[noknowncure]

I feel that there is a tendency - in games in general - to ape films and popular culture. This works a lot better in other genres because, as people have mentioned, there is an immediacy in FPS or more action oriented games that negates the effects of cliche. The fact that its basically ripping off some cheesy action film doesn't matter because your exploding buildings and such. In Adventure Games, the cliche is blindingly obvious because you have to take it all in - because that is the game.

I think that stories in adventure games need to remain simple and clear. I don't mean simple in a patronising sense, more that you should know what it is you're working towards. I'm not sure how to describe it really, but many games seem to think that the more convoluted they make a plot, the better the game and the cleverer they look.

[Ninth]

I think we lost some freshness and originality along the way, but that quality is still there to be found.
The writing in games like Still Life, of Syberia is good; it's just not clever. We need more clever writers like good old Tim Schafer, because one gets tired of stories that are only efficient, not entertaining.
When is the last time a really funny AG has come out? The Westerner didn't make me laugh, and neither did Broken Sword 3, or Dreamfall (when these last two where supposed to be funny, at least).

Also, the trend toward making "Holywoodian" games (Fahrenheit, Dreamfall) is not one I like to see developping itself, as I'm not a big fan of Holywood. By that I mean putting the accent on "huge, epic" stories, but leaving some things like subtlety and nuances behind. Now it's always all in black and white (Dreamfall), or all in grey (Still Life), when it used to be colorful (Monkey Island). And seriously, I find this all focusing on the story completely misplaced. What matter, to me, are the characters, and the dialogs. A great story is meaningless without good characters, but good characters don't need a good story to live.

[Melanie68]

Dreamfall was supposed to be funny?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

This is among the reasons I've stepped back a little in my approach to developing games. In terms of gameplay, many of the adventure games in the early to mid 1990s were among the best created. While there have been great advences in storytelling, it seems as though this has been to the detriment of gameplay in many cases. It's almost like we've allowed storytelling (as well as art and technology) to get ahead of us when we're not really ready.

Al Lowe learned this lesson himself in the early '90's. He created Leisure Suit Larry 5 as a cut-scene heavy game that was light on gameplay and easy to get through. He later admitted that LSL5 was from his "hey, I get it - people want games that are like little movies!" phase. Of course he realized this was not correct, and LSL6 went back to a free-roaming puzzle romp (a good thing).

You know what's funny? Typing the word "puzzle" in this forum feels weird. The keywords you usually hear in relation to adventure games these days are "dialogue", "plot", "story", "voice-acting", and "ending". Something is definitely wrong here. Puzzles (and in the case of adventure games, puzzles = gameplay) should be paramount.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

Dreamfall was supposed to be funny?

At some points, yes. You know, the good old "from laughter to tears" thing.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Al Lowe learned this lesson himself in the early '90's. He created Leisure Suit Larry 5 as a cut-scene heavy game that was light on gameplay and easy to get through.

I'm playing through LSL 2 now, and something neat happened to me. When Larry accidently stepped into that

Spoiler:

dating show

and it was Larry's turn to answer the lady's mighty fine questions, the narrator/Mr. Lowe/the game suddenly asked me (yes, ME!) to fire away the best line I could think of. Nothing spectacular perhaps, but at first I was staring at the screen in disbelief. Pretty darn cool.

And about that puzzle thing: I don't like the word "puzzle". Seems a bit restricting, and it doesn't even cover all the challenges I've encountered in (adventure) games so far. Besides, I don't think that typical puzzles/obstacles are the only way to add gameplay. Or at least to make the game interactive and thus a game. Obstacles provide the challenges, but there's more than just those to enrichen the gaming experience.

[MoriartyL]

There was some other thread where I argued my position fairly thoroughly, so I won't take too much of your time here. The general idea is, when adventures first started it was good to focus on gameplay, but now that it is reasonably well developed story should be the main issue. Not having much money, I can't play any current adventure games, but judging by what people have said about them it sounds like adventure creators are on the right track.

There are many other forms of interactive fiction (and note how I use the term in its most broad, literal, and useful definition) which can be found in RPGs, Metal Gear Solid (not stealth, just MGS for its three-part structure), metaludes and all other complex types of games. (FPSs are not in this category, not because they haven't had good stories but because I don't think they need good stories.) However, I will have to say that adventures have the best storytelling for a very simple reason: I think Photopia by Adam Cadre is the best storytelling, and adventures have it.

Since someone brought up Myst, I will have to threaten turning this into yet another argument about classification. (You'd think they'd learn. ) But as long as that's on the table, I will say that I liked Myst's focus on stories, but it is not a good mold for the future. I personally would much prefer pure exploration, free of plot, puzzles and action, and I think it would be better for the long-term viability of the art form.

[MoriartyL]

Oh, and as for room for improvement: Obviously, not having played recent adventures somewhat impairs my ability to make this call, but I'll make it anyway. I think the format of adventures should be improved to better serve storytelling. (I have no problem saying this in ignorance, because the format can always be improved.)

First of all, writers need to start thinking about ways to adapt the style of the storytelling to the player. If the player wants to spend a lot of time wandering around and looking at objects lying around, he should be allowed to. And if he wants to rush through the story, I think he should be allowed to do that too without having obstacles thrown in his way.

Secondly, writers need to think about techniques to give the characters more personality independant of the player. I've talked about this in the past as well. The key is dynamic limitations, both in the main interface and in dialogues. There is much work to be done here. The player should understand (in many games, but perhaps not all) that he is not the character, and be allowed to get to know his character better.

[Brandon]

Near the beginning, whoever said get rid of cutscenes entirely... what adventure player doesn't look forward to game intros and endings and the like? I get the point you're making, but to take it to the literal extreme is silly.

Agreeing with MoriartyL... Myst is not an adventure game.

but good characters don't need a good story to live

Um... hello? That may be true in some weird MMORPG / Sims universe, but story is the backbone of the adventure game.

The general trend of this thread from some of you, that story is over-rated, is completely misplaced. The story of the game, or more specifically the premise of the game, is what should drive the character (and hence the player) from scene to scene through to the end of the game. The plot of the game - the unfolding of the game story from the premise of the game, the start, to the end - should develop through the characters and situations that the player encounters as they explore the gameworld, leading the player from goal to puzzle to solution.

All the "rules" of good narrative and good storytelling - the kind of stuff you learn in English class - apply. The only thing that's different is the element of interactivity, which does affect how you implement narrative storytelling, but not the foundations or requirements of it.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Near the beginning, whoever said get rid of cutscenes entirely... what adventure player doesn't look forward to game intros and endings and the like? I get the point you're making, but to take it to the literal extreme is silly.

Cutscenes are a problem in several types of games, but I agree that adventures are not one of them. First of all, adventures are built on pre-scripted events already, so it's not like a noninteractive cutscene is out of character. Secondly, most adventures already have at least two "game modes": There's the main game and the interface for dialogues, and then there is often a separate interface for the gameworld's map and all the more intricate puzzles/minigames which take up the whole screen. With all this switching around already, the only problem with cutscenes is that it's not reached interactively and is unanticipated- but that's usually no big deal because you generally know when a big plot point is coming up and go into it with that knowledge.

This leaves only one problem: The cutscenes might be in a radically different art style to the rest of the game. It's not a big problem, but it's a problem. This can easily be avoided, which brings me back to my original point: cutscenes are not a problem in adventure games.

[Fairygdmther]

I've often thought while playing an adv game, that I don't know why I'm doing something until it's done. I would like to see someone try a narrator as a game expositor. Dreamfall would have been perfect to try out this technique. You start from the end scene, and Zoë is talking to us. Why couldn't she have spoken to us explaining to us what she is doing or attempting to do throughout the game. It doesn't have to be done continuously, but there are many places where it would have been helpful. Something like, "I need to get ________ done, now what would be the best way to approach this without getting caught." Like in the troll cave - how would she know she would need the glowing egg? or the pebbles?

There are many ways to tell stories - personal narration, observational narration, flashbacks, or real time - where neither the protagonists nor the reader/player knows what is coming.

The technique of 'try everything on everything else and see what combines' is not an intuitive means of moving a story along. It pits random guesswork against realistic challenge. I don't mind figuring out how to get huge machinery to work, if I know what is supposed to do, and from that, how will it help me to accomplish what I need to do.

Anything that takes me out of the story is a distraction, whether that is pixel hunting, mazes, fighting, or combining odd objects. Call it linear if you like, but I want the story to progress. I do want the time to explore an area, if I like, but otherwise don't interrupt the flow with distractions.

Lynsie

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Anything that takes me out of the story is a distraction, whether that is pixel hunting, mazes, fighting, or combining odd objects. Call it linear if you like, but I want the story to progress. I do want the time to explore an area, if I like, but otherwise don't interrupt the flow with distractions.

Excuse me if I'm a little baffled, but these "distractions" are the gameplay (unless I'm missing something) and without them you only have an interactive story and not a game.

[noknowncure]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

What she said

That's a really interesting idea. Broken sword often played George's narration when he'd* completed an objective or solved a particular puzzle, more as an artistic flourish, to tie seemingly random actions into the story or to dramatise particular moments, but there could have been moments where his narration - or thoughts/memories - explained what he thought he had to do.

It would give a clear purpose to those points in adventure games where you genuinely have no idea what you're supposed to be doing.

I find that very often, these moments crop up during the more simple parts of games. I'll be looking too hard for another problem in an area perhaps, when all I actually need to do is return to the 1st room.

Its a good idea if implemented correctly.

*By which I mean I'd. I need to keep telling myself they're not real people.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Excuse me if I'm a little baffled, but these "distractions" are the gameplay (unless I'm missing something) and without them you only have an interactive story and not a game.

Steve, perhaps I should have been clearer. There are times when mazes and pixel hunting aren't distractions, but often they are used to extend the playing time, and that aggravates me. I don't mind puzzles, and challenges if they make sense within the game. I have to admit that I haven't yet played your games, though they are on my list and I have BS 1 & 3. For example, in Syberia II, which I enjoyed, there was a great deal of tracking back and forth, that could have been made easier on the player by having a map to click on once you've been there once, but making you trek all the way through eleven screens is aggravating because it takes you out of the game. So I guess I'm calling them distractions if they seem redundant, or out in left field. So back to Syberia 1 & 2 - I enjoyed fixing all those quaint pieces of equipment, simply because they fit within the game. I certainly don't want to remove all the gameplay.

Lynsie

[Brandon]

Hmm, what did you need those pebbles for anyway? I never used them!

I wouldn't be into the player narrative thing. If it's used infrequently, it wouldn't be very strong stylistically and it would come off as kind of clumsy. If it was used consistently, it would quickly, for me, become tiring.

Dreamfall (and TLJ) somewhat solved this with April's Diary / Zoe's Mobile. There's always some indication / clue of what to do next with the entries therein. I thought that this was great and one part of both games that was done very well.

[jackshaftoe]

SPOILERS HEREIN

In terms of plot I’m getting seriously sick and tired of “saving the world”.

The Fahrenheit demo was really appealing to me because it seemed to focus on a very down to earth story and situation (possession rituals aside). The setting, the murder, the escape were all handled, I thought, brilliantly.

But come the final scenes

Spoiler:

and it’s all freaky glowing outer-space men and, yup, saving the world. Yawn. My last save file has me about to walk into the Area 51 facility. I feel in no-way compelled to finish it.

(Incidentally, the game is set in about 2009, and Lucas is about 30 years old. How come his childhood takes place in the 1950s?!?!?).

Still Life might have been a slightly underwhelming experience, and massively derivative of your typical Hollywood crime drama, but at least I didn’t have to avert some kind of apocalypse.

Broken Sword 3 was another that tired me. I was playing it around the same time as the previous Tomb Raider game, and they are almost EXACTLY the same game. (barring a spot of platforming).

Spoiler:

We start in Paris, hopping over balconies and tracking down murderers and exploring ancient subterranean vaults before heading to some castle in Prague, and then wouldn’t-you-just-know-it saving the world from an ancient doomsday machine. And, inexplicably, a dragon.

I’ve always thought the beauty of the adventure genre was that, with the ability to focus on character, dialogue and location along with the lack of boss battles, intense shooting and so on that you find in most other types of game.

Adventures have a huge potential to tell great stories with their intimacy and slower pace. I’m thinking of the ongoing relationship between the two leads on the Gabriel Knight series as a fantastic example.

I also think cutscenes are a vital part of that. Going back to the days of Maniac Mansion we were looking at cutscenes, and they formed a vital part of our understanding of what the story was, what our objectives were, the results of our actions within the gameworld and rewarded us for progression. And, to be fair, every time we click a dialogue option what we get is a kind of cutscene. For the time that the dialogue response starts we’re momentarily removed from interaction.

I will admit that there are better ways to integrate story progression into games. Although I’m not entirely sold that the Half Life 2 solution is the answer. Everyone constantly highlights that as a revolutionary method of storytelling, but there isn’t really much of a storyline to Half Life 2. Rebels fighting government, base gets trashed, guy gets kidnapped, rescue. The end. But for subtleties it DID do wonders for keeping you involved.

To be honest I think the underground scene is where we’ll see any real developments on this issue. The pressures of large-scale development probably don’t allow for the release of small intimate stories any more. Unless the sequel to Another Code is really really good.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by jackshaftoe

I also think cutscenes are a vital part of that. Going back to the days of Maniac Mansion we were looking at cutscenes, and they formed a vital part of our understanding of what the story was, what our objectives were, the results of our actions within the gameworld and rewarded us for progression.

Maniac Mansion was just a brilliantly designed game before anything else. Here the cutscenes aren't just a gimmick to reward you for overcoming whatever obstacle you stumbled across, but helped to establish a coherent game world (the Edison mansion) and a cinematic feeling. And of course an illusion that things were constantly happening around you (and if you ever got caught by Weird Ed while he's on his way to fetch the cheese from the fridge, you know they actually did! Brill!)... in "real-time". Now that's something.

That said, there is a place for cutscenes. Heck, there's a place for *everything*. There's just seldom reason to get excited about that formulaic flip "puzzle"/overcome obstacle->watch cutscene schtick.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

Steve, perhaps I should have been clearer. There are times when mazes and pixel hunting aren't distractions, but often they are used to extend the playing time, and that aggravates me. I don't mind puzzles, and challenges if they make sense within the game. I have to admit that I haven't yet played your games, though they are on my list and I have BS 1 & 3. For example, in Syberia II, which I enjoyed, there was a great deal of tracking back and forth, that could have been made easier on the player by having a map to click on once you've been there once, but making you trek all the way through eleven screens is aggravating because it takes you out of the game. So I guess I'm calling them distractions if they seem redundant, or out in left field. So back to Syberia 1 & 2 - I enjoyed fixing all those quaint pieces of equipment, simply because they fit within the game. I certainly don't want to remove all the gameplay.

Lynsie

Sorry Lynsie, I misunderstood what you meant. What I think you're saying is what I've felt for a long time - that the story and gameplay should intertwine and complement each other in order that the player gets the maximum enjoyment from the game.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Sorry Lynsie, I misunderstood what you meant. What I think you're saying is what I've felt for a long time - that the story and gameplay should intertwine and complement each other in order that the player gets the maximum enjoyment from the game.

How nice to have one's opinion backed by competent authority!

Lynsie

[Martin Gantefoehr]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Here the cutscenes aren't just a gimmick to reward you for overcoming whatever obstacle you stumbled across

Hm. I don't know. My feeling is, in many games, cutscenes are actually used pretty reasonably -- for establishing shots, spatial transitions, and important plot points that require close control over the nature and pace of the screen events. Mostly, they're not gimmicks, but dramatic elements placed along the story spine.

I agree that, in principle, making ALL events playable seems like the "natural" way to approach things in an interactive game. However, on the development side of things, providing dozens of gameplay options for a complex, fast-paced story event that's supposed to have 30 seconds of screen time, is something that might be feasible over at Valve, but not in many others development houses.