quote:Original post by Programmer16 It doesn''t matter if they return it, the store is at a loss, because they (the store) bought it from us (or another warehouse dealy). So we had our money when we sold it to them(the store) .
But if your current game gets returned like crazy and stores are posting losses across the board, what does that say about your track record? What do you think the chances are that you''ll ever be able to publish another game again?
What will happen when your current paycheck runs out? Hmm...
I remember the discussion a while ago about how "neat" it would be to make a game that requires interaction with a web site, or even with actual reference materials, to complete. You''ve got to dig up an atlas, or an almanac, or something, and get data, perform investigations, maybe even learn something about biochemistry in order to solve all the puzzles. And not like "If only I knew the circumference of the earth, I could catch this crook once and for all!" kind of kiddy crap, I''m talking studying up on physics and then calculating which planet you''re on (a la Have Space Suit, Will Travel). That would be pretty cool, if a little frustrating.
The discussion lasted for about three posts before someone said, "Yeah, that idea would work really well until three days before its release, whereupon the walkthrough would be posted on Gamefaqs with every solution to every puzzle." That''s a little bit of a drag, but all you can do about it is whine. Unless there''s a way to randomize sophisticated puzzles like that, you''re out of luck.
That'' a shame. It would be nice if that particular aspect of gaming (the FAQ/Walkthrough) didn''t encroach so heavily on that particular aspect of game design (unique puzzle design), but there''s no real solution to the problem.
People always complain about the stupid "brain-teaser" puzzles in games, but it really isn''t worthwhile to put more sophisticated or plausible challenges in there. It''s just a pain in the butt.
1) Avoid buying anything released by Brady Games - they tend to be incomplete, poorly edited and show no signs of actually having been proofread - with Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, I bought the walkthrough hoping to check that I''d found all the upgrades (sand clouds and magic fountains) only to find that, while they listed some of them on the way through, I''d found one they didn''t mention.
2) Don''t open it until I''ve completed the game at least once, or got hopelessly stuck.
In general, when I get hold of a walkthrough or guide, it''s not to try and finish the game the first time, but to find hidden extras I missed, find out more about the system behind the game, and generally explore the game in more depth.
For a purely puzzle-based game, I probably wouldn''t bother to acquire a guide.
Short of some sort of content randomisation, walkthroughs are a necessary evil, and even then, your atomic puzzle pieces could be given individual guides if they contained anything novel and/or interesting that would require actual thought to solve.
I guess the answer is: if you can''t beat ''em, join ''em - include some sort of in-game help that avoids spoilers and, hopefully, keeps the player from getting stuck.
Iron Chef: I think someone has relatively recently released a "game" which does require interaction with planted websites, and involves recieving emails from the bad guy. I can''t remember the name, but the game is out there.
Walthroughs make my game experience more enjoyable. Why? After I''ve finished a game, I don''t have the patience or time to try out every possible path I could have taken or discovering every secret I missed (I used to enjoy and have time for that). Now I can spend an hour or so to read some of the secrets I''ve missed and receive some second hand enjoyment. Additionally it makes me feel like I''m socialising with others that have played the same game. I tend to play rare games, so it''s common that the gamers I talk to in person have never heard of my favorite games.
quote:Original post by frostburn Here''s an idea.. include the walkthrough inside the game. When a gamer gets stuck he can click on the help button (possibly only enabled if he spends too long without getting any points). If he chooses to look at the tip don''t award points (ala sierra) for the things he reads there. It could even provide simple tips first, costing a little ("Take a good look around the scene"), and provide more and more information until it reads something like: "You have to pick up the bloody rock and smash the window, moron!" Each hint costs a few points and if he chooses to get all the information it might cost 1.5 or 2 times the points he''d get if he didn''t use the hint system (Instead of getting 10 points he looses 5 or 10 points). A similar system might be used with logic type puzzles in the game. Solve a rubix cube inserted in the game (probably because the designer couldn''t find a more suited puzzle - see "Ring 2" by Arxel tribe) and get 10 point, skip it using the hint system and pay a little. It shouldn''t cost too much though, unless the game is purely logic puzzle based. For a Sierra type game (ie QFG, SQ, PQ, LSL etc), it should be fairly cheap, for a Myst type game it might cost quite a lot.
This way no one would bother to create a walkthrough for the game. If the player got stuck, he can just see what he must do to solve this particular puzzle. The player would probably only use the hint system in case of emergency, since it costs points.
To be fair, this isn''t my idea. It was used in the Tex Murphy games by Access (At least the "Pandora Directive")
My current design includes a walkthrough with the game, although we didn''t consider making it part of the game. We''re aiming for replayability with a game+ feature and multple endings, and we consider it perfectly legitimate for the player to use the walkthrough so they can get exactly the results they want out of the game on the second playthrough. I would personally play he game without a walkthrough on the first play unless I got stuck on a puzzle, but if some of my players want to know all the secrets from the very beginning, why should I care? We should let our playrs play however makes them happy.
I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.
sunandshadow: It depends how you include the walkthrough. If you have it on paper alongside the game it''s very easy to sneak peeks at it even tough you haven''t rally tried. If you have it in a text file, than the player must exit the game to look at it and it''s easy to read a little further. If the player has to exit the game to check out a hints system that shows only the hint to that problem (some kind of hierarchy) then he''ll still see the "topics" for the other hints. He''d then have to "use his willpower" not to look at other topics. see below If the walkthrough is inside the game then the game will know where the player is and what he''s done. It will show only the topics that apply at this point. If he''s not gotten out of the first room then the hint system wont show him topics from the rest of the game. see below as well.
Problem: how to open the drawer in the first room. Hint file: First room, town, police station, cave, enemy base, princess'' tower
->first room get out of bed, drawer, play movie, get out. ->drawer have you looked for a key? - yes -- "under the bed?" --- yes ---- "inside the shoe under the bed?" - no -- "well do that before you come nagging!" etcetc..
If the hint system is inside the game then it would only show: First room: get out of bed: done, drawer - Have you looked for the key?
Nothing of the rest of the game will be shown, and if he gets all the hint for how to open the drawer then he still has to do it before the hint system will show him any more hints. In addition - By charging the player points every time he asks for more hints he might be further discouraged from using the hints. "Looked for a key" might cost 1 points, "under the bed" might cost additional 1 points and "inside the shoe.." might cost additional 2 points.
Hints are good, but if the player can get the entire solution in one sitting, then he might do that and thus ruining some of his fun. Note: it''s not fun to be stuck for hours while searching for a 2x3 pixel key, so this is where the help system should be used.
quote:Original post by frostburn Nothing of the rest of the game will be shown, and if he gets all the hint for how to open the drawer then he still has to do it before the hint system will show him any more hints. In addition - By charging the player points every time he asks for more hints he might be further discouraged from using the hints. "Looked for a key" might cost 1 points, "under the bed" might cost additional 1 points and "inside the shoe.." might cost additional 2 points.
Hints are good, but if the player can get the entire solution in one sitting, then he might do that and thus ruining some of his fun. Note: it''s not fun to be stuck for hours while searching for a 2x3 pixel key, so this is where the help system should be used.
Reminds me of 7th Guest. Every puzzle had two (or was it three?) hints in game. You had to run half-way across the house to get them, so it was a little inconvenient (discouraged rampantly grabbing hints), but not too bad if you got stuck. Also, the first hint was there just to tell you what you were supposed to do (you were presented a puzzle without being told exactly what you were trying to do, some were more obvious than others). If you asked for a third (or was it fourth?) hint, it would just consider the puzzle "solved" and let you move on. It only let you do this for three puzzles. *shrug* I thought it was a good system.
.
