[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Jackal

You're only limiting the context to adventures because the wider one doesn't support any kind of "point and click is antiquated" theory.

Hey, I don't support the "point and click is antiquated" theory, read what I write, not what you want to hear.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. I'm sure some would argue that these other factors are things traditional adventures currently do WRONG, but I personally believe it's mostly about pace and purpose. The interface and design are meant to suit the games' intent, which is a deliberately slow, cerebral experience. No, this isn't some "adventure games are for smart people and action games for twitch jockeys" crap. It's just an obvious observation with no hidden meaning. Do most gamers want a slow, cerebral experience? I would say no. Even those that do (like most of us here) don't want a steady diet of it. So they're going to be a niche interest, period.

I think one of the problems with kinds of adventure games that have become prevalent in the last 6 years is that they largely feel static. This is and isn't a question of linearity, I think we need to rethink the way we design challenges in adventure games to make things livelier. To illustrate my point, I'll quote some passages from two excellent books I've been reading lately: The Art of Computer Game Design and Chris Crawford on Game Design, both by Chris Crawford.

Originally Posted by Chris Crawford

Games versus Puzzles

One way to understand the nature of the interactive element of games is to contrast games with puzzles and other non interactive challenges. Compare playing a cube puzzle with playing a game of tic tac toe. Compare the sport of high jumping with the game of basketball. In each comparison the two activities provide similar challenges to the player. The key difference that makes one activity a game and the other activity not a game is the interactive element. A cube puzzle does not actively respond to the human’s moves; a high jump pole does not react to the jumper’s efforts. In both tic tac toe and basketball the opposing players acknowledge and respond to the player’s actions.

The difference between games and puzzles has little to do with the mechanics of the situation; we can easily turn many puzzles and athletic challenges into games and vice versa. For example, chess, a game, has spawned a whole class of puzzles, the end game problems. Games can include puzzles as subsets, and many do. Most of the time the puzzles are a minor component of the overall game, for a game that puts most of its challenge value on included puzzles will rapidly lose its challenge once the puzzles have been solved.

Originally Posted by Chris Crawford

Conflict

Conflict makes challenge personal. It's one thing to be challenged by a cliff waiting to be climbed, or a puzzle waiting to be solved, but it's entirely another thing to go up against a real live opponent. A simple challenge just sits there waiting for you to come; you can ignore it or tackle it at your leisure. But a challenge coming from a human being is of entirely another order—you can't just sit there thinking about it. You accept the challenge or you slink away.

Conflict is the stressor that reveals character and ability. Challenge without conflict is entirely predictable; when you go mano a mano with a crossword puzzle, you know exactly what you're getting into. But when you enter into a conflict with an active agent, you no longer enjoy the initiative; that other person could come at you from any direction, challenging you in ways that you might not have anticipated. Conflict enlivens and animates challenge; without conflict, challenge is limp and passive. Narrative operates under the same constraint; conflict puts the protagonist under stress, forcing choices that reveal character.

LESSON 10

Games, like stories, require conflict to have any life.

Now, he's obviously straying a little with that last statement cause many adventure fans enjoy games that offer very little conflict (as he uses the word) in their gameplay. In fact, many like them exactly because of that. But I think on the whole he might be right, most people want conflict, want dynamic challenges, want replayability, want uncertainty. Is there any way to include all that in adventure games without destroying the genre core? I think so - less inventory puzzles and braincrackers, more dynamic challenges (enviromental puzzles, different, more dynamic dialog systems, non-scripted character relationships...) and looser designer stories providing more space for players to develop their own stories. Sounds complicated, and it probably is, but little step by little step and who knows?

(Of course, I'm not suggesting all adventure games should change, some should stay more or less the way they are now. Such games definitely have their audience.)