[Sughly]

@ Ugignadl: there was no sweeping anything under a rug. There was valid points made about the adventure genre's progression that can't be denied as you have swiftly done. The conversation on this got diverted more or less because of an 'agree to disagree' mentality.

@ Intrepid: that quote's not really very substantial, it's just another person's subjective opinion towards traditional puzzle based adventures. It seems to me that all these games he considers having wit for - yes, they may be challenging in their own way but as someone pointed out earlier, adventure gamers (well, some of them anyway) don't want the twitch gaming that these games demand. Why make immature comparisons to the level of intellect between games when people chose them based on style of gameplay and what experience they want.

@ dekaneas: What I was thinking really, and I too am genuinely interested in hearing new ideas. Just not necessarily these ones. Real-time responses from people? That's something FMV's were doing in adventures years ago anyway, before 3D technology could do it.

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.

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.

Exactly - this is pretty much the crux of what I'm saying. I've made this point in one way or another a few times and it's really what I'm trying to drive at. We can complain about how it's old and dusty, and this and that genre have been doing yada yada yada. But really, when it comes down to it, if an adventure comes out and satisfies these conditions then I think it's in the position to be a great game. Because of that, I feel like it's a framework that still works. And you know, I think the fact that Daedalic are gaining so much momentum and recognition in Germany speaks for this.

EDIT: I just don't think we should be so hard on the genre when it's only been let down by a series of games that either under-developed, poorly written, misguided, etc etc. These games shouldn't be a benchmark to the capabilities of the genre.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Sughly

@ Intrepid: that quote's not really very substantial, it's just another person's subjective opinion towards traditional puzzle based adventures.

Of course it's subjective opinion! It's an editorial, for cripe's sakes! Did you read it all? Very long read, 4 parts. If you had read it you would understand where I'm coming from. My argument is no less substantial than yours or anyone else's here, Sughly. Remember that. Please.

I'm not advocating that ALL adventure games must innovate or be brand new in ideas and scope. What I am advocating is progress and diversity within the genre. That games that choose to be traditional improve their qualities as traditional games, and that games that choose to push the envelope be completely unapologetic about it.

Even improving the quality such things as traditional puzzle design, dialogue, and writing in an adventure game is progressive in itself.

It seems to me that all these games he considers having wit for - yes, they may be challenging in their own way but as someone pointed out earlier, adventure gamers (well, some of them anyway) don't want the twitch gaming that these games demand. Why make immature comparisons to the level of intellect between games when people chose them based on style of gameplay and what experience they want.

So, where did you (and others here) get the idea that ozzie, myself, and others want twitch based action in an adventure game? Could you please point this out? Where did you get that idea?

[mgeorge]

I'll have to admit I'm not a huge fan of point and click games. I've tried very hard to get into the genre, but I'm usually disappointed. I initially became interested in them because I'd heard what they did best was tell a story. And personally, that's the reason I play most games.

But from my experience with the genre, even the storytelling in AG's isn't what it could be. To many rely more on puzzles than telling a cohesive story. And to many obtuse endings with little closure, leaving the gamer to use their imagination to figure out how it ended.

It's almost like devs get this great idea for a game, and then can't figure out how to end them in a satisfying manner.

However the thread title asks us if the AG genre is dated compared to others. And it most certainly is. RPG’s and FPS’s have become much more creative since their inception. The FPS has incorporated physics puzzles, squad based tactics, and better storytelling.

RPG’s like Mass Effect and even an RPG light, such as Bioshock, all concentrate much more on the story. These two are just off the top of my head, but it’s actually getting to the point where if an RPG or FPS doesn’t contain a decent story it won’t sell well. Some people in these forums may think if someone predominantly plays RPG’s or FPS’s all they want to do is go around killing people mindlessly. And while that may have been true 10 years ago, it doesn’t’ hold water anymore. Gamers are demanding more than simple “go kill stuff”.

Yes an FPS is still basically the same, and an RPG as well, but both genres have been fine tuned to give the gamer a more immersive experience and expanded on the core gameplay. The problem I see with AG’s is that I know the next one I play will most likely have a safe with a complicated lock that I will have to figure out how to open, along with a door that needs a key that will require me to search for an hour to find. And then the key will probably break in the door leaving me to “improvise” on how to proceed next. Forcing me to do these mundane tasks that have nothing to do with the actual story.

I still have faith in the genre, and sincerely hope it will improve, but as things stand right now, there's way to much mediocrity in it right now.

[DustCropper]

Originally Posted by mgeorge

Yes an FPS is still basically the same, and an RPG as well, but both genres have been fine tuned to give the gamer a more immersive experience and expanded on the core gameplay. The problem I see with AG’s is that I know the next one I play will most likely have a safe with a complicated lock that I will have to figure out how to open, along with a door that needs a key that will require me to search for an hour to find. And then the key will probably break in the door leaving me to “improvise” on how to proceed next. Forcing me to do these mundane tasks that have nothing to do with the actual story.

Another thing about adventure games these days that disappoint me (and others, from reading this thread) is the uninspiring puzzles.

I don't think that these boring, difficult puzzles should be considered a part of adventure gaming's gameplay mechanics, though. There are adventure games that do not have those kinds of puzzles. Take Telltale's games. I've recently played their Wallace & Gromit and Monkey Island games, and I was very pleased with their approach to puzzle design. The puzzles are mostly interesting, logical, and simple enough so as not to interfere with the story's progression. Yet I would still classify these games as being "traditional adventure games".

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

My argument is no less substantial than yours or anyone else's here, Sughly. Remember that. Please.

I do, I don't mean to come across like I don't. I probably come off looking heavy handed with my posts

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Even improving the quality such things as traditional puzzle design, dialogue, and writing in an adventure game is progressive in itself.

This is all I want as well, and I've pointed those out specifically before. But that in my eyes doesn't make the genre stale or dated, it just means that recent titles have failed to utilise the genre to it's potential.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

So, where did you (and others here) get the idea that ozzie, myself, and others want twitch based action in an adventure game? Could you please point this out? Where did you get that idea?

I wasn't trying to imply anything, I was actually doing the opposite and putting that in there to stop people waving their hands and saying 'don't speak for all of us'.

[Ugignadl]

Originally Posted by Sughly

@ Ugignadl: there was no sweeping anything under a rug. There was valid points made about the adventure genre's progression that can't be denied as you have swiftly done. The conversation on this got diverted more or less because of an 'agree to disagree' mentality.

Perhaps I'm having a mild case of thread blindness, but can you point out adventure games in the last ten years which have set new standards for the genre? In a similar way which others (such as myself, ozzie, and so on) did with RPG and FPS games?

It is just so painstakingly obvious, with FPS starting out as little more than a shooting gallery and maze (Wolfenstein, catacomb abyss) then going towards full blown immersive storytelling (take Dead Space, Bioshock, Half Life, etc).

One thing which hasn't been mentioned much is platformers. Platformers can be seen as descendents of the modern action adventure genre. Just loo at the progression in the *genre* there!

edit: Honestly I can see progression in the adventure genre from the 80s to the 90s to 2000. Then it essentially stops. If you can refute this with examples, then I'd be happy to hear them. But they can't be exceptions. They have to be games which set a new standard, which was then followed by others in the genre. In the early days you can take Kings Quest I. Other games used graphics before then but IMO this game and its subsequent popularity really set the stage for the adventures after it. Loom with its musical mechanic and beautiful story is an example of a game before its time, but the maniac mansion and monkey island games set the bar. Only afterwards did the genre catch up to Loom. Of course you don't want every game to have a little magical music stick, but elements of that game were just Good Ideas which were only picked up upon later. As an example, in Half Life, the constant world gave the player a feeling that they were in more than just a collection of discrete "levels" and inhabiting an actual world. AFAIK this was a Good Idea which was then adopted by many, many (all?) subsequent FPSs.

These days I see some adventures trying new things, few and far between. But they don't catch on, and the genre stagnates as a result. When a new FPS comes out, it needs a great story interesting characters an interactive environment etc to be a "good FPS". This was not the case even 5 years ago. The genre evolved, the standards improved. Can one say the same for adventures?

If one can't do this, then it settles your topic: the genre is dated, it is stale, it needs to have an attitude readjustment, it needs new life. I hope it gets it!

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by Ugignadl

Perhaps I'm having a mild case of thread blindness, but can you point out adventure games in the last ten years which have set new standards for the genre? In a similar way which others (such as myself, ozzie, and so on) did with RPG and FPS games?

Seriously, people like Intensedegree and dakeanas were talking about how adventures have changed over time on pages 1 and 2 of the thread. You don't have to look very far. Not only that, Ascoval pointed out some of the reasons why some of those FPS titles aren't as innovative as some make out. If you want to point out the difference between the beginnings of FPS to their more recent titles, then why not point out how different adventures are from their completely text-based beginnings.

Originally Posted by Ugignadl

Honestly I can see progression in the adventure genre from the 80s to the 90s to 2000. Then it essentially stops. If you can refute this with examples, then I'd be happy to hear them.

I never said that adventures were still evolving. I said they have undergone their own evolution in the past, and I was defending the basic framework that it's led to. My whole point is that innovation isn't the only way to make a good adventure, and that the framework that has been built now is one that works and shouldn't be put down.

Though it's beside the point that I'm making, there's plenty of independant games now that in my mind are trying new things such as Machinarium and Time, Gentlemen Please, and then there are handheld console games that are doing something new too such as Phoenix Wright, Professor Layton, and Touch Detective.

Originally Posted by Ugignadl

These days I see some adventures trying new things, few and far between. But they don't catch on, and the genre stagnates as a result.

I just wanted to focus on this comment a little because my perspective is that it feels like it's stagnating not because of it's ability to evolve or innovate, but because of the numerous other reasons I keep on listing - games with poor writing, that are under-budget, under-developed etc. I understand what you mean by that feeling of stagnation, I do. But these factors don't mean the mechanics that drive the typical adventure game are stale. To me they are refined, and tell a good story through a good game when the development of puzzles and the writing is good.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

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].

Firstly, who told you that I am not bothered by the repeativeness of these scenarios or puzzles? I tend to conclude that if you don't criticize adventures all the time, you are mistakenly persumed that you find adventures flawless. Secondly, if we view this thing objectively I think we are harsh. The thing with the key and the newspaper for example. How many ways are there to get the key? If a developer introduces another peculiar way, it would be massively criticized as 'illogical, dumb, superficial etc etc'. As I said, some are never happy no matter what. Lastly, you are making a mistake here. You are referring to copy&paste within the genre, which is quite expected and normal, while I was talking between genres. The difference is huge.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

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?

Actually, I was trying to 'insult' you, not young people. As I said, the examples of 'innovation' you described are stylish features with no other significant point but to impress. And young people are more easily impressed. 'Gee Kate Walker has low morality because of Momo. This is amazing!'
You too may be impressed but I can assure you the vast majority isn't

p.s. does a grade in school, an ivy league admission, or a degree has to do with the correctness of a preference? Kind of elitist, don't you thing?

[Ugignadl]

Correctness of preference? dekaneas, there is no correct preference. I can prefer chicken, he can prefer fish, but neither is correct.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Ugignadl

Correctness of preference? dekaneas, there is no correct preference. I can prefer chicken, he can prefer fish, but neither is correct.

Intrepid Homoludens' words, not mine.

[mgeorge]

I think part of the problem within the genre is that when a game does try something new, it's more often than not criticized by the AG traditionalist.

Games like Dreamfall, Indigo, Nikipol, and The Experiment have all tried new, (or at least different in the genre) game mechanics and these games more often than not don't do very well. Part of it I think is that some of these mechanics are new, and need to be improved on, but a lot of it is also that people, especially hard core AG'ers simply don't like change.

Indigo is a great example of this. Although the story should have been fleshed out more at the end, it really was a bold move by Cage to tell a story using gameplay elements that were very rarely used before. They didn't always work, but at least he tried.

The Experiment is another good example of this. A very novel idea, but not implemented very well, and done on a game engine that wasn't optimized very well.

So what happens? These type games don't sell very well, and people funding them don't want to take a chance on something that's not going to sell. So instead of taking some good ideas like these and improving on them, we're left with the same ol same ol. Which as far as I'm concerned is very disheartening.

Although I won't be able to play Heavy Rain, I hope it does well because it may encourage other game devs in the PC market to go out on a limb and try something a bit different to give the AG genre that kick in the rear end I think it needs.

Of course all of this is subjective. I can understand that many would prefer the standard point and click games without timed puzzles or whatever, but by posting in forums like this one, I hope maybe game devs will read some of the posts by people like me, and obviously others, and take notice.

I suppose it's selfish, but what do I have to lose?

[Find Therma]

I agree that it is lame and uninspired stories that are holding the genre back, not a lack of innovation. I do however conceed that there are many developers in recent years that seem to be resting on their laurels - hoping people are going to keep buying basically the same game with different backgrounds.

That said, my opinion is that the modern adventure genre already has perfectly good game mechanics available to it - the developers are just not using them correctly. Innovative ideas used by adventures from the past are being ignored, with developers instead preferring to implement irrelevant thoughtless gameplay that often requires willpower rather than logical thought to get through.Take the many inane puzzles from Secret Files: Tunguska for example. If these puzzles were in a humorous game such as Monkey Island where the emphasis is on the characters and making the player laugh, they often work just fine. Within a game trying to tell a serious story however, they completely ruin any potential the game has to immerse the player.

So for me it is the combination of a well-told story, developed atmosphere, and relevant gameplay that makes a great serious adventure. If a developer chooses to be innovative to create these things, that's great, but if they re-use relevant aspects from the genre's past, that works for me just as well.

Is the adventure genre really dated compared to others? I think that's too subjective a question to answer definitively. Nevertheless, the genre certainly has much room for improvement in its current state.

[ozzie]

I'm not sure what we're arguing about now. Many people say that they like adventures most for telling a good story. Some brought up examples how other genres got better at telling one and in some ways overtook the adventure genre in this regard.
Now dekaneas297 says that all this fancy storytelling stuff in other genres is just for easily impressed 12 years old? Whut?
Of course, we can always go back to text adventures and mute b/w movies, who needs graphics, sounds or colour, anyway?
I'm astounded that someone says that we don't need progress, because anyone who needs more is basically immature. Progress for immatures. Stagnancy for adults? I prefer to be immature then...
Okay, I just ranted pointlessly. I wanted to write about something else, too, but I don't find the words for it now. Maybe tomorrow.

[dekaneas297]

ozzie no offence but you really need to find a way with words. Reading them and writing them

Unless you believe that "characters' facial expressions", "improving emotion animation" and "morality" (which were the things that I critisized), are "story telling stuff". Which of course aren't. Or maybe you read "get rid of graphics and colours, I hate progress". Which of course noone wrote.

Or maybe you are using red herring

Maybe tomorrow you use words more wisely

[Burns11]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

ozzie no offence but you really need to find a way with words. Reading them and writing them

Unless you believe that "characters' facial expressions", "improving emotion animation" and "morality" (which were the things that I critisized), are "story telling stuff". Which of course aren't. Or maybe you read "get rid of graphics and colours, I hate progress". Which of course noone wrote.

Or maybe you are using red herring

Maybe tomorrow you use words more wisely

Seriously? You are going to type something like that and try to disparage someone on their grasp of English?

Anyway, if you don't believe that facial expressions have a place and make a difference in storytelling then you need to tell the 2500 years worth of actors that they've been wasting their time.

I'm sorry, but the facial animations, the moral choices, both helped make Heavy Rain such a poignant and compelling story.

[ozzie]

@dekaneas297: I didn't quote, which I thought was clear since I didn't use the quote tag or quotation marks. I reflected the gist I got from your posts. If it was wrong then you could refute it clear and simply. And whoah, you realized that English is not my mother tongue. Congratulations!
BTW, your writing isn't any better, sorry to say.

Otherwise, I have no words for your ignorance.

@Burns11: I think Heavy Rain proved (again) that a story mustn't be a linear, invariable thread from beginning to end. The player can be a participant and change it, it can go down many paths. So yes, gameplay mechanics that express morality have a big effect on storytelling. D'oh.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Burns11

Anyway, if you don't believe that facial expressions have a place and make a difference in storytelling then you need to tell the 2500 years worth of actors that they've been wasting their time.

Movies are totally different from games. Can't be compared. But even if we compare them, this contradicts you. Why do you think that there are different winners (Oscars are in a few hours ) in best movie and best actor? Because you may have a wonderfully played actor performance but the movie may not be good (best movie award depicts storytelling). And this is proven hundreds of times in awards. Movies awarded as best but with no actors awarded in them and actors awarded for their performance in movies not even nominated.

So no, facial expressions don't (won't) make a difference in storytelling. Not to this extent to be more accurate.

@ozzie
I think you are used not to accept that you might be wrong. Not even that there may be any other opinion. Even in this thread where there are dozens of posts contradicting your "mechanic argument", saying "all we need is a good story and a satisfying environment". And when bothered you express grief for the other's ignorance. Oh well.

[AndreaDraco83]

Can we please stay focused on something other than one's English skill and personal grudges? And if you have something private to discuss that it's not inherent to the topic at hand, feel free to use PMs.

[ozzie]

Actually, I value a lot of opinions here, and the longer this discussion goes on the more I realize where people are coming from, what they actually mean and want. I appreciate Sughly's opinion now, much more than at the beginning, even if I don't agree with it.
I can tell you why I think your argument dosen't hold much water. Let's start with a quote of yours!

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.

Let's recap: Inteprid was talking about storytelling innovations in other genres that he would like to see in adventures. And since innovation of such kind transcends genres his suggestions were valid, I think.
Half Life 2 made a huge step forward in regards to the mimic and gesture of NPCs. This got picked up by RPGs, like Mass Effect.
Characters in HL1 were still only opening and closing their mouths and waving their arms. You had to suspend your disbelief a lot to imagine that real people were talking to you. The models were wooden and behaved like stiff robots. With HL2 you truly got the feeling that real people talked to you!
You couldn't tell in HL1 how characters felt just from looking at them, but in the sequel you could, whether they were worried, angry, excited, happy or sad, so you didn't need words anymore to convey such emotions.
The character behaviour is important for the story, since Gordon Freeman, who you control, is a nonentity and lives only through the reactions of the people around him.

As I said, the examples of 'innovation' you described are stylish features with no other significant point but to impress. And young people are more easily impressed. 'Gee Kate Walker has low morality because of Momo. This is amazing!'

I don't think so. A lot of people were impressed by the freedom, choices and the reputation system that Fallout offered. It was unlikely that two people played the game the same way. And it's not just that some number goes up or down if you do this or that. Your actions had consequences, and you experienced those.
Take the sequel, Fallout 2, as an example: Your reputation increased after you cleared a certain town section of rats. As a result, people reacted more friendly to you. Otherwise, if you blew up a nuclear power plant, certain people were pissed off and threw you out of town. As a player, you realize that you matter, that your actions matter, and that is quite important.
Even shooters learned from this, like Deus Ex or Bioshock, so this storytelling aspect grew into other genres.

Inteprid also suggested "quality of writing" as an aspect for improvement in adventures, and in your generalized refusal you deemed it "non important and unfit", kinda funny. Writing is important to tell a story, don't you think?

Planescape: Torment is always brought up as a shining example for great writing in games, and I don't think anything managed to top it. What made it so special? It managed to interweave philosophical questions, viewpoints on life, morality, ethics into an exciting, morbid tale about the immortality of the protagonist, who seeks his final rest. It's stunningly original, manages to subvert genre cliches and introduces characters that grow to your heart in the course of your journey.
Your companions play a pivotal role in some choices. At one point you come across a pillar of skulls and you are asked to make a sacrifice in exchange for information. You can sacrifice a part of yourself or one of your party members. It's one of the most memorable moments I have in gaming. I couldn't bring it over myself to sacrifice a companion, as much as I tried. I hesitated a lot and was intimidated by the choice. Talking about an affecting story!
This shows how top-notch writing and a devious choice, where you lose no matter what, can create a memorable moment.

It's a stretch to call "quality of writing" an innovation, and certainly, the adventure genre has its bright shining diamonds in this regard, like The Last Express, but I think nothing reached the depth, complexity and emotional impact of Planescape: Torment.

What would I like the adventure genre to adopt from other genres?
I think the wonder of exploring a world. And it's funny that adventures should adopt it, since it was their speciality at inception!
For example, I always loved the beginning of Psychonauts where you can go around the camp site and talk to people and find various collectibles. For me, a 3D environment always creates a greater sense of wonder and immersion and pulls me more into the game.
I guess an important aspect of this scene is that a lot you can do and experience isn't important for the progress of the story. Most adventures let you only do and experience relevant things for progression, which I find unfortunate. I would prefer it if developers cut down on the content of the main storyline/quest and instead allowed me to experience optional content that enriches the depiction of the world and adds to the understanding of the story.

I have a question for you:
Why should nothing grow back into the adventure genre when so much grew out of it?
For example, RPGs adopted the multiple choice dialogue system, for a long time a speciality of the adventure genre. Some action games increased their focus on exploration, puzzle solving (like lever pulling and crates pushing) and narration, and were called action-adventures as a result.

Exactly. 'Internal' innovation. Meaningful one.

Another question:
Why is innovation less meaningful when it comes from other genres?

Final thought: When you talk about storytelling, genre intern innovation doesn't exist, since storytelling transcends genres.

@AndreaDraco83: No worry.

[AndreaDraco83]

I will just throw a random thought out here, after saying that, generally speaking I tend to agree with ozzie, Intrepid and the other users advocating this point.

My random thought is this. Let's look back. Ozzie and Intrepid talked about morality, different choices and consequences and the storytelling richness that comes from these qualities. All incredibly true. And an adventure game did these things. A very old one.

Quest for Glory. Compelling moral choices, different narrative paths, consequences for every action, reputation coming from these choices. It did so in the eighties. Why can't nowaday adventures do so? If RPGs borrowed some elements from adventures, isn't it the time when adventures borrow something back from RPGs?

Surely, there is a budgetary reason behind it. OK, I get. But I seriously believe that there's one thing all the budgets in the world can't buy, and that's talent. Yes, yes, yes: of course, money can buy talent. But talent is everywhere, if one knows where to look. If one knows what his or her strengths are. And if there is a thing that adventures need today is writers. Real ones. Not developers turned writers who are incapable of imbue their stories with the slightest personality. But a real writer who can flesh out a believable and coherent world, a well-rounded and identifiable character and a strong supporting cast.

After we have that, it's time to look at graphics, facial animation - which, by the way, are pivotal to tell a grand story (even the best movie in the world will fail if the actors are dreadful) -, top-notch voice acting, freedom of choice, moral consequences and so on. But first, please, let the writers do their job