Constructive Criticism concerning season 1

[AdamG]

Thanks, that's exactly how I meant it Squinky. I think little multiple choices like that used occassionally would really enhance the feeling of freedom of choice and immersion. It would be a little more work, but it doesn't need to be used a lot.

[HeidiLynn84]

I have some constructive criticism to add about the use of still frames in the games. For instance, in Episode 3, still frames display the polling statistics and newspaper headlines. With the rest of the content so dynamic and vibrant, these still-frames are a little disappointing. It wouldn't be too hard to add subtle animation to the bar graph or the newspaper headlines. For instance, a slow zoom or something more creative.

[Christovsky]

The scissors/knife point is reasonable, yes. Likely there'd also be another (non-cutting, presumably) puzzle for which you COULD only use the scissors, and similarly for the knife, though, which would justify both existing; it would be silly to include both items just for that one puzzle. What I don't want to see is something like MI4 where you can get the free meal ticket either by using the coffee with Stan or the glue with the seat of that rodeo ride. (Not sure spoilers are quite necessary, but hey!) You then feel that once you realise how to complete the superfluous puzzle, you've been cheated out of a breakthrough. That's also what distinguishes multiple solutions to the same problem from Play It Again moments: if you find an alternative solution it might be reasonably interesting, but the fact is you've gone nowhere and arrived at exactly the same place as before. Ho hum.

As for branching storylines, I never meant that you could go down one and miss the other completely; that would be infuriating! I meant they should all unavoidably come together, and each puzzle should be linked with others, so that rather than having a few chains of puzzles that go step-1/step-2/.../step-n, you occasionally have to have found solutions from other branches in order to progress along any particular one. 'Dying' in Monkey Island 3 is a not-too-intricate example of this: some sets of puzzles you can only work your way halfway along before you realise there's nowhere else to go and you need to somehow create more options, and 'dying' gives you these. You feel more immersed if you have to solve something to obtain more resources, rather than having everything given to you and then just having to decide what to do with it.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Christovsky

You then feel that once you realise how to complete the superfluous puzzle, you've been cheated out of a breakthrough. That's also what distinguishes multiple solutions to the same problem from Play It Again moments: if you find an alternative solution it might be reasonably interesting, but the fact is you've gone nowhere and arrived at exactly the same place as before. Ho hum.

It looks like we probably enjoy adventure games from different reasons; I myself would feel cheated if I weren't allowed to solve the puzzle in what I perceived to be the obvious way!

[Kesari]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Also, to give an example specific to Sam & Max (Episode 2), did there HAVE to be only one solution to the Midtown Cowboys puzzle? I personally think there could have been plenty of valid comedic masterpieces made therein, and the fun for players would come from building their own sitcom rather than trying to guess what Dave & Brendan had in mind. Damn, why didn't I think of this last year, and bring it up at the brainstorming session?!

I think they said in the developer commentary that they designed the puzzle that way on purpose to do something different than the way the puzzles normally operated. That being said I think it would be a great idea to have a puzzle or two in season 2 where there are several different "correct" outcomes based on how you choose to proceed. Not every puzzle has to have one possible correct result!

[Christovsky]

Originally Posted by Squinky

It looks like we probably enjoy adventure games from different reasons; I myself would feel cheated if I weren't allowed to solve the puzzle in what I perceived to be the obvious way!

I agree that it wouldn't make much sense to have a seemingly obvious solution out there that then didn't work; there should be explanation as to why it's incorrect if that's the case. The problem is that with dozens/hundreds/thousands(?) of people playing a game produced by a handful of designers, there are bound to be instances where some member of the public has seen an opportunity that he feels should work, but which the writers didn't even consider and so didn't try to account for.

I believe at some stage you have to place yourself at the mercy of the people who write the puzzles - after all, the game depends on certain limitations to be playable. Where does one draw the line between wanting every solution one thinks of to work, and saying something like 'well I guessed Hugh Bliss was the villain by Episode 4 - I wanted to be able to arrest him then!'?

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Christovsky

The problem is that with dozens/hundreds/thousands(?) of people playing a game produced by a handful of designers, there are bound to be instances where some member of the public has seen an opportunity that he feels should work, but which the writers didn't even consider and so didn't try to account for.

Focus testing.

Originally Posted by Christovsky

Where does one draw the line between wanting every solution one thinks of to work, and saying something like 'well I guessed Hugh Bliss was the villain by Episode 4 - I wanted to be able to arrest him then!'?

Well, the thing is, guessing isn't quite the same as having concrete evidence.

[Christovsky]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Focus testing.

Yes, you're probably right. Of course, you can't exhaustively test a potentially infinite pool of ideas, but you'd most likely get all the main ones.

Originally Posted by Squinky

Well, the thing is, guessing isn't quite the same as having concrete evidence.

That's not quite the point I was making. I mean that the game cannot possibly emulate real life in its entirety; if you could do whatever you considered you ought to be able to do, it would be a shambles, because the story relies on its mould to stay on track. To give a more direct example, what if you decide a solution to obtaining the voice modulator is simply to shoot Bosco, and why do you think that's not permitted?

Edit: By the way, I'm not sure we haven't strayed off-topic a little here, but I'm quite enjoying the debate

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I'm confused, though. If you fail to explore all the dialogue branches and look-ats on your first playthrough, doesn't that you mean you ARE missing part of the game?

I think you read too much into what I said, or I explained myself poorly. I wasn't referring to dialog where one choice cuts off the ability to ever again access another. At least in the case of large things.

Usually in Sam and Max style dialog trees, you can end up hearing most of the spare dialog outside of critical path if you bother. There are some dialog trees where you can inadvertently cut off access to huge branches of dialog, but that annoys me too. I don't mind having the OPTION to only hit critical path dialog, but when choosing one particular path closes another off, that's annoying.

Being able to choose one out of four lines in a particular conversation, to just sort of play with the flow, doesn't bother me much... in fact, I like it a lot. It's when the game tells me that my actions at this very moment will suddenly cut out a sizeable chunk of game that I'll never get to see unless I happened to save a few minutes ago so I can go back and play this part through again after I beat the rest of the game. In a game like Sam and Max, at least, I think that's a bit crap.

Also, to give an example specific to Sam & Max (Episode 2), did there HAVE to be only one solution to the Midtown Cowboys puzzle? I personally think there could have been plenty of valid comedic masterpieces made therein, and the fun for players would come from building their own sitcom rather than trying to guess what Dave & Brendan had in mind. Damn, why didn't I think of this last year, and bring it up at the brainstorming session?!

I need to think about that, but I was thinking a bit bigger than that, which I think is more in line with what others in this thread were talking about. The Midtown Cowboys puzzle is a really good example of a place where a zillion and one possible solutions would have been great - it's a little mini-sandbox within the story, where the game is basically telling you "have fun in here."

Really, though, if you're going to argue "Is it really so terrible to allow players the option of using the scissors?" it's worth asking why in Episode 2 Sam and Max didn't just drive the DeSoto through the studio wall and then crash through the flats and steal the hypnobear in the opening cutscene? Adventure games are kind of (for better or for worse) all about limitations and boundaries for the sake of story.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Jake

Really, though, if you're going to argue "Is it really so terrible to allow players the option of using the scissors?" it's worth asking why in Episode 2 Sam and Max didn't just drive the DeSoto through the studio wall and then crash through the flats and steal the hypnobear in the opening cutscene? Adventure games are kind of (for better or for worse) all about limitations and boundaries for the sake of story.

That's a good point. Yes, there definitely needs to be a line drawn, seeing as allowing the player to do anything they want is a) next to impossible on a limited budget, and b) not of huge benefit to the story. Still, if you're going to force the player to solve a problem in a very roundabout fashion, the game must at least give a decent explanation as to why they can't do the obvious option (and if there's no good explanation, such an option should be a valid solution). Not necessarily saying that Sam & Max had much of a problem with this; just explaining my earlier point a little bit better.

(I'm always a little wary of "adventure games are..." statements, though, because they do have this weird tendency to discourage innovation in the genre and stuff. Okay, I'll shut up now.)

[Mother Superior]

I'm sure it's all been said before but I want to see more of Sam & Max's universe, I wanna explore the city (and when I say that I mean I want to be able to see the other side of the street and go into the stores there, that's all ) I want Max to be more violent and more active, I want more violence in general actually. Really I want an x-rated version of Sam & Max where Max beats someone to within an inch of their life off-screen.


...please?

[jmm]

I want to see the Faberge Egg guy!... Not really

Just add some bizarre tourist traps and stores. I'm happy that Stinky's will be available but hopefully they stop adding Office Street locations (full locations, not just references like Lefty's before s1e5). Adding too much will hinder the DeSoto (Why have it if you're not going anywhere)

Oh, maybe the Liver&Onion box ring!

[Hero1]

Originally Posted by Mother Superior

I want Max to be more violent and more active, I want more violence in general actually. Really I want an x-rated version of Sam & Max where Max beats someone to within an inch of their life off-screen.


...please?

This ain't grand theft auto man..

[Christovsky]

I'm not too excited about exploring the city, because I figure it would be bland in comparison to all the exotic locations Sam and Max could, and usually do, visit. Tourist traps are one idea that lend themselves to the requisite zaniness level, yeah, although too many of them and it would start to feel like a HTR clone.

Ooh, I think I just realised what the criticism I couldn't quite put my finger on was. Because we have only one new location per episode at the moment and it's where basically the whole story unfolds, that location is always very directly involved. In larger adventure games, there is no focal location for your attentions most of the time, and they feel more varied as a result. In a way, each episode of Sam and Max resembles just the finale of a larger game, where things are packed in a bit more tightly. I guess that's the nature of episodic content: each episode has to justify its isolated existence with a lot of quick fixes.

[AdamG]

Well, at least Season 2 will at least have one more place to visit each episode then Season 1 (the diner). I just hope that, while there might be less focus on Bosco and Sybil, that they will still be there each episode to visit.