[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Terramax

That means nothing to me. I play many RPGs- ive played more of them than AG. Also, it means nothing because I never played the old Sierra and Lucas Arts. To me, the only difference between "Discworld" and "Still Life" (hence, my point-of-view of the genre) is the increase in quality graphics.

So? So what?

My point being that 'former' adventure gamers who have since moved on to RPGs and other kinds of games because they missed something in the past several years' worth of adventure games have finally become interested again. A good number of them are even talking about Dreamfall. There is a 'magic' in yesteryear's adventure games that they crave today, and they are finding in games like Beyond Good & Evil and Knights Of The Old Republic. You're not of that crowd, so it means nothing to you. But it means a lot for them, evidently.

[insane_cobra]

I would like to see 3 things happen:

1) I want the "traditional" adventure games to survive, but just surviving isn't enough. I'd like the remaining developers to stop diluting the gameplay (the dialogue system in Still Life, for instance), to study the ways of the old masters and continue their tradition. A great interaction density, puzzles interwoven with the story - both equally important, welded together so well that nobody sees them as two separate elements, stylized graphics (not retro graphics, just not necessarily trying to be photorealistic), and an interface that's easy to use, but not dumbed down too much. And move away from the usual saving the world or solve the murder mystery plots.

Then again, some people like the new age "traditional" adventures in the vein of Still Life and Syberia. Those games concentrate much more on characters and telling a story than on puzzles and interactivity, but at the same time choose to stick with the interface and conventions of the true "traditional" adventures. I say let them live, just don't make me have to play any of them.

The same thing goes for the puzzle-heavy, Myst-like games. I rarely play them, but some people adore them.

From adventure gamers I expect support, but it mustn't be unconditional. If a game sucks, then say so. If the genre has nothing to offer anymore than endless rehash, then let it die. Of course, it will never happen cause tastes differ greatly. And besides, it's hard to let go of something you love, even if you're damn aware that it's just not it anymore.

2) Games like Dreamfall, Shenmue and Fahrenheit should continue to develop and evolve, I see a bright future for them. They take the most of their defining elements from the adventure gems of the old, but spice that up with innovation and gameplay mechanics not unatractive to today's mainstream gamers. It's a clever way to push things forward. Not much to say here, let them do their job and we'll see where it gets them.

3) Now this for me is the most important part. We need serious games, adventure games that strip down all of their gameplay and rebuild it from scratch. No puzzles in the traditional meaning of the word and no action elements whatsoever. Gameplay needs to be given some serious rethinking. In fact, we probably shouldn't even call it gameplay anymore, that word has certain connotations and it's hard to design out of the box if you're thinking in gaming terms. It should be based on meaningful interaction between characters, creating bonds, making moral choices and leading your character through the semi-dynamic story.

The themes should be a lot more personal, not necessarily realistic, but much more serious in execution; no saving the world nonsense. Instead, imagine a story about growing up in the 50s or a realistic prison story or a story about living in a war-torn country, but as a normal person, not a gun-totting hero. Then some surreal stories, children's tales, even fairy tales, but with no quests or puzzles to get in your way. However, it shouldn't be a passive experience like reading a book or watching a movie with maybe a button press from time to time. No, that wouldn't be enough, nobody would want to play that.

Therefore, there should be a lot of interaction and all your decisions should have a profound impact on the direction of the story. But not only that, maybe you'd also be able to influence the characters inhabiting the gameworld, who would in turn skew the story some more. In other words, you wouldn't be the only one in charge, the world would be bursting with possibilities. One would have to design such a game very carefully, but I believe it's manageable. The first experiments would probably not be as ambitious, but once someone would make a breakthrough, it would be much easier to follow in her/his footsteps and expand on the ideas along the way. For instance, Facade could be considered one of such experiments.

Of course, such freeform games would have to be very short in length and probably couldn't (in my opinion they even shouldn't) strive for photorealistic visuals, but they'd make up for it with replaybility and accessibility. Because of their non-gamey properties (the lack of heroic plot and gameplay traditional gamers probably wouldn't find challenging), they couldn't be sold to an existing gaming market. Thankfully, there is still such a thing as non-gamers. The "non-games" should be sold in bookstores (or at least advertised there, having digital distribution in mind), written about in culture magazines, fashion magazines, lifestyle magazines, pop magazines, daily papers, everywhere. And we probably couldn't call them games either, at least not in public.

How to achieve such a market penetration, especially with a very limited budget? Honestly, I don't know, but maybe someone could think of something. If such "non-games" could make the initial impact, I'm sure the traditional gaming companies would take notice and eventually say "hey, we can do that!". If not them, maybe book publishers would. Movie industry. Anyone. And maybe it would never fly, but I so hope that it won't stop us from trying.

[smashing]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

My point being that 'former' adventure gamers who have since moved on to RPGs and other kinds of games because they missed something in the past several years' worth of adventure games have finally become interested again. A good number of them are even talking about Dreamfall. There is a 'magic' in yesteryear's adventure games that they crave today, and they are finding in games like Beyond Good & Evil and Knights Of The Old Republic. You're not of that crowd, so it means nothing to you. But it means a lot for them, evidently.

I can relate to that. The first time I'd played KOTOR was after I'd heard from my friends that it wasn't first-person nor reflex based, like Elder Scroll or Ultima. After playing it however, I felt as if I didn't play a RPG at all. There were stats and such, but the interaction, story and character building reminded me greatly of the adventure games of the yesteryears. Heck! I think it's KOTOR mainly (and also Fable and BG&E) that made me wanted to play adventure games again.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

Although punk rock (in a bastardized form) has made something of a come back, the elitists of the scene (who we might equate to hardcore adventure gamers) are certainly not going to tell you they want to see their music topping the charts again. The obscurity is part of the "cool."

Hehe. It'd be cool if the gaming industry would be as diverse as some music scenes are. Now that's a real culture, my friend. But since games are still so expensive to create... I don't see it happen anytime soon.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

"Oh. Then why don't you just make a movie?"

Good question.

No, it's not. Does one ask a novelist that question? Does one ask a filmmaker: "Why don't you just make a graphic novel?"? The silly, misinformed question you bring up is based on the arbitrary notion that all videogames are one entity, and all noninteractive Forms are on the other side of some great wall. (It would be an outrage to break down or even climb this wall, as we all know. ) But as you should realize, adventures are much closer to film and novels than they are to other interactive mediums. It is by nature a storytelling medium, and it should have no reason to pretend otherwise.

A more intelligent, though not entirely necessary question would be, "What are the unique strengths of the adventure Form, when compared to other methods of storytelling?" The most obvious is the level of detail permitted. The player can decide that he wants to talk to every person, and inspect every nook and cranny; or he can just skip it. This allows the storyteller to put in a phenomenal amount of depth to the story and characters- When the player can skip as much as he likes, there is no such thing as too much detail!

Of course, this assumes that you can skip anything you like, and it is here that the unpleasant reality hits. Not only do I disagree that adventure games should focus more on gameplay, but I think that the reliance on gameplay is one of the main factors contributing to the decline of popularity for adventure games. It is understandable that the majority of posters here would want a return to old designs, since they probably did grow up with the old gems. But this will not push the medium forward. Personally, I have only fairly recently been introduced to the Form, so I cannot relate to the nostalgia involved. However, I can certainly relate to the fun experience of playing these games for the first time. The early years were great, no doubt about it. But those years have run their course.

Familiar gameplay is trivial. When a Form is first starting out, the gameplay is enough because no one's ever played anything like it. But the early adventure games worked because this gameplay was original. Now that everyone knows the gameplay, any new game released which focuses on this gameplay would be redundant. The first stage in any Form's development is made out of the love for a certain type of gameplay. In this stage, game creators create the experiences to show off their beloved gameplay. I must emphasize that this is the first stage, and it is not sufficient to sustain a Form indefinitely. Eventually, all but the most devoted of fans will take the gameplay for granted, and by that point the simple fact that a game utilizes said gameplay is not enough.

There are two ways to continue from there. The "Impatient Pheonix" approach, made famous by Nintendo, is one way, although not a very good one. With this approach, you throw out everything you've done and start over. As soon as the gameplay gets even the tiniest bit familiar, you make a new type of gameplay to replace it and never go back. This way, the first stage is repeated indefinitely. This approach is easiest when an advance in technology allows more complexity- the switch from text adventures to graphical adventures, the switch from 2D platformers to 3D platformers. Pulling this off when one is not at a technological milestone is harder, but it can be done- see Fahrenheit. In any case, this only buys you a little more time- a decade, maybe. Eventually, gamers will take this new type of gameplay for granted and stop coming.

The more natural, and much more productive way to continue from the end of the first stage is to move on to the second stage. In this stage, the creators, like the majority of fans, take the gameplay for granted. Once they have done so, they can use that gameplay as a foundation for something more substantial. The strengths of the framework in place should dictate the purpose of the new art form. All extraneous elements of the experience (which do not serve that purpose) should be removed at that point, so that the art is not diluted.

The strength of graphical adventure games is indisputably in storytelling. Puzzles which give entertainment but serve no narrative purpose should be eliminated, so as to not dilute -or worse, interrupt- the storytelling. We should stop adding in action minigames and start thinking about how we can include any type of activity -including action- as a natural extension of the storytelling whenever it is necessary. The second stage should have started years ago, when the Form's popularity was only starting to decline. If it had, adventures would today be on a path that could go on up to the last days of artistic expression, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

When the motion picture was invented, everyone thought it was really neat. But can you imagine what would have happened had early filmmakers not learned to take the concept for granted? A decade or two later, people would already be looking at what was showing and say: "So they're showing a picture moving. Big whoop." This is the attitude the general public has toward adventures today. I look forward to the day when game creators lose their fascination for adventures and start doing something interesting with them.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

There are two ways to continue from there. The "Impatient Pheonix" approach, made famous by Nintendo, is one way, although not a very good one.

Actually, historically it's worked pretty well for Nintendo. But yes, most companies have neither vision nor resources to pull it off.

When the motion picture was invented, everyone thought it was really neat. But can you imagine what would have happened had early filmmakers not learned to take the concept for granted? A decade or two later, people would already be looking at what was showing and say: "So they're showing a picture moving. Big whoop." This is the attitude the general public has toward adventures today. I look forward to the day when game creators lose their fascination for adventures and start doing something interesting with them.

That's exactly what I've been thinking about yesterday! Only it doesn't apply just to adventures, but to games in general. I mean, the whole ludology/narratology debate makes no sense. Yes, gameplay is exclusive to games, it's what makes them different from other forms of art/entertainment. But in the same way cinematography is exclusive to movies, yet nowadays movies are mostly used to tell stories. There will always be a place for games that focus on low-level gameplay mechanisms, they're fun, but I think one day interactive narrative will rule the market, the market that doesn't even exist yet.

[thedigitalmonkey]

I'm so glad to see a big response. I'm going to try to reply to a bunch of you, and it's important I remind the group that I'm looking for your honest answers and not arguments about why I'm right, so I'm gonna keep the defensiveness to a minimum. Moriarty responded to "Why not just make a movie, good question?"

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

No, it's not. Does one ask a novelist that question? Does one ask a filmmaker: "Why don't you just make a graphic novel?"? The silly, misinformed question you bring up is based on the arbitrary notion that all videogames are one entity, and all noninteractive Forms are on the other side of some great wall. (It would be an outrage to break down or even climb this wall, as we all know. ) But as you should realize, adventures are much closer to film and novels than they are to other interactive mediums. It is by nature a storytelling medium, and it should have no reason to pretend otherwise.

A more intelligent, though not entirely necessary question would be, "What are the unique strengths of the adventure Form, when compared to other methods of storytelling?" The most obvious is the level of detail permitted. The player can decide that he wants to talk to every person, and inspect every nook and cranny; or he can just skip it. This allows the storyteller to put in a phenomenal amount of depth to the story and characters- When the player can skip as much as he likes, there is no such thing as too much detail!

If you read my next paragraph or so, you will see that the reasons I stated to answer this question were very similar to your own. My conclusion (and this was a personal decision, because the friend was asking me personally about the game my organization was actually developing)...my conclusion was just that:

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

To which I said, I want the joy of interactivity, where you can actually talk to those funny characters, get responses, and explore the world they inhabit. But where will the game play come from? How will it work for today's gamers?

In response to Kirk: I'm going to have to make a similar argument again, because even though you were disagreeing with me, I think i agree with you. Let me clarify:

Originally Posted by Kirk

It would be a fallacy to say that GAMEPLAY comes first in every other genre but the adventure genre. There are plenty of games that cater to other areas of game development. Graphics-whores understand this perfectly well.

Also, to say that "story" supercedes GAMEPLAY in the adventure genre is also misleading. What makes the games from the "golden days" so dang golden is the strong marriage between narrative and GAMEPLAY. In essence, the game world unfolds as you interact with it in a meaningful way (meaningful according to the mechanics of the game, of course). Story and character development are not considered more important in adventure games. Those games that push the adventuring to the side do so at the risk of making the adventure game nothing more than a novel requiring point and click in order to turn pages.

The essence of a TRUE adventure game is when narrative storytelling and player interaction with characters and environment are meticulously and purposefully intertwined. This is GAMEPLAY. To say that gameplay is, in fact, an element separate from story describes a game that is NOT an adventure game. (Or maybe it does indicate a poory designed one.)

I completely agree that the success requires both elements to be tied together. I might have phrased my questions poorly though. The reason I said gameplay was second to story (I said a close second) and the reason I followed up with the latter question was important. I was asking IF the gampelay was seperate, meaning, all the puzzle soloving elements were there and great but the story was as boring as "mario needs to save the princess from bowser the end," the appeal would be gone. To say that the story and gameplay are intertwined, and the story is part of the gameplay, seems to agree with me more than disagree- it implies that the story comes ahead of the game play because the style of play wouldn't work without the story. To see the flipside and say that the story WOULD work without the gameplay, raises my real question, which is either, "why not just make a movie?" or, "why not advance the games by jumping on turtles or shooting demons?"

Smashing, again:

Originally Posted by SMASHING

Just look at the other recent release, Bone. It could easily be yet another traditional adventure game, that focus more of the story than the gameplay. Yet, to my dismay, they have to add in action sequence in it, to attract new gamers.

I'm going to try to mostly avoid specific games, BUT...I feel very sure, that if loaded Bone right up to the point say, where you run from the locusts (or another mini-game) and presented it to a sampling of gamers, male and female, 18-45, (thusly even including the casual gamers who spend alot of time playing wordtris on pogo.com or something) they would promise you they have no interest in buying Bone. Allow them to play the more "Adventurey" parts too? Not sure, maybe.

Just wanted to put in a response, and again, feel free to call me a moron if it's constructive, I genuinely am looking for perspectives here.

I don't really know what all the fuss is about. Games like runaway have all the ingredients, nice cartoony graphics, combine items/puzzles, dialogue, some humour. Maybe I'm more easily pleased than others, but I don't really need anything more. I also enjoy the flashier games with sophisticated A1 and graphics, but when it really comes down to it, games like broken sword and runaway are the most enjoyable for me because they're easy to get into, simple interfaces, they get the brain working, and they are just..fun. I could play a million runaways and not get bored. Regardless of any other aspect, the thing that attracts me most about adventures, and I'm sure many, is " hmm, what do I do next to solve this? " * sip coffee..light cigarette.. sit back.. think.. *

[thedigitalmonkey]

Another thought.

I have to say I agree with many of you, and I need to throw in a little perspective on the whole thing:

First, background. When I was a kid, I was big on computer games, and particularly on the adventures. I owned an NES, and that was pretty awesome too.

I did not purchase any consoles between NES and XBox. Then I bought Gamecube. Simply because (to my opionated mind) there weren't too many games out worth buying in between.

So to gear the conversation, I have to mention a few modern games I found to be EXCELLENT, and why:

Mario Kart Double Dash. The only reason I bought a GameCube was to play this game. It doesn't even try to have a story, and it's a great game for a couple of reasons. It succeeds in achieving a whole category of gameplay, pioneered or at least developed my Nintendo, that I'd call "easy to learn, challenging to master."

It's fairly easy to learn the basics and what the four important buttons do (accelerate, throw, slide, switch) and once you know it, there's an immense challenge in using the skills to be the best racer. Plus they throw in the right amount of AI and randomness, such that even the best player is subject to chance elements on lightning bolts and blue spikey shells.

Multiplayer element, human competition element. Halo is so great because of the replay value and competition value of playing it with human friends. Double Dash is like this too, but lasted much longer for me than Halo. Not sure why- probably because I play games to be happy and I feel much better throwing turtles at my friends than shooting them in the skull.

Oddworld Stranger. WOW. Great game. A first person shooter to be sure, but to me had every ounce of magic I've been wanting from an adventure game. Reviewers seem to like the "innovative" weapons system, but if you turned the exploding squirrels into rockets it wouldn't be innovative.

The magic was story, and supported my point. AND it had good gameplay. Tried and true FPS stuff, but fun, challenging, active. I got the best of both worlds: I thoroughly enjoyed the action challenges in themselves, had a rewarding feeling from succeeding and the action tasks. BUT THE REAL reason I kept going was interest in the story. The game had a real story, with a protoganist with feelings and inner conflict to resolve.

It also, largely, had the exploration element. A beautifull crafted world with lots of unique places and characters I could run around exploring, laughing at, talking to. If I could choose what I said to them, it would've been amazing.


So there's a couple problems left here. I think Stranger was a big step up, but it's not on the Xbox best seller list (nor does it have to be, just saying.) And I don't think the reason it didn't sell over a million copies is that it had a great story. I think it's all about the style. It's still violent and all, but it has (beautifully) stylized, unique characters. I love this stuff, but it has a stigma. This is important, I'd love to here everyone's responses on this particular theory. When I go to the game store, and scan past all the army man games, I usually grab the games with stylized characters on the box (and they're usually from the Bargain bin, unless Nintendo makes them.) When I bring them to the counter, the guy snickers at me because if it has stylized characters, it's for kids. This is the stigma. Although, in today's market, he's usually right...I'm often dissapointed when I get home with a kid's game or a plain crappy game.

The Nintendo games have stylized characters and sell well, but it's taken for granted that Nintendo games are for kids.

So even when stylzied games come out that are very adult in challenge and story, they get ignored by the whole scene who writes them off.

I look at something like Psychonauts. I think it succeeded in having a beautiful stylzied world, interesting story, character interaction, blah, blah, blah, blah, but it got double nailed because:

"It looks cartoony. It's for kids."
"It's a platformer. Platformers are for kids."


Here's some givens:

1. Let me finish up before I make another three page post. I'm going to say that the reason to make a great story a great adventure game is to add that level of exploration and character depth. To explore all aspects of that amazing world the characters inhabit, to speak to them, to learn about them, to actually take part in their witty dialogue and everything else. You get my drift.

2. I'm giong to say, that after this, we need more to push it over the hump into a real game. A subtle point I was trying to make here is that even the best of the best "classical" adventure game style, lateral thinking puzzles, (based on dialogue trees, inventory cleverness, or even tinkerboxing) is not enough. It's even not enough to satisfy, nowadays, some of us who consider ourselves the biggest fan of the genre.

So then...what do we do? I agree wholeheartedly that the puzzles, gameplay, whatever it is, has to be integrated into the story, relevant to the story, and that's especially true in a story-driven game. So how do you make that happen without losing suspension of disbelief?

Oddworld Stranger made it work, because well, the nature of the story made it fairly logical for him to be shooting people for "bounties" to get money for his operation. And where it didn't, the polished gameplay fun helped us forget.

Psychonauts was more of a stretch, although it was pretty believable to see some of the types of jumping and punching tasks he had to do in other people's minds. But more of a stretch, I think, and as I said, even platform games are pigeonholed.

So now I ask...what's going to make the game work if it's just not the kind of story where your hero is going to be shooting people or breaking stuff? What kind of action is giong to work, or what innovative kind of puzzling is going to work and be intertwined with some sort of action?

Ron Gilbert said that a new successful adventure would need, apart from budget constraints, at the very least to put all that exploration and stuff into a full 3D world. So what's next?

(PS, have to admit I haven't played Farenheit, gonna have to get right on it from what you guys have said)

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

So how do we make gameplay function first? I think the answer is, in this genre, it can't independent of story, and so, we have all the talk about adding action to games.

Define action.
Do you mean taking an action? making a decision and acting on it? or a dexterity challenge?

People I've shown the opening scenes and art for our project seem to find it, very, very funny. I talked to some people who are avid gamers, like good stories, but have never played any old adventure games. After trying to explain to them exactly what I wanted to do, the answer always came down to: "Oh. THen why don't you just make a movie?"

I think the problem here is that they've never played any old adventure games. Their idea of the possibilities of a game is based on what they have played and what they currently enjoy playing.

Good question. Here's the answer I came up with. I want the joy of interactivity, where you can actually talk to those funny characters, get responses, and explore the world they inhabit. But where will the game play come from? How will it work for today's gamers?

The best answer is probably going back and playing the old games and reminding yourself.

I asked the same friend finally, after explaining adventure games, wheter he thought it would work out for today's market, assuming it was of top notch production value, graphics, engine, etc. I said, "do you think people would be interested in a totally puzzle game, with no violence, timed sequences, reflex action, but a great story, style, characterization, etc.?"

He said, "Sure. There's already games like that."

Really?

"Yeah. Grand Theft Auto."

No, I don't think you're getting what I'm saying...(I explained some of the puzzles from Monkey Island.)

"Well GTA's the same thing. There's part's where you have to find something like a blue key to open a blue door."

Yeah, but it's pretty obvious that blue keys go in blue doors. YOu didn't have to think it out much.

"Well there's other puzzles too. Like you have to jump over a hill three times to advance."

Sigh. Conversation continued like this, and I spoke to a bunch of people, and consistent answers I got for what an adventure game would need to be a hit with this market were:

"Well, then it would have to be multiplayer some how. Even if it's not fighting with friends, that I could interact with other real people, maybe to collaborate to solve puzzles."

"It has to be up to date with what is a top seller. All the eye candy has to be on par, and I have to be able to navigate the world in real time 3D."

"It wouldn't be fun if what I do doesn't actually change the story, not just advance it. I'd need to be able to ahve different outcomes by doing different things."

"It needs some kind of score. Where I could get to the end but possibly not have accomplished everything. Where I could compare to my friends and see that I did it better than they did."

Well one problem is that you're talking to people who have no idea about what type of game you're talking about. They might not like adventure games even if they did try one - or they might have a strong preference for the type of games they currently play. If we were back in the time when adventures were the most popular genre, these people might not be playing computer games at all. The combination of features they enjoy now wasn't available then.

I think the only way adventures will ever have a place among the most popular genres is if they manage to develop an audience among people who currently don't play games - among people who enjoy escapism in the form of books and/or movies but are put off by the fast pace and dexterity requirements of the bulk of computer games to the point where they won't even try them. Unfortunately this audience tends to be older and is a hard sell. Generally, the older people are, the more resistant to advertising they are, the more careful with their money, the more set in their ways, and the less likely to try your product. And then there's this "games are a waste of time" mentality that a lot of them have that in many cases is impervious to all reasoned argument.

Another problem is that adventure games currently don't exploit the advantages of interactivity well enough to make up for what can be done in a book or movie. Why would someone play a game when what they like best about the game (if it's story and characters) is done better in books and movies? Movies let you "see" things and "hear" things, while books offer word descriptions and require you to use your imagination. What do games offer that movies don't? Interactivity - or the possibility for it. But if the game player does not enjoy the particular type of interactivity that a game offers, he's better off with a movie or book.

I do think people who enjoy puzzles are better served by games than they are by books and movies. There are some puzzle types that you can't find anywhere else. But I also think most people who enjoy puzzles tend to like things that can be picked up and puzzled on at any time - that require less of a time investment than an adventure game. Even relatively short adventure games can't be effectively played sporadically in 10 minute intervals, the way you could do a crossword puzzle or jigsaw. Not that someone can't spend hours on a jigsaw, but they don't lose anything by playing in a series of short sessions. So even among those who enjoy puzzles, you're restricted to people who are willing to try something that is going to take a time investment. So once again you have this problem with games being seen as a "waste of time" by non-gamers.

So I'm not very hopeful that adventure games are ever going to be a dominant genre. There will probably always be an audience for them, but don't expect them to be blockbusters.

[Kaelistus]

I got to thinking about this for a while and I think my opinion is:

Primarily its not the story, its the Puzzles. I like buying games magazine and figuring out the puzzles. I like buying adventure games and doing the same thing.

Having said that, story counts for a lot. It adds to the enjoyment factor pretty heavily. Story does that to every genre tho'...

So.. Order of things:

1- Puzzles or (Gameplay for other genres)
2- Story
3- Graphics

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

Oddworld Stranger. WOW. Great game.

*desperately needs a thumbs up smiley right about now!* "WOW"? That's an UNDERSTATEMENT. </groupie>

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

Reviewers seem to like the "innovative" weapons system, but if you turned the exploding squirrels into rockets it wouldn't be innovative.

I think they tend to refer to the fact you have to hunt your ammunition. But then, I don't really know what review you're talking about

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

BUT THE REAL reason I kept going was interest in the story. The game had a real story, with a protoganist with feelings and inner conflict to resolve.

I can only agree. And the end was epic. Though I think the best thing was the armour... okayokay... I just think it kept getting prettier and prettier. Come to think of it... is it normal if one feels oddly attracted to alien creatures in shiny armour? Er, wait, that's a bit off-topic...

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

If I could choose what I said to them, it would've been amazing.

Have you played the previous Oddworld games any? Given that opinion, you might end up breaking your Stranger's Wrath DVD just for the sheer... well... you'll either see or know (if you've played the previous Oddworld games) what I mean.

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

When I bring them to the counter, the guy snickers at me because if it has stylized characters, it's for kids. This is the stigma.

I think you might be on to something there. It's like the stigma cartoons are for kids, though thankfully the animé/manga "movement" is slowly whittling away at that.

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

Oddworld Stranger made it work, because well, the nature of the story made it fairly logical for him to be shooting people for "bounties" to get money for his operation.

You know, even though I'm in love with the game, you just made me realise something by writing that down, which is that that is, in fact, the reason he is a bounty hunter. That's a pretty unique reason to go around shooting things. No "I have to save the world" crap, nor "OMGWTF the aliens are coming!", nor "everyone is my enemy"... but "I have to do this so I can make the money so I can get my operation done".

Nuts.

Thank you. ^_____^

[thedigitalmonkey]

Originally Posted by crabapple

I think the only way adventures will ever have a place among the most popular genres is if they manage to develop an audience among people who currently don't play games - among people who enjoy escapism in the form of books and/or movies but are put off by the fast pace and dexterity requirements of the bulk of computer games to the point where they won't even try them. Unfortunately this audience tends to be older and is a hard sell.

I think you hit the nail on the head, and my opinions on that tie into something pinkgothic said.

As I continue to contemplate the "who wants to play them" issue, and the "what adults will play a stylized game" issue, two important things come to mind.

One is Adult Swim. Cartoon Network airs cartoons "for adults" after 11PM. And they are wildly successful with 20 somethings, both male and female. So successful in fact, that Fox put Family Guy back on the air years later. (Find me another instance in television history where this has happened.)

It tells me two things. The same people who support the game industry (20 something males) have an appetite for smart satire, quirky characters, witty dialogue, and adult-oriented cartoon stories. They just don't think of these things as going hanad in hand with gaming.

Then, there's the women who watch these shows. And women are pretty much ignored in today's gaming industry. (I doubt that say the Gamespot boards have the female representation that these boards do.) So (warning: generalizations coming) why don't the top 10 games appeal to girls?

I can only speak from experience, but I know this: My female friends and peers (who fit into the same forementioned demographic) aren't that interested in Halo or Battlefield like the boys are. They give up pretty fast when they try. A quick look might make you say "because they suck at them," but this isn't because women lack the dexterity or anything like that. (Plus, I may be slower than the rest, but I remember that I too did alot of spinning around in the corner first trying to learn to navigate 3D space with two analog joysticks.) No, girls (generalization) lack the INTEREST. If they had played all the similar games to Halo that came prior, they'd be quite good at the current stuff, but all those games didn't appeal to them enough in the first place, so why would they have bothered?

What games do I see my female peers play? Usually online puzzle type games that require thinking or spatial skills.

My girlfriend finds most new games pretty frustrating, but she keeps playing Psychonauts because she's enticed by all those other things (story character etc.) She loves Monkey Island etc. for the same reasons. And I remember back in the day when I was playing all those LucasArts games, it was something I did with my girl friends as much as the guys.

That and their parents. They're the other untapped market. My mom loves Day of the Tentacle. (She's 60.) In 1990something my friend's dad used to leave messages on my answer machine that scared my parents, (Put the pot on your head like a helmet. Click.)

Older people are more saavy than ever with computers, more than enough to play an adventure game, plus they have the interest and the patience. Casual gaming (pogo.com-esque) is a big money maker with the women 30-50 crowd.

Nintendo is an innovator, and if we look at their top-selling titles they are totally different than XBox's. Plus, they have a larger following of women gamers. It goes beyond the for kids theory, too.

Look at the Revolution controller. May not seem like such a big deal, but they are clearly aiming at the non-gamers. The moms and dads who are more likely to use a remote than a controller, who are more willing to put something on top of their TV that looks like a VCR than a video game.

Everyone knows how to use a pencil (again, my mother stole my DS for about a week to play the mini-games in Mario DS) and handhelds inherently lend themselves to a different type of play.

So perhaps it's not going to be about winning over the current market of game customers, but the huge, untapped market of non-gamers and casual gamers?

(disclaimer: again, i was using generalizations, girls are just as capable of video gaming etc.)

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

In response to Kirk: I'm going to have to make a similar argument again, because even though you were disagreeing with me, I think i agree with you. Let me clarify:



I completely agree that the success requires both elements to be tied together. I might have phrased my questions poorly though. The reason I said gameplay was second to story (I said a close second) and the reason I followed up with the latter question was important. I was asking IF the gampelay was seperate, meaning, all the puzzle soloving elements were there and great but the story was as boring as "mario needs to save the princess from bowser the end," the appeal would be gone. To say that the story and gameplay are intertwined, and the story is part of the gameplay, seems to agree with me more than disagree- it implies that the story comes ahead of the game play because the style of play wouldn't work without the story. To see the flipside and say that the story WOULD work without the gameplay, raises my real question, which is either, "why not just make a movie?" or, "why not advance the games by jumping on turtles or shooting demons?"

Hello, again.

I see what you're saying--to a degree. Yet, to say that story supersedes gameplay is still questionable. Certainly, you need a story--at least a few versions, some paths, maybe even a more linear narrative--in order to make a decent adventure game. But the story itself is not the true driving factor in the game. Instead, it is the player's personal investment in the moments, the adventuring and discovery. The story unfolds only as the player unfolds it, in whatever manner he or she wishes. Those games that tighten the reigns are usually received with less enthusiasm as they become nothing more than movies on the computer monitor. A perfect example of this would be something like Tender Loving Care. Sure it featured boobs. Big whoop.

To a large degree, the story of an adventure game cannot exist without the gameplay and create an engaging experience. If this were true, then the current slew of adventure games (with stories deeper than the average console-based title) would be receiving top marks from reviewers of all kinds of magazines. This, however, is far from the case. Many contemporary adventure titles struggle to understand the true nature of adventure gaming in a gamers pool dominated by home consoles and wireless controllers filled to the brim with buttons. Your argument leads us then to say "adventure games" lie somewhere in the middle--between the act of watching a flick…and going crazy on a controller as demons attack you Golden Eye-style. But gaming does not exist on a singular line. Game development is not so linear. Game development is not a “this or that,” or even a varying degree of a “this or a that.” Those game developers who treat it this way are either going to eventually fail, or have found a workable gimmick (that may or may not last). In the end, adventure gaming is more than a movie-going experience or simple reflexes based on eye-hand coordination.

Adventure games--the golden goodies of the genre--do not rely solely on story or on narrative elements to help the player invest personally in the character situations. Nor do they engage players by requiring button-mashing or ten-finger dexterity. A good adventure game relies on a series of unique and/or ordinary juxtapositions that lend themselves to natural lateral thinking and progression. In essence, adventure gaming is about the player's personal investment in piecing together a disjointed world--one that requires manipulating such juxtapositions in order to progress. This is where the lateral thinking takes place and the very reason why adventure games--the goldie oldies--shine, still. Not-so-lateral, mechanical puzzle-based games often seem to lack story because the puzzles do not often require the rearranging of unique juxtapositions in the fictional world. The lack of lateral engagement tends to swing the game away from story and into a different spectrum of gaming--one more clearly built upon linear and/or mechanical puzzles. The "story" does not intertwine with such a puzzle, and thus must rely on other atmosphere-building effects in order to keep the player invested: cut scenes, a detailed, magical world, some triumphant music and grand voice acting are a few of the tricks used to keep such adventure games semi-cohesive.

Thus, the best of the best adventure games often "appear" to be built entirely upon story--when this is merely an illusion caused by a very effective adventure title. Instead, the game world, filled with juxtapositions relying on character, dialogue, objects, environment, etc., lies awaiting the players’ lateral thinking in order to progress. These games ROCK because the kind of novel thinking (lateral thought process) required by the player is intelligent, insightful, humorous and inviting (though these can be questionable at times). These elements of the game are then tied together through another series of unique juxtapositions of character, dialogue, objects, environment, etc. Lateral progression elements and their interconnection with story-like threads make a more cohesive experience; the tighter they are woven together, the more effective the adventure title.

I know of no movies that REQUIRE such personal lateral thinking in order to re-juxtapose or sequence a film. A movie like Memento begs movie watchers to reorganize the film and think, but it does not require such thought in order to sit through its few hours of coolness. And very few other kinds of games rely so heavily upon the notion of a deconstructed world, filled with unique juxtapositions, in order to promote and require players to call on lateral problem-solution thinking skills. To see a world react (which invites story and narrative elements) to your thought-out or just plain dumb choices during gameplay is icing on the cake nowadays, and an essential element in a truly successful adventure title.

Kirk

[thedigitalmonkey]

Kirk-

Very well put.

I'm chewing on it now.

[smashing]

Good luck there thedigitalmonkey. It's really hard to understand the audience to anything. That's why people are spending thousands, if not millions of dollar each year to conduct such senseless stuff like Gallup polls and whatnot.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

Moriarty[L] responded to "Why not just make a movie, good question?"

If you read my next paragraph or so, you will see that the reasons I stated to answer this question were very similar to your own.

You've completely missed my point. I was not criticising your answer to the question. I was criticising your acceptance of such an inane question in the first place. By accepting the commonly held assumption that all games are one entity apart from all noninteractive media, we are dooming adventure games as a viable storytelling medium.

But let's back up a bit. Something which I had not considered, but which I now realize I must, is that not everyone thinks adventure game's strength is storytelling so much as puzzles. As I indicated in my last post, the purpose of a Form should be dictated by its strengths. If the adventure game's strength is puzzles (and I don't think it is), then we must compare it not to storytelling mediums such as movies and novels, nor to action games, but to other media for puzzles. If the adventure game's strength is puzzles, then it must stand tall among the Rubik's Cube, lateral-thinking puzzle books, casual puzzle games, etc. Does it?

Not really. Forcing a puzzle into a larger context (a story, a game world) limits the puzzle-maker's freedom tremendously. Also, a typical puzzle is a short activity- so why force the player to sit through a long game, rather than just give the puzzle? Then there are the financial absurdities: Having a story to house the puzzle doesn't improve the quality of the puzzle, nor does having decent graphics- but it's impossible to sell an adventure game if it doesn't have a good story and good graphics! So the puzzle-maker must waste his time and effort on these irrelevant extras, rather than on the puzzles themselves!

Faced with all these inadequacies, we must ask ourselves: "What are the unique strengths of the adventure game Form, when compared with other mediums for puzzles?" There are none. No matter what you can do in an adventure, you can just as easily bundle those same puzzles together with other, similar puzzles in a puzzle game without reducing the quality of the puzzles themselves. In fact, it would only enhance the overall package, because having to deal with many different contexts without anything to tie them together would increase the mental stimulation, which is what puzzles are all about. In short, there is absolutely nothing that the adventure game has to offer in the landscape of puzzle games.

So we are forced to accept that the strength of the adventure Form lies in storytelling. As I have pointed out, it does have much to offer in this area, and would make a worthy addition to the current choice of novels, graphic novels, stage, TV, and film. Once we have accepted the adventure's role in this position, it is clear why the assumption that it is most closely related to other interactive Forms can only be harmful. The people who should be targeted are the people who enjoy good stories told well, and they are already buying works in some of these other mediums. If we make comparisons to first-person shooters or the like, the Form will have no appeal for people looking for a story. We must be very careful, even with our implications, to emphasize that this medium stands with no shame next to movies, and not next to GTA.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Not really. Forcing a puzzle into a larger context (a story, a game world) limits the puzzle-maker's freedom tremendously.

Now you're the one who's missing something: forcing a story into an interactive form also limits the storyteller's freedom tremendeously. And that's even before we start talking about time/budget/technology issues.

Faced with all these inadequacies, we must ask ourselves: "What are the unique strengths of the adventure game Form, when compared with other mediums for puzzles?" There are none. No matter what you can do in an adventure, you can just as easily bundle those same puzzles together with other, similar puzzles in a puzzle game without reducing the quality of the puzzles themselves.

Not true. For instance, inventory puzzles make no sense without context.

We must be very careful, even with our implications, to emphasize that this medium stands with no shame next to movies, and not next to GTA.

You don't even really like games, do you?

[thedigitalmonkey]

Hey Moriarty.

I respect your opinions and see the validity in them. I did not particularly mean to be debating my line of questioning, although I will try to explain it a little better. Again, I'm not looking to argue, just gain perspectives and I'm saving yours to my list.

The reason for pondering the "inane question..." well, beyond I still think it has merit but...

This was as real question, and I am trying to talk to modern gamers, the fact of the matter is most of them haven't played an adventure game at all. And I think seeing how they respond to these things is quite important.

I'll formulate a better response soon. Brain is fried at the moment.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by thedigitalmonkey

"It wouldn't be fun if what I do doesn't actually change the story, not just advance it. I'd need to be able to ahve different outcomes by doing different things."

I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, but at least with that particular example/excuse you were given, I have to cry bullshit. What people are really talking about when they say this is a sort of bastardized interactive version of suspension of disbelief. When you take over the taxi company in GTA: Vice City, sure it might feel like you just did it, but it was clearly planned. When you kill 30 guys in Prince of Persia, you did it in the order you wanted, and it feels like you're pressing through and exploring new stuff, but you're not.

I'm not saying I'm opposed to stories that are actually told by the player through their actions, but I think people want this a lot less than they think they do -- it's a classic case of giving the audience what they want, not what they ask for -- they ask for a story they can shape themselves but they want to feel like they're in control and they're doing things, and if you give them a compelling enough environment and a gripping story they are willing to go the rest of the way for you and believe it themselves.