I'm not sure if I should rather have posted this as an update to the Shadowplay thread in Games in Production, but I felt it was more of a general thing - though semi-related to the progress of the game.
To remind myself of what works and what doesn't, I've been replaying a number of so-called classics. And I've come to the rather surprising conclusion that I don't actually like adventure games! I don't know how to explain it. I've played every damn adventure for the last 15 years, I've regarded the genre as above all others. 80 or 90% of my favorite games are adventures. But now I find myself playing The Longest Journey (which might as well be titled "Doesn't This Ever End?"), bored out of my mind with repairing machinery, making distractions, and achieving goals, which have little or no relation to the actual story, not to mention listening to endless dialogs, that keep repeating the same pretentious and self-righteous philosophies - something a good screenwriter would have cut down to a single 2-3 minute scene. And I wonder: "Why do I even bother?".
I feel like a person who've eaten hamburgers all his life and suddenly realizes how disgusting and unnecessary meat actually is. It's almost like a sudden loss of religious faith.
I'm not saying that I don't think there are any good adventures - just that they aren't necessarily good BECAUSE they are adventures. I'm beginning to understand all those people who spoke of the death of adventure gaming. My feeling right now is that the genre as such has become as inbred as some of the royal families in Europe. A monstrosity with certain features exaggerated to the freakish, because it's fans have so closely guarded the bloodline against dillution by other genres.
When I look at my favorite adventures, they mostly aren't about puzzles at all, and when they are, that's pretty much the worst parts of the game (Le Serpent Rouge in GK3 being an exception, because it advanced the story rather than being an obstacle - e.g. if the game was turned into a movie, the riddle would remain an important part of the plot).
The reason that adventure games have meant so much to me is 1) that they're a great storytelling medium and 2) they let you experience a complete world in a way that no other genre, not to mention non-interactive media, could. They were - and still is, although other games like the GTA and Hitman series are strong competitors in my book - the best way to immerse the player in a fictional world. The actual gameplay conventions of the genre were secondary.
For a long time, I've thought that I, unlike most people in these forums, preferred Sierra to LucasArts because of the lack of humor (I tend to prefer serious games, and LA only made a couple of those). But now I realize that it has to do with the gameplay. In the best Sierra games, you just go along with the story, doing the obvious things in each situation rather than worrying about contrived obstacles and solutions. A game like Conquest of Camelot has next to no "true" puzzles - a few riddles require some thought, the rest of the action is a breeze. You can stumble your way through the Colonel's Bequest, not finding a single clue, but still get to the end. And the Quest for Glory games, like Police Quest, consist of nothing but the tasks expected from each hero class.
They are games of immersion, narrative and exploration.
I'm going to stop looking at Shadowplay as an adventure game. I'll spend no more time concocting devious puzzles. In fact, I'll probably try to forget every game I ever played. I'm going to tell a story set in an interactive environment, and that's it. I'm not sure it's even a game. I don't really think it should be. It's an experience, and it will be staged as such. If I wouldn't watch a movie or read a novel with Guybrush Threepwood running back and forth, finding an oar, breaking it, getting it repaired, using it, why would I want to play it?
Maybe this will disappoint some people, maybe it'll be a pleasant (or at least interesting) surprise. Maybe you can't spot the difference. The whole genre issue does nothing but limit inspiration. I'm telling stories set in an interactive, non-competitive, virtual environment. If you want to label them adventures, that's your own decision. Right now I feel utter alienated from that genre, and the only way I can regain my enthusiasm for the project is by evading categories.
Quote from: GarageGothic on Fri 17/10/2003 12:04:21If I wouldn't watch a movie or read a novel with Guybrush Threepwood running back and forth, finding an oar, breaking it, getting it repaired, using it, why would I want to play it?
Well, for one thing, because movies aren't the be all and end all of entertainment, and they have entirely different purposes than games. If you really want the same experience out of a game than you do out of a movie, you should just watch a movie. Seems like the logical choice to me.
Quote
Maybe this will disappoint some people, maybe it'll be a pleasant (or at least interesting) surprise. Maybe you can't spot the difference.
Meh. It's mainly just your personal feelings. I certainly don't feel the same way you do, but I can understand why someone would. After all, there really aren't that many people playing adventures any more when you look at the whole body of gamers.
QuoteThe whole genre issue does nothing but limit inspiration.
Now, this I just can't agree with even trying to look at it from someone else's perspective. There are certain conventions many adventure developers adhere to that can limit creativity, but this is not a genre issue. This happens in all genres and mediums. The fact is that there are quite simply very few commercial adventure games released these days and as a result almost none of them are going to do anything particularly innovative. A very small percentage of other genre games are innovative also, it's just that there are SO MANY of them released all the time. The adventure genre has many possibilities, and labeling it "adventure" really doesn't limit anything. One could say "well 'adventure' is just a word, it doesn't mean anything." That's true, but it makes things rather convenient and it really doesn't have to put any creative constraints on a game at all. "Adventure" essentially indicates that the game is largely devoid of directly-conrolled action, instead being generally based around a developed character interacting within a game world along some sort of plotwise path. That's pretty open-ended, I'd say.
Quote
I'm telling stories set in an interactive, non-competitive, virtual environment. If you want to label them adventures, that's your own decision.
And I know that many of us are looking forward to your game. I suppose I probably will call it an adventure, but maybe not to your face ;)
Quote
Right now I feel utter alienated from that genre, and the only way I can regain my enthusiasm for the project is by evading categories.
Then by all means go for it.
Quote
Quote
I must agree with GarageGothic's sentiment. It's not really the genre I like, but the ability to have a narrative driven video "game". If there was an easy 3D engine that allowed me to make interactive stories and absolutely no blowing up of stuff, I'd be all over it. Historically the adventure genre has been more story-driven, but even then the play mechanics have often been forced, or non-sensical, and/or unenjoyable.
If I made a game now, a great many detractors would cry, "Where's the game part of this game?"
I'm considering getting "into" games, so I hope my philsophy changes some. I can't very well expect to get "interactive stories" published by anyone reputable. Stupid capitalism and its built-in quality assurance.
I'll just offer one point to consider: if it's too much JUST an interactive story, it will come off as sort of an inferior movie. No game (especially an amateur one) is going to be as movie-like as a movie, so if the gameplay is negligible or not very important, what's the point of actually making a game (adventure or not)? The only thing I can think of is that maybe it's easier to make an AGS game than a nice-looking movie? I don't know.
Interactivity is something that's pretty new as far as the development of narrative goes (unless you count the relationship between bard and audience in oral tradition). So, it's certainly not as if an "interactive story" is the end-all of video gaming, it's just that it needs to be messed around with so we can understand how it works. Interactivity gives us new kinds of immersion, player-protaganist identification, and other such things that are not being explored much in any mainstream games I know of. That would be my motivation for making such a game.
To me, the main difference between games and other media - and the main reason that I chose to tell Shadowplay as a game rather than as a graphic novel, which was something I considered - is the ability to structure the flow in response to the user's input. No, I'm not talking about interactivity, at least not in the usual meaning. I'm talking about an optional depth to the story.
The Colonel's Bequest is an excellent example. The player can discover all the intrigues and find all the clues to reveal the whole plot. Or he can see a few of the plot threads, maybe find the killer, but have missed out on a lot. The problem here, of course, is that the player doesn't know that he's missed it, until the score comes up at the end.
Shadowplay is VERY information heavy. There are many hours worth of reading - film history, philosophy, religion, the occult, PLUS all the plot specific facts, the characters' background etc. etc.
If I had written it as a graphic novel or a movie script (more likely a tv series, the length considered), I would have to force all this upon the viewer, or I would have to dumb it down, not to bore parts of the audience. Turning it into interactive entertainment allows me to make much of the information optional. The player can spend most of the game digging deeper into all this knowledge, or they can play it through as your average detective game, learning only the facts absolutely essential to the mystery.
One of the main problems in The Longest Journey is that Ragnar Tornquist wrote this very elaborate mythology of Stark and Arcadia, which is fine - you can never do enough background story when working with fictional characters or locations - but he didn't make it optional! You were forced to listen to hours of lessons on history of a world or a species or whatever, and at times it got so tiresome that you just felt like clicking to the end of the conversation.
Another factor is the option for TRUE interactivity in a non-puzzle-solving context, in relationships with NPCs or in major choices along the way. Just because MOST games are movies broken into pieces by puzzles, a game WITHOUT puzzles doesn't have to be like a movie. In fact, the moment that you don't have the puzzles to distract the player from the fact that they're actually watching a movie, you'll have to discover the real possibilities of an interactive format.
In the Interactive Fiction community, puzzle-less adventures are an established form. I'm glad to see someone's having a crack at one in a graphic adventure.
With proper depth of interaction, the game shouldn't come off like an inferior movie, because it will provide an experience that no movie can possibly offer.
Wow, GG. This is going to sound kind of weird, but you have just managed to put into words the problems I've been having with Bard's Blood. I'd gotten totally sick of writing stupid puzzles "Oh no! My computer connection is down! I must find another computer!" and so forth. I was almost at the point of throwing everything out and starting again. Goofy little "where are my keys?" puzzles didn't fit in with the serious story I was trying to tell. But the idea of Optional Depth... hmm.. I'm going to work on this a bit.
I can't wait for Shadowplay to come out.
This is the problem with serious (read: non-comical) adventure games. In serious games that are grounded in reality, puzzles seems very unnatural. But you almost HAVE to have them or else you're just clicking through a movie. You're stymied by the conventions of the genre. Gabriel Knight is the best example of this, as the deep, engaging story often grates against some very unrealistic and unnatural puzzles (cat hair and syrup mustache, anyone?).
As for classical adventures, it's the STORY I remember most years later, not the actual gameplay as such. The exception is LOOM. I replay it once a year and still enjoy it. And that game hardly had any puzzles at all. Hmm....
Of course, you can have a game which has multiple endings (or even multiple middles) which are chosen based on earlier decisions (such as if to solve a puzzle, or which colour hat to wear, or whether you will hit someone or kiss them...) Effectively you have 10 or 12 different stories, and what you do decides which one you get.
I tend to agree. Puzzles are largely overrated, and it's really annoying when they get too complex. I think it's nice to have interactivity with objects and everything, but the narrative of an adventure game is the most important part, not clicking on everything in sight. Clicking on everything with the goal of trying to solve some obscure puzzle gets boring after awhile, plus I hate it when you never know if you've gotten EVERYTHING you need before moving on with the story...especially when it comes to these amateur games, since sometimes the creators forget to put in restrictions and you can easily reach a dead-end in the game.
Look... I like adventures, because I'm interested in the story, well for the most part... like my adventure gaming started with the games like Indiana Jones : Fate of Atlantis, Ark Of Time, and Freddy Fish. I was about 9 or 10 years old.
But what I'm trying to say, is that the beauty of adventures, is that they intent to give the player the ability to have control of story, and their choices have influences in the game-world. The thing of cause, and effect. I think an adventure is really good, when it's non-linear, because if it is, it's really just a movie, but if it's not, then you can speak of a game. That's why games like GTA, and The Sims are so popular. They are non-linear, and your actions changes the future of the character/hero. Though this is pretty tough to program, and it needs alot of devotion.
Minimi - your profile states that you're only 16. Did you come to FoA etc. as late at 1997? If so, good for you!
Anyway, I tend to agree with GG and others. I consider myself an adventure fan from way back to the Infocom days, but for me its all about story, and while (good) puzzles give some feeling of furthing story through interaction, too often the puzzles get in the way leaving me frustrated - not because I want to solve the puzzle, but because I want to further the story.
Maybe that's why we're often tempted to use walkthroughs...
I think if you want to make a game that's most cinematic you have to go play a game like Metal Gear Solid or Parasite Eve.. Those games are some of the most cinematic experiences I have had outside of a movie theater. I sat there playing Sons of Liberty and watched the bullets wiz by that woman and the soldiers being slaughtered and I almost forgot that I was playing a game.
Adventure games are more like books with pretty pictures and puzzles. They immerse you in a totally different way then movies. Movies you watch and enjoy and you can physically relate to the characters. Adventure Games you ARE the character, you play the story.. You aren't a mere watcher, but a player. Movies aren't interactive, Games are.. So comparing an adventure game to a movie isn't justified.
But I do respect your opinion and for the most part I see where you come from.. Just make your game the way you want and I'm sure we'll enjoy it :)
And there's my two cents
When the word adventure comes to my mind i immediatly think indiana jones. Basically Action and exploration and a fun story.
I would call GTA:VC an adventure cause it has all those elements.
The reason I like adventures are because of the story element primarily and being, to a certain degree, in control of the fate of the hero. I grew up with sierra games and didnt get into the lucasarts games until about 1994. I remember as a kid getting absolutly frustrated with KQ3 and SQ3. It wasnt until KQ5 that i really started to play adventure games. I got KQ6 (one of my favourite games still) when it first was released.
I am not a big fan of puzzles, but it does add to the depth of the game. I just hate the really stupid puzzles that may not make much sense.
My favourite adventure game is gabriel Knight: sins of the father. It was, in my eyes, perfect.
So when you play my game (the GENERIC one...) expect to die. Expect to be shocked. Expect to enjoy the story. And expect the puzzles to make sense.
Thats all i have to say on the issue.
Quote from: tamper on Fri 17/10/2003 18:25:01
Minimi - your profile states that you're only 16. Did you come to FoA etc. as late at 1997? If so, good for you!
yes, sorry, I wasn't the first one to play it, and secondly we had only a 486 at that moment, and we dealed in that time, with some guy called "harry" who could already burn cd's and was in the illegal business, and we got a cd at that time from him, with about 200 games on it, like all police quests, and indiana jones, and some walt disney games, like alladin... and games like pr0ntris (wow I liked that game!), so... that's the reason I played it at that time. And also... My homesituation wasn't good, like fights of my parents, and I just got back home at that time from my fosterparents, who only had this green/black computer, with princeofpersia and paddlewar....so, that's in short my little excuse :P!
No excuse necessary - although thanks for the insight!
I think by and large many of the longer term members (I mean nearing 3 years members) like Bill and I and the like feel the same way.
You only need to read that horrendous piece of writing I under took for my higher school certificate (http://www.sylpher.com/novomestro/blargh.htm) to see my opinions on the matter and the sheer fact I produced Novo and lauded Dada and Guerra.
I have an absolutely massive collection of AG's lying around, perhaps half of which had uninteresting plots so I didn't continue. Often when I get a new game (one I haven't played before) that I'm interested in, I'll resort to UHS files and the like because I prize the continuity of the plot over the satisfaction of the puzzle solving.
There are exceptions where the puzzles are actually fun, mainly LEC games, Simon the sorceror (hey, comedic games, surprise!) but by and large I don't have the patience anymore.
But the plot is only fun if I'm/the protagonist/the uber protagonist is doing something in the actual plot. Having to sit through mythology lessons in TLJ isn't like a film, it's like a shadow play. Running around to get a lever for a machine, the only object and hotspot in 20 screens, just so I can listen to a snippit of Kate's paper thin collegues on the phone, that's just a film where you have to watch boring bits. Like a roadtrip film where you have to watch the hours of travelling between whacky antics. It's just as clunky and stupid as the 7th Guest, except it had puzzles worthy of that title.
Perhaps it could have helped if they put as much effort into writing Syberia as they did into making eye candy, but you never know.
Then again, make these background things optional. Remember the chapter of GK2 where all you do is click every hotspot in the castle. That's ludicrousity from the other extreme.
It's probably these kinda of factors that meant I enjoyed Sakura more than almost any other game in years, despite the fact it's stupid, clunky, full of pseudo interactivity, stupidly written and with poor graphics and no animation.
It still managed to pull off a hypertext better than most.
Which is really sad, in some sense.
Quote from: Dave Gilbert on Fri 17/10/2003 17:10:26
As for classical adventures, it's the STORY I remember most years later, not the actual gameplay as such. The exception is LOOM. I replay it once a year and still enjoy it. And that game hardly had any puzzles at all. Hmm....
This game is excellent. I love it. One of thing the things that's brilliant is not so much that it doesn't HAVE puzzles, at least in my opinion, but that it does have puzzles which are just really well-integrated into the story. Bobbin's actions are what he would actually be doing if put in such a situation--the musical "puzzles". There are no extraneous elements. When I first played through that game, I was truly amazed, and I continue to be.
Try this:
http://www.ryman-novel.com/
It's not a "game" per se, but I still classify it as an adventure.
It's a novel that focuses upon exploration of surroundings and people, not just a straight-line narrative.
It's an excellent use of hypertext.
mr gothic, did you read this?
http://www.adventuregamers.com/display.php?id=178
it's weird that i've felt like this for a while. when i put grim fandango back in to show jess i was like "how the hell would i know to do this?" as far as i could find there was nothing in the game to tell me to tamper with the message tubes in the way i had to. A good example from the game was changing the auto answer message in your bosses room, it's like you're exploring and stumble across this but then again there's no other reason to try and get into his office than "cause you can". I wanted to explore the story of the game and show her how beautiful it was and not run around punching holes in playing cards cause i can. [jess fell asleep by the way]
i've been making fun of warren spector for years over a comment he made about adventure games but now i realize that the examples i thought of to counter his comment were good and the examples that he was probably referencing were bad and from games that we've all played. Bad as in a puzzle is in place to stop the player from learning more about the story, cause as was said, an adventure game would just be a movie you clicked through without puzzles. So add a locked door and the person can't find out what's behind it and see who the big evil boss is yet.
my big fear over making adventure games is if the puzzles will make sense. after playing curse of monkey island again [not much of it cause i just couldn't care anymore] i realized that a lot of what goes on in that game is guybrush enters a room, there are people standing around, he talks to them and finds out what he needs to do to get further in the game, and then explores the area for these items. The Barbery Coast room is a room with 4 characters just standing there animating back and forth and you can talk to them to learn about them, this bothers me. The majority of AGS games are filled with rooms with characters standing in them staring at the player just waiting to be clicked on. When I present a problem to my player I need to make sure that it's an important one and not just a time filler and that it's logical to the game world.
For an example let's take my game, the player needs a battery so he goes to the store and tries to buy one. Obviously the store doesn't have any but mostly because it's a RON game and it's the Yahtzee Brand store, but at least the option was open to the player, unlike [sorry dave] in bestowers of eternity how i can't go to the store and buy some lemons and a flower.
act 2 in my game is pretty much an interactive cutscene with very few puzzles. this worried me for a while but now it doesn't so much.
as someone somewhere mentioned, the majority of the puzzles in police quest 1 weren't puzzles at all, they were just "follow proper police procedure, apprehend the criminal" until the end really and to me they were fun! i loved it. starting the ship in Pilot Light is awesome! I love that crap! It's not so much a brain breaker of a puzzle as it is just a nice little puzzle that pulls me into the game and makes me smile.
Granted you can't fill a game with these types of puzzles but when you're designing a game and you think a puzzle is too easy, who cares leave it. If you have to get into a building and there's someone guarding the door and a window right above you, just let the character open the window and climb in or have them pry it open with a stick or something. Don't invent an elaborate puzzle where they have to construct a glass cutting device out of a diamond ring that falls into a sewer and then tape it to a screwdriver and then find better tape cause the first tape breaks and then find a suction cup to remove the cut glass and then..... etc etc.
the player will thank you and if the game is shorter than the game is shorter and it's better for it.
i'm gonna stop now cause posts like mine are usually ignored
eric
Eric: Very well said. Those are all things developers really need to keep in mind. I just finished Runaway and dear God do I wish the makers had read something similar to your post.
I do have an interesting story about Grim Fandango (I'm not attempting to counter your points or anything, just presenting what may be an anomoly). In an interest to get a good friend of mine into adventures, I lent him my copy of the game while visiting him a few weekends ago. He has never touched an adventure game before, yet he was practically blazing through it in front of my eyes. No walkthroughs, no hints from me. It's not as if he did everything right on the first try, but he was rarely stuck for very long. I have to admit, I'm quite impressed, and for his part he thinks the game is incredible.
remixor: what are you saying i'm stupid and can't play games?!?!!1..245 RC
hehe, but that is also something i think about, people play 6 day assassing [ahem garage gothic, hehe] and get stuck in it, my friend Al played it and beat it in less than 10 minutes and she's never played an adventure.
they don't come to the game with preconceived notions about adventure games and are able to look at it with an open mind.
which is probably why were liked these games and were better at them as kids.
I'm so happy that I'm not alone with these feelings. I wasn't sure what to expect when posting it.
Quotemr gothic, did you read this?http://www.adventuregamers.com/display.php?id=178
Interesting reading, but I don't think that's the case here. I've never been the kind of person who considered King's Quest 1 a good game out of pure nostalgia. In fact, most of my adventure favorites, no matter their age, hold up pretty well today.
Rather I feel that the newer games suffer because they try to be innovative and just end up being contrived. In contrast to other genres, adventure concepts - at least on the micro-level of puzzles - can't be repeated, and there are only so many things you can do within the realm of logic. That was, in my opinion, what lead to the so-called death of adventure games.
Quotestarting the ship in Pilot Light is awesome! I love that crap! It's not so much a brain breaker of a puzzle as it is just a nice little puzzle that pulls me into the game and makes me smile.
Yes, exactly. Stuff like that is what I'm talking about. It's not a puzzle, but it's putting the obvious action into the hands of the player, making the game world feel more interactive and alive.
Quotethat's just a film where you have to watch boring bits. Like a roadtrip film where you have to watch the hours of travelling between whacky antics.
I agree completely. It's like that old saying (not sure who came up with it) that "film is life with the boring bits cut out". Often I feel like games are film with the boring parts put back in.
QuoteHaving to sit through mythology lessons in TLJ isn't like a film, it's like a shadow play
Hey, don't knock shadow plays! :)
QuoteSo when you play my game (the GENERIC one...) expect to die
Uh, I have heard that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but maybe you should re-think your advertising campaign :)
Quote from: MrColossal on Sat 18/10/2003 09:36:19
remixor: what are you saying i'm stupid and can't play games?!?!!1..245 RC
yuo ares teh sdumb!
Quote
hehe, but that is also something i think about, people play 6 day assassing [ahem garage gothic, hehe] and get stuck in it, my friend Al played it and beat it in less than 10 minutes and she's never played an adventure.
they don't come to the game with preconceived notions about adventure games and are able to look at it with an open mind.
which is probably why were liked these games and were better at them as kids.
Yeah, exactly. I felt retarded watching him play because I remembered having a lot more trouble with it. When I was younger, though, I played through Fate of Atlantis, DOTT, Monkey Island, Sam and Max, King's Quest, etc. and without the internet I didn't have walkthroughs. Now, I honestly have more difficulty with these games and don't have the same pure sense of enjoyment.
I was thinking the same thing that many have said. The traditional adventure game's puzzles are a seriously outmoded form of gameplay. Is "outmoded" a real word? Anyway, I mean obsolete. Maybe it's just my tastes. Certainly there are still people who enjoy a conventional adventure game. Sadly, I can't get through most adventure games anymore, though I loved them as a kid.
But what I DO enjoy about the adventure genre is that it lets me explore interesting environments, ideas and characters in great depth. Much greater depth than is available in most other types of games. It might be interesting to apply those characteristics to a game with a different kind of gameplay.
On a related theme to kids of today, games of yesterday, nostalgia, etc., some of you might get a kick out of this article.
http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1338730,00.asp (http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1338730,00.asp)
While not adventure-related, it's the reactions of some modern-day youngsters to games like Pong, Mario Bros, etc.
t
Hm, i think the problem here is more, that if you play only one type of games, you'll eventually get sick of the genre- no matter how much you like it.
Quote from: tamper on Sat 18/10/2003 11:41:10http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1338730,00.asp (http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1338730,00.asp)
While not adventure-related, it's the reactions of some modern-day youngsters to games like Pong, Mario Bros, etc.
Fuckin little asswipe candy-asses.
QuoteFuckin little asswipe candy-asses.
Well quite! Do you do children's parties?
I remember the first adventure game I ever played was Shadowgate on the NES. I loved it, found it easy to beat. I didn't know what type of game it was at the time, and just regarded it as a 'choose your own adventure', like those cool books I read. I begged for Deja Vu, and loved that game too. I still play them, and compare all games in the adventure genre to them.
Yet I dislike most adventure games. I find them boring as hell. Sure, I enjoy the games produced by the community. There's something about a bunch of nerds taking the time to do what normally requires a large team of experts to produce. I just find so many of the puzzles ridiculous, and often they don't advance the story, but lead to another ridiculous puzzle. I hated Monkey Island as a game. It was good for a laugh, for 5 minutes, but I just don't know why this community holds it as the golden standard of adventure gaming. I played and enjoyed QFG4, but as an RPG. I didn't even know it was an adventure game until I came here.
Loom, on the other hand, had that 'choose your own adventure' feel that I enjoyed as a child, as did Croshaw's 5 Days a Stranger. I like the linear gameplay, it fits the format. I /hate/ having to click every goddamned thing on the screen, taking everything that isn't nailed down. I'd much rather look at the scene, think of the story as it's been told up to that point, and make a logical deduction as to the best course of action. It makes me feel like I'm standing in for the main character, taking part in a story. I'm the protagonist. If I'm not able to put myself in the scene completely, I feel the game has failed completely. What's the point, after all, of an interactive story when paying attention to the narration has little to do with what you're doing? And that is all an adventure game is, really.
I guess I'm not a fan of adventure games. I'm a fan of good storytellers, yarn-spinners.
Moofle.
Well, this thread has been a bit of a shock for me. Personally, I love puzzles. I can never see them as an obstacle to the story, because I don't play adventures just for the story, I play them to enjoy a story and to have my intelligence and imagination challenged.
I agree with this whole 'movies with puzzles' argument, though. I think it's a shame that developers haven't worked more to make games give different experiences to different players based on their decisions. However, a lack of this doesn't spoil a game for me.
All I ask for in a game is that the player's input is crucial to the experience - whether that be through having to apply their intelligence to overcome the obstacles in the protagonists way, or influencing the story through their decisions, or both.
I, too, love the puzzles. The feeling of frustration as you go to every screen you can think of, click everything, and talk to everyone looking for some sort of clue. And then all of the sudden you're in class, at work, or just away from your computer, and it hits you. So then you can't wait to get home to finish the damn puzzle that's been keeping you stuck for so long.
I don't think it's so much that we don't love adventure games anymore. I think it's lack of time. When we were a kid we had all the time we needed. But when you grow up and you have to go to work, why should we sit around the computer for hours on end just to advance the story a smidgeon?
I haven't beat the last adventure games I've bought, mainly because I play them, advance to about midgame (or at least I can only assume that about where I am), and then realise I don't have time, so I put them away and wait till I do have time. So far, I haven't been able to get time. Last year I seemed to have plenty of it. Now, though, I'm in the uni from 8 in the morning to 6 or 7:35 at night (depending on which day). I do get breaks between that time, but not enough for me to feel like I need to accomplish anything. Then I have work, and am in the Marching band, so a free weekend, let alone a free day, is a rarety.
I don't like adventure game, I LOVE them. I loved The Longest Journey, even though it was often times long winded, I felt it was a step in the right direction of bringing an adventure game some more depth. I loved Grim Fandango, even though I got stuck for a solid year. I loved Space Quest, even after going through a good part of the game and realising you forgot an inventory object from room1. But with a limited time in my schedule for them, it just seems less appealing for me to spend my time on puzzles that are there to make the game just that much longer.
I don't think it has anything to do with the genre being dead. I think it's still alive and kicking. I still do love this genre. I think it's one that requires some measure of intelligence, and in some ways is above other games in that sense. And it's a unique way of telling a story. I get satisfaction from playing these game, I just have to wait until I have time.
-MillsJROSS
Me too.
Blah. I tend to get very tired very quickly of bad writers trying to be good writers (few adventure game makers have sufficient training or experience) and I tend to get annoyed by absolutely pointless puzzles, but I think the puzzles are just about my favourite part of adventure games. I liked throwing the fish at the bear in KQ5, I liked feeding the fish in RL & BAT, I like the puzzles in my stalled games. I like puzzles that are exceptionally ridiculous, and those that are ridiculously exceptional. I'm not a fan of realism in games because I haven't found a single game (or novel, for that matter) that's sufficiently realistic. Good writing isn't realistic. People talk and act in ways that just sound clunky or too clever or too repetitive for good media.
I like the Final Fantasy series because of the story, but also because I like finding treasures and fighting monsters. I wouldn't want to just watch Terra and Locke pontificate over the nature of love. The writing isn't *that* good. I like the Quest for Glory series because of the underlying plot, but I couldn't bare to watch the whole dreadful thing as a movie. It's much more fun to find things, do things and solve problems myself. Just making it an interactive movie would be a disappointment.
I encorage anyone who wants to break from the traditional adventure game to do it, but I just wanted to speak up for puzzles. I like to use my brain, and not just as a strategic implement. Even if I don't solve a puzzle on my own, I like the exercise. In fact, the only kind of puzzles I hate are the kind that don't apply my critical thinking skills (pixel hunts, mazes, riddles that require obscure knowledge, puzzles that require detailed game-world knowledge).
Ultimately I see a movie as fiction. I liked Adaptation becasuse it didn't pretend to be realistic, just 'real'. I didn't like (INSERT NAME OF HISTORICAL FICTION HERE) because it was just bad fiction mascurading as reality. I see a book as fiction (well a fiction book anyway). I liked Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children because it tried to make a point and create a magical realist world. I like Guin's "The Left Hand of Darkness" but end up ploughing tiredly through the elements of faux realism. I see a video game as fiction. I like Japanese RPGs because they don't pretend to create an "authentic" world. The game is very much set inside a video game universe, with video-game logic. I don't like most American RPGs because they create this faux depth of choice that doesn't really exist or reflect reality anyway. I have real depth in my own life. I play games because they're like games, not like life. Fiction is a tool, not a hand-mirror. My personal code for making a game is: "Be honest with yourself. You're making a video game. It is not, nor should it pretend to be, real. Make it fun, flighty, ridiculous, inventive and trying."
This is NOT in disagreement with anything above, however. There are limits to the adventure game medium (well, assuming you don't pack your game with asides and mini-games). A lot of puzzles are random and poorly made. 90% of games could be more artful and actually try to create a meaningful effect (like good fiction or movies, either comic OR serious). I'm just trying to stand up for making a "game" and less generally, for puzzles, since I think there's a place for both.
Oh god, why hasn't nobody found out that the magic of Adventure games is excactly in the game part?
Just how many of you have been reading a book so good that you start to identify yourself with the main character and have sudden urge to enter the world/situation you're reading about? Adventure games excaclty do that. Our problem is just that stories in these games aren't usually that good so we miss the main point. Even superb ones, like Gabriel Knight for example. Sometimes I download games just after reading a similar book, like when I finished "Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" or some other. In matter fact, adventure games even aren't best way to do that. Just when I finished "Treasure Island", a game of Pirates! 2 gave much more wanted experience than Monkey Island series or any other pirate adventure game (and there's dozens of them) could. Why? The freedom! Because I could make my decisions absolutely by my own and I didn't have to stick to a storyline! Doesn't same go for MANY other games? Just try to imagine GTA as adventure game!
I just don't think that we could do adventure games about everything - there's some invisible story limitations and crossing them would make adventure game "suck".
Maybe you should write a good book first, and when you're sure that this IS a good book - convert it into a game.
While I think the point has been made (to excess?) I just wanted to add that a friend of mine showed me "Hitman 2" which I played around in a bit. I must say I have little interest in the shooting, but was very intigued by the adventure game aspects (for example, a level where you have to put a pager in a room, phone the pager from a distance and then, in classic adventure game style, place the dog in the laun--I mean, strangle the minister guy to death).
So again, some don't like puzzles, some like them.
What an amazing discovery.
hehe bspeers
also, when watching the movies for S.t.a.l.k.e.r. and Half Life 2 i have no of an urge to walk around the environment exploring and discovering and not shooting headcrabs
maybe that's something i should add to my notes, the sense of exploration should be added to games. Even if it means more rooms and backgrounds
I love Adventure Games. I think the main problem with them is puzzle design. The story is all important for adventure games, and nobody wants to be stuck trying to figure out to use the scissors on the portrait and the portrait on the window, at the expense of the story pace. If you're reading a book, you hardly put it down at the most exciting piece.
However, that said, I think the comparisons between games, movies and books are unfair.
It has always seemed to me that reading a book is a lot more personal than watching a movie. You imagine everything the way you want to imagine it and so you feel like you are there with those characters. In movies, you can feel emotions for those characters but it's harder to get as involved in a movie as you can with a book. In adventure games I feel as though I am helping the characters along. For me, it's sort of in the middle, somewhere between movies and books.
I love adventure games.
To answer the question: ...sometimes.
I must assume that most of us started playing Adventures at a young age, say around age 10. At this age we are filled with wonder and amazement, not technicalities and depth. What was deep, was me moving King Graham through Daventry on a quest. I felt like I was doing it, not story, code or Roberta Williams.... This was the exploration. I was in this man's world. He needed me. I loved him for that.
Truly, what are you looking for in an Adventure game? Not talking about good puzzles, story, whatever... I mean,(as a player) do you want it to change your life, or your views, or give you knowledge that you had not before? Or, (as a maker) change the world, change another's views, influence someone? Is it even possible in this medium?
I've tried replaying games with the knowledge that some posters here share...with greater depth and recognition of what's going on. This made it very boring for me. I enjoy the depths of things; I enjoy seeking it out, but seeking it in the games made them lackluster.
Quest for the Crown(as the *first adventure*) is a game we could say is missing many things, but I'll say it isn't missing anything. BUT, not because it isn't missing anything, but because what it is missing, is replaced by our imagination. Imagining what it's like to be in Daventry, seeking the three treasures; the fear of a sudden appearance of a thieving gnome...BOOM!!! Imagination piqued.
So, is it necessarily the games fault??
Quote from: bspeers-loopo on Sat 18/10/2003 18:27:42
Ultimately I see a movie as fiction. I liked Adaptation becasuse it didn't pretend to be realistic, just 'real'. I didn't like (INSERT NAME OF HISTORICAL FICTION HERE) because it was just bad fiction mascurading as reality.
Aye, I saw Kill Bill last night and thought it rocked, mainly because it did away with any sense of logic or realism, but was 'real' enough in a fictional world.
And on the other hand, that US Civil War epic Gods and Generals was released in the last week as well -- It got panned in the US and it got panned here too.
I think you can do all kinds of crazy, unrealistic puzzles in adventure games, but my suspension of disbelief allows me to think 'that could happen', depsite the fact that the puzzles in, say, Day of the Tentacle could never happen in reality.
Use spaghetti for hair?? -- LucasArts are totally pulling my pud!!!
But it's believable enough.
DGM: Exactly, it's all about context. A given puzzle could fit perfectly well in a logical "world of today" game but seem totally mundane in a fantasy setting; by contrast, a totally absurd and hilarious puzzle that would be right at home in a goofy fantasy world wouldn't make much sense in a serious detective adventure. The same goes for all elements of games (and movies, and books, etc.), not just puzzles.
I don't know, guys.
Despite everything said, puzzles aren't central to a good adventure game.
The only reason we consider games like MI, FOA, or DOTT to be classics is because Lucasarts managed to create worlds we were interested in.
We really don't give a shit about the puzzles, as long as they are mutually consistent with the sense of escapism so carefully fostered in these games.
So get off of "combine object A with object B" or "distract NPC C" already. Nobody cares about yet another pirate game ripoff.
Puzzles exist solely to allow interactivity, enhancing a bond between the player and the game.
Be original; cultivate your own world. Vision counts.
Yes, but if a game has puzzles that don't fall into the same old traps, it can increase enjoyment of the game anyway. Obviously the world is more important than the puzzles, but if the puzzles are stupid and not fun to play, people won't care enough to discover the world. Good puzzle design in still important.
QuoteThe only reason we consider games like MI, FOA, or DOTT to be classics is because Lucasarts managed to create worlds we were interested in.
Speak for yourself ;). I consider the quality of the puzzles to be an absolutely essential element in my consideration of those 3 games as classics. Especially in FoA, whose excellent puzzles I consider the best part of the game.
QuoteSo get off of "combine object A with object B" or "distract NPC C" already. Nobody cares about yet another pirate game ripoff.
Eek! 'Combine A with B' can produce actions as varied as 'Combine sniper scope with gun', 'Combine doughnuts with hairband (for makeshift earmuffs)', 'Combine blue drink with yellow drink (for super-spit green drink)', 'Combine tie with shirt', etc, etc. It might sound like a stale formula, but only if you forget that objects A and B can be
anything out of thousands and thousands of possibilities. I'm not sure how using tried-and-tested puzzle structures is connected with pirate game ripoffs, either. :p
QuotePuzzles exist solely to allow interactivity, enhancing a bond between the player and the game.
Well, no, because games can be highly interactive without any puzzles at all. Puzzles create interaction
and challenge the player - so if interaction can exist without puzzles, it follows that the primary reason for including puzzles is to challenge the player.
I have to admit I don't like puzzles much either.
That's partly the reason I'm going to be doing such a big and complicated and probably un-makeable game as soon as I finished warming up. In short, what I wanted to do is make the game 90% character based, like Fate of Atlantis or Day of the Tentacle but moreso. Not only that, but also to not treat interactions with characters as puzzles, with only one solution, but as actual people, who affect others, and have different opinions of you depending on your actions.
Hard as hell to explain, and much much harder to do ^_^
But anyhow, make Shadowplay what you want it to be. I think that if you have a good story, it won't matter how you tell it...
bigbrother: I disagree -- Secret of Monkey Island and Escape from Monkey Island both are set in the same world, created by the same developer, but I believed in SMI's puzzles, yet I was not convinced of EMI one bit.
Especially that whole Ultimate Insult bullshit.
Fuck that.
I loved the
QuoteUltimate Insult bullshit
It helped me during my younger years at school when the bullies insulted me. I quickly came up with an answer that rendered them speechless.
It seems everyone has an opinion about how a good game should be. Or taste about how a good game should be, if I may say so. You can't argue about taste! If I say: " I LOVE BROCCOLI " then none of you can change my taste for food, how wierd the food might be.
I think the same goes for adventure games too.
You like puzzles ( Yes, you over there! ),
and You like the story better. There is no right or wrong.
there is only true enlightement... and broccoli
The reason SMI's puzzles worked and EMI's didnt was due to one man. Ron Gilbert. He knew how not to piss a player off. He pretty much came up with the no death thing (apart from the 10 minute water thing... And the sierra style one near the end...).
They mostly got it right in CMI, but they had no clue in EMI. They should have let it end at CMI.
Care to back this opinion up at all, Layabout? Y'know, with examples and stuff?
Ok, guys, before I cultivate any misunderstandings, let me elobarate on my earlier points.
A good adventure game (insert your favorite title here) tells a story. The puzzles, while they can enhance or detract from that story, serve as a vehicle for player immersion into the game world.
Despite bad puzzles, a world can be a memorable experience due to the designer's storytelling ability.
Even with good puzzles, no one will remember a banal world or a poor story.
Think of puzzles like icing on a cake. While it contributes to the overall flavor, good icing doesn't necessarily mean the cake will be good. Likewise, if your cake is a compressed brick of sawdust, I don't care how good the icing is, I will still spit out every bite I'm foolish enough to take.
For instance, think of Full Throttle and some of the puzzles at the beginning. KICK door. USE bartender. USE keys with BIKE. In fact, there were maybe two good (original to some extent) puzzles in the entire damn game -- locking the junkyard door so you could climb up the chain and walking the bunnies through the minefield. (Maybe I missed one, please don't jump all over me)
However, Full Throttle was a very memorable game because it involved the player in a good story.
No matter how well an adventure is designed, there will always be a puzzle or two that a player just won't get (different people may have trouble with different puzzles). As long as the game world is interesting and emmersive enough, the player will keep trying and eventually solve the puzzle. If the world is boring, the player will quit.
I would argue that EMI and CMI are not set in the same world. Sure they share characters and maybe some themes in the music, but the environments are radically different, as is the story. In my opinion, the first two MI games were much darker than the second two (think of the voodoo lady, the navigator's head, and Lechuck as a living corpse).
But my point is this -- the puzzles should not be the focus. Players tend to remember a game holistically, so it's the story that matters.
Or perhaps we could just talk about whether or not we LIKE adventures. Instead of picking which games are better, and explaining them, with examples.
I love almost every aspect of the adventure game. The story AND the puzzles. I don't view either over the other, when both used effectively they provide entertainment for me. Now, I don't have to like every game that comes my way just because it's an adventure game. But adventure games, in general, appeal to me.
I can still emerse myself into my games, as easily as I did when I was a kid. I love these games, and I don't think no amount of time will ever change how I look at these games. I might look at them from a different view now (that of a little kid, and currently one of a young adult). So now I can probably get a better grasp on jokes that, as a kid, I wouldn't have been able to get before.
I think adventure games still are evolving. Yes, mixing item A and B will always be a staple of an adventure game. It's a puzzle, that's part of the experience. It's when you realise that A and B could solve all your problems, when you have a whole alphabet to choose from, than it becomes more of an accomplishment, and doesn't sound so formalaic.
There is no correct forumula for making these games. Diffrent people desire different things. It's just realising this, and trying to balance between all the wants. And now I'm just blabbing, so i'll end here.
-MillsJROSS
Yeah! Let's make a game everybody likes - At the start of a game, player is forced to complete IQ-test, and the puzzles in the game will vary on the test results - easier ones for stupider ones...
Granted, Full Throttle was a great game with a lot of basic puzzles.
However, there were still quite a number of puzzles that were very memorable.
For example, the puzzle where you have to get into the junkyard with the chain and the falling door -- That one screwed me around for a while, until I found out the REAL answer.
I think puzzles like that really separated it -- There are other great puzzles in FT, if you need more elaboration.
And I also agree that SMI and MI2 were great because of Ron -- I like to think of him as the Preston Sturges of the gaming world.
I could see where Ron was taking Guybrush, as he was developing the character more from SMI to MI2.
LucasArts post-Ron seem to be more focused on developing the gaming engine i.e. the SVGA graphics in CMI and the 3D world of EMI.
Notice how they just used Guybrush's physical make-up from SMI in EMI.
They should have kept the tougher, hard-arsed Guybrush from MI2 -- And made him tougher!!!
YARRRRR!!!
QuoteA good adventure game (insert your favorite title here) tells a story. The puzzles, while they can enhance or detract from that story, serve as a vehicle for player immersion into the game world.
But not just a vehicle for immersion - the most important characteristic of puzzles is the challenge they provide. Interaction and immersion
can exist without puzzles, so why would anybody use puzzles, unless they also desired to provide a challenge?
QuoteDespite bad puzzles, a world can be a memorable experience due to the designer's storytelling ability.
A book can be a memorable experience because of the writer's storytelling ability, but that doesn't make it a good adventure game. Adventures need more than just a good story to be great.
QuoteEven with good puzzles, no one will remember a banal world...
But is this is an impossible construction? Good puzzles fit contextually into their gameworld, so if the puzzles are not banal, then the gameworld cannot be banal either.
Quote...or a poor story
I disagree. Simon the Sorceror has one of the most paper-thin stories I've ever come across, yet many people enjoyed it (including me), it spawned two sequels and is still talked about today.
QuoteBut my point is this -- the puzzles should not be the focus. Players tend to remember a game holistically, so it's the story that matters.
I agree that puzzles shouldn't be the focus. It's not a good idea to focus on one element of an adventure game over the others, if you're looking to give a complete experience. But then that also includes focusing on the story.
It's true that players remember games where the story is good but the puzzles and interaction are poor. However, I'm not just in this to create a buzz with players, I want to make the best adventure game I can - and that means giving equal focus to all the elements I include.
Quote from: Nellie on Tue 21/10/2003 12:35:38But is this is an impossible construction? Good puzzles fit contextually into their gameworld, so if the puzzles are not banal, then the gameworld cannot be banal either.
I think this is a very dangerous statement, and not an accurate one. It is very possible to create a beautiful and well-designed game world filled with crappy and poorly-designed puzzles. By the same token, it would be fairly easy to have a game designer with an excellent understand of puzzle theory but no real imagination when it comes to envisioning a world. As you say, puzzles are one part of an adventure. They're certainly not the whole thing, and the design of the game world is separate from puzzle design. Certainly they must interlock and coexist, but the same game world could be populated by puzzles of any varying degree of quality.
More elaboration --
Nellie:
I agree that immersion can exist without puzzles. But puzzles provide an exigence for interactivity. The player doesn't play a big role if the game's a graphic novel, and he just clicks to turn the page. Of course, that example is interactive, since the game requires input from the player. If that same graphic novel added puzzles, it would require a greater level of interactivity to play. Providing a challenge isn't really a focal point.
You say a memorable story doesn't necessarily make a "good" adventure game. In this case, you don't define "good," which is a subjective adjective anyways. When I said memorable, I was trying to re-define "good" in terms relevant to a game designer.
I want people to remember my games as an experience that transcends mere button-pushing (so I use "memorable" as my paragon of achievement).
On the surface, Simon the Sorceror's plot was simplistic and weak, and excuse for a modern boy to delve into a fantasy world. The world itself was the focus, with its unforgettable characters and good dialogue.
For instance, the turtle with his soup, the orcs gambling by the firelight, and the "Accountants and Apartments" parody were just a few of the highlights from the game.
I don't think all elements involved in an adventure carry equal weight. Rightly or wrongly, most reviewers stress graphics more than music, and music more than sound effects. Not that these elements are unimportant or don't contribute to the gameplay, but a player preference definitely exists (and varies a little from person to person, I'm sure).