I don't mind a little action, as seen in Indiana Jones FOA and Full Throttle.

--Erwin

My vote is for the mix, but I think there should be a mix both within individual games and within the genre. As much as I enjoy action-adventure games I would hate to see purely cerebral games disappear. They're both great, just in different ways.

I usually don't like action in my games but I don't rule out the idea that I could love an AG with some real action bits. Nomad Soul was going almost perfectly in that direction for the first 1/3, before gradually becoming too action-y for my tastes.
Oh, and that's considering action in the gaming sense, when there are some racing, beat 'em all, or FPS parts, not in the common sense. Else Indiana Jones FoA had plenty of action.

I don't like anything that smacks of action in my adventure games. I'll tolerate a small amount if the rest of the game is worth playing, just like annoying arcade sequences (the latest Nancy Drew Games for example). To be truthful, I'm just bad at it. Any game sequence relying on fingertip reflexes frustrates the heck out of me, and more often or not I need another person to accomplish it for me (or a saved game).

This might be construed as a bit rude, but where's the "http://forums.idlethumbs.net/images/smilies/5badair.gif" choice in the poll?

LOL! I think some of the Idle-moticons are taking over.

You forgot to put a smiley at the end of your post, dumbass. :)

(http://forums.idlethumbs.net/images/smilies/5badair.gif)



(http://forums.idlethumbs.net/images/smilies/nurse.gif)

I voted "No Action" because as a rule, I find that action elements become game enders, or at least major obstacles in most cases. The one game that had a few brief action elements that didn't require pounding on the keyboard and were well meshed into the game were in Dracula II The Last Sanctuary.

The choices in the poll are indeed a bit suspect. :shifty:

I went with B though, as I do enjoy games like BG&E and the SH series, ie. games that have a bit of action and a bit of adventure. That's not to say that I want some shoddy action sequence in an adventure game like DOTT or whatever.

So yeah, some better options in the poll would be good. ;

suggestions on better poll options? Coz I do think that a lot of us old adventure gamers are "Not willing" to adapt to the new trend of gaming and that is "action". I'm just curious as to how many are actually flexible. And when I say action I don't mean indiana jones one punch kinda thing. I mean something more like ICO or BG&E which could be tagged as adventures in their own right.

Personally, I loved the Quest For Glory games, and they were a really good mix of Action & Adventure. Frankly, I wish there were more games like this, which gave equal time to adventure & action.

Most games are either nearly 90% action, maybe with adventure elements. Or in the case of Indiana Jones & FOA, 90% adventure, and 10% action (if you've got it on action mode).

Nothing really has ever come close to QFG, but its well past time somebody made the attempt, IMO. Maybe the people at Tierra (or whatever they're calling themselves these days), could be coaxed into working on a non-Sierra remake, after they finsih up QFG-2, but base it on said game.

I'd buy that for a dollar!

SWB

I don't like action in AGS. It stucks me for a LONG time. And its very frustrating.

It depends. I like action in games like Fate of Atlantis but I dont like the System Shock, Tomb raider types as much.

Me too. And as these games show, action in adventures isn't a new thing at all. I don't understand why people think so. Look at the other Sierra games - quite a lot of those included action sequences. Not always great action sequences, but still. LucasArts also made several adventures with action sequences, and some of these are considered to be classics by many people. The Tex Murphy games had action...

Action isn't a new & dangerous thing, it's been with the graphics adventure genre for as long as it's been around (KQ can be seen as having some degree of action, Below the Root definitely has action, Police Quest has it,....).

Anyway, I don't mind it as long as it's done well. I think there's room for both adventures without action and adventures with action, just like there's been for the last 20 years.

looks like no action is winning out...(scratching head incredulously) :pan:

I like action in games, but almost universally despise it in adventures. The reason being, that the sequences almost always suck. They are amateurish, cheesy mini-games that very little effort has been put into and it shows. I also find it very disruptive to the gameplay and storytelling.

http://media.ign.com/thumb/720/72066...2_25_thumb.jpg http://media.ign.com/thumb/718/71864...2_10_thumb.jpg
Neverwinter Nights, Command & Conquer: Generals.

For the most part, adventure game developers suck at doing action. This has a lot to do with the conventional format of adventure games. Really, it would be easy to do, but it's always been [mostly] badly executed because of the conventions. If you think that action is impossible in a point-&-clicker, you're wrong. RPGs and real time strategies have been doing it for years! Look at Neverwinter Nights, or Dune, or Command & Conquer: Generals. It also has to do with them not studying games from other genres, quite obvious. :D

See the problem is that too much more "interesting" action turns off adventure purists, coz the game will deviate from our utopian definition of an adventure game. I think that is one of the causes why action sequences in adventure games really suck. They are there just to say to any normal gamer, look this game has action, but to tell us loyalists, don't worry these action sequences are "mini" games that don't affect the adventuring aspect of the game. Marketting 101 :)

See, that would have more to do with adventure 'purists' not wanting any action at all, no matter how easy! You'll never convince them because they're so bullheaded that way. Even if you have action sequences you can do with your eyes closed, they'll still complain.

What's the point of including easy action sequences? Wouldn't it just bore the players?