[orient]

I'm not trying to say that 2D games are somehow inferior to 3D games. I don't think that at all. I just believe that commercial adventure games are missing out by not utilizing modern standards and technologies in order to deliver fresh experiences.

I know I've put focus on the game world, but it's not just about that. It's about character animation, facial animation, better translations, better voice acting, deeper modes of exploration and interaction. I know money's an issue, but sometimes you've got to take a risk to reap the rewards.

In an interactive medium, you can't expect to achieve narrative innovation without improving the way in which you tell your story.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Intense Degree

Whilst all the examples you have given about shooters developing are good ones and very interesting to read, they are also (to my mind ) pertinent to gameplay. Storytelling is at the "heart" of adventure games and is different, although of course related, to gameplay. Now i'm not a shooter fan personally and haven't played many of them, but it seems to me that the thing at the heart of shooters is simply shooting people!

That's pretty much what I was thinking. I agree that ozzie's comments are decent enough in some cases, but I'd like to add too that in others they aren't the best examples. Things like the 'dark side/bad side' metre is one of those things I see as a delusion of control. It's essentially equivelant to a game with 2 endings, and along the way you have 'if you said x comment earlier you get x reply from character', which doesn't affect much more than whether people do or don't like you.

You also talk about Half Life ozzie as having this ability to tell a story without cutscene, but as Intense pointed out the first adventures didn't have ANY graphics let alone cutscenes. And what story did it tell? HL2 seemed to carry a more solid story, but HL1 was still essentially kill lots of aliens coming out of portal.

Others mentioned all cover similar ground and that's not first person's evolving as such, but borrowing from other genres which was a point I mentioned earlier. Would first person shooters have entered into introducing better back story and narrative if not for the adventures that came before it? I argue adventures in this case helped establish strong narrative and character in games and was responsible for this growth in other genres.

And again, whether we took these games as evidence of evolution or not, first person's are still 'shoot/kill/repeat' before story, as Intense points out. Any new adventure game well made can't help but technically evolve storytelling in games, as the pattern of puzzles will (as I said, when done well) tell stories in a new way.

Portal (which you mentioned as being bashed, which is entirely not fair to the game) has been literally, if to be claimed in this genre, the ONLY first person shooter I've enjoyed and well worth the mention.

EDIT: Heavy Rain is very much an adventure. Like I mentioned before, the idea of action response is just a replacement of 'use this item with that', such as the Gabriel Knight scenario I mentioned. I think it's a watered down version of the point and click interface to allow for wider accessibility and less frustration.

And @orient - fair enough, well said

[ozzie]

I agree that ozzie's comments are decent enough in some cases[...]

Well, thanks?

Things like the 'dark side/bad side' metre is one of those things I see as a delusion of control. It's essentially equivelant to a game with 2 endings

No, that wasn't the sole point. You also got different force powers. Gameplay changed (a bit) depending on your decision.

You also talk about Half Life ozzie as having this ability to tell a story without cutscene, but as Intense pointed out the first adventures didn't have ANY graphics let alone cutscenes.

That's true. But interactive fiction is basically turn based, switching between the player's input and the game's output, the descriptions. You might say that text adventures are nothing but cutscenes. So it's a misleading argument.

And what story did it tell? HL2 seemed to carry a more solid story, but HL1 was still essentially kill lots of aliens coming out of portal.

And King's Quest 6 is just about rescuing a princess. Everything is essentially nothing. Whereby I want to say: your ignorance is astounding.

Others mentioned all cover similar ground and that's not first person's evolving as such, but borrowing from other genres which was a point I mentioned earlier.

True for some, but not for others, like Half Life, Thief, Far Cry or Halo.

Would first person shooters have entered into introducing better back story and narrative if not for the adventures that came before it? I argue adventures in this case helped establish strong narrative and character in games and was responsible for this growth in other genres.

If this is true, if the adventure genre solely grew into other genres, then nothing grew back into adventures.

And again, whether we took these games as evidence of evolution or not, first person's are still 'shoot/kill/repeat' before story, as Intense points out. Any new adventure game well made can't help but technically evolve storytelling in games, as the pattern of puzzles will (as I said, when done well) tell stories in a new way.

So, how did storytelling evolve in adventures in the past 10 years?

Portal (which you mentioned as being bashed, which is entirely not fair to the game) has been literally, if to be claimed in this genre, the ONLY first person shooter I've enjoyed and well worth the mention.

Well, you shoot portals, so it's a shooter, right?

EDIT: Heavy Rain is very much an adventure. Like I mentioned before, the idea of action response is just a replacement of 'use this item with that', such as the Gabriel Knight scenario I mentioned. I think it's a watered down version of the point and click interface to allow for wider accessibility and less frustration.

I don't think that item combination is the sole way to progress a story, nor was it ever solely used to progress a story.

Edit: I promise that I will think through my posts in the future before editing them half an hour!

[dekaneas297]

I agree with Jannik and orient. Dated no, a little conservative yes. And for some (I believe the majority) this conservatism is somewhat positive. We love adventures as they are now

And yes comparing adventure games to shooters is like comparing apples to oranges. All of the examples about shooters are totally irrelevant to the main aspect of adventures (which is storytelling). Problem solving and talking to people comes next. Who would want to solve problems and wander around talking to anyone if the storytelling is bad?

And what the hell has a new physics engine and morality meters have to do with storytelling? Thank you but I don't want Kate Walker carrying a new gun or have night's vision. This doesn't improve storytelling.

And of course the usual issue. "Hybrids". "They added RPG elements" etc etc. If you want a new genre state it clearly. But in expense of that don't say "adventures are dated". Mixing genres isn't innovation.

[ozzie]

Geez, I was just explaining how the shooter genre evolved, I wasn't talking about inspiration that adventures could take from these genres, AT ALL.
But regarding "physics engine": it can make the game world feel more real, it helps to create a better sense of place. So in an indirect way it also adds something to the storytelling, but mostly you can create some nice puzzles with it, like in Penumbra.

And of course the usual issue. "Hybrids". "They added RPG elements" etc etc. If you want a new genre state it clearly. But in expense of that don't say "adventures are dated". Mixing genres isn't innovation.

You read my posts, right?
But still, I think even hybridization can create innovation. When great things come together they can create something fresh entirely. But sometimes they go so much against genre conventions that a new label has to be put on such games, just like it was the case with Tomb Raider.
You can put everything together, but not everything works.

Who would want to solve problems and wander around talking to anyone if the storytelling is bad?

Yeah right, but what's about no, or nearly non-existent, story?
Couldn't be the game interesting without it? Think of Space Quest 3: did it have much of a story? Or King's Quest? Myst?
Those games relied on the gameplay, not on the story. I think adventures should just be fun to play. Of course, if you want to tell a story, it shouldn't feel tacked on, it should be interwoven with the gameplay.
Like I already said, the first adventures, like Adventure or Zork, weren't that much about story. Penumbra is also more about the physics puzzles. Or Portal. I think story doesn't have to be the main focus in adventure games. It mostly is, of course. But an adventure could just rely on exploration and puzzle solving, it would still be recognizably an adventure. Which is how it should be, since this is where the roots are.

I think many people also only play JRPGs for the story. Why? Because the gameplay sucks! Really, Final Fantasy VIII is no fun! Yet, just because people only play it for the story doesn't mean that there's no gameplay that you can't distinguish from the storytelling! Of course you can!! You can divide what pushes the story forward and how it's told and what the goals and the challenges of the games are.
In JRPGs there are lots of random battles that pop up when you walk along the environment. Monsters appear, you'll have to kill them, and after such a battle the story may continue. Yeah, a finished battle would be the trigger for story progression, just like item combination is in adventures. You can also make the solution of a crossword puzzle a story trigger. Doesn't mean that it is a good idea...

[Intense Degree]

Originally Posted by ozzie

No, I think puzzle solving, like item combination and machine manipulation, and exploration, like talking to people and walking through the environments, are at the heart of adventure games, while shooting and maybe the ego perspective are for shooters.

That's interesting. To me the story is the heart of adventure games whilst the puzzle solving etc. are the means by which the story is revealed (i.e. mechanics of gameplay). However this is subjective so i'm more than happy to agree to disagree.

So far I didn't notice any differences in storytelling devices between the genres.

Again, I would say they are different because the revelation of the story, through talking to people and interacting etc. is the focus, and much of the gameplay, of adventure games, whereas often in shooter/action games the story occurs in cutscenes between the main parts of the game, i.e. the shooting! and the story is not part of the gameplay. Having just re-read that i'm not sure if it really makes sense but hopefully it's understandable!

Like I said in my brief retrospective, Half Life paved the way for storytelling in shooters, so no, I didn't confuse anything.
You may think otherwise, but then you should agree with the point of view that the adventure genre found its true form in Heavy Rain.

Probably me being thick but I don't really understand what you're getting at here? I wasn't suggesting that there was no storytelling in other genres, just that it is at the heart of AG's much more than other genres, whose gameplay (action sequences?) are not part of the story in such a direct way. Only my opinion of course!

I think great games can operate within the boundaries of the budget, like Braid, World of Goo, but of course also like Machinarium, or German adventures like Edna Bricht aus or Book of Unwritten Tales. Basically, small budget is no excuse for low quality.

I think this depends on the type of game. I admit I don't know this for sure, but I don't imagine there are any massively popular shooters produced in flash, or in Braid's budget range.

[ozzie]

Originally Posted by Intense Degree

That's interesting. To me the story is the heart of adventure games whilst the puzzle solving etc. are the means by which the story is revealed (i.e. mechanics of gameplay). However this is subjective so i'm more than happy to agree to disagree.

Well, the story is important to me, too. But if it isn't fun to actively engage in the game, to be challenged by the obstacles, to think about the puzzles, then I think I'd prefer to passively watch the story as one long cutscene aka a movie. Actually, that's how I did it with Grim Fandango and some King's Quests.

Again, I would say they are different because the revelation of the story, through talking to people and interacting etc. is the focus, and much of the gameplay, of adventure games, whereas often in shooter/action games the story occurs in cutscenes between the main parts of the game, i.e. the shooting! and the story is not part of the gameplay. Having just re-read that i'm not sure if it really makes sense but hopefully it's understandable!

I perfectly know what you mean, but I don't think it's true. I think most adventures feature many cutscenes, which, in my definition, are longer scenes that can't be interrupted, but maybe skipped. I think most games still feature lots of cutscenes, only few developers stay away from them, like Valve.
It's the challenge to tell the story through the gameplay and not just through non-interactive scenes. The developers of Heavy Rain tried to do this as much as they could.
Shooters like Bioshock or Half Life found their own ways. They mostly let the environment tell the story, or friendly NPCs talk while you stand in the corner you can't get out of atm, or there's a log you can read, or a transmission to receive. They don't use cutscenes, at all.

Probably me being thick but I don't really understand what you're getting at here? I wasn't suggesting that there was no storytelling in other genres, just that it is at the heart of AG's much more than other genres, whose gameplay (action sequences?) are not part of the story in such a direct way. Only my opinion of course!

I dunno. I think adventures were the genre of choice for stories for a very long time. Japanese RPGs also started telling complex stories, like in Chrono Trigger (1995), but probably already much earlier. Western RPGs also emphasized stories more and more, like Betrayal at Krondor or Lands of Lore (both 1993).
While adventures were earlier the genre of choice for stories, I think atm RPGs have the more interesting, complex and deeper stories to offer. That doesn't have to stay that way, but it shows that stories aren't unnatural for other genres. The developers, most of them, found ways to integrate the story into the gameplay.

I think this depends on the type of game. I admit I don't know this for sure, but I don't imagine there are any massively popular shooters produced in flash, or in Braid's budget range.

If you don't have the budget, then don't make a shooter. That's a general remark, but really, the indie games of the past few years showed what you can do if you're just creative with the possibilities you have at hand.

[dekaneas297]

ozzie are you arguing just for arguing?

You mentioned insertion of RPG elements in other genres as a good thing more than twice, then you declared that this wasn't what you mean and then again you wrote that hybridization is a positive innovation.

Also, you mention Space Quest and King Quest as examples of adventures with not much of a story. The thing that you are referring to games 20+ years ago with non existant technology to have any basic storytelling escapes your logic. I agree with you on Myst but I hate Myst for that thing . For Myst lovers though, Myst had a story.

You can have your own preference in what is the heart of adventures, but the evolution of the genre contradicts you. Storytelling as the main focus. Was (not in the ice age of 1985), is and will be.

[ozzie]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

ozzie are you arguing just for arguing?

You mentioned insertion of RPG elements in other genres as a good thing more than twice, then you declared that this wasn't what you mean and then again you wrote that hybridization is a positive innovation.

Geez, I can't comprehend why it's so hard to understand me!

Again: I basically wrote a short retrospective how shooters evolved. And yes, some evolved by hybridization, but by far not all. I didn't say that this was a good thing AT ALL at this point. But since you misunderstood me, I thought I might take this as an advantage and point out how it could be a good thing. Do I have a Klingon accent? :-/

Also, you mention Space Quest and King Quest as examples of adventures with not much of a story. The thing that you are referring to games 20+ years ago with non existant technology to have any basic storytelling escapes your logic. I agree with you on Myst but I hate Myst for that thing . For Myst lovers though, Myst had a story.

Yeah, Sentinel, a Myst clone, had too, but you wouldn't play it for the story, because it's not that interesting or important...
I dunno, you don't need much technology to tell a story, I think. Look at A Mind Forever Voyaging from that time. Maniac Mansion and Zak McKracken told more story than Space Quest 3, and they were released earlier. I think SQ3 put consciously more focus on pure exploration and puzzles solving than other adventures. But if you need another more recent example: Star Heritage. It's a bad game, though...

You can have your own preference in what is the heart of adventures, but the evolution of the genre contradicts you. Storytelling as the main focus. Was (not in the ice age of 1985), is and will be.

Actually, if you look at the evolution of other genres, like shooters, RPGs, action-adventures, adventures, platformers or even strategy games, then you'll realize that in all of these stories became more important, more prevalent. It's actually hard to find some game today, with the exception of simulation games of course , that doesn't tell some kind of story, simplistic as it may be. So, I'm not sure if you can count the story as the part of a genre. Because honestly, adventures aren't the only games anymore that have stories integrated.
Now that I write it, I notice myself that I didn't always think like that. But now that you can find story pretty much everywhere to some degree, and in RPGs and shooters very well implemented even, it's the question what makes adventures still different. I actually play adventures for the story, but then I also play RPGs for the stories. Or some shooters.

[Ascovel]

@ozzie I must say I don't agree with at least half of your examples of shooters that brought something new to their genre. The rapid series of innovations in shooters ended with the 90s, exactly like it is the case with the adventure game genre. The pinnacle of what you can do with the FPSs are still Thief and System Shock 2 - Half-Life 1 is nothing compared to them in terms of storytelling and character interaction. Since then FPPs are in many ways actually devolving, often becoming not much more than interactive movies in 3D (the "tightly scripted set pieces" you mention). From the recent titles you talked about, I think Mirror's Edge and Portal are the only truly interesting ones in terms of trying something a bit different with the first person action game gameplay.

Originally Posted by ozzie

Actually, if you look at the evolution of other genres, like shooters, RPGs, action-adventures, adventures, platformers or even strategy games, then you'll realize that in all of these stories became more important, more prevalent. It's actually hard to find some game today, with the exception of simulation games of course , that doesn't tell some kind of story, simplistic as it may be. So, I'm not sure if you can count the story as the part of a genre. Because honestly, adventures aren't the only games anymore that have stories integrated.
Now that I write it, I notice myself that I didn't always think like that. But now that you can find story pretty much everywhere to some degree, and in RPGs and shooters very well implemented even, it's the question what makes adventures still different. I actually play adventures for the story, but then I also play RPGs for the stories. Or some shooters.

With this, on the other hand, I agree completely. Adventure games are not defined as a genre by having a story. Most games do tell a tale of some sort.

[ozzie]

I dunno, I wasn't out to convince anyone, these were just the titles which I felt brought something fresh to the table.
Left 4 Dead was probably the latest were I felt that it was something I haven't seen before. It's 4-player coop where you really have to rely on each other while in each round the items are placed differently and enemies encounter vary, which is calculated by the AI director depending on your skill. The game tells its story through the environment and the one liners of the characters, but each game has the potential to create unique events that you can pass along as anecdotes in conversations much later on. I have my personal favourite.
It also creates a high joyful panic sometimes, when a smoker pulls you away or a smoker jumps at you. You will happily scream in you microphone for help, I swear!
Yeah, you still shoot at stuff, but it's different.

I think I also forgot to mention the Rainbow Six and SWAT series.

[Ascovel]

Multiplayer games are a different animal altogether. Adventure games aren't very much into that, but we have one adventure-gamish multiplayer co-op - URU online.

[potan]

Maybe this is slightly OOT,

Somehow i wonder if the gamer generation nowadays dislike a slow paced adventure games.
( maybe because it requires them to read, explore & think )

So MAYBE it's not completely the fault of the adventure game itself

i did try to offer some of my friends to play "Tales of Monkey Island" &
"Machinarium", which won several 2009 Aggie Award.

their response is either:
- Won't bother trying with "It's not my kind of game" response.
- The game moves too slow & they got stuck in the first half hour & put the game down. (only 3 people who actually tried, just to make me happy)

I guess among 14 of my friends i'm the only one who play & like adventure game.. sigh

[potan]

Also i'm afraid this is what's gonna happen when you offer an adventure game to the average gamers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmb2yuFErJc

kinda sad to look at

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by potan

Somehow i wonder if the gamer generation nowadays dislike a slow paced adventure games.
( maybe because it requires them to read, explore & think )

So MAYBE it's not completely the fault of the adventure game itself

i did try to offer some of my friends to play "Tales of Monkey Island" &
"Machinarium", which won several 2009 Aggie Award.

their response is either:
- Won't bother trying with "It's not my kind of game" response.
- The game moves too slow & they got stuck in the first half hour & put the game down. (only 3 people who actually tried, just to make me happy)

Yeah I'm gonna go from here because I think the discussion on FPS has kind of been covered. I think this is a huge issue with the genre because players have been what I think is dumbed down by FPS's. I know people would'nt like the comparison but I can't help but compare FPS and adventures to Hollywood and independant/foreign film. People grow up on Hollwywood and don't bother to appreciate how much better filmmaking is in independants and foreign countries because they have been conditioned somewhat to the Hollywood formula.

Now all of a sudden we have a mainstream gaming audience conditioned to action, predominantly shooting, and developers can't look past that. As long as this is the case, the majority of gamers will want to shoot and kill, and the ability to stop, slow down, interact at a calm pace and really explore story outside of action is to many unachievable.

It's an interesting point to the discussion because it further proves the idea that adventures aren't stuck in the past. Players are just in a completely different place. And I'm not so sure that trying to catch up with that ideal in adventure gaming means it's the best kind of game we can make.

I do have to say ozzie, I honestly wasn't trying to attack you and was genuine when I said you had good points (such as the ones ascovel addressed), so you don't really have to make snide remarks at some of my comments. Also, to say I'm being ignorant when I say Half Life has little story is not really fair when you're saying Myst has none yourself...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

LOL! You know what's funny? You are all having THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT that we had here at AG 5 YEARS AGO. If you want, search this forum for those old threads; there are tons of them.

And from what we've seen, the genre has remained largely stagnant in terms of new ideas, concepts, technology, quality, and, particularly important, marketing and public relations. Unless someone wants to point out to me any SWEEPING and CONSISTENT PROGRESS since 2005 (and earlier), it looks to stay stagnant.

At the expense of sounding like a pimp yet again, read my assessment of this genre, written 5 years ago (it's quite a long article, 4 parts, so take your time):

The Cold Hotspot: A critique of the state of adventure games | AdventureDevelopers.com

The Cold Hotspot
Written by Beiddie RafĂłl

The Cold Hotspot: A critique of the state of adventure games

The adventure game is not sacred or written in stone and needs to own up to it! There, I said it. Sue me, but you'll be doing so more out of spiteful denial than charges of defamation. The truth is, the adventure game genre, as we all know it, has long been suffering from obscurity, lack of progress, sheer banality, isolation (surprise!), and, simply, from the garden variety of dullness. And everyone - developers, publishers, the media, and yes, we gamers ourselves - is guilty of creating and fueling this suffering. The apparent sources of my grievances, viewed top-down, are obvious, but some are less so.

As I delve deeper, I'm finding some intriguing and inherent contradictions, fallacies, and redundancies that add to this muck. As devoted supporters and partakers of the adventure game, don't we all want to see it move ahead and reach a bigger audience and be restored back to its former glory as it was during the days of Lucas Arts and Sierra and -- Stop right there!! You see? That's what I mean! You didn't catch it, did you? Read on...

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that ALL adventure games must progress. For example, there will always be a market for 2D point-&-clickers, albeit a small niche market. In which case I don't care about those because I'm not worried about those. People will always buy them.

"Today I mostly see exercises in using 3D Studio Max or Maya, and not an effort to bring a unique vision (however simple it can be!) onto the screen, and then infusing it with personality," observes Marek Bronstring, owner of the gaming site Adventure Gamers. "It's like all these games are too shy, wanting to wear the same clothes to fit in, and avoid doing something interesting for fear of being laughed at by the rest of the group. People might not laugh at them, but no one looks at them either."

[ozzie]

Originally Posted by Sughly

I do have to say ozzie, I honestly wasn't trying to attack you and was genuine when I said you had good points (such as the ones ascovel addressed), so you don't really have to make snide remarks at some of my comments. Also, to say I'm being ignorant when I say Half Life has little story is not really fair when you're saying Myst has none yourself...

To be honest, I don't know how much of a story Myst has, but from all the things I read about it I got the impression that barely anyone plays it for the story. That was my point.

Yeah I'm gonna go from here because I think the discussion on FPS has kind of been covered. I think this is a huge issue with the genre because players have been what I think is dumbed down by FPS's. I know people would'nt like the comparison but I can't help but compare FPS and adventures to Hollywood and independant/foreign film. People grow up on Hollwywood and don't bother to appreciate how much better filmmaking is in independants and foreign countries because they have been conditioned somewhat to the Hollywood formula.

Well, I think many adventures strain the player's patience when they refuse a perfectly logical solution or don't even offer a reason why you can't do this or that. When you always hear the same replies to different actions then the main character starts to feel like a robot and it becomes a bit boring.
Sure, the best adventures avoid such issues, but adventures seem to be much more harder to design than games of other genres. In comparison, even a mediocre shooter still offers some kind of entertainment. It's really hard to screw the formula of killing stuff up. But designing puzzles for adventures? That seems to be much harder. And I think when gamers have their first contact with a rather bad adventure game, then it might be their last. Sure, there are also many who won't be able to appreciate games like Machinarium, but tastes differ, pure and simple. Personally, I like my games a bit more slowly paced, too.

But it's true, most shooters are like Hollywood action spectacles. But there are games that deviate from that, like Bioshock. Or Stalker.

I'm not sure if the influence of shooters caused the dumbing down of adventure games. I don't see the connection. I think designers just preferred to cut down on the lines they had to write and to record, so they eliminated all the verbs and just gave you a "smart cursor". Or it may have been the influence of Syberia, because after this game this interface choice spread like a plague. I dunno. I hate it myself, though.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by ozzie

Well, I think many adventures strain the player's patience when they refuse a perfectly logical solution or don't even offer a reason why you can't do this or that. When you always hear the same replies to different actions then the main character starts to feel like a robot and it becomes a bit boring.
Sure, the best adventures avoid such issues, but adventures seem to be much more harder to design than games of other genres. In comparison, even a mediocre shooter still offers some kind of entertainment. It's really hard to screw the formula of killing stuff up.

Yeah it's definately true. Going back to original point though, it means the genre isn't necessarily stuck in the past but that it's one that requires more thought, attention, and budget than what is currently given in order to see it flourish.

Innovation seems to be an easy solution to get more attention on adventures. Sure, titles like Heavy Rain proves it works, but we also can't deny that finding out more original stories, characters, and effective puzzle implementation in more titles can't be just as easily another way of bringing back attention to the genre. It's a fairly simple comment, but it goes to show that the basic mechanics are still very effective and not 'stuck'.

Intrepid mentioned that there is always a place for traditional point and clicks and that innovations won't ever be a replacement, and that's true. I'm just saying that innovation shouldn't be the answer.

Originally Posted by ozzie

I'm not sure if the influence of shooters caused the dumbing down of adventure games. I don't see the connection.

Sorry I didn't mean to insinuate that. I was pointing out that the repetitive nature of FPS after FPS is dumbing down players to the point where all they want now is to shoot and run and feel some sort of action. This is a major factor in why people can't just sit and appreciate a solid story without the action attachment.

Personally, games to me are about solid stories and the level of interaction within them, and action to me isn't the only way to represent interactivity. Again, the point and click mechanics is one of the only forms of gameplay to offer that level of interactivity.

I suppose the ending comment on this area is that the weakness doesn't have to lie in budget. As ascovel pointed out before, indie adventures prove how the genre can still thrive without it at times. I think the obvious key, as many would have already said in other threads before, is the writing. The focus should be on this, not innovation. Get top quality writing, implement puzzles that compliment and move the story rather than stilt it, and an adventure game can be as good as any great title before it regardless of what new features it offers.

EDIT:

The quote Intrepid brought up -

"Today I mostly see exercises in using 3D Studio Max or Maya, and not an effort to bring a unique vision (however simple it can be!) onto the screen, and then infusing it with personality," observes Marek Bronstring, owner of the gaming site Adventure Gamers. "It's like all these games are too shy, wanting to wear the same clothes to fit in, and avoid doing something interesting for fear of being laughed at by the rest of the group. People might not laugh at them, but no one looks at them either."

Doesn't necessarily suggest a need for change. It suggests a need for whatever adventure title is coming out to tell us something interesting, which can just as well come in a grabbing new narrative with well implemented puzzle design as it can in some form of genre innovation.

[ozzie]

I think it's not a contradiction to both want innovation and good design.
And actually, I wouldn't want to miss the traditional adventure titles either. Of course, I felt in love with those! But then, titles like Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis or Conquests of the Longbow don't feel constrained by convention, because the conventions weren't probably that clear and set in stone at the time.
Both games didn't exactly feature huge innovations, but they took the gameplay mechanics of adventure games and added some more that was necessary to depict the story and world believably. Just like with The Last Express, maybe. Jordan Mechner chose the adventure genre because it was the best for the story. He still added some innovations, like the realtime element, because that's what his vision required.

Maybe that's mostly missing for me, a vision. Games that know what they want and that dare to be different. I can't imagine an adventure game like Conquests of the Longbow coming out today, a game that doesn't worry so much if it has item puzzles or not or has the same standard interface as other adventures or not, a game that stands by itself and is not just a shallow copy.
I mean, there are some inspired adventures from the past year, like The Whispered and The Book of Unwritten Tales. Yet somehow, they still feel constrained, they worry too much to stay on the path, to not deviate a little bit. The worlds depicted, the stories told, the characters you meet are all great, but the gameplay, well,...it's all the same.
I remember reading in a fine arts paper that basically all adventures play the same, because the basic game rules are always the same. That's an over exaggeration, of course. But at least for the past years it rings mostly true.
Maybe I don't want exactly innovation, I just want daring and visionary games. That's probably all. Adventures that feel as fresh as The Last Express did.

[Ugignadl]

Honestly, I really agree with Ozzie more than anybody else. I feel that the adventure genre is dated compared to others. I think Ozzie covered shooters fairly well, and he mentioned them but I would like to focus a little on RPGs. For me, they have always been about a story and great mechanics. I love adventure games and have been enjoying many recent titles, but purely from a story point of view RPGs have been the best in my opinion.

One person mentioned the pace of games being very fast and this hurts adventure games. I would respectfully disagree. I just finished Dragon Age and the pace there is not really very fast. The story is very good, and the universe is more detailed with many items to collect and books to read, not to mention people to interact with. The world feels alive, and people react to what you do or say. Sometimes you make superficial decisions which have minor consequences, perhaps even just one line of dialogue difference, but they are there. The game gave the definite feeling of immersion by an unrelenting plethora of decisions which have consequences which one can notice, and by just investigating various areas and reading about history, religion, characters, and so on.

This last point was done better than many adventures, I felt. Here I am, playing an RPG, and taking my time to "look" at objects and to just talk to people! The gameplay, the mechanics, may have involved leveling up, choosing abilities, zapping enemies and slaying dragons, but it *felt* like one of the best adventures I'd played in a long time.

I vehemently disagree that there is an appreciable difference between hybrid vs. innovation vs. stealing pieces of different genres. They are all parts of the same thing, innovation. You can't take "story" and say "adventure games own this". It's just not the case. Adventure games own puzzles, that has been what they evolved from (check out the roots in the early 80s), and they evolved stories later. In fact, if you take the kinds of stories you were seeing 20 years into adventures, around 2000, and 20 years into shooters/action games, around 2010, the clear winner is shooters. Now take RPGs, who are at least 30 years old now, I would estimate the same age as adventures, and look at how their level of immersion, interactivity and so on has improved. Yes there are some titles which are quite lame but the standard for the genre as a whole is quite high. Their storytelling has continued to improve for the last ten years, and I think will still continue to improve coming into their third decade.

For me, adventure games were getting better and better all the way up to 2000. And then they just stagnated. There were some great titles but I didn't see the genre continue to improve.

The real question will be, can action games, shooters, rpgs, continue to improve? I think they can. The onus is on adventure games now, not just to start improving, but to catch up in a major way.

DISCLAIMER: I love adventure games! Love them love them love them.