[AFGNCAAP]

[AA meeting] Hi, Jeysie. [/AA meeting] Hope you'll stay here with us.

[Jeysie]

Thanks. I'd been lurking for a while, but never really felt the need to post before now.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[samIamsad]

Thank you Jeysie!! And hi there!

Now Squarejaw...... how's it going?

[squarejawhero]

And I'm telling you that it doesn't based on the fact these games have laid claim, via various sources, to their own genre bases without this larger, nebulous and undefined umbrella. This thread is about that, not about your disappointment with what some people term "traditional" Adventure games, and you know full well I agree with you on that note.

I'm saying... for the last time, because it's getting tiring... that I see the Adventure genre as being more inclusive. This threads basis, for me, was rather incredible in its conception and total brush-off of games history, and as such the original wiki entry invalidated itself totally.

A very, very small group of people decided that Metroid represented the only entry in a genre of First Person Adventures with no knowledge of the other games that already had long since laid a stake in that term as a valuable descriptor. That's wrong. It's also wrong to assume that Metroid is a part of another umbrella of def: Adventures using that as a basis, as the games listed have wildly different, already established genre histories.

Evolution creates new species out of a historic geneology, and from that terms are used to describe each branch. That's why I'd argue for more inclusivity in what is generally percieved by the wider gaming audience as the Adventure genre. In the past, adventures have had action in them. Games like BS3, Farenheit, Nomad Soul, Silent Hill, Dreamfall et al are an extension of that arm.

Games like Ico can also be seen to continue that direction, although honestly they're probably more akin to games like Prince of Persia, within the realm of action-adventures with more physicality to them. This falls under the umbrella of Adventure games, but is more central between that and the "Action" genres because of a 50/50 concentration on enironment puzzles and physical action requirements for the avatars, requiring dextrous nous on behalf of the player.

Then there are games that consist of many different genres, like Beyond Good and Evil and the later Zelda's, which use an almost adventure-like basis in terms of exploration and interaction which exist under the adventure umbrella under a different arm - arguably "Console Adventure", a term I've already said I'd personally accept.

Something like early Zelda's are defined under a simplification of the RPG - the action RPG. Having played The Wind Waker, it not only ups the level of complexity of the game, but also requires a lot of the same nous required of a player whilst taking part in an adventure. I found TWW more similar to an early nineties adventure than an early Zelda title.

Something like Metroid does have an emphasis on exploration and a degree of puzzling, but that's where any similarities end. Playing Prime, I found it just a 3D version of it's platform 2D forebear. Essentially, if I was going to be forced into defining the game, it's more a Platform-FPS with RPG elements. Like an RPG, it requires you to upgrade your character as you play (although very linear) and requires some resource management, there's a TON of platforming and a lot of FPS. This doesn't fit anywhere within even a realm of console "adventures" and has very little to do with Silent Hill, Ico or the like. Which is why I believe, in my own experience of the game and based on my other experiences of the games above, the original Wiki was wrong in its sole definition and inclusion.

I hope I've made my own position, based on my experience with these games and work within the community over the years, clear. I'm all for inclusivity on the above basis and reasoning, but there are limits to even that. Metroid Prime is a good game (not as great as some make out, IMO), but it's simply not an adventure when looking at the other standards taking a historical and geneological, informed viewpoint of it. It's an extension of its platform game roots taking it into an FPS mode of play. It defies categorisation, to a certain extent, and is living proof that a game doesn't necessarily need an easily definable term to be popular and widely heralded.

Does it need a term? Not necessarily. But even so, based on its main gameplay mechanic, the FPS, it's closer to that style of game than any other, and I'm not worried about defining a subgenre for that. Someone else can bother.

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by samIamsad

Thank you Jeysie!! And hi there!

Now Squarejaw...... how's it going?

Well, seeing as I never read her post as I was typing, I think I addressed the points already quite clearly above! I subscribed in the past to numerous Nintendo magazines, having had a SNES during the majority of the "golden age" of AG's, but never came across these games as being adventures myself. My old CGA computer missed out on a ton of them, and I only picked back up on the genre with Riven on the Playstation (PC adventure games on consoles also being a telling part of my argument of another genre named "adventure").

As I said, re-evaluation and adoption is the key, but it can only be taken so far as to avoid confusion. After all, definitions, as I've said all along, are an easy way to impart information. Having two meanings to the same definition doesn't help that purpose.

[squarejawhero]

BTW Hi Jeysie... good to see a new member jump in at the deep end!

[smashing]

Geesh! Now I finally understand why my systematics lecturer emphasis over and over about the two kind of people in classification: "lumpers" and "splitters".

"Lumpers" believe that everything with apparent likeness should be lumped into one big category, like many of us here, who see Adventure as a big group which could encompass smaller sub-groupings.

"Splitters" believe that everything should have its own distinct grouping, and likeness could just be a result of convergent evolution, which is insignificant, i.e. those who insist that Adventure should be a specific group that's not corrupted by any of the other hybrids, like action-adventure or console-adventure, which may have adopted adventuring elements subsequently.

And you know what's the best part? It takes forever for the two groups to see eye-to-eye, for each group believes strongly in their philosophy. Frankly, while the whole thread seems full of life and such, I can't help but see points repeating itself in just different forms, trying to defend their own philosophy in seeing this thing call Adventure.

Geesh! I don't think this post is gonna help in changing anyone's beliefs. Just give a little bit of perspective though. Hope it helps!

Oh! Oh! Hi Jeysie!

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by smashing

Geesh! Now I finally understand why my systematics lecturer emphasis over and over about the two kind of people in classification: "lumpers" and "splitters".

I don't know if your splitter/lumper-thing fits this thread, because the people who argue that the Zelda-games are adventures don't do so because these games bear any sort of resemblance to "our" adventures, but because that's simply what they call these games. The whole discussion of whether these games contain enough "adventure-elements" (ofcourse that means elements from our definition of adventure games) to fit into the adventure umbrella (again based on our definition of adventure games) is really not relevant to that argument at all, because their adventure genre doesn't have anything but superficial similarities with with our adventure genre. They don't call Zelda an adventure because it is somewhat like our adventures, but because it is somewhat like the Atari game Adventure.

My personal view is the same as SJH's view - i.e. these games aren't adventures (though I certainly don't think Zelda is an RPG, if so, then God of War is even more of an RPG). But that's based on my definition of adventure games, and I do realize that different people have different names for things. So I really don't think there's a right and wrong side in this debate.

Basically, what should probably be done instead of having this fight, is to make our own Wikipedia page about First-Person Adventures and let they have theirs. Then users would be able to choose what type of game they're interested in from a disambiguation page (though I do think "our" definition should be the default one). I don't know how one would do that, though.

[smashing]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

Basically, what should probably be done instead of having this fight, is to make our own Wikipedia page about First-Person Adventures and let they have theirs. Then users would be able to choose what type of game they're interested in from a disambiguation page (though I do think "our" definition should be the default one). I don't know how one would do that, though.

I think it's an excellent idea to start a Wikipedia page at the AG site. Heck! All of us could even brainstorm and start a whole wikipedia on adventure games, like a brief desciptions of the developer and publishers of adventure games, bring some of the underground adventure game developers out in the light with brief decription of their work, and an extensive library of adventure games ever published.

Sequenza 21 has its own wiki page like that, which is dedicated solely for new (classical) music.

[samIamsad]

Every game's a fu!&in' hybrid, so get the fu!§ off my porch!

Does it need a term? Not necessarily. But even so, based on its main gameplay mechanic, the FPS, it's closer to that style of game than any other, and I'm not worried about defining a subgenre for that. Someone else can bother.

Yeah. Let the men in suits do the talking. Squarejaw, I appreciate your dedication to all of this. Damn impressive! Just hope my point didn't get lost in my (punk rawk) mix here.

[Kolorabi]

Originally Posted by smashing

I think it's an excellent idea to start a Wikipedia page at the AG site.

Though I agree that would be a very cool thing, I really meant making two pages at the "real" Wikipedia - one with "our" genre, plus info about the genre's history, highlights, et.c, and one with "their" genre.

[smashing]

Originally Posted by Kolorabi

Though I agree that would be a very cool thing, I really meant making two pages at the "real" Wikipedia - one with "our" genre, plus info about the genre's history, highlights, et.c, and one with "their" genre.

Let's be more ambitious, yar?

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

1. Zelda-like games as adventures isn't a "phantom genre". It may simply just no longer be in common usage, with "our" adventure definition having taken over the common usage. It may be just a label usage created by whomever wrote Nintendo Power articles. (Although I could swear I remember Atari games like Pitfall being called adventures, too.) But it does in fact exist, nonetheless.

2. In a technical sense, games like Zelda and Monkey Island may have some common elements. However, those elements vary extremely wildly in execution. To someone like me who tries to avoid games with gameplay elements they find frustrating and un-fun, labelling both types of games as simply "adventures" is really confusing and can prevent someone from trying a game they'd otherwise love.

Hi Jeysie! Great to have you here, great to have your backup in this argument, and I hope you stick around.

Thanks for the verification that "adventure" was/is a real classification of a type of console games. And I think you're right that it wasn't just Nintendo. I remember games on the Commodore 64 also using the label.

I also agree that having the same name for somewhat disparate types of games is unfortunate. I don't think anyone would choose to define it that way. It's just the way it happens to be.

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

You "second genre" people should really ask the owners of this site about why they don't cover it...

Errr... no. There's absolutely no mystery about why a site devoted to one genre wouldn't cover games belonging to a different genre that happens to have the same name.

why? Because another genre called "adventure" doesn't exist - it's not a widely used term in any sense of the word. Let's not get confused - you're offering a proposal to which some of us don't agree.

Yes, I'm very aware that there's a dispute over facts here. I believe you are wrong, you believe I am wrong.

As more evidence that this use is real and not at all obscure, have a look at the Wikipedia article for "action-adventure game":

"Nintendo is generally cited as originating the genre with The Legend of Zelda (1986); as a result, action-adventure games are simply called "adventure games" by many console gamers."

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

I never said it couldn't (Action-adventure) as a relative of the adventure genre. I'm just arguing against a genre that, in this country and the sites I visit (too many to mention), I've never seen the term Adventure used beyond a prefix in terms of games like Zelda, ever, and I've owned Gamecubes and SNES', Playstations et al.

I've traveled widely and been to many countries, but I've never seen Australia. Therefore, it must not exist. I've met people who claim to have been to Australia, but they're clearly a marginal community of geographically ignorant people.

You know, your inability to believe in something you haven't personally experienced is starting to wear a bit thin. You've heard testimonials from several people who have experienced it. You think we're all lying?

Besides, earlier in this thread you claimed that this "other adventure genre" had never been mentioned in any adventure game community you visit, when in fact we had a thread about it on this very forum. I don't find it difficult to believe that you simply overlooked references to Zelda et al. as adventure games back in the day.

And you mentioned you've been involved in the MOTTAs. Did it not ever occur to you that this "misappropriation" might in fact be a variant use of the same word? The 2004 MOTTAs make fun of Game Tunnel's definition of adventure games, which strikes me as a straight attempt (though a clumsy one) to sum up the "other" adventure game genre.

(The 2004 MOTTAs also make a big deal out of Pirates! being called an adventure game, supposedly just because it features pirates. The writer seems to be completely ignorant of the fact that Sid Meier designed Pirates! as an attempt to make an adventure game that avoided the gameplay that frustrated him in Sierra games.)

It is a small group of people without knowledge of the wider gaming history that might use it. Even then, there's no parameters to its use, which we've proven in this very thread.

...which you have asserted in this thread, and which has been disputed.

After all, definitions, as I've said all along, are an easy way to impart information. Having two meanings to the same definition doesn't help that purpose.

True, but when we're in the unfortunate situation of having two definitions of the same word, it's essential to be aware of that.

But it's not worth discussing a new genre with the same name for games that already have genre geneology, quite clear geneology too, of their own, as that's just confusing an already complex area. With the mix of games proposed, it just makes things even more messy as they have very little historical context in common.

It's not a new genre! It's a genre that has been known since the early eighties, at least.

You keep suggesting that we're trying to make up a new term, when in fact we're just making you aware of usage that has been common for some twenty years. All your arguments about how it would be unfortunate and confusing, how you'd be willing to accept this term but not that term, are irrelevant. We're not arguing about what ought-to-be. We're arguing about what is.

I don't see how I can make it any clearer.

[insane_cobra]

This is obviously not going anywhere so I'll just recapitulate where I stand and be off with it.

Once upon a time there was a game called Colossal Cave Adventure. It was the first representative of what we today call adventure games. Not long after its release, another game was made, Adventure for Atari 2600. It took the Colossal Cave Adventure's concept, but changed it in many ways. It did away with the text parser and replaced it with a console-friendly interface. It also added graphics and some action. Similar games that came after it were called "adventures" by console owners, out of obvious reasons.

As I already stated, console adventures were similar to text adventures in some ways, but different in many others. One of those differences was the inclusion of directly controlled action. A good deal of text adventures had no action and even those that incorporated some kind of combat did it in ways possible with their text interfaces.

Some of the first true graphic PC adventures introduced a new point and click interface. It was not a direct control interface so it probably wasn't cosidered very suitable for action though some games also used it in that way. I think that was one of the reasons evolution of adventure games on PCs followed the more cerebral path. As technology advanced, PCs became much more capable machines and games similar to PC adventure games' console brethren started showing up. To somehow differentiate them from the purely (or mostly) cerebral adventures, a new term was coined: action adventure (I remember "arcade adventure" being used as well, but "action adventure" and "arcade adventure" probably don't have exactly the same meaning). It implied that although they shared many elements with cerebral adventures prevalent on PCs in that time, they also included action.

However, console adventure games had action as a (non-obligatory) element of gameplay ever since their conception. In other words, action was already expected from them, they didn't have to specifically point that out by calling themselves action adventures. Some people started using the new neme anyway, to avoid confusion. But some didn't and nobody can blame them for that.

So SJH, if you're ready to accept games like Zelda, Beyond Good & Evil, The Hobbit (not the text adventure one) and even Metroid Prime, Half-Life and System Shock under that more inclusive umbrella (and if you are, good luck with persuading the purists), then maybe we're indeed talking about the same genre. If not, then there are two of them. And it was already shown that games that fall under the label action adventure (or, for umpteenth time, just adventure) have as much in common with each other as all the different games this website is dedicated to.

Speaking of Zelda, even if we accept that character development in which you can't choose how your character develops is a RPG element (and I believe it isn't), it doesn't automatically make it a RPG, not even an adventure RPG. Many games of different genres include that element, but that doesn't make them RPGs. Heck, most side/vertical scrolling shooters have that, character/spaceship customization AND shopping (which, btw, I also don't consider a RPG element), and nobody in their right mind would call them side/vertical scrolling shooter/RPGs.

Personally, I don't have a big problem with calling Zelda games adventure RPGs, but I also have absolutely no problem calling them just adventures and neither should you.

[squarejawhero]

It's OK, I give up. This thread's more about picking apart peoples posts now than any coherent observation - oh, and Snarky, as you can tell, that wiki entry already has an entry in the discussion arguing against Zelda being included as an example. There were, suprisingly, games that came before it, and even more odd is that adventure games as they're known in the majority are ignored by not having an explanation.

But there ya go. Good luck convincing people, you didn't me, and as you can tell - I'm less of a purist that you're trying to label me.

edit - I don't know how hard it is trying to convince you these games have their own, distinct, relative geneology... but if you want to fly in the face of convention, be my guest.

edit2 - OK, I can't stop. But I'm not going to get sucked in too much anymore as this is taking far too much of my time, but my problem with this genre you're implying is that it has absolutely no coherence whatsoever. You're arguing for the concrete existence for a term that is randomly used rather than something which has a definite augmentation. I can't get behind that. I can get behind more inclusivity, but by backing up the existence of this genre, you're ultimately giving credence to it for having a purpose to exist.

I'd recommend putting your efforts, seeing as you adknowledge that two genres with the same name exist, into defining more solidly the second genre and its geneology. You've spent more time trying to prove me wrong, or misled or whatever, when productively you could be backing up your arguments by showing the strands between the games in this new umbrella and maybe formulating a proper genre definition to feed into Wiki. If you agree that two genres with the same name is a problem, and feel that there are two coherent genres to deal with, then put some effort into making sure they're more defined with seperate terms.

That each game has their own seperate threads feeding into them, I can't see you could do it with much coherence.

Lastly, I don't believe you're giving my knowledge of games history much credit by trying to force me to accept that this genre exists, rather than that the term is occasionally misappropriated rather than used with any conherence. I've never seen the term used towards a fixed meaning as it is on this site's definition. I've seen it used randomly - as you can tell, even the larger sites mainly fix onto action-adventure in describing a Zelda title than just this straight genre definition of "adventure". There might be some sources misleadingly using this term, but that doesn't create a new genre, does it?

If you can put down a clear, proper formulation, with games and their historical geneology and how each game is related, with backed up sources on the net which show the genre handle being used extensively within these titles as a descriptor (and not just by the dictionary definition), then you'll have got me. Even then, you've got to ask yourself if it's worth the confusion of the same definition.

I believe you'll have a tough time, though. I can't see anything genuinely in common between Silent Hill, Ico, Metroid and Zelda (amongst others) and they've already got terms set to them which are more widely used. This genre you speak of is, to my mind and others on this forum (as you can tell), more nebulous than you appear to make out.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

It's OK, I give up. This thread's more about picking apart peoples posts now than any coherent observation

In fact, it's picking apart posts to present a coherent observation. The point insane_cobra and I are making is quite simple, perfectly coherent, and backed up with facts and sources.

oh, and Snarky, as you can tell, that wiki entry already has an entry in the discussion arguing against Zelda being included as an example. There were, suprisingly, games that came before it, and even more odd is that adventure games as they're known in the majority are ignored by not having an explanation.

Yeah, there is dispute among console gamers, just as there's dispute among our kind of adventure gamers about what a "real" adventure game is. There are people who would offer Myst as the example of an adventure game, and there's people who don't think it's an adventure game at all.

But there ya go. Good luck convincing people, you didn't me, and as you can tell - I'm less of a purist that you're trying to label me.

*sigh* I haven't been trying to label you a purist. I'm reminded of a saying. "No amount of facts will change entrenched belief."

I've been looking at some histories of video games (Wikipedia among other places), and the regularity with which the Zelda games are characterized as an "adventure game series" is getting a bit monotonous. Of course, there would be no point giving the references, because you've already made clear that it doesn't matter how many different sources use the term. It's all the work of a tiny community of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I don't know how hard it is trying to convince you these games have their own, distinct, relative geneology... but if you want to fly in the face of convention, be my guest.

I already believe these games have their own, distinct geneology. Specifically, Zelda descends from the Atari 2600 game Adventure, which is (at least partly) why it's called an "adventure game."

[Jeysie]

Hmm.

To sum up my own personal thoughts even further:

What is: There are in fact two different sets of games with different geneologies that happen to share the same genre name, at least at one point in time.

Which set of games consists of the more prevalent usage of the term obviously has shifted over the decades and depends on which circles you're discussing the matter in.

I don't know of any Net sources off-hand, but I can scan some of my Nintendo Power articles if you like... (although people already have posted several links in this thread to pages where "adventure" is used for Zelda-like games...)

I don't personally like this definition messiness any more than some of you do, but I'm certainly not imagining the reason why it took me so long to play PC graphic adventures...

Which brings me to...

What I personally wish would be: I don't care which set of games gets control of the name as long as they end up with two separate names. To me both sets of games play quite differently, and while technically they could be grouped together, I find that it removes the genre as a useful gauge of how a game will play mechanics-wise.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[squarejawhero]

Originally Posted by Snarky

In fact, it's picking apart posts to present a coherent observation. The point insane_cobra and I are making is quite simple, perfectly coherent, and backed up with facts and sources.

But you're not proving anything, and your sources aren't coherent.

Actually, I just found this. You're defining what I know as action adventures as "adventures" (edit - and this is someone who was a console gamer for longer than a PC gamer). I just really haven't seen concrete proof, and you haven't given me (other than this one wiki entry and the word of one person who just posted) that this term is as widely used and accepted as you make out.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...tion-adventure

Yeah, there is dispute among console gamers, just as there's dispute among our kind of adventure gamers about what a "real" adventure game is. There are people who would offer Myst as the example of an adventure game, and there's people who don't think it's an adventure game at all.

But the majority of the dispute you've shown me, and the comments and articles I've read (like, for example, the one Zelda game on Gamespy being issued as an "adventure" with the rest "action adventure") show that the argument is "is Zelda an RPG" rather than "is Zelda an RPG or Adventure Game". Which doesn't say anything, other than they can't decide if it's a simple RPG or an action-adventure with RPG elements.

*sigh* I haven't been trying to label you a purist. I'm reminded of a saying. "No amount of facts will change entrenched belief."

Which, you'll have to understand, is what I'm trying to tell you. No amount of me showing the geneology and relation of the games you're talking about seems to convince you that these games have their own genre history and labels. You know they do, and I know you're only feigning naivety because it doesn't help your case.

I've been looking at some histories of video games (Wikipedia among other places), and the regularity with which the Zelda games are characterized as an "adventure game series" is getting a bit monotonous. Of course, there would be no point giving the references, because you've already made clear that it doesn't matter how many different sources use the term. It's all the work of a tiny community of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I've checked and found more reference to Zelda being an "action-adventure" or "action RPG" than being an "adventure game". I've never, ever heard it being called an adventure game series in all my years of gaming. I'd love to see your sources, so please show them... and don't patronise me, please.

I already believe this games have their own, distinct geneology. Specifically, Zelda descends from the Atari 2600 game Adventure, which is (at least partly) why it's called an "adventure game."

That's your belief, I've yet to see this proven in concrete, as Zelda has already got arguments flying about it and isn't a worthy source.

[Jeysie]

Maybe I *should* scan some of my articles.

Those of you who have old NP magazines lurking around, go look in the "Now Playing" sections. The end of that section has a chart which lists data about each game, including the genre. I've skimmed a few issues, and here's what I've found so far:

Super Metroid
Flashback
Out of this World
Prince of Persia
Lester the Unlikely
Metroid II
Bionic Commando

All labelled as "adventure" with no "action" or "RPG" qualifiers. (There are a few listed as "SciFi adventure" or "Comic adventure" or whatnot.)

Interestingly enough, while the NES port of Maniac Mansion came out before NP started its Now Playing charts, the review itself refers to the game as "a new breed of game".

Peace & Luv, Liz

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by squarejawhero

Which, you'll have to understand, is what I'm trying to tell you. No amount of me showing the geneology and relation of the games you're talking about seems to convince you that these games have their own genre history and labels. You know they do, and I know you're only feigning naivety because it doesn't help your case.

I don't believe this!

So you're, of course, right, and it's obvious to everyone, we just don't want to admit it cause we don't want to give you the satisfaction? Give me a break. Who do you think you are? You keep mentioning how much experience you have, how deeply involved with games you are. I believe that, but it doesn't give you any advntage here cause so are we. I've been into games in this way or another ever since I got my C-64 some 18 years ago. When it comes to discussing the history of games, I'm not an expert, but I'm definitely competent. Christ, you're acting as if informed individuals couldn't possibly disagree with you. That's... Well, it's not as insulting as much as it's amusing.

And just for the record, you've shown or explained no genealogy of any game we've been talking about, except for mentioning Metroid Prime is descendant of older Metroid games. Guess what, they are also adventures.

I've checked and found more reference to Zelda being an "action-adventure" or "action RPG" than being an "adventure game". I've never, ever heard it being called an adventure game series in all my years of gaming. I'd love to see your sources, so please show them...

Another Google experiment, but this one should give more valid results as the serch phrase is a whole sentence:

"zelda is an adventure" - 303
"zelda is an action adventure" (also picks up action/adventure and action-adventure) - 86
"zelda is an action rpg" (also picks up action/rpg and action-rpg) - 114

What more could possibly please you?