If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the
FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to
register or
login before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
| 26 DEC 2003 at 2:29pm |
KsandraSchattenjger
Posts : 2459
Joined: 2 APR 2003
Status : Online | Originally Posted By LonelyMind (25 DEC 2003 4:49pm)
I'm still a member of an Operation Flashpoint clan (since 1 1/2 years). I have absolutely no problem with coordination and quick reactions, in fact I'm very good at it.
BUT, I prefer the classic kind of adventure game where I have to use my brain, don't have to have my finger on the trigger all time. Like Myst and others.
I don't want to have any action-sequences in an adventure game. BS3 was terrible, lousy controls and a camera which had constant epileptic seizures. In OFP, which is one of the most realistic war-sims ever made, I have perfect control over my character.
Why should I have to settle for sub-par action sequences in adventure games just because the developers want to make the game cross-platform? To make the game appeal to everyone? I think that is just wrong. One size DOES NOT fit all.
Some people are saying it's the future of adventure gaming. I just think it's the death of it. We can CALL it an adventure game, but it will not be it any more.
LM
I think you're being a bit hard on BS3, which was a very good adventure in many ways, but I feel exactly the same way about the controls and action sequences. I didn't feel that the 'action events' added anything to the game apart from an enormous degree of frustration. They weren't necessary for creating a sense of drama; for instance, I felt just as much tension in the part where you have to rescue Bruno from the fire, even though there was no time limit.
As for the interface, it was simply unacceptable. I've no problem with adventures going 3D, but why do designers find it so impossible to create a good interface for this type of game? Other genres manage it - take Hidden and Dangerous 2, a third-person action game I'm playing at the moment. Movement is character-relative and the camera follows your character around rather than being fixed; you use the arrow keys to move, but control direction and object interaction with the mouse. Simple, easy and above all designed for PC.
Anyway, I think I've drifted slightly from the point, which is that action in an adventure game seldom adds anything except an annoyance factor. I have never, ever met anyone who actually prefers adventures with action sequences in them (note that these are not the same as 'action-adventures'). At best they are a minor irritation, as in The Last Express; at worst they come close to destroying the game, which was certainly my experience with BS3.
|
| 26 DEC 2003 at 3:41pm |
Bob_the_BuilderJourneyman
Posts : 956
Joined: 25 APR 2003
Status : Online | I didn't think the interface for BS3 was that bad. It's awkward at times but nothing I had to struggle with.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 5:28am |
JoGuild Master
Posts : 3313
Joined: 3 NOV 2002
Location: AU, Qld.
Status : Offline | I don't think the reason most adventure gamers dislike action sequences in their games is necessarily because they lack the dexterity to use the keyboard so much as they just find it rather boring and pointless to just have to creep around, jump over obstacles or shoot people. Certainly in some games a little action works O.K. - seem to remember in at least one of the Tex Murphy games having to hide behind some crates to avoid getting shot, not really action though and of course the penudlum scene in GK3 which some people apparently didn't like - I actually thought it O.K. but not necessary to the story which is probably the point that most of us object to. Those sorts of things don't enhance an adventure really and I still haven't bought Broken Sword because of all the comments I've read about the controls - will wait until the price comes down, then I can't complain.
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 7:13am |
| Deleted User | Jo/Narji
I borrowed games from work back in the 80's to play at home. We died in LSL and Indiana Jones back then and I really loved those games. No Internet, no walkthroughs
I really enjoyed Indiana Jones - Infernal Machine ...... save and save often was my rule after playing the original Sierra games, no problem. I learned to SAVE and save often from way back.
It has nothing to do with keyboard dexterity or quick on the draw mouse actions. I was surprised that lots of people asked for a Save game in Black Mirror with the Wolf? Didn't occur to me you would need to. Point and shoot was pretty simple.
Let's face it. You cannot please everyone
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 11:44am |
LonelyMindSpace Cadet
Posts : 176
Joined: 26 AUG 2003
Location: SE
Status : Offline | Hmm, obviously I can stand some action sequences. The action in the GK- and Tex-games for example didn't spoil my enjoyment of them at all.
My main gripe in all of this is that many adventure games are drifting into being very easy games (on the IQ) with a lot of console-style action.
Personally I would prefer if young people trained their puzzle-solving (and consequently their thinking) ability more than being good at killing/being killed in games. But maybe these are the times we live in. I dislike it anyhow.
I just bought SH:Case of the Rose Tattoo and I enjoyed it far more than BS3. I'm probably a dinosaur. Wanting to evolve mentally is probably something of the past.
Well, this IS the hot spot!
LM
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 1:01pm |
| Deleted User | My main gripe in all of this is that many adventure games are drifting into being very easy games (on the IQ) with a lot of console-style action.
Personally I would prefer if young people trained their puzzle-solving (and consequently their thinking) ability more than being good at killing/being killed in games. But maybe these are the times we live in. I dislike it anyhow.
Although I agree with the sentiment, I have to say you are over-generalising action games a hell of a lot. There are hard action games as well as ones where you just point and shoot.
Call of Duty is one game where you are continuously thinking on your feet. The single player game (to a lesser extent than multiplay) has teamplay and tactical thinking at the fore - on hard, one shot kills and you use the terrain to your advantage. The bridge defense sequence really has you on your toes.
The multiplayer is really quite amazing. The soldiers in COD don't run about fast, and you can get killed easily by doing so and jumping about like a loon. It's all about cover, taking it slow, checking corners and teammate positions and heading for your target. It's extraordinarily hard on the brain... and often you end up being killed solely on your stupidity rather than reflexes. Usualy by a %£$%^"$ sniper.
The fact you're often down in one shot makes you extraordinarily careful in teamplay games. It makes your character feel much more human than the invincible science fiction types so often found in games like this.
In retrieval or search-and-destroy modes its really satisfying slowly moving across the map towards the target and making sure you're in the right place at the right time. Just now I took out five others purely based getting to a position where I had a clear view of their "snipers nest".
Planetside also requires co-ordinated team effort and a good deal of thinking to take down bases. I think tactical skills are just as healthy as solving puzzles... although sometimes I do wonder if all the violence is healthy.
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 2:17pm |
LonelyMindSpace Cadet
Posts : 176
Joined: 26 AUG 2003
Location: SE
Status : Offline | Operation Flashpoint is FAR more advanced than Call of Duty, which by comparison is an arcade-style game. So please don't use CoD, MoH:AA or BF1942 and the likes as examples of games which are hard on your brain. They are not.
Not even when it come to bullets. In OFP, ONE bullet is enough if it hits in the wrong place (as in real life...). Maybe one can take up to four shots if it hits in the leg or arm, but then you have to get medical attention fast, because the worse you are hit the more you bleed.
In OFP you control ELEVEN of you teammates at any given time, give them orders, keep low, flank left, get in tank/jet/jeep/motorcycle and so on. That is a complex and satisfying task.
OFP was chosen by the American army as a simulator for their soldiers. One can read into that what one wants...
When we are talking war-sims I think it would be better if they were like OFP, because that's real life. No Rambo crap. Medal of Honor:AA for example doesn't even show any blood when hit. How's that for realistic? ???
And that was made so that the game could be rated for younger people. I think that is terrible. Is it good that young ones grow up playing games where you can take a bullet to the head and keep running, not even any blood? I think not. In MP OFP there're normally no respawn, when you're dead you're dead until the game finishes. So for your teammates sake you better stay alive. Realistic.
That's why I picked OFP from the beginning and has stuck to it, despite trying all the new ones which have come out. Maybe America's Army is a realistic war-sim, I haven't tried that particular game. And as I've grown a bit tired of all the killing, on the computer and in the real world, it'll probably take a while before I try it.
Of course, IMO
LM
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 4:08pm |
Bob_the_BuilderJourneyman
Posts : 956
Joined: 25 APR 2003
Status : Online | Most people realize that they're just video games and won't grow up to be homicidal maniacs. Those who don't are supposed to have parents that won't let them play games.
NO SOUP FOR YOU!
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 4:27pm |
LonelyMindSpace Cadet
Posts : 176
Joined: 26 AUG 2003
Location: SE
Status : Offline | Well, I agree on that.
Problem is we don't live in a perfect world where every parent have good contact with their children. Many find their role model in other places than at home and again others tend to flee reality because to them, the real world is too painful.
But now I'm REALLY getting off topic.
LM
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 6:27pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By Bob_the_Builder (27 DEC 2003 4:08pm)
Most people realize that they're just video games and won't grow up to be homicidal maniacs. Those who don't are supposed to have parents that won't let them play games.
The argument that content in the media will influence children to commit criminal acts is ridiculous and has been applied to every new medium since the novel. I wish people would stop with it.
|
| 27 DEC 2003 at 7:00pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By LonelyMind (27 DEC 2003 2:17pm)
Operation Flashpoint is FAR more advanced than Call of Duty, which by comparison is an arcade-style game. So please don't use CoD, MoH:AA or BF1942 and the likes as examples of games which are hard on your brain. They are not.
Not even when it come to bullets. In OFP, ONE bullet is enough if it hits in the wrong place (as in real life...). Maybe one can take up to four shots if it hits in the leg or arm, but then you have to get medical attention fast, because the worse you are hit the more you bleed.
In OFP you control ELEVEN of you teammates at any given time, give them orders, keep low, flank left, get in tank/jet/jeep/motorcycle and so on. That is a complex and satisfying task.
OFP was chosen by the American army as a simulator for their soldiers. One can read into that what one wants...
When we are talking war-sims I think it would be better if they were like OFP, because that's real life. No Rambo crap. Medal of Honor:AA for example doesn't even show any blood when hit. How's that for realistic? ???
And that was made so that the game could be rated for younger people. I think that is terrible. Is it good that young ones grow up playing games where you can take a bullet to the head and keep running, not even any blood? I think not. In MP OFP there're normally no respawn, when you're dead you're dead until the game finishes. So for your teammates sake you better stay alive. Realistic.
That's why I picked OFP from the beginning and has stuck to it, despite trying all the new ones which have come out. Maybe America's Army is a realistic war-sim, I haven't tried that particular game. And as I've grown a bit tired of all the killing, on the computer and in the real world, it'll probably take a while before I try it.
Of course, IMO
LM
I think I'm utterly justified in using this game as an example, and although it is arcade-like, it still uses more than a hefty element of tactical ability in order to usurp an opposition that is entrenched in deep cover. And don't talk to me about complex games... try Hidden and Dangerous 2 then come back and talk later. Now that's complex. And besides... it's definitely NOT MOHAA in any way in multiplayer.
Evidently you haven't played a retrieval game on COD whatsoever. THERE IS NO RESPAWN! In COD one bullet can kill depending on the gun - all of which are realistically modelled with the right loading animation and timing on shots to real life WW2 weapons. You can only handle two weapons at a time, too. If you are hit, your "energy" (part of all these games, unfortunately, than realistic damage modelling which I hope comes along soon) is practically gone. And there's no medpacs in the better servers too.
It's also incredibly fun. Which is important in a game.
As for Planetside, its completely unreal, of course. But it requires a ton of thought to organise a squad into taking a base with 200 enemy soldiers hemmed in, or holding a tower as another squad drops in from above as heavy tanks arrive from over a hill. People are helping out repairing others, giving out ammo, running about fixing vehicles as mortars strafe overhead.
I've played Operation Flashpoint. As a simulator it's great, as a game I found the demo I tried lacking... but that's my opinion. These online games have gone far beyond Counter Strike and are now about organised tactics and decisive use of teamwork. Which is how it should be...
|
| 28 DEC 2003 at 12:02pm |
LonelyMindSpace Cadet
Posts : 176
Joined: 26 AUG 2003
Location: SE
Status : Offline | MonkeyDude, thanks for some good replies. Always nice with a good discussion.
I'll retract my statement about respawn, when I tried it there were respawn, but on the other hand some servers on OFP have games which uses respawn too, so I was a little too quick writing that remark...
What we seem to agree upon is the evolvement of the brain dead doom-style FPS to a much more complex game where much more is demanded than just pulling the trigger. Which is good.
That is also one of my points which I talked about earlier. Why must adventure games contain lackluster action sequences with poor control? Why cant adventures be about training your logical thinking and leave out the action? If I want action, it's much more satisfying to start a round of OFP, CoD or some other game which is about violence.
I want adventures to be a safe haven, without violence. Where we can sit back, relax and do our best to be intelligent creatures without constant blood lust.
Maybe that's just wishful thinking, but I will not buy so called adventure-games of the "new" generation anymore. They do absolutely nothing for me.
I have Dark Fall, Omega stone, Amber and Dark side of the moon (tnx Fickfack) next, so there are hopefully still a lot of games which fits my taste.
Sure there have been action elements in adventures before, but for me, it has gone too far.
Happy New Year fellow adventurers!
LM
Edit: spelling
|
| 28 DEC 2003 at 2:20pm |
| Deleted User | I agree with you entirely. What gets me is games where 90% of the game is an adventure, and then there's like 10% which is badly developed action. BS3 kinda got a away with it (although I question the need in any game for Dragons Lair style sequences), but Uru didn't.
Uru's physics and control weren't even up to handling simple jumps. :-/
However, when talking about hybrids one must also realise that games like BG&E are out there which work excellently... but then I believe games should lay out the rules straight from the beginning and not change course halfway through. I believe the end of GK3 ruined the game for a lot of people... at least in terms of impact.
|
| 31 DEC 2003 at 3:30am |
| Deleted User | While reading through these posts and most people were talking about new games that mix classic adventure games with new elements or actually other genre's with adventure elements I had to remember the old Sierra games. Manhunter 1 & 2 and Codename Iceman came to my mind that had real action sequences in them. I hated them so much and why did I hate them? Because they were so badly done it was nearly impossible to play yet master them unlike in real action games. I don't mind an action sequence as long as it is easy and well done but honestly when I play something like Quake 3 I only want to blow away things and not think at all when I play strategy I want to think about strategies and find ways to defeat my opponent and when I play adventures I want to follow a good story and solve good riddles. And for me there is a time for it all, but nothing annoys me more then difficult brain quests in an action game and action scenes in an adventure.
|
| 7 JAN 2004 at 2:09am |
JPSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 217
Joined: 24 NOV 2002
Status : Online | I like to think that most adventure gamers are intelligent, open-minded people who give all types of games a chance :
I consider myself a hardcore adventure gamer but I am willing to consider all kinds of games as long as they make me feel something
Bow down before the one you serve&&You're going to get what you deserve !
|
| 30 JAN 2004 at 8:39am |
RaySorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 360
Joined: 21 OCT 2002
Location: US, CA
Status : Offline | To the original question:
YES
And it's a problem I've railed against, to my peril, for years now, most recently in my "Shut Up!" article here.
Adventure players may be wonderfully open-minded people, but many of us are loath to try anything new in our gaming lives. It's a real shame.
Remember, procrastinate now. Don't put it off!!
|
| 1 FEB 2004 at 6:01pm |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | Ray, kudos to you. I just read the article (which I think I missed before) and it's a great one. I noted in another thread that CGW gave Uplink their adventure of the year award and it was called a "travesty" despite the fact that all Uplink consists of is storyline, puzzle-solving, and exploration, which are the essential components of an adventure as you've lined them out. Just because it doesn't look like your average first or third-person adventure game, why must it be excluded? I hate that kind of crap.
|
| 5 FEB 2004 at 11:26pm |
ConMolSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 396
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Online | To the original question: YES
Some adventure gamers know they are not good at action because they have tried it and thats fair...
I'm flabbergasted because some people don't even want to try something pure adventure on another platform! like the GBA. There are pure adventures that folks are missing out on!
Even games with turn based combat as long as they have an involving story should appeal to adventurers I should think. In fact sometimes I'd rather work out a strategy battle as a sort of puzzle than a slider puzzle!
So its not even just genres - its that they have to be on PC too.
|
| 6 FEB 2004 at 12:40am |
adventuredogGuild Master
Posts : 3255
Joined: 14 JAN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By jujigatame (24 DEC 2003 3:52am)
I wish to pose a question here. How come ours is the only genre whose fans complain when their games get influences from another genre? You didn't hear strategy gamers gripe over the rise of RTS games. You didn't hear action gamers complain when their games received strategic or role-playing elements. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Why is the action-adventure so much maligned whereas other hybrid styles have been embraced?
Am I wrong? Why is this? Of course you are wrong juji - it goes without saying.
I'm sure ours is not the only genre not to fully embrace hybrid games. Others have spoken to this point.
"Why is the action-adventure so much maligned...?"
It is not necessarily that it is maligned, it is just not AT ALL enjoyed by many of us for our own varied and personal reasons. I detest "combat", "timed action sequences", "platform jumping", "timed anything", etc.
I play computer games to RELAX and exercise my brain. It is not relaxing or enjoyable for me to evade enemies that might kill me, shoot before I am shot, leap from cliff to rock, disable a bomb before it explodes in my face, etc, etc. The only genre that I truly enjoy is adventure. The purer the better. I do not enjoy the action elements that are usually thrown into otherwise pure adventure games: e.g. the fighting in The Last Express, the end of GK2 and GK3, even the quirky little timed thing in each Nancy Drew story.
Many folks here love action-adventures and other hybrids and that's great for them - they have SO much more to choose from than folks like me have.
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...
|
| 6 FEB 2004 at 12:42am |
adventuredogGuild Master
Posts : 3255
Joined: 14 JAN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By ConMol (5 FEB 2004 11:26pm)
Even games with turn based combat as long as they have an involving story should appeal to adventurers I should think.
So its not even just genres - its that they have to be on PC too. Nope to the first sentence; yup to the second.
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...
|
| 6 FEB 2004 at 1:24am |
jujigatameSchattenjger
Posts : 1976
Joined: 14 FEB 2003
Status : Online | Nope to the first sentence
What's wrong with turn based combat. It's not action oriented. It works your brain, not your reflexes. What about strategy games like Civilization?
|
| 6 FEB 2004 at 1:31am |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By jujigatame (6 FEB 2004 1:24am)
What's wrong with turn based combat. It's not action oriented. It works your brain, not your reflexes. What about strategy games like Civilization?
I've played and enjoyed turn-based strategy games such as Civilization, but just because they use your brain and not your reflexes does not mean they will appeal to adventure gamers. It's a very different style of gameplay from adventures; and if you don't like turn-based games that sort of thing won't appeal to you.
Adventure gamers are not obligated to tolerate aspects of gameplay that we dislike.
|
| 6 FEB 2004 at 1:47am |
adventuredogGuild Master
Posts : 3255
Joined: 14 JAN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By jujigatame (6 FEB 2004 1:24am)
What's wrong with turn based combat. It's not action oriented. It works your brain, not your reflexes. What about strategy games like Civilization? You don't get it do you dear friend. There is NOTHING WRONG with turn based combat. I just don't enjoy it or combat in any form as a relaxing way to spend my free time. I don't enjoy strategy games again because there is too much tension. I've tried demos of different strategies and simulations. The clock is usually ticking and the other guys are up to strength faster than me. Sim City, Railroad Tycoon, Some civilization-type game where I had to worry about building up my fleet of sailing ships, outfitting them, etc before I was overwhelmed by the enemy. TOO STRESSFUL for me to find enjoyable.
Sorry, not my cup of tea.
Bring on more adventures - the purer the better!
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...
|
| 6 FEB 2004 at 1:49am |
adventuredogGuild Master
Posts : 3255
Joined: 14 JAN 2003
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By Fickfack (6 FEB 2004 1:30am)
I've played and enjoyed turn-based strategy games such as Civilization, but just because they use your brain and not your reflexes does not mean they will appeal to adventure gamers. It's a very different style of gameplay from adventures; and if you don't like turn-based games that sort of thing won't appeal to you.
Adventure gamers are not obligated to tolerate aspects of gameplay that we dislike. Here, here! Good points Fickfack.
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...
|
| 6 FEB 2004 at 3:53am |
AndromusGuild Master
Posts : 5538
Joined: 6 NOV 2002
Status : Offline | Well said, Fickfack and Adventuredog! I've never been able to get into strategy games myself. I couldn't really understand it; as an adventure player I figured I should enjoy the intellectual challenge of strategy gaming as well. Nope, never happened, mostly for the same reasons that Adventuredog mentioned.
I have a strategy gamer friend who has trouble with adventures and can't believe that I manage to get through them. And I see him polish off strategy games one after the other and can't see how he does it. I once said to him that strategy games seemed a lot harder than adventures to me. He said they weren't really harder, just more complicated. I guess it's all in the way you think and look at things that makes the difference.
|
