What are the limits of adventure games?

[The Avatar]

Hmm.. I'm not sure who the impressionists or cubists are.. some modern art-forms i suppose?  But I won't let that stop me from putting some thought into this discussion.  

You are talking specifically about the limitations imposed on making adventure games.  So I think talking about story/plot/character ideas is a little too general.  What you might want to consider, is that it is limits that define a thing.  If you want to find the limits, then look at what makes an adventure game what it is.   An example definition:

'An adventure story where you play the main character and help guide him/her/it through to a successful end, all through a computer medium'.  

You'll find that depending how you define it, the limits change.  For example.. who says the adventure must be told through the control of a main character?  Could you tell the story of a plane ride through a storm, giving the player only control of the weather?  Let the player blow that gust of wind, show how those actions affect the lives of people onboard the plane, and would it still be an adventure game?  It could be.  Try changing any other part of the definition.. must you interact with the computer in the same way every other game does?  must an adventure story have a main character at all? Could the game make the player actually go on a real adventure just to play it?  how?  How interactive could an adventure game really become?

I believe that if anyone is seeing limitations in adventure games, then they might simply be holding to a narrow description of what an adventure game could be.  As technology is always progressing, the potential for creativity always progresses with it.  I believe we have only to harness this potential.

[Charlemagne]

I mean do you think we need to change the way we interact with the games we play?

Not necessarily, but that certainly is one way of altering the boundaries of adventure gaming. The problem I see is that you haven't defined what you mean by "interact". I see two possibilities. We can change the physical means by which we play an adventure game, like the Nintendo DS, but we can also change the perceptual means by which we play one. This has already happened once before: the text-to-graphics switch I mentioned. I believe that new technology has the ability to bring new experiences to the "adventure gaming table", but not as much as a change in the way we percieve how a game is played. (More on this below.)

I regret that before I read your post I had never heard of the Nintendo DS. I'll have to look into it.

I mean the new handheld is just itching for Adventure type games as it has the typical control method plus, touch, voice, etc.  Heck even the Dual screen aspect could lend itself in some way to the Adventure game.

Let's take it even further, shall we? What about tactile-feedback or virtual reality games where physical events are experienced by the player? It may be an over-the-top suggestion, but it illustrates what I mean by the "limits of adventure games". Like you pointed out, changing the way we interact can provide new experiences. Just how far can technology go in the service of storytelling?

Let's look at the perceptive side now. I did a little thought experiment on how the adventure game paradigm can be radically altered while still retaining a framework in which a story can be told, though it's not wholly my idea.

In every graphical adventure game I've ever played the protagonist is always a single, well-defined entity. He's a character with a past and present, and his own motivations. Sometimes they're very well defined, as in King's Quest, sometimes less so, like in Quest For Glory, but they're always present at the game's outset; the character has been constructed for us. But what happens if that's not true? What if the protagonist starts the game as a blank slate, an empty shell, whose past, present, future and motivations are determined entirely by the game player's actions? Let's put this into concrete terms with a hypothetical game:

The protagonist starts as no one; a character with no name, gender, history or anything else. On a generic city street, it is presented with three possible buildings to enter. If it enters the office building, it becomes a high-powered female executive in her mid-30s. She has problems in the marketing department; costs need to be cut and efficiency improved. The story unfolds.... If it enters the restaurant it becomes a 20-something male Indonesian immigrant, struggling to build a new life while working as a waiter. His parents are poor and need money, but the restaurant owner has to downsize his staff. The story unfolds.... If it enters the parking lot, it becomes a drug-addicted teen, still of undetermined gender, who's going to visit his/her dealer. The protagonist's gender is chosen by other actions the player chooses within this scenario. And again, the story unfolds....

This hypothetical game and each of its scenarios still allows for storytelling and puzzles while being radically different in form and structure from any graphical adventure game that's ever been produced (at least, to my knowledge). It also allows for overlapping storylines, to some degree. Maybe the executive likes to eat lunch at the restaurant down the street and decides to hire the about-to-be-laid-off immigrant waiter. Conversely, perhaps the Indonesian waiter deals cocaine on the side, and sells his wares in the parking lot, as well as to the attractive executive in the building down the street. The protagonist the gamer decides to be would be "fleshed out" throughout the course of the game, with details on history and motivation filled in by his choice of actions.

In a final irony, I note that the "game" I've described above, as unusual as it might be, has already been done after a fashion, though not graphically. Aisle by Sam Barlow is a "concept" interactive fiction game which allows the player to enter only a single command. What the player types at the prompt determines who the protagonist is and provides a little desciptive scenario before quitting. It's fascinating to replay it over and over again just to see how many different endings there are. More proof that new paradigms are only visible in hindsight, I guess.

EDIT: You have some interesting ideas, Avatar. I'd respond to them, but this post is already long enough.

[Thepal]

I just wrote a post in the General Forum that seems to be relevant, so I'll copy/paste. The second half basically shows that I don't think there are limits, but that games shouldn't really be 2D like the old Quests anymore. There are better ways.



The reason Adventure games are so loved is because they offer things that aren't found in other games.

For starters, almost every single Adventure game I can think of just doesn't take itself seriously. They are all filled with humour, which keeps them fun. I mean, if you saw a silly clown walking through the halls of Half-life it would seem slightly odd, but in QfG it fits right in. If you had to put a rock in your jockstrap and sling it at an enemy to kill him, it would seem kinda weird. But in Space Quest, it seems like a perfectly logical solution

Secondly, the characters are always more memorable in Adventure games. In Doom there aren't really even any characters. In Half-life you have the G-Man, and Barney if you really wanna stretch the term "character". But if you take any adventure game and you can remember all the characters, and probably even give their life histories and a full rundown of their personalities. And more than that, you seem to actually care about them, and wanting to experience more of their lives makes you want to buy the sequels.

Another reason is the fact you actually seem to be doing something to change the world. I don't know about you, but it doesn't matter how many monsters I shoot or armies I destroy, it doesn't seem like I'm actually doing anything unless there is something personal involved. It has to be made an adventure by having quests to complete.

All the best games ever made are the best because they included adventure elements. Half-life 2 was better than Half-life because they included more adventure elements. It's still an FPS, but it is also an Adventure. You are given quests to do, and you have to find a way to do it. Your gun becomes a means to complete a quest, rather than just a way to clear a path towards escape. The story becomes memorable not because of the FPS elements, but the Adventure elements in which you interact with other characters and the world, and those parts of the game usually don't even require shooting.

The Ultima games bridged the gap between RPG and Adventure games as HL did for FPS and Adventure. It was not a typical RPG about dungeons and dragons and stats. It was about talking to people, completing quests without simply hacking and slashing your way through, and everything else that makes an Adventure game. They even included the humour and easter eggs from other games like Sierra's Adventures always would, though to a lesser extent. And because of that the Ultima games always reigned supreme in the RPG world.

Command and Conquer took Strategy games to a new level. Not because of a unique gameplay, as the C&C style had been done before. Instead it was the story that made it unique. Suddenly an RTS was about real characters and you found yourself playing for the story rather than the game itself. Instead of simply destroying an enemy through strategic warfare you would find yourself sneaking into an enemy base to lay explosives or to rescue prisoners, or intercepting enemy convoys. Gone was the typical strategy game missions, instead they were replaced with story-driven quests.

In conclusion, I say Adventure games aren't dying out. They are evolving. The "Adventure" game is no longer a genre, but has become a part of every genre out there. It doesn't matter if you're walking around on 2D backgrounds pushing rocks or looking under bridges like in King's Quest, or if you're walking first person through a 3D world clicking on things to solve puzzles like in Myst. Both are considered Adventure games. So why is it different if you have to hack your way through some monsters on the way to the next puzzle, or use a gun to solve a problem instead of a jockstrap? Stats and fighting played more of a part in QfG than Ultima, so why is Ultima considered an RPG when QfG is considered half adventure? Why is sneaking around some guards in a Quest game considered Adventure, but in C&C it is considered strategy?

I think the main reason we don't see games presented like the Quest games anymore is that there are better ways now to tell a story. To play a Quest.

[Aspetra]

In reply to the opening post:

As long as were human, there will never be any limits.
There will always be someone striving to do something or be better then the last person had.

[Vildern]

Limits...

Of course, there are limits. There are always limits. Back in the 80's the visual limit was set at 16 colors.

Limits, they only show how far you've reached.

Press forward zealously, and they won't stop you from crafting the next great adventure game.

[Thanks, Pidgeot]

[Pidgeot]

Back in the 80's the visual limit was set at 16 bits.

I think you mean 16 color=4 bpp.

[Yonkey]

This is a really interesting thread, particularly Thepal's post.  I never even realised that you can actually consider the most popular games of today as "evolved" adventure games!

I do believe that this is the direction most games will take.  Games have progressed from adventure games, to RPG's, to first person shooters, to RTS and more.  There will always be games with no plots and just mindless clicking, but games that tell a story, or require you to go on quests/missions, will be more enjoyable.  

Every game must have a goal and the more personal it is, the more interested you become in it.  Adventure games thrived by the goal being obscured with many puzzles.  The satisfaction comes whenever you solve a puzzle because you get closer to your goal.  RPG's make you feel like you're part of the game because of the role you play, and your stats changing all the time provide a more unpredictable game.  FPS's do have a goal, complete the level by destroying everything.  You are given the responsibility to save a planet or something, but the goal remains very straightforward and hand-eye coordination is what takes you there, rather than intensive thinking.  RTS's are like a combination of everything.

I think it's safe to say that adventure game elements are still popular in today's games: inventory, quests, dialogue between characters, etc.  But, definitely the adventure games of the future will be nothing like the ones of the past.

Adventure games have always evolved with technology, so I see the next wave becoming popular once we have a major technology shift.  Virtual reality?  Maybe, but more likely something involving real lives and a story that could involve anyone in the world, at any given time.  I forsee dynamically changing plotlines and puzzles, unlimited inventories and inventory-exchanging, expandable worlds that users can create/modify and a quest that never ends because it is more like an always evolving journey!

What are the limits of adventure games?  There are no limits. Of course, what I described may never happen, may sound too impossible given today's technology, or may not appeal to game companies or consumers.  But, if we're talking about major paradigm shifts for the future of adventure gaming, I wouldn't exclude the possibility of it happening eventually.