Messages

781

IQ Chat / Re: Post Kickstarter Update

« on: August 10, 2012, 03:13:58 PM »

While I'm all about secret passages and solving puzzles to FIND secret passages, I really think that the "secret passage in the library accessed by flipping around or arranging coded book titles" has been done to death in these games.  AGDI did it in KQ2+ AND KQ3, QFG4 did it, and that's just the first three that come to mind.  I think we can do better, frankly. 

782

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Infamous Quests Forum and Website Policy

« on: August 04, 2012, 09:09:08 PM »

Haha...nice. 

I like to think about it this way, when I first started doing art and other work for IA's free remakes, we all had an understanding that every piece of work produced was considered a donation the minute it hit the forums.  This is basically the same concept.

783

IQ Chat / Re: Post Kickstarter Update

« on: August 04, 2012, 04:28:27 PM »

I like going to the library.

784

Quest for Infamy / Re: Designing Quest For Infamy

« on: August 01, 2012, 10:24:08 PM »

Love having to take items a long way before you use them, collecting pieces to a puzzle (ie treasure map in MI2) always nice when you need a whole bunch of things for one puzzle like an extension of the beast's head/markus' blood.

I particularly like when items have more than one use in puzzles. Sure, there's more "challenge" in having to find another item to solve that puzzle, but if you've got a knife in your inventory, why not just use it to cut everything that needs cutting? Why not vacuum up five different things at different times? Why throw away an item just because it came in handy? When you get locked inside the cell you just rescued someone from, you'll wish you'd kept the key hidden on your person.

I agree with the logic of this--however, it can become a problem from a gameplay standpoint.  Whenever I've played games where the same item gets used multiple times for different puzzle solutions, I've always come away from it feeling like the developers just got lazy and weren't being creative enough.  A number of Telltale games in particular have suffered from this problem.  I think there's a sweet spot when it comes to adventure game puzzle logic--you want the solution to be logical enough to make sense, but to be just obscure enough that it isn't apparent right away.  That's often a lot easier said than done. 

785

Quest for Infamy / Re: Designing Quest For Infamy

« on: July 31, 2012, 11:19:33 PM »

I liked the attempt at dungeon puzzles in Skyrim--the first time or two we used a claw key was cool, but unfortunately they never came up with anything else.  They just used that same puzzle, along with the rotating-statues-to-match-the-symbols-on-the-walls puzzles over and over again.  I'd have loved to have seen a few physics based puzzles in that game, for example.  The game has the ability to lift and carry items and then drop and stack them wherever you please--THAT would have been a great ability to use to solve weight-based mechanisms or some other such kind of puzzles.  But they never did anything with it--the ability to lift and stack items is just a random ability that is completely useless in the context of the rest of the game.

Ahem, anyway--end of Skyrim rant. 

786

Quest for Infamy / Re: Designing Quest For Infamy

« on: July 31, 2012, 09:33:20 PM »

I know a ton of the puzzles are in the manual, which I DO have (via replacementdocs.com to go with my pirated copy ), but I didn't realize all the riddle answers were as well.

787

Quest for Infamy / Re: Designing Quest For Infamy

« on: July 31, 2012, 08:25:18 PM »

I also enjoyed the riddles in one of the camelot games, that was a lot of fun.

I think riddles are the bane of adventure game puzzles, frankly.  Too often, they rely on knowledge of obscure turns of phrase, which are often culture specific.  The ones in Conquest for Camelot were really bad about that, as I recall.  I've actually never even seen them all answered in any walkthrough.  I always had to restore several times and hope that I got a random set of five that I could actually answer or were answered in a walkthrough.  If the clues can't be found in-game, or possibly in a manual, it has no business being there.

788

Quest for Infamy / Re: Designing Quest For Infamy

« on: July 31, 2012, 03:36:14 PM »

Yeah, I agree--I know most of the Sierra navigation puzzles are much derided nowadays, but I never had much of an issue with them.  I think the main problem was that they were either a little too pixel-huntingly difficult (SQ2 Maze), OR the player was forced to do them OVER AND OVER AND OVER (KQ3 mountain.)  KQ6 did it well, when you had to walk on the correct floor tiles to get through that one trap in the labyrinth.  I could see something like that being cool if it was a one-off situation.

789

Quest for Infamy / Re: Designing Quest For Infamy

« on: July 31, 2012, 12:29:17 PM »

My interest in the parser would only be for dialog.  The absolute BEST part of the QFG dialog was using context clues to figure out the right things to ask to further the conversation and gain important information.  The point-and-click dialog tree format just absolutely ruins that sense of discovery.  Playing QFG2VGA with the dialog trees on completely breaks the flow of dialog information in that game.  Thank god they included the option to do parser-only dialog.  That's what I was talking about--not a full parser for all interactions.  But there are definite gameplay and immersion benefits to be gained, in my opinion, from doing parser dialog.

790

Quest for Infamy / Re: Designing Quest For Infamy

« on: July 30, 2012, 08:53:21 PM »

Item combinations are always fun, provided they aren't ridiculously obscure.  And I like the idea of boss monsters that you have to solve a puzzle or two to beat.  And honestly, it wouldn't be a good retro Sierra style adventure game without a solid maze. 

Dialog puzzles are probably my single least favorite.  Telltale has thoroughly killed them for me.  That said, however, I did enjoy the exploratory dialog of the QFG games, especially in QFG1 and 2, where smart inquiries based on subtle dialog clues earned you points.

Also, if I had my druthers, I'd love to see a parser option for dialog, a la AGDI's QFG2VGA or LSL7. 

791

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: London 2012 open ceremony

« on: July 28, 2012, 12:20:51 PM »

Also, Paul McCartney looked really sick to me.  Though, hey, Mike Oldfield showed up to play live!  That was sick.

Steve, you're killing me!  The appropriate usage AND the slang usage in the same line.  I should smack you.

792

Quest for Infamy / Re: Mythical Creatures

« on: July 22, 2012, 03:51:43 PM »

Ugh...draugr---I am getting flashes of the endless identical waves of them from Skyrim.  No thank you. 

793

Quest for Infamy / Re: backgrounds

« on: July 20, 2012, 01:43:02 AM »

More often than not, everything from sketch to finished background is done on the computer, in GIMP or Photoshop. 

794

Quest for Infamy / Re: backgrounds

« on: July 19, 2012, 10:20:21 PM »

I believe the sketches that have been made public were all done natively in GIMP (basically the free version of Photoshop.)  However, it is easy to sketch on paper and scan it into Photoshop--sometimes we do that, too.  Really just depends on the person's preference.

795

Banter and Chit-Chat! / Re: Your Introduction to Point and Click Adventure Games

« on: July 16, 2012, 07:14:28 PM »

Yeah, the remake is sweet--it uses all the original graphics, but adds just a few enhancements here and there.  The P&C controls make the game much more enjoyable to play in my opinion--I hated using the F-keys in the original.