Hey, I posted something on the Full Throttle 2 post about adventure games. Let me restate it with some improvements:
Recently, I bought Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, and I noticed that on IGN they categorize the game as "third person adventure". Maybe they're right. the game is not much about action, but about skill and wit, and if you don't do it right you have to shoot and sometimes die, and isn't that what adventure is all about? of course you don't have to solve puzzles heavily or anything, but you still have to talk to people and find objects. it almost reminds me of Pleurghburg DA during those times you had to do the right thing (in other words, when you had to use your weapon ) I still think it's almost an action adventure, but it's totally different from Tomb Raider. Of course this type of action-adventure was invented a few years back with Metal Gear Solid (and they call MGS2 on IGN "ADVENTURE"?!!) or when it originally was invented for a little game called Alone in the Dark in 1992, which is one of the first games to use true 3d (i think). Notice that the alone in the dark polygon/pre-rendered background style was also used in Grim Fandago and EMI. Even Resident Evil is considered adventure since it's pretty Alone in the Dark style.
So, what is it in for adventure games? a lot of people call it dead, and others just transformed into the mindless action adventure tomb raider-ish genre, which isn't adventure game at all. So, I'm saying that adventure games need to evolve once again. Just like in 1988 when Ron Gilbert reinvented the adventure game ala LEC and with a Point + Click interface, the new 3d adventures need to change to survive.
I guess I want others to give their thoughts and to say what they think about the future of this. Obviously, companies have to leave the 90s point and click style, and come up with something new and fresh that would still be recognized as an adventure game. The question is how to still blend in puzzles and character interaction with 3d technologies and not make it so linear and and "boring" but still keep the elements of a graphic adventure?
I don't think many people are still interested in solving puzzles - just for the experience of it. It takes some experience and a frustration-resistant personality to really start to like them. I don't see any "newbie" adventure gamers tolerating being stuck very long.
The thing that drew me into adventure games, and makes it still be my favourite genre, was the plot and dialogue. It had lots more of that than any other genre. Hell - besides adventure games, there was no other kind of game which has a story.
Nowadays, even FPS games sport lots of cutscenes and dialogue and a nice story arc (blame half-life). I think this is the place where we're lose ground.
There is some hope, though. Very few non-adventure games manage to be genuinely funny. And sooner or later, once this whole hardcore FPS gamer/violence fad is over - people are no doubt going to want to play a game that makes them laugh again. I think this is where adventure games will make their glorious comeback.
We will need our own "Diablo" though. We can't do it on our own. Once a truly ground-breaking adventure game has been made, and it sells really sweet - capitalism will do the rest.
I think adventures have melded with other genres.
Take Hitman, for example.
I'd consider some of the elements to be adventure inspired, such as the inventory system and the fact that the game progresses based upon meeting certain plot-specific objectives (as opposed to just shooting everything in conventional action games).
However, as for pure adventure games, I wouldn't say they are dead -- more so, they've become an indie industry.
I think the fact that adventures are becoming less commercial gives it strength.
I say this because it allows for less conventional methods to be employed (i.e. experimentation).
For example, I had an idea for an adventure game based on the movie The Pianist where you play a Jewish man trying to hide from Nazi soldiers in World War 2.
A commerical company would probably never be able to make this game because many would see it as capitalising on a tragic event for purposes of entertainment.
Not only that, I doubt it would sell too well.
However, an indie game maker would be able to make it successfully because: a) profit isn't a motive, and b) indie releases are seen as more of a form of artistic expression.
I could be wrong upon this matter -- what do you think?
Well, what scid is referring to is that years ago RPGs were as dead as adventure games, then came diablo and brought it all back, and from there it came a new style of RPGs...
So, yes... I agree with scid and I think some big company needs to make a brand new form of adventure game.. one that will bring them back to the mainstream.
Quote from: netmonkey on Thu 08/05/2003 02:50:00
I guess I want others to give their thoughts and to say what they think about the future of this. Obviously, companies have to leave the 90s point and click style, and come up with something new and fresh that would still be recognized as an adventure game.
W00t?!?! I'm already making Roger Foodbelly! It'll be finished.... in time to rescue the adventure genre :)
I mean, look at Roger Foodbelly (from my point of view)... It has point and click (!), great story, great plot, great puzzles, great dialogues, great art, great music, great great great....stuff.
I will rescue it!!!
If you let me do it ._.
** edit **
Oh, and TLJ2 will do the same, k?
Roger Foodbelly will just be the 2nd wheel :)
An adventure game the likes of Monkey Island and FOA will never port to 3D. Like many have said, adventure elements will blend into other genres but clinging onto the point and click genre is pure nostalgia. I remember having big hopes for Omikron- a game that was advertised as having a huge environment- "where the character can do anything he wants". I read this and I think- "wow, does this mean the game is nonlinear? And that story progession is much like those books where you pick a path and each path you pick determines a new outcome and even more choices?" Hahaha, I just imagined a game where I could talk to anyone- get involved with any NPC's life I wanted- and do anything as simple as buy groceries or read books in the library- or the complicated stuff like solve mysteries or shoot some bad guys. But alas, Omikron was VERY linear and there were very few interactions with anything. The huge environment just proved to be a pain in the ass you had to traverse to go from plot point to plot point. In other words, it failed. Any game that proposes things this ambitious will fail.
First of all, creating 3D environments for games is hard enough. Even simple games where the object is to shoot all other living objects in the game - the detail of the environments can be precisely elaborate. Now imagine 3D designers were told to focus even more detail on the environment, hiding objects and creating logical puzzles- which can be solved in nonlinear sequence. That would be one huge task, which in the end- without the bloodshed or action- might not even draw a profit. It's a huge gamble- therefore I doubt we will see anyone create pure 3D adventure games anytime soon- but we will see more action/adventure.
I think it's a natural evolution and I do not resent it at all. Games such as Hitman, Metal Gear Solid, etc are where adventure games are headed. Admit to yourself that violence is hard to avoid when creating a video game- what else interesting can a character do while running around besides to shoot people? Haha, there's just no other human action worth making a video game about. Unless there was a game where you could hit button combinations to yell obscenities, I think that would be pretty cool. But violence is just logical, unfortunately, and humans will be drawn to it for quite some time. Let's just hope the people buying the games stay willing to solve a few puzzles amidst the blazing gunfire.
Quote from: EvenWolf on Thu 08/05/2003 09:04:33
Admit to yourself that violence is hard to avoid when creating a video game- what else interesting can a character do while running around besides to shoot people? Haha, there's just no other human action worth making a video game about. Unless there was a game where you could hit button combinations to yell obscenities, I think that would be pretty cool. But violence is just logical, unfortunately, and humans will be drawn to it for quite some time. Let's just hope the people buying the games are willing to solve a few puzzles amidst the blazing gunfire.
I agree with most of your post, but I can't agree with this. The whole adventure genre exists because there are other interesting things besides violence. Just because games are becoming almost entirely focused around violence doesn't mean it's all that's there, it just means games are becoming far too limited in that respect (IMO, anyway). If people enjoy non-violent movies and non-violent books (as well as violent ones, of course), how can you say that games as a medium are somehow utterly predesposed to being violent? If that is indeed true, it worries me, because I think that while there are certainly almost infinite ways of killing people, that still isn't enough for an entire medium of entertainment. That just seems really strange to me, that there honestly wouldn't be anything else.
I do not argue that violent games do not have alternatives, and I agree those alternatives would be appealing to many, however game companies will simply not "try something new" when violent games are a gauranteed sell. If a new game simply presents the most detailed graphics to date and the widest arrange of weapons- people will buy it.
At this point in time, a high production, non-violent game would have a very niche market that no exec in his right mind would approve. As adventure gamers, we should be more optimistic about spreading the genre to more fans through games like Hitman- which force shoot em up fans to think just a bit more. One day perhaps, once puzzles are more appreciated and hopefully a few kids get sick of bullets (haha, yeah right)- it would be easier to slip in a game with more brains and less guns. But until that day, I'm just glad violent games are getting a little more challenging for the mind.
The fact that many people enjoy non-violent films and books does not present much argument for non-violent games. During stories in books and movies- fans observe the events, and the actions of the character are orchestrated by the author. In a game, the fan would have to do the interacting himself and like I said- violence is the most interesting interaction within reason for a programmer. Any other action would prove to be highly challenging. I personally wouldn't mind seeing a game where I could just walk down the street and start philosophical conversations with every character I see, or try to have lunch with pretty girls... but come on- at some point while playing- I would want to slug someone. And if the programmer included the ability to do this, he should have just created the game with the intention of violence- as that is what most gamers expect and want. People escape to what they cannot physically do, such as flying or driving recklessly. And since going outside and shooting folks is taboo, perhaps our solution for more sophisticated games is to legalize murder and assault in real life. :)
On the topic of violence in games:
I think that violence in games in a big consumer point, especially in young testosterone-charged boys.
However, I would like to see a move away from that.
On the other hand, I thought the violence served a point in Hitman, and raised several interesting questions about the nature of man.
Can someone be truly born to kill?
If so, can we kill our creators/gods?
Does god control us, or does our ability to kill mean we kill him?
Does man's ability to kill make him free?
Its interesting to see the philosphical questions raised from violent computer game such as Hitman!
you and your hitmen ;D
what about battlefield - any philosophy in that?
Battlefield 1942?
Never played it.
But I guess it might say something about the horror of war blah blah blah blah.
Quote from: netmonkey on Thu 08/05/2003 02:50:00
I guess I want others to give their thoughts and to say what they think about the future of this. Obviously, companies have to leave the 90s point and click style, and come up with something new and fresh that would still be recognized as an adventure game. The question is how to still blend in puzzles and character interaction with 3d technologies and not make it so linear and and "boring" but still keep the elements of a graphic adventure?
Grim Fandango.
Grim Fandango supplies all you have stated above, and in the best way possible.
But Grim Fandango failed. This, in my opinion, has scared away game creators from the genre more than any other thing.
hehe i like how this is a nice scary peek into even's mind
millions of people played Sims for millions of hours even, and the most you can do is slap people with the occasional dust cloud fight. sure you can lock someone in a room and wait 25 days for them to die or whatever but the "payoff" of killing someone is so small [You're sim is dead. sorry] that it's just not worth doing more than once, at least for me.
the sims is a game where you can do "anything" as long as it's in the games ability.
and i don't want there to be an adventure game equivelent of diablo because how many diablo clones were there? tons apon tons? didn't that kinda cheapen it for anyone? Diablo may have been groundbreaking or something i guess but only in concept, the story wasn't that super wow and the character development wasn't there at all [and i don't mean leveling [White Mage you have leveled up, you have 3 AP to add to Quiet Reserve, or Jovial Kindness]]
i also think it's kinda silly to say that adventure games like foa and all will NEVER port... comeon we need to think farther ahead than 6 months. we as humans on this board will be around for at least 60 more years, twice the length of gamings current age, if in 60 years people are still looking for gory blood games and nothing else, i will personally give fellatio to anyone that disagreed with me.
no one knows what will happen next, what fad will suddenly wow everyone and take over. who was expecting The Sims, who was expecting Doom [besides everyone[but i think the designers and the industry were surprised off their asses]] and who WHO i ask was expecting the spanish inquisition? i mean, it's their cheif weapon... one of at least
the plus side to graphical adventure games is that they are graphical, if we want them to grow and reach new audiences then we are in luck, i hate to say it but i can't see text adventures ever hitting a mass market again. the only reason is no pictures. So we have one up on them, the other plus side is the best way currently to tell a story is through an adventure game i believe. because they are so story driven blah blah we know all this.
and i think everyone forgets that there are adventure games still being made. you might not like them but they are still out there.
the same way many FPS games are made but only a few are good, back in the day many many adventure games were made but how many were tollerable?
i think i'll stop before i lose my train some more
Time will tell, but I've become pretty convinced that the true adventure won't see a huge rebirth, won't work in 3D, and won't sell like adventures used to.
I enjoy hybrid type games sometimes, in fact I enjoy quite a few dominantly action games (I thought Indy Emperor's Tomb was brilliant), but true adventures will always be the toppermost of my favourite games. I think no other type of game can match the unfolding the story in such a satisfying way, solving the character's obstacles and immersing yourself in the exploration...hard to explain but you know what I mean. Which is why I'm here, I like playing games like that.
So I think it's awfully sad that adventures probably won't come back in a big way, but I don't think I can kid myself much longer.
Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 08/05/2003 18:07:04
in 60 years people are still looking for gory blood games and nothing else, i will personally give fellatio to anyone that disagreed with me.
Oh my lord. You're giving me horrible images of old gay man porn.
Grim Fandango was the first step in 3d adventure games.. it was mostly a classic adventure game converted into 3d with its good amount of 3d-related puzzles... which I liked :)
And I think the best way Monkey Island or FOA will ever port to 3d would be in the likes of the Longest Journey, and not like grim fandango because they were games designed for Point + Click.
Heh, I remember when I was a kid I wanted a game where you could do whatever you wanted... and then I found adventure games, and that was close enough for me.. then it came the sims and I drooled all over it because it was a dream come true, but I got tired of it because thee's no story and the game can get repetitive. the only point is to create love triangles and have a fight, and cheat and build the coolest house ever ;D
So, how about a detective story, with some shooting, chasing people around and investigating? however, it would have to be in grand scale, like GTA-3/VC grand scale, but with more talking to people and picking up objects, and figuring out where clues would be. I think that is the main problem: Adventure games are really expensive to make, and what kind of company would take a risk by making a non-linear grand-scale adventure game?
I can easily see an adventure game in the style of Max Payne - with lots of heart-pounding action, but with many puzzles and interrogations as well, becoming the next big thing. The thing diablo did was take lots of things which made RPG games good, and combine it with snazzy, modern gameplay. That could happen for us. I would also hate to see what we like being turned into a bland money making scheme - and in that department, I don't want something like Diablo to happen either.
And I officially disagree, here and now, with Eric. If thru some kind of special alien trickery a substance in our drinking water turns everybody gay, and I wind up being a lonely old man, pissed off at how games are all about blood and gore, and nothing else - I will at least have one thing to look forward to. Very unlikely, yes - but one has to look out for ones future old self.
And, if it's a consolation to everybody who doesn't believe adventure games will come back - text adventures have been dead for a really long time as well, and yet there has never before been a greater quantity or quality of the things to play. It's not because companies don't supply us with games, that they'll be gone. I see the amateur adventure game scene growing incredibly, up to the point where we have too many free games to play to really care wheter or not companies ressurect our favourite genre.
And all will be good.
I'm not too sure adventure games will stay dead. The gaming industry is dynamic, and answers the need of the market. It is, after all, about making money.
Looking at the development of games the last decade, indeed, adventure games have sadly been in the decline. We have reached a halt in the market and - as far as I know - there are no real adventure games in production any more.
But will it stay that way? Take a look at 3D shooters. As has been said before, they are slowly becoming more and more filled with stories.
Doom = Aliens. Bad. Kill them!
Quake = Was there a story?
Quake II = Do we need a story?
Unreal = You're crash-landed on an alien planet... Ooh, look at that waterfall, it looks almost real!
Then:
Half-Life = You're a researcher going to your everyday job. Huh, these 3d animated things can talk? They are normal people?
Etc.
Slowly more and more story-elements are creeping back in, and there's even some puzzle-solving to be done. True, it's still very basic, but I can see why the world will someday get very fed up with shooting things. And then there will be 3d games that have only puzzle elements and intricate storylines. And then, maybe someone decides that it's better to do it in 2D and think s/he has invented the wheel...
...and we're back in business.
I should restate my loose collage of words into the following sentence:
"Perhaps in the future, gamers WILL see a large scale 3D adventure game the likes of MI or FOA- but rather than just hope a mainstream company will see the advantage of creating one due to the existence of the niche adventure following on the internet- we adventure gamers should rather just try support the evolution of the mainstream towards these games by purchasing action/adventures, which in time may slowly evolve away from violence."
That's my ultimate plan in order for adventures ever to resurge. I believe the most power you, Eric and I have is to buy Hitman over Unreal Tournament, and show the big wigs that we're interested in being mentally challenged... I mean er, challenged mentally. Or something. Only buy those innovative games, that is your biggest voice for bringing adventure back.
Blarg.. I think we already sound like pissed-off old men :P
I think Scid made some good points. I played Max Payne a few months ago, and it is definitely more than just a 3d shooter. It actually has an interesting storyline, and characters that I cared about. At the end, I couldn't wait to kill that crazy rich lady. And not because I wanted to see the cool graphics at the end of the game, but because I hated her for killing max's family, blah blah don't want to ruin it for everyone.. The point is, the story in Max Payne was a part of the game, in that it was the friving force that made me want to play it. It wasn't the graphics, or the shooting bad guys (though they were definitely cool). I felt like I was part of the story.. I would love to see more games like this. It's the closest thing I've seen to a true action-adventure (though it was still lacking in the puzzle department). This type of game should definitely be explored more.
I've never played The Sims, but I agree that any game that lets you control and do anything you want can be a success. Just look as Sim City when it first came out. It appealed to people of all ages, because there really was something there for everyone. You could build a giant metropolis and manage a budget, or just fuck around (which is mostly what I did ;). However, I think it would be a lot more difficult to make an adventue game like this. How do you record dialog and create puzzles in a world where anything is possible? A truly nonlinear game probably would not look or feel like a traditional point + click adventure.
I think the adventure community just needs to do what ID did with Doom, doing something that nobody has ever seen before, and makes everything else (at the time) look weak in comparison.
Any volunteers? :P
Ben: Get yourself Outcast. It's probably found in your local gameshop for a very cheap price.
Apart from being done in voxels (I know) and only capable of 512 x 384, that game rules. It is Max Payne, but only much, much better.
A fantastic soundtrack (by the Moscow symphony orchestra), really cool characters and a great plot.
why don't some of us get in a group to try and create an adventure game that is completely different, and that is basicallywhat ID did, but as an adventure game.
A clarification: what Diablo did was not about bringing RPGs back to life. It was about bringing ROGUElikes to a wide audience. The game that resurrected the classic party RPG would be Baldur's Gate.
And it did a damn good job at it too!
I still play that game and BG2 as well... very much fun. I am looking forward to RPGCreator's game, btw... I think it's going to be much better!
*ducks thrown rotten tomatoes*
;)
I think 2d cell animation will make a comeback in games and in films eventually. Photorealism can only take us so far before it loses it's novelty.
It's like Terry Gilliam said upon the release of the Final Fantasy movie. What's the point? Animation can be about creating something which *isn't* real, not something that looks exactly(?) lifelike.
Hello to all,
it´s not often that I adress to you, but the subject wich you are talking about is the reason that we are all here, isn´t it?
If about 900 people join a comunity of adventure-gaming-devlopment it´s because they want to be part of the adventure genre movment!
When I found AGS (last december) I was just searching the net for free adventures to download, so I got Cruise for a Corpse, GK2, Operation Steallth, and some other old games, then I found AGS, and the possibility to make my own adventures! So, I just can´t leave the forums and AGS, and why? Because Adventure Games aren´t dead!
And how many of you did buy Syberia or The longest Journey? I know I did!
It´s true that games like Mafia, Splinter Cell, etc... allow you to have conversations, and to solve some puzzles, and they are great experiences of game playing. but in the end I always want to go back to beeing a pirate wannabe, or get the Loom feeling, or go on a night´s out with Larry.
THEMES:
What we are missing here is that the themes of new adventures have to be modern, new, and original!
there´s no point about doing a pirate adventure or a space trek adventure and you all know why!
Somebody on this thread talked about the Sims and about the milions that played that game since it was released, somebody talked about diablo, and they are right!
New games have to be NEW! Did you play CMI4? I hope not! Have you seen the BrockenSword screenshots? I just have a bad feeling about it.
We love point & click games, but we love funny,well drawn, nice atmosphered p&c games! It´s that simple.
It´s a cult, that´s what AGS is.
thanks for your time