About the term "adventure game".

[Igor Hardy]

Calling adventure games "quests" doesn't feel strange to me. "Quest" and "adventure game" as the genre's names share the same history.

And they have their own shelf in the stores, usually next to the casual games and audio books.

Pretty similar situation in Poland and Germany. Though here in Poland casual games and audio books never got very popular enough in retail, so usually you either get an adventure game or nothing cool at all.

[Babar]

"Interactive Story" would be a somewhat troublesome name to use, because it is already in use for something else...those....errr......experiences (I guess you can't always call them games), where you have a story going (usually through video or animation or something), and then it stops at certain points, requiring you to click, or maybe make a story-forking dialogue choice or something...my father got me two of those (I think they were some Batman and some Aquaman story thingos) when I was a kid and they were....somewhat disappointing for me .

I would also say that the graphics don't REALLY have anything to do with the story, although I agree with Scavvy on that point that people have a cut-off point (usually dictated by what era they grew up in ). I enjoy good VGA pixel-art in many games, but...stuff older than that (like some of the AGI games that were made), are....troublesome for me to plod through, although I can appreciate the artwork.

I would suspect that the sort of people who made those comments would probably be...fairly young (again going with the graphical cut-off thing). Possibly having parents who are victim to (or are victims themselves to) the idea that "game" means "something for a young person to play"- while I am pretty sure you'd want to be....I dunno...at least a late teenager to properly and fully enjoy Dave's games?

Many (non-advanture) games back when didn't focus on the story at all, thus the classification was kinda important. I am happy that most genres (I've even seen storyish racers ) today take that lesson from adventure games- so I am happy when I see the "adventure" label attached to such stuff...it means (if it was properly applied), I am in for a more immersive experience.
I just thought of something....Can someone think of an adventure game that WASN'T story driven? Or to put it better, one where the story was non-existent, or played no significant part (like those old platformers that may have had some words in the manual about the backstory, but never really needed to do more than that)?

As a separate point to most of this thread, I find it sad that 2D art has somewhat fallen out of favour as part of the "new technology craze" in games, except for in niche markets, especially now that mobile phones are getting more and more powerful so that they will soon not need to be restricted to it. There is vectory/flash type art, but that is about it,  and that most of the time seems to be used as an excuse to make "easy" art that can be quickly animated. It doesn't have to be "pixel-art" either, of course- it would've been nice to see 2D art that takes advantage of or advances along with technology (like how Trine was, although I think it used 3D graphics)- but I guess most graphics cards are optimised for 3D graphics? I brought this up in a conversation I had with Nemo in IRC, comparing it to the stylistic use of black and white film in movies still used today.

EDIT: DAMNATION, HELL AND MAJOR IRRITATION! It seems I have severely atrophied as a writer...I keep using the exact same phrases again and again, and the same words several times, even sometimes within the same sentence . I keep going back and edited out an "although" and replacing it with something else, and even after all these years, WHY ARE MY ELLIPSES STILL SO NUMEROUS?!
...Sorry (DAMN!), had to vent.

[arj0n]

I find it pretty annoying to see that HOG games are listed as adventure games.... 

[Eggie]

And yet they're closer in play style to 'classic point and clicks' than a lot of the more entertaining spiritual successors of the old adventure games.
Maybe we should just leave genre-labelling to the marketing teams and play what we like playing.

[Ghost]

Concerning graphics, that actually is a sore point for me. People are forgetting that "classic point-and-click-adventures" paved the path for a lot of the graphic capabilities we have today. It's quite depressing that adventure games were once THE cutting edge, the most resource-hungry and advanced games around... that they have to take flak these days because their makers stick to old school really is strange.

I can't understand how ANYONE can look at this:

without saying: "Wow, this is beautiful!".

[Ali]

That's a perfectly nice backdrop, but I must say I don't find it beautiful. I'm not sure adventure games really paved the way for today's graphical capabilities (except insofar as 'graphics' is a capability). Today's graphical capabilities are built on 3D, and adventure games did not really pave the way for 3D.

I also think cutting-edgeness is irrelevant. In 2003 when I joined these forums, we all thought 2D was dead and that you couldn't make adventure games in 3D. Since then I've played dozens of independent adventure games in 2D and 3D. Some of them with as much style and atmosphere as this:



I'm surprised at the resentment a lot of you seem to feel about this issue. As far as I'm concerned, we're living in a golden age for adventure games! The internet has allowed small developers to make high-quality games to delight and entertain people like us. I'm not conscious of adventure games being looked down upon or their designers taking flak, probably because it's not relevant to my enjoyment of niche games.

I also think we ought not to put 'classic' adventure games on too high a pedestal. Among them there are many instances of ugly graphics, poor writing and bad design.

[Ghost]

I'm not sure adventure games really paved the way for today's graphical capabilities (except insofar as 'graphics' is a capability). Today's graphical capabilities are built on 3D, and adventure games did not really pave the way for 3D.

I may have been generalizing a bit there, but I think the point is valid: They were among the first games that would actually convince people to buy new hardware to play them, and were a huge motivational factor for people to think of getting even better graphics. So yes, Larry Laffer is NOT responsible for us being able to play Crysis... but still.

I think what I'm trying to get to is that it's very mean of youngsters to dis the games I once loved. I feel I should wriggle my creaking finger at them, or maybe wave my stick. 320x240 graphics are a medium. I can make very bad graphics in that resolution, or very nice ones. Just dismissing the stuff because it's no longer a STANDARD, that's what nags me.

Just wanted to make that clear- on with the actual discussion! 

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

See Ali, that photo you show looks really sterile and unimaginative to me, while Ghost's is colorful, vibrant, and engaging.  


I will just make a quick point about graphics AND adventure games:  Far more people find them accessible and fun than any of you realize.  I've received more encouraging, positive comments and emails about the most retro of my adventure games (c-64 style, no less!) on sites like tigsource and many others who cater to a very broad spectrum of gamers than I have received here, or indeed, from any self-proclaimed 'purist' adventure game sites.

It's something for you to think about, and maybe it comes down to your perceptions getting in the way of the truth.


A fun, accessible game, I have learned, still remains a fun, accessible game.  You just have to know how to advertise your product and open minds to give it a try.


Want proof?  Check out some of the wildly successful RPGMAKER games out there that sell like hotcakes, and many of them use baked artwork!

[Dualnames]

I think Progz has posted a really well said opinion, and extremely versatile. I completely agree with the first part, though the rest of his post finds me a bit maneuvering in the dark.

I think mostly people judge on 3d graphics. 3d graphics beat anything. Also most people like Farmville, why do you even care on most people in the first place.

[qptain Nemo]

I can't understand how ANYONE can look at this:
without saying: "Wow, this is beautiful!".

*loves Ghost*

[Dualnames]

I can't understand how ANYONE can look at this:
without saying: "Wow, this is beautiful!".

*loves Ghost*

I literally expected this reaction <3 <3 <3.

[cat]

I don't understand why this adventure game debate is centered around graphics. Do I enjoy lowres pixel games? Yes! Do I enjoy highres games? Yes! If I had to choose between those two screenshots I'd probably choose Machinarium even though the other one has sheep and I love sheep (but I'm severly put off by those medieval fantasy settings). I absolutely loved the rich and detailed backgrounds of Whispered World but also the backgrounds of FOA or FOY. Beautiful graphics are beautiful graphics, no matter which style is used. Take a painting by van Gogh and one by Jan Brueghel - there is no better style, just different preferences.

Does the graphic make a lot of difference gameplay-wise? I'd say no. So my suggestion for the genre naming conflict would be "Point and click adventures" like mentioned before.

[Ghost]

I don't understand why this adventure game debate is centered around graphics.

I think that's mostly because games are so often rated by their graphics. Some people will really say things like "This looks blocky and not at all like EyeCandy2000, so it MUST BE A BAD GAME." It's a stupid thing to say, but there we are.

You are absolutely right in saying that graphics have no impact on game mechanics. Day of the Tentacle would still play like a traditional point-and-click if it was remade in a modern graphic's engine. But such a makeover could be a selling argument, together with the fact that it would play on modern hardware without the need for ScummVM.

[cat]

I think that's mostly because games are so often rated by their graphics. Some people will really say things like "This looks blocky and not at all like EyeCandy2000, so it MUST BE A BAD GAME." It's a stupid thing to say, but there we are.

Graphics are an important part of Point&Click AGs. Otherwise it would be just IF. You can't blame people for not liking a certain style. Of course, they could choose not-offensive words to express their opinion about a game, but hey - there are always a lot of a**h***s around...

[Snake]

Imagine watching a film with early CGI effects released nowadays. Regardless of what the story was, people will still go "Huh? What is this? Why bad CGI?".

Y THEY NO USE BETTER CGI!?! SHITTY! *spit*

IMHO, I'd like to see them stay as far away from any sort of CGI at all. But that's just me.

/me goes to play Pitfall II: Lost Caverns

[Ali]

See Ali, that photo you show looks really sterile and unimaginative to me, while Ghost's is colorful, vibrant, and engaging.  
I will just make a quick point about graphics AND adventure games:  Far more people find them accessible and fun than any of you realize.

I agree completely! (Apart from the bit about me being wrong.) What I was trying to draw attention to was a touch of persecution complex on our part, but you made the point in a less contentious way.

[Dave Gilbert]

First off, thanks for plugging my blog.

Just a quick disclaimer: I wrote the article to explain why I made the choices I did, as they pertain to my particular needs and experience.  I wasn't dissing "nice" graphics, or even advocating not putting effort into graphics at all.  Art is definitely important in adventure games, but gameplay and narrative are also important so you need to strike a balance between the three.  

Being an indie with limited means, I have to make choices about where to direct my time, energy and money.  By putting more effort into the graphics (for Convergence), I put less effort into the actual game and it suffered for it.  The same reviews that praise Convergence's graphics also say that the gameplay was very weak, and I agree.  The graphics and narrative were strong, but I failed to create a compelling game.  That's why the game didn't sell as well as it could have.  Not because a lot of gamers get turned off by pixel art (although that's a factor).  It was a lesson I haven't forgotten.  As progz said: gameplay trumps graphics, but graphics can't be ignored entirely.

[Snarky]

My hypothesis is that for a given adventure game (with VGA-style graphics), the relationship of art quality to sales is almost the opposite of an S-curve: it stays low for a bit (graphics that are too crappy to be acceptable to the indie-adventure audience), then once they become "good enough" it rises to a plateau where any additional improvement has only a small effect on sales, until (perhaps!) at the very right-hand end where they become beautiful enough to attract retro-gamer and pixel-art fans for their own sake, almost irrespective of the quality of the gameplay, so you see an additional jump.

For example, you probably couldn't have sold a game that looked like Bestowers of Eternity and expected it to do as well as the other Blackwell titles, no matter how good the gameplay was. But apparently Blackwell Unbound and The Blackwell Convergence both fall in that range of "good (enough)" graphics, where most people who would ever buy a 320x200 adventure game are satisfied with how they look, and are willing to buy if the gameplay is any good.

[m0ds]

To blow the graphics question out of the water, I just saw this recent article where 1,000 game developers were asked what their favorite games were. Third place is certainly worth taking note of 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114127-Game-Devs-Vote-Baldurs-Gate-Best-Game-of-All-Time

[Dave Gilbert]

What devs find nice and what players find nice are, unfortunately, two very different things.