05-09-2011, 06:05 AM | #41 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2
|
I have followed this website almost since the beginning and it was always my first place to visit for adventure gaming. But now I am truly disappointed and feel the need to comment on the following:
Why is Portal 2 (and similar games) reviewed on Adventuregamers? The editorial policies prohibit reviews of games that are clearly "action hybrids or “genre blending” games. Portal could not be considered anything else than one of those. System Shock or Deus Ex are not reviewed but Portal is? This is just puzzling. I am not sure if it is just ignorance not following its own policies or maybe a special service to publisher Valve. What makes matters even worse is the five star rating (only five other games have this rating). The true classics in the genre Adventuregamers should be covering only have 4,5 or 4 stars. I name Grim Fandango, Gabriel Knight 2, The Last Express and the most abominable example is The Longest Journey which was lowered to 4,5 stars blaming the so called "poor state of adventure gaming" in that period. How is it explainable that these kind of classics are considered less by "Adventuregamers" compared to a random "outsider game" like Portal 2? Please don't get me wrong, Portal is a decent game and well liked amongst the gaming community but I do not think it should be discussed under the banner of "Adventuregamers". "Every true adventure fan must have this game in their library" is stated in the explaining of the scoring system. In reality every true adventure fan (without an interest in genre blender games) would never want this type of game in their library. "We do make exceptions for games that are deemed to be of substantial interest to adventure gamers, such as sequels in longstanding adventure series. However, it's likely these will be treated as special feature articles and not reviews." The previous is also stated in the editorial policies but makes matters even more confusing. The presence of puzzles seems the only reason for reviewing Portal 2. In that case The Legend of Zelda and Beyond Good and Evil should also be reviewed. Why not add Tetris-like games or Mario Kart-like racing games for good measure, since they have "puzzles"? Why not consider merging with the other website which claims to "just" focus on Adventure? In all seriousness I hope Adventuregamers will just go back to the basics and abide by its own editorial policies which made them such a great website in the first place. |
05-09-2011, 06:53 AM | #42 | |||
Senior Automaton
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 898
|
I agree with you on the 5-star review, I don't think it deserved such a high score. As for this:
Quote:
According to Adventuregamers: Quote:
Then we have this: Quote:
|
|||
05-09-2011, 08:48 AM | #43 | |
Hopeful skeptic
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,743
|
Oscar's response is quite right.
In your effort to nitpick the "exceptions" clause of our policy, you glossed over the whole actual "definition" part. The Portal games are obviously not traditional adventures, which we've bent over backwards to make clear every time we write about them, but they most certainly do fit our fundamental genre definition. That's why they were reviewed, plain and simple. As for the genre-blending thing, that refers to games that clearly belong to other genres mixing a little adventure into the mix. System Shock and Deus Ex are both shooter/RPG hybrids with heavy action components. BG&E and Zelda are more adventure-like, but they also both rely on significant combat and other action elements, as do Tomb Raider and other action-intensive games. Comparing those to Portal is such a reach it's a non-starter. Certainly Portal "blends" genres, but it doesn't BELONG to any one. It requires a bit of dexterity, sure, but so do lots of other games you probably don't object to. Quote:
Yes, there are people who simply refuse to play any keyboard controlled games or games with any action at all, but our ratings don't account for people whose personal preferences matter more than the quality of a game. |
|
05-10-2011, 03:47 AM | #44 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2
|
Thanks for the replies.
Quote:
I am well aware of the whole definition part. But of course stories, exploring worlds and solving puzzles do not necessarily mean it falls in the adventure game category Adventuregamers originally used to cover. Many other game genres have one or more of these elements. The action elements should then be considered the deciding factor. In general, if this last element is highly debatable I do not think it should be considered for Adventuregamers. Even some Tetris-like puzzle games have puzzle solving within a narrative framework. What about the classic game Loderunner, which has a story, exploring of the worlds and puzzle solving. Action elements are included in the form of shooting platforms and making use of other handy devices to solve the puzzles and reach your end goal. All these elements are also present in Portal. The only main difference is the 1st person view and the platform-like view. I do not think there are many people who would consider Loderunner an adventure game, but why is Portal considered to be one on Adventuregamers? I was just resonating the five star rating description and pointing out how ridiculous the five stars for Portal are in the context of Adventuregamers. Of course "true adventure fans" are hard to describe. But many gamers I know (including myself) do not like these forceful genre blending games, mainly designed to attract new and different gaming audiences. But we do like adventures, shooters, fighters, RPGs etc. in the classic sense. Whether or not Portal is considered a genre blending game is debatable. More reason to not consider it for Adventuregamers. Quote:
If quality was the main reason to review games, any type of game could be reviewed on Adventuregamers, however quality of games is not what the main discussion should be about. Of course I am "just" a longtime Adventuregamers reader noticing these kind of drastic changes on the website. I am not running the website nor one of the reviewers so I don't know all about these new review choice standards, possibly introduced to keep the website online. I used to love Adventuregamers for the reviews and features but in the last couple of years I visit it less frequently. The previously described blurring of the editorial policies and more mimicking of the other big website (in terms of review choices) are the main reasons. I do not think review choices should be made based on the fact some adventure gamers might have interest in those other type of genres (or blended genres) or to tap new audiences via the more "popular mainstream" games which have some adventure elements but are far away from most other games reviewed on the website. |
||
05-10-2011, 05:01 AM | #45 |
It's Hard To Be Humble
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,557
|
mrk, the point I think Jack is making is that many adventure gamers are comfortable with the idea that Portal and Portal 2 are excellent examples of a completely new way to make Adventure Games (i.e. stories that use problem solving to resolve plot conflicts) without resorting to rubber chickens and dialogue trees. I happen to agree with him, and approve AG's rating of Portal 2 wholeheartedly. It's one of the best puzzle games ever made.
The fact that the actual movement in the game doesn't always go at the speed of turtle does not make this an action game. The things that action games do that most adventure gamers object to usually involve combat and really convoluted 'action' sequences. In fact, some classic adventure games have combat and action sequences, but they're still considered adventure games because the mechanics of those sequences was elementary, and it was before the 'hybrid' title started getting bandied about. The point is, what AGers object to isn't that combat and action exist in a game, but that they require a high proportion of what we refer to as 'twitch gaming' reflexes, rather than stopping to use one's brain to solve the problem. The thing is, I've played Portal 2 from one end to the other, and I happen to know that the trickiest things the game asks you to do are to time a few runs and jumps (much easier than it sounds), and to turn sideways in mid-air once to place a new hole while falling from the previous one. There is absolutely no combat on your part. The most aggressive thing you do is open holes and drop stuff onto little robots that are waiting to shoot you if you stand in their line of fire for too long; a fate that can be easily avoided if you pay just a modicum of attention to the little red laser sight beams. The bleeding things chatter almost constantly; It's not like they can surprise you. The timing of the timed sequences are not hard to achieve. They don't require lightning fast reflexes. I actually found them quite forgiving (despite the fact that one of those sequences involved hydraulic plates that could potentially mash you flat if you hesitated too long before running). I've played proper Adventure Games that were less forgiving. Portal 2 may not be that you think of as an Adventure Game, but the thing is, lots of folks around here see it differently. To me, Portal 2 is a much-needed breath of fresh air for the AG community. AG had to give Portal 2 a 5-star rating, because it's a 5-star puzzle game, and to treat it otherwise would be to admit to what pundits have been saying for over a decade, about Adventure Games being dead. Well, they're not dead. Portal 2 proves it. They just traded in their Hush Puppies for Long Fall Boots. Last edited by Lee in Limbo; 05-10-2011 at 05:15 AM. |
05-10-2011, 07:23 AM | #46 | |||||||
Hopeful skeptic
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,743
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'm sure there are a few jumps in Portal that some people simply won't be able to make. But you know what? I've seen hint forums littered with requests for Nancy Drew save games because some minigame or another is too hard. If we start eliminating games just because there are some difficult sections, there are a whoooooole lot of adventures that are going to fall in that purge. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
05-10-2011, 10:48 AM | #47 |
female animal lover
|
I loove the story in Portal one and two. I love to watch my bf play story-heavy games, especially games I don't have the competence to play myself, and Portal 2 has had one of the most engaging and interesting stories I've seen in years.
And as for me, the definition of an adventure game is its focus on story, so I think Portal absolutely does qualify. I have trouble playing Portal on my own for two reasons, I do not handle scary/fast reaction situations well, I've also watched Farenheit instead of playing it myself and have huge trouble with Heavy rain for the same reasons, and 2, I'm a direction dyslectic, which also translates to difficulty trying to think in 3 dimensions, and figuring out how to throw myself out of portals. Portal 2 seems like more my type of puzzles, since I solved several of the parts my bf got stuck on, though I have a feeling I'd struggle with the end, which, though forgiving, is rather scary. I'm also crap at steering with a ps3 controller = me killing my bf in the multiplayer part.. But, I do not think that the fact that it is harder, has a different control mechanism and more "action-like" sequences should disqualify it as an adventure game, since everyone has a different comfort zone when it comes to games. I would, for example, never be able to play through Scratches, that doesn't make it less of an adventure, it is only based on my tolerance level. It would be rather sad for the future of adventure games if one of the big, known sites for adventure game reviews only reviewed traditional adventure games.
__________________
Pennies are never the healthy end, risk all! The Panthera Effect If you can't beat Panthera, join Panthera.. My sporadically updated blogs: Animation enthusiast, Sci-fi enthusiast and Snark, pedantry and random geekery |
05-10-2011, 02:14 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Sydney, AUS
Posts: 244
|
|
05-11-2011, 06:30 AM | #49 |
Word.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Posts: 15
|
I'm personally glad Portal was reviewed here.
I can imagine people feeling a bit weird playing a Sierra game after being weened solely on Infocom games. And I'm sure when Myst was first released, there were people who didn't feel it was an adventure simply because it wasn't a 3rd person game. I can definitely understand if someone was put off by the need for a controller or mouse + keyboard. But again, I'm sure there were people put off when Sierra moved from a text parser to mouse only games. It's a completely different input method. In my opinion, even the fear of death in Portal / Portal 2 is far less than in pretty much any game Sierra ever made. I completely agree with Lee in regards to the turrets. I can recall plenty of adventure games where you needed to do some form of "duck out from a shadow at just the right moment to sneak past a guard" or risk death. The turrets serve as nothing more than a big "you're not supposed to waltz through this hallway" sign. Anyway, I think Portal boils down to being a different control scheme more than anything else. And it's probably a jarring one for some people as the "classic adventure" style hasn't changed all that much with it's current iterations, but other genes have over the years. Drastically. I may be a bit biased as I've played FPS games with a keyboard and a mouse since Wolfenstein... Then again, I've played adventure games even longer. |
05-12-2011, 03:45 AM | #50 |
It's Hard To Be Humble
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,557
|
Just a brief follow-up on this. I just realised that, in fact, it was the review of Portal on this very site that ultimately convinced me to try the original game, which proved so enthralling that, when I heard the sequel was coming, I needed no persuasion at all.
|
05-15-2011, 05:16 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 726
|
I'm optimistic about the state of adventure games again.
For a long time I feared that we'd have to get by with mostly substandard titles that only hark back to the heyday of the adventure genre, with the occassional great, yet still traditional treat or the rare somewhat innovative one. But recently, games with predominant adventure elements seem to be profitable enough now to invest large amounts of money into them. Heavy Rain. Portal 1+2. L.A. Noire. Then of course, there are the smaller, yet quite unique games like the Penumbra series and Amnesia. Not to forget the recent trend to include more story in games of all genres, be it RPGs or FPSs (though I think it's mostly detrimental to the gameplay of FPSs...). I think the somewhat arbitrary puzzles that rely on the worn out item combination mechanic are what cost adventure games its audience. Dumbing down the interface made puzzles easier to solve, increasingly often accidentally, but not anymore satisfying. They were still just as perplexing, but at least you didn't get stuck on them for too long, trial & error made sure of that. I like the fresh perspectives these kinds of games bring to the genre. And interestingly enough, it's not the small studios that innovate here, but the big ones. And I'm so glad that they finally realized that gamers don't only want to shoot or slay stuff, but they also want to feel clever from time to time by solving a challenging puzzle. What I like about Portal so much is that the gameplay mechanics are so...consistent! You know how the various elements in the game world react, and you just have to figure out how to use them. There are certain rules set down to which the puzzles stick. You have certain tools at hand, you know what they do, and you have to figure out how to apply them in certain situations. This consistency is rarely a given in traditional adventures. Also: feedback. Just by playing around with the various tools you may get closer to your goal. Experimentation pays off big time. I sure hope that more games will follow into the steps of Portal. Not by directly copying the Portal mechanic of course, but by learning from the more general lessons. |
05-15-2011, 05:35 PM | #52 | |
Senior Automaton
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 898
|
Quote:
As much as we can talk about a 'fresh perspective', it's still the basic format of "guy (or gal) with gun shooting at stuff" Last edited by Oscar; 05-15-2011 at 05:44 PM. |
|
05-15-2011, 06:31 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 115
|
First, let me say that I thought both Portal 1 and 2 were fantastic. I (like I imagine a lot of people who visit this site) play a lot of different types of games, not just adventure. However, adventure games will always be my first love. Having said that, I think those who would like Portal to be a sign of an adventure game renaissance are mistaken. Much as I would like to pretend otherwise, Portal is a very intellectual puzzle-heavy variant of a FPS, not a first person adventure game. For those looking for the possible future of the genre, I think games like Heavy Rain or (hopefully) L.A. Noire would be much better examples.
|
05-15-2011, 07:55 PM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 726
|
Quote:
The pacing is much different too, there's not much need for fast reflexes, quite to the contrary, you take your time, look around and plan your procedure. Portal was a surprise hit anyway. No one knows how much it would've sold standalone instead of being bundled with the Orange Box. |
|
05-15-2011, 08:12 PM | #55 |
It's Hard To Be Humble
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,557
|
Oscar, Interplay, I have to disagree. It's a quantum hole cannon, sure. That means it's roughly gun-shaped, but that's where the similarity ends. There are lots of gun-shaped tools in this world that do not kill people, and the portal gun is one of them. It is a tool, plain and simple. If you made it a magic wand, it would still have the same effect; it would merely shift from being sci-fi to fantasy, which would mean it wouldn't have been made by Valve, because they don't do sword and sorcery.
The game is a First-Person Puzzle Adventure, and an utterly brilliant retooling of the genre, at that. So good it defies all genre conventions, and still dares us to accept it on its own terms, which is as it should be. This is the logical successor to the Myst franchise, folks. It's all there, and it's a lot of fun to play, no matter what you usually play. I don't want to sound pedantic, but you really need to stop fighting this, folks. Portal is radically different from what we've grown used to, but in all the ways that count, it's what needed to happen to this genre. Now we can move forward. Not all AGs need to be like Portal, but it's about time game developers started thinking outside of the box, like the developers of Portal did. They're out there. Portal's not a fluke. The innovations added to Portal 2 were developed by another hungry young team of students, like the original Portal was. New mechanics and new ideas about ways of using them are being developed every day. They are non-violent, thoughtful, entertaining, challenging, and they are also wildly successful. This Is What People Want. Rather than arguing that Portal will never be Monkey Island, isn't it time we accepted that it doesn't need to be in order to be what needs to come next? We can't just pretend 1999 never ended. |
05-15-2011, 08:49 PM | #56 |
Senior Automaton
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 898
|
Whoa, let's step back a bit. Portal was very good, I liked it and Portal 2 a worthy expansion of the same idea. It's definitely not a reinvention of the adventure game, or a successor to Myst, in my opinion. Lots of shooters have clever puzzles: Portal being based around them doesn't make it that different. I mean, where do you expect adventure games to go if Portal is the future? You could feel the developers being stretched for ideas when the 269th variant of 'find a distant white patch to shoot at' or 'find a place to drop down into a portal to shoot yourself across the room' in Portal 1, let alone the number of times those devices overstayed their welcome in the sequel.
Both games were really fun, enjoyable and fairly mindless rides but that's all. I'd be horrified if all the depth of my adventure games were to be funneled out to focus strictly on 'clever' physical puzzles devoid of meaning, replacing the vast range and diversity of adventure game puzzles with a hundred different ways to use a rubber chicken. And in terms of story, I don't think anyone here would argue with the fact that most adventures have storylines more meaningful than 'computer gone nuts', even considering how well that particular storyline was done in System Shock and many other games. Perhaps the biggest problem with Portal for us adventurers is that it's too damn easy. That's always a problem in games relying on vertical rather than horizontal difficulty - one challenge (shooting, jumping, RTS-ing, portalling) on a learning curve. It's one type of thinking getting harder and harder until the game ends. You're never going to get stuck in the way that satisfies adventure gamers. I never had to go to a walkthrough during both Portal games, and doubt I ever would need to even if the hardest puzzles possible were employed. Last edited by Oscar; 05-15-2011 at 11:28 PM. |
05-16-2011, 07:33 AM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 314
|
People aren't saying the Portal mechanic is the new way forward for Adventure Games, rather that Developers should look to this title as a succesful example of how creative thinking can generate new ways to implement puzzles and gameplay, instead of 'use pencil in keyhole' again and again.
Also, the fact that the puzzles are all solvable without a walkthrough is a huge plus point in my book. It shows that the challenges have been implemented sensibly and with thought towards how people learn to play the game. Games should be fun. |
05-16-2011, 01:19 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 726
|
What noknowncure said. And like I said, developers should learn the general lessons from Portal, not just rip off the Portal mechanics.
With that I mean I prefer how Portal lays down general consistent rules. You know how Portals behave, how the gel does, the light bridges,... You got the tools, you know what they do. What you need to do now is to figure out how to use them in the given situation to reach your goal. Another great thing: you truly get better with time at using these tools! I never got better at any traditional adventure. Why? Well, because once you got the basics, the interface and the idiosyncrasies (pixel hunting, taking any object that isn't nailed down,...) figured out, there isn't anything more to learn. Sure, there are easy and difficult puzzles, but I don't feel anything prepares you for the difficult ones, which is probably the reason why I suck so much at them! But with Portal you genuinely get better, you learn how to use the tools given to you! So I hope for some difficult puzzles with the DLC! Oscar: Reading your post again, I see that this precisely the aspect you don't like. I guess we won't reach any agreement on this one then. Portal's puzzles are much more consistent and less arbitrary than those of adventures whose sole mechanic is item combination. There are no cat mustaches, no rubber duckeys. I have to disagree with you on this point Oscar, I don't think that traditional adventure puzzles are very diverse. To generalize, they're always, always the same kind of challenge, to combine one object with another, and recently that's within a interface that doesn't allow you to express your intention very clearly since one click does all! Sure, many excellent games relied on item combination. I'm sick of it anyway, I don't see any way forward with this ancient approach. By relying on these kinds of puzzles the gameplay in traditional adventures is much too one-sided. There are many, many more possible kinds of challenges that could be designed, so why rely on item combination? Last edited by ozzie; 05-16-2011 at 01:38 PM. |
05-16-2011, 05:18 PM | #59 | |
Senior Automaton
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 898
|
Quote:
Adventure games have literally billions of ways of creating puzzles, all depending on the situation they put you in, which is why we usually need to go to walkthroughs even though we've played hundreds of them. I think that saying adventure game puzzles are all the same because they're all inventory puzzles is like saying all books are the same because they all contain words. An inventory puzzle where you must realize that using a bottle of oil on someone's back who is sunbaking will remove a tattooed map by burning off the skin is vastly different in quality from a puzzle where you must realize that reading a physics textbook to a horse will make it fall asleep so you can get its dentures. Those puzzles are in no way illogical, they just require a bit of thinking. It's the complex interplay of the story, your own intuition and the information obtained from your environment which means the range of adventure puzzles will never be exhausted. Last edited by Oscar; 05-16-2011 at 05:31 PM. |
|
05-16-2011, 05:48 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 314
|
Quote:
Even worse, you don't even have to be aware of what you're doing - you could complete many traditional inventory puzzle games without ever once thinking about what you're doing or why you're doing it. In fact, it would be very simple to write a computer program that completed games of this nature, simply by using every object with every other object/hotspot. It would be far more difficult to write a program that could complete Portal. The player has to be aware of what they're doing. Last edited by noknowncure; 05-16-2011 at 06:03 PM. Reason: The dreaded 'Your'/You're mistake... Oh the shame. |
|