Pizzles!

[Babar]

Someone mentioned a while back that the popularity of adventure games went down with the increase in usage of the internet, this allowing people to obtain walkthroughs easily.

I'm not to sure about that. I mean, the whole reason for needing walkthroughs is puzzles. The puzzles are the problem. If the whole gameplay of a game is centred around something that can be gotten off the internet, something is wrong. You can't check off the internet the best way to kill the baddy in level 4, or which is the best path to take to dodge the ghosts in Pacman, or which tile to move so the picture puzzle is complete.

I got stuck in adventure games way before I had any internet, and the frustration was enough to put you off the game for years (which it did, until I got the internet). If you notice, it's never the awesome puzzles that pull you back, but the wish to continue the story. The puzzles were a nuisance, put there to lengthen the game. I realise we have a thread for "Favourite Adventure Game Puzzles" (which ironically, has more hated puzzles that favourites), but then again, how many games do you replay to relive the puzzles?

Thinking about it, puzzles are pretty absurd. An example - Getting a statue head to place in a socket to be able to get lava in a cup to be able to use in a machine to get beads to power a robot to trample a guard - An interconnected sequence of this for that for this for that, where after a while, you lose sight of the original objective. This from a fellow who's main puzzle (which technically failed) was swapping a golden idol for a bag of sand, before running away as fast as he could.

The question arises, are puzzles really necessary for an adventure game?
If the answer is no, then something needs to replace the interactivity that puzzles brought. You could make an adventure game with nothing but clicking away while the main characters do their bit, but wouldn't that be a movie rather than a game? I think this has been done a few times (I myself have a CD of "Interactive Batman and Aquaman Game Comics"), but would it be enjoyable? If you want to stick to "Pure adventure-ness" then the only way I can think of to have some interactivity would be to give the player control over the path of the story: If the player saves the damsel in distress, he'd get an extra hand to help him defeat the evil wizard. If he sacrifices her and drinks her blood, he'd grow more powerful, and be able to defeat the evil wizard anyway. The only problem with this approach is that it would be difficult to design and code such a large and complex story (unless the branches were as superficial as my example) - but that seems to be the solution of all problems: Work harder and longer . Another advantage of this sort of game would be it's replayability. Unless you are a hardcore adventure gamer, or playing for nostalgia, once you know the solution to the puzzles, it's boring: just clicking away.

The other option is mixing the adventure with elements from other types of games: RPGs, platformers, FPSs, even strategy games. Or perhaps having puzzles as their own genre, with games like Myst, Golbiiins and Hodge and Podge. However, I'm not so sure how successful this would be. I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to be replaying 1213 in the near future for its enjoyable action. I'd say it'd be better to get something newer rather than mixing it with the old stuff.

Now if you say that puzzles ARE an essential part of adventure games, and should not be removed, then what should be done? Where is the balance between walking through simple key in the door puzzles, and bashing your head on the screen in frustration? How puzzling should puzzle be so as not to need a walkthrough? CAN there be a specific (good) amount? Personally, I don't think so (Heh...Unless it's the 'Work harder and longer' answer again). I realise that it may seem I am against puzzles, but it's is because that is the path my thoughts were taking. I can't seem to find a satisfactory answer to these questions. Maybe the use of some intrinsically solvable puzzles (like how dialogue puzzles are handled?) Any ideas? Because I can't think of anything.

[SSH]

Someone mentioned a while back that the popularity of adventure games went down with the increase in usage of the internet, this allowing people to obtain walkthroughs easily.

Nah, its because trying to find useful information on the internet is like a point-and-click adventure puzzle

[Radiant]

You can't check off the internet the best way to kill the baddy in level 4, or which is the best path to take to dodge the ghosts in Pacman, or which tile to move so the picture puzzle is complete.

Actually you can. There are FAQs and walkthroughs for any number of platformers, maze games, shmups, fighting games and puzzlers all over the internet. Google is your friend.

I got stuck in adventure games way before I had any internet, and the frustration was enough to put you off the game for years (which it did, until I got the internet).

Back then, there were help lines, BBSes and many many magazines that printed walkthroughs.

Thinking about it, puzzles are pretty absurd.

Sometimes. Good puzzles are not absurd, though.

The question arises, are puzzles really necessary for an adventure game?

Not really, an interactive story could work. But for it to be interactive there really should be multiple endings, and technically that makes it a puzzle to figure out how to reach all of them (unless it's obvious). However, the IF genre has a couple of good puzzle-less (or at least puzzle-light) entries.

over the path of the story: If the player saves the damsel in distress, he'd get an extra hand to help him defeat the evil wizard. If he sacrifices her and drinks her blood, he'd grow more powerful, and be able to defeat the evil wizard anyway.

Sounds like a puzzle to me
However, I can see a way this could go. Several RPGs have little or no puzzle (and sometimes, little or no plot forks) and can still be fun. Might & Magic comes to mind. But they do become games that are played on the endurance factor, rather than creativity.

How puzzling should puzzle be so as not to need a walkthrough? CAN there be a specific (good) amount?

Matter of taste, of course. There are easy games and hard games, silly games and serious games. TSOMI is far easier than MI2. DOTT uses a far more wacky logic than QfG. Etc. But what you call an 'intrinsically solvable puzzle' is not really a puzzle - in a way, you're deluding the player into thinking he has influence over the gameflow, when in fact all options give the same result.

[Nostradamus]

The walkthrough thing is that of an issue because there are immense walkthroughs for action games, and even FAQs on how to drive tracks in racing games to win and almost eveyr kind of game has FAQs ans walkthroughs to help you pass it. Plus I remember in per-internet games PC magazines used to have walkthroughs of adventure games in them. I subscribed to such a magazine and gotr walkthroughs (and cheats) every month. So there were walkthroughs in the golden age of adventure games in the 90's too. Also as mentioned before the internet there were BBSes.

Blame the demise of adventure games on graphics. With the realistic 3D environments
available today thats simply what people are most looking forward to in a game (sadly). In the golden age of adventure games, other genres were pretty bad. Action games were crude in graphics, repetitive and boring (from Pacman to Mario to Commander Keen to Prince of Persia), today in an action game you can wonder around doing all sorts of actions in 3d environemnts that you can interact with. Another example racing games in the past had very crude graphics and very unrealistic gameplay which also got repetitive. Even such games as Outrun, Lotus etc. were like that after a while. Today you drive very realistically in 3d environments and realistic steering, road conditions, handling etc so you feel just like you're driving a real car. Sports games were also very unreliastic in graphics and gameplay, again unlike today. So back then because other genres were unrealistic and reptitive adventure games appealed more because it was a more complete experience, more realistic because you interacted with stuff and people in the game, and your mind complted the gaps graphics couldn't. We were drawn to adventure games because they drew to us to their world more than any crude graphic unrealistic gameplay genre back in the day. Today when games simulate realistically almost everything in life, poeple want to do that. It's sad that graphics are more important to this generation then character and epic story and being able to use your mind but it's something that can't be changed because most people will always want to use the latest ablities technolgy has to offer.

So the adventure element in adventure games can be continued in 2 ways in modern commercial games in a way that will still appeal to huge crowds:
1) Action-Adventure: for example Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine - A game that I really enjoyed because not only was able to jump, run, whip, shoot guns, raft down a river, ride a mine cart etc. in a semi-realistic 3d environment, there was also a good story progress between levels and most importantnly there was a lot of adventure game elements in it: collecting items (sometimes hard to notice and find), using them on other items in your environement to solve puzzles and advance in the game. Also solving of puzzles to operate machines and other stuff. It's still an action game with adventure elements and not the other way around but it is a very enjoyable mix of modern 3d action with old school elements of adventuring. However not many action-adventure game had enough adventuring\puzzles in it to be enjoyable by old school adventure game lovers like us.
2) RPGs - in an RPG you also play a character with a background, there's an epic story developing and you have to solve puzzles and pick items and use them in order to advance in the game. Not in the sophisticated and\or weird way of a Day of the Tentacle or Monkey Island sometimes had, but still RPG is the natural expanding of an adventure game. It's taking it one step forward. Which also goes very well with playing in highly interactive realistic 3D worlds. Now for some people RPGs are too complex but I feel people who like old school adventure games but want to play new games and still enjoy epic storytelling, character development and puzzles and items. I enjoyed immencely games like Baldur's Gate I & II, Neverwinter Nights and its endless user modules and currently pplaying Morrowind which is way more interactive and free but because of that less epic and less puzzly.

As for yor other point, on amount\hardness of puzzles etc. well you can't fight the walkthroughs. Even the hardest of puzzles would end up solved and uploaded to the internet by someone, so you'll just frustrate and turn off the player if it's too hard.
And if you don't have puzzles it's not an adventure game.
And there's not really a magic hardness\easyness for puzzles. Everybody think different. The same puzzles can be very easy or very hard to differnet poeple. For some people a solution to some puzzles would be very logical and would pop right out, for others it wouldn't be that logical.
A good way of preventing the player from using a walkthrough is a UHS as done on the game The Oracle. Then you only use the UHS when you're stuck and you only get a hint, not the solution. If tha thint still doesn't help you get another hint. There'a a number of levels before you get the actual solution (and if it's reallyt easy you don't even get it, just hints). That way the player only uses the hints he needs.
Besides, some people enjoy playing a game with a walkthrough when they don't have time to wonder around or the gameworld is just too big for them to remember everything if they don't play hours a day. If they enjoy it that way let them have it.

[Radiant]

In the golden age of adventure games, other genres were pretty bad. Action games were crude in graphics, repetitive and boring (from Pacman to Mario to Commander Keen to Prince of Persia),

That's simply not true. There have been many popular genres, often simultaneously. If you think the games you mention are crude in graphics (for their time) repetititive (except possibly pacman) and boring, you likely haven't played any of them. These games were extremely popular, for good reason.

I'd wager that for any year that you consider part of the 'golden age of adventure gaming' there were at least three highly popular and bestselling games that weren't adventures.

So back then because other genres were unrealistic and reptitive adventure games appealed more because it was a more complete experience,

I can think of many adventure games that are not realistic (most of them, in fact, depending on your definition of 'realism'). Also, several adventure games are repetitive - any of them that involves verb-guessing, pixel-hunting, an overly obtuse puzzle or a maze.

Today when games simulate realistically almost everything in life, poeple want to do that. It's sad that graphics are more important to this generation then character and epic story

And yet Nethack remains as popular as ever, people download and play NES roms, and retro gaming is still on the uprise.

1) Action-Adventure: for example Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine - A game that I really enjoyed because not only was able to jump, run, whip, shoot guns, raft down a river,

And yet a game that was rather impopular and considered poor for its genre. Also, action adventures have been around since Lara Croft (and, arguably, Ultima Underworld). Hardly novel.

2) RPGs - in an RPG you also play a character with a background, there's an epic story developing ... Which also goes very well with playing in highly interactive realistic 3D worlds.

Such games have been in existence since at least Elder Scrolls Arena, and arguably Ultima VI. Again, hardly novel.

I don't actually think there's a decline in the amount of adventure game players (as witnessed by the community here and at IF Archive, for instance). Rather, there has been an increase in the amount of gamers overall, leading to a relative decrease of adventure games. In the Golden Age, selling 10000 copies was considered pretty good. Nowadays, with gaming having become a billion dollar industry, it is considered pretty poor.

[EagerMind]

Babar's post reminds me of this article, which I'm sure most people here have already seen. And I have to say I agree. I remember playing a game (Scary Mutant Space Aliens from Mars, in fact) where, in order to get a spaceship to work, you had to put a piece of cheese in a garbage can. And this was pretty much the first puzzle in the game. Think that was a frustrating experience?

In this context, I agree with Babar. What's the point? This isn't fun, it's totally absurd! There's been lots of discussions on these boards about puzzle design, and I think there's a general consensus is that the story should come first, and the puzzles should develop naturally from the story. I would suggest that, depending on the story, this might mean that a game may have no puzzles at all! The Interactive Fiction (IF) community certainly has plenty of examples of puzzle-less, pure story-driven games. I don't see why there can't be adventure games that are the same. But I don't think such games will ever be mainstream.

For games with puzzles, I think the main concern should be, again, does this puzzle fit within the context of the story? And does it make sense? If I actually found myself in this situation, how would I try to solve this? I think if a puzzle meets these requirements, you shouldn't worry too much about how easy or hard it is. You can't really control whether people will look up the solution. But, if people do have to look up the solution, I'd prefer the reaction to be "Oh yeah, that makes sense. Why didn't I figure that out?" instead of "WTF? What were they thinking?" The first reaction will probably keep people involved with the game, maybe evening learning something to help with other puzzles. The second reaction will probably be followed by "This is stupid, I'm not wasting my time with this." It makes all the difference.

The other thing that I think has "killed" adventure games is their failure to evolve with the times. I think I would have to disagree with Nostradamus that graphics killed the genre. Rather, it was (is) the genre's failure to embrace new technologies. In fact, to me, it seems like somewhat of a waste that all these super-realistic 3D engines are only use in 1st-person shooters. Take the Half Life 2 engine for instance. Think of the adventure game you can make with that!

Just consider an average bedroom with a desk. In a traditional adventure game, you'll have some hotspots that you can interact with (the bed, the desk, a drawer in the desk, etc.), maybe a couple items you can grab, and if there's some puzzle involved in the room, some pre-determined way to solve it. Now consider if this game was implemented with one of those 3D engines. The entire room would be interactive! You open the desk drawer and see a bunch of pens, pencils, paperclips, a scissors, etc, etc. that can all be grabbed and used. You can push the bed around, maybe even toss it through the window, send the desk right behind it, throw the scissors into the wall, and then use the chair to smash the door down. You've just totally redefined the experience!

I think if adventure games moved in this direction, you'd see a lot of issues with puzzle design disappear. No longer would you have puzzles like "put cheese in garbage can to power the spaceship." Or if you did, then that means you've just redefined the physics of cheese. So now, maybe you could also use that cheese to power a car, or shoot it with a bullet and blow a hole in a wall, etc. In fact, I think you'd see a shift away from creating specific puzzles and more towards creating specific experiences, and as a result a lot more emphasis on story. Would this be considered an "adventure game?" I suppose it depends on your definition, but I certainly think it would be something someone would want to play.

Finally, I'd have to agree with Radiant: I think it's debatable whether adventure games are actually "dead." Look at the success of Longest Journey and Dreamfall. Head over to the http://www.adventuregamers.com or http://www.gameboomers.com/, and it seems like there are a good number of commercial adventure games in production.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

[Anym]

I don't think the problem is with the availability of walkthroughs, but rather with the neccessity of them. As has been mentioned before, they have been available at all times, even though the internet made access faster and easier than ever. I don't think walkthroughs for other genres can really be compared to those for adventure games. For a text adventures, for example, it can be a list of commands, that you could almost load directly into the interpreter and watch the game play itself. For graphical adventures, you still have to click through it, but still the challenge is gone. For racing games, the walkthrough can tell you how you should drive, but you still have to do the driving yourself, which is both as much, if nor more, challenging and fun. One might even argue that finding the ideal line is a puzzle that some players enjoy and some don't. Importantly, the latter can still enjoy the driving aspects of the game even after they consulted a walkthrough, unlike adventure games.

I don't think puzzles are absolutely necessary, as mentioned before, we can look to puzzle-free interactive fiction (modern text adventures) for inspiration in that respect. That's not a solution for everybody, though. So, getting back to the walkthroughs, I don't think the problem is with the availability of walkthroughs, but with the fact that players feel urged to use them, after having learned time and again, that their solutions are obscure and illogical. Two things come into play here. Firstly, that most puzzles have exactly one solution, disallowing completely logical alternatives that would work in real life in favour of whatever strange thing the designer thought of, and secondly, partly as a result of that, virtual dead-ends. All too often players find themselves in situations where they can't progress, unless they solve one single puzzle (which probably only has only one solution). From a frustration point of view, it's probably almost as bad as a real dead-end (i.e. a walking dead situation). Knowing that there is some way to progress probably doesn't help much if you can't figure out what it is, making it all the more likely to give into the temptation of a walkthrough and from my experience, as soon as you've looked at a walkthrough for a game once, you're much more likely to look at it again and again, after much shorter periods of being stuck. So, basically, what I'm saying is, that players shouldn't become totally stuck too often. If they can't progress in one area, there should be something for them to do somewhere else and there should be more than one way to do it!

See also my previous posts on similar subjects here, here and here.

[Radiant]

But, if people do have to look up the solution, I'd prefer the reaction to be "Oh yeah, that makes sense. Why didn't I figure that out?" instead of "WTF? What were they thinking?" The first reaction will probably keep people involved with the game, maybe evening learning something to help with other puzzles. The second reaction will probably be followed by "This is stupid, I'm not wasting my time with this." It makes all the difference.

Three words: King's Quest V.

[DragonRose]

Sorry, Radiant, you're going to have to expand on your three words. Do you mean that KQV was an "Oh yeah, that makes sense" game or a "WTF?" game?.

There were some moments that were very obvious- throw the fish to the bear, or the stick to the dog, that sort of thing. Others were... not so obvious. So what did you mean?

[Radiant]

Apart from the zillions of dead ends -- Eagermind mentioned a nonsensical puzzle where you must use a piece of cheese to get machinery to work, and KQV has the exact same puzzle.

And it includes other things that don't make a whole lot of sense, such as that the cat can only be chased off with an old shoe, dropping gems at random in the forest, using the crystal on the guardian statue, giving the amulet to the servant girl, and waiting five minutes in the library.

My point is that nonsensical puzzles are as old as the genre, and did not contribute to its alleged demise.

[Nostradamus]

In the golden age of adventure games, other genres were pretty bad. Action games were crude in graphics, repetitive and boring (from Pacman to Mario to Commander Keen to Prince of Persia),

That's simply not true. There have been many popular genres, often simultaneously. If you think the games you mention are crude in graphics (for their time) repetititive (except possibly pacman) and boring, you likely haven't played any of them. These games were extremely popular, for good reason.

Dude, I'm 25, I played all these games. I was in the generation were Larry 1 just came out and yo uwere going nuts trying to figure out the copy protection questions. My first PC was a XT with no hard drive, just a DOS 3 diskette to load such wonderful games as Pacman, Space Invaders and Digger. And I stand by my opinion about them, graphically adventure games weren't so much superior or realistic than other genres. But you believed in the game world and its characters more. It was easier to identify with adventure games because they drew you into them. Much easier to identify with dots representing football players or other stuff. A larry 1 world or a Maniac Mansion world were more wholesome or relistic world than a supposed vehicle digging in sand to colect gems or a circle eating smaller circles while running away from aliens or a persian prince or a little italian guy who jumps on heads of his enemies thus killing them. That's why they were more realistic and easier to identify with relatively.

And yet Nethack remains as popular as ever, people download and play NES roms, and retro gaming is still on the uprise.

And those people mostly are people our age who remember their childhood days with these games and try to relive those days. Today's kids mostly aren't drawn to old roms or old adventure games.

And yet a game that was rather impopular and considered poor for its genre. Also, action adventures have been around since Lara Croft (and, arguably, Ultima Underworld). Hardly novel.

First, I didn't say it was a new genre. Second. Tomb Raider was pure run jump and shoot. All I said is Indy and The Infernal Machine hjad adventuer game ELEMENTS that most games of his genre don't have. It's not a replacement for adventure games, its just a genre that has some elemets.

[Such games have been in existence since at least Elder Scrolls Arena, and arguably Ultima VI. Again, hardly novel.

Even before that. Computer RPGs existed since the early 80s. But they never drew a big crowd because they had bery poor gameplay. A lot of numbers, very poor graphics and it didn't give you a wholesome RPG world that even a pen & paper D&D game woiuld give you at the time. It was never a widely popular genre at that time.
Today it is a very popular genre because of the exapnding possibilities and improvements it has.
Besides you missed my point ENTIRELY. I didn't say those were NEW STYLES. I just said those are the nowadays genres that still have adventure game elements in them.
Instead of picking atparticular lines you jsut had to read it all straight once or twice and understand the overall idea.

Also I would like to agree with everything EagerMind said.

[Huw Dawson]

I have to disagree with the ROM statement. I'm one of "today's kids" and I have played many of the old games on emulators. So I feel that statement is incorrect, or at least it's a generalisation.

The best puzzles are the ones with multiple logical (if difficult) solutions, IE I am in a room with the person I am trying to rescue on the other side of a electronically locked door. This electronically locked door is connected to a massive computer that is broken. There are three things I could do, all equally logical to different people. If you are the violent sort , you could simply grab the pickaxe off the wall and smash the lock to bits. Doing so would cause the guards to rush in, and you have to fend off the guards with the pickaxe while the prisoner escapes. If you were the technical sort, you could cross some wires in the lock by jimmying it open with the pickaxe and unlock it. This would then trigger a scene where you both jump out of a window into a truck below as the lock had an alarm. Finally, you could do the clever thing and do an elaborate puzzle involving using several parts scattered across the room and fix the computer (which you end up starting by hitting it with the pickaxe) open the lock and escape without persuit.

Of course, this leaves the reason, why would you do the hardest one? Well, a simple points system would suffice. Five points for the violent one, seven for the technical one and ten for the clever one.

This way, with some fancy graphics and a good control system, makes for a really good puzzle. Simple.

- Huw

[Radiant]

And I stand by my opinion about them, graphically adventure games weren't so much superior or realistic than other genres.

Well, good, but nowadays they still aren't graphically superior to other genres. Nor, indeed, more realistic. And what I object to was your earlier statement that (in the adventure game age) non-adventure games had bad graphics and boring gameplay.

A larry 1 world or a Maniac Mansion world were more wholesome or relistic world than a supposed vehicle digging in sand to colect gems or a circle eating smaller circles

Bad comparison; you're pitting real-world adventure games (unlike, say, Gobliins, or Future Wars) against non-adventures that are abstract and not focused on story. A better comparison would be e.g. Elite, or Sim City. Or possibly Alter Ego. Apples and oranges, you know.

And those people mostly are people our age who remember their childhood days with these games and try to relive those days. Today's kids mostly aren't drawn to old roms or old adventure games.

While most of today's kids aren't drawn to adventure games, neither were most kids ten or twenty years ago. It's not that the adventure game has less support than it used to, it's that far more people in general are into gaming, and this has skewed the distribution a lot.

Even before that. Computer RPGs existed since the early 80s. But they never drew a big crowd because they had bery poor gameplay.

Please do get your facts straight. Bard's Tale (1985) was a bestseller. So was the SSI series starting in 1988. Might & Magic ('87), Wizardry ('81) and Ultima ('81) are famous and spawned a hoard of ports and sequels. Even Rogue stems from 1980 and is a classic in gameplay.

Besides you missed my point ENTIRELY. I didn't say those were NEW STYLES.

It would be easier to get the overall idea if your point didn't include such obvious fallacies as "In the golden age of adventure games, other genres were pretty bad" and "other genres were ... reptitive".

Similarly, it's not true that the adventure element can be continued in 2 ways in modern commercial games in a way that will still appeal to huge crowds. If you look at sales figures, huge crowds are drawn to such games as The Sims, Sports games, battle-oriented MMORPGs and Star Wars spinoffs.

[Nostradamus]

Dawson, people like you who are young but download roms and old aventure games, are a minority in your generation. That's what I said most, not all.

And I stand by my opinion about them, graphically adventure games weren't so much superior or realistic than other genres.

Well, good, but nowadays they still aren't graphically superior to other genres. Nor, indeed, more realistic. And what I object to was your earlier statement that (in the adventure game age) non-adventure games had bad graphics and boring gameplay.

today they are not more realistic than other genres, exactly my point.
I say everything in context to the spirit of the time they were on. I never said adventure games had good graphics and other genres had bad graphics. What I REALLY said, and what you misunderstood because ou pick at parts of an explanation instread of the whole idea, is that while both had bad graphics (though not recognized as such at that time because it;s the best they had to that point) an adventure game world was ,pre realistic to you because you interacted with it more. Not that it looked or acted like the real world. Just that it was a more complete world because it had a story and more interaction. While many of today's games with high graphics give you interactin with the world better than old school adventure games.

While most of today's kids aren't drawn to adventure games, neither were most kids ten or twenty years ago. It's not that the adventure game has less support than it used to, it's that far more people in general are into gaming, and this has skewed the distribution a lot.

At least where I live and judging by the poeple I knew back then and know more, back thenmost the people I knew played some adventure games, while most of today's high tech kids don't. It is less popular then it used to be without a doubtr. Back then the adventuer game scene was dominated by Sierra and Lucasfilm\arts which sold a lot of copies worldwide. Today there are no big companies that mage hugely widespread adventure games, at least not in the classic style that we here like and still make with AGS. You can't say adventure games weren't more popoular back then then today, because some of the bestsellers of those times were adventure games, while there are no such bestsellers today. (And stuff like Myst aren't the same kind of adventure games)

Similarly, it's not true that the adventure element can be continued in 2 ways in modern commercial games in a way that will still appeal to huge crowds. If you look at sales figures, huge crowds are drawn to such games as The Sims, Sports games, battle-oriented MMORPGs and Star Wars spinoffs.

True.
But there's no adventure game elements in those genres at all. I just POINTED OUT the genres that still have adventure game elements.
You still refuse to see my whole point. I didn't say those replaced adventure games nor that they were more popular. You're so obssessed with judging every sentence that you miss the overall point.
My voerall point was that walkthroughs didn't kill adventure games, but graphics did, Because walkthrough existed before the internet. And it is a fact that once the 3d graphics game got going and became popular adventure games died, Sierra and LEC stopped making them. They each released their last games in 3d (like QFG5 and EMI) that whil ebeing graphically superior weren't as loved as the classic of those series. You can't argue with that fact.

[Helm]

My point is that nonsensical puzzles are as old as the genre, and did not contribute to its alleged demise.

How about adventure games enjoyed their time in the sun because IN SPITE of the awful puzzles, they were, at a time, the most graphically, musically and story....cally fulfulling games you could play on a computer?

How about adventure games started to die off when the rest of the gaming world caught up to the graphics, 3d action games occured will characters and stories as well, and people just couldn't deal with the 'mustard on forehead' type of idiocy anymore?

Can anyone blame them, seriously?


How about, finally, the fact that modern era adventure games aren't even well-written most of the time and capitalize on the genre's WEAKNESSES by sticking to inventory-based-puzzling, because they know their target audience is starved-for-adventure-games-nostalgia people like us here?


Puzzles were always bad mostly, yeah. People just took a while to wise up.

[Nostradamus]

I agree with everything Helm said. Everything he said was exactly the point I made in my original post, only more summarized.

[Babar]

Heyhohay!

I pulled this topic back from the dead, because despite all the other more recent topics, this seemed closest to what I wanted to talk about......

Well, actually, when I first started this topic, I just wanted confirmation that my annoyance was justified. However, I've kinda resigned to the fate of any adventure games I'd make now to be puzzle-based, and so I have a much more practical question now.

Basically, I want to know...HOW ON EARTH TO DESIGN PUZZLES?! You ask someone, they'll give you generic advice 'the puzzle should be designed around the story, and not the other way around', 'if the puzzle doesn't fit, then leave it out' and 'don't use culture-specific puzzles!', etc. But no specifics. There are a couple of puzzle tutorials (the only one I found really helpful was Rodekill's, but maybe I didn't look hard enough), but there are a lot of issues that are not addressed.

Here is the basic idea that Rodekill used:

Well, first of all you have to identify and/or create some problems for your player. Go through your story and find the major obstacles that the main character faces. Once those are found you can start making life miserable for the player by breaking those obstacles down into even more little obstacles. Teehee!

But then the problem pops up: what if the puzzle plain doesn't fit with the story? See, you are bound to have set conditions and limitations on your puzzles because of the story, and working with those is hard. Either you get an awesome 'ahaa!' puzzle that perfectly fits, or you struggle to think of something, and end up scrapping that particular obstacle. It is hard to describe without giving details (and I jealously guard my story details even years after I've abandoned them ).

How about the story involves....an impulsive youngster in the middle ages, who got sent to a dungeon by the king because he got into a fight while attempting to protect his sister from a perving soldier. He spends a year (or a couple) simmering in his anger, vowing revenge, and training himself (to withstand pain, hunger, to become stronger, etc) in prison. After that, he escapes from prison, looks for the soldier, finds out (somehow) that the soldier has been stationed in another city far away, and so he must travel there.

So far we have the following obstacles:
-Fighting the soldier (if you want to include this, or just have it as part of the intro)
-Training in prison (if you want to include this, or just have it as part of the intro)
-Escaping the prison
-Looking for the soldier (divided further into finding information about him, then travelling to the city, which could be further divided into many more puzzles).

Say you wanted to make the game only involving this much, at least for now. You'd want it to be of a reasonable length, even if it is just a short game, so that the player would be satisfied. We'll make the first bit part of the intro, just for simplicity's sake (and because it is not really an obstacle). So on to the next obstacle:

Now as I see, problems are already coming up. 'Training in the prison' is not really an obstacle (although if we skip it, our game is even further shortened, and the 3rd puzzle would be even more difficult to explain: why did it take so long for the guy to break out of prison?). We also have 'limitations': Only the sort of training that could occur in a prison.
Okay, let us solve this with a simple answer, that would be fun and challenging for the programmer as well (although many will be annoyed at the lack of 'pure adventuring'): a minigame!
The training can be done through a sort of minigame. Like those hilarious scenes while the Count of Monte Cristo was in prison in the newer movie. Yay! Problem 1 solved!

Now on to the next puzzle. The first REAL puzzle. The player must escape from prison. Now we have some story-based limitations again: the player is in prison, so only prison type stuff available. Also, you want it to be slightly serious (hahaha...) so you can't really do 'lure the dog with the bone and get the key' type stuff. Another limitation is that it has to be done a significant amount of time AFTER the player has been in prison- so either he is attempting to escape all this time and finally succeeds, or something happens after this time that makes escape possible.
At this point I'm totally stumped.


I think you have to think up/write up the story from beforehand TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the puzzles you will put in! Or you have to constantly redesign your story so that puzzles can be fit in (which everyone seems to be against in theory). But how?! I'm not really asking for a fitting puzzle for the scenario I outlined above (although if you have one, I'd be very interested to hear). What I'm looking for is a methodology by which I can streamline the process, eg. sort of like what Rodekill did up there (Define obstacles, break down obstacles into smaller obstacles, design puzzle to solve obstacle on smallest level, continue).

Any help? Please?

[blueskirt]

Damn you Babar. I had written a whole lot of replies already to a lot of the messages posted above (Particuliary the whole "the demise of adventure games is due to 3D graphics" debate when IMO it's mostly due to the gigantic change in the demographic that occured from 1998 to 2000) without looking at the date only to discover it's a 3yo thread when I reach your last post!

I don't think it's wise to design a story and then try to fit a gameplay to it, just like it isn't wise IMO to design gameplay then try to fit a story to it. Good designing should involve designing both the gameplay and the story at the same time for a game is better when both the story and gameplay (and also every other elements of the game) works together and strengthen each others.

I cannot help you regarding a methodology on puzzle creation, but for your problem with fitting puzzles, there are more type of puzzles than item on item kind of puzzles, sometimes adding a new verb to the traditionnal walk, look, talk and interract can change the dynamic of the puzzles. Reading your plot summary and your problem to squeeze fitting puzzles I was kinda reminded of Monte Cristo but also Full Throttle which required you to use your muscles in an intelligent way and where even arcade sequences were puzzles in disguise. Punching and kicking your way through puzzles, rather than focussing on complex item on item interaction. Or Gunmute, an IF game where the puzzles consist of killing a series of bad guys, using your gun, either by finding when to duck and shoot the enemy, either by shooting objects surrounding the enemies.

I don't know if it's the case for your story, but if your story feature swordfighting, have you ever considered the idea of making swordfighting less actionny and more brainy, where the goal is to find an intelligent way to get the advantage and defeat your enemy, using the environment, climbing on chairs and tables, clicking on improvised weapons when disarmed, cutting candelabra ropes and other tricks generally associated to swashbuckling?

For the escape, "something happening after this time that makes escape possible" sounds like a good solution. You could also make the sentence shorter, rather than being imprisoned for life, why not a 7-10 years sentence? But I find the idea of escaping more exciting.

[Takyon]

I like practical type puzzle like in Broken Sword but some are just absurd.

The puzzles in Grim Fandango were very good also.

[Ghost]

You could make an adventure game with nothing but clicking away while the main characters do their bit, but wouldn't that be a movie rather than a game?

That sounds almost hauntingly like Phantasmagoria. But still, quite some games tried to shift focus from standard puzzles or at least added a little twist, see Blade Runner with its "meta puzzle" (is the main character human or an android?).
As long as it has something relevant* for me, the player, to do, I'm all eager to try it out.

*Meaning it doesn't have Phantasmagoria written** on the box.

**Not even in latin.