Is this even the right name for the genre?

[ShadeJackrabbit]

So, I was having a chat with my friend over MSN, and we started talking about why he no longer likes many adventure games. We eventually got into the discussion of genres, and why they are named as such. This made us think though: Why are adventure games called such? In fact, a lot of adventure games don't hold a lot of the elements that an adventure might. Take Sam and Max: Season 1, for example. It didn't feel very "adventure-y" to me, just more like it was another day on their job.

The thing is, often adventure games are RPGs (note: not like FF7, but D&D or GURPS) without the stat and skill management. They sometimes are more associated with roles and playing as the character than going on an adventure.  Whenever I think of "adventure," trying to get a white rabbity-thing to be president doesn't really come to mind. Games like Syberia, King's Quest, or The Dig, are adventures to me, because they have a lot of the elements of adventures; travel, excitement, danger (or the illusion of such)

Here's a quote about adventures from wikipedia:

An adventure is an activity that comprises risky, dangerous and uncertain experiences.... ...The term is broad enough to refer to any enterprise that is potentially fraught with risk, such as a business venture or a major life undertaking. An adventurer is a person who bases their lifestyle or their fortunes on adventurous acts.

Even bringing in the broader terms, I still think a lot of adventure games just don't cut as adventures. They often don't (to me) have any element of risk or uncertainty. Especially not a lot of the amateur games (no offense meant) which sometimes involve simple things like getting from point A to B when device C is blocking the way, so you must take path D. This isn't really a formula for adventure.

So, when it comes down to it, my question is this: "Should adventure games be called 'adventure games' or should we perhaps create a division for those that don't really fit the standards."

(Note: Yes I know there are holes. I'd like to see what people's responses are, and be able to actually respond without everyone just saying "yay" or "nay.")

[ad7venture]

Since the genre is nearly dead, I'm not sure this is a good time to cut it into smaller groups.  I think Sam & Max somewhat qualifies for an adventure, but it might be pushing it.  Games like Monkey Island, although humorous, were still adventurous with sword fights, ship wrecks and other exciting things.  Most of them fit fairly well to me.  I think adventures generally focus more on exploration, but with an element of danger.  Amateur adventures are really all over the map.  They are much smaller focus type games and many involve getting out of a room.  It's pretty tough to write a large adventure that involves risk and whatnot and we can't really invent another name for it when there is hardly anyone left that even writes them.  Adventure games have come to mean inventory puzzles and exploration mostly.  I don't really think of them playing roles since there is usually just one main character you can play as and choice isn't really a major part of the game.  You don't get to choose clothes, gear, etc, but mostly go about solving puzzles and moving further into the story.  Role playing games in general overuse the danger element as far as I'm concerned.   They're something like action movies where they have become a little shallow because they are pushing for the entertainment value of a big fight or an explosion or car chase.  That definition is also a little tight.  Most people go on vacations and call it an adventure and don't do anything at all dangerous.  It's more about discovery.   I think what throws people away from them, and why they are losing ground, is because there has always been a relaxed pace associated with adventure games.  They never pushed you, most complaints about puzzles come from timed puzzles because the people that still play them are thinkers and puzzle solvers and don't want to be in a hurry.  When you look at movies, etc, you can see that it's a somewhat minority point of view. 

[Urinate]

While using the term adventure game may be a misnomer for many adventure games, I don't really see any point in changing the name. To those who play them, it is understood what the term adventure game means, in that it is generally referring to a style of game play(story driven, usually but not necessarily with a relaxed pace). The only real reason I could see an argument for changing the name is if you thought it could attract otherwise non-adventure gamers to the genre.

Personally I don't think we should worry about genre at all. Just make a good game. Who cares if it fits into a predefined template of what games should be? The reason that genre's exist is so that when a developer is pitching his/her ideas to somebody else in the hope of getting money to develop said idea, they have to be able to explain that idea to the people with the money. Saying it’s an Adventure game when Adventure games were selling well made the money people more likely to fork over money. While that is extremely important in the conventional professional game industry, it really shouldn't matter as much in the amateur/indie segment. There is no reason you couldn't make a game that plays exactly like monkey island where you move around one guy and interact with various inventory objects, people, etc. but where in you are trying to achieve a strategic goal rather than progress a story. It would just be very difficult to do well.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Yes, those are all very good points, and I'm glad I got some good answers.

You see, this brings up a very interesting point to me. I've noticed both of you have said largely that it's only a problem if you're trying to attract new adventure gamers. But then the thing that interests me is that companies DO in fact seem to be trying to attract other gamers as well, by adding action scenes and so forth, as seen in games like Sam and Max (I mean, car chases?). The problem is, when most people who don't know what an adventure game is, they expect "Tomb Raider" and then give it a "5/10, it was borig and sukxs. No avendture stufff just boring and crappy talking."

So my next question in what will most likely turn into a very long discussion is: "Is keeping the name 'Adventure Games' a good idea from a professional development standpoint, when it generates bad reviews like this from misinformed players?"

(Note: I would list some examples, but I think we've all seen them.)

[ad7venture]

"Is keeping the name 'Adventure Games' a good idea from a professional development standpoint, when it generates bad reviews like this from misinformed players?"

Hmm.  Tough call.  I think it's something like the black plague to most investors, but they tend to be a little late to the fair.  The demographics of computer games are changing quite a bit lately.  There are a lot more women playing games which favors traditional adventure games.  I personally would shoot for more interactive puzzles than action scenes which are getting extremely passe.  I'd probably introduce more simulation type things also.  The sim stuff might be a little hard to do for a small indie company.  I would probably not use "adventure game" as a description, but I don't think it would hurt that much.  There are a lot of ways of adding simulation type activities, I think.  You just make a requirement for the simulation.  Like, if you have a fishing simulation, you have to catch 10 fish to sell to someone to do something else.
Action adventures are really their own class of game.  Thinkers don't tend to play them.  The puzzles are simple and mostly involve climbing or jumping.  I like them, but they really don't hold that much of a market segment either.
Some adventures do get pretty good reviews.  Sam and Max, Sherlock Holmes got a decent review except at adventureHaters, I mean adventuregamers.

[Urinate]

I just don't think it would make a difference in that kind of bad review. You could call them "slow paced story driven puzzle games" and someone would complain that it was to slow, with to many puzzles." Some people just have to be ignored.

That being said, if indie developers started calling adventure games something else, like say "Storygames", and one or two actually did very well then that would probably make that a new buzzword in the industry (kind of how MMO's are now). But it would have to do very well. Then you also have the problem of knowing where to place it on portal sites or (if you are lucky enough) store shelves. Also I don't think that the name can really be changed by an amatuer game. It has to be a commercial venture so it can show sales figures that can be relayed back to an executive so that they start to approve games that are descriped as "Storygames" or whatever. Otherwise it would strictly stay an amateur thing, which is fine but if it recieved commercial acceptance then you would likely see more large "Storygames" on the market.

[Squinky]

...adventureHaters, I mean adventuregamers.

Come on now, we're only critical because we care.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Sam and Max, Sherlock Holmes got a decent review except at adventureHaters, I mean adventuregamers.

Chariots of the Dogs - 5 stars.

Action adventures are really their own class of game.  Thinkers don't tend to play them.  The puzzles are simple and mostly involve climbing or jumping.

You see, that's another thing. Action Adventure is a little long for a genre, so most people cut out Action and just leave Adventure, not realizing that Action really is a key part of the genre distinction.

When developers add these action scenes to adventure games, it seems to me that they're doing so to add a reason for gamers to not say "oh it's slow and boring  totally suxx 3/10." The thing is, as we've seen with Sam and Max, it seems to work.

My next question: "Do you think the addition of action elements, in about the frequency of Sam and Max, helps sales? And more importantly, do these make bad examples of what adventure games are? ('Good games' being where the climax of the story is a shootout or other action scene, and all the others without these scenes are just 'bad games.')"

(And are my long posts stopping more people from answering? Or do we really have few people on this site?)

[ad7venture]

My next question: "Do you think the addition of action elements, in about the frequency of Sam and Max, helps sales? And more importantly, do these make bad examples of what adventure games are? ('Good games' being where the climax of the story is a shootout or other action scene, and all the others without these scenes are just 'bad games.')"

I don't think it helps much, maybe for a few people.  It boils down to good writing and interesting puzzles.  The Sims is extremely popular yet you don't have a shoot out.  It has a high degree of interactivity.  That's really the key.  Adventure games that get called boring generally have too few puzzles and make the player walk around all over the place as if that in some way is game play.  It's not.  Neither is sitting through endless dialog.  The trouble with adventure games is most of them ARE pretty boring. 

[Urinate]

Any time you increase the feature set of a game you could potentially increase the number of people to which a game might appeal, but if it isn't done as well as the rest of the game then it will actually bring the game down. Games tend to be judged by there weakest points.

You could use this analogy:
If you have two barrels, one full of manure(really poorly done feature) and the other full of wine(really well done feature). If you take a little bit of wine and add it to the barrel of manure, you will still have a barrel of manure. However if you take a small pinch of that manure and put it in the wine, you no longer have wine. Its tainted, and you wouldn't drink it.

Thats how I see the addition of action elements. Each one must be as well implemented as the core mechanics of the rest of the game or it will take away from the overall experience. I don't think the frequency matters so much as the quality.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Okay... the topic is going to start to swerve here, but it follows with previous lines of thinking so... I dunno, let's keep it in the same place.

Thats how I see the addition of action elements. Each one must be as well implemented as the core mechanics of the rest of the game or it will take away from the overall experience. I don't think the frequency matters so much as the quality.

The Sims is extremely popular yet you don't have a shoot out.  It has a high degree of interactivity.  That's really the key.  Adventure games that get called boring generally have too few puzzles and make the player walk around all over the place as if that in some way is game play.  It's not.  Neither is sitting through endless dialog.  The trouble with adventure games is most of them ARE pretty boring.

These are both very good points, and so, that brings up another question: "Would physics-based adventure games running on engines similar to the Source engine be a better way of pushing the game forward in terms of interactivity?"

I'm going to respond to this one as well, since I had a long discussion about it already. Personally, I think it's a great idea, as it allows more interesting ways of solving puzzles, especially if you were using the technology seen in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed, which as far as I can understand, would allow you to solve puzzles in ways which could even include BUILDING items. (Cutting a wedge to hold open a door out of wood, for example.)

[ad7venture]

There's an adventure game that I can't think of the name of right now that used physics and I really wasn't very impressed at all.  The game was hard in that every object could be moved around and there was no way of knowing what really was part of the puzzle.  I didn't get very far and really didn't enjoy myself but I think the game is pretty popular.  After I was wowed by the fact that the cabinet doors opened by my mouse motion it was pretty much downhill from there.  Which brings up the point about interactivity, that just clicking on a door is entirely different than moving the mouse in a way that makes the door swing open.  It's the reason the Wii is outselling the other consoles even though the graphics don't nearly stack up.  The Wii is getting used mostly in simulations which work the best for physics and for the controller.  If you used physics in simulations and used simulations as part of an adventure, I think it would be fun.  Puzzles are abstract by their nature so you have to narrow down the number of elements in the puzzle to something that can be arranged to get a desired outcome.  I don't like being hampered by real world physics when I do puzzles.  I'm working on a game now that involves stacking boxes and I have to program something in so the boxes always stack perfectly rather than haphazardly or fall off.  In general, physics have helped golf games, marble games and bowling games.  I think it's debatable if they've helped race car games.  There's that kind of stupid rag doll thing if you're into blowing up people, but I don't think they've really done much for first person shooters, either.  Just the opposite, they become more and more realistic and look more sick every time I see one.

[Urinate]

"Would physics-based adventure games running on engines similar to the Source engine be a better way of pushing the game forward in terms of interactivity?"

If it was done well, yes. I would caution trying to implement too many features, as the more you implement the more likely that you won't be able to focus on one of them as much as you should. But if you built a standard adventure game in a 3D engine like the source engine and focused on using the physics capabilities when designing the puzzles that would probably make for interesting gameplay.

If you examine it that is pretty much what Portal did. Its a First Person puzzle game which uses physics to solve the puzzles. They have a storyline, and there is very little combat. In fact if you engage in direct combat you wouldn't win. You have to use the same techniques used throughout the puzzle portions of the game to get past the few occations where combat would be the obvious choice in any FPS. To me it really plays like an adventure game because with the exception of the final showdown, I never actually felt like I needed to rush through anthing. I was able to take my time and analyze the situation. The only thing about portal that would make me hesitant to call it an adventure is that you don't really make a connection with the player character. I think that is extremely important in adventures. I'd almost say its mandatory for a good one.

Another game which you may want to look into in this regard is the next Alone in the Dark. http://games.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1330/Alone-in-the-Dark/
At one point in the video they show off real time deformation of a door as the player shoots it. Some of the stuff they are doing with lighting is also very interesting.

I would love to play/make a game with detailed physics that wasn't combat based.

[ad7venture]

Another game which you may want to look into in this regard is the next Alone in the Dark. http://games.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1330/Alone-in-the-Dark/
At one point in the video they show off real time deformation of a door as the player shoots it. Some of the stuff they are doing with lighting is also very interesting.

Really just a video effect, though.  A lot of the time those things actually detract from game play.  You look at the most popular game right now and it's WOW using directX7 technology.  The most popular adventure game of the year is probably Sam and Max which uses a more abstract type of world.  I think it could be done and you could make a good adventure with it, but I don't at all think it's a requirement or would make up for bad writing or poorly designed game play.

[ShadeJackrabbit]

Hmm... interesting that we got three different responses here. Trying to come to a middle here, how would a game where, say, you collected inventory, but also used the physics. As for the whole "finding important items" thing, you could implement something like Metroid Prime does, where you switch to a different visor in which you can scan important items. So, I suppose if a game could use physics like the Source engine has, but also allow a "look gun/mode" which would allow you to examine key objects, you could end up with a very interactive, immersive, but also not overcomplicated, game.