Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (2 FEB 2005 8:55am)
Hell, no-one even knows what they've got up their sleeve yet. And that book analogy doesn't make any sense either - the storytelling won't be affected by their inclusion and the metaphor doesn't fit with the changes anyway.

After all adventure games are about adventure

Originally Posted By Syberian (2 FEB 2005 12:26pm)
To create a sense of that immenent danger in games, what do you do? You make it so the character can die (so there are real stakes to failure and extra motivation to succeed), and you include elements with time pressure, requiring quick thinking and reflexes, just like the heroes in adventures use.

Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (1 FEB 2005 10:44pm)
BTW, talking about it, I'm glad you now understand that you can have 3D direct control without action. I've been trying to tell you this for ages.  

Originally Posted By Agustin (2 FEB 2005 11:53am)
How can you say no-one knows what they've got up their sleeve and then something like "the storytelling won't be affected by their inclusion"? Seems to me negative thoughts are absolutely prohibited while, by all means, bring on the happy thoughts! The truth is the adventure fans have been too many times disappointed with stuff like this, so it's completely understandable if the negative thoughts outweight the happy ones. Plus the short, basic sentence "adding action elements to their games" leaves absolutely no room for doubts. There will action in their games. And adventure fans tend to dislike action. Try to be open-minded about that!

And sorry but action can wildly affect the storytelling. There can be exceptions (ie: all the 'action' BS3 sequences could've been turned into cutscenes, although that isn't the happiest example either) but usually it tends to so do.

Moreso, I firmly believe there are other ways to create the feeling of 'pressure' and 'drama' without resorting to action sequences and quick reflexes. Appropriate music, good acting, the right atmosphere, etc. can be some of them.

Originally Posted By Syberian (2 FEB 2005 1:24pm)
Augustin, good points all, though the things I listed are certainly strong ways of adding tension and creating the requisite sense of danger and adventure. Perhaps more importantly, they're often thematically apropos. For an adventure (in the broad sense) with physical dangers, it makes sense to have physical challenges/responses to them. Sometimes Indiana Jones outwits his foes, sometimes he outruns or outshoots them. But a lot of adventure games make you feel more like some 98-pound librarian on holiday than a brave adventurer

Of course, adventure and exploration can be mental or spirtual, but when you have an adventure game where the hero is, say, a cowboy like in Wanted, you expect action and violence and quick reflexes. Wanted actually included a bit of that, but it was so sloppy, watered down, and cartoony that it didn't count for much, which is another reminder that if you're going to include any element in a game, do it right or don't bother.

Originally Posted By Agustin (2 FEB 2005 11:53am)

How can you say no-one knows what they've got up their sleeve and then something like "the storytelling won't be affected by their inclusion"? Seems to me negative thoughts are absolutely prohibited while, by all means, bring on the happy thoughts! The truth is the adventure fans have been too many times disappointed with stuff like this, so it's completely understandable if the negative thoughts outweight the happy ones. Plus the short, basic sentence "adding action elements to their games" leaves absolutely no room for doubts. There will action in their games. And adventure fans tend to dislike action. Try to be open-minded about that!

And sorry but action can wildly affect the storytelling. There can be exceptions (ie: all the 'action' BS3 sequences could've been turned into cutscenes, although that isn't the happiest example either) but usually it tends to so do.

Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (2 FEB 2005 6:44pm)
Storytelling won't be affected by their inclusion. Fact.

So go ahead, have your doom and gloom and adventure armageddon.

The line has been drawn. Pick your sides, for what it's worth.

Originally Posted By PIPPA (2 FEB 2005 9:30pm)


NO NO NO to Action sequences in adventure games, even more so if they are timed. In the shops in england you have problems finding adventure games. I'm sure the developers would say that pure adventure games don't sell but that is because the are not there to buy. If you ask 100 people about PC games 85 per cent wouldn't have heard of the sort of games we all love.Isn't it time we all made our voices heard got the the games in the shops and i'm sure there must be thousands out ther who would love them, like people like a good book where you use your mind. after all puzzle books sell by the million, but if they wern't in the shops no one would buy them and then they would say ther was no demand. Talk about a chicken and egg situation!!!!!

Originally Posted By Agustin (2 FEB 2005 7:45pm)

Not quite. Back to my SQ example - imagine Roger Wilco in this same situation where he approaches the furry creature. In 'traditional' adventure we have options such as go closer and hope it's harmless or be cautious and consider another way around. Now with the inclusion of action we could have another option. Roger can pick-up a stick and beat the furry creature to death. Roger, who has always been a non-violent character is suddenly transformed by the inclusion of action. Maybe beating the creature has no direct impact in the story because it's an isolated event. But the perception of Roger as a likable hero who never killed someone or something is wildly affected (notice how you could always outwit your enemies indirectly via non-confrontatinal means, ie: Arnold). Sure, Roger could also jump over the creature but my point is: action can affect the storyline in ways you can't even imagine.

As I said, BS3 wasn't a good example because it suffered of minigames-like sequences which could be easily turned into cutscenes. But there are ways to achieve this inclusion and some of them can affect the storyline much more than others. That's what I'm saying.

I'm bothered by your indifference.

After a few years of obscurity, the 'traditional' adventure resurfaced only to be pushed into the background once again with announcements like this.

Just because you couldn't care less doesn't make "us" the-sky-is-falling-mass-hysteria-crybabies (not your own words but you know what I mean). It's not the Armageddon nor the death of anybody, but we're talking the type of games we ("us"

most enjoy playing here. Moreso, comments like this...

... aren't helping. It'd seem is you the one picking sides. No one ever talked or implied the community is divided until now.

PS: As an afterthought, you said "there will always be non-action games". The whole point of this discussion (so far) is the huge blow this announcement is supposing for the 'traditional' adventure genre. I assume none of its fans could care less whether non-action games keep existing if the genre we're talking about here fades into oblivion.

This is an ADVANTAGE of action - to completely involve you without taking the player away from their involvement and interaction with the gameworld and its characters.

Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (3 FEB 2005 4:16pm)
Surely good writing is only part of what a game can provide? I can get good writing in books... good writing in movies... why do I want to play a game purely for good writing?

Good writing can also provide a "gripping edge-of-your-seat emotional punch" to an adventure game.

Originally Posted By Syberian (3 FEB 2005 1:17pm)

Further, action can add a gripping edge-of-your-seat emotional punch to a game, whereas if you play a game where you know there will be no action (or no chance for death or permanent failure), the tension and stakes are reduced. There you know you can just dawdle about, can't fail, can't mess up. That can make it feel, from an emotional and storytelling perspective, like it doesn't matter whether you complete the task at hand or save the day (when, it turns out, it doesn't really need to be saved).

Originally Posted By Jenny100 (3 FEB 2005 8:55pm)
I find the opposite to be true. If I know my character can be killed at any moment, I automatically distance myself from the situation and cease to be immersed.

Originally Posted By SquarejawHero (3 FEB 2005 8:44pm)

The problem here is that action isn't defined as much as adventure. The general concensus seems to be killing and violence, or that the addition of action will perversely affect the story so characters are lifted out of their, well, characters. Those things and their avoidance (there are non-violent action games!) are entirely up to the developer and what story they want to tell, not part and parcel of what the term action implies.