What is an adventure game

[Endow]

What do you think defines an adventure game? How broad is YOUR definition of adventure game? How broad is adventuregamers.com's ?

For example : is Tomb Raider an adventure game? Is Tomb Raider without gunfire an adventure game?

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Tomb Raider without fighting could possibly be an adventure game. If she talked her way out of a nasty situation or used an intricate plan. Adventure games are, to me, another form of art, presented in the digital media, in essence similar to a movie or a comic, or even a novel.

[MikaelS]

I never really played Tomb Raiders, but as far as I know there's a lot of climbing, jumping et cetera so even without shooting I'd see it as platform game I think.

Different people have different views, I don't really see hybrids as traditional adventure games and I suppose I'm more 'strict' when it comes to this. I draw line Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy and traditional point & click. Too much non-adventurish stuff and puzzles too simple to count Fahrenheit as traditional adventure game in my opinion.

Not that this all matters to me at all what we call them. :) Just my own personal definition.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Hmm... it's a good point. If URU had included climbing, swinging on ropes, and jumping skillfully from one post to another, I'd call it a platform game as well.

[Endow]

Adventure games are, to me, another form of art, presented in the digital media, in essence similar to a movie or a comic, or even a novel.

Other genres can't be considered art?What about bad adventure games?


As for TR and puzzles in the first one at least there were a lot of clever puzzles.No bashing here but certainly a lot more clever and less far fetched than some of the random stuff you need to do in some point'n'click games out there.I'm looking at you "way to get old man out of the theater so you can get in and meet Cortez in The Loungest Journey".

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Well... the thing is that I've never come across a game that wasn't an adventure game with just as much of an involving storyline. I mean, in general pouring rice is not a form of art, but if you can make a picture out of that poured rice, that's art, but rarely have I seen that done. I'm sorta saying adventure games are a painted canvas, and there's probably some rice patterns in the other genres. Just that in general adventure games are more of an art.

(+2 to anybody who gets the rice reference)

[Endow]

Don't take this as an offensive comment but you really need to explore more games outside the adventure genre. Take Legacy of Kain or Panzer Dragoon Saga as two non adventure games that serve as prime examples of exceptional storytelling topping anything I played as far as adventure genre is concerned.

Even if it's not about the story there are still games like Rez or Okami that can definately be considered art.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Hold on. Who said I only play adventure games? Neverwinter Nights had a pretty good storyline. What I'm trying to say is that adventure games have always been a lot more involving and deeper to me. I mean, I could never imagine myself as a fighter with a huge sword, even if the character was even somewhat like me. Most characters in Adventure Games are a lot more relatable though.

Anyways, the point is that as a genre on the whole, Adventure Games are art. Other genres also have games that are art, but not nearly as many games that can be classified as such.

[Crapstorm]

Adventure games are not defined by the presence of a story. In fact, stories are not even a necessary ingredient for an adventure game. Look at the origins of the genre: Hunt the Wumpus, Colossal Cave, Scott Adams' adventures, Infocom. This is long before the advent of the interactive cartoons of Sierra and Lucasarts.

Adventure games are video games in which the player explores novel places at a leisurely pace and solves a wide variety of riddles, puzzles and tests of ingenuity, which can take almost any form. This can be done in the presence or absence of a detailed narrative.

[Lucien21]

Adventure games have always been Narrative based. Whether it was initally most descriptive it pretty quickly developed into more complicated narrative and stories.

Get inside a Story. Get one from Infocom.

[Endow]

Anyways, the point is that as a genre on the whole, Adventure Games are art. Other genres also have games that are art, but not nearly as many games that can be classified as such.

That's just it. That's debatable. Very debatable in fact. But I supposed everyone's entitled to their opinion.

[Marte]

For me the mainthing that defines an adventuregame for me is the puzzles and riddles who are needed to be solved to continue. To find items, combine them and use only the selected items you can find.

[MoriartyL]

An adventure game is a story, place or situation which is uncovered (rather than created) by the player's interaction.

Tomb Raider is an action platformer. Tomb Raider without its action is a platformer. It's not a story, and its locations aren't particularly interesting taken by themselves. The fun of the game (if you say the game is fun, and I'm not sure it is) is in jumping around from place to place, not in the place itself. That's a platformer.

By the way, whether or not a game is "art" has nothing to do with it. A platformer could be great art no less than an adventure, but it would accomplish that through its controls. An adventure would be great art through its story or setting. Wake me when either of those things happen, will you?

[Endow]

An adventure game is a story, place or situation which is uncovered (rather than created) by the player's interaction.

Tomb Raider is an action platformer. Tomb Raider without its action is a platformer. It's not a story, and its locations aren't particularly interesting taken by themselves. The fun of the game (if you say the game is fun, and I'm not sure it is) is in jumping around from place to place, not in the place itself. That's a platformer.

You haven't played TR1?Yes I found out awesome in the fun department. It's location ARE beautiful if 11 years old. And you DO need to solve puzzles in order to advance. TR is about exploration.

By the way, whether or not a game is "art" has nothing to do with it. A platformer could be great art no less than an adventure, but it would accomplish that through its controls. An adventure would be great art through its story or setting. Wake me when either of those things happen, will you?

That's just it. Adventure games aren't the only ones where story is key. RPGs for example mean nothing without a good story. And I don't personally think a game can be art when only one of it's components excels.

A game is a package. Story, gameplay, sound, level design, characters. Everything matters. What is a boring adventure game with terrific story? No more than a glorified interactive (most of the time in a very linear way with no real branches) movie. Altough I'm a big movie fan that's not why I play games.

[MoriartyL]

You haven't played TR1?Where did you get that idea from? I did believe it was a fun game, until I played it. Now I don't.

That's just it. Adventure games aren't the only ones where story is key. RPGs for example mean nothing without a good story.Again, where are you getting these ideas from? I never said adventures were the only type of game focused on story.
What is a boring adventure game with terrific story?A contradiction in terms is what it is. An adventure game with a terrific story can't be boring unless it's not paying enough attention to that story.

[Endow]

Where did you get that idea from? I did believe it was a fun game, until I played it. Now I don't.
Well as subjective as it is it's locations are great for it's time.

Again, where are you getting these ideas from? I never said adventures were the only type of game focused on story.

What I meant was that RPGs are role-playing games and at face value you'd expect to be able to make decisions and they could be completely incoherent and enable a branch which resulted in a bad story.Good games are the ones whose genre's fortés are in lign with a cohesive and enganging plot.

If you take Half Life 2 for instances, you got yourself a FPS. But the game is great not because of it's shooting mechanics but because of how everything is intertwined. The story blends with the action. Ultimately what I meant was that (using your example) and at least in my opinion a platformer can only be art not when it excels as a platformer but when it excels as a game period. The same goes for all genres.


A contradiction in terms is what it is. An adventure game with a terrific story can't be boring unless it's not paying enough attention to that story.

Well what makes an adventure game a game? Interactivity. Gameplay mechanics. What you actually do. If that part, the interaction isn't fun despite a great narrative you won't have a top class game. It can be awesome as a story but if you struggle with the mechanics and they feel like a chore then it won't be awesome as a game.

I mean if you play an puzzle-centered adventure game with an walkthrough by your side at all times what is there left? The story. You might like it but you haven't really enjoyed the actual game have you?

[MoriartyL]

If you take Half Life 2 for instances, you got yourself a FPS. But the game is great not because of it's shooting mechanics but because of how everything is intertwined. The story blends with the action. Ultimately what I meant was that (using your example) and at least in my opinion a platformer can only be art not when it excels as a platformer but when it excels as a game period. The same goes for all genres.Sure, types of games can do things other than what they're designed for. An adventure game could make for a very nice screensaver, for instance. But if you're making an adventure game, the very first thing you need to ensure is that it works as an adventure game. You want to do more after that, good for you. So let's take Half-Life 2. I haven't played it, but I'm willing to bet that it's got intense action. That's what FPSs are about- intensity. Once it had that, it decided to do more. That's fine. But imagine if it hadn't had the furious action going for it. That's what an adventure without a good story/setting is like.

Well what makes an adventure game a game? Interactivity. Gameplay mechanics. What you actually do.So what? This forum is a forum only because we can write things on it. Doesn't mean writing things, in and of itself, is a worthy goal. It's just the means to an end, which is communicating with people. With that said, certainly if the forum were hard to use it would be bad. But that's only because it being hard to use would impact communication, which is the actual point.

I mean if you play an puzzle-centered adventure game with an walkthrough by your side at all times what is there left? The story. You might like it but you haven't really enjoyed the actual game have you?Sure you have. Unless the story isn't any good, which is much too often the case.

[Endow]

Well I guess you really need to play HL2 to understand what I meant because in the end it's not that action heavy (at least compared with most FPSs).

So what? This forum is a forum only because we can write things on it. Doesn't mean writing things, in and of itself, is a worthy goal. It's just the means to an end, which is communicating with people. With that said, certainly if the forum were hard to use it would be bad. But that's only because it being hard to use would impact communication, which is the actual point.

So what's the difference between watching a movie, reading a book and playing a game all portraying the same story? A game's (even an adventure one) point isn't just to tell a story. If that was it then the whole medium wouldn't have been created in the first place.


Sure you have. Unless the story isn't any good, which is much too often the case.

Where does gameplay feature in all of this for you then?You are saying a game with a good story will always have good gameplay?Now that's just wrong.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Okay, you've only listed about 10 examples of games with story that AREN'T adventure games. For each one I can name 10 games with story that ARE.

Story is often important, but is standardly second to Gameplay in every genre except Adventure and RPG. When comparing the seconds of RPG and Adventure, for an RPG it's gameplay, for an Adventure Game it's immersion. Again, this is my definition of a good game of the genre.

Since I never played Half-life 2, I'm gonna use "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" as an example. The game featured a lot of exploration and a beautiful environment. Even so, let's say we took out the fighting. It would be a dull and lifeless game. The story is great when added to the action, but the action is not added to the story.

Adventure games are about telling a story, an idea, or an emotion, which is my definition of art. A first person shooter is meant to get your adrenaline pumping, and a story is simply added on. Why do you think shooters don't sell as well if there's a lack of multiplayer features? Because they can't stand well without the shooting. That being said, Half-Life 2 is probably an exception to the standard. THAT being said, you cannot claim that FPSs are all about story.

One thing to note is that I never said that only adventure games have story, just that on a whole adventure games have a lot more. Exceptions will obviously occur.

[Endow]

Adventure games are about telling a story, an idea, or an emotion, which is my definition of art. A first person shooter is meant to get your adrenaline pumping, and a story is simply added on. Why do you think shooters don't sell as well if there's a lack of multiplayer features? Because they can't stand well without the shooting. That being said, Half-Life 2 is probably an exception to the standard. THAT being said, you cannot claim that FPSs are all about story.

And I don't. But you can't claim Adventure games are all about story either. I could tell you Adventure games are about making you laugh (judging by the amount of comedy adventure games versus non comedy games) and the actual plot is added to that. A game has to be judged for it's package. You can't take a look at a game such as Halo (whether you like it's story or not) and not notice how the story shaped what scenario would be next and not the other way around.

What I'm saying is they are as much there to entertain as FPSs even at a reflexive level.


As for story being your definition of art : in a way I share your opinion but what about a musical instrumental?Do you not see art in that? It doesn't have to be all cerebral to be imaginative, creative and inspiring. Feelings can be conveyed without narrative or script.

Story is often important, but is standardly second to Gameplay in every genre except Adventure and RPG. When comparing the seconds of RPG and Adventure, for an RPG it's gameplay, for an Adventure Game it's immersion. Again, this is my definition of a good game of the genre.

In an interactive medium what is gameplay if not immersion? More than imagery and sounds the fact that you affect your surroundings is in itself immersion. You are THERE doing things. I don't think gameplay is any less important in Adventure games than in other genres.

[MoriartyL]

Well I guess you really need to play HL2 to understand what I meant because in the end it's not that action heavy (at least compared with most FPSs).But it still works as an action game! It's got interesting twists on the standard formula, no? The action could hold up on its own, can it not?

Now, I was a little hasty before when I said you'd be appreciating an adventure completely with a walkthrough. I was in a rush to get somewhere and didn't take the time to think about what I was saying. The only way to experience a whole game is to play the whole game.

But that's not to say the whole game is equal. I think ShadeJackrabbit understands what I'm saying here. Every type of game has a point to it. The point of an adventure game is to tell stories and other sorts of fiction. (The point of an RPG is similar, and why that is would be a whole 'nother discussion.) The point of an action game is to throw lots of enemies at the player to get their adrenaline pumping. The point of a platformer is to give the player fun ways of moving around.

Everything else in the game has meaning insofar as it helps prop up that main element. (You probably want to point out exceptions, but wait. I'll get to them in a minute.) So a dialogue tree is good because it uncovers the story and the characters and the society. A puzzle is good (theoretically) because it's a natural extension of the story and demonstrates the logic of the fantasy world. Or to put it in terms of a FPS: Realistic graphics are good because violence is more thrilling in a realistic environment. Good AI is vitally important because it directly impacts on how successful the enemies thrown at you are at getting your adrenaline pumping.

After a while, designers decide they want to do more. This is admirable. The makers of Half-Life 2 must have decided they wanted to do more than just get you excited with monsters to fight. So on top of that established foundation, on top of that whole reason for the FPS to exist in the first place, on top of all that, they put a story. For that specific game, the story suddenly became as important as the intensity of the battles, because now story is what's going to help it stand out from all the other action games out there. But the intensity of the battles is still very very important. That's why they're making first-person shooters in the first place. Take away the excitement from the fights, and even an amazing story won't make up for it. Which is why I'm willing to bet that HL2 had exciting fights. (Not necessarily the most exciting there is, but exciting.) If it didn't, there's no way it would have gotten the praise it did.


So what's the difference between watching a movie, reading a book and playing a game all portraying the same story?I know you meant that as a rhetorical question, but there are serious answers: Reading a book lets you imagine the scenario for yourself. Watching a movie is immediately accessible, so it can move at a faster pace. An adventure game lets you control the pacing for yourself, and (at least in theory, though this hasn't been done very well) gives you an inside perspective of the character. An RPG lets you determine some limited direction over the character's progression (or a lot of direction over the story, if it's a D&D sort of thing) and risky decision-making for confrontations. So as you see, each storytelling medium has its own strengths and weaknesses, so none of them are redundant.

Where does gameplay feature in all of this for you then?You are saying a game with a good story will always have good gameplay?I said nothing of the sort! (You must stop putting words in my mouth!) Gameplay in an adventure (like everything else in an adventure) exists for the purpose of telling the story. It is good if it lets the story be told well and in an interesting manner. It is bad if it forces the story to be told poorly or in an uninteresting manner. An adventure game with a great story but bad gameplay -which is to say, gameplay which doesn't let the story shine through- is a bad adventure game. I'm sorry to say I've played very few good adventure games. Phoenix Wright, which I'm playing now, is a great adventure game, and what gameplay it has exists only to service the story. That's good gameplay.

A game's (even an adventure one) point isn't just to tell a story. If that was it then the whole medium wouldn't have been created in the first place.I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Movies were created, weren't they? Novels were created, weren't they? What, you think there's no room for a new storytelling medium in the world? "That's it, what we have is all we can have."?

Or are you saying that no videogame should try to do what can be done similarly otherwise? Well, that's silly too! Should we not have action games because you can go out hunting? Should we not have strategy videogames because you can play board games? Should we not have platformers for fun movement because you could just go dancing? Should we not have computer RPGs because you could play it with a dungeon master? Should we not have puzzle games because you could pick up a Rubik's Cube? Do you think none of these types of videogames should "have been created in the first place"?!

[Endow]

But it still works as an action game! It's got interesting twists on the standard formula, no? The action could hold up on its own, can it not?

Just like Riven's puzzles could hold up on their own without the aid of some journals and a few cutscenes, yes.

I'm sorry, but that's just silly. Movies were created, weren't they? Novels were created, weren't they? What, you think there's no room for a new storytelling medium in the world? "That's it, what we have is all we can have."?

Or are you saying that no videogame should try to do what can be done similarly otherwise? Well, that's silly too! Should we not have action games because you can go out hunting? Should we not have strategy videogames because you can play board games? Should we not have platformers for fun movement because you could just go dancing? Should we not have computer RPGs because you could play it with a dungeon master? Should we not have puzzle games because you could pick up a Rubik's Cube? Do you think none of these types of videogames should "have been created in the first place"?!

You clearly didn't understand what I was implying. Like you said before no medium is redundant and the point of videogames is to add an interacitve layer to the story.

This was directed at your " be appreciating an adventure completely with a walkthrough" reply.If all that matters is the story then the point of it being a game WOULD be redundant since what you did, your interactions, were meaningless. The point of a game is to tell a story in an interactive fashion and my "So what's the difference between watching a movie, reading a book and playing a game all portraying the same story?" comment wasn't really rethorical actually since I wanted to tell me what you felt were the really differences between formats.

Because in the end it's what differentiates them that validates them. A different approach. You are experiencing the story in different ways.

Even when you are choosing which guys to kill in Halo you are playing a story. The cutscenes are just part of the story. The other part is being written by you and that is true for all genres. So what I'm saying is the point of an FPS isn't just killing people just like a point of adventure games isn't just solving puzzles.

All games tell stories. What you guys are describing as the point of each genre is in fact the gameplay ideal that encapsulates the genre.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

First things first, I think I probably know a lot about story. Being a novel-writer, D&D player (classic dice and character sheets), computer-RPGer, Adventure Gamer, FPS player, and action-adventure player, kinda helps out here. First, I'd like to comment on that you say I'm claiming that adventure games tell STORY, but NOT emotion. On the contrary, I said art is something that portrays an idea, story, or emotion. To add to that, I would say: Art is something that portrays an idea, story, or emotion, first and foremost. It is created for the purpose of putting across these feelings. The difference in statements being that even if a game is made to make you laugh, that still is a type of art. Therefor most FPS's are not art by that definition, as adrenaline is a physical part of your body, and not so much an emotion. Platformers are more swinging to art sometimes, like in parts of The Prince of Persia, where the movements are almost like watching an elaborate dance. RPGs and Adventures are the most artistic, as they first and foremost try to put across a story, idea, or emotion.

[MoriartyL]

Just like Riven's puzzles could hold up on their own without the aid of some journals and a few cutscenes, yes.Riven could have worked without its journals, cutscenes, and puzzles, because it's already presenting a strong fiction in its world. It could not have worked, however, if you took away the exploring. This is why I've repeatedly emphasized in this thread that adventures are about stories or places.

And while I'm on the topic: Has anyone here seen 2001: A Space Odyssey? It's a movie, and movies are a storytelling medium. But it doesn't so much tell a story as present a world. Much like Riven! So that gets me to thinking that maybe world-building is the flip side to storytelling. So any fiction medium can be used for either purpose. Most works of fiction go back and forth between the two, I think. But if a game just presents a world, even without a plot, that's fiction in itself. Like 2001.

(Except maybe "fiction" isn't such a good word. If you're building a world, it might be a real place! What word can I use which includes both stories and worlds, but doesn't require that the worlds be fictional?)

But I'll tell you what's not a work of fiction: most games out there. Pong is not fiction. Super Mario Bros. is not fiction. Armadillo Run is not fiction. Chess is not fiction. Basketball is not fiction. Halo is not fiction, even though it's got some fiction splattered on top. (Though this point is arguable.) Guitar Hero is not fiction. These aren't stories or worlds, they're activities. Shooting someone is not a story. Jumping is not a story. Moving units is not a story. You could tell a story with these elements, but that's not what these games are doing. They're just giving you the gameplay elements, and saying "Here. Have fun.". The creator of a first-person shooter doesn't care what order you shoot people in, as long as you have fun shooting. The platformer creator doesn't care how many things you jump over, just so long as you have fun getting from point A to point B. Whoever invented basketball didn't have any preference which teams would win against who. The player's deciding all these things, and from the designer's point of view they're not even important!

So don't go trying to equate adventures to everything else. In an adventure, the only activities you have (with the possible exceptions of minigames and subgames) are there to uncover the pre-written story. It's not the same thing at all as those other kinds of games.



Therefor most FPS's are not art by that definition, as adrenaline is a physical part of your body, and not so much an emotion.I'm no expert on anything, so this is just me guessing… but couldn't you say all emotions are actually chemicals in the body?

[Endow]

Therefor most FPS's are not art by that definition, as adrenaline is a physical part of your body, and not so much an emotion. Platformers are more swinging to art sometimes, like in parts of The Prince of Persia, where the movements are almost like watching an elaborate dance. RPGs and Adventures are the most artistic, as they first and foremost try to put across a story, idea, or emotion.

Like MoriartyL mentioned emotions are all chemical body reactions. The tension of beeing overwhelmed by enemies, the thrill of escaping from a tight situation or killing that one guy that just won't die; these are all emotions. You can't honestly believe a game like, say, Doom III was crafted with no emotions in prespective. The game clearly wants you to be scared and cautious. This is just an example.


MoriartyL : Even if Riven was set in a more realistic scenario, say in some town in the US of A you could still have most of the puzzled present in the game and they would still be fun. So the actual ficitonal world of Riven altough part of the fun isn't needed for the puzzles to shine and give you headaches as well as joy when you solve them. THAT'S gameplay. That is pure adventure game gameplay.

Using one of the examples you gave, Super Mario - that is certainly fiction. A fantasy world with a linear but present story. You need to save the princess.

And Halo is SURELY ficiton. No doubt in that case. I have seen 2001 and I think you'd be hard pressed to compare it with Halo and not see how the latter has a much more developed sense of plot. I mean you start the game and you don't even know what to do. Until some guy tells you the captain wants so to see you and he explains to you the situation.

So don't go trying to equate adventures to everything else. In an adventure, the only activities you have (with the possible exceptions of minigames and subgames) are there to uncover the pre-written story. It's not the same thing at all as those other kinds of games.

Well if I played an adventure game just to experience the story I wouldn't finish half of them. There are puzzles and tasks that one needs to preform/solve. If i need to get bubble gum to give it to a guy so he can give me his hat so I can play frisby with a dog so it gets out of my way so I can enter a door - I think that is as if not more arbitrary as me having to kill a few grunts so I can reach a room where I need to activate some mechanism to open a door on the other side of the complex.

Halo story is pre-written too and unless you go from A to B (you don't even need to kill anyone most of the times) so you can this or that or see him or her you won't experience it either.


Sure shooting in itself is a big part of the fun but if I would start to play every adventure game wanting with a good story in mind I'd be disappointed 90% of the times. The thrill of finding something funny in an adventure game (as cheap as the thrill of accomplishment after melee-killing two elites behind their back) coupled with the fun I have in thinking about the different possibilities when trying to solve a puzzle are a big part of the fun too.

[Merricat]

Comedy arises from context, not the other way around. My husband studied at Second City, so I've spent a lot of time with comedians--the good ones don't "tell jokes," and they certainly don't start with funny and then add story. That's a bit off topic. :)

[sierramindy]

This is an interesting thread, but for me that one line definition of an adventure game right at the beginning by MoriarityL is what spoke to me the most. "An adventure game is a story, place, or situation which is uncovered (rather than created) by the player's interaction." For me "uncovered" is the key word, because that is why I play adventure games. Curiosity is what moves me to play and when my action uncovers something interesting in the game it satisfies that curiosity in a way I can't really explain. This is why I prefer third person games because there is that curiosity as to what the character will do, see, uncover! First person games like Myst bore me as I'm not curious enough about finding out how a mechanical puzzle works. That takes remembering how moving something here makes something else happen there, and since nothing happens until all the mechanics are in place, I find I have lost all interest in the process.

[MoriartyL]

MoriartyL : Even if Riven was set in a more realistic scenario, say in some town in the US of A you could still have most of the puzzled present in the game and they would still be fun. So the actual ficitonal world of Riven altough part of the fun isn't needed for the puzzles to shine and give you headaches as well as joy when you solve them. THAT'S gameplay. That is pure adventure game gameplay.No, what you're describing is pure puzzle game gameplay, which just happens to be stuffed into two completely different adventure games. The puzzles in Riven are all at the end of the game and hardly the most important part of the experience.Well if I played an adventure game just to experience the story I wouldn't finish half of them. There are puzzles and tasks that one needs to preform/solve. If i need to get bubble gum to give it to a guy so he can give me his hat so I can play frisby with a dog so it gets out of my way so I can enter a door - I think that is as if not more arbitrary as me having to kill a few grunts so I can reach a room where I need to activate some mechanism to open a door on the other side of the complex.It surely is. But it's still sort of like pre-written fiction. The solution is there all along, you're just trying to uncover it. It's not like the game just drops you in the middle of a bunch of rules and says "Here. Have fun.". The player isn't just fooling around with controls. It's got a very specific continuation that you've got to find. So while I don't condone putting many puzzles in adventure games, I can almost see a logic to it.Halo story is pre-written too and unless you go from A to B (you don't even need to kill anyone most of the times) so you can this or that or see him or her you won't experience it either.The story is a bunch of cutscenes that interrupt the shooting. The shooting, not the cutscenes, are the defining part of the game.
Sure shooting in itself is a big part of the fun but if I would start to play every adventure game [wanting a good story] I'd be disappointed 90% of the times.I am disappointed 90% of the time. I've never made any secret of that.

Using one of the examples you gave, Super Mario - that is certainly fiction. A fantasy world with a linear but present story. You need to save the princess.Super Mario Bros. has fiction. That doesn't mean Super Mario Bros. is fiction. (It's not.) Super Mario Bros. is a platformer. It consists of controls and places to use them. It centers around activities which have absolutely no connection to the concept of fiction. Then they decided they'd like an excuse for all of it, so they attached a plot with Scotch tape. Saving the princess is not what the game is about, it's not what the game is, it's not what the game is trying to be. It's just an excuse. If the game, as a whole, were an extension of the plot (like adventures are extensions of their stories/settings), then you could validly say that it was a work of fiction. But the plot is almost totally irrelevant to the game. Super Mario Bros. is not a work of fiction.

And Halo is SURELY ficiton. No doubt in that case. I have seen 2001 and I think you'd be hard pressed to compare it with Halo and not see how the latter has a much more developed sense of plot. I mean you start the game and you don't even know what to do. Until some guy tells you the captain wants so to see you and he explains to you the situation. Of course Halo has a clearer plot. I specifically used 2001 to show an example of fiction which is not plot-based, so what on Earth do you think you're proving by the comparison?! But the plot was added on top. Halo is not about a story, it's not an extension of a story, it doesn't exist for its story, it's a gameplay-driven first-person shooter about shooting aliens. You aim, and you shoot, and that is what the game is. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of fiction. The story is just added on. It is separate from the core of the game. If you play multiplayer Halo, there's no fiction involved, and you're still experiencing Halo. That's because Halo is not fiction. Now can we please move on?