One of the issues I often have with adventure games is that all too often I'm left wondering what I need to do to progress. Whilst this isn't always a bad thing - wandering around the rich environments in Myst games (and similar) is part of the joy of those games, I find it can bring significant frustration.

A post on Boom Blox (a new Wii game) on the GameSetWatch blog describes the opposite effect really nicely. The game sets frequent small objectives, so that you always know what you're trying to achieve.

Do you like a detailed quest or puzzle system? Or is a wide open world with only the big picture defined your idea of gaming nirvana?

Gremlin

I think it depends on the sort of game. In games like Myst where the game world is interesting, I don't mind a lot of exploring -- especially since that's a large part of the game. In games that take place in a seamy, ugly, depressing environment, the sightseeing aspect is nonexistent -- and I'd just as soon get to where I have to go as quickly and efficiently as possible in order to get the game to progress.

I prefer to be lead around by the nose. I like the feeling of knowing where to go and what to do next. I hate wandering around. Thats probably why I like to use walthroughs.

thracia

I don't like wondering around either... I really dislike when i have to go to 5 different places and find a really small trigger to go on with the game... I think i like when the game leads me by itself...

I don't find any joy in wandering around aimlessly, which is why I don't play Myst games.

You couldn't have put it better. That is me too! I don't mind a little bit of "lost" exploring. Sometimes it is fun to find out "ok what happens if I engage this other character at this point or push this button now?" In most cases though I definitely need to be told "Ok you have to do A and B in order to get to C" so I can have the satisfaction of finishing the game successfully.

I am totally directionally challenged (a severe disadvanage in Myst!) so I depend a lot on "turn L here then RRR then LF" directions in walkthroughs. For me, that doesn't spoil the adventure.

This is where linearity helps. It aids the player into going into the right direction. Say, a person entered an area eg. cave or room, if there is something he should do while in that area and he has not done it yet and attempts to leave the area, the game will prevent him from leaving the area. A voice message like "I can't leave yet" will suggest something needs to be done. This will direct him to go and look for that something.

The game, Keepsake, if I recall correctly, informs the player what he needs to do if the player appears to be lost or not going in the right direction. I didn't finished this game, in fact I stopped after the first puzzle as I didn't enjoy the pointless wandering and extreme camera swings.



I fully agree. I never bothered to find out more about the Myst games as it's not enjoyable to wander around. I gave up Keepsake for the same reason.

Exploring environments and figuring out relationships between clues as to what to do is what I like best about Myst-like games, and games in general for that matter. I'm never bored by luscious scenery and fanciful surroundings. I do agree that trying to balance exploration with the right clues or puzzles that help you progress is an art, and none do it better than the Myst games (or at least the first 3 in the series ). Rhem is another game that does it well.
However, when I play an inventory based games with other character interactions, I'd rather have a chapter style presentation wherein you can't progress until you've done everything. I absolutely hate 'try item on everything and everyone' type problems. They are repetative and boring.

I love the Myst type games and games like Capri and Anacapri, I didn't mind wandering around for awhile. The art or photographs are so beautiful. With the Capri ones, it is a beautiful real place I will never get to see in real life. But if there is huge expanses to go back and forth for one tiny little piece or one line of conversation, and especially when I have no idea what is needed next, I get very bored or frustrated. That is usually when I find a walkthrough. I had that problem in Anacapri where nothing progressed half way through because I didn't look on the back of one object, and I quit because the game shut down, crashed to the desk top everytime I tried to do the next step. So I quit and started all over because I thought it was something wrong with the install. Really, really frustrating.


Unless it is a totally puzzle driven game (ie Safecracker, Pandora's Box, etc.), the story needs to make sense so that what needs to done next is something that would be a logical step. I don't mind any kind of puzzles, I will go to a walkthrough if I need to do so, so long as it is not timed or some super fast action that my hands just can't click that fast. I enjoy the challenge of puzzles even if I am not good at that particular one.

I think my best experiences and favorite games are ones that the puzzles were fun, the artwork/photos were enjoyable, and the story was engaging and made sense. I wanted to get back to the game to finish the story, not just solve another puzzle. It is like reading a good book or watching a good movie, I want to see the end, but am a little sad when it does end.

Koalanut

The GameSetWatch blog said it for me: "frequent small objectives" that show the way to go for the next step. That makes it an adventure and keeps me entertained as I wander through a game. I have a poor sense of direction so even when I know where I'm supposed to go next it will take me some aimless wandering to get there, so I really don't need to play a game where that is part of the gameplay, especially if I don't know why I'm wandering around with no objective in sight, which is why Myst is not for me. (Not even MOUL could make it work for me, but I tried as best as I could.) I think Myst is a "good" game, but it just isn't an "adventure" which is what I want.

I guess the system goes both ways - sometimes when I'm playing a game that leads me around I feel that all I do is just click around without having to think much. The most recent game I played was Overclocked, and one of the best things I liked about it is the frequent hints - "I better call -insert name-" "He needs a small memory trigger" or when I really can't do anything "I better leave him alone for now, he needs rest." So I won't be sitting there trying every single recording.

I think I prefer a system in adventure games where inventory items are discarded when there's no more use for them, and scenes are "locked out" when there's nothing else there to explore. I can't stand Myst - mostly because I get lost in a house, let alone on an island - and backtracking. The more scenes open with nothing to do in them, the more lost and frustrated I get.

I guess I don't like being led around, but I don't mind being herded.

Hi

"I guess I don't like being led around, but I don't mind being herded"

Sounds like that could be my kind of thing too

Cheers.

Mad

I like the games where you wander around freely and hate being led around and not being able to get off the "road". I loved the myst games but graphics and interaction have evolved alot so I would expect more from a game these days.

A spate of adventure games I played were "led" games and I just stoped playing them and started playing RPG's where you have alot freer movement in the games. I haven't really gotten back into adventure games since then. The hard part about RPG's is there is less story, its up to you to fill out the story and I've learned to do that. Of course what I would like is a combo...lots of freedom to move and explore (and reasons to do it) and lots of story and situations where you have to solve stuff and think things out and maybe a little action in reasonable places...like if you went into a basement you might have kill a monster.

Right now RPG's fit that more for me but I plan to try a new adventure or two soon to see if they've evolved into freer games. I just like to explore AND figure out and solve things. I love that ahhh moment when you figure out what to do and if the game "leads" you too much it robs you of that. I would rather solve things than kill things but I like be able to interact with everything you can see in a game and go where ever you can see and so far to get that interaction I've had to play the kind of games which also involve killing things as well as solving things.

Ah-ha! I think I now see why some gamers like RPGs.
To me the games were boring because all I could see to do was to practice some skill over and over to fight with bigger monsters which was not very interesting to me. But you did have the choice as to how you improved your skill and to choose where to go to fight what monster, something like that. So yes, a lot of the gameplay was up to the player. And I can now see how it would be appealing, even if not my thing.

I've seen a happy medium in a few recent games. I like the idea of making the game rather hard, but providing a hint system or other helping tools for those who want them. The "magnifying glass" tool in Tunguska was great, for example. If I want to do a pixel hunt, I can. If I find that I'm stuck, I can go back through the scences to find the hotspots. The game features some kind of actual hints too, but so far they've not been there when I got stuck; but Gameboomer's walkthroughs have :-)

Since there's always gonna' be a walkthrough somewhere, I like most puzzles to be on the hard side. That way I get that sense of fulfillment for figuring them out, but am in control of the pace of the game.

But an adventure game with nothing but easy puzzles is nothing more than an interactive movie. Bleh. The Longest Journey was great, but it's sequal (darkfall or whatever) was WAY, WAY too easy. The game practically spelled out the next move over and over again. It became an interactive movie, but one that recalled tons of backtracking. And, honestly, it wasn't that great of a movie.

Hi Nipomo
Have you ever played the Quest for Glory series? I know they are quite old now, but they do seem to match very closely with what you like.

I like adventures that give clues of what to do next. I like wandering around through rich areas exploring, asking questions etc but I don't like the fact that a lot of adventures do not give you a hint of what to do next. This is really annoying.

Hi Frances
I haven't played the Quest for Glory series. I'm at work now and I'm trying to think if I have it. I used to buy lots of old games from Johnboy before Katrinia. I have read in different threads that people liked those games alot.

Maybe I was a little too tough on the recent crop of Adventure games in my last post (last couple of years). I know they don't have the money to invest in a game like Oblivion or Morrowind can generate....but oh its fun to be able to mess around everywhere and move items and pickup anything. The last adventure game I played you could only walk in one predetermined street in a town and the only door that opened was the house you needed to go into....I don't know...it was a little too "figured out all ready for you", I'd rather figure out the house by some sutle clues given. I like to work my way into how the game I'm playing thinks.

I do think if an Adventure game has a really good story and the the things you need to figure out to progress are logical then there is great joy in figureing it out. I figured out the whole first Myst game on my own because in those days I didn't know about walkthroughs. And TRUTH it made a big difference in my life, in that I was older when all this computer stuff started to happen and it made me think hey I can do this stuff and its fun. I've never looked back. It really stuck with me that I could figure things out if I just stayed alert.

Hi Nipomo

Why don't you try some of the Sierra games? QFG series really are a mix of adventure and RPG. You chose to be Fighter, Thief of Magician, how you solve problems is different for each, and they all have some events that are unique to the character. Obviously the graphics are nothing like modern games, but I find them acceptable because the game play is so engaging.

I recently played Aura, Schizm and Atlantis Evolution, all 4+ years old I know but with WinME I can't play the most recent yet. I am now replaying Conquest of the Longbow and am far more engaged with the game and characters, VGA graphics and all, than I was with the three above. Sierra games are all third person (as far as I know) which I happen to like. I love the Myst series but they stick to 1st person, I find the games that flip from 1st to 3rd in cut scenes disconcerting because for me this breaks the mood.

I've yet to find a newer game that I enjoy as much as these oldies, Riddle of the Sphinx and Beyond Atlantis 3 probably come closest, and I would agree that these are not exactly new