Lots more then for you to discover. Belgium has a quite rich comics history that started in 1930’s - 1940’s and boomed in the 50’s/60’s.
Several of them made it into computer games too.
(The guy in the last two videos is funny as he rants about the utter hardness of these games- english subtitles are available)
@Sushi Are you saying they made a strategy/tactics game based on De Blauwbloezen?
I used to play North and South on the Amiga. I had no idea it was based on a comic! 
I have a question (especially for @tasse-tee, @Sushi @ZakPhoenixMcKracken who played a prototype of the game), but for others too…
I think I’ll add a “story mode” for those who don’t like puzzles and are just interested in the story (which amounts, in my case, to a sequence of silly one-liners 
, but it still has a value independently of the puzzles I think…)
For this story mode, the idea is that you walk around and the protagonist solves puzzles automatically, when you click. The question is: when you click where exactly? I have 3 ideas:
have a single button “do something”. When you click that button, the protagonist solves a puzzle, IF you are in a room where you can do something. (e.g. you see the sentence composed automatically, as if you had composed it: IN ORDER TO take kate’s belongings, ACT UPON the wanted poster SO THAT [kate] [ends up in jail].) If you aren’t in a room where you can solve a puzzle, the protagonist says “there’s nothing I can do here”.
have a single button “do something”. When you click that button, the protagonist solves a puzzle, WHETHER OR NOT you are in a room where you can do something. If you aren’t , the protagonist moves to a room where you can do something and solves a puzzle.
keep the toplevel objective buttons, as they are now. I.e., have one clickable button for each open objective. So you still need to click an objective. But then the rest of the solution is composed automatically by the protagonist. That is: IF you are in a room where you can solve THAT objective, the protagonist composes the action automatically. For example, if you are in the room where the “wanted poster” is, and you click the objective “take kate’s belongings”, the protagonist automatically composes “ACT UPON the wanted poster SO THAT [kate] [ends up in jail]”).
Instinctively I would like solution (3) the most, as it still requires some thought from the user. But: A) it’s not a true “story” mode, for that reason. B) someone who really wanted only the story could end up clicking everything blindly in all the rooms, and this would end up in a repetitive , trial and error gameplay, which could be annoying.
Thoughts?
to complete the question, let me show you how the current UI looks:
(some objectives are untranslated)
Seems harder to implement, but more logical than the first. Walking around randomly to figure out where “do something” works sounds like zooming in on what can be one of the very worst aspect of adventure games.
Anyway, the third option sounds better to me. In principle it shares share some of my criticism of the first proposal, with the difference that the first sounds like it makes brute-forcing into a full-fledged gameplay mechanic while the third just leaves it there as a possibility.
Ok, so let’s rule out #1.
#2 and #3 remain.
I agree, #3 seems like a legit and interesting mechanichs…
what if I implement both 2 and 3? so you need to choose between 3 modes… the problem is how to explain the difference to the user… it is easy to ask to choose between “puzzle mode” and “storymode - no puzzles”. But asking to choose between 3 modes (two of which are similar) is complicated…
I think the solution is to be clear about what kind of user we are targeting. We are targeting the user that does not like puzzles. So I think I only need to implement #2.
#3 is not needed: if you do like puzzles, #3 adds nothing for you… it just spoils puzzles and makes the solution semi-automatic…
The #1 it’s too easy and maybe could lead the player to be bored.
#3 it’s just like the normal adventure, but with a little helper.
I think solution #2 would be better for those who wants to read a story, by doing something to advance.
Thanks , I’ve already implemented it. It’s #2 with a small variation: you click the puzzle you want to solve on the right (in the “things to do” section"). Then the protagonist executes the correct action automatically. If the room is the wrong one, she moves to that room and performs the action. If she can’t solve the puzzle right now (for example because she doesn’t have a piece of information, or an object) she says so. I will call this “story mode”.
All three look a bit convoluted to me.
I’d say people who want only the story, should watch a “let’s play” video.
Oh and please change that example into one from Thimbleweed park. @tasse-tee hasn’t solved that puzzle yet… spoilers!!
I’ve blurred it for now… but how is that possible, Tasseee? 
Actually, I already completed that puzzle. Not only that, but I skimmed over your post and subconsciously accepted that there was a character called Kate in your own game, whose belongings you need to take. 
Good, good. Now we’re talking
Not sure, because in story mode you still get to move around and interact and choose the order in which you do things, solve puzzles, talk to people and see what they have to say about a particular situation… That is, suppose they want an interactive story… the let’s play is not the same.
True, it’s not the same. Still, I was sufficiently satisfied by using let’s plays to get the rest of the Alan Wake story once I got bored with the gameplay.
Here’s a dialog I wrote yesterday (Italian version follows ):
OLIVIA: Mr. Van Helsing! We defeated Dracula, you know that?
VAN HELSING: What are you talking about, waitress? I was the one supposed to defeat him! This is not serious behavior! You are not serious people! What did I come for, then, in this town?
CAMILLA: Sorry, Mr. Van Helsing, but you looked so busy getting massages that…
VAN HELSING: What do I care of getting massages from these trollops! You are not serious people! This is not a serious town!
VAN HELSING’S FEMALE ADMIRERS: You don’t want our massages anymore, Mr. Van Helsing?
VAN HELSING: What do you want from me you trollops? Who the hell are you anyway? Enough, I’m going to a more serious country! Waitress, bring me my jacket!
OLIVIA: Here it is, Mr. Van Helsing! It’s still a little bit poopy! Sorry about that!
Van Helsing leaves. You see him disappear on horseback, towards the sunset, his jacket still a little bit poopy.
CAMILLA: He didn’t take it too well!
To @tasse-tee and anybody who is mother tongue: is “trollop” understandable? Is it funny? would you replace with “slut”, “bitch” or something else? Would you rephrase anything? Thank you
Italian version:
OLIVIA: Signor Van Helsing! Abbiamo sconfitto Dracula, lo sa?
VAN HELSING: Ma che dice, cameriera? Dovevo sconfiggerlo io! Questo non è un comportamento serio! Voi non siete persone serie! Che ci sono venuto a fare, allora, in questa città?
CAMILLA: Ci scusi, signor Van Helsing, ma Lei sembrava così impegnato coi suoi massaggi che…
VAN HELSING: Ma che me ne importa a me dei massaggi di queste baldracche! Voi non siete persone serie! Questa non è una città di gente seria!
AMMIRATRICI DI VAN HELSING: Non li vuole più i nostri massaggi, signor Van Helsing?
VAN HELSING: Ma che volete, baldracche? Chi vi conosce? Basta, me ne vado in un paese più serio! Cameriera, mi dia la giacca!
OLIVIA: Eccola, signor Van Helsing! È ancora un po’ sporca di cacca! Ci scusi!
Van Helsing se ne va. Lo vedete sparire a cavallo, verso l’orizzonte, con la giacca un po’ sporca di cacca.
CAMILLA: Non l’ha presa benissimo!
You could replace one of the trollops by something like floozies or Jezebels for some more variety?
Hmm., no, I think if I replace I need to replace both… Van Helsing’s insistence on a specific term is part of the neurotic character
I never heard the word floozie… and I can’t judge how Jezebel sounds… hmm…
