Action in Adventures

edited October 2005 in General Chat
I know this has popped on up before but I though that after all the discussions about the chase sequences in Bone it might be fun to discuss it again. What do you guys think? Do you like a little Action in your Adventures?

Personally, I don't mind them if they're handled well. Like in Sam and Max where they were in there but basically completely avoidable. You could try them if you wanted a break but they didn't require you to actually grit your teeth and force your way through 'em just so you could continue the story.

Another good idea is where it's scalable. Sure, there's the obvious easy/medium/hard mode concept but how about if maybe after a few failed attempts it started getting easier and easier until it was actually completable.

Or maybe just a skip button would be nice.

Then again, there's the bad way of implementing them (deaths). Anyone here played Bad Mojo? being forced to save every few minutes because if you wandered too close to a door meant you instantly got pounced on by a cat or happened to wander past a dead rat and suddenly (and mighty surprisingly) being eaten, forcing you to restore/restart the game sucked.

So once again, post your say here.

(Vaguely coincedently) I intend to play Fahrenheit but I've noticed on the trailer there are parts with Matrix style Kung foo and running, jumping and crawling down a corridor of mysterious white things. From the demo I learnt that whenever the character gets caught/dies it flashes up a very polite 'game over' screen. Please tell me it doesn't require split second random button pushing (such as the Broken Sword III cut scenes). Please.


  • edited October 2005
    I was in on this discussion back before Bone came out and what someone said back then was that action in adventure needs to pass the "sandwich test" ie - you should be able to play the action sequence with one hand, while holding a sandwich in the other. I am sorry to whoever said this originally, but I can't find that thread anymore.

    Anyway- this is part of my criteria as well. A good adventure game will probably have an action sequence or two. As long as you don't have to have the manually dexterity of a 3-headed-monkey on crack I am fine with it (no offense to 3HEADEDMONKEY).

    In the case of Out from Boneville, I felt that the chase action sequences met this criterion. It was challenging (it took me and my wife about 2 or 3 times on the locust chase, and 3 or 4 times on the rat creature chase), but doable with one hand on the mouse and that was it. You could do the sequence as many times as you needed to without penalty.
  • edited October 2005
    It all depends on the game. For something like bone I'd say no action except for things like mini games. As for deaths. I never really liked the space quest games too much because of having to save and load all the time. If a company does want to have the character die at some point it should be an auto load right before you did something really stupid to kill yourself. I've always prefered the LA style of no dying at all but I haven't been totally against games like goblins and the way they handled deaths. I'm a bit off topic now. To sum things up. Action for adventure games in general = NO.
  • edited October 2005
    To sum things up. Action for adventure games in general = NO.

    I don't agree. :)

    I think an adventure can have any kind of puzzle it wants as long as it makes sense and is in service of the story.
  • edited October 2005
    Lets first pretend adventure games dont include games like Mario 64 and the Legend of Zelda because thats clearly not what you were reffering too.

    I agree for the most part with Udvarnoky. If the action is done well, does it matter? Perhaps your problem is it hasnt been executed well in the examples you have played.

    However, I think your whole line of thought is a little deceptive. Adventure games can really be a lot more than that, the genre should keep evolving, look at the game Fahrenheit (which you have brought up) for modern day examples. Im not saying it's better or worse than traditional adventure games or even text adventure games, i'm arguing that mutliple types of adventure games can be developed concurrently and their is merit in exploring all possibly game play dynamics.

    Hell, I would love nothing more than an adventure game for the Nintendo Revolution operated via that remote, just pointing at different locations on the screen. (Hey, its not as far fetched as it seems, Nintendo have been releasing adventure games for the Nintendo:DS operated via the stylus, with any luck this could stimulate interest in adventure games by Japanese developers).
  • edited October 2005
    Oh the Nintendo Revolution. Possibly the only console which actually looks very interesting to me. Also, Nintendo DS adventures aren't just limited to touchscreen and microphone capabilities. Anyone who's played Another Code: Lost Memories can agree. God I love the puzzles in that game.
  • edited October 2005
    yes I agree for some games action is ok but if you want a traditional adventure then no. For bone and sam & max no.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.