I don't understand why
 

A game like Police Quest couldn't be recreated with todays technology. It was basically an open world game before there were open world games that involved driving to different locations speaking to various people and solving puzzles.

What has happened to the action/adventure genre? G They are pure action with very little adventure. Games haven't really gone how i thought they would. And why do adventure games need to involve point and clicking nowadays? It just seems archaic. I think people are too set on an adventure game is point and clicking. That has nothing to do with being an adventure game.

Why can't there be a game that involves both puzzle solving and action and a mature story that doesn't involve being a thug(GTA IV). You could pick up various items, combine them. Use various items on different things. Give a certain item to a person at a location to progress the story. Plus have action and shootouts as well. With todays technology you don't have to point and click to do that!

I was really looking forward to LA NOire. The way they advertised it I thought it would be that. But the entire game is focused on interrogation and is a one trick pony. Where is the crime solving? How boring is that? Doing the same thing over and over. Nothing you do has any real effect on the story. It's mindless. It's drama and very little substance. Or you have a pure action game like GTA that involves driving to one location, shoot something, repeat. Or just cause carnage in an open world. Couldn't they mix it up? Be a police officer. Work your way up to detective. Drive around, solve crimes. Have robberies break out. Help an old lady get a cat out of a tree. High Speed chases. Shootouts. Puzzle solving and a main storyline. Getting an item from one location and using it at another to advance the story.

Police quest had a lot of variation. It just wasn't action based. Then they made Swat which was purely action and scenario based and took out everything that made Police Quest good.

Are developers just set in genres? Are these huge companies just so not willing to try someting new that we are stuck with the same boring mindless games over and over again?

I think I played 10 games this gen that were exactly like GTA IV. But people say they are differnet because the setting is different when the gameplay is exactly the same. Or I played an "adventure" game that was basically the same point and click game I played 30 years ago.

Maybe Action/Adventure games would sell if they were actually new and entertaining?? Maybe if someone actually made an action adventure game that involved an open world and mature themes, and puzzle solving as well as action it would be a success. I can't name one game like that. You either have action games. RPG's. Or Adventure games. Uncharted 2 tried some puzzles. That's the closest thing i've seen. But it's very linear. Police Quest wasn't. YOu could do things in the order you wanted. It was actually a very complex game. It was just dated. They could spice it up and add action and get rid of point and clicking while still keeping the puzzle solving.

I was reading a thread the other day and it's irritating how close minded people have become. They were basically saying this can't be done and that adventure games need to stay the way they are. Why? And we wonder why this genre is dead.

I agree with your main point, the technology we have isn't being used enough in adventure games. I would love to see the kind of graphics we see in games like Crysis 2 for example in a realtime adventure. It seems shooters and RPGs are only allowed to have the cutting-edge graphics. And more hybrids would definitely be good with the freedom of open world RPGs like Gothic or Elder Scrolls mixed with adventure. A PQ version of that would be fantastic.

However, I think there are more adventure games breaking the mold than what you say. Not everything is point and click - there's URU, the new Broken Sword games, the Telltale games, and many adventure games have action. Things are evolving, slowly. I'm not really sure what you're after - do you just want more action and dislike point-and-click?

I think point and click has it's purpose, and it isn't archaic. Actually the mouse came after the joystick in gaming, so controllers are older and more outdated. You couldn't play a Carol Reed or Nancy Drew game with a keyboard or controller. And GTA wouldn't be appropriate with a point-and-click interface either. It's what suits the game.

I haven't heard anyone saying that adventure games need to stay the way they are - that's a pretty dumb thing to say. But I think that saying they need to change denies that there have been brilliant recent adventure games based on the technology and gameplay you say is outdated. If someone put action chases in my Barrow Hill or Carol Reed games, and took away my mouse in order to bring them up to date, I wouldn't touch them.

Heavy Rain for the PS3 is an example of an action/adventure game that you're referring to in my opinion, and it succeeded far beyond expectations in terms of sales. It did, however, get a lot of hype/marketing for years before doing so.

Heavy Rain is actually the complete opposite of what I'm talking about. It's QTE and completely archaic and restrictive. QTE was created for games like dragon lair to give an effect of playing a movie because technology was not at the point that allowed for movie like graphics and allowed complete control at the same time.

Nowadays we have technology that allows for 3d open world environments and complete control over a characters movements and actions.

You can actually have a movie like atmosphere in 3d that is very immersive.

BArrow hill for example has these environments but it's like a slideshow. Why? Why do I have a core i7 processor for that? Why aren't adventure games taking advantage of newer technology? Instead you have these action games that have very little depth taking advantage of it.

Why does a game like LA Noire have completely dumbed down gameplay and puzzles. It doesn't even have any puzzles. IT's the same thing over and over. It's incredibly boring. Same thing with GTA. It basically entails going to a location shooting some people repeat. Then you have games like Alan Wake that are basically just linear shooters.

Companies are putting money into games that will sell and they are afraid to give any depth to these games because they are afraid they won't. So you end up with amazing technology and that have the depth of what is equivalent to shooting someone in the face.. Or you end up with outdated technology.

What i want is an immersive experience that is using todays technology but also has depth.

Even the best looking 3D action games aren't as detailed as games like Barrow Hill. Ever looked at the grass in those 3D games? It looks like it has been spraypainted on the ground. The advantage of 2D is that every pixel and object is unique and hand-crafted rather than constructed and duplicated by an engine.

If they are able to make something looking like this on a realtime 3D engine, then I'll be interested.
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2001/barrowhill0.jpg

"What has happened to the action/adventure genre?"

That really depends on what we consider as an "action/adventure" game. Police Quest is a great game in it's own right, but the thing is that sort of gameplay has evolved mainly into action games like GTA. Eventually, they learned it would be interesting to bring back "story" aspect to it, so as a result we have AAA titles like L.A. Noire that dwelve with adventure game elements.

But, speaking od action/adventure, it needs tremendous design skill to put all the gameplay pieces in place. I'm actually a fan of multigenre games, like Defender of the Crown, but when it comes to pure storytelling sometimes "less is better".

Also, it's a huge difference whether you're making adventure game with action elements ("Westerner") or action with adventure game elements (Tomb Raider). There are few good examples that combine these in a perfect balance with good results. "Dark Earth" is probably one of those games.

As for non-linear gameplay, it really depends on "how the game works" and what it is trying to achieve, because non-linearity is not the prerequisite for a good game.

What about Another World, Alone in the Dark, Ecstatica, Outcry, Shenmue, Redguard, Omikron, Realms of the Haunting, Anachronox, Bioforge, Call of Cthulhu?.. There were many nice hybrids, but for some reason people still prefer pure action or pure adventure.

I agree, but if majority of people want their games cleaned-up from genre mixing, then it's a market thing and we can't really blame developers for not giving us more of hybrid titles. But i wouldn't say there is no place for a "middle-ground" - although the biggest production in this aspect goes for RPG titles like The Witcher that are by "default" mix of action and adventure.

But when you look at it, almost all of those games were well-received and critically praised. Even King's Quest 8 sold well. But, adventure genre as sort of a niche market in last decade wasn't really a great place for experimenting and genre mixing. And just as i wouldn't mind diversity, i don't think p&c or traditional adventure gameplay is outdated or something - what is "Call of Duty" if not an identical FPS game mechanics 20+ years old?

maybe one thing about the technology being used is that to use the best of it needs money and time.the biggest developers/studios though focus on more action-based games since they are more popular.what you want while extremely interesting for us as a prospect seems to be an extremely big undertaking.even a game like LA Noire must have needed a great deal of resources and if you are to put in a variable storyline and things like that it just makes the whole process grow exponentially especially since this is gonna be a high end 3d one world game.also i don't know how the analysts at game developers would value games like that in terms of if it will pay to put much resources on a project/genre they haven't done in the past and how it would fare in the market,being a different kind of game than what most people buy.i'm not trying to justify it but provide a possible explanation.

but who knows maybe Heavy Rain and LA Noire are just the beginning and we'll see sth good in the future.

EDIT:by variable story and variations i meant non-linearity.

I basically agree with what the OP said; even had a quote from one of my posts that kind of cut-to-the-chase about the whole problem -- it was up on the "featured quote thing a couple of weeks back"...

But...

What...

I...

Don't...

Understand...

The...

"Why...

Of..."

Is...

Why do some people feel it necessary to create threads with titles that hide the actual gist of the...

thread?

I mean...

does it...

not occur?

Not occur that...

This is a very ob...

noxious...

thing to do?

Don't you just hate it when...

None of these games were received as good as Quake or Half Life. Bioforge, Realms of the Haunting or Shenmue were great financial failures.
I guess that time for brave experiments ended with 90s, when the market found simplier and more effective schemes of monetization.
It also amuses me when someone mentions FPS or strategies as examples of evolving genres. But, the truth is, adventure genre can't afford itself to be in step with modern technologies, and that closes doors for experiments.

i don't know if FPS and strategies are evolving genres but they are more popular in the market thus having more attention and more possibilities to be evolved than adventures.but research requires money and time and i guess there aren't many willing to put faith and resources to do it.

I agree that it's a shame more hasn't been done with 3D in adventure games. It'd be good to have a 3rd person view where your head turns when your character sees something he likes. Basically that's what Monkey Island 4 was like but since then things have gone back to 2D.

The main reason i can see for this is that probably 80% of adventure games are made my small/indie developers with very small budgets. Making a 3D game with great graphics is therefore too time consuming, and probably not within the budget.

There are some games that break the mould though. Amnesia and Penumbra Black Plague are both classic adventures but in a first person view, and the two Adam Venture games are 3rd person action adventures with the emphasis on puzzles.

Adventure games are evolving in their own way. It doesn't have to be switch to full 3D. When asked about adventure genre being dead, Roberta Williams said:

"Adventure games "as we know it" are dead. What does that mean? Does that mean "text" adventure games with text input; story, puzzles, no art, no animation, no music, no sound, no spoken dialog? Does that mean "picture book" adventure games with more advanced text input; story, puzzles, no animation, no music, no sound, no spoken dialog? Does that mean "2D worlds with cut screen shots" with icon bar input; story, puzzles, limited animation, limited music, limited sound, no spoken dialog? Does that mean "2D worlds with cut screen shots and limited short 'cartoons' or 'movies' with icon bar input; story, puzzles, better animation, better music, better sound, limited spoken dialog? Does that mean "2D worlds with lots more cut screen shots and more short 'cartoons/movies' with 'point and click' input; better story, easier puzzles, great animation, great music, great sound, lots of spoken dialog?"

From a practical standpoint I'm glad things are the way they are otherwise I'd had to buy a new laptop. I can't even run Assasin's Creed let alone anything newer. And I like my laptop a lot, it works like a charm and so far I can play all AGs on it so I don't want a new one and therefore I don't want more technically advanced AGs.

and that coming from a guy who is pro 3D....

@marcd2011:you might want to take a look at Asylum...it's new and it's not released yet but it has many qualities like those you mentioned.

i saw the trailer for Asylum earlier, looks promising but i will reserve judgement until i play it!

Is Asylum 3D though? Seems like you're turning around in a static spherical movement, which is still 2D.

I always thought that making a 3D game is easier than a 360 panoramic slider. I'm not talking about top-notch graphics, just about some decent picture like in Sherlock Holmes or Darkness Within.
Asylim is obviously not 3D. Not that it's a problem for me, but I thought developers were going to move to new dimention...

they are still a small company and while they have good staff they are small for a 3D game that's promising.but for me since i loved Scratches,i'm really looking forward to Asylum.they kinda made me love first person games,them and Dark Fall 1.

anyway the problem is that most companies in AGs don't have the resources to do what the OP asks for and most resourceful companies don't want to gamble in an AG.I guess if LA Noire and Heavy Rain still sell through a period of time well after their release maybe it will show that the genre does have future and that it's worth the gamble.who knows....