I've played a few adventure games in my life, but I don't think I've ever beaten one without resorting to a walkthrough at least once. Sure, there are times when I felt justified ( "That's what I was
trying to do and it wouldn't work!"), but I almost always felt bad about it.
Over the past week, I decided to change this statistic by posing a little challenge for myself. I bought and played through
Riven, absolutely refusing to look at any kind of hint. As a result, it was one of the most satisfying games I've ever played. However, I wouldn't have stuck with it if I didn't have confidence in the design--I knew from reviews that the game was free from glitches, pixel-hunts, or ways to lock yourself into an unwinnable situation. If I was stuck on a puzzle, it was because I had missed something or hadn't understood the clues.
A lot of games don't instill that sense of confidence. So, the use of walkthroughs can come down a design issue. Although it's hard to precisely peg what's "unreasonable" (or just plain tedious) in terms of design, most people can think of examples that definitely fall into "practically an Easter Egg" territory. Also:
...for big enough games, I'll spend the second playthrough with my laptop on my knee, looking up items, characters and places of interest in a dedicated wiki. Fallout's is excellent. |
This. Although I like to stay spoiler-free the first time around (I can't really "explore" and enjoy stumbling upon new things if I know what's coming, can I?), I think it's clear that games like
Fallout 3 or
Grand Theft Auto aren't expected to be 100% completed by any individual player. I usually don't replay them, though--I just like reading about some of the neat stuff there is to see.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
85242
35212
Worm