[mgeorge]

I was going to respond to the “I Hate Puzzles” thread but as I started writing this I realized it was turning into my basic feelings about AG’s in gen. so here you go. Trust me that I’m not trying to offend anyone, just giving my personal views on the genre.

I started playing AG's for their stories, because that's what I’d heard is their selling point and I love a good story in a game. But frankly I've been disappointed in that aspect of the genre as well as the inane puzzles which the bulk of them contain.

To many plots left unresolved or cliffhanger endings that pretty much require a sequel. Nothing wrong with that I guess, however as far as I’m concerned, a game, like a good book should have a beginning, middle, and ending that explains why you spent X amount of hours playing it. It doesn’t have to spoon feed you the plot, but should at least resolve in a satisfying way or at the very least, have you thinking about it once you complete it.

As to puzzles. There are tons of really stupid puzzles in AG's. Some have already been mentioned, Still Life cookie baking for one. I don't recall the game but there's one where you have to put a camera on a cats back, another where you place a stick of dynamite on a rat. I could go on and on. It wouldn’t be so bad if these puzzles moved the story forward, but many don’t.

Also way to many puzzles that seem to be added to AG’s for filler and nothing more. To many illogical puzzles to solve or some type of math puzzle where, maybe because I’m not the brightest star in the universe, I have to use a walkthrough, (or calculator) to get by. Or you’re given no clue as to what to do next or why.

I guess it’s all subjective, because many people seem to like this type of thing, and the devs keep pumping out the same type games year after year.

And that’s my main gripe with the genre. Most AG’s made today are exactly the same as an AG made 10 years ago. You point and click from one static screen to the next. Look for “hotspots” and then try and figure out how to combine X with Y, to solve a puzzle. You then have to open a safe, figure out a slider puzzle, go through some type of maze, figure out some chemical equation etc etc. And do all these things in exactly the order in the devs want you to.

There are exceptions to the rule IMO.

Indigo Prophecy … Very flawed game with horrible controls for the PC and some of the worst stealth ever. But I’ve played it 4 times now and it’s in my personal top 5 games in any genre despite the fairly weak ending.

Penumbra games. Physic based puzzles.

Lost Crown. Contained some stupid puzzles but had me still thinking about it weeks after I’d finished it.

Culpa Innata. Also contained some totally pointless puzzles, but damn if it didn’t have a fascinating game world.

Post Mortem. At least it wasn’t completely linear and had a very good story.

Ah I see this is getting way to long. Haha. I dunno. From a strictly selfish standpoint I’d love to see more innovation in the genre. But it seems when a game tries to do that, it gets bashed and people want to go back to the status quo.

[seanparkerfilms]

All good points. Sadly I have to agree that while of course there are exceptions, it is difficult to find an adventure game these days that doesn't have at least one or two puzzles that drive you insane from bad design. But even when the puzzles in a game are a total bust, as long as the story and characters are fascinating (and at least some of the puzzles aren't awful), I can usually enjoy it. My best example for that would be Still Life. Several bad puzzles (the baking one was nowhere near as bad as the lockpicking one for me, or the computer search puzzle for that matter), but very intriguing.

As to the subject of innovation, I'm all for it when it happens, seeing how the bulk of adventure games being released tend to be fairly standard point-and-click affairs. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel that too often people instantly just close up or run away whenever an adventure game is released that has direct control or even mild action elements (not that those are inherently innovative, but were utilized to an innovative effect in games like Indigo Prophecy, Dreamfall, Broken Sword III, and the upcoming Heavy Rain).

I think it's fairly obvious that point-and-click is not dead nor is it going to be fully replaced by the "innovative adventure games." Seeing as how those releases are the exception to the rule rather than the standard, nobody should be worried, and I hope that such releases receive a warmer welcome in the adventuring community in the future.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the story, writing, and characters (and art design) are the most important aspects of an adventure game to me, so I'm always perfectly willing to look past the non-innovative aspects of games as long as they suck me into the world. For that matter, the innovative games need to nail those storytelling aspects to truly succeed as well.

[3rdFloor]

Originally Posted by seanparkerfilms

the story, writing, and characters (and art design) are the most important aspects of an adventure game to me, so I'm always perfectly willing to look past the non-innovative aspects of games as long as they suck me into the world.

I feel the same. And honestly, I just love today's adventure games for what they are. In fact, I'm usually one of the first to gripe when I hear about some of the proposed changes any given developer wants to implement, and that's because such changes usually translate into buggy games. For example, Still Life 2 turning into a messy 3D affair for no apparent reason, or Mata Hari constantly throwing mini-games at the player, hoping to break the mold and speed up its otherwise slow pacing. I find these "enhancements" irrelevant and unjustified.

Of course, I don't bark at all changes. When done with careful implementation, some of these can turn into very strong ideas, like Telltale's recent control scheme alterations. While disliked by many, it turns out I much prefer these refined controls, at least as far as Tales of Monkey Island is concerned. I think it all works seamlessly within their graphics engine and gameplay mechanics.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by mgeorge

And that’s my main gripe with the genre. Most AG’s made today are exactly the same as an AG made 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by DeadWolf

And honestly, I just love today's adventure games for what they are. In fact, I'm usually one of the first to gripe when I hear about some of the proposed changes any given developer wants to implement...

We can't win. Ever. :-(

[orient]

I’ll speak to the innovation, or lack thereof. Usually, new technology creates new possibilities that helps modernize a genre. Just look at the huge impact 3D graphics had on platform games like Mario. The new dimension completely changed how you played Mario on Nintendo64, compared to Super Mario World on the SNES. There has been no such paradigm shift for adventure games. In Dreamfall and Broken Sword 3, despite having direct control over your character and the ability to explore lush environments in 3D, the challenges you overcome to progress in the game aren't very different than something you may have come across in The Secret of Monkey Island, almost 20 years ago. Sure, you have some gameplay elements that don’t really improve the experience, such as weak combat mechanics, stealth or an abundance of crate-pushing puzzles, but at some point you’ve got to ask yourself…where is the real innovation or experimentation? Why are there only a handful of adventure games (if we’re allowed to call them that) that have advanced the genre in recent years?

I think there are a few main reasons why we don’t see more innovation in adventure games:

• People still love and crave that classic point & click AG formula, including the people that make the games.

• The companies that make and distribute new adventure games (The Adventure Company, Got Game Entertainment, Microids) have found their niche selling adventure games to adventure gamers. It could be unwise for them to tamper with that formula. When you have a modest budget, it’s usually best to stick to what you know.

I think there will always be some room for the traditional graphic adventure, but I’d like to see more innovation in and around it, like we’ve seen with Indigo Prophecy and Heavy Rain. And unlike a lot of people, I don’t think adventure games as they currently stand are going to explode into the casual market and become huge again, not without some serious tweaking. Most of them are simply too hard and illogical.

[potan]

woah, this is really an interesting discussion

so aside from upgraded graphic / visual look,
can you guys list what you can think as "innovation" in the past, let say 5 years (on adventure game genre) ?

[Little Writer]

I totally dig the "Indigo Prophecy" (or "Fahrenheit" as I know it) interface. I have the PS2 version and it's great how you have to work the sticks; it took me forever to learn how to wipe up the blood in the beginning of the game, but afterwards it's all so ... instinctual, for lack of a better word.

Now the "simon says" color thing ... I don't know. It was certainly a different approach and I liked it, but I also disliked it because you were no longer aware of what was actually happening in the game itself.

Also, many in-game activities didn't contribute to anything and were only present to show the interface's different applications, like the basketball and boxing match.

I sure thought the game was innovative in that regard. Of course the plotline and the action scenes copied straight from the "Matrix" movies ruined it a bit.

In general I like how the elaborate point and click interface (first choosing a verb, then an object) has been simplified over the years. Used to be a big part of the puzzle was finding out how to use an object - then often it turned out that you couldn't use an object at all, but that was after you've tried nine different applications. I'm currently playing "The Longest Journey" and I like how there are only three possible actions (look, talk, use) which are also only available if you can actually do something with them.

I've also enjoyed the addition of a first person free roam camera in "Gabriel Knight 3", while it still retained the third person perspective.

I don't yet have any experience with more recent adventure games, so I don't know what you might encounter in those.

[Jannik]

The subject was recently discussed in great detail in another thread. Maybe it would be an idea to merge the two threads - e.g. to minimize the quantity of repeated/similar comments and answers a bit?

Anyway, here's the link to the thread in mention:
http://www.adventuregamers.com/forum...ad.php?t=24582

[millenia]

I also was very taken with Culpa Innata. First I almost didn't play it because of the graphics style but luckily I started it and it got me interested. (I'm not horribly picky with graphics, the whole style just made feel "meh" at first.) This was one succesful try to be a bit different yet true to the adventure game feeling. I really hope they can keep it up on the sequel, it's one the games I'm looking forward to the most.

When there's something "new" and "different" it usually means combat and/or sneaking. And even more than usually it is badly implemented. It is clumsy and unnecessary. A few years ago it seemed to be a trend to stuff in some stupid badly done and written action scenes to every adventure. And even though some of the games manage to still be great, those things very rarely added anything but frustration. And I have been playing other games than the regular point&click ones so it's not just being alien to different interfaces and button smashing.

Another example of good innovation was Discworld Noir (it has been mentioned before too, not taking all credit from this ). The whole notebook interface was a brilliant idea and I myself liked very much the way the scents were implemented. On top of that the game didn't have any silly puzzles or illogicalities in it, and it was a Discworld game with twisted humour in the first place! The game was very linear but I don't necessarily see it as a minus. It's only bad in some games where you get the linearity rubbed in your face constantly (stupid tasks to get the time moving, silly puzzles that don't have anything to do with the plot etc.)

As mentioned, Gabriel Knight 3 had some good elements in it too. It's 3d interface actually worked (I usually prefer an old school 2d myself too) and it had those little extras and gimmicks in it. Gabriel Knight stories have always been great too and in the end it always comes to that. A truly great game has to have a truly great story. There are smooth and fun games like Secret Files where everything is done with such a polish that it's good entertainment. But those stories will not haunt you and you are not compelled to return to those games again and again. I can appreciate this kind of entertainment though, like I can appreciate a well done blockbuster movie. They aren't all good but they are not automatically bad just because they are what they are.

And I don't think you need to be reinventing the genre in every game. TLJ is one the most old school adventures there are and it's brilliant. The disappointment lies in the fact that most games aren't any of these types I appreciate. If you are going to introduce the "same-old-shit" again, you should at least do it well (technically) and hopefully add at least some depth to the story and characters.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by millenia

only when it's done so bad that you get the linearity rubbed in your face constantly (stupid tasks to get the time moving, silly puzzles that don't have anything to do with the plot etc.)

When was the "linearity rubbed in your face"? I'm not debating this point; I'm just not sure what you're referring to specifically. Or those puzzles which didn't have anything to do with the story, because this is the only game I can think of where I can't remember one (though I'll happily concede if I've simply forgotten).

[Lee in Limbo]

This topic is an evergreen topic; at least once a year it crops up again like the Phoenix reborn.

Innovation is hard. It's not impossible, but it's hard to come up with all-new game play that appeals for more than the length of an indie game. The thing about point & click is, it was rough at first, too, but it caught on, and it really was innovative in its day. Adventure Games caught on because the only people using computers back when AGs were born were the kind of people who preferred mental acuity challenges to manual dexterity challenges; geeks. Everyone else was playing Atari or Colecovision.

What you have now is a genre that has a lot of traditions and a lot of expectations, but it's also one of the few video game genres that caters to people who aren't very good at games like Half Life or Assassin's Creed. Change too much and you risk making the games too hard to play or understand, something that point & click Adventure Games have largely enjoyed having already worked out most of the bugs for.

Now that said, I'm in the 'more innovation' camp. My main interest in gaming is as an interactive storytelling medium, and to me, inventing new forms of game play to better simulate the activities required to resolve the conflict of a story is not merely desirable, but an absolute necessity. I'm famous on these forums for arguing that puzzle game play is an abstraction of the activities that are actually happening, and as such, distract from the true intent of the game.

Sliding tiles, labyrinths, Rube Goldberg inventory puzzles, linking books and musical devices and such are all just surrogates for the real life activities they are meant to simulate, and as such, aren't really the point of the original intent of the genre. They just became the reason after years of habit and lack of ability to get the medium to permit them more sophisticated forms of interaction. Every video game came to be associated with either a gun or a grasping hand, because those two forms of interactivity are the least complicated to implement (and polish).

I don't have the answers. I used to have a few ideas, but these days, I just think that the business of making games has to downshift once again to smaller development companies who are passionate about innovation and creating an interactive experience unlike what has come before. There are plenty of new ideas out there. You only have to hang out at various indie game dev sights and play the games they've developed, and you'll see that the idea of AGs with new game play isn't impossible. It's just not something the big publishers are prepared to adopt whole hog.

Polishing innovative game play is expensive and not very profitable. Games like Portal are one offs, hard to duplicate and harder to branch off from, and you never know when something like that is going to catch on. Anyone who has suffered motion sickness from playing Narbacular Drop will know what I mean. It's not nearly as smooth and enjoyable as Portal, even though in many ways it's a much simpler game. And yet the one was more or less the template for the other, and it was an indie game that tried new things.

That's what we need to see more of. Technically innovative gaming experiences that draw us in and give us something we can't get from television or books. Where that leaves room fr interactive storytelling is beyond me, but I'm hoping there's a place for it, because that's where I want to be.

[3rdFloor]

Whoa, that was quite an in-depth analysis, Lee. I enjoyed reading your thoughts, and I must say that I agree with most of them. This particular segment grabbed my attention...

Adventure Games caught on because the only people using computers back when AGs were born were the kind of people who preferred mental acuity challenges to manual dexterity challenges; geeks. Everyone else was playing Atari or Colecovision.

How true! Sometimes I feel that few people realize how PC gaming all started out, and how adventure games emerged during that period. Basically, if you had a PC in the 80s, you were either rich or an enthusiastic geek valuing his computer leisure time. People falling into the latter category, like myself dare I say, usually weren't all that interested to the assorted action-focused games predominantly available on consoles. Instead, they felt like getting involved into something more complex but also much slower-paced. Infocom, Sierra, and LucasArts knew that and went on to make games specifically designed for such an audience. An audience who enjoyed reading, researching, and being hooked by stories and characters.

Adventure games made today try to capture all those things, but they must concede a large deal of innovation in order to achieve that. Otherwise, they're seen as action-adventures or shooters with puzzles. How to properly integrate innovative ideas into such an old concept remains obscure to me. But one thing's for sure: the developers are in for quite a challenge.

Very interesting.

[Little Writer]

Great posts here!

I'd like to add that there's also a difference between real innovation and a gimmick. For instance, I got "Experience 112" because the demo showed me something completely different from what I was used to, and also picked up on the modern obsession with voyeurism in Big Brother style, Youtube vids, movies like "Cloverfield" etc. Yet does it really add anything worthwhile to the game? I haven't finished the game yet but I have played it for several hours and in the end it just feels like a gimmick which grows old after a while, and I find myself wanting to move through the story in regular fashion.

Used to be a time when 3D was considered nothing more than a gimmick as well, but I feel there has been some great attempts to move it into the innovation category (examples have already been mentioned abundantly, so I won't do it again). It can work, but it's up to the designers to make it work.

Linearity has never been a problem for me. These games are just another means of entertainment next to books and movies. You can't read a book or watch a movie in a different way so you'll get a different ending. Games can incorporate that, but it's certainly not a must.

[millenia]

Originally Posted by Marduk

When was the "linearity rubbed in your face"? I'm not debating this point; I'm just not sure what you're referring to specifically. Or those puzzles which didn't have anything to do with the story, because this is the only game I can think of where I can't remember one (though I'll happily concede if I've simply forgotten).

Well my point was that linearity indeed was implemented perfectly in Discworld Noir but it can be done badly, so badly that it can ruin the game. Maybe it wasn't clear enough, should edit it a bit I guess.

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by millenia

Well my point was that linearity indeed was implemented perfectly in Discworld Noir but it can be done badly, so badly that it can ruin the game. Maybe it wasn't clear enough, should edit it a bit I guess.

Well I'd be inclined to agree I was tempted to dig out my copy of the game to play it again and judge it while it's fresh in my memory. I remember it as the perfect adventure game, perfectly balancing plot, humour, suspense and characters with some truly excellent puzzles that didn't detract from the story at all.

TBH I think I’m going to have to play it again some time soon anyway.

Originally Posted by Lee in Limbo

Innovation is hard. It's not impossible, but it's hard to come up with all-new game play that appeals for more than the length of an indie game. The thing about point & click is, it was rough at first, too, but it caught on, and it really was innovative in its day. Adventure Games caught on because the only people using computers back when AGs were born were the kind of people who preferred mental acuity challenges to manual dexterity challenges; geeks. Everyone else was playing Atari or Colecovision.

This is still true for me. I wear the 'Nerd' mantel proudly but I don't see why AGs should be limited to the few. I suspect that the the revival we've began to see could be greatly accelerated through a change in the way the games are marketed. "Brain Training" games are extremely popular, right now, so why can't AGs be marketed to people who want to improve their lateral thinking? Theoretically there's a market of people who already own N: DSs and Wiis who wouldn't normally by games or gaming consoles because they wanted to sharpen their wits (or fitness, but plenty wanted top be witty I'm sure). Surely it shouldn't take much to convince these same people that there are games with various stories (in numerous genres of fiction) can improve their cognitive ability.

What you have now is a genre that has a lot of traditions and a lot of expectations, but it's also one of the few video game genres that caters to people who aren't very good at games like Half Life or Assassin's Creed. Change too much and you risk making the games too hard to play or understand, something that point & click Adventure Games have largely enjoyed having already worked out most of the bugs for.

I was under the impression that the popular thing, right now, is to make AGs simpler, at least in terms of puzzles. While I do want my puzzles to be organic to the story as often as possible while having as few that seem 'forced in' as there can possibly be, I'm sure it's still possible to keep a level of complexity in there.

Now that said, I'm in the 'more innovation' camp. My main interest in gaming is as an interactive storytelling medium, and to me, inventing new forms of game play to better simulate the activities required to resolve the conflict of a story is not merely desirable, but an absolute necessity. I'm famous on these forums for arguing that puzzle game play is an abstraction of the activities that are actually happening, and as such, distract from the true intent of the game.

But puzzles don't have to distract from the game at all. If done well they not only fit in but force you to examine the plot and make you think from the protagonist's perspective, rather than just have his thoughts and environment presented to you to look at as you would find in just about any other medium. They can do this while still being numerous, complex and enjoyable and still make sense.

Anyone who has suffered motion sickness from playing Narbacular Drop will know what I mean. It's not nearly as smooth and enjoyable as Portal, even though in many ways it's a much simpler game.

Even Bioshock made me sick (sorry, off topic I know).

That's what we need to see more of. Technically innovative gaming experiences that draw us in and give us something we can't get from television or books. Where that leaves room fr interactive storytelling is beyond me, but I'm hoping there's a place for it, because that's where I want to be.

I didn't read this part before I started to reply. I already stated how puzzles can already do this. What else do you need for the player to be drawn into the story?