[Oscar]

As important as stylistic and graphical innovation is, I feel that even more important is the psychological realm. So few games have strayed from the classic "here is your character, now do this" quest-based or exploratory role of the character. It has been solidified that when you start a game you expect you are going to be completing concrete tasks to achieve goals or reach the ending, whether it is one or multiple.

I hate mentioning The Path because most people disliked it as a game, but if there's one thing it did well it was to challenge what we expect a game (or if you don't consider it a game, "interactive fiction") to be (Infocom's A Mind Forever Voyaging did this for text adventure too). Naturally, this pissed a lot of people off, as did DH Lawrence's overtly sexual novels in a very conservative era, or rock music in the 60s. If there is to be gaming innovation in the future, it will not just be graphically and stylistically. It will be in ways we are unaware of right now, so as to affect us in unexpected ways, so moving away from restrictive and entrenched formats and challenging the player's expectations in any way, is a good thing.

[Fredericks]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

So for instance you won't ever see a new RPG with the amount of text, interactive dialogs and choices that affect the storyline as Planescape Torment. On the other hand, you'll keep seeing RPGs with complex procedurally generated worlds like Bethesda makes, as well as more interactive movie like RPGs.

I haven't played it, but I've read that plenty of C&C dialogue choice is what Alpha Protocol set out to do. Fallout: New Vegas also had plenty of it, with the game's story revolving around who you choose to side with and how you treat people.

Personally, that is a feature that I would love to see in adventure games more often, along with character customization. I /love/ to create my own characters, dress them up, and take part in creating the story through the character's choices, but can only find this type of game play in an RPG, which tends to be combat focused. As a matter of fact, all that combat is usually the "necessary evil" I put up with so that I can create characters to explore huge worlds. Games where I can create my own character for an adventure that's primarily based on investigation, exploration, and NPC interaction rather than the necessity of slogging through waves of enemies for exp would be my ideal. I think it would also add replay value, something that adventure games tend to lack.

The limitation of voice acting is a valid concern. Other gamers may differ, but for me it works for the first greeting to be voiced to give the player a sense of the NPC's tone, but then for the various branching dialogue options to be just text.

[CrowBait]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I'm surprised there isn't more choice and consequence in adventure games by now. Blade Runner from 1997, one of my top few all-time AGs, has an incredible amount of C&C that affects the storyline, characters, and outcome. Yet most AGs are still very linear, at most we might get an alternate ending or two.

This. Innovating on controls and visuals is all well and good, but hardly all that exciting. Graphics are always on the improve and controls always being fiddled with - often in a circular fashion with no real improvements over the tried and true.

But for me, an Adventure game has two major elements: story and puzzles (we can add in exploration, but not overly important when we're discussing innovation). Puzzles have certainly undergone "innovation" or change over the years - mostly to more simplistic and less challenging, even if often more integrated into the world (hardly an improvement in my view).

As for story, and now I finally get to the point of my post, innovation in the AG genre is strangely lacking. It is the genre which has the greatest focus on story, but largely opts for a static, received story, rarely making an attempt at an interactivity and allowing for any kind of player agency. It is in this aspect that far more creativity needs to be seen in the genre.

With other genres beefing up there storytelling aspects, modern AGs are no longer the pinnacles of story telling in the gaming landscape. The only thing really setting them apart is puzzles - and the quality of these has undoubtedly degraded over time, often in a misguided effort to capture a wider audience.


Some here have said that "choice and consequence" or story interactivity is expensive, especially if you want to combine it with voice acting. This is true, up to a point. But it really comes down to focus. Given that AGs only have a couple of major focus points: story and puzzles, it should be easier for this genre than any other to make some attempt at story interactivity. The RPG genre, which is the undisputed king of this gaming aspect, has far more to focus on: combat, exploration, player character development, many different skill mechanics, as well as story and often puzzles of its own. So, I see no excuse for the lack of story interactivity in the AG genre.

A couple of AGs that have made an attempt at story interactivity to some degree:
- The Last Express: a brilliant game, which unfortunately tanked and had little influence on the genre
- Blade Runner

These games, and any AG anyone could name do not come close to matching the best in the RPG genre:
- Arcanum: there is no game with a greater level of choice and consequence)
- Fallout 1+2
- Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines: not even close to the games above, but I list it here as it's dialogue presentation and level of player interactivity is without peer, and it is fully and brilliantly voice acted

Sure, the standard point and click with static story is simpler and cheaper than attempting something more adventurous, and I understand why most developers and studios would opt for these safer titles. But, I would expect, over the many games released in the past 10+ years to have seen some greater attempt at story interactivity, especially as most, if not all, AGs are not AAA titles and can divest themselves of some of the more expensive, glitzy elements (and many do), for more substantial innovation in the story-telling or interaction department (few to none do this, unfortunately).

[Idrisguitar]

you cant compare something like DH Lawrence in that era,

because these days, games will always be compared to films and tv show on top of other games.

so theres a lot less room for originality from a story or directional point of view,

as you say, the innovation comes from the pure interactive point of view, and thats where devs have to present new mechanics and really push something new onto players.

and most players dont like to learn something new in their gaming. look how many people complained about the control scheme for the new zelda....

its unfortunate but the mass audience are after easy experiences that satisfy a simple instant craving for fun.

those of us here who want to be challenged and emotionally involved with a game have less to choose from, but there are still games out there. confining your search for innovation to just adventure games, instead of branching out a little to platformers, puzzle, strategy etc. will not bring much satisfaction.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Oscar

As important as stylistic and graphical innovation is, I feel that even more important is the psychological realm. So few games have strayed from the classic "here is your character, now do this" quest-based or exploratory role of the character. It has been solidified that when you start a game you expect you are going to be completing concrete tasks to achieve goals or reach the ending, whether it is one or multiple.

I hate mentioning The Path because most people disliked it as a game, but if there's one thing it did well it was to challenge what we expect a game (or if you don't consider it a game, "interactive fiction") to be (Infocom's A Mind Forever Voyaging did this for text adventure too). Naturally, this pissed a lot of people off, as did DH Lawrence's overtly sexual novels in a very conservative era, or rock music in the 60s. If there is to be gaming innovation in the future, it will not just be graphically and stylistically. It will be in ways we are unaware of right now, so as to affect us in unexpected ways, so moving away from restrictive and entrenched formats and challenging the player's expectations in any way, is a good thing.

I call that the 'So you want to be a hero?' syndrome. So many games, mainly sierra ones follow the same 'you are the hero' route.

Instead of progressing the story through the general fashion, things can also be progressed and also manipulate through psychological methods.

But to be honest, real adventure game innovation will be when the character actually acts like they exist in the world. Moving, acting lifelike and work just like physical animated characters in AAA titles. I don't care too much for it, but it definitely helps get out of the 'robotic avatar doing your bidding on screen'.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Monolith

I call that the 'So you want to be a hero?' syndrome. So many games, mainly sierra ones follow the same 'you are the hero' route.

Which ones don't?

Instead of progressing the story through the general fashion, things can also be progressed and also manipulate through psychological methods.

I don't get what you mean by this?

But to be honest, real adventure game innovation will be when the character actually acts like they exist in the world. Moving, acting lifelike and work just like physical animated characters in AAA titles. I don't care too much for it, but it definitely helps get out of the 'robotic avatar doing your bidding on screen'.

That would be boring. Why introduce conformity? However the developers choose to express the relationship between the subject and its environment, I should think, determines "how the character actually acts like they exist in the world". And a video game world is always a "world" in itself, and can never be our world.

[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Monolith

But to be honest, real adventure game innovation will be when the character actually acts like they exist in the world. Moving, acting lifelike and work just like physical animated characters in AAA titles. I don't care too much for it, but it definitely helps get out of the 'robotic avatar doing your bidding on screen'.

If the game is immersive, then no matter how blocky or bad the graphics are, it's going to *feel* like the characters exist in the real world (or at least in a world - game worlds can be diverse).

I don't know, but to me it sounds like you're saying realistic graphics are innovative. To me, that's the LEAST innovative aspect of a game.
Better graphics come with better technology, it's only a matter of time before even amateur game-makers with a free online engine can make things that look photo-realistic. Nothing innovative about graphical progress, imo...

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Oscar

Which ones don't?

A lot. Heavy Rain, Indigo Prophecy (well until you get to the weird part then you sort of become a hero of sorts), Penumbra, 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors (you mainly are enemies/strangers to everyone. Survival is the name of the game, not heroism), etc. Basically any game where the character is someone who is being heroic. Usually the best games don't follow that route.

Its called the hero's journey in screenwriting. Breaking that norm makes for a more unique experience, most of the time psychological.

Originally Posted by Oscar

I don't get what you mean by this?

Basically focusing more on abstract and surreal ideas instead of providing a clear vision for the user. Normally having them decode the imagery instead of the game doing it for them.

The difference is the player solves a jigsaw puzzle. Psychologically you can say the player must solve the puzzle, but must get passed his focus on a bad habit, or a cruel memory of the past.

Its not exactly a clear idea, but if you get it, cool, if not, then too bad.

Originally Posted by Oscar

That would be boring. Why introduce conformity? However the developers choose to express the relationship between the subject and its environment, I should think, determines "how the character actually acts like they exist in the world". And a video game world is always a "world" in itself, and can never be our world.

There's a difference between that and not making your characters look like floating robots with bad animations. I'm guessing you missed the point entirely.

I'm talking about proper animations and how the character reacts to the world. For instance the character will move properly when moving from point a to b instead of a general line or curve. Animation blending and so on. Plus characters have weight applied based on the leveling of the floors and so on. Or when they move along a wall the character lifts their arm and hovers it over a wall and so on. not just scripted sequences that only appear once. Literally making the character react to the world the way they should.

What you are fighting for is robotic characters is more preferred than literally making a believable scene/world.

A lot of adventure games, the characters just feel like they are just floating characters moving on top of a fake background, with cool shadows overlayed on it. The players still do not apply the physical weight of the world upon themselves. Pretty much all AAA games apply this now. Adventure games....won't happen with that attitude.

[TimovieMan]

Originally Posted by Monolith

Pretty much all AAA games apply this now. Adventure games....won't happen with that attitude.

Doesn't this have a LOT to do with the engine the games run on, and thus the budget at their disposal?

Given the state of adventure games nowadays, nearly none of them have the budget to make characters behave like you stated (L.A. Noire and Heavy Rain being the only exceptions I can think of).

But that also still means that you're only looking at technical innovation. I don't think this thread is about the technical side (graphics) but more about innovations in gameplay...

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Monolith

A lot. Heavy Rain, Indigo Prophecy (well until you get to the weird part then you sort of become a hero of sorts), Penumbra, 999: Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors (you mainly are enemies/strangers to everyone. Survival is the name of the game, not heroism), etc. Basically any game where the character is someone who is being heroic. Usually the best games don't follow that route.

Its called the hero's journey in screenwriting. Breaking that norm makes for a more unique experience, most of the time psychological.

My use of the word "hero" was just a random choice of a protagonist to demonstrate a point. I was saying that there are barely any games without a protagonist at all. Nothing to do with the personality of the protagonist, which is a linear property and changing that personality from 'hero' to 'survival' doesn't seem to me all that innovative.

In that respect, none of the games you mentioned are without a protagonist. The only game I can think of right now which plays with the idea is The Experiment in which you are essentially two players at the same time: the girl and the camera controller.

Basically focusing more on abstract and surreal ideas instead of providing a clear vision for the user. Normally having them decode the imagery instead of the game doing it for them.

The difference is the player solves a jigsaw puzzle. Psychologically you can say the player must solve the puzzle, but must get passed his focus on a bad habit, or a cruel memory of the past.

Its not exactly a clear idea, but if you get it, cool, if not, then too bad.

Sounds good to me! I would play that game.

There's a difference between that and not making your characters look like floating robots with bad animations. I'm guessing you missed the point entirely.

I'm talking about proper animations and how the character reacts to the world. For instance the character will move properly when moving from point a to b instead of a general line or curve. Animation blending and so on. Plus characters have weight applied based on the leveling of the floors and so on. Or when they move along a wall the character lifts their arm and hovers it over a wall and so on. not just scripted sequences that only appear once. Literally making the character react to the world the way they should.

What you are fighting for is robotic characters is more preferred than literally making a believable scene/world.

A lot of adventure games, the characters just feel like they are just floating characters moving on top of a fake background, with cool shadows overlayed on it. The players still do not apply the physical weight of the world upon themselves. Pretty much all AAA games apply this now. Adventure games....won't happen with that attitude.

In other words, you seek conformity. Can't you see that using very rudimentary mechanics and graphics can benefit many other parts of the game other than its aesthetics? Imagine Neverhood, Machinarium, Gemini Rue, King's Quest 1 all with hi-res graphics like you described and that's called 'innovation'. Ha.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Oscar

In other words, you seek conformity. Can't you see that using very rudimentary mechanics and graphics can benefit many other parts of the game other than its aesthetics? Imagine Neverhood, Machinarium, Gemini Rue, King's Quest 1 all with hi-res graphics like you described and that's called 'innovation'. Ha.

Well I never said hi-res graphics. I just said animation, completely two different things. It can be used as an aesthetic and to make gameplay more believable.
It allows for the developer to make the character do what they want with creating new animations, also with the ability to blend animations together with physical weight and movement.

Best game to do it without all the technology was the Book of Unwritten Tales. Sure it doesn't use the technology per se, but the animation on that game was superb. Animation makes a game polished and not trash.

Originally Posted by TimovieMan

Doesn't this have a LOT to do with the engine the games run on, and thus the budget at their disposal?

Given the state of adventure games nowadays, nearly none of them have the budget to make characters behave like you stated (L.A. Noire and Heavy Rain being the only exceptions I can think of).

But that also still means that you're only looking at technical innovation. I don't think this thread is about the technical side (graphics) but more about innovations in gameplay...

Absolutely, though innovation can either be made from limitations or cutting edge technology.

Engines shouldnt be a budget problem since there are plenty of cutting edge engines that are free or very cheap. (read fine print, still worthwhile if people actually read them) The only issue is that a lot of adventure game developers are REALLY bad at 3d Modeling or no experience at all in it.

I agree and disagree though since Animation can be seen as both technical and gameplay innovation, depends if the dev is smart enough to figure out what they can do with it.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Siddhi

I think an important point is also how immersive the game is.

In the early days of adventures, you really felt that you were there in the game world and you were exploring a strange setting and you were a part of it. There was no other genre that provided that. It was either adventures, or mario/space invaders/pacman

Today, shooters and RPGs have become just as immersive where you feel you are exploring and participating in an alternate world.

Many adventure games nowdays are just a sequence of locations with a puzzle at each step. Its mechanical: Click everywhere on screen, pick up everything, talk to everyone, choose all dialog options, combine all inventory items, try out every item, move on to next location. I'm exaggerating a little of course, but you get the point.

This is an excellent, insightful post. Adventure games were at the top of the PC game food chain in the '80s through early '90s because they had the best graphics and were the most immersive. The idea that graphics were never important to adventure games is false.

[Monolith]

Originally Posted by Venkman

This is an excellent, insightful post. Adventure games were at the top of the PC game food chain in the '80s through early '90s because they had the best graphics and were the most immersive. The idea that graphics were never important to adventure games is false.

Those 3d visuals in Kings Quest were MINDBLOWING!!! lol Well yes, I was very impressed back in the day actually.