[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I suspected as much.

I don't know if assigning blame over that, as some people have done, solves anything. As far as I know games that involve things like exploration and discovery and story have been marketed as adventure games since the early 90s. Tomb Raider was categorized as an adventure game, and that title was released in 1996. You could say that what those two guys on the train were discussing was not the kind of adventure game you yourself would play, but in many people's minds that game still qualifies as an adventure game.

So who's right about it? The traditionalists who play only point-&-clickers? Publishers like Eidos that market Tomb Raider as an adventure game? Current games like Uncharted that are also marketed as an adventure game? Is there actually a much more inclusive definition of "adventure game" that some people vehemently oppose? Inclusive in that it can also be about action alongside puzzle solving?

LOL! Do you realize we've been having the exact same conversation as we did five years ago? Ten years ago?

You know, when I wrote The Cold Hotspot five years ago there was a controversy going on about the direction that the adventure game genre might have been taking. With real time 3D games like Broken Sword: The Sleeping Dragon and other similar titles there was a quite a heated discussion here at AG and at other adventure game sites. Some of us were freaking out or just outright furious that our "beloved" 2D genre may be killed off in favour of 3D graphics and - *GASP* - dumbed down action sequences!!!

Well, fast forward to 2010. What do you see? Look at the AG main page and tell me if none of the recent and upcoming games featured in reviews and previews are in traditional 2D point-&-click.

The same thing happened over 10 years ago with the advent of Gabriel Knight 3, which as we know was in real time 3D. People were freaking out and screaming bloody murder back then, too, that their genre was gonna be bulldozed by 3D and - *GASP* - dumbed down action sequences!!! Did anything happen that even remotely resembled that? (eventually The Longest Journey supplanted Gabriel Knight 3 as "The Next Great Adventure Game" and many traditionalists celebrated this because TLJ wasn't in 3D; LOL!)

In fact, there were others who also stated what you stated: "I hope you're right. I really do."

In other words, essentially nothing has changed. That's why I stated that I honestly don't know what you're complaining about and why.

Well, let's just say you hadn't yet met a very large section of gamers and realized that they love playing a variety of game types. In fact, many of us here at AG also play RPGs, first person shooters, strategy games, racing games, side scrollers, etc.

I don't consider Tomb Raider an AG. Allthough the latest two releases (Legend and Underworld) have certainly come close I still think there's to much emphasis on skill rather than intelligence. And I think that's what it's all about. Not whether there are action sequences in a game or not but what their purpose is. For instance in Dreamfall all the action sequences are integral to the narrative. I hugely encourage this. I mean why would you waste an action sequence on a cutscene when you can implement it in the gameplay as well? For me AGs are like interactive movies and why would you waste the action elements of movies on cutscenes. That seems hardly fair. However with Tomb Raider the emphasis of the sequences lies on pasing a challenge and not on helping the story further or even greater immersion. Therefor I do not think of them as AGs. Allthough I'd have to say I'm intrigued by the fact they got advertised as AGs. It must mean the genre's getting more and more popular. I mean why would you advertise a popular franchise like Tomb Raider as a long dead genre?

LOL! BS3? I love that game. (as you are probably well aware of) Once more the emphasis on the sequences lies on the narrative. I mean name me one movie in the vein of Broken Sword that did not involve runnign from falling rocks and villains?

Also since when does GK3 include action sequences? I think this term has been used way to much over the years.

As for the graphic aspect I think every game should use graphics that suits them best. For instance I'm still rooting for Monkey Island to go back to 2D (keep dreaming) but I love Broken Sword in 3D (allthough I didn't like the graphics in BS4, way to stale)

By the way: I think it's really funny that TLJ was seen as the hope of the genre back in the days as it's sequal was way more unconventional than GK3.

And I do know a lot of members here play other types of games as well. But the AG's only a very small section of all gamers. Even a small section of all adventure gamers.

PS: Just a small question I came up with last night. Is your niece's ambition of becoming a forensic scientist the result of playing, and no doubt watching, CSI as a kid?

Originally Posted by imisssunwell

I have a friend, a very good friend. He plays only Tomb Raider, because he likes Lara's a$$ and Quake 3 deathmatches. He doesn't touch modern shooters because they have storylines and storylines bore him, he watches movies for that.

There are many things I would call him but stupid is not one of them, he holds a PhD in theoretical physics from Cambridge, held various postdoctoral positions at quite prestigious places and recently he got his assistant professorship at a quite well known University.

Adventure games do not, even remotely, pose intellectual challenges, they're just computer games. Why do you assume that people who play them do so for the intellectual challenge and people who don't are mainly uneducated?

That's interesting perspective you or rather he poses there. Not wanting to play games that have stories because he watches movies for that. Like I said before, for me an AG is like an interactive movie and therefor the story is just as, if not more, important as the gameplay. But that's a really fresh and interresting perspective I hadn't thought of before.

Second: AGs don't pose intellectual challenges? I'm gonna answer you in a minute, first let me pick up my jaw from the floor and recover from my near fatal heart attack. Okay, ready now: That's exactly what they do! While other types of games pose challenge through skill. AGs pose challenges through intelligence. Posing intellectual challenges is what they're al about!

Also I'd like to say I have no doubt your friend is really bright, genial maybe, but being bright or at least cultured and being well educated are two completely different things. I know some people who are increddibly bright. Talking to them is like reading an encyclopedia. But they've barely managed to get their O-levels. (we don't have O-levels and A-levels in Holland but we have, or more precisely had, a similar schoolsystem) But to get to your point I'm not saying people who play games that way are, as I think you meant to say, dumb (not the same thing as uneducated I must insist) but that it would be a shame if AGs were played that way.

Originally Posted by darthmaul

Don't worry about the response you got. I agree with your original post 100%. Other people just like to play pretend though, when they examine the masses.

How many of the masses read intelligent books, play intelligent Euro boardgames, or anything involving thinking?

I find that the adventure genre has a ton more heart and soul now than in the coveted and rosecolored view of the 90s that most people have.

Cater to the masses and you get casual games. Not what I am interested in.

I do worry about my response, a lot in fact. I'm not always right you know. And those who disagree with me have very vallid points too. For me it's not about right and wrong, It's just a matter of different opinions. And the truth generally lies somewhere in the middle. I do appreciate you having my back though.

As for your second statement (or to be more precise retorical question) unfortunately I have to agree with. Less and less people seem concerned about intellectual exercises and it worries me a lot.

As for your third statement: I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think AGs are only getting better and better. Allthough there was a small incline in quality somewhere during the early 2000s but even then you still had TLJ and GK3

But with your final statemant I think you're barking up the wrong tree here my friend as I'm with the other side. I like playing cassuals. Sure they don't pose much of an intellectual challenge but they're great to play in my in-between hours. Something I've never managed to do with an AG. Also I don't have to be challenged every minute of the day. Sometimes I just wanna play. I guess this where some people pick up a shooter or racing game.

And last but not least I must ask if we can drop the term "the masses" As I've expressed before I really don't like the term and I'm pretty mad at myself for throwing it on the net. I'm still expecting a message from the mods for inappropriate language. Anyways, that's all

EDIT: I don't mean to say all AGs pose itellectuall challenges but they all intent to. If they don't it the result of a bad design or simply because the player is more intelligent than the designer anticipated