Optional freeform adventures: What are your thoughts?
 

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images...2_thumb017.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images...3_thumb004.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images...d_thumb003.jpg
Gothic II, Grand Theft Auto 3, Morrowind.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images...t_thumb008.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images...8_thumb007.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images...0_thumb015.jpg
Beyond Good & Evil, Deus Ex, Hitman: Contracts.

One of the things I'm now finding sorely lacking in adventure games is the idea of optional interactivity and exploration - that is, the suggestion of non-linear elements that do not necessarily affect the main story proper, but give the illusion of a deeper gameworld and thus more investment of the player into that world. I admit, I've been spoiled by non-adventure titles and when I go back into a bona fide adventure game I find it awfully constraining - I can't explore the given world anymore than the game allows me to at the slavery of the story. It's frustrating, especially when that adventure game's world looks so good and rich, and I can't go anywhere except where the story wants me to.

Beyond Good & Evil enouraged you to travel through the character's home city and surrounding planet at your leisure, and the game's mix of different genres allowed you to actually feel as if you had a day-to-day life - working for a paycheck by taking photographs, maintaining and upgrading you hovercraft, taking care of adopted orphans, chatting up strangers, doing side quests for more money. The Hitman series allowed you to find various ways and combinations to accomplish your mission, particularly in the forms of disguises and choices with which to dispatch your target. This triggered you to be that much more invested in Hitman's gameworld, and you absolutely have to pay attention to every single thing going on, because one slip could easily ruin all that planning you did. It's the kind of immersion that emerges from having to strategize wisely.

http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/ups/chaos/smile2.gif And then I go and play Syberia: "Can't go there. Can't do that. Can't go there. Can't do that....." :frusty:

What are your thoughts on the lack of optional interactivity and exploration in adventure games? Does it make you feel detached from the given world? Do you often wish you could do more, see more? Would you feel too distracted and bombarded from the main story if an adventure offered you a great number of other things to do that you didn't have to?

I personally don't mind being led along through a game by the nose if the path it takes me is entertaining and enjoyable. I didn't mind the lack of interactivity in Syberia because I was enjoying the scenery and plot so much. Grand theft auto 3 on the other hand had what I would call a paper thin plot-line but I didn't notice because I was having so much fun exploring the environments and gameplay. Same was true for Morrowind. I agree that newer adventure games would benafit from adding more optional interactivity. It does help in imersing the player in the gameworld. ...bysmitty

GTA-style open-endedness is great when a developer can make it consistently compelling (Rockstar obviously succeeds at this), and complete linearity is fine if there are enough touches to make the world seem at least fairly alive (Syberia doesn't really achieve this, in my opinion). For me, the style that I think offers most, however, is the sort of "perceived non-linearity" approach of games like Beyond Good and Evil. It's not REALLY non-linear, in that you really have to do all the main plot events in a fixed order, but the world is pretty much completely open to you from the get-go, and when things are blocked off it's for a good reason that directly connects to an action you take in the game. You can go around and take part in races and do a bunch of random crap. It's kind of like a Zelda game. You can run around the world and there are a bunch of "dungeons" that you have to do essentially in order but in terms of the player you can pretty much do them at your leisure. It gives the player the feeling of actually living in a world, and it gives the developer a tight enough structure to actually create a solid story without having to think of eight gajillion various plot iterations but not having to just construct a straightforward movie-script narrative. I find that games set up in this way tend ot have a lot more replay value than completely linear games, and if done properly have just as much a potential for storytelling than conventional linear games and definitely more than really open-ended games. It's not even anything new either. Like I said, games like Zelda and even Metroid have been doing it for a while. Monkey Island 2 had a similar thing going too.

I agree. I think that's (one of the numerous points) where Baldur's Gate 2, Planescape : Torment or NWN succeed more than present adventure games! Lots and lots and lots of stuff to do!

Right. I strongly feel that a game like Beyond Good & Evil proves that an adventure game can offer near unlimited exploration and interactivity while still steeped in a tight story with strong characters. I mean, take away the combat and action bits, put in some more puzzles and quests, and voila! A pure adventure with all the garnish! The same thing can be said about Deus Ex. You can go most anywhere and talk to anyone, but in the end you can go back to the main story and follow it through and feel like you really are a part of, and participate in, that world.

Of course, my entire proposition hinges on the presupposition that the game will be in full 3D. It would be murder to the devs if they attempted this with standard 2D backgrounds. :D

Shut up you are obviously trying to destroy adventure games what ar eyou talking about 3d its all about 2d that is the only way to make things look good and 3d is a big pile of poo so SHUT UP.!

Well said. That's exactly how I would feel, and why I've had no interest so far in playing the types of games you described. I like some interactivity with the gameworld, of course, but too much detail and interaction (making paychecks, talking to lots of people, doing side quests) just befuddles me. I like some clear cut objectives and the guidence that linearity provides. Having said that, I do like to be able to explore a gameworld as much as possible. Just nosy, I guess.

:) You obviously haven't yet played Beyond Good & Evil, colpet. Play the demo, it's a beautiful, engrossing game.

You are right. I've never given it a thought because it is classified as action/adventure, which I dislike as a rule. But, I will look into it and keep an open mind. The one thing I cannot cope with are keyboard controls. Is it a mouse only game?

No, you have to use both mouse and keyboard. Don't worry too much about the action bits, the combat is basically just button mashing and running to avoid, much easier than you think. I myself even thought it was too easy for hardcore players and just right for casual gamers. This is one of those rare games where all the seemingly divergent elements are perfectly orchestrated and balance each other out. You will never be bored once.

Now, if only the game's designer, Michel Ancel, would make a pure adventure just as deep as Beyond Good & Evil...

Thank you for the info :) .

I don't mind an adventure limiting the amount of exploration I can do *for a logical reason*. I.e., if there's a mountain range in the way, I'm willing to accept that there's nothing I can do to the north. In fact, in many cases I like some limitation because I don't want to feel overwhelmed -- I want to be able to advance the story, and too much interaction / exploration can muddy the waters and make me feel I don't know what to do next. That's why I am not so thrilled with games like Planescape: Torment -- just too much to do, and I get overwhelmed before I can wrap my little mind around all of it.

That said, the way this was handled in Syberia drove me nuts because the limitations were not placed by the gameworld, but by the developers through Kate. Every time she said "No need to go down there" I wanted to scream at her, "How do you KNOW that?!" It was as if she were imparted with some knowledge about what she did / didn't need to do that the developer hadn't bothered to clue me in on, and it reminded me that I wasn't an explorer in this new world, just someone playing a game. If the doors had all been locked - fine, I'm willing to accept that. But for Kate to make an abitrary decision that she doesn't have to go there, that I didn't like.

A solution to what I said above about the game being overwhelming would be for this interactivity to be unlocked once you advance to a certain point -- like in Shadow of Destiny, how you only get the EX chapter after you have finished all the main endings. What if, after you played Syberia the first time through, you could play it a second time and this time Kate actually went where you told her to, as opposed to deciding on her own that it wasn't necessary? This would provide replay value and possibly supplement the plot, but it wouldn't leave the game *too* open ended for the player to find their way to the end of the story...

-emily

This is EXACTLY how Beyond Good & Evil did it. All the optional exploration and interactivity were just that - optional. BUT, they are also tied in to help progress the main story, and that's where the brilliance shines!

For example, there are two monetary values in Jade's world: units (legal tender), and pearls (black market value). Jade's hovercraft is absolutely essential in getting around and as a vehicle to drive the story forward. But the only way she can improve her hovercraft is by upgrading it with parts from Mammago's Garage. Each time you upgrade the hovercraft you'll be able to explore a new part of the world and thus move the story forward. However, Mammgo's only accepts pearls:

* Pearls are rare, and boss battles award you with them.
* However, you can also enter the hovercraft races to win a pearl as 1st place prize.
* Or you can earn pearls by continuing to photograph freelance.
* Or you can earn units and use those to buy pearls at Ming's store in the city.
* Or you can play a couple games of air hockey against one of the many characters to win his pearls.
* Or you go explore the ancient mines and forbidden caves in search of pearls.

Take your pick! Regardless of your choice, everything, and I mean everything is very tightly integrated so that it all leads you back to the story anyway. And to defy your idea, no, you don't need to beat the game for all these options to open up. As I told colpet, you'll never get bored. But, you'll never be overwhelmed, either. 8-)

Played Riven yet?
:D

2D kills exploration. True exploration can only exist in 3D. I think it was Desmond Morris who said that in a vehicle you are just traversing places. It is only when you move around on foot that you truly explore your surroundings. This is true of gaming as well.
In traditional point & click, you tell the main character where to go, you don't yourself do anything. The character is merely traversing the screen for you. When on the other hand (in either 3rd or 1st person) you control the movement of the character directly, you are exploring. This effect is even stronger if (in the case of 3rd person) the camera follows the character and is not static.

Back to the original question though...

Interactive depth is crucial to any game. I go to the cinema to be passively entertained, I play games to be actively entertained. Games that don't allow you to actually do things of your own accord and instead put you on rails are not really games.

The old classics redeem themselves by having great stories and characters and wonderful puzzles... but the games that offer the kind of limited non-linearity that Outcast and Gothic have, are the better games. The classics may have better stories and characters in some cases, but interactively, they pale in comparison.

Played Riven yet? :P
The exploration offered by a game like Riven is worlds apart from other 2D games like Full Throttle or what have you. In Riven, there was never a time where I wanted to see something and the game wouldn't let me. There were hundreds of prerendered backgrounds. Sure, it was 2D. Sure, you couldn't arbitrarily decide that you wanted to stand 3/17 of the way of the stairs instead of 1/4 of the way up the stairs. But to me, that's a minor complaint at best.
3D is nice, yes. I like what I've seen of it. But I don't think it's necessary to paint a specific graphical style as a necessity. It's one thing to say that we must be willing to accept new things in adventure games, but another to say that everything must be in graphical style X.

The lack of optional interactivity is the biggest disappointment for me about modern adventure games. Where's the fun in following a trail of nothing but non-optional actions? It's just connect-the-dots. Like football where everyone else stands still while one player walks the ball to the goal in a straight line.

Optional interactivity was one of the hallmarks of classic Sierra adventures (moreso than of Lucasfilm and LucasArts titles), and that has a lot to do with my love for those games.

Good thing no one said anything like that. :) The comments here are only saying that 2D can't facilitate true exploration. Your example of seeing stairs from fractionally different perspectives is a common exaggeration that really doesn't help the discussion. Unless it's applicable to the storyline (investigating a crime scene, for example), then few people would really care about THAT level of observation. But slide show node games simply don't offer ANY freedom to view the gameworld. You see what the designers want you to see, not what there is to see. If a gamer is satisfied with that, great. But isn't it ironic that the developers of the game you're touting (which I have played, yes) have themselves pursued a true 3D vision in each subsequent game? And the developers that still use the node movement style have virtually all (some exceptions; usually indie releases for cost purposes) have gone to the 360 degree panning, to simulate the 3D experience. It's a step closer, but ultimately still a cheap imitation. Again, no one's saying that those games can't be GOOD, or that 2D games shouldn't be made, but they certainly don't provide free exploration.

As far as optional interactivity and exploration, I completely agree that it's a huge benefit in games that do it well. Optional but relevant, that is. Also quite true that many RPG's go overboard, leading to confusion and bloated gameplay experiences. Why we're usually stuck with the two extremes is beyond me, but hopefully adventures will (cough) learn that they can introduce new storytelling techniques and gameworld presentation without compromising themselves as adventures.

Fickfack... what Jackal said. 3D is not a graphical style, it's an entirely different way of playing.

Games like Outcast, Gothic and Little Big Adventure all strike a good balance between freedom and linearity, allowing for solid storytelling and great characters, and lots of freedom... without making you feel lost and overwhelmed.

Precisely my thoughts. I think many [adventure] gamers stereotype 3D as nothing more than graphics icing, a superficial way of presenting a world. That's thoroughly narrowminded and approaches the issue with blinders on. As much as I love 2D pre-rendered worlds, a 3D one actually re-conceptualizes the gameplay experience and makes new things possible that a 2D world never can. And one of these possibilities is that of unlimited, or at best, unencumbered, exploration in real time. And this also has much to do with how narrative is approached. If an adventure game in 3D is well designed for it, it will allow the player to momentarily branch off from the main story and explore and discover to his heart's content and leisure before eventually heading back to the story. Sadly, other than Uru, there are no adventure games as of yet that allows you to do that, and even then Uru's world is still severely limited in interactivity.

Games from other genres excell at this kind of 'outback' adventuring. Morrowind is one of them. I've watched my nephew play Everquest, he can 'literally' travel for miles before encountering another player, and in between those encounters he can discover his own personalized adventures. In Beyond Good & Evil you're allowed free reign within the given world's boundaries - you can interact with NPCs, play minigames with them, traverse dangerous caves (often with an A.I. controlled companion) in search of valuable items, or simply take a leisurely cruise through the city's waterways. I've heard similar stories from Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker.

Perhaps I simply have lower expectations of free exploration. But if you can go all over a vast gameworld, look in all 4 directions, why does it matter that you can't walk into the forest and stare at a tree trunk? How does this affect the story or gameplay? What new gameplay mechanic is introduced?
You see, I've never understood why 3D is being touted as not just a graphical style, but a gameplay experience. In fact, the only gameplay mechanics I can think of offered by 3D and not 2D are highly annoying:
1) Manipulating a camera. In GK3, I enjoyed swooping around the terrain with the camera, but it got old quickly. In fact, I found that having to manipulate the camera separately from the character caused a disconnect between me and the protagonist. It was like I was playing a third-person game and a first-person game. In a way, camera manipulation is cool, but it's not a great new improvement to adventures.
2) Larger-scale pixel hunting. The Watchmaker did this to me; some hotspots were completely inaccessible and invisible from the regular view. In order to pick up these items, it was necessary to switch camera views all the time. In essence, the freedom to look at objects from any angle became a way to multiply the age-old problem of pixel hunting tenfold.
Why should I want to go everywhere and look in any angle? Why should it matter that I can only see one side of the big gold dome in Riven? Or am I missing something?

I think you're missing the point. Again you seem to be looking at this 'free exploration' as a superficial option, and that may be based on some games that didn't incorporate it very well. Since you suggested I play some Riven, I suggest you download the Beyond Good & Evil demo and play that. In that game you're not simply looking at tree trunks, you are also free to compete in hovercraft races, talk to NPCs, and play mini-games. But it doesn't end there. In face, many of these 'optional' things are ultimately directly tied in to the main story, and can often affect its progress. Which is to say that, at least in this game, 'free exploration' is not just about looking at tree trunks. It's also about enriching and personalizing your gameplay experience.

:D Ah, so you're picking the examples of games that did a lousy job of it, eh? Why not examine the games that did a great job of it, then? Like the [inexhaustibly] aforementioned BG&E? And then there's Deus Ex, and Grand Theft Auto 3, etc. But, you might ask, why didn't I include examples of adventure games? Simple. I haven't yet seen an adventure that did this.

It matters because exploration is fun and looking in four directions is not exploration. Its one of the key things about human nature... we explore. The world is 3D. We explore things in 3D... so games should be 3D as well.

Well, actually, I'd prefer a looser context than that. Freeform exploration doesn't necessarily just mean running through a 3D world. It could - and does - also include things like side quests and discovering subplots hidden in the main story. That could be just as compelling as 'physical' outback travelling, and in that sense is very possible in a 2D world. For example, what if Kate happened to stumble on a love letter written to the nearsighted gatekeeper inside a book in the Barrockstadt university library? What if April overheard a conversation between Charlie and Emma about Charlie's feelings for April? These kinds of little 'asides' would, of course, be pre-planned for the game, but it could be up to the player to discover them on his own, but not ultimately of major consequence to the main story of the game.

Books are supposed to represent a 3D world too, so why don't the letters jump out of the page? Because it would be gimmicky and useless. Incidentally, your computer monitor is still really a flat image regarless of the graphical style.
One second, trep. I'm getting there. ;)

Well, yes, there's a lot that could be done in 2D that isn't presently being done... but my point is that true environmental exploration can only exist in a 3D space.

Fickfack, you're totally missing the point... but I just came back from a night out and I'm tired, so I'm not going to explain any further. Maybe later...

Believe me, BG&E seems like a good game. If I had the computer for it, I would have bought and played it by now. Sadly, my computer is 5 years old. Won't work. :sad:
You're talking about 3D graphics and non-linearity as the same thing. Why do they have to be? Over on the other thread, people have touted games such as The Last Express, DOTT, and yes, Riven, as examples of 2D, nonlinear adventure games. If Beyond Good and Evil was created in 2D, it could still have the same gameplay. You'd just need more disks to store the images.
I have never argued against free exploration and non-linearity. I have simply suggested that those aspects of free exploration offered by 3D are merely the superficial ones. In 2D, you can create Riven. In 3D, you can create RealRiven. What's the difference between them, other than that you can walk into the forest and look at the trees instead of seeing them from the paths?
BTW, I'm open to examples of how other games have overcome the limitations I mentioned. How can you have a game which manipulates a camera without having the disconnect I just described? How can you make use of the ability to see an object from all angles without making there be something to see from those angles? And how can this be incorporated without being extremely annoying?

Promise yourself you'll play it the minute you upgrade. That or rent it for Xbox. And if you have fast connection, watch this movie right now!

Um, no, I am not. They're related, but not the same thing.

Wrong. If BG&E were in 2D it could never offer the same rich and deep experience. For one thing it could never capture the excitement of the hovercraft racing, the bird's eye view of flying over the city and surrounding planet in you spaceship, and the laid back experience of cruising though the waterways. And it would be stupid idea to market 50 disks, not to mention insanely expensive.

:D And I am arguing that you haven't yet played a game that did it successfully so that your experience of the game is deeper and more personalized. Not all 3D games do it well, you know.

You have NO idea. You may have played the original Myst. Now, go play realMyst and compare.

This is where other important elements come into play where the dynamic camera CAN enhance the effect, and the player's imagination and even emotions can be involved. Again it depends on how skillfully and thoughtfully the game's designer implements it. Integration is the key. In a game like Hitman 2, the gameplay is exploded into three - and even four! - dimensions, exactly through the discovery of alternate ways of accomplishing your given mission. There is no one way to do it, there at least several ways, each one demanding its own proper method of execution. But of course, you can't discover them unless you explore your gameworld. And in that sense you become that much more aware of and sensitive to that gameworld, hence that much more psychologically invested in it. You're not just wandering around aimlessly. You're free to explore, but it's exactly for a purpose.

Why don't you ask the developers these same questions? Their answers will probably be the same as mine. It ultimately depends on the gameplay. Usually you can have some kind of challenge (i.e., puzzle) that could work in both 2D and 3D. But it is possible to design a challenge that be experienced only in 3D. I can't think of any examples atm that puts this in the context of adventure games, but there are many that do it quite well in other genres (like the minigames in GTA3).

If the game is done right, that 'something' that you're looking for (or discover) will hold some kind of value to you. That value will either be projected onto that 'something' by you, or it will already have its own intrinsic value as per the game.

Exactly. :D
I don't know what you're talking about, since I haven't played the game. Your point, however, seems to be solely that BG&E would look less pretty. I'm talking about how it relates to gameplay here, not about graphics.

So the only way that 3D can change the actual gameplay of an adventure is to allow more effective action minigames? :rolleyes:
I can't think of any puzzle that would be more effective using a 3D interface than using another interface. Heck, the most ballyhooed puzzle from that game, Le Serpent Rouge, used 2D entirely.
My main concern is: how do 3D graphics affect adventure gameplay? So far, I have two answers:
1) They allow action sequences to be greatly improved.
2) They allow much more difficult pixel hunting.
Feel free to counter my arguments with specific examples. I'm here to learn.

One simulates a realExperience; the other one is a still photo record of the same experience. One offers realExploration; the other offers pre-determined viewpoints. One allows for a dynamic realEnvironment; the other is largely static and rigidly limited to what the developers programmed.

The difference is to make it all seem more real. :D

What?! From where in your prostate gland did you pull that assumption out? You're assuming that by 'rich and deep experience' I merely mean 'prettier'. Sir, I have no idea what hallucinogens you've been popping, but you completely misunderstood me. The context in which I made that statement has more to do with the immediecy of real time experience, not 'more pretty or less pretty'. It's the difference between watching someone race a vehicle and actually racing it yourself, either with a driver's seat view or a behind-the-vehicle view. 'Less pretty' my foot! Prettier it may be, but prettier is NOT the only thing it is. You're also assuming that I only go for 3D just because it's 'prettier'. What a steaming crock of... You don't know me, okay?

Le Serpent Rouge was never designed with a 3D engine in mind. Simple as that.

Firstly, I have no adventure game examples primarily because adventure game developers do not have enough experience working in 3D and therefore have yet to re-conceptualize puzzle design to take advantage of that graphics format and interface. Next, exactly how would you think 3D would 'greatly improve' action sequences, other than possible showing the charcter moving through the immediate space of the gameworld? Finally, how would pixel hunting be more difficult in a 3D world? You're basically just maneuvering a character through space and moving around corners and from room to room in real time, so the hotspots would simply be volumetric. I can't picture that being more difficult than pixel hunting in 2D. Actually, I think it'd be a lot more fun. By the way, I just thought of a good example to counter your argument: The Westerner. I played the demo, and in some ways it's even better than pixel hunting in 2D.

EDIT: You haven't played Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon, have you? Same thing, except that the characters bypass the pixel hunting bullshit in favour of turning their heads toward the important hotspot. There's your example! (Besides the well done The Westerner)

3D and non-linearity are not one and the same thing, but they are inextricably linked. You cannot do non-linearity effectively in 2D because every pixel has to be pre-made by the developers. You say 'why not just add more CDs?' but who is going to create the content to go on those CDs? It's not possible. Even if you had all the money in the world, there would not be the time or the manpower to create non-linearity to any significant extent in 2D.

3D on the other hand is highly dynamic. You still need to create plenty of content, but there's no limit to the amount of different things you can then do with it.

As Trep says, you're still totally missing the point of 3D and I don't think any amount of explaining on our part is going to make a difference, so I suggest you play some games that use 3D effectively... Outcast, Gothic, Little Big Adventure 2, Deus Ex, Half Life.

Well, that just brought this conversation to the next level. :rolleyes:

Two problems:
1) Why does puzzle design need to be reconceptualized? It seems to me that a "real-time, dynamic" environment can only improve "real-time, dynamic" puzzles. Advenure game puzzles are essentially static. I can certainly see why a real-time, dynamic world would be perfect for a game which actually requires dynamicness.
2) If you are allowed to walk into the forest and look at a tree trunk instead of staying on the paths in a game like Riven, what difference does it make unless there is something to see on those trees? I don't particularily relish the prospect of now having to walk 360º around everything in the gameworld to search for items. Why are you advocating this? Have you played a game with pixel hunting problems recently?

Sadly, I still don't understand what you're talking about. I asked you what improvements 3D has to offer to adventure gameplay that 2D cannot. I never intended to start another 2D versus 3D argument. I don't see the point of continuing to argue with you if you respond to my requests for specific examples by waxing rhapsodic about gameplay experiences that you know I cannot possibly relate to. Not particularily helpful.

Exactly.

Like I said, play the games. You're not going to 'get it' from us telling you how awesome it is. You need to see for yourself.

I think what he's saying is, the examples you're giving are not of adventure games, and do not relate to adventure gameplay. But Trep himself says there aren't any adventures that do it. So my question would be, how do you more specificaly imagine "optional freeform" working in an adventure game? I understand the benefits, but am confused about implementation. My question is not so much whether you need 3d to do it...

Also, Fick, since you cited Riven as an example of 2d freeform in an adventure game, can you explain how this was done (haven't played it). And please don't say go play it, because you obviously don't mean to play any 3d games either.

Thanks to ye both (sides of the issue)

Marko

Fickfack, what you seem to be missing is that free exploration and interaction IS "actual adventure gameplay". Already. Period. End of story. It is its own reward, and any additional benefits (like re-conceptualized puzzles) are pure gravy. It should be as fundamental as storytelling or puzzle solving, but unfortunately, it's often treated like an irrelevant afterthought.

Since there seems to be no mutual ground in gaming for discussion, I'll pull out a real world example. Let's say you wanted to travel through Europe. The current state of adventures is like signing up for a bargain tour. You climb on the bus, the guide pulls down the shades on the windows, and the driver motors on for a seemingly arbitrary distance. At last he stops, and the guide lifts the shades and lets you look out your window. You don't know what you missed along the way, and you aren't free to explore the current view personally. You just listen politely while the guide says "On the right is a lovely 16th century church that we won't let you go into because that's not part of the tour. On the left, you'll see some indigenous goats that are inexplicably lifeless." (If you paid extra, you get the bonus of being able to rotate your head up and down). Guide pulls down shades again, and the process repeats until you finally arrive at a scheduled destination where you can get out and shuffle around on foot, interacting periodically, but still a slave to the tour's agenda.

That kind of tour may be perfectly acceptable for some people, but compare that to backpacking cross-continent one summer. There's absolutely no reason why a backpacker can't visit the same sights as the tour group, with the added benefit of being able to tailor the route to individual preference. And there are no "rules" of exploration along the way. Just the freedom to live and breathe the experience.

This kind of openness and uncertainty would overwhelm some people, of course, so a far better solution for the majority of people would be a personalized tour that lets you freely enjoy the journey itself, yet still offer the benefit of structured progress. THAT is what I'd like to see adventures targeting, and as a few people have been saying here, that simply isn't practical (and effectively impossible) in 2D.

Actually, when I say "2D" in these instances, I'm actually referring to the node movement pseudo-3D games like Riven. But similar restrictions apply to standard 2D games. I'd just use different imagery to describe it.

And for even more extra money, you might even get some action w/ those goats! :eek: Don't you just hate these tour guides restricting your entertainment... :D

I forgot to add all the usual disclaimers. I'm NOT making fun of the node movement games to demean them. I'm pointing out their weaknesses lightheartedly but realistically. I understand that budget constraints and such are what create the limitations, and I've played and enjoyed quite a few of them. All things being equal, though, I'd dearly love to see the end of these restrictions.

Exactly.

Ah, but they do... They do relate to adventure gameplay. In fact, most of these really are adventures... Granted, some more than others, but all share certain attributes with adventures and as such clearly demonstrate the potential of 3D adventuring.


... this is of course something of a non-answer. Maybe I'll write something slightly less pointless if my muse hits me with some inspiration.