[DJ Souza]

You got a good point, the confusion isnt because WE dont know what an adventure traditionally means, the confusion is because the term "adventure" is ambiguous to anyone who isnt familiar with our beloved genre (i.e. almost every one else). The traditional adventure game is a niche market, few people play adventures when compared to other styles of games. It is very commom for mainstream games to say Zelda is an adventure game, because that is the way they always called them.

I guess interactive fiction games where once known as adventures, before they featured graphics. Now that even action games present adventure elements, what are we going to call our traditional adventure games?

Narrative games? Puzzlers? Story-driven games?

We probably will keep calling them adventure games, and continue to get upset every time someone "misuse" the term.

[mag]

Originally Posted by Singer
Adventure games involve... well, puzzle solving, story, and exploration. They often DON'T offer much of what is commonly known as "adventure" in any context outside this one. It's the only genre that's misnamed, or at least poorly named for the wrong reasons; the only one where context doesn't jive with label. It BEGS for confusion.

Well, this is a point I was going to make in the response that I lost last night. It doesn't matter that other people may not know where the term came from as long as they know what it means. Most of us don't know the etymologies of most of the words we use. But we do know how they are used. So I don't see how making it more "newb-friendly" is a good reason to change things. Trust me. It's not that hard for somebody new to learn what we mean by "adventure" if we use it consistently. And that's the problem. We use the term for such a wide variety of games that it becomes meaningless. I don't see how that is becoming "more sophisticated." In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Was the genre unfortunately named? Quite possibly. But "adventure" is still easier than the "puzzles/story/exploration genre."

Now we can continue using "adventure" to describe games that are adventurous. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But as it tells us nothing about the gameplay, we will still need some word to describe this genre of game. Adventure has always worked best for me simply because that's what it's been called since its inception. But if the rest of the gaming world now suddenly has a problem with that, we're still going to need something else. To group Monkey Island in with Metal Gear Solid is imprecise, and it's frankly not very fair to either game.

mag

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by mag

We use the term for such a wide variety of games that it becomes meaningless. I don't see how that is becoming "more sophisticated." In fact, I see it as quite the opposite.

Heck yes. That IS the opposite of becoming more sophisticated. The lazy, sloppy method some mainstream and retail places are using to classify games NOW is just making matters worse for everyone. I'm sure we'd all agree that MGS is different from Zelda and MI, and they should be categorized distinctly.

Was the genre unfortunately named? Quite possibly. But "adventure" is still easier than the "puzzles/story/exploration genre."

I guess it's because there seems to be no common language that I'm open to seeing some changes to terminology. As far as "adventure" goes, I agree it's better than some nightmarish conglomerations, but it'll also always create confusion, because every game with "adventurous elements" has a right to call itself an adventure game (little "a", as a descriptor, not a title), and some adventure games really do not, according to everyday definitions of the word.

The two "sides" will probably continue to have a tug of war over the term, but really it'd be better just to come up with some appropriate names. Too bad Crowther didn't just name his game "Rutabaga".

[Risingson]

Anyway, what is most interesting about GTA Vice City is how the story (which is told mostly in non-interactive scenes) is ultimately the best part of the game, so it's very very close to the classic mission-driven game, like Wing Commander.

But what is a pity is how console games often are very similar, though they are supposed to be in different genres. I mean, nearly every game has non-stop action, jumps, hits and exploration in a 3D world, when in PC gaming, apart from the hybrids, the strategy games used to be quite strategic and reflexive, flight simulators are supposed to behave just like the real plane despite it isn't easy, and adventure games used to be about solving puzzles, talking to people, exploring and such. You know, nowadays we are only offered pure action titles or hybrids. Or "adventures", which are action games with some dialogues. I remember a review of Half Life which said that it was too reflexive for an action game.

[scabb]

Originally Posted by mag

I see that term used a lot, but frankly I never really understood how it differentiates something like Monkey Island from something like Prince of Persia. Isn't any adventure game, except for maybe text adventures, a "graphic" adventure? How is Prince of Persia less "graphic" than Monkey Island?

Well, in most games you play a role, but they're not necessarily role playing games It doesn't really matter what the genre is called - there are a few genres with ambiguous name. That's not the problem here. The problem is that people don't like Prince of Persia being bunged in alongside Monkey Island. Yes, they are both called adventure games, but Monkey Island is a "graphic adventure" and Prince of Persia is an "action adventure". I don't think anyone would disagree with that, and it tends to solve the problem a little.

And actually, I do think Prince of Persia is less "graphic" than Monkey Island. I'm not sure where the term "graphic adventure" derives from, but I'd assume it has something to do with the slow-moving pace of the game giving a greater emphasis to the backgrounds, often which contain inventory-related 'hotspots'. These are the "graphics" in question.

Still, that's irrelevant. If I ask for a graphic adventure, I get one. We can't just hog the whole "adventure" thing when so many hybrids are cropping up. It seems like a sensible idea to have an "Adventure" genre with several sub-genres. Perhaps it could be taken further, and we could create more genres than there is games, completely defeating the purpose of categorising things in the first place!

Sorry if I've repeated anything said by others, this thread is far too long for such a stupid debate ;-

[WontonGoodsoup]

I'm not sure where the term "graphic adventure" derives from

I'm pretty positive the name came when adventure games (as we know them) transformed from text, to more picture based. Using graphics to show surroundings rather than words.
Because of the confusion with the words, I almost always refer to our style of adventure games as 'graphic adventures' when talking to other people. Or sadly enough, even stating that 'it's like monkey island'.
I do view GTA as a form of adventure, because you have the ability to roam about and explore the city at will, returning to your objective at any time.
With the amount of games out, I think you have to start making sub-genres. RPGs have done this, ie: action-rpg, mmorpg. Maybe we should start calling our adventures PSE-Adventures (puzzle, story, exploration). It's not fair for us to try and take ownership of such an ambiguous term.

[Risingson]

Well, then you could consider Elite an adventure. And I think that this is going too far.

Risingson

(PS: but you can consider Starflight an adventure, ok)