| 28 JUN 2003 at 4:12pm |
borgolIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 13
Joined: 11 MAY 2003
Status : Online | But thats just the point! We're buying these games because we don't like action bits. If I liked action I would have bought an action game. I'm here for a reason. I don't want to use cheats in order to finish the game. I want to enjoy the game I buy! And having to use cheats and other peoples saves isn't considered to be fun according to my book.
My point? No point. It's just frustrating. Thats all. :-[
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 5:35pm |
nytimesguyPrivate Detective
Posts : 684
Joined: 14 OCT 2002
Status : Online | I think it's a little off to talk about action, because what we're really talking about is eye-hand coordination, which isn't quite the same thing. For example, I don't think Star Trek: Borg had any action, it was basically pure adventure, but you had to click on things in a very short period of time and the game was so badly designed that it was almost impossible to get through it, even using cheat codes (which could get you past some areas but not others).
Personally, I don't mind action in games, but it's almost invariably poorly done and feels tacked on in adventure games. I think adventure and action are incompatible - Alone in the Dark was horrible because you had to solve puzzles while you were being killed, while Project Eden's combat wasn't sufficiently challenging presumably because they were trying to not create the sort of problems of a game like Alone in the Dark.
In a way, I feel like there need to be sub-genres of action adventure. There are adventure games with annoying eye-hand coordination bits thrown in (Sanitarium, Burn: Cycle), adventure games with easy combat that serves more to add excitement to the game although it is still enough action to piss off people with no eye-hand coordination skills at all (Ico, Project Eden), action games with some good puzzles (Tomb Raider series) and games in which the puzzle-solving and action elements are so integrated that you can't really divide them up (Thief series). None of these are pure adventures, so for those who want a pure adventure they're all objectionable, although I like some of these games and tolerate the faults of others.
But I don't quite see why people are making this connection between interface and whether a game is a pure adventure. Shadow of Destiny was a pure adventure that was a full 3D game (how were the controls on the PC? I played the PS2 version). Sanitarium wasn't a 3D game but still had that aggravating pumpkin patch sequence (and others, but I seem to recall that was the worst). GK3 was a 3D pure adventure, I played one of the text Zork games and it had fighting in it (which I found really annoying).
So the thing is, it doesn't matter if BS3 is 3D or 2D, what matters is what kind of game the designers want to give us. For which we'll all have to wait and see.
As for GK3 vs. the other GK games, I know I'm in the minority, but I thought GK1 was an awful game. Great story, great characters, great dialogue, but the game is one of the single most heinous examples of pure pixel hunting I have ever played. People complain about the mustache puzzle in GK3, but at least I could actually solve that one, unlike most of GK1, in which I invariable was missing an inventory item that was some virtually invisible little thing. If you don't mind slowly moving your mouse and clicking all over teh screen I guess the game was fine, but I thought it was pure torture.
Charles - Game Theorist
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 5:36pm |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | I don't get the problem with the pumpkin patch. It's impossible to lose! You get unlimited tries and your progress is saved each time! It's about the least intrusive I've ever found an action sequence in an adventure game.
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 6:11pm |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5538
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By jujigatame (28 JUN 2003 5:36pm)
I don't get the problem with the pumpkin patch. It's impossible to lose! You get unlimited tries and your progress is saved each time! It's about the least intrusive I've ever found an action sequence in an adventure game.
I've heard quite a few people complain about the action sequences in Sanitarium, and I've never understood it either. I suppose technically they are action sequences, but they're about as sanitized of action as they could get. I guess it stems from that deeply ingrained fear of action/adventure a lot of adventurers seem to have.
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 6:31pm |
| Deleted User | ... the sword fight on top of the train in
The Last Express Oh yes! Very hard. I loved TLE, except the fighting, though it made sense in the game. I'm glad there was a cheat.
Hmm but you can cheat in most of the games, one way is to get a save game from somebody else if all else fails and every game can be finished, so blaming that action sequence for traumas is a bit harsh isn't it?
The "traumatised" bit was a weak joke. (Sanitarium -> man in loony bin -> psychological problems -> trauma).
There's no save/restore option in Alice: An Interactive Museum. You don't need one... except for the frustrating chimney sequence. And if you've played Last Express and the end sequence of Phantasmagoria, you'll understand why it's impossible to ask for a saved game.
Saved games have obvious disadvantages too, expecially in non-linear games with more than one action/combat/arcade sequence. And why do I have to go to the trouble of finding someone to help me out? All I need is a cheat in the manual. It's been done before, so let's do it again.
I don't get the problem with the pumpkin patch. It's impossible to lose! You get unlimited tries and your progress is saved each time! It's about the least intrusive I've ever found an action sequence in an adventure game.
Like I said, I don't remember the pumpkin patch. I played it four or five years ago. All I know is that I couldn't finish the game.
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 6:36pm |
RobDSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 382
Joined: 30 NOV 2002
Status : Online | Originally Posted By jujigatame (28 JUN 2003 5:36pm)
I don't get the problem with the pumpkin patch. It's impossible to lose! You get unlimited tries and your progress is saved each time! It's about the least intrusive I've ever found an action sequence in an adventure game.
Well, this is what happened to me. As you move along
the path you must slash the crows that attack you.
I don't remember how many crows there were but at
about half way along the path I had killed all but one
crow. At this point I saved the game. From here as
soon as I moved a small distance forward the crow
attacks VERY quickly. He doesn't hover around your
head for any time at all to allow you to click on it. You
get exactly ONE swing with the scythe to kill it before it
stricks you. Then you are put back to the beginning of
the path. Of course I used my saved game and after
literally 30 tries I thought I was going to have to give
up. I tried one more time, but this time starting back at
the beginning of the path after death. To my surprise
I was able to move along the path in one continuous
movement (without the crow attacking me) all the way
to the scarecrow. At which point I got past sequence
(with some more effort).
I looked at all the walkthrus I could find and none of
them described this sequence as being very hard. But
none described my exact situation. And of course none
could tell me when to swing the scythe. The point is
this sequence was ALMOST a game stopper for me.
Did I enjoy this sequence or feel a sense of accomplishment?
(No, it simply made me VERY, VERY, MAD!!!)
I don't buy adventure games for an adrenalin rush.
I don't mind a little action as long as I can get thru it.
Walkthrus can't help much in an action or combat
sequence. And if there's no cheat or bypass option then
some players could be stopped out. evelopers should
realize this.
BTW, Sanatarium is a VERY enjoyable game (as long as
you can get thru the action stuff).
Sorry to be so long winded, but you asked!!
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 7:08pm |
| Deleted User | Saved games have obvious disadvantages too, expecially in non-linear games with more than one action/combat/arcade sequence. And why do I have to go to the trouble of finding someone to help me out? All I need is a cheat in the manual. It's been done before, so let's do it again.
Thanks Betje for many feelings (not only the above!)which I share.
It is sufficient for anybody without good enough reflexes to fall foul of one single impassable "action" sequence to completely ruin a whole game.
How would you feel if you spent $40 on a whoodunnit book only to find that 50 pages anywhere in the middle were missing (and not replaceable --- not everywhere in the world is as 'organised' as USA !).
I've sent plenty of Saved games to folk since I have a large collection. But that is a very unsatisfactory solution and IMHO should only be used as a very last resort!
Everybody plays the same game in different orders. A Save game will provide all sorts of actions done and inventory items acquired which the recipient has NOT YET done ... and conversely misses others which he/she HAS ALREADY done. This becomes much more pronounced & unsatisfactory the less linear the game is, and hence can be played in umpteen different orders!
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 8:05pm |
ConMolSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 396
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Online | The thing is that it may not even be an actiony sequence that makes you stuck in a game. The maze in Black Dahlia caused me to quit and it made me mad because I wanted to get to the end of the story.
|
| 28 JUN 2003 at 9:12pm |
| Deleted User | ~~ ConMol ~~
You're absolutely right!
But, if it's a maze or a musical puzzle (so long as they are not randomly generated), instructions in a Hint or a Walkthru can generally resolve the problem.
I managed (somehow ... after goodness knows how many tries ?!?) to overcome the (timed) maneuvers at the end of Simon-3D ... many folk just gave up!
I got all the way through Harry Potter -1 (PC) until the final speed/action (mirror) puzzle. I must have tried it close to 100 times (each time taking several minutes to 'reproduce' ... terrible! :'() and could *never* finish it.
(N.B. My grandchildren did it ... and even they, only after a few failures! ).
And there is more than one game where this happens much earlier on ... and ruins it ENTIRELY
No matter what ANYBODY says to the contrary ... "For ME that's NOT FUN !!".
I agree that a similar game-stopper exists for several players with randomly generated slider puzzles ... especially those with larger matrices.
But that's only an argument to eliminate *them* as well as timed-action sequences in genuine Quest/Adventure games.
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 12:00am |
adventuredogGuild Master
Posts : 3255
Joined: 14 JAN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Andromus (28 JUN 2003 6:11pm)
I guess it stems from that deeply ingrained fear of action/adventure a lot of adventurers seem to have. I have said it before and I'll say it again:
[size=18]I intensely dislike combat and timed action sequences in adventure games.
Andromus - I do not have a deeply ingrained fear of them. It has nothing to do with hand-eye co-ordination for me- mine is excellent. It has to do with wanting to relax when I play a game. Period. I do not enjoy parts of games that get my adrenaline soaring and require me to quickly (before I am killed or miss some vital aspect) attempt multiple times to get my character to engage in battle in a certain way or navigate between buildings in order to catch up with someone before he gets away on me, etc. I avoid action games and those that are classified as action-adventures. Non-adventure elements can seriously lower my enjoyment of an adventure game. I prefer that games don't have action elements.
----------------------------------------------------------
Betje, Borgol and RobD made some good points. Betje said:"My own definition of a non-adventure element (arcarde, action, combat, whatever) is that hints and a walkthrough are not enough, you also need fast reflexes, good eye-hand coordination etcetera. It's all very well to define an adventure game as a mixture of story, puzzles and exploration without SIGNIFICANT combat elements, but if I cannot finish the game, that element is very SIGNIFICANT!!"
Rob said:"Exactly! Thank you, Betje. I don't think adventure developers realize that even ONE combat element can render a game unplayable for some people if there is no way around it (cheat, bypass option)."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ray - I have no problem with opening a new window as long as that window doesn't require embracing more and more "action elements" in supposedly "pure" adventure games. I have no problem with 3D either, as long as it is done well. I haven't heard anyone whining about high quality 3D. I don't like poorly done 3D. The ability to have total freedom to explore loses it's thrill for me if there is nothing much to see 'cause the resolution is so poor. It gives me a headache 'cause my eyes are trying to bring the poor graphics into focus as I am moving and it makes me dizzy if it doesn't have a good panning control.
I can enjoy a game and dislike the combat/action elements - if they MUST be there, give me a cheat to avoid them please! As has been said, a walkthrough will help get one past even the most difficult puzzle, but there is no way around most timed action sequences.
I have NO objection to game technology advancing.
P.S. I can "whine" if I want.
P.P.S. I have no respect or patience for folks like Gaston. He is a disturbed individual and emails like his are not to be excused or tolerated. It is very sad that you and Randy are subjected to such vitriol.
P.P.P.S. I'm glad you said "we" when you said: "We adventure gamers are the biggest bunch of hair-triggered, provincial, neophobic, judgmental whiny babies."
Still adventuring after all these years!
Patiently awaiting The Last Crown: Haunting of Hallowed Isle, and Bracken Tor...
... and Asylum if it's not tooooo scary...
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 12:38am |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5538
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By adventuredog (29 JUN 2003 12:00am)
I have said it before and I'll say it again:
[size=18]I intensely dislike combat and timed action sequences in adventure games.
Andromus - I do not have a deeply ingrained fear of them. It has nothing to do with hand-eye co-ordination for me- mine is excellent. It has to do with wanting to relax when I play a game. Period. I do not enjoy parts of games that get my adrenaline soaring and require me to quickly (before I am killed or miss some vital aspect) attempt multiple times to get my character to engage in battle in a certain way or navigate between buildings in order to catch up with someone before he gets away on me, etc. I avoid action games and those that are classified as action-adventures. Non-adventure elements can seriously lower my enjoyment of an adventure game. I prefer that games don't have action elements.
Fair enough. I do prefer adventure games without timed sequences, dying, and anything else that might require me to save early and often,and as you say, one often does want to unwind when playing an adventure. However, action elements in adventures don't bother me, if the game is otherwise a solid adventure, and/or if the action sequences are extremely watered down from what one finds in pure action games, especially in the case of a game like Sanitarium. Maybe I should be differentiating between adventure/action and action/adventure.
P.S. I can "whine" if I want.
Well, that's half the fun of posting here!
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 12:54am |
szcaxJourneyman
Posts : 935
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Online | What draws me to adventuring has always been, and will always be, the allure of a great story. If action elements or timed sequences are an integral part of telling this story, I applaud their presence in a game. Should Tetelo have waited patiently in the bottom of the voodoo honfour for Gabe to try to combine every inventory item on every other? Should the minotaur have just stood in the corner with a menacing glare while Prince Alexander ogled the damsel in distress?Should the Gribbler have just hobbled around her cave without ever reaching April while she pixel hunts for a loose floorboard (oh, wait...)
No! What kind of silly situation is that? I absolutely adored TLJ, but the gribbler scene and the later scene where the evil guy chased you around were absolutely pathetic! During these parts in the game I felt as though I was at a great movie and the person in front of me just stood up to go to the bathroom. I am reminded that I am in a movie theatre, I am watching actors, and the whole spell of Mimesis (man, Andro... that is a useful word) is lost. Such as it is at the computer. I am reminded that this whole situation is one big hoax the whole feeling of excitement is lost.
I guess this is where our difference lies, Adventuredog. You sit at the computer in search of a calm, placating experience. On the other hand, I want to experience the roller coaster of emotions that accompanies any great story. And let me tell you, a monster just ain't scary when you can just plop down in front of it and have a picnic.
Black holes are where God divided by zero
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 1:08am |
intertedIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 4
Joined: 2 MAY 2003
Status : Online | I'm a supporter of action-adventure games (formerly called arcade-adventures), since I have enjoyed many diamonds of this genre (Prince of Persia, Flashback etc.). I find it difficult to characterize a game though. Is Little Big Adventure (one of my personal faves) a pure-adventure game? I think that there are adventures that take advantage of the action-sequences (ex.Alone in the Dark) and others that became junk because the mixture wasn't good (ex.Redjack).
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 1:23am |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5538
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By szcax (29 JUN 2003 12:54am)
Should Tetelo have waited patiently in the bottom of the voodoo honfour for Gabe to try to combine every inventory item on every other?
Exactly. I remember the moment of panic when I realized the talisman didn't make Gabriel invicible and frantically tried to think of what to do. Yes, I had to replay that section a few times -- but it was a very satisifying endgame in a gripping story. Jane Jensen could have used the somewhat cheap Monkey Island style of endgames where the hero just gets kicked harmlessly around the room/area, having plenty of time to figure out what to do -- but she didn't, and Gabriel Knight 1 was infinitely the better for it.
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 3:37am |
nytimesguyPrivate Detective
Posts : 684
Joined: 14 OCT 2002
Status : Online | I don't get the problem with the pumpkin patch. It's impossible to lose! You get unlimited tries and your progress is saved each time! It's about the least intrusive I've ever found an action sequence in an adventure game.
Well, I like action games, I play them all the time, I love Half-Life and Tombraider and Jak and Daxter, and I recall finding the pumpkin patch sequence very annoying. I may have even checked a walkthrough after some difficulty, but I don't recall for sure. I think once I got the hang of it it's not all that difficult but it really wasn't much fun, which is typical of action sequences in adventure games. It felt inappropriate in the game, wasn't especially interesting and suffered from the game's rather poor action controls. When action is well integrated in an adventure-action game like Ico it can be fun, but in Sanitarium it was at best a minor annoyance and at worst a major annoyance. And for people who never play action games it was probably as horrible as the action sequences in Burn:Cycle.
Charles - Game Theorist
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 3:48am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | szcax is muy correctomundo. While an inability to die may be preferable for cartoon style games like Sam & Max and DOTT, it did hurt the sequences in TLJ where April was supposed to be in imminent danger. I think a good alternative to not dying, one that was used notably in Space Quest 6, was a "try again" button, which reloaded a game at a safe point before the death, regardless of whether you saved or not.
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 5:22am |
| Deleted User | I think I'm in the minority here, but for me, Adventure is all about exploring and puzzle solving. The story...well I can take it or leave it. After all, ZORK was never really story driven, but I loved the old school text adventures. It was all about experiencing the wonderful environment and solving the puzzles along the way. I certainly wouldn't call Monkey Island, Maniac Mansion particularly storey driven, but they too are classic Adventures for me because of their lateral logic puzzle factor and overal humour and general fun.
Thats why Siberia for me was only really half satisfying as an adventure. Great exploring, great environment but really basic puzzles. I loved GK1 (sure it had a story), but I liked the environs and the puzzles. I HATED GK3, never finished it, the interface really annoyed me, and when I found that you'd have to re-examine items bacause you may have triggered some event that now meant an object contained some vital clue whereas previously the object was EMPTY...well, I gave up. But thats just me. I'm not here to tell you story is crap and it should be banned from all adventures because some people are there for the story. I loved The infernal machine....yep sliding puzzle paradise, but I loved it....There's all manner of taste and I've yet to play a single game that was perfect. So long as my overall experience was good, I'm happy.
But there you are. Each to their own. When it comes to FPS, I like them with a story, ala NOLF, MAFIA and dont get into the storyless run and shoot like UT2003, quake these days.
But thats the whole point. Even within genres you will have varying sub-types to which some people love and others hate. If you think you'd like it, buy it, if not, don't, seems fairly straight forward. I'm all for experimentation in any genre. If its something I can take or leave (like a story in an adventure) then its no harm to me. If its something I hate (like INDY Jones saving system), then I wont buy it (even though I did... ). Perhaps its something I never envisioned before in a particular genre or maybe its been implemented better than before.
Go ahead, experiment, do your best. But basically, anyone who takes this stuff so serious as to resort to personal attack isn't really worth bothering with are they? The way some people carry on its like they'd rather the title was not developed at all if, god forbid, it is going to contain some element they don't love!
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 7:02am |
scoutPrivate Detective
Posts : 736
Joined: 2 NOV 2002
Status : Online | All these great replies have made me realize I don't have a preference really ie, story or puzzle or eye-candy or interface or genre. If the people behind the game have vision and can translate that vision to me then I will go with them as far as they dare to take me. That's why I would have followed Jane Jensen to the ends of the earth in the epic revelation that was GK3. She could have used a zuccini for an interface and I would have played that game and never stopped and stil been playing it. Same with Obsidian. There was no story really, total opposite of GK3 but the puzzles were some of the most sophisticated, enthralling, intuitive problem solving expericences I have ever had. The Day of Tentacle and Sam and Max just picked me up and transported me. Pandora Directive, 3 Skulls of the Toltecs, Outcast, Anachronox, Lost Secret of the Rainforest.... all different games with different interfaces and focuses but all hit the bulleye with me.
In all this talk about what works and doesn't work and who likes what and who hates this and won't suffer that, I think we need to look at one of the things Ray was saying and that was give the developers some credit. These are the people who have given us the games we'll never forget, the games we still talk to each other about on these forums.
That's not over. That's not done. It's just bridging out to new frontiers...
Let's see what they got up their sleeve next. I know I'm gonna keep an open mind and have my bags packed and be ready to go when the next train pulls into the station. It all looks good to me.
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 9:11am |
| Deleted User | I don't really see the point of action sequences in pure adventure games... it's like you're watching Independence Day, then Will Smith suddenly turns into Helena Bonham Carter and you find yourself at a screening of Howards End.
I love action games. Good action games are fantastic - GTA;VC is an amazing game. But I wouldn't want to play a game like TLJ and then find myself plunged into a totally different gamestyle.
The main problem, WHICH EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE MISSED, is that not that it doesn't just work, but also that the action scenes are poorly intergrated and badly designed. It doesn't matter if you have good reflexes. Like the driving sequences in Enter The Matrix (a generally poor PC game anyhow), if it's badly done it's badly done and is better off left well alone.
If it works and blends in seamlessly, then fine. If it subjects the player to an almost impossible and boring task where death is the second option then go away, I aint interested. Future Wars had the worst shooting sequence ever which played like a poorly animated version of Duck Hunt.
The game has to be a totally satisfying whole where the player know what is expected from him/her straight from the off. Is there a point plunging them into an action sequence after 3 hours of point n click? Nope. But if the game makes no pretences and has some arcadey element in it from the off, then at least it's wearing its badge on its sleeve.
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 1:02pm |
adventuredogGuild Master
Posts : 3255
Joined: 14 JAN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By szcax (29 JUN 2003 12:54am)
I guess this is where our difference lies, Adventuredog. You sit at the computer in search of a calm, placating experience. On the other hand, I want to experience the roller coaster of emotions that accompanies any great story. And let me tell you, a monster just ain't scary when you can just plop down in front of it and have a picnic. Don't get me wrong szcax. If all I wanted was a calm, placating experience then I would not be in front of a computer. Wanting "to experience the roller coaster of emotions that accompanies any great story" does not require being plunged into timed action sequences. ark Fall did beautifully without any. Even Post Mortem was able to do that for me. The action was in cut scenes and triggered by dialog. TLJ was a wonderful story on it's own.
I am not complaining about action-adventures or action games existing. They are not my cup of tea so I don't play them. I am objecting to rise of more action elements in adventure games to "broaden the appeal" and thus giving me fewer games to choose from.
monkeybone made some great points:
I don't really see the point of action sequences in pure adventure games...
I love action games.... But I wouldn't want to play a game like TLJ and then find myself plunged into a totally different gamestyle.
The main problem, WHICH EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE MISSED, is that not that it doesn't just work, but also that the action scenes are poorly intergrated and badly designed. It doesn't matter if you have good reflexes....if it's badly done it's badly done and is better off left well alone.
If it works and blends in seamlessly, then fine. If it subjects the player to an almost impossible and boring task where death is the second option then go away, I aint interested....
...Is there a point plunging them into an action sequence after 3 hours of point n click? Nope....
szcax said: a monster just ain't scary when you can just plop down in front of it and have a picnic Believe it or not, none of the creatures I've been forced to battle in an adventure game have been scary - just $#%^&* annoying!
Still adventuring after all these years!
Patiently awaiting The Last Crown: Haunting of Hallowed Isle, and Bracken Tor...
... and Asylum if it's not tooooo scary...
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 2:59pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By monkeybone (29 JUN 2003 9:11am)
The main problem, WHICH EVERYONE SEEMS TO HAVE MISSED, is that not that it doesn't just work, but also that the action scenes are poorly intergrated and badly designed.
No, that's not the main problem. This isn't about good versus bad at all. Many *puzzles* in adventures are not well-integrated either. Some of the action scenes in The Legend of the Prohet and the Assassin "blend in seamlessly". All of the combat sequences in the Last Express are well-integrated and very well designed. But a well-integrated game-stopper is still a game-stopper.
The game has to be a totally satisfying whole where the player know what is expected from him/her straight from the off.
And how many *pure* adventures without any action element fit that criterium...? Very few.
Is there a point plunging them into an action sequence after 3 hours of point n click? Nope.
There could be. Depends on the story.
But if the game makes no pretences and has some arcadey element in it from the off, then at least it's wearing its badge on its sleeve.
So in effect you are saying that you prefer adventures with MANY action elements to adventures with one or two...???
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 3:02pm |
GOne_NorcSpace Cadet
Posts : 112
Joined: 27 APR 2003
Status : Online | I love action games. Good action games are fantastic - GTA;VC is an amazing game. But I wouldn't want to play a game like TLJ and then find myself plunged into a totally different gamestyle.
Just how differnt gamestyle are you having in mind here? What game would you put as an example here - becouse it seems to me that a totaly different gamestyle would mean suddenly jumping into 1st person view with a machine gun in your hands and running around whilst a minute prior you were happily walking slowly around a room in 3rd person view - with no warning that such a sudden change will occur.
I don't really see the point of action sequences in pure adventure games... Hmm just what is a "pure" adventure game? What makes one adventure game "purer" than another? I mean is it just quality or some kind of unnamable essence that others lack? Or is it an action sequence that makes it "unpure", "murky". If that is so than so many good old adventure games have been defiled so long ago and we have not seen it. Leisure suit Larry, Freddy Pharkas, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Indiana Jones Fate of Atlantis, Monkey Island, KGB, Conquest of the Longbow, Goblins, Innocent until Cought 2, Legend of Kyrandia, Lure of the Temptress, Inherit the Earth, entire Space Quests, Quests for Glory even King Quests and more and more...
Where o where do the pure adventures hide? Are there so few?
(yes I am overreacting and ranting but, I am sick and tired of this term "pure", as if all else is somehow less worthy, there are the "pure ones" seemingly in minority and the crowds of "unpure ones" of whom beware! (It's nothing personal monkeybone, it's just the term that you used that I don't like, so sorry if you took it the wrong way, my apologies)
Omnes Conspecti, Omnes Auditi...
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 3:35pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By GOne_Norc (29 JUN 2003 3:02pm)
Or is it an action sequence that makes it "unpure", "murky". If that is so than so many good old adventure games have been defiled so long ago and we have not seen it.
Oh we saw it allright! Didn't you hear us moan about it?
Where o where do the pure adventures hide? Are there so few?
The word "pure" is not a value judgement.
|
| 29 JUN 2003 at 3:49pm |
GOne_NorcSpace Cadet
Posts : 112
Joined: 27 APR 2003
Status : Online | Or is it an action sequence that makes it "unpure", "murky". If that is so than so many good old adventure games have been defiled so long ago and we have not seen it.
Oh we saw it allright! Didn't you hear us moan about it?
Heh I was being ironic, well, you probably were too.
[Where o where do the pure adventures hide? Are there so few?
The word "pure" is not a value judgement.
Oh but in a way it is, "pure" is used here to denote a certain "type" or "model" of an adventure game that differs from others and is assigned a superior quality.
A person will choose or favor "pure" adventure games over "murky" ones, ergo a value is assigned. One is seemingly better than the other.
Omnes Conspecti, Omnes Auditi...
|
