[Intrepid Homoludens]

Dreamfall, ICO, Fahrenheit.

:eek: I just realized! Beyond those of us here (and in the macrocosm of the otherwise very tiny niche market of hardcore adventurers) who are bitching that Ragnar Tornquist 'abandoning' the genre, what about those who may actually discover Dreamfall for what it is? An adventure game, but their own definition based on it? That they don't give a shit about what some dumb, very minor yet whiny group says it's supposed to be, they just love it for what it is, and that, to them is enough to explore the genre in other games, past, present, and future? That they would still love Grim Fandango and Beyond Good & Evil on the same level, thinking of them both as adventure games?

Those who never hang out in these kinds of forums, own either an Xbox or PC or both, who don't give a damn about genre classifications? Those who have never lived through the early to mid 90s, who don't know about LucasArts and Sierra, and frankly don't don't give rat's ass what the most conversative of us here think an adventure game is supposed to be? To them games like Dreamfall and ICO are adventure games, both on equal footing with, say, The Last Express or Escape From Monkey Island.

What about THEM?

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What about THEM?

Hm. Can I be one of them? (I like the sound of that!) I didn't "live through" the LucasArts/Sierra thing in real time . . . I've had to go back to those games (or am just starting to) to keep up with all the cool kids' jokes around here. So for me, yeah, bring on the game. I just hope I can play it, and that it will be fun. And, also, like, I want more games, 'n stuff? Thanks.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Well, I wasn't exactly sure at first what this realization meant, but you're making it a bit more clear. I'm thinking that we here in the adventure gaming community seem to be so hung up on, so obsessed, with what an adventure game is supposed to be and end up fighting with each other. But we really are a very small yet loud and tempestuous minority, we think that we know it all, much in the same way as academic philosophers stuck in their ivory towers at the universities. Do we really know it all?

Then there are those who for whatever reasons have never experienced that so-called 'golden age' of Lucas Arts and Sierra. Maybe they were born around that time and were too young to play games, or they were old enough but they were living their lives doing other things and enjoying other things. I happen to be of the latter group. And those people could discover a game like Dreamfall and fall madly in love with it and find that it's categorized under 'Adventure Game' or even 'Action/Adventure', thus it could shape their idea of what it is and what it offers, no matter what the past seems to say about it. To them it is an adventure game.

[remixor]

THEY are definitely important. It's worth bearing in mind that Zelda has pretty much always been considered an adventure series, and it's been around since, what, 1986? I'm sure it wasn't called an adventure when it was first released, but for probably the last 15 years it has been. "Adventure" as a genre has always meant different things to different folks. I'm just hoping that people (ANY people of any genre preference) notice Dreamfall, since I suspect it's going to be at least fairly well-received critically, and play it and enjoy it.

[Jackal]

Long live interactive storytelling, says I.

And diversification, of course. We sure aren't all the same - why should our games be?

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Then there are those who for whatever reasons have never experienced that so-called 'golden age' of Lucas Arts and Sierra. Maybe they were born around that time and were too young to play games, or they were old enough but they were living their lives doing other things and enjoying other things. I happen to be of the latter group. And those people could discover a game like Dreamfall and fall madly in love with it and find that it's categorized under 'Adventure Game' or even 'Action/Adventure', thus it could shape their idea of what it is and what it offers, no matter what the past seems to say about it. To them it is an adventure game.

I think you're right that I personally have less invested in an image of a game AS game or gameplay because of not catching "the wave" that was AGs heyday. I can't speak for other "purists" about what motivates them.

As I said in the other thread (which one???), with so many kids' games being action/adventure, it seems like that formula makes sense, and may be experiencing its own form of heyday.

[SoccerDude28]

Actually ICO has a special place among a lot of gamers. You'd consider G4 to be a bunch of action-hungry trigger-crazed maniacs. But a lot of times, I'm suprised they mention ICO and BG&E as ones of the most under appreciated games ever And a lot of people have termendous respect for it. Every time the Prince of persia lead talks about his game, he mentions ICO as one of the biggest influences 8-) Can't wait for Wanda and the Collosus

[Intrepid Homoludens]

It sounds awkward, but somehow I feel as I've been 'spared' the chains because the era of LucasArts and Sierra passed me by. That I can enjoy various 'story driven', 'puzzle inflected', or 'exploration encouraging' games and not feel weird about it because I'm supposed to be enjoying a historically correct notion of what they're supposed to be according to a tiny group of people. Who knows? Maybe even if I had partaken what others here had back in the 90s I may still be wide open to the possibilties and never cage myself in. But that has more to do with my being, um.........intrepid?

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It sounds awkward, but somehow I feel as I've been 'spared' the chains because the era of LucasArts and Sierra passed me by. That I can enjoy various 'story driven', 'puzzle inflected', or 'exploration encouraging' games and not feel weird about it because I'm supposed to be enjoying a historically correct notion of what they're supposed to be according to a tiny group of people. Who knows? Maybe even if I had partaken what others here had back in the 90s I may still be wide open to the possibilties and never cage myself in. But that has more to do with my being, um.........intrepid?

Believe me, I went through that period and it is what gave me my appreciation for story- and/or character-driven games, which is precisely why I don't put up with crappy Egypt clones, and why I adore stuff like BGE.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

What about THEM?

It is my firm opinion that THEY are in the majority.

Certainly, in a wider scheme, even Devil May Cry is regarded as adventure, though personally I think that's taking it a bit far.

What we need to be preserving is the essence, the spirit of the adventure.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Steve Ince

What we need to be preserving is the essence, the spirit of the adventure.

Instead of choosing to see the forest for the trees?

I think that's what THEY are not doing, they have the chance to appreciate the forest for what it is, and marvel at it. I think that's what a game like BS3 and Dreamfall are capable of achieving.

[squarejawhero]

I'm loving the Brothers In Arms soundtrack download from Gamershell. Although it gets a bit hobbity.

I'm in complete agreeance that people should look to the wider picture, but I still believe the spirit of the older games should live on through better-presented titles like Still Life. Still Life excites me... I want to play the non-action titles still, as well as far-reaching stuff like Dreamfall or Farenheit, and I don't want them to disappear altogether. I'm more of the belief that games like BS3 bring new people to the genre - in fact, of the last year at JA+, it's the one game that has always cropped up in first posts.

Being a creative person, I'm all for creativity. But I'm only in for it if the realisation works and the developer has put as much effort in to making the game fun and playable. On what Ragnar has been saying, and Steve when BS3 was being made, I believe he thinks he's doing the best he can. BS3 was an ambitious title that fell on only a couple of hurdles - Ragnar has got that to look on as well as a wider picture. Can I blame him that he wants to expand his 2D TLJ universe into something wider? Of course not! TLJ was about narrative and gameworld before gameplay in the first place anyway.

Besides, someone's got to nail it sometime. I play games like Tribes for the action, Still Life for the adventure, but I wouldn't mind a comfortable inbetween either. Here, here for variety. It's the spice of gaming.

[Steve Ince]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I'm more of the belief that games like BS3 bring new people to the genre - in fact, of the last year at JA+, it's the one game that has always cropped up in first posts.

That's interesting, but how many of those newcomers are then put off by the often negative attitudes towards the type of game that brought them to the JA forums? (Not just at JA, I must stress.)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

One extremely important example is ICO. I ask you people who have played ICO, what adjectives come to your mind instantly when describing it to someone? What do you remember about it immediately, even before thinking about it?

I think your answers will surprise you and confirm Steve's idea of "...preserving...the essence, the spirit of the adventure."

[squarejawhero]

@Steve - I've no idea... to be honest not many stick around anyway. I've been accused of being "shrill" in the past too, though, so I guess I can be blamed despite my upbeat personality.

*bangs own drum*

If you read the HotSpot BS3 thread you'll find, shockingly, most actually like the game.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It sounds awkward, but somehow I feel as I've been 'spared' the chains because the era of LucasArts and Sierra passed me by. That I can enjoy various 'story driven', 'puzzle inflected', or 'exploration encouraging' games and not feel weird about it because I'm supposed to be enjoying a historically correct notion of what they're supposed to be according to a tiny group of people.

How interesting. And how nice of you to inform me of how I feel (that'd be ...weird ) when I'm playing a different kind of AG...
Only, now that I think about it, I've played Shadow of Memory, Omikron, BS3, Deus Ex, Uru, or whatever... And I haven't felt weird one single time. Nor guilty, or whatever. So maybe, only maybe, you're just assuming things.

This whole issue is beyond me. What about those other gamers? I mean, what exactly is the problem with them?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Ninth

What about those other gamers? I mean, what exactly is the problem with them?

That's what I mean. Do they even have a problem with what an adventure game is supposed to be? They play something like ICO and BG&E, and they could be fine with them as adventure games.

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

That's what I mean. Do they even have a problem with what an adventure game is supposed to be? They play something like ICO and BG&E, and they're fine with it as adventure games.

So?

I don't have a problem with these games, I just wouldn't call them Adventure Games, that's all. What exactly is disturbing in calling these games Action-Adventure? It's not an insult... it's a genre.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

That's what I mean. I don't have a problem with it any more than you do. I personally think ICO is, not just an adventure game in essence, but a very powerful one at that. And I have no problem with that. So of course, you wouldn't either. Right?

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

That's what I mean. I don't have a problem with it any more than you do. I personally think ICO is, not just an adventure game in essence, but a very powerful one at that. And I have no problem with that. So of course, you wouldn't either. Right?

Ok, I don't know ICO's gameplay, so I couldn't answer you.
But I think somehow you're confusing adventure games with Adventure games. I mean, an AG is not exactly a game which provides an adventure (in the noble sense of the word). Deus Ex has a story, character interaction, a compelling atmosphere, and provides an excellent adventure, but it's not an Adventure game per se.
For some reason, you're associating Adventure game with quality. I don't think a game is crappy because it's not an AG, nor do I think it's good because it is. It just happens that an AG will have more chances to please me because that's the kind of gameplay I'm into.

EDIT : A game is not only definied by its "essence", but also by what it plays, and looks like. Else I could say that Morrowind is an adventure game. It's one of the best game I've played, granted, it has characters interaction, a nice story, plenty of inventory, ... but in the end, it's a RPG. So what?