[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Edit: Additionally, someone brought up "survival horror" as a seperate genre, but then lambasted Nintendo for slapping a bullshit genre definition on Metroid Prime for marketing reasons. Come on. Resident Evil and Silent Hill games are action, adventure, or action-adventure depending on how you look at them, but "survival horror" is a non-genre created by an ambitious marketing team.

Yeah, that was me. That was just an example, though, of how a "genre" should have a considerable number of representatives (like, certainly more than two) to be taken seriously. I might have come up with better example probably, still, I don't know exactly what criteria of the genre/subgenre "survival horror" fails to satisfy in your book.

Originally Posted by Aj_

To me the modern adventure game is all about the narrative and character interaction, but that's obvious not what MYST or IF is about.

Are you familiar with much of modern Interactive Fiction? The general trend is pretty much a shift towards narrative and character interaction at the expense of puzzles and exploration.

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

I don't care about that, this whole thing started because of that bloody Wikipedia entry.

Which was WRONG. Heck, it stands in contradiction with almost everything than any of us said about "adventure games" in this thread, be it "our" or "console" ones.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Aj_

The guys at JA+ can be irrational about a lot of things, to say they fly off the handle is putting it lightly, but I had much luck with them on the whole "should time sensitive gameplay be in the definition of an adventure" and they didn't come out with the "blasphemer, we shall burn you for your sins!" as much as I thought they would. Of course, no one could agree, because it isn't black and white and I found that some people were looking at the games they liked, picking the one with the most time sensitive gameplay, and drawing a line.

Probably because I was one of them. Actually, the JA+ forum members know how to string an argument together and they're not as vehemently AG-centric nor as hard as some make out. They just care about the genre.

To me the modern adventure game is all about the narrative and character interaction, but that's obvious not what MYST or IF is about. Although MYST is all about the visuals (don't shoot me, I think they play an important part in MYST's success) and while the descriptions of the places in IF are fine and dandy, "In A Valley" is 997 words short at the minimum of what MYST would be. I gotta say, they all contain puzzles, but I find more similarities with IF and p&c adventures in that department. That's why I think p&c superceded text adventures, and that MYST isn't really an adventure game (although I never tried any MYST game past the original because I didn't like it, so I don't say the other games aren't).

At least you stick to your guns and what you know... Being a Myst fan, I'd say that the original is so basic in its narrative it IS more of a puzzle game, save by the relatively simple choices you make. However, as a basis for the rest of the series it kicks off a hell of a lot of story.

If you can give Riven a try, you'll find (despite its sedate pace) a real beauty of a puzzle (don't look if you don't wanna know) -

Spoiler:

The entire gameworld is one single puzzle. When you "click" into how it all links together, it's incredible. Plus it's solvable without a walkthrough, which is a bonus! Loads of "DOH!" moments too.

- and a one of the best realised gameworlds ever created, with a ton of backstory even if the plot is simple - not just in notes either, but the design of the game. It's also got one of the best villains and best acted FMV characters ever in Gehn, an evil and (wannabe) godlike man who's mark infects the entire landscape.

definition:aj got me 226 results.
definition:squarejawhero got me 0 results.

Therefore lets scrap this debate and start defining SJH.

ROFL. Like to see you try.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Which was WRONG. Heck, it stands in contradiction with almost everything than any of us said about "adventure games" in this thread, be it "our" or "console" ones.

Yes, you're right. Happy?

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Yes, you're right. Happy?

Did I sound aggressive? If so, sorry. Honestly.

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by mag

That's the usual way it's done because it's an easy way of keeping track of the character's development. But it is not the defining characteristic of an RPG.

mag

Hmmm... Depends on who you ask. Character building (with an emphasis on the stats) and big, bad, challenging boss fights are why I used to play RPGs. Well, before that I played them for the "story" until I realized how much of a letdown that was. Anyway, are MMORPGs totally different from single player RPGs? Not really. And my main interest by a long shot in MMOs is my character and his stats and equipment. I'm sure other players enjoy RPGs for their own reasons, but I love the stats and equipment and the reputation and status that brings within the game world.

And the auction houses! Man, I'm glad I have quit MMOs now. No other games make it as fun and addictive to stand and stare at auction house menus looking for rare items other players have found that they're trying to sell. Also, selling your own stuff. Camping a rare monster (one spawn each hour or more), being the one to claim it, hopefully getting a rare drop when it dies, and then selling that rare item for a ton of money... Ah, so fun... Too fun. Goodbye MMOs.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Are you familiar with much of modern Interactive Fiction? The general trend is pretty much a shift towards narrative and character interaction at the expense of puzzles and exploration.

The problem I have with that, is you're now judging that they are IF because they are text based and use a parser to play, amongst other things, where they have added two very important elements that make them much different from the original IF. If you're going to say that, then adding elements from other genres into adventures would still make games adventures, and they obviously need to be defined differently. That's why I don't like the definition that people use, the people who use "pure" to not describe a classic game, but to tell people that a game is not in a genre. Where a game can not have an element of that genre but still be in that genre, but a game that adds new elements cannot.

First you have to accept that character interaction is an evolutionary step of the genre, and games that build on that evolution, that have exploration, narrative, character interaction and new gameplay elements are Adventures. Of course they are going to be different, but Graphical Adventures are different to IF. Obviously these new games need some subgenres and definitions.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

At least you stick to your guns and what you know... Being a Myst fan, I'd say that the original is so basic in its narrative it IS more of a puzzle game, save by the relatively simple choices you make. However, as a basis for the rest of the series it kicks off a hell of a lot of story.

Let's spread the word, MYST is not an adventure, but Riven and some other games in the series are!

[mag]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

Only, I'd argue real role play isn't about making your character more powerful, it's about making it more what you want it to be. Usually, making your character more powerful isn't a goal, but a necessity - you must become better in something to overcome a certain obstacle.

Okay, I can see that. But the focus is still on character development, so that doesn't really change my main point.

Originally Posted by sethsez

Is Half-Life an RPG because Gorden gets armor and new weapons as the game goes on? Hell, in Half-Life 2 one of the weapons even gets upgraded!

The Megaman X games let you get new weapons, collect armor upgrades, and increase the size of your lifebar. RPG?

Viewtiful Joe lets you upgrade your lifebar and buy new moves.

Panzer Dragoon Zwei II lets you evolve your dragon.

Your definition of RPG is just as useless as the alternate definition of adventure, if not moreso.

Look, it's really not that hard to understand.

Yes, first person shooters have some elements in common with RPGs. And adventure games have some elements in common with RPGs. And RPGs have some elements in common with action games. And puzzle games have some elements in common with adventure games. But the fact that those elements are there doesn't change what the central focus of the game is.

For instance, in FPS's, yes you can get new equipment. But that's not the central focus of the game. When you're playing Doom, you can't beat the game just by playing long enough to gather enough experience. And even with the new equipment, most of the time the weapons aren't "better." They're just different. The shotgun is more powerful than the pistol, but it's also slower. The sniper rifle works well for shooting things from a distance but not so well at close range. And so on, and so forth.

The thing is that it's still a game based on the player's skill at shooting, not making the character more powerful. In fact, you can get rid of all of the elements a FPS has in common with RPGs, and you'd still have a game. It would be kind of shittier, but fundamentally, it's the same game. What you can't take away is the shooting. No shooting, no game. That's what makes it a shooter.

In an RPG, you can take out pretty much everything else. As long as it still has character development, it's an RPG.

Originally Posted by Once A Villain

Hmmm... Depends on who you ask. Character building (with an emphasis on the stats) and big, bad, challenging boss fights are why I used to play RPGs. Well, before that I played them for the "story" until I realized how much of a letdown that was. Anyway, are MMORPGs totally different from single player RPGs? Not really. And my main interest by a long shot in MMOs is my character and his stats and equipment. I'm sure other players enjoy RPGs for their own reasons, but I love the stats and equipment and the reputation and status that brings within the game world.

But the reason you like those things is because they're associated with the development of your character. Surely you wouldn't be interested in working with stats just out of a sheer love of mathematics. And I doubt you'd be very interested buying virtual equipment just as a simulated exercise in capitalism.

And even assuming you do enjoy just those things, that still doesn't mean that those are the defining characteristics of the genre. It may be what you like about it, and that's your right. But that's a different thing. The thing I like about adventure games is the stories. But I recognize that a game needs to have more than story to be considered an adventure game.

mag

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Aj_

The problem I have with that, is you're now judging that they are IF because they are text based and use a parser to play, amongst other things, where they have added two very important elements that make them much different from the original IF. If you're going to say that, then adding elements from other genres into adventures would still make games adventures, and they obviously need to be defined differently. That's why I don't like the definition that people use, the people who use "pure" to not describe a classic game, but to tell people that a game is not in a genre. Where a game can not have an element of that genre but still be in that genre, but a game that adds new elements cannot.

First you have to accept that character interaction is an evolutionary step of the genre, and games that build on that evolution, that have exploration, narrative, character interaction and new gameplay elements are Adventures. Of course they are going to be different, but Graphical Adventures are different to IF. Obviously these new games need some subgenres and definitions.

But, unless I'm mistaken, the term "Interactive Fiction" was primarily introduced to distinguish these "new school" games from the classics. Many people will actually call "IF" the same games you are reluctant to, and reserve, for instance, "text adventures" for those you called "traditional IF".

[Once A Villain]

Originally Posted by mag

But the reason you like those things is because they're associated with the development of your character. Surely you wouldn't be interested in working with stats just out of a sheer love of mathematics. And I doubt you'd be very interested buying virtual equipment just as a simulated exercise in capitalism.

And even assuming you do enjoy just those things, that still doesn't mean that those are the defining characteristics of the genre. It may be what you like about it, and that's your right. But that's a different thing. The thing I like about adventure games is the stories. But I recognize that a game needs to have more than story to be considered an adventure game.

mag

I thought you were saying stats in general aren't a major part of RPGs... And actually, in MMOs, it is very much about capitalism for a lot of people, and it's fun as hell. The economy is a big part of MMOs. Everyone starts going crazy because it's rough on the people at the bottom, but those at the top enjoy having the power to basically keep the best items in the hands of the die hard players alone (every server becomes a tiny, fantasy version of real life in many ways just by allowing people to begin doing what it is that they instinctively do).

In FF11, there was a bow called the Eurytos' Bow that any respectable Ranger wanted to get their hands on. The enemy that dropped the bow (and it wasn't even a 100% drop) spawned once every REAL LIFE 24 hours! So, you can imagine the demand for this bow would be quite high. Last I checked it's up to 15 million gil on most servers. Anyway, I do realize that this isn't a big part of single player RPGs, but I would say it's a huge part of an MMO. You often see other players with a piece of equipment that you want really badly, but you can't afford... Status and reputation are quite a big deal in MMOs too. That's why there isn't much story. Once you start playing an MMO, no one gives a rat's ass about story.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, some MMO players (actually quite a lot of them) focus entirely on crafting. So, for them, I guess crafting items to sell or trade to "adventurers" (those that go out and create parties and fight) is what they like best about these games. A high level crafter can really create a monopoly early on because people will want their rare creations and there won't be any immediate competition. It's pretty neat how it works... Argh. Talking about these games makes me want to play again, CURSE THEM!

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

But, unless I'm mistaken, the term "Interactive Fiction" was primarily introduced to distinguish these "new school" games from the classics. Many people will actually call "IF" the same games you are reluctant to, and reserve, for instance, "text adventures" for those you called "traditional IF".

Those people are smart, I didn't actually know this, since I have seen old text adventures being called IF.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by mag

Look, it's really not that hard to understand.

Yes, first person shooters have some elements in common with RPGs. And adventure games have some elements in common with RPGs. And RPGs have some elements in common with action games. And puzzle games have some elements in common with adventure games. But the fact that those elements are there doesn't change what the central focus of the game is.

For instance, in FPS's, yes you can get new equipment. But that's not the central focus of the game. When you're playing Doom, you can't beat the game just by playing long enough to gather enough experience. And even with the new equipment, most of the time the weapons aren't "better." They're just different. The shotgun is more powerful than the pistol, but it's also slower. The sniper rifle works well for shooting things from a distance but not so well at close range. And so on, and so forth.

The thing is that it's still a game based on the player's skill at shooting, not making the character more powerful. In fact, you can get rid of all of the elements a FPS has in common with RPGs, and you'd still have a game. It would be kind of shittier, but fundamentally, it's the same game. What you can't take away is the shooting. No shooting, no game. That's what makes it a shooter.

In an RPG, you can take out pretty much everything else. As long as it still has character development, it's an RPG.

Right. And in Zelda, you can take away the character advancement and such, and you'd still have Zelda. The focus in that series is the exploration and the puzzle solving, with combat second. Improving and customizing Link isn't nearly as much of a priority, and is pretty much limited to getting a heart container when you beat a boss. If you're fighting an enemy in Zelda, what sword you have doesn't really matter... what matters is how good you (the player) are at fighting and dodging. In an RPG, your character's abilities matter much more than your own.

I also agree with what you say about central focus determining genre. Where we disagree is on what the central focus of adventure games is. I believe that it's a combination of puzzles and exploration, which is why I think Zelda, Metroid and Silent Hill all qualify, albiet maybe in subgenres, because combat exists in them primarilly as something to do while you're exploring, and although the puzzles in them are generally of a different style than LucasArts, Sierra or Cyan, they still qualify as puzzles in my eyes. On the other hand, games like God of War, Half-Life 2, Devil May Cry or Mega Man might have some very basic exploration, but there's no denying that these games exist, first and foremost, for the action.

Now, again, are Zelda, Metroid and Silent Hill "pure" adventures? Probably not. But as I said earlier, I think action-adventures have just as much right to the term "adventure" as romantic comedies have to the term "comedy." A 3D platformer is still a platformer, a real-time strategy game is still a strategy game, a MMORPG is still an RPG, and an action-adventure is still an adventure. It's a subgenre under a broader umbrella, but it still falls under said umbrella.

[AFGNCAAP]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Those people are smart, I didn't actually know this, since I have seen old text adventures being called IF.

Not all do this, of course. It's basically a mess like the one with a word "adventure" we are dealing with in this thread. But I feel it is very elegant, and historically reasonable, way of distinguishing those two trends in parser-based gaming.

[Aj_]

Right. And in Zelda, you can take away the character advancement and such, and you'd still have Zelda. The focus in that series is the exploration and the puzzle solving, with combat a close second. Improving and customizing Link isn't nearly as much of a priority, and is pretty much limited to getting a heart container when you beat a boss. If you're fighting an enemy in Zelda, what sword you have doesn't really matter... what matters is how good you (the player) are at fighting and dodging.

That's what the Zelda I played was like.

Originally Posted by sethsez

In an RPG, your character's abilities matter much more than your own.

I disagree, not all RPGs are slanted this way.

I also agree with what you say about central focus determining genre. Where we disagree is on what the central focus of adventure games is. I believe that it's a combination of puzzles and exploration, which is why I think Zelda, Metroid and Silent Hill all qualify, albiet maybe in subgenres, because combat exists in them primarilly as something to do while you're exploring, and although the puzzles in them are generally of a different style than LucasArts, Sierra or Cyan, they still qualify as puzzles in my eyes. On the other hand, games like God of War, Half-Life 2, Devil May Cry or Mega Man might have some very basic exploration, but there's no denying that these games exist, first and foremost, for the action.

I'm going to agree completely, well said. Although obviously, central focus is not going to be applicable with games that try to be hybrids and don't focus on any one part. I'd like to point to Fallout, for having RPG in the title, it focuses so much on narrative, character interaction, puzzles and exploration that it is definitely not focused on the RPG elements, that are equally as strong, because the stats system, items, combat are impressive and very deep aswell. So much that, by taking out each set of elements, it could still rival a RPG or an Adventure game.

Now, again, are Zelda, Metroid and Silent Hill "pure" adventures? Probably not. But as I said earlier, I think action-adventures have just as much right to the term "adventure" as romantic comedies have to the term "comedy." A 3D platformer is still a platformer, a real-time strategy game is still a strategy game, a MMORPG is still an RPG, and an action-adventure is still an adventure. It's a subgenre under a broader umbrella, but it still falls under said umbrella.

I couldn't have said it better myself

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Right. And in Zelda, you can take away the character advancement and such, and you'd still have Zelda.

Form follows function. It's as simple as that. You want to make Planescape Torment a game with strong narrative and emphasis on character interaction and "real role-playing"? Turn down the combat, increase the importance of character stats. You want to make Shock2 an immersive thrill ride in which the player feels weak and threatened all the time? Use first person view. Make the player feel weak by making the weapons perish after a while. Let the enemies respawn. You want to make a "boy who goes on an adventure to free the land of evil and grows stronger, gets older and more experienced along his quest" kind of game (Zelda)? How about the concept of heart containers here?

Sounds a tad idealistic, I know. And in most cases, I think that's not at all what the design process is like nowadays. But ultimately it's not about what a game can be pigeon-holed as (we're facing the problem of subjectivity here anyway, as one can clearly see ), but about what it has to offer as the unique experience it should be. That said, points like

Aside from a few misplaced words from journos and relative newbies to the gaming scene via consoles, methinks the wider gaming audience already have a good idea what an "XY" is.

and

Games like A, B, C and D are still quite different to eachother in play terms. Their only real similarity, as someone pointed out, it their decision to have blah and some concession to blah. But this isn't something that can actually define a genre, as the style of play is also important.

are valid. But once again, here's where subjectivity comes into play once again. I made my point.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Just got back from dinner and am now sipping my glass of wine. I see you boys are still fighting.

Jesus, there's too many threads like these.

[mag]

Originally Posted by sethsez

Right. And in Zelda, you can take away the character advancement and such, and you'd still have Zelda. The focus in that series is the exploration and the puzzle solving, with combat second.

I disagree. For one thing, combat is the main part of Zelda...hence, why I refer to it as an action game. Without the fighting, there would be no Zelda. As for character advancement, it's much lighter than in a pure RPG. But it's still a pretty important part of the game. Much more so than puzzle solving, which is so minimal that it's hardly even worth mentioning. And while it's true that you could take out the character development elements and still have a game, that game would not be Zelda.

Zelda is weird, though. It's one of those games where the genre is harder to describe. I think "action-RPG" is the best term to sum it up. But I can also see using "action-adventure" or even just plain "action." I really can't see calling it a pure "adventure game," though.

Originally Posted by sethsez

I believe that it's a combination of puzzles and exploration, which is why I think Zelda, Metroid and Silent Hill all qualify, albiet maybe in subgenres, because combat exists in them primarilly as something to do while you're exploring, and although the puzzles in them are generally of a different style than LucasArts, Sierra or Cyan, they still qualify as puzzles in my eyes.

I'll agree that the adventure genre is harder to define than others. But even given your definition, I fail to see how those games qualify as adventure games. The only one that really works under your definition is Silent Hill. The "puzzles" in Zelda and Metroid are minimal. They really only exist as a way of breaking up the action. The action constitutes almost the entirety of the gameplay in these games.

Also, "exploration" may be something of a nonsense criterion since it's something that's heavily featured in most games, regardless of genre. I'm not sure adventure games emphasize exploration that much more than RPGs or first person shooters.

Originally Posted by sethsez

But as I said earlier, I think action-adventures have just as much right to the term "adventure" as romantic comedies have to the term "comedy."

I don't know if that's really a valid comparison, though. When you talk about comedy vs. romantic comedy, you're talking about story genres. It doesn't change the actual experience of watching the film. What we're talking about here is gaming genres. And that's something that has fairly important implications with regard to what the gaming experience is going to be like.

Referring to an action-adventure game simply as "adventure" seems somewhat dishonest in that regard, especially considering that there is another type of game called "adventure" that is very different from action-adventures. The difference between the two is much bigger than the differences between a general comedy and a romantic comedy.

mag

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by mag

As I said, there will always be people who define their favored genre more strictly than is reasonable.

I know. Well, I'll try to be honest here. A couple of years back I would've butchered you right away. It's kind of like saying an adventure game that has no inventory puzzles is still an adventure game to a hardcore adventure gamer. I was one of these people who grew up playing M&M. Or Realms Of Arkania, which had literally dozens of stats for talents like swimming, horse riding, drinking, etc. I mean, never mind that half of those talents serve no purpose in the game, just as long as they're there! What can I say, I learned from my mistakes. But it wouldn't surprise me to learn that D.W. Bradley (Wizardry 6+7, Wizards&Warriors) received a lot more hate mails after he announced his recently released Dungeon Lords, than Ragnar Tornquist received after he announced Dreamfall. An *awful* lot more hate mails.

Originally Posted by mag

Referring to an action-adventure game simply as "adventure" seems somewhat dishonest in that regard

Now you're taking it a bit too far. I just found a post by Trep made in another thread, that says beautifully what I was trying to get across above.

I think games like ICO (and Beyond Good & Evil, etc.) demonstrate how insistently we think about game categorizations primarily (only?) in terms of gameplay style to the point where it could just become a technicality, preventing us from truly discovering these games for all they perceivabely can be, for all they can offer us.

[sethsez]

Originally Posted by mag

The difference between the two is much bigger than the differences between a general comedy and a romantic comedy.

Right. It's more like the difference between, say, Starcraft and Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Both of which still fall under the umbrella of "strategy game" despite having precious little in common. To avoid confusion, we generally qualify those with "real time strategy" and "empire building strategy" or whatever, but they fall under the same umbrella.

Though I guess this in and of itself could be a point of contention. Is "adventure" a strict genre, or a broad style under which many subgenres fall? I tend to lean towards the latter, simply because it almost always has a very vague definition (no matter which one you go by), has a long history with multiple meanings (or "misunderstandings" if you prefer), and is in and of itself a rather ambiguous term. You can't just say a game is an "adventure" anymore... even within the limits of this site, you have to qualify that with "text-based," "third person," "Myst-style," etc. And frankly, it's a very poor description of what it's supposed to be (doubly so if you assume that the genre is about puzzles, which the standard dictionary definition of the word doesn't even imply).

I tend to think of it the same way as "metal" really. Anyone familiar with that genre knows that "metal" doesn't exist anymore... there's black metal, power metal, death metal, progressive metal, speed metal, nu metal, etc., but plain old metal isn't around by itself.

Finally, I still disagree with you about Zelda. The puzzles are a HUGE element of the series, and are in fact one of the things that have always defined it. They're not exactly brain benders, but they're one of the main draws. The water temple in OoT certainly isn't remembered for the occasional fights with spiders.

[samIamsad]

Originally Posted by sethsez

The water temple in OoT certainly isn't remembered for the occasional fights with spiders.

I'm still stuck there.