A puzzleless adventure game. Yay or Nay?

[Exorph]

I've been playing a lot of Interactive Fiction lately, and one sub genre I happen to really enjoy is the puzzleless IF genre, where the story is really in focus and you just move it along, without any actual gaming involved.

So now when I'm thinking of ideas for my first AGS game, I keep finding myself thinking "Yeah, that's a great idea for a story, but how the hell will puzzles make any sense in it?"

I think I've settled for a nice idea now, and I think I COULD force a few puzzles in there without making it seem strange and well.. forced. But I'm still thinking maybe, just maybe I should just let the story be the important part of the game and just ignore the puzzles, just like in a lot of the IF out there.

Would this just be stupid as everyone would hate my game regardless of how good the story is, or could it actually be a good idea?
I mean to me it seems kind of strange that a sub-genre that is rather common in IF is almost non-existing in adventure games, as both genres are very much alike.

[scotch]

If you can make a genuinely captivating story, and present it graphically so that it is having something added to it that your plain text wouldn't have had, then this is of course fine. But it's more like an animation or a comic than an adventure game.Ã,  If you don't use that word then I don't see anything wrong with the idea.Ã,  The terms "text adventures" orÃ,  "interactive fiction" don't presume that there is any gameplay. At the most, just that there is some level of interactivity. So I think you should use a similar term, if you want to label your work at all.

[LGM]

They already did it.. It's called The Longest Journey...

[MillsJROSS]

No he said he didn't want to force puzzles in the game.

-MillsJROSS

[Redwall]

They already did it.. It's called The Longest Journey...

Its sequel is the type of game he's contemplating, though.

[juncmodule]

I recommend you read through this thread a little:

http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=26676.0

If you are asking this to measure the community reaction to such a game that thread may give you some insight. However, if you are posting to see if people think it would work then I would say yes.

I agree with Scotch in that you run the risk of not making a game. I think that you will find that some puzzles will just kind of pop up naturally. Just don't force them. I've been toying with this idea myself, so I hope it will work out for you.

later,
-junc

[modgeulator]

The main appeal of "adventure games" for me has always been the sense of exploring more than puzzle solving.
I really like the whole idea of adventure games without puzzles. Or at least without any complex puzzles that are in the way of the main story arc. To make it a "game," to get that feeling of immersion, I would work towards making the world as interactive as possible and placing many non-essential but interesting diversions along the way. Deep conversation trees, lots of things to look at, mini-games, possible minor variations in the plot - these are the things that make a game feel alive for me. These help make it feel like I'm having an impact and that I am playing a game instead of clicking through a story.

I don't know if anyone has ever suggested this elsewhere but I really like the idea of making all the puzzle-solving non-essential. Placing them all into many short side quests that reward the player with extra bits of insight into the story, or lead to an alternate way of progressing. I feel this approach would create a more addictive game.

In a traditional adventure the player goes along solving puzzles and taking in the main story until they hit a brick wall with a hard puzzle that must be solved to continue. At this point the only thing they can do is try every possible action they can dream up that they hope might be the correct thing to do. Of course this is pretty frustrating and often leads them to quit the game or look at a walkthru. It breaks up the story unnaturally and pushes the gamer away.

Instead of placing the puzzles along the main story arc like road blocks what if they were moved into little side quest diversions along the way that are intended to distract the player? So that instead of forcing the player to solve the puzzles to see the rest of the story the player is being enticed towards them and working on them of their own volition? This would make it possible for any player to get through the game at their own pace. Any player would be able to get through the entirety of the main story arc unhindered while their natural curiosity is being called to by the allure of the side quests. It's basic psychology: everybody finds things much more addictive when they choose to do them rather than have them forced upon them.


Sorry if this deviated too far from the main topic…

[Exorph]

Thank you all for your replies.

scotch>
Off course. I probably won't call it a game if I ever finish it. However, I think it's important to remember that puzzles aren't the only gameplay element you can put in an adventure game.
I also feel that one important thing to do if I'm going to go through with this or a similar project is that it needs interactivity and that it can't be forced. Otherwise I can just make a flash movie or something.
What I mean by non-forced interactivity is basically that there's got to be a reason for it to exist. The story must actually benefit from it.
A good example of this would be the IF Photopia. It's extremely linear and feature no puzzles, but you get to see a certain character from several points of views in a way that just wouldn't have worked in a novel where you just observe everything from the outside.
Other examples are games where choices changes the story, or lets you see different parts of it.

juncmodule>
I've already read the thread. I think it's one of the things other than the IFs that inspired me to think that maybe I could just not use puzzles in the game if it's not an important part of the story.

modgeulator>
Those are some pretty interesting ideas that I've considered too. I might use them if I ever make a full-lenght game.
However I don't really agree that there shouldn't be any roadblocks as obstacles hat needs to be overcome tends to be an important part of both story and an enjoyable gameplay experience. That is however a discussion more suited for the Puzzle Motivation thread.

[LimpingFish]

*cough*

My OROW "game" has no puzzles.

PimpingFish has left the building

[lo_res_man]

I think, ( but then I am a major fan) that Grim Fendango, has GREAT puzzle integration. That's not to say it has no puzzles ( heck no, there's TONS) its that for the most part the puzzles feel like they are integrated into the story, as if what you do makes SENCE. the puzzles reveal character traits, they solve problems, that show characters well erm.. character. like  ***SPOILER AHEAD*** you go find glottis's heart, it shows you have compassion, that Manny is really a decent person. and the character grows and changes as the story progresses,  until what was once a sleazy guy trying to escape, to a brave man, who stands up for those he loves.

[Exorph]

Off course I'm not saying that I would be the first to ever make a game with no puzzles, or that every adventure game with puzzles have forced them in there.
The reason why I think my puzzles would have to be slightly forced is probably because I keep coming up with ideas of stories that shows something happening in someone's everyday life. And I mean, I don't walk around solving complex puzzles every day.

[Redwall]

If you have a story to tell that doesn't fit itself naturally to puzzles, DON'T MAKE AN ADVENTURE GAME OUT OF IT. The problem with most amateur developers it that they don't actually want to make adventure games -- they want to tell a story. Now this is all fine and dandy until you actually start making an adventure game, because some stories just don't work; and even your best adventure game stories will have to endure cuts and modifications in order to fit the gameplay in. If you have a story to tell, but not a game to make, write it or film it or use another, non-interactive medium.

Of course, this is coming from the guy who enjoyed Dreamfall, which is just that... so, yes, people will play your game should you do this. And if the story's good, they'll enjoy the game as well. But if interactivity gets you nothing -- if you find yourself planning more cutscenes than gameplay -- then find another medium, because done well there it will be even more enjoyable (as long as the story's good enough to stand on its own, of course. Most adventure games stories aren't -- but that's another topic altogether).

[Exorph]

But if interactivity gets you nothing -- if you find yourself planning more cutscenes than gameplay -- then find another medium

I also feel that one important thing to do if I'm going to go through with this or a similar project is that it needs interactivity and that it can't be forced. Otherwise I can just make a flash movie or something.
What I mean by non-forced interactivity is basically that there's got to be a reason for it to exist. The story must actually benefit from it.

[Redwall]

Interactivity besides a click-fest. If you've played Dreamfall, you'd know what I mean. There's lots of interactivity, but there's only one path, with never any question of what you need to do, and it's never difficult to accomplish. Everything is laid out for you neatly, which also has the effect of diminishing the climaxes of the story because tension in games is built through difficulty -- if the whole game is easy, as Dreamfall is, then your grand ending will fall flat even with the most powerful narrative. Dreamfall succeeds, I think, only because it uses point-of-view shifts and a sense of inevitability in its final chapters, but even then it's clutching at straws.

[Exorph]

I don't think the interactivity really has to change the story or anything.
In the example I used with Photopia, you're just following a very linear story, but the fact that you ARE the characters instead of reading about them makes it a much much more powerful experience.
I don't want the game to become a click fest, where each click is basically just the same as turning a page in a book, but I do think interactivity can be used in other ways than challenging the player or providing hir with plot changing choices.

[jasonjkay]

I always wanted to play an adventure game without any puzzles just to get to the great storylines. I also want to do the same with RPG's (No monsters) but the problem is that without puzzles and stuff, it's harder to keep people interested and keep playing to find out the next part of the story. Well anyway, good luck with this.

[Exorph]

I always wanted to play an adventure game without any puzzles just to get to the great storylines. I also want to do the same with RPG's (No monsters) but the problem is that without puzzles and stuff, it's harder to keep people interested and keep playing to find out the next part of the story. Well anyway, good luck with this.

I'm rather interested in how an RPG like that would work. Something like Morrowind without enemies? Where you gain levels by jumping and bartering?

[jasonjkay]

more like final fantasy, you explore around getting the storyline but you dont have to fight hundreds of enemies getting to the next town. You explore around and find extra things which could add to the storyline or give you a mini game. I suppose it would also have a mode to turn the monsters on just for the die-hard rpg fans. Boss battles could be cutscenes or you figure out a puzzle to kill them. I dunno, I guess RPG's wont really work without fights but the fighting does get a little too similar and annoying. Kind of like puzzles in a way, you just finish one and you think great I get to see more storyline when BAM, another puzzle is placed in your way.

[Redwall]

Good puzzles don't seem like artificial obstructions to more story; good puzzles are A PART OF the story.