How can we add freedom to adventure games

[ad7venture]

I thought I would continue this discussion here rather than in the Dagon engine forum.  So, maybe we are just providing the illusion of freedom in adventures, but what are the ways we can do that?

One thing I think we can do is have things that happen that aren't necessarily a puzzle that relates to the story, or even a puzzle.  I've noticed many adventures do this.  For instance, the punching inflatable dummy in Day of the Tentacle.  Myst did quite a few of those as did Samarost.  Too many might throw a player off, but I kind of get a kick out of a few things like that and I think they added to a sense of freedom.  Everything doesn't feel exactly tied to the story that way.

[Igor Hardy]

The most essential in adventure games is IMO the puzzle design and game world structure. You must make the player believe the course of action that he picks is natural for the situations and the most entertaining one for him and not something scripted and forced.

[ad7venture]

I think one of the worst ways is to give choices that don't do anything.  Like there's this door and you click on it and read an excuse for why you can't go in there, or have the character speak it.  Once in a while that's OK, but for a lot of doors, you start to resent the whole thing and wish they hadn't put the hot spot there to begin with.  Which is my argument for hot spots anyway.  They shouldn't necessarily all have to do with a puzzle, because that makes the game too easy, but they should add background or something.  It shouldn't be a plant and the actor says, it's a plant.  That's also why I never cared for the Sierra way of not actually using hotspots and constantly having you read unnecessary information.
You can give a certain amount of freedom.  You can have rooms, alleys, whatever that can be explored that don't necessarily do much.  Too many of those make the game feel like a walker, too few, and I think the player feels steered.
Conversations, at least for me, are a place I don't want a lot of choices and they seem to get thrown in a lot because it's an easy place to add choice.
Another one I've really gotten tired of is the out of order story formation.  Find the 5 magical things and put them together.  It gives a feeling of freedom, but I think is limiting to the story and has been overused.  However, there probably are always blocks of story that can be done out of order so it's something to think about and make sure a choice is offered rather than forcing a linear path.  It's like the obsessive author that doesn't allow a hotspot to light up unless the item is needed.  That's ridiculous in my mind.   If something is a hotspot, it should always be one.
One I really don't care for is to have the story literally branch.  I consider it a waste of resources and if someone did decide to replay the game, would have to play over some re-used material.  Why not just write 3 games or whatever and give the player even more choice?  I feel sorry for the player that feels like they need something like that also.  How about if we change Moby Dick so that Ahab doesn't drown in the end?  The author spent a lot of time on that and it's why it's a classic.  It's just coloring book creativity on the part of the player in order to chop up a story.

[Kickaha]

Sorry haven't looked at threads on the Dagon engine forum so I have a lot of catching up to do.

Most games I've played I've felt there's one just one path through the game, the challenge is finding it.  I'm quite happy playing these kind of games, I can get into the story, identify with the characters, be challenged by the problems.  Well written they don't have to feel like the player is being rail-roaded.

A few games claim your choices affect the outcome.  Is this more the kind of freedom you're discussing?  Or instead that the player is freely interacting with the game?

[Igor Hardy]

@ad7venture I pretty much agree with everything you wrote, but I'm not convinced about storyline branching. Sometimes it works for me very well (Fate of Atlantis, The Last Express, Quest for Glory) and sometimes it leads to the Ahab situation you mentioned (the ridiculous storyline of Ripper - created to "match" 6 different endings).

As for the 5 magical ingredients Quest, the designer should probably always opt instead for 5 separate smaller quests that are not tied together in obvious ways. A good example are the Discworld games. The structure of the first 2 relied heavily on the ingredients chases (still, both are incredibly fun, non-linear games), while Discworld Noir (which retained much of the same non-linearity) made all the goals have deeper sense within the whole complex mystery storyline.

[ad7venture]

"A few games claim your choices affect the outcome.  Is this more the kind of freedom you're discussing?  Or instead that the player is freely interacting with the game?"

We were talking about both, yes.  The player affecting the outcome is the one I consider a waste of resources because I can't see myself going through a large portion of the same game over again.  I guess if there's an audience for it, but it doesn't do anything for me except shorten the game.

Igor:
I agree on the ingredients quest.  It's been done too often in one certain way, but finding creative ways to do the same thing and make it not feel like 5 things that need to be combined is different.  The more choices we can give the player while still maintaining an interesting story, the better.

However, at it's heart, I think Kickaha has the main point.  Mostly we are looking for that main story in what appears to be an illogical soup.  It's the players responsibility to make sense of it all.  I still get that same thrill when I'm just playing around with this and that and suddenly I  put it all together and know what the author has in mind and how to move the story forward. 

[Kickaha]

For me good writing in a game can obscure that you've got a 5 ingredients quest.

[ad7venture]

I was just playing a small adventure and it did the three tasks before you can do such and such.  There are some advantages to it.  For instance, if you are given four, and only need three, it can help you get passed a puzzle that you can't figure out, which is kind of the bane of adventure games.  Even if there were only one extra written, that would help get passed a certain point and provide extra choice.  It's just hard for them not to stand out like a sore thumb, and how often can you do that kind of thing?  Kind  of reminds me of rpg's where I have about 10 tasks I've promised to perform and can't remember them anymore. 

[Kickaha]

And the games where you get told something only once . . . which is critical to know.

[Igor Hardy]

Those "too much information" and "only one time told information" are also interesting problems.

In Snakes of Avalon there is a situation where you spy on a conversation in which you learn you need to get a note with a phone number which you see one character hide in her handbag. If you sleep through that scene, or save the game, quit and forget what happened, you won't know what is your goal.

I wasn't really desperate to include a recap for the overheard conversation (since not a single player complained about that part as I recall), but I did think about it a bit, and didn't have any good idea where to strategically place a description of what happened. The only thing I've done is that there's some kind of small reminder of what's in the handbag when you click on it.

Any thoughts on how to deal with such a problem design wise?

[ad7venture]

I think critical information has to be able to be returned to or just automatically given to the player in the form of a note, journal, whatever.  I've just recently reached a place where I believe there should be more hot spots than puzzles, so I guess I err too much on the easy side of adventures, though.  I see that now.  They are just too easy unless there are quite a few hot spots that can mislead.  It makes the player try to logically solve the problem.  I also realize that inventory puzzles can be fun enough on their own to carry a game.  I used to think there had to be mini-game type puzzles because they weren't interesting enough.  Broken Sword had very few mini-games, if any, and yet kept me interested through out.  It's getting the proper balance, just like in game freedom.  Too much and the player wanders around aimlessly, not knowing what to do.  Too little and he feels like he's on a roller coaster ride.  I think as you give a player more freedom, say, wandering streets, etc, you need to actually cut down on the number of hot spots.  Personally, though, I find those type to be tedious with adventure games. 

[Kickaha]

Historically Adventure gamers seemed to have kept a notebook beside them as they played, and recorded things as they went along.  And built up maps of the gameworlds.  At least that's my impression of the 'Golden Age'.

I'm lazy and like to play games without needing to write things down, just muddling through.

It's a hard call for situations like the overheard conversation Igor mentions - it didn't jump out at me while playing Avalon.  The small reminder seems perfectly fine, a good solution.

[ad7venture]

And built up maps of the gameworlds.

That was when mazes were a part of adventures.  We've since abandoned them.  When you look at the evolution of adventures, they have gone from more freedom, if mazes could be considered freedom, to less.  Most of the complaints I hear about adventures revolve around the game play not being directly involved with the story.  For instance, fetch quests are more or less a mainstay of role playing games, but usually get criticized in an adventure unless the thing that needs getting is directly involved with the story and is important to it.  There are also usually busy work complaints in adventures.  Sometimes I think we've painted ourselves in a corner, but I have to admit, I don't like them in adventures either.  I like to feel the thing I am doing is important and a part of the story.