Jump to content

Talk:Adventure game/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Japanese adventure games

Japanese adventure games are NOT the equivalent of visual novels, or at least, not visual novels as described in the Wikipedia article. I own several (categorized as adventure on Amazon.co.jp and their maker websites) for the PS2, and they are not just walls of text, with static backgrounds and pictures. There are a couple like this, but not all, and in several, there are significant portions of gameplay that resemble an RPG or other type of game with several minigames, fighting, or different activities to perform. I know the terminology of this 'type' of game is already really mixed up, but I'd like to at least remove the reference to visual novels because it's misleading.Lijakaca 20:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true that not all Japanese adventure games are visual novels. However, there are literally hundreds of visual novel games available. The "Adventure" section of most Japanese game stores, in my experience anyway, tends to include "action adventure" games along with games that fit the description on this page. I think that removing the reference to visual novels is a bad idea, as it is a prevalent form of this genre and is mostly restricted to Japan, but it would be fair to add a comment mentioning that Japan does not produce such games exclusively. --waka 13:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair compromisse to me. I will try to do that tonight.Lijakaca 22:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Playstation?

...the release of the Sony PlayStation marked the end of the adventure era;...

That sentence doesn't make much sense, as the article states itself consoles never had much todo with the development of adventures, most of the console adventures where just ports from C64, Amiga or PC. So the Playstation can't really have had very much influence into the dawnfall of the adventure genre, since they never had (many) adventure games to begin with. -- Grumbel 16:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that line, but I didn't intend to suggest that the PS1 caused the fall of the Adventure genre (though I think a case could be made that public interest in games made a major transition to the Adventure-light console systems). Rather, I meant that the decline of the Adventure era coincided with the release of the PS1. I didn't mean to indicate any causality here, so if you find the line confusing go ahead and change it. --waka 20:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

Okay, somebody tagged it as clean up and I've edited the bulk of it but I think it still needs work. (The french stuff has already been merged BTW). DamienG 15:35, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


I've gone through and tidied up the language. I feel the clean-up tag could go now. Thoughts?

AndyHolyer 16:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I've further cleaned up the grammar and flow of the first two paragraphs. I'll try to apply the same treatment to the rest of the article in the near future.--waka 2 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)

Older stuff

Games which would be labelled Action Adventure on the console are oftenly labelled Action RPG or just CRPG on the computer. Is there a difference between Action Adventures and Action RPGs? Action RPGs seem to be identical to Action Adventures, just that they have RPG-elements (usually that means character stats and skills). However most modern CRPGs are action focussed (the vast majority of skills are about combat, most quests involve combat as single or primary solution), so most of them could easily be called Action RPGs. Where is the border between CRPGs and ARPGs, where the border between Action Adventures and Action RPGs? -Ashmodai

As I see it, action RPGs are basically any any RPG with pronounced action and reflex-based elements, the most notable example being Diablo. The difference between an action-adventure game and an action-RPG can be vague, but basically boils down to "can I improve my character's statistics and abilities?" If the answer is no, then the game in question can't really be called an RPG. Just because the characters in a game are engaged in some kind of action doesn't mean the game can be called an action game; "action game" implies a requirement for dexterity and reflexes on the player's part, whereas in a non-action game the requirement is shifted onto the player's character(s). After all, there's more violent action implied in a game of Risk than in any CRPG, but Risk is clearly a strategy game because the player isn't required to simulate the action, only the strategizing. YMMV. -Sean 01:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

So by your definition a turn based CRPG cannot be an Action RPG, no matter if it focusses on action or not? Some kind of border case might be Baldur's Gate, which is clearly understood as a traditional CRPG by most people, but relies on twitch-action in its combat parts, although strategies and tactics can be applied by pausing during a combat. So technically, Baldur's Gate is partially an Action RPG because it can be played like one, or what? I think the seperation you suggested, although it might sometimes be unperfect, makes sense. -Ashmodai

Baldur's Gate only has minimal "twitch action", and then only if you turn off the autopausing feature. Which is a decision not unlike giving all of your characters bows but none of them arrows. -Sean Curtin 06:13, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I.e. the game is primarily a CRPG, but can be played like an ARPG by the l33t, aye? Thought so. I suppose I just prefer turn based combat over twitch-action-which-isn't-because-it's-got-a-pause-mode combat. Ah, well, tastes differ. Don't take any offense from my wording. -Ashmodai

Action RPGs and Action/adventure games differ in that RPGs of any sort, whether turn based like JRPGs or direct action/real time combat based like CRPGs (a.k.a Western RPGs), the latter of which on consoles are primarily labeled Action/RPG, are all stat based. They live and die on stat building, stat distributing, etc. It's all stats of some sort. Enemies have hit points usually, and defeating them gives the player, you guessed it, more stats with which to distribute and build up their character.
Action/adventure games aren't focused on stats at all. Sure, you can "build up" the character, like with Link and the heart containers, but that's hardly stat building. Action/adventure games, as the name implies, are focused on a mixture of action gameplay with elements of adventure gaming. Most of the time those adventure elements revolve around environmental puzzle solving and/or exploration. The action gameplay could be anything from swordplay (Zelda), shooting (Resident Evil..."Survival horror" games are action/adventure games), platforming and shooting (Metroid, Tomb Raider), etc.
Again, all RPGs revolve around stats. If a game has stats, and the focus on is raising, building, distributing those stats, usually through beating enemies who have hit points, then it's most likely an RPG. If it doesn't have that, then it's most likely not an RPG at all.151.205.161.9 11:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

French-language material translated awaiting merge

Does anyone want to take on the merge? -- Jmabel 22:32, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Interactive Fiction

This article covers almost exactly the same territory as Interactive fiction----Isaac R 05:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

"Adventure games can be single character control games or multiple character control games (such as Lemmings). Independent of this, there are many types of adventure games, depending on the criteria. Adventure games vary in their subject, interface, setting or plot. A possible grouping is:

Of these, only Text-based adventure games are interactive fiction. Grue 19:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

But there is still a HUGE amount of duplication of material. Surely something can be done about this? It seems absurd to have 1/3 of this article cover the ground covered by another article? Could it not start with something which just referred the reader to Interactive fiction for text based adventures? --Richard Clegg 18:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please incorporate the following text

Common genres of TBGs, or Text-Based Games include:

- Interactive Fiction. Posessing a novelistic style, and primarily concerned with the literary sense of the work. Examples include Phototopia and Luminous Horizon.

- Dungeon. Typically these TBGs are combat and maze-based. Some are single player, some are online, such as multiplayer text-based games (MUDs) with a fantasy flavor. Examples include Three Kingdoms, BorderZone.

- Adventure. Marked by the original D&D-style exploration games with a puzzle theme. Examples include HLA Adventure, Zork.

- Slideshow Fiction. These are usually a story combined with still images. Some see these games as a natural evolution into the graphical medium. Examples include Myst and Space Quest.

Interactive fiction is already in there, MUDs are not really adventure games (but they're included in the "see also" section), and Myst is not a text-based game at all. I don't think this needs to be incorporated at all. The demiurge 17:30, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
Someone has tried to incorporate this text twice, verbatim, even though it's partially incorrect and partially redundant. I've had to revert the page twice. However, I'm hesitant to delete things from the talk page. Can any one else comment on this? The demiurge 02:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Don't delete it from here, but don't incorporate it either. It doesn't need to be in the article. The fact that the user posted it here on the Talk page asking someone else to do their work doesn't speak much for their initiative. The text isn't all that enlightening or informative (or correct). — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:59, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Monkey Island inaccuracies

The Lucas Arts section mentioning Monkey Island and the screen cap of the game all give the impression that MI originally used a more advanced version of SCUMM and was originally in 256 colors. This is not the case, it was originally in 16 colors and used a more primitive version of the SCUMM system. It wasn't until its re-release using version 5 of SCUMM that is saw the graphics and interface upgraded nor was it the first game to use SCUMM 5, MI2 was. The Wikipedia entries for SCUMM and Monkey Island both have more current information. The bits giving credit to MI1 as being the first could be altered to show that MI2 was the first, but I don't have the resources to pull this off. Also, being a newbie to all this I don't with to mess with such a large wiki entry.

First point-and-click game ≠ SCUMM

Deja Vu was released in 1985, two years before Maniac Mansion. By its release 1987 ICOM Simulations had rolled out three point-and-click games for the Mac, PC and Amiga platforms. The LucasArts games were very well received but in the light of Deja Vu, Uninvited and Shadowgate they did not break the ground for point-and-click adventures by any reasonable measure. I suggest then we change the applicable parts about p'n'c games and LucasArts, unless someone has some facts up their sleeve? Arru 01:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • OK now I dunnit! Actually it would seem better to have a separate section on ICOM Simulations just before LucasArts. I mean, Shadowgate et. al are only four games but still well known and loved. And groundbreaking.

Arru 03:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

While Maniac Mansion and SCUMM were not the first, I think mentioning Maniac Mansion is still worthwhile in some capacity, since even though it wasn't the first point and click adventure, its use of point and click was what popularized that control method. Ja2ke 02:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Humongous Entertainment Titles

This article should mention the titles published by Humongous Entertainment, such as the Putt-Putt and Pajama Sam series, which I understand also use the Scumm engine (at least they're supported by ScummVM) and are certainly point-and-click adventure games, designed specifically for children.

Criticisms

I hope you don't mind a few criticisms made in the spirit of honest desire to approve this:

1) I think the overlap with Interactive Fiction is important.

2) I don't know why Loom is in "others" -- it's not that different from other games -- the spells serve as an inventory. Myst for example has less inventory.

3) The section on Myst descends into hyperbole. While I found it immersive, I found Zork much more immersive.

4) The history section hops around with graphic adventures coming before infocom.

5) Both Scott Adams and Infocom had graphical adventures (the S.A.G.A. --- Scott Adams graphical adventures) and a few graphics games from infocom including shogun and a few others (the interactive fiction page will have some).

6) Alone in the Dark seems a notable omission from Action-Adventure.

7) The types system seems confused since it implies that an adventure could be text, graphics, puzzle or action -- which I'm sure isn't the intent.

--Richard Clegg 22:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Inadequate references. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

'Common features'

A new paragraph has recently been added to 'Common features' which needs reviewing. It states "Many graphic adventure games depicted or make reference to subject matter that would otherwise been censored or taboo in a video or computer game.". What is being referred to, and is it the majority or minority of adventure games? It also states "Adventure games that relied heavily on humor (i.e. Discworld, Blazing Dragons, Adventures of Willy Bemish, The Secret of Monkey Island and Simon the Sorcerer) were often influenced by Monthy Python satire and comedy." I disagree with this too - I would contend that Monkey Island is Pythonesque, and this appears subjective anyway. British humour is not the same as Pythonesque, and at least 3 out of the 5 games named are British (with one written by a former Python, so of course it's Pythonesque). Can we decide on what we want this paragraph to contain before we edit for typo's and grammar? Burns flipper 14:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There are many: KGB, Fascination, etc. (SM)

Misc

Please remove the external link "What killed adventure games?". The guy who wrote it obviously has no sense of humor. And no logic (let alone lateral thinking).

I see that it's already been removed, but I thought it was rather relevant commentary on the failures of the genre. I don't think it was out of place in the article, though it might have warranted a short link description. --waka 19:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I put it back.--Wormsie 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it should stay although he does rather miss the point sometimes -- you expect absurd solutions in a humourous game. The Gabriel Knight series always did have its moments of comedy like that. It's like complaining that Roadrunner cartoons don't have good physics. --Richard Clegg 09:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, his commentary is valid criticism. I think it gives the reader a better understanding of the genre as a whole. --waka 14:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Adventure Game Interfaces

This is a paper which anyone devoted enough to want to improve this article might find interesting, a semi-technical analysis of some design choices in adventure game interfaces. I'm going to toss it under external links, it might work as a reference on some things although it's difficult to find sources on Adventure Games. The creator of Monkey Island, Ron Gilbert has a blog in which he talked about aspects of adventure gaming and finding funding, and Greg Costikyan, another game developer has had a few articles on the state of funding in the industry and the decline of genres like Adventure Gaming and war simulations for example.

I'll try to look through the article later, it might be helpful if we can agree on what sections of the article are most important, the lists might be able to be linked elsewhere for example, we're over 32k as it is.--BigCow 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Sources that might be useful

Why Adventure Games Suck -Ron Gilbert, Written in 1989 while Designing Secret of Monkey Island. [1] Article by Greg Costikyan on why Adventure Games ala Myst/Riven aren't dead --BigCow 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Games not in a series?

Most are Acurate however Sam and Max has recently been revealed to have a Sequal planned. It was going to have one before but then canceled, but now its back on. Should it be moved to a Series? --Swk2000 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Longest Journey and Syberia being here --Amaccormack 15:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RPG-like adventures

Just wondering about RPG-like adventure games. To quote the article "Typical examples include Quest for Glory and Final Battle."

See I was always under the impression that few RPG-like adventures exsist. I only know of QFG, and the gameboy games Sword of Hope 1 and 2. This final battle game intrigues me, but I can't find any info about it on google.

Seriously, if there are many examples of RPG-like adventures, please elaborate. :)

Beyond Zork had fighting and character gaining stats. Loom had character gaining spells as it progressed. Superhero league of hoboken was somewhere between RPG and adventure having fighting sections and text adventure sections. --Richard Clegg 06:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the merge with slide-show games

This is the first time ever that I've ever heard of slide-show computer games. Also, the definiton of adventure game in that article is worse than the definition in this article. Moreover, the definition of slide-show computer game in that particular article is also quite vague - besides, most of the time the article talks about slide-show computer games as adventure games, which is slightly off if there is something significantly different about those two genres.

And the article also clumsily talks about adventure computer games and action computer games instead of adventure games and action games.

I don't see much valuable information in that article, and I think the definition of a slide-show game is useless. And not commonly used.--Wormsie 05:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's an alternate phrase for point-and-click games like Shadowgate and Uninvited, but I've never heard of it before. Seems like we can "merge" the article into this page by just removing it. --waka 14:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ageed too. But I'm not sure if a redirect is neccessary or if it should be completely deleted. I've also never heard of that term before and Google has only a few hits and even fewer refer to adventure games. -89.57.46.159 21:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

A merge or redirection would be pointless. The creation of a Slide-Show game category is even a stretch in itself. If anything, the games it refers to (mainly Myst) should be considered on of the first 1st person Adventures with QuickTime Capability. The fact that each venue was static should hvae no bearing on whether the game warrants a different category or not. Keep it Bare bones basics, I say. And to give an opinion, "Slide Show Games" is a ridiculous notion to begin with. To take it's meaning literally would be as if I were to create a game using Microsoft Power Point: The best I could do would be to create a "what's hidden in this picture game". Slideshow denotes static, and any adventure game is anything but.--JYHASH 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Quest games?

In which regions are adventure games called quest games? In a region outside the English speaking world? If so, mentioning that isn't necessary in the first paragraphs; after all, this is the English wikipedia, and we don't have to tell people that a cat is die Katze in German in an article about cats.--Wormsie 23:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That all depends, apparently, on your definition of "the English-speaking world." The confusion I've seen over the issue, at any rate, generally issues from people who live in countries where English is not particularly widely spoken (Bulgaria, Russia, Israel, et al) but who happen to be fluent in English anyway. I unfortunately don't have independent research to back this up; I'm going to see if I can convince one or more of the aforementioned to fork over some more information. --Ozy 02:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Non-natives are bound to have problems with a language. For them there's the Simple English Wikipedia...--Wormsie 11:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with fluency. It's a well-established term in gaming journalism in several countries. There is no word that is related to quest in Bulgarian, Russian or other languages, for example, so it's convenient an unambiguous to refer to them as "куест" games. I suspect that when a term had to be invented for other languages, "adventure" was either not yet an established term in English-language gaming classification, or a translation or transcription of the word "adventure" was deemed too ambiguous. (Actualy I recall an article in a Bulgarian gaming magazine in the 90's on the history of adventure games where they say it was the latter. I think there were people who argued for "приключенска игра" too, and it was generally agreed "адвенчър" is the poorest choice.) It might be worth a mention in the English wikipedia as it is an English word. :) Krum Stanoev 11:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If it is important what an adventure game is called in different countries, why not make a whole section devoted to what an adventure game is called in different languages and countries? I wouldn't probably do that myself, as I don't think it is relevant information, but just listing a few countries seems unfair to me. ;-) And I don't think it is important enough information to be mentioned in the first paragraph...--Wormsie 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Laura's Happy Adventures

There should be a mention of this kids' adventure game by Playmobil Interactive. For it was the very first video game to be designed specially for girls (though many boys played it, too), for before it, video games, although played by girls, were really marketed towards boys. 67.174.4.138 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Long introduction

Do others agree that the introduction is way too long?--Wormsie 11:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I trimmed it down. Basically the text I removed said everything that is said in the first sentence of the article, but in a more long-winded manner. (Do I smell an AG-purist? ;-) )--Wormsie 12:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Exploratory video game" merge

This article seems to me to be just a lot of stubby duplication under a term I've never heard applied to any game . . . "Exploratory video game" gets a whopping 70 Google hits, most of which are copies of the WP article. Tzaquiel 17:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The same goes for Isometric adventure game. They both sound like neologisms. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Wikipedia should be for well-known and not well-known articles. I don't think it should be included with adventure games because they are not necessarily the same thing.

There's a difference between "not well-known" and "something I made up myself a minute ago".--Wormsie 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Dreamfall

I would argue that Dreamfall is not an adventure game at all. If anything, it is an interactive movie. The puzzles are overly simplistic and there are several fighting-based action sequences. It is not a true sequel to The Longest Journey at all, but simply a game incorporating some of the same characters. I would argue that The Longest Journey should be classified as a stand-alone game. The definition in this article states that "[a]dventure is a genre of video game typified by exploration, puzzle-solving, interaction with game characters, and a focus on narrative rather than reflex-based challenges." Dreamfall incorporates no real puzzles and has too much of a focus on reflex-based challenges.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.230.51.130 (talk • contribs).

I haven't played either of the games, but it sounds like you have a good argument. You can go ahead and make the change(s) yourself. This is a wiki. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

no dont go ahead. "your argument" is meaningless in wikipedia - find a reliable 3rd party source that argues it and reference it.

p.s. you'll have to find more and better source than gamespot, which calls it an adventure game [2], adventuregamers, which calls it an adventure game [3], itweek, which calls it an adventure game [4], eurogamer, which calls it an adventure game [5], etc etc. get the picture?Nespresso 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot also classifies the following as adventure games: Barbie Fashion Show, Oregon Trail II, Survivor, and Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude

Adventuregamers states in their review: "Dreamfall is a game that simply doesn't have much actual gameplay. Of the fifteen or so hours you'll spend playing, the vast majority of that time will consist solely of moving your character from place to place, person to person, and task to task, without any real challenge or even much of an interactive role." [6]

From the itweek review: "By and large this works reasonably well, but it also includes rudimentary combat and stealth systems, neither of which are particularly well executed or, indeed, fun. The biggest letdown is that the puzzling aspect has been greatly simplified, often reduced to little more than collecting a few items in order to progress." [7]

While lots of sites have no trouble classifying it as an adventure game, most of them also include reviews that show that it does not meet the definition, any more that the latest King's Quest game, the latest Leisure Suit Larry game, or the latest Broken Sword game do.

The problem with the idea that Dreamfall isn't an adventure game because it has fighting sequences and few puzzles is that other games, like Shenmue and Indigo Prophecy, have action sequences and few puzzles as well. And those two are examples of the type of adventure game that Dreamfall is very much like (and which, unfortunately, haven't been classified with a catchy name). In fact, point and click adventure games like Snatcher and Policenauts, both of which are most assuredly adventure games (albeit Japanese adventure games) have a great deal of light gun shooting. Rise of the Dragon did as well, and that game even had a side scrolling shooting level. But they're all still adventure games. Why? Because the focus of the games are that of adventure gameplay. Same deal with Dreamfall. Basically what Dreamfall amounts to is The Longest Journey with a new control interface and a bit of action gameplay thrown in. Doesn't make it an entirely different genre though.
Put it to you this way: If The Longest Journey had light gun sequences, would that make it a light gun game? Would it make it any less of an adventure game? IMHO, no it would not.
BTW, adventure games really focus on investigation. Exploration, talking with NPCs (interviewing), puzzle solving, etc. are all aspects of that overall investigation. And puzzle solving can refer to putting two and two together from a prior interview. Doesn't necessarily mean putting this part here or taking this wire there or what have you. The games are focused on investigation, and it is the investigation that drives the story forward. Dreamfall has that very focus as well. 151.205.161.9 10:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never played Dreamfall, but what the article refers to is The Longest Journey, saying that is a game with action.. ok I never completed the game, but it was 100% adventure no action whatsoever, so the reference is completely unfactual so I'm going to remove it.. maybe you can put it back if the reference was to Dreamfall, not the Longest Journey game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.91.187 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Downfall of the adventure game

I think it should be mentioned somewhere that most traditional adventure games made today are made outside of North America, where they are still popular. In Europe for example, there wasn't a "huge crash" like what happened in the USA. ChocolateCookie01 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Multiplayer?

Is this line really appropriate?

""Nearly all adventure games are designed for a single player, since the heavy emphasis on story and character makes multi-player design difficult.""

I think the lack of multiplayer has more to do with multiplayer, as we understand it today, not even existing when this genre was in its golden age.Large scale, or even smaller scale, multiplayer of LAN's or the itnernet didin't really come about until after people had lost interest in the genre. Kittynboi

Both reasons sound like original research to me... — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve: Also I played some games with several people working on the puzzles together as we played, adventure and arcade-adventure: Fascination, Another World, Simon the Sorceror, Operation Stealth, spring to mind.. and there's an Interactive Fiction group where everyone can input commands... so it needs to be clear that multiplayer specifically means people playing within the game as different characters. And once upon a time in the absence of Google you'd be asking your friends in school how to escape the goblin's dungeon, or how to escape the cell with the American when you only have a bug.. which can make it more multiplayer than other genres in many ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.91.187 (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

MUDs are, basically, Multiplayer Adventure Games. There's a "See Also" for MUDs, but this acticle really should have something about multiplayer (even if just a short section, pointing to MUDs and MMOGs...) 2001:1588:4001:103:227:13FF:FEB8:B2DF (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kings Quest Tandy.png

Image:Kings Quest Tandy.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Classification section

I just rewrote this, using references where possible. Copy editing welcome (and probably needed, I've spent too long staring at it).

The image Image:Myst-library and ship.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda

I believe the series should have more said about it than just a mention in the lead. Comments? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That's tricky. Zelda is more of an action-adventure game, which becomes obvious when you compare it to basically actionless adventure games such as Space Quest or Leisure Suit Larry. Randomran (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Since by many it is not really considered to be an adventure games, I think it is enough. That is besides the fact that it is only mentioned in the lead and not in article. Since the lead should actually be a summary of the article... Garion96 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, two points - if Zelda is not considered an Adventure game, it shouldn't be mentioned in the first place - Zelda still has strong roots in this genre as well as the Action-adventure genre, especially the first game, which, while it did have action, had strong adventure elements such as exploration. And yes, I believe that since it's in the lead, it should be mentioned elsewhere. Zelda was one of the forefronts of the action-adventure genre, which is somewhat of a "spin-off" from the adventure genre. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Zelda is mentioned purely in the context of NOT being an adventure game, to highlight the fact that action/adventure is actually a whole other genre. I agree that perhaps the paragraph in question is redundant and maybe even misleading, but not that it should be discussed in detail, when games like Broken Sword - and even half the lucasarts adventures - barely get a mention. To do so would mean we would have to give tomb raider and other action-adventures etc coverage here too. Playclever (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree wit Playclever. Zelda is mentioned strictly for comparison, the same way we might Grand Theft Auto IV in an article about first-person shooters to distinguish it. I definitely think it's worth covering as a groundbreaking game, but maybe in the action-adventure game article. Randomran (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus

By what criteria does this title belong to the adventure game genre? To my mind it's an action game with rpg elements. It is in near-complete absence of dialogue and inventory, it features virtually no puzzles (the only problem-solving has to with where to stand to best defeat monsters) and it is hardly plot-driven. I think it's up for removal. Andailus (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. It's action-adventure at best. Remove it. Randomran (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

good source here

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3990/the_designers_notebook_the_genre_.php says the adventure game genre is still alive and well even if it won't be as popular as it was before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.246.166 (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Adventure video game"

I reverted the move to "Adventure video game". I barely see it being called an "Adventure video game", "adventure game" is more obvious. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are all kinds of adventure games though. This article in particular is about the video game type and thus the name I moved it to.--(NGG) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but there is no confusion with the name on Wikipedia (no other articles with the same name). If that would be the reason, it would be called "adventure game (video)". But not many call it an "adventure video game". Garion96 (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

An old edit

I've have moved an old edit that used to be at the title "adventure game" to Talk:Adventure game/Old history. Graham87 05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Genre definition

We could use a succinct paragraph on the distinction between RPGs and adventure games. Can anyone write one, in a nutshell? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Text Mode?

"An adventure game is a video game or text mode game"

This doesn't make any sense. I assume the "or text mode game" part is there because of text adventures. Quoting the video game article: "The word video in video game traditionally referred to a raster display device. However, with the popular use of the term "video game", it now implies any type of display device."

What this means is that text mode games are a subset of video games. The or construct is thus completely useless and should be removed, shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janbt (talk • contribs) 22:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Popular use of the term "video game" refers to display devices that can display graphical images, as opposed to text-only devices (like Teletypes). I've changed the first line from "video game" to "computer-based game" because video graphics are not a defining characteristic for an Adventure Game. Joeinwap (talk) 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm uncomfortable with this myself. I think the rationale of the editor who added this (User:Joeinwap) was that Adventure on the PDP-10 could (could only??) be played on a line printer rather than a terminal or monitor (edit text: "The original ADVENTure game was not a video game"). It's a difficult grey area that the expanding definition of video game doesn't quite satisfy. I'm not sure it's useful to have this legacy information in the lead though, since most people won't understand this subtlety... so I'll remove and try to find a good source for this for the history section. Playclever (talk) 05:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not lineprinters; the first "Adventure Game" was Colossal Cave Adventure (aka ADVENT.F4 or ADVENT.SAV or ADVENT.EXE) on the PDP-10. It was played on ASR-33 Teletypes (hardcopy devices using continuous rolls of paper) or on "glass teletypes" (such as the dumb terminals that did not have direct cursor addressing). The point being that the original game was completely text based, not depending on video graphics for game play. Joeinwap (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was struggling to find a reference anywhere to exactly what the input / output mechanism would have been. Do you have a good reference for this, as I say, for the history section? Playclever (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
ADVENT was written in FORTRAN. ([Source]). It used TYPE statements to send characters to the terminal's printer and ACCEPT statements to receive input from the keyboard. Programs using this type of I/O could be run on any terminal in the college computing center. When ADVENT.F4 was written in March 1977, ASR-33 Teletypes were on their way out, being replaced by Lear Seagler ADM-3 "glass teletypes" and DEC LA-36 300-baud dot-matrix printers with keyboards.
BTW - the program was passed from one university to another using the standard media at the time: 2400-foot 1/2-inch magnetic tape at 800 or 1600 bpi. Joeinwap (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I still think it doesn't belong into the opening paragraph. Even those "display" devices don't change the fact that those games under today's definition are video games. --Janbt (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Adventure game" as a sobriquet

It should be noted somewhere that the term "adventure game" is often used, especially by older techies (who remember some of the originals) to describe a poorly-documented technology where the user must experiment to discover how a program or device works. For instance, many modern cell phones are "adventure games".drh (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't Urban Dictionary. Or made up joke with no actual widespread usage dictionary. 205.219.133.1 (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

article on history of graphic adventure games

[8] from Ars Technica. Some of the facts may be WP-based on a skim, but generally ars tech is reliable. This focuses more on graphical adventure games, but that's included in this article too. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge Suggestion

There's quite a bit of overlap when it comes to Adventure game#History and Graphic adventure game#History, pretty much since graphics started to be used, which is the majority of the text. Altogether, there's a lot of text in both of these sections. Maybe it should be merged into a new article about the history of adventure games. What do you folks think? Now you have things like a Kickstarter projects section in the Graphic adventure game article, and a Double Fine Productions section in the Adventure game article. And the Modern era section starts with "See also: Graphic adventure game#Decline and rebirth" but lots of stuff above that, including for example the LucasArts section is just as much about graphical adventure games. The History section of the Adventure game article is more than half the entire article. In the Graphic adventure game, pretty much the entire article is the History section. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added {{move portions}} suggestions to both articles. Please look through the history sections of both articles and let me know if you agree that merging/moving those two sections into a History of adventure games article is a good idea. Thanks. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
My argument would be to keep the history section here, keeping Graphical Adventure as a separate article but removing the history parts from it - short of a paragraph or two summary there. Nearly all the other top-level genre articles have their history on that article and spin off the sub-genres to separate articles, and we can easily do that here. --MASEM (t) 15:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Remove suggestion placed by anonymous user five months ago; no agreement since February 2013. Comment: Good points stated by Masem. —Prhartcom (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Need to condense and organize history section

The history section is very poorly organized. It breaks things into eras, but also diverges into sub-genres, developers, etc. I think some of this should be reorganized or consolidated. If you look at platform game, the sub-genres are split off into their own (brief) sections, and developer histories are omitted so they can be handled on their own pages. I think this sort of organization is going to be a lot more useful, and might help to focus the article more on titles in terms of their historical impact, rather than being overly completionist. Frogacuda (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Where's Revolution?

Sierra and LucasArt in all their glory, but Revolution deserves to be mentioned at least as much as either of those two, not necessarily because they did something new, but because they made a few really good ones. Lure of the Temptress, Beneath a Steel Sky, Broken Sword series, the Virtual Theatre engine, they are worth getting considerable mention, not like now a single mention that doesn't even tell us anything about them or their games or engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.159.126 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

We would need to have the studio identified as a major player in adventure games. Yes, they have some major titles in the genre but that doesn't necessarily make it a key studio. If we can find sources that affirm their presence as a major force in adventure games like Sierra and LA, then we can include them without problem. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adventure_game/Archive_1&oldid=1136499629"