Is this even the right name for the genre?

[Urinate]

Really just a video effect, though.  A lot of the time those things actually detract from game play.  You look at the most popular game right now and it's WOW using directX7 technology.  The most popular adventure game of the year is probably Sam and Max which uses a more abstract type of world.  I think it could be done and you could make a good adventure with it, but I don't at all think it's a requirement or would make up for bad writing or poorly designed game play.

I hope I didn't come across as someone who thinks technology can make up for bad design... Hell, some of the best games I've played have been board games. In no way do I consider anything to be a requirement.

[Kickaha]

This is a busy thread, and an important one, but by the time I can post on it the train seems to almost have left the station.

Yes - "Adventure game" isn't using "Adventure" in the same sense as "Adventure film" does so is going to confuse.  The packaging for what Adventure games still appear on the shop shelves is often misleading.  I wouldn't vote to try using a different name though.

There are casual games around which are Adventure games in all but name.  Some of the casual game sites seem to avoid using Adventure game as a term (preferring big game or something like that.)

There's room for the genre to develop in several directions.  Physics is one possibility.  I've just watched a great Japanese film called "Mushishi" which is supernatural themed yet has no real action in it.  One could do a neat game on it which would be all dialogue puzzles.  If the dialogue and story are good I don't think arcade sequences or immersive 3D physics are needed.

[ad7venture]

If the dialogue and story are good I don't think arcade sequences or immersive 3D physics are needed.

That's the thing about games, they can go in just about any direction and be successful.  They have to be entertaining.  That's the one and only rule.  I was going to do a game with only dialog puzzles in it once a while back and I made it through one puzzle.  It was tough.  Dialog really doesn't make a good puzzle environment.  I'm sure someone more skilled than me could do it.   Inventory puzzles have been abused to the hilt, but they're still the bread and butter of adventure games.  I always liked the way Broken Sword 1 used inventory in combination with dialog.

[Squinky]

Although I love solving physics-based puzzles (see games like Armadillo Run, for example), I'm not particularly interested in making any of them myself.

I do, however, love writing dialogue puzzles (if you can really call them that). They're far less straightforward than inventory puzzles, but they're more tied to character development through gameplay, which I think has far better storytelling potential.

[ad7venture]

I'm interested in seeing how your games continue to evolve.  I'm kind of so-so on the way dialog has taken such a large role in them, but it is an interesting direction.  I guess the trick is conveying interactivity.  I always feel like I'm taking a multiple choice test in game dialog.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

I've often found dialog puzzles to be too confusing, as they limit your choices to stuff that may all seem "odd." I've had multiple ideas for new dialog systems, which I may share at some point later, but I think with the current "choose your answer/question" system, it really breaks up the game play too much.

[ad7venture]

Although I love solving physics-based puzzles (see games like Armadillo Run, for example), I'm not particularly interested in making any of them myself.

I'm not capable of making a game like Armadillo Run.  It looks fancy with all the cloth effects etc.  I'm more of a Free Cell type puzzler I guess.  I'll have to try it some more, though.  Puzzles just need to have properties that need to be arranged in order for me to enjoy them.  Inventory puzzles tend to not do that because authors take the much simpler key/door approach.  I do it myself, but it's pretty boring if that's the only type of puzzle in a game.
I don't know what it is about me and puzzles.  I don't play role play games or action games because there aren't enough puzzles in them.  I'll play one for a little while but I lose interest right away.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

I've mentioned it in the past, but I was wondering if anyone else has played Neverwinter Nights? It had a good number of puzzles and also dialog puzzles which I actually found I could deal with. Though there is a LOT of fighting, I always found that they managed to place puzzles and such as reasonable breaks.

Hmm... I'd like to hear what peoples definitions of a "good" amount of puzzles is.

[ad7venture]

Neverwinter Nights didn't have enough for me.  It's one of the only roleplaying games I've bought since Morrowind, which I didn't finish either.  I played Morrowind quite a bit longer than Neverwinter nights.  Too many fights.  The fights didn't contain enough strategy.   Not enough puzzles.  It was fun for a while till it started feeling like the same old grind.  Role playing games should have never dropped turn based fighting.  Did that one have turn based fighting?  I can't remember now.  I never finish the turn based fighting role playing games either, but I think the fights are more fun.  Those games must be a paranoids fears come true, because just about everyone is literally out to get you.  Trading up for better gear is tedious and the NPC's just get stronger to compensate for your better weapons.  Doesn't anyone notice that?  It's like the game is playing this joke on you.  "That idiot thinks he's better off!   Put on your better armor boys." They should actually be increasing the level of strategy needed to win a fight.  I won't waste my money buying another role playing game.  A little bit of trading would be interesting, but they turn it into this chore so you feel like your going to work.
The puzzle thing is really strong with me so I'm not good example.  The only board game I'll play with people is scrabble.  The other ones I feel like a chained animal after while.

[Urinate]

The only board game I'll play with people is scrabble.  The other ones I feel like a chained animal after while.

Is that because you haven't played any good ones or because you don't like feeling like you can't just stop the game because others are playing too? If you haven't played any good ones I could recommend a few, not adventure or or puzzle mind you because I haven't actually found any like that yet. There are some great cooperative games out there though (you seem like the type who would enjoy cooperative rather than competitive gameplay) and of course there are tons of strategy games etc.

If nothing else since you have an interest in design I think you (and everyone else here for that matter) should probably study board games, and try your hand at making your own. Its a great way of testing ideas. If you can make something fun in an analog format then it can probably be transfered to digital and be fun. There is really very little limitation to what can be done with analog systems. I have a friend who even made a first person shooter, which I enjoyed and I don't like first person shooters.

They are a great way to learn about game design because if you don't like the way something plays you can change it right then rather then having to redo code/art/whatever to try out something new.

[ad7venture]

Is that because you haven't played any good ones or because you don't like feeling like you can't just stop the game because others are playing too?

It's because I feel like I can't just stop until the game is over.

If nothing else since you have an interest in design I think you (and everyone else here for that matter) should probably study board games, and try your hand at making your own. Its a great way of testing ideas. If you can make something fun in an analog format then it can probably be transfered to digital and be fun. There is really very little limitation to what can be done with analog systems. I have a friend who even made a first person shooter, which I enjoyed and I don't like first person shooters.

I think that's a great idea.  I believe abstraction is the key to good game design, and a board game has to be done in a very abstract way.  I do things close to that when I design puzzles.  Lately it's been with a vector type program, but it's just circles and arrows and text boxes.  Vector programs are nice because you can group objects and move them around with the mouse.  They also look neat instead of a messy sketch.  I have a feeling the 20 dollar Gamemaker would be a good game design tool, also.  I haven't looked at it yet, but there are a lot of novices making pretty good games with it which means it's probably pretty fast for realizing ideas.  I'm kind of focused on learning Java, although I've done java programming in the past, but I need to go back over it a bit, and JPCT, so I'm playing around with a little game as a learning tool.  After that, it's back to abstractions.  I think I'll always be a hopeless puzzle game player and nothing more.

[Urinate]

It's because I feel like I can't just stop until the game is over.

Hehe... I can understand that, but I also assume this means you haven't played games that really make you want to play until they are over. I'm going to be playing a game next week that we have set aside 3 full days to play. It will be the 4th full game of it I play. The first time we tried to play straight through and it took us about 20 hours. The next two we played just a few hours per week and left it set up.

[Kickaha]

At times I feel like a hopeless Adventure gamer as well - I'm just about to reach for a cheat right at the start of "Nostradamus".

(Sometimes I try to analyse why I needed cheats.  I do come to the conclusion for many games that despite lovely graphics, or great dialogue, the inmates are running the asylum.  If the player experience was improved Adventure games might flourish again.)

In a game it's as interesting for me to explore people as it is to explore geography.  I liked "Temujin" for the way you explore the character you play, while appalled by the game interface itself.  Dialogue driven games would potentially not be yes / no type of affairs, but a warm fuzziness (of logic.)

[ShadeJackrabbit]

(Sometimes I try to analyse why I needed cheats.  I do come to the conclusion for many games that despite lovely graphics, or great dialogue, the inmates are running the asylum.  If the player experience was improved Adventure games might flourish again.)

I think a lot of developers are running out of great ideas, and don't want to re-use puzzles, for fear of the "done it before, let's move on" syndrome.

Recently, I got pulled into making a game with a friend of mine (I don't even know how, but suddenly we're making it) in which I'm planning some out-of-the-ordinary features, such as using different sets of verbs. (Scan, for example.) The interesting thing is, each time I think about making an adventure game, I feel like I should take a page from GURPS and use some of it's rules. Of course, GURPS is a "board-game" in some people's minds, so the abstract stuff is there in a way. I think board games are a great way of investigating new ideas quickly and interactively.

[ad7venture]

in which I'm planning some out-of-the-ordinary features, such as using different sets of verbs.

I tried that once and it went over terribly.  People couldn't solve even the simplest of puzzles.  I've pretty much abandoned verbs altogether.  They are mostly a barrier between the player and the world.  If you click on a person it's pretty obvious you want to talk to them.  If you click on an object you either want to observe it or pick it up.  I think the game should be intuitive and give the player puzzles, not selection choices.  That doesn't mean your idea won't work.  More verbs just didn't work out for me.