[Puzzler]

Anyway, I'd agree that the adventure genre is definitely lacking in innovation and originality.

Change the basic formula too much and it's not an "adventure game" anymore; it becomes a sub genre. Nobody makes side-scrolling beat em ups anymore, which was a popular genre in the 90's. The 3D beat em ups that are being made today are not consider as the same type of game as the side-scrollers because the game play is too different. The same thing would happen with the adventure game if people lost demand for it, it would become extinct and a new sub-genre of the original would take over.

[colpet]

@colpet There is nothing wrong with casual gaming, in fact, imho gaming should never become a second non-paying job. Many purely casual games like Prince of Persia and Zelda have advanced in many directions, making the games more enjoyable without spoiling the spirit of the game series. I just wish AG could evolve in that spirit, I don't want AG to become shooters but to evolve.

No offense, but you missed my point. I enjoy puzzles, the more the merrier. Puzzle dense adventures are becoming less popular, hence I've been playing casual games to get my fix. I have plenty of spare time to enjoy adventures, I just don't have a lot of choice these days.

As to evolution of adventures, I'm also in the camp of the less change the better, otherwise you lose the essence of what an adventure is supposed to be. There's probably room for improvement in the writing of games (as mentioned before), but for myself I prefer puzzles and gameplay over story. No action, only mouse controls, few as few characters as possible, lots of solitary exploration and no dialogue. That is my prefered game. Admittedly, I'm on one side of the adventure spectrum, but I'm not here to change your mind, I'm just adding my opinion to the thread.

[Giligan]

Originally Posted by Puzzler

Change the basic formula too much and it's not an "adventure game" anymore; it becomes a sub genre.

Not necessarily. It's a matter of taking the genre and running with it rather than changing the formula. Take a game like Mirror's Edge - it uses some of the pre-established rules of a first-person shooter, but it experiments and innovates to be something completely different. Or a game like Braid, which uses the format of a platformer but manages to be something completely different. That level of experimentation and innovation is something I don't think we've seen from the adventure genre.

[imisssunwell]

@Giligan, I agree that a mentality which welcomes new enhancements to the genre would make developers job easier. At the same time I am not sure what the demographics are, quite a few people seem to be interested in seeing adventure games trying something new. If all those who want to see innovation in the genre become somewhat more vocal, it could possibly help seeing such games being developed as customers we always have a voice and sometimes it is being heard by the people working in game industry personally I hope that Heavy Rain and Dreamfall Chapters will be top quality, innovative games that won't be lackluster in any department!

In fact I would be thankful if more people could write their ideas for enhancement/random thoughts, it would be interesting to see possible enhancements that adventure games can think of.


@draculina, its nice to see people drawn to adventures even during a decline period. However enhancing the genre further could bring even more and then more quality titles would appear as well.


@ puzzler & colpet, I don't agree that with changes you necessarily lose the essence of a genre. Making a game non-linear and having real choices in the dialogues won't change the essence, but it will add replay value and will make choice of the heros dialogue options more interesting. having a more dynamic world that supports multiple paths to achieve something also won't change the essence, but it will make puzzle solving more realistic, in real life we usually have many means to fix something that's bothering us not just one. Having side quests, besides the main story, adds more playtime and lets players do something while "stuck" in the main story. Most of the things in my original post won't change the known formula but rather add to it.


@colpet, It depends on what perception each person has with regard to "what is an adventure game" but imho these additions will not alter an "interactive game world, some interesting main character(s?)/NPCs to interact with, puzzle solving and possibly some action sequences". I understand that you are a fan of Myst & Myst-like games which have their own flavor and perhaps for that case not all I mentioned could be adapted.

@darthmaul, Blaiming the society for not wanting to think is not based on any fact, it's just a personal assumption and I find it a weak one. People play games that require thought all the time, they also engage in non-gaming activities that require thinking, it isn't like people need a PhD in particle physics to play computer games. The quality factor is a more likely to make them buy something else.

The rpg genre has evolved, BGII has indeed set admittedly high standards for all games to come after it but it is not at all the end of the story. Sticking within Bioware, game engines haven't advanced only graphics-wise (where the progress is amazing), module tools came, a better leveling system came (newer AD&D), the player starts in a more tabula rasa state and evolves more throughout play, Mass Effect has a much much better dialogue system , and apart from progress many aspects of the genre were fine-tuned. Besides Bioware, games like Fable (completely non-linear) Morrowind and Oblivion have also added new elements but more importantly rpgs have tremendously evolved in online play, World of Warcraft is a good example of that, 10 million players is nothing to laugh at.

The rpg genre is progressing and while a couple of games from 2000 are masterpieces even today I find the new ones quite evolved. Advancement in all aspects of game engines (not just graphical), mods, new leveling systems, more realistic dialogues, completely open ended games and imho more importantly huge advancements in online play consist solid samples of genre evolution.

Within the adventure games you mentioned some received quite low reviews & scores. Claiming 10+ great games per year come out, needs backup by facts (great review scores) and your reply is "I can't debate anything with people like that". I don't take forum posts personally but if you can't backup your statement there is no need to become impolite.

[darthmaul]

Originally Posted by Giligan

Unfortunately, you just did the same thing when you called all FPS games a joke. Funny how that works, innit?




Anyway, I'd agree that the adventure genre is definitely lacking in innovation and originality. But is that really a fault of adventure game developers? Game developers develop what gamers ask for, which, in the case of the adventure genre, is more or less the same basic, repetitious game that AG players have been playing for two decades. Personally, I don't think we're going to see any remarkable advances in adventure game design philosophy until adventure game players decide to be a little more open-minded and stop dismissing, even before they've played them, games that tries something new. That's not to say, however, that the point-and-click game genre doesn't still have enormous potential - it does. I'm just not sure if it's being tapped.

I said all SINGLE PLAYER Fpss a joke. Not all FPSs. Battlefield and TF2 and CS are great.

And to the other person, people can't even find Iraq on a map, nor recite the freedoms in the first amendment, yet you think them intelligent enough to figure out adventure puzzles!?

[nomadsoul]

I didn't mean to discredit indy games, but I just can't expect an indy game to have the level of craft of a commercial release. I do not attribute this to lack of talent but mostly lack of budget.

@nomadsoul, we seem to agree on much. I don't see myself why I should spend 30 pounds on a game that is as complex as a java game.

_____________________

You perfectly nailed it, i found it abnormal to waste 40 plus $ on new BS game which is just rehash where Flower gives me super awesome experience in just 10$, new original and indie at the same time.
Its craft,ideas and execution than big budget only, there are big budget games out there, failed in sales and even execution.


And as far as those changing formula hurts genre goes, i don't believe that.

Bioniccommando last year, was blast to play, and new improvements, coop, multiplayer DM etc everything worked, more than its old school counterpart. Thats the evolution with finesse i am talking about, people will welcome change if its executed well, adventure developers fails miserably when they bring change like BS 3D and stillife2, they fall in standards against their own prequel or past efforts. Not just because of budget , there is also some bad execution and craft in action.
SoldnerX is fine example of finely craft game, with added stuff, and in the vein of oldschools like thunderforce4. SF4 is hit, people complained but capcom nailed it in 3D engine the 2D gameplay, koF12 is still coming , though SNK is not high power as capcom, still check their craft in 2D art, they are doing and polishing what they do best 2D now quality and standard rivaling 3D graphics of sf4.



The actual thing that evolved genre was DS after 1998 , tracememory, phoenix wright and layton gave birth to new interactive ideas instantly turning mouse/pointer gameplay obsolete.

The creativity and gameplay interactivity evolved, form blowing dust in microphone to tilt upper screen to reflect on bottom and more , mindbending creative use.
But there was problem too, all the good games came form japanese, with cecil types people following suit to do something inspired by layton(which is more than hit in UK, and inspired cecil to return).
Cing was already masters of adventure genre.
PW games by capcom.
And layton by level-5, all bignames and all japanese.

Again on that front , western fell flat on face, and brought games on existing ideas without any original stuff or novelty, and low budget OR badly executed/inspired.

Like that block puzzle in BS in nico new scene in beginning i was laughing, thats just one simple puzzle in layton , comeon you can comeup with better stuff, just to add nico scenarios for that stupid rehashed puzzles.

[Beacon]

Originally Posted by darthmaul

I said all SINGLE PLAYER Fpss a joke. Not all FPSs. Battlefield and TF2 and CS are great.

And to the other person, people can't even find Iraq on a map, nor recite the freedoms in the first amendment, yet you think them intelligent enough to figure out adventure puzzles!?

Oh, come on. That doesn't make people stupid or dumb. People like that are just ignorant or apathetic and probably don't play video games at all.

If someone is computer literate, they can play video games, it is not rocket science. It is figuring out the controls and basic problem solving.

I agree with the original poster. I played a game called Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. You play as Raziel and as you explore the game world, you have to solve puzzles involving shifting between two planes of existence. As you progress you face boss characters that once defeated give you new abilities to further explore the world. The game has great graphics for its time. Top-notch voice acting and writing. It is a 3rd person action game with direct controls, but take out the combat elements and this game would be a great Adventure Game.

These kinds of games we want can be made. I just wish some developer would take the risk and try.

[NoirYork]

I think the genre is just going through a dark spot at the moment, I'd say the whole of PC gaming in general is. With the release of Broken Sword Directors Cut on the Wii recently though it really made me realise how much potential the genre has on the console. Some great stuff coming from Telltale Games as well.

[darthmaul]

Originally Posted by Beacon

Oh, come on. That doesn't make people stupid or dumb. People like that are just ignorant or apathetic and probably don't play video games at all.

If someone is computer literate, they can play video games, it is not rocket science. It is figuring out the controls and basic problem solving.

I agree with the original poster. I played a game called Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver. You play as Raziel and as you explore the game world, you have to solve puzzles involving shifting between two planes of existence. As you progress you face boss characters that once defeated give you new abilities to further explore the world. The game has great graphics for its time. Top-notch voice acting and writing. It is a 3rd person action game with direct controls, but take out the combat elements and this game would be a great Adventure Game.

These kinds of games we want can be made. I just wish some developer would take the risk and try.

Agree to disagree then.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...ap-476580.html

I am a realist. A majority of people are limited.

In the last year, I have only played a handful of games(still catching up on a ton), but Lost Crown, Nikopol, and Perry Rhodan were great. Just finished NIkopol tonight. What an underappreciated gem. I absolutely disagree with the adventuregamers.com reviewer.

[orient]

I think the one thing that's omitting from your post is that adventure games are single-player experiences. I completely agree with you for the most part though, minus the mention of party-based/MMO gameplay.

A game that requires two players simultaneously wouldn't be an adventure game. I'm not just saying that because I grew up on adventure games and I don't want them to change (because I didn't), but adventure games are built around the focus of one player and changing that would change everything. The reason the majority of adventure gamers hate timed sequences is because they play adventure games to get away from those types of pressures found in other genres. Adventure games are played casually and at a leisurely pace. Reliance on another player would disrupt that and could also suck away the importance of you and your story, within the game.

[loobylou26]

yuck i dont like any of the changes you are talking about, you seem to like rpgs a lot so why not just play them? Fable is a good combo of the 2 also prince of persia (i am sure there is more but got brain freeze this morning lol). Personally i like to know what im getting from an adventure game and the only thing other than the usual graphic, voice acting etc i would change about the genre is the amount of games being released. theres just not enough for my liking xx

[samIamsad]

The topic at hand is an ever re-occuring theme, and you may find many threads like these if you dare to blow off the dust and cobwebs, charge your flashlight and dig deep within these boards' past. Beware, there be grues down there.

Originally Posted by Giligan

Not necessarily. It's a matter of taking the genre and running with it rather than changing the formula. Take a game like Mirror's Edge - it uses some of the pre-established rules of a first-person shooter, but it experiments and innovates to be something completely different.

One of the mistake people usually make when debating this is that they act as if this man-made category of games they're now refering to as "adventure game" has ever been a single, easily-discernible entity, with every game being a carbon copy of one another. Arguments about "changing the genre" abound, are countered by outcries of keeping the A in Adventure, pretty please. It is not like that, I'm sure Colpet could tell you a story or two about it, as should anyone that ever got to play games such as Bad Mojo, Blade Runner, Myst IV, Monkey2, The Pawn, that list goes on and on.

There are games that are 2d, 3d, text. There's games with logic puzzles, there are games without any sort of puzzles. There are games with action, there are games without action. There are games that are being controlled via gamepad, keyboard, mouse. The only thing all of these really have in common is that are being referred to as "adventure game".

So that is that.

Now whilst it'd be unfair not to accredit the vastly different design philosophies between something as strictly narrative-driven as Overclocked and a puzzler like Safecracker, Giligan is right, in a way. With commercial games, there's for the most part two schools of design at work here, one being the LucasArts/Sierra kind of way, the other being the Cyan kind of way. And there's very little being done with those respectively, excpect stripping both down to their utmost basics - point&click interfaces, object/logic puzzles, some kind of narrative, and so on. Which is a little odd, considering their heritage.

Between the aging Sierra quest series of old, which Sierra used to churn out at the pace of an assembly line, they did vastly different kinds of stuff. All kinds of stuff. Take the pseudo-realtime murder mysteries of Laura Bow, playing out like an interactive stageplay rather than a click-thru movie, for instance. A game in which the murder and characters are the very core of the puzzle, in which missing out on vital events is part of the game if your sleuthing skills weren't up to scratch. Or Police Quest, a police officer simulator trapped in all the limitations of its parser fueled engine, resulting in the second clunkiest car driving mechanics in any video game, ever. Makes you wonder how that would look like given today's technology. Probably a bit like GTA meets CSI, a mix of driving cruisers, taking witness acounts, cross-questioning convicts and munching sweets at Lytton's Dunkindonuts in between, all without ever needlessly assuming the player to be any kind of useful at playing Left4Dead.

Still, all the fresh and original ideas won't do anything to anyone if the package just isn't sound. It makes you wonder what would have been if all the sound ideas of In Memoriam weren't trapped in what looks a fairly standard murder mystery, for instance. It's not a question of keeping it "real", as it never was any kind of "real". It is about finding ideas, taking a deep breath and running with them, whether they be genuinely new or not.

[imisssunwell]

@nomad, I haven't played flower but pictures look great, the idea seems pretty original and 10 dollars is a very reasonable price. IGN score is 9/10, 1UP A, Eurogamer 8/10. This one indeed looks like a quite promising indy game

Regarding adding to the formula, I also think it is a necessity, if other genres hadn't done that we would still be playing Dungeon Master clones.

Regarding DS I love it, my psp has ended up collecting dust, however after awhile I stopped playing my DS as well. It's a great portable console but big screens (be it widescreen TV or computer monitor) have totally spoiled me and I only use my DS when I am on the bus/airplane. Therefore I'd like to see more things happening on the Wii side.


@ Beacon, my thinking exactly, LoK:SR was a well crafted game (graphics were amazing for PSX standards), fun to play and it is well ahead of most adventure games in many departments. I wish adventure games could make steps in similar directions.


@ NoirYork, I don't want to sound as overly too optimistic but imho some games with solid potential to be good are coming, Sims 3, Heavy Rain, Dragon Age, Bioshok 2, Diablo III, Old Republic MMO. I like the Wii as well and think that AG developers should pay more attention to this console.

@ orient, I have no clue how one could make an enjoyable mmo-adventure game. maybe something CSI-like and have a guild be a police department and each player be an investigator. if player X doesn't go online for eg one week the guild master (head investigator?) could pass the case to someone else. Not saying it's a crafted solution but it could serve as a potential starting point. I'd be happy to see how other people think of possible adventure mmos, I'm not too excited about my idea as it stands

@ loobylou26, I mention elements that could be transfered from rpgs because, due to lower quality of adventures games lately, I have been playing rpgs. Someone more advocate to shooters, strategy and action games could spot elements from the evolution of these genres that could be adapted to AG, in fact, I would love to see ideas from these genres.

@ samlamsad, interesting post,

"And there's very little being done with those respectively, excpect stripping both down to their utmost basics - point&click interfaces, object/logic puzzles, some kind of narrative, and so on. Which is a little odd, considering their heritage."

exactly what I feel, no evolution going on lately.

indeed older adventure games (of the golden era) experimented and innovated. A police officer sandbox game could potentially make an excellent non-linear adventure game but the craft quality also needs to be high, it needs to be on par with all the sandbox games out there.

@darthmaul, the majority of gamers is fully capable to play Prince of Persia and similar games, their puzzles are not easier than those found in AG. The major problem with AG puzzles is that lately they have a tendency to be dull, unlike eg PoP puzzles. I know quite a few professional Computer Scientists/Phycisists/Mathematicians working either in academia or in industry that don't play AG anymore (they used to be fans of AG) because they find new releases repetitive and their puzzles boring, they also don't like the level of craft. The low quality is driving people away, not people being unable to think.

Not 100% of gamers will ever agree to one review, personally I have only found a couple of reviews to be harsh on games so far - it happens very rarely, but providing a list which includes quite a few low-scored games isn't evidence that 10+ good AG per year come out, but rather the opposite.

[Find Therma]

@imissunwell

Sorry if you've already answered this question but am just interested as to why you play/used to play adventure games?

This is by no means meant as an insult in any way but...I'm guessing it's not for the more interlectual aspect - if you've moved on to playing rpgs that is? In my experience rpgs require little (if any) real thinking on the part of the player. Not saying there is anything wrong with this but surely that is a big part of what adventure games are about, making the player think whether it be to solve a puzzle or to put together plot elements. Why import loads of aspects from a genre which doesn't really do this and could be argued hasn't made great strides itself?

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but with a few exceptions the rpg market is still littered with boring narrative. Am playing Drakensang at the moment and whilst for the most part it's quite fun, the story is crap and I've only come across one real puzzle. Plus combat seems pretty much entirely down to luck. There's just no real stimulation for the player to think...about anything really.

Now I would agree that the adventure genre does provide some poor and dull offerings but I think it's unfair to suggest the genre has stood still whilst others have greatly progressed. I would suggest that rpg's could be greatly improved by taking elements from the adventure game market rather than the other way round, i.e. better puzzles, more varied and interesting stories. This would provide a real step forward for rpgs imho.

I guess it comes back to the question, 'why do you play adventure\rpg\fps games?'. What is it you are really after from that particular gaming experience? In the adventure gaming communities for the most part its not multiplayer options, complete freedom from linearity or multiple replay value etc.

Interesting debate though!

[Jadefalcon]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but is it me or is there a subgenre of adventure games coming out in the shape of the 'Hidden Object Puzzle' games. Examples include Poirots Death on the nile, which I nearly bought after having bought And then there were none, Orient Express and Evil Under the Sun. Other examples in this genre seem to include Murder in London:Jack the Ripper and the Mysteryville games. They seem to be simplistic versions of the CSI style games.

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by Jadefalcon

...is it me or is there a subgenre of adventure games coming out in the shape of the 'Hidden Object Puzzle' games.

I don't consider hidden object games to be adventure games. But there are a few casual games that you could argue are a hybrid of adventure with hidden object -- games such as "Nancy Drew Dossier: Lights, Camera, Curses," where you not only find objects, but put them back into the gameworld to solve puzzles. That's a lot closer to being an adventure than simply finding a list of objects.

[noknowncure]

Gah! The smug arrogance of some Adventure Game fans - The constant, self aggrandizing desire to paint the rest of the public as vapid dullards who aren't prepared to think.

Guess that explains the extinction of the crossword and the trivia quiz.

Maybe people find Adventure games too slow. Maybe people have been put off by some of the poorer titles. Maybe people can only afford a certain number of games and choose to spend their cash on lengthier and more engaging titles from other genres. Maybe they prefer games that several people can play at once...

No. Must be because they're thick. Unlike the Adventure Game Audience, solely populated by the cream of Dr. LucasArts Academy for gifted intellects - 'Pushing a pencil through a keyhole and catching the key on a scrap of paper since 1832.'

It’d be less tragic were it not for the fact that so many other genres now use puzzles that wouldn’t be out of place in an AG. Or that these genres often include wonderful stories, engaging writing and creative design.

(Edit to add: This bitter explosion wasn't aimed at crabapple. It currently looks like I was suddenly enraged by Hidden Objects Game discussion.)

[nomadsoul]

Originally Posted by Find Therma

@imissunwell

Sorry if you've already answered this question but am just interested as to why you play/used to play adventure games?

This is by no means meant as an insult in any way but...I'm guessing it's not for the more interllctual aspect - if you've moved on to playing rpgs that is? In my experience rpgs require little (if any) real thinking on the part of the player. Not saying there is anything wrong with this but surely that is a big part of what adventure games are about, making the player think whether it be to solve a puzzle or to put together plot elements. Why import loads of aspects from a genre which doesn't really do this and could be argued hasn't made great strides itself?

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but with a few exceptions the rpg market is still littered with boring narrative. Am playing Drakensang at the moment and whilst for the most part it's quite fun, the story is crap and I've only come across one real puzzle. Plus combat seems pretty much entirely down to luck. There's just no real stimulation for the player to think...about anything really.

Now I would agree that the adventure genre does provide some poor and dull offerings but I think it's unfair to suggest the genre has stood still whilst others have greatly progressed. I would suggest that rpg's could be greatly improved by taking elements from the adventure game market rather than the other way round, i.e. better puzzles, more varied and interesting stories. This would provide a real step forward for rpgs imho.

I guess it comes back to the question, 'why do you play adventure\rpg\fps games?'. What is it you are really after from that particular gaming experience? In the adventure gaming communities for the most part its not multiplayer options, complete freedom from linearity or multiple replay value etc.

Interesting debate though!

The answer is pretty simple, game in literal sense means something that requires hand skills + your brain, not just your brain, if you need to use just your brain than you could find puzzle book containing millions puzzles of different nature in store(novels too) , after all Layton is based on japanese puzzle books by famous akira toga. You can sit on screen for hours doing nothing with hand , thinking with brain in the end just doing little casual finger work. Games differentiate itself form other mediums by THROWING interactivity in mix, if the interactivity is stagnant in literal sense, then things are bad.

RPGs like tales series, require beatemup skills not just menubased popups, FF13 needs quick thinking with selections. Plus no matter how many of them are made , they alteast craft it in presentable form. FF12 did try to change with ATB, WKC is half realtime, not just selection, and demonsoul is total realtime, infact its oldschool hardcore(dodging, slkashing, leveling) that it revived the genre in whole asia(not just japan).
Valkyria is back on top 5 in west with its new realtime mechanic, again its not just menuselection.Watch videos of all these games you will understand.

If i want to play adventure game for story stimulation i will rather watch anime , read manga or novel because even story standards of today's adventure game are nightmare. People love it because they dont have time to look for story in other mediums.

Beat/slashemups evolving, Kof12, bayonetta, brutallegend(this would be first action game with better story than most of the adventures, thanks to tim), fatprincess(hybrid , half stratgey but slashing/beating is totally realtime requires HAND skills which i equate with interactivity).

Racing is evolving with burnout, motorstorm, new game blur(racing with guns),even NFS going PGR approach(atleast trying new).



Long debate short and my final comments to thread, is adventure genre dead?

Yes in big picture of games nowadays, people don't even care about them, they are not amongst the standards of shooters,rpg, action, beatemup, RTS,sports,racing etc.

[imisssunwell]

@Find Therma, I used to play adventures (I still do but to a much lesser extent) when the genre was at its zenith. Adventure games then weren't content to low crafting & halting evolution. Tech-wise they used the best that was available, when the CD-rom came (before that we had only floppy disks), adventure developers immediately took advantage of the new technology and created more impressive worlds+added voice acting, they used point & click instead of /open in an era without MS-Windows & web, back then it was one of the best ways to interact with the game world. They had VGA graphics and took advantage of SoundBlaster cards. If these things sound pretty standard today, it wasn't necessarily so back then.

King's Quest V had made use of actors in order to make the movements of characters look realistic, a big step forward for it's time (seeing the movement of some characters today I wonder if this is done for some "modern" adventures). They were top notch, produced by companies that were willing to build something innovative (for that time!), use intelligent scripts, humor (intelligent humor that is) and take the risk to create a big budged game (iirc KQ5 cost 1 million dollars, huge amount for the development costs of the era). Games that were interactive with the user, had interactive worlds, in some cases even had multi-linearity and very importantly had a very high level of craft for that time. No wonder these times are considered by many people as the Golden Era, TLDR: the games were really top quality, while current ones don't take similar steps towards the advancement of visuals/audio quality, interaction with the user, interactivity of the game world, replay value, most new AGs seem content to stay repetitive & have a low craft quality.

Regarding rpgs, nomalsoul said many nice points so I'll just mention the points I would like to add, imho puzzles are a means to interact with the game world/storyline if this is done in a dull way and the storyline is not calibrated, I'd rather play an rpg game. It is also a matter of overall craft, how dynamic is the world? how good are the graphics? does the game have replay value? I don't think that the rpg market is full of boring narrative, sure there would be low-quality games like in every genre, but the good ones really shine and that is what AG are missing lately, good games which shine. I find most actions you have to do in rpgs relevant to the storyline or at least to the physical space surrounding your character and I like that.

Also regarding thought, I'll have to disagree, take for example high end WoW raiding, in order to min/max your performance and find optimal rotations/best in slot gear people even had to code simulators or do some math, people also try to find the economic impact of a future patch and take advantage of the market changes to make virtual gold, I find this sort of mini puzzles interesting. In AG you never reach that level to tackle a problem, it's always a finite puzzle that, in the worst case be brute forced, given enough patience.

Regarding drakenshard, I haven't bought the game but I can think of quite a few rpg games that are very good, KotOR, Mask of the Betrayer, Mass Effect, Oblivion and WoW from WRPGS, FF games from JRPGs also, while strictly speaking, Zelda games are not RPG, they provide a similar experience & are very good value for money.

[darthmaul]

Originally Posted by imisssunwell

@Find Therma, I used to play adventures (I still do but to a much lesser extent) when the genre was at its zenith. Adventure games then weren't content to low crafting & halting evolution. Tech-wise they used the best that was available, when the CD-rom came (before that we had only floppy disks), adventure developers immediately took advantage of the new technology and created more impressive worlds+added voice acting, they used point & click instead of /open in an era without MS-Windows & web, back then it was one of the best ways to interact with the game world. They had VGA graphics and took advantage of SoundBlaster cards. If these things sound pretty standard today, it wasn't necessarily so back then.

King's Quest V had made use of actors in order to make the movements of characters look realistic, a big step forward for it's time (seeing the movement of some characters today I wonder if this is done for some "modern" adventures). They were top notch, produced by companies that were willing to build something innovative (for that time!), use intelligent scripts, humor (intelligent humor that is) and take the risk to create a big budged game (iirc KQ5 cost 1 million dollars, huge amount for the development costs of the era). Games that were interactive with the user, had interactive worlds, in some cases even had multi-linearity and very importantly had a very high level of craft for that time. No wonder these times are considered by many people as the Golden Era, TLDR: the games were really top quality, while current ones don't take similar steps towards the advancement of visuals/audio quality, interaction with the user, interactivity of the game world, replay value, most new AGs seem content to stay repetitive & have a low craft quality.

Regarding rpgs, nomalsoul said many nice points so I'll just mention the points I would like to add, imho puzzles are a means to interact with the game world/storyline if this is done in a dull way and the storyline is not calibrated, I'd rather play an rpg game. It is also a matter of overall craft, how dynamic is the world? how good are the graphics? does the game have replay value? I don't think that the rpg market is full of boring narrative, sure there would be low-quality games like in every genre, but the good ones really shine and that is what AG are missing lately, good games which shine. I find most actions you have to do in rpgs relevant to the storyline or at least to the physical space surrounding your character and I like that.

Also regarding thought, I'll have to disagree, take for example high end WoW raiding, in order to min/max your performance and find optimal rotations/best in slot gear people even had to code simulators or do some math, people also try to find the economic impact of a future patch and take advantage of the market changes to make virtual gold, I find this sort of mini puzzles interesting. In AG you never reach that level to tackle a problem, it's always a finite puzzle that, in the worst case be brute forced, given enough patience.

Regarding drakenshard, I haven't bought the game but I can think of quite a few rpg games that are very good, KotOR, Mask of the Betrayer, Mass Effect, Oblivion and WoW from WRPGS, FF games from JRPGs also, while strictly speaking, Zelda games are not RPG, they provide a similar experience & are very good value for money.

"KotOR, Mask of the Betrayer, Mass Effect, Oblivion and WoW from WRPGS, FF games from JRPGs also,"

Funny, I played those genres at their zenith and now they are just the same game with better graphics over and over again.

FF was better at 4 and 6. Now it is too mind numbingly repetitive for me. They haven't done anything new besides for graphics and voicework in 20 years.

BG2, Fallout 2, and Planescape. The newer ones are the same thing I have done 1000 times before. Nothing new but voice and graphics.


Same goes for the Morrowind clones with better graphics. Same thing as Daggerfall done with better graphics over and over again.

As for Wow... I've had top level characters before, but the idea of sitting in a dungeon I've done 10+ times before for 4 hours for a 2% chance at an item, just to be played in that same 2-5 hour dungeon again infinity is as unintelligent and mindless as it gets. It isn't like you are doing anything more than aggroing a group of 3-6 and hitting the same 4 buttons that you have for the last 70 levels... I would rather mow the lawn over and over again than be stuck in that "puzzle."


Some of the best things are unknown and underappreciated. Doesn't make it dead. Sci fi tv, sci fi/fantasy books, bands like Phish, great comics, adventure games, etc. This often attracts great indie talent as well.

You liked the king's quest series, as do many others. However, I think the constant deaths, frustrating puzzles, irritating bugs, mazes, etc turned a ton of people off.

With games like Lost Crown, Barrow Hill, Nikopol, Dark Fall, and the dozens of others that come out each year, the genre is better now than it ever was in the nostalgia laden time of the 90s. I actually walked away at the time and came back 10 years later, finding the games MUCH better now. All imo, but the great games keep coming out.

Bottom line is dead to the mainstream is not dead for the genre.

Being mainstream brings a ton of potential downside. Nostalgia does not equal reality.