Whoa... Do I even LIKE adventures?

[GarageGothic]

I'm not sure if I should rather have posted this as an update to the Shadowplay thread in Games in Production, but I felt it was more of a general thing - though semi-related to the progress of the game.

To remind myself of what works and what doesn't, I've been replaying a number of so-called classics. And I've come to the rather surprising conclusion that I don't actually like adventure games! I don't know how to explain it. I've played every damn adventure for the last 15 years, I've regarded the genre as above all others. 80 or 90% of my favorite games are adventures. But now I find myself playing The Longest Journey (which might as well be titled "Doesn't This Ever End?"), bored out of my mind with repairing machinery, making distractions, and achieving goals, which have little or no relation to the actual story, not to mention listening to endless dialogs, that keep repeating the same pretentious and self-righteous philosophies - something a good screenwriter would have cut down to a single 2-3 minute scene. And I wonder: "Why do I even bother?".

I feel like a person who've eaten hamburgers all his life and suddenly realizes how disgusting and unnecessary meat actually is. It's almost like a sudden loss of religious faith.

I'm not saying that I don't think there are any good adventures - just that they aren't necessarily good BECAUSE they are adventures. I'm beginning to understand all those people who spoke of the death of adventure gaming. My feeling right now is that the genre as such has become as inbred as some of the royal families in Europe. A monstrosity with certain features exaggerated to the freakish, because it's fans have so closely guarded the bloodline against dillution by other genres.

When I look at my favorite adventures, they mostly aren't about puzzles at all, and when they are, that's pretty much the worst parts of the game (Le Serpent Rouge in GK3 being an exception, because it advanced the story rather than being an obstacle - e.g. if the game was turned into a movie, the riddle would remain an important part of the plot).

The reason that adventure games have meant so much to me is 1) that they're a great storytelling medium and 2) they let you experience a complete world in a way that no other genre, not to mention non-interactive media, could. They were - and still is, although other games like the GTA and Hitman series are strong competitors in my book - the best way to immerse the player in a fictional world. The actual gameplay conventions of the genre were secondary.
For a long time, I've thought that I, unlike most people in these forums, preferred Sierra to LucasArts because of the lack of humor (I tend to prefer serious games, and LA only made a couple of those). But now I realize that it has to do with the gameplay. In the best Sierra games, you just go along with the story, doing the obvious things in each situation rather than worrying about contrived obstacles and solutions. A game like Conquest of Camelot has next to no "true" puzzles - a few riddles require some thought, the rest of the action is a breeze. You can stumble your way through the Colonel's Bequest, not finding a single clue, but still get to the end. And the Quest for Glory games, like Police Quest, consist of nothing but the tasks expected from each hero class.

They are games of immersion, narrative and exploration.

I'm going to stop looking at Shadowplay as an adventure game. I'll spend no more time concocting devious puzzles. In fact, I'll probably try to forget every game I ever played. I'm going to tell a story set in an interactive environment, and that's it. I'm not sure it's even a game. I don't really think it should be. It's an experience, and it will be staged as such. If I wouldn't watch a movie or read a novel with Guybrush Threepwood running back and forth, finding an oar, breaking it, getting it repaired, using it, why would I want to play it?
Maybe this will disappoint some people, maybe it'll be a pleasant (or at least interesting) surprise. Maybe you can't spot the difference. The whole genre issue does nothing but limit inspiration. I'm telling stories set in an interactive, non-competitive, virtual environment. If you want to label them adventures, that's your own decision. Right now I feel utter alienated from that genre, and the only way I can regain my enthusiasm for the project is by evading categories.

[remixor]

If I wouldn't watch a movie or read a novel with Guybrush Threepwood running back and forth, finding an oar, breaking it, getting it repaired, using it, why would I want to play it?

Well, for one thing, because movies aren't the be all and end all of entertainment, and they have entirely different purposes than games.  If you really want the same experience out of a game than you do out of a movie, you should just watch a movie.  Seems like the logical choice to me.

Maybe this will disappoint some people, maybe it'll be a pleasant (or at least interesting) surprise. Maybe you can't spot the difference.

Meh.  It's mainly just your personal feelings.  I certainly don't feel the same way you do, but I can understand why someone would.  After all, there really aren't that many people playing adventures any more when you look at the whole body of gamers.

The whole genre issue does nothing but limit inspiration.

Now, this I just can't agree with even trying to look at it from someone else's perspective.  There are certain conventions many adventure developers adhere to that can limit creativity, but this is not a genre issue.  This happens in all genres and mediums.  The fact is that there are quite simply very few commercial adventure games released these days and as a result almost none of them are going to do anything particularly innovative.  A very small percentage of other genre games are innovative also, it's just that there are SO MANY of them released all the time.  The adventure genre has many possibilities, and labeling it "adventure" really doesn't limit anything.  One could say "well 'adventure' is just a word, it doesn't mean anything."  That's true, but it makes things rather convenient and it really doesn't have to put any creative constraints on a game at all.  "Adventure" essentially indicates that the game is largely devoid of directly-conrolled action, instead being generally based around a developed character interacting within a game world along some sort of plotwise path.  That's pretty open-ended, I'd say.

I'm telling stories set in an interactive, non-competitive, virtual environment. If you want to label them adventures, that's your own decision.

And I know that many of us are looking forward to your game.  I suppose I probably will call it an adventure, but maybe not to your face

Right now I feel utter alienated from that genre, and the only way I can regain my enthusiasm for the project is by evading categories.

Then by all means go for it.

[Bionic Bill]

I must agree with GarageGothic's sentiment. It's not really the genre I like, but the ability to have a narrative driven video "game". If there was an easy 3D engine that allowed me to make interactive stories and absolutely no blowing up of stuff, I'd be all over it. Historically the adventure genre has been more story-driven, but even then the play mechanics have often been forced, or non-sensical, and/or unenjoyable.

If I made a game now, a great many detractors would cry, "Where's the game part of this game?"

I'm considering getting "into" games, so I hope my philsophy changes some. I can't very well expect to get "interactive stories" published by anyone reputable. Stupid capitalism and its built-in quality assurance.

[remixor]

I'll just offer one point to consider: if it's too much JUST an interactive story, it will come off as sort of an inferior movie.  No game (especially an amateur one) is going to be as movie-like as a movie, so if the gameplay is negligible or not very important, what's the point of actually making a game (adventure or not)?  The only thing I can think of is that maybe it's easier to make an AGS game than a nice-looking movie?  I don't know.

[Bionic Bill]

Interactivity is something that's pretty new as far as the development of narrative goes (unless you count the relationship between bard and audience in oral tradition). So, it's certainly not as if an "interactive story" is the end-all of video gaming, it's just that it needs to be messed around with so we can understand how it works. Interactivity gives us new kinds of immersion, player-protaganist identification, and other such things that are not being explored much in any mainstream games I know of. That would be my motivation for making such a game.

[GarageGothic]

To me, the main difference between games and other media - and the main reason that I chose to tell Shadowplay as a game rather than as a graphic novel, which was something I considered -  is the ability to structure the flow in response to the user's input. No, I'm not talking about interactivity, at least not in the usual meaning. I'm talking about an optional depth to the story.

The Colonel's Bequest is an excellent example. The player can discover all the intrigues and find all the clues to reveal the whole plot. Or he can see a few of the plot threads, maybe find the killer, but have missed out on a lot. The problem here, of course, is that the player doesn't know that he's missed it, until the score comes up at the end.

Shadowplay is VERY information heavy. There are many hours worth of reading - film history, philosophy, religion, the occult, PLUS all the plot specific facts, the characters' background etc. etc.
If I had written it as a graphic novel or a movie script (more likely a tv series, the length considered), I would have to force all this upon the viewer, or I would have to dumb it down, not to bore parts of the audience. Turning it into interactive entertainment allows me to make much of the information optional. The player can spend most of the game digging deeper into all this knowledge, or they can play it through as your average detective game, learning only the facts absolutely essential to the mystery.

One of the main problems in The Longest Journey is that Ragnar Tornquist wrote this very elaborate mythology of Stark and Arcadia, which is fine - you can never do enough background story when working with fictional characters or locations - but he didn't make it optional! You were forced to listen to hours of lessons on history of a world or a species or whatever, and at times it got so tiresome that you just felt like clicking to the end of the conversation.

Another factor is the option for TRUE interactivity in a non-puzzle-solving context, in relationships with NPCs or in major choices along the way. Just because MOST games are movies broken into pieces by puzzles, a game WITHOUT puzzles doesn't have to be like a movie. In fact, the moment that you don't have the puzzles to distract the player from the fact that they're actually watching a movie, you'll have to discover the real possibilities of an interactive format.

[Nellie]

In the Interactive Fiction community, puzzle-less adventures are an established form.  I'm glad to see someone's having a crack at one in a graphic adventure.

With proper depth of interaction, the game shouldn't come off like an inferior movie, because it will provide an experience that no movie can possibly offer.

[DragonRose]

Wow, GG.  This is going to sound kind of weird, but you have just managed to put into words the problems I've been having with Bard's Blood.  I'd gotten totally sick of writing stupid puzzles "Oh no! My computer connection is down! I must find another computer!" and so forth.  I was almost at the point of throwing everything out and starting again.  Goofy little "where are my keys?" puzzles didn't fit in with the serious story I was trying to tell.  But the idea of Optional Depth... hmm.. I'm going to work on this a bit.

I can't wait for Shadowplay to come out.

[Dave Gilbert]

This is the problem with serious (read: non-comical) adventure games.    In serious games that are grounded in reality, puzzles seems very unnatural.  But you almost HAVE to have them or else you're just clicking through a movie.  You're stymied by the conventions of the genre.  Gabriel Knight is the best example of this, as the deep, engaging story often grates against some  very unrealistic and unnatural puzzles (cat hair and syrup mustache, anyone?).  

As for classical adventures, it's the STORY I remember most years later, not the actual gameplay as such.  The exception is LOOM.  I replay it once a year and still enjoy it.  And that game hardly had any puzzles at all.  Hmm....

[SSH]

Of course, you can have a game which has multiple endings (or even multiple middles) which are chosen based on earlier decisions (such as if to solve a puzzle, or which colour hat to wear, or whether you will hit someone or kiss them...)   Effectively you have 10 or 12 different stories, and what you do decides which one you get.

[Migs]

I tend to agree.  Puzzles are largely overrated, and it's really annoying when they get too complex.  I think it's nice to have interactivity with objects and everything, but the narrative of an adventure game is the most important part, not clicking on everything in sight.  Clicking on everything with the goal of trying to solve some obscure puzzle gets boring after awhile, plus I hate it when you never know if you've gotten EVERYTHING you need before moving on with the story...especially when it comes to these amateur games, since sometimes the creators forget to put in restrictions and you can easily reach a dead-end in the game.

[Minimi]

Look... I like adventures, because I'm interested in the story, well for the most part... like my adventure gaming started with the games like Indiana Jones : Fate of Atlantis, Ark Of Time, and Freddy Fish. I was about 9 or 10 years old.

But what I'm trying to say, is that the beauty of adventures, is that they intent to give the player the ability to have control of story, and their choices have influences in the game-world. The thing of cause, and effect. I think an adventure is really good, when it's non-linear, because if it is, it's really just a movie, but if it's not, then you can speak of a game. That's why games like GTA, and The Sims are so popular. They are non-linear, and your actions changes the future of the character/hero. Though this is pretty tough to program, and it needs alot of devotion.

[tamper]

Minimi - your profile states that you're only 16. Did you come to FoA etc. as late at 1997? If so, good for you!

Anyway, I tend to agree with GG and others. I consider myself an adventure fan from way back to the Infocom days, but for me its all about story, and while (good) puzzles give some feeling of furthing story through interaction, too often the puzzles get in the way leaving me frustrated - not because I want to solve the puzzle, but because I want to further the story.

Maybe that's why we're often tempted to use walkthroughs...

[LGM]

I think if you want to make a game that's most cinematic you have to go play a game like Metal Gear Solid or Parasite Eve.. Those games are some of the most cinematic experiences I have had outside of a movie theater. I sat there playing Sons of Liberty and watched the bullets wiz by that woman and the soldiers being slaughtered and I almost forgot that I was playing a game.

Adventure games are more like books with pretty pictures and puzzles. They immerse you in a totally different way then movies. Movies you watch and enjoy and you can physically relate to the characters. Adventure Games you ARE the character, you play the story.. You aren't a mere watcher, but a player. Movies aren't interactive,  Games are.. So comparing an adventure game to a movie isn't justified.

But I do respect your opinion and for the most part I see where you come from.. Just make your game the way you want and I'm sure we'll enjoy it

And there's my two cents

[Layabout]

When the word adventure comes to my mind i immediatly think indiana jones. Basically Action and exploration and a fun story.

I would call GTA:VC an adventure cause it has all those elements.

The reason I like adventures are because of the story element primarily and being, to a certain degree, in control of the fate of the hero. I grew up with sierra games and didnt get into the lucasarts games until about 1994. I remember as a kid getting absolutly frustrated with KQ3 and SQ3. It wasnt until KQ5 that i really started to play adventure games. I got KQ6 (one of my favourite games still) when it first was released.

I am not a big fan of puzzles, but it does add to the depth of the game. I just hate the really stupid puzzles that may not make much sense.

My favourite adventure game is gabriel Knight: sins of the father. It was, in my eyes, perfect.

So when you play my game (the GENERIC one...) expect to die. Expect to be shocked. Expect to enjoy the story. And expect the puzzles to make sense.

Thats all i have to say on the issue.

[Minimi]

Minimi - your profile states that you're only 16. Did you come to FoA etc. as late at 1997? If so, good for you!

yes, sorry, I wasn't the first one to play it, and secondly we had only a 486 at that moment, and we dealed in that time, with some guy called "harry" who could already burn cd's and was in the illegal business, and we got a cd at that time from him, with about 200 games on it, like all police quests, and indiana jones, and some walt disney games, like alladin... and games like pr0ntris (wow I liked that game!), so... that's the reason I played it at that time. And also... My homesituation wasn't good, like fights of my parents, and I just got back home at that time from my fosterparents, who only had this green/black computer, with princeofpersia and paddlewar....so, that's in short my little excuse !

[tamper]

No excuse necessary - although thanks for the insight!

[Las Naranjas]

I think by and large many of the longer term members (I mean nearing 3 years members) like Bill and I and the like feel the same way.

You only need to read that horrendous piece of writing I under took for my higher school certificate (http://www.sylpher.com/novomestro/blargh.htm) to see my opinions on the matter and the sheer fact I produced Novo and lauded Dada and Guerra.

I have an absolutely massive collection of AG's lying around, perhaps half of which had uninteresting plots so I didn't continue. Often when I get a new game (one I haven't played before) that I'm interested in, I'll resort to UHS files and the like because I prize the continuity of the plot over the satisfaction of the puzzle solving.
There are exceptions where the puzzles are actually fun, mainly LEC games, Simon the sorceror (hey, comedic games, surprise!) but by and large I don't have the patience anymore.


But the plot is only fun if I'm/the protagonist/the uber protagonist is doing something in the actual plot. Having to sit through mythology lessons in TLJ isn't like a film, it's like a shadow play. Running around to get a lever for a machine, the only object and hotspot in 20 screens, just so I can listen to a snippit of Kate's paper thin collegues on the phone, that's just a film where you have to watch boring bits. Like a roadtrip film where you have to watch the hours of travelling between whacky antics. It's just as clunky and stupid as the 7th Guest, except it had puzzles worthy of that title.
Perhaps it could have helped if they put as much effort into writing Syberia as they did into making eye candy, but you never know.
Then again, make these background things optional. Remember the chapter of GK2 where all you do is click every hotspot in the castle. That's ludicrousity from the other extreme.

It's probably these kinda of factors that meant I enjoyed Sakura more than almost any other game in years, despite the fact it's stupid, clunky, full of pseudo interactivity, stupidly written and with poor graphics and no animation.

It still managed to pull off a hypertext better than most.

Which is really sad, in some sense.

[remixor]

As for classical adventures, it's the STORY I remember most years later, not the actual gameplay as such.  The exception is LOOM.  I replay it once a year and still enjoy it.  And that game hardly had any puzzles at all.  Hmm....

This game is excellent.  I love it.  One of thing the things that's brilliant is not so much that it doesn't HAVE puzzles, at least in my opinion, but that it does have puzzles which are just really well-integrated into the story.  Bobbin's actions are what he would actually be doing if put in such a situation--the musical "puzzles".  There are no extraneous elements.  When I first played through that game, I was truly amazed, and I continue to be.

[DGMacphee]

Try this:

http://www.ryman-novel.com/



It's not a "game" per se, but I still classify it as an adventure.

It's a novel that focuses upon exploration of surroundings and people, not just a straight-line narrative.

It's an excellent use of hypertext.