[Intrepid Homoludens]

What about the point'n'click-interface is worth keeping?

As far as I know, in terms of selling games to a larger market, it's the kiss of death. A great number of gamers - and game publishers - today, don't give a damn anymore about flat 2D perspectives (unless it's a cool retro side scroller) with a point-&-click interface, though I suspect it's the "way-too-slow, redundant, and boring" gameplay in adventure games that they can't stand any more.

But there's the much smaller niche market of adventure gamers who are used to all that and still prefer to play that way. Designers of 'traditional' adventure games cater to them and for them it's worth keeping that interface.

What does point'n'click do to gameplay?

spaceship789 summed it up well, I think, within a historical context for adventure games. But today, with real time 3D and a far more expansive vernacular in terms of how games can be experienced, point-&-click can be severely limiting or just downright boring and predictable.

It depends on the game and its concept, and in whether you and I as players like to play that way. In Still Life it can be predictable and redundant - find the 3-4 hotspots to get to the next screen, click items on each other for effect. In Neverwinter Nights it can create suspense by steadily revealing the next room (and the next challenges) for your character, as well as pragmatic by keeping your effects in order and on hand. In The Movies it can give instant information on your characters' stats, how compatible they are with other characters to work with, their stress level, what they're doing that very moment, all in real time.

Why should we be afraid of experimentation with other ideas?

I think the question in this case is "Why shouldn't we be afraid?". Because we could discover new ways of experiencing games. Because when we throw aside our prejudices and complaints we open ourselves up to possibilities. Because you and I can't keep point-&-clicking for the rest of our lives now, can we?

Would a 3D game be less ironic?

What do you mean by 'ironic'? In what context? What is being ironized?

Do people choose adventure games out of pacifism?

I wouldn't be surprised if many of them do. But that's more a question of individual psychology than a generalized view.

What do you think of the weather today?

It was beautiful out here in the L.A. area, though I didn't go out today.

TLJ was a game with a good story, but did it fully realize the potential of the medium?

Ragnar Tornquist doesn't seem to think so, if you take Dreamfall as his answer to your question.

Would a new Sam'n'Max lack atmosphere simply simply because you would have to move that wacky canine around using a keyboard or gamepad?

No. ABSOLUTELY NOT. That attitude would be dumb and based more on blind nostalgia, in my opinion. In a game like Psychonauts you moved a wacky boy around using a keyboard or gamepad, and that game had far more atmoshpere than many recent games, I argue.

Is it all about nostalgia?

A lot of it, yes. Blind nostalgia.

And no, I don't do aerobics

What a pity.

[Legolas813]

What about the point'n'click-interface is worth keeping?

I don't want to see it go altogether, but eventually it will probably have to.

It doesn't matter what the game is about; when gamers hear a game is point and click, they immediately tune it out. Making a point and click game is suicide in today's market.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yes, because many people consider it boring and outdated. You can bitch and whine all you want if you're point-&-click lover, but hey, that's the reality.

[Jackal]

Umm, point and click is still the control method for the (last time I checked) best-selling current PC genre of all, the RTS, so anyone that says the control scheme itself is outdated is blowing smoke. It's what you do with it that matters.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Jackal

It's what you do with it that matters.

Agreed.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I agree too. The problem, I think, is that people aren't being imaginative enough. Maybe the Revolution console will get them inspired.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by avatar_58

Sierra and Lucasasrts stopped making them and as a result, people stopped buying them.

I believe it was the other way around, no company would be so stupid to shoot the golden egg-laying goose.

Originally Posted by RockNFknRoll

Often times with keyboard control, your options for what to do in a certain space are very limited. And then when you come across an object, it is very obvious. The fun thing with a point n click is that when you enter a new screen, there are no handicaps. YOU have to find the relevent objects and hot spots with your pointer, you don't have to run around until you see an icon pop up.

It doesn't have to be like that at all. Case one: Dreamfall's focus field. Case two: Silent Hill games which use a system very similar to that found in Grim Fandango. Besides, finding an inventory object shouldn't be a puzzle, doing something with it should.

[avatar_58]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I believe it was the other way around, no company would be so stupid to shoot the golden egg-laying goose.

Really? Think about it. When Sierra was bought, Ken Williams had little to no say in what went on...he admits it himself. They fired some employees and I wouldn't doubt that they decided to "get with the times" and compete with games like Quake. Thats probably what attracted Half-life and the other games they would publish during that time. The genre we all know and love seemed to be neglected by sierra during that time, with only a VERY small amount coming out of that poor company.

Therefore, cendant (or whoever else was in charge) probably assumed - "Forget adventure games, they don't sell" and focused more on other genres releasing games like Lords of Magic, SWAT 2,3, Half-life and their many Front Page sports games. They saw many great sales and again falsely assumed that they were more popular.

Lucasarts, aging as well, decides to make more Star Wars themed games that deal with action. They assume that since no one seems to be buying any more King's Quests then perhaps its time they move on as well. In the end they only produce one or two good adventure games a year and in the process kill the genre......as without Sierra and Lucasarts, lets face it.....it was a nail on a closing coffin.

Thats the way I've seen it anyway....and the past seems to show it like that. The adventures games didn't seem to really 'stop selling' but a list of confusing buyouts and publisher-money-oriented moves caused the problems. Nowadays we sit in wait for a new Sierra or Lucasarts successor to take the genre to the heights it deserves to be.


Uh oh....I've ranted on. Anyone still awake after reading that? Sorry....

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by avatar_58

Therefore, cendant (or whoever else was in charge) probably assumed - "Forget adventure games, they don't sell" and focused more on other genres releasing games like Lords of Magic, SWAT 2,3, Half-life and their many Front Page sports games.

Of course, their cendant (or whoever else was in charge) was clueless enough to not do a market research before completely changing the focus of his company. When everyone's making FPS and RTS games and you're the only company (or one of two big companies) making games of the more profitable genre, the only reasonable thing to do is throw your market domination to the trash can. And when noticing the huge market gap, no other big company decided to fill it in. I can dig that.

Thats the way I've seen it anyway....and the past seems to show it like that.

Um, no. But I've heard worse conspiracy theories.

[colpet]

I think point and click is a great way to navigate through a game. 2 basic buttons, only 1 hand needed and a very familiar interface - it's how most people use the internet . It is a very friendly interface for new gamers .
I'm not attracted to more complex systems of movement involving more than what the mouse can give me. I can see that some people would want the variety that multiple controls can bring, in particular when you want some action in games, but rarely is such complexity needed in adventures.

[Christian IV]

the interface is the key for player comfort, and point and click is easy for that, some of the first 3D interfaces were really tough, and some still are,
one of the nice htings about the 3D 360 free look is the easy of use, and some of the 3D games out now and coming, like Far Cry and upcoming Crysis from Crytek (yes a FPS but some of the most amazing graphics I have ever seen...and a great game editor)...so the games need to keep going with the innovations of graphics above all, I am not insistent on point and click, but hope for ease of play.

[Jeysie]

I doubt that point 'n click is the reason that adventure games are declining... wouldn't Grim Fandango have sold better then?

I'm all for experimentation... provided the result is better than what we had before. Out of the keyboard-control and point 'n click games I've played, I've always found point 'n click to be most optimal... and keyboard/gamepad control to be some degree of annoying.

Part of the problem is that the main gaming market doesn't want games devoted to exploring stories; they want action in there. Especially since other genres have gotten better at having strong stories and characters.

I feel that the type of people who *would* still enjoy exploring a story are the type of people who don't ordinarily play computer games. "What, computer games? Those silly things where you run around shooting things at monsters? No, not my cup of tea."

Another contention - are there any adventures that actually *use* the 3D element, or are they all still slapping 3D graphics on 2D play?

Of course, I think that even then the love affair with 3D would hurt adventures as well. There was a really great opinion piece in the first page of Computer Games Magazine this month, where the writer talks about "technology vs. art direction". Namely, 3D graphics have gotten more and more realistic, but for the most part the *artistry* is gone.

Old graphic adventures tended to have the knack where they could deliver fun, arty graphics of strange worlds for you to explore. But I've seen very few 3D games with truly "arty" graphics... the push towards "realism" sucks the art out of it.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Eyeball Kid]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Would a 3D game be less ironic?

What do you mean by 'ironic'? In what context? What is being ironized?

I was (kind of) asking if 3D can be as expressive and precise as it wants to, and a valid alternative to 2D. But mostly it was meant as a joke. Apparently, my jokes should come with a manual, and I don't blame you at all.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And no, I don't do aerobics

What a pity.

I enjoy long walks. Offline, that is.

[avatar_58]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Um, no. But I've heard worse conspiracy theories.

Naw, its not a conspiracy theory. Its no secret that the other genres were rocking the sales charts around the time the adventure genre began to thin out. People were ready for fancy 3D graphics and the newest and greatest shooters. If you ask me that 'phase' has since grown out and people want a little more. Unfortunately so far no real amazing adventures have come to change people's minds that the genre is dead.

As I said, Indigo Prophecy has been the only one in years to turn my head. Still-life and the other offering from the adventure company may be good games, but they are still only filler compared to what I was used to in the 90's. In fact I'm damn sure the only reason I give them the time of day is because I'm starved.

[Christian IV]

Jeysie, excellent points re the artistry vs the technicalities, I found some of the fps games done in the last few years with amazing graphics and even some tonality and ambience, but one senses that the actual designers and artists were mostly ignored in the overall game formating decisions in the board room, there was great potential, some of the new engines can create Immense worlds that one can explore and move within, i am using one of them currently to build a world and it is an amazing experience, but the content and the story and the artistry and ambience all take a lot of iimagination and vision, and some ideas of what the game is about, and we have a series of topics that seem to get really used up, i.e. the mysterious alien world with strange buildings and a lost culture, lost cultures here in our earth, fairy stories and romances, quests and seeking redemption, and now crime and horror, with some second generation versions of the above....

i remain hopeful that the bright young generation of game desginers who are just now coming of age WITH the expertise of the latest engines and softwares can help bring us into a new age of fine and beautiful games, whatever the interface......we may indeed have new forms of interfaces that go beyond mouses, controllers and keyboards, but that is in the works and not out yet......

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I find PNC to be the most efficient form of interface for adventures.

After all, most of the time the whole point of an adventure is to interact with various bits of the environment. I'd rather be able to click on a bit of the environment and have the character go up to the bit to interact with it in some way automatically, instead of having to spend time fiddling with getting the character just in the right spot.

I think it's quite efficient, yes, but it really depends on the concept of the game and how the designers feel the game should be experienced. Sometimes another interface can work far better. In Uru for example, it was very difficult to precisely control your third person avatar - make her jump, run, negotiate the real-time 3D world - using the mouse only. In the optional first person view it's even worse, because you're trying to both steer and jump/run with the mouse only. A traditional WASD keyboard setup would've solved all that.

Adventures require a precision of positioning that I find irritating to achieve with direct control.

That sounds like a blanket statement. You may have simply played a few games that did an awful job using direct control. It is possible to design the game so that the character just needs to be in general proximity of the interactive spot, and when you click on that spot she automatically goes to it and interacts. It's more a matter of quality of the programming, not the concept of that way of interacting.

Now, if there's ever more games in which being able to move a 3D character within a 3D environment is integral to the puzzles, it'd be worth more. But the 3D adventures I've played so far have pretty much just been 2D gameplay with 3D graphics.

Right. I think this is so because most adventure game designers have little or no extensive experience working in real time 3D. Once you go into 3D you must throw out your 2D mindset, because you're now working with depth of space and the shifting point of view, and so your thinking must be the same way. This is why the superfluous crate puzzles in Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon felt so stupid to me - they were simply slider puzzles, with practically no advantage taken of the spacial depth in the world.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that adventure games shouldn't be in 3D anymore, it should mean that designers be FAR MORE CRITICAL in how they design challenges and situations IN A REAL 3D WORLD. Take advantage of the medium!

I'm not personally afraid of experimentation... I just don't think it's worth changing what works unless you can find something that works better. Change just for the sake of change, or just to "keep up with the times", doesn't interest me.

I agree. However, change for the sake of staying in business applies here. Let's get real, we're not working with some hermetically romantic idea, these game companies HAVE TO STAY ALIVE. The problem with a lot of the more conservative gamers is that they keep thinking the games are ONLY for them. Well, the games are for them, for the fans, but is that enough for the game companies in terms of making money? The indie developers are struggling, and thank god some of them are getting noticed by publishers, but not all of them.

Ragnar Tornquist and David Cage are the rare exceptions, they want more people to enjoy dramatic, story driven games. The reality is that features like real time 3D and updated graphics SELL, let's not bullshit ourselves. Besides, who ever said that quality content is boring? Most gamers WANT quality content, often times more than great graphics. And based on my own experience discussing this with other gamers online, that's a primary reason why they don't give a damn anymore about most adventure games in the past several years. There's not enough QUALITY, according to them. However, they are also the ones who looked forward to Fahrenheit and can't wait for Dreamfall to come out, because these two games are trying NEW THINGS! But many of the other adventure games? Nope. Those look boring to them.

Originally Posted by Terramax

The only reason why people wonder what's going wrong with AGs as opposed to there genres is because these games don't sell as well. But IMO this is the faults and wrongs with those buying games and the publishers not selling the games the right way than it being the fault of the programmers of these AG games.

Would you mind elaborating on this? How is it the fault of the consumers ('those buying games')? Are they not buying enough, or do they keep buying the same games over and over, thus telling publishers they want those games over and over? How are the publishers not selling adventure games correctly? Do you think that if many adventure games stay fundamentally the same in content and quality as they've been for the past several years but are instead marketed differently and more aggressively, would they reach a much larger market? Would non-adventure gamers give a damn?

[RockNFknRoll]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

It doesn't have to be like that at all. Case one: Dreamfall's focus field. Case two: Silent Hill games which use a system very similar to that found in Grim Fandango. Besides, finding an inventory object shouldn't be a puzzle, doing something with it should.

I haven't played Dreamfall yet, so we'll see about that. Silent Hill is basically exactly what I'm talking about. Great game, but the adventure elements are completely trivial. I wouldn't even call it an adventure game. I'd prefer the console version to a PC version anyway. Grim Fandango, another great game but I thought the gameplay was contrived. It might as well been point & click, it wouldn't have changed the puzzles a bit and it would have been much more comfortable and efficient, not to mention the handicap of seeing his head point at everything actionable.

As for your last sentence, speak for yourself my friend. I think everything should be a puzzle. The more puzzles, the better imo

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by RockNFknRoll

I haven't played Dreamfall yet, so we'll see about that. Silent Hill is basically exactly what I'm talking about. Great game, but the adventure elements are completely trivial. I wouldn't even call it an adventure game.

By what standards are you referring to in terms of whether it's an adventure game? Or that it's not as valid when it tried something new and a little daring (i.e. direct control)?

I'd prefer the console version to a PC version anyway. Grim Fandango, another great game but I thought the gameplay was contrived. It might as well been point & click, it wouldn't have changed the puzzles a bit and it would have been much more comfortable and efficient, not to mention the handicap of seeing his head point at everything actionable.

Are you saying that a game has to be point-&-click to be an adventure game?

As for your last sentence, speak for yourself my friend. I think everything should be a puzzle. The more puzzles, the better imo

So then, what is a puzzle?

[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

cendant (or whoever else was in charge) was clueless enough to not do a market research before completely changing the focus of his company.

Not totally true. Cendant had no idea how to run the company, but, prior to their takeover there were internal memos about how to make games more like Lara Croft. The developer of Lighthouse even polled registered buyers on the topic.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by RockNFknRoll

I haven't played Dreamfall yet, so we'll see about that. Silent Hill is basically exactly what I'm talking about. Great game, but the adventure elements are completely trivial.

I felt a bit puzzled that Konami didn't use their disturbing plotting as a springboard for plenty brain teasers myself and opted to explore themes like child abuse and grief in depth instead. What the hell were they thinking????