Adventure Gamers - Forums

diego - 17 September 2013 05:42 PM

Well, adrenalin pump can be achieved with non-action methods as well, like with a good story twists, suspense moments in a mystery/thriller story…

But I’d say adrenalin in action games = emotion in adventures, because adrenalin rush is much more important, for example, in a racing game than in an adventure, just like you’ll have more of an emotional connection with adventure protagonist. For example, Syberia or The Longest Journey might not have too many “adrenaline-pump” moments (well, apart from the moment when Oscar woke up which scared the crap out of me ), but poetic, touching, artistic… moments make up for it.

Aww, that’s sweet. But unfortunately, it’s not the same. I think the adrenaline Advie is talking about is the fight-or-flight feeling you get when faced with danger. The problem with most of these new adventures is I don’t get much of a feeling that I’m involved. Guiding a character around a world with a threat of me dying and losing something isn’t the same and actually completely different from the story of the character facing trials and danger while I’m sitting there knowing I can’t lose. That’s why Alone in the Dark was more exciting for me than any adventure game of the last 10 years except maybe Amnesia, there was a risk in playing it that made your heart beat really fast. There’s absolutely no reason that adventure games can’t do that anymore, except for players being now apparently too lazy to use the save/restore function. I want AGs to be about ME again, not about watching some character with his own “heart-wrenching” story strolling across the screen in a bubble of complete safety. Why should I care about him if it doesn’t involve me? Maybe that’s why TWD was so popular, although I don’t understand it because Jurassic Park had adrenaline and got no love.

Zifnab - 17 September 2013 06:16 PM

There’s absolutely no reason that adventure games can’t do that anymore, except for players being now apparently too lazy to use the save/restore function.

If there’s a save/restore function, and you use it, I would think THAT would kill the “adrenaline” aspect as well, if what kills it is no danger of losing something. (I’m not so sure, myself. I think adrenalin rush comes more from atmosphere in an adventure game than risk of losing.) I don’t see much of an experiential difference between not losing anything because the game won’t let you, and not losing anything because your constant saving won’t let you.

Wait, that’s not right. I do see the difference. Constant saving and restoring, while not adding anything positive to the game experience in my opinion, does make the game a lot more annoying. Not adrenalin rush causing, just annoying.

Mister Ed - 17 September 2013 06:48 PM

Zifnab - 17 September 2013 06:16 PM

There’s absolutely no reason that adventure games can’t do that anymore, except for players being now apparently too lazy to use the save/restore function.

If there’s a save/restore function, and you use it, I would think THAT would kill the “adrenaline” aspect as well, if what kills it is no danger of losing something. (I’m not so sure, myself. I think adrenalin rush comes more from atmosphere in an adventure game than risk of losing.) I don’t see much of an experiential difference between not losing anything because the game won’t let you, and not losing anything because your constant saving won’t let you.

Wait, that’s not right. I do see the difference. Constant saving and restoring, while not adding anything positive to the game experience in my opinion, does make the game a lot more annoying. Not adrenalin rush causing, just annoying.

Not when the alternative is repeating large swathes of game sections, which is on a whole other level of annoying. If you haven’t experienced this you haven’t played enough console games.

That said, I agree that being able to quicksave every 5 seconds to safeguard against dying ruins some of the atmosphere. But in the absence of a better alternative, at least it still preserves the illusion of danger, which is the important thing.

Zifnab - 17 September 2013 10:00 PM

Mister Ed - 17 September 2013 06:48 PM

Zifnab - 17 September 2013 06:16 PM

There’s absolutely no reason that adventure games can’t do that anymore, except for players being now apparently too lazy to use the save/restore function.

If there’s a save/restore function, and you use it, I would think THAT would kill the “adrenaline” aspect as well, if what kills it is no danger of losing something. (I’m not so sure, myself. I think adrenalin rush comes more from atmosphere in an adventure game than risk of losing.) I don’t see much of an experiential difference between not losing anything because the game won’t let you, and not losing anything because your constant saving won’t let you.

Wait, that’s not right. I do see the difference. Constant saving and restoring, while not adding anything positive to the game experience in my opinion, does make the game a lot more annoying. Not adrenalin rush causing, just annoying.

Not when the alternative is repeating large swathes of game sections, which is on a whole other level of annoying. If you haven’t experienced this you haven’t played enough console games.

That said, I agree that being able to quicksave every 5 seconds to safeguard against dying ruins some of the atmosphere. But in the absence of a better alternative, at least it still preserves the illusion of danger, which is the important thing.

I don’t think it does preserve the illusion of danger, though. At least not for me. There is obviously no danger if you just saved, except the “danger” of being annoyed by having to constantly restore. And I also don’t think the illusion of danger is “the important thing”, either, though to be fair I must assume you mean “the important thing for keeping the adrenaline flowing”, but I don’t think adrenaline is a necessary (or in many cases even desirable) component of good adventure games (though that’s obviously a matter of taste).

When I DO get an adrenaline rush from an adventure game it NEVER has anything to do with whether I’m going to lose progress (as I said, that just causes annoyance), but rather with the atmosphere projected by the game, through music, visuals, and suspenseful storytelling.

Mister Ed - 18 September 2013 10:14 AM

I don’t think it does preserve the illusion of danger, though. At least not for me. There is obviously no danger if you just saved, except the “danger” of being annoyed by having to constantly restore. And I also don’t think the illusion of danger is “the important thing”, either, though to be fair I must assume you mean “the important thing for keeping the adrenaline flowing”, but I don’t think adrenaline is a necessary (or in many cases even desirable) component of good adventure games (though that’s obviously a matter of taste).

When I DO get an adrenaline rush from an adventure game it NEVER has anything to do with whether I’m going to lose progress (as I said, that just causes annoyance), but rather with the atmosphere projected by the game, through music, visuals, and suspenseful storytelling.

I don’t think that’s adrenaline. That’s something else.

Look at it this way. I’m lost in the middle of a desert (think KQV) and if I don’t find water fast I know I’ll die. That creates the adrenaline rush, it helps the body to act. If it’s a Lucasarts game I know I won’t die because that’s what Lucasarts games do. I don’t need the adrenaline because whatever I do I’m going to stay alive. It’s purely biochemical. Admiring the scenery doesn’t call for urgent action, so unless your body is functioning in a strange way it shouldn’t see any need for adrenaline.

I myself have been always against deaths, timed-puzzles, battles and such in adventure games. And I can easily feel strong emotions without them. But when we talk about pure adrenaline rush I can’t say that they don’t help a bit in some cases. If for example you need to feel that your character is in danger the best way to make this is to actually put him in danger. That’s why now I enjoy a certain amount of death danger in mature adventures. For example I got really scared while playing GK1 and this snake fell on my head. It happened really fast and one should really act quickly. Just as in real life. Or lets say our protagonist often appears in a shootout. It’s kind of unbelievable if there’s no potential danger for him. That’s why I liked the combats in Gemini Rue. Or the timed-puzzle in Resonance with the dream of the girl and the monster who is about to appear at the door. In order to feel scared you need to feel the consequence that this monster will definitely show if you don’t do something. In a nutshell, adrenaline is welcome for me as far as it is subtle and put in the right places.
What about horror adventures? I’ve never been a fan of those because of too much running and hiding so I don’t have much to say here. But games like Amnesia surely looks like a huge adrenaline pump in your veins because of the potential danger. (of course it’s also very much because of atmosphere but I’m just saying that it’s not the only ingredient).

Zifnab - 18 September 2013 10:38 AM

I don’t think that’s adrenaline. That’s something else.

Look at it this way. I’m lost in the middle of a desert (think KQV) and if I don’t find water fast I know I’ll die. That creates the adrenaline rush, it helps the body to act. If it’s a Lucasarts game I know I won’t die because that’s what Lucasarts games do. I don’t need the adrenaline because whatever I do I’m going to stay alive. It’s purely biochemical. Admiring the scenery doesn’t call for urgent action, so unless your body is functioning in a strange way it shouldn’t see any need for adrenaline.

If I just saved, I know I’m not going to have any negative consequence from dying, so no adrenaline rush. You are creating a dichotomy which does not exist (at least not in the way you state it), at least not for me.

So in the Sierra game, I’m lost in the desert and know that if I don’t find water, I’ll die. So I save. Now I just look for water and figure if I don’t find it, I’ll have to reload. I’m annoyed, but I’m not getting any kind of adrenaline rush.

In the Lucasarts game, I’m not getting an adrenaline rush, either, but I’m not as annoyed, since I know I can focus on actually solving the puzzle rather than being constantly wrenched out of the action by saving and restoring. As far as I’m concerned, a save function does away with any “immersive fear of death” just as effectively as removing the possibility of death.

The only difference is that it replaces it with annoyance, and breaks immersion FAR, FAR more, IMHO. Nothing reinforces the fact that you are just playing a game more, for me, than the need to constantly save and restore.

Fear and surprise can get adrenaline flowing, and a game CAN inspire a feeling of fear through music, sound, visuals, suspenseful storytelling, etc. even if you know, on some level, that you aren’t going to die. This seems obvious, because people can get those kinds of reactions even when simply watching a movie, where they OBVIOUSLY are in no danger, not even of losing progress…

Now, that’s not to say, at all, that I can’t enjoy games with death in them. It depends on how prevalent it is, and whether it ever happens without a reasonable expectation beforehand. But I enjoy such games in SPITE of the saving and restoring required, not because of it.

And, I would also agree that if you AREN’T going to have any possibility of death, it behooves you to design your game such that the player isn’t put into situations where their avoidance of death is patently ridiculous. The search for water in the desert is probably fine, since that’s not something where death is immediate, anyway. But you probably shouldn’t have them facing an ongoing hail of gunfire if they will never, ever be hit even if they walk casually back and forth in plain view. Unless it is a comedy, I suppose, and that absurdity is part of the humor.

TimovieMan - 18 September 2013 12:09 PM

Even when your character isn’t in any real danger (no deaths in the game, for instance), merely implying that there is danger is often enough (especially if the context and atmosphere support that implication).
For instance: the sequence with the Gribbler in The Longest Journey had me on edge, as did the sequence with that flailing arms monster-thingy at the end, despite there never being any real danger for April Ryan (you just continued going in circles around the table with the Gribbler, and the flailing arms monster never did more than flail its arms at you).

I’m glad someone brought up this example. I felt exactly the opposite about those sequences when I played The Longest Journey (though it is a great game overall). When it became obvious that the Gribbler would always stay on the opposite side of the table from me and especially when I could literally walk right up to the flailing arms monster and have him just flail his arms, it broke the tension of those experiences for me.

LucasArts had a “no deaths” design philosophy which clearly inspired Funcom, but LucasArts also generally took care not to place the player in such situations where it strained credibility that you weren’t actually being harmed. I think The Longest Journey showed that there are limits to the applicability of the “no deaths” design approach, and the sequence with the flailing arm monster in particular needed either to have a better justification for why he doesn’t hurt you (perhaps April automatically ducks and runs out of the way whenever he gets too close*, rather than just the monster flailing his arms and missing for no reason) or it needed to actually have consequences for your getting too close (perhaps April can die in both this and the Gribbler sequence but you can automatically retry).

*April does have a slight recoil animation that sometimes is triggered, so it’s clear the developers were thinking about how to deal with this problem, but the slight recoil animation is not a drastic enough response to make this sequence credible, IMHO. See this video for an example of the recoil.

Mister Ed - 18 September 2013 12:08 PM

Zifnab - 18 September 2013 10:38 AM

I don’t think that’s adrenaline. That’s something else.

Look at it this way. I’m lost in the middle of a desert (think KQV) and if I don’t find water fast I know I’ll die. That creates the adrenaline rush, it helps the body to act. If it’s a Lucasarts game I know I won’t die because that’s what Lucasarts games do. I don’t need the adrenaline because whatever I do I’m going to stay alive. It’s purely biochemical. Admiring the scenery doesn’t call for urgent action, so unless your body is functioning in a strange way it shouldn’t see any need for adrenaline.

If I just saved, I know I’m not going to have any negative consequence from dying, so no adrenaline rush. You are creating a dichotomy which does not exist (at least not in the way you state it), at least not for me.

So in the Sierra game, I’m lost in the desert and know that if I don’t find water, I’ll die. So I save. Now I just look for water and figure if I don’t find it, I’ll have to reload. I’m annoyed, but I’m not getting any kind of adrenaline rush.

In the Lucasarts game, I’m not getting an adrenaline rush, either, but I’m not as annoyed, since I know I can focus on actually solving the puzzle rather than being constantly wrenched out of the action by saving and restoring. As far as I’m concerned, a save function does away with any “immersive fear of death” just as effectively as removing the possibility of death.

The only difference is that it replaces it with annoyance, and breaks immersion FAR, FAR more, IMHO. Nothing reinforces the fact that you are just playing a game more, for me, than the need to constantly save and restore.

Fear and surprise can get adrenaline flowing, and a game CAN inspire a feeling of fear through music, sound, visuals, suspenseful storytelling, etc. even if you know, on some level, that you aren’t going to die. This seems obvious, because people can get those kinds of reactions even when simply watching a movie, where they OBVIOUSLY are in no danger, not even of losing progress…

Well, this is strange. I’m under the illusion that the danger is real despite being able to save, and which you claim is ineffective (and no, it’s not simply about losing progress). And you are under the sway of a fictional media, where the character you are playing or watching is not understood as a mere creation and is apparently real enough to get you emotionally involved. I must admit I don’t see the difference. Both involve an accepting of some sort of illusion. An emotional reaction to a fictional film or game is completely illogical, and so is getting tense when you know you can restore a game in 5 seconds if things go wrong. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we aren’t Vulcans and logic often goes out the window with this kind of stuff.

(Actually, we should go even further. Why sweat anything, danger or story or atmosphere, when you know it’s just a bunch of pixels on a screen? None of it is real. Getting invested in any kind of fiction is ridiculous when you think about it.)

Zifnab - 18 September 2013 04:04 PM

Well, this is strange. I’m under the illusion that the danger is real despite being able to save, and which you claim is ineffective (and no, it’s not simply about losing progress). And you are under the sway of a fictional media, where the character you are playing or watching is not understood as a mere creation and is apparently real enough to get you emotionally involved. I must admit I don’t see the difference. Both involve an accepting of some sort of illusion. An emotional reaction to a fictional film or game is completely illogical, and so is getting tense when you know you can restore a game in 5 seconds if things go wrong. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, we aren’t Vulcans and logic often goes out the window with this kind of stuff.

(Actually, we should go even further. Why sweat anything, danger or story or atmosphere, when you know it’s just a bunch of pixels on a screen? None of it is real. Getting invested in any kind of fiction is ridiculous when you think about it.)

I’m not quite getting your argument, now. I’m arguing that you don’t need the danger of losing progress through a death to get the adrenaline flowing. You seem to be agreeing with that notion in this post by your recognition that logic doesn’t always rule in regards to how we react to something. If knowing you have a 5-second old savegame doesn’t ruin any sense of danger, how does knowing that the game doesn’t have deaths automatically do so? If the situation is presented in such a way that it SEEMS dangerous, you are just as likely to react to that “illogically” whether you know that you just saved, or whether you know that you can’t “really” die.

For me, and I know other experiences may be different, the death with save and restore short curcuits the feeling of danger MORE, because right at the TIME when the “danger” is occurring you have just been FORCED to think about how illusory the danger is by the act of saving your game. Unless the game is poorly designed, the fact that the game doesn’t have death is not forcibly brought to mind in the moment of the immersive experience of seeming danger in the same way that saving and restoring (since it requires deliberate action) does. At least that’s my experience. If I was watching a scary movie, and every time it got to a scary part the movie stopped and required me to press a button before going on, I think I’d be a LOT less likely to have a heart-pounding reaction to whatever came next.

The best of both worlds MIGHT be the sort of auto-restore feature that some games have, where you can die, but you need take no advance action to avoid losing your progress.