I didn’t use any hints up until a certain point in the game, which I guess I can’t tell you about yet because spoilers. After that, I started using them whenever I got really stuck. Seguso sometimes gave me a subtle hint, but in my defence I was helping him determine the best design for the puzzles
You did? You lowlife!
I sympathise a lot with the main character(s). I also don’t think it is wise for them to try and get into possible kidnappers houses and stuff.
That’s nothing. Wait until you get in Dracula’s castle…
You’ll have to defeat a few monsters and face some mild blasphemy.
Ha! That’s OK! I am sure father
Willow Wicket Flitwick whatever will forgive me!
I didn’t encounter that… did you add it later?
Yes, it’s in Dracula’s castle, which you almost didn’t see. (it’s the heart of the game so far)
(If you want to try, a couple of clicks and you’re in. You already know how to get in. :))
Today I’ll try to redo the Doug voice… for the fourth time!
Ok, after this design experience I think I have learned something on how to design a good adventure game, and I can share it.
the most important lesson will be controversial: I learned that it’s practically impossible to design good puzzles when you already have a story. Designing good puzzles is incredibly hard even in the absence of any constraint. So if you add the constraints given by a preexisting story, it becomes practically impossible. You may design one good puzzle or two, but the rest will be crap.
So it must be the other way round. The story must be designed after the puzzles. The only thing that can be decided before the puzzles is the setting — which is not the same as the story. An example of setting is: “my game must be in a pirate world” ; "one of the characters will be a witch. ". (the main characters are part of the setting).
To sum up, you need to design the puzzles in the absence of constraints, except those given by the setting. (The setting is something vague, so it will not be a constraint, but rather it will inspire the puzzles.)
The second lesson is that it’s not allowed to put a character in your world only because it is needed for a puzzle. To the contrary, the character must be independently interesting (which in my case means that he must have some associated joke). And of course it must make complete sense for that character to be there.
This second principle creates a problem, because what usually happens is that you created a good puzzle (in the absence of constraints, as I said) but then this puzzle requires a certain character to exist; but you have no reason to justify his existence, or maybe you have a reason but not a gag. So that’s the second challenge, which comes after puzzle design: to create good and interesting characters.
This problem can lead you to redesign a puzzle, so there’s some feedback to the first point. But not too dramatic, in my experience. Mostly you are able to keep these phases separate.
It seems that mixing pineapple with other things gives many unfortunate results…
After watching some of you struggle, I have decided to make the game easier by removing all object combinations. The is no “use with” anymore. Only “use”.
But doesn’t the game play by itself, now? No, because you still have to specify the objective.
And I think the essence of the puzzles is preserved, after all.
Those of you who found the game too frustrating could please try again?
@milanfahrnholz, I hereby declare your honor restored.
His Diggerty, may have I the opportunity to test your game, too?
Again? Too kind! You’ll see many things have changed!
The url is the same. (the one for the Italian version, which I sent you in private message)
About “his diggerty”: my throatache eventually turned into flu! Please wait until I recover!
Wow, I just gave it a gist, there are several changes since the last time I’ve played it.
You had asked for a “look” verb because you had forgotten a clue.
So I added the “remember what is” verb. And you also have a list of all the cutscenes containing clues, and you can rewatch them.
Pleeaaaase bring back the use… with interface! Now you need to walk to other locations to get the item you want to combine (e.g. Using the [/spoiler]dog[spoiler]) ok, you might say it still makes sense because you still need to provide the purpose, but in this case… it really doesn’t make any sense.
It feels like a chopped off leg, but then in puzzle terminology.
cmooon… try to get used to it! moving to another location takes a second in this game. There is instant teleport!
and the fact you have to move is exactly what I wanted. Now, a puzzle can never be solved in the same location where the puzzle is. This forces you to think laterally. It’s a plus.
Yeah, you know what would be much better? Chopped wood.
anyway, there were only 3 “use with” puzzles in the game. You have seen two of them. I don’t know if you’ve seen the third. So, it’s really the same game
The mom will be a great protagonist of the second part… I’ve designed a puzzle where you need to have your mother kick you in the butt (for reasons I cannot say).
“Mom, I’ve made up my mind: I’M NOT GOING TO CHOP THAT WOOD”.