Messages

He's so dreamy!!!  

I think the whole experience will be Just Another Point N Click Adventure!

Did you play with his Little Johnny Evil?

Did he put his Richard Longhurst in your Box That Ate Time.

Wait till they're Alone In The Dark!

Were your legs Riven?

No, he Myst them.

Careful, Yuster -- Mods has a Broken Sword.

The real Secret of Monkey Island: LeChuck is actually Jerry Garcia!

Come to think of it, I don't think LeChuck is all that good at playing the axe -- Just look at Guybrush's reaction!

* Graphics in adventure games are unnecessary, because adventures are narrative-based, and such narrative advances primarily through interactions.

Ok - but a lot of puzzles in point-n-click adventures are based on visual clues, so how can you stick with this argument?

If only you'd asked several days ago, I'd be bothered to answer.

Now the thread's fallen into silliness and I'm just posting random crap -- looks like you'll never know what I would have said.

You're too late, the debate's pretty much over, sucks to be you -- HAHAHAHAHAH!  

j/k

I think computers also aren't necessary for adventure games!!!!

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.

Okay, okay -- I'll relent here.

I appologise, if you were offended.

However, the point of my "STOP PLAYING ADVENTURE GAMES FOR A MINUTE, GET OUTSIDE AND ENJOY THE WORLD, IGOR!!" was to emphasize that comparing adventure games, of all things, to life real consequence is kind of ridiculous as real life is a little more significant than an adventure game.

I didn't say it to attack you, only to emphasize the above.

Now, let's go bowling!

DG now says that text, graphics and sound are not necessary for an adventure game, so i take it the only thing that is necessary is the story/narrative and how you choose to tell that story/drive that narrative is unnecessary?

Although, this seems like the most preposterous thing you've heard, it's true.

so all the arguements you have made about graphics being unneeded because the same can be done with text is in a way added to by saying that text is unneeded cause the same can be done with another medium?

Once again, it may sound preposterous, but when you think carefully about it, it's true.

and you'll be apologizing to remixor and igor? hehe

I've apologised to Igor, but I don't see why remixor needs an apology, as I never said anything bad about him.

I just politely asked him to be a little more civil (though now that the Igor comment has been brought up, I feel the same could have been applied to me).

I don't think I want to cause any ill-will to anyone here.

...

...

Ah what the hell...

* DGMacphee throws his bowling ball at Eric and calls him "Girly-girly-wet-pant-man"!  

I gather this thread is going nowhere and I'm forever going to be in a minority on this, so I'll shut my gob completely now -- I think my point has been made clear, so if anyone wants reply to my "dogmatic" and "close-minded" drivel without further debate, please do so.

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?

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.

Someone understands!  

Thank you, Igor!

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

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.

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.

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.