A few design issues
I've just completed the episode, and I must say that I'm impressed. I can't wait for the next one.
However, there are a few design decisions that I disagree with very strongly.
1. Camera angles. I know lots of other people have commented on this as well, so 'nuff said.
2. Multiple dialog choices that lead to the same thing being said. This is a fun gimmick, if used very rarely! It is way, way overused in the first part of the game.
3. Inventory functionality. Now, I have to ask myself the question "What the hell were they thinking?!?" In every other post-1995 adventure game I remember playing, using one inventory object on another was as simple as picking up the object from the inventory and clicking on the one you wanted to use it on. What in the nether hells promted you to make that much more cumbersome, by introducing this two-circles-and-a-button interface? That's like making a new car, where you have to move the windshield wipers manually back and forth with a handle inside the car.
Also, looking at inventory objects could be much easier, if you'd just bind that function to the right mouse button in the inventory.
4. "Active" objects. In the original MI games, there were tons of "active" objects, meaning objects you could look at and interact with to a certain degree, even though they were not a part of a puzzle or task. These included people you could talk to, furniture, posters, animals, etc. These objects helped the world come alive, and gave the impression that it really was a world. In Tales, the amount of active objects seems to have been cut straight to the bone. Almost nothing is superfluous. If you move your mouse pointer over an object, and it shows a name, then you can be almost dead certain that you need to interact with it at some point in order to progress. This is a pity, because it makes the world seem much less of a world, and much more of a simple wrapper for puzzles. Additionally, it makes the developers seem lazy, as if you simply couldn't be bothered to put in anything that wasn't absolutely necessary for the script to unfold.
However, there are a few design decisions that I disagree with very strongly.
1. Camera angles. I know lots of other people have commented on this as well, so 'nuff said.
2. Multiple dialog choices that lead to the same thing being said. This is a fun gimmick, if used very rarely! It is way, way overused in the first part of the game.
3. Inventory functionality. Now, I have to ask myself the question "What the hell were they thinking?!?" In every other post-1995 adventure game I remember playing, using one inventory object on another was as simple as picking up the object from the inventory and clicking on the one you wanted to use it on. What in the nether hells promted you to make that much more cumbersome, by introducing this two-circles-and-a-button interface? That's like making a new car, where you have to move the windshield wipers manually back and forth with a handle inside the car.
Also, looking at inventory objects could be much easier, if you'd just bind that function to the right mouse button in the inventory.
4. "Active" objects. In the original MI games, there were tons of "active" objects, meaning objects you could look at and interact with to a certain degree, even though they were not a part of a puzzle or task. These included people you could talk to, furniture, posters, animals, etc. These objects helped the world come alive, and gave the impression that it really was a world. In Tales, the amount of active objects seems to have been cut straight to the bone. Almost nothing is superfluous. If you move your mouse pointer over an object, and it shows a name, then you can be almost dead certain that you need to interact with it at some point in order to progress. This is a pity, because it makes the world seem much less of a world, and much more of a simple wrapper for puzzles. Additionally, it makes the developers seem lazy, as if you simply couldn't be bothered to put in anything that wasn't absolutely necessary for the script to unfold.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
This is a flawed argument. When you pay for a professionally made product, you are very much entitled to voice your opinion on it, and whether or not you could do better yourself has nothing to do with it.
Secondly, I didn't say "Tales Of Monkey Island is teh suxx0rz!!!11!1!!", I said "Tales Of Monkey Island is excellent, but..." followed by thought-out, well phrased constructive critique (well, maybe apart from point 3, but still).
Thirdly, do you really believe people are not allowed to comment on a movie unless they happen to be an actor or a director? Didn't think so. So why should people be barred from stating their opinion of a game, if they don't happen to be a games developer?
I actually happen to be a developer, not of games, but of other systems. As such, I know something about development in general, about user interfaces, about how small changes to a user interface can make a tremendous difference to how the end user perceives the system. Don't tell me I'm not "allowed" to comment on a game that I paid for.
ROFL... the combining of objects was not difficult at all, it didn't slow down the game for me... l2play
Um, not really. If anything, the "object density" in the Voodoo Lady's shack is onpar with anything in the old games, to be honest. Same goes with the lab. Plus there's not only a text/voice commentary, but animations attached to almost anything you can click as well. Sure, there's places that don't have that many objects to examine, pick up, swallow or swear at, particularly the jungle bits. But that's a nod to the Melee woods and mazes in oldschool LucasArts games anyway (yay!), and you should take a closer look at those again.
I've seen that assassment on another forum as well, but i think it's a tad exaggerating.