[Jake]

I still haven't mulled over the thread in its entirety because there is a lot of stuff all over the place, but as far as "gameplay" v "story" in adventure games and other games... they all have "gameplay," its just different in different places. I mean at this point in time "gameplay" traditionally means the more tactile stuff - walking/running/jumping/climbing/pushing/fighting, but in adventure games, its the puzzles. I mean, I know that's totally obvious and lame, but ... yeah.

Its weird to me, stories in games, across genres, to look at where they put the cutscenes and where they put the gameplay...

In traditional adventure games, you're playing along fiddling with things, exploring, talking to people, putting together the clues, all the things you do to you know, play the game, the "gameplay," but then every time the main character has to run, jump, or pick up a gun, the game will go to a cutscene to illustrate what happens. In almost all other story-based genres, though, at their core all you do for the "gameplay" side is running and jumping around with a gun, but then every time the main character has to talk to someone, thoroughly investigate an object, or manipulate complex machinery or something, it goes to the cutscene.

I'm frequently pissed off when I encounter this from both sides of the fence. Its so annoying to finally chase a guy down in my car or over a bunch of rooftops or something all I want to do is poke at him, get some answers out of him, you know? The thing is, I only have the option of shooting him, watching a cutscene of my interrogating him, or, if I'm lucky, I get to shoot him then watch a cutscene. Alternatively, playing an adventure game it's incredibly frustrating to spend hours and hours to gather all the clues to find out "whodunnit," only to have the game wrench control from me at the crucial moment, forcing me to watch the guy I was helping solve the case for the past 6 hours do the epic final chase and arrest without me.

It's funny to me that traditionally, adventures allow one half to be playable and other genres focus on the other half. Traditionally, if you have both halves playable in your game you somehoe manage to alienate everyone and piss them off because you're not adhering to genre conventions. (unless you're Fahrenheit, for some reason) And, of course, if you have neither half playable you have a complete computer animated film but thats another story I guess.

Wow I just went really really off topic. Sorry about that

[Jake]

Also to answer your question, I wouldn't play a game if it was nothing but a bunch of brilliantly constructed puzzles unless it was presented to me as "a brilliant puzzle game." If someone said "this game is chock full of story and atmosphere and crazy interactive immersive brilliance" but then it was nothing but a bunch of poorly disguised levers, I would be pissed.*

*Note: I am pissed at most modern adventure games.

How do you fix this? Not by "adding action" or whatever. What does that do, other than fake people out a bit more? "Is that one of those ... 'adventure games'? If so, why not just make a movie?!" "Oh, no no, this one's got action!" "Ohh, I see. [plays game for an hour] ... Wait a second, this is nothing but a bunch of poorly disguised levers with a shitting jump button!" doesn't seem like it's going to help much?

... Unless you're talking about something more like Psychonauts? (Which isn't really an adventure game?) ... or Fahrenheit, which is, from what little I've played, really just the ultimate extreme version of window dressing on a series of levers - levers, I might add, which have been affixed with simon says and dance dance revolution games one must complete before pulling them?

(Fahrenheit seems fun though )

... Which sort of goes back to the suspension of disbelief thing from earlier I guess, successful suspension of disbelief which might answer my earlier question as to why Fahrenheit has somehow resonated with adventure gamers and gamers of non-adventure-games alike. Hm!

Nevermind. ... I'm never going to get out what I'm trying to say. I keep disappearing off into inane crap that has nothing to do with the point I'm trying to make - the point which I'm very sure is relevant and interesting but keeps doing nothing but dancing around in the back of my mind making faces at me My brain is disintegrating. I haven't been sleeping enough. Sorry everyone for bothering this thread at all

edit: Tried to bring it all back around there in that added second to last paragraph. Maybe I succeeded

[Melanie68]

Jake,

You aren't bothering me. I have been reading people's posts here as they argue back and forth and in those 2 posts up above, you have clarified more things for me than reading pages of other posts in other threads. Bother away. Even with little sleep, you make a lot of sense!

Now, Go. to. bed.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Now you're the one who's missing something: forcing a story into an interactive form also limits the storyteller's freedom tremendeously.

Only if the writer is too concerned about appearing to be interactive. If we'd stop allowing the player so much control over the outcome of the story and started looking at new ways interactivity can actually benefit linear storytelling, adventure games would be better off.

Inventory puzzles make no sense without context.

"A man was in a room with no doors or windows. All he had was a mirror. How did he get out?"
This age-old riddle is an inventory puzzle. The person posing the riddle explains the context immediately before setting you loose to think of the answer. Once you finish, he'll undoubtedly give you some other similar riddle to follow up on it, with a completely different context. Having a story to tie the two riddles together would not make them any better.

Jake:
I have no idea what you're trying to say. Sorry.


I'd like to clarify my earlier statements and point out that if a certain Form's strength is not storytelling, then it is wrong to put in a story by default. Maybe once the Form is really well developed, and everyone sees how it can contribute to the landscape of art, then someone can shake things up by focusing on story. But these Forms all have unique strengths, and before those strengths are found it's a waste of time, not to mention a confusion, to focus on anything else.

Okay, maybe that wasn't so clear. I think Jake's rubbed off on me. Adventure's strength is story. Exploration's strength is world design. Platformer's strengths are grace and the most direct artistic expression ever devised. FPS's strength is intensity. And so on. All of these Forms should look to their strengths to see how they should evolve and become pillars of culture. So the adventure Form should remove any elements not serving the story, and study how more personality can be expressed by the interactivity and interface. The exploration Form should remove its secondary gameplay mechanics (puzzles, action) and study how world design on its own can be more expressive, as well as more advanced world design techniques. The platformer should replace the clumsy controls of today and remove the emphasis placed on silly mascots, and study how controls can allow for more nuance and grace. The FPS should stop worrying so much about story and find new twists on the action. (You can probably tell I don't much like FPSs.) And so on.

[RLacey]

Jake: I like your comments. And I think that I agree with them.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

So the adventure Form should remove any elements not serving the story, and study how more personality can be expressed by the interactivity and interface. The exploration Form should remove its secondary gameplay mechanics (puzzles, action) and study how world design on its own can be more expressive, as well as more advanced world design techniques. The platformer should replace the clumsy controls of today and remove the emphasis placed on silly mascots, and study how controls can allow for more nuance and grace. The FPS should stop worrying so much about story and find new twists on the action. (You can probably tell I don't much like FPSs.) And so on.

My problem with this is that I genuinely believe that all of these improvements can be made to all genres, and not just the ones you suggested. I'm not suggesting that all adventure games should suddenly become RPGs, or that FPS games should be filled with sliding block puzzles, mind you; I just think that all game developers can learn things by looking outside their genres as well as within, and by using ideas and methods that feature in other genres.

Mind you, I have some trouble seeing how an "exploration form" can actually be classed as a game. But that's for another discussion.

[MoriartyL]

First of all, it occurs to me that I've been using the made-up term "Form" a lot in this thread without explaining myself. I use it to mean "form of art or entertainment" since that phrase is too long to use repeatedly. I hope no one here minds.

Originally Posted by RLacey

My problem with this is that I genuinely believe that all of these improvements can be made to all genres, and not just the ones you suggested.

I don't doubt that you can take something which works in one Form and move it to another. But I disagree that it would be an improvement. The misconception in your argument is that games can be judged as one entity, so what is good for one is necessarily good for another. Complex world design is wonderful for an exploration game like Metroid Prime, but put the same world design into an adventure game and it's bad, because it interferes with the story. In a puzzle game, the more contrived a puzzle is the better, but stick a puzzle like that into a FPS and you interfere with the intensity of the action. Exp points are a necessity in RPGs, but put them in a RTS game and it'll detract from the strategy. The quality of any element of a game is determined by its suitability for the purpose of the Form. If two Forms have different purposes, it is a fallacy to assume that the good aspects of one can be moved into the other.

Forms cannot evolve if all their creators can do is make them more like other Forms. Each Form must find its own unique voice, or the result is a whole lot of games which do a whole lot, but don't do anything particularly well thanks to all the interferences. Their voices are much more clear when they aren't diluted by other Form's ideas.

Mind you, I have some trouble seeing how an "exploration form" can actually be classed as a game. But that's for another discussion.

Why wait, when we can wrap it up now? You don't want to call it a game, that's great- neither would I, if we weren't already stuck with the word. In fact, I don't want to call any interactive experiences "games", but what alternative do we have? This uniform term only serves to separate interactive Forms from all others, which is counterproductive. Now that it is commonly used, the only hope of returning some hint of sanity to the terminology we use is to expand the word's meaning so much that it doesn't make any implications at all. For my part, I have tried to contribute to the trivialization of the word by assuming that everything, including all noninteractive Forms, is a game. But we certainly do still need terms which do not include "game" in them. Maybe we should call exploration games "walkies".

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Jake

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.

It's about giving the player options to do things, but not forcing them to do them. Look at Morrtowind, here's your world, here are the rules, here are the possibilities they create, go do what you will. Many Morrowind players choose not to tackle the main quest at all. With their actions they're not changing the main story (which is linear), but they're changing the player-created story (which is not) and context (which depends on player's actions).

It's funny to me that traditionally, adventures allow one half to be playable and other genres focus on the other half. Traditionally, if you have both halves playable in your game you somehoe manage to alienate everyone and piss them off because you're not adhering to genre conventions. (unless you're Fahrenheit, for some reason)

Or System Shock. Or Fallout. Or Little Big Adventure. All of those were successful enough to garner sequels and achieve cult status.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

If we'd stop allowing the player so much control over the outcome of the story and started looking at new ways interactivity can actually benefit linear storytelling, adventure games would be better off.

The player doesn't have to be in control over the outcome of the story, but, if I udersood what you're saying correctly, he has to be in control of its shape. Which limits the storyteller's freedom all the same as he has to account for a lot of cause and effect situations and balance them out. If that's not what you're saying, then please provide an example of interactivity you had in mind.

"A man was in a room with no doors or windows. All he had was a mirror. How did he get out?"
This age-old riddle is an inventory puzzle. The person posing the riddle explains the context immediately before setting you loose to think of the answer. Once you finish, he'll undoubtedly give you some other similar riddle to follow up on it, with a completely different context. Having a story to tie the two riddles together would not make them any better.

Hmm... How did he get out?

Well, let's put aside the fact that you just provided the micro-context, thus telling a micro-story, thus creating a primitive adventure game with both puzzles and a story. There are still some issues.

First of all, I think having such a puzzle on paper and in an interactive enviroment are two quite different experiences. In the first case you go through a process of solving it in your head until gou gain insight into a correct solution. In another you can try the things out and eliminate the options that don't work with certainty, it's easier that way. You can't say the first approach is better than the other, they're just different.

Secondly, that works well for a linear sequence of self-contained puzzles, but well designed puzzles in an adventure game are often intertwined. Think about the puzzles in Day of the Tentacle. When you solve a piece of a puzzle in the past, the context in the future changes (in fact, that way you're telling the story by solving puzzles - "wow, a vacuum cleaner appeared out of nowhere!"). You can't put that on paper without giving away the solution or at least hinting at it.

And finally, I provided inventory puzzles as an example, but there are other types that don't work as well in other media. What about dialogue puzzles? They hardly make any sense without context and you can't put them on paper cause they rely on interactivity too much. I doubt a game consisting only of a series of unrelated dialogue trees would be much fun to play and some complex systems would be too tedious to solve on paper. For instance, if NPC's responses depended on some other system (NPC's mood or disposition, perhaps) and that system could be influenced by asking the right questions, you could either provide an exponentialy growing list of question/answer combinations or some kind of an algorithm. Therefore, it would be much more enjoyable to play it on a computer.

[samIamsad]

@MoriartyL: I disagree. You seem to be under the impression that all games that fall under a certain umbrella or have the same(?) form are the same and emphasize on the same things. So a FPS game is a FPS. A RPG is a RPG. A RTS is a RTS. A [insert fancy label name here] is a [insert fancy label name here]. And so on. And that's not the case. Thanks God!

The quality of any element of a game is determined by its suitability for the purpose of the Form.

Replace "Form" with "individual game" or "individual design concept" or something. I urge you to do this. And play some Shock 2, Mafia or Planescape:Torment to see what I mean.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

@MoriartyL: I disagree. You seem to be under the impression that all games that fall under a certain umbrella or have the same(?) form are the same and emphasize on the same things. So a FPS game is a FPS. A RPG is a RPG. A RTS is a RTS. A [insert fancy label name here] is a [insert fancy label name here]. And so on. And that's not the case. Thanks God!

Of course there is variety within each Form. Any half-decent Form should be flexible enough to allow for variations. The most common type of variation is a Form which is modified to serve the purpose of another Form: Pokemon is a RPG serving the purpose of collectibles such as baseball cards; The Sims is a simulation serving the purpose of a dollhouse; Beyond Good & Evil is a metalude serving the purpose of a movie. All of these are very good games, but I wouldn't point to The Sims as the best "evolution" of the simulation, for example. It's just a variation, and its existence does not change any demands I might have for what the "Form proper" should be like in the future. I enjoy goofy platformers with colorful characters and nonsensical stories, but that should be a variation, not the norm, because it does not sufficiently utilize the potential of the platformer as an art form.

So when I talk about what adventures should and should not be like in the future, I'm of course referring to the norm, not the exception. I'm referring to the game which everyone will think of when they hear the word "adventure", so that they immediately know where the Form stands. If there are old-fashioned adventures in the future, that's great -I actually don't like seeing old types of games get completely left behind- but this should not be the standard.

[samIamsad]

I'm kind of confused now. Are you talking about the future of interactive storytelling or about the future of adventure games? Or are they both one and the same? Ah, well.. how should I put it? The former should be all about some out_of_that_stupid_box _thinking (not necessarily the same as starting_from_scratch or whatever). At least to an extent. Why? Because every story is different. So need to be the games. It'll be exciting once designers start to do that. I think some of them are already doing it and have been doing it for years now.

To think like: "Okay, now I have this beautiful story to tell, now how do I want the player to experience it? How do I want to get him involved? And how can I strengthen the bond between the player and the plot? How can I make him feel emotionally attached to the story?" Slider puzzles? Give me a break. I mean, if I'm playing that Mafia game (looks like GTA, feels like an interactive movie!) I wouldn't want to push some levers and solve some contrived inventory puzzles or whatever. I'd want to have some Mafia stuff to do. System Shock 2 would outright suck as an adventure game as well. Or at least, what some people consider to be an adventure game. See what I'm trying to get at? Don't worry, I don't either. Or do I? HELP!

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

The player doesn't have to be in control over the outcome of the story, but, if I udersood what you're saying correctly, he has to be in control of its shape. Which limits the storyteller's freedom all the same as he has to account for a lot of cause and effect situations and balance them out. If that's not what you're saying, then please provide an example of interactivity you had in mind.

One example I've already pointed out is that little details that flesh out the story, the characters, and the environment can be left around for the player to either observe or ignore. Depending on how rich the experience he wants, the player could finish the game in two hours or twenty. Another example I've mentioned in other threads is that by visibly limiting the player's options at any point to only things it will occur to the character to do, the player gains a tremendous insight into the character by just looking at the options available to him. These are only two ideas, and I'm sure adventure storytellers are good enough that they can think of more ways of taking advantage of interactivity that I haven't thought of.

Hmm... How did he get out?

I was only showing how a puzzle of roughly the same type as those in adventure games could be presented without being part of an adventure game. Each puzzle would have its own backstory, of course, if the puzzle demands it. But there would be no need to connect the puzzles together except in style- each new puzzle you're given would have a new context which fits it. The actual solution of said puzzle isn't exactly what you would expect in an adventure game, but if you insist:

The man looked in the mirror, and saw what he saw. He took the saw, and used it to cut the mirror in half. He then put the two halves together to make a whole. Finally, he jumped through the hole. He was free.

First of all, I think having such a puzzle on paper and in an interactive enviroment are two quite different experiences.

A puzzle game can be as interactive as you like. And I think you misunderstand me when I say "puzzle game"- I'm referring to games played on the computer. One example is "The Incredible Machine", although it seems to me that any type of puzzle, including those which today are exclusively in adventures, could work just as well.

Secondly, that works well for a linear sequence of self-contained puzzles, but well designed puzzles in an adventure game are often intertwined. Think about the puzzles in Day of the Tentacle. When you solve a piece of a puzzle in the past, the context in the future changes (in fact, that way you're telling the story by solving puzzles - "wow, a vacuum cleaner appeared out of nowhere!").

Are you kidding? This would make a positively incredible puzzle game! Each puzzle would give you a small environment, and allow you to switch between two or more time periods it gives you. The goal of each puzzle is to make something happen in the last time period by pushing things around in the earlier time periods. The first few puzzles would be simple, involving only two time periods and only about an hour apart. Later on, it could go up to four time periods, with some of them historic occasions. This game (and its sequels, if successful) would explore the quirkiness of time travel far more effectively than an adventure game which is limited not only to just three time periods for the entire game, but also by the requirement that everything that happens must be (to a certain degree) relevant to the story. And this puzzle game wouldn't waste your time with a silly story, but just focus on making the puzzles as creative and wacky as possible.

And finally, I provided inventory puzzles as an example, but there are other types that don't work as well in other media. What about dialogue puzzles? They hardly make any sense without context and you can't put them on paper cause they rely on interactivity too much.

Paper is a ridiculously limiting medium when compared to computer programs, and I would never suggest that it should replace any digital Form. I was talking about puzzle games on the computer, and I see no reason why puzzle games can't use dialogue as their main (or even only) gameplay mechanic. In fact, it could use dialogue more extensively than adventures. Dialogue is a relatively small part of adventures, so the interface has always had to be scaled back somewhat. But if the whole game revolves around speech, then a more complex interface can be specialized for the task.

[bigjko]

Originally Posted by Jake

Its weird to me, stories in games, across genres, to look at where they put the cutscenes and where they put the gameplay...

In traditional adventure games, you're playing along fiddling with things, exploring, talking to people, putting together the clues, all the things you do to you know, play the game, the "gameplay," but then every time the main character has to run, jump, or pick up a gun, the game will go to a cutscene to illustrate what happens. In almost all other story-based genres, though, at their core all you do for the "gameplay" side is running and jumping around with a gun, but then every time the main character has to talk to someone, thoroughly investigate an object, or manipulate complex machinery or something, it goes to the cutscene.

I'm frequently pissed off when I encounter this from both sides of the fence. Its so annoying to finally chase a guy down in my car or over a bunch of rooftops or something all I want to do is poke at him, get some answers out of him, you know? The thing is, I only have the option of shooting him, watching a cutscene of my interrogating him, or, if I'm lucky, I get to shoot him then watch a cutscene. Alternatively, playing an adventure game it's incredibly frustrating to spend hours and hours to gather all the clues to find out "whodunnit," only to have the game wrench control from me at the crucial moment, forcing me to watch the guy I was helping solve the case for the past 6 hours do the epic final chase and arrest without me.

It's funny to me that traditionally, adventures allow one half to be playable and other genres focus on the other half. Traditionally, if you have both halves playable in your game you somehoe manage to alienate everyone and piss them off because you're not adhering to genre conventions. (unless you're Fahrenheit, for some reason) And, of course, if you have neither half playable you have a complete computer animated film but thats another story I guess.

Gold.

You wouldn't even have to deviate so much from each respective genre to gain that extra level of interactivity that allows you to chase-bad-guy/interrogate-bad-guy. Just some clever design choices.

And someone said "we wouldn't be hanging around this forum if all recent adventure games were bad." The only reason I stay here is the (sometimes) nice community, and my love for the classics. I mean, when a 10 year old game looks better than a 3 year old game, it's hard to enjoy the current level of quality in adventure games, IMO.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

I'm kind of confused now. Are you talking about the future of interactive storytelling or about the future of adventure games?

The future of adventure games, of course. Stories can be told through many interactive mediums- RPGs, FPSs, metaludes, platformers, RTS, etc. I think I even heard of a sports game which exists to tell a story. But it's not enough to have a good story to make these games- you need to be intimately familiar with whatever Form you're doing it in. These games must pull double-duty: telling a good story and being good works of their Forms. Because these Forms all serve different purposes, not one of them will be good for every type of story. But ideally the adventure game should be. In its ideal form the adventure should be every bit as flexible as novels for telling stories. In order to reach this ideal, the adventure framework must be modified.

What good is a storytelling medium which can't even do action stories? I don't mean slopping an action game, and everything that comes with it, on top- I mean having a framework flexible enough that if there should be some point in the story which calls for action, it should be possible without changing the interface or the pacing. (Real-time is out of the question, but why not have the game wait while you decide how to fight?) If the story demands strategy, again the framework should be flexible enough, but not by sticking an RTS on top, but by using the same materials which have in the past only been used for puzzles. If these materials are not good enough, then let's replace them now before we run into a story the adventure Form can't handle.

Adventure games are destined to be a storytelling medium- of this I am certain. To push it forward, game creators must do whatever is necessary to pave the way there. They must eliminate puzzles when they are only there for their own sake. They must stretch the interface to fit more types of stories. They must dispell myths regarding classification. They must stop being afraid to make their games linear. And they must stop assuming that the main attraction of an adventure game is its gameplay. There is a lot -and I mean a lot- of work ahead, and it does not lie in trying to "recreate the magic of the classics".



On a side note, I do think there is much hope for interactive storytelling outside the adventure Form, but that will probably only come much later, not to mention that it's a completely different issue.

[samIamsad]

MoriartyL
(Real-time is out of the question, but why not have the game wait while you decide how to fight?)

It can be realized so that it works this way, I think. But I'd much rather like the game's designer to think about how to grab the player on an *emotional level* and to design the game so that it compliments the pacing of the plot.

(That's also where:

hey must eliminate puzzles when they are only there for their own sake.

comes into play, of course.)

So that real-time stuff (not necessarily aaaaaaaaaaargh "action" (what the heck is action anway?) is absolutely not out of the question by default. But since you're still talking about, eh, adventure games.... (stuck in a small, cute box since 1898)...

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

On a side note, I do think there is much hope for interactive storytelling outside the adventure Form, but that will probably only come much later, not to mention that it's a completely different issue.

Err, what games have you played during the last 10 years? Silent Hill, Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, that list goes on and on.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

It can be realized so that it works this way, I think. But I'd much rather like the game's designer to think about how to grab the player on an *emotional level* and to design the game so that it compliments the pacing of the plot.

...

Err, what games have you played during the last 10 years? Silent Hill, Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, Fallout, that list goes on and on.

Yes, of course I've played tons of good games which tell good stories. But all these types of games have their own limitations as far as storytelling is concerned, because they were not designed with storytelling in mind. There are two ways I see to overcome all limitations in interactive storytelling. One is to tell the story through an adventure, and the other is to transcend the modern Form definitions. Whatever, it's not going to happen for a few console generations at least. And in any case, it doesn't belong on this board.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Are you kidding? This would make a positively incredible puzzle game! Each puzzle would give you a small environment, and allow you to switch between two or more time periods it gives you. The goal of each puzzle is to make something happen in the last time period by pushing things around in the earlier time periods.

Psst. Three words: Labyrinth of Time.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Yes, of course I've played tons of good games which tell good stories. But all these types of games have their own limitations as far as storytelling is concerned, because they were not designed with storytelling in mind. There are two ways I see to overcome all limitations in interactive storytelling. One is to tell the story through an adventure.

How come? I thought by now an adventure was all about big no-no's, and, like some would say, a game that's best defined by what it's NOT?

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

How come? I thought by now an adventure was all about big no-no's, and, like some would say, a game that's best defined by what it's NOT?

I don't understand what you're saying. Of course the adventure Form must overcome its limitations in storytelling if it is to be worthy of notice.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

Psst. Three words: Labyrinth of Time.

Huh? I thought LoT was an adventure.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Huh? I thought LoT was an adventure.

Yep. But it's the Myst type of game (no deep interaction with people) and one can really ignore the storyline. It's very close to being a large damn puzzle. That, and I wasn't being 100%ly serious in the first place. Let me be my game groupie - you party pooper.