I'm just going to go with Puzzle Adventure Games being games like Layton and Puzzle Agent.
Why not? Further demonstration that such categories are arbitrary and inconsistently applied and thus largely meaningless outside of the contexts in which they're formulated. However you want to categorize them, those games have an objectively observable characteristic that is not present in games that are universally acknowledged as part of the adventure genre.
I never said the suits wanted to make it 3D, I said they wanted to brand Mask of Eternity as another mainline King's Quest sequel.
Actually Roberta from the start intended to brand it as a mainline KQ sequel (according to interviews all the way back to 1994). She only changed her mind, when the Davidsons tried to butt in and censor the game (mid-1996 to early 1997), and limited her control of development.
Remember back in 1994 up to about February 1996 before Sierra sold itself to CUC (the only suits involved with Sierra's day to affairs were basically Ken Williams and Roberta Williams, they made all decisions). During that period Roberta had essentially full control of what the game was going to be. She was always calling it KQ8 back then, or KQ:MOE. It was always already a 3D game with Action during that period.
CUC steps in and buys the company, a few months later in September, Bob Davidson took over as CEO of the whole company. Due to his opinions of Phantasmagoria, he sent his managers to basicallhy ignore Roberta and Ken, and push KQ the way Bob and Jan Davidson wanted it (stripped of violence and anything offending to their conservative beliefs). Remember the video we see in Roberta William's Anthology came out during the Davidsons involvement period Holiday 1996.
Davidsons leave Cendant in January 1997, and Roberta regained her control (mostly, though she started having technical issues with Dynamix).
When Ken complains about the suits stepping in and trying to control the direction of the game, out of Roberta's control, he was referring to the Davidon's period.
I'm just going to go with Puzzle Adventure Games being games like Layton and Puzzle Agent.
Hell even Wikipedia categorizes those games under "Puzzle Adventures" and/or "Visual Novels/Interactive Novel"! It might be 'arbitrary' but the industry works that way (so do Wikipedia editors)!
Why not? Further demonstration that such categories are arbitrary and inconsistently applied and thus largely meaningless outside of the contexts in which they're formulated. However you want to categorize them, those games have an objectively observable characteristic that is not present in games that are universally acknowledged as part of the adventure genre.
I have no idea why you're arguing that categories aren't perfect. That's like arguing the sky is blue. Maybe I can tell a difference between electro industrial techno, but I promise the world can't.
Plus, the use of genres and subgenres makes products easier to target to the proper portion of the consumer market. To argue that such characterizations are inaccurate to such a degree as to have become pointless doesn't really accomplish anything.
Actually Roberta from the start intended to brand it as a mainline KQ sequel (according to interviews all the way back to 1994). She only changed her mind, when the Davidsons tried to butt in and censor the game (mid-1996 to early 1997), and limited her control of development.
Remember back in 1994 up to about February 1996 before Sierra sold itself to CUC (the only suits involved with Sierra's day to affairs were basically Ken Williams and Roberta Williams, they made all decisions). During that period Roberta had essentially full control of what the game was going to be. She was always calling it KQ8 back then, or KQ:MOE. It was always already a 3D game with Action during that period.
CUC steps in and buys the company, a few months later in September, Bob Davidson took over as CEO of the whole company. Due to his opinions of Phantasmagoria, he sent his managers to basicallhy ignore Roberta and Ken, and push KQ the way Bob and Jan Davidson wanted it (stripped of violence and anything offending to their conservative beliefs). Remember the video we see in Roberta William's Anthology came out during the Davidsons involvement period Holiday 1996.
Davidsons leave Cendant in January 1997, and Roberta regained her control (mostly, though she started having technical issues with Dynamix).
When Ken complains about the suits stepping in and trying to control the direction of the game, out of Roberta's control, he was referring to the Davidon's period.
Hell even Wikipedia categorizes those games under "Puzzle Adventures" and/or "Visual Novels/Interactive Novel"! It might be 'arbitrary' but the industry works that way (so do Wikipedia editors)!
Just one note of correction: Sierra wasn't sold until July '96. July 24th.
And you figure Roberta was talking about KQ8 as early as '94 as you said, and she mentions it basically going into pre-production (or at least a basic "ideas" stage) while Phantas was in production (1994-July 1995). I remember reading in a 1995 issue of InterAction that Roberta was already at work on KQ8--It was on her to "to do" list right after Phantasmagoria was finished.
Phantasmagoria came out in the end of July 1995...That gives Roberta a year's worth of time to start up on KQ8.
I think the main things which delayed KQ8 were 6 factors:
1) Davidson factor (September 1996-January 1997)
2) Ken leaving Sierra (Sometime between late 1996 and mid 1997)
3) The Dynamix factor (sometime in 1997. Compare the 1996 and 1997 screenshots of KQ8 to the shoots in 1998 InterAction Magazines).
4) David Grenewetzki coming aboard as CEO of Sierra in June 1998. Remember, this is the guy who not long after KQ8 came out fired all of Sierra's adventure game division and shut down Oakhurst.
5) The Cendant stock scandal, which really harmed Sierra's profitability and caused chaos in the company
6) The turmoil of the sale to Havas (Just as KQ8 was being finished, Sierra was in the midst of being sold yet again. KQ8 came out one month after Havas bought Cendant Software)
Also, in the booklet, Scott Lynch (a Sierra project manager and later executive who was made head of Bellevue--where Roberta was working--in October 1997) is blamed for the delays in a subtle way.
From the time it was announced (around the Fall of 1996), the target date for KQ8 was Christmas 1997. Even as late as the July 1997 KQ Collection's release, it seemed on target to meet that deadline.
Also, after Ken left, it is possible that certain people--like Mark Seibert and other team members--might've tried infusing THEIR vision into the game, attempting to override Roberta.
This is from Ken back in 2003:
"KQ8 is a wild story.
KQ8 was in development at the same time that the company was sold. Basically, Sierra went through changes during the development of the game, and those changes are reflected in the game. During the first half of the game, I was the CEO - during the last half of the game my status shifted to "reasonably nice guy who used to work here". My way of doing things was different than the new way of doing things.
My #1 issue was always to maintain the "clarity of vision" of the game designer. A Sierra project, like KQ8, has nearly a hundred highly creative people on it. Many of these people were working at Sierra because they wanted their shot to be a game designer. It was not uncommon for everyone on a project to seek opportunities to "put their mark" on the game. This is a delicate issue. I recruited people who could be designers, and I was a huge supporter of creativity. Roberta wanted ideas from the team, but at some point, if you accept too many ideas, the product can become a muddy mess. There were dozens of people on KQ8 who could have been the designer, any of which would have made a great designer. But, unfortunately, if this tendency, on the part of developers, to add their creativity to a product, isn't carefully controlled, the product starts to veer into "design by committee". Roberta had her vision for the product, as did almost every person on the project.
When I lost control of Sierra, Roberta's ability to maintain her control over KQ8 was also eroded. The product that shipped is very different than what would have shipped had the company not been sold.
There was another issue at work on KQ8. Roberta is a perfectionist (I'm guilty of the same sin). Whenever she would play the game, she would turn in lists of hundreds of "bugs". Perfectionist can be a pseudonym for nit-picker. When a development team gets a long list, the natural tendency can be to look at some bugs as nit-picky. I always supported my designers. I wouldn't let a game go until the designer was happy (with a couple of exceptions that I regretted later), even when it seemed like we were spending lots of money to fix stuff no one cared about. It was critical to me that the game our customers played represented the game our designer wanted produced. When I left Sierra, Roberta's ability to get bugs fixed diminished.
Ultimately, the last year of KQ8 development was a tough one for Roberta. For a long time, she refused to let the game ship and there was threatened litigation floating around.
This is not to say that the game that shipped isn't a good game. Roberta was reasonably happy with it at the end - but, it reflected a much wider product vision, than Robertas alone. People other than Roberta influenced its development, in a greater capacity than in her previous products. There will be some gamers who see the change as positive, and some who wanted a Roberta product more consistent with her prior products.
There is an example I used to use on this point. One of my favorite authors is: Steven King. I also like Peter Straub. Each alone is a bestselling (mega-selling in Kings case) author. They cowrote a book; the Talisman, which bombed. Either alone could have sold plenty of copies, but together, the whole becomes less than the parts. KQ8 had wonderful people on it. This message should not be construed as being derogatory to anyone (other than that I am definitely critical of the management changes that took place.) My belief is that if the new owners had taken a couple of days to ask about "what made Sierra special" in the days after acquiring it (they could have asked me, or better yet, its customers) before dramatically changing things, things would have gone a lot smoother in the transition.
I believe that there can be no agreement. Some people just like it and others hate no matter what arguments people are trying to use in their attempts to convince people to agree with their point of view.
Personally I don't hate it and like I said earlier (in this thread or some other thread) I think some of MoE's puzzles were more difficult than puzzles of KQ7.
Personally I'm not purist and I don't mind adventure games having action elements (à la MoE and Dreamfall: The Longest Journey) or arcade sequences (like Dynamix adventures; Rise of the Dragon and Heart of China). I even like action-adventures like Alone in the Dark I or Resident Evil 2. But then again I used to play also action games with story, like Max Payne or American McGee's Alice, which might affect to my point of view.
Actually I think that the two letters from Ken Williams where he claims he 'left' actually refer the Davidson's period. Since he says he 'left' right after selling the company (this is debatable based on what we know from Interaction magazine and other places where he was CEO up into 1997 or so). Roberta has now since admitted the problem was with the Davidson's team of managers... I suspect part of the reason why Ken tries to distance himself from that period is because it appears CUC pretty much started cooking the books the moment, they bought the company.
I wouldn't blame Mark for being controlling... I never got that impression from him when he was explaining things. Yes, he had to warn Roberta at times that some things were not possible with current technology they had access (that early version of 3Space). But that's truth, not 'trying to control'. They were hoping that the new version of 3Space being developed for Red Baron II would actually give them those tools they needed. But Dynamix had their own problem developing that engine, and Red Baron II was delayed itself! When I asked, from his own word, he told me Roberta was pretty much charge of everything when the Dynamix issue came up (they actually shared the development, since they were co-producers though, similar to situation Roberta was involved in previous games back to KQ6). This is also more or less confirmed in the TalkSpot interviews (in which Roberta and Mark were actually quite open about the various problems that plagued the game's development). I believe actually quite a bit of this was revealed in the third Episode, but copies of it have been lost.
Because of the Dynamix delay with the new version of 3Space, Sierra was forced to have build their own updated engine from the earlier versions (because they needed to progress along with the development). But I don't think Mark was putting 'blame' in so much that Dynamix (they also had reasonable reasons for their delay). Dynamix was was having a hard time getting the new version out on time, since it was also being primarily developed for Red Baron II, which also was delayed to about late 1997 for its reasons. The hope was Dynamix would have finished the engine for Red Baron II and then hand it over to Sierra to use on their project. But because of technical reasons Dynamix had run into, it turned out to not be the case.
The new engine made by Roberta's team (very little is left of the actual 3Space engine in the KQ8 engine), allowed them to boost the graphics as they had planned (thus the change in graphics between the two). Though not necessarily as high as Roberta had originally envisioned (if she had access to the Red Baron II engine). It may very well be one of the reasons why the game is locked in the two resolutions of 640 x 480, and 800 x 600. Roberta had hoped the game would have looked even better. Still it many reviewers thought it looked better than quite a few games at the time, but its possible had things worked out it might have visually bypassed anything on the market by leaps and bounds.
Red Baron II btw was originally supposed to be released late 1996 to early 1997, IIRC. But I'd need to check through issues of Interaction magazine to be sure. It got delayed back to October 1997. That's shortly before the projected release of KQ8! Notice how the development issues would have been a problem for Roberta's team, in trying to meet there own projected development goals! It would have set them back almost a year, if they hadn't started design on their own version of the engine (which we see as early between March or July 1997). I think we might see screenshots of the new engine in Interaction earlier than the release of the KQ Collection II in July 1997. But again I'd need to check.
As for after the Davidsons' left? I don't believe the new CEO/suits cared so much about the specific development to specifically control the content of what was in the game (to tell her to insert things into the game or take things out specifically). But they probably were worried about about the series of delays and the fact that the game was soon going to go over budget, without any sign of a finished product. They probably did end up having to step in and tell Roberta to complete what she could, and get a complete product on the shelf. That would explain the loss of a few of the levels we saw in the 'new engine' such as the outside level in the Realm of the Sun, plus an extended ending cutscene where Connor would have returned and met Graham (possibly been officially knighted).
Her making a choice to cut out some of the material, was the only way Roberta was able have time to complete the voice acting, puzzles, and story writing without going way over budget. Even Roberta says that she spent three or four years on the project, and she was getting tired! I doubt even she wanted to go into another year really (3-4 years was the standard development time, even for Phantasmagoria). No one involved wanted a Duke Nukem Forever on their hands really (so to speak).
AS for other levels that were cut, the water level was probably cut much earlier due because the KQ8 engine isn't capable of swimming or water physics (we have only seen early 3Space engine version of that level). The ocean side Daventry starting area was probably cut early on back during the Davidson's period for a similar reason, due to the loss of the underwater level (note the Hydra would have required Connor to swim in the ocean to fight it). Mark Seibert and Roberta say as much in the TalkSpot interviews that they were cut pretty early on in development, somewhere between first and second phase of development (the game went through about three main phases). By the time we see screenshots of the new engine early-mid 1997, Connor is seen in a version of the final released Kingdom of Daventry (the darkened valley, though for a period it apparenlty had dark clouds instead of the black sky). The magazines were already describing that as the starting area.
I have no idea why you're arguing that categories aren't perfect. That's like arguing the sky is blue.
No kidding. It apparently did need to be argued, though, because of post #180 and similar ones full of declarative statements on this subcategory or that game, implying that somebody does indeed regard them as definitive or at least non-arbitrary enough to use as valid supporting arguments. My original point was simply that Telltale has departed from traditional adventure games. Somebody else raised the issue of subgenres and cited, ironically, conflicting sources that weren't even applicable to the game I was talking about.
Plus, the use of genres and subgenres makes products easier to target to the proper portion of the consumer market. To argue that such characterizations are inaccurate to such a degree as to have become pointless doesn't really accomplish anything.
I actually believe that the main gameplay-based genres -- adventure, RPG, strategy, shooter, etc. -- are used fairly consistently throughout the gaming community, and some of them have useful subclassifications based on technical characteristics, eg. first-person shooter, turn-based strategy game. Anakin's post #218 does something similar for adventure. But I can't see how subdividing the adventure genre based on differences in gameplay or puzzle type could ever be done with enough precision or objectivity to make it widely useful.
There's no arguing that Puzzle Agent is different than any other Telltale game. And that style is called a puzzle game. I wouldn't call it adventure at all.
CREEPY PUZZLE ADVENTURE WITH MYSTERY & DARK HUMOR!
Agent Nelson Tethers just solved the biggest case of his career. So why isn't he satisfied? There’s still the case of a missing eraser factory foreman, a whispering madness is still creeping from mind to mind, and a troubling recurrence of... creatures... is lurking into the town.
They probably chose this description for the market. As that 'genre' is very popular in the apple market (there used to be many on the Macs even), espescially on 'smart phones'.
In the same advertisement, Telltale markets many of their other games as 'adventures'.
Speaking of 'genre definitions' with unclear boundaries, another one is the 'action-adventure'. Which is often defined as "...a video game that combines elements of the adventure game genre with various action game elements."
Notice what Telltale describes it on the Itunes store;
...
Also notice that nintendo markets the Layton games as 'puzzle adventures' as well.
See what I mean, DAISHI? I've run out of ways to say that individual examples of a game being classified, or marketed, as this or that don't demonstrate anything except that the categories are imperfect, and still they come.
Baggins, Air Penguin -- "Jump, fly and dodge through Antarctica" -- is a "Top 5 Adventure Game in 40 countries". The most high-profile adventure-like game -- I would say it's unmistakably an adventure game -- developed specifically for iOS devices, 1112, is actually classified as "Role-Playing" on the App Store.
I've given my criteria for why I don't believe Puzzle Agent is an adventure game, and there are enough gaming websites that classify it as "Puzzle Game" to suggest my conclusion is hardly unique. You don't have to agree with it, but nothing you've cited -- no reference or example you could cite -- disproves it.
Baggins, Air Penguin -- "Jump, fly and dodge through Antarctica" -- is a "Top 5 Adventure Game in 40 countries". The most high-profile adventure-like game -- I would say it's unmistakably an adventure game -- developed specifically for iOS devices, 1112, is actually classified as "Role-Playing" on the App Store.
Actually reading that link, the Air Penguin description from the company described it as an 'adventure game'. Never played it so I don't know! Judging by screenshots looks more like an arcade-platformer to me...
Likewise the description for Puzzle Agent by Telltale describes it as a "Puzzle Adventure" (and compares it to the likes of BTTF, Hector, Tales of MI, Sam n Max, etc).
I think the store itself categorizes under puzzle and/or adventure.
Anyone ever notice how the Zelda games often got classified as "role-playing" in game review magazines? When most fans would describe it as an action-adventure? But it still doesn't help that by common definition action-adventure is a combination of the adventure game genre with action elements (so it is a dilluted and hard to define genre as well).
I've given my criteria for why I don't believe Puzzle Agent is an adventure game, and there are enough gaming websites that classify it as "Puzzle Game" to suggest my conclusion is hardly unique. You don't have to agree with it, but nothing you've cited -- no reference or example you could cite -- disproves it.
Equally I can pick and choose a dozen websites, and reviews that call it an adventure game! Just Adventure, a well reknowned adventure webspite for example has at least two reviews that argue opposing views on it if it is an adventure or just a puzzle game!
Nintendo often marketed Zelda as 'adventure games' (others marketed them as action-adventures or RPGs). This partly had to due that early action-adventures evolved out of the 'adventure game' market... Nintendo later caught on to calling them action-adventures IIRC.
The problem is even when 'adventures' were popular back in the 1980-1990's the definition was dilluted due to fact so many companies and developers tried to define what an 'adventure' was in their own ways. There was a purely console game definition for 'adventure', and there was a more pc-oriented definition as well. Infact, early on text-adventure companies generally classified their games as "Interactive fiction (IF)"!
Both Castle and Dr. Brain and Island of Dr. Brain for example was marketed as a 'puzzle-adventure game' as well (long before Myst came out), and simply adventures back when they were made (in 1991/1992). They actually have the most common with newer Layton, and Puzzle Agent than anything that came later!
I think the store itself categorizes under puzzle and/or adventure.
The store doesn't really give the genre on individual game pages. They appear when you choose the Games category on the front page, for those games that are listed there under things like "new and noteworthy" and "what's hot". Air Penguin is designated as "Adventure". Puzzle Agent is not currently on the front page, but the new Hector episode is classified as "Puzzle". The iOS App Store is the least reliable and least consistent game store/site/publication I know of when it comes to assigning genres. Air Penguin is not an anomaly -- all kinds of arcade games, platformers, even shooters and beat-em-ups get classified as "Adventure". This is something I noticed from the very first day the App Store opened.
I was never discussing what the app store categorizes things, but rather the developer description is.
There isn't currently any 'puzzle adventure category' in the store of course.
By the way Hector appears under the adventure game category and puzzle. Just keep clicking '25 more' option, to find it. But ya the apple specific categorization system is imprecise.
Heh and since no fan or non-fan or site can agree on definitions it gets us no where! To many it is a variation on the adventure genre to many others it isn't an adventure! So it just proves there is no right or wrong answer! There is no clear answer!
There's no arguing that Puzzle Agent is different than any other Telltale game. And that style is called a puzzle game. I wouldn't call it adventure at all.
I agree, and I feel the same way about the Myst games... would you agree those games should be called puzzle games as well?
Pretty much. It is quite heavy in story, though, because of all the reading you have to do. It also has some very integral characters even though you barely see them.
True, but it has so little in common with what I normally associate with adventure games that I still feel I have to call them puzzle games.
Also because of how the puzzles themselves are very different from most adventure games... with no inventory or anything like that, rather quite seperate and self contained puzzles spread about (though with some exceptions where many smaller puzzles are part of one bigger puzzle).
And of course the lack of characters that you mention.
Don't get me wrong though - I own and love all of them... well, I don't like Myst 5 all that much but it is a quality game... same goes for Uru, that is also a quality game but I'm not too fond of it... even tried playing that one online for a little while but still didn't like it much.
I have all 6 games as well, but I still need to finish Exile. I really want to find out what happens at the end of it all, but those games are such an ordeal to get through!
I have finished them all but I resorted to using a couple of hints in Riven... which I regret to this day
That was the end of ever using hints for me, after I did that in Riven I felt so bad about it and I'm naturally reminded of it every time I replay the game or whenever the game is brought up.
At least I finished the other games the 'honest' way, though it took me ages for some of them (Myst 4 has some really damn vague puzzles if you ask me).
Btw, have you finished the Amateria age in Exile yet? That's one of my favourite moments, out of all the games in the series... when you finish that age, you get such a great 'reward'.
You should consider playing more of that then, the reward you get is really great.. I'm certain you'll agree once you finish it.
The age I was stuck on the longest in Exile was probably the 'organic' one, where you're inside this giant tree or whatever it is... forgot the name of the age.
Anyway, one of the main reasons I had troubles with that particular age is how 'messy' the graphics are... if any part of any game could benefit greatly from 3D (the 3d glasses kind of 3D ), then this would be it!
It's so confusing at times.
Anyway, I've kept this thread off topic for long enough I guess, though the original topic has probably been discussed to death by now.
Yeah, the nature one. Very confusing to find all the possible hotspots and pathways because it looks so organic. It was the first age I started, though. And I thought it was a fun one.
Pretty much. It is quite heavy in story, though, because of all the reading you have to do. It also has some very integral characters even though you barely see them.
Puzzle Agent and Layton are pretty heavy in stories. Several characters are integral to to the the story as well.
Also because of how the puzzles themselves are very different from most adventure games... with no inventory or anything like that, rather quite seperate and self contained puzzles spread about (though with some exceptions where many smaller puzzles are part of one bigger puzzle).
What do you think of Loom? That game had no inventory, and the puzzles were quite a bit different than most adventure games.
I have a feeling that Myst style games got tossed into adventure genre because of the exploration and narrative aspects of the game. It sort of has more in common with old text adventures that sometimes had just as maddening puzzles needed to progress. Zork Trilogy comes to mind.
Sierra even tried their hand at several Myst style adventures. Shivers, Rama, & Lughthouse. But they never caught on really.
I believe Myst fully qualifies as an adventure game. I think the important characteristic is that the puzzles are integrated into an explorable environment through which the player moves to discover the story and solve the puzzles. Sorting games by the amount or quality of the story or dialog or characters seems pretty fuzzy to me.
I mean, there are three speaking characters in Myst. How many are required to qualify as an adventure game? 4? 5? 10? There isn't a whole lot of NPC dialog in King's Quest I either. While Myst has little narrative in the traditional sense, I think that the player's act of solving the puzzles -- and thereby discovering how the world and characters got into the state they're in -- is the narrative. Unusual, yes; unappealing to adventure fans looking for character development, of course; but it makes Myst far more different from a typical puzzle game than it is from the graphic adventures that came before it.
I really bristle at the idea that puzzle type can be used to distinguish adventure games from puzzle games, or that inventory is somehow a defining characteristic of adventure games. How could it ever be determined which types are ruled in and which types are ruled out? I've seen too many adventure gamers declaring this or that type of puzzle as illegitimate (eg. see all the threads here about dead-ends, and no fair letting me walk my character off a cliff) and we've ended up with adventure games that are so homogenized these days. I think that if any kind of puzzle is considered fair game in one genre, it's fair game in the other (as is any kind of story); it's how the puzzles are laid out for the player that makes the difference.
Besides, quite a few puzzles in Myst are solved by taking information, eg. a code or pattern, found in one part of the gameworld and applying it in another, which really isn't much different than taking an object from one location and using it elsewhere. The puzzle is in figuring out which bits, tangible or intangible, go where, so that the state of the gameworld is altered to produce a desired result. In effect, Myst does have an inventory -- it's kept in the player's brain cells rather than the character's pockets.
Myst's environmental and contraption puzzles might have been unlike any seen before, but isn't that a product of the graphics technology? it's not like no adventurer ever had to figure out how some device worked and make it do what he/she wanted through observation and experimentation. If LucasArts had used Myst-style graphics technology, wouldn't the orichalcum bead machine have looked a lot like a Myst-style puzzle? If you break down the logical components of the meta-puzzle on Selenitic, I don't think you'd find anything that had never been done before; Myst just put them together conceptually and spread them out physically in a more complex way, as the graphics technology allowed it to do.
Lumping Myst in with games in which puzzles are self-contained on single screens, where there's no element of exploration, rather than the same category as Fate of Atlantis, just doesn't seem reasonable to me.
Good points. The main differences in all cases are the styles of puzzles. Does the style of puzzles in a game dictate its genre? I mean, they're all puzzles. Which begs the question, what DOES define the adventure genre? Which is an age old question.
Comments
Why not? Further demonstration that such categories are arbitrary and inconsistently applied and thus largely meaningless outside of the contexts in which they're formulated. However you want to categorize them, those games have an objectively observable characteristic that is not present in games that are universally acknowledged as part of the adventure genre.
Actually Roberta from the start intended to brand it as a mainline KQ sequel (according to interviews all the way back to 1994). She only changed her mind, when the Davidsons tried to butt in and censor the game (mid-1996 to early 1997), and limited her control of development.
Remember back in 1994 up to about February 1996 before Sierra sold itself to CUC (the only suits involved with Sierra's day to affairs were basically Ken Williams and Roberta Williams, they made all decisions). During that period Roberta had essentially full control of what the game was going to be. She was always calling it KQ8 back then, or KQ:MOE. It was always already a 3D game with Action during that period.
CUC steps in and buys the company, a few months later in September, Bob Davidson took over as CEO of the whole company. Due to his opinions of Phantasmagoria, he sent his managers to basicallhy ignore Roberta and Ken, and push KQ the way Bob and Jan Davidson wanted it (stripped of violence and anything offending to their conservative beliefs). Remember the video we see in Roberta William's Anthology came out during the Davidsons involvement period Holiday 1996.
Davidsons leave Cendant in January 1997, and Roberta regained her control (mostly, though she started having technical issues with Dynamix).
When Ken complains about the suits stepping in and trying to control the direction of the game, out of Roberta's control, he was referring to the Davidon's period.
Hell even Wikipedia categorizes those games under "Puzzle Adventures" and/or "Visual Novels/Interactive Novel"! It might be 'arbitrary' but the industry works that way (so do Wikipedia editors)!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Tethers:_Puzzle_Agent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Layton
I have no idea why you're arguing that categories aren't perfect. That's like arguing the sky is blue. Maybe I can tell a difference between electro industrial techno, but I promise the world can't.
Just one note of correction: Sierra wasn't sold until July '96. July 24th.
And you figure Roberta was talking about KQ8 as early as '94 as you said, and she mentions it basically going into pre-production (or at least a basic "ideas" stage) while Phantas was in production (1994-July 1995). I remember reading in a 1995 issue of InterAction that Roberta was already at work on KQ8--It was on her to "to do" list right after Phantasmagoria was finished.
Phantasmagoria came out in the end of July 1995...That gives Roberta a year's worth of time to start up on KQ8.
I think the main things which delayed KQ8 were 6 factors:
1) Davidson factor (September 1996-January 1997)
2) Ken leaving Sierra (Sometime between late 1996 and mid 1997)
3) The Dynamix factor (sometime in 1997. Compare the 1996 and 1997 screenshots of KQ8 to the shoots in 1998 InterAction Magazines).
4) David Grenewetzki coming aboard as CEO of Sierra in June 1998. Remember, this is the guy who not long after KQ8 came out fired all of Sierra's adventure game division and shut down Oakhurst.
5) The Cendant stock scandal, which really harmed Sierra's profitability and caused chaos in the company
6) The turmoil of the sale to Havas (Just as KQ8 was being finished, Sierra was in the midst of being sold yet again. KQ8 came out one month after Havas bought Cendant Software)
Also, in the booklet, Scott Lynch (a Sierra project manager and later executive who was made head of Bellevue--where Roberta was working--in October 1997) is blamed for the delays in a subtle way.
From the time it was announced (around the Fall of 1996), the target date for KQ8 was Christmas 1997. Even as late as the July 1997 KQ Collection's release, it seemed on target to meet that deadline.
Also, after Ken left, it is possible that certain people--like Mark Seibert and other team members--might've tried infusing THEIR vision into the game, attempting to override Roberta.
This is from Ken back in 2003:
"KQ8 is a wild story.
KQ8 was in development at the same time that the company was sold. Basically, Sierra went through changes during the development of the game, and those changes are reflected in the game. During the first half of the game, I was the CEO - during the last half of the game my status shifted to "reasonably nice guy who used to work here". My way of doing things was different than the new way of doing things.
My #1 issue was always to maintain the "clarity of vision" of the game designer. A Sierra project, like KQ8, has nearly a hundred highly creative people on it. Many of these people were working at Sierra because they wanted their shot to be a game designer. It was not uncommon for everyone on a project to seek opportunities to "put their mark" on the game. This is a delicate issue. I recruited people who could be designers, and I was a huge supporter of creativity. Roberta wanted ideas from the team, but at some point, if you accept too many ideas, the product can become a muddy mess. There were dozens of people on KQ8 who could have been the designer, any of which would have made a great designer. But, unfortunately, if this tendency, on the part of developers, to add their creativity to a product, isn't carefully controlled, the product starts to veer into "design by committee". Roberta had her vision for the product, as did almost every person on the project.
When I lost control of Sierra, Roberta's ability to maintain her control over KQ8 was also eroded. The product that shipped is very different than what would have shipped had the company not been sold.
There was another issue at work on KQ8. Roberta is a perfectionist (I'm guilty of the same sin). Whenever she would play the game, she would turn in lists of hundreds of "bugs". Perfectionist can be a pseudonym for nit-picker. When a development team gets a long list, the natural tendency can be to look at some bugs as nit-picky. I always supported my designers. I wouldn't let a game go until the designer was happy (with a couple of exceptions that I regretted later), even when it seemed like we were spending lots of money to fix stuff no one cared about. It was critical to me that the game our customers played represented the game our designer wanted produced. When I left Sierra, Roberta's ability to get bugs fixed diminished.
Ultimately, the last year of KQ8 development was a tough one for Roberta. For a long time, she refused to let the game ship and there was threatened litigation floating around.
This is not to say that the game that shipped isn't a good game. Roberta was reasonably happy with it at the end - but, it reflected a much wider product vision, than Robertas alone. People other than Roberta influenced its development, in a greater capacity than in her previous products. There will be some gamers who see the change as positive, and some who wanted a Roberta product more consistent with her prior products.
There is an example I used to use on this point. One of my favorite authors is: Steven King. I also like Peter Straub. Each alone is a bestselling (mega-selling in Kings case) author. They cowrote a book; the Talisman, which bombed. Either alone could have sold plenty of copies, but together, the whole becomes less than the parts. KQ8 had wonderful people on it. This message should not be construed as being derogatory to anyone (other than that I am definitely critical of the management changes that took place.) My belief is that if the new owners had taken a couple of days to ask about "what made Sierra special" in the days after acquiring it (they could have asked me, or better yet, its customers) before dramatically changing things, things would have gone a lot smoother in the transition.
-Ken W"
Personally I don't hate it and like I said earlier (in this thread or some other thread) I think some of MoE's puzzles were more difficult than puzzles of KQ7.
Personally I'm not purist and I don't mind adventure games having action elements (à la MoE and Dreamfall: The Longest Journey) or arcade sequences (like Dynamix adventures; Rise of the Dragon and Heart of China). I even like action-adventures like Alone in the Dark I or Resident Evil 2. But then again I used to play also action games with story, like Max Payne or American McGee's Alice, which might affect to my point of view.
I wouldn't blame Mark for being controlling... I never got that impression from him when he was explaining things. Yes, he had to warn Roberta at times that some things were not possible with current technology they had access (that early version of 3Space). But that's truth, not 'trying to control'. They were hoping that the new version of 3Space being developed for Red Baron II would actually give them those tools they needed. But Dynamix had their own problem developing that engine, and Red Baron II was delayed itself! When I asked, from his own word, he told me Roberta was pretty much charge of everything when the Dynamix issue came up (they actually shared the development, since they were co-producers though, similar to situation Roberta was involved in previous games back to KQ6). This is also more or less confirmed in the TalkSpot interviews (in which Roberta and Mark were actually quite open about the various problems that plagued the game's development). I believe actually quite a bit of this was revealed in the third Episode, but copies of it have been lost.
Because of the Dynamix delay with the new version of 3Space, Sierra was forced to have build their own updated engine from the earlier versions (because they needed to progress along with the development). But I don't think Mark was putting 'blame' in so much that Dynamix (they also had reasonable reasons for their delay). Dynamix was was having a hard time getting the new version out on time, since it was also being primarily developed for Red Baron II, which also was delayed to about late 1997 for its reasons. The hope was Dynamix would have finished the engine for Red Baron II and then hand it over to Sierra to use on their project. But because of technical reasons Dynamix had run into, it turned out to not be the case.
The new engine made by Roberta's team (very little is left of the actual 3Space engine in the KQ8 engine), allowed them to boost the graphics as they had planned (thus the change in graphics between the two). Though not necessarily as high as Roberta had originally envisioned (if she had access to the Red Baron II engine). It may very well be one of the reasons why the game is locked in the two resolutions of 640 x 480, and 800 x 600. Roberta had hoped the game would have looked even better. Still it many reviewers thought it looked better than quite a few games at the time, but its possible had things worked out it might have visually bypassed anything on the market by leaps and bounds.
Red Baron II btw was originally supposed to be released late 1996 to early 1997, IIRC. But I'd need to check through issues of Interaction magazine to be sure. It got delayed back to October 1997. That's shortly before the projected release of KQ8! Notice how the development issues would have been a problem for Roberta's team, in trying to meet there own projected development goals! It would have set them back almost a year, if they hadn't started design on their own version of the engine (which we see as early between March or July 1997). I think we might see screenshots of the new engine in Interaction earlier than the release of the KQ Collection II in July 1997. But again I'd need to check.
As for after the Davidsons' left? I don't believe the new CEO/suits cared so much about the specific development to specifically control the content of what was in the game (to tell her to insert things into the game or take things out specifically). But they probably were worried about about the series of delays and the fact that the game was soon going to go over budget, without any sign of a finished product. They probably did end up having to step in and tell Roberta to complete what she could, and get a complete product on the shelf. That would explain the loss of a few of the levels we saw in the 'new engine' such as the outside level in the Realm of the Sun, plus an extended ending cutscene where Connor would have returned and met Graham (possibly been officially knighted).
Her making a choice to cut out some of the material, was the only way Roberta was able have time to complete the voice acting, puzzles, and story writing without going way over budget. Even Roberta says that she spent three or four years on the project, and she was getting tired! I doubt even she wanted to go into another year really (3-4 years was the standard development time, even for Phantasmagoria). No one involved wanted a Duke Nukem Forever on their hands really (so to speak).
AS for other levels that were cut, the water level was probably cut much earlier due because the KQ8 engine isn't capable of swimming or water physics (we have only seen early 3Space engine version of that level). The ocean side Daventry starting area was probably cut early on back during the Davidson's period for a similar reason, due to the loss of the underwater level (note the Hydra would have required Connor to swim in the ocean to fight it). Mark Seibert and Roberta say as much in the TalkSpot interviews that they were cut pretty early on in development, somewhere between first and second phase of development (the game went through about three main phases). By the time we see screenshots of the new engine early-mid 1997, Connor is seen in a version of the final released Kingdom of Daventry (the darkened valley, though for a period it apparenlty had dark clouds instead of the black sky). The magazines were already describing that as the starting area.
No kidding. It apparently did need to be argued, though, because of post #180 and similar ones full of declarative statements on this subcategory or that game, implying that somebody does indeed regard them as definitive or at least non-arbitrary enough to use as valid supporting arguments. My original point was simply that Telltale has departed from traditional adventure games. Somebody else raised the issue of subgenres and cited, ironically, conflicting sources that weren't even applicable to the game I was talking about.
I actually believe that the main gameplay-based genres -- adventure, RPG, strategy, shooter, etc. -- are used fairly consistently throughout the gaming community, and some of them have useful subclassifications based on technical characteristics, eg. first-person shooter, turn-based strategy game. Anakin's post #218 does something similar for adventure. But I can't see how subdividing the adventure genre based on differences in gameplay or puzzle type could ever be done with enough precision or objectivity to make it widely useful.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/puzzle-agent-2/id444526639?mt=8
They probably chose this description for the market. As that 'genre' is very popular in the apple market (there used to be many on the Macs even), espescially on 'smart phones'.
In the same advertisement, Telltale markets many of their other games as 'adventures'.
http://www.professorlaytonds.com/#/gallery/videos/
Also notice that nintendo markets the Layton games as 'puzzle adventures' as well.
Speaking of 'genre definitions' with unclear boundaries, another one is the 'action-adventure'. Which is often defined as "...a video game that combines elements of the adventure game genre with various action game elements."
See what I mean, DAISHI? I've run out of ways to say that individual examples of a game being classified, or marketed, as this or that don't demonstrate anything except that the categories are imperfect, and still they come.
Baggins, Air Penguin -- "Jump, fly and dodge through Antarctica" -- is a "Top 5 Adventure Game in 40 countries". The most high-profile adventure-like game -- I would say it's unmistakably an adventure game -- developed specifically for iOS devices, 1112, is actually classified as "Role-Playing" on the App Store.
I've given my criteria for why I don't believe Puzzle Agent is an adventure game, and there are enough gaming websites that classify it as "Puzzle Game" to suggest my conclusion is hardly unique. You don't have to agree with it, but nothing you've cited -- no reference or example you could cite -- disproves it.
Actually reading that link, the Air Penguin description from the company described it as an 'adventure game'. Never played it so I don't know! Judging by screenshots looks more like an arcade-platformer to me...
Likewise the description for Puzzle Agent by Telltale describes it as a "Puzzle Adventure" (and compares it to the likes of BTTF, Hector, Tales of MI, Sam n Max, etc).
I think the store itself categorizes under puzzle and/or adventure.
Anyone ever notice how the Zelda games often got classified as "role-playing" in game review magazines? When most fans would describe it as an action-adventure? But it still doesn't help that by common definition action-adventure is a combination of the adventure game genre with action elements (so it is a dilluted and hard to define genre as well).
Equally I can pick and choose a dozen websites, and reviews that call it an adventure game! Just Adventure, a well reknowned adventure webspite for example has at least two reviews that argue opposing views on it if it is an adventure or just a puzzle game!
http://www.justadventure.com/reviews/PuzzleAgent2/PA2.shtm
Nintendo often marketed Zelda as 'adventure games' (others marketed them as action-adventures or RPGs). This partly had to due that early action-adventures evolved out of the 'adventure game' market... Nintendo later caught on to calling them action-adventures IIRC.
The problem is even when 'adventures' were popular back in the 1980-1990's the definition was dilluted due to fact so many companies and developers tried to define what an 'adventure' was in their own ways. There was a purely console game definition for 'adventure', and there was a more pc-oriented definition as well. Infact, early on text-adventure companies generally classified their games as "Interactive fiction (IF)"!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_fiction
Both Castle and Dr. Brain and Island of Dr. Brain for example was marketed as a 'puzzle-adventure game' as well (long before Myst came out), and simply adventures back when they were made (in 1991/1992). They actually have the most common with newer Layton, and Puzzle Agent than anything that came later!
The store doesn't really give the genre on individual game pages. They appear when you choose the Games category on the front page, for those games that are listed there under things like "new and noteworthy" and "what's hot". Air Penguin is designated as "Adventure". Puzzle Agent is not currently on the front page, but the new Hector episode is classified as "Puzzle". The iOS App Store is the least reliable and least consistent game store/site/publication I know of when it comes to assigning genres. Air Penguin is not an anomaly -- all kinds of arcade games, platformers, even shooters and beat-em-ups get classified as "Adventure". This is something I noticed from the very first day the App Store opened.
No kidding. I never suggested otherwise.
There isn't currently any 'puzzle adventure category' in the store of course.
By the way Hector appears under the adventure game category and puzzle. Just keep clicking '25 more' option, to find it. But ya the apple specific categorization system is imprecise.
Also because of how the puzzles themselves are very different from most adventure games... with no inventory or anything like that, rather quite seperate and self contained puzzles spread about (though with some exceptions where many smaller puzzles are part of one bigger puzzle).
And of course the lack of characters that you mention.
Don't get me wrong though - I own and love all of them... well, I don't like Myst 5 all that much but it is a quality game... same goes for Uru, that is also a quality game but I'm not too fond of it... even tried playing that one online for a little while but still didn't like it much.
That was the end of ever using hints for me, after I did that in Riven I felt so bad about it and I'm naturally reminded of it every time I replay the game or whenever the game is brought up.
At least I finished the other games the 'honest' way, though it took me ages for some of them (Myst 4 has some really damn vague puzzles if you ask me).
Btw, have you finished the Amateria age in Exile yet? That's one of my favourite moments, out of all the games in the series... when you finish that age, you get such a great 'reward'.
The age I was stuck on the longest in Exile was probably the 'organic' one, where you're inside this giant tree or whatever it is... forgot the name of the age.
Anyway, one of the main reasons I had troubles with that particular age is how 'messy' the graphics are... if any part of any game could benefit greatly from 3D (the 3d glasses kind of 3D
It's so confusing at times.
Anyway, I've kept this thread off topic for long enough I guess, though the original topic has probably been discussed to death by now.
What do you think of Loom? That game had no inventory, and the puzzles were quite a bit different than most adventure games.
I have a feeling that Myst style games got tossed into adventure genre because of the exploration and narrative aspects of the game. It sort of has more in common with old text adventures that sometimes had just as maddening puzzles needed to progress. Zork Trilogy comes to mind.
Sierra even tried their hand at several Myst style adventures. Shivers, Rama, & Lughthouse. But they never caught on really.
I mean, there are three speaking characters in Myst. How many are required to qualify as an adventure game? 4? 5? 10? There isn't a whole lot of NPC dialog in King's Quest I either. While Myst has little narrative in the traditional sense, I think that the player's act of solving the puzzles -- and thereby discovering how the world and characters got into the state they're in -- is the narrative. Unusual, yes; unappealing to adventure fans looking for character development, of course; but it makes Myst far more different from a typical puzzle game than it is from the graphic adventures that came before it.
I really bristle at the idea that puzzle type can be used to distinguish adventure games from puzzle games, or that inventory is somehow a defining characteristic of adventure games. How could it ever be determined which types are ruled in and which types are ruled out? I've seen too many adventure gamers declaring this or that type of puzzle as illegitimate (eg. see all the threads here about dead-ends, and no fair letting me walk my character off a cliff) and we've ended up with adventure games that are so homogenized these days. I think that if any kind of puzzle is considered fair game in one genre, it's fair game in the other (as is any kind of story); it's how the puzzles are laid out for the player that makes the difference.
Besides, quite a few puzzles in Myst are solved by taking information, eg. a code or pattern, found in one part of the gameworld and applying it in another, which really isn't much different than taking an object from one location and using it elsewhere. The puzzle is in figuring out which bits, tangible or intangible, go where, so that the state of the gameworld is altered to produce a desired result. In effect, Myst does have an inventory -- it's kept in the player's brain cells rather than the character's pockets.
Myst's environmental and contraption puzzles might have been unlike any seen before, but isn't that a product of the graphics technology? it's not like no adventurer ever had to figure out how some device worked and make it do what he/she wanted through observation and experimentation. If LucasArts had used Myst-style graphics technology, wouldn't the orichalcum bead machine have looked a lot like a Myst-style puzzle? If you break down the logical components of the meta-puzzle on Selenitic, I don't think you'd find anything that had never been done before; Myst just put them together conceptually and spread them out physically in a more complex way, as the graphics technology allowed it to do.
Lumping Myst in with games in which puzzles are self-contained on single screens, where there's no element of exploration, rather than the same category as Fate of Atlantis, just doesn't seem reasonable to me.