I've just read an article called
Bring Back the Adventure which starts off with the phrase, "Adventure games suck." Why do so many journalists continue to write the same type of article which always start in the same manner? If it's not an opening statement about how adventures "suck", it's one about how the genre "died" in 1998 (or some other randomly picked year). Come on journalists, if you're going to write an article about adventures, be original.
Do adventures really suck because they don't have the trappings of other AAA titles? If they had these features they wouldn't be adventures, surely? It's like saying that platform games suck because they aren't first person shooters. Or that films suck because they aren't TV. If the AAA titles are so hot, why are they struggling to sell, particularly at this time of year with Christmas just a few weeks away?
While there are always opportunities to evolve the genre, moving away from what is the core of the genre will kill it more than anything else. Who would want to play an adventure that's no longer an adventure?
I don't think that the views of Charles Cecil, David Cage and Tim Schafer really help. Thinking of adventures having to compete directly with the likes of GTA and Morrowind is the wrong mindset. Anyone who goes into adventure development with this attitude is only going to come a cropper. Accept that adventures are a niche and make the best games you can within that niche.
Strangely, the article does raise some interesting points about telling stories, with Cage's idea of a rubber band being quite a neat one. It's not about having multiple solutions to puzzles, multiple endings or losing control of the plot (as Charles suggests); it's about offering different ways to reveal the plot or to approach the puzzles in a different order.
The replayability would come in offering a different experience rather than a different solution.