[SuperEdy]

Action sequences in adventure games are usually badly implemented, repetitive and frustrating, even when they are decent they add nothing to the final product; the developers (or the publishers, maybe it's their obnoxious influence?) hope to reach a new public by adding them (Dreamfall is a clear example) but they end up displeasing everyone.
I think they are just wasting resources that are better spent elsewhere.
By making the sequence skippable you're just admitting that there's a flaw in it, if the design was good it wouldn't be necessary to skip that part, it would flow with the game, a better solution would be decreasing the difficulty automatically and transparently (the more you try the easier it gets), that way the user will feel like a winner, not a quitter.

[Fien]

Originally Posted by SuperEdy

By making the sequence skippable you're just admitting that there's a flaw in it, if the design was good it wouldn't be necessary to skip that part, it would flow with the game, a better solution would be decreasing the difficulty automatically and transparently (the more you try the easier it gets), that way the user will feel like a winner, not a quitter.

A flaw? No. The designer is simply accommodating the player. Hard puzzles can be "skipped" by consulting a walkthrough. You wouldn't want them to become easier every time you tried one, would you. That's insulting. I'd feel like a loser, not a winner.

[seanparkerfilms]

Originally Posted by SuperEdy

but they end up displeasing everyone.

Of those who submitted an answer to the poll so far, 56% said they like well-thought and well-integrated action scenes in adventure games. So I wouldn't say that everyone is displeased. It's just a common conception about adventure gamers.

Now, of those 56%, I'm sure that a lot of them wouldn't have too big of a problem with action scenes not being in adventure games. We all like adventure games for their focus on story/puzzle first, and traditional gameplay second. But some games really can be enhanced by a good action scene, depending on the mood.

[seanparkerfilms]

Originally Posted by SuperEdy

By making the sequence skippable you're just admitting that there's a flaw in it

I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. Still, a lot of people can't solve an action sequence even with a slowdown utility and a comprehensive walkthrough. Because of that, and my belief that action scenes can have their place, making them skippable seems the fairest choice.

[dekaneas297]

No, no, no

AG's just don't stick with action scenes. Unless we are trying to create another genre of game. The Adventure-but-let-me-shoot/run/jump genre

I still remember the timed event in Sherlock Holmes: The Case of the Silver Earring where you had to cross through a forest (twice!!!) like a sprinter-tracer-experienced scout or else the game ended

[bbX1138]

I'll quote myself from this thread:

I think Full Throttle is a good point of discussion for action in adventure games.

Firstly, the Mine Road section, which is partially to be aspired to for blending action and adventure (find the right object for the right opponent). Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work, partly because some of these pairings are quite random,but mostly because getting the puzzle right still depends on very dextrous handling of a fiddly control system. Also, it takes a heck of a long time to get from fight to fight, seemingly just so they could show off their 3D engine!

Secondly, the bike/truck/jumbo jet end section. Although this is actually pure adventure, it superbly gives the impression of action through a succession of obvious, single click, closely-packed puzzles, almost to the extent of Dragon's Lair/Space Ace gameplay. It uses the tools of adventure to create action.

[I still can't tell if Erwin's response to my post in that thread is agreeing with me or not - it seems like he's suggesting the game should suddenly switch to direct control of the character, with a jump button etc, which would be dreadful, and what FT is so clever to emulate without 'breaking engine']

[SnorkleCat]

I'm not necessarily opposed, but usually I find that a sudden action sequence feels out of place and completely random if the rest of the game is a classic, magic pants AG.
I'm not sure what, if anything is achieved by tossing in one or two action oriented sequences that only serve to take us by surprise and wish we'd saved a bit more recently I wasn't wild about the ending of Gabriel Knight 3. I did not, however, mind the action bits in The Last Express... but then, that was a nontraditional, real time game- things were constantly happening and changing, and it felt a lot more natural to me that we might suddenly have to act or die.

Actually, I suppose the same question could be applied to timed puzzles as well, because some of those seem to come from nowhere too. I suppose it's all about integration.

[DeadPoolX]

I play all sorts of games of nearly every genre. I like playing Battlefield 2 just as much as I do Fallout 3 or Guild Wars.

Having said that, I think action sequences in AG are generally unnecessary. Sometimes they can be really entertaining, but most of the time, they're poorly implemented and exist simply to extend the game's life.

I think two good examples of well-made action in AG would be Rise of the Dragon and Heart of China. If the action was too difficult for the player, they had the option of bypassing it. Usually the player had to die a couple of times for this to work, but the option was still available. I played through the action sequences, but I'm sure some people would rather skip them.

[Romer]

Originally Posted by seanparkerfilms

Of those who submitted an answer to the poll so far, 56% said they like well-thought and well-integrated action scenes in adventure games. So I wouldn't say that everyone is displeased. It's just a common conception about adventure gamers.

Now, of those 56%, I'm sure that a lot of them wouldn't have too big of a problem with action scenes not being in adventure games. We all like adventure games for their focus on story/puzzle first, and traditional gameplay second. But some games really can be enhanced by a good action scene, depending on the mood.

56% did not say they are adventure-only gamers. Flawed deductions. I, for one, do not play FPS or any kind of combat games. I want to solve the mystery or adventure after the action and violence are over.

I would love to see a real survey with demographic and consumer data. The fact remains: if you add action do you gain or lose buyers?

[seanparkerfilms]

Originally Posted by Romer

56% did not say they are adventure-only gamers. Flawed deductions.

I don't think that really should matter. People on this site probably peruse the forums because they are primarily adventure gamers or have very strong interest in adventure gamers. Such as myself. I absolutely love adventure games. My favorite genre by a long shot. But I play action-oriented games too, probably equally or more than adventures. But does that mean my opinion on the matter should be invalid?

[DaveyB]

Part of the problem (and a reason for the big differences in opinion) is the term "action sequence" is too all-encompassing. In my opinion, to occasionally have sequences where you do NOT have all the time in the world to decide what you want to do is a positive thing. There are situations in real life when you have to decide quickly and I don't see why adventure games shouldn't simulate this. However, where success is dependent on your ability to manipulate the keyboard or mouse? That's the type which gets the back up of "true adventure gamers" and overall I think they're right. Let me give a few examples:

GK2 - To me shows how action sequences can be used perfectly in a game to heighen tension and force quick-thinking. The sequences in the forest and at the very end are excellently done. Maybe most importantly, they do NOT depend on quick fingers. I can't believe there are many people out there who can't single-click a mouse at the right time - my 65 (at the time) mother managed it anyway! GK3's been quoted - the action sequences there are less well done (maybe rushed, as has been commented), but still overall are Ok. Other good examples would be Broken Sword 1 & 2, I think Curse of Monkey Island had odd ones which were well-done too. The first scene of Fahrenheit also shows how time pressure can be used brilliantly to put the player under pressure.

A couple of examples of games which I think would have been better for a couple of timed sequenced would be The Longest Journey (maybe its one and only flaw) and Tunguska (certainly lots of room for improvement here). TLJ had the fight with April on top of the building where she's about to be killed, yet you could go out & put the kettle on, make a coffee, take a bath, & April would still be Ok & waiting for your return, still just about to be killed. Talk about a suspension of disbelief! Tunguska had the same problem right near the end, if I remember correctly.

Nomad Soul is one where I hit the problem mentioned by others - a 3D running section where you only have so much time & aren't quite sure where to go. Never managed it (& I'm not totally ignorant of action-type games), so never got further in the game. A shame. My (now 70-year-old) mother struggled a lot more with Dreamfall thanks to the action sequences (I had to do the bit with Peats & the Twins for her when I was back in England). Broken Sword 3 or 4 (don't remember which) also had a very hard sequence with ice melting - not helped by the horrible controls with the 3D effect. It's action sequences like these which either shouldn't be included or (probably the best solution) are optional & skippable.

For the record, I voted: Yes, as long as it supports the story and doesn't break immersion.

[seanparkerfilms]

Great post, DaveyB.

I had hoped that I may have clarified this, but as DaveyB said, "action sequence" might be giving the wrong impressions. It really is all-encompassing and there's a very wide variety in the play-style that occurs.

I haven't played this game but apparently in Heart of China there's a bit where the game suddenly turns into a side-scrolling beat-em-up for an action sequence, complete with (from what I've heard) rushed controls that make it way more frustrating than it ought to be. I agree with the naysayers that yes, this is not how an adventure game should be. It's a trial and error dexterity based exercise. Is that what we play these games for? No, of course not!

But what about moments that encourage quick thinking within an allotted time? Anyone who is able to play an adventure game should be able to move the mouse to the proper inventory item/object/hotspot and click it somewhere else on the screen to cause an action given a fair amount of time. In those "action situations," all players are in the same boat — no one's going to be punished for not clicking fast enough. If you lose during a sequence like that, it would be for not thinking fast enough (unless your mouse happens to coated in molasses). Moments like these support adventure gameplay and theory, but make it a bit more exciting.

Now, I'm not going to hide behind this as my argument because I've already cited examples of "successful" action scenes that were dexterity-based in adventure games. And some of them, frankly, can be great! (In my humble opinion, that is.)

However, I completely understand why some absolutely hate them and want action scenes in adventure games lynched. But let's make sure we're all on the same page about "action." The question I have for them is — do you REALLY want to remove all elements of timed-action puzzles from the genre completely? Do you really want to have infinite time to stare down the barrel of a gun whilst you think up an escape plan as the villain patiently waits until you've completed the required actions? Do you really think that you should never, ever, ever feel pressured to think fast by the game at the appropriate moments? Should adventure games have no sense of peril... whatsoever?

If you say yes, well, of course that's a valid point. But I say it's silly.

[seanparkerfilms]

Also, just to clarify again, I do not mean to say in my last statement that all adventure games should have elements of peril. Some of them (a lot of them) are better off without it. I'm speaking with regard to the adventure games that are a bit more "adventure-ish" (in tone) — like Gabriel Knight, Broken Sword, etc.

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by DaveyB

GK2 - To me shows how action sequences can be used perfectly in a game to heighen tension and force quick-thinking. The sequences in the forest and at the very end are excellently done. Maybe most importantly, they do NOT depend on quick fingers.

No, but I did not particularly enjoy watching Gabriel get his throat torn out because he stepped in the wrong direction (or whatever it was I did wrong). I left the room and came back with a walkthrough.

I can't believe there are many people out there who can't single-click a mouse at the right time - my 65 (at the time) mother managed it anyway! GK3's been quoted - the action sequences there are less well done (maybe rushed, as has been commented), but still overall are Ok. Other good examples would be Broken Sword 1 & 2, I think Curse of Monkey Island had odd ones which were well-done too. The first scene of Fahrenheit also shows how time pressure can be used brilliantly to put the player under pressure.

You're assuming gamers play adventure games because they want time pressure. I'd assume the reverse. If I wanted pressure, I'd choose a more action-oriented genre. If I want a more leisurely game, I choose an adventure or puzzle-oriented casual game that has no time pressure.

A couple of examples of games which I think would have been better for a couple of timed sequenced would be The Longest Journey (maybe its one and only flaw) and Tunguska (certainly lots of room for improvement here). TLJ had the fight with April on top of the building where she's about to be killed, yet you could go out & put the kettle on, make a coffee, take a bath, & April would still be Ok & waiting for your return, still just about to be killed.

Except I didn't realize April couldn't be killed at those points, so I didn't get up to make tea or coffee or whatever. If she had been killed, I might very well have shut down the game and decided to go make tea instead of continuing the game.

[SuperEdy]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

A flaw? No. The designer is simply accommodating the player. Hard puzzles can be "skipped" by consulting a walkthrough. You wouldn't want them to become easier every time you tried one, would you. That's insulting. I'd feel like a loser, not a winner.

The trick is transparency, the player must not be aware of the decrease in difficulty; at the end of Agon the lost sword of Toledo you must win a board game against the computer, I lost the first time and won the second one, was the AI adapting to my skill? Maybe, but I didn't realize it and I completed the sequence happily.

I agree, timed sequences are the only way to give a sense of urge in an adventure and I love them, in Blackstone chronicles and Nikopol you must solve some puzzles with a time constrain for example, but from what I read in forums most people hate them and they are always among the cons in reviews.
When you said action scenes I thought you only meant those horrible dexterity tortures many games have (and Dreamfall and Fahrenheit are the worst offenders).

[DaveyB]

No, but I did not particularly enjoy watching Gabriel get his throat torn out because he stepped in the wrong direction (or whatever it was I did wrong). I left the room and came back with a walkthrough.

Fair enough, personally I'd have said it was a fairly sensible outcome to making a mistake while being tracked by a werewolf.Whatever, the comment has little to do action sequences or timed puzzles, more presumably an aversion you have to any bloody scenes within a game.

You're assuming gamers play adventure games because they want time pressure. I'd assume the reverse. If I wanted pressure, I'd choose a more action-oriented genre. If I want a more leisurely game, I choose an adventure or puzzle-oriented casual game that has no time pressure.

I'm assuming nothing. What I'm first doing is addressing the most typical criticism made of "action sequences" - namely some people don't have the physical dexterity to complete them. Secondly, I'm giving examples of games which I think use time pressure successfully to heighten tension whilst not excluding anybody.

Personally I like occasional timed puzzles where suitable due to the situation in the story (hence GK1, 2 and 3 are all good examples for me). Nonetheless I happily play adventures with absolutely no time pressure whatsoever and occasionally play a game with more regular time pressure (e.g. fahrenheit) even though it's not really my thing.

What I object to is the fundamentalist types who insist that NO adventure game should ever have any element of time pressure whatsoever. But I wouldn't presume that you're in that camp.

Except I didn't realize April couldn't be killed at those points, so I didn't get up to make tea or coffee or whatever.

Then I guess you were quick enough that you'd have passed a timed puzzle anyway. Or you must have a much bigger "suspension of disbelief" threshhold than I have

(Hope I've managed to use these "quote" things correctly!)