[Beacon]

I can only speak for myself as a gamer, but the technology available to make video games has grown so advanced Point-n-Click is antiquated by comparison to today's video games. I want the freedom of control and grand vistas that the consoles and PC are capable of and not be restricted to the shuffle of scenes PNC games are. Playing PNC games today is like being forced to drive a Ferrari at 30mph when it is capable of far more. Gamers like me have come to expect certain things from the games made today. Adventure Games in general have failed to meet the standards I require to play a video game in 2009.

[oerhört]

It should be noted that there seems to be a considerable audience for technically and control-wise simple games, though. They sure do seem to be produced a lot, so I don't think the solution is for every AG developer to try to out-do Heavy Rain.

But more studios should try, I agree. Mass Effect is a relevant game that adventures should try to match in quality. Actually, I think ME is the Space Quest of our times.

[imisssunwell]

The reason for this is that point-n-click games won't fly with today's console gamers. They need to be full 3D with direct control in order to compete on 360 and PS3. Although some PNCs have be released for Wii, they aren't great sellers there. DS is the best platform for PNC games.

Indeed PnC works very well for the DS, there it is an intuitive interface, maybe it will become popular again for pc games when sometime in the future multitouch screens are the norm.

@ Intrepid Homoludens, indeed more console AGs would be nice, iphone would be ideal for smaller scale games but there exists competition and indie projects would have to be priced as indy projects and not some AAA title. Unfortunately quite a few indie developers use pricetags which do not correspond to the level of craft their games have and I am not sure they would be up to the task and try themselves at iPhone healthy price competition. btw I will give Hysteria a go when it comes out, looks interesting.

But more studios should try, I agree. Mass Effect is a relevant game that adventures should try to match in quality. Actually, I think ME is the Space Quest of our times.

hehe that's how I view mass effect as well. Regarding PnC being simple, I find it anti-intuitive today, NDS excluded, as Beacon nicely pointed out, there PnC is fit for purpose.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Don't expect a publisher like The Adventure Company to shell out funding for a conceptually and technically
ambitious new game like Heavy Rain. It just doesn't have a money and the balls for it because the company
was never interested in going that way.

Originally Posted by oerhört

It should be noted that there seems to be a considerable audience for technically and control-wise simple games, though. They sure do seem to be produced a lot, so I don't think the solution is for every AG developer to try to out-do Heavy Rain.

Oh, of course! Not every new adventure game can aspire to the production level of Mass Effect or Heavy Rain. And not every game should. But as I stated a long time ago in another post or two, there will always, always be point & click games, the market for it will never go away, even though it isn't as relevant and important as it was 10 years ago or even 5 years ago and the media ignore it. Why should the media - and a large share of the gaming market - pay attention, there has been nothing new the point & click games have had to offer by and large in the past several years or so. The only media covering such creatively conservative games are sites like Adventure Gamers or Just Adventure+. It is, of course, a niche market today.

And really, the hardcore fans of point-&-click often freak out that their precious game genre is ceasing to grow and they're blaming, say, the consoles, the FPS or other action games, or the general gaming market for wanting sex and violence over intellectual challenges. But the reality is that intellectually challenging games will always still be there, because the market will always be there. And that's alongside violent games, and graphics progressive games, and conceptually unique games.

So I'm not at all worried about the the point & click games, they'll always keep coming. What I am concerned with are the opportunities for boldly creative and unique possibilities that game designers like Ragnar Tornquist and David Cage are exploring within the commercial realm.

Titles like Heavy Rain are NOT cheap to produce. It is not a budget title like, say, a Nancy Drew game. Neither is it a cookie cutter adventure like the Agatha Christie series. Games like Heavy Rain need generous resources to explore new ideas, and publishers of traditional adventure games don't have the money or the courage to go out on a limb like that, and that's because those publishers haven't built up the necessary resources and market all this time to go that direction, even if only partly so.

At this point I don't care at all about point & click simply because people are still buying them. It's the new "meta-adventure games" (as I refer to conceptually progressive titles like Indigo Prophecy) that I'd rather pay more attention to.

[mgeorge]

I couldn't have said any better Intrepid. My sentiments exactly.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Beacon

I can only speak for myself as a gamer, but the technology available to make video games has grown so advanced Point-n-Click is antiquated by comparison to today's video games.

I've never understood this argument. Technology has moved on undoubtedly but point and click is still the main way of operating computers despite this. Is the interface being confused with the presentation? (Point and click being seen as fixed view third-person for example) Can you give examples of things new control systems allow you to do things that can't be achieved with intelligent use of point and click? I'm genuinely interested.

I can see the argument in the context of consoles as the majority of console controls (excepting the DS touch screen) aren't suited to point and click. Is there a single control system that would suit all systems for ports?

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Don't expect a publisher like The Adventure Company to shell out funding for a conceptually and technically
ambitious new game like Heavy Rain. It just doesn't have a money and the balls for it because the company
was never interested in going that way.

My emphasis. If a company doesn't have the money then attempting a project that requires a big budget isn't courage, it's stupidity. David Cage is lucky that he's got a big budget behind him and that he's also a "name". Any game by Cage is going to achieve a certain level of sales because people will want to see what he's done (some people with low expectations of Heavy Rain have admitted they will do just that) so he's not taking the risk an unknown would. I don't see him as having "the balls" to try something diferent. He's a person who has managed to achieve the privileged position of being able to do what he likes. It doesn't take courage to indulge yourself, even if the end result turns out to be genuinely good.

At the end of the day, a games company isn't just a faceless corporate entity. It's a bunch of people who need the company to make money for them to live. Are we really asking people to put their livelihoods on the line merely for our entertainment? Maybe we should ask ourselves if any of us would genuinely be willing to do that. The Adventure Company makes stuff that sells (and I'm speaking as someone who wasn't exactly blown away by something they were involved in). Maybe they've made a definite decision not to take risks or maybe they've realised they can't afford to do so. Either way, accusing them of not having "the balls" isn't going to get us anywhere.

[oerhört]

David Cage was rather unknown before Fahrenheit.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

In general, adventure game developers seem to lack vision. I don't think The Last Express cost substantially more to develop than a lot of the medium profile games like Still Life 2, Secret Files 2 and so on, but it had a lot of ideas that has almost never been looked at again since.

You don't need large budgets or great graphics to provide something new and interesting. Even the dialog/inventory system in Mata Hari comes across as innovative in today's adventure industry, and that's rather telling.

[Beacon]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

Can you give examples of things new control systems allow you to do things that can't be achieved with intelligent use of point and click? I'm genuinely interested.

I am currently playing Assassin's Creed. This game provides the main character the ability to literally climb anything and everthing. Moving around vast city scapes is intuitive and fun. There is no way PNC can do anything like it.

PNC games are glorified slide shows. That does not provide the immersion of exploration that a good 3D engine with direct controls can.

In PNC games I can see a great rendered tower in the distance, but I can't go there. In a 3D game I can climb to the top of that tower and look over the entire map.

That is the freedom of being able to do anything at anytime. Not just the five hotspots that are currenty available on a static screen.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by oerhört

David Cage was rather unknown before Fahrenheit....Everyone has to start somewhere.

Monsieur Cage did Omikron: The Nomad Soul back in the 1999 and received some fame for that, partly so in that the game featured the voice acting of David Bowie. But I agree with you, he broke into more mainstream renown with Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy.

In general, adventure game developers seem to lack vision...

It may be a bit more complicated than that. Maybe some of them do have new ideas but they're locked into a part of the industry that may not have the resources - and the vision themselves - to try those ideas out. It's always a big risk, and it really is still a source of income, a job. Those developers have family to feed, mortgages to pay, a life outside work to support. And today, because fewer people buy adventure games compared other kinds of games, the risk is that much more pronounced.

You don't need large budgets or great graphics to provide something new and interesting. Even the dialog/inventory system in Mata Hari comes across as innovative in today's adventure industry, and that's rather telling.

Yeah. That depends on how you want your game to be, I suppose. You could start by, say, developing something new in concept but fairly limited in technology using the XDA (Xbox development kit) that's specifically designed for use by independent talents, and then sell your game through the Xbox Live channel for a nominal sum (minus, of course, Microsoft's fee). That way you get a lot of exposure, and if your game really is that good, who knows? You may end up doing another game, get even more noticed by the gamers and media, then a major publisher may approach you with an offer.

That stated, independent PC distribution is today merely one way of getting your game out there. You can also do it through Apple's App Store and have it be an iPhone/iPod Touch adventure game, or do some home brew for Sony's PSP.

And it doesn't even have to be a fundamentally innovative game. It could very well be a beautifully unique and different re-conceptualized "touch-&-click" 2D game (if on the iPhone), a side scrolling adventure for PSP, or a simple 3D adventure romp for the Xbox that has memorable characters or stories.

[Jadefalcon]

Originally Posted by Beacon

I am currently playing Assassin's Creed. This game provides the main character the ability to literally climb anything and everthing. Moving around vast city scapes is intuitive and fun. There is no way PNC can do anything like it.

PNC games are glorified slide shows. That does not provide the immersion of exploration that a good 3D engine with direct controls can.

In PNC games I can see a great rendered tower in the distance, but I can't go there. In a 3D game I can climb to the top of that tower and look over the entire map.

That is the freedom of being able to do anything at anytime. Not just the five hotspots that are currenty available on a static screen.

Granted, however, Assassin's Creed when you look at the core gameplay is quite limited. Although you can go practically anywhere, there's not really a lot to do. Though I suppose if you're in an evil mood you can try to depopulate one of the cities.

Don't get me wrong, I like the game, I've played and completed it, but despite its gloss and there is a decent storyline there isn't really a hell of a lot to do.

[oerhört]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Monsieur Cage did Omikron: The Nomad Soul back in the 1999 and received some fame for that, partly so in that the game featured the voice acting of David Bowie. But I agree with you, he broke into more mainstream renown with Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy.

Yeah, I know, I'm actually a fan of Omikron, broken as it was. But outside of France, I don't think people paid all that much attention to David Cage himself at the time. That's the impression I got, at least.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It may be a bit more complicated than that. Maybe some of them do have new ideas but they're locked into a part of the industry that may not have the resources - and the vision themselves - to try those ideas out. It's always a big risk, and it really is still a source of income, a job. Those developers have family to feed, mortgages to pay, a life outside work to support. And today, because fewer people buy adventure games compared other kinds of games, the risk is that much more pronounced.

There are, of course, a lot of reasons why things are the way they are, but I sincerely believe that AG developers in general are being unneccessarily conservative. (I haven't really played each and every game the last years to come out in the genre, so I'm basing my opinion on those that I have.)

That said, I myself don't even really need all that much innovation—I'd be glad if people just stopped doing amateur game design mistakes and read up on basic drama theory. There's no reason why modern adventures can't be better designed from a usability and friendliness standpoint than the old ones, but often, in my experience, they're worse. I'd take Gabriel Knight 2 or 3 over Overclocked any day, and GK2/3 had some relatively (and unneccessarily) obscure puzzles. Good usability, good script and a helpful attitude is not primarily a question of budget, but of game design and scriptwriting knowhow, in my opinion.

I'm actually relatively excited about the way I see games such as Dream Chronicles: The Chosen Child and Pahelika: Secret Legends go. Do you guys know when this trend of incorporating tricks from "casual games" came from? I rather like the efficiency and helpfulness of this new Myst/hidden object offshoot genre, when done well.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Beacon

I am currently playing Assassin's Creed. This game provides the main character the ability to literally climb anything and everthing. Moving around vast city scapes is intuitive and fun. There is no way PNC can do anything like it.

PNC games are glorified slide shows. That does not provide the immersion of exploration that a good 3D engine with direct controls can.

In PNC games I can see a great rendered tower in the distance, but I can't go there. In a 3D game I can climb to the top of that tower and look over the entire map.

That is the freedom of being able to do anything at anytime. Not just the five hotspots that are currenty available on a static screen.

Again you're confusing presentation with the interface.

To take your Assassin's Creed example, you can climb to the top of the tower to look over the whole map because the tower has been given climbable status. Had it not been given climbable status then you wouldn't be able to get to the top of it. The freedom that you're seeing is down to design of the game environment, not the control system you use to move through it.

How could you achieve climbing the tower using Point and click interface? First-person view, moving the mouse around moves the view (in all directions) Left-click interacts with objects. Right-click moves the character forward. It's still pretty close to the classic point and click but now you climb the tower by walking up to the base of it, orienting your mouse to look up the tower and advancing.

[nomadsoul]

Originally Posted by Beacon

I am currently playing Assassin's Creed. This game provides the main character the ability to literally climb anything and everthing. Moving around vast city scapes is intuitive and fun. There is no way PNC can do anything like it.

PNC games are glorified slide shows. That does not provide the immersion of exploration that a good 3D engine with direct controls can.

In PNC games I can see a great rendered tower in the distance, but I can't go there. In a 3D game I can climb to the top of that tower and look over the entire map.

That is the freedom of being able to do anything at anytime. Not just the five hotspots that are currenty available on a static screen.

Beautifully put, could not agree more. I moved form exploring 2 images with mouse cursor TO 3D worlds with enough graphic prowess to not only build as much detail as 2D image but also are explorable to higher extent, like you mentioned, climbing and going through. Ratchet and clank on PS3 blows every adventure game in that aspect though adventure/platformer/shooter hybrid, it does LOCATIONS and their EXPLORATION really well.
Infact its only game which translates the 2D concept art in 3D totally, ME came close but its static and not reachable and divided with loading times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDm1X1W_lk0

Play this in HD and you will forget TLJ 2D images
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTtYI...eature=related

More
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFNmd...1AB38&index=24

My best level, exactly like concept art in 3D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ho4...1AB38&index=33



@intrepid on budgets

AG companies can now try to get UE3, since majority substandard companies are getting it and making too many crappy tiles form movie tie-ins to original IPs. And they are really generic , but easy to license and develop. So its best bet, specially it is good for good character renders, so adventure game can benefit form face modeling and behavior which normally sucks/nonexistent and kills immersion in todays AG.

On your your intellectual part, i dunno but i still find script and writing in other games more better than AG. Uncharted,Folklore,ME, BS, DeadSpace, infamous, do it alot better. You need have tight script and better VAs first, majority of AG games become victim of bad localizations from their European origins, then comes low caliber/profile VAs to make situation whole lot worse.
Even high caliber VAs don't count many times, since nolannorth sucked in PoP and he blows in Uncharted, so execution and QA should be there too to reach certain standard.

If you mean intellectual = puzzles, then again i dont think puzzles have really evolved, and how much can you evolve puzzles on 2D image? With cursor? Aren't we talking about evolution here?

[mgeorge]

David Cage was known before Indigo Prophecy as someone else mentioned, with Nomad Soul. A very underrated game IMO. Even though it did have Bowie , it never did become very popular with the mainstream.

Forgetting the awkward game controls and some bugs, it was a very ambitious and intelligent game for it's time, which is why I believe it didn't do that well. Many people don't like deviating from the norm, especially back then when all the rage was Doom etc, and that mindset is still around now.

Indigo Prophecy, despite having horrible stealth mechanics, stupid Simon Says sequences, and a weak story ending still intrigued me more than 95% of other games that have come out in the last 5 years or so. And it's because Cage did take chances with the gameplay mechanics. And that does take some guts, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I have no idea what Heavy Rain will be like, and I doubt I'll ever play it unless it comes to the PC, but it's nice to know that there are some game devs still willing to take chances.

[imisssunwell]

Like other people pointed out, regarding budgets XBLA/iPhone are very good to innovate within a tight budget, I assume the same holds for Sony Online Services as well but I don't own a PS3 so I can't be 100% certain for the Sony bit.

Regarding 3D & game interface, yes 3D offers a hell of a lot more potential to games, Beacon pointed it out very nicely

That is the freedom of being able to do anything at anytime. Not just the five hotspots that are currenty available on a static screen.

Only period I avoided 3D was when the tech was at its infancy, like TES Arena & Daggerfall, I didn't like the very early 3D gfx, 15 years ago our machines just couldn't support nice looking 3D but they deffo look sweet nowdays.

This thing of discussing if 3D is better than 2D reminds a debade of late 80s & early 90s (that took place on PC mags and BB Servers), if it is good to have graphics in games or it is better to have text games in the style of Zork, other text adventures, MUDs etc. I won't go on listing the arguments for keeping text games because I don't think that would make any sense @ 2009 but how can a more restrictive form of graphics provide the whole experience (both graphically, gameplay & interactivity) that 3D does?

[oerhört]

Originally Posted by nomadsoul

I moved form exploring 2 images with mouse cursor TO 3D worlds with enough graphic prowess to not only build as much detail as 2D image but also are explorable to higher extent, like you mentioned, climbing and going through.

Seems a bit one-sided, though. Adventure games are often explorable "to a higher extent" than Ratchet & Clank as well, providing more diverse interaction, textual/oral descriptions of the world, filling the gameworld with a human quality through describing it and commenting on it.

Originally Posted by nomadsoul

AG companies can now try to get UE3, since majority substandard companies are getting it and making too many crappy tiles form movie tie-ins to original IPs. And they are really generic , but easy to license and develop. So its best bet, specially it is good for good character renders, so adventure game can benefit form face modeling and behavior which normally sucks/nonexistent and kills immersion in todays AG.

The reason characters in adventure games tend to lack character is NOT the 3D engines they use. Most modern game engines can handle the required detail, the problem is in concept, lighting, animation—in other words, the problem is an artistic one.

Originally Posted by nomadsoul

If you mean intellectual = puzzles, then again i dont think puzzles have really evolved, and how much can you evolve puzzles on 2D image? With cursor? Aren't we talking about evolution here?

World of Goo showed how a whole game can be based around 2D point-and-click puzzles and be relevant in 2009. Some imagination is all it takes.

Originally Posted by mgeorge

Forgetting the awkward game controls and some bugs, it was a very ambitious and intelligent game for it's time, which is why I believe it didn't do that well. Many people don't like deviating from the norm, especially back then when all the rage was Doom etc, and that mindset is still around now.

How would those people judge the ambitiousness and intelligence of the game if they never tried it? I believe this mentality is gravely misjudged. The reason people don't buy games is mostly because a.) they don't know about them, or b.) because they don't understand at a glance what the game is about, or c.) because the concept does not appeal to them.

As far as Omikron goes, it was a muddy and nonimmediate prospect to the buyers back then, in my opinion. It was very hard to understand what the game was about by its cover, which looked like a heavy metal CD cover. The only reason it caught my interest was because PC Gamer UK compared it to Outcast, another artful game at the time that was a bit better at conveying what it was (Indiana Jones in space).

Bowie might have helped sales, though. How many copies did it sell?

Originally Posted by mgeorge

I have no idea what Heavy Rain will be like, and I doubt I'll ever play it unless it comes to the PC, but it's nice to know that there are some game devs still willing to take chances.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by imisssunwell

This thing of discussing if 3D is better than 2D reminds a debade of late 80s & early 90s (that took place on PC mags and BB Servers), if it is good to have graphics in games or it is better to have text games in the style of Zork, other text adventures, MUDs etc. I won't go on listing the arguments for keeping text games because I don't think that would make any sense @ 2009 but how can a more restrictive form of graphics provide the whole experience (both graphically, gameplay & interactivity) that 3D does?

3D has some clear drawbacks. Camera systems are often lackluster and demand the topology to remain simple enough for the camera to navigate it properly, navigating in 3D space is inherently a more complex process than in 2D, at least until VR sets become commonplace, because we're trying to do it through a 2D screen. If you compare Halo to Super Mario the latter will be enjoyed by a far greater population simply because controls and screens are limited and "better" suited to 2D for now.

There are a lot of advantages to using 3D, but it's hard to argue that 3D is categorically "better".

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by nomadsoul

AG companies can now try to get UE3, since majority substandard companies are getting it and making too many crappy tiles form movie tie-ins to original IPs. And they are really generic , but easy to license and develop. So its best bet, specially it is good for good character renders, so adventure game can benefit form face modeling and behavior which normally sucks/nonexistent and kills immersion in todays AG.

That hinges on AG companies having the money, skills, hardware, and talent to be able to improve the quality of their games to the level of, say, Mass Effect or Half-Life 2. Thing is, that's in terms of the general quality, not necessarily in concepts (narrative types, puzzle design, etc.).

However, raising the quality of graphics, or going from 2D to real-time 3D, or hiring a much more talented writer triggers a very good chance to re-conceptualize the game, to where it may branch away from the typical constraints imposed on adventure games that don't have such a generous budget to work with. When you have better technology and better talent, you can certainly think better ideas and come up with new and different ways to experience the game.

On your your intellectual part, i dunno but i still find script and writing in other games more better than AG. Uncharted,Folklore,ME, BS, DeadSpace, infamous, do it alot better. You need have tight script and better VAs first, majority of AG games become victim of bad localizations from their European origins, then comes low caliber/profile VAs to make situation whole lot worse.
Even high caliber VAs don't count many times, since nolannorth sucked in PoP and he blows in Uncharted, so execution and QA should be there too to reach certain standard.

That doesn't look to be any different in how other kinds of games handle things. Bad writing is bad writing, no matter what kind of game it is. Perhaps it may be more magnified in a typical adventure game because the writing is almost the only thing you have to work with, so it throws the writing front and center and that's what you must work with as a designer and as a player.

You can forgive an action game, like Gears of War, for example, for having a lousy story and B movie acting, and that's because GoW is NOT an adventure game, it's an action game and if the action sucks the game sucks.

I think with a typical adventure game the story and the intellectual challenges (puzzles) are what matters, so if one or both of them suck, the game sucks in general.

If you mean intellectual = puzzles, then again i dont think puzzles have really evolved, and how much can you evolve puzzles on 2D image? With cursor? Aren't we talking about evolution here?

Of course they haven't evolved. I think that explains the boredom of many of us here, in adventure gaming communities, and to greater extent the lack of interest from gamers in general and from the media. But I don't think 2D is entirely at fault. It's the designers' fault - and the gamers' fault - for not thinking outside the box...

Originally Posted by Trep

The incest contained within the almost hermetically sealed genre of adventure has trapped both game designers and gamers themselves into instinctively thinking that a puzzle must be both elemental and obscurely difficult, as well as 'stereotypically puzzle-y'. That is, it must look and behave like puzzles they have encountered innumerable times in past games. While this mindset is understandable, it's painfully constricting as it leads both parties - gamers and designers - into a cul-de-sac of redundancy, and has produced laughably recyclable and artificially integrated obstacles. Quite a sin: let he who is without prior experience in the 'poke - pencil - through - keyhole - to - knock - key - out - onto - newspaper - below' puzzle cast the first stone.

- The Cold Hotspot, part 2: Warmed over leftovers

It's still possible to engineer a new kind of puzzle, one we have never seen before, within a 2D adventure game. But, that depends on a bunch of other factors in that game, like the concept, how new and unexplored the story content is, the gameworld, the characters themselves, and of course, the technology involved.

If you mean intellectual = puzzles, then again i dont think puzzles have really evolved, and how much can you evolve puzzles on 2D image? With cursor? Aren't we talking about evolution here?

We're talking about progression and branching away from familiar paths, specifically (though evolution in general applies). Like I stated before, not ALL adventure games have to be forced to progress and be more innovative. Not all of them need to be, and that's because there are still people who want things to stay the same.

I dumped the word 'puzzle' and replaced it with 'intellectual challenges' because I wanted to get away from the puzzle mentality. When you think 'puzzle' you most likely think of the stuff in Myst, or some other kinds of puzzles where it's all about logic. But I think 'intellectual challenges' offers a better, more abstract way of perceiving the challenges in a game. What if the challenge involves dynamic A.I. where the player must interact with a character that in real time assesses the player's every move and reacts accordingly? Can that not also be a puzzle?

I hate the idea of designing 'puzzles', because that in itself AUTOMATICALLY begins to force you to think in a typically adventure game way, and you become redundant. That is in part the trap that adventure game designers continue to fall into.

[Beacon]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I dumped the word 'puzzle' and replaced it with 'intellectual challenges' because I wanted to get away from the puzzle mentality. When you think 'puzzle' you most likely think of the stuff in Myst, or some other kinds of puzzles where it's all about logic. But I think 'intellectual challenges' offers a better, more abstract way of perceiving the challenges in a game. What if the challenge involves dynamic A.I. where the player must interact with a character that in real time assesses the player's every move and reacts accordingly? Can that not also be a puzzle?

In my experience, 3D allows for puzzles or intellectual challenges to be integrated more smoothly with the environment. I remember a puzzle in a Tomb Raider game where there were 4 statues hidden in a room and you had to find the statues and figure out a way to drag them to a central spot and place them just so in order to open a gate with a key behind it. Two of the statues were easy to find. Two were hidden in blocks that you had to figure out how to free the statue within. In one case, you simply pushed the block over the edge of a floor and when it fell, it broke apart, freeing the statue. In the other case, you had to push the block under this large hammer and then pull a lever causing the hammer to fall and smash the block.

To me that is inherently more fun to do than solve a slider puzzle for the umpteenth time.

[oerhört]

Crate puzzles have about as bad a reputation in action adventures as slider puzzles have in adventures, though.

I don't believe for a second that the perspective—3D or 2D—has anything to do with whether the challenges are smoothly integrated with the environment. It's all a matter of game design. Badly integrated puzzles are found in both 2D and 3D games.

[Foozwah]

Originally Posted by oerhört

Crate puzzles have about as bad a reputation in action adventures as slider puzzles have in adventures, though.

I don't believe for a second that the perspective—3D or 2D—has anything to do with whether the challenges are smoothly integrated with the environment. It's all a matter of game design. Badly integrated puzzles are found in both 2D and 3D games.

Yup, and even when they're (relatively) well integrated, they can still be boring.

As much as I like the Zelda games, overall, I am so sick to death of the series' seeming insistence on always having sliding crate-type puzzles.

Of course, expecting no sliding crate puzzles in a Zelda game might be equivalent to expecting not to to have to rescue the freakin' princess in a Mario game (or indeed a Zelda game, heh), but a man can dream, eh?

In my experience, "puzzles" in 3D games tend to devolve into the same handful of "drag object "x" to point "y"/ step on the pressure pads in the right order/put obviously-shaped key object in obviously matching slot/press buttons in the order indicated on-screen like a lab-test monkey to activate QT actions-type mechanics. It's all so familiar AND repetitive that it makes your average point and clicker look positively filled with variety in comparison.

Doesn't stop me playing them (both modern 3D arcade-adventures and old-school adventures) of course, but it makes me laugh at the notion that 3D is going to be some kind of innovation cure-all for the adventure genre.