[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And so your point is....? However you feel about the quality of the story, the story is there to be told and experienced, and the gameplay and exploration often serve to propel the narrative forward, right? The player is given the motive of narrative to forge ahead as well as the fun of the gameplay itself.

I think my point is very clear. You specifically adressed the quality of stories in games and you cited Batman as one of your examples of

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

you'll find that many non-adventure game stories are just as good - if not better than - typical adventure games. Remember, many of those games [...] feature intelligently, compellingly, and richly written stories and characterizations.

To me Batman is only an example of good writing being an element of much lesser importance in non-adventure games than in adventure games. Especially, in expensive games that use popular franchises.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Your view on the story in KOTOR still doesn't address the question of whether an adventure game is uniquely suited to tell a story, and it doesn't negate the validity and possibility of incorporating narrative into any kind of game. The story is still there no matter what kind of game it is, whether or not you like its quality or not.

I wasn't responding to any such question. What interests me is the quality of the story in non-adventure games compared to adventure games. In my opinion RPGs have a difficult time creating something really interesting storywise instead of relying on heroic achievements cliches. It's all because of relying on elements like custom created characters, because of the importance of combat, and the necessity of allowing the player different courses of action to choose from. Usually the designers focus on creating a varied enough world to explore and how the stats should work rather than on telling a great story.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by ozzie

I sent both of them Dreamfall as a present (they're twins) and of them played and loved it! And he willingy tried out Book of Unwritten Tales without me really pushing him to it. And he likes that, too.

It's obvious why they liked them. Their story is about magic, secret worlds, mysterious technology etc. If the same game characteristics where in an another game with non-fiction story i.e. sherlock holmes, I am sure they wouldn't like it. My point is that they liked Dreamfall because it resembles to RPGs scenarios.

As for the argument that other genres have also stories, it's inevitable. Every game has. But to say that an action game has equal or better story of an adventure game, it's just hilarious. I still think the Batman reference and laugh.

Lastly as somebody noted, I prefer well designed 2D rather than badly implemented 3D. And I can't understand why many of you treat this factor as a milestone in the 'progress' of the genre

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

I wasn't responding to any such question. What interests me is the quality of the story in non-adventure games compared to adventure games. In my opinion RPGs have a difficult time creating something really interesting storywise instead of relying on heroic achievements cliches. It's all because of relying on elements like custom created characters, because of the importance of combat, and the necessity of allowing the player different courses of action to choose from. Usually the designers focus on creating a varied enough world to explore and how the stats should work rather than on telling a great story.

I then disagree with that opinion. It's very possible to balance a compelling story with such gameplay elements as skills buildup and combat and exploration. Just because a genre like the adventure game focuses on story does not mean any other genre can't do so with a certain level of precision.

The adventure game today does not own any element or quality that any other game hasn't already adopted and developed, re-imagined, or improved.

There's ultimately nothing the adventure game can do that other kinds of games cannot, so the bottom line is what the player themselves personally prefer.

[ozzie]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

It's obvious why they liked them. Their story is about magic, secret worlds, mysterious technology etc. If the same game characteristics where in an another game with non-fiction story i.e. sherlock holmes, I am sure they wouldn't like it. My point is that they liked Dreamfall because it resembles to RPGs scenarios.

Well, they also liked Floyd/Feeble Files for the world and the characters. They just hated it for the puzzles. So I don't think that's really true...but it's an interesting thought.

Lastly as somebody noted, I prefer well designed 2D rather than badly implemented 3D. And I can't understand why many of you treat this factor as a milestone in the 'progress' of the genre

There has been progress? Exactly. :-/

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I then disagree with that opinion. It's very possible to balance a compelling story with such gameplay elements as skills buildup and combat and exploration. Just because a genre like the adventure game focuses on story does not mean any other genre can't do so with a certain level of precision.

I didn't say that it is impossible to tell a compelling story in RPGs. It's just that it is much more difficult to do than in adventure games. And when you write a RPG you're confined by the genres gameplay specifics. Many types of stories couldn't be told in the form of a RPG at all. Let's take Gabriel Knight's story for example. The main hero is solving problems on his own without a party following him. He is not great at physical combat (it would be ridiculous if he was given his background), nor the story is about constant fighting. Special skills aren't a good representation of his character either, because he is supposed to be pretty lousy at doing things, lazy actually. Another of his essential qualities it that he almost never has any money, so buying equipment is out of the question too. And somehow he still is a very human character.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

The adventure game today does not own any element or quality that any other game hasn't already adopted and developed, re-imagined, or improved.

Except that adventure game has its unique gameplay which remains the greatest and most flexible way to tell stories through games without turning them into interactive movies.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

I didn't say that it is impossible to tell a compelling story in RPGs. It's just that it is much more difficult to do than in adventure games. And when you write a RPG you're confined by the genres gameplay specifics. Many types of stories couldn't be told in the form of a RPG at all. Let's take Gabriel Knight's story for example. The main hero is solving problems on his own without a party following him. He is not great at physical combat (it would be ridiculous if he was given his background), nor the story is about constant fighting. Special skills aren't a good representation of his character either, because he is supposed to be pretty lousy at doing things, lazy actually. Another of his essential qualities it that he almost never has any money, so buying equipment is out of the question too. And somehow he still is a very human character.

I think you're mistaking one kind of authored story for another kind, that which directly involves the player. What I've learned from playing traditional adventure games is that you are nothing but a tool for the writer to progress the story on the writer's terms. You solve the puzzle, you get more story. That's it. The nuances and depth of the story never change and are certainly never shaped by you.

With an RPG (like KOTOR, for example) you have a say in the details of the story. Your exploration, optional side quests, discoveries off the main story path, can deepen your involvement in the story and enrich the narrative experience. You have the choice to bring in your own unique experience of the story to the story. It's personalized.

The upcoming Heavy Rain takes this even further in terms of the malleability of the narrative. Whatever choices you make in the story with a character can have direct influence in how the story plays out, all the way to the end. It can even shorten the story.

I'm not saying that any of these are better than the others, but you need to remember that there's more than one way to tell a story. Gabriel Knight could actually be told as a lite RPG experience, or even as an action/adventure, or as an open ended gameworld full of optional challenges and exploration with the story at its core (which is how Grand Theft Auto IV was done).

Just because you yourself prefer the adventure game type story of Gabriel Knight doesn't mean it couldn't be done in any other way in another type of game.

Except that adventure game has its unique gameplay which remains the greatest and most flexible way to tell stories through games without turning them into interactive movies.

"Greatest and most flexible way"? Please explain in a very detailed way?

"Unique"? How?

[Sughly]

All this talk of other genres - look, we're talking about progression in ADVENTURE games. Not RPG, not action or whatever else. At the end of the day, if we're comparing this genre with that genre, we're just looking at how to make one more like the other.

True this can lead to great innovation, but then isn't it really not adventure gaming in the true sense? It becomes a kind of hybrid of genre. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but if we're speaking about adventure gaming as it's own genre, seperate to all the others, there's also nothing wrong in recognising what keeps it seperate and using those strengths for the games rather than against them.

This idea of the "masses" not wanting traditional adventure games? Since when should that be motivation? The so called "masses" will never accept adventure games in their traditional sense. But in the film industry, do they stop making character driven films because the "masses" prefer Hollywood blockbusters? I think if a game is aimed well enough at satisying the niche of adventure gamers, it will be just as accepted and successful as an adventure game attempting to reach these ever elusive masses.

EDIT: I do however think the discussion of storytelling in different genres is an interesting point. Maybe a new thread...?

[orient]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

In my opinion RPGs have a difficult time creating something really interesting storywise instead of relying on heroic achievements cliches. It's all because of relying on elements like custom created characters, because of the importance of combat, and the necessity of allowing the player different courses of action to choose from. Usually the designers focus on creating a varied enough world to explore and how the stats should work rather than on telling a great story.

These issues you mention are real problems when designing a role playing game, no doubt, but I would argue that some developers have overcome these obstacles and have managed to create game worlds that are, at the very least, equal to what adventure games have to offer in terms of immersion. Of course, it's all very subjective.

The type of "open" or "living" world seen in Fallout 3 is what is missing from some adventure games in my opinion. In traditional adventure games, things only happen when you make them happen. You're usually caged into a handful of "rooms" until you solve puzzle X or talk to person Y - before then, nothing progresses. Characters stand in the same spot and start to repeat themselves after awhile. The same people will do the same things, forever, until you flick that progression switch. What I'd really like to see is more detail. Characters with daily routines, not just a spot to stand in, or a path to walk. Day/night cycles, where different things happen at different times of the day. Optional side missions that are unrelated to your main goal, to flesh out the world and build character. The holy grail? Character's being affected by things other than you, the playable character.

I can think of a couple of adventures that attempted a few of these things and were truly revolutionary because of it (The Last Express, Shenmue), but they're way too few and far between as far as I'm concerned.

[teme]

Sometimes I have wondered why elements from adventure games haven't merged more to another genres. For example Tomb Raider games, which already have some (but not very good) item-based puzzles and they are told in cutscene-platforming gameplay-cutscene style.

How awesome it would be if gameplay in Tomb Raider wouldn't be just platforming, but adventuring also? You would have to talk with various characters in the city and solve some item-based puzzles. After those you would get a map to a secret temple and you would have to find a way to get there. In the temple there would be some good item-based puzzles and platforming. The adventure game elements would fit so perfectly to Tomb Raider, that I'm very disappointed because the developer hasn't take a chance to improve Tomb Raider formula.

I also liked Fable 2 very much, but many times during gameplay I thought that how well adventure game elements would fit to it.

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by teme

How awesome it would be if gameplay in Tomb Raider wouldn't be just platforming, but adventuring also? You would have to talk with various characters in the city and solve some item-based puzzles. After those you would get a map to a secret temple and you would have to find a way to get there. In the temple there would be some good item-based puzzles and platforming. The adventure game elements would fit so perfectly to Tomb Raider, that I'm very disappointed because the developer hasn't take a chance to improve Tomb Raider formula.

No offense, but I'll never understand why anyone would enjoy something like that. When I'm in a mood to play Tomb Raider, I want to run around, explore, jump on stuff, vanquish enemies, and do other Lara things. The last thing I want is to have to slow down to solve an intricate puzzle or to talk to other characters. And when I'm in a mood for an adventure game, the last thing I want is gameplay that depends on speed and the agility of my fingers.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Sughly

This idea of the "masses" not wanting traditional adventure games? Since when should that be motivation? The so called "masses" will never accept adventure games in their traditional sense. But in the film industry, do they stop making character driven films because the "masses" prefer Hollywood blockbusters? I think if a game is aimed well enough at satisying the niche of adventure gamers, it will be just as accepted and successful as an adventure game attempting to reach these ever elusive masses.

The thing is that you need money to make games and there for you need to sell your game to the masses. I'm not saying that money equals quality. I often think it's the exact opposite since if you have a small budget the pressure of making big money on your product is less important so you don't have to change your artistic vision to please the masses (that includes movies and pretty much all form of entertainment or art). But if adventuregames doesn't make money there are much fewer who tries to make them and that will lead to fewer really good games.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by teme

Sometimes I have wondered why elements from adventure games haven't merged more to another genres. For example Tomb Raider games, which already have some (but not very good) item-based puzzles and they are told in cutscene-platforming gameplay-cutscene style.

There are games like:

The Alone in The Dark Trilogy - mix of combat and adventure game puzzles

Little Big Adventure 1 & 2 - mix of action, logic puzzles and adventury puzzles

Insecticide - mix of platformer/shooter levels and adventure gaming levels

Elder Scrolls: Redguard - an adventure game with lots of swordfighting

The Desktop Adventures series

Even Indiana Jones & The Infernal Machine - mostly Tomb Raider, but with a good bit of some more adventure game like puzzles

probably there are more I just forgot now

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Henke

The thing is that you need money to make games and there for you need to sell your game to the masses. I'm not saying that money equals quality. I often think it's the exact opposite since if you have a small budget the pressure of making big money on your product is less important so you don't have to change your artistic vision to please the masses (that includes movies and pretty much all form of entertainment or art). But if adventuregames doesn't make money there are much fewer who tries to make them and that will lead to fewer really good games.

That's true, and fair enough, but my point is also that if you're aiming to please the so called masses then it's often hit and miss tactics that usually come up miss. If you aim a really well rounded adventure game right at what the niche of its real target audience is though, then I think you'll end up with a successful title. It may be a niche market, but it's not to be underestimated. And that means not necassarily having to make it more like this genre or more like that one to improve the genre.

[Henke]

Originally Posted by Sughly

That's true, and fair enough, but my point is also that if you're aiming to please the so called masses then it's often hit and miss tactics that usually come up miss. If you aim a really well rounded adventure game right at what the niche of its real target audience is though, then I think you'll end up with a successful title. It may be a niche market, but it's not to be underestimated. And that means not necassarily having to make it more like this genre or more like that one to improve the genre.

I see your point. In order for adventuregames to move forward as a genre they don't necessarily need to be mixed with other genres but rather try and strengthen their own well established mechanics.

It's just that I personally think that the whole idea of sticking to certain genres are something that artistic people in general should try to avoid. That goes for games, movies, music and basicly everything of this kind. I believe that when someone tries to make their ideas as good as possible without any rules or constraints you have a bigger chance to make something truly great.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Henke

I see your point. In order for adventuregames to move forward as a genre they don't necessarily need to be mixed with other genres but rather try and strengthen their own well established mechanics.

Good point. However, they don't have to stick to the dumb arbitrary conventions - illogically designed puzzles, sliders, pixel hunts, 2D point-&-click, cliches, etc. - that could hamper their ideas, either.

It's just that I personally think that the whole idea of sticking to certain genres are something that artistic people in general should try to avoid. That goes for games, movies, music and basicly everything of this kind. I believe that when someone tries to make their ideas as good as possible without any rules or constraints you have a bigger chance to make something truly great.

And that is precisely what creative and visionary developers like David Cage, Tim Schafer, Ragnar Tornquist, and Ron Gilbert have done. It may have to take dumping the typical adventure game mindset to do it, but more power to them for listening to their inner selves.

[aries323]

Dreamfall was (and is) a very good game, I find, but with a horrible control scheme. (the band). And with some action sequences that should get the action gamers to buy the game. Sadly, it didn't...

Adventure games, as far as I can see, have more or less been converted into mystery games, probably since the narrative structure in adventure games fits well into the narrative structure in mystery novels and such. That's why I think many adventure games today are based on mysteries or revolve around mysteries being solved. And, of course, also because these games sell well

For adventuregames to move forward, I would like to see more branching dialogues, being able to select more than one dialogue option in the game's dialogue, and being able to see more than one ending, depending on your choices during the game.

[Luna Sevithiainen]

Originally Posted by aries323

For adventuregames to move forward, I would like to see more branching dialogues, being able to select more than one dialogue option in the game's dialogue, and being able to see more than one ending, depending on your choices during the game.

Those things are not uncommon in adventure games. I agree with you though, newer adventure games seem to have those options a lot less than the good oldies.
In that line, I sometimes think that THE way to expand adventure games is to give even more freedom in what you can do, more ways to solve puzzles, more dialogue trees, multiple endings, large maps, with as much hotspots as possible. Something like the real world, where you are as little limited by what the game designer thought of as possible.
However, this extreme type of game would be both unplayable and undesignable, so I'll stick with 'as much freedom in choices as possible'.

[potan]

Probably nowadays majority of younger generation gamers have ADD (Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) heuhee...
(of course there will be some exception for this )

that's why nobody cares for a slow paced Adventure Games,
when they play games they just want to sit down and do some action, instead of running around talking to people, reading & gathering clues, doing some thinking to solve puzzle etc... that just boring for them.
Adventure game is more like a game for moms & pops generation.

well, except if you throw AAA graphic like Heavy Rain (which i'm interested to see how that game will fare in todays market).
Hopefully that will spark some interest to today gamers and encourage them to try another adventure game.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Luna Sevithiainen

Those things are not uncommon in adventure games. I agree with you though, newer adventure games seem to have those options a lot less than the good oldies.
In that line, I sometimes think that THE way to expand adventure games is to give even more freedom in what you can do, more ways to solve puzzles, more dialogue trees, multiple endings, large maps, with as much hotspots as possible. Something like the real world, where you are as little limited by what the game designer thought of as possible.
However, this extreme type of game would be both unplayable and undesignable, so I'll stick with 'as much freedom in choices as possible'.

Do you think these features are not possible in many adventure games today because there isn't enough money and technology being given to the developers? Or is it because the developers and publishers can't be bothered? Or is it something else?

[Luna Sevithiainen]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Do you think these features are not possible in many adventure games today because there isn't enough money and technology being given to the developers? Or is it because the developers and publishers can't be bothered? Or is it something else?

I think the problem lies partly in the lack of money. Less money means less time to work on a game (at least, I guess it works that way) and so less time for the game designers to come up with as much possible solutions for a puzzle, as much objects in the different scenes to interact with, as much responses to said objects, as much different combinations of objecs that may not be necessary but are possible, as much consequences to actions and so on.

But the biggest point is simply: as a game designer you simply can not put every possible action in the game. You just can't think of every possible dialogue option, you can't think of every possible solution to a puzzle. You may come up with 3 different solutions with the items you put inthe game, but the fourth possibility you may easily overlook, although it is a possibility which in real life would work.

Simply put, you can't make a game as flexible as it would be in real life. You are restricted by money as well as by your own mind. Working with multiple designers may reduce it, but you may still overlook options. And of course, with so many options, so much flexibility, so much detail in scenes, would the game still be playable? Or would you, as a player, simply drown in the overload of possibilities and options, and overlook the important aspects of the gamestory?

Although I like flexibility and many options in a game, and although I like to see it as much as possible, it can not be done too much. There will always be limitations put in by the designers themselves. In a way good, else the game would be unplayable, but I would like to see game designers try to move these borders as much as possible. And I am really curious about it. How far could you go in designing as much flexibility and options in a game? I think it can be more than is shown now, but where should it end?

Hope this answers your question