What is an adventure game?

[Jake]

Hi again it's your old friend.

I was having a discussion with Walter of Ludonauts (http://www.ludonauts.com) the other day and I pointed out that out of all genres in gaming, adventure games are the only one in which the story and the gameplay are basically literally the same thing. I mean, in a very strong way, an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story."

In my eyes that is the one true facet that sets Adventure Games as a genre apart from the other genres of gaming, so including anything else in a definition is probably superfluous.

Think about the primary goals in other games... In RPG's you level up, clear "dungeons," fight monsters. In FPS and 3rd person action games your goal is to kill monsters, get weapons, and get to the next map. Same with platformers. In RTS's you conquer other armies, nations, planets, or other opposing forces. In a puzzle game your job is, not surprisingly, to solve the puzzles. Etc. In modern incarnations of these genres, story is often present, but it's bolted on as an afterthought to the above primary goals, or as a reward for completing them.

In adventure games this isn't the case. Your goal as a player is to see the story all the way through.

I know that's a pretty wide open definition of adventure games (especially considering it doesn't include the word "puzzle"), but after I said it to Walter I realized that it's at least my personal definition of what an adventure game is.

Think about it. Think about video game cutscenes - you know, full motion video sequences - the non-interactive bits in a game. In every genre except adventure games, the story parts are told in cutscene. They are the parts the player doesn't deal with. In adventure games, the story parts are the only things not in cutscenes. For instance, in traditional old school* adventures, whenever a player fires a gun, gets in a fight, even when the main character has to jump, the cutscenes take over. The parts that the player plays in an adventure game are the story bits.

Anyway, I just wondered what anyone else happened to think about that very simple definition.

I think the fact that I hold that definition is why I am more tolerant than many when it comes to adding other types of gameplay to "adventure games." As long as the new gameplay is there to enhance my ability to play the story, I'm all for it. For instance the fighting in Dreamfall - it's not designed to change the players motivation from "complete the story" to "win 30 fights" - it's there because within the story, Zoe gets in a fight.

For the record, the recent realization that I've probably held that definition of "adventure game" in my head ever since I first played one almost surely explains why I have almost always considered Myst a puzzle game. In Myst the puzzles are the gameplay, and the story is a slowly doled out reward for completing said gameplay.

* Modern adventure game desigers are now occasionally allowing the player to do things like jump and fire weapons since they've finally found ways of doing it without the game suddenly turning into a platformer or shooter, and I do include that sort of thing in my definition of adventure games (shooting a gun or getting into a fight for story purposes, not for the sole purpose of shooting and fighting), but I think the point I'm trying to make is clearer if for examples we discuss old school games where the distinction is far more obvious.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

It is ultimately not the definition (whatever that may be), but in actually how it is defined - by us and by the industry and the media. Jack Allin, Editor-in-Chief of AdventureGamers.com, and adventure game writer and reviewer, tactfully pointed out that he "...prefer[s] to use the word 'description' rather than 'definition'. The former is used to explain what IS, and the latter is too often used to demand what MUST be." This makes good sense, because it places the emphasis on the genre's behavior rather than the 'categorically correct' perimeters within which it is expected to stay, allowing for some flexibility. But what happens when an adventure game begins to behave differently than usual yet still moves within those perimeters? Is it still an adventure game? Or can we now expand or modify whatever that 'description' or 'definition' is to encompass this seeming mutant? ...

I propose the idea of abstraction. That's right, the good old technique of blurring the lines, making it fuzzy while retaining the essence. How so? Back to the charming Jack Allin:

"By 'description', I just mean 'a definition based on what we've seen SO FAR'. But not 'a definition for the way it MUST be forever and ever, amen.' It's just semantics, but I'm just trying to allow for the possibility that the genre will continue to expand in ways that push the boundaries of how we understand the term today."

See how painless that was?

And here is my own 'description': "An adventure game is a game in which first and foremost contains: a very strong and coherent story or narrative structure, sharply developed characterization (of people, places, and/or things), a clearly defined set of goals, challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning, and elements of exploration and discovery." Of course, that could mean practically any game. But, the trick is to throw in a bit of Jack's insight, basing all this on "...what we've seen so far.." , and on Evan's (*ahem*, Justice Potter Stewart's) wisdom of "...know[ing] it when I see it...". And voila! What we end up with is, um…….a mutt, but a very nice cuddly one - structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself. And if you were paying attention, nowhere in this amalgamated 'definition' can be found ridiculous sentiments like '2D backgrounds only', or 'point-&-click only', or 'egregiously stuck-up over-intellectualized' puzzles.

The Cold Hotspot (http://www.adventuredevelopers.com/featuredetail.php?action=view&featureid=31&showpage=1), AdventureDevelopers.com

[Jake]

Thanks Trep, I read it before. Great article.

So...

[fov]

I mean, in a very strong way, an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story."

I can go with this. And similar to what you said about Myst, this definition is probably the reason I consider games like Tender Loving Care and Shadow of Destiny to be AGs, no question, even though others call them interactive movies and complain about their lack of puzzles.

-emily

[qrious]

And here is my own 'description': "An adventure game is a game in which first and foremost contains: a very strong and coherent story or narrative structure, sharply developed characterization (of people, places, and/or things), a clearly defined set of goals, challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning, and elements of exploration and discovery." Of course, that could mean practically any game. But, the trick is to throw in a bit of Jack's insight, basing all this on "...what we've seen so far.." , and on Evan's (*ahem*, Justice Potter Stewart's) wisdom of "...know[ing] it when I see it...". And voila! What we end up with is, um…….a mutt, but a very nice cuddly one - structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself. And if you were paying attention, nowhere in this amalgamated 'definition' can be found ridiculous sentiments like '2D backgrounds only', or 'point-&-click only', or 'egregiously stuck-up over-intellectualized' puzzles.

couldnt agree more

[Manhunter71]

Just to be awkward - don't you think that, as a general concept, all games are really adventure games?

Think about it - pretty much every single game you play has some kind of storyline , and the objective is to play out the story until the end :D

[Intrepid Homoludens]

http://www.thetoque.com/031202/pics/pong.jpg

Once upon a time there were there two white paddles, a dividing line, and a small white square that kept bouncing all around. The two paddles then decided that they should slap that white square back and forth to each other....

[Jake]

Just to be awkward - don't you think that, as a general concept, all games are really adventure games?

Think about it - pretty much every single game you play has some kind of storyline , and the objective is to play out the story until the end :D

Just to be awkward, no I don't agree with you. :D When someone asks you what you're doing when you're playing Mario Bros you say "I'm trying to get past this level" or "I'm trying to kill this guy." When playing a Mario game you don't say "I've defeated the overlords of four different lands on my quest to save the princess - the last guy turned the king into a snake, and I had to get his wand from him to turn the king back to his original form so he could tell me where next to go on my journey." (or see Trep's pong example for a slightly more extreme version :D)

My very limited definition does get blurry when you start talking about something like Half Life, because I think for some players their motivation in Half Life really is to get to the next part of the story. But, on the other hand, for probably most people the story is a "cool thing" in there, but what is more cool is how efficiently they can dispatch all the monsters the game throws at you, and how much armor, health, and weaponry they can build up before confronting a boss. For Half Life, when I play it, both of those motivations are going on in my head at once. Maybe for me and my definition Half Life is a "hybrid game?"

[fov]

Think about it - pretty much every single game you play has some kind of storyline , and the objective is to play out the story until the end :D

Should I get into the difference between an anecdote and a story again? ;)

To answer your question - no, not every game has a story. Many games don't even have ends.

-emily

[Moron Lite]

Dammit, Jake, you have completely forgotten about how story is irrelevent or is dictated by player actions, or about high global agency, etc.!:pan:

[Manhunter71]

Trep's Pong example is very extreme and I suppose you can also most exclude sports games as well. :)

But, think about all the other games available - the majority of platform games all have an underlying story : Ratchet & Clank, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Sly:Thievius Racoonus ; the list is endless.....

Most FPS games have a storyline : HL/HL2, Deus Ex, Medal of Honour, Call of Duty, Doom, Project IGI, NOLF, Splinter Cell, Halo - another seemingly endless list......

RPGs : NWN, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Planescape:Torment, Anachronox, Vampire The Masquerade........

If you think about it, surely all these games can be classed as adventure games - they all involve a main character who has an objective to complete, and this is portrayed through gameplay and cutscenes :D


Disagree with me if you dare :devil:

[Jake]

Oh god, hey Walter. I never realized you were moron lite. I'm sure people have told me that a few times. Scared me.

[Jake]

Trep's Pong example is very extreme and I suppose you can also most exclude sports games as well. :)

But, think about all the other games available - the majority of platform games all have an underlying story : Ratchet & Clank, Spyro, Crash Bandicoot, Sly:Thievius Racoonus ; the list is endless.....

Most FPS games have a storyline : HL/HL2, Deus Ex, Medal of Honour, Call of Duty, Doom, Project IGI, NOLF, Splinter Cell, Halo - another seemingly endless list......

RPGs : NWN, Diablo, Baldur's Gate, Planescape:Torment, Anachronox, Vampire The Masquerade........

If you think about it, surely all these games can be classed as adventure games - they all involve a main character who has an objective to complete, and this is portrayed through gameplay and cutscenes :D


Disagree with me if you dare :devil:

You're repeating the same thing over and over, and continuing to miss my point. The story isn't "underlying," it's "bolted onto the top of another gameplay mechanic." I really don't know what else to say. I think you should re-read the fourth paragraph of my first post again.


Well, I will say that I think adventure gamers (by which I mostly mean people who were possibly raised on adventure games or primarily play adventure games) get a slightly different experience than most gamers out of the stories in action/platformer/rts type games - I think they probably do play them for the story a bit more on average than some other gamers. That doesn't change what I'm saying though. The story in Spyro is still bolted on top of a sort of hopping/flying platformer gameplay, your goal is still to get to the end of a level and then see a little movie.

[fov]

There was a lot of talk at GDC this year about story being injected into other genres. Apparently devs from all other genres are looking for ways to squeeze story into their games (or at least, that's what the speakers would have us believe). But just because it's (apparently) being done more now than ever before doesn't turn games from other genres into adventure games.

For example, in an FPS the story is not the main point -- shooting people is. You're limited in what type of story you can tell, because the story has to involve shooting lots of people. It's a game whose primary goal is to shoot people... that happens to have a story that explains why you're shooting them. That's not the same as a game whose primary goal is to tell a story.

A well-told story (be it in a game, movie, book, whatever) does not have random elements. Everything that happens in a good story relates back to the primary arc, develops the characters, and drives the story forward. So a game that does have random elements -- whether they're Nazis, or monsters, or whatever else -- is not focusing on story, but on something else (like killing / escaping from Nazis, or monsters, or whatever).

-emily

ps But this is not a thread about story in games, it's a thread about what an adventure game IS. Okay, Manhunter, you disagree with Jake's definition of adventure game. What's yours, then?

[Jake]

There was a lot of talk at GDC this year about story being injected into other genres. Apparently devs from all other genres are looking for ways to squeeze story into their games (or at least, that's what the speakers would have us believe). But just because it's being done more now than ever (apparently) before doesn't turn games from other genres into adventure games.

For example, in an FPS the story is not the main point -- shooting people is. You're limited in what type of story you can tell, because the story has to involve shooting lots of people. It's a game whose primary goal is to shoot people... that happens to have a story that explains why you're shooting them. That's not the same as a game whose primary goal is to tell a story.

-emily

Exactly!

It was a lot of the talks at GDC that made me sort of come to this definition of adventure games. You can squeeze all the story you want into your FPS game, but it's still not about the story, it's about first person shooting. I think that's what makes an adventure game an adventure game.

If you start with an adventure game ("the genre where the story is the game") and then add in shooting, it's still about the story, the story just happens to involve firing a gun at something along the way.

There is a very distinct difference between the two, but I guess it's still sort of subtle.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

In the case of a FPS whatever story is being told, no matter how integral, serves to provide context to the action (shooting, killing, surviving one level after another). It simply makes the entire experience a bit more interesting, it helps deepen the world you're in, adding to the immersion and hence the enjoyment.

Historically, in a 'typical' adventure it's the story that serves as the nucleus, the primary motivation for players to forge ahead. Whatever else happens to be implemented - interactive items, conversations, puzzles - serves this.

[Jake]

In the case of a FPS whatever story is being told, no matter how integral, serves to provide context to the action (shooting, killing, surviving one level after another). It simply makes the entire experience a bit more interesting, it helps deepen the world you're in, adding to the immersion and hence the enjoyment.

Historically, in a 'typical' adventure it's the story that serves as the nucleus, the primary motivation for players to forge ahead. Whatever else happens to be implemented - interactive items, conversations, puzzles - serves this.

Wooooo!!!!

[Manhunter71]

Sorry guys - whilst I may not agree with all my points, I am trying to play Devil's advocate here :D

The title "adventure game" fits a very wide criteria, and I stand by my reasoning that any game with a story (no matter how small) is an adventure game of sorts - you take on the role of the lead character and play the game until the stoyline is resolved :D

In the end, it all comes down to personal preference.

[Jake]

Fine by me if that's what you think, then :) I thought you were trying to get me to change my mind or something unreasonable like that!! Ridiculous thinking of course :) Even with broad definitions in the mix, in my book (and not to sound too much like like a particular banned curmudgeon here) there is still a distinct difference between a game that contains an adventure, and an Adventure Game.

[SoccerDude28]

I don't think story is enough to define an adventure game.

Okay so in the broadest sense there is no adventure without a story, so that means that story is a universal element of every adventure in existance. But just coz every human being has legs, doesn't mean that animals or chairs are human being because they have legs. There is more to what define humans than their legs. They have 2 legs, they have a brain, they have 2 arms, they have 5 fingers on each arm, much less hair on their body. Now you are defining a human being more accurately. Every adventure game that I can think of has puzzles (in the traditional sense). So story and puzzles. Now we are getting somewhere. See what I mean? Story by itself cannot define an adventure game, because it encompasses a whole plethora of other genres.

[AFGNCAAP]

Sorry guys - whilst I may not agree with all my points, I am trying to play Devil's advocate here :D

The title "adventure game" fits a very wide criteria, and I stand by my reasoning that any game with a story (no matter how small) is an adventure game of sorts - you take on the role of the lead character and play the game until the stoyline is resolved :D

In the end, it all comes down to personal preference.
But nobody is claiming that "taking on the role of the lead character and playing the game until the storyline is resolved" is something typical to the adventure genre! By the same token, you could argue that every movie that tells fictional story is of fantasy genre "of sorts", but that wouldn't refer to any sensible definition of fantasy!

(Not to mention that in case of most puzzle, strategy, sports and racing games the term "player character" doesn't even apply, so that makes your point even less valid)

[Manhunter71]

Hehe :D
I'd never try to force anyone to chnage their opinion - I admit, there is a difference, but I was really only speaking in the very broadest definitions :D :D

[AFGNCAAP]

I don't think story is enough to define an adventure game.

Okay so in the broadest sense there is no adventure without a story, so that means that story is a universal element of every adventure in existance. But just coz every human being has legs, doesn't mean that animals or chairs are human being because they have legs. Every adventure game that I can think of has puzzles (in the traditional sense). So story and puzzles. Now we are getting somewhere. See what I mean? Story by itself cannot define an adventure game, because it encompasses a whole plethora of other genres.
I think you also missed Jake's point about how story relates to the gameplay.

I'm not sure yet whether I agree with him, myself (this will have to wait upon morning comes and my mind is fresh), but he never said that that Adventure is a game that merely has a story.

[Jake]

Story by itself cannot define an adventure game, because it encompasses a whole plethora of other genres.

Name another genre in which completion of the story is universally the primary gameplay goal.


Also, re-read AFGNCAAP's post and pretend I said it too :)

[SoccerDude28]

I think you also missed Jake's point about how story relates to the gameplay.

I'm not sure yet whether I agree with him, myself (this will have to wait upon morning comes and my mind is fresh), but he never said that that Adventure is a game that merely has a story.
Well the story is the driving force that makes you want to play the game right? But where does that put a game like Metal gear solid. I really hate stealth games, but I just want to find out what happens next. Actually if I can skip all the stealth all together it would be great. So is that an adventure?

[Jake]

Well the story is the driving force that makes you want to play the game right? But where does that put a game like Metal gear solid. I really hate stealth games, but I just want to find out what happens next. Actually if I can skip all the stealth all together it would be great. So is that an adventure?


I don't know. As I said with the Half Life example, maybe it's a hybrid? Maybe it's not though, and you just happen to like the story its telling :) Maybe what that really means is that for you the story of MGS would be better suited for another medium (film?) and not games.

I haven't played much MGS but from what little I have seen and played, it seems to me that while MGS does have a compelling story, and while the story of MGS was developed along with the gameplay, MGS still has stealth gaming as its principal thing, and has story added on top of that. So, though I haven't played it much, I personally wouldn't say it's an adventure game. I would say it's a stealth/action game with a compelling novel story.

[SoccerDude28]

Name another genre in which completion of the story is universally the primary gameplay goal.

Agreed it works universally as a genre, since you are bound to find a game in any other genre that doesn't have the story. But let's say I'm a lay man, never played a game before, and you give me a game with a very rich story, and story is the main element of the gameplay. Based on your definition, this game will be an adventure.

[Jake]

Agreed it works universally as a genre, since you are bound to find a game in any other genre that doesn't have the story. But let's say I'm a lay man, never played a game before, and you give me a game with a very rich story, and story is the main element of the gameplay. Based on your definition, this game will be an adventure.

Right. To me it sounds like I just handed you an adventure game.

Considering you're the one who made up this hypothetical situation, out of curiosity what game did I just hand you, if it isn't an adventure game?

[SoccerDude28]

Right. To me it sounds like I just handed you an adventure game.

Considering you're the one who made up this hypothetical situation, out of curiosity what game did I just hand you, if it isn't an adventure game?
Knights of the old republic?

[JoeX111]

Name another genre in which completion of the story is universally the primary gameplay goal.

Japanese RPGs?

[SoccerDude28]

Okay how about puzzles? Is there an adventure game that exists that doesn't have puzzles as a gameplay element?

[AFGNCAAP]

Knights of the old republic?
Um... But isn't KOTOR almost unanimously considered one of the most adventure-y Role Playing Games out there? (Perhaps of the very same reason why you thought of it as an example?)

[Jake]

Knights of the old republic?

Japanese RPGs?

I think in that hypothetical situation I was lying to you if I told you the story was the main point of RPGs. Hell, I'd probably be lying to you if I told you roleplaying was the main point of RPGs.

That said, I will agree with you both that storytelling is way more intrinsically tied to RPGs than other genres. RPGs still seem more about stat management and overcoming monsters than the overall story to me though. Story in RPGs still seems like the reward for leveling up and beating monsters.

That said I'm starting to lose focus of what I'm trying to say - it's no longer coming out as coherently in print as it is in my head - so I'm going to give this thread and the forums a rest a bit :)

[Jake]

Okay how about puzzles? Is there an adventure game that exists that doesn't have puzzles as a gameplay element?


Puzzles aren't exclusive to adventure games though. A lot of games have inventory puzzles - in a way "you can only use the plasma gun to shoot the boss, and only in his left eye when it's open, and it only opens if you shoot his minion first" is an inventory/slider puzzle, albeit a very simple one. A lot of games have puzzles even more directly reminiscent of adventure puzzles than that. Puzzles aren't a defining factor of adventure games. "A game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story" or "Your goal as a player is to see the story all the way through" or "the genre where the story is the game" or whatever I said when I was thinking straight is unique to adventure games. That's why I think it's the only thing you really need in your definition. I bet you could conceivably, theoretically, make an adventure game with no traditional "puzzle" puzzles.


I'm starting to ramble worthlessly though, as you can see, so I'm gone for real, for a bit :)

[Aj_]

Adventures can have bolted on stories as much as any other genre, and a game from any genre can be story driven. There is a problem if you use story (how much interaction there is with the story) and gameplay to define a genre, you can only use one or the other, and I do feel there is a need to highlight what some adventures have done in terms of interactive stories.

While some games have levels, some adventures have chapters, scenes, locations...

[Jake]

here is a problem if you use story (how much interaction there is with the story) and gameplay to define a genre, you can only use one or the other, and I do feel there is a need to highlight what some adventures have done in terms of interactive stories.

Can you clarify what you were saying here (especially the part I bolded...). I don't entirely follow what you're getting at, but I want to!

some adventures have chapters, scenes, locations...

So do books, films, comics, all of which are primarily story-driven media. What does dividing it up have to do with anything?

[Manhunter71]

Okay how about puzzles? Is there an adventure game that exists that doesn't have puzzles as a gameplay element?


I don't think there is, but maybe that's due to our misguided preconceptions of what an adventure game should entail?


If I was asked, I would never class Metal Gear or Spyro as adventure games; but they both include major adventure ingredients!

Who's wrong? Who's right?

I really don't think there is any simple solution to this problem - I think we should all agree to disagree :D :D

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Okay how about puzzles? Is there an adventure game that exists that doesn't have puzzles as a gameplay element?

What is a puzzle, then?

[Jake]

What is a puzzle, then?


Don't hijack my thread! This is "what is an adventure game?" !! :)



I want to say that I think the reason a lot of adventure games have "puzzles" is because the type of puzzles used in adventure games (digging through dialogue trees, giving and taking objects from people) are the sorts of gameplay devices that most immediately lend themselves to help you tell a story as a game designer - but that while that may be the case, the mere presence of those sorts of puzzle devices don't by definition make the game an adventure game...

but I don't really know how to say that in a way that sounds remotely relevent or sensical...

[Fienepien]

Okay how about puzzles? Is there an adventure game that exists that doesn't have puzzles as a gameplay element?

Yes.

The Dark Eye had no puzzles. Creepy, creepy game. Based on 3 Poe stories. You play both the murderer and the victim.

Bad Day on the Midway had no puzzles. You trie to stay alive while jumping from person to person.

There are others. It could be argued that they're not adventures, but I wouldn't want to call them interactive movies. I'd like movies to move, if you know what I mean. They're not RPGs either.

PS: Did I really write "trie"?

[Jake]

Yes.

The Dark Eye had no puzzles. Creepy, creepy game. Based on 3 Poe stories. You play both the murderer and the victim.

Bad Day on the Midway had no puzzles. You trie to stay alive while jumping from person to person.

There are others. It could be argued that they're not adventures, but I wouldn't want to call them interactive movies. I'd like movies to move, if you know what I mean. They're not RPGs either.

Woooooooooh!!!!

[JoeX111]

That said, I will agree with you both that storytelling is way more intrinsically tied to RPGs than other genres. RPGs still seem more about stat management and overcoming monsters than the overall story to me though. Story in RPGs still seems like the reward for leveling up and beating monsters.:)

I'll disagree with this. Stat management is more tied to what people tend to call "American RPGs", such as Fallout and the Neverwinter Nights games. "Japanese RPGs" are fully flesh stories where fighting is the thing a player must pass through in order to further the plot. Typically, there is nothing to be gained from the fighting other than gaining more things to fight with. That kind of progression isn't very fullfilling for a player, as RPG fighting tends to be rather bland (not always, but often.). Finding out more and more what happens in the story is what keeps a player into these games, just like with an Adventure game.

[Jake]

Finding out more and more what happens in the story is what keeps a player into these games, just like with an Adventure game.

That isn't why I played Dragon Warrior 1...

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Don't forget, many RPGs not only reward you with more story on completion of combat and quests, but also more goodies (weapons, etc.) and experience points to spend on levelling up.

[fov]

Name another genre in which completion of the story is universally the primary gameplay goal.

Japanese RPGs?


Almost. But take my experience with Final Fantasy 8 (which was my first RPG, other than Quest for Glory which doesn't count). I didn't want to fight. I ran away from fights, not caring that it brought my skills down. I turned on the "fight half" and "fight none" (or whatever they were called) abilities on my GFs so I wouldn't run into any random monsters. I got through that game with as much focus on story and as little on fighting as I could. (And I ignored the items and card game altogether!)

What happened? Got to almost the very end... and I could not finish the game because my characters were too weak to beat the sorceress. What I had to do was run around for DAYS, fighting, to level up my party, so I could finally win the final boss fight and progress to the end of the game/story.

So while it may have a very strong emphasis on story, this game does not have story as its primary focus. If it did, I would have been able to reach the end without going through all that combat and leveling up. Granted, I almost got there focusing on story only -- but the fact that I couldn't get all the way to the end like that kind of negates the rest of the experience. (I subsequently replayed, focusing much more on combat and on the card game, and it enhanced the experience because there were neat things to try and weapons to upgrade, but it didn't change the story at all.)

This is what I'm looking forward to in Dreamfall (assuming it plays like the reports so far make it sound like it plays) - a game where you can reach the end thru combat if you choose to, or by other means if combat isn't for you.

-emily

[Fienepien]

Woooooooooh!!!!

Eh... you've lost me. Do you agree that they're adventures or would you call them something else?

[Jake]

I think you also missed Jake's point about how story relates to the gameplay.

Argh thank you again for saying this as it's the thread that I keep losing. In an adventure game, you don't fight monsters over and over again to uncover parts of the story. The way you uncover parts of the story in an adventure game is by directly seeking to uncover them. You don't fight monsters until you can fight a big enough monster that more cutscene plays that shows characters look behind a curtain to find some hidden secret, or shows your character enter a room and have a conversation - in an adventure game as the player you move the curtain aside and examine the hidden secret, as the player you walk into the room yourself, and you initiate the conversation and its flow. The story and the gameplay are really one.


Eh... you've lost me. Do you agree that they're adventures or would you call them something else?


It was a resounding wail meant to imply "you're awesome," or at least what you said was! ;) I agree.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

He agrees, Fien. :)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

The story and the gameplay are really one.

Far, FAR more so now with Dreamfall and Indigo Prophecy on the horizon. :D

[Jake]

Far, FAR more so now with Dreamfall and Indigo Prophecy on the horizon. :D

I wouldn't say that exactly! (though I know what you're getting at and I think we're generally in agreement) I would say that Dreamfall and Indigo Prophecy are introducing more traditional "gamey" gameplay into the storytelling process, but I don't think much has intrinsically changed between Dreamfall and TLJ. I think that's how Ragnar sees it too, which is why he gets all flustered/confused/frustrated whenever there's serious backlash in his blog.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I wouldn't say that exactly! (though I know what you're getting at and I think we're generally in agreement) I would say that Dreamfall and Indigo Prophecy are introducing more traditional "gamey" gameplay into the storytelling process, but I don't think much has intrinsically changed between Dreamfall and TLJ.

Could you explain further?

[AFGNCAAP]

Jake, I think you should emphasize a part of your original post like this:
Think about the primary goals in other games (...) In modern incarnations of these genres, story is often present, but it's bolted on as an afterthought to the above primary goals, or as a reward for completing them.
..to make your point more clear to some. ;)

[JoeX111]

Almost. But take my experience with Final Fantasy 8 (which was my first RPG, other than Quest for Glory which doesn't count). I didn't want to fight. I ran away from fights, not caring that it brought my skills down. I turned on the "fight half" and "fight none" (or whatever they were called) abilities on my GFs so I wouldn't run into any random monsters. I got through that game with as much focus on story and as little on fighting as I could. (And I ignored the items and card game altogether!)

What happened? Got to almost the very end... and I could not finish the game because my characters were too weak to beat the sorceress. What I had to do was run around the castle for DAYS, fighting, to level up my party, so I could finally win the final boss fight and progress to the end of the game/story.

So while it may have a very strong emphasis on story, this game does not have story as its primary focus. If it did, I would have been able to reach the end without going through all that combat and leveling up. Granted, I almost got there focusing on story only -- but the fact that I couldn't get all the way to the end like that kind of negates the rest of the experience. (I subsequently replayed, focusing much more on combat and on the card game, and it enhanced the experience because there were neat things to try and weapons to upgrade, but it didn't change the story at all.)

This is what I'm looking forward to in Dreamfall (assuming it plays like the reports so far make it sound like it plays) - a game where you can reach the end thru combat if you choose to, or by other means if combat isn't for you.

-emily

I agree with the points everyone is making about this, but I'm still going to be fussy about it for a minute or two more.

The quote I was responding to was "Name another genre in which completion of the story is universally the primary gameplay goal." Fov, in your response to what I said, you talk about how you played most all the way through Final Fantasy 8 simply because of the story, to the point where you got to the end of it but could not complete it because you needed to be at a certain level. Just based on that, you could argue that the fighting is not a "primary gameplay goal". It wasn't for you when you played it, certainly. However, it was a necessary element to overcome in order to beat the game. It isn't that much different from the motorcycle combat in Full Throttle. While the fighting in both games are NOWHERE near on the same level as far as amounts in-game, it was still necessary in order for you to complete the story, just as it was for you in Final Fantasy 8.

I think the problem with this thread is the concept of the "primary gameplay goal" itself. That is an entirely subjective thing, as Jake pointed out with his Dragon Warrior comment. Are we talking about a gameplay goal from the developers point of view or from the players? Are we talking about the point of view each of us individually has, or the point of view of the hypothetical typical gamer?

[Jake]

Could you explain further?

The things Ragnar choses to throw in your way, be it punching a receptionist or picking up a cymbal monkey named Guybrush, don't change the fact that as a player you're trying to work your way through a story.

[Jake]

I think the problem with this thread is the concept of the "primary gameplay goal" itself. That is an entirely subjective thing, as Jake pointed out with his Dragon Warrior comment. Are we talking about a gameplay goal from the developers point of view or from the players? Are we talking about the point of view each of us individually has, or the point of view of the hypothetical typical gamer?

It is super sloppy, and I'm sorry about that (especially my little "name another game where completing the story is the main motivation" question)! Though, really, that's why I made this thread: I'm trying to tighten up what I'm trying to say through discussing it with people. :)

That said, I think I did finally say what I meant more clearly in post 47.

[fov]

Fov, in your response to what I said, you talk about how you played most all the way through Final Fantasy 8 simply because of the story, to the point where you got to the end of it but could not complete it because you needed to be at a certain level. Just based on that, you could argue that the fighting is not a "primary gameplay goal".

Or you could argue that beating the bosses is the primary gameplay goal, and story is a nice reward that tides you over between boss fights. ;)

It isn't that much different from the motorcycle combat in Full Throttle. While the fighting in both games are NOWHERE near on the same level as far as amounts in-game, it was still necessary in order for you to complete the story, just as it was for you in Final Fantasy 8.

I've not played Full Throttle (ducks from Jake's frying pan) but I have played enough other AGs with arcade sequences to understand what you mean. But maybe for me it's the amount of fighting involved. If the story to fighting ratio is 60/40 I'll call it an adventure... if it's 40/60 I won't. (Or something like that. Those aren't really the numbers I'd pick.)

You'll notice I said I played Quest for Glory but didn't consider it my first RPG... that's because when I played it I had no idea it wasn't an adventure. I thought it was an adventure with fighting in it (and actually found that to be pretty cool). *D

I think the problem with this thread is the concept of the "primary gameplay goal" itself. That is an entirely subjective thing, as Jake pointed out with his Dragon Warrior comment.

It is subjective, and maybe that's why we all have such a hard time agreeing on the definition. The primary gameplay goal depends on the player, of course. One could play FF8 with the primary goal of learning and playing all the variations of the card game, and then the fighting becomes a means to get you to locations that have new cards and new rules, and the cutscenes are boring as hell because they're eating into card game time. :D So it's not an adventure game OR an RPG... it's a casual game! :crazy:

[Jake]

One could play FF8 with the primary goal of learning and playing all the variations of the card game, and then the fighting becomes a means to get you to locations that have new cards and new rules, and the cutscenes are boring as hell because they're eating into card game time. :D So it's not an adventure game OR an RPG... it's a casual game! :crazy:

If you just learn and play all the variations of the card game, do you still beat FF8 in the end? Or do you just get good at the card game... I don't know enough about FF8 to understand that example.

[JoeX111]

It is super sloppy, and I'm sorry about that (especially my little "name another game where completing the story is the main motivation" question)! Though, really, that's why I made this thread: I'm trying to tighten up what I'm trying to say through discussing it with people. :)

That said, I think I did finally say what I meant more clearly in post 47.

Aw man, you did say it really well there. And I was working up some great other arguments, too. :D

[fov]

If you just learn and play all the variations of the card game, do you still beat FF8 in the end? Or do you just get good at the card game... I don't know enough about FF8 to understand that example.

No, you can't beat it (that is, you can't get to the end of the story) just by playing the card game. So if that were your only goal, you wouldn't be interested in story at all (and it would be one of those games that never ends...)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

....it was a necessary element to overcome in order to beat the game. It isn't that much different from the motorcycle combat in Full Throttle. While the fighting in both games are NOWHERE near on the same level as far as amounts in-game, it was still necessary in order for you to complete the story, just as it was for you in Final Fantasy 8.

From what you're saying it seems like combat/levelling up/action is no more a significant way of reaching the story's end than working your way through a series of puzzles. If that's the case then an RPG would be an adventure game, regardless of however you try to complete it.

[JoeX111]

If you just learn and play all the variations of the card game, do you still beat FF8 in the end? Or do you just get good at the card game... I don't know enough about FF8 to understand that example.

I don't think you can beat the game by just playing with the cards.

But I'm not the one to ask. I gave up on that game after 45 minutes. :r

[Manhunter71]

I think using FF8 is a very extreme example!
The main reason I love adventure games is for the engrossing storylines that make me want to keep playing right up to the end in order to discover the final outcome.

FF8 had all the ingredients I look for in an adventure game, but the major problem was the battles :D

Granted, this was a slight obstacle if you were primarily interested ion the story, but it was something that could be overcome with a little effort. For me, the whole concept of running around and fighting monsters to level up, was just a necessary part of the Final Fantasy experience :D

[fov]

For me, the whole concept of running around and fighting monsters to level up, was just a necessary part of the Final Fantasy experience :D

For me, too, in the end. But the fact that you have to do this at all is what makes it something other than an adventure game.

[Jake]

No, you can't beat it (that is, you can't get to the end of the story) just by playing the card game. So if that were your only goal, you wouldn't be interested in story at all (and it would be one of those games that never ends...)

Well fine, but there is a linear path you're "supposed" to progress along whether you're following the story or not, and what you're describing hasn't got much to do with that, even if it is valid :)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Granted, this was a slight obstacle if you were primarily interested ion the story, but it was something that could be overcome with a little effort. For me, the whole concept of running around and fighting monsters to level up, was just a necessary part of the Final Fantasy experience :D

That's precisely why I chose to play Knights Of The Old Republic and its sequel, but, as fov says, that so much focus was placed on levelling up and earning XP was what made it less of a 'typical' adventure game for me, but far more an adventure experience.

I think that's the key difference (or one of). A 'typical' adventure game does not require your character's skills to progress along with the story.

[Jake]

That's precisely why I chose to play Knights Of The Old Republic and its sequel, but, as fov says, that so much focus was placed on levelling up and earning XP was what made it less of a 'typical' adventure game for me, but far more an adventure experience.

I think that's the key difference (or one of). A 'typical' adventure game does not require your character's skills to progress along with the story.


reminds me of...




Well, I will say that I think adventure gamers (by which I mostly mean people who were possibly raised on adventure games or primarily play adventure games) get a slightly different experience than most gamers out of the stories in action/platformer/rts type games - I think they probably do play them for the story a bit more on average than some other gamers.


from a bit earlier in the thread :)

[fov]

Well fine, but there is a linear path you're "supposed" to progress along whether you're following the story or not, and what you're describing hasn't got much to do with that, even if it is valid :)

I was just commenting on the primary goal being subjective. I doubt anyone would play that game just for the cards and nothing else. I do think this subjectivity is why we have trouble nailing down a definition of "adventure game" though. I can say "adventure games are based on story!" Someone else can say "adventure games are based on puzzles!" There's really no way to argue this, except to keep talking at each other until the guy who's wrong (the puzzle guy!) gives up.

[PCgamefan]

What are the different game genres?

Simulation - the object is to master the controls of whatever it is you are simulating, whether it's a tank, plane, city or family.

RPG - the object is, in order of importance, to engage in combat, level up, and tell a story.

Action - the object is to move your alter ego so as to gain the maximum points.

Strategy - the object is, through movement and combat, to defeat the other side.

Adventure - the object is, in order of importance, to tell an interactive story and to solve puzzles.

The difference between the Adventure genre and the others is obvious.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I was just commenting on the primary goal being subjective. I doubt anyone would play that game just for the cards and nothing else. I do think this subjectivity is why we have trouble nailing down a definition of "adventure game" though. I can say "adventure games are based on story!" Someone else can say "adventure games are based on puzzles!" There's really no way to argue this, except to keep talking at each other until the guy who's wrong (the puzzle guy!) gives up.

:D So then what IS the idea behind this thread?

[Jake]

Adventure - the object is, in order of importance, to tell an interactive story and to solve puzzles.

The difference between the Adventure genre and the others is obvious.

Lots of genres tell interactive stories and have puzzles to solve.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

RPG - the object is, in order of importance, to engage in combat, level up, and tell a story.

Um, no. Not for me it wasn't. My ultimate goal in Knights Of The Old Republic was to experience the story, and the combat and levelling up were merely necessary to do so. Did that make the game into an adventure game? No. It's still an RPG, but a very heavily story driven one.

[Jake]

:D So then what IS the idea behind this thread?

For me, Posts 1 and 47.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

For me, Posts 1 and 47.

In an adventure game, you don't fight monsters over and over again to uncover parts of the story. The way you uncover parts of the story in an adventure game is by directly seeking to uncover them. You don't fight monsters until you can fight a big enough monster that more cutscene plays that shows characters look behind a curtain to find some hidden secret, or shows your character enter a room and have a conversation - in an adventure game as the player you move the curtain aside and examine the hidden secret, as the player you walk into the room yourself, and you initiate the conversation and its flow. The story and the gameplay are really one.

That's what I thought, too.

But I'm not sure about the idea of 'story and the gameplay are really one', considering many of the these games seem to favour 'artificially introduced' puzzles - you know, that feeling that those puzzles are dumped in for the sake of having puzzles.

[JoeX111]

From what you're saying it seems like combat/levelling up/action is no more a significant way of reaching the story's end than working your way through a series of puzzles. If that's the case then an RPG would be an adventure game, regardless of however you try to complete it.

Let me quote a section of interview with Tim Schafer:

"Tim Schafer: Games have always stressed story a lot. Besides being the part that interests me most creatively, stories also really motivational for the player, to pull you through the experience. Puzzles can be challenging, but I know I go through games a lot of times because I want to see the characters through, to solve their problems, find that character who was kidnapped and see them through to the end. So, it's about motivation.

CP: In many of your games, there is some sort of dilemma that the main character is presented with at the onset of the game that propels the story forward. Often, the dilemma is very "gamey" if you will. How do you establish a dilemma that will motivate the characters through the game?

TS: I think you have to do two things at once. You have to provide the character with motivation and you have to provide the player with motivation. Because the character will care about things that the player will not necessarily care about.

CP: Like what? Can you give some examples?

TS: Well, you end up doing these little bribes with the player. Like in Psychonauts, the new game, you're a kid at the Psychic Summer Camp. There's a girl, Lilly, at the Psychic Summer Camp with you, and she gets kidnapped. And Raz, the player character, really likes Lilly, and he wants to go off and save her. But you don't know if the player really cares because he could just run and jump around and explore the camp and never go off and find her. And so you want to make sure that Lilly actually gives you some cool power or some cool tool in the beginning of the game, as a way to bribe the player to strengthen their empathy. You can't just rely on the story empathy, you have to put in little gameplay bribes, to make them like that character and want to pursue her."

I think the difference between Adventure Games and other games is that adventure games do not require this series of bribes to exist or simply just does not use them. Adventure Games rely on the idea that the story itself is enough to propell the character forward and through to the very end.

It is hard for me to argue in this thread, because with a few exceptions, most all of the games I still play are entirely for the storyline. Whether it be a first person shooter, RPG, platformer, adventure, or anything. I play games because I like stories. So for me, as a gamer, all I require to keep playing is a good story.

But that is not always the case with most gamers. So other game types go with a rewards system to either create empathy for the aforementioned storyline or to at least provide motivation outside of the storyline to keep playing. Some people will continue to play Final Fantasy 8 for the card play, or for the fighting. Some people will continue to play Psychonauts because they like the platforming.

Adventure games do not require anything outside of the spectrum of story. Sometimes they will use it, but it is never a necessary element. Puzzles are not even a true requirement of an adventure game, as others have pointed out. "But what about graphics, Joe? A person could play through an adventure game SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY LOVE THE GRAPHICS!" Remember that when adventure games first materialized, they were entirely text only. There was no real gameplay to speak of, nor were there flashy graphics for a person to oggle. It was just the storyline and a parser to type things into.

As Jake put it earlier, "In an adventure game, you don't fight monsters over and over again to uncover parts of the story. The way you uncover parts of the story in an adventure game is by directly seeking to uncover them." There is nothing else to prod you along in an adventure game except the desire to find out more.

And I think that's the best I could ever do trying to explain it, so no questions. :P Just kidding. Keep the debate alive!

[Jake]

considering many of the these games seem to favour 'artificially introduced' puzzles - you know, that feeling that those puzzles are dumped in for the sake of having puzzles.

They're simply doing it wrong. Just because there are cheap game designs out there doesn't mean my proposal is invalid.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Um, no. I wasn't trying to invalidate your idea. I agree with it. What I'm pointing at is how much developers pay attention to it and respect it. Do they care about player motivation enough to be more thoughtful to integrate all the game's elements into a one cohesive whole?

How then would an adventure game with lots of artificially introduced puzzles inform our views of what an adventure game is?

[Jake]

It is hard for me to argue in this thread, because with a few exceptions, most all of the games I still play are entirely for the storyline. Whether it be a first person shooter, RPG, platformer, adventure, or anything. I play games because I like stories. So for me, as a gamer, all I require to keep playing is a good story.


What you "play them for" isn't relevant to how you define a genre. The fact that you play those games for story doesn't make them truly story-driven games - you're not playing the story, you're playing to see the story. But you know that :)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

...you're not playing the story, you're playing to see the story. But you know that :)

That's kinda what I meant by saying, in regards to Indigo Prophecy, that the puzzle IS the story. Your decisions and action directly affect the details and branches the story takes. With a typical slider puzzle, all you are doing is progressing the story.

[Jake]

That's kinda what I meant by saying, in regards to Indigo Prophecy, that the puzzle IS the story. Your decisions and action directly affect the details and branches the story takes. With a typical slider puzzle, all you are doing is progressing the story.

The thing is, I don't give a shit one way or the other about the player shaping the course of the story. But I know what you're saying about slider puzzles.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Sheesh! :shifty:

[crabapple]

I mean, in a very strong way, an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story."


That's not my primary goal, unless it's a bad game and I just want to finish it up and get it off the hard drive.

[JoeX111]

Now we're back to "the primary goal of a game is a very subjective thing".

I think everyone who is being critical of Jake's definition of an adventure game should take a stab at trying to explain it themselves. I did it, for better or worse. Anyone who thinks they can do better, stand up and be counted.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

But the primary goal to finish a game isn't necessarily definitive of the type of game it is, right?

[Moron Lite]

The thing that's really tricky and subtle and infuriating about genre is that it's partially defined by a dialogue between games (or movies, or books, etc.). There are often no necessary and sufficient set of conditions that will absolutely tell you if a game is in a given genre or not. That's why you can have an adventure game with no puzzles, and that's why a lot of people refer to Myst as an adventure game, because those games all came out of the same discussion, just emphasizing (or de-emphasizing) different or new parts. It's also why you can have a shmup that doesn't actually involve any shooting, or a Western movie that isn't even set in the West.

Confusing the issue somewhat is the fact that the "dialogue" doesn't have to actually take place. Yu Suzuki might never have played or seen a "real" adventure game in his life, but when he came up with Shenmue, he came up with something that could well be classified as an adventure game.

Why isn't FF8 an adventure game? Because it overwhelmingly comes out of an RPG dialogue. If you chucked out all (or even most) of the battles, then yeah, you'd basically have an adventure game. But the fact remains that the developers were expecting the battles to play a huge role in the overall experience, which comes out of the dialogue of RPGs, not adventure games. Avoiding them at all costs is taking an unintended path through the game, and it shows when you have to do them anyway just to beat a boss.

So it's not entirely subjective or entirely dependent on the player. It definitely depends on how the game is actually designed, or how we interpret it to be designed...which leaves some room for subjective disagreement. But again, it's not entirely subjective.

Uhm, I don't think I explained all that very well, and there's a lot of other stuff I want to say, but it took me way too long to write that as it is, so maybe I'll write more later.

[JoeX111]

But the primary goal to finish a game isn't necessarily definitive of the type of game it is, right?

Ok, right, I agree with you.

So then...what is necessarily definitive of a game type?

[JoeX111]

Uhm, I don't think I explained all that very well, and there's a lot of other stuff I want to say, but it took me way too long to write that as it is, so maybe I'll write more later.

:D That's exactly how I felt when I wrote my bit earlier.

[fov]

Why isn't FF8 an adventure game? Because it overwhelmingly comes out of an RPG dialogue. If you chucked out all (or even most) of the battles, then yeah, you'd basically have an adventure game. But the fact remains that the developers were expecting the battles to provide the lion's share of the gameplay, which comes out of the dialogue of RPGs, not adventure games. Avoiding them at all costs is taking an unintended path through the game, and it shows when you have to do them anyway just to beat a boss.

So it's not entirely subjective or entirely dependent on the player. It definitely depends on how the game is actually designed, or how we interpret it to be designed. That leaves some room for subjective disagreement, but again, it's not entirely subjective.

This is a good explanation. I didn't like the idea that it's all subjective and a game can be whatever the player wants us to be -- this brings it back to a predetermined state.

So Dreamfall is an adventure because Ragnar's intention is to tell a story? That's how it's sounding, anyway.

-emily

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Ok, right, I agree with you.

So then...what is necessarily definitive of a game type?

Hmmm. Perhaps HOW that goal is reached, what is required of the player in order to reach it? Is what required of the player already possessed by the player or is it only available deep inside the game as a resource? What are the rewards, and are those rewards independent of what the player is looking to achieve in the game?

:crazy: My brain. It throbs weird.

[JoeX111]

Aw man, no one is commenting on my definition at all. ;( All that writing and thought and no one is going to tell me off for it?

[Jake]

What definition? I must have missed it...

PS: it's clearly shit and wrong anyway!!! :D

[JoeX111]

Post 74, the huge one a page or so back with the Tim Schafer interview in it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

In that case:

PS: it's clearly shit and wrong anyway!!! :D

:D

[JoeX111]

So Dreamfall is an adventure because Ragnar's intention is to tell a story? That's how it's sounding, anyway.

-emily

I don't know if that definition of Adventure Games really holds up. Lorne Lanning of the Oddworld series would probably argue that all his games are simply trying to tell a story and deliver a message.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

So it's clearly NOT JUST the story that defines it. What else is there, eh?

[Jake]

I don't know if that definition of Adventure Games really holds up. Lorne Lanning of the Oddworld series would probably argue that all his games are simply trying to tell a story and deliver a message.

I think moron lite was trying to imply that the stuff he was saying needs to go hand in hand with some of the other more classic definition-based stuff we've been discussing here... maybe? I mean I don't think he was implying that the only way to define a game or genre is by the dialogue on a specific title or facet of the genre?

[JoeX111]

So it's clearly NOT JUST the story that defines it. What else is there, eh?

I'm not saying that story doesn't define the adventure genre. My post a few pages back is ALL ABOUT how the story is what makes an adventure game an adventure game. But her argument was that "a developers intent to tell a story" was the sole component in making an adventure game an adventure game, and that is not true.

Intent doesn't count. The game "Isabelle" has the lowest rating on the adventure gamers site. It is rated low because it is bad (according to the reviewer). I'm sure the developers intended it to be pretty darn good. Should we then give it a five?

[JoeX111]

I think moron lite was trying to imply that the stuff he was saying needs to go hand in hand with some of the other more classic definition-based stuff we've been discussing here... maybe? I mean I don't think he was implying that the only way to define a game or genre is by the dialogue on a specific title or facet of the genre?

I know, I'm just responding to Fov's interpretation, not what moron lite himself said.

[After a brisk nap]

Whoah! I look away from the forum for a few hours, and suddenly there's a five-page thread about the definition of adventures? So much to respond to...

an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story."Jake, I think you modified this definition later. As others have brought up, I don't think this definition works because you can play other games that we agree aren't adventures primarily to finish the story, as well. I remember I played Wing Commander 3 just to get to the next little movie bit after each mission. Also, I think some people play adventures not for the story.

For all the definitions you have offered, I think it's a real problem that they don't really include bad adventure games with completely arbitrary, bolted-on puzzles. A successful definition should include both good and bad games within the genre.

Should I get into the difference between an anecdote and a story again? ;)No, please don't. ;) For the record I find that way of talking about "story" hopelessly narrow. The "characters undergo real change and a lesson is learned" kind of story (I'm satirizing the Karen Hertzberg position here) is just one of many available. Yeah, human needs and emotions and whatnot may make for interesting stories, but they're not the only valid raw material. Other theorists think of story in much wider terms. For instance, there's been a lot of research into how much of science is a form of storytelling. (Evolution is a good example of a scientific theory where practitioners tell stories that are quite recognizable as such even to lay people.)

The thing that's really tricky and subtle and infuriating about genre is that it's partially defined by a dialogue between games (or movies, or books, etc.).I quite like this notion of a dialog that a game exists within. I guess I would call it a tradition. There's an adventure game tradition that stretches back to the first text adventures, and which influences and inspires the games people are making now.

That suggests another way to define adventure games: by example. We just say "this bunch of games here are adventure games", and then any game that is a lot like the games in that pile is also an adventure game. I think that this is how people in reality make up their minds about whether a game is an adventure or not.

I think everyone who is being critical of Jake's definition of an adventure game should take a stab at trying to explain it themselves. I did it, for better or worse. Anyone who thinks they can do better, stand up and be counted.I did just that recently in a different thread. Let's see... "A game where the player experiences a story mainly through exploration and solving puzzles."

This definition is different from Jake's partly because I wouldn't agree that an "interactive movie" with no puzzle element is an adventure.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I'm not saying that story doesn't define the adventure genre. My post a few pages back is ALL ABOUT how the story is what makes an adventure game an adventure game. But her argument was that "a developers intent to tell a story" was the sole component in making an adventure game an adventure game, and that is not true.

Intent doesn't count. The game "Isabelle" has the lowest rating on the adventure gamers site. It is rated low because it is bad (according to the reviewer). I'm sure the developers intended it to be pretty darn good. Should we then give it a five?

Then this is where 'the X factor' comes into play*: the player.

How does the player fit into this? Surely the designer of a badly rated game such as Isabelle had every intention to give the player as good a story as he could possibly come up with. But even then that's ultimately independent of that fact that that designer wanted to tell a story through the game, right? You could express an intent to tell a story. You could also express an intent to tell a good story.







* (pun unintended)

[Jake]

Jake, I think you modified this definition later. As others have brought up, I don't think this definition works because you can play other games that we agree aren't adventures primarily to finish the story, as well. I remember I played Wing Commander 3 just to get to the next little movie bit after each mission. Also, I think some people play adventures not for the story.

For all the definitions you have offered, I think it's a real problem that they don't really include bad adventure games with completely arbitrary, bolted-on puzzles. A successful definition should include both good and bad games within the genre.

I think all of what you say is true, and I think I got a bit closer to what I mean in approximately post 47. But I think you're right regardless about the bad games w/bolted on puzzles. I think, though, that there's something to be said in the fact that these developers - even if they make a bad game with bolted on puzzles - were probably in some way striving to make a game that meets my definition, which is not the case for a good or a bad FPS for instance.


I did just that recently in a different thread. Let's see... "A game where the player experiences a story mainly through exploration and solving puzzles."

This definition is different from Jake's partly because I wouldn't agree that an "interactive movie" with no puzzle element is an adventure.

I think you could make an adventure game (that was not an "interactive movie") that didn't contain either puzzles or exploration. It would probably have one or the other to some degree because they're generally important facets of storytelling in some way or another, but I think you're needlessly narrowing your definition by including them as necessary primary elements of what an adventure game is.

I'm not saying that adventure games shouldn't have puzzles by the way - I just think that forcing their inclusion by name into a definition is a bit odd. I don't mind that they're there (especially the good ones - those ones I even like that they're there!), but I really don't play adventure games for the puzzles. In fact, if someone made an adventure game that still let me experience an interactive and engaging story but didn't have me waving inventory items around at things or pushing a crate or negotiating a preplanned dialogue tree, I would be extremely pleased, and I would still definitely consider it an adventure game. I don't know what that game is, but I'm not going to discount its theoretical existence by needlessly excluding it from my definition of the genre.

[JoeX111]

Then this is where 'the X factor' comes into play*: the player.

How does the player fit into this? Surely the designer of a badly rated game such as Isabelle had every intention to give the player as good a story as he could possibly come up with. But even then that's ultimately independent of that fact that that designer wanted to tell a story through the game, right? You could express an intent to tell a story. You could also express an intent to tell a good story.

But your argument is implying that I said Isabelle wasn't an adventure game, which isn't true. It is an adventure game. But I don't think it should be categorized as an adventure game simply because the designers wanted to tell a story. That doesn't make sense as a single criteria to define the genre. If that is the only thing necessary for an adventure game to be an adventure game, then I know a lot of books and movies that also qualify as "Adventure Games". As I said in an earlier post, I think (I'm tired and can't find the quote) Lorne Lanning has said in interviews several times that the main reason he makes the Quintology is just to tell this story he's had in his head for years.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I quite like this notion of a dialog that a game exists within. I guess I would call it a tradition. There's an adventure game tradition that stretches back to the first text adventures, and which influences and inspires the games people are making now.

That suggests another way to define adventure games: by example. We just say "this bunch of games here are adventure games", and then any game that is a lot like the games in that pile is also an adventure game. I think that this is how people in reality make up their minds about whether a game is an adventure or not.

That's kinda what I was trying to get at with my own take on it:

It is ultimately not the definition (whatever that may be), but in actually how it is defined - by us and by the industry and the media. Jack Allin, Editor-in-Chief of AdventureGamers.com, and adventure game writer and reviewer, tactfully pointed out that he "...prefer[s] to use the word 'description' rather than 'definition'. The former is used to explain what IS, and the latter is too often used to demand what MUST be." This makes good sense, because it places the emphasis on the genre's behavior rather than the 'categorically correct' perimeters within which it is expected to stay, allowing for some flexibility. But what happens when an adventure game begins to behave differently than usual yet still moves within those perimeters? Is it still an adventure game? Or can we now expand or modify whatever that 'description' or 'definition' is to encompass this seeming mutant? I'll explore this further possibility in a bit.

"An adventure game is a game in which first and foremost contains: a very strong and coherent story or narrative structure, sharply developed characterization (of people, places, and/or things), a clearly defined set of goals, challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning, and elements of exploration and discovery." Of course, that could mean practically any game. But, the trick is to throw in a bit of Jack's insight, basing all this on "...what we've seen so far.." , and on Evan's (*ahem*, Justice Potter Stewart's) wisdom of "...know[ing] it when I see it...". And voila! What we end up with is, um…….a mutt, but a very nice cuddly one - structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself. And if you were paying attention, nowhere in this amalgamated 'definition' can be found ridiculous sentiments like '2D backgrounds only', or 'point-&-click only', or 'egregiously stuck-up over-intellectualized' puzzles.

I did just that recently in a different thread. Let's see... "A game where the player experiences a story mainly through exploration and solving puzzles."

My own definition doesn't use the word 'puzzle' because many of us have this tendency to epistomologically identify it with very limited specimens. I prefer to use 'challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning' because it allows more flexibility and points more to paradigms.

[crabapple]

In fact, if someone made an adventure game that still let me experience an interactive and engaging story but didn't have me waving inventory items around at things or pushing a crate or negotiating a preplanned dialogue tree, I would be extremely pleased, and I would still definitely consider it an adventure game. I don't know what that game is, but I'm not going to discount its theoretical existence by needlessly excluding it from my definition of the genre.

Gadget?

[JoeX111]

My own definition doesn't use the word 'puzzle' because many of us have this tendency to epistomologically identify it with very limited specimens. I prefer to use 'challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning' because it allows more flexibility and points more to paradigms.

I really want to say "Ah, but what if the challenges are not logical?" and be a jerk, but I like your definition a lot. :D

[Intrepid Homoludens]

But your argument is implying that I said Isabelle wasn't an adventure game, which isn't true. It is an adventure game. But I don't think it should be categorized as an adventure game simply because the designers wanted to tell a story. That doesn't make sense as a single criteria to define the genre. If that is the only thing necessary for an adventure game to be an adventure game, then I know a lot of books and movies that also qualify as "Adventure Games". As I said in an earlier post, I think (I'm tired and can't find the quote) Lorne Lanning has said in interviews several times that the main reason he makes the Quintology is just to tell this story he's had in his head for years.

It wasn't my intent to imply that you think it wasn't an adventure game. Sorry if it seemed that way. And I'm not sure that Emily meant that it's the only qualifier for the genre, either.

Story - or more abstractly, narrative - is clearly, and historically, one of the defining elements of the adventure game, that we can agree on. But I'd like to emphasize that it is no more important than whatever other elements hold it up. What are those elements? How do they fit in proportion to the narrative?

[Kero]

Hmmmm - I would define Adventure Game as a game that - after playing it - I feel that I've just had a really great Adventure!

(as she quickly ducks and runs from the flying frying pans)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I really want to say "Ah, but what if the challenges are not logical?" and be a jerk, but I like your definition a lot. :D

That depends on the context of the logic. Is it logical for the player independent of the game? Is it logical for the game independent of the player?

[Jake]

I'm proud of you guys for topping 100 posts in under six hours! :D

On topic too (except for this one)

[JoeX111]

It wasn't my intent to imply that you think it wasn't an adventure game. Sorry if it seemed that way. And I'm not sure that Emily meant that it's the only qualifier for the genre, either.

Story - or more abstractly, narrative - is clearly, and historically, one of the defining elements of the adventure game, that we can agree on. But I'd like to emphasize that it is no more important than whatever other elements hold it up. What are those elements? How do they fit in proportion to the narrative?

But don't the elements change from game to game, even within the adventure genre?

Character to character dialog in a game is typically linked with adventure games, even though they have spread out into other genres. Yet not all adventure games use this, such as Myst.

Then you have the "puzzle" aspect, which in itself is not always present and shows up in lots of different forms. Some games use inventory based puzzles for the bulk of the game, whereas other games focus on puzzles that do not require the inventory at all, but either some mechanical tinkering or logical detective work. And some games just do not use puzzles at all.

When I wrote my definition of an adventure game, I focused on story alone because that seems to be the only assured constant, whereas these other elements are not absolutely necessary. But when they are present, typically they tie back into the story in a way that aids the narrative along, rather than just being there for the sake of being there.

:crazy: I think that made sense...

[Jake]

Yet not all adventure games use this, such as Myst..

Maybe Myst is a Puzzle game. :) :devil:

[JoeX111]

That depends on the context of the logic. Is it logical for the player independent of the game? Is it logical for the game independent of the player?

Which also depends on whether or not you are looking at it logically. Is it logical to look at a game independent of the player, or is it logical to look at a player independent of a game? Is it even logical to look at these two differing ideals in a logical fashion?

:frusty:

[Moron Lite]

Story, exploration and puzzles can work, not as necessary and sufficient conditions, but as features that increase membership in the adventure game category. This is getting into some of what I wanted to say but didn't get around to, which is graded membership. For a lot of categories in life, we have a prototypical example in mind (if I said "automobile", you'd likely think of a sedan), and rate things as being strongly, moderately, or weakly in the same category depending on how many features they have in common.

Genre dialogue is what motivates the disappearance, repetition, or introduction of various features. If we'd gone straight from text adventures to Sam & Max Hit the Road, there might have been some dispute over whether Sam & Max was really an adventure game or not. But the introduction of various new features over time expanded what sorts of features could determine membership, to the point where Sam & Max could be unambiguously classified as an adventure game.

Some features have greater weight than others, though, and story appears to be the big one. I guess we could actually say it's a necessary condition.

Designer intent isn't going to be the sole thing that determines genre, but it's helpful to try and figure out what the designer intent is. If Emily found a glitch in FF8 that let her bypass battles completely, we still wouldn't call FF8 an adventure game, even though you could play it like one. Likewise, someone could make an adventure game, but, I dunno, modify his beat 'em up game engine for it and accidently leave the beat 'em up mechanics in, and because of the way the game was designed, you could actually finish it by beating everyone up.

Okay, so this is really complicated and I still have more junk to throw in here. I think I'm going to throw in the towel for now.

[JoeX111]

Maybe Myst is a Puzzle game. :) :devil:

Off-Topic! We're talking about Adventure Games, not Puzzle Games! ;)

[Intrepid Homoludens]

But don't the elements change from game to game, even within the adventure genre?

Absolutely. And that's marvelous!! :) Hence that part of my definition:

...structured yet porous, defined yet still like a filter, anticipating modifications and expansiveness but ultimately staying true to itself.

Character to character dialog in a game is typically linked with adventure games, even though they have spread out into other genres. Yet not all adventure games use this, such as Myst.

Exactly. A dialogue can be between player and 'sentient' characters, or it can be between player and objects, or player and a gameworld. It can be spoken dialogue or non-spoken.

Then you have the "puzzle" aspect, which in itself is not always present and shows up in lots of different forms. Some games use inventory based puzzles for the bulk of the game, whereas other games focus on puzzles that do not require the inventory at all, but either some mechanical tinkering or logical detective work. And some games just do not use puzzles at all.

Right. That's why I specified 'challenges'. I mean, without such it wouldn't even be a game, no?

When I wrote my definition of an adventure game, I focused on story alone because that seems to be the only assured constant, whereas these other elements are not absolutely necessary. But when they are present, typically they tie back into the story in a way that aids the narrative along, rather than just being there for the sake of being there.

That's what I mean when I said...

...I'd like to emphasize that it is no more important than whatever other elements hold it up. What are those elements? How do they fit in proportion to the narrative?

:crazy: I think that made sense...

More than you think ... :crazy: ... I think.

[JoeX111]

Absolutely. And that's marvelous!!

So now we agree that your definition is much better (even though I said as much earlier), that my logic eventually led me to say basically what you said in yours in my own roundabout way, and I can stop defending myself and run screaming into the night like a caffine addicted three year old. :D

Whew!

[Legolas813]

People misusing the phrase "adventure game" is one of my biggest pet peeves. As you might know, Gamespot now has these things called Unions, where almost anybody can start up their own community and board. Well somebody is trying to start a Union called the "Tomb Raider and other Adventure Games Club." I don't know what it is, but something about the thought of somebody thinking Tomb Raider is an adventure game just gets on my nerves.

http://forums.gamespot.com/gamespot/show_messages.php?board=909105086&topic=20080309

[Intrepid Homoludens]

So now we agree that your definition is much better (even though I said as much earlier), that my logic eventually led me to say basically what you said in yours in my own roundabout way, and I can stop defending myself and run screaming into the night like a caffine addicted three year old. :D

Whew!

Great! If I were a girl and we were having this conversation over drinks at some bar I'd say "Now let's go back to my place and f#&k." But I'm not, so I'll just sit here and eat my Nutella with butter on toasted French bread. :9

[JoeX111]

Great! If I were a girl and we were having this conversation over drinks at some bar I'd say "Now let's go back to my place and f#&k." But I'm not, so I'll just sit here and eat my Nutella with butter on toasted French bread. :9

And I would say "That's really nice of you, but I'm spoken for...and what am I doing in a bar? I don't drink!" So instead, I'll just continue to sit here at work being extremely bored. :Z Dang, now I wish I was in a bar...

[Jake]

People need to go back and read Moron Lite's recent post because it seems to have been buried. Walter speaks the truth. Or at least a few grades away from the pure definition of the truth.

[Fairygdmther]

A definition of adv games, as a separate genre can be made by defining the focus of the games. Yes, many games have wonderful stories. I have a problem with Jake's premise with story as THE defining element.

I feel that the focus of adv games is on story, exploration, and meeting the game's challenges (or puzzles, if you prefer), but also what an adv game IS NOT! It is not - fighting, levelling up, beating bosses, gaining points or power. An adv game is the gradual unfolding of a story by a player by exploration and problem solving techniques, without resorting to violent means. That is as succinct as I can make it.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I take it that's NOT #47, right? :D

[JoeX111]

An adv game is the gradual unfolding of a story by a player by exploration and problem solving techniques, without resorting to violent means. That is as succinct as I can make it.

FGM

So explain how to beat Full Throttle without using violent means.

[Moron Lite]

People need to go back and read Moron Lite's recent post because it seems to have been buried. Walter speaks the truth. Or at least a few grades away from the pure definition of the truth. Well thankee, Jake! I wish it was coalescing into a more coherent, overall point, but not yet anyway.

[Jake]

So explain how to beat Full Throttle without using violent means.

Full Throttle lets you cheat past the realtime puzzles if you want to.

In Full Throttle's case I don't really mind that because those realtime puzzles are really poorly implimented ... They're a pain to play regardless of now novel their concept is "in theory." Whoever thought it would be a good idea to use SCUMM to write a destruction derby or motorcycle fighting game had a few screws loose (or had a very tight grip on the pursestrings... oh yeah it was a LucasArts game wasn't it)...

Anyway moving on :)

[JoeX111]

Full Throttle lets you cheat past the realtime puzzles if you want to.

True, but even if you ignore the fighting sequences, some of the normal adventure gaming involves violent means. Such as kicking in a doorway on a man, or slamming a bartender down on the bar by yanking on his nose ring.

[Jake]

True, but even if you ignore the fighting sequences, some of the normal adventure gaming involves violent means. Such as kicking in a doorway on a man, or slamming a bartender down on the bar by yanking on his nose ring.

I don't think FGM was referring to point and click commands like "Pull > Nosering" and "Kick > Door" when she talked about violent gameplay. She probably meant more kinetic things like games that have a "punch" button.

[JoeX111]

I don't think FGM was referring to point and click commands like "Pull > Nosering" and "Kick > Door" when she talked about violent gameplay. She probably meant more kinetic things like games that have a "punch" button.

Full Throttle had a kick button, didn't it?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Story, exploration and puzzles can work, not as necessary and sufficient conditions, but as features that increase membership in the adventure game category. This is getting into some of what I wanted to say but didn't get around to, which is graded membership. For a lot of categories in life, we have a prototypical example in mind (if I said "automobile", you'd likely think of a sedan), and rate things as being strongly, moderately, or weakly in the same category depending on how many features they have in common.

Genre dialogue is what motivates the disappearance, repetition, or introduction of various features. If we'd gone straight from text adventures to Sam & Max Hit the Road, there might have been some dispute over whether Sam & Max was really an adventure game or not. But the introduction of various new features over time expanded what sorts of features could determine membership, to the point where Sam & Max could be unambiguously classified as an adventure game.

Genre dialogue is like 'tradition' or 'historical behaviour', isn't it?

This relates to my idea about the genre being malleable contrary to people thinking its requisite is written in stone. The 'definition' shifts and changes over time, not into something else entirely, but into something less concrete and more porous, retaining its essence but broadening the details to encompass whatever kinds of deviant behaviour each new succession of games exhibits.

Some features have greater weight than others, though, and story appears to be the big one. I guess we could actually say it's a necessary condition.

How is the story maintained, though? That's one thing I'm trying to get at. If it is maintained through dialogue, challenges (puzzles), exploration, etc., then surely these details carry some level of importance, some level of necessity. The story's prominence and pervasiveness depend on them, shouldn't that affect the level of their relevence in how the genre is defined?

[Fairygdmther]

For everything we decide, there will always be exceptions. However, as long as the definition fits the vast majority of the games, it may be considered a viable definition. If there is a minimal amount of violence, but otherwise it fits the definition - most will agree it is still an adv game. I've never seen one without puzzles/challenges, but I would have a hard time calling it an adventure without that element.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

For everything we decide, there will always be exceptions. However, as long as the definition fits the vast majority of the games, it may be considered a viable definition. If there is a minimal amount of violence, but otherwise it fits the definition - most will agree it is still an adv game. I've never seen one without puzzles/challenges, but I would have a hard time calling it an adventure without that element.

You're talking about a common denominator.

[Fairygdmther]

You're talking about a common denominator.

and what is a definition, but a common denominator?

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Exactly. Thus definitions have their epistomological boundaries determined by some kind of conceptual history. What are those boundaries as applied to the adventure game?

[Fairygdmther]

Exactly. Thus definitions have their epistomological boundaries. What are those boundaries as applied to the adventure game?

Every epistemologist knows that words evolve, as do concepts. Setting boundaries is limiting unnecessarily what the definition should be. We don't want to limit, but rather have an elastic boundary that will take into account future evolutions of the genre.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Wooo!! That's exactly what my definition is saying!! :D

Oh, and that's also what the cute little doggie said.

[remixor]

Full Throttle had a kick button, didn't it?
No, it has a kick command, which I'm sure if you were being less pedantic you would admit is actually a different thing. You can't just walk around kicking stuff. Like Jake said, you have to specifically execute a Kick>Door command; it's no different than the Push of older SCUMM games.

[Moron Lite]

Genre dialogue is like 'tradition' or 'historical behaviour', isn't it?

This relates to my idea about the genre being malleable contrary to people thinking its requisite is written in stone. The 'definition' shifts and changes over time, not into something else entirely, but into something less concrete and more porous, retaining its essence but broadening the details to encompass whatever kinds of deviant behaviour each new succession of games exhibits. Agreed. I just like calling it a dialogue, though, 'cause it succinctly captures the idea that there are back and forth and forward motions going on, and that it's often the case that designers look at what people are doing in other games of the same genre and reacting to that somehow in their own games.
How is the story maintained, though? That's one thing I'm trying to get at. If it is maintained through dialogue, challenges (puzzles), exploration, etc., then surely these details carry some level of importance, some level of necessity. The story's prominence and pervasiveness depend on them, shouldn't that affect the level of their relevence in how the genre is defined? I'm tempted to say graded membership is relevant here, but I'm too tired to figure it out. :crazy:

[Fairygdmther]

Wooo!! That's exactly what my definition is saying!! :D

Oh, and that's also what the cute little doggie said.

My definition -
An adv game is the gradual unfolding of a story by a player by exploration and problem solving techniques, without resorting to violent means.
adds the caveat that violent means should not be necessary or even desired. It also adds to the initial premise that story is the defining element.


FGM

[Jake]

Kick > Trep and Walter

[Moron Lite]

Awk!

[Moron Lite]

This is some crazy thread you started, Jake! It's all your fault!!!

[Jake]

My definition -
An adv game is the gradual unfolding of a story by a player by exploration and problem solving techniques, without resorting to violent means.

FGM you're beginning to offend my delicate sensibilities with these definitions :). One might go so far as to call them "closed minded" or "exceeding exclusionary."

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Kick > Trep and Walter

I don't know the word 'Kick'.

You are in a gaming forum. There are many members here, and the topic is 'What is an adventure game?'






>

[Fairygdmther]

Kick > Trep and Walter

I guess Jake doesn't kick Fairygodmothers! :D

FGM

[Jake]

I guess Jake doesn't kick Fairygodmothers! :D

FGM

I kick you with complete sentences only.* :D

* See post 141!

[Fairygdmther]

FGM you're beginning to offend my delicate sensibilities with these definitions :). One might go so far as to call them "closed minded" or "exceeding exclusionary."

I'm assuming you mean my end phrase - "without resorting to violence". If you allow violence, you blur the boundaries once more. Note that I didn't use the vague word "action". In my eyes, if you allow violence, you have crossed into action-adventure.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

My definition -
An adv game is the gradual unfolding of a story by a player by exploration and problem solving techniques, without resorting to violent means..

Okay, I'm gonna be http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/scorchio/sevil.gif here, and ask: What about platformers? There are plenty of them that have a solid story, problem solving, and no violence. Are they adventure games? And there are RPGs where it's quite possible to talk/sneak your way out of situations - no violence involved and story heavy. And, iirc, Thief encourages non-violence, exploration, and problem solving.

[Jake]

In my eyes that's closed minded :) That's all I'm sayin :P

[Jake]

Okay, I'm gonna be http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/scorchio/sevil.gif here, and ask: What about platformers? There are plenty of them that have a solid story, problem solving, and no violence. Are they adventure games? And there are RPGs where it's quite possible to talk/sneak your way out of situations - no violence involved and story heavy. And, iirc, Thief encourages non-violence, exploration, and problem solving.

Those require manual dexterity and timing, which I'm sure don't fit into an upcoming revised and extended definition ¬ ¬

I'm sorry FGM, but your definitions just aren't reasonable or realistic. Instead of defining what adventure games are, what they have been, and what they could be, you are instead just making up a sentence describing the adventure games you like to play.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yeah, but FGM didn't use the word 'action'. :D

[After a brisk nap]

Someone mentioned that a strong story at the core is the one thing adventure games have in common. I'm not sure I would agree with that. I think a lot of adventure games have a story that's a mere afterthought. Without going back to the whole issue of how people play vs. how something was intended, I don't think I ever actually understood the story in Myst. That whole thing about the brothers both being evil and having killed everyone in all the ages, or something? Went straight over my head. Until you get quite far in the game, Myst doesn't appear to have any story.

OK, so maybe it's a puzzle game...

What about the real classics? What about King's Quest 1? (Very loosely defined story, the game is mostly about exploration.) What about Zork? (Haven't played it, merely guessing.) What about ADVENTURE? (Arguably not an adventure game.) Isn't it in fact fair to say that exploration came first, then puzzles, and only then story?

I think all of what you say is true, and I think I got a bit closer to what I mean in approximately post 47. But I think you're right regardless about the bad games w/bolted on puzzles. I think, though, that there's something to be said in the fact that these developers - even if they make a bad game with bolted on puzzles - were probably in some way striving to make a game that meets my definition, which is not the case for a good or a bad FPS for instance.I agree that they're striving to make an adventure game. I'm not so sure that they're striving to meet your definition. You have to wonder if some developers were even trying to integrate their puzzles with the story.

I think you could make an adventure game (that was not an "interactive movie") that didn't contain either puzzles or exploration. It would probably have one or the other to some degree because they're generally important facets of storytelling in some way or another, but I think you're needlessly narrowing your definition by including them as necessary primary elements of what an adventure game is.

I'm not saying that adventure games shouldn't have puzzles by the way - I just think that forcing their inclusion by name into a definition is a bit odd. I don't mind that they're there (especially the good ones - those ones I even like that they're there!), but I really don't play adventure games for the puzzles. In fact, if someone made an adventure game that still let me experience an interactive and engaging story but didn't have me waving inventory items around at things or pushing a crate or negotiating a preplanned dialogue tree, I would be extremely pleased, and I would still definitely consider it an adventure game. I don't know what that game is, but I'm not going to discount its theoretical existence by needlessly excluding it from my definition of the genre.I, on the other hand, would probably not consider it an adventure game. Solving puzzles is part of what makes me feel like I'm playing an adventure.

I think the kind of game you talk about exists, kind of, in what is euphemistically called "dating sims" out of Japan. These play kind of like first-person adventure games without the puzzles. They do have exploration, I guess. (I'm not sure you could even do an interactive story without exploration.) And no, I don't consider these to be adventure games. A closely related genre, perhaps, but not really adventures.

[Jake]

I think the kind of game you talk about exists, kind of, in what is euphemistically called "dating sims" out of Japan. These play kind of like first-person adventure games without the puzzles. They do have exploration, I guess. (I'm not sure you could even do an interactive story without exploration.) And no, I don't consider these to be adventure games. A closely related genre, perhaps, but not really adventures.

Good god no that's not what I'm talking about at all. I actually just got the strange but very strong urge to punch you in the gut, to be honest! That's really weird... anyway.

ARHJGHDS :P :frusty:

[SoccerDude28]

My definition -
An adv game is the gradual unfolding of a story by a player by exploration and problem solving techniques, without resorting to violent means.
adds the caveat that violent means should not be necessary or even desired. It also adds to the initial premise that story is the defining element.


FGM
Have you read about Dreamfall at all? The first scene Zoe starts a fight and throws punches. Later on there is a male protagonist and he uses more violence than Zoe because he is a fighter. So is Dreamfall not an adventure then? Where was it set in stone that you shouldn't use violent means to achieve your goals in an adventure game. In lots of scenarios, violence is necessary to give the story more authenticity. And I'm not talking about violence like Devil May Cry or DOOM 3 where you shoot everything in site. No I'm talking about being in a scenario where the most plausible and realistic action to take is violence. For example, a police cop game is much more realistic if you get to shoot sometimes, because can you imagine the life of a police officer without shooting a single bullet. It all depends on the context of the games. That's why I like Trep's definition. It does not limit a designer in what can be induced in an adventure game, but it still captures the essence.

[remixor]

HELPFUL HINT TO JAKE'S SANITY: give up now

[JoeX111]

No, it has a kick command, which I'm sure if you were being less pedantic you would admit is actually a different thing. You can't just walk around kicking stuff. Like Jake said, you have to specifically execute a Kick>Door command; it's no different than the Push of older SCUMM games.

My approach might be pedantic, but my point is still valid. If it wasn't, other people wouldn't be calling her on it as well.

[Moron Lite]

Graded membership! Non-dominance of other gameplay styles!

Submit! SUBMIT!!!!

[Jake]

HELPFUL HINT TO JAKE'S SANITY: give up now

Advice: taken.

[remixor]

My approach might be pedantic, but my point is still valid. If it wasn't, other people wouldn't be calling her on it as well.
Then just say what you mean instead of trying to ensnare her with a shaky and by your own admittance pedantic word game.

[Jake]

Advice: taken.

I suggest you take your own advice too.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Advice: taken.

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/Bizkit/peoples.gif I don't trust you. I think you're secretly working on another stink bomb.

[Fairygdmther]

In my eyes that's closed minded :) That's all I'm sayin :P
Jake, you began this long thread with using the story as THE defining element of an adv game. I found that too vague, and so did many others. I keep hearing our banned colleague saying the the original adv games didn't even HAVE stories - they were essentially puzzle games. Yes, they have evolved, but puzzles/challenges remain at the core. By not including that in your definition, you are ignoring more than 1000 adv games to date that were created on that premise. Perhaps you feel the exclusion of violence makes me closed-minded. Again, it evolved into a genre that entertained without the need to kill to acheive your goals. This isn't my choice of what I would like to play, but rather what I've garnered from many others, including many who are much more experienced than I am.

If I wanted to define it the way I like to play, there would be no timed sequences, no sound puzzles, no way of dying. But I didn't do that - I tried to be not so limiting in my definition.

FGM

[remixor]

I suggest you take your own advice too.
Suggestion accepted!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Suggestion accepted!

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/Bizkit/peoples.gif I don't trust YOU, either. I think you're helping Jake out with his stink bomb.

[Fairygdmther]

Have you read about Dreamfall at all? The first scene Zoe starts a fight and throws punches. Later on there is a male protagonist and he uses more violence than Zoe because he is a fighter. So is Dreamfall not an adventure then? Where was it set in stone that you shouldn't use violent means to achieve your goals in an adventure game. In lots of scenarios, violence is necessary to give the story more authenticity. And I'm not talking about violence like Devil May Cry or DOOM 3 where you shoot everything in site. No I'm talking about being in a scenario where the most plausible and realistic action to take is violence. For example, a police cop game is much more realistic if you get to shoot sometimes, because can you imagine the life of a police officer without shooting a single bullet. It all depends on the context of the games. That's why I like Trep's definition. It does not limit a designer in what can be induced in an adventure game, but it still captures the essence.

I've read a great deal about Dreamfall - have you missed the part where Ragnar Tornquist explains that you can avoid the violence by using evasion? If the example you gave of a cop were in a game, and had to shoot an occasional shot, but otherwise it would fit as an adv game, then it would be one of those exceptions that I referred to. If it were to be the premise of the game, however, I would consider it an action-adventure.

FGM

[SoccerDude28]

I've read a great deal about Dreamfall - have you missed the part where Ragnar Tornquist explains that you can avoid the violence by using evasion? If the example you gave of a cop were in a game, and had to shoot an occasional shot, but otherwise it would fit as an adv game, then it would be one of those exceptions that I referred to. If it were to be the premise of the game, however, I would consider it an action-adventure.

FGM
I am not sure you can do in every single scenario. He was talking about Zoe because she is not the fighter type, but there is Kian who is fit for fighting in the game.

"Kian - Soldier, apostle, assasin

Kian serves his mistresses without question. His mission is the destruction of those lives deemed unworthy by those he worships.

Now he is about to embark on a journey that will turn his world upside down, challenge his faith, and make him question the things he has always held to be self-evident and true..." He will be fighting, that's for sure.

Again as long as fighting is not a major gameplay element, but a tool to propel the story forward, I don't see why it's not an adventure game.

[After a brisk nap]

My own definition doesn't use the word 'puzzle' because many of us have this tendency to epistomologically identify it with very limited specimens. I prefer to use 'challenges that require and emphasize thought and logic reasoning' because it allows more flexibility and points more to paradigms.I'm not sure "emphasize" thought and logic reasoning is strong enough. That still leaves space for the challenges to involve difficulty in executing them. For instance, the challenge someone posted earlier in the thread about shooting a boss monster with the right kind of ammo in the right circumstances does fall under your definition, I think, but I believe a lot of us would want to exclude it because, you know, you'd be running around, dodging bullets and lobbing grenades at the enemy.

Challenges that test your reflexes, dexterity, and general arcade skills, are not in the spirit of adventure games, I think most will agree. Adventure games may have them, but if they constitute the bulk of the gameplay it won't be an adventure game any longer.

The other difference I see between a puzzle and a challenge is that a puzzle has a Right Solution (or a number of Right Solutions), while a challenge may be solved in innumerable ways, some never considered by the designer of the challenge. I think that difference makes for a very different experience when playing.

Traditionally, adventure games have had a lot of puzzles and relatively few other challenges. I'm not yet sure whether that's a defining characteristic of adventure games or not.

(And finally, I wanted to point out that "thought" is a nicely vague term for how people solve puzzles/challenges. Whether it's through applying knowledge, recognizing patterns, creative inspiration, punning, comic-book logic, story meta-logic, or any other method, it's all neatly encapsulated by that one word, "thought".)

[JoeX111]

Then just say what you mean instead of trying to ensnare her with a shaky and by your own admittance pedantic word game.

Well, since my logic is so shaky and pedantic, you can feel free to step up to the plate and make a swing here yourself. It's pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and make criticisms of everyone else who is having a discussion.

[Duncan]

I am not sure you can do in every single scenario. He was talking about Zoe because she is not the fighter type, but there is Kian who is fit for fighting in the game.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you're right, Ragnar always talks about the alternate-solution-to-fighting stuff with regards to Zoe. With Kian (and possibly April?) you probably will have to fight at one point or another.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I'm not sure "emphasize" thought and logic reasoning is strong enough. That still leaves space for the challenges to involve difficulty in executing them.

But that's only one part of my entire 'definition'.

[remixor]

Well, since my logic is so shaky and pedantic, you can feel free to step up to the plate and make a swing here yourself. It's pretty easy to sit on the sidelines and make criticisms of everyone else who is having a discussion.
I would but I've followed my own advice; sorry.

[After a brisk nap]

Good god no that's not what I'm talking about at all. I actually just got the strange but very strong urge to punch you in the gut, to be honest! That's really weird... anyway.Your talk of an adventure game that is all story and no puzzles or exploration (as far as possible) leads to something very much like these "dating sims", though. If you take out those elements, that's what you're left with, I think.

OK, so your vision might not require scenes of sex with anime girls... but it wouldn't exclude it either.

[JoeX111]

I would but I've followed my own advice; sorry.

Awesome cop-out.

[Jackal]

Disclaimer: I've only skimmed some of the posts in this thread, so apologies to anyone who made similar points.

I dunno, Jake. I don't think the definition really holds up to much scrutiny. First of all, you've pretty arbitrarily decided that any puzzle-focused games like Myst aren't adventure games. Seems the only reason you gave was that they didn't fit your definition, which strikes me as a pretty circular argument. Maybe they are and your definition is wrong. :D

Secondly, I think the majority of adventures DO fall into the trap of strapping story onto gameplay conventions and puzzle solving. In fact, there are very few that don't, including those with reasonably good stories (we're talking focus, not quality). That doesn't mean your definition isn't something that SHOULD BE more prevalent, but it does mean it isn't something that's accurate now (nor has it been until now).

I also think you underestimate the importance of story in other genres - notably shooters, RPG's, and action/adventures. I realize you didn't say these genres didn't have stories, even important ones. But I think you are selling short their value as an absolutely integral motivation. I don't play shooters to kill monsters any more than I play adventures to solve puzzles. That's merely the gameplay mechanic used (though an enjoyable one, obviously). The story may be pretty wafer thin, but it IS a story, and I look forward to progressing through it. I do NOT play deathmatch and other multiplayer games for that reason. You're right that the nature of a shooter's story is limited by the need for violence, but that's irrelevant to your definition. They're just violent stories.

Overall, I still prefer a definition description that alludes to general gameplay elements - very generalized ones, but there nonetheless. If it weren't so late, I'd attempt one now, but it'll have to wait. It probably wouldn't be much different than Snarky's, though without the word "puzzle", as I find that far too limiting already.

[remixor]

Awesome cop-out.
Luck of the draw, man. We'd be having a different conversation if you happened to challenge me a few minutes earlier.

[Fairygdmther]

I am not sure you can do in every single scenario. He was talking about Zoe because she is not the fighter type, but there is Kian who is fit for fighting in the game.

"Kian - Soldier, apostle, assasin

Kian serves his mistresses without question. His mission is the destruction of those lives deemed unworthy by those he worships.

Now he is about to embark on a journey that will turn his world upside down, challenge his faith, and make him question the things he has always held to be self-evident and true..." He will be fighting, that's for sure.

Again as long as fighting is not a major gameplay element, but a tool to propel the story forward, I don't see why it's not an adventure game.

The reality is, as long as the game has not been released, we're only speculating as to how much, if any, fighting is necessary. We can't, with any certainty say, at this point whether it is or isn't an adventure game.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

From everything I've read, including interviews with Rags Tornquist, I think it's safe to say that Dreamfall will not include gratuitous amounts of action and violence. Whatever such that would emerge would do just that - emerge - from the story itself because it's necessary.

[Moron Lite]

No fighting or speculation necessary! The game will suck because there's only one hour of gameplay!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/Bizkit/peoples.gif Aren't you supposed to be in bed by now resting your brain?

[Duncan]

I don't play shooters to kill monsters any more than I play adventures to solve puzzles. That's merely the gameplay mechanic used (though an enjoyable one, obviously). The story may be pretty wafer thin, but it IS a story, and I look forward to progressing through it.

Me too. But isn't that not so much what the design of the game is about, and more the fact that both you and I have our gaming backgrounds mostly in adventure games* and/or know what we want to get out of a shooter or an RPG?

I think Jake said something about this earlier, but like you, I haven't actually read all the posts.

*That's a pretty baseless assumption actually, sorry if that's totally off target.

[Duncan]

From everything I've read, including interviews with Rags Tornquist, I think it's safe to say that Dreamfall will not include gratuitous amounts of action and violence. Whatever such that would emerge would do just that - emerge - from the story itself because it's necessary.

Right. To take this tried-and-true secretary example from Dreamfall, you're not hitting her because she's THERE. You're not even hitting her because you want to take an action-orientated approach to getting in the building. She attacks you because you freak her out in the conversation. Which is, I think, a pretty literal example of action emerging from normal gameplay.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Right. Just as it's perfectly natural in the story (or in real life for that matter) to decide, on the spot, to shut up about that woman trapped in a gas chamber being shown on the monitor behind the imposter secretary, and figuring out a way around her to find out what happened.

[Jackal]

Me too. But isn't that not so much what the design of the game is about, and more the fact that both you and I have our gaming backgrounds mostly in adventure games* and/or know what we want to get out of a shooter or an RPG?

Umm, I don't think so. Or at least not to the point that it invalidates the argument. I think the fact that those stories are there suggests that it's understood most gamers will appreciate it. It's no coincidence that narrative focus is increasing across pretty much all genres. If anything, it just further emphasizes that games are designed to appeal to a range of gamers with diverse tastes, which is why no ONE criterion will define any genre. (If it did, it would be a very narrow group of gamers who enjoyed it.)

If this made NO sense at all, see lateness excuse from earlier. :D

[Duncan]

I think the fact that those stories are there suggests that it's understood most gamers will appreciate it. It's no coincidence that narrative focus is increasing across pretty much all genres.

I think the stories are there because a narrative is required to string together the platforming or shooting bits into something cohesive. Not to say that no one puts effort into it, games like Ratchet & Clank try to be funny (I say 'try' because I am still unconvinced that those games actually ARE funny. :shifty: ) but I don't think anyone plays them just to get to the next punchline. It's there to amuse the player but it's not what the game is about. I don't think anyone plays Halo (Note: I have never played Halo I have no idea what I'm talking about) because of the story.

This is the quote I was talking about in my last post:

Well, I will say that I think adventure gamers (by which I mostly mean people who were possibly raised on adventure games or primarily play adventure games) get a slightly different experience than most gamers out of the stories in action/platformer/rts type games - I think they probably do play them for the story a bit more on average than some other gamers.

Which is basically what I tried to say except... better. Also I have no idea where I've ended up in the whole debate with this post. I am in the tall grass while everyone else is having civilised discourse indoors. Or something.


EDIT: what I was basically trying to say in my first paragraph is that games have grown up since the late eighties/early nineties when it was pretty much only adventure games that had any real story, and the expectations of gamers across the board have developed too. So I don't think developers now can get away with unexplained shooting or platforming just for the sake of it.

[Fairygdmther]

I don't think anyone plays Halo (Note: I have never played Halo I have no idea what I'm talking about) because of the story.



I know I've come across as a stick in the mud about adv games, however I have played Halo - all the way through! Also Max Payne, and other FPS games. And no, I didn't play Halo for the story, and it was a flimsy story at that. I just want my adventure games, and I believe most adv gamers are like this, to have no violence. If I'm in the mood for that, I'll get on the Xbox or PS2 and play an FPS or GTA. There are more than enough violent games out there - can't we keep adv games free of it? There needs to be some island of sanity in the gaming realm.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I know I've come across as a stick in the mud about adv games, however I have played Halo - all the way through! Also Max Payne, and other FPS games.

Awww, now you're making me wanna re-play Max Payne 2!! I loved that game, for both the story AND the action.

I just want my adventure games, and I believe most adv gamers are like this, to have no violence....There are more than enough violent games out there - can't we keep adv games free of it? There needs to be some island of sanity in the gaming realm.

Well, I agree on a personal level, that violence isn't necessarily crucial to the adventure game genre. But, if it's the best way to get the story across (i.e., emotionally resonant, dramatic, etc.) then by god, put it in!!!

Here's another snippet from The Cold Hotspot (http://www.adventuredevelopers.com/featuredetail.php?action=view&featureid=31&showpage=1):

And what about things like action or reflex based challenges, you ask? Hey, it's not like every single adventure game from the dawn of mankind contained a requisite action bit every five seconds, right? Historically, action bits haven't been an incredibly vital element in adventure games - categorically they didn't need it, at least as a prominent feature. The extreme focus on narrative and challenges for the brain instead of the fingers and thumbs itself acts as enough of a filter to minimize action bits, if not eschew them altogether. There are, of course, some adventures that include them in very small doses, for better or worse, as a tool to conjure up suspense through a sense of immediacy. And that's okay!

[Fienepien]

In fact, if someone made an adventure game that still let me experience an interactive and engaging story but didn't have me waving inventory items around at things or pushing a crate or negotiating a preplanned dialogue tree, I would be extremely pleased, and I would still definitely consider it an adventure game. I don't know what that game is, but I'm not going to discount its theoretical existence by needlessly excluding it from my definition of the genre.

Isabelle. :D :D :D

[digressing mode on]
Isabelle is not universally rated as a rotten game. Only here at AG. Unfortunately. The reviews at JA and Quandary are much more positive.
[digressing mode off]

Carry on, carry on... :P interesting thread, even though it's all been said before in one way or another.

[Jake]

Your talk of an adventure game that is all story and no puzzles or exploration (as far as possible) leads to something very much like these "dating sims", though. If you take out those elements, that's what you're left with, I think.

OK, so your vision might not require scenes of sex with anime girls... but it wouldn't exclude it either.

I didn't mean to imply that I wanted an adventure game with no puzzles, no exploration, and NOTHING to replace them! That's really a retarded conclusion to draw, Snarky. I didn't even say I wanted that game in general - I said that if someone could pull it off and have it be as compelling as a traditional adventure, I would be excited by the prospect.


-----------

Anyway, attention everybody: I am more than aware of the fact that the theories I proposed in this thread don't hold much water when applied in any practical sense. I proposed the whole notion mostly to get everybody talking, and in hopes of maybe making people think differently about their favorite genre of game for a few minutes.

Random thoughts:

I think Dreamfall is an adventure game, and I think Ragnar Tornquist thinks it is too, but I think after all the ridiculous backlash in his blog comments and on forums like this, he no longer feels comfortable calling it one. That might be a bit ridiculous and far fetched to speculate on, but I think theres probably some truth to that guess.

I worry that adventure games are increasingly known as the "puzzle mystery genre" instead of "the storytelling genre" and that makes me sad. It breaks my heart in fact. I think the designers whose games I grew up with (the golden age Lucas and Sierra graphic adventure makers) saw adventure gaming primarily as an interactive storytelling medium with puzzles used as a vehicle for delivering that story. I think now it's flipped to be the other way around. Realistically I understand that puzzles are an intrinsic part of adventure games, but I think the equation is becoming increasingly lopsided, with designers building games in which the story is merely a vehicle for a series of inane puzzles, instead of the other way around - or better - trying to have them both working in tandem/in harmony. It worries me.

I attended a very large handful of sessions on storytelling in games at this years Game Developers Conference and you know how many recent adventure games were used as examples, in any context? Zero. Modern adventures didn't seem to even show up on these peoples charts when it came to story discussion. Classic adventure games, yeah, but nothing new.

It was for or these reasons (and probably some other ones too that I can't think of or don't really know) that I threw this stuff out for discussion.

I do happen to hold a personal "ideal" picture/definition of adventure games that is pretty similar to what I've argued for in this thread, but, in a realistic sense if someone on the street came up to me and said "what's an adventure game" I would definitely give them a definition that included puzzles, dialogue trees, what-have-you. I think ideally the standard definitions we use when describing adventure games are a little worn out, and sometimes needlessly limiting out of habit or out of a lack of questioning, but I also know, on average, what elements more or less every adventure game on store shelves has contained for the past 20 years. I'm not completely retarded.

[remixor]

I agree with pretty much all of that.

[Fairygdmther]

Jake, no one would ever think of you as retarded. When we brought these arguments to light, we were going by what you included and excluded. Unless you tell us what you meant, we can only go by what you are saying. And we aren't attacking you, just discussing our own opinions, so please don't take it so personally. I have a lot of respect for you and the thought you put into your posts. That doesn't mean I gotta agree with them all, does it? ;)

And Fienepien - you've mentioned before the game Isabelle. I went and read Randy's review, and was intrigued enough to go to the site and buy it a few minutes ago. I hope I will thank you for it when I play it.

FGM

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I think Dreamfall is an adventure game, and I think Ragnar Tornquist thinks it is too, but I think after all the ridiculous backlash in his blog comments and on forums like this, he no longer feels comfortable calling it one. That might be a bit ridiculous and far fetched to speculate on, but I think theres probably some truth to that guess.

I think Rags has EVERY RIGHT to redefine what an adventure game can be, and Dreamfall looks to be his "F#&K YOU!" manifesto. More power to him.

I worry that adventure games are increasingly known as the "puzzle mystery genre" instead of "the storytelling genre" and that makes me sad. It breaks my heart in fact. I think the designers whose games I grew up with (the golden age Lucas and Sierra graphic adventure makers) saw adventure gaming primarily as an interactive storytelling medium with puzzles used as a vehicle for delivering that story. I think now it's flipped to be the other way around. Realistically I understand that puzzles are an intrinsic part of adventure games, but I think the equation is becoming increasingly lopsided, with designers building games in which the story is merely a vehicle for a series of inane puzzles, instead of the other way around - or better - trying to have them both working in tandem/in harmony. It worries me.

I attended a very large handful of sessions on storytelling in games at this years Game Developers Conference and you know how many recent adventure games were used as examples, in any context? Zero. Modern adventures didn't seem to even show up on these peoples charts when it came to story discussion. Classic adventure games, yeah, but nothing new.

I think we can honestly blame everyone - developers, publisher, gamers, and the media - for this lapse.

[Ninth]

I mean, in a very strong way, an Adventure Game is "a game in which the players primary goal is to complete the story." (...) Anyway, I just wondered what anyone else happened to think about that very simple definition.

I disagree, for the very simple reason that it's not true in my case. My primary goal is to discover places and toy with stuff...
By the way, is there really a chance that we'll (I mean all of us AGers) ever agree on one definition? I mean, after 100 or so thread on the subject, I'd though it was a lost battle...
My take on it is: wait until a game is out, consider how it plays, and then you'll know whether or not it's an adventure games. Because even though we can't agree on one definition fro the genre, we almost always agree that game A is an adventure game and game B isn't.
For example, I've heard a lot of people saying that Beyond Good and Evil was as close from an AG as you can get, that it could easily please most AG players, etc...(which is true) but I don't remember anyone actually saying that it's an AG. While almost everyone agrees to put Shadow of Memories (or Destiny, depending on your country) in the AG genre.
So we all know if a game is an AG, but we don't know why. Does it really matter?

[Fairygdmther]

I guess it's like that apocryphal judge's take on porn - "I'll know it if I see it."
:D

FGM

[After a brisk nap]

There's nothing apocryphal about it. That was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in 1964, in his consenting opinion to a court ruling on obscenity.

[Fienepien]

;)

And Fienepien - you've mentioned before the game Isabelle. I went and read Randy's review, and was intrigued enough to go to the site and buy it a few minutes ago. I hope I will thank you for it when I play it.


Oboyoboyoboy... now what have I done...
Isabelle is 3D and moving your two characters around is more frustrating than in Grim Fandango. :frusty: Didn't you say you stopped playing Grim, or was that someone else?

But it's different. Absolutely unique, there's nothing like it out there. For me, emotionally moving too. And I cannot explain it or pin it down, but there's something very French about it. Couldn't be made in Anglo-Saxenland or Germany.

[fov]

Okay, I actually took nyquil last night and went to sleep (novel concept!) so maybe it's too late and not worth it to comment on this... but I will anyway.

If you allow violence, you blur the boundaries once more. Note that I didn't use the vague word "action". In my eyes, if you allow violence, you have crossed into action-adventure.

This, and the earlier definition of an adventure being a game that doesn't require resorting to violence, just doesn't work.

Legacy: Dark Shadows requires you to shoot people with a gun, two or three times, and also to blow something up with a bomb. These are REQUIRED elements, in a point & click adventure game. Only one of many examples. Zork: The Underground Empire had swordfights... that's an IF action / adventure, then?

Some people may choose to play kinder, gentler adventures that don't require violence, but arbitrarily saying that a game that involves violence is not an adventure is no different than saying, just as arbitrarily, that a game with a female protagonist is not an adventure, or a game that's not in first person perspective is not an adventure... and we know these things are not true.

-emily

ps And to catch up on the rest of the posts - Jake, I know where you're coming from (obviously). I left GDC feeling just as discouraged. If at a conference attended by an entire group of game developers -- the people who MAKE GAMES -- there is no talk of adventures whatsoever, what do we have? Not much hope for the future. It's depressing.

[Fienepien]

-----------
I worry that adventure games are increasingly known as the "puzzle mystery genre" instead of "the storytelling genre" and that makes me sad. It breaks my heart in fact. I think the designers whose games I grew up with (the golden age Lucas and Sierra graphic adventure makers) saw adventure gaming primarily as an interactive storytelling medium with puzzles used as a vehicle for delivering that story. I think now it's flipped to be the other way around. Realistically I understand that puzzles are an intrinsic part of adventure games, but I think the equation is becoming increasingly lopsided, with designers building games in which the story is merely a vehicle for a series of inane puzzles, instead of the other way around - or better - trying to have them both working in tandem/in harmony. It worries me.


Hm... there wasn't all that much *story* in DOTT or Maniac Mansion or most King's Quests.

Are you talking about recent Mysty 1st-person games? Cause I don't see how that applies to recent 3rd-person adventures. Quoting my own post at JA:

"Third-person adventures are turning into extremely linear interactive stories, where you can only interact with objects and people you need when they are relevant to a particular part of the story. Everything is story-driven. Syberia, Runaway, Moment of Silence, BS3, Black Mirror. Still Life and Nibiru too. Doesn't seem to apply to first-person games. Is it my imagination or are they getting more and more puzzle-driven... except maybe Myst IV."

[Jackal]

I think the stories are there because a narrative is required to string together the platforming or shooting bits into something cohesive.

And yet that's really no different than adventures, which traditionally have done the same with building stories around puzzles and exploration.

I think it's safe to say that no one BUYS an action game for its story, or is DRAWN to it for its story, but once you're playing it, seeing the story unfold becomes an inseparable part of the motivation for continuing. And the trend is clearly moving towards making that more and more integral.

Well, I will say that I think adventure gamers (by which I mostly mean people who were possibly raised on adventure games or primarily play adventure games) get a slightly different experience than most gamers out of the stories in action/platformer/rts type games - I think they probably do play them for the story a bit more on average than some other gamers.

I don't disagree with this, but that was my point about why games offer more than one feature, more than one motivation, more than one attraction. So that players with varying interests can get from them what appeals to them most. For us it would be story more, for others the thrill of carnage, for others the fast-paced rush, etc. In adventures, for some it's story, for some puzzles, for others exploration, or any combination of the above.

[AFGNCAAP]

Whew... That was a long read! :crazy:

I like Moron Lite's look at the problem of definition. It would be anything but helpful to apply in maths or science, but in classifying forms of art/entertainment the "how much it resembles other things we defined as X" criteria seem okay to me. (Actually, I'd say many views presented here correspond with ML's one way or another: Ninth above, Trep quoting himself quoting Judge Stewart etc.). On one hand it has this platonic flavour of notion of the ideal Adventure Game floating somewhere in the sky, on the other - it remains open for evolution of the genre.

Therefore, I would strongly oppose to bringing example of unreleased - yet already controversial in its 'purity' or lack thereof - Dreamfall as a proof for or against particular thesis. Let's wait these few months, shall we? As it was pointed out, we'll most probably agree on whether it's adventure or not, while discussing its genre now it's pretty much dancing about colours.

[Fairygdmther]

Oboyoboyoboy... now what have I done...
Isabelle is 3D and moving your two characters around is more frustrating than in Grim Fandango. :frusty: Didn't you say you stopped playing Grim, or was that someone else?

But it's different. Absolutely unique, there's nothing like it out there. For me, emotionally moving too. And I cannot explain it or pin it down, but there's something very French about it. Couldn't be made in Anglo-Saxenland or Germany.

That was me all right - good memory! Well, I'll give it a try, and I know I'll try GF again as well. Thanks

FOV "Some people may choose to play kinder, gentler adventures that don't require violence, but arbitrarily saying that a game that involves violence is not an adventure is no different than saying, just as arbitrarily, that a game with a female protagonist is not an adventure, or a game that's not in first person perspective is not an adventure... and we know these things are not true."

I'm voicing the concerns of many adv players from other sites, as well as my own. I feel also, that eliminating/minimizing violence just might be the saving grace for adv games in the current climate of blaming games for acts of real world violence. Distancing ourselves and our games from all the other genres just may cause more people to look at what adv games have to offer. This is obviously another issue from defining them, but to date, it is only a minority of the many adv games made that do rely on violence. If adv games could be seen as the non-violent genre, then it might become the family entertainment sort of game, if presented right to the public. And why do we NEED to have violence in adv games? Can't you get your fill of it from virtually any other kind of game?

FOV - you go to GB - do you see anyone there advocating violence? That is a huge site of adv gamers. I'm sure you will see posts saying that they don't like/want it in adv games. And in fact you will see them defining adv games as non-violent.

FGM


FGM

[Udvarnoky]

Hm... there wasn't all that much *story* in DOTT or Maniac Mansion

Eh, what are you talking about? Sure there was.

[Moron Lite]

On one hand it has this platonic flavour of notion of the ideal Adventure Game floating somewhere in the sky, on the other - it remains open for evolution of the genre. That's a good way of putting it.

After all that's been said, I still think Jake's definition is touching upon something important in how we define adventure games, or what would be a useful way of defining adventure games. Genres and sub-genres get sorted out in terms of how well games can be fitted to a particular dialogue of design.

Some of us definitely do think there's something wrong with taking Myst and its ilk wholeheartedly as adventure games. Why is that? At some point, whether it was the creation of 7th Guest or Myst or whichever of these types of games came first, some designers decided to make games in which puzzles carried a far more prominent role, "leading" more of the game design than usual, and in which the puzzles on average became more elaborate (more like the traditional puzzles of yore?) than those coming out of a more world/story-focused adventure design (starting with Adventure?). These games branched off into their own discussion, albeit one closely related to the prototypical adventure game.

In a game like Half-Life, the design is led by the fact that it's a first-person shooter, that it revolves around a certain kind of gameplay (like what Jake and Emily were saying earlier). Few game designers think, "Okay, I'm going to come up with the story and world first, and then fit whatever gameplay style seems most appropriate onto that," and then purely by chance end up with an unambiguous first-person shooter, or a strategy game. And even if they did, gamers would be most likely to sort the game first as an FPS or strategy game, and then take a look at the story. We think of World of Warcraft first as an MMORPG, and then as a "Warcraft" game. Maybe not *every single* one of us does, but we're dealing with generalizations here, which is what genre's about. We're trying to figure out the logic with which a culture at large understands a game, not a principle of absolute inclusion and exclusion. Exceptional individual responses like "I played Monkey Island purely for the puzzles, not the world or story!" are beside the point.

So anyway, yeah, I still think there's something to Jake's definition. We could probably fine-tune it some more.

[fov]

FOV - you go to GB - do you see anyone there advocating violence? That is a huge site of adv gamers. I'm sure you will see posts saying that they don't like/want it in adv games. And in fact you will see them defining adv games as non-violent.


Whether or not they're "advocating" violence, a lot of people at GB liked Legacy: Dark Shadows -- three shootings and two explosions* included -- a lot more than I did. ;) And come to think of it, I don't remember one single complaint about the game's "violent" nature.

People can have personal tastes. People can dislike games with violence in them. I don't care if people want or don't want to play certain games. But to say that a game that includes violence CAN'T by definition be an adventure game is misguided and extremely arbitrary.

And why do we NEED to have violence in adv games?

Because some stories can't be told without it. Look at the very premise of Moment of Silence -- a game that has been called best adventure of last year and has been said by many players of adventure games (Gameboomers included!) to have an incredible story. It's about terrorism. Things get blown up. That story could not have been told without some violence. Are you suggesting that the majority of adventure gamers wish it had never been made?

There is a difference between gratuitious violence and violence that occurs as part of a story. As I've said before, I don't think ANYTHING should be random or gratuitious in a good adventure... violence included. If it's not necessary, don't stick it in there just to appeal to a wider audience. But if it is, for god's sake, don't leave it out for fear of offending someone. You and whoever else hates violence in games don't have to play those games. Just like I don't have to play Myst clones.

*Since my last post, I realized there's not one but TWO puzzles in this game that require Ren to blow something up. EDIT: Three, actually. Oh, and yet another killing puzzle involving a weapon other than a gun.

[Fienepien]

Eh, what are you talking about? Sure there was.

I'm not saying there weren't any games with good stories. Like Full Throttle, Grim Fandango. But there were also many games with hardly any story. What's Dott about? Purple Tentacle drinks polluted water, goes insane and wants to rule the world. Go back in time and take care of the water. That's it. The rest is puzzles and loads of fun. That's not much, compared to the long and complicated stories of the black mirror and moment of silence.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Some of us definitely do think there's something wrong with taking Myst and its ilk wholeheartedly as adventure games. Why is that? At some point, whether it was the creation of 7th Guest or Myst or whichever of these types of games came first, some designers decided to make games in which puzzles carried a far more prominent role, "leading" more of the game design than usual, and in which the puzzles on average became more elaborate (more like the traditional puzzles of yore?) than those coming out of a more world/story-focused adventure design (starting with Adventure?). These games branched off into their own discussion, albeit one closely related to the prototypical adventure game.

This is what I see as epistemological categorizing based on historical behaviour, whether it be personal or collective. What IF Myst hadn't been critically acclaimed and commercially successful? Consequently, given the typical conditions and workings of market and commercial responses, the 'dialogue' (historical behaviour) would have shifted onto whatever other game would have been successful. And that would inform the industry, market, culture, and gamer on what an adventure game is - or at least, what a working adventure game is.

But of course we know it's more abstract than that. It's just that Myst and subsequent titles that feature similar properties inform us of the boundaries within which these kinds of games have been expected to stay.

It's the abstract that I'm trying to pin down, not necessarily the concretes, which I think can often be deceptive qualifiers.

In a game like Half-Life, the design is led by the fact that it's a first-person shooter, that it revolves around a certain kind of gameplay (like what Jake and Emily were saying earlier). Few game designers think, "Okay, I'm going to come up with the story and world first, and then fit whatever gameplay style seems most appropriate onto that," and then purely by chance end up with an unambiguous first-person shooter, or a strategy game. And even if they did, gamers would be most likely to sort the game first as an FPS or strategy game, and then take a look at the story. We think of World of Warcraft first as an MMORPG, and then as a "Warcraft" game. Maybe not *every single* one of us does, but we're dealing with generalizations here, which is what genre's about. We're trying to figure out the logic with which a culture at large understands a game, not a principle of absolute inclusion and exclusion. Exceptional individual responses like "I played Monkey Island purely for the puzzles, not the world or story!" are beside the point.

What I highlighted in bold is exactly what Rags Tornquist is now setting out to do. Which is what is infuriating many adventure gamers who prefer to think in concretes rather than abstracts. This is a good example of the idea of genre being challenged.

For me personally, whether or not Dreamfall will fall under the ultimately arbitrary box of 'Adventure' is not the issue. Maybe we shouldn't be obsessed any more with classifications and instead perceive them as more of a dynamic shifting scale of qualifiers.

[Manhunter71]

WOW!
I can't believe it - I've been away for a few hours to sleep and then go shopping, and another 5 pages have appeared :crazy:

I can imagine this topic being discussed by us all over a few pints in the pub, with everyone's voices getting louder and louder as the argument becomes more heated :D

Its clear that as individuals we all have very different (some of us very wrong :P ) definitions as to what constitutes an adventure game, so I will say this as my final post on the subject, although I think it has been said a few pages back :

in the most basic terms an adventure game involves a main character with some kind of background story - during the game he/she/it has some objective he needs to complete or issue he needs to resolve. Along the way he will meet other characters, have conversations, solve puzzles, overcome obstacles; either by fighting or by intelligence.
Eventually he will come to the end of his quest and the game will be over.

In short, he has undertaken an adventure - therefore you, in controlling him, have played an adventure :D

You realise I am generalising here, but I just wanted to be awkward and back up my much earlier statement that basically all games are adventures in some form :D

[Intrepid Homoludens]

in the most basic terms an adventure game involves a main character with some kind of background story - during the game he/she/it has some objective he needs to complete or issue he needs to resolve. Along the way he will meet other characters, have conversations, solve puzzles, overcome obstacles; either by fighting or by intelligence.
Eventually he will come to the end of his quest and the game will be over.

:D So then Doom3 really IS an adventure game!!

[Manhunter71]

:D So then Doom3 really IS an adventure game!!


Well yes - didn't the main character have to overcome obstacles to achieve his goal?
Wasn't there a beginning and an end?
Didn't he have an adventure whilst fighting all those nasty alien monsters?

:D

[Moron Lite]

I think I agree with pretty much all of what you just said. (EDIT: Oops, this was supposed to come immediately after Trep's post.)

I do get the feeling that the adventure game genre, broadly and historically speaking, does coalesce more around the story and world more than a particular gameplay style, and that's been the thing that (generally) seperates it from most other genres. (Genre benders and breakers like Deus Ex and Second Life are another story.) Particulars/concretes like branching dialogue trees and puzzles were just the best available means of expressing important facets of the story and world at a certain point in time, and better methods have been hard to come by, which is why we often feel like certain particulars come first (and in a lot of cases, it undoubtedly has, at least when the developer has had the opportunity to move beyond those particulars). But if we can see that the adventure game genre has broadly been more about story and world first, Dreamfall (and Shenmue) fall into the tradition fairly well, I think.

I think there's also something to be said about how the adventure game genre (not talking about the Mystian, puzzle-led genre) emphasizes everyday ways of being, e.g. just walking around, talking, picking stuff up, etc., whereas most other genres form themselves around things we don't normally do much of, like shooting, fighting, jumping, and so on.

[Udvarnoky]

What's Dott about? Purple Tentacle drinks polluted water, goes insane and wants to rule the world. Go back in time and take care of the water. That's it. The rest is puzzles and loads of fun. That's not much, compared to the long and complicated stories of the black mirror and moment of silence.

Don't you think you're dumbing down the story just a tad? It's like you're ignoring the fact that a lot of the game's puzzles themselves are important story elements, or that the "take care of the water" part is merely what's supposed to happen at the end. It's just as easy to summarize BM or MOS in an equally silly way, but I wouldn't insult them. Games can be wacky and weird and still have a great story. Even a simply story can be really good, but I wouldn't describe DOTT's story as such.

You also mention the original game as having not much of a story. Maniac Mansion was a about an Evil Purple Meteor that crashed into the front lawn of a weird family, causing the father/husband, a mad scientist, to become brainwashed and to try to take over the world by sucking out the brains of teenagers, individually by use of a machine called the Zomb-B-Matic in his basement laboratory. When Sandy Pantz is kidnapped by Dr. Fred it's up to Sandy's boyfriend Dave Miller and the rest of his college buddies to break into the house, rescue Sandy, free Dr. Fred of his possession, and save the world. And they do this by applying their individual talents and meeting a bunch of strange characters like Nurse Edna, Weird Ed, Purple Tentacle, and Green Tentacle. The kids can get aid from some of these residents in different ways, such as taking advantage of Ed's desire to save his father or Green Tentacle's dream of becoming a rock star. MM's story had a brilliant horror/scifi parody flavor to it that made it really enjoyable and fun. Just because the story doesn't unfold in some gorgeous, cinematic type way like, say, Grim Fandango, it's definitely there, and it is the point of the game. I'll also point outthat, even if it is deemed entirely subjective, it was the story that drew me to MM in the first place.

[Ninth]

You also mention the original game as having not much of a story. Maniac Mansion was a about an Evil Purple Meteor that crashed into the front lawn of a weird family...
Compared to most recent games' stories, that's quite lame.
I never played Maniac Mansion, DOTT or Monkey Island for their stories, I played them for the fun writing, compelling atmospheres, and high interactivity. That's what today's games lack, which they (try to) compensate with deeper/darker stories and better graphics.

[Jake]

Compared to most recent games' stories, that's quite lame.

Just because it's a teen comedy or whatever doesn't mean its lame by definition. An adventure game doesn't need to star adults, tell a story of doomed romance, or be about some grisly underbelly of a city or a wartorn land or something to be quality. That sort of thing can tip into cliche or melodrama city pretty much just as quickly as a teen comedy can tip over into trite-land.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Compared to most recent games' stories, that's quite lame.

Your arbitrary stance seems to declare some kind of vague qualifier, based on personal opinion, of the significance of the pervasiveness of narrative for a fulfilling gaming experience.

Udvarnoky ENJOYED the story, didn't he? Surely that's some kind of testament to DOTT's power to grab the player in some way.

[Ninth]

Just because it's a teen comedy or whatever doesn't mean its lame by definition. An adventure game doesn't need to star adults, tell a story of doomed romance, or be about some grisly underbelly of a city or a wartorn land or something to be quality. That sort of thing can tip into cliche or melodrama city pretty much just as quickly as a teen comedy can tip over into trite-land.
Sure. Whenever did I implied otherwise?
Monkey Island or DOTT are teen comedies, and they're (among) my favorites.
I tried Cirque De Zale, No Action Jackson, Apprentice... and they suck badly, compared to commercial adventures (even though I do respect the people who make them a lot). They lack ambition, good graphics (and to me, Monkey Island had excellent graphics, it's not about the resolution, it's about the style), compelling dialogs, atmosphere, etc... Trying to diss commercial adventures while praising these is nonsensical.

[Ninth]

Your arbitrary stance seems to declare some kind of vague qualifier, based on personal opinion, of the significance of the pervasiveness of narrative for a fulfilling gaming experience.

Udvarnoky ENJOYED the story, didn't he? Surely that's some kind of testament to DOTT's power to grab the player in some way.
Yeah, yeah, I enjoyed the story too, so what? It's over-simple, full of cliches, yet funny and clever, and it's anything but deep. I think that recent games on the whole have better stories, unless you're considering atmosphere and dialogs as part of the story.
Plus I was referring to Maniac Mansion, not DOTT.

EDIT: And whenever did I deny DOTT the power to grab anyone? It grabbed me, badly.

[Udvarnoky]

Compared to most recent games' stories, that's quite lame.

Either I've never played these games, or our tastes are spectacularly contrasting.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Yeah, yeah, I enjoyed the story too, so what? It's over-simple, full of cliches, yet funny and clever, and it's anything but deep. I think that recent games on the whole have better stories, unless you're considering atmosphere and dialogs as part of the story.
Plus I was referring to Maniac Mansion, not DOTT.

I wasn't talking about what you personally think of the story, I was talking about the story's power to hold the player's attention and how it's maintained through the game's arc. Get that difference into your skull. Better story is subject to the individual player's judgment, but how a story is better in terms of how it is designed into the game is another matter.

[Udvarnoky]

Getting a bit off the path here, I notice MM/DOTT being described as "teen comedies." Is the definition of this supposed to be comedy that features teens or a comedy targeted at teens?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Usually both.

[fov]

Newer games tend to have more complicated storylines than older ones, simply because in old games the technology and disk space limited what could be done. I haven't played Maniac Mansion or DOTT, but I think I understand what Ninth is getting at -- that the stories are more primitive than what you see in some of today's adventures. But even a simple story can be well told (which is, I think, what happened with MM and DOTT) and as we've seen many times, complex stories can be told very badly. :P

EDIT: What Trep said, about the arc.

-emily

[Ninth]

Either I've never played these games, or our tastes are spectacularly contrasting.
I don't know if you've played them.
If I had to pick my favorite between DOTT (I don't like Maniac Mansion that much) and any recent game, I'd pick DOTT for sure.
But if I'm asked to pick the better story, then I'd pick Syberia, Black Mirror, Darkfall, NiBiRu, Moment of Silence, or even BS3 over DOTT.

But I'm pretty sure we don't have the same definition of "story" anyway, so this is kind of pointless.

[Ninth]

Newer games tend to have more complicated storylines than older ones, simply because in old games the technology and disk space limited what could be done. I haven't played Maniac Mansion or DOTT, but I think I understand what Ninth is getting at -- that the stories are more primitive than what you see in some of today's adventures. But even a simple story can be well told (which is, I think, what happened with MM and DOTT) and as we've seen many times, complex stories can be told very badly. :P

EDIT: What Trep said, about the arc.

-emily
Yes.

[Udvarnoky]

Usually both.

Well, based on things I've read from Gary Winnick, I'd say the reason the game features teens is to mock/honor old horror B-movies that featured teenagers doing obviously stupid things (like entering house with a sign outside promising mutilation to intruders), not to aim at some particular demographic.

[Fienepien]

Don't you think you're dumbing down the story just a tad?

Yes, a tad. But not more than a tad. :P

It's like you're ignoring the fact that a lot of the game's puzzles themselves are important story elements,

Define story. Unrelated incidents and people is more like it. Which it has in common with a modern game like Syberia. I'm not critizing DOTT and I'm no fan of Syberia, but the claim that all these older adventures were story-driven or whatever term was used, is false. IMO. Let's not forget to add IMO.

or that the "take care of the water" part is merely what's supposed to happen at the end.

Well, isn't it?

It's just as easy to summarize BM or MOS in an equally silly way

No, you couldn't. Not without leaving out too many *relevant* stuff.

You also mention the original game as having not much of a story. Maniac Mansion was a about an Evil Purple Meteor that crashed into the front lawn of a weird family, causing the father/husband, a mad scientist, to become brainwashed and to try to take over the world by sucking out the brains of teenagers, individually by use of a machine called the Zomb-B-Matic in his basement laboratory. When Sandy Pantz is kidnapped by Dr. Fred it's up to Sandy's boyfriend Dave Miller and the rest of his college buddies to break into the house, rescue Sandy, free Dr. Fred of his possession, and save the world.

That is a nice summary of the INTRO. :D Guys, lets rescue poor Sandy, and off they go.

[Ninth]

Let's not forget to add IMO.
What about the :) smiley?

[Jake]

Yeah, yeah, I enjoyed the story too, so what? It's over-simple, full of cliches, yet funny and clever, and it's anything but deep. I think that recent games on the whole have better stories, unless you're considering atmosphere and dialogs as part of the story.

Urg. Gilbert Goodmate, Tony Tough, and maybe Runaway are the 3 "recent" games that I could even consider most directly relating to DOTT story-wise, and all 3 of them have really idiotic unappealing stories that don't remotely interest. I don't really know where you're getting the comparison to modern games?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Just his own personal taste, Jake.

[Udvarnoky]

But if I'm asked to pick the better story, then I'd pick Syberia, Black Mirror, Darkfall, NiBiRu, Moment of Silence, or even BS3 over DOTT.

I still say the complexity or value of a story is being confused with elements like seriousness and emotion here. MM/DOTT don't have the same kind of depth as those games, but I don't think writing their stories off as simple is the right way to handle what I believe is simply a different kind of direction.

Also, I disagree with the notion that the technical confinements of the older games limited the complexity or worth of a their stories. How can you possibly back something like that up?

But I'm pretty sure we don't have the same definition of "story" anyway, so this is kind of pointless.

You're probably right.

[Fienepien]

What about the :) smiley?

What?! Another smiley??
Well, if you insist.
Where would you like me to put it?

[Fienepien]

I'm invisible again.... oh well. By the time I'd finished typing there were 11 NEW posts.

[Ninth]

Urg. Gilbert Goodmate, Tony Tough, and maybe Runaway are the 3 "recent" games that I could even consider most directly relating to DOTT story-wise, and all 3 of them have really idiotic unappealing stories that don't remotely interest. I don't really know where you're getting the comparison to modern games?
I'm just saying that DOTT's story is not its most impressive feature.
And you'll notice that I didn't use the games you cited as examples because I only played Runaway and it's story was idiotic and unappealing indeed.
Ultimately, my point is that good stories is not what recent games lack. And that's not what drove me to adventure games in the first place either.

[Fienepien]

Urg. Gilbert Goodmate, Tony Tough, and maybe Runaway are the 3 "recent" games that I could even consider most directly relating to DOTT story-wise, and all 3 of them have really idiotic unappealing stories that don't remotely interest. I don't really know where you're getting the comparison to modern games?

I don't see any relation at all, storywise. They're all (supposed to be) humorous games, that's all as far as I'm concerned.

[Udvarnoky]

Define story. Unrelated incidents and people is more like it. Which it has in common with a modern game like Syberia.

Unrelated, eh?

I'm not critizing DOTT and I'm no fan of Syberia, but the claim that all these older adventures were story-driven or whatever term was used, is false. IMO. Let's not forget to add IMO.

Good thing, too, because you're totally wrong. IMO.

If Maniac Mansion isn't a story-driven game I don't know what is. What is it you think that drives it, or any other of the older LucasArts games?

Well, isn't it?

Yes, which means you're pretty much summarizing the entire story by saying they have to fix the water.

That is a nice summary of the INTRO. :D Guys, lets rescue poor Sandy, and off they go.

But you FIND OUT a lot of the stuff I typed as the game progresses. The INTRO is a meteor crashing and three kids on a driveway. What does that explain to someone who just loaded this thing for the first time? You have to PLAY THE GAME to discover everything else.

[Udvarnoky]

Ultimately, my point is that good stories is not what recent games lack.

Fine. Then my point is that the old games didn't lack them either.

[Ninth]

I still say the complexity or value of a story is being confused with elements like seriousness and emotion here. MM/DOTT don't have the same kind of depth as those games, but I don't think writing their stories off as simple is the right way to handle what I believe is simply a different kind of direction.

Also, I disagree with the notion that the technical confinements of the older games limited the complexity or worth of a their stories. How can you possibly back something like that up?
If you're not able to represent (graphically speaking) what you want in a game, you have to make the story simpler and reduce your ambition in this regard, and play with other elements to make the game still fun to play. Which means you have to have a special care for details, for small animations, funny remarks, and all that makes DOTT such a great game.
Of course, the opposite is true, and more often than not when developpers have the means to actually turn the story the had in mind into a game, they seem to think the details are unimportant.

[fov]

Also, I disagree with the notion that the technical confinements of the older games limited the complexity or worth of a their stories. How can you possibly back something like that up?

You can't tell a story of the same scope in a game crammed onto one 5.25" floppy that you can in a game on a CD, for one thing.

I'm sure there are other examples, but not having worked in game development myself, I'd only be speculating.

[Ninth]

Fine. Then my point is that the old games didn't lack them either.
No (well, some older games had bad stories, of course, as some newer ones).
But let me amend my point:
The stories in AGs didn't get worse, they're as good as they ever were.

[Jake]

But if I'm asked to pick the better story, then I'd pick Syberia, Black Mirror, Darkfall, NiBiRu, Moment of Silence, or even BS3 over DOTT.

I think from a pure story standpoint you're really comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying "I'd pick Chinatown's story over Back to the Future's any day!" or something.

forget it.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Like I said, Jake, it's just his personal taste.

[Udvarnoky]

If you're not able to represent (graphically speaking) what you want in a game, you have to make the story simpler and reduce your ambition in this regard, and play with other elements to make the game still fun to play. Which means you have to have a special care for details, for small animations, funny remarks, and all that makes DOTT such a great game.


I think that is dangerously close to saying a good story is dependent upon graphics. I'm simply not getting how stories must be simplified just because technical aspects are! Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by not being able to graphically represent something in a game, and your DOTT example is more puzzling. Do you really think that the great animations, dialogue, and everything else not "technical" about DOTT was simply a last resort, only put there to make up for some technical gap? Would Schafer and Grossman have thrown out all the personality if they could have made the game in today's environment? Was their mentality, "Man, we can't made a hi-res 3D model of Bernard Bernouli, so let's stuff the game with humor and attention to detail in an effort to divert the player's attention!"

[Ninth]

I think from a pure story standpoint you're really comparing apples and oranges. That's like saying "I'd pick Chinatown over Back to the Future" or something.

You seem to be exclusively listing stories that are "deep" and "emotional" (quotes very intentional) or at best "dark" and what I'm inferring from that is that you're simply marking "deep" "emotional" and "dark" stories as "good," while marking lighthearted possibly silly ones as "lame" and "weak."
Not really. I really like Monkey Island's story, which is quite complex, even though it's really light, but DOTT's story felt non-important to me.
And since there aren't any recent light games worth mentioning (I hate the Westerner, and didn't like Runaway that much, I only picked dark titles because that's what they do nowadays. Of course, that in itself (that there are almost exclusively dark titles) is quite bad.
Oh, and irony aside, I do think that newer stories are deeper than older ones, on the whole, by which I mean more convoluted, more cinematic, more fun.

[Udvarnoky]

You can't tell a story of the same scope in a game crammed onto one 5.25" floppy that you can in a game on a CD, for one thing.

What's "scope" to you? The file size of the game's cutscenes?

[Ninth]

I think that is dangerously close to saying a good story is dependent upon graphics. I'm simply not getting how stories must be simplified just because technical aspects are! Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by not being able to graphically represent something in a game, and your DOTT example is more puzzling. Do you really think that the great animations, dialogue, and everything else not "technical" about DOTT was simply a last resort, only put there to make up for some technical gap? Would Schafer and Grossman have thrown out all the personality if they could have made the game in today's environment? Was their mentality, "Man, we can't made a hi-res 3D model of Bernard Bernouli, so let's stuff the game with humor and attention to detail in an effort to divert the player's attention!"
It's not a last resort, rather a different means of expression.
No one can say for sure, but it's very possible that if Schafer and Grossman had had access to today's technology, they would have made an enteriely different game (in the spirit, not graphically, which is quite obvious).

[Fienepien]

If Maniac Mansion isn't a story-driven game I don't know what is. What is it you think that drives it, or any other of the older LucasArts games?


Humor, puzzles, atmosphere, just like Ninth said.

Don't you agree that for obvious reasons the story of the Indiana Jones games played a much bigger part than in DOTT?

[Intrepid Homoludens]

It's not a last resort, rather a different means of expression.
No one can say for sure, but it's very possible that if Schafer and Grossman had had access to today's technology, they would have made an enteriely different game (in the spirit, not graphically, which is quite obvious).

Do you mean if they had access to today's technology BACK THEN? When they were younger, less steeped in the games industry, and more idealistic?

[Udvarnoky]

It's not a last resort, rather a different means of expression.

Ah, my point! But I don't agree that "funny remarks" and whatnot are the sole or major areas where the creativity spilt over. (Hint: Story).

No one can say for sure, but it's very possible that if Schafer and Grossman had had access to today's technology, they would have made an enteriely different game (in the spirit, not graphically, which is quite obvious).

That's funny. I figure it'd be just the opposite.

[Udvarnoky]

Humor, puzzles, atmosphere, just like Ninth said.

I found those to be the great experiences along the way.

Don't you agree that for obvious reasons the story of the Indiana Jones games played a much bigger part than in DOTT?

That's an excellent question. I'll have to ponder that.

[Ninth]

Do you mean if they had access to today's technology BACK THEN? When they were younger, less steeped in the games industry, and more idealistic?
Yes...

[fov]

What's "scope" to you? The file size of the game's cutscenes?

I'm not talking about graphics or cutscenes. (I am one of the biggest advocates of story in games around - I could give a sh*t about graphics and cutscenes, frankly.) I'm talking about what games were able to *do* in the early 80s, when they first started coming out, compared to now. Some of the limitations may have been technical, some may have been that people who started making games in the 80s got better at it as they went along. But I'm not sure how else to say this, other than, early graphic adventures had simple stories, and those stories tended to get more complex and grow along with advances in technology.

I'm having a very hard time getting words from my head to my fingers today, so let me give an example (and hopefully you've played these games so the example will make sense). Take King's Quest 1, one of Roberta Williams' first games, and Phantasmagoria, one of her last. KQ1 was made in 1984 or so and Phantasmagoria came out in 1995. Phantasmagoria was a FAR more ambitious game, with a larger scope and telling a far more complex story, than King's Quest 1. I'm not talking about the FMV or the cutscenes, I'm talking about the way the story was constructed, the world it was constructed in, the ways that the player was able to interact with and connect to the story.

Ignoring Phantasmagoria and just looking at the King's Quest games - they grew with the technology. Each game had a more complex storyline than the one before. (This is true of all the Sierra series, really.) I can't believe that doesn't have some link to the advances that were being made and the freedom the writers had to play and experiment with the technology that was becoming available.

[Ninth]

Ignoring Phantasmagoria and just looking at the King's Quest games - they grew with the technology. Each game had a more complex storyline than the one before. (This is true of all the Sierra series, really.) I can't believe that doesn't have some link to the advances that were being made and the freedom the writers had to play and experiment with the technology that was becoming available.
Or, to use King Quest as an example, KQ2 remake has a much much better and deeper story than the original.

[Fienepien]

That's an excellent question. I'll have to ponder that.

Reading my own question again, I hardly understand it. :D
I need my beauty sleep, it's half past one in the morning.

By "obvious reasons" I meant that the game was based on the movie, so the story was already there. If you got that part, you're a genius.

[Jake]

250 posts in 24 hours!