It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
rtcvb32: Hmm sounds like another possible point&click game.
avatar
my name is sadde catte: Vanishingly unlikely. Point and clicks haven't been a big money genre for over 20 years. It'll be some manner of action adventure like Uncharted or something.
Yet Point&Click games are probably easier to make. They don't need to be 'big' money makers, they just have to have enough of a story and enough sales. Though engine may make a huge difference on that.
Bethesda and CD Projekt are my favorite companies in the industry, so having Bethesda involved in this is awesome. I hope it opens up a path for an Elder Scrolls-esque Star Wars game one day, as that's literally my ideal Star Wars game (that we have yet to receive).
With Machinegames I imagine they're making an Indiana Jones FPS.

I since childhood I've loved all things Indiana Jones, but don't feel anything with that teaser... and TBH not that interested with Bethesda and Machinegames involved. But we'll see...
avatar
kai2: With Machinegames I imagine they're making an Indiana Jones FPS.
I hope not. Why make/play an Indiana Jones game if you're only going to see him in cutscenes?
Post edited January 14, 2021 by teceem
avatar
my name is sadde catte: Vanishingly unlikely. Point and clicks haven't been a big money genre for over 20 years. It'll be some manner of action adventure like Uncharted or something.
avatar
rtcvb32: Yet Point&Click games are probably easier to make. They don't need to be 'big' money makers, they just have to have enough of a story and enough sales. Though engine may make a huge difference on that.
No, it's quite the opposite. Point and clicks are harder and more challenging to make.

For instance, making the game more challenging to play towards the end of the game, in an action game, you only need to have more enemies and make them harder to kill. In an adventure game, you need to have more complex puzzles which require more problem solving skills. Obviously such puzzles are more difficult to develop.

And trying to "just have to have enough of a story" is the worst possible way to create an adventure game. You need to have the best possible story, and then create puzzles that naturally fit in that narrative.

What creates the illusion of adventure games being easier to produce, is that adventure gamers are willing to accept pixel arts graphics and all that as long as the story is engaging and puzzles good. If you try to make a first person shooter with pixel arts, most gamers wouldn't accept it, as that genre is more about graphics than story.
avatar
kai2: With Machinegames I imagine they're making an Indiana Jones FPS.

I since childhood I've loved all things Indiana Jones, but don't feel anything with that teaser... and TBH not that interested with Bethesda and Machinegames involved. But we'll see...
It would be a first and would be really interesting for once to be Indiana Jones instead of looking at his back all along, but realistically I'm afraid this is going to be their answer to/take on Lara Croft.
avatar
my name is sadde catte: Vanishingly unlikely. Point and clicks haven't been a big money genre for over 20 years. It'll be some manner of action adventure like Uncharted or something.
avatar
rtcvb32: Yet Point&Click games are probably easier to make. They don't need to be 'big' money makers, they just have to have enough of a story and enough sales. Though engine may make a huge difference on that.
That's not at all true. Point and click adventures are very "design intensive". Everything in the game is hand crafted for essentially one use. To make a game of any decent length takes quite a lot of work.
By comparison, a lot of action games derive their gameplay from systems so a lot of the work is reusable.
avatar
rtcvb32: Yet Point&Click games are probably easier to make. They don't need to be 'big' money makers, they just have to have enough of a story and enough sales. Though engine may make a huge difference on that.
avatar
PixelBoy: No, it's quite the opposite. Point and clicks are harder and more challenging to make.

For instance, making the game more challenging to play towards the end of the game, in an action game, you only need to have more enemies and make them harder to kill. In an adventure game, you need to have more complex puzzles which require more problem solving skills. Obviously such puzzles are more difficult to develop.

And trying to "just have to have enough of a story" is the worst possible way to create an adventure game. You need to have the best possible story, and then create puzzles that naturally fit in that narrative.

What creates the illusion of adventure games being easier to produce, is that adventure gamers are willing to accept pixel arts graphics and all that as long as the story is engaging and puzzles good. If you try to make a first person shooter with pixel arts, most gamers wouldn't accept it, as that genre is more about graphics than story.
This guy gets it.
Post edited January 14, 2021 by my name is sadde catte
avatar
rtcvb32: Yet Point&Click games are probably easier to make. They don't need to be 'big' money makers, they just have to have enough of a story and enough sales. Though engine may make a huge difference on that.
avatar
PixelBoy: No, it's quite the opposite. Point and clicks are harder and more challenging to make.

For instance, making the game more challenging to play towards the end of the game, in an action game, you only need to have more enemies and make them harder to kill. In an adventure game, you need to have more complex puzzles which require more problem solving skills. Obviously such puzzles are more difficult to develop.
Depends on the type of logic you are using. Most point&click is take the thing and click it on the thing. Where you get the thing and why it was there, and perhaps some minor nuance of what it does to make it solve the puzzle.

Though i was talking more from a technical standpoint, not a narrative one. Watching and listening to my GF play book of unwritten tales was hilarious, it was far more the comedy than the story. Can't say most of the puzzled seemed that hard.

Though the thing i usually get annoyed at is you eventually get to the point where you click everything on everything.

But do puzzles have to keep getting harder? Creative to a degree maybe but not harder. You would want them just challenging enough that they aren't boring you, but not so hard you need a walkthrough. Difficult keys to doors in opposite locations of things just to pad out the time to run into enemies for example is just annoying.

Let's say oh you have to put a staff together and that comes in 6 pieces. Logically the max number of combinations is 720. But the top and bottom are probably pretty obvious so you only really to figure out 4, which is 24 combinations. If you had a picture reference to look at before you could piece it together, although brute forcing won't take too long either.
Post edited January 14, 2021 by rtcvb32
avatar
rtcvb32: Though i was talking more from a technical standpoint, not a narrative one. Watching and listening to my GF play book of unwritten tales was hilarious, it was far more the comedy than the story. Can't say most of the puzzled seemed that hard.
It all depends on the quality of the production.
If you just create one "I can't do that" generic response to everything that isn't the correct answer, that is relatively easy. Some adventure engines, like Visionaire, even offer some nearly automatic ways to do that.

But if you create something like Time, Gentlemen, Please, where almost every attempt to combine any possible items provides a unique response, that's an enormous task.

It's also possible to create very challenging puzzles, if that's needed. Some adventure games have invented languages or calculation systems, so you need to figure out the logic behind them in order to solve the puzzles.

avatar
rtcvb32: But do puzzles have to keep getting harder? Creative to a degree maybe but not harder. You would want them just challenging enough that they aren't boring you, but not so hard you need a walkthrough. Difficult keys to doors in opposite locations of things just to pad out the time to run into enemies for example is just annoying.
Obviously they don't need to. But most games, regardless of genre, become harder when you play them further. It would also be a bit strange if the game has the biggest challenge first, and after that it becomes easier. The story would need to be something very engaging to keep the players motivated.

In adventure games the first puzzles are usually something like using some item that is already in the inventory, then soon after you need to find items to pick up to add to the inventory, then create new items by combining something in the inventory, and so on.

In action games there is usually some kind of boss fights in the end, it would be a bigger surprise if there weren't any.
Post edited January 14, 2021 by PixelBoy
I am interested in what MachineGames will make, but a careful excited.