Parser Vs PnC - Possibly the primary question for us old assholes. I'm a parser fan because of the freedom of exploration. I also understand, particularly after coming up with a demo in the format, how reliant the experience is on the understanding of syntax and basic words/synonyms. It's something of an early AI, and very limited by memory when not by care. I always enjoyed parser, though, that ability to look at or try anything. I remember reading the KQ Companion and how the skull in KQ3 was a rudimentary computer. Goofy? Sure. As a kid, I recall wondering why I didn't look at that thing closer. Parser doesn't widen the world, really; PnC can do all the same, but it always seemed to me when I was younger that the world was limitless. You could type ANYTHING and maybe get a response. I enjoyed PnC as well, but was initially disappointed when Sierra went the PnC route. Of course, that wasn't the biggest issue with their first game in that direction, though many of them weren't initially introduced by the change, either:
I would argue that this "freedom" is mostly an illusion. A parser or a P&C interface is only as complete as the designer makes it. There are a LOT of parser games that simply fall back on genaric responses. "I don't know what a *** is", "I don't know how to ***", "How can you do that?", etc.
The floppy version of Freddy has responses for much of what might catch your eye. There were so many hotspots with game responses that much of the more extraneous content had to be cut for the MPC version.
You touched on it, but I do not think that it can be over emphsized that a designer must include *every* synonym or variant a key object or action. Having to play 20 question with the designer of "what word am I thinking of now?" is immersion breaking. I will note that SCI0 does have enough of the rudiments of a P&C interface that you can right click on an object and the game will apply the "look" action on that object. The game's response can give its name of the object.
A parser or a P&C interface is only as good as the game's design allows. Which is better is completely subjective.
Dead Ends - These kind of suck
Josh Mandel once said that there are two kinds of dead ends; unintentional ones (AKA bad design) and those that are part of the game design. In KQ6 if you do not have all of the inventory items needed to complete the catacombs and try to enter them you are told that you are not ready. In KQ5 if you eat the pie you will not be able to pass the yeti. There is no reason to eat the pie. This is not to defend this silly "puzzle", but it is an example of dead end by design. I don't mind the designed dead ends, but see it as poor design if the game lets you advance too far after your illfated decision. It should be apparent before you have too much game play invested beyond.
Deaths
Depending on the death I do not mind them, in fact they can be fun and/or humorous. What I do not like are the tedious ones, like stairs in so many of the AGI games.
FMV
Perhaps a technology too much ahead of its time. Maybe it never will be time for it. The intent may be better met by photo realistic 3-D. The games from the FMV era were too low rez and disjointed with clumsy idle animations.
Bad/Impossible Puzzles
The less said about adventure game moon logic the better.
Basic Storytelling
Duh. A good narrative is fundamental to a good adventure game. Otherwise it is little more than a poor excuse from which to hang a few puzzles.
Surface exploration
This touches on the first point of parser vs P&C. Again, the floppy version of Freddy was particularly rich in hotspots. I would say that the ability to explore the game's world is not quite, but nearly as important as the narrative.
Show Posts
