Tanukitsune Posted February 10, 2011 A little while ago I played So Blonde a very pandering adventure game with a blonde ditz stuck on a tropical island... the game made too many pop culture references and it made no sense... the hero was, well... very stupid, yet she had to solve complex puzzles and her IQ seemed to change when the plot required it to... I know played Kaptain Brawe and guess what? The hero is also dumb! The game has a nice look to it, but it's so budget it doesn't have voiceover and I just can't over the fact that I'm playing as a dumb person doing smart things... It's like playing an FPS with a pacifist character, although that might actually work... I know "dumb" heroes are good for comedic purposes, but I just can't accept them in adventure games.... The hero doesn't have to be a genius, but when we have to believe the hero has solved every puzzle out of dumb luck? That's just too much! Adventure games are supposed to make you feel clever, how can you feel clever when your main character isn't? I know many adventure heroes are klutz but that's different, at least they know what they are doing! I really hope this isn't the start of a new trend, please tell me you haven't heard of more "dumb" adventure heroes... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted February 10, 2011 you mean in contrast of the smart adventure game heroes like Guybrush, Rinswind, Simon? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted February 10, 2011 Those are geniuses compared to these guys, I believe the most appropriate term to call these "new" heroes is DERP! Guybrush, Rincewind and.. I dont' remember Simon that well, but at least they seemed to know what they were doing... If they used an item on something they knew what would happen, or at least they hoped they knew... I always considered more gullible and klutzy than stupid. These characters will actually say: "I have no idea why I'm combining "A" and "B", but oh, well! HERP A DERP!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptainFish Posted February 10, 2011 Nice "dumb" adventure game heroes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted February 10, 2011 Considering the majority of adventures are coming out from Telltale and you named two games, one which came out three years ago and did poorly (from what I recall), I don't think anyone is starting a trend. Maybe creating badly realized characters but I guess I'm not sure why you'd want to play So Blonde in the first place. A more cohesive trend would be like the one going on in the early 2000s and up with the female protagonists that had the sideburn bang haircut and were all sassy but not really full of substance. Then you can go to the amount of wizards and magic makers in the early 90s and up. I guess I just think you probably need more than two examples. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted February 10, 2011 Yeah, most adventure games are coming from Telltale, but there is the occasional European adventure and Pendulo Studios and Deck 13 still seem to be making adventure games... even though nobody cares about them anymore... Oh, let's not forget Autumn Moon! Come to think of it, Mona was a bit of ditz in A Vampyre Story... Even though she's smarter than the other examples, the game does portray her as ditzy diva... Damn, why did I have to remember her? But while she is an obvious ditz she still does fit into the gullible loser trope that is more traditional with comedic adventure games too... Maybe Autumn Moon press are just better at making ditzy heroes? They are ex-Lucasarts people after all.... But I guess it still counts as a another example in the end. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted February 11, 2011 Comedy comes from characters' inability to handle situations... this is pretty standard stuff in comedy, including games that want to be funny. Just because two adventure games did this poorly doesn't mean there's a "trend". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted February 11, 2011 I'm not trying to say there is a trend, I'm just wondering if there is more cases like this... With Mona from A Vampyre's Tale being an example of being a ditz done well I guess we can assume it's not going to be a trend since nobody can name more cases... Is it me or are Telltale and Autumn Moon the only ones keeping the comedic adventure game alive? I'm not sure Deck 13 will do another comedic adventure game, but they were never funny anyway and Pendulo Studio was never funny either... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted February 11, 2011 Rincewind was never an idiot. Just an untalented coward who keeps getting forced into situations far bigger than him. "Average", if you will. An unwilling hero. But maybe he's portrayed differently in the game. I've only ever read the books. U: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thorn Posted February 11, 2011 Rincewind was never an idiot. Just an untalented coward who keeps getting forced into situations far bigger than him. "Average", if you will. An unwilling hero.But maybe he's portrayed differently in the game. I've only ever read the books. U: It's been a good long while since I played the game, but from memory your description sums him up pretty well from there too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted February 11, 2011 Rincewind was never an idiot. Just an untalented coward who keeps getting forced into situations far bigger than him. "Average", if you will. An unwilling hero.But maybe he's portrayed differently in the game. I've only ever read the books. U: I've only read the books. But to me he sounds like a spineless clumsy idiot. Sure, he isn't a retard, but he is one of the dull tools in the shed. Or, maybe my standards are too high. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted February 11, 2011 I've only read the books. But to me he sounds like a spineless clumsy idiot. Sure, he isn't a retard, but he is one of the dull tools in the shed.Or, maybe my standards are too high. I think they are, Rincewind is probably the smartest "idiot" we've mentioned in this thread... He can speak several languages, knows how magic works, but he's just incapable of doing anything right and he even seems to know in a breaking the fourth wall way how the world works... He know he's walking into a trap, but he also knows he HAS to walk into it, because that's how the story goes? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted February 11, 2011 I think they are, Rincewind is probably the smartest "idiot" we've mentioned in this thread...He can speak several languages, knows how magic works, but he's just incapable of doing anything right and he even seems to know in a breaking the fourth wall way how the world works... He know he's walking into a trap, but he also knows he HAS to walk into it, because that's how the story goes? Actually when you put it like that, he sounds pretty smart, hah. Just, as I said earlier, utterly lacking in talent. Except for language! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jake Posted February 11, 2011 (edited) Comedy adventure game heroes have traditionally been klutzy or socially inept or in over their heads goodballs, perceived as dumb or crazy by the world around them. I know Full Throttle was a deliberate move against that, with a super stoic, confident protagonist whose name was just "Ben," without a bunch of goofy modifiers. Old adventure game protagonists were rarely actually dumb, though. They were just seen that way by others in the world. I think part of the weird mini-trend of modern Euro adventures featuring dumb protagonists came about because people are getting it wrong. "Guybrush was such a dummy, always getting into trouble! So wacky!" would probably be an invalid take on Monkey Island and why it's appealing, but it's something one can easily decide or inaccurately remember if you haven't actually recently played the game or actually sat down and put some thought into the reality of that character and what made him work. I always worry (especially when I was working on something like a new Sam & Max or Monkey Island) that I'm remembering without thinking. I think that's the best way to not only over-lean on nostalgia, but to also get wrong why that nostalgic thing you remember worked so well in the first place. To what degree I succeed is probably questionable, but it's something I always try to think about, because I have the fear, from seeing it happen everywhere. Adventure games seem highly susceptible to that sort of backwards, surface level reminiscing. We have a genre now that has fans clamoring for puzzles of an inbred, tangled nature beyond most peoples ability to care*, and many developers who still seem to think the true appeal of the old games was not the story or characters or clever interweaving of engaging plots and engaging puzzles, but that it was actually the pulsing crosshairs cursor, or that there was once a rubber chicken with a pulley in the middle**, and fixate on chasing and extrapolating from these inane details or self-swallowing references instead of doing the heavy lifting of finding what's flowing beneath it all. (I work at a modern adventure studio and obviously we're guilty of our own sins like anyone else, but this post is my personal thoughts, detached from any company vision or statement or whatever.) * Probably because they first started playing these games as kids, when a game that fit on four floppies felt like an ageless quest, before they had a developed grasp on history and math and interpersonal relationships so every puzzle was a genuine personal learning experience, so every new puzzle was an actual new piece of knowledge and new way of looking at a tiny corner of the world. My soccer coach used to do the "if this is four, and this is two, what's this?" number hand game, so I immediately got that puzzle when I first encountered it in Monkey 2, but for most 11 year olds that was probably an eye opening first ever look at that type of riddle/game and deductive reasoning. I think that's an impossible high to chase for 30 years, but it hasn't stopped the hardcore for trying. ** Again, probably because that's just what is most clearly remembered or fondly latched onto, without going back to investigate the context and intent behind those choices and that content in the original game. It's the adventure game equivalent of a marketing driven bad sequel, a Terminator movie where all Arnold can say is "I'll be back," and all any inanimate object does is explode, except instead of a marketing department there's just nostalgia, fueling decisions based on what people say they want because of a thing they remember, instead of based on figuring out what made that memory stick in the first place, and how to create new versions of that. Edited February 11, 2011 by Jake Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmuerte Posted February 11, 2011 Another not-so-smart character: Roger Wilco But in contrast to that we have: Gabriel Knight, George Stobbart, Brian Basco (of Runaway), Kate Walker (of Syberia) And that's just characters that appeared in more than one game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jayel Posted February 11, 2011 I played through the original Space Quest for the first time recently and I don't know why or how Roger Wilco turned into a klutz in the sequels. in the first game there's little indication to his level of intelligence. He seems pretty non-descriptive generic hero, and he could've easily gone the other way. I guess it's hard to imagine a guy who can voluntarily step off the ledge and fall to his own death being not dumb, but still... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tanukitsune Posted February 11, 2011 Another not-so-smart character: Roger WilcoBut in contrast to that we have: Gabriel Knight, George Stobbart, Brian Basco (of Runaway), Kate Walker (of Syberia) And that's just characters that appeared in more than one game. Gabriel Knight and Kate Walker's games are definitely NOT comedies.... I think Jake is right, the other examples are perceived as dumb, but rarely are while these new ones are actually dumb, I think it is really just a case of doing it wrong and / or not getting it... I just remembered another case where it actually works pretty well... Anybody remember the Beavis & Butthead adventure games(Yes, there were more than one...)? You can't get much dumber than that! But it WORKED! Why? Because their idiotic methods of solving puzzles MADE SENSE! They usually didn't know what would happen if you used item A on item B, but if it sounded like it would be something cool, they would do it... In one puzzle they had to access a certain area and all they had was to iron balls on the ground that they obviously couldn't lift... What did they do? They got a board between the balls to create a giant schlong! It also worked as a trampoline, but hey... HUH HUH HUH! I made a giant schlong! Huh huh huh! Cool! Now THAT is how you make an adventure game with complete imbeciles! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vimes Posted February 12, 2011 Probably because they first started playing these games as kids, when a game that fit on four floppies felt like an ageless quest, before they had a developed grasp on history and math and interpersonal relationships so every puzzle was a genuine personal learning experience, so every new puzzle was an actual new piece of knowledge and new way of looking at a tiny corner of the world. [...]I think that's an impossible high to chase for 30 years, but it hasn't stopped the hardcore for trying. Wow,I never considered this angle and that's a very interesting point. And I'm wondering if other genre are symptomatic of this without us realizing it... Just to make sure : does your point mean that designing for a genre with this kind of 'symptoms' would translate into dropping the point of the original experience (for adventure game, the intellectual discovery) to enhance elements that might have looked secondary back then ... hence providing a radically different experience piggybacking on the original genre tropes? It reminds me of a discussion I had on 'learning methods' with a friends who's a junior high school math teacher. She told me that math goes well with young students provided you make them go through fun discovery of what you want them to learn. She wanted to try to teach adults and so built her cursus for them similarly; just updating the examples she uses to make them more relevant to their age ... but it turns out that the group she was tutoring didn't respond at all to the 'discovery' aspect, and was far more responsive to "let me show you how this approach A works all the time and that you can apply it systematically". Do you think this is similar to what you're talking about or am I completely off? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
syntheticgerbil Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Rincewind was never an idiot. Just an untalented coward who keeps getting forced into situations far bigger than him. "Average", if you will. An unwilling hero.But maybe he's portrayed differently in the game. I've only ever read the books. U: I think he actually came off somewhat more courageous and willing in the games, whereas the movie Colour of Magic has Rincewind portrayed much closer to the books. I think the games make him seem willing because he takes part in tasks that belonged to others from multiple books, and he probably comes off as dumber because of the notorious lack of response for almost anything you do in Discworld except the correct thing. I remember in Sourcery there was multiple situations where Rincewind was at the very least cunning in getting away. I think it was like Tanukitsune said, he just has a penchant for doing the wrong thing in almost all situations even though he does have all the tools in his shed. Anyway, the first novel had him lucking out on taking Twoflower around along with some clever deception on his part. He also deceives Twoflower multiple times throughout the novel and the next to save him from harm. Another not-so-smart character: Roger Wilco Glad you brought that up. In comparison to older adventure game leads like Guybrush, Roger Wilco is most obviously portrayed as an idiot. He would probably be closer to the characters Tanukitsune originally brought up. I think the easiest way to consider all of this is with Bernard from Day of the Tentacle. He acts and solves very similar to Guybrush or what other hapless hero. He often is clumsy and screws up, but we all know Bernard is smart anyway, aside from the obvious nerd portrayal. Edited February 12, 2011 by syntheticgerbil Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
