[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Me too. But isn't that not so much what the design of the game is about, and more the fact that both you and I have our gaming backgrounds mostly in adventure games* and/or know what we want to get out of a shooter or an RPG?

Umm, I don't think so. Or at least not to the point that it invalidates the argument. I think the fact that those stories are there suggests that it's understood most gamers will appreciate it. It's no coincidence that narrative focus is increasing across pretty much all genres. If anything, it just further emphasizes that games are designed to appeal to a range of gamers with diverse tastes, which is why no ONE criterion will define any genre. (If it did, it would be a very narrow group of gamers who enjoyed it.)

If this made NO sense at all, see lateness excuse from earlier.

[Duncan]

I think the fact that those stories are there suggests that it's understood most gamers will appreciate it. It's no coincidence that narrative focus is increasing across pretty much all genres.

I think the stories are there because a narrative is required to string together the platforming or shooting bits into something cohesive. Not to say that no one puts effort into it, games like Ratchet & Clank try to be funny (I say 'try' because I am still unconvinced that those games actually ARE funny. ) but I don't think anyone plays them just to get to the next punchline. It's there to amuse the player but it's not what the game is about. I don't think anyone plays Halo (Note: I have never played Halo I have no idea what I'm talking about) because of the story.

This is the quote I was talking about in my last post:

Originally Posted by Jake

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.

Which is basically what I tried to say except... better. Also I have no idea where I've ended up in the whole debate with this post. I am in the tall grass while everyone else is having civilised discourse indoors. Or something.


EDIT: what I was basically trying to say in my first paragraph is that games have grown up since the late eighties/early nineties when it was pretty much only adventure games that had any real story, and the expectations of gamers across the board have developed too. So I don't think developers now can get away with unexplained shooting or platforming just for the sake of it.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Duncan

I don't think anyone plays Halo (Note: I have never played Halo I have no idea what I'm talking about) because of the story.

I know I've come across as a stick in the mud about adv games, however I have played Halo - all the way through! Also Max Payne, and other FPS games. And no, I didn't play Halo for the story, and it was a flimsy story at that. I just want my adventure games, and I believe most adv gamers are like this, to have no violence. If I'm in the mood for that, I'll get on the Xbox or PS2 and play an FPS or GTA. There are more than enough violent games out there - can't we keep adv games free of it? There needs to be some island of sanity in the gaming realm.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

I know I've come across as a stick in the mud about adv games, however I have played Halo - all the way through! Also Max Payne, and other FPS games.

Awww, now you're making me wanna re-play Max Payne 2!! I loved that game, for both the story AND the action.

I just want my adventure games, and I believe most adv gamers are like this, to have no violence....There are more than enough violent games out there - can't we keep adv games free of it? There needs to be some island of sanity in the gaming realm.

Well, I agree on a personal level, that violence isn't necessarily crucial to the adventure game genre. But, if it's the best way to get the story across (i.e., emotionally resonant, dramatic, etc.) then by god, put it in!!!

Here's another snippet from The Cold Hotspot:

And what about things like action or reflex based challenges, you ask? Hey, it's not like every single adventure game from the dawn of mankind contained a requisite action bit every five seconds, right? Historically, action bits haven't been an incredibly vital element in adventure games - categorically they didn't need it, at least as a prominent feature. The extreme focus on narrative and challenges for the brain instead of the fingers and thumbs itself acts as enough of a filter to minimize action bits, if not eschew them altogether. There are, of course, some adventures that include them in very small doses, for better or worse, as a tool to conjure up suspense through a sense of immediacy. And that's okay!

Originally Posted by Jake

In fact, if someone made an adventure game that still let me experience an interactive and engaging story but didn't have me waving inventory items around at things or pushing a crate or negotiating a preplanned dialogue tree, I would be extremely pleased, and I would still definitely consider it an adventure game. I don't know what that game is, but I'm not going to discount its theoretical existence by needlessly excluding it from my definition of the genre.

Isabelle.

[digressing mode on]
Isabelle is not universally rated as a rotten game. Only here at AG. Unfortunately. The reviews at JA and Quandary are much more positive.
[digressing mode off]

Carry on, carry on... interesting thread, even though it's all been said before in one way or another.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Your talk of an adventure game that is all story and no puzzles or exploration (as far as possible) leads to something very much like these "dating sims", though. If you take out those elements, that's what you're left with, I think.

OK, so your vision might not require scenes of sex with anime girls... but it wouldn't exclude it either.

I didn't mean to imply that I wanted an adventure game with no puzzles, no exploration, and NOTHING to replace them! That's really a retarded conclusion to draw, Snarky. I didn't even say I wanted that game in general - I said that if someone could pull it off and have it be as compelling as a traditional adventure, I would be excited by the prospect.


-----------

Anyway, attention everybody: I am more than aware of the fact that the theories I proposed in this thread don't hold much water when applied in any practical sense. I proposed the whole notion mostly to get everybody talking, and in hopes of maybe making people think differently about their favorite genre of game for a few minutes.

Random thoughts:

I think Dreamfall is an adventure game, and I think Ragnar Tornquist thinks it is too, but I think after all the ridiculous backlash in his blog comments and on forums like this, he no longer feels comfortable calling it one. That might be a bit ridiculous and far fetched to speculate on, but I think theres probably some truth to that guess.

I worry that adventure games are increasingly known as the "puzzle mystery genre" instead of "the storytelling genre" and that makes me sad. It breaks my heart in fact. I think the designers whose games I grew up with (the golden age Lucas and Sierra graphic adventure makers) saw adventure gaming primarily as an interactive storytelling medium with puzzles used as a vehicle for delivering that story. I think now it's flipped to be the other way around. Realistically I understand that puzzles are an intrinsic part of adventure games, but I think the equation is becoming increasingly lopsided, with designers building games in which the story is merely a vehicle for a series of inane puzzles, instead of the other way around - or better - trying to have them both working in tandem/in harmony. It worries me.

I attended a very large handful of sessions on storytelling in games at this years Game Developers Conference and you know how many recent adventure games were used as examples, in any context? Zero. Modern adventures didn't seem to even show up on these peoples charts when it came to story discussion. Classic adventure games, yeah, but nothing new.

It was for or these reasons (and probably some other ones too that I can't think of or don't really know) that I threw this stuff out for discussion.

I do happen to hold a personal "ideal" picture/definition of adventure games that is pretty similar to what I've argued for in this thread, but, in a realistic sense if someone on the street came up to me and said "what's an adventure game" I would definitely give them a definition that included puzzles, dialogue trees, what-have-you. I think ideally the standard definitions we use when describing adventure games are a little worn out, and sometimes needlessly limiting out of habit or out of a lack of questioning, but I also know, on average, what elements more or less every adventure game on store shelves has contained for the past 20 years. I'm not completely retarded.

[remixor]

I agree with pretty much all of that.

[Fairygdmther]

Jake, no one would ever think of you as retarded. When we brought these arguments to light, we were going by what you included and excluded. Unless you tell us what you meant, we can only go by what you are saying. And we aren't attacking you, just discussing our own opinions, so please don't take it so personally. I have a lot of respect for you and the thought you put into your posts. That doesn't mean I gotta agree with them all, does it?

And Fienepien - you've mentioned before the game Isabelle. I went and read Randy's review, and was intrigued enough to go to the site and buy it a few minutes ago. I hope I will thank you for it when I play it.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Jake

I think Dreamfall is an adventure game, and I think Ragnar Tornquist thinks it is too, but I think after all the ridiculous backlash in his blog comments and on forums like this, he no longer feels comfortable calling it one. That might be a bit ridiculous and far fetched to speculate on, but I think theres probably some truth to that guess.

I think Rags has EVERY RIGHT to redefine what an adventure game can be, and Dreamfall looks to be his "F#&K YOU!" manifesto. More power to him.

I worry that adventure games are increasingly known as the "puzzle mystery genre" instead of "the storytelling genre" and that makes me sad. It breaks my heart in fact. I think the designers whose games I grew up with (the golden age Lucas and Sierra graphic adventure makers) saw adventure gaming primarily as an interactive storytelling medium with puzzles used as a vehicle for delivering that story. I think now it's flipped to be the other way around. Realistically I understand that puzzles are an intrinsic part of adventure games, but I think the equation is becoming increasingly lopsided, with designers building games in which the story is merely a vehicle for a series of inane puzzles, instead of the other way around - or better - trying to have them both working in tandem/in harmony. It worries me.

I attended a very large handful of sessions on storytelling in games at this years Game Developers Conference and you know how many recent adventure games were used as examples, in any context? Zero. Modern adventures didn't seem to even show up on these peoples charts when it came to story discussion. Classic adventure games, yeah, but nothing new.

I think we can honestly blame everyone - developers, publisher, gamers, and the media - for this lapse.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Jake

I mean, in a very strong way, an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story." (...) Anyway, I just wondered what anyone else happened to think about that very simple definition.

I disagree, for the very simple reason that it's not true in my case. My primary goal is to discover places and toy with stuff...
By the way, is there really a chance that we'll (I mean all of us AGers) ever agree on one definition? I mean, after 100 or so thread on the subject, I'd though it was a lost battle...
My take on it is: wait until a game is out, consider how it plays, and then you'll know whether or not it's an adventure games. Because even though we can't agree on one definition fro the genre, we almost always agree that game A is an adventure game and game B isn't.
For example, I've heard a lot of people saying that Beyond Good and Evil was as close from an AG as you can get, that it could easily please most AG players, etc...(which is true) but I don't remember anyone actually saying that it's an AG. While almost everyone agrees to put Shadow of Memories (or Destiny, depending on your country) in the AG genre.
So we all know if a game is an AG, but we don't know why. Does it really matter?

[Fairygdmther]

I guess it's like that apocryphal judge's take on porn - "I'll know it if I see it."


FGM

[After a brisk nap]

There's nothing apocryphal about it. That was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964, in his consenting opinion to a court ruling on obscenity.

Originally Posted by Fairygdmther

And Fienepien - you've mentioned before the game Isabelle. I went and read Randy's review, and was intrigued enough to go to the site and buy it a few minutes ago. I hope I will thank you for it when I play it.

Oboyoboyoboy... now what have I done...
Isabelle is 3D and moving your two characters around is more frustrating than in Grim Fandango. Didn't you say you stopped playing Grim, or was that someone else?

But it's different. Absolutely unique, there's nothing like it out there. For me, emotionally moving too. And I cannot explain it or pin it down, but there's something very French about it. Couldn't be made in Anglo-Saxenland or Germany.

[fov]

Okay, I actually took nyquil last night and went to sleep (novel concept!) so maybe it's too late and not worth it to comment on this... but I will anyway.

If you allow violence, you blur the boundaries once more. Note that I didn't use the vague word "action". In my eyes, if you allow violence, you have crossed into action-adventure.

This, and the earlier definition of an adventure being a game that doesn't require resorting to violence, just doesn't work.

Legacy: Dark Shadows requires you to shoot people with a gun, two or three times, and also to blow something up with a bomb. These are REQUIRED elements, in a point & click adventure game. Only one of many examples. Zork: The Underground Empire had swordfights... that's an IF action / adventure, then?

Some people may choose to play kinder, gentler adventures that don't require violence, but arbitrarily saying that a game that involves violence is not an adventure is no different than saying, just as arbitrarily, that a game with a female protagonist is not an adventure, or a game that's not in first person perspective is not an adventure... and we know these things are not true.

-emily

ps And to catch up on the rest of the posts - Jake, I know where you're coming from (obviously). I left GDC feeling just as discouraged. If at a conference attended by an entire group of game developers -- the people who MAKE GAMES -- there is no talk of adventures whatsoever, what do we have? Not much hope for the future. It's depressing.

Originally Posted by Jake

-----------
I worry that adventure games are increasingly known as the "puzzle mystery genre" instead of "the storytelling genre" and that makes me sad. It breaks my heart in fact. I think the designers whose games I grew up with (the golden age Lucas and Sierra graphic adventure makers) saw adventure gaming primarily as an interactive storytelling medium with puzzles used as a vehicle for delivering that story. I think now it's flipped to be the other way around. Realistically I understand that puzzles are an intrinsic part of adventure games, but I think the equation is becoming increasingly lopsided, with designers building games in which the story is merely a vehicle for a series of inane puzzles, instead of the other way around - or better - trying to have them both working in tandem/in harmony. It worries me.

Hm... there wasn't all that much *story* in DOTT or Maniac Mansion or most King's Quests.

Are you talking about recent Mysty 1st-person games? Cause I don't see how that applies to recent 3rd-person adventures. Quoting my own post at JA:

"Third-person adventures are turning into extremely linear interactive stories, where you can only interact with objects and people you need when they are relevant to a particular part of the story. Everything is story-driven. Syberia, Runaway, Moment of Silence, BS3, Black Mirror. Still Life and Nibiru too. Doesn't seem to apply to first-person games. Is it my imagination or are they getting more and more puzzle-driven... except maybe Myst IV."

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Duncan

I think the stories are there because a narrative is required to string together the platforming or shooting bits into something cohesive.

And yet that's really no different than adventures, which traditionally have done the same with building stories around puzzles and exploration.

I think it's safe to say that no one BUYS an action game for its story, or is DRAWN to it for its story, but once you're playing it, seeing the story unfold becomes an inseparable part of the motivation for continuing. And the trend is clearly moving towards making that more and more integral.

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.

I don't disagree with this, but that was my point about why games offer more than one feature, more than one motivation, more than one attraction. So that players with varying interests can get from them what appeals to them most. For us it would be story more, for others the thrill of carnage, for others the fast-paced rush, etc. In adventures, for some it's story, for some puzzles, for others exploration, or any combination of the above.

[AFGNCAAP]

Whew... That was a long read!

I like Moron Lite's look at the problem of definition. It would be anything but helpful to apply in maths or science, but in classifying forms of art/entertainment the "how much it resembles other things we defined as X" criteria seem okay to me. (Actually, I'd say many views presented here correspond with ML's one way or another: Ninth above, Trep quoting himself quoting Judge Stewart etc.). On one hand it has this platonic flavour of notion of the ideal Adventure Game floating somewhere in the sky, on the other - it remains open for evolution of the genre.

Therefore, I would strongly oppose to bringing example of unreleased - yet already controversial in its 'purity' or lack thereof - Dreamfall as a proof for or against particular thesis. Let's wait these few months, shall we? As it was pointed out, we'll most probably agree on whether it's adventure or not, while discussing its genre now it's pretty much dancing about colours.

[Fairygdmther]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Oboyoboyoboy... now what have I done...
Isabelle is 3D and moving your two characters around is more frustrating than in Grim Fandango. Didn't you say you stopped playing Grim, or was that someone else?

But it's different. Absolutely unique, there's nothing like it out there. For me, emotionally moving too. And I cannot explain it or pin it down, but there's something very French about it. Couldn't be made in Anglo-Saxenland or Germany.

That was me all right - good memory! Well, I'll give it a try, and I know I'll try GF again as well. Thanks

FOV "Some people may choose to play kinder, gentler adventures that don't require violence, but arbitrarily saying that a game that involves violence is not an adventure is no different than saying, just as arbitrarily, that a game with a female protagonist is not an adventure, or a game that's not in first person perspective is not an adventure... and we know these things are not true."

I'm voicing the concerns of many adv players from other sites, as well as my own. I feel also, that eliminating/minimizing violence just might be the saving grace for adv games in the current climate of blaming games for acts of real world violence. Distancing ourselves and our games from all the other genres just may cause more people to look at what adv games have to offer. This is obviously another issue from defining them, but to date, it is only a minority of the many adv games made that do rely on violence. If adv games could be seen as the non-violent genre, then it might become the family entertainment sort of game, if presented right to the public. And why do we NEED to have violence in adv games? Can't you get your fill of it from virtually any other kind of game?

FOV - you go to GB - do you see anyone there advocating violence? That is a huge site of adv gamers. I'm sure you will see posts saying that they don't like/want it in adv games. And in fact you will see them defining adv games as non-violent.

FGM


FGM

[Udvarnoky]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Hm... there wasn't all that much *story* in DOTT or Maniac Mansion

Eh, what are you talking about? Sure there was.

[Moron Lite]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

On one hand it has this platonic flavour of notion of the ideal Adventure Game floating somewhere in the sky, on the other - it remains open for evolution of the genre.

That's a good way of putting it.

After all that's been said, I still think Jake's definition is touching upon something important in how we define adventure games, or what would be a useful way of defining adventure games. Genres and sub-genres get sorted out in terms of how well games can be fitted to a particular dialogue of design.

Some of us definitely do think there's something wrong with taking Myst and its ilk wholeheartedly as adventure games. Why is that? At some point, whether it was the creation of 7th Guest or Myst or whichever of these types of games came first, some designers decided to make games in which puzzles carried a far more prominent role, "leading" more of the game design than usual, and in which the puzzles on average became more elaborate (more like the traditional puzzles of yore?) than those coming out of a more world/story-focused adventure design (starting with Adventure?). These games branched off into their own discussion, albeit one closely related to the prototypical adventure game.

In a game like Half-Life, the design is led by the fact that it's a first-person shooter, that it revolves around a certain kind of gameplay (like what Jake and Emily were saying earlier). Few game designers think, "Okay, I'm going to come up with the story and world first, and then fit whatever gameplay style seems most appropriate onto that," and then purely by chance end up with an unambiguous first-person shooter, or a strategy game. And even if they did, gamers would be most likely to sort the game first as an FPS or strategy game, and then take a look at the story. We think of World of Warcraft first as an MMORPG, and then as a "Warcraft" game. Maybe not *every single* one of us does, but we're dealing with generalizations here, which is what genre's about. We're trying to figure out the logic with which a culture at large understands a game, not a principle of absolute inclusion and exclusion. Exceptional individual responses like "I played Monkey Island purely for the puzzles, not the world or story!" are beside the point.

So anyway, yeah, I still think there's something to Jake's definition. We could probably fine-tune it some more.