Adventure Gamers - Forums

Schneckchen ^.^ - 27 June 2012 12:03 PM

Portal is a puzzle game. If the only reason some people consider Portal an adventure game is the story (which I found totally over-rated anyways), then we might as well consider any game with a story an adventure game. Bioshock, Gears of War, Doom, Postal…

Gameplay defines the genre. Not story.

Can’t we use both to define it? Those games have a story but involve a lot of action. Games like Lemmings have brain-puzzles but no story thread other than ‘get the lemmings to the exit’. So I think I agree with Jackal that we need to use both.

A more challenging example would be a game like From Dust which is similar to Lemmings but does have an ongoing story which progresses. If someone asked me what separates that game from adventure games I’m not sure what I’d say.

OK, here’s how the creators themselves address the “adventure” nature of their games:

Jay: For me there more just these pivot points during the game. And you do need times just to slow down, and let your brain rest for a bit. Through playtesting we’ve learned that after a set number of puzzles it’s a good time to have a little fun with the character. But the pivot points, these are the moments where things are about to take a one-eighty on you, you’re about to go into a new environment. You’ve beaten this one level, and here we go off to act 3 or whatever. For us they were never really cutscenes, like, “Okay, here’s your big moment to do a scene,” so much as they were, “Okay, here’s our chance to let people know they’ve progressed.”

It’s clear that they consider the story an additional, not essential feature of Portals.

EDIT And Portal has concept, not random puzzles in the adventure sense. Braid or later DRODs are also story-driven. They are just more hardcore puzzlers in comparison.

I consider something like Cogs or The Incredible Machine puzzle games. Portal would be a first person puzzle game. I will never be able understand someone putting Monkey Island 2 in the same genre as Portal 2 so let’s just agree to disagree

I never mind people disagreeing, Schnecken.  I just like to see reasoned arguments.   

AT, you just left out the first part of that sequence:

RPS: Story still seems to be so incidental to the first-person genre. But clearly that’s not the case at Valve. In Portal 2 it almost seems to be more important than the puzzles.

Jay: That’s a little bit subjective, as for a lot of people it’s puzzle first. Let’s just say there’s a little something for everybody.

Of course the “gameplay” makes up the bulk of the experience.  That’s true of most adventure games as well.  We spend way more time collecting inventory and clicking hotspots and wandering around than having major plot details fed to us. 

But what I really want to know is, do people disagree that Portal “focuses on puzzle solving within a narrative framework, generally with few or no action elements” or do they disagree that that’s a correct definition of “adventure” to begin with?  If so, I’m genuinely interested in hearing what someone’s alternate definition is. 

Although at some point, this thread needs to get back around to Quantum Conundrum.  (Sorry about the digression, Oscar!)

Jackal - 27 June 2012 12:46 PM

AT, you just left out the first part of that sequence:

RPS: Story still seems to be so incidental to the first-person genre. But clearly that’s not the case at Valve. In Portal 2 it almost seems to be more important than the puzzles.

Jay: That’s a little bit subjective, as for a lot of people it’s puzzle first. Let’s just say there’s a little something for everybody.

He just says he has no problem with that kind of opinion, but later explains what they had in mind. Since the game was obviously aimed at a more casual auditory,  that makes perfect sense.

But what I really want to know is, do people disagree that Portal “focuses on puzzle solving within a narrative framework, generally with few or no action elements” or do they disagree that that’s a correct definition of “adventure” to begin with?  If so, I’m genuinely interested in hearing what someone’s alternate definition is.

I think it’s a good definition for adventure games, considering that “puzzle solving” is meant in a traditional adventure sense, not as a puzzle concept.

Arial Type - 27 June 2012 03:06 PM

I think it’s a good definition for adventure games, considering that “puzzle solving” is meant in a traditional adventure sense, not as a puzzle concept.

Isn’t that a bit circular, though? As long as the puzzle-solving is the traditional adventure kind then it’s an adventure game? That doesn’t seem like a functional definition to me. If that’s going to be the definition, then you need a more rigorous classification as to what types of puzzles fit the bill. I’ve played a lot of adventure games, with a lot of different kinds of puzzles.

Arial Type - 27 June 2012 03:06 PM

He just says he has no problem with that kind of opinion, but later explains what they had in mind. Since the game was obviously aimed at a more casual auditory,  that makes perfect sense.

Well, he said what HE had in mind.  Was he one of the story writers?  In any case, as I said, his statement actually applies to a vast number of adventure games, traditional or otherwise.  Story is often treated as a “reward” for puzzle-solving.  That doesn’t make it any less an integral framework for the gameplay. 

I think it’s a good definition for adventure games, considering that “puzzle solving” is meant in a traditional adventure sense, not as a puzzle concept.

So we’re really just back to the “too different” angle again.

Jackal - 27 June 2012 05:06 PM

So we’re really just back to the “too different” angle again.

Got to be limits though…shooting games? strategy? lots of action? violence and nudity? 
Where are the boundaries?

Mister Ed - 27 June 2012 04:42 PM

Isn’t that a bit circular, though? As long as the puzzle-solving is the traditional adventure kind then it’s an adventure game? That doesn’t seem like a functional definition to me. If that’s going to be the definition, then you need a more rigorous classification as to what types of puzzles fit the bill. I’ve played a lot of adventure games, with a lot of different kinds of puzzles.

Jackal - 27 June 2012 05:06 PM

So we’re really just back to the “too different” angle again.

I’m not talking about any specific type of puzzle. It’s about a complex of puzzles. An adventure game usually has a number of varied puzzles (problems, obstacles) integrated into a storyline. They may be different from anything we saw before, they may be easy or hard - but they involve a varied gameplay. With pure puzzlers we have one or a couple of concepts that keep exploiting during the whole game. At least that’s how I see it

Oscar - 27 June 2012 05:19 PM

Got to be limits though…shooting games? strategy? lots of action? violence and nudity?  Where are the boundaries?

All that’s already covered in the definition itself.  (Well, not the violence and nudity, but the other things.)  Strategy and action-filled games certainly aren’t “focused on puzzle-solving within a narrative framework”, so they’re excluded from the outset. But once we agree a game DOES meet that criterion, it shouldn’t matter how differently it does so from other games that do the same thing. 

D.C. - 27 June 2012 06:15 PM

I can see how the adventure definition would be important for folks who primarily play in that genre only, but these days it’s just a label.

Personally speaking, I agree with you (and it’s always just been a label).  We could call them all grapefruits and it wouldn’t make a difference.  But obviously for site purposes, we need to draw a line somewhere.  Since every game (officially) covered here must pass our core definition to be included, I don’t lose any sleep over disagreements after the fact.  I just find it tiring when people keep loudly pronouncing what isn’t an adventure when such games do in fact suit our definition of what one is.  (This isn’t directed at you in particular, D.C., just in general.)

I think the problem is that people want a genre definition to be the end of a discussion, not the beginning of one.  Meaning, say the word “adventure” alone and you’ll instantly and totally understand exactly the sort of game you’re going to get, adhering to all the rigid, inside-the-box parameters we’re used to, never straying from the formula.  When really the label is only meant to provide the basic framework for understanding, allowing the specifics to represent a pretty incredible diversity.

Jackal - 27 June 2012 10:03 PM

Oscar - 27 June 2012 05:19 PM

Got to be limits though…shooting games? strategy? lots of action? violence and nudity?  Where are the boundaries?

All that’s already covered in the definition itself.  (Well, not the violence and nudity, but the other things.)  Strategy and action-filled games certainly aren’t “focused on puzzle-solving within a narrative framework”, so they’re excluded from the outset. But once we agree a game DOES meet that criterion, it shouldn’t matter how differently it does so from other games that do the same thing.

That reminds me of an article I saw somewhere which said jokingly that all games are adventure games, it’s just in an shooter the puzzle is “use gun with man” 

I suppose the problem with that is no puzzle is ‘too different’, as a level in a strategy game’s story-mode could be seen as a giant puzzle.

Ok ok I’m back since this argument is so much fun

Jackal, you keep saying “Oh, it’s just the ‘too different’ argument again” as if people just aren’t open minded enough.

If you blindly follow the “official” definition of adventure games, literally every game would be considered an adventure game. Look at Half Life, Postal 2, Duke Nukem Forever. Story? Yes. Puzzle solving? Yes. But OF COURSE they are too different. That’s why we put them in different genres.

Look at the new Sherlock Holmes games. They are first person as well and vastly different from Monkey Island. However, I don’t think anyone will disagree that they are indeed adventure games.

So I guess the definition really just isn’t elaborate enough.