[seanparkerfilms]

I'm a longtime gamer who has migrated over to the adventure genre over the past several years, and I have to say that many, most even, of my favorite games of all time reside firmly in the genre. However, I do appreciate it when developers can test the limit of point-and-click and deliver engrossing, exciting sequences that require click thinking and perhaps an ounce of dexterity or so.

The problem with this is that action scenes in adventure games have garnered the ultimate stigma from the adventure gaming community. Most any game that has such elements usually get a mark in the "cons" section of any review from this site about having frustrating timed sections.

Certainly, there are adventure games that have done action just flat-out wrong. But when an action scene is done right, I find that it can elevate the game to new heights.

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. The only thing I could say against them is that the multiple tries that are practically required to get by on your first time playing can result in breaking the immersion (such as in GK3, where you can't die for the entire game until the final section). Regardless, they added something to the game, for me at least.

But not everyone thinks so. Some will hate a game for having such action-focused moments. Some won't even play it, knowing that they'll hate it. I find this curious, and want to know more about the reasons why people feel this way.

Is it because it reminds players of action games? It's true, the last thing I want to think about when I'm playing a great adventure game is to be suddenly reminded of DOOM, but in most cases of "successful" action scenes, the action continues to be supported by the storyline. A tacked-on action segment, however, would feel very cheap, and I can agree with disliking that.

Is it because of the inherent difficulty of timed response? I wonder if players who come to the adventure game genre because they can relax, take things slowly, and work at their own pace might feel betrayed when suddenly they have to DO THE RIGHT THING OR DIE. This I understand, especially for those who have difficulty playing action games due to hand-eye coordination.

Or is it because even when it's not too hard, the multiple attempts required to complete action scenes break immersion? I'm going to go back on what I said earlier and criticize Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers. Without giving too much away, the finale of the game turns into a nightmare of setting things up exactly right or getting killed (some things that are a little difficult to think of, mind you), followed by a sequence of several timed reaction moments where you really do not have much time at all to think of what to do. I lost many, many times, and although I was still very much into the storyline, it frustrated me so much that when I finally won, it ended my experience with the first game on a somewhat sour note... I couldn't forgive Gabriel Knight for a few days, until I could play the fantastic sequel, that is...

Well, those are some of my theories. Keep in mind that while I love adventure games more than any other genre in the universe, I am also an action gamer who enjoys a good FPS or hack-and-slash from time to time, so my experiences as a gamer might be vastly different from many people here. On a side note, am I the only person who thought that the action sequences and combat engine in Dreamfall: The Longest Journey was great? I know, I know... I probably just discredited myself there, but I'm curious.

Anyways, I've posted long enough... it's your turn.

[ozzie]

I can't think of an adventure that had really well made action sequences. Mostly they are just half-heartedly thrown in to add some variation or because the storyline requires it.
Dreamfall had probably the best action sequences for an adventure, but they still weren't very good, especially the combat.

I have no problem with action sequences per se, more with their implementation.

[AndreaDraco83]

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. The only thing I could say against them is that the multiple tries that are practically required to get by on your first time playing can result in breaking the immersion (such as in GK3, where you can't die for the entire game until the final section). Regardless, they added something to the game, for me at least.

I completely agree and, in fact, I voted: Yes, if they serve well the story!

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by seanparkerfilms

Certainly, there are adventure games that have done action just flat-out wrong.

This is the problem most people seem to have. For most action games, a lot of time is spent on tuning the game engine so that everything feels and looks right. For adventure games, since action sequences are something you stick into the game rather than pretty much being the game itself, they aren't implemented as well.

Originally Posted by seanparkerfilms

Is it because of the inherent difficulty of timed response? I wonder if players who come to the adventure game genre because they can relax, take things slowly, and work at their own pace might feel betrayed when suddenly they have to DO THE RIGHT THING OR DIE. This I understand, especially for those who have difficulty playing action games due to hand-eye coordination.

This is actually very true of a lot of people, specifically older folks. Mainstream gaming is essentially ableist.

[ZeframCochrane]

Wow, that was a beautiful analysis you just did.
I voted for "No, I prefer games without them, with very few exceptions.".

I play FPS games quite often (it all started years ago with DooM... and went downhill from there) so I guess my hand-eye coordination is not too bad... but yes, I'm no FPS champion. Never managed to survive a multiplayer session...

So yeah, I like adventure games beacuse they give me the chance to take it easy for a while, to think about my actions. You know, as opposed to real life where we're supposed to take decisions rapidly without being able to ponder. Moreover, it makes me nervous when I see that I can't get past action sequences without trying them over and over again: it makes me think that if that would happen to me in real life, i wouldn't be able to survive!! Which kind of goes against my conviction that in life you can always think your way out of any situation... (How naive of me!!)
Also, sometimes I do get them right at the first try... but the mere potentiality that I could've missed it spoils the experience. You see, I like to totally immerge myself into the experience, and feeling that I could've died, or that I could've done something wrong makes me feel uneasy.

I remember reading something like "You cannot die in this game, so do not feel afraid to try any possibility, no matter how dangerous" in the manual of one of the old LucasArts games (I think it was Monkey 3, or maybe Day of the Tentacle), and I've made my adventure gaming philosophy out of that. I'm playing an adventure game, so I like to be bold and daring.. and I'd like to be rewarded for my boldness...

Not to mention that some games do not autosave before action sequences (Cough-Black-Mirror-cough).... which is just frustrating. There I go, daring to look into the hole in the wall... and I get rewarded by having a spear driven through my head and having to start the whole chapter over... very frustrating.

This said, I realize that every player has her/his own needs, and I understand that game developers have to consdider this when deciding if to incorporate action elements or not. As someone said in a previous post, it's all about implementation, though.
After all, it's not that an action seqence is going to spoil my experience completely

But, on the other side, I'd like the two genres to be kept separated. I'd always like the possibility of being able to choose a game where action sequences only constitute a minor role, or are completely absent.

[tobacos]

I dont taste action scenes through an adventure.
if i want some action there a plently of games out there, would fill my needs.
or if i like mixing i d go for games like Tomb Raider or Silent Hill.which focus on action mainly.
But I think!
I would really appreciate a adventure game with some puzzle, which would have an optional action sence,that you can turn your back on and use adventuring soluation instead.
i guess that was represented twice in Dreamfall,but i Failed to use that action option for both,and had to move on with the adventure

[Lucien21]

I think it is probably a mixture of some of the things you mentioned.

Action sequences tend to be badly designed as they only appear a couple of times and don't present you with the skills to complete the task in a natural way. For example Most action games start out slow and ramp up the difficulty so that by the end of Tomb Raider 16 you are running along walls swinging from chandeliers while shooting 10 people through the head with grace and poise. The skills involved in that have been practiced and perfected while playing the game. Now imagine playing Broken Sword 1 where you have honed your point and clicking skills and suddenly it presents you with the last level of Tomb Raider 16. There is no way you would have the skills to complete it.

also,

The adventuring community tends to attract older players who prefer the sedate pace of solving the puzzles. Plus they might not have the aptitude for the more actiony sequences.

Personally though I don't mind an action sequence or two. The big problem in adventure games is controlling the pace of the story. With players solving puzzles and exploring at vastly different speeds it becomes more difficult to add tension or excitement to a storyline without non interactive cutscenes or action sequences. (And that cuts down on the types of story you can tell)

[Zanthia]

I don't like action in AGs. It brakes the rhythm. Exept may be once in a while, while done really, really good

[strandiam]

I play plenty of games with action and am fine with it, so I have nothing against the action itself. The problem I have with action in adventure games is that they are almost always completely arbitrary timing/reflex/button press events. Like a rhythm game without the music or fake instruments that give you some incentive to do it.

Basically, most action sequences in adventure games are about as relevant and interesting as a slider puzzle.

Also, if a game has some sort of action sequence where you can get 'game over' and does NOT have an autosave at the start of it, then that game will probably be permanently over for me.

[Fien]

I didn't vote because IMO the best, the most reasonable option was missing from the poll:

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

[colpet]

Is it because of the inherent difficulty of timed response? I wonder if players who come to the adventure game genre because they can relax, take things slowly, and work at their own pace might feel betrayed when suddenly they have to DO THE RIGHT THING OR DIE. This I understand, especially for those who have difficulty playing action games due to hand-eye coordination.

It is for me. Irregardless of thinking through the moves to complete a sequence, it boils down to reflex timing. You are either good at it or not. No amount of hints or walkthroughs are going to get you through the action if you are not able to complete it. The only solution is to have someone more adept than you solve it, or get a saved game from the internet. For me, action means frustration.

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. The only thing I could say against them is that the multiple tries that are practically required to get by on your first time playing can result in breaking the immersion (such as in GK3, where you can't die for the entire game until the final section). Regardless, they added something to the game, for me at least.

Interesting example. I really enjoyed GK 3, with the exception of the pendulum sequence at the end. That took me about 2 hours to get through. Over and over again, I was tearing my hair out and on the verge of a migraine. Not fun in the least.
I'm at the point where I read game reviews very carefully with respect to actiony bits. The inclusion of action sequences that seem to present a challenge means I will not buy the game.

[Kazmajik]

Sierra games in particular have a tradition of action elements, and since Sierra was a pioneer of the genre, it just figures that many classic games have these elements, and many games influenced by them also have action elements.

King's Quest 1 had the wolf and evil sorcerer randomly appearing, in fact the first 4 games in this series required care just in walking around, lest you tumble off a cliff or fall down a staircase. I think death has been a part of adventure games since the beginning, and it just naturally follows from so-called action elements. Did anyone ever take too long to perform the final action at the end of King's Quest VI? In a way, this isn't much different than, say, some of the required twitch-button sequences in Broken Sword 3 or Tomb Raider. The difference is everything else in the respective games, so I wouldn't judge the entire game just on that one tiny aspect of the game, unless that tiny aspect becomes what the whole game is about.

Dreamfall pretty much traded in adventure puzzle interactivity for console-inspired combat and stealth, and I feel a bit shortchanged by this. It reminds me of when King's Quest 8: Mask of Eternity first came out, and everyone was screaming about what an abomination that was. Well, maybe it is. (personally, I found MOE to have much more of a balance between story and puzzles and action than Dreamfall, and certainly more interactivity.)

A lot of people had a hard time with the pendulum at the end of Gabriel Knight 3. I know I did. I don't mind saying that it frustrated the hell out of me, and I was glad to get past it, but I'm glad that it's in the game because it underscores the sense of danger that had only been theoretical up to that point in the game, and it made the danger real, with real consequences (or as real as an adventure game with Save/Load capability will allow.) The same with the action sequences in the other GK games; they all serve a purpose, and stay with that good old Sierra tradition. Laura Bow swept you into a similar dangerous finale, too, I believe. I say they have a place, as long as they remain fair, and appropriate to the context of the situation.

That being said, one of my favorite moments in the Monkey Island games is in the 3rd one, where you have control of a cannon and you get to blow the lifeboats filled with LeChuck's hench-skeletons out of the water. Great fun! And no way to lose or die, in keeping with the rest of the game.

So, in conclusion, yes, as long as it supports the story and doesn't break immersion.

[seanparkerfilms]

Great. Thanks everyone for what you've said so far. It's interesting to hear from all sides on the issue.

I'm thinking about making a game of my own someday (when or if that will ever come to fruition, who knows), and was thinking about including action sequences. Judging from what I've heard, it sounds like the best way to include such scenes would be to abide by the following:

- The action is supported by the storyline, has good production value and doesn't break the immersion or flow of the game
- The action is completely optional, meaning that there are other "paths" to take which bypass any kind of timed sections
- The action scene is not too difficult, and doesn't require the kinds of reflexes expected from action games
- Your character does not die, and failing the action scene either gives you a chance for another go at it or opens up a different path

I hope that sounds agreeable.

[Risingson]

Great. So adventure games evolved from Zork (with action/rpg elements) to Monkey Island (no dead-ends, no sudden deaths)
and now we want to revert the evolution. So fine.

Games evolved to have, each one of them, a niche. It's nice to have some games with adventuring and action elements (survival horrors, for example), but there is no need to put action sequences in adventure games, as if puzzles themselves and good writing weren't enough for keeping attention. It's like taking a Test Drive and putting a gun in every car and dialogues in between. Is it necessary?

[seanparkerfilms]

I understand your frustration but action scenes don't have to be about sudden deaths. Action scenes have to be about actions — you performing things in a risky and exciting way. Action scenes can, but don't have to be, combat situations, but most adventure games that have action scenes have them contained within the regular game engine — the gameplay remains relatively the same, but you simply have to think a bit faster. In that sense, think of the original Broken Sword, which has quite a few such moments where you need to move to the right place or equip the right object in a (reasonable) time limit.

In a King's Quest game if someone randomly shows up and you die, that's not something I would call an action scene. It's merely a sudden death — there's no time for action.

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), the King's Quest series (it gets action right at least some of the time)... without their action scenes, they'd be a bit different.

No one's proposing a total turnaround of adventure game design, to revert things back to RPG and sudden deaths. That'd be a bit silly, and I also wouldn't approve of that. There's a lot of games I love that have no action in them at all, and I think it fits them very well. Games like The Longest Journey and most LucasArts titles have benefited from the more relaxed feeling they have, and in those cases, action scenes wouldn't work as well (although there is a fun bit at the end of Day of the Tentacle that is definitely an action sequence, with no penalty for failure). So the adventure genre is very likely to remain faithful to what is has been (Zork and other early adventure-ish games aside).

[cwapitm]

As long as they're done well, and are not too hard, I don't have a problem with it. I'm kind of action challenged. If I wasn't, I wouldn't care too much if there were action sequences.

[Collector]

Originally Posted by Fienepien

I didn't vote because IMO the best, the most reasonable option was missing from the poll:

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

LOL, I like your answer the best. And I don't consider a lot of sneaking sequences a viable means of skipping action scenes, like the over reliance Dreamfall had with action/sneaking.

[veruncheek]

I love the fist fight against Ivo in The Last Express It´s always

Real time game cannot be without real time fight. For me it was fun.

Spoiler:

5 fights of medium (well, one harder) difficulty and essential for the story, perfectly understandable...

[Risingson]

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), the King's Quest series (it gets action right at least some of the time)... without their action scenes, they'd be a bit different.
.

I think that you just defend something different: a sense of urgency in adventuring, which is fine (since Syberia, sorry, since Myst it seems that all the adventure games must be slooooow driven). Because I don't really remember any action or timed scene in the first Broken Sword games (the ones I've played), and in the GK /Tex Murphy games there is just the possibility to die, but just common sense tells you so. It's not Space Quest. Or the King's Quest games (which, btw, I think are badly designed except the VI part).

The thing is that, yes, adventure games are for people looking for a certain game mechanics, and it's absurd to have action scenes in just every kind of game. Damn, in the 90's all the gaming genres were well-defined for a reason. And game mechanics should reward the player as much as possible, but not punish the player as much.

And well, I like action games. I play shooters, you know, and I mastered all those shoot'em ups back then. But, again, there must be variety in gaming, and many times I just want a game that consists of everything but reflexes.

[seanparkerfilms]

Sure, I agree with you there. Adventure games certainly do not have to become button-mashing action-fests. However, I do feel that for every few hours of play, a more exciting moment or two adds a nice extra layer to things, as long as it fits the mood established by the story.

By the way, Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars and its sequel had several timed moments where you can die.

Off the top of my head I remember:

Spoiler:

In the first game, George having to dodge out of the way of the falling Templar door in the cave, George having to handshake the assassin with the hand buzzer and then quickly jump off the cliff, and George having to think fast in the confrontation on the train. The second game had Nico struggling to avoid being strangled by one villain, and doing some tricky timed stuff on a boat to avoid detection and trap a guard. Also, the beginning of The Smoking Mirror with the tarantula, while not an action minigame or anything, was adventurous and could definitely be considered an action scene.

And in Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers there was

Spoiler:

the mummy/zombie/golem sequence where you had to escape

and The Beast Within had

Spoiler:

the intense pursuit in the forest and the final chase/strategic battle in the basement of the opera house.

I haven't played all of Tex Murphy but I hear there's a puzzle sequence in The Pandora Directive

Spoiler:

inside a dangerous, booby-trap filled temple.

All of those are very much action scenes and are the kinds of things I mean when I talk about action in adventure games. Just want to clarify — perhaps I came across wrong in my original posts.

And sometimes, merely a sense or urgency is all some games need. You're right about the slow-driven nature of many adventure games following Myst, such as Syberia (which I'm having a hard time getting into right now partially because the pace is just a bit too slow for me). I think the reason why I like action scenes in games (sometimes, when they're done right, that is!) is because they're usually a good way of conveying that feeling. But perhaps it's not always necessary. Sometimes the illusion of urgency and excitement can stand in for a "true" action sequence.