This took me hours to write (edit: and what I'm saying still feels vague and incoherent), but I enjoyed it. Made me do some thinking and I had to develop my ideas a few times in the process. Among the very earliest video games on the 2600 were Adventure and descendants thereof(Indiana Jones, Superman, and even Pitfall for example) where the game was mainly a matter of moving around and picking up items in a symbolic fashion on the 2d plane, with little or no text and no more than a minimum of fighting as the control scheme allowed. Then there were, of course, also shooting games. But if we look at the most heralded beginnings of modern 3d games with Wolf3d and Doom, we see only the shooters. Where had the equivalent Adventure-based games gone? One thing that clouds this view is that 3d has existed for a very long time, but expanded outwards from a very limited niche in space sims and flight sims(not counting the faked 3d of games like Bard's Tale, Aklabeth, Ultimas 1-5 and Wizardry, which had perspective but not function) to include indoors and ground level perspectives as technology allowed it. The closest representatives I've found predate both Wolf3d and Doom - the Freescape engine games(Driller, Total Eclipse, Castle Master, 3d Construction Kit...) and Mercenary: Escape from Targ (and sequels). Both include action elements, and are a small step up from the 3d of Star Raiders and Elite. Ultima Underworld 1 and 2 also deserve mention, as they are unique as the sole two games that descend from the Freescape-style gameplay line(explore area, avoid traps, pick up objects, manipulate switches, defeat occasional enemies via shooting, beat time limit(s) - UU adds extra player statistics, inventory, automapping and conversations besides the graphical improvements). I don't know if it was chance or not that they ended up bearing such similarities, but they exist all the same. Of course, what grabbed all the attention were the shooters, and since then it's always been the "First-Person Shooter" genre. 3d adventure games since have often worked off either shooter concepts or 3rd-person platform concepts. The reason, as far as I can tell, is that such games weren't made after a while for the same reasons that they weren't made in 2d in the equivalent style after some time - technology and standards had advanced enough that players wanted something more than just moving around and collecting objects with some obstacles and time limits, but not enough that a developer could do it without lots of time and a good team - Zelda is like Ultima Underworld in that it makes that leap, and successfully, but the number of games that copy the Zelda format, like the number of games that copy the UU format, are really relatively few in number compared to how many games have copied Doom or Mario or Space Invaders. Even today, this remains true, though I would say less so. My only guess as to why that is is that they're hard to make and hard to pitch to publishers. Anyone else have a guess as to why this happened? [edited by - RTF on April 6, 2003 2:20:14 AM]

I''d have to go with the hard to make - an FPS can, to a reasonable extent, rest on its engine - provided you can run around and shoot things, the level design, while important, is very much secondary (whether it should be is a whole other issue)

For an adventure game, the interface is generally less important than the puzzles (though a number of the puzzles will typically depend on the interface) and the standard first person 3D engine doesn''t offer the range of control needed for puzzle solving - movement commands and "use item" - in some cases also "drop item", and a small number of special abilities (eg, flashlight)

Even in N64 Zelda, the puzzles tended to be very much on the lines of look around - oh, look, there''s a hookshot target/unlit torch/triforce symbol on the floor/eye switch/switch crystal etc. - use the indicated item in the indicated fashion.

There is an indie adventure game culture archived here that has been churning out "interactive fiction" since at least the mid nineties (quality varies, but there are recommendations available if you browse the site).

Even 2D point''n''click adventures suffered from having a rather limited verb list.

not only are great adventure games in stunning 3d harder to make than FPS, since the engine needs to support deeper interaction ... and harder to think up ... since they have to ADD something fun ... but they take HUGE loads of artwork ... just think of the direction gone by Myst with it''s prerendered scenes (and Journeyman Project)...

Just a hunch, but I am guessing it is a combination of the demand for such titles and the cost to develop them.

You are right in stating that these games are expensive to develop, but so are most games these days. AAA titles generally run in the 3 to 15 million dollar range. Now, to justify that cost, you need to sell over a million copies of the title.

I think while the demand didn''t keep up with production costs, this genre merged into others. Console action games for instance frequently hold some of the same mechanics. Additionally, I think there were a few adventure games released for PCs (don''t remember the titles off hand) last year.

It''s nice to know there are some people who may be able to grasp the idea behind Nightmare Funpark, another of my designs which is based solely on adventuring through a gauntlet of obsticals in order to live to the next area!

The story itself bases the players in a horror filled amusement park complete with killer clowns, deadly rides, and a slew of trap filled areas throughout the park in an attempt to make it out alive! Taking advantage of 3D movement, the player can do all sorts of manuvering in order to avoid traps, leap ravines, and escape enemies, all while racing and battling for speed against fellow players.

Of course, it''s not always action. Puzzles which involve trickery and deception will also mess with players'' heads and the clowns which want only your blood and flesh will pit you up against the strangest of situations, even going so far as to seek your help in obtaining ''food'' by offering free passes in return for slain adversaries!

But, of course, you are limited in your defenses! Though it might come off as similar in design to a FPS game, there is indeed no shooting involved (well, at least on the players'' sides of things!). Instead, you have the abilities to shove, push, and trip fellow competitors in an attempt to save your own ass!

There will also be the rare power-ups and items which can either help or hinder your ability to avoid death.

And did I mention the graphicly intensive, vomit inducing rides which will attempt to tear you to shreads?!

I''m also hoping to take advantage of a new simulated CB system which will make it ideal to team up in your efforts with friends in order to help each other (or foil their efforts)!

All this includes a non-cartoony environment as well with tons of realistic gore that will have bodies getting smashed, stabbed, split open, fried, scorched, and utterly turned into hamburger fit for a clown sized happy-meal!

Don''t forget to try the Red ''n Buttery Popcorn during your visit!

- Christopher Dapo ~ Ronixus

The posters above though..Ronixus...had a point. Do you have the engine to support it? 3D RPG Engines...FPS Engines...etc..all are fairly limited in their interaction with the world. The FPS interaction is obvious: Shoot things, pick up keys and other stuff, and open doors. That''s about it. RPGs are about the same with more actions..pick up more stuff. To write an adventure puzzle game engine would be a ton more difficult...since you have to deal with interaction that may go far beyond point and click.


Gamedev for learning.
libGDN for putting it all together.
An opensource, cross platform, cross API game development library.

It might be possible to get some stock interactions going, involving the 3D map setup to keep it integrated. Pressing a panel or button, placing an object in a receptacle, etc. and just keep adding to them. Set it up so you can attach triggers that drive the failure or success of an action.

What other kinds of stock actions would be necessary?

[edited by - Waverider on April 6, 2003 9:35:04 AM]

Some good questions with some simple answers!

First off, like Waverider pointed out, some simple object interaction with the use of stock components can be used with triggered events. One thing easily recognized as being interactively easy is taking a look at how doors work. They can restrict movement as well as connect areas, animate, take advantage of special actions like using keys or being blown open, and, like Duke Nukem included, possibly squash a player! Simple collision properties tied in with triggered events can make all the difference!

What about lava pit''s and typical traps like spikes? Don''t we see these in games already? Even 3D FPS games! So I don''t see what would be anything too difficult.

Now, as for the engine to drive the game, I''ve already seen how many of these things can be done in Torque and I''ve played with DarkBASIC myself so I think it''s very feasible

Now, about control, a simple mouse and keypad control scheme would work great (IMO) in representing the available movements and actions a player may need to do effectively as well as smoothly. Mouse controls direction faced while forward, reverse, and straffing are done on the keypad or arrow keys, then mouse buttons and some extra movement/action keys for performing other actions such as ducking, rolling, dodging, jumping, and tripping people up as well as a use object/open door key is all that would be needed

The biggest problem I see involves detailing the artwork and making some decent animation then worrying about the constriction that MMO Games need to take care of and that''s about it!

Any questions?

- Chris

I read your post, and I still don''t quite get what you''re saying. I understand that the games you mention have something that you like and see missing from a lot of modern games, but I can''t figure out what this missing element is.

quote: Original post by RTF
Among the very earliest video games on the 2600 were Adventure and descendants thereof(Indiana Jones, Superman, and even Pitfall for example) where the game was mainly a matter of moving around and picking up items in a symbolic fashion on the 2d plane, with little or no text and no more than a minimum of fighting as the control scheme allowed.

Adventure - that''s the one with the colored castles, right? Player had to get keys to open the castles, wandered around in a few mazes. There were three dragons which could kill the player and the player had a sword (shaped like an arrow) that could kill the dragons. A fun game, but nothing at all like

Pitfall - player moved primarily left and right, only up and down at ladders. There was a timer/treasure counter. Gameplay was player dexterity and reflexes; the treasure hunter jumped over pits, swung from vines, etc. No combat, critters were strictly avoided. Fun, if difficult game.

Indiana Jones had free movement on a 2d plane (mostly). Some searching of chests, using objects at particular locations. Critters could kill or be killed (snakes, man in black). Some timing puzzles too (parachuting successfully, avoiding the thieves in the mesa). So it was something like Adventure, not much like Pitfall.

I don''t see the common thread.

quote:
Then there were, of course, also shooting games.

But if we look at the most heralded beginnings of modern 3d games with Wolf3d and Doom, we see only the shooters. Where had the equivalent Adventure-based games gone?

The obvious 3d version of Pitfall is Tomb Raider.

But here is where I get confused again. You seem to say the thing you don''t like is a focus on killing. But Adventure had killing. Indiana Jones some (optional), and Pitfall none.

So maybe it''s just shooting you don''t like? But no, you later approve of Ultima Underworld which has "defeat of occasional enemies by shooting."

So.. some shooting is ok, as long as the game focus is on exploration? I''m just not getting it.

And there are plenty of 3d action-adventure games. They tend to blur on the edges into the shooter category, but I don''t know how much shooting is acceptable to you. Patial list: Tomb Raider, Outcast, Omikron, Prince of Persia, those games with the vampire Kain, etc. I imagine there are alot more on the console systems.

But then you say:

quote:
3d adventure games since have often worked off either shooter concepts or 3rd-person platform concepts.

Which seems to rule out platformer based games (which would include Tomb Raider, or at least portions of it). But don''t the 3rd person platformers descend from the 2d platformers like ... Pitfall? So I''m still confused.

If all you''re looking for is "moving around and collecting objects with some obstacles and time limits," then why not play some puzzle games that do this? Try Stockboy from www.Dexterity.com or similar.

Or does all this just boil down to nostalgia, when video games were new to you and each one was a discovery?

Confused

quote: Original post by CpMan
The posters above though..Ronixus...had a point. Do you have the engine to support it? 3D RPG Engines...FPS Engines...etc..all are fairly limited in their interaction with the world. The FPS interaction is obvious: Shoot things, pick up keys and other stuff, and open doors. That''s about it. RPGs are about the same with more actions..pick up more stuff. To write an adventure puzzle game engine would be a ton more difficult...since you have to deal with interaction that may go far beyond point and click.

None of the adventure games I''ve played - descendants of the old text adventures which ran on simple computers - involve much more than moving around, picking stuff up, and using that stuff to manipulate other objects. So how is that so different from the "point and click" interaction you speak of, especially when adventure games in the style of Indiana Jones were very much typical examples of point and click interaction? I see nothing about interaction in adventure games that would make them "a ton more difficult" to make.

Action/adventure games like Pitfall are also not that complicated, and they''re still being made these days despite that their modern incarnations, as in Jak and Daxter, call for advanced outdoor-engine features.