I just saw another interview in GameSpy talking to an upstart company about being able to revitalize the adventure genre even though "most" people consider it dead. They gave the, expected, response about "love of the genre" & German markets as being a way to make money.
I don't understand how these conversations are still taking place?
A couple of years ago, I would've stood by the Adventure Army taking a stand against the mainstream of "FPS-Action" & the purity of gaming, but this idea is so antiquated I wonder what hole-in-the-ground these Worldwide sites come from?
There are 11 Nancy Drew adventure games. The series is based on one of the longest-running characters ever. It has been featured in Time Magazine, & is a multi-million seller. All electronic stores within driving distance of me has adventure sections.
I was at Fry's the other day - The #1 store in the richest city, in the richest state of the richest & most powerful nation on Earth - Gaming sales here, occasionally, outpace the sales of the entire country of Japan. Anyway, their Top-Ten list was headed by......
1 - Grand Theft Auto 4
2 - CSI: Dark Motives
3 - Sims 2
4 - Doom 3
5 - Half Life 2
Take-it-or-Leave-it, GTA IS an adventure game, & it tops the list. CSI is a "point & click" adventure title based on the #1 show in America & it's number 2!!! First-Person shooters don't appear until #4
CSI has even outsold PC copies of Doom 3, so how exactly are adventure games dead? How, even, are they trailing their action-shooter cousins? Most importantly, what will it take before the genre is considered "alive" again?
Exactly, it's based on a #1 TV show watched by millions and millions of people, that's the reason it is popular, and GTA is so not an adventure game :P It has a few basic elements of adventure games like most games, but is missing even more... it's primarily an action/driving/shooting game.
However I wouldn't say adventures are dead, there are still a lot of adventure titles released each year, some of them make a profit, they're just not in competition with the blockbuster games.
GTA is not an adventure game. And yeah, adventure games are still mostly dead. A few sub-par games being put out each year do not exactly constitute a glorious comeback.
Well... dead? No, not in the least. But, people tend to compare nowadays to yesterdays, and yesterdays was the golden era of adventures. Who can compete with THAT? It's kinda like saying "Doom is dead". The original doom is dead, many more have risen - the genre is not dead, the actual original Doom, mostly, is. There are still buyers - but then, people also still buy Lec and Sierra classics.
That said, there's been a steady flow of adventures - since Syberia, passing from Longest Journey and Post Mortem, then Moment of Silence and soon Still Life plus Alida and Aura and Sentinel and A Quiet Weekend in Capri and Myst 4 and even independent games as Tony Tough... well, hardly dead, or dying. Just... not thriving anymore.
If adventure genre was all dead, would this forum or AGS exist? Nope. Maybe it was dead for a time, but then Chris Jones came and revived it! ;)
There hasn't been a (commercial) adventure game that has intrigued me since... I dunno, mid-late nineties or so. I wouldn't mind seeing adventure games as we know them stay dead. Yes, dead, after having killed themselves. (http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html)
Technology has finally come far enough that the elements I like about adventure games (story, dialogue, interaction) are finally starting to appear in games that aren't all about puzzle solving.
Deus Ex, for instance.
*groan* Not GK3's cat puzzle again. Come on, MANY games have a flaw, sometimes a KILLING flaw. This is a leap in logic, granted, but there are much worse - Black Dahlia's gratuitous puzzles, Sanitarium's many flaws, even Quest for Glory 4's bugginess. Nevertheless, the last game I mentioned is still (I think) thought to be among the best games Sierra produced under the QfG title (and maybe byeond it, and QfG is already a name with a lot of positive reaction), Sanitarium has a wonderful story (though lacked a bit in gameplay and storytelling) and Black Dahlia has too many puzzles which kill a probable classic.
Hey, what about Syberia? Longest Journey? Broken Sword 3? Ok, so BS3's controls suck - does that mean BS3 has killed action/adventures? Because otherwise, it's one HELL of a game.
QuoteTechnology has finally come far enough that the elements I like about adventure games (story, dialogue, interaction) are finally starting to appear in games that aren't all about puzzle solving.
Agreed. I was never a FPS fan, but after having played System Shock 2 and having read reviews of Unreal and Half-Life, and having played Tomb Raider 6, I'm becoming more and more interested by the "non-pure adventure games". Nevertheless we still are fed pure adventure games, and I'm sure we'd all feel the gaping hole their absence would leave.
The cat-puzzle is just an extreme example, but that article summarizes pretty much what I feel about point and click games nowadays. The things you have to do to advance through the plot in many adventure games seem to be there just to lengthen the game and give you a "challenge", it doesn't feel natural (fetch quests, anyone?). I just want to step into the role of the character I play, and live his life for the duration of the game. Live the story. Not solve arbitrary puzzles.
As a side note, I used to laugh at the comments Warren Spector made about adventure games (balancing three biscuits on your head while whistling a tune in order to open a door, you remember), but I sympathize with him completely now. Solving adventure games is simply not fun for me anymore. I want... something new. Something not point and click. I want to play games that are adventures, but I'm tired of "adventure games".
If I'm not making any sense, then please say so, so I can confirm the feeling I have that I'm unable to explain to people what I mean.
Edit: Oh yeah:
Quote from: Rui "Frank-N-Furter" Pires on Sat 23/04/2005 11:41:56Hey, what about Syberia? Longest Journey? Broken Sword 3? Ok, so BS3's controls suck - does that mean BS3 has killed action/adventures? Because otherwise, it's one HELL of a game.
Of these games I've only played BS3, and I couldn't be bothered to finish it because I found the crate pushing and sneaking extremely tedious and unintuitive. The game is a step in the right direction I think, but unfortunately it didn't succeed well enough in anything it tried to do. In my opinion.
I believe it's because these games don't get the marketting they deserve anymore, which is a shame because they should - they may not be more fun than other best-sellers nowadays, but point&clicks are often aimed at a specifically intellectual/intelligent audience which in these days of brain-dead reality tv are often lost and rarely targetted. I think people rely on innovation too. It's been a long time since once company (or two) has created several innovative adventure games. As Ghormak says I agree and believe BS3 is heading things in a good direction, a few modifications are needed certainly (would BASS 3D work?) - but it isn't often an adventure game sticks out in the crowd - unless of course it's some form of highly awaited sequel. And that even appears to apply to the independent world too.
The nostalgia effect of lower technology is a helluva feat. but the stylization effect of the same is often set aside. The interfaces of "the golden days of adventuring" was a child of it's time, and did wonders with what it had to work with. The AGI-games are still kick ass, the LEC-games are still gorgeous and the first rotoscoping experiements has the impact on me as they had 10 years ago. The technology has increased graphics, reaching towards photorealism and/or skilled stylization, without realizing that each step makes the details even more important. What did I care that the LEC-characters walks in ways forbid by nature, but when I see a highdetail-polygon character turn around on a dime, waggling it's legs in ludicrous ways, I protest and shout.
The essence of a good adventure game was the illusion of freedom. With more detail, you need incredible amounts of thought-out-possible-actions without making the game tedious in it's spare feedback. There can only be a certain amount of witty remarks until you get bored on that too.
I myself never play commercial adventures nowadays. Lack of time, and a lack of a computer may have something to do with it, but I seek my fixes in other genres, and as Ghormak mentioned, they have developed into a nice hybrid of every other game genre out there.
The puzzles are to blaim. No, not really. But where as the adventure games served as a sport for brainy computer owners, making them all fuzzy inside over beating that puzzle of doom, the essence of the adventures was in the storylines, or, in pursuiting some goal, making each trial and error opening a new set of oppurtunities. Easy gaming, easy set-up. But whilst the puzzles were the core of progress, the progress was put to an abrupt halt when you got stuck. In the same way that mega boss with thermonuclear miniguns simply blew you to oblivion each time in that action game, the frustration builds up until you exit, delete and take some soda to cool your nerves. It's not that they need to be easy or simple, no, good action games lie in the fast paced trial. It's all in design and execution. I agree with everything Ghormaks says (in this post mind you) but it is not ALL puzzle design.
The real revolution came with high-end consoles. And adventures are not that simple played with a joypad. Like child of their times, we got tons of more or less crappy 3d games in every genre, including adventures. In my eyes, Resident Evil is very much an adventure game, even though the actual puzzles were reduced to use this on that and get your hands on it before you're eaten. Either way, the game is fairly slowpaced, with lots of atmospherical storytelling within the gameplay (not the hilarious cutscenes.. yuugh..) But the puzzles are pitiful, and it is a child of its time. This is not the fact for PC's though. But the consoles were the no. 1 choice for gamers.. or rather, became the no. 1 choice..
Now, the commercial efforts are still the good ol recipies found out at mid nineties. Mouse support being your first option, the point and click-interface never cease to fade unless there's an action-adventure hybrid out there. So instead of exploring the gameplay posseibilities, you hang on to 10 year old gameplay techniques. That is probably what makes the genre commercially dead. God knows what you can do, because the essence of the adventure game is still the story right. That and a slower pace, or rather, lack of action elements.. or?
Story. And a challenge. That's all you need. Because the game is the challenge, and what makes it adventurous?
Quote from: Ghormak on Sat 23/04/2005 11:57:08
As a side note, I used to laugh at the comments Warren Spector made about adventure games (balancing three biscuits on your head while whistling a tune in order to open a door, you remember)
I thought Ian Livingstone said that.
I pretty much agree with most of what's been said. 'Adventure' as a commercial genre is pretty much dead, but it has influenced elements in other genres like Deus Ex, etc. Will adventures come back to life like only flesh-eating zombies can? I doubt it.
QuoteI thought Ian Livingstone said that.
Ah, you're probably right. I just remembered that Warren has expressed his negative opinions on adventure games in the past, and made the connection to that quote immediately.
In case anyone here was interested, some of us adventure-gaming fans were having a similar discussion over at the Quandaryland.com fourms, over at:
http://www.quandaryland.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/5146/an/0/page/0#5146
Might be worth a read.
straight puzzlesolving in most cases is highly artificial and forced. The time to accept the 'conventions of the genre' with a resigned sigh is past, it seems. I'd like to see more physical and organic ways to get past obstacles ( like actually breaking a door down, for freakin' once) more conversation and influence-based puzzles ( which opens up nicely towards rpg-ish crossovers with charisma stats, by-person influence etc) alternative actions that influence the story in secondary ways (like if you break the door down isntead of pick it's lock, someone might hear), that sort of stuff.
This is especially a good debate to me, as I went through my yearly playing of Space Quest games (so far I've played to five...and waiting till finals are over to play the sixth one). I bring this up, because it's struck me that Space Quest is definately one of the adventure games that stand out. I also say this because if you look at the SQ games there are a lot of elements added that aren't "puzzley."
I honestly think commercial adventure games started going down hill after the adventure gaming industry all wanted to pander the users by stopping deaths within adventure games. To me this seems so strange, when many other games seem to flourish because you can die, and it gets your blood pumping.
Yet, as I was playing SQ, even having played it several times, my heart got pumping as the spider droid landed on SQ1, as I was on the skimmer in SQ1, while traveling in Vohuals asteroid in SQ2, and literally tons of examples within these games. And as I got past these obstacles I felt good...it's one of the reasons I've been able to play the games as many times as I have.
These elements above, though, don't strictly fall into what most consider an adventure game element. I'd argue that they strenghthen the game. They make the game more tangible. You're in a situation where death is possible, and you begin to really start caring for your character. And I think adventure games have gotten far from those elements, and I can't understand why. Why we're afraid to use soltuions that don't involve three biscuits anymore. I'm reminded of The Longest Journey, where some mutant thing come thrashing at you, and you just stand there, and nothing happens. Completely ruined the mood for me, and I laughed when I'm fairly certain the game designers wanted me to feel fear.
I have work in a few, though, so I won't ramble on any more.
-MillsJROSS
I was just watching X-Play on G4, (don't ask me why), and they reviewed The Moment of Silence. They gave it a 2 out of 5, then went on to say adventures are dead, and that "daddy left the genre" in reference to Tim Schafer making Psychonauts.
For the record, this IS X-Play we're talking about, a less than credible source. Especially since they credited Tim Schafer with making Monkey Island.
Not only that, but G4 credits Tim Schafer with making Escape from Monkey Island sometimes. or was that Techtv? same difference, now days.
Hey, are you dissing Tim Schafer? You shouldn't be going around making unfounded accusations like saying he didn't make Monkey Island! How do YOU know? I mean, for sure?
I wasn't sure if you were kidding or not, but for the record:
Tim Schafer was indeed part of The Secret of Monkey Island and Monkey Island 2's development. It was his first job at LucasArts. Ron Gilbert had the concept and all figured out, and he needed some people to write good stuff for the game. So, Tim Schafer and Dave Grossman wrote a lot of the comedic dialog and learned about making games by helping with the design. In the end, the vision of the game is given by Ron Gilbert, who should be credited as the mastermind behind it, but the character personalities and situations is mostly thanks to Tim and Dave, so they should get equal recognition for making it enjoyable. They did not come up with the idea, though; that was all Ron Gilbert!
Here's the fabled video I was talking about:
http://scummbar.com/resources/downloads/movies/IconsLucasarts.WMV
"Tim Schafer works his magic again with The Curse of Monkey Island and Grim Fandango..." - Curse? lies!
There is so many wrong facts with that video... I won't even point them all out. Just listen to what Dave Grossman says.
Quote from: Ghormak on Sat 23/04/2005 11:57:08
As a side note, I used to laugh at the comments Warren Spector made about adventure games
I agree with your statements in part. I've enjoyed more hybrids recently. While I used to consider an adventure game as the last Great Game (TM) I'd played, my current title for that status is Half-Life 2. It had puzzles, drama, plot, beauty and humor. While the plot was certainly secondary to the enjoyment I received from the physics engine, it was certainly a great gaming experience.
I've become a bit burnt on adventures, mostly because of lack of innovation (3D engines that hamper interactivity rather than boost it are hardly innovative). However, citing Warren Spector seems counter-productive. This is the same person who justified the abysmal console-ization of DE:IW and seems to think gamers should toe-the-line of current trends rather than catering to the will of the gamers themselves.
The task of game development faces the same problems every other entertainment media development faces; will it sell?
Big companies like easy money with not much risks involved. This game will probably sell about this and that, thus make it. That leads us into a world where innovative systems and gameplay is hindered by the corporate machine, but it's not as we can blaim them. I wouldn't be that keen on throwing my money on something that might be the greatest thing since sliced bread, atleast not ALOT of money.
The task of renewing the industry has always been in the hands of enthusiasts, with some smaller money support often, and sometimes a big fat load of cash. But in many senses, there are games sticking out from nowhere and gaining a rep. in the business - enough for big spenders to warrant a sequel: bigger, better, not newer. Even "huge" companies such as Bioware has not until recently worked with their own intellectual property, since a big name may warrant greater sales.
..but my point where, the innovations will always come from the side, wedging it's way into the market, and sooner or later be a part of it. Just as movies, shows, books (ok, perhaps not books, but it's such an old medium, we've been through alot of development allready in literature, so we're basically at the post-post-post-modernistic stage if you want to be innovative).
I like the word "warrant".. :)
Your point on innovation is a good one. However, it's not merely the investments made by large businesses that's to blame. I don't believe that Sierra or Lucasarts were making money hand-over-fist from their adventure games. It was only after time that they began to abandon adventures in favor of more profitable enterprises. Sierra had the good sense to back Valve (a previously unheard-of company (good example of small company innovating)) for Half-Life. However, due to its massive success, they realized just how profitable the mainstream can be. They'd already scaled ba ck on the adventures and were - quite possibly - staring bankruptcy in the face when they revived their company via a FPS. Of course, they were bought out by Vivendi eventually, which doesn't seem like much of a positive in retrospect.
Lucasarts went a different route. They were the innovators, even bucking the traditions set by Sierra when making adventures. They've had several innovations that've been quite successful. They went from parsers to verb-selections, to icons, to verb-coin styles, to 3D (Grim Fandango used this quite well). However, they failed to learn from mistakes and went the safe route with mainly Star Wars titles, their only other games being fairly generic action titles.
I'm just regurgitating stuff that everybody here knows but I'm just trying to make the point that it isn't just trying to make the money to stay afloat. Sometimes it's greed. Sometimes it's stupidity. Thankfully, I've got enough freeware & oldware adventures left to play that I can get my nostalgia fix once in awhile.
It has been said that puzzles in games just seem to slow the player down from experiencing the story. No. A game, by definition involves play, and for play, there must be challenges and rules of some sort and these interfere with total immersion. Total immersion is real life, and we're already doing that. Even in unscripted games between children, there are social boundaries that restrict total freedom, and this is what defines it as a game, and not just hanging about. Artificiality has never bothered me, but then I still play Jumpman one of my favourite self-made games is penguins in space shooting smaller penguins and 3D tesseracts. There is an aspect of artificiallity in all games, not just adventures, and adventures are not always the best way to tell an enriching story. I think often RPGs (mostly a few Japanese titles) do just as well, if not better. But the most fun RPGs are not the most realistic in terms of game mechanics, but often have a fun interface that takes some getting used to and has no referent in reality. In fact, I find the puzzles in more realistic games desparately dull and boring and dull. If there was some logic that allowed me to figure it out, I would rather enjoy stacking biscuits on my head and playing the flute to open doors than smashing it with a sledgehammer. Wouldn't you? I think games need to go more in the direction of absurd, unrealistic, but persistent logic, not less. I might play games that way--as long as the puzzles were logical *within the framework of the game universe*.
It's the same problem with people who only watch movies that were based on true stories, or read biographies, or only watch tv shows that have that gritty "real" feel. A biography is just as fabricated as a piece of fiction--in fiction, the feelings or reactions or character traits may be "real" while in biographies, they often phoney, taking the essence of events but not truly realistic scenes. You may get grittiness on NYPD Blue, which is a good mock-up of reality, but those that are on the butt end of policing certainly don't experience the world as this reality portrays it. Even a "real" reality show like COPS is highly edited, highly selective and extremely disproportionate to actual statistical lives of Cops. I consider that game with Freeman in it to be similar. Sure, people use crowbars and shoot guns in real life, but feels to me about as true to reality as Mappy-Land or Wrecking Crew. And Wrecking Crew is more fun.
And what's so great about reality anyway? We already live it, can't we admit that fiction is artificial and explore fun factors in that artificiality? Most of the great artists in History's greatest works have been highly contrived, everything from the Greek Myron, to Jonathon Swift, to Michaelangelo to George Orwell. 1984, for example, is poignient precisely because it is stylized and seemingly absurd, more than real. Most recently (and publicly, due to the movie) is Douglas Adams whose absurdity and complete artificiality has lent itself one of the greatest (and most impossible) IF games of all time. And photorealism, for example, IS fun to examine for technique, but ultimately not as poignient as many more contrived pieces such as Dali, or Picasso (or in film, David Lynch, Hitchcock, Cohen Bros, etc).
As far as the money side goes, I don't worry about commercial games much, just as I don't worry much about commercial music. Stylized forms (apart from anime, maybe) may not be salable, but that's the decision of marketers and investors not the public, as a rule. Research in marketing shows consistently that it isn't pure sales numbers that drives business these days, but sales to *particular* target markets that suit the investors. In other words, if 6 million seniors tune into Television program that is funded by Pepsi, that's a bad thing, for image. Similar studies have revealed similar trends in games.
In my opinion, the point is not to restrict the artificiality of games, the interference with the story to a minimum--because then you're simply not making a game, you're making an imperfect simulator. The point for me (and this does not restrict other people from making simulators that are very interesting) is to revel in the game aspects and make them fun. Puzzles can be made fun, and there is nothing wrong in that.
:)
Quote from: theYak on Mon 02/05/2005 11:41:05
However, citing Warren Spector seems counter-productive. This is the same person who justified the abysmal console-ization of DE:IW
How true. I still liked DE:IW, but the controls really were f'ing awful!
Quoteand seems to think gamers should toe-the-line of current trends rather than catering to the will of the gamers themselves.
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think gamers should never have to "toe-the-line" but I also think developers shouldn't strictly cater to the will of gamers. When this happens too often, the product tends to be too manufactured. I think developers should keep the needs and wants of gamers in mind but also to be ready to surprise them as well.
That's what I look for in games... Something that surprises me.
Quote from: theYak on Mon 02/05/2005 11:41:05
However, citing Warren Spector seems counter-productive. This is the same person who justified the abysmal console-ization of DE:IW and seems to think gamers should toe-the-line of current trends rather than catering to the will of the gamers themselves.
I agree with your view on DE:IW, but I thought we discovered it wasn't Warren who said it after all?
QuoteIt has been said that puzzles in games just seem to slow the player down from experiencing the story. No. A game, by definition involves play, and for play, there must be challenges and rules of some sort and these interfere with total immersion.
I really think we're talking about certain puzzles. Puzzles that don't enrich the story, or propell it in anyway. Puzzles that just elongate the game because the creators have it stuck in their head that the game needs to be a certain lenght. There is nothing wrong with the puzzles, as long as they're constructive. I know I like puzzles, but there are some times in certain games where I feel that even with in the game universe that I'm playing, it doesn't make sense for my chartacter to even be doing what he/she is doing. Sometimes there are puzzles that just seem to detract from the game, and while yes a game shouldn't be reality, that doesn't mean I should have to be taken out of the game. I'd rather be immersed in the game.
As far as the biscuit on your head to open a door, I don't necessarily disagree. But I would like to see more physical ways of getting things done. Sometimes you'll have a puzzle that goes to an elaborate lenght just to do something that a normal person, would honestly try something else. It all depends on the game universe you're playing in, and while I can enjoy both scenarios, it seem that a lot of puzzles are designed against doing fairly simple physical actions.
There is nothing horrible about reality, and games shouldn't be trying to emulate what our reality is. But they should be making a new reality for us to go to. A place that we can actually put outselves in, instead of looking at everyone through a window. It's like a good book/movie whatever, where you feel the emotions trying to be portrayed to you. There are some times you should step back and compare it to the reality you live in, but it should break it's own rules of what reality is. It shouldn't do something that within it's own logical structure, doesn't make sense. It's puzzles like that, that detract from a game, and take me out of the universe of the game with nothing but annoyance.
As far as comercial game go. To me it seems there are a lot of good games comming our way. They're not being made by the big corporations known to us, many are new companies, and many of those come from the big companies. I don't think the genre is dead...it still sells, but you can't blame a corporation who can get 100 times the profit for making a game that's probably no-where near as good. Adventure game just don't sell as well. FPS games and RPG games are easier for many people to get into, because they use basic simple rules that follow throughout the game, wheras in an adventure, though pointing and clicking is the same, you have to come accross the same conclusion as the creators. In RPG's and FPS, there might be some logic to be had, but you know that if you hit enemy with your weopon enough, for the most part, he will die and you will win.
I think the internet, though, is and will help the adventure game industry move forward. Look at the AGS community, it could perhaps be a launchpad for future game companies. Also, the internet allows for cheaper advertising, and quicker word of mouth about games, which might reduce costs, since companies spend gobs of their money on advertising alone. So I think the adventure game will just go through another era...everything is bound to come back, there will always be high and low waves to ride. And I think this community is evidence enough for me, that there is a demand for these games. I'll leave it at that.
-MillsJROSS
Ofcourse you don't aim to portray reality. Reality sucks, that's why we engage in different forms of entertainment in the first place. Me myself am I sucker for fairytales, but the story is the main focus despite of which genre you prefer. Puzzles can be boring (A locked door.. dammit must find a key.. or a fireaxe), but when they hinders logical thought they cease to be boring and fall into the perfectly stupid category. (I have a fireaxe, and I can see I'm not anorectic.. so why can't I just cut down the god dam door?! There's zombies around, what do I care about property damage.. etc). It's all in the design, and frankly, you always tend to fall in the trap of making silly puzzles out of one reason:
Fear of Simplicity.
A puzzle can be clever and well thought out, but it is enough? Will challenge the player enough, or will it turn out to be too easy? When you make the puzzles, you have the solution clear, and backtrack to the problem. Since you know the whole process, the puzzle seem so obvious in your eyes, when in realisation, the player facing it might think in completely other terms, just because of some obscure detail in the background, or perhaps what your character said or heard. And I'd say, hinting the solution in some way, explain why it will not work in normal ways, is essential to put the player on the right track. Why, because the worst puzzles are those where you're assumed to do a specific task out of no apparent reason, just so another solution might work and so on and so forth.
"I can't open the door.." But can I pick it? Use wire on door!
"What the- the lock is completely trashed. I doubt a lockpick could fix this!" Dang it! SO what now? Look at the door.
"It's an old oak door. The handle and hinges are rusty." Hinges? Hang on.. what do I have in my inventory.. no screwdriver.. a quarter? Use quarter on door!
"It's too thick to fit into the screws" Oh man! So close.. wonder if I can find something thinner, or perhaps make the quarter thinner..
Imagine these replies being "I can't open the door" "That doesn't work!" "It's an old oak door. The handle and hinges are rusty.." and "That doesn't work!" I'd go frickin' mental. Feedback! Feedback! Betatest and add feedback! Nothing wrong with having an actual solution where you must balance three cookies on your head, as long as it's clear why this works and why everything else doesn't!
.02
Look im only 11 so i probaly wouldnt know but if lucasarts did release another adventure game like CMI than there would be 2262 users on AGS willing to buy it not to mention the other 200 adventuregame site users out there.
hope that wasnt bad timing.
Remember Syberia? You can't pick up the muddy plank in the water because it's filthy, so you have to let "special Momo" (CHO-CHO! Easy now Momo) do it
for you. And this was one of the best adventures that year!
Quote from: TheBrat499 on Wed 04/05/2005 14:23:33
Look I'm only 11 so i probaly wouldnt know but if lucasarts did release another adventure game like CMI than there would be 2262 users on AGS willing to buy it not to mention the other 200 adventuregame site users out there.
http://grumpygamer.com/4904226
I don't think that's enough to make a game profitable. I heard rumour that half of all the software is pirated. That's why I like indie games; free in inseration, made in free time and the costs are...FREE.
2ma2: fix your websites!
yes, 500 buyers is not enough to make money, not even at 100 dollars each.
But, 31,000 people who would consider buying Sam and Max 2, at 50 bucks. well, that is certainly something... but the marketing team that is running LucasArts now, doesn't want to say they made a mistake.
If the recent shambling corpses that pass for adventure games (Moment of Silence, Legacy: Dark Shadows, all those horrible games The Adventure Company keeps releasing) are anything to go by, then I'd say the genre is at least coughing up it's innards. Yuck :'(
Sam and Max were, commercially at least, our only hope...
P.s: Those CSI games are shite!
I know they aren't like the Golden companies of yesterday, but I think we should leave the Adventure Company/DreamCatcher alone in our rantings.
It's one of the only production companies keeping point-&-click commercial, & they work their a$$es off.
If they make a shit game you have to call it what it is, shit.
Doesn't matter if it's an adventure game or not. If it's bad you can't just go silent or buy it anyway to support them, then they'll think "This is what people want!" and make more shit.
There seems to be a trend in the adventure game development world these days where every game tries to look the same damn way. The backgrounds are kind of dirty and desaturated overcast pre-renderd 3d settings, the character is an April Ryan-type female trying to solve some mystery. If not, the game takes place in this old west setting, and you're this Indiana Jones type character doing something adventury. Oh, and if it's not that, then it's cartoony based ala Curse of Monkey Island.
In every game you can talk to characters, use inventory items, and other few things on top, and the only possible thing stopping you is puzzles, which are usually "hey, try to guess what I want you to do! Okay, you got the key. Now guess what I need to do next? I can't do that. I can't do that. I can't do that. That doesn't work. That doesn't work. That doesn't work. That's not the right door. That's the right door. Oh, you need to open it with your hands, too."
Why would I want to buy that? Don't you ever get tired of eating the same old white bread even if you change every single ingredient between the two loaves? It's time to stop making sandwiches and start making something else that is delicious.
I like scrambled eggs. Who's with me? :=
Quote from: Ghormak on Sat 23/04/2005 11:57:08
Solving adventure games is simply not fun for me anymore. I want... something new. Something not point and click. I want to play games that are adventures, but I'm tired of "adventure games".
If I'm not making any sense, then please say so, so I can confirm the feeling I have that I'm unable to explain to people what I mean.
I understand. Basically, I think there is too much emphasis on the game genre over the experience you get from the game. You play a good game, it was an adventure, and you think "well, maybe I like adventure games!" and you buy some more. But say that you buy something like Monopoly, and then you think "Hey, I like monopoly-like games!" and then you buy.. well, I can't think of a good example of a monopoly-like game, so let's say "Star Wars Monopoly". Same genre, but everything is changed!!!11 The rules are the same. Is it still fun?
It doesn't matter what genre it is. It's about what you experience as you play the game. Why do WarCraft fans play World of Warcraft? Wasn't WarCraft a strategy game? It's because World of WarCraft provides the same enjoyment WarCraft did. It's a continuation of that established world ina completely different kind of game. Maybe the story in it matters to some people, who knows. There's a lot in that game to enjoy.
Yep, I think we should rename AGS to Amazing Game Studio... or Awesome Game Studio. Or.. Adventurous Game Studio. or something.
Okay, back to studying.. um.. it's 3:08 in the morning ;D
This ties a little with what 2ma2 was saying, but I think that the puzzles should have multiple methods of completion. I think the best example of a game (though non-Adventure) to do this was Deus Ex. If you can take that and apply it to an adventure game, it'd be great.
2ma2 also mentioned a puzzle where you try to open a door by unscrewing the rusty hinges, and using thinner and thinner item. I think using a physics engine like the one in Half-Life 2 could help with this.
So combine the above from Deus Ex and Half-Life 2 into an adventure game, add a really good story, and maybe a few more things that'll make me go "GEE WHIZ!" and that'll be enough to me interested in adventure games again.
But if you remove the point-and click aspect COMPLETELY does it still make it an adventure game, in the classical sense I mean.
Broken Sword 3 is still basically point-and-click. Instead of a little white arrow, we use a animated polygon mesh (LimpingFish has his Technical Jargon Hat on) with a texture of George or Nico wrapped around it.
The term "Point-and Click Adventure Game" usually describes a game which conforms to a certain design blueprint. How much of that design can you strip away before it stops being an "Adventure" game?
...I think I'll go and lie down now.
Text adventures, AGI games? Are these not adventures?
I don't think you point anything in these games but you do click keys...
Also, Grim Fandango. The idea that there is a set way to do an adventure game bugs me.
If I make a game and call it an adventure game someone can say "Yea but there's no inventory, adventure games have inventories." Or point and click interfaces or dialogues or whatever...
I don't think I necessarily love adventure games, I just love fun games.
Action games are about shooting things.
Platform games are about jumping on things.
Strategy games are about building things and commanding units.
Adventure games are about... what? Pointing and clicking? Having an inventory? Combining items?
No. Adventure games are about experiencing a story. Atleast that's how I see it. Defining an entire genre as a "game which conforms to a certain design blueprint" is ridiculously silly, I think. It would be like defining movie genres based on the type of camera and lighting used.
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/05/2005 23:27:52
The idea that there is a set way to do an adventure game bugs me.
If I make a game and call it an adventure game someone can say "Yea but there's no inventory, adventure games have inventories." Or point and click interfaces or dialogues or whatever...
Agreed. Blade Runner is a prime example of an adventure without a traditional inventory. There shouldn't be set ways of doing adventure games. One of the best ways people have redefined genres is by eschewing tradition.
And adding to that, LimpingFish, I don't think the point'n'click aspect would be removed all that much. The Deus Ex interfaces could be classified as point'n'clicks though not in a adventure game sense. The difference is that instead of a 2D game layout, you're pointing and clicking from a 3D first person perspective. You could still build an interactive point'n'click adventure game in a 3D world.
In the end, there is no blueprint. Just whatever a designer's imagination can think of.
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/05/2005 23:27:52
Text adventures, AGI games? Are these not adventures?
Text "Adventures" could simply be termed Text "Games"...
The type-in parser of AGI has been surpassed by the Point-and-click interface.
The fact that people still make and play these types of "Adventure" is irrelevant. Commercially both are dead. The only time the term "Adventure", again in the classical sense, occurs in the mainstream is to describe those games of a Point-and-Click nature.
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/05/2005 23:27:52
Also, Grim Fandango. The idea that there is a set way to do an adventure game bugs me.
Grim Fandango is no different to the point I made about Broken Sword 3.
Quote from: Ghormak on Fri 06/05/2005 00:37:25
No. Adventure games are about experiencing a story. Atleast that's how I see it. Defining an entire genre as a "game which conforms to a certain design blueprint" is ridiculously silly, I think. It would be like defining movie genres based on the type of camera and lighting used.
Aren't ALL games where the player guides a character through a path of events about experiencing a story.
Film Noir could be a genre of movie defined, at least in some part, by the type of lighting and style of camerawork, among other things.
Quote from: dgunpluggered on Fri 06/05/2005 00:41:50
Agreed. Blade Runner is a prime example of an adventure without a traditional inventory.
I never mentioned Inventories in my original post.
Look, no matter how you look at it Point-and-Click (God I'm tired of typing that ;D) has, through whatever force of cosmic alignment, come to be known as a genre in itself.
Broken Sword 3 was referred to as a Point-and-Click game in a number of reviews I read, on different formats, not only PC.
EDIT: LimpingFish is currently wearing his Lively Debate Hat ::)
Adventure means text adventure, first person myst adventure, third person point and click, platform games like Psychonauts and other types of games, to most people including me and the games press. One guy thought I meant Tomb Raider type games when I said I made adventures. By no means has it become synonymous with point and click games, not even in this community. That's good, I love point and click, I don't think the interface is dead, but there are more adventure game interfaces.
QuoteQuote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/05/2005 23:27:52
Text adventures, AGI games? Are these not adventures?
Text "Adventures" could simply be termed Text "Games"...
The type-in parser of AGI has been surpassed by the Point-and-click interface.
The fact that people still make and play these types of "Adventure" is irrelevant. Commercially both are dead. The only time the term "Adventure", again in the classical sense, occurs in the mainstream is to describe those games of a Point-and-Click nature.
Well, if you're going to talk about surpassed technologies, we might as well save this discussion until the Holograph 3000 Touch Interface PC comes out (due in 2020) because around 80% (a guess) of software, including games, are point'n'click by convention. Look at most PC operating systems -- they're point'n'click. It's the way most software works. Of course the mainstream is going to focus on point'n'click adventures, because most software is point'n'click by default.
However, that doesn't mean that we can't eschew these conventions for new ones. Grim Fandango is an example of this.
QuoteQuote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/05/2005 23:27:52
Also, Grim Fandango. The idea that there is a set way to do an adventure game bugs me.
Grim Fandango is no different to the point I made about Broken Sword 3.
Actually it is different. Your original point was:
"Broken Sword 3 is still basically point-and-click."
Grim Fandango isn't point and click.
They seem like two different points to me.
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 06/05/2005 00:57:52
Quote from: dgunpluggered on Fri 06/05/2005 00:41:50
Agreed. Blade Runner is a prime example of an adventure without a traditional inventory.
I never mentioned Inventories in my original post.
Colossal did. I was just adding to his comments. And his point is still the same -- that there's no one blueprint for adventure game design.
Quote from: dgunpluggered on Fri 06/05/2005 02:06:35
QuoteGrim Fandango is no different to the point I made about Broken Sword 3.
Actually it is different. Your original point was:
"Broken Sword 3 is still basically point-and-click."
Grim Fandango isn't point and click.
They seem like two different points to me.
Actually, I'll also add that your definition of Broken Sword 3 as a point'n'click in a little... iffy? I've never played BS3, but if it's anything like Grim Fandango, it's not point'n'click. If you're going to define point'n'click as both "a mouse controlled pointer" AND "a keyboard-controlled 3D polygon character", then you might as well call the AGI system point'n'click too.
And that would just be nutty.
No matter what it is, it should be GOOD. I'm one of those people who hates others screaming to "support the industry!" when I think the industry is producing shit. I hate, hate, hate all the commercial adventure games around these days and I'm not wasting my time or money on them. If companies learn to make fun games again, I'll play. I don't particularly care about defining things into genres... I think some games are obviously one or the other, some games blur the line and some games could be said to be amongst any number of genres. What matters above all is whether it's good (which is objective, or course, but I don't think anything commercial these days comes close in the adventure cataory).
I swear, and I'll keep talking about this game until I'm stone cold dead, but if only some of you could play Giftpia. It's an EXCELLENT example of how a game can be utterly original and utterly fun at the same time. I'd have that games babies if I could have the licence for it. I'd translate it for free if they let me. Anything, so long as it could be released outside of Japan. I think that one game alone is good enough reason for learning Japanese. It pisses me off that great, amazing, heart-stopping games like this are being released in ways that the majority of people can't experience them (or even hear about them in the first place).
My point about Broken Sword 3 was simple this; Using the cursor keys, you directly move the character George to what ever object you want him to interact with. You then click the the mouse button to make him interact with it. Depending on what it is (a flowerpot, a person, a door) he will perform the appropriate action.
(A lot like Grim Fandango ;) )
This is no different than playing Broken Sword 2, but instead of directly moving the character, you point the cursor at said object, click, and George makes his own way there.
So, in effect, they simply made the 3D model of George the cursor. How can you not see the point ;D I'm trying to make?
That fact that the game is constructed from polygons hasn't changed its basic gameplay design.
Look:
The Secret of Monkey Island.
Broken Sword.
Grim Fandango.
The Longest Journey.
Broken Sword 3.
They are all basically the same game. 3D, Sierra-Style Icons, Lucasarts Verb List, even Grim Fandango, which on the surface seems to have NO interface, change little of the basic design of the 'Point-and-Click Adventure Game'.
My point about technological advances was from a commercial pov.
This is all very strange to me.You have people bring up Deus Ex (which is far closer to a first-person RPG than it will ever be to an P-and-C style of game) and talks of new ways of constructing "Adventure" games, when very few people seem to get the point I'm making. ;D
From Maniac Manison to Freddy Phrakas to Broken Sword 3, and all mutations in between, the golden design rules of the P-and-C genre, or sub-genre, have stayed the same.
How much can you take away before it becomes something else?
P.s: If anybody says "Aren't all PC games Point-and Click?Hee, Hee!" go to the back of the line ;D
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 06/05/2005 00:57:52
Quote from: Ghormak on Fri 06/05/2005 00:37:25
No. Adventure games are about experiencing a story. Atleast that's how I see it. Defining an entire genre as a "game which conforms to a certain design blueprint" is ridiculously silly, I think. It would be like defining movie genres based on the type of camera and lighting used.
Aren't ALL games where the player guides a character through a path of events about experiencing a story.
Yes. Which is my point. Adventure game is a silly and too broad a definition.
Quote from: Ghormak on Fri 06/05/2005 22:25:16
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 06/05/2005 00:57:52
Quote from: Ghormak on Fri 06/05/2005 00:37:25
No. Adventure games are about experiencing a story. Atleast that's how I see it. Defining an entire genre as a "game which conforms to a certain design blueprint" is ridiculously silly, I think. It would be like defining movie genres based on the type of camera and lighting used.
Aren't ALL games where the player guides a character through a path of events about experiencing a story.
Yes. Which is my point. Adventure game is a silly and too broad a definition.
That's what I meant. The term "Adventure" doesn't accurately describe the kind of games we're talking about. So that leaves "Point-and-Click", wherein the players actions within a game are limited to pointing and clicking, either in the traditional cursor sense, or polygon sense, a logical choice.
I may not be getting across what I 'm trying to say in the most articulate manner, but think about it. ;D
But your original point was this it seemed:
Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 05/05/2005 22:33:01
But if you remove the point-and click aspect COMPLETELY does it still make it an adventure game, in the classical sense I mean.
As in, if you remove pointing and clicking can that game still be an adventure game.
My point is:
Grim Fandango and some AGI Games didn't have any pointing and clicking along with 95% of text adventures. These are all adventure games.
And you just brush off text adventures with a one sentence comment about them being text games. Which is quite ignorant of text adventures.
QuoteThe type-in parser of AGI has been surpassed by the Point-and-click interface.
What does this have to do with anything? Are they no longer adventures because another interface has come out?
QuoteThe fact that people still make and play these types of "Adventure" is irrelevant. Commercially both are dead. The only time the term "Adventure", again in the classical sense, occurs in the mainstream is to describe those games of a Point-and-Click nature.
What does this conversation have to do with a game being sold? And I bet if you asked the current gaming public what an adventure game is you'd get a huge broad list of games. As scotch said Tomb Raider would be cited, along with Zelda and probably a ton of what most of us would call platformer games.
Quote
The term "Point-and Click Adventure Game" usually describes a game which conforms to a certain design blueprint. How much of that design can you strip away before it stops being an "Adventure" game?
While I agree if someone says to me "This is a point and click adventure game." I will think in my head "There is a mouse cursor and various verbs for me to choose, along with a walk icon that let's me move a character through a series of backgrounds."
That's about it. It doesn't bring anything else with it. In fact it narrows down what the game can be, what if it's a first person game and there is no 'walk'? What else should I think about? To some people an adventure game is where you can't die but "point and click adventure game" doesn't say anything about not dying. Tons of people love Quest for Glory and that is what they'll think of when you mention "point and click adventure game" and that has RPG elements and fighting and dying.
QuoteFrom Maniac Manison to Freddy Phrakas to Broken Sword 3, and all mutations in between, the golden design rules of the P-and-C genre, or sub-genre, have stayed the same.
Don't you see that you are lumping a huge range of games into the idea of a point and click so the design rules are very different. Grim Fandango has absolutely no inventory puzzles, with the interface it's impossible, everything has to be handled in the game play area. That changes the design rule a whole lot. Maniac Mansion has multiple ways to die and walking deads which, in my opinion, completely changes the design rules again.
If you tried to define for us what you thought were the "golden design rules" I guarantee there would be people saying "But what about this? This isn't an adventure game anymore?" Unless you made the definition a vague thing like:
"All games where the player guides a character through a path of events to experience a story is an adventure game."
Look, we're getting way too deep into this. :o
The original post was "Adv. Genre Dead?".
All I'm saying is, that if you look at it, little has changed throughout the Adventure Games'
life. My "Blueprint" wasn't about particular puzzle techniques, or how an inventory is handled, but about how the move from text, to P-and-C, and on to 3D hasn't altered how a designer expects a player to approach his or her game.
And how the term "Adventure", in the mainsteam, defines absolutely nothing about interface or content in the same way as First-Person Shooter, or Third-Person Plaform Game has.
Even the term Survival Horror usually denotes a specific set of design elements.
(Yes, Resident Evil 4 not withstanding... 8) )
I'm not trying to "lump" the many variations of the Adventure Game together, but rather show how, even with many differences, the core of what we perceive it to be remains intact.
Note: I actually enjoyed the entrants in the IF competition this year, even 'The Ninja' ;D
EDIT: When I mentioned "...the term Adventure in the mainstream is used..." I meant how the gaming press uses it as a give-all to describe ANY Point-and Click game, be it CSI or Grim Fandango. Most recent reviews of these types of game tend to begin with the line; "Every now and again, someone comes along and tries to revive the Adventure Game genre...".
I think the press and the public have made up their mind already :'(
EDIT: LimpingFish is tired, so he's gone to bed. 'Night 'night all.
I have to agree with MrColossal and Kinoko. I do tend to be a bit more forgiving of flaws in adventure games, simply because there aren't so many these days (skipping over the defining adventure games issue - we'll be here all day :P). However, if a game is crap, its crap, and the Adventure Company produces crap (excepting Return to Mysterious Island - I loved those puzzles!).
In general though, I tend to think of adventures as games which have strong storylines and employ puzzles of a more cerebral nature. Course, this doesn't really work for timed puzzles, which tend to be reaction based. But thats the aspect of adventure games which drew me to them, so that how I tend to define them.
I just want to get one thing straight...
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 06/05/2005 22:13:46
(A lot like Grim Fandango ;) )
No it's not. Grim Fandango doesn't use the mouse. It's not point'n'click. Deal with it.
Quote from: dgmacunplugged on Sat 07/05/2005 12:47:30
I just want to get one thing straight...
Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 06/05/2005 22:13:46
(A lot like Grim Fandango ;) )
No it's not. Grim Fandango doesn't use the mouse. It's not point'n'click. Deal with it.
Stubborness isn't very construtive ;D
I never denied Grim Fandango was different. But, if you controlled Manny with a cursor instead of the arrow keys, nothing else in the game would have to be changed to fit the new control system. Therefore, on its most basic design level, Grim Fandango bears far more relation to the Point-and-ClickÃ, family than it does to any other.
If I controlled Manny with a touch-screen interface it would still be legitimate to call it Point-and-Click. Joypad, mouse, stylus, it makes no difference.
This is my argument.
The 3D element to Grim Fandango is simply window-dressing. Its world is no more three-dimensional than adding Walk-Behinds in AGS. Its an illusion.
And just because it dispenses with a conventional Inventory, changes very little.
Therefore:
Secret of Monkey Island
Grim Fandango
=
Same game.
I realise I've painted a large bullseye right in the center of my forehead by saying this, but analysing and deconstructing the elements which go into game design is an area that I'm extremely interested in.
Do it enough times, in enough genres, and you start to see that the basic key elements to designing a game in any given genre, can actually, and accurately, be defined.
Maybe I'm too anal ::)when you get down to it, but I think its important.
It doesn't change how I approach a genre game, or hamper my enjoyment of any given title, but it's just an area I think about.
(LimpingFishs' Boring Academic Reasoning Hat is in overdrive!) ;D
So let's get this straight then.
Your original question was:
"But if you remove the point-and click aspect COMPLETELY does it still make it an adventure game, in the classical sense I mean."
Grim Fandango is brought up and you say that it's still basically a point and click adventure game. So then by that logic a point and click adventure game is just a text adventure with graphics. Pointing and clicking is the same design as typing "north" or "south".
The words point and click do not apply to game design they apply to the fact that you have a mouse cursor and you click it and where you click it is where an action is applied. What you're talking about is just adventure game design. Why does it have to be anything else?
Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 07/05/2005 23:04:25
So let's get this straight then.
Your original question was:
"But if you remove the point-and click aspect COMPLETELY does it still make it an adventure game, in the classical sense I mean."
Grim Fandango is brought up and you say that it's still basically a point and click adventure game. So then by that logic a point and click adventure game is just a text adventure with graphics. Pointing and clicking is the same design as typing "north" or "south".
The words point and click do not apply to game design they apply to the fact that you have a mouse cursor and you click it and where you click it is where an action is applied. What you're talking about is just adventure game design. Why does it have to be anything else?
Yes, a P-and C Adventure IS just a Text adventure with graphics. Its a different way for the player to interact with characters and puzzles, but its core remains the same.
I'd like to bring up a term that seems to have been misplaced...
Graphic Adventure.
Back in the early 90's if a magazine described a game as a 'Graphic Adventure' I could instantly form an opinion on what to expect from it. AGI, P-and-C, it didn't matter. I knew basically how the game was going to play.
But if you look at it, all games are ADVENTURES and all games have GRAPHICS (text games not withstanding ;D ) so its a meaningless label.
Nonetheless, when it was used, I, and many other like-minded gamers, knew what it meant.
Maybe shortening the term to 'Adventure' is were everybody went wrong.
I still stand by what I said about basic 'Adventure' game design, and how it has remained more or less the same, regardless of technological or interface evolution.
Pointing an arrow with a mouse, guiding a character with a joypad and pressing 'x' when he or she is standing next to hotspot, typing 'Go North' and 'Unlock Door', its all interchangable. I believe, and I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong ;D , that Grim Fandango could be played with an AGI interface, without having to change any of the puzzles. Or as a Text Adventure? Doesn't this add resonance to my 'Basic Adventure Game Design' theory?
Maybe, in the beginning, I made a mistake with "if you remove the point-and click aspect COMPLETELY does it still make it an adventure game". Maybe what I should have said was:
If you remove too many of the Basic Adventure Game Elements, when does it become something else?
Or have I just made it worse? :)
What I can agree with, there is a similarity between certain text adventures and graphical adventures that you could lump together and go "This is how you make a certain type of adventure game."
However, there are still many many many ways to explore the adventure game arena than we have explored so far. If people limit themselves to copying the way LA or Sierra or whatever did adventure games then they aren't doing the adventure genre any favours, in my opinion.
Also remember, back in the day Sierra AGI games were sold as "3D!" so...
While I agree with some things you say now it is only because you have changed what you're saying. You don't mention that point and click is the definition of adventure game anymore but now say that the various ways of interacting with the environment in old adventure games are similar, this I can agree with.
"If you remove too many of the Basic Adventure Game Elements, when does it become something else?"
In my opinion, this depends on each individual person playing the game. If you remove the inventory and the character interaction and the environment interaction is it still an adventure game? Some people say no, some people say Myst. Who knows, I'm not to worried about when a game changes from adventure game to adventure/RPG or adventure/FPS, I'm more worried when a game changes from good to horribly bad [i.e. Myst]
Quote from: LimpingFish link=topic=20467.msg252355#msg252355
Stubborness isn't very construtive ;Dquote]
Which is why you should stop being stubborn and accept the fact that Grim Fandango isn't point'n'click.
You don't point to anything in Grim Fandango. You don't click on anything in Grim Fandango. There's no cursor. And no, Manny is not a cursor with a 3D model wrapped around it, as you've previously said. Manny is what's known as an avatar, which is something seperate from a cursor.
Read this article to understand what point and click actually means: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_and_click
You'll find this exact same definition in many encyclopedias across the web.
Take note this part:
"The use of this phrase to describe software implies that the interface can be controlled solely through the mouse, with little or no input from the keyboard, as with many graphical user interfaces."There's no mouse control in the gaming world of Grim Fandango. As proof, it clearly says in the game's readme:
Mouse Support
-------------
There is no mouse support in this game.I mean, why call something one thing when it's clearly not? I can understand your theory of "Basic Adventure Game Elements" (even though I don't agree with most of it), and you're probably confusing it by defining everything graphical as solely "point'n'click", but Grim Fandango is not point'n'click, and I've shown why above. It doesn't matter how much you warp the logic around the fundamentals of adventure games, the truth is that Grim Fandano is not a point and click.
I know a lot of point-and-click games that are about getting three objects of the same color in a row.
LimpingFish, I'm afraid you've gotten your conventions all mixed up. The labels are rather meaningless, yes, but nonetheless, they continue to represent a certain kind of genre.
Text adventure, aka Interactive Fiction, aka Adventure
Text games. The 1st label is the most correct one, though that makes even an ASCII version of Tetris (I've seen one, for the Z-Machine) a text adventure. But it's the 3rd that's widely used now, even though EVERY game out there that has a story is interactive fiction.
RPG
Role PLaying games? Come on, again EVERY game that has a main character is an RPG, if it means stepping into the shoes of a character. Really, all adventure games - PER such definition - are RPGs.
Adventure games, aka graphic adventures
Used to be the first games to tell a story - not so any longer. They're more for the thinkers than the bashers, for the most part. Many other genres have taken something from adventure games nowadays. Which makes them pioneers. But I digress.
My point is twofold.
A) Labels aren't always literal. Especially in this case, as you've seen. Back to a couple of previous points, we all know Loom is an adventure, though it has no inventory; and Myst is an adventure, though it has no characters; and Grim Fandango is an adventure, though it has no inventory interaction; and Quest for Glory is an adventure, even though it's also an RPG; and Shannara is completely an adventure with NO RPG, even though it HAS combat. And System Shock 2 is a masterpiece with little bit of everything. :D By mixing up labels, all you'll get is a headache and incomunicability (I think I just made that word up :P ).
B) Point and click is a SUBGENRE. Deal with it. (EDIT - scratched it out, since the following reply is right - though I did not mean for the expression to be taken harshly, that's the way it was taken) It's like saying 1st-person or 3rd-person. A technical aspect of the game, nothing more. I understand your point, but you're saying the genre is called "adventure, graphic adventure or point and click adventure". Not so. While point and click has characterised the genre for a looong time now, the genre started without it (text parser) and is now moving away from it in some instances (Broken Sword 3, Grim Fandango).
We are going around in circles.... ::)
I accept all of your opinions on what we are discussing here, but by telling someone to "Deal with it" or "Get over it" adds nothing to the 'debate ;).
Why do you refuse to entertain my theory that, by moving Manny with the cursor keys, and pressing Return when he stands in front of something interactive, is more or less the same core dynamic as directing Guybrush with a cursor.
I am well versed in the definitions of game design, thank you :) , spending most of my academic days in boring lectures on 'The Importance Of Player Indentification' and
'When To Allow Freeform Manifests', so pointing me towards any papers or essays on the subject would only detract from my otherwise enjoyable day ;D
You talk of Grim Fandango as some sort of apex of Adventure game design. Its most important achievment, from a interactive standpoint, was convincing the player that he or she had some kind of new lease of freedom over controlling the main character. They didn't. It was a simple substitution of interface.
I hate the word 'Avatar'. The group of pixels I controlled in "Space Invaders" was an 'Avatar', 'Sonic The Hedgehog' is an 'Avatar'. Back in the day, we used to refer to our character on screen as our 'Sprite'. I wasn't disputing the fact that in Grim Fandango I was directly controlling my 'Avatar' rather than a cursor.
I loved, and still do love, Grim Fandango. It was by far the best of the LucasArts Adventures. But I also realize just how much of the games that came before it reside under its 'New' interface.
Manny is the 'cursor'. I use him to 'point' at an interactive object. I press 'Return' and get a predefined reaction. Mannys interaction in his world is limited to just that. Pointing and pressing return. It may cause him to do any number of wonderous things, but it's still just that simple at its core. It doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the game. It also doesn't detract from Tim Schafers' achievment. It's just something I feel COULD be discussed when talking aboutÃ, Adventure Game Design.
By the way, I'm not flame-baiting, or trying to be a smart-arse. I'm just putting foward some theorys... ;D
EDIT: LimpingFish has pulled the corncob out of his ass, and decided to retract all former statements. He now nominates this thread to be resigned to the Garden Of Eternal Ramblings (GOER) or locked, or killed horribly. He apologises to anyone he may have annoyed or enflamed with his headache inducing 'Theories'.
Agreed? :)