Propose some fan-made adventures to cover in The Inventory

[loominous]

Adventure games rely upon interaction and narrative.

Thus:

[...]
Visuals in adventure games are peripheral and purely cosmetic.

I m guessing that you didn t bother to make the deduction logically valid since your point is made by it anyway, but I think it needs to be corrected to clear up a couple of things.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Adventure games rely only upon interaction and narrative

thus

Adventure games doesn t rely upon visuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Granted that the premise is true the conclusion seems to follow. I m not sure that it is though.

As 6DA possibly proves (I havn t played it yet) the premise contradicts empirical facts. And even if 6DA, or any other game to date, wouldn t prove this, we could still imagine an adventure game that would rely on graphics (for puzzles etc), which would prove that it isn t an analytical truth either.

The premise therefore seems highly questionable to me. What s left to claim, a claim I d agree with, is:

Most adventure games to date don t rely upon visuals.

[Meowster]

Graphics are important to me. More than impressive 3D wizardy and crap like that though, the design of the graphics. Maniac Mansion was pretty flat and straight, so I wouldn't consider them good. Monkey Island had a nice graphical design (Monkey Island 2 moreso than 1) and Day of the Tentacle was gorgeous to look at. Final Fantasy games have some gorgeous and detailed backgrounds, especially IX... I loved the graphics in IX.  Metal Gear Solid II has so much movement and fluidity, and Simon the Sorcerer had a few lovely backgrounds and animations (Even though I hated the actual game).

See, I would consider Final Fantasy IX and Day of the Tentacle on the same level graphically, in that the design is supurb. No matter whether you live in 1990 or 2000, no matter whether you're running 286s or Ataris or Pentium 4s or an Xbox... the platform won't stop the designers from being creative and artistic with the design. Unless you go back reallll far. But let's not do that.

[DGMacphee]

"You couldn't simply remove elements from graphic adventures and have a text adventure without substantial modification. "

"Not really. Text adventures use the phraser that early Sierra game do. Remove the graphics and you have a text adventure. For the best example of this, look at Softporn's evolution into Leisure Suit Larry"

You wouldn't call this substantial modification? entire scenes had to be created through image and not graphics. in a softporn you walk left usually by typing W and hitting enter. In LSL you walk left by moving the character to the location and off the screen or through a door or whatever. This is substantial modification. Removing the visuals from a movie and you get the script which is still very much readable. You remove the visuals from Full Throttle and you get nothing playable without substantial modification.

[...]

hell yes graphics are necessary for many things, just cause adventure games used to be text doesn't mean that they were better when they were. They are completely different experiences and also can't be compared. the same way you can't compare books to movies which i don't see you doing, don't you see any relation between this?

I've read the same book and I'm against it too -- That misdefinition of Grim Fandango pissed me off too.

I take granted the 'subtantial modification' bit, however it does not actually prove that graphics are necessary.

Even a 'substantial modification' shows that there are methods to make a graphicless game.

As for 6 Day Assassin, image if you had the same idea 20-30 years ago -- I'm sure you would have found a way to create the same atmosphere.

Here's one idea -- When you TAKE PHOTOGRAPH, the game displays a set of co-ordinates that you must shoot to kill the sniper.

After that, you AIM AT SNIPER and the game launches into an action sequence where you must hold down the space bar for a certain amount of time for the X and Y co-ordinates.

Similar to another great game, isn't it, Eric?  


loominous:

Granted that the premise is true the conclusion seems to follow. I m not sure that it is though.

As 6DA possibly proves (I havn t played it yet) the premise contradicts empirical facts. And even if 6DA, or any other game to date, wouldn t prove this, we could still imagine an adventure game that would rely on graphics (for puzzles etc), which would prove that it isn t an analytical truth either.

The premise therefore seems highly questionable to me. What s left to claim, a claim I d agree with, is:

Most adventure games to date don t rely upon visuals.

I doubt your thesis, since you're using an example of a game you haven't played.

Perhaps if you provided an example of a game that DOES find graphics necessary, I'd be more swayed to your argument.

But when you look at it, most of the puzzles in an adventure games are simply interactions that can be replicated with a non-graphical interface (WALK, TALK, LOOK, etc).

And the rest of the puzzles can be "substantially modified", as Eric suggests, into something conveyed as text (Action sequences), as I've proven with 6 Day Assassin.


Yufster:
I agree that graphic design enhances a game, but that's just an example of graphics being cosmetic.

Even though graphics look appealing, they're not necessary to create an adventure game.


Everyone:
I just want to make clear: I'm not trying to say we should all give up on graphics and make text adventures -- All I'm suggesting is that developers, reviewers, and gamers sometimes place too much emphasis upon graphics, when graphics really aren't aren't as vital to adventure creation as people seem to think.

[MrColossal]

what game do you mean dg? gunbound?

but what you suggest doesn't create the same atmosphere at all it doesn't matter that a puzzle can be done without graphics it matters that the graphical representation is sometimes necessary to do more than just look pretty

i was depending on the people's ability to actually observe their surroundings in 6da instead of relying on the ego to spell everything out for you. in a text adventure it's pretty damned impossible not to spell everything out for you

some people don't notice that the light turns on next door, in a text adventure the words "a light is on nextdoor" would give it away.

and "examine body" would yield what? "her hair is kempt" then what examine hair?

i don't see how you've proven anything except the possibility that one can rewrite some puzzles so that they can exist in a purely textual form, but to say the same for all puzzles everywhere in every game is a little bold wouldn't you say? You're lucky 7th Guest isn't an adventure game... hehe

and don't you think a graphical representation of a character moving through a forest as you follow him to the swordmasters house creates an entire different mood than

"You are in a clearing surrounded by trees, everything looks the same, why do all forests have to be mazes?

Exits are N S E W

You see the storekeeper walk off to the  east."

and it's funny that you read that book cause a lot of what he is saying seems you were repeating and then when i signed off and read last night a lot of what he said i had just read from this topic

it seems you've done a slight course change because now it seems you're trying to entertain the thought that adventure games could be done without graphics when before you were saying adventure games don't need graphics.

and as far as my opinion is concerned, the majority of the narrative advancement in adventure games is done through long dialogues and cutscenes not interactions [unless you mean dialogue/character interaction] the puzzles rarely reflect the actual plot of the game

[DGMacphee]

what game do you mean dg? gunbound?

Aye

but what you suggest doesn't create the same atmosphere at all it doesn't matter that a puzzle can be done without graphics it matters that the graphical representation is sometimes necessary to do more than just look pretty

Once again, someone mentions that graphics contribute to atmosphere, which shows graphics are more cosmetic than necessary to the overall construction of an adventure game.

i was depending on the people's ability to actually observe their surroundings in 6da instead of relying on the ego to spell everything out for you. in a text adventure it's pretty damned impossible not to spell everything out for you

some people don't notice that the light turns on next door, in a text adventure the words "a light is on nextdoor" would give it away.

and "examine body" would yield what? "her hair is kempt" then what examine hair?

i don't see how you've proven anything except the possibility that one can rewrite some puzzles so that they can exist in a purely textual form, but to say the same for all puzzles everywhere in every game is a little bold wouldn't you say? You're lucky 7th Guest isn't an adventure game... hehe

and don't you think a graphical representation of a character moving through a forest as you follow him to the swordmasters house creates an entire different mood than

"You are in a clearing surrounded by trees, everything looks the same, why do all forests have to be mazes?

Exits are N S E W

You see the storekeeper walk off to the  east."

and it's funny that you read that book cause a lot of what he is saying seems you were repeating and then when i signed off and read last night a lot of what he said i had just read from this topic

You talk of atmosphere again here, which shows graphics only advance the cosmetic aspects of the game and not advance the central drive of the game.

My theory still stands that adventure games don't rely upon graphics.

Sure, 6DA would be less atmospheric without graphics -- But it can survive without them, as I've shown.

As for the book, if he can't distinguish between an adventure and an RPG, he doesn't know his stuff.

I came upon all this stuff through my own observation, not through reading whatshisface's under-researched book

it seems you've done a slight course change because now it seems you're trying to entertain the thought that adventure games could be done without graphics when before you were saying adventure games don't need graphics.

I'll say my point again, so you'll know i'm not changing course: GRAPHICS ARE NOT NECESSARY IN ADVENTURE GAME CONSTRUCTION.

I have not changed course -- I have stuck to that theory for the last two/three years.

I have also provided evidence from your own game 6DA to show it doesn't need graphics in construction.

Once again, I restate: It may become less atmospheric, but it can survive without graphics.

and as far as my opinion is concerned, the majority of the narrative advancement in adventure games is done through long dialogues and cutscenes not interactions [unless you mean dialogue/character interaction] the puzzles rarely reflect the actual plot of the game

If narrative in adventure games advances through cut scenes, then the game would just be one long cut scene.

As for dialogue, they are interactions as your are interfacing with other characters -- Thus, they advance the narrative.

And when you complete certain puzzles, you gain new information/new items to add in your quest -- Thus, the narrative advances here too as the new info/objects aid in completing the overall objective.

For example, in 6DA, without interacting with the woman's body, your character cannot advance to the end of the game.

Therefore, the advancement of narrative occurs in adventures thorugh interactions.

If there are no interactions, the game becomes stagnant, and thus there is no narrative advancement.

Once again, I didn't get this from a book -- This is my own observation.

I think I also read a similar theory in Las Naranjas' paper on the Uber-Protagonist.

--------------------

While on the subject of atmosphere: you can still retain a good atmosphere in a text adventure -- and not through graphics but through puzzles/interactions alone.

One text adventure I know (but can't remember the name of) has a chaacter trapped in a glass booth that's locked.

There are characters on the other side and he needs a way of communicating to them.

The answer: He needs to BLOW ON GLASS and then WRITE HELP on it.

Great puzzle that enhances the atmosphere without graphics.

It's like I say: sometimes you can do so much with so little.

[Toefur]

Methinks somebody's suffering from a mild case of cognitive dissonance...  

[remixor]

DG, I think you're being far too narrow-minded.  Sometimes atmosphere is such an important part of a game that removing it by stripping the game of what gives it atmosphere will leave you with a completely different game.  It doesn't matter that you could produce a game with the same fundamental actions as, say, Grim Fandango using only text.  That's irrelevant because that text game would have nothing in common with Grim Fandango!  Perhaps it would have very similar puzzles, but a game is more than the sum of its parts.  Nobody wants to just play through a bunch of interactions, they want a full experience.  This can be achieved with a text adventure, and it can be achieved with a graphic adventure; however, it must be gone about in COMPLETELY different ways.  And by the way, the genre of game we here at AGS create and play is actually called the "graphic adventure"--one reason the genre has been dubbed as such is to differentiate it from text adventures, which are very different games.  When graphics were introduced to adventures, it was revolutionary.  It wasn't some minor thing that just got tacked on.  With graphics, one is able to tell stories without having to spell out every word of it--instead of saying "You are in a majestic cathedral", you can SHOW the player a beautifully rendered shot of a vaulted church, light pouring in through the stained-glass windows.  It doesn't matter that you could theoretically type out every single detail of the church through a text interface, because it's a completely different experience.  Neither one is THE way to do it, but I don't understand how you could think that they are fundamentally the same.  They aren't.  

DG, your point now seems to be that atmosphere merely adds on to a game, and is not fundamentally necessary.  This is SOMETIMES true, but by no means is it always.  Every game has different strengths, and sometimes atmosphere is a big strength.  I don't understand why you don't just say "I, DGMacphee, don't care about graphics."  The fact that you're trying to make such a broad statement as "Graphics are not necessary in adventures" (especially considering we're talking about GRAPHIC adventures) is absurd!  You're the only person in this thread with that opinion, and these are the AGS forums, for crying out load, where nobody expects a high graphic standard.  If most adventure gamers think graphics can be very important in a game, and you seem to be the only one here who doesn't, where do you get the authority to make such an absolute judgment?  Games exist for the purpose of enjoyment.  Obviously, for most people, graphics can substantially improve the amount of enjoyment one derives from a game.  I don't understand where the lack of understanding occurs at this point.

But again, even aside from your point being more of a personal opinion than an axiom, I firmly maintain that graphics absolutely positively provide a different GAMEPLAY experience than text.  I mean, you're saying that at their core adventures rely on interactions.  Fine.  So do all other games.  This is obvious.  Games are an interactive medium.  If the gamer doesn't make the character perform interactions, nothing would happen.  Just because you can ALSO script interactions using a text parser doesn't mean that text is equivalent to graphics.  But the way those interactions function is one big thing that differentiates genres.  For example, take the pixel hunt.  It doesn't matter whether one likes them or not, but it cannot be denied that they are very common in graphic adventures.  Now, how would you go about doing this with text?

"> Look at haystack

You see nothing

> Look at haystack

You see nothing

> Look at haystack

You see nothing

> Look at haystack

You find a needle!"

Hooray!  What about musical puzzles, like those in Loom (and some in Myst, if I recall)?  Those would be pretty dumb with just a text parser.  What about mazes?  They're possible in both text and graphics, but utterly different.  In text, they mainly rely on guessing and memory.  In graphics, they CAN be done that way, but you could also have, for example, a top-down maze that simply relies on planning and looking ahead.  For a somewhat tangential example of this, take the scene in Fate of Atlantis when you're trying to run into the fez guy on the streets of Algiers.  That wouldn't make much sense with text.  You could argue that the game doesn't absolutely need scenes like that--it doesn't matter.  The game DOES have scenes like that, and scenes like that are part of what set games apart from other games.  And in the Loom example, you really couldn't justify that game at all in a text setting.


Basically, I think you are a VERY nostalgic person when it comes to games.  There's nothing wrong with that at all, just don't try to pass off your own personal expectations or opinions as dogma.

[DGMacphee]

DG, I think you're being far too narrow-minded.

Please, don't call me that -- I'm probably one of the most open-minded people here and have accepted a lot of what other people have said here with great consideration.

Close-minded would be more "You are wrong because you suck! LOL!"

Sometimes atmosphere is such an important part of a game that removing it by stripping the game of what gives it atmosphere will leave you with a completely different game.

Read the last thing I wrote in previous post -- You can create atmosphere without graphics.

That's irrelevant because that text game would have nothing in common with Grim Fandango!

Except have the same narrative drive, which as I've said, is fundamental to adventure game making.

Nobody wants to just play through a bunch of interactions, they want a full experience.

I'm not debating on what people want -- I am merely saying that graphics aren't necessary in adventures.

however, it must be gone about in COMPLETELY different ways.

Yet both rely upon the same inner mechanisms.

And by the way, the genre of game we here at AGS create and play is actually called the "graphic adventure"--one reason the genre has been dubbed as such is to differentiate it from text adventures, which are very different games.

Both sub-genre are still part of the same genre.

Besides, just because AGS is used to form graphic adventures, it doesn't mean I have to conform to graphic adventure principles when making games.

When graphics were introduced to adventures, it was revolutionary. It wasn't some minor thing that just got tacked on.

No debate there -- Yes, revolutionary, but still cosmetic.

It enhanced the game, but is not a fundamental.

With graphics, one is able to tell stories without having to spell out every word of it--instead of saying "You are in a majestic cathedral", you can SHOW the player a beautifully rendered shot of a vaulted church, light pouring in through the stained-glass windows.

Once again, cosmetic.

I don't understand how you could think that they are fundamentally the same.  They aren't.  

They are and I've shown how.

You haven't proven otherwise.

DG, your point now seems to be that atmosphere merely adds on to a game, and is not fundamentally necessary.  This is SOMETIMES true, but by no means is it always.  Every game has different strengths, and sometimes atmosphere is a big strength.

But you haven't told me how or why graphics are a fundamental of game-making.

I don't understand why you don't just say "I, DGMacphee, don't care about graphics."

Because I do care about graphics -- I'm attracted to all pretty, shiny things like a crow.

However, I recognise they're only a cosmetic value in the construction.

That is why I place more emphasis on story and interactivity than on graphics and sound.

The fact that you're trying to make such a broad statement as "Graphics are not necessary in adventures" (especially considering we're talking about GRAPHIC adventures) is absurd!

Just because I belong to a graphical adventure forum means I can't state something for which I've provided evidence?

Now that's absurd!

You're the only person in this thread with that opinion, and these are the AGS forums, for crying out load, where nobody expects a high graphic standard.

Galileo tried to prove the Earth revolved around the Sun and was labelled a heretic, put on trial by the Spanish Inquisition, and imprisoned.

And let's not forget Nelson Mandela was jailed and beaten for promoting the crazy idea that black people should have the same rigths as white people.

Then again, those things are important -- This is just an adventure game forum.  

If most adventure gamers think graphics can be very important in a game, and you seem to be the only one here who doesn't, where do you get the authority to make such an absolute judgment?

Because I'm allowed to have an opinion?

Games exist for the purpose of enjoyment.  Obviously, for most people, graphics can substantially improve the amount of enjoyment one derives from a game.  I don't understand where the lack of understanding occurs at this point.

No lack of understanding.

Graphics can enhance the enjoyment of a game, true.

However, graphics are not fundamental to adventure games, despite enjoyment.

Some of the most enjoyable games I've played have had zero to limited graphical ability.

But again, even aside from your point being more of a personal opinion than an axiom, I firmly maintain that graphics absolutely positively provide a different GAMEPLAY experience than text.

That's fine to state that, but it's not what I'm debating here.

I mean, you're saying that at their core adventures rely on interactions.

And narrative.

So do all other games.

Not true, as action and arcade games don't rely on narrative -- that's what separates the genres.

A game like Doom or Command and Conquer can exist without the narrative because the primary goals of those games (blow everything up) is not centred upon narrative.

Just because you can ALSO script interactions using a text parser doesn't mean that text is equivalent to graphics.

A text parser's core functions in the same way to a graphical engine.

Progress of narrative in the game is determined through interaction.

But the way those interactions function is one big thing that differentiates genres.

You haven't shown how they're different.

For example, take the pixel hunt.  It doesn't matter whether one likes them or not, but it cannot be denied that they are very common in graphic adventures.  Now, how would you go about doing this with text?

Just plainly state "Objects you can see: OBSCURE PIXEL-HUNT OBJECT"  

Just because the puzzle works in a different way, it does not follow that the central core of an adventure game is different.

Both puzzles work on the same basis of interactivity and narrative.

Hooray!  What about musical puzzles, like those in Loom (and some in Myst, if I recall)?  Those would be pretty dumb with just a text parser.

Dumb yes, but possible still -- read a bit further.

What about mazes?  They're possible in both text and graphics, but utterly different.

But the basis is the same.

For a somewhat tangential example of this, take the scene in Fate of Atlantis when you're trying to run into the fez guy on the streets of Algiers.  That wouldn't make much sense with text.

You'd have to "substantially modify" (to borrow from eric again) the method to follow him, but I'm sure some ingenious game creator can work around this obstacle.

However, the game's narrative still advances through your interactions in each instance.

You could argue that the game doesn't absolutely need scenes like that--it doesn't matter.

I could, but I won't because I find scenes like that enjoyable.

However, graphics atill aren't necessary to the core construction of an adventure, and you haven't shown otherwise.

And in the Loom example, you really couldn't justify that game at all in a text setting.

You could -- keep in mind that music is represented in letters A-G.

Basically, I think you are a VERY nostalgic person when it comes to games.  There's nothing wrong with that at all, just don't try to pass off your own personal expectations or opinions as dogma.

Okay, now you're getting a little personal here, as you seem to be throughout your reply.

I'm not trying to push my opinion as dogma -- Ignore me if you want and just consider me as some blathering idiot, cause it doesn't matter to me.

But please, don't automatically assume so much about me, such as being "narrow-minded" and dogmatic.

You also seem to think that just because I have an opinion that differs from other people, that I'm automatically wrong.

Well, fine, I'm in a minority.

If you want to conform to the populist belief without any concrete evidence to back your theory up, then go ahead.

Just don't call me names like "narrow-minded" or "dogmatic", because I've based these opinion on my own observations and discussions with other AGSers.

And I've provided evidence.

So, I'll stick to being a minority, even if it is on something as socially insignificant as an adventure game.

Ignore me, blacklist me, think whatever you want, remixor -- I'm stickin' to my opinion, as narrow-minded as you may think it is!


EDIT:
As an afterthough, from now on could you remain a little more civil, remixor -- I don't appreciate stating my opinion a number of times for you, then having you call me 'narrow-minded' and 'dogmatic'.

Keep in mind, I haven't called anyone else here such names.

Please, don't take all this so personally, as I'm trying my hardest to ignore such comments and keep this debate as informative and insightful as possible.

[DGMacphee]

Sorry for the double post but, as you can tell, my repsonse in the previous post is long enough.

I'm borrowing from Naranjas' text, entitled 'On Uber Protagonistical Elements and Their Effect On Emotive Responses To Hypertexts' to show my comments have some relation to the opinion of another AGSer.

Las Naranjas states:

"The Adventure Game, which shall be examined here, is one of the oldest genres (arising first in Adventure in the Crystal Caves in 1975) and is distinguished by the prominent position of the plot in the construction of the game. The gameplay is achieved solely within the construct of the storyline and is used as a (or rather the) method of propelling the plot."

Full text here: http://www.sylpher.com/novomestro/blargh.htm

This does back up my theory to some degree.

[auhsor]

Man... i havnt been here for a little while and like this thread has totally evolved. I really don't have time to read the last page or so of replies... heh...

ok, so now continue...

[Igor]

Well i for one am enjoying this

But, hm... i lost the track of what this debate is all about.
Yes, adventures don't need graphics. As a matter of fact, no game needs graphics (you can have a game where you need to type in "jump", "shoot" (etc.) fast enough- and you'll have arcade).
But nonetheless graphics are very important (needed or not needed) element of adventure. If you call this element, that adds another dimension (and for some make it more fun) to gameplay, "cosmetics", then ok, let's call it cosmetic.

Do we agree here?

[DGMacphee]

Someone understands!  

Thank you, Igor!

And yes I agree, cause that's exactly the point I was trying to get across!

[loominous]

I can t help but to think that the movie-book analogy had an imortant point in it.

The point that I tried to make wasn t to compare games with movies since they re obviously different in many ways. But I think the relationship between a book/script and a movie is analaguos with the textadventure-graphicaladventure. That is, if you d say that a movie relies on visuals then a graphicaladventure does as well. Here s why I think it seems valid:

You ve argued, as I understand, that a graphical as well as textadventures games rely only upon narrative and interaction. The graphics and sounds isn t necessery since it can be translated into text or it can be cut out all together, given, and I think this is very important, that the game is redesigned.

What I mean with redesign is that if the visuals were simply cut out the game the game wouldn t be playable. So the game has to be rewritten/redesigned.

Now, if we look at movies, they rely on visuals as you say. But do they really given your 'coretheory'? What differs a graphical game from a movie, as I see it, is that what differs a textadventure from a book, namely interaction. A graphical adventure that didn t have any interaction would be called a movie.

Musn t we, if we adopt the reductive theory you ve presented, admit that in the same way that graphicaladventuregames can be reduced to textadventures, claim that movies can be reduced to scripts, given once again, that they are redesigned?

If we were to cut out the visuals from a movie it wouldn t be percieveable, as the graphicadventure with the graphics cut out, but as with the game, it could be redesigned into textgame/a script/book. Some atmosphere would be lost but the core would be the same.

The core would be the story, and it would still be told with the script but without the unnecessery cosmetics that is the visuals.

I think this is a necessery implication given the reductive theory you ve presented.

I m guessing that you may argue that there s still a difference between a movie and a script. A movie per definition has visuals; it s what makes it a movie and is therefore necessery. But in line with the same thinking a graphical adventure would per definition have graphics and therefore be necessery.

Edit: modified the last paragraph

[Kweepa]

DG,

What I object to in your posts are the following:

1) graphics aren't necessary.
Now you back this up by saying that anything that doesn't add to the loop of "interaction -> narrative" is unnecessary. And that graphics can be substituted with text leaving the same game. Therefore graphics are unnecessary. However, I see several excellent counterexamples in this thread to your substitution argument (loom's music, indy's following the fez). You can't argue that *either* text or graphics or sound aren't necessary to advance the narrative.

2) graphics are cosmetic.
While this is true to an extent, it implies (in many people's minds) that graphics are inferior to other elements of the game. As they are being used to advance the narrative, I suggest that good looking (in some sense) graphics are at least as important as good writing and good sound.

3) an implication that films need good visuals but games don't.
Looking at the book-film versus text adventure-graphic adventure, I can't see evidence for that.

4) you put a lot of stock in narrative.
Most of the adventure games I've played, from Infocom to Sierra to LucasArts, has the most inane, ridiculous, cliched, or banal narrative, and served only to string a bunch of entertaining puzzles, text or graphics off, much like blockbuster movies serve as vehicles for spectacular stunts and effects.

5) comparison with Galileo
For every Galileo, there are thousands of crackpots proved wrong by history. Anyway, Galileo was in a scientific field where the answers are pretty black and white. Here, it's mostly down to semantics. By comparing yourself to Galileo, you suggest that you are the misunderstood genius, rather than just another opinionated punter.

That Las Naranjas article was very interesting - thanks.

Let the theses continue.

Steve

[loominous]

By comparing yourself to Galileo, you suggest that you are the misunderstood genius, rather than just another opinionated punter.

I think we re getting a bit personal. DGs argument was simply, as I understood it, that the majority isn t always right, an argument Remixor implied when saying:

You're the only person in this thread with that opinion

Even though we re down to semantics these kind of arguments aren t valid and only creates a lousy atmosphere.

The same goes, imo, for your own namecalling in the quote, where you imply that DG is a 'opinionated punter'. You could argue that you didn t call him that, but since you don t seem to hold him for a misunderstood genius, the implication is easy to make.

Let s stick to criticising arguments.

[Nellie]

First off: I'm finding this debate really enjoyable reading.  Congrats everybody.

Loominus's second-to-last post contains the point I wanted to make, but I thought I'd just add my own little snippet.

DG, when you claim that 'graphics aren't necessary to the core construction of an adventure', you are absolutely correct.  However, I believe this claim directly translates to the statement: 'visuals aren't necessary to the core construction of a story'.

I feel the book/film analogy is pretty much spot on here.  A book has its own specific strengths and limitations in conveying story, as does a film.  That's why a story told in book form comes across very differently than a story told in film form, even though at the core, the story is the same.

So it is with text/graphic adventures.  A text adventure has its specific strengths and limitations in conveying story and interaction, as does a graphic adventure.  The experiences are different, even though at their core they are the same.

To argue that graphics have no importance in adventures is (to my mind) to argue that visuals have no importance in stories.  But where does that leave graphic adventures and films?


As a side note, I plan to release two versions of the game I'm working on: a text-adventure version and a graphic-adventure version.  I see these as two related but seperate projects, and fully expect them to turn out very differently (despite coming from the exact same initial design) because of the strengths and weaknesses of their different mediums.  If, when released, you can point out that the two games are the same, then I'll be more persuaded to agree with your theory.  Until then...  nah...

[DGMacphee]

Loominous:
The problem with your comparison is that a text adventure and graphical adventure still function on the interactive-narrative level, while a movie acts on a visual-narrative level and a script/book acts on a textual-narrative level.

Steve:

I'm saddened that you object to my post, but we're not in court.

1) graphics aren't necessary.
Now you back this up by saying that anything that doesn't add to the loop of "interaction -> narrative" is unnecessary. And that graphics can be substituted with text leaving the same game. Therefore graphics are unnecessary. However, I see several excellent counterexamples in this thread to your substitution argument (loom's music, indy's following the fez). You can't argue that *either* text or graphics or sound aren't necessary to advance the narrative.

But they don't.

I've demonstrated how Loom can work without actual music (substitute sound for the letters of instruments).

Granted, it sucks, but it works.

Also keep in mind that many were playing Loom without soundcards when it was first released -- a lot of us couldn't afford Adlib or SB back then.

2) graphics are cosmetic.
While this is true to an extent, it implies (in many people's minds) that graphics are inferior to other elements of the game. As they are being used to advance the narrative, I suggest that good looking (in some sense) graphics are at least as important as good writing and good sound.

But as I've proven graphics DON'T advance the narrative.

You haven't even said how they advance the narrative.

Also, you shouldn't assume I'm implying anything.

Even though I consider graphics secondary to the narrative and puzzles, I don't think they're inferior as such.

Just unecessary to construct an adventure game.

3) an implication that films need good visuals but games don't.
Looking at the book-film versus text adventure-graphic adventure, I can't see evidence for that.

First of all, you've mixed up my words.

Films don't necessarily need GOOD visual, but they do need visuals of some kind or else you have no film.

I imply nothing once again -- I state very clearly that films operate on a visual-narrative basis while adventure games (both graphical and textual) operate on an interactive-narrative basis.

And as you'll see above post to loominous, I've counter-argued the book-film-adventure theory.

4) you put a lot of stock in narrative.
Most of the adventure games I've played, from Infocom to Sierra to LucasArts, has the most inane, ridiculous, cliched, or banal narrative, and served only to string a bunch of entertaining puzzles, text or graphics off, much like blockbuster movies serve as vehicles for spectacular stunts and effects.

Of course I place a lot of stock in narrative -- It's what drives the game (Naranjas' quote backs me up on that).

Without narrative, all you you have is a series of random interactions that don't move toward a specific goal.

The problem here is you're debating quality with me, when I'm not even talking of quality.

Like I say, graphics do enhance a game, but only on a cosmetic (not inferior) level.

Above all else, an adventure game must have narrative, no matter how inane or cliched.

5) comparison with Galileo
For every Galileo, there are thousands of crackpots proved wrong by history. Anyway, Galileo was in a scientific field where the answers are pretty black and white. Here, it's mostly down to semantics. By comparing yourself to Galileo, you suggest that you are the misunderstood genius, rather than just another opinionated punter.

Galileo was right, though.

And Mandela was elected president of South Africa.  

I don't claim to be a misunderstood genius (LOL, the fact you even suggested such a thing makes my theory even more considerable than it actually should be!! Misunderstood genius!! That'll be the day!!) nor do I place myself in the same field as these guys (you'll notice I say "Then again, those things are important -- This is just an adventure game forum")

Call me an opinionated punter, but I'm an opinionated punter with a lot of evidence to back up my theory.

Christ, just because you're in a minority with a proven theory, everyone starts calling you 'opinionated' and 'dogmatic'.

Maybe I should just become a Gandhi-like figure who promotes peace between n00bs and oldies.

NAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH -- This is way more fun!  8)


Loominous (part 2):
Thank you.


Nellie:
Read my first reply to Loominous for the film-book-adventure stuff.

Also, read back a few posts and you'll see that I'm not translating my theory across all mediums -- just adventure games.

I've stated many times in this thread that visuals are necessary to film, and that you can't compare films and adventures because.. oh, just flick back a few pages and you'll see what I'm saying.

Also, I'm sure your two sames won't be exactly the same (I'm not saying they will be different or the same) -- However, the core narrative-interactive theory will drive them both.

[Nellie]

But if films function on a visual-narrative level, and books/scripts function on a textual-narrative level, how come adventures can only function on an interactive-narrative level?

It seems to me that text-adventures function on a textual-interactive-narrative level, while graphic adventures function on a visual-interactive-narrative level.

[DGMacphee]

But if films function on a visual-narrative level, and books/scripts function on a textual-narrative level, how come adventures can only function on an interactive-narrative level?

It seems to me that text-adventures function on a textual-interactive-narrative level, while graphic adventures function on a visual-interactive-narrative level.

I had a feeling you'd ask this.  

Hold on to your seat, cause this might get confusing:

It's because the text in a text adventure and the graphics in an a graphic adventure do not primarily drive the adventure as such.

The interactivity does.

This is what separates them from books and films.

Books advance the narrative through reading text as a primary driver.

Film advance narrative through the visual information as a primary driver.

Adventure games (like all games) rely upon interaction as a primary driver.

A text adventure does not primarily rely upon text to drive it -- it's secondary.

Just the same as a graphical adventure does not primarily rely upon graphics to drive it -- graphics are secondary too.

The main focus is the interactivity to drive the narrative.

By the same token, you could argue that text isn't necessary to create an adventure game. (OMG, he's going back on his argument!!)

No, I'm not going bakc on my argument -- I still affirm that graphics aren't necessary.

But text isn't necessary too.

As an example, look at the Inca and Gobliiins series of games -- very minimal (if any) text usage to convey narrative. (But they have GRAPHICS only then -- you're wrong)

No, I'm not wrong because you can translate it to another peripherial, such as text.

And this is what I'm arguing -- text, graphics, and sound are all peripherial to the narrative and interactivity.

After you decide the direction of core of your game (narrative and interactions), then you decide which peripherials to use (should your game be graphicial, textual, etc, etc).

I am also sure there are other way to create an adventure game other than textual and graphical -- Peter Gabriel's Eve project was based more upon audio than graphics and text.

Also, people used to play adventure games before computers, using their voices to describe the happenings (and believe it or not, I once played a game of Loom with a friend of mine in primary school, but I had no computer with me so I just spoken what was happening and he interacted with the world I spoke)

But I'm sure some boffin can translate such across the other peripherials.

However, this still proves that the heart of a game relies upon interactivity and narrative primarily.

Text, graphics and sound act as cosmetic peripherials.

And even if you don't use text, graphics, sound, or voice, you'll still have an adventure game.

You'll just be playing it in your head.

(But you'll still have created an adventure game)  

Have I confused you enough yet?

[Igor]

Oh, it seems i missed one of your replys yesterday DGM... no wonder with the speed this thread is evolving.
Well, wasn't there some talk about getting personal a few messages back? I won't respond though, as i think i'd get too low with any reply and don't want to additionally heat up otherwise interesting thread.
No hard feelings, but sometimes it's better to "go ride a bike or hang out at your bowling alley" as you wrote, before replying with big letters and exclamation marks.