No, it wouldn't. Remember that scene with the Grippler in The Longest Journey? I remember playing that. Very simple scene, but very effective, regardless of the fact that very little action was involved. Even though I knew I couldn't 'die', my heart was racing for April! It was awesome, I was actually scared for her!

There's a similar scene in Gbriel Knight 3 where you are...

Spoiler:

...sneaking around on Montreaux's attick and he hears you and you've got to hide yourself. I spotted instantly where Grace had to hide, but the whole scene still worked very, very well. It was a scary, exciting moment.

Voted for the second choice. Like someone mentioned before there's a big IF, and that is "IF the action is well implemented".
That said, I don't like action elements added to a classic adventure, but I love (good) mixed genres (Adventure+Action+RPG+FPS), like Anachronox, Deus Ex, The Nomad Soul, BG&E(haven't played it yet but I'm sure I'd love it, ), QFG and so on.
But a classic adventure with a few easy unnecessary action sequences will hardly appeal to me.

Oh, if that's the sort of thing you were referring to then I'm all for it. I didn't even think of that as an action sequence.

I admire your optimism. You should bottle it and send me some as I seem to suffer from a severe defecit. Think about the fact that probably around 50% of action games, which are developed with ONLY action in mind, wind up sucking really bad or are at best passable. If action game developers don't get it right most of the time, what percentage of adventure developers are going to and still pull off a good story and puzzles also? Rather close to zero. They have tried for at least 20 years to do it, and have never truly succeeded without putting so much action in that it became an action-adventure instead.

action also often means ability to die. I don't like to die :). I don't like any dead ends.

I've never understood the desire for action sequences in adventure games. If I want action in my gaming, I will go and play action-oriented games not adventure. I don't want to start another "what is an adventure game" debate but I have to say one more time that if a game features many heavy action sequences then it just is not an adventure game no matter how adventure-like in other aspects it might be.

There are many good action/adventure games (eg Silent Hill, BG&E etc.), so if you want action with adventure then go ahead and play those. I never understood why people feel that adventure games need to evolve and feature things such as action elements. Games featuring these elemenst are already out there so why try to change the traditional P&C gameplay? Please educate me, why do you feel the need to have the adventure games to be more like BG&E when BG&E already is a game just like itself because it is itself. Er, that made no sense but I think you still get my point.

Would somebody (*winks to Trep*) educate an adventure-game-loving fool or just leave me in peace with my adventure games?

I'm more on the conservative side, but I guess the main reason for wanting AG to evolve is the want to see more audience, and therefore more money (=>quality - and I know this is debatable) involved. And thus to have the adventure genre flourish once again (or for once).
I myself see no reason why classical adventure couldn't share the market with more ambitious ones, innovative in a gameplay kind of way.

Damn. I was in a fighting mood but what Ninth said is so reasonable that I really can't say anything to refute it. ;)

There's nothing wrong with having different types of games sharing the market. What I don't want happening is to have the traditional adventure games gradually phased out altogether. Let's face it, the suits in the gaming industry are not known for their intelligence (as displayed in the cancellation of S&M2). I can easily see the gaming industry in general making the decision on the genre that LA made on S&M2.

Okay, YOU need to go back to design school, mister. What makes you think that just because there's action means you automatically die?

Why should action be included in an adventure game? Well, not ALL adventure games need action, it depends on things like story and theme. Usually action is used as a tool for lending suspense and a sense of immediacy which helps immerse the player more. But it's how well that action bit is done that determines the player's experience, whether their heart races faster and wants to see their hero win, or they make their way to the game's designers and shoot those designers' brains out for f&#king up an otherwise good game because of crappy action added.

http://media.ign.com/thumb/715/71552...2_05_thumb.jpg http://media.ign.com/thumb/715/71552...2_04_thumb.jpg
In a perfect adventure game, this action sequence from Beyond Good & Evil would eliminate the threat of death and allow the A.I. to automatically help the player through. Click pics for large.

In my opinion, introducing action elements in an adventure game without turning it into an action/adventure is very possible, but tricky. There are a bunch of logistics involved, and it's really a matter of balancing everything out so that the [adventure] gamer can still feel the suspense while manipulating the action intuitively and effortlessly, and even without the threat of dying.

Watch this trailer from Beyond Good & Evil. Pay close attention to the brief sequence of Jade running and jumping on the rooftops. As it is, the game automatically makes her jump and all the player needs to do is steer Jade around. Now, imagine if we can tailor this sequence to a more pure adventure game - in this case then we can eliminate the threat of dying and just have Jade automatically duck/defend attacks from the enemy and still automatically jump. All the player needs to do is steer her. No dying, but there's automatic jumping and dodging, and this part will not end until the player reaches the key area in the level. But, the suspense and immersion is still intact because of player involvement. And now, I'm sure Zanthia would love to play an adventure game like this.

Exactly what I've been saying all these years I've been here at AG! Exactly what I've been saying. And yet people still misunderstand me and kick my ass!

Full Example
 

I think Full Throttle is a good example of action in adventure games at two points.
Firstly, the Mine Road section, which is partially to be aspired to for blending action and adventure (find the right object for the right opponent). Unfortunately, some of these pairings are quite random, and the Cavefish one depends on very dextrous handling to accomplish.
Secondly, the bike/truck/jumbo jet end section. Although this is actually pure adventure, it superbly gives the impression of action through a succession of obvious, single click, closely-packed puzzles, almost to the extent of Dragon's Lair/Space Ace gameplay. It usees the tools of adventure to create action.

Yes, now *that's* ingenious game design. Wouldn't it be so much easier to let the player jump and run his way out of that hazardous situation instead?

I'm not adverse to action in an adventure game, but it shouldn't be used as an easy way to throw in some obstacles. (As in the crate puzzles in BS3)

--Erwin

BACK to design school? How can I go back to place I never was ? :)
Lets put it like that: the bigger half of action means death if you fail. And the smaller part means getting stuck if u fail. Thats what I don't like in action games- u have to repeat same thing over and over again, without any changes. in AG if u r stuck, u know at least that didn't find something.

Of course, if you don't complete an action sequence, you generally know what you're supposed to be doing, whereas if you can't complete a puzzle, you probably don't have the slightest idea...

EDIT: Of course, I love puzzles and don't think action should supercede puzzles in an adventure, I just don't think that was the best example.

Die, you 2D hater!!
:pan: <- ass kicking pan
Trep

and the lethargic evolution of adventure gaming perpetuates itself

I voted for B. I don't like adventure games without action. Of course, I just like a little bit of action, without outshadowing the real adventure genre.

And, of course, if you get stuck with a puzzle, you can use a walkthrough, but if you get stuck with an action sequence... :)

you punch a wall?

No, you try try again.

Or you get a saved game from a friend, or you cheat.

Try that in In Memoriam...

(great game, btw)

walkthroughs can help with action sequences too...not to the same degree with puzzles but still...or you can do one of the above, but i like punching walls for what its worth

I prefer adventures without action. If the developers insist on action, they should supply cheat codes. In the manual.

Having said that, The Last Express is an excellent example of a game with well-integrated action sequences. They made perfect sense and I enjoyed them, especially the second time.

doom 3 sounded too funny to resist

Hmm, what if you are completly impatient, have no friends, and there's no cheat code? Then, you'd be stuck forever. And on your way to the mailbox, you get hit by lightning? See what action elements in adventure games can do to you. They can make you dead, so shun them, I tell you, shun them at any cost! ;)

Perhaps, but what would you do if you approached your mailbox and saw that someone mysteriously stuck a lousy slider puzzle on it (yes these puzzles seem to pop up in the most artificial "let's-stick-an-impossible-puzzle-in-here-because-it-doesn't-make-sense-and-we're-clueless-anyway" way), the only way you can get your mail is to solve the damn thing? Hmmm, in a perfect adventure game with limited amount of action I would.... smash the stupid thing open with my trusty lead pipe!! And I'd buy a new mailbox with the money I accrued from accomplishing my RPG style quests!

8-) w00t.

So you mean you'd "Use lead pipe on mailbox"? :)

Of course, but you have to first combine the lead pipe with the widget you picked up five screens ago, otherwise the character will go "well, that didn't do anything."

Absolutely not!! Why should I let some stupid cursor rob me of the thrillingly visceral orgasmatica of smashing a metal container?! Clicking on that mailbox would be the equivalent of telling another party guest to hit the pinata with a stick while I watch, and where's the fun in that? :P :P :P

Of course, I could always just trick the old man down the road to give me the solution to the slider puzzle. See? In a game like Dreamfall it's all about choices. :D 8-) :7

Man you remind me of Runaway 2. I think in another thread I put this as stupidest puzzle ever created:
SPOILER AHEAD:
You need a wrench to give to the weird science guy to fix his bike. You go through all the trouble to get the wrench and when the guy was supposed to give it to you he throws it outside in the trench of mud. You go down to pick up the wrench and you see it in the mud. but would you pick it up??? noooooooooooooooo... why coz you would get your hands dirty. And your gf Gina is dying and you are running short on time. Ok so You(I) spend 3 days (real days) walking around trying to find some cloth to pick up the wrench. What was the solution?? You go up to the second floor of the saloon, go to the balcony, and throw a pot onto the trench so that by Archimedis law, the wrench will fly out of the trench and voila. If I wrote the game my solution would have been:

Pick up wrench.
Wash hands.

Now Here is my take about action in games. If the game warrants action IT SHOULD HAVE action. If it doesn't it shouldn't. It should be natural to the gameplay and seemless not imposed. Indiana jones games should have action coz that was indiana jones is about and LA was right on target with Indy. Made it look more realistic too.

I do see the point SD is making here but in FOA, I remeber getting stuck for a while on the section

Spoiler:

where you have to control the air ballon to get to the nomad's camp site.

I knew what I had to do but getting it done was no easy task. And I believe there was no cheat code for that arcade sequence.

Or what about the Syro section in Missing

Spoiler:

where you have to guide that little ball through the maze?

When I somehow got through three mazes after long bouts of cursing and pulling my hair out and saw the fourth maze popping open, I almost broke into tears.

I totally agree with you. If you want to put action, don't put something that frustrates people. Either make it user friendly and logical or live without it. There is nothing worse than frustrating gameplay, whether it be action or obscure pixel hunting, or a very illogical puzzle. That just sucks you out of the whole gaming experience.

That's my favorite too! ;)

I realize this is an old thread, beforehand :P

I don't particularly care. I am more of an action games player than adventures and know a lot more about action than of adventures, but I also love adventures and lately the new games' stories and character development is so bad I might as well abandon the genre for a while and stay with adventures.

Remembering Nomad Soul, I'd say adventure can do with action fine, as long as it's not impossible to play like those zombies in Gabriel Knight 1 that required you to die lots of times before you actually got to pass them (who the hell WALKS when trying to escape a ravenous zombie anyway?). Basically, action = yes, as long as it's as well done as in a regular action game. If the game doesn't have action, I'll still play it. It could be there or not, I prefer when it has action, sure, but it's secondary.

Then again look at Deus Ex. Lots of action and a story that makes most adventure games look bad ;)

I think the stupidest puzzle is the one in The Fifth Disciple.

Spoiler:

You have to chop off your own head in order to solve the puzzle.

I'm somewhere in between A and B, but I finally chose A, mainly because I haven't seen that many good action-adventure crossovers in adventure gaming. (outside of Full Throttle, which did it very well)

I love a proper mix, in fact it's my preference. "The Last Express," being my all time favorite is the pinnacle to which all adventures should aspire!

The B -option is waay too traditionalist in its approach to action ;) so I chose the first option.

Eh, I don't mind a little action sprinkled into my adventure games. As long as it's tasteful.

Many of my favorite games have had action/arcade elements: Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Quest for Glory, Conquests of the Longbow, King's Quest II VGA, Sam & Max (whack-a-rat)...

In most cases, I think it works well. It can provide a thrill of danger, add to the atmosphere of the story, or just mix things up a bit.

Action doesn't have to be about killing bad guys. Racing, sneaking/hiding, timed sequences, even a good old platform challenge can provide action in an adventure game.

I think a bigger question is whether we should tolerate jigsaw puzzles in adventure games.