[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Siddhi

I'm not sure this is true. There are tons of shooters which have all this fundamental gameplay and yet are utterly boring.

I'd argue that none of them are "utterly" boring to start. They only become that over time if the game is otherwise poorly made. Of course they're going to fail if they never move beyond their core mechanics with inspired design. That's an entirely different issue. No one's saying that any genre's fundamental gameplay automatically guarantees good games, just that there's some intrinsic entertainment in the format, which pretty much ensures a certain amount of fun. Whereas with adventures, the format itself is completely dependent on the quality of the content.

[JuntMonkey]

Originally Posted by jfcwilson

I play AGs because I'm not looking for fun so much as story, atmosphere, and intelligent narrative.

I don't understand why people still think these things can only be found in adventure games. It's not 1993 anymore. In the atmosphere department, AGs have fallen significantly behind the curve due to outdated graphics and smaller and less-detailed game worlds.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by JuntMonkey

I don't understand why people still think these things can only be found in adventure games. It's not 1993 anymore. In the atmosphere department, AGs have fallen significantly behind the curve due to outdated graphics and smaller and less-detailed game worlds.

And how do graphics and game world detail contribute to story, atmosphere and intelligent narrative? Well okay, I'll grant you atmosphere - not that antiquated graphics can't be atmospheric (take Gemini Rue for example).

But I'd say adventure games are well ahead of the 'curve' in world detail - how many non-adventure games can you examine almost every object on the screen and get a unique response for each one?

[Monolith]

@Jackal: Yet that same thing can be said about a lot of adventure games. So many of them follow the same mechanic through out the game. The only real saving grace is either the design of the game's mechanics or the addition of other mechanics. Posts here or there about complaints of a small part of shooting or driving in LA Noire. Or even the inclusion of just shooting (despite its overall impact of the game).

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Monolith

@Jackal: Yet that same thing can be said about a lot of adventure games. So many of them follow the same mechanic through out the game. The only real saving grace is either the design of the game's mechanics or the addition of other mechanics. Posts here or there about complaints of a small part of shooting or driving in LA Noire. Or even the inclusion of just shooting (despite its overall impact of the game).

Uh, yes, that's the entire point. The issue is that there's really nothing intrinsically fun about sweeping screens and clicking a bunch of hotspots even from the get-go. It can be fun, but that's totally dependent on quality of the design from start to finish, whereas other genres can at least offer some basic excitement or tension from the formula alone.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Jackal

The issue is that there's really nothing intrinsically fun about sweeping screens and clicking a bunch of hotspots even from the get-go. It can be fun, but that's totally dependent on quality of the design from start to finish, whereas other genres can at least offer some basic excitement or tension from the formula alone.

"Sweeping screens and clicking a bunch of hotspots" is what you do in all point & click games, including RPGs, strategy games and puzzle games. Adventure games are not special in that regard.

If I'm completely missing your point, then please explain to me what you mean, because the whole argument about clicking hotspots as the essence of gameplay seems very strange to me.

[Intense Degree]

I don't want to speak for Jack, but here's my view.

I suppose it is fair to say that clicking a mouse or pressing buttons/analogue sticks is all any gamer is doing if you take it back far enough.

However, in RPG's you are attacking a monster (not physically of course), or building structures in a strategy game, or completing a puzzle (being the sole mechanic) in a puzzle game.

In an adventure much of the time is spent looking around and examining objects (which I would guess is what Jack meant above) which is not fun in itself unless the objects and locations you are examining are interesting and fun themselves.

This makes it different from the RPG, as whatever the monster you are fighting there is some (more?) enjoyment to be had simply from the fighting and there is the added risk that you might "die". The same with building structures in strategy, even if the structure is pretty rubbish, you have still "achieved" the building of a structure.

Turning back to the adventure game looking & examining. In real life, if you visit a really interesting museum then looking round and examining things is great. If you are bored sitting waiting at a hospital then looking around and examining things in the room (probably just a few old women's magazines) does not really help to alleviate the boredom.

The looking around and examining only becomes fun when there is interesting stuff (like in the museum) and is not fun at the hospital where there is not. Therefore, it is not the process/mechanics of the looking and examining that is fun in itself, it just becomes fun when there is something worth looking at or examining.

[jhetfield21]

Originally Posted by Intense Degree

I don't want to speak for Jack, but here's my view.

I suppose it is fair to say that clicking a mouse or pressing buttons/analogue sticks is all any gamer is doing if you take it back far enough.

However, in RPG's you are attacking a monster (not physically of course), or building structures in a strategy game, or completing a puzzle (being the sole mechanic) in a puzzle game.

In an adventure much of the time is spent looking around and examining objects (which I would guess is what Jack meant above) which is not fun in itself unless the objects and locations you are examining are interesting and fun themselves.

This makes it different from the RPG, as whatever the monster you are fighting there is some (more?) enjoyment to be had simply from the fighting and there is the added risk that you might "die". The same with building structures in strategy, even if the structure is pretty rubbish, you have still "achieved" the building of a structure.

Turning back to the adventure game looking & examining. In real life, if you visit a really interesting museum then looking round and examining things is great. If you are bored sitting waiting at a hospital then looking around and examining things in the room (probably just a few old women's magazines) does not really help to alleviate the boredom.

The looking around and examining only becomes fun when there is interesting stuff (like in the museum) and is not fun at the hospital where there is not. Therefore, it is not the process/mechanics of the looking and examining that is fun in itself, it just becomes fun when there is something worth looking at or examining.

i read the same thing yesterday in Introduction to Game Development by Steve Rabin......though his example was it's not fun to look for a hat unless it's a magic hat that does sth special(every woman fall in love with the character....Rabin's words).

[Intense Degree]

Sounds interesting, do you have a link?

[jhetfield21]

nahhh i have the physical form.but if you search for it you'll find it.if you want to buy it amazon.co.uk has it : http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Game-Development-Steve-Rabin/dp/0840031033/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317841964&sr=8-1.
kind of pricey but it's huge,it's worth it and has interesting ideas.many of which i've seen throughout the threads in this forum.

[After a brisk nap]

As Jack briefly touches on in his discussion, I think what makes adventure game gameplay "not intrinsically fun" is in part how deeply it's integrated with the story. Most players agree that puzzles should be as "natural" as possible, and be presented as in some sense realistic tasks rather than artificial obstacles.

The consequence of this is that (at least third-person) adventure games generally avoid abstract challenges like slider puzzles and mazes in favor of puzzles that rely on you following and to some extent anticipating the developments of the story. These puzzles are generally completely uninteresting or meaningless if you ignore the narrative and the in-game semantics.

So if you are unimpressed by the story, or the way the current puzzle has been embedded into it, there's no abstract level on which playing can still be diverting. Along with the problem that when you're stuck, you can't really "play" the game in any meaningful way, and the fact that most adventure games don't give you much of a payoff when you overcome a challenge, this makes uninspired adventure games worse than mediocre games in most other genres.

The conclusion I draw from this analysis is that game designers shouldn't be afraid to include entertaining gameplay elements in their games just because they are poorly motivated by the story (or they should work harder on building the story around the gameplay), and indeed should try to incorporate open-ended gameplay mechanics in as many parts of the game as possible. And yes, by that I do mean to advocate for hybridization.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

"Sweeping screens and clicking a bunch of hotspots" is what you do in all point & click games, including RPGs, strategy games and puzzle games. Adventure games are not special in that regard.

If I'm completely missing your point, then please explain to me what you mean, because the whole argument about clicking hotspots as the essence of gameplay seems very strange to me.

I see others are doing a good job of filling in the blanks, but just to confirm, the mechanics can't be entirely divorced from the context, of course. I'm referring to the utter passivity of adventure gaming "clicks". Surely it's clear why blindly clicking random objects just to see if something will happen through no effort of your own is much different than intensely clicking with timing and precision to fight a "hotspot" that's fighting back at you, or strategizing your clicks to properly manage resources, etc. In those cases your clicks have meaning. You already know the general effect of your clicks, and it's up to you do it skillfully enough to succeed. You're fully engaged in the process because you're actually directing the outcome. In adventures, you just click and pray that you get something better than "No need to go down there." Seems a pretty fundamental difference to me.

Again, that distinction immediately becomes irrelevant if an adventure makes its many click outcomes continually rewarding. I guess the reason we're having this conversation is that too many of them don't. Or alternatively, we're all so different in what we find rewarding that there's no accepted measurement of success in doing so.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Jackal

I see others are doing a good job of filling in the blanks, but just to confirm, the mechanics can't be entirely divorced from the context, of course. I'm referring to the utter passivity of adventure gaming "clicks". Surely it's clear why blindly clicking random objects just to see if something will happen through no effort of your own is much different than intensely clicking with timing and precision to fight a "hotspot" that's fighting back at you, or strategizing your clicks to properly manage resources, etc. In those cases your clicks have meaning. You already know the general effect of your clicks, and it's up to you do it skillfully enough to succeed. You're fully engaged in the process because you're actually directing the outcome. In adventures, you just click and pray that you get something better than "No need to go down there." Seems a pretty fundamental difference to me.

Wait a minute... surely it's up to the player whether he is "blindly clicking random objects" or intelligently assessing his environment to determine which clicks will solve the puzzle he is facing. And if I watch an action game player fighting an enemy, couldn't I also accuse him of "blindly clicking hotspots"? Who am I to determine which has meaning and which does not? A player furiously swinging a sword in front of an orc is just as hopeful that one click will fell his enemy as an adventure gamer who is hoping his random clicks will get him past a puzzle, if he is silly enough to derive enjoyment from that - (and if he does - good for him!). Have you played Street Fighter? That involved a hotspot fighting back at you, and my strategy was to mash buttons as fast as I could - because I knew I was no match for my friends. That tactic was often successful, as I'm sure it is in adventure games too.

[Ascovel]

What Oscar said.

"Blindly clicking random objects just to see if something will happen through no effort your own" is no way to play any game - it can be only a sign of frustration and desperation. Interacting with the game world, hunting for clues and solving problems - that's the way to play adventure games.

So I'd say that "strategizing", planning your clicks is just as important in adventure games as in other genres. That's the aspect why you play any game for.

Ultimately, it's what's going on in the player's mind that's important, because all games are a bunch of simple mechanics that are not particularly impressive without the player's interpretation of what the info he gets means. It's no big secret that many games even lie to the player (as to what the rules are) in hopes of making him feel like the winner.

[Monolith]

Everyone's missing the point. Sounds more like attacks on his use of words instead of seeing what he's saying. He's exaggerating it, to prove a friggin point.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Oscar

Wait a minute... surely it's up to the player whether he is "blindly clicking random objects" or intelligently assessing his environment to determine which clicks will solve the puzzle he is facing.

No, it's often not up to the player in an adventure game. Once the parameters of a puzzle have been completely defined, THEN there's some player control, obviously. That goes without saying. But that's a small part of the adventure experience, far outweighed by simply clicking around the screen to find out what the designers have made interactive, and then finding out what effect that clicking it will have. (Can I pick this up? What happens if I do this? Can I use this on that?)

In many other genres, the rules are very clearly defined from the get go, so you know exactly what you're doing. Whether you're good enough to do it is what makes it exciting.

[Monolith]

Actually a good way of confirming the insanity of clicking on everything, there are a SH*T load of parodies that make fun of pixel hunting, ability to stuff all objects into your pockets, and Click on Everything even if there was no reason to do so (mainly trying to pick everything up).

Funny as it was, it proved a really good point. Adventure games kept in a traditional form without focusing a lot on design and concept will forever just stay in the archaic form and lack the dynamic and fulfilling game world that is possible without cutscenes and dialogue.

I think lucasarts did a great job at making the games more readable and less click on everything with the ability to mouse over something that will shed some context of what it is. Leaving the job of "Is this relevant" to you, and not the sheer luck of finding an object that can be interacted with.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Jackal

No, it's often not up to the player in an adventure game. Once the parameters of a puzzle have been completely defined, THEN there's some player control, obviously. That goes without saying. But that's a small part of the adventure experience, far outweighed by simply clicking around the screen to find out what the designers have made interactive, and then finding out what effect that clicking it will have. (Can I pick this up? What happens if I do this? Can I use this on that?)

In many other genres, the rules are very clearly defined from the get go, so you know exactly what you're doing. Whether you're good enough to do it is what makes it exciting.

I honestly can't see a difference. I've played many shooters that don't let me proceed because I haven't shot at the thing the game wants me to shoot at. Yes, the "rules" are clearly defined (I can shoot some things and pick up certain other things like boxes), just as they are in adventure games (eg the verb table in Lucasarts games). But the game decides what I need to do proceed - and that isn't clearly defined.

"Can I pick this up? What does this do? etc..." aren't the rules of the game, but part of the puzzles themselves - as much as finding out what I have to kill in an FPS, and how to kill it. You find both those things out by trial-and-error - clicking on random stuff. If the game defines exactly what I have to do with no effort on my part, then in my opinion it's going to be an incredibly boring game.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Jackal

In many other genres, the rules are very clearly defined from the get go, so you know exactly what you're doing. Whether you're good enough to do it is what makes it exciting.

That I agree with - at least that's how most action/strategy/puzzle games worked a while ago. Steep learning curve was quite popular back then though.

Currently more and more new games are not particularly honest with the players though. Regardless of genre. Their goal is to fool the player into thinking he is getting good at something instead of really testing his skill. And for that you need to play some mind tricks on him.

Unlimited leveling up for example (migrating from RPGs into everything else). It's seemingly a very nice, deserved reward for grinding. And no challenge is too great when you can always improve your character. But the player is not supposed to really think through that he gets rewarded with easier difficulty level for performing daunting, repetitive tasks (and clicking). He should preferably be convinced it's his growing skill and strategic thinking that are the most essential factors in every major win. The psychological potential of grinding is being milked to the extreme by game developers right now.

Originally Posted by Jackal

finding out what effect that clicking it will have. (Can I pick this up? What happens if I do this? Can I use this on that?)

Sounds to me exactly like elements of puzzle/problem solving rather than random clicking on everything. Or is there something wrong with the fact that results of clicking are usually context sensitive and not firmly established?

If the player ignores the context and truly keeps clicking randomly on everything, using everything on everything, if he will feel proud of himself when such actions suddenly reveal the right puzzle solution, then he is living the same illusion that grinding can give you.

But if the player isn't satisfied to solve puzzles this way, he'll either proceed in the traditional fashion of playing an adventure game or will ultimately give up and check the walkthrough.

[Intense Degree]

Originally Posted by Jackal

No, it's often not up to the player in an adventure game... But that's a small part of the adventure experience, far outweighed by simply clicking around the screen to find out what the designers have made interactive, and then finding out what effect that clicking it will have. (Can I pick this up? What happens if I do this? Can I use this on that?)

I'm not sure whether this still holds true nowadays? Or maybe not as true.

Certainly in the "good old days" this was true, but very often hotspots are indicated by the name flashing up somewhere on screen, or the cursor changing etc. in more recent games. We still sweep the screen but there is not so much mindless clicking!

Also, the days of cycling through several Sierra-style cursors or Lucasarts-style verb coin commands are largely behind us and therefore we don't have to try and look/use/examine/push/pull etc. every item in the hope something will happen. Usually we have, at most, look and interact with one mouse button each.

Although I will have to admit that the old maxim of "try everything on everything" still applies!