[Jake]

Hi again it's your old friend.

I was having a discussion with Walter of Ludonauts the other day and I pointed out that out of all genres in gaming, adventure games are the only one in which the story and the gameplay are basically literally the same thing. I mean, in a very strong way, an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story."

In my eyes that is the one true facet that sets Adventure Games as a genre apart from the other genres of gaming, so including anything else in a definition is probably superfluous.

Think about the primary goals in other games... In RPG's you level up, clear "dungeons," fight monsters. In FPS and 3rd person action games your goal is to kill monsters, get weapons, and get to the next map. Same with platformers. In RTS's you conquer other armies, nations, planets, or other opposing forces. In a puzzle game your job is, not surprisingly, to solve the puzzles. Etc. In modern incarnations of these genres, story is often present, but it's bolted on as an afterthought to the above primary goals, or as a reward for completing them.

In adventure games this isn't the case. Your goal as a player is to see the story all the way through.

I know that's a pretty wide open definition of adventure games (especially considering it doesn't include the word "puzzle"), but after I said it to Walter I realized that it's at least my personal definition of what an adventure game is.

Think about it. Think about video game cutscenes - you know, full motion video sequences - the non-interactive bits in a game. In every genre except adventure games, the story parts are told in cutscene. They are the parts the player doesn't deal with. In adventure games, the story parts are the only things not in cutscenes. For instance, in traditional old school* adventures, whenever a player fires a gun, gets in a fight, even when the main character has to jump, the cutscenes take over. The parts that the player plays in an adventure game are the story bits.

Anyway, I just wondered what anyone else happened to think about that very simple definition.

I think the fact that I hold that definition is why I am more tolerant than many when it comes to adding other types of gameplay to "adventure games." As long as the new gameplay is there to enhance my ability to play the story, I'm all for it. For instance the fighting in Dreamfall - it's not designed to change the players motivation from "complete the story" to "win 30 fights" - it's there because within the story, Zoe gets in a fight.

For the record, the recent realization that I've probably held that definition of "adventure game" in my head ever since I first played one almost surely explains why I have almost always considered Myst a puzzle game. In Myst the puzzles are the gameplay, and the story is a slowly doled out reward for completing said gameplay.

* Modern adventure game desigers are now occasionally allowing the player to do things like jump and fire weapons since they've finally found ways of doing it without the game suddenly turning into a platformer or shooter, and I do include that sort of thing in my definition of adventure games (shooting a gun or getting into a fight for story purposes, not for the sole purpose of shooting and fighting), but I think the point I'm trying to make is clearer if for examples we discuss old school games where the distinction is far more obvious.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

It is ultimately not the definition (whatever that may be), but in actually how it is defined - by us and by the industry and the media. Jack Allin, Editor-in-Chief of AdventureGamers.com, and adventure game writer and reviewer, tactfully pointed out that he "...prefer[s] to use the word 'description' rather than 'definition'. The former is used to explain what IS, and the latter is too often used to demand what MUST be." This makes good sense, because it places the emphasis on the genre's behavior rather than the 'categorically correct' perimeters within which it is expected to stay, allowing for some flexibility. But what happens when an adventure game begins to behave differently than usual yet still moves within those perimeters? Is it still an adventure game? Or can we now expand or modify whatever that 'description' or 'definition' is to encompass this seeming mutant? ...

I propose the idea of abstraction. That's right, the good old technique of blurring the lines, making it fuzzy while retaining the essence. How so? Back to the charming Jack Allin:

"By 'description', I just mean 'a definition based on what we've seen SO FAR'. But not 'a definition for the way it MUST be forever and ever, amen.' It's just semantics, but I'm just trying to allow for the possibility that the genre will continue to expand in ways that push the boundaries of how we understand the term today."

See how painless that was?

And here is my own 'description': "An adventure game is a game in which first and foremost contains: a very strong and coherent story or narrative structure, sharply developed characterization (of people, places, and/or things), a clearly defined set of goals, challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning, and elements of exploration and discovery." Of course, that could mean practically any game. But, the trick is to throw in a bit of Jack's insight, basing all this on "...what we've seen so far.." , and on Evan's (*ahem*, Justice Potter Stewart's) wisdom of "...know[ing] it when I see it...". And voila! What we end up with is, um…….a mutt, but a very nice cuddly one - structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself. And if you were paying attention, nowhere in this amalgamated 'definition' can be found ridiculous sentiments like '2D backgrounds only', or 'point-&-click only', or 'egregiously stuck-up over-intellectualized' puzzles.

The Cold Hotspot, AdventureDevelopers.com

[Jake]

Thanks Trep, I read it before. Great article.

So...

[fov]

I mean, in a very strong way, an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story."

I can go with this. And similar to what you said about Myst, this definition is probably the reason I consider games like Tender Loving Care and Shadow of Destiny to be AGs, no question, even though others call them interactive movies and complain about their lack of puzzles.

-emily

[qrious]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

And here is my own 'description': "An adventure game is a game in which first and foremost contains: a very strong and coherent story or narrative structure, sharply developed characterization (of people, places, and/or things), a clearly defined set of goals, challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning, and elements of exploration and discovery." Of course, that could mean practically any game. But, the trick is to throw in a bit of Jack's insight, basing all this on "...what we've seen so far.." , and on Evan's (*ahem*, Justice Potter Stewart's) wisdom of "...know[ing] it when I see it...". And voila! What we end up with is, um…….a mutt, but a very nice cuddly one - structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself. And if you were paying attention, nowhere in this amalgamated 'definition' can be found ridiculous sentiments like '2D backgrounds only', or 'point-&-click only', or 'egregiously stuck-up over-intellectualized' puzzles.

couldnt agree more

[Manhunter71]

Just to be awkward - don't you think that, as a general concept, all games are really adventure games?

Think about it - pretty much every single game you play has some kind of storyline , and the objective is to play out the story until the end

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Once upon a time there were there two white paddles, a dividing line, and a small white square that kept bouncing all around. The two paddles then decided that they should slap that white square back and forth to each other....

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Just to be awkward - don't you think that, as a general concept, all games are really adventure games?

Think about it - pretty much every single game you play has some kind of storyline , and the objective is to play out the story until the end

Just to be awkward, no I don't agree with you. When someone asks you what you're doing when you're playing Mario Bros you say "I'm trying to get past this level" or "I'm trying to kill this guy." When playing a Mario game you don't say "I've defeated the overlords of four different lands on my quest to save the princess - the last guy turned the king into a snake, and I had to get his wand from him to turn the king back to his original form so he could tell me where next to go on my journey." (or see Trep's pong example for a slightly more extreme version )

My very limited definition does get blurry when you start talking about something like Half Life, because I think for some players their motivation in Half Life really is to get to the next part of the story. But, on the other hand, for probably most people the story is a "cool thing" in there, but what is more cool is how efficiently they can dispatch all the monsters the game throws at you, and how much armor, health, and weaponry they can build up before confronting a boss. For Half Life, when I play it, both of those motivations are going on in my head at once. Maybe for me and my definition Half Life is a "hybrid game?"

[fov]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Think about it - pretty much every single game you play has some kind of storyline , and the objective is to play out the story until the end

Should I get into the difference between an anecdote and a story again?

To answer your question - no, not every game has a story. Many games don't even have ends.

-emily

[Moron Lite]

Dammit, Jake, you have completely forgotten about how story is irrelevent or is dictated by player actions, or about high global agency, etc.!

[Manhunter71]

Trep's Pong example is very extreme and I suppose you can also most exclude sports games as well.

But, think about all the other games available - the majority of platform games all have an underlying story : Ratchet & Clank, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Sly:Thievius Racoonus ; the list is endless.....

Most FPS games have a storyline : HL/HL2, Deus Ex, Medal of Honour, Call of Duty, Doom, Project IGI, NOLF, Splinter Cell, Halo - another seemingly endless list......

RPGs : NWN, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Planescape:Torment, Anachronox, Vampire The Masquerade........

If you think about it, surely all these games can be classed as adventure games - they all involve a main character who has an objective to complete, and this is portrayed through gameplay and cutscenes


Disagree with me if you dare

[Jake]

Oh god, hey Walter. I never realized you were moron lite. I'm sure people have told me that a few times. Scared me.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Manhunter71

Trep's Pong example is very extreme and I suppose you can also most exclude sports games as well.

But, think about all the other games available - the majority of platform games all have an underlying story : Ratchet & Clank, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Sly:Thievius Racoonus ; the list is endless.....

Most FPS games have a storyline : HL/HL2, Deus Ex, Medal of Honour, Call of Duty, Doom, Project IGI, NOLF, Splinter Cell, Halo - another seemingly endless list......

RPGs : NWN, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Planescape:Torment, Anachronox, Vampire The Masquerade........

If you think about it, surely all these games can be classed as adventure games - they all involve a main character who has an objective to complete, and this is portrayed through gameplay and cutscenes


Disagree with me if you dare

You're repeating the same thing over and over, and continuing to miss my point. The story isn't "underlying," it's "bolted onto the top of another gameplay mechanic." I really don't know what else to say. I think you should re-read the fourth paragraph of my first post again.


Well, I will say that I think adventure gamers (by which I mostly mean people who were possibly raised on adventure games or primarily play adventure games) get a slightly different experience than most gamers out of the stories in action/platformer/rts type games - I think they probably do play them for the story a bit more on average than some other gamers. That doesn't change what I'm saying though. The story in Spyro is still bolted on top of a sort of hopping/flying platformer gameplay, your goal is still to get to the end of a level and then see a little movie.

[fov]

There was a lot of talk at GDC this year about story being injected into other genres. Apparently devs from all other genres are looking for ways to squeeze story into their games (or at least, that's what the speakers would have us believe). But just because it's (apparently) being done more now than ever before doesn't turn games from other genres into adventure games.

For example, in an FPS the story is not the main point -- shooting people is. You're limited in what type of story you can tell, because the story has to involve shooting lots of people. It's a game whose primary goal is to shoot people... that happens to have a story that explains why you're shooting them. That's not the same as a game whose primary goal is to tell a story.

A well-told story (be it in a game, movie, book, whatever) does not have random elements. Everything that happens in a good story relates back to the primary arc, develops the characters, and drives the story forward. So a game that does have random elements -- whether they're Nazis, or monsters, or whatever else -- is not focusing on story, but on something else (like killing / escaping from Nazis, or monsters, or whatever).

-emily

ps But this is not a thread about story in games, it's a thread about what an adventure game IS. Okay, Manhunter, you disagree with Jake's definition of adventure game. What's yours, then?

[Jake]

Originally Posted by fov

There was a lot of talk at GDC this year about story being injected into other genres. Apparently devs from all other genres are looking for ways to squeeze story into their games (or at least, that's what the speakers would have us believe). But just because it's being done more now than ever (apparently) before doesn't turn games from other genres into adventure games.

For example, in an FPS the story is not the main point -- shooting people is. You're limited in what type of story you can tell, because the story has to involve shooting lots of people. It's a game whose primary goal is to shoot people... that happens to have a story that explains why you're shooting them. That's not the same as a game whose primary goal is to tell a story.

-emily

Exactly!

It was a lot of the talks at GDC that made me sort of come to this definition of adventure games. You can squeeze all the story you want into your FPS game, but it's still not about the story, it's about first person shooting. I think that's what makes an adventure game an adventure game.

If you start with an adventure game ("the genre where the story is the game") and then add in shooting, it's still about the story, the story just happens to involve firing a gun at something along the way.

There is a very distinct difference between the two, but I guess it's still sort of subtle.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

In the case of a FPS whatever story is being told, no matter how integral, serves to provide context to the action (shooting, killing, surviving one level after another). It simply makes the entire experience a bit more interesting, it helps deepen the world you're in, adding to the immersion and hence the enjoyment.

Historically, in a 'typical' adventure it's the story that serves as the nucleus, the primary motivation for players to forge ahead. Whatever else happens to be implemented - interactive items, conversations, puzzles - serves this.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

In the case of a FPS whatever story is being told, no matter how integral, serves to provide context to the action (shooting, killing, surviving one level after another). It simply makes the entire experience a bit more interesting, it helps deepen the world you're in, adding to the immersion and hence the enjoyment.

Historically, in a 'typical' adventure it's the story that serves as the nucleus, the primary motivation for players to forge ahead. Whatever else happens to be implemented - interactive items, conversations, puzzles - serves this.

Wooooo!!!!

[Manhunter71]

Sorry guys - whilst I may not agree with all my points, I am trying to play Devil's advocate here

The title "adventure game" fits a very wide criteria, and I stand by my reasoning that any game with a story (no matter how small) is an adventure game of sorts - you take on the role of the lead character and play the game until the stoyline is resolved

In the end, it all comes down to personal preference.

[Jake]

Fine by me if that's what you think, then I thought you were trying to get me to change my mind or something unreasonable like that!! Ridiculous thinking of course Even with broad definitions in the mix, in my book (and not to sound too much like like a particular banned curmudgeon here) there is still a distinct difference between a game that contains an adventure, and an Adventure Game.

[SoccerDude28]

I don't think story is enough to define an adventure game.

Okay so in the broadest sense there is no adventure without a story, so that means that story is a universal element of every adventure in existance. But just coz every human being has legs, doesn't mean that animals or chairs are human being because they have legs. There is more to what define humans than their legs. They have 2 legs, they have a brain, they have 2 arms, they have 5 fingers on each arm, much less hair on their body. Now you are defining a human being more accurately. Every adventure game that I can think of has puzzles (in the traditional sense). So story and puzzles. Now we are getting somewhere. See what I mean? Story by itself cannot define an adventure game, because it encompasses a whole plethora of other genres.