Comments on: LucasArts Time Machine: Indiana Jones And The Fate Of Atlantis

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 10:44:42 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 10:43:30 +0000

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 05:42:12 +0000

By: Winni

Winni — Sun, 26 Dec 2021 21:36:55 +0000

Hm. I’ve played Indiana Jones and The Fate Of Atlantis when it was brand new (yes, three decades ago). It still has a very special place in my heart and gaming memories, and even today I still think it’s the best Indiana Jones story and game. I also still firmly believe that The Fate of Atlantis is what the fourth Indiana Jones movie should have been instead of the crap that they eventually decided to give us instead. In comparison, Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade – both the game AND the movie, however, actually DID suck completely and I couldn’t play The Last Crusade for more than two hours because I found it so horrible. Indy IV, however, was interesting enough to play a few more hours after having finished it to see some of the alternate endings.

By: plugh

plugh — Sat, 20 Mar 2021 08:34:33 +0000

Last Crusade also tried out the idea of alternate routes through the game — steal the biplane or board the zeppelin, fight the big guard or get him drunk, and so on

I don’t think you were supposed to be able to win that particular fight in The Last Crusade without getting the guard drunk. There’s a youtube video “Indy beats sober Biff”, which says it took thousands of tries to manage it, and the fight pattern it uses looks very unnatural.

By: innokenti

innokenti — Sun, 31 Jan 2021 10:36:59 +0000

You are just wrong. But that’s ok.

By: ilitarist

ilitarist — Sat, 16 Jan 2021 12:53:31 +0000

Sherlock Holmes are somewhat similar to Blackwell games, yes. More casual, I’d say, and they still have some simple traditional puzzles. Crimes & Punishments and The Devil’s Daughter are the good ones, earlier games are just your regular adventure games with a lot of subpar writing.

By: bluddy1

bluddy1 — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 17:38:53 +0000

Yeah Myst and Riven etc were basically admissions that the inventory puzzle system is too ridiculous for a serious game. By limiting your verbs to pushing buttons and moving levers, they reduce the scope of your expectations. Every Myst/Riven puzzle is basically one of a machine without a manual, and so every one feels logical. Even in this sub-genre though, only great developers can reach the heights of those two games. Abusive developers can waste the player’s time with buttons that seem to do nothing and activate some machine far away.

I should check out the Sherlock Holmes games. Sounds a little like the system used in the Blackwell Wadjet Eye games.

More than anything, I think that good adventure games need a built-in hint system. Most action game don’t want the player to be stuck for long, and neither should adventure games. The player should be able to refuse hints if they so choose, but in general the game could track how long the player is stuck and have characters offer more hints as needed. Together with avoiding ‘dead man walking’ syndrome, this would remove the frustration element. Of course, ideally the puzzles would be designed in a way that directs the player towards the solution, but an organic hint system would help with those times when the designer fails.

By: ilitarist

ilitarist — Thu, 14 Jan 2021 13:34:58 +0000

Indeed. Those traditional adventure games requiring you to apply items on items often feel like interactive movies of their time. It’s no suprise Telltale games started as a classical adventure revival project but quickly fell into being the interactive movie company.

I know Myst is appreciated for its technology first and foremost, but it was interesting in that it felt like you are solving realistic problems of operating alien magic devices instead of combining honeycomb with a screwdriver to achieve some unpredictable result. Some recent Sherlock Holmes games are interesting too: they have sort of mind map allowing you to combine evidence into deductions, and some evidence may be false or deductions may be wrong. It never feels like the system is used to its full potential but it feels like a real problem solving unlike many classic adventures as well as modern nostalgic adventure games.

By: bluddy1

bluddy1 — Mon, 11 Jan 2021 23:03:48 +0000

The main difference is that adventure games are virtually unlimited design-wise — they’re not system-based.
In action games, you have a few verbs (shoot, move, jump) and you explore a story around those verbs, one which gradually requires more skills or throws in the occasional new verb.
The same can be done with puzzle games — generally you only have a few verbs. You start building up the player’s vocabulary, exploring variations with those verbs as you go.
Adventure games don’t build up. The puzzle you solve in the first minute of the game generally has nothing to do with one you’ll solve 30 minutes in. The verbs are all your regular verbs (use, look etc) but also all your inventory items, and the ways they affect the environment vary widely from scene to scene, depending on the developer’s ideas. There is no system that you gradually learn, explore and improve at — each puzzle stands on its own. As a result, the designer must be extremely cautious in his design to lead you logically and clearly from one scene to the next. if some puzzle along the way is terrible, it can completely derail the experience.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the best games of the genre *do* adhere to a system of sorts. e.g. Day of the Tentacle and its time travel-based puzzles.