A paradigmatic example that has it all -- which is barely an adventure game in the traditional sense -- is Papers, Please.

I like how MobyGames has strict criteria for organising game genre categories. 'Papers, Please' gets listed as a simulation game. I've never played it personally, but I have purchased and played the 'adventure genre' equivalent to 'Papers, Please' which is called 'Lil' Guardsman'. Outrageoustugofwar, perhaps it will be of interest to you, even though it has an entirely different tone:

https://www.mobygames.com/game/216472/lil-guardsman/

The common thread is that PP gamifies a slice of real life and turns it into a compelling story.

Adventure adjacent genres such as visual novels (which usually lack inventory systems) tend to feature 'Slice of Life' frequently as a narrative structure. Here's a link to their database on that subject alongside examples for your convenience:

https://vndb.org/g454

Being able to sit down with a game that doesn't create that type of stress, while being able to also solve puzzles and get a good story, is just very appealing to me.

I get where you're coming from, Guyra. In non-adventure games there is always so much hype and a general frantic feeling overall. This ends up being a double-edged sword because it hastens those prideful moments of winning, but also heightens the exasperation of those frustrating losses.

*glares at blue shell in Mario Kart*

The pacing and format is thankfully less random and more controlled in an adventure game. In real life the pacing is also more relaxed to complete the adventure at your own leisure, as saving and loading features are basically a given in most adventure games. A nice relaxed atmosphere of simply chipping away at those puzzles gradually. Additionally, save scumming is not usually necessary in most cases. 

Getting unique (instead of generic) feedback that makes sense and is sometimes surprising (not just my character describing what I already see anyway with my own eyes), I am happy.

I'm glad you brought up the topic of distinctive feedback, Hexenwerk. Literally every single object and person in an adventure game is an ample opportunity to include clickable flavour text to please the player. Informative advice, tricky red herrings or humorous jokes - as long as you spice things up with the complete opposite of boilerplate placeholder text, then the player will likely praise your adventure game for having sharp-witted dialogue and observations. I especially love when developers included secondary clickable text or voice lines, this inclusion of optional lore and exposition rewards curious players for doing something as simple as just clicking twice on an object. In contrast, an impulsive and impatient player is usually fixated on achieving the default tunnel-vision goal of winning the game. Stop and smell the roses, it's fun.

Getting unique (instead of generic) feedback that makes sense and is sometimes surprising (not just my character describing what I already see anyway with my own eyes), I am happy.

I'm glad you brought up the topic of distinctive feedback, Hexenwerk. Literally every single object and person in an adventure game is an ample opportunity to include clickable flavour text to please the player. Informative advice, tricky red herrings or humorous jokes - as long as you spice things up with the complete opposite of boilerplate placeholder text, then the player will likely praise your adventure game for having sharp-witted dialogue and observations. I especially love when developers included secondary clickable text or voice lines, this inclusion of optional lore and exposition rewards curious players for doing something as simple as just clicking twice on an object. In contrast, an impulsive and impatient player is usually fixated on achieving the default tunnel-vision goal of winning the game. Stop and smell the roses, it's fun.

I think it's this type of exploration that helps makes adventure games feel more like novels/books when done right and something you don't see in other styles of games that, if they're trying to tell a story at all, focus more on cinematic storytelling techniques to do so (like the AAA first party Sony games from the past decade for example). The slower pace of examining things and reading/hearing what a character thinks allows an opportunity for more in depth characters. It's always a bit disappointing when a game hasn't done this and instead just has stale item descriptions or boring fallback 'I can't do that' / 'That doesn't work' responses.

Oooh yes, this is exactly what I like about adventure games, even compared to a good book: When you read a book, the author decides when to give you more details about something. Sometimes it is too much and becomes boring (depending how good the book is written).
In an adventure game, you can decide for yourself if and when/in what order you want to inspect something more precisely (even if you already know that you won't need it for solving a puzzle).

Learning more about the character who is inspecting the object by reading their thoughts about it is also a very interesting point. It is interesting when you can control more than just one character in a game and see what different characters have to say about something. While the object is still the same and can look simple on first impression, you can get very different perspectives on it this way.

Everytime I have a couple of minutes and I dip into this thread, someone else has made a stimulating contribution: this forum rocks.

Taking on the role of a helper (guiding spirit?) in a character-oriented adventue game is good insight - I wonder how this resonates with other players?
And @Hexenwerk: what do you think of first person games, especially those with an Ageless, Faceless, Gender-Neutral, Culturally-Ambiguous Adventure Person for a protagonist?

Happy to see so much discussion about exploration, observation and feedback.

Oooh yes, this is exactly what I like about adventure games, even compared to a good book: When you read a book, the author decides when to give you more details about something. Sometimes it is too much and becomes boring (depending how good the book is written).
In an adventure game, you can decide for yourself if and when/in what order you want to inspect something more precisely (even if you already know that you won't need it for solving a puzzle).

Learning more about the character who is inspecting the object by reading their thoughts about it is also a very interesting point. It is interesting when you can control more than just one character in a game and see what different characters have to say about something. While the object is still the same and can look simple on first impression, you can get very different perspectives on it this way.

- digital high five -

One thing I like in particular: characters giving their opinions on art. Whether it's an individual piece or artist, a movement or art in general - it's a fun way to give a main character and the game some personality.

The slower pace of examining things and reading/hearing what a character thinks allows an opportunity for more in depth characters. It's always a bit disappointing when a game hasn't done this and instead just has stale item descriptions or boring fallback 'I can't do that' / 'That doesn't work' responses.

This is the core element that sets adventure games apart from other genres in a positive way. Visual novels will give the same level of depth as adventure games, but the main problem is that it's usually done in a more linear progression format. Optional clickpoints are always appreciated in adventure games because they deliver a sense of agency. You can get that same feeling of agency in role-playing games too, but they vary drastically in how much flavour text gets invested in object interactions and examination. Whereas, adventure fans outright expect it. 

The inventory system was particularly instrumental in distinguishing adventures from other genres, because of the open-ended results you could trigger in-game from using them. For example, in the first Pajama Sam game, you collect a variety of items to use in solving specific puzzles and tasks while exploring the Land of Darkness. You later meet an anthropomorphic wishing-well. Completely unrelated to this character you meet, the protagonist Pajama Sam obtains an 'oil can' and a 'pound of solid gold' for use in a different game section.

Use 'gold' on wishing-well:

Sam: "That's more money than I want to be throwing down a well!" 

Use 'oil can' on wishing-well:

Wishing-well: "Don't even think about it!"

Who doesn't love this kind of interaction and feedback response in adventure games, am I right? 

Learning more about the character who is inspecting the object by reading their thoughts about it is also a very interesting point. It is interesting when you can control more than just one character in a game and see what different characters have to say about something. While the object is still the same and can look simple on first impression, you can get very different perspectives on it this way.

Maniac Mansion was ahead of the curve with that feature. I don't know how it didn't end up becoming a mainstream trope to have multiple protagonists in adventure games from that point onwards in the video game industry. I assume it's because it would take too much time and effort.

Oh yes, allowing players to control / switch between different characters or choose one takes definitely much time, alone for testing everything. It is an awesome feature though.

@Hexenwerk: what do you think of first person games, especially those with an Ageless, Faceless, Gender-Neutral, Culturally-Ambiguous Adventure Person for a protagonist?

I think such a character might be a good option for certain themes, where the character shouldn't be in the way of the story. But I don't know ... is it actually possible to create / write a culturally ambigous character? I don't really think so. Wouldn't the character bring their culture into everything they comment and do/how they interact with the environment? What they take for granted and "normal", and what they are surprised about?

Good question!

And another community playthrough idea.

You're right. But with a certain type of game and using a couple of workarounds, you can get close.

I got the term from Zork: Grand Inquisitor, I think it's an in-joke about a style of adventure game. In Zork, they work around the issues you mentioned by making the character part of the world, just lacking in traits, expressive desires or non-external motivations.

The Myst games have "The Stranger", which is supposed to be you. It's not a neutral character, it's more like neutral space, to be occupied by the player's frame of reference. There are moments when the game makes implicit cultural assumptions, so its neutrality is still debatable, but it's largely void of thoughts, feelings and observations other than your own.

This is an interesting point. I never played Myst and don't know if I ever will. I don't play many first person adventures in general. But thinking about this now, your post reminded me of choose your own adventure books. For me it feels like they work similar to what you just described here, which is fascinating as well.

I never thought of Myst (like) games this way. In the books it was often clear: "You" are the protagonist. They throw you into some situation, like being on a ship, or in a car that has an accident in a rainy night next to a horror house ... but it is still "you" who needs to interact now, not some fictional avatar in-between.

As far as I know, not all choose your own adventure books are this way (or at least I know there are also "solo roleplaying games/adventures, where you play as a certain defined fantasy character, like a dwarf or elf ...). But I played a few that exactly feel like this.

Interactive fiction printed or digitally still fascinates me as well, although I have just played a few IF games. But the first game I developed solo was one of those.

I looked it up and gave it a spin - really enjoying it. I got 10/15 achievements so far and I learned a new word: Flitzpiepe.