[darthmaul]

" Originally Posted by imisssunwell
I'm saying that video game are designed for providing fun, not challenge.

And no they're not challenging."


I disagree. Games like RHEM, Dark Fall, Obsidian, Myst, and countless others are intellectually challenging. What do you all think.

[J.H]

I find most of the adventure games I play challenging at some point or another

[potan]

It's more "frustrating" than "challenging" to me when i'm stuck on a certain puzzle on adventure game hehehe...

[Harald B]

A lot of oldschool adventures are plenty challenging; that's why walkthroughs were invented. If that's not enough of a challenge for you, try getting through some of the really nasty ones without dying.

[imisssunwell]

[Jehane]

I think it depends on the kind of adventure game one is playing. Some puzzles can be real challenges indeed - either to quickness (of your fingers) or the brain, to creativity in thinking and combining things, to solving a problem. However, a challenge shouldn't be frustrating - the puzzles in Myst certainly are challenging but also very, very frustrating because the game gives you no hint whatsoever as how to solve a problem. I don't mind a challenging puzzle as long as I'm able to solve it on my own or, at least, am able to understand it. For example, I loved Keepsake but found most of the puzzles especially during the second half of the game way too difficult to solve on your own.

[gray pierce]

First off, I think this poll an thread has the wrong title. If this is as I suspect derived from the "AGs on the rise" thread then the correct title should be "Can adventure games be Intellectually challenging?" because that's what the argument started about. That imisssunwell stated they pose no intellectual challenge. So no quick fingers or what, we were talking brain activity. For as far as I know the discussion's still going on in that thread as well so you might join in there too.

Also I'll repeat what I've said in the original thread: You may not find all AGs intellectually challenging but they do intent to be so. If they're not it's the result of bad design or just because the player is more intelligent than the designer anticipated.

[darthmaul]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

First off, I think this poll an thread has the wrong title. If this is as I suspect derived from the "AGs on the rise" thread then the correct title should be "Can adventure games be Intellectually challenging?" because that's what the argument started about. That imisssunwell stated they pose no intellectual challenge. So no quick fingers or what, we were talking brain activity. For as far as I know the discussion's still going on in that thread as well so you might join in there too.

Also I'll repeat what I've said in the original thread: You may not find all AGs intellectually challenging but they do intent to be so. If they're not it's the result of bad design or just because the player is more intelligent than the designer anticipated.

That is implied here. Adventure games don't generally deal with quick fingers or anything like that.

The games I listed are purely intellectually challenging. Editted the original post and added intellectually for you.

[Gonzosports]

For myself, I think adventure games can be too challenging - which is why I too-often resort to a walkthrough.

Riven, think of Riven for just a second. You find someone who completed Riven without a walkthrough and I'll show you someone who should be curing cancer instead of playing computer games.

As I said in the other thread, Loom is the only game I can think of I didn't consider challenging. I enjoyed it, but it took 4 hours and I was pretty much done.

I'm curious to hear the one person who voted no defend that position.

[colpet]

I enjoy the intellectual challenge that adventures can provide, and would go so far as to say that is one of the main reasons I play them.
Of course, intellectual challenge means different things to different people. I like logical, traditional puzzles - spacial, math, codes, sliders, etc. I also like to explore and discover things. I'm less interested in inventory or dialogue/investigative type puzzles, and I've no interest in dexterity or timed challenges. There can be a fine line between challenging and frustrating.

[ADan]

I'd say there's a bit of a misunderstanding going on here.

I would say that imisssunwell is ultimately wrong but can understand what his point might be:

The challenges in AGs all are based on the idea of someone, a programmer, a developer who has designed a problem that can be solved - and most of the time only be solved - by following exactly what the designer had intended you to do. This is not *really* creative but can be very challenging imho.
It's kind of like the same with chess puzzles. I wouldn't dare to think that imisssunwell consideres those to be non-challenging.

Now there was this talk about science degrees and whatnot, but it doesn't really compare. While there might be challenges in those fields that nobody has ever conceived for others to solve - but the researcher himself has set up for himself, nobody ever on the planet has found a solution for the problem - those might be the only challenges that imisssunwell considers to be real challenges. But I suggest that is a completely different kind of challenge. But this is where i think the misunderstanding lies.

Let me tell you that my wife (PHD in physics, post doc positions in Berkeley and St. Andrews, blablabla... ) really enjoys a nice AG for -what?- you've guessed it: The *other* kind of challenge, a challenge that has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of it all.

I think the notion that spare time activity, the quest for "fun", the need for distraction exclude massive brain activity is wrong. I'd even go as far as to say the brain is our largest recreational organ .
Think of all the literature, the music, the chess and witty conversation.
There's no challenge in that? No need (or will) to succeed? Well, if you think so I feel sorry for you ...

Cheers, dan.

[darthmaul]

Originally Posted by ADan

I'd say there's a bit of a misunderstanding going on here.

I would say that imisssunwell is ultimately wrong but can understand what his point might be:

The challenges in AGs all are based on the idea of someone, a programmer, a developer who has designed a problem that can be solved - and most of the time only be solved - by following exactly what the designer had intended you to do. This is not *really* creative but can be very challenging imho.
It's kind of like the same with chess puzzles. I wouldn't dare to think that imisssunwell consideres those to be non-challenging.

Now there was this talk about science degrees and whatnot, but it doesn't really compare. While there might be challenges in those fields that nobody has ever conceived for others to solve - but the researcher himself has set up for himself, nobody ever on the planet has found a solution for the problem - those might be the only challenges that imisssunwell considers to be real challenges. But I suggest that is a completely different kind of challenge. But this is where i think the misunderstanding lies.

Let me tell you that my wife (PHD in physics, post doc positions in Berkeley and St. Andrews, blablabla... ) really enjoys a nice AG for -what?- you've guessed it: The *other* kind of challenge, a challenge that has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of it all.

I think the notion that spare time activity, the quest for "fun", the need for distraction don't exclude massive brain activity. I'd even go as far as to say the brain is our largest recreational organ .
Think of all the literature, the music, the chess and witty conversation.
There's no challenge in that? No need (or will) to succeed? Well, if you think so I feel sorry for you ...

Cheers, dan.

I disagree.

It was stated and quoted above the since the purpose of videogames is to provide entertainment("fun") and not challenge. Then it was stated that adventure games do not have a challenge. This was repeated multiple times.

As evidence of this, it was stated that Myst was boring to the user, therefore cannot be challenging.

The second piece of evidence was that thousands of gamers have completed the game, therefore, it could not have been a challenge.

Neither of these make any sense. Whether one person finds something boring does not determine challenge. Whether other people have completed the game, again, has no effect ont he challenge.

In order to show how preposterous the assertion was, I compared the latter to the amount of people who have completed doctorate programs. Millions have, therefore it must be much less challenging according to the logic used, than computer games. In response to the former, I said that I think getting a doctorate is boring, and therefore, according to the logic, is not a challenge either. You may not like the comparison, but I feel it appropriately shows how preposterous the assertion was.

[ADan]

Hmm ...

Aren't we both expressing the same notion using different means of expression? Or are you trying to flog a dead horse?
I'm sure imisssunwell has long since found that he has "misspoken" but do you really want to make him crawl and admit it?

Well, I just tried to make some peace and understanding possible. You don't seem to be ready for that, yet. Why?

Take it easy, Dan.

[gray pierce]

I wonder what imisssunwell has to say? So far I haven't heard a single argument that backs up his/her claim.

@darthmaul: I was nitpicking I know but Jehane started about quick fingers so I thought best to throw that misunderstanding of the table right away.

[ADan]

Whoops, had to edit my post before the last. Maybe I am the one expressing myself in a way I can easily be misunderstood.

(It's in the last paragraph, first sentence).

Sorry, Dan.

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by ADan

Hmm ...

Aren't we both expressing the same notion using different means of expression? Or are you trying to flog a dead horse?
I'm sure imisssunwell has long since found that he has "misspoken" but do you really want to make him crawl and admit it?

Well, I just tried to make some peace and understanding possible. You don't seem to be ready for that, yet. Why?

Take it easy, Dan.

Er...I don't want to flog the dead horse further (but do it anyway) but isn't that customary? If you realize you misspoke, you admit it and apologise? I myself am the king of misspeaking (can the word be used in that form?) and I allways do. But maybe I'm just really polite

[imisssunwell]

Originally Posted by ADan

The challenges in AGs all are based on the idea of someone, a programmer, a developer who has designed a problem that can be solved - and most of the time only be solved - by following exactly what the designer had intended you to do. This is not *really* creative but can be very challenging imho.
It's kind of like the same with chess puzzles. I wouldn't dare to think that imisssunwell consideres those to be non-challenging.

This is close to my reasoning, for chess puzzles specific, no I do not consider chess puzzles hard. I have respect for top level chess players. They are intelligent but not because the chess puzzle books are hard.

I consider them intelligent, exactly because through their deep understanding of strategy they are able to produce novelties, what you see marked as (N) in the chess informant, or whatever publication is used these days (have stopped playing competitive chess for quite a few years).

That (N), made during home analysis or a stroke of genius live otb or whatever, is what separates the masters from the rest of the chess players and this this is challenging to produce.

Chess Club level games, including NM level games have little to no challenge at all in my opinion. FM level & above is a different story.

Now there was this talk about science degrees and whatnot, but it doesn't really compare. While there might be challenges in those fields that nobody has ever conceived for others to solve - but the researcher himself has set up for himself, nobody ever on the planet has found a solution for the problem - those might be the only challenges that imisssunwell considers to be real challenges.

Yes this is the sort of problem I consider challenging but not restricted only to science, e.g. novelties in architecture also fall into that category. But you make it sound as if only discovering quantum electrodynamics or qcd is important, even smaller things can be quite challenging & interesting, so no I'm not speaking only for nobel-quality novelties.

Let me tell you that my wife (PHD in physics, post doc positions in Berkeley and St. Andrews, blablabla... ) really enjoys a nice AG for -what?- you've guessed it: The *other* kind of challenge, a challenge that has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of it all.

Nothing personal, but honestly, what challenge in a video game? they're as challenging as crosswords or sudoku or winning a game of monopoly. It's not that there's something wrong with crosswords or monopoly but they're not supposed to be hard, they're supposed to be time killers or means to have fun with friends respectively.

I think the notion that spare time activity, the quest for "fun", the need for distraction don't exclude massive brain activity. I'd even go as far as to say the brain is our largest recreational organ .
Think of all the literature, the music, the chess and witty conversation.
There's no challenge in that? No need (or will) to succeed? Well, if you think so I feel sorry for you ...

Cheers, dan.

Science is not the only field where challenge can occur, e.g. in chess champions, challengers & top players provide novel thinking all the time.

Creating art can be challenging as well, but I just don't see it happening in playing video games, I don't see any challenge in them, they're fun to play tho. They are good at what they are made to be, entertainment.

Challenge-wise, they are pre-programmed black boxes, they can almost get brute forced, provided the player doesn't have something better to do with his/her time.

[ADan]

Originally Posted by gray pierce

Er...I don't want to flog the dead horse further (but do it anyway) but isn't that customary? If you realize you misspoke, you admit it and apologise? I myself am the king of misspeaking (can the word be used in that form?) and I allways do. But maybe I'm just really polite

Well, yeah maybe this is how it's supposed to be and you and me might be capable of doing so but ...

I have a strong feeling that this thread has been opened for one purpose alone (as a spinoff of the "whither gaming" thread):

To make someone look foolish. This certainly isn't nice and if I were the one someone would try to make look like a fool I'd stay out of this as well.

So it really doesn't matter, what who has to say to what. If I was into voting petty private interests I'd vote for ending this thread now.

The question is really a little silly no matter what "history" is behind it.

(As for "misspeaking": Of course it can. Ever hear a politician make an apology/ excuse/ explanation he didn't really mean to give?)

Cheers , Dan.

[gray pierce]

Originally Posted by imisssunwell

This is close to my reasoning, for chess puzzles specific, no I do not consider chess puzzles hard. I have respect for top level chess players. They are intelligent but not because the chess puzzle books are hard.

I consider them intelligent, exactly because through their deep understanding of strategy they are able to produce novelties, what you see marked as (N) in the chess informant, or whatever publication is used these days (have stopped playing competitive chess for quite a few years).

That (N), made during home analysis or a stroke of genius live otb or whatever, is what separates the masters from the rest of the chess players and this this is challenging to produce.

Chess Club level games, including NM level games have little to no challenge at all in my opinion. FM level & above is a different story.




Yes this is the sort of problem I consider challenging but not restricted only to science, e.g. novelties in architecture also fall into that category. But you make it sound as if only discovering quantum electrodynamics or qcd is important, even smaller things can be quite challenging & interesting, so no I'm not speaking only for nobel-quality novelties.



Nothing personal, but honestly, what challenge in a video game? they're as challenging as crosswords or sudoku or winning a game of monopoly. It's not that there's something wrong with crosswords or monopoly but they're not supposed to be hard, they're supposed to be time killers or means to have fun with friends respectively.



Science is not the only field where challenge can occur, e.g. in chess champions, challengers & top players provide novel thinking all the time.

Creating art can be challenging as well, but I just don't see it happening in playing video games, I don't see any challenge in them, they're fun to play tho. They are good at what they are made to be, entertainment.

Challenge-wise, they are pre-programmed black boxes, they can almost get brute forced, provided the player doesn't have something better to do with his/her time.

That's a long post so I'll reply with one sentence, two if you count this one.
Just because you don't think something is challenging doesn't mean it isn't.

[imisssunwell]

Originally Posted by ADan

Hmm ...

Aren't we both expressing the same notion using different means of expression? Or are you trying to flog a dead horse?
I'm sure imisssunwell has long since found that he has "misspoken" but do you really want to make him crawl and admit it?

Well, I just tried to make some peace and understanding possible. You don't seem to be ready for that, yet. Why?

Take it easy, Dan.

Nah, darthmaul just needs to read a little better, I said completing Myst is not challenging because personally I didn't find it hard and the amount of people who've done so, kind of proves that completing it is not an achievement.

I said that the only difficulty I remember was keeping my eyes open, because like all the FP games I found it boring, so somehow, he correlated the two.

What can I say, if distinguishing correlation from causation is a hard task, then Myst may be hard as hell I guess.