In my attempt to create a graphic adventure game with a new game mechanics, I interviewed some game developers that are working all their life on the creation of graphic adventure games. Those developers have been dealing with the problems of this genre since years. What do they feel about today state of the graphic adventure game and how do they see the next step of its evolution?
Joshua Nuernberger is the young developer from USA. He is now famous for creation of the acclaimed point’n’click adventure game «Gemini Rue». The game was released in 2011, winning one year before an Independent Games Festival Student Showcase Award. It also was well received by the critics, winning the PCGamer’s Adventure Game of the Year.
Why have you decided to create an adventure game rather than selecting other more popular genre?
Adventure games were the genre that inspired me to create games; also, it is easier to develop more single-handedly than other genres, such as RPGs, strategy games, FPSs, etc, partly due to the assets and also due to the inherent simplicity of adventure games -- they are relatively linear and focused in scope in contrast to other genres.
In the last decades the graphic adventure games evolved not so much as other game genre. Why do you think that happened?
Graphic adventure games are more story focused, so the interaction mainly focuses on progressing through the story -- the evolution of the genre seemed to have capped as the interaction element of adventure games became more and more refined as interfaces simplified interactions down to more binary options: e.g. one click: look at; double click: use. In essence, game interactions are all about experience -- what type of experience you want to give the player. For adventure games this stems on progressing through the story (for the most part) so any hindrance to that progression should, in essence, be simplified. For other genres, the emphasis may be on empowerment (FPS), god-like decision making (Strategy games), or simulation. So, adventure games at their core don’t have the drive to be as evolved as other genres, since the emphasis is not on any particular form of interaction but rather on the nature of the story itself.
How can we fix that problem?
To ‘fix’ it, the problem--or goal--of what needs to be fixed needs to be defined: what type of experience do you want to give the player or what is the goal of evolving the genre? One interesting approach you see in games such as «Kentucky Route Zero» is not on the mechanics of the game being evolved, i.e. the interactions between the player and the game themselves, but rather the translations of those actions are evolved by being brought to the forefront in new and interesting ways. The focus of «Kentucky Route Zero», in my estimation, is not specifically on the story, but how the story is presented through the many different lenses and stylistic methods the game uses to tell the story. The game employs 3rd person narration, 2nd person narration (If I recall correctly), full-on text, isometric camera angles, 2d-style camera angles, and constantly shifting forms of narrative devices that push the ‘storytelling’ to the forefront more so than the ‘story’ itself. In that sense, perhaps the interaction of the game is not evolving per se, but the means through which that interaction is presented to the user; that would be one example of how to evolve the genre.
Can you define the positive and negative aspects of the Graphic Adventure Games?
Positively, the genre focuses more on experience perhaps rather than other genres, which may emphasize game mechanics. This focus may immerse the player more into the genre than others. Negatively, the core focus on story may give way to more ‘uninteresting’ experiences. In the end, in any genre, whatever experience you want to give the player inherently comes with certain interactive elements -- if you are a detective, this comes with clue-finding, evidence, interrogation, etc. However, if you are playing a white-collar office worker, the interactions may be somewhat limited compared to being an undercover soldier going behind enemy lines -- not to say that the interactions of a white-collar office worker could not be translated into an interesting gaming experience. Other genres may inherently present more interesting experiences due to the obligatory nature of their interactions: shooting, flying planes, building cities, etc. Adventure games don’t always have that taken for granted.
How you see the possible evolution of this genre?
I really like what Kentucky Route Zero is doing, as well as other games such as «Thirty Flights of Loving» (perhaps not an adventure game per see - maybe a 1st person adventure game). With those games, the emphasis is not on refining existing adventure game mechanics, but exploring different ways of storytelling within the storytelling framework -- focusing foremost on the experience and then using the game mechanics to support that -- not vice versa which seems to be what many of the games of the 90s have done: first coming up with the mechanics (or sticking to an already established set of rules) and then belaboring with those mechanics to tell a story instead of exploring the nature of the storytelling itself first. So, a possible way of evolution would be an emphasis not on traditional ways of pushing forward what exists (i.e. the existing adventure game tropes), but rather of changing goals: what do I want out of an adventure game experience? What are other ways to immerse the player and tell stories that haven’t been done before? And how can the gameplay support that, rather than exist in its own archaic, disconnected way? I feel like you see that with games such as «Kentucky Route Zero» and «Thirty Flights of Loving» that take more unorthodox approaches to storytelling and interactive experiences rather than sticking to an established set of hierarchal interactions.
Interview with Joshua Nuernberger
Joshua Nuernberger is the young developer from USA. He is now famous for creation of the acclaimed point’n’click adventure game «Gemini Rue». The game was released in 2011, winning one year before an Independent Games Festival Student Showcase Award. It also was well received by the critics, winning the PCGamer’s Adventure Game of the Year.
Why have you decided to create an adventure game rather than selecting other more popular genre?
Adventure games were the genre that inspired me to create games; also, it is easier to develop more single-handedly than other genres, such as RPGs, strategy games, FPSs, etc, partly due to the assets and also due to the inherent simplicity of adventure games -- they are relatively linear and focused in scope in contrast to other genres.
In the last decades the graphic adventure games evolved not so much as other game genre. Why do you think that happened?
Graphic adventure games are more story focused, so the interaction mainly focuses on progressing through the story -- the evolution of the genre seemed to have capped as the interaction element of adventure games became more and more refined as interfaces simplified interactions down to more binary options: e.g. one click: look at; double click: use. In essence, game interactions are all about experience -- what type of experience you want to give the player. For adventure games this stems on progressing through the story (for the most part) so any hindrance to that progression should, in essence, be simplified. For other genres, the emphasis may be on empowerment (FPS), god-like decision making (Strategy games), or simulation. So, adventure games at their core don’t have the drive to be as evolved as other genres, since the emphasis is not on any particular form of interaction but rather on the nature of the story itself.
How can we fix that problem?
To ‘fix’ it, the problem--or goal--of what needs to be fixed needs to be defined: what type of experience do you want to give the player or what is the goal of evolving the genre? One interesting approach you see in games such as «Kentucky Route Zero» is not on the mechanics of the game being evolved, i.e. the interactions between the player and the game themselves, but rather the translations of those actions are evolved by being brought to the forefront in new and interesting ways. The focus of «Kentucky Route Zero», in my estimation, is not specifically on the story, but how the story is presented through the many different lenses and stylistic methods the game uses to tell the story. The game employs 3rd person narration, 2nd person narration (If I recall correctly), full-on text, isometric camera angles, 2d-style camera angles, and constantly shifting forms of narrative devices that push the ‘storytelling’ to the forefront more so than the ‘story’ itself. In that sense, perhaps the interaction of the game is not evolving per se, but the means through which that interaction is presented to the user; that would be one example of how to evolve the genre.
Can you define the positive and negative aspects of the Graphic Adventure Games?
Positively, the genre focuses more on experience perhaps rather than other genres, which may emphasize game mechanics. This focus may immerse the player more into the genre than others. Negatively, the core focus on story may give way to more ‘uninteresting’ experiences. In the end, in any genre, whatever experience you want to give the player inherently comes with certain interactive elements -- if you are a detective, this comes with clue-finding, evidence, interrogation, etc. However, if you are playing a white-collar office worker, the interactions may be somewhat limited compared to being an undercover soldier going behind enemy lines -- not to say that the interactions of a white-collar office worker could not be translated into an interesting gaming experience. Other genres may inherently present more interesting experiences due to the obligatory nature of their interactions: shooting, flying planes, building cities, etc. Adventure games don’t always have that taken for granted.
How you see the possible evolution of this genre?
I really like what Kentucky Route Zero is doing, as well as other games such as «Thirty Flights of Loving» (perhaps not an adventure game per see - maybe a 1st person adventure game). With those games, the emphasis is not on refining existing adventure game mechanics, but exploring different ways of storytelling within the storytelling framework -- focusing foremost on the experience and then using the game mechanics to support that -- not vice versa which seems to be what many of the games of the 90s have done: first coming up with the mechanics (or sticking to an already established set of rules) and then belaboring with those mechanics to tell a story instead of exploring the nature of the storytelling itself first. So, a possible way of evolution would be an emphasis not on traditional ways of pushing forward what exists (i.e. the existing adventure game tropes), but rather of changing goals: what do I want out of an adventure game experience? What are other ways to immerse the player and tell stories that haven’t been done before? And how can the gameplay support that, rather than exist in its own archaic, disconnected way? I feel like you see that with games such as «Kentucky Route Zero» and «Thirty Flights of Loving» that take more unorthodox approaches to storytelling and interactive experiences rather than sticking to an established set of hierarchal interactions.
No comments:
Post a Comment