Not Just About Puzzles

[Gravity]

Well it's about time for my once-a-year post so here goes. I think a lot of people have a certain mindset when it comes to adventure games and how they play out. You have traditionalist on one side and innovators on the other. Each side have their own views and both have valid arguments about what adventure games are, where they are now, and where they are headed. Both parties have people who think the genre is dead, while others believe it is just hibernating, and others still think the genre is being revived. Well, we all have our own opinions on the subject but I've already gone off topic.

I guess I'm just curious as to what everyone believes qualifies a game as an adventure game today. Is it the story, puzzles, theme, atmosphere, a combination of all, or something else entirely. Do you want more games to be developed and published aka like games of yesterday or do you think a complete reinvention is needed such as the recently released game Heavy Rain? Do physical and/or/both mental puzzles alone qualify a game to be considered a part of the genre or can it succeed with story and characters alone? Or can the story itself become a puzzle?

Personally, while I love adventure games of all sorts, I play them mostly for the story. To me, puzzles tie a story together and makes everything fit into place. The definition of puzzle is often broad but I always liked the following explanation: to perplex or be perplexed. To me, a good story can be as challenging and often as puzzling as a problem that requires skill or ingenuity for its solution such as any physical challenge. But as I've mentioned, the definition of puzzle is often broad, and rather varied. But most adventure games feature puzzles that are hybrid. They require both physical and mental exertion on the players' part. I guess I've always favored the mental aspect over the physical parts. To me figuring out a plot twist, or discovering who the killer might be was always more fun than going from point a to b, while collecting this or that, in order to get past here to there. Collect clues, not clutter is a more simpler explanation I guess.

Well I shall end this post here or otherwise I would write indefinitely, straying from my original subject. I most likely poorly explained what I was trying to talk about but I'm a little rusty as late when it comes to writing well thought out topics and posting about them. Anyway, I would love to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter. I apologize for the lack of proper grammar and text formatting. Thank you for your time.

[Wyz]

I see adventures as interactive stories, since they developed from text adventures. Many have tried to make stories interactive, and there are a bunch of solutions. The point and click genre has a really strong appeal to me, I think it is a very good way to make interactive stories. There are different definitions for the 'adventure' genre, like action adventures, but they are not really stories anymore. I my eyes a story don't have to be linear but the number of possibilities must be finite.

Puzzles can be part of an adventure like they can be part of a story, however some games I will categorize as puzzles games rather then adventures; It's a bit of a grey area.

In the future we might see other ways to implement adventure games, other then point & clicks, or maybe a addition to the genre. Well there are already games that try to broaden the implementation. There is plenty room for experimentation I guess.

[blueskirt]

You have traditionalist on one side and innovators on the other.

In this debate, it's not traditionalists and innovators. It's people who want to keep the puzzles aspect in adventure games on one side and people who want to remove them completly and create visual novels/puzzle-less games on the other.

My personal definition of an adventure game would be a brain teasing game where the puzzles are deeply interwinded in a story. Remove the story, the context, the situations where the puzzles are solved, and you end up with puzzle game. Remove the brain teasing aspect, and you end up with a visual novel.

Game creators have the right to put no puzzles in their adventure games if they want to, but I reserve myself the right to not play their games if that's the case, just like I do with many puzzle-less IF games and most visual novels out there, because I want to play games, not read or watch them, I want to be challenged, I want to make decisions, I want to accomplish goals through very specific rulesets, because that's what bring me into the game medium in the first place.

However, that doesn't mean I'm an old cranky adventurer who want to USE TRINKET ON GIZMO his way out of every situations, I'm always advocating for people to find new, innovative puzzles mechanics, like those found in Loom, Full Throttle, Ace Attorney, The Shivah or Gunmute, both to bring a wind of fresh air in a gameplay stale genre and also to allow new stories to be told in the genre. If you create a new mechanic to replace the classic "use items on items" mechanic, go ahead, as long progressing in the game still requires my brain, and not just some brainlessly stumbling around, talking to everyone in hope the game will progress, I'll have no problems with that. Where I'll have a problem is if you remove the brain teasing aspect and replace it with absolutly nothing.

To me figuring out a plot twist, or discovering who the killer might be was always more fun than going from point a to b, while collecting this or that, in order to get past here to there.

The problem is most adventure games are completly scripted, linear and the goal is more to assist the detective while he deduces who the murderer is rather than letting you find who the murderer is. Guessing a plot twist before it happens is not a gameplay element to me. Were someone to make a murder mystery kind of adventure game, where you actively got to collect clues and use your brain to find the real murderer and avoid accusing an innocent, some sort of more complex version of Where's An Egg, now that would be completly different. Even more so if said game could generate a new murder mystery everytime you restart the game.

[Snarky]

The problem is most adventure games are completly scripted, linear and the goal is more to assist the detective while he deduces who the murderer is rather than letting you find who the murderer is. Guessing a plot twist before it happens is not a gameplay element to me. Were someone to make a murder mystery kind of adventure game, where you actively got to collect clues and use your brain to find the real murderer and avoid accusing an innocent, some sort of more complex version of Where's An Egg, now that would be completly different. Even more so if said game could generate a new murder mystery everytime you restart the game.

I think there is a bit of "solving the mystery" (or at least "piecing the clues together") in many detective games, including The Shivah and Phoenix Wright. And that's something I would definitely like more of.

One of my cherished ideas for "games I will make one day" is one where you solve the crime by recreating it in a flashback. After you have interrogated the witnesses and collected clues, you go into a mode where you imagine how the crime was committed and you play as the (unidentified) murderer. You can use the evidence and knowledge you have to manipulate the flashback (e.g. if you can prove that a person wasn't where he said he was, the flashback will change to reflect that). If you hit a dead end, you may need to investigate more. Once you're able to recreate the entire crime and account for all the evidence, you'll have solved the case. (It will be written in such a way that recreating the crime from beginning to end makes it obvious who the criminal is.)

[Gravity]

When I spoke of figuring out plot twists I did not mean discovering what happens before it happens nor correctly predicting the story. But rather, as mentioned, being able to collect information and being allowed to solve a problem using your own thinking abilities and tools within the game that helps aid you-not force you to gather this or that with predetermined events that force you into a set order where you need this item or that piece of exact information in order to complete and proceed in the story/game. Not that those types of games are bad.n

Take an episode from CSI. I'm not really a fan of television but I appreciate some elements from that show. And as Snarky talked about it would interesting that you are given all this story, information, data, etc and are allowed to piece it together at your own pace and in a order you decide. Also using a flashback type of gameplay in which you got to piece together how something went to see how you did would be a great addition to said game.

Just saying, less physical elements and more mental thinking. I get enough with moving, talking, using, etc. I'd just like to see more interactivity with the story and how you and it affects each other-not just want you do physically. Thanks for the feedback and taking the time out the read/comment.

[Babar]

I´m not much of a fan of puzzles, and to my mind, they shouldn´t really be a necessary part of the definition of "adventure games" at all (and aren´t, as can be seen by loads of adventure games that are also action games, or RPGs, etc).

While I love many of those "traditional point & click" games I played in my childhood, looking back at them now, most puzzle sequences or chains are fairly absurd at best, and tiresomely mundane at worst. While I love the "Aha!" moments of solving a puzzle as much as the next person, I´d be happy to see puzzles be used less as the defining elements of adventure games. Don´t get me wrong, I´m not saying I want an "interactive comic", just that people should experiment with other gameplay elements as well.

[Find Therma]

I think there is a bit of "solving the mystery" (or at least "piecing the clues together") in many detective games, including The Shivah and Phoenix Wright. And that's something I would definitely like more of.

Very much agree with wanting to see more of this type of gameplay. To my mind piecing together the plot is of far more interest than trying to work out how to get through the locked window using only a credit-card, clothes peg, and sack of potatoes. That type of puzzle has it's place in humourous games*, but to be entirely engaging a serious adventure should undoubtedly concentrate on making the player think logically about the plot, and how best to use the information they have gathered to make progress.

*If the game is genuinly funny. If it's not then it becomes a huge chore.

[Mr Flibble]

My favourite adventure game of the last 10 years is undoubtedly Phoenix Wright, which is at times little more than an interactive graphic novel. I think this is a viable route to take but it requires the game designer to be able to write compelling dialogue and give the player rewarding graphics/experiences to keep them interested. There's also a significant difference between an interactive story and a movie full of quicktime events to change the ending you get.

The problem is that, cliché as a lot of adventure game puzzles turn out to be, they are infinitely preferable to hours of ponderous, perfunctory cutscenes and blandly written exposition.

[Igor Hardy]

I just posted an article on this topic.

[Ethan D]

In my opinion every single game is an adventure game. (Every good one at least.)  For instance even Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 I would consider to be an adventure game.  Sure there are no puzzles to solve but it's still an adventure .  The reason why I like working on adventure games is because people will play them for their story as the biggest selling point whereas other game genres the selling point can be combat for instance. (Nearly every fighting/war game.) 

Basically my opinion is that at the base of every game there is the adventure which is created by the story, the atmosphere, the characters, the dialogue, etc,. and then there is the filler.  In point click games the filler is usually puzzles.  In RPGs it is usually the battles.  The filler to me makes the adventure that much more satisfying because the player has to suffer to a degree to get it.  Some people may enjoy the filler more than the adventure but either one of them is strengthened by the other.  If either stood alone it would either be a boring game or a video that you have to click to make move.  However if the filler is low in quality then the adventure suffers.  So, while puzzles can definitely add to the experience of playing a game, if it is a badly made puzzle or one that causes you to die a lot then it significantly takes away from the game.

I've also noticed that when a puzzle that you can die in can be done in one try, it creates a fantastic effect on the player.  For instance (MW2 again) in CoD Modern Warfare 2 there are a lot of moments where you feel that you are in control and that one false move will cause you to fail but it's actually very hard to fail in these times.  I think the best effect that you can create for a player is one that they think they are being challenged when really they aren't. (Sadly, this is hard to do in point click games.)

Any game that I play I play for the adventure of it whether it is an action packed game or an intriguing mystery.  Games are a great medium for creating feelings and effects for people, some games just lean on the filler more heavily.

Well, that was a long post, hope it didn't bore anyone!

[Captain Ricco]

Nicely put Ethan, ill be downloading your game for that it must be good

[Ethan D]

Nicely put Ethan, ill be downloading your game for that it must be good

I appreciate the support but fear you may be disappointed.

I had very little understanding of how to make games when I made ANTR.  As I have said I love the story of games the most and I fear I leaned to heavily on it and didn't focus on gameplay as much.  (Not to mention the dialogue being poorly written.) 

Wow, now I sound like I'm beating myself up over the quality of my first game! 

It was a learning experience, the next game I make will be much better for it!

P.S. I hope I haven't hijacked this thread.....

Quickly! someone say something on topic!! 

[Charity]

I have to say, I have never had a problem with games that are in actuality just movies you watch with your fingers on the controls, and I consider games like Dreamfall and Xenogears (well, XG was a legitimately challenging game, but it did have some monstrous cutscenes) among my all time favorites..  

Really, it kind of baffles me that some people are so adamantly opposed to these sorts of game-movie hybrids.  I mean, I can't think of anyone I know who enjoys games, but doesn't also enjoy movies, so what is it that's so poisonous about the mixture?  Is it just the associations people have with the word "game"?  I get it that "game" implies something you play, not something you watch, and so doing too much of the latter might disrupt some expectations, but game's just a label.  It isn't a crime to use it loosely.  Or if you prefer precision in language, say "interactive film" or something.  I've seen that term or similar tossed around a bit, but I still see people balk at it.  Like it's pretentious or something.  And maybe it is used pretentiously sometimes, like "haha my thing defies the current categorical system.  That makes it deep."  But it doesn't have to be that way.  I mean, really all it needs to mean is "its a story where you get to press buttons, but which doesn't meet the criteria to be considered a game, per se."

Anyway, I think there are a few ways in which a story can really benefit from a game-like format, whether or not it tries to be a game also.  For one thing, the game as a medium has all or most of the capacities of the other major storytelling media: it can easily utilize text, visuals (both still and animate), and sound.  This gives it a lot of versatility.  It can imitate a book, movie, comic, probably even a radio drama with relative ease, and in many cases can even switch between media-styles rather seamlessly.

Another advantage is length.  This is mostly an advantage over film and theater, which are media that expect their audience to sit still for their entirety, and so will tend to alienate an increasing number of people the longer they go past the two hour mark.  But most games of any length expect the player to leave and return at their leisure, so they can afford to go on for a few tens of hours, or more, so long as they can fill the time well.  In this way they are more like books, or TV series.  But unlike a TV series, a game can be released as a complete product the first time around, and isn't confined to a format of episodes of a regular duration.

Of course there is the obvious advantage that interactivity adds the possibility of non-linearity.  You can introduce the idea of branching plotlines, multiple outcomes, be they in the form of success and failure or tricky moral (or other kinds of) decisions.  Stories are always dealing with the consequences of actions, and sometimes an excellent way to do that is to allow people to see consequences for alternative courses of action.  Though of course, nonlinearity is a double edged sword, if you want to tell a certain specific story--especially if you want to tell a story where the protagonist doesn't always pick the obvious "right" choice.  When there isn't much at stake, it is very easy to be good all the time, or evil all the time, but no matter how much is at stake for the protagonist, there isn't going to be much at stake for the player.

On a similar line of thought, interactivity allows a story potentially to evoke a feeling of personal responsibility in its audience, whether they are making the decisions or simply facilitating the decisions made by the player characters.  If a character in a movie does something bad, we aren't going to feel personally guilty, or if we do, it's only as an empathetic response.

Games also put their audience inside the bodies of their protagonists, in a way that can't be done in movies or books.  Even in games like Dreamfall, where there is really very little you actually do, you still have the illusion that you are there, walking around.  A movie can engage sight and sound, but a game can in a way engage a sort of proprioception.

Yet another advantage, is that a story in other media needs to be concise and focused, to one degree or another.  That is, if  there is a point to your story, sometimes certain subplots and bits of background info are only going to be irrelevant and detract from the narrative.  This is true in games, too, but there is more leeway, because now you can flesh out your world with optional content that may or may not have a baring on the main plot, and instead of distracting, it can add to the overall experience.

There are of course challenges too.  Certain types of stories aren't as easy to tell in an interactive medium, especially when your audience considers themselves to be playing a game.  For instance, tragic endings may leave players feeling cheated (many people already feel cheated by them, even in conventional media, but in games they actually had to work to earn that happy ending you just stole from them).

Also games don't lend themselves to the same literalism that is possible in books and films.  The more control the player has, the more they will be able to poke around at the world and spot the ways that it differs from reality.  You end up with abstractions like healthbars and inventories that serve as approximate representatives for our real world abilities to take different degrees of physical injury, and own and carry material possessions.  We get NPCs that repeat themselves constantly, representing conversations, or the generalized knowledge we have of what people around us tend to think.  Even the ways we interact with the world are symbolic.  Pointing and clicking, or pressing an arrow to represent walking, for instance.  In this way, I think games (especially retro games) are a little more like plays than they are like films, because while plays and games are visual, they both still leave a lot to the imagination.  

The point is, I think all of these things make the "game" into a unique and viable storytelling medium, even without things like puzzles, fighting, sleuthing, or even nonlinearity.  This isn't to say I think we should do away with these mainstays of gaming, but just that I don't understand why people are so quick to decry their absence in "games" and yet are perfectly happy to sit back and and read books or watch movies and TV shows.  I mean, ignoring the fact that most games have pretty weak storylines, and so are hard to sit through without fun or interesting gameplay.

EDIT: Also really like what Ethan said.

[Anian]

Well developing a game makes you think differently, although everybody nowdays that's played more than one game usually identifies certain parts - a lock a puzzle, a fetch quest, conversation/dialog puzzle etc. You can't help it really - puzzle inplementation is 99% of the time obvious, the thing is how willing you are to solve them and how obvious it is that the puzzle is just for the sake of being a game and not a movie for example.
Heavy rain moved this so the story is actually the game itself and thus the whole game is one big puzzle - that's great, the execution might not have been perfect though IMO (seems boring at times, might be a problem that it's too realistic for me). But I think that's as close as you can seemingly implement puzzles without making it uninteractive.

If you go into adventure games (yes, there are many definitions but I'm going with majority of games in this genere) as primary thing being stories then yes, it is pretty much interactive fiction and puzzles are just to make it feel more of a game. As some of you said, this should not be the focus though, unless it's the point of the game like Myst and similar, where you're basically in a one big puzzle box - story is just an added motivation to solve them - but that's ok too.

What did I want to say...ah yes, revealing a story with obstacles that you get to solve, instead of watching them being solved like in a movie or book - active instead of passive (that's why I find cutscenes to be a mixed bag, interactvie cutscenes like in Half life are on the other hand more fun and easier on the developer).
If it's like a movie but interactive - I want that interaction to be more than "turn the page" or even "choose option 1, 2 or 3". I want that if my avatar sees an obstacle, I get to solve it, by jumping, killing, talking, running, magic etc. that is a game experience, I get to do more things than I am able to and live the story, be somebody else and yet make decisions as me. That would be ideal, and seconded only to "can I see what's around the corner" and "what if I said or did this".  

In conclusion - yes, it's not alll about puzzles, but puzzles might be the easiest way fora designer to add interactivity and obstacles. A movie or a book never gave me a sense of acomplishment...well it gives a closure and it's usually a fun experience.
If a story can take you somewhere where you've never been before, give you an emotional ride while having a sense of acomplishment - that's a good game and that's why they're a great media.

[Wesray]

I'm glad that both traditional and more innovative adventure games keep getting developed. I enjoy both types for different reasons.

The most important part of any adventure game for me are the story and the characters. Next to the story, puzzles are the main ingredient I'm usually looking for, because they provide obstacles and thus the actual gaming part in traditional adventure games. They make me work for the story and allow me feeling accomplished if I solve them. 

If I can just run through the game without thinking I tend to feel unchallended and get bored. The same happens though when puzzles are too hard, unlogical or don't fit into the game world. Furthermore I like my puzzles varied, solving loads of inventory- and dialog-puzzles can get tedious after all. Therefore I appreciate the odd logic puzzle or even short action sequences like in Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.

Replacing puzzles with other gameplay mechanics might work, and I really enjoy such games from time to time. But then again, games without puzzles are not what I would consider adventures. Full action games can be interactive stories too, but that doesn't make them adventure games.

[Jared]

that's why I find cutscenes to be a mixed bag, interactvie cutscenes like in Half life are on the other hand more fun and easier on the developer

It's strange but these cutscenes don't work very well for me. Okay, some of them are cool and memorable but I feel they're (ironically) a lot like puzzles, in that with a bad one you need to be in exactly the same headspace as the developer to work it out. When I played the original Half-Life with friends they were constantly telling me - "No, you're meant to stop here and watch this!" after I saw a random scientist out a window when I was walking down a corridor, or "No, you're meant to go up there, watch what happens, and then come back" because watching one cutscene triggered something unrelated.

I got frustrated, I remember in Half Life 2: Episode 1 and BioShock with cutscenes that were completely non-interactive - until a certain point. BUT nothing changed at this point. No GUI, no message, no effect at all. That really irritated me. Fair enough, if it's interactive, I'm in the story - but how is not telling me when the thing ends, so Gordon Freeman ends up staring at somebody for half a minute, meant to help me feel part of the story?

If we need cutscenes, I'm one of those people who prefers a clear separation from cutscene and gameplay. Medal of Honor: Airborne has them in-game, non-interactive, but when you encounter them the camera goes into widescreen mode. I found that actually kind of cool.