[BacardiJim]

Originally Posted by crabapple

I've never felt that way about a game.
About movies yes, about books yes, about plays yes - -

But I've never felt that way about a game.

Ditto!

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by Zanthia

books are for reading, movies are for watching, games are for playing

So you don't think well-written stories are important for games and movies?

[Terabin]

Hmm. I would say that great books and great adventure games each have a distinctive and equally tantalizing immersive power. Playing Grim Fandango pulled at the heartstrings of my imagination just as The Man Who Was Thursday did.

The difference?

Setting: the former experienced in the wee hours downstairs with my eyes stuck to the screen and my hands sweaty from clutching the keyboard. The latter was experience in the wee hours in bed with my eyes stuck to the pages and my hands sweaty from clutching the book.

I guess they tug at the imagination in different ways though: in the AG world, as Bastich has mentioned, your imagination drools for a new area to explore, or for a new item to add to the inventory. Interaction with the world adds a major element of difference as well, although the late night element of my gaming usually leaves me with brainless trial-and-error. Books use language to paint a world in our imaginations, a world that is your own because you take part in the construction.

Zat being said, zey are both very nice.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Jeez, talk about oversimplication! I had to vote 'other' because my reasons are too....well, they're more than simply 'overcoming mental challenges' or 'exploring and discovery'. And I effortlessly apply these reasons to ANY game I choose to play!

And you do know, all the other genres have their share of challenges, exploration, and discovery. They simply take various forms. For RPGs, there are the intricacies of literally creating your character and adapting those details to how you explore and survive that character's world. In strategy games there are mental challenges as complex and difficult as any any adventure game puzzle. In action games, whether first person or third, you are given free reign in a vast 3D world that shifts and changes perspectives before your very own eyes, and every corner yields a new discovery or challenge.

And please, guys, stop being snobs, this whole conceit over the mental challenge of adventure games is stupid. I'd like to see you not try using intelligence to win an insanely complicated real time battle in Command & Conquer: Generals, or figure out which team members to choose on your next mission in Knights of The Old Republic based on their individual skills, or plan your cunning moves second-by-second to successfully eliminate your targets in Hitman 2.

[nordic_guy]

Hmm... I'm not sure if I have replied in this thread. It has become too long to look anyway.
My reason for playing adventure games (if I should ever need one), is that they give me time to think of my actions, and not needing to react to something withing a couple of seconds, just to do it all over again if I fail. The story also mostly appeal to me in adventure games, because they are there for a reason. Not just an excuse for a gameplay.
It doesn't mean that I don't like action games, I just like them for different reasons.
Also, I find adventure games fun (mostly). And that is my main reason for laying any games.

So, that would be 'other'.

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

Perhaps, but not necessarily the other way around: my dedication to adventure gaming is due to the genre's unique capacity, when at its best, to reflect back on and intensify meaning and significance in this world; so for me adventure games are the very opposite of escapism.


I agree with this, though perhaps not to this extent. I wish that AGs lived up to their full potential and I think that maybe some day they will. But there are DEFINITELY games that I've played that I have found more touching and meaningful than lots and lots of movies I have seen and books I have read. (And I don't read junk. I watch junk, but I don't read it.) Syberia I and II (despite some complaints) come to mind as does TLJ; Dark Fall as well though it was too darn scary for me to finish. Sounds like Moment of Silence has someone who seems like a human being in it too, which is great--looking forward to it. That's a major part of the game for me--that I get more out of the game than just the puzzles. I mean, I help teach at a college and when I was playing the first Syberia game, we were also reading _Pinocchio._ There are many, many stories about works of art coming to life, dating back to Greek myths (Pygmalion) . . . The professor also showed the class parts of A.I. I thought Oscar was a heck of a lot more interesting a character by the end of the Syberia set than Haley Joel Osment, I have to say . . . but maybe that's because I couldn't get through the whole film. (I did get through the whole book. Oscar is definitely as interesting as Pinocchio.)

[Zanthia]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

So you don't think well-written stories are important for games and movies?

Lets put it that way: Story is not the most important component of games and movies .

[Fairygdmther]

I voted for #2 - I totally enjoy exploring the varied environments in adv games. Whether it's climbing up a rock face, or rummaging through a desk full of drawers, I enjoy seeing what's there. I enjoy watching the story unfold as I explore my way through the game world. I do enjoy doing puzzles as well, and have my favorites and dislikes like everyone else. For me there must be a discernible story to follow, or I won't care about the outcome.

BJ and I have run this topic to the ground - I prefer stories, he prefers puzzles, yet the thing I've yet to figure is why we almost always like the same games! A game that's made intelligently, with a reasonable story, non-repetitious puzzles or mazes, an interface that doesn't interfere with the playing of the game, and I'm happy. I don't care if it's 1st person or 3rd, 2D or 3D, node-to-node or full range of motion, slide-show graphics or fully rendered.

FGM

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Maybe the games you both like best have equally strong story and puzzling elements?

[crabapple]

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

I can understand that. There aren't very many games that are deep or transforming enough for that kind of experience. But I've found that if an adventure game is really done right, the effect can be greater than that of any other medium. Of course, this isn't necessarily true for everyone (but it is for me).

I don't know which games you've played that have that ability for you. Maybe Faust: Seven Games of the Soul sort of approaches it. But most games I've played have, at best, interesting characters that I remember after finishing the game.

I admit I haven't played many text adventures. Perhaps something like A Mind Forever Voyaging would have qualities like you're describing (from what I've heard about it - I haven't played it).

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by Zanthia

Lets put it that way: Story is not the most important component of games and movies .

But adventure games and movies would be pretty lame without them, right? Can you even imagine watching a movie with no story whatsoever?

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

Actually, I can: Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi.

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by Simo Sakari Aaltonen

Actually, I can: Koyaanisqatsi, Powaqqatsi and Naqoyqatsi.

And you're sure those names are not something you just made-up?

Did they work? How did they manage to keep you interested if there were no stories in them?

[Simo Sakari Aaltonen]

I'm reasonably sure.

They did work superbly (for me at least), but mainly by virtue of their being the exception rather than the rule, and due to the fact that the people making them were so dedicated to their crafts. I don't believe a storyless film would work at all in the hands of a less-than-ingenious filmmaker.

Director Godfrey Reggio and composer Philip Glass's aim with this trilogy was to take the narrative out of the film by taking what is usually the background and making it the foreground. The result is a fascinating experience that is deeply affecting. And because there is no story as such, only a moving fusion of image and sound, the films actually feel substantially different each time you re-view them.¨

You automatically take a more active part in what you experience if there is no "propagandist" attempt on the part of the filmmakers to consciously direct and focus your attention on any one idea of their choice at any given time. I'm sure some people couldn't bear to watch these films at all, but if you're ready to take the experience for what it is, it's quite unique.

[jelly3]

My answer, just to escape, if only for a couple of hours.

[Zanthia]

But adventure games and movies would be pretty lame without them, right? Can you even imagine watching a movie with no story whatsoever?

Yes I do. But I don't remeber names so much. The one about John Lennon. Fife Feelings. And more. I just need time to remember them.

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by Zanthia

Yes I do. But I don't remeber names so much. The one about John Lennon. Fife Feelings. And more. I just need time to remember them.

Ok, having never seen this movie (or the ones Simo mentioned), I can't really comment on them (and whether they qualify as having no stories whatsoever or not). But these are mostly experimental works, right? Anyway, I think we're in a blind-alley here.

You said that stories were not the most important part of movies and adventure games. With regards to movies, what do you consider to be more important than the story?

[Zanthia]

movies: run lola, run. nice movie without much story.

Was your question about movies or ags?

[remixor]

A lot of the most brilliant movies, novels, games, etc. do not have particularly brilliant stories. Story can be important, but it doesn't have to be. I mean, probably the most interesting stories are in crappy paperback bestsellers, but that doesn't mean much.

[EasilyConfused]

Originally Posted by remixor

A lot of the most brilliant movies, novels, games, etc. do not have particularly brilliant stories. Story can be important, but it doesn't have to be. I mean, probably the most interesting stories are in crappy paperback bestsellers, but that doesn't mean much.

It really depends on what you mean by story. If you understand story as "suspenseful plot," then yeah, paperback bestsellers are great at this, and actually very hard to do well. (It's hard to write something that will suck people in and make them want to keep reading.) For me, a compelling story means something that affects me deeply because the transformations that occur in the characters (whatever pieces of plot are necessary to create those transformations) move me, even if they are subtle, or the realizations or insights the book gives me are meaningful, even if some of the storytelling conventions are messed around with.