Thimbleweed Park Podcast #24
by Ron Gilbert
Oct 03, 2015
Oct 03, 2015
Listen to us mangle reader names as we answer Friday questions.
You can also subscribe to the Thimbleweed Park Podcast RSS feed if that's 'your thing'.
- Ron
Listen to us mangle reader names as we answer Friday questions.
You can also subscribe to the Thimbleweed Park Podcast RSS feed if that's 'your thing'.
- Ron
Really love these Q&A ones; they're fantastic.
The worst maze puzzles were at Legend of Kyrandia btw.
P.S.: to other readers, please don't start a discussion now about which music or artist is "bigger" or "better". A large part of the internet is already filled with those utterly pointless yet seemingly endless discussions.
And someone must have been stoned for sure while making Phantasmagoria. :D
Concerning the word autodidact: it is a quite common word in Dutch. I actually had to verify whether it is a valid English term as well :)
About self-taught: I find this is the only way to master anything. Education can give a good starting point, but you really only learn by doing and figuring out stuff yourself.
Also not a fan of home cooked fugu
I guess in my question I tried to establish that indeed most of the game making process is a creative one and therefore is mostly driven by passion, which can be the driving force to make you spend a lot of energy on learning stuff the hard way.
Very interesting answers!
And I had a hiccup when i heard my question read by Ron Gilbert, and "Zak (Phoenix) McKracken said by David Fox! In that precise moment, my "joy" emotion pushed its console button! :-)
Well thank you for having closed a gap in my knowledge, talking about Aric. I'm am satisfied, really.
I can go to sleep now.... SEE YA!
Listening to the podcast in the night is relaxing, and I better concentrate on words...
Listening to the podcast in the night is relaxing, and I better concentrate on words...
PS: The verbs ought to be anti-aliased a bit.
I understand my question was not podcast material, but maybe you can give a short answer here, so I repeat my question:
Can you do more blog posts about the technical side of the game? Like lighting system, asset management, scripting, pathfinding, load and save games, etc.
http://199.101.98.242/media/images/95933-Monkey_Island_2_LeChuck's_Revenge_(Floppy_DOS_VGA)-7.jpg
Also helped separate Dialog Puzzles: http://bit.ly/1RopDE2
Ron talks about it a little in "Podcast #17"
Concept art: http://bit.ly/1VxTVF3
Using a "Vertical scroll" animation like this: http://bit.ly/1M8ruZ3
Or using "Horizontal scroll" animation like this: http://bit.ly/1hiMe7V
You to see 50% more inventory using the "Vertical" method, but both are
mobile friendly, and can cycle through Inventory using the "Mouse Scroll Wheel".
Ultimately there is too many "Verbs" to iterate through using these methods
Despite it being done here: http://bit.ly/1PcVtEF
You could go with a "Verb Icon". Like Monkey Island 3, or Full Throttle
http://bit.ly/1JMxFjU http://bit.ly/1L764e5 http://bit.ly/1M8MQFJ
http://bit.ly/1NdWsoz http://bit.ly/1FNlZme http://bit.ly/1jH9MoY
Or go with just "Icons", but I think this is more confusing unless its well done.
http://bit.ly/1KZ4VGi http://bit.ly/1MT5jsY http://bit.ly/1hiKATW
http://bit.ly/1Z00J2y
Thanks for reading my post, Here's a game I stumbled on while writing it.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=462503040
1. You can't make it look good in a low resolution scenario without distorting the inventory items to the point where they look like crap. Or by making the inventory take a lot more screen space. In your concept art, you ignored the resolution but you can't do that in the game because it looks totally inconsistent.
2. You can see how many facets the "wheel" has, which puts a hard limit on the number of inventory items (i.e., 24 in your case). On the other hand, I suppose it's bad design to have *too* many items in your inventory anyway.
I also prefer verbs à la Monkey Island 3 as well. If I want to use a lever in the real world, I go next to it, I put my hand on it and either push or pull. Taking the mouse all the way to an imaginary verb box feels like eating steak with a spoon.
Anyway, the only serious response I have is about the eyes. The mouse cursor is supposed to reflect the character's attention, not something that has to do with the actual player. As a player, you tell the character what to pay attention to, where to walk, etc. I don't think it'd break the fourth wall at all, nor do I think breaking the fourth wall is necessarily a bad thing (it is often be used to achieve a comedic effect, albeit not in this particular situation).
If you get rid of the verbs no one will recognize it as a "lost" lucasfilm adventure at first sight. "use balloon animal on corpse" with icons wouldn't be as funny as it is now. I'm very thankful Ron sticks with the verbs as they are.
And the same which is true for the icons:
Nice verbs :)
You are right, the verbs have disadvantages. But so have icon interfaces. They have evolved, got better, streamlined the task. The easiest interface would be no icons or verbs at all. Perfect for tablets. But then you only can get it right. Thats too easy == no voodoo == no fun. Most words are redundant or are used sparsely. But what a joy when you push or talk or .. something what is not intended to be pushed or talked to. It may trigger a funny line or animation. Call it easter egg. Cant do it like that with a streamlined interface.
About the crazy surveillance eyes. Haven't decided if i like it or not. One should try it and test it in the whole game. Maybe it sucks after a while. The shouldn't follow in the interface area though.
I like having verbs- as long as you design puzzles with them in mind- like when operating the safe in (I think it was) Monkey Island 1, you PUSHed the handle to rotate it clockwise, and you PULLed it to rotate it counterclockwise. There are other similar ways you can implement two opposing verbs into a game; Again you would just want to make sure there are cases where a player will have to use them.
I like having verbs, but not TOO many. If there was just one generic "use" verb, but the player didn't really understand HOW something was to be used, they could possibly accidentally figure out a solution. In addition, if they wanted to try to brute force their way around by iterating through verbs and objects it would be a tad more difficult if there were more verbs to iterate through. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or a good thing. It might be just too much frustration for some if they get THAT desperate.
Other than for the sake itself of creating more verbs, I wonder what the purpose is of having to separate the verbs "Open" and "Close"? The only example I can think of where you would need to Open something that is already open is when you have something like some Russian nesting dolls. Okay, well, maybe a hidden wall safe behind a painting- You may be able to "Open" the painting, then "Open" the safe. What about Use/Give, I wonder? If you USE an object in your inventory with a character, would you essentially be giving the character that object? Well, maybe not if you have a tazer, for example. You can give the tazer TO a character, or you can REALLY give it to a character, and taze them (by USING the tazer on the character). Like I said, as long as there is a need for the separate verb, and that they try to use the special case for the verb on at least more than one occasion, then there would be a need for it.
I would imagine that they will map the Verbs to keys on the keyboard (or button on a gamepad/controller) if moving a cursor over to a verb is bothersome for anyone. Maybe they could add an option to HIDE the verb UI, so you get a clean (hopefully, vertically centered) letterboxed version of the game without the verbs, if you are able to use hotkeys.
There are keys you can use to quickly selected verbs, but we had that back in the Monkey Island days.
My biggest issue was they changed the UI without changing the gameplay. Maniac Mansion was not a text adventure with a verb interface. It borrowed a lot from text adventures, but it had it's own unique style of gameplay that went a long with it's changes. When people dropped the verbs and went new UIs and only a USE verb, they kept the gameplay the same and it always felt wrong, it may have even contributed to the decline of adventure games as the only innovation was eye-candy that actually made the games less intuitive.
It's also important to remember that the goal of this game and the Kickstarter was NOT to produce a modernized adventure game, it was to make classic adventure game and that includes the verbs and the gameplay that those verbs invoke.
If I was going to make an modern adventure without verbs, it would be a very different game with very different gameplay and interaction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTsSk0r_Tq8
Argc, cant get it out of my head. (i heard "earworm" is slowly making it into the english vocabulary. But its not meant to be so bad)
After answering so many questions in your place, one would think Bogden Barbu could have figured that one out by himself.
Anyway I totally agree that the verb interface is crucial to the classic point and click adventure. Come to think of it, that's perhaps exactly what I subconsciously disliked about Full throttle, the dig ,... even MI special edition!
blame?? now you're asking for it.
Let me explain to you why I did feel the need to comment. If you would have truly understood the meaning of "A new classic point & click adventure game by Ron Gilbert and Gary Winnick" you would have known that the classic verb interface is essential. If you would have read the previous posts that have "icons are not final" written all over it, you would not have started nitpicking like you did: "Regarding the inventory, I'm surprised there are no arrows". And hey, that wouldn't annoy me at all if anyone else made that comment. But as you are such a high profile commenter (17 out of 91 comments on this thread so far and probably counting while I'm writing this) who pretends to know all the answers, you are bound to hit some resistance. And yes, you did claim to answer as many Friday questions before to increase your odds to get yours picked. Even if it was meant as a joke, you then went on and suggest to use a Reddit poll. Probably so you can up-vote your own?
As to my understanding of your comments, I will quote you:
"I like the wheel but[]"
"There are some clear disadvantages to the classic verb interface"
"I also prefer verbs à la Monkey Island 3 as well. [] Taking the mouse all the way to an imaginary verb box feels like eating steak with a spoon"
So, yeah I did find it funny and ironic when the Grumpy Gamer (TM) deemed it necessary to put an end to the whole "why the verbs?" discussion. *I* for one did saw that one coming. And any Self-proclaimed Know-it-all (TM) should have too.
As someone else told you before: no problem if you want to reiterate some available information and want to help out Ron, Gary and David to not sound like broken records and/or waste time answering the same things over and over. But most of your comments are at most partially factual and then you just start pushing your own personal point of views . Or worse making people look "stupid" for asking something which might be obvious to you.
Freedom of speech and all of that, but please keep it fun for everyone and tone down a bit (or a lot).
But time told a different story. I recently wanted to replay Sam & Max. I stopped, mostly because of not having the time atm, but i also found the interface to be very clumsy. It hasn't aged very well in my opinion.
I could talk a lot more about it, but this would be very redundant :)
P.S.: Seckrit question answerd wrong AGAIN!
Since Monkey Island 3, I didn't feel comfortable with the interface (even in MI:SE), and at that time I wondered why Ron decided to get rid of verbs. But I was far from the truth at that time... I have discovered it many years later, and I am happy to read that the Creator wants to use verbs as part of the interface.
It's like telling a story.
You have to do something different than "use" something.
For example, I have appreciated when in Zak McKracken you enter the Luan' shop and "Pick up" becomes "Buy", "Give" becomes "Sell". Nice touch!
1) wouldn't improve the gameplay.
2) would only be visible, if the character is looking to the fore.
3) wouldn't make sense, if the cursor gets moved onto an item that lies behind the character.
But i can think of 2 situations where eye movement could be used.
1. In cutscenes *rolleyes
2. When there is something in the room which is important (and small->no pixel hunting) or bothering (medusa, nuclear fuel rod, 4 headed monkey)
But this is no direct movement like following the cursor. In fact this too would be a non important gimmick, which could be implemented if Ron one day realizes he has too much spare time...
It's a little game, after all, we don't have to be too serious...
I hope my critique is not in poor taste as I only mean it in a constructive way.
Patches are clearly a big concern that they didn't deal with back then. Suppose you're reading a book. When you're haldway through, you lose it but remember what page you were on and decide to buy a new copy. Alas, the your new copy is the second printing of the book instead of the first, which you had before. Since a few minor details changed, the information you had regarding the page number may now be irrelevant. As a human being, you're smart enough to figure out how to proceed on your own but computers aren't as clever. You can actually see this in ScummVM, which will (usually?) fail to load games saved by previous versions of it.
Regarding mazes- I don't have a problem with mazes in games per se, it's just that it's difficult to judge where you are inside a maze when it's just represented as a series of flat rooms as it was in Zak. That being said it didn't take me more than 10 minutes to get through any the mazes so it wasn't too bad.
Both times I assumed I had to keep track of each room and look at details in each room to "recognize" them... like flowers and tree positions in the forest and then number of doors and the little things over the doors in LeChuck's fortress.
It was only on subsequent playthroughs that I was like, "oh... OHHhhhHHHH!!!"
there's not a way to "solve the game right" or to "solve it wrong".
The nice thing in that kind of puzzle is that you have two options: you can save your brain stamina and "take the long way", or you can make it faster, thinking your way out. If Ron wanted you to solve the maze only if you understood the map puzzle, he would have make it impossible in the other way. Take the example of the maze under Monkey Island. Correct me if I am wrong, but in that maze it is IMPOSSIBLE to get to the ship without using the head. I think the developers, there, simply DIDN'T want people to find the ship randomly.
After all, do you remember what Guybrush says when he first sees the map? He says "I think I have been ripped off", or something like that. That means he didn't solve the puzzle too! :-)
And, of course, in the pixel-hunting book puzzle in TP bookstore you'll have the same two options: the smart and fast one, OR reading all titles book by book.
Someone said: Ron wanted A LOT of title to discourage random search. Are you sure? I mean, are we sure that so many funny titles will discourage people? Or, maybe, will encourage them to check all them out? ;-)