Adventure Forums - View Single Post

squarejawhero · 09-15-2005, 02:11 AM

OK, Ninth, so what IS an adventure game?

Is it Space Quest 3, where action sequences are the norm and blend with the gameplay?

Is it Bad Mojo, which pretty much remains resolutely undefinable?

Is it Farenheit, which uses specifically limited action as well as sharply integrated "puzzles" to tell a story?

Is it Syberia, where all you do is point and click basic conversations and easy puzzles to continue a narrative?

Is it Uru, where you have to directly control the avatar around the landscape?

Is it Voyage, which includes friendly timed sequences as well as an innovative and rarely-before-seen approach to inventory?

Is it Sam n' Max, with its crazed, haphazard approach to fun gameplay?

Is it Another Code, which allows direct control interaction with the ingame objects to an unprecedented extent in order to solve puzzles?

The only reason there are words like "traditional" is because a bunch of stuffed shirts decided to box in the genre into a tight space, where only games like TLJ, Sherlock or Schizm can exist. Anything else that deviates from that automatically becomes "something else", therefore "not an adventure game", when in all truth adventure games have ALWAYS had action in to various degrees without them becoming an "action/console adventure". It's all to do with comfort zones and less to do with any historically accurate approach. "Traditional" is used to describe what I now see as "the dark ages" of adventures between 2000 and 2004, where only few games were worth playing and the rest just bounced around in the comfy little box people built for them.

Now the genre is expanding, the new "traditionalists" are gripping tightly onto their increasingly daft mode of expression and everyone else is enjoying the newer, wide range of gaming offered by extensions into 3D and even *shock horror* action. The "inaction" subgenre is still important - don't get me wrong, but they're not the only adventures out there and shouldn't be seen as the sole core of what makes the genre.

The way I see it, there are various types of adventures -

new traditional
non-conformist
point and click
direct control
action/console adventures
inventory based
puzzle based
narrative based

blah blah blah and on and on... There IS no traditional adventure game. There's not really a single one anyone can all come together and say "this represents our genre solely" and base it all around that, because there's so many different games within it over the years.

I think it's time we let go of this increasingly outmoded approach to labelling these games and get on enjoying them. Stop restricting everything to a teensy little box that scared AG'ers decided to put together in 1999 when they realised AG's were falling to other genres in terms of success. The adventure is back in a bigger way than it has been since 1999, let's accept it and move on.

Final note - Farenheit DOESN'T redefine the genre, as the definition in the "traditional" sense had very little concrete basis to start with.

09-15-2005, 02:11 AM	#14
squarejawhero Epinionated. Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: London Posts: 5,841	OK, Ninth, so what IS an adventure game? Is it Space Quest 3, where action sequences are the norm and blend with the gameplay? Is it Bad Mojo, which pretty much remains resolutely undefinable? Is it Farenheit, which uses specifically limited action as well as sharply integrated "puzzles" to tell a story? Is it Syberia, where all you do is point and click basic conversations and easy puzzles to continue a narrative? Is it Uru, where you have to directly control the avatar around the landscape? Is it Voyage, which includes friendly timed sequences as well as an innovative and rarely-before-seen approach to inventory? Is it Sam n' Max, with its crazed, haphazard approach to fun gameplay? Is it Another Code, which allows direct control interaction with the ingame objects to an unprecedented extent in order to solve puzzles? The only reason there are words like "traditional" is because a bunch of stuffed shirts decided to box in the genre into a tight space, where only games like TLJ, Sherlock or Schizm can exist. Anything else that deviates from that automatically becomes "something else", therefore "not an adventure game", when in all truth adventure games have ALWAYS had action in to various degrees without them becoming an "action/console adventure". It's all to do with comfort zones and less to do with any historically accurate approach. "Traditional" is used to describe what I now see as "the dark ages" of adventures between 2000 and 2004, where only few games were worth playing and the rest just bounced around in the comfy little box people built for them. Now the genre is expanding, the new "traditionalists" are gripping tightly onto their increasingly daft mode of expression and everyone else is enjoying the newer, wide range of gaming offered by extensions into 3D and even shock horror action. The "inaction" subgenre is still important - don't get me wrong, but they're not the only adventures out there and shouldn't be seen as the sole core of what makes the genre. The way I see it, there are various types of adventures - new traditional non-conformist point and click direct control action/console adventures inventory based puzzle based narrative based blah blah blah and on and on... There IS no traditional adventure game. There's not really a single one anyone can all come together and say "this represents our genre solely" and base it all around that, because there's so many different games within it over the years. I think it's time we let go of this increasingly outmoded approach to labelling these games and get on enjoying them. Stop restricting everything to a teensy little box that scared AG'ers decided to put together in 1999 when they realised AG's were falling to other genres in terms of success. The adventure is back in a bigger way than it has been since 1999, let's accept it and move on. Final note - Farenheit DOESN'T redefine the genre, as the definition in the "traditional" sense had very little concrete basis to start with. __________________ Starter of Thread Must Die.