A recent article on The Escapist prompted me to think about the gameplay in adventure games, specifically their general lack of dynamism.

Allow me to explain: in most adventure games, there is a set sequence or set of actions that are to be performed in order to move on to the next section of the story.  These actions are often non-variable - they are always the same - barring the occasional alternate solution, and the story waits happily for you to finish, barring the occasional timed section, which is usually annoying.

But... surely one of the major strengths of games is that they are interactive, that the player has some power to take part in the world, and that the world reacts this: they are dynamic.

An example might be found in a good shooter; let's say that we have a first-person shooter featuring a handful of weapons, each with limited ammunition and a variety of enemies each possessing strengths, weaknesses and unique behaviours.

In a given encounter one might choose one's current weapon by considering the number and type of enemies, the amount of ammunition available for each, and various other elements such as expected ammunition gains in the near future.  Thus there may be an interesting choice: perhaps one might risk using a powerful weapon here, gambling that it won't be called for before moer ammunition is found, or perhaps one might choose a weaker weapon and rely on one's own skill, or, if enemy "friendly fire" is active, one might even attempt to turn the enemy on each other.

In an adventure game, however, what choices do we have?  If there's an alternate solution to a puzzle, or an alternate ending, we may have some choice, but for the most part it's more a matter of solving this puzzle to get to the next, or of finding the interaction that the game expects.

I'm not claiming, please note, that this is true of all adventure games, or even that such adventure games are bad - I think that they can be very enjoyable indeed.  Rather, I am suggesting that there might be space for innovation here, new gameplay mechanisms to be found to bring more adventure games that display some dynamism.

So, I've rambled for long enough in this post; let me ask, then: what do you think, and what gameplay mechanisms occur to you that might suit adventure games?  For the purposes of this discussion let us put aside the inclusion of action elements - there are those that dislike them, and I wonder whether there aren't other options waiting to be found.

First  and foremost thanks Thaumaturge that is an excellent thought provoking pos and very good topic for serious discussion.   

                               --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Urban Runner is a computer game developed by Coktel Vision and produced by Sierra Entertainment in 1996 but I don’t remember the details since it was 16 years ago.. The game is a movie adventure spanning four CD-ROMs controlled by a mouse, divided into Clue and Actions turns.[1] The player character is Max (played by Brandon Massey), an American journalist in Paris, covering a story about a drug dealer shielded by an influential politician. To get the drug lord talking, the player offers him photographs, but when the player arrives he is dead, and the player is framed for the murder.
Urban Runner was not too popular at the time due to high graphics and monitor resolution requirements - 640x480, 256 color was minimum, for best quality - 640x480, 32bit colors; there are very few reviews that have been released about the game."

That's exactly the reason why I prefer RPG's these days.

AG's seem to be stuck with old gameplay mechanics and needs to re-invent itself.

The little amount of choice makes AG's very linear and modern games are exactly the opposite.

Looking at RPG's these are things that may also work in AG's:

- Morality: Letting the player choose between good and bad, allows multiple storylines that adapt to the player's actions.

That way a player will never be forced to do something that feels unnatural, and resulting in more replayability.

- Open Worlds: The one thing i've always hated about most AG's was 'You can't go there' or 'No need to go down there' or not being able to backtrack. Why not give us a BIG open world filled with NPC's/storylines/puzzles, that can be played in a semi-random order. Players should be able to roam around freely in the game world. 

There has to be some linearity though, otherwise one can never build strong storylines, there should always be some 'main quest' to glue everything together.

All that adds to the realism and immersion into the game.

Some games have already experimented with morality like Blade Runner or Fahrenheit, or small open-worlds like the Myst series.

But AG's have yet to reach the massive gameworlds found in Bethesda's and Bioware's RPG's.

Trouble is BIG ag's would mean bigger budgets, so i don't expect it to happen anytime soon since the AG genre is not popular enough these days.

MARKORNIKOV --- "Trouble is BIG ag's would mean bigger budgets, so i don't expect it to happen anytime soon since the AG genre is not popular enough these days".

Added to the above truism, very many Quest/Adventures are developed by Indie Developers these days who have limited budjets in order to make some profit !!!

 "

For me, exploration is it's own reward, so while I can appreciate linear games,  Ilike being able to escape into many scenes and different places encountering multiple puzzles to solve, without the worry of being scared or pursued. I keep waiting for someone to make a game like Oblivion with just puzzles and no combat. That would be a dream come true.

Originally Posted By colpet (27 JUL 2012 7:14am)

For me, exploration is it's own reward, so while I can appreciate linear games,  Ilike being able to escape into many scenes and different places encountering multiple puzzles to solve, without the worry of being scared or pursued. I keep waiting for someone to make a game like Oblivion with just puzzles and no combat. That would be a dream come true.

I'm still hopefull Reset will be such a game

http://reset-game.net/?page_id=2/

I started a topic about it some time ago

I think Heavy Rain is a great example of a new adventure game that sheds most of the shackles of old AG design and uses dynamic interaction at it's best.

You have the complete freedom to make choies, you can fail doing things and it doesn't mean the game is "over" rather the story adapts to what you did (or didn't do). This affects the ending and other things.

I rememberon the JA forums when Heavy Rain was shortly out and many people here had beat it we talked about the endings and virtually everyone had a different one.

I have not played it yet, but from what I've heard Telltale's The Walking Dead does offer quite a lot of what you are asking for. Instead of a single set solution and NPCs that just wait around for you, the game moves forward on its own, and your actions impact on how the story progresses. 

Well constructed and puzzled, a linear non-interactive adventure game can be as satisfying an experience as there is in computer gaming. 

Originally Posted By tincup2 (27 JUL 2012 7:47pm)

Well constructed and puzzled, a linear non-interactive adventure game can be as satisfying an experience as there is in computer gaming. 

Sing it, man, sing it! 

SirDave,

"Sing it, man, sing it"

Not being well up in American slang - does the above express approval - or the opposite ?

Originally Posted By Len Green (28 JUL 2012 2:49am)

SirDave,

 

"Sing it, man, sing it"

 

Not being well up in American slang - does the above express approval - or the opposite ?

Extreme approval.

Originally Posted By SirDave (28 JUL 2012 10:42am)

Originally Posted By Len Green (28 JUL 2012 2:49am)

SirDave,

 

"Sing it, man, sing it"

 

Not being well up in American slang - does the above express approval - or the opposite ?

 

Extreme approval.

Originally Posted By Thaumaturge (26 JUL 2012 9:10pm)

 

In an adventure game, however, what choices do we have?  If there's an alternate solution to a puzzle, or an alternate ending, we may have some choice, but for the most part it's more a matter of solving this puzzle to get to the next, or of finding the interaction that the game expects.

This analysis doesn't compare well with the FPS summary you just gave. If you look at the solving of a FPS "puzzle" which would be killing an enemy, you would talk about choice of gun, use of strategy and movement/shooting tactics in the battle. So in an adventure game puzzle, you would talk about the player's choice of strategy in tackling a puzzle. Some players will look at every item first to see how it can be used. Others will experiment to test the ideas they have on how to solve it. If you watch two people playing Myst having never played it before, they will approach it in totally different ways.

So, I've rambled for long enough in this post; let me ask, then: what do you think, and what gameplay mechanisms occur to you that might suit adventure games?  For the purposes of this discussion let us put aside the inclusion of action elements - there are those that dislike them, and I wonder whether there aren't other options waiting to be found.

The gameplay is dynamic enough for me as it is. Too many people think that the puzzle and its solution is the extent of the gameplay, while it is actually the player's interaction with the surroundings and what goes on inside his or her head that matters most. Just like two people reading the same book will interpret it very differently, the quiet reflection while contemplating a puzzle and dialogue with yourself on how you choose to tackle it is a very flexible, moreso than the limited FPS choice of which weapon to use and even moreso still than the artificially imposed "choices" that have infiltrated RPGs and are now making their way into adventure games.

Well, one mechanism I am not fond of are puzzles with solutions randomized from game to game. It's probably done to increase the appearance of re-play value, but in practice I find it fussy and unsatisying. It highlights a basic weakness of a linear AG experience by invoking a 'multiple universe' idea - everything is exactly the same in a particular world *except* the combinations of padlocks etc., I don't like that feeling.

If re-playability is a goal decision tree/alternate plots/endings is preferable, or better yet, a well fleshed-out world that still has lots to explore even after the game is technically finished.

Probably not the best example, but the Resident Evil games had some semblance of what you mention. Most of it, yeah, you pushed something here to make a bridge, or placed the gem there to make the statue move, but there was always that fear of combat. Maybe something would crash through a window or bust down a door. These often lead to important decisions that offered different rewards. Do I take the time to find a rocket launcher and shoot down the helicopter and gain a weapon, or do I attempt to dodge it and find antidote for a teammate so I have an ally? Do I kill the final boss now making the game easier but ruining the ending or try to run away and fight him several times later for a good ending? Do I clear the hall of zombies blowing 80% of my ammo or just try to push past and reserve it for nastier threats? Most of the game was straightforward in "Run, run, shoot, run" but looking for that extra bit always felt like an adventure game, a series of puzzles ALWAYS yielded excellent rewards. I think the fourth game best fit this example.

Isn't Fahrenheit like that as well? I played it a few years ago and never completed it but I remember how flexible the storyline was  from the very beginning of the game.

For those interested the game is on sale for about £1.50 on Amazon UK at the moment btw (if I'm allowed to advertise like that?).

Originally Posted By Maum (31 AUG 2012 2:10am)

Isn't Fahrenheit like that as well?

AKA Indigo Prophesy? Hmm.. I found it totally linear - played it through and just felt I was along for the ride.. Yikes did I miss a whole other dimension like divergent plot tributaries and alternate endings? To me it was A to B to C etc..

Originally Posted By tincup2 (31 AUG 2012 2:04pm)

Originally Posted By Maum (31 AUG 2012 2:10am)

Isn't Fahrenheit like that as well?

 

AKA Indigo Prophesy? Hmm.. I found it totally linear - played it through and just felt I was along for the ride.. Yikes did I miss a whole other dimension like divergent plot tributaries and alternate endings? To me it was A to B to C etc..

???

IP had many different outcomes and there are quite a lot of changes along the way depending on your actions.

The overall plotline is rather linear, but it takes several playthroughs to see everything the game has to offer

. 

I like all sorts of games ranging from fast-paced shooters, action adventures / platformers and action-RPGs to full-featured D&D style RPGs, RTS, turn-based strategies / sims and traditional point & click adventures of every type. 

But perhaps my favorite games are hybrids like Deus Ex and Omikron that combine a well-balanced blend of story, dialog, exploration and integrated puzzle solving with action, stealth and RPG character-building elements. 

However, really good hybrids are rare.  So I play a variety of games in almost every genre and usually have several going at the same time. That way I can get my action fix, puzzle fix, strategy fix and roleplaying fix whenever the mood strikes, and it doesn't bother me that some types of games simply lend themselves to linearity while others work better in open environments. 

I suppose what I'm saying is there is no need to lament the shortcomings of any one genre, because there are plenty of others to choose from in a wide variety of styles. 

Cheers, Terry 

Re Indigo Prophecy.

The game starts with a murder. Right off the bat the protagonist has the option of concealing the body or simply making a run for it, which obviously influences massively how the game begins.

It also plays on the protagonist state of mind, which in turn affects actions as they unfold.

As I said I didn't complete the game but playing it when I did (2005) I remember it being very different in feel to most linear AGs I was playing at the same time which included Moment of Silence, Longest Journey and Syberia.

Originally Posted By markornikov (31 AUG 2012 2:42pm)

 ...but it takes several playthroughs to see everything the game has to offer

Well then, looks like I need to take another look at it. The voice acting was very good and added a lot to the feel of the game. One of the few third person perspective games I've been able to finish too lol...