Adventure Forums - View Single Post

Kurufinwe · 10-02-2005, 08:22 AM

I usually hate those seemingly never-ending "what genre is this?" threads and try to avoid them like the plague, but I feel I have to make an exception this time. All sorts of statements have been made regarding Fahrenheit's categorization: "It's not an adventure game at all!", "Yes, it more or less is!", "No, certainly not, even if it does have adventure-gaming elements!", "Yes, it even is what adventure games historically were!". And each time somebody came to say how ludicrous the previous poster's statement was. Well, here's a very ludicrous statement for you people: this is not a game.

What a ridiculous thing to think, eh? And yet, it struck me when I finished the game and has been in my mind since then. What is a game, after all? It's a gratuitous activity, where clear rules define victory and loss, performed for pleasure (and where pleasure lies not only in winning, but also simply in playing the game). What we call "adventure games" have historically been a mixture of various types of games: mazes, logic puzzles, click-at-the-right-time sequences, etc., with a strong bias towards "McGyver" puzzles (i.e. "combine item A with item B to achieve your goal"). The same can be said of all the other genres, although most of them tend to be less varied (I mean, Doom is only about shooting the monsters, etc.; of course, many adventure games have tended to have only one type of challenges, which I think was a bad decision --- but that's not the point).

A "real" game has of course no trouble justifying its use of its medium: since it's a game, it requires interactivity and, for its particular type, a computer. Of course, the same cannot be told of stories: what is the point in using a computer "game" as a medium for telling a story? I wrote somewhere else that there was more and more of a problem between gaming elements and story elements in "adventure games". At first, people like Roberta Williams thought it would be cool to add a bit of story in the middle of their games. But things started getting out of hand: the gaming elements started distracting from the story, and so they got easier and weaker; but then, what was the point of making a "computer game", if you were only telling a story? The culmination of all that was probably Syberia: a weak game and a great story which would have been told much better on several other media than as a computer game.

There were several possibilities then. (1) Return to making games, real, challenging, fun, games, with the story only something to make the game fancier. (2) Try to combine gaming and interactive story-telling in a way that would make the two work together instead of the one against the other. (3) Let go of the game part, and prove that there can actually be a point in telling a story as a computer programme.

I didn't think (3) was feasible (and (2) even less). And yet, it seems to me that this is exactly what Fahrenheit did. And it works. There are now two things that I would like to show: that this indeed not a game and that it has managed to use game-like elements as an itegral part of the story-telling process.

Saying that Fahrenheit is not a game seems absurd. And yet, look at it. Where are the challenges? There are Simon-says sequences; what I call the Decathlon sequences (named after a very old game, which consisted in making your character run by hitting left-right-left-right); stealth sequences; very easy "traditional adventure puzzles" (i.e. combining items, looking for clues, choosing the correct thing to say to people, etc.). I found most of those to be rather nice by themselves (apart from the horrendous Soko-ban/Decathlon cross-over in the archives), but they are not what make Fahrenheit interesting. They're not that great, and you probably wouldn't have enjoyed them much if the "game" had consisted only of them. An important part of enjoying Monkey Island is solving the puzzles; most of the enjoyment derived from Doom (if any...) comes from running after the monsters (or away from them) and killing them. I don't think that is the case with Fahrenheit. And yet, it does work (at least, it did for me).

So, if Fahrenheit is not about gaming, then it's about a story, right? Which begs to ask: can it justify the use of its medium? Well, yes, it can. The medium Fahrenheit is probably the closest to is the cinema. And yet, imagine it as a movie. It might have been good. But certainly not as good. Fahrenheit works on tension: how are you going to survive, what is the right choice to make, will you do the good thing in time, etc. Now, by putting the player in the shoes of the characters, by letting him find the way, by giving him the impression (or rather, the illusion) that his decisions matter, Fahrenheit makes the story much more important for him. A talented director can make the viewers understand the feelings of, say, a hunted man; but making you play (more as in "play a role" than "play a game") that man, Fahrenheit conveys those feelings more strongly. Of course, Fahrenheit often does that using "game-like" sequences; but, as I said, those sequences are not interesting as games, but because they make you an integral part of the story and reinforce the grip of the story-teller on you.

People have debated David Cage's idea that Fahrenheit was an "interactive drama". Unfortunately, the debate centred around whether this meant that it was more an adventure game or an action game. I tend to believe that they missed the point entirely: Fahrenheit is not a game.

Don't get me wrong: I love games, especially adventure games. I want more of let's-put-yellow-petals-in-meat, more of Le Serpent Rouge. But I also like stories. And that's why I think Fahrenheit is important: it is, I believe, the first real interactive story told using a computer, that is, the first story that works better on that medium than on any other and is dramatically enhanced by the interactivity, the first computer programme that is enjoyable purely for the way it tells a story and not for being a game. Sure, the story in itself has its failings. Sure, the elements borrowed from games sometimes hamper the story-telling instead of making it more immersive (the archives...). But still, Fahrenheit has shown that a pure "interactive drama" was feasible.

As I said, I love games. I hope companies will again make adventure games. But I love stories too, and interactive drama is certainly a genre that I will follow closely in the future.

OK, this is probably a lot of nonsense. I'm aware of it. So, let the flaming begin. I'll even start: "Saying that Fahrenheit is not a game is just ludicrous!"... Now, isn't that a fun game?

10-02-2005, 08:22 AM	#151
Kurufinwe Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 3,038	I usually hate those seemingly never-ending "what genre is this?" threads and try to avoid them like the plague, but I feel I have to make an exception this time. All sorts of statements have been made regarding Fahrenheit's categorization: "It's not an adventure game at all!", "Yes, it more or less is!", "No, certainly not, even if it does have adventure-gaming elements!", "Yes, it even is what adventure games historically were!". And each time somebody came to say how ludicrous the previous poster's statement was. Well, here's a very ludicrous statement for you people: this is not a game. What a ridiculous thing to think, eh? And yet, it struck me when I finished the game and has been in my mind since then. What is a game, after all? It's a gratuitous activity, where clear rules define victory and loss, performed for pleasure (and where pleasure lies not only in winning, but also simply in playing the game). What we call "adventure games" have historically been a mixture of various types of games: mazes, logic puzzles, click-at-the-right-time sequences, etc., with a strong bias towards "McGyver" puzzles (i.e. "combine item A with item B to achieve your goal"). The same can be said of all the other genres, although most of them tend to be less varied (I mean, Doom is only about shooting the monsters, etc.; of course, many adventure games have tended to have only one type of challenges, which I think was a bad decision --- but that's not the point). A "real" game has of course no trouble justifying its use of its medium: since it's a game, it requires interactivity and, for its particular type, a computer. Of course, the same cannot be told of stories: what is the point in using a computer "game" as a medium for telling a story? I wrote somewhere else that there was more and more of a problem between gaming elements and story elements in "adventure games". At first, people like Roberta Williams thought it would be cool to add a bit of story in the middle of their games. But things started getting out of hand: the gaming elements started distracting from the story, and so they got easier and weaker; but then, what was the point of making a "computer game", if you were only telling a story? The culmination of all that was probably Syberia: a weak game and a great story which would have been told much better on several other media than as a computer game. There were several possibilities then. (1) Return to making games, real, challenging, fun, games, with the story only something to make the game fancier. (2) Try to combine gaming and interactive story-telling in a way that would make the two work together instead of the one against the other. (3) Let go of the game part, and prove that there can actually be a point in telling a story as a computer programme. I didn't think (3) was feasible (and (2) even less). And yet, it seems to me that this is exactly what Fahrenheit did. And it works. There are now two things that I would like to show: that this indeed not a game and that it has managed to use game-like elements as an itegral part of the story-telling process. Saying that Fahrenheit is not a game seems absurd. And yet, look at it. Where are the challenges? There are Simon-says sequences; what I call the Decathlon sequences (named after a very old game, which consisted in making your character run by hitting left-right-left-right); stealth sequences; very easy "traditional adventure puzzles" (i.e. combining items, looking for clues, choosing the correct thing to say to people, etc.). I found most of those to be rather nice by themselves (apart from the horrendous Soko-ban/Decathlon cross-over in the archives), but they are not what make Fahrenheit interesting. They're not that great, and you probably wouldn't have enjoyed them much if the "game" had consisted only of them. An important part of enjoying Monkey Island is solving the puzzles; most of the enjoyment derived from Doom (if any...) comes from running after the monsters (or away from them) and killing them. I don't think that is the case with Fahrenheit. And yet, it does work (at least, it did for me). So, if Fahrenheit is not about gaming, then it's about a story, right? Which begs to ask: can it justify the use of its medium? Well, yes, it can. The medium Fahrenheit is probably the closest to is the cinema. And yet, imagine it as a movie. It might have been good. But certainly not as good. Fahrenheit works on tension: how are you going to survive, what is the right choice to make, will you do the good thing in time, etc. Now, by putting the player in the shoes of the characters, by letting him find the way, by giving him the impression (or rather, the illusion) that his decisions matter, Fahrenheit makes the story much more important for him. A talented director can make the viewers understand the feelings of, say, a hunted man; but making you play (more as in "play a role" than "play a game") that man, Fahrenheit conveys those feelings more strongly. Of course, Fahrenheit often does that using "game-like" sequences; but, as I said, those sequences are not interesting as games, but because they make you an integral part of the story and reinforce the grip of the story-teller on you. People have debated David Cage's idea that Fahrenheit was an "interactive drama". Unfortunately, the debate centred around whether this meant that it was more an adventure game or an action game. I tend to believe that they missed the point entirely: Fahrenheit is not a game. Don't get me wrong: I love games, especially adventure games. I want more of let's-put-yellow-petals-in-meat, more of Le Serpent Rouge. But I also like stories. And that's why I think Fahrenheit is important: it is, I believe, the first real interactive story told using a computer, that is, the first story that works better on that medium than on any other and is dramatically enhanced by the interactivity, the first computer programme that is enjoyable purely for the way it tells a story and not for being a game. Sure, the story in itself has its failings. Sure, the elements borrowed from games sometimes hamper the story-telling instead of making it more immersive (the archives...). But still, Fahrenheit has shown that a pure "interactive drama" was feasible. As I said, I love games. I hope companies will again make adventure games. But I love stories too, and interactive drama is certainly a genre that I will follow closely in the future. OK, this is probably a lot of nonsense. I'm aware of it. So, let the flaming begin. I'll even start: "Saying that Fahrenheit is not a game is just ludicrous!"... Now, isn't that a fun game?