About the term "adventure game".

[Iliya]

Few days ago I went to a game store and asked for the adventure games shelves. The guy offered me games like "Tomb Rider", "Larry 8: Magna Cum Laude" and other similar games. Then I asked for a Black Mirror 1. And he said: "Ooh you mean "classic adventure games". That term "classic" is sending my favorite games in the past.

I think that in nowadays the term "game" is different. Today people understand "the game" as "jumping", "running", "shooting", "driving" and etc. All these actions are far from the "games" that we all like. And I think that we are losing from the fact that our projects are called "games".

What we do when we play a classic adventure game? We read, we think, we enjoy the atmosphere. We go to another world. Just like the book readers do.

So isn't it better the term "classic adventure game" to be changed for example to "interactive story" or something like this? Because in nowadays for the gamers we are "in the past", but for the book readers we can be "a future".

Ps: Sorry for my bad english or for the sassy idea  

[ThreeOhFour]

Well Tomb Raider games are "adventure" games, they've been called that forever - albeit often under the name "Action adventure".

However, you roll through caves, shoot wolves and find treasure - that's pretty much an adventure by the book. They also have puzzles in them. The genre also includes "survival horror" like Resident Evil and Alone in the Dark games, and a whole bunch of other genres.

You probably need to specify "point and click" or "graphical interactive fiction" (although this one is a bit out there, really). "Adventure" is a very broad term, and can encompass a huge range of styles.

[Iliya]

The question is: "How the term game is related to the games that we all like?". Try to offer your favorite classic adventure game to a kid. The kid will say "This is not a game"

[Calin Leafshade]

I like running and jumping and driving...

[Ali]

I was surprised and a little pleased to see Skyrim described as an ambitious 'adventure game' on the posters which are all over the London Underground at the moment. And I think the term is probably appropriate. You talk to characters, they give you a quest, you try to complete the quest. That sounds like an adventure to me.

The question is: "How the term game is related to the games that we all like?". Try to offer your favorite classic adventure game to a kid. The kid will say "This is not a game"

I don't have a kid to test it on, but I'm not sure.

Casual puzzle games, Professor Layton and his ilk and the expanding platforms for indie games mean that kids today probably have a much broader idea of what makes a video game than we did in the 80s and 90s. If that marginalises adventure games a bit, it's not so bad. They're still being produced and played.

It's certainly not as bad as the turn of the century when a game struggled to get published if it didn't have blocky 3d graphics and guns.

[Ghost]

Fun fact: According to some wiki entries "adventure games" are not adventurous at all: In "classic" interactive fiction and point-and-click you get a story which may be adventurous, but the gameplay is slow, usually not time-critical, so while Graham and Guybrush will go through dangerous and "adventurey" situation, you as the player don't. All you do is think and click a bit.

As for Tomb Raider, Skyrim and the like: I think the "classic adventure game" has simply been absorbed into all sorts of other genres, and these days a "modern player" who doesn't know about the old classics MUST think that Lara's acrobatics are the epitome of adventure gaming: TR has been around for a while, it has the setting and it has the action for both protagonist and player. Two generations from today, who knows where "common knowledge" will see the origins. Heck, Uncharted and Arcam Asylum, that's some fine adventures! But not classic adventure games (well... "use Batarang on froody clown thug" doesn't sound that bad...)

I like the term Interactive Story a lot- it describes what I think of as adventure games very well. Fixed plot, pretty much on rails, but I set my own pace and can try to stray a little from the path. That's what I'd call classic and what I find in our game pages. But even "our" classic AGS games have started to change. A couple of years ago SCUMM was the thing to have; these days we see more BASS-style interfaces; genres that were strong a couple of years ago are now seldom used. It's a funny thing, time. It can change a lot

[m0ds]

Interesting. I'd certainly ask for "point and click adventures" in a games shop, although in GAME I know they would just laugh at me, or point me to a bunch of hidden object games. Adventure is definitely too broad, action-adventure certainly says to me a game like Tomb Raider. "Classic adventure" is a cool way to define them, but I'd assume most people would just see that as a popular adventure game from yesteryear (which could include Tomb Raider etc). Interesting topic though. I guess it's like asking for a burger at MacDonalds, you kind of need to be more specific - single, big mac, bacon cheeseburger, etc. Only kids could consider adventure/point and clicks to NOT be games... Oh and me, if someone's talking about IF

[Iliya]

Check out Dave Gilbert's post in his nygamedev blog: http://nygamedev.blogspot.com/2011/11/graphics-and-budget.html
It's about graphics and budget.

I was shocked by some of the comments that he received:
"Wow - are the graphics really as bad as those screenshots depict?"
"I couldn't stand playing this for even 10 minutes ... the graphics are terrible! Looks like it was written over 20 years ago."
"It is like giving yourself crossed eyes for the fun of it. HORRID. My eye sight is still blurry."
"I can't see a game developer releasing a game that looks this bad and is so hard on the eyes"
"HORRIBLE!!!! I wouldn't take this game if it were FREE." .

Why is this happening? Are these comments comming from classic adventure games fans? I don't think so. And of course we don't care if they don't like classic adventure games. But these comments are ugly thing.

I don't want the games that we are making to be judged by wrong people. They are giving their comments, because we say that we create "games". No! We create stories!

[Ali]

True, but we occasionally hear people on this forum say "3D graphics are always ugly and terrible". Which is equally ridiculous, if less unkind.

The fact that Dave Gilbert is making a living from un-flashy narrative-based adventure games is a sign that adventure games have a higher profile now than they had when I joined the AGS forums and played 'Bestowers of Eternity'. They're still the underdog, but what does that matter?

I don't want the games that we are making to be judged by wrong people.

People will judge, and we can't stop them. Surely we'd do better by trying to engage with people who share our interests? Dave Gilbert's article was about just that, the fact that he was wasting money by not focusing on what his fans wanted most.

[poc301]

I found this to be a very insightful and thought provoking thread.  I just added a post about it to the AGS Blog. 

I think those graphics are simply gorgeous, and that Iliya is right...  The people judging the games are not the audience we have in mind when we create them.  It is, however unfortunate, a necessary evil.  The games are games, and there are gamers who think the be all, end all of gaming is throwing a grenade into a bunch of toons, screaming profanity and griefing others.  If the graphics don't look like reality, it is crap.  We just shake it off and move on.  As long as the people who want to play these kinds of games find and play them, that is all we can ask.

-Bill

[CaptainD]

It strikes me that players appreciating low resolution graphics is much like people still enjoying Ray Harryhausen's amazing stop-motion animation in the age of amazing computer visuals.  Sure, they're not as advanced and in a way don't look as "good" as CGI, but there's an amazing artistry to Harryhausen's work that goes far beyond its the simple visual impact of the animation itself.

I think "adventure games" is a term understood very differently by adventure game fans (ie the AGS community) and the more mainstream / hardcore game players (who mainly seem to like blowing things up  :o).  "Classic adventure games" tends to make me think of late 80s / early 90s adventure games.  But again "classic" is such a subjective term - I would say that TellTale's Sam & Max adventure games are classics, but they're not all that old.  Also, where does, for instance, adventure end and action adventure / arcade adventure start?  What about RPGs, which often have similar elements to adventure games?

Game developers have been having a lot of fun mixing up genres in the last decade, so perhaps genre classification is itself outdated?

[Anian]

Well wasn't the term coined when the other games were basically either shooters, fighter games, racing games etc. The range and mix of genres and gameplay (and the fact that you can put more stuff in games, in fact it's expected) has grown over the years. It has grown so much that you actually can "adventure" like for example a shooter like say Dead space or even Mass effect do offer adventure (an even in terms of solving puzzles, story, dialog choosing) but also shooting action and some rpg elements.
There's just too many stuff these days that you can put in a single game that I think the term "adventure" has rightfully been made obsolete and just kind of entered the original dictionary definition, like mentioned Skyrim, it will actually offer a world, action, story, hero's journey etc. which makes it and adventure...maybe action adventure to be specific.
Maybe "point-and-click (even though it is not perfect) adventure game" might be a more suitable description these days.

[Snarky]

I was shocked by some of the comments that he received:
"Wow - are the graphics really as bad as those screenshots depict?"
"I couldn't stand playing this for even 10 minutes ... the graphics are terrible! Looks like it was written over 20 years ago."
"It is like giving yourself crossed eyes for the fun of it. HORRID. My eye sight is still blurry."
"I can't see a game developer releasing a game that looks this bad and is so hard on the eyes"
"HORRIBLE!!!! I wouldn't take this game if it were FREE." .

Why is this happening? Are these comments comming from classic adventure games fans? I don't think so. And of course we don't care if they don't like classic adventure games. But these comments are ugly thing.

No great mystery there. The comments are from people who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art.

I don't want the games that we are making to be judged by wrong people. They are giving their comments, because we say that we create "games". No! We create stories!

First of all, you create games. Games with stories. Second, complaints about the graphics have nothing to do with whether you call them "games" or "stories."

[Iliya]

First of all, you create games. Games with stories. Second, complaints about the graphics have nothing to do with whether you call them "games" or "stories."

Snarky, those who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art, don't download stories or read books. They download games. And when they download our games the conflict starts. There is no author who wants to read comments like these.

The problem is that the definition of the term "computer game" has changed.

[Snarky]

Snarky, those who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art, don't download stories or read books.

I find that statement to be as nonsensical as, for example: "People who don't like Jazz music don't go to sporting events or the gym."

There is no reason to assume that an appreciation for retro-style graphics has anything to do with enjoying stories, or even story-based games (except to the extent that people now in their 30s and older who have been playing story-based games since childhood probably have fond memories of games with pixel graphics, though that doesn't mean they would necessarily appreciate similar graphics today).

[Iliya]

I find that statement to be as nonsensical as, for example: "People who don't like Jazz music don't go to sporting events or the gym."

I'm sorry, Snarky. My English is not very good. In my native language the statement is not nonsensual. But nevermind. I'm just giving an example how to get rid of those ugly comments from people who play other type of games. I think that we should stress on the term "story" not "game". For example: XXX Quest: An Interactive Adventure Story

[Scavenger]

Snarky, those who don't appreciate VGA-style retro graphics or pixel art, don't download stories or read books. They download games. And when they download our games the conflict starts. There is no author who wants to read comments like these.

The problem is that the definition of the term "computer game" has changed.

I think this is a little naive. Retro styled graphics do have a niche appeal, and there is a cutoff point for people as to how primitive they can stand graphics to be. Even though I love old graphics, I'd have to say that if someone released a game with Atari 2600 level graphics, I wouldn't appreciate it properly.

For some people, low resolution graphics are something that they can't get into. The fact that the pixels are as big as your head breaks their immersion from the game and stops them from enjoying the narrative since they're not used to playing like that. People who grew up with low resolution graphics can go upward to higher resolutions without a problem, but you can't expect people to go backwards before their time. Could you, for example, play an adventure game with NES quality graphics? Dithered Hercules graphics? Atari 2600? It would be harder, and out of your comfort zone (presumably), especially if it was a modern release.

Low resolution stuff has nothing, nothing to do with story. (I love to play platformers with low res, low colour graphics!) You don't magically get a better story if you half the number of pixels on the screen. People will still complain, just like people complain about black and white films not being in colour. Films are stories and they still get bashed on sometimes. Imagine watching a film with early CGI effects released nowadays. Regardless of what the story was, people will still go "Huh? What is this? Why bad CGI?".

[poc301]

Scavenger, that is a VERY good point in my opinion.

I never thought about it, but I guess it is a forward and backward compatibility question.  I have no problem playing games with SVGA graphics, and if the reviews are good enough, I'll go back to EGA even.  But beyond that, I just don't bother.  It does pull from the game experience if the graphics are too bare boned. 

I went back a while ago and replayed all my favorite point-and-click games of my childhood, Space Quests, Kings Quests, Quest for Glories, Police Quests, etc, and even the old EGA versions were amazingly fun because of nostalgia.  I remember being a 8-10 year old kid in the mid 1980s and LOVING those games.  But playing new content with 4-8 colors, well...  Probably not, since it isn't like visiting an old friend as the old Sierra titles are.

-Bill

[Snarky]

If I can make sense of what you're saying, Iliya, it seems to be that "gamers" as a market are hostile to adventure games, but that "story fans" would enjoy them, so we should try to target them to a story-oriented audience, for example to readers.

I don't think any of that is necessarily true. Certainly there's an extent to which non-traditional gamers can be interested in adventure games by emphasizing the story, for example science fiction games to science fiction readers, or mystery games to mystery readers. And I think Wadjet Eye specifically has in fact tried to look beyond the traditional gamer markets. But let's not underestimate the barrier that a change in medium represents; probably many of those readers aren't even interested in comics within their preferred genre, and that's a much smaller leap than the switch from written narrative to graphic interaction.

And there clearly is a gamer market for low-resolution adventure games. The success of titles like Gemini Rue and The Blackwell Deception demonstrates that. Within the indie-gaming niche (and the indie-adventure niche), there's probably a pretty high level of appreciation for retro graphics, while in the wider market you have a large group of people who don't see any merit to that art style at all.

But even if you were able to exchange the gamer audience for a "story audience," I don't see why that would change. You're assuming that people who have little experience with computer games would be more positive to graphics that look like they're from 20 years ago, but unless they are completely unaware of the increase in computer graphics capabilities in the last 20 years, that doesn't sound plausible to me. They certainly wouldn't understand the nostalgia factor or likely appreciate pixel art for its own sake.

[Ilyich]

Regarding the term "adventure game" - strangely enough, in Russia the term "Quest"(or "kvest" if you want the correct pronounciation ) is more common, and it's used to describe specifically "classic" adventure games. And they have their own shelf in the stores, usually next to the casual games and audio books. So, at least here, they are definitely already targeted at a different audience than the mainstream action games.

But they are still games, maybe much more passive, but games. Monopoly is a game too, even though it's not as action-oriented as, for example, football. And although the story is a big part of adventure games, interaction is what defines them. And what is more interactive than pointing and clicking?

I'd also have to agree with Snarky that low-res graphics might be even a bigger turn-off for the non-gaming, story-oriented audience, than for the hardcore gamers. Indie-gamers as a rule love pixels, book readers don't. I wouldn't write off the appeal of low-res graphics purely on nostalgia, but it's sort of an acquired taste. Personally, I dislike high-res adventure games - they usually seem lifeless, static and empty to me, and I hated the Special edition of Monkey Island, but that's almost exactly the same thing as hating the low-res pixelly stuff, only the other way around. It's just a matter of taste.