The Future of Gaming is…Adventure Games?
I started my gaming with the Playstation and Nintendo 64, so I completely missed the “golden age” of adventure games. I have a few memories of laughing at Sam and Max Hit the Road, and I vaguely remember enjoying one of the King’s Quest games, but that’s about it. Until recently. I was happy to find Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis as an unlockable bonus in the newest Indy game, and I bought the updated Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars after hearing such good things about. After playing both, I am now unabashedly in love with the genre. As I look back at my time with both games, I realized that these old games represent the eventual result of certain modern trends in gaming.

A Focus on Memorable Stories and Characters
As games have become more cinematic, more emphasis has been placed on story and characters. Every game wants to tell a good story now, and often the story for a AAA game is hyped up just as much as the graphics or controls. This focus on story and characters is a staple of all the old adventure games. Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis is remembered because it captures the fun peril of the movies, and many titles from LucasArts are loved for their humor and characters.
Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars is no exception. Some of the most memorable moments come from interacting with other characters. From the snooty sounding British woman who’s only too willing to stick it to “The Man,” to the Middle Eastern boy whose wealth of knowledge comes from memorizing Trivial Pursuit cards, to the American tourist who thinks he’s a spy, everyone we can talk to has a distinct personality. These are not nameless townsfolk who only have a couple sentences worth of dialogue; we can carry on a full and unique conversation with each person we come across. As for the story, it starts off as a murder mystery and slowly grows into a global conspiracy. The ever-growing scope means there are always new twists being introduced, and the mystery plot, with its focus on discovering leads and solving puzzles, makes for an addicting game. Which leads into my next point.

The Games are Driven by Story Not Action
Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka, the founders of BioWare, had a recent interview with gameindustry.biz in which they said, “We talk a certain amount internally about whether you need to have combat as part of the experience…Certainly the core gaming experience, folks that are used to playing games over the last ten years, they want to have those battle moments, and the fighting. But there are different audiences that would maybe just enjoy the story.” Combat is the chief method of interaction in games: These “battle moments,” these short action sequences that test our skill, are strung together one after another until there are enough to keep a player busy for 8-12 hours. This makes for a compelling game since there’s always a new obstacle to overcome, but it’s not very conducive to storytelling, and to hear Greg and Ray talk of it, it sounds like there’s never been an alternative.
Adventure games, almost universally, are driven by story and not “battle moments.” Many adventure games do have combat, but these moments are not the focus of the game. It could be argued that this genre is driven by puzzles instead of story, but players usually get frustrated if the puzzles don’t make sense within the context of the game. The best adventure games integrate their puzzles naturally into the story.
In Broken Sword: Shadow of the Templars, the story is already tailor-made for some abstract puzzles. As a simple mystery the story works well with the gameplay, tracking down leads and asking the right questions to the right people, but it works better as a grand mystery since unraveling a centuries old secret often requires solving some ancient puzzle. The puzzles in Broken Sword compliment the story as each solution revels more of the plot, which leads to another puzzle, and so on. As the player finds clues he’s driven to continue playing, to unravel just a little bit more. The story compels us forwards, and the puzzles add challenge and interactivity to what would otherwise be a movie or novel.

No Death
As games focus more on story, death becomes an impediment to the experience because when the player dies there’s no more story to tell. But when the latest Prince of Persia removed death completely, it was derided by many as being too easy and too short. From that controversy it would seem like gamers still want the possibility of failure. But Prince of Persia was driven by those same old “battle moments.” Sometimes we were battling an enemy, other times the environment, but we were always fighting against some skill-based challenge the game threw at us. By removing death, the possibility of failure, from a game driven by this competition, success became inevitable and therefore worthless.
On the other hand, the removal of death in Broken Sword is hardly noticeable. It was only when I was about 10 hours in, and the main character was being held at gunpoint, did I realize I had not yet died in the game. Not only had I not died, but I had never even been in situation where death was possible. Because the game was driven by story and not combat, death would only interfere with the pacing, so it became unnecessary.

Lack of death is, unfortunately, not part of all adventure games, but when the player is allowed to die in such a game it only proves how disruptive death is to the overall experience. I died quite a few times in Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis whenever I was forced to fight guards. Since death wasn’t possible for much of a game, I took a laissez-faire approach to saving, so when death was unexpectedly introduced I ended up having to replay large portions of the game again. It’s always frustrating when a game teaches us to play one way, and then punishes us for playing that way. It’s telling that death was only possible during these moments of combat. Whenever a game resorts to challenges of skill, death/failure must be possible even if it impedes the story. So in a game like the Fate of Atlantis, and other adventure games, and any story driven game, it’s better when those moments are simply removed altogether.
It’s fitting that the adventure genre has seen a recent resurgence. From the popularity of the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney games, to Telltale Games’ episodic adventures, to the release of the updated The Secret of Monkey Island, to the re-release of many old LucasArts adventure games on Steam, it’s clear that this genre is far from dead. Their user interfaces may be antiquated, their graphics may be terrible, but since these games are driven by their puzzles and stories, they become timeless in a way no shooter can ever be.



Comments
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Susan
http://onlinegamesforgirls.net
Comment by Susan from Online games for grils — July 24, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Having played computer adventures since 1983, I’ve noted a considerable *dumbing down* of the genre, beginning, I think, with LucasArts (formerly LEC) and their removal of character death and character cornering. (cornering: getting to a place and needing an item or information that you no longer have access to)
These changes are good and bad. I approve of the narrative not allowing the player to *paint himself into a corner* and the lack of dying makes for more relaxed gameplay. However, relaxed can be counterproductive to the narrative if the scene is supposed to be suspenseful. For instance, A scene in THE LONGEST JOURNEY has a monster threatening the character of April. The music is fast-paced, the emotion of April’s voice is appropriate and it’s very suspenseful ... yet the player knows he can sit there forever and the monster will never ever get April. The tension of the scene is totally lost by this *dumbing down* trend.
And this trend is getting worse with each passing year. LucasArts began the downfall of the adventure genre with more *dumbing down* tactics. For instance, hotspots which provided extended narration when you chose different interactions became fewer and fewer. Sierra games had an average of 30 hotspots on every screen—lots to look at and read/hear about. Worse, Lucasarts reduced the selection of different narrations to two or even one for each hotspot, no matter which way you interacted with it. Sierra usually had three narrations for each hotspot—making a total of 90 different narrations/screen.
LucasArts further attacked the genre by highlighting the cursor when it floated above their minimal hotspots rather than allow the player to find his own way.
LucasArts created some swell stories for their adventures and sold them for the standard $20, yet they never made an adventure game that offered more than 5 hours of gameplay. It was a difinitive insult towards the reasoning capacity of we adventure gamers. Sadly, these dumbed down games are all the genre offers anymore.
What killed adventure games was the need to make them too easy, to satisfy the second-generation of gamers who never bothered to stretch their gaming abilities.
Comment by xaRoc — July 25, 2009 @ 6:48 am
Post: As for Telltale, I can hardly call what they’re doing a “revival.” All they seem capable of is the worst that LucasArts provided—games which are too short, too easy, and too costly for the amount of narration provided.
Only 4 years ago, the game ANKH was critized for being “too short” for its price of $20 (USD). Yet, when played in comparison to a season of any Telltale game, we find that ANKH is slightly longer at 13 hours. Thus, we might conclude that a season of Telltale should run about $18-20(USD). But, we’d be wrong. TElltale games cost 175% more than any other gaming distributer dares to charge.
The only thing they are reviving is the belief that gamers are idiots. But, you seem to think they are doing well so maybe they are correct.
Comment by xaRoc — July 25, 2009 @ 6:55 am
gr8 post thanks alot
Comment by Aflam from france — July 27, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
Give him a break, xaRoc. A new initiate to adventure gaming needs time to appreciate the finer points. I for one am thrilled that Nick has recently discovered the joy of adventure games. There really is a lot of potential in making games that focus more on story and characterization.
As far as the adventure game revival goes, Heavy Rain is a good example of a “modern” take on the adventure game, although it is also similar to the “interactive movies” that came out in the 90s.
Comment by JV Andres — August 4, 2009 @ 12:41 am