Interesting and amusing read. Of course Ron Gilbert is a well-known authority on Adventure Games, but the original Old Man Murray article is even better (and funnier). In case anyone hasn't read it yet: "Who Killed Adventure Games?" http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/77.html
(As an amusing aside, point-and-click adventure games were considered to be for "clever" gamers in 90s Spain and Latin America; gamers who mocked action games as simplistic. But there was nothing "clever" or "cerebral" about most adventure games; they were mostly arbitrary and nonsensical. And fun, of course!)
Before I read the Old Man Murray article I was already frustrated with (some) adventure games, even though I absolutely loved the Space Quest series (the original, 16 colors and text input!), and of course Interactive Fiction (aka text adventures). IF games in particular had something of a rennaissance some years (or decades?) ago and they evolved into something way more complex and with better UX than what we remember from the old Zork days.
"If I could have my way, I'd design games that were meant to be played in four to five hours. The games would be of the same scope that I currently design, I'd just remove the silly time-wasting puzzles and take the player for an intense ride. The experience they would leave with would be much more entertaining and a lot less frustrating. The games would still be challenging, but not at the expense of the players patience."
looks at her unfinished copy of Thimbleweed Park (Ron Gilbert et al, 2014)
I couldn't go past the first few scenes of Thimbleweed Park either. I think I would have loved it when I was a teenager, but the point-and-click genre is just not for me anymore. (Also, and I know this is heresy, I couldn't finish the much lauded Psychonauts back then either). I think I simply had more patience for this kind of games when I was younger.
I'm more willing to give experimental Interactive Fiction a go though. Some real gems there.
edit: also, and this is stretching the "adventure" definition, I absolutely loved "The Return of the Obra Dinn" by Papers Please author Lukas Pope. I loved that game. At this point I'll play anything made by Pope, that's how much I trust the guy.
I haven’t seen a good analysis of it yet, but has anyone seen a list of “Guidelines for creating a good/entertaining ‘Troll’ Game” (e.g. IWTBTG, most Mario Maker levels, etc.)?
It seems like such a guide would almost be an inversion of some of the principles in this guide: in troll games, you tend to learn only by dying; the puzzles always require things you forgot in the previous room, and you can’t go back, so you must commit in-game suicide to try again; etc.
And yet, given that these guidelines are for the sake of making an entertaining game, how does inverting them then also make for an entertaining game?
Can troll games even be entertaining without the context of having played good games that do follow these rules? It seems like having a mental model of these sorts of guidelines from previous gameplay, allows the player to predict a sort of meta for how things like puzzles should work; and only in that context would an inversion of good design principles carry a comedic punchline.
I guess it’s similar to the question: can you create satire that makes sense without knowing what it’s satirizing?
I'm sure it's possible to make an original troll game (never bet on an artistic idea being impossible), but it certainly seems to make it harder. I've noticed that when the Mario Maker troll community tries to make Super Mario World trolls instead, it's just not as funny. The hacking tools for SMW allow vastly more freedom than MM's editor, since you can always patch the game's code. The decrease in quality might be from a lack of restraint, but I think the element of fair play that MM has is important as well. Everything in MM behaves the way it was programmed by non-trolls (more, Nintendo seems actively anti-troll), so every subversion comes from the level maker showing that they know something about how the game works that the player doesn't.
The IWBTG maker has a rarely updated blog in which he talks about game design in stuff he has played or made which I enjoy. Maybe check this out? This post seems relevant.
> It seems like such a guide would almost be an inversion of some of the principles in this guide: in troll games, you tend to learn only by dying; the puzzles always require things you forgot in the previous room, and you can’t go back
This guide exists because the inversion was the norm. Especially true of Sierra games, somewhat less true of LucasArts.
Leisure Suit Larry is a prime example of trolling. You die a myriad number of quite humorous ways in order to solve the puzzles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rrh_YBZBC0
> can you create satire that makes sense without knowing what it’s satirizing?
Looking at IWTBTG, I'm sensing the satire is in the game mechanics. Adventure games don't really work that way. They don't have physics or action like Mario, that you could poke fun of. Adventure games work with mouse hovering, clicking, and typing simple phrases. Those mechanics don't really lend themselves to satire, because the game is not really about the mechanics. It's about the logic of puzzles. Which, as Leisure Suit Larry, Kings Quest, etc. all show, satire in adventure games has existed since nearly the beginning. However, even back then the satire was quite meta and self-referential. Take, for example, the Boss Key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_key):
> The first few games in Sierra's Leisure Suit Larry series included a boss key in the pulldown menus (shortcut usually Ctrl+B). However, when this is used, it results in an instantaneous game over with the first game saying "Sorry, but you'll have to restore your game; when you panic, I forget everything!"
Perhaps a better example of this sort of meta-level of messing with adventure game mechanics is the game Eternal Darkness, on the GameCube. They developed this mechanism of a "Sanity meter" and certain effects would occur if your sanity dropped to a certain level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Darkness
> While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effects such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Eternal Darkness was not satire, though. They were playing it straight, and when a popup appears telling you to reconnect the GameCube controller, you would really check it and then start questioning your own sanity.
I finished Grim Fandango because it is a wonderful, beautiful, heart-breaking game. Still dear to my heart. But let me be honest, I looked up most of the solutions. I don't have a sense for the weird solutions to a good chunk of the problems. Often I don't even know what is the problem.
I purchased the HD remake of the game on Steam in 2015 to experience it once again. Just followed the solutions. It was much like watching a movie (a very good one).
I remember I once played a Broken Sword game (I believe it was The Sleeping Dragon) and that was an exception in that it was super easy to solve. Disappointingly easy :-)
I haven't tried it, but there's a website where you can get hints for these adventure games, if you don't just want to follow a walkthrough. You've reminded me I need to give another shot at Grim Fandango. http://www.uhs-hints.com/uhsweb/grimfand.php
I so desperately want to like adventure games. I love the visual styles, I love the storytelling opportunities, but the idea of being defeated by an opaque puzzle infuriates me.
try monkey island.
they may be complex puzzles (and at least in the monkeywrench puzzle even opaque for me as an italian kid with no idea of the word "monkeywrench") but at least they are funny :D
Try the walking games, like Firewatch, Gone Home, Ethan Carter, Edith Finch, Dear Esther? Dour though.
Revolution (Broken Sword, etc) tend to have fewer puzzles outside the context of the story than Lucas Arts (Monkey Island, etc).
Some of the modern groups have built some really good stuff. Try Resonance for a great brain fry, or Technobabylon, Gemini Rue, Shardlight, Cathy Rain for lighter noggin usage. IIRC telltales Sam and Max had fun story and humour while light on puzzles.
adventuregamers.com has a large library of reviews with a general scoring and som "good" and "bad" points. I've found their taste to be relevant enough to look at, while figuring out which good/bad to look for or avoid respectively.
There did seem to be a huge gap for many years in the existence of good adventure games. I have fond memories of many ones from yesteryear, but then it largely felt that anything that was out was pretty boring or just trying to copy them.
And last week I started playing Disco Elysium, and it's everything I ever wanted from something like an adventure/rpg and more.
I was going to say exactly the same about Disco Elysium. While classed as an RPG, I'd say it's more of an adventure game disguised as an RPG. The game is just point and click, talk to people, interact with the world, and solve puzzles. The leveling up mechanic makes it much more interesting to play, but it's not really the core gameplay
Adventure games are still not dead! Amanita Designs is making some of the finest games around - in particular, their masterpiece Machinarium. Anyone who even has a passing interest in adventure/point and click games owes themselves the pleasure of playing it. Sublime music and art, a lovely wordless story, interesting setting and characters, and well-designed puzzles.
That is now abandoned and left to bitrot. I don't know, whether they were expecting that people will purchase it again, but for me the effect was, that I won't touch anything made by them again.
Sierra adventure games were my favorite single-player games from my childhood. I understand why a lot of people don't like them, e.g. many of the puzzles have nonsensical solutions, it's possible to get stuck because you didn't get an item in an area that you can't return to, etc. And the games haven't really aged well. But for the time they were my favorite.
The two I played were the first Leisure Suit Larry which was so funny, and the first Police Quest which I really loved but never finished. I ended up watching a playthrough of PQ on youtube. I think the designer was a former CA city cop and was very intent on the developers designing the following of police procedures to the tee e.g. if you forgot your gun somewhere the game ends/have to start back at last save point.
> There is nothing more frustrating than solving pointless puzzle after pointless puzzle. Each puzzle solved should bring the player closer to understanding the story and game.
A friend of mine was recently complaining about how adventure games and even rpgs (in both video and board game formats) lack significant character development, even the best ones with great worlds and stories. I don't personally have enough experience to have an opinion, but I thought it was interesting that the relevant guideline here shows exactly that: it mentions "story" but not "character". (I'm not sure what is meant here by "game"). Maybe my friend is not wrong.
Interesting, I feel like the Author is describing what a well done Visual Novel does in their critics of the whole Adventure Game Genre. To summarize lazily: "remove the stupid puzzles and just take the reader on a wild ride for a couple of hours"
Maybe they kinda predicted YUNO and the whole VN explosion in Japan that came soon after their article was published. Or a least the reason why the demand was there.
Granted, these games still cost 40+ bucks and deliver 20+ hours of gameplay, which differs from the vision the Author outlined. But that seems to be because the extra effort does lead to better returns (and maybe that consumers want 20+ hour games), so it's a good thing.
Tangential question, does anyone have any tips for someone who has lost all interest in video games?
I used to like them as a teenager and whenever I pick up a game now (I'm in my early 40's) I am just completely bored. Part of it I think is because it requires some form of mental engagement after a day's hard work?
1. I understand software better and can see that my in-game actions are mostly changing variables, or values in a database.
2. Games are 'balanced' and therefore limit the upside for a potential great strategy I might come up with.
3. Nothing new under the sun: How many more pseudo-scifi research trees or weapon mechanisms or unit capabilities am I supposed to learn in my lifetime?
4. They don't make them like they used to. Older games had a hardcore element to them, were often quite difficult and unforgiving (a result of less market pressure and less polish). Instead of online guides and pro streamers showing how they are played, the games had a mystery about them; we often didn't even have a manual for a game we copied.
4. Less need to prove myself in competition with my peers through games and play (which is aparently a fundamental thing for children)
5. Less magic: The first game that had real voice actors, the first real 3D game seem to have had a greater impact than today's incremental improvements.
6. Limited time and energy. I find it tough to spend the prime energy of a day for a game.
7. Computer work makes me want to get away from computers eventually.
I do watch streamers and youtube videos of the games of the 90ies occasionally and find entertainment and closure (through experiencing games I never got to play).
The same thing happened to me. In my case, I've basically been in chronic burnout since 2000 because of some poor business and career decisions where I spent too much time working for too little. So every task began to feel like work, and just separated me from what I wanted to do (invent things).
I still can't hardly play video games, but I've been between gigs this last year and have been working with my hands building stuff. That's done more for my psyche than anything, even the self-help reading material that I immersed myself in to recover from burnout, depression and anxiety.
I worry for people living in big cities or around too much technology with no creative outlet. So if you are reading this and thinking "crap I don't even have a garage", try finding a local group into the same stuff you are. I got lucky that there's a local Burning Man group where I live. But there are almost certainly maker spaces or startup enthusiasts somewhere near you. Older folks are surprisingly good at this, so you might get lucky and find a mentor to bounce ideas off of.
I would play video games with any of the interesting people I've met lately. So maybe it's not the games, it's the immediate company.
Easy: you used to like games decades ago, so get an emulator, get the games you used to like back then (I'll leave the specifics out here), and play the games you used to enjoy. Then get some other games from that era that you never got a chance to enjoy, and try those.
Actually, I think archive.org has a lot of those old games, playable directly through a web browser, so it depending on the game it may be much easier than what I wrote above.
Nah, then they would be fun on a Saturday morning. I think it's just age. I still buy the occasional title on steam, but hardly play beyond the 1h mark.
The only ones that caught me surprised were Factorio and dota2 both of which I then ended up playing far too much. The first singleplayer, and the second with a group of RL friends.
Prioritize games without grinding or fluff. Short games or skill based. Start with games that can be finished in an day or afternoon: Mirror's Edge 1, Braid, Machinarium, Hotline Miami 1...
And if you do not enjoy games anymore, that's fine. Plenty of things to do in the world.
After a little more than a decade away from video games, I'm finding myself really enjoying 1st person horror games with no combat element: Soma, Amnesia: Dark Descent, and Outlast. This didn't really exist before, at least not games that were so immersive and terrifying.
Soma is especially great. It's utterly scary, it's beautiful to explore (per my taste), and the way the story unfolds really pulled me in.
SubNautica somewhat qualifies if you have a hint of thalassophobia. There is a very small combat element that you can entirely ignore.
Most other games bore my adult self as well, but the above are so compelling that I only play them in the right conditions so that I really enjoy them: alone at night with headphones.
Similar. 37 yo. I loved NES, Sega, and SNES. I really enjoyed Doom. Later, half life and a couple counterstrike mods. Heros of might and magic, StarCraft 1 and 2.
Nowadays, nothing perks my interest really. I did really enjoy Breath of the Wild and Ori and the Blind Forest. Everything else is just kinda meh.
I have scarce time. Something has to be really worth it to take away from family time, home projects, chores, work, professional development, working out, and hobbies (reef aquarium, banjo, audio books, and smaller interests like ATV, bows and guns, and emergency prep).
I think at least part of it is that whether its fast twitch or dense strategy/simulation, it takes a fair commitment to really get into a lot of games. Personally, I've always liked the idea of complex games (especially strategy and simulation) but I mostly didn't have the patience for them and that's even truer today.
I did like Infocom games though I didn't finish most of them.
While playing through the Deponia series, I noticed that all the fiddly little puzzles, like the rail-car switching puzzle, had a "skip this puzzle" button. Yay for learning that some people don't want to go insane on brute-forcing all the possible solutions to advance the story.
Even so, there were still a lot of attempts made at overcoming an obstacle, using normal logic, that failed because they required a joke punchline instead, such as... finding a straw in a needle stack.
Modern I.F. games are a lot better in that respect, because you can code in a half-dozen solutions for the same puzzle, without creating new voice and graphic resources for all those alternate solutions.
> Never require a player to pick up an item that is used later in the game if she can't go back and get it when it is needed. It is very frustrating to learn that a seemingly insignificant object is needed, and the only way to get it is to start over or go back to a saved game.
This reminds me of Return to Zork, in which on the very first screen the player sees a small plant growing out of a rock. If the player misses or ignores it, or if they choose to cut it or tear it out instead of gently digging it out, they won't able to defeat the last boss.
I'm gonna react to the 2004 date instead of the original 1989 publication date.
Runaway was released in 2001, Myst in 1993 and the sequel in 1997, Lucasfilm Indiana Jone in 1992 (a game of such quality that fans demanded a movie based on it), Broken Sword 1996, etc.
These are just the few I bothered looking up. There has been a good amount of adventure game masterpieces between 1989 and 2004. Lots of bad ones, but also a fair count of great ones. There have been rough times for adventure games, but they were not dead between 1989 and 2004.
I played through "A Short Hike" this week (because it was free on the Epic store.) Easily the most enjoyable indie adventure experience I've had: a unique but intuitive flying mechanic, simple "quests", and a short (<5 hour) overall gameplay time.
Makes me think of the Kings Quest games. In Kings Quest 5 you could find a pie and then you could eat it. But you needed it later to throw in the face of a Yeti.
First thing I thought of, too. There were lots of things you could do that would make the game unwinnable. Like in the first one, leaving a gate open would allow a goat to wander off and you needed the goat later. In another one, you there was a fire that would go out X screen changes after finding it for the first time, and you needed embers from it.
This article seems to directly call out a lot of the King's Quest mechanics and puzzles.
[+] [-] the_af|6 years ago|reply
(As an amusing aside, point-and-click adventure games were considered to be for "clever" gamers in 90s Spain and Latin America; gamers who mocked action games as simplistic. But there was nothing "clever" or "cerebral" about most adventure games; they were mostly arbitrary and nonsensical. And fun, of course!)
Before I read the Old Man Murray article I was already frustrated with (some) adventure games, even though I absolutely loved the Space Quest series (the original, 16 colors and text input!), and of course Interactive Fiction (aka text adventures). IF games in particular had something of a rennaissance some years (or decades?) ago and they evolved into something way more complex and with better UX than what we remember from the old Zork days.
[+] [-] egypturnash|6 years ago|reply
looks at her unfinished copy of Thimbleweed Park (Ron Gilbert et al, 2014)
hahaha sure Ron, sure you would
[+] [-] the_af|6 years ago|reply
I'm more willing to give experimental Interactive Fiction a go though. Some real gems there.
edit: also, and this is stretching the "adventure" definition, I absolutely loved "The Return of the Obra Dinn" by Papers Please author Lukas Pope. I loved that game. At this point I'll play anything made by Pope, that's how much I trust the guy.
[+] [-] spdionis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derefr|6 years ago|reply
It seems like such a guide would almost be an inversion of some of the principles in this guide: in troll games, you tend to learn only by dying; the puzzles always require things you forgot in the previous room, and you can’t go back, so you must commit in-game suicide to try again; etc.
And yet, given that these guidelines are for the sake of making an entertaining game, how does inverting them then also make for an entertaining game?
Can troll games even be entertaining without the context of having played good games that do follow these rules? It seems like having a mental model of these sorts of guidelines from previous gameplay, allows the player to predict a sort of meta for how things like puzzles should work; and only in that context would an inversion of good design principles carry a comedic punchline.
I guess it’s similar to the question: can you create satire that makes sense without knowing what it’s satirizing?
[+] [-] jtolmar|6 years ago|reply
I'm sure it's possible to make an original troll game (never bet on an artistic idea being impossible), but it certainly seems to make it harder. I've noticed that when the Mario Maker troll community tries to make Super Mario World trolls instead, it's just not as funny. The hacking tools for SMW allow vastly more freedom than MM's editor, since you can always patch the game's code. The decrease in quality might be from a lack of restraint, but I think the element of fair play that MM has is important as well. Everything in MM behaves the way it was programmed by non-trolls (more, Nintendo seems actively anti-troll), so every subversion comes from the level maker showing that they know something about how the game works that the player doesn't.
[+] [-] ukabwlsbeux|6 years ago|reply
https://kayin.moe/?p=2653
[+] [-] deckard1|6 years ago|reply
This guide exists because the inversion was the norm. Especially true of Sierra games, somewhat less true of LucasArts.
Leisure Suit Larry is a prime example of trolling. You die a myriad number of quite humorous ways in order to solve the puzzles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rrh_YBZBC0
> can you create satire that makes sense without knowing what it’s satirizing?
Looking at IWTBTG, I'm sensing the satire is in the game mechanics. Adventure games don't really work that way. They don't have physics or action like Mario, that you could poke fun of. Adventure games work with mouse hovering, clicking, and typing simple phrases. Those mechanics don't really lend themselves to satire, because the game is not really about the mechanics. It's about the logic of puzzles. Which, as Leisure Suit Larry, Kings Quest, etc. all show, satire in adventure games has existed since nearly the beginning. However, even back then the satire was quite meta and self-referential. Take, for example, the Boss Key (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boss_key):
> The first few games in Sierra's Leisure Suit Larry series included a boss key in the pulldown menus (shortcut usually Ctrl+B). However, when this is used, it results in an instantaneous game over with the first game saying "Sorry, but you'll have to restore your game; when you panic, I forget everything!"
Perhaps a better example of this sort of meta-level of messing with adventure game mechanics is the game Eternal Darkness, on the GameCube. They developed this mechanism of a "Sanity meter" and certain effects would occur if your sanity dropped to a certain level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Darkness
> While minor effects include a skewed camera angle, heads of statues following the character, and unsettling noises, stronger effects include bleeding on walls and ceilings, entering a room that is unrealistic before finding that the character never left the previous room, the character suddenly dying, and fourth wall breaking effects such as "To Be Continued" promotions for a "sequel", and simulated errors and anomalies of the TV or GameCube. While the latter does not affect gameplay, they can be misconstrued by the player as being actual technical malfunctions.
Eternal Darkness was not satire, though. They were playing it straight, and when a popup appears telling you to reconnect the GameCube controller, you would really check it and then start questioning your own sanity.
[+] [-] jstimpfle|6 years ago|reply
I purchased the HD remake of the game on Steam in 2015 to experience it once again. Just followed the solutions. It was much like watching a movie (a very good one).
I remember I once played a Broken Sword game (I believe it was The Sleeping Dragon) and that was an exception in that it was super easy to solve. Disappointingly easy :-)
[+] [-] jmckib|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lordleft|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jordanpg|6 years ago|reply
And yet even as I keep buying and playing the games, I am always disappointed.
I don't know what the future of adventure games looks like, but it definitely does not involve inane inventory "puzzles."
[+] [-] _ZeD_|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] netjiro|6 years ago|reply
Revolution (Broken Sword, etc) tend to have fewer puzzles outside the context of the story than Lucas Arts (Monkey Island, etc).
Some of the modern groups have built some really good stuff. Try Resonance for a great brain fry, or Technobabylon, Gemini Rue, Shardlight, Cathy Rain for lighter noggin usage. IIRC telltales Sam and Max had fun story and humour while light on puzzles.
adventuregamers.com has a large library of reviews with a general scoring and som "good" and "bad" points. I've found their taste to be relevant enough to look at, while figuring out which good/bad to look for or avoid respectively.
[+] [-] baud147258|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dfxm12|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gentleman11|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tibbon|6 years ago|reply
And last week I started playing Disco Elysium, and it's everything I ever wanted from something like an adventure/rpg and more.
[+] [-] TremendousJudge|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RootReducer|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vetinari|6 years ago|reply
It was originally sold for Android here:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.net.machin...
That is now abandoned and left to bitrot. I don't know, whether they were expecting that people will purchase it again, but for me the effect was, that I won't touch anything made by them again.
[+] [-] rabidrat|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixelperfect|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyuudou|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheBlight|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jmilloy|6 years ago|reply
A friend of mine was recently complaining about how adventure games and even rpgs (in both video and board game formats) lack significant character development, even the best ones with great worlds and stories. I don't personally have enough experience to have an opinion, but I thought it was interesting that the relevant guideline here shows exactly that: it mentions "story" but not "character". (I'm not sure what is meant here by "game"). Maybe my friend is not wrong.
[+] [-] justaguyonline|6 years ago|reply
Maybe they kinda predicted YUNO and the whole VN explosion in Japan that came soon after their article was published. Or a least the reason why the demand was there.
Granted, these games still cost 40+ bucks and deliver 20+ hours of gameplay, which differs from the vision the Author outlined. But that seems to be because the extra effort does lead to better returns (and maybe that consumers want 20+ hour games), so it's a good thing.
[+] [-] Eric_WVGG|6 years ago|reply
"Who killed Adventure Games? I think it should be pretty clear at this point that Adventure Games committed suicide."
[+] [-] martijn_himself|6 years ago|reply
I used to like them as a teenager and whenever I pick up a game now (I'm in my early 40's) I am just completely bored. Part of it I think is because it requires some form of mental engagement after a day's hard work?
[+] [-] UweSchmidt|6 years ago|reply
1. I understand software better and can see that my in-game actions are mostly changing variables, or values in a database.
2. Games are 'balanced' and therefore limit the upside for a potential great strategy I might come up with.
3. Nothing new under the sun: How many more pseudo-scifi research trees or weapon mechanisms or unit capabilities am I supposed to learn in my lifetime?
4. They don't make them like they used to. Older games had a hardcore element to them, were often quite difficult and unforgiving (a result of less market pressure and less polish). Instead of online guides and pro streamers showing how they are played, the games had a mystery about them; we often didn't even have a manual for a game we copied.
4. Less need to prove myself in competition with my peers through games and play (which is aparently a fundamental thing for children)
5. Less magic: The first game that had real voice actors, the first real 3D game seem to have had a greater impact than today's incremental improvements.
6. Limited time and energy. I find it tough to spend the prime energy of a day for a game.
7. Computer work makes me want to get away from computers eventually.
I do watch streamers and youtube videos of the games of the 90ies occasionally and find entertainment and closure (through experiencing games I never got to play).
[+] [-] zackmorris|6 years ago|reply
I still can't hardly play video games, but I've been between gigs this last year and have been working with my hands building stuff. That's done more for my psyche than anything, even the self-help reading material that I immersed myself in to recover from burnout, depression and anxiety.
I worry for people living in big cities or around too much technology with no creative outlet. So if you are reading this and thinking "crap I don't even have a garage", try finding a local group into the same stuff you are. I got lucky that there's a local Burning Man group where I live. But there are almost certainly maker spaces or startup enthusiasts somewhere near you. Older folks are surprisingly good at this, so you might get lucky and find a mentor to bounce ideas off of.
I would play video games with any of the interesting people I've met lately. So maybe it's not the games, it's the immediate company.
[+] [-] magduf|6 years ago|reply
Actually, I think archive.org has a lot of those old games, playable directly through a web browser, so it depending on the game it may be much easier than what I wrote above.
[+] [-] ramblerman|6 years ago|reply
The only ones that caught me surprised were Factorio and dota2 both of which I then ended up playing far too much. The first singleplayer, and the second with a group of RL friends.
[+] [-] padthai|6 years ago|reply
And if you do not enjoy games anymore, that's fine. Plenty of things to do in the world.
[+] [-] jemorya|6 years ago|reply
Soma is especially great. It's utterly scary, it's beautiful to explore (per my taste), and the way the story unfolds really pulled me in.
SubNautica somewhat qualifies if you have a hint of thalassophobia. There is a very small combat element that you can entirely ignore.
Most other games bore my adult self as well, but the above are so compelling that I only play them in the right conditions so that I really enjoy them: alone at night with headphones.
[+] [-] sethammons|6 years ago|reply
Nowadays, nothing perks my interest really. I did really enjoy Breath of the Wild and Ori and the Blind Forest. Everything else is just kinda meh.
I have scarce time. Something has to be really worth it to take away from family time, home projects, chores, work, professional development, working out, and hobbies (reef aquarium, banjo, audio books, and smaller interests like ATV, bows and guns, and emergency prep).
[+] [-] ghaff|6 years ago|reply
I did like Infocom games though I didn't finish most of them.
[+] [-] _thejrk|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logfromblammo|6 years ago|reply
Even so, there were still a lot of attempts made at overcoming an obstacle, using normal logic, that failed because they required a joke punchline instead, such as... finding a straw in a needle stack.
Modern I.F. games are a lot better in that respect, because you can code in a half-dozen solutions for the same puzzle, without creating new voice and graphic resources for all those alternate solutions.
[+] [-] acabal|6 years ago|reply
This reminds me of Return to Zork, in which on the very first screen the player sees a small plant growing out of a rock. If the player misses or ignores it, or if they choose to cut it or tear it out instead of gently digging it out, they won't able to defeat the last boss.
[+] [-] dudul|6 years ago|reply
Runaway was released in 2001, Myst in 1993 and the sequel in 1997, Lucasfilm Indiana Jone in 1992 (a game of such quality that fans demanded a movie based on it), Broken Sword 1996, etc.
These are just the few I bothered looking up. There has been a good amount of adventure game masterpieces between 1989 and 2004. Lots of bad ones, but also a fair count of great ones. There have been rough times for adventure games, but they were not dead between 1989 and 2004.
[+] [-] reaktion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strictnein|6 years ago|reply
Still loved those games though
[+] [-] zanderwohl|6 years ago|reply
This article seems to directly call out a lot of the King's Quest mechanics and puzzles.
[+] [-] dukoid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] PaulHoule|6 years ago|reply