How would YOU reinvent the adventure game genre?

[JustLuke29]

Lately I've been thinking about 2d point 'n' click adventure games. I've been reminiscing about the good old days of Quest for Glory and Monkey Island. Somewhere along the line adventure games fell out of favour and were usurped by other game genres, but why? And what could be done to reverse this trend?

It seems clear to me that adventure games need to be reinvented, but how? I'll throw out a few of my own ideas and I'd be very interested to hear about yours.

1) 2d is out. Interactive 3d is in.
           I do not want to stare at static 2d backgrounds, no matter how beautifully painted they might be.
           I do want to be able to look around my on screen character and manipulate the camera with the mouse.
           I do want to be able to control my character with keys or even a game pad.
           I do want text descriptions (or voice descriptions) of interesting environmental objects that I select to examine.
2) So long bottomless pockets and endless inventory based puzzles.
           I don't want to have to "use the cactus with the gerbil to open the trapdoor".
           I don't want to waste time mindlessly clicking upon hotspots with every one of my seemingly endless list of inventory icons.
           I don't want there to be a head spinning number of items to collect.
           I don't want to have to "hunt the pixel" to find them.
           I do want every item I collect to have multiple uses.
           I do want to have only one "use" command rather than many push, pull. open, close, take, give (etc) buttons.
3) Strong, highly compelling and tightly structured stories.
           I don't want to save the world from an evil wizard or mad scientist.
           I don't want to begin the game as an amnesiac with a shady history.
           I do want a strong narrative and plot that leads me through the game and doesn't just make a half-hearted appearance in the occasional cutscene.
           I do want highly interactive dialogues but I don't want free form, open-ended gameplay. I want adventures to be tightly structured and plotted.
           I do want plot and game progression to be dependent on character interaction more than the successful completion of puzzles.

I can think of many more things but I'm going to leave it at that for the time being. Over to you now!

[Angelus3K]

Play Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy) then.

[JustLuke29]

Now, now, that's not in the spirit of the thread is it? I was looking for more personal opinions about what works in adventure games, how people would change the things that don't work and what they would add to or subtract from the mix. Unless, of course, you consider Fahrenheit to be the the perfect reinvention of the genre and can think of nothing to add to or change about its formula?

[Angelus3K]

As a matter of fact I think games such as Broken Sword 3 and Fahrenhiet are the only types of adventure games that are going to attract big publishers to release them.

Here's hoping Himalaya can show them a thing or two!!

[VampD3]

Fahrenheit has actually got many of the elements you are looking for in a game JustLuke.

I love the classic point and click games and don't like them reinvented but I would say that this is quite a good try it keeps all the elements and good puzzles of a point and click but also adds in more interactions and its dependant on how you play the character as to the end story.

Saying that I still love nothing more than the classics.

[Brainiac]

As a matter of fact I think games such as Broken Sword 3 and Fahrenhiet are the only types of adventure games that are going to attract big publishers to release them.

You make that sound like a bad thing!  I admit 3d or 2.5d games are the only ones that likely have a future in major publishings circles, but that's not to say those games cannot be brilliantly done.  Personally, the "next big thing" I'm waiting for is to see how well the release of And Then There Were None does (so far, it's been quite successful) and thus perhaps adapt other Agatha Christie mysteries into games.  There's already a survey here by The Adventure Company which offers 15% off the next online purchase just for filling it out.

As to how I would "update" adventure games...personally, I think the best way would be similar to the evolution of the GK games.  That series was always very mature and adult in its plot and characters and the gameplay and format evolved with the times and technology (2D, FMV, 3D).  Adapt the best format and technology as much as possible while maintaining the 'roots" of the genre.  Pretty much, in order to reinvent the genre, you have to take chances (much like URU Online).  Unfortunately, that occasionally results in a failed attempt, and in a genre that publishers are still leery of, it makes selling the idea even harder.

[Angelus3K]

I meant it in a good way Brainiac  :D I love BS3 and Farenheit!

[Blackthorne519]

It's simply a sheer question of numbers.

The sheer amount of attention span challenged kids and young adults with expendable income outweighs the number of people willing to pursue the tenacities of adventure games.  Couple that with production costs for a game and you don't have enough money to make it worth big business.


Bt

[The Avatar]

Well put Blackthorne!  I've mulled over this for a while, and I think that perhaps the solution here is actually to mold the audience to fit the game, rather than vice-verca.  yes.. i didn't say it would be easy  But the fact is, smarter games, and getting the world to play them would bring a much healthier brighter future to mankind.  So the challenge is worth the effort.

So i guess the question i have concerning this is, how do you mold a world of 'attention span challenged young adults' into world class adventure gamers?  Marketing?  a revamped pop culture?  proper nutrition and exercise?  A more family-oriented home atmosphere?

Hmm.. maybe it can be done gradually, beginning by desigining adventure games that appeal to the pop culture.. an adventure game about reality tv?  Or perhaps an adventure game about pop singers on a world tour. I don't know.. these games 'could' be online and live while the shows are happening.. sponsored and endorsed by the very culture it allows it's gamers to interact with.  Then, they could allow exclusively online gamers the ability to 'vote out' the next candidate on the show... or something.

I don't know.. i just think that people could have more control over their own culture, than they do right now.  And interactive games could help our world to achieve that.  Now THAT would be an adventure.

[Blackthorne519]

I'm all for an idealistic view, but I don't see the trend changing anytime soon.

It's the nature of society; however, there is a niche market out there.  The trick is keeping your production costs low enough to recoup your expenses and hopefully make a profit.

The cost of producing and marketing a game is no small number, either.  The advertising for such a product is very important, and the ad campaign is of crucial importance.  You have to weigh the direction you want the campaign to go: do you concentrate on getting the largest amount of the niche audience that you can fanangle, or do you go for a wider audience, grabbing in some from outside your niche audience while not alienating them?

Most of the advertising in adventure gaming, currently, would be grassroots.  Blanketing small publications, weboards - having a "street-team" as many independent music artists have.  Word of mouth would be a strong portion of it.  

Consider the numbers in the past too: PC gaming was a small market in 1990; now it's rather huge.  One should also consider porting, too.  I think adventure games could be moved to consoles; with the analog stick that is currently a part of most every console system, character control is easier.  The large number of available buttons could be assigned to different tasks. (ie PlayStation X=Talk Square=Action Circle=Inventory) etc.

I'm just musing outloud here, folks.


Bt

[The Avatar]

Awesome,  I've always felt that consoles would house adventure games quite well.  Consoles can even allow adventure games to acquire a younger audience.. get them while they're young, and you have that idealistic change you've been looking for.  Give the children adventure games to choose from amongst their Marios and chichi-robos, splintercells and Dance!factories... and you'll find a much larger audience of adventure gamers in the future when they grow up!

I still think there should be a plethora of classic adventure games on palm-pilots or cellphones.  

And I really think that adventure games should be directed more toward the book-readers of the world.. afterall, adventure games are interactive stories!  Creating a line of games based on classic tales would sell like crazy!  "Be abel,  Be Odyssius, Be King Arthur, Be Beowulf, Be anyone!"  ---This is the audience that likes to read.. that likes to solve mysteries and loves adventure.  They will love these games!   You wonder why there aren't so many 'female gamers'?   (attempting not to cross that sexist line)  Why isn't there a single game based on all the millions of Romance novels out there?  Seven Years in Tibet is a terrific 'true' story.. i'd like to play a game based on that.. but there isn't one.

[JustLuke29]

ve been thinking about this some more. Whenever I've discussed adventure games with people I've noticed that they refer to the plot, characters they liked and situations that they enjoyed but they almost never refer to the puzzles - it's almost like discussing movies.

I often hear:

"It was so sad when ***** died."
"**** is such a funny character!"
"I love the bit where you confront the wizard at the end and he says..."

but I almost never hear:

"I really enjoyed using the toothpick as a tiny handle for the broken machine!"
"Wow! Combining the lipstick and the wooden nickle to open the trapdoor was so cool!"

So let me throw out a few more questions:

Are puzzles an essential element of adventure games?
Is an adventure game without puzzles still an adventure game?

[Vildern]

Very nice, Justluke29. That's a good question.

Are puzzles an essential element of adventure games?
Is an adventure game without puzzles still an adventure game?

The two are, in fact, just one question, aren't they?

I believe that eventually, if you didn't enjoy the puzzles in the game and found them frustrating/boring/etc. , chances are you wouldn't enjoy the game.

Then why, you ask, people refer more to the plot, when inquired what they liked about the game?

I guess it's (the plot) basically a stronger element in the game, yet it does not mean that puzzles are redundant.

[Quest For Glory Fan]

When asking about Spiderman 2 you may have heard
It was so cool looking when he stopped the train
I liked the part when he fought so and so
The webbing looked amazing

you didn't hear this as much.
Did you notice how the movies ending had a alot of similarities to the bible?
I liked the inner complex that Doctor octavius had when deciding if it was him or the machines that hated spiderman.
In the cartoon Peter Parker made his own webs but in the movie he had them as a power.

Does this mean that Just because people talked about the action that there wasn't a plot? I say not.

[JustLuke29]

Does this mean that Just because people talked about the action that there wasn't a plot? I say not.

No, it just means that most people weren't interested in the plot or at least that it wasn't the element of the movie that motivated them to see it.

Besides, the comparison isn't a good fit. Watching movies is a passive experience that doesn't require audience participation in the same way that adventure games do. If Spiderman 2 halted every 30 minutes and required the audience to thoroughly understand every nuance and subtle allusion in the plot before the movie could resume then "plot" could perhaps be compared with "puzzles".

I believe a case could be made that puzzles act as a barrier; one that artificially extends the lifespan of a game by imparing the players ability to progress through it but ultimately only serves to annoy and frustrate and interrupt the flow of the game.

[Erpy]

Yes and no. There's several cases of puzzles...filler puzzles and plot puzzles.

Filler puzzles involve jumping through a thousand hoops to get past a situation that someone else may have gotten through without much of a problem. (if Larry looked a bit more beach boyish, those chicks might feel like hooking up with him without all the crazy preparations such an endeavour usually involves)

Plot puzzles much more involve determining how the story's supposed to progress. (such as collecting evidence and presenting it to Mosely in Gabriel Knight)

Each type of puzzle is more suited to a certain type of adventure. Plot puzzles are obviously a big part of Gabriel Knight, where there IS a sophisticated plot to slowly unravel. Filler puzzles are generally less needed there.

Filler puzzles are much more suitable in a game like Leisure Suit Larry 6, where the storyline pretty much involves around the "talk to girl, find a way to please girl, try to have sex with girl, fail, rinse and repeat"-principle. Incorporating plot puzzles would be a challenge here, since the game's idea is a lot like a movie like "Monty Python and the Holy Grail": no sophisticated plot to slowly build up and unravel, but enjoyment out of the fun of the moment in a series of short "sketches".

[adeyke]

I've been thinking about this topic for a while.  I really do like adventures, but I still have to admit that the genre does have its problems.

The Stuckness Paradox

Almost all games have some sort of "reward."  This can be just amount anything, as long as it shows the player that they're doing something right and gives an incentive to continue.

Adventure games generally have lots of such rewards.  Just seeing an action work is a reward, and as you progress, you often get more points, new inventory items, access to new areas, new NPCs, new graphics and music, etc.  So making progress in the game is very rewarding.

The problem arises when the player gets stuck.  In this case, the flow of rewards suddenly stops.  If they don't know the next action, they just can't go on.  And if they spend an entire gaming session without being able to solve that puzzle, they're probably going to consider that time a waste.  At this point, they'll probably be tempted to look at a walkthrough or just give up on the game.

However, even though getting completely stuck is not fun, the adventure game genre relies on that.  If all puzzles can be solved instantly, there just isn't a lot of gameplay left.  Even a good, long game can be played in a day if the player never gets stuck.

That means that the game has to let the player get stuck sometimes, but only for a short time.  The key thing to remember, though, is that the game should be working with the player, not against the player.

I do think the QfG games handled the rewards very well.  Even if you couldn't make any quest progress, you could still make some character progress.  Acquiring wealth and gaining stats both work as rewards, provided they're actually good for something.

This also raises the point that rewards really have to be, well, rewarding.  If you get wealth and stats but they're not good for anything, it loses its power.  Similarly, if new areas and the new NPCs are boring, it's not going to be satisfying to see them.

Dead Ends

The worst kind of stuckness is a dead end.  Not knowing you're in a dead end and spending days looking for a solution when there isn't one isn't fun.  Having to go back to an earlier save isn't fun.  Going through the exact same steps as you did just recently isn't fun.  So dead ends should just be avoided completely.  There's not much to be said here.

Replayability

Adventure games don't have any.  If you've played the game once, you'll already know the solutions the next time you play.  Since the actual gameplay consists of solving these puzzles, you can't really play it more than once.

This is not to say that you can't go through a game more than once.  I can't even remember how often I've gone through the various sierra games.  Sometimes I just get nostalgic and want to see a game again, or I want to repeat a certain puzzle (even if I know the solution) or I just want to appreciate the art, the music, and so on.

This really isn't the same experience as the first time, though.  Even if it's been months or even years since I lasted played a game, I still generally know the solutions.  I think I could write my own walkthroughs for some games just from memory.  So replaying an adventure game is a bit like rereading a mystery novel.  If you already know the butler did it, you can't get the full experience anymore, even if you can still appreciate the quality of the writing.

Having alternate paths does provide some replayability, but it would really have to be an extreme difference.  For example, in QfG, a wizard, a thief, and a Paladin all have very different subquests and solutions to puzzles, so it's satisfying to replay all those.  However, playing a fighter instead of a Paladin isn't satisfying, since there's very little fighter-only content.  And if the path only splits partway through the game, those parts which are common to all paths are going to feel boring.

Because of this, mere alternate solutions to puzzles aren't a solution to replayability.  There's usually too much repetition for too little new content.  For example, imagine playing through the entire KQ2VGA repeatedly, just to try all the ways of dealing with the lion; it'd really make more sense to just restore a game just before that point.  Alternate solutions are still a great way to keep players from getting too stuck, though.

This also brings up the issue of optional points.  Some people do like to replay for a full score.  However, if they don't know where the missing points were, and they have to resort to a walkthrough to find them, that's not rewarding.  And if the missing points were for something completely trivial (such as looking at something), it's just going to be disappointing to go back and do that.  The optional points only provide replayability if getting them is actually rewarding.

Conclusion

I think I had some other points, but I forgot them.  I'm also tired now.

My main point is that adventure games are frustrating when you get stuck, and are very short when you're not.  And you can only play them once.  So basically, you can say that you are playing an adventure game or that you have played an adventure game, but never that you play an adventure game.  Because of this, the price (both in terms of the amount spent on production and the amount the consumer pays) per hour of gameplay is very high for adventure games.  This is the reason that adventure games are at a disadvantage, and this is the problem that has to be overcome for adventure games to make a comeback.

It's also why, even though I really like adventure games, I spend almost no time playing them.  I recently replayed the entire GK series, but it lasted less than a week (I actually listened to all the dialogue; often when replaying, I tend to skip it).  Meanwhile, I've played Guild Wars for well over 600 hours over the past 6 months...

[The Avatar]

Awesome post Adeyke!  I agree with every point you've made.  I wonder if it's possible to make an adventure game that avoids all these problematic situations?  Or if reality shows that Adventure truly is and always will be dead in comparison to other genres?  Everyone seems to consider the GK series as 'the way' for adventure games.. but I don't think it has all the answers yet.  If every 'puzzle point' in the game had some sort of a random generator, that created different yet similar puzzles every time the game is played, that could give it more 'replayability' and adding some multiplayer options, to allow you to play with a friend, or different friends each time, could help as well, yes?  hmm.. this leaves a lot more to think about.  Can a game be played so that it feels different, and requires different choices to be made each time it is played?  I think that's conceivable.. just a real challenge for the designers.

[adeyke]

I thought about randomness a bit, but the amount of content that's randomized would have to be very significant for it to really help.

Some adventures games already have a bit of randomness.  For example, KQ2VGA has a random swamp poem and a random location for the basket.  This randomness does mean that a walkthrough is less effective and reduces the player/character knowledge gap when replaying.  That is, if the basket location was fixed, the player would immediately go to that location without having to actually look for it, and if the swamp poem was fixed, the player might try to go through the swamp by memory, entirely skipping the note.  So that randomness is good for the game.

However, I don't think that randomness really helps replayability.  People aren't going to play through the game repeatedly just to see all the possible basket locations or all the different swamp poems.

So if randomness is going to help, it has to be something really significant, such that you really get a very different experience each time you play.

[lodgey]

I've been lurking here for a while, and I thought I would put in my two cents worth.

ve been thinking about this some more. Whenever I've discussed adventure games with people I've noticed that they refer to the plot, characters they liked and situations that they enjoyed but they almost never refer to the puzzles - it's almost like discussing movies.

Really? When I think about what I liked about different adventure games I don't think about the plot. The plot of most adventure games that I can remember aren't really that great. How many of the older adventures (from back when they were more popular than they seem today) had a plot that you would want to watch even if there were no puzzles?

One of my favourite adventure games is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This is a purely text game, so it isn't the graphics that impressed me. The plot was nothing to write home about, so that isn't what got to me either. What I remember is things such as getting the babel fish, and escaping that big mosnter (I can't remember how to spell the name, so I'm not going to try).

The same goes for the graphic adventures. Who really thinks that Space Quest 1 would succeed if there were no puzzles to solve? Kings Quest 1 would be terrible, and, while the latter games are a vast improvement, I don't think they would succeed either.

What would I do? As you can probably tell, I very much prefer the traditional adventure game, but let's see if I can say something practical.

2D or 3D isn't really much of a problem. What should be taken care of is the environment should be complete. By this, I mean that I should be able to interact with almost everything and get intelligent reponses for each. If nothing else, it helps delay the frustration of stuckness as mentioned above.

I like having a large range of options to choose from. Whether this comes from a lot of items to manipulate in some way, or a large range of possible commands to apply to them I don't care (I despise the common use of the 'use' command).

A decent story should be written. I know that I said above that it isn't the story that I remember, but the best puzzles are the ones that further the story. Story has always been important with computer games. Even the old space invaders type arcade games came with a few paragraphs that described what was supposed to be happening. People seem to be more picky these days and the story is expected to be an essential part of the game, adventures are no different.

If you made an adventure game there a many things that you need to get right, but the crucial aspect is the puzzles and how well they slot into the world you are creating. Give people a range of options to do, so they feel as if they are doing something while they try to work out how to open that blasted door. And, of course, you need to give them a reason to open the door in the first place.

[Spikey]

Adventure games generally have lots of such rewards.  Just seeing an action work is a reward, and as you progress, you often get more points, new inventory items, access to new areas, new NPCs, new graphics and music, etc.  So making progress in the game is very rewarding.

I think the most rewarding thing is storyline bits & dialogue. Like Gabriel Knight 3, rewards come almost only in that form. It's what I like best.

[adeyke]

I agree with that.  It's part of what I included with the "etc.", simply because the sentence was already getting rather long.

That does also show the problem with too much randomness.

It would be possible to make an adventure game have a lot of random puzzles.  However, in a good adventure game, every puzzle is tied into a tightly-woven plot.  So the random puzzles would merely be superficial filler puzzles unless you have a random plot to go with them.  That is, it's possible to imagine a randomly-generated game that looks like KQ2, but not one that looks like KQ2VGA.

[Pidgeot]

One of my favourite adventure games is The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. This is a purely text game, so it isn't the graphics that impressed me. The plot was nothing to write home about, so that isn't what got to me either. What I remember is things such as getting the babel fish, and escaping that big mosnter (I can't remember how to spell the name, so I'm not going to try).

I believe you're thinking of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal.

*Note: HHGG puzzle spoilers ahead.*

The puzzles in HHGG are, IMO, memorable because they're very logical, but in their own strange way. Of course you'll need to put the junk mail on the satchel so the maintenance droid won't catch the Babel fish you're so desperately trying to get. It's fairly obvious - of course, you don't actually know that's what will happen until you've tried it WITHOUT the junk mail, and you don't really have enough time to go step-by-step through the puzzle, since you'll need to have the Fish once you are brought in to hear the Vogon poetry - not to mention you also need it to know what word to use to get the plotter.

Naturally, that game also had a ton of dead ends. For example, if you forgot to feed the sandwich to the dog in the beginning - you'll find out you should have done that once you get much further into the game. And if you don't have all the items Marvin may ask for at the very end - you'd better hope he asks for one of those you have.

[Spikey]

I agree with that.  It's part of what I included with the "etc.", simply because the sentence was already getting rather long.

That does also show the problem with too much randomness.

It would be possible to make an adventure game have a lot of random puzzles.  However, in a good adventure game, every puzzle is tied into a tightly-woven plot.  So the random puzzles would merely be superficial filler puzzles unless you have a random plot to go with them.  That is, it's possible to imagine a randomly-generated game that looks like KQ2, but not one that looks like KQ2VGA.

There are only a few, hard solutions to that problem. The first is embedding different paths, like in Kq6. It's always fun to see the short and the long way. It would be more interesting if both plots are equally long. It's very limited of course, you can't have many, many of those. Replay value increases just a bit by it. It's like that with the different classes of Quest for Glory, but that could be attributed to the RPG value.

[WebInFront]

Some good points made in this thread-- especially about dead-ends, inventory clutter, and pointless puzzles. I believe the biggest plague on the adventure game has been the pointless puzzle. Not only are they unrewarding-- they are also illogical and impossible to figure out on your own.

Many of the KQ games also had really obscure pixel hunting, as previously mentioned. I just don't see myself wandering around a game-map for several hours, hoping to click on the right rock to find item x. It seems that for many of these games, a walkthrough is absolutely necessary. The story should lead the puzzle-- quit hiding shit under logs, right?

Graphically, I am split. I truly admire the hand-painted 2D backgrounds of later-generation KQ games-- KQ6 comes to mind in particular. Then again, perhaps something along the lines of Dragon Quest: Journey of the Cursed King could be appropriate. The graphics in that game look (maybe are?) hand painted-- cel animation-- I think. Interaction is good as well-- for a game more based on puzzles and less on RPG development/action, you could ramp up the enviornment interaction significantly.

Most of all, though, I would like to see better stories. I want a more taut, gritty story. It doesn't have to be Indigo Prophecy every time, but a fantasy story can take itself seriously.

Maybe I should be considering some newer adventure games... I really loved Beyond Good and Evil, and it took adventure gaming into a new 3D world that I thought really worked. It wasn't quite KQ puzzle style, but it was an adventure. Too bad no-one really bought it.