Yeah, that is very true. Adventure game have evolved a lot, it’s PnC games that have not, and I’m not 100% sure why, other than they “feel” dated. It’s still a very valid genera and fun genera.
With Thimbleweed Park, I was hoping that a more modern design approch would work, but I don’t think it has. It’s too hard to get people over the stigma. I could make changes like no verb UI, different look, but I think there is something deeper that is turning people off, and it’s probably the puzzle logic, which is the foundation of what I like about PnC games.
We can all talk about ways to fix this, but I think it already has been fixed… in games like Firewatch. If I think about all the ways I’d “fix” PnC games, I always end up back at where games like Firewatch and Gone Home, or Kentucky Route Zero ended up.
All that said, I do think there is still a market for PnC games (just ask Dave Gilbert), but it’s a niche market. It can still be profitable if you keep costs down, but I don’t think a game from there is ever going to set the world on fire.
Maybe people nowadays think of PnC games the way they thought of text adventures in the 90s. How could one give that genre a new twist today if one wanted to?
Interesting that you bring up the puzzles. I´ve often heard people use the word “adventure logic” used in a synonymous with “moon logic” I see you intentionally tried your best with TwP to have puzzles that would really make sense in the real world, and at least to my perception you really succeeded for the most part. But I´ve heard very different opinions on that. That might be a very subjective thing, it´s funny how the mind works.
In general I think all you´ve said is true, I don´t really know why that is and I think it´s a shame. But if you tried to do something more appealing to the mass market you´d lose at least me. The mass market has me already, I wouldn´t want you to do what everybody else does, I´d prefer you to do what I love. And that´s classic PnC games, because I still enjoy those, as proven by TwP(at least in my opinion).
This is the problem I’ve had convincing friends and family to play Thimbleweed Park. I tell them about the story, the puzzles, and even the jokes and style; and they all laugh out loud and think it’s extremely entertaining. They sound excited and say they will try the game.
At some point, they go to the website and see the screenshots, or make the connection to an old-school point-and-click adventure and immediately imagine the game is not for them.
It’s as if they can’t get over the stigma of “adventure games are for hardcore puzzle junkies” or something like that.
I am absolutely convinced that they would really enjoy Thimbleweed Park, if at least they gave it a chance. Getting them over that initial hurdle is the hardest part.
You know, that could be just a matter of semantics. The more your definition of something is detailed, the more it’s difficult to evolve it, because as soon you try to change it, it doesn’t match anymore with your very detailed definition.
That’s why the well-known definition of “adventure game” by Roberta Williams, which is quite generic, still applies to games like Firewatch or Gone Home:
I have to say that my definition of an adventure game is really an interactive story set with puzzles and obstacles to solve and worlds to explore. […] An adventure game is really nothing more than a good story set with engaging puzzles that fit seamlessly in with the story and the characters, and looks and sounds beautiful. (full interview)
On the other hand, when you try to define a sub-genre like “PnC adventure games”, you add details like how the UI should work or the fact that there should be an inventory or other specific characteristics. It’s obvious that when you try to change these features, hoping to reach a more modern or wider audience, it’s no more a PnC adventure game, because you changed the things that defined it.
…but it still belongs to the more generic class of “adventure games”.
Ron has already mentioned in passing how he believes he has a way of revolutionising PnC games, so I’d like to see that put into action and see how it goes. There were opportunities for others to try and move PnC games along but when you play a game like The Book of Unwritten Tales one is reminded of just how insipid many PnC adventures are (it’s more or less an homage and virtually copies a puzzle from Monkey Island and makes blatant references to it in an attempt to be funny). In other words, it depends on tactics of nostalgia to engage the player.
I’ve never played Firewatch or Gone Home, nor have I played Kentucky Route Zero, but I just watched a few Let’s Plays.
In my opinion the GUI in Kentucky Route Zero might not make the game feel more modern, because the pop-ups seem to be very dominant.
Firewatch and Gone Home are 3D. For indie developers, that’s a big hurdle since 3D graphics often look ugly (especially the faces of characters). Every detail is expensive, because it has to be modeled and texturized. Also, the physics can become a challenge. But, in my opinion, it’s a completely different kind of adventure games. Both games somehow remind be of action-packed games, such as Resident Evil VII and Alien: Isolation, in which you have to solve some puzzles, too, albeit those puzzles are typically very simple. Of course, you could make the adventure elements of such a game more complex - for example by including dialog puzzles, a larger inventory, different ways to interact with the environment (a set of different verbs) and fewer action elements. However, the 1st person perspective might make the game more immersive than, for instance, the GrimE games. The control issues from the GrimE games would be avoided, too, thanks to the perspective.
I think, indie developers ought to prefer nice 2D graphics, due to the limited budget.
That’s true. I guess that most gamers want action. That’s why action games are more popular. When I was a child, most of my friends liked to fire - not only in games but also in the reality with water pistols or plastic guns that made noises. And, most of my friends were very impatient when we played adventure games. The puzzles were often too complex for them, so they lost their concentration. It’s just more comfortable to play games that require a shorter attention span, such as shooters, racing games or jump & run games. I also think that MMORPGs might have benefited from people who are frustrated by their real life (just take a look at Second Life).
It seems that adventure games would become more appealing for the average gamer, if they provided more action elements.
I’ve always liked the fact that you cannot die in the later SCUMM games and TWP. In the Sierra games, it felt like you had lost a lot of time, whenever you died. That’s frustrating indeed. But, let’s take a look at Alien: Isolation once again. You usually die a lot of times in that game, but, you also have the opportunity to save the state of your game between difficult areas, so you can try a lot of attempts to make progress without risking too much. The stakes are not as high as they have been in the Sierra games. But, you still cannot save anywhere you like. For this reason, the possibility to die is rather thrilling than annoying there. If someone thinks that he died too often, he can reduce the level of difficulty.
Much as I personally like your adventure games as they are, I guess, if you combine the action/survival elements from games like Alien: Isolation with the puzzle elements from classic adventure games, the result may become a successful game.
@BigRedButton
I think the games I’ve played that required the most maintained attention span… whatever that exactly means… were racing games (of the simulation variety).
I was rather referring to the scope of the player’s thoughts. In a racing game, you may have to be concentrated all the time, but you hardly use your memory. You can turn off your long-term memory completely.
If it’s pure thinking, then it will be more important for me to remember details from a PnC but that’s the only area for me where it leads, so to speak. In my experience, people who don’t particularly enjoy PnC games are very capable of completing the puzzles and there is no issue with complexity but the gaming experience just doesn’t align with what they prefer. PnC puzzles are hardly complex, are they? If people really want puzzles then they can try solving koban triangles. In terms of overall mental sharpness PnC games don’t hit the top of my personal list overall… in fact, they allow for a lot of relaxation and lack of stress. However, one can get stuck frequently and reach what feels like an impasse on a regular basis so I feel there’s a sort of patience and stubbornness required to get through the games at times. I’m not exactly sure how I’d tie in attention span and complexity into the equation because they can be interpreted in different ways for different games. There are some games that are hugely demanding of mechanical and tactical/strategic complexity of the long term and short term variety such as MOBA games.
I think a lot of it comes down to the gamer feeling like they are making consistent and steady progress and often having clear landmarks or checkpoints that serve as a reminder of their progress.
We had cinemas and then came TV. Why should I watch a move in a cinema? Maybe PnC games are perfect in the way they were in the beginning of the 90s? Yes, they are a niche market (like the cinemas). But if you like this genre - why not dealing with the niche market? Let the others play action games. Or Firewatch. I’m fine with simple graphics and sounds as long as I can play a good story and solve puzzles.
Some time ago I’ve listened to a couple standing in front of a shelf with adventure games. She: “These games are boring, because you have to solve puzzles.”
You will never reach these audience with an adventure game.
Another problem is the graphic: I’ve read a lot of comments (discussing other indie games) complaining about the pixel graphics. A lot of people consider pixels as ugly. And they won’t even try such games.
So if you would like to attract the masses, you have to make at least a game with good looking 3D graphics and no puzzles. And that’s not the sort of game I would buy.
“A Black and White silent movie will never win an oscar these days.”
People in 2010
Thing is people who now are into FPS wouldn´t have bothered with Adventure games even back in the day, they´d played Commando. You don´t get action gamers away from action games. The focus should be more on people who play RPGs like Baldurs Gate.
People who played Contra in 1989 didn´t bother with Maniac Mansion is what I´m trying to say. But maybe people who liked Pool Of Radiance were attracted along the way.
In my opinion, RPGs and point & click adventure games only seem to be similar at first sight. I’ve always liked to play point & click adventure games, whereas I never liked any RPG, even though I tried a few.
Yes and no. The parallels are certainly stronger with RPGs who also have storylines and characters than with your average shooter. Some like their RPGs more story focused while others prefer combat. Sierra games had elements like death and a score and even integrated stronger RPG elements with Quest For Glory. A common complaint I read about LA games is their lack of challenge (well besides figuring out the puzzles).
Anyway if you want to do something new with the adventure genre I don´t think it´s a good idea to take away the things your fanbase liked about it (like the interactable open game world) like Telltale did and rather emphasis the aspects that players like about it, like the cooperative aspect (as seen in the “two brains” thread in this forum) that´s why I like the idea of an online muliplayer function for PnCs. I don´t wanna go out and say that might be the future, but it´s better than just surrender completly.
Yes, maybe the puzzles were not exactly too complex for my friends, but they were bored very quickly by a lack of progress. They just preferred games providing more events - with simpler puzzles, if any.
Adventure games might be the only type of games in which you can be in the dark for hours. This might be why they are a niche market. For this reason, I suggested to add some action/survival elements that would be capable of keeping impatient players attentive, concentrated and entertained.
If we talk about PnC adventures: why? When I visit a theater or a cinema I don’t want to wear a VR helmet, sit in a fog of parfume or be part of a “performance”. (And even if I’m a child of the MTV generation, I visit a theater and a cinema regularly.) It’s the same with PnC adventures: They are good as they are. Why should we are trying to make them “better”? Garnish them with a little love. Like the "Scratch’n’sniff card in Larry7. Or a unique character like Ransome.
If we talk about adventures in general: There are interesting experiments. Like the VR thing or the one-click interface. So the genre evolves already. That’s Ok. But these adventures aren’t PnC adventures anymore.
btw: All other genres are “stuck” too. EA and Ubisoft are developing one Call of Battlefield after another. These games aren’t innovative (anymore). They are looking good and that’s all. But the players and the critics like these games because they get what they want. Only adventure games have to evolve …
But the result would be neither fish nor fowl: The adventure fans don’t like the action/survival elements while the “action” fans don’t like the puzzles. So it would be harder to sell these games.
There are many fans of PnC adventures out there, namely the kids from the early 90s that liked MI, MM and the Sierra games. The problem is, that they now are grown up, have a job and a family. If you could get their attention, I’m sure the niche market will grow.
I don’t believe any kind of genre dies. It just gets torn apart by other genres and glued together in a postmodernist pastiche of itself.
I think games like Gone Home and Firewatch and Ether One (a beautiful game plagued by bugs) and Life is Strange and so on are just a Kafka-esque metamorphosis of adventure games. I say Kafka and not Ovid because I feel that these games get dismissed as “walking simulators” or “interactive movies” by the online gamer’s united dirge. They really do get the Gregor Samsa treatment of being seen as unbecoming of a TruGamer™ to play. Or they simply receive no coverage, or unfair coverage, or some other mutation of bad press, which is really what drove me away from gaming news.
There is space for all kinds of games to thrive. I’ve been very happy with the number of PS4 (don’t have an Xbone) games that have roots in traditional PnC, or at least strive to create an experience like PnC games did. I think I measure my love of games by the experiences I am provided. I love all sorts of games that try something different, even if it fails, like the unique battle system in Chrono Cross. I also love the blending of genres, and the unyielding nostalgia of a true PnC. I love games that are like movies that happen to me, and I love, love, love being stumped by puzzles in a game—the victory of solution is an addiction.
But, y’know, I don’t like shooting gray things with a gray gun in a gray, wintery nowhere. I also don’t like shooting people in deserts that look like deserts we actually shoot people in and playing games that have realistic guns and situations. I find myself less and less interested in this currency of violence we have in games. “It’s got a story, but don’t worry, kids: there’s plenty of people to gore with bayonets or choke to death as you look them in the eye!” as if living out a violent fantasy is the only reason we might retreat into a fictional space.
I’m not saying violence should be verboten, but perhaps it shouldn’t be a feature?
I just want to keep supporting creativity and one of the ways we can do that is by creating a positive online presence for these games. My main criticism comes back to the journalistic integrity of gaming sites. I don’t feel like adventure games are discussed fairly or with a shred of decency in most online communities.
I sorta sound like a hippie preaching love and peace here, but… maybe… that’s… what I am?
This post… might be… bit much… (backs into the shrubs)
I’m not sure. Both categories can be enjoyable, but it’s difficult to combine both wisely, because the action elements must not distract too much from the puzzles. The silver bullet might be to make the player feel an omnipresent menace (a kind of persecution mania or claustrophobia) that motivates him to make progress by solving puzzles in order to survive.
It’s hard to reach them all. Back in the 80s and 90s there were fewer game companies and Sierra and Lucasfilm were big players in the games market back then. Nowadays, consumers are confronted with so many game releases and sales that most of them primarily pay attention to AAA titles and ignore the indie games.
Oh in my personal opinion they shouldn´t at all. In my opinion Thimbleweed Park should have come out in 1992, and I also don´t think it´s a lack of innovation. You probably hurt it even more if you try to fix what´s not broken, but maybe that´s just us old hardcore fans, the casual player has long since moved on. And I have no idea why.
I agree with you. A great point & click adventure game doesn’t need any violence. Even the sword-fights in MI don’t contain any violence (except the verbal insults).
Don’t get my suggestion above wrong! It was just an idea of how to make adventure games more appealing for the average player. Also, I didn’t think of a shooter, but a survival element in the game, so that the character would have to protect herself/himself at irregular intervals, maybe not even by using a weapon. It can also be a bear in the forest that would keep the playable character on her/his toes. Or something like Edna in MM, who appears suddenly and tries to catch you.
