Adventure Game Studio

So this video brought back to my mind an old debate that's been going on for years, but had not happened here for a while now: "Why did adventure games die?" (the last response here being akin to 'they didn't'). I guess we can discuss that, and there may be some interesting points from that discussion, but what struck me was his reasoning: the genre (traditional graphical point and click adventures) fell out due to tired and old mechanics and unintuitive puzzles, and it seems a compelling argument: mechanically, an adventure game made 25 years ago could easily have been made today (and vice versa), while during that time, other genres developed, and keep on developing and improving and evolving.

On the surface of it, that argument makes sense, but then I started wondering- how did other genres evolve that adventure games didn't?
I can think of lots of quality of life improvements in other genres (mouse-look in FPSes, dumping tank controls in 3rd person games), but do those really count as "evolutions"?

And the next video in the series discusses some of the evolution in adventure games. So a roughly chronological list would be something like:

Interactive Fiction

Graphical Interactive Fiction

Graphical Point & Click Adventure Games

FMV Visual Novels Walking Simulators Branching Narrative QTE games Adventure Elements in non-adventures

(that last row probably has a lot more intermixing and hierarchy, but I was just keeping it simple)

So obviously adventure games are not dead. They just keep evolving. But then I come back to something- the traditional "Graphical Point & Click Adventure Games" do seem dead. Sure, we had a record breaking kickstarter a couple years ago (one that I participated in), but the results, while fun, were nothing groundbreaking or signifying any great return.
The same video series says "Much of the design problems that plagued the last wave of American adventure games, were still there in broken age: Nonsense, obtuse, trial-and-error puzzles, repetitive VO, dull, very slow gameplay". We have even a number of commercial releases of AGS games, and they're quality stuff for what they are, but does that count as a return, or just serving a very niche market?

What do you think?

I blame the fans, who endured a decade years of mostly horrible point and click games in the 2000s, and cleave to the mechanics of the 90s "classics" rather than the things that actually made them enjoyable. I recently made a similar observation to your point about tank controls - no one would say that Doom Eternal wasn't really an FPS because it uses analogue sticks. But adventure game devotees are ready to insist that Firewatch, Life is Strange, Dear Esther and Telltale games DO NOT count as adventure games because they lack an incredibly outdated 1990s interface. It's particularly absurd, because it's not like interfaces have ever been consistent across adventure games.

Narrative is huge in games now, it's given much more thought in mainstream games than it was in the 90s. Even if you do want a traditional point and clicks, loads of really good ones are getting made by indie teams. But the die-hard point-and-clickers don't like them either, because they lack the AAA production values that about 5 Lucas Arts games had.

I love traditional adventure games as much as anyone - I've written for three of them in the last few months - but I hate this corrosive nostalgia. Adventure games are dead, as long as we insist on them having both million dollar budgets and a 30 year old UI which was quite rubbish in the first place.

Yes, they didn't die. They diminished and moved to the east.

The answer you are looking for even shows in the table you posted. Technology. Point-and-click adventure games came about because the technology would allow it, and faded into the background when technology allowed more interactive forms of storytelling. It got replaced by games like Abe's Oddysee, and later Half-life 2.

But traditional point-and-clicks are still around, and they even do good business, even though the content of these commercial titles more often than not could be better. The genre does not have to be defined by crap like Broken Age. It got that wad of cash before people were really into crowdfunding. Before there were many projects and before people knew what to expect.

Why do we still support this genre with our work? Two reasons: Technology again. A lot of us would be making games in another form if we could afford the time, but this is a great way to have a narrative-based game on a budget. And the second reason is nostalgia. But there's good nostalgia and bad nostalgia, and the bad kind is one of the genre's biggest problems in the modern age: Nostalgia for its own sake. The people who made the greats of old, like Beneath a Steel Sky weren't chiefly trying to imitate something from the past. They had a story they wanted to tell, or a world they wanted to create, and they did it with what was available to them to best do it.

I gave up on new adventure games in the 2000s, spent that time catching up with the classics I missed. I don't regret that decision in the least :D.

Half-life 2 (or Abe's Oddysee, not played that one) doesn't really scratch the same itch that the traditional adventure games did, I don't think it can be said that they replaced them. I guess that would be an interesting avenue to explore. For me, personally, my favourite traditional P&C adventure games were the Monkey Island games, King's Quest games, Space Quest games, etc.- games that aside from being adventure games, actual gave the sense of being part of an adventure, on an epic journey. For others it might be different. The most recent game that scratched that itch for me was the lovely, lovely (but terribly bug-ridden, for me) Wandersong.

And my point about Broken Age was that people got exactly what was advertised- an adventure game akin to those from the "golden age", with warts and all. If Broken Age had come out 25 years ago, it would have won literally all the awards. But the genre has evolved now.

Quote from: Babar on Sat 02/05/2020 12:33:21
Sure, we had a record breaking kickstarter a couple years ago (one that I participated in), but the results, while fun, were nothing groundbreaking or signifying any great return.

Just to remind you, the year is 2020. The Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter was in 2012, and Broken Age came out in 2014â€"2015.

I'm not sure that game was ever supposed to be "groundbreaking or signifying any great return," either. Nor do I believe it would have "won literally all the awards" 25 years ago. (Personally, I think the game is fine, but not by any means a standout.) In any case, what I don't get is why it should be our touchstone to discuss the state of the genre today. Why not look to, for example, the AGGIE Award (https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/39494) nominees for the last few years (https://adventuregamers.com/aggie-awards)? By having dedicated categories for traditional and non-traditional adventure games, it conveniently allows us to consider and compare both strands of the genre.

Finalists for best traditional adventure, 2019
Whispers of a Machine
Jenny LeClue â€" Detectivú
Eastshade
Life Is Strange 2
Detective Di: The Silk Rose Murders
Sumatra: Fate of Yandi

Finalists for best non-traditional adventure, 2019
Outer Wilds
Disco Elysium
Hypnospace Outlaw
Moons of Madness
Mage’s Initiation: Reign of the Elements

Quote from: Ali on Sat 02/05/2020 12:48:22
I blame the fans, who endured a decade years of mostly horrible point and click games in the 2000s, and cleave to the mechanics of the 90s "classics" rather than the things that actually made them enjoyable. I recently made a similar observation to your point about tank controls - no one would say that Doom Eternal wasn't really an FPS because it uses analogue sticks. But adventure game devotees are ready to insist that Firewatch, Life is Strange, Dear Esther and Telltale games DO NOT count as adventure games because they lack an incredibly outdated 1990s interface. It's particularly absurd, because it's not like interfaces have ever been consistent across adventure games.

I kinda completely agree with you.  (nod)
But something that comes to mind, is that to most people Point and Click Adventure games are like pixel art.
Yes, there's a better way to do it now, thanks to the improvement of technology. But there's something about that style that stuck with us.
You can get a 3D model, apply some filters, and make it look like pixel art. But it won't actually be proper pixel art. And to me, Adventure games are kinda like that.

That all being said, the interface has almost nothing to do with it. It's the content. The reason why I don't consider Telltale's games to be Adventure games (at least, not the same type as DotT), is because of a lack of the gameplay loop that old-school adventure games have. Their early games, from Sam and Max to Back to the Future, had that gameplay loop. Every game from The Walking Dead and onwards, has a different gameplay loop, that more closely resembles a visual novel.

And as for the conversation of genres as a whole. They evolve, split, get renamed, merge, ect.
People complain about Roguelikes and Metroidvanias being named after games, while being unaware that Adventure games are also named after a game... it's called Adventure.  (laugh)
And then people start to forget what the genres mean, with many Roguelites now being called Roguelikes, and what was called Roguelikes now being called Mystery Dungeon games.
Then of course there's the games that come out that didn't gain their genre until much later. LSD Dream Emulator is clearly a Walking Simulator, and Alone in the Dark is clearly a Survival Horror, but they weren't referred to as such back then, and I still haven't seen anyone refer to LSD Dream Emulator as a Walking Simulator.
Genres are constantly shifting. We've simply carved out a chunk and named it Point and Click Adventure Games, and are now holding onto it for dear life.

I always find it really interesting how other people categorise various pieces of media, since really it's all subjective. It's only when a large number of people all agree about certain traits that we end up with "genres" and other ways to generally describe books, films, songs, games, etc. Here's a few examples that I think illustrate just how subjective these things are:

• "The Martian" won the Golden Globe Awards for "Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy" and "Best Actor - Motion Picture Musical or Comedy" and while it has lots of funny moments, a lot of people disagreed with the classification because they felt it was more of a Science-Fiction/Drama than a comedy (and obviously not a musical).
• "Old Town Road" was pulled from the Billboard Country Music Charts because the folks who run the Billboard classifications decided that it wasn't a "real" country song, despite using country-style instrumentation and having a distinctly country-style theme, especially compared with a lot of things which were already on the "country" charts which many felt were basically straight pop songs that happened to be performed by an artist from Nashville.
• The "Dark Souls" series of games blended various elements from a lot of different genres (RPG, Hack-and-slash, survival-horror) and did it in such a unique way which influenced so many other games that the term "Soulslike" is used frequently in articles and discussions to refer to games that have comparable game mechanics. Similarly, we previously saw terms like "Doom clones" and "GTA clones" describing what we now refer to as first-person-shooters and open-world-sandbox games. So when there were enough "copycats" on the market, we saw a shift towards folks saying there was a whole new genre in place.

Hopefully you see what I mean from those examples, every opinion is subjective. You wouldn't be "wrong" if you called "The Martian" a comedy, or "Old Town Road" a country song, or "Dark Souls" an RPG. Genre titles are just shorthand to help others understand the piece of media, and how each person weighs it up is their choice. If someone asked me to describe the film "Aliens" I would say it is an action film in a sci-fi setting with some horror elements. Other people might call it a horror film with a good dose of action thrown in. Others might even call it a satire of gung-ho military attitudes and corporate greed using science-fiction as a medium to deliver the message. We all experience and describe media differently. Is "Film Noir" a style, a genre, or a filmmaking movement? Depends on who you ask.

To specifically talk about adventure games, I am a bit late to the party. I remember playing "Broken Sword II - The Smoking Mirror" when I was very young, but I don't remember playing all that many point-and-click games as a youngster. I spent my younger years playing games on the PS1 and PS2, and there were very few point-and-clicks that I bought or was gifted. (Though I do still have my PS2 copy of "Broken Sword - The Sleeping Dragon"!) I started getting into adventure games when I was a good bit older and 3D graphics were commonplace. So I personally don't have much of a sense of nostalgia when it comes to the point-and-click interface, and there are many games which I would consider adventure games that others might not, as their definitions might be more narrow than mine. "Firewatch" is a good example of a game that I would definitely consider an adventure game but others might not. It was filled with expressive personality-filled dialogue, an emphasis on narrative filled with intrigue, wasn't combat-focused, and it rewarded exploration because poking around often revealed something fun or interesting. It didn't include much puzzle-solving but it made up for it with enjoyable orienteering gameplay. That was enough for me, it might not be for others.

We could argue all day on what does or doesn't fit into a genre, and that's kind of my point. Genres aren't concrete: not only do they change, flow, and evolve over time, they're also subjective based on the definition of each player/reader/viewer/listener. But even that is just my opinion too!

Oh, I think Broken Age is "just fine" as well, my point was that it adhered to an outdated paradigm of the "traditional point & click adventure", which probably is what contributed to it being "just fine", and why I said that if it had come out 25 years ago rather than today (when the "traditional point & click adventure" paradigm was more contemporary), it would have won all the awards. And I chose it specifically because it's the game from the last couple years that had the same sort of exposure a similar game from 25 years ago would have had. I can't say the same for any of the games you listed among "best traditional adventure game" (I know of "Whispers of a Machine" and "Sumatra: Fate of Yandi" only for being AGS games) except Life is Strange 2, which is a strange case: I haven't played it, but I did play 1, and I wouldn't have considered it a "traditional adventure game" (and neither did the Aggies, as evidenced by it winning the Reader's Choice award for non-traditional adventure game way back in 2015). Is Life is Strange 2 more traditionally adventure game than 1 was, or did they just relax their criteria?

Also, I'm not sure the comparison to pixel art is fair. You can still make good quality "pixel art" today, and it would still be good by the standards of art today. Taking design sensibilities from 25 years ago and try supplanting them into today and they will definitely feel very dated. Those games were incredible back then because that is what we had back then. I'd be curious as to the success of Monkey Island 2 if it were released today, and had never existed before. Would it receive praise for anything other than writing?

I think Lucas Arts adventure games aren't the best examples of pixel art as an aesthetic. Especially not Monkey Island 2, because they were scanned drawings/paintings. So they could easily have looked the same but better in high resolution.

But I also don't think the comparison is very helpful. Mosaics, cross stitching and weaving have been making images out of discrete regions of colour for a long, long time. Pixel art is a medium in its own right. It's retro, but not dated in the same way that the SCUMM interface is dated.

5â€"6 years ago is not by any definition the "last couple of" years, was my point.

And while Broken Age got a lot of attention at the time (arguably mainly for things that weren't to do with the game itself), I think there's also been a fair amount of attention given to more recent games that are far more relevant to discuss. Even if you limit it to high-profile "traditional" point-and-click adventures, doesn't it make more sense to talk about Unavowed and Whispers of a Machine than Broken Age?

For sure there are legitimate criticisms to be made of the gameplay in contemporary point-and-clickers, but I feel that criticism should be made on the basis of games like Detective Di, Lamplight City, Unforeseen Incidents, Paradigm, Leisure Suit Larry: Wet Dreams Don’t Dry, CHUCHEL, etc. â€" games that actually represent the state of (that segment of) the genre today.

Quote from: Ali on Mon 04/05/2020 17:11:21
I think Lucas Arts adventure games aren't the best examples of pixel art as an aesthetic. Especially not Monkey Island 2, because they were scanned drawings/paintings. So they could easily have looked the same but better in high resolution.

But I also don't think the comparison is very helpful. Mosaics, cross stitching and weaving have been making images out of discrete regions of colour for a long, long time. Pixel art is a medium in its own right. It's retro, but not dated in the same way that the SCUMM interface is dated.

Sorry for the confusion, I was talking about pixel art, then I shifted my focus to adventure games (not pixel art in adventure games) to carry over the comparison. I agree, while MI2 art is beautiful, it isn't really a meaningful example of pixel art.

Snarky, I don't think the genre has provided notably new things between Broken Age and now, so I used that as an example, but alright, it seems that mentioning it has created a bit of a digression. Do you feel that the games you mentioned rise above the criticisms that video (and I) made of traditional point & clickers using the example of Broken Age? Of the ones I played/know of, I don't (and Amanita games are a peculiar breed of point & click adventures, maybe more similar to the original Gobliiins games, I'm not sure I'd group them with the others, but the criticisms broadly apply to Chuchel as well).

Unavowed was widely, and I think rightly, praised as a step forward for point and clicks in a number of ways. It dispensed with almost all the much-loved but mostly terrible features of the traditional point and click - obtuse solutions, inventory combinations, cumbersome interfaces, excessive back-tracking etc. And unlike many non-linear narrative games, the Bioware-style mission structure meant players were able to meaningful choices that impacted on the ending.

Quote from: Babar on Mon 04/05/2020 18:39:02
Do you feel that the games you mentioned rise above the criticisms that video (and I) made of traditional point & clickers using the example of Broken Age?

Two things: First, I'm not terribly impressed with the videos either as an accurate history of the genre or an incisive analysis. The criticism of the gameplay of classic point-and-click games doesn't really go any deeper than "I don't like inventory puzzles, so games with inventory puzzles are bad."

Second, the videos don't in fact agree with your position. Of the 35+ minutes total, only the last minute and a half or so are about the state of the genre today, and it's actually a very positive assessment, focusing on how the indie scene is "pumping out new and interesting spins on the adventure game." It explicitly lists Resonance and Gemini Rue (yeah, the video creator also has a skewed idea of "contemporary") among games that "put modern design sensibilities into the old-style point-and-click formula," and concludes that the genre is doing better than ever.

And that's more in line with the reality I recognize. A reality where adventure gamers have an unprecedented wide variety of choice, depending on their tastes and mood. Where arguments about the validity of "walking sims" have been â€" for the most part â€" put to rest years ago.

I think there's a place in the genre both for puzzle-light or puzzle-less games, and the classic inventory puzzles with their "obtuse solutions" (or, which I think is more relevant, the way traditional adventure games integrate a gameplay mechanic oriented around puzzles within their narrative). Can those games be dull and suffer from all sorts of design problems? Of course! Puzzle design is hard. But getting rid of these elements doesn't guarantee that the game will be any better: there are plenty of dull narrative games as well. I don't agree that the paradigm is fundamentally broken.

To me the best analogy is to something like classic mystery fiction. There was a heyday (the era of Agatha Christie and her peers) when it was all fairly fresh and writers could come up with entirely new stories all within the same genre framework. You could have "groundbreaking" mystery stories on a regular basis. But that's over. Nowadays, the genre has split into a hundred sub-genres catering to every which taste, from bleak psychological thrillers to police procedurals to historical mysteries to serial killer POV stories to supernatural "urban fantasy" mysteries to cozy mysteries with baking recipes included. And yet there are still some hoary old conventions (e.g. the final confrontation where the solution is presented) that can be found in most of them.

You can still do something with in the conventions of the classic Sherlock Holmes/Poirot-style "solve the murder in the manor house" setup, but it's hardly going to be groundbreaking no matter what you come up with. And that's fine, because there are other options available if you don't want something traditional. What would be the point of coming in and complaining that something like Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries or Grantchester are still clinging to century-old genre conventions, with many of the same problems?

Any contemporary adventure games that adhere to the visual and mechanical style of the "classics" of the genre, do so for a very specific reason and, one might argue, a very specific audience.

As to the evolution of the genre, I think it's naive to expect that, if publishers had kept funding and publishing this very specific style of adventure game, that what we would have today would look anything like what has gone before. As Ali says, the mechanics of most of these games was pretty bad, even back in the day, and to expect developers not to have moved on in terms of designing and refining not only how their games played but also how their narratives were experienced is, frankly, expecting the opposite of evolution. So anybody who claims that x or y aren't adventure games because they did away with certain mechanics is...well...wrong. ;-D

Quote from: Babar on Sat 02/05/2020 18:58:00
I gave up on new adventure games in the 2000s, spent that time catching up with the classics I missed. I don't regret that decision in the least :D.

I've been knee-deep in ScummVM over the last fortnight or so, and I've got to say, putting aside the rose-tints, most of these games are a pain in A to play through. Even the classics, and especially the Sierra catalogue. As for LucasArts, I would probably be willing to argue that only those games post The Dig are enjoyable in a non-nostalgic state of mind. In other words, those games that started to move away from that earlier style of design. There's a very good reason why a lot of people (including myself) consider Grim Fandango the pinnacle of LucasArts' adventure output; it retains the spirit, humour and, most importantly, the emphasis on narrative, while refining (and improving) the mechanics to an almost unrecognizable degree.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 05/05/2020 03:26:19
As for LucasArts, I would probably be willing to argue that only those games post The Dig are enjoyable in a non-nostalgic state of mind. In other words, those games that started to move away from that earlier style of design. There's a very good reason why a lot of people (including myself) consider Grim Fandango the pinnacle of LucasArts' adventure output; it retains the spirit, humour and, most importantly, the emphasis on narrative, while refining (and improving) the mechanics to an almost unrecognizable degree.

How do you think the "mechanics" of Grim Fandango differ from those of earlier LucasArts titles? Are we just talking UI here?

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 05/05/2020 06:44:38
Are we just talking UI here?

The streamlining (or abandoning) of the UI plays a big part, as the UI is so ingrained in how we experience the worlds of these earlier games. Sometimes for the worse.

Grim Fandango doesn't manage to free itself completely of these problems. But compare how the player moves through the world, with the slow, imprecise plod from screen to screen of those earlier games (and some of them are so slow!) gone, and replaced with a character that (while far from perfect, and not to everybody's taste) moves in a manner more akin to how we expect a controllable character to move. On the surface, it may seem like a somewhat insignificant addition, but it greatly impacts the players experience of the game world and perhaps even the underlying structure of the game.

And yet the game is 100% an adventure game, in feel and execution.

Interesting, in that I thought it was generally agreed that the controls and UI of Grim Fandango were notoriously poor. To the point where they went back and added a point-and-click verbcoin mode in the remaster (as well as options to change how movement works with the controls), after Tim Schafer admitted it just didn't work as originally designed. And made, remember, at a time when few PC gamers would have owned a controller (plus the game had serious compatibility problems with many models anyway), so most players were stuck with keyboard controls.

I just have a hard time understanding how anybody could see it as an improvement. And while some point-and-click adventure games have annoyingly slow walkspeeds and pointlessly large distances to cross, at least you only have to click once at where you want them to go, not guide them step by tedious step. I remember sooo many times where I was walking along, hit a camera switch point, then suddenly was heading in the wrong direction (sometimes turning around completely and thereby switching back to the screen I came from). And that flipping inventory! Ugh!

We should also remember that the now ubiquitous dual analogue stick control system wasn't immediately welcomed by critics or players. A review of Alien Resurrection from 2000 complains:

QuoteThe game's control setup is its most terrifying element. The left analog stick moves you forward, back, and strafes right and left, while the right analog stick turns you and can be used to look up and down. Too often, you'll turn to face a foe and find that your weapon is aimed at the floor or ceiling while the alien gleefully hacks away at your midsection.

https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/alien-resurrection-review/1900-2637344/

I'm not saying Grim Fandango's controls worked. They were pretty clunky, and involved a lot of sliding along the edges of walls. But direct control of a character is a huge boon for a sense of exploration, and I loved moving around the spaces looking for interactive things. It's more fun than sweeping a mouse across the screen. I think new players are a little baffled by the central point & click idea that you are giving instructions to a semi-independent character, rather than playing AS that character. Perhaps that divide helped adventure games develop characters that were more than just idealised, power-tripping player avatars?

Snarky, the 2nd video in the series talks about those newer games, I didn't link that one or focus on that, because that wasn't what I was talking about here (the adherence to a particular evolutionary step in adventure games among certain audiences and creators, even here). Not sure inventory puzzles were mentioned, the part I quoted was tired mechanics and unintuitive puzzles. But thanks for your response! I guess my view is that even today, so many people (especially here on AGS) are just pumping out the same Agatha Cristie knock-offs.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 05/05/2020 03:26:19
I've been knee-deep in ScummVM over the last fortnight or so, and I've got to say, putting aside the rose-tints, most of these games are a pain in A to play through. Even the classics, and especially the Sierra catalogue. As for LucasArts, I would probably be willing to argue that only those games post The Dig are enjoyable in a non-nostalgic state of mind. In other words, those games that started to move away from that earlier style of design. There's a very good reason why a lot of people (including myself) consider Grim Fandango the pinnacle of LucasArts' adventure output; it retains the spirit, humour and, most importantly, the emphasis on narrative, while refining (and improving) the mechanics to an almost unrecognizable degree.

Oh, I agree with you absolutely (except where you say the verbcoin games were less of a pain to play :P), that was my point. If I had to play those games for the first time now, I'd hate and be absolutely frustrated by them. I finally bought The Last Express a couple years ago because of all the praise that it got for its time-based mechanics (and Vel loved it  := ), and unfortunately for me, it is really unplayable. I may have to eventually go through it simply as an academic, but I doubt I'd enjoy it.

Quote from: Babar on Wed 06/05/2020 18:17:08
Snarky, the 2nd video in the series talks about those newer games

I watched both videos. (That's why I wrote "videos.") :P

The second video only finishes talking about Broken Age at 17:45. Then there's some stuff about other Kickstarter comebacks of old adventure game series/designers, and then a longer section about the rise and fall of Telltale. The bit devoted to the current state of the adventure game genre starts at 21:15 (38 minutes into the whole combined run-length) and runs up to 22:35 â€" 1 minute 20 seconds out of almost 40 minutes total. And it doesn't seem to agree with you.

Quote from: Babar on Wed 06/05/2020 18:17:08
I didn't link that one or focus on that, because that wasn't what I was talking about here (the adherence to a particular evolutionary step in adventure games among certain audiences and creators, even here).

I feel like we're trying to have two separate discussions at the same time: one about the state of the genre today, and one about what people think of the adventure games of the 90s. This doesn't really make sense to me, but if that's the way it's got to be… Like I said, I don't think the videos contributed any kind of an insightful analysis of the second question. (For example, the notion that the engines "forced" all Sierra and LucasArts games respectively to have a similar look-and-feel strikes me as pretty dubious, just as similar claims often made about AGS. I mean, Phantasmagoria was made in SCI, and Moonbase Commander in SCUMM.)

Quote from: Babar on Wed 06/05/2020 18:17:08Not sure inventory puzzles were mentioned, the part I quoted was tired mechanics and unintuitive puzzles. But thanks for your response!

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. I feel like "mechanics" is a very ambiguous term. To me, the main game mechanic of most traditional point-and-click adventure games are inventory puzzles: you progress by collecting, combining and using inventory items in somewhat non-obvious ways. And that's how I took the videos to mean it, e.g. in comparing the American games of the 90s with Japanese games, where puzzles were more dialog-based. If that's not what you meant, could you be more concrete about what you're referring to by "tired mechanics"?

As for "unintuitive" puzzles, isn't that the nature of a puzzle? That the solution should not be obvious?

Quote from: Babar on Wed 06/05/2020 18:17:08
If I had to play those games for the first time now, I'd hate and be absolutely frustrated by them. I finally bought The Last Express a couple years ago because of all the praise that it got for its time-based mechanics (and Vel loved it  := ), and unfortunately for me, it is really unplayable. I may have to eventually go through it simply as an academic, but I doubt I'd enjoy it.

TLE may be dated or flawed, but it would be a stretch to argue that its weaknesses stem from sticking to rote point-and-click convention, or that contemporary adventure games are stuck imitating The Last Express. So how is it relevant here?

Quote from: Babar on Wed 06/05/2020 18:17:08I guess my view is that even today, so many people (especially here on AGS) are just pumping out the same Agatha Cristie knock-offs.

Well, I love a good Agatha Christie knock-off: Knives Out, Gosford Park, solid "comfort TV" like Grantchester and Miss Fisher.

And my point was that Agatha Christie and that whole era/style has spawned a whole bunch of sub-genres, ranging from pretty much straight knockoffs (often with some of the edges sanded off, as in the "cozies") to ones that use many of the core elements but diverge in important ways (e.g. something like Broadchurch). So I don't see much point in criticizing a cozy mystery for being too cozy and conventional: that's what that sub-genre is about!

Similarly, if you want to discuss adventure games today, and then exclude any games that do not stick with the traditional format, you're left with… games that are pretty traditional. Huh. (As for AGS games, I also don't see much point in criticizing amateurs making games as a hobby, often for the first time, for not necessarily being in the vanguard of design; any more than in criticizing teenage girls for imitating manga artists. Of course, the more experienced and dedicated designers, particularly the professionals and semi-professionals, are a different matter.)

I know I've mainly been attacking your arguments without proposing much of my own, but it has got me thinking, and I would like to suggest an alternative idea. TBC…

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 06/05/2020 06:30:06
Interesting, in that I thought it was generally agreed that the controls and UI of Grim Fandango were notoriously poor.

Well, I did say they were far from perfect. But then so where the controls in Resident Evil, Alone in the Dark, and generally most other pre-rendered, fixed-angle, third-person games of the day. Whether this is down to inherent flaws or bad implementation is also ripe for debate. Regardless, and looking at it from this point in time, I personally would prefer to play a game with those controls, over the typical SCUMM interface. As to your point, Grim Fandango's controls are certainly frowned upon by adventure fans, and that's part of the larger argument here, I suppose, but perhaps I over stated their appeal.

As for interacting with the UI, one point that stands out to me is how Manny draws the players attention to points of interest, negating the need for the hovering cursor technique of earlier games, and, in my view, changing how we interact with the world...for the better. Though I agree the pocket inventory isn't the best (certainly not from a browsing point of view), I don't think it's worse than any inventory that overloads the player with items. Of course, this could be alleviated by having less items, but that brings us back to the argument of what key elements make an adventure game.

Quote from: Ali on Wed 06/05/2020 13:07:58
But direct control of a character is a huge boon for a sense of exploration, and I loved moving around the spaces looking for interactive things.

This. Without a doubt, I find it more immersive when I have direct control over a character. Doubly so, when I'm in a world like GF's.

I'd like to talk about Syberia for a bit, because, through multiple ports, it manages to brush on many of my points. Syberia on the PC hews closest to a traditional adventure (though it implements both the running and the head-turning object highlighting system of Grim Fandango, it still relies on text labels and occasional cursor hovering, but we'll look past that for now), insomuch as we point-and-click our way through it. But it also has the pre-rendered backgrounds of GF, which require the player to traverse the Z-axis, as well as the X and Y, something I always find weird doing with a tradional point-and-click interface, but that may just be me.

Syberia on the Playstation 3, while technically an inferior port, implements direct control, and, when I played through it, I found it more suited to the world I was expected to explore. Again, this may just be me. It certainly didn't lessen the feeling that I was playing an adventure game, though it did provide a different experience.

As a side note, Syberia on the Nintendo DS, an absolute mess of a port, removes the players ability to run, and I challenge anyone to argue that this doesn't completely kill the pacing of any exploration the player is expected to do.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 06/05/2020 22:19:30
I feel like we're trying to have two separate discussions at the same time: one about the state of the genre today, and one about what people think of the adventure games of the 90s...

You might be right. But, thinking about it, the adventure genre is probably (one of) the only genre(s) where our appreciation of the past has so much influence on how we view the present. Maybe that's why the question of evolution is somewhat moot. We are (or were) so attached to the past, that we simply can't see the proverbial forest. Maybe that's why I find myself being so critical these days.

Or maybe I'm wrong. It doesn't matter, really. I've loved adventure games, and I love adventure games. But I find myself more likely to argue against the idea that some form of ultimate purity exists in the genre. It doesn't, and, I guess, it shouldn't.

Yeah, reading through this thread, I do feel a bit confused about what people consider to be traditional gameplay mechanics or classic point and clicks. I've never really felt the need to define those for myself, is there some sort of consensus? When I look at 90s adventures then a lot of them seem quite varied in terms of design philosophy and user interface. For example, is Loom a traditional point and click game, how about Legend of Kyrandia or Beneath a Steel Sky? Are obtuse puzzles, inventory and mouse-driven interface the shared attributes?

For me personally, it seems that there have been noticeable improvements in modern adventures, especially in terms of puzzle logic and certain small mechanical tweaks. I mean, isn't pixel hunting and screen scanning a thing of the past? Don't most games these days have hotspot indicators, similarly how other genres added stuff like map markers, witcher senses etc.

Speaking of other genres, then there's plenty of fan bases that cling to older games and mechanics. Point and clicks are not alone in this. There's groups of people who still consider Super Mario 64 the best 3d platformer or enjoy original Doom more than modern shooters, there's Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, Symphony of the Night. Also, have MMO's or RTS games made any huge strides as a genre in recent decades?

Yes, many indie devs try to emulate the retro experience or create something similar to old games, but probably because that's what they love developing and there's sufficient demand for it. And it's all fine, there's room for all sorts of games. Calling them knock-offs seems a little unfair. Sure, there certainly are a bunch, but I feel that many of the modern games have actually refined the formula with either some quality of life improvements or added/removed mechanics. Nothing wrong with building upon a solid foundation and learning from history.

Not that I have anything against evolving or innovating, as I said there's room for all, and I'm really eager to hear ideas and opinions about the genre going forward and things I could test out or experiment with in my future games. I think the influence that the hardcore purist crowd supposedly has over the genre is overstated, seems like a vocal minority thing and I don't think many developers care about those voices.

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 06/05/2020 22:19:30
As for AGS games, I also don't see much point in criticizing amateurs making games as a hobby, often for the first time, for not necessarily being in the vanguard of design; any more than in criticizing teenage girls for imitating manga artists. Of course, the more experienced and dedicated designers, particularly the professionals and semi-professionals, are a different matter.

I can admit that I've never made a complete, well-planned and thoroughly designed game, because all of them are made with game jam time constrictions and their main purpose has been to test out some technical aspects, explore the engine capabilities or simply practice pixel art. It's a fun hobby and I honestly don't feel the urge to start pushing the whole genre forward, I simply try to focus on things that matter to me. If we as a community should want more variety or modern takes in our games, the first step would probably be to release different easy to use templates that allow to explore and use new mechanics.

Seconding Snarky with Grim Fandango here. Played it for the first time a few years ago and compared to some older Lucasarts games the controls and interface seemed like a step backwards to me. In addition to the issues mentioned, I sometimes also had trouble identifying the exit points and was stuck because I didn't know there was a "hidden" area around the corner, but I guess that's more of a design problem than game mechanic. I know that a lot of people like direct control over the character, but I definitely prefer the mouse for navigating the 2d adventure space. I actually enjoy games that can be fully played with a mouse only, it leaves my other hand free for other, erm... activites.

Quote from: Ali on Wed 06/05/2020 13:07:58
We should also remember that the now ubiquitous dual analogue stick control system wasn't immediately welcomed by critics or players.

As someone who's never owned a modern console, the few times I've tried to use a controller with analogue sticks, it felt like the most unintuitive and uncomfortable thing, there's a learning curve for sure. But I'm also a weirdo who draws and animates with a laptop touchpad, so I don't really judge people's choice of input devices  :-D

I agree about the fact that there was never a coherent mechanic across all adventure games. I think that's what I object to - the idea that there ever was a definable golden age. (It should be obvious from my signature that I'm not against conventional adventure games that don't push the genre forwards at all.)

But I'm a member of a few facebook groups dedicated to point and clicks, and whenever people ask for recommendations, the responses are always 30 year-old games. When a newer game is mentioned, someone complains that it's 3D and 3D games are ugly, or it's not REALLY a point and click. I find it disheartening, because those were the conversations we were having here in 2003 when I joined - and there really weren't tons of good adventure games getting published.

Thanks, Ali, for clarifying who you were talking about â€" because it's not an attitude I really see around anywhere. But I find most Facebook groups really tedious, even when it's about something I'm interested in, so I'm probably missing that whole scene.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Thu 07/05/2020 00:47:07

Quote from: Ali on Wed 06/05/2020 13:07:58
But direct control of a character is a huge boon for a sense of exploration, and I loved moving around the spaces looking for interactive things.

This. Without a doubt, I find it more immersive when I have direct control over a character. Doubly so, when I'm in a world like GF's.

I like direct control just fine in many games. Is it a universally superior form of interaction (even just for immersion) that all adventure games should adopt? I remain entirely unconvinced of that. As I wrote lo these many years ago:

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 05/09/2013 07:53:49
To me, this again comes down to a question of what's fun (I think I've talked about this before as the "Fun Principle": games should be fun). If moving around is fun in your game, then having the player move the character around manually (whether WASD or whatever) is probably a good idea. There are many games that build a lot of their fun from the task of moving (let's just take Prince of Persia as an example).  But if moving around is not fun (and I think that applies to games like Grim Fandango and Dreamfall, for example), then requiring the player to manually move the character around is just a tedious chore.

I would be interested to hear more specific examples of outdated "mechanics" in point-and-clicks.

However… I want to take a step back.

Let me propose a theory (or really just some impressions and musings based on a few interviews/articles and a handful of games): the problem with traditional point-and-click adventures, if there is one, isn't that there's something fundamentally wrong or outdated about the UI or with puzzle-based gameplay or whatever we mean by the "mechanics." The problem is that a lot of point-and-click adventure game designers don't really care about gameplay or about puzzle design. They care about the story, and the gameplay is just a means to that end. Therefore it's designed half-heartedly and on autopilot, out of obligation. Even a lot of game design tutorials emphasize that the narrative has to come first, that you shouldn't start with a puzzle idea and then look for ways to "shoehorn" it in.

If a game comes about because a designer has some story idea they're really excited by, and then they just go "Gameplay? It's a point-and-click adventure, so the controls and presentation should be just like every other game in the genre; and because it seems you have to keep the player involved somehow (more's the pity!), I guess we must come up with some puzzles, so let's throw in some inconveniences that block players' progress and copy the solution patterns from other games we've played" â€" is it any wonder if the result is not inspiring?

I propose that the answer is not to condemn the established gameplay mechanics as a whole, but to put gameplay first, as something that needs to be designed deliberately and with creative inspiration. For any adventure game made with ambition, there should be a reason to be excited to play that particular game (rather than any other), not just experience the story â€" which you could do by watching a walkthrough video. And yes, that can mean starting from a puzzle idea or an idea for a gameplay mechanic, and then inventing a story to justify it.

For example, Lamplight City has a clear reason to exist that is grounded in gameplay design: "a detective adventure where it is OK to fail." Vince Twelve is another designer who always seems pretty motivated by gameplay ideas as much as by story. We've already talked about Unavowed.

That doesn't mean designers have to reinvent the wheel every time, or that they should throw out all the genre conventions just because they are conventions… Nor follow them just because they are conventions!

That's an excellent point. Insult Sword fighting is a brilliant, funny, mini-game-cum-puzzle (not happy with that phrase, but here we are) that players can approach in an almost RPG-ish fashion. Whatever 'gameplay' is, it's a solid example and a large portion of MI's story is built around it.

On the other hand, I'm playing the Riddle of Master Lu for the first time now. And it's got lovingly produced artwork, surprisingly intelligent writing and actually good acting. I've heard the puzzles described as "very hard". The reality is, they're incredibly stupid.  They're exactly the arbitrary and meaningless obstacles you're talking about. Fly back to New York to steal your employees turtle, then fly to Danzig to make the turtle ring a bell in a tomb. Don't they have Turtles in Germany? Don't they have other things that could ring bells? They're trying to do Tintin, but Tintin is smart and resourceful, not a freewheeling maniac. The gameplay is bad because undermines the character and the story that the devs cared about.

If I can address that point you highlighted from 2013, Snarky, I would probably say that none of these early games are particularly fun to move around in. I have always played, and continue to play, Sierra games, for instance, with the cursor keys, because the combination of ill-defined walkable regions and appalling path-finding made traversing anything, other than an obstacle-less flat surface, a mind-bending chore. Not that you are, but I can't see anyone defending the default-play style of these games as anything other than excruciating to modern senses. Your earlier point -

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 06/05/2020 06:30:06
And while some point-and-click adventure games have annoyingly slow walkspeeds and pointlessly large distances to cross, at least you only have to click once at where you want them to go, not guide them step by tedious step.

- I can only attribute to some degree of rose tint, because none (excuse the hyperbole) of these games ever behaved in such a co-operational way in my experience! Maybe it improved from DOTT on-wards, but otherwise rarely did a character in these games end up where I expected them to, with a single click.

Does this make them inherently flawed? I don't think I'd argue for that, no.

But then, I don't think we should be arguing in absolutes, to be honest. While I expressed my (admittedly minor) disdain with how a lot of these games play today, I don't believe it's because of fundamental design faults. Maybe failures in execution, or due to the constraints of technical limitations, but certainly not in conception. At least not wholly in conception. ¬¬

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 08/05/2020 21:06:20
The problem is that a lot of point-and-click adventure game designers don't really care about gameplay or about puzzle design. They care about the story, and the gameplay is just a means to that end. Therefore it's designed half-heartedly and on autopilot, out of obligation. Even a lot of game design tutorials emphasize that the narrative has to come first, that you shouldn't start with a puzzle idea and then look for ways to "shoehorn" it in.

If a game comes about because a designer has some story idea they're really excited by, and then they just go "Gameplay? It's a point-and-click adventure, so the controls and presentation should be just like every other game in the genre; and because it seems you have to keep the player involved somehow (more's the pity!), I guess we must come up with some puzzles, so let's throw in some inconveniences that block players' progress and copy the solution patterns from other games we've played" â€" is it any wonder if the result is not inspiring?

I completely agree. And if I can be somewhat reductionist, it kind of leaves us with a two-handed answer to the question "Why didn't adventure games evolve?". Hand one: Because there was nothing to evolve. Developers simply found new ways to present their narratives. Hand two: The audience didn't want them to evolve. Adventure fans are nothing if not nostalgic.

Quote from: Ali on Fri 08/05/2020 23:37:16Fly back to New York to steal your employees turtle, then fly to Danzig to make the turtle ring a bell in a tomb. Don't they have Turtles in Germany? Don't they have other things that could ring bells?

Aww, I really enjoyed Riddle of Master Lu. And I think the game does have a cool little twist to the gameplay, by adding the dimension of collecting exhibits for the Odditorium.

But yeah, this is a good example of a tired genre convention that I agree we're better off without. Because it's not just TROML. It's Fate of Atlantis, it's Sins of the Fathers, it's Broken Sword. All games where you need to carry some specific piece of random rubbish from one corner of the globe to another, when a local substitute would be easily available and would have worked just as well.

My impression is that it's less common in modern adventures, though I'm sure it still occurs.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 09/05/2020 01:28:47
If I can address that point you highlighted from 2013, Snarky, I would probably say that none of these early games are particularly fun to move around in.

Rarely. And if some mechanic isn't fun in itself, at least it should be as streamlined and transparent as possible. I would argue point-and-click (as long as it's easy to access the "walk" mode) is more streamlined than direct control.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 09/05/2020 01:28:47
- I can only attribute to some degree of rose tint, because none (excuse the hyperbole) of these games ever behaved in such a co-operational way in my experience! Maybe it improved from DOTT on-wards, but otherwise rarely did a character in these games end up where I expected them to, with a single click.

Umm, wow.
That is miles away from my experience. Occasionally characters might not take the path I would have expected (and this could certainly be problematic in Sierra games where the path is sometimes strewn with deadly obstacles), but it was rare that they didn't go where I wanted them to. Things like unclear room edges/exits were much more prevalent in my experience.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 09/05/2020 01:28:47
I completely agree. And if I can be somewhat reductionist, it kind of leaves us with a two-handed answer to the question "Why didn't adventure games evolve?". Hand one: Because there was nothing to evolve. Developers simply found new ways to present their narratives. Hand two: The audience didn't want them to evolve. Adventure fans are nothing if not nostalgic.

If you're going off my argument here, I'm not sure where fans/the audience come into it.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 09/05/2020 06:09:05

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 09/05/2020 01:28:47
I completely agree. And if I can be somewhat reductionist, it kind of leaves us with a two-handed answer to the question "Why didn't adventure games evolve?". Hand one: Because there was nothing to evolve. Developers simply found new ways to present their narratives. Hand two: The audience didn't want them to evolve. Adventure fans are nothing if not nostalgic.

If you're going off my argument here, I'm not sure where fans/the audience come into it.

I guess that was a reflection on my gripe about us fans? Just to be clear, I don't think the fans are actually influencing developers to make bad adventure games (except possibly, in some small way, via Kickstarters). I mean that as long as our definitions are narrow and deliberately skewed in favour of the 90s, we're stuck. In reality, I think the genre has evolved - loads - but that isn't always acknowledged.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 09/05/2020 06:09:05
Occasionally characters might not take the path I would have expected (and this could certainly be problematic in Sierra games where the path is sometimes strewn with deadly obstacles), but it was rare that they didn't go where I wanted them to. Things like unclear room edges/exits were much more prevalent in my experience.

It wasn't just a case of them not ending up where you wanted them, it was the designers of some games being insistent on the player character being in just the right spot before allowing a interaction to complete. Future Wars, by Delphine, is probably one of the worst offenders in this regards. I can't open a door because I'm two pixels left or right of the hotspot. It's simply inexcusable to make the player continuously inch towards the correct placement on screen, and not just move the character automatically. "Come a little closer!". No, script some damn path-finding you lazy sods! This isn't a play mechanic that's aged badly, is just terrible design. Seriously, I challenge anyone to play Future Wars, which is not necessarily a bad game - just one crippled by crappy design -, and not feel instant frustration.

Again, this is not an inherent fault with the classic point-and-click interface, just a bad design choice, and it varied from game to game. The history of the point-and-click interface is littered with bad design choices, from character speed, to path-finding, to room layout, etc. So much so, that it's difficult to separate developer incompetence from fundamental flaws (if any actually exist).

Is the point-and-click interface is fine, as long as all the bullshit is jettisoned and everything is designed well? I can't really argue with that. It's also an argument that can be made for any control system or interface. Which basically leaves us with our personal preference.

I will say that the Animation Arts' UI, used in the Secret Files games, is an example of what I would consider a good implementation of a "modern" point-and-click interface. A lot of things are automated (including the aforementioned player speed and path-finding), and interactions are contextual. The games themselves are rather bland, but I can't really fault how they play.

Quote from: Snarky on Sat 09/05/2020 06:09:05
If you're going off my argument here, I'm not sure where fans/the audience come into it.

Well, your description of a hypothetical lazy developer seemed to imply that innovation wasn't needed as the audience liked the thing over and over again. Apologies if I misread that. My point still stands, though; (some very vocal) adventure fans like their adventure games to be of a very specific flavour, and are quick to reject games that don't adhere to their tastes. Maybe it didn't have much impact on the direction adventure games took, but I think it certainly had an effect on the how we use the descriptive term "Adventure Game", and our need to add caveats when applying it.

Quote from: Ali on Sat 09/05/2020 13:34:54
In reality, I think the genre has evolved - loads - but that isn't always acknowledged.

Sure, when we don't insist on the aforementioned narrow definition, we see lots off interesting new approaches to adventure games. But if we want to talk about the evolution of the point-and-click adventure game (of a very particular ilk), which is what most of these debates eventually seem to boil down to, we'll find ourselves arguing in circles.

Because, and to elaborate on what I said earlier, maybe these point-and-click games couldn't evolve, and could only be refined. Maybe, once you remove all the (alleged) faults and bottlenecks from the point-and-click interface, you're simply left with...a better point-and-click interface, which I'll gladly accept.

Evolution means change, and change isn't want the people who ask this question actually want. The should really be asking "Why did these games stop being made?"

Tastes changed (a whole other debate!). Publishers decided adventure games were done, and studios stopped developing them.

Evolution be damned.

I'm not sure for how long this debate will go on being fun, but I've had this response sitting around half-finished for a couple of days, so might as well post it.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 11/05/2020 00:52:45Future Wars, by Delphine, is probably one of the worst offenders in this regards. I can't open a door because I'm two pixels left or right of the hotspot. It's simply inexcusable to make the player continuously inch towards the correct placement on screen, and not just move the character automatically. "Come a little closer!". No, script some damn path-finding you lazy sods! This isn't a play mechanic that's aged badly, is just terrible design. Seriously, I challenge anyone to play Future Wars, which is not necessarily a bad game - just one crippled by crappy design -, and not feel instant frustration.

Oh sorry. I didn't realize that when discussing "classic point-and-click mechanics," what we were talking about was the 1989 game Future Wars by French developer Delphine.  ;)

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 11/05/2020 00:52:45Again, this is not an inherent fault with the classic point-and-click interface, just a bad design choice, and it varied from game to game. The history of the point-and-click interface is littered with bad design choices, from character speed, to path-finding, to room layout, etc. So much so, that it's difficult to separate developer incompetence from fundamental flaws (if any actually exist).

Isn't it logically the other way around? If all games were exactly the same, it wouldn't be possible to tell whether the whole paradigm was fundamentally flawed or they'd just made some bad design choices. Having variation lets us distinguish those things. Flaws specific to certain games/choices, like those in Future Wars, are clearly not general problems of point-and-click adventures since other games that made different choices don't suffer from them. But if we look at the best examples, we can see what the "fundamental flaws" of the mechanics are, if any.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 11/05/2020 00:52:45Is the point-and-click interface is fine, as long as all the bullshit is jettisoned and everything is designed well? I can't really argue with that. It's also an argument that can be made for any control system or interface. Which basically leaves us with our personal preference.

I don't know that I believe that argument can be made for any control system or interface (depending on how much work we're willing to let "everything is designed well" do).

But even if we grant that: Aren't you now conceding the entire argument? If it's just a matter of personal preference, there is no basis for calling the classic mechanic "outdated"; just not to your personal taste.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 11/05/2020 00:52:45Sure, when we don't insist on the aforementioned narrow definition, we see lots off interesting new approaches to adventure games. But if we want to talk about the evolution of the point-and-click adventure game (of a very particular ilk), which is what most of these debates eventually seem to boil down to, we'll find ourselves arguing in circles.

Because, and to elaborate on what I said earlier, maybe these point-and-click games couldn't evolve, and could only be refined. Maybe, once you remove all the (alleged) faults and bottlenecks from the point-and-click interface, you're simply left with...a better point-and-click interface, which I'll gladly accept.

I'm honestly having a hard time following the logic of this argument. It seems like the biggest concrete criticism you've made of the classic adventure game paradigm is that they're not direct control. And, well, the point-and-click UI is not direct control. Certainly many modern adventure games do use direct control, but it doesn't seem possible for point-and-click games to "evolve" into direct control and remain point-and-click games. So if you're restricting the scope of discussion to only point-and-click games and interrogating them to see if they've "evolved" into some other UI, that's clearly begging the question.

But I'm also mystified with the insistence that the fundamental control scheme must change. Have 2D platformers changed their basic control scheme in… oh, nearly forty years, or has it just been "refined"? There is quite a lot of UI variation within point-and-click UIs, and arguably more evolution, from the verb-coin/two-button/one-button control style to inventory controls to dialog control to camera style to how to get feedback on the world.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 11/05/2020 00:52:45Evolution means change, and change isn't want the people who ask this question actually want.

Asking what question? What people? Do you mean Babar?

Quote from: LimpingFish on Mon 11/05/2020 00:52:45The should really be asking "Why did these games stop being made?"

Tastes changed (a whole other debate!). Publishers decided adventure games were done, and studios stopped developing them.

I tend to find the decades-long obsession with this question rather tedious. Talk about adventure gamers being backwards-looking!

Of course, first of all, adventure games never stopped being made.

But adventure games ranking as one of the most prominent genres on PC was clearly historically contingent: they were able to take advantage of some of the PC hardware capabilities more effectively (and less hampered by its limitations) than other genres, in ways that were impressive for the time. (Myst and the whole FMV sub-genre making use of CD-ROM is the obvious example.) When that was no longer the case, and the genre struggled to incorporate new developments (3D graphics, online gaming, console versions of most AAA releases), it fell from that position, and many of the studios that had been built on that either collapsed or pivoted.

And yeah, that led to a drought of major/successful/good adventure games, but only from about 1999 (though there were some holdovers from the 90s boom that came out that year, including The Longest Journey, Gabriel Knight 3 and Discworld Noir) to about 2004. And even in that fallow period you had games like Syberia, some solid Nancy Drew titles, Samorost, and players managing to convince themselves that Runaway was a good game.

Ever since the comeback (on a more suitable, modest scale), the genre/industry has been pretty stableâ€"aside from the breakout success of The Walking Dead. That's sixteen years, longer than the whole period between King's Quest I and Grim Fandango!

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 14/05/2020 10:44:39
I'm not sure for how long this debate will go on being fun...

Well, I seemed to have killed the thread...not sure why, though. :-D

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 14/05/2020 10:44:39
Oh sorry. I didn't realize that when discussing "classic point-and-click mechanics," what we were talking about was the 1989 game Future Wars by French developer Delphine.  ;)

Which why I said "one of the the worst offenders", while holding it up as an example of the kind of poor execution that can highlight some possible design pitfalls when using a traditional (or derivative of) point-and-click interface. Of course, certain UIs are obviously better than others, and I'm not saying point-and-click is crap because X game is crap. But in my opinion, most point-and-click interfaces share the same DNA, and should be considered when discussing the "genre", regardless of proliferation or age. Perhaps you find that too wide of a net to cast, or unfair, but it's just the way I look at it.

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 14/05/2020 10:44:39
I don't know that I believe that argument can be made for any control system or interface (depending on how much work we're willing to let "everything is designed well" do).

Then we just disagree on this point. But, I'd like to add a "within reason" to my original point, as I'm not going to argue that a control system that requires you to kick a small dog against your keyboard is anything other than a bad interface. :)

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 14/05/2020 10:44:39
But even if we grant that: Aren't you now conceding the entire argument? If it's just a matter of personal preference, there is no basis for calling the classic mechanic "outdated"; just not to your personal taste.

Well, my argument was never wholly based on the point-and-click interface being universally redundant, and I made it clear that various points of my argument where indeed just personal opinions and preferences. Having said that, I do believe that there is no place for certain aspects of these interfaces in modern game design except for nostalgia's sake. I don't think I can add anything else to that point without repeating myself.

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 14/05/2020 10:44:39
It seems like the biggest concrete criticism you've made of the classic adventure game paradigm is that they're not direct control. And, well, the point-and-click UI is not direct control.

No, I said that direct control could make more sense, in certain cases, and that it was a personal preference of mine. And I gave examples of those titles I though played better with direct control. I never argued that direct-control was universally better (at least, I don't think I did), or that we should apply that argument to all adventure games throughout history.

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 14/05/2020 10:44:39
Of course, first of all, adventure games never stopped being made.

In so much as they stopped being commercially viable for industry leaders, to the point that they ceased to make them. Yes, developers were trying new things with FMV (much of Sierra's later output, for example), but these were, I think, even more prone to creative/design bottlenecks and hampered by the limitations of format. I'd also argue against these being attempts to evolve the genre (not that you were), and more of an attempt to plug the holes in a sinking ship. Regardless, adventures fell out of favor. This wasn't down to lack of (or even a need for) evolution (and I don't think I previously argued that it was), but to changing market tastes. Of course, as you say, they didn't disappear entirely, but they certainly became more niche and far less likely to trouble the top of the sales charts. At least, until the mid 2000s or so.

Quote from: Snarky on Thu 14/05/2020 10:44:39
-and the genre struggled to incorporate new developments...

I don't know if they struggled, or if the desire to fund them just wasn't there, seeing as the sales weren't. We have 3D adventures today that cope perfectly well with point-and-click, though, so we can't argue (again, not that you were) any incompatibilities between traditional point-and-click values and modern game technology.

At this point, I'll admit to possibly tripping over my own arguments as this thread has wore on, so I'll sum up with these points (opinions):

I believe that modern point-and-click adventure games adhere to certain mechanics out of nostalgia rather than efficient design. I believe that any "evolution" (if required) of the point-and-click adventure (which means different things to different people), may negate a large portion of what some may consider essential elements of the genre. And I believe that optimum refined examples of the point-and-click interface currently exist (and serve their purpose perfectly well), which I admit to preferring over classic or traditional examples, and which I see as the best path forward for future point-and-click adventure development.

But I also believe that some fans conflate "point-and-click" and "adventure" to a detrimental degree, and that some games would indeed be better not being point-and-click.

And that's it, I suppose. :)

I think I flatly disagree with your analysis of what happened in the late nineties/turn of the millennium. You seem to argue that people lost interest because the genre had gone stale, and that this led to less investment which caused it to fall behind technologically. I believe it had nothing to do with the genre being "stale" (apart perhaps from a backlash against FMV games), and all to do with technology.

As for 3D, there's obviously been huge progress: just because we can do something today doesn't mean it could be done (design or technology-wise) in 1999â€"2000. Look at games like Gabriel Knight 3, Escape from Monkey Island, Simon the Sorcerer 3D. One thing they have in common: they are hideously ugly and awkward (and were considered so even at the time), because of 3D.

But again, I don't find that part of the discussion very interesting.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 15/05/2020 00:27:35
I believe that modern point-and-click adventure games adhere to certain mechanics out of nostalgia rather than efficient design.

Like what?

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 15/05/2020 00:27:35I believe that any "evolution" (if required) of the point-and-click adventure (which means different things to different people), may negate a large portion of what some may consider essential elements of the genre.

Such as?

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 15/05/2020 00:27:35And I believe that optimum refined examples of the point-and-click interface currently exist (and serve their purpose perfectly well), which I admit to preferring over classic or traditional examples

For example?

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 15/05/2020 07:00:02
I think I flatly disagree with your analysis of what happened in the late nineties/turn of the millennium.

That's absolutely fine. It's just my take on it.

Gaming tastes changed, publishers stopped green-lighting adventures, developers who specialized in adventures either made fewer of them, which lesser budgets, or tried migrating to other genres. I don't think we disagree much on that.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 15/05/2020 07:00:02
As for 3D, there's obviously been huge progress: just because we can do something today doesn't mean it could be done (design or technology-wise) in 1999â€"2000. Look at games like Gabriel Knight 3, Escape from Monkey Island, Simon the Sorcerer 3D. One thing they have in common: they are hideously ugly and awkward (and were considered so even at the time), because of 3D.

Those 3D adventures that you mention, though, with possibly the exception of Escape from Monkey Island (which is not nearly as much of a disaster as those other two), which were produced at a time when the (traditional) adventure was (supposedly) dead, and when publishers would have been eyeing other genres and technologies, I feel strengthen my argument, seeing as the reasons they probably turned out so badly was down to budget constraints and developer incompetence, rather than an inability for that tech to work as intended.

The three titles you mentioned were released in 1999, 2000, and 2002, a post-Half Life world. The Playstation 2 (!) launched right in the middle of this period. 3D tech was at a perfectly acceptable level during this time. So to argue that, while we have fine 3D adventures today, the technology was somehow against them being good back then (if this is indeed what you're arguing) isn't something I can get behind. Design doesn't even come into it, I feel, as the modern 3D adventures I consider "good" do nothing spectacular in that department.

In fact, if we look beyond the PC (and the English speaking world), we see plenty of 3D adventures, sometimes even incorporating a point-and-click interface, coming out of Japan during this period (and even earlier). Playstation 1 games such as Flower, Sun, and Rain, The Silver Case, Mizzurna Falls, Aconcagua, the Twilight Syndrome series, and the Clock Tower series, just to name a few, are all recognizably adventure games (Clock Tower's Playstation sequels, like the original SNES title, sport point-and-click interfaces and inventory puzzles, as does Acongagua). And while nobody could claim the Playstation was cutting edge technology (it was what it was), and while these games may visually look as bad, if not worse, than the titles you mentioned, it has little bearing (to me) on  their ability to entertain or on their developers ability to make a worthwhile game.

The only reason the games you mentioned were bad, in my eyes, was largely down to budget (impacted by lack of sales and changing tastes) or ineptitude (with maybe a dash of developer reluctance).

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 15/05/2020 07:00:02
But again, I don't find that part of the discussion very interesting.

That's unfortunate, as I find it fascinating, and an important part of the debate. Fair enough, though.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 15/05/2020 07:00:02

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 15/05/2020 00:27:35
I believe that modern point-and-click adventure games adhere to certain mechanics out of nostalgia rather than efficient design.

Like what?

Well...I could say most of them, but that's a bit silly. Specific examples? I don't know...the last Broken Sword game? Moebius: Empire Rising? Any kickstarted adventure game that promised it was bringing back the feel of "the classics!"? And one that did it on purpose: Thimbleweed Park. Even titles I consider perfectly fine otherwise!

Whether this is a bad thing is, of course, down to the individual.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 15/05/2020 07:00:02

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 15/05/2020 00:27:35I believe that any "evolution" (if required) of the point-and-click adventure (which means different things to different people), may negate a large portion of what some may consider essential elements of the genre.

Such as?

Can I say the pointing and the clicking? :-D Seriously, though, I did say "may" negate, rather than "will", but everything that you would consider a "classic" adventure game to possess; from the limited interactions with a (usually) static enviroment, to the interface itself. That maybe to evolve you would be left with no other choice than to destroy. Feel free to disagree, as I don't expect everybody to see it this way, nor do I claim that it's how things should be. Just one possibility.

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 15/05/2020 07:00:02

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 15/05/2020 00:27:35And I believe that optimum refined examples of the point-and-click interface currently exist (and serve their purpose perfectly well), which I admit to preferring over classic or traditional examples

For example?

As I said earlier, anything by Adventure Arts, for example, plays perfectly well, using a UI I consider closest to what I would desire in a modern take on traditional point-and-click interface. They manage to incorporate largely traditional inventory/environment puzzles, and familiar dialog systems, but within a streamlined experience. Having said that, they also play much like Syberia, which is almost twenty years old...

Maybe they're not so "modern". :-\

I think of anything post-Syberia as modern, a game that came out in 2002. Make of that what you will. It either means I'm way out of touch, or that I feel that certain point-and-click design templates have remained largely static for almost two decades.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Sat 16/05/2020 01:58:55

Quote from: Snarky on Fri 15/05/2020 07:00:02

Quote from: LimpingFish on Fri 15/05/2020 00:27:35
I believe that modern point-and-click adventure games adhere to certain mechanics out of nostalgia rather than efficient design.

Like what?

Well...I could say most of them, but that's a bit silly. Specific examples? I don't know...the last Broken Sword game? Moebius: Empire Rising? Any kickstarted adventure game that promised it was bringing back the feel of "the classics!"? And one that did it on purpose: Thimbleweed Park. Even titles I consider perfectly fine otherwise!

Whether this is a bad thing is, of course, down to the individual.

I was more looking for specific mechanics, but some game examples is a good starting point, certainly. I do think (based on second-hand impression: I've only played Thimbleweed Park and possibly some of the kickstarted games) that most of the games in that list are more backwards-looking than the average contemporary point-and-clicker:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR6lQPaCyso

Not sure a "best of" list would be fair as examples of average contemporary point & clickers, but even so, it's a bit telling that most of the best of Adventuregamers are rated average to mixed (metacritic critical and steam user scores), and they're mostly just as backward looking (unless you meant something else than "traditional point & click adventure game" by that).

I'm not sure I'm explaining my point very clearly. I guess I could say that it feels odd to me that there's this very particular strain of adventure games that have remained mechanically and structurally unchanged since the early 90s, and that strain makes up a significant portion of "adventure games" as a whole.

Why is it strage? If players still want to play those kind of games? Would you not make them? Specially if you also like them?

Quote from: Babar on Sat 16/05/2020 16:42:20
I'm not sure I'm explaining my point very clearly. I guess I could say that it feels odd to me that there's this very particular strain of adventure games that have remained mechanically and structurally unchanged since the early 90s, and that strain makes up a significant portion of "adventure games" as a whole.

Because there's an audience for them.
And the only reason they appear to make up a significant portion of adventure games as a whole to you, is because you're a part of that audience.
In actual reality, they make up quite a small portion. That's like saying old fashioned Doom mods make up the majority of the FPS genre. Which you would probably think if you really got into the Doom mod scene (it's very active).
Trust me, things always seem more popular when you're part of the group that's really into it.