There is a puzzle that when you find the roadblock and goal, you go through a series of what you think are logical (or even illogical) paths to solve it. You can't get pass the road block. But the solution is to talk to Max and select a key dialouge line that triggers him to act in a way that would solve the problem!
I don't like the idea of having them completly seperated. stuff like, sam gets imprisoned and you have to play the whole episode as sam wouldn't be fitting for sam & max. where there ever scenes in the comics, cartoons or game were they got split up?
Hit the Road: Max in the Dunk Tank
Season 1: Max captured by Brady Culture
Cartoon: Max messed with history in "A Glitch In Time", changing Sam.
So if its a small hole you can't get through Sam says "its to small for me to get through" then similar to what happened with the rat canon you can shove max through
That strikes me as a member of the 'so obvious it may as well not be there' category of puzzles I mentioned previously, I'm afraid.
I think in playing Devil's Advocate I made it sound as though I don't agree with you, The_Razgriz_Ace, but yes: I think the shady side of logic is where Max-related solutions should be. Once it's been found, the player should be able to see why it worked, however (as in the tunnel of love example).
Although I know it sounds weird to be asking for puzzles to have unexpected solutions, go the other way and you're saying that if there's a chance someone won't know the answer straight-off, it shouldn't be there at all, and that means dumbing the game down to the intellectual level of a five-year-old. A debate in another thread about the use of the coathanger in Episode 6 springs to mind. There's no reason you can't learn new things when playing one of these games; Monkey Island III is how I learnt what you could do with a laminated card, but I wouldn't complain that that puzzle took me so long to figure out.
I don't think playing as Max instead of Sam for a bit would be ruining the series in anyway way. After all, it is called Sam & Max.
You might be right, but I think Max's behaviour would have to be toned down if he were to become the protagonist for any length of time. We haven't seen much of his witty, observational side in Season One, even though we know it exists. If his responses while you were playing him were as manic as he has been so far, I'd quickly get frustrated.
I don't think playing as Max instead of Sam for a bit would be ruining the series in anyway way. After all, it is called Sam & Max.
Well Season One had 2 stretches where you played as just Sam with Max captured/incapacitated and those turned out fine. I don't really see how it would be any different where if they had brief stretches of just Ma w/o Sam.
dumbing the game down to the intellectual level of a five-year-old
rofl I find this funny because I played the monkey island games when I was 3 XD
but yeah I was just saying that as an example as in its not really a puzzle but whilst inside the area sam can't reach you play as max
Yeah, it'd be nice to play as Max so you get to hear his own take on some of the items lying around, rather than just hearing what Sam has to say and Max's response.
Yeah because its seems that max dosn't do very much but tag around and make silly comments every now and then, so it would be nice to play as him. Max is the best
And maybe max can do things that sam can't like...beat someone up? But I was dissapointed in the first season when I realised that max wasn't a inventory item.
I don't think Max shoud be an inventory item because them it would make the game seem less real. Also, since he wasn't an inventory item in season one, it would make season two to different.
I was just saying that as an example as in its not really a puzzle but whilst inside the area sam can't reach you play as max
Yeah, fair enough if it's a means to something like that. I've come to agree that playing as Max could work if done well; I think it should be something memorable rather than a couple of simple puzzles, and yet not overdone either, so it's a fine line to success.
As for introducing things that weren't in Season One, we shouldn't be afraid of change (besides, arguing for no change would be equivalent to saying Season One (hence Season Two) shouldn't have differed from Hit The Road, which had Max as an inventory item!). Change is how things improve, provided it's handled sensibly; it would be foolish to ignore any (hypothetical) idea that would make the game better on the whole, just because it's different.
Well Season One had 2 stretches where you played as just Sam with Max captured/incapacitated and those turned out fine. I don't really see how it would be any different where if they had brief stretches of just Ma w/o Sam.
Hmm... How about this: Instead of taking direct control of Max, one finds a situation where Sam is incapacitated or 'stuck' somewhere (i.e. Captured in a cage or somesuch). Max is outside and Sam needs Max to do stuff to get out. This could be done in the way the final puzzles of Culture Shock (
Brady and the sodapoppers
) or Reality 2.0 (
The text adventure
) was done, with Sam telling Max what to do. This would give you some control over Max's actions, but still allow him to act in his own crazy Maxy way!
Look. It may have worked in HTR to have max both be wandering around AND stuck in your cardboard box, but I just don't think it'd be nearly as credible in a 3D game like Season 2. Sorry.
Look. It may have worked in HTR to have max both be wandering around AND stuck in your cardboard box, but I just don't think it'd be nearly as credible in a 3D game like Season 2. Sorry.
Look. It may have worked in HTR to have max both be wandering around AND stuck in your cardboard box, but I just don't think it'd be nearly as credible in a 3D game like Season 2. Sorry.
[sarcasm]
Well, since that doesn't work, how about Max having Sam as an inventory icon?
[/sarcasm]
The point in discussion is if it is really needed. Just having Max as an inventory item for the sake of it or only for one (or two) lousy puzzle(s), its not worth the effort.
Instead of taking direct control of Max, one finds a situation where Sam is incapacitated or 'stuck' somewhere (i.e. Captured in a cage or somesuch). Max is outside and Sam needs Max to do stuff to get out ... This would give you some control over Max's actions, but still allow him to act in his own crazy Maxy way!
That's not a bad idea. It does seem more natural to have Sam in control, whether he's doing things for himself, 'utilising' Max, or ordering/tricking him into doing things instead.
The point in discussion is if it is really needed. Just having Max as an inventory item for the sake of it or only for one (or two) lousy puzzle(s), its not worth the effort.
The opposite of agreed. Unagreed. Unless you mean that they should be a couple of great puzzles, instead of lousy ones. If we don't typically use any other item for more than a couple of puzzles, why should Max be different?
The opposite of agreed. Unagreed. Unless you mean that they should be a couple of great puzzles, instead of lousy ones. If we don't typically use any other item for more than a couple of puzzles, why should Max be different?
Well, its Max? Max is special. Do you need any other reason?
Seriously, what I meant is that while it is cool to "use max to do X", you can achieve the same by asking him to do it. To correctly use Max (as an item), there should be puzzles that exploit his abilities beyond the point of things that you can do by asking him.
I find more interesting the ability to control Max, either with Sam as a support character or solo (e.g.: with Sam incapacitated). But I think the problem here is the word *control*. Something as chaotic as Max can't be controlled.
Well... I just think the 2D interface (with inventory on a separate screen) lent itself better toward max being both in your cardboard box of stuff AND tagging along behind you than a 3D, same-screen-inventory game.
I dunno, I guess it's just me then, but it just doesn't strike me as credible. Maybe it's something else. Lemme try this:
Using Max worked okay in HTR at least partly because there was this really tagalong, max-as-an-accessory-rather-than-a-character feel to it for me, which just isn't there in Season 1.
I find more interesting the ability to control Max, either with Sam as a support character or solo (e.g.: with Sam incapacitated). But I think the problem here is the word *control*. Something as chaotic as Max can't be controlled.
Ooh, that could add a whole new dimension to gameplay. You could be telling Max to do stuff and sometimes he just doesn't. So you have to get around that unwillingness somehow.
I don't think Max shoud be an inventory item because them it would make the game seem less real. Also, since he wasn't an inventory item in season one, it would make season two to different.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if Season 2 is a lot different from Season 1. Part of the appeal to having episodic content should be that they can make drastic changes and try new things out. If something proves to be unpopular in one episode or season (eg Max being an inventory item), it's not like they are then forced to stick with it from that point on.
Ooh, that could add a whole new dimension to gameplay. You could be telling Max to do stuff and sometimes he just doesn't. So you have to get around that unwillingness somehow.
That sounds like a great idea...I'd go along with that...
Sam: "Hey Max, why dont you go to Bosco's and get the milk..."
Max: "I dont feel like it Sam..."
*Player thinks for awhile...gets frustrated...comes back later and then realises!*
*Player uses phone on Max*
Sam: "Go...and I'll let you answer the phone next time it rings..."
*Max runs out the door*
I was thinking more along the lines of this when Maratanos said that:
Sam: "Okay, you're through the air duct, now go unlock the door."
Max: "Yeah, but that would make sense."
Sam: (after a pause) "So, you aren't going to do it, are you?"
Max: "It would help if I had a key."
Sam: "What's wrong with just breaking it down as if it was are office door?"
Max: "Because we don't own the door? It just wouldn't be the same, Sam!"
Sam: "And since when did that ever stop you?"
I was thinking more along the lines of this when Maratanos said that:
Sam: "Okay, you're through the air duct, now go unlock the door."
Max: "Yeah, but that would make sense."
Sam: (after a pause) "So, you aren't going to do it, are you?"
Max: "It would help if I had a key."
Sam: "What's wrong with just breaking it down as if it was are office door?"
Max: "Because we don't own the door? It just wouldn't be the same, Sam!"
Sam: "And since when did that ever stop you?"
Yeah, well...thats a good scenario too...>.>
I just couldnt think of anything except Bosco's for some reason...lol
Comments
There is a puzzle that when you find the roadblock and goal, you go through a series of what you think are logical (or even illogical) paths to solve it. You can't get pass the road block. But the solution is to talk to Max and select a key dialouge line that triggers him to act in a way that would solve the problem!
You know, similar to the
Hit the Road: Max in the Dunk Tank
Season 1: Max captured by Brady Culture
Cartoon: Max messed with history in "A Glitch In Time", changing Sam.
Yeah.
I don't think playing as Max instead of Sam for a bit would be ruining the series in anyway way. After all, it is called Sam & Max.
That strikes me as a member of the 'so obvious it may as well not be there' category of puzzles I mentioned previously, I'm afraid.
I think in playing Devil's Advocate I made it sound as though I don't agree with you, The_Razgriz_Ace, but yes: I think the shady side of logic is where Max-related solutions should be. Once it's been found, the player should be able to see why it worked, however (as in the tunnel of love example).
Although I know it sounds weird to be asking for puzzles to have unexpected solutions, go the other way and you're saying that if there's a chance someone won't know the answer straight-off, it shouldn't be there at all, and that means dumbing the game down to the intellectual level of a five-year-old. A debate in another thread about the use of the coathanger in Episode 6 springs to mind. There's no reason you can't learn new things when playing one of these games; Monkey Island III is how I learnt what you could do with a laminated card, but I wouldn't complain that that puzzle took me so long to figure out.
You might be right, but I think Max's behaviour would have to be toned down if he were to become the protagonist for any length of time. We haven't seen much of his witty, observational side in Season One, even though we know it exists. If his responses while you were playing him were as manic as he has been so far, I'd quickly get frustrated.
Well Season One had 2 stretches where you played as just Sam with Max captured/incapacitated and those turned out fine. I don't really see how it would be any different where if they had brief stretches of just Ma w/o Sam.
rofl I find this funny because I played the monkey island games when I was 3 XD
but yeah I was just saying that as an example as in its not really a puzzle but whilst inside the area sam can't reach you play as max
And maybe max can do things that sam can't like...beat someone up? But I was dissapointed in the first season when I realised that max wasn't a inventory item.
thats why I think max should have a mini solo run as I think none of the functions should be changed
Yeah, fair enough if it's a means to something like that. I've come to agree that playing as Max could work if done well; I think it should be something memorable rather than a couple of simple puzzles, and yet not overdone either, so it's a fine line to success.
As for introducing things that weren't in Season One, we shouldn't be afraid of change (besides, arguing for no change would be equivalent to saying Season One (hence Season Two) shouldn't have differed from Hit The Road, which had Max as an inventory item!). Change is how things improve, provided it's handled sensibly; it would be foolish to ignore any (hypothetical) idea that would make the game better on the whole, just because it's different.
Hmm... How about this: Instead of taking direct control of Max, one finds a situation where Sam is incapacitated or 'stuck' somewhere (i.e. Captured in a cage or somesuch). Max is outside and Sam needs Max to do stuff to get out. This could be done in the way the final puzzles of Culture Shock (
That's just silly.
[sarcasm]
Well, since that doesn't work, how about Max having Sam as an inventory icon?
[/sarcasm]
The point in discussion is if it is really needed. Just having Max as an inventory item for the sake of it or only for one (or two) lousy puzzle(s), its not worth the effort.
That's not a bad idea. It does seem more natural to have Sam in control, whether he's doing things for himself, 'utilising' Max, or ordering/tricking him into doing things instead.
Agreed. Apologies for the english gentism, but how the devil does the number of dimensions affect whether or not we can have Max as an inventory item?
The opposite of agreed. Unagreed. Unless you mean that they should be a couple of great puzzles, instead of lousy ones. If we don't typically use any other item for more than a couple of puzzles, why should Max be different?
Well, its Max? Max is special. Do you need any other reason?
Seriously, what I meant is that while it is cool to "use max to do X", you can achieve the same by asking him to do it. To correctly use Max (as an item), there should be puzzles that exploit his abilities beyond the point of things that you can do by asking him.
I find more interesting the ability to control Max, either with Sam as a support character or solo (e.g.: with Sam incapacitated). But I think the problem here is the word *control*. Something as chaotic as Max can't be controlled.
I dunno, I guess it's just me then, but it just doesn't strike me as credible. Maybe it's something else. Lemme try this:
Using Max worked okay in HTR at least partly because there was this really tagalong, max-as-an-accessory-rather-than-a-character feel to it for me, which just isn't there in Season 1.
Ooh, that could add a whole new dimension to gameplay. You could be telling Max to do stuff and sometimes he just doesn't. So you have to get around that unwillingness somehow.
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if Season 2 is a lot different from Season 1. Part of the appeal to having episodic content should be that they can make drastic changes and try new things out. If something proves to be unpopular in one episode or season (eg Max being an inventory item), it's not like they are then forced to stick with it from that point on.
That sounds like a great idea...I'd go along with that...
Sam: "Hey Max, why dont you go to Bosco's and get the milk..."
Max: "I dont feel like it Sam..."
*Player thinks for awhile...gets frustrated...comes back later and then realises!*
*Player uses phone on Max*
Sam: "Go...and I'll let you answer the phone next time it rings..."
*Max runs out the door*
Sam: "Okay, you're through the air duct, now go unlock the door."
Max: "Yeah, but that would make sense."
Sam: (after a pause) "So, you aren't going to do it, are you?"
Max: "It would help if I had a key."
Sam: "What's wrong with just breaking it down as if it was are office door?"
Max: "Because we don't own the door? It just wouldn't be the same, Sam!"
Sam: "And since when did that ever stop you?"
Yeah, well...thats a good scenario too...>.>
I just couldnt think of anything except Bosco's for some reason...lol