SHP Forums

LMAO

DeadPoolX wrote:

Rakeesh wrote:What I hate in such adventures are puzzles which rely on random factors and repetition. For example, it was obvious to me that I must catch the cat, but when I tried, I was told that the cat evades me. Then I was wondering if I should trap the cat, or make him sleep. When you see a message that you couldn't perform an action, there is no reason to try repeating it. Right? Nothing tells you that this is not a puzzle but a random thing.

And then, there was the bandit home. When you get there and see the bandit, the first thing that you look for is a means to fight or avoid him, or perhaps neutralize him while in the tavern. But no, this is not a puzzle either. Just repeat until he sleeps at random!!

Cheap challenges and poor writing, which justify the use of a hintbook IMHO

The words "adventure game" and "logic" rarely go hand-in-hand. Even games set in a real world environment often have convoluted puzzles. That's one of the reasons I eventually got turned off the Adventure genre. While I certainly don't hate Adventure games, they're not my first choice and haven't been in years.

Tawmis wrote:King's Quest (until around 7) always had a sense of danger. I was constantly hitting "SAVE" when I initially played the games, because I never knew what the next screen over was going to bring me.

Ironic considering you now like save points.

Tawmis wrote:But when it came out in 1986 (I was 16 when it came out, yeegads!)...

Heh. For most of 1986, I was six years old.

I was seven years old.

oberonqa wrote: I was seven years old.

Clearly at 7 years old, if you figured out how to beat that bastard Wizard in KQ3, you were much smarter than me at 16.

For that matter, at 7 years old back then, you're probably smarter than me now.

Tawmis wrote:

oberonqa wrote: I was seven years old.

Clearly at 7 years old, if you figured out how to beat that bastard Wizard in KQ3, you were much smarter than me at 16.

For that matter, at 7 years old back then, you're probably smarter than me now.

LOL! I don't think it's a matter of being smart or not.... I simply approached the wizard the same way I would have approached my parents. You see... Christmas was never much of a surprise for me, as I regularly poked around the house when the parents were at work. It would not have made much sense for me to go snooping around looking for gifts if I didn't learn how to put things back as they were.

I also was playing KQ3 when I got home from school while my parents were still at work. My dad told me KQ3 was too hard and as such, I could only play KQ1 and KQ2. I got around that by only playing it for an hour or so each day... and I kept my own save floppy disk that he didn't know about. I actually beat the game before he did (I regularly kept tabs on his save progress).

I was quite the little devil when I was a kid... and it's not necessarily something I am proud of. My old man never did know I beat KQ3 before him... nor did he ever know I was playing it on the sly. Irony is... he never will either (he passed away in 1995).

Moral of the story: I guess KQ3's puzzles were designed for the naughty-side of the human psyche.

Tawmis wrote:

oberonqa wrote: I was seven years old.

Clearly at 7 years old, if you figured out how to beat that bastard Wizard in KQ3, you were much smarter than me at 16.

For that matter, at 7 years old back then, you're probably smarter than me now.

I was 9 ... but my brother (10 at the time) and I both played together, which helped tremendously. One would look at manuals and stuff while the other typed and played, then we would swap back and forth, one 'driving' and one 'navigating.' It worked really well, too. Whenever we bought a new nintendo game, on the way home we would split it up too-- whoever read the manual first, the other got to play first. I always opted to read the manual. I would read it on the way home, and while he played the first time I would watch him figure out "how" to play. Then I'd jump in after watching him (and having read the manual) and did a better job my first try than he did. Ahh, memories...

..dane

audiodane wrote:

Tawmis wrote:

oberonqa wrote: I was seven years old.

Clearly at 7 years old, if you figured out how to beat that bastard Wizard in KQ3, you were much smarter than me at 16.

For that matter, at 7 years old back then, you're probably smarter than me now.

I was 9 ... but my brother (10 at the time) and I both played together, which helped tremendously. One would look at manuals and stuff while the other typed and played, then we would swap back and forth, one 'driving' and one 'navigating.' It worked really well, too. Whenever we bought a new nintendo game, on the way home we would split it up too-- whoever read the manual first, the other got to play first. I always opted to read the manual. I would read it on the way home, and while he played the first time I would watch him figure out "how" to play. Then I'd jump in after watching him (and having read the manual) and did a better job my first try than he did. Ahh, memories...

..dane

Ah the joys of having siblings. I am an only child... so I don't have any memories like that. For me.... it was all about getting the game, reading the box and manual on the way home, and then tearing into it once I got home. I used to (still do, actually... now that I think about it) tear a new game to pieces in about two to three weeks... doesn't matter how large or complex the game was, two to three weeks was and still is about all I need to beat a game.

I got Final Fantasy II for the SNES for Christmas 1992. I had it beat the last day of Christmas vacation (which was the first Monday after New Years). Exactly a week and a half.

Dragon Age: Origins.... got it the day it came out. Three weeks later, not only had I beaten it once... I went through and beat it two more times with completely different characters. Same thing with Mass Effect 2.

Heck... I got Dead Space 2 a week ago when I got my tax return. Guess what? I beat it yesterday. Downloaded TSL Episode 3... beat that in 2 hours.

I really do need to finish learning how to program in C++ so I can make my own games. I am firmly convinced that the only way I will ever truly be challenged anymore is with something of my own creation.

oberonqa wrote:I really do need to finish learning how to program in C++ so I can make my own games. I am firmly convinced that the only way I will ever truly be challenged anymore is with something of my own creation.

Programming is a particularly good skill to have. I would develop that skill even if it isn't for game writing. On that topic though, if I understand it correctly, there are already several capable programming systems out there that have the "skeleton" structure already done for you (Graphics handling, etc). If you want to develop a game I'd use an existing backbone rather than starting from scratch. When my brother and I were programming a PC port of Metroid, we spent so much time on sprite animation (movement, collisions, etc) and "environment visualization" (scrolling backgrounds, etc), we never had enough time to actually get the game itself done.

good luck!
..dane

audiodane wrote:

oberonqa wrote:I really do need to finish learning how to program in C++ so I can make my own games. I am firmly convinced that the only way I will ever truly be challenged anymore is with something of my own creation.

Programming is a particularly good skill to have. I would develop that skill even if it isn't for game writing. On that topic though, if I understand it correctly, there are already several capable programming systems out there that have the "skeleton" structure already done for you (Graphics handling, etc). If you want to develop a game I'd use an existing backbone rather than starting from scratch. When my brother and I were programming a PC port of Metroid, we spent so much time on sprite animation (movement, collisions, etc) and "environment visualization" (scrolling backgrounds, etc), we never had enough time to actually get the game itself done.

good luck!
..dane

Oh for sure.... using an existing engine (or backbone, as you put it) is far preferable for the purpose of developing a game. But my goal in learning C++ is to learn the language. Be it for game development or application development... it's one and the same to me. I dropped out of college with only rudimentary programming experience in C++ (though I can write a mean database-driven Visual Basic app... lol), and it's been something I've regretted for a long time.

Thankfully, I know enough of the basics to learn the rest through home study. I'm currently working my way through C++ Primer Plus 5th Edition and am learning a great deal. I think my first game-related project will be something small.... a text adventure game. While text adventure games are rather simple by today's standards, there's a lot of concepts that can be applied to any game (such as the basic game loop, conditions, save/load mechanics, etc).

My general plan of study is roughly as follows:

1. Learn general C++ programming
2. Learn Windows Application programming
3. Learn DirectX API programming
4. Learn XNA Framework / C# programming

It'll take a substantial length of time, as I work at my own pace and have many things going on IRL that are taking precedence (most notably, finding a job)... but one cannot make a journey without first mapping out said journey.