[insane_cobra]

Point & click in RTS games makes a lot of sense for in most of them you need to be able to select multiple units, give them orders and then quickly move on to another task (although there are some RTS games that use direct control, like Sacrifice). Adventure games have no need for that, both p&c and direct control have their advantages and disadvantages with that genre. Now, I'm not saying p&c shouldn't have its place in future adventures, it should (mostly in 2D and 2.5D titles, I really think full 3D games function better with direct control), but comparing p&c in adventures with p&c in RTS games (or in RPGs with turn based combat, for that matter) doesn't make much sense.

[Junkface]

I don't think point and click in RTSes is really being compared with adventures at all; rather point and click's prevalence in RTSes is simply being used to illustrate that the gaming public at large doesn't automatically turn its back on anything point and click (hell, I'd argue that there's an element of point and click in FPSes, but that's a different matter really, seeing as they're undeniably direct control.)

Anyway, for the record, seeing as we seem to be doing this now, my preference in general is for point and click in games with predetermined cameras (Bone, most, if not all 2D adventures) and direct control in games with player controlled cameras (Dreamfall, Gabriel Knight 3.) Of course, there will always be exceptions, depending on what a particular game is trying to evoke.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Junkface

I don't think point and click in RTSes is really being compared with adventures at all; rather point and click's prevalence in RTSes is simply being used to illustrate that the gaming public at large doesn't automatically turn its back on anything point and click

It doesn't, but we're talking about point & click in adventures (and it would be great if a mod would move this discussion to the point & click thread, thanks). However, I don't think point & click is the sole reason why adventures aren't very popular with mainstream audience, there are many elements of "traditional" adventure design that most people find off-putting.

Anyway, for the record, seeing as we seem to be doing this now, my preference in general is for point and click in games with predetermined cameras (Bone, most, if not all 2D adventures) and direct control in games with player controlled cameras (Dreamfall, Gabriel Knight 3.)

I'm of belief that fixed/on-rails cameras in 3D enviroments should be avoided whenever possible. The Great Cow Race has a particularly noticable problem with its on-rails camera. There are situations when the screen is scrolling towards you (sort of zooming out) so when you're walking towards the camera, you have to keep clicking on the ground slowly revealing in front of your character in order for view transition to complete. That's bad, very bad in my book. Granted, such occurrences can be avoided by careful level design and camera scripting, but I still think a fixed/on-rails camera negates one of the biggest advantages of 3D enviroments - the ability to go anywhere and to look at things from any angle.

[phankiejankie]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

However, I don't think point & click is the sole reason why adventures aren't very popular with mainstream audience, there are many elements of "traditional" adventure design that most people find off-putting.

I think p&c in some magical way has cast its spell over adventures. The interface leads to certain limitations regarding gameplay and puzzles. From my pov, the game serves the interface rather than the other way around.

Originally Posted by Junkface

hell, I'd argue that there's an element of point and click in FPSes

You can't really eliminate p&c that’s for sure. I mean whenever you use your mouse you are actually pointing and clicking. Doom 3 (a well-known old school style FPS) for instance had an excellent and simple way of dealing with point and click when you had to operate doors or elevators. Pointing the cursor on a hotspot would make the gun disappear and a nice hand cursor ala Myst would appear, left click and voila. Next hidden monster please

[AFGNCAAP]

Some of the posts here have just been transferred from the Dreamfall thread. Sorry for any confusion it may cause.

Originally Posted by phankiejankie

I think p&c in some magical way has cast its spell over adventures. The interface leads to certain limitations regarding gameplay and puzzles. From my pov, the game serves the interface rather than the other way around.

Every interface has its limitations. (Just think how many possibly great puzzles and stories we lost by ditching the text parser. Again, in a mainstream, as it is doing fine on the freeware scene.) That's why I think we should demand diversity (rather than claim that direct control is a step up on the evolution ladder and as such should soon replace p&c completely), even if the side effect of it will be lots of games we personally will never enjoy playing.

[phankiejankie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

That's why I think we should demand diversity

I am with you on diversity, unfortunately we don't see much in the adventure genre. Innovative or different if you prefer titles get slaughtered by the AG community. I have this feeling that Fahrenheit was much more appealing to the typical gamer than the adventure follower.

What I am trying to say is that many think that adventure=point n’ click, which is not true. All this alienation over direct control is somewhat childish. Reminds me of the you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Nevertheless, developers could follow the Myst V example, so everyone could be happy.

[colpet]

Boy, I'm away for a bit and the title of my thread changes .

What I am trying to say is that many think that adventure=point n’ click, which is not true. All this alienation over direct control is somewhat childish. Reminds me of the you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.

Please refrain from making derogatory remarks just because you like something that someone else doesn't. I sometimes feel that there is a double standard here. The comment Dreamfall isn't an adventure really irks people, yet countless times the same is said about Myst passes without much of a comment. Crapstorm gets slammed for saying that direct control is like gruntwork, but it's alright to say that us P&C people are childish old traditionalists don't have the drive needed to learn a new skill.
There is room in Adventures for lots of variety. While keyboard control/console control games may attract mainstream gamers, point and click is the way to reach novice computer gamers - it's easy and familiar. Both are valid and have the potential to attract new adventurers.

[phankiejankie]

Originally Posted by colpet

Please refrain from making derogatory remarks just because you like something that someone else doesn't.

Obviously (well not so obviously on second thoughts) I don't want to offend people for sticking or preferring p&c. It is just that the above phrase seemed the proper one for describing a certain part of AGamers that are just lazy enough to try something new. Resistance to change is a global problem that is discussed thoroughly at universities around the world and this unwillingness to try extensively and THEN reject another control method suits the scheme. I would like to clarify that this doesn’t apply to all people liking p&c.

[JemyM]

Neverwinter Nights is point & click and 100% 3d even if it contains 2d portraits and 2d inventory icons. A less famous game that gives the same is Vampire: The Redemption. Point & Click can be done perfectly in a 3d environment and it's actually quite nice to play with. I am surprised that I havnt seen a single 3d adventure game that have point & click movement.

Beyond Good and Evil is not an adventuregame, but it's the kind of game that the market missed probably because thoose who love it best (the adventuregamers) are too stubborn against the arcade stuff. It have direct control.

Deus Ex and Call of Cthulhu are not adventuregames, they are in fact first-person shooters, but they are the kind of games that many adventuregamers would enjoy.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by JemyM

I am surprised that I havnt seen a single 3d adventure game that have point & click movement.

I'm also surprised cause there are several. Bone games and Westerner (or was it Wanted?) are the first that come to mind.

[phankiejankie]

Beyond Good & Evil was such an awesome game too bad the sales were so bad. I mean the game was flawless.

I wouldn't categorize Call of Cthulhu as an FPS, trying to play it FPS style will resolve to immediate and certain death. There is no way finishing this game by running around and shooting things Doom style... and the ammo management is a bitch but adds to the tension

Deus Ex... Well this game is a category of its own isn't it?

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Junkface

I don't think point and click in RTSes is really being compared with adventures at all; rather point and click's prevalence in RTSes is simply being used to illustrate that the gaming public at large doesn't automatically turn its back on anything point and click...

Exactly.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

It doesn't, but we're talking about point & click in adventures...

You're only limiting the context to adventures because the wider one doesn't support any kind of "point and click is antiquated" theory. But if point and click is being accused of causing the adventure's (relative) demise, then there must be something inherently wrong with it as a viable control scheme. And since that clearly is not the case in other genres, then that argument doesn't hold much water. So the answer must lie elsewhere.

However, I don't think point & click is the sole reason why adventures aren't very popular with mainstream audience, there are many elements of "traditional" adventure design that most people find off-putting.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. I'm sure some would argue that these other factors are things traditional adventures currently do WRONG, but I personally believe it's mostly about pace and purpose. The interface and design are meant to suit the games' intent, which is a deliberately slow, cerebral experience. No, this isn't some "adventure games are for smart people and action games for twitch jockeys" crap. It's just an obvious observation with no hidden meaning. Do most gamers want a slow, cerebral experience? I would say no. Even those that do (like most of us here) don't want a steady diet of it. So they're going to be a niche interest, period.

Is it possible to create some adventures that have a more mainstream appeal? Sure, a little bit. How? By doing what Fahrenheit and Dreamfall did. Increase the pace and alter the purpose (clearly the focus of neither game was on cerebral challenges). With that comes a different control scheme, sure. And that's fine for the sake of diversity, but it doesn't replace the other games. Really the two have nothing to do with each other.

Let's face it. Traditional adventure games are the video game equivalent of baseball. It can be pretty fricking boring, but lots of people like it for what it is, and no matter how much you tweak it and improve it, it will never appeal to many people. Why is this a bad thing? It just is.

Originally Posted by colpet

I sometimes feel that there is a double standard here.

There's definitely a double standard among SOME people here, but hopefully this isn't quite the blanket statement it sounds like.

[Jeysie]

Now that I think about it, a post I made in a previous thread probably applies here:

Originally Posted by Jeysie

I find PNC to be the most efficient form of interface for adventures.

After all, most of the time the whole point of an adventure is to interact with various bits of the environment. I'd rather be able to click on a bit of the environment and have the character go up to the bit to interact with it in some way automatically, instead of having to spend time fiddling with getting the character just in the right spot.

Adventures require a precision of positioning that I find irritating to achieve with direct control.

But now that I've been reminded of the GK3 interface, I *loved* that interface. It was cool to be able to zoom the camera around, and you could do it fluidly, meaning not having to worry about getting "snagged" or falling off a cliff or anything. Then once you found something interesting, you could just interact with it and Gabriel/Grace would automatically come over, so you didn't have to worry about precise positioning.

I had a lot of fun with that interface, because it combined the fun parts of direct control with the useful parts of PNC getting rid of the annoying parts of direct control.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[colpet]

I'm another big fan of the GK 3 interface. It allowed me to play the game in virtually 1st person, without anything more than the mouse to fiddle with (for movement).

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

But now that I've been reminded of the GK3 interface, I *loved* that interface. It was cool to be able to zoom the camera around, and you could do it fluidly, meaning not having to worry about getting "snagged" or falling off a cliff or anything. Then once you found something interesting, you could just interact with it and Gabriel/Grace would automatically come over, so you didn't have to worry about precise positioning.

I had a lot of fun with that interface, because it combined the fun parts of direct control with the useful parts of PNC getting rid of the annoying parts of direct control.

I liked that scheme for the exact same reason. It was a little clunky and lacked a bit of elegance, but for all practical purposes it was efficient. Don't know if you've ever played FPSs like QuakeIII or Unreal Tournament, but those games also allowed you to control the camera in first person and 'fly' it all over the gameworld, which was awesome in spectator mode when you want to zoom away and watch all the mayhem from a bird's eye view, or just 'travel' around the environment while the action happened all around.

[Jeysie]

Now that I think about it some more, I could probably say that GK3 had my favorite adventure game interface, because it also used context-sensitive menus, another interface concept I love.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Deus Ex also had a kind of context sensitive system, whereas when you shift your reticle over something or someone it automatically gave you information on them and you decided what you wanted to do then depending on your level.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Jackal

You're only limiting the context to adventures because the wider one doesn't support any kind of "point and click is antiquated" theory.

Hey, I don't support the "point and click is antiquated" theory, read what I write, not what you want to hear.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. I'm sure some would argue that these other factors are things traditional adventures currently do WRONG, but I personally believe it's mostly about pace and purpose. The interface and design are meant to suit the games' intent, which is a deliberately slow, cerebral experience. No, this isn't some "adventure games are for smart people and action games for twitch jockeys" crap. It's just an obvious observation with no hidden meaning. Do most gamers want a slow, cerebral experience? I would say no. Even those that do (like most of us here) don't want a steady diet of it. So they're going to be a niche interest, period.

I think one of the problems with kinds of adventure games that have become prevalent in the last 6 years is that they largely feel static. This is and isn't a question of linearity, I think we need to rethink the way we design challenges in adventure games to make things livelier. To illustrate my point, I'll quote some passages from two excellent books I've been reading lately: The Art of Computer Game Design and Chris Crawford on Game Design, both by Chris Crawford.

Originally Posted by Chris Crawford

Games versus Puzzles

One way to understand the nature of the interactive element of games is to contrast games with puzzles and other non interactive challenges. Compare playing a cube puzzle with playing a game of tic tac toe. Compare the sport of high jumping with the game of basketball. In each comparison the two activities provide similar challenges to the player. The key difference that makes one activity a game and the other activity not a game is the interactive element. A cube puzzle does not actively respond to the human’s moves; a high jump pole does not react to the jumper’s efforts. In both tic tac toe and basketball the opposing players acknowledge and respond to the player’s actions.

The difference between games and puzzles has little to do with the mechanics of the situation; we can easily turn many puzzles and athletic challenges into games and vice versa. For example, chess, a game, has spawned a whole class of puzzles, the end game problems. Games can include puzzles as subsets, and many do. Most of the time the puzzles are a minor component of the overall game, for a game that puts most of its challenge value on included puzzles will rapidly lose its challenge once the puzzles have been solved.

Originally Posted by Chris Crawford

Conflict

Conflict makes challenge personal. It's one thing to be challenged by a cliff waiting to be climbed, or a puzzle waiting to be solved, but it's entirely another thing to go up against a real live opponent. A simple challenge just sits there waiting for you to come; you can ignore it or tackle it at your leisure. But a challenge coming from a human being is of entirely another order—you can't just sit there thinking about it. You accept the challenge or you slink away.

Conflict is the stressor that reveals character and ability. Challenge without conflict is entirely predictable; when you go mano a mano with a crossword puzzle, you know exactly what you're getting into. But when you enter into a conflict with an active agent, you no longer enjoy the initiative; that other person could come at you from any direction, challenging you in ways that you might not have anticipated. Conflict enlivens and animates challenge; without conflict, challenge is limp and passive. Narrative operates under the same constraint; conflict puts the protagonist under stress, forcing choices that reveal character.

LESSON 10

Games, like stories, require conflict to have any life.

Now, he's obviously straying a little with that last statement cause many adventure fans enjoy games that offer very little conflict (as he uses the word) in their gameplay. In fact, many like them exactly because of that. But I think on the whole he might be right, most people want conflict, want dynamic challenges, want replayability, want uncertainty. Is there any way to include all that in adventure games without destroying the genre core? I think so - less inventory puzzles and braincrackers, more dynamic challenges (enviromental puzzles, different, more dynamic dialog systems, non-scripted character relationships...) and looser designer stories providing more space for players to develop their own stories. Sounds complicated, and it probably is, but little step by little step and who knows?

(Of course, I'm not suggesting all adventure games should change, some should stay more or less the way they are now. Such games definitely have their audience.)

[JemyM]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I'm also surprised cause there are several. Bone games and Westerner (or was it Wanted?) are the first that come to mind.

I need to play more new adventuregames.

[JemyM]

Originally Posted by phankiejankie

Beyond Good & Evil was such an awesome game too bad the sales were so bad. I mean the game was flawless.

Indeed. It's one of the more rewarding gaming experiences I had in the later years.

Originally Posted by phankiejankie

I wouldn't categorize Call of Cthulhu as an FPS, trying to play it FPS style will resolve to immediate and certain death. There is no way finishing this game by running around and shooting things Doom style... and the ammo management is a bitch but adds to the tension

I played it on newbielevel. Maybe that's why.

Originally Posted by phankiejankie

Deus Ex... Well this game is a category of its own isn't it?

RPG FPS, like System Shock and Elder Scrolls
But it was just sooo good. One of the very few longer games I replayed.