[Intrepid Homoludens]

This thread can be taken as a companion to bysmitty's poll thread, What do you feel is the current state of the adventure genre?

The way the adventure game genre 'chose' to 'evolve' versus how the games industry, technology, society, culture, and the world in general have been developing seems to be detrimental to the adventure game genre's livelihood and chance at flourishing. It's not dead at all, no. But it hasn't actually been largely alive and kicking, either.

Originally Posted by Snarky

I remember that 10-15 years back, the gaming press covered adventures extensively, and I don't think the gaming population was any more mature back then (rather the opposite, I would believe).

So what happened? What do you think happened? Someone answer me this. WHAT HAPPENED? Why aren't adventure games consistently featured in the games media and mainstream media?

Why is the adventure game not a large cultural influence that Gran Turismo, Madden 2005, Halo 2, The Sims, Tony Hawk, Counter-Strike, and Half-Life 2 are? I mean, in an $11 billion dollar industry, where is there a place for adventure games?

In a 21st century world of:

* 7-year-olds with their own cell phones
* very young kids being introduced to gaming by their dads
* video game makers signing big league contracts
* aging Baby Boomers who are computer savvy and have lots of disposable income and time
* more older people learning computers and the internet
* computer use by mainstream people increasing at great speed
* ideas for family-friendly fun in games
* and other things happening culturally, socially, and politically

- what has the adventure game done to change, adapt, and otherwise take advantage of?

[After a brisk nap]

I believe there are two reasons why adventure games lost their position: 3D graphics and the Internet. Is it a coincidence that interest in adventures started to wane around the time of Quake and Tomb Raider, and also when Internet use exploded?

Up until very recently, the best 3D graphics were uglier than the best 2D graphics. However, it opens up completely new ways to move in the game. Other genres that feature more kinetic gameplay gained an advantage from this.

Since adventure developers were not able to integrate 3D movement as a gameplay element, adventure games remained (increasingly outdated) 2D games, or clumsy, ugly 3D games.

We are now at a point where 3D graphics are finally as pretty as 2D paintings and animations. It may not be a coincidence that adventures finally look set to overcome the 3D hurdle, with games like Dreamfall.

The Internet dealt two blows against adventures. First, it provided multiplayer options to games in the FPS, RTS and RPG (and many other) genres. No one has yet figured out how to make a successful multiplayer adventure game. Second, it made hints and walkthroughs easily available. And when they're available, people use them. Few people have the discipline to suffer frustration for day or weeks when the solution is just a click or two away. However, this reduced the gameplay time and value of adventure games enormously. At the same time it made them less enjoyable. It's more fun when you solve the puzzles yourself. Finally, it made services like "The Sierra Hotline" that offered hints for a fee outdated, and thus removed one source of revenue (the value of which I have no idea of) for adventure developers and publishers.

I don't have any good ideas for how to deal with the Internet. Maybe the oft-promoted idea of going away from traditional puzzles will ease the walkthrough problem. If we can find a way to include multi-player gaming as well, I think adventures might have a chance in the mainstream again.

[Ninth]

At one point (after Doom), it got very easy to make a successful action game, so that's what we got, a fatload of action games. during this time, AGs became so scarce than even people (like me) who liked them better needed to find new gaming interests, which in turn made the rare AGs that still were made unprofitable.
Since then, they're never been able to catch up with their peers (or with technology), therefore staying in the shadows.

[insane_cobra]

Yes, the advent of real-time 3D graphics and new gameplay possibilities it introduced.

Let's take horror games for example. Before real-time 3D graphics if you wanted to be scared by a game, chances were you'd play a horror AG such as Dark Seed. There were horror games in other genres as well (Castlevania, for instance), but while being fun to play, they couldn't immerse you in a way adventure games could.

Then came Alone In The Dark. It was by far the scariest game of that time. Everyone remembers the monster from the beggining of the game, trying to get you and how you had to successfully use the 3D enviroment to protect yourself from it. Things like that never happened in AGs before, there was never such a sense of immediacy, a feeling that creatures from the dark were indeed after you. And the fluidity of animation was unbelieavable, they looked so alive! Traditional AGs seemed static compared to that, pretty much lifeless. It was a huge success, yet other AGs of the time weren't interested in following its example so it broke off and created a genre of its own spawning Resident Evil, Silent Hill and numerous other games.

A bit later another incedibly scary game appeared: Doom. It was a new, more action heavy path for horror games to follow and some that did also incorporated adventure elements (Realms of the Haunting, Clive Barker's Undying). Only recently did the two branches join in The Suffering. It also called for new ways of interacting with the player so in adition to scripting, AI was used a lot more often. Horror AGs, however, still remained rather static. It felt as if the world around you was handcrafted to make sure nothing bad ever happened to you. You could take your time exploring it free of the worry that something would lurch around the corner trying to kill you.

The other genres took time to adjust to 3D as well. If we remember the first arcade platformers like Pandemonium, their worlds were 3D but the movement was still in just two dimensions. Crash Bandicoot created an illusion of freedom even though it was still a game on rails. It was not until Mario 64 that they got it right and after that the genre exploded. 3D fighting games were essentially 2D at first, no sidestepping, less freedom of movement. Real-time strategies also had a huge period of adjustment, but there was never a real alternative to them so 2D RTSs remained popular long after 3D was introduced.

It's not just the immersiveness or new gameplay possibilities that emerged from the technology, it was also the beauty of graphics and, more importantly, animation. Before 3D, AGs were always up there with the best looking games on the market. When prerendered 3D started appearing, Myst came along and became possibly the most beautiful game of its time. But then came real-time 3D and while at first it lacked detail of 2D or prerendered 3D pictures, it felt much more alive, more vibrant. The beauty of it wasn't in static images, it was in motion. AG developers and audience failed to see that. While being almost on the bleeding edge of technology for many years, AGs were suddenly reduced to less impressive looking postcards tailored so that they could be played on computers a few genetations behind current technology. Still beautiful sometimes, sure, but nevertheless lifeless postcards.

I think those were the main reasons, but there's probably more. I don't have much time to go into further detail right now as I'm expecting somebody to come up every moment and I still haven't washed the dishes

[insane_cobra]

Just a quickie: Wouldn't that be a good theme for a game? Trying to discover what happene3d to adventure games

[Erwin_Br]

I'm not so sure 3D action games and multiplayer technology are responsible. I mean, sure, the majority of the gaming public enjoys a multiplayer game like Counter-Strike or World of Warcraft. Myself included. But I also like to play games from other genres, like, uh... adventure games. I think a lot (or at least some) of 'mainstream' gamers would enjoy adventure games, if they got the chance to play one. There are many potential adventure gamers out there, and it's up to the publishers to get these games to them. So I say bad marketing is responsible.

--Erwin

[SakSquash]

Let's not forget, with games costing 50 bones these days, people are less willing to plop down that kind of green for a game they can play maybe twice at the most.

[EvoG]

Snarky hit it on the head. ( EDIT : Actually all of you made significant points )

Adventures in the hayday were utilizing storytelling for their immersion; as immersive as a book can be, but no more.

Unforunately for old school AG's, nothing can compare to being there, and of course the only way for that to happen is 3D. Once we're able to enter these worlds and effectively explore as we would in reality, static adventure backgrounds are terribly restrictive. Once we're able to enter these 3D worlds that at their best, rival 2D, now we've completely removed the one thing 2D had going for itself, which was per-pixel perfection (at ITS best). Sticking to the adage that AG's need static backgrounds is superfluous...there's simply no argument.

So removing the environment and its representation here helps a lot, as I can't imagine anyone enjoying a flat 2D world over the same world expressed in full explorable 3D. For the camera-jockey impaired though,(or those with motion sickness), we simply allow for the game to be played in limited (but available) camera movements.

Characters in todays games can be just as deep and interactive, and only limited to the extent the developers want to take them (HL2) but no one has argued that they wouldn't want MORE character interaction. So we're fine in this respect.

The world 'puzzle' comes with a stigma today, if not immediately balanced with other leading adjectives such as jumping, action or combat. Keep in mind as you're reading that I'm referring to today's games, and more specifically, gamers less inclined to play AG's, which ultimately accounts for its loss in mainstream appeal. So lets just drop the word puzzle. All games have "puzzles" on some level. An obstacle requiring some invested activity to overcome, be it cerebral or dexterous activity, nonetheless its implied a game will have such obstacles. Personally any "puzzle" having to do with color, music or levers sicken me. (This is my first post so I must qualify myself to avoid being labeled a blasphemer; I AM an old school adventure gamer, having played and loved them all. I'm a developer in this industry and I DO play ALL games of ALL genres. ) Anyway, my point is that by simply featuring the word "puzzle"(not word-puzzle...pah leez) as a necessary component to AG's, you potentially invite presupposition that the game is going to have those damned level/color/note-matching puzzles (or the newspaper/keyhole conundrum ). Okay I'm exaggerating a bit but I hope you know what I mean.

I think this leaves us with action. The one thing that truly separates AG's from todays mainstream games is anything involving twitch response gameplay. Remove driving, shooting or platforming, and all you're left with is the story, the world(exploration) and its characters. The only obstacles you can introduce to make the world interactive are all cerebral, be it inventory manipulation, dialogue or world interaction. Any good game or story has some sort of conflict or challenge, or you're simply a passive observer. Mind you, I'm keeping in context as to why AG's are not mainstream successes, and that those that are, they follow suit with action and THEN the other elements. But then again, lots of games don't have blistering action and are successful.

So, as Intrepid magniloquently put , what happened?...AG stories today are DULL. Writing is bad, the stories are flat and the worlds are boring. I'd very much rather visit the european city overrun by a fascist alien rule, or a fantastical dystopian 'other world' with my slapstick sidekick Daxter. CJ is an amazing contemporary character that goes through many character changes throughout his journey in San Andreas. Beyond Good and Evil was terribly satisfying and amazing to explore. Fable's world was of a dreamy cliched fantasy with perpetual colors of Fall in the leaves and and big bold obvious fantasy conventions. I do not want to go to Egypt or Atlantis or solve any more murders. Sure toss a murder in one of these games (Ultima 7?) and I'm trilled. Make it the whole game and it lacks fantasy or wonder. Many people DO like Egyptian murders in Atlantis where the murder weapon was a collection of colored pebbles, that once assembled point the way to the murderer who lives in that lighthouse over there but weren't able to get in because there was a chain on the hatch that was too short to reach but now grew longer because you solved the colored pebble puzzle...err, yea.

I'm not mocking AG's mind you, as I briefly spilled my gaming pedigree, but I AM mocking todays AG's that seem to WANT to distance themselves from mainstream. Simple fact is that developers want to compete for the biggest piece of the proverbial pie and by whose fault we may never know, AG's wont give them that. On the other hand there are developers (/me raises hand) who don't necessarily NEED to compete for but the crumbs of that pie and are perfectly capable of delivering fantastical worlds to explore with genuinely satisfying stories and characters and help to possibly erase that stigma that AG's fervently grasp onto, though not necessarily of their own will.



Cheers

[Musenik]

I don't think adventure games have been marginalized at all! I believe they expanded into many different genres as the technology and budgets allowed more and more story/play elements into other types of computer games.

Some of my favorite adventure games were the Bioware D&D series. All I cared about leveling up was just enough to make sure I could continue the story.

[Jazhara7]

Well, either the developers were just hungry, or somebody translated incorrectly.


-

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by temporaryscars

Let's not forget, with games costing 50 bones these days, people are less willing to plop down that kind of green for a game they can play maybe twice at the most.

It seems the intensity of games has shifted from its content (back then) to its packaging (today).

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by EvoG

I think this leaves us with action. The one thing that truly separates AG's from todays mainstream games is anything involving twitch response gameplay. Remove driving, shooting or platforming, and all you're left with is the story, the world(exploration) and its characters. The only obstacles you can introduce to make the world interactive are all cerebral, be it inventory manipulation, dialogue or world interaction. Any good game or story has some sort of conflict or challenge, or you're simply a passive observer. Mind you, I'm keeping in context as to why AG's are not mainstream successes, and that those that are, they follow suit with action and THEN the other elements. But then again, lots of games don't have blistering action and are successful.

I know that there are games that enjoyed critical success, like Beyond Good & Evil, and those that made lots of money, like Fable and Knights Of The Old Republic. These games are rich with adventure game elements (story, exploration, some puzzles, a very consistent and deep world, memorable characters), but they also feature combat and action.

So do you think that the developers and publishers think that action is a vital element to include to ensure more commercial success for the adventure game? Do you feel that most people outside the niche market of 'hardcore' adventure gamers would be interested in a game that doesn't require any kind of action? Or does it not matter to them as long as they get a great story and everything else?

So, as Intrepid magniloquently put , what happened?...AG stories today are DULL. Writing is bad, the stories are flat and the worlds are boring....I do not want to go to Egypt or Atlantis or solve any more murders.

...I'm not mocking AG's mind you, as I briefly spilled my gaming pedigree, but I AM mocking todays AG's that seem to WANT to distance themselves from mainstream. Simple fact is that developers want to compete for the biggest piece of the proverbial pie and by whose fault we may never know, AG's wont give them that...

So you're saying that adventure games need to get out their rut of producing the same old, tired, overused stories, themes, and gameplay. And because of this nobody else besides the diehard fans is interested. That other people are finding the excitement and quality in other kinds of games.

It's true that adventure games as we know it are no longer the desirable genre to market successfully. I think this explains why developers no longer have the generous budgets they once had during the 'golden days' of Sierra and Lucas Arts. But also there's the fact that the games industry is far, far bigger today than ten years ago, it's much more expensive to make game and advertise it. As technology and PCs have steadily improved, allowing for once impossible ideas to be realized, the adventure game seemed to ignore all the progress happening around it, didn't take advantage of it. Which in turn caused everyone else (that is, those other than loyal fans) to stop paying much attention and look for the new excitement elsewhere.

[EvoG]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

So do you think that the developers and publishers think that action is a vital element to include to ensure more commercial success for the adventure game? Do you feel that most people outside the niche market of 'hardcore' adventure gamers would be interested in a game that doesn't require any kind of action? Or does it not matter to them as long as they get a great story and everything else?

Yes, absolutely. Action gives the game emotion on a primitive, instinctive level. Nothing is easier to convey or relate too than than the violent conflict of battle to the competition sports engenders.

I get behind GTA for example on two significant levels...the gun fighting and the driving(racing). Its full of the same enery as the best Summer Blockbuster.tm movie. I LOVE the high budget, high energy movies from Jerry Bruckheimer. At the same time we have movies like Collateral from Michael Mann, that had the tension and energy of violent conflict, with INCREDIBLE character developement and interaction. Cruise and Foxx are just amazing. Even that short cab ride at the begining of the movie between Foxx and Pinkett is so well conceived and delivered. I equate that to a game like Metal Gear Solid...great action with great acting and intersting story.

Anyway, how many movies do you know that were strictly story with lots of talking and literally zero action, that attained the level of success any of the top 20 grossing films? Sure we have a few cartoons from Lion King and Shrek 2, but they are fantasy and wonder. The only movie in the top 20 that isn't a blockbuster in the sense I imply is Forest Gump. Point is that its natural for the biggest, noisiest most glamoursly violent and special effects laden movies to be ultra successful, and I love every minute of every movie in that list. Equally I love a large body of movies that I just realised I can't name this very moment that were not super blockbusters, like Amelie(okay thats one).

Games are no different. Its really that simple. The medium is now capable of delivering that visual energy of the blockbuster movie but with we equal energy to interaction...BEING those larger than life heros engaged in primal combat. So lets not sweat having "mega" successful adventure games, but rather, not creating adventures that require "mega" budgets. See like I said in my last post, developers for the most part are not satisfied making proportionally profitable games. They ALL want ALL or none. The ones that are happy making modest games, sadly, dont have the ability to create near AAA visuals, and good or bad, great visuals DO increase visibility thus a chance for greater sales. You're appealing to that part of the brain the mainstream really loves...visually stunning escapades....thats why 3D movies so far have been VERY profitable considering their tiny costs. Now we flip full circle...those with AAA capability are working at AAA studios, and those studios are trying for that killer hit, and if AG's are killer hit sellers, they dont get made. Do great graphics make for a hit AG? Dont know and so far we cant tell, as I have yet to see any AG with AAA visuals that are daring the industry to make it a mega hit (I discount pre-rendered backgrounds on every level so lets not even bother mentioning those, though again, nothing has stunned me).

A game that looks like HL2 or Farcry that has no action could still make people look up and go "shit"...only because they are so compelled to explore such a stunning world. Now we just have to serve up some interesting, non-action interactivity.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

So you're saying that adventure games need to get out their rut of producing the same old, tired, overused stories, themes, and gameplay. And because of this nobody else besides the diehard fans is interested. That other people are finding the excitement and quality in other kinds of games.

Yes. To continue from above, graphics aside, the game has to be interesting to 'play with'. Easy enough to agree with. KotoR 2 is that anomoly that though having THE license to have (SW fans are forgiving over poorly executed uses of the license; its bulletproof, unlike Matrix that hanged itself on its last two outtings), has rather 'meh' graphics, and actually is a non-action game. Chris Avellone is a kick ass writer/designer, and I was thrilled to see his signature depth and ambiguity in KotoR2 from Planescape. So knowing you're a rabid KotoR fan, I know I'm preaching to the choir while simultaneously making everyone here roll their eyes, but KotoR is the closest thing to a mega-successful adventure game. It has non-twitch combat, but the combat itself is interactive enough that you are essentially watching an energetic movie ( the combat animations themselves ) but dictating how you want each instance of battle to unfold (ranged, melee or force powers). Then you have the deep influence system with NPC's, where dialogue trees dont serve to simply confound you on your path to the end, but actually have consequence ( the handmadien REFUSED to talk to me after I spent a tad too much time with Visas ).

As for the themes of todays AG's...well shit, um, I'm not impressed. They have no imagination. Artistically bankrupt(style AND execution). All of the most imaginative visuals and talent are going straight to mainstream game developement, and truthfully they rock. BG&E, Oddworld, Sly Cooper. AG themes BLOW. AG artwork STINKS. Puzzles are derivative, but then again, so are FPS's so maybe thats not a huge downer.

So with all this said, lemme ask all of you...would you be adverse to a 3D graphic adventure, that allowed deep world exploration (that only 3D could provide), still being point and click if you prefer, and even includes turn-based combat like RPG's(think of them as combat-puzzles), but without ANY stats managment or character building?

Another way to ask this is...what is the point of no return for you, when an AG ceases to be what your ideal AG experience is? When do you say, "meh, this is less a graphic adventure....I'm not buying it"?

Speaking of buying AG's, marketing and distribution are huge costs for games deemed risky or niche...so are you willing to support AG's that are distributed soley online(you download the game immediately), at a reduced cost of course to you since you're not paying for packaging or CD ( but can request optionally )? This can go a long way to allowing dev's to take risks on the games you desire most when they can cut out the middlemen and get you the games direct. Again lower production costs mean less risk. Once we can get budgets that will allow the smaller AG demographic to support those dev's, you should see more quality AG's. Whats an average sell through on an average AG today? Above average?


If I may, just a small bit about me to substantiate my opinions(not that this makes me any more right or wrong, but that my views are from experience as well as being an avid gamer my whole life). I do contract 3D animation and modeling/texturing for AAA games and have worked on almost all of the major MMO's out, soon to be out or cancelled(yay ), which btw is all a coincidence, not choice. I'm also and independent developer who's currently working on something I think(but more 'hope') you all will like very much, so these discussions are not simply mental masterbation, as I really am looking to understand what it is I'm working hard to accomplish and what I can offer.




Cheers

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by EvoG

Action gives the game emotion on a primitive, instinctive level. Nothing is easier to convey or relate too than than the violent conflict of battle to the competition sports engenders.

This is typically anathema to what many adventure gamers want. Though action can infuse a[n adventure] game with a sense of suspense and immediacy and trigger particular emotions, even an adrenaline rush, these gamers won't buy these kinds of games. One argument is that they prefer to think their way out of situations. Another is that a lot of them don't possess the skills of quick reflexes and dexterity. Still another is that they refuse to involve themselves in violence and killing. In fact many of them cringed at the idea of Uru: Ages Beyond Myst requiring direct control and jumping, heated discussions in the community proved this.

However, there are well made games heavy in story and exploration that include action. These often attract those who look for the excitement and involvement that they miss from the adventures of the 90s. The requisite action (even violence) is not at all an issue with them, they want to experience the story, characters, and world in the game, and they don't care ultimately if it's not a 'pure' adventure. If it takes learning how to fight, level up, or platform they'll do it. These games are: Beyond Good & Evil, Knights Of The Old Republic, ICO, Psychonauts, and others. I think these are where the 'essence' of the old adventure games went.

[SoccerDude28]

I personally doubt 3d graphics had anything to do with it. Did Anyone play flight sims before? Those were 3D from their humble begginings. And how about real time strategy games? The first truly 3D one came in 2000 or something. The first genre is almost gone forever. I think there are more AG's today than flight sims. The second one is one of the most popular genres on the PC.

I think a few things contributed to the "death"/unpopularity of AG's.

1- The nature of the gameplay and the popularity of the consoles:
Not only AG's are not that popular anymore, PC games in general are not that popular. PC Sales are 1/5th the sales of consoles. So developers and publishers alike are tapping into the console market. And the console generation never grew up playing adventure games, so for them to accept a game completely devoid of action is very difficult. Some other genres translated perfectly to the console like first person shooters. But I doubt AG's will ever find a home on a console.

2- "Mainstreaming" and the nature of gameplay: How many people like to sit and solve jigsaw puzzles? I highly doubt it's a massive number. Adventure games are the jigsaw puzzles of the computer games, but a thousand times more expensive to make. When you play a game, you usually want to get away from a cerebral challange. It is a game after all and it should make you forget the life's hard work. So sitting in front of a computer trying to solve a puzzle for 5 hours after a long day at work/school is not something everyone can enjoy. Work/school itself is frustrating so why would someone want to be more frustrated? Maybe if the gameplay evolves from taxing puzzles to other forms of "fluid" gameplay that never gets you stuck, it might be able to pick up steam.

3- Lack of licencing: How many adventure games are licenced after movies or other forms of entertainment? Getting some few licences can encourage people to buy the games, because they are much more likely to buy Harry potter "The adventure" than "Syberia". Lucasarts used licenses in the early days with Indiana jones which sold pretty well, but Grim Fandango didn't sell at all cause most probably no one knew what it was. And what kind of name is "Grim Fandango" for a video game? It has "niche" written all over it.

That's my take on the subject

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by EvoG

A game that looks like HL2 or Farcry that has no action could still make people look up and go "shit"...only because they are so compelled to explore such a stunning world. Now we just have to serve up some interesting, non-action interactivity.

There actually are some adventures out there that approach the level of HL2 and others in terms of graphical richness, even of sound. There's realMyst, Mysterious Journey II, WANTED, Sentinel: Descendents Of Time, and a few others. Unfortunately their good looks are not enough, they suffer from the unchallenged, tired conventions of most other adventure games, the details we've listed. It goes without saying that the most drop dead gorgeous graphics can't carry a game in the end. A good game must be good from the inside out.

Chris Avellone is a kick ass writer/designer, and I was thrilled to see his signature depth and ambiguity in KotoR2 from Planescape.

We have a horde of people here who swear by Planescape. It's one of the most beloved of the adventure game crowd.

KotoR 2 is that anomoly...has rather 'meh' graphics, and actually is a non-action game...KotoR is the closest thing to a mega-successful adventure game. It has non-twitch combat, but the combat itself is interactive enough that you are essentially watching an energetic movie ( the combat animations themselves ) but dictating how you want each instance of battle to unfold (ranged, melee or force powers). Then you have the deep influence system with NPC's, where dialogue trees dont serve to simply confound you on your path to the end, but actually have consequence ( the handmadien REFUSED to talk to me after I spent a tad too much time with Visas ).

I've played both KoTOR (3 times in a row) and KoTOR II (just started my 2nd play), and not because they're Star Wars games. These two are as close as you can get to experiencing a high quality production, deep adventure game - if you take out the main RPG elements, that is. Again, this is where the 'magic' of adventure games have migrated. Imagine what would happen if Bioware made an epic sized adventure game, with several playable characters, and an insanely deep, complex story.

[EvoG]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

There actually are some adventures out there that approach the level of HL2 and others in terms of graphical richness, even of sound. There's realMyst, Mysterious Journey II, WANTED, Sentinel: Descendents Of Time, and a few others. Unfortunately their good looks are not enough, they suffer from the unchallenged, tired conventions of most other adventure games, the details we've listed. It goes without saying that the most drop dead gorgeous graphics can't carry a game in the end. A good game must be good from the inside out.

I'll have to respectfully disagree...no where NEAR the quality of HL2, which is a given anyway considering the technology in the Source Engine, and Farcry has such an unbelievably immersive outdoor world...unless you've played it its hard to convey how incredible it is to explore.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

We have a horde of people here who swear by Planescape. It's one of the most beloved of the adventure game crowd.

"...and do not trust the skull..."

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Imagine what would happen if Bioware made an epic sized adventure game, with several playable characters, and an insanely deep, complex story.

But with combat? I was hoping to get a large bit of my last uber-post addressed as I talk about combat and the like. Either way I agree...


Cheers

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by EvoG

I'll have to respectfully disagree...no where NEAR the quality of HL2, which is a given anyway considering the technology in the Source Engine, and Farcry has such an unbelievably immersive outdoor world...unless you've played it its hard to convey how incredible it is to explore.

Remember, I said 'approaching', not 'matching', the level of HL2, etc. It ultimately depends on the talent and skills of the developers using whatever engine they get in proportion to that engine's strengths and capabilities. Mysterious Journey II was made using LithTech's Jupiter engine (the same one that powered No One Lives Forever 2), you can see how they fared with these screenshots. IMO, after playing the demo, I think it looks very nice and certainly luscious compared to the banality of other adventures, but again it lacks any totally new and fresh takes graphically, gameplay-wise, and story-wise. You can give Detalion (the devs) the Source engine and they would still have screwed it up that way.

I've played the Farcry demo, and it looks good, yes. However, depending on what an adventure dev would want to do with it, do you really need an adventure game to allow you miles and miles and miles of unlimited travelling when the story may not need it? I'm still deep in the middle of Half-Life 2, and I think the Source engine is far more suited to a kind of adventure game, especially something that involves a humanistic story, drama, and a more intimate atmosphere. Again it depends on what the devs want and how they want to convey it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

As for the themes of todays AG's...well shit, um, I'm not impressed. They have no imagination. Artistically bankrupt(style AND execution). All of the most imaginative visuals and talent are going straight to mainstream game developement, and truthfully they rock. BG&E, Oddworld, Sly Cooper. AG themes BLOW. AG artwork STINKS. Puzzles are derivative, but then again, so are FPS's so maybe thats not a huge downer.

Lack of true originality, creativity, and innvoation in these days of EA and Hollywood-ization is common in every game genre. But in some genres, like strategy games and adventures, it's much more so. Until we see a succession of adventure titles doing well not just critically but MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, COMMERCIALLY, then this languishing will continue. It would have to take a handful of very talented designers blessed with generous funding consistently churning out fine games helped by clever marketing to get the adventure genre truly alive and kicking again. But for now all we have are people like David Cage and Ragnar Tornquist. They are strong visionaries, however, and if they can help puncture the barrier, interest in this genre may be sparked once more.

So with all this said, lemme ask all of you...would you be adverse to a 3D graphic adventure, that allowed deep world exploration (that only 3D could provide), still being point and click if you prefer, and even includes turn-based combat like RPG's(think of them as combat-puzzles), but without ANY stats managment or character building?

I would be absolutely for it, yeah. But then they already exist. It's just that the hardcore adventurers (most of us here) refuse the play them for the reasons I listed above. But I think what you mean are adventure games that, with a generous amount of funding, access to the best graphics engine and other technology, new and aggressively creative talent, and extraordinary marketing ideas. In short, everything that the current genre does not have.

Another way to ask this is...what is the point of no return for you, when an AG ceases to be what your ideal AG experience is? When do you say, "meh, this is less a graphic adventure....I'm not buying it"?

Ironically, games like Beyond Good & Evil and the KoTOR series are in some ways my ideal adventure experiences. I get from them what I haven't been getting from past adventure games I've played - a sense of participating, of being involved in a living, breathing world; taking part in the lives of characters; solving challenges and dilemmas; the sense of discovery and wonder. I want to feel like I've virtually lived in that story and world. And I think with upcoming titles like Fahrenheit and Dreamfall, I'll get that chance.

Speaking of buying AG's, marketing and distribution are huge costs for games deemed risky or niche...so are you willing to support AG's that are distributed soley online(you download the game immediately), at a reduced cost of course to you since you're not paying for packaging or CD ( but can request optionally )? This can go a long way to allowing dev's to take risks on the games you desire most when they can cut out the middlemen and get you the games direct. Again lower production costs mean less risk. Once we can get budgets that will allow the smaller AG demographic to support those dev's, you should see more quality AG's. Whats an average sell through on an average AG today? Above average?

Visionaries in the games industry have been discussing such alternative methods as distribution, episodic gaming, and other ideas. They talked about it at GDC. Already we're seeing a trickling of this happening, with games like AGON independently purchased online and released in chapter installments, and BeTrapped as a free downloadable 'lunch break adventure' for casual gamers. Of course, the most prominent undertaking is Valve's Steam service, which is the most ambitious thus far, and definitely the most dynamic. This is not so much the future of gaming as it is one branch of the future.

[EvoG]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I would be absolutely for it, yeah. But then they already exist. It's just that the hardcore adventurers (most of us here) refuse the play them for the reasons I listed above. But I think what you mean are adventure games that, with a generous amount of funding, access to the best graphics engine and other technology, new and aggressively creative talent, and extraordinary marketing ideas. In short, everything that the current genre does not have.

Turn-based combat though? It requires zero dexterity, and is arguablly a combat puzzle. Sure contextually you're in battle, akin to an action game, but you're not actively using your dexterity to defeat the opponent, but rather your mind (tactics and strategy). What makes this 'puzzle' any less worthy than one where you push tiles around to complete a mural?

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Visionaries in the games industry have been discussing such alternative methods as distribution, episodic gaming, and other ideas. They talked about it at GDC. Already we're seeing a trickling of this happening, with games like AGON independently purchased online and released in chapter installments, and BeTrapped as a free downloadable 'lunch break adventure' for casual gamers. Of course, the most prominent undertaking is Valve's Steam service, which is the most ambitious thus far, and definitely the most dynamic. This is not so much the future of gaming as it is one branch of the future.

Perhaps I need to be a bit more blunt; I am currently developing a tried and true point and click graphic adventure game, with all the tech you could want and exploiting my teams artistic ability, as as I said, we do this professionally in the industry right this moment. It will be completely story and character driven with extensive high quality animation and tons of world interactivity. I'm toying with including both cinema-cam's and free-direct control-cam's, so you can get an old schoold Lucasarts experience or a more KotoR, if you will, experience. I'm specifically asking you and anyone reading here:

Would you buy a graphic adventure exclusively online , that you would then download?

One of the more significant ways I can conceivably beat the odds against us developing an AG is the distribution hurdle and associated costs. Near identical to Spiderweb Games method, their customers support them completely through online distribution. Valve has done this with some success, but no figures I can find are available. So they are of course a start, but not conclusive because the system isn't exclusive...people are still purchasing it brick-and-motar.

If the community can support AG developers through online distribution exclusively, you're helping open that window, so developers like myself can create some quality product without as much risk of getting crushed under the heels of giants. Its one thing for us to speculate over and over why the genre has died or faded or is commercially unsuccessful. Its another to offer solutions and support developers that may want to try new avenues of distribution which will only encourage more AG's getting developed.


Cheers