Casualizing Point and Click Adventures article at Gamasutra

[TerranRich]

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.

[Gravity]

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.

[Victor6]

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 :-

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.

[Anian]

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

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

[Monsieur OUXX]

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.

[Victor6]

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.

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?

[TerranRich]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

"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.

[Monsieur OUXX]

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.

[GarageGothic]

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.

[ThreeOhFour]

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

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.

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.

[Calin Leafshade]

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..

[Igor Hardy]

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.

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.

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.

[ddq]

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.

[LimpingFish]

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!"

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Anian]

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.

[TerranRich]

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.

[Victor6]

*Cheap shot warning*

...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.