The adventure game genre post 2000’s - question

[krinat]

Hi everyone!

I will be delivering a lecture on the subject of "the adventure game renaissance" at an upcoming sci-fi convention in Israel. In my lecture, I will discuss the resurgence of the genre since the mid-90s and early 2000s, when it was annonced as "dead". I'm interested in getting a sense of how hardcore fans perceive the most meaningful and interesting events and milestones during the period 2000-2023, with a focus on the last three years. So, what do you think were the most exciting events in adventure games in this time period?

I would also appreciate referrals for good resources on the topic (articles, videos, etc.). I'm having a hard time finding articles about the genre itself in recent years - especially hard data like number of sales/users of games in our beloved genre.

Thanks in advance,
Rinat

[Ali]

My view is that there are hardcore fans who insist on an ever narrowing understanding of true point-and-click adventure games. For these fans, no modern games will ever be as good as the classics, because any game that innovates is reclassified as a different genre. Unless it's a 2D, third person, mouse-driven game with 1000 inventory items, it's not an adventure game. (Even though there are numerous oldies like Myst and the Last Express which fall outwith that definition.)

Respectfully, I think these people are nostalgia hounds who should be politely ignored. For me, any reasonable definition of the graphical adventures would include massive indie successes like Her Story, Obra Dinn, Outer Wilds, Unavowed, Firewatch, Walking Dead and Disco Elysium. These games are easily as good as the adventure games of the 90s and significantly better than the average point-and-click from the early 2000s.

In terms of sales, I remember Charles Cecil talking about Broken Sword 1 selling a million copies (over a certain period) which was regarded as a big success and made them number 2 in the charts after the original Grand Theft Auto. His point was that the market has grown so much that selling the same number of copies today would be regarded by publishers as a failure for a game with that budget. So we have to accept that modern adventure games are something of a cottage industry.

[cat]

If you are looking for classic adventure games, you should definitely include Daedalic. The wikipage about Deponia even has some sales numbers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deponia_(video_game).

Obra Dinn

Interesting that you mention it. I loved the game, the mechanics, the story, but it didn't feel like an adventure game to me. It felt like Cluedo on a ship.

[Ali]

Interesting that you mention it. I loved the game, the mechanics, the story, but it didn't feel like an adventure game to me. It felt like Cluedo on a ship.

I would say one of my favourite FMV adventure games is the unjustly forgotten 1996 Clue/Cluedo game. It's as arch as you would expect, but the writing is much better than many FMVs and it holds up remarkably well in terms of design by comparison with later detective games.

I don't mean to say that Obra Dinn is especially similar to Monkey Island or Space Quest. I just think that, if it had come out in 1998, it would be regarded as a classic, and no one would be interested in drawing the boundaries of the genre in such a way as to exclude it.

[Stupot]

Hi Rinat,

Whether or not people liked the games that came out of it, you can't ignore the Kickstarter Comeback boom of 2012 when all the old firm came out of the woodwork to (in my opinion) cash in on the success of Tim Schafer's Broken Age.

Tim Schafer - Broken Age (Doublefine Adventure) - 2014 (Kickstarter launched in Feb 2012)

Jane Jensen - Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers 20th Anniversary Edition (Mystery Game X) - 2014 (KS launched April 2012)

Al Lowe - Leisure Suit Larry Reloaded - 2013 (KS launched Apr 2012)

Chris Jones (Not that one) - Tesla Effect: A Tex Murphy Adventure (Project Fedora) - 2013 (KS launched May 2012

Two Guys From Andromeda - SpaceVenture (KS launch May 2012)

Charles Cecil - Broken Sword 5: The Serpent's Curse - 2013 (KS launched Dec 2012)

Ron Gilbert followed suit in 2014 with a KS launch for what would be Thimbleweed Park (though he was also to some extent involved in Broken Age)

[and probably some more I've missed]

[Danvzare]

In my lecture, I will discuss the resurgence of the genre since the mid-90s and early 2000s, when it was annonced as "dead".

Ah, the time when budding indie developers began to take root until eventually forming into something much bigger.
We saw the rise of Telltale, Wadjet Eye, and Daedalic. And let's not forgot the creation of Hidden Object Games which have changed from mindlessly clicking random items in a list, to full blown Point and Click Adventure games (although they're still typically ignored by the hardcore fans for some reason, probably because of the stigma surrounding casual games).
We also saw Telltale move to more cinematic games and then failing completely due to expanding too quickly because they got lucky with one game (The Walking Dead). Daedalic also seems to be abandoning adventure games, which seems to be working for them somewhat.

with a focus on the last three years. So, what do you think were the most exciting events in adventure games in this time period?

Personally the only noteworthy thing I can think of from the past three years is Return to Monkey Island.
This isn't exactly a genre where something new and exciting happens every few months or so.

The genre has comfortably found its niche. It's glory days behind it (not unlike western and slasher movies). But it's hardly dead. Manic Miner Clones, now that's a dead genre. 

[Snarky]

Daedalic also seems to be abandoning adventure games, which seems to be working for them somewhat.

You may have missed some recent news on that front.

[heltenjon]

I agree with Ali that one has to broaden the definition a bit. It stands to reason that the adventure genre have evolved, as have most other genres. Frequently the genres borrow from each other. There were action sequences in Sierra and Lucasarts adventures, too.

I believe that some changes in distribution and gameplay were better suited to other genres than adventure games, and it took some time to catch up. Shareware seemed more popular with games with defined levels, where you could play the first levels for free, then pay for the whole game. Casual mobile games, like hidden object games, have embraced this by now. Also online multiplayer doesn't translate easily for adventure games, at least not without incorporating combat, quests or roleplaying.

On the other hand, I would argue that it is common today that even games not remotely adventures have borrowed the cut scene story telling technique, be it a shooter or a Mario game, you are treated to movie clips telling the story between levels. So the influence works both ways.

In recent years, the Escape Room games have become very popular. Those are definitely adventure games, but often with huge amounts of moon logic and little or no story.

[Stupot]

In recent years, the Escape Room games have become very popular. Those are definitely adventure games, but often with huge amounts of moon logic and little or no story.

True. And would surely be worth mentioning, however briefly, the recent popularity of physical escape rooms, not just video game ones.

[Snarky]

Personally the only noteworthy thing I can think of from the past three years is Return to Monkey Island.

Looking over the lists of Aggies from the last three years (not a definitive record of significant adventure games, by any means, but a good starting point), The Forgotten City and Stray seem like others worth highlighting. And I'd also throw in Pentiment.

[krinat]

Wonderful answers, everyone! You've really helped me.

What do you think will help drive the genre forward? Make it more mainsteam? Maybe have an AAA adventure game?

[Ali]

What do you think will help drive the genre forward? Make it more mainsteam? Maybe have an AAA adventure game?

No, I don't think a AAA adventure game is at all likely, or particularly desirable. Like heltonjon said, mainstream games assimilated what was groundbreaking about classic adventure games - story-driven action, cinematic scope, good writing, interesting characters etc. In the end, we won!

The closest you're going to get is games like Detroit: Become Human. Which are... well... if David Cage wasn't the worst writer in the universe... I guess the graphics are nice.

[Danvzare]

Wonderful answers, everyone! You've really helped me.

What do you think will help drive the genre forward? Make it more mainsteam? Maybe have an AAA adventure game?

Well the general way the genre has been moving forward in the past few years is to simplify it. Some developers have been removing the puzzles, and instead focusing on the story and exploration such as with Firewatch. Others have instead removed the story, instead focusing on the puzzles and exploration, such as The Witness.

These simplifications are a way to evolve the genre so it has more mainstream appeal. Which in turn makes publishers and developers more willing to work on projects in the genre, since it'll be more likely to sell. Since the mainstream audience is obviously much larger than the original niche audience that made up all PC gamers back when Adventure Games were at the height of their popularity.

So I think the genre will be driven forward by a need to continually simplify it.
Of course people like me though, won't play those games. And the genres will split, and Adventure Games will be back to where they are now. 
Because quite simply, we like the games as they are. We like the way the puzzles are interwoven into the story, facilitating a need to explore and learn how the world works in order to figure out the puzzles.



Here's an example of what I mean.
This is a forum about Adventure Games, so I don't think I need to put this in spoiler tags, but I'm going to anyway.

Spoiler

In The Secret of Monkey Island, you defeat LeChuck by spraying him with a can of root beer. This makes absolutely no sense when explained plainly like this. But in the context of the game, it's the only solution that makes any sense, and you would be a fool if you didn't come to that conclusion.
So how can something insane ever make sense?

Well it's the puzzles and story that lead up to it.
Early on you get a map to a treasure which turns out to be dancing instructions. Which if you follow them, take you to a treasure. Therefore teaching you that instructions are not always what they appear.
Later on you get a cooking recipe, which using what you learnt before about instructions as well as where the recipe came from, you figure out must be a map to Monkey Island. But you don't have the strange ingredients for it. In the end, you figure out that you can use substitutes, instead of a pressed skull you can use a pirate flag, which has a flat picture of a skull on it. So you learn that substitutes can be used from this puzzle which you only managed to solve because you learnt that instructions are not always what they appear.
Later you are told by some cannibals that you need to get a magic root to defeat the ghosts, which makes sense from a fantasy-setting point of view. The root is then turned into a liquid of some kind that you spray onto the ghosts to make them disappear.
But you lose the magic root juice when you fight against the ghost pirate LeChuck. But there is conveniently a vending machine full of root beer nearby. You've already learnt about substitutes in a previous puzzle, and you've also learnt that root-based liquids kill ghosts, so naturally you use the root beer. Which obviously works.

[close]

This act of learning about the world through the story and puzzles, is at the root of why fans of the genre love adventure games. After all, adventure games are at their very heart, about exploration. The genre is literally named after a game called Adventure, which is basically a game about exploring a colossal cave. (Funny how people complain about Metroidvanias being named after Metroid and Castlevania, or Roguelikes being named after Rogue, but no one complains about Adventure games being named after Adventure)

The problem is though. The majority of people don't enjoy exploring and learning, and as such can't understand how anyone could enjoy the genre as it is. They either want the story or the puzzles depending on their preference, but learning how this fictional world works is a foreign concept to them.
So the Adventure games as we know and love them, can't move forward as a genre, because the majority of people don't enjoy the genre.

I remember watching a video on Extra Punctuation where Yahtzee explained the problem with Adventure games. And while I was watching it, I couldn't believe how someone who used to make Adventure games on this very forum, was also so completely oblivious to what makes them fun to begin with. But at the same time I recognize that, most people simply don't find the thing that makes Adventure games fun, that fun. It's like trying to explain the concept of house insurance to a medieval peasant or nobleman. It just doesn't make sense to them.



To make somewhat of a bad comparison. It's like asking how Slasher movies can move forward as a genre. They can and did to an extent, going from silent killers, to killers who make quips. But the fundamentals at the heart, the reason people enjoy Slashers, is because at their core, every Slasher movie is the exact same. A bunch of teenagers do dumb teenage things, and get killed off in a brutally horrific fashion. That's what makes Slasher movies enjoyable. But admittedly most people got sick of it, which is why the genre isn't as popular as it was in the eighties. For the genre to move forward from that, it would have to abandon what makes the genre what it is, and what fans of it enjoy about it. In which case you end up with something that isn't a Slasher, but rather something else entirely different in the horror genre, like the Found Footage movies.
The genre did move on, exploring other ways of telling the same story, such as satire, and turning it on its head. But at the end of the day, there's only so far you can go before it a new thing entirely.

But that's just my two cents on the matter. Sorry for the wall of text. 

[Crimson Wizard]

By the way, the exploration & learning example from "Monkey Island" that @Danvzare mentioned under the "spoiler", is also, in my opinion, a hint to what was the adventure genre's main problem and a weak spot historically, that is: a lack of a system.

I vaguely remember mentioning this years ago in some other topic, I recall I had this analogy: in a good action game you learn your character's abilities while fighting with weaker enemies first, and then you have to use combined experience when fighting stronger ones. That's the "system". Unfortunately, in a good number of the adventure games i've seen in many years there was no "system", instead there's "randomness". It's too often went down to plain guessing what might have worked, or even what could be in authors heads when they wrote the script.

IMO this is what may make a difference between a bad and good adventure game: letting player learn and figure out something based on learnt. The more complex solution may be figured out by a player this way, the greater will be the enjoyment effect.

[Snarky]

what was the adventure genre's main problem and a weak spot historically, that is: a lack of a system.

That's one way of looking at it. Another is that this is almost the defining characteristic and unique strength of adventure games: each gameplay challenge is a puzzle that has been separately designed, written and scripted by a person, and therefore has the potential to be more creative and more meaningful than posed problems or emergent challenges that arise from a "system" or general game mechanic.

I think a game where the puzzles are mostly variations on situations in a "system" that you explore and learn strategies to solve will tend away from being an adventure game. (For example, if Monkey Island's gameplay consisted predominantly of insult sword fighting, I don't think it would be an adventure game.)

To quote myself from an old discussion thread:

The point about "heavily scripted" is an important one that is often overlooked: It is characteristic of adventures that instead of offering a general "mechanic" of actions (run, jump, shoot, punch,...) which more or less work the same way every time, adventure games respond in a different, context-specific way every time you perform an important action, and this is usually accomplished by manually scripting each individual event. (I think this ties into the concept of "puzzles", which you might define as "intellectual challenges with pre-defined solutions".)

[heltenjon]

Adventures of old have had a system of sorts that is now adopted by other genres. For example, when playing old adventures I often found myself in one of two situations:

1) I found a red door and discovered it was locked. Solution: I need to look everywhere for a red key.

2) I found a red key. Solution: I need to find a red, locked door somewhere in the game.

Obviously (?), the first is more satisfying than the second, even though these aren't exactly high brow puzzles. These "puzzles" are found frequently in other genres. The first one I thought about was Doom, with its red and blue keycards.

There is also the notion that everything you can pick up, end up being useful. True, there is the odd "red herring", but most of the time, when you are close to the end of the story, you know which items are left unused in your inventory, and all too often, you know that the solution will be to use those. (This is, btw, totally similar to how Scandinavian folk tales/fairy tales go - the hero will get three magical items and need exactly the effects these three provide.)

[RootBound]

There's another way, too, that I think really good adventure games avoid randomness, which is to start with story and have all of the puzzles be a direct result of story events and character actions.

If solving the puzzle doesn't directly progress the story, then it will feel a lot more random and like the puzzles can be isolated from the rest of the game. But if the puzzles and story are inextricably intertwined, then no matter how different each puzzle is from the last, it will still feel natural and logical.

[Crimson Wizard]

To quote myself from an old discussion thread:

The point about "heavily scripted" is an important one that is often overlooked: It is characteristic of adventures that instead of offering a general "mechanic" of actions (run, jump, shoot, punch,...) which more or less work the same way every time, adventure games respond in a different, context-specific way every time you perform an important action, and this is usually accomplished by manually scripting each individual event. (I think this ties into the concept of "puzzles", which you might define as "intellectual challenges with pre-defined solutions".)

I meant to reply earlier, but I struggle to find proper words sometimes.

I think that "puzzle" is a "puzzle" when it has defined rules. These rules may be defined within a certain context of course. For instance, if you have a game of chess within an adventure game, then it won't be necessary to expect that you may use types of interaction from other puzzles during the chess match (although, why not...), as well as it is not fair to expect to have "chess" interaction elsewhere (although, again, why not...).

When I speak of the "system", I do not wish this to be understood in a too narrow sense. Platformer may have 3 actions (go left, go right, and jump), but it may have 20. First person shooters may have scripted sequences. Real-time strategies may have integrated mini-games. I don't think that either kind of a game is restricted to a single context, single set of interactions or behaviors. This is all a matter of engine capability and game design.

What I mean by "system" is that, if there's a context, then it's fair to expect defined rules for that context. The question is then, where is the boundary between one context and another? How is it decided in game, how is it indicated? or is it?

Suppose in point-n-click game there's scene A in which you have to get an item stuck high above you. You should use something throwable to knock it over. Then later in the game there's scene B in which you have to get another item stuck high above. Given the similar conditions I'd expect same trick to work, because it worked another time, but game does not let me, and gives some random "won't work" reply. In standard "adventure games" this seems to be considered a valid thing. In my opinion, that's not a fair thing.

The above is a hypothetical example, but similar problem may occur in various ways. It also relates to an often lack of definition for the "context". How do I know when the items work and when they don't? How do I know what they are meant for? Is it even possible to tell prior using them and receiving "won't work" reply, or am I bound to find out by trying in the each scene?

[heltenjon]

Suppose in point-n-click game there's scene A in which you have to get an item stuck high above you. You should use something throwable to knock it over. Then later in the game there's scene B in which you have to get another item stuck high above. Given the similar conditions I'd expect same trick to work, because it worked another time, but game does not let me, and gives some random "won't work" reply. In standard "adventure games" this seems to be considered a valid thing. In my opinion, that's not a fair thing.

Agreed, the "won't work" reply needs to be integrated into the game and give a plausible explanation why this won't work. To use your example, a good adventure would introduce new difficulties for each high-hanging item. Perhaps the second one is too high for you to throw your rock -> get a catapult. The third one has a flying creature guarding it -> distract creature. The fourth has a force field -> find a way to turn it off. In this way, the player can build on the original solution to the problem, finding a way to make it work in each instance.

Note that this way of constructing puzzles relies on doing them in a certain order. The player needs to solve the easy one first, then meet the harder variants in sequence, or it will be unsatisfactory. (Another way of doing such a puzzle, would be to integrate it all in one puzzle, like the famous Babel Fish puzzle from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. But that's beside the point in this case.)

[Snarky]

Suppose in point-n-click game there's scene A in which you have to get an item stuck high above you. You should use something throwable to knock it over. Then later in the game there's scene B in which you have to get another item stuck high above. Given the similar conditions I'd expect same trick to work, because it worked another time, but game does not let me, and gives some random "won't work" reply. In standard "adventure games" this seems to be considered a valid thing. In my opinion, that's not a fair thing.

I agree that this would be a bad way to stop you from solving the problem in that way. But I think it's almost worse if the game repeats the exact same problem and expects you to use the exact same solution: at that point I would argue that it's not actually a puzzle, and that it's no longer proper adventure game gameplay. As heltenjon says, there has to be something unique about each individual challenge to make it an adventure game puzzle. And I think that sets adventure games apart from for example RPGs or pure puzzle games, which are much more about solving challenges within defined systems, with basically the same challenges recurring.

And I think it's perfectly fair if in an adventure game, the first time you face this problem you can throw something at the thing and it will knock it down, while the second time you're in a similar situation, your throw misses, bounces off the wall and hits you in the head, with your character then refusing to try again. For example. Because in adventure games, scripted outcomes to specific situations are part of the game structure, while this sort of thing would be unfair in an RPG or action game where outcomes should generally follow predictable rules.

Even if you added a bunch of variations to the throwing puzzle, and combined them in different ways requiring different strategies to solve, so that each one became a puzzle within your throwing system/mechanic, I'd argue that what you end up making is a throwing game rather than an adventure game. That might be an excellent game (Portal is an example of a game that builds puzzles around a specific mechanic in this way), but it's not really an adventure game, IMO.