In the middle part of this article, I dreamed about more responsive and dynamic worlds. Worlds that are lively, where time passes and where NPCs go about their own business. Worlds that are more believable. Maybe there's commercial aspect in this that I've ignored. Perhaps we're just not there yet. However, speaking from my convenient consumer point of view, I have to say that Broken Sword's game world is not always convincing. Although the streets of Paris feature some cars that pass by, the area feels very empty and lonely. It's explained by one of the characters that it's an “early Sunday morning”, but that seems overly convenient. The supporting characters on the streets of Paris are looped in a standard pattern, as are some other characters you meet later on.

The last topic I talked about was the design of interesting characters. By the third game the characters of George and Nico have been firmly established. I'm glad to say that Broken Sword has got the best written dialog we've seen in a very long time. The dialog is snappy, interesting and really makes for most of the game's immediate entertainment value. The game has also given each character its own motives and traits. Broken Sword 3 definitely has a degree of dramatic consistency that I explained in the previous chapter.

I think Broken Sword is a wonderful game. It's definitely a new standard-bearer for adventure games (the last one was probably Grim Fandango). However, the game is far from perfect, and it's certainly not revolutionary. I'm a little disappointed that Revolution only made the conversion from a 2D game to a 3D game without actually exploiting the fact that it's 3D. Broken Sword will probably do a good job at making people more comfortable with 3D adventure games, but it hasn't fully harnessed the possibilities presented by this type of engine. The game is in fact more “classic” than I expected.

Too much of the game is based upon pre-defined trigger areas and hardcoded cause-and-effect. Sure, Broken Sword sure has a lot of good puzzles that work on that basis, but they're the type of puzzles we've come to expect for the past twenty years. The only puzzles in Broken Sword 3 that are somewhat new to the genre — speaking from a purely design perspective — are the stealth puzzles. The guards are actually programmed with line-of-sight and sound-based behaviors. Despite this attempt at dynamic gameplay, however, the results are always the same. As long as you stay within one tile of the walls, and no one is looking in your direction, you can just run through the place and nothing will happen. The sneak mode that's mentioned in the manual doesn't even serve a real function. Mind you, I wasn't expecting Splinter Cell wrapped inside a mini-game, but I would have loved a more obvious relation between what I was doing and whether the guards would detect me.

The same is true for the many crate puzzles in the game. On the surface it might seem like they're more physical and built for a 3D space, but they're actually 2D Sokoban in disguise. The crate puzzles are sort of rigid and fall in the category of the mechanical or jigsaw type of puzzles that bear little or no relation to the actual surroundings in the game. I can't help but dream about what these puzzles would have been like if Broken Sword 3 had used the Havok physics engine. Whereas 'every action game and his dog' uses the Havok engine for things such as rag-doll death animations, an adventure game could actually use physics as a puzzle element. For instance, you could actually build a tower not out of crates, but out of any props you can find in your immediate vicinity. Properties like weight and size would determine whether your construction will allow the protagonist to climb up to that hard-to-reach window, or whether the objects need to be rearranged. This would leave space for player experimentation. If a tower made out of a trashcan and chair is not stable enough, the player might try and use the trashcan, a crate, and some assorted objects at the base as struts. This might all sound a little wild, but I really think Broken Sword is too conservative and traditional in its puzzle design. I'm the first to admit that designing actual 3D-inspired puzzles is extremely hard, but if you're going to say your game will be the 'next big thing', you'd better deliver on that promise.

Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon is an exceptionally well-crafted game, but it also more or less boils down to a 2D game wrapped in some modern sugar coating. The only thing that it really proves is the proper use of a camera, but this was already old news for other genres. Admittedly, Revolution had quite a production curve with Broken Sword, since it was their first ever real-time 3D game. Hopefully other upcoming graphic adventures will continue to try and modernize the genre, and introduce new types of player challenges.

Conclusion

Adventure gamers are starved for new releases, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical. On more than one occasion, I've seen people try to subdue critical voices on message boards, based on the assumption that critique would 'hurt sales' and discourage developers to make more games. The idea that every adventure game must be blindly supported just to prove that they 'can be profitable' must be discarded. We already know they can be profitable. (Just ask The Adventure Company.)

If you really want to help adventure games become better, you must no longer accept mediocrity. Pick every game apart; be honest about what works and what doesn't. Don't accept low production values and lackluster gameplay just so you can get a little nostalgia shot (it's bound to disappoint). Increase your expectations. It's the only way we can encourage creative growth.

A great responsibility also lies with reviewers — including the staff writers of this website. We have to stop reviewing exclusively through comparison. “The greatest adventure since [insert classic benchmark]” doesn't really say anything when there's dozens of games in other genres that exceed it merely based on sheer artistry. We need to review games more on their own merits and point out areas where they could have improved.

However, criticism will only get us so far if we don't put a stop to our genre paranoia. This paranoia became especially apparent in the many discussions surrounding Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon. Revolution's game sparked widespread debate on the 'pureness' of adventure games, and this site has been very much at the center of it. Even though Broken Sword has finally been recognized as a full on adventure game, a large group of people mislabeled it as an action game purely based on superficial appearances. The debates around this game speak volumes about the blatant genre xenophobia that's pervaded in the adventure game community. Hopefully people will think twice about pigeonholing games in the future. (That is not to say we should ignore personal preferences. For example, some might prefer point & click interfaces over direct control. But it should be clear by now that interfaces have nothing to do with a game's genre orientation.)

We are going to need more games that will pull the genre out of its niche and appeal to a broader audience. Most adventure games are low on production values and targeted at a very niche market. We need more adventure games that are unique and impressive enough to catch the attention of a much larger target audience. You see, when game journalists speak of the “death of adventure games”, they don't mean there aren't any adventures coming out. They mean that there are (almost) no adventures coming out that are interesting enough for someone who is not solely dedicated to this genre. Adventure games currently have little or no relevance in the bigger gaming macrocosm, which used to be very different. I think it means the standards must be raised. If adventure games actually become better, they will certainly appeal to a large group of gamers who enjoyed the storytelling of games like Silent Hill, Deus Ex or ICO.

I think we can all agree that adventures should stay what they are: story-based games driven by puzzle obstacles and cerebral gameplay. But that doesn't mean they should be locked into their current form. I'm very excited about where the genre might be heading. This year, Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon, Uru and In Memoriam have each tried new things. But what's next on the radar?

A title I'm personally very excited about, especially in the context of what I've discussed, is the as-yet-untitled The Longest Journey spin-off. During one of my exploratory interviews for this article, designer Ragnar Tørnquist wrote: “[...] three-dee is the way forward, because it does open up for new interactions that just aren't possible in 2D. Exploration of and navigation through an environment, for example; or manipulation of objects in three dimensions. Adventure games are about worlds in which players can freely move around, and moving around a 3D world is a lot more engaging than a 2D world. As for what type of non-inventory puzzles we'll have in our next game, I can't say, but the environment will be a lot more important, as will the other characters who inhabit it.”

Tørnquist has also been dropping various tidbits about the game on his blog. TLJ-Next (as it has been named temporarily) will apparently feature a “stunningly beautiful world populated with expressive, emotive characters” and character models that look on par with those of Half-Life 2. The designers are also opening the game up for more replayability, as well as additional quests that the player isn't required to complete. That's music to my ears, but we can only begin to judge if TLJ-Next lives up to its promises at next year's E3.

Of course, there's a whole range of other upcoming games. For instance, take Jane Jensen's as-yet-untitled new series for The Adventure Company, which is said to move towards a more serialized format with new chapters coming out on a regular basis. Although little is still known about Sam & Max: Freelance Police, rumors say it will offer a varied palette of offbeat puzzles and crazy mini-games. Maybe, just maybe, Sam & Max: Freelance Police will introduce some really interesting new puzzle designs. The probability-defying world of Sam & Max certainly provides an ideal grounds for experimentation. Meanwhile, over at Vivendi Universal, Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude is set to combine traditional adventure elements with the free roaming of Grand Theft Auto. Magna Cum Laude sports an original dialog system, as well as various sorts of dynamic gameplay. At this point it's hard to say where the design of Magna Cum Laude is heading exactly, but perhaps High Voltage Software will manage to surprise us all. Finally, the concept of pervasive gaming — as seen in games like Majestic and In Memoriam — holds great promise as a new adventure game sub-genre. (An article on pervasive and location-based gaming will be posted later this week.)

Although we can't be sure of course how all these games will turn out in the end, things are definitely looking better than they have been in recent years. Adventure games are not commercially dead. However, we need to support developers that try new things, and stop being so protective of what we think are adventure games. Perhaps if we do this, we can bring back the freshness and vigor that made many of us fall in love with adventure games a long time ago.

I'm ready for a paradigm shift. Are you?

Thanks goes out to the different game designers and forumites who contributed directly and indirectly to this article.

Further reading
- Why are adventure games so focused on the quest?
- How do you prefer your adventure games?
- Broken Sword 3 and Uru: what will the ripples look like?
- Reason for playing adventure games
- Littlejohn's 'Agitating for Dramatic Change' article
- “Adventure Game” — time for a new definition?
- Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude preview
- 'The Longest Journey 2' preview
- 'Project Jane-J' preview
- Sam & Max: Freelance Police preview