SHP Forums

Just a quick update on the current "Choose My Next Adventure" winner. I am on Act V right now. So far it's pretty good. It is set up differently from other adventure titles. Something that the game makes clear. It makes it difficult to tell how I am progressing or if I am missing things. But the story is interesting and I am curious as to how this proceeds.

It's definitely a different kind of game. Almost all the "progress" in the game happens from just entering a scene at the right time, so you can reach the end with only a handful of typed commands. There is also some actual adventure game stuff, but it's tangential to the plot of the game.

Personally, I don't think it works. To fully understand things, you'd need to investigate everything available in every time slot, but you can accidentally advance time by just doing things in the wrong order, leading to trial-and-error gameplay. And the mix between an adventure game and a "passively examine the world to piece together the mystery" game leaves both halves lacking.

Nice, I hope you're enjoying it! I had to give act 5 a miss, that stuff's bad for my heart, but the concept is rather intriguing isn't it? You've probably missed quite a lot, but don't worry about it. That's how most of us first got hooked playing Sierra!

I've only just realized that the Voyeur games I made walkthroughs of (and the one Collector helped me to get to run) basically use the same mechanic...

BBP wrote: I've only just realized that the Voyeur games I made walkthroughs of (and the one Collector helped me to get to run) basically use the same mechanic...

Now that you mention it...

notbobsmith wrote:Just a quick update on the current "Choose My Next Adventure" winner. I am on Act V right now. So far it's pretty good. It is set up differently from other adventure titles. Something that the game makes clear. It makes it difficult to tell how I am progressing or if I am missing things. But the story is interesting and I am curious as to how this proceeds.

As adeyke said - you can accidentally advance the game, by entering a specific scene... but to me, I thought that was pretty incredible. That it didn't "wait" for you to do a certain sequence. If the next time slot happens because the game needs you to enter Room_B, and you've not done much exploring and happen to enter Room_B, the next time slot triggers. I thought this was fun - because just like any murder/mystery, you might miss something, and the clock keeps ticking. Of course, if you save before every room you walk into, you can always restore if you're not ready - but where's the fun in that? For me, this added replay-ability - especially once I realized youcould also spy on people and get extra information.

So I just finished last night. It is certainly an interesting game, but I think adeyke is right. Since you can progress largely without doing anything, there's no real incentive for exploration/puzzle solving. To be fair, the game makes this very clear and I thought I was being pretty diligent on my own, but I ended the game with an "Absent Minded" score. I wasn't sure what I needed to be doing to get more out of it. One thing that was kind of odd: at first I ended up with a "bad" ending (Rudy kills the Colonel with a syringe), so I backed up a little to near the end of Act 7 and tried again and somehow managed to get the good ending. I'm not sure what I did that was different.

Interesting experience all around. I'll play again with a walkthrough and then on to The Dagger of Amon Ra.

I found this amusing YouTube video. I was aware that you could get to act 7 by typing only only command, but that shows you can also do it without ever seeing a corpse.

As for the endings, you get the good ending by killing Rudi, and a slightly better one from also doing the adventure game stuff, while you get the bad ending from shooting the Colonel or by shooting neither, either intentionally or due to dawdling.

Regarding replay value, that's certainly the intent behind the scoring system and hints at the end, but I don't think it quite works. When a game has so much missable stuff, I'll generally do what notbobsmith is doing: play once blind and once following a a walkthrough. In order for a game to really be replayable, each playthrough needs to be sufficiently different, either because there's so much content or because as your skill improves, the experience of the existing content changes. In LB1, the corpse location is sometimes random, but the actual actions you need to take are the same each time. So for the most part, each playthrough will be the exact same thing. For example, the only difference between a playthrough where you realize you can "smell" locations is that one interaction message and the score at the end. So the whole rest of the playthrough is just busywork. And if you accidentally advance time too soon, you're much more likely to restore than to think "I'll do better next time". And you know I'm not a fan of restoring being prominent in playing the game.

I really want to like the game, since it is innovative and since I really do love the atmosphere. But it just strikes me how wrong the game feels:

As mentioned, if you just look at it as an ordinary adventure game, it fails, since you can just stumble your way through the whole thing. Also, it has a lot of really senseless Sierra deaths. For example, the chandelier has hung there for decades, and it falls if and only if Laura walks directly under it (which is also the natural way to go through the house). It feels like they just wanted to meet their death quota, rather than thinking how each one contributes to the experience.

And if you look at it as a mystery, it also fails. Mystery games are hard to do right (I liked this video on the topic), but LB1 really fails: you can find clues, but the game doesn't give you any means of drawing conclusions from them. And then the clues aside, it just becomes blatantly obvious that Lillian did it when you see her in the playhouse, but you can't act on that. And the list of possible suspects quickly shrinks, making all the dirt you have on them irrelevant. The only decision you make is the one at the end, and that one is both pretty obvious and easy to just retry for the other result.

But what bothers me most is the story. If you actually had a realtime view of the world, it would be absurd: Lillian kills someone, places the body somewhere, waits nearby until Laura is done inspecting the corpse, then immediately drags the corpse to a laundry chute, all without anyone noticing. Struggles to the death are loud, corpses are heavy, there are full-height windows in every room, and there aren't any doors between rooms that would block sound or line of sight, but no one ever notices anything.. I know it's cliche to point this out, but if you ever think it terms of means or motive, the only answer is "it's impossible to do this" and "there's no reason anyone would try". Also, the game is very character-focused, since most of the game is about observing and spying on the cast, and then investigating their corpses. However, those characters are completely unbelievable. You can ask them things, you can tell them things, and you can show them things, but you can't talk to them. Lillian is supposedly your best friend, but you can't ever have a conversation with her. And you can't ever convince anyone how dire their situation is; you can tell someone about finding a corpse, but that means they'll run to check it out, see nothing (because of the absurdity I just described), and then just go on as if nothing had happened.

There is one thing in the game's favor, though: uniquely to Sierra games, it treats itself as a sort of play, especially in the intro. However, they'd really have to go further with this idea in order for it to work. If the reasons the characters don't meaningfully interact with Laura is because they're just acting out a story in which Laura isn't involved, then the game should go the whole way and not have Laura be there as a character. That could actually be interesting: a game that's just all about observing, deciding where to look at what time, and then replaying it to see other parts you missed. I know there are games that have done just that. Also, the whole framing it as a play doesn't really work when its sequel just abandons the concept.

adeyke wrote: So for the most part, each playthrough will be the exact same thing. For example, the only difference between a playthrough where you realize you can "smell" locations is that one interaction message and the score at the end. So the whole rest of the playthrough is just busywork. And if you accidentally advance time too soon, you're much more likely to restore than to think "I'll do better next time". And you know I'm not a fan of restoring being prominent in playing the game.

Well, for me - it was about finding different ways to find information. For example, the first time I played it, I don't think I ever found the secret passage to spy on people in rooms. So when I played it later and found that, it was a new experience to me. I would always go into the areas to spy on people, to see if there was new things to over hear.

As for disliking restore of games... how did you ever get through any Sierra game? Because, just about every Sierra games has quite a few deaths - that are sometimes avoidable by doing the right thing - and some are utterly random (like in Goldrush).

adeyke wrote: As mentioned, if you just look at it as an ordinary adventure game, it fails, since you can just stumble your way through the whole thing. Also, it has a lot of really senseless Sierra deaths. For example, the chandelier has hung there for decades, and it falls if and only if Laura walks directly under it (which is also the natural way to go through the house). It feels like they just wanted to meet their death quota, rather than thinking how each one contributes to the experience.

I like the stumbling thing... because, she's just not even a reporter yet... and just a friend at a house... who is seeing all these things happening all around her... why would she be an expert and uncovering all these things in a logical order?

adeyke wrote: But what bothers me most is the story. If you actually had a realtime view of the world, it would be absurd: Lillian kills someone, places the body somewhere, waits nearby until Laura is done inspecting the corpse, then immediately drags the corpse to a laundry chute, all without anyone noticing. Struggles to the death are loud, corpses are heavy, there are full-height windows in every room, and there aren't any doors between rooms that would block sound or line of sight, but no one ever notices anything.. I know it's cliche to point this out, but if you ever think it terms of means or motive, the only answer is "it's impossible to do this" and "there's no reason anyone would try".

Have you ever seen the movie CLUE?

adeyke wrote:I found this amusing YouTube video. I was aware that you could get to act 7 by typing only only command, but that shows you can also do it without ever seeing a corpse.

As for the endings, you get the good ending by killing Rudi, and a slightly better one from also doing the adventure game stuff, while you get the bad ending from shooting the Colonel or by shooting neither, either intentionally or due to dawdling.

In my case, I find the Colonel dead after Rudy injects him with the syringe. I never confronted them with the gun. I guess I may have missed the good ending the first time around by wandering around too much.

Regarding replay value, that's certainly the intent behind the scoring system and hints at the end, but I don't think it quite works. When a game has so much missable stuff, I'll generally do what notbobsmith is doing: play once blind and once following a a walkthrough. In order for a game to really be replayable, each playthrough needs to be sufficiently different, either because there's so much content or because as your skill improves, the experience of the existing content changes.

Back in the day, maybe I would have found the replayability more interesting. I had fewer games and more time. I couldn't tell you how many times I played through Police Quest 1 just hunting down points. And most of those points were just tiny extras to find. I think the first time through needed more of a challenge. Or at least not force you through the plot simply by wandering around. Like the video you posted, it's possible to play the game without even playing the game.

In LB1, the corpse location is sometimes random, but the actual actions you need to take are the same each time. So for the most part, each playthrough will be the exact same thing. For example, the only difference between a playthrough where you realize you can "smell" locations is that one interaction message and the score at the end. So the whole rest of the playthrough is just busywork. And if you accidentally advance time too soon, you're much more likely to restore than to think "I'll do better next time". And you know I'm not a fan of restoring being prominent in playing the game.




I really want to like the game, since it is innovative and since I really do love the atmosphere. But it just strikes me how wrong the game feels:

As mentioned, if you just look at it as an ordinary adventure game, it fails, since you can just stumble your way through the whole thing. Also, it has a lot of really senseless Sierra deaths. For example, the chandelier has hung there for decades, and it falls if and only if Laura walks directly under it (which is also the natural way to go through the house). It feels like they just wanted to meet their death quota, rather than thinking how each one contributes to the experience.

And if you look at it as a mystery, it also fails. Mystery games are hard to do right (I liked this video on the topic), but LB1 really fails: you can find clues, but the game doesn't give you any means of drawing conclusions from them. And then the clues aside, it just becomes blatantly obvious that Lillian did it when you see her in the playhouse, but you can't act on that. And the list of possible suspects quickly shrinks, making all the dirt you have on them irrelevant. The only decision you make is the one at the end, and that one is both pretty obvious and easy to just retry for the other result.

But what bothers me most is the story. If you actually had a realtime view of the world, it would be absurd: Lillian kills someone, places the body somewhere, waits nearby until Laura is done inspecting the corpse, then immediately drags the corpse to a laundry chute, all without anyone noticing. Struggles to the death are loud, corpses are heavy, there are full-height windows in every room, and there aren't any doors between rooms that would block sound or line of sight, but no one ever notices anything.. I know it's cliche to point this out, but if you ever think it terms of means or motive, the only answer is "it's impossible to do this" and "there's no reason anyone would try". Also, the game is very character-focused, since most of the game is about observing and spying on the cast, and then investigating their corpses. However, those characters are completely unbelievable. You can ask them things, you can tell them things, and you can show them things, but you can't talk to them. Lillian is supposedly your best friend, but you can't ever have a conversation with her. And you can't ever convince anyone how dire their situation is; you can tell someone about finding a corpse, but that means they'll run to check it out, see nothing (because of the absurdity I just described), and then just go on as if nothing had happened.

There is one thing in the game's favor, though: uniquely to Sierra games, it treats itself as a sort of play, especially in the intro. However, they'd really have to go further with this idea in order for it to work. If the reasons the characters don't meaningfully interact with Laura is because they're just acting out a story in which Laura isn't involved, then the game should go the whole way and not have Laura be there as a character. That could actually be interesting: a game that's just all about observing, deciding where to look at what time, and then replaying it to see other parts you missed. I know there are games that have done just that. Also, the whole framing it as a play doesn't really work when its sequel just abandons the concept.

They do treat the game as a play. It kind of reminds me of the cliché where the lights go out and someone ends up dead, even though it would be impossible for anyone to do anything in that amount of time completely unnoticed. I'm actually fine with the game doing something like that. That said, you are right about the interaction between the characters. There was always a disconnection that I felt. It never seemed like you could interact with anyone in a meaningful way ("I. Found. A. Dead. Body!")

The game as a whole is an interesting concept, but I'm not sure about the execution.

Tawmis wrote:Well, for me - it was about finding different ways to find information. For example, the first time I played it, I don't think I ever found the secret passage to spy on people in rooms. So when I played it later and found that, it was a new experience to me. I would always go into the areas to spy on people, to see if there was new things to over hear.

I was also unaware of the secret passages initially. That is, I knew there had to be something (I immediately saw the weird eyes on the pictures) but wasn't aware how to get into them or just how many passages there were. So yes, figuring that out gave major change to the experience. But I'm talking ratios. Adventure games in particular, with neither player skill nor randomness coming into play, tend to have a lot of busywork in replays. If 50% of a playthrough is new and 50% is busywork, that might be worth doing. If it's 10% new to 90% busywork, less likely. And if it's 1% to 99%, almost certainly not.

Take KQ6, for example. There are two distinct paths to get into the castle. So it could make sense to save the game right before that, play through one path, and then restore and play through the other path. However, restarting the game to see the other path makes less sense, since everything leading up to that decision point will be exactly the same. Also, among the two main paths, there are slight variations based on what optional actions you took, but it really wouldn't make sense to me to play through the whole game a dozen times just to see a series of slightly less happy endings.

And if it's just about getting the best ending or the perfect score, that requires knowing all the necessary actions, and that's not something you can practice. For example, in SQ3, you get points for searching your ship's seat for buckazoids. No matter how often you play at SQ3, if you don't have that particular insight, you're not going to get the points from that. There isn't a point where you're "good at playing SQ3" and manage it.

Note that I'm just talking about replaying the game in order to get what you missed earlier. There's also the other type of replaying, which is just to experience the game again, in the same way you'd just reread a book or rewatch a movie. Every game has that kind of replayability.

Tawmis wrote:As for disliking restore of games... how did you ever get through any Sierra game? Because, just about every Sierra games has quite a few deaths - that are sometimes avoidable by doing the right thing - and some are utterly random (like in Goldrush).

I played a lot of them as a kid, when I was less cognizant of these issues. If I were playing a new Sierra game today, it would be with a lot of anxiety, because of those deaths and the dead ends. I much, much prefer adventure games that feel safe to explore.

Tawmis wrote:I like the stumbling thing... because, she's just not even a reporter yet... and just a friend at a house... who is seeing all these things happening all around her... why would she be an expert and uncovering all these things in a logical order?

How the game plays out is entirely in the game developers' control. And in the case of LB1, they're already using the game's clock to force certain encounters. You can't play the game by deciding Laura just wants to stay in her room the whole night; if you do that, time won't ever advance. Instead, the clock advances each time you see a particular scene. So the game makes sure that Laura is smart/lucky enough to always be at the right place at the right time to see certain things. It's just that seeing a body isn't one of these. I think just changing that one thing would already be a big improvement.

The issue of seeing things in the wrong order is a general issue in exploration-based games. That is, there's often the situation where one path leads to a primary objective and another path leads to optional reward. If you guess "right", you miss out on the reward (or have to backtrack, if the game allows that). You're simultaneously rewarded and punished for exploration.

Tawmis wrote:Have you ever seen the movie CLUE?

No.

adeyke wrote:

Tawmis wrote: Well, for me - it was about finding different ways to find information. For example, the first time I played it, I don't think I ever found the secret passage to spy on people in rooms. So when I played it later and found that, it was a new experience to me. I would always go into the areas to spy on people, to see if there was new things to over hear.

I was also unaware of the secret passages initially. That is, I knew there had to be something (I immediately saw the weird eyes on the pictures) but wasn't aware how to get into them or just how many passages there were. So yes, figuring that out gave major change to the experience. But I'm talking ratios. Adventure games in particular, with neither player skill nor randomness coming into play, tend to have a lot of busywork in replays. If 50% of a playthrough is new and 50% is busywork, that might be worth doing. If it's 10% new to 90% busywork, less likely. And if it's 1% to 99%, almost certainly not.
Take KQ6, for example. There are two distinct paths to get into the castle. So it could make sense to save the game right before that, play through one path, and then restore and play through the other path. However, restarting the game to see the other path makes less sense, since everything leading up to that decision point will be exactly the same. Also, among the two main paths, there are slight variations based on what optional actions you took, but it really wouldn't make sense to me to play through the whole game a dozen times just to see a series of slightly less happy endings. And if it's just about getting the best ending or the perfect score, that requires knowing all the necessary actions, and that's not something you can practice. For example, in SQ3, you get points for searching your ship's seat for buckazoids. No matter how often you play at SQ3, if you don't have that particular insight, you're not going to get the points from that. There isn't a point where you're "good at playing SQ3" and manage it. Note that I'm just talking about replaying the game in order to get what you missed earlier. There's also the other type of replaying, which is just to experience the game again, in the same way you'd just reread a book or rewatch a movie. Every game has that kind of replayability.

Huh. I've never searched my seat for buckazoids! But I've actually never played a Sierra game (even now) in order to try and get full points. If I do manage to get full points (I think I did in my recent KQ2 or KQ3 play throughs) - it's pure coincidence. Enjoyable, because I know I did everything. But as you said - sometimes it's "1" point for looking at something, rather than just doing it. For example, you might get 1 point for looking at a hole in a tree, that tells you something is glittering inside and then reaching in and getting the necklace for "2" points; versus just "reach into hole" and getting the necklace for 2 points; so you miss out on the 1 point for not looking. And the older Sierra games rewarded 1 point here and there for trivial things like that.

adeyke wrote:

Tawmis wrote:As for disliking restore of games... how did you ever get through any Sierra game? Because, just about every Sierra games has quite a few deaths - that are sometimes avoidable by doing the right thing - and some are utterly random (like in Goldrush).

I played a lot of them as a kid, when I was less cognizant of these issues. If I were playing a new Sierra game today, it would be with a lot of anxiety, because of those deaths and the dead ends. I much, much prefer adventure games that feel safe to explore.

I agree... I enjoyed the games more, when I was younger. I had more time. Far less hobbies. And way less stress. Way less distractions. So replaying games was very easy.

adeyke wrote:

Tawmis wrote:I like the stumbling thing... because, she's just not even a reporter yet... and just a friend at a house... who is seeing all these things happening all around her... why would she be an expert and uncovering all these things in a logical order?

How the game plays out is entirely in the game developers' control. And in the case of LB1, they're already using the game's clock to force certain encounters. You can't play the game by deciding Laura just wants to stay in her room the whole night; if you do that, time won't ever advance. Instead, the clock advances each time you see a particular scene. So the game makes sure that Laura is smart/lucky enough to always be at the right place at the right time to see certain things. It's just that seeing a body isn't one of these. I think just changing that one thing would already be a big improvement.
The issue of seeing things in the wrong order is a general issue in exploration-based games. That is, there's often the situation where one path leads to a primary objective and another path leads to optional reward. If you guess "right", you miss out on the reward (or have to backtrack, if the game allows that). You're simultaneously rewarded and punished for exploration.

I can see what you mean. I guess, even though I just recently replayed LB1 and LB2, I enjoyed it still. I remember the first time playing it, because I felt like there was more to find. So it enticed me to play it again immediately (and save way more frequently in case I triggered the clock and felt like I hadn't seen everything). I still don't think I've ever seen EVERY scene in that game, because I have never done a walk through that maximizes every opportunity.

adeyke wrote:

Tawmis wrote:Have you ever seen the movie CLUE?

No.

Heh. I asked because of the vanishing bodies/moving bodies bit. I absolutely LOVE that movie (cracks me up - so many quotable moments) - and granted it's a comedy, and not a "serious murder mystery" like LB is supposed to be - but it did a lot of what you literally mentioned having an issue with LB1.

There is a LOT of interaction possible with the characters, which I found out when I made the script. It involves a lot of typing, which is why there are so many shortcuts like "ask about" and "tell about". People's conversations also change during the evening.

Tawm hosts the scripts for me at http://larrylaffer.net/non-lsl-games/si ... me-scripts
Colonel's Bequest is listed as Laura Bow 1. Don't read it until you're done playing the game.

With LB1 my problems were the text parser, notably in the scenes with the armor and in the dollhouse, and the quick disappearance of the bodies. And the plot, I never felt the mainly one culprit worked especially since she doesn't lose it until way ahead in the game It does work great at creating a spooky atmosphere!

Don't get me wrong. Just in terms of the amount of content, the dialogue system is impressive. Not only can you ask everyone about everything and show them your items, you can even ask about the relationships between the characters. So for what it's trying to do, it's quite good.

However, in terms of interactions, I mean something deeper. The entire dialogue is just about entering a word and getting back a one-line response. That is, for the most part, characters just work like an information kiosk. They only rarely ask anything back of Laura (e.g. asking where she got the item she's showing them), and there are never any longer back-and-forth conversations. And the characters are stateless. That is, if you enter a room, talk with a character and leave, they'll still be exactly the same as they were before, and you can enter the room and do the whole thing again.

The one exception to this is Celie. She actually does get humanized a bit, and you can change how she views you.

(Also, if you tell someone about a body, they'll leave the room to look at it, then come back irritated because there was nothing there, and if you try it again, they won't even look. Also, I guess walking into a room where people are talking and having them be irritated and move to another room is technically also an interaction.)

I know that Laura is a stranger to most of the characters. However, even Lillian isn't meaningfully humanized. Also, even if the characters don't care about Laura herself, they might be interested in what the other characters have been saying. And the information that there's a murderer among them should definitely be interest.

I'm also aware that, if they did react like people, it would be a very different story. LB1 as it is now requires that the characters remain unaware of the murders and requires that they just always keep following their scripted routines. Actually accounting for all the things Laura could plausibly do in that situation and how it would affect the outcome would be a nightmare to design, write, and code. But if the story relies on the characters not behaving in a believable way, maybe there's a problem with that story.

That brings me back to play framing, and I'm curious how people view that. What role do Laura and the player have in that perspective?

One way would be for Laura to also just be a character in the play. She's certainly treated that way by the intro sequence. However, you don't have a script to follow, you don't get told the certain actions would be out of character, and those actions you do take seem pretty unscripted (i.e. sneaking around, having long interviews with everyone, and wandering off to look for the estate's secret treasure).

The other would be for the player to be the audience, with Laura just being the player's avatar. Under this view, the game wouldn't be about the horrific ordeal of surviving the night while around you people are being systematically murdered. Instead, it would be about enjoying the show put on for your benefit. The actors are just doing their thing, and you can wander around the set, inspecting things and asking questions. Under this view, the atmosphere is scary but actually safe. Finding a body wouldn't a horrific, nauseating experience but just an opportunity to search for clues. That does seem to be how Laura is treating things. However, the issue with this interpretation is that Laura actually is in danger, and can even get murdered. And there are a handful of cases (e.g. Celie) where she actually does interact with the story.

You seem to be expecting quite a lot from a 1989 adventure game... this is the first Sierra game I've encountered where this vast amount of dialogue is even possible. LSL3 has a similar problem - there's much more dialogue with some of the characters but if you only use the "talk" command, you're not going to get far.

Characters do get to interact with you in some way and change their attitude - Clarence becomes overly friendly and invites you to a drink, Rudy tries to flirt with you, then becomes more hostile as you refuse to the point that he will tell you off when he is in your room searching something... Other characters don't live long enough to get the chance.

This is also the first game where the text parser proves to be too much of a hassle, especially in combination with all the dialogue. If someone does a remake, I hope (s)he'll add some sort of interaction screen with characters where you can click objects instead of typing. Like the LB2 book but with less clicking. And that way puzzles like the armor and the sign in the playhouse could be solved by yours truly {grumble}.