Society says "adventures will be back" ?

[PaulSC]

The GTA games are fun, inventive and often genuinely clever and hilarious (especially with the wonderful radio stuff). The whole thing is far more tongue-in-cheek and cartoony then it's often given credit for. It's not really 'gritty' at all - the tone is often silly as much as anything. I really think the series earned its popularity.

Anyway, down to business. I don't tend to win many friends by voicing these kind of opinions on this forum, but here I go.

I doubt adventure games (at least in the logic/item puzzle-based format most here recognise) will ever make a comeback. In gameplay terms it's a very limited genre and its death was fairly inevitable because there was no obvious way to keep the gameplay fresh and relevant in the face of games like the GTAs that offer far more freedom and direct interaction.

The storylines, characters and dialogue were still strong, but the fundamentals of the gameplay were increasingly stale – much as I adore Grim Fandango, I have to admit most of that love is due to the story, characters, voice-acting, artwork and music, rather then the actual gameplay mechanics.Ã,  The fundamentals of the gameplay in traditional graphic adventures has barely advanced since Maniac Mansion: moving around static environments solving the same old item-combination puzzles.

For adventure games to return to the cutting edge they need to become dramatically more interactive both in terms of the storylines and environments. If and when the time comes when it's feasible for players to genuinely and uniquely influence the direction of storylines and characters (and I mean far beyond the odd branching story path), I think that'll be the point when adventures make a return, albeit in a very different form.

I do think there’s now a real gap in the games industry for games that provide non-action driven storytelling. If someone can come up with a fresh, fun way of filling that gap, I think the public could really take to it. But saying "traditional graphic adventures will be back because everything moves in cycles" is wishful thinking. I mean, you could make the same statement about text adventures.

[DGMacphee]

MY point was really that I hate games like that (and any other similar media) because they just have the stupidest ... god, I can't even form it in words. You called it satire. Again, I haven't played it, but I just don't see that myself. Violence exists, we know that. Why does that warrant a game about it? Lava exists... where's the game about lava (holy shit, where IS the game about lava?!).

First of all: http://eicart.free.fr/volcano/ -- And I think there should be more games that feature realistic lava. In fact, I like any game that utilises good physics, no matter how violent they are (Case in point: Truck Dismount or Stair Dismount, if you've ever played those).

And second of all: No, no, no. That's a ridiculous comparison for many reasons:

1. There's no debate as to whether lava is a human quality. Meanwhile, people have for many years debated as to whether violence is a human quality, since humans have been violent for many centuries.

2. Games aren't banned for being about lava.

3. And there are many best selling games that feature lava: Super Mario Brothers, Quake, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis... By your logic, should these games be banned as well for featuring lava? No! Why? Cause it's a ridiculous comparison in the first place!

Comparing lava to violence is like comparing ham to heroin. And I think Morgan Spurlock said it best: "I can eat all the ham I want, but I'm not going to get strung out on ham!"

If you were to say "What about games that feature drugs?", which is a controversial issue like violence, I'd sit up and take this point of view a little more seriously. And even then, I could point you in the direction of games about drug dealing (such as the infamous shareware Drug Wars game) and use similar points-of-view as my case for GTA.

But I still think your point-of-view is like saying "Hey, we should ban Trogdor because he promotes burning poor people." It's nonsense.

I don't think it teaches anybody anything, I don't think it tells people anything they don't know already. It's just showing something we hear about in a thousand other ways, the only difference being that it lets you do it. I think one of my problems with it is that it IS so real.

God, that's it!!! The whole game is UGLY! I can't believe anyone would want to play such an ugly game. I hate ugly games!

True, but the same could be said about Saving Private Ryan, which is a film that looks VERY real (like GTA), shows us something we've seen in a thousand other war movies (like GTA), and tells us something (i.e War is hell; sacrificing yourself for others is noble, etc) most of us already know (like GTA). It pretty much does the same things you accuse GTA of doing. Should Saving Private Ryan be banned? Guess what? There was debate as to whether US networks would get fined by the FCC for showing Saving Private Ryan on Veteran's Day:

http://news.google.com.au/news?hl=en&lr=ab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=%22Saving+Private+Ryan%22+%2BFCC&btnG=Search+News (Take your pick from most of the articles there)

Everyone knows I'm a big supporter of the anti-war movement. But I'm not against a film like Saving Private Ryan merely because it depicts violent acts of war. Sure, you could argue the film carries an anti-war message. But the same applies to GTA -- sure, it's not an anti-violence message, but the message is still clear: Sometimes people have no option but violence if they are to survive in this world. Sure, I don't agree with violence, but I still can play a game to understand how someone might feel in such a situation. That's one of the reasons why we have games: they're simulations -- they help us understand. Think about people who live their lives to either kill or be killed. But it's perfectly fine for most of us (middle-class white people) to say, "My word! The violence in this game is quite unsettling! Let's ban it and then pass the grey poupon!

(Side note: Today I learnt what grey poupon is!)

Take for example, another game that provoked a lot of controversy: JFK Reloaded. Here is a game that allowed the player the opportunity to gun down JFK. Here's a news article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4031571.stm

The Kennedy family have dennounced it, yes. But I think the gaming firm still has a valid point to explore the history of the JFK assassination. The firm stated that "the game was aimed at disproving theories that a conspiracy, rather than lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, was responsible for the assassination."

Sure, the game is ugly and very real -- in fact, more real than GTA, since JFK Reloaded is based on a real event -- but I still think it has a valid point.

And that's why I think it's unfair to target and dismiss GTA for being real or ugly without considering what it actually has to offer a responsible gamer. And likewise, I think it's unfair to target it when you don't consider other games that are as real if not more real than GTA.


My biggest problem with games is when they are medicore. I remember when the latest Leisure Suit Larry game (based on a long-standing adventure series, mind you) was banned here in Australia. It wasn't a realistic game, just very cartoonly (unrealistic like Dead or Alive, as you say), but it was still banned. And I was glad it was banned! And not because I have a thing against pornography (If anything, the opposite is true ), but because it was a shitty game and deserved to go unplayed. I downloaded the 200meg demo just to play a slice of that piece of shit game and it was the worst thing to which I've ever set my fingers to keyboard. And I think the more shitty games/films/music/presidents that get banned, the more enlightened our society will become.

[HillBilly]

You people go way too deep in the games you play(Not that there's anything wrong with that). Personally, I just kill a bunch of people in entertaining ways and think nothing of it. It's cheap entertainment, for christ sake! 

[Kinoko]

Firstly, you completely misunderstood my quip about lava. I wasn't using lava as an example because it's destructive, rather because it's a thing. I could have made my point with "pot plant". You said violence EXISTS and I was saying that just because something exists, where's the motivation to make a game about it? This pen in front of me exists... no motivation to play a game about it. I'm not saying you -shouldn't- either, just that that's a pretty meaningless argument as to why something should be done.

Secondly, how do you feel about D&D? My group recently lost Patrick to the horrors of Sydney and we could use another player. I keep trying to think of people I know who might be non-horrified by role playing...

Thirdly, to get back on topic... I also, unfortunately, don't believe there's any commercial future for adventure games in general. The odd one here or there but I just don't see the genre going anywhere. I think it'll stay where it is, in the hands of independant gamers. As much as I'd like it around, I'm also just grateful it exists where it does.

[DGMacphee]

Firstly, you completely misunderstood my quip about lava. I wasn't using lava as an example because it's destructive, rather because it's a thing. I could have made my point with "pot plant". You said violence EXISTS and I was saying that just because something exists, where's the motivation to make a game about it? This pen in front of me exists... no motivation to play a game about it. I'm not saying you -shouldn't- either, just that that's a pretty meaningless argument as to why something should be done.

Likewise, I think if something exists, then it's probably a good enough reason to make a game about it. After all, about 100% of all games are based around things that exist. Without the existence of monkeys and plumbers, we wouldn't have Donkey Kong throwing his faeces at Mario.

Secondly, how do you feel about D&D? My group recently lost Patrick to the horrors of Sydney and we could use another player. I keep trying to think of people I know who might be non-horrified by role playing...

I'm not good with D&D. The first and last game I played was in high school. I called my character DanDeHippie and I was a cleric of Chantelle, who was the Goddess of the Harvest. Knowing me, you can only assume what "crops" my character liked to "harvest". *nudge nudge subtle drug humour ELL OH ELL nudge *

After a few days of playing, I was accused of not playing seriously (DUH!). My line of thought was it was just a game, so who cares? The gaming (and subsequent arguments) became a little fanatical and it ended up with me just walking away.

By the way, why'd Patrick move to Sydney? (Apart from Brisbane being a hole)

[Kinoko]

He got offered a job, and he picked up and moved within a few weeks (despite the fact that we all agreed Sydney was one of the worst places on Earth on a previous trip there). I think he's finding it okay. He writes for one of those half-size kid magazines, "Total Gamer". Worth getting a copy of just to see his reviews ^_^