Interview: Jonathan Blow wants to modernize adventure games

[blueskirt]

I don't think he's right but he's not entirely wrong either. Adventures games progressed technically but the core design remained the same since Zork, Myst and Monkey Island, you don't see much procedurally generated murder mystery or multiplayer adventure games or brand new ideas like that, and you don't see much games like Loom or The Last Express, people tend to stick to Zork, Myst, King's Quest or Monkey Island in term of design.

In the case of IF, sure you can now type stuff like "Pick up the vase, the keys and look under the desk" but do they react to commands like "How big is the vase? What color is it? What's under the desk? Where am I?" You don't see much articles about design or the actual mechanics of adventure games like Vince Twelve's article on badly designed interfaces and how useless it is to have two different verbs to talk and interact when you never talk with objects or physically interact with NPCs, an article that left a huge impact considering the number of AGS games released in the last years that used only two buttons, one to walk and interact and another to examine.

I also don't think anyone should feel offended or take Blow's remark personally or get the impression they're part of the problem either. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using the same old mechanics or making a game like Monkey Island if that's what you want to make, Abbaye Des Morts was one of the best platformer I played last year and it was a very basic yet fun platformer, same thing with Tiny Barbarian released earlier this year. You don't have to tread new grounds if you don't want to, I forgot who here keep saying this but to quote him or her, make the game you want to make. But I think we should all feel concerned that adventure games design are still stuck in the nineties.

[Igor Hardy]

I definitely agree that finally working out the solution to a puzzle after having been stuck on it for a while can be rewarding, but I think that after the first few minutes, while you're ransacking your brain for possible avenues of progress, the period of being stuck is effectively a time when the game is broken.

I seem to be that odd person who, when stuck, enjoys just walking around adventure game worlds, listening to the background music, trying all the different interactions (that's one of the reasons why I enjoy more complex interfaces) and even repeating certain dialogs with other characters (I hate when the game doesn't allow you to do that). I feel more confined and powerless when I'm stuck in a linear level of an action or strategy or puzzle game.

When was the last time something "fresh" was inserted in the genre?

Like anian, I think you could just as well argue there it's been years since we've seen something "fresh" in other genres. Or I could say that for example Ben's "!" felt really fresh and different to me - I loved having all the locations condensed on one screen. And I was impressed how decision making was handled in Downfall. Gemini Rue's "leg interactions" are something quite interesting too - it's not just Full Throttle like kicking.

"Something fresh" can be pretty much anything, not just Loom's unique interface which was rather tedious to use for me.

[Babar]

But the calling of it as being "outdated" isn't because of improvements in technology (such as your examples using books and paintings). It's because of it being a style or genre that is just...outdated.
I suppose it may just be semantics here, I'd consider "stale" and "outdated" to mean mostly the same thing.

But I'm talking about creation of the thing here, not the actual thing itself. Monkey Island is still a great game (especially if you haven't played the 5 billion derivatives that came after). Much of Bach's music is still awesome. But if someone tried making a game exactly in the style of Monkey Island or making music like Bach, it'd just be weird, and a "good copy" at best, or (more likely) crap at worst.

I can't really answer you about RTSes, as I really don't find them very interesting . I played....Warcraft 1 and 2, and even 3 when it came out, and I believe I probably played one of the Command and Conquers at some point, but they really don't stick in mind other than "1) build up troops and support 2) Attack". My favourite strategy game (for some inexplicable reason) is Colonization (the original one). It's turn-based, though, but that doesn't stop me from coming back to it about every year, and spending a week of almost continuous play beating it.

FPSes were pretty stale genre too, but then (people tell me that) Half-Life changed all of that. Personally, I still find them all very samey, but at least with FPSes I'm able to have some mindless fun whenever I want, so it makes for a good time waster.

As an aside, I'm going through the video GarageGothic linked, and it makes a very interesting definition for "Adventure Games" (as I consider and love them), but without calling them that. One of his suggestions for good game design" is story progression, i.e., not just having an initial condition and requiring the player to "solve" that.

You'd think that an adventure game would automatically have story progression, and it should, but many people don't seem to have that. For example, "I am at an archaelogical dig site, and I must go deeper in" is the initial condition and "I've made it to the deepest inside level of the dig site, some grand mystery has been shown, and I win!" is the end condition of an AGS "adventure game" I recently played. It had no story progression, just a situation that had been lengthened and "interactified" by artificially inserting puzzles into it.

The main focus of an adventure game shouldn't be the puzzles, and when the puzzles basically become the story, it's all lost

I have to rescue the princess - Okay, I've gotten to the castle - Okay! I've gotten past the guard in the castle - Okay, I've gotten/manufactured the key to the dungeon door! - Okay, I've gotten the princess! - Okay, now I've escaped the castle with the princess - Yay! I've won!

Isn't an adventure game in any sense at all to me, and is probably simply total boredom. But by mode7's definition (and I'm not knocking mode7 here, just that he exemplified the general understand of adventure games here), it is an "adventure game".

EDIT: As a response to a point Ascovel brought up that I hadn't responded to, I also enjoy the exploration aspect of many adventure games, and it most certainly can be counted as a form of gameplay for me. And the feeling I get when I find something new in my explorations is almost as rewarding as solving a puzzle to advance the story.

[Absentia]

The main focus of an adventure game shouldn't be the puzzles, and when the puzzles basically become the story, it's all lost

I'm only half in agreement here, but I might just be misunderstanding you. I think in an ideal adventure game, the story would be told through the puzzles, rather than puzzles being obstacles for story progression.  In fact, calling them 'puzzles' makes them feel separate from the rest of the game. It's an awfully difficult thing to design and keep consistent, but ideally puzzles need to be almost as important to the storyline as cutscenes and dialogue. It's my view that for good storytelling in games, the actions of the player (not the player's character) should be what directly relates to the story. That's not to say you don't need cutscenes / 'story progression'  but they should give a clear link between what the player did and what resulted. I'd rather think of story progression as an ongoing thing that's inclusive of puzzles, since theyre pretty much the most 'complex' way that the player can interact.

EDIT: As a response to a point Ascovel brought up that I hadn't responded to, I also enjoy the exploration aspect of many adventure games, and it most certainly can be counted as a form of gameplay for me. And the feeling I get when I find something new in my explorations is almost as rewarding as solving a puzzle to advance the story.

Agreed. I get the feeling that exploration is an overlooked element of adventure games.  Monkey Island has always had explorable islands that are avaliable from the onset of the game, which works great, but I'd love to see that taken a step further and have an even bigger explorable world,  almost like in an RPG.


I think the inherent 'flaw' in adventure games that Blow talks about is actually more of a 'hurdle.' The kinds of actions your player performs in adventure games are so much more detailed than in other genres. Most people know what a gun does, and most shooters will make it clear that there's a button which will fire your gun.  I'm sure a gun could be used for a few other nifty things that don't involve firing it, in the same way that Gordon Freeman's crowbar wasn't built for swinging at headcrabs, but you likely won't come across it over the course of a shooter (barring a QTE.)

Since there are potentially a limitless amount of actions that a character can do in an adventure game, both the functional uses and the unofficial uses of an item are valid. Then it becomes incredibly easy to start to enter the realm of subjection in regards to what the purpose of an item or some element of the world is.  In many adventure games, the lack of detail on objects (not so much on a visual level, but thats certainly a part of it) and the lack of explanation as to what the object might be used for (not just the functional use) leads to players falling back on their own ideas based on things that they know of in real life.  This is bad, because not everyone has the same experiences, knows the same things, and you have to design the game to only work in one way...most of the time.

I think the general problem is that making good adventure game puzzles is actually really freaking hard. You need to strike the balance between giving the player everything he needs to know (apart from logical deductions) but not holding his hand, not letting it become too nonsensical, but then still making it challenging enough that the player feels at least a little bit smart.

Another thing I think isn't done enough with adventure games is non-linearity. I imagine mostly because it'd be *insanely* difficult to do it well.  I would love to see adventure games where the manner in which you solve a puzzle has a consequence on the story, where dialogue isn't just a way to get hints and establish characters, but it can change elements of the story. Or perhaps the order in which you visit locations can impact the story as well.  Too often an adventure game is boiled down to this puzzles + story idea, but if most people identify an adventure game by its control scheme and interface, then it seems to me that there is a lot of unused potential in the genre.

[Babar]

Sorry for the somewhat trollish resurrection, but I just rediscovered this thread, and I have to say, for all its innovation, I don't think The Witness modernised adventure games at all.

It may have possibly participated in the creation of a new nascent genre (dunno what you'd call it- the discoveroguelike?) along with games like Obra Dinn and Outer Wilds and Tunic and the like, but however we define "adventure games" as a genre (when we figure it out),  I don't think it scratches that same itch at all.

In fact, I've had a hard time gettting into those games, as a player, but even with an academic 'game designer' perspective. With all of these games, I just flounder about at the surface level for a bit before giving up out of frustration or boredom.

[Danvzare]

however we define "adventure games" as a genre (when we figure it out),  I don't think it scratches that same itch at all.

Clara Fernández-Vara has written several articles about adventure games, including an entire dissertation. Mostly about point and click adventure games, but also about similar types of games such as hidden object games. And I think she comes closest to defining "adventure games" as a genre, and why people like us enjoy them.

I'll summarize it, but I just know that I won't be doing it justice. So take what I'm about to say with a pinch of salt.
Basically, her definition to my understanding is that "adventure games" are about exploration of a world in order to effectively participate in a stage-play without a script. You learn about the world in order to figure out what you're supposed to do in said world. Think about the final puzzle in The Secret of Monkey Island. Spraying a can of root beer to defeat the dreaded ghost pirate LeChuck, makes absolutely no sense. But in the context of the game and everything that led up to it, from the "thing's aren't what they seem" with the treasure map, the "substitutes are ok when it comes to magic" from the recipe, to the special root that kills ghosts, all leads to the conclusion that root beer will defeat LeChuck. What is nonsensical becomes the most natural conclusion.
And this playing along, is why we also enjoy playing through adventure games again and again, despite already knowing all of the story beats and puzzles. Because now we know the script, and can enjoy it in much the same way someone might enjoy acting in a stage play.
At least, that was my take away from her work.

But with that definition in my mind, I can safely say that The Witness seems similar on the surface, but is quite clearly distinct from "adventure games". Fulfilling only a small part of the definition. Having discovery and even some exploration, but missing the involvement of the player. (In other words, the opposite problem of games such as Firewatch.)

[RootBound]

But with that definition in my mind, I can safely say that The Witness seems similar on the surface, but is quite clearly distinct from "adventure games". Fulfilling only a small part of the definition. Having discovery and even some exploration, but missing the involvement of the player.

I'm usually a bit of a lurker in these conversations but I'd love to hear more detail about "missing the involvement of the player." As an amateur game designer I'm always looking to strengthen my understanding of what makes games fun or not fun (or whatever it is that makes "the witness" different), particularly when it comes to story and to puzzle solving.

[ThreeOhFour]

I enjoyed The Witness immensely when I first played it. I like solving puzzles, and it has an excellent puzzle sense, and some wonderfully devilish tricks it plays on you. The twist/reveal/whatever is worth experiencing firsthand, it's that good.

I revisited it a few weeks ago while thinking about design, and came away feeling quite empty in terms of what I wanted to take from it. The Witness is a world that exists to entertain you with logic. The things that it has to say are largely things that other people had to say that have been collated and acted nicely. The world that you explore is a world that you explore in order to find more facets of logic, and in finding those, you use them to solve more puzzles.

It's a Sisyphean cycle that ultimately has a wonderful moment where Sisyphus looks down at the boulder he's pushing up the hill and realises that it's the world, and on the world he sees himself pushing the world up a hill and it's a wonderful revelation and what it reveals is... more hills to push your boulder up.

I really like the logic tricks in The Witness. The process of slowly picking apart that knot of a world, concept by concept, trick by trick was one of the best puzzle solving experiences I've ever had, if not the best, and with a difficulty on par with Riven which left me feeling full when I had finally completed it. But in my head Riven exists as a world, a culture, a place where I spent time and learned about it. The Witness exists as a series of very good and beautiful logic puzzles.

[Danvzare]

But with that definition in my mind, I can safely say that The Witness seems similar on the surface, but is quite clearly distinct from "adventure games". Fulfilling only a small part of the definition. Having discovery and even some exploration, but missing the involvement of the player.

I'm usually a bit of a lurker in these conversations but I'd love to hear more detail about "missing the involvement of the player." As an amateur game designer I'm always looking to strengthen my understanding of what makes games fun or not fun (or whatever it is that makes "the witness" different), particularly when it comes to story and to puzzle solving.

By that, I meant that the player doesn't drive the plot or the gameplay in The Witness. You go from one puzzle to the next, not unlike Picross or perhaps even Tetris. Sure there's a bit of window dressing, not to the same extent as say Professor Layton. But the point I'm trying to make is that you could remove all of that window dressing and still have almost the exact same game. Now if you attempted to do that with for example, Day of the Tentacle, it'd be impossible. The characters, locations, and events, make the game what it is (and I don't mean in terms of story, I mean in terms of needing those things to solve the puzzles you're given). And the player exploring the world is what ends up making up the vast majority of that gameplay loop.

The best I can describe it, is that adventure games are like exploring a wiki. It's all there, easy to find, and nothing is hidden away. You simply have to pay attention. The fun comes from learning.
Meanwhile games like The Witness are closer to one of those puzzle books such as the Gravity Falls journals or that FNAF book The Freddy Files. Where the information is hidden away and has to be discovered. The fun comes from figuring things out.


A way I personally like to look at is (so now I'm firmly going into my own opinions here), is that the adventure game genre is built from three pillars. In order of importance these are: exploration, puzzles, and story. You remove one, and the whole thing collapses. You can emphasize one or two, and de-emphasize one or two, but do so too much and once again, it collapses. But it collapsing isn't a bad thing, as doing so allows you to craft it into a different genre. Perhaps something new.

I always like to think of an origin of a genre to get a better idea of its definition. Of course, such definitions change over time as the genre evolves, so you shouldn't let the origins dictate your thinking. But it's always a decent reference point. And the first Adventure game is the aptly named Adventure (funny how people complain about MetroidVanias being named as Metroid and Castlevania, but no one complains about Adventure games being named after Adventure). In Adventure you literally just explored a cave, solving an occasional puzzle in order to reach an endpoint. The entire game was about exploration with story being completely absent. So we can tell from that, that story not only became important to Adventure games after the fact, but that it's also the least important pillar.

Now let's compare Adventure to The Witness. At first glance, they might seem similar. You wander around a desolate environment solving puzzle until reaching an end goal. But look a little deeper and you'll see a fundamental difference. While The Witness is all about the puzzles, Adventure is all about the cave, namely the exploration of it. And how you go about exploring that cave, and the actions you take to explore it, is all down to you. Meanwhile with The Witness, how you solve those puzzles and the actions you take to solve those puzzles, are things you have to figure out or to put in other words, discover. It's the difference between solving one big puzzle (Adventure) vs a bunch of little small ones (The Witness).
...
Although I feel like I'm getting into meaningless semantics at this point. 
Perhaps I'm completely wrong, and the two are basically the same. Or perhaps I'm simply not smart enough to articulate the differences. I don't know. I can simply try my best to explain.



But yeah, I'm like you in the game design department. I love hearing about what makes a game fun or not fun for someone as well.
It's part of the reason why I love watching reviews of old games, and why I always gravitate to buying weird crappy games no one has ever heard of.
And for the record, The Witness is a really good game.    And although it's not what I would personally call an Adventure game, I can't argue that it's at least adjacent to to the genre (in much the same way as visual novels are).

I hope my rambling helped clear things up a bit.

[RootBound]

@Danvzare thanks for such a detailed answer! Really useful things to think about. I think it clears up a lot for me.

[Babar]

@Danvzare, from your description of The Witness, I suspect you haven't gotten very far into it. I don't think your portrayal is correct, and if you describe an "Adventure game" purely the way you did in your post (I personally don't consider puzzles at least from what I understand from that term, to be a "core pillar"), by that metric, The Witness WOULD be an adventure game.

Personally, I don't think it is, but am not sure I have the words to explain why. As I mentioned, it didn't scratch the same itch for me, but then I just realised, neither did Myst, so my understanding of the whole genre could be wrong.