A discussion about adventure games

Korgoth of Barbaria · Aug 17, 2024

The first computer games I ever played were Sierra On-Line adventure games, notably King's Quest and Space Quest. I got a bit older and in my teens for a time was big into RPGs like Baldur's Gate, and Diablo, and then action-adventure games like Kingdom Hearts.

As an adult I began earlier this year to revisit CRPG's, and I played Oblivion, Morrowind and Skyrim for the first time, and then also began playing Baldur's Gate I and II again for the first time in over a decade; I plan to soon start Fallout for the first time, and also lately have been getting into classic shooters like Quake.

And after this, I find going back to adventure games hard.

I came across a blog on CRPGs, and the blog writer stated this:

Fallout was an adventure game, but it came complete with stats, reactivity and combat system as well: a pure cRPG.
And cRPGs are inherently superior to adventure games. There is nothing adventure games do better than cRPGs.
Adventure games only exist post-Fallout because of ignorance, inertia and the casual demographic that loves on-rails narrative and cinematization.
Fallout was like the best adventure game you had ever played, multiplied by 100.

Anyone can program adventure games; as a rule, their code-bases and mechanics are basic. But hardly anyone can make cRPGs like Fallout.

And three decades of history attests to that being fact. There is only one Fallout game. Two if we admit Fallout 2. Three if we admit Arcanum. But there are thousands of copy-pasta adventure games influenced by the soulless slop scribbled by Sierra in 1984.

I do not agree with her in totality, of course, but I do wonder:

1) What do adventure games offer that other genres like the classic Western CRPG cannot?

2) Why did adventure games remain popular for a few years even alongside the original Diablo (1996) and Baldur's Gate (1998)?

3) Can there be anything more done to the adventure genre to modernize it without ruining it?

For example, as a start, making an adventure game fundamentally replayable? Adding an element of a party to an adventure game? Adding skills and leveling without adding combat? Multiple solutions to every puzzle?

Rincewind · Aug 17, 2024

That's a tryhard opinion piece by Lilura (self-ejected from Codex a while ago)... None of her statements you quoted above make a whole lot of sense to me. What she wrote is a bit like trying to "prove" that a sandwich is better than an ice cream, or something...

For one, almost all cRPGs are combat heavy. For people who really don't like violence in their games, that's a no starter. Then some people are really just into the narrative, the puzzle solving, and marveling at the graphics, and don't care about any sort of combat and stats-based gameplay.

Comparing adventure games to Fallout is just plain silly. Even an average adventure game has far more complex puzzles than the most complex puzzle-heavy cRPG.

I'd say classic adventures and cRPGs tend to have two quite distinct audiences. I like both, so clearly people who enjoy both genres exist, but I'd wager you'll find more people who like either, but not both.

That answers your first two questions. For question three, I don't think you can change them fundamentally without breaking the whole concept of an adventure game.

About replayability, I don't get much enjoyment from replaying RPGs either, especially long ones. There are exceptions, like Age of Decadence, where you must replay the game multiple times to unlock all possible paths, but in 95% of cRPGs all you get is the battles playing out a bit differently as I see it. In most RPGs it's still the same same map, the same story, the same sidequests, etc., so I'd say 80% of the game is fundamentally unchanged; all you get is slightly different mechanics for achieving the end goals. Plus most C&C stuff doesn't *really* matter in RPGs, so there's that too.

I'm just mentioning this because the non-linearity and replayability angle of RPGs is often vastly exaggerated. Sure, there are special people who like doing the same thing over and over again with 10-20% difference in gameplay mechanics (or much less, actually), or who kinda "cheat" by doing half the sidequests in one playthrough, "saving" the rest for the second, etc., but I'm not one of them. The non-linearity often comes at the expense of not telling a coherent story, and random sidequests detached from the main story that you can complete in any order without any urgency ("saving the world can wait; I need to kill some rats in a farmet's basement and deliver 10 sacks of potatos").

So yeah, I could also ask: why wouldn't someone prefer a tighter linear narrative experience vs a sprawling, disconnected array of sidequests and a so-so main quest? But both approaches can result in enjoyable games; they're just different ways to design a game, I don't see one being superior to the other.

Baron Tahn · Aug 17, 2024

While I cant say I agree with most of the premise here I just wanted to say that games like Quest for Glory are an underutilised niche. I think there is something to be said for leaning into the adventure game side of things but still make a crpg with stats and the like - in some ways the various paths that you could take through the game, with different scenes and puzzle solutions for rogue/fighter/mage/paladin made for better 'branching paths' than we get even nowadays. You could multiclass, transfer character between games, all sorts of stuff.

Wish they made more stuff like that and anyone who enjoys rpgs and adventure games should definately play QFG, especially IV. Honorable mention to Heroine's Quest, which is a free homage to QFG.

Korgoth of Barbaria · Aug 17, 2024

Rincewind said:
That's a tryhard opinion piece by Lilura (self-ejected from Codex a while ago)... None of her statements you quoted above make a whole lot of sense to me. What she wrote is a bit like trying to "prove" that a sandwich is better than an ice cream, or something...

For one, almost all cRPGs are combat heavy. For people who really don't like violence in their games, that's a no starter. Then some people are really just into the narrative, the puzzle solving, and marveling at the graphics, and don't care about any sort of combat and stats-based gameplay.

Comparing adventure games to Fallout is just plain silly. Even an average adventure game has far more complex puzzles than the most complex puzzle-heavy cRPG.

I'd say classic adventures and cRPGs tend to have two quite distinct audiences. I like both, so clearly people who enjoy genres both exist, but I'd wager you'll find more people who like either, but not both.

That answers your first two questions. For question three, I don't think you can change them fundamentally without breaking the whole concept of an adventure game.

About replayability, I don't get much enjoyment from replaying RPGs either, especially long ones. The are exceptions, like Age of Decadence, where you can must replay the game multiple times to unlock all possible paths, but in 95% of cRPGs all you get is the battles playing out a bit differently as I see it. In most RPGs it's still the same same map, the same story, the same sidequests, etc., so I'd say 80% of the game is fundamentally unchanged; all you get is slightly different mechanics for achieving the end goals. Plus most C&C stuff doesn't *really* matter in RPGs, so there's that too.

I'm just mentioning this because the non-linearity and replayability angle of RPGs is often vastly exaggerated. Sure, there are special people who like doing the same thing over and over again with 10-20% difference in gameplay mechanics (or much less, actually), or who kinda cheat by doing half the sidequests in one playthrough, "saving" the rest for the second, etc., but I'm not one of them.

See, I don't mind combat in an adventure game, provided it is done well, or the ratio of combat to character/puzzle solving is low. Think of the arcade sequences in Space Quest games, or the cow fighting in MI, or the way the first couple of KQ games had an optional violent solution to a puzzle - that for me works. I feel like adventure games started to go downhill when they became more linear, and more strict with the 'rules.'

One of the most fun adventure games still to this day for me, design flaws and all, is King's Quest V. It's not particularly linear - you can solve most puzzles in any order really - it has the feel of a 'heroes' journey' in structure, and it has a companion (even if he's annoying) so that the experience isn't too lonely. If you combined that, with the more refined structure / better writing of 6, and the multiple endings of that game, and added in multiple solutions to puzzles and optional combat, I'd feel it'd (imo of course) the ultimate adventure game. Add in more optional detailed sidequests, so we're not just going on the main quest.

I've yet to play Fallout (cause I'm an idiot) but I did grow up playing the original BG games - and I feel like there could be a way to hybrid such an experience, with the adventure genre.

What makes CRPG's replayable for me (again of the BG type) is the multiple dialogue options, and the bevy of side quests. Ex, rn I'm on a BG2 run - I'm more than about halfway through as a fighter mage. I'm already looking forward to my next play as a pure mage, and exploring different dialogue options, doing quests I neglected on this run, and other romances.

One thing I do agree with Lilura on this is that (as enjoyable as they are) post Morrowind Elder Scrolls games have increasingly become games for casual gamers, and the extreme commercial success of Oblivion and Skyrim means other studios try to mimick those games' accessibility. You'll never see a game like Baldur's Gate again in terms of depth.

Also, I disagree with her on Diablo 1. It's a fun game, but IMO it's another game that appealed more to mainstream gamers than anyone else. Just click click click on an enemy til it's dead - Very good for the Sega Genesis era of gaming.

BadassNonbinaryPrincess · Aug 17, 2024

If what you want is mechanics then RPG is a clear winner. If what you want is story and mood, music, etc. then you can get all that from Adventure Games just as well. I kind of agree that RPGs are better and more advanced, but harder and more expensive to make. Smaller companies would have to start with something else.

Also Adventure Games can be great and RPGs can be terrible. So shoving some basic combat in a basic adventure might make it an RPG but it doesn't make it any good. I'd rather play a good Adventure than a weak RPG. Not that I've played one for many years.

Darkozric · Aug 17, 2024

Rincewind · Aug 17, 2024

Baron Tahn said:
While I cant say I agree with most of the premise here I just wanted to say that games like Quest for Glory are an underutilised niche.

Oh yeah, the QfG series is awesome. Sadly, it's an outlier among adventure games, but I'd say it out-RPGs many RPGs.

Just like Age of Decadence, which is one of my favourite games, the QfG series warrants multiple playthroughs with different character classes. By the way, one similar game is Maniac Mansion where different kids unlock different paths and solutions to the same puzzles, which is great.

There were a few similar but text-based adventure/RPG hybrids in the early 80s. I haven't played any of them yet, but some had interesting mechanics, such as transfering your character between the different modules.

Maxie · Aug 18, 2024

Rincewind said:
Baron Tahn said:

While I cant say I agree with most of the premise here I just wanted to say that games like Quest for Glory are an underutilised niche.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, the QfG series is awesome. Sadly, it's an outlier among adventure games, but I'd say it out-RPGs many RPGs.

Just like Age of Decadence, which is one of my favourite games, the QfG series warrants multiple playthroughs with different character classes. By the way, one similar game is Maniac Mansion where different kids unlock different paths and solutions to the same puzzles, which is great.

There were a few similar but text-based adventure/RPG hybrids in the early 80s. I haven't played any of them yet, but some had interesting mechanics, such as transfering your character between the different modules.

thankfully it's an outlier. you and i both know that QfG, or indeed Heroine's Quest, or even Dreams in the Witch House is a CYOA, and promotes metagaming, rather than actual smarts to beat any puzzles.
the fact that you call AoD one of your favs just outs you as an utter philistine.

Rincewind · Aug 18, 2024

Maxie said:
and promotes metagaming

So what? Ultimately, games are entertainment, so the question is, do you enjoy such things or not. I enjoy QfG and AoD very much.

Maxie said:
rather than actual smarts to beat any puzzles.

Well, I disagree on that.

Maxie · Aug 18, 2024

Rincewind said:
Maxie said:

and promotes metagaming

Click to expand...

So what? Ultimately, games are entertainment, so the question is, do you enjoy such things or not. I enjoy QfG and AoD very much.

Maxie said:

rather than actual smarts to beat any puzzles.

Click to expand...

Well, I disagree on that.

the most elegant solution to beating a metagaming type game like AoD would be to steal VD's production notes, rather than waste time mapping content gates. moe of a challenge, too.

InSight · Aug 19, 2024

Korgoth of Barbaria said:
2) Why did adventure games remain popular for a few years even alongside the original Diablo (1996) and Baldur's Gate (1998)?

One is to factor/consider/assess the strength of the genre, what can it do/offer more/better then the other.
Adventure game genre offered the most advanced/better graphics/visuals or capacity for it + situations/format/design in which the player basks/absorbed/immersed in the visual(and its additions, such as music).

There could be action games which are par graphically, but due its design, the player has not time/focus/attention to be simulated by all its visual details which adventure games or as refereed "pixel hunt" necessitates.
Since their main strength is no longer unique for it is found/done better/equivalently in other genre such as Open World.
Open world games also should have the moments of passiveness to observe/enjoy the graphics/scenery that visual Adventure game players should appeal.

Thus, If Adventure were still relatively popular, it because they were better visually, graphically impressive, attractive per the hardware limits available at the time among game genres.

=======

Zed Duke of Banville · Aug 20, 2024

Korgoth of Barbaria said:
Adventure games only exist post-Fallout because of ignorance, inertia and the casual demographic that loves on-rails narrative and cinematization.

As much as I'm loath to disagree with Lilura, she's ignoring the best type of adventure games, namely text adventures:

Jadeite · Apr 2, 2025

1) Or what does the 'classic' western RPG offer that would displace adventures? The proper tier of game genres is 1) adventure 2) strategy 3) RPG, so I don't see why adventures should be on the defensive here.

2) There were no traditional commercial western adventures in '96 or '98. The last ones were in '93 or '94: Armaeth, in the dead of night, maybe Universe. You're talking about multimedia adventures; those are or were commonplace, much like television. Baldur's Gate and Diablo are also not traditional RPGs, they're multimedia RPGs with hollywood voice actors.

3) The adventure genre has thrived since 2001 more than it ever has, thanks to AGS. All it needed to do away with was publishers. As for 'modernize' it does not compute. Adventures are the premier game. There hasn't been a traditional commercial. western RPG made since 1995 other than Demise in 2000 (although my knowledge doesn't extend past the 2000s). That suggests to me that traditional RPGs are not doing much better than traditional adventures. In fact, if we compare RPGmaker games in the 2000s to AGS games, we see there are more of the latter than the former.

You don't seem to like adventure games, so why do you care about them? Plenty of people play only RPGs or only strategy. I play all kinds of games, but since RPGs are third tier games there is a LOT more sorting to do among them, many being juvenile games where you get gold from rats, prone to absurd franchises, and often both (for instance, both Wizardry and Bard's Tale inexplicably reward currency from killing creatures that don't use currency). It is things like this that largely make RPGs inferior to strategy games. So the dichotomy could be rephrased to strategy vs. adventure, where the difference is obvious. Sometimes I like strategy; other times I like adventure; they are not really at odds. RPGs, however, are often strange forms of juvenilia with systems and rules that don't make sense or adhere to reality, as they do in strategy games.

As to the person you quoted, he is clearly not a traditional gamer, as Fallout is not a traditional RPG. That being so I can not parse what he is saying. I suppose if the ultimate aim of gaming was to acquire million dollar multimedia games like Fallout and play them to the exclusion of all else then he would have a point. But traditional RPGs are a different bag. The peak of traditional RPGs was games like Ishar 1 & 2 and Realm of Arkania: Blades of Destiny, and these coexisted well with peak adventures like Veil of Darkness and Legacy: Realm of Terror. Later on the in the east (because Eastern publishers were less crude than western) there were games like Fire Emblem Seisen no Keifu and Valhollian that coexisted with adventures like Iru and Clock Tower. Anyway i think most traditional adventure gamers are big on the '80s, so you're really talking apples and oranges here. There's a huge difference between something like The Lurking Horror, Jesus or Dark Lord and Legacy of the Ancients, Dungeon Master and Eternal Dagger

Rincewind · Apr 3, 2025

Jadeite said:
The peak of traditional RPGs was games like Ishar 1 & 2 and Realm of Arkania: Blades of Destiny, and these coexisted well with peak adventures like Veil of Darkness and Legacy: Realm of Terror.

Serious_Business · Apr 4, 2025

My superficial thoughts on this is that yeah, it's an archaic genre. The gameplay aspects are too rigid and were limited by the technical aspects of the time, it seems. The only thing that was arguably good and conserved in adventure gaming is the place of narration in games. Narration can be tackled on any game system almost, but in adventure games it is the main driving factor... it does survive in rpgs, but still tends to be phased out for interactive systems (combat and such). After all "adventure narration" is deeply linear. It works when you solve the puzzle or press the correct pixel and so on. Not so exciting. Zero replay value. I fucking hate puzzles myself and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Puzzles mean one-solution problems. They are for a... "specific" kind of intelligence.

The one actual thing that was good about adventure gaming in my view is not so much the narration, but the fact that it was a product of a wilder, more innovative time for gaming. So you had a lot of wild shit going on in the genre, but it doesn't have anything to do with the genre per say. Perhaps that it always was a very vague genre to begin with - moreso than rpgs, in fact. Too vague perhaps? Anyway, vagueness of genre just means that conventions are not established. No convention is ever perfectly established of course. Wether or not adventure gaming convention can come back, sure it can - it does in indie gaming sometimes. Is that modern? Well, at least it's a way to get off the roguelike train, I guess. How long is that shit going to last, I wonder?

Rincewind · Apr 4, 2025

Serious_Business said:
After all "adventure narration" is deeply linear. It works when you solve the puzzle or press the correct pixel and so on. Not so exciting. Zero replay value. I fucking hate puzzles myself and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Puzzles mean one-solution problems. They are for a... "specific" kind of intelligence.

It's futile to argue about what was "good" about them, and complain about what was "not good". It's as if someone who loves FPS gamed complained about crossword puzzles because there's "just not enough action, man"...

A book has zero replay value. A movie has zero replay value. And?

All very subjective. I love adventure games and love puzzles, so it's very personal what you like or dislike.

If you love adventure games, there's nothing else like adventure games. Including text adventures, parser-based graphical/text-adventure hybrids, etc.

Another big thing in adventure games is they usually have a strong story-driven approach, usually they are non-violent (violence can be a big turnoff for people in RPGs), and text adventures or even illustrated text adventures have a certain meditative quality. Although that's present in all non-realtime games too.

Darkozric · Apr 4, 2025

Adventures are the esoteric poets of gaming, weaving experiences that prioritize wit, atmosphere, and storytelling over the grind and bloat that often define RPGs.

They demand more from players - imagination, patience, and a taste for the unconventional, while offering rewards that resonate long after the credits roll.

The industry’s obsession with replayability can feel like a push for quantity - more hours, more loops - over quality of experience.

For adventure games, the lack of endless return trips doesn't diminish their worth; it's just a different kind of currency, one that trades in depth rather than duration.

Personally, I don't always need a game to stretch forever. Sometimes, a tight, unforgettable 10-15 hours outweighs a hundred hours of grind. It's about what lingers - replay value can be a bonus, but it's not the Holy Grail.

And speaking of the Holy Grail, if you haven't already, check out Azrael's Tear - the Holy Grail of adventure games.

luj1 · Apr 4, 2025

Korgoth of Barbaria said:
I came across a blog on CRPGs, and the blog writer stated this:

Fallout was an adventure game, but it came complete with stats, reactivity and combat system as well: a pure cRPG.

I thought some moments in Fallout of Nevada (early game) had that adventure game charm too. Find a rope to descend into shaft, etc.

spookyheart · Apr 12, 2025

trace memory for the ds will always be special for me considering how much and simple it really is damn we really had it so good back then. :/

Nifft Batuff · Apr 15, 2025

One of the first "immersive sim." with emergent gameplay and multiple creative solutions to overcome obstacles was an adventure game. More specifically a "text adventure": The Hobbit (1983).

Sadly the majority of modern games reject this complexity by design, to favour more linear and predictable/cinematic gameplay.

AndyS · Apr 15, 2025

I remember playing The Hobbit and being dumbstruck when I got to the dragon and told Bard to kill it, only for him to say "No". Fortunately there was an alternate solution. I do appreciate when games based on other sources are willing to color outside the lines a bit.

procrastinator · Apr 17, 2025

AndyS said:
I remember playing The Hobbit and being dumbstruck when I got to the dragon and told Bard to kill it, only for him to say "No". Fortunately there was an alternate solution. I do appreciate when games based on other sources are willing to color outside the lines a bit.

Mr. Magniloquent · Apr 18, 2025

Korgoth of Barbaria said:
1) What do adventure games offer that other genres like the classic Western CRPG cannot?

3) Can there be anything more done to the adventure genre to modernize it without ruining it?

Consider more contemporary examples, like Superliminal, Portal, and Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. These are fundamentally adventure games, but they have highly unique gimmicks that are central and utilized to perfection. It would be technically possible to implement these features in a 1st person CRPG, but it would be exceedingly difficult to do so without proverbially flipping the table over for every other gameplay aspect.

The Sierra style adventure game was a product of its technical era, but still has some value because it it allows a narrow feature to shine to its full potential, which is story-telling. Portal works because its exploration utilizes one feature distilled to its purest form. Same with Superliminal. These are excellent examples of modernizing the adventure genre. Portal is probably a better example, because it retains something of a plot with good atmospheric storytelling, whereas the adventure of Superliminal is a self-aware mindfuck with no 4th wall to speak of. Brothers AToTS is a great example because it's firmly an adventure with puzzles around a central mechanic of having the two brothers cooperate. Its really clever and tells a touching story with charming art.

PS: Other good examples in the evolution of adventure gaming are Among the Sleep, Amnesia The Dark Descent, and other atmospheric games generally derided as "walking simulators". These games take adventure of graphical improvements to tell stories and create puzzles not possible in the 2D environment or would be compromised by player agency. Adventure games are ultimately about delivering a specific experience through an exploration focused medium.

Nifft Batuff · Apr 18, 2025

procrastinator said:
AndyS said:

I remember playing The Hobbit and being dumbstruck when I got to the dragon and told Bard to kill it, only for him to say "No". Fortunately there was an alternate solution. I do appreciate when games based on other sources are willing to color outside the lines a bit.

Click to expand...

Killable NPCs in a 1983 adventure game... Imagine the shame of modern CRPGs.

A discussion about adventure games

Arcane

Arcane

Scholar

Arcane

Novice

Arcane

Arcane

Wholesome Chungus

Arcane

Wholesome Chungus

Savant

Dungeon Master

Augur

Arcane

Best Poster on the Codex

Arcane

Arcane

You're all shills

Dumbfuck!

Arcane

Cipher

Arcane

Arcane

Arcane