Interesting poll: Do you like "Action" in your adventure games
 

Ok now here's an interesting poll. Too many debates about how adventure games have not evolved vs adventure games should remain "pure". What do you like?

I voted that I would like to see a mix but that isn't exactly true. I really don't like action in adventure games but when it's functional I tend to like it... So I don't prefer action sequences but as long as they are funtional I don't mind.

I'm really looking forward to see what they've done or are going to do with Dreamfall... I do think that the future of adventure games lies in an optimal combination of action and adventure. I think Deus Ex was a good attempt! What scares me is the fact that people consider Vice City and the upcoming San Andreas an adventure game. I love Vice City but an adventure game? Hell no!

I don't like action sequences in an otherwise "pure" adventure.

Howver I like games like Beyond Good and Evil where the gameplay is spiced-up with some action/arcade and minigames which are really easy to beat.
If this poll had taken place about 2 months ago I would probably say A. After playing this excellent game, though I have to say B all the way and hope for Psychonauts to be similar to BG&E in terms of enjoyment and story development.
If Broken Sword 3 is the future of adventure games then I'd rather we'd stay in the past.
If BG&E-clones start popping-up to replace adventures (appealing though unlikely thought) I'd say I will surely miss the traditional puzzle-oriented games that I love but I am ready to make that sacrifice in order to avoid any more Cryo-genetic games that have to do with astronauts being abandoned or warped in a new world/dimension.
If new ideas and stories can only shell by being delivered as action-oriented games then let it be. I am sick and tired by soulless games which try to convince us that throwing in some lever-pulling and use-fishing-rod-on-old man's pocket puzzles is enough to sate our hunger for a good storyline.

I am not saying that I don't like puzzles in my games. I am saying that simply replacing action with puzzle-solving does not make an adventure game.
There are many other things an adventure needs to become interesting and keep the player from leaving the game in the middle of his quest.

I voted for B. But actually I like hardcore Adventures. But I like Action-Adventure games too.

I think the question is too ambiguous and, therefore, the poll result won't be very informative. I mean, some of the most outstanding achievements in game design, like Deus Ex or Beyond Good & Evil*, are so great because their creators didn't worry about genres or target audience and included a variety of gameplay styles. Such examples would almost make me vote for second option. But they're just it: innovative, unclassifiable titles. My definition of adventure title accepts little to no action sequences. Similarly, when I read mystery novel, I don't want the alien invaders to appear on the last page - and it does'nt mean I hate sci-fi as such. So it's number one for me.

* Well, I actually haven't played BG&E, but from all the comments everywhere I gather it is great.

If I want action, I'll play an action/adventure or RPG.
When I don't, what else is there to play but an adventure?
And unfortunately adding action elements to an adventure game usually takes the form of adding timed sequences, which I don't like in any game.
So leave the action out of the adventures please.


Here's another question -

Which usually works out better - adding adventure elements to an action game or adding action elements to an adventure game?

And which is more apt to mean a dead end for someone - adding "easy" action elements to an adventure game or adding "easy" puzzles to an action game?

I wanna see a mix. If the action part was well done, why not. Of course, I would still like to see only-mouse-advs, so I can just sit and relax, not just mutilate my keyboard :D

Looks close between a and b. That suprises me. Expected the majority of the population here to be more Lucas/sierra, less BG+E/Zelda.
Still, we live and learn.
I voted A. Natch.
Bit set in my ways...

It really, really depends on what type of Action and how that is handled within the game. Most action-sequences in adventure games are bad because they use a completely unsuitable interface for that kind of thing, i.e. the normal point and click interface that is optimised for slowpaced looking around for objects to add to your inventory.

I aggree on that. It always depends on how the action sequence was incorporated and blened in the game and the story. Al;so a very important thing is the lenght of the action sequence in an adventure game. The smaller it is the better it blends in the game.
I've played some good adventure games with very good action sequences, the most memorable are the two classics from DYNAMIX: "RISE OF THE DRAGON" and "HEART OF CHINA".

The debate is almost never whether adding action is an "evolution" of adventure games. That's actually the argument that purists FEAR, even though it's rarely suggested.

I think most "pure" adventures are hurt more than they're helped by adding random action elements, so if that's the standard, better to avoid them.

On the other hand, I thoroughly enjoy action-adventures. I also absolutely think there's room in the genre for more "action-based" gameplay if its storyline dictates it.

It's all about diversity in design, baby. 8-)

I don't mind some action in some games. That doesn't mean I want action in all games.

-emily

I think all games should be treated differently, meaning that I wouldn't mind some action if it suits the game overall.

I won't vote on this poll, but I'll say that a little action in *some* adventure games would be good.

It just depends what kind of action are we talking about and how it fits in the game.

If you read the posts in this thread, it doesn't look like anyone is advocating action in ALL adventure games. And there are definitely preferences on the type of action and whether it fits the game as opposed to whether its "imposed" on it. So the overall result of the poll is misleading and not as informative as the posts.

there is a place for action in any good adventure game...some games do not need it and this doesnt make them any worse for what they are - straight forward point-and-click adventures...but my favorite adventure games (shenmue, BG&E, zelda, etc.) are not REALLY classified as adventure games, so what do i know?

This is a good poll because I'm in the planning stages for a new adventure game project, and my buddy and I are very concerned about this. A few action segments would really fit well into the story and theme of our game so...we are currently trying to decide.

I said "No action for me please" but that's actually wrong. I would have preferred an option that says "I don't mind action if it's well-implemented but I'm not looking for it" or something like that, because I'm not actually saying "Yes, please add action to my adventures, I want a mix." The choices are too extreme.

Where's the "I don't care" option?? Sheesh.

I voted for the "mix"... though I think it would be important for me that the "adventure" elements outweigh the "action" elements by a large, large margin.

Besides I think it is important that the action parts fit well into the story (not just action for action's sake) and are not so difficult as to be frustrating to the action-unexperienced gamer.

E.g. that is one of the very few bones I have to pick with "Silver Earring": the Superdog with his unearthly sensory powers almost drove me to distraction... :D