Hey Ragnar,
Next time somebody asks you AGAIN about the "adventure-action" elements of TLJ.s you should kindly point them over to Ray Ivey's article at Just Adventure.I already did, in yesterday's post - but I'm more than happy to point it out again.
Mr. Tornquist-
I think that in your arguments with Ray Ivey's definition of adventures games, you're kind of misrepresenting his point -- the definition (which is already pretty damn broad) is meant to define a PURE adventure game, not to be exclusive, just so that we know what we're talking about when someone says something's an adventure, and not an action or strategy or role-playing game. I don't think that Mr. Ivey meant to say that there's anything wrong with blending genres, just that if you are mixing, then you're not doing a pure adventure or strategy or whatever anymore. Thus, the French resistance fighting game would (using Mr. Ivey's definition) not be a PURE adventure, but probably an action-adventure.
Hey, I'm all for inclusiveness, if your definition is to broad, then it loses any practical value. (Of course, whether or not generic labels are of any use at all, and whether the current labels are still relevant as games continue to evolve, is another question entirely ...)
AnthonyWhile I wasn't really arguing Ray's point (his article was right on the button), but rather stating a personal opinion about the typically strict and narrow definition of "the adventure", I think that your use of the word "PURE" illustrates my point perfectly.
There are very few "pure" genres left. Which is the
pure racing game;
Gran Turismo or
Burnout? They're both racing games, no doubt about that, but they're as different as night and day. One has advanced car physics and realistic driving models, the other has supercool crashes. Both are excellent games, but they appeal to different kinds of racing gamers. There's a sizeable degree of crossover appeal (I, for example, like both), but they're still a world apart.
How about role-playing games?
Anarchy Online is very different from
Baldur's Gate, which is not at all like
Final Fantasy, which again is nowhere close to
Zelda - and none of them are in any way comparable to
EVE Online,
Diablo, or, uh, Disney's
Toontown. They're all RPGs, however, and the
RPG genre allows for a large degree of variety. Which is why that genre is as strong as it is. There's something for everyone, and no one RPG is more "pure" than any other (although, yes, you'll have people arguing about that as well - some RPGers are more old fashioned than others).
Games are evolving. Sports games have RPG elements; shooters have adventure elements; platformers have strategy elements; strategy games have RPG, adventure, and action elements; and action games have strategy, RPG, adventure, and platform elements - and so on. All of this contributes to a broadening of the genre definitions, a better and more varied game experience, and generally more (and happier) players. What's wrong with that?
Maybe genres and labels
are a bad thing. Maybe it's better to focus on the game content, how it plays, what the story is about, the setting, the characters, rather than that single, often superfluous, word on the back of the box that makes some people turn up their noses and put it back on the shelf: "Oh, it's an
adventure - that's just a lot of talking and bad graphics, I'd rather play
Grand Theft Auto. Again."
Genreism is generally a Bad Thing. It prevents us from experiencing something new and different, from expanding our horizons. In a lot of ways, it's very much like platformism: console gamers who refuse to even look at PC games, or vice versa.
Of course, I'm not saying that adventure gamers necessarily need to start playing sports games - that's a matter of preference. But there must be room for different experiences within the adventure genre. And yes, I do believe that the French resistance fighter game (described in yesterday's post) could be an
adventure game, even with the combat elements. It needn't be labeled an "action-adventure" just because it's not "pure".
