I still say the story is the main thing .Allthough good to have good grafics .

The industry insists on calling 3D, keyboard controls and first person for 'advancing technologically'. While this is true for some games, it is not necessarily true for adventure games.

It also depends on how it is implemented in the game; if you look at how say the latest Shelock Holmes games uses 3D and other features, this is how it is supposed to be done, I find.

Having handpainted backgrounds is nice and OK; unfortunately this will lead to a 3-4 times rise in prices for games or more.

I agree that better facial expression is the way to go in adventure games as well as (some) rpgs. If you look at Mass Effect or Dragon Age from Bioware, you'll see what I mean. And for adventure games, better facial expressions could enhance the characters emotions and help to tell the story in a better way.

As for graphics, it is my belief that there is fine balancing showing the story through the visual aids (graphics) and just putting every kind of layer effect on the game, maybe to hide the fact that the game's story and gameplay isn't very good?

A good story is a must, I find, but so is nice visuals that supports the storytelling.

edit:

As for the advancement in technology and system requirements, this is generally true. However, the recommended specs for Sherlock Holmes: Nemesis are:

a p4 2.4 Ghz processor
1024 MB ram
256 MB direct x9 compatible videocard
(min is a 64 Mb direct xp compatible videocard)

This should be a low to midrange computer today. The minimum specs are, of course, a lot lower than this. Most adventure games can still be played on older machines - even the newer ones.

This is an excellent discussion,, and one we have had internally at many points over the last few years within our own team.

We (personally as gamers) and professionally as designers/developers feel that although some AG games have introduced innovative steps, few (if any) developers stuck with these ideas to perfect them, dig deeper. It sometimes feel like they are thrown out there within a new game - some aspects of the "new idea" work (meaning meaningfully add to the game experience) others don't. But rather than improve on their new ideas, that change is scrapped for another "big new thing" in the next game.

We liked our design focus on facial expressions, as this supported our goal to have a perceptable emotive layer to our story and gameplay. However, in our opinion it fell short in impact of our original goal. We are sticking with this design aspect as we think it is an important part of creating credible characters, atmosphere and subtlety to the discovered plot.

So we are pretty excited with our new techniques using all our prior advances and adding a whole new level of tools, thinking and implementation. To present to gamers, viable emotional reactive characters and gameplay.

We shall see if this along with other internal tweaks, GFX giant leaps and other enhancements to our original technologies and design resonates with gamers or not. But early tests and feedback suggest it will

we shall see...

I've played and loved both Adventure games and "darkside games" and I have to say I was very hesitant to try darkside games because of how "shooters" have come to represent the genre. But once I tried RPG's and some inovative action/adventure games I was amazed at how fun the freedom of the games were and the depth to be found in developing a charector.

I honestly think Adventure games could benifit from adding freedom of movement and the ability to go into all area's and not be lead by the nose from point A to point B as many adventure games are. Adventure games can feel stuffy and confined because alot of the landscape and buildings that are just shells.

Developing a charector is as fun as unraveling the story and it could add to an adventure game to be able to do that....you don't have to use killing things as a way to develope a charector (infact I've always thought "just killing" was an "easy" way out for RPG game makers). Charectors could develope lots of skills by solving problems and puzzles and doing things, none of which have to involve killing.

I do think Adventure games should be about dexderity of the mind not the fingers or about reaction times. But again that is easily done, the mouse and a few keyboard keys can get you anywhere and let you do anything needed in an adventure game. I found Oblivion very easy to navigate. Adventure games could have jumping, just not as a test of reaction time but as a way to go places and discover things. What fun I say. Build up your jumping skills by easy steps as part of the game if thats how you see your charector and then be able to jump up to the top of previously unaccesable places and look at the view, scout out things you wouldn't have seen any other way and find out of the way clues and treasure and story developeing situatuions.

Have a house you can put things in...it was so much fun to put all the jewels I found in Oblivion on my bed and have a sparkly treat every time I came into my room. Ok that's just an extra but extra's are fun and sometimes Adventure games are too much about walking here, walking there and just talking to someone. I like to do things, as well as think and talk, and it doesn't have to be killing things. Sometimes because of all the things you can do I'd rather play an RPG that involves fighting than just walking about a house where nothing can move and talking to people or getting a text that says "a chair with worn fabric" or "a picture of a boat".

I do think Adventure games aren't broke but they don't have to be stuck in the mud either. Take a look at other genre's, see whats fun and gives a feeling of freedom and figure out how to include it into a good Adventure game without adding fighting or reaction time. I will play Adventure games and enjoy them but even so I find them mostly stogy and I have to go play a good RPG just to lighten up my gaming soul afterwards. AND I go back to Adventure games because I love the fuller stories and the puzzles and RPG's subsitute fighting for alot of that, which after awhile I find mindless.

So my favorite would be stories and good puzzles (by puzzles, I mean problem solving of many sorts) charector development and meaningful freedom with lots of treasure and things to do and clues to find. A bonus would be side stories you could go off and discover in different area's.

You can get an adrenaline rush by finding and figuring out clues just as much as by fighting, at least older folks can and I say expand Adventure Games...grow, use all the things that make you great and keep looking for whats fun in other genre's and add it in, just do it in away that fits.

Adventure players don't be stogy, don't be scared if a few keys are added to the mouse (in a non reactive time way) step up to the challange and give it a try. (RPG players usally have to figure out a huge new playing system with every new game they play and I actually find if the system is done well it a fun challenage to learn how to play it)

Well that was a lot of blabing and I'm not sure how the money end would work but I do think combining a good Adventure Game with elements of an RPG could be a lot of fun. (and maybe rock pooting fairies and snarky skeletons.....oh wait...is that the sound of Adventure Disscussion members fainting....I'm sorry I went too far...please I take it back)

Hi Nipomo, you've got a lot of interesting ideas. Sadly most of them if implemented would be the real beginning of the end for the AG genre. A lot of AG players won't buy a game if it has keyboard controls & in an AG why would anyone need to jump when you can pick up ladders, rope, grappling hooks etc etc etc.

All AGs need are compelling stories, good voice acting, logical integrated puzzles (inventory or otherwise) & good graphics (if possible) all presented in a well structured way to progress & survive.

If you prefer the elements of RPG then play RPGs & protest in the appropriate forums that you want more story!!! AGs aren't broke & don't need fixing & I object to being called stogy or did you mean stodgy? because I happen to like them just the way they are! I play the occasional action/RPG also & like the fact that AGs don't encompass elements that those games include!

Chrissie
I can see all your points and I did mean stodgy (good spelling is a failure of mine), mostly I ment my ideas as an addition to the disscussion, it was in the vein that Tomer started. I guess I came at it the way I did because one could never ever never convince RPG players that killing gets boring, but I did think I could talk about charector development in adventure stories and also more things to do. Your right about all the ladders and ropes but jumping is fun too espacially if its not about timed jumping. I like RPG's, but not the endless fighting.

I only said stodgy because some adventure games seem that way to me after the freedom of an RPG's that keep up with advances in game technology. There was a lightness to the earlier adventure games that I don't experience these days except in a few really good games. I miss it. And to be honest I think it comes from Adventure gamers not being receptive to new things. But I also understand that because in the past "new things" ment lets make it like an action/adventure game or a shooter or (like me in a way, though I tried to be sensitive and only talk about elements and not the whole hog)RPG's. Instead I think adventure games should be inovative but within ways that fit.

Adventure gamers always fear change because they think it will make the genre dissapear But I don't think that will happen, the interest in Adventure games is growing because people love stories and solving problems. But also what you can do in a game is growing and Adventure gamers can look to good inovation and not be scared. I think Adventure gamers will reach a big enough critial mass to really support useing some of the strides gaming has made. And that isn't saying Adventure games are broke its saying stay fresh.

I actually like the idea that an adventure game has several endings, depending on what you do in the game. Didn't Shivers 2 have four different endings?

Jumping could be used, I agree, to reach that high place you wouldn't else get to see in an adventure game.

One of the most interestings to happen in the gameworld right now is the facial expressions used in Mass Effect and in Culpa Innata to convey the characters emotions. I would like to see thris feature implemented somewhat more, both in adventure games as well as rpgs.

Phew. Unfortunately I didn't have any time to throughly read all of the responses, but I have read some, and was not surprised to see resistence to some of the things I wrote.
First of all, I want to clear this up: When I wrote of the *possible* need in this genre for a serious advancement, maybe even a revolution, what I had in mind is the major potential clientele. I, for one, agree with the saying that "2D drawn adventures" can be excellent. I wouldn't want all adventures to be like that, but I definitely would not disqualify an adventure for that.
I know many here agree with this, as well. I know that for us, the crowd hanging out in gameboomers, the ones that keep buying games and writing reviews and bugging our friends to play some adventures (or is it just me? ) - it won't make much difference. We're already beyond liking adventure - we're basiclly obsessed.
I just said the things I've said, cause I'm seeing the market of computer games going wild. It grows, transforms, and multiplies rapidly. The adventure genre seems to have it's own pace. There is no rush for innovation is the actual gameplay, and some attempts that were made are many times concidered as futile by many adventure fans.
The question is a deep question - does the adventure genre need a revolution? Does an adventure really need anything more than a good story and good puzzles to go along with it? These things - good storytelling, and good puzzle building - have existed before the computer was invented.
My immidiate answer to this would be: No. It does not need it. I like the core of the adventure genre as it is - that the axis for an adventure is a good solid story, as rich as possible, with interesting characters, and hopefully good/fun gameplay. Many many games fail to supply what I am thirsty for in an adventure - real depth. The kind you meet in good movies and films. Only some have made that lasting impression on me, altough my mind is racing with thoughts of how to improve the current. How is it, I many times wonder, that games aren't given much more attention to so important details as a good script, good voice actings, completion of gaps in plots, etc... Almost every game I've played in recent years had a good potential. Had a good skeleton for the plot. But almost all of them dissapointed me. They all seem to consist many gaps. Many of them begin to fade out towards the ending. Many consist avarage-bad script.
It must come to one conclusion - budgets. This is the thing that keeps the creators from releasing more perfected works.
But this brings me back to thinking - maybe we cannot afford to remain so esoteric. Maybe the adventure genre needs more crowd. However, as I've stated, people who are outside this bubble of adventuring, look at them (even on new ones) as old ways of gaming. They recall that game, what's is name - "something with tentacle, wasn't it?" - and see no real difference. Feels to them like something that belongs to the past. Why?
I'm not sure I can answer that. That's why I wanted to bring it up for discussion.
I know that adventures have progressed much, especially graphically, but graphics isn't what I mean. That's obviously a must. If adventures would still look like Spacequests and Kingquests, I doubt there would be any crowd.
Dreamfall is indeed an exception. I was beautiful in my eyes. It still had many problems! I'm not even talking of the controls, actions scenes, etc. These did not really bother me. What bothered me was the gameplay - there wasn't really any "gameplay" in the gameplay. See? The game, story-wise (and it's consequences - voice acting, script, etc....), reached a very high level, but it left the work, gaming-wise, on a low level. As if there isn't enough budget, or time, to cover for it all.
But see, I don't want to give up on that. I believe games can be excelent in both domains. Dreamfall had this flaw - and still, comparing to this decates games - it is an exception.
I don't need adventure games to be popular again, as they were. I don't care much for it. But I want them to simply be much better than what they currently are. Say what you will - I have played dozens of adventures in the past years and have been touched by very few. I'm obsessed with this medium, and I just feel modern adventures tend to miss out their true potential, almost always.
:-\

Well, I'd like to share a few thoughts to those that are much more insightful than me.

I think there are two issues here: technology and content.

I don't think that anyone would disagree that better is better as far as technology is concerned. Better graphics is better, better sound is better. Anyone want to trade in their color TV for a black and white? But that's only part of the question. Do you want a TV that requires two hands and a foot to operate the remote control, or just one hand? Is that realy better?

I think the second issue is the true core of the question. Computer games are an art form, like music and movies. And tastes change. Just look at fashion, or listen to music by watching movies. Big Band was king in the 40's, grey flannel suits were the fashion. Short hair for men was the norm, folks with flat tops were the punk rockers of their day. Then came the 50's, and all of a sudden things started to change. Bill Haley and the Comets, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley. Longer hair, cars with fins. Then came the 60's. The Beatles, etc. Then came the 70's. Woodstock, bell bottoms, even longer hair. My point being I think its a deeply ingrained part of humanity to search for the proverbial better way, which means trying things your predecessors haven't. Sometimes it meets with success, many times with failure. But its the only way forward.

But there is one thing that is common to all, and Jane Jensen said it best. Its the story, the Story, the STORY.

All art forms have a story, some left to the imagination like paintings. But they've been there since recorded history. But again, tastes change. William Shakespeare is generally considered the greatest writer in the English language, but I doubt he's on the best seller list these days. But then there are flights of fantasy like Harry Potter that are. There must be some form of continuation or strife in any good story, the ability to prevail or whatever. But I am so tired of pure barbarism, bloodshed, and warfare in modern media. Its almost like its a vicarous version of the Gladiator games of ancient Rome. I reject it. I'm looking for a more idyllic place.

Oh, must I mention the printed word to point out how "obsolete" ancient technology has endured? Oh my G*d! They don't even have an interactive interface or resisable graphics! The story, the Story, the STORY.

So I record the late night oldie goldie movies to watch when I'm up. Cary Grant, Errol Flynn, etc. And fly my kites when the weather permits. And my precious cache of older games that know where we came from.

EDIT: My idea of a great flick for example. Father Goose, Tcm (Turner Classic Movies) tomorrow at 10 (EST) Am to 12. Its a Cary Grant classic. I hope you enjoy, its one of my faves.

Albert

I think adventure games are alive and well. I think most adventure gamers prefer the classic point & click interface. (I personally dislike key controled games ) I think adventure games are getting better and more advanced. Mind you, there will always be some that can never compare (Siberia for one). This year has been fantastically sufficient with getting the games out. For the first time I can remember I have not been able to keep up with the many releases lately. I have four new games sitting on my shelf waiting to be played plus several more pre-ordered. ( of course I buy them all because I'm addicted ) So I hope that point & click adventure never ends.

Ten years ago was 1998. These are the adventure games that released that year (according to the Pagoda game database -- I'm editing out the children's games on the list).

The Abyss: Incident at Europa
Beyond Time
Biosys
Black Dahlia
The Blackstone Chronicles: An Adventure in Terror
The Castle
Celtica
Chaos: A Fantasy Adventure Game
China: Intrigue in the Forbidden City
Chop Suey
Cracking the Conspiracy
Danger Island
Dark Side of the Moon
Dog Day
Egypt 1: Egypt 1156 BC
Foul Play: Mystery at Awkward Manor
Grim Fandango
Gruesome Castle
Hopkins FBI
Jack Orlando: A Cinematic Adventure
Jewels 2: The Ultimate Challenge
The Journeyman Project 3: Legacy of Time
Kama Sutra
King's Quest 8: Mask of Eternity
The Last Report
Liath
The Lost Island of Alanna
Morpheus
Nancy Drew 1: Secrets Can Kill
Nightlong: Union City Conspiracy
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus
Of Light and Darkness: The Prophecy
Pilgrim: Faith as a Weapon
Queen: The Eye
Quest for Glory 5: Dragon Fire
The Quivering
Redguard: Elder Scrolls Adventures
Redjack: Revenge of the Brethren
Riana Rouge
Sabrina The Teenage Witch: Spellbound
Safecracker
Sanitarium
Shock
Starship Titanic
Syn-Factor
Tender Loving Care
Tex Murphy 5: Overseer
Time Warrior: The Armageddon Device
Titanic: Dare to Discover
Treasure Hunter
Vikings
The X-Files Game
Zero Zone

As Albert has said above: Clearly the technology overall has improved. Compare the graphics in Egypt 1 to the graphics in Riddle of the Tomb, for instance. Or the graphics in Journeyman Project 3: Legacy of Time to the graphics in Myst IV: Revelation.

What about gameplay? Anybody want to argue that the puzzles were a lot better in Nancy Drew: Secrets Can Kill than the puzzles in The Phantom of Venice? Or that the challenges in Liath were as good as the ones in Sentinel? Or that the gameplay in Celtica or China: The Forbidden City was as good as the gameplay in RHEM 3 or Nostradamus?

Innovations -- Of Light and Darkness had innovative graphics, innovative gameplay, and a wild, innovative story. Nobody is currently emulating them. Starship Titanic had the "throwback" innovation of a text parser. You don't see much of that either. Dark Side of the Moon had full FMV. Something else you don't see much of anymore.

The REALLY GOOD GAME exception. Okay, maybe nobody's created a game that melded story and gameplay quite as well as Grim Fandango did. That makes it the exception for 1998, not the rule. If it's the only game we remember from 1998 -- yes, the genre has not advanced.

I don't think there is any need to change the accepted interface of AGs at all & I stand by what I said in my earlier post:



But - only survive? At the moment AGs are almost an 'underground movement' i.e. the only people that play them are the people that know about the joys of doing so & know where to look for the information. I think there is a lot of potential to promote AGs to 'mainstream' - the games industry needs to encompass more diversity to put them on a par with other forms of entertainment that cater for a wide variety of tastes. It's not AGs that are in the past - it's the mainstream game's industry - but AGs need more money invested to stand up.

AGs are only advertised in places where they are going to 'fail' i.e. games magazines & websites that cater for a clientele that are not interested - this is never going to expand the market.

And I feel that there is a large untapped market for AGs which if exploited could bring the remuneration needed to invest in their development. But this needs a big in-your-face advertising campaign to let people know what AGs are about & in the places that they are likely to look - I don't know - TV (very expensive)? newspaper supplements? general magazines - anything that is not games specific & therefore read by a wider audience.

I just feel that more people may be interested if AGs were promoted in the right place!

It doesn't need a big, expensive advertising campaign, IMHO. All it needs is an advertising campaign placed next to the line that forms at the counter of the cafes in Borders Books and Barnes & Noble.

I think where I was going with the TV thing Becky is that people could see first hand what was involved - but I think the book shop advertising is such a good idea - mmm

I don't know what you think but maybe players themselves can help with this? Start of with a design competition - then perhaps anyone that has the ink & paper resources can print off a few A4 posters of the winner & negotiate to place a few of them in strategic shops/locations in your local area. Just maybe collectively we can make a difference or have I been working too hard & completely lost the plot?!

LOL! It's viral! Why not? As long as we don't get arrested like those guys in Boston.

What happened to the guys in Boston & why?

They put up some sort of viral advertising on major structures (bridges, for instance) that looked a bit like odd little robots. People noticed them and thought they might be bombs. It's the only time I've seen two guys laughing their heads off as the police arrested them.

My idea of an ideal adventure would be the impression
that you would really be interacting with the environment.
Of course i understand this will be difficult to realise.
Clever scripting might be called for! Also facial expressions
and gesturing might be helpfull.
A character you interview might show growing irritation
when interviewed too often, or asked the
wrong questions,and show unexpected reactions that
influence the ending of the game.

The player would have to be tactical in his approach.
A certain choice of questions should be avaluable
without fear of blocking the progress of the game
when you do not ask all avaluable questions.
Mabye category's of questions appropriate to
the kind of person you want to interview.
(The kind of person you think he or she is)
You would have to choose the category you think
would be appropriate. And also the specific questions.

Also different endings of the game, depending on how carefully
you have played, appeal to me. And an endscore, an evaluation
of things you have missed or scenes you might have triggered
is nice. Yust like in the old games.
Graphics do not have to change, but the idea of interaction
(That eventually "real" limited interaction between player
and game-world is possible I have no doubt)is
really appealing I think.

I was actually thinking of something more subtle! Personally I wouldn't trust unsolicited ADs stuck on places like bridges, lamp posts etc (except for appeals for lost cats!). I thought a well-designed informative A4 poster (or photocopies) put in places like libraries, bookshops (as you mentioned!) etc could maybe prompt some interest. I had also thought of writing to a few of those gossipy magazines with 'my story'! .

Now I've realised what 'Viral' advertising is - I don't think there's anyway I'm going to be trying to place anything up high on large structures!

If you write to a gossipy magazine with your story, I'd like a copy!

For a traditional point and click game, with a 2D interface - I think that the market is with the Nintendo DS. It would be interesting to see how well adventure games do on the DS platform. I prefer 3D, even on the DS, but on the DS, a 2D interface seems to be a good fit. Being a small, personal device, the limited interactivy of the traditional adventure game seems like a good fit. When I'm playing a game on the DS, I'm OK with not being able to go everywhere, nor do I have to have a whole lot of interactivy, movement, and things to do. The stylus interface, which I like a lot, seems very mouse like.

So, at least for now, the Nintendo DS seems to be a good platform for a traditional adventure game, in my opinion. I can't bring myself to play a traditional 2D point and click adventure game on the PC, anymore (maybe I'll make an exception for Sinking Island), but I really enjoyed playing Hotel Dusk on the Nintendo DS. I might buy and play the two Nancy Drews that are out for the DS. I think it would also be smart to go to a platform - which is where most solo player games seem to be going, nowadays.

if thats the case and i not saying it isnt i dont know i havnt got a n'ds then im very afraid we realy begin to see the fall of adventures on pc.
when i go into my local puter store many years before i used to see dozens of pc adventure.now 3/4 of games are console and only 1/4 are pc and when i look not 1 singl 1 is adventur- evrything else shooters sims racing sports but not one adenture- boohoo