Casualizing Point and Click Adventures article at Gamasutra

[TerranRich]

The thing is, nearly all applications have a right-click feature, and the workaround on a Mac is Cmd-click (or sometimes holding down the mouse button for a period of time). So this isn't an excuse. I actually prefer the two-click method (left for walk/look, right for interact) over the one-click method (cuts down interaction possibilities by half).

[Trumgottist]

Here's a relevant video you might find interesting: http://vimeo.com/10853366 (I've only glanced at the article and this discussion - will read it properly tomorrow - so apologies if it's already been mentioned.)

Edit: Now that I've read through this thread properly, I don't want to touch the subject in this forum.

[ThreeOhFour]

On an amusing side note, the term "Dumbing down" adventure games makes me think of this old article and how "smart" adventure games really are, ho ho ho 

[Igor Hardy]

So to all you English native speakers, what does the term "dumbing down" really mean?

My dictionary explains it as "simplifying" or "lowering the intellectual level of something". Is that an unfaithful translation, or are those terms also controversial in the context of this discussion?

[Calin Leafshade]

the phrase for me conjures up something like

"Let's make this game for the stupid people that arent as clever as we, the almighty old-school adventure gamers."

as ddq said.. it's just elitism

[blueskirt]

I can't wait for gamers to discard those stupid "Casual" and "Hardcore" labels for more fitting ones. Casual can either mean a lack of skill or a lack of free time. You can say whatever you want, an old grandma who plays Bejeweled 50 hours a week is ways more hardcore than someone who plays HL2 6 hours a week.

Personally I have no problem with optimization and pandering to the skilled players who lack free time, sometimes short intense rides are better than long boring ones. I don't agree that pandering to casual players is the next step in the evolution of adventure gaming. It's a step in a different direction, which will lead to very different kinds of adventure games for very different kinds of players (which is a good thing even if I may not play a lot of them), but I don't think all games should walk this path.

I believe there is plenty of ways to bring adventure games to the next step, optimization and adventures' arbitrary conventions has been discussed a lot recently, I am also deeply convinced that finding new ways to deal with the puzzle solving aspect in adventure games, other than inventory puzzles, while keeping the brain teasing aspect intact, could bring a wind of fresh air in the genre and open up new story avenues that would have been impossible with the current bread and butter that is inventory puzzles.

Regarding points the article brought up:
I think any games that are structured in hours/days like Gabriel Knight, should adopt the progress meter and objectives reminder ideas, althrough in a more subtle form. Who knows the number of hours I wasted when I played Gabriel Knight, looking for the one action that would finally makes the game switches to the next day.

I don't think it's a good idea to trim dialogues to the bare minimum. Unless if you're willing to walk the extra mile and start pumping full blown animated cutscenes, such cuts in dialogues will damage your game plot, and since meeting new characters and developing the plot is a reward (if not the main reward for veteran adventure games players), it's also counter intuitive to the "Reward Early, Reward Often" points in the article.

[Gravity]

Well in all fairness it really isn't just adventure games that are being simplified. Many genres are getting the whole 'face lift' allowing a broader range of people to play them. After all, making the game more accessible to all types of gamers means more profit. Fortunately there are still indie and amateur developers who cater to use more old school gamers who like more than just flashy animations, sounds, and graphics. A lot of people love simpler games because it is getting harder to find time to play in depth games that require a lot of thinking, planning, and the like.

If you work nine or more hours a day everyday and come home to relax a little, if you play something that require a great deal of time you feel like you didn't make any progress at all. However, you get home, hope on the pc and play a casual game you get a more accomplished feeling as you may have completed many 'levels' or whatever in just a short time.

This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but games are becoming more 'accessible' and some of us just don't get it. Personally I still prefer games with gameplay and story and all that to just a bunch of exploding squares with flashy graphics.

[Igor Hardy]

the phrase for me conjures up something like

"Let's make this game for the stupid people that arent as clever as we, the almighty old-school adventure gamers."

as ddq said.. it's just elitism

Then all my previous posts where I used the term are partially broken, because I wasn't thinking about it in this way. I just meant it as "simplifying" and I don't see anything wrong with simplifying some adventure games, and I enjoy playing some of those myself as I'm not always up to the full adventure gaming challenge. However, I definitely don't evaluate this tendency as progress in game design. It is a certain evolution (adaptation to dominating audience), but it also is very confining for both the player and the designer. Likewise it can never bring the same quality of intellectual challenges and interactivity as traditional adventure games.

[TerranRich]

Throwing around stupid terms like "elitism" is absurd.

Sorry, but somebody please tell me... how is using flashy graphical effects and sparkly particle effects not dumbing things down? How is using gems to reward the player for wiping his ass (I'm exaggerating, of course) not patronizing and insulting? I'd be insulted if I played a game like that. It basically assumes I'm too fucking stupid to know which mouse button to click, because dammit, reading is hard.

[Calin Leafshade]

on what level is elitism a stupid term? It's totally fitting.

and i dont see why graphical effects in particular are such a problem... Peggle is *full* of them and yet i've logged hours and hours of play on peggle despite being fairly hardcore as a gamer.  I like eye candy including flashy particle effects.

I do feel that some games lost alot from their simplification (Deus Ex: IW for instance) but streamlining is not inherently bad and frankly after replaying some of the classic sierra games I think adventure games are better for it. Dreamfall is a prime example of a game that benefitted from streamlining and consolification (fighting mechanic not withstanding)

[Gravity]

This discussion is a lot like others I've read. Such as with anime. Subs not dubs. And vice versa. Any subject such as this has those who are for and those who are against and others still who are in the middle. Obviously you don't want to set a person up with a very detailed and complex game when it is their first foray into the genre. Start off with something a little less daunting, maybe a little simpler and as they gain experience and a love for it let them crank it up. While I am by no means totally against making adventure games casual like, I do think there is plenty of room in the genre for all sorts of gamers both hardcore, elitist, casual and more. As long as people keep making games so every category of gamer can satisfy their gaming needs, then what harm is being done?

[TerranRich]

I'm talking about in adventure games. Stupid particle effects and gems have no place in adventure games. Plain and simple.

As for casual games like Peggle, that's fine and dandy, because that's what the genre calls for. Casual gamers evidently dig that kind of stuff.

Is it elitism to demand something more intelligent than fireworks and silly rewards for wiping your ass? Then so be it.

[Ryan Timothy B]

I honestly don't see any issues with fancy particles and shimmering.  I think it's eye candy that is usually worthwhile if not overdone.

Look at The Tales of Bingwood and how when you pick up a new inventory item, little fairy dust particles explode from the inventory item that is added in the inventory bar.  I thought it was a great idea.  The particles didn't dumb down the game by any means.  It just makes things more rewarding than they are.  And old adventure games aren't very rewording at all. 

I am totally down for making adventure games less finicky.  Minimalism in adventure games is something I definitely support.

Just because we know how to play adventure games, doesn't mean today's generation should.  I doubt if my young step brother who is half my age would understand the concepts and controls.  I strongly support an easy learning curve / training room for the first room or two.  Perhaps even with a toggle to turn off the training.


Oh and Terran, I believe it was you who mentioned earlier that you think it's logical to have the Left mouse Walk/Look and Right to Interact.  I actually disagree with that.  I think it's completely backwards that the primary action is in the place of the secondary mouse button.  I would be very frustrated for the first few minutes until I reversed my ways.  You should definitely add the ability to swap the controls in the menu - also swapping the mouse for left/right handed people; which, by the way, is what I will always do for any adventure game I make. 

Don't make your controls only suitable to the way you believe it should be, unless you want people to possibly get frustrated.  This wasn't an attack, I'm just voicing my opinion.

[denimtrousers]

After having read the article, it seems to me that new developers are throwing away the good bits that made adventure gaming fun in the first place, and replacing them with things that would be better suited for an online Flash game. Their reasoning is noble and sound -- to give new players an easy 'edge' into the adventure game genre -- but it goes against common sense, which states that everyone starts from somewhere. What I mean is, nobody decided to give new RPG-gamers an edge by having side-scrolling levels wherein the player collects coins and power-ups in between lengthy turn-based battles. I mean, it only took me five minutes before I realized hitting B didn't do anything in Final Fantasy for the NES. So why add casual-gaming sensibilities to an already well-established genre? If a player likes what adventure games have to offer, then they'll jump right in. If not, they'll jump right out. Simple as that.

I was never given an edge when I played Day of the Tentacle for the first time. Nobody had to instruct me where to go to find the crowbar, or how to use it to pry the wad of gum off the floor; it was all common sense, especially with all those massive verbs cluttering the bottom of the screen. I didn't require any flashy incentive by way of gems or tokens to get me from Point A to Point B. For me, it was all about solving the puzzle, and I was rewarded with humorous cut scenes, and an advancement of the plot. I mean, I wanted to know what was going to happen, what Purple Tentacle was up to, and what Bernard and gang were going to do to stop him. And if it meant keeping me away from my homework for an hour while I fried my brains trying to figure it out, then all the better.

On another note, this quote from the article really made the hairs on my neck stand on end:

What is the point of having a player need to exit your game to consult a walkthrough? Why not include this for players that need it?

Now, okay, I admit to having an earnest desire to find at least some help with a few of my games, namely King's Quest VI. But at what point was it necessary to start including walkthroughs and hints within the game? Flash games do that sort of thing because it's already on the Internet, but the entire point of playing an adventure game is using your own wits (and perhaps a good encyclopaedia and/or dictionary, and occasionally a hand-drawn map on a sheet of graphing paper) to solve the puzzle. And that's all there is to it, really.

Now, that's not to say that a good number of adventure games have some seriously whacked-out puzzles (I'm looking at you, Sierra), but the entire genre is based on the pre-Internet idea that you're on your own. If another friend of yours had the same game, great, the two of you might share info and solves and things like that to help each other progress, but the point was that only you figured it out. You weren't reading off a piece of paper telling you exactly what to do, exactly where to go; it was just you and your noggin. Hell, even the old hint books with nerdy moustachioed men on the covers required you do a bit of puzzle solving before giving you the answer! But I guess that isn't good enough anymore. Everyone wants it now, now, now, even when playing a game that's designed to make you think.

All right. Rant over.

I'm Jon, by the way. New to the forums, long-time AGS gamer. Hello.

[Babar]

Hello trousers! Welcome!

You can't really blame designers for wanting to make the game so that it can be enjoyed by the most amount of people. You'd be surprised by the number of people who use the computer every day, but if they are faced with a new interface, or a game, or something, they will freeze up....and yet they'd still really enjoy a lot of video games.

Now, okay, I admit to having an earnest desire to find at least some help with a few of my games, namely King's Quest VI. But at what point was it necessary to start including walkthroughs and hints within the game? Flash games do that sort of thing because it's already on the Internet, but the entire point of playing an adventure game is using your own wits (and perhaps a good encyclopaedia and/or dictionary, and occasionally a hand-drawn map on a sheet of graphing paper) to solve the puzzle. And that's all there is to it, really.

We live in a world of the internet, so you can't really blame a person for checking for a walkthrough after just a couple moments of being stuck. If an adventure game is designed today without taking this into consideration, then it are bound to fail. Back then we would search every room, talk again to every person, move the mouse around every bit of the screen when we got stuck not because we enjoyed doing such things, but because we had no other choice. I wouldn't say that sort of stuff should be aimed for.

If you ask me, it is the IDEA behind adventure games that should be there, people shouldn't be clinging to the mechanics, especially since they seem to have so epically failed. Exploration, "Adventure", fun, overcoming obstacles, etc. Shouldn't matter if the game is 2D or 3D, mouse or keyboard controlled, verb-coin or single click, Save with F5 or ESC.

As for the whole sparkly vs non-sparkly thing, I don't get why it is an issue. I wouldn't necessarily see it as a problem, the same way I wouldn't see the mouse glowing when it moves over a hotspot as a problem. Or the status-line giving the name of the object as a problem. Adventure games are already so static (still backgrounds, still standing characters just facing each other and moving their mouths for talking) that a little sparkliness makes things more interesting. It is like little animations that are done whenever the player does stuff...it adds to the experience, doesn't "dumb things down".

For the record, when I originally played the demo for Emerald City, I didn't even notice the sparkly thing. I do remember noting how the inventory item flew into the slot, but not because I disliked it, just because it was different, interesting.
I notice that when someone has an interesting or novel "gimmick" in their game, or writing, or drawing, most people don't really pay attention to it, or just think "huh...cool", until someone associates it with something else with a few choice words, then everyone is up in arms.

If there was a game with the mouse cursor as a magic wand, that "fizzled" every time someone clicked something important (and I'm sure I've seen games like this, but I don't remember), nobody would think twice about it. Mention how it is used for "dumbing down the game" to appeal to a bigger base, and everyone hates it.

[Calin Leafshade]

If there was a game with the mouse cursor as a magic wand, that "fizzled" every time someone clicked something important (and I'm sure I've seen games like this, but I don't remember), nobody would think twice about it. Mention how it is used for "dumbing down the game" to appeal to a bigger base, and everyone hates it.

Discworld 2 had this i think.. and possibly the simon games.

RT is totally right when he talks about minimalism in the interface. if there is *any*genre that demands minimalism then its this one.
The more simple and intuitive the interface, the greater the immersion.

[Anian]

Just because we know how to play adventure games, doesn't mean today's generation should.  I doubt if my young step brother who is half my age would understand the concepts and controls.  I strongly support an easy learning curve / training room for the first room or two.  Perhaps even with a toggle to turn off the training.

My neighbors daughter has been playing World of warcraft since she was 10. Not only her but her whole class played it.
New generations are far more adapt, only the "older" might get fussy, like my dad (50ish) who can program card authorisation programs that are used for the whole country, but for example using tabs in Firefox just confused the hell out of him. But on that note, he's someone who won't try to learn or understand anything unless he's really interested. He's reaction to sparkle might be "why the hell is this sparkling aaaaahhh." 

[Igor Hardy]

RT is totally right when he talks about minimalism in the interface. if there is *any*genre that demands minimalism then its this one.
The more simple and intuitive the interface, the greater the immersion.

The genre doesn't demand anything specific. You're just projecting your likes on it, and saying that this is how it must be done.

Also, you have apparently changed your mind from a couple of months ago when you put a verbcoin in your game and didn't see that it goes against "the genre's demands".

You can't really blame designers for wanting to make the game so that it can be enjoyed by the most amount of people.

If that is the thing that the designer cares about the most, then there's a high probability a lousy game will be created. Even if you can't blame the designer. On the other hand getting the players' attention in the casual games market, through the casual games portals is very difficult and I don't recommend anyone here trying that (unless they join up a large company of course). From the point of view of such amateur/inde designers (not players) as we are, all those simplifications, adaptations and rules-of-thumb are a waste of time - we simply have no audience that will appreciate them.

[Monsieur OUXX]

In this discussion there's a huge confusion between the concepts of "simple UI" and "simple gameplay", which are fundamentally different (even though a simple gameplay often requires a simple UI, of course).

[denimtrousers]

Obviously, when it comes to something like this, there are going to be a series of camps of ideology. For the most part, the ones who design adventure games are to fulfill a sense of nostalgia left from the Golden Age of Adventure Gaming, and will insist on keeping things SCUMMy. Then there are those who seek to do something a little different, but still lean towards the conservative side of things. And then you've got designers (and gamers and critics) who can't stand the old systems, and worse yet those who deign to continue implementing them. So it's all subjective, a matter of personal aesthetic and taste. But as far as design goes, if the developer is really passionate about making a game their own, then they will (hopefully) deliver a game that can be enjoyed.