I think achievements are the bane of modern games.
There's nothing like some ridiculous pop-up obscuring your view of the screen to break immersion in order to announce an "Achievement" and remind you you're only playing a game. There may be some game genres or subgenres where it doesn't matter so much, like a pinball game or a game that's trying to simulate a Q&A TV show like Jeopardy. But with games that try to immerse you in a different gameworld, such pop-ups and other reminders you're "only playing a game" should be optional or not there at all.

I've seen posts on other forums by people who claimed the presence of achievements made them feel they had to go back over every inch of the game to find them all, making playing the game a grind and sucking all the fun out of it. As far as I can tell "achievements" are just a mechanism to artificially extend playing time with minimal effort from those producing the game. I don't know if including so-called "achievements" is the developers' idea or something that is "suggested" by the publisher, but I find their presence is a good reason to avoid a game.

When I play an adventure game, I want to be immersed in the gameworld, not dogged by artificial "achievements" and kicked out of the gameworld every time there is an announcement that I happened to stumble over one.

I do agree, Jenny100

And if I play a game where such things are included, I ignore them as much as I can.

Of course, in some games they can't BE ignored and the on-screen interruption occurs willy nilly - which I find extremely irritating

I also loathe these so-called achievements. The pop-ups are very annoying.

Whilst I am pretty conservative in my choice of games I don't mind the occasional QTE elements. They seem quite natural parts of some games such as Walking Dead (which I'd still consider largely an adventure game).

I do have a couple of adventure game pet hates though. Firstly I don't enjoy games without (somewhat) realistic characters and dialogue. (I therefore haven't enjoyed Myst and others of that genre). Secondly I hate games which are played in badly lit scenes.

A lot of things are fine to me, from walking simulators to story-based exploradion platformers. I'd draw the line at games with no real story or where story is just a filler for tons of gameplay.

Example with first person games - Dear Esther is good, Half Life 2 is not, Stanley Parable is suspicious, Portal is more "no" than "yes", Proteus is a big "no", Amnesia is suspicious... It's all very subjective.

Btw. I love all the above games, but this forum is great because it's specialized for adventure games

We are kindred spirits, Colpet. I could not have said it better than you did!

I have problems with stress now, because it can cause me chest pain. So I prefer not having someone attacking me, and no "arcade" stuff (fighting, jumping chasms, hopping across moving lily pads floating in lava, having to solve a puzzle before something explodes and you have to start over). So if a game presents that stuff, forget it. High stress is the only real deal breaker for me.

Although I like to see the following in a game, I'll still buy one that doesn't meet these preferences:

1. Interesting environments with some variety of locale, exotic or not, and the ability to explore relatively freely.
2. A main character with positive motivations. He/she can be flawed (aren't we all?), but basically should be motivated by the desire to help.
3. No instances of breaking the game wall (pop-ups, unrelated filler, etc.).
4. Puzzles! I enjoy solving all sorts, and a good game brings out the colored pencils, calculator, graph paper and a book or two off my shelf.
5. Backgrounds not TOO dark. At my age, eyesight isn't what it used to be.
6. Sense of humor is fun sometimes, self-referential snarky comments and such, but this is not essential.

Good questions - and great comments!

I tend to define adventure games as those oriented on unhurried world investigation and generously equipped with some story and/or puzzles. Both 'Myst-like' and 'Dear Esther-like' ('walking simulators') games are indeed adventures in my understanding, but the absence of quick actions is the most important criterion that makes adventure games different from 'action-adventures'.

Still, there is a problem of separating adventures not only from the 'dark side' games. but from casual games as well

I noticed on a lot of sites That "adventure Games" includes a lot of gamers that were not traditionally thought of as Adventure Games. But what the Heck!

As long as it has puzzles and there is no shooting, that is fine with me, I love to consider them and sometimes take the plunge and get them!

For me it is all about the story just like a good book. The game has to have characters that you care about. If the game can make the characters real to me and add in clever puzzles then I know I am going to enjoy the experience.

One of my favorite games of all time is Gabriel Knight The Beast Within. I love how you played one chapter as Gabriel and the next as Grace. To me this was a genius way to immerse the player into caring for the characters. Add in one of the greatest plots ever and this is a game that stands the test of time for me.

Guybrush Threepwood, Rincewind and Simon the Sorcerer won me over with awesome puzzles and great humor. April Ryan and Kate Walker became real people that I cared what happened to them and needed to know their destinies. So for me there are two ways to hook me on a game. Either give me great puzzles or characters that I want more of.

Zak McKracken gave me some of the best puzzles ever but not really any characters that I became invested in their future. George and Nico were people that I rooted for and wanted to see what happened next. When you really strike gold is when the puzzles, the plot and characters that you love all come in the same package. That creates games that stay with you long after you have finished playing them.

So, I am curious, did these replies help you, Ana? Did you get the type of information you needed?

Honestly, it left me more confused. I feel more than ever that I am announcing games, that people do not consider adventure games, but but it's what available.

I have to admit that while there are a lot of 'announcements', I have raised my eyebrows at a few of these new games introduced both here and at AG. Many are not what I would consider adventures because of lack of puzzles, QTE, levelling up, or scrolling sideways. I guess the question is whether we as Adventure gamers can be inclusive enough with our genre. Or do we relegate these variants to a separate 'dark-side' for clarity. It seems that more and more new 'games' are indeed something other than old school Adventures.

My take-home from what everyone wrote is that 'Boomers members prefer their Adventure games NOT to have "Action" elements. That was the common thread, embellished with secondary preferences by each responder.

No action, no platforming, no monsters, no arcade, no rpg, no walking simulators, no strategy.

I really don't mind these announcements at all! Even the classic, 'vintage' adventure games sometimes had action elements, timed sequences, multiple instances where you could die, involved a lot of walking, included 'recreational' games which didn't influence anything etc.

As long as it is clearly indicated (if the developers are willing to divulge it) that it involves killing, getting killed, horror, arcade games, or whatever, I think we can make up our own minds. As soon as so-called divergent elements become known, the original post could be edited to reflect this.

I put this Rotterdam game on this forum, knowing that it would be just a walking simulator or exploration game to most of us, as the little game element there is of no use to non-Dutch speakers. I think I purposely made this clear in the original post. Nevertheless, I thought it was interesting enough to post it here, also to get feedback on similar projects, or how it might be expanded. To most regular gamers, it would just be dead boring and have 'lame graphics', while this board represents a far more thoughtful group.

Best,

Rich

I'd agree. I think it's best to draw the line at games where people with slow reflexes can't finish the game -- or can only get a bad ending in a game that relies on QTE's.


Not sure I'd agree with excluding "walking simulators."
Dear Esther was fairly popular around here, wasn't it?

Where would you put "walking simulators" if not with Adventures? They're not Darkside if they don't require dexterity, and the system requirements are often quite a bit higher than for casual games.


There's a difference between a game having two or three "dead ends" caused by impassible action or timed sequences (requiring someone else's saved game to proceed) and a game having that kind of thing throughout -- especially when the game relies on it to the exclusion of more traditional adventure gameplay -- and especially these days where transferring saved games can be so much more confusing than it used to be (if it's even possible).

I don't know Jenny100. I was just listing things that (to me) aren't adventure games although I can't pinpoint what IS an adventure game. I've never actually played a walking simulator though I think I have a few, and I don't really think that I would dislike them. I have games with all of those elements in them and don't necessarily dislike them, though some give me trouble.

It's as RichAlexis said:

"As long as it is clearly indicated (if the developers are willing to divulge it) that it involves killing, getting killed, horror, arcade games, or whatever, I think we can make up our own minds. As soon as so-called divergent elements become known, the original post could be edited to reflect this."

Knowing what's in the game, you can decide for yourself if you want to invest in it and how much. I pay less for games I know I may not be able to finish.

I appreciate Ana's efforts to point out new games, and I agree with RichAlexis, any info from the publishers or from the first players about questionable aspects of the game would be very helpful. Armed with this extra info, let the buyer beware. We can vote with our game dollars, and the publishers and developers could see in the post the aspects of the game that are objectionable.

I'm a little late to this survey, but I'll put in my two cents anyway. Below are some aspects of an adventure game on a spectrum of personal preference, from most desirable to most objectionable:

Most Appreciate:
Good story
Immersive game play
Characters you care about, one way or another
Puzzles
Good voice acting
Nothing bad will happen if you walk away for 10 minutes

Might Have (most appreciate):
Manual saves, unlimited slots
Ability to skip a characters response rather than hear it for the Nth time
Non-linear game play
Many places to explore
Nice graphics, to a point (shouldn't bog down your computer or require a $$ computer)

Might Have (more offensive):
Rare possibility of death; restart just prior to death
Rare event requiring some dexterity, that is skippable
Endless dialog trees

Can't Have:
Action sequences
Timed events
Tests of dexterity of any kind
Many opportunities to die; restart at last save
Running/hiding from pursuers to avoid death
Arcade games that can't be skipped, or skippable games that happen often.

It's still good to at least hear about games containing "Can't Have"'s, since Dreamfall would have not been announced by these criteria, yet I'm very glad that I played it despite its shortcomings.

no timed puzzles

The following Definition of an Adventure Game came from the first page of the Adventure Games Coalition. This Coalition was formed by many former and presently existing Adventure Gaming Websites and this was their collective Definition.

What is an Adventure Game?


An Adventure Game is about using your mind instead of your trigger finger; about

testing your clever thinking and creative problem solving instead of your

dexterity and reflexes. It is based on a story (any kind, from fantasy to fact

and from humorous to serious) in which the hero (that's you!) is on some kind of

quest or adventure (the plot): in other words, there is a problem of some sort

which must be resolved in order to successfully complete the game. To succeed

you usually must visit different locations (called "worlds"), interact with

objects and/or people, and figure out where to go or what to do next, collecting

clues and/or objects along the way to help you solve the puzzles and problems.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Take care,

Mr. Bill

All MYST series and URU series.........if games have those qualities, then I'm in....that's why I'm greatly anticipating XING. When I search for games to play I always look at the trailers. If the game is "cartoonish" looking, no thanks. I like taking notes...I have the notes, drawings, etc. for every game I have played in the past 12 years. Although, a game journal also works for me. Do prefer to save when I want to, not at a prescribed destination in the game. Thank for the question BrownEyedTigre......

A good story, no action, good voice-actors, music that fitts the game,
you can save when you want, no long diary entries, non-linear would be nice
(in certain games even preferable, when you want to explore
a beautifull environment), but no problem when it's linear in a detective.

I would love a game that lets you interact with all the persons
you meet, and their reactions change according to how you act youreself.
Quality puzzles of course, but they have to be logic,
do not want hours spending on a puzzle that
afterwards turned out to
be illogical.

THank you all for your responses and feed back! I really appreciate it. I will continue to post them as I have been since tastes are varied and I want everyone to get the news that they want to hear.

Ana

...blip...