adventure game disscusion

[Oddball]

Im curious about different ways to do adventure games

What works and what doesnt work?

What is grossly overdone, what annoys you when you play one latley?

 

[captainproton]

Stun/stagger hits tick me off, as do sloppy physics.

Sprawling dungeons with nothing at the end.

 

[Matseb2611]

I know really well what I can't stand about adventure games.

- Trial and error puzzles

- Clumsy platforming (especially with stationary camera angles)

- Quick time battles

What I like to see in adventure games:

- Some kind of RPG elements that give you a choice in the progression of your character's skills and attributes

- Intense atmosphere

- Semi-linear (there's a general progression with occasional choices to tackle some areas in your own order of preference)

- Dynamic battles with fluid controls (I want to be able to easily roll, dodge, jump, and backflip off walls during combat)

 

[cabfe]

There's a need here to define what you mean by "adventure game".
Most often (like 99% I'd say) they do not involve combat sequence. And when they do, they are often the least good part. Dreamfall was criticised at the time for its clumsy action & stealth sequences, King's Quest 8 had combats too and is considered the worst of the series and so on.
 
So, when I read Captain Proton and Matseb's answers, I think there's a misunderstanding on what is an adventure game.
 
According to Wikipedia, its definition is:

An adventure game is a video game in which the player assumes the role of protagonist in an interactive story driven by exploration and puzzle-solving.

Recent adventure games are Dreamfall Chapters, The Walking Dead, Life is Strange, for example.

@OP: is your question actually related to that kind of games or do you have something else in mind when you say "adventure game"?

 

[Matseb2611]

When someone says 'adventure game', I usually think Devil May Cry, Legend of Zelda, Castlevania, God of War, Metroid, and the like. But yeah, you're right, 'adventure' tag is often very unclear and its definition varies from one person to another. You could say the same about the 'action' tag too.

 

[cabfe]

Actually, I'd call your example games "action-adventure" instead of just "adventure".

Despite they both share the same word, their gameplay are very different

They need another classification name, like back in the days when the "First Person Shooter" term didn't exist and all games like that were called "Doom-like".

 

[Matseb2611]

Ah I see. So I am guessing by pure adventure games you mean stuff like Grim Fandango and the like?

 

[cabfe]

Yes, Grim Fandango is what I call an Adventure game.

But, as you can see, it might not be the case for everyone. That's why I'd like Oddball to precise his understanding of the term, so as to answer correctly to his questions.

 

[Oddball]

What matseb2611 said was what i was thinking of

Edit: the Myst series is what first comes to mind when i think of the term

 

[cabfe]

What matseb2611 said was what i was thinking of

Edit: the Myst series is what first comes to mind when i think of the term

Now that's confusing

Myst and Zelda have nothing in common in their gameplay.

 

[Oddball]

I never mentioned zelda. I was thinkong pure adventure games from the beginning

 

[cabfe]

You didn't mention Zelda, Matseb did, among other titles (DMC, God of War...)

And since you said that you agreed with his understanding of "adventure games", I took a shortcut.

 

[Oddball]

I meant to say cabfe

 

[Ralpf]

I would use the term Graphic Adventure for something Myst/Broken Sword like. And Action Adventure for Zelda/Uncharted like. The term Adventure Game (as we have seen) can mean a multitude of very different games. Basically any game that you control a character and that include exploration or puzzle solving can rightly be called an adventure game, making the term by itself largely useless.

Edit: Just beat me Oddball, at least we are now all on the same page.

My biggest gripe is when solving the puzzle doesn't really make sense, it can be hard to make sure everything makes sense to people from every background though. It feels cheap, but you need to give hints outside of the game narrative (after spending so long on a puzzle a pop up would ask if the player wants a hint, for example).

 

[captainproton]

To me, an action game requires a lot of reflex based gameplay, like Donkey Kong, Mario, or the SNES Castlevania. You go from A to B, usually racing a clock.

Adventure games would be like Zelda, Metroid, or Illusion of Gaia. (Not having played Myst, I can't really comment.) You explore and solve puzzles, but the puzzles aren't the main focus (like in Professor Layton). You have goals, but you're allowed and encouraged to deviate from the path and explore on your own. Combat usually isn't turn based.

But that's just how I see it.

 

[Sharm]

I've moved this thread to Video Games. Please be sure to post your threads in the correct forum next time. Thank you.

Hmm, things I hate. Puzzles that require you to think exactly like the creator or are completley non-sequitor. It's not a puzzle if you can't logic your way through it.  Pixel hunts.  That's where you have to be excessivly precise with your clicks, I hate them because I'll give up, look for the answer to the puzzle online, and it'll be "click on this" and I'll be "I clicked on that five times and nothing happened!"  I also hate it when the developer has no love or appreciation for the genre.  This one is a little harder to define, but I expect them to have played a few existing games and not try to make it into some other genre as if this one has no value.  I'm not saying there should be no innovation or mixing of genres, I'm saying don't suddenly put a precision action platformer section in my nice calm exploration and puzzle solving game.

 

[cabfe]

@Oddball:
 

What works and what doesn't work?

In my opinion, combat doesn't work in this kind of games. Not that it's completely off, but it's often poorly done by non-specialists and it shows.
Or you put combat in its most simplified form, like "Use Sword on Monster" and kill it.
I kinda remember now the Quest for Glory series had combats that weren't too badly done, but they weren't my prefered parts. I recently tried a remake of the first and constantly died during the sword fight tutorial... Well, maybe it's just me here
In general, action sequences (ie. anything that requires reflexes or skill) don't belong the Adventure game genre.
They are rather slow games, not very interesting to follow in a Let's play because most of the "magic" is in the story and dialogues, and that is a personal reaction for each player.
I'd call To the Moon an adventure game, because of its emphasis on dialogues. Take out the story and dialogues from this game, and you have nothing left.
Ever watched a Let's play of this game? It's often boring because the Youtuber tries to go fast and keep his audience entertained. You end up with a game that has no action and the magic of the story/dialogues didn't have time to work either. Total failure. An action-oriented game is more fitting in my opinion.


What works? There's no definite answer as there are different sub-genres and they appeal to different players.

For example, you have strong logic puzzles, like Myst. You have to take notes and think. And think hard sometimes.

Another kind of game is the Lucasarts style, with the Monkey Island series for example. Almost no logic here in the puzzles, they were made to be completely crazy and amusing because their answers were unexpected. A more recent example is the Deponia series, especially the last episode. Some people love it, I'm glad I only "played" it through a Let's play video.

I already mentionned To the Moon. It's a story heavy game. You could call this sub-genre a "visual story". There's almost no interaction with the world. You only click to start the next dialogue.

A more "classic" sub-genre if I can say so is the Blackwell series. They are very good games, with a story, dialogues, puzzles and interaction. They're a good example of a classic combo that works great.

I can also mention the text adventures, that rely only on... text. Sometimes with minimalistic graphics. It's often related to the "Choose your own adventure" books because of that.

There's also a sub-genre that may be linked to adventure games, that is Visual Novels. It's a story, sometimes with interaction/choices, sometimes nothing but illustrations for a on-rail story. Winter Wolves has tried to put more on the table with their games, and some of them are really good.

And many other sub-genres, no need to mention them all.

They all have games in their own categories that worked and others that didn't.

The most common point is that they have a strong story and memorable characters. Puzzles, unless they were very bad, don't stay in the players minds afterwards.

 

[Scythuz]

I think Matseb might have saw me play Grim Fandango the other day for some reason

My qualms with point and click adventure games are:

1. When not enough directions are given, I don't like over-vague clues of where to go or what to do.

2. Story isn't enough to keep me playing, this is so very important for most adventure games, if it doesn't have a good story that makes me care about what I'm doing, it probably shouldn't have one at all.

3. Cumbersome inteface/controls, let me run by double clicking, make the inventory management not a pain in the neck, make sure all controls e.g. look, use, combine item etc are quick and intuitive.

4. Not enough ornamental dialogue, having humourous and/or interesting dialogue about parts of the environment/objects/characters that stand out goes a long way towards building a truly immersive world.

5. Morale choices that don't actually matter.  On the cinematic style of adventure game e.g. Walking Dead, Wolf Among Us; I like my decisions to actually matter, I don't like saving a person optionally only to have them die shortly afterwards anyway or choosing an alternative solution to a problem and ending up at the same place.

 

[Oddball]

I'd consider "the witches house" an adventure game. What did it do right and wrong?

 

[Ralpf]

I think Matseb might have saw me play Grim Fandango the other day for some reason

My qualms with point and click adventure games are:

1. When not enough directions are given, I don't like over-vague clues of where to go or what to do.

2. Story isn't enough to keep me playing, this is so very important for most adventure games, if it doesn't have a good story that makes me care about what I'm doing, it probably shouldn't have one at all.

3. Cumbersome inteface/controls, let me run by double clicking, make the inventory management not a pain in the neck, make sure all controls e.g. look, use, combine item etc are quick and intuitive.

4. Not enough ornamental dialogue, having humourous and/or interesting dialogue about parts of the environment/objects/characters that stand out goes a long way towards building a truly immersive world.

5. Morale choices that don't actually matter.  On the cinematic style of adventure game e.g. Walking Dead, Wolf Among Us; I like my decisions to actually matter, I don't like saving a person optionally only to have them die shortly afterwards anyway or choosing an alternative solution to a problem and ending up at the same place.

I agree with everything here, but with number 3 emphatically.

I still haven't played Grim Fandango, but I'm gad they remade it, I will get around to it eventually.