What needs to evolve?

[Babar]

Why does no one play adventure games? As much as I'd like to think that the whole world (except us) went idiot, I don't think that is the reason. Why are Adventure games so unknown now? Sure, you may say "But no! This and this game sold reasonabely well for an adventure!", but why does it have to sell well "for an adventure"? Why not sell well overall? Why must it always be "Adventure Game of the Year!" (with a whole lot less competition) rather than "Game of the Year!"?

Excuse me for my layman first-person-shootery and lack of understanding of economics, but I don't think Halo 2 was remarkabley original or ground-breaking. However it seemed to be well recieved (or at least well recognised). If Monkey Island 2 was released today (conforming to the standards of todays graphics), would it be that well recieved?
My point is, something is obviously wrong. Stale perhaps? My question: What is it? How can we fix it?

Is it the "Point and Click" style gameplay? Adventure games have been using that for as long as there was a mouse. However, there were adventure games that didn't use it (Grim Fandango and Alone in the Dark come to mind), and while they might have been great games, I don't think it was because of the interface. Besides, how can evolving the interface make the game better? Would it be without a mouse? I was trying to design a new GUI style (something original), but couldn't really think of anything. I'd think that all adventure games need some way to "Move", "Sense" and an "Interact", and there would have to be some way to incorporate that into the game. Is there another way?

Is it the whole idea of "Adventure Games"? Something that always irritated me in Adventure games was that there was always some puzzle that (apparently) could have been solved easily in real-life, but you have to go through some roundabout method to solve it in-game. Do adventure games need to become more action oriented?

One thing that you have to admit is that most Adventure games (I suppose I can't really speak about the very new ones, not having played them), are very much alike. What has to be changed to make them better? Will they still be adventure games after they are changed?

[Tuomas]

Let's face it. Today's people are only satisfied with action and graphics. The same thing about movies. Most of them are such where a guy runs a gun in his hand and shouts something like: "I'll blow you fu***ng head off!". And while he does that, either a huge wave or an army of millions is running behind him. It's all bullshit, that's what I think, but who cares as long as the wide public likes it.

Are adventure games art then? More art than others? People tend to despise all artistic... ONe philosopher said it quite well, can't remember his name though. He said that tyhe modern world has become so hectic that an individual is forced to seek for ultimate and BRIEF pleasures such as sex, alcohol, and so, for he hasn't got the time to enjoy life... He said that if hang over came before the euphoria, people would concider being drunk as a blessed stage and only those who are willing to suffer for it are to achieve it.
   People are lazy, and the don't want to look at still pictures anymore, that's what I reckon...

Hmm... I don't know if this quite answers the question, but I added some thoughts to it for sure.

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

I think it has something to do with graphics.  I have a friend who plays some pretty bad games.  He mostly just plays Halo, which I don't find too amusing.  But he says the graphics are incredible, so he plays it religeously.  He has doom 3, which he also plays (mind you, it's not the fact that he's obsessed with fps, he's not) and refused to play Doom I or II because of the graphics.  Basically ruling out all old fashioned games (if that's what he feels about Doom, then imagine some of the old VGA's...)

I'd say it's the graphics for some people.  For others, it's just the whole "thinking about puzzles" thing.  I played Myst, and Riven.  I know what hard-as-hell tedious puzzles are about.  You had to do everything just right, otherwise you'd end up getting shot or killing Atrus' wife, and get this sad voiceover while your sitting there in the star fissure.  One of my other friends doesn't want that crap--he just wants to play through a fast paced fighting/shooting game without worrying about an outcome. 

And you're also overlooking the fact that large companies have forgotten Adventure Games.  I'm sure all of them--QFG, DOTT, MM, SM, etc. have won the game of the year award, but eventually companies move on.  QFG ended off with Dragon Fire, which was very similar to the World of Warcraft GUI.  Great game, just barely an adventure game.  The point is--companies will move on, even if we don't.  And yes, Tuomas, people these days do fall for action and graphics alot of the time.  (Star wars... stupid lucas!)

[Babar]

Graphics can't really be the issue. Syberia (and 2?) used beautiful graphics, but they had other problems. I am sure that there are other spectacularly graphifixed adventure games that no one has heard of.

I wasn't really ranting about the stupidity of todays gamers, or todays companies. Like I said, although it may give you a nice feeling inside, I don't think it is reasonable to say that everyone except a small group of Hard-core adventure gamers has gone idiot. Companies probably saw that the current formula for adventure games wasn't very profitable, and stopped making them. So I ask, what exactly is wrong?

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

I never said todays gamers were stupid, and neither did tuomas.  I said that gamers didn't want to have to go through mind racking puzzles, which doesn't make them stupid.  Rather, they prefer a more liesurely play.  That or a more exciting one.  Either way, my point still stands.  Also, some of the biggest games of the time are World of Warcraft and Halo 2.  World of Warcraft isn't too complicated, yet at the same time is amazingly popular and filled with the complex warcraft universe.  Halo 2 is a shooting game, where you jump around trying to hit another person.  I personally don't mind the game, but I dont particularly like it either.  Modern gamers aren't into the puzzles we were into.

[MrColossal]

personally I think the adventure gamer him/herself has to evolve.

Stop trying to define adventure games [i.e. King Nipper saying that QFG Dragon Fire was hardly an adventure game]

When I played Adventure Games as a kid I was never drawn to stupid abstract puzzles that took 4 months to figure out. I was drawn to nice art, the story, and the characters.

Now I understand that gameplay is equally as important and I don't find a lot of adventure game puzzles as good gameplay puzzles.

If you don't consider the Link games or Beyond Good and Evil adventure games then tell think hard about what makes up an adventure game. There are people here that as soon as they see an action sequence, give up on the game or if the game has dying in it then it's not a true adventure game or whatever... The hardcore are eating the genre from the inside.

Also, when someone says that gamers only want action games or storyless FPS games, take a second to think back to the amazing stories that were in adventure games. Monkey Island didn't have an amazing story, it was a premise to have an adventure. Grim Fandango had a story, Beyond Good and Evil had a story, the Fate of Atlantis had a story, Longest Journey had a story [for better of worse]. Besides, the majority of games today don't have stories and the majority of games yesterday didn't have stories, nothing has changed really. I just hope that eventually they do.

[Snarky]

Why does no one play adventure games? As much as I'd like to think that the whole world (except us) went idiot, I don't think that is the reason. Why are Adventure games so unknown now? Sure, you may say "But no! This and this game sold reasonabely well for an adventure!", but why does it have to sell well "for an adventure"? Why not sell well overall? Why must it always be "Adventure Game of the Year!" (with a whole lot less competition) rather than "Game of the Year!"?

Funny that you should post this just at a time when an adventure game is selling well and getting rave reviews, not just for an adventure game, but for any kind of game.

Fahrenheit (aka Indigo Prophecy) is a hit, and might very well make some "Game of the Year" lists. What more could you want?

[Ghormak]

I think both players and games need to evolve. I'm waiting for the perfect merge of action and adventure that will make everyone who play it say "Holy shit, that game was GREAT!" after they've played it, be they "adventure gamers" or "action gamers".

Fahrenheit was a step in the right direction but... eh. There's just something completely wrong about it that I'm unable to put my finger on. Perhaps it's all these small complaints I have that have somehow merged and become a big ball of 'meh'..

Games shouldn't have to be categorized as adventure games or action games. It would be so great if you could describe games just by saying what you do in them:

"Hey, played that game where you're a British spy in WW2?"
"There's this new game coming out, you're a private detective and have to solve cases."

You know, the way it used to be in the 80's/early 90's perhaps. But then of course it didn't matter, because all the games ended up being side-scrolling platformers anyway, but we're at a point where technology is really awesome, so if I play a game where I'm a spy I want it to be a game where I really am a spy, and do spy-ish things. Not an action game where I sneak around a little and shoot things, not an adventure game where I have unlimited time to solve unnecessary puzzles to open doors and, if the current adventure gaming trend is going to continue, stealth sections with horrible camera controls (good lord I hate sneaking bits where I can't even control the camera! If I'm going to have to sneak past someone I want to be able to look exactly at what I want to look, damnit! I'm looking at you, Fahrenheit and Broken Sword 3).

I just want a game where I become the character I play and do the kind of things he/she would do.

[GarageGothic]

Let me quote myself from the What's Wrong With Adventure Games GTD:

However, let me add my two cents to the "puzzles - do we need them?" discussion:

Two of my favorite games, mostly for sentimental reasons,Ã,  are the first two Police Quests. But for now, let's focus on PQ1. Is there a single puzzle in the game? Well, that depends on your definition of "puzzle". For most of the game you just do what you are told, and do your job following proper police procedure (not too difficult when you actually have the manual ). I can only recall two situations in the game that demanded any kind of thought process - finding enough proof to get a no bail warrant and reporting back to your boss from the hotel. But did any of this make the game too easy or detract from the immersion? Hell no, I really felt like I was a cop peforming my duties, doing things by the book. I always knew what to do next, and usually how to do it, BECAUSE IT MADE PERFECT, LOGICAL SENSE WITHIN THE SITUATION!

The major problem with adventure game plots and settings seems to be the lack of natural gameplay potential - interation that flows from within the plot, the characters and the setting. PQ is a game about a cop - what do cops do? Wouldn't it be cool to play a cop? Sure it would! Space Quest is a game about a janitor on a space ship - what do janitors do? Nah, that's too boring, let's throw him into some wild adventures. See where I'm going?

Another example, from the designer of Police Quest nonetheless, is Codename: Iceman. The player character is a spy - sounds cool, right? - what do spies do? Well, for one they don't travel across the Atlantic in a nuclear submarine, torpedoing enemy ships along the way, risking international conflict, just to infiltrate a country where - get this - a fellow spy, who you met in the Caribbean just before you mission - has been all along! What's that you're saying? The guy is a submarine captain too? Oh, I see. What do submarine captains do? They certainly DON'T do metal shop work at the lathe, trying to repair diving equipment. Nor do they play dice with one of their crew people for a piece of advanced technology essential for the mission and world peace. These are absurd tasks, that have little to do with the actual scope of the man's mission.

Instead of coming up with weird puzzles and trying to fit them into your narrative, try to come up with with game concepts that are full of cool tasks which lends themselves to interaction. Even a cleaning lady game where you have to find the right product to get the blood stains off the bathroom floor is more fun than rubber duckies

Oh, and how prophetic I was about the bloodstains-off-bathroom-floors thing - the Fahrenheit developers must surely have read that

[CodeJunkie]

I think that it's the games industry's fault for people not playing adventure games much any more.  Most of the best-selling adventure games were 2D, mostly in 320x240 or 640x480, or similar.  I think that game designers have tried to apply new technology to every genre of game, and failed for adventure games.  The earliest games had everything visible in front of you without any hassle in changing the camera angle, and you just had to work out what to do.  Now, adventure games have irritating camera angles and more complicated interfaces.  An adventure game is poorly designed when the player struggles to do something that they could easily to in real life.  I hardly play any newly released adventure games.
Having said this, I don't think adventures should stick to low-res, low-colour technology.  Wouldn't it be cool to have a virtual reality adventure game?  Find things yourself, actually have realistic puzzles, talk to people in conversations with many more than 5 dialogue options, and actually feel exertion, pain or even death.  No, I don't think that's possible yet, but I'm sure it could be, and I might enjoy that even more than early adventure games.
What I'm saying is that adventure games are trying to take advantage of the latest technology while losing the all-important gameplay and clarity.  The market has now seemed to be drawn more to graphics, and games without cutting-edge technology don't get a mention.

[Cookieswithmilk]

It's a combination of a few things. For one, gamers today just aren't clever enough to solve the puzzles in most adventure games. We have no idea what to do or how exactly to do it.

Which brings me to the other main reason: the UI. It's very time-consuming in a game to have to mouse to find a hotspot, mouse to click "Look at" (or on an eyeball, or examine, whatever) and then click on said hotspot. The same goes for any other interaction. Newcomers to the genre see this as veeeerrrrry inefficient. This can be fixed really easy; I think it'd be nice to map "walk here" to the left mouse button (already done) and, since it's used so much more than any other interaction, "look here" would be nice if it was just a double-click away. Right clicking would yield a sims-style interaction menu with every interaction just within reach of the mouse. I know something similar was done with MI3 and full throttle, but the game was overall simplified because they used icons instead of words. Like i said, the sims games did this very well. Lots of people remember this kind of interface, but I just never see it in fangames despite how great it is. Doing this alone would help adventure games reach a wider audience.

I'm new to adventure games; before last year the closest I'd ever played to an adventure game was zelda, so my initial frustrations are fairly fresh    Still a great genre, heh

[ManicMatt]

Me? I find halo boring. Half life 2? Red faction? Those games have storylines and so i love them.

I like to have a mixture with my games. In the day I want to have my trigger finger ready, blasting bad guy's left and right and so on.

At night, i want to put my feet up, and have some cookies and (soya) milk whilst playing a non-reaction based point n clicker.

Fahrenheit had too many action sequences that depended on rythym action which bored me. Still enjoyed the game, but on the xbox near the end the game needed me to push past my own known physical limitations at pressing the triggers fast enough. It nearly broke me. A broken man. But I persisted and won! (Sorry I'm digressing)

[big brother]

Companies change their production lineup to pander to their target market. As console systems have become mainstream, companies realize the marketabilty of general audience games (like the situation of the early cinema and again now with the superhero flicks).

As the companies grow bigger, they become more enslaved to their shareholders (and projected earnings), and the budget becomes more important. Accountants make viability decisions, and the management reacts. Ultimately, they seek a formula of stability, to know exactly how much they can make from such and such type of game before they start it. There are a few exceptions of course, innovators like Will Wright are given more leeway.

As a result, the goals of game creation change - they want it to appeal to the largest segment possible (minimizing the fixed and overhead costs in proportion), watering down the content in the process. This explains the prevalance of licensed games (movies, tv shows, sports) today (built-in audience) and also why a lot of games today seem so generic. The bigger companies won't take a risk if they can design a game along a well worn path that can essentially guarantee them x amount of profit.

The lack of popularity with adventure games may stem from a change in the way people play games. In the 90s, people played console games to get a quick fix of more arcade type games, while computer games tended to be a little slower paced. Nowdays, companies try to maximize profit by porting games to consoles (Xbox, PS2). Since the style of console games haven't changed much (they mainly appeal to quick-fix/younger gamers) it forces the PC to conform. Remember, these companies are trying to sell the same game to both the 13 year-old schoolkid as well as a 31 year-old professional. As a result, they focus the on common elements and themes between the markets. Attention spans and lifestyles have grown shorter and faster respectively in recent years.

[Anarcho]

I was wicked excited when I finished creating my first AGS game.  I called over one of my best friends to give it a go.  He sat down, and after maybe 4 minutes of reading the intro/story dialogue he turned to me and asked, "Is this it?  It's just reading?" 

He wanted mobilized infantry units and GDI bases, and wasn't expecting to just sit there and read.  Granted, my game wasn't all that great but I thought it was at least a little funny.  He just didn't get the genre, and sort of refused to play it.  I think there is a disconnect between what gamers have been conditioned to expect from games and the wide array of what games can offer.  I don't think people are stupider than they were 10 years ago, they just expect something different.  When I first played King's Quest II in 198?, I didn't have any expectations because computer games were entirely new to me.  These days people expect guns, or heavy graphics, and fast paced action.  That's fine, but we're sorta left out in the cold.

With that said, I think adventure games will always be appealing to children and especially parents.  They're great learning tools.  To reach wider audiences, I think we as developers need to step up and write better than average stories.  How many times can you break out of a jail cell, or um, mental institution.  I mean, give me a break! 

I'm just waiting for someone to create a video game that features "adventure" elements and a story that rivals classic literature.  It's bound to happen sooner or later.

[ManicMatt]

Whoops. My game has a cell in it.

(I wanted EGO to be tied up in a chair but I didn't know how to change the talk animation...)

Maybe I can get some points for the fact that the EGO doesn't actually interact with the cell, despite being locked up?

[MillsJROSS]

I think people have a misconception when it comes to selling adventure games. The selling of adventure games hasn't been drastically altered. The market for adventure games is generally about the same. The Longest Journey sold about 300-400 thousand copies of their game, which was a popular and failry decent adventure game that's relatively new. Compared with SQ3, I believe, that got game of the year with about 200 thousand sold copies. So it's apparent that there isn't a lack in people willing to buy these games (assuming the game is actually good...considering some companies put out tons of horrible games, but at least their trying).

I think adventure games suffer internally rather than externally. By this I mean that the sales and money gained is relatively the same. However, the cost of making games today has drastically gone up.

The demand for better graphics is one of the reasons that adventure games are struggling. It costs more money to produce games with the 3d realism sought after, then it did with the two-dimensional look of the past. Companies are employing bigger teams that are able to handle this task.

Not only are graphics affected, but game length is affected, too. People want longer games. This takes more production time, and, again, costs more money.

Probably the worst thing for adventures, though, is that other games can be produced with the same cost but appeals to five or more times the target audience. So it's only intelligent for companies to produce games that make them the most profit. It's the same with movies. All the companies produce blockbusters with little depth or artistry (not in all cases), that appeal to a wider audience.

The good news is that while graphics have been increasingly getting closer to realism, the tools to make these graphics have been becoming easier to manipulate, and eventually, a few artists a couple years from now will be able to accomplish what a huge team of artists had to do before. This should make it less expensive to make adventure games.

Do adventure games still have to evolve? Yes and no. I know one thing when I play adventure games. That I don't mind action oriented puzzles. What I do mind is while trying to solve a puzzle I have to worry about being killed. FPS have employed some puzzle logic in their games...however, since these games don't appeal to me, I don't desire to play them. So if adventure games evolve that direction, that it's not necessarily good for me. I wouldn't mind if a player was able to slam theirselves against a door to open it. I don't mind timed puzzles. I don't even mind if I die in a game. But I'd prefer to die because of something I've done, rather than because I was blown up. I don't really think it's necessarily even FPS meshing in that would bother me so much. It's because when I play FPS I'm always in fear of my player being killed. And while employing fear isn't a bad tool, if it's spread throughout the game, it almost loses it's meaning.

-MillsJROSS

[RocketGirl]

The problem, really, is that the traditional adventure game--Sierra or LucasArts style--doesn't really have a place in today's technology. I mean, if we use all the bells and whistles of a computer today and place an adventure game character in an immersive 3D environment, players are going to expect to do things that your traditional adventure game just never included, except under certain specific conditions. Things like running vs walking, jumping, attacking, etc. Suddenly, we don't have an adventure game anymore, we have a 3rd-person shooter. But if you leave those things out, well, some folks are going to feel cheated. I mean, adventure game or shooter, I always felt kinna irritated whenever I would find my path blocked by, say, boxes that look inherently movable or climbable.

Of course, where to draw the line on what defines an adventure game is a bit of a tightrope, too. For example, I do not consider Myst or its sequels to be adventure games. The puzzles are too math/pattern based, rather than story-based; IMHO, an adventure game's puzzles need to be more than simply unlocking new paths to new puzzles by re-arranging blocks or setting dials into specific patterns.
In the other direction, I don't consider it an adventure game if a major portion of the game has a twitch/action component. Sierra kept this to a minimum and often allowed you to skip so-called "arcade" sequences. Two examples from the Space Quest series are the skimmer trip to Ulence Flats and building the burgers at Monolith Burger in the Galaxy Galleria. Such things may be occasional elements of an adventure game, but if you're spending a large portion of the game in action sequences where you fight monsters or something, well, that's not an adventure game as far as I'm concerned. The Quest for Glory series really toed that line for me; the added action element often felt out of place.

It would be really hard to define what an adventure game is without a thousand people coming out of the woodwork to point out exceptions. But needless to say, there are certainly some examples one could point at and declare as a good baseline for defining the genre: King's Quest, Space Quest, Monkey Island, The Dig, Full Throttle, to name a few.

But trying to imagine these games as, say, 3D PC or console games, well...I can't do it. I can see gamers being dissatisfied until certain features are added that would take, say, Space Quest, and turn it into Knight's of the Old Republic. And I can't honestly say they're wrong to want this...I would find a 3D adventure game kinna dull, I think. The lines are too blurred. Yet the traditional 2D games still capture me, even if they don't capture most of today's gamers. And not just the old games I grew up with; some of the newer ones I've found were like a breath of fresh air in the constant stink of FPS and RTS games that most gamers are demanding these days.

What needs to evolve...? I don't know. I will admit that graphics are certainly an issue. There are a lot of AGS games I haven't downloaded because of stick-figure level art. But that seems like an awfully simple thing to correct; after all, the rather old-school LucasArtsy quality of, say, 5 Days a Stranger was enough to satisfy my tastes. But I think that, for example, PopCap Games has proved that you don't need to use all the bells and whistles of today's computers to make a good game, even if they're not making adventure games. I'll play a 2D game of any kind and still love it. So I don't think going 3D is necessarily the answer.
I do know that adding an action element to adventure games is the wrong way to go, even if that's what gamers want these days.

Ah, well...

[Raggit]

Actual stories can be found in a multitude of genres.  But I personally believe that the adventure genre accomdates story telling most, because you're micro-managing the main character and his/her actions.

I believe that if adventure games are to truely be enjoyed to their fullest potential, characters need to take center stage.  They need to be obsessively developed, refined and as human as possible.  I want to find an adventure game where I actually care about seeing my character to the end, and actually seeing him or her change as a result of what we go through.
Few other genres have that kind of room for character development.

Also, I think the player needs to have a clear picture of his or her participation in the game.  Should they feel like a spectator watching the events unfold from a distance, or should they feel like they ARE the main character? 

If they are to be put right into the shoes of their main character, they need to have his motivation.  Again, that has to be done with heavy character development. 

I just love this adventure game philosophy sessions!

[TheYak]

It's nothing terribly surprising.  Adventure-gaming's always been kind of a niche market.  Compare the numbers of people who've played the Zork text adventures versus the number who've played Pong. 

Compared to creating action-based titles (ones in which patience and investment are not priority requirements), adventure game creation requires more time and energy in all departments.  Demand for "talkie" games puts the requirement for voice-acting leaps and bounds beyond what you hear in a game like Halo - not to mention the fact that Halo could pre-record all voices knowing that the gameplay/storyline would hit upon core elements, even if the certain levels or major facets of the game were modified.

One needs only look to the major companies to determine where the faults lie.  The profitability of adventures was very much in question for Lucasarts.  FT2 and Sam and Max:FP were both canned not due to lack of interest on the part of developers but as a decision by the marketing and accounting departments. 

Adventure games also tend to lean towards word-of-mouth and repeat players.  They could count on selling sequels because of specific characters (Monkey Island's Guybrush or Space Quest's Roger) with new players being influenced by their peers' praises of the games.  In an action game, you don't need name-recognition.

Old-school adventures also do need to be willing to adapt. Indigo Prophecy (Fahrenheit) wasn't a bad adventure game, and could've done without the puzzles (which seemed too simplistic and forced much of the time).  We've taken major changes to interfaces and graphics in stride without too much complaint.  Text adventures gave way to graphics with parsers.  Parser games gave way to verb icons.  The amount of investment, along with trial-and-error attempts were reduced with each major change.   We put up with less and less tedium while demanding the same experience and, frankly, we can't have it both ways.  If the genre were new today, would we put up with having to type: GET THING [Enter]-- GET DISC [Enter]-- GET COIN [Enter]-- GET BUCKAZOID [Enter] "You retrieve the Buckazoid from the ledge!" ?

[Kinoko]

I know I keep harping on about this game... and I will keep continuing to do so because I feel it's a travesty that it hasn't been translated and released outside of Japan.

But Giftpia is the shining example of how to do an adventure game to today's standards.

It's 3D, but beautifully, beautifully stylised. It's totally story-driven, and ALL about solving puzzles in creative and different ways. Character development is VERY deep (it makes me cry) and there's character interaction up the whazoo. It incorporates all the action elements today's gamer could reasonably ask for, such as running, walking, sneaking and there are lots of mini-games.

The length of the game is huge and with the minigames and optional paths, playability and replayability are high.

The music... is amazing. It's one of my favourite soundtracks and is incorporated into the game extremely well.

The only unfortunate thing is that it's only available in Japan, so you'll need either a Japanese Gamecube to play it, or a disc to let you play Japanese games in a US/PAL console.

Then, of course, you can play it but you won't understand the text.

It's among my top three favourite games ever, and it's just a stunning example of how adventure games can still be adventure games and yet appeal to a larger audience AND satisfy veteran players at the same time.

It's worth buying just to see how gorgeous it is and hear the fantastic music, and find your way blind through the story. I encourage everyone to give this game a chance at just a little more exposure outside of this country: http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-4b-15-giftpia-70-282.html