Roberta Williams/Josh Mandel discussion

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Valiento

I don't think it's about designing things 'for the stupid people' as you suggest. Nor do I think some choices are made to 'dumb down' or limit interactivity. For some decisions of this kind it's more fore style and presentation. It it is a type of art after all.

How is the choice to limit the number of interactive objects, to write the script to provide strong hints, to aim the camera at the next thing you're supposed to grab, and all those other things "stylistic"?

The visual novel/interactive film is a style and way of presenting a story. One of many ways of presenting stories, western adventure games are another. Different people appreciate these various presentations.

See, this is what I don't get. When player interaction doesn't matter, then why does the player even need to be interacting? Even in past interactive movies, reflexes were required(and even then, they were a side novelty in arcades), and visual novels generally give the player some form of choice(and don't advertise puzzle-solving in pre-release media).

It seems to me that they're presenting stories in exactly the same way as they always have, but they are removing elements in a way that assumes the player has the effective reasoning abilities of an infant. Hell, in the Mother-in-Law article, Grossman says that he went to far too assume that his players knew that things could be behind other things. Effectively, he doesn't even think we have object permanence.

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by Irishmile

I know some may scoff at the idea.. but I feel like Myst is a big part of what killed adventure games...

I completely disagree. At least for me the Myst games were what kept alive the adventure genre for many years after Sierra and LA stopped making them.

[MusicallyInspired]

What killed adventures were all the second-rate ridiculous Myst clones. Myst itself was spectacular.

[Scnew]

Originally Posted by Irishmile

I think the myst killed AGs viewpoint is around because that is what developers thought they needed to compete with ... and then the next step they took was "3D" shooters.. Once those types of games took off and made tons of money... Nobody wanted to risk making adventure games anymore... when shooters where proved sellers and fighting games didn't require a plotted out story... Adventure games became too much work.....

I can't see how you can possibly think takes more work then, say, Halo. Sure, the story may be more complex, but I really can't see how designing a series of 2D drawn backgrounds, or an extremely limited 3D environment like we have in TT's current games can possibly be more work then building the kinds of environments you get in Halo or Red Dead Redemption or the Legend of Zelda. Not only do you have to build environments where the player doesn't feel like there's nowhere to go, but you also have to test every inch of it to make sure the player can't jump out of the world or something like that. Adventure games, meanwhile, traditionally very much limit where your character can go and the number of ways he or she can possibly get there. Seems like a lot less work to me.

[wilco64256]

Originally Posted by Scnew

I can't see how you can possibly think takes more work then, say, Halo. Sure, the story may be more complex, but I really can't see how designing a series of 2D drawn backgrounds, or an extremely limited 3D environment like we have in TT's current games can possibly be more work then building the kinds of environments you get in Halo or Red Dead Redemption or the Legend of Zelda. Not only do you have to build environments where the player doesn't feel like there's nowhere to go, but you also have to test every inch of it to make sure the player can't jump out of the world or something like that. Adventure games, meanwhile, traditionally very much limit where your character can go and the number of ways he or she can possibly get there. Seems like a lot less work to me.

I think you're misunderstanding what was stated here. The actual building of the game itself isn't all that different - characters still have set boundaries, you have to make sure they can't walk out of the world or through trees, stuff like that the same as any full 3D game. I believe the comparison here is more in terms of the story itself. Most of Halo's gameplay consists of shooting, while the "story" of the game plays out in cutscenes. In a true adventure game, the story itself is built directly into the gameplay via dialogue and puzzle solving to advance the plot. It's much more complex to weave the story into the playing of the game than it is to say, "Go shoot 600 things and then we'll just show you the next part of the plot."

[Rather Dashing]

I'm not sure you realize how a good shooter is balanced.

[wilco64256]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I'm not sure you realize how a good shooter is balanced.

Good shooters have an excellent balance yes, I'm just referring specifically to Halo which I wasn't a big fan of at all and found to be extremely repetitve.

[Blackthorne519]

It's kind of funny; people are talking about how the games are almost "movies" now, and when you read a lot of early Sierra literature, they were always comparing the games to movies..... "....Cinema quality sound and animation....."....".... almost like an interactive Movie!"

It seems to me that in the past their goal WAS to make an interactive movie; they just didn't have the technology to do it! I mean, King's Quest 5 was their first foray into that world - high quality graphics, digital speech and music....and here we are, 20 years later, in a world that can easily produce an "interactive movie" and most of us prefer the limitations of the past as they provided for innovative GAME play!

Oh, and as for "fan-group" in fighting - I was a vocal critic of TSL when Ep. 1 came out, sure. But after my initial "blow-up" I had several chances to talk with Cez, and get a better idea of their approach - and though it wasn't to my personal taste, I got it - and I appreciated it. I realized their game doesn't affect the way I like King's Quest, or what I want to do with it - and suddenly, I could enjoy their game for what it was and what I liked out of it. I think it's a beautiful production, and it's a great game from a bunch of dedicated people. I can appreciate that in spades.

I have to say, even if TTG's KQ isn't as "interactive" as the old school games, I'm still excited to play it. And if it sucks, hard, you bet I'll be on the ole internet, telling EVERYONE JUST HOW HARD IT SUCKS. AND I WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. So don't let it suck hard, TTG. I can't tell you exactly how to do that, so good luck!


Bt

[Valiento]

Ya read the old Sierra InterAction mags they had many an article in which they said they wanted games to become the movies of the future, adding interactivity not found in movies, and would replace movies. One article I recommend is one by Bill Davis in 1993 or 1994. He was hired by Sierra as the company 'Creative Consultant' because of his work in the film industry. His job at Sierra was to help designers get closer to movie design. He may have been in large part why their was a push towards the use of FMV in later Sierra games.

[Irishmile]

The whole point of gaming is interacting within a narrative.. Movies are the most popular form so comparisons are unavoidable.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Blackthorne519

It seems to me that in the past their goal WAS to make an interactive movie; they just didn't have the technology to do it!

I don't think you make puzzles by accident as a result of technological limitations.

[Blackthorne519]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

I don't think you make puzzles by accident as a result of technological limitations.

I think sometimes you do, really. I'm saying that sometimes creativity is fueled by limitations. I do think, sometimes, that because we live in an era of such powerful computing where almost ANYTHING is possible, creativity actually suffers.


Bt

[Irishmile]

I once accidentally made a puzzle because I lacked the technology.

[Blackthorne519]

Originally Posted by Irishmile

I once accidentally made a puzzle because I lacked the technology.

Then you must be one wild, and-uh-crazy guy!!!!

Bt

[Rather Dashing]

I don't see how they were limited, though. They could have made most things scripted events. Granted, memory limits the actual animations per disk, but they could remove a lot of space by taking out a ton of interactive objects, text boxes, death scenes, etc, and limiting the game to only those things that are very important(and making sure they're all in the same room, right next to each other, and often mentioned). And after the CD era? They made Phantasmagoria on that! They had full power by their CD games to make adventure games that lacked any sort of puzzles or gameplay.

I think that Sierra always had the option to create bad games too, and I don't think Telltale is in some sort of unique position where "games for toddlers" is some new concept that only came into existence with our super smart computers.

[Blackthorne519]

Sierra did create some bad games. Remember Codename: Iceman??


Bt

[Irishmile]

I do

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by Irishmile

The whole point of gaming is interacting within a narrative.. Movies are the most popular form so comparisons are unavoidable.

Really? I think the fun is on #1 or how would you describe the narrative in Tetris?

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by der_ketzer

Really? I think the fun is on #1 or how would you describe the narrative in Tetris?

It's a stylistic and experimental arthouse film meant to convey a lesson about the futility of all human effort. No matter how well you do in life, eventually you'll be crushed by the weight of the work you push yourself to complete or you're stopped by your own death. This was a popular message in the earliest video games.

That or video games are meant to be games that are played on a video screen(television or a computer/arcade monitor), but that would just be silly.

[der_ketzer]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

It's a stylistic and experimental arthouse film meant to convey a lesson about the futility of all human effort. No matter how well you do in life, eventually you'll be crushed by the weight of the work you push yourself to complete or you're stopped by your own death. This was a popular message in the earliest video games.

That or video games are meant to be games that are played on a video screen(television or a computer/arcade monitor), but that would just be silly.

You convinced me that the idea of fun in games is silly. I am buying BTTF now.
Not