Nellie

Okay, presumably nobody objects to the idea of this genre having a standard name so that we can specifically identify it and tell it apart from other genres. We're just arguing over what that standard name should be.

In the past it was exclusively known as the adventure genre. Presently, some of the main websites providing coverage of the genre are called Adventure Gamers, Just Adventure+, and Adventure Collective. Gamespot (about as mainstream as you get) called Grim Fandango an 'adventure game' in their recent game contest thingy. Whenever a mainstream site talks of the demise of our beloved genre, they say 'adventure games are dead'. And they're sure as hell not talking about GTA in that instance.

So the logical conclusion would be... if we need a specific name to identify our genre, and everybody from both the mainstream and specialist sites are calling it (and have always been calling it) the 'adventure genre' anyway, then how about... we call it the 'adventure genre'? Too crazy an idea?

But wait!

The mainstream sites also categorise wildly different games as 'adventure games'. Like the original GTA. So on the one hand, according to them, the adventure genre is dying, but on the other hand, the GTA games are, er, adventure games.

When I see a game labelled 'RPG' I instantly have a pretty good idea of what sort of gameplay is going to be in there. When I see it labelled 'FPS', same thing. 'Action-adventure', 'RTS', 'Driving', etc, same thing. Only when I look at 'Adventure' do I have no idea of what gameplay the game is going to have until I look further into it. They've completely negated the purpose of having a genre name by spreading one name over many different genres.

Clearly it's ridiculous to give games with vastly different gameplay styles the same label. All we need is a single name to identify our genre. Personally, I'm not too fussed if it ends up being called 'The Blueberry Spigot genre', just as long as I can say "I play Blueberry Spigot games" to people without hearing them respond: "What, like Prince of Persia?"

And I happen to think that, seen as everybody calls it the adventure genre anyway, it would be most logical to just stop shoving every other difficult to define hybrid under 'adventure', thus rendering the term near meaningless, and keep the 'adventure' label for the sort of games that appear on AG. If this doesn't happen, and we get another name instead, that's fine too. It just seems like the obvious thing to do, though.

*shrugs*

Moron Lite

Here you go strongarming again! Your insistence that the 'adventure' I'm talking about is completely irrelevant to videogames is just hysterical fanboyism. 'Adventure' was not a word randomly chosen to describe the kind of games you want to label 'Adventure': it had a general meaning which made it appropriate at the time for a bunch of videogames that incidentally happened to have a similar style of gameplay. It's meaning is now appropriate to use as a descriptor for lots of other games with different styles of gameplay: using it this way has a good deal of utility for gamers. That you can't understand this is what I don't understand at all. This is pure reactionary dogma.

And dude, you asked me for an alternative name. I gave you one, which you haven't rejected as inappropriate. And the more I think about it, the more I believe that the alternative I provided is in fact the best evolution of our terminology. It probably stands a much better chance of gaining currency than your draconian policies over who may use this or that word or not.

Moron Lite

Nellie:

The problem that I think we're having is that it's desirable to have a real difference in signifiers in order to distinguish genres, even while it's rather clear to most of us what sense of 'adventure' is being used in different contexts, the sort of contexts you just pointed out.

It is seriously going to be a doomed project to try and get others to stop using the word 'adventure' to describe games that don't fall in the genre that, for example, this site is all about. Furthermore, there's nothing more 'logical' about confining the ways we can use a word when its expanded usage clearly has utility. To describe GTA as an adventure or action-adventure or what have you is to clearly differentiate it from a game very light on the exploration and story elements, and this is in fact the same difference that gave birth to the historical usage of 'adventure' to describe the games all of us here love.

Personally, I don't think it makes a big diff one way or the other if we have a 1-to-1 relationship between signifiers and signified genres. Context is really all that matters, and it seems to be working fine, imo.

Anyway, this is the last time I'll be posting on this thread about the subject. As some comments have hinted at before, I don't think there's any resolution to be had, here.

mag

Exactly. Whether or not we call it "adventure," we need some word to differentiate this genre from other kinds of games.

And think about this from the perspective of a casual gamer too, the type of person whom most games are marketed toward. You may not necessarily know exactly what game you're looking for. All you knows is a general style of game you're looking for. Now when you get to the store you see that the games are broken down according to the style of gameplay. If you like action games but not strategy games, even though you may not know what any specific action game is you're going to show a preference toward them. Now consider this wastebasket term that's used for "adventure." When you look at the adventure category and see Monkey Island sitting right beside Prince of Persia, how do you know the difference? All you know is that they're both adventure games. So you don't have a preference for one over the other. If you decide to go with Prince of Persia that will effect how you think about all adventure games from then on. If you don't like it, you probably won't go back to get Monkey Island because it's just another adventure game. Can you see now why this might have a negative impact on the sale of adventure games?


Except that's not how the term "adventure" came to be used in regards to video games. The traditional definition of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with the name of the genre. This is not "strongarming" as you like to accuse me of. This is how the word developed.


"Puzzle adventure" is not a very appropriate term. I've already said why it can't work. First of all, the "adventure" elements in an adventure game are not anything like the "adventure" elements in a game like Legend of Zelda. Furthermore, if you're saying that an adventure game is just any game that consists of story and exploration you have to include almost every single game ever made whether it's an adventure or not. Final Fantasy is an adventure game under that definition. We're dealing with fundamental differences in gameplay. That requires a new terminology, not the same term with the word "puzzle" tacked on to the front.


Yes, using the proper definitions of words is so draconian. Let us free ourselves of our Orwellian overlords like Webster and Oxford. No more definitions I say!

Cake spine kicks camera elephant eyeball glass in a yellow kangaroo! Compact laser run! Cat!
For great justice!



mag

Nellie

Oh yes, absolutely. It seems certain we're going to continue with the universal use of 'adventure' to describe many different styles of gameplay, unfortunately, for a very long time. No wars are going to be won here. I just think it's a silly situation and wanted to say so.


For us, context generally works well because we're informed about the genre, and we can tell the difference. But for people who are not so informed, because they're new to the genre, are going to have a confusing time if they walk into a shop and ask the assistant to recommend an adventure game for them, or search an online shop under the adventure games category! That's one of the reasons we need a seperate definition.

Also consider that by spreading the name of our genre to other genres, the games we're constantly hoping will get more attention get pushed further out of the spotlight. Gamespot's 'Best Adventure' award for the last couple of years has featured action-adventures in the category, even though there's a seperate category for action-adventures! It's difficult enough for adventures to get coverage on mainstream sites anyway, without having different genres bumping us off the page in our own awards category!

So yeah, context is not enough, IMO.


I really don't care about our claim to the word 'adventure', as we're not getting it back any time soon :p. I'm quite fond of using Interactive Fiction as a catch-all term for all adventure games - graphic and text. Plus that would also include games currently housed under 'adventure' (as we understand the term), but where the focus isn't at all on puzzles, such as the Last Express, Shadow of Destiny, Blade Runner, etc. But now I'm rambling.

Moron Lite

I'm back, because I'm forced to. It's my lot in life, I'm afraid.
Huh? Then how did the term 'adventure' come to be used with regards to videogames? Why doesn't the traditional definition of the word have anything whatsoever to do with the name of the genre? And do you realize that the English language is different now than it was in Shakespeare's time?

Forsooth!
That's called a new terminology where I come from.

You're also being quite disingenous. Even under your own accepted definition of the 'adventure genre', i.e. story exploration puzzles, there's an understanding that a game possessing all three elements, but to an extremely low degree, will not qualify. It's the same when I talk about story and exploration. Your attempt to argue that "almost every single game ever made" will now qualify as an adventure--under my definition--is to arbitrarily fail to apply your understanding of how genre definitions work. Most action games will have some story and exploration involved, but these will not be a relatively significant consideration for the player.

I won't insist on 'puzzle adventure', assuming there's a better name out there. But for my money Zelda has too much action not to be considered an action adventure. We can be negative about what elements go in our genre definition as well, e.g. there will not be much action.

Moron Lite

I'm all for a separate definition, although I gather you meant 'term'.
Well, assuming you and Gamespot have the same idea of what 'adventure' and 'action-adventure' mean, then Gamespot is just making a dumb mistake, and we can complain. If they've already got separate categories, then what we're arguing about here doesn't really apply (unless you really just don't want the word 'adventure' appearing in two genre names, regardless of qualifying terms--in which case, I'm still not sure the inappropriate classifications you're talking about won't happen anyway, because that's all about the idea of the genre, and not the name).

I'll need to see what games you consider action-adventures fell under the adventure category. Exclusive genre classification is always a tricky business.
I haven't played Shadow of Destiny, but I'm guessing my idea of puzzles is different from yours. In ludological circles there's a distinction running around between 'puzzle' and 'problem', which are distinguished, I think, by the discreteness of their solutions. Vaguely speaking, something that has only one possible solution is at the far end of the puzzle spectrum, while something that admits of many and varied solutions will be on the problem spectrum. Puzzles can have more than one possible solution, but not more than a few, and they'll be relatively well defined. They're a constrained species of problem.

mag

The genre name "adventure" came from the title of the first adventure game Adventure. It wasn't supposed to mean games that have adventurous elements. It was a word used to describe games that are like Adventure.


The traditional definition is only significant in that it was the word used to describe the game Adventure because that game did have adventurous elements. The name of the genre that includes games that have been released since Adventure is because of its similiarity to that original game in terms of gameplay.


That's a totally irrelevant argument. It doesn't matter if the language changes. You still need words to describe what you're talking about. The genre that includes games like Monkey Island and King's Quest is completely different from the genre that includes Grand Theft Auto. Thus, it requires its own word.



Hey! Quit trying to strongarm the rest of us into conforming to your draconian definition of "forsooth." I refuse to accept it! I say that "forsooth" really means "kittens!" You can't bully me around.


Not true. Metal Gear Solid has a huge amount of story and exploration, but it is still an action game. Look at almost any game Square puts out. If you look at Chrono Trigger, Kingdom Hearts, or any Final Fantasy, they're all very big on story and exploration. Yet if Final Fantasy is not a pure RPG, I don't know what is. The one thing that differentiates them from adventure games is the same thing that differentiates adventure games from games like Grand Theft Auto. That's gameplay. The gameplay in adventure games is driven by puzzles. Other games may have puzzles, but it is not the driving element in the gameplay. They're separate genres.

mag

DJ Souza

To put it in simple terms, to me "Adventures" are slow paced games that do not focus on action and fast reflexes. Adventures have a strong enphasys on story development (Syberia), puzzles (Myst) or a good mix of both.

In this definition, we could fit the traditional graphical adventures (example: Monkey Island series), puzzle adventures (Myst-clones) and the interactive fiction games (Zork).

Untill the last few years, all the other genres didnt have that much story or puzzles, but now that those adventure elements are being used more frequently, but in SMALL doses, in games like GTA, Max Payne, etc., it is getting quite confusing for those that do not know what an adventure game really is.

We are talking about GAMES here, not movies, so the important thing to consider here is the GAMEPLAY, not the theme of the story (like the last 2 Indiana Jones titles, which had an adventure "THEME" but wasnt in fact adventure "GAMES", cause they relied too much on fast reflexes and too little on story development and/or puzzles).

__________________
DIEGO J. SOUZA

Moron Lite

First, assuming we accept your etymology, this only makes my point: the name of the genre does indeed come from what the word 'adventure' means. The game Adventure exemplified adventure-ness in games. At the time, that form of game was the best and richest way to express 'adventure-ness'.

Second, again assuming your etymology is correct, only a very small proportion of those who talk about adventure games will actually be aware that the game Adventure is where the name of the genre comes from. Everyone else has a liberated understanding. Such liberations occur all the time. When I asked you if you realized that the English language is different today than it was in Shakespeare's time, I was highlighting the fluidity of language. Dealing with this fluidity is something you need to learn how to do.

I thought we were after terminology.
All of which makes me wonder why you've rejected the term 'puzzle adventure'. I honestly don't get it.

Once again: GTA = action-adventure. GTA has lots of action. That's what differentiates it.

I consider most RPGs to be adventures by default, not from an already-defined game genre standpoint. Their distinguishing feature is an architectonic modeling of characters. An archetypal puzzle-adventure won't have that.

Finally, I'd consider Metal Gear Solid an action-adventure. You'll have to explain to me why it's exclusively 'action'.

Moron Lite

Just to be clear, I am definitely not talking about an adventure THEME. I'm talking about an adventurous experience.

Furthermore, it's very unclear to me just what everybody here means by 'gameplay', but on my understanding, gameplay is part of the picture, but it is not the whole picture, which is about the entire experience. This is why our definition includes *story* in addition to exploration and puzzles.

DJ Souza

Moron Lite, I think the term adventurous "experience" would certainly broaden the definition of what constitutes adventure in gaming. But, on the other hand, it would probably have to exclude games that are heavily focused on drama (Legend of Lotus Spring) or comedy (Leisure Suit Larry series).

So, again, I think it is all about the gameplay when trying to define a game genre. Like I already said, gameplay in adventure games shouldnt require fast reflexes, it should be slow paced and contemplative. There is a heavy focus on exploration, but not the "run around everywhere" kind of exploration (like in Tomb Raider), not at all. Adventure games requires the players to stop, look, and think about it. : reading, talking, examining objects and solving puzzles are the 4 most distinct features of the gameplay in an adventure game. There should be lots of those. Sometimes it has more story (which involves more reading and talking) and sometimes it has more puzzles (which involves taking more time to sit and think about a situation, to get past an obstacle).

The gameplay of an action game involves the so called "hand-eye coordination", which requires good reflexes. It is fast paced, the player dont take much time when going from one place to another, if there is exploration, it shouldnt take much time from the player, he doesnt need to examine all the objects in a particular location, he just runs around looking for the next enemy. The player must get past the obstacles usually by acts of violence (punching, shooting, etc.) or physical moves (jumping, crouching, running, etc.). There is a lot of dying in action games, there is an energy bar that shows you how much damage you can take. You have to find medikits, ammunition, new weapons...

If you mix those 2 genres, you get an action/adventure. And there is nothing particulary wrong with action/adventures. But they are different kinda of games. Take the gameplay for, say, "Monkey Island" (adventure), "Max Payne" (action) and "Silent Hill" (action/adventure), it shouldnt be hard to tell that they are entirely different.Of course, the hybrid action/adventure looks similar to both, because it features bits of adventure and some bits of action.

__________________
DIEGO J. SOUZA

mag

First of all, if you doubt the validity of the etymology I gave you, you can look it up for yourself. It's fairly well documented.

In response to your argument, I don't think you quite understand. It had nothing to do with the "adventure-ness" exemplified in the games. Adventure was titled the way it was not because of the gameplay but because of the themes of the story, if you can even call it a story. Adventure games that followed weren't necessarily adventurous in their stories. They were labeled "adventures" solely because of their gameplay. They were games that were like Adventure.


It doesn't matter that they don't understand the etymology. Most people don't know where the words they use come from. But they know what they mean. When we use "adventure" to refer to a specific type of game, even if somebody doesn't know that it's called that because of the game Adventure, they'll still be able to understand what we're talking about because of the context in which the word is used.


Liberated? Why do you insist on looking at definitions as some sort of totalitarian evil? They do have their uses. Yes, not all definitions are perfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use them.


I've already responded to this at least three times. You still haven't responded to what I said. You just keep repeating your initial flawed premise over and over again. So I'm going to try this one more time. If all you do is tell me that we should call them "puzzle adventures" again I'm just going to give up because you're obviously not interested in having a real conversation about the matter.

The adventure elements in Grand Theft Auto are not the same as the adventure elements in an adventure game. They are fundamentally different styles of gameplay. "Puzzle adventure" is not a different genre. It is a subgenre--an adventure game with an emphasis on puzzles rather than action. Even if that's not how you mean it, that's how it would be understood. Adventure games are not even close to games like Legend of Zelda. To describe them as such is to be imprecise.


I don't know if I can explain the difference to you since apparently there's nothing you're willing to accept as not being an adventure game. RPGs are adventures. Action games are adventures. Just tell me if there's any game you wouldn't consider an adventure.


Just out of curiousity, who is "our?"

"Gameplay" is the mechanics that actually drive how the game is played. Thus, the gameplay in a puzzle game revolves around solving puzzles. The gameplay in a shooter revolves around shooting things.

Gameplay is not the only way one can measure a game, but it is the only thing that counts when we're talking about the genre. It may have a genre of storytelling in addition to that. For instance, Space Quest is a comedy in addition to an adventure. But when talking about its genre as a game, the gameplay is what matters. The whole point of video game genres is to group games according to the style of gameplay. That way you can quickly identify games that are the kind of game you like to play. Somebody who doesn't like shooting things can look at a game, see that it's a first person shooter, and know without any more research that this is not the game he/she is looking for.

mag

Moron Lite

The more you insist that we stay on this path, the more I'm convinced you're not really out to help the newbie, because this gameplay-not-related-to-adventureness definition of adventure game you're insisting on here could not be less intuitive for the newb. 'Adventure' connotes NOTHING about the gameplay except to someone who's already experienced within the genre.
Unless, of course, they're a newb!
My use of liberated here wasn't actually to suggest totalitarianism (although you DO realize...ah, nevermind), NOR was I saying 'definitions' were evil. What I do think is that your resistance to accepting a broader definition of adventure is narrow-minded. What I meant my 'liberated' and 'fluidity' is that the usages can so easily become detached from their etymologies, taking on lives of their own. The usage of 'adventure' you're so vehemently against has utility for many, many gamers (and is much more intuitive, I might add, than your definition--certainly helpful to the scores of new players who may not necessarily be looking for your brand of adventure), and the idea that they should stop using the term because you want your favored genre to have exclusive rights to a word is, again, hysterical fanboyism.
I've LOOKED through the whole thread. I can't see anything that qualifies as a substantive response. You mentioned Zelda--I'm pretty sure I covered that.

And you're hardly one to talk for ignoring / failing to respond to points.
"The adventure elements in Grand Theft Auto are not the same as the adventure elements in an adventure game": You're ASSUMING what qualifies as an adventure element and what qualifies as an adventure game. Under you're assumptions, OF COURSE the adventure elements in GTA aren't the same!

"'Puzzle adventure' is not a different genre. It is a subgenre--an adventure game with an emphasis on puzzles rather than action."

Again, you're assuming the definitions attached to the terms. I thought this was about helping the newbs! Newbs don't have these definition-to-term associations.
I responded to this already. In fact, I explicitly rejected your claim that almost every game ever made falls under 'my' version of 'adventure'. Go back and read that part.

Those of us who accept the story/exploration/puzzles definition of the genre this site covers, historically and within the context of this community called 'adventure games'.
When people describe games as action-adventures, they're noting that those games have a tension and form of interaction typical of action games, but they're also noting that playing is motivated, is organized by, revolves around story, and/or contains a substantive exploratory element, i.e. it's not just action action action. Pure action games have minimal to nonexistent stories: the mechanics are to be enjoyed for their own sake and little else. Nor do they have a substantive exploratory element: it's true that you may navigate many new spaces in a pure action game, but you're not doing much intentional exploring if you're constantly beseiged by enemies while navigating. In an action-adventure, the mechanics should probably be enjoyable in their own right, but there's the added dimension of making use of the mechanics to resolve the story (or to explore), all of which is gameplay. What you're doing here is mechanical reductionism, but gameplay is not simply mechanics.
Which is precisely why genre labels like 'action-adventure' are convenient: it signals to the consumer that it's not just about action.

Bastich

Number of PC adventure games that are black (Mag's definition) : thousands

Number of PC "adventures" that are misclassified as black, but are gray: dozens

Definition=black.

Moron Lite

Oh, so now it's PC adventure games we're talking about, huh?

Mag, how about a truce. We're not going to get anywhere, so let's just call it quits. I need to get back to my life...of arguing...about other things.

Bastich

Well, ultimately, that is what this is all about. This is really about consoles versus PCs. They are different platforms that specialize in different types of gaming and it seems rather dumb (to me anyway) to try and group both definitions together when they have completely different origins.

On the PC side "Adventure" means a rather specific thing, which is Mag's definition, and just because the definition is a bit different on a console doesn't mean that PC gamers should have to rearrange their genre definitions. We are a separate platform with a different identity.

When a lazy reviewer doesn't bother to translate the genre definitions across platforms is when you usually get the problem. Any reviewer worth his salt should know the difference between PC and console genre classifications. It isn't really that hard.

Moron Lite

EDIT: Deleted my reply. I really have to get away from this thread, so I can't give any more opportunities to respond to my posts.

I think the PC/console distinction makes some sense, but there's also a fair amount of overlap, so I'm not sure how useful it would be (to a newb) to make a strict distinction. But it does make sense from a historical point of view, absolutely.

mag

Well, I don't think there's any need to look at this as some kind of war (although I was a little aggrevated by the number of times I've been accused of being a strongarming, hysterical fanboy in this thread). I just think this is a debate that's worth having. I think I understand what you're saying. I just happen to disagree with the usefulness of your definition. But being as it seems that it's only you, me, and a handful of others who are still interested in this thread, I'll be okay with letting this go. I think I've made my point about as clearly as I can anyway.

You're lucky, though. Last night I had another big response ready to go, but apparently I wasn't quite logged in enough.


That's very profound. I'm going to have to take a minute to think about that, but I think I like it.

mag

Jackal

It's not that we're not interested, mag. But most of us have been involved in our fair share of circular arguments before, and prefer to be the spectators this time. But I'll throw my hat into the ring, at least for a short while.

It's strange that you should criticize ML for forsaking "definitions", when that's the very thing he's embracing. He's just not being exclusive about which meanings are "allowed" in this context, and in fact suggesting that the far more common, intuitive definitions have more practical value than the traditional one used in PC gaming (though more a concept than a definition, anyway). That's what he means by strongarming and term ownership. The concept of "adventure game" is so ingrained for you, that you feel it should supercede any other usage of the word "adventure". I won't call that fanboyism, but it is certainly pure bias.

Genre names may be based on the gameplay type, but in all other genres, the labels accurately describe the gameplay. The genre and context are interchangeable. Shooters require shooting things. RTS games revolve around strategy. RPG's have you enacting a character role and developing it, etc.. Adventure games involve... well, puzzle solving, story, and exploration. They often DON'T offer much of what is commonly known as "adventure" in any context outside this one. It's the only genre that's misnamed, or at least poorly named for the wrong reasons; the only one where context doesn't jive with label. It BEGS for confusion.

What's happening now isn't an arbitrary or whimsical desire to change the genre label. It's just a growing realization that the term is equally or more applicable to games that actually HAVE an adventurous element to them. And really, why should other genres be handicapped in their descriptions simply because we got there first and misused the word? Because it's our tradition? Because it has sentimental value for us? Those aren't good enough reasons - at least, not to them (whoever "they" are). As ML pointed out, that's relevant to only a relatively small group of people with experience in the genre as it is now.

So this is something of a paradigm shift in transition. It's awkward and uncomfortable, as they undoubtedly always are. Were you outraged when text adventures became known as interactive fiction? Did the terminology change have any bearing on their existence? Nope. Really, "adventure gamers" could probably help out their own cause by not being so defensive and territorial. The mainstream doesn't CARE that we like our peaceful, cerebral games, and isn't trying to shut us out. They're just applying a perfectly valid word to their own repertoire, and some of us don't like it.

If you don't think it's perfectly valid, then you're simply not stepping outside your own perspective. And if you're not doing that, you aren't REALLY seeking answers; just making pronouncements. Having played Zelda, MGS, and, let's say, Jack the Ripper, there is a helluva lot more "adventure" in the first two than the latter. You're saying, however, that it's unacceptable for them to market themselves that way because our games already boast the vague, unspecified genre label, courtesy of an archaic name association with a garage game made by a father for his daughters. You can bravely defend that, but it's a dubious fight.

Now, don't get me wrong in all this. I have no personal stake in the matter. I'm fine calling the current games "adventures", and everything else something different. But the game industry is growing up, and our terminology needs to adapt and evolve, too. Nellie has the right attitude in all this. I haven't seen anyone (here) suggest that the solution is to throw any old game under a big umbrella called "Adventure". Rather, the suggestion is merely that genre labels become slightly more sophisticated and actually mean something, and that perhaps the utility of the ACTUAL definitions of "adventure" be put to better use. I have no problem calling Zelda an action adventure, MGS a stealth adventure (or stealth action), and Jack the Ripper a narrative mystery (no need to specify "interactive" as it's a GAME, and "mystery" carries its own default definition of piecing clues together). For what genre labels are supposed to do, those are far more useful terms than even calling both Myst and Monkey Island an "adventure", though they offer a distinctly different gaming experience within the currently accepted genre class. Those are much better suited to puzzle adventure and comic adventure, really.

Why isn't the question here, how can we revise our terminology to better represent modern day games?