View Full Version : Point-and-Click, Interactive Fiction, and the Grand Unified Theory of Everything ¬ ¬
This is long. Oh man.
Note that the point of this thread is not to just continue the excellent Point-and-Click is dead or is it? (http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135) discussion started by BacardiJim (which I was initially apathetic towards, then hated, and then liked quite a bit over the course of its life here) straight on through. Rather, after reading that thread, then immediately hopping into a car and driving alone for hours, my brain (which would much rather think about self indulgent adventure game theory than schoolwork) decided to come up with some ideas and share them with me.
Ok, ok... so this is similar to Jim's thread. It deals with the Point-and-Click vs 3D-direct-control debate, even, but it's definitely not a discussion of "whether Point-and-Click is dead, and why it actually is/isn't." So, replying to this post as if its only a continuation of Jim's thread, in a way that might imply that I'm just discussing whether or not "Point-and-Click is dead" would be misunderstanding what I'm talking about and effectively wasting all of these words that I'm dumping onto the server, these forums, and therefore into your head.
Remember that, as with all my posts, I have no clue what I'm talking about. I have done zero research other than play some adventure games during my life, read these forums and AG, and run Mixnmojo (some say "into the ground," but that's for another thread). With that in mind, beware the potential that you will be wasting your life by reading this thread. You've wasted enough time reading the introduction, which will probably be longer than the ideas I eventually attempt to impart, assuming I impart any ideas at all. The worst part of it all is that I have a sinking suspicion it's all been said before, and far more eloquently at that. Oh well, here goes.
First off, I was thinking about text adventures. How they've now come to be named "interactive fiction." How for a long time they were called "adventure games," or "text adventure [games]," but now they're not "games" at all, they're "interactive fiction." Does that strike anyone as weird? I haven't done any research into the naming choice, but I remember Evan had written an article of some sort about interactive fiction for AG, so maybe it's in there, but suddenly re-categorizing a genre of "games" as "fiction" is really interesting.
At what point did they stop being games? "Well, never really," say most text adventure fans, video game journalists, and probably me too. But what about the rest of the public? When adventure games could suddenly have artwork in addition to (or possibly even replacing) the written words of the author, text adventures must have certainly taken a large blow, but being only one step removed from the "state of the art," they must have still been considered "games."
But, how about once adventure games could talk, replacing even the dialogue? Or once they could play animation covering the entire screen, able to convey massive vistas and cityscapes, the change of seasons, the emotional struggle of the characters without the need for a single line of text?
I think, at this point in the eye of the game playing public, text adventures dropped out of their collective definition of "game." Though once very closely connected (or distanced by only a step or two), text adventures no longer resembled in any way the games being put out by the developers and publishers of the world. Recast in the context of the times, they actually bore more of a resemblence to "Chose Your Own Adventure" novels--or even normal novels--than to games. Hence, "Interactive Fiction."
It struck me as completely crazy that more or less by the nature of their design, and through their inherent inability to continue maturing with thier sister game genres, text adventures essentially were devolved straight out of the world of gaming.
Note: I'm not arguing that Interactive Fiction isn't a valid form of entertainment, or even that it isn't or wasn't or won't continue to be "a game" to a large (particular) number of people. It just all struck me as interesting.
At this point you can probably tell where I'm going with this.
My wandering brain, with all of the above in mind, next turned to Point-and-Click adventures. As I often find myself doing, I was thinking of Monkey Island 2 in particular, with a little side thinking about The Longest Journey. Thats convenient as I think they're pretty good classic and modern examples of the Point-and-Click genre, respectively.
It's weird to think about. Think back to when, say, Monkey Island 2 came out. It was clearly a unique and innovative game at the time, and turned the heads of many a magazine reviewer and gamer alike. Now, compare it to other games as they stood in 1991. Monkey Island 2 was, much like other innovative games of the time for both PC and consoles, limited to say the least. It was clearly inventive, and a riot to listen to the dialogue, but when making it, Monkey 2's designers were dealt the same limits and constraints as everyone else making games.
Just like, for instance, Contra, Dune 2, the Commander Keen games, and the Super Mario Bros series, there weren't a lot of things you could do. Controls had to be clunky and stiff. Sound had to be MIDI based. Artwork had to consist of gigantic colored squares. Constraints.
Clearly, like the creators in the other game genres, the designers of old adventure games had to push against and build around them in creative ways to stay innovative. And there's the flip side...
(see next post for bonus second half)
With all the new technology that's constantly being developed, there were avenues opening left and right that nobody imagined could exist just a month prior. Suddenly, on the PC for instance, the little guy on the screen could be ordered around with the mouse instead of needing to type him little commands like he was a robot. Video cards could suddenly display hundreds of colors allowing you to actually draw your art by hand and have the little guy march around on that instead of a mess of pink purple and blue blocks. Think of all the great things that can be done!
Through a combination of these constraints plus the booming new innovations in digital entertainment technology, the conventions of the point and click adventure were created, and at this point they were created with rules, limitations, and new technological breakthroughs nearly identical with other game genres.
Okay we know all this already, I know. Shut up, Jake.
Right. Well as we all know, at about this point (or a little earlier), and for the next six or seven years following, the Point-and-Click graphic adventure held its own against the other genres, giving a little and taking a litle from them as they all grew up and hid their old embarassing MIDI and 320x200 in the back of their bedroom closets together, only to deny that they were ever theirs--surely they were their brother's, if a curious friend ever asked. I guess if I was to continue this analogy of the bedroom and growing up and stuff, I'd categorize these mid 90s as the angsty teen years. Still holding onto all of your childhood beliefs, while trying to mesh them with all of the new adultey-type beliefs and ideas and rules that have suddenly shown up and made you rethink some things.
I guess really what I'm saying is that after all of that, the graphic adventure never moved out of their parents house. :) As we know, to this day, most graphic adventures are exactly the same as they were when the rest of the genres graduated high school.
Seriously. Take the examples of other games above. In modern RTS games (the evolution of Dune 2), the world is no longer flat, the units you control are no longer totally brainless (in the good games). Mountains, hills, weather conditions, and an opponent who can think for themselves in ways that don't simply involve bum-rushing you have all entered into the experience.
How about Mario, or his slightly clunkier PC friend Commander Keen? It was a bit of a shocker when Mario 64 first came out, but seriously, at this point I believe its for the better. Mario and his platforming brethren can still do all the hopping and squashing and fireball-flinging they used to on the olde systemes of yore, but now they can do it in a full living breathing immersive world that you get to uncover and explore as you hop and bounce off of the oddly colored owl-eyed mushrooms with angry eyes. You know? All those cheezy pulleys and levers previously floating in mid air can now be connected up into a giant stylized machine or factory that you have to work out. That kinda stuff.
Contra, Double Dragon, and Duke Nukem and the like? With the occasional retro-throwback aside, they are arguably the games that matured more or less into Half Life 2. Pretty much enough said about that.
This is all obvious information, I know. We've all been paying attention to the world of gaming, we've all played a fair share of video and computer games in our lives. I'll try to bring it all back around now.
Through the use of copious examples that everyone knows about already, I'm trying to show that more or less what happened to text adventures has really truly completely happened to point-and-click adventures. Maybe even to the point that point-and-clicks need a new degrading non-gamey name like Interactive Fiction got. That sounds like a stupid theory, an extreme theory, and a bit of a retarded theory yes, but this is a web forum where I can say what I want, and that's what I want to say. :)
Compared to the interactive, immersive games being created today, Point-and-Click adventures are hardly games at all. At one point all games had static backgrounds with little men that ran around on them and shot out an occasional text bubble. That's no longer the case, except with the Point-and-Click adventure. To the public eye, they must look like some weird puppet-act slide-show combination maybe, but certainly not like a "Game" that you'd sit down and play for kicks.
Back in the early 1990's graphic adventures shared things with all of the other genres of gaming. Enough could be found in common between a point-and-click adventure and a platformer or action RPG that Joe Gamer could see them both sitting in his game store, and realize that both were things he might enjoy and be able to entertain himself with. That's no longer the case.
As engrossing as the story to Syberia is, or the history of TLJ's parallell worlds are, to today's equivilent of yesterday's Graphic Adventure buyer (AKA the everyday gamer), they're borderline unplayable. Inaccessable. Irrellevant. They're not even games.
I think it's stupid to argue "2D vs 3D." One might think that's the next step in my ever-growing ridiculous essay, but it is not. 2D vs 3D is stupid. Irrellevant. In theory a company could make a 2D graphic adventure with the level of immersion and interactivity found in modern 3D games, and I'd be the first person to buy it. Hell, I'd probably buy two or three copies for sharing to show my friends what a fucking amazing game it was. That won't happen for probably ten years or so because it's too enormously expensive, but it's possible.
2D or 3D, whatever. Irrellevant. The important factor really is immersion. When my friend first showed me Monkey Island 2 he described it as "like playing a cartoon!" Arguably that's not the most appropriate description, even for 1991, but it strikes at what one might want, more or less, from a game. Not necesarilly to "play a cartoon," but just to be so sucked in that you can, if you desire, feel like you're there. Not in some "living vicariously" sort of way, but you get the point.
When Monkey Island 2 first came out, it's artwork looked brilliant, as close as you could get to real paintings. The music changed as you went from room to room, like you were actually moving about in a town! Its use of little pictures for your inventory instead of text descriptions let you see what the cramped sad cowering rat in his pocket might look like if it was in your pocket. It's no longer just represented as "cowering rat," but is instead really as close as you could get to feeling, like guybrush, that you had a pocket full of junk including a cowering rat.
That was the epitome of immersive gaming in 1991.
Why, then, does The Longest Journey play with entirely the same set of tricks as Monkey Island 2?
If I'm playing Splinter Cell, for instance, even though it's a 3rd person game and I'm not seeing straight out of the eyes of the character, I am immersed beyond any gaming experience I've seen previously. Papers blow by and make little scrapey sounds on the street. Flimsy doors flop a bit. Dead guys on the ground can be stepped on abit and picked up instead of just turning into part of the scenery (or worse, disappearing). It's one hundred percent amazing.
Why, then, does The Longest Journey play with entirely the same set of tricks as Monkey Island 2? That was the epitome of immersive gaming in 1991. At this point that isn't even a game. It's an interactive storybook.
Point-and-click interfaces, 2D static sets, game worlds with ladies who will pace the floor of their home on an endless loop until you click on them with an icon representing a loaf of bread or something, all have their place, but that place needs to become a very comfortable, dignified seat in the past.
Adventure games need to grow up. I want adventure games to grow up. I love static 2d point and click games, and wouldn't mind if they kept on being made, but not at the expense of what was once the most creative, inventive and most of all immersive genres in the whole of gaming. It's friends may have abandonned it because it refused to grow up, but there's still a chance. Text may be dead, point and click might even be dead, but the Graphic Adventure still has a chance. I hope that it's simply a very late bloomer and not already pushing up daisies.
With much love,
Jake
And finally, as a PS or something, I guess I will finally crumble and directly reference a point in BacardiJims thread. The argument was made there that there is plenty of room for improvement and innovation in Point-and-Click 2D games as they are now. To that I say that there might be some left, but (as I've apparently become fond of saying), it's pretty damn irrellevant.
To me, trying to do some new "sweeping innovation" in the world of 2D time-delayed old-lady-on-repeat-pacing-her-house-until-you-give-her-the-bread-icon Adventure Gaming is as relevant as, say, some innovative breakthrough by silent, black and white, movie makers that was acheived in the age of The Wizard of Oz. We can all respect Metropolis and Nosferatu and the like now, and learn from them when making new things (and movie makers are allowed to still occasionally do a retro-project in that style of course), but nobody is going to accept a new black and white silent movie as relevant or inventive in an age of color films with synced sound.
Thats the end of my PS :)
remixor
09-24-2003, 01:24 PM
I have written so much on this and related topics that I can hardly muster up the endurance to do so now (though I may if this thread picks up), but I have to say that, Jake, I agree with just about everything you said in that post. Great job. It can be hard to accept some of the points you bring up, but I think most people would have a pretty hard time coutering them very strongly. As many on this board have been saying for a while (and as some haven't), it's high time that the genre make some big leaps forward. My only point of contention is that I do believe classic adventures can continue to be viable, but they cannot and will not sustain the genre indefinitely. There's nothing wrong with nostalgia and classic gaming (as evidenced by my hard drive and collection of adventure game boxes that I still regularly peruse), but honestly, it must take a back seat to innovation. That's how we got point-and-click in the first place, isn't it?
RemiO
09-24-2003, 01:33 PM
Jake must have been bored at work again.
Very bored. :shifty:
But, I agree with just about everything. I've argued the same point - albeit not to this extent - many times on many boards before. "Purist" adventure gamers, much like 78 and 8-track tape freaks, seem to be very... conservative... so I'm sure this won't sit well over with some people. Should be interesting to see some reactions.
well I've got the remi*'s on my side, so I'm all set.
Not to be conformist, but I too agree with you, Jake. Innovation is the way to go. Yet there's nothing wrong with nostalgia and appreciation of old stuff in this new time. As a meager analogy, we all use computers today, yet some of us still own typewriters (do you use them? But that's besides the point). The thing is, while my favorite game (IJ and the Fate of Atlantis) is a point 'n' click game, it's not my favorite because of that - it's my favorite because it's got a great story and it immersed me. Very much. For a couple of years, actually.
I still love playing point 'n' click adventure games. I can have quality entertainment using just one hand, and I can be completely relaxed while playing them, unlike when I'm playing real time games, which get my heart beating. Real fast.*
I for one am all for change. If there's something better, let's try it. While I have nothing "better" to suggest yet, I'm sure other people do. And I wait.
*the other day, while playing War Craft III, I was playing my first game online in a long while and the whole game I was clocking 100-120 bpm. :o Is this normal :eek:
I'm beginning to sense a trend. I don't think I was clear on one bit :) I love point and click adventures as much as anyone else here. Out of all genres of all times ever, my favorite games all came out of the point and click graphic adventure pile from 1989-1998. I'm all for nostalgia. At this point, though, I don't really feel the need to buy nostalgia for $50 at my local game store, repackaged as a new idea. I want something that's genuinely new, but still follows the guidelines and philosophies that made my favorite old games so good.
<diversion>As a side note, I was so glad when the characters in Curse of Monkey Island started singing. At the time that, to me, seemed like brilliant innovation in an adventure game... or games in general (and not surprisingly it led to one of the most memorable moments in the game... far more memorable than the pasted-in recycled "new and improved rhyming" swordfight puzzle that preceeded it). Maybe characters had burst into song before, but I couldn't remember it. It certainly wasn't doable before they could talk. Anyway </diversion>
I'm more or less saying that, kinda like silent movies in an age of color talkies, point and clicks have dropped from the relevant-radar(tm) of both the modern gamer and the gaming industry. Unlike silent movies, however, I think there's clearly a chance for the graphic adventure to make a comeback if they grow up. The last thing I was trying to imply is that point and clicks are worthless in terms of nostalgia or historical significance or whatever. Quite the opposite, really :) They just haven't moved for 6 or 7 years.
After false, kinda failed starts with GK3 and Grim Fandango it seems like everyone settled back down to the tried and true status quo and havent moved since then. Now that 3D doesn't quite suck so hard I'd like people to try again before its too late, but I'm going to wind myself into another rant so I'd better be quiet now :)
Intrepid Homoludens
09-24-2003, 02:01 PM
:-p Jeezus Cripes, Jake, at least sit down and sort your thoughts out first before spewing forth. LOL! The first half of your speech deals merely with semantics and, though good to discuss here and there, is ultimately peripheral to the main issue at hand - point-&-click will always be point-&-click, ain't ever gonna change, regardless of how poetically renamed. Instead of starting from scratch in response to the beef of the second, more important half of your essay, I'll post a section of a personal essay I wrote a few months ago:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2003/screen3/917983_20030729_thumb009.jpg http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/pcnews/100802/postmortem/postmortem_thumb001.jpg
The exact same puzzle presented in the demo of
the upcoming The Black Mirror (left) was employed by the
recent Post Mortem (right). Coincidence? Or a case of lazy
developers 'borrowing' rehashed ideas?
Part 4 - Architecture and engineering from a gamer's eye view
Although I've so far only played the demos of either, I was disappointed to see that both Post Mortem and the upcoming The Black Mirror came up with the same exact puzzle. I thought it was really hilarious, and embarrassing! It was, for me, a powerful evidence that the adventure genre had become incestuously inept, and precisely because it is incapable of thinking beyond itself. The same rules, the same criteria, the same design, are the causes of this genre's gradual implosion all these years, and the redundancies in how the games look and feel are glaringly symptomatic of it.
We are gamers, not game makers, yet our relationship to general game design is anything but peripheral. We are the audience, the end target, of what the developers are producing. We've often played a game, come across something we think is lacking or badly done, and comment to ourselves, 'Hmm, I can do better than this.' As subjective as this comment is, it doubtlessly brings up the fact that we do think critically about how games are experienced. We don't see the step-by-step process of how the game is made, but we do see - and experience - the end result (much like purchasing and consuming a croissant without having made it ourselves). And this is something that, emphatically, is just out of the developers' reach.
Part of the overarching sameness and blandness of the adventure genre is that many hardcore gamers are so used to the same formulas rehashed over and over, and the same dogma used as design paradigm, that anything even remotely new is seen as suspect, immediately perceived as deviant. "What is this? No cursor? No pixel hunting? This sucks!," we say. What we're really saying, however, is "I am so damn used to the conventions that I refuse to accept anything else, no matter how much better than before." And so the cycle continues, from gamer to dev to dev to gamer. Meanwhile the media are looking elsewhere for newsworthy stories, and developers of other game genres are actively working on giving their fans new ways of experiencing a game.
Another facet of our mentality as hardcore adventure gamers is that we automatically criticize a new feature without putting it in a much larger context. When Gabriel Knight 3 came out, many of us lambasted it, complaining of how its 3D engine screwed up the experience. The fact is that because the adventure genre has, at best, only a suggestion of a history of going 3D (Tex Murphy, The Watchmaker, Simon 3D - so few titles, really), therefore it never really had the opportunity to evolve as a genre that does 3D well. It's pretty unfair to criticize the game's graphical design just because the genre has had little experience with it. We condemn 3D adventures because - well, precisely because we've had very little experience with them ourselves.
Getting back to puzzle conceptions, I really did feel embarrassed when I found out about that puzzle in The Black Mirror being a blatant copy of the one in Post Mortem. I think the developers innocently had no idea, but the fact remains that the genre has become hermetic, inbred, and cannibalistic. Think about it, when was the last time you tackled a puzzle and thought, "Wow, I've never done a puzzle like this before! Cool!"? Because of the severe constraints of conventions, adventure game developers seem to lack the creavity and imagination needed to produce new and exciting puzzles. Instead we get the usual 'find-the-key', 'talk-to-so-and-so', 'slide-panel-A-to-slot-D', etc. The variations may change, but the elemental conceptual structure is numbingly tired and lame.
One key reason for this lameness is that many developers ignore new technology and its possibilities for puzzle design. It seems that many devs - and many adventure gamers - view new technology as being only for first-person shooters, strategy games, and otherwise games for other genres. I find this to be a very ignorant perspective. In fact new and emergent technology can be one very important way to create new puzzles! Think about it, not only as a gamer, but as a game designer too. For example, what if there were a puzzle involving the use of infrared goggles? Or one that involves artificial intelligence in that you must trick a character into giving you vital information? Or one that involves finding your digital mate using 3D sound cues in a hall of echoes? Or trying to create a way out of a cave using physics and boulders? Using new and emergent technology throws puzzle design into a new arena, thereby forcing the devs to re-think and thus conceive new and exciting ways to deliver challenges to the player - you won't be embarrassed anymore because you won't find the exact same puzzle in game B that you originally solved in game A. And isn't that we adventure gamers want - creativity and imagination at the service of a memorable new gaming experience?
http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/september02/syberia/2s.jpg
What if this.....
http://www.evl.uic.edu/aej/526/pics/zork.jpg
....had been done exactly like this? Today?
Finally, I'll put it in this light: What if Syberia had been presented as merely a text based adventure? Even a classic point-&-click experience like Syberia is technology dependent. We very generously allowed it that and enjoyed the experience in great part because of it, our jaws dropping from the sheer 32 bit visual magnificence on our monitor. Go ahead, ask Benoit Sokal how dependent he truly was on technology as he set out to convey the wonders of Syberia's world? Would he have been able to do that if we were still playing nothing but text based games in this 21st century? So what's wrong with allowing future adventures to offer more and even go beyond this?
I think the first half of my ramblish essay was relevant to people who hadn't already written their own essay :)
Anyway, I knew there was another similar, probably better thought out, version of what I wrote laying around (and even said so in the introduction), and now you've gone and proven it.
I think your bit about other genres evolving is less proven and example-laden than mine, but that was a good read and I agree with you. Nice bit about Syberia and text adventures and stuff... I think :)
I would like you to reply directly to what I wrote if you have the time in the next couple days, because while I think your essay and my rant-essay are talking about similar things, they only completely mesh on a couple points, so you sort of cheated by claiming that it was a reply :)
I probably have more to say but now I'm late to a free night at a jazz club so I'll be back later to spew more unsorted thoughts :)
BacardiJim
09-24-2003, 03:07 PM
Getting back to puzzle conceptions, I really did feel embarrassed when I found out about that puzzle in The Black Mirror being a blatant copy of the one in Post Mortem. I think the developers innocently had no idea, but the fact remains that the genre has become hermetic, inbred, and cannibalistic. Think about it, when was the last time you tackled a puzzle and thought, "Wow, I've never done a puzzle like this before! Cool!"? Because of the severe constraints of conventions, adventure game developers seem to lack the creavity and imagination needed to produce new and exciting puzzles. Instead we get the usual 'find-the-key', 'talk-to-so-and-so', 'slide-panel-A-to-slot-D', etc. The variations may change, but the elemental conceptual structure is numbingly tired and lame.
I actually have two dichotomous points to make here. The first relates specifically to the puzzle mentioned. The same slide-paper-under-the-door-and-poke-out-the-key puzzle has also appeared in both Cameron Files games, Dark Fall, Case of the Rose Tattoo and a multitude of other games. I consider it my personal nemesis, and every time I encounter it I just want to scream in frustration at the unoriginality of the game designers who dared include it.
On the other hand, Intrepid asks when the last time was that I said, "Wow, I've never done a puzzle like this before! Cool!"? Most recently it was in Salammbo. Using the fact that you are acting as translator at a negotiation to foment rebellion was a really original twist on the idea of conversation-based puzzling. In fact, I found the entire mix of puzzle and gameplay styles combined with the voiceovers and comic book bits of exposition to be a fresh way of telling a story. Other games and puzzles come to mind as well: Blue Ice, where you never knew what result clicking on something might give you, from a spoken word to an inventory item to transporting you somewhere else. Deciphering the clues hidden in the scrolls of Riddle of the Sphinx. Navigating the 3x3 "maze," the wave puzzle and shooting at the tornado in Obsidian. And even (as much as I hated the game) the shadow animals in Beyond Atlantis 2.
I guess what I am saying is that I agree that there is a laziness and a general lack of innovation in puzzle and story design within the genre at the present time. But I think that the examples I have presented (and many others I'm sure I have neglected) demonstrate that that lack of innovation is not because of any inherent limitations in the point-and-click interface, but rather the laziness of designers. If the people who made the games I mentioned were able to come up with something original using that interface, there must be a million more ways of doing it today that haven't been tried or explored.
Just because you or I can't think of any offhand doesn't mean that nobody can. The trend of rehashing the same puzzles means only that developers aren't being original... not that they can't be original. And not that the interface has been exhausted with nothing new to offer us.
Erwin_Br
09-24-2003, 08:13 PM
Maybe characters had burst into song before, but I couldn't remember it.
*cough* and you're running the unofficial Sam and Max site? Tsk, tsk, tsk... :devil:
--Erwin
*sigh* and you're running the unofficial Sam and Max site? Tsk, tsk, tsk... :devil:
--Erwin
The john muir bit counts I guess :) I'd forgotten about that. It was done in a far more upscale fashion in CMI though. But it's hard to beat the "EDUTAINMENT!" sign coming down from the ceiling. I have unfortunately high hopes for Sam & Max 2.
Erwin_Br
09-24-2003, 08:20 PM
The john muir bit counts I guess :) I'd forgotten about that. It was done in a far more upscale fashion in CMI though. But it's hard to beat the "EDUTAINMENT!" sign coming down from the ceiling. I have unfortunately high hopes for Sam & Max 2.
You forget the performance of Conroy Bumpus, the song which also featured on the CD! :rolleyes:
'I remember my Chiiildhood in Briiiighton....' :D
--Erwin
You forget the performance of Conroy Bumpus, the song which also featured on the CD! :rolleyes:
'I remember my Chiiildhood in Briiiighton....'
--Erwin
Yes well I hate that song and have repressed it, and also didn't own the talkie version of the game when I first played it, and also he's a singer so its far more predictable :) So... :pan:. In Curse (and the John Muir song) it's more in the style of a movie musical, where all the sudden the music strikes up and everyone starts singing about the storyline or whatever.
Also, I heard this thread was drifting off topic, that the drift was mostly my fault, and that it should stop doing that, or something. :shifty:
I guess what I am saying is that I agree that there is a laziness and a general lack of innovation in puzzle and story design within the genre at the present time. But I think that the examples I have presented (and many others I'm sure I have neglected) demonstrate that that lack of innovation is not because of any inherent limitations in the point-and-click interface, but rather the laziness of designers.
Its still always going to boil down to "use item A with item, person, or background artwork B," or "talk to person C until all dialogue is exhausted." I think the staleness in the puzzles is the result of the staleness in the genre itself. Adventure game logic and puzzle design has collapsed in on itself. It's got nothing left to feed on but its own old ideas and wacky reasoning.
When I first started playing adventure games, I used to play them through as games. I considered the puzzles and story and characters intertwined. I can't anymore, unless I'm playing an older game (or Grim Fandango). Its gotten to the point for me (and I'm sure many others), that I no longer play an adventure game with the "maybe I can solve this puzzle in this way that fits the story" attitude. Instead, I've now been trained by years of adventure-logic-inbreeding to separate the storyline and plot advancement from the puzzles entirely, and think of the puzzles as "a wacky detached obstacle put between two plot points by the designer, whose completion will result in more plot." That is horrible. It's not always that extreme, but surely you know what I'm talking about.
I don't think there's any room left in point-and-click to innovate out of this particular rut. As you said, Jim, game after game has ripped off that particular puzzle example and there are plenty more duplicated puzzles where that came from. It's become cyclical at this point. The only room left to improve for most modern graphic adventures is to chose better inspiration to rip off. :rolleyes: Or--God forbid--to embrace some modern changes to the limitations of the genre and to your game designs.
Erwin_Br
09-24-2003, 09:08 PM
uh... okay... ;)
Anyway, I think it's clear developers are looking in the wrong direction if they want to push the genre further. Graphic's and controls might seem irrelevant, but do play a small role.
But I'm asking myself the question if we've really 'been here and done that' when it comes to our beloved genre. Technology is changing at a very fast rate, and games of other genres are being released in a much faster pace and greater number than adventure games ever can because they're cheaper and faster to produce. Hence, in other genres we've seen dozens of games based on a certain technology (e.g. engine) before a new technology presents itself to push that genre forwards.
What I'm saying is that we've seen a lot of the same games in other genres before technology allowed more. I mean, how many adventure games did we have in a similar style of CMI? Compare that to the number of games in a similar style of Quake.
Furthermore, it's difficult to for the Adventure genre to grow up. It hasn't much room to experiment because it it isn't very popular and developers can't take the risk of trying something new.
You expect the genre to grow up, and that's all right. Everyone wants to see his kids grow up. But (prepare for my conclusion) not too fast! 3D shooters can afford to change fast, because they are being developed faster (or rather, there are more of them around). I think it's okay to move the genre forward, but you can't expect it to do so in the same pace as other games do.
--Erwin
Erwin_Br
09-24-2003, 09:15 PM
Its still always going to boil down to "use item A with item, person, or background artwork B," or "talk to person C until all dialogue is exhausted." I think the staleness in the puzzles is the result of the staleness in the genre itself.
Doesn't that go for every game? I mean, HL2 is going to be great but basically it comes down on shooting and killing your way through dozens of monsters. What has changed in the FPS genre since Doom? Apart from technology such as lighting, shadows and poly's I think not much. Okay, so they incorporated story and puzzles. But what else? How is HL2 going to be different?
It sounds to me as if you're trying to change the genre in something it cannot be. How can the adventure genre evolve if you look at puzzles and logic? Add action elements?
--Erwin
Swordmaster
09-24-2003, 09:16 PM
Maybe characters had burst into song before, but I couldn't remember it. Sidestepping a bit here, I think the first song I ever heard in an adventure game was The Dagger of Amon Ra in 1992. The song was even heard in the floppy version of the game, if I'm not mistaken! "I want to marry an archaeologist and keep his artifact warm..."
As far as the rest of the rant goes, I agree with that adventure games seriously need to evolve and personally the titles that tried to set themselves apart from the crowd (Grim Fandango with its cinematic approach, Gabriel Knight 3 with its "real-time" "immersive" "3D" world) have been my favorites lately. (Ironic really that my "recent" examples came out in 1998 and 1999, respectively.)
I thought Blade Runner (1997!) was an excellent example of the direction adventure games could be heading at if they managed to get rid of object-oriented puzzles. Even if the world in that game wasn't totally immersive, it had its moments with the use of shadow, light, smoke and steam. What's more, the morphing storyline made the game somehow more believable - it's not just a string of pre-set actions, triggered by the player's actions, but the characters actually have their own motives and goals. Plus, hunting clues and enhancing photographs is just so much cooler than looking for a key or a monkey wrench!
Erwin_Br
09-24-2003, 09:22 PM
As far as the rest of the rant goes, I agree with that adventure games seriously need to evolve and personally the titles that tried to set themselves apart from the crowd (Grim Fandango with its cinematic approach, Gabriel Knight 3 with its "real-time" "immersive" "3D" world) have been my favorites lately. (Ironic really that my "recent" examples came out in 1998 and 1999, respectively.)
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately we haven't seen much adventure games trying to use the elements that made the mentioned games so special. That's what I meant with growing up too fast. I want to see some games with similar elements before moving on to the next milestone.
--Erwin
ragnar
09-24-2003, 09:29 PM
To further Jakes discussion about Text adventures and it being named Interactive Fiction, I think that P&C will be named Interactive Cartoons or maybe Interactive Movies.
I am rather sure that P&C is going to continue to prosper in some way, but it will never again be the highlight of copmuter gaming.
Erwin_Br
09-24-2003, 09:53 PM
To further Jakes discussion about Text adventures and it being named Interactive Fiction, I think that P&C will be named Interactive Cartoons or maybe Interactive Movies.
I am rather sure that P&C is going to continue to prosper in some way, but it will never again be the highlight of copmuter gaming.
Interactive movies already exist. Wing Commander and Tender Loving Care are examples.
Interactive Graphic Fiction, maybe?
--Erwin
Tamara
09-24-2003, 11:55 PM
I agree with jake .. the adventure genre needs to grow up, and not with 3D or a brand new interface - that's all cosmetic and doesn't really change anything. On the other hand, you don't need action elements or puzzles requiring quick reflexes, either -- personally I would hate that, as I'm no good at that kind of thing. I've written incredibly long essays on this before (and haven't saved them either) and I don't really feel like doing it again, but, what we need are puzzles that are organic, that fit into the game. We need the kind of gameplay where you can step into the protagonist's shoes and say 'OK what would I do in this situation', get a realistic answer, try it out and have it work. For this to really come about, I think that the concept that there is only one way to solve a puzzle needs to be done away with .. any way that is logical should be OK, and work, even if different actions lead to different threads of the story. And that's another thing -- consequences. At the moment, when you play 90%* of adventures, you know that nothing you can do will affect the gameworld in any way whatsoever -- it will just continue on its preordained path. How the heck is that immersive or accepted? I wanna have a game, where you actually have some control over what happens.
...
I can have quality entertainment using just one hand
*giggle* yeah, I bet you can :devil: :D
* as always, statistics are completely and absolutely made up, untrue and subjective
Nellie
09-25-2003, 12:48 AM
A quick note: 'Interactive Fiction' is actually intended to apply to all adventure games. It's just that the only people who use the term are the amateur text adventure community, so we're used to associating it purely with text adventures.
Its still always going to boil down to "use item A with item, person, or background artwork B," or "talk to person C until all dialogue is exhausted." I think the staleness in the puzzles is the result of the staleness in the genre itself.
That's a rather simple way to put it. Almost any game in the world can be broken into words like that. "Shoot alien A, obtain item B, open door," or "Build units, destroy enemy." I agree, though, that the latter has some quality replayability.
Like you said, the creation of puzzles that are really only blocks between two plot points has made what we call Adventure Games stale. If there were good, original, game devlopers out there, working to perhaps improve the situation, good might be done. :)
*giggle* yeah, I bet you can :devil: :D
*giggle* *giggle* *D
Heh, I was going to state that too, Nellie!
Looking at it from a creative standpoint, working games with new and exciting technology would probably be great! Inspiring even. However, I seriously doubt the inherent "problems" with AGs are in the technology used. Sorry to disagree, it was in fact a wonderful essay Jake. And I love yours too Trep! :)
I have played a game, made in -95. (I ALWAYS bring this up, hehehe.) I've seen it done, strong strong story, wonderfully artistic approach. Shitty technology, and a frigging marvellous "game". Black Out, it's Danish and only released in the various Nordic languages. Now, why are game makers sticking to the format? Are they perhaps looking TOO much at technology, rather than work on something truly artistic?
I say, dress up a bad game in great looking garments, it still sucks. Irrelevant, the word used, fits into this context too.
Oh, and comparing silent movies with modern movies, is a tad unfair, since we're talking about a ten year period, not a lifetime of creative minds find ways to use the new technologies available.
Of course, not all games need to be artistic masterpieces. :)
Tamara
09-25-2003, 02:26 AM
However, I seriously doubt the inherent "problems" with AGs are in the technology used. Sorry to disagree, it was in fact a wonderful essay Jake.
Nope, actually you're agreeing precisely with what Jake (and I) are saying - it's not the superficial changes that really matter, more profound ones have to be made.
I have played a game, made in -95. (I ALWAYS bring this up, hehehe.) [ ..] Black Out, it's Danish and only released in the various Nordic languages.Yeah, and I ALWAYS wish it had been released in English, sigh. You're a sadist, yknow, emma. :)
Nope, actually you're agreeing precisely with what Jake (and I) are saying - it's not the superficial changes that really matter, more profound ones have to be made.
I kind of read his essay like point n'click is taking a left (or right) exit because it can't take the genre further? Sorry if I misunderstood (again!) but that's the point of my reply. That I doubt that any problems with the games would be changed with a new technology. Of course, explaining MY point is irrelevant, LOL! Since I apparantly misunderstood Jake's! ;)
Yeah, and I ALWAYS wish it had been released in English, sigh. You're a sadist, yknow, emma. :)
Yeah.... :P hehehe! Actually, I so wish they'd made an english copy of it. It would have been really amazing to see how inspiring it would be to potential game creators.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-25-2003, 02:39 AM
Looking at it from a creative standpoint, working games with new and exciting technology would probably be great! Inspiring even. However, I seriously doubt the inherent "problems" with AGs are in the technology used. Sorry to disagree, it was in fact a wonderful essay Jake. And I love yours too Trep! :)
No, I never stated that technology alone would help, I never stated: Adventure Game + Technology = Fantastic Adventure Game. What I actually stated was that developers need to re-conceptualize the gameplay mechanics of adventure games, and one way to do that would be to investigate the possibilities that technology offers. Going back to one of my examples, where you must find a character in distress in a labyrinth of echoes. In this puzzle sound is the principal element, and I'm proposing that this kind of puzzle be used in a 3D game, thus 3D sound cues would be ideal. You, your character, would hear the other character screaming for help, but were exactly is she in this maze where sound bounces off in every direction? This is where 3D sound technology becomes an excellent puzzle engineering element. This is where technlology offers a cool new way of presenting a challenge.
See what I mean? This is the kind of thinking adventure game developers should be doing, re-investigating what's possible in puzzle design, looking into such things as technology, history, cryptology, etc. for inspiration, not other damn games.
I say, dress up a bad game in great looking garments, it still sucks. Irrelevant, the word used, fits into this context too.
:confused: I still can't understand how it is that many adventure gamers always associate technology with bad game design.
I have played a game, made in -95. (I ALWAYS bring this up, hehehe.) I've seen it done, strong strong story, wonderfully artistic approach. Shitty technology, and a frigging marvellous "game". Black Out, it's Danish and only released in the various Nordic languages. Now, why are game makers sticking to the format? Are they perhaps looking TOO much at technology, rather than work on something truly artistic?
You have to remember, emma, things like 'marketing', 'media exposure', and 'word of mouth.' Very, very few of us here in the States have ever heard of Black Out. How many developers/publishers know about it in Europe? How many of them investigated it, dissected it to find out why it was such a great game (as you claim)? What if Black Out had somehow found an North American distributor? A European distributor? Sounds like it never made any kind of crossing beyond Scandinavian shores.
Tamara
09-25-2003, 02:42 AM
I think it's stupid to argue "2D vs 3D." One might think that's the next step in my ever-growing ridiculous essay, but it is not. 2D vs 3D is stupid. Irrellevant.
[...]
2D or 3D, whatever. Irrellevant. The important factor really is immersion. When my friend first showed me Monkey Island 2 he described it as "like playing a cartoon!" Arguably that's not the most appropriate description, even for 1991, but it strikes at what one might want, more or less, from a game. Not necesarilly to "play a cartoon," but just to be so sucked in that you can, if you desire, feel like you're there. Not in some "living vicariously" sort of way, but you get the point.
So what jake is saying, in short, is that it isn't the point and click interface itself that is the problem (as he sees it) but that adventures are too static, follow the same tired conventions and are not immersive enough. Which is what you're saying as well with your comments about being artistic. Soooo, in conclusion we can all agree and hug and be merry :D ;)
DomStLeger
09-25-2003, 03:04 AM
I broadly agree with what jake has to say and lots of people who subsequently posted.
But I feel one major problem in this whole subject is the separation of an Adventure and Point and Click. To me Adventure is the type of game, Point and Click is just an interface. I think too often we define the genre by the interface, when plenty of games (running from Grim Fandango, to GK3, to TLE, to Myst) show that you can have a really good Adventure game without using the Point and Click interface (3rd person point and click anyway). So point and click should just be treated as the way you interact with the gameworld, nothing more. Sure it can potentially put constraints on the gameworld etc but in the end it's just describing the way you use a mouse.
So I agree with everyone that says the tecnological side (i.e. 3D graphics, direct control) in the end is irrelevant. The type of innovation that will help the genre is in the fundamentals of what an adventure is; the puzzle logic, the game play, the story; not the graphics etc. Having said that, changing the graphics may well make it easier to innovate in these other fields.
Looking at GK3 for example (I'll avoid BS3 due to it's contraverisal nature in these topics :D). I thought that was a brilliantly realised adventure with a great story and innovative gameplay (where else have you seen a puzzle with the scope and breadth of Le Serpent Rouge that also ties perfectly into the plot?). It did all this yet remained an adventure game. I think that may well have invigorated the genre, if it weren't for the graphics which didn't appeal widely enough. And the interface, graphics etc were not what I'd call traditional point and click, yet I suspect the game woul have been just as great with a Point and Click interface.
:confused: I still can't understand how it is that many adventure gamers always associate technology with bad game design.
I don't. :) Seems like misunderstandings are rampant!
No, I never stated that technology alone would help,
I never said you did. You got bundled up there with jake, who I in an earlier post was corrected in misunderstanding. Still not seeing it, but it doesn't really matter, I guess. Even though I misunderstood, my view is basically the same, LOL!
So what jake is saying, in short, is that it isn't the point and click interface itself that is the problem (as he sees it) but that adventures are too static, follow the same tired conventions and are not immersive enough. Which is what you're saying as well with your comments about being artistic. Soooo, in conclusion we can all agree and hug and be merry :D ;)
Still reading it a teensy bit different, had to go through it again. I guess it's me that's weird!
Don't everybody jump at me at once, for God's sake!
Intrepid Homoludens
09-25-2003, 05:15 AM
Sorry, emma, I'm not jumping at you, I'm simply making sure I don't get misInterpid.
twifkak
09-25-2003, 05:33 AM
It struck me as completely crazy that more or less by the nature of their design, and through their inherent inability to continue maturing with thier sister game genres, text adventures essentially were devolved straight out of the world of gaming.
I think they're referred to as "interactive fiction" in order to give them a quality that we can point to when we say, "This is why text adventures have a reason to coexist with (the 'obviously better') graphical adventures." If someone said, "Here, I made some text adventure," the response would be, "Add some graphics to it, and then I'll pay attention." This way, IF becomes a viable medium, and not just a technological copout.
Jackal
09-25-2003, 05:37 AM
I don't think you're misreading, Emma. Jake specified that 2D wasn't the problem, but he did repeatedly indicate that point 'n click adventures are basically a dead end (which is different than being dead... :) ). However, I think this was probably an issue of semantics, as I'm not sure it was an INTERFACE he was specifically criticizing. It was just an over-arching label applied to the current state of adventures. I could be wrong there, though.
As I see it, there are really two issues here. One is how to innovate creatively WITH the current technology, and the other is how to best move the genre forward using new technology. The two are not exclusive, but they are different questions.
There's no doubt there's a TON O' ROOM for innovation and creativity even within the format of current adventure games, and any developer now making a game should be cuffed upside the head for failing to do so. Better stories, integrated (or organic - good word) puzzles, artistic design, tighter scripting, you name it. And there are some games that are rightly acclaimed for that. Sadly, they are few and far between.
Still, it's hard to argue that there AREN'T inherent limitations in a 2D, point 'n click format. Action (and to a lesser extent strategy and RPG) games have all experienced this realization too, or we'd still be playing side scrollers. So this isn't a conspiracy against adventures. Does the move to 3D make a game automatically better? Heck no! Does a change of interface guarantee better gameplay? Nope. But they do afford new opportunities, and to close one's eyes to opportunity is foolhardy. It's not a threat; it's an invitation. Seeing it as the former will just ensure that adventures remain a niche market genre.
Two problems with innovation (neither of which should prevent it). One is that they are often poorly implemented in the early stages. Many people condemn direct control and 3D largely because neither has been well represented in adventures yet. But with patience, the genre will gain experience and maturity in each (and other advances). The second problem is simply that people aren't ready for the first wave of innovation. How many things come "before their time"? Eventually, though, others begin to incorporate the new innovations in more manageable ways, and ultimately no one can remember how they did without.
(BTW, I know that 3D and direct control aren't even CLOSE to being the only technological innovations possible, but they are the most obvious and the most contentious, so I just focused on them.)
Again, this is all the more reason to be thankful to Revolution. TAC gets some props, too, but they'd have never backed a horse that didn't have the pedigree of Revolution.
I liked your essay, Jake. I'm certain I've never seen one as self-effacing as yours *D , but you did a fine job!
But I feel one major problem in this whole subject is the separation of an Adventure and Point and Click. To me Adventure is the type of game, Point and Click is just an interface. I think too often we define the genre by the interface, when plenty of games (running from Grim Fandango, to GK3, to TLE, to Myst) show that you can have a really good Adventure game without using the Point and Click interface (3rd person point and click anyway). So point and click should just be treated as the way you interact with the gameworld, nothing more. Sure it can potentially put constraints on the gameworld etc but in the end it's just describing the way you use a mouse.
I totally agree. Interface style is a design decision alone. However, I think simply switching up the interface (or other small seemingly insignificant things, like the way the camera works) can have a huge impact. I was proposing that exploring other methods of interface, control, etc that weren't allowed to be explored in the past due to technical limitations might be one "quick" way that developers could push the boundaries of the genre a little, open some new doors that hadn't been considered before.
I thought by bringing up text first before point-and-click I was sort of addressing different styles of adventure game. Interface is just one facet, yeah, but I pulled out point-and-click specifically because my post was in part a response to the entire BacardiJim thread, which seemed to be operating on the assumption that Point-and-Click was the One True Interface, etc. And of course Point-and-Click (despite the genre's valiant attempt to escape in the late 90s) is by and large the predominant interface in adventures - to the point that some people expect it (or demand it!), and I think that's a huge limiting factor.
Also, you bring up Myst... I think Myst is a point and click game to the max :). Well maybe I don't... I don't know. Myst vs the traditional point and click is a good example of how a simple shift can recast your perception of the game world, and alter the level of immersion (eep what a sentence).
For a while now I've wanted to somehow get to play a version of Myst that uses all the exact same artwork and everything of the regular version, except that when you click on a door, instead of the image just dissolving to a new one, it first animates a guy walking through the door and then cuts to the next scene. Its a simple change, but thats really the only difference betweeen Myst and other point and clicks, from a pure interface standpoint. If you took Guybrush out of Monkey Island and thereby removed any delay between clicking on a door and moving to the next scene (since you wouldnt have to watch Guybrush walk to the door, you could simply click on the door in the SCUMM Bar and then be out on the pier background, for instance)... that would be a pretty similar game experience to Myst in terms of interface. Arguably the camera angles wouldn't quite match up, but it would kind of work.
The problem with that, a simple change in the interface (see dude on the screen who interprets your clicks and follows them around, vs. letting your clicks directly chose what happens immediately), is that your entire relation to the game has changed.
However, I think this was probably an issue of semantics, as I'm not sure it was an INTERFACE he was specifically criticizing. It was just an over-arching label applied to the current state of adventures. I could be wrong there, though.
You're right. Though my stupid dorky love of interface discussion has creeped in a little and messed up my point a bit (for an example of that seem my previous post).
MeddlingMonk
09-25-2003, 05:43 AM
But I feel one major problem in this whole subject is the separation of an Adventure and Point and Click. To me Adventure is the type of game, Point and Click is just an interface.
Add to that 2D v. 3D. I think it boils down to focusing on presentation. That is, an insistence that if it's 2D and point-n-click it's an adventure. If either feature is altered, it's not an adventure. I suppose that could simply be criticised as being narrow (as it implicitly excludeds all text adventures, pre-mouse graphic adventures, anything that uses 3D models, and presumably future games not using pre-rendered backgrounds) but maybe it's more a case of nostalgia bordering on luddism: just forget interface and graphics and say that a 'true' adventure game shoud look like it was made c. 1992.
twifkak
09-25-2003, 05:44 AM
The music changed as you went from room to room, like you were actually moving about in a town!
That brings up one of the reasons I really like Rez. Flexibility at the expense of not being on the cutting edge of technology. Rez simplified the art, so that you could even see the individual triangles, and used textures lightly, at most. Because of this, the animation was fluid and boundless. Likewise, iMuse used to be MIDI/sample-based, and this allowed for a lot of flexibility -- for example, in MI2, you would get a custom transition between songs depending on the beat at which you changed screens. Today, iMuse is just a bunch of prerecorded tracks that fade in and out, and the most exciting transition you'll get is a crossfade.
twifkak
09-25-2003, 05:46 AM
Why, then, does The Longest Journey play with entirely the same set of tricks as Monkey Island 2? That was the epitome of immersive gaming in 1991. At this point that isn't even a game. It's an interactive storybook.
Immersion is a holy grail, not the holy grail. That said, I agree with the general point that change is needed.
twifkak
09-25-2003, 05:59 AM
I just want to make a point about the oh-so-common "black and white vs. color" comparison. I don't think it's quite apropos, here. The technology has changed, and people are willing to take on more colors and 3-D and shadows and other dynamic effects -- so long as they fit the general adv game conventions. I think what's happening is more comparable to classical music -- the limitations are indirectly related to technological limitations (for example, the inability to play a clavier in more than one key), but are largely due to tradition of form and structure. We started off with baroque -- the text adventures where you were free to pick up and drop whatever you liked, and if you walked into the library without having dropped the Scrap of Linen, you die. Point and clicks brought us into classical -- more accessible, more flexible, but still strongly restricted by conventions. We need to make the jump to romantic music right now. Revolution is our Liszt.
twifkak
09-25-2003, 06:05 AM
Doesn't that go for every game? I mean, HL2 is going to be great but basically it comes down on shooting and killing your way through dozens of monsters. What has changed in the FPS genre since Doom? Apart from technology such as lighting, shadows and poly's I think not much. Okay, so they incorporated story and puzzles. But what else? How is HL2 going to be different?
FPSs are even more ridiculously tied to convention than adventures are. Hopefully, games like Call of the Cthulhu will change that, though.
remixor
09-25-2003, 06:13 AM
FPSs are even more ridiculously tied to convention than adventures are.
This SHOULD be true, but if BS3 weren't on the horizon, I'd have to say there would be absolutely no evidence to support that statement, considering many of the titles currently on their way...
Intrepid Homoludens
09-25-2003, 06:18 AM
This SHOULD be true, but if BS3 weren't on the horizon, I'd have to say there would be absolutely no evidence to support that statement, considering many of the titles currently on their way...
Don't forget Uru, an online multiplayer game where you don't kill and rob anyone, and where teamwork is strongly encouraged.
remixor
09-25-2003, 06:19 AM
Ah yes, good call.
I don't think you're misreading, Emma. Jake specified that 2D wasn't the problem, but he did repeatedly indicate that point 'n click adventures are basically a dead end (which is different than being dead... :) ). However, I think this was probably an issue of semantics, as I'm not sure it was an INTERFACE he was specifically criticizing. It was just an over-arching label applied to the current state of adventures. I could be wrong there, though.
LOL! Thanks, I was suspecting I had gone nuts there for a moment! ;)
Sorry, emma, I'm not jumping at you, I'm simply making sure I don't get misInterpid.
Hehehehe, witty! yeah, me too! ;)
BacardiJim
09-25-2003, 07:28 AM
my post was in part a response to the entire BacardiJim thread, which seemed to be operating on the assumption that Point-and-Click was the One True Interface
Speaking of being misinterpreted....
My editorial was not intended to express that I think that p-n-c was the One True Interface, but rather that there are a lot of people out there who do feel that way, that they make up a big chunk of the AG marketplace, that for various reasons they are unable or unwilling to alter their viewpoint, and that those crying for change ought to take a minute to realize all of this.
My own views on innovation and interface were better expressed by my earlier post in this thread, which went mostly ignored.
twifkak
09-25-2003, 07:54 AM
Not ignored, just unreplied to.
In any case, anybody that believes Point-and-Click is the One True Interface deserves to be ignored (speaking ethically, not financially). Anybody that prefers PNC, OTOH, is free to coexist with me -- in fact, there are a number of those over here.
In sum: Those that prefer innovation are just as viable, artistically and commercially, as those that prefer stasis. The numbers on which group dominates haven't been reliable enough to me, and are, in the end, irrelevant, as companies are sinisterly good at doing demographic statistics. Furthermore, those that think innovative and non-innovative titles can't coexist deserve to be ignored. Whether or not you're that last type I haven't put enough thought into to determine, so don't get offended by that bit.
Of course, I just continued the closed thread. *insert smacking-forehead smiley*
BostonLow
09-25-2003, 09:00 AM
My opinion is that Point-and-click adventure is the only game genre that never relied on technology. At least with FPS or RTS, better cpu may mean better enemy-AI/physics, which may directly affect gameplay, but how about point-and-click adventures? just how is technology tied to its gameplay?
All the technology-driven innovation in this genre I've seen so far only made the games more accessible (by getting rid of cumbersome text-interface, by visually displaying inventory items, by giving dialogue trees instead trying to guess words, by having spoken dialogue, etc) but none of them really did anything to improve the gameplay.
Erkki
09-25-2003, 09:09 AM
My opinion is that you're all right, but it depends on what you see as the goal for the adventure genre. It can't be just as simple as to evolve into something other than it is now.
If the goal is to reach mass market and be as present as FPS for example, I think the genre DOES need to go 3D and take advantage of many other new technologies. How many current successful games do you know that aren't 3D? (not taking GBA games etc. into account). The public expects 3D (which can still be point and click) and it would be very hard to bring a 2D game to the masses.
If the goal is to get out of the rut (right word?) of designing the same games over and over again, then we need innovative gameplay (what Intrepid and Tamara have said) and technology is not a requirement here but can help.
I presonally think that the genre as a whole should head for both of these goals at the same time.
Erkki
09-25-2003, 09:44 AM
And more... Not sure if I'm right, but I think the current trend in a big part of the game industry is to move away from rigid genre definitions to something many people call "immersive simulation". And it seems a logical step.
We may start to notice soon that genre will no longer be a constraint, but an emphasis -- games will combine elements from many original genres with emphasis on one or more styles of play. One day, probably not too far in the future, we will see games where genre can be just as interchangable as an interface (that isn't right for all genres of course -- you don't need an immersive simulation behind Tetris).
At the core of these games will be an immersive simulation that doesn't impose limits on the genre. The simulation will simulate (duh) a non-static world, where things can happen even without the player's interaction and everything seems to be really alive. Some of us have played the fore-fathers of these games already (Deus Ex, Outcast, Grand Theft Auto, The Sims, Mafia etc.).
And I believe that an adventure game can be built on top of such a simulation just as easily as an RPG or FPS.
remixor
09-25-2003, 09:51 AM
My opinion is that Point-and-click adventure is the only game genre that never relied on technology. At least with FPS or RTS, better cpu may mean better enemy-AI/physics, which may directly affect gameplay, but how about point-and-click adventures? just how is technology tied to its gameplay?
All the technology-driven innovation in this genre I've seen so far only made the games more accessible (by getting rid of cumbersome text-interface, by visually displaying inventory items, by giving dialogue trees instead trying to guess words, by having spoken dialogue, etc) but none of them really did anything to improve the gameplay.
But the things you mention DID improve the gameplay. Those were very important technological advancements in the world of gaming. Graphic adventures were pioneers in many ways before FPS was even an issue in gaming. Things like iMuse were also quite advanced for their day. Just because now such innovations wouldn't be new or interesting doesn't mean the genre hasn't ever relied on technology.
Garyos
09-25-2003, 10:43 AM
I just want to make a point about the oh-so-common "black and white vs. color" comparison. I don't think it's quite apropos, here. The technology has changed, and people are willing to take on more colors and 3-D and shadows and other dynamic effects -- so long as they fit the general adv game conventions. I think what's happening is more comparable to classical music -- the limitations are indirectly related to technological limitations (for example, the inability to play a clavier in more than one key), but are largely due to tradition of form and structure. We started off with baroque -- the text adventures where you were free to pick up and drop whatever you liked, and if you walked into the library without having dropped the Scrap of Linen, you die. Point and clicks brought us into classical -- more accessible, more flexible, but still strongly restricted by conventions. We need to make the jump to romantic music right now. Revolution is our Liszt.
Which would lead us to Musicals, eventually, right? RIGHT?????? :9~
edit - Curse my skimmimg. Sorry to Remixor for repeating what he already said. Doh.
My opinion is that Point-and-click adventure is the only game genre that never relied on technology. At least with FPS or RTS, better cpu may mean better enemy-AI/physics, which may directly affect gameplay, but how about point-and-click adventures? just how is technology tied to its gameplay?
Aren't the presence of graphics a technology? How about the mouse? Before those there was just text, and therefore there couldn't be anything but text based games. The standardization on mice and graphics were the great new technologies that allowed the point and click adventure to exist. It relies 100% on those technologies, just like the standardization on faster processors allowed 3D games like Quake to eventually exist when before there was just 2D.
As for evolution and reliance on technology over time in the point and click adventure, how about speech? Cutscenes? Just like modern FPSs are deemed dated looking and the like without skeletal animation and volumetric and particle fog and sparks and stuff, point and click adventures that don't rely on the recent high quality sound and video technology that allow speech, digital non-midi music, and cutscenes are considered outdated.
If sound technology wasnt present, Loom (or a more modern example, Riven) would hardly work. Thats two examples gameplay based out of technological advancement in the point and click adventure.
Imagine what designers might be able to come up with if they started looking beyond the slightly dated "new advancements" of "sound" and "moving artwork"
BacardiJim
09-25-2003, 01:25 PM
Its still always going to boil down to "use item A with item, person, or background artwork B," or "talk to person C until all dialogue is exhausted." That is patently untrue. I don't know how many of the games I mentioned you have actually played, Jake, but each of them blows away that puzzling paradigm at least once. Each of those games found at least one (and in the case of some of them several) completely new approaches to the p-n-c puzzle. Again I say this: Just because you can't see anything possible for p-n-c beyond "use item A with item B, etc." doesn't mean that nobody else can. And every time someone does so I will stand up and applaud and point it out so it doesn't go ignored by those who insist that p-n-c has reached some inherent limit.
[EDIT: I want to add GK3 (the entire SYDNEY sequence) and Spycraft: The Great Game as other games that re-thought what puzzles could be presented with p-n-c.]
BacardiJim
09-25-2003, 01:58 PM
Don't take the above to mean that I think all adventure games should be p-n-c. I mean simply that I believe that those who think the interface has reached its "limit" in what it can offer us in gameplay are being as narrow-minded as those who insist that direct control is evil.
BostonLow
09-25-2003, 02:22 PM
edit
Aren't the presence of graphics a technology? How about the mouse? Before those there was just text, and therefore there couldn't be anything but text based games. The standardization on mice and graphics were the great new technologies that allowed the point and click adventure to exist. It relies 100% on those technologies, just like the standardization on faster processors allowed 3D games like Quake to eventually exist when before there was just 2D.
You know, I think most point-and-click adventure games would translate well into text-adventures. I played a fair share of text adventures and I see little difference between the puzzles you find in text adventures and the puzzles you find in graphical adventures. The gameplay is essentially the same, despite the improvements in graphics/sound/interface which all played a big role in bumping up the immersion factor.
I've seen very few exceptions, the biggest one being Loom like you mentioned, where the gameplay depends on a pc's ability to sythesize musical notes...
Intrepid Homoludens
09-25-2003, 02:42 PM
You know, I think most point-and-click adventure games would translate well into text-adventures.
http://216.40.249.192/s/otn/other/greyblink.gif Why would you want to regress?
SirDave
09-25-2003, 02:44 PM
It's interesting to me how each of the Adventure Game forums has their own personality. In this forum, there's a rather refreshing hunger for AG innovation that I haven't seen elsewhere.
However, having read all these posts on the subject, it sometimes seems like some believe that the aim for innovation and the use of formats like Pt'n'Clk are mutually exclusive. The way I see it, there is plenty of room for there to be an adventure game designed with a totally new approach and yet, on the other hand, have new adventure games that use Pt'n'Clk with originality in the form of variations on the theme. That's the way I see games like Schizm and Rhem. Some describe them as 'just Riven clones'; I see them as works with a fair amount of original design and plot (yes, plot) within a Pt'n'Clk framework. So really IMHO there are 2 forms of originality and innovation: one that infers a totally new framework and one that makes older designs like Pt'n'Clk still fresh and appealing.
Here's an analogy: We're still depending on cars with 4 wheels, a suspension and piston engines running on fossil fuels. There are plenty of examples of innovation based on that design. Hopefully someday we'll get innovation that uses something totally new like magnetic levitation or something. Much as I support the search for, and look forward to, the latter, I'm perfectly happy to also enjoy variations on a theme of the former!
Dylan_Dog
09-25-2003, 03:10 PM
Jake - Agreed. Very well put. I've been trying to put forward similar points time and time again but have been shut down by adventure game purists on many occasions.
However, there is one thing we all want (all adventure gamers, those embracing the new evolution and the purists protecting 2d point and click like it is holy grail) is that we want to sustain adventure genre, we want to have more diverse games (more games period), more games that we can enjoy, and bring the adventure genre back into the mainstream.
Once again, well put Jake.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-25-2003, 03:11 PM
One of the main, persistent problems of trying to create a 'new' gameplay dynamic for the p-&-c interface is that you still must work within the p-&-c interface. That in itself serves to stump the designer, who automatically and often unconsciously reverts to conventions: pixel hunting, clicking on items....things you're expected to do with p-&-c. It would have to take a level of deviant genius to re-manipulate this interface so to surprise the player into re-thinking of how to solve a puzzle.
BacardiJim
09-25-2003, 03:16 PM
And I just presented several examples of where those geniuses have struck. Do you think that there are no geniuses left? Or that the ones who have surprised us before have exhausted their creativity?
Yes, new ways of utilizing the p-n-c interface are rare. But they do still occur. Too soon to write it off as a creative dead end in my opinion.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-25-2003, 03:22 PM
And what is their legacy? Did they leave inspirational ripples? Did subsequent developers play those games and thought, I need to re-think the puzzle designs in my next game?
BacardiJim
09-25-2003, 03:29 PM
Unfortunately not, Intrepid. Such inspiration is still the rare precious tidbit rather than the rule. On that I will agree with you.
On the other hand, when someone comes up with something novel in the twitch genres, it gets copied to death 100 times until it becomes passe too.
Regardless of the interface or genre, originality is a rare gift. Blame it maybe on the industry... not on the interface.
Fair enough?
Intrepid Homoludens
09-25-2003, 03:33 PM
Blame it maybe on the industry... not on the interface.
That was my point, dear, dead aim.
And I just presented several examples of where those geniuses have struck. Do you think that there are no geniuses left? Or that the ones who have surprised us before have exhausted their creativity?
Last time I checked, the "geniuses" still left in the industry (for instance noted adventurey type people like Jane Jensen, Tim Schafer, Ragnar Tornquist, Charles Cecil, and Mike Stemmle) have mostly packed up and moved to direct control and 3D, actually :shifty:. With that many designers already working on or having completed projects "in the new style," maybe this whole thread is pointless. My work here is done :D.
Jackal
09-25-2003, 04:34 PM
A dead end (allowing that we haven't reached the end yet) doesn't mean that there's nowhere left to maneuver; just that it won't ultimately lead you where you want to go.
SirDave, I get the opposite impression - that everyone here is more than happy to see point 'n clicks continue (and evolve wherever possible)... just NOT at the expense of technological innovation. If there's a little passion, a little intensity, a little exasperation in these cries for the latter, it's because that hunger you describe is now bordering on starvation. In the immortal words of Dr. Evil, "throw me a frickin' bone here!" :9~
Funny you should mention the car analogy, because I was thinking of "Tucker" along these lines. The movie may have been full of bull for all I know, and I forget most of the details anyway, but the gist was that this dude came up with all these wonderful innovations that were going to revolutionize car design. The bigwigs at the major car companies caught a whiff of this, and manipulated anyone and anything necessary to stifle the prototype from ever reaching the market to protect their own interests. Ultimately, the majority of his innovations DID make their way into the future designs, because they were worthy improvements and you can't stop progress. (Didn't do squat for Tucker, though). Yes, this is a completely trivial anecdote, but what the heck.
SirDave
09-25-2003, 05:23 PM
Funny you should mention the car analogy, because I was thinking of "Tucker" along these lines. The movie may have been full of bull for all I know, and I forget most of the details anyway, but the gist was that this dude came up with all these wonderful innovations that were going to revolutionize car design.
FWIW: although some literary/Hollywood license was used, my understanding is that the Tucker movie followed actual history fairly closely.
remixor
09-25-2003, 05:49 PM
And I just presented several examples of where those geniuses have struck. Do you think that there are no geniuses left? Or that the ones who have surprised us before have exhausted their creativity?
Yes, new ways of utilizing the p-n-c interface are rare. But they do still occur. Too soon to write it off as a creative dead end in my opinion.
If such methods are as rare as this thread seems to think (which is a hypothesis with which I would definitely agree), then it seems to me unreasonable to expect developers to just come up with them ANYWAY. Certainly, as you say, it's not an utter creative dead end, but as Jake pointed out, almost all of adventure's "geniuses" are either no longer in the genre at all or are no longer working within the P+C idiom. If the geniuses don't see much life left in a particular genre subset, what on Earth do you expect from the rest of the developers? Don't forget that the adventure genre is already hurting pretty badly from a developer shortage.
twifkak
09-26-2003, 01:51 AM
We may start to notice soon that genre will no longer be a constraint, but an emphasis
I like this idea a lot, and I have pushed it before (albeit less eloquently), but I don't think that that's where we're heading right now. Maybe 15+ years down the road.
twifkak
09-26-2003, 01:56 AM
rut (right word?)
Yes.123456
twifkak
09-26-2003, 01:59 AM
All: BostonLow meant that technology hasn't affected the gameplay of AGs in the way it has other genres. We've all agreed before -- whatever the interface, the gameplay is the same.
Of course, I think technology can enhance gameplay, so I don't know what he's rambling about.
twifkak
09-26-2003, 02:01 AM
Don't take the above to mean that I think all adventure games should be p-n-c. I mean simply that I believe that those who think the interface has reached its "limit" in what it can offer us in gameplay are being as narrow-minded as those who insist that direct control is evil.
Wow. I agree with you completely, Jim.
(See what baby steps can do? :P)
However, I do feel (like many others) that a change in interface will "grease the wheel" of innovation.
DaveGilbert
09-26-2003, 05:28 AM
Point and clicks haven't evolved, that's true, but you're wrong about Interactive Fiction. There are amateur IF games being released that Infocom and Legend never even contemplated because they challange and improve upon the art form. (Check out "So Far," "Jigsaw," or "Heroine's Mantle" to see what I mean). It's not hard to see why. Think of what books can achieve that films can't. The same applies to games. Words are powerful tools. They be used in ways that graphics could never replicate. Could you imagine something like "A Mind Forever Voyaging" as a graphical adventure? It would be impossible.
-Dave
MeddlingMonk
09-26-2003, 05:54 AM
I doubt very much that AMFV could not be a graphic adventure. Visuals have their own kind of impact and AMFV could gain from being able to see things. The punch that images have is different from the punch that words have, but that doesn't mean that either is more or less effective than the other.
Now, in the case of AMFV, one major benefit of graphics would be the stark difference possible in presentation between the real and simulated worlds. In the real world you would only see through cameras, you could not move but only switch from one camera to another. In the simulated world you have human perceptions and a human form. The differences is presentation could be very effective visually in a way that words could not convey. And then there would be the gradual disintegration of the simulated world over time. We should also not forget audio and what that can bring to the environments and character interaction. Take the scene where PRISM's 'son' arrives to have his 'wife' taken away by the police. It's very effective in text, but it would still be very effective in images and sound...perhaps more effective since images often have a more visceral impact that just a verbal description.
There are things that books achieve that movies can't. But the reverse is also true.
twifkak
09-26-2003, 06:22 AM
The idea that words have more impact than graphics and sound is ridiculous, as words are artificial social constructs. You're more likely to find experimentation in form and aesthetic in IF than AG, but there are a lot of other factors that go into that.
James
09-26-2003, 06:35 AM
Words should have more of an impact than graphics and sound. The adventure genre is my favourite because of the importance and relevance of the narrative within the context of the genre. Words are an integral part in the construction of this narrative. Words are what seperate the adventure from so many less emotionally involving genres, ones that have borrowed adventure elements in order to enhance their narrative and indeed gaminge experience as a whole.
BostonLow
09-26-2003, 08:09 AM
All: BostonLow meant that technology hasn't affected the gameplay of AGs in the way it has other genres. We've all agreed before -- whatever the interface, the gameplay is the same.
what I really mean is that technology CAN'T affect the gameplay of AGs in the way it has other genres.
I see much room for gameplay enhancement which are technologically bound in other genres but I just don't see any for pnc adventure games.
I don't know if its an appropriate analogy, but take Monopoly for example.
if today's kids are preferring technologically current videogames over playing Monopoly with family and friends, that doesn't necessarily mean that Monopoly's gameplay is flawed or outdated compared to videogames. you can't compare the two because Monopoly was invented before videogames and is not dependent on technology. Just because we have computers now doesn't mean that we need to start updating it. its gameplay is already perfect. You can't blame that monopoly failed to keep up with the times just because people are tired of playing board games.
Like monopoply, I think pnc adventure games' gameplay never depended on technology - because after all, pnc adventure games are merely logical puzzle games underneath all the pretty dressing. over 20 years of evolution and you can still find the same damn puzzles in modern pnc games you find in text adventures - that's not because adventure games have failed to update its gameplay - it's because adventure games have no way to improve its gameplay.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-26-2003, 08:30 AM
what I really mean is that technology CAN'T affect the gameplay of AGs in the way it has other genres.
I see much room for gameplay enhancement which are technologically bound in other genres but I just don't see any for pnc adventure games.
That is grossly inaccurate. Are you saying that such technology as a physics engine can't used to design a new puzzle based on gravity and the properties of objects? That EAX 3D sound can't inspire a puzzle involving locating an item in a labyrinthine chamber of echoes? That artificial intelligence can't create a puzzle in which you must truly think laterally to get information from an uncooperative character whose behaviour is relatively unpredictable, thereby allowing many possibilities to solve such a puzzle?
BostonLow
09-26-2003, 09:25 AM
That is grossly inaccurate. Are you saying that such technology as a physics engine can't used to design a new puzzle based on gravity and the properties of objects? That EAX 3D sound can't inspire a puzzle involving locating an item in a labyrinthine chamber of echoes? That artificial intelligence can't create a puzzle in which you must truly think laterally to get information from an uncooperative character whose behaviour is relatively unpredictable, thereby allowing many possibilities to solve such a puzzle?
In your examples technology has provided new ways to present the puzzle to the player and new ways to solve it, but essentially it's just another puzzle relying on the player's ability to logically deduce solutions just like any other puzzles. and the gameplay hasn't changed. game structure hasn't changed. In fact I can think of a few ways to do the same type of puzzles in text adventures - even though they're not as immersive or as interactive.
I see that as same type of gameplay that appeals to the same type of crowd.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-26-2003, 09:39 AM
In your examples technology has provided new ways to present the puzzle to the player and new ways to solve it, but essentially it's just another puzzle relying on the player's ability to logically deduce solutions just like any other puzzles. and the gameplay hasn't changed. game structure hasn't changed. In fact I can think of a few ways to do the same type of puzzles in text adventures - even though they're not as immersive or as interactive.
I see that as same type of gameplay that appeals to the same type of crowd.
Ah, but it depends on working within or without the conventions of the adventure genre, doesn't it? What we adventure gamers have been conditioned with and so used to for many years, that if it strays even inches from the boundaries we suddenly scream bloody murder, eh?
Point and clicks haven't evolved, that's true, but you're wrong about Interactive Fiction. There are amateur IF games being released that Infocom and Legend never even contemplated because they challange and improve upon the art form. (Check out "So Far," "Jigsaw," or "Heroine's Mantle" to see what I mean). It's not hard to see why. Think of what books can achieve that films can't. The same applies to games. Words are powerful tools. They be used in ways that graphics could never replicate.
There's always room to do new things within a particular form, that's fine, but I was more talking about the sudden leaps other areas take that suddenly cause two genres that were once evolving side by side to go severely out of sync, causing one (text adventures for instance) to sort of end up removing itself from the rest of the world of gaming. Sure you can do new things with point and click, or with interactive fiction, but nothing done in those genres will be as super groundbreaking or exciting (or, some might argue, as worthwhile) as the changes made back when the genre was evolving in step with the rest of the industry.
twifkak
09-26-2003, 12:19 PM
what I really mean is that technology CAN'T affect the gameplay of AGs in the way it has other genres.
I see much room for gameplay enhancement which are technologically bound in other genres but I just don't see any for pnc adventure games.
That's because you're focusing on the kind of technology that's been applied to non-adventures. An example that's been beaten to death: Natural language processing would be a killer app for an adventure game.
I don't know if its an appropriate analogy, but take Monopoly for example.
It's not. Technology hasn't improved Monopoly, but it's broken new ground for puzzle (Tetris) and board (Mario Party or Sonic Shuffle or whatever) games.
twifkak
09-26-2003, 12:20 PM
In your examples technology has provided new ways to present the puzzle to the player and new ways to solve it, but essentially it's just another puzzle relying on the player's ability to logically deduce solutions just like any other puzzles. and the gameplay hasn't changed. game structure hasn't changed. In fact I can think of a few ways to do the same type of puzzles in text adventures - even though they're not as immersive or as interactive.
Have you played The Last Express? It's fairly low-tech, but it has lots of cool new gameplay that, if the technology existed, would've cost about $200,000 to make instead of the $5,000,000 it did, and would have been about 2000% more "open" and "sandbox-like." How does that not change gameplay in the way better AI affects FPS gameplay?
twifkak
09-26-2003, 12:23 PM
Sure you can do new things with point and click, or with interactive fiction, but nothing done in those genres will be as super groundbreaking or exciting (or, some might argue, as worthwhile) as the changes made back when the genre was evolving in step with the rest of the industry.
Au contraire, as these games are unrestrained by commercial viability, they've become more inventive.
BostonLow
09-26-2003, 01:53 PM
Maybe i can use Tetries as a better analogy then. Its existence depends technology, but its gameplay does not. perhaps you can think of seven million ways to improve tetris, i dunno, by making it 3D, giving it voice-controlled interface, end-level rewards, special blocks that has special functions like pausing time or whatever...
but not a million enhancement to Tetris will make it appealing to a person who genuinely lost interest in it (In fact, it might even alienate the fans of the original and make it even more unpopular). This person would rather seek other forms of challenges and get a copy of Doom.
Another analogy because I just love them: Suppose fire wasn't invented and all we ever had was salad, or raw meat. Then somebody invents (or discovers rather) fire. Everybody can now cook meat, and it seems more people seem to prefer the taste of meat over salad. Travelling salad salesman was losing business big time, so he tried putting in new forms of vegetables in it. That didn't help. It was still salad and people were sick of it. He tried mixing cooked meat into his salad, but the salad purists refused to call it a salad. So it was called something else, i dunno, stir fry. Anyway, the point is, salad lost popularity because people were sick of eating salad all the time, not because there was anything particularily wrong with it. The interest shifted, largely thanks to the new options given by the new technology.
PS. No, I haven't played the Last Express. I heard it is a real-time adventure game and things can happen in this game whether the player takes any action or not. AMFV is also real time, isn't it? maybe not on CPU clock, but things happened independently of the player's actions every turn.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-26-2003, 02:02 PM
...I haven't played the Last Express. I heard it is a real-time adventure game and things can happen in this game whether the player takes any action or not. AMFV is also real time, isn't it? maybe not on CPU clock, but things happened independently of the player's actions every turn.
Then why didn't subsequent developers investigate the gameplay mechanics that made TLE and AMFV so good?
Look into the upcoming FPS/RPG hybrid game S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and you'll see one direction adventure games could have gone in. Like TLE, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. operates in real time, pitting you against A.I. controlled competitors in a fight over precious loot and resources. They are after the same things you are, and you can either team up with them and split the booty of your missions, or you get violent and battle each other to the death. In any case, the game promises that it's possible for an A.I. controlled character to complete all the missions in the game, you lose. So why couldn't this idea be applied to an adventure game? Say, where you must prevent a murder from happening?
BostonLow
09-26-2003, 02:15 PM
Look into the upcoming FPS/RPG hybrid game S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and you'll see one direction adventure games could have gone in. Like TLE, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. operates in real time, pitting you against A.I. controlled competitors in a fight over precious loot and resources. They are after the same things you are, and you can either team up with them and split the booty of your missions, or you get violent and battle each other to the death. In any case, the game promises that it's possible for an A.I. controlled character to complete all the missions in the game, you lose. So why couldn't this idea be applied to an adventure game? Say, where you must prevent a murder from happening?
I dunno... because as soon as you are given such amount of freedom, suddenly the conventions of pnc adventure genre seem extremely limiting? To counter that problem the developers would add more freedom and go outside the conventions (most likely adding action-oriented or timing-oriented solutions to the same problem), and from that point on, the game is no longer a pnc adventure.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-26-2003, 02:22 PM
I dunno... because as soon as you are given such amount of freedom, suddenly the conventions of pnc adventure genre seem extremely limiting?
Precisely. That's the job of the good developer, to become really creative in his/her manipulation of the accepted conventions of the genre.
To counter that problem the developers would add more freedom and go outside the conventions (most likely adding action-oriented or timing-oriented solutions to the same problem), and from that point on, the game is no longer a pnc adventure.
Now, this is where the ignorance of many adventure gamers seep in. They automatically think that once you push the genre's boundaries the game will end up having action sequences, violence, timed challenges, etc. Where did I ever mention that you have to stick those in to 'compensate' for the sudden limitations? And where did I mention in my post anything about p-&-c or any other type of interface?
BostonLow
09-26-2003, 03:31 PM
Now, this is where the ignorance of many adventure gamers seep in. They automatically think that once you push the genre's boundaries the game will end up having action sequences, violence, timed challenges, etc. Where did I ever mention that you have to stick those in to 'compensate' for the sudden limitations? And where did I mention in my post anything about p-&-c or any other type of interface?
Oh you didn't mention that. I did. The fact is you can't expect a developer to create a game world with tremendous freedom - with so many ways to solve problems - and tie the gameplay onto horridly limited pnc adventure conventions. (by pnc, I don't mean user interface - i'm talking about the gameplay-related conventions pnc adventure games established)
I don't usually agree with the babble Scott Mccloud publishes in CGW about current state of computer games, but I agree with him on one thing: freedom in gameplay makes the other limits more apparent! That only leads to frustration.
By stepping into the boundaries of other genres, you can often mask the limitations AND cater to the wider audience. Which can only be good, right?
Well maybe not to pnc adventure purists. To them, the game is no longer an adventure.
as a side note... my *personal* definition of an "Adventure game" is actually quite broad - If the problems and solutions in a game is within the context of the story, it's an adventure game to me. Half-life is an adventure. Warcraft is an adventure. The games I don't consider an "adventure" depends solely on gameplay to motivate people to play. Like Counter-Strike, Tetris, or even Myst (which I consider a pure puzzle game, not an adventure game).
twifkak
09-26-2003, 03:56 PM
I guess it's worth mentioning that work is being done (http://www.interactivestory.net/) to make innovative games without action. (Leave it to the academics to overestimate their abilities. :P)
ragnar
09-26-2003, 08:45 PM
Au contraire, as these games are unrestrained by commercial viability, they've become more inventive.
Another point with text adventures is that they don't need a hord of programmers, artists and designers. It is perfectly well done with only one person, thus anyone can do a text adventure. It is much harder to bring a graphic adventure to life. And since text adventures doesn't need to visualize everything they can do much more inventive things that play with your imagination.
Au contraire, as these games are unrestrained by commercial viability, they've become more inventive.
The one problem with this statement is that it is false.
James
09-26-2003, 10:23 PM
indeed, jake. the problem is seen in the mod scene. given creative freedom, why is it there is a plethora of counter strike clones?
Intrepid Homoludens
09-27-2003, 03:30 AM
Again, it goes back to how good you are as a game designer. Anyone, anyone at all can create a game with some technical training. And yet very, very few mods puncture through the walls of banality. It's just like personal websites - anyone can do it with minimal html skills, but jeezus cripes!! There are so many butt-ugly-ass sites out there!
SirDave
09-27-2003, 06:20 AM
Intrepid:
Have you checked out Journey To Wild Divine:
http://www.justadventure.com/Previews/Wild_Divine/JournyWileDivine.shtm
On some levels IMHO it looks a little hokey and it may not be your favorite game format, but I think it meets some of the criteria for thinking 'out of the box'. Another problem is going to be the price $130, certainly having to do with hardware that comes with it, but also likely the price of innovation!
twifkak
09-27-2003, 08:20 AM
The one problem with this statement is that it is false.
I'm not going to begin to pretend to know much about the field, but I guess I must've imagined Photopia.
Also, what ragnar said. Single vision and whatnot..
remixor
09-27-2003, 01:16 PM
One game hardly indicated progressive change for an entire genre, though.
Also, for the other current sub-thread, creative freedom is no guarantee of creative accomplishment. This is true not only in mods but in any games. I'd argue mods give less creative freedom than entire games do anyway.
Phil25
09-27-2003, 02:59 PM
The one problem with this statement is that it is false. Well, for an example look at Infocom and look at the current IF market. Yes, they are the usual batch of clones, but now that they don't have to worry about the taxman on their backs they can do all sorts of crazy innovative shit i.e. using the interface against the player, or the whole game being in a different language that you have to decipher.
remixor
09-27-2003, 03:04 PM
the whole game being in a different language that you have to decipher.
I could see where this might come off as being supremely frustrating beyond its value as innovation ;)
Lagomorph
09-27-2003, 03:13 PM
A revolutionary game doesn't conform to people's views, it transforms them. I might've been content with Action Games if I hadn't played an Adventure Game. Removing action from a game would've been a weird idea to me. However, when I played MI2 the lack of action never bothered me. While a debate like this might not change people's views, a game like BS3 may.
Phil25
09-27-2003, 03:15 PM
Heh, never said it was fun :7 point was that the guy did what he wanted. Emily Short's tried to create a complex NPC in Galatea (http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?id=2262) and the result is quite amazing. The whole game consists of talking with this character. There are literally dozens of endings, 100's of topics to think/talk about, and overall it is actually interesting/fun. Much more innovative then anything done in the Infocom days.
remixor
09-27-2003, 03:23 PM
That's pretty interesting. I may have to try some of these newer IF games out...
Phil25
09-27-2003, 03:26 PM
Stinger wrote a great article on current IF, you should check it out if you're interested.
twifkak
09-28-2003, 08:38 AM
One game hardly indicated progressive change for an entire genre, though.
There are others. Galatea was one I was thinking of mentioning. From there, my knowledge of IF fades, so you better ask phil, or read the damn IF week features.
Also, for the other current sub-thread, creative freedom is no guarantee of creative accomplishment. This is true not only in mods but in any games. I'd argue mods give less creative freedom than entire games do anyway.
Well, part of what matters is how easy it is to create, and how "organic" the experience. It's pretty obvious that computers allow the greatest musical freedom (at the very least, synthesize your analog instruments), but what matters is that the interface does not lend itself to the same emotive, discoursive expression. Work is being done on that front, however. (Google audiopad or kaoss.)
Ninja Dodo
09-30-2003, 05:50 AM
I sincerely hope that Broken Sword 3 will be to the adventure genre what Half Life was to the FPS. Before that the genre was as much of a creative dead-end as point & click. Then came Half Life and just completely turned the genre on its head. It took what was essentially a glorified arcade game and turned it into an interactive scifi-action film. Would games like Deus Ex, Max Payne and Medal of Honor exist today if it weren't for Half Life? I doubt it. More likely we'd still be stuck playing Doom with more polygons.
The adventure genre needs to get on its feet and do something new and to counter the argument that point & click still has countless possibilities; a new puzzle does not constitute innovation. We need entirely new ways of playing these games, not just new content. As Intrepid has outlined on more than one occasion adventure designers need to look at the possibilities of current AI, physics, 3D sound and other things and think about how this can be used in adventures.
Give me a locked door where, by all means, if I feel like it, I can tear a newspaper apart and use a sheet of paper for the lame ol' push-key-onto-paper trick, a door that I can also kick down in true Ben style, that I can use a screwdriver on to loosen the hinges and remove it entirely, one on which (with some skill) I can pick the lock. Or I could just forget about all that and persuade someone to give me the spare key, or steal it, or... the possibilities are endless.
The thing about the whole 2D/3D, technology/status quo debate is that aesthetics are entirely beside the point. The reason to go for 3D, Artificial Intelligence, physical simulation and so on is not because it will look good, or that it will sell more. It's that this is the only way to achieve the sort of open ended gameplay I'm talking about, because these technologies allow the game to adapt and react to the players action, whereas every single pixel and line of dialogue in a 2D point & click has to be first designed and then implemented for it to be an option to the player. Because of this the classic adventure will never go beyond having a few different paths and endings, forever stuck on rigid linearity.
Breaking free from these restrictions is the only way to create free gameplay where you're actually in a world instead of on rails.
As for direct control versus point & click. I will say only this: What was more fun; travelling in Little Big Adventure 1, where you hopped into a car and then travelled automatically, or LBA 2 where you could drive around Desert Island? Driving and for that matter running around the island was a fun activity in itself, even if you weren't going anywhere. Is there seriously anyone who would argue that it would have been more entertaining had you been made to select a destination with a click and watch Twinsen go there?
Again, I hope Broken Sword 3 will kick off a new era of adventure where rules are there to be broken and all that counts is telling a great and highly interactive story...
In the immortal words of Salvador Limonez: "Viva la Revolucion!"
twifkak
09-30-2003, 06:05 AM
Would games like Deus Ex, Max Payne and Medal of Honor exist today if it weren't for Half Life?
Well, someone else would've come along and done it if it wasn't Valve, but your point's taken nonetheless. I'm just being a nitpick; don't mind me. ;)
Give me a locked door where, by all means, if I feel like it, I can tear a newspaper apart and use a sheet of paper for the lame ol' push-key-onto-paper trick, a door that I can also kick down in true Ben style, that I can use a screwdriver on to loosen the hinges and remove it entirely, one on which (with some skill) I can pick the lock. Or I could just forget about all that and persuade someone to give me the spare key, or steal it, or... the possibilities are endless.
Woah. Maybe if I get off my ass one of these days, I'll have an entry for the 10th IF comp.
And a couple more nitpicks:
It's that this is the only way to achieve the sort of open ended gameplay I'm talking about, because these technologies allow the game to adapt and react to the players action, whereas every single pixel and line of dialogue in a 2D point & click has to be first designed and then implemented for it to be an option to the player.
Well, TLE did it all by hand, but it was a gruelling experience, so no, not impossible, but yes, very hard.
Is there seriously anyone who would argue that it would have been more entertaining had you been made to select a destination with a click and to watch Twinsen go there?
Yes, actually. (Not me! ;))
Erkki
09-30-2003, 09:42 AM
It's that this is the only way to achieve the sort of open ended gameplay I'm talking about, because these technologies allow the game to adapt and react to the players action, whereas every single pixel and line of dialogue in a 2D point & click has to be first designed and then implemented for it to be an option to the player. Because of this the classic adventure will never go beyond having a few different paths and endings, forever stuck on rigid linearity.
Breaking free from these restrictions is the only way to create free gameplay where you're actually in a world instead of on rails.
Aha! Finally we arrived at the core of the issue. I couldn't have said it better myself.
There are things in practically any other genre you can do (mostly thanks to 3D) that you can't do in current adventure games.
Let's assume that in an adventure game, the player has some options to redecorate his/her home. For example it would be possible to change paintings on the walls. Let's say there are 20 paintings in the game world and every one of them can be put on any wall.
In 3D you just create 20 paintings as 3D objects (or even just as a texture if the frames and sizes are the same) and the rest is straightforward.
In 2D you would basically have to create the art assets for every possible combination of walls and paintings. If there are 5 different walls to be decorated, that gives us 5 * 20 = 100 different sprites.
In 3D, you could add another option -- let the player place the paintings wherever they want. That's not even close to being realistic to make in 2D.
This was of course a made-up problem and I don't even know any game that has this kind of thing (The Sims maybe), but you can easily apply the same principle to any other kind of dynamic content -- in a point & click 2D adventure it [dynamic content] just isn't doable, except on a very small scale. But in other genres (in 3D), this is very possible.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-30-2003, 02:08 PM
Aha! Finally we arrived at the core of the issue. I couldn't have said it better myself.
:pan: What are you talking about, Erkki?!! I arrived at the core of this issue two years ago and again earlier in this very thread, but everyone kept dismissing me as being a techno fanwhore and out to drain the adventure genre of its fundamental essences for the sake of pretty pictures!! Those who actually did get what I was talking about got clobbered just as well, and do you wanna bet that the right-wing conservative adventure hardcorers conveniently glossed over my main valid points and nipped at the other points they can at least get their teeth around? Ninja's comment is exactly what I've been saying these past 2 years at AG. :D Of course, Ninja's point is more technically fluent and articulate in that sense.
twifkak
09-30-2003, 02:17 PM
Boy, I hope I never have to run into an interior decorating puzzle. That'll be the day I switch to FPSs.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-30-2003, 02:24 PM
Oh come on, twifsie, you know you can never resist the charm of green and orange plaid curtains puddling over a faux zebra skin rug. Mmmmm...
game: *wrong combination. try again*
Trep: :(
Ninja Dodo
09-30-2003, 02:32 PM
Indeedy...
As Intrepid has outlined on more than one occasion adventure designers need to look at the possibilities of current AI, physics, 3D sound and other things and think about how this can be used in adventures. Basically I agree with you. :D
Intrepid Homoludens
09-30-2003, 02:33 PM
http://smilies.jeeptalk.org/otn/other/ssst.gif
remixor
09-30-2003, 02:34 PM
Hmmm... Ninja Dodo and Erkki bring up a few point I had not really considered enough in the past. I've always been a proponent of progress when it is warranted (and it's been warranted in the adventure genre for some time now), but now I'm even more so.
Intrepid Homoludens
09-30-2003, 02:40 PM
:( !!!
.......... :rolleyes: ............ :D
remixor
09-30-2003, 02:42 PM
Sorry, Trep (if those smilies were meant for what I assume they are) ;)
Kingzjester
09-30-2003, 02:43 PM
Hmmm... Ninja Dodo and Erkki bring up a few point I had not really considered enough in the past. I've always been a proponent of progress when it is warranted (and it's been warranted in the adventure genre for some time now), but now I'm even more so.Why, yes, what radical thinking!
remixor
09-30-2003, 02:59 PM
Thanks, Kingz :rolleyes: I wasn't claiming to be any sort of wild radical, just noting that I see considerable merit in what a few people said.
Erkki
10-01-2003, 02:22 AM
:pan: What are you talking about, Erkki?!! I arrived at the core of this issue two years ago and again earlier in this very thread, but everyone kept dismissing me as being a techno fanwhore and out to drain the adventure genre of its fundamental essences for the sake of pretty pictures!!
I know you are basically talking about the same thing, but I don't remember if you pointed out WHY the 2D point & click is still having the limits other genres have overcome long ago (the text I quoted in bold).
And I meant "finally" in the context of this thread. You may have said that 2 years ago but I don't think you did in this thread. Sorry if I'm mistaken.
Erkki
10-01-2003, 02:47 AM
I know you are basically talking about the same thing, but I don't remember if you pointed out WHY the 2D point & click is still having the limits other genres have overcome long ago (the text I quoted in bold).
Umm that didn't sound right.
What you have said is mostly about *what* should be done.
Ninja Dodo's point was about *why* it should be done.
To me "why?" is the most important question. So maybe that's why I consider it the core of the issue.
Ninja Dodo
10-01-2003, 04:27 AM
Make games, not war. :)
Hey, Trep, I think the two of us should get together and start a game development studio. :D
You good at programming by any chance? Kinda lacking in that area myself...
twifkak
10-01-2003, 09:15 AM
Dodo-san, check his sig: He's taken.
Ninja Dodo
10-01-2003, 09:24 AM
Ah... that's a games studio, then? Cool. What sort of games do you work on, Trep?
Intrepid Homoludens
10-01-2003, 01:14 PM
We're strictly amateurs (at least at this point in our 'careers'). Most of us actually met here at AG forums through our love of games, gaming, and our shared idea that quality, artistic integrity, experimentation, innovation, and accessibility shouldn't have to be mutually exclusive elements, particularly for a game. We've seen way too many mediocre or just plain bad adventure games, whose developers were too chicken to really push their limits, so we decided we could do them better from the inside out.
We're currently working on our first full feature game, The Curves of Danger, a murder mystery in the classic black & white noir style, set in an exclusive elite club in a quasi-1940s mansion and estate. I know you already know most of us here. James is our Project Director as well as the founder of ForeverDream Studios. I'm the Principal Writer, responsible for the overall quality, art direction, and atmosphere of the script, as well as press release; Phil is an Associate Writer (inventory, notes); irbrian is also Associate Writer as well as Website and Forum Facilitator and Admin; deadworm is a Technician (programmer, etc.); Eirik is Composer (Curves will feature his original jazz soundtrack); jaf is Background Artist and Art Director; etc. etc.
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 05:14 AM
Nice... sounds like you've got something good going there. Is it AGS or something from scratch? 2D either way, I take it, since you mention a background artist.
So are you based somewhere in the US then, or is it a worlwide online venture? I'd say I'd love to help some time but I'm not sure that would be entirely wise considering all the projects I'm doing for uni this year, and those I have planned for my spare time already...
That said, if I ever get the strange idea that I actually have time... and you need an extra animator/modeler/texture painter/designer/writer, give us a shout...
Ooh, and I do voices too. *D
Intrepid Homoludens
10-02-2003, 05:20 AM
Yes!! Yes!! We desperately need an animator, a character animator! You have to contact James (you can PM him here) and let him know, he'll want to see your portfolio. We're fine with writers, and we'll eventually need voice actors, male and female. But we really need people who are committed, if only once every 2 weeks for a meeting and doing the work bit by bit.
We're not really centered anywhere geographically, our meetings are on mIRC once a week.
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 05:37 AM
Hm... is it 2D or 3D?
I've done some traditional stuff, but I haven't really gotten my head around the technique enough to be able concentrate on the movement and acting. I'm a lot more fluent in 3D... although my walk cycles still need work.
Anyway, have a look at my website (in my sig). Plenty of animation, stills, sketches and whatnot all over the place...
I'll PM James, as well.
Intrepid Homoludens
10-02-2003, 05:48 AM
2D. Think anime meets Casablanca.
EDIT: I just took a quick spin through your site. Your work is wonderful! Definitely the quality of someone in creative progress. Definitely PM James!! :D :7 Here's the original ad (http://www.adventuregamers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60) James had placed here at the forum.
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 06:00 AM
I'm guessing, no toon shaded pre-rendered 3D? Real traditional stuff scanned in and coloured? Well, like I said, I don't know if I have time for it but depending on the type and amount of work involved, I might.
Intrepid Homoludens
10-02-2003, 06:24 AM
Well, you'd have to ask James about the technicalities, I don't know anything about that part. We don't seem to be committed to certain technical style, though. I personally wouldn't mind 3D toon style characters myself, but like I said, just ask James. :)
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 11:05 AM
My apologies, btw, for hijacking this thread.
Where were we? Oh yes...
Also, on visuals, a lot of people worry that 3D doesn't look good compared to the painterly/cartoony style of 2D but with games like Broken Sword 3, Viewtiful Joe or Zelda Wind Waker, you can see that not all 3D has to look like either Shrek or Final Fantasy. And imagine if someone did an impressionist game in 3D. Anyone see "What Dreams May Come"?
Simulation... I've been reading up on this and Harvey Smith (deus ex 2 lead designer) has an interesting article up on his website (http://www.planetdeusex.com/witchboy/) about how gameplay in the future will no longer be designed as such, but instead will 'emerge' from a set of rules... making for infinite possibilities. It was a very interesting read. Just a crude example would be that you have a gameworld where there are set materials that affect each other in various ways. If you throw a stone against a glass window it will break, if you hold a flame to something wooden, it will burn. This sort of logic, when set up in a clever way can make for very interesting puzzles, and here's the good part, solutions that were never even explicitly designed by the developers!
This is the sort of thing that, it's looking, Half Life 2 and Deus Ex 2 will be doing. And adventures could be doing it too! Games need to arrive at a point where if the player can come up with something that should logically work, it will.
Erkki
10-02-2003, 12:54 PM
Simulation... I've been reading up on this and Harvey Smith (deus ex 2 lead designer) has an interesting article up on his website (http://www.planetdeusex.com/witchboy/) about how gameplay in the future ...
Good article indeed. I especially like this bit:
High Concept:
Games are all about letting the player express himself.
A game with a larger possibility space is one that allows the player more range of expression.
We can achieve broader possibility spaces by more deeply simulating game systems: In comparison to game systems of coarser granularity, contemporary simulation allows for revolutionary levels of player expression.
Adventure games have certainly not been much about letting the player express himself. And for that they have become lesser games than other genres. I think an even more fundamental change than moving to 3D / direct control would be to completely rethink how dialogues are handled. In my opinion, there should be some kind of "AI" behind them. You would have more complex (but simpler to use) system of communicating instead of the current dialogue trees. Dialouges need to become more natural. That is one area where the adventure genre could even move ahead of other genres (as the dialogues in other games currently -- if interactive at all -- are usually a simple version a typical adventure game dialogue tree).
I'm currently working on a game prototype (well I was until the semester started) and I am planning to experiment with a completely new style of dialogues. Not sure if I'll get anywhere as I'm afraid the work to be done before I get any measurable results is BIG and I don't have much time right now.
remixor
10-02-2003, 01:03 PM
Adventure games have certainly not been much about letting the player express himself. And for that they have become lesser games than other genres.
Oh, come on. Adventures certainly don't give you complete (or even close to complete) control over a character, but saying that that makes them lesser than other genres is ridiculous. Very VERY few shooters (for example) give you even as much expression as you get in most adventure games' limited dialogue options. Max Payne was an excellent FPS with a very good sense of storytelling, but it was as linear as a game can come. I can't say Half-Life was too different (and before anyone asks, yes, I own both of those games). Deus Ex is the obvious exception, but an extraordinarily rare one. Strategy games hardly count, since they're not really about assuming one character, and when they are, you don't really have methods to express yourself at all. Good RPGs are sometimes non-linear, but not in terms of character expression. Dialogue is almost always in a set path. KOTOR is the obvious exception for this genre, although this game is being hailed as being extremely innovative and excellent; it certainly isn't widely representative of its genre.
So what genres are you talking about? :confused:
twifkak
10-02-2003, 03:06 PM
"Emergent gameplay" is just the latest fad to hold a lecture on at GDC. The only person who even knows what it means is Will Wright. Harvey Smith's version is: Create an object called "door," including the texture, geometry, and scripting. Whenever you want to have a door, use the "door" object instead of inputting the texture, geometry, and scripting by hand. :shifty:
edit: To give him credit, though, he knows non-linearity when he sees it, and he has commented before on the need for a more organic dialogue system. I greatly respect his opinion on other matters, even if he doesn't have have a clue about emergent gameplay.
Intrepid Homoludens
10-02-2003, 04:07 PM
Adventure games have certainly not been much about letting the player express himself. And for that they have become lesser games than other genres.
You have to understand, Erkki, that adventure games as we know it are not about letting players express themselves. It is about telling the player a story that they can participate in (however ineffectively in their interaction), the story is the nucleus of the overall gaming experience, everything else is built around it. For you to dismiss the adventure genre as 'lesser' than other games based on the lack of room for individual player expression is inaccurate and not very intelligently thought out. Adventure games historically and traditionally were never about letting players speak for themselves within the game (which is what RPGs and certain strategy games thrive on).
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't or couldn't design an adventure game where the player can affect the gameworld and even the story itself. Why not? It simply means that you must think outside the box, assigning properties to every person/place/thing that 'responds' to the player's input. But, very important, the only true boundary you'd have is the story itself. Because the story must be told, certain actions have to be performed, and given the player's extraordinary amount of freedom, you'd have to really think good and hard about which actions will trigger the story or even 'bump' it onto a new way of narrative unfolding that is different from its original intended path.
I think an even more fundamental change than moving to 3D / direct control would be to completely rethink how dialogues are handled. In my opinion, there should be some kind of "AI" behind them.
Again, I really think this is very possible, but it still must be at the service of the story. The A.I. can be as unpredictable as you can make it, but in the end its ultimate mission is keep the story going, leading or nudging the player back to it.
That is one area where the adventure genre could even move ahead of other genres (as the dialogues in other games currently -- if interactive at all -- are usually a simple version a typical adventure game dialogue tree).
Keen gamers can rejoice as US scientists are working on ways to make computer games that never end.
The researchers are adapting AI techniques used for robot navigation to manage game worlds that constantly present fresh challenges to players.
Games created using these techniques will be less like scenes from a film and more like a reactive and interactive world that players can explore almost endlessly.
Already the researchers have created several virtual environments overseen by their story management system.
Video games without frontiers (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2708995.stm), BBC News, 1/31/03
BacardiJim
10-02-2003, 04:54 PM
You have to understand, Erkki, that adventure games as we know it are not about letting players express themselves. It is about telling the player a story that they can participate in (however ineffectively in their interaction), the story is the nucleus of the overall gaming experience, everything else is built around it. For you to dismiss the adventure genre as 'lesser' than other games based on the lack of room for individual player expression is inaccurate and not very intelligently thought out. Adventure games historically and traditionally were never about letting players speak for themselves within the game (which is what RPGs and certain strategy games thrive on).
Even this is not (in my opinion) an accurate definition, though it is certainly on track.
Adventure games have been, since the birth of Adventures and Zork about providing tricky puzzles within a story. In fact, many of the best-loved and best-selling adventure games (I don't have to name them, you know who I'm talking about) have virtually no story or stories that are incidental to the actual gameplay. Making the storyline as important (or more so) as the puzzles is a relatively recent "innovation." And what I am seeing in this thread is a lot of calling for the eventual end result of that line of development: the complete elimination of the puzzle in adventure gaming. "If I see a door, I want to be able to get through it in any of the various ways I could in real life: burn it down, chop it down, pull the hinge pins..." Well guess what? Then it isn't a puzzle anymore. Certainly you have increased the ways for a character to "express himself" or "interact with his environment," but at the cost of the player actually having to think hard about a puzzle!
Certainly I see a market for games of this type. Games such as Outcast and others have shown that there are a lot of gamers who prefer storytelling and variety of approaches to a situation over having to translate a scroll or figure out an alien numbering system or assemble a transporter. And this thread confirms the desire many gamers have to see that progression continue. But the heart of a puzzle is that someone designs one and you have to figure out the solution. (Or "read the designer's mind," as I see it so eloquently put here.) If you don't have that, then it isn't a "puzzle;" it is merely an "obstacle."
And if you take the puzzles out of a game, don't try to tell me it is an "adventure game." You'd have better luck selling me the Brooklyn Bridge.
remixor
10-02-2003, 09:36 PM
bj: Trep said "adventure games as we know [them]", not "adventure games in their original incarnation", and I think that the best of the more modern adventure games are just as much--not always moreso--about the story and the characters than about the puzzles (when I say modern, I mean basically 90s and beyond). Good puzzle design obviously is an important part of adventure gaming, but from the discussions that pop up on these forums at least, it seems like they take something of a back seat to the character and storytelling aspects of the great graphic adventures. And while I'm NOT calling for the end of puzzles, I don't see why one couldn't design an adventure without puzzles. They wouldn't need your permission to call it such.
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 09:52 PM
Ah. I think you hit the nail on the head, there. Yes, things will cease to be puzzles and instead become obstacles... but is that really a bad thing? Obstacles still require lateral thinking. In fact, obstacles encourage creative thinking while puzzles require searching for a single solution.
How many times have you played an adventure game where you thought up a perfectly valid solution for a problem... and it didn't work because the designer never intended you to do that? I can't even count how many times. To me there is nothing more frustrating in a game than knowing that something should be possible and it isn't in the game.
...but at the cost of the player actually having to think hard about a puzzle! Not true... a player has to think about a game obstacle just like a person in real life would have to think about one. The beauty of it is that if the player find a means to overcome the obstacle he is actually allowed to overcome it in that way. The designer can limit possibilities by not providing a 1001 means right in the players face but in the end, whatever means are there in the game world, whether directly intended by the designer or not, should be usable.
Basically, obstacles are a more rewarding version of puzzles.
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 09:59 PM
I'm not going to argue about the "adventure" point. I'll just say that in my opinion such games, though certainly not adventures in the classic sense, would be adventures in a broader sense.
remixor
10-02-2003, 10:06 PM
To me there is nothing more frustrating in a game than knowing that something should be possible and it isn't in the game.
I have observed the same reaction in many friends of mine to whom I've tried to introduce adventure games. It's not very surprising either. You'd be hard-pressed to find an adventure gamer more dedicated than I, but whenever I try to get my friends into adventure games, they invariably have reactions like "This is so stupid, why the hell can't I pour the water into the glass? The guy is saying 'I don't think that'll work.' What's he mean, it doesn't work?! That's what glasses are for! This game sucks." They've got something of a point.
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 10:21 PM
Even an open-ended game like Deus Ex has the problem sometimes.
At one point this person is trying to tell you something important but he gets killed before he says it. So I loaded and tried to kill his murderer so I could hear what he had to say, BUT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. That was where the illusion of choice broke for me. I suppose it would have messed up the plot too much if I had heard what he had to say but this sort of non-choice should be avoided as much as possible in games, or at least presented in such a way that there is a logical reason something can't be done.
But to counter that with a good example of an important choice... at one point in the game you can either save your brother or not. At the time I didn't know there even was a choice - brother kept saying, "Go!" -, I guess because I'm so accustomed to games being linear, so I fled, but I've heard it is actually possible to make a stand.
remixor
10-02-2003, 10:37 PM
Sort of like in FOA, where if you leave Sophia in the Atlantean labrynth place, she just dies, or so I've heard
Ninja Dodo
10-02-2003, 11:24 PM
Haven't played that all the way through yet, so I won't read the spoiler for now. But yes Fate of Atlantis is one of the rare adventures where you are actually offered some meaningful choices. However, as I pointed out, these choices have all been minutely constructed by the designers probably taking them twice as much development effort for all the paths and in the end it's still only a set amount of paths, that on their own are still linear.
remixor
10-02-2003, 11:33 PM
Very true. In fact I read an interview with Hal Bartlett conducted some years ago, and he said that programming to have whatever degree of non-linearity it DID have was a nightmare, and the cause of many headaches among the development team.
twifkak
10-03-2003, 01:17 AM
"If I see a door, I want to be able to get through it in any of the various ways I could in real life: burn it down, chop it down, pull the hinge pins..." Well guess what? Then it isn't a puzzle anymore.
edit: Unless you're a post-reading maniac, skip this post and substitute Ninja Dodo's for it instead.
It's a puzzle with multiple solutions. Much harder to design and still make challenging, but ultimately worth it. You can't say you don't have challenges in life, can you? Each of those actions you listed can have consequences.
ragnar
10-03-2003, 01:26 AM
Even an open-ended game like Deus Ex has the problem sometimes.
At one point this person is trying to tell you something important but he gets killed before he says it. So I loaded and tried to kill his murderer so I could hear what he had to say, BUT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. That was where the illusion of choice broke for me. I suppose it would have messed up the plot too much if I had heard what he had to say but this sort of non-choice should be avoided as much as possible in games, or at least presented in such a way that there is a logical reason something can't be done.
Can you tell (within a spoiler tag) where and who this is?
Ninja Dodo
10-03-2003, 01:32 AM
Exactly. Say you knock down the door, it's obviously going to draw a lot of attention. What if you were trying to surprise someone? They'll know you're there for sure now. You can be subtle and pick the lock but there's a risk someone might see you do it... same with the hinges. If you set fire to the door, it's not unlikely the fire will spread to other materials and burn the whole building down. If you try to convince someone to give you the key but not in a very convincing way, they might get angry cause they can see what you're playing at, and so on.
It's not just an obstacle that can be overcome in a lot of ways... it's an obstacle where you choose what to do and then deal with the consequences.
Ninja Dodo
10-03-2003, 01:37 AM
Can you tell (within a spoiler tag) where and who this is?
When you go inside the plane in the hangar with orders to kill the NSF leader. You meet him but he says he has important information so you hear him out, but then agent Navarra comes in and insists that you kill him. When you refuse, she kills him herself, just before he can give the crucial information. I've tried and tried but it appears to be completely impossible to kill Navarra at that point in the game.
ragnar
10-03-2003, 01:43 AM
When you go inside the plane in the hangar with orders to kill the NSF leader. You meet him but he says he has important information so you hear him out, but then agent Navarra comes in and insists that you kill him. When you refuse, she kills him herself, just before he can give the crucial information. I've tried and tried but it appears to be completely impossible to kill Navarra at that point in the game.
It is actually possible to kill Navarra at that point. I did it last time I tried. Navarra isn't that important to the plot. Just GEP-gun her before she attacks the NSF leader. It is however quite impossible to kill Walter Simon too early (try to do that when he is interrogating that prisoner in the UNATCO HQ).
Ninja Dodo
10-03-2003, 02:01 AM
Hm... never had the GEP-gun cause I took the stealth approach. Anyway, that's interesting. I'll have to play through it again sometime.
Intrepid Homoludens
10-03-2003, 03:01 AM
Adventure games have been, since the birth of Adventures and Zork about providing tricky puzzles within a story. In fact, many of the best-loved and best-selling adventure games (I don't have to name them, you know who I'm talking about) have virtually no story or stories that are incidental to the actual gameplay. Making the storyline as important (or more so) as the puzzles is a relatively recent "innovation." And what I am seeing in this thread is a lot of calling for the eventual end result of that line of development: the complete elimination of the puzzle in adventure gaming.
As remixor quoted, and as you seem to have overlooked in my post:
bj: Trep said "adventure games as we know [them]", not "adventure games in their original incarnation".....
Wait, wait, let me think this over: "the complete elimination of the puzzle in adventure gaming"? Um, excuse me but where exactly did you get this piece of imagining, eh? Which one of us had even suggested that puzzles - as we know them to be in adventures - should be completely ignored if not outright removed from future adventure games? What exactly are you on?
Besides, go ahead and take the story out of the game. What do you have left? A puzzle game - Tetris, Minesweeper, etc. In the modern adventure,the story itself is the ultimate reward for solving the puzzles, it is the player's motivation for tackling the challenges presented.
"If I see a door, I want to be able to get through it in any of the various ways I could in real life: burn it down, chop it down, pull the hinge pins..." Well guess what? Then it isn't a puzzle anymore. Certainly you have increased the ways for a character to "express himself" or "interact with his environment," but at the cost of the player actually having to think hard about a puzzle!
Wrong, my dear. Very, very wrong. I also detect a strain of condescension - what makes you think that any other type of challenge other than a traditional adventure game puzzle is any less intellectually demanding, huh? That's a really snobby attitude. Have you, for example, played Thief: The Dark Project, and tried to stealthily negotiate your way through the dark corridors in the Cragscleft Prison levels while avoiding being caught? I can guarantee you, that involved as much, if not more, brainpower than figuring out a mechanical problem in realMyst, emphatically in part because there were several possible solutions to the situation.
Your definition of a puzzle is also sadly outdated. You've cornered yourself into thinking that a puzzle involves picking the game designer's head, which traditional adventures want you to do. The problem with this, theoretically and pragmatically, is that some of the times you have no f@#king idea what the designer was thinking, his logic and yours may not be parallel. At least a much more flexible, democratic, and necessarily modern definition of a puzzle would involve the player having some kind of say in it. Puzzles should be designed for the players, not the caprices of the game designer.
...the heart of a puzzle is that someone designs one and you have to figure out the solution. (Or "read the designer's mind," as I see it so eloquently put here.) If you don't have that, then it isn't a "puzzle;" it is merely an "obstacle."
You're trailing cobwebs and dust, dear.
And if you take the puzzles out of a game, don't try to tell me it is an "adventure game."
I'll sell it to you as a puzzle game, but your blinders obviously prevent you from being able to tell the difference.
Erkki
10-03-2003, 03:49 AM
I used the words "lesser games" mostly to provoke some reaction (I don't really consider Grim Fandango a lesser game than Deus Ex for example) and looks like it worked. But the adventure genre as a whole is "retarded", to use a more radical wording than was used in the beginning of this thread.
Remixor, I agree that not all games of other genres give the player a lot possibility of expressing himself but the better games do.
In my eyes, Max Payne does give you SOME expression (the choice how to kill those guys). I can enter a room and shoot all the bad guys waiting for me there *in a cool way I came up with myself*. That is not much expression indeed (and I don't consider Max Payne a very good game) and I *don't think* ALL games should have more expression. But the point is -- most adventure games don't have ANY possibility for player expression. The player is limited to doing exactly the things the designers intended. The only thrill of doing something yourself is "I found out what the designer wanted me to do".
Intrepid said:
"adventure games as we know it are not about letting players express themselves"
Et tu, Brutus. Now you are thinking inside the box. Story isn't what limits expression. GTA Vice City has quite a linear story, but the game gives you more of a possibility for expressing yourself than almost any other game. Of course, in Vice City the story is not as important as in adventure games and less concentrated.
But adventure games could still give the player some room for expression while having a completely linear story. The door *obstacle* talked about above is exactly what would do that.
I admit that what I am talking about is maybe not a traditional adventure game. I don't even really care about the future of the traditional adventure game. What I care about is the future games that carry the spirit of the traditional point & click adventures.
Intrepid Homoludens
10-03-2003, 04:12 AM
But the adventure genre as a whole is "retarded".....
Not half as retarded as some constipated hardcore adventure gamers who think that if the genre doesn't fit their definition then it's not worth considering.
Intrepid said: adventure games as we know it are not about letting players express themselves"
Et tu, Brutus. Now you are thinking inside the box.
AAAARRGH! There you go again, Erkki, misunderstanding what I say. Why do you keep doing this? You keep doing at the TTLG forums too. You need to think about what I say first, maybe then you'll realize that you and I are both on the same side of the issue after all. Erkki, please do us all a favour and think first.
What I said was that adventure games AS WE KNOW IT (meaning as they have come to exist today) are NOT about giving the player any room to express himself. That is how it IS. I never said that is how it should be, Erkki!! I never said that's how any adventure game has to be!
You conveniently left this part of my post out:
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't or couldn't design an adventure game where the player can affect the gameworld and even the story itself. Why not? It simply means that you must think outside the box, assigning properties to every person/place/thing that 'responds' to the player's input. But, very important, the only true boundary you'd have is the story itself. Because the story must be told, certain actions have to be performed, and given the player's extraordinary amount of freedom, you'd have to really think good and hard about which actions will trigger the story or even 'bump' it onto a new way of narrative unfolding that is different from its original intended path.
There, Erkki. That's what I meant. The reality is that adventure gamea ARE that way they are. The possibility is that creative and brave developers take adventure games beyond what they ARE as we know them.
Story isn't what limits expression. GTA Vice City has quite a linear story, but the game gives you more of a possibility for expressing yourself than almost any other game. Of course, in Vice City the story is not as important as in adventure games and less concentrated.
Vice City is NOT an adventure game per se, Erkki. Who told you it was? Vice City is an action/adventure, therefore it doesn't give a damn how superficial the story is, the game's focus is on giving the player as much freedom to roam and express themselves as possible. In an adventure game, the story will always be the determining factor in how such things are designed, from the level designs to the dialogue to the puzzles, and to the amount of freedom given the player. And again, a really creative and deviant developer would be able to go beyond this and give us a game that challenges what we've been used to but still work within the boundaries of story, etc.
What I care about is the future games that carry the spirit of the traditional point & click adventures.
GIVE THAT CUTE ESTONIAN MAN A CIGAR!!! :7 That's exactly what I want too, what you said!
Erkki
10-03-2003, 04:41 AM
AAAARRGH! There you go again, Erkki, misunderstanding what I say. Why do you keep doing this? You keep doing at the TTLG forums too. You need to think about what I say first, maybe then you'll realize that you and I are both on the same side of the issue after all. Erkki, please do us all a favour and think first
I know we are on the same side and it's strange why we argue about this. I did misunderstand your post, but I read your post several times and didn't really get why you were saying all that so I think you misunderstood me as well ... Ok well I found out why probably.
As I'm not a native English speaker it's not as easy for me to think in English and again I said something that isn't exactly what I meant:
"Adventure games have certainly not been much about letting the player express himself. And for that they have become lesser games than other genres."
I should have said:
"Adventure games have not really *tried* to start giving the player more room for expression (except BS3 maybe) while other genres have been taking steps in that direction for some time now. And for that the adventure games have been left behind."
Intrepid Homoludens
10-03-2003, 04:48 AM
"Adventure games have certainly not been much about letting the player express himself. And for that they have become lesser games than other genres."
remxor and I thought that what you meant by 'lesser' was that adventure games had a low quality compared to games of other genres.
I should have said:
"Adventure games have not really *tried* to start giving the player more room for expression (except BS3 maybe) while other genres have been taking steps in that direction for some time now. And for that the adventure games have been left behind."
That's much better. But be warned, I agree with you, but someone else is gonna challenge you on that. They may be typing a response to you right now. ;)
Jackal
10-03-2003, 04:56 AM
Not to worry, Trep. I don't think many people here confuse you for an apologist of the status quo. *D And Erkki, great clarification.
As far as puzzles vs. obstacles go, count me overwhelmingly in the camp of those in favour of the latter. Frankly, I play games (including adventures) for something to DO. A challenge or obstacle is stimulating until it stops being something to DO (overcoming it), and starts being something that prevents me from doing anything ELSE. And that, unfortunately, is what the traditional puzzle element becomes far too often.
Still, there's no need to eliminate traditional puzzles altogether. No reason why the now-infamous door couldn't OPTIONALLY be opened by navigating an obtuse mechanical puzzle. Is it more work for the developer? Sure. Does that exclude it as a possibility? No. The key element is choice. Who knows? That elusive day may come when the words "adventure" and "replayability" are a natural fit.
Oh, and I'd also at least argue in passing that even shooters offer significantly more self-expression than adventures. Combat tactics is an on-the-fly component, and simply referring to it as "shooting everything" is to overlook a big part of gameplay. Even the most simplistic game has options that are almost constant - which weapon to use? primary or alternate fire mode? Duck for cover or charge in? It ain't much, but it's something.
syntheticgerbil
10-03-2003, 04:58 AM
Hey Jake, join the DoubleFine Team and advance my pants.
vBulletin® v3.8.3, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.