Yes, I like this interface, it’s close to the old one.
1 Like
Yeah, I don’t think there’s a real need to keep the old interface…
As long as the new interface has the same logic of the old one, I agree.
Retain the concept, I wish that even with the new interface, I can compose the sentence: “in order to CHOP THE WOOD you understand that MOM has two right feet”.
3 Likes
Actually I was going to remove the ending phrase “has two right feet”, because that particular puzzle (which is in part2 actually) can also be expressed as “use object1 with object2”… and the new principle is “if a puzzle can be implemented as a combination of two objects, do it”.
But I could give an option to disable object combinations and to use the new system for all puzzles… hm…
1 Like
Because we can 
. Isn’t that more than enough motivation? What happens after comes as an additional bonus.
2 Likes
Fair enough 
That’s the Guga philosophy 
™
But you’ll admit that you haven’t really solved the puzzle if you don’t know what will happen after you combine two objects… if when you do it you are thinking “this kind of makes sense, let’s try and see what happens”, then we can’t say that you’ve solved the puzzle. It’s more similar to brute-forcing.
The horrible truth that is emerging from all this is that , maybe, most adventure players have actually never solved a puzzle in their lives 
They just believe they have. Me, I’m no longer sure I’ve ever solved a puzzle in my life
3 Likes
Hi Man
First of all congratulations on this project.
I found this today, and read the full history of this thread and is a fascinating 1.5 year trip.
I think your ideas are great and this could prove to be the game you dreamed for and more.
Next, a wall of text. Take all this with a grain of salt, being the opinions of a dude on the other part of the world with the best of intentions 
Now, as they say, any project is only as good as the weakest of his parts, and I was looking at all your work on the backgrounds, and they are good, but I think they could be really better, in a way that they could be less generic in style. Do not misunderstand me, I think they work, but I think they convey a weird feeling. I think they sometimes look too close to a “picture with a filter” if you know what i mean. As if they lack personality. And this is maybe related to the process you use to make them, for example, IMO the fist batch you made at the start of the project, the cabin and the forest, these were more expressive, colors look more painted, color palette more reduced, lines were more loose giving them some kind of cartoony style. You know what I mean?
Maybe is the way you treat the color in the images, as if they were exactly the same on the original pictures. I could maybe suggest using the smudge tool in photoshop to merge them a bit?, to make them look less “posterized”. And then, there is a thing in PS too that is called “color look up”, that you could apply to the color layer in order to give the color a distinctive tinting based on presets, that maybe could help to give the palette some personality, maybe you can think of it a as “instagram filters”.
Obviously all this are my opinions. Im an illustrator myself and maybe Im being too carried away by the feeling that this could be really good if that aspect were a little better.
I hope all this help you in some way with your project man. Keep up the good work!
Wow, we have a new entry! I can’t believe someone found this thread! Welcome! 
Well, thanks a lot for your suggestions 
As you can see, I’m not at all an illustrator. I’m just someone who takes photos, traces them in black, repaints them, and applies a watercolor filter. I know they lack personality. From the start I only wanted something that’s good enough. (the game has no animation, just the essential). I’ll have a look those tricks that you suggest. They’re very interesting. But I have so many other things to take care of… music , more cutscenes, UI and mechanics, and the second half of the game. I’ll see what I can do. Thanks again man
Im really happy you didn’t take the suggestions the wrong way haha!
As I said, I think what you did is awesome!
I will be following your progression, its fascinating. And maybe, I dont know, help you with something you need, who knows (Im an animator also )
Cheers!
1 Like
Wow! I hope I’ll get to the point where I need animation 
maybe a “Special edition” 
1 Like
Not necessarily, I find what I described here quite entertaining.
I imagine the solution to the puzzle quite purposefully did something slightly different than what I was going for.
I made a somewhat similar remark in private; iirc @seguso expressed feeling the same way and wanting to do more passes on (parts of) a bunch of them.
I guess you could call it meta-gaming. Often enough it’s a likely combination, even if the outcome is somewhat unpredictable. I think the Kate poster is a good example for that. My main reasoning for putting it up was to cover up Guybrush’s face. I’d never thought she’d turn up and get arrested. But it was funny that she did. That scene wouldn’t have been so funny had I planned that to happen. Satisfying, perhaps, but not funny.
So I think that was an intentional part of the game design, that your actions weren’t always predictable. And I assume your system can do this as well, in very much the same way, by having the actual outcome diverge from the intention. Because, as you know, even the best laid plans …
But yes, overall you are right. A lot of puzzles are probably solved by accident, or by trial and error without a clear idea of what to accomplish. Though often enough it’s obvious what needs to happen, and why, but the how is unclear. Maybe those are the badly designed and illogical puzzles, then .
2 Likes
That might be true for the puzzle, but…
…adventure games are adventure games, not just puzzle games. So it makes perfect sense to do things without a precise reason, and have side effects that you haven’t foreseen. I agree with you if you say that the most satisfying puzzles are the ones you solve knowing well the reason behind your actions, but still: you don’t need Kate to be put into jail, but it’s something that happens and from which you take advantage. It’s an adventure 
3 Likes
something that happens after you put her face on the poster. And why did you do that? I know, with your interpretation ™ you did it just because you are a dick. I can’t disprove that is the correct interpretation.
IN ORDER TO be a dick, ACT UPON wanted poster SO THAT [kate] [ends up in jail]
(edit: it just occurred to me that, even with your interpetation, you still need to understand that Kate is going to end up in jail. So if you act without knowing that, thinking “let’s see what happens”, we can say you haven’t solved the puzzle 
… )
A game cannot expect the player to do things for no reason at all… why not “banana on wanted poster” then? A terribly frustrating game would result from that. So, maybe, we can say that it’s fine if the player arrives at a solution without seeing the correct reason. But a “correct reason” must still exist. (And it’s either that you are a dick or that you have the purpose to have kate jailed.)
Not if there’s a guy in a banana costume, like the pizza costume in TWP. 
1 Like
Well, MM and Zak are kinda like that. There are lots of things you can do that may result in dead ends.
You have to find the balance between making the player explore and making the player advance.
1 Like
that would be great actually
I think you can have a game with few objects where the player is expected to try everything. (like Chuchel)
Or you can have a game with many objects where the player is only expected to try things that make sense, and where there are sufficient clues so that is actually possible to know that your action makes sense before the fact, not only after the fact.
But you can’t have a game with many objects where the player is expected to try everything for no particular reason. ( It’s ok if the game tells you “you are supposed to try everything that results in you being a dick”. But the game can’t tell you “you are supposed to try everything”.)
For Monkey2 , this means that the game should either make it clear that you are supposed to act like a dick, or make it clear that anybody who ends up on that poster gets jailed. Whether Monkey2 did that is up for debate
Well, when you get arrested it’s quite clear that it’s because you’re standing there in front of your wanted poster where somebody drew a mustache making it look like you.
The thing is, even if it made clearer, you had no actual reason to put Kate in jail. It’s not like you know she’ll 1) go on Phatt island eventually, and 2) will have with her some things that are useful for your quest. Or maybe you do and I don’t remember, but let’s suppose we don’t.
Given that you don’t have an actual game progress reason to do so, I think the puzzle is fair because it’s anyway accepted in the “contract” between game and player: you know you’re playing an adventure/puzzle game where you’re expected to combine objects in funny ways (and we’re back to the monkey wrench here, specifically the banana on metronome bit), so you do it, no matter the consequences. And I think it’s fine, again, because it’s not just a puzzle game.
You’d probably try less things if you knew your exploration could kill you, Sierra style. You’d then try way less things unless you have an actual reason to do so. But then, as Ron pointed out in his famous “why adventure games suck”, you’d take the “game” out of “adventure game”. You can’t punish a player for playing.
So to recap, I think you should first establish your contract with the player. You want them to advance only by knowing the reason why some interactions might work. And it’s fine, you designed an interface and your puzzles, make it clear to the player and it’s perfect.
But the goal from most LucasArts’ adventures wasn’t that, and the Kate puzzle fits in that setting.
Moreover, you have the kind of players that buy a game and then write you if you could give them a complete walkthrough, as it happened to me more than once with KY, so be ready 
5 Likes