[Burns11]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

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.

So the best performance, as voted by the small committee, is the only great performance? Only one movie a year is allowed to be great? Even if you want to expand that to nominees, that's still very few movies/actors to be the only one's allowed to be great each year.

Know what doesn't overlap? Razzie winners/nominees and Oscar winners/nominees. If acting didn't matter, at least one of these would match.

Your assertion is asinine.

[Burns11]

Originally Posted by AndreaDraco83

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?

Richard Garriott might have to disagree.

[ozzie]

In which way would Richard Garriott disagree? That adventures should borrow elements from RPGs? Or that Quest for Glory is one of the first adventures that offers choices and consequences?
I guess you're refering to the virtue system of Ultima IV, but QfG is in many regards still an adventure, while Ultima isn't really.

Oh, and good points Andrea!
You're right, if we look into the past we'll find some interesting adventure titles that seem like a future for the genre that never came to be. Even old games like Rise of the Dragon, Azrael's Tear and The Pandora Directive feel bold, inventive and sometimes innovative to this very day, the latter also offering choices with consequences and some form of a reputation system.

[Ugignadl]

That's essentially my point: there are some *exceptional* titles within the genre, but unlike other genres the Good Ideas that come with these have not been adopted. It seems like with AGs, and especially with modern AGs, the "bar" or the "standard" seems to still be set with the Sierra and LucasArts classics of the 90s.

This is in contrast with other genres, and is the chief reason why the adventure genre really is genuinely dated.

[ozzie]

Yeah, when not the contemporary titles feel the most innovative, but those that are one to two decades old, then you know you have a problem.
A rough generalization of course, but I think the tendency is true.

[Burns11]

Originally Posted by ozzie

In which way would Richard Garriott disagree? That adventures should borrow elements from RPGs? Or that Quest for Glory is one of the first adventures that offers choices and consequences?
I guess you're refering to the virtue system of Ultima IV, but QfG is in many regards still an adventure, while Ultima isn't really.

Oh, and good points Andrea!
You're right, if we look into the past we'll find some interesting adventure titles that seem like a future for the genre that never came to be. Even old games like Rise of the Dragon, Azrael's Tear and The Pandora Directive feel bold, inventive and sometimes innovative to this very day, the latter also offering choices with consequences and some form of a reputation system.

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you were suggesting that RPGs borrowed that specific feature from AGs. Reading it again, I can see I just jumped to a conclusion without reading a little more carefully.

[ozzie]

Well, I didn't wrote it anyway!
But you're welcome.

[Collector]

I think that some of the points of contention in this discussion are really a distraction. I am not going to dismiss anyone that likes the 3-D shooters or RPGs, they are just not my cup of tea. This is becoming a bit of a pet peeve of mine, assuming that there is something wrong with others because they don't have the same likes or dislikes. However, adventures don't need to have stealth/action sequences or necessarily need a real time 3-D "WASD" interface to have innovation. Would merely mimicking these aspects from shooters or RPGs really be innovation? There are things that could be borrowed from other games, but cramming these two things down our throats would not automatically make for a better game. A non-interactive three dimensional object in a game is barely more interactive than a non-interactive two dimensional object and a crappy story that has action sequences is still a crappy story.

In the end, I don't think that it is so much of a matter of being dated, but more of a matter of losing much of what they once
had. Compelling stories, believable dialog, challenges that are organic to the story, not just random, illogical, non sequitur mechanical puzzles that are thrown in the way as a road block. These are things that have been missing in later adventures. This is not to say that all older adventures measured up to these standards, but the good ones have become much rarer.

The games that are often cited when lists of classics are made are often ones that created a rich, interactive environment. The ability to study and interact with elements in a game that aren't necessarily relevant to the story lends to enriching the environment. But adding elements that are now possible to these things, such as higher resolution images that can show facial expressions of NPCs can add to the game, both in terms of giving depth to the experience and well as adding to the narrative and giving addition information that could be relevant to game play.

In summary, I don't think that just adding innovation will fix what is wrong with many of the current crop of adventures as much as hiring real writers for the narrative and bringing back the depth of the environment that the games take place in would. Taking advantage of what technology can give certainly can't hurt. After all, In its hay day, Sierra was often one of the main pioneers at bring new technology to the table with their games.

[dekaneas297]

@ozzie

My friend, you are doing the same thing again. Using examples of other genres. The point of discussion is about adventures and I see no reference about them. Would facial expressions in Kate Walker make the storytelling so much better? I didn't wrote that it would hurt it but I don't believe it would elevate it (I think this is our disagreement). How would morality/reputation be implemented in Sherlock Holmes? We are talking about Sherlock Holmes who tries to solve a murder. Or Nina Kalenkow, Hercule Poirot, Nicole Bonnet etc. Adventure characters are "fixed" to an "investigative" role with a determined goal from start to finish. Some things just don't fit.

I also like games letting explore the world, but they will be critisized for irrelevant, time consuming environments that tire the gamer out. Newcomers to the genre especially.

As for your final questions. I think it has got to do with this: when facing a problem/issue there are two ways to handle it. Internally and externally. Internally means solution with your own strengths, externally assumes that there is something missing. And here is the issue (I think). I don't think that something is missing for the evolution of the genre. Just bad implementations that have brought this so-called stagnacy. The powerful aspects still exist, but they need developers to implement them wisely. Whereas you are determined that something is missing and we have to adopt aspects from other genres to evolve.

No bad feelings. Just passion for adventures. Cheers

@Burns11

Answering with irrelevant questions is no answering. Again: a great actor performance (facial expressions/emotions in a game) doesn't necessarily mean a great movie (game). Anything to say about it or are you going to use red herring again?

And learn some manners. I didn't call you/anyone a fool.

[Sughly]

There's been plenty of posts recently and I agree with a lot that's been said. But Collector is right - we digress. I haven't helped that myself and I know I brought up the genre comparisons, but I didn't mean to move into a discussion about what innovations we need. I've always said in multiple posts that I support innovation, and I'm not suggesting it wouldn't make the genre more interesting. I was also genuinely interested in hearing suggestions for innovation and hope I didn't come across like I was challenging people to name them instead.

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I don't think that something is missing for the evolution of the genre. Just bad implementations that have brought this so-called stagnacy. The powerful aspects still exist, but they need developers to implement them wisely. Whereas you are determined that something is missing and we have to adopt aspects from other genres to evolve.

No bad feelings. Just passion for adventures. Cheers

That's exactly it. I would quote Collector too but I don't think I need to repost something 2 posts above me . I'm really trying to find a response from people that can agree or disagree with the fact that the adventure point and click framework, as it is most commonly used today and as it was with the adventure games at their 'golden age', works. I'm trying to point out to those that label it dated or old that it's not necessarily the advancements (or lack of) with the mechanics but really just slack development and writing that have brought about this sense os staleness. Andrea said it himself, and I've said it numerous times. Writing, writing, writing.

One of the most important part of Collector's post was the idea of puzzle design, and it's true. The concept of puzzles in adventures works at it's best when it helps tell the story. Intense said it at the beginning of the thread - good puzzle design is part of the story, and therefore playing an adventure with good puzzle design is allowing the player to essentially involve themselves completely within the story as it's told.

With this in mind, I'm just saying, a good adventure with the 'dated' mechanics still works better than any game, to me, when it's done right, with or without innovation. I'm not sure many here can dispute that. Sure we can have innovation, but we can also appreciate the genre for what it can already achieve and appreciate the developers who could still use it well. With people such as Daedalic, that appreciation is already in full swing from me .

Now to end on a completely subjective note in backing up my comment that a good adventure is better than any game (in my opinion), I would say that despite the praise that Heavy Rain got, and the excitement surrounding it, as well as the level of enjoyment I got out of it - I'm still more keen to get my hands on The Whispered World, Deponia, and Gray Matter than I ever did for Heavy Rain. I suppose it was considering this that made me start this discussion. Despite the great innovations made, which I enjoyed immensely, it still doesn't quite compare in my eyes to an exciting new, well told and beautifully made classic adventure.

[ozzie]

Whoah, I didn't know that my writing is so hard to understand!

@Collector: I don't think you understood what we were exactly arguing about. While we were talking about inspiration that could be taken from shooters and RPGs, we were only talking about it in regards to storytelling.
The thought is that other genres actually became more accustomed, more familiar with telling a story, and made it a central part of the game.
Really, in this day and age nearly every kind of game tells some kind of story, be it an RTS, RPG, FPS, platformer,...
Storytelling isn't an integral part of a specific genre anymore, since it can be found in nearly everyone. There were times when adventures were pretty much the only games that told a solid story and in these times it was helpful to define the story as a part of the genre, but this doesn't help anymore, because it's not enough to differentiate it from other genres.
Since storytelling transcends genres, innovations made in storytelling transcends genres, too. Like with the facial expressions in HL2 or the reputation system in Fallout.
So this has nothing to do, at all, with stealth, fighting or leveling up. Since none of these things were mentioned I wonder how you read them into our posts. :-/

Then there's another point I want to make. Like I mentioned, RPGs like Fallout copied the multiple choice dialogue system, which was once basically a trademark of adventures and still is an elemental component. So it might be interesting to look how they evolved this component over the times. If you look at Mass Effect, then you see that they changed it quite a bit. This new system could be a natural fit for adventures, too.

@Sughly: I don't think we digress at all. Actually, we're still very much on topic. We were talking about storytelling innovations in other genres that the adventure genre failed to adopt, which makes it clear to me that yes, modern adventures are dated. They're also technologically behind the curve and mostly stuck with a mix of 2D and 3D. Pure 2D can still be fine for some games, sure, even in this space there's still enough room for innovation. But those are the exceptions, like Braid, World of Goo, even Machinarium.

I'm trying to point out to those that label it dated or old that it's not necessarily the advancements (or lack of) with the mechanics but really just slack development and writing that have brought about this sense os staleness. Andrea said it himself, and I've said it numerous times. Writing, writing, writing.

Well, even if the writing was top-notch it would be dated. I mean, you can like it. I would like it, too. I fell in love with the classic adventures, didn't I?
Innovation is not necessarily a benchmark for quality, though it helps to keep a title from being stale. It can still be good, anyway!

With this in mind, I'm just saying, a good adventure with the 'dated' mechanics still works better than any game, to me, when it's done right, with or without innovation.

Oops, you said it yourself, I see.
Nobody said that uninnovative games can't be enjoyable. Heck, I still enjoy, appreciate Heretic II, Fallout or Lands of Lore a lot.
But the thing is: the adventure genre has only dated games (though like I said, Azrael's Tear and Pandora Directive feel much more ahead of the curve for me than many contemporary titles). If I want something new in other genres I can get it, but that's not the case with adventures!
Nobody suggested that you can't enjoy dated games. To this very day a lot of people have fun with Monkey Island and Day of the Tentacle. But why should we stick with this? We already have those dated games, why do we need more dated games? Classics should be dated, not the newest titles. Sooner or later it comes the time for every game to be dated, but why should it already be on release?
While I enjoy(ed) the classic games, I don't want to basically play them over and over again. You need to innovate to keep things fresh, to perfect a form and reach new heights.

@dekaneas297: I think you have a very narrow view of what an adventure can be. I won't respond to your points, since I feel that the discussion between us isn't very constructive, so I leave it be.

[dekaneas297]

"You are ignorant", "You are narrow minded", etc etc.

Elitism and avoidance in dialogue. I wonder what it reminds me of
Ta ta

[Burns11]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

@Burns11

Answering with irrelevant questions is no answering. Again: a great actor performance (facial expressions/emotions in a game) doesn't necessarily mean a great movie (game). Anything to say about it or are you going to use red herring again?

I gave you a logical alternate way to look at the very evidence you presented, showing how great movies and great acting go hand in hand. I also gave you a real world example of an adventure game, Heavy Rain, where the facial animations made the game better, more poignant.

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

And learn some manners. I didn't call you/anyone a fool.

Then we have something in common, I didn't call you a fool either.

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

"You are ignorant", "You are narrow minded", etc etc.

Elitism and avoidance in dialogue. I wonder what it reminds me of
Ta ta

Nobody has said those words in this thread, and I find the only one showing elitism and avoidance in this thread is you. In fact, of everyone in this thread, you were the only one who had actively tried to insult someone.

[Warthur]

Wow, this is quite a thread. Here's my take on the topic.

First, to give you an idea of where I'm coming from: as far as I'm concerned, although there are few things I love more than a truly great adventure game, I feel no special obligation to "support" the genre for the genre's sake - because, to me, the genre of a game is secondary to whether or not it's a good game in the first place. Given a choice between a brilliant FPS and a mediocre adventure game, I'd go for the FPS every time.

That said, I think part of the issue with genres in games is that it is very possible to define them much too narrowly - and that's dangerous. Whilst in earlier decades genre boundaries in gaming were far more well-defined, more and more over the years it seems that game genres are more willing to borrow elements from each other as and when such elements would improve the game experience, or tell a particular part of the story better.

Of course adventure games are in the doldrums if you think the genre can't include any action whatsoever, and if you insist on a point-and-click (or text-based!) interface, and if you insist on 2D or (at most) pre-rendered artwork only rather than realtime rendered 3D, and if you consider a first-person perspective and WASD direct control of your avatar an abomination... but if you define a game genre in such narrow terms, of course you're not going to get many big releases these days. Because, if anything, games have become more diverse - or, at least, they're far more willing to blend the genres.

To use JRPGs as an example, in the late 1980s/early 1990s most people assumed that a JRPG must have a silent protagonist, and must have unavoidable random encounters, and must have a fantasy setting, and must have a linear plot, and must have a turn-based combat system, and so on and so on. Now, in 2010, I can think of games which are universally recognised as JRPGs, and yet which bluntly contradict some (or indeed all) of those assumptions.

If you want a genre to thrive, you have to allow for innovation: if you say "we've found the perfect model, people need to work on learning to use that to the best effect" you are going to stagnate. I am not saying this because I think innovation for its own sake is necessarily a good thing. But innovation provides a genre with two vitally important things:

- By exploring new game mechanics and means of telling a story - whether these methods are 100% new, or simply new to an adventure gaming context - innovation expands the range of techniques available to future adventure game designers by giving them examples of experiments that did and did not work.

- By bringing new mechanics into the adventure game genre, innovation permits us to look at the classic mechanics in a new light. How do we know that a particular mechanics or feature is really vital to the genre unless we experiment and see what happens when we try to write a game which doesn't use them?

Whether you're in the camp that wants novelty and innovation or whether you are after skilled and adept uses of tried-and-tested mechanics, all of us in this thread are really looking for one thing - quality. And I can think of nothing more likely to impair a game's quality than a dogmatic attitude on the part of its designers. That cuts both ways. A game designer who throws in elements of other genres that don't work quite so well for what he/she wants to achieve, simply because he/she wants to do something "innovative" without really thinking through whether said innovation is a good idea, is sabotaging their own game. (As important as I feel innovation is, undirected flailing around for newness for the sake of newness isn't likely to yield especially interesting results.) But at the same time, a game designer who refuses to consider different ways of implementing a particular part of a game because they've got a narrow definition of what an "adventure game" is - well, surely they are doing just as much damage to their own work!

Designers need to put quality first and genre second. If a particular project would be best served using adventure game mechanics, then it's going to end up a traditional adventure game. But if a designer realises that a particular part of the story or element of gameplay would really be best served by incorporating elements from other genres - or, shockingly, actually coming up with a genuinely original game mechanic - then they should do that as well. If that takes the game out of the "adventure game" category in the eyes of some, then that's a sacrifice I for one would be willing to make if it's going to improve the game. But it might not take it out of the genre. It might, in fact, broaden our ideas about what the genre is. And we need that right now.

PS: It's interesting that Marek wrote this article seven years ago and it still seems relevant.

[stepurhan]

Originally Posted by Burns11

Know what doesn't overlap? Razzie winners/nominees and Oscar winners/nominees. If acting didn't matter, at least one of these would match.

Sandra Bullock got one of each this year (though for different roles)

Originally Posted by Burns11

Your assertion is asinine.

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

"You are ignorant", "You are narrow minded", etc etc.

Elitism and avoidance in dialogue. I wonder what it reminds me of

As has already been requested, if you have personal issues with another poster, take it to PM. These sorts of posting do not advance the discussion and do not belong in a forum thread.

[Find Therma]

@Warthur - Thanks for posting the link to that article - is a very interesting and informative read that covers several areas discussed in this topic. Although quite long, it's well worth investing the time in reading it if you're closely following this thread. Plus it mentions the brilliance of Discworld Noir - which earns it extra brownie points in my eyes.

Oh, and some of what is said can actually be related to other storytelling mediums too. For example the 'show and don't tell' notion may be very simple, but is something that has certainly stuck in my mind as something to seriously consider next time I try and produce anything creative.

But anyway, thanks again for posting the link.