Can Nintendo Save the Adventure Game Genre?

Gamasutra is running an editorial wondering whether the Wii can save the adventure game genre. With the intuitive nature of first-person control and interaction the Wiimote/nunchuck combination provides, it's been an open question since the console's concept was announced whether or not the Nintendo could revive a much-beloved but sadly absent game genre. Scott Nixon writes of the future for point-and-click titles, talking about their hearty success on the DS (with Hotel Dusk and Phoenix Wright) and the requirements of design such games would make of the Wii. With word that a Wii developer for the Sam and Max series is being sought, the question isn't if but when adventure titles begin appearing on the system. Here's hoping they get a warm reception, from an audience ready for their reintroduction. Update: 02/07 01:03 GMT by Z : Fixed the link. Sorry.

Comments

Haven't they already appeared?

[caitsith01]

the question isn't if but when adventure titles begin appearing on the system Ummm... Zelda?

I am starting to wonder if the whole 'adventure gaming is dead' notion comes from a failure to recognise that games like Zelda, Oblivion, Deus Ex and so on are, in effect, adventure games. You freely explore a large environment solving problems, frequently involving puzzles, the need to talk to characters in the world, or the need to acquire specific objects, all within the framework of a larger story. Just because it doesn't involve 2D sprites and some hand-painted backgrounds doesn't mean that what is often called an 'RPG' isn't a traditional adventure game.

However, it is a reasonable assertion that the Wiimote does offer the possibility that mouse-driven adventure games could finally work well on a console.

Re:Haven't they already appeared?

[frederec]

When people say "adventure gaming is dead," what they're probably talking about is "point-and-click" adventure gaming is dead. The adventure games you're talking about are classified more as "action adventure" games.

I'm not terribly fond of pigeonholing everything into miniscule subgenres, but here I think it's relevant.

Action adventure games do involve a fair amount of item collecting and puzzle solving. But they also involve a lot of fighting, frequently repetitive fighting. The point-and-click style of adventure gaming (unless you want to go real old school and talk about text adventures, but it's a similar thing) is more cerebral. There is little to no direct violence. Virtually everything must be done by puzzle solving, and there is a much lower emphasis on things like reaction time. It's part of the reasons people have been referring to the new Phoenix Wright game as being almost a visual novel.

So the difference is not 3D vs. 2D (many adventure games went for at least pseudo-3D), nor is it sprites vs. rendered graphics. It's all about action with some puzzles vs. all puzzles, all the time. It drastically changes the tone and feel of the game. Zelda, Okami, and the like, while good games, do not have the "feel" of pure adventure games. Hence "action adventure."

Adventure Games Killed Themselves

[hardburn]

No discussion of adventure games is complete without Old Man Murray.

I miss Old Man Murray.