Your take on the state of point and click adventure games.

[Furwerkstudio]

I was inspired to ask what is this board's general take on this topic by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

.

My take, it doing good for a niche market. It's pretty easy for new players to get into, "easy"* for new developers to cut their teeth on along with visual novels, and let's be honest many point and click games tend to good for older machines and laptops.

This is personal opinion but it sounds like Yahtzee has a case of sour grapes through the podcast, even with legit complaints of moon logic and brute force come off as bitter. Also I wish he would lay off the Anime hate, it's getting real old and uncalled for.

*Relatively speaking.

[Cassiebsg]

I'm amazed... that people PAY money to ask these guys questions! 

[Furwerkstudio]

I'm amazed... that people PAY money to ask these guys questions! 

That is amazing, too bad I really couldn't make it through that section because honestly the aforementioned knocking anime aesthetics after going on about how "point and click games are really dumb you guys".

I'll be blunt, he is not the best person to talk about game mechanics or puzzles because I remember playing 5 Days A Stranger and it's sequels, and the puzzles felt so "moon logical" (especially in Tribly's notes when I had to use the

Spoiler

puddle of water on the pills to "purify" them, or trying to figure out why does Soda sends one into the dark world.

[close]

).

Honestly I feel like without Zero Punctuation would be kind of a Chris-Chan figure for Point and Click games.

[Cassiebsg]

I never played any of his games, and I did listen to the entire thing, he comes out very arrogant IMHO.

But I do agree to a point that Adv. Games were more challenging back then, cause you had no walkthroughs, you either figured it out or you would be stuck until you figure it out (or a friend/relative figured it out). I like that, so I avoid solutions like the plague and hate in-built "hint" buttons telling me how to do it, since the feeling of "feeling smart" is one of the things I enjoy when solving puzzles, and having the solution thrown at me kills that satisfaction (even if I didn't use the hints). This was the exact reason why I never played Back to The future, when I was so eager to after finding out there was a 4 episode game... even though I selected the "no tutorial/no hints", the game was still telling me "go there, look at that..." yadayadayada...    I got even more annoyed, when I found out that no matter what I choose as a reply during the intro, the game would reply and continue as if I had chosen "the correct" answer... if you going to give the player 4 options of dialogue during an intro sequence, the least you could do was alter the intro/reply slightly... running the exact same answer makes this dialogue option useless. 

[Honza]

Listened to the whole thing too, found neither of them arrogant. Just sarcastic and mildly cynical, but I don't mind that personally . I don't agree with some of their takes - I still enjoy inventory puzzles for instance, and I think Tim Schafer is at least a decent game designer apart from being a great writer. But overall, point and clicks being so niche, it was still enjoyable to listen to someone talk about them at length in 2021.

This was the exact reason why I never played Back to The future, when I was so eager to after finding out there was a 4 episode game... even though I selected the "no tutorial/no hints", the game was still telling me "go there, look at that..." yadayadayada...    I got even more annoyed, when I found out that no matter what I choose as a reply during the intro, the game would reply and continue as if I had chosen "the correct" answer... if you going to give the player 4 options of dialogue during an intro sequence, the least you could do was alter the intro/reply slightly... running the exact same answer makes this dialogue option useless. 

I have to admit I just skimmed through late Telltale playthroughs on youtube, and I think I got the most out of them that way... the gameplay in those is so minimal and linear it feels more like a chore that keeps you from just watching the story :/.

[FormosaFalanster]

I inflicted myself the video. There is nothing new in what they say. Do they think they are the first ones to criticize that "yeah some old adventure games were too complicated and illogical, brute force, too hard", blabla? That was literaly everything told in a seminal article published in 2000: https://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html

Everyone has read this article already. More than 20 years ago.

Type "how adventure games died" in a search engine. Count how many people wrote long essays about the genre.

And there we have two guys who spent over an hour repeating what everyone has been debating for two decades. They are 20 years late to this.

He calls his video "the state of the genre in 2021" and he uses Day of the Tentacle to illustrate it, a game made in the 1990s. That would be interesting if he were pointing out what I personally think is the biggest problem of the genre in 2021 (the fact that too many people are fixated on old games) but he does not. He just has no idea what happens in 2021 so he talks about the genre as if we were still the day after Grim Fandango was first published.

[Furwerkstudio]

On the topic of difficultly, after playing Telltale games, I played their Sam and Max games and honestly it felt, hollow. Paradoxically hard and easy at the same time, kind of like a mirror version of Moon logic, where the solution is plain and underwhelming but still causes me to slap my head and go "how was I suppose to know that out?!"

I inflicted myself the video. There is nothing new in what they say. Do they think they are the first ones to criticize that "yeah some old adventure games were too complicated and illogical, brute force, too hard", blabla? That was literaly everything told in a seminal article published in 2000: https://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html

Everyone has read this article already. More than 20 years ago.

Type "how adventure games died" in a search engine. Count how many people wrote long essays about the genre.

And there we have two guys who spent over an hour repeating what everyone has been debating for two decades. They are 20 years late to this.

He calls his video "the state of the genre in 2021" and he uses Day of the Tentacle to illustrate it, a game made in the 1990s. That would be interesting if he were pointing out what I personally think is the biggest problem of the genre in 2021 (the fact that too many people are fixated on old games) but he does not. He just has no idea what happens in 2021 so he talks about the genre as if we were still the day after Grim Fandango was first published.

A big problem with Yahtzee, and a majority of cynical game reviewers in general, is he's forever stuck in 1996, he just won't stop acting like Final Fantasy 7 was just released, Quake was blowing people away on pc and Fallout is just on the horizon. Well that and I honestly couldn't tell if he actually enjoys playing video games, or it is just a means to an end (or a pay check).

I use to enjoy his videos, or rather I use to enjoy him tearing apart type of games I disliked and avoided the "reviews" of stuff I do like but that got so old after a while, and when he would out of nowhere just take wild jabs at anime and JRPGs to the point I wonder if he wasn't Japanophobic. I know it might be baseless, but some times I wonder.

[FormosaFalanster]

That's because he gives his opinion without explaining where it comes from.

It's just "I don't like that". No, you have to tell us why it sucks.

And here is something I learnt when I published novels: a good critic never writes a negative critic unless the target is a big one.
Here is a personal story: I published my first novel and it ended up with a positive review by a TV host. So of course when I published the second one I sent it to him in hope he would do it again. He answered me that he did not like the book. So of course I started being afraid he would tear it apart on TV. He did not. I asked him why. He said because I'm a young author barely known by anyone, if he tears me apart he looks like a jerk who uses his influence to crush others for his own glory. I found that interesting so I pushed the conversation further. We looked at a review my first novel had in a newspaper, a review that was also positive, and he showed me the review just next to it: the critic had panned another book, but it was written by one of the very top authors in my country, someone famous and praised on every level. This guy was worth a bad review because he's a big shot, it's actually brave to challenge his position and say something negative about him because he would have fans who would attack you, and he probably needed a bit of humility. But me, I was too small to warrant a bad review, if he doesn't like my book he just needs to stay silent about it and no one will buy it anyway, there is no need to put me down.

I always remembered that story because it is the whole difference between making a bad review so you can look clever and making a bad review that actually makes sense. This is why I am vocal about disliking Thimbleweed Park, it's a big successful game made by a successful person who could use some humility. I played indie games I did not like but what is the point of letting everyone know, when the devs are already struggling?

The link with Yatzee is: he somewhat acheived some internet fame for what it's worth (mostly because he was there early), yet he uses his audience to beat a dead horse like other people did better than him 20 years ago.

Look, I just put another example here (I'm not the one who did the most games or even played the most games but I have one heck of a library on the topic) : https://www.pcgamer.com/dont-quit-how-to-save-adventures-225/ made ten years ago so mid-way between today and the previous article I posted. Already, once again, do we read all the same problems, but at least this article encourages developpers to renew the genre and offers solution. Which, if you play around some games and forget about fucking LucasArts for a second, you quickly realize has been done by a lot of people.

See Yatzee? This is how you research a topic.

[Ali]

And here is something I learnt when I published novels: a good critic never writes a negative critic unless the target is a big one.
Here is a personal story: I published my first novel and it ended up with a positive review by a TV host. So of course when I published the second one I sent it to him in hope he would do it again. He answered me that he did not like the book. So of course I started being afraid he would tear it apart on TV. He did not. I asked him why. He said because I'm a young author barely known by anyone, if he tears me apart he looks like a jerk who uses his influence to crush others for his own glory. I found that interesting so I pushed the conversation further. We looked at a review my first novel had in a newspaper, a review that was also positive, and he showed me the review just next to it: the critic had panned another book, but it was written by one of the very top authors in my country, someone famous and praised on every level. This guy was worth a bad review because he's a big shot, it's actually brave to challenge his position and say something negative about him because he would have fans who would attack you, and he probably needed a bit of humility. But me, I was too small to warrant a bad review, if he doesn't like my book he just needs to stay silent about it and no one will buy it anyway, there is no need to put me down.

I always remembered that story because it is the whole difference between making a bad review so you can look clever and making a bad review that actually makes sense. This is why I am vocal about disliking Thimbleweed Park, it's a big successful game made by a successful person who could use some humility. I played indie games I did not like but what is the point of letting everyone know, when the devs are already struggling?

This is a really nice story, and also - I agree about TWP.

I find it baffling that people are still bringing up that - distinctly obnoxious - Old Man Murray article. The cat-hair moustache puzzle is terrible, but the idea that the genre died because of one bad puzzle or ugly game is silly. Publishers stopped selling 2D games (because the game industry was booming and selling a million-or-so copies wasn't good enough any more) and adventure games worked badly in 3D.

In my opinion, adventure games between 2000-2010 were mostly bad, retaining all the awful features of 90s adventure games and almost none of the good qualities. I suspect this was a consequence rather than a cause of of publisher enthusiasm waning. All the experienced developers went and did something else.

But the rise of indie devs has turned that around completely. Adventure games are as diverse and interesting now as they ever were. But, they're no longer AAA games with Hollywood voice actors, and some fans are caught in an (understandable) nostalgia trap. I mean, I made a pirate point and click game, so I see the appeal. But I don't understand the hostility towards innovation. True adventure games, according to some fans, must marry incredibly high production values with a 30 year old point-and-click interface. So successful/brilliant adventure games like Obra Dinn and The Outer Wilds are quietly discounted.

[Danvzare]

My take, it doing good for a niche market. It's pretty easy for new players to get into, "easy"* for new developers to cut their teeth on along with visual novels, and let's be honest many point and click games tend to good for older machines and laptops.

*Relatively speaking.

That's the most sensible take I've ever heard on the state of Point and Click Adventure games, and I agree wholeheartedly. 
I would also like to add that hidden object games have evolved into casual first-person point and click adventure games, that are not entirely unlike Myst. And those games are so popular, that there are now entire companies dedicated to making them.

[Chomba]

While my pc fights with a video render, I'm gonna put my two cents on the subject.

I think that the guys in the video are very wrong about the whole thing, in fact, the idea that the genre is dead -in my opinion- is wrong. Although it might have passed through some sort of coma haha.

What is happening with the genre is the same thing that Ron Gilbert and Tim Schafer have been saying for a long time. The adventure game market back in the day was already hovering around 200,000 sales for a successful game (like MI); today, it's about the same size.  In other words, the problem with the adventure genre is that it is no longer a good business for the big developers. It is, as they say, a niche market.

This being so, it is not surprising that it is a genre that is still alive thanks to indie developers, who do not need to have overwhelming successes with their games to be profitable because there are few people working on them (on more than one occasion, only one) and they are usually self-employed without so many fixed costs for the company.

As for the death of the genre, nowadays it is surprising how many new adventure games are out there (some of very good quality, others not so much). Without going any further, Deponia is a franchise that has three entries, that doesn't happen with a game that doesn't perform favorably. Then there are games like the ones from Wadjet Eye or Kathy Rain that seem to do well.

I think the real challenge of the genre is getting attention in the hyper-competitive market that video games are and getting people to buy them.

Edit: Typo

[Hobo]

The title of that video seems a bit misleading as there was very little talk about the current situation. It's more like two friends casually sharing their opinions and experiences about adventure games and it's most likely not meant to be a deep dive into the genre or it's state. So, I think it's a rather poor starting point for such a discussion.

An actual conversation about the current state of point & clicks could be an interesting one, especially if it would include information about sales and budgets, statistics about different subcategories, team sizes and media coverage. But all that info is pretty hard to come by.

I'm not overly familiar with the modern adventure game scene outside of the AGS community, but I think it looks pretty healthy both in terms of quantity and quality. I've certainly played quite a few games in recent years that offered me way more enjoyment than many of the old Sierra or LucasArts classics. I also kind of like the direction the genre is heading these days. I value story, exploration and character interactions more than puzzles, so I'm perfectly fine with narrative-heavy games with light gameplay elements.

I'm also fine with the genre being a niche market as long it's a thriving and profitable niche market. Not everything has to have enormous budgets and be made by a big corporation. A passionate indie project will always be more appealing to me than a rehashed soulless AAA title that's riddled with microtransactions.

I'll be blunt, he is not the best person to talk about game mechanics or puzzles because I remember playing 5 Days A Stranger and it's sequels, and the puzzles felt so "moon logical"

Bringing out games that Yahtzee made almost two decades ago as a hobbyist still cutting his teeth is a pretty weird argument to make and probably doesn't reflect his current ability to discuss or critique puzzles or game mechanics, unless he somehow has not evolved at all from that time. Don't really follow his content, so I don't know how qualified he is to accurately talk about these things, but Yahtzee and his style of presentation seems like something that's meant  for a specific taste and sense of humor.

My take, it doing good for a niche market. It's pretty easy for new players to get into, "easy"* for new developers to cut their teeth on along with visual novels, and let's be honest many point and click games tend to good for older machines and laptops.
*Relatively speaking.

That's the most sensible take I've ever heard on the state of Point and Click Adventure games, and I agree wholeheartedly. 

Yes, this is a pretty good and sensible take.

[FormosaFalanster]

I value story, exploration and character interactions more than puzzles, so I'm perfectly fine with narrative-heavy games with light gameplay elements.

And this is exactly what is wrong with the genre in 2021: the assumption that story and gameplay are mutually exclusive.

If people would stop for a second being fixated in the past and the problems of the past, they would realize we are so far away from the time when games were too complicated and illogical that we are actually facing the opposite: an avalanche of adventure games whose gameplay has been stripped down to such an extent that it's not even a game anymore.

Why would you need to make the game ultra simple to value the story and characters?

This is the problem. I have played way too much of such games recently: they are so ridiculously simple that you finish them in 10mn and you barely got into the ambiance, the characters, the story. I am not interested in reading someone's unpublished short story plastered in a vague GUI with some art to illustrate it, with "turning pages" replaced with "clicking hotspots". If I had wanted to do that I would have stick to publish books and not try to do something interactive.

This is ultimately the biggest problems: the tons and tons of games that are so easy they are forgettable.

But in reality, it's just being lazy. It's claiming to be an author with interest in deep stories and characters, yet not even making the effort of writing an interesting line for the character to say when the player attempts an incorrect solution to the puzzle - when this is actually where the narrative is supposed to be in a game, because it's an interactive medium, not a passive one.

I'd like to see more games in which you get to understand the character's motivations and challenges as you attempt to solve the game, they would have carefully crafted it so that your trial and error is entertaining and even emotionally impacting.

[Cassiebsg]

This is ultimately the biggest problems: the tons and tons of games that are so easy they are forgettable.

I have a felling, that if I ever get the chance to play your games, I'll love them. 

[Hobo]

And this is exactly what is wrong with the genre in 2021: the assumption that story and gameplay are mutually exclusive.

Yes, I agree, they're not mutually exclusive, but I assume it would take more talent, experience and resources to successfully merge narrative and gameplay. And this is not specific to the point & click genre, most games, even the critically acclaimed big budget ones, have serious difficulties with that.

I also don't think it's inherently right or wrong, it can simply be a different approach to making games. I mean, if these are the types of games people want to make and there are people like me, who enjoy playing those, then is that wrong? It's unfortunate to hear that there aren't enough games that suit your taste, but hopefully there'll be more in the future.

This is ultimately the biggest problems: the tons and tons of games that are so easy they are forgettable.

I personally don't equate game difficulty with quality and enjoyment. Watching a movie is a very easy and passive way to consume entertainment, but that doesn't make them all forgettable. More interactivity doesn't automatically mean a better game. If it's poorly written and designed with underdeveloped characters and motivations, then yes, that might indeed be forgettable, but I'm not sure if the amount of puzzles and their increased difficulty would necessarily make it any better in this case.

To be honest, I don't recall many clever Aha! moments from the games that I've played. Usually, when I've been stuck on a puzzle and then finally figured it out or consulted a walkthrough, I've felt frustration, because the puzzle was (in my opinion) either poorly and unfairly designed or I missed a hotspot somewhere. And in most cases I probably would have had a better experience, if that puzzle had not been there in the first place. Puzzles in general are not something I tend to  remember from the games years or decades later, but interesting characters, great story elements and atmosphere will often leave a strong impression. Yes, sometimes the latter stuff is successfully tied and enhanced with the gameplay, but not always.

I think we have a different understanding of what is a game and what makes it enjoyable. And that's fine, different tastes and opinions make the world a more diverse and interesting place. And there's definitely plenty of room in the genre for all sorts of games.

In my opinion, adventure games between 2000-2010 were mostly bad, retaining all the awful features of 90s adventure games and almost none of the good qualities.

But... but Nelly Cootalot: Spoonbeaks Ahoy! came out in 2007... I think the second half of the 2000s was already quite decent actually. Wadjet Eye was slowly raising its head, I actually enjoyed Dreamfall back in the day, there was Machinarium, early Telltale stuff, a couple of Daedalic games, a fair amount of quality AGS freebies. I mean, even in the so-called golden ages of point & click games, there were only a handful of quality releases each year. How many true classics there actually are from that era, 10-20?

[Danvzare]

Deponia is a franchise that has three entries

Four actually.

[eri0o]

I'm not overly familiar with the modern adventure game scene outside of the AGS community

Not sure if modern, but a different community at least, TIG Source is a bit dead nowadays but the devlogs are still going strong if someone wants to take a look you can eventually find some "adventures" going on there. I am not exactly sure how to classify the genre... I've seen people selecting different things.

This is one game I find interesting both technically and the proposal of gameplay/story: https://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=60481.0

[FormosaFalanster]

And this is exactly what is wrong with the genre in 2021: the assumption that story and gameplay are mutually exclusive.

Yes, I agree, they're not mutually exclusive, but I assume it would take more talent, experience and resources to successfully merge narrative and gameplay. And this is not specific to the point & click genre, most games, even the critically acclaimed big budget ones, have serious difficulties with that.

I also don't think it's inherently right or wrong, it can simply be a different approach to making games. I mean, if these are the types of games people want to make and there are people like me, who enjoy playing those, then is that wrong? It's unfortunate to hear that there aren't enough games that suit your taste, but hopefully there'll be more in the future.

Oh don't get me wrong, sorry if it sounded like I was having a go at you, for sure everyone can enjoy what they want I still think even you would find enjoyment in a game that gives you the narrative you appreciate while taking you into a good gameplay.

I am not sure it would take that much resources to improve the balance in favour of gameplay, though. Experience yes maybe, but that's something we should put effort in because it would be very rewarding in the end.

This is ultimately the biggest problems: the tons and tons of games that are so easy they are forgettable.

I personally don't equate game difficulty with quality and enjoyment. Watching a movie is a very easy and passive way to consume entertainment, but that doesn't make them all forgettable. More interactivity doesn't automatically mean a better game. If it's poorly written and designed with underdeveloped characters and motivations, then yes, that might indeed be forgettable, but I'm not sure if the amount of puzzles and their increased difficulty would necessarily make it any better in this case.

To be honest, I don't recall many clever Aha! moments from the games that I've played. Usually, when I've been stuck on a puzzle and then finally figured it out or consulted a walkthrough, I've felt frustration, because the puzzle was (in my opinion) either poorly and unfairly designed or I missed a hotspot somewhere. And in most cases I probably would have had a better experience, if that puzzle had not been there in the first place. Puzzles in general are not something I tend to  remember from the games years or decades later, but interesting characters, great story elements and atmosphere will often leave a strong impression. Yes, sometimes the latter stuff is successfully tied and enhanced with the gameplay, but not always. [/quote]

That's what I think: movies are good even if they are passive, but then if we make a videogame instead of a movie there has to be a reason why, and that reason is that it's interactive. If the puzzle is badly made then the solution is to make better puzzles! I am sorry to see you have been confronted to so many bad puzzles that you have grown a distaste for them and I hope there will be better games to reconcile you with gameplay in general.
It's everything I write about in my blog: the quest for how to use gameplay as a narrative tool. The way I see it, you feel the story and the characters in a game through the gameplay itself. It is playing them and guiding them through the challenge that makes you care for them and experience their plight. I think this is an art that is too often lost and we should thrive to reconnect with it.

In my opinion, adventure games between 2000-2010 were mostly bad, retaining all the awful features of 90s adventure games and almost none of the good qualities.

But... but Nelly Cootalot: Spoonbeaks Ahoy! came out in 2007... I think the second half of the 2000s was already quite decent actually. Wadjet Eye was slowly raising its head, I actually enjoyed Dreamfall back in the day, there was Machinarium, early Telltale stuff, a couple of Daedalic games, a fair amount of quality AGS freebies. I mean, even in the so-called golden ages of point & click games, there were only a handful of quality releases each year. How many true classics there actually are from that era, 10-20?
[/quote]

That I totally agree with you on. There has always been plenty of good games albeit less mainstream. But because the best thing about our era is that mainstream is irrelevant, we can just relish in our niche.

I think it is also very important to get out of AGS and see other narrative games out there. As you can see on my blog I often look into games that are not point and click per se but still has narrative values. The accent should be on narrative through gameplay rather than on one type of gameplay, it greatly broadens your mind I think.

[Hobo]

Oh don't get me wrong, sorry if it sounded like I was having a go at you, for sure everyone can enjoy what they want I still think even you would find enjoyment in a game that gives you the narrative you appreciate while taking you into a good gameplay.

Nah, it didn't sound like that, no worries    And yes, if a good narrative is married with gameplay that I enjoy, then I'll obviously like it. And to clarify: when I'm talking about being fine with light gameplay elements, I would still prefer those light elements to be connected to the story and world.

That's what I think: movies are good even if they are passive, but then if we make a videogame instead of a movie there has to be a reason why, and that reason is that it's interactive

Yes, but does that interaction have to be complex or difficult? Or does complex and increased interaction necessarily make it better? Even if we take a very simplistic walking simulator, where all you can do is walk around and look at things, then for me that is already a completely different experience than a movie. I can move around at my own pace, look at things in the order I choose to, probably even skip some locations. And that level of interactivity is often enough and sometimes I really appreciate the minimalism of it.

I was actually wondering if there's a point of diminishing returns with some of this. For example, if I'd hand craft every response line in a full length game then that would take a lot more time and work than having a selection of generic blanket statements. And if most players won't even notice or care much about these small details, then is it really worth it? It's sometimes kind of hard to determine where's the line with a lot of this stuff, especially when working on a commercial game and all that time spent on polishing and adding features might not actually increase the sale numbers and interest in the game.

If the puzzle is badly made then the solution is to make better puzzles! I am sorry to see you have been confronted to so many bad puzzles that you have grown a distaste for them...

Writing a good story is hard, creating a good stand-alone puzzle is hard, putting these things together and creating a good puzzle that's integrated into the narrative is even harder. It's not really that I dislike puzzles, but maybe I've lost the faith in most developers that they can come up with a huge amount of consistent and enjoyable narrative puzzles and perhaps it would be better for some of them (myself included) to focus more on one specific aspect.

It is playing them and guiding them through the challenge that makes you care for them and experience their plight.

Hmm, I'm curious what's your take on narrative without conflict or with minimal conflict and challenge? Don't actually know much about it, but I've seen kishōtenketsu brought out as an example sometimes. Would that be something that's feasible in games and how would that work with gameplay?

I think it is also very important to get out of AGS and see other narrative games out there.

Definitely agree, about 70 percent of the games I play these days are AGS ones, mostly because I don't have much time for gaming in general and I also lack the hardware required for most modern games. But I do really want to broaden my horizon at some point and learn more about and from other types of modern games.

Not sure if modern, but a different community at least, TIG Source is a bit dead nowadays but the devlogs are still going strong...

Oh, I wasn't specifically asking for gamedev communities, by "scene" I meant more like all the modern adventure games in general and the talk and discussion around them. But it looks like an interesting project, so thanks for the link.


Edit: I quess a better wording for my thought would be that I've lost faith that devs can come up with a huge amount of consistent and enjoyable narrative puzzles that fit my specific taste, because judging puzzle quality is somewhat subjective. So, it might be more of a me problem, rather than something that's characteristic to the genre these days.

[fire7side]

I only watched part of the vid, but I think point and click are something like 2d platform games.  They are going to pretty much be around forever.  I play a pixel art platformer on my tablet and enjoy it.   Point and click adventures have a lot more room for diversity because they are story heavy.  They won't go away and they won't be the latest thing.  That's the nice thing about modern gaming.  We have so many options.  Steam is starting to remind me of what they used to say about cable.  500 channels and nothing is on.  When adventures pull you into a story, something magic happens.  It doesn't matter if the characters are pixel art or 3d.  It's not reading a story.  It's not a visual novel.  Having different paths you can choose has never worked for my own experience.  Maybe for someone else.  For me, it's just a good mix of story and puzzles.