The Future Of Adventure Games Discussed

Thanks to AdventureGamers.com for the first part of their continuing feature article discussing what the future holds for the adventure game as a genre. The author shrewdly points out: "The death of adventure games is a topic that's been... well, done to death", and goes on to muse: "We can restlessly theorize about the genre's supposed 'death' forever, but it won't really get us anywhere. Instead, we need to take a closer look at the stuff (adventure) games are made of." He then points out: "Syberia or Jak & Daxter - ask anyone on the forums which one is the adventure game and everyone will reply the former. It's a no-brainer. However, things get difficult when you try to define exactly why Syberia is the adventure game." It's then claimed that "...the most visible characteristic of adventure games is that they offer a departure from action-and-reaction gameplay and manual dexterity" - but do games in this genre still appeal?

Comments

Adventure is not a True Genre

[illuminata]

In the 2D console days, most side-scrolling games could be considered an adventure game. Once the PC gained popularity, most of your point and click games, like Myst, were classified as adventure.

Now, the adventure genre disintegrated into various other genres. Most titles could be considered adventurous, whether they be first-person, third-person, side-scrolling, RPG, point and click, etc. I don't think that the adventure genre should really be considered a genre in which you classify games at all, because the term adventure covers so much ground. In fact, I would even go as far to say that past games shouldn't have been called adventure games, either.

Re:Adventure is not a True Genre

[scabb]

Just because the genre has the word "adventure" in it, that doesn't mean that any game featuring some kind of adventure automatically joins the genre. In Super Mario World you play the role of Mario, but is that an RPG? 2D Side-scrolling console games were never considered adventures, unless they featured elements such as the ability to communicate with non-player characters, an inventory, some sort of story and puzzles to solve. More importantly, adventure games should not punish you for being a crappy gamer, as long as you can think you should be able to progress through them nicely. "Adventurous" games are not necessarily adventure games, nor do adventure games need to have huge elements of adventure in them.

Re:Adventure is not a True Genre

[PainKilleR-CE]

I know, this is Slashdot, but you didn't even read the first page or two of the article, did you? They go through a lot of hoops to try to come up with a coherent definition of the genre despite most fans of the genre being more capable of identifying the genre of the games by playing them than describing the genre.

In the 2D console days, most side-scrolling games could be considered an adventure game.

No, the Adventure genre actually takes it's name primarily from the console game Adventure, which is, of course, a text-based adventure game. Side-scrolling games tend to fall into either platformers or shooters. In the days of the NES, Nintendo liked to try to label the content of the games (Action, Adventure, etc), but they weren't very concerned with genre. The only time they really bowed to genre labels was when they couldn't easily use their descriptions.

Once the PC gained popularity, most of your point and click games, like Myst, were classified as adventure.

Myst wasn't classified as an adventure until quite a while after it's release, as it didn't fit the conventional genre label. It was considered a puzzle game when it was released.

Now, the adventure genre disintegrated into various other genres.

The adventure genre was (is) probably one of the stodgiest genres in terms of keeping out change. This has pretty much driven it to smaller publishers, as the larger publishers had a hard time selling titles that were either highly derivative or changed too much (3D especially). Other genres, as they've matured, have co-opted various features from adventure games, but this is inevitable as adventure games are more or less story-telling puzzle games, and most mature genres will eventually incorporate both strong stories and puzzles.

Most titles could be considered adventurous, whether they be first-person, third-person, side-scrolling, RPG, point and click, etc. I don't think that the adventure genre should really be considered a genre in which you classify games at all, because the term adventure covers so much ground. In fact, I would even go as far to say that past games shouldn't have been called adventure games, either.

Genres named after generic terms often have these kinds of problems, but frankly the problem is not with the genre, it is simply your lack of understanding of what the genre is. Adventure games don't even have to be adventurous at their core, and a game is not a part of the genre (or even incorporating genre elements) just because it contains adventure or is adventurous.

Re:Sequel Mania

[robbway]

RPGs are a sub-genre of Adventure games. The article, though well written, seems to be a "fluff" article to just generate a thesis and support it with points. And it does it well. It's still a good read, fluff or not. I think it presents us with a trip down nostalgia lane and points out that old game styles are often abandoned for newer "formulas" because a great game that doesn't sell well is still a commercial flop. It's a shame, really, since I spent a lot of time on King's Quest.

Kings Quest and Space Quest were the pinnacle!

[SyncNine]

Adventure games now have all become along the lines of Myst and such, there is very little interaction in them between multiple characters, and most of the games I've played lately that call themselves 'Adventure' games have less adventure in them than Grand Theft Auto! I'd say it's not that Adventure games don't exist or are dying, but that they've changed significantly from the older Adventure games. IMHO, the older games like Kings Quest and Space Quest, Bards Tale, Loom, Sam and Max, Day of the Tentacle, etc, are all substantially better games than the newer Adventure games like Ico (PS2), Syberia (XBOX), or Myst. The new games just seem to be lacking in story and interaction.. Space Quest and such had such great plots (even if they were tongue in cheek!) and at the very least were entertaining throughout, whereas Myst and such just don't seem gripping to me. But-- That's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before. sYn

This Line is why Adventure games are dead

[*weasel]

But if you think I'm going to advocate the bastardization of adventure games through the inclusion of action elements, you are wrong.

I nearly wrote a rant about how assinine a name 'Adventure' is for this genre that really means 'ass backwards dream logic'. But that's not the point.

the point is, the absolute refusal of any genre, to accept a blend of good elements from other genres is the mark of death. If you refuse to accept new ideas - you will stagnate and die. It's that simple.

The games that revitalize and create genres blur traditional boundaries. Diablo, Thief, Half-Life, Deus Ex, GTA -- they're great -games- regardless of what 'genre' you try to lump them into.

Adventure games are dead because they weren't fun anymore: developers and purists refused to aknowledge that their genre -needs- a shot in the arm.

The stories were no longer compelling, and the puzzles were overly ludicrous in the name of making them 'clever'.

Most Adventure purists reviled at even the idea of 3d engines, with first person or chase cam views. I mean, a camera angle? Is your genre so incredibly fragile that changing the camera angle or rendering style is enough to destroy everything about it? christ.

Adventure games as these people define them are better off dead. Any genre that refuses to aknowledge its own shortcomings does not merit anything more than a fringe, niche market.

Re:This Line is why Adventure games are dead

[*weasel]

I'm not saying they should incorporate running and gunning, or jump puzzles or any of that crap. The point was that 'action elements' are regarded as 'bastardization'. It's the mindset that anything that hasn't been done before in the 2d and text roots is anathema.

And I only describe the shortcomings as being the -mass market acceptance- obstacles. If you dig that stuff, of course you see them as features. But the overwhelming majority of fans don't - and gaming isn't big enough for your fringe to garner attention from the mainstream developers, publishers, or press.

As for the genre being dead for you... well I hate to break it to you - but it already is. Your threat to stop buying games altogether is fairly idle - as that is what most 'adventure' gamers already did.

Being open to new ideas doesn't necessarily mean 'add twitch combat'. It means: be open to exploring new storytelling methods, new technology -- don't write off a game just because of a rendering engine or camera angle decision, and don't just stick to the conventions of the previous games.

Aknowledging the genre's shortcomings doesn't mean 'add what currently popular games do'. it means: realize the 'puzzles' are ridiculous, the stories are repetitive, the character design is largely nonexistant, and the back-and-forth 'you can't do this now, you have to come back and do it later' 'design' is broken.

Maybe adventure games as they were is all adventure gamers ever want -- and to that I say, good for you guys.

But then don't keep wondering aloud where the new titles are, where the mainstream support is, where the new stories are, or where the fans all went. if you aren't doing that wondering, again, fine - i'm replying to the people that -are-. the people that regularly post articles like the one in question and make discussion threads asking 'why' adventure games went away.

And i'm just letting them know -- when you close yourself off to new ideas, when you refuse to question tradition and convention, you -can't- innovate. and your old ideas in new clothing are just not continually appealing to the mass market.

And the choices given the market reality is simply: innovate, or be comfortable in your niche.

Re:This Line is why Adventure games are dead

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

I nearly wrote a rant about how assinine a name 'Adventure' is for this genre that really means 'ass backwards dream logic'. But that's not the point.

I'm disappointed--that's a pretty brilliant way to both define the category of games and exactly what's wrong with them. When an adventure game stops using Bizarro World logic and bases itself on clearly defined, predictable rules, it becomes a Puzzle game instead of an Adventure game. Which is why RPGs and action games with Adventure elements have taken a lot of the space that Adventure games once enjoyed--players want to explore new worlds with interesting stories, but they hate having the game designer's arbitrary whims inflicted upon them unpredictably at every turn.

Adventures didn't die. They were killed.

[SmallFurryCreature]

Monkey Island. A great point and click adventure series. Killed by the fourth installment wich added well a "different" way of doing things. Instead of moving your mouse around the screen hunting for pixels that would do something you now had to move a tiny character with the cursor keys to hunt for pixels that would do something. The reviewers loved it. Adventure reborn! An important thing to remember about reviewers is that they get PAID to play games. Where as buyers PAY to play. The game didn't sell and lucasarts adventures are no more.

The Gabriel Knight series is another example. The first was a classic point and click and sold well. Sadly the developers caught the "full motion video" bug that was doing the rounds and number 2 was well not as good. By the time it was time for number 3 the FMV bug had died but a more virulent strain had sprung up called "3D". Even reviewers thought this Gabriel Knight 3 was not very good. The public avoided it like the plague.

Broken Sword 1 & 2 were moderately succefull point & click adventures. Number 3 caught the 3D bug however and while it makes for a nice looking game you once again find yourselve controlling a character with sub-standard controls (no side stepping) in the hunt of pixels. Add some pointless Tombraider bits (pointless since there is no skill involved) and a bit of dragon lair and you got another adventure killer. Nice game but not an adventure as we know and love them.

Is all hope lost? No. Funcom released a little gem called "The longest journey". In a great example that shows the value of reviews it was highly regarded by most game sites and mags and totally ignored by the buyers. Then something happened. Word of mouth got out that here was a classic point and click like in the olden days and slowly it started to sell becoming a moderate success.

And here is the good bit. THEY ARE MAKING A SEQUEL. Oh yes. Working title "The longest journey. Static".

Another new hopefull is syberia. Granted I thought it had a few to many empty screens but at least the interface worked. It is successfull enough for a sequel as well.

Out of nowhere came also "Runaway a road adventure" not sure how this one did but it again is a classic point and click and a lot of fun to play even if the characters are horrible ripoffs from the broken sword series.

So what of the future? Well it is hard to tell. With PC games becoming more of a niche the lure of consoles and a more arcade like adventure may proof unresistable. Broken sword has fallen to the unwashed hordes of the gamepad others may follow. However there will always be new and brave people who are willing to make the classic adventure. After all did not a group of volunteers make a classic "Space Quest" game? Even got the old ega graphics for that bit of nostalgia.

Re:Puzzle games

[SmallFurryCreature]

Myst is of the school of "The 7th guest". This had a story but in order to progress you had to solve puzzles. These puzzles had little today with the story but were classic braintwisters. Simple things like moving pieces on chessboard or answering riddles.

The other style of adventure is the Sierra or Lucasarts adventure. Here the puzzles are usually based in items you collected and combinging them with other items to move along. Think MacGuyver. For instance in the recent adventure "Runaway a road adventure" you have problem. You need to convince some killers that your love intrest is in another bed. How? Well there is a card with her name on it at the bottom of the bed and an empty bed next to it. So locate some cushions a dummy head a wig and a sheet and you got a nice target. Now to do the medical chart. You found a marker pen but it is dry. You also found some alcohol and a syringe. Hmmm, can you figure out what to do next? Probably. Do you like figuring it out or do you go, why don't I just shoot the killers?

Some of use like adventures and puzzles like this. Some like myst style puzzels. You like patformers and rpgs en shooters with a few puzzles. Genre mixing doesn't work for everyone. Adventure gaming isn't dead but people sure keep trying to kill it.

Adventure game = hassle free RPG

[BMonger]

An adventure game to me is pretty much the same as an RPG but without stats, armor, weapons, and fighting. A lot of the old school Sierra/Dynamix games would fall into this category for me. Kings Quest, Space Quest, Police Quest, Freddy Pharkas, Phantasmagoria, Gabriel Knight, Leisure Suit Larry, Quest for Glory, and Adventures of Willy Beamish. Most of these could be full RPG's if stats, weapons, and armor were added. These games usually require you to get item A bring it to person B to get item C. How you get item A can be a decently long puzzle.

I guess adventure games could almost be considered to be puzzles which are brought to you in a non-straightforward sort of way...

Easiest way to classify Adventure games...

[Ceyan]

Take an action game. At it's base an action game is a game where a character goes around getting involved in some form of combat. These kinds of games include everything from Devil May Cry to Jak & Daxter, or even Beyond Good & Evil. These games may or may not have extra elements involved, such as puzzles, storylines, whatever. As long as it's third person and it has more than a few combat moments, it's an action game. A adventure game is pretty much the same thing, only you cut out the combat. Instead you play a character that runs around and mainly solve puzzles (with perhaps a few moments of combat involved) with the purpose to further the storyline. The only real problem defining an action game and an adventure game is when you get into the realm of games like Omikron. You've got what looks like an adventure game, but still has a fair amount of combat. Adventure games are not dead either, they simply aren't very popular. Look at Flight Simulators, no one is claiming they are dead, but they aren't popular either. Hell, just in the past few months there have been two new great adventure games, Uru and Broken Sword 3.

I don't know what we expected

[Dr. Spork]

There were a few good adventure games early on, but as a genre, there is just far too much crap being released. This is because unless a story behind an adventure game is awesome, the game will make players yawn with boredom.

And it takes a really immersive story to make a normal human care enough to "procure A, bring it to be in order to accomplish C" over and over.

CRPG games also have some "fetch-bitch" tasks for the characters, but the designers have an easier time. If the back story is a bit stale, a heated fight with a few orcs will liven it up. That's a luxury adventure game authors don't have. If their stories are a bit stale, their game fails.

I think this is enough to explain why adventure games must inevitably suck, on average. When it's done on a large scale and by the numbers, it always fails. It reminds me of romance novels: Seriously, how likely is a romance novel to be a good book? Vanishingly. And how many are you able to read before you declare the genre "dead" as far as you care? Even if romance novelists were good writers, there is a certain wall that the genre hits. Everything will read like something else. That's what's happening to adventure games. It gets progressively harder to write original ones, to the point where it starts requiring storywriting genius. And that genius is busy on other genres with more vitality (and money).

So did I just describe the death of adventure games? Not really. I mean, they'll live on in exactly the same way that romance novels with bumpy covers live on.

Re:PC vs Console

[Haeleth]

Of course consoles never had pc styled adventures.

Except for, um, Maniac Mansion for the NES. And the PS1 versions of the Broken Sword series. And Clock Tower on the SNES and PS1. And scores of lesser-known titles.

Fun for more than one weekend

[EarwigTC]

Many people now only buy games with a high replayability or a strong multiplayer component. Pure adventure games almost never have either. That's a big factor in the declining financial success of these kinds of games.

Pure adventures need some value added, like new monthly content or game editors. Imagine an easily mod-able Leisure Suit Larry...

No recent titles ?

[DrSkwid]

What about Pokemon?

It's a classic adventure game, running round collecting bits you need to open the door to get more bits to open the door ....

oh and we also loved the 'Tombi' series on PS1

Whacky Japanese nonsense, run round collecting feathers and leaves and stupid stuff to take to the old man to get the magic mushroom to .....

The genre isn't dead by a long stretch, we are out here playing and enjoying them games it's just a trip to the games shop will show you 500 fps/driving/sim X games for the brutes.