In adventure games, I find action sequences offensive, unless forewarned. I play adventures for atmosphere, escape, and intellectual interaction. Most action sequences are cheap-shots thrown in because good writing, plotting, and suspense aren't available. The assumption is that action challenges add suspense to the game. For me, they just add stress and irritation.
If the game is an action-adventure, I'd know what I"m getting in for. But in an immersive, intelligent story, why stoop to physical action? If I want action, I get out my gamepad and console and go for it.
In summary
: I think properly labeling and positioning games will avoid adventure gamers like me from making an error. When I sit down to read a book, I don't expect that I need a helmet. Likewise, adventure games.
Actually, I don't know what the debate is. There are many tiny segments of consumers out there. The mistake for developers and publishers is mixing oil and water. By putting action in adventures, will you lure more action gamers to adventures and more adventure gamers to action games? If not, what's the point? You can't please all the people all the time. Give adventure gamers what they want, and please don't spoil the experience with action, shooting, death, and (the worst of all) timed sequences.
