Parser interface has its pluses, but also its cons. Sometimes there's trying to type fast enough to not die because you're on a quicktime clock (Labion Terror Beast in SQ2 was this for my younger self!), or you're trying to figure what the hell specific question or action you need to type in a way that's as bad as pixel hunting.
I'm starting to think you IA guys just don't like "new" things. :P
Actually, if you dislike P&C vs. parser so much, then why are the IA games P&C?
Actually I still think KQV (game that introduced the P&C) is the most brilliant Sierra game.
But comparing certain Parser vs P&C, the P&C games will never capture the magic of the earlier games. A good example of this is KQ3, where I consider that its parser has a charm that no remake will ever duplicate.
We could look at this on a case by case scenario, but for the most part we almost all know.. that moving to P&C was a move designed to dumb-down the games and make them more available to wider audiences.
Sometimes I'd agree with the term dumbed down, but in this case, I don't. "More accessible" really is the term for it. After all, did P&C mean the games got easier or were more poorly-designed? Did it mean the peak of all games ever--or even all adventure games ever--was in the parser era? Not at all! Some are worse, sure, but most are better. The industry has grown and changed, and part of that means developing interfaces that are accessible and intuitive.
Are old cellphones better because they aren't smart phones? No! Phones are largely judged on how user-friendly the interface is; likewise, P&C is more user-friendly than the parser interface.
And I can only imagine that parser interfaces were more complicated to program as well.
Sometimes I think a lot of people here just don't like older games.
I rarely recall a time in a parser game where you have to type super quickly to save your life. Unless you've waited too long, which would be your own fault. In the case of SQ2, you can type "blow whistle" to summon the beast, walk back into the water so he can't get you, type "throw cubix rube", walk out of the water, press 'enter'. In SQ3 when you're on the conveyor belt you can just lower the game speed. But all you need to type is "stand" and "jump". And the parser window opens up and pauses the game anyway.
There are workarounds for everything, you just need the patience to sit down with it and try instead of dismissing it outright as a "con". To be fair, though, a lot of people do the same thing against P&C games. But does "easier" mean "better"? Many don't think so.
I'm not a P&C-hater, nor a parser activist, but P&C really did dumb down the genre. Absolutely. No question about it. You just can't have as many interactions as you can with a parser. That's a fact. A subtraction = less. Less = dumbing down. I still love them and wouldn't want them to change, however, because that's their nostalgic value. I would've really loved to try out Scott's original plan for a parser SQ4, though.
And actually, a parser is just as easy to program as P&C. It just takes longer to think up and add responses to more interactions whereas P&C has a set number of interactions. It was exactly the same process, though, according to Brian Provinciano when he was still working on SCI Studio VGA.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 23, 2011, 08:21:36 AM
Sometimes I'd agree with the term dumbed down, but in this case, I don't. "More accessible" really is the term for it. After all, did P&C mean the games got easier or were more poorly-designed? Did it mean the peak of all games ever--or even all adventure games ever--was in the parser era? Not at all! Some are worse, sure, but most are better. The industry has grown and changed, and part of that means developing interfaces that are accessible and intuitive.
"More accessible" = "pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence"
Any system that allows the player to simply click on a hotspot to "see what happens" is absolutely by definition more dumbed down than a system that requires the player to use logic and reason to figure out exactly what he wants to do with a particular hotspot, and then type in that command.
The absolute worst part about P & C is the fact that it was essentially the "gateway drug" that led to the further dumbing down of adventure gaming as a whole (and ultimately, to the demise of the genre in the late 90s.) It was the P & C interface that led people to start dismissing graphic adventures as "games that play themselves."
If Sierra's original P & C interface is marijuana, KQ7's interface is coke, and Telltale's BttF is grain heroin.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 23, 2011, 09:31:29 AM
Quote from: KatieHal on September 23, 2011, 08:21:36 AM
Sometimes I'd agree with the term dumbed down, but in this case, I don't. "More accessible" really is the term for it. After all, did P&C mean the games got easier or were more poorly-designed? Did it mean the peak of all games ever--or even all adventure games ever--was in the parser era? Not at all! Some are worse, sure, but most are better. The industry has grown and changed, and part of that means developing interfaces that are accessible and intuitive.
"More accessible" = "pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence"
Any system that allows the player to simply click on a hotspot to "see what happens" is absolutely by definition more dumbed down than a system that requires the player to use logic and reason to figure out exactly what he wants to do with a particular hotspot, and then type in that command.
The absolute worst part about P & C is the fact that it was essentially the "gateway drug" that led to the further dumbing down of adventure gaming as a whole (and ultimately, to the demise of the genre in the late 90s.) It was the P & C interface that led people to start dismissing graphic adventures as "games that play themselves."
If Sierra's original P & C interface is marijuana, KQ7's interface is coke, and Telltale's BttF is grain heroin.
I don't think point and click gaming is what killed the adventure genre...More like adventure games had a small fanbase in comparison to the fanbase which action, FPS and RPG games had. The adventure game genre never really shrank, it's just proportionally much smaller than other genre fandoms. A good quality adventure game is also costly, at least if you want to compete with other modern games. I read somewhere that a factor in the demise of adventure games was that action games and the like were simply cheaper to producer than an adventure game, and garnered a larger return.
I mean consider Myst...Myst was a P&C adventure game and yet became the biggest selling game of all time before The Sims.
Actually, our Space Quest 2 started out having both parser and P&C interfaces. It just became too time consuming to do the parser, though we REALLY REALLY wanted it. I loved parser games. I taught me how to type fast and spell correctly!
Point and Click does make the game easier for people to play, but I must agree that it panders to the lowest common denominator. The Colonel's Bequest typing system was VERY immersive and interactive, because you had to think of what questions to ask. You really had to use your brain, not just pick a choice from a list. The game made me think.
Bt
Quote from: Lambonius on September 23, 2011, 09:31:29 AM
"More accessible" = "pandering to the lowest common denominator of intelligence"
Any system that allows the player to simply click on a hotspot to "see what happens" is absolutely by definition more dumbed down than a system that requires the player to use logic and reason to figure out exactly what he wants to do with a particular hotspot, and then type in that command.
The absolute worst part about P & C is the fact that it was essentially the "gateway drug" that led to the further dumbing down of adventure gaming as a whole (and ultimately, to the demise of the genre in the late 90s.) It was the P & C interface that led people to start dismissing graphic adventures as "games that play themselves."
If Sierra's original P & C interface is marijuana, KQ7's interface is coke, and Telltale's BttF is grain heroin.
::)
Warning: this is a wall of text! Some phrases are in bold to aid in skimming. I'm not shouting at you when I write in bold: I'm trying to make this massive, massive post less of a pain to avoid TLDRs.
QuoteYou just can't have as many interactions as you can with a parser. That's a fact. A subtraction = less. Less = dumbing down.
I disagree. An interface is, by definition, the system which sits between the player and the game, and which translates the commands of the player into a form the game can deal with.
Parser interfaces and P&C simply do this in different ways. Yes, you have more verbs available with a parser so the player can do absolutely anything, but P&C is pretty damn close.
The Sierra P&C interface used in games like KQ5 and 6 covers almost any action you could possibly conceive of (you're not going to lick a tambourine or smell an amulet), and the fact that they have been remade as P&C games with very little loss of player control and game cohesion suggests that there is in fact little to differentiate the two interface types on the grounds of what the player can and can't do with them.
There are a few exceptions, of course. In KQ3, for example, hiding stuff under the bed was fairly easy using "hide all", which would be difficult to replicate with the basic Sierra P&C interface - but use of a window and buttons can fill that particular gap well. There are also some times when odd verbs are needed which are seldom used elsewhere; in one parser-interface game I played, for example, the wounded and dying main character has to allow himself to die by typing "die". A P&C wouldn't be able to replicate the elegance of that solution, but it could come fairly close by having, say, an item in the inventory like a razor or something which the player could use on the avatar to signify that he wants to kill himself. Bear in mind, too, that this is a unique example: I cannot think of another comparable situation where such a specific and unusual verb was the solution to a puzzle. And
if such verbs are common in a P&C then you can always add them to the bar at the top: Gemini Rue has a "kick" verb, and I played another P&C which has a "think" verb.
QuoteAny system that allows the player to simply click on a hotspot to "see what happens" is absolutely by definition more dumbed down than a system that requires the player to use logic and reason to figure out exactly what he wants to do with a particular hotspot, and then type in that command.
I totally disagree with this. As far as I understand it, you have two gripes here: 1)
Hotspots which light up or show text when you mouse over them and 2)
An apparently more limited repertoire of verbs.Dealing with 1), when I'm playing an adventure game I want to know what's in each screen and what I can do with it.
Hotspots allow me to study the screen with the mouse and pick up this information relatively quickly. Bear in mind,
there is still a fair bit of cognition going on here: I have to look at the screen and get a rough idea of what everything is so I can mouse over promising areas, then I have to thoroughly apply the mouse to the screen so I know I've not missed anything (similar to looking at the screen, in fact, but just with more immediate feedback) and then I have to work out precisely what it is that the hotspot text describes. Yes, this is a much faster process than that of studying the screen with one's eyes and looking at everything in great detail, but it allows the game to give the player more information faster, and allows the player to understand the logic of the screen much more quickly than he would otherwise.
Furthermore, if the player misses a vital object then the game could become incredibly frustrating; hotspots lessen this chance since the player should pick up on the object if they mouse over it, although they do not guarantee that this will be the case: for the player to mouse over it in the first place they would have to be paying adequate attention.
I cannot understand why hotspots are a bad thing. Let me give you an example: I first got Gabriel Knight 1 a few years ago. In the first screen I was totally overwhelmed by all the objects in the room. The first screen is chock full of clutter and it took me a good ten minutes to laboriously click on every single thing which might be of import. Finally, I was done, and was convinced that I hadn't missed anything. I had beaten the game in a small way! Hoorah.
I moved on to the next room.
It was filled with even MORE clutter. Unwilling to go through all that again, I despairingly quit. I didn't pick up the game for another TWO YEARS because I had been so overwhelmed by those two hotspotless rooms.
Once I did finally get stuck into the game, I learned that the lack of hotspots caused more problems further down the line, leading to pixel-hunts. The problem was,
I would get stuck and couldn't be sure whether I was stuck because I had missed an item, or whether I was stuck because I was too stupid to solve a puzzle. This happened a number of times, and would have been alleviated somewhat by hotspots. What I loved about that game was the story, the intelligent puzzles and the characters.
I did not love the pixel hunts and I did not appreciate being frustrated, and I cannot see why anyone else would think differently.
In answer to 2), ie. the idea the player can 'simply click on a hotspot to "see what happens"',
adventure games are naturally explorative in nature. Every game consists of an exploratory phase, when the player is just poking everything on screen to see what it does, followed by a puzzling phase where the player tries to use the knowledge gained by exploring to solve puzzles, which normally opens up a new exploratory phase.
The fact that players can simply click on a hotspot to find out what the object does is not very different from using a verb on the object: the player's aim is to investigate the object, and whether he does so by clicking on it or typing "examine [object]" is irrelevant.
Once the player has clicked or looked at everything then the puzzling can begin, and this is where some P&C games fall down: clicking on the object should ideally present the player with information that he can use, but should not (on its own) solve the puzzle.
The player should be presented with an interface which is flexible enough that clicking is not enough: he must click the right things in the right order, and to work out which things must be operated in which order
he must understand the principle of the puzzle. This is no different in a P&C or parser interface: the interface is simply a way for the player to tell the game that he has solved the puzzle.
The real puzzle is not in the game but in the player's head.It seems to me that if a P&C does not fulfil these criterion then it is, as you say, dumbed down. If the player sees an object and clicks on it to investigate it, only to learn that they have accidentally solved a puzzle, the interface has failed since it's taken a leap of logic.
But I find that
most puzzles can be reworked so that they are suited to a P&C interface. As an example, let me describe a puzzle in Tales of Monkey Island.
Guybrush is strapped to a chair in a doctor's office and must escape. He can't move his hands but he can rotate the chair to point at different things, and can raise and lower it to reach different objects. He has access to two pedals which can be pressed; one causes a banana to fall from a ceiling-dispenser onto a desk, and the other zaps a monkey which has a weird electrical hat. There is also a slide projector on the desk, and Guybrush can ring a bell to make the monkey change the slide. Using all of these puzzle ingredients, the player must make the monkey retrieve a key which is hanging nearby.
The exploratory phase consists of the player pressing everything and just seeing what happens. Once the player has an idea of what each object does, he can start trying to combine them: "What if I change the slide so *this* is shown, which makes the monkey go over *there*, and then zap it which should make it do *this*, then recall it with a banana..."
The puzzle is involved, complex, demanding overall but manageable in small steps, and fresh in that nothing quite like it has been done before (as far as I know). And this was all done within a P&C interface which has only one verb. By carefully managing how much is revealed and what actions are done with each click, though, the developers were able to construct a puzzle which was challenging, logical and in no way played itself.
In my view,
an interface is only as good as what can be done with it. If badly managed, P&C could be a disaster, amounting to little more than a slightly interactive movie. But if done well, P&C can combine ease of use with truly difficult puzzles.
I want my adventure games to have their challenge in the puzzles, where my brain can tackle them fairly and satisfyingly, and not in the interface and setting, which both contain information which I feel ought to be given to the player as a matter of course, rather than fought for against the game.
My main gripe with parsers is having to type commands in very specific ways to make it understand what you are trying to do. The need for fast typing was addressed by pausing the game when you started typing. If they could make a smarter parser, I think that would be great. The other issue (with both parser and P&C) is that there are a limited number of possible actions. I don't suppose much can be done about that, but it would be nice if "creative" solutions worked. :P
I personally wish the P&C system of SQ4 had been incorporated into KQ5 and 6. It might be odd to want to "smell" or "taste" a gauntlet, but it still offers more interactivity to allow one to do so. For example, imagine being able to "smell" the flowers in the garden on the Isle of Wonder, or being able to click "taste" on a zombie in the land of the dead, just for fun. Imagine being able to "smell" the flower of Stench.
I do think that the Parser system was a lot more inteactive. I love the P&C interface of KQ5-8 but I also love the SCI Parser of KQ4 and KQ1SCI.
darthkiwi, excellent post! :thumbsup:
I'm going to start out by being an ass and saying that ultimately, the point of your wall-of-text post seems (to me) to really be just an attempt to justify (in needlessly complex detail) your desire not to have to do any actual work, aside from moving a mouse, clicking a button, and thinking through an already limited range of options, to solve puzzles in an adventure game. Just calling it as I see it. ;)
In all seriousness though, while I agree that certainly Sierra's original multi-icon P&C interface still allows for complex puzzle solutions and critical thinking, it simply does not require the precision in thinking that a parser interface does. Many see this as an improvement in "accessibility." I see it as a limitation.
My main problem is that the P&C system breaks the immersion in the game so much more than in a parser game.
In a parser game, you are much more figuratively inside the character's head--every action you type has to be specific--you have to know what you want to do before you phrase things. And even in the exploratory phase, you are specifically telling your character to "look around" to get a description of the room and relevant items in it--and you can look over, under, inside things; if the parser interface is really well-programmed, you should get a unique response every time.
And yes, P&C really does dumb down the game. Consider this--many people actually learned to type, read, and spell playing parser games. What does P&C teach you? Well, to point at things, and maybe grunt if you want something done for you. ;)
I also absolutely believe it was the dumbing down of the genre (via a gradual simplification of interfaces) that eventually led to its death. People don't want to play games that play themselves. BttF sucked moosecock because it played itself. KQ7 sucked moosecock for the same reason (among others), though perhaps a slightly smaller and less hairy moosecock.
Quote from: Lambonius on September 23, 2011, 01:46:08 PM
I'm going to start out by being an ass and saying that ultimately, the point of your wall-of-text post seems (to me) to really be just an attempt to justify (in needlessly complex detail) your desire not to have to do any actual work, aside from moving a mouse, clicking a button, and thinking through an already limited range of options, to solve puzzles in an adventure game. Just calling it as I see it. ;)
In all seriousness though, while I agree that certainly Sierra's original multi-icon P&C interface still allows for complex puzzle solutions and critical thinking, it simply does not require the precision in thinking that a parser interface does. Many see this as an improvement in "accessibility." I see it as a limitation.
My main problem is that the P&C system breaks the immersion in the game so much more than in a parser game.
In a parser game, you are much more figuratively inside the character's head--every action you type has to be specific--you have to know what you want to do before you phrase things. And even in the exploratory phase, you are specifically telling your character to "look around" to get a description of the room and relevant items in it--and you can look over, under, inside things; if the parser interface is really well-programmed, you should get a unique response every time.
And yes, P&C really does dumb down the game. Consider this--many people actually learned to type, read, and spell playing parser games. What does P&C teach you? Well, to point at things, and maybe grunt if you want something done for you. ;)
I also absolutely believe it was the dumbing down of the genre (via a gradual simplification of interfaces) that eventually led to its death. People don't want to play games that play themselves. BttF sucked moosecock because it played itself. KQ7 sucked moosecock for the same reason (among others), though perhaps a slightly smaller and less hairy moosecock.
I learned how to read largely due to the early KQ games. True story. I mean I already knew how to read--but it greatly enhanced it. Even KQ5--I remember playing the game with my dad sometime in 1995/1996 and we played the scene where the toymaker mentions "Kinder" and I hooked onto that right away as, at the time, I was in Kindergarten.
I just think that dumbing the genre down wasn't the problem. The problem was that the people who bought games became dumber.
(Posted on: September 23, 2011, 04:17:25 PM)
This was Roberta's take on why KQ/the adventure genre "declined". I tend to agree:
"Back when I got started, which sounds like ancient history, back then the demographics of people who were into computer games, was totally different, in my opinion, then they are today. Back then, computers were more expensive, which made them more exclusive to people who were maybe at a certain income level, or education level. So the people that played computer games 15 years ago were that type of person. They probably didn't watch television as much, and the instant gratification era hadn't quite grown the way it has lately. I think in the last 5 or 6 years, the demographics have really changed, now this is my opinion, because computers are less expensive so more people can afford them. More "average" people now feel they should own one."
I'd say that I learned english partly to parser interface. However, that is not the point of a game like this.
I find that the main reason why hotspots are a good thing is because neither the parser interface, nor the regular P&C interface are what they should be and never will be. For what you are defending here lamb, the parser interface should allow you to do EVERYTHING that you can think of --grab any item, tell any NPC what's on your mind, set whatever house on fire if you wish, etc. But because the game is limited by a set of information the designers put in, and you have to THINK like the designers, and not as a free creature in a free world, then the hotspot interface is a way to allow you to know what exactly is on the mind of the designers.
Puzzles should stand for themselves regardless of an interface. A hotspot system allows the player to know what the designer wants you to interact with, but it should never make the game simpler or easier. It simply discards what in games without them would result in a general narration, or a "you can't pick this up". Which, in all honesty, happens a lot in both parser and P&C interface. The fact that you cannot click on a bird to say something, that in the parser interface you couldn't really interact with either, doesn't mean the game is more difficult, it just gives you a window into the mind of the designer, and minimizes the frustration that you could experience when "You'd LIKE to do this, but you can't because we didn't code anything for it". I don't see in any way how this makes a game easier.
BttF may play itself and be extremely easy, but that doesn't have anything to do with the actual interface. The designers made an obvious choice to make it less of an adventure game and more of an interactive movie/casual game.
Now, all that said, there are things that the parser/P&C interface offer that a system like Telltale's doesn't, but that has nothing to do with hotspots. They offer a certain depth, whether instead of just clicking on this, you can either push it or pull it, or manipulate it. That sort of system could still be implemented in a hotspot driven game.
Take a look at LucasArts games. They were all hotspots games, from the very beginning. They had a depth to them that allowed you to have multiple verbs that you could use in correlation with the hotspots, but again, they didn't let you mess with stuff that they didn't code anything for --which would be extremely awesome to do, but let's be honest, it's just impossible. You are a developer, and you know it is impossible.
So I would say that hotspots is an awesome system as long as you keep depth to it. We recently experimented with a system that we are very happy with, includes hotspots, but keeps the depth, and we hope we'll be using it for future games.
PS: The one very great valid point, I think is BT's choice of dialog. Yes, it's true that when given the choice of dialog topics, you don't have to think what to ask people about, but then again, the problem with the other, is that you cannot really ask about anything you want, in the way you want it either.
IA remakes our games into P&C because it's easier in Adventure Game Studio. I enjoy the P&C games, but I stand by my comments. They're dumbed down and a lot easier than a parser game. Katies comments about SQ2 is interesting and always was a issue, but Sierra innovated like they did all the time, and created a parser which stopped the game as you typed.
I could go on with a wall of text explaining the in's and out's of why parser is infinitely better, but I'm not that interested. I might be later today, you never know. But I'll say this. Compare "Quest for Glory 1" with the original parser version. Just a mile of difference in the difficulty of the games. You had to think about asking about the brigands to find out information, taking note of the small things people said to further your knowledge. In the remake, you click on a button that says "Ask about Brigands." Even if you've skimmed over that information in your communications with the town folk.
BTW : I was watching the advert on the top of the forums talking about all your TSL products / promotions etc. The one that says "Her Tower", "Her Prison." That tower looks like a giant p****.
SQ2: standing in the water does not save you from the Terror Beast. I definitely found that out the hard way!
I also feel like comparing a P&C remake and it's parser interface is both valid and flawed at the same time--a game created specifically for and with one system seems likely to not do as well when simply ported over and not redesigned for a different one. It would depend on how much went into redesigning vs. porting, I think.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 23, 2011, 07:08:35 PM
SQ2: standing in the water does not save you from the Terror Beast. I definitely found that out the hard way!
You have to actually get back into the water and start swimming. It does work. I've done it. I've just done it.
Quote from: KatieHal on September 23, 2011, 07:08:35 PMI also feel like comparing a P&C remake and it's parser interface is both valid and flawed at the same time--a game created specifically for and with one system seems likely to not do as well when simply ported over and not redesigned for a different one. It would depend on how much went into redesigning vs. porting, I think.
Well, isn't that the point? Changing the interface to something easier limits what's possible to create for the game developer in the first place.
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on September 23, 2011, 07:50:36 PM
Well, isn't that the point? Changing the interface to something easier limits what's possible to create for the game developer in the first place.
It also makes things simple from a production point, too. It was easier in the old days to say that Graham went over there, smelled the flower, and the smell was too strong.
People today would expect to see that happening in an animation as opposed to a piece of text telling it to you. And we all know that making that animation is much more expensive than writing the text for it.
But that's a different conversation altogether, I guess.
I personally prefer the P&C. I've hardly replayed any of the parser games, but I do find myself going back to the 90-93 era all the time. I like to think, but I get frustrated at the game not cooperating, especially when they are "giving me" so many choices of things I'd like to try, and then only 10% of those work for the most part. --Streamline it for me if you want me to solve the puzzle the way you want me to solve it!
Quote from: Cez on September 23, 2011, 08:05:00 PM
It also makes things simple from a production point, too. It was easier in the old days to say that Graham went over there, smelled the flower, and the smell was too strong.
People today would expect to see that happening in an animation as opposed to a piece of text telling it to you. And we all know that making that animation is much more expensive than writing the text for it.
That's not really an issue that's unique to parsers though. That's more an issue of what people expect today in terms of production values vs. what they did 20 years ago. Many little actions in the P&C games were also just told to you via narration rather than physically acted out. The switch to P&C didn't change that--but it did change your ABILITY to perform such actions. :)
Klytos' example of Hero's Quest vs. QFG1 is an excellent one. An even better example is QFG2 vs. AGDI's QFG2 VGA. AGDI actually realized just how much switching to P&C breaks certain aspects of the game that were only possible via parser--namely the conversation system. Because of this, they wisely opted to give the player a parser option for conversations. Even Al Lowe opted for a parser in LSL7. And awesomely made it the only way to access most of the funniest easter eggs (and most of the nudie parts ;)). QFG2VGA with the P&C dialog system sucks the sweat off my nuts. It completely breaks the pacing and flow of the events of the game, because you have options available to ask about that you shouldn't yet know about. Klytos nailed it with his thoughts on Hero's Quest--you actually had to pay attention and LEARN what to ask about through the dialog clues.
And another thing--the complaint about "having to read the developer's mind" to play a parser game is total bullshit. Non-adventure gamers say the same damn thing about P&C adventure games. The truth is, a GOOD parser game, like any good adventure game, will be intuitive enough that you will know what the developers intended. Hero's Quest is again a great example. Almost every subject or direct object in every sentence of dialog can be asked about and a unique response given. It's such a better game with the parser. The combat is better, too, but that's another story. :)
The conversation has clearly gone away from Laura Bow, so, topic split!
You know, it's not that I like either Parser or Point and Click better than each other. I just think people that don't or won't play a Sierra game that uses parser are doing a major disservice to themselves.
Some amazing, fun and beautiful games were made using the parser. Yes, it may be a little more work to type a lot - but it pays off. I'm just saying don't deny yourself the experience because parser intimidates or frustrates you.
Personally, I think the best system would be a Point, Click and Parser system. The combo of all three would make me explode in my pants.
Bt
The problem is, people who are used to P&C don't want to have to do more work with a parser. All the opportunities it provides over P&C's limitations seem like chores and more work instead so they find no joy in it. And all the limitations of P&C become "more accessible" elements of game design. If one were to give them a chance, however, and get used to it they'd enjoy it at least as much as P&C.
TSL would have been much better with a parser interface. Especially if the player had to match the length and verbal diarrhea of the narrations for each parser input. :suffer:
We thought about it, but we wanted to make sure you'd be able to play it, Lamb. ;D
Hoo, BURN!!
Bt
I just want to be able to type things like:
> assuage personal guilt over unsuccessful attempts to locate kidnapped infant son by asking melancholy prince about suppressed childhood traumas
and
> mentally equate turbulent weather conditions to lifetime of personal struggles with dichotomy of good and evil
Although, I suppose TALK MAN and LOOK TREE would work just as well. ;)
Parser interface was cool growing up. It definitely made you think, albeit sometimes frustrating. As someone else mentioned, KQ3 was a great example of a game that wouldn't have worked without parser. I'm not knocking it. But I think that games as a whole have to evolve, its only natural. I wouldn't want to play the same game over and over again.
Think about it. Atari 2600 had 1 button. Commodore 64 was capable of typing, but almost every game I played was with a simple joystick. Then more parser focus. Then point and click. Then all sorts of motion control devices, and entirely new game concepts period. A lot has changed, and I don't think it's all bad. What would be bad is no innovation. The only gripe I have is that I loved the story focus on space and kings quest. It was great to follow the characters with each release. And who knows? there might be games out now that do the same thing, or at least get close. I'm not a huge game player. Assassins creed did a great job combining elements, though I still was more connected to the old stuff. This could have been partially due to my age and interests at the time.
Bottom line, some like parser some like p and c. At this point, it doesn't matter to me as long as there is a great story to follow. The F.E.A.R. series had an ok story, I just didn't like fear 3. Fear 2 was awesome. Also, Mafia 2 has an awesome story, really great game and you can get it cheap on steam. Another great example of an action game with cool story to follow. Neither of which even have p and c.
Evolution is only natural, and as I posted earlier I think things will come full circle once the new technology stuff like kinekt and ps move become more common place. But as for how long that will be, who knows.
Quote from: Big C from Cauney island on September 26, 2011, 10:52:29 AM
Evolution is only natural, and as I posted earlier I think things will come full circle once the new technology stuff like kinekt and ps move become more common place. But as for how long that will be, who knows.
Off topic, but I really have to say that I think motion control devices like kinect and PS move are a passing fad. Wii has been out for a full generation and they STILL have yet to make a game where motion controls work better than a traditional controller.
All this talk of parser reminded me of a recent Telltale blog that was posted where a guy was talking about working on a pseudo-parser speech system for future games.
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on September 26, 2011, 12:44:06 PM
All this talk of parser reminded me of a recent Telltale blog that was posted where a guy was talking about working on a pseudo-parser speech system for future games.
Nothing would make me happier than to stand in front of a Kinect and shout, "Throw baby!"
As a person who doesn't speak english as mother tongue, I have to say that I feel P&C-games work much better. Even though I have no problem with playing games with a parser, there are just some moments where the language barrier just stops you cold. Got stuck with "call dispatch for warrant" in Police Quest 2 for five years.
Quote from: wilco64256 on September 26, 2011, 04:50:40 PM
Nothing would make me happier than to stand in front of a Kinect and shout, "Throw baby!"
I think Project Rub for the DS makes you say "I love you" to the mike. Luckily Last Window only required me to blow on it, but I'm pretty sure the other folk in the train thought I was just making out with the DS.
Personally, I do prefer parsers. It does give the illusion that you can do more in the game. But I do think it is an illusion, because for a great many things the answer is going to be "You can't do that." The freedom of the parser is only superficial. And while I would agree that the point and click was a bit of a dumbing down, it wasn't fatal. For example, in a game like SQ4, I really can't think of anything that I could have done with the parser that wasn't already thought out by the icon options. I never felt, "Ooh, I wish I could type 'do such and such.'" The point and click interface was designed well enough that I didn't feel I was missing out. And in some cases, like SQ6, the point and click actually seemed more immersive and complex than parser had been in the past. Rooms like the Delta Burkselon lab and the elevator had a huge selection with the point and click icons. The point is that in its execution, point and click can be a complex interface. Think about it, there's only so many things you can do anyway. You can look, touch, smell, and taste. Whether those options are available in icon or parser form, it doesn't change how many actions are doable. Like I said, parser just gives the illusion that you have more to do. I might be able to type "Get freaky with Valanice" in the tower of KQII, but that doesn't it's really an option. I'll just get a "I don't understand freaky" message.
Of course the exact opposite is true when dealing with games with a simplistic interface like KQ7 or MOE. If point and click is technically dumbed down, those games are full on lobotomies. That did affect the gameplay and there was a ton of stuff I would have loved to look at and explore in KQ7 that I just couldn't. Because the KQ7 interface, to borrow a phrase I read somewhere, sucked the sweat off of Lamb's nuts.
Quote from: Damar on September 29, 2011, 08:04:52 PMFor example, in a game like SQ4, I really can't think of anything that I could have done with the parser that wasn't already thought out by the icon options. I never felt, "Ooh, I wish I could type 'do such and such.'"
Yes but you have to remember, that game was designed specifically for the P&C interface. If there were a parser involved (which Scott wanted) there would definitely be many more interactions, ways of doing things, and even more or alternate puzzle designs. Actually the story probably would have been completely different because Ken Williams forcing the P&C interface after promising to leave the decision up to Scott played a part in the many events that forced SQ4 to be so dark.
QuoteWhether those options are available in icon or parser form, it doesn't change how many actions are doable. Like I said, parser just gives the illusion that you have more to do. I might be able to type "Get freaky with Valanice" in the tower of KQII, but that doesn't it's really an option. I'll just get a "I don't understand freaky" message.
I beg to differ here. We aren't just talking about utilizing each of the 5 senses when it comes to interaction. In fact there are many different ways to interact with objects with each of the senses in themselves. Take the hand icon. How do you want to use it with the object? Stroke it to feel its texture? Try to pick it up? Attempt to push or pull it? Jump on it? Kick it? Throw it? There are many ways to "use" an object and that's just for the hand icon. What about talking? Do you want to speak to it? Whistle to it? Blow on it? If a game were designed around that kind of freedom in interactions then a whole new world of puzzle design opportunities (some more complex than simply "use") open up to the designer.
Take this example of a parser interaction puzzle for instance: Picture a rock face on a giant boulder. Looking at it yields no valuable information other than it looks like rock face. "Using" it would not be enough to solve the puzzle ("What do you want to do with it?"). "Pushing" it also doesn't work. Then you decide to "feel" the rock face. Upon doing so you feel the texture of the rock face and sense a depression that was otherwise undetectable to the eye (maybe it was covered in dust or something which just made it blend in). Now you can push on the depression which triggers a button or a latch or something. Now when you "push" the rock face it opens up like a door.
Now take this same puzzle in a P&C designed game: There's a rock face on a giant boulder. Clicking the eye on it yields no information. Clicking the hand icon on it hoping that somehow interacting physically with the object will reveal something gets you a message saying "You run your hand along the rock face-" (my wasn't that helpful! I didn't even have to think of that!) "-and discover a depression hidden under sand." Then when you use it again (or maybe you don't even have to, maybe it just assumes your automatic next action would be to do just that) instead of running your hand across it like before you actually push into the depression and then proceed to push open the rock door.
See the difference? In one instance actual thought is needed to go into the whole process. If you can't think of the correct interaction then you're basically stuck. In the other instance, you don't even need to think. All you need are your powers of observation and the ability to click on anything that you deem interesting and the game works it all out for you. It's like your best friend trying to get you into adventure games and telling you how to do everything, only he's not needed. The game does it for you.
A bit of a stretch? Maybe, but the principle still holds. A parser definitely does require more thought to go into the process. Many P&C defenders would then say "No, it just turns into a game of discovering what exactly the developer wants you to type" and to that I say....uh, YEAH. That's the whole point. Discover how to correctly solve the puzzle the way the designer intended. Sometimes he doesn't think of all the possible ways you could type in the needed interaction (or sometimes it's literally impossible to program some exact phrases people think of, because of the way Sierra's parser systems worked) but they are few and far between and there was plenty of room for improvement in that regard that could have been done, had P&C not taken over.
The fact remains, much more is possible and can require much more actual thought rather than a mild experimental click fest to solve puzzles when you have a parser ready to type in any command necessary. In SQ4's instance, adding tongue and nose icons don't do anything for the game other than give you an excuse to find some funny narrator dialogue because they aren't needed AT ALL in the game (same goes for SQ1VGA). Neither provide any further access of interaction with objects. There's just the hand which is all-encompassing. And the same goes for all the other icons.
QuoteOf course the exact opposite is true when dealing with games with a simplistic interface like KQ7 or MOE. If point and click is technically dumbed down, those games are full on lobotomies. That did affect the gameplay and there was a ton of stuff I would have loved to look at and explore in KQ7 that I just couldn't. Because the KQ7 interface, to borrow a phrase I read somewhere, sucked the sweat off of Lamb's nuts.
Given the example I just gave above, you could say the same for a 4-7 icon interface game when compared to a parser game.
A possible solution would be to just provide more interactions but this proves cumbersome. Take the early LA adventures. Eventually they just dumbed it down from 16 possible interactions to 9 to 5 to 4 to 3 to 1. Why? Because the players would see the entire list of interactions and feel the task is too daunting and too hard. To be fair, a parser in and of itself can be even more daunting to some people but at least it doesn't list a whole long line of interactions that can look even worse.
But there's problems with everything. Take Sierra's general VGA P&C interface. It doesn't really give away too much just by the list of interactions, but it doesn't make it terribly hard either. Just use everything you can and there you go. Inventory items help but that just prolongs it out and makes it a boring click-everything-on-everything-and-eachother fest in some instances. Telltale have removed the option of using inventory items on eachother altogether to remove that problem (except for TMI). Some games (like Return to Zork) offer more interactions than just "use" when right clicking on them, but the very reason that they all get displayed on the screen gives away everything you could possibly do for them. True, this removes the problem of trying to guess what the designer wants you to do with them, but it also makes it that much easier. Which is why I defend the "guess what the developer wants" design aspect for the simple reason that it makes you think. And that's the whole point of an adventure.
Like I said, I like them both, but parsers do have a lot going for them and provide much more freedom for experimentation than P&C does. I think with the way the industry was going (and still is) is that people don't want to experiment and take their time with games anymore. They just want to beat it so they can feel like they accomplished something. And that is a whole different topic altogether.
I do hate the term "Point & Click game", though, which everybody calls adventure games. Makes it sound like a baby's toy. Another thing the interface ruined for adventures.
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on September 29, 2011, 10:37:58 PM
I beg to differ here. We aren't just talking about utilizing each of the 5 senses when it comes to interaction. In fact there are many different ways to interact with objects with each of the senses in themselves. Take the hand icon. How do you want to use it with the object? Stroke it to feel its texture? Try to pick it up? Attempt to push or pull it? Jump on it? Kick it? Throw it? There are many ways to "use" an object and that's just for the hand icon. What about talking? Do you want to speak to it? Whistle to it? Blow on it? If a game were designed around that kind of freedom in interactions then a whole new world of puzzle design opportunities (some more complex than simply "use") open up to the designer.
And then, I might just play scramble :)
I assume you meant Scrabble? ::) I rest my case. Unless you're talking about the 1981 horizontal scrolling shoot-em-up?
No, I really meant scrabble --it was late last night.
Funny, I didn't get a "I don't understand scramble" or "what do you want do with it?"
:)
While the example of the boulder is good, and shows how a parser is more subtle, I don't think the parser was ever used to that extreme. Particularly with the earlier games many verbs would be good enough to accomplish what you wanted. For example, using the boulder with the hidden latch, the ideal command would be "feel boulder" which would reveal it. However it's just as likely, particularly with earlier games that any number of "hand" commands would give the same result. "Feel boulder," "Touch boulder," "Push boulder," even "Climb boulder," or "Kick boulder" could have the same result because the writer of the game doesn't want to code a bunch of different responses and figures any physical act on the boulder is enough to justify a "you find a hidden latch" response. Or as a more specific example, in KQIII, the commands "put hand in hole" and "put head in hole" both yield the same result, namely a rope ladder falling from above. Those are completely different commands with completely different implications (careful exploration versus brazen action) yet they'll result in the same action. And that's what I meant about the illusion of being able to do more. Sure you can type in all those things, but in the end, the variety still gives way to the basic senses, like the icons do. And that's if the game even understands what you want to say. More often than not you get a "I don't understand" message. And that's the issue. A lot of the expansiveness of the parser system that's being discussed just never seemed to exist in that way. Potentially it could have, if it had been expanded instead of abandoned for and icon based point and click interface, but I've never played a game with a completely expansive, ask whatever you want, parser. Anytime you try to play that way, you'll get a myriad of "I don't understand" messages or clusters of commands that will do the exact same thing (whether you meant them to or not.)
Like I said, in the end, I do prefer parsers. That said, I don't think that a well done point and click interface completely dumbs things down and it doesn't make me feel (again, if done well) that I'm missing out by not being able to type in whatever I want.
Yes, I agree P&C doesn't dumb things down incredibly and I do like them, but it does dumb it down nevertheless. And while not all developers like to program in responses for everything you could think of to type, many do. Scott did. As did Josh Mandel. Actually to be fair, Josh's shtick was just writing the funny responses so that's not really from a puzzle design standpoint, but more of the smell/taste icon territory which are useless to solving puzzles.
Either way, good points. The whole point of my post was not necessarily to say that parser is better, but to say that there is more potential in designing a game with a parser than there ever will be with a P&C system.
Personally, I'm fine with Parser- or P&C-based in terfaces. However, parsers were often mated to HORRIBLE graphics, meaning that typing "Look" generically on a screen didn't always give an explanation of singular items. So, in reality, you see a 2 pixel by 2 pixel brown thing on the ground, sans description, and have to type in every noun you can think of. Eventually, you get frustrated and have to read a FAQ. You end up typing everything from "Pick up nut" to "Pick up turd" to no avail. Then, you read, in a FAQ, that it's a walnut and can't believe that the programmers only allow "Walnut", thus excluding the word "Nut"! That's the "Read the Programmers' Minds" crap that's been previously mentioned. Due to the limited graphics available in the early games, we as players paid dearly at times for lack of better screen descriptions and usable nouns in parser vocabulary.
Yeah, but that can be easily solved by typing "look at tree" or even just "look".
Quote from: MusicallyInspired on October 01, 2011, 09:26:58 AM
Yeah, but that can be easily solved by typing "look at tree" or even just "look".
Right. The good parser games would absolutely let you know what noun to use, provided you had first used a general Look command. Hero's Quest was one of the best--especially the conversation system, where almost every major noun in a sentence could be asked about for a unique response. It lost SO much in the conversion dialogue trees, in my opinion.
I really liked what AGDI did with QFG2 - the combined P&C and parser interface was pretty cool.