Hey everyone, PushingUpRoses here, and today
I'm discussing the evolution of video game puzzles with a soft focus on the Sierra adventure games. As you can see, I'm showing the original
King's Quest, a graphic adventure game designed by Roberta Williams and released in 1984. The reason I'm using this game
as an example is because the entire King's Quest series is one
of the most iconic within the genre, and the one that sparked what we know today as
moon logic puzzles and unwinnable situations. A lot has changed since Sierra's golden years. What we consider moon logic puzzles
that were generally liked in the past are now considered annoying and cumbersome. So how did we get here? Was bad puzzle design
a factor in the decline of adventure games? Why are certain puzzle designs considered obsolete, and how have they evolved from their early
beginnings in text adventure games? Well, first things first: What defines moon logic? You may have heard that term being used in the gaming
community, mostly pointed at the older Sierra games, and primarily the ones designed by Roberta Williams. To put it simply, moon logic is used to describe puzzles, mostly
ones that involve using inventory items, that are not lucid. For example, here in King's Quest V, I have
to squirt some honey on the ground on this screen where nothing was happening previously, then I have to drop emeralds in the honey,
and that is how you escape the forest. I know what you're thinking: "Well that's bullshit,
how would I have ever known to do that?" Well, you wouldn't. You would've had to just start clicking
everything on everything else until something worked. Logic puzzles have solutions that
you generally know how to get to. That doesn't make them easy, it just means
that you know what to do to get to the solution. The 7th Guest is known for logic puzzles: Even though it took me forever to work
out some of these chess-themed ones, I knew there was a method here, an equation
if you will, that needed to be completed, and after I solved it, the method made sense. Now, moon logic doesn't necessarily mean the
puzzles will be more difficult than logical ones. I spent hours on games like
The 7th Guest and Catherine. What makes something moon logic is when
the solution doesn't come from rational thought, as in, you'd have to be a lunatic to come to that
answer, the word 'lunacy' being related to the moon. It was once thought that its cycles
triggered brief periods of insanity, and the word 'lunatic' is derived from the Late
Latin word 'lunaticus', which means 'moon-struck'. The first instance I could personally find of someone
using the term 'moon logic' comes from 1976 in an article discussing symbolism in the
movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The author states that some of
the symbolism is too simplistic, and says that an overdose of 'moon logic' would not
lend a deep understanding to the scene's symbolism. Now, in terms of its usage towards video
games, the earliest thing I could find was directly referring to Roberta Williams'
games as having 'dream logic' from 2000. And of course, as the internet became
more of a staple in people's lives and old games became more accessible to people
young and old, the more the term was used. Alongside these notorious moon logic puzzles were
ways to get yourself in unwinnable situations. This normally happens when a
puzzle consists of multiple parts and involves more than one inventory item, though sometimes it can be the most mundane
action that puts you in an unwinnable. Here in The Dagger of Amon Ra, I got
a sandwich with a coupon I found! Now, what you have to do with the sandwich is not
moon logic: You have to give it to a hungry officer. Makes total sense, food is typically
made for consumption! That being said, maybe you didn't
know to give it to this guy. Maybe you wanted to take a bite of that
delicious corned beef sandwich yourself. If you do this, you lose: You cannot progress,
you need that sandwich and you just ate it. There is no way to get another sandwich in this game. And this happens in the first act, so it might take
you a long time to figure out what you did wrong. Another example is Dark Seed. Just the entire game of
Dark Seed, created solely to make you lose your mind! While some games might only
have a few unwinnable states, Dark Seed has an incredibly
specific process to get to the end, and if you stray even a little bit, you're fucked. Maybe literally, 'cuz pulsating penises. So are these absurd puzzles and unwinnable
situations done on purpose, are they design flaws, why are these games just so damn difficult? A lot of people would argue that these
older games really are just designed poorly, but I believe they were purposefully hard as
being opposed to unwinnable-by-oversight. Roberta Williams was heavily inspired by Colossal Cave
Adventure, a text adventure game released in 1976. Like many others, she obsessed with figuring
out the puzzles, getting stuck months on end. She enjoyed the challenge and
the fact that you could screw up! She would draw elaborate maps, take a perverse amount
of notes, and find genuine enjoyment in doing so. An excerpt taken from Hackers: Heroes of the Computer
Revolution by Steven Levy quotes her as saying: "I just couldn't stop. It was compulsive." "I started playing it and kept playing it." "I had a baby at the time, Chris was eight months old." "I totally ignored him. I didn't want to be bothered.
I didn't want to stop and make dinner." Eeehhh... yeah, I just wanna say that I don't
condone ignoring your child for a video game, but yes, the games Roberta designed
were meant to be challenging. Really, really challenging. In regards to what people want in an adventure game,
you'll find the majority of people desiring a good story, and the more modern ones do have engaging stories,
and that's what we've come to equate them with. But if you really think about it, the early King's Quest
or Space Quest games were not reliant on story, they were about exploring this new graphical
world and figuring out the puzzles. The early stories prior to games
like Gabriel Knight were simple. If you play through the first King's Quest game
from 1984 with the aid of a walkthrough, you'll notice how short it is: The game's unfair puzzles were meant to be deciphered over months, even years! There's of course a more greedy reason
to put impossible puzzles in a game. Hint books have always been available for these games, and in the nineties, hint telephone lines
became extremely popular and lucrative. Some speculate that developers purposely put
impossible puzzles in the game to sell these services. In my opinion, I don't think this is a
conspiracy worth busting wide open, but I suppose it's possible considering
how much money I blew on the hint lines. Initially these early adventure games were given
good reviews, and they were very successful, but over time reviews on newer
games started to get a little harsher. People were becoming impatient, stating
that the games were getting sloppy. LucasArts, known for the Monkey Island series,
Sam & Max: Hit the Road and Maniac Mansion, criticized Sierra for basically punishing the
player with puzzles that don't make any sense. They described Sierra's "trial-by-error"
gameplay as sadistic, so LucasArts went on to design adventure
games that don't put the player in unwinnables, though I'd argue that some of their solutions,
mostly the ones based on puns or wordplay, aren't a great answer to quelling anyone's frustrations, but you would now be rest assured
that you wouldn't mess up irreparably! But I see you, LucasArts, I remember
that monkey wrench puzzle. And don't think for a second that people forgot
about Zak McKracken! They never forget! Regardless, with the success of games like
Monkey Island, preferences started to change. Around 1998 adventure games, or more simply
games with both logical and illogical puzzles, saw a decline in popularity, as other genres
came in and appealed to more people. But it wasn't just new gaming,
especially in regards to Sierra. A gaming thread from 1998 shows people
complaining about the company's puzzle design, lamenting that Mask of Eternity,
the last of the King's Quest series, would kill not only Sierra, but
the future of adventure games! It's almost prophetic! People were accurately
predicting some of the near-future. King's Quest VIII would fail and Sierra
would stop making adventure games, and a lot of their critique has to do with the
suffering puzzle design in previous titles. In 2008 when GoG, previously known as Good Old Games,
launched, there was a new interest in retro adventure games. Now more people than ever could experience
these puzzles for themselves, but titles that were once praised are now being looked at
as frustrating, echoing the same concerns from 1998. Players who had never seen these titles
are now comparing them to modern games that have already implemented less demanding puzzles. Now personally, I don't think these games
aged poorly, I do think our tastes changed. For me, this design change is not the same
as seeing old 3D that no longer looks pleasing, though to be frank, I'm not sure I ever thought
this looked good, even at the time. Puzzle design hasn't necessarily changed
as much as it's evolved with technology. The challenge of working months on
end to finish a game has lost its appeal, especially with the temptation of multiple walkthroughs,
both in text and video form, being just a click away! Another thing to consider is the sheer
volume of games out there today. Time feels more precious than ever, we do not
want to waste time under any circumstance. We're almost inundated with media, having an
overwhelming library of digital entertainment! People are finding they do not want to
dump months to years at a time on a game, but are instead wanting a more
concrete, less tedious experience. That doesn't mean people don't want to be challenged, there are games like Dark Souls where people
love to torture themselves with extreme difficulty. The way we like to be challenged is different
though: In Dark Souls, the action is constant. In King's Quest, if you get stuck on a puzzle, you
can end up doing nothing for long periods of time. It also doesn't necessarily mean that moon
logic or unwinnable states are hated by all: Sierra enthusiasts had once lambasted LucasArts for
"dumbing down adventure games for the masses," and every now and then I do enjoy
a more trial-by-error type of game. There's something fulfilling about figuring
out a game with so many ways to mess up, and there's also something
charming about absurd puzzles, like this classic scene in King's Quest V, where you toss
a piece of moldy cheese into a Wand Power Generator. This machine does not have an official name,
so I'm going with Wand Power Generator. I will say this though: There are many things that added to the undoing of
adventure game popularity, I'm not gonna deny that. New games, struggles with graphics and
keeping up with technology, accessibility... However, it's become clear that
people do not want to go back to games that fuck you over, to put it in layman's terms. While tough puzzle design wasn't
a factor for all companies, it definitely contributed to the downfall of Sierra, and the fact that people still criticize these
games for that very reason makes it clear. And let's be honest, it's become pointless to put
impossibly hard puzzles in games these days, not when you can just play them
with a walkthrough anyway! I would say that most players are happiest with
fair puzzles and a much more in-depth story. King's Quest 2015 did a good job on taking some of the
more frustrating elements from the source material, and making them fun and more relevant
to what players find enjoyable today. Even though I'm in that group of people
who doesn't want to return to puzzles past, early text-based and graphic adventures
are some of my favorites. So if you're interested in some of
these ruthless puzzles, remember: Save early, save often, and if
you have food in your inventory, no matter how delicious it looks, do not eat it. Happy adventuring! Hey everyone, thanks for listening to me discuss
adventure game puzzles and Sierra, always a fun time! You should subscribe to my
channel to hear more rambling, but if you're not convinced there's some
videos in the annotations for your consideration. Check out the description for my social media pages,
and as always, I'll see you guys in the next one!
This video went into Sierra and Roberta Williams "Moon Logic" puzzles, but missed the single worst and stupidest puzzle that I personally believe single handedly caused the downfall of adventure gaming.
That would be the disguise puzzle in Gabriel Knight 3, by Roberta Williams.
This is the single most egregious example of moon logic I can think of. In order to get around the French countryside, you have to disguise yourself as a detective, who has a reservation for the very last motorcycle in the city. Not too bad. Except for the fact that you have to create a moustache out of syrup and cat hair. There are no indications on how to do this. You squirt a cat with water to make it run under a fence, leaving hair behind. Then you use MAPLE SYRUP to construct a fake moustache, even though you have masking tape in your inventory.
The moon logic gets worse, since the detective doesn't even have a moustache. After you make a moustache, you have to draw a moustache onto his ID using a magic marker.
I enjoyed the video but I'm not sure I would claim that one thing or another killed adventure games. They still make them, but yes, it is true that they are not as popular anymore, which is not such a bad thing really. I prefer quality over quantity which is exactly the antithesis of Sierra's output in the 90s.
The kind of lateral thinking that the "moon logic" puzzles require is half the problem. My biggest gripe with majority of Sierra's games is unwinnable situations (a point mentioned in the video) -- a situation when you cannot progress and the game does not let you know about, so you end up walking aimlessly.
As the video rightly points out, unlike Sierra, LucasArts quickly learned from mistakes of the past and rewrote their entire design philosophy in order to avoid bad puzzles. And you know which games have withstood the test of times: so far we have seen 4 old LucasArts adventures remastered with one more coming soon. None of Sierra's old games have been touched so far.
EDIT: I was wrong - there was a remake of Gabriel Knight in 2014. One of Sierra's best too.
I've always thought that regardless of how much people complain about moon logic, the real reason for the waning popularity (especially since not everybody was doing moon logic to the same extent, but everybody suffered the same decline in status and popularity) was always of a graphical nature.
Adventure games are by nature:
more static (from an action POV)
more story driven/with a variety of characters to interact with
more geared towards performing a variety of actions rather than performing a few (like jumping or hitting or shooting), but perfecting them
In a time where graphics were still really hard for games adventure games had the advantage because they were more static. That allowed them to deliver the other two, more story focus and more diverse actions.
I always say many people forget just how ugly or simple many games were around that time because they had to deliver constant action (with things like let's say hit detection). But eventually the other, more action oriented games caught up and were able to deliver good graphics, characters to interact with, and more action variety.
I think if graphic level is equal/comparable, the number of of people who will in this case prefer dynamic action to more static actions is larger than the group who is the opposite (though people exist who genuinely prefer it that way, for example because they don't like speed/twitch based gameplay).
Adventure games had the edge for a certain pocket of history where graphics were still hard and their comparative staticness allowed them to have the more impressive graphics and more fleshed out feeling worlds and the bigger depth of interaction.
It's not that more "action-y" games with a bigger variety of interaction didn't exist back then, but in general around that time a lot of the time they were more obtuse. So you often either had the choice between simple and polished (something like a Mario game) or more complex and obtuse (at a time where mechanics were more clunky and people often hadn't figured out how to communicate mechanics properly). At that time adventure games were kind of the happy medium between those two who could focus which at that time were good graphics for the time period.
But eventually the skill of programmers caught up and this pocket of advantage disappeared. There will always be a group of people who genuinely prefer all aspects of adventure games over all other types of games. But the group of people who, all things being equal, prefer free flowing action/combat is just larger in gaming.
Adventure games were big where "all things being equal" was just never the case, where they had the advantage in impressive looking graphics (precisely because it didn't have to scroll with movement and react to dynamic action) or offering a seeming diversity of interactions (because they didn't have to deal with things like hit detection or reaction speed).
I do think that moon logic would have disappeared for the reason Roses described (bigger choice of games, availability of walkthroughs) even if adventure games had stayed big. But I also think that if adventure games had shed itself of moon logic it still would have lost market share to more action oriented titles anyway, by the times graphics caught up. [though it's interesting to picture what would have happened if the adventure games companies had caught up to the telltale style trend of the "conversation game" earlier. But it's hard to say if "conversation games" were a thing that were just waiting to be discovered or it was meant to emerge at a time where the tech was there [to render more life like people as opposed to cartoony looking and of course to store lots of high quality audio] or the market ennui with too much action]
Yeah, I think that moon logic in general was simply a bad mechanic, along with unwinnable game states.
I don't think this would have had a major effect on the genres themselves, but the issue that many adventure games at the time were using these mechanics made less people pick up those genres at the time. It's certainly not as if adventure games are dead in any capacity now.
As long as you have clear logic or clues of some description to solve a puzzle, and unwinnable states are not a mechanic, there is no reason a well made adventure game wouldn't be a success.
I actually think King's Quest 1 specifically takes too much heat for its puzzle design. Unlike almost any other Sierra game afterwards, it goes out of its way to provide alternative solutions to most major puzzles in the game. While it's difficult, when there are two or three ways to handle most situations, it's a lot more likely a player will eventually stumble unaided to the end of the game.
Like everyone loves ripping on the infamous "guess my name" puzzle, but they rarely -if ever- point out that it's completely optional. Regardless of whether you correctly guess the gnome's name, you get an item which allows you to continue the game. Guessing correctly just gets the player more points, and a slightly easier way of solving a later puzzle. It's in no way a barrier to progress unless the player simply refuses to proceed.
And the multitude of puzzle solutions -coupled with different points awarded- gives it significant replayability that most later Sierra games also lacked.
Sadly, stories are that this multiple-solution approach was due to IBM, the original publishers of King's Quest, insisting on it. Not because Sierra wanted it. And, presumably as a result, the only other Sierra game to go that route was their The Black Cauldron tie-in game. Which was for kids. (And also sadly forgotten these days despite being incredibly well-designed with a truly clever branching plot structure.)
I've thought for ages that may have been one of the biggest single mistakes in the history of adventure gaming. If Sierra had recognized early on the value of making their games more player-friendly, it would have probably created a paradigm in the adventure game industry. Instead, they went right back to the "only MY moon logic works!" design philosophy and few others ever bothered trying to buck the trend either. :-/
(Just look at the "open world" philosophy of KQ1 versus how deceptively linear and restricting KQ2 was.)
Edit: Duh. How could I forget the Quest For Glory series, which was all about replayability and multiple solutions? And, as a result, it's also the Sierra series that probably holds up best even today.
I suspect that both the first person shooter as well as console gaming on the rise, and the trends in games on that platform, killed adventure games, more than anything adventure games did.
The key point is how the obtuse puzzles of early adventure games was designed to bulk out the play time. These games were made on very tight budgets and, once you know the solutions, you can breeze through a lot of them in an hour or two. Adventure games were hardly unique in this at the time; most games were artificially hard to keep them from being an experience that cost $50 for five hours of play. Adventure games just didn't have much competition at the time, particularly as the hardware in PC compatibles was terrible at action games until the mid-90s. Not coincidentally, as computers became more capable and competition like FPS's arrived, people weren't willing to buy unnecessarily obtuse puzzlers.
What's important in puzzles, is that they flow with narrative, motion, some kind of reaction. Things you do gratify you with sounds, story, being closely tied to plot. Some work with witty comments, and I might put here Simon the Sorcerer, and Tex Murphy.
When you are wondering around for hours and receive nothing for your random thoughts or thoughtful logic, you are getting tired.
Even look at Talos Principle. Text and narrative is combined through bits of texts, speech, and all this with some kind of mindbending, where you can't be happy just to hear sound of finished puzzle and go explore a new territory. And yes, environment and beauty is another gratifying element. Whatever it is, it should give a kind of closure, or happy thought on completion, and in process.
I agree with this youtuber's assessment that it may be that our tastes changed, seemingly collectively (for the most part.)
I played a lot of adventure games back in the early to mid 90s. The moon logic was rampant, sometimes leading me to be stuck for weeks on the same puzzle. For some reason this didn't bother me at the time. Could be that I was in HS and college at the time, where I had limited funds and much more spare time.
A lot of people like 2013's Antichamber and I don't mean to disrespect their opinions. But I couldn't stand it. From the get-go I enjoyed the dream-like logic bending nature of the game world, and was charmed by the clean simplicity of the graphics. But then Spoiler This ruined the game for me. I felt there was no logic in this, and therefore felt zero satisfaction in having discovered it. It's not fun for me to just randomly discover things, I want to feel like I figured something out.
I was stuck on The Witness often, but that didn't bother me because I always felt if I kept pushing I would deduce the solutions.
My taste for moon logic definitely changed, but I don't know if that's a factor of age or of the collective culture of video games shifting in a different direction.