Current Adventure Gaming

[FataliOmega]

I would love, however, for Sierra to fall into the hands of say Disney.

Maybe I just don't have a very high opinion of Disney. While it would be wonderful to see KQ with disney animation, I just can't see the money-monster that is disney, caring enough to write a worthwhile story.

Or for it to just be sold to the highest bidder, who would hopefully be a classic Sierra fan.

OK. Lets pool our money. I have... erhm... 20 bucks. 

[TheReturnofDMD]

And thats why Sierra is doomed. The fans have deserted it. Same reason why the adventure game genre is dead, becausee fans' only wanted a certain kind of adventure game and weren't open to evolution.

I'd just like to larify. I don't think the adventure game is DEAD, but rather it isn't as mainstream as it was. But I think the audience is still there, it's just there wasn't a big audience to begin with (when in comparison to action or fps games). The audience for adventure games was probably the first 300,000 or so people who bought computers, people who were not into immediate gratification and people who had the patience to solve puzzles and not just want to blast things away.

It sounds elitist, but Roberta said adventure games lost their foothold as a certain demographic of people began buying computers. I think that demographic are the majority, who want the immediate satisfaction of blowing away every thing in sight, and are not as interested in reading and actually solving things.

But adventure games live. As long as we're talking about them, and as long as companies are developing them, there's still there.

There's three games in particular I'm looking forward to this year. The Whispered World, A Vampyre Story, and the Abbey all look to be classics. I recommend people check them out.

I mean look, there has to be at least 100 adventure games coming out this year.
http://www.justadventure.com/SUR_Index.shtm

[FataliOmega]

It sounds elitist, but Roberta said adventure games lost their foothold as a certain demographic of people began buying computers. I think that demographic are the majority, who want the immediate satisfaction of blowing away every thing in sight, and are not as interested in reading and actually solving things.

I agree. The vast majority of people are not as interested in either puzzle solving, or the colorful stories, that make the adventure game genre what it is. Instead, they prefer fast-paced action, and replayability. These two things don't translate well into adventure games.

FPS's take skill, not all are about blowing things away. However that is off topic, so I shall leave it.

Right, there are plenty of popular games that require a great deal of skill, and learning. I think the sense of accomplishment is still very important to people.

I don't see Sierra going back to adventure games anytime soon, they aren't popular enough. Even if a fan were to buy out Sierra, they'd probably go bankrupt if they only made adventure games.

If adventure games are attempted by large-scale development teams, yes, it will fail. I think the hope of the genre is in the third party, the fan teams, and the small-scale projects. If there are 300,000 people who are interested, adventure games can be made profitable by aiming for 300,000 purchases. Trying to "broaden" the spectrum of the genre, and aiming for a million purchases, has always failed.

But adventure games live. As long as we're talking about them, and as long as companies are developing them, there's still there.

I heard a rumor. Are there a number of "point and click" adventure games being made for the Nintendo DS? 

[Oldbushie]

Yes, there are quite a few adventure games for the DS, some of them rather ingenious. One of my favorites is Professor Layton and the Curious Village, though that's more of a point-and-click brain-puzzle game with a really good plot (think Castle of Dr. Brain).

[racx_00]

FPS's take skill, not all are about blowing things away. However that is off topic, so I shall leave it.

Right, there are plenty of popular games that require a great deal of skill, and learning. I think the sense of accomplishment is still very important to people.

You don't need an adventure game to get a sense of accomplishment though. I understand you didn't say that, but that is how I'm taking it. Correct me if I am perceiving you incorrectly.

[FataliOmega]

You don't need an adventure game to get a sense of accomplishment though. I understand you didn't say that, but that is how I'm taking it. Correct me if I am perceiving you incorrectly.

I apologize. I guess my post was kind of ambiguous. 

I actually think most games, FPS included, are designed to give the player a sense of accomplishment upon completion, or in a replayable multiplayer sense, mastery. Any game that is completely mindless wouldn't be able to do that, and probably wouldn't do so well, among the majority or otherwise. It's the striving for mastery that I think, hooks players.

In that sense, adventure games can't compete. 

[Oldbushie]

But doesn't the goal of getting a full score and the satisfaction of finishing a fine novel in video game form count as a sense of accomplishment?

[FataliOmega]

But doesn't the goal of getting a full score and the satisfaction of finishing a fine novel in video game form count as a sense of accomplishment?

Yes, but there is only so many times one can re-read a book before they have it memorized. With that said, Adventure games are the most quotable games ever! 

[FataliOmega]

I forgot how much I missed Omega's posts.

Thanks LN! And it's good to see you too, after these few years! 

An example of what I mean is Shadow of Destiny. 3D, released for the PS2 and PC, and had a very large amount of replayability for an Adventure game.

Well, LN, I honestly had never heard of this little treasure. After a quick wikipedia search, I think I'm going to find and purchase this one.

But if I may, what about it is nextgen? Just so long as an adventure game isn't blended with another genre to make it "competitive," I consider it a true adventure game. It certainly doesn't *need* to be 'point and click' to have a good storyline, and interesting puzzles/concepts...

And I agree, multiple endings are a must in order to attempt to compete in the replayability field. It can't match anything with multiplayer functionality, however. There are only so many possible endings, after all. 

Oh, and I also disagree that mindless games (strongly action) don't do well on the market. I consider mindless games to dominate.

Think so? Most popular games seem to lack the intricate storytelling, or thought provoking concepts, of the adventure game genre, but I would argue that there is skill involved in the most successful games.

For example, let's take Halo. Popular, standard FPS, but there definitely is a distinction between those who have mastered it, and those who have not. Some of that relates to reflexes (and using those dumb 'thumb joysticks,' curse you infernal contraptions!!)

However, other aspects of it seem to verge on tactical thought. Maybe not so advanced thinking as a strategy genre game would require, but still, a master player will know when and how to approach, when to pullback, etc. A master at such a game does put thought into what he is doing. I can make similar arguments for most other "action" oriented games. There *is* a learning curve.

I hold no defense for "DDR," or "Guitar Hero." Their fun, I'm sure, but it's all reflexes, at that point.

Maybe I DO agree with you, after all. Bring back the glory days!

Come back to us! Come baacckk!! 

[FataliOmega]

Just don't get used to it. I'm not exactly a regular around here.
or much of a lurker either, for that matter.

Ah well. Show up when you can. This forum isn't quite the same without you, and many of the other "golden age" posters.

One word for you: Uru. (that detail alone obviously doesn't warrant success)

Right. I don't think there is a way to make an Adventure game compatible for multiplayer. Atleast, not without blending the genre, which I think would ruin it.

Besides, singleplayer games usually aren't in direct competition with multiplayer games, so I consider that a non-issue.

On one level, I agree. On another, less so. In a sense, all games compete with all other games for our time and money. Sure there are people that buy a little bit of everything, but many, perhaps most, do not.

For instance, if there was a good adventure game out today and, say, Starcraft II out, which would I buy? It certainly wouldn't be both, given the price of games right now. Two completely different genres, but competing directly for my money and time. And multiplayer does enhance the one. (of course, at this point I'd pick the adventure game. I do not like the direction SCII is going... but that's a rabbit trail.)

You can have mindless games requiring skill. Also, reflexes can be considered skill (try to keep up with a good DDR player, then tell me skill isn't involved). I can play Pong and get inside my opponents head...  consider which side he's planning on me sending the ball... be sure to move in unpredictable ways... but who is going to tell me it's not a game full of mindless fun (ignore that fun is a subjective term)?

There are sports that require skill but little thought. Same thing. You are able to play them mindlessly is the key detail ("brain optional"). It is in no way a requirement.

*laughs* You win. I can't play the devil's advocate any longer. There are too many mindless games out there. What can we do about it?

Want to start an adventure game company? I have this great idea called "The Silver Lining..." 

[Yonkey]

And I STILL stand by my old solution!

Considering Rowling recently sued one of her own fans for creating an unofficial fan-made dictionary, I'd hate to see what she'd do to anyone that makes an unofficial game.

So, for there to be an HP adventure game, they'd first have to have to have permission, then enough money for a license and/or enough to pay royalties, and then enough of a budget to create a game worthy of today's standards.  Not to mention, they'd be competing with Electronic Arts' Harry Potter Video Game that already exists.

[racx_00]

In that sense, adventure games can't compete. 

Hmm... maybe, but FPSs all tend to get boring and blend together after a while. I am absolutely sick of them. I am glad the DS has had a few adventure games, even if some weren't the best.

But doesn't the goal of getting a full score and the satisfaction of finishing a fine novel in video game form count as a sense of accomplishment?

I'm not much for reading.

I don't quite agree with you. I think the key thing is TRADITIONAL Adventure games can't compete. At the risk of offending someone, I believe that Adventure game fans in general hold on to the old way things were done... belief in innovation isn't their strong suit (this also means innovation can alienate the fan-base for creators of Adventure games). Having said that, when innovation is added into the mix, Adventure games are quite able to compete with their non-action brethren (sadly, the intelligence required to enjoy true strategy games and other thinking-type games is lacking in the mainstream gamer).

That's very true. People like the point and click interface a little too much. Newer adventure games incorporate new innovations and people refuse to accept them because they want "the good old days."

Trace Memory was released for the DS back in 2005 and had a fair bit of innovation. I've seen a lot of people playing it, and it's done rather well on the market. The potential to bring them back is definitely there, but a company like Sierra probably won't do it.

Blow them away with a BFG!
erm... nobody look up what that means, if you don't already know, please.

YAY!

On one level, I agree. On another, less so. In a sense, all games compete with all other games for our time and money. Sure there are people that buy a little bit of everything, but many, perhaps most, do not.

I am definitely one of those people that buy everything. I love variety. However I still think some people judge shooting games a little too harshly. Some are mindless, some are not. Yes, I realise I went off topic there...

[FataliOmega]

I believe it is quite possible, if done in installations (sold as episodes/chapters). Simply use a system similar to Gobliiins and Project Eden. Actually, that basically WAS a multiplayer Adventure game, a good one... combat/shooting was involved, but it was very minor compared to the puzzles. So Action-Adventure, emphasis on Adventure. Simply strip the game's formula of combat and you're set (note: best only played with 2 people online, as there is a LOT of just standing around waiting with, say, 4 players).

Interesting. I suppose, in it's way, Portal was like this. (w/out the multiplayer aspect, but a blend, nonetheless.) It will be interesting to see how/what they do for Portal II.

Of course, thinking of the quest for glory series, I wonder if the real kind of blend we should be looking at is Adventure/RPG. Heck, the Final Fantasy/Chrono Trigger stuff is halfway there. Add in some real (read-not children level) puzzles and we're good.

That does make me think though. Even if say, FFVII, had had true puzzles, my parents (avid adventure gamers,) wouldn't have been interested in playing it. Not so much because of the interface, they did play Monkey Island 4, and not because of the RPG element, they played QfG series, but because of the general story. I suspect they would want a more mature story. Not serious, necessarily, but not aimed at younger teens.

And maybe THAT is our real problem.

To appeal to the adolescence age bracket, we probably would alienate adventure gamers by the story alone. Sure, some of us early-mid twenties guys can handle some adolescence focused stuff to get to the 'older' aspects of a plot, but what about thirty and up?

I doubt it. Even I'm beginning to get weary with the "love and romance, nervousness" stuff and etc, found in an average squaresoft game.

This, of course, would probably make your "old solution" not feasable in and of itself. Perhaps it would be used only to 'court' the companies, and younger age bracket, before creating a, slightly older, focused game.

We'd need to create a story / environment that appealed to age 15-25, as well as, 25-50. No mean feat. Not impossible, but no piece of cake, either.

Hmm... I'm rambling at this point, but Chrono Trigger's plot / story / environment is nearly there. Maybe it is more about the advertising method. I must think on this.


((Woah, I'm Way Off-Topic, at this point, arn't I? *fears the wrath of the Cat and/or Yonkey  ))

[FataliOmega]

Also, why does age-range matter, and why is it so large (you just named ages 15-50)?

Well, 15-25 is necessary to be profitable, and my parents are 50+. It's kind of silly, but I'd like them to enjoy an adventure game again.   

Are you after the Sims audience?

... Sure! Are they available? 

[koko_99_2001]

lol, you HAD to bring up the Nancy Drew games...

*is an addict and has every single one *

[koko_99_2001]

Fifteen? I don't remember how many are in the series. But I know the new one comes out this summer

[koko_99_2001]

Hey! I'm PROUD of being addicted to Nancy Drew!

[Shades2585]

fifteen? wow! Never new it was out there. So are they going to make a Hardy Boys one too? lol 

[koko_99_2001]

That I don't know. But the Hardy Boys have joined up with Nancy in a couple of her adventures

[Shades2585]

Really? That's cool. Are they following any of the books?