[oerhört]

Hi there Marek,

I'm a Norwegian games journalist, working for a site by the name of Gamer.no (http://www.gamer.no - in Norwegian only). Now I've just read your recent article on the future of adventure games, and I'd like to let you know that I so totally agree with mostly everything you point out. I have reviewed games like Runaway, Uru: Ages Beyond Myst and Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon this autumn, and I too find it frustrating when people forget to be critical. In fact, it makes me wonder when BS:TSD gets shiny reviews everywhere, whereas I have to restrict myself to a 7/10 due to rather large complaints.

In my opinion, adventure games feeling too restrictive (and uninvolving) is the major problem for the genre. Actually, and quite ironically, text-only games like Zork: The Great Underground Empire from the early eighties implemented more flexibility to game world exploration than for example Syberia from last year. You could do lots of things that you weren't supposed to, and still get a humourous and/or serious response, and the game even had moving NPCs with their own inventory! I just can't help thinking about what would happen if somebody today really made the jump, and pushed all the limits and exploited all the possibilities to which you so kindly pointed. I do not think it's time for a total world simulation yet, as most interesting puzzles would have needed extremely detailed physics simulation for the whole thing to work. But I do believe multimple solutions to puzzles, more flexible NPCs, and continuous events unfolding, even if all hard-scripted, would make a huge difference.

But on the other hand, in my opinion the lack of such flexbility is not the main problem with the latest adventures. After all, lots of brilliant games of the past do follow all the conventions, without feeling overly restrictive. And as such, I'd be quite happy if a game like the latest Broken Sword installment didn't innovate very much, if only it perfected what adventures do well.

To me, the third Broken Sword outing was a disappointment, because all the new elements, the sneaking, the climbing and the crate-pushing, didn't add much at all to my enjoyment, but rather felt like distractions from the things which did entertain - the story, the more dynamic camera, the graphics and the dialogue. I really felt Revolution was writing out the wrong recipe for the "adventures are dead"-disease, or at least didn't have the skills needed to implement these action-like elements in a way that added to the experience. Additionally, I felt the game still could have given the side characters (and the story) far more depth and made them more credible. Apart from Nico and George, I didn't get very involved with any of them, although there were nice /frameworks/ such as Susarro and Bruno in place. I understand that Revolution wanted to bring in some of the charicature charm/simplicity from the first games for some of the characters, but I also feel most of them are not well enough animated to ever become charming or amusing, visually. The voice acting did bring many of them to life, but I still missed more close-ups, and more convincing animation. But I've read numerous reviews which talk about "fantastic animation" and the like. Again, I ask myself: "Am I too demanding? Am I overly critical?"

And it's in this situation that I stumble across your article, which excellently covers just about every thought I've had the last months on what needs to be further explored in order for the genre to evolve. And it's so unbelievably true when you at the end of your article states that we "must no longer accept mediocrity. Pick every game apart; be honest about what works and what doesn't."

The big question is perhaps how one is to do The Perfect Adventure with only limited funds. But I really believe adventure games could outsell less interesting offers if one just could overcome the restrictions to which many so gladly obeys. It would for example be exciting to see a real adventure game in the veins of the story of Deus Ex, just stretching the choices and twists far more. And I do believe it could be possible to sell something like that, if it's just good enough. Hm. Another digression, I see.

Back to the start: To put it simple, this article should be obligatory for any adventure game reviewer and developer. Excellent and thought-expanding. So, just thought I'd give my respect!

Kent William Innholt
Journalist, Gamer.no

[Henke]

Originally Posted by oerhört

To me, the third Broken Sword outing was a disappointment, because all the new elements, the sneaking, the climbing and the crate-pushing, didn't add much at all to my enjoyment, but rather felt like distractions from the things which did entertain - the story, the more dynamic camera, the graphics and the dialogue. I really felt Revolution was writing out the wrong recipe for the "adventures are dead"-disease, or at least didn't have the skills needed to implement these action-like elements in a way that added to the experience. Additionally, I felt the game still could have given the side characters (and the story) far more depth and made them more credible. Apart from Nico and George, I didn't get very involved with any of them, although there were nice /frameworks/ such as Susarro and Bruno in place. I understand that Revolution wanted to bring in some of the charicature charm/simplicity from the first games for some of the characters, but I also feel most of them are not well enough animated to ever become charming or amusing, visually. The voice acting did bring many of them to life, but I still missed more close-ups, and more convincing animation. But I've read numerous reviews which talk about "fantastic animation" and the like. Again, I ask myself: "Am I too demanding? Am I overly critical?"

No you're not overly critical. I don't know if I agree with you about the animation but I certainly agree about the rest.