It's freeform to the extent that the entire gameworld is available from the start of the game, save one or two areas which are unlocked by puzzle solving. You can work on puzzles parallel to each other; if you can't figure out the gate room, you can move to another island and work on the boiler room puzzle. If none of those make sense to you, you can start gathering data for the final marble puzzle or the stone animals puzzle. It's not freeform in the sense that you can go on random, unrelated sidelines to the main story, but in many respects it's as non-linear as adventure games get.
Oh, I know. Exploration has always been one of my favourite parts of adventure gameplay. But to me, the exploration offered by a 2D, node-based system can be enough. In a game like The Seventh Guest there's one view of the entire room and no way to examine any items that don't directly relate to the puzzles. Games like the Myst series let you stand in several different spots in a room. They let you snoop through artefacts and items which are completely irrelevant to a puzzle, but give you a better knowledge of the characters. In Riven, you can sneak up on a group of animals sunning themselves on a rock. If you don't go too quickly, you can walk right up to them. That isn't part of a puzzle. It's just there. To many people, exploration is the highlight of these games, and they're 2D.

This is why I'm unclear about your line of questioning. I completely understand that the degree of exploration in 2D offerings is enough for you, and I'm sure not trying to talk you out of it. :) But you honestly don't understand why it isn't enough for others - the Miller brothers included? The very example of Riven's sunners is precisely the sort of thing that we'd love to see in dynamic real time, WITH the ability to slowly sneak behind a tree or rock to get closer without alerting them to our presence, rather than clicking the forward arrow and awaiting the next node. It's so much more immersive (to us) to feel that you have a real control over the interaction between your own character and the gameworld.

One of the basic rules of game development would have to be NOT to remind people that they're only playing a game. And yet that's precisely what a lot of these 2D games do. Node movement - game. Can't look around - game. Items you can't interact with - game. Static images and puppet NPC's - game.

As I said earlier, these game have their charms, certainly, and if money dictates that kind of design, so be it. Can't squeeze blood from a stone and all that. But wherever possible, I'd prefer to see games pursuing a more immersive exploration with optional inter-actvities.

BTW, the concern about pixel hunting is an issue of bad design. The fact that it's been evident already (Uru) is just growing pains from developers playing with new tools. Same as the crates in BS3.

[QUOTE=Intrepid Homoludens
One of the things I'm now finding sorely lacking in adventure games is the idea of optional interactivity and exploration [/QUOTE]


Highly explorable environments and more interactivity is the best thing for epic, story driven adventure games. Just my opinion. For those who haven't, play BG&E to see what I mean!

I always thought the Quest for Glory games handled exploration pretty well, at least the four first. 3D isn't neccessary.

I do think modern adventures have kind of lost their way, though. There's a lot of things "normal" 2D adventures could do that would make the gameplay experience far deeper - especially with regards to interaction with the game world. This is something that certain older adventures did far better than any modern adventures I've played. Simple stuff like adding descriptions of most of the stuff you can see on the screen (remember Kings Quest 6?) would definitely help. Allowing the player to manipulate stuff - radios, light switches, et.c. would also make the experience deeper (Zak McCracken did this, for instance). I'd like more stuff that doesn't neccessarily help the player, but make the world seem more real.

I want to say that GTA3 had a lot more than a "paper-thin plot". It actually had a rather involving (mainly due to gameplay), long and solid mafia style story. I would highly recommend you replay the game and focus on the plot more if you honestly feel this way because you are cheating yourself from a good tale. Surely GTA3 may not be a work of art but nonetheless it is a lot more than paper-thin.

Beyond Good and Evil is a wonderful game. The story is very linear but gameplay wise you can travel around and/or take your sweet time.

Morrowind also has a very deep plot. There's no argument that the story is lacking when it comes to dialog, cutscenes, etc but the books and backstory are massive. If you actually knew the entire intricacies of the story, you might be blown away. Such is real life, every bit of knowledge isn't handed to you immediately or through set intervals. Sometimes you must seek out the knowledge or open a book and read it. Maybe not the best way to tell a tale but regardless, Morrowind rocks.

True. Threre's no denying the sheer achievement of Morrowind. I'm not a huge fan of its storytelling and I think the game world is a bit repetitive, but it definitely is awe inspiring as a whole. I once read this really nice short story in a book I just found lying around somewhere in the game. That was cool.