Broken Age - Double Fine's Kickstarter Adventure Game

[Boleskine]

I'm way too much of a noob to Brofist Redlands' post, but if I had that ability I would do it.

 

[Edifice]

Out of curiosity, where was the 'one-click action' thing posted? I can't find it in the last update. If it's true, fuck that noise.

I didn't see them confirm the one-click interface anywhere, was hoping they'd at least have a separate look function.

Grim Fandango/Longest Journey/all-goddamn-Verb-coins.. Not a fan of any of those interfaces. I guess I've accepted the Wadjet Eye action/look two-button style, but it's annoying if DF is appropriating the classic-style Lucasarts cursor for a one-click game.

It's in the kotaku preview they linked to in the update
http://kotaku.com/i-wish-all-video-games-had-premises-this-good-1304356071

Broken Age plays very much like an old-school point-and-click adventure; Rice used a mouse to play, and everything was very streamlined. There's a single icon for interaction—just hold the cursor over an object and click. The approach is simplified significantly from the "Push/Pull/Talk/Etc." options in adventure games past. Characters walk where you click, and move along pre-ordained "rails," just like in Monkey Island or Grim Fandango. You have an inventory. Sometimes you pick up objects from that inventory and click them on objects in the world. You get the idea: It's an adventure game.

 

[J_C]

You don't have to take my word for it: check out Matt Barton's (the actual one's) interview with Josh Mandel, where he mentions how the switch from parser to set commands reduced their ability to be creative with puzzles. The switch from several to one interaction (two, if you're lucky) reduces this even further.

Of course I've seen the episode. I made it goddamit!

Spoiler

No, not really.

Now you are suggesting that point and click games should have parser commands? Good, make the game even more of a tedium to play. I think talk/push/pull buttons didn't add anything to the games regarding to puzzles, since usually you had only one way to solve them, so if you didn't know what you have to do, you just tried every button on every item. Please correct me, but I don't think there ever been adventure game, where you had different solutions to a puzzle. So you had to use one button in the end anyway. Now I admit that it can expand on interactivity, but it all boiled down to the character saying something funny when you push the wrong button. I can live without that.

In the end, you can make exactly the same puzzles whether you use SCUMM buttons or just a cursor with 2 states (look at, activate). And don't say that Hepler shit, she is saying that games should have one button, which you just have to push to overcome the combat. Broken Age will still have puzzles, inventory, item combination. You just don't have to push every talk/push/pull buttons to interact with the items, but you use a look at/activate cursor.

 

[Dexter]

In the latest update they said that there will only be one form of interaction. So no look/use/talk/push/pull/pick up etc.

So much for this being an old-school adventure game.

Look/use/talk/push/pull interactions don't make an old-school adventure game. Good riddance, that system should stay dead.

 

[ghostdog]

QFG offered different solutions to puzzles, but apart from that no other old-school adventure used such complex design. Shame really, because even if QFG has rpg elements, the game basically uses the various skills and spells as tools to solve puzzles. Multiple solutions, non-linear gameplay, optional events you may or may not experience, the game is fucking brilliant and one of a kind.

 

[Sceptic]

Now you are suggesting that point and click games should have parser commands? Good, make the game even more of a tedium to play.

Tedium? fuck off. The whole point of parsers, and why point and click was such a decline to begin with, is that they forced you to THINK about what you were trying to do, since the number of possible things you could try was endless. You're complaining about trying every button on every item? couldn't do that with parsers. Well actually after reading your posts it's pretty obvious that this is exactly what you do with parser games, you have a list of all possible verbs in the language and try them one at a time on every item in the game. No wonder you hate parsers so much.

usually you had only one way to solve them, so if you didn't know what you have to do, you just tried every button on every item.

Let's face it, you're no an adventure gamer. You have no interest in puzzle-solving and in thinking about what you're doing, what you're trying to achieve, and how the items in your hand and in the gameworld can help you get there. You want to click your way through the game ASAP, and anything that gets in your way must be removed. Multiple icons? nevar! Parser? vade retro satanas! Any puzzles that can't be solved instantly and without thinking must go. Because let's face it, why the hell would you otherwise think that the one and only reasonable way to solve a puzzle is to "try every button on every item"? Nobody did that! (well, you did clearly, but you don't count) The only time you'd end up doing this was in shitty adventure games - and nobody wants to remember these anyway. You'd love Noctropolis, it's an "adventure" game where puzzles solve themselves; if the puzzle required combining two items then using the combination on a third item in the world, all you needed to do was click on one item in your inventory and the game did the rest for you. No puzzle-solving required, no thinking required, just click on each item in your inventory in each screen and you can brute-force through the whole game. And this is supposed to be fun?

Now you go have fun with vaporware play-itself no-puzzles no-brains Broken Age, and I'll go play my tedium-filled Gateway and Eric The Unready.

Oh and Girm Fandango is old-school now? Roofles.

 

[Jim Cojones]

You don't have to take my word for it: check out Matt Barton's (the actual one's) interview with Josh Mandel, where he mentions how the switch from parser to set commands reduced their ability to be creative with puzzles. The switch from several to one interaction (two, if you're lucky) reduces this even further.

Of course I've seen the episode. I made it goddamit!

Spoiler

No, not really.

I think talk/push/pull buttons didn't add anything to the games regarding to puzzles, since usually you had only one way to solve them, so if you didn't know what you have to do, you just tried every button on every item.

The difference between old-school adventures and the simpler ones is that in older trying clicking all the stuff would only get you so far. Having multiple commands, access to quite a lot of areas at the same time, existence of fluff objects in environment (for every truly important object there would be 5 that only serve as a distraction/source of a funny comment from main character) ensured that trying to use everything wouldn't be effective.

 

[J_C]

Now you are suggesting that point and click games should have parser commands? Good, make the game even more of a tedium to play.

Tedium? fuck off. The whole point of parsers, and why point and click was such a decline to begin with, is that they forced you to THINK about what you were trying to do, since the number of possible things you could try was endless. You're complaining about trying every button on every item? couldn't do that with parsers. Well actually after reading your posts it's pretty obvious that this is exactly what you do with parser games, you have a list of all possible verbs in the language and try them one at a time on every item in the game. No wonder you hate parsers so much.

usually you had only one way to solve them, so if you didn't know what you have to do, you just tried every button on every item.

Let's face it, you're no an adventure gamer. You have no interest in puzzle-solving and in thinking about what you're doing, what you're trying to achieve, and how the items in your hand and in the gameworld can help you get there. You want to click your way through the game ASAP, and anything that gets in your way must be removed. Multiple icons? nevar! Parser? vade retro satanas! Any puzzles that can't be solved instantly and without thinking must go. Because let's face it, why the hell would you otherwise think that the one and only reasonable way to solve a puzzle is to "try every button on every item"? Nobody did that! (well, you did clearly, but you don't count) The only time you'd end up doing this was in shitty adventure games - and nobody wants to remember these anyway. You'd love Noctropolis, it's an "adventure" game where puzzles solve themselves; if the puzzle required combining two items then using the combination on a third item in the world, all you needed to do was click on one item in your inventory and the game did the rest for you. No puzzle-solving required, no thinking required, just click on each item in your inventory in each screen and you can brute-force through the whole game. And this is supposed to be fun?

Now you go have fun with vaporware play-itself no-puzzles no-brains Broken Age, and I'll go play my tedium-filled Gateway and Eric The Unready.

Oh and Girm Fandango is old-school now? Roofles.

Good to know that every good adventure games from the 90's and 2000s are play itself no-puzzles no brains games. Just because they don't have a parser in them.
Ok, Grim Fandango and every other adventure game without Scumm engine and parser commands are not old school games. I can still enjoy them thank you very much, because inspite what you were bullshitting about, they had puzzles, many good puzzles, I liked the puzzles in them, and I didn't need parser to do so.

I don't know where do you get that if I don't like parser, I don't like puzzles in adventure games from. If you think parser is needed to make a good adventure game, than you are retarded. You need good puzzles, not an input method.

 

[buzz]

W-wait, it doesn't have a text parser, ASCII graphics,obscure puzzles and a time limit? What a pleb popamole decline *insert cool buzzword* shit game. I'm going to replay King's Quest (not the VGA remake you fukken casuals) and Zork for the 8th time!

I really hope they go for medallion/two button interface though instead of the system Machinarium used. I'm not going to die if I can't smell/lick stuff, but a game like this one NEEDS an "observe" button. The "give" function can easily be done by dragging the object and some of the other commands are not really going to be missed. Only dumbasses believe that developers have their "creativity limited" just because now you can't decide between USING a door, TURNING ON a door or OPENING a door. I'd rather have one button crazy puzzles than this baby semantics shit.

edit: a small and optional text parser a la Fallout might be good too, if you have some codeword,cipher,riddle type of puzzle.

 

[Redlands]

Now you are suggesting that point and click games should have parser commands? Good, make the game even more of a tedium to play.

First, no I didn't say that at all; I just said it limit the interactivity available.

Second, it's not going to be point and click if it's a parser game, unless you do something like King's Quest 4/Colonel's Bequest.

Third, I totally get the frustration with parsers... when they're not done well, or if English isn't your first language and you're playing an English game (which a lot are). But that doesn't mean parser interfaces are inherently tedious, and if you'd bothered to read some of the manuals (at least the Sierra ones) you got a list of basic commands to try out that would get you through a lot of the game.

Fourth, why are you playing games in a genre you seem to find boring? These games aren't supposed to be tedious if you use your brain occasionally. Or at least, that's how they were originally: at the moment, the vast majority of adventure games have no challenging puzzles and limiting engagement; if that's the kind of adventure you like then I feel really sorry for you, because you're missing out big time.

I think talk/push/pull buttons didn't add anything to the games regarding to puzzles, since usually you had only one way to solve them, so if you didn't know what you have to do, you just tried every button on every item.

Look, I understand that this happens, because sometimes you get stuck because the game is poorly designed and you get no hints on how to do it, either from real-world knowledge or in-game clues. That's poor game design, and is always indefensible if understandable: making a good game is really difficult.

But for some reason you seem to be arguing against the whole type of gameplay where you play until you get stuck, then do something else until your subconscious gives you a fresh idea, or when you play with someone else and they make a suggestion that you'd never have thought of on your own.

Adventure games are - or, rather, used to be - games solely of the mind, requiring you to be inquisitive and patient and maybe just a bit lucky. This is why there's a negative stigma to people adding action elements to these games: they don't fit the style of game they're trying to be.

Please correct me, but I don't think there ever been adventure game, where you had different solutions to a puzzle.

Aside from Quest for Glory, there's several examples in King's Quest: King's Quest 6 is the most clear-cut example (getting into the castle to rescue Casima), but you get some arguable examples in 1 and 2.

This is why I don't understand you: you can correctly identify a problem in adventure game (only one solution available given plethora of options), but instead of arriving at the one which creates a better experience (increase number of solutions) you arrive at one that creates a worse one (decrease number of options).

So you had to use one button in the end anyway.

You do see what you're asking for, right? "Well, you know, you're just going to be mashing the monster with a weapon or spell, because everything else sucks, so instead of fixing the suck we'll just cut out all of the options." "Well, this is the best unit to build, so instead of rebalancing the other units, we'll just cut them and just give everyone the one unit to build."

Now I admit that it can expand on interactivity, but it all boiled down to the character saying something funny when you push the wrong button. I can live without that.

Again, I really don't get this point: it's like your arm is broken, but instead of putting it in a cast to at least try to heal by going to a doctor you apparently respect, you just go to him to lop it off because it's easier for him.

In the end, you can make exactly the same puzzles whether you use SCUMM buttons or just a cursor with 2 states (look at, activate).

Imagine you have a closet: the closet may contain items that you need, or it might be in front of a secret door and you need to move it out of the way. What happens if the game developer wants to do both at once? In your situation, they can't without breaking what you mean by two states, or otherwise you make the secret door an immediately obvious object in and of itself and undermine the whole point of it being a secret door.

And don't say that Hepler shit, she is saying that games should have one button, which you just have to push to overcome the combat. Broken Age will still have puzzles, inventory, item combination. You just don't have to push every talk/push/pull buttons to interact with the items, but you use a look at/activate cursor.

But this is exactly the type of game you seem to be arguing for: one with limited interactivity required on the part of the player, which you can easily mash your way through to victory.

Can someone still make a good point and click adventure game? Yeah, but according to you at least Schafer knows what he's doing: surely a guy with that much clout and experience can outmatch what Blackthorne and the rest are putting out in his sleep. But from what I can tell he's fucked up with the finances pretty badly, as though he was some kind of rank amateur. If this had been because of the extra content he's put into the game, rather than being an indulgent director working on a pet project where nobody held him accountable, then that might be fair enough, but with a limited range of interactivity that decreases the chances that this is the case, simply going by the averages.

 

[J_C]

he's fucked up with the finances pretty badly, as though he was some kind of rank amateur. If this had been because of the extra content he's put into the game

That's exactly what happened. He wrote and designed the game too big,they said this in the documentary.

Look, I played, loved and enjoyed point and click adventure games from the beginning. But if I have to rank them by control method, I'd say Grim Fandando, Longest Journey types (few interaction possibilites - look-interact)>Monkey Island types (talk-push-open-use-pull etc) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>parser. I have no problem with the SCUMM type of control, I'd be happy if Broken Age would be using it. But I'm happier that it doesn't.

Parser is just inconvenient, especially if you have dozens of code words.

 

[ghostdog]

Frankly, apart from some limited interactivity (=mostly a funny comment), I don't think the classic variety of verbs SCUMM introduced would cut it. In order to have multiple solutions and non-linearity, you would need multiple characters (Maniac Mansion did it) and a much more dynamic design when it comes to your puzzle-solving tools. QFG had a big assortment of skills and spells which you had to find and improve, thus we're getting into adventure/RPG territory now. Simple verbs wont do it, and you would need a big variety of those dynamic puzzle solving tools and additional gameplay elements regarding their availability and power level. If not, the game will be even simpler since it would revolve around the usage of the same few skills to overcome all obstacles. Sadly pure adventure designers rarely sail these waters.

I would have preferred the classic SCUMM verbs, but I don't think the puzzle design would profit greatly from them. So basically again it all comes down to puzzle design. We'll see.


Thankfully we've got Quest For Infamy and Mage's Initiation to quench our thirst for more QFG-like games.

 

[Sceptic]

Good to know that every good adventure games from the 90's and 2000s are play itself no-puzzles no brains games. Just because they don't have a parser in them.

Fuck off again with your strawmen.

Ok, Grim Fandango and every other adventure game without Scumm engine and parser commands are not old school games. I can still enjoy them thank you very much, because inspite what you were bullshitting about, they had puzzles, many good puzzles, I liked the puzzles in them, and I didn't need parser to do so.

And if you'd bothered to read what I wrote, I never said you need a parser to make puzzles. I was specifically calling out your bullshit argument about "tedium" and about how the only way to go through a puzzle is to mindlessly click everything on everything. Redlands has already described at length how you CAN make very complex puzzles with a one-click-does-all interface in Myst (actually Riven is in an even better example since its puzzles are a LOT tougher) and I fully agree with him. What I don't agree with are your statements that "you had only one way to solve them, so if you didn't know what you have to do, you just tried every button on every item" and "it all boiled down to the character saying something funny when you push the wrong button". Both are bullshit statements. First, if you don't know what to do, you keep thinking about what you're trying to do, and what tools are available for you to do so; and the more options you have, the less likely it is that you'll resort to brute-forcing through the puzzle because you can't be bothered to stop and think, simply because brute forcing will then take longer than actually stopping and thinking. Second, the increased options aren't just there so you get some funny responses (though LSL and SQ did quite well with this, including "fake" puzzles in SQ4). Again, they're there to make you THINK. Not just about what item to use, but HOW you're using this item, and why this helps. Legend parsers were great about this, "use this with that" almost never works and usually elicits (customized, different ones per puzzle) responses that yes, you've got the right idea, but before the game will let you do it, it wants you to know WHY you're using these items. And Eric The Unready managed to do this with a parser, and with some puzzles that were, at the end of the day, really quite easy. But being fully in control of exactly what you were doing and why you were doing it made solving the puzzles a LOT more satisfying than simply clicking.

Oh yeah and KQ1-2-3-5-6 all had multiple solutions to some puzzles. SQ1 and 4 did as well. All the QFGs. Fate of Atlantis (Last Crusade too IIRC). LSL1,5,6. And I'm only mentioning the "old school" point and click ones otherwise the list would be a lot longer.

I don't know where do you get that if I don't like parser, I don't like puzzles in adventure games from.

Not parsers per se, but more complex inputs that allow for more than a singular option. And I got it from your statements that I have already quoted, see above. If that's not what you meant, then maybe you shouldn't have said things like "I think talk/push/pull buttons didn't add anything to the games regarding to puzzles, since usually you had only one way to solve them, so if you didn't know what you have to do, you just tried every button on every item." You're quite explicity saying that, since the puzzle only has one solution, all options that do not solve the puzzle should be removed, leaving you with a one-click-win button. Maybe if you'd phrased it differently...

If you think parser is needed to make a good adventure game, than you are retarded.

And if you think I said that, you're both retarded AND illiterate.

Also, it's "then".

You need good puzzles, not an input method.

You need both actually. Shitty input methods CAN ruin what would otherwise be good puzzles, that's the whole point. See my Noctropolis example above. Likewise, a lot of the early parser games had shitty parsers, and those severely detracted from the games. Infocom and Legend both made excellent parsers, Sierra's was not up to par (especially pre-SCI), and in games like Codename Iceman (even though that one was SCI) the parser downright sucked.

 

[tuluse]

The words old school don't appear on the front page of their kickstarter anywhere. I think they just promised a pnc adventure game by Tim Schafer, not something old school.

I agree with post above that hoped for a two button interface, look/interact. There are plenty of great pnc adventure games that used this control scheme.

Push, pull, kick, kiss, whatever can be done through environmental interaction rather than a verb system.

 

[toro]

You are free to vigorously throw feces at each other but please leave Grim Fandango alone.

 

[Blackthorne]

About the Project
Over a six-to-eight month period, a small team under Tim Schafer's supervision will develop Double Fine's next game, a classic point-and-click adventure. Where it goes from there will unfold in real time for all the backers to see.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/doublefine/double-fine-adventure

Okay - "classic point-and-click adventure".


Bt

 

[FeelTheRads]

Remember that Oblivion is a classic now. So classic can be anything that's older than 2 years these days, really.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well, Oblivion is like seven or eight years old now. Grim Fandango is 15. Time flies...

Now you are suggesting that point and click games should have parser commands? Good, make the game even more of a tedium to play.

Tedium? fuck off. The whole point of parsers, and why point and click was such a decline to begin with, is that they forced you to THINK about what you were trying to do, since the number of possible things you could try was endless.

Doesn't that make the "guess just what the developer was thinking when he made this puzzle, which may or may not make sense" thing even more of a problem?

edit: nevermind, you already answered that.

 

[Metro]

Double Fine is a fucking joke way beyond defending at this point.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

Double Fine is a fucking joke way beyond defending at this point.

Sadly, some dumbfucks still don't realize this, right J_C?

 

[Metro]

 

[Metro]

No propaganda from JC in a over a month? Must not have gotten his check.

 

[felipepepe]

Well, they ARE out of money...

 

[J_C]

I don't have anything to add. There was no new update lately, and nobody told anything in this topic. Except for retarded Metro, who just couldn't help himself and said something stupid about me, just to get his daily hard on.

 

[Metro]

You aren't doing a very good job of ignoring me if I garner a response.