Adv. Genre Dead? - Who still thinks that?

[2ma2]

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"..

[TheYak]

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.

[bspeers1012]

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.

[dgunpluggered]

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!

and 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.

[Ghormak]

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?

[MillsJROSS]

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.

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

[2ma2]

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

[=The=Brat=]

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.

[jetxl]

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!

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.

[Scummbuddy]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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!

[DCillusion]

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.

[MrColossal]

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.

[edmundito]

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? 

[edmundito]

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

[dgunpluggered]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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.

[MrColossal]

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.

[Ghormak]

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.

[dgunpluggered]

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.