Why Adventure Games Suck (1989)

Article context & historical arc

• Piece was written in 1989 during design of the first Monkey Island, republished in 2004 after a “retirement.”
• Some readers note that by late 1990s–early 2000s the classic adventure market was collapsing under pressure from RTS, RPGs, and shooters, so pessimism made sense despite strong titles like Grim Fandango.
• LucasArts’ adventure division was winding down around 2000, with sequels cancelled and the shift to 3D seen as bumpy.

State of the adventure genre today

• Many argue the genre never fully died, just shrank to a niche with higher average quality and more “labors of love.”
• Indie and mobile revivals are cited: Steam/itch.io titles, smartphone hits (e.g., The Room, Rusty Lake), and numerous modern point‑and‑clicks.
• Others point to narrative-heavy “interactive drama” and visual-novel hybrids (Telltale-style games, Life is Strange, Ace Attorney, Zero Escape, Danganronpa) as a major branch or adjacent genre.
• Some see sales of old vs. remastered classics as evidence the audience may be larger now despite lower cultural visibility.

Puzzle and game design lessons

• Strong agreement with the article’s criticism of:
  • Mandatory deaths and unwinnable “soft‑lock” states (Sierra games are repeatedly used as bad examples).
  • Arbitrary, non-intuitive puzzles and missable items.
• Monkey Island and related games are praised for mostly avoiding these, though several Lucas-era puzzles are called out as hypocritical or unfair (e.g., “monkey wrench,” some MI2 and MI3 chains).
• Good modern examples are highlighted where puzzles are hard yet “reasonable” and avoid brute-force item‑combining.

Real time, time limits, and drama

• Debate over the maxim “real time is bad drama”:
  • Some dislike timers and mission clocks, citing frustration in RTS and modern tactics games (e.g., XCOM remakes).
  • Others argue time pressure adds tension and prevents slow, purely optimal play, framing it as constrained optimization.
  • Nuanced view: explicit timers are bad when failure is harsh, opaque, or narratively unjustified; softer pressure (escalating threats, reinforcements) is preferred.

Narrative, endings, and ludonarrative dissonance

• Many see adventure game quality as almost entirely dependent on writing; good writing can compensate for weak art/tech.
• Several modern and classic titles are praised for strong storytelling; others criticized for unsatisfying or meta/deus‑ex‑machina endings that “break” their own worlds.
• “Ludonarrative dissonance” is discussed broadly, not just for adventures:
  • Examples: urgent main quests with no actual time pressure; worlds whose rules change between gameplay and cutscenes.
  • Some find this extremely immersion‑breaking; others see it as a non-issue and find attempts to fully reconcile story and mechanics more distracting.

Definitions and subgenres

• Multiple overlapping definitions of “adventure game” appear:
  • Classic: puzzle‑centric, story-driven, no reflex or combat dependency.
  • Broader: any story‑driven game where progress is primarily narrative rather than mechanical mastery.
• Distinctions are drawn between:
  • Classic parser/point‑and‑click adventures.
  • Visual novels (often mostly dialogue with limited exploration).
  • Hybrid investigations/puzzle stories (e.g., Obra Dinn, Golden Idol).
  • “Walking simulators” and interactive narratives, which emphasize story over puzzles.

Language and style tangent

• Side discussion on the article’s use of gendered pronouns:
  • Some find generic “she” jarring; others note it reflects earlier stylistic experimentation, while singular “they” is now more natural.
  • Several commenters describe how prescriptive grammar teaching made singular “they” feel “wrong” for decades.

Technology and future directions

• One commenter suggests generative models could cheaply create large numbers of bespoke scenes; another counters that adventure games have already revived without them and argues current models are ill-suited.
• General sentiment: the genre is alive, mostly niche, and has evolved in multiple directions while many of the 1989 design rules still feel relevant.