[diego]

You are hero, in a story of rescuing the princess, exploring the game world and solving puzzles like jumping on top of the turtle and picking up/using items along the way.


So yes, any game can be described to sound as adventure if you're to go by definitions. "I know it when i see it" is actually the most sincere way of telling the difference, because we all know that Super Mario is a platformer.

However, troubles arise with heavy genre mixing where to naked eye it's not easy to conclude which of them is the dominating one. I know Portal 2 or L.A. Noire are not 100% adventure games but i also know they are using adventure game elements.

[Monolith]

Maybe we can just agree that we should just allow the reviewers on this site write reviews on what they think are adventure-esque games, and just understand that we aren't writing the reviews or running the site? Isn't that the whole purpose of running websites or writing reviews anyways? We visit this site to see the reviewer's opinions and understanding of a certain game of there choice that fit their view of an adventure game. Else, why don't you just start up a blog and see how successful it is on the net.

Maybe this understanding can finally end this whole "What should adeventuregamers.com review" argument?

[Interplay]

Originally Posted by Jackal

I think instead we'll get games like Red Johnson's Chronicles and Jurassic Park, which ride the coattails of those game without the funds or the novelty factor working in their favour.

I think this is a true statement, but that it's also a good thing. Red Johnson's Chronicles was clearly inspired by and would not exist without Heavy Rain. However, it takes the Heavy Rain style QTEs and moves closer to traditional adventure games with a more traditional point-and-click interface. The bottom line is, I really enjoyed Red Johnson's Chronicles, and if Heavy Rain and L.A. Noire lead to more of this type of game on the consoles (or dare I say it, more such hybrid games on the PC) it's all for the best.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by diego

You are hero, in a story of rescuing the princess, exploring the game world and solving puzzles like jumping on top of the turtle and picking up/using items along the way.

So yes, any game can be described to sound as adventure if you're to go by definitions.

Hey, if that's genuinely one's definition of adventure, that's fine. At least other people know where they stand. But obviously it excludes a whole lot of legit adventures, so it's a pretty lousy one.

"I know it when i see it" is actually the most sincere way of telling the difference, because we all know that Super Mario is a platformer.

You know the difference because other genres have definitions, too. Same way you know the difference between an apple and an orange. You have to see it to know which definition applies, obviously, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I know Portal 2 or L.A. Noire are not 100% adventure games but i also know they are using adventure game elements.

Unless your definition of adventure allows for a certain amount of action, like ours. Is Police Quest not 100% because there's driving? Gemini Rue not 100% because there's shooting? The issue isn't so much definition, then, but degrees, as I said. (In other words, how much action is TOO much action.) And that is indeed something we wrestle with, and there are no easy answers. Is Insecticide an adventure? It's split exactly 50/50 between pure adventuring and platforming. Can't just be one or the other, but it can hardly be neither.

Anyway, I'm mainly just playing here. I don't honestly expect people to offer their own definitions; I'm just pointing out the folly in debating the issue without one.

Originally Posted by Monolith

Maybe this understanding can finally end this whole "What should adeventuregamers.com review" argument?

Nah, people can argue all they want. We'll keep doing what we're doing anyway.

Originally Posted by Interplay

I think this is a true statement, but that it's also a good thing.

I agree it's a good thing. The more adventures the merrier! I just don't see those secondary games being embraced the same way by the mainstream, which was the point I was addressing.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Oscar

It seems an argument can be made for a lot of games which will never be reviewed on AGers. So Portal and LA Noire are adventure games despite the shooting, running and jumping, but what about Alice: Madness Returns? Lots of adventure and exploration there alongside the jumping and collecting. Dragon Age? Sure there's a bit of fighting but also lots of story, puzzles and exploration.

All these seem to fit in the definition of this site that "Adventure games are all about stories, exploring worlds and solving puzzles."

I agree with Jackal's assessment that it's a matter of degree. Which is why I don't expect AG to review Alice. My niece bought Alice (actually I paid for most of it) and I watch her play it. You're inaccurate in your assessment. There is a lot of exploration to be sure, but the puzzle solving (that is, challenges that work your brain) is minimal compared to the tons of platforming and fighting you do.

Conversely, L.A. Noire does feature much action (chase scenes, fist fights, shooting) but MOST of the time you're actually gathering clues and evidence, taking [mental] notes, interrogating witnesses and suspects, and of course determining who to arrest. In other words investigatory PUZZLES (i.e. using your brain to solve challenges). So much so that AG declares it's an adventure game, just not the kind that you yourself and a few others insist it must be.

Shouldn't fighting and role-playing be allowed to take a more prominent role in adventure games?

No. That's because games that FEATURE fighting and not brain challenges don't fall under the adventure game category, just as games featuring brain challenges don't fall under the category of beat-em-ups. Same for the RPG. In role playing games (like Final Fantasy, Dragon Age, or the upcoming Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim) the FEATURE is leveling up and stats management in order to progress through the game and story via strong fighting skills. It largely does NOT involve heavy puzzle work to progress.

[thejobloshow]

L.A. Noire has many flaws that, as a result, won't win over new gamers to adventure games. I love the game and it has some of the best acting and story you'll ever see in this medium. However, the fusion between the adventure elements and the action and the driving do not mix very well and it's turned off the young gamers.

When I gauge some of the other online gaming communities they didn't like the game at all and it's mainly because they were expecting GTA in the 40s. Oddly, if they were given that they'll probably be upset that it's just a GTA clone in the 40s.

[millenia]

I haven't played L.A. Noire yet, I think I'm going to purchase the PC version since luckily I heard about it before I got to buy the game on my Xbox. But I think games like this and Heavy Rain and Portal are a good thing. After 90s the adventure genre died out a bit - not completely, but the golden era was truly over. These new games aren't old school adventures but their success shows how a story can still sell and people want to play games with good stories. Casual and/or puzzle side of adventures has been thriving for a while now and I hope the less traditional story games will sprout more adventures, traditional or not. At least there is still a big market for stories and I thank these games for showing that.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by thejobloshow

However, the fusion between the adventure elements and the action and the driving do not mix very well and it's turned off the young gamers.

Turned off young gamers? That's not the anecdotal evidence I got from reading comments at sites like Joystiq, YouTube, Kotaku, and Gay Gamer. Where do you go to find out what the young gamers are thinking?

When I gauge some of the other online gaming communities they didn't like the game at all and it's mainly because they were expecting GTA in the 40s. Oddly, if they were given that they'll probably be upset that it's just a GTA clone in the 40s.

That's ultimately a matter of their ignorance, then. They didn't follow the game's progress, especially interviews with Team Bondi. If they did follow it they would've known it's NOT, NOR HAS NEVER BEEN INTENDED TO BE, a period setting GTA game. Many of those gamers are a lousy bunch and I personally never take their opinions seriously.

[Oscar]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

My niece bought Alice (actually I paid for most of it) and I watch her play it. You're inaccurate in your assessment. There is a lot of exploration to be sure, but the puzzle solving (that is, challenges that work your brain) is minimal compared to the tons of platforming and fighting you do.

That was nice of you to buy it for her. How old is she? It's a pretty dark and violent game. I agree there is a lot jumping and fighting. In that itself there is puzzle solving, even if it is very easy.

I don't know, perhaps there is something more to adventures than just puzzles and a story. Setting counts for me. That's why I look upon a game where you're roaming around ancient temples and remote forests as more "adventurous" than cabbing around a big city solving crimes. That is probably wrong of me to do so I know, but I can't help it. I do find watching Indiana Jones more adventurous than The Godfather.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Oscar

That was nice of you to buy it for her. How old is she? It's a pretty dark and violent game. I agree there is a lot jumping and fighting. In that itself there is puzzle solving, even if it is very easy.

She's 17, a junior in high school, but is so advanced academically that she actually no longer attends high school and has been taking college/university courses until she gets her high school degree and can qualify to enter college/university (she's already applying to several schools). She plans to study medicine to major in pathology. She loves gross stuff, dark themes, and crime solving.

I don't know, perhaps there is something more to adventures than just puzzles and a story. Setting counts for me. That's why I look upon a game where you're roaming around ancient temples and remote forests as more "adventurous" than cabbing around a big city solving crimes. That is probably wrong of me to do so I know, but I can't help it. I do find watching Indiana Jones more adventurous than The Godfather.

I can understand that. You have a rather entrenched idea of what and adventure game is supposed to be, in part because you've so many "old school" ones that that informs your idea - and your emotional attachment to it.

[Oscar]

What is your idea of what they should be like? And is it not entrenched? Running, jumping even shooting is fine with me, as long as doesn't become the whole basis for the game. I would be happy if adventure games became more like The Path, which is too progressive for most people.

[Menschmaschine]

The head developers of L.A. Noire clearly agree with the idea of the game intended to be primarily an adventure game, as this email excerpt shows:

"This is an amazing result for 4 hard years and I'm proud of what we've achieved this far. The game is huge in size and scope and will be a real breakthrough. We have almost re-invented the adventure game whilst including the action elements that people expect in a modern game. Its these action elements that we really need to tighten up."

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...g-entry?page=2

(These emails were by the way leaked in a bit of a controversy over alleged bad management at Team Bondi, leading to massive delays and overtime for developers)

[Jatsie]

I have to fundamentally support L.A. Noire because it takes a risk and does something different, which is quite refreshing in today's climate of taking the "safe" choice in game production, and creating a sequel to, or clone of, an already established and successful title.

Where I must take issue though is that the gameplay became stale very quickly. At first it was fun going around playing the detective, looking for clues and asking questions, but there was never any progression on from that. Very soon it became apparent that every single case was going to be identical, and involve a good portion of time spent mindlessly walking around in circles waiting for the controller to vibrate. Likewise with the story, at first I was quite eager to find out what would happen next, speeding from crime scene to crime scene, but the whole thing steadily lost any sense of urgency, and I wasn't gaining a particular sense of satisfaction from solving a case. Eventually I found myself doing more and more side missions in order to forestall the monotonous detective work, and then declining to play the game at all for days or weeks.

It has been said that the most adventure game like part of the gameplay is actually the clue searching, but strangely I was never one who found a problem with pixel hunting in classic AGs, somehow it was all still made enjoyable within the framework of the game, whereas in L.A. Noire picking up cigarette butts became an exercise in tedium.

I'm inclined to believe it will have an impact on games overall in the long run, in all likelihood primarily for its technological achievements with the facial capturing, rather than it's gameplay, but also for that too. As with another title that has been mentioned, Heavy Rain, there's something there that will permeate; I don't expect the change to be sudden or drastic, but I predict a more gradual evolutionary shift as refined versions of these concepts begin to be implemented more widely, as developers start to question the method they've relied on and embrace a soupçon of something new.