Gaming has come a long way and modern games are designed with accessibility in mind more
Ehh it really depends on what you mean. Point and Clicks reached their peak in the 90s.
Even current point and clicks struggle to keep up with the charm and sometimes even pacing of their older cousins. Oddly enough "bite Sized" point and clicks are starting to become more popular.
As well some of the "negatives" of point and clicks weren't that at all. They were part of their appeal but their appeal wasn't really universal.
What made Quest for Glory "better" to me is not any of that. It is that there was always a strong focus on making puzzles logical and easy to understand. At least for someone who was used to point and clicks. The ONLY puzzle that stumped me in the first game was the Green Fuzzle and that was the game's fault (Not that the game didn't have serious faults. Some puzzles couldn't be solved until you trained spells or skills you already had).
The only puzzle that stumped me in the third was because I didn't have the manual (I didn't know you could talk by using talk on yourself. Mind you that doesn't fall under the "Learn for yourself" clause).
Yes you had to learn how to play the game and there was a lot the game absolutely was NOT going to tell you... but it was better that way. It allowed you to discover the game on your own terms rather then have it be dictated to you.
If I had to call most people who go on the stance that "Point and clicks suck" it would be that often the features they harp on the most are the features that even people who play point and clicks agreed were never a good thing or from simply misunderstanding the genre entirely. In that article you posted it seems more like the person actually just outright doesn't like Point and Click adventure games.
Never require a player to pick up an item that is used later in the game if she can't go back and get it when it is needed
No that is just bad game design and EVERY single point and click player now adays outright agrees that making the game "unwinnable" is a flaw. No one has ever justified it UNLESS it was that sort of game.
No one I knew jumped in defense of point and clicks when they were rendered unwinnable.
---
Nevermind reading the article more closely it is about "How to make GOOD Adventure games" with a title that says "Adventure games suck"...
I wish I could make a point and click (still trying AAAAHHHH!)
---
No wait it is "Adventure games suck" and this is "This is what I'd do better"
Some people say that following these rules makes the games too easy to play. I disagree. What makes most games tough to play is that the puzzles are arbitrary and unconnected. Most are solved by chance or repetitive sessions of typing "light candle with match", "light paper with match", "light rug with match", until something happens. This is not tough game play, this is masturbation. I played one game that required the player to drop a bubble gum wrapper in a room in order to get a trap door to open (object names have been changed to protect the guilty). What is the reasoning? There is none. It's an advanced puzzle, I was told
Following your rules can make them too easy because it often requires a lot of hand holding and takes the ability of discovery and solving away from the player. Do they have to see that foothold? No you have to tell them in your design philosophy.
What makes puzzles hard is that they often require "abstract thinking" not unconnected moon logic. The trick is when find the solution to a difficult puzzle if you go "Why didn't I think of that?" or "That makes sense" then you done your job. Puzzles require a bend of thinking in looking at things in a new way. As well the issue of "Use every object with every other object" is a concequence you cannot avoid, it is the player giving up on the game and trying to power through puzzle solutions. The only reason that doesn't happen in your design philosophy is because you do not leave that open to happening, thus making it a non-puzzle.
Also I do not know what game you are refering to but let me see. Bubblegum wraper to set off a trap? What bend of ultimate logic is happening here? Think outside the box.
Is it the weight you needed? Is it a laser trap? Was this a comedy game? Was this Kings Quest 7 where you needed a "Pinch of Salt" to get into the Feux shop?
As for the "Death should not come to someone who is smart and careful" I can think of plenty of point and clicks where death itself was a learning experience and required to play and often beat the game. In one you would die a lot because the deaths were linked to the movement of characters going around the mansion, learning the game and the order things occur was the key. Did it have any arbitrary puzzles? No... In fact the game was rather open ended in some respects. To the point where it is probably a game that should get a modern day remake.
Oddly enough when I think about it... the person writing that article seems to be describing those "Interactive Fiction" games. Like Heavy Rain... as the adventure game he likes (sorta, they still had arbitrary puzzles)
---
Sorry for the rant... Everytime I think about the death of point and click adventures I think of those articles.
It is hard for me to even explain to people why point and clicks arn't terrible because everyone has read them. "Oooh you have to play this game called Monkey Island"... "No sorry I read this article and it says that point and clicks are nothing but moon logic and nonsense"... "What that isn't true! well ok in this game it is sort of true but that is because it is a comedy and"... "So sorry I cannot hear you over reading about how you had to get a cat mustach in this game from this article to pay attention".
Author
Topic: Hero-U: Rogue to Redemption, from the Quest for Glory creators (Read 12741 times)