Adventure Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Adventure Forums (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/)
-   Feedback (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/feedback/)
-   -   Casual games (https://adventuregamers.com/archive/forums/feedback/25892-casual-games.html)

Nautilus 11-29-2009 04:40 AM
Casual games
 
We know that casual games and hidden object games are good sellers to affiliate game networks, but AdventureGamers.com is pushing the limit too far.
"Avenue Flo" and "Hidden Adventures" are far far away from being adventure games to be reviewed on the site.

nonax 11-29-2009 05:55 AM
I am a great fan of casual games, especially "Hidden Object Games". However I do agree that most of them are far of from begin adventures. They shouldn't appear here as you stated.
Maybe there should be a sister-site or separate region for these games. There are so many HOG's that the reviews that are on this site nearly scratch the surface of what's available. This would make all parties happy!

Jackal 11-29-2009 08:01 AM
People arguing definitions must be the favourite pastime on these forums.

Avenue Flo most certainly is an adventure, by any definition. As for the games with HOG scenes mixed in, well, they're hybrids and we call them that. We only cover the ones that clearly have made a dedicated effort to mix in significant adventure elements. They may be far, far away from some purist interpretation of the genre, but it's enough for us. If you disagree, you're always welcome to ignore them.

Really, though, why does anyone care? We cover every traditional adventure promptly, so it's not like casual games are taking the place of anything else. If not those, what? You'd rather read nothing?

Also, you got it backwards. We started reviewing them before we added affiliate links, so the one has no bearing on the other.

kadji-kun 11-29-2009 12:42 PM
Again, we are fighting over what you think is an adventure game, and what the exact definition of the Adventure genre is. There is nothing wrong with what has been posted.

Sughly 11-29-2009 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal (Post 530665)
Really, though, why does anyone care? We cover every traditional adventure promptly, so it's not like casual games are taking the place of anything else. If not those, what? You'd rather read nothing?
Well put. I myself would prefer to read a good review on what someone else's opinion of a game is, including a take on what degree it impliments adventure elements, before I decide to delve into a new release. If you think the review suggests a game leans more towards the 'hybrid' and less on the purist adventure, just avoid it. Otherwise we'd most likely be here saying 'hey, so-and-so game is technically an adventure - why no review?!'.

My two cents. Keep it up AG :D

booB 11-29-2009 09:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nautilus (Post 530649)
We know that casual games and hidden object games are good sellers to affiliate game networks, but AdventureGamers.com is pushing the limit too far.
"Avenue Flo" and "Hidden Adventures" are far far away from being adventure games to be reviewed on the site.
So what?

Burger King sells not just burgers, but also chicken sandwiches. Pizza Hut sells not only pizza, but pasta as well. Dairy Queen sells not only dairy products, but also fast food.

I'm using American restaurant chains as examples here, but I'm sure you get the idea.

KasiaD 11-30-2009 07:05 AM
Perhaps HOG games have adventure elements, but so have numerous games which are however NOT reviewed here - so I do not think this argument is valid. I would agree with Nautilus that HOGs are polluting otherwise clean Adventure environment here on Adventuregamers because of commercial reasons.

It is certainly a question of opinion, whether HOGs are far away from Adventures - in my opinion they do and belong togther with Solitaire and Windows Pinball, and do not need to be reviewed here.

As for restaurant chains metaphore - Burger King does not sell facial fluids of used computer hardware or tasty, fresh, healthy food, do they? They stick to fastfood... So basically it is the same product from the economic point of view.

AndreaDraco83 11-30-2009 08:00 AM
As Jack stated:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal (Post 530665)
We only cover the ones that clearly have made a dedicated effort to mix in significant adventure elements. They may be far, far away from some purist interpretation of the genre, but it's enough for us.
We don't review HOGs, but casual adventures that mix HO sequences or casual features with a genuine adventure vibe, like the Casebook series or Drawn: The Painted Tower.

tabacco 11-30-2009 08:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by booB (Post 530725)
Pizza Hut sells not only pizza, but pasta as well.
Both of those claims are debatable ;)

Jackal 11-30-2009 08:41 AM
Yes, we don't review HOGS. We don't even review the gazillion so-called I(nteractive)HOGS. We review the small handful of games that have clearly taken the next step into casual adventure territory. If anyone wants to offer an opinion on those games and how adventure-like they are or aren't, that's welcomed, but don't generalize if you haven't played the very few actual titles we cover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KasiaD
I would agree with Nautilus that HOGs are polluting otherwise clean Adventure environment here on Adventuregamers because of commercial reasons.
Commercial reasons? I already addressed that. But don't let the facts get in the way of your conspiracy theory. :rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by booB
Burger King sells not just burgers, but also chicken sandwiches. Pizza Hut sells not only pizza, but pasta as well. Dairy Queen sells not only dairy products, but also fast food.
This is relevant in theory, but actually doesn't apply here. As a site dedicated to adventure games, we're very intent on maintaining our focus. Our definition of adventure is just broad enough to encompass a few of the many casual games. It's more like Burger King selling a veggie burger, and someone arguing it's not a burger anymore.

nonax 11-30-2009 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal (Post 530760)
We review the small handful of games that have clearly taken the next step into casual adventure territory.
That is a bold statement. It is more like you review the ones that you accidently have come across. And most of them are just related to wel known vip's in the ag industry and therefore seem to catch your attention.

And isn't it the very purpose of a forum to debate? Why do some dogs immediatly feel personally attacked when someone wants to argue about the chpice of reviews?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal (Post 530760)
you're always welcome to ignore them
the same is valid for postings on the forum! Nobody is saying AG is doing a bad job. We are all very appreciative about all the work and effort that is put in this beloved site. We are merely giving feedback here.

Anyway, I would love to see more reviews on casual hybrids (or wathever you like to call them), but then it shouldn't be accidental. I am also afraid it will blur the focus on the traditional AG genre when a more comprehensive part of these type of games is going to be reviewed. Maybe they could be addressed as some sub-genre. Just like the discussion about the very definition of an AG seems to be destined to the Misc - Feedback sub-genre of the forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal (Post 530760)
Our definition of adventure is just broad enough to encompass a few of the many casual games
- this very definition being debated here.

I would even want to go further and propose to give some attention to action-adventures, story focussed action and adventure rpg hybrids.

tabacco 11-30-2009 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonax (Post 530777)
the same is valid for postings on the forum! Nobody is saying AG is doing a bad job. We are all very appreciative about all the work and effort that is put in this beloved site. We are merely giving feedback here.
Indeed, and are you saying the editor in chief of the site shouldn't reply to a question about editorial policy in the feedback forum? :)

nonax 11-30-2009 02:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tabacco (Post 530790)
Indeed, and are you saying the editor in chief of the site shouldn't reply to a question about editorial policy in the feedback forum? :)
Nice one ;)
But imho saying you're welcome to ignore them is hardly a reply in an open discussion. And besides, Nautilus posted in the adventure forum - I assume - to start a discussion, not as feedback.

kadji-kun 11-30-2009 02:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonax (Post 530777)
That is a bold statement. It is more like you review the ones that you accidently have come across. And most of them are just related to wel known vip's in the ag industry and therefore seem to catch your attention.

And isn't it the very purpose of a forum to debate? Why do some dogs immediatly feel personally attacked when someone wants to argue about the chpice of reviews?

the same is valid for postings on the forum! Nobody is saying AG is doing a bad job. We are all very appreciative about all the work and effort that is put in this beloved site. We are merely giving feedback here.

Anyway, I would love to see more reviews on casual hybrids (or wathever you like to call them), but then it shouldn't be accidental. I am also afraid it will blur the focus on the traditional AG genre when a more comprehensive part of these type of games is going to be reviewed. Maybe they could be addressed as some sub-genre. Just like the discussion about the very definition of an AG seems to be destined to the Misc - Feedback sub-genre of the forum.
- this very definition being debated here.

I would even want to go further and propose to give some attention to action-adventures, story focussed action and adventure rpg hybrids.
I don't recall any HOG that are reviewed that didn't involve some sort of complex object manipulation to solve a situation, which is in part of the meaning of the Adventure game genre.

Jackal 11-30-2009 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nonax (Post 530777)
That is a bold statement. It is more like you review the ones that you accidently have come across. And most of them are just related to wel known vip's in the ag industry and therefore seem to catch your attention.
So now we're sellouts to the almighty dollar and we choose games accidentally. Sure glad we have forumites to tell us what our motivations are. Both are wrong, of course.

Quote:
And isn't it the very purpose of a forum to debate? Why do some dogs immediatly feel personally attacked when someone wants to argue about the chpice of reviews?
Seems to me a "debate" has two sides. Why do some cats cry foul as soon as the other responds reasonably?

In any case, this isn't a debate.

Quote:
- this very definition being debated here.
No, it's being challenged but not debated. I've yet to hear an actual argument, just some random objections to things people don't like.

Sughly 11-30-2009 07:17 PM
This has become a bit ridiculous. Are you guys really that concerned with too many reviews? Seriously, read it, if it sounds like something you don't like then don't play it. That's why reviews exist, to help you decide. At least if the games are reviewed, you have more games to read about.

Although in your case this means more games to ignore, in my case I would say on the most part more games to have a go at. Sure I might read something that sounds like it takes after another genre I'm not into and I'll pass on it, but at least my attention was brought to something and by reading it gave it a chance.

kathrynrose 11-30-2009 07:31 PM
I find no reason not to review or play casual games. At the moment am playing MCF: Dire Grove and find it quite entertaining. Perhaps many of the casual games dont have engrossing story lines. However, many of the first person games I have attempted leave a lot to be desired in this category. Many of them are just as puzzle driven as any of the casual games I have played.

Dont get me wrong I love adventure games. I love a wonderful story and characters that bring them to life.

Still give a casual game a chance once or twice. You may be pleasantly surprised:)

KasiaD 12-01-2009 04:48 AM
Quote:
I've yet to hear an actual argument, just some random objections to things people don't like.
No arguments from my side - I have none. Just random objection about HOGS, and i thought this was a good topic to grumble a bit about them, if not, sorry.

Jackal 12-01-2009 08:30 AM
No, hey, go ahead and grumble about the games we actually cover! But no one should generalize about all HOGS or even IHOGS in this case, as we've actually tried very hard (contrary to the accusation above) to distinguish the "casual adventure" from the many standard hidden object games out there. The Ravenhearst and Return to Ravenhearst games from the Mystery Case Files series, just to use one example, are vastly different games. We covered one and not the other because one's a HOG and the other a lite adventure (with some HOG elements blended in).

kadji-kun 12-01-2009 12:17 PM
Very well worded. There is definitely a fine line between the generic HOG and the Casual Adventures.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:45 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Design & Logo Copyright ©1998 - 2017, Adventure Gamers®.
All posts by users and Adventure Gamers staff members are property of their original author and don't necessarily represent the opinion or editorial stance of Adventure Gamers.