Is the adventure genre really 'dated' compared to others?
 

Sorry to post such a general thread, but I feel like I should take some heat off the Heavy Rain thread with all my ramblings amongst others and begin a new point of conversation.

What I'm interested in hearing about is this idea that adventure games are somehow 'stuck in the past'. My opinion is that other game genres have equally dated mechanics, and if there's any evolution in gaming that each largely represents is that action genres have evolved in leaps and bounds graphically, where as adventure games over the years have evolved the way we tell stories in games.

To me, if games are becoming beter at telling stories, it's only because adventures have begun the process before them. And to be fair, adventures are making attempts to catch up graphically (and have done more than that with Heavy Rain), but because of the limited audiences compared to other genres they simply don't seem to find large enough budgets.

So, why do people refer to adventure games as being in the past when other genres haven't really gone anywhere either? Is the mechanics behind point-and-click games so bad? It seems to be that the focus people have now is on wanting games to become more real and immersive. That they can enter a world and make a story in this direction if they want or that way if they prefer. Though this would make an excellent game, I fail to see how making a great linear game with a solid story and character development is dated because it uses old mechanics and it's linear.

If I read a book, I don't mind the occassional pick-a-path. But I prefer to read a Dostoyevsky and trust in his ability to tell me a story unchanged by my decisions. Maybe a bad example, but you get my point.

I don't consider linearity alone to be a bad thing. Branching paths don't always make for a better narrative. The real issue lies in the lack of interactivity and the static nature of adventure game worlds.

In the vast majority of adventure games, the world in which you're walking around in is completely static, pending your progression. Until you solve the next puzzle or talk to the right person, time is frozen indefinitely. Characters stand in the same spot or follow the same path, repeating themselves over and over. A lot of games don't even bother giving the illusion of a day/night cycle.

Couple this with pre-rendered backgrounds which, by their very nature, are flat and mostly static, and you're often left with a world that feels underpopulated and lifeless.

A lot of adventure games still feature obtuse puzzles that kill progression and frustrate the majority of players. It's these type of things that date the genre, not necessarily the point & click interface.

As the genre that's supposedly all about narrative immersion, adventure game developers should be building better game worlds (and better narratives) in 2010, because the last few years have cooked up very little to be proud of.

I mostly agree with you, but I don't think that pre-rendered backgrounds necessarily need to be this way. Pre-rendered can be animated to seem less static. The wind blowing leaves, moving water, etc. I would rather see this than polygonal trees and other artificial looking objects in the game's environment.

Other points you raise have solutions. NPCs could be given a simple AI to not be moving around in the same pattern, like a stuck record. make the world around the protagonist more interactive, even if many elements aren't part of a puzzle or the narrative. Even the classic Sierra games allowed this. They let you explore their worlds on a greater level than most modern adventures. There are ways to effectively do these things without resorting to real time full 3-D graphics and first person view.

You said it all yourself. The biggest problem is money. It's a fact that adventure games were always somewhat marginal genre, so their developers often couldn't afford top-quality production, even they have an excelent idea on mind.

I agree with you that the other, more popular genres, really don't evolve much, except in the terms of visual and audio quality. But often this is not due to the creativity and new ideas from their designers, but soley due the more powerful technology available. Let's face it, most of the new games are basically just a demo of the new features of the next generation video cards.

I admit that I love "eye-candy" games, but the graphic and the graphic engine is not everything. It is very important aspect of any game, for sure, but in some cases, the other elements of the game can be superior to the graphic, which will justify the "worth playing" title.

Wait. The adventure genre was always about being marginal and low-quality? This is news to me. I sort of recall adventure games being EXTREMELY popular at some point.

It's true, really good adventure games can get away with pre-rendered backgrounds and stilted game worlds, because they mask those things using the methods you've mentioned, as well as many other techniques. The Longest Journey is a good example. However, I still think that, in this day and age, adventure game developers should be looking into making proper 3D games if they want to create a believable world. It's worth keeping in mind that not all adventures need to achieve this, though.

No, adventuregames aren't more dated than any other genre as far as gameplay goes.

Interactivity is a whole other matter. All games where a little less interactive in the beginning compared to now but as technology advanced other genres have evolved in this department while the adventure genre as a whole has not. I think the reason behind this is simply because the gameplay in adventuregames doesn't require it in the same way.

This has resulted in the fact that when it comes to technical features the adventure genre is without a doubt a little behind. The reason for this is of course money as already been pointed out.

To be frank, interactivity and technical features are the things that almost the entire gaming industry has been about for the last couple of years. Although I think that's starting to change now. At least a little bit. Since the notions of graphics as eyecandy and the goal to make ordinary people (not only computer geeks) play games are starting to get popular the notion of having as much interactivity as possible are starting to wear thin. With the new online-distribution of games (Steam, Gog ect.) making it easier to make simpler games even the notion of games stuffed with technical features are beginning to be questioned.

I agree with Sughly and Henke - the genre isn't dated compared to the others. Hardly surprising as for years there hasn't been any good competition in this aspect. "The game mechanics are dated" argument is brought up by people who need some excuse for why the genre isn't as popular as the others. In truth, besides a small number of experimental indies, all games are pretty stagnant at the moment. Very often they're actually getting simplified to bring in the inexperienced and less demanding crowd.
Your problems with the genre seem to stem from your personal expectations towards adventure games and mostly concern secondary features (like the day/night cycles). They have nothing to do with the genre being dated or not. Specific puzzles are obtuse or not dependent on how well or how bad they were designed. However, you won't find a player looking at one of the classic adventure games from the 90s and thinking: "those puzzles were so great back then, but now they're dated". Most puzzles from classic titles actually surpass what the newest adventure games have to offer in terms of gameplay.

I think that when a lot of people refer to AG's being "stuck in the past" they are talking about lack of certain features such as online multi-player, up to the minute 3d graphics (although of course some AG's are 3D) etc. which are now standard fare in many types of game.

However, many of these things don't apply to AG's. Firstly, online multiplayer is fine when games are competative, i.e. trying to beat your opponent, such as shooters, RTS' etc. but AG's simply don't work that way. They are single player, almost by default, and the challenging element is trying to overcome obstacles/work out how to progress in the story, rather than direct competition between people (or even person vs AI) or levelling up etc.

Generally, the aim of an AG is to find out what happens in the story, rather than "beat the game" or the opponent.

It's correct to say that AG's are a comparatively old genre of course, but if you look how far they have come since Zork or even Kings Quest it's obvious that the genre has evolved over time. Whilst the basic mechanics haven't changed much (as they haven't for shooters or RTS/RPG etc.) many new things have been tried and succeded (or failed!) such as FMV, 3D graphics and a refining of the interface from text to cycling through cursors with a right click, to "smart" cursors.

AG's to my mind are not dated compared to others, just older than many and "different" to the reflex testing console games that seem to be most popular at the moment. We may still be distracting guards with madly combined inventory items sometimes, but shooters are still shooting people, RTS' are still pitting army against army, RPG's are still attacking skeletons with swords and levelling up etc... regardless of how good the graphics are, what new weapons are available, whether they are online or not etc...

Marginal doesn't necessarily mean low-quality as well. I've never said that. But it is a fact that adventure games are not as popular as some other genres among the wide gaming audience, especially in the recent years. That is what I've meant by "marginal".

But you did say they couldn't afford Top-Quality productions, which is ironic because Lucasarts and Sierra were all about Top-Quality. I know EXACTLY what you meant by Marginal, and that is only relevant to today. You stated that it "ALWAYS" was like that, which is absolutely false.

I wrote in other threads that point and click adventure games are stuck in the past and I want to give a full explanation of that.
First of all I didn't say that the other genres they haven't stuck. They stuck as well, reproducing the same priniciples, the same rules, and the same stories.
But from adventure game developers I want MORE than I want from first person shooter developers.I assume tha they have a vision about computer games, so I want them to have more fantasy and not only about the story, but about the gameplay as well. I want from them to break the rules that previous developers invited when the technology it was older.

I can't take another Art of Murder game or Tunguska, and name it adventure game! Because it is NOT!
They are limited formulas and doing NOTHING that you don't expect. Sure they are great point and clicks in the past like Broken Sword, Longest Journey, and many others, but then many developers stuck in this formula and reproduce the same things again and again!! And the same about the story! A ancient conspiracy, and then travel to different places all over the world. This is what I call lack of creativity!

In my opinion, what David Cage made is more an adventure game than typical adventure games. Because he break the rules and invented new ones. He create a new language in storrytelling.

Don't take me wrong, I love point and click games. But I hate all those they use it just to sell copies and not create a quality and creative game.
Overclocked and Culpa Innata for me its a good example of innovative point and click. Still I need more!

Explore more of the indie adventure games then. There is a lot of creativity an innovative ideas to be found amongst them.

I said the genre itself was always somewhat marginal, which is absolutely true. I've got into adventure games myself at the end of the 90's, so I don't know how the situation was before, but from what I've read and heard from most of the people that are into computer games, adventures never were as popular as some other types of games.

As for the top production, the exception just confirms the rule. Sure, publishers such as Lucas Arts and Sierra, could afford top production despite the popularity of the genre itself. But it's also the fact that there were many great adventure titles which have some limitations, most often in the terms of the graphic engine used, because of financial issues.

In the 80's and even early 90's Adventure games were massive! Sierra and Lucas Arts etc. were putting out some seriously big budget games and were market leaders (esp. Sierra in the 80's) before dying down later in the 90's.

Ok sorry for the late reply after posting the thread, but I'm really interested in all the replies, some great comments! Here's my attempt at a reply...

orient - interesting opening points there, particularly you're comment on needing better narratives and worlds in 2010. If the lineup of games for 2010 is anything to go by though I'm sure there will be a lot more life.

Collector - I think you're defence of 2D is spot on. If an adventure is failing to create the worlds and community life it's not because it's 2D, it's just because it failed to do so just as 3D fails to do so plenty. I personally believe adventure titles in 2D have in some cases succeeded in creating worlds bursting with much more life, character, and energy than just about any 3D world. For this my personal preference lies in 2D actually. But, as I said, that's just personal preference. 3D is great, but should never be considered a more immersive experience.

Henke - I really like you're point on what the focus of recent years has been, and how it's changing. I think you're right, and I think it's been very gimmicky actually. I like to think things will change for the better, but there will be a large percentage of gamers killing things for many years to come unfortunately. The good thing with Heavy Rain is we're seeing the potential for adventures to distract even these types momentarily.

Ascovel - Your comments on trying to attract inexperienced players is true. This is unfortunate for the most part, but it does start allowing things like GOG to become more popular, and that can only be a good thing. More money is more development, and hopefully more improvements. And I definately agree that ALL genres are stagnant.

Intense Degree - Great, great reply. You're point on people's definition of adventures being stuck in the past is right for most people. I think you're comment on adventure puzzles progressing story rather than versing opponents is extremely interesting and is the core of my love for narrative in adventure games.

kotkin - I think that's a fair enough defence, but to say you don't want another Tunguska or Art of Murder isn't to say no more point and clicks but simply BETTER ones (which you do point out yourself). That doesn't make the point and click stuck in the past though. I would say a re-wording is 'the general narrative of most adventures has become repetitive and void of creativity'. Which I would largely agree with. Again though, 2010's lineup proves that creativity in adventure narratives is far from becoming stagnant.


To continue Intense's point on story progression in adventures: people often comment on this frustration in using item with item to achieve so-and-so and getting stuck amongst this mechanic, but being stuck is simply a sign of poor game development and not mechanic. The fact that good puzzle design genuinely puts the player in the position of progressing the actual story is so great and immersive, it allows for that extra level.

Performing a puzzle isn't an excuse to get to the next part of the story. Good game design means the puzzle is PART of the story. For example, using rods and various technologies in The Dig's world doesn't mean you get to see what happens next, it's all a part of discovering what the world was and is, which is the whole story really. Sure other genres are getting better story, but in the end THEY are largely throwing in gameplay as an excuse to progress story. It's still largely 'kill lots of this and THEN you can have a bit more story'.

Heavy Rain is most definately not the first to create this sense of interactivity with it's characters for adventures, it just seems to have transformed the item system into 'up down left right shake' system that is easier to pick up and run with, and for the general non-adventure player to play an adventure and NOT get stuck. But in my opinion, the item system still holds strong and carries this sense of narrative progression and involvement so well, and for me tells a better story than any multi-pathed or free roaming world ever has.

People may say the world of Fallout 3 for example is one of the most immersive, but for me the world of Monkey Island, or The Dig just to name a few beats it hands down. They ooze character, story, history that polygons and textures just fail to do for me. Again, maybe just personal preference.

Sorry for the extremely long post that not many will want to read anyways :P I just had a few thoughts I wished to expel.

I agree with the notion that adventure games are stuck in the past.
Even if it would be true that all other genres didn't evolve either except for technology, then at least they evolved somehow!
But honestly, I'm kinda sick of hearing that FPSs didn't evolve, because they did, a lot!

Shooters started out as linear romps through corridors, killing everything in sight and the way. Occasionally there was some key to collect and some door to open, but that was all the deviation.
System Shock added a lot of adventure and RPG elements and gave all the action a proper back story. Quake gave us mouselook (I think). Dark Forces pronounced the story more with cut scenes and briefings between missions.
Half Life had occasional puzzle solving, many friendly NPCs to talk to, Barry as a companion and a quite fascinating sci-fi tale that was more than a lame excuse for some shooting. Basically, this game proved that shooters can tell quite gripping tales! BTW, it told all the story without a single cutscene! That's the most special about it!
Jedi Knight introduced the "morality meter": choose if you want to belong to the dark or light side of the force!
Thief was the first shooter to truly make you feel vulnerable. Also, your goal moved away from mindless killing to...well, stealing something, maybe, but it wasn't just killing. Of course, there was still lots of killing involved, but you also had to sneak around in the dark. Thief is the foundation of the stealth sub-genre.
Quake 3: Arena perfected the ego shooter as a multiplayer tournament game.
While most shooters moved gradually away from corridors, Far Cry went all out and gave you some islands, an "open world", to explore. Far Cry 2 took it even further and also introduced survival elements.
While I guess that vehicle sections featured in shooters before Halo, it at least popularized them.
Deus Ex puts lots of RPG into the shooter, so much that it's still debated whether it's a RPG or a shooter. Personally I think it's a shooter at the RPG end of the spectrum, just like Mass Effect 2 (I presume) is a RPG at the shooter end of the spectrum. It also gives you lots of choice, conversations,...
Half Life 2 introduced a proper physics engine, which is more than just a visual gimmick and actually has a big influence on the shooting and puzzling.
Then there is the Call of Duty series of course. Its ambition is to be very cinematic, to offer you a series of tightly scripted set pieces in which you fight along fellow NPC soldiers against enemies on the battlefield. Or watch senseless slaughter of helpless civilians by terrorists. Anyway, you're not alone, you're just one of many!
And what's with Mirror's Edge? It's somehow a Jump 'n Run, but in first person. And shooting is involved! Portal was a game that was badmouthed in this forum as a shooter. If that's the case, it's a very clever one.


That's just the stuff that was important for the shooter genre. Of course, none of these titles break conventions (except for the last two, probably), but they build on them, they evolve. If they'd break the conventions then they wouldn't exactly belong to the genre any more. It's probably the same with Heavy Rain, I don't know.

But take Half Life 2 again: it did something very important, something which the most technologically advanced adventures (HR is the exception I won't mention anymore) still haven't achieved: believable facial expressions. Every character seems very alive through the emotions they showcase. I can still imagine how Alyx looks and talks to me, so this definitely adds something to the storytelling. Shooters also learned how to tell a story through the environments. HL2 had a lot of scenes where you just could tell what happened from looking at the scenery. Bioshock did the same with Rapture. Or there are scenes that play out in front of your eyes, and you may or may not be able to interrupt them.
Actually, shooters honed their storytelling skills quite well in this regard.

Compare this to adventure games. Honestly, how did they evolve in terms of storytelling, at all? I think the last adventure that did anything special in this regard was Syberia. That's 8 years ago now. A long time! It's not that the genre is just stuck in terms of gameplay, which I would say it is since Discworld Noir from 1999, but not much happened in regards to storytelling either! It's quite depressing.
Of course, overall exceptions exist, but only on consoles, like Hotel Dusk and the Phoenix Wright series. But they are Japanese adventure games and therefore have different roots, just like Japanese RPGs.


Genres evolve when new elements are added while basic conventions are adhered to. Modern adventures only follow conventions. And dumb down.


Edit: BTW, the game that told me the best story? That made me relate to some of the most memorable characters, confronted me with the most agonizing dilemmas and raised many philosophical questions? Planescape: Torment.

I, too, don't think the adventure genre is dated - but it's a bit conservative :)

I like 2D point & click adventures, and hope there will be made lots of them in the years to come. But I'm also a bit sad so few 3D adventures are created - and by that I'm not talking about 3D graphics alone. It's games with 3D gameplay and 3D exploration that are few and far between.

@Ozzie

I think that you may be comparing apples and oranges to some extent.

You've said that Adventure games are not stuck in terms of gameplay but of storytelling.

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 may sound trite, but I honestly think it's true and don't intend it as a criticism in any way. That basic mechanic, storytelling for adventures and shooting for shooters is unchanged, although it has developed in terms of graphics, control methods, physics and gameplay generally for both genres.

If you look at the earliest adventure games they were text only. Next came graphics (and that was a serious development!) and then the parser interface was replaced by point & click etc. and this has continued to evolve as well, although the basic mechanic of controlling a character around in a story remains unchanged in the same way that controlling a character round with a gun and shooting people does.

One thing I will admit though is that the best shooters (as far as I'm aware, not really playing them personally) are the most recent ones, i.e. MW2, whereas many of the best Adventure games (although this is of course highly subjective) are older ones. However, I feel this is to do with budget constraints and the fact that it is more of a niche genre (as stated in previous posts) rather than the whole genre simply being stuck in the past.

Also can or should the art of storytelling change? A well told story can stand the test of time (i.e. dickens) and even though the language can be out of date the basic principles of storytelling, esp. of the novel are, at their heart, essentially the same, even if the words and methods (graphics etc.) evolve.

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. So far I didn't notice any differences in storytelling devices between the genres.
Heavy Rain may be the first game that solely builds its mechanics around storytelling, or maybe better said, reduces them for storytelling. So that's why I doubt that it's an adventure.

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.

You also shouldn't forget, the adventure genre is much older than the shooter genre, going back to 1980, to a game called Adventure, which was solely about exploration, and not much about storytelling. RPGs are just as old, but evolving to this day.

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.

Edit: sorry, I edited this post again and again over the duration of a half hour, so if someone was already in the process of answering, sorry again! :(