[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Then this is where 'the X factor' comes into play*: the player.

How does the player fit into this? Surely the designer of a badly rated game such as Isabelle had every intention to give the player as good a story as he could possibly come up with. But even then that's ultimately independent of that fact that that designer wanted to tell a story through the game, right? You could express an intent to tell a story. You could also express an intent to tell a good story.

But your argument is implying that I said Isabelle wasn't an adventure game, which isn't true. It is an adventure game. But I don't think it should be categorized as an adventure game simply because the designers wanted to tell a story. That doesn't make sense as a single criteria to define the genre. If that is the only thing necessary for an adventure game to be an adventure game, then I know a lot of books and movies that also qualify as "Adventure Games". As I said in an earlier post, I think (I'm tired and can't find the quote) Lorne Lanning has said in interviews several times that the main reason he makes the Quintology is just to tell this story he's had in his head for years.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Snarky

I quite like this notion of a dialog that a game exists within. I guess I would call it a tradition. There's an adventure game tradition that stretches back to the first text adventures, and which influences and inspires the games people are making now.

That suggests another way to define adventure games: by example. We just say "this bunch of games here are adventure games", and then any game that is a lot like the games in that pile is also an adventure game. I think that this is how people in reality make up their minds about whether a game is an adventure or not.

That's kinda what I was trying to get at with my own take on it:

It is ultimately not the definition (whatever that may be), but in actually how it is defined - by us and by the industry and the media. Jack Allin, Editor-in-Chief of AdventureGamers.com, and adventure game writer and reviewer, tactfully pointed out that he "...prefer[s] to use the word 'description' rather than 'definition'. The former is used to explain what IS, and the latter is too often used to demand what MUST be." This makes good sense, because it places the emphasis on the genre's behavior rather than the 'categorically correct' perimeters within which it is expected to stay, allowing for some flexibility. But what happens when an adventure game begins to behave differently than usual yet still moves within those perimeters? Is it still an adventure game? Or can we now expand or modify whatever that 'description' or 'definition' is to encompass this seeming mutant? I'll explore this further possibility in a bit.

"An adventure game is a game in which first and foremost contains: a very strong and coherent story or narrative structure, sharply developed characterization (of people, places, and/or things), a clearly defined set of goals, challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning, and elements of exploration and discovery." Of course, that could mean practically any game. But, the trick is to throw in a bit of Jack's insight, basing all this on "...what we've seen so far.." , and on Evan's (*ahem*, Justice Potter Stewart's) wisdom of "...know[ing] it when I see it...". And voila! What we end up with is, um…….a mutt, but a very nice cuddly one - structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself. And if you were paying attention, nowhere in this amalgamated 'definition' can be found ridiculous sentiments like '2D backgrounds only', or 'point-&-click only', or 'egregiously stuck-up over-intellectualized' puzzles.

Originally Posted by Snarky

I did just that recently in a different thread. Let's see... "A game where the player experiences a story mainly through exploration and solving puzzles."

My own definition doesn't use the word 'puzzle' because many of us have this tendency to epistomologically identify it with very limited specimens. I prefer to use 'challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning' because it allows more flexibility and points more to paradigms.

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by Jake

In fact, if someone made an adventure game that still let me experience an interactive and engaging story but didn't have me waving inventory items around at things or pushing a crate or negotiating a preplanned dialogue tree, I would be extremely pleased, and I would still definitely consider it an adventure game. I don't know what that game is, but I'm not going to discount its theoretical existence by needlessly excluding it from my definition of the genre.

Gadget?

[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

My own definition doesn't use the word 'puzzle' because many of us have this tendency to epistomologically identify it with very limited specimens. I prefer to use 'challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning' because it allows more flexibility and points more to paradigms.

I really want to say "Ah, but what if the challenges are not logical?" and be a jerk, but I like your definition a lot.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by JoeX111

But your argument is implying that I said Isabelle wasn't an adventure game, which isn't true. It is an adventure game. But I don't think it should be categorized as an adventure game simply because the designers wanted to tell a story. That doesn't make sense as a single criteria to define the genre. If that is the only thing necessary for an adventure game to be an adventure game, then I know a lot of books and movies that also qualify as "Adventure Games". As I said in an earlier post, I think (I'm tired and can't find the quote) Lorne Lanning has said in interviews several times that the main reason he makes the Quintology is just to tell this story he's had in his head for years.

It wasn't my intent to imply that you think it wasn't an adventure game. Sorry if it seemed that way. And I'm not sure that Emily meant that it's the only qualifier for the genre, either.

Story - or more abstractly, narrative - is clearly, and historically, one of the defining elements of the adventure game, that we can agree on. But I'd like to emphasize that it is no more important than whatever other elements hold it up. What are those elements? How do they fit in proportion to the narrative?

[Kero]

Hmmmm - I would define Adventure Game as a game that - after playing it - I feel that I've just had a really great Adventure!

(as she quickly ducks and runs from the flying frying pans)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by JoeX111

I really want to say "Ah, but what if the challenges are not logical?" and be a jerk, but I like your definition a lot.

That depends on the context of the logic. Is it logical for the player independent of the game? Is it logical for the game independent of the player?

[Jake]

I'm proud of you guys for topping 100 posts in under six hours!

On topic too (except for this one)

[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It wasn't my intent to imply that you think it wasn't an adventure game. Sorry if it seemed that way. And I'm not sure that Emily meant that it's the only qualifier for the genre, either.

Story - or more abstractly, narrative - is clearly, and historically, one of the defining elements of the adventure game, that we can agree on. But I'd like to emphasize that it is no more important than whatever other elements hold it up. What are those elements? How do they fit in proportion to the narrative?

But don't the elements change from game to game, even within the adventure genre?

Character to character dialog in a game is typically linked with adventure games, even though they have spread out into other genres. Yet not all adventure games use this, such as Myst.

Then you have the "puzzle" aspect, which in itself is not always present and shows up in lots of different forms. Some games use inventory based puzzles for the bulk of the game, whereas other games focus on puzzles that do not require the inventory at all, but either some mechanical tinkering or logical detective work. And some games just do not use puzzles at all.

When I wrote my definition of an adventure game, I focused on story alone because that seems to be the only assured constant, whereas these other elements are not absolutely necessary. But when they are present, typically they tie back into the story in a way that aids the narrative along, rather than just being there for the sake of being there.

I think that made sense...

[Jake]

Originally Posted by JoeX111

Yet not all adventure games use this, such as Myst..

Maybe Myst is a Puzzle game.

[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

That depends on the context of the logic. Is it logical for the player independent of the game? Is it logical for the game independent of the player?

Which also depends on whether or not you are looking at it logically. Is it logical to look at a game independent of the player, or is it logical to look at a player independent of a game? Is it even logical to look at these two differing ideals in a logical fashion?

[Moron Lite]

Story, exploration and puzzles can work, not as necessary and sufficient conditions, but as features that increase membership in the adventure game category. This is getting into some of what I wanted to say but didn't get around to, which is graded membership. For a lot of categories in life, we have a prototypical example in mind (if I said "automobile", you'd likely think of a sedan), and rate things as being strongly, moderately, or weakly in the same category depending on how many features they have in common.

Genre dialogue is what motivates the disappearance, repetition, or introduction of various features. If we'd gone straight from text adventures to Sam & Max Hit the Road, there might have been some dispute over whether Sam & Max was really an adventure game or not. But the introduction of various new features over time expanded what sorts of features could determine membership, to the point where Sam & Max could be unambiguously classified as an adventure game.

Some features have greater weight than others, though, and story appears to be the big one. I guess we could actually say it's a necessary condition.

Designer intent isn't going to be the sole thing that determines genre, but it's helpful to try and figure out what the designer intent is. If Emily found a glitch in FF8 that let her bypass battles completely, we still wouldn't call FF8 an adventure game, even though you could play it like one. Likewise, someone could make an adventure game, but, I dunno, modify his beat 'em up game engine for it and accidently leave the beat 'em up mechanics in, and because of the way the game was designed, you could actually finish it by beating everyone up.

Okay, so this is really complicated and I still have more junk to throw in here. I think I'm going to throw in the towel for now.

[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Jake

Maybe Myst is a Puzzle game.

Off-Topic! We're talking about Adventure Games, not Puzzle Games!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by JoeX111

But don't the elements change from game to game, even within the adventure genre?

Absolutely. And that's marvelous!! Hence that part of my definition:

...structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself.

Character to character dialog in a game is typically linked with adventure games, even though they have spread out into other genres. Yet not all adventure games use this, such as Myst.

Exactly. A dialogue can be between player and 'sentient' characters, or it can be between player and objects, or player and a gameworld. It can be spoken dialogue or non-spoken.

Then you have the "puzzle" aspect, which in itself is not always present and shows up in lots of different forms. Some games use inventory based puzzles for the bulk of the game, whereas other games focus on puzzles that do not require the inventory at all, but either some mechanical tinkering or logical detective work. And some games just do not use puzzles at all.

Right. That's why I specified 'challenges'. I mean, without such it wouldn't even be a game, no?

When I wrote my definition of an adventure game, I focused on story alone because that seems to be the only assured constant, whereas these other elements are not absolutely necessary. But when they are present, typically they tie back into the story in a way that aids the narrative along, rather than just being there for the sake of being there.

That's what I mean when I said...

...I'd like to emphasize that it is no more important than whatever other elements hold it up. What are those elements? How do they fit in proportion to the narrative?

Originally Posted by Joe

I think that made sense...

More than you think ... ... I think.

[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Absolutely. And that's marvelous!!

So now we agree that your definition is much better (even though I said as much earlier), that my logic eventually led me to say basically what you said in yours in my own roundabout way, and I can stop defending myself and run screaming into the night like a caffine addicted three year old.

Whew!

[Legolas813]

People misusing the phrase "adventure game" is one of my biggest pet peeves. As you might know, Gamespot now has these things called Unions, where almost anybody can start up their own community and board. Well somebody is trying to start a Union called the "Tomb Raider and other Adventure Games Club." I don't know what it is, but something about the thought of somebody thinking Tomb Raider is an adventure game just gets on my nerves.

http://forums.gamespot.com/gamespot/...topic=20080309

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by JoeX111

So now we agree that your definition is much better (even though I said as much earlier), that my logic eventually led me to say basically what you said in yours in my own roundabout way, and I can stop defending myself and run screaming into the night like a caffine addicted three year old.

Whew!

Great! If I were a girl and we were having this conversation over drinks at some bar I'd say "Now let's go back to my place and f#&k." But I'm not, so I'll just sit here and eat my Nutella with butter on toasted French bread.

[JoeX111]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

Great! If I were a girl and we were having this conversation over drinks at some bar I'd say "Now let's go back to my place and f#&k." But I'm not, so I'll just sit here and eat my Nutella with butter on toasted French bread.

And I would say "That's really nice of you, but I'm spoken for...and what am I doing in a bar? I don't drink!" So instead, I'll just continue to sit here at work being extremely bored. Dang, now I wish I was in a bar...

[Jake]

People need to go back and read Moron Lite's recent post because it seems to have been buried. Walter speaks the truth. Or at least a few grades away from the pure definition of the truth.

[Fairygdmther]

A definition of adv games, as a separate genre can be made by defining the focus of the games. Yes, many games have wonderful stories. I have a problem with Jake's premise with story as THE defining element.

I feel that the focus of adv games is on story, exploration, and meeting the game's challenges (or puzzles, if you prefer), but also what an adv game IS NOT! It is not - fighting, levelling up, beating bosses, gaining points or power. An adv game is the gradual unfolding of a story by a player by exploration and problem solving techniques, without resorting to violent means. That is as succinct as I can make it.

FGM