[Jackal]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

AdventureGamers' own definition is nebulous and very broad.

It's broad, but it's not at all nebulous. There's no uncertainty at all about which three core principles are required and which aren't. The only debate is about degrees, and that's not an issue of definition.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's exactly why it serves its purpose so well (covering almost anything that anyone possibly could classify as an adventure game), but one can easily formulate a definition specific enough to rule out many games you've reviewed.

I have no problem with that. Though I highly, highly suspect it isn't nearly so easy without inadvertently ruling out a whole lot of games they do think are adventures. But that's neither here nor there. The whole point is having one. At least then there's a point of reference for discussion. Without that, there's just a bunch of Justice Stewarts running around with the "I know it when I see it" argument, conclusively pronouncing others wrong with no definition at all.

Originally Posted by Jannik

All that said, there's always the possibility, like you mentioned, that a large portion of the sales from Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire is tied to peoples curiosity. So it could be that future adventure-ish games from Rockstar/Sony won't sell quite as well, because some of the customers bought the previous games out of curiosity.

I can see sequels to those games selling fine, as they're both established (potential) franchises now. I just don't see a lot of other publishers jumping on the mega-budget adventure(ish) bandwagon, because to emulate Rockstar's/Sony's success is so costly and difficult to do. I think instead we'll get games like Red Johnson's Chronicles and Jurassic Park, which ride the coattails of those game without the funds or the novelty factor working in their favour.