Mostly agree with what you've said in this thread. Game makers should respect their audience and their limited gaming time, especially nowadays when most people have far more games than spare time. There's really no excuse for repetition or tedious, time wasting gameplay elements, unless they serve some specific purpose.

And I never understood that mindset, where people insist that games shouldn't have certain "crutch" features, even if they are fully optional and potentially make the game much more enjoyable for others. It's like it's an insult to their hardcore gamer ego or something.

Whats this going to cost? Looks like a 10-15 dollar game to me, but looking at the kickstarter it looks like they want to charge closer to 30. Time will tell I guess.

Yeah, the Kickstarter price for a digital copy was 20 dollars, so it will be probably more than that. I think I might wait after all. I have a new computer finally and I can play something more modern, so I don't feel like playing more retro pnc straight away! Plus, looking on the grumpygamer twitter made me dislike Ron Gilbert for the first time since 1990.

I am excited about this one! I will keep an eye on it.

Wouldn't that be ironic... considering the (in)famous quote about prices of games from Monkey Island?

It's gonna be pretty close to 30, I am sure. But it'll be worth it. Backed the game on kickstarter and I'm super excited to finally play.

I mean, this is surely cited out of context but he's not wrong.But the fucking point of a video game for me is to get to be lazy and feel entitled :P He should play Night In The Woods for example, a fine example how you don't have to be backwards when producing an adventure game.

This quote was just a joke, they didn't really mean it :-)

But they will have to price the game competitively depending on the market and I don't know if $30 would be realistic (there is nothing wrong with charging the same price as on the Kickstarter or even less, most backers didn't support the project thinking it will be a bargain).
Btw. this also means the (later) mobile ports will have to be even cheaper.
Ron has opinions about game design and wrote articles about it, but he never said or endorses something like "repetition or tedious, time wasting gameplay elements".
The opposite is the case.

He doesn't like this one particular feature, but he also reasoned it (being mostly a game design problem).

Nevertheless he (and Gary + David) are the designers of this game , they can do whatever they like with THEIR game.
You will ALWAYS find people/gamers not liking something about a ("their") game and if you would change this or that then OTHER gamers will moan (that doesn't mean you should listen to people opinions but if group A says X and group B says not-X, well...).

That's why we need good game designers doing actual design decisions and not a game designed by 100,000 gamers which will be most likely just a huge clusterfuck.

Making a design decision is one thing. Being an ass about it and insulting other devs because of their decisions is another. Even if I was 100% on board with his design decisions I would probably think twice before buying the game after reading that response of his. The guy hasn't made an adventure game in ages and now outright insults devs of many great games because they actually implemented a good idea while he was away, and it's only thanks to them that the genre is still around and relevant enough for him do to be making his game. It's a particularly nasty example of that "we used to have to walk 10 miles in a snowstorm" mentality.

Sure, don't buy his games. It's called voting with your wallet and is perfectly fine.

My opinion is that you and the devs your are talking about are just highly sensitive (and if devs cannot handle Ron's comments I hope nothing like a No Man's Sky shit storm happens to them, "gamers" can be much more awful).

(btw. IMHO The Cave counts as an adventure game).
(Will I get banned for linking to Steam in this forum? :-)

If they do charge $30 for the game, they would still be standing by their word. :P


Well, I already said I share Gilbert's opinion about modern players and their laziness, but I understand that someone can be offended by his words.

However, I'd like to focus on the other target of his jab: game devs. I think his main point is: modern game devs are lazy and don't know how to properly design adventure game locations so there's no need to pixel hunt. Therefore, modern adventure games need features like hotspot highlighting in order not to frustrate modern players. Buuut, Gilbert and the rest of the Thimbleweed Park team are so good and they have designed their game so well that there'll be no need for pixel hunting and every object/interactible spot will be obvious.

Yeah, that's still kind of an arrogant statement but we'll have to wait until the game is released before we can judge, won't we? Plus, localization issues notwithstanding(*), I don't remember any eggregious case of pixel hunting in the first two Monkey games. After all, 320x200 pixel resolutions didn't allow for much... :P


(*) Monkey wrench, of course.

Why? What don't you like on his twitter?

I've been looking forward to this one. I'll definitely be snapping it up once it's available for purchase. The Maniac Mansion games are phenomenal. :)

I think there are some people who either unwillingly or by purpose misunderstand Gilbert's point.

First, he is not trying to make games boring, unfairly difficult, or a series of useless trial and error. Gilbert is greatly responsible for adventure games moving away from parser interface to point-and-click, and gameplay moving from avoiding unexpected deaths to safe but mind-challenging exploration.

Admittedly, parsers and deaths have their own merits, and games today probably could use both more, but that's another discussion. The point here is that for the most part, what Gilbert has historically come up with, has put exploring and puzzle-solving in the main focus. I don't think his methods have changed in this area, although it remains to be seen when the game is actually out.

As for critisizing later adventure games, I think it's a fair and valid comment. While one-click multiuse interfaces are user-friendly, they also remove the need to think. If you see a closed door, what to do? With verb icons, you actually have choices, whether you LOOK at the door, whether you try to OPEN the door, does it make a difference if you PUSH or PULL it, or maybe you need to USE some item on it. If all you need to do is move the mouse cursor over a hotspot and click when gears are moving, there's not much room for any kind of thinking.

With such a simplified UI, puzzles would need to be unbelievably good to compensate, but in most games, they are not. It doesn't help that many adventure games these days don't even have so much puzzles, as players are rewarded for brainless Steam achievements "talk with person A", or something like that.

A well designed gameflow doesn't even need any extra help, and that, I believe, is Gilbert's point. The beginning of The Secret of Monkey Island has been used as an example of a great game design, and for a good reason too. "My name is Guybrush Threepwood and I want to be a pirate" introduces the protagonist and game objective in one sentence. Blind watchman's reply about SCUMM bar is a direct hint about what to do next. There's absolutely no need for any hint system there, as it's all integrated within the game, and served with great humor.

With clever game design, puzzles can be challenging even when the solution is the simplest one possible. When Guybrush is underwater, did anyone actually try the real solution first? Haha.

But perhaps those who think that Thimbleweed Park is badly designed and Gilbert is wrong about everything could name some games which have a better design. I don't think there have been any examples of such mentioned yet in this thread, so it's kind of hard to guess which is the ideal game or design that people are refering to.

Thimbleweed Park is being worked on by everyone who was responsible for Maniac Mansion (Ron Gilbert, Gary Winnick & David Fox), as well as having backgrounds by Mark Ferrari (who did the BG for Monkey Island & Loom). Lot of talent behind this game, really looking forward to it.

Well, Ron Gilbert did most of the important conceptual work that shaped the genre for decades, so it's fair imo.

Chip Morningstar only did some of the early nuts and bolts like making a compiler, though his suggestion to make an interpreter was obviously very important to the games release. I'm not sure how well a kickstarter initiated by him would do. Habitat was groundbreaking work but I don't know how well it's remembered outside of the industry nowadays.

David Fox did quite a lot more afaik, though again it was mainly programming related. The interface work he did was pretty important though. I'm sure he pitched in some creative stuff though. You'd have to go through the thimbleweed park podcasts to find out. I think a kickstarter by him could do fairly well as Zak Mckraken is still fondly remembered.