[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

A vicious cycle indeed. Another thing: Where is that whole adventure vs action games thing coming from anyway? Because: What made LucasArts invest into a rich, deep character- and story-driven game such as Kotor? How come Bioware proved to be successfull with the Baldur's Gate series, despite the fact, that the concept was much more "hardcore" (200+ magic spells to get familiar with, guys) than your average, pretty much accessible for anybody (or so it seems?)... well, adventure game? Now of course, these were great games. Really great. On all accounts. And I mean great as in "great" or "Game of the year candidates". Still, you might get the point.

Or not.

'cause all these are action games. I mean games with action.

[samIamsad]

You can do better, Ninth. I know you can.



Ninth, I'm lost. There isn't anything remotely twitch-based in these games.
You mean the combat, that looks like fluid real-time, but really isn't? (Genius design, by the way - Pause. Think. Give orders. Unpause. Sit back. Light a cigarette. Watch the spectacular looking conflict unfold. Don't hesitate to pause and give new orders if necessary. ) Maybe the small turret minigame in Kotor. And that's about it. But, if you see it like that, then yes: Pretty much every game out there is an, um, action game. So there are basically just, er, adventure games and action games. And maybe some puzzle games. Civilization 4. And The Sims. Heh.

But that wasn't so much the point... It doesn't matter anyway, I think. Because what I was trying to get at has been discussed to death anyway.

[Lain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

And I agree with you about linearity: false debate.

What I meant by linearness, is adventure games are usually in the A > B > C format to advance the story. In action games you have more freedom in terms of interaction with the game engine. Like you can equip A, B or C to kill gaurd A, B, or C to enter base A, B, or C.

I don't think linearity is the sole reason why action games are more popular, but it's certainly a big factor. And I didn't mean a linear story (almost all games have a linear story), but linear interaction with the game engine/interface in terms of "advancing" in the game. You know what I mean?

[Christian IV]

Re Linearity and an interesting effort to include various pahtways in a creative work check out Point of View, review at: http://anthonylarme.tripod.com/pov/povreview.html

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

But, if you see it like that, then yes: Pretty much every game out there is an, um, action game. So there are basically just, er, adventure games and action games. And maybe some puzzle games. Civilization 4. And The Sims. Heh.

Hm. Somewhere along reading this, I came upon the idea that AGs are the only games that contain no competition.
Strategy games, action games, sport games, RPGs; they're mostly about competition.

Just a thought, really; the point being that there is something different about adventure games, and that I can't put my finger on it.

[Lain]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Hm. Somewhere along reading this, I came upon the idea that AGs are the only games that contain no competition.
Strategy games, action games, sport games, RPGs; they're mostly about competition.

Just a thought, really; the point being that there is something different about adventure games, and that I can't put my finger on it.

Good point. I never liked team sports, maybe that's what draws me back to adventure games time and time again. I'm in my own little world.

[Christian IV]

I too abhore the voilence and gratuitous aggression of competition as is appears in so much of modern society and games. The great quality of the peace and space to explore, solve, resolve, consider, experience, decide or wonder or fear in adventure games is a great appeal to me, and I feel to many others. It allows a more open and realistic experience of life, for thought there are limits and enticements and rather strict rules of survival in Nature and in real reality, I have found and think that they are not in the guise of "competiton" but of individual survival and floursihing or not, which is a very different thing, it is a personal and individual journey, one that we share with many others of our own species, whatever species that may be, and with many other life forms or in a story with the other characters, but we and they are individual and unique and that uniqueness and the value of each of us having the experience uniquely that each game offers is the greatest gift I feel of AG, and the genre, we are not made to become nameless and faceless members of an army advancing towards some ritualized form of "victory" or winning, but rather can enjoy and savor and go through a wide variety of personal experiences, and share them with others who are equally self realized and self valuing, and therefore equal.....

Very good point, and a lot to think about thanks for bringing it up!

[samIamsad]

My head hurts!

Christian, I like reading your posts, although I think that you maybe give some games more credit than they really deserve..

I too abhore the voilence and gratuitous aggression of competition as is appears in so much of modern society.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion of its own, just one thing: That's how things are. How they were. And how they will ever be. It's survival of the fittest. Or all war, all the time.

[squarejawhero]

Stories usually require conflict to make them interesting. This can come in any number of forms... worth thinking about.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Hm. Somewhere along reading this, I came upon the idea that AGs are the only games that contain no competition.
Strategy games, action games, sport games, RPGs; they're mostly about competition.

Just a thought, really; the point being that there is something different about adventure games, and that I can't put my finger on it.

I don't think so, Ninth. I say there is competition in most any adventure game - you're competing using your wits against the game's various cerebral challenges. After all, it IS a game, just like any other type of game. Without any kind of competitive challenge in any various forms it stops being a game.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Hm. Somewhere along reading this, I came upon the idea that AGs are the only games that contain no competition.
Strategy games, action games, sport games, RPGs; they're mostly about competition.

Just a thought, really; the point being that there is something different about adventure games, and that I can't put my finger on it.

Animal Crossing has no competition. Virtual characters have no competition. Platformers don't really revolve around competition, unless you consider any challenge of any kind "a competition", in which case adventure game puzzles have competition. Simulations generally have no competition. And saying that RPGs are "mostly about competition" is a bit ridiculous; apart from beating lots of random battles, there's usually much more of an emphasis on story and setting.

[Christian IV]

Some years ago I was introduced to a new form of play called 'cooperative games" which were very clever and imaginative and FUN games in which everyone tried to help everyone have fun, and there was NO ONE winner,
everyone won....I loved it but could not take full advantage of the fun at the time, but have remembered it since. We are very creative creatures, we humans, and my hope one of my hopes in learning about the games world and genres is to find ways to help redirect our energies from "winning" to "playing", from competion to sharing, and to help this happen in the wider world, where we will be much much better off for the kindess and creativity of sharing, rather than trying to dominate or subject or "beat" anyone, including ourselves.....but it will take some time, and I think this is an excelelnt point about adventure games, for the fun of them for me has been in the playing, NOT in the final victory or beating anything or anyone. I think we all share out of this spriit, for what fun is it to share just to say I am better than you or to be foreced to conceed you are better than me, the fun seems to be in the sharing, the many viewpoints, the great experience shared among so many, and the common experiences, where we can say,
"Did you see this, i loved it" or "what did you think of this" for gaming can be a singular alone isolated and isolating experience, and this sharing brings us together again.....as some people have said they enjoy playing with friends or family members or partenrs.... which is certainly sharing, not competition.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Christian IV

Some years ago I was introduced to a new form of play called 'cooperative games" which were very clever and imaginative and FUN games in which everyone tried to help everyone have fun, and there was NO ONE winner.

Me, too! (Some twenty years ago)

[Stain]

The sales flop of Grim Fandango helped kill adventure games. LucasArts was the king of the adventure game at the time. They invested heavily in the game (fancy 3D graphics engine and all), the story was top notch and is considered one of the best adventure games ever.

When that game sold poorly, the competition (and LucasArts themselves) took note and backed away from adventure games. Oh, and don't forget that FPS games were selling huge (yes, I know this has been pointed out several times already).

Basically, if GF could not succeed to the huge sales numbers of yesteryear, nothing would.

My $0.02
Stain

[Lain]

Originally Posted by Stain

The sales flop of Grim Fandango helped kill adventure games. LucasArts was the king of the adventure game at the time. They invested heavily in the game (fancy 3D graphics engine and all), the story was top notch and is considered one of the best adventure games ever.

When that game sold poorly, the competition (and LucasArts themselves) took note and backed away from adventure games. Oh, and don't forget that FPS games were selling huge (yes, I know this has been pointed out several times already).

Basically, if GF could not succeed to the huge sales numbers of yesteryear, nothing would.

My $0.02
Stain

Yeah, it might have been the name. I guess the silly oxymoron was lost on people.

If they had called it "Dead World" or something equally inane, people would have flocked to the stores to buy it.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by Lain

If they had called it "Dead World" or something equally inane, people would have flocked to the stores to buy it.

Or "Myst: Casablanca".

[Ninth]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Or "Myst: Casablanca".

Hehe, yeah, considering how inane many salesmen are, and how gullible many customers can turn out to be, that would probably have worked like a charm.

[Thilodius]

I'll admit, I stopped reading after 1 1/2 pages of this thread, and if anyone actually gets to this post I'd be suprised, but here's my input:

Perhaps The Last Express is the key to successful modern adventure games? Situational, logical puzzles, requiring you to think but not necessarily use crazy items together to create some sort of Incredible Machine (c), an enticing story, and most importantly a real-time, 3D area to explore. Think about a mix between this sort of game, and Half-Life 2, where you are thrust upon this fantastic, heart-wrenching adventure, but instead of giving you an arsenal of *guns*, you are an underdog in the true sense who must use his wit and brainpower to overcome his foes and progress the storyline.

So, fully 3D, perhaps even relying on physics as much as HL2 did, but instead of a shooting game, make it a thinking game. As I see it, HL2 had great story and characters - why not add items and cerebral puzzles (fast or slow paced, we dont have to be solving Myst-esque puzzles here) and take away the guns, and see what happens? The imminent and very real danger of an action game is preserved, but killing an enemy isnt so simple as shooting him in the face - perhaps killing at all is not a wise choise. All I know is, I would play that game, and I feel like others would too. I also think that would be much more engaging than a sort of RPG/Adventure hybrid, seeing as RPG's really do imply some sort of combat.

IMO, combat isnt required for the modern gamer to enjoy a game, just gameplay that really sucks the player into the story and makes him feel like he's been through an epic adventure. This doesnt have to be with weapons, as I said - just immersive and well-designed, real-time puzzle oriented gameplay.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Gravity gun is of course a great example of a tool with which you can accomplish things, whether it be solving puzzles, getting from point A to point B, or killing something indirectly, without an actual lethal capacity. Then lean puzzles away from "launch blade into enemy" and you've got yourself something that might look more like an adventure game aspect. Just a thought.

[Hwoarang]

Damn, I was gonna up this thread. Well it almost sounds like Splinter Cell the game you described. not a bad thing though, as it is kind of an adventure/action game in real time.

What I think would give fresh breath into the AG category wouldn't be one thing, it would be acombo of many things.

First things first: As I read on Yathzee's page (www.fullyramblomatic.com) a year ago or so, he suggested one very important thing that adventure games was missing. The option to do things you want instead of your character yelling (nah, i don't think so). if you want to use a videocassette with a lamp, why not? Let your character try it. If you want to balance on that rope instead of waiting until herman finishes the bridge, so be it. (LOK)

But opposed to LOK, things you do shouldn't be irreversible. So if you die, the game just autmatically reloads you at the point before you kill yourself, or load itself before you break the casette, throwing it at the lamp. there should also not be just one, but mulktiple soulutions to many of the puzzles, and the characters should always have something you could talk with them about. this requires much more imaginative programming and animation, but i think it oculd be done without a too big budget in a couple of years as much of this technology is already developed (bots, 3d animation programs automatically resembling real life physics etc)

Graphics is also a must. I don't care if it is 2d or 3d as long as two criterias are fullfilled. The interface is easy and intuitive to use, and the graphics looks pretty and interactive (and actually are interactive).

Another thing it needs is continiuty. People don't just stand at one place 24/7doing nothing but the thing they started in the beginning of the game. There should also be a night and day which is not based on what puzzles you solve when. it just shifts automatically (like GTA). I think you catch my drift.

Also it obivously needs a good story, interesting characters, and a dialouge that actually sounds like a dialouge between people.

[Skye]

Originally Posted by SakSquash

Let's not forget, with games costing 50 bones these days, people are less willing to plop down that kind of green for a game they can play maybe twice at the most.

I'd certainly like to think that Scavenger Hunter can make a realistic stab at that problem and it certainly is a valid issue. I have friends that play RPGs, the closest thing to the adventure game and the reason is because of the variability.

Pay your money and you have an adventure style game you can play over and over. Pretty good value for the dollar, euro, whatever . . .