[Beacon]

I'm getting frustrated that Adventure games are still using Point-n-Click interfaces. I look here and at Just Adventure and the top upcoming games are all point-n-click, even if some are fully 3D rendered otherwise. I like the immersive feel of the 1st person perspective and being able to fully explore the game world at my own pace. It doesn't seem all that difficult to use an engine for a FPS game to create an adventure game. I am playing Star Trek: Voyager Elite Force at the moment. It is an FPS, but there are sequences where all you do is walk around Voyager and talk to NPC characters. If the entire game were these sequences, then this game would be an Adventure game. A good looking one with good controls. It is so possible and I am frustrated that no one is doing it.

I recently got a Nintendo DS. I am interested in some DS Adventure games. I seem to me more interested in these DS games than any PC adventure game because at least these DS games seem to going forward.

[TheZodiacSpeaking]

In some ways I agree with you. I enjoy many point and click games, but I also like being able to move freely. It can be very restrictive and sometimes it's horribly boring. I don't mind the point and click thing if the story is really great, but when the story is blah and you can't move it can be a total pain. Like Myst. I know that just about everyone loved Myst, but I tried playing it and couldn't understand what the big deal was about. I still don't and people have tried to explain it to me. In my own humble opinion Myst should have been called "A Journey to a Place Where Nothing Ever Happens, but if Something did it Would be Boring Anyway". The sequel could have been called "Return to Boring Island". Riven could easily have been "Revenge of the Coma-Inducing Monster". All those would have worked.
I can't say I would like for the point and click design to disappear forever, but a little variety would be nice. Sort of like the way that Agatha Christie game is "Murder on the Orient Exxpress". It's the same concept as a regular AG only you can actually walk around.

[QFG]

I'm the exact opposite; I want much much MORE point-and-click.

I respect but don't particularly yearn for the immersive qualities of the first person perspective.

In fact, except for Dark Fall, I find myself more easily entranced by the game worlds of traditional third person adventures. Maybe it's the on-screen avatar rather than the implied avatar? I feel like a physical representation of the player is able to do so much more - jump, climb, sway, and do all kinds of subtle and complex body motions that are simply impossible to imply in a first person environment.

In my case it's a very heavy preference toward point-and-click third-person view.

[Kurufinwe]

Folks, interface (point-and-click vs. direct control) and perspective (1st-person vs. 3rd-person) are two completely different things, and there have been games with different combinations of the two. So, frustration or not, you should at least decide what it is you're discussing.

[TheZodiacSpeaking]

Well, I didn't major in game genre know-it-allness in college, so sometimes I might not always know exactly what I'm talking about, but the posts are all valid.
The OP had an opinion about point and clilck games.
I can't see where they didn't "decide what they were discussing". *shrug*

[Jeysie]

I'm with QFG on this one. IMHO Point and Click is the ideal interface for adventure games, which often require precise positioning for picking up items and manipulating puzzles. I can remember several points in Grim Fandango and Escape From Monkey Island where I got frustrated because it was difficult to directly position the character where I needed to be to do what I needed to do.

And let's not forget to also add the time wasted trying to maneuver the avatar across the room to do something simple like pick up an item... when if it was P&C I could just, well, point and click and have it done. Call it lazy if you like, but I play adventures to explore the story and puzzles, not act out the tedious stuff in between.

As for the separate issue of 1st-person perspective, I personally have spatial problems, so I often have trouble keeping track of facing in relation to the direction things are in with 1st-person games. I remember that being one of my frustrations with Myst; I would find myself getting confused where I was, or how to get to a specific place I needed to be. Node-less control is even worse! I can only get around easily in 1st-person games if they have widely-spaced nodes that clearly show the path taken to reach each one.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Beacon]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I'm with QFG on this one. IMHO Point and Click is the ideal interface for adventure games, which often require precise positioning for picking up items and manipulating puzzles.

Advances in controls by such games as Deus Ex, Half-Life and other 1st person FPS games have made this kind of issue moot. It is possible to create a 3D direct control adventure game with intuitive controls, it is just that no one dares to try.

[After a brisk nap]

The thing is, the controls need to be right for the gameplay. Direct control is well suited for games that are about movement. Point-and-click makes sense for games where you perform a number of very complex, but not necessarily challenging actions.

Once you make a game direct-controlled, it becomes important that "just running around" should be fun, and preferably an integral part of the game mechanic. That's usually the case for FPS's, and obviously it's a huge part of platformers, racing games, etc.

In adventure games, moving is rarely integrated into the game mechanic (except for in the occasional mini-games), and in fact walking around is usually pretty tedious. Direct control makes that problem worse. Having to pilot Zoe around from one end of town to the other (and back, repeatedly) in Dreamfall was one of the most boring tasks any game has ever put me through.

How would you integrate movement into adventure gameplay? I can think of one possibility: more mazes. I'm sure that would be a popular improvement.

The later Tex Murphy games did a pretty good job of building gameplay around a 3D engine, by having you poke around crime scenes and other locations looking for clues. I remember one place where you have to find a hidden envelope by crouching down and looking under the table. This sort of puzzle isn't suitable for all games, though.

[Atlantis]

Hey dont shun PnC if its seen as old skool, who cares it basically created the adventure genre.

Personally I prefer 3rd person, and PnC, Im not a combat person, I hate adventure games where I have to fight, for me the point of an adventure game is to solve problems to get around say fighting the demon by trapping it with some spell which can only be released by doing this puzzle but you have to find a bunch of stuff first etc etc.

[thx1138]

IMO adventures can not progress any further in means of controls because there is no other choice then point and click(in first and third person) or complete keyboard(only third person) or some combination(FPS are keyboard+point and click). The same is with any other genre of games, only graphics change. Only nintendo is making some progress with Wii but this is still far from something really new.(like vr or something like that) So we have to wait a couple of decades for some changes...

[Ksandra]

The thing is, the controls need to be right for the gameplay. Direct control is well suited for games that are about movement. Point-and-click makes sense for games where you perform a number of very complex, but not necessarily challenging actions.

Exactly. I've never really seen the point of a direct-control interface in games that are puzzle-based rather than action-based. In action games the advantages are obvious: it allows much greater freedom of movement, which is fine when you're getting involved in combat or stealth sequences every five minutes. But for adventures, I generally find point-and-click much simpler, easier and less intrusive.

It's not that I have a problem with the WASD/mouselook control system; I've used it in plenty of action games. It's just that I honestly don't see any advantage to using that kind of control system in games that focus on exploration and puzzle-solving, rather than quick reactions. Claiming that direct control is better just because it's 'newer' or whatever is ridiculous; you want to fit the controls to the game, not the other way round. I've never seen a direct-control interface (and this includes Grim Fandango, Dreamfall and a host of other games) that didn't end up getting in the way rather than enhancing the gameplay experience.

[Beacon]

Originally Posted by Ksandra

It's not that I have a problem with the WASD/mouselook control system; I've used it in plenty of action games. It's just that I honestly don't see any advantage to using that kind of control system in games that focus on exploration and puzzle-solving, rather than quick reactions.

There are two advantages. The first advantage is that it is more immersive, it helps the player feel like they are actually in that place and time and interacting with the game world.

The second advantage is that it opens up new avenues for adventure games to explore as well as bringing in gamers that. Adventure games are the games that are most like books. Look at any book store and the various types of fiction books there are. There should be just as many types of Adventure games. Where are the romance adventures, the sci-fi epic adventures, the techno-thriller adventures, the political intrigue adventures. We have fantasy adventures, mystery adventures and drama/comedy adventures.

With a broader scope and fully immersive controls, Adventure games could become the dominate form of gaming for decades.

[DEMON]

In adventure genre i prefer PnC and 3rd person view and I play 1st person view AGs very seldom.
I fully agree with After a brisk nap´s opinions on this matter.

Originally Posted by Beacon

Where are the romance adventures, the sci-fi epic adventures, the techno-thriller adventures, the political intrigue adventures. We have fantasy adventures, mystery adventures and drama/comedy adventures.

Romance? There is romance in plenty of AGs afaik. Sci-fi epic? Next Space, The Dig, Beneath a steel sky perhaps? Political intrigue? hmm...would someone help me on this one, please?

[noknowncure]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

In adventure games, moving is rarely integrated into the game mechanic (except for in the occasional mini-games), and in fact walking around is usually pretty tedious. Direct control makes that problem worse. Having to pilot Zoe around from one end of town to the other (and back, repeatedly) in Dreamfall was one of the most boring tasks any game has ever put me through.

But that just means it's been done badly, not that it will never work. Dreamfall's use of the environment was woefully inadequate, producing a game that gave the player some very dull little outings. Zoe and April also didn't have much of a physical impact on the world, meaning you simply ended up with a pretty set of corridors.

3D adventures don't have to be 'just running around'. One of the problems with AG's is that the experience can stop being fun when you hit a wall and are unable to figure out what to do next; the game can suddenly feel dead. Therefor, why not build a world with small, varied distractions to help you let off steam when you can't solve a puzzle?

The vast majority of more action packed games tend to have AG style puzzles, these days and I'm constantly bewildered by the fact that someone doesn't just filter out the shooting.

I've mentioned it before, but the Hitman games, for example, consist of small but complex levels, with people and machines that all run in real time, whether your there to see it or not. Using a similar framework, people could produce some really interesting and involving AG's.

The developers have to experiment and take risks when moving from one style to the next, so we're currently getting imperfect 3D games. They're pressured into using 3D by the present games market, but on the other side they have fans complaining about the move, leaving them trapped in between the two extremes - in Limbo.

The developers need your constructive criticism though. Vowing to play P&C exclusively isn't any encouragement at all, so we'll continue to get inferior 3D AG's.

[Jatsie]

I find that using a mouse in a game is far more intuitive than trying to control the character with a keyboard, thus I will always be staunch supporter of point and click in games.

[LuigiHann]

I found that the point-and-click controls in RealMyst and Myst 5 basically let me do whatever I wanted, and were completely immersive and intuitive. I don't think there's really anything that an FPS engine can do that the Myst 5 engine doesn't, except maybe let you jump. Is that what you're talking about? In Myst 5, you can walk smoothly in any direction, in full 3D. I'm also pretty sure that you could run in that game as well.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Beacon

There are two advantages. The first advantage is that it is more immersive, it helps the player feel like they are actually in that place and time and interacting with the game world.

I have to disagree. In adventure games you'll generally be playing a specific character with their own personality and motivations rather than yourself. I find it a lot harder to identify with a character I only ocassionally see as a pair of hands.

The second advantage is that it opens up new avenues for adventure games to explore as well as bringing in gamers that. Adventure games are the games that are most like books. Look at any book store and the various types of fiction books there are. There should be just as many types of Adventure games. Where are the romance adventures, the sci-fi epic adventures, the techno-thriller adventures, the political intrigue adventures. We have fantasy adventures, mystery adventures and drama/comedy adventures.

This I don't see the logic for at all. How does first person make these story types available? To take it back in the other direction I have a copy of the Infocom Classics Collection (text adventures) and all of the storylines you mention are included on it ( even the romantic one) I really don't understand how the way a story is presented alters what overall style of story can be done.

As for the idea that it will bring more non-AGers to the genre by emulating games they already know I remain unconvinced. Do gamers genuinely think that if a game doesn't use controls they are familiar with, it's not worth playing? Surely if someone is genuinely wanting to try something new then a change of controls or viewpoint isn't going to put them off. If we're trying to trick our FPS friends into AGs by saying "look, it's first person" they're going to notice the lack of shooting sooner or later.

Personally I have no preference on controls or viewpoint. If a game is good then I'll play it in whatever way it's presented.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by DEMON

Romance? There is romance in plenty of AGs afaik.

There are plenty of games in which there are romantic elements but there are no games that have a romantic story as the primary driving force. I'm currently trying to find the time to develop a game that will be a true romantic comedy and of course it could only ever be an adventure game.

Originally Posted by Beacon

There are two advantages. The first advantage is that it is more immersive, it helps the player feel like they are actually in that place and time and interacting with the game world.

There's a middle ground where it's less about the immersion in the world and more about the empathy you have with the player character, which is difficult to do from a first person perspective. One solution to this could be the over-the-shoulder perspective you get in games like Max Payne, which has all the freedom of first person but doesn't lose sight of the fact that playing a specific character.

One of the problems that often happens when adventures are created in 3D is that the world often becomes so much larger that if it had been done in 2D, which means that, as you're directly controlling the character, you spend a lot of time just walking or running about the world. On reflection, letting this happen in Broken Sword 3 is something we shouldn't have done.

With a broader scope and fully immersive controls, Adventure games could become the dominate form of gaming for decades.

I think that adventures being a dominant form is unlikely, but as we move towards a wider range of stories being told in games we'll find that the developers who want to tell non-violent stories will likely adopt adventure-like gameplay in order to do so.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Ksandra

I honestly don't see any advantage to using that kind of control system in games that focus on exploration

You've never played Shadow Of The Colossus.

and puzzle-solving.

You've never played Kwirk, either.


This ancient debate keeps popping up every now and then, and it's completely missing the point. To say that any kind of direct control is inherently better by definition is futile, to say that pointing and clicking is inherently more awesome is futile as well. And that's not even keeping in mind all the input devices available today and still in the making, and what they can do.

As a further ado: It's okay to say that the controls in Grim Fandango didn't really add much of anything. It profoundly changed the game's look and feel, however compared to the standard LucasArts game of back then. Personally, controlling issues aside which I never really had on my ancient Gravis pad back then (we're talking about a game released nearly ten years ago here, btw ) , I enjoyed strolling the harbour of Rubacava, taking in the sights while walking, being physically a bit more involved in everything (including exploration, yes!). That whole physical sensation thing. But that was just me. Some very odd ten years ago. I've started playing Warcraft3 again, btw, and that's as point&click as they come.

All in all, this surely isn't a matter of some weird perceived genre that apparently already happily includes games like Bad Mojo, Myst, Monkey Island, Blade Runner, Spycraft, Loom and Normality, in short: Titles that couldn't possibly be any farther away from each other, but, as has been said already, of the game in question. Sure, you can lock all these ideas into a thousand even tinier boxes (point&click, first person, whatever), but the more names you make up and throw around, the more restricted you'll become. There's design that would only work really well with direct control, there's design that would only flow really cool in point&click, and then there's a whole lot of other stuff that only ever gets to be if you don't think in these dumb boxes.

Besides, that whole debate is rather moot, in a way, as those adventure ideas that get coverage on this site all do the same thing ad nauseum anyway. Safe for a selected few. This includes: The same point and click mouse kind of controls as seen in a thousand other games as well. From that point of view, one can at least understand Beacon's frustration, though.

[ozzie]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I have to disagree. In adventure games you'll generally be playing a specific character with their own personality and motivations rather than yourself. I find it a lot harder to identify with a character I only ocassionally see as a pair of hands.
This I don't see the logic for at all. How does first person make these story types available? To take it back in the other direction I have a copy of the Infocom Classics Collection (text adventures) and all of the storylines you mention are included on it ( even the romantic one) I really don't understand how the way a story is presented alters what overall style of story can be done.

I think it really matters how the story works. If it's basically an interactive story with a linear path and some clear outcomes then the 3rd Person view is the best.
You control the character and can only do what he wants to do. So, he may wander around for you aimlessly for hours, but when he should pick up a screwdriver out of a feeder he blocks because he wants to keep his hands clean....
Okay, this may be an extreme example, but basically you play a story with the possibilities the player character gives you.

I think a first person adventure is much more interesting when you don't control a character, but instead you are the character.
And since no identity holds you back you should be able to treat people very differently and solve conlicts peacefully or with violence.
Of course, there may be the problem that the player has no one to identify with and feels very unsure and alone in the game.
A friend at the side, like Alyx, may be a good idea.