Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Are Adventure Games fundamentally archaic/outdated?

Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
920
As engaging as a game's story might be, it seems to me that the adventure game GENRE as a whole has not aged well. Yes, there have been attempts to update the mechanics (ala Telltale) but we see the reception that has gotten with hardcore fans (like on here). Adventure games may offer interesting plots, characters, and worlds to enjoy - but are they perhaps by nature outdated, and were they ever really truly mainstream games? They are not entertainment, when you consider it - they challenge and enrage more than they entertain. They tease the brain more than they fill one with adrenaline. Adventure games just seem a product of not only a vastly different time (when computer owners were of a "higher class" and of a dorkier, more patient nature than arcade or consoe gamers) but a vastly different mindset. They seem like perhaps the one game genre that honestly just is not adaptable to modern times. You can update an RPG - A genre thought to be fringe and near death before Diablo. Action games are always sure winners. RTS games have a massive audience of their own. But is there any hope for the adventure game? Should we just accept that its full demise will probably happen within the next 20 years? I would argue the genre has been slowly dying since the mid 1990s, and I can't see Generation Z being into the genre in any way (except perhaps indie pixel hybrids).
 

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
What do you consider outdated and what do you consider updated?
You're mixing stuff up.. why don't you consider Telltale games updated if you consider the current RPGs updated? If update means mainstream appeal then the fact that "hardcore fans" don't like them is irrelevant.

I think actual adventure games (and not walking simulators) are much less dead than old-school RPGs. But they're still quite dead.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
Adventure games actually were once top of the charts. But that was back in a time when they offered something unique that no other genre was offering: the possibility of letting you live out a storybook adventure. Most games back then didn't even have a story, beyond a premise that is, so adventure games were unique. Or to put that a different way, the genre had its core fans plus a whole lot of casual fans there to see that which was uniquely entertaining.

But times change, other genres change, new types of games are made. And so it came to pass that the casual audience for the one-person-show classic adventure games were already drifting away to other things...but then LucasArts innovated on the genre by using a specialist team (so no more writer/director/programmer/musicians) plus interface streamlining to make a high-production, highly polished, accessible version of the adventure game. And that innovation brought the casuals roaring back, there to see a well-written, well-made storybook adventure - an experience that no one else in the industry could then match. But that unique stake in the market didn't last long, as other genres were already polishing up their storytelling capabilities. And all too soon, it reached the point where you could even live out a storybook adventure in a Call of Doody. So, the audience for adventure games once again contracted, as their uniqueness faded, their audience narrowing down to its niche core - those who like the genre for the genre itself. Only after all the changes that LucasArts wrought, the adventure games of the time are much more high production, so declining audience share meant instant market crash.

These days, Telltale Games has innovated on the visual novel through art and visual production, enabling them to bring about a more fully realized experience of living out a comic book story. They are in the same position as was LucasArts, though, in that other genres could capture their casual audience as those other genres continue to innovate, since Telltale Games hasn't brought anything to the table that can't be easily used elsewhere for a similar level of experience.
 
Last edited:

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
Don't hesitate to enumerate the so called outdated features of the genre

I'll bite.

1. The way dialogue works in most classics is completely pointless. You're simply clicking through pages of text that barely if ever have you making any impactful decisions. Yu can't change anything, you're just following a script. It's just pure exposition, boring, bland and completely non-interactive. Exhaust the options and move on. The best way to see it in action is by playing Broken Age. Mechanically it works exactly like most older stuff and if there's one thing Schaffer can do, is writing excellent dialogue. But in that game it felt so utterly pointless I was barely even bother to read anything. It just isn't a compelling way advance plot and feed storytelling.

2. Pixel hunting sucks dick, has always sucked dick, and will always suck dick. The only people who enjoy it are raging autists. The newer games usually attempt to resolve this by allowing you to do mass-object highlighting or just adding animations to mouse-over, but that doesn't help the matters either. Highlighting feels like cheating, animations are immersion breaking. There's plenty of new games who managed to come up with ways of interacting with the environment that are far more enjoyable than anything old advnetures ever did.

3. Inventory puzzles need to die in the fire. Flipping icons is a mobile game level shit, I've seen flash games that had more interesting mechanics than that. And that's only about 30 minutes into the game, after that it usually takes parody levels of idiocy when they have you carrying more items that would fit into a pickup truck. Oh I have an umbrella, a chainsaw, gallon of milk and bag of cat litter in my pocket. I can't take shit like this seriously anymore. Myst-style puzzles or bust.

People can throw tantrums and bitch about modern audience, but the simple fact is that even most of the older gamers who played and loved all of the classics, don't even bother to touch this genre anymore.

My gaming circle is mostly 30 and 40 year old dudes who can quote Monkey Island from memory if you woke them up in their sleep, but every time one of them tries to play a p&c adventure they end up giving up within hours. Some of the Wadjet Eye games and Stasis are the only exception I can think of. But that's just the case of quality of these games is so top notch it trumps all of the downsides.

Sure, sometimes a genre dies because the market sucks. In this case though, the genre sucked.
 
Last edited:

SCO

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
16,320
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
Tattletale are poseurs. If you want to see innovation in the genre, you have to go indier. Like for example the notepad on the early Blackwell games from wadjet eye games.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
920
Don't hesitate to enumerate the so called outdated features of the genre

I'll bite.

1. The way dialogue works in most classics is completely pointless. You're simply clicking through pages of text that barely if ever have you making any impactful decisions. Yu can't change anything, you're just following a script. It's just pure exposition, boring, bland and completely non-interactive. Exhaust the options and move on. The best way to see it in action is by playing Broken Age. Mechanically it works exactly like most older stuff and if there's one thing Schaffer can do, is writing excellent dialogue. But in that game it felt so utterly pointless I was barely even bother to read anything. It just isn't a compelling way advance plot and feed storytelling.

2. Pixel hunting sucks dick, has always sucked dick, and will always suck dick. The only people who enjoy it are raging autists. The newer games usually attempt to resolve this by allowing you to do mass-object highlighting or just adding animations to mouse-over, but that doesn't help the matters either. Highlighting feels like cheating, animations are immersion breaking. There's plenty of new games who managed to come up with ways of interacting with the environment that are far more enjoyable than anything old advnetures ever did.

3. Inventory puzzles need to die in the fire. Flipping icons is a mobile game level shit, I've seen flash games that had more interesting mechanics than that. And that's only about 30 minutes into the game, after that it usually takes parody levels of idiocy when they have you carrying more items that would fit into a pickup truck. Oh I have an umbrella, a chainsaw, gallon of milk and bag of cat litter in my pocket. I can't take shit like this seriously anymore. Myst-style puzzles or bust.

People can throw tantrums and bitch about modern audience, but the simple fact is that even most of the older gamers who played and loved all of the classics, don't even bother to touch this genre anymore.

My gaming circle is mostly 30 and 40 year old dudes who can quote Monkey Island from memory if you woke them up in their sleep, but every time one of them tries to play a p&c adventure they end up giving up within hours. Some of the Wadjet Eye games and Stasis are the only exception I can think of. But that's just the case of quality of these games is so top notch it trumps all of the downsides.

Sure, sometimes a genre dies because the market sucks. In this case though, the genre sucked.

Thank you, you voiced my opinion better than I ever could. I still will play the old Sierra and LucasArts classics because I grew up with those games, and frankly, a lot of it is very positive nostalgia. But I've tried playing modern adventure games and they're just boring as shit. The best version of the adventure genre is the hybrid. RPG games absorbed the best aspects of adventure games, as well as the modern pixel art PnC/platformer hybrids.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
Thank you, you voiced my opinion better than I ever could. I still will play the old Sierra and LucasArts classics because I grew up with those games, and frankly, a lot of it is very positive nostalgia. But I've tried playing modern adventure games and they're just boring as shit. The best version of the adventure genre is the hybrid. RPG games absorbed the best aspects of adventure games, as well as the modern pixel art PnC/platformer hybrids.

Pretty much. I still love the old games to death because I grew up with them. But the fact is gaming is always evolving, and it this case it has evolved for the better. There really isn't much of a point of doing it the old way beyond the nostalgia factor.

And like you say, the adventure games didn't as much as die as have been absorbed by the other genres. If you look at something like Prey released last year, it has you figuring out the plot and searching for clues by reading the emails and data placed on computers and it has puzzles, but it's also a mainstream shooter with explosions and ray guns and shit.

And this is probably the way forward, and I'm sure eventually someone will come up with a game that captures that experience of classic 90s point&click, but uses more sophisticated mechanics to do it.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
6,165
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Serpent in the Staglands Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Adventure games = exploring to find "keys" to unlock "doors" to travel between different parts of the game world and narrative. This expression applies both figuratively and literally, where "keys" and "doors" are variously interchangeable as events, NPCs, and non-key items. It is true of Super Metroid and it is true of King's Quest.

They are on the other end of the genetic lineage of RPGs (opposite of turn-based strategies of Jagged Alliance) and are pretty close relative of the genre. Games like the 'Legend of Zelda' where songs and items serve as "keys" to other parts of the game world and narrative are also clearly situated in a venn diagram between adventure games and other genres (like platforming, action, puzzles, etc).

They're not really out of date (non-violent approaches to the Age of Decadence basically transform it into an isometric, text/stats driven adventure game), but they are pretty niche.

Old fans don't enjoy the new ones for a variety of reasons. Partly because of changed tastes, where their brains have acclimated to enjoying a different relation of game play elements and where adventure gaming in and of itself no longer entertains or stimulates -- mostly because new ones are sub-standard (both in terms of production quality and mechanics) or repetitive, failing to innovate or push the genre forward in anyway.

The same could be said of most Kickstarter-era RPGs.
 
Last edited:

Dexter

Arcane
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
15,655
Pretty much. I still love the old games to death because I grew up with them. But the fact is gaming is always evolving, and it this case it has evolved for the better. There really isn't much of a point of doing it the old way beyond the nostalgia factor.

And like you say, the adventure games didn't as much as die as have been absorbed by the other genres. If you look at something like Prey released last year, it has you figuring out the plot and searching for clues by reading the emails and data placed on computers and it has puzzles, but it's also a mainstream shooter with explosions and ray guns and shit.

And this is probably the way forward, and I'm sure eventually someone will come up with a game that captures that experience of classic 90s point&click, but uses more sophisticated mechanics to do it.
This shit is so retarded it's pretty much funny at this point. Nobody likes Adventure games because of intricate hand-drawn backgrounds depicting creative worlds with interesting/funny characters and stories, soothing music and not time-critical puzzles to solve. It is just "nostalgia" and games have "evolved beyond it for the better", if people nowadays that never played great Adventure games back in the day start playing them they're also totally gonna hate them, because gaming has "evolved" and mediocre shooters like Prey from half-dead studios that sold less than the Re-release of Grim Fandango or The Secret of Monkey Island and soon likely Day of the Tentacle not to mention games like Deponia, are like... pretty much Adventure games anyway, so they kind of get to Live on!

Don't bother noting all the Adventure games released almost every single week, in probably a larger number than back in the 90s: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...e-game-renaissance.115818/page-2#post-5305411 or any of the Subgenres that have developed and are still very popular among certain audiences: http://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Hidden+Object

Don't bother noting that there are still many arguably popular 3D and VR games designed in the vein of P&C Adventures games either:






No, the genre is dead, because like nobody ever really liked it anyway and gaming evolved and the only reason anyone still likes it nowadays is like, nostalgia! Brilliant analysis, Sherlock!
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
The thing with obtuse puzzles is it is indeed a point of friction, and points of friction are what people who are only casually interested in a genre will point to when they abandon a genre for better pastures. However, that is more of a thing about the way people are than it is about why they do things. People like to complain and they are dumb, so they will point at a singular thing that one company did and damn the entire genre for it, such as the infamous mustache puzzle, or Drizzt and story-oriented rpgs.

But the actual why of it all is only tangentially related to what people complain about. People are more than willing to overcome points of friction if the item on offer has something they want more than their resistance to that friction. So, say you've got some classic era rpg players, the era of Apshai and Telengard and Wizardry, and these rpg players are what will one day be called storyfags on Codexia. These rpg players like rpgs, but they will also likely have a casual interest in the early Sierra adventure games, because those games offer the storybook adventure that they are also looking for, and which those rpgs most definitively do not have. But then along comes Baldur's Gate, and suddenly they can get that storybook adventure that they always wanted, and that sucks their dick and tells them how awesome they are every few seconds, and they can get it in an rpg. So, no more need to spend their precious time and money on those adventure games anymore, since they've already gotten their storybook fix in the genre they are more interested in. And as their collection of storybook rpgs grows, their need to dip into the adventure genre ever again constantly lessens. Until eventually, their casual interest dries up and blows away.

Meantime, as the casuals drift away from the genre and LucasArts shutters its Adventure division, long-running adventure games like the Nancy Drew series take center stage, games that mothers and daughters (the meat and potatoes core audience of adventure game sales) plays together.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
The thing with obtuse puzzles is it is indeed a point of friction, and points of friction are what people who are only casually interested in a genre will point to when they abandon a genre for better pastures. However, that is more of a thing about the way people are than it is about why they do things. People like to complain and they are dumb, so they will point at a singular thing that one company did and damn the entire genre for it, such as the infamous mustache puzzle, or Drizzt and story-oriented rpgs.

But the actual why of it all is only tangentially related to what people complain about. People are more than willing to overcome points of friction if the item on offer has something they want more than their resistance to that friction. So, say you've got some classic era rpg players, the era of Apshai and Telengard and Wizardry, and these rpg players are what will one day be called storyfags on Codexia. These rpg players like rpgs, but they will also likely have a casual interest in the early Sierra adventure games, because those games offer the storybook adventure that they are also looking for, and which those rpgs most definitively do not have. But then along comes Baldur's Gate, and suddenly they can get that storybook adventure that they always wanted, and that sucks their dick and tells them how awesome they are every few seconds, and they can get it in an rpg. So, no more need to spend their precious time and money on those adventure games anymore, since they've already gotten their storybook fix in the genre they are more interested in. And as their collection of storybook rpgs grows, their need to dip into the adventure genre ever again constantly lessens. Until eventually, their casual interest dries up and blows away.

Meantime, as the casuals drift away from the genre and LucasArts shutters its Adventure division, long-running adventure games like the Nancy Drew series take center stage, games that mothers and daughters (the meat and potatoes core audience of adventure game sales) plays together.

I think the critical thing about difficult puzzles is not every hard puzzle has player reacting the same when he gets stuck. Take the puzzle that is self-contained within the game world. Even something terribly designed, like Grim Fandango's infamous car puzzle. If you get stuck there, it's the battle of wits. It's you versus developer. Meanwhile with inventory puzzles, it's you clicking random shit on random shit and hoping eventually something comes out of it. That's just not a compelling way to go about things.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,871
You're overthinking the issue.

Today's games audience is simply too impatient and/or dumb to play adventure games. That, and the Internet - it's too easy to look something up if you're stuck. 30 years ago, it wasn't so simple. Kids had no money for hint lines and hint books were expensive, so you had to rely on word of mouth from your mates who also played adventure games.

People don't talk about this very often, but at least in my experience playing adventure games in the 90s was very much a social experience. People would get together and just put their heads together for any given game - I did it a lot with all the old Sierra adventures and many of the earlier Lucasarts ones. It was a lot of fun because people would come up with different angles for shit. It's a mistake to think that everyone played these games in aspie fashion (i.e. using everything on everything until something works).

Being able to instantly look something up if you're stuck is, to my mind, a big reason why these games aren't as successful anymore. I've always defended an in-game hint system that's well thought out and progressive such as the one in Under a Killing Moon.

In any case, in the true heyday of adventure games, they were being written and made by some truly brilliant people and pushed a lot of technological barriers. This just doesn't happen anymore. While I don't think adventure games will ever truly die, they'll never come close to the level of mainstream appreciation they once enjoyed. And that's fine.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
The point of an adventure game isn't to reach the ending, it's to watch horrible and hilarious things happen to your character. This part is never going to change. If you get through an adventure game without fucking up constantly, you've missed most of the game.
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,394
The whole point of good puzzles on adventure games is to make you feel on the shoes of the protagonist. If you are controlling Batman and have an investigation puzzle, having to figure out a murder scene by yourself, you feel inside batman's mind and you embark on the fantasy of controlling batman. If you are controlling batman, but the only thing you do is to click on hotspots and batman just spells out the solution of the puzzle to you, you are just ejected from control and the player are relegated to the role of the guy with a remote control deciding if the movie should play itself or not.

This was one of the things that made me so underwhelmed by games like Witcher 3 every time it tried some puzzle like mechanics, I didn't feel I was Geralt but the camera following Geralt around what made me hate Geralt as I felt I was the extra and the developers were the real players on their story as the game tried as hard as it could to keep me away from deeper interaction.

Modern adventure games sell because there are alot of storyfags out there that aren't worried about interactivity and consume those games as they consume TV shows but to claim old adventure games are outdated is a mind boggling show of ignorance. Modern "adventure" video games made the decision to sacrifice interactivity for broad audience appeal, this has nothing to do with good or bad gameplay. Seeking good game design on those games is like seeking good game design watching a movie.

Not saying old adventure games had well done puzzles, most didn't but for each awful puzzle like the goat puzzle on Broke Sword 1, there are great puzzles like the voodoo code of GK 1. The goat puzzle on Broken Sword 1 is just a random show stopper for the developer artificially make the hour count bigger but if on GK 1, Gabriel Knight just spelled to me the solution of the voodoo code, I wouldn't feel like a detective badass investigating obscure and dangerous stuff when I gone to the swamp later.

Reaching the end can be the only goal of a good movie but not of a good video game.
 

Deflowerer

Arcane
Joined
May 22, 2013
Messages
2,052
I think the Great Deceiver hit the nail on the head. The whole rhythm of adventure games is incompatible with the modern age. Back in the day, a difficult puzzle meant that you turned off the computer. You did other things, maybe thought about it in the back of your mind, and came back to the game to try new things. These days it's all about completing games as quickly as possible to clear out your backlog, and rather than waste your time with being stuck, it's trivial to resort to a walkthrough.
 

IHaveHugeNick

Arcane
Joined
Apr 5, 2015
Messages
1,870,124
You're overthinking the issue.

Today's games audience is simply too impatient and/or dumb to play adventure games. That, and the Internet - it's too easy to look something up if you're stuck. 30 years ago, it wasn't so simple. Kids had no money for hint lines and hint books were expensive, so you had to rely on word of mouth from your mates who also played adventure games.

People don't talk about this very often, but at least in my experience playing adventure games in the 90s was very much a social experience. People would get together and just put their heads together for any given game - I did it a lot with all the old Sierra adventures and many of the earlier Lucasarts ones. It was a lot of fun because people would come up with different angles for shit. It's a mistake to think that everyone played these games in aspie fashion (i.e. using everything on everything until something works).

Being able to instantly look something up if you're stuck is, to my mind, a big reason why these games aren't as successful anymore. I've always defended an in-game hint system that's well thought out and progressive such as the one in Under a Killing Moon.

In any case, in the true heyday of adventure games, they were being written and made by some truly brilliant people and pushed a lot of technological barriers. This just doesn't happen anymore. While I don't think adventure games will ever truly die, they'll never come close to the level of mainstream appreciation they once enjoyed. And that's fine.

I'm glad you patted yourself on the back about self-proclaimed superior patience and intellect compared to "today's games audience".

Meanwhile, Talos Principle has sold 1 million copies and the puzzles there are hell of a lot more complicated than entire Lucas Arts catalogue combined.

Figure that one out.
 

Victor Pflug

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
261
Not if I have anything to say about it; currently sketching up a Point & Click version of Fahrenheit 451!

Salamanderparked1c.png


...Okay yes. They are archaic and outdated, but fuck it - right?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,871
I'm glad you patted yourself on the back about self-proclaimed superior patience and intellect compared to "today's games audience".

Meanwhile, Talos Principle has sold 1 million copies and the puzzles there are hell of a lot more complicated than entire Lucas Arts catalogue combined.

Figure that one out.

I've never patted myself on the back and said my intellect or patience were superior compared to anyone. Stop projecting. The point was that people overlook the social aspect of adventure games in their heyday, before the age of the Internet. Were you even born back then?

Talos Principle is strictly a puzzle game (which is quite different from an adventure game). It has been 7-10USD bundle fodder for years now and roughly 15% of the people who own the game on Steam have completed it, what's your point?

Even if I were to humour you and consider all else being equal, do you honestly think that big adventure games in their day had comparable budgets and production scale to a low-key release such as Talos Principle (which, incidentally, I really like)? Go read my post again, now without the butthurt.
 
Last edited:

HoboForEternity

sunset tequila
Patron
Joined
Mar 27, 2016
Messages
9,175
Location
Disco Elysium
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
the obtuse puzzles sure are one of the reason why people grow frustrated, but there are great puzzles that comes from the genre too. like gabriel knight 3, with its infamous cat fur moustache puzzle actually have a masterpiece of puzzle in later chapter: La Serpent Rogue.

that is imo, the hallmark of adventure puzzle design.

-require multiple characters to solve in natural way (like Days of tentacle, but sometimes Days of tentacle feels a bit weird because each character exactly know what the other need without communicating, and it really depend on the player's meta knowledge)
-multi-chapter puzzle solving that involve various range of things from traditional inventory puzzle, searching for information, decrypting codes, solving riddle, etc

as for portal/talos principle/ even professor layton games, i wouldn't put it in the same category as your average P&C. their approach to puzzle is quite different. i'd say myst, obduction (i still need to continue this game but the performance is horrendous and it gave me headache moving around really) are closer to traiditonal point and click.

in portal/talos principle, etc the puzzles, instructions, etc are clear and what tools you have/can use to solve the puzzle. you have a portal gun, walls and goal. that's it, you have everything you need to get out of this puzzle box. while the P&C approach is sometimes figuring what the puzzle is, is already a puzzle itself. like you're given several junks and have no idea what to do and in some games there are TONS of them until you find some information/context and suddenly everything or part of thing clicks and you're suddenly know what to do with each items and clues and everything else.

if the earlier is like rubiks cube, the latter is like throwing the player into a a big room, and let them figure out what to do and how to do it with things they can find in the room which isn't obvious what can they be used for. the problem with "moon logic" thing is imo, really a bad job from developers that fails to deliver the context and nuances in concise, yet obvious way.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2012
Messages
5,871
Yes, the central puzzle in GK3 is really good, and well worth playing the game for. I suspect that a lot of the people who badmouth the game have not played through it at all. Its primitive 3d graphics haven't aged too well, admittedly, but it's a fine game.
 

Norfleet

Moderator
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
12,250
The whole point of good puzzles on adventure games is to make you feel on the shoes of the protagonist.
I'm pretty sure the goal is not to make yourself feel like you are Roger Wilco, Space Guy, as he dies yet another horrible and hilarious death. It certainly does help if the protagonist is as hapless and without clue as you are, though.
 
Joined
Jul 4, 2015
Messages
920
That's why I feel Monkey Island and Space Quest have aged a lot better than most adventure games.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom