| 2 JUN 2009 at 3:22am |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | I thought Return to Mysterious Island had the right idea -- letting you combine, disassemble, and recombine inventory as needed in order to solve different puzzles.
I'm unsure why Culpa Innata is considered experimental. I thought it was fairly traditional gameplaywise.
|
| 2 JUN 2009 at 6:21pm |
ShanyGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 19 JUN 2003
Status : Online | Thinking about it as someone who plays FPS and RPGS I think that adventures need a faster pace.
If not a faster pace for the story, than at least for the player character. This might sound simplistic, but I think it will improve the playing exprience of people as impatient as I am.
|
| 2 JUN 2009 at 7:37pm |
colpetSchattenjger
Posts : 1630
Joined: 12 APR 2003
Status : Offline | So, with the huge amount of gaming experience and technical savvy on this board, how would YOU take AG's into a new exciting direction?
Personally I'd like more than the 'odd Myst clone'. Most, if not all, first person puzzle heavy games are being produced by independents. I'd love to see a big budget fantasy adventure that is puzzle centric, with lots to explore and have similar controls to what was used in RealMyst.
Sort of like Uru, without the action.
Occasionally visiting Uru Live (KI 0063722 .&&
|
| 2 JUN 2009 at 7:58pm |
CBSection31Intergalactic Janitor
Posts : 65
Joined: 10 MAY 2004
Status : Online | I may be in the minority, but I believe that, in order to move on, adventures must first go back to their roots to learn what first made them successful.
Adventure games from the "good ole' days", such as the Sierra classics, The 7th Guest, Myst, and the Tex Murphy series were GREAT fun to play, and I happily replay those from time to time, enjoying them just as much as I did my first time through.
New games, though, don't appeal to me. I simply cannot get into them. I find it quite sad that I'd rather replay a classic adventure for the fifth time than try a new game.
This means that, to me, adventure games should not - in terms of gameplay - stray away from what makes them...well, adventure games. The adventure game genre is defined by its gameplay. By changing the gameplay mechanics, we shift away from the definition of "adventure".
When I compare modern games to older ones, I find two large differences that, for the most part, explain why new games do not appeal to me: story and originality.
Simply put, modern games (with some exceptions) have weak, simplistic storylines. When is the last time we've seen a game containing a story as complex and intricate as the Gabriel Knight series? Adventure games used to feel very much like rich interactive novels. Now they feel streamlined, like interactive blockbuster movies.
In terms of originality, modern games also let us down. What I mean here is originality specifically in terms of gameplay. Do I believe that adventure games need new methods of gameplay, such as unique interfaces or action elements? No. What I do believe they need, though, is more thought put into the puzzles that DO exist within games. How many times have we solved a simple slider puzzle in a game? How many times have we had to put batteries into a flashlight to make it work? Developers have gotten lazy when it comes to creating UNIQUE puzzle concepts. As a developer, I admit that I am guilty of this, too. We need to be more dilegent in coming up with original puzzles, because players inevitably get bored after solving the same things game after game.
The solution to these problems is, to me, simple: first, companies need to produce fewer games, and take more time making them. Would you rather have 20 mediocre games a year, or 5-10 games of superb quality? I know I'd prefer the latter. Next, companies need to hire actual writers to write the story of the game instead of using game designers for that task. Last, companies need to take time designing each puzzle and making sure the puzzles are integrated within the game, instead of treating them as an afterthought to prolong gameplay.
If companies follow these steps, I truly believe that adventures will become more entertaining again, without having to re-define the genre. Simply put, the problem isn't that the format of adventures is getting old. The problem, in my opinion, is that adventure game companies are getting complacent and lazy. If companies begin taking more time on their products and put a greater effort forth, combining well-written stories and intricately-crafted puzzles with modern graphics and audio, then adventure games will make a forceful comeback!
|
| 3 JUN 2009 at 5:54pm |
StilerJourneyman
Posts : 1462
Joined: 27 SEP 2004
Location: US, TN
Status : Offline | Personally for me I think the way to go is in the path that Fahrenheit started.
Less "Mouse over every pixel and pick up every single object you see incase you need it five hours later" type of puzzles and more logical real world based things along with a storyline that your actions can change/affect and having different paths to view the story from.
|
| 3 JUN 2009 at 6:17pm |
FnordSchattenjger
Posts : 2752
Joined: 15 SEP 2008
Location: SE, Stockholm
Status : Offline | I'm with Stiler on this one. Fahrenheit did show us a way forward for adventure games.
I did not find Fahrenheit to be the perfect game tough. Too much action and not enough problem solving. For me things should be a bit of an inbetween of Fahrenheit and a classic adventure game. Less pixelhunting, less "pick up anything you come across", and more of a dynamic storyline and problems that makes sense. A game that managed to combine logical puzzles (like myst) with a great storyline (like Fahrenheit) would really be heaven.
|
| 3 JUN 2009 at 6:56pm |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor
Posts : 6693
Joined: 16 OCT 2004
Location: US, Texas
Status : Offline | .
I think the simplest way for AGs to evolve AND gain popluarity with a larger audience would be to integrate some of the best aspects of contemporary RPG gameplay. Not necessarily the action / combat elements, but the optional-quest systems that allow players to join different factions or align with certain groups.
In Morrowind for instance, you could optionally join one of several factions. Each had a distinct set of quests suited for their special focus like thievery / assassination or magic.
Taking that basic concept and adapting it to an AG would be fairly easy. The designers could seamlessly incorporate these factions into whatever storyline and game world they wanted to create, then tailor the quests accordingly.
That way, individual players would be given a set of clear choices for following different branches of the main story and particpating in the type of gameplay they prefer. One branch could be all about stealth and deceit. Another could be action / combat oriented and another more cerebral involving traditional puzzle solving. They could even offer factions that specilize in diplomacy, commerce, industry, exploration or any other field depending on how those apects fit into the greater game world.
This would open up the games to far more meaningful player choices and provide genuine replay value in a genre known for rather rigid linearity and lack of replayability.
Cheers, Terry
|
| 3 JUN 2009 at 7:10pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | I really liked Fahrenheit, it had a great story but although it incorporated a very nice natural feel into the control system, it was way too hard even in easy mode & relied on manipulation of the control system to play the game. It was finger & thumb bashing stuff & for me that is not what AGs are about!
I've enjoyed most Adventures that have been produced over the last few years, many of which have had quite an engaging story but perhaps not quite up to e.g. The Gabriel Knight Series but then the budgets have diminished.
I don't see any way of 'breaking new ground' in AGs. the minute you do that they cease to be AGs in my mind!
An intriguing story is essential as well as an easy interface with a good logical path with interesting puzzles - inventory or otherwise. Also up-to-date full 3D graphics. (But I can enjoy & appreciate a game made more simply)
Frogwares new game Sherlock Holmes Vs Jack the Ripper, I think, is a wonderful example of the genre being taken into a more exciting phase - it's a game that seems to have achieved the balance of telling a great story with interesting character development, good logical puzzle integration, nice graphics, satisfying ending & the choice of playing in 1st or 3rd person mode. What more could you want?
|
| 3 JUN 2009 at 7:29pm |
AubstopperIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 85
Joined: 19 MAY 2008
Status : Offline | definately i would like to have more control over my characters and be able to interact more with the environment...as others were saying, indigo prophecy had the right idea in that regard (though i do agree that the stupid simon says stuff was well...stupid)...but having different motions for opening doors and climbing a fence really helped me feel more involved in the game...
i really enjoy first person adventures (like sherlock holmes and tex murphy) because i feel that i can have a full 3d gaming experience..
"Man's greatest tragedy is that he can perceive of a perfection that he can never attain."
|
| 3 JUN 2009 at 8:31pm |
SAMSpace Cadet
Posts : 148
Joined: 13 FEB 2004
Status : Online | Replay: Be able to replay the game, but get to a different out come
Ending: Multiple endings?
Would help the replay value by playing again to see the differing endings
|
| 3 JUN 2009 at 8:35pm |
SAMSpace Cadet
Posts : 148
Joined: 13 FEB 2004
Status : Online | Monkey Island, Myst, Collosal Caves
All these game are fond in our memories because they were a new experience...kinda like your first car, house,etc
Kinda like going to a movie for the first time vs going to the movies now.
The new concept must be something entirely new to us...
Although, many will be resistant to chnage, because of the familiarilty of the old way...some will complain of why all the changes from something that works....
|
| 4 JUN 2009 at 11:57pm |
HalcyonSchattenjger
Posts : 1652
Joined: 17 NOV 2006
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Dr_Watson (1 JUN 2009 9:17pm)
There's quite a bit of grumbling on this (and other AG boards) that most of the games produced in the last 3 o 4 years are quite generic..either Murder Mysteries, Supernatural Thrillers or the odd Myst clone. But whenever something relatively experimental, such as Culpa Innata, The Experiment or Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy appear they just seem to divide opinion ever more sharply..
So, with the huge amount of gaming experience and technical savvy on this board, how would YOU take AG's into a new exciting direction?
"Relatively experimental" doesn't mean new, improved, progressive, or better. Most of the time, these "experiments" are lame.
AG gamers are like a subgenre in the publishing world. We are not mass-market, and we have very exacting demands. Science fiction buffs want REAL science with their fiction, mystery buffs want REAL criminology with their murders, etc.
IMO, it boils down to good storytelling and playability. Even the worst Bruce Willis film or spin off of a spin off has a great and compelling (and logical) story.
I don't like to waste my time on gratuitous gimmicks or meaningless puzzles or just plain awful development (like the character movement in Lost Crown--totally ruined the game for me).
From Aristophanes to Shakespeare to Ray Bradbury to Patricia McKillip to James Patterson --- the story is the thing, the foundation, the carrot that leads us onward...emotional human beings (or aliens) confronted by meaningful challenges.
After that, it's up to the producers of these games to do their research objectively. Each of us here has our particular needs --- some want bigger and better puzzles, some demand enthralling atmosphere, some seek humor and cartoons, others want realism, etc. But we all want adventure.
_________________
Exercise your vision.
|
| 5 JUN 2009 at 3:06am |
CBSection31Intergalactic Janitor
Posts : 65
Joined: 10 MAY 2004
Status : Online | VERY well put, Halcyon! To me, a great story is what drives games, and it's what the vast majority of recent games lack.
|
| 5 JUN 2009 at 3:50am |
CarolineJA+ Overseer
Posts : 16540
Joined: 28 JAN 2007
Location: AU
Status : Offline | I am an old curmudgeon who thinks the world needs more games like Myst and Obsidian.
Puzzles that change slightly each time you play them would be good.
Get rid of the walking zombies (avatars)
Cut the conversation to the absolute minimum - it's usually banal crap anyway.
Make more use of time travel, ancient cities and aliens. I like them.
Lose the rucksack in the first 5 minutes of the game so they can't force you to carry 100lbs of odds and sods everywhere.... >
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 11:36am |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | I agree with CBSection31. I don't buy the 'adventure gamers hate originality' stereotype for a second - in over 10 years of playing AGs, I've never heard anyone criticise a story or puzzle for being 'too original'. The reason AGers are generally suspicious of change is that every game that takes a step forward in terms of originality, seems to take three steps back in terms of the basics - interface, gameplay, puzzle design.
Adventure developers seem to have this truly bizarre conviction that if you change one design element - e.g. moving from a 2D to a 3D gameworld - you have to change everything else as well. How many beloved series have made the switch to 3D and promptly ditched puzzle-based gameplay in favour of action and stealth sequences, despite clear evidence that most adventure fans don't want these things in AGs? To add insult to injury, most of the time they don't even implement the changes particularly well. Why, for instance, decades after it became the standard for PC action games, do we not see more 3D adventures using a simple WASD/mouselook control system?
Just about every adventure I've ever played that's tried to be 'different' has royally screwed up in at least one important area. Dreamfall is a perfect example: the developers were so obsessed with telling a story (not a bad thing in itself, obviously), that they forgot there was supposed to be a game in there as well - and an adventure game at that, not a quasi-action game filled with annoying, poorly-implemented combat and stealth sequences. Other games such as Farenheit and The Experiment had a great concept, but managed to ruin it with crappy graphics, poor controls and/or game-killing bugs. When the developers themselves seem completely incapable of coping with change, can you blame AGers for preferring games that may not be particularly original, but at least get the basics right?
Unfortunately, I just don't think most AG developers have the resources to produce a game that's both good and highly original. Terry's idea of incorporating RPG elements is a good one, but I'm skeptical as to whether it will ever happen, for one simple reason: budget. Obviously I'm oversimplifying here, but (say) three different questlines would take roughly three times as long to develop, which means costs will be three times higher, which means you'll have to sell three times as many copies to break even. And for a small company in a niche market, that's a very, very tall order.
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 2:29pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Ksandra (8 JUN 2009 11:36am)
Why, for instance, decades after it became the standard for PC action games, do we not see more 3D adventures using a simple WASD/mouselook control system?
I think the sad reply to that one, is that although WASD with mouselook is infinitely more immersive, some (or should I say many?) adventure gamers seem to have an aversion to using the keyboard, for some strange reason. If you quite regularly visit another adventure site or two, you might pick up a few gamers who ask about every new game game on the horizon: "Is it point-and-click? Is it point-and-click? "
*sigh* I prefer WASD too, but I've just resigned myself to point-and-click now, since it seems that the keyboard-and-mouse users are more flexible than the mouse-only people tend to be, when it comes to control preferences.
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 3:44pm |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Ksandra (8 JUN 2009 11:36am)
The reason AGers are generally suspicious of change is that every game that takes a step forward in terms of originality, seems to take three steps back in terms of the basics - interface, gameplay, puzzle design.
Adventure developers seem to have this truly bizarre conviction that if you change one design element - e.g. moving from a 2D to a 3D gameworld - you have to change everything else as well. How many beloved series have made the switch to 3D and promptly ditched puzzle-based gameplay in favour of action and stealth sequences, despite clear evidence that most adventure fans don't want these things in AGs?
The ones that do that seem to be more interested in attracting general gamers who may occasionally play an adventure game than in attracting adventure gamers. When you consider there are probably even less of the former than of the latter, it doesn't make much sense.
Why, for instance, decades after it became the standard for PC action games, do we not see more 3D adventures using a simple WASD/mouselook control system?
And why no elevation controls on the ones that do use WASD or some similar 1st person 3D movement? Elevation controls shouldn't be that hard to implement, and in my experience they would go a long way toward reducing or eliminating motion sickness.
Why was Uru the only game that used follow cam properly? (I couldn't fix the mouse/keyboard for Dreamfall and had to use a gamepad for it, so it doesn't count as "properly."
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 5:22pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By TheTraveler (8 JUN 2009 2:29pm)
I think the sad reply to that one, is that although WASD with mouselook is infinitely more immersive, some (or should I say many?) adventure gamers seem to have an aversion to using the keyboard, for some strange reason. If you quite regularly visit another adventure site or two, you might pick up a few gamers who ask about every new game game on the horizon: "Is it point-and-click? Is it point-and-click?
I've no problem with point-and-click myself, nor do I find it less immersive, but I can't help thinking many gamers would be vastly more receptive to direct control if developers wouldn't keep trying to reinvent the bloody wheel. There's a reason WASD/mouselook is so popular in action games: it's simple, intuitive, and doesn't require a quarter of an hour to get used to before you can get into the actual game. The interface should be there to facilitate gameplay, not a gameplay element in itself; if you have to spend more than a couple of minutes learning to use it, the developers are not doing their jobs properly. Sure, there'll always be some people who'll reject anything other than point-and-click - but if developers would just copy tried-and-tested methods from action games, rather than constantly dreaming up new control systems that don't actually work, I think many more gamers would be happy to use direct control.
Originally Posted By Jenny100 (8 JUN 2009 3:44pm)
The ones that do that seem to be more interested in attracting general gamers who may occasionally play an adventure game than in attracting adventure gamers. When you consider there are probably even less of the former than of the latter, it doesn't make much sense.
Exactly. By trying to please everybody, they end up pleasing nobody, and then complain that their games don't sell. [smiley=shaking_head.gif]
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 5:30pm |
colpetSchattenjger
Posts : 1630
Joined: 12 APR 2003
Status : Offline | I think the sad reply to that one, is that although WASD with mouselook is infinitely more immersive, some (or should I say many?) adventure gamers seem to have an aversion to using the keyboard, for some strange reason. If you quite regularly visit another adventure site or two, you might pick up a few gamers who ask about every new game game on the horizon: "Is it point-and-click? Is it point-and-click? "
I would be one of those gamers. I don't care if it's point and click, as long as it is mouse controlled (eg. Sentinel, RealMyst, GK3) From my perspective, keyboard controls are much less immersive than a mouse. I always have to look at the keyboard to place my fingers. 3rd person games are very difficult because you move from the avatar's perspective and the camera angles mess things up. Grim Fandango was a nightmare for me - unplayable. It is one of the first things I need to know about a new game, since I won't consider buying it if it's keyboard instead of mouse.
Occasionally visiting Uru Live (KI 0063722 .&&
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 5:33pm |
bysmittySpace Cadet
Posts : 122
Joined: 29 JUN 2004
Status : Online | I very cool with WASD for first person games but for 3rd person, I think my preference is for gamepad / direct control even over point and click. I absolutely love the control scheme TellTale came up with for Wallace and Gromit and am glad to here that they are planning to use it for upcoming releases like Sam & Max season 3. Point and Click is great but I've really grown to enjoy the ability to just lean back in my chair, put my feet up, and not having to worry about keeping my wrist on the desk for mouse. If more games were to embrace this control scheme I think it would help get more adventure games on the consoles, which means more money for developers and more awareness of the genre.
...bysmitty
Things I need to do today:&&-change out of pajamas&&-[s]come up with witty yet sophisticated signature[/s]&&-sober up&&-[s]watch simpsons at 6pm[/s]
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 5:54pm |
loobilooPrivate Detective
Posts : 598
Joined: 3 APR 2008
Location: UK
Status : Offline | What advantages are there for using WASD keys instead of, or as well as the mouse?
bysmitty, I like the freedom of a gamepad too!
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 6:08pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By colpet (8 JUN 2009 5:29pm)
I would be one of those gamers. I don't care if it's point and click, as long as it is mouse controlled (eg. Sentinel, RealMyst, GK3) From my perspective, keyboard controls are much less immersive than a mouse. I always have to look at the keyboard to place my fingers. 3rd person games are very difficult because you move from the avatar's perspective and the camera angles mess things up. Grim Fandango was a nightmare for me - unplayable. It is one of the first things I need to know about a new game, since I won't consider buying it if it's keyboard instead of mouse.
I'm not sure if you misunderstand what we mean by WASD with mouselook. For instance I really dislike the keyboard only control system like you get with Dragonriders of Pern and Fellowship of the Ring, which IIRC is similar to that of Grim Fandango . That is much less comfortable even than point and click.
No, we mean a system where you can "look" and steer with your mouse, and your forward movement is achieved by holding down a keyboard button, usually the "W" button, but of course you could map it to any button you like. I don't know if you have played the Thief games, but the first one at least, has controls like what I'm describing.
With WASD + mouselook like I know it, you basically just need to keep your finger on the W for forward movement, and if you wish, an additional key like caps/capslock for run/always run, so it's really not a problem of having to look at the keyboard at all. I'm so used to pressing down the W key (in action games) that I don't even notice I'm doing it anymore.
What advantages are there for using WASD keys instead of, or as well as the mouse?
What is nice about first person mouselook with keyboard controls, is that you can look all around you with your mouse, up down and 360* , where you can never do that with a mouse-only system, unless you make your movement happen by holding down the RMB, for instance, if you really want to eliminate the keyboard. The latter is of course quite possible in an AG, where you won't have to be doing any special moves or fighting such as in shooters and RPG's and other action games.
I have started to value the fluidity and ease of movement you get with the mouselook, and point and click feels very static and jerky to me in comparison. Here, of course, we are talking about a 3-D environment, where you are "in" your surroundings. In a 2-D environment where you character is sort of pasted "on" to your environment, I don't really mind the point-and-click control so much.
So it's really the "mouselook" feature that I value, not the keyboard as such. For all I care, movement can be achieved by pushing down any of the mouse buttons too.
Yes, and of course you can get the same fluidity with even more control out of a controller, if you mean a controller like the X-box or Playstation controllers.
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 6:45pm |
colpetSchattenjger
Posts : 1630
Joined: 12 APR 2003
Status : Offline | I did misunderstand. I only play PC adventures, so I wouldn't know about other genres and their controls.
Didn't the Tex Murphy games and the GK3 game use a keyboard button for looking up/down, and the mouse was for everything else?
Occasionally visiting Uru Live (KI 0063722 .&&
|
| 8 JUN 2009 at 6:48pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By loobiloo (8 JUN 2009 5:53pm)
What advantages are there for using WASD keys instead of, or as well as the mouse?
The main advantage is that it allows you to control movement and direction with the keyboard while leaving the mouse free for other things. Obviously this is far more of an advantage for action games, whereas in adventures it's not so much of an issue, but there's no reason why it couldn't work in adventures as well.
|
