[cbman]

Some people seem to be saying "Adventure games have to become more like other video games to survive". But it's because they're not like other games that a lot of fans like them. A lot of people who play adventure games play very few, if any other types of game. That is because they don't like them. These people don't give a flying V guitar about 3D or otherwise! I have gotten people with no interest in video games whatsoever to play through AGs and had the feedback that they 'don't usually like video games but that was pretty good'.

One of my half-serious caveats has always been that adventure games are the genre for people who don't actually like computer games.

Because of who it's core audience is it will always be a niche genre. Get over it. Stop dreaming of the world and his dog playing these games and just get your own personal enjoyment of them. The games are popular enough and (relatively) cheap enough to make that the genre isn't going to die out.

There are people who like Adenture games for what they are. People need to just accept that and stop hectoring on what they should and shouldn't be. If anything is going to kill the genre it's all of the negativity and focusing on what they aren't, rather than a positive focus on what they are and why people like them. And if you could somehow poll the actual audience (not just the ultra-keen hardcore gamers on forums like this) on their priorities for a good AG then i am very confident that 3D wouldn't even make the list of responses. audience en masse don't understand such technical issues but they DO know what they like.

[UPtimist]

But then where's the progress? Should we just accept that "oh, we're a niche genre, let's not even try to change or make any money on it".

Then the only ones that have any real progress are the indie developers, and they don't have the budget for any really major breakthroughs, only the kind of semi-cosmetic ones that Machinarium has (don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it and hope that game developers learn from it, but it's not like there's that much groundbreaking in it, just a different kind of an approach).

And the genre is completely stagnant. I don't see why we shouldn't try to strive for a bigger market just because it might be hard. It's also not like all the AGs are suddenly going to try to stop being what they are now.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by cbman

One of my half-serious caveats has always been that adventure games are the genre for people who don't actually like computer games.

Farmville is the type of game for people who don't like computer games.

[cbman]

Originally Posted by UPtimist

But then where's the progress? Should we just accept that "oh, we're a niche genre, let's not even try to change or make any money on it".

Then the only ones that have any real progress are the indie developers, and they don't have the budget for any really major breakthroughs, only the kind of semi-cosmetic ones that Machinarium has (don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it and hope that game developers learn from it, but it's not like there's that much groundbreaking in it, just a different kind of an approach).

And the genre is completely stagnant. I don't see why we shouldn't try to strive for a bigger market just because it might be hard. It's also not like all the AGs are suddenly going to try to stop being what they are now.

What constitutes 'progress'? A good game added to the genre is progress. A bad game added to it isn't. What's the technology used got to do with it?

Why does something have to be 'ground breaking'? If i'm enjoying a game i don't sit worrying because it's not 'ground breaking'.

What i'm getting at is that if people are so worried about not 'stagnating' and widening the audience and all the rest of it then they run the risk of simply forgetting what people actually like about the games in the first place. And then the core audience will stop buying them (and the core audience are not people on internet forums) and then people will stop making them. Myst wasn't better in 3D. You could say that was because the 3D in the game was done crappily but it wouldn't be any different with good 3D either! It's not needed for the gameplay.

Tetris isn't 3D is it? And that has to be one of the most popular video games in the world and is standing the test of time far more than any game that has been released recently will. I don't think the typical adventure game fan gives a stuff about the technology. The general public do not care! They care about how nice the game is to look at and how fun it is to play. Full stop.

[cbman]

Originally Posted by steve ince

farmville is the type of game for people who don't like computer games.

:p

[Hannes]

Leave it to David Cage and his games to cause a stir on these forums lol...

I honestly don't see the big attraction in 3D. It is more realistic, and it does wonderful things.. But I happen to enjoy my 2D/2.5D games, and I feel that they're more artistic and nicer to look at in the long term. I like beauty, and I like art. What's wrong with that? lol.

Well, to be honest I can see why. The only realistic way for ag genre to ever "rise" again, is through appealing graphics that are up to date. I don't really know why the mainstream audience doesn't like 2D, but then again, the story hasn't meant much for a long while. It's all about graphics and online playing these days... Shoot this, kill that, bargain with the merchant and you level up and so on. I don't have an easy solution and to be honest, I don't really want to see this happen anyway.

Usually with better graphics, also comes a major change within the genre and it'll transform into something completely different. I love adventure games because I enjoy exploring, interacting and puzzle solving... And of course, the many wonderful stories.
But separate one from the other and you'll be repeatedly pushing buttons like a damn trained monkey, which this is not my idea of a fun time, and offers absolutely nothing that would stimulate my brain cells.

[imisssunwell]

Just a sign where gaming is going to be in a couple of years:

http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/NewsCom-5...?CT=1#Comments

Combine that with *real* 3D (semi-holographics) graphics (not what we have today!) and I can see pre-rendered backgrounds belonging in the world of mobile (i)phones.

What I'm trying to say is that things move forward, there will always be games not embracing the advances in home entertainment industry but there is a danger to confine themselves within the niche market. Of course there will always be a couple of exceptions to the rule, but at a time when all the hype is new 3D TV sets and things like Natal, isn't it a little 90s to argue if 3D graphics is the way forward or not?

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by imisssunwell

Just a sign where gaming is going to be in a couple of years:

http://www.n4g.com/xbox360/NewsCom-5...?CT=1#Comments

Combine that with *real* 3D (semi-holographics) graphics (not what we have today!) and I can see pre-rendered backgrounds belonging in the world of mobile (i)phones.

What I'm trying to say is that things move forward, there will always be games not embracing the advances in home entertainment industry but there is a danger to confine themselves within the niche market. Of course there will always be a couple of exceptions to the rule, but at a time when all the hype is new 3D TV sets and things like Natal, isn't it a little 90s to argue if 3D graphics is the way forward or not?

I highly doubt this 3d TV thing is going anywhere for a while. Incredibly expensive.

Anyway, I don't think anyone's arguing about 3D, but the direction of adventure in general. As you know, there are many adventure games in 3D and just because some are still in 2D, doesn't mean the genre is dragging. Read the interview made with The Whispered World creators, and you'll see what I mean.

[imisssunwell]

Originally Posted by Hannes

I highly doubt this 3d TV thing is going anywhere for a while. Incredibly expensive.

Anyway, I don't think anyone's arguing about 3D, but the direction of adventure in general. As you know, there are many adventure games in 3D and just because some are still in 2D, doesn't mean the genre is dragging. Read the interview made with The Whispered World creators, and you'll see what I mean.

Most recent adventures I've played had pre-rendered backgrounds, Dreamfall excluded (I assume Heavy Rain as well but haven't played that one) I wouldn't call any of the rest an eye candy, all were clearly lacking in the graphics department.

The holo 3D may be expensive now but it shapes the direction for the future, HDTVs were bloody expensive 4 years ago and now they have the price normal TVs used to have. It is expensive now but this doesn't mean anything really.

[dekaneas297]

Originally Posted by Hannes

I don't really know why the mainstream audience doesn't like 2D

I think it's the mainstream audience that does like 2D, while the "radicals" don't. Main reasons: age and influence by other genres.

[Sughly]

Originally Posted by dekaneas297

I think it's the mainstream audience that does like 2D, while the "radicals" don't. Main reasons: age and influence by other genres.

Haha, there was about 8 posts I wanted to quote but I'll just quote this one. Because I'm lazy.

But it's so true in my opinion, and steve put it pretty succinctly above by saying non-gamers play farmville. From research I've found, Machinarium has succeeded not because every adventure fan bought it but because it turned heads of people from many different influences.

And for the person raving about people saying adventures aren't in the mainstream, that's not what i said in my previous post. I said quite the opposite, actually, in that adventures are beginning to appeal to wider audiences with titles like 'Machinarium' and 'Ben There Dan That' because of how different they are. I've argued 2D to death in the past (as have others for and against 3D in adventures), but at the moment I honestly believe many gamers are looking for 2D animation and interesting art styles that are hard to find or differentiate on lower budgets when using 3D. *edit* That's where a lot of today's adventures are picking up.

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by imisssunwell

Most recent adventures I've played had pre-rendered backgrounds, Dreamfall excluded (I assume Heavy Rain as well but haven't played that one) I wouldn't call any of the rest an eye candy, all were clearly lacking in the graphics department.

The holo 3D may be expensive now but it shapes the direction for the future, HDTVs were bloody expensive 4 years ago and now they have the price normal TVs used to have. It is expensive now but this doesn't mean anything really.

You must not play many games, then. Have a look at the most recent releases, I'm sure you'll find a couple of 3d adventures that please you.

As for the 3d tv, I see what you're saying but we're talking about more advanced technology than just HD television. This is why I think it'll take longer for the prices to drop.

Originally Posted by Sughly

I've argued 2D to death in the past (as have others for and against 3D in adventures), but at the moment I honestly believe many gamers are looking for 2D animation and interesting art styles that are hard to find or differentiate on lower budgets when using 3D. *edit* That's where a lot of today's adventures are picking up.

Totally agree.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Playing Mass Effect 2 can often feel like watching one long cutscene, the kind that only adventure games could offer. But guess what? The cutscene is now the gameplay.

Originally Posted by Hannes

Well, to be honest I can see why. The only realistic way for ag genre to ever "rise" again, is through appealing graphics that are up to date. I don't really know why the mainstream audience doesn't like 2D, but then again, the story hasn't meant much for a long while.It's all about graphics and online playing these days... Shoot this, kill that, bargain with the merchant and you level up and so on. I don't have an easy solution and to be honest, I don't really want to see this happen anyway.

The story hasn't meant much for a long while? Not necessarily. Have you played Mass Effect 2, for example? The consensus among most (if not all) gamers who have played and loved it - and I'm talking about gamers who play a variety of games from action/adventures to RPGs to side scrollers to traditional 2D adventures - is that ME2 has an amazing, emotionally and morally involving story, incredibly memorable characters, a deep world (or in this case, galaxy) to explore and discover. And that's before they expound on how beautiful the game looks.

Based on what I've read in comments from various sites and reviews, many gamers of many kinds of game love a good story. Good as in well written and deep. But looking at the vast majority of all kinds of games coming out, a quick glance may not give that impression. Certain games, however, like Mass Effect 2, Heavy Rain, and the upcoming Alan Wake prove that a seriously substantive story can still be sexy to most any gamer and they will buy the game in good part because of it.

Watch this brief clip (make sure to select 480p or 720p at full screen for HD quality) for an example of character interaction and dialogue in ME2. You can see the high quality of the writing and voice acting, the handsomely choreographed animation, down to facial expressions and subtle eye movements, and other things you traditionally see in CG cutscenes in adventure games. One difference here is that sometimes certain dialogue choices YOU make can cause a character to shed tears and cry (spoiler)- in real time - thus deepening the emotional impact of the story. How often can you do that in a pre-rendered unplayable cutscene in an adventure game?

You'll notice that this cutscene is in fact taking place in-game, in real time. You can select your responses to the character as the dialogue happens. So in essence you are still playing the game.

Do you think it compares to pre-rendered yet unplayable cutscenes in 2D adventure games? 3D has advanced to the point where high res textures, dynamic lighting and shadows, and other features you used to only find in unplayable adventure game cutscenes can be rendered in real time, while the gameplay happens. Often times some adventure game purists will point out a few imperfections, which look to be more nitpicking than substantive critique.

As for story, ask readers at sites like Joystiq, Kotaku, Ars Technica, and even the New York Times and you'll probably find that a great many of them love a good solid story to help immerse them in a game.

Given that, don't you think that 3D can also express things like emotionality and other visual and even aural cues to help enhance the story? (For example, watch this in-game clip, skip to 6:15)

Usually with better graphics, also comes a major change within the genre and it'll transform into something completely different. I love adventure games because I enjoy exploring, interacting and puzzle solving... And of course, the many wonderful stories.
But separate one from the other and you'll be repeatedly pushing buttons like a damn trained monkey, which this is not my idea of a fun time, and offers absolutely nothing that would stimulate my brain cells.

Why do you think the adventure game will transform into something completely different if a series of games are done in real time 3D? Demanding action sequences requiring quick reflexes and accuracy with a gun are not necessarily inextricable from 3D. There have been 3D games that have none of those. You saw this yourself with realMyst and Myst V: End of Ages ( gameplay clip & walkthrough *small spoiler* as an example).

In short, 3D today is capable of achieving what pre-rendered backgrounds can, and often more! Now, I'm not stating that 3D should replace 2D at all. I'm merely stating that 3D is now more than ever one very powerful direction that some adventure games can choose to go if the budget and skill and talent allow.

Considering how advanced real time 3D has become - and it's STILL advancing, don't forget - it's now more possible than ever to experience any kind of game, including adventure games, in 3D, and WITHOUT necessarily having to include any kind of action, but instead offer intellectual, cerebral, and even emotionally based challenges (like what Heavy Rain and Mass Effect 2 offer).

Real time 3D is today perfectly able to stand side by side with pre-rendered 2D as a strong way of presenting an adventure game. And yet there are certain features in 3D that a 2D game can never achieve, features that often enrich the story, offer emotional depth and resonance, and further immerse players in the adventure.

It CAN BE DONE and it can be commercially successful on both PC and consoles, with puzzlework and enigmas that challenge the brain and emotions, and without ever a hint of action demanded of the player. It simply needs to be done by at least a couple or so highly skilled and talented developers, and marketed brilliantly and aggressively.

[Hannes]

Not going to quote all of the above, but...

No, I haven't played Mass Effect yet. It's on my to buy list though. Bioshock 1 & 2 are also great examples of how a great story is done. I am not saying that none of FPS games have a plot. But from my experience, the only fps before Bioshock series (and now Mass Effect) that actually had something interesting to offer plot-wise was Half Life 2. And even Half Life 2, as magnificent as it might've been, doesn't really have a clear story.

And of course, 3D doesn't automatically mean that the genre has to change, and not all developers think that way. But if you look at the two only major releases during 2000's; Dreamfall and Fahrenheit, you can see how 3D actually changed everything. Luckily Fahrenheit didn't have any effect on the genre (excluding HoT's Overclocked), and altho I love Dreamfall, the same goes for it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Hannes

Most recent FPS games, however don't really have an interesting plot, if they have a plot at all, and before you know it, you're shooting things and running around buildings, without a logical reason given other than "it's a war" or "these are you enemies".

3D is more than just FPSs, of course. I wouldn't fixate on FPSs in that regard. You can't really sum up the entirety of what 3D offers based solely on one genre that uses 3D.

And of course, 3D doesn't automatically mean that the genre has to change, and not all developers think that way.

Of course.

But if you look at the two only major releases during 2000's; Dreamfall and Fahrenheit, you can see how 3D actually changed everything. Luckily Fahrenheit didn't have any effect on the genre, and altho I love Dreamfall, the same goes for it.

Luckily? I dunno. I'm thinking it would have to take a lot more than one or even two 3D games to have an impact on how a genre shifts and changes. It would have to need a small sea change. A few very commercially successful games offering new, exciting ways to experience story, puzzle, and exploration cradled in high production values. Some of them can even be charming and inventive little indie titles that don't need the latest graphics engine. Most importantly, the marketing of such games must be incredibly aggressive.

The bottom line is that there's way too much homogeneity within the genre. Let's see more adventures in 3D, more adventures in side scroller form, more adventures in classic 2D but with a brilliant twist on gameplay and quality, more adventures on the consoles. Let's see DIVERSITY within the genre.

[UPtimist]

I agree completely. Especially with the last part.

Originally Posted by cbman

Tetris isn't 3D is it? And that has to be one of the most popular video games in the world and is standing the test of time far more than any game that has been released recently will. I don't think the typical adventure game fan gives a stuff about the technology. The general public do not care! They care about how nice the game is to look at and how fun it is to play. Full stop.

Yeah, but if next the creators of Tetris make... Detris, a game with different colored blocks and so on, in the end no one's going to give a damn. Now, I get what you're saying and agree to an extent, but if they just keep on making the same games over and over, eventually people are going to get bored. You have to keep things moving, make innovations, to keep the genre fresh and interesting. Many AGs now are already just the same puzzles in a different "cake" so to speak, and it gets more and more difficult to get interested in these games.

And I'm not saying that all games should try to be something different, but there should always be some games that try something new and try to break barriers and cross genres and whatever.

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

3D is more than just FPSs, of course. I wouldn't fixate on FPSs in that regard. You can't really sum up the entirety of what 3D offers based solely on one genre that uses 3D.

Naturally, but I was talking about fps games, not rpg or others. Not a big fan of rpgs and since fps and massively waste of time online games are the most popular, you can easily fixate on those genres.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Luckily? I dunno. I'm thinking it would have to take a lot more than one or even two 3D games to have an impact on how a genre shifts and changes. It would have to need a small sea change. A few very commercially successful games offering new, exciting ways to experience story, puzzle, and exploration cradled in high production values. Some of them can even be charming and inventive little indie titles that don't need the latest graphics engine. Most importantly, the marketing of such games must be incredibly aggressive.

Well, especially Fahrenheit was to be the next big thing for this genre, according to several previews and articles. Both games were heavily marketed, even misleadingly at times. What really irks me in your comment though, is how you praise high production values and at the same time claim both of the released games offered something new and exciting for an adventure genre. Maybe I misunderstood, I don't know. But what exactly did Fahrenheit offer, that wasn't already been done? High quality graphics and sound doesn't equal high quality game. Alone in the Dark is out on blu ray, and I'm pretty sure the image and sound quality is awsome, yet it doesn't make the movie any better. It just means there's a bigger company and budget behind the game. As far as I'm concerned, Fahrenheit killed all the crucial elements that make an adventure game, and instead borrowed different game play elements from other genres.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

The bottom line is that there's way too much homogeneity within the genre. Let's see more adventures in 3D, more adventures in side scroller form, more adventures in classic 2D but with a brilliant twist on gameplay and quality, more adventures on the consoles. Let's see DIVERSITY within the genre.

Please define quality and diversity. And don't say leaving off all
qualities but the story is either.

[Hannes]

Originally Posted by UPtimist

I agree completely. Especially with the last part.

Yeah, but if next the creators of Tetris make... Detris, a game with different colored blocks and so on, in the end no one's going to give a damn. Now, I get what you're saying and agree to an extent, but if they just keep on making the same games over and over, eventually people are going to get bored. You have to keep things moving, make innovations, to keep the genre fresh and interesting. Many AGs now are already just the same puzzles in a different "cake" so to speak, and it gets more and more difficult to get interested in these games.

And I'm not saying that all games should try to be something different, but there should always be some games that try something new and try to break barriers and cross genres and whatever.

I do agree, but there already are several adventures that mix elements together. Mixing genres is acceptable in my book, and even recommended, as long as the main focus is on one, instead of making it a hot mess.

The puzzles are one of the main elements of adventure games, Missing did a nice job making them a lil different imo. All we can do is speak using our wallets.

[dekaneas297]

In really good games, the repetitiveness of the same puzzles doesn't bother me at all. Because the story is magnificent. The "cake" as UPtimist says. OK maybe I say to myself "Oh I've seen that before" but it doesn't make me uninstall the game nor lose my interest in it. On the other hand, the repetitiveness of the same puzzles in mediocre or bad games doesn't bother me either. Because I know that the game is bad afterall and I play it just for fun. It won't make me lose my interest in AGs as a whole.

Btw, many of you forget that we are talking about a niche genre with limited good games per year (if any). So the argument "let's see some of this, some of that, more of this, more of that etc" is actually utopic.

[imisssunwell]

Originally Posted by Hannes

You must not play many games, then. Have a look at the most recent releases, I'm sure you'll find a couple of 3d adventures that please you.

Not quite, I do play quite allot of games but, Dreamfall excluded, I can't say I have played too many memorable adventure games lately, even the new Monkey Island was not too impressive (especially controls) tho definitely worth giving it a go. Fahrenheit was also an interesting effort, I have mixed feelings about it but I still prefer it to any new AG out there, Dreamfall excluded.

Edit: I have high expectation from Heavy Rain as well, will play it on my brother's PS3 when I visit him this summer.

Of course it depends on what you mean by many, if you mean that I wait for a game to get a couple of decent reviews from different reviewers before I spend my money on it, yes I do. In the rare occasion I just buy it besides having read negative reviews, I usually regret it (Still Life 2 I want my money back!).

So yes, I have the bar pretty high, because it is pretty high these days. I expect good graphics, good voice acting, a story which is crafted by a professional writer for games that cost the "usual full price".

As for the 3d tv, I see what you're saying but we're talking about more advanced technology than just HD television. This is why I think it'll take longer for the prices to drop.


Totally agree.

I hope not, already the 3D TV coming out this year is not super expensive, not too far of from the point HDTV sets started a few years ago.