Adventure Game Studio

By Andrew Goulding of Brawsome (Jolly Rover). An interesting read:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/5889/state_of_the_pointandclick_art.php

Many thanks for the link, RedTalon. Love reading Gamasutra, but rarely I find articles there that relates so closely to my own design situation.

Wow, never thought that over-the-top particle effects were such a genre defining trope of casual games (though it did feel awesome the first time I beat a level in Peggle and was rewarded with crazy fireworks and Beethoven's Ode to Joy - still does, btw). My GiP, Shadowplay shall henceforth be known as Sparkleplay!  ;)

Also found the concept of constant player reward for the slightest action interesting. I don't think you should have to pat the player on the head just for being able to click a mouse button, but many current "hardcore" adventures feel so much like a chore, and whenever you think you're making progress the designer pulls yet another contrived obstacle out of his ass. I basically gave up on the otherwise beautiful but very old-school The Whispered World, because not even its main character could muster the slightest enthusiasm when I solved a puzzle. I was reviewing it along with Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney which was such a contrast, both more dynamic and incredibly satisfying, with its use of fighting game aesthetics during the cross examination sequences.

The "progress meter" idea isn't bad at all, if done subtly. Seems that Jane Jensen also adopted it for Gray Matter (http://www.adventuregamers.com/article/id,1182). I've always been a fan of games with clearly marked chapters/time blocks/days or whatever, because it really helps structure the game and give a feeling of progress. Can't see why it shouldn't work on a micro-level too.

Nice shout-out to CJ/AGS (and subtle bashing of the conservatism of amateur developers - can't say I don't agree, but I'm usually less snide about it):

QuoteSo what was the relatively small group of fans of this fading genre to do? The answer of course was to start making their own games. The growth of this can be directly attributed to adventure game creation engines like Chris Jones' Adventure Game Studio.

This tool helped spawn the careers of several noted adventure game developers, such as Dave Gilbert and Yahtzee Croshaw. But these games, while giving fans exactly what they wanted, and possessing compelling stories, characters and puzzles, followed the same conventions as their predecessors -- doing little to evolve the mechanics of the genre to open it to new players, as was happening other genres during this time.

What I don't like is that, essentially, the article states that dumbing down adventure games is the only way to make them hip and popular.

I know it's much more than that, but it seems a bit much to add particle effects for every little thing the player does right, assume the player is an illiterate, drooling moron, and aim for the casual audience.

To me, that sounds very much like changing the genre. If you start off with an adventure game, then change it for a casual audience, what you basically have is a casual game with hints of adventure elements scattered throughout. You no longer have an adventure game. You've basically just changed your genre.

I just don't like the implication that adventure games can only survive if the genre itself is altered to make it more like existing popular genres. "Your adventure game is great and all, and it'll be great for the genre, but let's change the genre entirely, leaving little to nothing behind with an adventure element to it."

That dialog? Too much. Player don't read, so cut it all down to stupid phrases like "Wow! Neat!" or "Cool! I got it!" Forget about backstory or plot, because it's not like that's what adventure games are all about, is it? Take out everything that defines the adventure genre, and of course you'll have a successful game, because you're pandering to the seemingly brainless players who can't be bothered to do something silly like read.

That already-intuitive system where you do something as simple as click on an item to pick it up, and click on the super-simplified inventory bar to use an item? Then click on it again to use it on something on the screen? Derrr, that's too many clicks! Our players won't be able to understand something as complicated as that. They can barely pick their nose without an instruction manual, so dumb it down a bit: make things sparkle and flash, because -- much like dogs or children -- shiny things attract our players and leading them by the hand and patting their head after every oh-so-hard step (like moving the mouse more than 10 pixels) is the only way they'll comprehend your Einsteinesque game mechanics.

Of course, I'm only half-joking. It just riles me up that the article suggests that adventure games can only be popular if you make it something other than an adventure game.

As for the "Round 3" section, it pretty much includes things that we should all try to do: one-click interfaces (or left/right click interfaces at the very most), no pixel hunts (and some form of hotspot labeling and/or location feature), a subtle progress bar (even if it's in a not-so-obvious place, and this one's debatable), integrated hints (though some will debate this point as well), and some form of score (perhaps integrated with the progress bar) -- the author even mentions the sound effect earlier games used whenever you got some points added to your score.

Of course, Round 3 did little to appease my savage nature:

QuoteOne of the failings of Jolly Rover is that some sections do have more than the casual game recommended maximum three lines of dialog per conversation option...

Because, again, casual gamers prefer not to read.

Then why even pander to them?

What worries me is that I, and most of us, understood how to use old interface games.

But now you must:

Quote
hint at the crowbar/door task with dialog
pop up a dialog box explaining what to do
flash the crowbar
when the user clicks the crowbar, it pops up large on screen with particle and sound effects and flies into inventory slot
crowbar flashes in inventory
door flashes when crowbar is picked up
big reward for using crowbar on door

Are this games aimed to 5yo or is the TV making everyone a moron?  ???
People don't like to think anymore.

Grim Fandango had a brilliant progressbar. Not only was the game divided into a years (which cleverly connects to the mythos within it) but also the progress on save game screen has a big stone carving which is lighten up piece by piece when you solve a bigger puzzle - but it's implemented so that you see a part when you solve the puzzle but it's only then that you understand what symbols on that part of the picture mean (also connects to the mythos and the aztec style influence).

I know I 've checked a few times if what I did somehow affected the world, got me closer to my goal. It's fun and well implemnted and most of all - doesn't get in the way but offers extra rewards.

The "dumbing down" parts of the article scare me somewhat. From all that simplifing what I basically got is that puzzles and enviroment interaction should be on the level of a 3rd person action game (God of war, Tomb raider or similar). Which I guess is fine, only the thing is that those games are not really about puzzles, they're more about action and fighting, and puzzles are just to give variation to gameplay.
I guess the "casual" player market is exactly that - games which a regular gamer would consider minigames in a larger more complicated game...you can sell that, but calling that "evolution" is stupid.
Besides how many variations can there be on a one click for any action and one simple solution....not that I like those big GUI either.

I honestly can't believe that no one would like a challenge in a puzzle or similar. Aren't higher levels of any game harder than the ones before, surely casual gamers don't play only Lvl1 of every game then give up. So basically design an adventure game so that it's aimed at working 30 year olds and up, but make the plot, story and interactivity on a level of kindergarden? But what if you said to casual readers that they can only read fairytales for primary school and not something more intriguing, cause you consider them to not have the time or concentration for something more complicating?

As Terran sort of said - some middle ground would be brilliant. Though it's more an optimization of gameplay and not removing variation and features.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was scared by the process of over-simplifying actions that should be elementary and basic and blindingly obvious to players with even the dimmest of wit.

My motto concerning this: make game, worry later. ;)

You do realize that the crowbar example is just the tutorial for the game, right? It's not like every hotspot in the game flashes brightly whenever you enter a room (though the hidden coins do sparkle once in a while, otherwise you wouldn't be able to find them).

Edit: To be honest I couldn't see much difference in the puzzle difficulty between Emerald City Confidential and Dave's other games.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 08/07/2010 01:29:17
You do realize that the crowbar example is just the tutorial for the game, right?

I do, but like he says, casual players didn't understand it by other way.

Even as a tutorial, it's still dumbed-down to the point where it's almost meant for mentally retarded players. What kind of a moron needs flashy lights and particle effects to learn how to click icons?

Well, as veterans, we take a lot for granted. Some people, who may happen to own a PC, have never played a computer game. Some people can barely send an email.

I don't think making a game easy to understand (even idiot proof) is that silly an idea.

I really think you're making way too big a deal out of this. Did you even play the demo or watch a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFO5MO1dlvw) of the game? The sparkle/flash thing is such a minor bit, and nowhere near as disruptive as the "Quest Complete" pop-ups you get every few minutes.

Compare this to the 15-20 minute long tutorials of any recent action-adventure game like Bioshock or Alan Wake and then tell me which is being more condescending to the player.

I think I'm just being a little "Grandpa Rich" over here. As in: "Back in MY day, we could figure out how to play games without any help, thank you very much!"

I will admit I'm being a bit stubborn here, but whatever happened to figuring things out on your own? If anything, more people should know how to do these things nowadays, versus back in the day when computers were relatively new (80s and 90s).

Quote from: TerranRich on Thu 08/07/2010 03:01:43
I think I'm just being a little "Grandpa Rich" over here. As in: "Back in MY day, we could figure out how to play games without any help, thank you very much!"

I will admit I'm being a bit stubborn here, but whatever happened to figuring things out on your own? If anything, more people should know how to do these things nowadays, versus back in the day when computers were relatively new (80s and 90s).

Back then the audience for games was way smaller and purely hardcore, as was the choice of games, as was the number of gaming press outlets.

All that means is that gamers have gotten dumber and more shiny-object-oriented. ;)

Nah, but seriously, it's really sad to see that as having been the trend.

Ever read a Sierra manual from the late 80's/early 90's? They always had a step-by-step walkthrough of the first couple of puzzles in the game, not unlike today's in-game tutorials. Personally I'm quite happy that games have become more accessible - I remember when I first played (a pirated copy of) Indy 3 with my cousin and we had to start over whenever we got killed in the nazi castle, because we couldn't figure out how to access the save/restore menu.

Quote from: TerranRich on Thu 08/07/2010 03:16:00
All that means is that gamers have gotten dumber and more shiny-object-oriented. ;)

Unfortunately this IS true. This applies to computer users themselves. Compare modern OSes to "ancient" ones and you'd know why.

There is nothing wrong with lengthy "stupid" tutorials, as long as it fits the audience the game is aimed at. There're still games designed for serious hardcore gamers, but usually it is a commercial decision that publishers want to earn more from a larger audience (especially consider the cost to develop a game of a certain scale nowadays; compare it to the past where certain "large" games could be all done by just locking a few nerds in a basement working for hours). A better design is, if you want to serve both general players and hardcore one, give them a choice, like with a selectable Professional mode or just make these dumbed down sections skipable.

Yep, I've read old school Sierra manuals with a walkthrough of the first 10 minutes or so of gameplay inside. I think that's fine, because it requires reading. I must be the only person on Earth who still glances through game manuals just in case there's something I should know before playing.

I just disagree with pandering to the increasing dumbing-down of computer game players in general. We should be making it so that they have to use their brain while playing adventure games.

As for casual games, that's a whole different stories. I understand perfectly that casual games should require little to no instructions, and things should generally be spelled out during gameplay. But adventure games? Why should we dumb our games down just because casual gamers are Neanderthals*?

* Note to Neanderthals: While we understand that you were actually quite intelligent, the insult is too popular to not use. We apologize for any inconvenience.

And forget about my plan to include important game-related hints in my game's manual -- although it'll take the form of a separate document called the "Star Force Survival Guide" and will be too obvious to not think it had something to do with the gameplay.

Note also that many games don't come in physical media these days (or, you can choose between buying a boxed copy or a downloaded version), so they don't come with a printed manual. To me, reading a printed manual is different from reading an electronic document (be it text file, pdf file, html page or whatever), drastically different. It's not like you have something on your hand that you can flip the pages any time you like. And honestly I'd rather play a stupid but interactive tutorial than reading an electronic doc. Of course, it's also good if the game provides in-game instructions to do stuff.

I'm not saying in-game tutorials aren't useful... I thought the tutorial at the beginning of the Blackwell Legacy was an excellent feature. But to over-simplify to the point where you have to force the player to look at flashy icons to drive the point through their thick skulls is just overkill. On-screen text instructions should suffice. Something like, "You now have an item in your inventory. Move the mouse to the top of the screen to see your inventory."

Then, when you do: "You have a crowbar. Click on it to equip it." - "Now your mouse cursor has become your item. Click on an item to use the crowbar on it. Try it on the door." - "You try, but the door doesn't budge." - "Since the item didn't work on the door, right-click the mouse to put it back into your inventory." - etc., etc.

Flashing icons and particle effects are a bit much, and it's a little insulting, if you ask me. :P

The only thing I can think of to say about that article is... LMAO. Seriously? The day we need to casualize adventure games is the day the genre just needs to die. They have a term for casual adventure games. They are called casual games. I don't know, it's just a silly notion for me. You can keep your casualness. I'll stick with engaging characters, story, and the like.

I suspect the concept of 'niche' is completely lost on some people. The games industry shouldn't be pandering to the casuals anymore. It only does that for the sake of cash flow worries, which are caused by ballooning dev costs, brought on by the need to satisfy casuals with pretty lights and shiny things.

Niche fans will buy something with middle of the range production standards if the game mechanics have depth. Casuals generally won't.

In terms of adventure games, there's one quote in there that sums up the problems with casuals and the genre :-

Quote
Hardcore gamers might read this and wonder if all casual game players are idiots, but this is not the case; they just need a very clear explanation what is required of them, as they're not compelled to figure it out for themselves like mainstream gamers are, and don't have years of stored up experience with gaming's tropes. It's a different mindset.

If you're not willing to think and work out how to do something, you're playing the wrong genre.

Well as I said- difference between dumbing down and optimizing gameplay.

Quote from: Victor6 on Thu 08/07/2010 09:47:24
If you're not willing to think and work out how to do something, you're playing the wrong genre.

Exactly. We're talking about taking gameplay out of the game, changing puzzles and thinking with tutorials, turning a game into a powerpoint presnetation.

Even casual players know how to click on an incon on the desktop, they know how to open a stupid facebook account, search on google and I would think they know how to remember one object. Hell, they even know how to follow instructions on how to buy a game...that's the point right, that's the bottom line of intelect?

I mean, why just not have any text whatsoever, let it all be done in shiny, sparkly objects and the story might be from Dora the explorer. No offence (especially now that I realise you were told to make it like this), I love how the Emerald game looks and the sotry is really nice, but seriously:
-> "I need to find my notebook" - now, this would be enough by any standard, even in f-in Peggle it says "get all the orange squares" or whatever
-> QUEST: find the notebook - it's like saying everything 2 times for every step
-> take key (sparkle and song again) - "this key opens the file cabinet"
-> click on file cabinet - now this step is just not needed, cause everything was told to you, all you need is to move the cursr to another part of the window
-> QUEST COMPLETE: OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE IT YOU FOUND THE NOTEBOOK, I'VE GOT A SHINY EMERALD FOR YOU WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You might as well start from the begining:
-> click icon on Desktop
->  a big sign pop-ups "The game menu will now open"
-> there it says "click start to start the game, click exit to exit the game"
-> QUEST: click start
-> QUEST COMPLETE: you have started the game, here's an emerald for you and pat on the back. you are now one step closer to the end of the game

OH MY GOD!

This discussion, after only a few posts,  is already the *perfect* illustration of a problem that's at the core of our "society of rationalization": Experts vs. unskilled people

Experts are convinced that the trend that's opening their specialization to the mass is only temporary, and that it won't work anyway because people are too stupid.

Don't get me wrong -- I love point n'clicks and I HATE simplistic games, especially those casual games where the gamer is kept captive with cheap tricks such as achievements, simple quests, and ... particle effects.
I'm definitely for clever games, etc.

However, it'd be lying to yourself to think that "casual point-n-clicks will never work" or "casual point-n-clicks are impossible to produce". For example, the argument "if people don't like to think they're not meant for Adventure games" is completely flawed. this idea has been proven wrong in every aspect of our "rationalized" societies :
-150 years ago, handcraft (that required one single expert master/artist, who was taking his time) has been replaced with mass production (that requires thousands of guys whose only skill is to screw a bolt).
- 10 to 5 years ago, companies started replacing super-skilled IT guys with offshore guys performing super simple tasks. For example, nowadays you have only one sysadmin for 500 guys who know only how to fix Word.
- As we speak, Electronic Arts is wiping out Hard-Core gaming as we know it from the face of Earth, and has introduced casual gaming everywhere (their boss said that "games are too complicated").

When you think about it, WoW is some sort of casual gaming compared to early Dungeon-based games. And it was only the first wave of changes. Nowadays, all new online games, even "serious" RPGs, are based on mini-quests and many of them use micro-transactions.

Even Tales of Monkey Island : Short episodes, ultra simple UI, etc.


Casual gamers like to play and think. they just don't like to spend time on learning how to play. And companies will give them what they want, since they're the majority of players. Hard-core gamers have absolutely no impact on that. Only the market rules.

Don't underestimate the casual gaming "niche". Yes, casual gamers couldn't finish adventure games as we know them. But can you predict what they'll be like in 5 years, after an army of consultants has debunked all the genre's internal gameplay mechanisms and has produced the ultimate "casual gaming adventure game"? The "Farmville" of adventure games?

Once again, I pray that it won't happen. I'm just realistic. When the casual adventure games will take all the market, what room will be left for "real" adventure games? They already almost died after the mid-90's.

The problem isn't the audience though, it's the designers. They're the ones looking at the audience profiling soundbites and catering for the bottom line.

If you don't give people the chance to learn, they'll never improve.

Quote
Once again, I pray that it won't happen. I'm just realistic. When the casual adventure games will take all the market, what room will be left for "real" adventure games? They already almost died after the mid-90's.

Oddly, when I read that article, I was thinking 'This is probably how they justified all those awful interactive movies during the 90's. Adventure games are big, make things simpler, make things prettier, flood the market.

That worked out well didn't it?

It's up to people like us to keep adventure gaming alive, not by changing the definition of the genre, but by sticking to what the genre is and not pandering to outside forces.

"What room will be left for 'real' adventure games?"

Who says that the overtaking of casual games will drive adventure gaming to extinction? Only you are saying that. What the rest of us are saying is that we shouldn't have to redefine adventure games just to keep them alive. That's just nonsense.

It would be like if motorcycles started to go out of style because people preferred cars. So, to keep motorcycling alive, it's suggested that they build newer motorcycles to more closely resemble automobiles. It would make more sense to keep fighting the good fight and getting more people into motorcycles, as opposed to changing what a motorcycle IS.

I think evry player ultimately becomes at least a bit causal for a variety of reasons - the most prominent of which being the time deficits that we start to experience. Also, old types of mind challenges start to bore us while our experience grows.

For example, I no longer have the patience to think through complex logical puzzles that I've already done sometime in the past. Games which only repeat same cliche, repetitive gameplay mechanics usually bore me so much (and make me think of wasting time) that I quickly stop playing them. However, if a game is cliched but easy enough for me to progress quickly, then an engaging story, changing graphics or something else might keep me going for a while. I really like games like Braid or P.B. Winterbottom when the challenges are really short and focused, so I can solve a few and then return to the game after a month without needing to remember what I was dong in them earlier.

Also, quite a lot of players consider themselves hardcore gamers and yet "are not compelled to figure it out for themselves" while playing adventure games. Unless they receive "a very clear explanation what is required of them". But the explanation usually given by those players is not that they are casual players, but rather that they simply prefer other game genres and there's only so much time they will devote to an adventure game. Is that really something different? To me those people are at the same time causal players and hardcore players then - their approach depends on the played game's genre.

Quote from: TerranRich on Thu 08/07/2010 16:43:01
"What room will be left for 'real' adventure games?"

Who says that the overtaking of casual games will drive adventure gaming to extinction? Only you are saying that. What the rest of us are saying is that we shouldn't have to redefine adventure games just to keep them alive. That's just nonsense.

My post was only meant to insist that the difficulty to mix "adventure game" and "casual" won't stop the industry. They *will* succeed. Flawlessly. And I predict a LOT of over-simplified adventure games to come in the next few years - while there will be less "good" ones.

However, I completely agree that it's up to lovers of the genre to keep it up. That I never denied.

Quote from: Ascovel on Thu 08/07/2010 16:54:40
Also, quite a lot of players consider themselves hardcore gamers and yet "are not compelled to figure it out for themselves" while playing adventure games. Unless they receive "a very clear explanation what is required of them". But the explanation usually given by those players is not that they are casual players, but rather that they simply prefer other game genres and there's only so much time they will devote to an adventure game. Is that really something different? To me those people are at the same time causal players and hardcore players then - their approach depends on the played game's genre.

You raise a very good point. There is a defintion issue.

Casual gaming has a pretty final definition (at least for people who intend to sell them): It's a game that people play on and off; but they keep being attracted to it. And it must not scare them in the first place.

However, is "Hard Core gaming" the strict opposite of "Casual gaming? You proved that it's not.
In the case of avdenture games what is a hardcore gamer?
a) Someone who'll devote a lot of time (in a row?) to the game?
b) Someone who'll buy all (good) adventure games available?
b) Someone who'll try to "beat the game" with no outside help?

Well, I think that whatever the answer, it's pointless to decide, because it's not what will make the casual games.
The golden rule of casual games is that the player:
a) gets immedialy into the game (understand the rules and is attracted by the plot/graphics),
   AND
b) that the player gets addicted by small quests with immediate rewards, seemingly increasing in value.

Wow, the AGS forums have turned into adventuregamers.com. When did "accessibility" become the same as "dumbing down"? Nobody in this thread seem to argue that we should return to text parsers, or even Sierra icon bars or the SCUMM interface - TerranRich even said that one-click interfaces is something "that we should all try to do". You've accepted this evolution of the genre, yet insist that taking a step further would be one too far?

Nobody is telling you how to make your games, or even how to improve them within their current audience niche. The article simply offers suggestions on how to reach a new and booming audience segment who aren't familiar with the genre tropes. Casual gaming is still in its infancy, just look how far we've come in terms of complexity between Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies. It's not that casual gamers are stupid by default, they're simply not used to the (sometimes quite arbitrary) game mechanics that you've come to see as natural from years and years of playing adventure games.

Will casual games bring the adventure genre into the mainstream? I doubt it, and to be totally honest, I don't really want it to. I don't see adventure games in their current form as some shining gem of perfection, and I this insistence on "don't fix what isn't broken" has done absolutely nothing for the genre over the past ten years.
To me, adventure games are a disappointment - I don't mean commercially, but in terms of developer ambitions and user expectations. Barely a fraction of the potential I saw in the genre when I played my first adventure game, Police Quest, back in the late 80's has been realized. Or rather, it partially has, but in other game genres (e.g. the GTA and Hitman games). Will casual adventure games kill the "real" adventure games? Not likely, but if they do - good fucking riddance. Conservatism is for people who are satisfied with the status quo. I am not.

^^^ I agree with pretty much all of GG's post.

QuoteIt's up to people like us to keep adventure gaming alive, not by changing the definition of the genre, but by sticking to what the genre is  and not pandering to outside forces.

Change is not something I shy away from because, like GG, I am not satisfied with the status quo. Not saying I or anybody else here can make 'better' adventure games than the well loved classics, but I do believe one should change whatever the heck they want to create something that more closely represents what they consider to be a fulfilling experience.

Oh and I played a casual adventure game a few weeks ago. It was pretty fun, y'know, and I stayed up to 3am playing through it - something that rarely happens for me with adventure games (last happened with Indigo Prophecy and Dreamfall which I am aware quite a few adventure veterans dislike). Sure I could see plenty of things that I would change, but the same is totally true for something like a Runaway game.

I'm also with GG on this one. Especially the part about our arbitrary gameplay mechanics.

These mechanics and conventions have been defined and indeed *redefined* over the years but there is nothing intuiative about them on a human level.. It isnt purely obvious that you left click to select an inventory item and right click to deselect it.. that is just what has been decided.

To say that we are 'dumbing down' because people dont relate to our preconceived notions of what an adventure *should be* is pure elitism.. and I have enough of that from the music scene..

Well, I don't agree with GG's post. Even if I don't have anything against some adventure games being made for casual gamers.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 08/07/2010 18:35:07
When did "accessibility" become the same as "dumbing down"? Nobody in this thread seem to argue that we should return to text parsers, or even Sierra icon bars or the SCUMM interface - TerranRich even said that one-click interfaces is something "that we should all try to do". You've accepted this evolution of the genre, yet insist that taking a step further would be one too far?

But of course it is dumbing down. While the consequence of dumbing down might be a greater accessibility, that doesn't mean that "dumbing down" isn't a valid term in some cases. I say there's place for games in all shapes and sizes, but it's silly to say that cutting out the more complex interactions and features that demand some learning process isn't "dumbing down".

Also, it seems to me that quite a few freshly made parser games were embraced in this forum (e.g. Trilby's Notes) and IFs have a thriving indie community of their own.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Thu 08/07/2010 18:35:07
It's not that casual gamers are stupid by default, they're simply not used to the (sometimes quite arbitrary) game mechanics that you've come to see as natural from years and years of playing adventure games.

Strangely, I found those mechanics to be natural the moment I saw them.

Any kind of game has some arbitrary mechanics that you need to learn, so if you played at least one game in your life before, it isn't something that should surprise you.

I hate the phrase "dumbing down." It just oozes elitism. My RPG enthusiast friends are particularly susceptible to its use, I swear, they'd rather have all the characters replaced by pictures of Hitler's anus than have their beloved RPG elements dumbed down. I don't think dumbing down, i.e. simplifying and streamlining games of any sort is universally bad. But both casual and traditional game definitely have their place on the market.

My personal opinion is that it comes down to a choice between making a good game or a successful one. I am of the notion that the general internet public isn't a particularly intelligent lot and will rabidly consume mediocrity like Farmville and Escape-the-room flash games. The average internet dullard will prefer cliched story and dialog, very simple logic, extensive tutorials, and at most one innovating feature. These are the same people who believe that 3D and motion controls are the future of gaming.

Alternatively, one can make the game they want to without worrying about catering to an audience that should never have been the target demographic. Of course, this is a false dichotomy. Plenty of good games are successful and a great number of games not designed for the casual market aren't any good at all. The key is deciding where to focus one's efforts and striking the best balance between creating one's dream game and making it accessible to a wide audience, one that includes those who do not share the creator's idealism.

In short, making adventure games is too fun to ruin it by fighting over subgenre classification labels, giving further evidence for the indie community being full of pretentious, elitist pricks. Not all games have to be the same or follow the same format, on the contrary, diversity should be fundamental in game making, even with regards to casualization of adventure games.

But whatever, I'm probably wrong anyway.

If things can be dumbed-down, can they also be smarted-up?

There seems to be two separate arguments here. The (over-) simplification of interactivity, and the (over-)simplification of experience.

And a bonus sub-argument: "Poxy HOGs are NOT Adventure Games!"

Quote from: ddq on Thu 08/07/2010 21:32:04
I hate the phrase "dumbing down." It just oozes elitism.

Really? If the term has such strong negative connotations, then perhaps I'm wrong and it shouldn't be used. I don't think that saying a game is "dumbed down" suggests that it's meant for a dumb person, just that it is meant for a player that enjoys a more primitive version of an originally complex game. Personally, I sometimes prefer a more sophisticated gaming experience and sometimes, when I'm tired, worried, or just feeling like having a look at something simple, I find a simplified game better entertainment.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 08/07/2010 20:51:35
These mechanics and conventions have been defined and indeed *redefined* over the years but there is nothing intuiative about them on a human level.. It isnt purely obvious that you left click to select an inventory item and right click to deselect it.. that is just what has been decided.

To say that we are 'dumbing down' because people dont relate to our preconceived notions of what an adventure *should be* is pure elitism.. and I have enough of that from the music scene..

Well everything about using a computer, especially GUI is illogical on some level and has been "agreed." Is there a limitation to human interface logic - I can press only 1 button for everything, 2 buttons is just too complicated - you can use it even as a connection to Windows - left click does, right click offers options (for example something along "look at" command) - is that hard and complicated? No. Is it illogical? On some level perhaps, but you're used to it.

I mean you can make all cars with automatic transmission, but you wouldn't say nobody likes or can't learn to drive a manual and manual transmission offers so much control and precission.

And the other thing - what elitisim? - this is not and evolution nor a step forward, this is taking away options on basis that people (even with a tutorial) can't play some games. Making games simple and lacking variety is not good design. It's not selling puzzles to people, this is how to design puzzle games so people who don't like puzzles play them. Further more, constant instructions for the player, to me at least, brake immersion far more than being stuck for a minute or two.
I mean even casual games heaven like Wii has a lot of things to be mastered in order to be used, but you wouldn't call it elitist. By your logic, all the buttons plus movement is far more complicated than those NES gamepads and we should go back to those (same going for PS3 controllers). While there, why not take out keys from a keyboard, surely you don't need F1-F12 buttons, how many people use those?

Lots of today's adventure games are very optimized and any hitch in the game is more due to bad design than to stuff being too complicated to understand.

Offering the player a helpful tutorial is not dumbing down.

Using shiny effects and fireworks to focus the player's attention and rewarding them for every tiny action, however, IS.

There's a difference. The evolution from text parse to icon/verb GUI to one/two-click interfaces was a natural one, borne out of a desire for accessibility. I see nothing but patronization and head-patting when I see that a developer has resorted to shiny gems and particle effects to reward a player for doing the most basic of tasks.

Anyone who has used a computer for more than 5 seconds will tell you that left-clicking to select an item is most definitely intuitive. Right-clicking to put away an inventory item might not be intuitive, but that's what intelligently-designed tutorials are for. We shouldn't resort to using shininess and dazzle in order to draw a player's attention and focus. If they can't be bothered to read a few lines of text on how to do a very necessary object, then they're playing the wrong genre of gaming and should stick to simpler games.

*Cheap shot warning*

Quote from: anian on Thu 08/07/2010 22:26:47
...left click does, right click offers options (for example something along "look at" command) - is that hard and complicated?

Apparently it is if you're an I-mac user.

The thing is, nearly all applications have a right-click feature, and the workaround on a Mac is Cmd-click (or sometimes holding down the mouse button for a period of time). So this isn't an excuse. I actually prefer the two-click method (left for walk/look, right for interact) over the one-click method (cuts down interaction possibilities by half).

Here's a relevant video you might find interesting: http://vimeo.com/10853366 (I've only glanced at the article and this discussion - will read it properly tomorrow - so apologies if it's already been mentioned.)

Edit: Now that I've read through this thread properly, I don't want to touch the subject in this forum.

On an amusing side note, the term "Dumbing down" adventure games makes me think of this (http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html) old article and how "smart" adventure games really are, ho ho ho  :=

So to all you English native speakers, what does the term "dumbing down" really mean?

My dictionary explains it as "simplifying" or "lowering the intellectual level of something". Is that an unfaithful translation, or are those terms also controversial in the context of this discussion?

the phrase for me conjures up something like

"Let's make this game for the stupid people that arent as clever as we, the almighty old-school adventure gamers."

as ddq said.. it's just elitism

I can't wait for gamers to discard those stupid "Casual" and "Hardcore" labels for more fitting ones. Casual can either mean a lack of skill or a lack of free time. You can say whatever you want, an old grandma who plays Bejeweled 50 hours a week is ways more hardcore than someone who plays HL2 6 hours a week.

Personally I have no problem with optimization and pandering to the skilled players who lack free time, sometimes short intense rides are better than long boring ones. I don't agree that pandering to casual players is the next step in the evolution of adventure gaming. It's a step in a different direction, which will lead to very different kinds of adventure games for very different kinds of players (which is a good thing even if I may not play a lot of them), but I don't think all games should walk this path.

I believe there is plenty of ways to bring adventure games to the next step, optimization and adventures' arbitrary conventions has been discussed a lot recently, I am also deeply convinced that finding new ways to deal with the puzzle solving aspect in adventure games, other than inventory puzzles, while keeping the brain teasing aspect intact, could bring a wind of fresh air in the genre and open up new story avenues that would have been impossible with the current bread and butter that is inventory puzzles.

Regarding points the article brought up:
I think any games that are structured in hours/days like Gabriel Knight, should adopt the progress meter and objectives reminder ideas, althrough in a more subtle form. Who knows the number of hours I wasted when I played Gabriel Knight, looking for the one action that would finally makes the game switches to the next day.

I don't think it's a good idea to trim dialogues to the bare minimum. Unless if you're willing to walk the extra mile and start pumping full blown animated cutscenes, such cuts in dialogues will damage your game plot, and since meeting new characters and developing the plot is a reward (if not the main reward for veteran adventure games players), it's also counter intuitive to the "Reward Early, Reward Often" points in the article.

Well in all fairness it really isn't just adventure games that are being simplified. Many genres are getting the whole 'face lift' allowing a broader range of people to play them. After all, making the game more accessible to all types of gamers means more profit. Fortunately there are still indie and amateur developers who cater to use more old school gamers who like more than just flashy animations, sounds, and graphics. A lot of people love simpler games because it is getting harder to find time to play in depth games that require a lot of thinking, planning, and the like.

If you work nine or more hours a day everyday and come home to relax a little, if you play something that require a great deal of time you feel like you didn't make any progress at all. However, you get home, hope on the pc and play a casual game you get a more accomplished feeling as you may have completed many 'levels' or whatever in just a short time.

This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but games are becoming more 'accessible' and some of us just don't get it. Personally I still prefer games with gameplay and story and all that to just a bunch of exploding squares with flashy graphics.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 09/07/2010 01:32:59
the phrase for me conjures up something like

"Let's make this game for the stupid people that arent as clever as we, the almighty old-school adventure gamers."

as ddq said.. it's just elitism

Then all my previous posts where I used the term are partially broken, because I wasn't thinking about it in this way. I just meant it as "simplifying" and I don't see anything wrong with simplifying some adventure games, and I enjoy playing some of those myself as I'm not always up to the full adventure gaming challenge. However, I definitely don't evaluate this tendency as progress in game design. It is a certain evolution (adaptation to dominating audience), but it also is very confining for both the player and the designer. Likewise it can never bring the same quality of intellectual challenges and interactivity as traditional adventure games.

Throwing around stupid terms like "elitism" is absurd.

Sorry, but somebody please tell me... how is using flashy graphical effects and sparkly particle effects not dumbing things down? How is using gems to reward the player for wiping his ass (I'm exaggerating, of course) not patronizing and insulting? I'd be insulted if I played a game like that. It basically assumes I'm too fucking stupid to know which mouse button to click, because dammit, reading is hard.

on what level is elitism a stupid term? It's totally fitting.

and i dont see why graphical effects in particular are such a problem... Peggle is *full* of them and yet i've logged hours and hours of play on peggle despite being fairly hardcore as a gamer.  I like eye candy including flashy particle effects.

I do feel that some games lost alot from their simplification (Deus Ex: IW for instance) but streamlining is not inherently bad and frankly after replaying some of the classic sierra games I think adventure games are better for it. Dreamfall is a prime example of a game that benefitted from streamlining and consolification (fighting mechanic not withstanding)

This discussion is a lot like others I've read. Such as with anime. Subs not dubs. And vice versa. Any subject such as this has those who are for and those who are against and others still who are in the middle. Obviously you don't want to set a person up with a very detailed and complex game when it is their first foray into the genre. Start off with something a little less daunting, maybe a little simpler and as they gain experience and a love for it let them crank it up. While I am by no means totally against making adventure games casual like, I do think there is plenty of room in the genre for all sorts of gamers both hardcore, elitist, casual and more. As long as people keep making games so every category of gamer can satisfy their gaming needs, then what harm is being done?

I'm talking about in adventure games. Stupid particle effects and gems have no place in adventure games. Plain and simple.

As for casual games like Peggle, that's fine and dandy, because that's what the genre calls for. Casual gamers evidently dig that kind of stuff.

Is it elitism to demand something more intelligent than fireworks and silly rewards for wiping your ass? Then so be it.

I honestly don't see any issues with fancy particles and shimmering.  I think it's eye candy that is usually worthwhile if not overdone.

Look at The Tales of Bingwood and how when you pick up a new inventory item, little fairy dust particles explode from the inventory item that is added in the inventory bar.  I thought it was a great idea.  The particles didn't dumb down the game by any means.  It just makes things more rewarding than they are.  And old adventure games aren't very rewording at all. 

I am totally down for making adventure games less finicky.  Minimalism in adventure games is something I definitely support.

Just because we know how to play adventure games, doesn't mean today's generation should.  I doubt if my young step brother who is half my age would understand the concepts and controls.  I strongly support an easy learning curve / training room for the first room or two.  Perhaps even with a toggle to turn off the training.


Oh and Terran, I believe it was you who mentioned earlier that you think it's logical to have the Left mouse Walk/Look and Right to Interact.  I actually disagree with that.  I think it's completely backwards that the primary action is in the place of the secondary mouse button.  I would be very frustrated for the first few minutes until I reversed my ways.  You should definitely add the ability to swap the controls in the menu - also swapping the mouse for left/right handed people; which, by the way, is what I will always do for any adventure game I make. 

Don't make your controls only suitable to the way you believe it should be, unless you want people to possibly get frustrated.  This wasn't an attack, I'm just voicing my opinion.

After having read the article, it seems to me that new developers are throwing away the good bits that made adventure gaming fun in the first place, and replacing them with things that would be better suited for an online Flash game. Their reasoning is noble and sound -- to give new players an easy 'edge' into the adventure game genre -- but it goes against common sense, which states that everyone starts from somewhere. What I mean is, nobody decided to give new RPG-gamers an edge by having side-scrolling levels wherein the player collects coins and power-ups in between lengthy turn-based battles. I mean, it only took me five minutes before I realized hitting B didn't do anything in Final Fantasy for the NES. So why add casual-gaming sensibilities to an already well-established genre? If a player likes what adventure games have to offer, then they'll jump right in. If not, they'll jump right out. Simple as that.

I was never given an edge when I played Day of the Tentacle for the first time. Nobody had to instruct me where to go to find the crowbar, or how to use it to pry the wad of gum off the floor; it was all common sense, especially with all those massive verbs cluttering the bottom of the screen. I didn't require any flashy incentive by way of gems or tokens to get me from Point A to Point B. For me, it was all about solving the puzzle, and I was rewarded with humorous cut scenes, and an advancement of the plot. I mean, I wanted to know what was going to happen, what Purple Tentacle was up to, and what Bernard and gang were going to do to stop him. And if it meant keeping me away from my homework for an hour while I fried my brains trying to figure it out, then all the better.

On another note, this quote from the article really made the hairs on my neck stand on end:

QuoteWhat is the point of having a player need to exit your game to consult a walkthrough? Why not include this for players that need it?

Now, okay, I admit to having an earnest desire to find at least some help with a few of my games, namely King's Quest VI. But at what point was it necessary to start including walkthroughs and hints within the game? Flash games do that sort of thing because it's already on the Internet, but the entire point of playing an adventure game is using your own wits (and perhaps a good encyclopaedia and/or dictionary, and occasionally a hand-drawn map on a sheet of graphing paper) to solve the puzzle. And that's all there is to it, really.

Now, that's not to say that a good number of adventure games have some seriously whacked-out puzzles (I'm looking at you, Sierra), but the entire genre is based on the pre-Internet idea that you're on your own. If another friend of yours had the same game, great, the two of you might share info and solves and things like that to help each other progress, but the point was that only you figured it out. You weren't reading off a piece of paper telling you exactly what to do, exactly where to go; it was just you and your noggin. Hell, even the old hint books with nerdy moustachioed men on the covers required you do a bit of puzzle solving before giving you the answer! But I guess that isn't good enough anymore. Everyone wants it now, now, now, even when playing a game that's designed to make you think.

All right. Rant over.

I'm Jon, by the way. New to the forums, long-time AGS gamer. Hello.

Hello trousers! Welcome!

You can't really blame designers for wanting to make the game so that it can be enjoyed by the most amount of people. You'd be surprised by the number of people who use the computer every day, but if they are faced with a new interface, or a game, or something, they will freeze up....and yet they'd still really enjoy a lot of video games.

Quote from: denimtrousers on Fri 09/07/2010 06:46:40
Now, okay, I admit to having an earnest desire to find at least some help with a few of my games, namely King's Quest VI. But at what point was it necessary to start including walkthroughs and hints within the game? Flash games do that sort of thing because it's already on the Internet, but the entire point of playing an adventure game is using your own wits (and perhaps a good encyclopaedia and/or dictionary, and occasionally a hand-drawn map on a sheet of graphing paper) to solve the puzzle. And that's all there is to it, really.

We live in a world of the internet, so you can't really blame a person for checking for a walkthrough after just a couple moments of being stuck. If an adventure game is designed today without taking this into consideration, then it are bound to fail. Back then we would search every room, talk again to every person, move the mouse around every bit of the screen when we got stuck not because we enjoyed doing such things, but because we had no other choice. I wouldn't say that sort of stuff should be aimed for.

If you ask me, it is the IDEA behind adventure games that should be there, people shouldn't be clinging to the mechanics, especially since they seem to have so epically failed. Exploration, "Adventure", fun, overcoming obstacles, etc. Shouldn't matter if the game is 2D or 3D, mouse or keyboard controlled, verb-coin or single click, Save with F5 or ESC.

As for the whole sparkly vs non-sparkly thing, I don't get why it is an issue. I wouldn't necessarily see it as a problem, the same way I wouldn't see the mouse glowing when it moves over a hotspot as a problem. Or the status-line giving the name of the object as a problem. Adventure games are already so static (still backgrounds, still standing characters just facing each other and moving their mouths for talking) that a little sparkliness makes things more interesting. It is like little animations that are done whenever the player does stuff...it adds to the experience, doesn't "dumb things down".

For the record, when I originally played the demo for Emerald City, I didn't even notice the sparkly thing. I do remember noting how the inventory item flew into the slot, but not because I disliked it, just because it was different, interesting.
I notice that when someone has an interesting or novel "gimmick" in their game, or writing, or drawing, most people don't really pay attention to it, or just think "huh...cool", until someone associates it with something else with a few choice words, then everyone is up in arms.

If there was a game with the mouse cursor as a magic wand, that "fizzled" every time someone clicked something important (and I'm sure I've seen games like this, but I don't remember), nobody would think twice about it. Mention how it is used for "dumbing down the game" to appeal to a bigger base, and everyone hates it.

Quote from: Babar on Fri 09/07/2010 07:22:42
If there was a game with the mouse cursor as a magic wand, that "fizzled" every time someone clicked something important (and I'm sure I've seen games like this, but I don't remember), nobody would think twice about it. Mention how it is used for "dumbing down the game" to appeal to a bigger base, and everyone hates it.

Discworld 2 had this i think.. and possibly the simon games.

RT is totally right when he talks about minimalism in the interface. if there is *any*genre that demands minimalism then its this one.
The more simple and intuitive the interface, the greater the immersion.

Quote from: Ryan Timothy on Fri 09/07/2010 06:20:14
Just because we know how to play adventure games, doesn't mean today's generation should.  I doubt if my young step brother who is half my age would understand the concepts and controls.  I strongly support an easy learning curve / training room for the first room or two.  Perhaps even with a toggle to turn off the training.

My neighbors daughter has been playing World of warcraft since she was 10. Not only her but her whole class played it.
New generations are far more adapt, only the "older" might get fussy, like my dad (50ish) who can program card authorisation programs that are used for the whole country, but for example using tabs in Firefox just confused the hell out of him. But on that note, he's someone who won't try to learn or understand anything unless he's really interested. He's reaction to sparkle might be "why the hell is this sparkling aaaaahhh."  ;D

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 09/07/2010 07:35:41
RT is totally right when he talks about minimalism in the interface. if there is *any*genre that demands minimalism then its this one.
The more simple and intuitive the interface, the greater the immersion.

The genre doesn't demand anything specific. You're just projecting your likes on it, and saying that this is how it must be done.

Also, you have apparently changed your mind from a couple of months ago when you put a verbcoin in your game and didn't see that it goes against "the genre's demands".

Quote from: Babar on Fri 09/07/2010 07:22:42
You can't really blame designers for wanting to make the game so that it can be enjoyed by the most amount of people.

If that is the thing that the designer cares about the most, then there's a high probability a lousy game will be created. Even if you can't blame the designer. On the other hand getting the players' attention in the casual games market, through the casual games portals is very difficult and I don't recommend anyone here trying that (unless they join up a large company of course). From the point of view of such amateur/inde designers (not players) as we are, all those simplifications, adaptations and rules-of-thumb are a waste of time - we simply have no audience that will appreciate them.

In this discussion there's a huge confusion between the concepts of "simple UI" and "simple gameplay", which are fundamentally different (even though a simple gameplay often requires a simple UI, of course).

Obviously, when it comes to something like this, there are going to be a series of camps of ideology. For the most part, the ones who design adventure games are to fulfill a sense of nostalgia left from the Golden Age of Adventure Gaming, and will insist on keeping things SCUMMy. Then there are those who seek to do something a little different, but still lean towards the conservative side of things. And then you've got designers (and gamers and critics) who can't stand the old systems, and worse yet those who deign to continue implementing them. So it's all subjective, a matter of personal aesthetic and taste. But as far as design goes, if the developer is really passionate about making a game their own, then they will (hopefully) deliver a game that can be enjoyed.

Whatever our personal tastes, I think the main communication disconnect in this thread is the failure to acknowledge that we are not the intended audience of these games, or at least not the primary one. Terran's phobia of all things glittery aside (though it is a fascinating topic - my current hypothesis is that was molested by a glam rocker), we're basically arguing - metaphorically speaking - whether or not training wheels are a valid aid in learning to ride a bike:
There's one side saying "hey, if it gets more kids riding bikes, of course it's a good thing", and another one arguing "I taught myself to ride a bike perfectly fine without training wheels, so why shouldn't the kids of today suffer the same falls and bruises I did?", possibly with a hint of paranoia that "if we let the kids use training wheels, soon all bikes will come equipped with them". Sounds silly? I totally agree.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 09/07/2010 13:05:56
. . .

Good analysis of the discussion. My thesis is that both sides are off topic. My thesis is that casual gaming is a paradigm led by economics, not artists. Therefore, our opinions (whatever our side) will eventually be worthless.

If I take your post:
- we are not the intended audience of these games. Very true. We're what I called "the experts" in my very first post.
- we're basically arguing whether or not training wheels are valid in learning to ride a bike. That's indeed the argument here. But that's not the right argument. IMHO, casual gaming is not only about the aid offered, but about the whole gameplay. It's something outside the game. The bikes we're talking about don't exist yet, but they're coming. And they won't even look like a bike. And they won't be designed by bike designers.

And the hint of paranioa you mentionned doesn't help having a clear vision.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 09/07/2010 13:05:56molested by a glam rocker

Gary Glitter strikes again!

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/07/2010 13:19:11casual gaming is a paradigm led by economics, not artists

This is exactly it. The ones concerned about reaching a wider audience aren't interested in introducing gamers to a new genre, they're interested in cash. If it's easy to churn out, market, sell, and make a profit -- and if it has a shiny achievements system to goad gamers along -- then game developers will be far keener on producing games like these, than another King's Quest VI.

Naturally, the ones who feel adventure games should remain undiluted, challenging, and lacking needless particle effects aren't worried so much about making a profit. Their main concern is creating a game that will speak to the interests of other equally involved adventure game fans.

There's nothing saying any of us even need to play Emerald City Confidential or Jolly Rover. (I took a crack at the demo, by the way, and was growing increasingly frustrated by the pseudo pirate jabber they insisted on having all two voice actors mumble about with. Not at all impressed; I would never pay for a game like that.) Those games aren't intended for us, as GarageGothic pointed out. They're intended for Internet gamers who don't mind shelling out a few quid/bucks/euros for an easy, feast-for-the-senses game to kill a few minutes between meetings and during lunch.

Hm, well I think a lot of views have been expressed in this topic. They are all right and none are wrong. That is the beauty of opinion. I've expressed about as much as I wish to at this point and all I have left to say is... MOO!

My problem with your argument, M. OUXX, is that you seem to perceive casual games as some sort of homogeneous entity designed by marketing people and molded into its most commercially viable form through focus group testing. But who says they have to be? They're small games that don't require a huge investment or a large team, in fact you'll have a lot better chance as an indie developer to compete in the casual market than against "hardcore" games with their next-gen graphics  and jaded audience.

If you're only in it for the profit, of course you will make something that's as appealing as possible. But just because you can make more money as a prostitute than flipping burgers doesn't mean that fast food places have to close because their employees are out in the street selling their bodies. A lot of developers DO take pride in their games, and DO have standards that they won't compromise. Maybe they won't move quite as many units, but at least their games will be out there for people to buy, on Steam or through the App Store or whatever.
Personally I see the casual games market as a great opportunity to innovate and make games that are simply fun to play instead of trying to satisfy an existing audience with preconceived notions of what a game in a certain genre should look and play like. It's too late to begin to worry about commercial interest dictating game design - that already happened 20 years ago, my friend. Now, perhaps we're getting a chance to start anew - please don't piss all over it.

Edit: The last comment wasn't directed at M. OUXX in particular, just the naysayers in general.

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/07/2010 13:19:11
My thesis is that both sides are off topic.  

So what is the topic and what are the sides? The thread started with "An interesting read..." + a link to the article.

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/07/2010 13:19:11
My thesis is that casual gaming is a paradigm led by economics, not artists. Therefore, our opinions (whatever our side) will eventually be worthless.

Economics - true, but to a large degree artists as well. Well, simple clones of Bejeweled and HOGs can be recreated from templates, but artists are useful when anything new needs to be done. Not because of their artistry, but because they are driven and passionate about what they create. If you will try making a game for the casual gamers while looking down on them and just thinking about the profit, you won't make a game that can be enjoyed.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 09/07/2010 14:07:27
...in fact you'll have a lot better chance as an indie developer to compete in the casual market than against "hardcore" games with their next-gen graphics  and jaded audience.

Nope the situation you mention is from several years ago. The casual market is as competitive as the hardcore now, and the casual gamers are more easily manipulated by marketing and even less interested in innovation than other players. To make money from casual portals which take 80% of profits (and which are the heart of casual gaming) you have to sell copies on a truly massive scale. Forget the word "niche".

The 3 Cards To Midnight games from Tex Murphy creators were a commercial failure, the Casebook games have been turning into more traditional adventure games as the adventure game fans were more supportive of the series than the casual gamers. Hardcore (sic!) casual gamers don't care about your innovative and simply fun to play games at all. Your best bet for finding an indie games audience is people like you find them in this thread - some of which enjoy playing casual games among other things, but who aren't casual gamers per se.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 09/07/2010 14:07:27
My problem with your argument, M. OUXX, is that you seem to perceive casual games as some sort of homogeneous entity designed by marketing people and molded into its most commercially viable form through focus group testing.

Yes, that's the definition I chose. It was a choice. I assumed from the beginning that we were talking about the kind of "casual gaming" that's accepted by the very same people who invented that term (communicants and marketers of the video-games industry).
As a reminder, a "standard" casual game (as understood by those people) is based on very few golden rules :
1/ Attractive immediately (no learning curve and an appealing feel),
2/ Addictive (there's a whole theory about that: a) Small, easily reachable goals, b) Apparently increasing rewards, c) Unreachable, distant goals)
3/ Can be interrupted any time (players should be able to easily switch in and out of the game's context - both the plot and the actual application).

Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 09/07/2010 14:07:27There are small games that don't require a huge investment or a large team, in fact you'll have a lot better chance as an indie developer to compete in the casual market than against "hardcore" games

Yes, but there you broaden your scope. You're talking about Indie games in general. And then, inside Indie games, there are those that are casual and those that are not. Most of them have a strong casual factor, though:
They're "attractive immediately" (golden rule #1 above). How? For 2 reasons:
1/ Because they appear on a catalog. You see a picture and a description, and you buy it, like you'd buy a cheap gadget.
2/ Because, very often, they're light and it'll be very quick to download and run them.

Allow me to repeat that I'm not saying that all Indie Games are casual. Quite the opposite. The concepts must not be confused.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 09/07/2010 14:07:27A lot of developers DO take pride in their games, and DO have standards that they won't compromise. Maybe they won't move quite as many units, but at least their games will be out there for people to buy, on Steam or through the App Store or whatever.

Exactly. And for that, they have to fit in an industry standard: light games, hosted on a standardized platform, that appear on an endless catalog.
It seems like an opportunity to innovate. My opinion is that it's indeed like a Renaissance of the creativity in the video games, but it will be a short one. Read below why.

You pointed out that commercial interest forced standards 20 years ago. I'd say it happened more recently, when video games went past the stage where a guy could create a blockbuster alone in his garage (I exclude the world of consoles, that moved at a completely different pace). Let's say it happened 10 years ago.
My point here is that this scenario always happens in 2 steps:
1/ Nexus of creativity, when everybody can create something and has a different idea of innovation
2/ the industry eventually understands the underlying mechanisms, creates a mould, and starts mass production

At the moment we are on the verge of phase 2, after what I'd call the "broadband renaissance": the industry has just understood 2 things:
1/ It's no use investing a lot of money immediately. Add downloadable contents if the game is a success (think of TellTale games)
2/ Flood the gamers with contents of averagely lower quality. For that, use Indie games makers, amongst other things. It's not by chance that Gabe Newell opened Steam to Indie games. The very existence of Steam depends on content.

The industry calls for content (whatever its quality), to sustain consumption. Not the opposite. Consumers would be better off with a slower pace and high-quality products. But they're force-fed with "games contents", like they've been force-fed with "TV contents" with the arrival of cable and satellite. Just like "casual gaming", the word "content" is a word invented by the industry for the industry.


The conclusion of what I wrote is that, once again, I'd love to see high-quality games. And I'd love to raise the intellectual challenge of games.
But I'm pointing out that the mutation that's happening now is out of control. It's good AND bad at the same time. If, like me, you think that consumerism is the plague of humanity, then you'll find it mostly bad. Casual gaming is an opportunity for a few artists to make better games BUT the very nature of what's happening will also pull the quality down (especially in the case of those games strongly relying on an immersive plot, like Adventure games -- because it obviously conflicts with casual gaming's golden rule "easily in and out").

Both will happen at the same time. And good games will be hidden by a mass of mediocre games. And they will still be adventure games -- but casualadventure games. Not necessarily Indie, but necessarily casual.

I don't have the energy to argue all this, though I do appreciate your detailed reply. I think we have quite opposing views of the quality of casual games vs. adventure games. As I said earlier in the thread, I have no love for adventure games in their current form, whereas I quite enjoy well-designed casual games. I can't really see how the idea of casual adventure games is any worse than today's mediocre - and certainly no less profit oriented - attempts at the genre by low-budget Eastern European developers.

I'm by no means saying that all games can or should be made to follow the casual game "rules" you define, but to me all of them sound like good advice, also for non-casual developers to consider.

Adventure games have always been evolving, and continue to evolve to this day. Today's adventure games tend to use simpler controls, whereas games of the past used multiple action icons, verb coins, or even text parsers.

I just don't see the point in trying to mold an adventure game to also market to casual gamers. You inevitable end up losing most of the finer points that made it an adventure game, and it becomes something else entirely. I'm not saying the end result is a bad thing per se, but it's no longer a true adventure game. Any more than taking the shooting out of an FPS and adding in puzzle-solving would still make it an FPS (unless that stood for F__ing Pacifist Solver). ;)

My second point was that over-simplifying things in a tutorial can sometimes go too far. I found the tutorial in The Blackwell Legacy to be perfect. You start off in front of your apartment, and the in-game text tells you to talk to the guy standing in your way. After you do, it's pointed out that Rosangela has an inventory item, and tells you what to do from there.

Also, there are some things that a player should be able to figure out on his/her own, but at the same time the game must make things easier on the player. If I didn't know intuitively how to put away an inventory item, I'd try several things... Escape button, right-click, going back up to the inventory and clicking on the item a second time... it can be argued that it is up to the game designer to make all three (and more) options the correct one.

There's nothing wrong with providing in-game hints, gameplay tutorials, and multiple correct UI options to the player... but there's a balance that must be struck between telling the player to figure it out his-damn-self, and holding them by the hand and rewarding them with a treat for every little action.

Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 09/07/2010 15:32:16
I don't have the energy to argue all this, though I do appreciate your detailed reply. I think we have quite opposing views of the quality of casual games vs. adventure games. As I said earlier in the thread, I have no love for adventure games in their current form, whereas I quite enjoy well-designed casual games. I can't really see how the idea of casual adventure games is any worse than today's mediocre - and certainly no less profit oriented - attempts at the genre by low-budget Eastern European developers.

I'm by no means saying that all games can or should be made to follow the casual game "rules" you define, but to me all of them sound like good advice, also for non-casual developers to consider.

Thanks to you too, even though we don't agree, your posts were all of great quality. Hey, wait a minute. I believe other people are reading our conversation!
:)

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/07/2010 13:19:11
My thesis is that both sides are off topic. My thesis is that casual gaming is a paradigm led by economics, not artists. Therefore, our opinions (whatever our side) will eventually be worthless.

I just want to respond to this point with the old economic determinism card. All commercially produced cultural artefacts are shaped, and in many cases defined by economic forces. The Hollywood studio system of the 40s and 50s was certainly led by economic forces. However, artistic and social forces also influenced its output and it produced many very great films (and many bad ones of course).

A moneymaking opportunity has arisen because of the appearance of a new market for games. There's no reason some of those games shouldn't be very good.

Quote from: Ascovel on Fri 09/07/2010 11:21:59

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 09/07/2010 07:35:41
RT is totally right when he talks about minimalism in the interface. if there is *any*genre that demands minimalism then its this one.
The more simple and intuitive the interface, the greater the immersion.

The genre doesn't demand anything specific. You're just projecting your likes on it, and saying that this is how it must be done.

Also, you have apparently changed your mind from a couple of months ago when you put a verbcoin in your game and didn't see that it goes against "the genre's demands".

Immersion is a key part of adventure games (we have it listed as something to rate in the games database) If the screen is covered in widgets and doohickeys or you have to navigate a complex menu then that reminds you that you are playing a game and thus it breaks the immersion.

and yes I did have a verb coin for mccarthy but i have since abandoned that... although mccarthy still had a very minimalistic interface without the gui taking up a good third of the screen like SCUMM does.

Quote from: Ali on Fri 09/07/2010 16:25:24

Quote from: Monsieur OUXX on Fri 09/07/2010 13:19:11
My thesis is that both sides are off topic. My thesis is that casual gaming is a paradigm led by economics, not artists. Therefore, our opinions (whatever our side) will eventually be worthless.

I just want to respond to this point with the old economic determinism card. All commercially produced cultural artefacts are shaped, and in many cases defined by economic forces. The Hollywood studio system of the 40s and 50s was certainly led by economic forces. However, artistic and social forces also influenced its output and it produced many very great films (and many bad ones of course).

A moneymaking opportunity has arisen because of the appearance of a new market for games. There's no reason some of those games shouldn't be very good.

This is a fantastic point and something I was thinking throughout my reading of this thread.  Creativity is almost always curtailed to some extent by market considerations.  Games that fail to take into account what the market wants are often horribly frustrating, and I think this is a part of what lead to the death of adventure games.  The Sierra games were absolutely merciless, killing you without rational reason or warning and I'm pretty sure that many of you have read the Old Man Murray article on Gabriel Knight III.

"Casual gamers," are not drooling idiots and it's pretty unfair to say they are because they never figured out that you needed the cat hair for a mustache.  I remember starting one of the Kings Quest games when I was younger, walking into a forest and then being devoured by some tree.  I quit the game right there because to hell with being killed by trees.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 09/07/2010 17:52:30
Immersion is a key part of adventure games (we have it listed as something to rate in the games database) If the screen is covered in widgets and doohickeys or you have to navigate a complex menu then that reminds you that you are playing a game and thus it breaks the immersion.

That's like saying that seeing the letters-filled pages of a book breaks the immersion of reading it, or that large pixels in pixel art ruin the image that they are supposed to represent. IT's true that complex on-screen interfaces can sometimes break the immersion, but only in cases when the interfaces done in a way that makes no sense. As a side note, I must say I'm always very impressed by the interfaces in your games (especially in Mccarthy). I notice that a lot of effort went into getting them visually pleasing and smoothly working, but that's the thing - I do notice their existence while playing, yet I am really happy in how perfectly they fit with the rest of the games.

Besides, if we are referring strictly to casualization , then it doesn't have anything to do with getting rid of widgets and doohickeys from your screen - casual games often add a lot more of those actually (+ immersion-breaking sparkles). For example, Telltale is determined to keep one mouse button controls in their games, but do want to offer more interactivity, so now you have a lot of additional buttons in their inventory windows (in TOMI and the new Sam & Max). If anything, it's Grim Fandango did give the best shot at getting rid of the on-screen interface and hardly anyone cared. Grim's keyboard controls felt intuitive enough to me just as well. But then again writing commands in parsers also feels intuitive to me. And my hands are more and more tired of using the mouse so I'm very happy to put it aside whenever I'm able to.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 09/07/2010 17:52:30

Quote from: Ascovel on Fri 09/07/2010 11:21:59

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 09/07/2010 07:35:41
RT is totally right when he talks about minimalism in the interface. if there is *any*genre that demands minimalism then its this one.
The more simple and intuitive the interface, the greater the immersion.

The genre doesn't demand anything specific. You're just projecting your likes on it, and saying that this is how it must be done.

Also, you have apparently changed your mind from a couple of months ago when you put a verbcoin in your game and didn't see that it goes against "the genre's demands".

Immersion is a key part of adventure games (we have it listed as something to rate in the games database) If the screen is covered in widgets and doohickeys or you have to navigate a complex menu then that reminds you that you are playing a game and thus it breaks the immersion.

and yes I did have a verb coin for mccarthy but i have since abandoned that... although mccarthy still had a very minimalistic interface without the gui taking up a good third of the screen like SCUMM does.

Referring to McCarthy Calin has a point. The only part that the immersion broke was with the inventory on top of the screen. And occasionally with the verb coin (it had a timer unless I'm mistaken)

I've always found completely ludicrous this idea that all interfaces should be as minimal or as justified in-game as possible else it breaks the immersion. Interfaces do not ruin immersion, annoyances and frustrations do. Sparkles and messages boxes after every action broke your immersion because they annoyed/surprised you, not because they were visible.

Interfaces should be as intuitive as possible, sometimes it means less, sometimes it means more, sometimes it means better manage/implement the interface you currently have. An interface can occupy half of the screen, if it's intuitive, informative and doesn't get in the way of the game, you won't mind it, on the other hand, an unintuitive minimal interface, or one where you hide vital informations from your players for the sake of minimalism, will frustrate your players and remind them for a moment that they're playing a game.

Douglas Adams once wrote a great article on text parsers and how to write the best parser. I haven't been able to find it today, but I've come across it many times. About Starship Titanic he said that he always wondered why would programmers choose point and click interface instead of evolve interactivity levels. He referred to the point and click as the equivalent to banging the rocks. :D

Quote from: Dualnames on Sat 10/07/2010 17:26:45
Douglas Adams once wrote a great article on text parsers and how to write the best parser. I haven't been able to find it today, but I've come across it many times. About Starship Titanic he said that he always wondered why would programmers choose point and click interface instead of evolve interactivity levels. He referred to the point and click as the equivalent to banging the rocks. :D

And as the quality of the parser might be (as far as I remember it was at least pretty funny), that game was hard, I mean talk about not knowing what you have to do, random things doing radnom things and the whole thing being timed....

we agree, but at least the theory was great enough. And the article was really great.

While I love Douglas Adams' writing, I don't really trust his opinions as a games designer. Have you played LucasFilm's Labyrinth?

QuoteAdams really liked the word "adumbrate", a rather obscure verb meaning "To prefigure indistinctly; foreshadow". So it ended up on the verb list. This obscure word was used in an even more obscure puzzle at one point in the game â€" you had to "adumbrate the elephant" when you were stuck in a prison, and an elephant would come and break a hole in the wall, freeing you.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth:_The_Computer_Game

And people bitch about the cat hair mustache...

Okay, kill my hero. Damn, that is totally the most illogical puzzle ever created in the human universe. It beats having to pick up 44 chocolate bars any day. A barrel in the middle of nowhere has the best logic there is compared to this.  :o

Quote from: Trumgottist on Thu 08/07/2010 22:52:17
Here's a relevant video you might find interesting: http://vimeo.com/10853366 (I've only glanced at the article and this discussion - will read it properly tomorrow - so apologies if it's already been mentioned.)

Bit late to this thread, but holy crap.  I had no idea that panel was recorded.  Although I did look directly down at the camera at one point, so I must have known on some level.

Anyway, there's not much I can add to this discussion that hasn't been said already.  In regards to ECC, it's a mixed bag.  It started off as a game for the adventure audience, but PlayFirst doesn't have any experience with that market so it was tested with the casual audience instead.  And when that audience didn't "get it" everyone went into panic mode and threw in all sorts of casual tropes that (I feel) did more harm than good.  One day I'll write a more detailed post-mortem of the experience, but in a nutshell what we ended up with was a game that was too easy and condescending for the "mainstream" adventure players, but still too different and "out there" for the casual players.   The casual industry did learn a lot from it, though.  Avenue Flo was a point-and-clicker that was made specifically with the casual audience in mind, and fared much better in the casual space.  

It's a shame that my game became a guinea pig of sorts and didn't fare as well as it could have, but it was the first game of its kind and it was cool to be a part of that.

I must say I enjoyed Emerald City quite a bit - not as much as the Blackwell games, but overall it was well written and designed (especially liked the magic stuff). The static graphics and pretty-and-fun-but-not-terribly-atmospheric artwork made it feel less dramatic than it could have been, but I didn't find it condescending in any way. The only casual game trope that seriously annoyed me were the "mission complete" popups, and I wouldn't even have minded them if they didn't fill the screen and pause the game - would have been perfectly find with Xbox achievement style pop-ups, even more so if they could be turned off ;)

Sorry to hear it wasn't a success, it certainly was more deserving of attention than the vast majority of casual games.