What is it with people that write long negative essays making such a big deal about adventure games? The adventure game is FAR from dead, there are TONS of them, more than there have ever been before. It's really simple from my point of view, if you don't like puzzles and you don't think adventure games are any good or have become stale, try another genre. But you'll find other genres also repeating themselves. In a shootem' up, people want to kill things surprisingly, and no amount of innovation is going to change that basic fact. Same with adventure games. People want a story and puzzles, end of. Innovate as much as you want, but it still comes down the basics. Story and puzzles. In fact, I'd go as far as to swap it around and say puzzles and story

[nonax]

Hear hear!

[3rdFloor]

Adventure games were never dead to begin with. There simply wasn't as many produced a few years back (compared to the golden age of the 90s) and big players like Sierra and LucasArts stopped making them, which didn't help.

But now it's the adventure renaissance!! Rejoice!!

[DanielleR]

Can only agree with Deadwolf, adventure was never dead and will never be.

[Ascovel]

You can never kill something that was already invented. Some people even still travel on this thingie.

[Ninja Dodo]

Maybe I watch too much Daily Show but for a second there I thought the thread title read "and hate America".

I think people who bitch and moan about the genre (myself included) are frustrated at a lack of that certain intangible something that made the classics great... maybe it's good game/puzzle design, maybe it's good storytelling, or maybe interesting characters.

Some may also be bored with point & click but not with the founding principles (story and lateral thinking) of adventures and they look to less traditional titles like Portal or Phoenix Wright to get their fix, or indeed RPGs and action-adventures if they don't mind some combat on the side.

Personally I haven't really bothered with most recent adventures because none of them really seemed to have a theme or atmosphere that grabbed me.


That said, the indie adventure scene seems particularly inspired lately. If I had more time I would definitely be trying out stuff like "Ben There, Dan That" or the rest of the "Chzo mythos".

[Marduk]

I agree with the OP and with much of Dodo's response.

The thing is... How many people have signed up to this forum who don't like Adventure Games? I suspect you're preaching to the choir.

[nomadsoul]

Cing has right skills for adventure games, so as long as they are developing AG, i am game.

This year,edgeworth new DS game, machinarium, whisperedworld, book of unwritten tales, Anothercode R and layton2, gain my faith in genre, but again will they able to make as good amount of games yearly?

[mgeorge]

Originally Posted by Roman5

What is it with people that write long negative essays making such a big deal about adventure games? The adventure game is FAR from dead, there are TONS of them, more than there have ever been before. It's really simple from my point of view, if you don't like puzzles and you don't think adventure games are any good or have become stale, try another genre. But you'll find other genres also repeating themselves. In a shootem' up, people want to kill things surprisingly, and no amount of innovation is going to change that basic fact. Same with adventure games. People want a story and puzzles, end of. Innovate as much as you want, but it still comes down the basics. Story and puzzles. In fact, I'd go as far as to swap it around and say puzzles and story

The problem is that not everyone feels the genre should concentrate on puzzles, especially when there're just plain stupid. Which if we want to be honest, many AG's contain. In my humble opinion AG's should first and foremost be about story. Why is it mandatory that 95% of them should be puzzle orientated. Why not try something different for a change as David Cage did with Indigo Prophecy.

I'm not saying there's no place for a traditional AG. Just some variation from them. I thought Lost Crown did a very good job of adding in traditional gameplay with some newer ideas. Culpa Innata and Post Mortem threw some non-linear gameplay into the mix. And Dreamfall and others have gone 3D which is another good idea for immersion IMO.

I've never said I think the genre is dead, (it's obviously not), but from a selfish standpoint, I'd love to see more games that approach AG's with a more innovative approach.

[Keregioz]

In my opinion the problem is with the quality not the quantity. The reason probably is that companies don't invest as much money on adventures as they used too.

[Ariel Type]

I love adventures, love hard puzzles and play most of the games released nowdays, but I still think they are rubbish and not worth of the genre. That's simply because adventure developers lost their imagination somewhere. And money has nothing to do with it. Boaks still makes great low-budget games.
But most of the so-called modern adventure developers are not only untalented in many ways - they seem to know nothing about the genre itself. For example, the developers of Dead Mounteneer's Hotel might've only played Syberia. Once. In a work break. You can write hundreds of paragraphs on how detailed the graphics is, there's still nothing for adventure gamer there. Nor for the fans of Strugacki brothers, if there are any. EP not only unable to think of something for their own - they managed to ruin the book. And that 's typical for 90% of developers.
So, adventure games are dead. Not completely, but the situation in late 90th was far better than nowdays, even if there were 10 or so games per year.

[Marduk]

I guess I was wrong about preaching to the choir. However I'm certain that many AG developers today are completely different people than those who were making them in the 90s.

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

But most of the so-called modern adventure developers are not only untalented in many ways - they seem to know nothing about the genre itself.

I won't dispute that quite a few other developers have sprung up over the last few years and have created games which don't quite cut muster. I will point out that this is just an opinion and not based on fact. (I don't think I have played any of the games you mentioned in your post, but I have considered playing them from remarks from other members of this forum).

I, too, love puzzles. I'm very worried that developers are removing and ‘dumbing down’ puzzles to please a particular market trend in spite of many die hard fans who've kept the genre alive when the majority of the gaming world gave up on it. (And I said as much in here).

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

So, adventure games are dead. Not completely, but the situation in late 90th was far better than nowdays, even if there were 10 or so games per year.

While there were a couple of very weak years after LucaArts and Sierra stopped making adventure games, I think there are dozens of really good adventure games released currently.

[gray pierce]

I agree with most people here that the genre should indeed innovate. However people can't stop talking about how great Indigo Prophecy was and I'm not saying they're wrong. But I'm wondering if everybody thought IP was so good because of it's innovative gameplay. Then why in heavens sake do people keep flaming at BS3 ? I mean that was an innovative game. No more point and click but an interface that might appeal to a broader audience. Very less seek and find and much more actual puzzles that were also (besides from a few, wait a lot, boxpuzzles) integral into the story. And you may not like the timed sequences but I deffinetly preferred them over the action (I'm talking fight) sequences in IP.

I'm mot saying everybody should like BS3 as much as I do but I just don't get why people love one innovative game and hate another. Is it just the 3D graphics or is it the wrong kind of innovation perhaps ?

Love to hear

[Keregioz]

Originally Posted by Ariel Type

I love adventures, love hard puzzles and play most of the games released nowdays, but I still think they are rubbish and not worth of the genre. That's simply because adventure developers lost their imagination somewhere. And money has nothing to do with it. Boaks still makes great low-budget games.
But most of the so-called modern adventure developers are not only untalented in many ways - they seem to know nothing about the genre itself. For example, the developers of Dead Mounteneer's Hotel might've only played Syberia. Once. In a work break. You can write hundreds of paragraphs on how detailed the graphics is, there's still nothing for adventure gamer there. Nor for the fans of Strugacki brothers, if there are any. EP not only unable to think of something for their own - they managed to ruin the book. And that 's typical for 90% of developers.
So, adventure games are dead. Not completely, but the situation in late 90th was far better than nowdays, even if there were 10 or so games per year.

Unfortunately it does. I don't think that there's a shortage of talent in the gaming industry. There are a lot of talented designers out there. Problem is they use their talent to design FPSs, RPGs etc. because that's is what is most popular these days and what is more likely to get a company to give money for. They sell much better and they pay much better. If these people lived in the advenure gaming golden era they would be designing adventure games. If money wasn't a subject then people like ron gilbert, tim schaffer, jane jensen etc would still be designing advenures.

[mgeorge]

Originally Posted by Marduk

I agree with the OP and with much of Dodo's response.

The thing is... How many people have signed up to this forum who don't like Adventure Games? I suspect you're preaching to the choir.

I didn't join this forum because I don't like adventure games. And I'm not saying that this comment was directed at me per say. I started playing them because frankly, I was getting tired of all the shooters and RPG's I'd played over the years. It was getting old.

Most RPG's are about some guy whose lost his memory and must save the world against some sort of evil in a fantasy setting with the usual assortment of dwarves, elves, etc.

Then you have the FPS which pits one guy against an entire army to again, save the world from some sort of evil.

So I started playing a few AG's. I liked the idea that the story would come first, followed by what I thought would be logical, story related puzzles. But I found that many AG's contained illogical puzzles not related to the story.

But that's not to say I don't enjoy them. As I've said before, I really enjoyed Lost Crown, Culpa, Post Mortem and Indigo. I've also enjoyed SH The Awakened, Scratches, Barrow Hill and others as well, even though some of them do contain elements I don't like.

But there's many I've started and never finished because of a puzzle. When I find a puzzle, spend an hour trying to figure it out, then find out it has no bearing on the story, nor makes any sense whatsoever, I uninstall the game. Simple as that. Unless the story really grabs me which unfortunately doesn't happen very often.

I initially came to this forum for game recomendations which turned out to be a good thing for me. But oddly enough not in the way you may think. It's the controversial games that many here don't like, that I do. And I think that's because the controversial games contain things that deviate from the classic point and click that I will admit I've found I'm not that fond of.

But that doesn't mean I don't like the genre. And I'm not trying to look down on those that do like classic point and click. Gaming is a very subjective thing, and one mans junk is another mans gold.

[colpet]

So I started playing a few AG's. I liked the idea that the story would come first, followed by what I thought would be logical, story related puzzles. But I found that many AG's contained illogical puzzles not related to the story.

I find this comment interesting. Lots of puzzles supposedly unrelated to the story - mazes, sliders, codes, math - are the most logical to solve. The so called story related ones - inventory and dialogue - are often obtuse and illogical (rubber duckies and mustaches anyone?).

[Ariel Type]

Originally Posted by Marduk

(I don't think I have played any of the games you mentioned in your post, but I have considered playing them from remarks from other members of this forum).

I only mentioned Dead Mounteneer's Hotel that was previewed recently. I've played it at the time it was published. Even at that time it was 2 years late, and it felt like something rushed out of doors. Those people obviously don't know and don't care about the genre.
As for Boaks, he was THE man who saved adventure games, not Sokal. He inspired many indi developers, unlike Syberia that sold well (god bless ad), but was followed by many stupid clones. And that led to simplified stories and puzzles.
I know that Tunguska games are very popular in Germany. Games with idiotic plots and puzzles. I don't know the % of German players, but it is certanly larger than in other countries. So why not write better plots and puzzles? Are modern players that stupid? I can compare these games to Tex Murphy or Gabriel Knight or Discworld Noir from 1999. That's miles, miles away.

Keregioz
Yes, but these people made enough games in the past to charge for their talent more then they might've got nowdays, producing adventure games. But what about modern designers? They have nothing behind their backs, but still make crappy games. Maybe it's just me, but i would never join the industry just for the money sake. "Let's make a game like that one, with knight templars and espionage that sold well". That's pathetic.

[mgeorge]

Originally Posted by colpet

I find this comment interesting. Lots of puzzles supposedly unrelated to the story - mazes, sliders, codes, math - are the most logical to solve. The so called story related ones - inventory and dialogue - are often obtuse and illogical (rubber duckies and mustaches anyone?).

Mazes, sliders, codes and math puzzles are the worst things in AG's IMO, and for me the hardest. I admit I suck at them so there ya go. Buy why have them in the first place? To me they seem to be there only to pad the length of the game.

I've been playing SH The Ripper, and right near the beginning of the game,

Spoiler:

there's one of those illogical "open the suitcase" puzzles that of course has some type of intricate lock. I couldn't find any logical solution to it, and search as I did, couldn't find an in-game clue either.

So I went to a walkthrough and continued on with the game because this is one of those games where the story did intrigue me enough to keep going with it. But why have it in there at all? It had nothing to do with the plot of the game.

The story related ones such as dialog are for me the most interesting such as Culpa Innata, which many here didn't like because of that very reason. But for me I'd much prefer talking to people to get more out of the story, than opening a lock or figuring out some slider. The inventory puzzles usually make at least some kind of sense. eg; you need to take a nail out of something, you need to find a hammer etc. You're right though, not always. I never completed TLJ because of that very puzzle. That was one of those games when I got to that puzzle, I simply uninstalled and never looked back.

The person that started this thread would rather a puzzle orientated game. God knows there's plenty of those. You think it strange that the puzzles I think are the hardest, are the easiest. And for you I'm sure those type of puzzles are easy.

So different strokes for different folks I guess. But if AG's are primarily about the story, why put so many puzzles in them that have nothing to do with the plot?

Originally Posted by mgeorge

Why not try something different for a change as David Cage did with Indigo Prophecy.

I loved Fahrenheit, but to many people, it is not a true adventure game because it contains action scenes, not dissimilar to the style of tomb raider. Most adventure gamers dislike any action in their game and the possibility of dying. It means having to lean forward and use the keyboard to orchestrate all manner of combination moves. It can become a tiring and fairly intense gaming experience.

I happen to like adventures, action/adventures, and some shootem ups. But mostly just point and clicks. I'm currently playing a tomb raider game which has some nice but simple puzzles, and a lot of action. But when I've had enough of running around, killing creatures and generally jumping around, I close it down and turn to a traditional adventure game where I can sit back, use only the mouse, and never worry about reflexes, only my brain. This is why I think innovation in traditional adventure games, at least, innovation like indigo prophecy/fahrenheit, doesn't really improve the genre, but rather changes it from what the genre should be about, just story and puzzles. In sherlock holmes v the ripper, most of the time I didn't even sit forward to use the keyboard to move, (that was also a sort of innovation in recent 3D adventure games) I still sat back and did it all from the mouse. It's not so much laziness, but rather that I find it more enjoyable and relaxing to sit back and play if no reflexes are required. And it's all about enjoyment isn't it.

Originally Posted by mgeorge

Mazes, sliders, codes and math puzzles are the worst things in AG's IMO,

I love all those things. Not that I'm particularly good at them, although I do love sliders For me personally, I'm not bothered if a puzzle seems unrelated to the story. Of course, if a puzzle IS related to the story, so much the better. Like rearranging torn pieces of a document that becomes one readable document important to the progression of the story. Or a slider puzzle in the form of a painting that when rearranged properly, shows the image of someone key to the story. I love working those puzzles out for puzzles sake, but mostly knowing that if and when I solve it, I can look forward to a cool cutscene, or a secret passage opening up, or new clue hidden in a safe becoming available, or whatever. Taking puzzles to the extreme, safecracker, the most recent version of that title, literally is puzzles for puzzles sake. It wasn't really an adventure in the sense of having much of a story, but it was great fun. Perhaps I'm easily pleased.