Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Levering_2pp

Sidequest: "Put Your Lips on That."

Recommended Posts

I loved Full Throttle. It's short length never felt like a bad thing to me. It had great atmosphere, cool characters, really cinematic shots. It was awesome, and worth the cut in actual game.

What I did LOATHE though, was the action scene. That didn't work at all, and was incredibly frustrating. Haha.

[EDIT] I did play the game in ScummVM though, so maybe the insane difficulty was due to bugs in the behavior of the opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full Throttle is one of the SCUMM games where I'm most worried about lingering bugs in ScummVM. For the most part, the behaviour of the games is encoded in the game's data files, and all that ScummVM has to do is interpret this bytecode. While there were several different versions of the game engine over the years, adding opcodes to accommodate for new features (some of them decidedly non-trivial) and removing limitations of the older versions, the basic task of running The Curse of Monkey Island probably isn't that different from the basic task of running Maniac Mansion.

And then there's Full Throttle, which has this big, gelatinous cube of hard-coded logic for handling the biker fight sequences. For quite some time, ScummVM would simply skip these parts, until some madman (and I mean that in the nicest possible sense of the word) managed to reverse-engineer them. But it's several thousand lines of code, and if you know of any bugs I'm sure bug reports are appreciated. They may take time to process, since that madman is still the one who knows the most about how it works, and he's the current ScummVM project leader which probably takes up a fair bit of his time. But at least the bugs will then be on record.

Thank you, that's very insightful! I only wanted to offer an explanation for why Tim repeatedly loses the easiest fight of his own game. :)

I've never submitted a bug report for anything before, but if you think it's a good idea... Although I want to check if my memory is actually correct first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim comments on how a lot of people think Full Throttle is post-apocalyptic. He doesn't elaborate on whether or not it is, but the main reason I always thought it was post-apocalyptic was that Gone Jackals song that's playing on a radio in that trailer park/junk yard dog scene, that goes:

Actually, Tim does mention it. It's even listed in the sidenotes ^_^

32:30- “Increased Chances” by Chitlins, Whiskey & Skirt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim comments on how a lot of people think Full Throttle is post-apocalyptic. He doesn't elaborate on whether or not it is, but the main reason I always thought it was post-apocalyptic was that Gone Jackals song that's playing on a radio in that trailer park/junk yard dog scene, that goes:

"The population is greatly decreased

And now the odds are greatly increased

That I may someday get a chance

To kiss your lips

I thank the Lo-o-ord each day

For the apocalypse"

He flat out says that it isn't meant to be, later on in the video. Expounds on the topic a fair bit, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the last two video updates are "It's going to get hairy. Put your lips on that."

Outstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome episode!

I found a copy of this game at a thrift store while I was on vacation. I'm really looking forward to playing it when I can find the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great sidequest!

Would love to see Tim finish Full Throttle. Awesome game and probably the first time I noticed people were focused way too much on a game's length. It seems that "quality over quantity" just doesn't work for a lot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great sidequest!

Would love to see Tim finish Full Throttle. Awesome game and probably the first time I noticed people were focused way too much on a game's length. It seems that "quality over quantity" just doesn't work for a lot of people.

A long game is part of the appeal for me when buying I must admit. Just as some people like big chunky novels. If I'm immersed in a world I want to stay there for a good long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A long game is part of the appeal for me when buying I must admit. Just as some people like big chunky novels. If I'm immersed in a world I want to stay there for a good long time.

To be honest, games that advertise being long often are suspicious to me. Of course, if a great game is long, that's a nice bonus... on the other hand, many games IMO use tons of content as an excuse to lack in quality.

Take GTA IV, for example: there's so much crap in that game. Sure, overall it's a somewhat fun game, but not a single game element in there is fun enough to stand on its own. Driving sucks thanks to pretty crappy car physics, shooting is decent but nowhere near the level of other "specialised" third person shooters and many of the mini-games barely work (for example, that pool billard mini-game is... a pain to play). I don't understand how people can like that game enough to actually finish it, sorry.

Another example would be most open-world RPGs. It's all nice and dandy to have a huge world, but what good is that if most of the world is filler? Yes, it's fun for a while to run through some forest and chase some deer or whatnot, but I honestly would prefer a much smaller world filled with actually interesting characters and fewer, but better written sidequests. That's why I prefer Gothic 1 over every single Bethesda RPG. Sadly, Piranha Bytes have started following the "we need a bigger world" track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be carefull with those kind of updates. Almost an hour long ? When we receive the full DVD, we'll have to take an entire WEEK off to watch it !!!

Just kidding, keep up the good work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full throttle is one of my favorites, I think its the reason that my sister and I ended up getting motorcycles!

Great side quest, just wished he made it all the way through the game.

I think the hardest puzzle for me was that bloody wall kicking one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A long game is part of the appeal for me when buying I must admit. Just as some people like big chunky novels. If I'm immersed in a world I want to stay there for a good long time.

To be honest, games that advertise being long often are suspicious to me. Of course, if a great game is long, that's a nice bonus... on the other hand, many games IMO use tons of content as an excuse to lack in quality.

Take GTA IV, for example: there's so much crap in that game. Sure, overall it's a somewhat fun game, but not a single game element in there is fun enough to stand on its own. Driving sucks thanks to pretty crappy car physics, shooting is decent but nowhere near the level of other "specialised" third person shooters and many of the mini-games barely work (for example, that pool billard mini-game is... a pain to play). I don't understand how people can like that game enough to actually finish it, sorry.

Another example would be most open-world RPGs. It's all nice and dandy to have a huge world, but what good is that if most of the world is filler? Yes, it's fun for a while to run through some forest and chase some deer or whatnot, but I honestly would prefer a much smaller world filled with actually interesting characters and fewer, but better written sidequests. That's why I prefer Gothic 1 over every single Bethesda RPG. Sadly, Piranha Bytes have started following the "we need a bigger world" track.

At the heart of it I think we just have different taste, which is fine (despite the impression you get from most of the internet.) There are plenty of long games that have excellent quality as well as long play times and short isn't synonymous with focused and refined. I'll see your GTA IV and Bethesda games and raise with Terminator Salvation and Force Unleashed II. Sometimes short is just short.

There is also the question of perceived value for money. If I went into a pizza restaurant and ordered and paid for a 12 inch pizza I might be a tad peeved if the waiter brought me a high quality 6 inch pizza instead. The kitchen may be short on time and dough (no pun intended) but that is irrelevant from the customers perspective. Fortunately these days, at least outside consoles, we aren't locked into a one price fits all system so we can buy shorter games for a price befitting a shorter game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A long game is part of the appeal for me when buying I must admit. Just as some people like big chunky novels. If I'm immersed in a world I want to stay there for a good long time.

To be honest, games that advertise being long often are suspicious to me. Of course, if a great game is long, that's a nice bonus... on the other hand, many games IMO use tons of content as an excuse to lack in quality.

Take GTA IV, for example: there's so much crap in that game. Sure, overall it's a somewhat fun game, but not a single game element in there is fun enough to stand on its own. Driving sucks thanks to pretty crappy car physics, shooting is decent but nowhere near the level of other "specialised" third person shooters and many of the mini-games barely work (for example, that pool billard mini-game is... a pain to play). I don't understand how people can like that game enough to actually finish it, sorry.

Another example would be most open-world RPGs. It's all nice and dandy to have a huge world, but what good is that if most of the world is filler? Yes, it's fun for a while to run through some forest and chase some deer or whatnot, but I honestly would prefer a much smaller world filled with actually interesting characters and fewer, but better written sidequests. That's why I prefer Gothic 1 over every single Bethesda RPG. Sadly, Piranha Bytes have started following the "we need a bigger world" track.

At the heart of it I think we just have different taste, which is fine (despite the impression you get from most of the internet.) There are plenty of long games that have excellent quality as well as long play times and short isn't synonymous with focused and refined. I'll see your GTA IV and Bethesda games and raise with Terminator Salvation and Force Unleashed II. Sometimes short is just short.

There is also the question of perceived value for money. If I went into a pizza restaurant and ordered and paid for a 12 inch pizza I might be a tad peeved if the waiter brought me a high quality 6 inch pizza instead. The kitchen may be short on time and dough (no pun intended) but that is irrelevant from the customers perspective. Fortunately these days, at least outside consoles, we aren't locked into a one price fits all system so we can buy shorter games for a price befitting a shorter game.

The problem with sticking too close to that time/money value proposition though is that some games can feel like they pack a whole lot of value into just a few hours, some games feel stretched out, like they could have done what they do in less time, and everything in between. Call it 'density'. And then some games are dense/long but only if you want them to be. Should I pay the same for Fallout 3 if I know I'm only going to do the main quest and maybe a couple of sidequests, as someone who wants to see everything that game has to offer? Right now, clearly the answer is yes just for practical reasons, and it will carry on being so unless we want to charge a lower amount for the core game and handle all the optional stuff with microtransactions and other DLC (which would not necessarily be in the spirit of the game, and carries its own problems).

Point being, games are a bit of a weird thing to put a value on based on how much time you spend with them, because it's different for everyone, and also the type of time is different for everything so it becomes really messy figuring out some sort of time based system.

You're right to note that the payment models are changing, but not necessarily in response to lengths or even densities so much as different markets. Some $15 indie games have a longer play length than your average retail game. Some sub $5 iPhone games are the kinds of things people spend hours and hours getting lost in. But this week Dishonored costs the same as XCOM (more or less) and while they're both apparently great experiences, I expect one of those has more raw gameplay hours than the other. And XCOM itself costs significantly more than the indie Xenonauts, two games using different (and arguably equally valid) approaches to essentially the same source material.

Mm, the more I look at it, the more I can see that pricing a) doesn't really have anything to do with length b) would be really difficult to match to length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with sticking too close to that time/money value proposition though is that some games can feel like they pack a whole lot of value into just a few hours, some games feel stretched out, like they could have done what they do in less time, and everything in between. Call it 'density'. And then some games are dense/long but only if you want them to be. Should I pay the same for Fallout 3 if I know I'm only going to do the main quest and maybe a couple of sidequests, as someone who wants to see everything that game has to offer? Right now, clearly the answer is yes just for practical reasons, and it will carry on being so unless we want to charge a lower amount for the core game and handle all the optional stuff with microtransactions and other DLC (which would not necessarily be in the spirit of the game, and carries its own problems).

Point being, games are a bit of a weird thing to put a value on based on how much time you spend with them, because it's different for everyone, and also the type of time is different for everything so it becomes really messy figuring out some sort of time based system.

You're right to note that the payment models are changing, but not necessarily in response to lengths or even densities so much as different markets. Some $15 indie games have a longer play length than your average retail game. Some sub $5 iPhone games are the kinds of things people spend hours and hours getting lost in. But this week Dishonored costs the same as XCOM (more or less) and while they're both apparently great experiences, I expect one of those has more raw gameplay hours than the other. And XCOM itself costs significantly more than the indie Xenonauts, two games using different (and arguably equally valid) approaches to essentially the same source material.

Mm, the more I look at it, the more I can see that pricing a) doesn't really have anything to do with length b) would be really difficult to match to length.

Good points. It is hard to sort out a cost to time formula for games but I think I can still make a value judgement between a 6 hour game, however good, and a quality thirty hour game. Publishers and customers have to individually decide for themselves what is good value for the price they are charging/paying. The length of the experience may be of no importance for some. It is for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I laughed heartily at Tim's many and spectacular failed attempts at knocking that guy off the bike. :)

Good value, as always. Do enjoy hearing tidbits like the Mike Judge/MTV story that I've never heard/read before.

Me too. Especially when the camera cut from the game to Tim slouched over the desk "We'll cut that out". Karma baby, karma:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, they asked Tim to make a document with 5 ideas for a new game, and then criticized him for doing just that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, they asked Tim to make a document with 5 ideas for a new game, and then criticized him for doing just that?

I think it was a Jesus fresco situation.

Sounds like they wanted a suped up marketing buzz for each one to represent Tim's wages.

Instead it sounds like he gave them doodles on a napkin.

3VTbn.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was surprised at Tim's desperate attempts to beat that action sequence.

As far as I know, there's no strategy involved. I just keep pressing the left button (frantically), while moving the mouse to the right. And that's it. :-P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pricing thing may be more related to literature than to pizza. The price rarely corresponds accurately to the length and binding of a book. And a new book of 150 pages is often two to three times as expensive as a 450-page book that's a year old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pricing thing may be more related to literature than to pizza. The price rarely corresponds accurately to the length and binding of a book. And a new book of 150 pages is often two to three times as expensive as a 450-page book that's a year old.

I work in books, and the pricing of them does have a little to do with the length (depending on what "length" entails) and binding, though it depends on where the book is being sold. And the way binding affects the price isn't always the way common sense would guess.

One thing is for sure, though: the price of a book does NOT depend on how long it takes a person to read it, because that's different for every person and can't really be measured. It wouldn't work for video games for pretty similar reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pricing thing may be more related to literature than to pizza. The price rarely corresponds accurately to the length and binding of a book. And a new book of 150 pages is often two to three times as expensive as a 450-page book that's a year old.

I work in books, and the pricing of them does have a little to do with the length (depending on what "length" entails) and binding, though it depends on where the book is being sold. And the way binding affects the price isn't always the way common sense would guess.

One thing is for sure, though: the price of a book does NOT depend on how long it takes a person to read it, because that's different for every person and can't really be measured. It wouldn't work for video games for pretty similar reasons.

I also work in publishing

;)

The price of a paperback book is generally related to the number of pages. Not in direct proportion but in a rough relationship. There are different qualities of books, hardback, softback, children's books etc. It's very complex but for each of the formats there is a perceived reasonable length that people have come to expect from that format related, roughly, to the price being charged. You might get away with offering less, you might not. We expect films released in the cinema to be around 1 hr 30 long. Sometimes they are longer sometimes a fraction shorter but I don't remember ever coming out of the cinema and thinking, "Well crap. That film was only 45 minutes long."

Yes, in different places you can get more for the same product that's true of everything. Just as anything a year older, with the possible exception of wine and cheese, is worth less than something brand new.

Adventure games have it tough when it comes to game length because it's harder to artificially extend the experience. With shooters, etc you just do the same thing again in a new location, with different enemies or at a slightly higher difficulty. With an adventure game more game play means more one off, unique experiences.

I've thought about why I have a bee in my bonnet over this (which I clearly do) and I think it's because my taste is for longer games I can revel in. If I really like a game world I want to be able to exist within it and experience it for a long time. Some people want those laser focused, dense experiences but my taste of for games where I can do other stuff like, as was mentioned in a previous post, hunt deer for an hour or two. I that realisation, at the end of an open world game, that I've exhausted everything that this game has to offer me. Time to move on.

I agree that filler can be detrimental to a game (filler, I sense, is in the eye of the beholder. For me everything in a soccer match before the penalty shoot out is filler) but I do enjoy some 'down time' or the odd 'in game vacation' where I can be in the world but not necessarily be progressing the plot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think that length of adventure games is a factor, but not necessarily to determine whether the game is good or bad.

If the game is good, but is short, it leaves the player with a feeling of something more, but they can't get it from the game and thus there is some disappointment other aspects of the story were not fully explored. If the game is bad, the only conciliation could be that it would be short.

So I don't think the game should be artificially long, just felt as a complete experience. It would be interesting if Reds would have replay value, I don't think many adventure games have done it because to do this really well it would require changing the puzzles. I can think of QFG as an example of games that changed the puzzles based on the character, but they admittedly also had some fillers (throwing rocks for example to improve stats) and not all major puzzles were always that different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should totally do another adult theme serious' ish biker game, sure he cant call it Full Throttle 2, but man i would like another adult ish theme game like Full Throttle again. Amazing game and amazing characters, theme and music.

I really hope someone someday comes up with an 2.5d engine, that can handle and do the same crazy animations as the old 2d lucas arts games. most current adventure games suffer from being so damn static. compared to these old games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Full throttle is my favourite game of all time! I remember that to get in/out Maureen's house just to listen to the theme. The music is so awesome and well integrated in this game!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't played Full Throttle - so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but from what I've seen this episode exemplifies what's wrong with many adventure games.

1. Too many long cut scenes - without player interaction

2. Too many bogus "we can't let you advance the story until you get the three magic things" quests

Day of the Tentacle and Monkey Island fell into the same trap where I felt like it was a good 15 minutes before the player got to do anything of consequence.

Books tell great stories.

Movies show great stories.

Games should embrace the thing which makes them different from other media which is player interaction.

Full Throttle should have been about riding around being a badass, instead of "King's Quest-ing" around the place looking for the "magic bike forks of destiny" or whatever.

And then to solve the puzzle only to be pushed back into town by another impassable event: the police. Wow - when does the game actually start?

I hope REDS avoids these two problems and does a better job of involving the player at the earliest possible moment and moves the story forward without time-wasting non-core gameplay.

I have very high hopes for the game, especially if it learns the lessons from previous games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't played Full Throttle - so maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree here, but from what I've seen this episode exemplifies what's wrong with many adventure games.

1. Too many long cut scenes - without player interaction

2. Too many bogus "we can't let you advance the story until you get the three magic things" quests

Day of the Tentacle and Monkey Island fell into the same trap where I felt like it was a good 15 minutes before the player got to do anything of consequence.

Books tell great stories.

Movies show great stories.

Games should embrace the thing which makes them different from other media which is player interaction.

Full Throttle should have been about riding around being a badass, instead of "King's Quest-ing" around the place looking for the "magic bike forks of destiny" or whatever.

And then to solve the puzzle only to be pushed back into town by another impassable event: the police. Wow - when does the game actually start?

I hope REDS avoids these two problems and does a better job of involving the player at the earliest possible moment and moves the story forward without time-wasting non-core gameplay.

I have very high hopes for the game, especially if it learns the lessons from previous games.

What you're describing as faults are the reasons why a lot of people love adventure games. From what I'm reading of it, you're calling puzzles "time-wasting none-core gameplay". Personally, I love a game to have a big ass cut-scene intro, get me in the mood and into the atmosphere of the game so I'm not left wondering what the hell is going on while I click around. Not all games have to dump you right in the middle of some action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@philwillis.

You don't like adventure games. Got it.

And guess what, phil? You're going to HATE this game. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@philwillis.

You don't like adventure games. Got it.

Not exactly. I think phil would prefer an adventure game with less cut scenes, more free world and interaction.

These type of adventures exist (for example Quest for Glory I) where you immediately show up in a village, you are free to wonder a lot in the beginning and you can fight monsters.

Amnesia and Penumbra had innovative interactivity and good puzzles.

Machinarium did not have long cut scenes or dialog.

It is definitely a matter of taste however. Some people liked Sierra games, some liked Lucasarts, some people liked Myst-type games.

But if you don't like DOTT you probably won't like this game either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...