PDA

View Full Version : What happened to adventure games? My take.


Paula
01-29-2004, 01:34 AM
Yes yes, this is old. :) Hereīs my own theory to what happened to adventure games. Note that I will not mention Myst, or claim the genre made a suicide. ;)

In the 80īs console games were the mass market machines for casual gamers. Computer games were a niche market. There were lots of different genres for different kinds of players.

At the beginning of the 90īs the situation changed, thanks to three things: fast processors, the Internet, and CD-ROM. Wolfenstein 3D showed the way, Doom broke the bank. Suddendly the PC was the coolest game machine out there. Computers were faster than consoles, and they had the ability to show 3D graphics. No censorship. A new kind of PC game audience was born: young male action gamers, who used to think Sonic was cool.

The CD-ROM gave the opportunity to have excellent graphics, music and sound effects. Voice-over actors and video became a standard. The production costs went up the roof. Thanfully, thanks to the increasing popularity of the Internet, more and more people had PCs. Game companies could compensate the huge costs by selling their games to larger audiences.

Thanks to the lucrative situation, LucasArts decided to concentrate their efforts on pressing money with Star Wars games. Sierra continued to make adventure games, but they decided FMV was the new way to go and it would be the only way their adventure games would be made. Sierra produced hardly anything else but trash at that period. "Multimedia" and "interactive movies" became new keywords. They were thought to be the next big thing, everyone wanted in. Smaller game companies, that used to produce adventure games, were bought by bigger companies. Many of them started creating multimedia products, as this was an easier way to make money. New companies emerged. They had no experience in making games, and the production values of their products were sub-standard. Lots of junk was sold as adventure games.

There were not enough good adventure games to support a large audience or attract new ones, and more than enough trash to alienate the old one. The adventure game core audience was now different from gaming core audience, and because there wereīt any interesting games for them in the market, many of them left gaming entirely.

Then came the PlayStation, and things changed again. Consoles were suddenly a threat again, and the competition became very fierce. Game industry changed. The game companies became stock companies. The shelf-life of an average game was two weeks, but it could take years to create a game. Ninety percent of games were done at a loss, only 10% managed to make enough money to compensate the flops. One expensive flop could kill even a big company. Many companies were at the brink of death. No matter the difficult situation, they had to have a good financial situation at the end of each quarter, or their stock holders (who didnīt know nor care anything about games or making games) would leave, and their company would go down under. The easiest route was to lisence a popular engine and make a game as quickly as possible, preferrably from a genre that was known as a good seller. Risk-taking was a big no-no.

Adventure games didnīt sit too well with this situation. They took a long time to make, and they sold steadily instead of in quick spurts. It took longer to get the investment back. They needed, more than any other genre, good writers. Really good writers are hard to come by, and they are pretty useless doing anything else. The current core gaming audience didnīt much care about the genre. Adventure games were pretty much dropped. Many other genres with similar "problems" had the same fate: RPGs (were later revived, they had the advantage of having pen and paper RPG gamers), turn-based stategy games (were later picked up by small publishers) and high-end flying simulations (still havenīt recovered).

Gaming was a strange phenomenon; even though the industry was huge, the mass media was not interested in it (except when they could use it as a scapegoat in moral panic) and the general audiences knew very little of games. The core audience was still the young male, and every game company tried to reach that market only. Anyone who published games, that were typically not this audienceīs cup of tea, would soon find out they had no audience at all. Adventure games were often considered "dead".

Now the situation changes again, slowly but surely. The industry has gotten big enough for companies that concentrate on niche audiences. Already we have a game company that is seriously dedicated to adventure games only. More and more people have computers at home, and women have become comfortable using them. Games are, little by little, getting attention in the mass media. There are more older gamers than ever. Girls and women have taken over the massive Final Fantasy /console RPG communities, because they love games with good stories and characters. Game companies have come to learn that their old adventure games are still selling, and they actually do sell well but over a longer period of time. Sierra and LucasArts are again showing interest in producing adventure games. Sokal, Jensen and Tornquist are working on new adventure games, and they have already proven themselves. This is not a bad situation to be in! :)

mag
01-29-2004, 05:43 AM
That's a pretty good analysis. I'd just like to point out a few things I thought of while reading it.

Originally posted by Paula

Note that I will not mention Myst...

I can understand not wanting to bring up Myst. Too many people have used it as an excuse. Myst in and of itself did not hurt the genre. But with this kind of analysis I don't think you can ignore the impact that Myst had. Remember after Myst came out everybody wanted to mimic its success. There were Myst clones all over the place. The problem with that is that while Myst may be a perfectly fine game on its own, it's not exactly representative of the adventure genre's best features. So while I don't think we can blame Myst for the genre's decline, it was definitely a factor.

Originally posted by Paula

At the beginning of the 90īs the situation changed, thanks to three things: fast processors, the Internet, and CD-ROM. Wolfenstein 3D showed the way, Doom broke the bank. Suddendly the PC was the coolest game machine out there. Computers were faster than consoles, and they had the ability to show 3D graphics. No censorship. A new kind of PC game audience was born: young male action gamers, who used to think Sonic was cool.

You're right that PCs gained a much larger market during the 90s. But was that due to the better technology, or were both due to another factor? During the 90s computers were becoming more available to people than ever before. Falling prices meant that a lot of people were getting PCs for the first time ever. And as businesses integrated more and more computer technology into their operations it soon became difficult for anybody who didn't have a computer. So now everybody's buying PCs, and a lot of them probably figured, "As long as I'm getting this thing anyway, I might as well pick up a few games."

Originally posted by Paula

Sierra continued to make adventure games, but they decided FMV was the new way to go and it would be the only way their adventure games would be made. Sierra produced hardly anything else but trash at that period.

Hey, GK2 was good. But yeah, I guess in hindsight that wasn't their best move. Certainly seemed like a good idea at the time, though. After all, what computer graphics program can make something look more realistic than actual film?

Originally posted by Paula

...and high-end flying simulations (still havenīt recovered).

Well, I think the flight sims have a somewhat different problem than the other genres you mentioned. They've always been targeted towards a much smaller audience. The controls are so complicated that you pretty much have to be a pilot to play those games.

Originally posted by Paula

The core audience was still the young male, and every game company tried to reach that market only. Anyone who published games, that were typically not this audienceīs cup of tea, would soon find out they had no audience at all.

I think you're right. Chauvinism is a big problem in the gaming industry, and not just in adventure games. Game makers are ignoring a huge part of the market. I think that may be starting to change, but we'll have to wait and see.

mag

Paula
01-29-2004, 08:20 AM
The problem with that is that while Myst may be a perfectly fine game on its own, it's not exactly representative of the adventure genre's best features. So while I don't think we can blame Myst for the genre's decline, it was definitely a factor.

Yup, i think so too. Myst was definitely a hit and was probably bought by people who didnīt usually buy games.. I just donīt think that many of them enjoyed it, really. It probably appeals to a very particular kind of person. But I think people tend to forget that Myst wasnīt the only game giving a bad reputation to the genre.

You're right that PCs gained a much larger market during the 90s. But was that due to the better technology, or were both due to another factor? During the 90s computers were becoming more available to people than ever before. Falling prices meant that a lot of people were getting PCs for the first time ever. And as businesses integrated more and more computer technology into their operations it soon became difficult for anybody who didn't have a computer. So now everybody's buying PCs, and a lot of them probably figured, "As long as I'm getting this thing anyway, I might as well pick up a few games."

I think there were several factors to why there was such a boom in computer games. There definitely was a boom, but I have a feeling that most of those new people to pick up computer games were not typical adventure gamers. Games had a kiddie reputation back then (and largely still is) and older people and women didnīt really bother with them. So, essentially the computer game audience grew, but not the adventure game audience.


Hey, GK2 was good. But yeah, I guess in hindsight that wasn't their best move. Certainly seemed like a good idea at the time, though. After all, what computer graphics program can make something look more realistic than actual film?

GK2 was probably the only good FMV adventure they ever did! :)


Well, I think the flight sims have a somewhat different problem than the other genres you mentioned. They've always been targeted towards a much smaller audience. The controls are so complicated that you pretty much have to be a pilot to play those games.

Yeah. The common factors were that they were not usually bought by the current core gamer group, and they took a long time to produce. So all these a bit riskier games just had to go.

I think you're right. Chauvinism is a big problem in the gaming industry, and not just in adventure games. Game makers are ignoring a huge part of the market. I think that may be starting to change, but we'll have to wait and see.

I hope so, too! Soon they have to, there are so many female gamers these days.

Ninth
01-29-2004, 03:12 PM
Myst in and of itself did not hurt the genre.

I'd say it hurt the genre in the sense that it prompted companies to produce Myst-like games, which didn't appeal to all classical gamers, and weren't novative enough (like Myst was) to attract new gamers, and it lead to a fork in the genre between those Myst-like games, which were numerous but not very appealing to your average gamer, and classical games, one of which was produced each year, like TLJ, or Discworld Noir, etc, which could have seduced the afore-mentioned average gamer, if only they'd been marketed properly. And I think that they weren't marketed properly because of the lack of success of Myst-like games.

mag
01-29-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Ninth
I'd say it hurt the genre in the sense that it prompted companies to produce Myst-like games...

That's kind of what I was trying to say. If it had just been Myst then it wouldn't really have effected the genre. It just would have been a unique adventure game. Even spawning a subgenre in the way that it has wouldn't have been so bad. The problem is that that subgenre took over the adventure genre so that almost all of the games that were being produced were Myst style games. Obviously a lot of people enjoy Myst, but if Myst is the only thing that's being offered you're going to run into a problem fairly quickly. And we can see that that's what happened.

mag

Ninth
01-29-2004, 04:52 PM
That's kind of what I was trying to say. If it had just been Myst then it wouldn't really have effected the genre. It just would have been a unique adventure game. Even spawning a subgenre in the way that it has wouldn't have been so bad. The problem is that that subgenre took over the adventure genre so that almost all of the games that were being produced were Myst style games. Obviously a lot of people enjoy Myst, but if Myst is the only thing that's being offered you're going to run into a problem fairly quickly. And we can see that that's what happened.

mag

Yep.
In french I'd say that Myst is "reponsable, mais pas coupable"... (responsible (? not sure here), but not guilty)