How would YOU reinvent the adventure game genre?

[JustLuke]

Lately I've been thinking about 2d point 'n' click adventure games. I've been reminiscing about the good old days of Quest for Glory and Monkey Island. Somewhere along the line adventure games fell out of favour and were usurped by other game genres, but why? And what could be done to reverse this trend?

It seems clear to me that adventure games need to be reinvented, but how? I'll throw out a few of my own ideas and I'd be very interested to hear about yours.

1) 2d is out. Interactive 3d is in.
            - I do not want to stare at static 2d backgrounds, no matter how beautifully painted they might be.
            - I do want to be able to look around my on screen character and manipulate the camera with the mouse.
            - I do want to be able to control my character with keys or even a game pad.
            - I do want text descriptions (or voice descriptions) of interesting environmental objects that I select to examine.
2) So long bottomless pockets and endless inventory based puzzles.
            - I don't want to have to "use the cactus with the gerbil to open the trapdoor".
            - I don't want to waste time mindlessly clicking upon hotspots with every one of my seemingly endless list of inventory icons.
            - I don't want there to be a head spinning number of items to collect.
            - I don't want to have to "hunt the pixel" to find them.
            - I do want every item I collect to have multiple uses.
            - I do want to have only one "use" command rather than many push, pull. open, close, take, give (etc) buttons.
3) Strong, highly compelling and tightly structured stories.
            - I don't want to save the world from an evil wizard or mad scientist.
            - I don't want to begin the game as an amnesiac with a shady history.
            - I do want a strong narrative and plot that leads me through the game and doesn't just make a half-hearted appearance in the occasional cutscene.
            - I do want highly interactive dialogues but I don't want free form, open-ended gameplay. I want adventures to be tightly structured and plotted.
            - I do want plot and game progression to be dependent on character interaction more than the successful completion of puzzles.

I can think of many more things but I'm going to leave it at that for the time being. Over to you now!

[Reish Vedaur]

I think proclaiming a game to be the reinvention of a genre before you've even started it is foolhardy.  My honest opinion is this:

If you want to make a story-based game, the story comes before ALL design elements.
The design of a game should follow the story and setting, rather than designing a system and then building a story into it.

Following that model is the difference between a crapfest written-as-you-go Inuyasha, or a beautifully thought-out Princess Mononoke.  Or if you don't like the anime reference, it's the difference between Quest for Glory and Final Fantasy.

I think for the most part, you were thinking more along the lines of Monkey Island and other Lucasarts games when you wrote this out.

[JustLuke]

Sorry, there might be a little misunderstanding here. I don't claim to be reinventing anything and I'm not making a game myself. I'm interest in the idea of reinventing the concept of the genre.

Didn't Lucasarts adventures stick to the old adventure game conventions as much as anyone else? I think they did.

Perhaps I'm looking for suggestions for radical changes that might redefine the adventure game in a positive way.

[Jigen]

Probably more important than tightly structured plot would be characterisation. It is character that moves a good story forward, this is true in film & literature but in video games characters are still mostly vague. Back in the day this was ok because you were supposed to be immersing yourself into the situation (in the earliest Space Quest games you could even put your own name in instead of going with the protagonist's name of Roger Wilco).

Even adventure games that came out after the Sierra/Lucas Arts heyday suffer from this. In the Shenmue series your character does have a name, a voice and a bit of an attitude, but he seriously suffers from 'protagonistism' and pales into sheer mindless boredom compared to the character's around him.

The only character who really pushes the story forward himself (that I can think of) is Gabriel Knight. Gabe wants to learn about his family's bizarre past and how they mysteriously connect to the voodoo murders and it is through the character's actions and interactions that the plot advances.

Well that's enough of my barely-thought-out rantings, I'm going back to work.

[The Guy]

That must have been the very first Space Quest game then. I have all of them, except for the original EGA version of Space Quest and have never seen any option to customize his name.

[Guest]

It's in the first two, right at the start, if you're using an anthology pack version, they may have taken that out.

[Corsair5]

Ah, shouldn't Final Fantasy be taking the crappy, written as you go Inuyasha's place? I mean...have you seen it recently? It's garbage, it's bogus!

[Reish Vedaur]

They're both terrible, in my opinion.

[The Guy]

It's in the first two, right at the start, if you're using an anthology pack version, they may have taken that out

I don't have the anthology for the Space Quest series, only Quest for Glory. I have the original Space Quest 2 and all the times I have played it, I have never once seen an option to change his name. I'll dig it out of the attic sometime soon and check it out just to be sure.

[PHattiE]

I dunno JustLuke, your description pretty much sums up the modern adventure game perfectly.  In fact, every modern adventure game I've played recently follows your guidelines.  

Personally, I disagree with some of your critera.  I rather liked the static, hand painted backgrounds.  They reminded me of a story book.  Adventure games for me, were like the "choose your own adventure" books you read when you were a kid--except more interactive and emmersive.

I agree that 2D is over.  And frankly, I don't care for the pre-rendered 3d stuff either.  It all needs to be real-time 3d, or nothing.  But I think it'd be cool if the camera in the 3d world stayed at a fixed position throughout the entire game, except when maybe talking to someone: then it zooms in and positions itself as if the player was talking to the NPC in RL.  Or, maybe the camera would move to better support a combat system (assuming you wanted combat in your adventure).  Adventure games need to feel like a book or a movie, not an arcade game where you run all over the place and the camera follows you.  It's the stage-like setting that helps define an adventure game for me; but I'm biased.  

I definately think that stories need to change as well.  Saving the world is getting old and uninteresting (hasn't it always been?).  A good story should have personal conflict.  Maybe even at the end of the game, the hero benefited no-one known to the game world.  I hate to use this analogy, but what if the story was like something out of reality TV?  Sorta like "a day in the life of a hero".  The game shows the hell the hero goes through to stay alive in his career choice.  It'd show all the messed up things he/she has to deal with:  The bitter cold nights sleeping in the forest.. The bruises inflicted when escaping foes... The politics of wooing the townfolk.. etc.

Interface-wise, I'm torn.  Find-the-pixel puzzles are pretty much obsolete in 3d, as screen resolutions are so high that pixel hunting isn't possible.  I think a good interface has nothing to do with what interface is used but how it is designed.  Whether it is mouse or keyboard: how easy is it to take control of the character and interact with your surroundings?  I'd say the proper interface is an open book and dependant on the need of the adventure.

/my .02 dollar

[JustLuke]

Interesting comments, Phattie, thanks!

Ive been thinking about this some more. Whenever I've discussed adventure games with people I've noticed that they refer to the plot, characters they liked and situations that they enjoyed but they almost never refer to the puzzles - it's almost like discussing movies.

I often hear:

"It was so sad when ***** died."
"**** is such a funny character!"
"I love the bit where you confront the wizard at the end and he says..."

but I almost never hear:

"I really enjoyed using the toothpick as a tiny handle for the broken machine!"
"Wow! Combining the lipstick and the wooden nickle to open the trapdoor was so cool!"

So let me throw out a few more questions:

Are puzzles an essential element of adventure games?
Is an adventure game without puzzles still an adventure game?

[PHattiE]

Actually, now that you mention it, I use to hear people talking about the puzzles all the time in adventure games; but it is the opposite as you describe-- it's usually a complaint about how ridiculous a puzzle is.  

For example: "Oh man, in xxxxx, I can't beleive I had to do a good deed for the ants for them to find the pin, purchase a welding machine from the blacksmith, and find the copper piece in the sewage drain to make a pick lock tool to get past the gate!   There was a sledge hammer right by the gate, why could'nt I pick that up and bust it down!?"

At least that's how some of the conversations went back before 1995.

Now days, conversations about adventure games usually go like this:

"In KOTR, there is an awesome weapon hidden away on the tatoonie planet, but I need an extra piece to make it work..  Know where it is?" or "My reputation in Fable is very bad, yet the evil gate won't let me pass.  How do I get in?"

I think adventure games now days don't focus so much on inventory puzzles as they did back in the day.  Sierra and Lucasarts almost relied entirely on inventory puzzles.  You had to get something and then use it on something to progress the story line.  For example in KQ5, you couldn't get past the snake until you picked up the tamberine the gypsies left behind ("I can't believe I had to use the tamberine on the snake!  There were pleanty of rocks nearby! ").  But the gypsies didn't leave until you gave them a gold piece, and you couldn't get the gold piece until you got the staff, and so on.

Anyway, I think puzzles are pretty important to an adventure game.  But I don't think the type of puzzle really matters.  I can list a hundred different stupid puzzles in KQ5, and yet I still think it's a fun game.  The challenge in adventures is trying to figure out how the story plays out, not how you'd play the story out.  If the player had full control and freedom, the game would be so boring, it wouldn't be qualified to be called a game.  Because, if I was King Graham, I woulda bought a sword from the shop, killed the snake (or gone around), killed the wolf, left the owl in the cage, and gone straight to the castle.  Imagine playing monopoly without the rules.  Silly as they might be, without them there's no point in playing.

EDIT: I think that good adventure game puzzles give the player the illusion of freedom.  Example:  allowing the player to pick up a rock and throw it at the snake, causing the snake to bite you and you die.  This way the player has exhausted all the routes that made sense to them, but still received a reaction that made equal sense.

[the_ascended_hero]

I think that good adventure game puzzles give the player the illusion of freedom.  Example:  allowing the player to pick up a rock and throw it at the snake, causing the snake to bite you and you die.  This way the player has exhausted all the routes that made sense to them, but still received a reaction that made equal sense.

Indeed. But Kings Quest, Space Quest, ... already implement such stuff, though not nearly enough.

and here's my point:

2d, 2.5d or 3d: doesn't matter, if it's a good game it won't bother anyone a bit.

'not enough', that's the feeling you get when playing most adventure games.

most puzzles, interactions, ... are most of the time limited to advance the plot, and nothing more.

an adventure game should be far more!

-> add new locations that serve no actual purpose for the main plot, but that people have been dying to explore

(I remember KQ5 and the wagon blocking the road to the rest of the town. I searched for hours to try to find a way to get the wagon off the road, or at least be able to pass it.)

-> add a bunch of subplots next to the main plot, totally optional to do, serving NO advancement whatsoever

...then allow some of the stuff acquired in these subplots to be used to solve other subplots, and possibly even give an alternative solution to the main plot at times.

-> alternative solutions, another thing: why must there be only 1 way to do something? granted, multiple solutions have been done, but not nearly as much as I'd like.

note: these alternative solutions shouldn't be obvious, either. They should be as difficult to come up with as the original solution;

next,

-> story: rather then setting the goal in advance (like 'save the princess', then end the game by 'saving the princess'),

don't tell the player what's gonna happen or what needs to be done at the end. That should be a surprise!

rather have a bunch of subgoals, which either succeed or fail (doesn't matter which), and after having reached each subgoal, the player character is forced into yet another quest, to solve this or that, untill eventually you get to the last goal, which then wraps up the entire story with several possible alternative endings...

example story:

part 1:

a farmer starts his day on the farm. original task given to him: do the work at the farm.

then:

- first option: solve all the 'working-at-the-farm' puzzles'
- second option: decide to slack off, find a place to rest (like a haystack)
- third option: go bother the witch in the woods for a love potion to win over your sweetheart.

then, no matter what you've done, a big giant meteor falls out of the sky, leveling the farm.

part 2: "what the -"

the farmer survived. but what to do now?

no clues should be given to the next goal. rather, have the player try out stuff.

- option 1: go to the remains of the farm, see what you can find out
- option 2: get the hell out of there, run to town to get help
- option 3: ignore all above, and go rest in the haystack. let the local wizard(s) deal with this one.

then, depending on what you've decided to do, the plot advances.

the farmer could end up defeating an evil creature, or winning his true love, or even just getting his farm rebuilt. or perhaps he just gets a new job+home in town.

anything's possible

note: there can be more options then the 3 I used in this example, of course.

now that's the type of game I'd like to see.

[Theophilos]

Adventure games are, essentially, interactive stories. If there is no adventure, then there is no adventure game. You end up playing some sort of simulator that may range from his remarkabley bland farmer example to a game like The Sims or some MMORPG.

As JustLuke noted, there is certainly a place for 3D gaming to allow a more immersive environment. Anybody who has played the Half-Life games knows that interactive physical environments can add greatly to the mood of the game. However, if these environments are not constrained to the purposes of the game, then the player is just wasting his time. He will not know what to do because there is no clear objective. Indeed, all games are goal-driven: from the Pong to GTA, the player needs a sense of purpose.

PhaTTie is correct in noting that a 3D environment is not necessary. Until we get to the point of 3D environments which are indistinguishable from reality, every computer game is going to be a stylized world. Sometimes, those worlds are more stylized than others. Note that you can still find cartoons on television: 3D animation has not and will not kill 2D, just like photographs did not kill paintings. It is all a personal preference, and most people like both.

I really do not see what voice and text descriptions have to do with the choice of a 2D or 3D environment. Nor do I see what game controllers have to do with the choice of a 2D or 3D environment. Personally, I hate playing 3D games with controllers, as they do not offer me a useful interface for interacting with the environment. In any event, 2D adventure games have had joystick support since the 1980s.

The bottomless inventories are really the way adventure games adopted magical items from mythology and fantasy archetypes. Since adventure games were forced to offer a greater variation than the linear progression of regular stories, the inventory was expanded to fill this role. The alternative is to progress the storyline by having the character interact with specific aspects of the environment. However, to keep it interesting, the player will have to figure which aspect of the game world to test. This is really no different than hunt-the-pixel, except that it has the potential to be more aggravating and less enjoyable, since there really does not seem to be an opportunity to use critical thinking skills to overcome an obstacle, and thus that inner satisfaction of progressing through the game is diminished.

The need for unique and well-written plots is something I can appreciate, though. Sadly, this is because just about any story that can be written has already been written. Humanity has had thousands of years to write all sorts of stories. At this point, we have heard all the good ones. At best, we can write variations where a certain archetype is cast in an uncommon way (Grim Fandango did this rather well), or we switch up the archetypes in some sort of plot twist, or we give it the guise of another culture (this was certainly successful for the QfG series). Overall plots are going to be pretty much the same, though there is some hope in keeping the attention of the player by offering some unique ways elements to who the goals are achieved (KQ6 was a great success in this regard). Sub-plots could be interesting if done properly, but they have the potential to throw off the mood of the game. Indeed, my guess would be that there are a lot of subplots that were removed from every adventure game every made because the creators thought them too distracting.

Which brings me to the next point regarding puzzles. Plot drives puzzles and puzzles drive plot. Without puzzles, an adventure game would be "plot drives plot", which is essentially a move. In fact, all the praise examples you gave regarding adventure games come from the narrative aspect of adventure games. They could just as easily have applied to a film. Yes, there is some frustration regarding certain puzzles, because not all puzzles are fun. Sometimes, certain puzzles are just harder for some people than others. This is to be expected: people think in different ways. If you add enough variation, you will hit the point where life experience makes it so that people are not able to complete the puzzle easily. The alternative would be to only incorporate obvious puzzles, but where is the fun in that? You might as well go back to watching the movie. Remember, just because the puzzles do not get praise, it does not mean that they are not appreciated on a certain level. Memories of tricking the gnomes on the Isle of Wonder in KQ6 bring back good memories to me, though I may have been, initially, frustrated in approaching that puzzle.  Now alternative solutions and storylines are a good idea, but they have already been done. In fact, every Sierra game that I remember well had these concepts incorporated into them. The QfG series was especially popular because of its replayability. KQ6 and Gold Rush both had branching storylines.

No, the main argument against adventure games is that you just do not like adventure games anymore. Every genre has its slumps and inherent flaws, but there is no way to get around them without mixing genres or just moving to another genre altogether. Why adventure games died off, I do not really know. I think a large part of it had to do with combination of the scandal that led to the downfall of Sierra Online and the emerging popularity of MMORPGs. Whether this can be rectified and the adventure genre revived is an even greater speculative question.