More On Adventure Games

Robert Bryant, one of my design teachers, often asserts that "the essence of fun is surprise. During the late '80s and early '90s, adventure game developers pushed this idea as far as they could -- and adventure games eventually became so surprising as to be nonsensical (Gobliins 2 stands out in my mind as a prime example).

Developers simultaneously discovered that such designs boosted demand for game guides, and so a new pre-internet business was born. The guides had higher profit margins than the games themselves, and it was only a matter of time before adventure games were specifically designed to sell guides. This mild form of cheating eventually became the only possible way to get through the games, and it was common practice for pirated copies of the games to be distributed along with .txt walkthroughs or even barely-legible photocopied game guides.

Alternatively, you could ask one of your friends who had played through the game for advice on how to get past a certain sticking point -- a rudimentary precursor to the internet forum system we all leech off of today.

Perhaps the format of all media is determined by the constraints of its funding, presentation, and consumption. Is adventure gaming a valid storytelling mechanism, or merely a peculiar technological oddity that arose with and was only appropriate for a simpler age? An age of limited hardware, when there were few PC gaming options and adventure gaming was really the only show in town? When there was no internet to subvert companies who earned their keep by peddling the secret keys to their elaborate digital puzzles? When fan devotion to the pluck and humor of the folks at Sierra generated enough surplus of goodwill to offset all the are-you-f#@%ing-kidding-mes they put us through?

It is my fervent hope that torch-bearers like Telltale Games can continue to adapt and innovate this formerly beloved genre of mine. Otherwise, should adventure gaming go extinct within the next 15 years... you heard it here first, folks.

H2G2 Remake review: We Apologize For The Inconvenience

I was raised on graphic adventure games --they were the first video games I ever played and have profoundly influenced my approach to games ever since.  I was also raised on The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, so naturally I jumped at the chance to write about the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy Remake, or H2G2 Remake for short.  Unfortunately, it seems you can't turn back the clock.

One of the original "transmedia IPs," there is no definitive version of the Hitchhiker's Guide story as such.  It has existed in various incarnations as a radio play, a novel, a TV series, a stage play, a comic book, a feature film, and of course, a text adventure game.  Released by Infocom in 1984, the text for the game was written by Douglas Adams himself -- allegedly a process Adams found frustrating, which is why the game ends abruptly near the story's midpoint. 

H2G2 Remake is a lovingly executed point-and-click adaptation of the original text adventure.  Credit is due to the developers for their obvious devotion and fidelity to the details of the original, but on the whole the experience left me questioning the wisdom of the game's premise, and even whether or not the adventure gaming genre is still at all viable. 

Text adventures are designed to be difficult and puzzling because, gameplay-wise, that's all they've got.  The joy of unraveling a text adventure comes not just from moments of insight arrived at by clever reasoning and deduction, but from the simultaneously rewarding, humorous, and annoying experience of exhausting every logical action, getting stumped, feeling like you've hit a dead end, and typing in something completely absurd that turns out to be the solution.  Many of the early graphic adventures added illustrations to the process, but remained largely text-based in the sense that gameplay consisted of reading and typing responses.

Although they were often maddeningly difficult, puzzles in text-based adventures could sometimes be easier than those of later point-and-click graphic adventures, because the text was there to clue the player in to everything he or she needs to know about the current situation.  If you walk into a room and the game mentions that there's a knife on the table, it probably has some significance -- otherwise, they wouldn't have mentioned it (unless it's a red herring, of course).

In point-and-click adventures, graphics have replaced text descriptions, and such previously explicit clues are no longer possible.  To balance this, most point-and-click games include some sort of mouse-over feedback that lets the player know which objects in the environment can be manipulated, which eventually led to the core mechanic of systematically exploring all of the game's essential and non-essential animations by clicking.  Moreover, where the player previously enjoyed apparently unlimited action options, point-and-click games simplify player choice by constraining it and abstracting all activities into standard touch / talk / look clicks.  The resulting evolutions eventually brought us the sort of brainless click-through interactive storytelling adventures that dominate the genre today.

Bearing in mind the interface and format discrepancies between text adventures and point-and-clicks, does it really any make sense to port the one to the other?  As a case study, H2G2 Remake seems to indicate that a radical design overhaul is necessary for such a translation to be viable.  Adams' recycled one-liners here feel tired and outdated, and fail to drive the story forward.  The game's word puzzles, especially the so-called "dark" sections, do not translate and handle quite awkwardly.

 
Alas, these are only the beginning of this game's problems.  The inventory interface is clunky and counter-intuitive, and the game's instructions / help section is so badly written as to be incomprehensible.  Though mostly stable, one of the game's prevalent bugs is that the cursor fails to flicker when held over certain interactable objects, an infuriating and almost game-breaking flaw.  With all due respect to whoever worked very hard on the artwork, the graphics are lacking to the point of having an adverse effect on the experience -- unless the designers mean to intentionally increase the game's difficulty by, for example, depicting the crucial knife on the table as only one of several misshapen, unrecognizable blobs of pixels on screen.  I wouldn't put anything past an adventure game developer.

Whether you're a bigtime Hitchhiker's Guide fan with nostalgia for the text adventure, or just curious about what it was, check out http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers.  It's the BBC's better-illustrated, browser-based version of the original text adventure without any point-and-click nonsense.  Just don't forget to pack your towel, and perhaps this IGN walktrhrough. 

Rest in peace, Douglas Adams.  We love you and miss you.

Red, Dead Redemption

A good rule of thumb for whether or not to use a comma between adjectives is: don't, except in cases where the conjunction "and" would make sense.  Thus "I have a little white dog" but "I have a big, fat dog."

What's really at stake is which word the first adjective is modifying -- the adjective or the noun that follows.  In most cases, a comma isn't necessarily right or wrong, but it changes the meaning of the phrase:

"I have a black leather wallet."  (black leather) (wallet)  I have a wallet made out of black leather.

"I have a black, leather wallet."  (black wallet, leather wallet)  I have a wallet.  This wallet happens to be made of leather, and is colored black.

In the case of Red Dead Redemption, "red" describes "dead" as written.  That sorta makes sense -- you know you're dead when you're red dead, as this redemption is.

I think Red, Dead Redemption might have had more impact.  Now we've got a redemption that's both red AND dead.

I also would have accepted Red-Dead Redemption, Red/Dead Redemption, and Redhead Redemption.

Call Of Halo: Modern Reach

While I am by no means a Halo expert*, I do consider myself a Halo fan.  I had been looking forward to Reach since it was announced and it was the only game I’ve bought on launch day all year.

I’m also quite partial to the Call Of Duty games.  As shooters go, Call Of Duty is perhaps the Beatles to Halo’s Rolling Stones.  Or maybe it’s the other way around... fodder for another blog post.  While I certainly respect and enjoy both games, no one can love them both equally, and if I had to choose between the two, I’d pick Halo.

Aesthetically, Reach is one of the most awe-inspiring pieces of visual media I’ve ever consumed.  The rich detail of the environments and the artful, mature cutscenes are Avatar-ishly mind-blowing.  Likewise, the sound design on Reach is jaw-dropping, from the beauty of its musical score to the marvelously-crafted foley cues.  Overall, Reach is a splendidly integrated piece of entertainment, consistent, immersive, emotionally engaging, impeccably detailed, well balanced and paced (although not without a few Halo-esque difficulty spikes / missing checkpoints), and generally a whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Hats off, Bungie.  There need never be another Halo.

All that being said... the Modern Warfare influence is undeniable.  On paper, we all knew this was coming: the loadouts (Sprinting!?  In Halo!?), the multiplayer leveling and upgrades system, the emphasis on teamwork over Rambo-style lone wolf Master Chief tanking, etc.

At least we still get to keep our overshields, plasma grenades and gravity hammers, right? **  Perhaps it’s just fanboy resistance to progress, but I like my Halos to be Halos and my Modern Warfares to be Modern Warfares.  I understand the insecurity that pressures publishers and developers into catering to popular taste, especially on a project with the scope and box office potential of Reach’s magnitude, but... well, a guy can dream.

Personally, the most disappointing should’ve-seen-that-coming Modern Warfare-ism in Halo: Reach is the shift in the game’s overall tone.  Even at its most earnest, previous Halos never forgot who they were: escapist jaunts into a hyper-realistic (physics-wise) sci-fi world that felt limitlessly fantastic.  The tongue never completely left the cheek.  I’ve always seen Halo as the video game equivalent of Starship Troopers.  The spirit of the Halo franchise was one of derivative subject matter, delivered in a self-aware way, drawing upon familiar modern-day conventions for maximum storytelling economy.

While the storylines in Modern Warfare are arguably just as fantastic, the mood is different.  More like the most recent James Bond films.  Modern Warfare is badass in a serious way; Halo was always badass in an over-the-top way.   Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but anyone who has played through the Reach campaign must surely agree that the sense of humor is gone.  Your fellow soldiers are now courageous and respectable where they were once pathetic cowards.  The aliens are a legitimate threat to your home and way of life (see Modern Warfare) and no longer scream “Run away!!” in ridiculous cartoonish voices. Gone is Cortana’s endless string of witty remarks.  Gone are the absurd rhyming couplets of the Gravemind.  In fact, [SPOILER ALERT!] gone are the wacky, loveable zombies altogether.  (Remember when "Halo" meant "half-aliens, half-zombies game"?)

What remains, for better or worse, is a straightforward story of nobility, courage and sacrifice in the face of certain defeat.  Reach might even make you cry.  It’s a repeat of the Star Wars prequel formula -- and the lack of public outcry might just indicate that mainstream audiences are marginally more open to tragic space operas than they were a few years ago when Lucas unveiled his misunderstood prequel triptych masterpiece.

Anyways... only 2.5 more weeks to Black Ops!!!!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------

* Although I am one of the best in the world at getting pWn’d by 12-year-olds in any given Halo multiplayer.

** Nerd-out: I love that they brought back the Combat Evolved pistol, and the new Needle Rifle is a splendid all-around with delightful long-range accuracy; but, while assassinations are cool and all, the melee is too weak for my tastes, and IMHO, the DMR is such a woefully over-nerfed Battle Rifle that it just depresses me to use it.

Honey on Pop Vs. Soda (http://popvssoda.com)

I find this study to be completely fascinating.

Sooner or later (but usually during the first week of school), incoming college freshmen always get a big dose of culture shock when they discover that American English-speakers tend to prefer one of three different regional terms for sweetened, carbonated beverages.

This inevitably leads to late night arguments with dorm-mates along the following lines:

KID A: You mean you call it "soda?"  That's, like, so '50s.  [mocking] "Hey, Sally, wanna go over to the fountain for a soda?"
KID B: Dude, that's what it's called.  "Pop" is what sounds dorky.  God, I can hardly even say it with a straight face.  "Soda" is objectively correct, isn't it, Kid C?
KID C: Where ah come frum, we jes say, "Hay, gimme a coke."  And then the waitress says, "What kinda coke you want? We got Root Beer, Sprite, Pepsi..."

The fact that people from different parts of the country use different words does not blow my mind.  What blows my mind is the following map (click to see the full-size version):

 

It raises so many questions.  Why are there pockets of Soda-Sayers in Missouri and Wisconsin?  Why is it that Kentucky is the only place north of the Mason-Dixon line where people refer to a soft drink generically as a "coke"?  How do you explain why certain state lines are so divisive?  (Specifically, California/Oregon and New Mexico/Arizona.)  Why are some states so much more linguistically homogeneous than others?

I am convinced that the keys to truly understanding our nation's history and character lie in the answers to these questions, and I demand that further studies be undertaken.

[Together] Review

My review of the Flash game [Together] was published last week on Greg Costikyan's website, PlayThisThing.com:

http://playthisthing.com/together

Enjoy!

Warriors: Legends Of Troy (E3 Game Demo Review)

Game Name:
Warriors: Legends Of Troy (Tecmo Koei)

Platform:
PS3 / 360 (I played on 360)

Genre:
Action / Hack-N-Slash

Time Played:
10 minutes

Main Constructs:
Grinding, Button Mashing


One thing I LOVED about it and why:
The high concept. I had the pleasure of talking with the game's lead designer for a bit prior to playing. His concept, as pitched to me, was not only to adapt the Warriors franchise for a Western gamer audience, but also to stay as faithful as possible to Greek mythology (esp. Homer's Iliad) and history (including details like accurate late bronze-age weaponry and armor). In his words, he wanted to create a game that high school teachers might assign to their students. As a stickler for accuracy, I applaud his mentality.


One thing I LIKED about it and why:
Badass combat animations. I suppose I like this for the same reason I like a good battle scene in a film (see Braveheart and Last Of The Mohicans). I enjoy the toy-play aspect of directing sword fight choreography.


One thing I HATED about it and why:
The level design. The demo level was dull and repetitive. Run a little bit, press X a little bit, run some more, press X some more, run some more, etc.

One thing I DISLIKED about it and why:
Not being able to invert the Y-axis controls. Although I did my best to work around it, not implementing this basic feature for the demo made me feel like a discriminated-against minority.

What behaviours the main compulsion loop is encouraging:
Kill enemy soldiers. Keep an eye out for special fatalities.


What the main rewards are:
Sense of powerfulness and progress. Badass fatality animations. Immersion.

What I would change about the game:
The demo focused entirely on the game's basic constructs and fighting mechanics. While reasonably cool, these are nothing particularly ground-breaking. I believe that by directing more attention to the world, the story, the main characters, and other narrative elements, Legends of Troy might have appealed to players' imaginations and done a better job of standing out from the crowd.

The most plausible explanation for this problem is that most of the narrative-type stuff, usually understood to mean "cutscenes," isn't finished yet. Nevertheless, I believe there must be a creative solution.

What I learned from playing the game:
Don't bother showing a game at E3 unless it's ready.