Advancing technically in our genre.

Hello people out there.
Some conflicts in my life regarding the direction I want to take, in my studies, have led me lately to give a lot of serious thinking of the medium we call "computer games", and especially adventure games.
It's amazing how everyone who isn't into serious digging into the niche of adventure, is positive that adventure games have gone of this world - that's in the bad case. In the good case, they would reffer to Tomb Raider as a nowadays adventure game, not knowing that some actual, story-based, inverntory-based, logic-based games, with heavy production and requirements, are still getting released.
The market nowadays, in every aspect, is desperate for originality, creativity, constantly drawing out new ideas and constantly thinking how to further develop concepts and ideas we have gotten used to - the rate of which is growing rappidly.
It is not a brilliant diagnosis of me to mark that the adventure genre has been left, technologically, much behind other genres in the adventure gaming market. Comparing a game 10 years old to a contemporary game will hardely reveal any differences, but perhaps a change in graphics.
Yet, to seriously survive in the modern market, to succeed in getting budgets, contracts and deals with game companies, and to get to a large audience - something needs to be done.
I would never sattle for something less than a real adventure - a game that is surrounds itself on the plot and story, and on the intellect of the player, simply stands on a much higher level than any other way of gaming (which I still could enjoy, but I just cannot compare).
I'm a strong believer in the medium of computer games as a form of conveying ideas and beauty - much like books and movies.
But how do we (or they - "the makers") keep the genre alive, for real? Breathing, developing, surviving decates to come? Most people here are afraid of keyboard (I am *not* critisizing of course). Have you seen any games that seemed to have some real advancement in them? While the market is ever-growing, adventures seem to stand in place. One of my dreams is to be able to be a part of the force that will push the genre forwards - not on the account of the older audience that I know are a big part of the general audience, and not on the account of women, who begin more and more to "allow" themselves to be intersted in this genre. But giving the genre air again - so it can transform and grow and be brilliant, not mediocre. I haven't played a *really really good game* since GK3 (and it had it's flaws), and it's almost been 10 years since! I have played at least 30 games since.
I refuse to believe that this cannot change. If you happen to want a really really good book, you don't have to try to hard to get it. The choice is infinite - there are millions of books out there, consisting so many different ideas and concepts - you are sure to find one you like, every time you plunge yourself in there. The audience exists, and many people are thirsty for good works of art. They are unaware of the genre. I try my best to expand it in my circle of friends, but I usually fail, since what to me seems as an exciting potential, to them seems primitive or dead.

Ideas. Thoughts. Don't sell yourselves of course, but in general, I'd be interested to know how people respond to this issue. Do some disagree with the fact that the genre stands still? Are some afraid of advancment, seeing that this word somehow always seems to associate with "keyboard"?

Let the discussion begin! (hopefully, if someone bothered to read )

Very interesting ...Well we all like differant controls in an adventure and some times if it would nt cost the makers to much maybe they could do a good game point and click and so many using key board controls .I don t know if this idea would pay ..Just a thought .I dont think a lot of people want the controls to change ..Most seem to want point and click but also to be able to look around and move where ever they want to in a game .I do think there is a market for these games but they dont seem to get thehype that the shoot and kill ones do although some of these have good stories .What makes me mad is there must be a lot of people out there that never get the chance to play these games as they don t seem to get in our stores where I am .3 cheers for Dave at interact Via trading or the internet I would never get the chance to play these games.There are more games for us point and click fans than I have ever seen and I think it will get bigger .To me the story is the main thing and that the game runs smotherly .Grafics although nice to have not as inpotant but thinking of games like Mystt what can I say .The Sentinal what an imagination some one had .I think there is more choice than ever as long as you are on the internet .There are also some free games although grafics are nt always that brill .They have good little stories and although very slowly ...yes I think these games are getting more popular even with the young ones .Sorry to go on

i think tomer feels that adventures will die if they standing still.in the very earliest days they were forefront of compuer games but now there ist no difference at all between gk3 or texmurphy pandora or grim fandango and any single adventure in 21 century except some improvements in graphics with more strong computers.just the same old stuff sometimes very good sometimes bad but nothing whatsover actually *new*.
in fact exactly opposite.
hardly 1 single game has as good story as thosese 3 so things havent improved but maybe even moved backward.

i think tomer want to know - what can be done to make **original** ?

Advancing technicallly for adventures usually means changing the controls the player uses in the environment. Many times that means using the keyboard, often introducing action /stealth or puzzles that require dexterity.
I'm one of the type of gamers that like my fundementals of Adventures to stay the same, and that means controlling my way through the game in as easy and non distracting a manner as possible. You can't beat a mouse for that.
There are many other aspects of adventures that could be technically enhanced - better CGI characters, or finding a way to do FMV again. Expansive environments to explore, with diurnal and seasonal change. Engaging stories, different from the run of the mill mystery/horror/supernatural topics that are familiar.
Lastly, I don't actually think the genre is stagnating. I think that Adventures are not popular because many people who would like them don't know they exist (people who use a computer minimally, or not at all, but love to read). Part of the effort should be to get this potential market engaged, not trying to move Adventures into hybrid games in hopes of attracting the mainstream market. The latter always seems to be the hope of the 'technically enhanced' game.

Adventure games are not dead.

They are also not broke, so no need to fix them.

If someone requires them to be "changed" in order to hold their interest, perhaps adventure games are not their cup of tea and they should dabble in the hordes of action/adventure or other genres that are out there.

Ana

Well, I for example disagree that THE OTHER game genres don't stand still. To me all of the "advancements" are only on the surface. Bells and whistles do of course allow to call the attention of more gamers, but you don't need any particular creativity for them, just big budgets.

they are not dead but they are ailing
when i used to went into any of our local computer shops 10 years ago i see shelves and shelves full of dozens of adventres.
ive stopped visiting now.2/3 are console games and the PC rest not one single adventure seems no longer worth shelf space
i know lots are now sold download which not 10 years ago but this is not healthy and lots developers canot make ends meet

original doesnt *have* to mean kb-control or action nor going to othr genres and i will not ever do that.just not same sorts again and again and again no real change or improvement

I agree with that statement. For me it is not so much the technology but availability. Very rare to just walk into a store and find an adventure or casual game even on the shelf anymore!! If it weren't for this board, I wouldn't know anything about what was available or coming out at all. I think the one positive sign is there do seem to be a lot of really good games coming out/in development - so obviously there is enough of an interest in them out there. The adventure genre must just not appeal to most of the big name publishers and retailers target demographic the way "darker side" and console games do? Those other genres always seem to have the lions share of publicity and shelf space.

In Poland the shelves are brimming with adventure games (Kheops, Frogwares, Telltale, House of Tales, classic LucasArts etc.). OK, the other genres have even bigger sections, but mostly every commercial adventure game from the few last years can be found.

That is great to hear Ascoval!

Ana

I m going Poland next year

Have a good holiday in Poland, Dragon!
I started gaming on the PC with DOOM. I still really like action gaming, but found adventures more involving with the Tex Murphy games Pandora Directive and then Under A Killing Moon (yeah, played them backwards). I still will get out a shooter and go off killing everything that thinks of moving now, but adventures let me know the people and care about what is happening more than simple survival. Today, I have played waaaaay more adventure games than action games, platform and PC. Speaking of Poland, I find a lot of the games coming out of countries in that region are really livening up graphics and story lines a lot.

that is reely reely interesting.
i wander why not the case in some other countries
wether we like it or dont market forces rule or at any rate influence
many indies games sell only thousands and only if lucky tens of thousands.but to finance and justify the time and work they need to sell 100 thousand or better more

yes poland sounds wonderful i can't find even one proper adventure in shops or stores and can only order which has problems but much better than nothing.

question: why in 1998 did i walk into almost any computer syhop and have a choice of at least 2 or 3 dozen good adventures and now zero?

Where I am there as never been many adventure games in the shops just the odd one or two.I dont think people get the chance to find out about these games .If you can t buy them you cant play them but now we have the internet and thanks to that we can buy them from other countries and what gets me more than any thing is that when they do come out in the shops you are talking £20 -£30 to buy and I can go on the internet and they have to post it from god knows where and it still costs less .I think because of the internet there will always be adventure gamers and to trading from person to person and people helping you to understand stuff when its all writen in a differant language .Places like gameboomers .justadventure etc will keep the gene going on

Good RPGs will incorporate some adventure game elements by having more than one possible solution to quests and having a diverse range of characters for the player to interact with. Take for an example, Jade Empire. However, once a while the opposite happens when something like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix or Dreamfall comes along which are adventure games that actually incoporate RPG elements!

I would consider Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix to be very worthwhile playing, despite its flaws, if just to experience how different it is. In my opinion Dreamfall having incorporated combat elements but not expanding further on them makes very risky design decision. It risks alientating adventure gamers which do not like action but the game expands its appeal to include action gamers and non-gamers who like movie elements in games.

I don't think advancing technically is important.
I think what is most important is advancing reliability and availability.
New gamers need to be able to find the games, and they also want some reassurance that the game will work -- or if it doesn't, that they can choose something else and won't have thrown their money away. Otherwise their first game may be their last.

I don't think action gamers are the best market to try to target.
Action gamers already know about games and what sort of games they like.

Instead, I think casual game outlets are the best hope of expanding the audience for adventure games. Games like Dream Chronicles may be very easy for current adventure gamers, but they could be a first step towards adventure games for casual gamers. There are already a few adventure games being sold by casual game companies like Big Fish -- for example Blackwell Legacy, Time Stand Still, and a few Nancy Drew games. Nancy Drew: Phantom of Venice is currently #16 at Big Fish while Time Stand Still is #13, so I think the audience is there.

Adventure games aren't a replacement for Casual games, but the same people might enjoy both types (more likely than with people who play action games) and Casual games already have a good distribution mechanism. Some casual game portals will even give you your money back if a game doesn't work on your system -- or at least give you credit on another game of your choice -- which is something you don't get at Gamestop or Best Buy.

lots truth and sense in that.

In the beginning there was the adventure game. But it was text only and you needed big imagination. So they moved to the PC, but back then, that platform was the price of a car. Then along came Doom and suddenly there was a different kind of player, young, aggressive. Need a cheaper platform to reach this young player - let's invent the console. The console took off - it was a new market. They shipped the consoles with platform games, for SuperMario was better technology than PacMan.

Adventure games didn't die, they just got usurped by new, more lucrative genres. Then came market forces. Are you going to make an adventure game - or would you prefer to sell millions of copies of a Doom derivative or an in-the-box platform game? Hmm, that's a hard one. So the big names departed the adventure platform in search of the big money they needed to survive and the publishers went with them.

So everything went quiet in the adventure genre for a couple of years. Meanwhile Messrs Boakes and Jensen and Sokal realised the potential of a niche with no serious competition and then a little while later, others (ahem) thought 'that's a good idea'. But the little guys haven't the staff for the big productions, so the look and feel of the Adventure game doesn't progress as fast as in the more excitement-driven genres.

Ultimately, the reason the Adventure genre is quiet and esoteric compared with the console-style games is because until now, the big publishers have not had the incentive to market the genre, so few people know of it, so it doesn't make so much money, so it doesn't attract the big publishers etc. But that doesn't matter any more, because now there's Lighthouse and Tri Synergy and GotGame and others. New producers, publishers with bottle and expertise. Our genre is about to get better known. You never know - maybe soon, somebody will offer Messrs Boakes and Jensen and Sokal a mil or two to port to the Wii. Meanwhile, our technology is getting more accessible. Cubase is less than 400 quid, Blender and Wintermute are donationware, there are dozens of books on game story design.

I'm encouraged by this genre. Never underestimate the indies in any industry. Indies eventually become the mainstream. Without them, we wouldn't have Oasis, chicken tikka masala, Google, Impressionist paintings or Pilates. The indies are coming.

Cheers

Noel

Advancing Technology is a oft repeated refrain in the criticism of Adventure games. The complaint usually is Adventures have not kept up with the times, they stagnate, lag behind and so on. So how do we employ technology to make Adventures better, graphics? I submit Adventures have employed better graphics. Compare GK1 to TLJ and then TLJ to Dreamfall. Better graphics become obvious, so perhaps ramping up graphics more will make them look better, but it seems that's not really an issue.

So then we examine tech advances to discover the keyboard replacing the mouse. What is the result? It becomes confusing to gamers who have spent years with the mouse. The answer of course is over time you will get used to it. But used to what? W-A-S-D and the arrow keys seem to be the favorite of these "innovators" When you compare the use of these keys to the mouse unless one has great dexterity the mouse actually has the capability to complete these tasks more quickly than the keyboard. Is that true?

I will borrow from MaGtRo excellent walkthrough of Broken Sword 3 posted on Gameboomers to illustrate the point, just so I did not miss anything.
"movement controls: run is left shift, next object is page up, previous object is page down, creep is left Ctrl key, pause is ESC, inventory is spacebar. Toggle or press the spacebar again to close inventory.The action map positions are: up is W, down is S, left is A and right is D. These keys are used together with the action console at bottom right of the screen. Additional action is a combination of the action with the arrows for direction of the action needed. To combine items in inventory use the left action (2 boxes with an arrow) panel after selecting the items to combine."

On your mouse RUN is generally double click. Movement is click on a spot on the screen, your character moves to that spot. Please explain to me how the above description moves your character to another section of the screen faster than a click of the mouse does it? Please explain how the convoluted use of keyboard described above is quicker and more efficient to mix inventory items than the old fashion way of dragging a desired object over another in inventory with your mouse? I propose the introduction of keyboard controls created a more convoluted operation that slowed game play and was wrapped up in a blanket of "advancement". I see no keyboard action that can't be done with a mouse more efficiently. Please spare me this tech "advance"

Another industry sweetheart is 3D graphics and the ability to freely explore. Yes 3D graphics are nice to look at, however, there appears to be many people who suffer motion sickness. Gladly I for one do not share that malady. It is not the 3D graphics that is the problem here. It is the free floating camera that spins you around in every direction creating confusion regarding your point of view. Left is no longer left and right is no longer right. We won't get into up and down. I will offer the abomination that is Broken Sword 3 as the poster child for evil changing camera angles. Remember trying to run to that elevator? As you fervently pound on the keys to run? You can't stop pushing the key or you are caught. So you keep pounding that key and suddenly the horrible camera angle changes and you are running toward your doom instead of away from it. There is no excuse for that when a simple fixed camera would have avoided an unnecessary annoying sequence of game control operation. Or better yet mouse controls.

What can you do? The industry insist on 3D. Ever hear of fixed camera angles, use of a mouse? Try that with 3D you might have something. Though many games have had excellent results with 2D and painted backgrounds. Yes 3D is a technical advance but until they get it right spare me.

So what technical changes should be or can be done? What about the gamble taken by Culpa Innata? Those advances with facial expressions, eye movements and lip movement during speech were stunning. A simple minor advance relatively speaking was more impressive and added more meaningful enhancements than 3D and keyboards ever had. What Adventure games need is more of that. Yes I heard whining about bad graphics, I did not notice bad graphics in that game sorry.

The naysayers forget what an Adventure game is. To remind them, they are about, story, character and puzzles. True I don't care all that much about puzzles but many do. However, both branches of Adventure, puzzle centered like Myst, story centered like TLJ are all built around story, character and puzzles. You need to focus on those items adding "advances" only when they truly advance the genre. Keyboard and spinning camera angles are not the advances we need. It will be interesting what Frogwares changes in their re-release of the Awakened, did they finally get it?

A trend that I have noticed of late is almost comical. All of the innovation and technological additions made to jazz up the shooters to disguise the latest entry of Shooter version 22, so nobody notices it is the same game as Shooter 21, seems to have fallen short. What do I mean? It seems many of these promoters are hyping that Shooter 22 has a more in depth story. Not to be out done the producers of Mayhem 98 are touting they have a more detailed story. What add a story? So true alas they seem to be adopting something the failing Adventure genre has known for years. You need a story and characters to carry the burden of glitz.

I disagree there have been no really good games since GK3. There have been many too many to cite here. To illustrate a few examples, TLJ, Syberia, Broken Sword 1 more recently Culpa Innata. I could go on but there are many with story that is as in depth as GK 3. Dreamfall's story was amazing it's failure was in trying faux technological advances that diminished the power the story had. Read the multitude of complaints that plague Dreamfall. It is not the story beyond its incomplete ending that was the problem with Dreamfall. The incomplete ending was designed to set up a sequel. I agree with the complaints over that decision. It was in my opinion a poor choice but it was not a product of bad writing. The complaints were, keyboard, stealth, fighting, free floating camera and of course too few puzzles. The story was as amazing and gripping as any before it.

My solution continue to tell in depth stories with strong character development while incorporating puzzles that make sense. Then follow Culpa Innata's lead by employing technological advances that truly are meaningful. Spare us the failed glitz that passes for advancement while succeeding in making game play more difficult.

noel - hooray for indy developrs they allseem to have darnd good original stories and many have much more.

nb - sorry mariner.i played dreamfall to the end and agree about every 1 of teknical atrocities.
but i thought that the whole story and not only end was one of complete mishmesh which had no meaning for me whatsoever- just meaningless pretentius airyfairy narative with no meaning.

sorry to those who loved it but i found the actuql dreamfall story mumbojumbo

What are you talking about? The requirements for adventure games keep going up. And frankly I think its absurd. Nothing wrong with hand drawn 2D images.

LindaMarion
I don't disagree with you in regard to the incomplete Dreamfall ending. What I said was in total it was an amazing story. Yes it was fantasy but well written.

GuybrushThreepwood
Who is it you directed your question to? I'm a bit confused.

Tomer.

Hi oldmariner

I agree with absolutely everything you said

Cheers.

Mad

thanks Mad, and GuybrushThreepwood I garee there is nothing wrong with hand drawn 2D it works fine for me.

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