[RumRogerz]

Although i agree with what the article is arguing, i personally enjoy adventure games JUST because of the story. Don't want to kill monsters, don't want to level up, don't even want to have an internet connection to play adventures.
All i care about is the cool story that is told, and that we get to be the lucky ones to play out the main character OF the story.
Then you also get with that:
a) good or bad dialogue
b) usually good backdrops
c) puzzle solving
and of course
d) watching your character run/walk/jog across each end of the screen through locale, to locale, to locale because you forgot to do something



......
Yea

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by RumRogerz

All i care about is the cool story that is told, and that we get to be the lucky ones to play out the main character OF the story.
Then you also get with that:

c) puzzle solving

Which means? Oh, no. Somebody asked that a couple of pages back already. And I still hate the word puzzle.

d) watching your character run/walk/jog across each end of the screen through locale, to locale, to locale because you forgot to do something

Originally Posted by James

While the stories of """RPGS""" etc are more advanced and varied..

Where is your article going to appear?

[BuffYoda]

Strip out all the cutscenes. Then write a narrative of what the player does. If the resulting narrative is worthy of being called a story, the game is an adventure game. QED.

I think it all comes down to what someone else said: in an adventure game, by playing, you are writing the story. In other games (generally), you have to play for a while before the story will advance via cutscene.

Your 'goal' in playing a game does not determine whether the game is an adventure game (it may, however, reveal whether you are an adventure gamer).

[squarejawhero]

I'd argue that in AG's the story is written for you, and you merely attempt to unravel it. They're not sandbox games - there's no real movement other than what the developers intended.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by BuffYoda

I think it all comes down to what someone else said: in an adventure game, by playing, you are writing the story. In other games (generally), you have to play for a while before the story will advance via cutscene.

Disagree entirely. In adventure games, almost everything is scripted. The player doesn't have any control over where the plot goes any more than any other genre out there.

Besides, using this reasoning, wouldn't Half-Life 2 be more of an adventure game than just about every game we actually do consider adventures? I mean, in Half-Life 2 you never once leave the perspective of Gordon Freeman, the plot is unraveled via your actions and observations, and you never, ever lose control of him until the game ends. Contrast this with adventure games, where you are rarely capable of moving once engaged in a conversation, many solved puzzles are rewarded with pretty FMV sequences, and player characters who will just say "I can't do that" if a puzzle solution doesn't work.

Frankly, I think adventure games are closer to being told a story, rather than being involved in one, than any other genre. There's just too many degrees of seperation. In Sam & Max, for example, I don't do anything to get the ring from inside the ball of twine beyond giving Sam the order to do so. I don't reach inside the cat for the orders, I just tell Max to. Once I give the order, a scripted event of it being acted out occurs, which doesn't leave much room for me to do my own thing. It doesn't matter if there's another, possibly more logical way to do something... if that's not the intended solution, it ain't gonna happen.

If playing most other genres is like being a character in a movie, then adventure gaming is like yelling at the TV screen, with the added bonus that the characters might just listen to you (even if only to reply with "I can't do that").

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Disagree entirely. In adventure games, almost everything is scripted. The player doesn't have any control over where the plot goes any more than any other genre out there.

Yes. I've always felt like AGs were somewhere in-between games and books.

[BuffYoda]

You obviously detest adventure games. Why come to this site?

In any case, I never claimed adventure games allow freedom to change the story. They do not (usually). Typically, there is one story, and your actions within the game are the realization of that story.

Read the Gabriel Knight novelizations if you care to see what I mean.

[samIamsad]

Yeah, well. The next time I'm going to stumble upon an article like this , I'm going to puke all over this board. Be afraid, people, be very afraid.

That there are a whole lot of mature gamers who prefer a cerebral challenge, and shy away from games that require fast reflexes, or consist of little more than mindless shooting.

Nothing entirely wrong with that claim, but think about your distorted and limited definition of a cerebral challenge for a while. And while we're at it, stop thinking in binary categories like: Adventure and action. Us and them. Mindless and intelligent. You're better off this way.

Originally Posted by BuffYoda

Typically, there is one story, and your actions within the game..

These actions in the game deepen the experience, serve the plot -- at least the good ones in the popular games of the past do this. That's why I'm not comfy with the term puzzle at all. Often it's an excuse for coming up with the most out of place challenges, most mundane tasks and most arbitrary/moronic problem solutions possible. And sliders, of course.

Amongst some other things, the saving grace of the Myst series is its outstanding production design and art direction. IMHO. It's a puzzle game (as in logic puzzle). There is nothing wrong with puzzle games, mind you. But it's a slightly different kind of thing compared to what was going on at Sierra and Lucas Arts. Uh, what am I trying to tell you here? You already know about this.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by BuffYoda

Strip out all the cutscenes. Then write a narrative of what the player does. If the resulting narrative is worthy of being called a story, the game is an adventure game. QED.

Isn't that what the Half-Life series did? All the cutscenes happened while you were playng the game, they happened all around you. The story happened all around you. Does that make Half-Life an adventure game?

I think it all comes down to what someone else said: in an adventure game, by playing, you are writing the story. In other games (generally), you have to play for a while before the story will advance via cutscene.

Are you sure? Again, I bring up Half-Life. And there are the RPGs, like Deus Ex, where the exploration and character interactions during the gameplay itself help to steer you through the story. In a typical adventure game the gameplay takes place inside your head while your character stands there and you're figuring out a puzzle, and the entire gameworld 'freezes' until you solve it. Wouldn't you say that games like Half-Life 2 and Deus Ex are even more so adventures than bona fide adventure games because they actively advance the plots while you play? That you have an even more 'hands on' involvement with how the story unfolds?

Your 'goal' in playing a game does not determine whether the game is an adventure game (it may, however, reveal whether you are an adventure gamer).

What kind of goal is it that determines a game to be an adventure? If you play it only for the puzzles? If you love just walking around and exploring? If you want only the story by whatever means?

[fov]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Yeah, well. The next time I'm going to stumble upon an article like this , I'm going to puke all over this board.

Why? AG didn't print it.

In fact, we had a conversation about that article when it came out, and a lot of people here didn't even agree with it.

[squarejawhero]

Adventure games are based on a linear narrative and framework, which works by advancement through logic-based obstacles. The best adventure games disguise the puzzles and mix them up into sections where you progress through them - sic. Riven, Monkey Island - based on the narrative. Typically the narrative in these games is of a high quality, even if the story's are simple, and implementation and integration are very carefully thought through to sustain immersion.

The worst adventure games, imho, use the puzzles as straight, barely-disguised blockages where you can't do much outside of having to solve them straight-out to progress. Or when the narrative is a framework for a poorly integrated game... and when the puzzles complement a poor narrative.

I've said it before - Adventures have very tight requirements which need to be done right in all areas to truly succeed as a game. They're very simple.

[James]

that article is truly terrible, lets draw a line.

adventure games need not be linear nor developer driven - warren spector is a big fan of sandbox rpgs, and i see no reason why adventures could not follow i a similar vein. indeed, the very nature of a sandbox would be inclusive of both rpg and adventure choices as well as action and stealth etc, if it be a true sandbox. adventure will likely not survive on its own - but rather as a complement and contrast to other forms, but within the same game.

[samIamsad]

Yeah, what our hero said. Except that he mentions that stupid word "puzzle" once again. Semantics? Sure, but still.

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Are you sure? Again, I bring up Half-Life.

There's no "real" player involvement in *how* the story unfolds in HL2, while in Deus:Ex or Kotor, there is. Granted, games aren't there yet. However, the illusion that the player is really in the thick of it is in many ways pretty advanced. It's not about non-linearity, and not even about depth of a script, but how the plot's transported over the medium video game. And this includes player involvement, in whatever form.

Originally Posted by Fov

Why? AG didn't print it.

I know. I'm going to clean the mess up myself after I'm finished, okay?

[fov]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

I'm going to clean the mess up myself after I'm finished, okay?

You better. I draw the line at vomit.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by James

that article is truly terrible, lets draw a line.

adventure games need not be linear nor developer driven - warren spector is a big fan of sandbox rpgs, and i see no reason why adventures could not follow i a similar vein. indeed, the very nature of a sandbox would be inclusive of both rpg and adventure choices as well as action and stealth etc, if it be a true sandbox. adventure will likely not survive on its own - but rather as a complement and contrast to other forms, but within the same game.

The one compliant I have about the sandbox approach in RPG is that that often leads to weak central narrative. Morrowind is a perfect example of that. The game has a very robust RPG elements. I had a lot of fun with the game for a while but at some point, I began thinking why am I playing this game when the only thing I'm gonna get to do next is just becoming a bit stronger and then killing a monster that's a bit stronger than the one I have already killed. The game's central narrative is so weak that there's no single thread in the narrative that holds the game together. In many gamers' eyes, this is a good thing I guess. Not in mine though. I need to have a interesting story in my RPGs. In that sense, I for one will not like AGs created with the sandbox design.

[samIamsad]

As far as narrative issues are concerned: Morrowind is indeed a weak example of sandbox design when it comes to a strong central narrative. I'm currently replaying Shock 2, a game, that was nominated for adventure game, action game and RPG of the year all at once in 1999. Pff. Much, much better.

[gillyruless]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

As far as narrative issues are concerned: Morrowind is indeed a weak example of sandbox design when it comes to a strong central narrative. I'm currently replaying Shock 2, a game, that lazily was nominated for adventure game, action game and RPG of the year all at once in 1999. Much, much better.

You don't get the freedom and open-endedness in System Shock 2 that you get in Morrowind though, right? I'd love to finish System Shock 2 but never could. I attmpted to play the game several times but I didn't get very far. It was just too hard for me.

I wonder if we study enough games, we can map out a correlation between the strength of the central narrative and open-endedness in games. Now, who's the AG expert at liner regression?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

The one compliant I have about the sandbox approach in RPG is that that often leads to weak central narrative. Morrowind is a perfect example of that. The game has a very robust RPG elements. I had a lot of fun with the game for a while but at some point, I began thinking why am I playing this game when the only thing I'm gonna get to do next is just becoming a bit stronger and then killing a monster that's a bit stronger than the one I have already killed. The game's central narrative is so weak that there's no single thread in the narrative that holds the game together. In many gamers' eyes, this is a good thing I guess. Not in mine though. I need to have a interesting story in my RPGs. In that sense, I for one will not like AGs created with the sandbox design.

I hope you're suggesting that just because Morrowind did a lousy job of sustaining a strong narrative construct, the general idea of introducing a sandbox approach to adventure games is bad. It can work, depending on individual concepts. Near unlimited exploration (and rewards for such) can itself contribute to the immersiveness of a game, and pending the talents of the designer and writer, can enrich the main story and even the puzzles challenges set up for the player.

Besides, that Morrowind did a weak job of it is just that and only that. I've played Deus Ex, Knights Of The Old Republic, etc., and I never got lost or confused as to what to do next. As long as the game keeps you informed of what your goals are and where to go you'll be fine. Simply translate that to an adventure game. Bethesda, btw, learned from their mistakes in Morrowind (precisely your complaint about it) and are incorporating solutions in the next Elder Scrolls game, Oblivion, that will prevent players like you from getting lost or losing sight of what you can do next. Happy?

[Tramboi]

Originally Posted by gillyruless

I wonder if we study enough games, we can map out a correlation between the strength of the central narrative and open-endedness in games. Now, who's the AG expert at liner regression?

Sorry I only bother to do multilinear regressions.

(You are absolutely right on the openness vs strong narrative issue)

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I hope you're suggesting that just because Morrowind did a lousy job of sustaining a strong narrative construct, the general idea of introducing a sandbox approach to adventure games is bad. It can work, depending on individual concepts. Near unlimited exploration (and rewards for such) can itself contribute to the immersiveness of a game, and pending the talents of the designer and writer, can enrich the main story and even the puzzles challenges set up for the player.

Once again.... depending on the concept of a game..... It'll be interesting to see what 80days will be like. Morrowind (and its predecessors) is more of a fantasy world simulator, the story is merely a gimmick. That's how I feel about it anyway.

Oh, and gilly, in one section near the end of Shock2 I had to rely on a cheat myself. It's a hard game at times, a lot of people complained about the constant respawning of enemies. I couldn't do without the respawning. You never feel safe on that creepy ship and that's the whole purpose behind it.