[Trader]

I am reading a new small gaming mag and they give a run down of different terms used to describe games, ie first person shooter and so on. But they dont include Adventure game genre. The mag is a few pages at the end of a music mag called Drum Media [in Australia] so maybe I shouldnt be offended.

[Gabe]

Yes,how wouldnt you know that,adventure games are not taken seriously,
theyre representing an underground culture

[kadji-kun]

In my mind, adventure games aren't taken seriously because you have to be in a specific mood to want to play it. I try not to characterize a lot of adventure games which seek to change the gameplay mechanics, but those that stick to the tried and true elements, it just has to be taken lightly.

I know A LOT of people don't think the way I do, but this is how I theorize the survival of adventure games.

Adventure games is basically shakespeare of gaming. It may not meet today's standards but it still is used for education or underground movements (I compare underground with Theatre since not many people use shakespearetoday unless your in theatre itself.)

When I play adventure games, I have to be in a certain mood. If my life was dedicated to adveture games 24/7, sure I dont have to be in a mood to enjoy it, but being a hardcore Sierra Online fan, I will always play adventure games, but the curse of having to being in the mood will plague me.

Lately I realized, games I didn't like years ago, I enjoy now. Why? Well, I realized the for any game you have to be in the mood. I hated Dungeon Siege 2 at first, but recently I played through the whole game and enjoyed it.



Now think of this. Does anyone realize that maybe a lot of game reviews are made when some reviewers are not in the mood? Does anyone think that maybe so many reviews are wrongfully rated?

As a gamer, I realized that no game should be decided full the first time you play it. I hated sports games, but now I realized that once you in the mood, there is so much fun to be had.

Sadly I know my voice wont be heard across the gaming community as it does hear, but hopefully others hear would agree that no game should be taken seriously until your seriously in the mood.

I hate simulation games. Why? Because when I was a child, they were to complicated. Now I enjoy them when I am not stressing over work or school. Its all about the mood.

[MystGirl]

I think a lot of the attitude towards adventure games now, is due to the current market. Many 16-year-olds these days, need constant stimulating environments in games. Lots of action, shooting things, killing things, blowing things up, lots of battles, etc. (blame it on their A.D.D. like shorter attention spans these days) By the way, I realize not all young people are like this. Some of you are more patient and enjoy slower paced games like us older folks. (at 33, I consider myself an older gamer)

The newer generation of gamers (to me at least) just doesn't seem to have the patience for point and click games, like old fashioned type adventure games. So while some newer adventure games like the Syberia series, are the exception and do well, they are still few and far in-between compared to all the other types of gaming out there these days. (especially for the console games)

Whenever I go into a gaming store, most of the new games focus on shooting things, or lots of action. It's rare, that I find a new adventure game for the console. I also have to check the PC section instead, which has turned into a very tiny section of most gaming stores. That's why I have to look for most PC games online, or at bigger electronic stores like Best Buy, etc. But many of the newer PC games, focus on battles, shooting, action, etc. (Take Worlds of Warcraft for example, while it does have some "adventure" elements, it also requires lots of fighting) Not too many games on the shelves that just involve walking around and looking for stuff, or figuring out puzzles.

It's a shame, really. I'm 33 and feel like an "old-timer" when I check out a new Nancy Drew game instead of the newest "first person shooter" game out on the PS3. I'm glad to see the Nancy Drew games are so successful. Maybe they will help keep introducing new generations of young people to "old-fashioned" adventure games.

[cwapitm]

I'm sure that's part of it. I think some people don't want to have to "think" to play a game because god forbid they should have to do that. Adventure games used to be all my dad would play, but now it's like he doesn't have the attention span any more and prefers shooters.

I suppose with this fast paced society now, it's not really much of a surprise that adventure games aren't big any more. It's like no one can take the time to sit and figure out the puzzles and just relax. We're always on the go and want to get things accomplished in the fastest time possible. That's my theory on it anyway.

[kadji-kun]

Originally Posted by cwapitm

I'm sure that's part of it. I think some people don't want to have to "think" to play a game because god forbid they should have to do that. Adventure games used to be all my dad would play, but now it's like he doesn't have the attention span any more and prefers shooters.

I suppose with this fast paced society now, it's not really much of a surprise that adventure games aren't big any more. It's like no one can take the time to sit and figure out the puzzles and just relax. We're always on the go and want to get things accomplished in the fastest time possible. That's my theory on it anyway.

Just like Americans being spoon fed what to think by politicians (all political parties). Don't want a political conversation, just want to input.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by kadji-kun

Just like Americans being spoon fed what to think by politicians (all political parties). Don't want a political conversation, just want to input.

As an American, this statement annoys me greatly (because it's a horrible generalization), but this has nothing to do with adventure games, so let's not even go there.

If anyone wants to discuss this, don't do it in this thread, start a thread in Chit Chat.

I also hate the generalization about people who think are the people who play adventure games. We have quite a few people who play multiple genres on this board. If they happen to play FPS's along with adventure games, are they thinking people or aren't they?

Originally Posted by cwapitm

It's like no one can take the time to sit and figure out the puzzles and just relax.

So how do you explain the popularity of a game like Professor Layton and the Curious Village? That game is popular among people who don't necessarily play adventure games exclusively. It's a puzzle game. The Sam & Max episodes have also made a mark outside of the adventure genre exclusive sites. Those are just a couple of examples. It's easy to make generalizations about why you think the adventure genre isn't doing well, I just don't think they hold much water.

[maxpayne2409]

@Kadji

i agree about gamer tastes changing, i used to hate strategy, sim games, etc when i was little as they seemed difficult and adult, but now i'm an adult (25) i love games like age of empires and so on.

I have always had a love of adventure games though, from the very first one i played on my commodore amiga (monkey island 1), as it was hte first game that immersed me into the game so much that i couldnt stop playing it til i completed it.... plus the save function wouldnt work so i had to replay it from the beginning til i completed it.

I do still like playing the odd fps and the like, and i recently really got immersed in the ps3 only Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, which i really enjoyed the right balance of action adventure and some old school platforming action, i know technically its not 100% adventure, but i think it has enough to get it a mention on this site, it's main drawback was the jetski sections and linearity.

Anyway i think i've drifted off topic a little there so i will hastily move back towards.

I think what doesn't help a lot of adventure games get the respect they deserve, is due to the kinds of people who played them back in the day, if i were to generalise here about how i think the public imagines adventure games players i would describe the typical d&d tabletop playing, thick glasses wearing, calculator/pens/pencils/ruler/pocket protector using, white shirt and trousers too short that they dont cover the lower part of leg, revenge of the nerds style person.

Which is a shame because adventure games aren't nerdy, but like someone above said the world is more of a fast paced place these days, and essentially most people are graphics whores aswell, cinemas are a case in point. All the well hyped big budget effects laden trashpeices make millions while the movies with varying degrees of effect quality but with an actual storyline and no current hot sexy young people mtv stars fail.

It's a sad state of affairs, but one that could change if an adventure game made it big on it's own merits without selling out.

It has always been this way though, intellect is overruled by brute force, which you could imagine as adventure games vs fps/beat em up/action

[Merricat]

I think that adventure games are taken very seriously by those who play them, and I also think that most AG fans don't especially care what the rest of the gaming community thinks about the genre. In fact, I think that many AG fans rather like being outcasts, or at least being apart from the herd. That's what I think.

[Jake]

I think if anything adventure games are taken too seriously by some. I'm not referring to those of us who post on this board, (that's a different type of taking them too seriously ) but members of the press. While I would agree that many adventure games produced these days are total tripe, it seems that many games journalists who review adventure games don't review them on their own terms, but review them against the love they felt for LucasArts/Sierra games, fifteen years ago. Based at least on the reviews I follow of the Sam & Max games, there are many (maybe an increasing number of) journalists who don't do that, but a surprising number of them can't resist. Any time you read a review that opens with an "adventure games are dead" quip, look out for a trip down rose-tinted lane. Again, fortunately (in my experience, at least) maybe due to the rise of things like the adventure resurgence on the DS, there are finally people who are dropping this, and rating modern adventure games against other modern adventure games, instead of their mind's-eye-remembrances of Day of the Tentacle, but yeah, in my experience, it's too serious if anything that's the problem.

When adventure games are ignored, as in the example at the top of the thread... what can you do really? It is a very niche genre at this point, and I think that the games and developers are becoming increasingly comfortable in that niche. I don't think anyone would say "no" to a big breakout hit from the adventure genre (it's been a while now!), but there are obviously many companies around at this point who are able to make their business work, and make the games they want, in the space that's offered.

Originally Posted by Merricat

I think that adventure games are taken very seriously by those who play them, and I also think that most AG fans don't especially care what the rest of the gaming community thinks about the genre. In fact, I think that many AG fans rather like being outcasts, or at least being apart from the herd. That's what I think.

I think that's their loss. That will only further marginalize the games.

[Merricat]

Well, I was only joking, but I guess being misconstrued is my own fault, since the subject was all about seriousness. Silly me.

[Sar]

Merricat, you may have been joking but your comment is not incorrect. I play adventure games, not exclusively but almost. I dabble with a few casual games but do not like FPS, role playing games. The latter being a misnomer if you considering playing a character in a multi person game, think m.u.s.h as role playing. I think that definition is more accurate in regard to role playing than the genre called role playing games.

But all that aside, the major gaming media appears to have a disregard for Adventure games as a whole. The printed reviews and assorted articles usually favor the latest hot product. Often the press is given to FPS games as that is where the money is. The follow the crowd mentality is preaching to the choir so to speak. That leaves me out as I don't care about those games. I generally ignore them and play what I like. Am I missing something? Oh yes, blowing up and shooting everything in sight, do I care? Not in the least. My choosing to ignore those games does not hinder Adventure game production. My buying games like Culpa, and so on tells the developers they have some support. If the naysayers who predict the death of AGs are correct I will have to find something else to do.

Bear in mind the gaming media is no different than other media segments. They are simply front runners, quick to praise the leader at the expense of the one behind. Watch any sporting event and you will hear an unending diatribe about how team a is superior and can't be beat as they build a huge lead. Toward the end as team b crawls closer we are suddenly sieged by praise upon the hapless team as they show true grit and comeback in the face of odds. It is actually sickening as this is repeated time and again, whether it's sports, politics or whatever. There will likely be a time when the press turns its attention to the resilient AGs while they lament the death of FPS wondering what happened.

[mgeorge]

I personally think the AG genre would be taken more seriously (and sell better), if there was more innovation in the gameplay. I am horrible at solving puzzles so I don't often play AG games, but not because I don't want to. I always favor story over gameplay and more often than not an AG game contains a much better plot than an FPS or RPG. So I've been playing a lot of AG demos lately trying to get a better feel for them. Mostly because I'm completely fed up with the lone hero saving the world by killing multitudes of enemys and blowing stuff up.

But the problem it seems to me is this. To many puzzles, at least in my mind are often convoluted, and I'll give a few examples. I just finished Culpa Innata. I loved the games story, I thought the graphics were fine, and I found the game mechanics fine as well. But my way of solving most of the games puzzles were done by trial and error. I didn't see much logic involved in solving them. There was one puzzle near the end I looked at for about 20 min, gave up and just went to a walkthrough to solve it. Even after looking at the solution to the puzzle, still saw no logic in it.

I tried the demo for Moment of Silence. I loved the games atmosphere and the story seemed like it would be fascinating. However I needed a walkthrough to finish even the demo. Now perhaps it's just stupidity on my part, but I can honestly say when I saw the solution in the walkthrough, even though it did make sense, I could have sat staring at my monitor for days and probably never figured it out. Which sucks for me because the story was so intriguing.

But on the other hand, I tried the Return to Mysterious Island demo last night. I really enjoyed it even though it wasn't really my cup of tea. While I didn't find the game easy, the puzzles were all logical and made sense. It was one of the few AG demos I've played where I didn't need a walkthrough to complete. Amazing for me.

But when you get right down to it, the genre has changed very little since the mid 90's or so. You point, you click, look at static backgrounds and solve puzzles that often times don't seem to make a lot of sense in the context of the games story. Or be forced to move your cursor over one area for several minutes finding that one tiny "hotspot" to advance the story and gameplay. Some people like this sort of thing and are good at it. But you generally have to think "outside the box" to solve many of these puzzles. And I think it's a safe bet to assume that the majority of todays gamers, like me, just aren't that good at it.

Hence you have a very niche market. I personally love FPS/RPG games. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, VTM Bloodlines and even though not really an RPG, the Thief series. This genre has a niche market as well, and there's actually more AG's that come out on a yearly basis, than the FPS/RPG's that I'm so passionate about.

But by innovation I mean something away from the standard point and click. Although many here didn't seem to like it very much, I thought Indigo Prophecy was was a definate step in the right direction for the AG genre. Although flawed with some goofy controls and cliched ending, I was more immersed in that game than any I've played in years and throughly enjoyed it. It was accessible to someone even with my limited brainpower without being frustrating, but hard enough to make it challenging with some very unique gameplay options. I'd love someone to take these types of ideas even further. I've recently started Dreamfall, and while I like it, so far anyway, there's almost not enough gameplay for even someone like myself, so while it may be a good game, I don't see it as being very innovative.

Of course a lot of this is from a selfish old mans viewpoint. I'm simply starved for something different and unique.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Being part of that "new generation" of gamers, I often respond to my friends' "What type of game?" by smacking my forehead and saying "Why? Why have these games fallen into distaste?"

Normally my friends just gape at me for a few seconds, hand me the Xbox 360 controller, and kill me in Halo.

On the other hand, a huge portion of my Adventure Gaming is Underground Games. Not just because I don't have enough money to buy tons of games, but also because they're often better than the commercial ones in my opinion. I mean, I finished Trilby's Notes, and there are very few games I can think of that are as good as it.

Point is, whether or not they're taken seriously, I don't give a darn. I'm gonna keep playing them even if they die out. At that point, I'll make more if I have to, just so I can play them.

That's my spin on things. Everything else has been said.

[Thello]

The majority of people aren't even aware the genre exists. It makes sense - adventure games these days are either developed overseas or feature next to no marketing. Usually both.

As for not having the attention span, can you blame them? 90% of the stuff that comes out isn't worth an hour of your time, let alone a full playthrough. If I were to stumble across most of the games that litter the bottom shelf today, I wouldn't give the genre a second thought.

[MysterD]

Intro
I think what happened is the adventure genre hit a huge wall to the point where the majority of that genre just did not keep up w/ what the rest of the genres were doing, so the adventure genre fell behind and is still trying to recoup to this very day. Let me explain.

Rise of 3D Graphics
In a time when full 3D graphics and 3D worlds were now the norm and the big to do, a good portion of the adventure genre played it safe and stuck w/ its usual full 2D format or the usual 2D world w/ 3D character models format, instead of migrating over to the new wave and style of graphics that was taking the world by storm; which turned off those gamers into what was the new trend of 3D games.

More and more adventure games in recent years, have decided to join this trend of 3D games -- such as Dreamfall, Shadow of Destiny, Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon and Sherlock Holmes: The Awakened. Kudos.

Adventure/Action Genre -- AKA "Survival Horror" Genre
Also around this time, we also began to see the rise of a combo genre -- the adventure/action genre, which many like to call the "survival horror." Think games like Silent Hill and Res Evil series. These games combined the shooting elements found in shooters, but also took on the puzzle part found in adventure games.

So, whether you liked shooters or adventure games, you had both genres in one game. And if you liked both types of games, you had a fair mix of both in your games.

Non-Linearity
Something that really slapped adventure gaming upside its head was the rise of non-linearity being more common in games and when games also began giving players multiple choices. And often, your choices often resulted in the game being finished in different ways -- for example, go see any of The Long List Of Bioware RPG's (SW: KOTOR, BG series, NWN: Hordes, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, etc etc), Planescape: Torment (RPG), Fallout series (RPG) The Witcher (RPG) and Deus Ex (FPS/RPG).

Many adventures, for the most part, even now to this day still, they still make you really follow one linear path to eventually one final ending. Often, your puzzles will have only ONE solution. So basically, this gives you game very little replay value, right out the box.

Open-world games were a big kick in the adventure genres face, too. Games like STALKER, GTA series and Elder Scrolls games (such as Morrowind and Oblivion) give you a whole world to roam -- well, for the most part, except usually a few locked areas left locked until you reach the very end, free at your own will. Not many pure adventures allow you to roam the world at your own free will. Now, that could be a good idea if say you have one puzzle called Puzzle A driving you nuts and can't take it anymore, so you decide put that on hold. So, you move over to Puzzle B to tackle; that's just to get away from puzzle A for a bit, namely. It sure did work for the adventure Culpa Innata.

Culpa Innata and Shadow Of Destiny are both good examples of non-linear adventures where a puzzle might have more than one solution and/or the game in dialogues might give the player a decision to make. Both of these games, from making decisions in-game in dialogue options and/or puzzles, the end result of the game could be different. Replayability is something many adventures lack -- and giving many choices like some RPG's do is a good reason to make the player come back to a game to see whatelse they could decide in the game. It sure worked for Shadow of Destiny, a game that had multiple solutions to some puzzles AND a game that had approximately EIGHT different endings in total.


Irrational Puzzles
It's one thing to make a puzzle hard, which is fine -- as long as it can be figured out and there's clues there to help, then you'll hopefully eventually get it. But, it's another to make it absolutely irrational; especially w/ a lack of hints to how to complete the irrational puzzle, too. Worst of all, often the irrational puzzle is necessary to finish to get further in the game and unlock other areas and puzzles to take on.

From what I know -- I have the game, but ain't began it yet -- Keepsake did have an interesting puzzle system though, since if you needed hints at a puzzle thrown to you, you could get them. And if you wanted to go far enough, hell -- you can let the game solve it for you so you can push the game ahead; this way you don't get stuck, you don't have to go find a walkthrough, and/or you don't have to go buy a strategy guide.

[Beacon]

I agree with pretty much everything MysterD said. I have concerns about the linearity aspect. I have always equated Adventure Games with reading a good book. Have you tried those Choose-Your-Adventure books? Not very good. I think AGs need to maintain linearity for the main part of the story. But providing small side missions that flesh out and add to the overall experience would be a welcomed addition to AGs.

[stuboy]

This is an old, old debate. I feel its rather snobbish and elitist to claim that other genres simply appeal to the stupid or those with short attention spans. I think it's a mix of bizzare inbreeding, conservatism and lack of nested feedback loops that ended with the genre's decline. The success of new DS games along with progressive titles on PC show that the public aren't thick; gamers want story and intelligent gameplay, but for a long time adventures were often and are still often, convoluted, uninteresting, uninteractive stories with illogical puzzles to impede the player as much as possible. Humour probably says it best; this is from Erik Wolpaw, who wrote Portal's story; an example of a recent game that might not be a "true" adventure but is narrative driven and relies on the player's smarts.

http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html

[mgeorge]

I agree with you Stuboy and I actually agree with oldmanmurry in some of what he has to say as well.

You can take the FPS genre and say it's become pretty redundant, and I agree it has. It's still pick up a gun and shoot pretty much whatever comes between you and your weapon.

But it's been refined a good deal since the days of the original Quake and Unreal ect. There's now physics involved, squad based play, some non linear games, and some are even starting to incorporate a decent story, Bioshock being an example. But even a game like Bioshock is still bascially running around killing things at it's core. Same with a game like Stalker. Fairly non linear, but the bottom line is, go kill things.

But it has moved foward, whereas AG's seem to be pretty much exactly the same thing that was being done 10 or 15 years ago. The point and click gameplay still drives 95% of the new ones coming out. People are obviously buying them as I've found out by starting to play a few lately so there is a market for them, but I'm personally surprised that people aren't starting to seek something a bit more innovative in the genre.

But it seems if game devs do try something different, ie; Indigo Prophecy, Dreamfall, the third Broken Sword game, the AG community generally shuns them. Many here don't seem to want anything new and would prefer the norm for the genre. But I can't really blame the media for exclaiming the the adventure genre is dying and not paying attention to them, because the games being made today are pretty much the same games that were made over a decade ago.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I more or less agree to mgeorge and stuboy's posts.

Looking back at the past several years, there hasn't seemed to be any kind of discernible trend of general progress in these types of games. Occasionally you'll see titles such as Indigo Prophecy touted in the news and online communities, but really, a game like that ultimately has nothing to do with adventure games categorically. It simply receives press coverage because it offers some unique things as a game (just like any other kind of game with a very strong or original idea behind it), thus providing no coattails on which the adventure game 'genre' can ride deservedly.

Collectively the 'genre' has nothing new to offer us today that it offered us ten years ago in concept, execution, or scope. It would indeed be laughable for, say, The New York Times or BBC News to write a story with the headline "Another 2D Point-&-Click Adventure Game With Linear Story, Cookie Cutter Puzzles, And April Ryan Clone Released".

What games out there today that have some relation to the adventure game (as we know it) - Phoenix Wright, the Sam & Max series, and some others - and are getting coverage in the media deserve that coverage. Why? Because they're NOT old, repetitive, and outdated in concept, execution, or scope.

Faithful hardcore adventure game aficionados may be snobbish about their preferred game type, quick to defend it as intellectually superior to many other kinds of games (which I think is sad for reasons I'll explain in another post). But that snobbery and defense will NOT gain the adventure game any more attention by the media.

But it is definitely true that there is still a strong niche market for this type of game (proved by sales stats). It's merely that, given the state of gaming today as an insanely competitive multi billion dollar industry and a profound cultural influence, why should the more mainstream and influential media for the most part waste its time covering a genre that has remained fundamentally stagnant for at least a decade?