11-01-2003, 09:14 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 34
|
"Adventure Game" - time for a new definition?
There seems to be a lot of debate over the meaning of the word "Adventure Game". I don't think it should necessarily always mean games of the point-and-click graphical-adventure variety. If you look at the history of the use of the term, it is always used at the time, to describe a genre, of the time.
The name "adventure game" came from the game "Colossal Cave Adventure" that was made in 1972. The adoption of the term didn't happen in 1972, but happened later on, as the genre that game insipred rose to popularity. As time went on it proved to be a decent label. You pretty much explored and solved puzzles, but puzzle games better described another genre of games, and lots of action games involved exploring. In 1983, Sierra released KingsQuest. Since it was similar to an Adventure game but with animated graphics, it was called a "Graphical Adventure". As time went by however the Graphical Adventure took over. By the time Lucasarts had their heyday the original text driven adventures were given a more descriptive term, "Text Adventures", and the genre of the day, the Scumm-style adventure, were called "Adventure Games". Now since, the Scumm-style "Adventure Game" has retreated to the same extent that text adventures did, and the action-adventure hybrid has risen to the fore, as much as the LucasArts-Scumm games did... ..then its not unreasonable to suggest give Scumm-style adventure games some more descriptive term, and save the term "Adventure game" for the breed of Action/adventure games that are appearing now. Historical Note: In the early eighties there were lots of pure action games, but then ( circa 1987), there was a significant boom in action games that involved the same deep-thought puzzles as text adventures. At the time, the magazine reviewers labelled the hybrid genre the "Action Adventure", or "Arcade Adventure". "Arcade" was an eighties synonym for action, but you never found deep thought puzzles in the arcades (for obvious reasons) so this term quickly faded). It could be argued that the term "Action Adventure" should be used to describe the "new breed" of 3D action games. But what if an offshoot from this current batch achieves mass popularity? - then you're left with further double-barreling of the genre. Its more helpful to save the shorthand label ie "adventure game" to describe a genre of currently popular games. And use a detailed long hand description ie "point-and-click-graphical-adventure" to describe the declining (or dead) genre. Afterall, only in hindsight can better make up a term which is all-encompassing of the games that were. Trying to do that for games that are new to be would be guessing at best. Naming any current genre as "Adventure games" is also great for developers of new and innovative games, it means that they can tell their distributors et al that their game belongs to the adventure genre, rather than the high risk answer that it is indeed fresh and innovative. ..and promoting game innovation is something we can all agree is healthy. |
11-01-2003, 06:08 PM | #2 |
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Rubbish
Posts: 535
|
New definition: it is Adventure if it involves boredom, but more refreshing and satisfying.
Like sucking on a mint for a long period of time. Because if you bite down on the mint and eat it, you are a loser redneck and you can move back to Alabama where Adventure Games don't exist because conservatives only love to shot cans off fences and eat pork. Also speaking of pork, there is a movie sequel to Charlotte's Web. That is perverted. |
11-01-2003, 10:21 PM | #3 |
A search for a crazy man!
|
I see your point but I honestly don't think many people here still consider "adventure game" to indicate point-and-clicks. At this point, I don't think new terminology is really necessary. If you do need a separate term to describe SCUMM and Sierra-style adventures, just call them point-and-click adventures. The meaning of that phrase is self-evident. The existing genre is, IMO, too small at the moment to need to subdivide it any more.
__________________
Chris "News Editor" Remo Some sort of Writer or Editor or Something, Idle Thumbs "Some comparisons are a little less obvious. I always think of Grim Fandango as Casablanca on acid." - Will Wright |
11-02-2003, 01:24 AM | #4 |
Sky is not the limit
|
Well, there are 3d adventures, 2d adventures. Also point and clicks, myst type, adventures... One genre, many faces...
__________________
RUBY + EXOTIC FLOWER = RED POTION TOPAZ + TULIP = YELLOW POTION RED POTION + YELLOW POTION= ORANGE POTION |
11-02-2003, 03:52 AM | #5 |
ACK!
|
Well, I think some people would call ANYTHING and adventure game....
While browsing the net I have seen Tomb Raider and other action games called adventures.... I usually call an adventure a game where you use your brain and not your brawn, in a interactive enviroment.... Nowadays even puzzle games have an inventory and every game seems to have a puzzle or too... Some name genres are used loosely... If Zelda is an action RPG and Megaman X has the same elements why isnt it considered an action RPG? Becuase a plataformer can't be an RPG? Some games belong to a different genre depending on who you ask... Some might call the 7th Guest an adventure some may call it a puzzle game...
__________________
Apparently I have a Devianrt Art account... And people actually like it! |
11-02-2003, 03:55 AM | #6 | |
Knowledgeable
|
Quote:
__________________
Rem acu tetigisti -- Jeeves Read my adventure game reviews here Blaskan Dragon Go Server Ragnar Ouchterlony |
|
11-02-2003, 04:21 AM | #7 |
Liver of Life
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,317
|
Technically, a vast majority of games can be called Adventure Games. After all, they put you in the shoes of someone having an adventure. They just go about things differently.
Like has been expressed many times before, I define an adventure game as something that focusses on the story/puzzle/character aspect of the game more than it does on the importance of shooting up others, or building empires. In most "non-adventure games" something other than the story/puzzle/character is the main focus, and to some people, that's not very indulging. Given that, I think WarCraft III is a great example of a game that incorporates an interesting story, with interesting characters, into something more than point and click and move-your-man-around. Hence I like it very much |
11-02-2003, 04:24 AM | #8 | |
ACK!
|
Quote:
Ehh, ok... It's a game were you use your brain and not your brawn, in an intectactive enviroment.... without an army or world conquest involved! Satisfied?
__________________
Apparently I have a Devianrt Art account... And people actually like it! |
|
11-02-2003, 06:46 AM | #9 | ||
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 34
|
Quote:
It is a fundamental aspect of a game, because the "urgency" of the game situation affects you in a profound physical manner. If this were your gripe about modern "adventure" games, then its pretty much justified, as 99% of new games out there have urgency in one form or another. Exceptions include some turn-based RPGs. Quote:
Although if you blindly purchased on these critereon, you could end up with something like final fantasy (if thats ok with you ). It would also make you buy things like your Zeldas and your other actiony adventures. (if thats alo ok with you?) Personally, I am looking forward to the very actiony Psychonauts. Sure I'm old, have never owned a console, and my somatic nerves have dulled... But, its just that I so deparately want Tim Schafer to tell me another story . |
||
11-02-2003, 11:34 AM | #10 |
Banned User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Rubbish
Posts: 535
|
I like to play story/puzzle/character/boredom.
|
11-02-2003, 12:00 PM | #11 | |
The Dartmaster
|
Quote:
I prefer using "Adventure" for any moderately half-way character and story driven game that involves... erm... an adventure of some sort. Then, below that categorizing games as action adventure, graphic adventure, etc etc. As for how RPGs and Action RPGs (as some categorize Zelda for instance) fit into that, I haven't got a clue. As for calling SCUMM-like games "point-and-click" adventures, I think that's fine but you run into some trouble when talking about games like Grim. "Oh, Grim's essentially a point and click adventure yes, except theres no pointing and clicking going on whatsoever."
__________________
When on the Internet, visit Idle Thumbs | Mixnmojo | Sam & Max.net | Telltale Games "I was one of the original lovers." - Evan Dickens |
|
11-02-2003, 12:10 PM | #12 | |
The Dartmaster
|
Quote:
I don't think you're necesarilly being fair fair, and you may be oversimplifying things a bit. Genre classification in games is more complicated than movies, books, or whatever. Just because both games have stats and realtime fighting, or because they both involve some sort of epic quest, doesn't mean they're both "Action RPG's." The fact that Zelda is a top down game with extremely limited movement, and has a nonlinear overworld/dungeon system makes it pretty different from Mega Man X, which is a side scrolling shooting game. They're clearly not both Action/RPGs because one has classic RPG gameplay while the other handles like a standard 2D platformer, albeit with some added stuff not standard to, say, Mario 1 (or Mega Man 1). Also: Blah. My head is imploding. Also: 100 posts! Woo.
__________________
When on the Internet, visit Idle Thumbs | Mixnmojo | Sam & Max.net | Telltale Games "I was one of the original lovers." - Evan Dickens |
|
11-03-2003, 12:02 AM | #13 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 34
|
Quote:
In 1989, they called Indiana Jones and the TLC a "Graphic Adventure" Then in 1990, they evolved the definition, and called Monkey Island a straight "Adventure" Then in 1999, they called the infernal machine an "Action-Adventure". As they have called bounty hunter. I wonder when they will start calling Indy games "Adventures" and not "Action Adventures"? Possibly never...but possibly, when Action-Adventures become prolific. Thanks for the link, Jake. |
|
11-03-2003, 03:00 AM | #14 |
Sky is not the limit
|
Oh, please. Lets not start arguing on definitions again. Its endless.
__________________
RUBY + EXOTIC FLOWER = RED POTION TOPAZ + TULIP = YELLOW POTION RED POTION + YELLOW POTION= ORANGE POTION |
11-03-2003, 03:58 AM | #15 |
Knowledgeable
|
The problem here is (which has been touched upon in another thread) that categorising games essentially needs two dimensions. One where you describe the type of interactivity (puzzles, strategy, role-playing, platform, FPS, etc.) and one where you describe the type of story (epic adventure, romance, comedy, horror, etc.) and perhaps you might sometimes want a third describing the type of graphics (2D, 3D, 1st person, 3rd person, cartoon, realistic, etc.).
__________________
Rem acu tetigisti -- Jeeves Read my adventure game reviews here Blaskan Dragon Go Server Ragnar Ouchterlony |
11-03-2003, 04:09 AM | #16 |
A search for a crazy man!
|
I think as far as games go, only the first of those categories is needed. The other two can simply be adjectives one uses to describe a particular game. It just isn't necessary to have so many categories that you end up with stuff such as "3rd perons/1st person 2D realistic epic adventure strategy". Sure, you can describe the game as being that, but that really goes beyond what the term "genre" or even "catgeory" entails.
As far as games go, the most useful way to divide them (in my opinion) is by the type of game play they have. I'm not saying people only enjoy a game if it's from a category they generally like, but I think categorizing games that way makes the most sense. If you go to see a movie and you've hear it's a good example of a comedy, there's a good chance you'll enjoy it based on its merit as a comedy. This doesn't work as well with games. This is evident from the fact that we all frequent a site called Adventure Gamers. Adventures have many different themes--some are essentially comedies, some mysteries, some are "epic adventure", blah blah blah, and we all have our own particular preference, but it stands to reason that most of us are here because we like adventure games.
__________________
Chris "News Editor" Remo Some sort of Writer or Editor or Something, Idle Thumbs "Some comparisons are a little less obvious. I always think of Grim Fandango as Casablanca on acid." - Will Wright |
11-03-2003, 04:20 AM | #17 |
Knowledgeable
|
I agree that the type of interactivity is the most important, but I think there very often is needed something more. Especially with adventure games. Also in other genres. For example I like historical strategy games, now that is a rather thin genre, but nevertheless I think there is a need to specify genre more precise than in movies or books for example.
__________________
Rem acu tetigisti -- Jeeves Read my adventure game reviews here Blaskan Dragon Go Server Ragnar Ouchterlony |
11-03-2003, 08:43 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 219
|
ok ill end this argument right here... theres two types of adventure
1. good adventure - what we play and what this page is about 2. bad adventure - every other game not in this category. personally i consider any game where you walk around a non linear envirionment with a "character (1st or 3rd person) solving something (inventory or not) is adv. So the question is, is zelda an adv? yes its an adv game where you can slash your sword in real time. I think realtime is where we get thrown off by the definition of adv. |
11-03-2003, 01:43 PM | #19 | |
A search for a crazy man!
|
Quote:
__________________
Chris "News Editor" Remo Some sort of Writer or Editor or Something, Idle Thumbs "Some comparisons are a little less obvious. I always think of Grim Fandango as Casablanca on acid." - Will Wright |
|
|