[Fien]

Originally Posted by seanparkerfilms

About how there should never be action in an adventure game, that's a valid point, but think of how many games have successfully (and I use that term subjectively) utilized such scenes to bring up a tangible sense of danger! The Broken Sword series, the Gabriel Knight series, the Tex Murphy series, The Last Express (that one's a bit more controversial, as many hate the action scenes), [...]without their action scenes, they'd be a bit different.

I'm with Veruncheek. The fights in The Last Express make perfect sense and fit in seamlessly. And they are skippable, which makes all the difference in the world to me: I feel much more relaxed whenever I'm faced with an action sequence and much more willing to try my hand at it. So I honestly don't understand why people hate the combat scenes in The Last Express.

[Dara100]

It's not my idea of fun to execute an "action" sequence over and over to advance an adventure. So few of them are done well and I will not choose to buy an action-adventure ordinarily. There are some exceptions when I'm not bothered by an excellent game that has one or two - the final sequence of GK2 eg - where the action is germane and not just a mad click fest for its own sake. If you must have action, make the thing solved after 10 tries.

[Ascovel]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

I'm with Veruncheek. The fights in The Last Express make perfect sense and fit in seamlessly. And they are skippable, which makes all the difference in the world to me: I feel much more relaxed whenever I'm faced with an action sequence and much more willing to try my hand at it. So I honestly don't understand why people hate the combat scenes in The Last Express.

They were all skippable? How? Anyhow, they were fun and easy except the final one (at the top of the train if I remember correctly) which really annoyed me greatly.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by Ascovel

They were all skippable? How? Anyhow, they were fun and easy except the final one (at the top of the train if I remember correctly) which really annoyed me greatly.

Yep, all of them skippable.

As soon as the fight starts, right-click to go to the egg clock screen. Click on the egg clock to return to the fight. Repeat a couple of times. A rather complicated cheat, but it works. (Don't use the left mouse button to go to the egg screen.)

[Lee in Limbo]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Mainstream gaming is essentially ableist.

Quoted for Truth.

I answered with the second option, but I am inclined to agree with Fienepien that action sequences should be optional. It has to be possible to alter the requirements for those who simply aren't comfortable or capable of handling action sequences with a keyboard and mouse. Long time gamers who are accustomed to action sequences think nothing of such mechanics, but there are a great many people who own computers, would like to play games, and have to avoid anything with the word action on it because the sequences are too difficult.

I think one of the first rants I ever delivered on a gaming forum was an argument about the need for difficulty options for action adventures. I understand how the developer might feel it is absolutely necessary to ramp up the excitement of a given sequence with some fighting, jumping, running, climbing or sneaking about. Personally, I'm all for it. However, my mother, who also likes these games, has to avoid action sequences because of sore hands from her job and on-setting arthritis, and can't handle complicated controls because of it. She loved The Longest Journey and liked the Myst games, but I had to steer her away from Dreamfall, which saddened me because I really like the game.

Anyway, my two cents, which may still be worth something somewhere.

[Lee in Limbo]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Yep, all of them skippable.

As soon as the fight starts, right-click to go to the egg clock screen. Click on the egg clock to return to the fight. Repeat a couple of times. A rather complicated cheat, but it works. (Don't use the left mouse button to go to the egg screen.)

I wish I'd known that when I first played the game. I had to use a walkthrough to figure out those fight sequences, which is perhaps the only thing that ever bothered me about the game.

[veruncheek]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Yep, all of them skippable.

As soon as the fight starts, right-click to go to the egg clock screen. Click on the egg clock to return to the fight. Repeat a couple of times. A rather complicated cheat, but it works. (Don't use the left mouse button to go to the egg screen.)

This cheat is mentioned in TLE: The Official Strategy Guide and on the internet, but back in 1997 I did not have either. I do not think it is in the manual of the game.

Anyway, I played demo before I got the whole game, so I had many chances to practice

[tsa]

Originally Posted by seanparkerfilms

The Gabriel Knight Trilogy is a great example of adding a real sense of danger to the storyline, particularly near each game's finale. The timed navigation, chasing, strategic thinking, and puzzle solving really worked well for me. They were fantastically adrenaline-pumping, yet not too difficult.

I absolutely disagree. While the endings of the first two games were indeed fitting to the story, the action was still annoying because there was only one thing you could do to finish the game. It took me many tries just to find out what the heck I had to do! The endscene of GK III gave me the impression that the game had to get out the door fast, and the powers that be decided to put in an action scene to make a nice climax at the end. For me that made the ending of GK III a real let-down. GK III certainly was the best adventure game ever made, but the ending didn't fit the story at all, and was badly written too. Here was Gabriel, having a hard time jumping on time to avoid falling into the cliff or being sliced to bits or what had you, and when he finally had conquered all difficulties it turns out the other guys had just walked around all the problem areas to meet him. That was just weird.

[seanparkerfilms]

Originally Posted by tsa

Here was Gabriel, having a hard time jumping on time to avoid falling into the cliff or being sliced to bits or what had you, and when he finally had conquered all difficulties it turns out the other guys had just walked around all the problem areas to meet him. That was just weird.

Ha, you know, you're absolutely right. I guess I like the series so much that I'm a little lenient with acknowledging the flaws sometimes.

GK3 certainly was a rush-job in some areas, but at least it was a pretty good rush-job.

[crabapple]

I voted for "No, I prefer games without them, with very few exceptions."
Those exceptions would be puzzles where being too slow with the action doesn't kill you -- for example loading the cannon in Monkey Island. You can't just take forever to do the puzzle, but if you aren't fast enough, it doesn't take long to recognize the problem and start over.

[mgeorge]

I think because I come from more of an FPS background, I would prefer some action sequences, because to me they add immersion in the right circumstances.

However in this genre, I do think there should always be some type of alternative solution, whether it be through conversation or maybe stealth. Problem is, stealth and conversation options are rarely presented to the player in an AG as they are normally so linear.

I enjoyed both Indigo Prophecy and Dreamfall. However both contained some of the worst stealth mechanics I've ever seen in any PC game in any genre. Still though I give both games credit for at least trying something new in an AG and I think we need more innovation being brought to the table.

[mszv]

The problem with action sequences in adventure games, as was stated above, is that there is no learning curve. You have to get the "learning" part from other games. So, if you play FPS games, the action sequences won't be hard, otherwise they will be hard, if not impossible.

[rtrooney]

I truly dislike action scenes in adventure games. I'm proceding through a game in a logical fashion, and then I'm put in an action puzzle where logic isn't part of the solution.

If I wanted to play action games, I would do so. I don't, so I resent it when action intrudes.

That said, some of my favorite games, from the original Cameron Files, Shivers2, Black Dahlia and GK3 had action sequences. Even one of my all-time favorites, Freddy Pharkus had a few of them.

With the possible exception of GK3, I don't think the games were made better because of action inclusion.

[Dea ex Machina]

I hate action sequences in adventure games simply because I am no damn good at them. I have the reflexes and hand-eye coordination of a drunken slug. The whole reason I like adventure games is because they don't force me to participate in something in which I have no skills and derive no pleasure. Whenever I know that there are going to be combat sequences, or arcade sequences, or anything that tests my ability to hit buttons quickly and in synch with certain events on screen, it makes me sad, because while it might be a good game, even a very good game, I won't be able to play it or enjoy it.

[Krystal]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

Yes, as long as they support the story, don't break the immerson, and CAN BE SKIPPED.

I vote for yes, because I enjoy some actions sequences in the games. But have to agree with the statement of Fienepien about that can be skipped, because when the actions become too difficult I have the option to continue enjoying the game. Right now I have a game dead in my computer(although not an adventure) because I can pass one action sequence and really like to see the end of the game. So I firmly believe in the can be skipped to all action sequences, that gives the player the alternative to pass them or trying it and continue enjoying the game.

[Fantasysci5]

I dislike action scenes because it stresses me out to make it through, and I feel ucky getting all stressed out. I'm not good at them, either, and I'll keep dying over and over again and be unable to advance through the plot, which is why I play games.

[deliag]

For me, action scenes are well and good, but so seldom add ANYTHING to the story ... I play adventure games for the story line, to feel like I'm getting somewhere, but an action scene is usally a whole lot of work for a very small step forward .. 'okay i beat this guy, let's move on' ... Sometimes the scene actually tells a good story at the same time, but less often. Or am I being too cynical?

[Romer]

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.

[seanparkerfilms]

Originally Posted by Romer

Give adventure gamers what they want, and please don't spoil the experience with action, shooting, death, and (the worst of all) timed sequences.

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but this last statement seems to generalize adventure gamers' opinions. You're definitely right in that people come to this genre for story rather than reflex-based excitement, but looking at the poll, it seems clear that a fair portion of people enjoy the action scenes in adventure games.

I think the best balance is for developers to provide opportunities for those less inclined to enjoy action scenes to be able to bypass them either through offering alternate "game paths" that don't get you into such a perilous situation (and making it clear that this is the case) or by providing some sort of non-immersion-breaking skip feature (maybe letting the computer play the sequence out for you so you don't miss any story elements that might come into play during the action).

[Romer]

Originally Posted by seanparkerfilms

I agree with a lot of what you've said, but this last statement seems to generalize adventure gamers' opinions. You're definitely right in that people come to this genre for story rather than reflex-based excitement, but looking at the poll, it seems clear that a fair portion of people enjoy the action scenes in adventure games.

I think the best balance is for developers to provide opportunities for those less inclined to enjoy action scenes to be able to bypass them either through offering alternate "game paths" that don't get you into such a perilous situation (and making it clear that this is the case) or by providing some sort of non-immersion-breaking skip feature (maybe letting the computer play the sequence out for you so you don't miss any story elements that might come into play during the action).

Excellent ideas. I agree!