As far as adventure games evolving, I don't think it's a bad idea. If they stayed the same forever, they would get stale. As to how far they should change? who knows. The genre is obviously not as popular as it was in the 80s and 90s, not mainstream anyways. Although I don't know much about elder scrolls, Skyrim from what I can tell looks like it has first person perspective and some RPG elements. Looks like a cool blend. I don't think it's wrong to mix genres, as long as it fits the original canon well. Didn't Mario have some sort of adventure game or RPG that was good? Look how different mario games have been through the years, but still stayed true while mixing ideas. Mario kart 64 was nothing like the original NES game, but cool and still mario.
Your referring to spinoffs, which are a breed apart. Super Mario RPG/Paper Mario are spinoffs... in the same vein as Mario Kart, Mario Sluggers, Mario Golf, Dr Mario, etc. The core gameplay experience of an established Super Mario game hasn't changed much aside from the switch from 2D to 3D. With spinoff games, different concepts can be explored without diluting the base franchise, which is why games like Mario Sluggers and Mario Kart can exist and do as well as they do. If Nintendo ever made a game called Super Mario Galaxy 3 that played like Mario Kart, there would be a problem. This is what Damar was getting at and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
As for Skyrim, the Elder Scrolls series has always been presented from the first-person perspective and has a
great deal of RPG elements in it, such as character advancement (via skills and, in the case of Skyrim, perks), free-form quests, equipment management, etc. Skyrim may look a lot prettier than Arena or Daggerfall and it may have some different mechanics (Arena and Daggerfall, for example, had experience point counters whereas Skyrim does not) but it is still recognizable as a game in TES (The Elder Scrolls) series. You won't find Quick-Time Events (QTE) in any of TES games, since QTE-style gameplay does not and probably never will mesh well within the confines of the established gameplay that TES series is built upon. This is also what Damar was getting at and I agree with it wholeheartedly.
To put it another way.... ever wonder why the only game in the King's Quest series that had RPG-like gameplay systems is Mask of Eternity? In fact, has anyone ever noticed that the title for Mask of Eternity is King's Quest: Mask of Eternity and not King's Quest VIII: Mask of Eternity? At it's heart, it's a spinoff and not a part of the numbered King's Quest series. While I have no insider information about why VIII was omitted from the title, I like to think that Sierra was probably planning on making a King's Quest VIII at some point and didn't want MOE to tie the series down storyline wise. By omitting the number from the title, it exists outside of the established timeline(s) of the numbered games, leaving Sierra free to make other numbered King's Quest games without having to take the events of MOE into consideration (aside from having Graham live to a ripe old age, since he was in MOE). That is just my theory on the matter and I mention it only to illustrate the spinoff concept. None of the other KQ games had RPG elements, despite the success and popularity of the Hero's Quest/Quest for Glory franchise (which first appeared in 1989 as I recall, so RPG elements could have been implemented into KQ5-7). The fact that the lead designer(s) of KQ5-7 didn't implement RPG elements into their respective games says, to me at least, that such mechanics don't fit within the identity and consumer expectation for a numbered King's Quest title.
Oh sure you had the Mordack fight in KQ5, but that was a logic puzzle and not an actual fight. The game actually stopped so you could select the spell needed to counter whatever form Mordack took. There was no hit-point counter for either Mordack or Graham, so you either selected the right spell and moved on to the next form... or you died because you selected the wrong spell.
There were time-based puzzles in KQ6, most notably the clockwork room in the catacombs, the encounter with the minotaur, and the final encounter with Alhazared. In the case of the clockwork room, this is a recurring motif in the KQ series. There was a time-limit on many aspects of KQ3, for example (Manannon's sleep/travel schedule and the timer when preparing spells comes immediately to mind), so the idea of having a falling ceiling coming down on you if you don't react quickly isn't a big deal. With both the minotaur and Alhazared encounters, they are identical in that there is no actual fight that involves hitpoint counters or fight mechanics. You select the appropriate item (either from your inventory or from the background) and click on the opponent. They are just like the Mordack encounter in that they are logic puzzles that are devoid of any RPG mechanics.
Moral here is that RPG-mechanics do not and never have had a place within the numbered King's Quest games. Such is the realm of spinoffs, as established by Mask of Eternity. However, here is where POS gets a pass. The very thing that defines Mask of Eternity as a spinoff also establishes The Silver Lining as a spinoff. Since The Silver Lining is not a numbered entry in the King's Quest series, it is classified as a spinoff, at least by the definition that I have presented. This gives TSL the leeway it needs to exist outside of the numbered games and do things that otherwise wouldn't and couldn't be done in a numbered game. It doesn't even have King's Quest in it's title, further cementing it's status as a spinoff. Given that, it's OK to experiment with different ideas and concepts that wouldn't normally have a place within the King's Quest series. That is the freedom that being a spinoff provides and it is here that I disagree with Damar. If TSL was called King's Quest IX: The Silver Lining, everything that Damar has said would be applicable when talking about TSL, since the game would be a numbered entry in the KQ series and would be tied to a much more stringent franchise identity and consumer expectation. Since TSL is clearly not called King's Quest IX, it is freed from the franchise identity and consumer expectation that comes with being a numbered entry in the King's Quest franchise and falls within the realm of creative interpretation... the very heart and soul of what a spinoff is.
