical upshot seems to be that you spend a lot of time listening to "That doesn't seem to work," and "I don't want to pick that up," something I personally find enormously frustrating rather than fun. People who feel likewise don't seem to be very vocal, though, and I'm wondering whether there are others out there on our forums....

--Dave Grossman, cranky opinionated game designer

[JK1985]

I would like more verbs please! :) And I would love the possibility to combine items in the inventory... Yes the "That doesn't seem to work" phrases could be irritating but that is a part of the game!
/
JK (Sweden)

[Linque]

A couple of more verbs (look at, use, pick up and talk) would be great. The guys above are right - the fact that you can check out all sorts of things and get goofy comments about something is part of what made the early adventure games such gold.
Getting the "this doesn't work" reply isn't always such a joy, but it's a necessary evil and doesn't ruin a game by any means. I guess there could be more than one, maybe four or why not even 10 different replies of "this doesn't work" which clearly deliver the message that doing what you just did doesn't lead to anything. If you can nail 10 different, funny lines there that get picked randomly, it wouldn't get nearly as repetitive.

While were at it, now that you're doing episodic games, why not try to include one or two new "unusable" -lines each episode? A small treat, easter egg if you will for everyone to check out every time they start a new case. This way by the time you reach the later episodes, you'll have a bunch of these at your disposal!
Just an idea.

EDIT:
I just realised an important point on the topic. I honestly think that when you have a lot of options at your disposal, it greatly increases the feeling of achievement once you figure out what to do and advance a bit further. Yes, it can be irritating at times, but so are strategy games where you have to load a few turns back when you are getting your behind whooped by the AI. It doesn't mean that it's a bad thing - it's called challenge and makes you feel that much better once you actually finish the game! There doesn't have to be dozens of different commands, but there has to be some.

Since you have the hint system in place, one of the early hints could be what command you need to use next to advance. If there are people that actually despise multiple commands, they could check out the next one from there.

[jp-30]

I'm always interested when people say they want lots of "verb" options, because to me the practical upshot seems to be that you spend a lot of time listening to "That doesn't seem to work," and "I don't want to pick that up," something I personally find enormously frustrating rather than fun. People who feel likewise don't seem to be very vocal, though, and I'm wondering whether there are others out there on our forums....

I enjoyed the progressive streamlining of the interface in the LucasArts range. The Hit the Road interface and the CMI "coin" were the pinnacle, I thought. Also Love that right-click to open-door, right-click again to walk through it thing rather than having to manually choose to open door with one command and walk to door in the other.

I like the Bone style context sensitive cursor, but it would be nice to have the option to disable the automated function and have to manually cycle through the options (is that what you ha to do in Hit The Road - it's been a while), which probably isn't a huge amount of coding to implement.

While we're talking about the interface, one thing that would be really good to implement in the TTG range is double click on an exit point for fast exit rather than having to walk to a door / path to be able to go through it.

[avatar_58]

Sam 'n Max was basically similar to the sierra method, having multiple icons for "Do/pickup", "look" and "walk".

The problem I have with context sensitive only cursors is the way all contol and difficulty is basically stripped away. They become hunt the pixel for the highlighting cursor unless done extremely well.

However that aside - will these episodes actually require more than just progression? Will I have to solve puzzles and think to get by rather than just easily click my way through?

[Junkface]

I'm always interested when people say they want lots of "verb" options, because to me the practical upshot seems to be that you spend a lot of time listening to "That doesn't seem to work," and "I don't want to pick that up," something I personally find enormously frustrating rather than fun. People who feel likewise don't seem to be very vocal, though, and I'm wondering whether there are others out there on our forums....

--Dave Grossman, cranky opinionated game designer
Yeah, but sometimes you get a gem like "I'm not putting my lips on that." A pool of random "that doesn't work" lines seems like the best solution. I agree with you in the case of the early SCUMM games, but I think the three option, Full Throttle style interface is really the perfect balance. Having this semi-defined set of actions also just makes it seem more gamey (i.e. set of rules, abilities, etc) than like you're just clicking through a movie. I find it feels a lot more natural for it to work this way than every hotspot having a different set of possible actions.

However that aside - will these episodes actually require more than just progression? Will I have to solve puzzles and think to get by rather than just easily click my way through?
I think it's already been said that these games will target a different audience to Bone and be more challenging. I also find it rather ridiculous to imply that the Bone games have no puzzles, even if they were intentional designed to be easily solved.

[HieroHero]

I'm always interested when people say they want lots of "verb" options, because to me the practical upshot seems to be that you spend a lot of time listening to "That doesn't seem to work," and "I don't want to pick that up," something I personally find enormously frustrating rather than fun. People who feel likewise don't seem to be very vocal, though, and I'm wondering whether there are others out there on our forums....

--Dave Grossman, cranky opinionated game designer

listening to a few phrases a lot is a small price to pay in my opinion... If I have 20 options to solve something..and I finally figure it out..its a more rewarding experience..than only having a few options..or simply moving your cursor over something.. One of my biggest problems with games these days is they never make you stop and think..and have to figure something out.. Having a few options like in hit the road definitely adds to the gaming IMHO

[TheTingler]

You could always aim for something like the last two Monkey Island games, which for all their faults managed funny lines for pretty much every combination of verb/items ("Pick up the moon? Are you nuts?"). Has anyone ever tried 'Using' Elaine in EFMI, as opposed to pressing Enter to talk to her? ("I think there was something in our marriage vows about that") Attention to detail, that's the key!

[Algotsson]

I like this line in Hit the Road: "This is a complete useless thingumabob."

There should be thousands of object. When looking at them, you should get a funny line, even though they don't have anyting to do with the story. However, when trying to pick them up, you'll get a "I can't pick up that", or "No, Max could never handle it" or whatever.

Seriously, those details would enhance the gameplay so much that they would create the difference between a buy-game and a no-buy-game.

EDIT: I fully agree with THETINGLER, we wrote our posts at the same time.

[ciantic]

...solving tricky, difficult puzzles and exploring. How much of either can appear in a 2 hour long game?...

I think that the episodic way strips entirely the exploring off, which frightens me, now think it like this:
You get first episode, and it has few places to go on the map... now if you can play second episode without first episode that actually means that there can't be map or similiar so you can't go to back to places which occurs in the first episode (if it's not exclusively included in the episode)...

Now lets generalize the idea: (12 episodes, took that info out of my black hat)
It actually means, what I understood, that the whole game is built on 12 different mini games, not good! And you can't visit and do something on the places you have been in episodes before. Making the world way smaller, and exploring of it is left off entirely perhaps.

You can think it this way too: Take Sam & Max 1, take all the places you can visit, separate each place as episode, and once you have finished that episode you can't go back to that place, if it's not included in the following episode. So it makes the game world way smaller. I don't like the idea at all! As i understood this "own" game concept that once you have played the episode then there is nothing to do! You can't go and explore the places you have gathered already since there are no map or similar that sums up the places you have visited and allows you to visit them again.

You can't have situation that you go back to Snuckey's doing something that you haven't done before, since it is not anymore part of the episode! You'll have to wait for next episode to play it further.


Add: Also the puzzles becomes more centralized to places that only occurs in the episode you are at the moment. Reason for this is simple, since the each episode is not built on the episodes before so you can't have puzzle where you find things in the one place and more from another. Certainly you can imitate that method but those are just ugly-hacks. (Like making episodes one mandatory that you pick that small piece of wood from ground)

I opened thread about gameplay affects of episodic content (http://www.telltalegames.com/forum/viewthread?thread=663), and one of the devs said that it is multiple games and not one, which eventually lead me to do the conclusion above.

[Linque]

Now lets generalize the idea: (12 episodes, took that info out of my black hat)
It actually means, what I understood, that the whole game is built on 12 different mini games, not good! And you can't visit and do something on the places you have been in episodes before. Making the world way smaller, and exploring of it is left off entirely perhaps.


This would be unfortunate yes. There would be a really easy way to go around this though without diminishing the value of earlier episodes, which would happen if you were capable of doing everything you could do in Episode 1 in Episode 2 as well.

Here's the idea:
If there's say a supermarket as a location in one episode, you could go there in later episodes (without there being *any* reason for you to go there plot-wise), but it would be closed or something similar. Since Telltale would already have all the material for that said location, all they would need to do was to add a 'closed' sign on the door and a couple of comments from Sam & Max - ie. "Oh man, and I was itching for a round of whack-a-mole!"
Maybe once in a while a location could be destroyed by aliens or bulldozed or whatnot. There's zillions of possibilities!
I'm sure the size of the game wouldn't dramatically increase with these additions. Hell, you could have a vanilla version of the episodes where these sorts of bonus locations would be absent.
It's these sorts of small treats, as well as the multiple verbs that will give your games the 90 ratings from the press, I'm sure!

[ciantic]

...If there's say a supermarket as a location in one episode, you could go there in later episodes (without there being *any* reason for you to go there plot-wise), but it would be closed or something similar...!

Yes but disabling the possibility to go places that were in the earlier episodes means that you can't have puzzle that spreads to the whole gaming area.

It could have been easily done with the possibility that each episode just expands the episodes before. Now let's say that in episode 8 you have puzzle that makes you to go hunt stuff from the most of the places before, that ain't just possible anymore! Making it feel like actually mini-games :(

Add: I'll explain a bit more, you have puzzle in 10th episode that spreads along the places you have been before, that means that 10th episode has to include places from 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10 making it like stupidest thing ever to include content that, more than not, is on every player already. So creating episodic content work like as expands is more likely the way it should have been done.

[Linque]

...If there's say a supermarket as a location in one episode, you could go there in later episodes (without there being *any* reason for you to go there plot-wise), but it would be closed or something similar...!

Yes but disabling the possibility to go places that were in the earlier episodes means that you can't have puzzle that spreads to the whole gaming area.

It could have been easily done with the possibility that each episode just expands the episodes before. Now let's say that in episode 8 you have puzzle that makes you to go hunt stuff from the most of the places before, that ain't just possible anymore! Making it feel like actually mini-games :(

Add: I'll explain a bit more, you have puzzle in 10th episode that spreads along the places you have been before, that means that 10th episode has to include places from 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10 making it like stupidest thing ever to include content that, more than not, is on every player already. So creating episodic content work like as expands is more likely the way it should have been done.

I disagree here. Jake from Telltale said that if certain locations that have been present in earlier episodes tie in to the current episode, they will be re-visitable. The duo's office was given as an example. Nothing is preventing them from reusing previous locations with new puzzles in them - they have confirmed that this is a possibility. What I'm implying is that even the locations where there wouldn't be any puzzles in were visitable in later episodes, but as simple 'bonus' locations. I won't go further into that as I already posted about it above.

[Jake]

All I meant is that some locations will likely appear in more than one episode.

The fact is, you can start playing Sam & Max at any point in the series' run - you don't need to buy episode 1 first, then episode 2, etc. What that also means is that people who start with, say, episode 3, won't have the locations from episodes 1 and 2 on their hard drive because they didn't buy or download them.

While the idea of the game constantly building upon itself by "plugging in" new locations and events on the timeline as we release new episodes is an appealing one, as far as I know that's not what's going on with this game.

We like the idea that with separate episodes people can jump into the series any time and catch up from there, plus keeping the episodes separate is going to help us in getting the basics done quicker (which means we'll have more time to spend adding all the good little details and one-off moments that make Sam & Max great).

[Linque]

That I understand. Though the bonus locations thing I talked about back there ^^ wouldn't cause any problems with people "tuning in" after a couple of episodes. For people who've played from the get-go they know what has happened in said bonus location, for newcomers they're just fun places to visit that cause the duo to give a few hilarious comments maybe.

[Dave Grossman]

Interesting comments, all.

Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?

I'm interested in opinions on this point.

--Dave again

[artwking]

I'm not sure myself. Do one episode one way, and do another episode the other way. I'll let you know then. In the end, I'd prefer the middle ground, and I'd remember that you're the designer and trust that you probably know what you're doing. I'm just a gamer and sometimes tend to want things that contradict themselves.

I know I like to have additional hotspots that don't necessarily have anything to do with finishing the game. But every item on screen doesn't HAVE to have some kind of hilarious comment for each action. Especially if it means that an episode would be reduced to only having 3 or 4 screens/locations. I'm exaggerating, of course. But maybe not.

I like that the games are episodic with a quick turnaround, so you can try something new and make a wrong choice (if that's what they turn out to be) and either make fixes or do something different next time.

[Diduz]

Interesting comments, all.

Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?

I'm interested in opinions on this point.

--Dave again

Gosh. That's hard, you know?
I suppose you should aim at a balance between scope and choice of actions. But I'm not helping. Hmmm...let me see..
Okay, I'll go with a practical exemple: I've liked the balance I saw in The Great Cow Race, SO...if a S&M episode will be shorter that that, I'd like an amount of gratuitous interactions slightly more consistent than the one I enjoyed in TGCR. But then again, I think the continuous interaction between Sam and Max will naturally lead to increasing this kind of banter.
Dom (Italy)

[ciantic]

Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?

Now what? More actions? How can one assume more actions against smaller game? First of all, I'm having hard time to think about which actions is missing. You can do almost anything with those, like use person to person means talk. Use object to ground means drop (which usually is useless anyway). Use Max to water and to electric fusebox means fun.

So how can one compare false to smaller world.

But in general, do you mean what are you ready to create which leads to smaller game? Better plot.. don't know yet.

[Emily]

A few posts back, people were saying they wanted multiple actions, and multiple "that doesn't work" phrases for each action so the responses don't get repetitive. Of course, each response needs to be voice recorded, and voice takes up space. We have to keep the games below a certain size to make them convenient downloads. So, if multiple "that doesn't work" phrases for multiple actions are eating up a lot of space, that would potentially mean cutting gameplay in other areas to keep the game small. That's what Dave's getting at.

I personally don't find having a bunch of actions and being told "that doesn't work" (whether there are several responses or just one) to be much fun. I agree it's fun to finally figure out what you're supposed to do, but there are other ways to achieve this in gameplay than just having a ton of actions that can be tried on a ton of hotspots.

[artwking]

I think if you were to ask most people who come to this site and who want to purchase a quality game/episode, they wouldn't really care if the download size was "convenient".

I do realize, however, that it probably costs more money (and time) to write, record, and program extra lines of dialogue, so that's a decent excuse to me, but for myself and I suspect a majority of others, download size is a non-issue. Personally, I've spent time downloading 500 MB game demos that I knew I'd probably never even play, but did anyway just on the chance that I might. I really doubt anyone would complain about an extra 25 MB or so of dialogue if it meant more Sam & Max goodness, no matter what their internet connection. Not that I really have any doubt Telltale will produce a good season with their current plan. I just don't think download size is that big a deal, if that's what Telltale is worried about.

[Linque]

Interesting comments, all.
Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?


Yes it would. The bottom line is that you essentially can't have a rewarding experience in an adventure game if the only thing you are required to do is click on a couple of things in the correct order. The games feel pretty bare-bonish if say the duo's office has only one or two hotspots.
Now, this function doesn't need to be overdone. I'm not saying that every location has to have a bunch of unique replies. I'm sure you know what the point here is.

Emily, I'm sorry but compressed audio doesn't really eat that much space, so I doubt it's about the size of the download. I do understand though that figuring out all the hotspots, replies, recording the replies, making them work in the game etc. takes time and resources, so I understand why you need to choose one or the other.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.


I personally don't find having a bunch of actions and being told "that doesn't work" (whether there are several responses or just one) to be much fun. I agree it's fun to finally figure out what you're supposed to do, but there are other ways to achieve this in gameplay than just having a ton of actions that can be tried on a ton of hotspots.

That's not really the point - being told that something doesn't work etc. It's a much larger issue - it's about the immersion of control over the character(s). If you have one button that does all, you don't feel like you control the character's actions. Someone already mentioned the analygy of movies as opposed to games. I find it hard to believe that implementing a bit more required thinking with an hint of trial & error alienating any players whatsoever, but over-simplifying the system will alienate some of us more experienced players. I really hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

[Jake]

Interesting comments, all.
Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?


Yes it would. The bottom line is that you essentially can't have a rewarding experience in an adventure game if the only thing you are required to do is click on a couple of things in the correct order. The games feel pretty bare-bonish if say the duo's office has only one or two hotspots.

Not to be rude but you did just switch arguments half way through your paragraph - initially discussing the merits of having multiple 'verbs,' but then switching to decrying a hypothetical lack of hotspots as if they were the same argument. Sneaky!

I don't know how many 'verbs' will exist, but I know Sam & Max will have over one zillion hot spots (give or take a few). You can't quote me on that though.

[artwking]

I don't know how many 'verbs' will exist, but I know Sam & Max will have over one zillion hot spots (give or take a few). You can't quote me on that though.
These must be episodic hotspots, I take it?

[Jake]

I don't know how many 'verbs' will exist, but I know Sam & Max will have over one zillion hot spots (give or take a few). You can't quote me on that though.
These must be episodic hotspots, I take it?

That sounds like some horrible affliction old people get.

[Emily]

Emily, I'm sorry but compressed audio doesn't really eat that much space, so I doubt it's about the size of the download. I do understand though that figuring out all the hotspots, replies, recording the replies, making them work in the game etc. takes time and resources, so I understand why you need to choose one or the other.

Download size is one of the issues that's being juggled (just happens to be the one I highlighted in my earlier response). Budget, time, and resources are some of the other issues. There are a lot of reasons that certain design decisions will need to be made. The good news is that we have some pretty seasoned designers making those decisions. :D

EDIT: As an aside, I worked on a really short game last winter called Christmas Quest (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,594) with some of the other staff at Adventure Gamers. We were determined give the player tons to do so we put in a lot of hotspots, with unique responses for each action on each hotspot. We worked HARD on those responses... it took way more time than I thought it would. And the game only had one room! So, yeah, I can completely understand where the designers are coming from if they prefer to focus their efforts in other areas. I've also found, as I've replayed some older games, that they don't have as many unique responses for actions as I remembered them having. Even Hit the Road has some pretty bland responses when you try to do things that don't work.

[Linque]

Yes it would. The bottom line is that you essentially can't have a rewarding experience in an adventure game if the only thing you are required to do is click on a couple of things in the correct order. The games feel pretty bare-bonish if say the duo's office has only one or two hotspots.

Not to be rude but you did just switch arguments half way through your paragraph - initially discussing the merits of having multiple 'verbs,' but then switching to decrying a hypothetical lack of hotspots as if they were the same argument. Sneaky!


For that I apologize. It's 03:46 (a.m. for you american folks) here at the moment. I tried to keep it short but I guess my paragraph doesn't make much sense. Actually, even I have a bit of trouble firguring out the correct message I was trying to deliver. Here goes:

The thing is that you need to have a few different 'verbs', but not at the cost of removing most of the hotspots from the locations. Not every single location needs huge amounts of hotspots, but having very few in a decorated room (for instance the duo's office again) wouldn't seem right. Sacrificing the scope of an episode a bit for the added substance would be worth it in my opinion. This is my honest answer.

I hope that's better.


EDIT:
One last thing. I'd like to emphasize on the point of control I mentioned on the above post:
That's not really the point - being told that something doesn't work etc. It's a much larger issue - it's about the immersion of control over the character(s). If you have one button that does all, you don't feel like you control the character's actions.

That's the most important part I'd like to address in this whole topic. The hotspot debate is not as important.

[jp-30]

As far as Dave's last question goes - I love the exploring aspect of these games, and find the opening up of new locations a reward in themselves.

Personally, I would prefer more locations in each episode even if it means losing a few hotspots / amusing lines of "can't do that" dialogue.

[HieroHero]

Interesting comments, all.

Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?

I'm interested in opinions on this point.

--Dave again

I'd definitely take a smaller more immersive game. I think thats more important. Here is gonna be the big issue.. Hit The Road is such a big game.. its stood the test of time 13 years. Its a favorite game of people all over the world. Obviously time and budget issues are going to make it very difficult for Telltale to reach the quality many hit the road fans expect..so I don't envy you there.. Clearly their are reasons why hit the road is so fondly remembered. I don't think the formula has to be changed that much. I think the control system worked very well in that game.

As far as download size, I think for many broadband users it wouldn't be an issue at all. Most people are downloading 350 meg tv shows off bit torrent.. larger file sizes wouldn't deter any1 if it meant a higher quality game in my opinion.

My issue here isn't how many times sam tells me I cant do this with that..its more to do with the control the user has in the game, having the ability to explore, having to think things out. If telltale can hit that stuff without the extra dialogue then its all good.

[avatar_58]

Interesting comments, all.

Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?

I'm interested in opinions on this point.

--Dave again


Ah, now your asking the questions I want answers for. :D

Me personally? Interactivity, puzzles and optional things are what MAKE adventure games. You may argue its the stories or comedy, but I argue its the sheer amount of "You can't take that cat, he has flees!" type of remarks that make adventure games so worthwhile.

The Leisure Suit Larry was notorious for its interactivity and is hailed as the greatest adventure series.....why? Not because of the storyline, because of the interaction and humour involed with said interaction. Although I believe even serious games like Still Life ought to be rigged with interactivity....and it was hurt by lack of it. One of the main reasons Syberia is on my worst adventure game list is this very reason.....its like reading a book.



Is dialogue making the download too big and forcing you to cut corners? Then you've answered your own question: time for the spoken dialogue to go. You heard me. I'll gladly take a text adventure with interaction out the wazoo over a story based flip book of an adventure game with 2 hours of spoken words.

Who here agrees with me? We got along fine before speech got here, what makes it so good? Besides....people hate the voices as it is (I'm impartial personally) so its not a big loss is it?


Please reply Telltale, as this is the post I REALLY hope you take to heart. I want to like you guys, but if you continue to make games that focus more on story.....well....:(

[ben_ethus]

Interesting comments, all.

Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?

I'm interested in opinions on this point.

--Dave again

The best way I can think of answering this very important question is by comparing our present situation to what has come before: namely, the original Sam and Max Hit the Road.

So, if we wanted a game that was immersive and responsive as the original Hit the Road, and we needed to cut the entire game into episodes, where could we cut the game off so that your average gamer feels they are getting their money's worth?

Let's review the beginning of the game:
1) Opening cinematic
2) Call from Commissioner to get mission.
3) Get letter from bonded courier to get details.
4) Go to carnival.
5) Get past fire-breather.
6) Get the low-down from the twin-freaks.
7) Putter around amusement park to gather items and find more destinations to go to.
8) Player picks one of a couple of different places to visit [a)Twine Ball, b)Fish Place, c)Gator Golf)
9) At this point, the game breaks open to a lot of different other places depending upon where the player goes.

Okay... being that the episodes are well... episodic, there can't really be items that you can pick up and use a lot further down the line like you could do in HTR (unless they're "red herring" items, which I'm not opposed to: makes the game harder :P ).

So, anyway, if the fully self-contained first episode were to be equivalent in length (but with a few more puzzles to challenge the player) to numbers 1 - 8a [namely, one (or two, barring size) of the three places that you can choose to go to], that might be good. If there were enough speed bumps (aka: puzzles) for the player to reason through, I imagine that much gameplay should be about two hours worth, at the immersion level of the original HTR.

Expecting an episodic nature, I don't think I'd be enraged if I was given that much game to play on the first go-around. That seems like a fair amount, I suppose, assuming there was plenty to do in the places I was allowed to visit in that time.

So, what do you folks think about that? How much gameplay is enough, as compared to the original, if using the same level of immersion as HTR.

Where would you cut off the episode?

How much of the original is enough for one episode?

TellTale: As a curiousity, as compared to HTR, where would you say the current cut-off point is right now, story-wise? Is that something you can even make an analogy to using the original HTR?

So, yeah... there's some stuff to chew on for you... ;)

[Junkface]

Interesting comments, all.

Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?

I'm interested in opinions on this point.

--Dave again
Obviously it would depend on how much the scope of the game would be limited. Assuming it meant the difference between there being say, 6 or 5 locations in the game, and that as a result most hotspots would have a different response for each verb I think that would be a worthwhile tradeoff.

However, I'd also be satisfied if there were the same size of game, and roughly same amount of responses as normal, only with the option of using additional verbs, with a general pool of "that doesn't work" responses. Like I said before, a large part of it is the feeling of interactivity and of it being part of a system; it makes the interactions feel less arbitrary. I imagine this option wouldn't be too difficult to implement without compromising the scope of the game, though you'd be in a better position to know than me.

Thanks for taking the time to listen to our opinions, even if I've been talking a lot of shit.

[Lazerus]

I'm always interested when people say they want lots of "verb" options, because to me the practical upshot seems to be that you spend a lot of time listening to "That doesn't seem to work," and "I don't want to pick that up," something I personally find enormously frustrating rather than fun. People who feel likewise don't seem to be very vocal, though, and I'm wondering whether there are others out there on our forums....

--Dave Grossman, cranky opinionated game designer

OK this is stupid. Since if a game is designed well there will be enough object sensitive comedy dialogue written to make the "That doesn't seem to work" actually FUN. Isnt that what games are trying to achieve? Fun?

Adventure games are all ABOUT the joy of exploring the rediculous.

Try PLAYING the original Sam & Max and trying out all the verb actions with all the items. The monkey island games were a classic example. There were many things you could do that had NO effect on your completion of the game. But the were the sort of things you could ask your friends "Hey did you find the bit where.....?"


And as for the size aspect. You dont see anyone decrying the size of Sin Episodes: Emergence. And theres a good 5 hours of gameplay in that. Yes I know it uses the source engine as a base for its core files but its still huge.
And people download many of the MMORPGs out there. AND their enormous patches.
So please dont try to use the file size argument. Its a damp squib.

[mikdog]

In the first cancelled game I only saw scenes of inside the city - the road, a music hall, their office, etc...

I'd really like to go to more places with SAM & MAX; the moon, the jungle, a tropical island, Hell, etc...

Being stuck within city limits kind of creates feelings of agitation and claustrophobia.

[jp-30]

Is dialogue making the download too big and forcing you to cut corners? Then you've answered your own question: time for the spoken dialogue to go. You heard me. I'll gladly take a text adventure with interaction out the wazoo over a story based flip book of an adventure game with 2 hours of spoken words.

Who here agrees with me? We got along fine before speech got here, what makes it so good? Besides....people hate the voices as it is (I'm impartial personally) so its not a big loss is it?

Who agrees with you?

Not me, that's for sure. I re-bought Fate of Atlantis on CD is an overpriced 6-pack compenium recently just for the voicework. As well as that Indy adventure, the voices really helped define the DOTT & S&M characters in the LucasArts adventures.

From a marketing standpoint you'd lose many more than you would gain by dropping voice acting from modern day adventures.

As for "people hating the voices", most people who have commented on not liking the voices have picked one of the two (not both) and most have said the sound is good, but the delivery needs work.

Also take into account the vocal minority effect. People are much more likely to post if they don't like something / wish to make a suggestion rather than post to say "good work, I liked that". If you surveyed everyone who has watched the trailer as opposed to everyone who has commenrted on it, you'd find a much lower proportion of people who disliked (aspects of) the voicework, I'm certain.

[Emily]

So please dont try to use the file size argument. Its a damp squib.

I understand why people are getting passionate about these issues. Sam & Max is an important license for a lot of people, and fans don't want it "ruined" in the new games. Believe me when I say that everyone at Telltale understands this issue very well.

But, Dave is the senior designer on this project. When he says that certain things can or can't be implemented due to resources or budget or file size, he knows what he's talking about. ;)

Considering his role on Sam & Max (and keeping in mind that many others from Telltale are also reading this thread with interest), it would be a lot more productive if people could try to answer his questions, rather than calling them stupid. (Thank you to the people who already have!)

[TheGreyMatter]

I must say I totally agree with Dave.

let's have a brief history review of the verb system-

Zak McKracken 1988 - 15 verbs.
monkey island 1990 - 12 verbs.
Indiana Jones 1992 - 9 verbs.
Sam & Max HTR 1993 - 5 verbs.
Broken Sword 1996 - 2 verbs.
Monkey Island3 1998 - 3 verbs.
Grim Fandango 1999 -2.5 verbs.

And can you say that broken sword or GF is less immersive than Zak McKracken ?

and as you might know the number of verbs today stand on about - 2.1 verbs.
And there is a reason for that - adventure games are not about "match the verb" minigame and endless "that doesn't work" messages (even if they are delivered in a funny way).

It's an evolution - not a restriction! and you should look at it like this.

I believe that TTG should place Bone:TGCR as a model how an episodic adventure should look like, and being more specific -
i) dialog is the strongest tool you have - use it! (bt.w that was one the weaker side of Hit the Road)
ii) interactivity - is always nice to hear about the game-world from sam&max point of view, so add many object's and allow interaction with them.
iii) one of te advantages of inventory puzzels , is that you can use many of them in a relatively small game area - hence add more playability with less resources.
iv) minigames - use them with care - they can be great and add to game (like in TGCR), or distract the player (like in OFB).

[mikdog]

"The vocal minority effect."

Absolutely. Quiet and satisfied don't really post.

[matan]

Also take into account the vocal minority effect. People are much more likely to post if they don't like something / wish to make a suggestion rather than post to say "good work, I liked that". If you surveyed everyone who has watched the trailer as opposed to everyone who has commenrted on it, you'd find a much lower proportion of people who disliked (aspects of) the voicework, I'm certain.

I certainly agree about the vocal minority thing, so I decided to say it:

Good work guys, I liked the trailer, and the voices are great!

[hansenolsen]

I am no longer the avid gamer I once was, but fondly remeber getting Day of the Tentacle for my birthday in 1993 (or was it 94?), and I've been playing every worthwhile adventure ever since. Judging by the amount of adventures available these days I wouldn't actually call the adventure genre dead any longer, it's probably just my enthusiasm that's gotten a bit more lackluster.

People here complain that two hours of gameplay is too little, well that's how long it takes me to complete The Secret of Monkey Island (part one that is), so I'm not too worried about that. What I do want is challenging puzzles, and I absolutely don't want to be able to just click my way through the game without ever being stuck. That's why I second bringing back a few more verbs, three (four if you count "walk to") will do a lot to increase the feeling that you control your character. A thing I despise about the "one click is enough" games of today is that some times when I click objects, my character does something I was not intending/expecting him to do. What if I wanted to look at an object before I picked it up, or used it? You don't always know what these pixely objects are you know.

As for multiple verbal replies to various actions? I'd be pleased with a few more than one, and maybe a few specially written for certain actions if, and that is IF they are funny. There is no reason to put in extra comments just for the sake of doing so.

I also want to be able to combine inventory items, but that's a given.

[Laserschwert]

Someone already mentioned the fact, that in "Hit the Road", once you've gathered stuff on the carnivale, the game opens up. I would hope this applies to the new game(s) as well, since "Boneville" was a little to linear. "Cow Race" added the ability to switch characters, which made the player feel a little more free, but I guess it could be extended, so that several puzzles don't necessarily have to be solved in a specific order.

And about the "a lot of hotspots" issue, I think having more hotspots (and according responses) makes the game's setting much more real. I really hate it, when there are NO hotspots in the background, since it's a lot easier to solve puzzles when you can click only on relevant objects. Remeber the dart-board in the office in HTR? Taking the "tools" just made Sam pick them up, and throwing them on the board again. No practical sense, but it enhances the experience. Having 2 hours of fun just solving the game is just fine... but if you get another hour out of just exploring the surroundings, that would be even better.

[CousinSven]

let's have a brief history review of the verb system-

[...]

And can you say that broken sword or GF is less immersive than Zak McKracken ?

and as you might know the number of verbs today stand on about - 2.1 verbs.
And there is a reason for that - adventure games are not about "match the verb" minigame and endless "that doesn't work" messages (even if they are delivered in a funny way).



Very good point. It's not the interface that makes the game, it's what you do with the interface that makes the game. Secret of Monkey Island worked perfectly with all those verbs. Woodruff was brilliant with only two (including 'walk') verbs.

This is also why the argument that 3D ruins adventure games is so nonsensical. See Grim Fandango: it's not the 3D. It's what they manage to do with the 3D.

This same discussion was raging when people started making graphical adventures: people who had only played text adventures felt that the graphics 'dumbed the game down' (sound familiar?) and 'ruined the experience' (again, sound familiar?). Then when point & click came into play, there was the same outrage: point & click was 'dumbing down' the text-parser interface and 'ruined the experience' of exploration. Lately, 3D is also 'dumbing down' and 'ruining the experience' of adventure games.

The point I'm making: adventure gaming has gone through numerous iterations. Each of this iterations has delivered its fair share of classics. The fact that your favorite game used a certain interface doesn't mean that it's the definitive, final interface that will make all adventures better.

[mikdog]

This same discussion was raging when people started making graphical adventures: people who had only played text adventures felt that the graphics 'dumbed the game down' (sound familiar?) and 'ruined the experience' (again, sound familiar?). Then when point & click came into play, there was the same outrage: point & click was 'dumbing down' the text-parser interface and 'ruined the experience' of exploration. Lately, 3D is also 'dumbing down' and 'ruining the experience' of adventure games

Hmm, interesting. When's 4D available? That'll REALLY cock things up.

[Algotsson]

Actually, I still think that the keyboard-based input system in Grim Fandango and MI4 is bad; especially when comparing it to CMI and other good point-and-clickers.

Going from mouse to keyboard was not a positive evolution of gameplay, only an attempt to get into the console market.

Why am I saying this. Well changes are not necessarily positive, only because they work.

[Jake]

Actually, I still think that the keyboard-based input system in Grim Fandango and MI4 is bad; especially when comparing it to CMI and other good point-and-clickers.

Going from mouse to keyboard was not a positive evolution of gameplay, only an attempt to get into the console market.

Why am I saying this. Well changes are not necessarily positive, only because they work.

I don't agree with that at all. Putting aside the fact that Grim Fandango was PC only, there's a strong argument to be made for how input in a game affects how you as a player relate to a character and to the world.

In Grim you controlled Manny's every step - you didn't just order him around by giving him various commands with the mouse, you actually make him walk from place to place. There's no "zip mod" double clicking to leave scenes either - it's all relatively taking place in "real time," getting rid of one layer of abstraction that crept into point and click UI. I really liked that I was literally physically helping move Manny along, instead of ordering him from place to place. I think it changed the nature of the game.

On the other hand, Escape From Monkey Island was in my opinion... signifiacntly less graceful about it... but that's another story.

[CousinSven]

Going from mouse to keyboard was not a positive evolution of gameplay, only an attempt to get into the console market.

Which is why Grim Fandango wasn't released on consoles?

[Mel]

I liked controlling Manny. I tried first with the keyboard and lost my patience very early (I probably would have gotten better had I given myself more time). I used the gamepad after that and loved it. He had a few weird moves now and then but that game was made for a gamepad.

On topic - I don't mind the 2 hour game as long as the price reflects it and I'm sure it will. :)

[mikdog]

Hmm...I dunno. If it's very interactive, then I guess keyboard, and perhaps also mouse (?) would be good. If it's true 3D, I'd imagine mousey-pointy-clickey would force it to be more of a 2D adventure.

[Jake]

(all this saidof course, Sam & Max will be point and click)

[ciantic]

In the first cancelled game I only saw scenes of inside the city - the road, a music hall, their office, etc...

I'd really like to go to more places with SAM & MAX; the moon, the jungle, a tropical island, Hell, etc...

Being stuck within city limits kind of creates feelings of agitation and claustrophobia.
You should take your pills, pile up some money and prepare for the therapy. There will be no whatsoever feeling of free exploring at all.

Simple, since there is no map and each episode lasts only brief time and they are playable at single episodes the feeling of exploring is killed by this unfortunate fact.

I just hope that it does not include multiple any kind of panic-mini-games what we have seen on current adventure games. (Meaning press this and this at the specified time) Okay, it's fun at the first time (like the hit the mice game on S&M 1, but multiple those would just kill the mood) Or any other mini-games where you try to avoid obstacles (referring to boneville *duh*) or something similar that has nothing to do with point-n-click adventures from the glory days of adventure gaming.

I'm not saying it will be bad (see the happy face on my post), Runaway: A Road Adventure, was kinda good even though it was more like straight forward, which S&M 2 will eventually be. There is a slight chance that S&M hits pretty much as well as Runaway but I doubt that.

I hope the best, fear the worst. I'm true fan of point-n-click which S&M1, Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion, and other was when they were released. Most of those include strict plot (Maniac Mansion was pioneer, I don't consider it as glory days of point-n-click) no silly mini-games, just the adventure. What makes adventure game? Dialogs, puzzles, and the plot, not the darn mini-games.

Best way I prepare myself is that I don't even expect to be ANY similar with S&M 1, expecting that with this current format will lead only to disappointment.

[ciantic]

Hmm...I dunno. If it's very interactive, then I guess keyboard, and perhaps also mouse (?) would be good. If it's true 3D, I'd imagine mousey-pointy-clickey would force it to be more of a 2D adventure.
Not really, I was developing one 3d engine for certain authority and imagine the routine this way: Take camera, take cursor, create line from camera position to hypothetical camera position (closer or further away, like zooming) with mouse cursor, create line from original camera position to this hypothetical, and where the line collides with visible objects there is the cursor position.

(All the above is just mathematical way of converting coordinates with matrix manipulation)

Now of course in 2d to 3d conversion if you want that the cursor points in mid air you'll have to set that some other way like point from different angles, but even though in Sam & Max is 3d it does not remove the point-n-click possibility, it actually widens it like you can turn camera and still have easily manageable point-n-click routines. There are very rarely need of pointing mouse to mid-air on adventure games, that is not the case on strategy games.

Add: Creating 3D-mesh for the cursor in 3d game might be good idea, and of course calculation normal of the surface which it points at the moment and showing it on it might be very ideal way of showing on where it actually points, giving instant feedback of the depth. (With a little matrix screwing you can make it not to go too far in the scene of course)

Add: Now that I've been thinking it a minute or two only need is perhaps some kind of walk-path mesh which is not visible. When the cursor hits these meshes the fella walks that way. And in this case, as ground is probably not seen many places it actually points mid-air, to the invisible walk-path mesh. Since this seems so obvious way to create it, I could almost bet that it's (walking position) is done that way in S&M 2. Only question left to answer is can we assume that the walk mesh is always so big that object hot-spots are not on it's way, I'd say yes.

Add: Another intuitive way of creating those 3D-helper walk-path meshes is to draw lines to scene ground, and let the math do the job. Meaning that calculating from camera position the mesh heights is probably the very best way of creating the walk-path meshes. If you imagine supermarket with multiple walk rows in ahead, the problem can be solved this way by letting the computer to calculate each mesh height so that it does not collide which each other as the camera turns around... Of course there might be other ways but I'd like to know if some one points me those (especially better). Someone might say that this is the way it's been done in the past 2d-games (drawing the area) well then read the above again. It creates the height by calculating from the camera position meaning very easy for the scene developer to create themselves, just draw the paths to the ground of scene.

/me wonders are there any 3D Devs around? :), I don't consider myself as an expert but I think I just reinvented the wheel that the above is the right way. As it is simplistic yet the obvious choice.

[avatar_58]

3D didn't kill adventure games, developers did that just fine at the end of the 2D era. Hell, even recent crummy 2D adventures have proven to me that the graphics don't affect it at all.

The problem here is that if we can't do anything outside of the ordinary and every action is a "required" one then this isn't an adventure game.....its a story. I should be able look and poke at everything. Why? Not because it furthers the story or events but because its a game and the fewer interactive points there are, the less of a game it shall be.

Since when did adventure games become flip-books anyway? I want a challenge and tons of interaction....like in the good old days.

You say you can finish MI in a few hours? Good for you, I can finish Kq1 in 30 minutes but that doesn't mean anything....because we've played them before. Let someone who hasn't play them try and watch how long it takes. With Bone and recent adventures you can blow through them regardless of whether you've played before....simply because its just a story and there is no actual "playing" involved. :(

I suggest they remove speech if thats what it truly keeping them from creating more responses about the world Sam 'n Max travel around in. I can't believe anyone would take speech over interaction and puzzles.....that blows my mind away.

I mean come on, you'd rather play another Syberia than another Monkey Island or Leisure Suit Larry? I'm sorry but you are the minority here...and thats why these games will sell far less than the oldies. The only problem is that the ones who feel this way are too damn silent. This thread alone, however, proves there are quite a few telltale fans that even agree that the games are too straight forward and without content.


Make what excuses you will about budget, but it would only take a few hours to write up some responses for examining background objects.

[Linque]

While I would play a good adventure game without voice, it doesn't mean that it's a viable choice for a commercial product. You can't make an adventure game without voice anymore. Every single game has voice nowdays - in adventure games it's a vocal point to boot.

No voice is no option.

EDIT:
Time to add today's contribution to this thread.

This 'verb' discussion might be a bit beside the real point most of us are trying to present. As some of the latest posts imply, really the thing that most of us probably want is interaction. In what form it will come - verbs or a lot of items that need to be combined - isn't that relevant I guess. In the Bone games, there wasn't enough of interaction, so as someone above said - it became more of a story and less of a game. It also lacked any verb commands, so it's easy to add 1 1 resulting in the observation that adventure games aren't good if there's not enough verbs. While that may not be exactly true having more verbs does generate more interaction, so adding verbs would be one cure for this problem.

Naturally it's up to Telltale to figure out how to best modify their formula to generate the best result. Most of us as seasoned adventure gamers know the tried and true multiverb way of life best and know it most certainly won't break a game. It really is the safest choice from our point of view as to get a satisfying Sam & Max experience. Then again, the evolution has been towards simplifying the adventure games. Some games have managed to pull it of nicely, some not.

The bottom line is that in my opinion the multiverb system might not in the end be absolutely necessary if you can pull off a very interactive story where there is a lot of ways to tamper with the scenery. The Bone games do not achieve this (yet).

[Diduz]

This thread alone, however, proves there are quite a few telltale fans that even agree that the games are too straight forward and without content.

The Great Cow Race is NOT straight forward and it's got content. That was a problem Out From Boneville had and I was among those who complained. Since they fixed that, I would be extremely surprised if they got it wrong again with Sam & Max.

[mikdog]

No content?

LORDIE!

I've never played either BONE games. Never really got BONE comics here in South Africa. The artwork looks cool though.

[Emily]

With Bone and recent adventures you can blow through them regardless of whether you've played before....simply because its just a story and there is no actual "playing" involved. :(

You haven't played The Great Cow Race, have you? Because this is pretty much the opposite of the feedback we've been receiving. (And having nothing to do with Telltale's products, I can think of a number of other recent adventures that have plenty of "playing" involved. ;))

I've never played either BONE games.

Well then, I encourage you to check them out. :)

The Great Cow Race is getting very good reviews, and it has a free demo. You can learn more about it here (http://www.telltalegames.com/products/bone_act2).

[mikdog]

I'd dig to play BONE...You got to download it right? I don't have a MASTERCARD or anything to pay foreign currency with. I have a 56kb dial-up modem, and South Africa has the most expensive telephone rates IN THE WORLD. Eg, our last month's telephone bill, for going online a couple of hours a day, was (converted to dollars) $153.11

[Jake]

You can also order a CD of the game on the Telltale website which will be shipped to you by the wonderous power of the postal service! :)

[jp-30]

There is a slight chance that S&M hits pretty much as well as Runaway but I doubt that.

That's funny, because if the gameplay experience of Sam & Max 'hits pretty much as well' as Runaway's (Runaway's quite nice animation excepted), I will probably have to hang myself by my own shoelaces.

Runaway is, without doubt, the most annoying, boring, horrid adventure I have ever had the misfortune to install.

So, just goes to show, one man's treasure is another's trash.

[Junkface]

With Bone and recent adventures you can blow through them regardless of whether you've played before....simply because its just a story and there is no actual "playing" involved.
Like others have said before, you really need to play The Great Cow Race. It's full of hotspots (I thought we were talking about the number of verbs earlier, anyway...) and interaction, even if it's not designed to be a huge challenge. Even Out from Boneville was leagues ahead of Syberia and its ilk. Reintroducing interaction to adventures is one of the main things I like about Telltale. I also think Telltale's puzzle design is being underestimated; the puzzles in Bone may be (intentionally) rather easy, but they show a rare elegance and creativity in their execution and integration into the game. This is something even a lot of Telltale's fans seem to overlook, and I think the increasing trend of equating difficulty with good design is a negative one.

Make what excuses you will about budget, but it would only take a few hours to write up some responses for examining background objects.
I think you may underestimate the demands of writing and design...

[mikdog]

You can also order a CD of the game on the Telltale website which will be shipped to you by the wonderous power of the postal service! :)

As I say, I don't have a mastercard or anything to pay with. If there were local suppliers, I could buy it. And yes, I will try and get a mastercard.

[Emily]

Do you have PayPal? You can pay that way instead of with a credit card.

[mikdog]

Surprisingly, yes. I never knew PayPal made inroads into South Africa, but in fact a quick visit to their site indicates that yes; PayPal does allow us to make payments. Nice.

[xChri5x]

I need more ram to play bone :(
It runs a little slow. but then again I'm on what's considered a low end computer now-a-days.

At least I can still play Half Life

[SMNMX]

I have no idea if anyone has said this, having not read through the 9 pages of this thread, but Bone is intentionally on the easy side. Bone is a huge independent comic with many fans (and a creator) who've never played a game before, let alone an adventure game. However, Sam and Max is much smaller and probably known best for Hit the Road, so it was a huge following of experienced adventurers, and will be harder. I'd find a quote when Telltale themselves said this, but I am cursed with acute laziness.

[mikdog]

Acute laziness? Well, I'll tell you something, there was one time...oh, never mind. I'm going to bed.

[xChri5x]

I have no idea if anyone has said this, having not read through the 9 pages of this thread, but Bone is intentionally on the easy side. Bone is a huge independent comic with many fans (and a creator) who've never played a game before, let alone an adventure game. However, Sam and Max is much smaller and probably known best for Hit the Road, so it was a huge following of experienced adventurers, and will be harder. I'd find a quote when Telltale themselves said this, but I am cursed with acute laziness.


Bone isn't "huge". At least before the scholastic deal. It wasen't much more popular then Sam and Max.

[Udvarnoky]

Well, relative to Sam & Max I think you could call it huge.

[Emily]

I'd find a quote when Telltale themselves said this, but I am cursed with acute laziness.

Kevin again, in the interview I quoted in another thread earlier today...

Do you anticipate the puzzles, the kinds of things the player's doing, to be very different than what you have us doing in Bone?

Yes. Sam & Max is a different audience. Bone is with Scholastic, and it's a younger audience. Sam & Max is going to be a game for older, more experienced gamers. When we put the difficulty meter on the website, it was to kind of let people know that where we're coming from, Bone is on the easy side. Infocom, when they made games, had beginner, intermediate, and advanced. We would classify Bone as beginner, although I think "beginner" is the wrong word for it. It's a 2 out of 6. Sam & Max will be a more sophisticated game.

Someone commented on our forum recently that Bone doesn't have any wacky puzzles, and someone else said, "Let them save that for Sam & Max."

You know… I like all the puzzles in Bone. I have some problems with Bone, but I think most of the puzzles were pretty good. But the Sam & Max puzzles will be more sophisticated, more traditional adventure gamer stuff. I definitely think Sam & Max is more the game that most of the regular adventure crowd is going to be expecting from us, but we're all very happy with Bone. We've been big Bone fans for a long time. It's just that you can't do a Bone game the same way you would do a Sam & Max game.

Full interview. (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,589)

[avatar_58]

Its too bad a different sort of demo could be released to show us what kinds of interactivity and puzzles will be in Sam 'n max episodes....you know like an 30 minute demo that would really try to sell the WHOLE series.

I'm just not sold on the idea of a 2 hour adventure game unless its filled to the brim with what adventures have been lacking of late. I'd rather not just get a story....a nice bunch of intelligent puzzles would be nice too.

[mikdog]

I know. I really loved the first Sam & Max HTR trailer, sorry to carry onharping about this old game, but what else can I use to compare?! Anyway, that trailor came bundled with Star Wars: Rebel Assault, which came bundled with almost all new PC buys around that time. The Sam & Max demo wasn't playable or anything, but it was long, well-editied and didn't hide the gameplay with fancy visuals or FMV's - it showed in-game playable areas and had Sam & Max talking in-dialogue. Right then and there I was sold, hook line and sinker.

[HieroHero]

I know. I really loved the first Sam & Max HTR trailer, sorry to carry onharping about this old game, but what else can I use to compare?! Anyway, that trailor came bundled with Star Wars: Rebel Assault, which came bundled with almost all new PC buys around that time. The Sam & Max demo wasn't playable or anything, but it was long, well-editied and didn't hide the gameplay with fancy visuals or FMV's - it showed in-game playable areas and had Sam & Max talking in-dialogue. Right then and there I was sold, hook line and sinker.

Yeah I remember that trailer! I'm sure when telltale are further into the development of the game we will get a new trailer showin off the gameplay and story etc

[Dave Grossman]

This 'verb' discussion might be a bit beside the real point most of us are trying to present. As some of the latest posts imply, really the thing that most of us probably want is interaction. In what form it will come - verbs or a lot of items that need to be combined - isn't that relevant I guess.

Glad you brought that up, I was going to ask about it. Because every inventory item essentially acts as a specialized new "verb," and frankly I think if I give the character, say, a felt tip pen and let you try to write on things, the interactions will be more interesting than they will if I give you a separate command to pick things up. There is little mystery about whether you're going to try to pick up every portable item you can see - it's an adventure game, of course you are! (I suppose I could rehash the old joke about trying to pick up another character, but there are only so many times that that's funny.)

Certainly no shortage of opinions on this thread! Thanks to all.

[HieroHero]

Glad you brought that up, I was going to ask about it. Because every inventory item essentially acts as a specialized new "verb," and frankly I think if I give the character, say, a felt tip pen and let you try to write on things, the interactions will be more interesting than they will if I give you a separate command to pick things up. There is little mystery about whether you're going to try to pick up every portable item you can see - it's an adventure game, of course you are! (I suppose I could rehash the old joke about trying to pick up another character, but there are only so many times that that's funny.)

Certainly no shortage of opinions on this thread! Thanks to all.

Hey Dave good point.. Thanks for the years of fun I had with Day of the Tentacle by the way :D
:D

[mikdog]

Dave, you make a killer game with DOTT. Kudos big time.

[Wile_E]

Glad you brought that up, I was going to ask about it. Because every inventory item essentially acts as a specialized new "verb," and frankly I think if I give the character, say, a felt tip pen and let you try to write on things, the interactions will be more interesting than they will if I give you a separate command to pick things up. There is little mystery about whether you're going to try to pick up every portable item you can see - it's an adventure game, of course you are! (I suppose I could rehash the old joke about trying to pick up another character, but there are only so many times that that's funny.)

Certainly no shortage of opinions on this thread! Thanks to all.

Hey Dave good point.. Thanks for the years of fun I had with Day of the Tentacle by the way :D
:D

Combining items and multiple interactions are what I find a fun part of adventure games. But instead of having the character say "I don't know what to do with this object...". How about giving some of these objects a silly use?

Say that Max finds some Nunchakus in the trash can outside. Instead of him saying "I don't need these for anything...", the user could select to do a couple things. (1) Throw them at a nearby window. (2) Put them on the ground, and have Sam trip on them.

Just highlight the two areas on the screen, for the user to select. And let the user do only one option. That way, it gives some incentive for the gamer to replay the game, and select a different option next time.

[Linque]

Combining items and multiple interactions are what I find a fun part of adventure games. But instead of having the character say "I don't know what to do with this object...". How about giving some of these objects a silly use?



Actually, that's probably what he meant here:

I think if I give the character, say, a felt tip pen and let you try to write on things, the interactions will be more interesting than they will if I give you a separate command to pick things up.

[DoubtedEdwardo]

While verbs and hot spots are being discussed there’s another important issue I’d like to bring up, the freedom of verbs. One of the annoying things about modern adventure games, I find, is the fact that you can only access the verbs when you roll over a hot spot and then you practically get told which verb to use. I prefer to have a choice in where I use my verbs. I may want to try and talk to the floor, even if I get no reaction I still would like the freedom to try. An important aspect of this is the look verb. When you roll over a hot spot in the Bone games it often becomes the pick up verb first so you go ahead and grab it without getting a chance to look at it first. When I go into a new area I would rather roll around with my look verb first to see what I can see and then decide what I want to pick up. You may be able to tell that I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and if Telltale can get the whole verb/hot spot issue right, not necessarily the way I think it should be done, then I’m sure they’ll be on to a winner. I mean more of a winner than they would otherwise be. ;)

[Udvarnoky]

Why is that so important? The Bone games had a streamlined interface that made it easy for beginners to play, and that got rid of a lot of unnecessary clicking. The look-at option is still available on all hotspots in Bone, including inventory objects that have yet to be picked up. If the Sam & Max games are going to be challenging, it should be because the puzzles are challenging, not because the interface has been set back fifteen years. It's not a matter of "freedom" to allow you to talk to a door, because that's not even a red herring, it's just pointless. I don't think that implementing an interface that happens to be not clumsy will limit interactivity in the slightest.

[DoubtedEdwardo]

I actually think that having free verbs would mean less clicking, instead of having to change to the look verb every time you go from one object to another you would just change once then look at all the stuff you can. I don’t mean for the game to be any harder because of the this as you could have the verbs animate in some way when you roll over a hot spot. I just don't like the restrictions that object only verbs creates.

[CousinSven]

I actually think that having free verbs would mean less clicking, instead of having to change to the look verb every time you go from one object to another you would just change once then look at all the stuff you can.

What's wrong with left click for action, right click for look? That's even less clicking, because you wouldn't have to click the 'look' verb first.

[mikdog]

I don't want to click at all. I just want to control what happens on screen with my mind-power. Can they do that? I don't mind paying a bit extra for that...but I don't want to have to touch the mouse or keyboard at all.

[Haggis]

I don't want to click at all. I just want to control what happens on screen with my mind-power. Can they do that? I don't mind paying a bit extra for that...but I don't want to have to touch the mouse or keyboard at all.
Sure they can do that. All you have to do is drill a hole in your skull where you plug in the USB cable. Be careful not to damage your brain though. Probably best to let this be done by a professional, certified carpenter.

[DoubtedEdwardo]

All that sounds like a lot of effort. Why don't we just get the computer to solve all the puzzles while we watch. It could be called a 'movie'.
:p

[Linque]

You know they *have* managed to build a computer which can read your thoughts. When you imagine moving your left arm, it moves the mouse pointer left and vice versa.

That would be cool with an adventure game.

[HieroHero]

I dont know why but I've always thought the control system with Sam and Max was the best one I've used in an adventure game. It was simple and very effective. I I enjoyed not having to click on words, It was easy to scroll through the options.. and it had just the right amount.. B-)

[Udvarnoky]

I dunno, tabbing through commands wasn't exactly fun. It was fine for the time but I don't see it happening here. I wonder if Telltale is going to carry over the odd form of dialog trees from Hit the Road?

[mikdog]

I don't want to click at all. I just want to control what happens on screen with my mind-power. Can they do that? I don't mind paying a bit extra for that...but I don't want to have to touch the mouse or keyboard at all.
Sure they can do that. All you have to do is drill a hole in your skull where you plug in the USB cable. Be careful not to damage your brain though. Probably best to let this be done by a professional, certified carpenter.

;)

[Rapp_Scallion]

As an aside, I worked on a really short game last winter called Christmas Quest (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,594) with some of the other staff at Adventure Gamers. We were determined give the player tons to do so we put in a lot of hotspots, with unique responses for each action on each hotspot. We worked HARD on those responses... it took way more time than I thought it would. And the game only had one room! So, yeah, I can completely understand where the designers are coming from if they prefer to focus their efforts in other areas. I've also found, as I've replayed some older games, that they don't have as many unique responses for actions as I remembered them having. Even Hit the Road has some pretty bland responses when you try to do things that don't work.

After playing that game I don't think that a lot of unique responses to many hotspots is that important. Too much makes you just try everything with everything, not because you are stuck, but because you don't want to miss anything. And that can be a bit frustrating at times, if you want to go on, but have a lot of objects you haven't tried everything on. Some is great. Too much is too much. Add them where they fit. 'Use Elaine' from EMI is a great example. Don't add too many responses just to add responses, but if you see something funny about the action, just include it.

[errorage]

Does Telltale even know what sort of challenge they're up aggains?

they're making a SEQUAL in the minds of many (don't even bother convincing us that it isn't a sequal...) and a sequal NEEDS to be BETTER than the original... now... they're making a sequal to one of the best games ever created... with 2 hour eppisodes... that isn't possible... and a warning to telltale of whitch i'm sure they're already aware: the advanture market is small... don't make it smaller by making people pay $20 for a 2 hour game...

[jp-30]

don't make it smaller by making people pay $20 for a 2 hour game...

Telltale have said episodes will be cheaper than Bone, which are what, $12 or so?

[HieroHero]

the upside of the 2 hour game is we get a new episode every month :)

[mikdog]

the upside of the 2 hour game is we get a new episode every month

Somehow I think that's just talk. I'll be MIGHTY surprised if they manage that. I'm thinking more realistically one episode per 2/3 months.

I'll even bet on it.

[artwking]

I would say every 1.5 to 2 months at first, and then pick up to every month once they get the hang of things fairly soon. They are planning out the entire season and writing it right now, so it's not so hard to believe that they can do it, and these are shorter episodes than Cow Race, after all. Once they have a lot of the resources done, it's not probably not so hard to stick to a schedule like that. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do get it once a month right off the bat, though.

[HieroHero]

I think if the games only 2 hours..once they get the first episode done they could easily bang out a new episode every month..

[Linque]

And they probably have a couple of episodes finished before they release the first one just to make sure that they can hit the promised 1 month schedule.

[artwking]

And they probably have a couple of episodes finished before they release the first one just to make sure that they can hit the promised 1 month schedule.
Did Telltale actually promise it or put it in writing? I was just assuming that's what it would be since everyone else was saying it was.

[Udvarnoky]

No, Telltale never said that. We don't know that they will easily be able to bang one out every month either, though they might. And I'm quite sure they will be busy enough trying to make the episodes fast enough to make the deadlines, much less have a couple in the can at a time.