[Askobar]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

I'm actually not a huge fan of 'genre' as a definition of difference... I tend to like games that basically just do whatever works, regardless of conventions.

Me neither. I'm not enthusiastic debating things like should some book be considered as slipstream, magical realism or New Weird, for example. I agree with Jonathan Lethem who once said in an interview when asked about genre: "[Genres] are illusions, like hallucinations of desert oases, only visible from as you approach from a distance, but completely dissolving into a scattering of unrelated rocks and shrubs when you come near."

But then again genres are "necessary evil", a tool with what you can talk about things, a way of making at least rough classifications. If we don't have genres, then we could just as well call all every game, sport, story-based, FPS etc. simply 'games'.

But you're right, genres shouldn't make a difference when talking about a good gaming experience. If you like the game, you play it, regardless of its type. (I'm sorry if I'm emphasizing obvious things here.)

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

... and Phoenix Wright, which is considered an adventure by many (though not by its developers).

Maybe it has something to do with sales figures. Many scifi authors don't want to be considered sf writers because they think the sci-fi label on the book will reduce the sales numbers and stigmatize the author... Though I don't think that being an adventure game developer will give you bad reputation.

[GepardenK]

I totally agree with the original poster. AGames are getting worse.
We are of course not expecting all AGames to be like Grim Fandango or TLJ, nor like older games such as Monkey island and Fate of Atlantis, we just want reasonably good, even decent, adventure games with no nonsense.

The problem is NOT the budget, because almost all recent AGames has at least a decent interface, some nice 2D rendered graphics and good length.
The problem is that every AGame developer somehow manages to screw up their game one way or another.
Typical errors include:

Inventory puzzles:
The classic AGame puzzles. Too bad almost every developer makes them obscure and illogical, even at the very beginning of the game. Puzzles like this should always make logical sense, and they should get gradually harder as the game progresses(starting with very easy).
Some puzzles should have multiple solutions if it makes sense to the situation; You should be able to stick a hole in the bag with both your knife and your axe, you should be able to scare away the crow with both your stick and your spade etc etc (This will make the game feel les static, and you avoid annoying the players by refusing them to do things that would have worket perfectly fine in the real world)
Note; this has nothing to do with a budget, its all about planning your game.

Minigame Puzzles:
Minigames are often fun (and can be a nice change of pace), but they are also often misplaced. They should be a part of the games atmosphere and make logic sense. Deactivating a bomb should NOT be like playing a game of Mastermind, It should be like deactivating a bomb.
In most AGames minigames are frustrating, this is because the solution is obvious but the game itself is hard (Example: When you examine the bomb, a poppup window appear saying "To deactivate the bomb, make all the red lights go green by pressing the corresponding buttons before the time runs out, but watch out, some buttons will affect more than one light) This is the wrong way to make a minigame.
The minigames themselves should be easy, but the solution to them should be hard (Example: When you examine the bomb, the player is presented with a large and complex closeup of the bomb interior. the player must now figure out how the bomb is working by looking at its mechanism). Most of the Myst games did this very well, most of the Myst clones did not.
Note; this (also) has nothing to do with a budget, its all about planning your game.

Fluid puzzles:
Far to few games include fluid puzzles. Puzzles where the player has a lot of freedom to for instance earn money to buy a boat. There is no reason why Games can`t implement RPGish elemets like fishing, gambling, cooking, selling stuff etc etc to earn money. These puzzles makes the game feel less static, and gives the player someting to do when wandering around. Advanced fluid puzzles might be hard to make on a small budget, but simple fluid puzzles should be no problem.
Return to Mysterious Island had some really good fluid puzzles, and became, as a result, a reasonably good AGame, even though the story and script wasn`t all that great.

Difficulty:
Why is it that every AGame is so damn difficult right of the bat??, at least for casual gamers. As stated earlier AGames should start out very easy and get gradulary harder. This wil make the game appeal to casual gamers, drawing them into the story and motivatig them for the later harder puzzles. Its aslo helps the player (casual or veteran) get in the right "mindset" for the type of puzzles present in the game. Note; this has nothing to do with budget, its all about how you plan your game.

Locations:
Locations should be big and explorable with many scenes, else the game will feel static and way too linear. If your budget is low, make one or two big locations instead of 4-5 small ones.

Story, script etc:
Somehow most developers fail here. The recent trend has been to make games from books by authors like Jules Verne, Agatha Christie etc, but even this fails (Having a good story is not enough if are unable write a good script out of it).
It`s not about the budget because I'm not asking you to hire a writer, just use some common sense. Not every Game must rival a Stephen King novel, just try to steer clear of the most embarrassing clishè dialouge and plot twists.

Pacing:
If the game`s pacing is off, as it usally is these days, the game will get boring at some point. There is no real answer on how to pace your game, but this usally works:
The game should switch between "story mode" and "adventure mode" at a regular basis. In "story mode" puzzles should be linear or semi linear, while in "adventure mode" puzzles should be more open ended and the player should have more freedom to roam.
The game should open and end in "story mode", while adventure mode should dominate the middle game (but still get interupted by "story mode" from time to time).
Another thing about pacing: Even later in the game (where the hardest puzzles are supposed to be) there should always be some small easy puzzles scattered around.
Again, this has nothing to do with a budget, its all about planning your game.

Voice and sound:
Sound and voice acting is very important, yet almost all of the newer AGames are badly acted. I understand this cost`s money, and I also understand that the original language of the game might be acted very well, but the english translation is important for markeding and should be a big part of the budget, regardless of how small that budget is.
Also, in serious games (detective games etc) the main character shouldn`t speak everything out loud when you look at an object (The character should "think out loud instead"), in less serious games however, this is no problem.


So, long post eh?:
I could go on, but I'm tired of writing. The developers has enough AGame making tools, but IMO they don't use them as well as they could, even compared to their own budget.
Some recent games does it right, mostly Sam&Max and Penumbra, and there are some interesting titles coming, but most of todays AGames fail to impress, and some are even flat out insulting to the genre. The worst part is that these games could have been good had they just been planned better from the beginning.

[BenjaminBunny]

I agree with Gepardenk...and I almost feel as though the people behind ther sherlock holmes, agatha christie games, etc.. haven't even played the GK series, TLJ or Grim Fandango and don't know what a quality story-driven game feels like...

I mean maybe they have...but the standards just aren't there man.

And I also think that the old "adventure games don't make money" montage that publishers always harp on about is really just a form of shooting themselves in the foot. At least in the states, every middle-class to upper-middle class person has a PC sitting at home that could run TLJ for example...and I think that they would want to play it if they knew about it.
God knows everyone is looking for some new way to escape for a few hours after work from the increasingly chaotic world around them, and this potentially groundbreaking new form of entertainment/storytelling has the potential to corner a huge section of the market.
Like I said man, just stupid. The first person to mass market a successfull, quality story driven game that immerses and excites people is gonna have the f***kin chinks man. And everyone else and all the other publishers will wonder how on earth they could have missed that oppurtunity.

[diego]

Originally Posted by GepardenK

...

one of the best posts i ve read here

well, for starters, i think its obvious that none one of the european developers (and rest) that are struggling for years to save the genre have the budget (or really, using the budget) like lucas arts and sierra did at their peaks.

adventures were mainstream, so there were good justified reasons to push to the limits production, artists, composers etc.. if we take, for example gabriel knight 2, or monkey island 3, no matter if its no oscar performances in acting, animating or any other segment, you can really smell a high production efforts, or even better - proffesional commitment regardless on money invested in them

nevertheless, i have to agree with GepardenK - the adventure games today are mostly static and boring, with a little boost of inspiration to give to players and force them to play it. but to add here also that 2008. seems like the best year for last 7 years or more..

the only one we can blame are developers and its a bit of an irony - they are at the same doing some chivalrous don quijote-like things, making commercial games and ressurecting the genre. however, as it was said, budget cannot play the main role - for Crysis yes, but not for a good adventure game. And even better - adventure games are a type of games where whole game can look like a high budget if you do it right, if you have tallented people, if you have smart people, if you have people with ideas and inspiration. finally, i have a really strong sense that crew of golden adventure years, like people of lucasarts, sierra, etc, were really a gamers first, and then developers. like they were doing something to the perfection because they will play it, they were modeling game knowing what will a joy of playing it look like once it is finished. phrase - we hope you enjoyed it playing like we enjoyed creating it is not a coincidence.. speaking on a theme of keeping the atention of a player, scriptwriting etc, i can say one thing - i will always play, and replay monkey island 1, 2.. rather then watching again and again Pirates of the Caribbean movie. but i will always watch again Poirot TV series rather then playing or replaying Poirot games. I said Poirot only to make a comparation - and i do want to see more Agatha Christie and Poirot games, done better if thats possible.

well, i m not saying that now-days generation of a adventure creators lack talents inspiration etc.. i think games generally lacks the toning, some small but important steps to make them playable and enjoyable thoroughly. for example, one of the better games in last years - still life. sometimes i have the feeling that no one played the game they created, or they are only thinking on a play-time. still life has an imersing story, some great puzzles etc.. but the pacing, the dynamic or playing is very static and frustrating. what were they thinking if you have to watch every time Victoria walking out of a car, walking to the elevator, waiting for an elevator, waiting for elevator to open, waiting her to enter the elevator, waiting for elevator to close, waiting for elevator to go up, waiting for elevator to open again, waiting for her to exit elevator.. without a possibility to cut it.. and only to see that u have nothing to do in your office so lets go somewhere else - oh no, elevator again. What were they thinking when they didnt put a map in such a beatiful game like Keepsake, so u dont have to walk every time stairways to heaven doing the same routine every time and finally you are frustrated because u want just to be at the location u already visited in a single click, but u have to walk there again. i m only saying here that developers must give a player a choice. sometimes i will walk and enjoy in a scenes i already know like my pockets, i will watch and click on every candle listening and enjoying to the same comments again and again only because i want to do so - choice is what matters. map, cutting the sequences, dialogs, are just an examples - it surely wasnt a priority in a games of a golden era, but it is an empirical thing, evolution thing.. when you have lack of quality nowadays, the last thing you want are frustrating details

i really think the key is to get the attention of a player from the start and gradually keeping it or even increasing it. Whenever i start monkey island 2, and when largo hinders me on thet bridge, i always get same wish to play it all over again. i really dont know what it is, but there are little games today that i wish to play it in a one breath. story, characters, dialogs, atmposphere.. all of them should be in that way to interest you from the very start. and even then, to continue in a logical and interesting way

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Mass Effect.


Oblivion. Click images for respective clips of each gameworld.

Today when I think of what a fine adventure experience could be I think of games that may not categorically be classified - possibly according to AG traditionalists and sites like AG and Gameboomers - as adventure games, I think of games like Portal, Mass Effect, Bioschock, Shadow of the Colossus, Phoenix Wright, and even moments in a game like Oblivion, where a bold sense of exploration and cunning can yield incredible discoveries.

I don't think of those games above as replacements for adventure games by and large (and I don't think that action should ever replace intellectual challenges, after all adventure games get their strength from their challenging puzzles, stories, and exploration). Instead, I think of them as possibilities for what adventure games - as a specific kind of game - could be like in terms of quality, vision, concept, and scope.

This is from a four part series I had written about adventure games a few years ago.

When I asked her about how adventure games are being marketed, Laura MacDonald, Developer Liaison for AdventureGamers.com, had this to say:

"Do you have a few weeks? [Adventure game developers and publishers not only do not] know who is buying their games[, but worse they] do not know why. Which leads to the constant 'fixing' of what may not be broken. Really to me there is little actual 'marketing' done with games....Moving into the niche market of adventure games – well there is no marketing and more importantly in a genre which is story driven – no effort to shape strategy to the game itself. What efforts in this direction have been used....have been successful in increasing sales.

And drawing on her own professional background in Marketing and Public Relations, she said:

"Learn what the market actually is. Is it really [that] 70% or even higher [are] women? Anecdotally it appears so – but [that doesn't constitute] research. Do book fans drive it? Maybe, but again who knows for sure. Why did they buy game X over game Z? Some overly vocal [adventure gamers] (generally the same ones over and over) tout puzzle...but they are just a speck. What if it turns out story is god and many gamers view complex puzzles as [an evil] they have come to expect to have to wade through to get to the story and character immersion they crave? Maybe it's the reverse. Who knows, but it would be nice to find out."

- The Cold Hotspot, part 3, Adventuredevelopers.com

After which I wrote...

Marketing is the worst problem of the adventure genre, above outdated design and technology. What scant efforts have been made in this area is more the exception than the rule. It seems that, because adventure developers and publishers neglected the 'zeitgeist' of game design, culture, and commerce in the past several years, the genre stagnated and has steadily slipped below the popular radar, and is today suffering the consequences.

Unfortunately from what I've observed as of late this still seems to be the case. Of course, it's not to say that the genre is dead - far from it, there are some promising titles out there now or on the horizon - it's more to say that I think it has generally failed to keep with the spirit of the times and with shifting ideological, cultural, social, and aesthetic climes. It's essentially stuck in the past in terms of design, scope, and often times quality. Why is that?

[Steve Ince]

Some great thoughts in this thread. Constructive criticism always gives me pause for thought.

Two things, though:

Budget. Regardless of what you might think, it's always about budget. Good design takes time and time is money. Also, no matter how much care and attention you put into the design, if the game engine isn't equipped to handle it or the animation budget won't stretch that far you could be on a hiding to nothing.

Marketing. Yes, this is generally bad for adventures, but there are some good things, too. DTP are doing some good things in preparation for the launch of So Blonde in Germany and Telltale are clearly hitting the right notes with their approach. But Laura MacDonald is right - adventures do need better marketing as a whole.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Heavy Rain, from Quantic Dream, slated for the PS3.

Oh, and I should also make it clear that there look to be some pretty good 'bona fide' adventure games out there. For the PC. Of course, I wouldn't know anymore, as I no longer game on that platform. I'm strictly console now and own an Xbox360. This is primarily because I'm not made of money and cannot afford to upgrade hardware every six months (I play a variety of games, including RPGs and action/adventures, and I don't have any more patience to find out the hard way if a game works on my laptop or not).

That stated, it's very disappointing that there are very, very few adventure games being made for the current gen consoles. Hopefully we'll see this change. I know that cutting edge titles like Heavy Rain are coming. No longer a 'pure' adventure game, Alone In The Dark: Near Death Investigation at least has a good adventure game pedigree. I think, however, that in order to have a chance at being successful on the console, adventure games generally would need to shift and change into games that look and feel very different from typical PC adventure games. Heavy Rain seems to be going toward this route with its emphasis on stark realism and cinematic presentation.


Theseis, slated for PC, Xbox360, and PS3.

There's also the upcoming Theseis. I'm looking forward to seeing how this title fares.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

Some great thoughts in this thread. Constructive criticism always gives me pause for thought...

You actually triggered me to think about what I wrote back then. I went back to read it and I actually still feel the same today...

"Change is the law of life. And those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future." - John F. Kennedy

If you are not a fan you could easily miss the mostly decidedly quiet goings on within the adventure game world. And that primarily explains its shadowed existence under the great radar of media and mass culture. That fans swear by their genre yet wonder why it isn't receiving the coverage it deserves is so ironic: does it actually deserve that coverage, considering how little it has changed in the past ten years in concept, scope, and quality? I don't know, but perhaps the best thing to do is forget the fans for a bit and ask the media and non-fans themselves. There definitely are changes happening, but are we, the gamers, the only ones paying attention? We're so passionate about adventure games that we venture to claim that other people - friends, families, the guy on the street - would love them if only they discovered them, like they discovered Tomb Raider, The Sims, Mario, and Halo.

The changes are not happening across the board, but there are individual designers who are re-examining not so much the genre per se, but its essence - the idea of a story and world to experience through interactivity, through a character's eyes, through exploration, obstacles that challenge the mind, and emotions that make the heart race, all combined with the most severe focus on quality, consistency, and integrity. These are the true essences of what makes an adventure, what makes a GOOD adventure, regardless of whether it uploads tradition or breaks from it. It must never be about the arbitrarily imposed prisons of flat 2D graphics, embarrassingly unskilled 3D graphics, point-&-click interface, and tired slider puzzles. Those are fossilizing details, and though they can be done beautifully, they are NOT what an adventure game should necessarily be.

Perhaps the biggest puzzle of all for us gamers, for the developers, and for publishers, is to get over our biases. Considering the trend of promising new games out there, some of us are already 'solving' that puzzle through a shifting of attitude, design, and communication. And yet there are still other truly important challenges. For one thing, we need to push more and more diversity and quality throughout every nook and cranny of story driven, intellectually stimulating, and emotionally affecting games. There needs to be a far more pervasive outreach towards potential new markets such as women and sophisticated baby boomers, more aggressive and creative marketing in general, a bold undertaking by publishers to support more progressive and original games, and a positioning of these kinds of games as an alternative to gratuitously violent and sexually explicit video games. And there needs to be an effort to let everyone beyond the tight adventure gaming crowd know that these kinds of games exist, that you don't necessarily need to virtually blow someone's brains out to have a good time.

"The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." - Winston Churchill

This is an amazing time to be a gamer. We are now moving in a steady cultural and technological revolution in how we experience 'the story', 'the challenge', and the idea of 'playing'. Possibly more than any other kind of game genre, the adventure game offers the most common denominator to this kind of experience. Who doesn't like a good story, an interesting character, or a challenge? Let's not limit the possibilities by putting up unscrupulous, stupidly ridiculous walls at every turn, because that is the worst thing we can do. The very definition of 'adventure' speaks of undertakings involving danger and unknown risks. And with those undertakings come the priceless reward of experience, the enjoyment of the journey itself. You are not a true adventure gamer if all you do is complain about mere trivialities like a spoiled child, not while there are so many possibilities to go where you've never been, see things you never saw before, and embrace whatever challenges are thrown your way. And really, isn't that exactly what the adventure game is ultimately about?

- The Cold Hotspot, part 4, Adventuredevelopers.com

(thanks, btw, for having the patience to read all the crap I wrote, Steve)

[Sik]

I totally agree with the original poster. AGames are getting worse.
We are of course not expecting all AGames to be like Grim Fandango or TLJ, nor like older games such as Monkey island and Fate of Atlantis, we just want reasonably good, even decent, adventure games with no nonsense.

The problem is NOT the budget, because almost all recent AGames has at least a decent interface, some nice 2D rendered graphics and good length.
The problem is that every AGame developer somehow manages to screw up their game one way or another.
Typical errors include:

I agree that the games you picked out as examples are all great games, so I don't think we have that different tastes, but I disagree with a lot of what you point out as errors...

Inventory puzzles:

The classic AGame puzzles. Too bad almost every developer makes them obscure and illogical, even at the very beginning of the game. Puzzles like this should always make logical sense, and they should get gradually harder as the game progresses(starting with very easy).
Some puzzles should have multiple solutions if it makes sense to the situation; You should be able to stick a hole in the bag with both your knife and your axe, you should be able to scare away the crow with both your stick and your spade etc etc (This will make the game feel les static, and you avoid annoying the players by refusing them to do things that would have worket perfectly fine in the real world)
Note; this has nothing to do with a budget, its all about planning your game.

I agree that a lot of developers should spend more time on planning out the game, and about the progression of difficulty, but not that puzzles should always be logical. If a puzzle makes sense to me after I've solved it, it doesn't matter to me if getting there was frustrating. If anything I want more obscure inventory puzzles in my games. For a pure inventory based adventure game to be challenging, you either need obscure puzzles, an extreme amount of possible combinations (lots of locations/items like the first Discworld game), timed sequences or pixel hunts. I prefer obscure puzzles.

Minigame Puzzles:
Agree with you on minigames, so not commenting on that.

Fluid puzzles:

Far to few games include fluid puzzles. Puzzles where the player has a lot of freedom to for instance earn money to buy a boat. There is no reason why Games can`t implement RPGish elemets like fishing, gambling, cooking, selling stuff etc etc to earn money. These puzzles makes the game feel less static, and gives the player someting to do when wandering around. Advanced fluid puzzles might be hard to make on a small budget, but simple fluid puzzles should be no problem.
Return to Mysterious Island had some really good fluid puzzles, and became, as a result, a reasonably good AGame, even though the story and script wasn`t all that great.

I'm sure it's possible to get this right, and make an enjoyable game, but in practice, I feel that adventure games that incorporate such elements just end up feeling like they are struggling to prolong the game play. If all the fishing, gambling, cooking, money making etc is optional, and just part of making the world you play in seem more alive, sure, I don't have a problem with it. If it's necessary to advance the story, I'd rather have a more linear approach. Don't get me wrong, I love RPG style games, in particular those that have some adventure game elements in them. I just don't think RPG elements make adventure games better

Difficulty:

Why is it that every AGame is so damn difficult right of the bat??, at least for casual gamers. As stated earlier AGames should start out very easy and get gradulary harder. This wil make the game appeal to casual gamers, drawing them into the story and motivatig them for the later harder puzzles. Its aslo helps the player (casual or veteran) get in the right "mindset" for the type of puzzles present in the game. Note; this has nothing to do with budget, its all about how you plan your game.

This may sound elitist, but if anything I feel most new adventure games are too easy. I don't mind easy games, if I enjoy playing them. I just think there should be room for harder games as well as easier ones, and if a game is supposed to be challenging, there's no need for the first half of it to be dedicated to getting the player into the right mindset. I'm sure easier games would make them easier to market and sell to the masses, though, and that again might mean more quality adventures. The challenge is to make hard games feel satisfying, not frustrating. It's much easier to make an easy game satisfying since you get a sense of accomplishment every time you do something right (which will be often if there are no difficult puzzles to slow you down). A hard game needs to make you feel like you are progressing even when stuck on a puzzle, which is a design challenge.

Locations:

Locations should be big and explorable with many scenes, else the game will feel static and way too linear. If your budget is low, make one or two big locations instead of 4-5 small ones.

I prefer more constrained games. Probably because I like obscure and illogical puzzles, and if there is too much to explore when the puzzles are tough, figuring out what to do gets frustrating. My favorite adventure games have lots of locations, but a linear progression through them so that after finishing I feel that I've seen a lot, but never felt overwhelmed since plot progression usually involves getting to the next location. The longest journey is a good example of this kind of design (Huge game world but with linear progression, that is. It doesn't really have hard puzzles).

Story, script etc:
Agree, so skipping this.

Pacing:
Swapping between story mode and adventure mode is great game design. I don't think we'd agree on what adventure mode should be like, but that's covered elsewhere.

Voice and sound:
Agreed. Bad voice acting and sound can ruin an otherwise good game. Most good games have good voice acting and sound, though, and these alone can not save a bad game, so I don't think it's much of an issue.


So, long post eh?:

I could go on, but I'm tired of writing. The developers has enough AGame making tools, but IMO they don't use them as well as they could, even compared to their own budget.
Some recent games does it right, mostly Sam&Max and Penumbra, and there are some interesting titles coming, but most of todays AGames fail to impress, and some are even flat out insulting to the genre. The worst part is that these games could have been good had they just been planned better from the beginning.

I agree with a lot of what you say, but there's no solution that will please everyone. I like playing open ended games with lots of exploration sometimes. I like playing easy, feel-good games sometimes. My favorite adventure games have always been highly linear and difficult, though. Linear so focus can be on telling the story the developer wanted to tell. Difficult so I feel I've accomplished something when I'm done.

[AndreaDraco83]

In my opinion, what really makes great a game is its narrative. I don't know if, in English, it is the right word, so - to make my point - I'll use an example from cinema: yesterday night, I saw "Sweeney Todd" by Tim Burton. It's a great movie, a spectacular triumph or Burton's outstanding technique, but has little narrative: the characters are predictable, the plot stream quiet without twists and turns, the interweaving of the fabula is also quite clear and linear.

I'll take - only 'cause it's really easy to me: I know that in the past there are plenty of other great game - the Gabriel Knight games, for instance: all the characters, from the protagonists to the secondary characters, are always well rounded up, making possible for the player/user to empathize with them creating the necessary suspension of disbelief. Also, the series it's one of the rare cases of an actually character's development. The plot of the games also reserve surprises, 'cause its outstanding narrative technique: take the first game for instance. The personal dimension of the story unfolds slowly, but when it hits the player, he/she feels like he/she's playing at a whole new game. Finally, the historical settings melted with supernatural istances create a "fantastic narrative"*, permeated with doubt and "unheimlich"**, which put the player at the same level of characters.

* I'm referring to the narrative genre examined by Tzvetan Todorov, "narrativa fantastica". Sorry, I don't know how properly this translated into English
** Even here in Italy, we use the German word, and, as above, I don't know how to translate it properly.

[GepardenK]

To answer Steve Ince:

Budget. Regardless of what you might think, it's always about budget. Good design takes time and time is money. Also, no matter how much care and attention you put into the design, if the game engine isn't equipped to handle it or the animation budget won't stretch that far you could be on a hiding to nothing.

Of course a bigger budget would have helped (It always does), but don't use this to excuse toady's AGame designers for their bad games.
you see:
Today most AGame developers use the same game engine over and over again for every game they make. They just repaint the menu and inventory, make new backgrounds and remodel the characters (In short; mod their own games). This is fine; because we know they have a tight budget and we love them all for making new AGames. But why do every AGame developer today(almost everyone) insist on doing the same basic design error over and over again?? They have made games like this using the same tools for years now. They should know that puzzles becomes frustrating if they aren`t logical, that casual gamers will give up an AGame if its to hard at the beginning and that characters and story are what makes a memorable AGame.
Toady's AGAmes lack inspiration, not money.

As far as I know, there is no universal rule saying:"You have a tight budget, so your puzzles must therefore, by law, be sensless and stupid, else you will suffer a most horrible death and your children will forever be cursed to roam this earth in pain"

Games like Penumbra, Scratches, A Tale of Two Kingdoms, Return to Mysterious Island and Myst are examples of low budgeted games that ended up being very good games. Why? because those games are full of inspiration, and you can tell the developers enjoy adventures. Myst was even made in a small garage with no budget at all (Same with scratches, until they got a small funding in the last year of production).

To answer Sik:

I agree that a lot of developers should spend more time on planning out the game, and about the progression of difficulty, but not that puzzles should always be logical. If a puzzle makes sense to me after I've solved it, it doesn't matter to me if getting there was frustrating. If anything I want more obscure inventory puzzles in my games. For a pure inventory based adventure game to be challenging, you either need obscure puzzles, an extreme amount of possible combinations (lots of locations/items like the first Discworld game), timed sequences or pixel hunts. I prefer obscure puzzles.

I know its important for puzzles to be hard so the game wont be over in a minute (Dreamfall). But I don't think Obscure is the way to go. Puzzles are supposed to be fun (And they are not fun if you must get lucky every time to complete them). Puzzles should be logical because that makes the player smart if he/she solves them. Logical however doesn't mean easy. Just play Return To Mysterious Island (I doubt you will find a game with more enjoying inventory puzzles)

I'm sure it's possible to get this right, and make an enjoyable game, but in practice, I feel that adventure games that incorporate such elements just end up feeling like they are struggling to prolong the game play. If all the fishing, gambling, cooking, money making etc is optional, and just part of making the world you play in seem more alive, sure, I don't have a problem with it. If it's necessary to advance the story, I'd rather have a more linear approach. Don't get me wrong, I love RPG style games, in particular those that have some adventure game elements in them. I just don't think RPG elements make adventure games better

I'm not talking about giving the player a level up system or anyting. Just add some enjoyable things you could play around with in the game world, to make that world seem more real (And it would attract casual gamers). Anyway, its a matter of opinion. I think less static puzzles (fluid puzzles) would really open the game to a bigger marked.

This may sound elitist, but if anything I feel most new adventure games are too easy. I don't mind easy games, if I enjoy playing them. I just think there should be room for harder games as well as easier ones, and if a game is supposed to be challenging, there's no need for the first half of it to be dedicated to getting the player into the right mindset. I'm sure easier games would make them easier to market and sell to the masses, though, and that again might mean more quality adventures. The challenge is to make hard games feel satisfying, not frustrating. It's much easier to make an easy game satisfying since you get a sense of accomplishment every time you do something right (which will be often if there are no difficult puzzles to slow you down). A hard game needs to make you feel like you are progressing even when stuck on a puzzle, which is a design challenge.

Just like you, I love hard puzzle games, always ready to jump into a game like Myst or safecracker with a pen in one hand and a notebook in the other.
Still, I think games should start off easy, to give the story time to develop and get the players interested (as you say, it would open up the marked).
And BTW, its actually harder to make easy games satisfying. Its those hard yet logical puzzles that really are satisfying, because they make you feel smart when you solve them.

I prefer more constrained games. Probably because I like obscure and illogical puzzles, and if there is too much to explore when the puzzles are tough, figuring out what to do gets frustrating. My favorite adventure games have lots of locations, but a linear progression through them so that after finishing I feel that I've seen a lot, but never felt overwhelmed since plot progression usually involves getting to the next location. The longest journey is a good example of this kind of design (Huge game world but with linear progression, that is. It doesn't really have hard puzzles).

This, again, is a matter of opinion. But too constrained games removes all sense of adventure, TLJ however is not too contrained. Its just frustrating when games force you to go one direction through a small town, when you really want to explore that town. I think that AGame developers with a low budget should really consentrate on making one area really good (like Scratches) instead of making a lot of linear inspired locations (like undercover: operation wintersun )

I agree with a lot of what you say, but there's no solution that will please everyone. I like playing open ended games with lots of exploration sometimes. I like playing easy, feel-good games sometimes. My favorite adventure games have always been highly linear and difficult, though. Linear so focus can be on telling the story the developer wanted to tell. Difficult so I feel I've accomplished something when I'm done.

I agree with you that there is no solution to the perfect game (And I wasn't trying to make one in my previous post). But there are some elementary errors that AGame developers are making over and over again. The question is why? It cant be the budget because they have the tools, and poorer companies has made better games before them. Also, making at least a decent script is not that hard at all. In fact, two people should be able to make a decent script ,with decent characters, in less than two weeks if they just put their minds to it (as an amateur writer/filmmaker ((and even gamemaker)) I should know)

No, to me it seems most of toady's AGames lack inspiration, and lots of it.

[Sik]

Originally Posted by GepardenK

To answer Sik:

I know its important for puzzles to be hard so the game wont be over in a minute (Dreamfall). But I don't think Obscure is the way to go. Puzzles are supposed to be fun (And they are not fun if you must get lucky every time to complete them). Puzzles should be logical because that makes the player smart if he/she solves them. Logical however doesn't mean easy. Just play Return To Mysterious Island (I doubt you will find a game with more enjoying inventory puzzles)

It depends on how you define obscure, I guess, and it also depends a lot on the setting. Some of the classic LE adventures had really obscure puzzles. Sam & Max: Hit the Road and Day of the Tentacle in particular. They still made sense in the setting, and I for one wouldn't mind seeing more games like that... I have played Return to Mysterious Island, and I liked it just for the reason you mentioned. Logical, and semi-challenging inventory puzzles. Still I'd rather have more games like DoTT than more games like Return to Mysterious Island. (Unfair comparison, I know.) It's just satisfying for me to unravel some twisted logic behind a puzzle.

Just like you, I love hard puzzle games, always ready to jump into a game like Myst or safecracker with a pen in one hand and a notebook in the other.
Still, I think games should start off easy, to give the story time to develop and get the players interested (as you say, it would open up the marked).
And BTW, its actually harder to make easy games satisfying. Its those hard yet logical puzzles that really are satisfying, because they make you feel smart when you solve them.

Different people find different things satisfying, and it depends a lot on your approach to getting stuck. In my experience, the sense of progression leads to satisfaction. For a novice adventure gamer this is more likely to come from easy games where you get a cut scene every few minutes. If getting stuck means resorting to a walkthrough there's no satisfaction, and that's where the game design comes in. Feedback when you're on the right track. Little hints if you've tried to do something for a while without success, etc.

This, again, is a matter of opinion. But too constrained games removes all sense of adventure, TLJ however is not too contrained. Its just frustrating when games force you to go one direction through a small town, when you really want to explore that town. I think that AGame developers with a low budget should really consentrate on making one area really good (like Scratches) instead of making a lot of linear inspired locations (like undercover: operation wintersun )

I didn't think Undercover: Operation Wintersun was a great game, but that's mostly to do with lack of interest in the story and characters... and some annoying puzzles. I liked the parts of the game design you describe as bad. Scratches, on the other hand, failed to hold my interest. I just got sick of running around the same small area without much sense of purpose, and I found the puzzles boring. Then again, I didn't give that game much of a chance. I'll proably get back to it some day.

I agree with you that there is no solution to the perfect game (And I wasn't trying to make one in my previous post). But there are some elementary errors that AGame developers are making over and over again. The question is why? It cant be the budget because they have the tools, and poorer companies has made better games before them. Also, making at least a decent script is not that hard at all. In fact, two people should be able to make a decent script ,with decent characters, in less than two weeks if they just put their minds to it (as an amateur writer/filmmaker ((and even gamemaker)) I should know)

No, to me it seems most of toady's AGames lack inspiration, and lots of it.

Fair enough. I doubt developers sit down, look at the script for their game, and go: "Wow, this is horrible, but let's make it anyway!". As you say, the tools are there, and apart from ugly bugs that don't get caught in testing, I think most games come out pretty much the way they were intended. I think it's more to do with playing it safe. Making something similar to other, current, games that sell decently is a way to ensure at least breaking even. Games that get praised by critics for being ambitious and original do not necessarily sell well, so good luck getting a publisher for a game with creative ideas.

[indyjones2131]

Totally agree with topic starter. I recently purchased Jack Keane and Runaway 2 and was extremely disappointed. Terrible writing, lame attempts at humor, bad triggers, illogical puzzles, ...

So I played DOTT and MI3 for the 3rd time.

Come on Grey Matter! Save the day!

[Idta]

Overclocked looks good but it's not coming out till May 08 waaa

[TM3]

Originally Posted by BenjaminBunny

I have been noticing what appears to me to be a dearth in quality, story-driven games with an adventure interface.

We will just be seeing more and more hybrid games (ex. Bioshock, Mass Effect, BG&E, Deus Ex). I am not sure that the “pure adventure” genre will make that “big” comeback. Unless, something is done that will really blow everybody away. Vague? I know.

[Martin Gantefoehr]

Originally Posted by GepardenK

In fact, two people should be able to make a decent script ,with decent characters, in less than two weeks if they just put their minds to it (as an amateur writer/filmmaker ((and even gamemaker)) I should know)

I disagree. In fact, what two people will do in two weeks, is come up with a shaky, undetermined five-page outline, a handful of characters, a couple of rough plot points, and a list with 'really great' brainstorming ideas that would be 'really cool to have somewhere in the game'.

Half of this stuff likely won't be feasible for technical reasons. The other half won't be even remotely throught through sufficently to support twenty hours of gameplay and dramatic events, a cast of twenty characters, and an overall interesting and meaningful experience.

Steve is right. Design requires time, money, revisions, iterations, thought, and care -- or it will most likely go horribly wrong. It can STILL go horribly wrong with all possible care and effort invested, but the likelihood of a complete failure can only be reduced by serious, cost-intensive, time-consuming work.

[Steve Ince]

To illustrate the point further:

For So Blonde it took about three weeks just to agree the basic story. Then there was four months of design and writing with another month of polishing later in the project. And that was just my time without taking into account the team at Wizarbox who I was working with.

It's not just abaout creating a script, but doing so at the same time as developing the gameplay to ensure they compliment each other. Also, most adventures have the dialogue equivalent of 6-10 feature films and I defy anyone to write that much script in two weeks.

[Ninja Dodo]

I wonder if games would be helped by the Disney (or animation) brand of story building... story artists brainstorming ideas and then pitching a sequence of boards to everyone whilst acting out all the roles etc.

It's proven to be a solid approach for chipping away at story problems throughout the history of Disney, Pixar and other studios. The idea being that since film is a visual medium it should be developed in a visual format.

Obviously would need some re-thinking for interactive purposes but maybe game writers really are too stuck in the mentality of the written word.

What if you had story groups that consisted of writers, artists and designers blasting through various ideas in visual and non-linear format, connecting the dots between plot points and possibilities, but doing so in a more tangible format than text... Perhaps add a programmer to do gameplay prototypes on the fly?

Like the Valve "cabal" thing in a way...

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

I wonder if games would be helped by the Disney (or animation) brand of story building... story artists brainstorming ideas and then pitching a sequence of boards to everyone whilst acting out all the roles etc.

No doubt this would help enormously, but it again comes down to budget. For a game, this is a lot of time resource being spent and for an adventure on a limited budget you need to question whether it's the best resource spend. Personally, I'd love to see much more visual story-telling in adventure games, more specific animation, particularly tied in with gameplay, but unless we can attract more money into the development it's hard to see how that will happen.

[Ninja Dodo]

I wonder if this isn't one of those "you have to spend money to make money" kind of things... the investment in better story-process might reap rewards that outweigh the costs even financially. It could lead to less revisions and more efficiency and of course the story would be richer for it... While not a guarantee, better story means better word of mouth and, potentially, better sales.

I was watching this interview with someone from Blizzard and the gist was that any decision in favour of quality is always the right one. People are not going to remember when your game shipped or what the budget was. People are going to remember a good game. Diablo missed Christmas and still made tons of money.

The reality is of course that the gatekeepers won't often allow the "when it's done" philosophy, but I guess that just means we need to get rid of the gatekeepers and carve out a position for ourselves like Valve and Blizzard and some indies have done, where we can make that call...