I think that adventure game players generally dont want the genre shaken up too much - they want that same experience they had when they were younger, wrapped in a different package.
This is just plain generalization, I can speak for myself and say that while I mostly enjoy the classic first person formula, I'm always open to new ideas.
That's why I was able to enjoy both Talos Principle games, 2 very different puzzle games in terms of game design philosophy compared to the classic recipe.
Talking about evolution, one should first define what evolution means for adventure games.
Evolution is fueled by innovative ideas.
In my point of view there are technical and gameplay innovations. A technical example is that back in the early 90s, FPP adventures relied on static pre-rendered scenery and node-based movement,
Zork Nemesis, on the other hand, stores each of its nodes as a 360-degree panorama instead of a set of fixed views, letting you smoothly turn in place through a complete circle.
A simple gameplay innovation example that I can quickly pull off my head is Monkey Island's insult-based sword fighting.
It was such a simple and neat idea, which hasn't been tried in any adventure game of that time, most importantly it fits the pirate theme and the adventure framework without alienating the genre.
As much I like the Quest for Glory format, evolution is not about throwing a bunch of stats and classes and try to make adventures a lil bit more arrr pee gees, or adding some beat 'em up sections and calling it a day.
This is just mixing predefined genres, which is fine to be a chemist, and as
Nifft Batuff mentioned you could potentially have some interesting results, especially in the open world department.
But you bastardize the genre, it still remains a cheap way to consider yourself an innovator.
IMO innovation should be made within the established framework of the genre, and this is the challenge and the beauty of it.
It also requires esoteric thinking and procedures that most of the modern devs are incapable of doing.
For games like Tex Murphy, Riven, etc to exist, talented people pushed their brains to the limit day-night,
they never went "let us spare the tiresome brainstorming on how to push the genre forward and just make a half-assed strategy/adventure or a beat 'em up/adventure and get done with it".
As you move away from the adventure game loop, you are more seen as a lesser version of X genre, not an evolution of adventure games.
Well this is logical, and how can one blame someone for having this view, when what you're suggesting is exactly what I described above.
Additionally, keep in mind that Owlcats also have the delusion that moving away from the role play loop they "evolve" RPGs, but in reality they only manage to irritate people with their pointless management autism.
The problem is that there are other genres that do those things better - that DONT have the limitations of adventure games. Open world games exist - and their mechanics arent confined to specific bespoke inventory management. Platformers exist, but they arent confined to the smaller environments needed for adventure game puzzles to not be frustrating.
Adventures that aren't confined by inventory management and small environments already exist. I don't get what exactly it is that limits you.
For example, you could make a 3rd person Stasis or any other open-world/semi open-world adventure ala URU, but with your own personal spin, without inventory management, meaningful platforming/climbing,
and a few fresh problem solving ideas. Depending on the setting, you could also throw a few stealth sections, but not overdoing it, you need to add some tension not making a Thief successor.
It will not be a point n click, but it will still be an adventure game at heart, without the implied limitations.
Given that you're working on your next game, I have to ask, are you going to innovate or roleplay a chemist?
