What is 'fun' about an adventure game?

[Bluke4x4]

This blogpost about Maniac Mansion by J. Chastain recently changed a lot of how I think about adventure games, the genre I just sort of let become my default favorite. I've spent a while not playing a lot of adventure games and I have to admit I don't play many console games either. The last adventure game I did play, ironically, was The Cave, on a friend's Xbox 360. And while I enjoyed that game enough to play it repeatedly, trying every character on, I was struck by the roteness of repeated gameplay in an adventure game. These are not necessarily games built to be played immediately after you just beat them (although the running-around aspect of The Cave maybe worsened it). Okay, trying to cut to the chase, this bit of that blogpost really stuck out to me:

Use item A on character B. Watch cutscene. Get item C. Walk to next room. Walk to next room. Combine item C with item D to create item E. Use item E on object F. Watch cutscene. This is a script on a drip feed. Your Rubber Chicken and your Crowbar and your Can Opener are keys that unlock doors within this prison world. The doors only lead to more rooms within the prison.

What exactly makes adventure games fun? I enjoy playing them, sure, but is there really 'fun' in their gameplay? Descriptions can be funny or interesting, I can enjoy dialog or the machinations of a plot or my choices resulting in a different ending (although even that's hard to integrate without making it pretty obvious where the cut-off choice is being made) but when it comes down to it aren't they just sort of multiple-choice-answer-sheet packets of art and plot? Is there such a thing as a fun adventure game with boring writing and bad graphics? Does this sound jaded? I don't really know, I'm just wondering about this thing I used to like a lot and still think I probably like a lot, but haven't really been able to investigate lately.

And then off the subject of whatever I think, like the blogpost suggests, is it really possible for you to feel like you're embodying a character when you play a game like this? Like you're not just controlling a little dude on a screen who says stuff or looks cool, but that maybe you have some emotional connection? I don't really know what I'm looking for here but I'm interested in some discussion, unless this stuff's been covered extensively.

[Secret Fawful]

Go play Grim Fandango for perfect, logical puzzles and characters you empathize with and build an emotional connection to. The Last Express was also probably the greatest instance of freedom in an adventure game yet implemented. The Colonel's Bequest also did a lot of interesting things since it was timed, although most people consider that bad. Gold Rush was filled with freedom and multiple paths, but most people consider it too hard because they're little wussies.

[CaptainD]

I haven't played The Cave so I don't know much about it, but from what I've heard I'm really not sure it's particularly representative of what most of us consider to be a "typical" adventure game anyway.  But genre boundaries blur anyway, so maybe that's irrelevant.

I think the quote is a little irrelevant.  What's makes a platformer fun?  (Well I'm not really a fan of platformers, but anyway) - "Run around.  Jump.  Climb ladders.  Try not to get killed by monsters and big drops.  Collect coins."  When you just say what the basic components are, sure it sounds dull.  Sheet metal, moulded plastic, wheels, dampers, disc brakes and electronics sound dull.  If they've been put together into a Ferrari F40, suddenly they're not so dull.  (Don't moan if I've got the actual components of an F40 wrong, you know what I'm trying to say.)

It's about how the basic game elements are put together, fused into a world you can believe (or at least want to), characters that you care about, laugh at, get involved with he plot, and try to "beat" the game designers by solving their puzzles.  Well, that's my two-penneth anyway.  I'm sure someone will give a more eloquent answer, and obviously each game differs (plus I think all of us would say that we don't enjoy adventure games just for being adventure games, but for being GOOD - or hopefully GREAT - adventure games), but those are, in a nutshell, my feelings on the question.  As to truly feeling like you're embodying a character... well to me, no, that's not really how it feels nor is it something I'm looking for in an adventure game.  Like most media I want it to primarily entertain, certainly amuse and / or engross, and possibly even educate.
 

[Babar]

I'm not sure The Cave qualifies as an adventure game, but I agree mostly with your premise. For me, personally, the puzzle solving aspect wasn't ever really the main draw of adventure games, and if you ask me, a lot of puzzles (even in famous commercial adventure games) were pretty absurd and unfitting. I wouldn't mind if the gameplay mechanic for adventure games was switched with something else (which is probably why I still consider games like Another World or Flashback) to be adventure games.

I suppose, for me, it is the exploration aspect (solving some obstacle to be rewarded with some previously inaccessible area, exploring each thing in a new area, checking everything out, etc). A couple adventure games I enjoyed because of the excellent dialogue and humour, but I'm not sure that is restricted to adventure games, because you can get that from books and movies and tv shows as well, and the fact that it is a video game, or an adventure game doesn't improve on that.

PS: I love Grim Fandango, but I'd probably rate its puzzles and gameplay to be its weakest feature..

[Secret Fawful]

I'm not sure The Cave qualifies as an adventure game, but I agree mostly with your premise. For me, personally, the puzzle solving aspect wasn't ever really the main draw of adventure games, and if you ask me, a lot of puzzles (even in famous commercial adventure games) were pretty absurd and unfitting. I wouldn't mind if the gameplay mechanic for adventure games was switched with something else (which is probably why I still consider games like Another World or Flashback) to be adventure games.

I suppose, for me, it is the exploration aspect (solving some obstacle to be rewarded with some previously inaccessible area, exploring each thing in a new area, checking everything out, etc). A couple adventure games I enjoyed because of the excellent dialogue and humour, but I'm not sure that is restricted to adventure games, because you can get that from books and movies and tv shows as well, and the fact that it is a video game, or an adventure game doesn't improve on that.

PS: I love Grim Fandango, but I'd probably rate its puzzles and gameplay to be its weakest feature..

Maybe you should be playing different games then? Role playing games can offer the same emotional resonance and quality of storytelling without those pesky puzzles, or whatever. Planescape Torment and Mother 3 are up there for me with classic fiction, and I'm sure some pretentious asshole would love to come tell me I'm wrong, but I stick by that statement.

Personally, I don't mind taking adventure games in a new direction, but the idea of replacing puzzles altogether in every game and making it to where no traditional adventure games exist is bullshit.

[Babar]

But that is the thing, see. I don't take "puzzle solving" as a defining ingredient of "Adventure games" at all. What you're thinking of are "Puzzle games"- stuff like Gobliiins and Myst and Hodj and Podj (and at the far end without story stuff like Bejewled).

And Planescape: Torment was an AWESOME adventure game (but had pretty mediocre gameplay as well).

[Secret Fawful]

That's an interesting take on it, and you could be right. But I always saw Gobliiins and Myst as adventure games. Bejeweled has no characters or story or areas. But on the other end, I think a game like Dear Esther can be considered an adventure game. It's really broad. Personally, for me, I'd like to see what the OP's blog post and games like Last Express and Maniac Mansion did explored more. It's not the easiest thing, but it's completely possible to continue exploring elements like real time, freedom, characters that move and live independently of your actions, etc. Things like that excite me even if they make a game difficult, although Last Express isn't that bad once you get into it.

[Bluke4x4]

I think the quote is a little irrelevant.  What's makes a platformer fun?  (Well I'm not really a fan of platformers, but anyway) - "Run around.  Jump.  Climb ladders.  Try not to get killed by monsters and big drops.  Collect coins."  When you just say what the basic components are, sure it sounds dull.  Sheet metal, moulded plastic, wheels, dampers, disc brakes and electronics sound dull.  If they've been put together into a Ferrari F40, suddenly they're not so dull.  (Don't moan if I've got the actual components of an F40 wrong, you know what I'm trying to say.)

Well, games like that or, like, for a much different example something like Super Hexagon, a lot of it just becomes tactile, impulse-based. I remember once discussing with someone the idea of listening to podcasts while playing games like Super Mario 64 or Mario Kart because you're not really thinking with words when you're playing those games and they were really surprised because they wouldn't be able to concentrate on both things. For a lot of people (and me) though, games like that turn into a coordination exercise. Meanwhile an adventure game is almost exclusively 'word thoughts', because you're thinking about what to do next and where to walk and how to figure out a puzzle. And typically there is one solution for the one problem, after which there is another problem with a single solution, and so on.

I'm not sure The Cave qualifies as an adventure game, but I agree mostly with your premise.

To me, the "use thing on a thing" ability made it an adventure game to me. Besides a few levers and pulleys there were relatively few pure 'platforming' puzzles or sections.

Planescape Torment and Mother 3 are up there for me with classic fiction, and I'm sure some pretentious asshole would love to come tell me I'm wrong, but I stick by that statement.

I love the Mother games so much, but even then I'm really just in love with the plot and a lot of the ideas as opposed to really loving menu-based combat or something. A friend actually just bought me Planescape Torment, I should play that soon!

Mainly, to me, there's a sort of game a lot of people are making in Twine where it's just getting to control when the player gets to read the next bit as opposed to giving the player any real choice. It can be great and enlightening, but it's obviously not the most impressive thing. To me, there's only so much separation from that to the linear narrative of an adventure game forcing you down that one track. But then that might actually just be a characteristic of narrative games in general, so I don't really know where that thought goes.

I really like what you said about them being sort of exploration-based Babar because that's probably the best way to put it. The biggest alternative I can imagine to rigorous narrative is just wide-open exploration.

[kaput]

When you know, you'll know.

[Hernald]

When you know, you'll know.

Well, yes.
For me that's:
Good music that fits
Good distinctive artwork
Compelling Characters
A well conceived and detailed world with contrasts that rewards exploration
Clever puzzles, well integrated into the world, with GUIs for those special character abilities
Bespoke responses to everything you try to do, even if it's not the right solution

Oh yes; and there has to be a story.

[Fitz]

As luck would have it, the first games I played on my first PC were "The Fate of Atlantis" (which I got with my soundcard) and "Goblins 3". I fell in love with those games, they were so different from stuff I used to play on C64 and NES. There was no rush, you had all the time in the world to walk around the place, interact with everything in various ways (other than just shooting/whacking/pouncing onto/bumping into things). AND you could talk to people -- who didn't want to kill you, so you didn't have to kill THEM to progress in the game (well ok, you had to do some fist-fighting in Indy, but you just knocked them out).
I love fun characters that I can talk to -- not necessarily about the mission at hand. A well-written character can paint a detailed background of the world the story is set in (PISS is the first thing that comes to mind, Nen's games tend to have some nicely developed lore to them) -- or simply amuse you with something beautifully random. I like intuitive puzzles: not the "insert the key into the keyhole to open the door" kind, but something that becomes obvious once you've had a brief chat with someone and looked around the place. Good balance in this area is a difficult art -- and there are games that really go out of their way to make it unnecessaarily and unfairly hard for you. I like a game that lets me immerse in the story, progress smoothly, rather than halt me at every turn to figure out that, for instance, I need to be faster than the beggar whose shoe slid off his foot at grab it before he does, so that THEN I could give it to a merchant, who just happened to stand nearby, so that he accepts me into the merchant guild (reasoning that you deserve to be rich because you just stole from someone who has nothing), which will somehow - I don't know how, yet - help me in the future (an actual puzzle in a game!).
On a more optimistic note, I finished Machinarium just last Sunday, and although it was pretty difficult at times -- with some damn inventive logic games AND a retro 8-bit style action sequence with a dreary/creepy background music -- I loved how logical it was, and how well most puzzles fit into the story (even the hint system was fun -- another nod to retro gaming). Same reason why I really loved AGS's own Barely Floating -- some puzzles were CRAZY, the one with three brothers especially, but once I figured out the pattern, it was a matter to trial and error, and solving it eventually felt great. The adrenalin rush -- and then the surge of endorphins/serotinin/whaddyacallem! I'm no hardcore gamer, I play my arcade games on Easy most of the time, and will oftem resort to cheats/mods if available -- but I compulsively finish/max out most games I start playing (reached 99.95% completion in Just Cause 2!) and WILL seek a challenge once I get a hang of the game mechanics.

[Igor Hardy]

Everything.

Most importantly, the challenges and game events are not as repetitive as in the other genres.

[Gribbler]

I've played so many games in my life, experienced so many different gameplay styles that the one and only thing that keeps me playing nowadays is the story, characters development, emotional connection with them etc. I can stand terrible or broken gameplay mechanics if the writing is good. Or the gameplay type I simply don't like. Yesterday I finished The Last of Us on PS3 and I HATE stealth games, you know the ones where you have to stay hidden most of the time, creep around undetected, Splinter Cell or Hitman type. But boy, what a story, what immersion, moral choises, totally believable world. It was my first stealth-type game I ever finished, and it was AMAZING.

[Andail]

I refuse to read what some random bloke has to say about adventure games when he can't break up his text into manageable paragraphs.

But yeah, this quote

Use item A on character B. Watch cutscene. Get item C. Walk to next room. Walk to next room. Combine item C with item D to create item E. Use item E on object F. Watch cutscene. This is a script on a drip feed. Your Rubber Chicken and your Crowbar and your Can Opener are keys that unlock doors within this prison world. The doors only lead to more rooms within the prison.

says it all.
Yes, in a way you can describe adventure gameplay like that. Is it supposed to prove anything? Way better than Shoot Zombie X. Reload.

[Snarky]

I refuse to read what some random bloke has to say about adventure games when he can't break up his text into manageable paragraphs.

I don't know. If Jessica Chastain has opinions about adventure games, I'm prepared to listen.

[kaput]

I refuse to read what some random bloke has to say about adventure games when he can't break up his text

That is a shame because I love them adventure games where I get to pick up items and I get to use items and I get to talk and it is really funny and I like it because it is really funny but sometimes it is serious but then it is still good because it has a story unlike some games that do not have a story and they are not good because they do not have a story and are stupid because they do not tell me a story.

[Bluke4x4]

I'm glad to hear about the Last of Us. There are lots of types of games with good plots or dialog or characters. They are out there. My question is, if you find, say, an FPS with many cliches worse than an adventure game with many cliches, why? Surely an adventure game has a much higher capacity for tedium. But then, someone good at playing an adventure game need not complete it in the fastest time or whatever. You don't have to be 'good' at adventure games to enjoy adventure games. Is that a possible part? Or is it the generally thoughtful nature of an adventure game? And also, why not be interested in making a 'thoughtful' and uncliched FPS? I guess that has more to do with familiarity with a genre anyway. That FPS thing's probably irrelevant.

Hopefully to clarify, the post itself (by the really great artist and writer J. Chastain) is not anti-adventure games, and neither am I. Her post is about how reactive Maniac Mansion is compared to what the genre certainly has the capacity to be, even very recently (which is what she's describing in the quote I used). How many endings are there in Maniac Mansion? How many characters are there who will do a thing other characters won't? How differently can you summarize different playthroughs? Why is a game that was made so long ago so much more interesting from a technical standpoint than the vast majority of 'pure' adventure games made now? Is a limited linear story necessary for an adventure game now, or has it just seemed to become that? Why might those elements seem unnecessary in a typical adventure game now? Unwieldy to code? Does that game exist as a 'proto-adventure game', like proto-punk music or something, before the typical 'rules of the genre' were codified? I mean, obviously not, right?

If you could play a game where every 'door' in the world was open, there were no puzzles, and you just walked around in this environment and had extensively coded dialogs with anyone you could talk to- intensely reactive and with lots of content based on lots of small things you've witnessed and other people you'd spoken to, would that not be an adventure game? Perhaps you're finding out about a mystery, but the game doesn't necessarily end if you figure it out, and you have no bearing on it- it happened a long time ago, maybe. But the graphics are beautiful and the writing is really good. With no puzzles. Is that an adventure game? And depending on who you talk to and how much you put off some people, some conversation topics are blocked off forever. You might come to one conclusion about the mystery on one playthrough and another on a different one, but it's all on you. And there's no 'good endings' or 'bad endings', there's no 'ending', you would just be interested enough to keep playing and lose interest either on your own or when the conversation well inevitably dries up of interesting exposition. Does a game have to tell you when it ends?

But then, you could make a similar game in the Fallout 3 engine, or modding Earthbound. So, you know, I'd say my original question is probably needless, because whether or not someone finds something fun is based very heavily on the player. A lot of other games rely on hand-eye coordination or speed to be fun and adventure games can seem very cerebral to me for taking most of that out of the equation, which still does not stop me from enjoying them. Here's a different question, then: do the standard tropes of adventure games detract from them becoming more widely experimental? Has most of everything been done? I see a lot of self-referentiality in games about the constraints of gameplay, but few actual attempts to break those constraints for the player. Are puzzles essential, and does the prevalence of one-linear-story-one-game games suggest that's what most people who like adventure games think adventure games are? Should every new game (especially by superfans of the genre) be doing something new with the format, or is it enough to just be excellently functional (i.e. a really good story and graphics but typical puzzles)? Or, even, am I missing all the experimental games?

[Igor Hardy]

If you could play a game where every 'door' in the world was open, there were no puzzles, and you just walked around in this environment and had extensively coded dialogs with anyone you could talk to- intensely reactive and with lots of content based on lots of small things you've witnessed and other people you'd spoken to, would that not be an adventure game? Perhaps you're finding out about a mystery, but the game doesn't necessarily end if you figure it out, and you have no bearing on it- it happened a long time ago, maybe. But the graphics are beautiful and the writing is really good. With no puzzles. Is that an adventure game? And depending on who you talk to and how much you put off some people, some conversation topics are blocked off forever. You might come to one conclusion about the mystery on one playthrough and another on a different one, but it's all on you. And there's no 'good endings' or 'bad endings', there's no 'ending', you would just be interested enough to keep playing and lose interest either on your own or when the conversation well inevitably dries up of interesting exposition. Does a game have to tell you when it ends?

All I can tell you that that personally I would find such game extremely boring (in terms of gameplay, it sure could have some cool story threads inside). I want the games I play to have meaning, sense of purpose and to be to the point. If I want to create the meaning for myself I prefer to do spend time doing that in reality. And if I want to play inside a sandbox, I rather design and build my own game or role-play with friends. Almost everything beats sitting in front of the computer for hours wandering through some huge game world, if there's no guarantee something interesting/stimulating will eventually happen. Even if it's all very pretty.

Dose every story-driven game need puzzles? No. But adventure game puzzles are the easiest/purest way to create the illusion of meaningful connections between a limited number of settings, while leaving agency and choice how to solve problems to the player.