[Intrepid Homoludens]

Gothic II, Grand Theft Auto 3, Morrowind.

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.

And then I go and play Syberia: "Can't go there. Can't do that. Can't go there. Can't do that....."

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?

[bysmitty]

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

[remixor]

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.

[Tramboi]

Originally Posted by remixor

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!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

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.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

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.

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.!

[colpet]

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?

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.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

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

[colpet]

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?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

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...

[colpet]

Thank you for the info .

[fov]

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

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by fov

I don't mind an adventure limiting the amount of exploration I can do *for a logical reason*...

...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...

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-)

[Fickfack]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

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.

Played Riven yet?

[Ninja Dodo]

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.

[Fickfack]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

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.

Played Riven yet?
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.

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

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.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Fickfack

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.

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.

[Ninja Dodo]

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.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Ninja Dodo

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

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.