[linus81]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

There were times the genre wasn't a niche market,

But in those times computer gaming itself was a niche market. Now computer gaming has grown big, but it seems like most of those new customers just don't feel like pointing and clicking their way through inventory items and dialog trees. Ksandra pretty much pointed out the same thing.

Originally Posted by Erwin_BR

and the games were, in fact, selling like World of Warcraft. I'm not complaining at all, though. We're getting enough adventure games, and some of them are even good!

--Erwin

Well, I'm not certain that this is wrong, but I honestly doubt it. WoW has sold 8 million copies to date. Well, Myst sold 9, but that's the only AG that's managed to surpass that number to my knowledge. The entire KQ series (MoE not included) sold about 7 million copies. Monkey Island 2, which is generally regarded a commercial success, sold about .5 million copies. Well, fortunately, this is about art, not about numbers. What's so bad about being fan of a niche genre?

[Crapstorm]

Orange Brat, how many video game shelves were there back in 1990? Let's guess 10,000 in all of the USA. And let's say 40% of the games on those shelves were adventures... at 10 games per shelf, we've got about 40,000 adventure games on sale. Now it's 2007, there are, like 10,000,000 video game shelves, and still about 40,000 adventure games on them all.

[Mikekelly]

One thing I know - Hotel Dusk does not suck

[Gabe]

One thing for sure genre looks quite dead this year, maybe become alive next year with Gray Matter.

[Ksandra]

Originally Posted by Orange Brat

That's not true at all. Adventures used to the dominant PC genre in the late 80s and early to mid-90s. I remember a time when shelves were overrun with them, and PC magazines from the time featured the games prominently.

But this is exactly my point: they were the dominant genre, but only because there were so few other genres to compete with. As soon as action-based games such as Doom arrived on the scene, they started selling in far greater numbers than adventure games, and the companies that had previously made AGs turned their attention (inevitably) to other genres in order to make more profit. It is sad, but I really don't see the point in dreaming about some magical future world in which adventures will once again be dominant, because it's not going to happen. We simply need to moderate our expectations - other types of art (e.g. indie films, classical music) are not considered 'dead' just because they have niche rather than mainstream appeal, so why should it be any different for computer games?

[Pyuras]

They're not considered 'dead' because it doesn't take a load of money to write a fine piece of classical music, so the quality of what's being written today hasn't dropped because of it being 'pushed' to a niche market (although it's indeed very different from what was written in, say, the Romantic or Baroque period, of course). But it does take a load of money to make a fine adventure game. Being mainstream again would mean more games with excellent production values like the ones we were used to in the golden era.

[Ksandra]

Originally Posted by Pyuras

They're not considered 'dead' because it doesn't take a load of money to write a fine piece of classical music, so the quality of what's being written today hasn't dropped because of it being 'pushed' to a niche market (although it's indeed very different from what was written in, say, the Romantic or Baroque period, of course). But it does take a load of money to make a fine adventure game. Being mainstream again would mean more games with excellent production values like the ones we were used to in the golden era.

The average quality may have fallen somewhat (though frankly, even that is debatable - I've played remakes of the early Kings Quest games and was not impressed), but there are still some very good games being released. You can wait to kingdom come for AGs to become mainstream again if you want to; I prefer to cut my losses and accept that it's not going to happen. It's got to the stage where I really don't care whether anyone else thinks the genre is dead or not, as long as new adventures are still being released. Yes, of course it would be great if every AG had a huge budget and marvellous production values, but since there's very little prospect of that ever happening, I think it's time we stopped moaning about the 'dying' genre and started making the most of what we have.

[Pyuras]

But that is exactly the problem: "making the most of what we have". The adventure genre as we know it for the past 20 years or so is really a tired formula. Even games with a high budget (Escape from Monkey Island pops to mind) have fail to sparkle any life in the genre, because they lack innovation. What bothers me in AGs today is that the genre isn't moving forward like other genres, and that is mainly our fault: the players. We are very resistant to chance, even small ones (for example, look at how many people here in this forum are instantly put off just for the thought of a game having some actions elements). I think bringing some elements (not necessarily only actions elements, of course) from other genres into AGs could really benefit the genre and attract a new audience to it (provided they're done well, not the mediocre "actions sequences" we're used to get. i.e: combat in Dreamfall, sequences in Bone and Sam & Max S1).

For me, AGs are about three things mainly: Great Story, Exploration of a interesting World and clever puzzles. As long as a game has that, it doesn't really matter to me if it's Parser, P'n'C, 2D, 2.5D, 3D, or whatever. Games like Soul Reaver or Beyond Good & Evil are good examples of genre-crossing games that still maintain most of the elements that make adventure games great.

I know this must have being discussed thousands of times here before, but as long as we're not willing to accept that the genre must evolve, we'll be stuck with a load of mediocre games with very, very few great ones.

[shadow9d9]

Originally Posted by Pyuras

But that is exactly the problem: "making the most of what we have". The adventure genre as we know it for the past 20 years or so is really a tired formula. Even games with a high budget (Escape from Monkey Island pops to mind) have fail to sparkle any life in the genre, because they lack innovation. What bothers me in AGs today is that the genre isn't moving forward like other genres, and that is mainly our fault: the players. We are very resistant to chance, even small ones (for example, look at how many people here in this forum are instantly put off just for the thought of a game having some actions elements). I think bringing some elements (not necessarily only actions elements, of course) from other genres into AGs could really benefit the genre and attract a new audience to it (provided they're done well, not the mediocre "actions sequences" we're used to get. i.e: combat in Dreamfall, sequences in Bone and Sam & Max S1).

For me, AGs are about three things mainly: Great Story, Exploration of a interesting World and clever puzzles. As long as a game has that, it doesn't really matter to me if it's Parser, P'n'C, 2D, 2.5D, 3D, or whatever. Games like Soul Reaver or Beyond Good & Evil are good examples of genre-crossing games that still maintain most of the elements that make adventure games great.

I know this must have being discussed thousands of times here before, but as long as we're not willing to accept that the genre must evolve, we'll be stuck with a load of mediocre games with very, very few great ones.

What other genres are "evolving"?

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Pyuras

What bothers me in AGs today is that the genre isn't moving forward like other genres, and that is mainly our fault: the players.

What are you babbling about? What "genres" do you see moving forward at a fast pace?! Shooters are continually rehashing the same tired mechanics with new coats of paint; RPGs are usually too focused on repeating the ancient formulas to actually make the game playable; RTS is pretty much at a dead end; Platformers are practically dead without ever having gotten anywhere; Metaludes are made so infrequently that when one is made it's just a rehash of an old formula like Zelda or GTA; Sports games introduce as few changes as they can get away with so that they can keep going forever; Need I go on? Okay, I'll grant you simulations, which are evolving pretty much thanks to the efforts of one man. But if you think progress is common, well, what world are you living on? Because I want to live there too!

Now, your cure to the problem is "innovation". Innovation (as I love saying) is a dime a dozen. I could give you an adventure game where the graphics were upside-down, and that would be innovative. But it's not evolution, just a one-time gimmick. And what you're proposing is even worse- grafting elements from other Forms onto the adventure and calling the new creation an adventure isn't evolution- it's just a transfusion. The way forward is not through random "innovation", it's by repeating and enhancing what works and continually discarding what doesn't. For that matter, innovation isn't even a way out from mediocre games!- if all games were innovative, then 90% of the innovative games would be cruddy little gimmicks rather than the bad 90% we've got now. Quality is not something that comes from a buzzword, it's something that comes from continual improvement and studying. And that's a job for the developers, not the players.

[aBoyinPERIL]

I'm glad I started this thread - it's encouraging to hear so many who have such a passion for the genre but feel some distance recently from it due to their own perceptions of it's so called decline.

I agree with most points on here - to some graphics are paramount and with the hasty move to 3D many Adventure games have suffered in the transition.

What everyone seems to agree about though is the paramount importance to the storyline and characters. No AG will win all the voters but games such as Still Life, Syberia, Broken Sword, Monkey Island had a real focus on these elements.

Would you agree - that we HAVE to remember where we came from - Text Adventures hit the scene in the 80's with the advent of the home computer and paved the way for the genre. I remember playing the Hobbit on my spectrum PC and really having my preferences in gaming style shaped by using my intelligence, decision making skills and not my fighting reaction skills. AG have a long history - some may even day a Silver and Golden Age...? This is technically derived and influenced by story, narrative and characterisation - this coupled with an inbedded mystery/solve-it reward is the heart of why we love/hate the AG of our times now. I feel this explains the diheartenment we feel when graphics take over elements that we love. Now this is not to say that we return to text adventures - but perhaps we need to closely examine those principles again before we progress any further...

I am all for progression - and we have a lot of games to look forward to. I agree with those who have stated that the genre will never be mainstream. I don't think it ever has or ever will be. It is too tuned into specific likes and attributes of the player. But there will always be a subsection of gamers who like this genre - therefore will continue to play and create these games.

What we do need is something ground-breaking, and based upon the planned games for the future and the continual market allegience to AG I think we are close upon it.

[Pyuras]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

What are you babbling about? What "genres" do you see moving forward at a fast pace?! Shooters are continually rehashing the same tired mechanics with new coats of paint; RPGs are usually too focused on repeating the ancient formulas to actually make the game playable; RTS is pretty much at a dead end; Platformers are practically dead without ever having gotten anywhere; Metaludes are made so infrequently that when one is made it's just a rehash of an old formula like Zelda or GTA; Sports games introduce as few changes as they can get away with so that they can keep going forever; Need I go on? Okay, I'll grant you simulations, which are evolving pretty much thanks to the efforts of one man. But if you think progress is common, well, what world are you living on? Because I want to live there too!

Have you played Oblivion or Neverwinter Nights 2? Now pick a random RPG from 20 years ago and tell me that you don't see any evolution in the gameplay mechanics. Get System Shock 2 or Deus Ex and compare them to Doom. See no evolution whatsoever? They may not all be HUGE steps forward, but some evolution took place. Now pick Still Life and Monkey Island. I don't see any real evolution in gameplay mechanics between these two games.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Now, your cure to the problem is "innovation". Innovation (as I love saying) is a dime a dozen. I could give you an adventure game where the graphics were upside-down, and that would be innovative. But it's not evolution, just a one-time gimmick. And what you're proposing is even worse- grafting elements from other Forms onto the adventure and calling the new creation an adventure isn't evolution- it's just a transfusion. The way forward is not through random "innovation", it's by repeating and enhancing what works and continually discarding what doesn't. For that matter, innovation isn't even a way out from mediocre games!- if all games were innovative, then 90% of the innovative games would be cruddy little gimmicks rather than the bad 90% we've got now. Quality is not something that comes from a buzzword, it's something that comes from continual improvement and studying. And that's a job for the developers, not the players.

I didn't mean innovation just for the sake of it, because, as you pointed out, innovation alone is not necessarily a good thing. As you also pointed out, it's a job for the developers. But, how would anyone developing a game (and spending a lot of money already in a risky market as is the AG) have the guts to try to do really innovative and fresh changes when he knows the market for this type of games is VERY conservative? For christ's sake, there are people that won't even try a game just because it's 3D. That's why I said it's our fault as players. Just look at the list of groundbreaking games (for all genres) that were commercial flops. It's not a problem exclusive to the AG audience, but I think it's worse in the AG community then in other markets.

[MoriartyL]

It could be mainstream. Phoenix Wright seems to have captured the hearts of people who aren't fans of adventures. And I'm sure it could go further, and conceivably an adventure could be made which appealed to anyone. But it won't gain popularity until long after adventure designers finally get their act together. What we've seen so far isn't a "Golden Age", it's unsophisticated and awkward. It'll have a chance at respectability when there's something there worth respecting.

[Crapstorm]

Maybe you're right. I've been a fan of pencil & paper logic puzzles all my life, but I never envisioned a day in which millions of people would be doing daily sudokus published in the newspaper.

[aries323]

Totatally off topic, sort of...

Here's something I've spotted while on another site.

Someone mentioned text adventues so here's a spoof of them (sort of
zorkish, in a way ) .

http://www.squidi.net/comic/if/view.php?ep=1&id=1

Here's another: (spotted as signature on the elder scrolls forum)

ETA:

Sorry, I couldn't find it, but the starting idea is that you > eat grue --
and the game then responds to this by saying > the grue won't stand for this.
--- you get the drift of this, I hope ...

After a quick sleep and a nice trip to the doctor tomorrow, I should be fit to write more on this --- (,maybe not as funny, but still )

[shadow9d9]

Originally Posted by Pyuras

Have you played Oblivion or Neverwinter Nights 2? Now pick a random RPG from 20 years ago and tell me that you don't see any evolution in the gameplay mechanics. Get System Shock 2 or Deus Ex and compare them to Doom. See no evolution whatsoever? They may not all be HUGE steps forward, but some evolution took place. Now pick Still Life and Monkey Island. I don't see any real evolution in gameplay mechanics between these two games.



I didn't mean innovation just for the sake of it, because, as you pointed out, innovation alone is not necessarily a good thing. As you also pointed out, it's a job for the developers. But, how would anyone developing a game (and spending a lot of money already in a risky market as is the AG) have the guts to try to do really innovative and fresh changes when he knows the market for this type of games is VERY conservative? For christ's sake, there are people that won't even try a game just because it's 3D. That's why I said it's our fault as players. Just look at the list of groundbreaking games (for all genres) that were commercial flops. It's not a problem exclusive to the AG audience, but I think it's worse in the AG community then in other markets.

Compare NWN 2 and baldur's gate... same game to me... System shock and deus ex would only matter if they became the new standard, but they haven't. Deus Ex 2 was crap and most shooters are still the same game over and over. The genre is still the same. A few games that push the boundary are great, but unless all future games take the boundary pushing and at least hold it, there is no actual step taken.. just one or 2 unique games.

[shadow9d9]

I also want to add that there is little growth in adventure gaming because the mainstream don't want to use their brain(few have them to begin with). This is why American Idol and Survivor do well while shows like Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, and Farscape don't do well.

[numble]

Nothing for me to add to the conversation--I think some people may be interested in this semi-recent article in Mygamer.com: Days of High Adventure which has the byline of "The Rise and Fall (and Rise) of the Adventure Game."

To snag your interest, a snippet from a question asked of Sam and Max: Season One, game designer Brendan Ferguson:

Why do you think adventure games have been driven to near extinction in the mass market by more action-oriented titles in recent years?

Brendan: I think there are a few reasons action games have tended to be more successful in recent years. Many adventure games give you activities that are not inherently very entertaining. Fetch me a something-or-other, flip these levers, and so on. These seem more like chores than something I would pay money to do.

Action games tend to have much better pacing, giving the player a constant stream of challenges and rewards. In a well-designed action game, I can continually improve my skill without ever hitting a wall. Most adventure games, however, are designed such that you will almost certainly hit a point where you simply don't know how to proceed.

While these weaknesses in adventure games have long been present, they once drew large numbers of players simply because they were the only place one could get the experience of visiting another world and being involved in a story.

[Pyuras]

Originally Posted by shadow9d9

System shock and deus ex would only matter if they became the new standard, but they haven't.

That is exactly the point I'm trying to get across. They haven't become the new standard because gamers in general are very conservative. People prefer to play the Nth Quake clone with the latest graphics make-up over a genre-blending, groundbreaking game like SS2.

What message does all this commercial failures from games that try to get "out of the box" send to developers? That gamers just want more of the same. And developers go with the flow, after all, they have to make a profit to stay in business, especially in these times where it costs millions of dollars to make an AAA title.

[eXo]

every week, new topic, same arguements.

How about a topic called, "why a beaten horse never dies"