A few posts back, people were saying they wanted multiple actions, and multiple "that doesn't work" phrases for each action so the responses don't get repetitive. Of course, each response needs to be voice recorded, and voice takes up space. We have to keep the games below a certain size to make them convenient downloads. So, if multiple "that doesn't work" phrases for multiple actions are eating up a lot of space, that would potentially mean cutting gameplay in other areas to keep the game small. That's what Dave's getting at.
I personally don't find having a bunch of actions and being told "that doesn't work" (whether there are several responses or just one) to be much fun. I agree it's fun to finally figure out what you're supposed to do, but there are other ways to achieve this in gameplay than just having a ton of actions that can be tried on a ton of hotspots.
I think if you were to ask most people who come to this site and who want to purchase a quality game/episode, they wouldn't really care if the download size was "convenient".
I do realize, however, that it probably costs more money (and time) to write, record, and program extra lines of dialogue, so that's a decent excuse to me, but for myself and I suspect a majority of others, download size is a non-issue. Personally, I've spent time downloading 500 MB game demos that I knew I'd probably never even play, but did anyway just on the chance that I might. I really doubt anyone would complain about an extra 25 MB or so of dialogue if it meant more Sam & Max goodness, no matter what their internet connection. Not that I really have any doubt Telltale will produce a good season with their current plan. I just don't think download size is that big a deal, if that's what Telltale is worried about.
Interesting comments, all.
Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?
Yes it would. The bottom line is that you essentially can't have a rewarding experience in an adventure game if the only thing you are required to do is click on a couple of things in the correct order. The games feel pretty bare-bonish if say the duo's office has only one or two hotspots.
Now, this function doesn't need to be overdone. I'm not saying that every location has to have a bunch of unique replies. I'm sure you know what the point here is.
Emily, I'm sorry but compressed audio doesn't really eat that much space, so I doubt it's about the size of the download. I do understand though that figuring out all the hotspots, replies, recording the replies, making them work in the game etc. takes time and resources, so I understand why you need to choose one or the other.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.
I personally don't find having a bunch of actions and being told "that doesn't work" (whether there are several responses or just one) to be much fun. I agree it's fun to finally figure out what you're supposed to do, but there are other ways to achieve this in gameplay than just having a ton of actions that can be tried on a ton of hotspots.
That's not really the point - being told that something doesn't work etc. It's a much larger issue - it's about the immersion of control over the character(s). If you have one button that does all, you don't feel like you control the character's actions. Someone already mentioned the analygy of movies as opposed to games. I find it hard to believe that implementing a bit more required thinking with an hint of trial & error alienating any players whatsoever, but over-simplifying the system will alienate some of us more experienced players. I really hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
Interesting comments, all.
Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?
Yes it would. The bottom line is that you essentially can't have a rewarding experience in an adventure game if the only thing you are required to do is click on a couple of things in the correct order. The games feel pretty bare-bonish if say the duo's office has only one or two hotspots.
Not to be rude but you did just switch arguments half way through your paragraph - initially discussing the merits of having multiple 'verbs,' but then switching to decrying a hypothetical lack of hotspots as if they were the same argument. Sneaky!
I don't know how many 'verbs' will exist, but I know Sam & Max will have over one zillion hot spots (give or take a few). You can't quote me on that though.
I don't know how many 'verbs' will exist, but I know Sam & Max will have over one zillion hot spots (give or take a few). You can't quote me on that though.
I don't know how many 'verbs' will exist, but I know Sam & Max will have over one zillion hot spots (give or take a few). You can't quote me on that though.
These must be episodic hotspots, I take it?
That sounds like some horrible affliction old people get.
Emily, I'm sorry but compressed audio doesn't really eat that much space, so I doubt it's about the size of the download. I do understand though that figuring out all the hotspots, replies, recording the replies, making them work in the game etc. takes time and resources, so I understand why you need to choose one or the other.
Download size is one of the issues that's being juggled (just happens to be the one I highlighted in my earlier response). Budget, time, and resources are some of the other issues. There are a lot of reasons that certain design decisions will need to be made. The good news is that we have some pretty seasoned designers making those decisions.
EDIT: As an aside, I worked on a really short game last winter called Christmas Quest with some of the other staff at Adventure Gamers. We were determined give the player tons to do so we put in a lot of hotspots, with unique responses for each action on each hotspot. We worked HARD on those responses... it took way more time than I thought it would. And the game only had one room! So, yeah, I can completely understand where the designers are coming from if they prefer to focus their efforts in other areas. I've also found, as I've replayed some older games, that they don't have as many unique responses for actions as I remembered them having. Even Hit the Road has some pretty bland responses when you try to do things that don't work.
Yes it would. The bottom line is that you essentially can't have a rewarding experience in an adventure game if the only thing you are required to do is click on a couple of things in the correct order. The games feel pretty bare-bonish if say the duo's office has only one or two hotspots.
Not to be rude but you did just switch arguments half way through your paragraph - initially discussing the merits of having multiple 'verbs,' but then switching to decrying a hypothetical lack of hotspots as if they were the same argument. Sneaky!
For that I apologize. It's 03:46 (a.m. for you american folks) here at the moment. I tried to keep it short but I guess my paragraph doesn't make much sense. Actually, even I have a bit of trouble firguring out the correct message I was trying to deliver. Here goes:
The thing is that you need to have a few different 'verbs', but not at the cost of removing most of the hotspots from the locations. Not every single location needs huge amounts of hotspots, but having very few in a decorated room (for instance the duo's office again) wouldn't seem right. Sacrificing the scope of an episode a bit for the added substance would be worth it in my opinion. This is my honest answer.
I hope that's better.
EDIT:
One last thing. I'd like to emphasize on the point of control I mentioned on the above post:
That's not really the point - being told that something doesn't work etc. It's a much larger issue - it's about the immersion of control over the character(s). If you have one button that does all, you don't feel like you control the character's actions.
That's the most important part I'd like to address in this whole topic. The hotspot debate is not as important.
Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?
I'm interested in opinions on this point.
--Dave again
I'd definitely take a smaller more immersive game. I think thats more important. Here is gonna be the big issue.. Hit The Road is such a big game.. its stood the test of time 13 years. Its a favorite game of people all over the world. Obviously time and budget issues are going to make it very difficult for Telltale to reach the quality many hit the road fans expect..so I don't envy you there.. Clearly their are reasons why hit the road is so fondly remembered. I don't think the formula has to be changed that much. I think the control system worked very well in that game.
As far as download size, I think for many broadband users it wouldn't be an issue at all. Most people are downloading 350 meg tv shows off bit torrent.. larger file sizes wouldn't deter any1 if it meant a higher quality game in my opinion.
My issue here isn't how many times sam tells me I cant do this with that..its more to do with the control the user has in the game, having the ability to explore, having to think things out. If telltale can hit that stuff without the extra dialogue then its all good.
Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?
I'm interested in opinions on this point.
--Dave again
Ah, now your asking the questions I want answers for.
Me personally? Interactivity, puzzles and optional things are what MAKE adventure games. You may argue its the stories or comedy, but I argue its the sheer amount of "You can't take that cat, he has flees!" type of remarks that make adventure games so worthwhile.
The Leisure Suit Larry was notorious for its interactivity and is hailed as the greatest adventure series.....why? Not because of the storyline, because of the interaction and humour involed with said interaction. Although I believe even serious games like Still Life ought to be rigged with interactivity....and it was hurt by lack of it. One of the main reasons Syberia is on my worst adventure game list is this very reason.....its like reading a book.
Is dialogue making the download too big and forcing you to cut corners? Then you've answered your own question: time for the spoken dialogue to go. You heard me. I'll gladly take a text adventure with interaction out the wazoo over a story based flip book of an adventure game with 2 hours of spoken words.
Who here agrees with me? We got along fine before speech got here, what makes it so good? Besides....people hate the voices as it is (I'm impartial personally) so its not a big loss is it?
Please reply Telltale, as this is the post I REALLY hope you take to heart. I want to like you guys, but if you continue to make games that focus more on story.....well....:(
Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?
I'm interested in opinions on this point.
--Dave again
The best way I can think of answering this very important question is by comparing our present situation to what has come before: namely, the original Sam and Max Hit the Road.
So, if we wanted a game that was immersive and responsive as the original Hit the Road, and we needed to cut the entire game into episodes, where could we cut the game off so that your average gamer feels they are getting their money's worth?
Let's review the beginning of the game:
1) Opening cinematic
2) Call from Commissioner to get mission.
3) Get letter from bonded courier to get details.
4) Go to carnival.
5) Get past fire-breather.
6) Get the low-down from the twin-freaks.
7) Putter around amusement park to gather items and find more destinations to go to.
8) Player picks one of a couple of different places to visit [a)Twine Ball, b)Fish Place, c)Gator Golf)
9) At this point, the game breaks open to a lot of different other places depending upon where the player goes.
Okay... being that the episodes are well... episodic, there can't really be items that you can pick up and use a lot further down the line like you could do in HTR (unless they're "red herring" items, which I'm not opposed to: makes the game harder :P ).
So, anyway, if the fully self-contained first episode were to be equivalent in length (but with a few more puzzles to challenge the player) to numbers 1 - 8a [namely, one (or two, barring size) of the three places that you can choose to go to], that might be good. If there were enough speed bumps (aka: puzzles) for the player to reason through, I imagine that much gameplay should be about two hours worth, at the immersion level of the original HTR.
Expecting an episodic nature, I don't think I'd be enraged if I was given that much game to play on the first go-around. That seems like a fair amount, I suppose, assuming there was plenty to do in the places I was allowed to visit in that time.
So, what do you folks think about that? How much gameplay is enough, as compared to the original, if using the same level of immersion as HTR.
Where would you cut off the episode?
How much of the original is enough for one episode?
TellTale: As a curiousity, as compared to HTR, where would you say the current cut-off point is right now, story-wise? Is that something you can even make an analogy to using the original HTR?
So, yeah... there's some stuff to chew on for you...
Now, ignoring general theory for the moment, let me ask a hypothetical question. Suppose we were talking specifically about a smallish, downloadable episodic-type game instead of something the size of Hit the Road. And suppose that, due to constraints of time, budget, and download size, there was a distinct limit to the number of dialog lines which could be written and recorded. Would it be worth having more choice of actions like pick-up/use/look-at if it meant that the scope of the overall game had to be smaller as a result?
I'm interested in opinions on this point.
--Dave again
Obviously it would depend on how much the scope of the game would be limited. Assuming it meant the difference between there being say, 6 or 5 locations in the game, and that as a result most hotspots would have a different response for each verb I think that would be a worthwhile tradeoff.
However, I'd also be satisfied if there were the same size of game, and roughly same amount of responses as normal, only with the option of using additional verbs, with a general pool of "that doesn't work" responses. Like I said before, a large part of it is the feeling of interactivity and of it being part of a system; it makes the interactions feel less arbitrary. I imagine this option wouldn't be too difficult to implement without compromising the scope of the game, though you'd be in a better position to know than me.
Thanks for taking the time to listen to our opinions, even if I've been talking a lot of shit.
I'm always interested when people say they want lots of "verb" options, because to me the practical upshot seems to be that you spend a lot of time listening to "That doesn't seem to work," and "I don't want to pick that up," something I personally find enormously frustrating rather than fun. People who feel likewise don't seem to be very vocal, though, and I'm wondering whether there are others out there on our forums....
--Dave Grossman, cranky opinionated game designer
OK this is stupid. Since if a game is designed well there will be enough object sensitive comedy dialogue written to make the "That doesn't seem to work" actually FUN. Isnt that what games are trying to achieve? Fun?
Adventure games are all ABOUT the joy of exploring the rediculous.
Try PLAYING the original Sam & Max and trying out all the verb actions with all the items. The monkey island games were a classic example. There were many things you could do that had NO effect on your completion of the game. But the were the sort of things you could ask your friends "Hey did you find the bit where.....?"
And as for the size aspect. You dont see anyone decrying the size of Sin Episodes: Emergence. And theres a good 5 hours of gameplay in that. Yes I know it uses the source engine as a base for its core files but its still huge.
And people download many of the MMORPGs out there. AND their enormous patches.
So please dont try to use the file size argument. Its a damp squib.
Is dialogue making the download too big and forcing you to cut corners? Then you've answered your own question: time for the spoken dialogue to go. You heard me. I'll gladly take a text adventure with interaction out the wazoo over a story based flip book of an adventure game with 2 hours of spoken words.
Who here agrees with me? We got along fine before speech got here, what makes it so good? Besides....people hate the voices as it is (I'm impartial personally) so its not a big loss is it?
Who agrees with you?
Not me, that's for sure. I re-bought Fate of Atlantis on CD is an overpriced 6-pack compenium recently just for the voicework. As well as that Indy adventure, the voices really helped define the DOTT & S&M characters in the LucasArts adventures.
From a marketing standpoint you'd lose many more than you would gain by dropping voice acting from modern day adventures.
As for "people hating the voices", most people who have commented on not liking the voices have picked one of the two (not both) and most have said the sound is good, but the delivery needs work.
Also take into account the vocal minority effect. People are much more likely to post if they don't like something / wish to make a suggestion rather than post to say "good work, I liked that". If you surveyed everyone who has watched the trailer as opposed to everyone who has commenrted on it, you'd find a much lower proportion of people who disliked (aspects of) the voicework, I'm certain.
So please dont try to use the file size argument. Its a damp squib.
I understand why people are getting passionate about these issues. Sam & Max is an important license for a lot of people, and fans don't want it "ruined" in the new games. Believe me when I say that everyone at Telltale understands this issue very well.
But, Dave is the senior designer on this project. When he says that certain things can or can't be implemented due to resources or budget or file size, he knows what he's talking about.
Considering his role on Sam & Max (and keeping in mind that many others from Telltale are also reading this thread with interest), it would be a lot more productive if people could try to answer his questions, rather than calling them stupid. (Thank you to the people who already have!)
And can you say that broken sword or GF is less immersive than Zak McKracken ?
and as you might know the number of verbs today stand on about - 2.1 verbs.
And there is a reason for that - adventure games are not about "match the verb" minigame and endless "that doesn't work" messages (even if they are delivered in a funny way).
It's an evolution - not a restriction! and you should look at it like this.
I believe that TTG should place Bone:TGCR as a model how an episodic adventure should look like, and being more specific -
i) dialog is the strongest tool you have - use it! (bt.w that was one the weaker side of Hit the Road)
ii) interactivity - is always nice to hear about the game-world from sam&max point of view, so add many object's and allow interaction with them.
iii) one of te advantages of inventory puzzels , is that you can use many of them in a relatively small game area - hence add more playability with less resources.
iv) minigames - use them with care - they can be great and add to game (like in TGCR), or distract the player (like in OFB).
Also take into account the vocal minority effect. People are much more likely to post if they don't like something / wish to make a suggestion rather than post to say "good work, I liked that". If you surveyed everyone who has watched the trailer as opposed to everyone who has commenrted on it, you'd find a much lower proportion of people who disliked (aspects of) the voicework, I'm certain.
I certainly agree about the vocal minority thing, so I decided to say it:
Good work guys, I liked the trailer, and the voices are great!
I am no longer the avid gamer I once was, but fondly remeber getting Day of the Tentacle for my birthday in 1993 (or was it 94?), and I've been playing every worthwhile adventure ever since. Judging by the amount of adventures available these days I wouldn't actually call the adventure genre dead any longer, it's probably just my enthusiasm that's gotten a bit more lackluster.
People here complain that two hours of gameplay is too little, well that's how long it takes me to complete The Secret of Monkey Island (part one that is), so I'm not too worried about that. What I do want is challenging puzzles, and I absolutely don't want to be able to just click my way through the game without ever being stuck. That's why I second bringing back a few more verbs, three (four if you count "walk to") will do a lot to increase the feeling that you control your character. A thing I despise about the "one click is enough" games of today is that some times when I click objects, my character does something I was not intending/expecting him to do. What if I wanted to look at an object before I picked it up, or used it? You don't always know what these pixely objects are you know.
As for multiple verbal replies to various actions? I'd be pleased with a few more than one, and maybe a few specially written for certain actions if, and that is IF they are funny. There is no reason to put in extra comments just for the sake of doing so.
I also want to be able to combine inventory items, but that's a given.
Someone already mentioned the fact, that in "Hit the Road", once you've gathered stuff on the carnivale, the game opens up. I would hope this applies to the new game(s) as well, since "Boneville" was a little to linear. "Cow Race" added the ability to switch characters, which made the player feel a little more free, but I guess it could be extended, so that several puzzles don't necessarily have to be solved in a specific order.
And about the "a lot of hotspots" issue, I think having more hotspots (and according responses) makes the game's setting much more real. I really hate it, when there are NO hotspots in the background, since it's a lot easier to solve puzzles when you can click only on relevant objects. Remeber the dart-board in the office in HTR? Taking the "tools" just made Sam pick them up, and throwing them on the board again. No practical sense, but it enhances the experience. Having 2 hours of fun just solving the game is just fine... but if you get another hour out of just exploring the surroundings, that would be even better.
let's have a brief history review of the verb system-
[...]
And can you say that broken sword or GF is less immersive than Zak McKracken ?
and as you might know the number of verbs today stand on about - 2.1 verbs.
And there is a reason for that - adventure games are not about "match the verb" minigame and endless "that doesn't work" messages (even if they are delivered in a funny way).
Very good point. It's not the interface that makes the game, it's what you do with the interface that makes the game. Secret of Monkey Island worked perfectly with all those verbs. Woodruff was brilliant with only two (including 'walk') verbs.
This is also why the argument that 3D ruins adventure games is so nonsensical. See Grim Fandango: it's not the 3D. It's what they manage to do with the 3D.
This same discussion was raging when people started making graphical adventures: people who had only played text adventures felt that the graphics 'dumbed the game down' (sound familiar?) and 'ruined the experience' (again, sound familiar?). Then when point & click came into play, there was the same outrage: point & click was 'dumbing down' the text-parser interface and 'ruined the experience' of exploration. Lately, 3D is also 'dumbing down' and 'ruining the experience' of adventure games.
The point I'm making: adventure gaming has gone through numerous iterations. Each of this iterations has delivered its fair share of classics. The fact that your favorite game used a certain interface doesn't mean that it's the definitive, final interface that will make all adventures better.
This same discussion was raging when people started making graphical adventures: people who had only played text adventures felt that the graphics 'dumbed the game down' (sound familiar?) and 'ruined the experience' (again, sound familiar?). Then when point & click came into play, there was the same outrage: point & click was 'dumbing down' the text-parser interface and 'ruined the experience' of exploration. Lately, 3D is also 'dumbing down' and 'ruining the experience' of adventure games
Hmm, interesting. When's 4D available? That'll REALLY cock things up.
Actually, I still think that the keyboard-based input system in Grim Fandango and MI4 is bad; especially when comparing it to CMI and other good point-and-clickers.
Going from mouse to keyboard was not a positive evolution of gameplay, only an attempt to get into the console market.
Why am I saying this. Well changes are not necessarily positive, only because they work.
Actually, I still think that the keyboard-based input system in Grim Fandango and MI4 is bad; especially when comparing it to CMI and other good point-and-clickers.
Going from mouse to keyboard was not a positive evolution of gameplay, only an attempt to get into the console market.
Why am I saying this. Well changes are not necessarily positive, only because they work.
I don't agree with that at all. Putting aside the fact that Grim Fandango was PC only, there's a strong argument to be made for how input in a game affects how you as a player relate to a character and to the world.
In Grim you controlled Manny's every step - you didn't just order him around by giving him various commands with the mouse, you actually make him walk from place to place. There's no "zip mod" double clicking to leave scenes either - it's all relatively taking place in "real time," getting rid of one layer of abstraction that crept into point and click UI. I really liked that I was literally physically helping move Manny along, instead of ordering him from place to place. I think it changed the nature of the game.
On the other hand, Escape From Monkey Island was in my opinion... signifiacntly less graceful about it... but that's another story.
I liked controlling Manny. I tried first with the keyboard and lost my patience very early (I probably would have gotten better had I given myself more time). I used the gamepad after that and loved it. He had a few weird moves now and then but that game was made for a gamepad.
On topic - I don't mind the 2 hour game as long as the price reflects it and I'm sure it will.
Hmm...I dunno. If it's very interactive, then I guess keyboard, and perhaps also mouse (?) would be good. If it's true 3D, I'd imagine mousey-pointy-clickey would force it to be more of a 2D adventure.
In the first cancelled game I only saw scenes of inside the city - the road, a music hall, their office, etc...
I'd really like to go to more places with SAM & MAX; the moon, the jungle, a tropical island, Hell, etc...
Being stuck within city limits kind of creates feelings of agitation and claustrophobia.
You should take your pills, pile up some money and prepare for the therapy. There will be no whatsoever feeling of free exploring at all.
Simple, since there is no map and each episode lasts only brief time and they are playable at single episodes the feeling of exploring is killed by this unfortunate fact.
I just hope that it does not include multiple any kind of panic-mini-games what we have seen on current adventure games. (Meaning press this and this at the specified time) Okay, it's fun at the first time (like the hit the mice game on S&M 1, but multiple those would just kill the mood) Or any other mini-games where you try to avoid obstacles (referring to boneville *duh*) or something similar that has nothing to do with point-n-click adventures from the glory days of adventure gaming.
I'm not saying it will be bad (see the happy face on my post), Runaway: A Road Adventure, was kinda good even though it was more like straight forward, which S&M 2 will eventually be. There is a slight chance that S&M hits pretty much as well as Runaway but I doubt that.
I hope the best, fear the worst. I'm true fan of point-n-click which S&M1, Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion, and other was when they were released. Most of those include strict plot (Maniac Mansion was pioneer, I don't consider it as glory days of point-n-click) no silly mini-games, just the adventure. What makes adventure game? Dialogs, puzzles, and the plot, not the darn mini-games.
Best way I prepare myself is that I don't even expect to be ANY similar with S&M 1, expecting that with this current format will lead only to disappointment.
Hmm...I dunno. If it's very interactive, then I guess keyboard, and perhaps also mouse (?) would be good. If it's true 3D, I'd imagine mousey-pointy-clickey would force it to be more of a 2D adventure.
Not really, I was developing one 3d engine for certain authority and imagine the routine this way: Take camera, take cursor, create line from camera position to hypothetical camera position (closer or further away, like zooming) with mouse cursor, create line from original camera position to this hypothetical, and where the line collides with visible objects there is the cursor position.
(All the above is just mathematical way of converting coordinates with matrix manipulation)
Now of course in 2d to 3d conversion if you want that the cursor points in mid air you'll have to set that some other way like point from different angles, but even though in Sam & Max is 3d it does not remove the point-n-click possibility, it actually widens it like you can turn camera and still have easily manageable point-n-click routines. There are very rarely need of pointing mouse to mid-air on adventure games, that is not the case on strategy games.
Add: Creating 3D-mesh for the cursor in 3d game might be good idea, and of course calculation normal of the surface which it points at the moment and showing it on it might be very ideal way of showing on where it actually points, giving instant feedback of the depth. (With a little matrix screwing you can make it not to go too far in the scene of course)
Add: Now that I've been thinking it a minute or two only need is perhaps some kind of walk-path mesh which is not visible. When the cursor hits these meshes the fella walks that way. And in this case, as ground is probably not seen many places it actually points mid-air, to the invisible walk-path mesh. Since this seems so obvious way to create it, I could almost bet that it's (walking position) is done that way in S&M 2. Only question left to answer is can we assume that the walk mesh is always so big that object hot-spots are not on it's way, I'd say yes.
Add: Another intuitive way of creating those 3D-helper walk-path meshes is to draw lines to scene ground, and let the math do the job. Meaning that calculating from camera position the mesh heights is probably the very best way of creating the walk-path meshes. If you imagine supermarket with multiple walk rows in ahead, the problem can be solved this way by letting the computer to calculate each mesh height so that it does not collide which each other as the camera turns around... Of course there might be other ways but I'd like to know if some one points me those (especially better). Someone might say that this is the way it's been done in the past 2d-games (drawing the area) well then read the above again. It creates the height by calculating from the camera position meaning very easy for the scene developer to create themselves, just draw the paths to the ground of scene.
/me wonders are there any 3D Devs around? , I don't consider myself as an expert but I think I just reinvented the wheel that the above is the right way. As it is simplistic yet the obvious choice.
3D didn't kill adventure games, developers did that just fine at the end of the 2D era. Hell, even recent crummy 2D adventures have proven to me that the graphics don't affect it at all.
The problem here is that if we can't do anything outside of the ordinary and every action is a "required" one then this isn't an adventure game.....its a story. I should be able look and poke at everything. Why? Not because it furthers the story or events but because its a game and the fewer interactive points there are, the less of a game it shall be.
Since when did adventure games become flip-books anyway? I want a challenge and tons of interaction....like in the good old days.
You say you can finish MI in a few hours? Good for you, I can finish Kq1 in 30 minutes but that doesn't mean anything....because we've played them before. Let someone who hasn't play them try and watch how long it takes. With Bone and recent adventures you can blow through them regardless of whether you've played before....simply because its just a story and there is no actual "playing" involved.
I suggest they remove speech if thats what it truly keeping them from creating more responses about the world Sam 'n Max travel around in. I can't believe anyone would take speech over interaction and puzzles.....that blows my mind away.
I mean come on, you'd rather play another Syberia than another Monkey Island or Leisure Suit Larry? I'm sorry but you are the minority here...and thats why these games will sell far less than the oldies. The only problem is that the ones who feel this way are too damn silent. This thread alone, however, proves there are quite a few telltale fans that even agree that the games are too straight forward and without content.
Make what excuses you will about budget, but it would only take a few hours to write up some responses for examining background objects.
While I would play a good adventure game without voice, it doesn't mean that it's a viable choice for a commercial product. You can't make an adventure game without voice anymore. Every single game has voice nowdays - in adventure games it's a vocal point to boot.
No voice is no option.
EDIT:
Time to add today's contribution to this thread.
This 'verb' discussion might be a bit beside the real point most of us are trying to present. As some of the latest posts imply, really the thing that most of us probably want is interaction. In what form it will come - verbs or a lot of items that need to be combined - isn't that relevant I guess. In the Bone games, there wasn't enough of interaction, so as someone above said - it became more of a story and less of a game. It also lacked any verb commands, so it's easy to add 1 1 resulting in the observation that adventure games aren't good if there's not enough verbs. While that may not be exactly true having more verbs does generate more interaction, so adding verbs would be one cure for this problem.
Naturally it's up to Telltale to figure out how to best modify their formula to generate the best result. Most of us as seasoned adventure gamers know the tried and true multiverb way of life best and know it most certainly won't break a game. It really is the safest choice from our point of view as to get a satisfying Sam & Max experience. Then again, the evolution has been towards simplifying the adventure games. Some games have managed to pull it of nicely, some not.
The bottom line is that in my opinion the multiverb system might not in the end be absolutely necessary if you can pull off a very interactive story where there is a lot of ways to tamper with the scenery. The Bone games do not achieve this (yet).
This thread alone, however, proves there are quite a few telltale fans that even agree that the games are too straight forward and without content.
The Great Cow Race is NOT straight forward and it's got content. That was a problem Out From Boneville had and I was among those who complained. Since they fixed that, I would be extremely surprised if they got it wrong again with Sam & Max.
With Bone and recent adventures you can blow through them regardless of whether you've played before....simply because its just a story and there is no actual "playing" involved.
You haven't played The Great Cow Race, have you? Because this is pretty much the opposite of the feedback we've been receiving. (And having nothing to do with Telltale's products, I can think of a number of other recent adventures that have plenty of "playing" involved. )
I've never played either BONE games.
Well then, I encourage you to check them out.
The Great Cow Race is getting very good reviews, and it has a free demo. You can learn more about it here.
I'd dig to play BONE...You got to download it right? I don't have a MASTERCARD or anything to pay foreign currency with. I have a 56kb dial-up modem, and South Africa has the most expensive telephone rates IN THE WORLD. Eg, our last month's telephone bill, for going online a couple of hours a day, was (converted to dollars) $153.11
There is a slight chance that S&M hits pretty much as well as Runaway but I doubt that.
That's funny, because if the gameplay experience of Sam & Max 'hits pretty much as well' as Runaway's (Runaway's quite nice animation excepted), I will probably have to hang myself by my own shoelaces.
Runaway is, without doubt, the most annoying, boring, horrid adventure I have ever had the misfortune to install.
So, just goes to show, one man's treasure is another's trash.
Comments
I personally don't find having a bunch of actions and being told "that doesn't work" (whether there are several responses or just one) to be much fun. I agree it's fun to finally figure out what you're supposed to do, but there are other ways to achieve this in gameplay than just having a ton of actions that can be tried on a ton of hotspots.
I do realize, however, that it probably costs more money (and time) to write, record, and program extra lines of dialogue, so that's a decent excuse to me, but for myself and I suspect a majority of others, download size is a non-issue. Personally, I've spent time downloading 500 MB game demos that I knew I'd probably never even play, but did anyway just on the chance that I might. I really doubt anyone would complain about an extra 25 MB or so of dialogue if it meant more Sam & Max goodness, no matter what their internet connection. Not that I really have any doubt Telltale will produce a good season with their current plan. I just don't think download size is that big a deal, if that's what Telltale is worried about.
Yes it would. The bottom line is that you essentially can't have a rewarding experience in an adventure game if the only thing you are required to do is click on a couple of things in the correct order. The games feel pretty bare-bonish if say the duo's office has only one or two hotspots.
Now, this function doesn't need to be overdone. I'm not saying that every location has to have a bunch of unique replies. I'm sure you know what the point here is.
Emily, I'm sorry but compressed audio doesn't really eat that much space, so I doubt it's about the size of the download. I do understand though that figuring out all the hotspots, replies, recording the replies, making them work in the game etc. takes time and resources, so I understand why you need to choose one or the other.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.
That's not really the point - being told that something doesn't work etc. It's a much larger issue - it's about the immersion of control over the character(s). If you have one button that does all, you don't feel like you control the character's actions. Someone already mentioned the analygy of movies as opposed to games. I find it hard to believe that implementing a bit more required thinking with an hint of trial & error alienating any players whatsoever, but over-simplifying the system will alienate some of us more experienced players. I really hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
Not to be rude but you did just switch arguments half way through your paragraph - initially discussing the merits of having multiple 'verbs,' but then switching to decrying a hypothetical lack of hotspots as if they were the same argument. Sneaky!
I don't know how many 'verbs' will exist, but I know Sam & Max will have over one zillion hot spots (give or take a few). You can't quote me on that though.
That sounds like some horrible affliction old people get.
Download size is one of the issues that's being juggled (just happens to be the one I highlighted in my earlier response). Budget, time, and resources are some of the other issues. There are a lot of reasons that certain design decisions will need to be made. The good news is that we have some pretty seasoned designers making those decisions.
EDIT: As an aside, I worked on a really short game last winter called Christmas Quest with some of the other staff at Adventure Gamers. We were determined give the player tons to do so we put in a lot of hotspots, with unique responses for each action on each hotspot. We worked HARD on those responses... it took way more time than I thought it would. And the game only had one room! So, yeah, I can completely understand where the designers are coming from if they prefer to focus their efforts in other areas. I've also found, as I've replayed some older games, that they don't have as many unique responses for actions as I remembered them having. Even Hit the Road has some pretty bland responses when you try to do things that don't work.
For that I apologize. It's 03:46 (a.m. for you american folks) here at the moment. I tried to keep it short but I guess my paragraph doesn't make much sense. Actually, even I have a bit of trouble firguring out the correct message I was trying to deliver. Here goes:
The thing is that you need to have a few different 'verbs', but not at the cost of removing most of the hotspots from the locations. Not every single location needs huge amounts of hotspots, but having very few in a decorated room (for instance the duo's office again) wouldn't seem right. Sacrificing the scope of an episode a bit for the added substance would be worth it in my opinion. This is my honest answer.
I hope that's better.
EDIT:
One last thing. I'd like to emphasize on the point of control I mentioned on the above post:
That's the most important part I'd like to address in this whole topic. The hotspot debate is not as important.
Personally, I would prefer more locations in each episode even if it means losing a few hotspots / amusing lines of "can't do that" dialogue.
I'd definitely take a smaller more immersive game. I think thats more important. Here is gonna be the big issue.. Hit The Road is such a big game.. its stood the test of time 13 years. Its a favorite game of people all over the world. Obviously time and budget issues are going to make it very difficult for Telltale to reach the quality many hit the road fans expect..so I don't envy you there.. Clearly their are reasons why hit the road is so fondly remembered. I don't think the formula has to be changed that much. I think the control system worked very well in that game.
As far as download size, I think for many broadband users it wouldn't be an issue at all. Most people are downloading 350 meg tv shows off bit torrent.. larger file sizes wouldn't deter any1 if it meant a higher quality game in my opinion.
My issue here isn't how many times sam tells me I cant do this with that..its more to do with the control the user has in the game, having the ability to explore, having to think things out. If telltale can hit that stuff without the extra dialogue then its all good.
Ah, now your asking the questions I want answers for.
Me personally? Interactivity, puzzles and optional things are what MAKE adventure games. You may argue its the stories or comedy, but I argue its the sheer amount of "You can't take that cat, he has flees!" type of remarks that make adventure games so worthwhile.
The Leisure Suit Larry was notorious for its interactivity and is hailed as the greatest adventure series.....why? Not because of the storyline, because of the interaction and humour involed with said interaction. Although I believe even serious games like Still Life ought to be rigged with interactivity....and it was hurt by lack of it. One of the main reasons Syberia is on my worst adventure game list is this very reason.....its like reading a book.
Is dialogue making the download too big and forcing you to cut corners? Then you've answered your own question: time for the spoken dialogue to go. You heard me. I'll gladly take a text adventure with interaction out the wazoo over a story based flip book of an adventure game with 2 hours of spoken words.
Who here agrees with me? We got along fine before speech got here, what makes it so good? Besides....people hate the voices as it is (I'm impartial personally) so its not a big loss is it?
Please reply Telltale, as this is the post I REALLY hope you take to heart. I want to like you guys, but if you continue to make games that focus more on story.....well....:(
The best way I can think of answering this very important question is by comparing our present situation to what has come before: namely, the original Sam and Max Hit the Road.
So, if we wanted a game that was immersive and responsive as the original Hit the Road, and we needed to cut the entire game into episodes, where could we cut the game off so that your average gamer feels they are getting their money's worth?
Let's review the beginning of the game:
1) Opening cinematic
2) Call from Commissioner to get mission.
3) Get letter from bonded courier to get details.
4) Go to carnival.
5) Get past fire-breather.
6) Get the low-down from the twin-freaks.
7) Putter around amusement park to gather items and find more destinations to go to.
8) Player picks one of a couple of different places to visit [a)Twine Ball, b)Fish Place, c)Gator Golf)
9) At this point, the game breaks open to a lot of different other places depending upon where the player goes.
Okay... being that the episodes are well... episodic, there can't really be items that you can pick up and use a lot further down the line like you could do in HTR (unless they're "red herring" items, which I'm not opposed to: makes the game harder :P ).
So, anyway, if the fully self-contained first episode were to be equivalent in length (but with a few more puzzles to challenge the player) to numbers 1 - 8a [namely, one (or two, barring size) of the three places that you can choose to go to], that might be good. If there were enough speed bumps (aka: puzzles) for the player to reason through, I imagine that much gameplay should be about two hours worth, at the immersion level of the original HTR.
Expecting an episodic nature, I don't think I'd be enraged if I was given that much game to play on the first go-around. That seems like a fair amount, I suppose, assuming there was plenty to do in the places I was allowed to visit in that time.
So, what do you folks think about that? How much gameplay is enough, as compared to the original, if using the same level of immersion as HTR.
Where would you cut off the episode?
How much of the original is enough for one episode?
TellTale: As a curiousity, as compared to HTR, where would you say the current cut-off point is right now, story-wise? Is that something you can even make an analogy to using the original HTR?
So, yeah... there's some stuff to chew on for you...
However, I'd also be satisfied if there were the same size of game, and roughly same amount of responses as normal, only with the option of using additional verbs, with a general pool of "that doesn't work" responses. Like I said before, a large part of it is the feeling of interactivity and of it being part of a system; it makes the interactions feel less arbitrary. I imagine this option wouldn't be too difficult to implement without compromising the scope of the game, though you'd be in a better position to know than me.
Thanks for taking the time to listen to our opinions, even if I've been talking a lot of shit.
OK this is stupid. Since if a game is designed well there will be enough object sensitive comedy dialogue written to make the "That doesn't seem to work" actually FUN. Isnt that what games are trying to achieve? Fun?
Adventure games are all ABOUT the joy of exploring the rediculous.
Try PLAYING the original Sam & Max and trying out all the verb actions with all the items. The monkey island games were a classic example. There were many things you could do that had NO effect on your completion of the game. But the were the sort of things you could ask your friends "Hey did you find the bit where.....?"
And as for the size aspect. You dont see anyone decrying the size of Sin Episodes: Emergence. And theres a good 5 hours of gameplay in that. Yes I know it uses the source engine as a base for its core files but its still huge.
And people download many of the MMORPGs out there. AND their enormous patches.
So please dont try to use the file size argument. Its a damp squib.
I'd really like to go to more places with SAM & MAX; the moon, the jungle, a tropical island, Hell, etc...
Being stuck within city limits kind of creates feelings of agitation and claustrophobia.
Who agrees with you?
Not me, that's for sure. I re-bought Fate of Atlantis on CD is an overpriced 6-pack compenium recently just for the voicework. As well as that Indy adventure, the voices really helped define the DOTT & S&M characters in the LucasArts adventures.
From a marketing standpoint you'd lose many more than you would gain by dropping voice acting from modern day adventures.
As for "people hating the voices", most people who have commented on not liking the voices have picked one of the two (not both) and most have said the sound is good, but the delivery needs work.
Also take into account the vocal minority effect. People are much more likely to post if they don't like something / wish to make a suggestion rather than post to say "good work, I liked that". If you surveyed everyone who has watched the trailer as opposed to everyone who has commenrted on it, you'd find a much lower proportion of people who disliked (aspects of) the voicework, I'm certain.
I understand why people are getting passionate about these issues. Sam & Max is an important license for a lot of people, and fans don't want it "ruined" in the new games. Believe me when I say that everyone at Telltale understands this issue very well.
But, Dave is the senior designer on this project. When he says that certain things can or can't be implemented due to resources or budget or file size, he knows what he's talking about.
Considering his role on Sam & Max (and keeping in mind that many others from Telltale are also reading this thread with interest), it would be a lot more productive if people could try to answer his questions, rather than calling them stupid. (Thank you to the people who already have!)
let's have a brief history review of the verb system-
Zak McKracken 1988 - 15 verbs.
monkey island 1990 - 12 verbs.
Indiana Jones 1992 - 9 verbs.
Sam & Max HTR 1993 - 5 verbs.
Broken Sword 1996 - 2 verbs.
Monkey Island3 1998 - 3 verbs.
Grim Fandango 1999 -2.5 verbs.
And can you say that broken sword or GF is less immersive than Zak McKracken ?
and as you might know the number of verbs today stand on about - 2.1 verbs.
And there is a reason for that - adventure games are not about "match the verb" minigame and endless "that doesn't work" messages (even if they are delivered in a funny way).
It's an evolution - not a restriction! and you should look at it like this.
I believe that TTG should place Bone:TGCR as a model how an episodic adventure should look like, and being more specific -
i) dialog is the strongest tool you have - use it! (bt.w that was one the weaker side of Hit the Road)
ii) interactivity - is always nice to hear about the game-world from sam&max point of view, so add many object's and allow interaction with them.
iii) one of te advantages of inventory puzzels , is that you can use many of them in a relatively small game area - hence add more playability with less resources.
iv) minigames - use them with care - they can be great and add to game (like in TGCR), or distract the player (like in OFB).
Absolutely. Quiet and satisfied don't really post.
I certainly agree about the vocal minority thing, so I decided to say it:
Good work guys, I liked the trailer, and the voices are great!
People here complain that two hours of gameplay is too little, well that's how long it takes me to complete The Secret of Monkey Island (part one that is), so I'm not too worried about that. What I do want is challenging puzzles, and I absolutely don't want to be able to just click my way through the game without ever being stuck. That's why I second bringing back a few more verbs, three (four if you count "walk to") will do a lot to increase the feeling that you control your character. A thing I despise about the "one click is enough" games of today is that some times when I click objects, my character does something I was not intending/expecting him to do. What if I wanted to look at an object before I picked it up, or used it? You don't always know what these pixely objects are you know.
As for multiple verbal replies to various actions? I'd be pleased with a few more than one, and maybe a few specially written for certain actions if, and that is IF they are funny. There is no reason to put in extra comments just for the sake of doing so.
I also want to be able to combine inventory items, but that's a given.
And about the "a lot of hotspots" issue, I think having more hotspots (and according responses) makes the game's setting much more real. I really hate it, when there are NO hotspots in the background, since it's a lot easier to solve puzzles when you can click only on relevant objects. Remeber the dart-board in the office in HTR? Taking the "tools" just made Sam pick them up, and throwing them on the board again. No practical sense, but it enhances the experience. Having 2 hours of fun just solving the game is just fine... but if you get another hour out of just exploring the surroundings, that would be even better.
Very good point. It's not the interface that makes the game, it's what you do with the interface that makes the game. Secret of Monkey Island worked perfectly with all those verbs. Woodruff was brilliant with only two (including 'walk') verbs.
This is also why the argument that 3D ruins adventure games is so nonsensical. See Grim Fandango: it's not the 3D. It's what they manage to do with the 3D.
This same discussion was raging when people started making graphical adventures: people who had only played text adventures felt that the graphics 'dumbed the game down' (sound familiar?) and 'ruined the experience' (again, sound familiar?). Then when point & click came into play, there was the same outrage: point & click was 'dumbing down' the text-parser interface and 'ruined the experience' of exploration. Lately, 3D is also 'dumbing down' and 'ruining the experience' of adventure games.
The point I'm making: adventure gaming has gone through numerous iterations. Each of this iterations has delivered its fair share of classics. The fact that your favorite game used a certain interface doesn't mean that it's the definitive, final interface that will make all adventures better.
Hmm, interesting. When's 4D available? That'll REALLY cock things up.
Going from mouse to keyboard was not a positive evolution of gameplay, only an attempt to get into the console market.
Why am I saying this. Well changes are not necessarily positive, only because they work.
I don't agree with that at all. Putting aside the fact that Grim Fandango was PC only, there's a strong argument to be made for how input in a game affects how you as a player relate to a character and to the world.
In Grim you controlled Manny's every step - you didn't just order him around by giving him various commands with the mouse, you actually make him walk from place to place. There's no "zip mod" double clicking to leave scenes either - it's all relatively taking place in "real time," getting rid of one layer of abstraction that crept into point and click UI. I really liked that I was literally physically helping move Manny along, instead of ordering him from place to place. I think it changed the nature of the game.
On the other hand, Escape From Monkey Island was in my opinion... signifiacntly less graceful about it... but that's another story.
Which is why Grim Fandango wasn't released on consoles?
On topic - I don't mind the 2 hour game as long as the price reflects it and I'm sure it will.
Simple, since there is no map and each episode lasts only brief time and they are playable at single episodes the feeling of exploring is killed by this unfortunate fact.
I just hope that it does not include multiple any kind of panic-mini-games what we have seen on current adventure games. (Meaning press this and this at the specified time) Okay, it's fun at the first time (like the hit the mice game on S&M 1, but multiple those would just kill the mood) Or any other mini-games where you try to avoid obstacles (referring to boneville *duh*) or something similar that has nothing to do with point-n-click adventures from the glory days of adventure gaming.
I'm not saying it will be bad (see the happy face on my post), Runaway: A Road Adventure, was kinda good even though it was more like straight forward, which S&M 2 will eventually be. There is a slight chance that S&M hits pretty much as well as Runaway but I doubt that.
I hope the best, fear the worst. I'm true fan of point-n-click which S&M1, Day of the Tentacle, Maniac Mansion, and other was when they were released. Most of those include strict plot (Maniac Mansion was pioneer, I don't consider it as glory days of point-n-click) no silly mini-games, just the adventure. What makes adventure game? Dialogs, puzzles, and the plot, not the darn mini-games.
Best way I prepare myself is that I don't even expect to be ANY similar with S&M 1, expecting that with this current format will lead only to disappointment.
(All the above is just mathematical way of converting coordinates with matrix manipulation)
Now of course in 2d to 3d conversion if you want that the cursor points in mid air you'll have to set that some other way like point from different angles, but even though in Sam & Max is 3d it does not remove the point-n-click possibility, it actually widens it like you can turn camera and still have easily manageable point-n-click routines. There are very rarely need of pointing mouse to mid-air on adventure games, that is not the case on strategy games.
Add: Creating 3D-mesh for the cursor in 3d game might be good idea, and of course calculation normal of the surface which it points at the moment and showing it on it might be very ideal way of showing on where it actually points, giving instant feedback of the depth. (With a little matrix screwing you can make it not to go too far in the scene of course)
Add: Now that I've been thinking it a minute or two only need is perhaps some kind of walk-path mesh which is not visible. When the cursor hits these meshes the fella walks that way. And in this case, as ground is probably not seen many places it actually points mid-air, to the invisible walk-path mesh. Since this seems so obvious way to create it, I could almost bet that it's (walking position) is done that way in S&M 2. Only question left to answer is can we assume that the walk mesh is always so big that object hot-spots are not on it's way, I'd say yes.
Add: Another intuitive way of creating those 3D-helper walk-path meshes is to draw lines to scene ground, and let the math do the job. Meaning that calculating from camera position the mesh heights is probably the very best way of creating the walk-path meshes. If you imagine supermarket with multiple walk rows in ahead, the problem can be solved this way by letting the computer to calculate each mesh height so that it does not collide which each other as the camera turns around... Of course there might be other ways but I'd like to know if some one points me those (especially better). Someone might say that this is the way it's been done in the past 2d-games (drawing the area) well then read the above again. It creates the height by calculating from the camera position meaning very easy for the scene developer to create themselves, just draw the paths to the ground of scene.
/me wonders are there any 3D Devs around?
The problem here is that if we can't do anything outside of the ordinary and every action is a "required" one then this isn't an adventure game.....its a story. I should be able look and poke at everything. Why? Not because it furthers the story or events but because its a game and the fewer interactive points there are, the less of a game it shall be.
Since when did adventure games become flip-books anyway? I want a challenge and tons of interaction....like in the good old days.
You say you can finish MI in a few hours? Good for you, I can finish Kq1 in 30 minutes but that doesn't mean anything....because we've played them before. Let someone who hasn't play them try and watch how long it takes. With Bone and recent adventures you can blow through them regardless of whether you've played before....simply because its just a story and there is no actual "playing" involved.
I suggest they remove speech if thats what it truly keeping them from creating more responses about the world Sam 'n Max travel around in. I can't believe anyone would take speech over interaction and puzzles.....that blows my mind away.
I mean come on, you'd rather play another Syberia than another Monkey Island or Leisure Suit Larry? I'm sorry but you are the minority here...and thats why these games will sell far less than the oldies. The only problem is that the ones who feel this way are too damn silent. This thread alone, however, proves there are quite a few telltale fans that even agree that the games are too straight forward and without content.
Make what excuses you will about budget, but it would only take a few hours to write up some responses for examining background objects.
No voice is no option.
EDIT:
Time to add today's contribution to this thread.
This 'verb' discussion might be a bit beside the real point most of us are trying to present. As some of the latest posts imply, really the thing that most of us probably want is interaction. In what form it will come - verbs or a lot of items that need to be combined - isn't that relevant I guess. In the Bone games, there wasn't enough of interaction, so as someone above said - it became more of a story and less of a game. It also lacked any verb commands, so it's easy to add 1 1 resulting in the observation that adventure games aren't good if there's not enough verbs. While that may not be exactly true having more verbs does generate more interaction, so adding verbs would be one cure for this problem.
Naturally it's up to Telltale to figure out how to best modify their formula to generate the best result. Most of us as seasoned adventure gamers know the tried and true multiverb way of life best and know it most certainly won't break a game. It really is the safest choice from our point of view as to get a satisfying Sam & Max experience. Then again, the evolution has been towards simplifying the adventure games. Some games have managed to pull it of nicely, some not.
The bottom line is that in my opinion the multiverb system might not in the end be absolutely necessary if you can pull off a very interactive story where there is a lot of ways to tamper with the scenery. The Bone games do not achieve this (yet).
The Great Cow Race is NOT straight forward and it's got content. That was a problem Out From Boneville had and I was among those who complained. Since they fixed that, I would be extremely surprised if they got it wrong again with Sam & Max.
LORDIE!
I've never played either BONE games. Never really got BONE comics here in South Africa. The artwork looks cool though.
You haven't played The Great Cow Race, have you? Because this is pretty much the opposite of the feedback we've been receiving. (And having nothing to do with Telltale's products, I can think of a number of other recent adventures that have plenty of "playing" involved.
Well then, I encourage you to check them out.
The Great Cow Race is getting very good reviews, and it has a free demo. You can learn more about it here.
That's funny, because if the gameplay experience of Sam & Max 'hits pretty much as well' as Runaway's (Runaway's quite nice animation excepted), I will probably have to hang myself by my own shoelaces.
Runaway is, without doubt, the most annoying, boring, horrid adventure I have ever had the misfortune to install.
So, just goes to show, one man's treasure is another's trash.