[Burns11]

Originally Posted by Sughly

Ok I don't want to put down other games from other genres, and as I've said before I've played some of them and in the case of Uncharted I've loved them, but I'm just pointing out the fact that if the Uncharted's and the Fallout's came out with lacklustre stories do you really think everyone would still be praising them as they have? Most definately they would not. The idea of a well written story and character seems to muddy peoples perception of a good game. I'm not saying the gameplay is that bad, just that good writing often carries these titles above the sea of other action or shooter games that get barely a fraction of the popularity.

Fallout 3's story was not well written, it was by far the worst written Fallout RPG (I can't speak for Brotherhood of Steel and I think there was another game in the universe, I didn't have any inclination to play them).

I don't get your point though, these games are an entire package, if the gameplay sucked they wouldn't get praise either.

Originally Posted by Sughly

@Burns - you mention (like someone else before you) that adventure titles are the same thing over and over. I agree with you. But my point is that repetition lies in the lackllustre writing (as someone else also pointed out in the reusing of conspiracy plots, murder plots etc etc). If these other named games from other genres such as Mass Effect, Fallout, Uncharted (etc) DIDN'T have the great writing they had, then what would make them so much better as a gaming experience than that of adventure games? If those exact same stories were put into adventure gaming contexts, would you still prefer their genre counterparts? Would you prefer (for example) running around, levelling up your team in Mass Effect or would you prefer to go into the planets and go about solving solutions with a more puzzle based interaction? I hope you get my meaning...

I already posted, and answered, this very question:

Do you spend that time with a new experience and a good story, or a tired experience and a good story? Personally, I am going to lean towards the Heavy Rains, the LA Noires, the Uncharteds, the Mafias, the Fallouts, the Dragon Ages, the Metal Gear Solids, the Infamouses, etc before the point and click adventure.

[Sughly]

Ok, I get your point Burns. Like I've also said before, I'm not against changes in the genre either. I'm just saying that the mechanics aren't that bad. I didn't start this thread as an anti-adventure-innovation thread, I started it with the intention of drawing attention to the fact that the adventure genre isn't really that dated, that the old mechanics still do have life and do work in a storytelling format, and that good writing in the genre would prove this. I think the Daedalic games, for instance (though I haven't played any - only going from what I've seen and heard) are proving this.

If another story equivelant to a Syberia or a Grim Fandango came out, would people complain about it because it doesn't innovate? I don't think so. If we had a year of these games coming out, would people be complaining about the genre and saying it needs to move onto something new? I don't think so either. Again, not putting innovation down, I'm just saying it's not an excuse for the current blandness of adventures. And I think it still remains to be one of the best formats for storytelling, if used right.

EDIT: I haven't played Fallout 3 either, I'm just taking stabs as to why people may hold this in some higher regard to other RPG's. Obviously on this one I was wrong, but I'm still sure many fans would disagree that the story sucks.

[Burns11]

You do realize I just said I couldn't overcome the bland gameplay of Syberia, right? This is a game I've tried to play through three times since it was released.

It's funny you mention Grim Fandango though, it was one of the last great new experiences in the Adventure genre and that was 12 years ago. If Grim released today people wouldn't complain about a lack of innovation because, sadly enough, Grim would be as innovative today as it was then.

[Ugignadl]

With Fallout 3, it was not the story or plot which was interesting, it was the world which was immersive. You could interact at an amazing level and affect many things. Various decisions could be made which had "real" effects on the world. Backstory and setting had some detail which could be revealed via interaction.

In fact, Fallout 3 is notable in that the main plot paled in comparison to some of the plots in the sidequests: for people who have played all three, the oasis sidequest was great, for newbies the family sidequest was just excellent.

The main plot was fun, but I wouldn't say an example of great writing. The expansions fix up some problems, especially with the ending. They also fix up some gameplay problems. But really I reiterate my previous point that adventures need to be more *immersive*. They need to feel like you are a part of the world and that they are more than a sequence of puzzles (as enjoyable as that may be).

Even if it is a pseudo-illusion, games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect make you feel as though you are really in the universe and that there is more to the game than a passage from one combat to the next until it is done.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Burns11

You do realize I just said I couldn't overcome the bland gameplay of Syberia, right? This is a game I've tried to play through three times since it was released.

It's funny you mention Grim Fandango though, it was one of the last great new experiences in the Adventure genre and that was 12 years ago. If Grim released today people wouldn't complain about a lack of innovation because, sadly enough, Grim would be as innovative today as it was then.

Ok, I'm sorry I forgot you put down Syberia. I do remember you saying that now and I suppose a bad choice of title in the case I'm trying to make to you. But I really feel like you're not appreciating my point.

Yes, innovation is great. It's friggin' fantastic alright, we've established that. BUT, and maybe in light of a new blog update to use Gray Matter as an example: upon Gray Matter's release, if the game succeeds but doesn't appear to use any new form of adventure game mechanics, will you be disapointed? I for one will not. In fact I look forward to it being a traditional adventure game because I trust in Jane Jensen's storytelling ability, and I have faith in the genre and her use of the mechanics in the past to tell it. If the game utilises new features and they work then fine, but I'm not relying on that in any way. This is arguably the most anticipated adventure title coming out, but low and behold it isn't offering some kind of adventure rennovation.

An adventure game that people are excited about NOT because of innovation but because of a writer they trust. Are you beginning to see my point at all yet?

[Burns11]

I don't think you quite understand what I'm driving at here. I never said an adventure couldn't or wouldn't be anticipated, nor did I ever say that they couldn't be good, it's that the lack of the ability to grow and evolve is holding them back.

Myself, I am just one example of a guy who was a huge, HUGE, fan of the point and click adventure that just became disillusioned with the tired game mechanics.

Then you also have the gaming public in general who can't see past the forest to find the story. I know a lot of adventure fans like to put general gamers down for being mindless, but that's just self aggrandizing. More and more games are being praised mainly for their story and people are rewarding that with great sales. Look at Heavy Rain, here we have an adventure game topping sales charts, which is just astonishing. They did it, not by resurrecting old, musty gameplay, but by delivering something fresh with their great story.

Jane Jensen undoubtedly had the better pedigree when it comes to games than did Quantic Dream, but when it came to people outside the adventure game superfan community, Heavy Rain garnered a lot of prerelease excitement while Gray Matter has received little. In fact, Gray Matter postings garnered so little attention that gaming blogs like Joystiq have stopped making posts about the game altogether.

[ozzie]

Well, let's not talk about Gray Matter marketing again, shall we?

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Burns11

I don't think you quite understand what I'm driving at here. I never said an adventure couldn't or wouldn't be anticipated, nor did I ever say that they couldn't be good, it's that the lack of the ability to grow and evolve is holding them back.

Myself, I am just one example of a guy who was a huge, HUGE, fan of the point and click adventure that just became disillusioned with the tired game mechanics.

You're kind of contradicting yourself a little by saying 'I didn't say they couldn't be good', but then saying they are being 'held back'. How can they be good but held back? The only thing I can think of is that by being held back you mean not having an appeal to the masses. This is really a completely different argument of audience, so it's not really fair to blame a good mechanic because the majority of gamers have turned to shooters and 'twitch' gaming.

Originally Posted by Burns11

More and more games are being praised mainly for their story and people are rewarding that with great sales. Look at Heavy Rain, here we have an adventure game topping sales charts, which is just astonishing. They did it, not by resurrecting old, musty gameplay, but by delivering something fresh with their great story.

Jane Jensen undoubtedly had the better pedigree when it comes to games than did Quantic Dream, but when it came to people outside the adventure game superfan community, Heavy Rain garnered a lot of prerelease excitement while Gray Matter has received little. In fact, Gray Matter postings garnered so little attention that gaming blogs like Joystiq have stopped making posts about the game altogether.

You're pretty much just making the point that an old style 'musty' adventure game (Gray Matter) is not getting the same amount of attention as something with innovation (Heavy Rain) as a reasoning to why innovation is detrimental to the genre.

If we're gonna use these two as case study then, as much as I looked forward to (and subsequently enjoyed playing) Heavy Rain, I'm looking forward to Gray Matter a hell of a lot more. If we're talking about gaming as a device for storytelling, I'll choose the latter game any day. Heavy Rain was great, don't get me wrong, but the story is very cliched and relies predominantly on chase sequences to maintain the narrative. They couldn't use that kind of gameplay to tell a Gabriel Knight. That's not to say I don't like the gameplay in Heavy Rain, just that in this case I prefer the traditional point and click gameplay.

What Jane Jensen has in store for Gray Matter, using traditional mechanics as a form of storytelling, is actually much more exciting to me. You're kind of suggesting Jane Jensen shouldn't be making Gray Matter with traditional adventure gameplay, but instead should just be trying to figure out how to appeal to the mainstream with some form of innovation, and I disagree.

People can't call a form of gameplay bad based on whether the genre is selling or not to the masses. That kind of thing goes to other areas, like lack of marketing, a saturation of badly written adventure titles, mediocre 3D graphics, etc, and also to what suits different gamers. Mainstream are gonna want that twitch style of gaming, period. I, myself (and I'm sure I'm not alone) prefer not to, and enjoy a narrative outside that form of gameplay. What the mainstream audiences want or don't want though doesn't and shouldn't dictate whether we believe the point and click mechanic is working or not.

I think the real issue here is that people want adventure games to be mainstream again. I don't think they will be but I don't think that's a problem. Sure, you will always have the Heavy Rain's that do something new and do break into that mass market, and like I've said 100 times I'm ok with games that do do that but there's nothing wrong with the games that don't.

You can't say you're not interested in at least some of the titles lined up for this year that are traditional point and clicks, such as Gray Matter, Whispered World, or The Book of Unwritten Tales. So that being said, the 'lack of the ability to grow and evolve is holding them back' is not true - it's not holding them back in any way, it's just not getting the attention of the mainstream and I'm ok with that. Yeah I want to see adventure games become financially successful, but they don't need to be a Heavy Rain level of success to still make a profit.

Adventure games have a small market, sure. I'm part of that smaller market, as I am in just about all forms of entertainment (games, music, film) and I'm happy to be that way. If we just wanted to make these things in a way that appealed to the mass majority, there wouldn't be much personal preference in it all. After all, isn't this meant to be a post-Fordist world now? In the end, these things don't make the point and click mechanic 'musty', dated, or ineffective. To me, it's still one of the best ways to tell a story in gaming.

EDIT: On a side note, traditional point and clicks aren't always ignored by the bigger guys. Kotaku, one of the most popular gaming websites, just put up a glowing article for Whispered World today.

[Burns11]

Originally Posted by Sughly

You're kind of contradicting yourself a little by saying 'I didn't say they couldn't be good', but then saying they are being 'held back'. How can they be good but held back? The only thing I can think of is that by being held back you mean not having an appeal to the masses. This is really a completely different argument of audience, so it's not really fair to blame a good mechanic because the majority of gamers have turned to shooters and 'twitch' gaming.

Good < great. Also, a game not appealing to the masses is one thing, a game no longer appealing to the devotees of it's genre is another.

It's nice you are looking forward to Gray Matter, but that doesn't make the genre any less stale.

I don't want anything more than to see the genre to mature, to embrace new ideas and get great again. That's it. If you're happy with the dusty gameplay, that's awesome, but it doesn't make the gameplay any less dated. You say you are happy with the old status quo and don't care if the games have mass appeal, but then take great umbrage with a reviewer who dares not love Hotel Dusk. That you like it is not an argument that the genre hasn't stagnated.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Burns11

It's nice you are looking forward to Gray Matter, but that doesn't make the genre any less stale.

It's curious to see how Jane Jensen chose to make Gray Matter a typical 2D point-&-clicker, essentially a very traditional and very safe adventure game.

Makes me wonder how it might turn out as a something else. Like, what would it look like as a real time 3D direct control interface, and many of the "puzzles" involved A.I. (practically unheard of for an adventure game). Or what if it used multiple puzzle solutions, including pure dialogue navigation as a possible solution? What if it involved physics based challenges? Puzzles based on positional sound?

Essentially, what if she engineered the puzzles to be challenges that we have never seen before, and may even force us to rethink what our idea of cerebral challenges should be?

I remember reading quite a while back that Jensen originally conceived this game to be real time 3D, then changed her mind. Was she scared it wouldn't sell? Did she not have enough money from investors for it? Was she worried she'd get lambasted with complaints from adventure gamers who only want 2D?

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Burns11

Good < great. Also, a game not appealing to the masses is one thing, a game no longer appealing to the devotees of it's genre is another.

It's nice you are looking forward to Gray Matter, but that doesn't make the genre any less stale.

Yeah I suppose you're right in that those that want the genre to go new places will want that, and those like me that are happy with the traditional point and click will continue to like point and click games. I just fail to see myself why it should be considered stale when other genres, in my eyes, are equally 'stale'. First person shooters still are games set in first person, shooting things. RPG's are still running around, levelling up.

I also don't get why Jane changing her mind, from real-time 3D to traditional 2D is such a bad thing, or why it should be considered a safer option. I mean reall,y for a developer wanting to make money, isn't it safer to go for 3D and try and appeal to the masses? Maybe, just maybe, she chose to stay 2D because she believes in it's format and it's ability to tell a story the way she likes to?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Sughly

Yeah I suppose you're right in that those that want the genre to go new places will want that, and those like me that are happy with the traditional point and click will continue to like point and click games. I just fail to see myself why it should be considered stale when other genres, in my eyes, are equally 'stale'. First person shooters still are games set in first person, shooting things. RPG's are still running around, levelling up.

Isn't that a red herring argument? After all, we are talking about the adventure game, not any other kind of game so what relevance do FPSs or RPGs have in this discussion?

As well, many FPSs and RPGs have adopted certain features that used to be exclusive to adventure games, such as the game - and even gameplay - being driven by a strong story and by character development (Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, ICO, Bioshock, etc.), exploration and interactivity (Grand Theft Auto IV, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Fable II, Okami), and yes, even puzzles (Knights Of The Old Republic, Batman: AA, Portal, etc.).

Surely those games, as conventional as they may be for their genre, only at a glance seem "equally stale", according to your observations. And yet aren't those adaptations of details that used to be only found in adventure games themselves a sign that even FPSs, RPGs, action/adventures, etc. can progress, are progressing, and are malleable for the better?

I understand your argument for keeping adventure games "traditional". In which case, the focus should then be shifted to the QUALITY of the games themselves. And THAT is my huge complaint about many traditional adventure games. If you don't want to innovate or change the fundamental design, at least work on improving the quality.

And is the adventure game as we know it malleable and open to progress, even when malleability and progress can mean something as simple as quality improvement?

I also don't get why Jane changing her mind, from real-time 3D to traditional 2D is such a bad thing, or why it should be considered a safer option. I mean reall,y for a developer wanting to make money, isn't it safer to go for 3D and try and appeal to the masses? Maybe, just maybe, she chose to stay 2D because she believes in it's format and it's ability to tell a story the way she likes to?

Or maybe she was still hurting from all the [unfair] criticism she got from making Gabriel Knight 3 real time 3D.

[Burns11]

Jane can make whatever games she wants, it could be a Spacewar clone for all I care. This has nothing to do with her or her game, as I haven't played it yet so I can't comment on it.

First person shooters still are games set in first person, shooting things.

This is just an asinine statement. Obviously a first person shooter will be in first person shooting things, but if you are going to try and tell me that there is no difference between Wolfenstein, Quake, System Shock, Rainbow Six, Call of Duty, Unreal, Fear, Bioshock, etc then you need to actually play these games. Even between current games experiences can be radically different.

RPGs are the same way, they've progressed and changed over the years, even today there are radically different RPGs coming to market. A common element does not mean the game hasn't changed.

Point and click adventures just haven't grown and expanded as these other genres have.

BTW, as this seems to be the argument you are making, progressing the genre doesn't mean you have to abandon the point and click 2d environment, you could always progress under that framework.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Isn't that a red herring argument? After all, we are talking about the adventure game, not any other kind of game so what relevance do FPSs or RPGs have in this discussion?

The title of the thread is 'Is the adventure genre really 'dated compared to others?'. So no, no red herring argument, just going back to what we were discussing earlier as we did already with all the points you brought up. Your comments on quality is exactly what I've already brought up when I've talked about writing and such earlier in the thread.

And as for the idea of other genres borrowing from the adventure title - of course the adventure hasn't borrowed from them. What would you want the adventure genre to borrow exactly? It's understandable that the others would adopt SOME element of adventure as it's one of the oldest genres and, as I've said, easily one of the best as a storytelling format for games. To get better at storytelling, it's a natural progression for them to do so. That being said, the level of puzzle design as an integral aspect of storytelling for those games listed is pretty lacklustre at best.

@Burns - You know I hate to admit it but I've probably come off a little heavy handed in my posts because I took your idea for innovation as a more grandiose concept of where to take the genre. Referring to the '2D framework' is pretty much what I considered an aspect of the 'traditional point and click', and as such yes it has been an aspect of what I've been defending. I'd be interested to hear what innovations could benefit this kind of framework.

Those points though that you bring up with first persons - these are points that have already been discussed and the reply was that you can say the same about adventures by comparing titles along the genre's timeline.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Sughly

And as for the idea of other genres borrowing from the adventure title - of course the adventure hasn't borrowed from them. What would you want the adventure genre to borrow exactly? It's understandable that the others would adopt SOME element of adventure as it's one of the oldest genres and, as I've said, easily one of the best as a storytelling format for games.

What do I want it to borrow? Erm......the quality of writing, for which other games have excelled over the years? The way that in-game direction tells the story visually and even aurally, sometimes with no text or dialogue at all. The characters' facial expressions, changing in real time according to your dialogue choices. Hiring very good voice actors. Improving animation so that sometimes language or text isn't needed to express an emotion. How things such as morality are introduced through the story and often affect your choices later on depending on how you treat a character. Optional interactivity that deepens the story and character reactions to you, opening up more dialogue that in turn enriches the narrative even more.

To get better at storytelling, it's a natural progression for them to do so. That being said, the level of puzzle design as an integral aspect of storytelling for those games listed is pretty lacklustre at best.

Give me examples, please. It seems like you're using the adventure game as a kind of benchmark and other game types are supposed to try and live up to it. It's as if you're shunning other games because you keep insisting in your head that adventure games are template for good writing and story. They were perhaps 10 years ago. But now I don't think so, not today.

My argument is that other games have taken elements the adventure game did well and adapted those elements and often improved them or did particularly creative things with them that adventure game developers failed or chose not to do for whatever reasons.

And just as adventure games don't do action very well because they're not action games, genres like RPGs don't invest in puzzle designs so deeply because they're not adventure games. However, at least RPG developers allow themselves to borrow the idea of the puzzle from adventure games.

Not to say that the adventure game should be more like an RPG, but that more adventure developers should at least try to think outside the box a little more, break out of the cookie cutter, and offer us fresh and exciting new ideas on how to use our brain, how to stimulate our eyes and ears, and how to make our hearts race faster in ways we're not so used to (the way, for example, Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy does with its "rubber band" story, or how In Memoriam allows the player to receive actual email messages pertinent to solving a crime).

As for the traditional adventure game, there will always be a market for it. AG devs KNOW that there will always be a market, which is why they keep churning out typical games. I've said it in these discussions dozens of times already and too many here keep reacting as if it's murder to even think about trying new things. I'm not advocating forcing changes on ALL adventure games. But what I do want is improving the quality of the games coming out.

What I am stating is that there needs to be a few more adventure developers with the balls to try new things while keeping one foot firmly in tradition. What's so wrong, for example, with a 2D adventure game that takes advantage of artificial intelligence as a strong element in its puzzles? Or a real time 3D point-&-clicker using some physics based puzzles?

[Ugignadl]

Originally Posted by Sughly

Those points though that you bring up with first persons - these are points that have already been discussed and the reply was that you can say the same about adventures by comparing titles along the genre's timeline.

I'm sorry? I don't recall any resolution to this point. I think it was just swept under the carpet.

I recall some evidence being provided for substantial innovation and benchmark improvement in other genres over their lifetime. I recall evidence provided for adventure games where they stagnated for around the last ten years.

It really settles the topic, right? The adventure game *is* dated compared to others. Sad, but true. All good games tell great stories and immerse you in their universe, these days. Most adventures feel like an old book; something you pick up, read a little, but do not really interact with. You're not a part of it, you're just an observer.

[booB]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What do I want it to borrow? Erm......the quality of writing, for which other games have excelled over the years? The way that in-game direction tells the story visually and even aurally, sometimes with no text or dialogue at all. The characters' facial expressions, changing in real time according to your dialogue choices. Hiring very good voice actors. Improving animation so that sometimes language or text isn't needed to express an emotion. How things such as morality are introduced through the story and often affect your choices later on depending on how you treat a character. Optional interactivity that deepens the story and character reactions to you, opening up more dialogue that in turn enriches the narrative even more.

This is a good point, but the problem is that all of these things require tons and tons of budget and development staff. The AG genre has already relegated itself to the poor house through its past stagnation. These types of innovations will have to be done through other genres, in order to bring them closer to AGs (if that's even a concern of game developers these days).

As mainstream gaming continues to embrace new technology, I believe that AGs will continue to be dated -- with the exception of the occasional "crossover" game such as the oft-vilified Broken Sword 3 or Dreamfall, which don't really appeal to AGamers *or* mainstream gamers.

[DustCropper]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I remember reading quite a while back that Jensen originally conceived this game to be real time 3D, then changed her mind. Was she scared it wouldn't sell? Did she not have enough money from investors for it? Was she worried she'd get lambasted with complaints from adventure gamers who only want 2D?

If I recall correctly, in the video interviews that AG posted a few months ago, she explained that making the game in 3D would have cost more money and taken more time, so she chose to spend her resources on other aspects of the game and settle with the cheaper 2D format.

I don't think the actual gameplay of adventure games is dated. The two main things that they are lacking these days that bother me are 1) well written stories, and 2) immersive environments, as other posters have already mentioned. I think there was a time when adventure games actually developed those two aspects very well.

Other genres seem to have made excellent progress in those two areas over the last few years. If a traditional adventure game was released that had a well-developed story and immersive gaming environment, I'd be a happy camper.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What do I want it to borrow? Erm......the quality of writing, for which other games have excelled over the years? The way that in-game direction tells the story visually and even aurally, sometimes with no text or dialogue at all. The characters' facial expressions, changing in real time according to your dialogue choices. Hiring very good voice actors. Improving animation so that sometimes language or text isn't needed to express an emotion. How things such as morality are introduced through the story and often affect your choices later on depending on how you treat a character. Optional interactivity that deepens the story and character reactions to you, opening up more dialogue that in turn enriches the narrative even more

I find all these suggestions non important and unfit, which only serve to impress 12 year old kids. And of course these aren't called innovation. It's called copy-paste of other genres just to say 'Hey we too have x feature like Dragon Age has. See, we are modern'. Any NEW ideas? The answer is no. Just whining and comparison to other genres.

Originally Posted by DustCropper

I don't think the actual gameplay of adventure games is dated. The two main things that they are lacking these days that bother me are 1) well written stories, and 2) immersive environments, as other posters have already mentioned. I think there was a time when adventure games actually developed those two aspects very well.

Exactly. 'Internal' innovation. Meaningful one.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I find all these suggestions non important and unfit, which only serve to impress 12 year old kids. And of course these aren't called innovation. It's called copy-paste of other genres just to say 'Hey we too have x feature like Dragon Age has. See, we are modern'. Any NEW ideas? The answer is no. Just whining and comparison to other genres.

You could make the same argument within the adventure game genre, dekaneas. Such as the "poke-pencil-into-keyhole-to-push-key-out-onto-newspaper-below-to-get-from-under-the-door" puzzle being copied & pasted from adventure game to adventure game; the mechanical puzzle concepts and lone-man-on-unpopulated-island idea being copied & pasted from the Myst series to the Rhem series ("Myst for plumbers" as one AG member once wittily put it); the more than ubiquitous "bicycle handle + glue + lighted candle + cat hair + spaghetti + rubber duck" inventory puzzle copied & pasted from [insert any game from 1995-2010] to [insert any game from 1995-2010].

So I'm not sure what point you're making other than one of defensive knee jerk reaction to my comment. And the "impress 12 year old kids" is a weak argument, a fallacy. My niece played Nancy Drew games, CSI, Syberia, and Still Life when she was around that age. Yeah, I introduced her to those titles. Today she plays Dragon Age and Bioshock and other titles. She is top honours level as a high school sophomore and has been accepted to take college level courses, with plans to study forensic science to be a pathologist.

Are you insulting her and intelligent young people her age? Surely you can do better than that?

The Cold Hotspot | B. Rafol, AdventureDevelopers.com

But the worst of the lot resort to petty snobbery. Self-righteous, self-proclaimed veterans believe in the intellectualistic supremacy of puzzles that require a PhD in practically everything to solve, and are quick to point it out. But where is it etched permanently that you must possess the combined IQs of Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and Sherlock Holmes just to figure out a challenge in Myst? Why should that be a main qualifier? It's been argued that patience is actually more valuable in this case than sheer brute noggin.

But I'll tell you one thing, I'd like to see those same snobs not try using intelligence to win an insanely complicated real time battle in Command & Conquer: Generals, or figure out which team members to choose on the next mission in Knights of The Old Republic based on individual skills, or plan their cunning moves second-by-second to successfully eliminate the targets in Hitman 2 with surgical precision and elegance. In other words, get over yourselves already! You keep holding your heads that high, you'll get a nosebleed. Sheer intelligence is not a requisite exclusive to adventure games and can certainly apply to other genres. Sometimes, being a humble Philistine and some patience are all you need.