Game Design Theories
Ok, I’ve never been to any game design classes or anything, but I’ve been trying for a while now to work out what it is that makes a game good, or even legendary. A basic definition of an adventure game is Interactive Story + Puzzles, and some games have stuck to that definition... and have sucked. So what I’m trying to work out is what are the magic ingredients? The little extras that separate Monkey Island, Grim Fandango, etc from the rest? What did these games do, and do well, that made them more than just an interactive story about pirates or skeletons; how did they draw us into the game, and make us actually WANT to play through to the end, rather than giving up the first time we got stuck (in my case pretty early on). I think this is something worth discussing, because much as I hate to over-analyse 'fun', I think there are lessons to be learnt that could be applied to our own games. I find that when I play an amateur-made game, I very rarely can be bothered playing through to the end, possibly because I haven’t paid any money for it, I don’t feel obliged to give it a chance, and if it doesn't grab me in the first ten minutes or so, I give up. But if I’m going to put the effort into making a game, I kind of want to make sure that anyone who plays it is going to play it the whole way through, see all the work I’ve done and even remember it fondly. I definitely believe that design elements are more important than visuals (though I like pretty pictures and animations as much as the next guy) because The Secret of Monkey Island had crap graphics, yet I think it remains a very playable game today. CMI had great graphics, but I don’t think that’s what made it great... they just helped. So has anyone any suggestions, thoughts or ideas about what makes a game good, or maybe even some of you who have made a game have some examples of design elements you used?

I think that visuals are important.... Go back and play MI again.... The graphics are crap by todays standards... but look at the imagry in it. I think Monkey island and pleanty of images stick in my head, The starscape on the board walk, the circus tent in the vally, Cannonball Heads house on the island (and that's all just Melee island). I'm not saying that good visuals are going to make a bad story into a good game. Another great lure of MI and GF are the "exotic" atmosphere. If you set a game in New York City, where you have to get to work.... it's just not fun.... but Pirates, Death, and Zombies (which makes New York interesting in ND) all take the atmosphere and enhanse it.... so like in ND it makes NY livable ;-)... it also makes the Caribean a place we "REALLY want to be" (as opposed to "kinda want to be") and the 40's that much more interesting. That's all just my two cents.

I gotta hit on the underlaying factor: story. You can build a pretty house without a foundation, but it'll fall over in a gust of wind. Same thing here... you can build a pretty game that people won't remember if they weren't engaged by it. I think that the cosmetics of art and ambiance are important, but the reason we remember The Greats are because of the characters, the personalities, the quotes, the wit, charm, humor, excitement and the wonder of what lies around the next corner. Have you ever played "Flight of the Amazon Queen" which is now available for free (legal) download from the ScummVM website? I have, and I've never gotten around to finishing it. The graphics are pretty (on par with The Dig or KQ5/6), but the story is a whole lot o' suck. I lost interest and never finished.

yeah I think I played all of 2 minutes.... just like Beneath the Steel Sky (I think it was called) which I hated, because it was very easy to die within the first few seconds

I half agree, but not quite. Story is important, but not all-important. Its how you TELL the story. Monkey Island had a good enough story; Wannabe Pirate falls in love with Governors daughter and must save her from Ghost Pirate. Beneath a Steel Sky's story wasnt really much worse, but I can't really remember it, because it wasnt told in such an interesting way. We all know people who can make even a boring anecdote interesting because of the way they tell it. Plenty of people can imagine interesting stories, but for others to enjoy the story, they have to be able to tell it well, whether through writing, film-making, or game design. A good author learns and develops techniques for storytelling, ways to engage and interest the reader. Same with film making. So surely its the same in Game Design? Some games are purely about simulating actions (shoot-em-ups, sports sims) and story isnt really important. Some games are about making your own story (RPG's, The Sims, etc). But adventure games, i think more than any other game genre, is about storytelling, and in this I believe its the genre most like literature or films. But just like film makers use different storytelling techniques than authors, so the game medium must have different techniques specifically suited to its interactive nature. So my question is, does anyone know what these techniques are? Or have any ideas (the game medium is still quite young, so im sure there are many techniques still undiscovered).

then again, maybe im talking rubbish :P

Good articles
Adventure Developer has a good series of articles on this topic and other aspects of designing adventure games. Worth a look. http://www.adventuredevelopers.com/features.php

Looks good, thanks Tucker!

you totally have a point fatbuoy, I hear where you are coming from.... I must say though that there are other genres where story is important.... and there are others where it's not.... but the story add to a whole different level of individual play, take Starcraft or other blizzard games for example. The story line of those games is also linear, like an adventure game, but are not necessary for great multiplayer action. I think it is more interesting, to make everything you do integral to the story.... pointless puzzles will draw away from the story. Another thing I think it is important to avoid, is specific points where the story advances. This works for Starcraft, because that's the only way to really fit it into the game. But when it comes to an adventure game you want the story to flow. You do not want to have to do so much, just to get another point of the plot (I hope that makes sense) (BTW..... 100th post ;-))